Linux-Advocacy Digest #378, Volume #29 Sun, 1 Oct 00 09:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: GPL & freedom (Jonathan Revusky)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (STATIC66)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Todd")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (STATIC66)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (Jacques Guy)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (STATIC66)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Todd")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (STATIC66)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 13:23:47 +0100
>I wasn't talking about the cost of the system. Even so, Windows 2000 with
>the above software allows me to be so productive that software costs are
>irrelevant compared to the cost of developing a solution. I'll gladly pay
>thousands of dollars if I can save a quarter of a million in system
>development costs.
>
How many home users or small businesses can afford to spend those thousands
on a system which does the same as applications supplied with a system
costing
under $50 and has better customer support available ( linux uers can post
questions
direct to the programmers via usenet, microsoft users have to spend hours on
the phone
to ms tech support and often still don't get decent answers or solutions).
------------------------------
From: Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 14:23:39 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Zenin wrote:
>
> Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)" wrote:
> >snip<
> :> Several people where I work believed that they could distribute GPL'ed
> :> code with their own non-GPL'ed code as long as the GPL'ed code was not
> :> modified. In other words, if I only *use* the gnu-regex library then my
> :> program doesn't have to be GPL'ed. I think the commonly-misunderstood
> :> meaning of GPL is more in line with the L-GPL for libraries.
> :
> : That was roughly my understanding. I was under the impression that, as
> : long as you were using it as a separate dynamically loaded library, it was
> : okay.
>
> It's not okay. Not by a long shot. This is explicitly forbidden by
> the GPL.
>
> : After all, there are commercial programs on linux and they call system
> : code (in libraries) that is under the GPL, don't they?
>
> libc isn't GPLed, it's LGPL. Big difference.
Thanks for clearing me up on that. Really. I knew there was some
distinction there but it was murky to me.
Probably the confusion is pretty widespread.
Jonathan Revusky
>
> Non-GPL can NOT call GPL libraries, even dynamically. This is why
> no non-GPL programs can use GNU readline or any other GPL library.
>
> --
> -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".
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 13:28:47 +0100
>Actually, Linux isn't an operating system. Just a kernel.
On the other hand, Win2k is just an operating system but
most linux distro's contain operating system, Graphics package
(GIMP), at least 1 SQL server package (usually mysql), several
word processors (all better than wordpad), etc and cost less
than a fifth of the cost of just the win2k operating system and is
more stable. Nobody can say that MS operating system distro's
are more productive than buying a Linux distro without spending more
money on extra applications.
------------------------------
From: STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 12:41:09 GMT
On 26 Sep 2000 17:50:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:42:53 GMT, Joe R. wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>>
>
>>> How will the average American benefit from massive tax cuts to the
>>> top 1% of income earners, and how will those tax cuts be funded ?
>>
>>That's already been shown. A family of 4 earning $35 K gets a 100%
>>reduction in their federal taxes. A family of 4 earning $50 K gets a 50%
>>reduction.
>>
>>Seems like a pretty substantial benefit.
>
>Games with numbers again. We already discussed this. The dollar amount
>going to the rich is higher than the dollar amount going to the poor.
>
the dollar amount being stolen (taxed) from the rich is higher than
that taken from the poor.
>IOW, more of the extra money that is supposedly available is going to
>the rich than the poor.
>
>>> > Especially when the Bush plan helps those at the lower end
>>> >by a greater percentage?
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Tax cuts do not exist in a vacuum. If you want to cut
>>> taxes, you have to cut spending. The people at the lower end are more
>>> likely to be hit hard by spending cuts.
>>
>>What spending cuts? The Bush plan has a _higher_ expenditure than the
>>current budget.
>
>Yes, of course, the other alternative to spending cuts is simply reduce
>taxes but spend the same. But ultimately, you're still dealing with a
>limited pool of resources, and Bush's policy directs the lions share of
>available resources to those least in need.
>
>>Of course, perhaps you're one of those who considers a budget which
>>increases by only 5% insted of 10% to have been cut.
