Linux-Advocacy Digest #637, Volume #32 Sun, 4 Mar 01 14:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Donn Miller)
Re: Why can't Apple do it? (Elvis2001)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (pip)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (mlw)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Edward Rosten")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: If I delete using rm? ("Mike")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Dave)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Dave)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Alan)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (Dave)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 12:17:47 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
pip wrote:
>
> Donn Miller wrote:
> >
> > I start freaking out. There's something I can't stand about Windows,
> > but I can't figure it out. I have to have a command line, and when I
> > can't have a command line, I can feel my brain cells start to stagnate.
> > I suffer from sensory deprivation. Windows just seems devoid of all
> > intellectual activities.
>
> start->run "command"
OK, everyone knows this one. It's not a command shell. I'm speaking of
a full-featured command-line shell with filename completion, complete
with CLI tools, like awk, sed and grep. Does start->run do this? No.
It's kinda hard to work with a command line without virtual consoles.
Windows doesn't have a true command line - it just has a DOS prompt.
Linux is more flexible, in that it's really easy to open multiple VC's
and switch between them. The DOS box command line is kinda hard to work
with, seeing as to how the default window manager on Windows (Internet
Explorer) doesn't allow you to work with virtual workspaces. You're
forced to work within the confines of the crippled environment Windows
gives you. Windows is stifling in that it forces you to program and/or
interact with a GUI 99% of the time.
And after all this, why even bother working with a crippled system with
an outrageous license like Windows?
Of course, I will admit Windows has its good points. For example, all
the companies in the world support Windows, because it is so numerous in
quantity, and is so mainstream. Also, maybe the user interface is nice
at helping completely computer illiterate people use the computer. But
other than that, it's a crippled system. There are even better
alternatives for computer newbies, such as BeOS and Mac OS-X.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Elvis2001 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Apple do it?
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 17:30:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Rudd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Subscription based computing in the consumer space will fail. (ie. .Net
> is nothing to worry about, and will only be useful to people well
> outside of the consumer space)
IN other words - it will fail for the same reason DIVX did. That is,
despite copyright laws, there is a sense of ownerwhip one experiences
when buying a DVD, software app, etc. You buy it, you own it, you get
to use it whenever you want. Period.
JW
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 17:40:42 +0000
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> pip wrote:
> >
> > Donn Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > I start freaking out. There's something I can't stand about Windows,
> > > but I can't figure it out. I have to have a command line, and when I
> > > can't have a command line, I can feel my brain cells start to stagnate.
> > > I suffer from sensory deprivation. Windows just seems devoid of all
> > > intellectual activities.
> >
> > start->run "command"
>
> OK, everyone knows this one. It's not a command shell. I'm speaking of
> a full-featured command-line shell with filename completion, complete
> with CLI tools, like awk, sed and grep. Does start->run do this? No.
No, of course you are right. I think that you may be able to get a bash
port, but generally it is a real pain in the bum. Also very annoying as
I keep on using unix commands in windows - doh!
> It's kinda hard to work with a command line without virtual consoles.
Very - vc's are the best!
> Windows doesn't have a true command line - it just has a DOS prompt.
> Linux is more flexible, in that it's really easy to open multiple VC's
> and switch between them.
Very much
>The DOS box command line is kinda hard to work
> with,
hard is an understatement - shit I believe is a more appropriate word.
>seeing as to how the default window manager on Windows (Internet
> Explorer) doesn't allow you to work with virtual workspaces.
Well, there is an interesting program I saw that enables this, but it is
not possible by default. The program (sorry I don't have links) was
written by someone who had to work with windows and got fed up :-)
>You're
> forced to work within the confines of the crippled environment Windows
> gives you. Windows is stifling in that it forces you to program and/or
> interact with a GUI 99% of the time.
Yup - 100% correct
> And after all this, why even bother working with a crippled system with
> an outrageous license like Windows?
Because some things ARE better and/or easier. Examples: web-browsing,
word-processing and more importantly game playing (no emacs is great
needed - this is just my opinion). Driver support and some software
availability.
> Of course, I will admit Windows has its good points.
Ahhhh, good progress. I may have misjudged you :-)
>For example, all
> the companies in the world support Windows, because it is so numerous in
> quantity, and is so mainstream.
Yes, also with programming you have unified API's and can use may
components and component models to save time.
>Also, maybe the user interface is nice
> at helping completely computer illiterate people use the computer.
The UI is OK, but I don't feel that it is intuitive for new people. I
_know_ this for a fact as I also do a bit of private tuition and find
people who are really new to computer still have a very hard time with
the way in which M$ does their UI. But in many ways it is still far more
integrated than KDE or Gnome in terms of functionality.
