Linux-Advocacy Digest #799, Volume #32 Wed, 14 Mar 01 10:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better (Nick
Condon)
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Nick Condon)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better (Jay
Maynard)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jay Maynard)
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American (Nick Condon)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Perry Pip)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Nick Condon)
Re: .Net to run on Linux (Perry Pip)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Nick Condon)
BSDL, MPL, or GPL? How to choose a license. (Per Abrahamsen)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Nick Condon)
Re: .Net to run on Linux ("2 + 2")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: 14 Mar 2001 12:43:07 GMT
Jay Maynard wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 04:30:13 GMT, Charlie Ebert
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>After reviewing the U.N. definition of human rights we've been fighting
>>about for the last 50 years, I can find nothing in the definition which
>>say's property rights are indeed apart of human rights.
>
>I do not view the UN definition as authoritative, as it does not include
>another basic human right guaranteed by the US Constitution's Bill of
>Rights.
The right to own slaves? It's been removed. Didn't they tell you?
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: 14 Mar 2001 13:10:59 GMT
Jeff wrote:
>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.
Computers are complex things. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to
you. Or trying to sell you something.
>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.
vi and a "whole host of FAQs, books, Man pages, HOWTOS"
- versus -
regedit and no documentation.
Bringing up a Linux installation is *easier* than doing it in Windows.
> 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.
plain-text and vi *are* universal configuration tools.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: 14 Mar 2001 13:29:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 14 Mar 2001 12:43:07 GMT, Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jay Maynard wrote:
>>I do not view the UN definition as authoritative, as it does not include
>>another basic human right guaranteed by the US Constitution's Bill of
>>Rights.
>The right to own slaves? It's been removed. Didn't they tell you?
Nope, that's not it...and wasn't in the Bill of Rights, either.
I'm referring to the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed (not granted;
the Bill of Rights recognizes and guarantees rights that are inherent in the
status of being a free citizen) by the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution. Since this is not on-topic for any of the groups this is being
posted to, I will not discuss it further in this thread.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
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: 14 Mar 2001 13:43:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 22:12:49 -0800, Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Frankly, I don't believe that very many people -- aside from a few
>anti-GPL zealots -- really care about the "deceptive nature" of the GPL
>or of the term "free software."
How would you feel if something YOU thought was important was being used and
perverted for someone else's own political ends?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Date: 14 Mar 2001 13:48:14 GMT
Peter Hayes wrote:
>They don't have to be. Electrolysis converts water to hydrogen and
>oxygen relatively efficiently. Run your Otto cycle engine on H and O. No
>nasty by-products. No need for energy sapping catalytic converters. Or
>use the H and O in fuel cells, but maybe they aren't powerful enough
>yet.
The current issue of the Economist has something on an extremely efficient
fuel-cell vehicle called the Hypercar:
A DREAM CAR
Amory Lovins, the venerable co-director of the Rocky Mountain Institute, has
devised a concept car that he is sure will spark a revolution in the motor
industry. For nearly a decade, a crack team of engineers has been beavering
away in a hideout high in the Rocky Mountains. They have come up with the
Hypercar, powered by a fuel-cell, zero-emission engine. This engine takes
oxygen from the air and hydrogen from its tank to create a chemical reaction
that produces electricity and water, the only by-product.
This alone would be unremarkable, given that all the world’s car makers are
into fuel cells, if only because they have to meet zero-emission mandates in
California. The difference with the Hypercar is that it takes a holistic
approach. The entire body is made of composite plastics. The transmission and
steering are entirely electronic, which removes the need for clunky mechanical
parts. Instead of a steering column and wheel, there are games-machine
joysticks, as in the cockpit of the latest Airbus jets, where a "fly-by-wire"
system largely replaces heavy hydraulic and mechanical controls. The result is
a big car with a fuel economy comparable to 100 miles per gallon (42.5 km per
litre) of gasoline, almost twice what today’s most economical (diesel) cars can
achieve.
