Linux-Advocacy Digest #676, Volume #32 Tue, 6 Mar 01 17:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Steve Mading)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (mlw)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: GPL Like patents. (mlw)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Steve Mading)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Steve Mading)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Steve Mading)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: State of linux distros (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Time for a Windows reinstall! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Peter Hayes)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Steve Mading)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 6 Mar 2001 21:08:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> Did you or did you not RTFM? If you did, how come you missed the snippet
>> I pasted? If you did not, /me thinks my conclusion was right.
>> Either way, the answer to your question is right there in the GUM. It is
>> the first thing you should refer to if you encounter a "problem" with
>> The Gimp. Everyone should RTFM first, even Joe Sixpack lusers.
>
>You missed the point here. I'm not whining about having to RTFM, as I
>said before.
No, I am not missing the point, because the manual *does* answer the
point you are trying to make. Not reading the manual does not justify
your point.
>> I only agree with you that the default as set by *Mandrake* was
>> incorrect. This is not a Linux oopsie, nor a Gimp oopsie. It is a
>> Mandrake oopsie for setting the wrong default and a Pete Goodwin goofup
>> for not R-ing TFM.
>
>So what, then, is Linux?
Linux has two generic meanings. The first (obviously) being the Linux
kernel (this is the correct meaning). The second is the *set* of
software distributions based on the Linux kernel and the GNU system. I
for one, think that this should be called GNU/Linux, to distinguish it
from e.g. GNU/HURD.
One single distribution does not constitute "Linux".
>No, it's not my goofup, it's a Mandrake oopsie.
You goofed up by not reading the manual, which would instantly give you
the answer to the problem and how to fix it. Yes, it is also a Mandrake
"oopsie" for setting the wrong default. But you _did_ goof up.
>I repeat, I'm surprised any OS would have multiple drivers for a printer.
Answered at the next point.
>> No, it's not. The OS is for the hardware handling. Even with "-o raw"
>> there is no way to bring down the Data Stobe line without passin through
>> the kernel. *That* is what the OS should be doing. What *you* call the
>> "Epson drivers" are just a couple of GhostScript filters that run in
>> userspace and which you can trivially bypass.
>
>And what may I ask are device drivers doing? Handling devices? I.e.
>hardware?
That's precisely your problem. You fall over the ambiguity of the word
"driver" and decide that it is the responsibility of the OS. Yes,
drivers are the responsibility of the OS and no, applications should not
provide their own drivers. But what is a driver?
In Unix land, a driver is generally considered a piece of software that
runs in *kernel space* (with a monolithical kernel, that is) to
interface with a piece of hardware or with a protocol.
What you call a "printer driver" is by no means a driver that the OS is
responsible for. It is a simple filter that runs in User space to present
the data to the printer in such a way that the printer knows how to
handle that, be that Epson escape codes, PCL, PreScribe or PostScript.
Your "printer driver" is very much like a compiler which translates your
human readable code into something your CPU or your VM can interpret. Do
I hear you saying that the choice of various programming languages is a
bad idea too? That all modern compilers should only compile Java?
Also any reasonably complete GNU/Linux system provides a single language
for interfacing with the printer, namely PostScript. This single
language enables applications to skip the implementation of every
conceivable printer interface and updating the list regularly. But if an
application wants to implement something that is not part of this
generic interface or if it thinks the performance gain is worth the
trouble, it is free to implement it's own set.
The choice for PostScript does make sence. It is a bit more than your
average printer interface language. If you want to know why, download
the Language Reference from Adobe's website and discover why they needed
912 pages to describe it... ;-) (Hint: it's turing-complete).
>> Only when *you* tell it to (with -o raw). 2^(DOH)!
>
>I didn't tell it to, I picked the default which by any reasonable
>assumption would _do the right thing_, but it didn't. D'oh!
Your assumption was not reasonable. It would only be reasonable if it
was based on something written in the manual, which obviously it was
not.
Why do we have to go through such great lengths to educate you on such a
simple concept?
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
There's nobody getting rich writing software that I know of.
-- Bill Gates, 1980
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 16:20:59 -0500
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > > > (2) Indicates that if you keep the GPL code separate from yours and your
> > > > code is not merely an extension, yours need not be GPL.
> > >
> > > As I told you half a dozen times: RMS says that if your code links to the
> > > GPLd code, it can not be reasonably considered separate. Why do you say
> > > when it links dynamically it is separate?
> >
> > Dynamically linking to GPL code does not include the GPL code into
> > your binary where statically linking does.
> >
> > This is vital to understanding the difference. When something is
> > statically linked, it creates one binary. When something is
> > dynamically linked, you have multiple "independent" binaries. That
> > is the key.
