Linux-Advocacy Digest #319, Volume #32 Mon, 19 Feb 01 14:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Peter Hayes)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Peter Hayes)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Peter Hayes)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (ZnU)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Does Code Decay (Bloody Viking)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: M$ taking over linux? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Would Linux be invented if? (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:03:00 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 Feb 2001 10:08:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ZnU) wrote
> >In article <1ep23jl.1s6168fn1c48uN@[192.168.0.142]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> >
> >> And I don't see any enforced sharing in the GPL. It absolutely allows
> >> you to write software derived from GPLed software and use it for
> >> yourself without sharing it with anybody.
> >
> >It doesn't allow you to distribute it, however.
>
> It absolutely does allow for distribution, and allows you to charge a fee
> for doing so. The GPL just says that if you re-distribute the code (or
> derived works), it must be under the same terms that you yourself obtained
> it (i.e. under the GPL). That is the price you pay for using someone else's
> code instead of writing it yourself.
>
> Incidentally, other kinds of copyright control derived works, too. You
> can't just distribute movies about Mickey Mouse with permission from Disney
> for example.
The least said about Disney the better.
Peter
--
In the 19th century surveyors measured the height of Everest
from 500 miles away in India.
This cannot be repeated today. Everest is no longer visible from
the survey location due to increased atmospheric pollution.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:03:01 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:38:32 -0600, "Jonathan Hendry"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If popular sentiment
> turned against GPL, GPL'd code would be as defenseless
> as Napster'd MP3s.
How do you work that out?
If that were the case wouldn't MS have nullified the GPL long since?
Peter
--
In the 19th century surveyors measured the height of Everest
from 500 miles away in India.
This cannot be repeated today. Everest is no longer visible from
the survey location due to increased atmospheric pollution.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:03:02 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 Feb 2001 01:41:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
> The "information wants to be free" idea comes from the GNU ideology as well as
> freeware crypto with PGP. PGP is "Pretty Good Privacy", data encryption strong
> enough that even the most resource posessing rogue government (i.e. the US
> government) can't crack it.
Unlike the UK where you get 2 years in jail if you don't provide the most
fascist government in decades (if ever, and that includes Thatcher) with
the key on demand - even if you've no idea what it is, and 5 years in jail
if you tell anyone about their request for said key.
So no massively parallel processor needed.
Peter
--
In the 19th century surveyors measured the height of Everest
from 500 miles away in India.
This cannot be repeated today. Everest is no longer visible from
the survey location due to increased atmospheric pollution.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:12:03 -0500
Scott Gardner wrote:
>
> Personally, I've never thought that the phrase "Information
> wants to be free" was really meant to imply any conscious thought on
> the part of information, or an attempt to anthropomorphize it. I
> think it's more of an observation of the behaviour of information.
> It's much easier to distribute it than it is to recall it, and it's
> easily duplicated and shared. Much as we say "Water seeks its own
> level", what we're really doing is commenting on the behavior of
> water, not saying that it "wants" to do one thing or another, or even
> that one behavior would be preferable to another.
> Information doesn't "want" to be free any more than the
> toothpaste in my medicine chest, even though both are equally
> impossible to put back from whence they came after they've been
> released.
>
> Scott Gardner
> LT US Navy
>
> (really need to work on a .sig file here....)
I offer mine for your inspection.
:-)
--
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: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:13:41 -0500
Scott Gardner wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:24:56 GMT, Ziya Oz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >John Jensen wrote:
> >
> >> It's fair that some people sell things, and some people give things away.
> >
> >Well, according to the Open Source zealots, it's not enough to just give
> >your stuff away, you have to GPL it!
> >
> >****
> >Ziya
> >
>
> Well, if I were a creator in another field, say painting, for
> instance, and I wanted to give my art to the world, I'd be severely
> cheesed off if someone else took it, made a few changes, and charged
> the rest of the world for it. The logistics of keeping something free
> can be as complicated as the mechanics of protecting's one work from
> infringement...
That's not what the GPL prevents.
The GPL prevents someone from taking your publicly released
work, doing whatever with it, (including nothing), without
providing the source code as well.
>
> Scott Gardner
--
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: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:15:39 GMT
In article <1ep39jk.p3hefehaa16oN@[192.168.0.142]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > > The only string is that derivatives must also be free. Thus we
> > > claim it is free (as in liberty), and stays free.
> >
> > That string is enough to severely limit the kinds of projects into
> > which GPLed code can be incorporated.
