Linux-Advocacy Digest #614, Volume #29 Thu, 12 Oct 00 07:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: I'd rather switch than fight. (2:1)
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (2:1)
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (2:1)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("2 + 2")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Nick Condon)
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (2:1)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (Nick Condon)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Matthias Warkus)
Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!) (Matthias Warkus)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ("David Fulton")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (=?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player! (Andres Soolo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'd rather switch than fight.
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:05:58 +0100
> If you were to see the simplicity that it used in slackware you
> would probably NEVER go back to RH. I admit I like sysV but I
> don't like the way readhat uses it.
Could you give me a link to some description of the system used in
Slackware: I'm interested. I might convert my linux system to that (my
system is gatting less like the default RH system as the days go by...)
> BTW I didn't ask for a tutorial I KNOW how it works. Sorry you spent
> so much time on it. Save it though it might come in handy some day.
Oh, sorry.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:10:35 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Better oil that sucker up good :)
>
> I was just laughing at a pathetic attempt at a benchmark, and I would
> have laughed just as hard if a Winvocate had posted it.
>
> Only true benchmark is to run your own applications. For some Linux
> will win, for others Windows and for others MVS/XA or OS/400 might be
> best.
>
> Generic tests can be rigged all the time.
>
> claire
This is probably a first: I agree completely. Your own apps are the only
real measure of speed. The rest are a rough guide at best, misleading at
worst. My favourite is in comparing Linux/Win2N/WinNT to UNIX in bang
for buck. What no one bothers to mention with the i86 stuff is generally
what harware they used. You can pick up some really cheap, nasty fast
hardware that wil give a very good performance for 5 minutes until it
breaks. If your benchmarh takes 4:59, it will appear that i86 is much
better. Most benchmarks are short (ie not years or months long).
-Ed
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 01:10:41 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> What happens if you redirect to a printer?
> >>
> >> claire
> >
> >LOL!
> >
> >Time to wheel out the 3000rpm drum printer to proove linux is faster.
> >
> >-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:11:46 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> And LinuxTrolls complained about my generalisation "Linux lags behind
> Windows" yet here we find one doing exactly the same as I did: "Linux
> outperforms Windows".
>
> You don't mention wether you are running on the same hardware or wether
> you are running consoles on Linux under X or without X.
>
> I did my own tests and found both Linux and Windows ran at about the
> same speed. Running POVray on Linux without X compared to Windows
> revealed Windows was faster. All done on the same hardware.
POVRay is CPU bound, so it tests the compiler. The console thing is IO
bound, so it is more of a test of the OS (though a poor one).
> --
> ---
> Pete
> Coming soon: Kylix!
> (I do not need the destruction of Microsoft to succeed).
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 04:28:18 -0400
Weevil wrote in message ...
>
>Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8s31ai$2km$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:Iz6F5.122$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Even the rumors that MS might be engaging in this underhanded (and
>> illegal)
>> > activity served their purpose. Whether it was intentional or not, the
>> > reasoning went, it's still better to stay away from DR DOS.
>> >
>> > It was a year later before it was finally proven that there had never
>been
>> > any errors or incompatibilities at all between DR DOS and Windows. By
>> then,
>> > though, their cute little FUD campaign had done all the damage it
needed
>> to
>> > do. DRI was dead in the water, and Gates & Co were again free to
charge
>> as
>> > much as the market would bear.
>> >
>> > And then, as now, Microsoft had apologists all over the place. So you
>> would
>> > have had lots of company back then, too.
>>
>> As you have lots of company now, Mr. FUDspinner.
>>
>> BTW; here's the official Microsoft line on it, from Dr. Dobb's Journal,
>> Jan94, Letters.
>>
>> "
>> Dear DDJ,
>>
>> The lawyers have finally given me the green light to describe why the
>MS-DOS
>> detection code discussed in the article "Examining the Windows AARD
>> Detection Code" by Andrew Schulman (DDJ, September 1993) was in the
>> Christmas beta. I hope you will keep an open mind, listen to the truth,
>and
>> accept it. It may not make such good press, but sometimes the truth is
>like
>> that.
>>
>> It has never been a practice of this company to deliberately create
>> incompatibilities between Microsoft system software and the system
>software
>> of other OS publishers. I am not aware of any instance where Microsoft
>> intentionally created an incompatibility between Windows and DR DOS.
>>
>
>On July 17, 1991, Jim Allchin proposed to Microsoft's 5 top executives that
>"we . . . consider changing our apps to not run unless the OS is our OS."
