Linux-Advocacy Digest #798, Volume #32 Wed, 14 Mar 01 08:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7) (Christian Brandt)
Re: .Net to run on Linux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Middle Aged Fat Asses (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! (Brent R)
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! (.)
Re: The Linux office, a possible future..... (mlw)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Christian Brandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:45:22 +0100
Chris Croughton wrote:
> 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).
Basically its about what you want to achieve.
If I would like to build an Operating-System for a specific task, I would
try to use BSD-Code, but wouldn`t rerelease code under BSD.
If I want to set up a new standard or a file-format or something else
which needs wide use and small licence-issues, I would release a
BSD-licence implementation.
If I would like to write an Operating-System which you want to stay free
in terms of free beer and free mind, use GPL.
If you would like to write "the Best" programm for a file-format, a
standard or something else which itself is a masterpiece and not an
educational implementation, use GPL.
Good examples are bzip2, which recently became BSD and (Ogg) Vorbis, which
delivers the codecs under BSD-licence and players under GPL. A Bad example
would be a device-driver written under BSD-library. Anyone can missuse it
without giving fair revenue. Actually device-drivers are "the Best" attempt
at a specific problem and not an exemplary implementation (or, in the later
case, there would be enough flaws in the driver to develop a "the
Best" solution).
Hey, this definition seems to have enough power to trigger a 500msg thread
at /. :-)
Christian Brandt
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: .Net to run on Linux
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:40:04 +0200
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > It just confirms what they said earlier, beside...
> > They have to, in order to get .NET as a(n open) standard, they have to
> > implement it on two platforms.
>
> Given microsoft's track record, one would have to be
> quite gullible to expect solid support from microsoft for
> a non microsoft platform. If .net were actually to become
> popular, ms would use it as a weapon against non ms
> operating systems, just as they use ms office now.
>
> They might well release some partial support for non
> ms operating systems, but they will counsel users to
> "migrate to windows" for best results, and they will of
> course also be poised to pull the rug out from under
> your platform of choice the moment it will benefit them
> to do so.
What does the word open standard says to you? You don't like MS implentation
on Linux, *make your own*.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:13:05 +0200
"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VsGr6.63857$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Scot Mc Pherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:iJwr6.242893$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If a
> > > > > programmer is not willing to venture into the real world of modern
> > > > > computing, then he will be left behind in the sand. I would love
to
> > > > > have a more efficient operating system than Windows, but command
> line
> > > > > stuff is for the birds.
> > > >
> > > > This single sentence rules you out as an opponent worth of an
answer.
> > > > Thank you for your time.
> > >
> > > Does that mean I get the last word?
> > > Yes!
> >
> > I think its absolutely amazing that people who advocate windows use idea
> of
> > "venturing out into the real world" when they are advocating
closed-doors
> > secret policies where their activity is not scrutinized by anyone except
> the
> > head con-troll-er.
> > Does it every occur to these people that having your software
scrutinized
> by
> > the "whole world" is just about as far into the real world as you can
> > venture?
> > Scot Mc Pherson
>
> That is a principle which is easy to understand for a lot of things. Any
> more popular product is more scrutinized. Not sure how that argument
> supports Linux over Windows. I do not advocate closed-doors secret
> policies, and if opening Windows can be done, it might be a better
solution
> than a breakup
Opening windows would be nice, but considerring that the trial is mainly
about 9x, I can see MS openning that product line without *too many* loses
(I understand that they still make profits from win3.11, and will continue
making profit from ME for many years to come).
But they try to obsolute the 9x line at the moment, so I see it as a
not-fatal blow to MS, since they probably will manage to avoid opening
NT/2K/XP
OTOH, IE will probably be opened, which is a Good Thing (tm).
------------------------------
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:19:26 +0200
"Stefaan A Eeckels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <6tDr6.17207$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > "Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Wouldn't that be a good thing? ;)
> >
> > Have you used any of the alternatives? Or tried to get more than a few
> > releases of the GPL-flavored Linux version to interoperate correctly
> > with anything else?
>
> I have Linux interoperating nicely with Solaris 2.6 & 8, HP-UX 11.0 and
> AIX 4.3.3. As a matter of fact, HP-UX has some serious problems with
> Solaris NFS.
>
> The goal is not to have only one implementation, but one good spec.
A spec is often flexible. (Remember Kerebos? MS didn't modify the spec.)
In order to make it work, a spec has either to be non-flexible (ie, be the
algoritm.) or have a implemntation where all the unclear stuff is explained.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Middle Aged Fat Asses
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:51:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Flacco wrote:
>
>> I guess we don't have to go very far to PROVE the existance of MAFAM!
>> When ever they are mentioned, they react quickly.
>>
>> It is a very secret organization which IS NEVER MENTIONED IN PUBLIC!
>
>Actually, they're sitting back reading this with sardonic smiles, knowing
>what the future holds in store for you...
>
>;-)
>
Yes, I know.
Thanks
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:53:07 GMT
In article <Y5Gr6.1424$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> And it's all integrated just like the Monopolyware crap your used to
>> using and the most unforgiving part about it is it's ALL FREE!