Can this be serious? The technologies that Mr Lovins champions are not really
far-fetched. Carbon composites, electronic controls and even fuel cells are
feasible today. The reason that they have not been much used in cars is that
established car makers have invested vast sums in conventional manufacturing
technology. This has made them reluctant to embrace radical approaches.
Mr Lovins thinks he has come up with a business model that will swing the car
giants behind him. One track of it is to put much of his technology in the
public domain to spur established manufacturers to pick it up; the other is to
keep to himself the most advanced bits, and to establish Hypercar as a niche,
low-cost manufacturer. He is off to a good start: the Hypercar has so far cost
only $2m to develop, around a tenth of what it would cost a traditional car
company to get this far.
Although Mr Lovins is cagey, he admits that he has backing from big car-parts
manufacturers, technology giants (including Sun Microsystems) and others. His
strategy involves demand-led lean production of the kind pioneered by Dell
Computer; he claims he needs to sell only 20,000 of a given model - such as the
Revolution - to make a profit, because his production method will do away with
expensive capital equipment. It may not be long before Mr Lovins finds out
whether his airy concept car will really take off: he is currently passing the
hat around, hoping to raise around $50m in additional financing.
--
Nick
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 08:54:24 -0500
On 14 Mar 2001, Jay Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 20:41:02 +0000, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> So the definition of a non-communist is someone who thinks that
>> property rights must always considered more important than human
>> rights?
> Property rights *are* human rights.
To a point. [IMO ALERT!] There are fundamental human rights which are
not trumped by any other right. Then there's everything else --
including property rights as a human right. Property rights as human
right help maintain those fundamentals better, but there's also a
natural limit to property rights as human rights (e.g., if one person
owns all the property in a densely populated area, I don't believe that
person is acting on human rights but on an artificial scarcity caused
by a misinterpretation of property rights as human rights).
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:49:35 +0200
"Stefaan A Eeckels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <98nnun$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.
I have not checked the TCP spec, so I can't comment on it, but I would say
that an unambiguous spec is very much like writing the algortim.
> Reference implementations are fine, but should not be the
> only implementation.
I agree, but since BSD seems to be the best one around, I like its license.
If the best implentation of a spec was GPL, it wouldn't be incorporated into
commercial products, which sucks.
The company that makes the software may be unable to invest time/money in
writing the implentation themselves, or will have to spend that money and le
ave other things, which would make the product a better one.
And there is no gurantee that the implentation would be as good as the GPLed
one.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 14 Mar 2001 13:54:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 13 Mar 2001 01:23:55 GMT,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 12 Mar 2001 17:02:48 GMT, Perry Pip wrote:
>>On 5 Mar 2001 19:36:41 GMT,
>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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
>
>oops, I didn't understand what you meant.
>
>Yes, it should be considered, but you need to consider the
>two complete packages
Yes.
>and assess which is the most valuable to
>the user.
What is most valuable to the user is determined by other factors, not
the products themselves. In particular, third parties that
overwhelming support Windows and barely support Linux if at all. These
include not only OEM's, Hardware manufacturers and software vendors,
but contractors, consultants, and even friends. Basically, everyone
supports Windows because everyone uses it. Few support Linux well
becuase few use it. Linux can't get more third party support because
few use it, and few use it becuase it gets littly third party
support. A 'catch 22' as it's called, and this is what is meant by
'barriers to entry'. Because these barriers exist, Microsoft is able
to fix prices for a product that is in many ways of much lower
quality.
The $69 Redhat boxed set includes over a 1000 pages of printed
documention. It's the only reason I recommend to a newbie he buy a
boxed Linux. 1000 pages of docs on almost any computer topic will cost
you more than that. So I figure that's what you pay for when you buy
Linux. The rights to use the OS is free, the CD burning cost is
minimal, and the printing cost for docs is the most of what you pay.
>I'm afraid I don't have time to continue an intelligent discussion
>with you, or a somewhat less intelligent discussion with Max
>right now.
