Linux-Advocacy Digest #653, Volume #32 Mon, 5 Mar 01 11:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Bob Hauck)
Re: Goodwins Law: Thread now dead (Was: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (chrisv)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (mlw)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Perry Pip)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Perry Pip)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Ian Davey)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (mlw)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 14:27:56 GMT
On Mon, 05 Mar 2001 09:08:42 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This can be fixed by something called "FeelX" or "XFeel" or some such. I
>> think I found my copy on microsoft.com someplace.
>
>I have never understood why MS refuse to ship basic config tools with
>their produch.
Me neither.
>> Look for multidesk. It seems to work well and it stays more out of your
>> way than some of the other ones I tried.
>
>Can you drag items from one desk to another like you can on and off the
>pager in FVWM2?
It is not quite as convenient. It shows a little mini-pager in the
system tray. If you right-click a desk it moves the topmost window to
that desk.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.test,misc.test
Subject: Re: Goodwins Law: Thread now dead (Was: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or
Else)
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 11:09:30 +0000
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> did eloquently scribble:
> <AK>
> *******FUCK******* Goodwin
> </AK>
>
WHO?????
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
==============================================================================
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 09:49:35 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > It's just a software license. But since you're having a go at other
> > > open-source licenses: why should you not be able to capitalize on the
> > > work of others without sharing in the cost if that is the aim of the
> > > permissive license? Why is giving away something for free communism?
> >
> > You misunderstand. I don't care what others do in their licensing, what I
> do
> > care about is what others would do with code I have released.
>
> But you do care if you release GPL'd code. You are insisting that any
> code that is used in combination with yours in a way that might be
> considered a derived work (and the FSF considers linking a library
> to make all the linked code a derived work) must also be licensed
> according to your choice, not the author(s) of the other compnents.
Yes I do. If the people who wish to create a "derived work" and want to use my
code in a way I do not wish them too, then use someone else's code. Absolutely,
you have the freedom not to use it.
>
> > If I release something GPL, I have made a conscious choice to release it
> in
> > that manner. The GPL does exactly what I expect it too. Now, if I have
> done a
> > good job people will use my code. If they want to base a product on it,
> they
> > are welcome to do so, IF they contribute any changes back to me, OR they
> pay me
> > to get a copy which is not GPL.
>
> Describing the GPL as above in terms of forcing other people to do what
> you want is much more accurate that the usual nonsense about freedom
> that is bandied about, and it is in fact a good license if your real agenda
> is to prevent the released code from ever competing in a commercial sense
> with something else you are selling. If the rest of the GPL users were
> this
> honest about their motives I don't think anyone would have a problem with
> it.
You misunderstand again. This has nothing to do with competition, it has to do
with compensation and rights. Freedom is all about rights, you do understand
that without rights there is no freedom.
When I create something, I can release it GPL. People have the freedom to use
the code or not. All I ask in return for my code, is that if it is modified
that I receive the improvements and if you want to sell my code, which belongs
to me, you must make sure I agree, because the license by which you came across
my code does not allow to do so.
The is the freedom perspective issue. You are free to use my code as long as
you agree to the terms under which it was released. That is quite reasonable. I
have said in another thread, viable freedom is maintained by reasonable
restraint. GPL outlines a proven viable "freedom" with a very reasonable
restraint.
This is why it is not free as in "beer."
--
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: chrisv <[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: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 14:55:52 GMT
"JS PL" <js@plcom> wrote:
>That's not the point. It doesn't matter if NO ONE want's to build their own
>computer. The fact is, all the components are available and have always been
>available to buy a computer with any or no operating system you choose.
>Therefore, no possibility of a monopoly.
God, are you dense. So you claim that because it's humanly possible,
with enough training (how much would Granny need, I wonder), for
everyone to build their own computer and properly install and
configure an OS, that MS cannot have a monoploy.
SHEESH! GROW A BRAIN!
------------------------------
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: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 10:00:31 -0500
Ian Davey wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> It's amazing how many greedy bastards there are, who want to take and take,
> >> but never give. More incredibly, they view it as their right. Of course,
> >> ever since America began, it's been that way... just ask our aborigines.
> >
> >The Aborigines are in Australia.
>
> "Aborigine: A member of the indigenous or earliest known population of a
> region"
>
> Every country in the world has (or had) Aborigines.
The canonical meaning of Aborigines has become the name of the indigenous
peoples of Australia. It is been pretty much that way for a long time. Being
part native american myself, I have never heard the term "Aborigine" applied to
the indigenous people of the Americas.
It is, however, time to dispel a misconception. Few, if any, society of human
has not acted out of greed. Every century has had their share of those who
take, often quite violently. Yes the U.S. has its share of history, and if that
makes you feel better, good luck to you, but take care not to look too closely
into the history of any people or culture you align yourself with, because you
will find the same atrocities you accuse of others.
