Linux-Advocacy Digest #789, Volume #32 Tue, 13 Mar 01 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Barry Margolin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7) (Chris Croughton)
Re: how to connect via netzero ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (David Masterson)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Barry Margolin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: There is money in Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <[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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:11:40 GMT
In article <l0gr6.16398$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No, there is no need to take away other people's choices in order to
>provide code that remains freely available.
SunOS 4.x was based on BSD. Yet most end users didn't have any access to
its source code (you could only get source code if you paid big bucks).
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 20:09:03 +0200
"Barry Margolin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:pptr6.12$3q1.5751@burlma1-snr2...
> In article <l0gr6.16398$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >No, there is no need to take away other people's choices in order to
> >provide code that remains freely available.
>
> SunOS 4.x was based on BSD. Yet most end users didn't have any access to
> its source code (you could only get source code if you paid big bucks).
Where they prevented from getting the original BSD code which SunOS 4.x was
based on?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:23:00 GMT
Said Ed Allen in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 13 Mar 2001 07:01:03 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Mar 2001
>>>
>>>But he must realize that in order to provide that, the work
>>>of an army of programmers with a good knowledge of the high
>>>level language they're using, and of the low level code
>>>resulting, is required.
>>
>>Not really, because no "low level code" which results, nor much of a
>>high level language. A few control structures for simple if...then
>>decision making, maybe a couple of prompt and wait features, and that's
>>it. Performance is never an issue, the efficiency of the resulting
>>mess, if rendered in low level code, is of no concern. It is purely a
>>results-oriented endeavor. If it works at all, it works well enough.
>>
> I understand that in one time or infrequently used procedures the
> resource costs may be cheap enough to ignore, after all we do have
> the equivalent of 1960s supercomputers on common desktops.
>
> But remember that that is the same thing being said back then about
> COBOL.
Same thing; different scale. The proportions are so different that the
argument refutes itself.
> Experience has shown that someone who understands the lower levels
> is able to get as much as one hundred times the performance out of
> the same hardware and that for some always expanding realm of newer,
> more resource straining uses that performance difference means that
> the job can get done for one tenth or better of the cost of the
> resource wasting approach.
But there is no equivalent benefit at the level of 'desktop automation'.
Sure, if you programmed the computer from the ground up to perform those
specific tasks, it would be orders of magnitude faster. But the choice
is not to use resources or use one tenth of those resources; the choice
is use resources or don't use resources.
> Now you can say that they are your resources and that you can spend
> them however you want but when it comes time to bill a customer
> either X dollars or 10X dollars the X companies will get repeat
> business.
"Customer"? There are no "customers" in desktop automation; it is a
personal task.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 15:29:49 -0300
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Mar 2001 01:28:38 -0500;
>>"Arthur H. Gold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Jay Maynard wrote:
>>> >
>>> > This is in no way analogous to the GPV's putative guarantees of
>>> > freedom, as the freedoms the GPV claims to guarantee are already
>>> > guaranteed by law. The additional restrictions in the GPV are designed
>>> > for one purpose, and one purpose only: to infect as much software as
>>> > possible in order to bring about RMS' communist utopia.
>>> Ah yes. When in doubt, call 'em a commie!
>>> (Hey, it worked for RMN -- _how_ many people died as a
>>> result?)
>>>
>>I don't agree with Jay's extension of GPL into communism, but his claims
>>are essentially true.
>
> He wasn't entirely over the top until he got to that point, I think.
>
>>GPL is unnecessary
>
> Opinions differ. I think you underestimate its importance; do you
> really think Linux would be where it is were it under the BSDL?
Let's turn that around. Do you think Linux would be where it is today if it
were released under the GPL? (The Linux kernel is not strictly GPLd, and
Linus has expressed certain interpretations that differ from FSF lore, such
as "using syscalls doesn't make your code a derived work of the kernel".
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Croughton)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7)
Date: 13 Mar 2001 18:32:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 21:49:10 GMT, Tim Hanson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Which is why all of the software I write (except explicitly under
contract for proprietary systems) is released under a modified BSD
licence (modified in that I've reduced the advertising rules, so that if
it is in an executable form they don't have to give it credit if they
don't want to; this avoids RMS's criticism that you can end up with more
credits for included libraries than documentation).
