Linux-Advocacy Digest #731, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Mar 01 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:43:56 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 4 Mar 2001 15:47:21 -0500;
>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> JS PL wrote:
>> >
>
>> > Two clicks from one of the most visited pages on earth is monopoly
>> > prevention:
>> >
>http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Operating_Systems/
>> > and always has been.
>>
>> Nice link, what does it have to do with the subject? The word monopoly
>> doesn't appear in that page.
>
>It can't because all the choices of operating systems on that page would
>drown it out.
That's a *list*, numbnuts. It wouldn't be "choices" even if all of them
ran on a PC. But apparently you're too stupid to get that.
>And as far as the subject goes, it has everything to do with the subject.
>Victims of a monopoly don't have the kind of choices that have always been
>available to pc users.
Oh? What stupid gene do you have that might cause you to say something
that dumb? Victims of the Standard Oil monopoly were free to build cars
that ran on coal. Victims of IBM's monopoly could still buy other
computer systems; they just couldn't buy any that were interoperable
with the monopoly.
>> I'd suggest you to try:
>>
>> http://www.fiat.com/
>>
>> Nothing to do with the subject either, but It has nicer colors.
>
>tee hee...It has a little to do with the subject, they're using IIs5 on
>Win2K.
"Tee hee"? What are you, a moron?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:43:57 GMT
Said Aaron Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 04 Mar 2001 06:25:08
>> >Digital Mellinium Copyright Act
[...]
>They don't have a chance. "Sharing with your friends so that they
>can make copies" is *NOT* authorized copying under the copyright
>laws...OF ANY PERIOD in US history.
Well, I think you're wrong there. Its just that actually making copies
was so expensive that nobody bothered considering it in the "fair use"
light which electronic files make possible.
>You *MAY* make a copy of a CD...or even multiple copies of a CD,
>"for personal use"...such as, one to keep in the living room, one
>that sits in your car's CD changer, and a 3rd copy that you keep
>in the office. That's legitimate, as you will never be playing
>more than one copy at the same time.
Says who? "Personal use" doesn't have any meaning or import in
copyright law.
>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.
As long as the use is not commercial, its personal use.
>If Napster could GUARANTEE that only ONE person (either the
>contributor, or any people who made copies) will be playing
>either the contributor's original, or *ANY* of the copies
>(or subsequent copies made off of those), *THEN* Napster could
>be allowed to operate as always, with no problems...because
>it's like the "book being checked out of the library" situation.
And we all know (except maybe Aaron, I guess) that libraries don't stock
software. AND that people make copies of music CDs they borrow from the
library. Oddly enough, the music industry didn't fall apart already.
>The problem is, lots of people have checked out copyrighted
>items from their local library (or video store, or wherever),
>made copies, and think that this is legal under the "fair use"
>clause. It is not.
But it should be. Which is why, even after you tell them, lots of
people DON'T CARE if its illegal to copy something you checked out of
the library. It is the difficulty of copying books which preserved
their high cost, not any mythical "iron clad right to profit" which
copyright provides.
The problem is, lots of people have gotten a copyright on some
intellectual property, and think this makes it legal for them to
"monopolize" the market for production of that property. It is not.
>So, they wrongly believe that, since
>Napster-style copying is the "same thing", that it's legal
>also.
No, I think just about everybody knows its illegal to copy things; they
just don't care, because it isn't generally unethical, whether it is
illegal or not.
>Their conclusion is BETTER stated as Napster-copies
>have the SAME legal status as a recording made from a CD
>or album checked out from the library.
>
>They think Napster copies are legal because they ERRONEOUSLY
>think that copies made from library-loaned materials are legal.
They don't care if Napster copies are legal; they care if they are worth
the cost, just like they do when they buy copies, instead.
[...]
>> This could get real interesting -- and not in a good way. It could
>> also affect Linux, GNU, and anything else: is modification of
>> a GNU copylefted source file "fair use"? Is modification of a
>
>The GPL specifically allows it, so yes, it is fair use.
You misunderstand the meaning of the phrase "fair use", apparently, to
begin with.
>> general design (Unix) or "look and feel" "fair use"? (I forget the
>
>You can't regulate ideas, merely particular EXPRESSIONS of the idea.
Not even that. Merely particular ideas fixed in a particular medium of
expression. Well, and derivatives of that work of authorship.