>>
>> Yes meatheads! You don't have to justify a $750,000 upgrade
>> price for this deal as nobody's pockets need to get lined in order
>> to use this product!
>
>How could anyone have standardized on something that wasn't a final product
>until today?
>
>"You idiots! what are you doing riding horses when I just invented the
>automobile today! You're all crazy, you should have been using automobiles
>years ago".
>
>Real intelligent there Charlie.
>
>
>
Awe..... I'm sowwwy Ewik....
But Evolution has been in use by most people within the Linux community
for 5-6 months now. Where have you been????
Did a big bear eat your brains again poop head?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses!
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:53:35 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> That's the term fellow co-workers will be applying to the former IT managers of
> the nation after they see you've recommend that next Microsoft Upgrade due to
> Linux incompatibility within the office place.
>
> I give you evolution! Gnome's answer to the bloated useless, costly windows
> with it's lousy office suite!
>
> http://www.ximian.com/apps/evolution.php3
>
> Notice it does E-mail!
>
> http://www.ximian.com/apps/mailer.php3
>
> Notice it has a calendar!
>
> http://www.ximian.com/apps/calendar.php3
>
> Notice it has an address book!
>
> http://www.ximian.com/apps/contacts.php3
>
> And it's all integrated just like the Monopolyware crap your used to
> using and the most unforgiving part about it is it's ALL FREE!
>
> Yes meatheads! You don't have to justify a $750,000 upgrade
> price for this deal as nobody's pockets need to get lined in order
> to use this product!
>
> You can schedule meetings! You can keep an appointment book!
> The system works via the E-mail just like Downlook LooseDOS does!
>
> If you can read, then you will notice it's other compatibilities and
> features which totally blows Windows AWAY!
>
> And while your boss is going thru his 14th software audit this decade
> after having paid for this expensive Microcrap bloatware, don't
> forget to tell him for me that you were the brainless dumbass who
> recommended using Microsoft bloatware in the office in the
> first place!
>
> Perhaps if you stay with him for every second whilst he's on
> the golfcourse, he won't notice his competitors laughing at him
> for being a dumbass too.
>
> Remember folks! If you don't have the intelligence to use
> this product, your competitors will stick a big board up your
> ass to remind you how stupid you really are!
>
> Then they will simply put you out of business as they are not
> spending 5 figure cash outlays for obsolete monopoly crapware.
>
> Remember that the alive manager is the one who can cut costs
> and the dead manager is the one who's got their head rammed
> up their ass because they love their crapware.
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> Charlie
Why is it that every time you rant about your favorite OS you insist on
involving sodomy in some way? It's kindof disturbing, and you're about 1
post away from being plonked.
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses!
Date: 14 Mar 2001 12:55:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> And it's all integrated just like the Monopolyware crap your used to
>> using and the most unforgiving part about it is it's ALL FREE!
>>
>> Yes meatheads! You don't have to justify a $750,000 upgrade
>> price for this deal as nobody's pockets need to get lined in order
>> to use this product!
> How could anyone have standardized on something that wasn't a final product
> until today?
Its not terribly hard to imagine. Both Sun and HP are replacing CDE with
GNOME. Since they hold the majority of the unix server market, id say thats the
beginning of something of a standard.
You idiot.
=====.
--
"come to ZomZom's (a place to eat) like it was built in one day;
you can watch the humans try to run"
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux office, a possible future.....
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 08:03:30 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
> > > Where is it? Where? Where?
> >
> > Take your pick of Linux distributions.
>
> And each one of the distros has a way to go yet.
That is an opinion, one which I do not share. Please explain what "Way to go"
means. I think, for the average office worker Linux is a perfect fit. Tell me
why it isn't.
>
> > > > Imagine most, if not all, office workers in a company using Linux with KDE or
> > > > Gnome.
> > >
> > > Imagine all the bug reports... 8)
> >
> > Fewer than those that get send to Microsloth.
>
> I doubt that, after using KDE for a while. More bugs than I'd care to
> shake a stick at.
Name a few. I have been using KDE all along, and it seems fine.
>
> > > Ah, there you've got me. Ours is still 10 BaseT. 100 BaseT coming soon!
> >
> > Perhaps yours, but all of the companies I deal with are upgraded.
>
> This is England, where we can't seem to get broadband for the home off
> the ground.
OK.
>
> > > > Imagine 25, 100, or 1000s of office workers connected to a central backbone.
> > >
> > > Can you imagine the network traffic?
> >
> > A switched backbone negates most traffic.
>
> Is that why the Internet is nicknamed "the world-wide wait"?
It is called the "world wide wait" because 99.9% of it is out of anyone's
control. It could be anything from a slow server, too much traffic through a
router, or even a bad routing table.
In an office where segments of 100BaseT are connected to a switch, the
aggregate band width is limited by switch, the cable speed, and the machines
themselves, not the traffic.
>
> > > I'm not sure I'd like a myseterious research group to hijack my machine
> > > and use it for their purposes!
