Linux-Advocacy Digest #626, Volume #32 Sat, 3 Mar 01 22:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Pat McCann)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How would you do this with Linux ? (Bloody Viking)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: How would you do this with Linux ? (Bloody Viking)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Copyright Law) (Alan)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Alan)
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("JS PL")
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux Joke ("Keldon Warlord 2000")
Re: Linux Joke (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 03 Mar 2001 18:04:37 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
> That is why calling the GPV free is a baldfaced lie.
"Free" is such a fuzzy word as to be almost meaningless. It is
universally understood to be a warning sign meaning "beware of
con job". (I say that even as a recent convert to the unfortunately-
named FreeBSD. At least I can say I'm happy to have never seen it
followed by "(as in freedom or free speech, not beer)".)
I wish Jay and others would give the GNU crowd this one and limit their
protest to the use of quotes on "free". If someone licenses proprietary
software at no cost (as with the GPL), it is truthful English, if not
precise/careful/accurate English, to call the license free, regardless
of anyone's meaning or intent. We probably should even allow them to
get away with the very inaccurate and misleading "this is free software"
as long as we point out to the newbies that this is "(as in beer, not
freedom or free speech)", though even the beer part is not strictly true
(it is the license that is no-cost, not the software).
I also wish Jay and others would help me bash GNU misuses of the word
"proprietary" which has (had pre-GNU, anyway) an utterly black-and-white
meaning in intellectual property contexts. (In fact, an older term for
intellectual property is "proprietary information".) Their like the
ignoramuses who call open source software "public domain" software,
except these people aren't ignorant. I think it stems mostly from the
herd (hurd?) effect, in that people follow other people's errors,
especially if it is useful and helps with the propaganda. Also, many
people carelessly think that since secrets are almost always
proprietary, then only secrets (eg, closed source) can be proprietary.
One need only consider patented ideas to see the fallacy in that.
The misuse of "proprietary" is especially irksome since it is so
unnecessary. It is usually used as a contrast to "free" or "open"
when it is easy an obvious to use "non-free","unfree", "closed",
"non-open" "not open", etc.
"Copyleft" (which is often what is being talked instead of "free" or
"open") about doesn't have a reasonable "opposite", so it is seldom, if
ever, (mis)compared with "proprietary" except in round-about ways. It
usually is given a free ride on the coat-tails of "free software", some
of which (that in the PD) truely is non-proprietary.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 4 Mar 2001 02:05:46 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:06 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 27 Feb 2001 17:57:26
>>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:01:50 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>>
>>>Sure, then can do that. Or they could spend the money on marketing.
>>>But they don't _have_ to do 2x as much work for a 2x increase in sales,
>>>and I don't think they do. MS reports net profit margins in the
>>>neighborhood of 50%, which means that they sure aren't putting all of
>>>their money back into R&D.
>>
>>If their profits are 50% though, they certainly don't do 1x the work
>>for 2x the sales, right ? BTW, I don't find 50% margins that excessive
>>for a wildly succesful software company.
>
>How about for an illegal monopoly?
If they are indeed an illegal monopoly, then I would think that in itself
is cause to issue a judgement against them without some dumbass
unsubstantiated horseshit about "high prices".
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: How would you do this with Linux ?
Date: 4 Mar 2001 02:16:52 GMT
peter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I've talk to a few small business and some STILL use a paper inventory
: system...WOW, so a smart, knowledgable person could go in and automate
: many facets of their business for very little cost (by using the right
: tools, etc).
Don't know about the rest of business, but this is how I'd do it. Each cash
register computer logs each purchase, and each purchase of an item gets
deducted from the inventory in stock.
If each computer has a keyboard-wedge scanner to read barcodes, this problem
is about trivial, only requiring some Attention To Detail to solve by
programming. A keyboard-wedge scanner sends its input to the keyboard input
and sends a RETURN signal too, to "mash the RETURN key". I actually bought
such a scanner to experiment with, and it does work.
