Linux-Advocacy Digest #130, Volume #29 Fri, 15 Sep 00 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Re: Why Linux might NOT! be called a Communist conspiracy!! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Unix rules in Redmond (petilon)
Re: Why Linux might NOT! be called a Communist conspiracy!! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Computer and memory (Steve Mading)
Re: Computer and memory (Steve Mading)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) (Steve Mading)
Re: GPL & freedom (Zenin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:23:27 -0400
Sam Morris wrote:
>
> > > > > >I wonder how the eco-paranoids can explain the ice ages and
> tropical
> > > > > >fossils well north of 40 degrees North latitude which occurred many
> > > > > >millions of years before the rise of man.
> > > >
> > > > > Plate Tectonics. Look it up.
> > > >
> > > > I know that. I was wondering how the eco-nuts would explain it since
> they
> > > > claim that man is responsible for climatic changes, etc. --
> > >
> > > They are not exclusive. Just because there are non-human processes
> > > that lead to climatic changes, doesn't necessarily mean that human
> > > processes can't also lead to climatic change.
> > >
> > > The big problem with human-induced climatic change is the time scale
> > > involved. If human processes accelerate climatic change, causing a
> > > change that would normally take hundreds or thousands of years to
> > > occur happen in years or decades, the amount of time available to
> > > adjust and survive becomes reduced, making it harder for us to adapt
> > > to it.
> >
> > Name one. Please provide concree, unassailable evidence that
> > can prove (beyond any doubt or controversy) that without human
> > activity, the climatic change would have happened more slowly.
> >
> > Name ..just...one.
>
> My god, that sounds just like something Edwin would have said.
>
> > > For example, human beings possess the power to change the climate in
> > > a matter of days; if there was a full scale nuclear war, winter
> > > would almost certainly follow within days and last for years.
> >
> > When have we done this?
>
> Noone's saying we have.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > It's the same problem with genetic engineering. A migration of genes
> > > from the Arctic Char to the tomato can happen; however, normally
> > > that would take several million years. We managed to do it in less
> > > than ten. The rapid change in the genome means that other species
> > > that are parasitical/symbiotic/competitive with the tomato only have
> > > a very short period of time to adjust, if they need to.
> >
> > That is not CLIMATE, fool.
>
> It's an example to illustrate how humans can enact change over a vastly
> shorter timespan than would have normally occurred.
And the problem with change is????????
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:34:50 GMT
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:15:59 +0100, Sam Morris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > >I wonder how the eco-paranoids can explain the ice ages and
>tropical
>> > > > >fossils well north of 40 degrees North latitude which occurred many
>> > > > >millions of years before the rise of man.
>> > >
>> > > > Plate Tectonics. Look it up.
>> > >
>> > > I know that. I was wondering how the eco-nuts would explain it since
>they
>> > > claim that man is responsible for climatic changes, etc. --
>> >
>> > They are not exclusive. Just because there are non-human processes
>> > that lead to climatic changes, doesn't necessarily mean that human
>> > processes can't also lead to climatic change.
>> >
>> > The big problem with human-induced climatic change is the time scale
>> > involved. If human processes accelerate climatic change, causing a
>> > change that would normally take hundreds or thousands of years to
>> > occur happen in years or decades, the amount of time available to
>> > adjust and survive becomes reduced, making it harder for us to adapt
>> > to it.
>>
>> Name one. Please provide concree, unassailable evidence that
>> can prove (beyond any doubt or controversy) that without human
>> activity, the climatic change would have happened more slowly.
>>
>> Name ..just...one.
>
>My god, that sounds just like something Edwin would have said.
Considering that there is no faith amongst society in general
that the weather can be predicted, how can we take seriously
any claims regarding after the fact analysis of why a particular
weather event has occured?
[deletia]
Part of effective science is the capability to successfully predict.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:45:30 GMT
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 16:07:16 -0500, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Anthony D. Tribelli" wrote:
>>
>> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "Anthony D. Tribelli" wrote:
>> >> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Game developers, as a rule, never liked Macintosh because it failed to
>> >> > support many technologies available on Windows -- technologies that made
>> >> > their programming easier and more productive. Now game developers can
>> >> > use OpenGL on both platforms (and linux too if you count MESA :-)
>> >>
>> >> Somewhat misinformed. Implementing compatibility layers for DirectDraw,
>> >> DirectSound, and Direct3D on top of DrawSprocket, SoundSprocket, and
>> >> OpenGL (RAVE too sometimes) has been a pretty successful solution.
