Linux-Advocacy Digest #810, Volume #30 Mon, 11 Dec 00 14:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: HardcoreLinux.com domain name for sale ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: What does KDE do after all (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Patent Free...but not for long? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
undefined reference to `__eh_pc' ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? (Keith Peterson)
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? (Keith Peterson)
Re: The real power of Linux (cry Winbabies cry!) (Perry Pip)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (bob)
Re: The real power of Linux (cry Winbabies cry!) (mlw)
Re: Goodwin Acknowledges he's an idiot. (Perry Pip)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HardcoreLinux.com domain name for sale
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:21:54 -0500
JM wrote:
>
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 15:22:00 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >Go to hell, luser.
>
> Well you're a friendly person.
Pardon me, but I do not suffer fools kindly.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
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 (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her 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] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: 11 Dec 2000 17:26:25 GMT
On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 13:04:47 -0500, Anonymous wrote:
Well you're both sort of right.
Clearly, if B is a subset of A, then A is more functional, but the
extra functionality could come at a price. In particular, simple
things tend to be less error prone.
I'm not clear on how much difference there is in practice though --
I don't see how sockets are that much less reliable than pipes.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Patent Free...but not for long?
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 17:19:53 GMT
In article <YSPY5.298950$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9109f3$fv9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Whenever I see something advertised today as "patent-free",
> > I worry about it.
> >
> > After all, other people are patenting "obvious ideas" in
> > the computer industry every day. Folks who are releasing
> > "patent-free" things don't have the money or the resources
> > to fight someone else who chooses to patent the contents of
> > their "patent-free" software.
> >
> > It seems to me that rather than simply fight software
> > patents in the legislature and the courts, folks writing
> > the "patent-free" stuff would be better off doing their
> > OWN patents on their stuff, then specifically refusing to
> > collect royalties on their patents.
> >
> > Linux almost was copyrighted by a complete stranger
> > thanks to people who were against the concept of
> > copyrighting software being the prime authors of Linux.
> > The system needs to be reworked, but until it is,
> > folks doing the free software and the "patent-free"
> > software have to realize that a patent which they don't
> > do anything about is *** necessary *** in today's world
> > of patents on "A Tactile System Of Entering Data Into A
> > Computing System." (i.e., a KEYBOARD)
>
> You probably don't need to get a patent if you don't
> plan to collect royalties.
So can someone else patent your idea when you don't?
Sure they can. Alexander Graham Bell never invented
a damn thing, but he owned a lot of patents.
You figure it out.
> It's been a while since I got involved in the details
> of patents, but I believe it's the case that in the US,
> once an idea has been disclosed publicly, the original
> inventor has one year to file a patent. Others are
> precluded from obtaining a patent on the idea once it
> has been publicly disclosed. As I recall, most other
> countries are more restrictive: your rights to file end
> when the public disclosure is made.
>
> In any event, it seems to me that GNU software is more
> or less publicly disclosed on release.
>
> There is an argument to be made that the free software
> movement should start patenting, so that they would have
> some leverage against commercial firms who do patent.
> It's not clear how valuable this would be, or how
> feasible.
Since software can now be patented, the problem is not
that some esoteric idea is being patented, but that some
*basic programming principle* is being patented.
The leverage against the commercial companies is not
through patenting new ideas, but patenting old ideas
before the big commercial companies can get their
hands on the old ideas.
Do you write software which puts colors on a display?
Do you pay royalties to someone for that software? No?
Whoops, you're violating a *recent* PATENT.
> Many of the people working on free software are also
> working for Universities or corporations who might
> make legitimate claims on the invention. And, in
> general, a patent portfolio doesn't have infinite
> weight. When a large company shows up at our door
> and wants to talk about patents, what they really
> want to talk about is royalties. As a smaller company,
> we use our patent portfolio to reduce the royalty
> payments, but we don't eliminate them. It's not clear
> how a free software organization would pay royalties,
> or even how they would defend themselves in a legal
> proceeding.
If they own the patent on the obvious idea to begin with,
then they don't pay the royalties on it. I should think
this would be obvious.
As for paying for stuff, the FSF and other related
organizations could band together on the patenting of
obvious ideas. The FSF needs a Division of Patenting
Obvious Ideas so that more and more common programming
principles don't end up in the hands of big corporations
out to destroy free software.
> As for the patent you mention, there are no patents
> with that title in the US patent database, and there
> are only two that include the words "tactile"
> and "data" in the title. I suspect that it doesn't
> exist, and that it's progenitor was an article in Linux
> Journal by Bryan Pfaffenberger [1].
