Linux-Advocacy Digest #834, Volume #32 Fri, 16 Mar 01 15:13:06 EST
Contents:
so can Windows do this ? ("Andy Walker")
Re: Interesting Google Facts! (Chad Everett)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (David Masterson)
Re: the mismeasure of man (Chad Everett)
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! (Anonymous)
Re: the mismeasure of man ("Shades")
Re: gates messiah (Brock Hannibal)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: the mismeasure of man (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: so can Windows do this ?
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:28:30 -0000
I've just set up Linux with four old SCSI disks using software RAID-0 and
the performance of these otherwise redundant disks is quite impressive.
This comes as standard on most Linux distributions but does Windows also
have this facility as I'm curious to see how it compares to a single ATA66
drive.
Basically what I want to find out is if it is pointless buying an ATA100
drive when four old SCSI drives perform far faster. I know software RAID has
processor overheads but lets face it, when you can't multitask properly like
Windows what else would your machine be doing in between times!
Any ideas anyone.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Interesting Google Facts!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:42:20 GMT
You forgot:
"DOS" : 14,200,000
"Unix" : 9,020,000
"VMS" : 789,000
"Ultrix" : 181,000
===========================
Total : 24,190,000
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
>> Pull up http://www.google.com
>>
>> Do the following.
>>
>> Do a search on "Windows" - You see 24,900,000 references.
>> Do a search on "Microsoft" - You see 14,700,000 references.
>>
>> We have to assume that the term Windows is more closely aligned with
>> applications and hardware made to run with Windows than Microsoft
>> associated materials', per say.
>>
>> Do a search on "Open BSD" - You see 684,000 references.
>> Do a search on "Net BSD" - You see 712,000 references.
>> Do a search on "FreeBSD" - You see 3,330,000 references.
>> Do a search on "BSDI" - You see 182,000 references.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Do a search on "LinuxPPC" - You see 390 references.
>> Do a search on "Storm Linux" - You see 133,000 references. *
>> Do a search on "Turbo Linux" - You see 179,000 references.
>> Do a search on "Corel Linux" - You see 297,000 references. *
>> Do a search on "Yellow Dog" - You see 542,000 references.
>> Do a search on "Slackware " - You see 703,000 references.
>> Do a search on "Mandrake " - You see 820,000 references.
>> Do a search on "Suse " - You see 2,300,000 references.
>> Do a search on "RedHat" - You see 3,470,000 references.
>> Do a search on "Debian" - You see 7,140,000 references.
>>
>>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:32:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
From: David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> "Nick" == Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Masterson wrote:
>>>>>>> "T" == T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> [...] you have no right to demand any particular level of profit
>>> in perpetuity simply because you were the one who did it first,
>>> no. You have the right to a reasonable profit for having done it,
>>> and the level of profit floats with the number of competitors who
>>> have also done it. This provides the efficiencies of production
>>> provided by the capitalist free market system. Profiteering,
>>> however, is qualitatively different, and is far more akin to
>>> extortion that making a profit on honest work or invested capital.
>> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the level of profit
>> floats with the number of competitors" -- the level of profit is
>> inversely proportional to the number of competitors (ie. the more
>> competitors, the less profit)? Once the GPL kicks in on a product
>> (after the first copy is delivered), though, it looks like the
>> number of competitors (theoretically) goes to infinity (and your
>> profit after the first copy goes to zero).
> Here's an old joke: an economist is someone who looks at a system
> working in practice and wonders if it works in theory.
> Theoretically the price of GPL'd software goes to zero, but in
> reality, the FSF has been selling free-software compilations for
> more than 15 years. Why is that?
Don't like economic theory -- how about some mathematical theory?
Namely, infinity is a theoretical value that's never been found. I
didn't say that it will reach infinity -- just that it "goes to
infinity". Even though the GPL makes the fruits of the developer's
labor available to everyone, it still requires some work to make use
of the results of that labor.
Thus, your example is flawed. The compilations CDs that the FSF puts
out are "distributions" like those put out by RedHat, Caldera, Walnut
Creek, and so on. The FSF is (as the GPL allows) recouping the costs
of doing the "distribution" and hopefully making a bit of a profit.
Undoubtedly, with so many *competitors* in the distribution field,
they're are not making as big a profit as they might on their
distributions.
So, finally, I hope that you understand that the cost of
*distribution* is something different than the cost of *development*.
> Your theory is incomplete. It assumes that consumers always seek out
> the lowest price regardless of other factors, which is obviously
> false: people tip waitresses when the table next to them didn't;
> people give to street performers when the guy next to them
> didn't. I'm sure you can come up with plenty of other examples.