>
> No, it is the other licenses that limit the kinds of projects into
> which GPLed code can be incorporated. The GPL discriminates against
> nobody.
Yeah, and freedom is slavery, war is peace, and ketchup is a vegetable.
Please. This is one of the most absurd statements I've ever seen. It's
blatantly false. You can use GPLed code in a project only if you wish to
release that entire project under the GPL. BSD and many other licenses
have no such restriction. GPL is viral. These other licenses are not.
> > > > And these strings sometimes result in people reinventing the
> > > > wheel (one of the major things open source tries to eliminate),
> > > > simply because of the license.
> > >
> > > No, it is because of their decision. The GPL does not
> > > discriminate against anyone, you can use the wheel if you want,
> > > but you cannot use the wheel if afterwards you do not allow
> > > people to use the car you built using that wheel.
> >
> > Exactly. And I believe that in some cases expecting a free car
> > because you provided a free wheel is a bit much. But I accept that
> > an author has the right to ask for that. The same way that some
> > other author who has decided something different has the right to
> > receive payment for his work.
>
> Nobody has a "right to receive payment for his work".
>
> It depends on whether somebody is willing to pay for it.
You're being needlessly pedantic. I meant, of course, that an author has
a right to release his work under a license which requires people who
make use of it to pay him.
> > > > I think the BSD OSes demonstrate that the GPL's "enforced
> > > > sharing" isn't really needed; people give back just because
> > > > they want to. Even major corporations do; in spite of whatever
> > > > claims uninformed zealots might make, Apple has given quite a
> > > > lot back to the BSD community.
> > >
> > > That would be HFS+?
> >
> > I'm not even talking about the stuff Apple has released under its
> > own license (APSL). Apple regularly contributes patches back to the
> > BSDs from which code is borrowed. This stuff is under the same
> > license as the original code, not APSL.
>
> Examples?
I don't know off the top of my head. Check mailing lists. Comments have
been made by BSD developers that Apple does, in fact, give back.
> > Why does Apple do this? Simple self interest. If Apple's changes
> > are in the main source tree, it means that Apple's code is
> > maintained and improved by the community, and Apple can use later
> > versions of the software in Mac OS X without having to
> > reincorporate its modifications. Everyone wins. This kind of thing
> > wouldn't work with GPL; Apple tries to keep the closed and open
> > parts of OS X separate, but Apple still couldn't use GPLed code in
> > its proprietary OS without serious potential licensing issues. A
> > major corporation just can't risk that.
>
> Apple could make the kernel GPL. MacOS X (and NEXTSTEP) is a very
> modular system.
GPL does not permit linking proprietary software against GPLed
libraries. This would make things tricky.
[snip]
> > The clause granting "Apple and its subsidiaries a non-exclusive,
> > worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual and irrevocable license, under
> > Your Applicable Patent Rights and other intellectual property
> > rights (other than patent) owned or controlled by You, to use,
> > reproduce, display, perform, modify or have modified (for Apple
> > and/or its subsidiaries), sublicense and distribute Your
> > Modifications, in any form, through multiple tiers of distribution"
> > is simply needed to protect Apple. Again, a major corporation can't
> > risk having legal action threaten a product essential to its
> > survival.
>
> Maybe you Americans need to change your patent laws? This is no
> problem in Europe. But then we a free country and free to write code
> if we want to, regardless of whether some unknown person with a lot
> of money wrote a similar program earlier or not.
Getting rid of software patents is probably a good idea, but until that
happens, Apple needs to make very sure that it has rights to actually
use any code placed under the APSL. If some patented code slipped into
Mac OS X and someone decided to sue, Apple would be in serious trouble.
[snip]
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:16:00 GMT
Said Tim Hanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:19:12
[...]
>That's the fine line open source tries to walk. Java and dot net are
>owned by private companies, which administer in their own interests,
>regardless of the interest of others and specifically against the
>interests of their competitors. They have that duty to their
>shareholders above that to the community which uses the standards. Add
>that to the dynamic growth in APIs as the field progresses and we have
>chaos.
I'm not sure about the last part ("dynamic growth in APIs"), but I have
to quibble with some of the earlier stuff. I see two problem issues in
your assessment. One is the presumption that "what's bad for my
competitors is good for me." That's only true if you're monopolizing,
BELIEVE IT OR NOT. What is good for competition is good for all
competitors, really. The "yea, but we'd make even more if we made it
all" thinking is simply not competitive, and is not acceptable whether
unconsciously or consciously realized, and no corporation's duty to
their shareholders extends to breaking the law.