History is a great thing. It teaches us humility.
--
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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:07:56 -0300
Rex Ballard wrote:
> It's a mixed bag. KDE has lots of eye candy and a similar look and feel
> to Windows ME
> and Windows 2000 (which makes sense since Windows tried to emulate the
> look and feel
> of both CDE/KDE and Motif). Many of the applications are remarkably
> similar to Windows,
> and qt is available for both Windows and Linux. This solves several
> problems for people
> who want to support both platforms. Of course, there is a price to be
> paid. The professional version licenses for $6,000 per platform per
> programmer.
$6000? Make that $1550. If you have ONE programmer.
$1240 if you have between 11 and 20.
And that's not "per platform". It's between $1860 and $2325 for BOTH
platforms.
Verify at http://www.trolltech.com/products/purchase/pricing.html
> That can be a nasty dent for
> shoestring companies. It also makes it harder to get qualified
> professionals.
Actually, finding qualified professionals experienced in Qt programming is
simple. Just look in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rex, you are as misinformed as usual. Please, newbies, take EVERYTHING
coming from EVERYONE here with a huge amount of caution.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:10:24 -0300
Adam Warner wrote:
> Hi Martigan,
>
>> I have used both, but for me Gnome seems better, Well haven't tried KDE
>> 2.1 yet but what does every one else think? Why is one better than the
>> other? I'm not looking for Windows similarity!
>
> GNOME has a superior architecture. KDE is more polished.
That's GNOME propaganda.
Of course, feel free to explain WHAT is better in GNOME's architecture.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:16:05 -0300
Donn Miller wrote:
>
>> GNOME has a superior architecture. KDE is more polished.
>
> I pretty much agree, although I'd have to say KDE has the better web
> browser (Konqueror) by far. But, I'd probably prefer GNOME over KDE due
> to the fact that GNOME is better able to "play nice" with a wider
> variety of Window Managers than KDE does. For example, I had a hard
> time getting KDE-2 to work with Window Maker, but GNOME worked
> flawlessly with it.
That is because KDE2's kwin was the first WM to actually implement the
agreed-upon WM NET standard. Blackbox was the second, so it should work
just fine as well.
GNOME uses still the old and deprecated custom GNOME hints.
KDE's fast adoption of standards agreed between KDE and GNOME for
interoperation should not be held against KDE ;-)
> Also, the GNOME panel is, IMO, more versatile in
> that it can swallow a wide variety of X apps very nicely.
As can kicker. Kicker can swallow anything, and has special support for
example, for WM dockapps.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:18:11 -0300
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.
You know Red Hat *did* ship KDE 1.x, right? The eeeevil KDE 1.x?
> If you don't know whether Debian would have been using KDE it means you
> don't know that Debian couldn't with all conscience ship KDE as part of
> their main distribution because KDE used to rely on non-free libraries.
He was not talking past, he was talking present. Present is, Debian ships
KDE.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 5 Mar 2001 15:17:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4 Mar 2001 23:45:51 GMT,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 4 Mar 2001 19:21:45 GMT, Perry Pip wrote:
>>On 4 Mar 2001 18:23:08 GMT,
>
>>Anytime you can't respond to something intelligently you respond like
>>that.
>
>Nonsense. I explain why your comments are irrelevant -- because we're
>discussing Win 9x prices.
And as I said, I was talking about whether the OS includes
documentation or not, or whether you pay extra for it. Since you have
to pay extra, it's relevent to what you get for your money when you
pay for the OS.
>>>FYI, Academic edition of Office : $150-
>>>Academic version of Visual Studio Pro: I got it for $69-.
And how is this relavant to Win9x prices?? It seems perfectly valid
for you to 'topic drift' but god forbid anyone else do it. You really
are an arrogant shit.
>>Most of the world is not a lifetime college student like you are. Real
>
>Most of the world also has a higher income. I can afford it at that price,
>someone with twice my salary can afford it for double that, if they really
>need it.
Irrelevent...by your standard for relavance.
>Of course, OEM prices of MS Office are also relatively low. So Joe Home User
>can always get say a cheap Dell with MS Office OEM if he wants to get it
>cheaply.
Irrelevent...by your standard for relavance.
>>world prices are much higher. And even with those prices you've doubled
>>the price of the OS.
>
>I don't understand what you mean (about doubling the price of the OS)
Adding those tools doubled the cost you pay for the base OS. With some
other OS's on the market they are free or next to free. But as you
say, it's irrelevent.
>>I was resonding *your* explicit claim:
>>
>> "What I am saying is that the "MS's prices are too high" claim is
>> unsubstantiated nonsense."
