Linux-Advocacy Digest #134, Volume #29 Fri, 15 Sep 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: GPL & freedom ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?) ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?) ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Ermine Todd")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Jim Richardson)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Bob Hauck)
Re: GPL & freedom ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy? (Darin Johnson)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jack Troughton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 01:02:49 GMT
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You have the right ("freedom") to do whatever you want with YOUR
> code, including how and who you give it to if anyone.
Correct.
> I have the right ("freedom") to do whatever I want with MY code,
> including how and who I give it to if anyone.
Correct - as long as you do not infringe on my rights (assuming you
have mad use of my code).
> The GPL is talking about giving YOU MY RIGHT as to how MY code is
> handled, effectively taking away MY RIGHTS and MY FREEDOM and giving
> them to YOU.
If you make use of GPL code. That is a ***CHOICE*** that
you make.
> 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.
I haven't lost anything. I released my code under GPL because
I want it, derivitive wors, and works that benefrit from it, to all
be "free".
> We are now BOTH hostages of the GPL, our code forever infested with
> the GPL.
Hard for a willing participant to be a hostage.
> :> I think you need to show how not distributing my code takes away
someone
> :> elses rights.
> : Take a look at the "rights" GPL is trying to guarantee.
> It guarantees the "rights" of the GPL, and that's it. It takes away
> the rights of both the original and later developers.
That original developer ***CHOSE*** GPL of their own free will.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:29:43 -0500
"D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:oDhw5.17976$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And how does not distributing *MY* source code stop others from
> distributing
> > theirs?
>
> Here is what is meant by "freedom" wrt GPL:
Yes, I'm aware of what gnu means by this.
> - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
Any purpose EXCEPT when the program is used with non-GPL'd code.
> - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to
> your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a
> precondition for this.
And if I provide that source for free, and always provide it for free.
Nobody can take this freedom away from me (or anyone that uses my
distributed code), GPL or not.
> - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
> neighbor (freedom 2).
Making my software freely available without the GPL does this as well.
> - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
> to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3).
> Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to release my improvements to the public? How is forcing me to
do so a freedom to do so? Freedom to do so would imply a freedom to not do
so. Otherwise it's just "action by force". If you put a gun to someones
back and tell them to walk south, it doesn't change the fact that it's a
forced marh even if they were heading south anyways.
"Freedom" is about choice. Not about force.
> "Freedom" does not mean "freedom to do whatever you want".
Neither is it about doing whatever Richard Stallman wants either.
> > > > I have no problem with the fact that the GPL has conditions for it's
> > use.
> > > > What I have a problem with, is the claim that this is somehow more
> > "free"
> > > > than something like the BSD or X liscenses.
>
> Given what its goals are - yes it is more "free". It means that it
> is not possible for people to make modifications to the code without
> giving them back. It means that people are not free to benefit from
> the GPL work without giving that work to the community.
Are you reading what you're typing here? "Yes it's is more "free"". Then
followed up by "people are not free to..." and "It is not possible for
people to..." That's not "more free" than something which says "Do with
this whatever you like, you don't even have to credit us".
> The "freedom" is freedom for the GPL community - not freedom
> for people who want to keep their code private.
Oh, as in the freedom of the Tibetans to live peacefully.
> > No, It doesn't. It says it does, but those freedoms are still
guaranteed
> > without the GPL.
>
> No they are not. With BSD (for example) you can take the code,
> modify it, and keep the changes to yourself. You have gist infringed
> on my freedom to access and change the code.
No, your code is still your code. You can change your code anyway you like.
> Your talking about YOUR freedom not MY freedom. The GPL
> refers to MY freedom.
No, it refers to your prison.
> > I think you need to show how not distributing my code takes away someone
> > elses rights.
>
> Take a look at the "rights" GPL is trying to guarantee.
And it does no such thing. Anything that's truly a right is already
guaranteed. Forcing your will on ME is not a right you should be
guaranteeing.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:38:45 -0500
"D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ZEhw5.17977$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3yew5.1691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Enforcing your own personal politics on someone elses IP.