Second, once a technology becomes in use sufficiently to qualify in any
way for the term 'standard', the "owner", quite frankly, loses all of
their ability to prevent other's from using it or changing it to meet
their needs. Despite the corporation's "duty to the community which
uses the standards", if they should modify the standard to benefit
themselves at the expense of a competitor a) they are breaking the law,
and the expense is born by the consumers (all the consumers, including
the ones who are customers of the corporation at issue), and b) any
competitor is free to ignore copyright and even patent laws in
correcting the situation.
Granted, I'll admit this is all "in theory", and it does require people
to act like they have a brain and a backbone, but my point is to try to
break up some of the ubiquitous assumption that companies make money by
screwing others, rather than by producing as much as they can at the
lowest cost they can.
>One can't subvert or pollute software licensed under the GPL. By using
>GPL in your program you are agreeing that your work is also under that
>license, so code forking hijacking standards, and all the other
>proprietary sins are impossible.
>
>I agree that GPL code is not for everything, but for the infrastructure
>there's nothing like it.
Other than where it is both easy and common to monopolize, there is no
circumstance I can think of where GPL is not the most efficient means of
production.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:16:02 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 19 Feb 2001 03:43:44
>On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:42:39 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Bob Hauck in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 17 Feb 2001 00:45:04
>>>On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 00:26:48 +0200, Ayende Rahien
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>My main development computer is a PIII-500 + 384MB
>>>>I *still* try make everything I run be as efficent as possible.
>>>
>>>Efficiency is a goal that is relative to some criteria. If you have a
>>>fast network and a slow cpu, then it doesn't make sense to make the cpu
>>>do a lot of work to optimize the network.
>>
>> In principle alone you might have a point, but in the real world there's
>> no such thing as a CPU which could be "slow" in comparison to even the
>> "fastest" network.
>
>In the early 80's it was fairly common for a cpu to be unable to
>saturate a 10 Mbit ethernet using TCP/IP.
Forgive my pedantry. It is simply an oversimplification to use the term
'cpu' here; that's all I was trying to say.
>> The plain truth is, there's nothing in the world that the CPU can do
>> to "optimize" the network;
>
>Sure it can. As one example, the CPU can compress the data to reduce
>the use of network bandwidth. This is an example of trading computation
>(which takes time) for bandwidth. If you save enough transmission time
>to pay for the compression, you win. If not, compression is a net
>performance loss.
Again, another minuscule point: you optimize *use of* the network; the
network itself is not optimized. Again, using 'the network' as verbal
shorthand, in the same way you did 'cpu', is intelligible, certainly,
but not as precise as others may require. Notably, people who know more
about the network and less about the host. You're setting up the
classical "its not the server, its the network/its not the network, its
the server" volleyball game that wastes so much time in IT organizations
all over the planet. This is where those come from.
>> The compression schemes for X are because of its historical flexibility.
>> It seriously isn't optimized; Ayende has a bit of a point, there.
>
>What is "optimum" then? It would seem to be relative to some criteria,
>don't you think? A thing that is optimum for one situation is not so
>for another.
I agree. So if something is *worse*, according to some arbitrary but
objective metric, at anything other than what it is designed for, it is
most "optimized". In this way, X is not optimized; it is usable in a
wide variety of situations.
>Two decades ago, the typical cpu couldn't fully utilize the network
>bandwidth it had available, and if it did compression it would be even
>worse off. The time to do the compression was more than the time saved
>by sending less.
In a very similar way, if X is optimized for scenarios which don't occur
in the modern world, it is not optimized. It is 'compressing'
unnecessarily, thus wasting time being good at something nobody uses it
for. Do you follow?
What I'm trying to say is that whether X is "optimized" isn't a question
of how fast it is at one thing, but how fast it is at various things.
If any portion of those things are not routinely used, now, several
decades after X was designed, then it is not optimized; it doesn't
matter how "fast" it is. It could be faster at what we use it for if it
were slower at those things we don't often use it for.
IOW; what I meant by "X isn't optimized" is "X wasn't designed for a
strictly limited problem domain, as all the remote methods by Microsoft
are." The performance of X (both 'on the wire' and 'on the host') could
be improved if we could sacrifice backward compatibility and eliminate
all those things which were in the original problem domain which are not
any longer, and "optimize" how X responds to those things which are in
the problem domain today that were not at the time of design. But that
itself is mere supposition on my part, I must admit.
