Linux-Advocacy Digest #811, Volume #32 Thu, 15 Mar 01 00:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: .Net to run on Linux (Tim Hanson)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Sam Holden)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Sam Holden)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Craig Kelley)
Re: .Net to run on Linux ("green")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:46:18 GMT
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> > "Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Les Mikesell wrote:
> > > > I don't see the need to mention the GPL in that paragraph. What
part
> > > > of the Artistic license would prevent you from forking your own
> > > > copy and keeping it freely available?
> > >
> > > Nothing, but that's not what I said.
> >
> > I thought I quoted your whole paragraph with your explanation
> > for what the GPL adds to a dual-licensed work. What did
> > I miss?
>
> I have no idea what you missed, but your comment was nonresponsive. I
> talked about forking *a GPL-only version*, which involves assurances of
> continued derivative source access, modifyability, and
> redistributability, and you talked about forking "your own copy and
> keeping it freely available" which does not involve these assurances.
> The two are really separate issues.
I talked about keeping a copy freely available because I don't understand
why anyone who wants to give something away would also want
to restrict the way it can be shared. For the GPL to make a difference
it must either involve preventing distribution and use, or forcing the
distributor to do something other than his own choice, neither of
which seem reasonable to me.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: .Net to run on Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:50:58 GMT
Here's the weakness, in my opinion. Their client side is nowhere near
as impenetrable as the numbers would suggest. On one hand they are
forced to scrape out the cake bowl of a shrinking PC market, for example
with their ill considered anti-piracy initiatives, semi-mandatory
upgrades which are becoming more frequent and in the eyes of the
consumer less attractive, and onerous licensing schemes. On the other,
they need growth (as opposed to just continued profitability) to
survive.
The world's office workers loved Office '97, but haven't taken to Office
2000. Microsoft is counting on big sales of Office XP enough to have
forced an early termination of the beta and a release in April. The
world's Windows server market took to Windows 2000 servers, but has been
lukewarm about Active Directory, IIS, and the rest of the package.
Someone on ZDnet (can't remember who offhand, sorry) called the Windows
XP client a "hard sell" in the office. While the original products
solved problems and transformed the office, potential business buyers
now could be looking at Microsoft solutions without a pressing need to
address, not a pretty picture for M$.
The consumer space, which is showing signs of PC saturation, looks
little better.
At the same time, office productivity software for both Linux desktops
is starting to look mighty good. The most important projects right now
in Linux for the purpose of blunting the M$ monopoly are Open Office,
Ogsproject (think a Domino workalike), Evolution, and their counterparts
in the KDE world. These have the potential to unseat Microsoft's
stronghold in the office not so much because of features although they
mostly duplicate those in Office '97, but because they come without the
cost, resources wasted due to license management, vendor lock, the BSA,
instability, and all the other sins of Redmond we've grown to know and
hate.
In my opinion, proliferation of these packages will finally drain this
particular swamp.
J Sloan wrote:
>
> Your honesty is refreshing.
>
> However, my response is, "Resistance is not futile".
>
> We will not be assimilated.
>
> jjs
>
> Tim Hanson wrote:
>
> > There's no choice to this. Microsoft's strategy is as it has always
> > been, a strategy of monopoly maintenence. That is what they do; that is
> > what they've always done. They will use areas where they have a
> > monopoly, which is now the desktop client, internet client, and office
> > productivity, to gain a monopoly at the server.
> >
> > Windows XP and Office XP are about that. The "loads of cool new
> > features" consist for the most part of cosmetic changes and cursory
> > acknowledgement to consumer howling about stability, plus a host of
> > mechanisms to hamstring the hardware manufacturers, make people pay more
> > money and to do it more often, and most importantly to get them
> > accustomed to using the .net services. As much as Windows 98 was a tool
> > to force Internet Explorer on people, so is XP a tool to force .net down
> > our throats.
> >
> > ISPs will be force fed .net. New agreements and joint marketing
> > ventures will require a minimum .net content, like they were forced to
> > use, for example, a minimum number of IE exclusive features during the
> > browser wars. In time ISPs controlled by Microsoft will begin accepting
> > logins only from .net enabled users, or forced to go through an
> > extensive work around, ala Kerberos.
> >
> > This is what is in store. Microsoft wouldn't have put it out there if
> > they didn't have a plan and the means to make people use it, and to make
> > ISPs and content providers (and the servers they use) support it. Once
> > they have the client wrapped up they can begin to dump Unix on their own
> > schedule.
--
Truth is the most valuable thing we have -- so let us economize it.
