Linux-Advocacy Digest #659, Volume #32 Mon, 5 Mar 01 16:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: GPL Like patents. (Craig Kelley)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Virus Alert : "A Virtual Card for You" + "An Internet Flower For You" (Craig
Kelley)
Re: Goodwins Law: Thread now dead (Was: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else)
(Floyd Davidson)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: .NET is plain .NUTS ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market ("Gary Hallock")
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux Joke (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Virus Alert : "A Virtual Card for You" + "An Internet Flower For You" (Brian
Langenberger)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("JD")
Re: State of linux distros ("Edward Rosten")
Re: GPL Like patents. (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Peter Hayes)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Goodwins Law: Thread now dead (Was: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else)
("Edward Rosten")
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: 05 Mar 2001 13:11:06 -0700
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is about GPL, not BSD. As a developer, I will never release under the BSD
> license because it does not afford me enough control over my work. They may be
> similar in nature, but not analogous.
>
> The last thing I want to happen is to create something for the open source
> community and have it cooped by M$, ala kerberose.
You'd rather that they re-wrote their own protocol that replaces
kerberos and doesn't work with other kerberos devices? Seems like
cutting off one's nose to spite the face to me.
> The GPL is about the rights and freedom of developers and the code they
> produce.
Nobody denies that; but you must admit that the GPL doesn't foster as
much code interchange as the less-strict free licenses. Your 'patent'
analogy is good, but it doesn't always have the same effect that you
are claiming for it.
Again, one of the factors that Apple considered in using BSD code for
Darwin was the open license. Everyone came out ahead in that deal and
information was spread around to all involved.
Linus' open stance on binary-only kernel modules allows us to use
Nvidia cards under Linux. Would the world be a better place if they
only worked under Windows? Probably not.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: 05 Mar 2001 13:17:32 -0700
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
Sorry for this off-topic rant, but anyway:
Isn't that another debate entirely? Exceptions sound like a nice
idea, and in certain circumstances they are; but nothing makes a Java
programmer more insane than spending half their code on them.. :)
(Especially with their LargeAssExceptionNamingConventions)
But then again, C really infuriates me with calls like
int = atoi(string)
where it is impossible to detect errors because there are no
exceptions. What do I do?? I want unenforced exceptions, I suppose.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus Alert : "A Virtual Card for You" + "An Internet Flower For You"
Date: 05 Mar 2001 13:19:50 -0700
Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> <snip!>
>
> :> Hell, it doesn't even harm Windows. There is no such article on cnn.com,
> :> nor has there ever been. It's a hoax.
>
> : That was meant to be sarcastic
>
> Naturally. No flames intended. I just want to ensure people don't
> think there's *yet another* godawful Windows-Email virus on the
> loose.
>
> The rest of us have to update sendmail filters to protect the Windows
> users whenever one appears, and that gets old after awhile...
Couple this:
http://www.amavis.org/
With a wget script that fetches the latest virus definitions every
night. It works like a charm.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Floyd Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.test,misc.test,uk.test
Subject: Re: Goodwins Law: Thread now dead (Was: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or
Else)
Date: 05 Mar 2001 10:47:46 -0900
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> did eloquently scribble:
>>> <AK>
>>
>>> *******FUCK******* Goodwin
>>
>>> </AK>
>>>
>>
>> WHO?????
>
>Aaron Kulkis.
>
>This is his response to any hint of a mention og Goodwin's law.
>
>-Ed
Godwin's Law is named for Mike Godwin.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 20:24:14 GMT
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > The last thing I want to happen is to create something for the open source
> > community and have it cooped by M$, ala kerberose.
>
> You'd rather that they re-wrote their own protocol that replaces
> kerberos and doesn't work with other kerberos devices?
Craig, Microsoft took the Kerberos protocol and co-opted it in the
way you just mentioned! I know, not as bad as a new protocol.
But mlw's warning holds:
Crimsoft will dick with protocols as they see fit.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 20:26:56 GMT
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [snip synopsis of Windows 2000's cmd program]
>
> >
> > This looks like another example of MS taking something very simple and
> > making it unnecessarily complicated.
>
> Have you looked at the bash man page in a while?
bash isn't just a CLI, it's a language of sorts.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: .NET is plain .NUTS
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 20:30:15 +0000
>> > Even books. You can scan them, run the bitmaps through optical
>> > character recognition software, and completely copy the book
>> > digitally with little chance of discovery (other than your own
>> > popularity).