>> >
>> > Like I said, ...
>>
>> I interpretted your "never liked" to mean "did not target". Thanks for
>> clarification.
>>
>> > ... Macintosh failed to support many technologies available on
>> > Windows. Instead game developers had to hand code translation layers
>> > between the Microsoft proprietary APIs and the Apple proprietary APIs.
>> > You don't see too many folks writing directly to those Apple proprietary
>> > APIs. Since MacOS didn't support OpenGL until recently I think it will
>> > be awhile before Apple games are any more than just "ports" of Windows
>> > games.
>>
>> OpenGL is irrelevant in this regard.
>
>I don't think so. I think OpenGL support in OS X (and a decent core OS
>:-) will make game developers much happier -- Carmack seems to like it
>:-)
>
>> Some companies can spend the money up
>> front and do simultaneous development (costs less), some companies decide
>> to spend the money on the back side and do a port (costs more, but less
>> risky, PC flops don't port). It has much to do with the resources of
>> whoever is paying the bills
>
>You need to get this straight. Windows pays the bills. That's why
>there's so much business activity around it. Linux can't figure out how
>to pay the bills because they think everything should be "free".
There aren't any bills with Linux. So your argument is senseless.
This is great for consumers but not necessarily great for producers.
However, there are remarkably more consumers than producers. So,
things still get built. Subsequently, these things can be used by
even more potential customers (like embedded device and game makers).
Also, there are enough customers that the economics and economies of
scale of "roll your own" really start to make sense. So, those
companies that don't bother to satisfy a particular need in the Linux
market may find themselves out of work in future as Linux product
matures and is ported back to the RobberBaronOS of the day.
Furthermore, the whole process follows a geometric growth pattern.
All commercial game developers are pretty much isolated. However, the
plantary community of free game programmers are all free to exploit
each others code and art assets.
The ball may not be rolling very fast now, but it soon will be.
How soon is Flight Gear mutated into X-Wing or Decent like MUDs?
>Macintosh can only get a few folks interested more in ideology than
>technology - they like to pay big bills because it's righteous but there
>aren't that many of them.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux might NOT! be called a Communist conspiracy!!
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 17:45:38 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> >My theories have supporting evidence.
> >> The absolute sum total of it is {}
> >Of course, a dyed-in-the-wool commie like petrich will deny the
> >existance of communist subterfuge.
>
> I'm sure I must seem like a Communist to a card-carrying member
> of the John Birch Society.
>
Since your only differences with the communists seems to be exactly
*HOW* to implement a communist society....but that you agree with them
that their overall societal structure is how you think society should
be run....then, you are, in fact, a communist.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 21:58:23 GMT
Ian Davey wrote:
> In article <8pq8u2$fje$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren
>Petrich) wrote:
> >Aaron R. Kulkis mindlessly blathered:
> >>Because Unix doesn't work on a "file typing" paradigm.
Incorrect. Unix types files into arbitrary "executable" and "non-executable"
categories. This is much worse than Windows associating only a single process
with each type; Unix only ever associates one process for *any* file.
> >>Most files are subject to be opening by MULTIPLE programs. Therefore,
> >>assigning a certain filename suffix to one exclusive program is a
> >>HINDRANCE.
Which is a complete non sequitur. One should be able to associate an
arbitrary subset of all processes (they don't have to be programs, let
alone applications) with a type so that whenever a user commands the
shell to process an object, it returns a list of associated processes
instead of forcing the user to hunt down the one process they want from
an endless list of completely irrelevant objects.
And that's another thing, the Unix model of starting a program to deal
with a file and then closing that program (thus erasing any kind of run-
time configuration the user made) is complete nonsense. Processes should
have Orthogonal Persistence, which means that they start running the
first time a user calls upon it and they stop "running" either when the
system is shut down or when someone with authority explicitly removes it.
Take a text editor for example. Conceptually, it's a type of windowed
server that takes filenames as input and generates file changes as output.
There is *no* reason why a different "text editor" server process needs
to be started for every single user, let alone for every single file. The
whole Unix paradigm is fucked up from top to bottom.
> > Sheesh. Sometimes one *wants* only one program to open some file.
>
> You can set it up like that if you want, just set up the appropriate mime type
> and associated application in the file manager. Then a single click will
> launch it in the application.
And of course, this does not work in the shell; there's absolutely no reason
why it shouldn't but that's that. I would especially like to note that being
able to associate processes
with a type should not be Arcane Knowledge reserved only for the Cognescenti.