>
>Not at all. I like a balanced budget. But when money is available, I
>think that spending it on millionaires so that they can buy new BMWs
>is not exactly a priority.
>
>>> Tax cuts do not exist in a vacuum. For example, if I have a family of
>>> four kids, and I get a $1000- tax cut, but $1000 less is spent on the
>>> education of each of my children, then I'm not a net winner.
>>
>>Of course, that's not what Bush is proposing, so it's irrelevant.
>
>Bush is proposing a plan to spend more of the available funds on the
>aristocracy than everyone else. I still don't see how the poor would
>benefit from this. If he's spending budget surplus, I'd argue that
>there are ways that would be of greater benefit to low income earners.
I really don't think you are paying attention..
Look at how much of the federal budget is spent on welfare (those
poor,poor, people)..So how exactly is he "giving" all this money to
the rich??
What you do not get is that washington is not "giving" anything away.
They are simply TAKING LESS. The only people truly being "given"
anything are the poor through welfare..
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 20:44:33 +0800
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8r7aok$gu9ga$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >I wasn't talking about the cost of the system. Even so, Windows 2000
with
> >the above software allows me to be so productive that software costs are
> >irrelevant compared to the cost of developing a solution. I'll gladly
pay
> >thousands of dollars if I can save a quarter of a million in system
> >development costs.
> >
>
>
> How many home users or small businesses can afford to spend those
thousands
> on a system which does the same as applications supplied with a system
> costing
> under $50
Sorry, but the above applications are way beyond what is supplied with or
available for Linux. I've used Linux extensively on my own and also HP-UX
11x and Solaris.
The MS products are some of the best development tools I have ever seen on
any system (even including multi-million dollar mini-systems).
Linux doesn't even come close to offering the kind of RAD tools and
development tools that is available for Windows 2000.
> and has better customer support available ( linux uers can post
> questions
> direct to the programmers via usenet, microsoft users have to spend hours
on
> the phone
> to ms tech support and often still don't get decent answers or solutions).
Just for your info., there are lots of newsgroups and websites available for
Windows 2000 and its applications. In addition, there are Windows 2000
newsgroups hosted directly by MS themselves. I rarely need to rely on MS
for support unless it involves a possible bug with an API (it has never been
the case so far).
There is tons of online support for Windows 2000 and related products --
infact, I'd go so far as to say that there is more support online for
Windows than for anything else.
-Todd
------------------------------
From: STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 12:54:33 GMT
On 26 Sep 2000 16:35:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:34:33 GMT, Joe R. wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>That's why the relative numbers are the important part -- not the
>>dollars.
>>
>>I'd venture that the $1500 means more to a $35 K family of 4 than $2500
>>means to the average $75 K family of 4.
>
>Spending cuts also "mean more" to the $35 k family of 4. BTW, that's about
>$7- a week per family member. Enough for them all to buy a Coke a day.
>
>The fact remains that the net effect of Bush's policy ( compared to the
>status quo ) is a redistribution of resources to the wealthy.
You keep saying that, now cut loose with your facts...I want numbers
math boy. Prove your baseless theory...please don't keep saying it is
true..prove it to us...where are all of these policies for the rich
exactly???
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 12:58:27 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Todd wrote:
>
[glowing report]
I am convinced. How many blank CDs should I send you?
(I'll pay for the postage if you pay for the memory
upgrade I might need: I have only 64M of RAM).
------------------------------
From: STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 12:57:59 GMT
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 23:09:04 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias
Warkus) wrote:
>It was the Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:36:02 GMT...
>...and Joe R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >> Spending cuts also "mean more" to the $35 k family of 4. BTW, that's
>> > >> about
>> > >> $7- a week per family member. Enough for them all to buy a Coke a day.
>> > >
>> > >So we shouldn't give them anything?
>> >
>> > I'm simply pointing out that Bush's policy does not offer them very much.
>> > Sure, given a choice between a Coke a day and no Coke a day, I'd probably
>> > take it. But I'd hardly act like I'd won the lottery because of it.
>>
>> First of all, your numbers are way off.