>>
>>
>>Read Judge Jacksons finding of fact part III-F. He says that Microsoft
>>could have sold Win98 for $49 and still have made a reasonalbe
>>profit.
>
>
>So what ? The fact that they can sell it cheaper doesn't mean that
>they have to.
Well a Federal Judge said their prices for Win98 were too high. How
can you tell me it's "unsubstantiated nonsense"?? Who should I
believe, a Federal Judge or a college student??
>> The fact that they have a monopoly, which you acknowledge, by
>>the definition of monopoly means they can fix prices.
>
>If your definition of monopoly is "they can fix prices", then I simply
>don't agree that they have a monopoly. However, that is not the definition
>used by the courts of law AFAIK.
Well AFAYK isn't much. According to DOJ/FTC guidelines:
"the ability profitably to
maintain prices above, or output below, competitive levels for a
significant period of time."
>From the Judge Jackson's Finding of Fact clause 33:
"Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for
Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise
this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for
Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a
competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period
of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to
competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the
relevant market."
And clause 63:
"Finally, it is indicative of monopoly power that Microsoft felt that
it had substantial discretion in setting the price of its Windows 98
upgrade product (the operating system product it sells to existing
users of Windows 95). A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals
that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98
-- there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been
unprofitable -- but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing
price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price."
References:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
http://www.techcentralstation.com/GuestColumnist.asp?ID=10
>For example, the fact that they can
>effectively put any major OEM out of business by refusing to sell to
>them means they have a monopoly (doesn't it?) But it doesn't mean they can
>fix prices.
If they can put the OEM's out of business they can fix the price to
anything the OEM's are willing to pay to stay in business.
In terms of economic theory, in a competitive market there exists a
supply curve and a demand curve. Market price is determined where the
two curves intersect. A supplier must price it's products at
competitive market prices. In a monopoly controled marked only the
demand curve exists. Price and supply are determined arbitrarily by
the monopolist, at a price and supply they believe will maximize
profits. In clause 63 above Jackson's review of Microsofts internal
documents indicated their pricing was based on the latter. In other
words, they fixed the price.
>If they could fix prices, then why are their prices comparable to
>other commercial OSs ?
They're not, when you look at what you get for your money.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:20:33 -0300
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/
>
> These appear to be worthy design decisions, but if you don't think so
> please enlighten.
I see no comparative study there. You didn't say "good". You said "better".
If you know of differences that make GNOME's architecture "better", say so.
If you don't know any, you should not have said "better".
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 5 Mar 2001 15:18:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5 Mar 2001 00:26:43 GMT,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>IBM Visual Age for Java $2067
>Borland JBUilder 4 Enterprise: $2985
>Borland Delphi Enterprise $2589
>Borland C++ Builder Enterprise $2489
>
>MS Visual Studio Enterprise: $1400 (list $1619)
>
>Corel Wordperfect Office 2000 Win95/NT $399
>Microsoft Office 2000 Std 95/8/ME/NT $499
In your previous post you said we were explicity disussing Win9x
pricing. All of this is completely irrelevent to your claim that
Microsoft did not fix prices for Win9x.
And FWIW the standard version of BCC builder is list $99 and is
suitable for most home users. Star Office is free.
>Win ME Upgrade: $49
This only after the Judge said they should have charged this much for
'98. Who should I believe, you or the courts?? See my other post where
I quote the Judge's findings that clearly refute your claim.
>RH Deluxe Workstations: $78
No, that's 'Workstation', i.e. singular not plural. If it's
plural you install one copy on mulitple machines. So, for
example, if you have 100 machines, it's 78 cents per copy. And this
comes with unlimited server licences as well.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 15:26:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The canonical meaning of Aborigines has become the name of the indigenous
>peoples of Australia. It is been pretty much that way for a long time. Being
>part native american myself, I have never heard the term "Aborigine" applied to
>the indigenous people of the Americas.
I've heard it used to describe the indigenous Brits, i.e. the Picts, though
it is most commonly used to describe indigenous Australians. That's no reason
to lose the original meaning of the word though, as it's still useful.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:26:42 -0300
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 22:26:39 -0500, Donn Miller wrote:
>>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>So, how does CORBA stack up against DCOP?
>
> Well for one, CORBA is standard and DCOP is not.
If we are going to talk standards, GNOME should drop Bonobo. There *is* a
standard Corba Object Model, and Bonobo ain't it.
> This makes GNOME more
> interoperable. There's a java book that gives an example of a GNOME
> application talking to a java app, for example.
There is a Java binding for DCOP, you know. So no problem there ;-)
Any way: anything that can open a socket and write to it can talk to KDE,
using the XMLRPC-DCOP bridge.
