Linux-Advocacy Digest #761, Volume #32 Sun, 11 Mar 01 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: What does IQ measure? (Brock Hannibal)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Brock Hannibal)
Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your computer") (.)
Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7) (Tim Hanson)
Re: There is money in Linux (Salvador Peralta)
Re: No problem with multiple GUI's (Salvador Peralta)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (.)
Re: why open source software is better [OT] (Stefano Ghirlanda)
Re: Linux Joke (.)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Tim Hanson)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Giuliano Colla)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Tim Hanson)
Re: What does IQ measure? (.)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Rick)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Rick)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Giuliano Colla)
Re: There is money in Linux (Rick)
Re: GPL Like patents. ("Masha Ku'Inanna")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:09:07 -0800
From: Brock Hannibal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> Brock Hannibal wrote:
>
> > Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> > > Brock Hannibal wrote:
> > > > That would sort of be like saying F=ma is not true
> > > > because you've redefined a to be something other
> > > > than acceleration.
>
> > > Well, the fact is F=ma isn't true if dm/dt != 0 [1].
> > > The assumptions you're making about IQ are in the same
> > > league as assuming that dm/dt can always be ignored,
> > > when in the Real World (tm) it can't be (rockets burning
> > > fuel or space debris hitting the atmosphere for example).
>
> > That's dodging the analogy you stupid fucking idiot.
>
> Nah, it's just demonstrating the analogy is flawed.
No it's arguing about something that has nothing to do with the
analogy.
> > If you redefine any term in an equation the equation loses
> > validity as you take great lengths to show later.
>
> But I'm not redefining terms - dp/dt is *the* definition
> of F. F = ma is a special case of that, where someone has
> assumed/defined dm/dt = 0.
>
> > If you redefine mass as a changing amount instead of a
> > constant F=ma does not apply. My analogy works with that
> > too, you arrogant twit.
>
> If your analogy works, then you really are arguing about nothing.
No, YOU were arguing about a nit and choosing to ignore or actually
missing the real point of the analogy.
> > I think you are very confused. At any instant in time F=ma always
> > holds.
>
> Nope - F = ma only holds if dm/dt = 0 and dv/dt != 0 - if velocity
> isn't changing there is no 'a', but there could be an F due to
> dm.
> The math is pretty simple. Bonus points for examples - I can
> think of at least two.
I can think of a lot of examples but you've missed the whole point
which was about changing the meaning of an equation by redefining
the variables or defining constants as variables.
> [A]
> > Of course if the mass is changing over time because of boil
> > off or fuel consumption you have to take that into account.
>
> My point exactly. Thank you.
>
> > > > It makes a pretty good case though. When you want to know whether X
> > > > and Y are related, a high correlation is good evidence.
>
> > > Jeez - Hume pretty much settled this in what - the 18th
> > > century? Catch up, please. Relation is not causation, and
> > > correlation isn't even necessarily relation in any
> > > meaningful sense. You can correlate the DJIA with
> > > sunspots - doesn't mean there's any relation or causation
> > > between the two (it's as likely that the DJIA causes
> > > sunspot activity as the other way around unless you know
> > > something specific about causality, which no theory of IQ
> > > I've ever seen establishes).
> >
> > You in your jerklike out of context way snipped this statement by
> > Steve Madding:
>
> > > > > You can argue correlations all you want.
> > > > > Showing correlations is insufficient to prove your point.
>
> > To which I responded with a reasonable statement that:
> > > > It makes a pretty good case though. When you want to know whether X
> > > > and Y are related, a high correlation is good evidence.
>
> > I never said it "proved " anything, just that it is good evidence
>
> But it's not good evidence of anything unless you have some
> model of causation, and you don't have that. I fail to see
> how that's out of context - not very convenient for what you're
> claiming, but not out of context.
>
> > > Secondly, "high" is not a number, and it certainly isn't
> > > 1.0, meaning that in the best of all worlds for IQ
> > > proponents there are other factors that need to be
> > > considered. The truth is probably much worse than
> > > that, since by "high" IQ proponents often mean > 0.
>
> > No they mean >> 0. Like 0.4 or better. You obviously have very
> > little understanding of statistics. It sounds like your
> > understanding is limited to H.S. physics.
>
> But it's easy to find things that correlate to much better
> than .4 - say population over time and the decay of C-14
> over time. Doesn't mean there's any connection whatsoever
> (except the passage of time), and it's "evidence" of nothing.
