Linux-Advocacy Digest #769, Volume #32 Mon, 12 Mar 01 03:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: why open source software is better [OT] ("Arthur H. Gold")
Re: The Linux office, a possible future..... ("Adam Warner")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Pat McCann)
Re: The Linux office, a possible future..... (J Sloan)
Re: C# ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: There is money in Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? ("Jeff")
Re: Middle Aged Fat Asses (Tim Hanson)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: There is money in Linux ("GreyCloud")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Pat McCann)
Re: why open source software is better [OT] (Florian Weimer)
Re: Dividing OS to groups. ("GreyCloud")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 23:16:05 -0600
From: "Arthur H. Gold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better [OT]
Stefano Ghirlanda wrote:
>
> 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.
Actually, he owns the _publishing_ rights (which constitutes
half the overall value of the catalog) of Northern Songs and
Maclen (the late John/Sir Paul output).
--ag
--
Artie Gold, Austin, TX (finger the cs.utexas.edu account
for more info)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Clone Bernie!
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux office, a possible future.....
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 18:23:58 +1300
Hi Pete,
> What's the UNIX equivalent of Corel Draw? Of Microsoft Word? (Star
> Office is close but not quite there). I'm sorry but the number of
> desktop applications on Windows easily outstrips those on UNIX.
LOL. Great choice of applications there Pete. The Linux equivalent of
Corel Draw is Corel Draw:
http://linux.corel.com/products/draw/index.htm
Looks like Microsoft has kicked the stuffing out of Corel's Linux
activities though so I'm not sure what the future holds for further Linux
applications from Corel.
Or you may prefer the extremely professional GIMP:
http://www.gimp.org
The manual is available from the site which runs to almost 1,000 pages.
Furthermore, StarOffice is the equivalent of Microsoft Word. But since
Microsoft's .doc file format is a jealously guarded secret and is
completely non-standard you can't hold it against StarOffice that perfect
reproduction of Microsoft Word documents is not possible. What you are
asking for is a 100% perfect clone, not an application with equivalent
functionality.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 Mar 2001 22:01:11 -0800
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Pat McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > I've not seen a software license without
> > constraints (though I can concieve of them). Certainly not the BSDL.
>
> What about zlib?
> http://opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html
> The only limitation are that you must give credit where it's due. On the
> code.
That's a constraint, unless "credit" refers only to the copyright claim
(maybe) and if copyright law prohibts the removal of it (very unlikely).
I see no constraint in these three licenses:
1) You may copy this software.
2) You may copy and distribute this software.
3) You may copy and distribute this software,
but you may not modify it.
I view that last clause as non-constraining in the sense I originally
meant because copyright law forbids the making of derivatives with or
without that clause. I see it as a reminder, not a constraint. The only
thing being licensed is the right to copy, not to derive. (On the other
hand, maybe the withholding of the right to derive could be considered
a constraint too, leaving us with no reasonable constraintless license.)
It doesn't make much sense to license only the derivative right, so
the above kinds of licenses are the only reasonable ones I can think of
that are without constraint.
A license which said "you may distribute copies and derivatives of this
software to the public" is the same as saying "you may do anything with
this software without constraint" and both would be of no value to the
licensor and possibly a greater risk to both the licensor and licensees
than a release to the public domain.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux office, a possible future.....
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 06:04:09 GMT
Brent R wrote:
>
> BTW, out of my own ignorance, why didn't Minix take off?
Depends on what you mean by "take off" - AFAIK
minix is still around. It's all it was ever meant to be,
an educational aid. Linux outgrew that genre rather
early on.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C#
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 00:05:25 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The language was not designed with JIT in mind.
>
> Pardon me? Was C++ designed to run Windows?
C++ doesn't run Windows. Why did you think it does?
In any event, Intepretation and Compiling are two different, and mutually
exclusive things. C++ was designed to compile programs and run them on
processors without regard to the OS.
> > > Why do you think Microsoft wants to copy this cool technology?
> >
> > Uhh.. JITing has been around since the 70's. Ever heard of a language
> > called SmallTalk? That's the way .NET works, rather than the way Java
(even
> > with JIT) works.
>
> And here I thought .NET was just a SOAP implementation...