> >
> > There is where we disagree. Most office workers don't care, and wouldn't even
> > notice. As long as the spreadsheet, word processor, and e-mail work, they'd
> > never know.
>
> Probably not. Though the researchers might be a little miffed since I
> reboot my machines several times a day (device driver work).
Then you would not be a candidate for clustering.
>
> > The tools were quite primitive 10 years ago.
>
> They've improved that much have they? Judging by what I've seen in Linux,
> there doesn't seem to be that much improvement. Catching up with Windows,
> maybe, but otherwise the good ol' script file is still there.
Again, this is your opinion. The clustering tools, like LAM, are very easy to
use now. Once set up by the IT department, it just happens.
>
> > Perhaps, but tried and true technology as MPI and the UNIX clustering tools are
> > pretty well tested.
>
> And you want everyone to use clustering for everything is that it? What
> happened to... gasp... choice?
We are talking about the office, not the home. People do not have choice now,
why should you think they would later? IT tells them what to run.
>
> > > If you're talking about making computers be a network device you need one
> > > thing first. A fast reliable network. That can happen in the office.
> >
> > Not a "network device" a stand-alone computing node. There is a big difference.
>
> With or without a disk?
It is a standard Linux desktop computer, hard disk, self boot. (Or maybe even
net boot, who knows.)
>
> > > Where it won't happen is in the home. There are _still_ a lot of people
> > > dialling up with 56k modems. Can you imagine having a diskless machine as
> > > it tries to download an app across a 56k link? Or maybe you'll try
> > > running X across such a link? Sluggish, did you say?
> >
> > Who said ANYTHING about diskless? No one but you. A modem connected unit would
> > not be part of the cluster, but certainly remote adminstratable.
>
> Weren't the Network PC's going to be diskless?
Not in this discussion.
>
> > > Please! There's a big difference between Windows and CP/M.
> >
> > The mentality is very similar. A small island onto itself. UNIX the idea has
> > always been grouping the power of the computers.
>
> Nothing wrong with small islands. Nothing wrong with cooperation either,
> for that matter.
There is plenty wrong with an office full of PCs each costing between $1200 -
$2400 pulling 250 watts of power, doing mostly nothing.
>
> > > As for UNIX being able to do, why aren't they doing it, why aren't they
> > > the leading force on the desktop?
> >
> > The reason for that has a lot to do with AT&T, Microsoft's monopoly, etc.
> > Anyone sufficiently educated with the history of the PC and modern operating
> > systems could conclude it isn't because Microsoft did anything well.
>
> Or perhaps UNIX sat back and did nothing about it?
UNIX is not an entity, UNIX is a name and some code. UNIX was not free until
BSD became unencumbered, and Linux made his kernel. Until that time UNIX was
owned by AT&T and they did not actively promote it as a competitor.
>
> > > What's the UNIX equivalent of Corel Draw?
> >
> > There are several packages, what did you have in mind for particular features?
>
> How about general purpose ones?
Name some? General purpose what?
>
> > Do tell, why isn't Star Office "there" yet? I have been using it over a year,
> > before that I was using Applix.
>
> Fonts, Printers, overall Sluggishness.
Really? I use star office all the time. I have all the fonts I could ever want
(I can use any font, True Type or Post Script), What printer does it not
support? Sluggishness? No way, much better than MS-Office side by side, and I
have tried this at work.
>
> > Tell me what isn't "there" yet about these packages?
>
> They're behind what we have on Windows.
Define "behind" you say it, but without examples it means nothing.
>
> > > I'm sorry but the number of desktop
> > > applications on Windows easily outstrips those on UNIX.
> >
> > Number, yes, unique to a task, no.
>
> More choice!
No choice! run what ever app you like, as long as you save often, and reinstall
every six months, pay a lot of money for bad software, and get raided by the
BSA for a 3" x 3" piece of paper lost in a book somewhere. No thanks.
>
> --
> Pete
> All your no fly zone are belong to us
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:56:52 +0100
In article <98nnun$dc8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "Stefaan A Eeckels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <6tDr6.17207$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > "Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> Wouldn't that be a good thing? ;)
>> >
>> > Have you used any of the alternatives? Or tried to get more than a few
>> > releases of the GPL-flavored Linux version to interoperate correctly
>> > with anything else?
>>
>> I have Linux interoperating nicely with Solaris 2.6 & 8, HP-UX 11.0 and
>> AIX 4.3.3. As a matter of fact, HP-UX has some serious problems with
>> Solaris NFS.
>>
>> The goal is not to have only one implementation, but one good spec.
>
> A spec is often flexible. (Remember Kerebos? MS didn't modify the spec.)
> In order to make it work, a spec has either to be non-flexible (ie, be the
> algoritm.) or have a implemntation where all the unclear stuff is explained.
A good spec is one that's unambiguous when defining matters
that concern interoperability. In that light, the Kerberos
spec wasn't good enough.
Reference implementations are fine, but should not be the
only implementation.
--
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
******************************