During my experiments, I got my Linux box to play like a cash register with
only a shell script and some trivial C. And the C code is about like that of a
C newbie. Get creative, and it could keep a running inventory of a given item
in stock. For an actual store, each cash register computer would be linked via
LAN (NE2000 being my favourite method) to a server box in the back. For a
small business this fairly simple method of inventory control would work fine.
You could then programme the stock server to print up forms to order more
inventory at your descretion. The programming isn't that hard, at least so
long as you don't need a fancy display in your office. Personally, I like a
CLI instead of a GUI, but I'm not everybody. (:
You could also keep track of payroll as each cashier must login too. Creative
programming can go a LONG ways! You don't have to be the greatest programmer
either. THAT is a nice thing about using Linux. I'm no hot-shot programmer by
any means, but I could do it. All the programming needed is math and some text
formatting in a CLI mode. With a GUI however, any display becomes a bitch to
programme for, enough that I gave up on Visual BASIC. ASCII forever!
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: 4 Mar 2001 02:17:04 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:58:24 GMT, Giuliano Colla wrote:
>Dave wrote:
>IMHO Allchin's comment was determined more by the open-source
>availability of Star Office. An open source multi-platform Office suite
I think it had something to do with the recent Napster row, and the
coverage on slashdot. IMO, Slashdot are doing the community an enormous
disservice by associating Linux and OpenSource with Napster, because
it creates the completely false impression that Linux users are a bunch
of jackbooted thugs who are out to disposses programmers.
Of course this is a load of horseshit, and Linux has absolutely nothing
to do with Napster, Linux is based on a gift culture, where people
*give*, and people in the community *respect* the wishes of the authors
of a given piece of software.
Napster is quite the opposite. Napster protect their
"intellectual property", while at the same time pushing the line
"information wants to be free", and showing absolutely *no* respect
for the wishes of not only copyright holders, but also the artists.
Napster and the majority of their users are no better than the record
companies that they are so fond of trashing.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 02:20:17 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97qm1h$3op$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> You are only considering the freedom of the distributer and not the
> >> receiver (ignoring the case wherer the receiver is also the
> >> distributer, for the moment).
> >
> > Yes, please consider the receiver when the receiver is anyone other than
> > a program developer himself, and wants working software, software that
> > interoperates with other things that may be propriatary and may be
> > willing to pay for it. How is this person's ability to obtain and use
> > the well-tested free portion of the code as a part of the program he
> > actually wants affected?
>
> Not everyone in the world has free or broadband access. If I bought
> something and got sent the CDs (without source code) I would not have the
> code.
Not everyone wants or needs code. The burden of getting it should be
left to the ones who do want it, not imposed on everyone else.
> When I don't have boradband access, it would not be proctical to
> download BSD for me to look at the code. Whereas, I paid for Linux on CD
> and got the code too. This point is especially important for most places
> in the world, since most places do not have unmetered access.
Be honest now: how many megabytes of that code have you improved? Has
it really been too much to download over a modem? Besides, what you
get on a CD is always out of date. You really want access to the current
CVS repository if you are doing anything that needs source in the first
place. Would you really try to fix a bug in that old copy of source before
looking for an update?
>
> >> The free licenses are more free than the GPL for the distributer since
> >> there are fewer restrictions.
> >
> > And for the recipient.
>
> No. The recipient may receive it with restrictions.
I thought we were talking about the recipient's freedom, not your
unilateral demands. Why do you insist that the recipient not have
the freedom to choose the restrictions or lack thereof that are
acceptable?
> >> However, those licenses enable the distributer to place restrictions on
> >> the code, so for the person receiving it it will not be as free.
> >
> > Beg your pardon, but it those things will be non-existant with GPL
> > code. I don't see how people mange to confuse that with 'more free'.