> Maybe I'm not an expert in stats, but a .4 correlation
> coefficient doesn't seem very impressive to me. Wouldn't
> impress a physicist, I'm sure.
>
> > > [1] People with reasonable IQ's recall from HS physics
> > > that F=dp/dt, where p=mv is momentum, so F= m*dv/dt + v*dm/dt.
> > > OTOH, people who make superficial, imprecise arguments
> > > only remember that F=ma, and forget that's a special case
> > > (Newton's Law of Usenet Debate)
>
> > It's only a special case in unrealizable, for the most part,
> > conditions.
> Hardly unrealizable
So you space travel everday, eh? Sounds like it. Lay off the weed
man.
> - I gave two fairly common examples.
> But you're contradicting your statement at [A] above
> where you agreed with those examples.
>
> > You are arguing against the statement that the vector
> > equation F=ma is untrue?
>
> Yep, because it is untrue in some cases, while F = dp/dt
> is always true in the Newtonian world (by definition -
> F *is* dp/dt - AFAIK there is no other definition, but
> I might be wrong on that).
I am sorry that my lack of the correct fonts and little hat symbols
is confusing you. I thought mentioning the vector equation would
clue you in. They didn't cover vector calculus at your high school
evidently. I was writing the same equation as you.
> > No I don't think so. It too loses validity
> > at near light speed, another condition that's unrealizable in your
> > Real World, dumbfuck.
>
> Gee, that must be why Newtonian mechanics is so successful
> at describing atomic level kinetics.
Well, it's not. Quantum mechanics is much better. Consider how you
calculate the energy level of an electron and its distance from the
center of the atom. Since it does not vary in a continuous manner
but in discrete steps the same calculus you use in Newtonian
mechanics is useless.
> Oh, sorry, nuclear
> physics must not be part of the Real World (tm).
Only in your weird view of the "Real World." In nuclear physics the
newtonian axiom of conservation of mass no longer holds, because
some mass is converted directly to energy.
> > That still is only proof of the analogy that I made. Thank you for
> > providing additional backup for my argument that if you redefine the
> > conditions or the elements of an equation you have a different
> > equation.
>
> Hey - no problem. Always happy to be of service.
>
> Arthur
Likewise.
--
Brock
"Put a $20 gold piece on my watch chain so the boys'll know I died
standin' pat"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:20:58 -0800
From: Brock Hannibal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Arthur Frain wrote:
[snip because other stuff was addressed in other posts]
> > > Secondly, "high" is not a number, and it certainly isn't
> > > 1.0, meaning that in the best of all worlds for IQ
> > > proponents there are other factors that need to be
> > > considered. The truth is probably much worse than
> > > that, since by "high" IQ proponents often mean > 0.
>
> > No they mean >> 0. Like 0.4 or better. You obviously have very
> > little understanding of statistics. It sounds like your
> > understanding is limited to H.S. physics.
>
> But it's easy to find things that correlate to much better
> than .4 - say population over time and the decay of C-14
> over time. Doesn't mean there's any connection whatsoever
> (except the passage of time),
Well, duh.
> and it's "evidence" of nothing.
Except the passage of time.
> Maybe I'm not an expert in stats, but a .4 correlation
> coefficient doesn't seem very impressive to me. Wouldn't
> impress a physicist, I'm sure.
Let's consider a case of a frequency modulated waveform as used in
FM radio. How correlated is the resultant waveform to either the
carrier frequency or the frequency of the modulating audio
information? It's certainly less than 1, wouldn't you say, and yet
we are able to almost completely separate the mixed waveforms.
It's obvious your understanding of the uses of correlation is
extremely lacking.
--
Brock
"Put a $20 gold piece on my watch chain so the boys'll know I died
standin' pat"
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your
computer")
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:40:18 +1300
> > : Dunno if "mode co80" works anymore. :-)
> >
> > It works on Windows 95 just fine. Don't know about 98, ME, or other newer
> > flavours of Winblows. What I do know is that it works on my dual-boot box.
>
> It should work on all 9x versions.
> NT versions (at least AFAIK), has the startup/shutdown fixed.
I dunno what you're answering, but I'm not convinced it's what he was
talking about.
MODE CO80 at the shutdown screen only works on 95. It stopped working on
98, because MS stopped just quitting back to dos after shutting down. I
used to stop windows starting automatically so I could put WIN and MODE
CO80 in my autoexec.bat. This was obviously the first thing about 98
that pissed me off.