Your examples are commonly called "charity". In some cases, this
charity may be "expected" according to social norms, but it is still
"charity" (ie. the giving of possessions [money] from one person to
another when there is no requirement for the exchange).
--
David Masterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Rational Software (but I don't speak for them)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: the mismeasure of man
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:51:20 GMT
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, The Danimal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> *** SNIP ***
>
>The average person tends not to get very far with any computer, but
>she gets farther with Windows than with any form of Unix available
>today.
>
This is simply because the average person uses the computer as a
typewriter, browser, and AOL terminal. They do no COMPUTING per se.
Brain dead gamers are in there somewhere too I suppose.
If you are talking about the computer as a typewriter...hey...let the
typists use Windows.
If you are talking about computing...then that's a different matter.
^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 12:04:29 -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
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Masha Ku' Inanna in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 14 Mar 2001
> 17:49:30 -0500;
> >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?
>
> I think the most accurate would be "Linux doesn't care what you love, as
> it has no intention of preventing you from having it."
ljba
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: the mismeasure of man
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:17:33 -0800
>
> This is simply because the average person uses the computer as a
> typewriter, browser, and AOL terminal. They do no COMPUTING per se.
> Brain dead gamers are in there somewhere too I suppose.
>
> If you are talking about the computer as a typewriter...hey...let the
> typists use Windows.
>
> If you are talking about computing...then that's a different matter.
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
I disagree. Many people in mid-large size companies where Windows is used
on the desktop use it as a tool for budget analysis, forecasting, data
mining (w/ backend DB of course), etc....
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:15:54 -0800
From: Brock Hannibal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: gates messiah
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Chad Everett wrote:
> >
> > On 16 Mar 2001 05:55:18 GMT, Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >Chad Everett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > >
> > >: You are completely insane
> > >
> > > *** SNIP ***
> > >
> > >BTW, what type of chad are you? Hanging, swinging, or pregnant? My bet is you
> > >are a swinging chad as you are stupider than a retarded lobotomised gibbon.
> > >
> >
> > I have NOT been lobotomised.
>
> That's what all lobotomy victims say.
>
I see the lobotomized, they don't know they're lobotomized.
--
Brock
"One thing counts in this life: Get them to sign
on the line which is dotted...A. Always. B. Be.
C. Closing. Always Be Closing."
http://www.swingout.net/
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[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: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 14:24:41 -0500
"David Masterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>> "Nick" == Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > David Masterson wrote:
> >>>>>>> "T" == T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>> [...] you have no right to demand any particular level of profit
> >>> in perpetuity simply because you were the one who did it first,
> >>> no. You have the right to a reasonable profit for having done it,
> >>> and the level of profit floats with the number of competitors who
> >>> have also done it. This provides the efficiencies of production
> >>> provided by the capitalist free market system. Profiteering,
> >>> however, is qualitatively different, and is far more akin to
> >>> extortion that making a profit on honest work or invested capital.
>
> >> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the level of profit
> >> floats with the number of competitors" -- the level of profit is
> >> inversely proportional to the number of competitors (ie. the more
> >> competitors, the less profit)? Once the GPL kicks in on a product
> >> (after the first copy is delivered), though, it looks like the
> >> number of competitors (theoretically) goes to infinity (and your
> >> profit after the first copy goes to zero).
>
> > Here's an old joke: an economist is someone who looks at a system
> > working in practice and wonders if it works in theory.
>
> > Theoretically the price of GPL'd software goes to zero, but in
> > reality, the FSF has been selling free-software compilations for
> > more than 15 years. Why is that?
>
> Don't like economic theory -- how about some mathematical theory?
> Namely, infinity is a theoretical value that's never been found. I
> didn't say that it will reach infinity -- just that it "goes to
> infinity". Even though the GPL makes the fruits of the developer's
> labor available to everyone, it still requires some work to make use
> of the results of that labor.
>
Free licenses also make the fruits of the developer's labor available to everyone
in the same way as the GPL. (NOTE: that your claim about the GPL making
the fruits available to everyone is actually incorrect, but as true in some
ways (but not all) as FREE software.)
Of course, the GPL has some constraints, and the redistribution constraints
have a complexity/restriction superset of free licensing terms.
John
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: the mismeasure of man
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:25:15 GMT
Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 16 Mar 2001 06:23:28
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis) eeped:
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 00:21:31 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <983ulp$1ql$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten wrote:
>> >>> A true IQ test would have to
>> >>> involve pictures and patterns, and perhaps have some mathematical
>> >>> basis, because these are the only ideas that translate well all over
>> >>> the world.
>> >>
>> >>I don't believe there is a true IQ test. People are good at different
>> >>thing.