Actually, it was. I was wondering if anyone else had
read that article.
> Pfaffenberger doesn't seem to know much about the
> patent system, and was using his make-believe patent,
> "A Method for Transposing Tactile Pressure On
> Alphanumeric Keys Into Representable Screen Displays
> in Hypermedia Systems," as an example of a patent that
> could be issued on an obvious device (a keyboard) which
> could then be used to force every company that
> manufactures computers to place all their patents in
> the public domain. Not likely, but there's nothing like
> FUD to get the indignancy flowing.
>
> It's worth noting that the patent office does not
> consist of experts in every field, and the role of
> the patent examiner is not to make a decision about
> obviousness or originality. In most cases, the patent
> examiner doesn't have the expertise to make that
> judgement. They do try to find other patents that
> cover similar things, and ask the inventor to explain
> the differences. If you don't understand that, then
> you tend to think of patents as enforceable by virtue
> of having been granted. That's not the case: a patent
> is only your statement of claims.
However, if we consider your statement above as fact,
"It's not clear how a free software organization would
pay royalties, or even how they would defend themselves
in a legal proceeding", then one arrives quickly at the
point: patent lawsuits take MONEY, and as such if a
company patents an obvious idea, it won't lose that
patent anytime soon, and can afford much more legal
help than the FSF.
If the whole POINT of obtaining the patent of the
obvious idea was to bring down the FSF, then the
company in question has already allocated the
resources necessary to spend more money than the
FSF already has for legal defense.
By the FSF obtaining large numbers of patents of
original ideas first, then failing to collect royalties,
what in essence has been done is that the FSF has been
spared X number of patent lawsuits in the future for
the minimal amount of money required for a patent
filing. Minimal when compared to the legal fees in
filing a patent lawsuit.
> The actual value and validity of a patent is
> determined by its enforceability - something that
> will be determined by the courts, not the patent
> office.
The problem is that the patent office is in fact the
only real authority in the case of the patenting of
obvious ideas, since once the company has the patent,
their considerable legal resources can be brought to
bear against the FSF or whatever free software org has
used a common programming principle that has just
been patented.
Yes, it makes you feel good to think about the courts
as "another option", but when you realize that the
big corporation has the money and legal defenses to
drive the FSF into the ground, you realize that the
first line of defense really is the patent office.
If the patent office won't do technical research to
discover if it is patenting a common programming
principle, then it is up to the FSF to patent obvious
ideas and common programming principles as insurance
against future lawsuits from big corporations bent on
wiping out the much poorer free software organizations,
organizations which still represent *competition*.
> There is little doubt that a generic patent for a
> keyboard used to enter data into a computer would
> be unenforceable. Not because it's obvious (proving
> obviousness is rather difficult), but because keyboards
> have been attached to computers for such a long time.
> Similarly, if I was to patent the searching algorithms
> used by gnu grep, the patent would be unenforceable.
Really? So if you had $1 billion in legal defenses
and you wanted to bring down the GNU organization, an
organization that probably dreams about having a tenth
of that figure in its total budget, you wouldn't be able
to patent the GNU GREP algorithm and then
DEFEND IT IN COURT?
Seems to me your vast resources would bring down GNU even
if you LOST.
Sorry, but the point is not whether or not the patent is
enforceable. The problem is that in the attempt to enforce
the patent, the organization fighting for its unpatented
code back again will still be squished beneath the heel of
the patenting company.
Linux can still be destroyed even if its attackers lose the
court battle, since Linux can still lose the money battle.
The courts are no longer solely about right and wrong,
they now are about who has the most money and what is the
real point of the lawsuit.
If the point is to wipe out the budgets of the people
distributing and writing code for Linux, then an
unenforceable patent can still KILL LINUX.
A patent owned by the FSF, by contrast, is a patent which
cannot be used to destroy Linux or any other free software
project.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: undefined reference to `__eh_pc'
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 17:29:50 GMT
I get the following error as I link using gcc
undefined reference to `__eh_pc'
gcc --version shows:
egcs-2.91.66
I compile using g++ (because c++ program) and link using gcc. I am using
external libraries.
Suggestions?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith Peterson)
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:08:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
>> It's really about fucking time.
>
>That's OK. We'll have anti-aliased fonts long before Windows users have
>e-mail that won't let a prankster destroy their system.
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
And people accuse Winvocates of FUD.