>>
>> The Bush plan basically waives income taxes for those under $35 K.
>> That's an average of $1500 per year -- or $30 per week.
>>
>> That's a lot of money for someone in that income bracket.
>>
>> But what do you want him to do? How much more can they offer than
>> eliminating taxes? GIVE them money?
>
>Yes. You could, for example, grant every family $200 per child per
>month.
>
>(There is a similar, though slightly more complicated scheme in
>Germany.)
>
>mawa
good for germany, we are NOT SOCIALIST here.....
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 21:01:33 +0800
"Grega Bremec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ...and Todd used the keyboard:
> >
> >1) On initial setup, Windows 2000 enables many of the 'services' that
you
> >don't really need (especially at home). Disabling these services can
free
> >up lots of memory.
>
> So? He said "out of the box".
Oops, you're right. But still, kind of irrelevent for businesses who just
want a project to succeed regardless if you have to buy additional
off-the-shelf applications (which is usually always the case).
> One can run Linux/X on 16Mb RAM and
> still be able to do things normally. Granted, one has to give up the
> fanciness to be able to do that, but tell me, can you run W2K (heck,
> W98) on 16Mb RAM?
Again, the amount of memory that an OS footprint takes is quite irrelevant.
(Unless we are talking a significant percentage of maximum physical memory
that the computer itself supports).
Anybody that wants to 'get the job done' cares *nothing* about the bootup
memory footprint size.
Besides 16MB of memory is useless for today's applications. We routinely
have 2-4 gigabytes of main memory on our multiprocessor production machines.
This memory is for intensive database operations and such. When you have
that much memory, an OS that takes 20MB of footprint is virtually the same
as one that takes 100MB. Nobody cares.
> >My E-Vectra has been running 2000 since the day I got it, and I've never
had
> >a OS system crash, ever. I don't know how Linux can be more stable than
> >that.
>
> In that one can tweak, experiment, do just anything one can think of
> to Linux, and the chance of losing the ability of being interactive
> with the system is still quite low.
If this tweaking is done in the 'user' and not 'protected/executive/kernel'
area, then I'd agree. But then again so it is with Windows 2000 as well.
> Partially because it's robust and
> straightforward, the other part goes on behalf of sufficiently
> advanced and in-depth documentation. And should the worst case occur,
> one can still avoid a disk crash by using the SysRq key to reboot the
> system properly (yes, it works when the kernel panics :-)). Quite a
> bit different from a register dump and driver membase table, don't you
> think so?
Both OSes do a fairly comprehensive core dump... I had the experience when I
didn't reseat a memory DIMM correctly... I had crashes about everyday and
didn't know why. Windows 2000 has options for how you want to deal with
crashes. Since Windows 2000 never crashes on me regularly, I don't bother
with recover options that much. I do know that there is extensive abilities
in 2000 that was not in NT. I guess I should research this more.
> >Try running Netscape on RedHat 6.2 and see how stable Linux is then.
> >Sometimes, a crash will bring down all of Linux and you get the famous
> >segment dumps.
>
> That's bollocks.
Well, that's what most Linux users say as well. But Linux fails completely
and dumps the memory (I'm sure you know what I mean :)
> Or do you mean X-Windows crashing by "all of Linux"?
I mean everything. And I know my system is good because 2000 is on the same
system and works OK. Linux doesn't crash a lot, granted, but it isn't
perfect either. For that matter, HP's UNIX is more stable than Linux by a
long shot.
> Because if that's the case, I have to inform you that this isn't "all
> of Linux", you know. This is just the graphical interface to what
> you're doing using Linux. Most of the time, I use tools in that
> graphical interface that I could easily use in text mode as well, but
> I'd have to spread them around VCs, over which I prefer to have things
> windowed.
I do know the difference between X-Windows and the Linux OS :)
> >> 3.you have a lot (if you are a"experienced home user") more flexibility
> >> with linux than win2k more powerfull tools and features to work with
> >
> >I disagree. Could you name the tools and features?