>> >>
>> >>-Ed
>> >>
>> >
>> >For instance, most Windows users are extremely good at immitating rocks.
>>
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
>> Most people use Windows because it came with their computer, or the ads
>> mentioned Windows, or they've heard of MS and Windows, or Joe from next
>> door has Windows and dials up to AOL and looks at pr0n.
>>
>> Then there are business users who run what they're given.
>
>then there are those who are in business and understand economies of
>scale. not to mention the cost of paying a headcase unix guru to be snotty
>and obnoxious whilst smelling up the office and dripping twinkie crumbs on
>the server and making rtfm sounds with his porcine cakehole.
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
Apparently, somebody has an agenda.
>men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
>more even than death
>- bertrand russell
And is missing a sig delimiter, as well. The first line of your sig
file should be "--
", Jackie. (Dash, Dash, Space, Newline). Following this convention
will allow certain correctly functioning news readers to automatically
snip your sig. Particularly useful when you use your "Aaron Style" sig.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:25:18 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 16 Mar 2001 13:06:19
GMT;
>On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 20:08:16 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 14 Mar 2001 22:01:24
>
>>>about an article that complains that hardware is cheaper and Win9x
>>>isn't. My claims:
>>>
>>>(a) The fact that hardware becomes cheaper does not mean that
>>> software need do the same.
>>
>>The claim was that *everything* becomes cheaper, and that is an
>
>What do you mean by "everything" ? Sorry, this is unclear to me.
Every thing. Everything. Anything. It is an inescapable and
irrefutable fact of nature that a free market system forces *anything*
to get cheaper when the demand goes up. That's why we use such a
system. The more people want something or need something, the more
efficient the producers get, competitively chasing market profits.
>>irrefutable fact. Software "gets cheaper" just like everything else
>>does, though you are probably entirely ignorant of this, since it starts
>>out so astronomically cheap to begin with.
>
>See my other post. A lot of software is very expensivew (eg development
>software, office suites)
Expensive compared to what? Is the software you *produce* very
expensive to make?
>>>(b) IMO the argument that Win 9x is "too expensive" is not very
>>> convincing. Maybe they could charge 3 times as much for the
>>> OEM license, but that's not the point I was debating.
>>
>>Yes, it is; you just don't understand why such compartmentalization is
>>bogus. It presumes Microsoft is running a business and acting
>>competitively, and that's simply not the case. Your reasoning takes for
>>granted the working of 'market forces' which are meaningless in
>>Microsoft's case, as they are a monopoly, and thus are relatively immune
>>to 'market forces'.
>
>I'm not presupposing the existence of such forces at all. I'm merely
>pointing out the prices of other products comparable to their operating
>system.
You've given nothing but extremely vague and untenable ideas about what
makes such a thing "comparable", unfortunately. IOW, you're guessing,
and picking out random facts which appear to support your argument,
without stopping to consider that *logic* refutes your argument to begin
with. (As do those random facts, if you understood them correctly.)
>If their product is overpriced, why is it not necessary to at least
>attempt to make a case that it is more expensive than comparable products ?
Because one must first make a case that the comparison is with a
"comparable" product. Since you recognize MS is a monopoly, why do you
have trouble understanding this rather "fatal flaw" in your argument?
How, and for that matter why, do you expect to get something
"comparable" to a product which enjoys a monopoly?
>So far, the only attempt ylu've made is to cite the box set prices, which
>as I've already pointed out are higher than OEM prices.
And I've already pointed out that it *doesn't matter* what price you
examine, and despite that there is *no reason* not to use the box set
price. What does the fact that it isn't the *same* as the OEM price
mean? Does it somehow make it impossible for the OEM price itself to be
higher than it otherwise would be? Wouldn't it make sense (not that I'm
necessarily extending this argument) that possibly the *proportion* that
either is overpriced might be identical, regardless of the actual
number?
>> [...]
>>>Again, the complaint isn't really directed at you. But there are a lot of
>>>people who mindlessly bash Microsoft products and Microsoft out of prejudice.
>>>These people aren't much better than those who mindlessly tdeclare MS to
>>>be the be-all-end-all of computing. For example, wsee the Aamazon.com
>>>reiews for "writing solid code". A lot of idiots posted negative reviews
>>>without having even read the book.
>>
>>If you were correct in your thinking that MS doesn't overcharge, perhaps
>>you'd have a point.
>
>The above point stands whether or not MS overcharge -- there are a lot
>of knee jerk , illogical attacks on MS, and the example I offer above
>is a good one. Becuause of these illogical , angry rants about MS, I
>am hesitant to jump on the bandwagon every time someone complains.