.NET uses SOAP of it's RPC, that doesn't mean .NET is just SOAP.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is money in Linux
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 00:07:28 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm not going to bother quoting stock prices or revenues for corporate
> distribution makers bacause I couldn't be bothered.
Probably because you know the stock prices don't look good.
> Just go in to any book shop with a computer section.
>
> I went in to Blackwell's the other day. The Linux section is getting
> quite big.
>
> There were about 10 different CD's avaliable [*] and I couldn't be
> bothered to count the number of books (but I did notice the Linux for
> Dummies).
>
> Well, looks like someone is making plenty of money otu of Linux.
Did you see anyone actually BUYING those books?
------------------------------
From: "Jeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 06:10:26 GMT
Paolo Ciambotti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charlie Ebert"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> http://www.netslaves.com/comments/983976069.shtml
>>
>> Charlie
>>
> Slow news day, clueless journalist, rant mode switch stuck in the "on" position.
Nope a kernel hacker according to the comments following the story.
Personally I think she has a lot of valid points. Like it or not Linux
is no longer a little hacker toy... it is a potential Microsoft killer
(who in their sweatiest, most feverish hacker dreams would have ever
imagined that turn of events even 2 years ago?) - it is taking over the
server market and more and more people are getting interested in using
it on their desktop. I use it on mine and I am very happy with it -
fortunately tho I also like to tinker with computers cuz tinkering is
currently still by necessity a large part of the "Linux" experience.
This is should imo be an option and not a necessity. I think that this
was the point of the author of that article. There is too much
complexity in a Linux installation.
For example, configuration can be a real hassle, especially since once u
have installed Linux for the first time u have a zillion configuration
files to slog through I have had to slog through a whole host of FAQ's, books,
Man Pages, HOWTOs, smart asses telling you to learn vi... etc in order to get
and keep everything running nicely. A Linux box needs someone who is willing
to perform the function of a sysadmin and that function could imo be made
much simpler by standardizing the format of conf files to XML - this would
make it a lot easier to create universal configuration tools and a wider
range of preconfigurations.
And then there's the biggest configuration issue that is not mentioned
in the article but is a really big problem - just about everyone who has
a high-speed internet connection and a Linux box *has* to learn a lot more
about computer security then they had ever wanted to know *before* they
can even safely connect their machine to the internet and download the
materials they need to read in order to secure their box. These
shrink-wrapped distro Linux boxes get rooted all the time because of
this. This is of course partially the fault of the distros but it is also
due to the complexity of configuration and in the end, if not fixed
will only give Linux somewhat of a black eye.
That said... Linux development is progressing at lightning speed and
most of the things she lists as "MUST DO'S" are well on their way.
It is true that Linux is there for people to do whatever they want with -
unfortunately - that is not the case for people who only want to do
their (non-IT related) work. For those people (the majority) Linux is
not ready for prime time. It's close tho... and getting closer every
day. Linux is a flexible and powerful enough operating system that
it really can be everything to everyone.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Middle Aged Fat Asses
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 06:37:32 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> Why is is that everytime the subject of Linux comes up in an
> office, about 25 middle aged fat asses fly into the conversation
> to profess the advocacy of using Windows powered boxes.
You threaten office gurudom. Every MAFAM who is otherwise unproductive
because he surfs the net all day at his desk is redeemed because he
knows how to Unlock Windows, do Mail Merges, install a new printer, and
all those dopey things the totally clueless ask him to do. By
mentioning Linux you threaten his hegemony as office computer guru.
> Windows boxes are so easy to install. I tried to install Linux
> and it was SOO DIFFICULT! Every PC crashes, so why pick the OS
> which is hardest to install! Oh my!
He's just repeating what he heard on the Win2000 website last night. As
to the reality? He doesn't have a clue. Humor him.
> They are so concerned about install and setup they forgot the
> REASON this BECAME IMPORTANT! It BECAME IMPORTANT BECAUSE,,,,
> MIDDDLE AGGGED FATTTASS MAN ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME HERE,,,,
> IT BECAME IMPORTANT BECAUSE WINDOWS IS AN UNRELIABLE PEICE
> OF SHIT OPERATING SYSTEM WHICH ISN'T CAPABLE OF UPTIMES EXCEEDING
> A WEEK! IT'S THE FUCKING OPERATING SYSTEM WHICH HAS MADE THIS
> RE-INSTALLATION ISSUE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO YOU!
