Linux-Advocacy Digest #661, Volume #32 Mon, 5 Mar 01 18:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... ("Edward Rosten")
Re: GPL Like patents. (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Cuts both ways (Dave)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Cuts both ways ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... ("Edward Rosten")
Re: GPL Like patents. (Craig Kelley)
Sorry, couldn't resist. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: Time for a Windows reinstall! (Bloody Viking)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Craig Kelley)
Re: How much does it take to make sound work in linux?? (Glitch)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Bloody Viking)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 19:01:09 -0300
mlw wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> mlw wrote:
>>
>> > Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> [snip a lot]
>>
>> >> > 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:
>>
>> Read what I wrote carefully yourself.
>> You know, repeating yourself is not useful. But I will do what I politely
>> asked you to do and actually COMMENT on the GPL.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >
>> > 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,
>>
>> According to RMS, anything that uses the fuctionality of a library
>> licensed under the GPL can not be reasonably considered independent and a
>> separate work in itself. He says both things together, the library and
>> the app are a larger work, that should be covered by the GPL.
>>
>> End of discussion, see you in court.
>>
>> See how easy it is? It now all comes down to what "reasonably" means. The
>> only binding decision about it would be a court's. You will NOT get any
>> GPL advocate, RMS, or a representative from the FSF to tell you that
>> there could EVER exist such a thing as an independent work that calls a
>> library.
>>
>> The rest of section 2 is not needed, since it doesn't apply, according to
>> RMS, IIRC.
>
> As a legal document, it is taken as a whole. No part stands alone unless
> explicitly outlined in the document. No such specification was made. The
> section must be taken as a whole, and the end is VERY important:
If you are quoting a section that speaks about a specific exception (the
reasonably separate works) and the position of your opponent is that the
works are not reasonably separate, the section does not apply, in your
opponent's opinion.
If you want to apply it, you have to show how your opponent is wrong, and
how the works are reasonably separate.
Some sections apply in some cases and some in others. For example, the
source form clause doesn't apply when binaries are distributed. Please
follow logic!
>>>>>>>>
> 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.
> <<<<<<<<
>
> That seems pretty clear
And says exactly the same thing as it did the first time you quoted it: "if
identifiable sections [...] can be reasonably considered independent". RMS
says that if that 10MLOC app links to a GPLd library and uses functionality
from that library it should not and can not be reasonably considered
independent.
I disagree, but I can see this as something where this is a matter of
opinion. Solution: do it and ask to be sued.
This is the exact same language used in the first part you quoted and that
I commented. Why do you need me to repeat myself?
> How about this:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 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.
Argh! Go read what I wrote before you throw something that says the exact
same thing, please!
I wrote "both things together, the library and the app are a larger work,
that should be covered by the GPL." The library+the app are not "[a] work
written entirely by you", are they?
> 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.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> When reading a legal contract, one must interpret everything in in it. All
> rights and limitations must be clearly specified. if a limitation is not
> made, it does not exist. If a right is not granted, you have no additional
> rights.
Sure. So?
> Any debate about GPL must be centered around the actual license. Not what
> you think, or what you think you have heard Stallman say.
Excuse me but it's not what I think he said, it's what he told me. I am not
defending precisely my opinion here, as should be clear if you bothered
reading what I bothered writing, but the position of the FSF, as expressed
to me, among others, by RMS.
> The words are important because they outline the contract one accepts when
> they use GPL. No additional rights are granted and no additional
> limitations exist. You can quote, Gandhi if you want, but it doesn't make
> a difference.
You would be a heck of a lot more convincing if you actually produced
quotes from the license that support your position. God knows I did, and
that was not enough.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 21:18:51 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) writes:
>
> But in that case how would I describe British aborigines?
Pommies?
or for fellow South-Africans: soutpiele ;-)
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 22:11:18 +0000 (UTC)
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
:> I always chuckle going through Windows NT Server books as they
:> explain how to do it:
:>
:> Go the X menu. Click the Y button. Go to the Z edit field.
