Linux-Advocacy Digest #813, Volume #32 Thu, 15 Mar 01 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
(Found the thread) Re: "?" in html text (e.g. "This is Adam?s post") ("Adam Warner")
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market ("green")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("green")
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! (Anonymous)
Re: WOW - This is Interesting (Donn Miller)
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! (J Sloan)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (GreyCloud)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 07:33:51 GMT
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Just so there is no further confusion, the definition I use for "free
> software" is software released in such a way that all users of the
> software are assured of these four freedoms:
>
> 0. to run the program, for any purpose;
> 1. to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (access to
> the source code is a precondition for this);
> 2. to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor; and
No, if your improvements include modifications that involve linking
with some other library to accomplish a task you both need to
do, you cannot help your neighbor by redistributing this code even
if he already owns or has the right to use the other library.
> 3. to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public,
> so that the whole community benefits (access to the source code is a
> precondition for this).
Again, you are prohibited from giving away your work if it involves
using any other component even if that one is less restricted.
> If you don't like that definition, go ahead construct your own, and we
> can agree to disagree on definition. And if you feel that I am calling
> something "free software" which does not satisfy *this* definition, then
> call me a liar. But don't call me a liar simply because you don't like
> the definition I'm using for a coined phrase.
If you are going to define the GPL, you have to talk about restrictions,
not freedom and isolation, not sharing.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: (Found the thread) Re: "?" in html text (e.g. "This is Adam?s post")
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 07:44:43 GMT
Hi all,
Here's the conversation:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&ic=1&th=f8c513f7cdde0ebe&seekd=924429066#924429066
The thread is titled "New kernel 2.4.1 rocks with IPMASQ"
The perl script is the "DEMORONISER".
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 17:50:31 +1000
It's fun to claim i use linux
but it ain't solely I do delphi and vb development, uni uses win nt in all
open labs except mac labs
:(
It's hard to convince people it is worth the change and there is enough apps
when they are comfortable using what they have got and know.
"Bloody Viking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9816ju$b2e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Masha Ku'Inanna ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : One customer asked about getting his/her hands on Office. I said, sure -
how
> : many computers will it be legally installed on?
>
> : Or for that matter, how many computers will they install WinME or 2000
on,
> : and if they're ready to technically purchase individual copies for each
> : computer.
>
> : Then mention linux.
>
> : After explaining things in an incredibly in-depth manner, neutral to
both
> : sides, it is always amazing to watch their eyes light up as if the wool
that
> : had been pulled over their eyes was suddenly removed.
>
> : Othertimes, people'd come in wanting to buy Red-hat linux, and I'd point
'em
> : to the book-section. (Linux Bible series). They'd ask "Why not get the
full
> : version?.." I'd tell em "Why? This is still a full installation, for
half of
> : the retail box, and you get this thick 'manual' with it.."
>
> : The expressions are always priceless..
>
> It's always fun to tell people I use Linux. People find it hard to believe
I'm
> not using Windows of some kind.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 00:41:35 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:28:26 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>No-one claims "free" is "unrestricted", and free speech isn't
>>unrestricted either. For example, in my country I will be
>>prosecuted if I deny or minimize the Holocaust.
>
> This is enough restriction that I do not consider your country as having
> true freedom of speech. The only restrictions on speech that I consider not
> interfering with freedom are those designed to prevent actual harm to
> others. Restrictions on historical discussion do not qualify, for if we fail
> to learn from the mistakes of history, we will be doomed to repeat them - if
> we're lucky. If not, we'll have to endure something even worse.
But we do consider that we have free speech, proving the argument
that there are many interpretations of which restrictions are
acceptable.
>>Claiming that the only valid use of "free" is when it
>>means "unrestricted" shows poor knowledge of English ;-)
>
> Making this claim shows poor understanding of freedom...but then it's par
> for you.
Tips hat ;-)
> I have never claimed freedom requires a total absence of
> restrictions, despite your numerous claims to the contrary. I only claim
> that freedom requires the minimum restrictions designed to prevent people
> from harming others without their consent. Before you bring up such things
> as speed limits yet again, I'll point out that I do not consider the US
> completely free, either, merely the most free of any country I can think of.