>
>On September 17, 1991, in a discussion about DR DOS' "compatibility
>problems" with Windows, Allchin sent this to Silverberg (the author of the
>lengthy letter you quoted):
>"You should make sure it has problems in the future. ;-)"
>
>Four hours later, Silverberg asked Phil Barrett what he was planning to do
>in response to Allchin's suggestion:
>
>----
>Silverberg:
>
>can you tell me specifically what we're going to do to bind ourselves
closer
>to ms dos? since you haven't been replying to my messages, I don't know how
>to interpret your silence. Let me emphasize the importance; ibm is going to
>announce the drdos deal at comdex (almost 100% certain).
>
>OK?
>
>
>
>Barrett:
>
>Sorry for the silence -- dont interpret it as ignoring you.
>
>The approach that ralph and I have discussed is to use a vxd to 'extend'
dos
>by patching it. In this case, we would create a subfunction in the
>findfirst/findnext family-findabunch to allow filemanager to make a single
>call to get directory information. We would not patch unknown OSs and, most
>likely, would only patch MS DOS 5.x. The big advantage here is that it
>provides a legitimate performance improvement. However, it wont prevent us
>from running on foreign OSs (unless we explicitly decide to refuse to
>run) -- they just wont run as fast.
>
>Is this the approach you want to take? Or would you prefer a simple check
>and refuse to run? Thats a lot easier but clearly quite defeatable. I'll
>come and talk to you about it.
>
>
>
>Silverberg:
>
>let's talk.
>----
>
>On September 30, David Cole was discussing plans with Silverberg and
>Barrett:
>
>----
>It's pretty clear we need to make sure Windows 3.1 only runs on top of MS
>DOS or an OEM version of it. I checked with legal, and they are working up
>some text we are suppose to display if someone tries to setup or run
Windows
>on a alien operating system. We are suppose to give the user the option of
>continuing after the warning. However, we should surely crash at some point
>shortly later.
>
>
>
>Now to the point of this mail. How shall we proceed on the issue of making
>sure Win 3.1 requires MS DOS. We need to have some pretty fancy internal
>checks to make sure we are on the right one. Maybe there are several very
>sophisticated checks so that competitors get put on a treadmill. Aaronr had
>some pretty wild ideas after 3 or so beers, earleh has some too. We need to
>make sure this doesn't distract the team for a couple of reasons 1) the
pure
>distraction factor 2) the less people know about exactly what gets done,
the
>better.
>----
>
>The "Aaronr" referred to is Aaron Reynolds. He's the guy that wrote the
>phony error message code. He then obfuscated it, heavily encrypted it. He
>also made it self-modifying, which meant that the only way to actually see
>it was to execute it. And finally, he added some logic that would disable
a
>debugger attempting to step through it.
>
>All this was done for the good of the public, of course.
>
>> Microsoft does not test Windows on anything other than Microsoft's
MS-DOS.
>
>(Bald lie. They tested extensively on DR DOS to make sure that DR DOS
>didn't give a "false positive" result to their detection code.)
>
>> During the betas,
>> we got a few bug reports about Windows not working correctly on some of
>the
>> MS-DOS imitations.
>
>(Sometimes the arrogance of these Microsoft suits is just breathtaking.)
>
><snip of long corporate spin-tale, all of which is provably bullshit>
>
>> Finally, the detection and concealment code and the nonfatal-error
message
>> code have been stripped out of the versions of Windows currently under
>> development. That's the story. Surely not as interesting or controversial
>as
>> you or others would have people believe, but it's what really happened.
>>
>> Brad Silverberg, Vice President
>>
>> Microsoft Corp.
>>
>> Redmond, Washington"
>>
>
>Silverberg wrote this letter to Dr. Dobb's Journal in response to the two
>whizzes who miraculously tracked down and exposed the Aard code. He wrote
>it long before anyone knew that all those internal emails and memos would
>one day be made public.
>
>Almost every sentence Silverberg wrote is a lie, has been proven to be a
lie
>by his own emails and memos.
So let's see them.
2 + 2
>
>But somehow, you and your fellow cheerleaders manage to believe it.
>
>I tell ya, the human brain is an amazing thing.
>
>jwb
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:34:15 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
> Linux is a hack upon a hack upon a hack upon a 30 year old archaic OS that has
> none of the features of a modern OS.
This is a factual error. If I asked you to list the "features of a modern OS", I'm
sure you'd include multitasking. Since the primary design goal of Unix was that it
be multiuser-multitasking, it has had that particular feature since it's earliest
incarnation.
This is one counter-example, there may be others depending on what you consider to
be the "features of a modern OS".
---
Nick
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:08:17 GMT
Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>>>> David T. Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [repetitive comments snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry David, you lose.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>>>>>>>>>> Practice what you preach, Marty.
>>>>>>>>> I wasn't the one preaching about off-topic posting while writing such
>>>>>>>>> postings.
>>>>>>>> You were the one preaching about "stop being a hypocrite and grow up",
>>>>>>>> Marty.
>>>>>>> Very good, Dave.