>Example...you can draw a picture of a scene, and copyright it. I
>can draw a similar picture, even focusing on the same thing, and it
>is not a copyright violation. On the other hand, if I simply
>photocopy your image, and distribute it, that IS a copyright violation.
Sorry; if your drawing was a copy of mine, it doesn't matter if you used
a photocopier or painstakingly hand-forged my work. But I think you can
see that there seems a rather strong and objective distinction between
the two, regardless. One might even suspect that it isn't the copying,
so much as the plagiarizing, that is the problem. Coming back to my
point that the issue is whether you're talking about a commercial
transaction or personal use. As far as I'm concerned (and a lot of
other people, judging by Napster's popularity), any personal use is
"fair use". The only profit any producer, author or otherwise, deserves
is what they can earn through efficiency of production.
[...]
>By putting the material onto a website, the copyright holder
>is making a de facto statement that using a browser to view
>the material *IS* authorized reproduction...BUT nothing else
>(other than the usual rules allowing excerpts, copying for
>discussion, etc.)
Well, that's definitely a pile of manure, as both legal advice and
reasoned opinion. It certainly might stand well as an initial position,
before you start thinking at all.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:43:58 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 04 Mar 2001 16:02:08
>"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Now, this law does not apply to Napster, which is a commercial company.
>> But as a consumer you are perfectly within your rights when you make a
>> copy for noncommercial private use.
>
>Nowhere in the cites you provided does it say that one can distribute
>the copies one has made of the media.
>
>The law provides for owners of media to make as many copies FOR THEMSELVES
>as needed.
It is the owner of the equipment for copying, not the media, which can
make as many copies as they wish for their personal use.
>If I had a CD, I could make an MP3 version, a cassette tape version or
>any other copied version I would like as long as I am the one using it.
>
>I cannot, however, make copies and distribute them to my friends. Most
>people do, and it's rather like speeding, it's not a big deal and most
>people (even the RIAA) don't worry about it much. They're much more
>worried about the people who make a business out of selling these
>copies to their friends.
If they're selling them, obviously those aren't friends; they're
customers.
The RIAA does indeed "worry about" individual acts of copying, or
Napster wouldn't be having legal problems. Napster doesn't make any
copies or distribute any copies. People who get MP3s from Napster are
the ones doing the copying; not the owners of the hard drive file which
they're copying. Obviously, the 'permission' to copy is implicit, so
those providing files are as liable as those receiving. Still, to
declare that the issue is simple is to prove you've misunderstood it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:43:59 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 04 Mar 2001 23:57:26
>"Alan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 16:02:08 GMT, "Chad Myers"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Nowhere in the cites you provided does it say that one can distribute
>> >the copies one has made of the media.
>> >
>> ** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
>> material is distributed, without profit, for research and educational
>> purposes only. ***
>
>Ok, for research and educational purposes, but not recreational
>or entertainment purposes.
>
>Like I said, you still can't burn a copy of a CD for a friend legally.
No, but he can burn a copy of your CD, legally. Way to miss the point.
>The police aren't going to bust your door down, but technically
>it's still illegal.
Way to be insipid, dude.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:44:01 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 06 Mar
2001 20:44:31 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Tue, 06 Mar 2001 04:03:29 GMT
><lkZo6.24005$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote
>>> on Sun, 04 Mar 2001 23:57:26 GMT
>>> <GDAo6.15430$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> >
>>> >"Alan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >> On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 16:02:08 GMT, "Chad Myers"
>>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >Nowhere in the cites you provided does it say that one can distribute
>>> >> >the copies one has made of the media.
>>> >> >
>>> >> ** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
>>> >> material is distributed, without profit, for research and educational
>>> >> purposes only. ***
>>> >
>>> >Ok, for research and educational purposes, but not recreational
>>> >or entertainment purposes.
>>> >
>>> >Like I said, you still can't burn a copy of a CD for a friend legally.
>>> >The police aren't going to bust your door down, but technically
>>> >it's still illegal.
>>>
>>> Technically, nothing; it's illegal, period. It's clear that what
>>> Napster users are doing is NOT for research and educational purposes
>>> (except for news reporters checking on the service, perhaps, as they're
>>> presumably researching a story; as of 3/5, Napster is still breaking
>>> the law).
>>>
>>> Whether one gets caught, of course, is an issue. The same issue
>>> exists for Windows products duplicated in the USA (those duplicated
>>> overseas may have their own issues; China in particular is a problem
>>> as they don't really have copyright law AFAIK).