>>
>> But you then have to print it. Bear in mind that a 650M CD is about
>> 50p, but to print a book without very specialised is quite expensive,
>> and depending on the book, lower quality.
>
> 300-600 dpi laser printers is good for most books.
Yep. If 300-600 dpi is suitable for a particular book, then that book is
probably printed on very cheap paper, using a very cheap bulk printing
machine, making the copy very expensive.
If its an expensive book (eg one with very high quality colour plates),
then nothing short of a top notch color laser printer would get you the
same quality, unless you spent a fortune on glossy paper.
>> It'll probably be cheaper to buy the book.
>
> true.
-Ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 15:38:30 +0500
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <3aa3e713$0$34309$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jon Johanson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do people just not get it? It's old news - the price of the OS is
> almost insignificant to any serious server or computer company
> investment. PLUS the few dollars you save "not buying" Linux you'll
> easily spend 3x over paying to support it and the additional admins and
> programmers required to milk usability from it. It's a known fact that
> unix OSes require more TCO to stay usefull.
>
Realy? Source please. And don't bother trying to compare running
Solaris on Sparc to Windows on a PC. Do you have any evidence that, all
other things being equal, Windows has a lower TCO than Linux?
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: 5 Mar 2001 20:46:36 GMT
On 05 Mar 2001 13:17:32 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Sorry for this off-topic rant, but anyway:
>
>Isn't that another debate entirely? Exceptions sound like a nice
>idea, and in certain circumstances they are; but nothing makes a Java
>programmer more insane than spending half their code on them.. :)
>
>(Especially with their LargeAssExceptionNamingConventions)
>
>But then again, C really infuriates me with calls like
>
> int = atoi(string)
>
>where it is impossible to detect errors because there are no
>exceptions. What do I do?? I want unenforced exceptions, I suppose.
Yes. One thing that would be nice is a way to tell exceptions to "shut up",
you don't always need to know whether or not a given call succeeded,
and crash-and-burn isn't always a terribly good default behaviour.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 20:46:49 GMT
Jon Johanson wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
> > No, that's the answer to the question "Why does the Windows
> > NT/2000 user always obtain the next Service Pack".
> >
>
> Actually, we have quite a few server not running sp1 - they didn't need it.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/default.asp?Search=Keywords&LangIDCODE=20%3Ben-us&Value=SP1&OpSysID=925&Show=Alpha
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q265/3/81.asp
You better git goin'! Better grab you SP1 and then git those
hotfixes to fix it!
Jess kiddin'. Here's what Microbesoft says about SP1:
Service Pack 1 (SP1) provides the latest updates
to the Windows 2000 family of operating systems.
These updates are a collection of fixes in the
following areas: setup, application compatibility,
operating system reliability, and security. SP1 is
not considered a required upgrade; Microsoft
recommends that customers review the SP1
documentation found under Learn More to determine
whether to install SP1.
> > yeeee haaaa!
> >
> > By the way, note that Service Pack is essentially
> > a butt-fucking by Bill Gates.
>
> Kinda like how 2.4 is butt-fucking by hippies?
Nasty, stinky, fat, Jolt-drinkin' hippies!
With Cheez-Its on their beards!
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 20:48:06 +0000
> Ok let me repeat myself again: you can get all those programs for
> Windows so it's a weak argument. You can even run them in a console
> shell with the Unix flags and all. Awk, sed, and grep are all available.
The console under Windows really sucks. It is slow and you can't easily
change its width.
> Not that a Unix shell will work to it's a full ability on a Windows
> system. Piping needs to write out a temp file before the next command is
> performed on the output and also file permissions on Windows BASH (for
> example) are pretty meaningless. But I would never use Windows on a
> multi-user environment anyway.
>
>> And after all this, why even bother working with a crippled system with
>> an outrageous license like Windows?
>
> Because Windows has better apps.
I have more useful apps under Linux than windows.
-Ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus Alert : "A Virtual Card for You" + "An Internet Flower For You"
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 20:51:14 +0000 (UTC)
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
: Couple this:
: http://www.amavis.org/
: With a wget script that fetches the latest virus definitions every
: night. It works like a charm.
Ah, that looks like a big help. Thanks much.
Does anyone else pine (no pun intended) for the days before
viruses could reside in email messages? Those happier days when
we could securely say that "no, you *can't* get a virus on your
machine just by *reading* your email"...
Perhaps we should thank Microsoft for turning what we
once thought impossible into something both possible and
probable. For that, I'd just like to say, "ILOVEYOU".
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[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, 5 Mar 2001 15:47:12 -0500
"Ken Arromdee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:980ofo$e21$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chris Ahlstrom <[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.