:> Type in the DNS addresses. Click the add button. Go to the Z
:> edit field. Type in the second DNS address. Click...
:>
:> Click... click...
:>
:> We've had this argument over and over. GUI's are good for newbies
:> and when you can't quite remember what to do. Otherwise, the CLI
:> and scripts rules.
: "Good for newbies". Ah, such blindness and naivety is astounding.
: "A picture paints a thousand words".
"Clever expressions are no substitute for common sense".
Actually, GUIs aren't very good for real newbies. Even newbies can
learn typing very easily by pecking out the required letters on the
keyboard. Yet the supposedly "easy to learn" GUIs such as Windows
require a great deal of experimentation, trial and error to discover
how things (such as handling the mouse itself) work. They figure it
out eventually, but I'll wager typing is picked up more readily.
Typing also happens to be a great deal faster than pointing and clicking,
by virtue of having lots of individual, closely-packed keys that can
be handled in succession. Even Microsoft knows this, and provides
ample keyboard shortcuts for people to get things done faster.
Mousing, OTOH, is much more visual and tends to provide plenty of
visual feedback, such as little file folder icons to drag data
files into. Newbies likely find this approach very reassuring.
And, mousing provides a good way to handle visually-oriented data,
such as digital images. But, of course, one wouldn't want to have
to type in email using only a mouse, either.
The ideal UI should harness the strengths of both approaches,
but making a new UI isn't easy and I don't expect to see any
sort of ideal for a long time to come. As it stands, everybody
has a lot of room for improvement.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 22:11:52 +0000
>> > Oh, I don't have a problem with pipes and tees. I just have a problem
>> > with the whole cryptic command line.
>>
>> They problem is that you think it is cryptic. Take the time to learn it
>> and you'll find it is really very efficient.
>
> The problem is not that _I_ think it is cryptic, it is that it _is_
> cryptic!
No. You think it is cryptic. It isn't cryptic for me, so it isn't cryptic
in general.
>> > Applications.
>>
>> There are plenty of apps to choose from in Linux. In fact there are
>> more than enough to meet my current needs.
>
> Your needs?
>
> What about the rest of the world???
What about my needs? I have enough to meet my needs, that's why I use it.
>> > Who gets the devices and drivers designed first, huh, Linux or
>> > Windows?
>>
>> So why does Win2K have an HCL, then?
>
> Wassat got to do with anything?
Not all hardware works under windows.
>> Why is all my hardware fully supported under Linux?
>
> Why is mine "supported" but doesn't actually work without manual
> intervention?
Why do you assume that your bolloxed[*] install in the norm?
>> Why did it all work first time?
>
> Why didn't mine?
Why did mine every time I have installed Linux?
>> Well? And why the hell did windows want drivers for my moniter? its
>> just a moniter and it workes perfectly under either OS without special
>> drivers.
>
> You specify on Linux on the monitor properties did you not? Same thing!
Er, no. I just told X to start in a higher res mode. I didn't do any
futzing with moniter properties. I am fortunate enough to have now had 2
moniters that ren't damaged by bad screen modes. I switched off the
protection ages ago so I could play with it. So, no, no futzing with
moniter drivers.
Oh, and why didn't the moniter come with drivers for the Mac? because
MacOS isn't too brain dead to comply to a standard such as VGA and so on.
Why didn't it provide drivers for solaris (despite supporting SUN's od
screen modes)? Same reason.
It's just a fscking moniter. Moniters do not need drivers.
>> > Which platform has many games written for it, Linux or Windows?
>>
>> I stopped spending money on the upgrade cycle, so games are a non issue
>> for me.
>
> What have upgrades to do with games? 8)
Try playing unreal tournament on a P133 w/ RIVA128 chipset.
>> Besides, how in hells name are the above 2 things either innovative or
>> fresh (the context of the comment).
>
> You mean you haven't looked at the latest gee whiz bang games lately?
> 8*)
I can't now remember what the above thing are, but I don't remember them
having much to do with games.
>> > They're young and they show it.