>
> What's the difference? They do exactly the same thing.
The difference is that when you dynamically link to code, you do not include
the external code into your binary. When you statically link, you actually
include GPL code into your binary.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 6 Mar 2001 21:16:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> That's a bit like saying "You are allowed
:> to drive as fast as you feel like in the US", without mentioning the
:> qualifier "In Montana, during the daylight."
: Csn you? I sem to remember speed limits there?
My example may be out of date. When the federal government recently
allowed states to set their own speed limits on some highways (removing
the 65 mph federal limit), Montana, being a state with lots of open
empty land, removed the speed limit altogether on some highways. That
was a few years ago. I haven't kept up to date on what has happened
since then.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 16:24:55 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 20:11:30 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:55:18 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> >>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
> >>>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:38:24 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels
> >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>They have not. The GPL even stipulates that it's not concerned
> >>>>>with the price, only with the continued availability of the
> >>>>>source code, and all the derivative works of the source code,
> >>>>>if these are distributed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Meaningless. Since there's nothing preventing someone from buying a copy and
> >>>> turning around and giving it away for free, the market is effectively
> >>>> destroyed.
> >>>
> >>>Cheapbytes hasn't "destroyed" the expensive Linux distributions.
> >>>And yes, you won't make money on _every_ copy. That's something
> >>>Microsoft experiences as well.
> >>
> >> Linux distributions are not single pieces of software, so at best you are
> >> using an analogy, and not a counter-example.
> >>
> >Are you the one who figured out how many angles can
> >dance on a pinhead?
>
> I take it you meant "angels". But I still don't understand the comment.
To explain:
Imagine, if you will, a spherical cow in a vacuum, aproaching the speed of
light....
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:23:48 -0300
mlw wrote:
> Craig Kelley wrote:
>>
>> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> > > > (2) Indicates that if you keep the GPL code separate from yours and
>> > > > your code is not merely an extension, yours need not be GPL.
>> > >
>> > > As I told you half a dozen times: RMS says that if your code links to
>> > > the GPLd code, it can not be reasonably considered separate. Why do
>> > > you say when it links dynamically it is separate?
>> >
>> > Dynamically linking to GPL code does not include the GPL code into
>> > your binary where statically linking does.
>> >
>> > This is vital to understanding the difference. When something is
>> > statically linked, it creates one binary. When something is
>> > dynamically linked, you have multiple "independent" binaries. That
>> > is the key.
>>
>> What's the difference? They do exactly the same thing.
>
> The difference is that when you dynamically link to code, you do not
> include the external code into your binary. When you statically link, you
> actually include GPL code into your binary.
Ok, maybe the lithany below can make it clear. Or maybe I should give up.
"your binary", is not one of the objects described in the GPL. In fact,
none of the references to a "work" in the GPL is a reference to the binary
in itself.
When the GPL makes references to the the larger work formed combining your
code and the GPLd code, the GPL is not making a reference to your binary.
The GPL is making a reference to the larger work created combining your
code and the GPLd library. That larger work may or may not be contained in
a single file.
Whether that work is contained in a single file or not, or whether that
work must or should be contained in a single file is not mentioned in the
GPL, the GPL makes no distinction between larger works contained in a
single file or not.
The GPL is making a reference to the larger work that is comprised of
several files, including "your binary" and "the library".
That is so because the binary can not be reasonably considered an
independent work, because it is not complete or functional without the
library. "The binary"+"the library" make a program. The binary in itself is
not a program, or at least not a complete program.
Get it?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 16:33:20 -0500
This is exhausting. I can't take it anymore. I will concede that there are many
aspects of the GPL which can be interpreted in different ways depending on your
background and point of view. As for RMS, that link you gave seems like he is
way out there when it comes to the interpretation.
OK, lets just assume we are not going to agree on meaning, because really, it
will take a court of law to really define the difference between what people
think it means, including RMS himself, and what it means legally.
I was using a very "dry" interpretation with some help from a contract lawyer.
I'm pretty sure I could win, but you are right in that one should not have to
risk litigation.
OK, we have bitched long enough, how do we fix it?
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 6 Mar 2001 21:20:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 5 Mar 2001 06:13:10 GMT, Andres Soolo wrote:
:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>>>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.
:>In other words, everyone with a piece of software would have the right
:>to distribute it, no matter what.
: No. They only have the right to distribute it with strings attached.