>
> How can you possibly describe someone who uses a different free software
> license as someone who wants to take and take, but never give? That was
> my whole point: the GPL *doesn't* just keep the code away from people who
> don't want to share. Someone using a GPL-incomtaible free software license
> is certainly willing to give.
>
Frankly, the GPL tends to give the marketeers even more control over development
than they already have relative to the innovative developer. The innovative developer
has more control with other free licenses, since they can better control the results
of their
work when it had been infected with GPLed code.
Of course, a developer who just gets a copy of free code to add into his own work,
cannot
physically restrict the distribution of other copies of the free code that he got.
The only thing
that a developer can directly restrict is the code that he has added on.
The paranoia of the GPL crowd seems to deny the physics of the situation, where an
add-on
developer is felt to be able to control the distribution of works that he only has one
copy of,
and he got it from a free site. There is no-way that when I go to
ftp.freesoftware.com, and
get a copy of code, that I can restrict the distribution of that piece of software
that I just
downloaded :-). The only rational basis for the restrictive nature of the GPL is to
compel
other programmers to give away source code to THEIR OWN work product.
There is nothing wrong with the GPL trying to compel or strongly influence people to
give away their work product, but that certainly doesn't make the GPL a license for
'free'
software. Frankly, the sort of tradeoff that GPL tries to create is a form of
'shareware.'
At least the shareware crowd is honest enough to claim that their software isn't free.
Other
distributors of much more free software, don't even have to make a big deal about the
freeness
of their code, because it is so obviously free.
With the GPL-being-free crowd, they seem to try to keep on convincing people of
something
that isn't true: the GPL isn't a very good free license, and no matter how it is
morally justified,
that doesn't make the license FREE.
John
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 20:55:47 +0000
In article <980nok$vml$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Masha Ku'Inanna"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But unlike MS, IBM has had some *real* innovations in its time (such as
>> the hard disk, etc)
>>
>>
>
> <snicker>
>
> Aw c'mon! MS has that innovative 5 button optical mouse/brick!
>
> </snicker>
Ans the drop shadow cursor.
-ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 07:01:42 +1000
mlw wrote:
>
> This is about GPL, not BSD. As a developer, I will never release under the BSD
> license because it does not afford me enough control over my work. They may be
> similar in nature, but not analogous.
>
You can release a binary and no source code under BSD if you want to
control it that tightly. As for protecting the source, it really makes
little difference; good BSD code will be built on by others and
rereleased under a BSD license. GPL is redundant, unnecessarily
restrictive and tries to colonize other work. The GPL begins to sound
more and more proprietary as this thread goes on.
IanP
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 20:56:59 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 15:22:00 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 21:07:07 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Windows XP will ship in three major versions. Personal, Pro, and
> Server.
> > > Pro is equivelant to Windows 2000 today and will cost about the same.
> > > Personal has fewer features and will cost what ME costs today.
> >
> > And will they have the same easy registry tweak to convert the one to the
> > other as NT4 had?
>
> The registry tweak didn't "convert one to the other". All it did was remove
> the physical connection limitations and cause the OS to tune itself
> differently.
IIRC it also enabled SMP for more than two processors.
> Changing a registry setting didn't automatically give you the
> server software (such as DNS servers, WINS servers, DHCP servers), server
> management utilities, etc...
True.
>Further, it didn't change your license.
As it wouldn't with XP. But XP will phone home and tell all.
Not that it bothers me, you understand. I've no intention of getting XP in
any of its incarnations under any circumstances. No MS spyware here.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 20:58:17 +0000 (UTC)
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:> 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.
: Sorry for this off-topic rant, but anyway:
: Isn't that another debate entirely? Exceptions sound like a nice
: idea, and in certain circumstances they are; but nothing makes a Java
: programmer more insane than spending half their code on them.. :)
: (Especially with their LargeAssExceptionNamingConventions)
How about:
try {
trySomethingUseful();
} catch (Exception e) {
dieHorribly();
} // :)
though that might not be the solution you have in mind.
: But then again, C really infuriates me with calls like
: int = atoi(string)
: where it is impossible to detect errors because there are no
: exceptions. What do I do?? I want unenforced exceptions, I suppose.
I switched to Python, which has all the niceties of exceptions
but treats them all like Java's RuntimeException, which makes
catching them optional (but often a good idea). It's sortof like
"Java without all the hassle".