It never worked on NT, because NT doesn't boot with DOS in the first
place.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7)
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 21:49:10 GMT
Stuart Krivis wrote:
>
> On 11 Mar 2001 04:34:40 +0000, Frederico S. Muņoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >
> >GNU tools usually mimic the BSD tools and not their SysV counterparts
> >though... although generally they tend to support both styles, that's
> >probably why they have 5e2 options :) From the GNU COding Standards:
> >
>
> I'm not completely a fan of the GPL and I have seen some critiques of
> GNU software that point out weird things they have done.
>
> However, I find that GNU software is generally quite good and very
> clever. There was a lot of thought put into it.
>
> I also use GNU utilities every day, so I have to give kudos to the GNU
> team.
>
> --
>
> Stuart Krivis
I think that's what frustrates people. GPLed code can be quite good,
and for the proprietary developer not only is it off limits, it's
something with which they have to compete.
--
The Great Bald Swamp Hedgehog:
The Gerat Bald Swamp Hedgehog of Billericay displays, in
courtship, his single prickle and does impressions of Holiday Inn desk
clerks. Since this means him standing motionless for enormous periods
of time he is often eaten in full display by The Great Bald Swamp
Hedgehog Eater.
-- Mike Harding, "The Armchair Anarchist's Almanac"
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is money in Linux
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:53:14 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin quoth:
> Are you investing in Linux companies?
At $6 per share for redhat? You bet. It'll hit $20 or $30 or more on
speculation at some point this year.
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No problem with multiple GUI's
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:58:55 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin quoth:
>
> Now that I've switched to SuSE,
All that tells me is that you still don't get it. Given the same
kernel version and the same package manager, linux is linux. If you
were serious about using it, you'd be spending your time learning how
to use your toolsi nstead of figuring out new ways to break a perfectly
good desktop. All you are doing right now is trading one consumer
cycle for another.
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:57:09 +1300
> >> I've met a lot of bright programmers who actually knew sod all about the
> >> COMPUTER. They get taught some logic, and a language, and they start
> >> programming. I don't believe it makes them BAD programmers, just
> >> ignorant of some important aspects.
> >
> >But that ignorance leads them to do ... stupid things...which makes
> >them "not nearly as good programmers as they would be if their
> >ignorance was removed by learning about *the computer*"
>
> Both of you have completely missed the point.
>
Then we have done it by misunderstanding you, so why don't you try and
explain the point better?
It's hard to explain OUR point more clearly - knowing low level languages
improves your ability to use high level languages.
Perhaps your point is that you don't have the time to learn about lower
levels? You want to get on and get the app working and out the door?
That's bad programming from two separate points of view.
------------------------------
From: Stefano Ghirlanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better [OT]
Date: 11 Mar 2001 22:56:25 +0100
Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally, I am in favour of open source Beatles music.
>
> Too bad Paul, George, Ringo and the demon lady want to get paid and
> increasingly so.
Michael Jackson owns most on the rights on Beatles music.
--
Stefano - Hodie quinto Idus Martias MMI est
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:58:19 +1300
> But it also _STILL_ supports SSH1, even though it's known to have
> serious and compromising flaws.
Windows operating systems are known to have serious and compromising
flaws... yet they're still supported.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:07:36 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > Oh shure it is. Anybody who uses a modern X environment with
> > either KDE or Gnome then uses W2k and comes away with the
> > impression W2k is superior has worms for brains.
>
> You're kidding right?
>
> You have actually tried KDE haven't you?
>
> It's a young product.
>
> It's got so many bugs in it I could drive a bus through them.
>
> If you want to lose all your fonts, set your region to anything other
> than US. Then watch all your fonts slip to a courier style. This was true
> on KDE 2.0. I've only recently installed KDE 2.1 (it blew big time on
> Linux Mandrake) on SuSE 7.1. I've not tried this yet.
>
> Of course Windows 2000 is superior to KDE!
...in your opinion.
> > You might as well attempt to nurse your young on YOUR NIPPLES
> > as use Windows in a business environment.
>
> Then why are you still using it Charlie? Wassamatta? Not got the guts to
> leave your support job on Windows NT that you spoke about before and get
> a job on your nirvana, Linux?
If he hasn't, millions have, and the migration is only beginning.
> > It's still the bluescreening, buggy, license ridden shit
> > it always has been since day 1.
>
> Same question Charlie, why are you still in that job?
>
> Could it be because it PAYS better than anything you could find with
> Linux?