: The software must be redistributed under their license. If the software
: is library software, the GPL requires work that so much as links
: dynamically to it to be released under the GPL (or so RMS says. Whether such a
: draconian condition is enforceable remains to be seen)
You are deliberately not mentioning the existence of the LGPL, which does
NOT have that requirement. Sure, a library released under GPL would
have that requirement, but this doesn't matter given that libraries
are typically released under LGPL not GPL.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 6 Mar 2001 21:26:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ian Davey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
This is a brit-speak, ameri-speak difference. The Brits use "aboriginal"
the same way we use "native" on this side of the pond. To us 'merks,
the only time we ever hear the word "aborigoine" used is in reference
to Australians.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 6 Mar 2001 21:23:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The best part about not using the GPL is that I might make some money
: from sales of software and I can then release the code after I have
: recouped my expenses and paid for lunch. Another thing that bothers GPL
: folk - that money can be made from the sale of software.
Liar.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 21:31:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, ono
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 6 Mar 2001 00:22:51 +0100
<9817nv$k9h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> The console under Windows really sucks. It is slow and you can't easily
>> change its width.
>The console is only there to give diehard ex. unix guys an easy entry into
>gui-land. Once they are fully there, the cli seems like a bad dream.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. The modern CLI has
command- and filepath-completion, arbitrary point character
insert and delete, and possibly word delete (^W) on some.
I've yet to see a CLI become as good as Apollo DOMAIN Aegis, which
had the ability to do multi-line input edits, but Linux is acceptable.
(I will note, however, that NT also has most of these features, at
least as far as I understand the situation.)
>
>> > Because Windows has better apps.
>>
>> I have more useful apps under Linux than windows.
>Didn't know they have apps there too. I thought that there is just the
>kernel, the compiler and the cli.
Exactly. That's all Linux has.
Remember Netscape? Well, forget about it. It doesn't exist under
Linux. Not even with Macromedia Flash (which is not downloadable
from www.macromedia.com, or using Netscape's nonexistent Plugin Finder).
Or lynx, the non-existent mostly-text browser (it can display
pictures using an external non-existent tool such as xv or xview).
Neither does winamp/xmms, an MP3 player that plays non-existent music.
A number of people have fantasized about using xcdroast for burning
CD's -- possibly on this very forum, in fact.
Postgres is merely a figment of an overly-deranged imagination,
despite its prowess as a multiuser database, complete with
transaction support and object-oriented features such as points,
vectors, and inheritance.
Don't like Postgres' non-existence? Try the nonexistent
mySQL or mSQL, which trade off integrity for performance
(my understanding being that mySQL and mSQL don't support
transactions or multiple users). However, it doesn't matter if
none of them exist.
One can also use the nonexistent DB2 from IBM. I am given to
understand that Oracle also has a nonexistent release as well.
Weird.
Java on Linux? Doesn't exist, IBM's claims to the contrary about
their 1.3 JVM release notwithstanding. Sun also has a nonexistent
release, as well.
DOS can't run on Linux. DOSEMU is merely Yet Another Tool That
Doesn't Exist. One can also not look for bochs (www.bochs.com).
There's no spreadsheet on Linux. None. Zip. Not even Gnumeric.
Lyx is a powerful tool that interfaces to TeX and provides a
very large number of capabilities rivaling Microsoft Word -- and
it doesn't exist, either.
Xfig is a utility that doesn't exist, either, but it can competently
draw diagrams -- if it existed, that is. With additional non-existent
software (fig2dev) it can also generate non-existent bitmap pictures,
as well.
OpenOffice -- the old StarOffice -- doesn't exist. (Somebody better
tell Sun Microsystems.)
Apache/Jakarta is a very funny webserver. Despite its dominance in
number for vanity websites, the existence of such sites as
http://www.apache.org, and performance benchmarks with IIS, some
debated on this forum, it simply doesn't exist. Those benchmarks
were made up from thin air!
There are also environments and utility tools that don't exist:
Perl, Tcl/TK, Python, LISP (embedded within Emacs, although standalone
environments also aren't available).
Games? A few don't exist on Linux. Quake III, for example,
despite id's protestations to the contrary, simply can't be found
anywhere, not even prominently placed where one would trip over it
in major software outlets, some months back. There are also a
large number of non-commercial offerings which don't exist; one of
the more notable ones is koules, which is about as weird as 2-D arcade
games can get -- since it doesn't exist. (One might call it a
"bash-em-up" since the idea is to knock the Koules into the edge
of the play area, or into "red holes". Of course, it doesn't exist
anyway, but you might not find it on Debian; there might not be a
RedHat RPM as well.)
Secure login simply can't be done on Linux. SSH is another missing tool.
A TSL/SSL-aware telnet isn't available, either.
The KDE and Gnome development efforts? Where are they? I can't
find them anywhere, not even at http://www.kde.org or
http://www.gnome.org. Strange.