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.test,misc.test,uk.test
Subject: Re: Goodwins Law: Thread now dead (Was: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or
Else)
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 20:57:52 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Floyd Davidson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> did eloquently scribble:
>>>> <AK>
>>>
>>>> *******FUCK******* Goodwin
>>>
>>>> </AK>
>>>>
>>>
>>> WHO?????
>>
>>Aaron Kulkis.
>>
>>This is his response to any hint of a mention og Goodwin's law.
>>
>>-Ed
>
> Godwin's Law is named for Mike Godwin.
Is that true?
-Ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 16:03:49 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
> > Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >>
> >> mlw wrote:
> >>
> >> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> > > 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> So, if I write 10 million lines of code, and use 1 function from your
> >> >> code, you have the right to dictate what I do with 9,999,900 other
> >> >> lines of code that never even touch your code or could be considered a
> >> >> derived work of your code?
> >> >
> >> > Yup. Don't like it? Don't use my code, but you are exaggerating the
> >> > impact. There are very reasonable ways of using GPL software.
> >> >
> >> > If you want to modify a library, modify the library and release your
> >> > modifications. You can still use the library without releasing all your
> >> > 10 million lines of code.
> >>
> >> Actually, that's what RMS says.
> >> He says, if the library is GPLd, that you must, if you ever distribute
> >> those 10 million LOCs, distribute them under the GPL.
> >>
> >> Further, he has told me, that if a non-identical clone of that library
> >> exists under another license, and even if you did all development using
> >> the clone, as long as your 10 MLOC try to use any functionality that is
> >> not in the clone, (say, calling a database as shared when the clone
> >> doesn't support sharing), your 10MLOC should be distributed under the
> >> GPL.
> >>
> >> Further, he has told me that if an identycal clone exists of that
> >> library, which is licensed under a really free license, but that clone
> >> uses the original GPL'd library to provide the functionality (check the
> >> BSD readline hack) through what is usually considered a non-contaminating
> >> interface (pipes), the 10MLOC should be under the GPL.
> >>
> >> Scared already?
> >
> > What RMS says and what the law demands can be different.
>
> Sure. However, when I was flamed to hell and back about linking my own code
> to GPLd code and Qt, I was told "ask RMS". I did. That's what he said.
I respect RMS quite a bit, but I do differ, in opinion, from him occasionally.
I always comply to the GPL when I use GPL software. As a pragmatist, it is not
always possible.
>
> > Why don't we just
> > look at section 2 of the GPL shall we, it clearly refutes much of the
> > garbage people say about GPL:
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
>
> [snip section 2 of the GPL]
>
> > This section makes it VERY clear that the doom and gloom people are
> > claiming GPL will do is utter non-sense.
>
> Actually, I have my own copy of the GPL, thank you ;-)
> It would be much more clarifying if instead of just quoting 100 lines of
> text, you quoted with interspersed comments, explaining how, in your view,
> linking with a tiny GPLd library doesn't make your code GPLd. I'll promess
> to do my best to repeat the crap GPL advocates told me in the past.
Read this carefully:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably
considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and
its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate
works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a
work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms
of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire
whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your
rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the
right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on
the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the
Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or
distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this
License.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
--
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:
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 21:01:04 GMT
JS PL wrote:
>
> In what sense does using Linux provide more "freedom" than Windows?
Source code for the OS
ISOs available on-line
GPL
> It was
> touted as being free until a hanfull of companies put the disk into retail
> stores for about the same price as what the Windows OS adds to a new PC.
> ($50.00 range)
It's still free. I downloaded RedHat 7.0.90 for free, and will do the
same when it becomes 7.1.
> This idea that it's now about "freedom" instead of being free
> of charge came about only lately. Linux offers no more freedom than Windows
> (it offers LESS freedom),
You don't know much about Linux.
> it offers much less choice in hardware devices due
> to the fact that most new hardware is released with windows drivers and
> Linux drivers come along either later, or MUCH later, or never.
You're use of the word "much" is too much. How would you know, anyway?
You don't know "much" about Linux.
> Linux
> certainly does not offer as much freedom of choice in compatible software!
On the contrary, it offers more freedom of choice. You aren't stuck just
with Windows-compatible apps.
> The cost of the software is a drop in the bucket. Fully deductible too! Not
> too many (if any) companies go out of business because the $50 - $200 or
> even $4000 cost of their Windows OS was too hard to bear.
Of course, they'd shit themselves if they calculated the total cost of
owning Windows.
Chris
--
[X] Check here to always trust content from Chris
[ ] Check here if you're a dazed follower of Bill Gates
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