> The main thing I have against DCOP though is the dependency on X. This is
> annoying, because X does not have anything to do with component
> frameworks.
DCOP is not dependent on X. DCOP depends on libICE. libICE doesn't require
a running X server. To build libICE you don't need any X sources.
The only connection between libICE and X is that they are usually
distributed together.
> I think KDE dropped it because they got burnt by Mico (In particular, it
> produced bloated stub code, from what I recall. Anyway, they had
> performance issues with it.)
There's also another thing. The method of error propagation when you code
C++ with CORBA is exceptions. That means that EVERY call to any function
that MIGHT go over CORBA had to be in a try/catch block.
That made the code fucking ugly and dense.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[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: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:31:58 -0300
Edward Rosten wrote:
>> I am NOT saying that there is ANYTHING wrong with the GPL. It is easy
>> to pervert the argument into arguing against the GPL. The simple fact
>> is that the GPL is just not a license that denotes free software, unless
>> the all-too-common game of language redefinition is allowed to persist.
>
> I see your point, but I have one issue with it.
>
> 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).
If the receiver receives BSDL software, he has more freedom than if he
receives GPL software. I am sure everyone agrees here.
What you meant was maybe the potential freedom of those who have not yet
received the software?
> The free licenses are more free than the GPL for the distributer since
> there are fewer restrictions.
>
> However, those licenses enable the distributer to place restrictions on
> the code, so for the person receiving it it will not be as free.
And the person receiving it is not receiving it under that license, either.
Nothing prevents this hypothetical receiver from going and getting the
original freer version.
> So, you have one license with which the software can be free, but also
> heavily restricted and you have another license where the software is
> less free (more restrictions) but will never drop below that level of
> freedom.
This is the classical FSF sophism. Once a program is BSDL, it won't drop
below that level of freedom. A COPY of it, might. but other copies will
not, and the original will not.
> Which is more `free' is not something that I believe makes more sense to
> debate.
In fact, I now think it does make sense. It makes sense because there is no
meaningful way in which the GPL is more free.
> After all, which is greater, 5-x or 2?
if x=0, 5-x. In this case you are not comparing a known and un unknown, but
two knowns. Don't shy out of comparing them.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[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: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 12:37:40 -0300
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 11:53:53 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Software doesn't have rights, and it doesn't have a "right" to freedom.
> The only "freedom" that is relevant is the freedom of the users of the
> software.
>
> The GPL would seem to favour the rights of the collective over the rights
> of the individual.
Not even that. The GPL favours the lack of freedom of some, in exchange
for no improvement on the freedom of others. The GPL is, in a way, a purely
freedom-substracting thing.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
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: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 10:47:22 -0500
Ian Davey wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The canonical meaning of Aborigines has become the name of the indigenous
> >peoples of Australia. It is been pretty much that way for a long time. Being
> >part native american myself, I have never heard the term "Aborigine" applied to
> >the indigenous people of the Americas.
>
> I've heard it used to describe the indigenous Brits, i.e. the Picts, though
> it is most commonly used to describe indigenous Australians. That's no reason
> to lose the original meaning of the word though, as it's still useful.
Not really. If the purpose of words is to communicate ideas and thoughts, it is
wise to understand and adjust to the common uses of words. For instance, if I
said you were a "gay fellow" there may be some misunderstanding. So we avoid
the use of "gay" meaning happy, because it has a currently more recognized
usage, which will muddle the message we mean to convey.
--
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: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 15:46:32 GMT
mlw wrote:
>
> The canonical meaning of Aborigines has become the name of the indigenous
> peoples of Australia. It is been pretty much that way for a long time. Being
> part native american myself, I have never heard the term "Aborigine" applied to
> the indigenous people of the Americas.
Using that word, without capitalization, just seemed the least politically-loaded
way to go. It's also a technical word (i.e. jargon).
> It is, however, time to dispel a misconception. Few, if any, society of human
> has not acted out of greed. Every century has had their share of those who
> take, often quite violently. Yes the U.S. has its share of history, and if that
> makes you feel better, good luck to you, but take care not to look too closely
> into the history of any people or culture you align yourself with, because you
> will find the same atrocities you accuse of others.
Read "The Third Chimpanzee", by Jared Diamond. Near the end of it he
lists a number of genocides (including the prolonged one in the Americas) that have
occurred throughout history.
> History is a great thing. It teaches us humility.
Some of us, anyway.
RED-SKIN, n. A North American Indian, whose skin is not red---at least
not on the outside.
from "The Devil's Dictionary", by Ambrose "Bitter" Bierce.
Another example of greed is the ancient Greeks converting their lush land into
a pile of rocks.
Chris
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