GIMP is a nice graphical bitmap editor which doesn't exist,
Pete Goodwin's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. :-)
POVRAY, a raytracing package, simply can't be found.
I've simply looked everywhere for it, even at
http://www.povray.org/binaries/index.html (one click from
the homepage), where it's not prominently mentioned as a
download option.
And of course, that old standby, X, or, more properly, the X Window
System, originally from MIT, ported to hundreds of platforms (or at
least scores; I'd have to look), with its sidekick, or maybe even
the frontrunner now, http://www.xfree86.org . While not specifically
an application, it does allow a large number of nonexistent GUIS to run
on top of it, such as Motif, OpenLook, Java, QT (part of KDE),
Gtk/Gtk++ (part of Gnome), Athena widgets, and various other
custom GUIs developed over the nearly two decades of its existence.
Funny thing, though -- it doesn't exist on Linux either.
Not even as X11R6 version 4.0.
That's quite a lot of things that don't exist. Should I also mention
that most of them, since they don't exist, are free, too? :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random sarcasm here
EAC code #191 29d:12h:19m actually running Linux.
>>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 21:37:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Edward Rosten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 05 Mar 2001 20:55:47 +0000
<980uhj$lgu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>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.
Now how on earth could anyone mistake *that* for non-useful gewgawgery?
It's so.....innovative.
(Don't forget the beautifully disappearing menus, as well.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random sarcastic smirk here
EAC code #191 29d:14h:08m actually running Linux.
I'm here, you're there, and that's pretty much it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Time for a Windows reinstall!
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 21:39:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Paolo Ciambotti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 05 Mar 2001 19:19:44 -0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Haha! That sounds _SO_ familiar. I have a 'cpio' archive of my Windoze
>drive saved off under Linux. When MSFT takes a crap all over itself
>(which is a regular occurrence), I just FDISK the damned thing and dump
>the 'cpio' image back onto it. Never fails.
Also doubles as a darned good defragmenter, as well. :-)
>
>Linux: the ultimate Microshaft Windoze recovery tool.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 29d:14h:11m actually running Linux.
>>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 21:38:36 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5 Mar 2001 04:21:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>
> mlw ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : Lets face it: we are all running supercomputers. It is simply amazing how much
> : computer power we have?
>
> And, yet the commercial OSes are slow as that old Commodore as it runs on a
> veritable cray. The upgrade-go-round will give every Linux user a home
> supercomputer before too long... even as Windows slows it to a crawl.
One place I worked in had everal thousand PCs. They were 386/486/low-end
pentiums. They ran Win3.1 and the better ones ran Win95.
They threw them out, replacing them with PIIs with 16 or 32 Mb ram running
Win95.
They threw them out, replacing them with PIIIs with 128Mb ram and 20Gb
hdds. They run Win98.
They're thinking of throwing them out, getting P4s and putting Win2000 on
them.
What's all this endeavour in aid of? So we can run e-mail and write the odd
memo.
What a waste of resources. Millions wasted for new kit. More millions in MS
licensing. Some people are completely mad.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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: 6 Mar 2001 21:39:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: However, when you "share" with your friend (i.e. let him make a
: copy), that is *NOT* personal use, because you and your friend
: might BOTH be using copies at the same time.
But what if your friend already *has* a copy of the work in question?
You are personally allowed to make a copy for yourself, for the
sake of changing the physical medium (make a cassette tape of a CD,
or make your own MP3 of a CD). What if your friend doesn't have the
capacity to make an MP3 of his CD, and you make one for him and give
it to him? Is that legal, in the situation where he already owns the
CD? If so, then how can you seperate the Napster downloads where this
is what is happening from the ones where it isn't?
That's the crux of the problem with this whole Napster deal. There is
no technical way to sift the illegal activity from the legal activity,
so it's all going to get trashed universally. It reminds me of the
kindergarden teacher who punishes the entire class in spite when
she can't figure out who the real culprit is.
I've downloaded mp3's of songs (not on Napster, but still) for which I
*did* own a copy of the original, but it was on a medium that
deteriorates over time (cassette tape) so that my legit, payed-for
copy is now trashed. Should I pay the royaltees all over again for
a song I already bought access to, for what amounts to essentially
just a media format change?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 21:40:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Lorenzo Malaguti
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:10:57 +0100
<9831hg$il7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Linux meanwhile has gained great momentum, and is being supported by IBM
>and
>> others as a prelude for greater growth in the future in all segments of
>the
>> market.
>
>not to say that on IBM website there's a visible message
>"For professional use IBM suggest W2K"
Where?
I'd like to see a URL....
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- no doubt so would everyone else :-)
EAC code #191 29d:14h:13m actually running Linux.
Are you still here?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