I don't like the way the GPL is contaminating - fine for those who want
to make political points, but it inhibits re-use (which was one of the
founding principles of free software, to avoid re-inventing the wheel).
Chris C
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: how to connect via netzero
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:35:22 GMT
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 19:37:43 -0500, Jianxin Wang
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi, there, my ISP is NetZero, I can connect to the internet using
>windows95. I want to know how to connect to the internet using linux. I
>have Mandrake 7.0 installed on my PC and I need to know how to set up
>KPPP. Can anybody help me? I don't know the IP address and domain name of
>my ISP, what I get from NetZero is a program that can be used for
>windows95/98/NT only. Please advise. Thank you!
You will not be able to connect to NetZero using Linux. There are a
number of "solutions" which people might tell you. all of which simply
do not work. I've tried them all. I've started most of the threads
on comp.os.linux.advocacy on the subject of Free ISPs for Linux, and
I've managed to answer every single one of my own questions through
research.
NetZero, like JUNO, dotNow and whatever Free ISPs that still exist,
use proprietary Windoze software to create the Internet connection.
If the Windoze software isn't running, NetZero will boot you off
within seconds, even using KPPP. You are stuck with using a Win9x
machine to connect if you have only NetZero as your ISP.
Someone suggested that I try to use NetZero on a Windoze 98 machine
and set up Internet Connection Sharing, then share the connection with
Linux. No dice. NetZero requires that you click on their proprietary
Windoze software every now and then, and sometimes a popup window
requires a click within 45 seconds or disconnection occurs. Thus you
either lose your Internet connection constantly because you are
looking at your Linux machine and ignoring the Windoze machine, or you
focus on your Windoze machine and thus remove any benefit from
Internet connection sharing.
To make matters worse, when I tried to implement it anyway as an
intellectual exercise, NetZero's ZeroPort application does something
wonky which prevents sharing the connection.
You may have heard about other *national* Free ISPs that allow Linux
access. Don't get your hopes up, they don't exist:
[OneNationOnline, 1nol.com]: It turned into a pay-only service.
[Freewwweb.com]: It went bankrupt, and was swallowed by Windoze-only
JUNO.
NetZero did a press release that they were creating a version of their
ZeroPort for Linux, but then it turned out that what they created was
a special proprietary version for a version of Linux running on one of
the new Network Computers being released for home use. The ported
ZeroPort has no source code included and thus would be difficult for
the average user to recompile for more conventional versions of Linux,
and in any case reverse-engineering the software probably would be
illegal under some part of the NetZero TOS.
Linux users in the U.S. really have only three options with Internet
Access:
[1] Get a Windoze machine and run one of the national Free ISP
applications (copying over offline versions of any content you wish to
view on a Linux machine). In fact, run more than one: most of them
have gone from giving you unlimited access punctuated by popup
"disconnect" windows, to simply limiting monthly access to anywhere
from 12 hours a month (BlueLight.com) to 25 hours a month (JUNO).
And no, the popup disconnect windows don't go away with the limited
service time. Multiple Free ISPs is the only way to get a decent
amount of free time online.
[2] Pay for your Internet. You might be lucky enough to live near a
fee-based ISP which only charges $10 a month, or be able to afford a
year's access on a lump sum payment. Some colleges offer their
students a cut-rate fee-based ISP. You might even be able to arrange
home Internet access through your work, exchanging your payment of
work for a perk. All fee-based ISPs--that don't use proprietary
connection software such as AOL's software--work with Linux
[3] Happen to live in--or move to--certain places in the U.S.A. or in
the world. There are limited-area Free and cut-rate ISPs in certain
regions of the U.S. which use non-proprietary software, so Linux will
work with them.
There is a free ISP operating in the UK which probably would work for
all the British readers out there.
As for the U.S.A., I see from the questioner's e-mail address that he
is one lucky bastard when it comes to Free Internet Access.
Since "buffalo.edu" means New York State, you have a large number of
options for Linux-friendly free and cut-rate access
http://www.ny4free.com/ - Free access for NY.
http://bluefrognet.net/ - $25 yearly fee for access, currently only
has local numbers in the 315, 607, and 716 area codes (Buffalo, NY, is
listed as area code 716).
http://www.freenylink.com/ - Might be LD for Buffalo, NY, but also in
New York.
http://www.metconnect.com/ - Another New York Free ISP.
http://www.redgoose.net/ - Another New York Free ISP.