>
> The next concern MIDDLE AGED FAT ASS MAN has is that Linux
> doesn't have Microsoft Office. MAFAM can't use a computer unless
> it has his favorite! MAFAM, use Star Office or Gnome or KDE office.
> Use Evolution! Do not rely on MAFAM products from Micro-crash anymore.
It's taken him two years just to learn this piece of junk. You're
taking his reason to come to work every day.
> There must be a device which uses centrifical force or some other means
> which will transfer MAFAM's brain from this lower extremeties back
> up to his cranium where it belongs.
Good luck. It moved down there during the Windows 3.1 rollout and
hasn't been heard from since.
> MAFAM also has this terrible difficulty in understanding why it's important
> to know LINUX is ready for business when you refer to the largest
> super computer clusters being built from Linux. MAFAM thinks that's
> GEEK BRAINS STUFF and that doesn't APPLY TO MAFAM WORLD!
He doesn't care. His only business is monkey business, and has been for
years.
> Nothing in MAFAM's world needs to have GEEK BRAINS stuff as long as
> you have a GOOD PLAN!
>
> MAFAM lives by the GOOD PLAN philosophy.
>
> See you all on the wide track MAFAM'S!
>
> Charlie
--
What is worth doing is worth the trouble of asking somebody to do.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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 08:46:53 +0200
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:43:08 GMT, Giuliano Colla
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >LShaping wrote:
>
> >> And so can buying a better compiler, and so can rearranging your
> >> source code, and so can using a better high level language.
> >
> > How can you tell that a compiler is better if you don't examine the
> > machine language produced?
>
> Why, you ask the salesman of course!
>
>
> > How can you tell which way rearranging your source code will be more
> > efficient if you don't examine the resulting machine code?
>
> You try things at random until it seems to go faster. Then you whine
> about your 60-hour work weeks and "not having enough time".
>
>
> > How can you tell that a high level language is better than another if
> > you don't look at the resulting machine code?
>
> Ask the salesman again!
I *do* hope that was sarcasm.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:54:12 +0200
"Pat McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Pat McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > I've not seen a software license without
> > > constraints (though I can concieve of them). Certainly not the BSDL.
> >
> > What about zlib?
> > http://opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html
> > The only limitation are that you must give credit where it's due. On the
> > code.
>
> That's a constraint, unless "credit" refers only to the copyright claim
> (maybe) and if copyright law prohibts the removal of it (very unlikely).
Credit mean that you must say who wrote the original code.
> I see no constraint in these three licenses:
>
> 1) You may copy this software.
> 2) You may copy and distribute this software.
> 3) You may copy and distribute this software,
> but you may not modify it.
>
> I view that last clause as non-constraining in the sense I originally
> meant because copyright law forbids the making of derivatives with or
> without that clause. I see it as a reminder, not a constraint. The only
> thing being licensed is the right to copy, not to derive. (On the other
> hand, maybe the withholding of the right to derive could be considered
> a constraint too, leaving us with no reasonable constraintless license.)
I find it constraining, if I got a software like this, I wouldn't be able to
build on top of it.
I think that "Do what you want with this, as long as you don't claim that
you wrote the original code" is non-constraint license.
> It doesn't make much sense to license only the derivative right, so
> the above kinds of licenses are the only reasonable ones I can think of
> that are without constraint.
No, they constrait my ability to derive from this code.
BTW, note that this doesn't give you the right to *use* the code.
> A license which said "you may distribute copies and derivatives of this
> software to the public" is the same as saying "you may do anything with
> this software without constraint" and both would be of no value to the
> licensor and possibly a greater risk to both the licensor and licensees
> than a release to the public domain.
Why is that?
------------------------------
From: "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is money in Linux
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 23:34:34 -0800
"Brent R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Salvador Peralta wrote:
> >
> > 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
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> My prediction is that RH will be the only surviving commercial distro in
> one year, so I'd have to agree. I'm sorry, I like Linux too but these
> companies just don't have good business sense (RH has somewhat good
> business sense). I believe there's potential, but as it stands, it'll
> still take a few years before Linux becomes a force to be reckoned with.
>
> A successful Linux-distro needs to adopt MS-like tactics. Say what you
> will about MS and their products but they have good business sense.
