Linux-Advocacy Digest #772, Volume #32 Mon, 12 Mar 01 10:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: C# ("cat cola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Cluster redux/ Linux advocacy (mlw)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: You're stealing my money ("Chad Myers")
Re: GPL Like patents. (David Utidjian)
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Gert Elstermann)
Re: why open source software is better [OT] (Gert Elstermann)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:26:30 -0500
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, phil hunt wrote:
> T. Maxine Devlin:
>> The US is a democracy. A particular form of democracy, known as a
>> Republic;
> Actually, it's the other way round: a democracy is a type of republic.
Er, no. One may have a republic which is not democratic. From m-w:
republic:
1a(1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch
and who in modern times is usually a president
(2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of
citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers
and representatives responsible to them and governing according
to law
(2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government
[...]
By contrast, democracies make no mention of republicanism:
democracy:
1a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people
and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of
representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
[...]
The UK is democratic, but not a republic. The PRC is a democratic
republic, where 'eligible citizens' is defined by 'party members in
good standing.' Most banana republics would fit in the concept of a
non-democratic republic.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:28:45 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> The US is a democracy. A particular form of democracy, known as a
>>> Republic;
>> Actually, it's the other way round: a democracy is a type of republic.
Really? That sounds really weird when you're living in a democratic
monarchy.
> Repulic is a country without a king.
I'd say a republic in the modern sense of the word is a state where
the head of state - normally called president - is an elected
official. As opposed to a hereditary or otherwise unrevokable title,
which could give you the typical European monarchies (democratic, with
the head of state being mostly a figure head) or dictatorships (not
democratic) and everything in between.
> Democracy has very little to do with republic, and vice versa.
I don't agree - the Roman republic was heavily inspired by the Greek
democracies.
> Nazi germany was a republic.
And a democracy. NSDAP was elected, you know. Now, the party was
using methods that weren't exactly democratic...
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[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 10:32:35 -0300
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. If you redefine
> any term in an equation the equation loses validity as you take
> great lengths to show later. 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.
You seem to have problems controlling your temper. You don't get to define
mass, and neither does Arthur. Just like you don't get to define
intelligence. Mass is a known definition, related to, say, the number and
kind of atoms in the object, and its speed. Sadly we have no such simple
material definition for intelligence.
Now, keeping in mind that even with that advantage your analogy doesn't
work (dm/dt is not zero in any self-propelled object), it should give you
pause about assigning such an axiomatic certainty to IQ's measure of man.
[snip]
>> Arthur
>>
>> [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. You are arguing against the statement that the vector
> equation F=ma is untrue? No I don't think so. It too loses validity
> at near light speed, another condition that's unrealizable in your
> Real World, dumbfuck.
Are you saying that in the real world you can't find things moving at
close-to-light speeds?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "cat < nonsense > cola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C#
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:39:35 -0500
> > 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.
Prediction:
.Net is going to be the WinME of Microsoft "innovations"
Windows developers are really starting to grow weary of the never ending
hamster cage, replete with carrot, that MS dangles out in front of them year
in and year out. But, they're pretty much stuck in place --mired in the muck
if you will.
It is the new and young developers that are NOT coming out of their
school-required QBASIC womb with their eyes wide shut to MS marketing that
are going to make the difference.
Given the future of 2 years of VB with a side dish of MS's data access
technologies, (see hamster cage above), and then a heaping bowl of MFC,
followed by the MS innovation-de-jour, doesn't Perl, C, C++, Python, Awk,
Sed, and even Borland Kylix begin to look a bit tastier? If you're starting
a career, that is. Once you're sucked up BG's ass it's a bit harder to
perform the self enema necessary to jump ship.
Besides, anyone watch the Silicon Summit last eve?
Tell me Balmer didn't come across on an order of magnitude worse than a
Republican politician. Did he even come close to answering one question? Was
it just me, or was his persona about a notch above that of a bad used car
salesmen? Man, he was just plain bad.