>
Washington Post, 1/7/1999
SYSTEM SALARY
IBM/AS400 70,954
Solaris 66,205
LINUX 61,027
Windows NT 59,331
Macintosh OS 49,677
> --
> Pete
> All your no fly zone are belong to us
--
The Great Bald Swamp Hedgehog:
The Gerat Bald Swamp Hedgehog of Billericay displays, in
courtship, his single prickle and does impressions of Holiday Inn desk
clerks. Since this means him standing motionless for enormous periods
of time he is often eaten in full display by The Great Bald Swamp
Hedgehog Eater.
-- Mike Harding, "The Armchair Anarchist's Almanac"
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:12:18 +0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete
Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can't see it because you haven't been listening either!
>
> I said right at the very start that I installed Linux Mandrake 7.2 and
> choose the Epson printer as the default printer driver. The Gimp
> overrode this and printed postscript _as text_ not as graphics.
>
> So, I have to run TWO setups, on in Linux itself, and one in The Gimp.
> As far as I'm concerned, I set it up correctly. It's The Gimp that's at
> fault for ignoring this. However, this appears to be a common theme on
> Linux. There are no standard ways of doing things - everything does it
> their own way - so everything keeps reinventing the wheel.
>
There is a standard way of printing on Linux. And Gimp defaults to the
standard - using postscript. From what I can tell, your problem was
that, for some reason, the default option for lpr in Gimp was -oraw.
This is not the case on Redhat. So, it appears that Gimp did the correct
thing in defaulting to using postscript, but Mandrake must have the
incorrect -oraw default. Remove the -oraw option in Gimp setup and it
should print correctly. In any case, you only need the one common
printer driver.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:15:28 +0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete
Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Except 100% of the apps I use on Windows use this unified model. I've
> yet to see one that doesn't.
>
Ignorance is bliss
Gary
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:17:54 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 3 Mar 2001
> >"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> > > WordPerfect, in short, *can't* compete because the market isn't fair.
> >> >
> >> > How is that MS's fault? What could they do to prevent that?
> >>
> >> How about
> >>
> >> 1) Stop pre-loading at ridiculous rates with Windows bundles (ie,
> >> using one monopoly to foster the other)
> >
> >Make up your mind. You just sat here and bitched about how high the price
> >of Word was compared to it's competitors, now you're bitching because it's
> >too cheap. Can you at least choose a single position and stick with it?
>
> Fuck off Erik, this is about as disingenuous as you can get, and highly
> dishonest.
>
> Come back when you can actually contribute to a discussion.
>
Feeding him his own stuff, aren't you?
Try to be wrong sometimes Max, so that they may relax a bit. :-)
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:21:25 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >
> > But yes, I've seen Plan 9. It was terrible.
>
> Hey! Plan 9 is a /nifty/ OS!
>
> Chris
>
> --
> [ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
Too bad about the license, though. I see they've also found the value
of cute cuddly animals as mascots.
--
"Murphy's Law, that brash proletarian restatement of Godel's Theorem
..."
-- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:24:40 +1300
> > Picking questions with only one correct answer doesn't even start to deal
> > with the point I was making.
>
> Oh, so your dealing with problems that don't have a best solution
> then. I see. Well if they don't have a best solution what makes you
> think you can determine which of several solutions is a "better"
> solution?
Problem with a 'best' solution != problem with only one solution.
The use of the word 'best' may be misleading... all we know for sure is
that the smarter person is more likely to choose a better solution if
it's available. It's always possible there is an even better solution,
sometimes due to advances in technology or research.
> Whatever. Sounds to me like you haven't thought through the
> consequences of your off the cuff statements.
By all means, make me aware of these consequences I have missed.
Basically all I have said is that anyone who believes blindly in IQ tests
is a moron, and needs their head examined.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:36:26 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > > Try File -> Print under a GUI application and see what happens.
> >
> > So do you concede that the applications can bypass the printer drivers
> > if they wish?
> >
> > YES
> >
> > or
> >
> > NO
>
> Why the focus on the wrong part of the conversation?
>
> --
> Pete
> All your no fly zone are belong to us
I just lookd at GIMP. Sur nough, I couldnt print graphics, just file. I
unistlled it, then installed Gimp. Gimp devel packge, incase I wanted to
do somthing, and th Gimp data. I started Gimp, and everything worked
like it was supposed to.
mayb there is something missing in your install.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:38:01 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > Pete, do us all a favor and don't use Linux. It clearly is not ready for
> > people with your mindset. Currently, Linux is about *choice*, and
> > anything that limits choice is considered a Bad Thing(tm).