>But
> other than that, it's a crippled system. There are even better
> alternatives for computer newbies, such as BeOS and Mac OS-X.
Well, I don't know about BeOS and Mac OS-X I thought was still in beta,
but yes I would NEVER claim that M$ UI is the best - in fact __far__
from it.
Don't get me wrong - I am no windows advocate, but it really freaks me
out when Linux users critisise areas of the win32 OS that don't deserve
it as there are plenty of areas that do! As a dual Linux and Windows
user I know that no system is perfect. As a programmer I love Linux - it
is the best thing ever! But I also know that there are areas where it is
a real pain in the bottom.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 13:13:30 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On 03 Mar 2001 08:10:28 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
> >
> >> This is standard GPV zealot doublethink. You *cannot* remove freedoms from
> >> the original code. That code is now, and will always be, free. If that were
> >> not the case, then the BSD codebase would have disappeared into SunOS a
> >> long, long time ago.
> >>
> >> Freedom must necessarily include the freedom to do things that piss you off,
> >> or else it is a hollow shell. The BSD license does, and the GPV does not.
> >> That is why calling the GPV free is a baldfaced lie.
> >
> >Enforced freedom.
> >
> >Whether it's an oxymoron or not depends on who you are.
>
> To me it certainly is.
>
> However, we should also look at what the GNU crowd mean by "free". They
> talk about the software being "free", as if the software has rights. If
> you believe that the "rights" of the software outweighs the rights of the
> user, then use the GPL. If you believe that the "rights" of the community
> outweigh the rights of the individual, get yourself a copy of the communist
> manifesto, move to China (or Cuba), and use the GPL.
>
The communism analogy is false in every respect. Under GPL, I may release
software for others to use. That is my choice and freedom. By releasing the
code as GPL I am not limiting my ownership or control.
With GPL, no ones code can be used without proper compensation. If you do not
wish to compensate me for my code, then do not use my code. The hitch in GPL is
the incorporation of GPL code into some other code base must be compensated.
The legal definition for "adequate compensation" for the use of GPL code, is
the contribution of modifications back to the community. If you do not want to
do this, then you are free to negotiate with the individual copyright owners
and settle terms and conditions which will allow you to use their code without
the GPL restrictions.
The communism argument works very well against the BSD license, where once
released, you no longer own your code. People can do with it as they see fit,
leaving you no rights. One man's freedom is another's repression.
--
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
consistency.
-- Albert Einstein
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 12:06:21 +0600
Tim Hanson wrote:
> I don't think that is the "threat" he was addressing. His argument was
> with taxpayer supported software and the GPL. He was saying, in effect,
> "Our company pays taxes to support the creation of software we can't
> fold into our products." This refers to, among others, the Beowolf
> project, which was developed with the at least in part by NASA, but
> which Microsoft can't stea^H^H^H^H use because of the license. He was
> saying that since Microsoft dollars fund NASA through taxes, Microsoft
> ought to be able to reap the benefits.
FWIW, the Beowulf code would be useless to MS, because it won't run with
Windows. (Actually, parts of it might, but the kernel hacks definitely won't.)
If they wanted to they could create a me-too that *would* run with Windows,
because the GPL is a license to the code, and nothing else -- the GPL doesn't
patent the idea. They would just have to write their own code. (Though I
suppose it's possible that someone did patent the Beowulf system. Anyone know?)
What has MS upset is that even if they did come out with a Windows-based
BeoClone, not many people would use it. Who wants to pay for hundreds of W2K
licenses (plus the extra BeoClone license), and then still have a system that
runs slower because of W2K's bloat. (Yes, trolls, it's possible to build a
bloated Linux system too. But what's important here is the ability to build a
customized non-bloated system, which Linux offers and MS doesn't.)
I don't know exactly what JA was complaining about, because he and other MS
execs are apparently prone to shooting their mouths off sans aforethought
(contrary to popular opinion, not everything spewing out of Redmond is part of
some master plan designed by some infallible genius). But what's actually
hurting MS is the fact that GPLware is free (and thus can't be undercut by
bundling), not associated with a company (and thus can't be bought out or driven
to bankruptcy), and it yields products that are constantly forking and mutating
to give more and better products.
Microsoft's traditional "crush-kill-destroy" strategy won't work against
GPLware, so now their only recourse is legislation. (Actually, their
"value-added" recourse is still there, as it always has been, but they
apparently have religious qualms against relying on it. It's Capitalism's
greatest shame that a company sitting on a pile of gold the size of MS's has to
compete by destroying the competition directly, rather than actually generating
a better product. I suspect I could have rounded up about 1000 associates and
produced a pretty darn fine suite of products from scratch within a couple of
years, if I had the money that MS spent on marketing alone last year.)