Ideally, one would cd down to ~/.associations/<name of extension> and be able
to find links to all the processes associated with that extension for that
user/process (that's right, there is absolutely no reason why processes should
not be able to configure their environments at runtime in the *exact* same
manner that users do it).
But this would be Design, and we all know that programmers shun design (good,
bad, any kind of) like the plague because Real Programmers are Hackers and
hackers don't design anything, they just enter into a mystical union with the
hardware. Even worse, this would be *user*-centered design and we all know
programmers loathe users, so that's why you can't expect a programmer to ever
implement, or even think of, such a solution.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 22:03:28 GMT
Mark Kelley writes:
> Hah! You've broken into repeating the same comments over and over
> again without addressing anything.
On the contrary, I addressed everything, Mark.
> I win! You lose!
Classic pontification.
> I accept your surrender.
What alleged "surrender", Mark? Does it make you feel better to
walk away from a discussion thinking that?
>> Mark Kelley writes:
>>> Jim Stuyck wrote:
>>>> Not an original thought in your body, 'eh? It figures, given your
>>>> "humor" comes from a Taco Bell commercial and your "logic" comes
>>>> from a decades-old TV show. Then there's that photo: Well,
>>>> "wedgie boy" surely fits. Speaking of which, isn't it about time
>>>> you updated your personal -- no, wait, that's your "professional" --
>>>> web page? After all, your most recent "accomplishment" is dated
>>>> February (two and a half years ago -- the date is incomplete) and
>>>> Christmas holidays have come and gone several times. Just trying
>>>> to be helpful, WB.
>>> How would he update his web page?
>> I could learn HTML and spend the time doing it myself, for example.
Note: no response.
>>> "Current projects include making a fool of myself on Usenet and
>>> attempting to embarrass both the University and physical scientists
>>> throughout the world.
>> Why should I lie, Mark?
Note: no response.
>>> I do this by spending many hours each day reading Usenet messages
>>> and posting thousands of insipid replies that contribute no useful
>>> content but which instead focus on irrelevancies.
>> How ironic, coming from someone doing just that.
Note: no response.
>>> I have perfected a style which attempts to feign logic but which
>>> is, in fact, both illogical and stupid, and which includes features
>>> designed to heighten the annoyance of the readers.
>> How ironic, coming from someone doing just that.
Note: no response.
>>> These replies are intellectually dishonest and include numerous insults
>>> and lies.
>> How ironic, coming from someone doing just that.
Note: no response.
>>> I also prefer to display of disdain for all others, finding
>>> any errors and using them as excuses to call them "liars", but when
>>> caught in my own errors I will deny them and engage in such stupid and
>>> ridiculous attempts to change the topic that I eventually tire anyone
>>> who is foolish enough to point out that I might have made a mistake.
>> How ironic, coming from someone doing just that.
Note: no response.
>>> "I have received honors for this work, including being twice elected
>>> Usenet Kook of the Month. Of course, in keeping with the style I have
>>> developed, I also deny that this has occurred."
>> Truly amazing that you don't see the irony in your posting, Mark.
Note: no response.
------------------------------
From: petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 15 Sep 2000 14:19:53 -0700
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/08/28/000828opcringe_cto.xml
Excerpts:
Unix in Redmond
I was going to avoid writing about Microsoft this week, but how could I
resist sharing these tidbits from ex-Microsofties? These former Microsoft
employees have written in to set the record straight about what's really
going on behind the scenes at a few of the software giant's subsidiaries.
When Microsoft acquired Linkexchange (now bCentral), company officials
tried to get rid of Oracle databases in favor of the company's own SQL
Server.
"Some of the best folks from Redmond came down to make the change, but
after two or three months they gave up and switched back to Oracle on
Solaris, where it remains today," this reader wrote.
Another former bCentral employee says Microsoft mentions Linux in its
help-wanted ads for bCentral just to lure unsuspecting enthusiasts to
come work there. The OSes in place were primarily FreeBSD, BSD/OS, and
Solaris. That is, until Microsoft tried to migrate more of the systems
to Windows NT and 2000.
According to this source, Microsoft had to quadruple the number of
servers when it moved to its own operating systems.
For the most part, according to our ex-Microsoftie, the company's money-
making Web properties are all based around Unix, with Hotmail 99 being
99 percent FreeBSD, MSN using some Apache on Solaris, bCentral ad servers
on 100 percent FreeBSD, and WebTV pretty much entirely Solaris.
"Internally when Windows 2000 was announced, people were told not to
even think about using it for production because it was too unstable,"
says this ex-Microsoftie.