When you make a controversial statement of Usenet, you should make
time to defend it:) Your acknowledgement that Microsoft has a monopoly
is in direct contradiction with your claim that Microsoft is unable to
fix prices and that barriers to entry don't exist. The legal
definition of a monopoly is the ability to fix prices. Thus your
statement was self contradicting. Additionally in order for a monopoly
to exist, barriers to entry must exist (otheriwise competiton would
drive prices). So your denial that barriers exist is also in
contradiction to your acknowledgement of monopoly.
>I suppose more than anything else I am disconetent with what I see as
>a herd mentality emerging in the Linux community.
Now here in lies the problem, you are *stereotyping* me. And you seem
to do so to anyone who disagrees with you.
>Basically, there's
>a certain doctrine that everyone is supposed to follow without
>question and anyone who does dare question the holy
>"MS-bad-Linux-good-information-wants-to-be-free" is called names and
>accused of being an MS plant.
I never preached any such doctrine, and I never said I don't respect
intellectual property rights. However, I also think customer rights
are important too. In my years of experience as a control systems and
avionics systems software engineer I have seen way too many cases of a
vendor trapping a customer into proprietary interfaces. This causes
the customer to become unreasonably dependant on continued purchases
from the vendor, often at unreasonable pricing. All to often I see
younger engineers wanting to go with proprietary solutions becuase of
a cheaper up front cost and easier implementation, and older engineers
wanting to stay away from such solutions becuase they've been burned
by it before. Microsoft isn't the first at this game. It's been going
on for centuries. Microsoft just has the fortunate situation of
trapping the most vulnerable costomer of all: vulnerable consumers who
know nothing about IT.
>I think there are some perfectly sensible arguments one can Mmake against
>MS, but I lalso think a lot of people will stoop to all sorts of
>dishonesty to say bad things about them.
>
You can say that about almost any controversial topic. But where have
I stooped too dishonesty??
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
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: 14 Mar 2001 14:02:29 GMT
Karel Jansens wrote:
>> Really? That sounds really weird when you're living in a democratic
>> monarchy.
>>
>I don't know of any "democratic monarchies" (both terms are mutually
>exclusive).
Howabout, say, Australia?
> There are however quite a lot of constitutional monarchies,
>where the monarch rules the country, controlled by the legislative
>power. The latter may be founded on democratically elected
>representatives.
Are you honestly suggesting Queen Elizabeth rules Australia?
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: .Net to run on Linux
Date: 14 Mar 2001 14:03:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On the server side only. MS realizes they have to support .NET for
Unix servers for .NET to have any chance at all at success since *nix
is still 3/4 of the web server market. You be sure only one client
will be supported.
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 07:33:23 +0200,
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/03/13/010313hnnonms.xml
>
>I think that the whole .Net thing has (had?) one purpose, to keep the
>control in MS hands in case of a breakup.
>If they break, then MS-APPZ gets .NET, which mean that it will still own the
>platform that it writes for.
>What are the news on that front?
>
>Linux would profit from this, although it would probably take a different MS
>(or a differnet Debian) to get .NET on Debian.
>
>
>
------------------------------
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:10:03 -0500
On 14 Mar 2001, Sam Holden wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 05:38:10 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Of course the original authors have the right to prevent others from
>> being able to use the code in many ways that would be useful
>> to others, as the GPL restrictions do. I don't think anyone questions
>> that right. The question is, why does anyone else consider this to be
>> a good thing and how can they mention it in the same sentence with
>> freedom or sharing?
> Because they look at it from the users point of view, not the developers
> point of view. I'm not going to argue the case again - there have been enough
> posts and www.gnu.org has enough explanation of the rationale behind the GPL.
It's a weak argument, though. Users[1] want software that works. They
don't want to muck around with the internals of software. They MIGHT
benefit from the source availability by being able to hire someone to
do the work for them, but that assumes that (1) they know someone to
hire, (2) they know how to specify the fixes required, and (3) they can
afford such hire in the first place. If not, they're entirely dependent
upon the goodwill of the developers out there.
