Linux-Advocacy Digest #817, Volume #32 Thu, 15 Mar 01 09:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jay Maynard)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Linux office, a possible future..... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Linux office, a possible future..... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Linux office, a possible future..... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:16:36 -0300
Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That would be the case, Stefaan, if and only if the QPL and the QPLites
> which support it pretended to 'free' their software.
>
> If it ISN'T the case, then Jay is being consistent.
Or, if Stefaan is a FSF follower, he may want to know RMS says the QPL is a
free software license ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 15:16:07 +0100
Jeffrey Siegal wrote:
>
> Which GPLed libraries do you need? Most of the libraries on Linux are
> LGPL, not GPL. LGPL linkage does not require that the source code to
> entire program be released.
>
Several (at least 3). Iīm already searching, also in the LGPL direction.
But if I donīt find it there or on any BSD licence, I have still the option
of rewriting that stufff myself.
Otherwise, the project is dead.
Fine GPL, very nice. I feel suckered into it.
Because of this I will *never* release something under GPL.
Fuck that
Peter
--
A blue screen is nothing to worry about,
just press [CTRL]+[ALT]+[DEL] and format c:
------------------------------
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: 15 Mar 2001 13:19:58 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 00:41:35 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But we do consider that we have free speech, proving the argument
>that there are many interpretations of which restrictions are
>acceptable.
I can only disagree, and point out that this demonstrates that we'll
probably never agree on the putative "freedom" of the GPV. Further, this
demonstrates why you'll never understand why that's such a sticking point
with me: to me, freedom is not a nicety, but a fundamental and irreplaceable
requirement for human happiness, and any society that does not have
guarantees that governments cannot take away basic freedoms is not one in
which I would care to live. If Holocaust denial is prohibited by government,
what's next on the hit list? There is zero difference between that and
prohibiting public criticism of the government itself.
>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.
Not in this thread, but in others.
> 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".
The reason that there is a Bill of Rights in the US Constitution is that
there are some things no government may do and remain legitimate, even if
a large majority of the population wishes it to do so. A wrong done by
consensus is still wrong.
>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
FWIW, I believe the protracted witchhunt of Dr. Kevorkian is wrong, and that
people who wish to commit suicide should be allowed to have competent
assistance if they wish.
>b) subjective, as "minimum restrictions" is open to interpretation.
Perhaps, but there's at least a yardstick by which comparisons may be made.
>Please stop being a self-appointed guardian of the one true
>definition of "free".
Someone around here must uphold the concept of freedom, in the face of those
like yourself who would willingly surrender it.
> 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?
1) I never claimed Hercules was "free software". I do claim it is open
source software, because it is distributed under an OSD-compliant license.
2) Section 6c, as annotated by TrollTech:
"c. If the items are not available to the general public, and the initial
developer of the Software requests a copy of the items, then you must supply
one.
"This is to avoid problems with companies that try to hide the source. If we
get to know about it we want to be able to get hold of the code even if we
are not users. In this way, if somebody tries to cheat and we get to know we
can release the source code to the public."
I'll agree with that rationale. Further, I'll note that TrollTech
specifically prohibits modifying the license (except for the choice of law
provisions) and still calling it the QPL; I just answered an email pointing
out that very thing.
>After reading your QPL, I can only conclude you're a hypocrite.
I am arguing against the GPV and the FSF's fraudulent redefinition of the
term "free". I am not claiming that the projeect I work on is "free". You
may conclude I'm a hypocrite if you wish, but, again, I can only disagree.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:31:25 -0000
In article <986fdf$n81$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Your replies detailed a great deal but answered the wrong question.
>
> > My whole point was that if I select a specific printer in installation,
> > then everything else should follow suit. The Gimp did not. Your
> > explanations about postscript were irrelevant.
>
> Actually they have everything to do with it. You simply do not
> understand the gimp, postscript OR printing under linux at all.
What's to understand? I setup the machine to use my EPSON printer as
default. The Gimp ignored this. Everyone here has been detailing how
printing works on Linux, but not answering the obvious question - why
does The Gimp get it wrong?
> I see youre still blaming other people for your own extreme idiocy,
> pete.