May I point out that I was reacting to Peter Seebach's comment:
> No reason they shouldn't, but a big reason they shouldn't claim that their
> code is "free" in the sense of "unrestricted", ala "free speech".
and not to any of your utterances. And I'd like to point out that
I've always defended the position that which restrictions are
acceptable is a matter of consensus, not for any individual to
determine and impose on others. It is your kind who claim that the
GPL has too many, or the wrong kind of restrictions to allow it
to use the word "free", and who regularly lapse into "no
restrictions".
As to "minimum restrictions designed to prevent people from harming
others without their consent", let me simply state that this definition
is
a) false: you may not kill someone even if they consent
b) subjective, as "minimum restrictions" is open to interpretation.
Please stop being a self-appointed guardian of the one true
definition of "free". Instead, have a another read of your
vaunted QPL, remove the ambiguities, and get rid of that nefarious
clause 6c. Do you really expect people to send you code they
wrote for their own use, which they never distributed a binary
from, only because it "links" to your software?
After reading your QPL, I can only conclude you're a hypocrite.
Good day, sir.
--
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)
------------------------------
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 00:46:19 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>> free speech isn't
>> unrestricted either. For example, in my country I will be
>> prosecuted if I deny or minimize the Holocaust.
>
> And in my country we would say that you do not have a right of free
> speech.
Whereas those who considered this restriction necessary probably
argue, like Jay, that it's part of the
"... minimum restrictions designed to prevent people from harming
others..."
proving that "free" is a rather flexible concept.
Take care,
--
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)
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: URGENT MESSAGE TO CHAD'S EMPLOYER Was: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:01:42 +1000
dosn't matter if the terminal is setup properly
it can scroll pretty text pictures all day long.
ahhhh
sort of like watching screen savers
mabey like the matrix.
:)
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Michael Vester wrote:
> >
> > Ed wrote:
> > >
> > > > I thank God every day that I don't have to use that box as my
desktop
> > > > because the state of Unix and Linux is so poor, I would have to
shoot
> > > > myself if I did.
> > >
> > > Please, whoever employs Chad, remove his windows machine this instant
and
> > > make him use Solaris/CDE.
> > >
> > > -Ed
> > >
> > > --
> > > | u98ejr
> > > | @
> > > Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
> > > | .ac.uk
> >
> > Give Chad a nice 3270 terminal. A nice pretty green screen.
> > No nasty mice to clutter up the desk.
>
> Not only would Chat the Shit-brained not know what to do....
> but no amount of teaching would help him, either...
>
>
> > --
> > Michael Vester
> > A credible Linux advocate
> >
> > "The avalanche has started, it is
> > too late for the pebbles to vote"
> > Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
> Special Interest Sierra Club,
> Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
>
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 01:10:08 -0700
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses!
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
"Masha Ku' Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You know, the really scary thing about Charlie's enthusiasm is that it feels
> so much like the "You GOTTA be saved, Jesus LOVES you!.." enthusiasm of some
> religious sects.
>
> Or is "Linus loves you," more accurate?
windows is a pretty cool system. easy to install and easy to use. i like
it just fine.
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:25:58 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WOW - This is Interesting
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> That's because Linux is incapable of reporting an uptime larger than 479
> days, even if it is up longer than that.
So, where is this piece of code in the Linux kernel that makes the
uptime counter reset after 479 days? Maybe it's a couple of *pieces*
(instead of piece) of code.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:42:25 GMT
Anonymous wrote:
> "Masha Ku' Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You know, the really scary thing about Charlie's enthusiasm is that it feels
> > so much like the "You GOTTA be saved, Jesus LOVES you!.." enthusiasm of some
> > religious sects.
> >
> > Or is "Linus loves you," more accurate?
>
> windows is a pretty cool system. easy to install and easy to use. i like
> it just fine.
Nah, you say that because you don't have anything else
to compare it to. I used to think that way too, but after
learning about Unix, I don't think windows is cool at all...
cu
jjs
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[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 00:41:29 -0800
Austin Ziegler wrote:
>
> 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
I have to agree, in a certain way, with you about the restrictions.