Hey - what do you know. Been using Windows (and Linux) for years, and oddly
enough no prankster has ever destroyed my Windows system since I use one of
the dozens of e-mail programs that aren't Outlook.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith Peterson)
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:10:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At least the information is out there. You might compare this to what
>MS is trying to pull on BugTraq right now.
Yeah - shame on Microsoft! Trying to make sure that users actually reach
timely, correct information.
Damn you, Microsoft! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
I think ALL bug lists should be references to current-state information.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: The real power of Linux (cry Winbabies cry!)
Date: 11 Dec 2000 18:16:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:58:58 GMT,
Keith Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, No-Spam wrote:
>>I'm a self employed electronics person, who uses Linux
>>exclusively to design electronic equipment, mostly micro
>>processor controlled, and to do that, I use the wide range
>>of applications available that run under Linux.
>>
>>Could I do this under Windows, ..for sure, tho it would cost
>>a lot more, and offer little, if not less for the extra money.
>
>So your point is that the job can be successfully done on a Windows box with
>no loss of functionality (little, if not less for the extra money), but that
>in the case of Windows we should feel bad because a programmer actually earned
>a living.
>
>Ah...
No he doesn't give a flying shit how you feel. He's simply saying he
get's a better deal for doing *his* work using Open Source
products. If you wanna cry about it that's your problem.
------------------------------
From: bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Crossposted-To: no.alt.arkiv,tw.bbs.comp.linux,alt.os.linux
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:23:31 -0500
The PhantomAss wrote:
> pl0nk!
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:911g5n$cr1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hello to all!
> >
> > The result is out. Linux is INFERIOR to Windows. :-)
> > Ah, I know you Linux people are bursting with rage right now. Sarcasms
> > and insults are evitable for me, I know.
> >
> > Please read this test by Mindcraft that compares Linux and Windows NT.
> > After reading this, you will agree with me.
> >
> > http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/openbench1.html
> >
> > Ha! Ha!
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
old news?
pointless?
Mickeyshaft bias?
Troll?
ignorance?
plonk you betcha!
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real power of Linux (cry Winbabies cry!)
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:48:33 -0500
Terry Porter wrote:
> No prepaid maintenance, no endless muzac while I'm told 'your call is in
> the cue, cause our three stressed out help desk staff are busy"
> , nope none of that!
>
> Just a reply and FIX, the same day, from a total stranger who will never
> be paid $$ by me, to fix a problem with his software, that he gave me
> for free, in the first place.
It it were my software, and it was a bug, I'd probably fix it as soon as
I could. If it was a request for a feature, I would take in under
advisement and think about it. If you wanted a new feature right away,
I'd make you pay $$$.
The advantage to OpenSource is that I, as the developer, can let YOU the
user (or some VAR like RedHat) fix the small bugs. Thus, I am left to
focus on the important things.
My only problem with your statement, is that it implies one will get
someone to perform work for free by using Open Source software. Make no
mistake, this is not the case.
Your good experience is probably not the norm, and setting false
expectations may not be the best thing for people trying to evaluate
Linux. Just my $.02
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Goodwin Acknowledges he's an idiot.
Date: 11 Dec 2000 18:51:26 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On the contrary, Pete, you failed to address the issue at hand. You
have been a paid Windows developer for six years, writing audio driver
code. In contrast, you admit you've only used Linux for a few weeks in
your spare time, and have admitted you didn't even know how to
Ctrl-Alt-Backspace out of X-windows. Yet with such a disparity of
experience and knowledge with the two OS's, you feel you are qualified
to make unbiased objective comparisons, all to justify your whining
like a crybaby everytime you have the slightest problem with Linux.
For you to make such claims is totally idiotic. Therefore you are an
idiot, plain and simple. It's not an insult but an objective
scientific fact. If you are insulted by the fact that you are a dumb
person that's your problem. It's not the rest of the world's fault your
dumb. Your expectation the rest of the world to deny reality just so
you can hide from your dumbness is nothing but an arrogant expression
of your dumbness.
On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 11:58:47 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Pete, just ignore him and he will go away.
>
>Exclusing us two, have you noticed that all the respondants to this
>topic are the inferior type of Linux advocate? The ones that either hurl
>insults or drown us in rants and raves.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Date: 11 Dec 2000 19:02:28 GMT
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
>If you want to write code, then you get TextPad or UltraEdit32 or something.
Why should I have to pay or download to get competent basic utilities like a
text editor? If I was to be bothered learning it, I could use emacs (included
with almost any Linux distribution) and get as much editor as I could ever
need.
I guess Linux has raised the bar, but I now consider it reasonable to get a
decent package of utility programmes with the system.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