> Their record speaks for itself, except for the indictable stuff they
> did.
>
> Of course, hopefully that particular distro will be a quality product.
> They're going to need to make $$$ to contend with the Golden Gates and
> in the highly competitive world (not a pun on MS' monopoly) of PC
> software (as opposed to server, db, or mainframe software), nice guys
> finished last 20 years ago. Linux was developed by a community of
> like-minded and conscientious people. But in the business world that
> stuff doesn't cut it, what it needs are ruthlessness and aggression.
> Reality sucks.
>
> I realize that this is no doubt flamebait, but please realize people
> that this is just my uninformed opinion.
>
> --
> Happy Trails!
>
> -Brent
Nope, not flamebait. I think you are right about the business part. You
have to also
realize that Bill Gates was raised by a pair of lawyers (parents). I think
thats where
he gets it from (ruthlessness, heartless, & agressive). He sure knows how
to create
desire in his products. Actually, since I bought my wife a computer she has
started
to learn a whole new language! (G#@ D%^& C$#@!@#$!) I got to get her a
different o/s
before I get anymore knots banged into my head!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 11 Mar 2001 23:50:01 -0800
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The main complaint of the anti-GPL crowd seems to be that they
> want free software to be a one-way street - they want to be
> parasites of free software rather than participants in it.
That starts, continues, and ends in error.
The Start - Our main complaint has nothing to do with streets, but with
signage. We think that the pro-GPL crowd is misleading open source
software developers into using the GPL without sufficient understanding
of the issues on the part of the developers and often (but by no means
always) on the part of the pro-GPL crowd.
The Kernel - No, we want free software to be a two-way street, but we
don't set up roadblocks on one side when there's insufficient traffic
on the other. Free software should be about the (often unbalanced)
two-way gifting of copyrights and not about the (often unbalanced)
two-way trading of copyrights, which is what copyleft is about. ("You
may not derive from my code unless I may derive from yours.") We think
it is better for everyone if people are allowed to be parasites as they
see fit rather than wasting their time recoding from scratch. Etc.,
etc. We prefer not to deal in the trading of intellectual property
rights. It seems so commercial and proprietary, if you know what I mean.
The Unfair Insult - Our arugments contain nothing that depends on any
desire to be parasites and not participants. We could just as well be
pure parasites or pure paticipants and have made the same statements.
It is very unfair of you to ascribe motives for which you have supplied
no evidence and which are irrelevent in any case.
In closing, our main complaint about the GPL might be that its use has
made so many projects ones in which we don't WANT to participate,
leaving us generally frustrated and discouraged.
------------------------------
From: Florian Weimer <[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: 12 Mar 2001 03:10:20 +0100
Stefano Ghirlanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michael Jackson owns most on the rights on Beatles music.
Is this a joke? ;-) How did he get these rights? Did he buy them?
------------------------------
From: "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Dividing OS to groups.
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 23:50:00 -0800
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Giuliano Colla wrote:
>
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > Most of the design team from VMS worked on NT.>
> >
> > Apparently working under different directives.
>
> Yes, after some thought it does seem like quite a stretch
> to claim that windows nt is derived from vms. At most there
> could be some similar philosophies in things like scheduler
> or memory management algorithms, but they are completely
> separate and different OSes.
>
> For one thing, vms was very stable, it could run for years.
>
> I'm also told that VMS has a number of key features and
> capabilities that have no equivalent in windows nt.
>
> So, perhaps the list should look like this:
>
> Unix derived OSes and close relatives:
> Solaris, Linux, *BSD, Irix, HP-UX, AIX, SCO,
> Unix-on-Mach (NeXT, MacOS X, MkLinux)...
>
> Microsoft OSes
> msdos, win3x, win 9x, winnt/2k.
>
> Traditional Data Center OSes
> VMS, MVS, etc...
>
> Other
> AmigOS, classic MacOS, etc
>
> jjs
>
Yes. That looks about right. BTW, cutler was hired and fired a few times
during his nt days.
I've heard on the grapevine, then, that cutler disagreed with gates and crew
about how to
design a decent o/s. The real funny part is that Gates used DEC vaxes to do
business in house
rather than use windows!
Banks and the stock market AFAIK use a lot of vms systems and ibm vs
systems.
I don't know what happened to Data General, but i'm curious to find out.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