I believe that the GPL, when it was written, was designed to keep large
corporations from usurping parts or all of the contributed code for
their
own profits. So far I don't see Microsoft taking direct control and
they may try an oblique tactic to slowly absorb this sector.
I suspect we need to look into the international laws in regards to the
term "free" and then its context to GPL. In the US just about anything
in the real world can be litigated upon... even a legitimate contract.
Else where, well thats a different area. I'd be interested in seeing
how countries view the GPL and what the differences legally are. IMO,
licenses or agreements are by default outlining what you can and cannot
do.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:07:28 +0100
In article <3GVr6.284$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
> And "GOOD" != "FREE".
and TRIVIAL != NO.
Stop being obtuse.
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:20:33 +0100
In article <zf_r6.18204$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Just so there is no further confusion, the definition I use for "free
>> software" is software released in such a way that all users of the
>> software are assured of these four freedoms:
>>
>> 0. to run the program, for any purpose;
>> 1. to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (access to
>> the source code is a precondition for this);
>> 2. to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor; and
>
> No, if your improvements include modifications that involve linking
> with some other library to accomplish a task you both need to
> do, you cannot help your neighbor by redistributing this code even
> if he already owns or has the right to use the other library.
Nonsense. Of course you can do that under the GPL, just don't
distribute the library, and give your neighbor the source.
>> 3. to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public,
>> so that the whole community benefits (access to the source code is a
>> precondition for this).
>
> Again, you are prohibited from giving away your work if it involves
> using any other component even if that one is less restricted.
Again, not correct. Unless, of course, the restrictions on
the "less restricted" don't allow me to distribute the source.
>> If you don't like that definition, go ahead construct your own, and we
>> can agree to disagree on definition. And if you feel that I am calling
>> something "free software" which does not satisfy *this* definition, then
>> call me a liar. But don't call me a liar simply because you don't like
>> the definition I'm using for a coined phrase.
>
> If you are going to define the GPL, you have to talk about restrictions,
> not freedom and isolation, not sharing.
Golly, I didn't know people could be so pigheaded.
--
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)
------------------------------
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:29:25 +0100
In article <HQWr6.17945$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "Stefaan A Eeckels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> The goal is not to have only one implementation, but one good spec.
>
> Doesn't that depend on how much the implementations and the spec
> differ? This is something like the difference between theory and
> practice. In theory there isn't any difference - in practice there is.
>
No. Not all implementations _have_ to be good. There is
no virtue in that. Its a fact of life that there are good
products, and bad products. Don't use the bad ones.
If you continue to insist that the best solution to
lousy implementations is to use a single code base,
you're making Microsoft's argument, namely that the
consumer benefits from a monopoly.
Good standards, the freedom for developers to write systems
that they try to make conformant, and the freedom for
the consumers to choose the product that suits them; have
you got a problem with that?
--
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)
------------------------------
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:40:05 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Masterson wrote:
>> > And in my country we would say that you do not have a right of free
>> > speech.
>>
>> Is that the same country where you can be prosecuted for slander?
>
> Yes, it is. Slander requires proof of damages; it is not the speech
> which is forbidden, but the causing of injury. I suspect this is not
> the case for the holocaust speech laws.
It's exactly as I said: you cannot publicly deny or minimize the
Holocaust. My parents have lost family in the second world war;
my father is from Antwerp, he's not Jewish but many of his boyhood
friends did not return from the concentration camps.
Even though I don't agree with the restriction (it's all too easy
to turn it around and claim that it proves the Holocaust as presented
in history books is hugely inflated, or a hoax, or the restrictions
wouldn't be necessary), I understand and respect the motives of
the people who introduced these laws shortly after the liberation.
I feel uneasy having introduced such a serious matter in a discussion
about the use of the word "free" in the context of software.
I hope those who feel offended accept my apologies.
Take care,
--
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)
------------------------------
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:52:16 +0100
In article <EEWr6.298$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "Sam Holden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> I don't consider the GPL highly restricted and encumbered.
>>
> What YOU consider isn't important.
So why is what YOU consider important?
> Kindly Hint:
>
> 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 sad. Please get professional help.
--
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
******************************