At any rate, it's certainly in JA's best interest if governments buy MS trash so
he and his cronies can pocket the money, rather than letting those governments
use stuff that they get for free (and often even give back in improved form).
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[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 18:15:52 +0000
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jay
Maynard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:26:24 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I believe you don't have to modify the work to change the license.
>>Besides the origional is not necessarily easy to obtain.
>
> If you do not change the work, you are not its author, and so you can
> neither claim nor enforce a copyright on it. You cannot, therefore,
> change the license under which it is distributed and make it stick - or
> else the multitudes calling for GPVing the BSD codebase would have done
> so already.
>
> The BSDL, or any other truly free license, is permanent for the code to
> which it is applied.
>
>>Choice is only one measure of freedom. there are others.
>
> All freedom boils down to choice.
OK, apply one tiny, trivial change. The repeat as above.
-ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: 4 Mar 2001 18:18:58 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 13:13:30 -0500, mlw wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> On 03 Mar 2001 08:10:28 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
>> >
>> >> This is standard GPV zealot doublethink. You *cannot* remove freedoms from
>> >> the original code. That code is now, and will always be, free. If that were
>> >> not the case, then the BSD codebase would have disappeared into SunOS a
>> >> long, long time ago.
>> >>
>> >> Freedom must necessarily include the freedom to do things that piss you off,
>> >> or else it is a hollow shell. The BSD license does, and the GPV does not.
>> >> That is why calling the GPV free is a baldfaced lie.
>> >
>> >Enforced freedom.
>> >
>> >Whether it's an oxymoron or not depends on who you are.
>>
>> To me it certainly is.
>>
>> However, we should also look at what the GNU crowd mean by "free". They
>> talk about the software being "free", as if the software has rights. If
>> you believe that the "rights" of the software outweighs the rights of the
>> user, then use the GPL. If you believe that the "rights" of the community
>> outweigh the rights of the individual, get yourself a copy of the communist
>> manifesto, move to China (or Cuba), and use the GPL.
>>
>
>The communism analogy is false in every respect. Under GPL, I may release
>software for others to use. That is my choice and freedom. By releasing the
>code as GPL I am not limiting my ownership or control.
However, RMS says explicitly that he doesn't want to coexist with
proprietary software, in other words, the ideal FSF world is one
where programmers have no chioce but to release software for free.
His rhetoric really does remind me of the communist manifesto.
I realise that there are people who release software under the GPL
and have a completely different philosophical outlook that is
equally consistent with their choice of license.
However, RMS and the FSF really do seem to be all about limiting "ownership"
and "control".
My grievance is more with RMS's rhetoric about "freedom" than it is
about the GPL itself ( I've licensed software under both the GPL and
LGPL. I prefer the latter for reasons I discuss in another post)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 18:21:06 +0000
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jay
Maynard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:21:58 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quoted:
>>> 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
>
> I have not seen the message Edward and others are quoting; it may have
> been cancelled.
Must have been. However, I have kept the message bodies. Message reads:
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newsgroups:
gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
References: <97p0gv$ejs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 03 Mar 2001 18:04:37 -0800
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: none
Lines: 42
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Crater Lake)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.55.121.158
X-Trace: 3 Mar 2001 18:04:48 -0800, 207.55.121.158
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.157.220.254
Path:
news.ox.ac.uk!server3.netnews.ja.net!server4.netnews.ja.net!server2.netnews.ja.net!btnet-peer0!btnet!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!sjc1.nntp.concentric.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!newsfeed.nwlink.com!huge.aa.net!207.55.121.158
Xref: news.ox.ac.uk gnu.misc.discuss:36176 comp.os.linux.advocacy:260546
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy:64146 misc.int-property:13511
[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 18:23:08 GMT
On 4 Mar 2001 16:38:30 GMT, Perry Pip wrote:
>On 4 Mar 2001 15:42:19 GMT,
[ irrelevance snipped ]
We were discussing Win 9x prices.
FYI, Academic edition of Office : $150-
Academic version of Visual Studio Pro: I got it for $69-.
Server licenses: No idea. Probably no worse than Novell's (also completey
irrelevant to this discussion since they don't have anything like a
monopoly in the server market)
>From another angle, do you know what MS's reported profit margins are??
You need a better argument than "they're succesful, so they must be bad"
to make a credible case.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: 4 Mar 2001 18:24:48 GMT
On 04 Mar 2001 09:18:38 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>
>> However, we should also look at what the GNU crowd mean by "free". They
>> talk about the software being "free", as if the software has rights. If
>> you believe that the "rights" of the software outweighs the rights of the
>> user, then use the GPL. If you believe that the "rights" of the community
>> outweigh the rights of the individual, get yourself a copy of the communist
>> manifesto, move to China (or Cuba), and use the GPL.