>>
>>I agree. I'm sorry if I gave you a different impression.
>>
>>I was merely being semantical.
>>
>>If I burned you a copy of a music CD, in the grand scheme of the
>>cosmos, it wouldn't be a big deal.
>
>One would be liable for the cost of the license, enforcement costs,
>and punitive costs, depending on various factors (after all,
>the trial judge and/or jury don't have to convict if the evidence
>is not "beyond a reasonable doubt", for example).
Nice scare tactics.
>>If I set up a major web site or internet application to allow you
>>and 4 million other friends of mine to download that CD, THAT
>>would be a problem. =)
>
>And if one set up a major web site that served as a broker between
>the MP3 provider (the one who ripped the CD into an MP3)
>and the downloader, that's a real problem -- being more or less solved,
>or at least fought in court, even as we speak.
Continuing to insist the problem is being solved because your finger is
still in the dike, regardless of how much water you're standing in,
doesn't seem very clear-sighted.
>Since I haven't used Napster, I'm not 100% sure, but my understanding
>is that one logs into Napster and starts uploading ripped [*] file
>titles, adding them to Napster's database; the client also allows one
>to search for various files, which represent songs or tracks.
>If a match is found, and the provider's computer is online, Napster
>somehow acts as a data proxy between the user requesting, and the user
>supplying. This means that all three are breaking copyright in some
>fashion, with Napster squarely in the middle being "enabling technology".
The person ripping the CD is within his rights doing so, and makes no
copies himself. The site also makes no copies. And the owner of the
"copying equipment", their PC with Internet access, is within his rights
to use that equipment to make copies of [audio] data for their own
private use. So far, none of the three are breaking copyright law, in
any fashion, legally.
Yet it seems obvious there is something incompatible between copyright
and the Internet. I haven't actually found one, yet, but it does seem
like there must be something. I mean, the *entirety* of copyright can't
simply be a mechanism for maintaining the price of intellectual property
above competitive levels.
>I can't say I know the legal details -- it's not fair use, but beyond that,
>I'm not sure -- but I'm also not sure how it can be stopped short of
>shutting down Napster or having the RIAA or the recording artist signing
>each and every MP3 file ever produced (and burned onto an audio CD) and
>then rooting out bootleg copies (go to concert with digital tape recorder,
>tape, copy data to MP3 on computer, make it available) somehow.
>Good luck on that!
Wouldn't work to begin with. And as far as the "legal details" are
concerned, I've given up on pretending that lawyers understand
abstractions. The natural state of intellectual works are "fair use";
anything not explicitly made illegal is legal. And the only thing that
is made illegal is depriving the author of profit (commercial copying);
personal copying doesn't do that. And even the
one-to-one-million-due-to-the-wonders-of-the-Internet doesn't mean you
get to suddenly change the rules.
>Of course, one can play all sorts of games with the song titles.
>Without including some sort of encrypted data chunk which uniquely
>identifies the song (and requiring the MP3 -- MP4? -- player to
>check that chunk with the RIAA's or artist's public key), it's hard
>to see how Napster, given only the file names and/or song titles,
>can root out all copyrighted songs. Somebody out there will get clever;
>one particularly idiotic workaround would be to generate a totally random
>name for a file, then post a message to Usenet stating that such and
>such a file is available with this random name, representing one
>of Metallica's songs, for example. Or one could maintain a separate
>webpage.
A possible new replacement for Napster now encrypts the stuff, and
decrypting it is not allowed according to the DMCA. ;-)
>It's also not clear why the player would want to play "check the chunk";
>RIAA would have to root out unauthorized players which don't, too.
>They might require the player log into RIAA and verify its certificate,
>though (the player would be digitally signed by that certificate; it
>would be impossible for a bootleg player to have access to that certificate).
>But even that won't stop bootleggers; the playing of audio does not
>intrinsically require a digital certificate. (I used to be able to
>play a simple sine wave through /dev/dsp, for example. Or one can
>simply do cat stupid > /dev/dsp -- although one might want to turn
>down the volume first. :-) )
Whether it is the law or the fact that its not cost-effective to bootleg
commercial works is, in an odd sort of way, a chicken-and-egg conundrum,
I think. You're right; there's no possible means of preventing modern
technology from making a copy of anything. The only possible avenue for
those who wish to commercially produce such works is to decrease their
profits and their costs to a more effective and competitive level.