>That was my point, which seems to have completely escaped you. Perhaps
>I wasn't being clear.
It is an interesting point, and I did not fully understand what you were
trying to say the first time. Thank you for clarifying. I still
bristle at setting up such dichotomies, and would again point out that
you're over-simplifying, but I understand what you were saying. The
other network guys might not, and I suggest you try to think of "the
network" as three different things: the software (X, HTTP, or whatever
other 'application' you are considering), the internetwork (TC/IP) and
the transmission system (Ethernet), and bear in mind that the software
doesn't ever touch or see the Ethernet. Munging together the
internetwork and the transmission system into "the network" might seem
to make sense from the perspective of someone writing the software, but
it causes bad software design, inevitably, as there's no more
relationship between the TCP/IP and the Ethernet than there is between X
and TCP/IP. In contrast to your simplified 'compression' example,
optimizing use of the internetwork is not the same as optimizing use of
the transmission system, in many real-world cases which do not have the
luxury of presuming that there is only one protocol on only one host
using only one transmission system, which is the default thinking.
You can just tell me to shut up and stop bothering you, now, btw.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:16:04 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 19 Feb 2001 03:48:22
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:42:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > In truth, ssh is telnet with encrypted passwords.
>>
>> It is more like telnet, encrypted. Everything sent over the ssh
>> connection is encrypted, not just the passwords.
Thanks, Bob.
>Jeez, even I knew that.
>
>Just goes to show you that Max is all talk and no intelligence.
FOAD, Chad.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: 19 Feb 2001 18:21:33 GMT
Aaron Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Get enough fissionable material, and you merely have to drop plug-B
: into hollowed-out-part-A, and the thing goes off...in a foolproof
: manner.
This is the "gun method" for building a nuke. This method is best done with
the plug being sent into the BARELY subcritical mass rapidly, making it
supercritical, causing the desired explosion. This method is used with U-235.
There are variations of this method, such as using C-4 to slam two barely
subcritical halves together to cause the desired explosion and for larger
versions multiple slices. Timing of the detonation of the C-4 becomes critical
when you use more than two slices of the nuke stuff.
The mass of fissionable material has to be brought together rapidly to get the
best yield from your device. Otherwise, you get a dirty low-yield weapon or
even a dirty dud.
Fun question: Why does it sound like I could write the Nuclear Weapon HOWTO???
And to think I was born just days before the Cuban Missile Crisis...
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:21:54 GMT
Said Adam Warner in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:27:55
+1300;
>Hi all,
>
>> Read the outrageous story at:
>> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4833927.html?tag=owv
>
>I noticed this piece of life imitating art from /.:
>http://www.segfault.org/story.phtml?mode=2&id=3a87eaa5-07b280c0
>
>This piece of satire was written three days before Microsoft's comments
>about open source being Anti-American.
That's friggen' scary! Check it out.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ taking over linux?
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:22:05 -0500
Gareth Brereton wrote:
>
> the first amend*what*? sorry im in australia
>
Sorry to hear that
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/constitution.html
(of course, their is one suck part about being
in the US....the women here are angry, ungrateful, lard-butts).
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> >
> > Gareth Brereton wrote:
> >
> >> i was wondering... if M$ distrobuted linux running a proprietary gui,
> >> installer/pakaging system, command line tools, etc (basically only the
> >> kernel is GPL)... then they promoted it like they've done with the XBox
> >> people would use it... wouldnt that give billy control to do what he
> >> likes? sorry.... im paranoid, just wondering if anyone has had any
> >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Just like the First Amendment gives you the right to say pretty much
> > whatever you please.
> >
> > But...there's a catch
> >
> > Nobody is required to Listen.
> >
> > And ... what has Billy sooooooooooo upset about Linux is....it means
> > that now, nobody has to buy Mafiasoft crapware if they don't want to.
> >
> >
> >> similar thoughts and why or why not microsoft could do something like this
--
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: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would Linux be invented if?
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:23:41 GMT
Glitch wrote:
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> > Isn't it funny how all those companies who HAD OBJECTIVES to
> > conquer Windows failed and the one who was just playing one
> > year with a kernel with NO AMBITIONS WHAT-SO-EVER will be
> > the one to topple Microsoft.
> >
> > This is the work of god.
> >
>
> That is sort of ironic when you think about it, considering Linus is
> atheist.
Is this true? I hadn't heard.
Well, in any case, it would not be the first time
an atheist played a key role in a divine plan.
jjs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