It might not be worth $1,500 to get a bug fixed in gnucash -- but it's
worth $100 to buy the latest version of Quicken, and they get a form of
guarantee (limited, yes, and becoming more limited with things like
UCITA) from Intuit that just can't be found in the developers of
gnucash.
I've even heard some folks argue that 'syndicates' or groups of users
could get together and hire the developer(s) to fix the problem(s).
Great, if you can find enough other users to work with it -- where you
already KNOW your supplier and have something of a "known" user base.
(IMO, a better solution would be to force developers by law to release
the source code to unsupported binaries after a short period of time --
say two years. There would, of course, be some things designed to
protect things with clear upgrade paths, but it would greatly reduce
the abandonware phenomenon.)
> If you think that non-free software is OK, then you will not agree with
> the GPL and it's rationale. Since that is the basis of it.
Not "non-free" -- because that presumes that GPLed code *is* free, and
that ain't the case (and never WILL be the case). There ARE reasons to
use the GPL and GPLed code, but there are reasons for using any number
of other licences. Specifically, the FSF believes that per-user or
per-copy licensing is bad -- and sometimes they're right. But sometimes
it's an economic model that's far more sustainable than mere goodwill.
-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
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
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: 14 Mar 2001 14:20:10 GMT
Les Mikesell wrote:
>A better issue to discuss would be why the author of perl felt the need
>to apply both licenses - the effects aren't accidental. My opinion is
>that as a linguist, he easily understood the deceptive nature of the GPL
>and realized that it was unsuitable by itself, yet was required to
>prevent restrictions against being combined with some other works.
I couldn't have happened that way around. Perl was originally released
under the Artistic license only, and the dual licensing thing came about
later, IIRC, after RMS had a chat with Larry Wall.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: Per Abrahamsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: BSDL, MPL, or GPL? How to choose a license.
Date: 14 Mar 2001 15:33:46 +0100
[ This was also posted to kuro5hin. FUT: gnu.misc.discuss ]
Figure out what your goals are first.
Really. Your are releasing the code for a reason. The license you
choose should be the license that best promote that goal. However,
first make sure your understand the legal and practical concerns:
LEGAL: Obviously, you must be sure you actually own the code.
Otherwise, you are not the one who can select the license. There is a
good chance that your employer or sponsor own the code. Check it
first. If in doubt, ask a lawyer.
PRACTICAL: Mixing licenses can be impractical, even if done right it
means the concerned user will have more licenses to read and try to
understand. So, unless your goals (see below) interfere, I suggest
for practical reasons to use the same license as "related" software.
I.e., a program for the KDE desktop should use the same license as
KDE, a Perl library should use the same license as Perl, an X11
utility should use the X11 license, und so weider. Think about what
software "community" your program will be part of, and choose the
dominating license in that community. These practical concerns often
override the "personal/political" concerns listed below.
"PERSONAL/POLITICAL" GOALS:
1. GET RICH: Maybe you hope to make money of the product, and want to
use the free version for marketing and perhaps debugging. This is
perfectly all right, lots of useful free software is developed like
this, examples include Qt, Ghostscript, Cygwin and ReiserFS. The
developers of all four have both free and non-free versions available.
Here, you want a "copyleft" license that prevents others from
undercutting you in the non-free market. GPL is used by Cygwin and
ReiserFS, Qt uses a QPL/GPL dual license, and Ghostscript uses the
"Alladin GPL" which is just short of being OSI certified, but old
versions are available under the GPL.
QPL can be combined with most free software licenses but GPL, and GPL
can only be combined with GPL, LGPL, and licenses close to PD.
SUGGESTION: Use a GPL / QPL dual license.
2. GET HELP: A good reason to release the source code, is that you
hope to get bug fixes and other contributions, i.e. free developers.