>
>I agree, but I can also understand the argument from the other side.
>If the fear of commercial software outweighs your desire to write it,
>then the GPL is for you.
>
>If you would take it as a compliment if Microsoft "stole" your code,
>then the BSD license is for you.
I suppose I have more of a problem with RMS's rhetoric than the license
itself. However, I prefer the LGPL, it's less likely to have unintended
consequences. (Any code can easily become library code)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If I delete using rm?
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 18:27:25 GMT
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Ahh. Did that occasion involve a '*' and a mistyped space?
Funny you should mention that. Our corporate standard configuration for our
Unix workstations includes the Unix standard keyboard, which seems made for
this error - and it happens all the time. The period is directly above the
space bar, and the backspace is directly above the return key. If your right
hand is shifted slightly, it's rather easy to hit the space key instead of
the period, and then hit the return key instead of the backspace when trying
to correct it. Or, to accidentally hit both the period and space, without
realizing it, leading to lines like rm * .txt.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 11:32:01 -0700
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:12:53 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Dave in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 02 Mar 2001 17:07:27 -0700;
>>and b) many states
>>had consumer-protection laws that made shrink-wrap EULA's meaningless
>>unless the consumer could get a refund. Thus without a refund offer
>>customers could pass out all the free copies they wanted to.
>
>All states except Maryland have consumer protection laws in place in
>this regard. Guess which state all modern software licenses are drawn
>up under?
My understanding is that those laws would only apply if you agreed to
the license in the first place, or only if the local laws permitted
shrink-wrap agreements.
>All this "if the law weren't predatory upon the rights of the consumer,
>then how could producers make money, since we know consumers will
>fulfill the entire demand with 'free copies'" is a little sickening.
I think what we have on several fronts here is a mini-revolution.
Consumers want one thing but the various industries have found ways to
shove something else entirely down our throats. So, consumers are
finding their own solutions.
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 11:35:45 -0700
On 4 Mar 2001 15:42:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>I'd argue that Windows is as eassy to install without tech support than Linux
>is with it.
And I'd disagree. A lot of my friends and co-workers are getting into
linux, and since I was a bit ahead of them I usually end up helping
them select and install a distro. Mostly I stick with Slackware for
the techies and SuSE for the nontechies. Both these distro's have
given me fewer installation problems than Windows 9x. Average
installation time for Slackware plus roughly 300 applications runs
about 15 minutes.
It is true that linux takes significantly more skill to fix when an
install goes awry. However, when a Windows install fails on me the
only fix is usually a new piece of hardware to solve a compatability
problem, whereas with linux I can usually fudge the configuration a
little to get a workable system up and running.
>
>> The same CD which you get from RedHat with a nice manual can be had
>> from CheapBytes for $1.98
>
>No, the Cheapbytes CD only includes the downloadable stuff.
It depends on the distro. With Debian and Slackware the free download
version is exactly the same as what you get in a retail box, and can
be freely copied. SuSE has created a lot of propietary code to make
their distro user-friendly, and they do have different download and
retail versions. However, although you can't legally copy the CD's
except for backups, my reading of the license is that you can install
on as many machines as you want using your original CD's.
------------------------------
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 18:46:51 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 16:02:08 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nowhere in the cites you provided does it say that one can distribute
>the copies one has made of the media.
>
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed, without profit, for research and educational
purposes only. ***
=======================
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 11:46:38 -0700
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 12:06:21 +0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But what's actually
>hurting MS is the fact that GPLware is free (and thus can't be undercut by
>bundling), not associated with a company (and thus can't be bought out or driven
>to bankruptcy), and it yields products that are constantly forking and mutating
>to give more and better products.
In case you haven't seen it yet, here's a link to a nicely written
presentation by Stallman:
The GNU GPL and the American Way
By Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU Project
February 28, 2001 9:46 AM PT
<http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2690949,00.html>
"...Millions of users, tens of thousands of developers, and companies
as large as IBM, Intel, and Sun, have chosen to participate on this
basis. But some companies want the advantages without the
responsibilities."
"...No license can stop Microsoft from practicing "embrace and extend"
if they are determined to do so at all costs. If they write their own
program from scratch, and use none of our code, the license on our
code does not affect them. But a total rewrite is costly and hard, and
even Microsoft can't do it all the time. Hence their campaign to
persuade us to abandon the license that protects our community, the
license that won't let them say, "What's yours is mine, and what's
mine is mine." They want us to let them take whatever they want,
without ever giving anything back. They want us to abandon our
defenses."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