Then, as always, people will happily pay a reasonable price for a
personal copy of a popular work.
It really all just comes down to a difference in opinion in what is
"reasonable". And the overwhelming issue apparently facing society is
how to deal with the fact that the consumer is always right, in such
disputes.
>So yes, it's illegal according to current copyright law. Is
>it enforceable? Far from clear.
A law which is not enforceable is not, itself, legal. Needing
permission to exercise your rights is the same as not having rights.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:44:02 GMT
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 08 Mar 2001
>"." wrote:
>>
>> > I cannot, however, make copies and distribute them to my friends. Most
>> > people do, and it's rather like speeding, it's not a big deal and most
>> > people (even the RIAA) don't worry about it much. They're much more
>> > worried about the people who make a business out of selling these
>> > copies to their friends.
>>
>> That would be believable if, and only if, the RIAA and MPAA were trying
>> to do ANYTHING to stop big scale pirates. They're not. I would say,
>> they're not because they can't. All copy protection can be circumvented,
>> and possibly even duplicated perfectly.
>> All their latest endeavours have been aimed towards stopping ordinary
>> people copying/recording things, legally OR illegally. They want you to
>> pay every time you watch a movie. They want you to pay every time you
>> listen to music.
>>
>> I'm seriously surprised they haven't created a credit-card mp3-player -
>> ie: a player that automatically deducts a small amount from your credit
>> card...
>
>Well, it was just a flash in TV teletext news, but it appears that
>Microsoft is trying to have people pay for each e-mail sent via MSN. If
>confirmed it would be on the same line as credit-card MP3.
Ironically enough, this is an business model that has gone back and
forth from being 'progressive' to 'regressive'; CompuServe used to
charge per email, and I kind of like the idea. Given the rates are
cost-effective for me, of course. The real issue, I think, is that the
wondrous electronic world we have created can work to make a very large
number of very small transactions to be efficient to an extent which was
not possible in the "classic economy". But unless each email costs a
fourteenth of a cent or so, then its just not going to be possible.
The reason it is ironic is that there's more than enough profit in that
to make it a lucrative business model. Still, it can't compare to
profiteering.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:44:03 GMT
Said Aaron Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 05 Mar 2001 05:54:42
>"Norman D. Megill" wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "Sharing with your friends so that they
>> > can make copies" is *NOT* authorized copying under the copyright
>> > laws...OF ANY PERIOD in US history.
>>
>> This is a common misconception that the RIAA wants you to believe. In
>> fact making a copy of an audio recording is perfectly legal in the US,
>> even if you don't own the original recording, as long as it is for
>> noncommercial purposes. The reason for this is the Audio Home Recording
>> Act (AHRA).
>>
>> Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital
>> audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or
>> imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA
>> companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists,
>> copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:
>
>Interesting.
>
>In that case, fuck the RIAA.
>
Nicely put, I guess. Kind of interesting that this little gem has gone
entirely unremarked in all the discussion about Napster, eh?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:44:04 GMT
Said Dave in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 04 Mar 2001 11:32:01 -0700;
>On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:12:53 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Said Dave in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 02 Mar 2001 17:07:27 -0700;
>
>>>and b) many states
>>>had consumer-protection laws that made shrink-wrap EULA's meaningless
>>>unless the consumer could get a refund. Thus without a refund offer
>>>customers could pass out all the free copies they wanted to.
>>
>>All states except Maryland have consumer protection laws in place in
>>this regard. Guess which state all modern software licenses are drawn
>>up under?
>
>My understanding is that those laws would only apply if you agreed to
>the license in the first place, or only if the local laws permitted
>shrink-wrap agreements.
Actually, I'd have to say they apply everywhere you don't have millions
of dollars to defend your rights against corporate lawyers.
>>All this "if the law weren't predatory upon the rights of the consumer,
>>then how could producers make money, since we know consumers will
>>fulfill the entire demand with 'free copies'" is a little sickening.
>
>I think what we have on several fronts here is a mini-revolution.
Yea, I'd agree.
>Consumers want one thing but the various industries have found ways to
>shove something else entirely down our throats. So, consumers are
>finding their own solutions.
Consumers want low prices; producers want high prices. Everything else
comes from that, and the fact that the producers get to write the laws.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