>
> One word. Regexp. Or how about "scripting the system without having
> one's files vanish out of pure love"?
Huh? Windows 2000 has scripting host built-in which allows you to use *any*
COM language as the *native* script. You can call functions built in one
language from another. You can group scripts together using XML as jobs and
assign processor priority and usage to these jobs.
This is far more robust than anything *any* UNIX dist. offers for that
matter.
The only thing that I've seen that is similiar is on IBM's RS series and
HP's 3000 series. And these machines cost a little bit more than your
average PC :)
> Want more?
Sure... I'm game. :)
> Being able to read
> the floppy to death even if it has bad sectors (yes, I have successfuly
> copied floppies I would only consider formatting in Windows after
> leaving dd running overnight - it doesn't complain about an "Unformatted
> disk" or something similarly braindead).
Haven't you heard of the DirectX API?
If you were smart, you would have looked into the DirectFloppy API
interface.
hehe... just kidding.
Seriously, if that is what you consider a feature, well, I'll give it to you
:) But who uses a floppy anymore?
None of my PCs even *have* a floppy disk. It's all writeable CDRW these
days.
(Do you still really use a floppy?)
> [snip of subjective groundless content that made me feel sorry I even
> bothered to answer]
>
> You are likely to find out eventually that "the user is always right"
> (or should we call it "the user knows what they're doing"?) philosophy
> renders an operating system a whole lot more productive than "the user
> is braindead" philosophy (or should we call it "the user always wants
> the OS to think instead of them"?).
I agree with your philosophy 100%. I think you would find Windows 2000 very
rewarding if you applied your philosophy that that OS as well.
> What surprises me though, is the fact that people even get things done
> in an environment so inhibiting.
Well, maybe you need to take a second look. I can get everything done with
Windows 2000 that I need too... and I grew up creating PCD boards from
scratch that I could plug into a IBM PC AT and use x86 assembly language to
access the IO ports on the machine.
I don't find Windows 2000 very inhibiting at all. It's a wonderful OS IMO.
Linux is great in this way to in an entirely different matter. Linux is 'in
your face'.
If you want inhibiting, try the MAC OS. (not OSX)
Do you agree?
-Todd
> --
> Grega Bremec
> grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
> http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 13:09:04 GMT
On 26 Sep 2000 18:07:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:59:15 -0400, JS/PL wrote:
>>
>>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>>> You are being evasive. Why don't you just be honest and admit that the
>>> people who have the most to gain from Bush's policies are the top 1% of
>>> income earners ?
>>
>>Because it isn't true. The people who have the most to gain are the low
>>income families who would pay NO tax because of Bush's plan.
>
>A coke a week, according to your own numbers.
>
>>You don't know? But your assuming it must be being funded by taking
>>something away from the poor ?
>>
>>He plans to fund the tax cuts by returning 25% of the budget surplus to the
>>taxpayers. Not by cutting any current programs.
>
>IOW spending a lot of money, with the lions share of the dollars going
>to the wealthy. OK I take that back, he's spending money on the wealthy
>that could be spent on other things.
>
IT IS TAXPAYER MONEY. the governments job is not to profit from the
people... He plan is too modest, most of the "surplus" should be
returned to the people.
>>That is only because your tax bill increases as your income increases. A
>>family of four making 75,000 who now only has to pay $10,000 in income taxes
>>isn't as good as someone making 35k now paying NO tax, I wouldn;'t classify
>>that as giving money to the rich. The percentage still decreases as income
>>increases.
>
>Yes, Bush's tax plan still uses an accelerated income tax. However, the
>people who benefit the most from tax cuts will be the high income earners.
>
>The fact that income taxes are accelerated means that tax cuts tend
>to benefit those at the top end ( unless they're "targeted" in which case
>they typically benefit the middle-upper bracket ). Someone who's earning
>10k doesn't benefit greatly from tax cuts.
>
>>How much of a Federal tax cut past 100% do you want for poor and lower
>>middle class?
>
>Well that's kind of my point. That a vision that consists only of tax cuts
>is not something that will srike a chord among these groups.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