This .Net thing, to me, is just another MS solution in search of a problem.
They (MS) had better be careful or even *more* of their own people will come
to see them as the problem.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Cluster redux/ Linux advocacy
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:43:59 -0500
I think there is an incredible capability in Linux and UNIX work stations which
is not available, in a reasonable fashion, on Windows.
Quite frankly, I am speaking of something like this:
mpirun monthly_settlement
(With slight modifications to LAM/MPI code, you could even have it do this:
./monthly_settlement
Just by putting "#!/usr/local/bin/mpirun" in the first line.)
Where this program now runs on some number of other boxes, easily.
The scenarios are interesting to think about. A set of nodes which represent
districts or business units, on each machine is unique data relating to the
particular business unit. All the "business units" look like one big machine to
MPI.
No need for a central file server which needs to hold all the combined data.
Each machine can aggregate its own, and sent it back to the master.
I used to work for a banking software company. This strategy, alone, would have
saved days of time, a month, in a moderately large bank.
Advocates, rather than take the monopoly head-on, were it is a hard sell
because the complacent IT guys say, "Windows comes on the box, everyone uses
Office, who cares." We need to focus on the features which Linux/UNIX have that
makes users more productive. Loose clustering is just one of those features.
If you walk into a business and say, "How would you like to use your capital
investment in IT infrastructure as a tool to increase productivity and total
computing power, rather than something that reads e-mail and runs screen
savers?" You'll get a better response than saying "Run Linux, it is free."
Linux could easily run on the desktops of corporate users. There is nothing
that would be lacking in the eyes of a typical office worker. The big plus
here, is the way in which all the computers could be aggregated as a single
computing resource. Think how cool that would be!
It is going to happen, whether or not Linux gets to do it first is irrelevant,
but someday it will happen.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 05:54:54 -0800
phil hunt wrote:
> My understanding is that a lot of the net's infrastructure is
> BSD-licensed. (TCP/IP stack, BIND, Apache, sendmail, etc). Are there
> any common infrastructure programs that are GPL licensed?
Linux is really an infrastructure program at this point, as so many
servers run it. GCC (and associated tools, including CVS) is critical
infrastructure, just one step removed from the infrastructure that users
use directly.
Others, arguably of less importance, but still interesting:
Exim
Mailman
MySQL
Jabber
Lynx
Mozilla (dual license)
Samba
VNC
Perl (dual license)
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: You're stealing my money
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:49:00 GMT
"Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > It has come to my attention that, in spite of the simple
> > terms of the EULA below (in the signature line), that
> > certain people, in replying to my messages, are quoting
> > my words. Please remember that these words are my
> > intellectual property, and I have the right of due
> > recompense for your usage of my words, notwithstanding
> > that quoting the message can be construed as not
> > making a copy, but merely a quote; and notwithstanding
> > that some of my words may convey incorrect opinions that
> > may be construed as analogous to bugs; however, I insist
> > that the copying of any of my words be accompanied by
> > a transmittal of funds to my account in the amount
> > of US$ 49.99 per message quoted.
> >
> > Please note that my lawyers will be monitoring
> > for compliance using a newsgroup filter.
> >
> > Have a nice day.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > --
> > [ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
>
> So? Sue me.
(I'm still glad I have Chris blocked)
I'll reply through Tim, if you don't mind...
The use of your quotes for reply or critique is considered
fair use. If we were using your quotes for profit or
otherwise, then recompense would be due.
"some of my words may convey incorrect opinions"
-Chris Ahlstrom
Ain't that the truth!
-Chad
------------------------------
From: David Utidjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 09:24:09 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> David Utidjian wrote:
>
> > Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >
> > [some snippage]
> >
> >> This is so-typical GPL advocacy.
> >>
> >> Q: If someone just took the BSDL code and relicensed it, why would anyone
> >> prefer it over the original BSDL version?
> >>
> >> A: They wouldn't. Before relicensing it, the code would have to be
> >> IMPROVED. This step is never mentioned by GPL advocates.
