Linux-Advocacy Digest #773, Volume #32 Mon, 12 Mar 01 12:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: C# (Craig Kelley)
Re: The Linux office, a possible future..... ("natas")
Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your computer")
(Jim Richardson)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Jim Richardson)
Re: Dividing OS to groups. (aflinsch)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:41:32 -0300
David Utidjian wrote:
[snipalot]
>> >> 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?
I thought it would be obvious. They can not take the GPLd software and
release it under a non-free license.
> 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?
What, you say that doesn't make it harder? You may say it's GOOD to make it
harder, but you can't say it ain't harder!
>> > 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.
Correlation is not causation.
>> > 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?
Because nobody gets rich selling 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.
There's an effect called self-competition. For example, MS is running into
it. People will not buy enough windows 2000 because they don't feel it's
sufficiently better than Windows 98. If you will depend only on expanding
the market to get sales, you are making things harder on yourself. Becoming
better makes the market for the new model larger.
> You are assuming that they can get their hands on the source of the
> "non-free" software. That is usually not the case.
They can always get their hands on the really free software on which that
non-free software is based. We are speaking, after all, about modified BSDL
code.
>> > 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...
Noone gave anyone the right to do whatever they want with the money they
have. Only the right to do what's cheap enough.
> 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.
If you feel the windows TCP/IP stack is not good enough, you can take the
BSD stack and graft it. If you feel that's not good enough, you can hire
someone to make a better windows. A KDE developer, for instance.
>> >> 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?
No. Who told you such a thing?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C#
Date: 12 Mar 2001 08:48:08 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "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?
It does run Windows. I'd wager that 99% of the applications for
Windows and Windows itself is written in C++.
> In any event, Intepretation and Compiling are two different, and mutually
> exclusive things.
Says who?
Part of a .EXE file is Microsoft-centric code that is interpreted by
the loader. Since you claim that these things are mutually exclusive,
then do explain.
> C++ was designed to compile programs and run them on processors
> without regard to the OS.
Sounds a lot like Java.
Java is a language. Most Java *compilers* compile into Java Byte
Code, which is a form of assembly for a certain kind of processor.
> > > > 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.
Do explain then. Exactly what is .NET? Nobody seems to know.
Is it a replacement for win32?
Is it a replacement for http?
Is it a replacement for DCOM?
Is it a replacement for C++, specifically VC++?
Is it a replacement for DAO?
Does it mop the floor and provide for desert toppings?
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a PCI slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "natas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux office, a possible future.....
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:58:00 -0800
>
> Unless I am mistaken, isn't there a version of Corel Draw out for Linux,
or
> am I thinking of a Franken-Wine application?
>
>
It's Franken-Wine. I checked it out the other day.
Because developing a native Linux app would take "years" of development
time. <-- paraphrased (except for the "years" part) from the Corel website.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your
computer")
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:09:17 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 22:51:01 +0200,
Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Of course, but since you can download both for free, I would rather get
>a
>> > real Unix than a Linux.
>>
>> why? the only difference between "a unix" and linux is a legal one
>> about rights to a rightmark. solaris may have some nice features, but
>> those features are useful as part of solaris, not because sun paid
>> money to some standards organization to use the name.
>
>Exactly because of those features. Most (all?) unixes ship with those.
>
>
Exactly what features does solarisX86 have that linux or *BSD lacks?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:12:07 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 9 Mar 2001 20:46:29 GMT,
Steve Mading, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: On 10 Mar 2001 01:25:03 +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>religiously? i'm not surprised. anyway, could you explain to me why
>:>i see this recurring phrase "congreff shall make no law..." and hey,
>:>what about that bill of rights? they're phrased _negatively_, as
>:>restrictions on uhh, Freedom. it's looking to me that in order to
>:>establish good old-fashioned american-as-apple-pie freedom we have to
>:>have limits (gasp) unfreedom (swoons), at the very least, a limit on
>:>destroying the architecture of freedom. otherwise, as you say, it's a
>:>hollow shell.
>
>: Go back and read the Bill of Rights again, this time for comprehension. It
>: is entirely a set of limits placed on governments (originally, just the US
>: Congress, but later extended by the Fourteenth Amendment and related court
>: cases) to prohibit them from infringing on the rights and freedoms assumed
>: to be inherent in the status of being a free citizen.
>
>So will you admit then that sometimes the total amount of freedom
>can be increased BY placing certain limits on people? In this case,
>the freedom of the populace is increased by limiting the freedom of
>the government.
>
Govt has no "freedom" It only has powers delegated to it, by we the people.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 21:34:33 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:13:17 -0000,
Pete Goodwin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <986g59$t6k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> > Certainly. What do I get in return?
>>
>> Absoloutely nothing of any use whatsoever.
>
>But that's not what you get if you buy Windows!
>
>> How about a rusty old bike wheel?
>
>Again, that's not even remotely equivalent to Windows!
>
>> Now let me guess. You're not willing to pay me £30 for something utterly
>> useless are you. Bearing this thought in mind, reread the thread.
>
>I repeat: Windows is not utterly useless.
>
>--
>---
Nope, but a bigger pain in the ass to use. Such has been my experience.