My idiocy? Still trying to make out it's the users fault when an
application gets it wrong, I see.
> And yet there are mounds of people still trying desparately to
> explain things to you in very small words so that you can be sure
> to understand, yet for some reason, you never actually understand.
That's because they're looking at it from the wrong perspective, the same
as you are.
> EVERYONE isnt wrong, pete. You are.
A man who is right is in a majority of one.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux office, a possible future.....
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:25:20 -0000
In article <OoQr6.244291$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Huh? And how much does one of your Linux boxes cost?
>
> One of mine cost me almost nothing. I upgraded another computer, and most of
> the parts were used to put together my first linux box...All in all,
> including original but depreciated parts I would say I spent less than $300.
And how much does a brand new PC for Windows or Linux cost? $300? I doubt
it.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:41:04 -0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > > Yes you have. You claimed that GIMP sending PS to your printer was the
> > > wrong thing to do. I can't be bothered to dig up any more.
> >
> > No I haven't. I said The Gimp was wrong in that it printed Postscript as
>
> Well, yes you did.
What I said all along was that The Gimp got it wrong.
> > The way that it was wrong was that it ignored a
> > system wide configuration setting and did its own thing.
>
> It did send iot to the right queue, though, which is what the system
> copnfiuration tells it to do. The system config doesn't say anything
> about rawness, but I'll freely admit it's dumb to mark data as raw by
> default.
Thank you.
> > As I said
> > before, you're not listening.
>
> I'm listening to what you say, but I'm disagreeing.
So you disagree when I say The Gimp got it wrong? Above you appear to be
agreeing with me.
> > > So in conclusion, PS does a very good most of the time in most
> > > situations. If postscript is so bad, then point me to a much better
> > > solution.
> >
> > It's not bad, but it is a fairly complex solution on a printer which
> > requires more intelligence etc. on the printer.
>
> Or, it you OS has a sensible filtering system, then the processing can
> be done on the host insted. That way, I can use my dumb Star Micronics
> LC-100 (colour) Dot Matrix as a postscript printer if I wish.
Yet for some reason UNIX is the only OS that uses PS as it's standard.
Windows doesn't, neither did OpenVMS.
> It makes a good solution, since any app can generate a file on a
> computer which has no printer drivers, and have the file reluiably
> printed on any printer (assuming a woprking GS).
It makes one solution. When it works.
> > You have trouble listening.
>
> You have trouble understanding the difference between lintening and
> disagreeing.
I think I was right the first time. You appear to be agreeing with me.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux office, a possible future.....
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:24:25 -0000
In article <98ojh6$31skv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> > Tried the pixie viewer yet?
>
> I use pixie every day, what's the problem with it?
If you close the window with the 'pixie' on it, all windows close. Fair
enough, I suppose, but a little annoying.
Once you get the thumbnail viewer up, it frequently reverts to its
preferred layout, rather than the one I just set it to.
For a large directory, it sits there redrawing an icon for every file...
sheesh...
It appears to me to be an 'early release' or 'beta' product.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:49:55 -0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >I said right at the very start that I installed Linux Mandrake 7.2 and
> >choose the Epson printer as the default printer driver. The Gimp overrode
> >this and printed postscript _as text_ not as graphics.
>
> Incidentally, AFAIK, postscript is text. Not totally unlike a markup language,
> it's a big text file that describes how to print formatted text and graphics.
Actually Postscript is more like a language, not unlike FORTH.
> From what I can tell, GIMP output a Postscript file and then sent it on to
> Mr. Goodwin's printer without going through the appropriate driver (that is,
> without telling the printer what it was getting.) This is because the GIMP
> assumed postscript by default, rather than using the "standard" printer
> setting that was set earlier, as everyone is now aware.
That's pretty much it.
> Your point that "Linux" is viewed by the public as the whole distribution,
> and not just the kernel, is a good one, and so if GIMP does something that
> can cause a problem easily, then that's significant. (Surely if MS Paint
> or WordPad or whatever was still buggy, that would be a point for Linux.
> The fact that the GIMP et al. are much more full-featured than the applets that
> come with Windows is a different point for Linux.)
It's the perception I had when I first tried Linux, and I suspect other
people will have that same perception. It may not be the correct one, but
it seems to be in use.