>>
>> Yep they show it all right. Fresh, clean design. Skinnable, all the
>> modern features, working, now.
>
> I meant buggy and unstable.
Well, I meant what I said.
-Ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 22:14:16 GMT
One quick comment...
On Mon, 05 Mar 2001 16:07:37 -0500, mlw wrote:
[Snip]
>
> If GPL prevents microsoft from doing to GPL code what it did to Kerberose,
> then yes, it accomplishes what it should.
>
[Snip]
Please stop calling it "Kerberose". It's not a sugar molecule! :-)
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Cuts both ways
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 15:14:14 -0700
On Mon, 05 Mar 2001 21:36:10 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>This page supports a product which purports to run Linux apps on Windows:
>
>http://neomueller.org/~isamu/line/
Does it also emulate linux stability? <g>
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 22:22:58 +0000
> By that definition, every program that can print anything has its own
> printer driver/s.
Yes, otherwise they couldn't print. GIMP happens to have several drivers.
> GIMP wants to be told what sort of printer you have so it can use the
> most efficient method to print graphics to it, rather that have them go
> through several layers of unnecessary translation ( i.e. jpg ->
Yep.
> postscript -> PCL when jpg -> PCL would be faster and give better
> results).
Believe me, on an HP500, you can't tell the difference ;-)
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Cuts both ways
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 22:28:23 +0000
>>This page supports a product which purports to run Linux apps on
>>Windows:
>>
>>http://neomueller.org/~isamu/line/
>
> Does it also emulate linux stability? <g>
No, however, Micoros~1 have come up with a new innovation they call
stability in Win XP: it can stay up for more than 4 hours on the trot.
I think they have filed a patent on this one :-)
-Ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 22:38:19 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete
Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <97upur$3ld$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >> So is that why Win2K now has a telnet server and improved command
>> >> line tools?
>> >
>> > Does the Professional version have this? Will the consumer version of
>> > Whistler have this? No?
>>
>> It seems to me that you are pointing out how a lack of features is a
>> good thing.
>
> Changing the subject I see?
The most advanced versions of Windows are becoming more like UNIX. The
cheaper ones are still feature poor.
>> It depende. If it is your PC then yes (although there isn't much choice
>> andnone of them are as good as FVWM2). If it is a `public' workstation,
>> then no. The UNIX workstations avaliable to me have 3 different
>> choices. The windows ones have one choice (is one choice an oxymoron?)
>
> Why should being a public workstation be a restriction?
Because I can't install it.
-Ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: 05 Mar 2001 15:41:18 -0700
Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
Yes, but in this case it allows Windows 2000 machines to authenticate
to kerberos servers, even if the reverse isn't really possible.
Microsoft managers mandate roach-motel "open" software protocols: you
can check in, but you can't check out.
Regardless, it was previously impossible to do such things without
breaking your support contract with Microsoft (ala Client32 and
such).
Besides, it was a bad example because protcols are not GPL'd AFAIK
--
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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Sorry, couldn't resist.
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 22:41:20 +0000
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/17344.html
"'Black Hat' hackers have almost lost interest in
Windows NT exploits because they're becoming so common. If someone finds a
flaw with a serious ecommerce application they'll get much more
attention," he said.
--
| 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 17:47:56 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > Any debate about GPL must be centered around the actual license. Not what
> > you think, or what you think you have heard Stallman say.
>
> Excuse me but it's not what I think he said, it's what he told me. I am not
> defending precisely my opinion here, as should be clear if you bothered
> reading what I bothered writing, but the position of the FSF, as expressed
> to me, among others, by RMS.
What RMS says is not as important as the agreement with which you use the
software. In a court of law, RMS on the stand saying "I intend it to mean...."
does not out weigh the weight of actual contract.
The most important phrases are:
"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. "
This means that as long as you keep your code separate from the GPL code, you
do not need to release your code as GPL. It is very clear. It is only when you
extend a GPL work, or embed your code into GPL work, it MUST be GPL. This is a
perfectly reasonable approach.
"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. "
This means you can ship GPL licensed code with your non-GPL code.