For instance. I just installed a cd-rw to my wife's machine, the installation
under windows was easy enough, after we tussled over the fact that it was not
the only cd-device on the system. The free app for burning CD's was ok, except
that it didn't recognize the raw .iso image I had made (in linux) as an iso,
and when I wrote the disc, it wrapped up the iso, in a filesystem as if it were
one file. No problem with linux, I just mounted the CD, mounted the file on the
CD via the loopback device and viola. Course. All windows saw was the single
file, which made it useless for windows since it was a backup of a work dir. Oh
well, linux worked fine.
Installing under linux was slightly more effort, I had to read a howto, make a
one line change to lilo.conf, and then install xcdroast et al. However, the
difference in function is huge. The app that came with windows was lame, ok for
very basic stuff (copy a CD, or make a cd with files from windows) but it
couldn't make a bootable CD, couldn't make a CD where the directory structure
was different from the original files. Basically pretty gui but lacking in
deeper function. Xcdroast and the progs it uses, mkisofs and cdrecord, can do
so much more that I can't take the time to describe it all. Now, I am sure that
there are better cd mastering progs for windows than the one that came free
with the drive, but I don't feel the need to pay for them, or search them out,
since the ones available under linux were there allready and work so well.
SO no, windows isn't useless, but it sure has limited usefullness compared to
linux, for me.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Dividing OS to groups.
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:42:01 -0600
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> Dos based:
> Ms-Dos
> Dr-Dos
> Win1.0 - 3.11
> Win9x line
CP/M Based
> CP/M?
CP/M 86
CP/M was available long before dos, in fact, one could almost argue
that dos is cp/m based.
> Where does BeOS belong?
iirc, roughly unix, but different
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 12 Mar 2001 17:02:48 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5 Mar 2001 19:36:41 GMT,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 5 Mar 2001 15:17:46 GMT, Perry Pip wrote:
>>On 4 Mar 2001 23:45:51 GMT,
>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>And as I said, I was talking about whether the OS includes
>>documentation or not, or whether you pay extra for it. Since you have
>>to pay extra, it's relevent to what you get for your money when you
>>pay for the OS.
>
>Even with documentation, Linux is more challenging for the average user.
>*This* is why Linux needs to ship with documentation.
The average user get's Windows preinstalled. Give a user with no prior
windows experience a machine with the disk totally unpartioned and a
Win9x install CD and see what happens.
>Great, when your false claims are refuted, you respond with insults.
I'm not insulting you. I'm pointing how arrogant you are being. If you
can't take constructive criticism that's your problem. What I brought
up is whether the OS includes documention or if it costs extra. This
is certainly relevant to OS pricing?? Yet you snipped what I said as
irrelevant and never explained why. You still haven't told me why it's
irrelevent, but you insist it is. I find you to be arrogant and
condescending.
>The reason why I addressed your irrelevance is because you attacked me for
>not doing so.
I think whether an OS includes documention when you purchase it is
certainly relevant. Thus, I challanged you for snipping it out not
responding to it at all. You still haven't told me why it's not
relevant.
>It looks like either way, you'll throw insults around, when I don't address
>your irrelevant, false statements,
I don't think my statements were irrelevent, nor have you proven my
statements false. Just claiming you are right doesn't make intelligent
debate.
>I'm accused of "not having an
>intelligent argument".
Just claiming you are right and I am wrong is not an intelligent
arguement.
>because you'd believe what you
>wanted to believe regardless of what the judge said
How is that an intellegent argument?? Why can't you address the points
of what I say?? Instead you attack me.
>When I do address them, you throw tantrums.
Tantrums?? It took three posts just to get you to *begin* to address
the issue I brought up about OS not including documentation. Instead
you launch personal attacks againts me.
>Let's get this straight -- senior PhD student, educator, and programmer.
>Thank you.
And since when does that make you infallabe?? I'm a graduate student
as well but also enjoy working full time as an avionics programmer for
space flight research, not to mention taking care of family
obligations. Do you have any professional experience??. Where I work
we have dozens of PhD's and dozens more MS's, and no one gets away
with being arrogant and condescending towards others the way you are,
not even senior management.
>>From the Judge Jackson's Finding of Fact clause 33:
>>
>> "Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for
>> Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise
>> this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for
>> Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a
>> competitive market.
>
>this doesn't say that they *do*, it says that they *could*
So?? You had said they *couldn't* Furthemore the following paragraph,
which *you* *snipped* the important part of says they *did*.
YOU_SNIPPED> Finally, it is indicative of monopoly power that Microsoft
YOU_SNIPPED> felt that it had substantial discretion in setting the
YOU_SNIPPED> price of its Windows 98 upgrade product (the
YOU_SNIPPED> operating system product it sells to existing users of
YOU_SNIPPED> Windows 95). A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals
>> that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98
>> -- there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been
>> unprofitable -- but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing
>> price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price."
>
When a company has 'substantial discretion in setting the price'
i.e. free of competitive infuence, that means it can fix prices. When
the evidence a company *did* this is based on an _internal_study_ from
the company that's pretty conclusive. Your claim was they *couldn't*
and *didn't* fix prices, this proves they *could* and *did*. You are
wrong. QED.
Be an intelligent person and admit your claim was made hastefully and
is wrong. Or at least provide some intelligent evidence to the
contrary, and not an ad hominum attack, or a meaningless response that
snips out the key point of what I said.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