Here, you want a license that encourage people to share back, but also
allows so many people as possible to use it. A copyleft like GPL or
QPL will prevent developers of non-free software to use it, and
PD-like license like BSDL or X11 will allow them to keep their
improvements to themselves. The compromise here is one of the
"library" licenses, LGPL and MPL. Both are designed to allow or even
encourage use in non-free products, but keep your part of the code
free in form of a library (LGPL) or file (MPL). Theoretically,
developers can write improvements and bug fixes in different libraries
or files to "get around" the license, but since the complete product
can remain non-free, there is little reason to do that. MPL can't be
used in GPL'ed projects, and LGPL have some practical problems that
might make developers of non-free products avoid it.
SUGGESTION: Use a MPL / LGPL dual license.
3. IMPROVE THE STATE OF THE ART. You love technology, and want us to
progress as fast as possible. You don't really care about politics,
and think free vs. non-free isn't as important as quality. You want a
license that encourage others to use it, no matter who they are.
Better products, free or non-free, will create a better world. Choose
a well known and trusted license with a minimum of restrictions.
SUGGESTION: Use the new BSDL.
4. YOU WANT TO HELP PROMOTE FREE SOFTWARE. You like the idea of free
software much better than non-free software, and want your
contribution to help make free software software beat non-free
software on quality as well as price. Here, you want a copyleft
license to delay having you improvements copied to non-free solutions.
SUGGESTION: Use a GPL / QPL dual license.
5. WANT YOUR SOFTWARE TO BE USED. You have written this software, and
simply like to know that as many people as possible use it. Here, you
want to encourage everybody to use it as part of their products, and
don't want any restrictions in their way. Public Domain would be
perfect, but the concept is not recognized everywhere, and some claim
it will leave you vulnerable for a lawsuit. I suggest using a
well-known license, written by top-grade lawyers, and trusted by
everyone.
SUGGESTION: Use the new BSDL.
LINKS AND DEFINITIONS.
OSI in this context is the Open Source Initiative. They have a
certification mark for open source licenses. They also have a list of
approved licenses. You can find almost all the mentioned licenses
there. <URL: http://www.opensource.org/ >
FSF here is the Free Software Foundation. They have their own list of
free software licenses, and also explains some of the glossary used in
the article.
The "new BSDL license" refers to the latest version of the BSD
license, which doesn't require product advertising to credit
University of California like the original did.
A dual license here means that the user will get a choice of following
either or both of two different licenses. This means that if he likes
one license and dislike the other, he can ignore the conditions of the
license he doesn't like, as long as he follows the conditions of the
other license. <URL: http://www.fsf.org/ >
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: 14 Mar 2001 14:36:43 GMT
Edward Rosten wrote:
>> Now let me see.
>>
>> 'cat'
>>
>> Wassat? A kitty?
>
>Powerpoint. What's that? Something I plug the kettle in to? Hey. My
>computer has a powerpoint. Why can't I plug my kettle in to it?
LOL! That's funny.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[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 09:54:06 -0500
All it means is that software on the Windows platform can call apps
(services) on another platform.
It has nothing to do with .NET running on another OS.
The breakup order specifies that Microsoft will DIVEST the Windows OS.
The .NET platform is a middleware "OS" kept by Microsoft. However, it has
many purposes and was in development long before the case.
For one thing, it replaces the Win32 framework.
.NET is best understood as the next generation of Microsoft's COM. You would
need to understand their emphasis on component based software to understand
it.
A big emphasis is to get beyond the "dumb terminal" era of the internet with
the integrated client.
2 + 2
Ayende Rahien wrote in message <98n05q$omi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/03/13/010313hnnonms.xml
>
>I think that the whole .Net thing has (had?) one purpose, to keep the
>control in MS hands in case of a breakup.
>If they break, then MS-APPZ gets .NET, which mean that it will still own
the
>platform that it writes for.
>What are the news on that front?
>
>Linux would profit from this, although it would probably take a different
MS
>(or a differnet Debian) to get .NET on Debian.
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