Hmmm. Well, typically, I'm hesitant to jump on any bandwagons,
regardless of what anyone says. Perhaps you, too, might find that a
more logical approach, rather than simply putting up the extreme of any
opposition as a straw man. Because ultimately, Donovan, there's nothing
"illogical" about an angry rant, per se, nor is complaining about more
than a decade of being ripped off by a monopoly a "knee jerk" attack.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:25:19 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:28:07
>In article <TSOr6.244276$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> > Bearing in mind Windows is _not_ absolutely useless, your comments are
>> > worthless.
>>
>> You are right...All the best games run in Windows.
>
>And quite a lot of good software that easily outstrips what is
>(laughingly) available on Linux.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. No, its mostly the games, Pete. ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:25:20 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:59:35
>"Cray Drygu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Les Mikesell) wrote in
>> <D7Er6.17268$[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.
Well, regardless of your analogy, then, your point is self-refuting.
Giving everyone access to source doesn't limit its availability to those
who are "professional"; it merely limits the barrier to entry which
provide protection against 'commoditizing' such skills.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:25:21 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:46:18
[...]
>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.
Well, the crux is that those who want to give something away don't want
to restrict the way it can be shared. They merely wish to insist that
it *is* shared, openly and completely, by everyone.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:25:23 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:46:38 -0500;
>"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> JD wrote:
>> > Remember, free software will be (by default) given away freely.
>>
>> It is really impossible to have a reaonsable discussion when you insist
>> in using words so carelessly and ambiguously. "Free software" has no
>> clear meaning unless you accept the one defined by the FSF, or define
>> your own. And "given away freely" is also poorly defined.
>>
>It is really impossible to have a reasonable discussion when you insist
>on using words with differing, inconsistant definitions. The term 'free' as used
>in causual speech and regular discourse associated with the GPL doesn't
>carry with it the limitations as associated with the definition in the GPL
>documentation.
While it is understandable that you may believe this, many
knowledgeable, intelligent, and reasonable people disagree with you
completely. I hesitate, always, to say "you're wrong". But you are
certainly mistaken. Or posturing, because your real motive isn't to
promote "free software" or any clarity in terminology, but to stamp out
that which prevents you from profiteering on somebody else's code.
Since this is the whole point of the GPL, your complaints are rather
empty.
You're like a cop complaining that the US is not a free country, because
you're not allowed to use your gun on anyone you want to. As a
developer of commercial software, you find the use of the term "free
software" for GPL to be incorrect. We get your point. But you haven't
actually substantiated it at all, but merely continued to rant about it,
even after its been explained that making software incompatible with
commercial software is what *makes* it "free".
You'd get farther actually arguing your point (though you wouldn't get
very far, admittedly.) Claiming the FSF's use of the term "free" is
somehow contrary to the use of the term in "casual speech and regular
discourse" is simply squirming around on the floor, refusing to admit
you've been pinned.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:25:22 GMT
Said Jay Maynard in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 14 Mar 2001 21:11:04 GMT;
>On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:17:57 -0800, Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>If the *word* "free", or the *name* "free software" is that important to
>>you, I just don't know what to say. You can't hyjack a word, reserve it
>>for uses you approve of, and then accuse RMS of doing the same. It is
>>just senseless.
>
>The word "freedom" represents a basic concept that is probably the most
>important to the human condition of any. RMS' perversion of it is abhorrent
>because it cheapens and dilutes it, thereby making it easier to forget what
>it *really* means and therefore easier to lose.
[...]
It is *your* use of it which "cheapens and dilutes it". Free speech,
not free beer, is what "free" *really* means. And therefore you are
doing a great disservice in your greedy, self-serving rants claiming
RMS' opinions are "perversion" and "abhorrent", merely because you
disagree with them.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:25:24 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:05:24 -0500;
>"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jay Maynard wrote:
>> >
>> > 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?
>>
>> If the *word* "free", or the *name* "free software" is that important to
>> you, I just don't know what to say. You can't hyjack a word, reserve it
>> for uses you approve of, and then accuse RMS of doing the same. It is
>> just senseless.
>>
>Free software obviously means that it can be passed on to other people with
>no restrictions. If you look at the default attitude of individuals when given
>free software, they'll treat it as such. THEY WILL NOT READ THE DETAILS OF
>THE LICENSE (unless educated by the deceit of the GPL-being-free crowd.)
And as long as they are not developers, the usage is 100% accurate; they
can pass the software on to other people with absolutely no restrictions
whatsoever.
Now, if you are a developer, don't you think it would be part of "being
a developer" that you read the details of the license of the software
you're going to base your work on and possibly distribute with your own
software?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