> However, the idea that 'there's something wrong with the whole model' because
> the GIMP has its own route to printing separate from the standard and 'all the
> applications' you've used under Windows don't is more debatable.
I thought it odd that it seemed to be OK to people here to allow any old
application to have its own drivers to talk to hardware. I thought the
whole point of an OS was to do all that. Otherwise we're back to the days
when there was no X or Windows and everyone invented their own API to do
raster graphics.
> Windows applications used to use their own printer drivers instead of the
> generic Windows interface a lot more than they do now: WordPerfect 5.1 for
> example. This is because the developers wanted to be current and use all the
> capabilities of the latest hardware.
It gets easier once a decent model is in place. Certainly all
applications I use make use of this model. Hence my surprise when I came
across one on Linux that bucked the rules.
> But driver support is a pain and usually
> not a fun job for developers: when the generic Windows drivers became "good
> enough" and covered enough printers, it was a lot easier to just use those
> and put the developers to work making the product flashier. This has the
> added benefit of passing the tech support buck: when people call you because
> they can't print, you can blame it on the Windows drivers, that you don't have
> any control over. (And when they call Microsoft, they can blame it on you,
> saying your app must not be using the drivers correctly. Everybody wins!)
Yet Windows seems to have a decent driver model, bad tech support not
withstanding.
> In the current context, the GIMP might use its own set of drivers for a variety
> of reasons: the developers might not have faith in the "default" drivers, or
> they might not know if drivers are going to be available for every
> distribution, platform, and OS that the GIMP runs on. An alternative solution
> is that, just as Mandrake asks for which printer driver to use when you first
> start it, the GIMP should probably have asked the same question when it first
> ran and configured, so they wouldn't have to rely on a default that works for
> many people, but not all.
So you would agree that this is a configuration problem that ought to be
solved by either Mandrake or The Gimp, and not "my idiocy" as some people
want us to believe?
> Another possible solution is for the Mandrake (or any other) distribution to
> configure all the apps in it, and not just the "default" interface, with the
> right printer drivers. That's a lot of work for distributions, that live on
> the margin, but that's the sort of thing that establishes an installation as
> "easy" and a distribution as "solid" and "trouble-free", and therefore would
> grab a lot of market share.
Or make sure applications do it the right way? Or make something
available that lets that happen. However, I don't see that occuring on
Linux. There appears to be too much of "I want choice! I'm gonna do it my
way"!.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:52:39 -0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Except 100% of the apps I use on Windows use this unified model. I've yet
> > to see one that doesn't.
>
> Well you do have one. Try using edit.com as shipped with win95 and
> newer. That dumps raw text straight to the printer.
Except I wouldn't do printing from Edit, I'd use something else. Even
Notepad isn't a good tool for printing (as it sets stupid print margins),
I'd use PFE instead.
However, they all print correctly. Unlike The Gimp.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:28:07 -0000
In article <TSOr6.244276$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Bearing in mind Windows is _not_ absolutely useless, your comments are
> > worthless.
>
> You are right...All the best games run in Windows.
And quite a lot of good software that easily outstrips what is
(laughingly) available on Linux.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux office, a possible future.....
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:27:14 -0000
In article <98ol4a$3j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > What company has in excess of 50,000 nodes?
>
> Most large ISPs and cable companies. Do you realize how many nodes a nationwide
> cable modem company has? Do you understand what it takes to pull of DHCP on
> that kind of scale?
Ah yes, I see what you mean.
> You simply dont know what youre talking about, pete. Time to admit it and move on.
In the context of what? - a large network or "the network PC" which is
what we were talking about.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:54:07 -0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Translation: don't keep complaining, we don't want nor care what you have
> > to say, even if what you say may actually help (or hinder?) Linux.
>
> How is it helping?
Constructive criticism?
> > BeOS is not Linux but it does 'unify' the desktop. Shame something
> > technically good is going nowhere in the mainstream. No applications!
>
> KDE "unifies" the dsktop. as does GNOME. Those are choices.
Except not all apps are KDE or GNOME specific. They are one or t'other.
The differences are subtle but apparent when you use them.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