"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. "
It is not the intent to limit your rights.
I don't see what all the fuss is about. I don't understand how people can be so
confused.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Time for a Windows reinstall!
Date: 5 Mar 2001 22:50:44 GMT
Ralph Miguel Hansen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I do a reinstall of Windows via drag'n drop. No time to worry about M$ and
: such crap. Linux is the OS probably fitting best the needs of lazy users.
: Once configured, it runs and runs........ .
Yep. That's why this couch potato uses it. It has an uptime that beats out the
Energiser Rabbit. Once configured, Linux keeps going...
And if you are too lazy to config X, you have the good ol' command line. My
ancient computer is running an ancient Dlackware. I bought the 7.2 album, but
the old 3.0 has plenty of uptime left. The Linux uptime is limited to that of
the _hardware_.
--
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: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: 05 Mar 2001 15:52:30 -0700
Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
Not really, because adding those 5 lines around a single line of code
makes it difficult to read the source code; especially when it is
difficult to read already. I find myself using too many objects in
Java to avoid this hassle, and then I spend my time flipping between
the 20 classes I have built. When I want to do something silly like
convert a string to a number in Java, I'd rather have an if() test
than throwing it in a try{} block.
> : 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".
I like Python a lot, I just can't get over not having an EOL
terminator. Maybe I'm too old a dog to learn such new tricks, but
hunting down whitespace isn't my idea of fun (although Emacs makes
this an easier issue to handle).
I like Perl, but it takes discipline to write good perl. It has the
notion of 'defined' and 'undefined' so that an exception is always
detectable, even if the number zero is a valid response. It also has
Java/C++ style exceptions and objects.
I always wish that regular expressions and strings were as easy in
every language as they are in Perl. It really is a good language, but
not as structured as I would prefer. Perl 6 will change all that,
plus give much better thread support and debugging.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 18:11:57 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How much does it take to make sound work in linux??
#KUNDAN KUMAR# wrote:
> Thanks...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Warner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Posted At: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 8:48 AM
> Posted To: advocacy
> Conversation: How much does it take to make sound work in linux??
> Subject: Re: How much does it take to make sound work in linux??
>
>
> Hi #KUNDAN KUMAR#,
>
>
>> I have become frustrated and you are my last hope.Even though i am a
>> newbie, i managed to install debian and upgrade my kernel to 2.4.1.
>
> But
>
>> after lots of tweaking, I am unable to get the sound working with good
>> quality. I had LM 7.2 installed on my computer earlier and the card
>
> was
>
>> working fine.
>
>
>> What I could get from the KDE control center was something like this:
>> Yamaha DSXG PCI(YMF724F) o:YMFPCI at oxd5020000, irq 10 (DUPLEX)
>
> alias
>
>> sound-slot-0 snd-card-ymfpci post-install snd-card-ymfpci modprobe
>> snd-pcm-oss
>
>
> I have found the YMF724 works great with a 2.4.2 kernel. I didn't do
> anything sound-specific except upgrade my kernel in my Redhat 7.0
> install.
> 2.4.1 had a lot of important bugs and it is highly recommended you
> upgrade
> (a data corruption bug was discovered).
>
> These are the sound options I have compiled in as "Y"es. Everything else
> is "N":
>
> Sound Card Support Y
>
> OSS Sound Modules Y
>
> Yamaha YMF7xx PCI audio (native mode) Y
where might this be in the kernel source? I have 2.4 and do not see the
above as an option....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: 5 Mar 2001 23:08:48 GMT
Aaron Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: small-time criminals attacking Mafia$oft...what's so bad about that.
I don't know about you, but my moral compass is not degaussed. I suppose you
could say that the virus fuckwits are vigilantes, but vigilantes that use
criminal methods are still criminals, no matter the motive.
: [You think these fuckwits care about Linux? They're merely doing EXACTLY
: what we tell M$-droids to beware of...M$ products' lack of security]
Like I said, they are loose cannons. They are only helping out Linux by
accident with their activities.
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