>>>>>> So why did you bring up "off-topic posting", Marty?
>>>>> Just staying on topic. Look at the thread topic.
>>>> I'm looking at what you wrote, Marty.
>>> Of what relevance is this self-evident remark?
>> It shows that you brought up "off-topic posting", Marty,
> Irrelevant, as doing so was an act of staying on topic.
Exactly how does that statement represent an act of staying on topic,
when the topic was about you practicing what you were preaching with
regard to "Stop being a hypocrite and grow up", Marty?
>> despite the fact that I was suggesting that you practice what you
>> preach.
> You made no such suggestion, Dave.
Incorrect:
DT] Practice what you preach, Marty.
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>> Context, Marty.
> Like the thread topic, for example?
Are you able to comprehend that? You certainly didn't comprehend that
I wrote:
DT] Practice what you preach, Marty.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:36:04 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I used to play Stargate on Atari console :)
>
> Damm I feel old :)
Did you ever play `Thrust'? That was a really cool game too. I spent
*far* too long playing it.
-Ed
> claire
>
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 01:22:10 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> (I have something even older -- a Stargate clone that runs on CGA,
> >> off a floppy that has to be booted into, Last time I tried to run *that*,
> >> it ran, but so ridiculously fast one can't see anything. :-) )
> >
> >You obviously have bad taste in old games :-)
> >If you were playing, say, Alley Cat, for instance (a good game,
> >naturally), you would have found that not only was it a good game, but
> >it was also well written (except that quit leaves you in CGA mode
> >heigh-ho.) - it works at the right speed on a P133.
> >
> >Now I have to get hold of a copy of digger from the old IBMs too, coz
> >that was a good game too...
> >
> >
> >-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 04:42:06 -0500
2 + 2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s3sja$oau$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Silverberg wrote this letter to Dr. Dobb's Journal in response to the two
> >whizzes who miraculously tracked down and exposed the Aard code. He
wrote
> >it long before anyone knew that all those internal emails and memos would
> >one day be made public.
> >
> >Almost every sentence Silverberg wrote is a lie, has been proven to be a
> lie
> >by his own emails and memos.
>
> So let's see them.
>
> 2 + 2
You saw a few of them just now. In fact, your newsreader quoted them. Did
you read any of it, or did you just blindly reply.
You're either stupid or you're paid to do this. I don't think MS would
bother paying anybody to do this kind of low grade shit, though, since there
are plenty of idiots out there who do it for free. So since you're not paid
to do this, you really are stupid.
Like my logic? Heh.
jwb
PS -- There were a few people at Microsoft who apparently had a conscience
and didn't like what they were doing. And one or two who had the courage to
say so. I dunno whatever happened to them, though -- they were outnumbered
(and outranked).
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:00:39 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Really? That's the best test?
>
> How about instead, I give you a budget of $10,000,000.00, including your
> time and the time of any other people involved in the project. Now, build a
> web site that will generate $1 billion dollars in revenue.
>
> How much are you saving with Linux?
The banks I've worked for all use Netscape on Solaris, including the proMS ones.
Frankly I'd rather use Apache, and so would most of the foot-soldier techies I
worked with, but the PHBs all like Netscape. Perhaps because that's what the
other banks are using. They *do* like to compare themselves - first question on
any new idea is "what are the other banks doing?". And only the other banks,
they're not interested in the rest of the world.
---
Nick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 00:59:11 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:49:24 GMT...
...and Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Tell me one thing that BeOS can do that Linux is conceptually
> > incapable of.
>
> "Conceptually" is nothing but code for "it could do it someday if
> someone writes the program". Let's look at some simple things I can do
> in BeOS that I can't do in Linux as of today.
>
> 1) I can change the screen resolution with the click of a button,
> rather than digging into the XF86 config file.
I can, too (Ctrl-Alt-NumPad+ / Ctrl-Alt-NumPad-).
> 2) I can fill the root partition to 100% and not be totally f*&$ed.
I can, too. When df reports the root partition to be 100% full, I've
still got 10% left, reserved for root.
> 3) I can flip the power switch off and not have to sit through a long
> fsck reboot (or possible crash).
With reiserfs, same goes for me (as soon as I've got a device to back
up 10.1 GB, I'll switch to reiserfs).
> 4) I can set my network settings with the click of a button. Exact
> sequence was: Menu, Preferences, Networking - clicked DHCP. Restarted
> networking server (not OS). 3 clicks and 2 mouseovers - no typing.
> Bing - I'm surfing.
There are tools for this, however I did all my networking
configuration directly in the text files and I can't really say much
about this.
> 5) I can search through my filesystem without using "find" (but I can
> if I want to).
I can, too (with locate or with Medusa).
mawa
--
Rechtsfahrer!
Regenflüchter!