-- Mark Twain
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:59:35 GMT
"Cray Drygu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Les Mikesell) wrote in
> <D7Er6.17268$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Would you really rather have the box running on the ISP side of your
> >business's internet connect using open source with some local
> >tweaks applied by a departed summer intern instead of a
> >reliable Cisco or at least something from a company that can
> >afford to do some testing before they put it on your wire?
>
> Wow. That was so full of blatant bias...here, let's try it this way:
>
> Would you rather have the box running on the ISP side of your business's
> internet connect using proven methods on an open source machine, with
local
> tweaks applied by a seasoned user of such systems, or expensive CISCO
> equipment set up by a departed summer intern?
>
> I'll take the professional install over the summer intern every time,
> regardless of the equipment they're using.
There is quite a bit of difference in trying to understand and improve
a few-hundred line router config and a many-thousand line routing
protocol program. Which would you rather try to fix in
a hurry under pressure? Your point about professionals is what
I was trying to make, though. Giving everyone access to source
may not always result in improvements.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 23:08:16 -0500
On 15 Mar 2001, Sam Holden wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 09:10:03 -0500,
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 14 Mar 2001, Sam Holden wrote:
>>> Les Mikesell:
>>>> "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.
> That's your view.
Which part are you disagreeing with? The whole thing? That's silly on
its face. First, users -- and by this I mean non-technogeeks and
technogeeks together -- want software that works. This isn't a view,
this is a fact.
Second, of those same users, only a FEW of the technogeeks are going to
want to bother with the source code for any given program directly.
Again, this isn't a view, this is a fact. When you look at the
proportion of geek-users to real-world users, the numbers are
vanishingly small for those who want to touch the code. When you look
at certain sets of programs, you find that the numbers are (sadly) even
smaller. Once again, this isn't a view, it's a fact.
Third, my analysis of one's options if one DOES have the source code
available is also a fact. The options are PRECISELY as I've stated:
either depend on the goodwill of developers (the developers of the
package or developers you know) or hire someone. Most users aren't
going to know a fscking thing about hiring a software developer to fix
their software problems -- again, this is a fact.
I'm curious how you translate these three FACTUAL items into a 'view'
-- as if you could dismiss this reality. Maybe you think you can.
I'm a software designer, and I have NO interest in seeing or mucking
around with the source code to a Quicken-like software program. I want
it to work. I want it to work with my bank's software, and I want it to
work with my investment goals, too. I know what I'm paid, and it's far
easier for me to upgrade to the next version (assuming I have a
problem) than it is to consider mucking around the internals of
software. (I could spend about 4 hours looking at the source code
before I've exceeded the value proposition such activity offers me.
Having fixed bugs before, I don't have the days that bugs often take to
find -- especially in an unfamiliar codebase.) Again, this is a fact --
not a view.
> Because of it you won't agree with the GPL, since it is
> based on an opposing view. The GPL is based on the idea that non-free
> software is bad.
This is an irrelevancy. Would you care to contribute to the discussion
instead of saying something worthless?
> This is the difference between the 'free software' (a FSF
> term which they define explecitely so please don't argue about the word
> free yet again) movement and the 'open source' (another well defined term,
> please don't argue about the differnt meaning of the word open) movement.
If you say so. They are STILL lying by calling GPLed software "free".
Period. It is RESTRICTED software. You may agree or disagree with the
restrictions, but again -- that's irrelevant to the point I made above.
You said that the FSF looks from the user's point of view. I said that
your argument there is weak. Painfully weak, in fact, because the only
thing that any given user of a piece of software wants is that it
fscking WORKS! The FSF (and the OSI) *claims* a benefit to source
availability, and while I think it's a great thing ... it's not really
what the user wants or cares about.
[...]
> Your definition of free is obviously different. Hopefully you don't have
> a problem with people having different views.
Only when they use deceptive terms to try to get their view across.
>>> 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.
> Your missing the point because you decided to yet again bring up a
> 'GPLed code is not free' argument for no apparent reason. Obviously you
> should take non-free as the definition given by the FSF for this instance.
No, I'm not missing the point -- that's what you've been doing. And I
*don't* use 'non-free' or 'free' in the way that the FSF does because
they've perverted those terms in such ways as to make them useless in
any discussion except under those who are religiously converted to
FSFianism and those who decide to play Humpty Dumpty and change the
meaning of words to suit them however they wish.
> Is that better? Can you understand the underlying point now? Or would you
> like to play yet more word games?
I didn't play word games, Mr Holden. I pointed out facts and said that the
word games played by the FSF were worthless.
-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] (Sam Holden)
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: 15 Mar 2001 04:09:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:35:34 -0500, JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Don't respond, unless you answer EVERY point with honesty and integrity. A response
>that disagrees will likely show some lack of integrity (without you being VERY
>careful.)