> >>
> >> This is where it gets interesting. Either you have
> >>
> >> a ) commercial software that's technically better than free software, and
> >> the proprietary version DESERVES being preferred, and people will PREFER
> >> paying for it, and there is no harm done,
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> b) commercial software that is not better than free software, and people
> >> will PREFER using the free version, and there is no harm done.
> >>
> >> Your choice.
> >>
> >> Of course if reality is a), the GPL simply prevents the creation of
> >> better software for users. They get bad software in the name of freedom,
> >> even if they WANT better software that is not free.
> >
> > Ummmm... I don't quite see how this prevents a commercial software
> > company from creating better "non-free" software.
>
> It doesn't. However, the GPL makes it harder for the company to provide
> such better non-free software. Thus, the GPL is slowing the improvement of
> software in that case, one of the alternatives I gave.
How does the GPL make it "harder" for a company to provide "better
non-free" software? Is it because they have to compete with the "free"
software? Or is it because they find it hard to not use GPL code or link
to GPL code in their product?
> > It prevents a company
> > or individual from taking the "free" software and improving it AND
> > distributing it as "non-free" software. It does NOT prevent the company
> > or individual from taking "free" software improving it AND NOT
> > distributing it.
>
> What companies do inside themselves is of no relevance to us because we
> won't see it. The GPL advocates always speak about the freedoms of the
> users. Obviously in that case the GPL makes no difference. The GPL is
> neutral. That's the other alternative I gave.
>
> >> So, the GPL is either a force slowing down the improvement of software,
> >> or it is neutral. In either case, the only reason for the GPL's existence
> >> is politics.
> >
> > I disagree... I think you are making the assumption that no one will
> > want to improve and develope "free" software. By evidence of a lot of
> > really good "free" software that is being rapidly developed and
> > improved... I would say the evidence is that GPL does NOT slow down the
> > improvement of "free" software... nor make it neutral. I might even
> > argue that it actually accellerates the development of "non-free"
> > software... if and only if, the "non-free" software can be seen as an
> > improvement over the "free" software.
>
> Bzzt. The GPL would have a positive benefit compared with my proposed
> alternative in this case, if the GPL made free software develop faster than
> free software under the BSD license. I see no evidence of that.
I wasn't aware of much evidence either... until the past two years when
it seems a whole lot of really good code is being written under the GPL
(or just being moved to a GPL license). I don't know if it exceeds the
amount, in MLOC, than BSD licensed code but it has certainly
accellerated.
> > In the case of "bad" "non-free" software there is NOTHING the users can
> > do to improve that software... except take their dollars elsewhere. That
> > won't improve the "non-free" software very much.
>
> It should improve the alternative non-free software where their money is
> going. And in the case of non-free software based on BSDL software, they
> can do the same thing as with GPLd software: go and work on it.
Maybe... maybe not. Why should I improve something that is selling like
hotcakes? If I perceive that my competition is improving then I will try
to improve my product. If I see that I have the better product... I will
just sell more product. Doesn't mean to say my product is thebest it can
be or that it is even any good.... it just has to be better enough over
my competitions product for me to get all the customers.
You are assuming that they can get their hands on the source of the
"non-free" software. That is usually not the case.
> > In the case of "bad" "free" software the user CAN improve it themselves
> > OR they can give their dollars to someone who will. That WILL improve
> > the "free" software.
>
> Even in the case of the most closed software imaginable, they can do the
> latter.
No they can't... I can't pay Microsoft enough money to improve their
software... and I certainly can't pay anyone else. The only reason, IMO,
that MS has improved their software recently is because they are
starting to get some competition.. at least in the server market.
> >> That is not necessarily bad, itsjust never said.
> >
> > I think it is never said because it is misunderstanding of how it works
> > at best... definitely flawed... and fallacious at worst.
>
> Or you just didn't understand my argument at all.
No... I guess not. Perhaps if it was understandable.