Rehstreichler!
Rinnenbowler!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BeOS and switching resolutions (was: The Power of the Future!)
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 01:00:05 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:01:48 GMT...
...and Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My experience has been sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
>
> Oh, and I forgot:
>
> 6) Can add my own file attributes.
There are user-space solutions (Nautilus emblems, for one).
mawa
--
Taschenkammträger!
Discozulautfinder!
Hermann-Hesse-Leser!
Schrankwandbesitzer!
------------------------------
From: "David Fulton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 04:27:23 -0600
HMMM...
"Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8q924i$2o2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Microsoft's "lead" was miniscule compared to the amount of
> >> time they sandbagged on fully exploiting the 386 architecture
> >> or delivering a viable GUI.
> >
> > Really. I was happily using os/2, with 32 bit pre-emptive
multithreading
> > multitasking it's wonderfull WPS GUI while mickysoft users were using
that
> > pathetic windoze 3.1 running a top dos with nearly nonexistant
> > multitasking. OS/2 ran dos sessions in V8086 boxes well enough to fool
> > a windoze 3.1 instalation to run win31 apps perfectly except those that
> > had to bypass all the microsoft crap and talk directly to the hardware
like
> > communications programs.
> >
> > 7 years later and MS is finally getting around to dumping DOS, but needs
> > 16 times the processor and memory to achive the same results.
>
> You do realize that OS/2 1.x was Microsoft's second attempt to dump DOS
> and that Microsoft's first attempt to dump DOS was Xenix? WinNT (aka OS/2
> NT) a third attempt? But those damn end users ...
I think you need to seperate out the fact that OS/2 was taken over by IBM
and is still used by some people today (quite religiously too, although I am
not one that uses it.) Ever since that happened the development of OS/2 was
conducted with an entirely different philosophy than Windows. Also, Windows
95/98 and, yes, Me are still running on top of a real mode MS-DOS, no matter
how much MS may try to say that they are OSes, they are not, the DOS
underneath is the OS with a protected mode 32bit GUI on top of it. I will
admit that thier reliance on MS-DOS has diminished significantly since
Windows 3.11, but that is just progress. It is interesting you bring up
Xenix as MS's attempt to dump DOS since Xenix was a Unix clone (hmmm kinda
like Linux perhaps?) and even though it failed miserably was very robust and
took full advantage of the then top of the line 80286 IBM/AT. It is just the
same battle but with more Players. Compared to wars, it is the WW1 of
computing and the IBM/MS battle that started it was the advent and demise of
the PS/2 and OS/2. IBM and MS used to be quite the lovers from a corporate
standpoint, but now IBM seems to have given up its struggle to break free.
An IBM Aptiva comes shipped with a Windows product and not OS/2. But I
digress.
> Tony
> ------------------
> Tony Tribelli
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
------------------------------
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:43:00 +0200
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
1W9F5.901$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> As it turns out, I'm not the one who said they used "undocumented and
> secret" APIs.
>
> As it also turns out, there are many, many undocumented functions in
almost
> all of their APIs. Do their products use these undocumented functions?
> Yes, they do. You can bet your ass that their competitors don't, though.
> Not the smart ones, anyway. Microsoft simply gets rid of that ol'
> "undocumented function" in the next release and thereby breaks their
> competitors product. They've been doing that since their DOS days.
Let me get that straight to see if I understood you correctly.
- MS uses undocumented functions to trump competitors.
- Smart competitors don't use those undocumented functions.
- Not So Smart ones do.
- MS gets rid of said undocumented functions.
- Not So Smart developers apps break.
- MS apps magically _still_ work.
Man, those MS developers must really kick some *serious* ass, they rely
undocumented functions to trump competitors, and even when those
undocumented functions are yanked out, their apps still work. This is simply
amazing ! :)
> So you want me to name some? And what would you do with this information?
> Admit that you're wrong? Of course not. You'll just go on and on, asking
> for this or that, changing focus, denying, until I get bored with it and
> stop replying, at which point you'll claim victory.
>
> Why should I bother?
> jwb
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player!
Date: 12 Oct 2000 10:53:26 GMT
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In fact, recent iterations of DeCSS and variants explicitly exclude
> illegal replication and publication from the license. Put another
That's sad to hear.
> Perhaps this would be a worthwhile extension of the GPL. Quite simply,
> it's not in the best interests of Linux, the Internet, or the IT
> community as a whole to encourage the use of GPL software for the
> purpose of committing felonies (or their international equivelants).
No, it wouldn't. The licenses should be kept separated from the local
frequently-changing laws or someone's personal distrust for, say,
crane drivers or bank robbers or minors (like the Corel's first faux pas
with it's Linux distribution). Read the archives of debian-legal for
details.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
He is no lawyer who cannot take two sides.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