>
> If that entity ***CHOOSES*** to use GPL code.
That entity doesn't always have a choice. I already gave several examples.
1) An employee of mine makes use of GPL'd code without my permission. The
code is released and the use of that code is discovered. I must now release
all my code as GPL'd despite the fact that I never made a choice to use it.
Yes, it's bad to have infringed someone elses copyright and I should pay
royalties or recall my code. I don't have those choices with GPL'd code.
The *ONLY* legal solution is to release my code whether it was intentionally
used or not. You can't retroactively reverse the fact that the code was
distributed.
2) I sell my code to a third party that uses my code with GPL'd code.
Suddenly, because someone ELSE uses my code I now have to legally publish my
code because it's been linked to GPL'd code. (IMO this is the worst absolute
in the GPL, the fact that I can be held responsible for violations by
someone else.) In the case of KDE, both KDE and Trolltech were in violation
of the GPL. Obviously, both Trolltech and KDE were concerned about this
issue, but not enough to do the real legally mandated thing.
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?)
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 01:28:55 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ROzw5.2026$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:oDhw5.17976$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > And how does not distributing *MY* source code stop others from
> > distributing
> > > theirs?
> > Here is what is meant by "freedom" wrt GPL:
> Yes, I'm aware of what gnu means by this.
> > - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
> Any purpose EXCEPT when the program is used with non-GPL'd code.
Well of course it cannot go against the license.
> > - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to
> > your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a
> > precondition for this.
> And if I provide that source for free, and always provide it for free.
> Nobody can take this freedom away from me (or anyone that uses my
> distributed code), GPL or not.
Correct.
> > - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
> > neighbor (freedom 2).
> Making my software freely available without the GPL does this as well.
Correct.
> > - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
> > to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3).
> > Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
> The freedom to release my improvements to the public? How is forcing me
to
> do so a freedom to do so?
It give the community the freedom to do #0, 1, and 2 all over again.
Another way to look at it is - why should you be able to benefit
off of my work without giving something in return?
> Freedom to do so would imply a freedom to not do so.
> Otherwise it's just "action by force".
You misread what it says. You are not stopped in any way from
releasing your changes to the community - in fact you are forced
to.
One could imagine a license that was written in such a way that
if you modified the source you could not release it (like the
Sun license for Solaris).
> "Freedom" is about choice. Not about force.
You have the choice of making use of GPL code or not.
> > "Freedom" does not mean "freedom to do whatever you want".
> Neither is it about doing whatever Richard Stallman wants either.
In this case it is. You have a fundamental misinterpretation of what
is being said in the last part.
> > > > > I have no problem with the fact that the GPL has conditions for
it's
> > > use.
> > > > > What I have a problem with, is the claim that this is somehow more
> > > "free"
> > > > > than something like the BSD or X liscenses.
> > Given what its goals are - yes it is more "free". It means that it
> > is not possible for people to make modifications to the code without
> > giving them back. It means that people are not free to benefit from
> > the GPL work without giving that work to the community.
> Are you reading what you're typing here?
Yes.
> "Yes it's is more "free"". Then
> followed up by "people are not free to..." and "It is not possible for
> people to..." That's not "more free" than something which says "Do with
> this whatever you like, you don't even have to credit us".
BSD - do what you like... including taking away other people freedom
to view and modify the code.
GPL - do waht you like as long as everyone else is free to view
and modify the code.
You are misinterpreting what is meant by "free".
> > The "freedom" is freedom for the GPL community - not freedom
> > for people who want to keep their code private.
> Oh, as in the freedom of the Tibetans to live peacefully.
Only if the Tibetans had invited the Chinses in to take over
their country.
Analogies like this do not work.
> > > No, It doesn't. It says it does, but those freedoms are still
> guaranteed
> > > without the GPL.
> > No they are not. With BSD (for example) you can take the code,
> > modify it, and keep the changes to yourself. You have gist infringed
> > on my freedom to access and change the code.
> No, your code is still your code. You can change your code anyway you
like.
So if you take my code and alter it can I see the changes?
Not if you take away my freedom to do so.