>
> I don't follow. The GPL disallows more restrictions, so the software
> maintains its level of freedom, where as the other ones can lose it.
Try again. The GPL can only add restrictions. Consider the case
where the software you need must include components (say encryption
or encoding/decoding methods) that are patented and under control
of someone else, and you are perfectly willing to comply with the
licensing terms for those components. The GPL restrictions prevent
you from obtaining or distributing ANY GPL component used in
a derived work (and the FSF considers linking to a library as making
a derived work) with these other needed parts. Such a thing cannot
legally exist unless you build it yourself, and even that is questionable.
So, back to the recipient of such code - his freedom to obtain and use
it doesn't exist.
> > Judge the freedom of the recipient by the number of choices he can make.
>
> There are many ways to judge freedom. i'm using a different judge of it
> from you. That is why comparing freedom in this way is fruitless since
> there are so many ways to interpret it or judge it.
>
> -Ed
But you aren't judging freedom at all. You are judging how well the
situation
meets your own demands. Freedom does not involve reducing the possible
ways you can use a piece of code that anyone is allowed to obtain.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: How would you do this with Linux ?
Date: 4 Mar 2001 02:24:17 GMT
Edward Rosten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Many Winvocates would laugh at the idea of using dumb terminals (eg WYSE,
: VT equivalent), but a char based interface (not CLI) is a very simple and
: robust way of doing things (and doesn' require space to operate a mouse).
: Many companies I have seen actually use them on the shop floor. They're
: cheaper, more robust and less power hungry than PCs. They work well with
: any UNIX system.
>From what I see, people do adapt well to dumb terms or other CLI style things.
It's like how black people WILL adapt to cold in a building. I've seen both.
Trust me, I've seen both at an annex where I used to work. Besides my setting
the heat to my taste in winter (I'm a Mr. Freeze type.) the place used dumb
terms hooked by a LAN to a server setup in a computer room designed much like
an ISP.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance (Copyright Law)
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 02:25:21 GMT
17 United States Code, Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair
use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether
such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in
relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is
unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding
is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Interestingly, it appears that the "mutilation" of the Windows opening
sequence for new computers may be Section 106A.
Sec. 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity
(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. - Subject to section 107
and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the
author of a work of visual art -
(1) shall have the right -
(A) to claim authorship of that work, and
(B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author
of any work of visual art which he or she did not
create;
(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her
name as the author of the work of visual art in the
event of a distortion, mutilation, or other
modification of the work which would be prejudicial to
his or her honor or reputation; and
(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d),
shall have the right -
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation,
or other modification of that work which would
be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation,
and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or
modification of that work is a violation of that
right, and
(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized
stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent
destruction of that work is a violation of that
right.
One question that, IIRC, the judges showed some skepticism is that
OEMs changing the bootup screen, or offering Netscape, constituted a
"mutilation."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 02:28:56 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:02:31 GMT, Giuliano Colla
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You mean that if someone takes control of all the commerce of grain in
>USA, imposing exclusive contracts with all farmers, and owning all the
>warehouses where grain is stored, it could not be possibly sued for
>monopolistic action on the ground that you may grow grain in your back
>yard? I believe you're out of your mind, son.
Bravo! You have really absorbed U.S. history on this subject. FWIW I
am very impressed.
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <js@plcom>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 21:42:08 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 03 Mar 2001
> >JS PL wrote:
> >>
> >> But your IQ theory only applies to those in the 50 to 120 range. Since
I'm
> >> 160 I can see the obvious. There's no possible monopoly when theres
always
> >> been a huge number of OS choices.
>
>
> Monopoly is the ability to control prices (maintaining them above
> competitive levels) and exclude competition. The number of "choices" is
> irrelevant; just the fact that 95% of consumers are forced to buy
> Windows.
Only 95% are forced to buy windows? Why not 100%?? What is different about
the five percent that they are exempt from being "FORCED" to buy windows?