So you are allowed to only reply to the parts of the post that you want
to. But I must reply to every part of your post. Doesn't sound like a fair
condition to me, sorry...
I guess any chance of you convincing me that your view is the correct one
just disappeared (I have been persuaded by arguments on usenet on many
occassions - I admit that I'm not always correct) because I'm not going
to play your stupid games.
--
Sam
I would like to tell you that Perl is simple in its complexity. But some
people won't understand that. So pretend I didn't say that, unless you
do. --Larry Wall
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 04:12:42 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>
> > > Why the focus on the wrong part of the conversation?
> >
> > I'm not. You claimed that linux was bad because applications could
> > bypass the printer drivers. Other people have stated windows progs that
> > allow this, but you ignored them. I've pointed out an example that you
> > have esay access to you.
>
> It seems strange to me that any OS allows applications their own drivers.
> It would appear to be duplication of effort. Can you not see that?
No, it is a duplication of effort to always require the application to
render an intermediate format which is again parsed and rendered
to the device-specific format. The technique just saves some
one-time coding efforts to generate optimal output from the
application in one pass. Of course in the case of postscript it
is already in device format if you have a standard printer.
> As for being to bypass Windows printer drivers, yes I'm aware you can do
> that, but _none_ of the applications I use do.
Pointing out your own lack of experience isn't the way to win
arguments.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam Holden)
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: 15 Mar 2001 04:13:26 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:40:24 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 06:31:58 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >I think we are at about the point in the argument where it is
>> >time to present some evidence that the restrictions are required
>> >or even useful. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary in
>> >terms of code that remains freely available without the GPL.
>>
>> g++. MCC would not have released a free C++ front end Except that the
>> GPL on gcc forced them to.
>
>Why is it a good thing to force people to do something against
>their will?
Because more people benefit. In this case they had a number of choices,
they could remove the GPL'd code and implement the functionality themselves,
or they could not distribute the software at all, or they could license it
under the GPL. If they didn't want to obey the terms in the license they
shouldb't have derived from the licensed code. They chose the easiest
one for them which also benefitted the software development commmunity a
great deal.
--
Sam
compiling kernels is what I do most, so they do tend to stick to the
cache ;) --Linus Torvalds
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 14 Mar 2001 21:20:27 -0700
As a preamble: I don't agree with the name of this thread at all.
Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley wrote:
> > Not in my experience. Once most people understand what the GPL truely
> > means, they tend to avoid it.
>
> I don't know what "most people" means, nor do I believe you have any
> evidence to support this claim.
It's all anecdotal; you're free to disregard it of course.
> There certainly is no shortage of people, and a significant number
> of major corportations, using and contributing to GPL software. I
> don't believe that they are ignorant. They have a reasonable,
> working understanding of what GPL means. In my experience working
> with corporate clients on free software issues, it doesn't take more
> than five minutes to convey a such a reasonable working knowledge.
Tell that to Apple.
One of the reasons Darwin is BSD-based is because they could change it
and sell it. They have also back-ported several items into FreeBSD;
this is a win-win situation that free software can promote.
> > > You can not ignore the philosophical differences, and RMS has been
> > > saying this all along. If you do so, you very much risk missing the
> > > point. GPL is about building a community. That's not meaningful
> > > without an understanding of the philosophy.
> >
> > Building a community of *what* is the question, because it's not a
> > community of freely redistributable software.
>
> It is a community of people using and modifying software under the terms
> of the GPL. The software certainly is freely-distributable withing in
> the community. If you don't accept the social contract, then you are
> not part of the community and the freedoms provided for -- and those
> forgone -- in that community are really of no relevance to you. But you
> are welcome to join, of course.
The cost of entry is too high, in my opinion. Thanks for the
invitation, though (seriously). I have nothing but respect for those
who choose to use the GPL knowing all the ramifications of that
choice. I just hope they understand that they cannot even dynamically
link their code with non-GPL code without demanding that the other
code's license be changed (look at the dual licensing nonsense in Perl
for example).
Linus could demand all sorts of license changes if he hadn't modified
his terms into a non-GPL form.
> > Microsoft was half correct in their recent appeal for avoiding the GPL
> > with government funds; by the same logic, we shouldn't use commercial
> > software with government funds either -- just absolutly *free*
> > software that anyone can use.
>
> If what you mean is "public domain", then say so -- that's the term for
> it. There is no reason to use the imprecise word "free" here at all.
Public domain means there is no copyright; while it may seem the same,
it is technically different.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: .Net to run on Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:37:22 +1000
yes apple mac and windows somthing or other
mac like ie 5
mac has had other microsoft software before (all right it was a gen or two
behind windows versions)
theres the 2 platforms.
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:98n6vn$op$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > This all assumes that they actually are going to do it.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