> > Your talking about YOUR freedom not MY freedom. The GPL
> > refers to MY freedom.
> No, it refers to your prison.
What prison? If I choose to use GPL then it is a free choice.
Nobody can foce me into chosing to use the GPL.
If you don't like what the GPL does than never release any original
code under the GPL license and never make use of any GPL code.
You have ignored one "loophole" though. Write your code, make
a copy, release the copy under GPL. You are free to do whatever
you want with the non-GPL version (except incorporate changes
from the GPL code).
This way you are free to have your private code and the
community is free to view and modify the code.
> > > I think you need to show how not distributing my code takes away
someone
> > > elses rights.
> > Take a look at the "rights" GPL is trying to guarantee.
> And it does no such thing. Anything that's truly a right is already
> guaranteed. Forcing your will on ME is not a right you should be
> guaranteeing.
The last point is not guaranteed.
Nobody is forcing you to make use of GPL code.
Please explain how you could be forced into using GPL code
if you think it is possible.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:46:51 -0500
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pu96g$g7i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : I don't understand your logic here. You claim that comparing NT with
> : buffers and caches to Linux without buffers and caches is an apples to
> : apples comparison?
>
> No, I don't claim that. I claim that NT's claims as to how much memory
> are free aren't reported the same. If you just take a summary look
> at "free" NT memory vs "free" Linux memory, you aren't looking at the
> same thing, unless you go out of your way to get the full detailed
> report on NT, and make damn sure you are looking at the right numbers.
I was doing exactly such a comparison, but you refuse to believe NT could
possibly use the same amount of memory. I must have miscalculated, right?
No. I published jpegs of my actual memory stats which showed the same
thing.
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom (was: How low can they go...?)
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 01:33:38 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:kXzw5.2027$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ZEhw5.17977$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:3yew5.1691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Enforcing your own personal politics on someone elses IP.
> > If that entity ***CHOOSES*** to use GPL code.
> That entity doesn't always have a choice. I already gave several
examples.
> 1) An employee of mine makes use of GPL'd code without my permission.
"You" were not forced into it. The employee made the decision.
"You" being the company - and all its employees.
IIRC there has been such a case - does anyone remeber
if there was and how it was resolved?
> 2) I sell my code to a third party that uses my code with GPL'd code.
> Suddenly, because someone ELSE uses my code I now have to legally publish
my
> code because it's been linked to GPL'd code. (IMO this is the worst
absolute
> in the GPL, the fact that I can be held responsible for violations by
> someone else.)
That would have to be tried out in court I think. The 3rd party
actualy violated your license agreement I would assume.
> In the case of KDE, both KDE and Trolltech were in violation
> of the GPL. Obviously, both Trolltech and KDE were concerned about this
> issue, but not enough to do the real legally mandated thing.
And that has now been settled (unless you are RMS :-)
..darcy
------------------------------
From: "Ermine Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:22:25 -0700
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
The device driver software development kit (DDK) is available for NT. When
you've actually managed to write a kernel level driver and have it installed
in the system then you potentially be worth listening to.
--ET--
"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nik Simpson wrote:
> >
> > "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Nik Simpson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Ermine Todd III wrote:
> > > > > In otherwords SuperRoot held by MS and its "trusted" partners.
> > Otherwise
> > > > > you couldn't apply service packs which, on occasion, do replace
SYSTEM
> > > > > functionality.
> > > >
> > > > Bullshit. If something cannot be loaded/unloaded through the normal
> > > > mechanisms then you have to reboot for the change to take effect. In
> > other
> > > > words if foo.sys is soemthing that can't be stopped and started on a
> > running
> > > > system, the SP install renames foo.sys to foo.sys.old and puts a new
> > version
> > > > of foo.sys on the disk which is loaded during a reboot. No need for
any
> > > > magin "SuperRoot" except in your limited imagination.
> > > >
> > > BZZZT Wrong. If you have full system priveleges (Ring0 on the Pentium)
> > > you can do anything, including modifying running programs, and have
the
> > > changes take effect immediately. Pentium Ring 0 Changes do not require
a
> > > reboot. Root and Administrator are demigods. Kernel is GOD. Kernel can
> > > change your program while it is running. Kernel can make Administrator
> > > cease to exist.