>
> Translation: don't keep complaining, we don't want nor care what you have
> to say, even if what you say may actually help (or hinder?) Linux.
>
How is it helping?
> > Maybe in a few years there will be a Linux distro that will remove all
> > options and present you with one unified everyting, then I'll be the
> > first one to recommend it to you. Currently, Linux is not a free
> > Windows. I hope and I expect it never becomes that.
>
> BeOS is not Linux but it does 'unify' the desktop. Shame something
> technically good is going nowhere in the mainstream. No applications!
>
KDE "unifies" the dsktop. as does GNOME. Those are choices.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:38:37 GMT
LShaping wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"." wrote:
> >>
> >> > That is a wild generalization which suggests that a high level programmer
> >> > must not only know the machine language but also be able to redefine
> >> > functions using machine language. Strange, that coming from someone who
> >> > probably is multilingual. Obviously, Giuliano is assuming that there will
> >> > never be progress in programming languages, that all "good" programmers will
> >> > always be stuck messing with machine language. Or he is assuming that
> >> > machine language will always stay in step with high level languages. The
> >> > more likely scenario, if this is not already the case, it that high level
> >> > programmers must leave the details to low level programmers. Human
> >> > languages certainly do not require the user to know every detail, heaven
> >> > help us if they did.
> >>
> >> I take a not-quite-so-extremist point of view... knowing lower levels,
> >> and understanding (at least in a superficial way) what the compiler is
> >> actually trying to create can make you a much better programmer. I fully
> >> recommend every single programmer learn/be taught one flavour of
> >> assembler (it doesn't matter what flavour... the concepts are the
> >> important thing).
> >>
> >> I've met a lot of bright programmers who actually knew sod all about the
> >> COMPUTER. They get taught some logic, and a language, and they start
> >> programming. I don't believe it makes them BAD programmers, just
> >> ignorant of some important aspects.
> >
> >But that ignorance leads them to do ... stupid things...which makes
> >them "not nearly as good programmers as they would be if their
> >ignorance was removed by learning about *the computer*"
>
> Both of you have completely missed the point.
Which was?
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is money in Linux
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:41:05 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > I'm not going to bother quoting stock prices or revenues for corporate
> > distribution makers bacause I couldn't be bothered.
>
> The stocks on Linux, they go up, they go down. It's difficult to make
> money on something that basically is given away.
>
... and the rest of the stock mrket is very stable now, right? You
contiune to miss the point that money is made from distribution and
service as opposed to software licensing. Service is not free. CD's ar
not free. Books are not free.
> > Just go in to any book shop with a computer section.
>
> And count the number of Windows books, or Java, or HTML or... pick the
> favourite fad.
>
> > I went in to Blackwell's the other day. The Linux section is getting
> > quite big.
>
> In proportion to what?
>
To what it was.
> > Well, looks like someone is making plenty of money otu of Linux.
>
> Someone was making money out of Dot COM's until the bubble burst.
>
> Are you investing in Linux companies?
>
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:27:24 -0500
Reply-To: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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?
I think something similar to this had taken place back in the early 1990's.
If I am not mistaken, one Mr. Vanilla Ice added one note to a bass-line to
"Under Pressure" and though Queen (quoting Queen in a radio interview) "sued
his white ass" over it, they lost out in court because it was considered a
"derived work" that had Vanilla Ice's so-called "creative input" involved in
the final product.
Of course, he had been painted as a laughing-stock, and never really
progressed beyond his one "inspired" work, if memory suits me well.
I think, though I am hardly a legal-guru, the point to the GPL was to
prevent a situation like the above scenario from happening. To what extent
it is effective, I still do not know, because on the surface, to me anyway,
it requires that if you modify someone else's GPL'ed code, you are required
to release, or make available those changes that you made to the original
code, and that those changes are also considered GPL'ed.
But that is not "freedom" to do with code as you wish, much as it is
advocated, I do not think.
If I have the BSD-license understood, it is more liberal than the GPL, in
that it will only require that if you use BSD-licensed code in your own
works, that you "footnote" your sources (pun half-heartedly intended) with
some reference to "this software is derived from software licensed by
Berkley Software Developers.." or something similar?
But it does not limit, nor does it prevent you from doing with it as you
will, even if it means to incorporate it into a proprietary code-base,
right? And if you wish to sell BSDL code, you are perfectly free to do so or
not to do so, whereas the GPL prevents you from taking GPL code, and adding
your own "value-added features" and selling it as proprietary?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