==================
Other locations for Linux-friendly regional Free ISPs:
Washington State, Puerto Rico,
Oregon, and New York State: http://www.xoasis.com/
Washington State, Puerto Rico,
Oregon, and New York State: http://www.nocharge.com/
Madison, WI: http://www.mailtag.com/
Naples, FL: http://www.naples.net/
Tallahassee, FL: http://www.freenet.tlh.fl.us/
Puerto Rico: http://www.decachete.net/
==================
As you can see, Linux users are simply out in the cold on Free ISPs if
they don't live in a certain part of the world. New York users, on
the other hand, have tons of options.
==================
Places I searched to get Free ISPs:
http://www.nofeesinternet.com/ - Many ISPs which don't exist anymore
(such as Excite and 1stUp) but a few which still do.
http://www.internet4free.net/ - Better updated list.
http://freedomlist.com/ - Also updates its list frequently.
==================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:34:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
From: David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> "T" == T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I feel I must reject any argument, on the face of it, which attempts
> to declare that without profiteering, some facet of modern
> technology 'would not have been possible'. Such a position is
> self-defeating.
Really!?! Are we not all "profiteers" at heart? Its just that the
term "profit" has different meanings for different people. Profitting
from your work would seem to be anything but 'self defeating'.
I think a strong case could be made for saying that, if there was not
a strong case for "profit" (in the monetary sense) from the work done
on many projects, then the investment money necessary to fund the
development of those projects would not have been forthcoming. While
the development of such a project may still have been 'possible', it
would have taken _*considerably*_ longer for the project to come to
fruitition.
--
David Masterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Rational Software (but I don't speak for them)
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <[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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 18:48:54 GMT
In article <98lo8i$iqv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Barry Margolin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:pptr6.12$3q1.5751@burlma1-snr2...
>> In article <l0gr6.16398$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >No, there is no need to take away other people's choices in order to
>> >provide code that remains freely available.
>>
>> SunOS 4.x was based on BSD. Yet most end users didn't have any access to
>> its source code (you could only get source code if you paid big bucks).
>
>Where they prevented from getting the original BSD code which SunOS 4.x was
>based on?
No, but what can they usefully do with it? That code is irrelevant to them
(well, to be fair, most user-level programs port pretty easily, but kernel
code is more difficult to incorporate without having access to the target
kernel).
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 15:59:46 -0300
Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <98lo8i$iqv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>"Barry Margolin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:pptr6.12$3q1.5751@burlma1-snr2...
>>> In article <l0gr6.16398$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >No, there is no need to take away other people's choices in order to
>>> >provide code that remains freely available.
>>>
>>> SunOS 4.x was based on BSD. Yet most end users didn't have any access
>>> to its source code (you could only get source code if you paid big
>>> bucks).
>>
>>Where they prevented from getting the original BSD code which SunOS 4.x
>>was based on?
>
> No, but what can they usefully do with it? That code is irrelevant to
> them (well, to be fair, most user-level programs port pretty easily, but
> kernel code is more difficult to incorporate without having access to the
> target kernel).
Uh? What "end user" (see your own quote above) would be porting kernel
code???
The answer to "what can they usefully do with it?" is "the same they would
do with SunOS 4.x. The current form of "the original BSD code" is FreeBSD,
or NetBSD, or OpenBSD, or whatever. They can... USE IT.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is money in Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:08:48 -0600
"Klaus-Georg Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > That would be quite a trick, since they didn't IPO until 1994, and
> > they were founded in 1975.
> >
> > Additionally, their stock price was over $100 on IPO, and has since
> > split 8 times, giving them an adjusted price (relevant to their IPO
> > price/shares) of over $800 if they had never had any splits.
>
> Assuming your figures $100 initially and 8 splits) are correct (which
> I don't have a reason to doubt) I reach quite a different adjusted
> price: 25600$.
>
> Note: 100 * 8 != 100 * (2^8)
Actually, I was basing my statistics on a Nasdaq chart which upon further
investigation is not the correct chart to be looking at.
It looks like the price started at $6, and rose to a high of $120 after 8
splits, then shortly after the last split the market started to tank.
So, the adjusted price would at IP prices would $1536 a share, but since the
price is $51, that would be roughly $13000 per share based on IPO prices
when adjusted for stock splits.
So, even at today's "low" price, it's still worth more than 2000 times it's
original value.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