> >
> > Sigh, have you ever installed a Service Pack on NT, if you had, you'd
know
> > just how wrong you are about the installation process and what Microsoft
> > does. But of course you clearly not one to let a few facts get in the
way of
> > an arguement.
> >
> > >
> > > Well, at least you make a distinction between Nt and operating
systems.
> > > Personaly I have built a half dozen or so operating systems. How many
> > > have you built?
> >
> > As an RV at Bell Labs in the 80s I worked on early System V and have
quite a
> > lot of experience, just what experience do you have.
> >
> So why don't you know the differnce between "root" and "System"? I do
> agree that System V, Linux, and other Unix variants do make it difficult
> for any mere mortal to get System privileges. NT, OTH, does not. Unless
> you show that the code in ring0.exe published by MS in its code base
> doesn't work.
> > --
> > Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 12:47:06 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 04:27:39 GMT,
lyttlec, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Questions for the group :
>1. Should I publish the code and give every one power to crash every MS
>OS on the net? (Hint: MS can't fix this without completely re-writing it
>operating systems)
>
>2. Should I patent the 16 lines of code, take the money and run?
>
>3. Should I just say, "To hell with it. Any one running such a dumb OS
>deserves it." and take what I can get?
Assuming what you say is true. (like I would know, ring what?)
2 has the same effect as 1, since the patent is available for all to see.
I don't understand what you mean by 3. But I'd say go for 1 or 4, which is
figure out the solution, and patent _that_ hehehe.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 01:43:40 GMT
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 13:21:51 +1000, Christopher Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 11:11:43 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>> >You can change the ownership to *yourself* (if you have the "take
>> >ownership" permission), but you can't change the ownership to a
>> >specific user.
>>
>> I would think that is something an admin might want to do once in a
>> while.
>
>Why ?
Say Alice quits the company and Bob takes over her projects. Alice is
already gone, so the admin wants to change the file ownerships to Bob.
I suppose the admin could give Bob "take ownership" and explain to him
what's to be done, or help him do it, and then take away the
priviledge, but that seems a bit more cumbersome than just doing "chown
-R bob some-directory".
I know that our NT admin has had to do this. Someone left the company
and nobody remembered that he owned a whole tree of files on the
server until some of them needed to be updated. His account even got
deleted I think, which caused some sort of problem with the backups.
Not my area though, so I don't know the details.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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 21:02:32 -0500
"Andrew Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> I think the requirement to make changes available is a fair one. I don't
> see anything wrong with the idea of "if you're going to draw benefit
> from our code, we should draw benefit from any changes you make to it".
> It ultimately makes the whole product better.
I agree. It's completely fair to require this. It's not, however,
"freedom" or "more free" than things like BSD liscenses.
> > > Can you not take BSD-licensed software, and sell it (withholding
> > > source)?
> >
> > Yes. The BSD liscense used to require you publish a copyright notice for
the
> > regents of berkely, but even that's been removed in the last year or so.
>
> Then you've taken away people's right to make a derivative work. You've
> made a derivative work of someone else's, but you're preventing others
> from doing the same further down the source tree.
Not at all. Anyone can make a derivitive work from YOUR code as long as you
let them. They simply can't make a derivitive work of MY code.
> > Heck, I might start
> > with your code, modify it so completely that there isn't a single line
of
> > original code, yet I still must distribute my own code now because of
this?
> > That's rather stupid.
>
> Not really. The reason your code is at the stage that it is, is because
> it was derived from someone else's. You have replaced all the original
> code, but done so as a process; your decisions have been based on
> analysis of the existing source. It's still a derivative work.
> (The Mozilla project has pretty much replaced all the original Netscape
> code, but it's still bound by the license. This is not an issue isolated
> to the GPL.)
I agree to a point. I'm glad that Mozilla project is sticking to the
liscense, but I think it could be fairly argued that the code is not based
on original code anymore, and thus shouldn't be a derivitive work.