That's quite odd that only 95% of otherwise "equal" consumers are FORCED to
buy Windows. Do the other five percent get some kind of notification in the
mail that they are exempt from being FORCED to buy Windows??
And on controlling prices - the OEM pays about $40-$60 for Windows9x/ME. I'd
be pretty hard pressed to name much commercially available software that
costs less than that. I'm used to paying in the $100-$500 range for my other
software.
The funny thing is I gave someone a copy of Mandrake last month, he
installed it all gung ho about how much better he had heard it supposed to
be. I said nothing at all to sway his gung ho-ness, just stood there nodding
and agreeing with all the bull he had heard about Linux. I talked to him a
week later and he was asking how to reclaim the HD back to a DOS partition.
It was the same old story, couldn't find any hardware, didn't have anything
more to offer than Windows anyway.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: 4 Mar 2001 02:48:34 GMT
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 23:10:30 GMT, Adam Warner wrote:
>Hi Mig,
>
>> Lets not forget that KDE is the default desktop for the majority of
>> professionaly oriented Linux distributions like Caldera, Mandrake, Suse
>> - only exceptions are RedHat (dont know about Debian). There must be
>> a good reason for that :-)
>
>Those distributors didn't care about preserving software freedom but
>instead decided to ship the then more stable and polished KDE without
>considering the implications of the Qt license.
>
>Redhat deserves credit for supporting Gnome along with the Free Software
>Foundation and of course Debian. To data Redhat has always behaved with
>great respect for free software and I hope that continues.
There's no doubt in my mind they did the right thing, Of course, they were
criticised at the time, but you can't please everybody, and maybe that's
a good thing (because it makes it easier to do the right thing)
I thought it was opportunistic of certain other distributors to include it,
it's sort of like saying "we're just like Redhat, but without the same moral
constraints".
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 4 Mar 2001 02:49:42 GMT
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 23:01:03 GMT, Ed Allen wrote:
>In article <_ddo6.31$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >I'm a little confused here. When exactly was Microsoft "almost giving
>>away "
>>> >the office products?
>>>
>>> When they were forcing OEMs to bundle it by threatening their Windows
>>> licenses, dumping it by using monopoly revenues to subsidize it, and
>>> further ensuring that consumers never saw the price tag for it, no
>>> matter what it was. So if you got a new PC, you got Office; that's
>>> "almost giving away", if you innocently presume it isn't monopolization.
>>
>>You state this as fact. Yet, I've seen no evidence to support this. It
>>hasn't been asserted in any court of law.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> "It's not illegal if you don't get caught."
>
> Sounds like sock-puppet wisdom to me.
How about "guilty until proven innocent" ? You can't proclaim someone
guilty based purely on heresay and conjecture.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: 4 Mar 2001 02:52:04 GMT
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 22:57:40 GMT, Adam Warner wrote:
>Hi Mig,
>
>It is my understanding (limited as it is) that GNOME provides a superior
>component architecture that will lead to more code reuse and
>interoperability between applications.
>
>I obtained some of my information from here:
>http://developer.gnome.org/arch/component/
ORBit is nice, but useless to KDE since it is C based. BTW, writing
CORBA applications in C is like brain surgery, it not a big problem
I still wish that KDE had gone with CORBA though.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Keldon Warlord 2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 19:54:47 -0800
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Q. Why does the Linux user constantly obtain
> upgrades of the kernel and other OS facilities?
>
> A. Because he can.
wrong answer.
the real answer is: because he has to.
--
"One by one the Penguins steal my sanity." (found printed on a T-shirt)
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 03:03:21 GMT
Keldon Warlord 2000 wrote:
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Q. Why does the Linux user constantly obtain
> > upgrades of the kernel and other OS facilities?
> >
> > A. Because he can.
>
> wrong answer.
>
> the real answer is: because he has to.
Nope.
Wrong answer, you lose, thanks for playing!
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
******************************