If I write a "hello world" program and build it with a gcc compiler...
does that mean I can't sell a binary of the program and NOT release the
source?
-DU-...etc...
------------------------------
From: Gert Elstermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:37:58 +0100
Jeff wrote:
............
> 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.
I fully agree. Fortunately, there are still two or three years left for
the turnover from Windows 2000 which will become obsolete at that time
to a comfortable Linus distribution. And, fortunately, large companies
like IBM are supporting this process of transition.
<my 2 cents> Gert.
------------------------------
From: Gert Elstermann <[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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:41:30 +0100
Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> 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?
Yes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:00:41 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >"phil hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> >>
>> >> What's wrong with the principle "I'll share with you if you share
>> >> with me"?
>
> Really meanning. "I'll share with you if and only if you'll share with
> me". In less pleasant words "I won't share with you if won't share with me".
>
> But that isn't even the principle. Copyleft has "I won't share (this)
> with you if you won't share (everthing of yours that uses it) with
> the world".
>
> You don't see anything wrong with that? I do on many counts. First, in
> typical GNU-speak, it isn't sharing at all; it's trading of valuable
> intellectual property rights (as is done by the "evil" corprorations).
No. It's looking for like-minded people. It's "do ut des",
obviously; not worse than upholding the law because you
expect others to uphold it too.
> Second it reminds me of my nasty little brother who wouldn't let me and
> my friends play with his ball unless he could play with us.
I once let my "friends" play with a ball I saved up for to buy
(I was one of those who didn't get much pocket money). When I
got back, it was in tatters. Not all people play nice...
You wanted something that your little brother had. He wanted
something in return. That doesn't make him any more "nasty" than
you (it wasn't your ball, so why did you think you had the right
to play with it _on your terms_?). Quite frankly, you were
nastier than he was (being his older brother).
> Third, it's
> often a lousy deal, sharing one-to-many instead of one-to-one.
You forget that the author already gave it to many, you being
one of them. Nothing stopped you from asking for a different
license, BTW.
> Doing
> the math, it's trading on the part of the GNU licensor and mostly
> gifting on the part of the licensee. I could go on.
Is it? Did you not receive something from the original
author, something you considered valuable enough to
base your work on? You received a gift "with strings
attached"; you're free to refuse it. You're welcome to
whine and say you prefer a gift without any strings
attached. You'd be dishonest if you didn't recognize it
was a gift.
BTW, if you give to charity, wouldn't you be upset if
your gift found its way into the bank account of the
board members of the charity? Or if 90% of it would
be used to pay the salaries of its "dedicated employees"?
> And if I'm inclined to use a liberal license on my work, I'll see the
> copyleft principle as "I'll won't share (this) with you unless you'll
> agree to create a conservatively licensed derivative (of it)." That
> results in a loss of developers.
For you, having as many developers as possible seems to
be a measure of the quality of a free license. That reminds
me of the "managers" who guage their importance by the
number of people who work for them.
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:06:04 +0100
In article <98ih6r$egm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pat McCann
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Really meanning. "I'll share with you if and only if you'll share with
>> >me". In less pleasant words "I won't share with you if won't share with
> me".
>> >
>> >But that isn't even the principle. Copyleft has "I won't share (this)
>> >with you if you won't share (everthing of yours that uses it) with
>> >the world".
>>
>> But even that statement is misleading, you only have to share if you take
> the
>> original code, modify it *and* release it. So you can take the code, share
> it
>> with as many people as you like, or modify it for your own use without
> having
>> to give anything back. It's only if you then want to release something
> based
>> on that work that anything needs to be shared, and even then you can
> comply
>> merely by releasing the source code with the binaries. By, for instance,
>> supplying it on the same CD as the binaries you sell to your customers.
>
> Nope, at least not with GPL.
> 2)
> ...
>
> b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
> in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be
> licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
> this License.
Yep. The license is $0.00, the charge for the media is $75 + shipping
(with apologies to Sun).
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