> > By simply making your own code freely available however you wish to.
>
> But that doesn't guarantee *future* rights (derivative works). This is
> the point of contention here, I suspect.
derivitive works are not "future rights". That's someone elses work. You
have rights over your own code, not someone elses code, even if it's based
on your code. You can deny them to use your code, but then that defeats the
purpose of making it "free".
> > Free access can be assured simply by the author providing access to it.
If
> > he wants to make sure it's free long after he's dead, write a will and
> > provide the funds to keep it free.
>
> Interesting that "freedom" should require constant monitoring and
> financial support :)
The GPL needs the same, since if nobody is monitoring it, it's
unenforceable.
> > But the original source still is. What you're effectively saying is "I
not
> > only want to control my own code, but someone elses code as well".
Whether
> > their code is based on my code or not, it's still *THEIR* code. They
wrote
> > it. I did not. I'm forcing them to bend to my will.
>
> Where do you draw the line? Is changing one word enough to make the
> entire work yours now? When is it a change to the author's product, and
> when is it something new?
Of course not. The original authors work is still their work. The changes
I make are MY work. I own the copyright on my changes while the original
author has the copyright on his original work. Any release which includes
both is a merged work. He can deny my right to sell the merged work, but
doing so and claiming that his work is 'free' is wrong.
> The Free Software movement calls for available source to always be
> available, regardless what changes are made, so all can benefit. You
> stance is that, although someone chose to make their work available, you
> should not be required to do the same (even if your work is derived from
> theirs).
Not quite. I have no problems with the GPL other than the fact that it
claims to enforce freedoms which it does not.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 01:46:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> This process is no different on Unix. Perhaps you are
> saying that Unix is better than DOS at supporting legacy
> apps. This would be quite a mouthful.
No, but when I use UNIX, many of the applications I use are
old ones (with newer releases), and which aren't tied to
KDE or Gnome or even Motif. (ie, I use xterm/rxvt in
preference to newer things, xemacs/vi, xfig, etc)
I note with a bit of amusement that when I used HPUX, I liked
the window system (CDE like) but rarely used any of the apps
for it. I noticed that new users to UNIX tended to use these
apps a lot more, even using the file manager (IMHO, such things
don't work as well with typical UNIX file layouts as they do
with Macs, NeXT's, Windows, etc).
> There just weren't that many Motif apps litering Linux
> to begin with. The upfront cost of a copy of the Motif
> libraries rather ensured that.
However, I used (as recently as 6mos) a lot of Motif apps on
Linux. They just weren't Linux apps, they were remotely used
from servers. Ie, Framemaker, SAP (crap), etc.
Sure, a consistent app feel in a Linux-only world is great, but
a broader X Windows wide consistency would be nicer (is Netscape
going to use Qtk for its Solaris port too?)
> Anything that can have an X attribute can be specified in the
> global X attributes file.
But if every application uses their own names for the attributes,
then they don't get a consistent look and feel. And that was the
problem, there was no standard for this stuff. (yes I know all this
stuff, I used X back before twm)
> So? There is really very little you can specify in this
> regard for Windows anyways. So any customization facilties
> in X end up being a superset of what Windows provides.
I don't understand why there's an argument here. X has a drawback
that Windows didn't have as much of. I'm not saying either is better
than the other. Microsoft had the resources to get people to quickly
switch over to new 32-bit apps (due to marketting, planned
obscolescence, peer pressure, or just plain crappiness of win3.1
apps). The same mass switchover to new apps isn't going to happen on
UNIX.
My original point was that X has a lot of history, and no coordinated
effort to get consistency (well, two large camps battling it out over
OpenLook vs Motif along with lesser side battles). Windows has a
shorter history, and thus less time to develop inconsistencies, and it
has a central authority most apps tend to emulate (for good or bad is
irrelevant).
Thus answering the original question about why things seem inconsistent.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 01:58:52 GMT
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 23:17:08, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> No, I think he has more of a problem with hostility. His problem is
>
>I only RESPOND to hostility WITH hostility.
You go ahead and believe that if it makes you feel better.
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