So much for mature software written by professionals. It seems that,
internally, Microsoft prefers the stuff "written by college kids in their
basements."
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux might NOT! be called a Communist conspiracy!!
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:23:47 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto
> the Network:
> >
> >
> >> * It is shared, rather than having some owner who demands payment for the
> >> right to use it. This alone is a clear giveaway. Linux is intended to
> >> promote a Communist model of software development, so as to make the
> >> Western world more receptive to a Communist takeover.
> >
> >What? One party commitee planning and controls everything?
> >Sounds far away from the anarchist mentality as witnessed in the Linux
> >community!
> >
>
> Strangely enough, many anarchists call themselves "communists".
>
Anarchy is a step to implementing communism. Create a power vacuum,
then fill it in.
> --
> If a man commits sedition in the middle of the
> woods, and there are no cops around to arrest
> him, is he still a criminal?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: 15 Sep 2000 22:44:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Why is it the US's fault that there's a small link between here and
: there?
It's two countries fault. If one of them (US) is unwilling to help build
a better link, there isn't a damn thing the other country can do about
it, whether they have the money or not.
: American companies have no incentive to build one because the UK laws
: are so restrictive that demand for Internet in the UK is low -- or rather
: the availability and fesability of getting Internet access is low.
: Besides, why is it completely America's responsibility to build a bigger
: link. What have the brits done besides bitch that we don't spend all our
: money and build them a bigger link to us?
You must be speaking a strange language that is almost but not quite
entirely unlike English, seing as how in your language the word "all"
means something different than it does for the rest of us.
: Who's stopping the Brits? Like I said, quit whining about us and just do
: it.
So are you advocating that they trespass on US waters and build the whole
cable themselves?
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: 15 Sep 2000 22:47:21 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8pt3mu$hkn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> The US won't let the UK build a like from the UK to the US without
:> permission, so we can't `just build a better link' to the US.
: You're the first person to have said this.
False. This is what my post was about up above..
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 15 Sep 2000 22:56:57 GMT
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:19:47 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:00091516520001.03276@pc03...
>> El vie, 15 sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>> >Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> >> If you want me to act as a representative, contact me in the ways
>> >mentioned
>> >> in the page. This is all personal, here in this group.
>> >
>> >What do you mean by "This is all personal, here in this group"?
>>
>> That all I write is personal, not in behalf of KDE.
>>
>> --
>> Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
>
>Has this always been you position?
from the way he's ranted in previous threads, I'd assume that he's
speaking for himself. In general, you should assume that people are
speaking for themselves in the .advocacy forum.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: 15 Sep 2000 22:52:00 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I don't understand your logic here. You claim that comparing NT with
: buffers and caches to Linux without buffers and caches is an apples to
: apples comparison?
No, I don't claim that. I claim that NT's claims as to how much memory
are free aren't reported the same. If you just take a summary look
at "free" NT memory vs "free" Linux memory, you aren't looking at the
same thing, unless you go out of your way to get the full detailed
report on NT, and make damn sure you are looking at the right numbers.
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 23:03:53 GMT
Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In comp.os.linux.advocacy Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: : But the really sad part is that it doesn't even really give it to
: : you, it takes them away from you as well because the GPL is a double
: : edged sward. -Now with my code mixed with your code, "we've" lost
: : any and all "right" or "freedom" to use our own code as we see fit.
:
: : We are now BOTH hostages of the GPL, our code forever infested with
: : the GPL.
:
: Uh, no. The code is copyrighted to both authors and released under the
: GPL license. Assuming no other code is present, if both (all) authors
: agree to change the license, they're free to do so.
Iff both authors agree.
If you have only two authors, it's annoying. If you have ten+
authors (as most GPL projects of any real size do), it's impractical
to the point of impossible.
So... "Uh, yes"
: The GPL removes the freedom of the extender to release the extendee's code
: under a more restrictive license without getting permission. If the
: extender doesn't like it, he is still free to extract the GPL'ed code and
: replace it with his own, thus taking copyright on the whole work.
Great choice. So much for any ideas about being "free".
: Asserting that the GPL is stripping away freedoms is pure FUD since coders
: are always free to not use code released under the GPL and release it (or
: not) under any license they want.
The GPL is all about stripping away freedoms, both of the "extender"
AND of the original author. The FUD is entirely on the part of the
FSF using the GPL as a tool.
If you want to use the GPL, more power to you.
If you want to lie and claim it has anything remotely to do with
"freedom" in the slightest, that's something else entirely.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
