Linux-Advocacy Digest #838, Volume #32 Fri, 16 Mar 01 19:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Edward Rosten)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Edward Rosten)
Re: so can Windows do this ? ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Good place for server racks, etc ? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Edward Rosten)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Edward Rosten)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Edward Rosten)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: so can Windows do this ? ("Masha Ku' Inanna")
Fun installing a Graphics card. (Edward Rosten)
Re: Selling to the masses (Edward Rosten)
Re: C# ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: WOW - This is Interesting (Donn Miller)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: gates messiah (Dark Angel)
Re: WOW - This is Interesting (Chad Everett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 17:27:49 -0500
"David Masterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Free licenses also make the fruits of the developer's labor
> > available to everyone in the same way as the GPL.
>
> But the GPL's redistribution restriction makes it more so than other
> "free" licenses.
>
The GPL's redistribution restriction makes it more restrictive than the
other 'free' licenses. This statement is indeed true. The restrictions don't
add an attribute of 'freeness' to the code.
>
> There is no proprietary "embrace and extend"
> possibility in a GPL-only world.
>
Of course, there is. GPL doesn't solve that problem, partially because embrace
and extend is a standards/specification issue. Implementation is only a small
part of the problem. Microsoft can easily rewrite an incompatible TCP/IP, without
copying any code from GPL or BSDLed works. Kerberos was an example of a
specification issue also. No source code required...
John
------------------------------
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 17:29:14 -0500
"Scot Mc Pherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:q2us6.248195$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> the FREE is Free Software Foundation was never meant to mean "no money". It
> means it give you the freedom to choose how you work, and not have the
> choices made for you.
>
GPL doesn't do that for you.
>
> This is done by providing the Source code of the
> software.
>
Source code distribution isn't required by the GPL... Go ask Cygnus for all of their
GPLed source code: they don't have to give it to you.
John
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:42:49 +0000
> >> 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?
> >
> > Saying the GIMP ignored it shows your lack of understanding. As for GIMP
> > being stupid, this is the wrong group. Ask the GIMP developers.
>
> So the Linux group is exclusively about Linux, Linux and only Linux? Is
> that how the rest of the world perceives it, I wonder?
No, but based on past experience of this thread, noone here knows the
precise reason why GIMP has its own drivers. For the correct answer,
you'll have to consult the GIMP developers.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous |u98ejr
Hackenthorpe rock, which is over three trillion years |@
old? |eng.ox
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies |.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:46:40 +0000
> >> > I assume that you do concede my point since you are squirming.
> >>
> >> I concede nothing because you point is not germane to the topic at hand,
> >> which has been down a rathole.
> >
> > I believe the topic was a Linux Oopsie. I think I have successfully
> > pointed out why it is not the fault of Linux.
>
> And I pointed out the perception that is Linux.
Hmmm.
> >> How about, how is Linux good by allowing each application its own driver
> >> for whatever hardware there is?
> >
> > It doesn't. Only for drivers that don't require hardware access, since
> > it would be insecure otherwise.
>
> However it allows multiple printer drivers.
Yes. Name me an OS that doesn't.
> >> And look what happened when I tried the same with The Gimp! It printed
> >> alright, but it didn't print what I expected.
> >
> > Now look at all the other apps and tell me what happens. GIMP being
> > stupid doesn't imply that everything else is.
>
> Everything else I tried printed just fine. Except for Star Office which
> eventually printed after a long struggle.
Precisely. The majority of apps work fine.
> > StarOffice fow windows can be quite buggy at times. By your argument,
> > not only would that be windows' fault, but it would b=mean that every
> > other windows app was buggy too.
>
> StarOffice on Linux is pretty buggy.
In places. Working on its own stuff its mainly OK. It screwws up the
screen formatting of some RTF stuff (from word) but after a bit of
deleting supposedly blank lines, the formatting problems disappeared.
IIRC, it also produces pretty clean HTML.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous |u98ejr
Hackenthorpe rock, which is over three trillion years |@
old? |eng.ox
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies |.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: so can Windows do this ?
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:41:33 +0100
"Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I know software RAID has
> processor overheads but lets face it, when you can't multitask properly
like
> Windows...
what do you mean by this? windows does multitask "properly".
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Good place for server racks, etc ?
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 17:50:43 -0500
peter wrote:
>
> Can someone direct me to some good sites that carry server racks and
> also; rack mountable computers and computer cases.
>
> I'm looking for a rack mount system that has four sides, so I mount
> four computer and four people can access them at the same time.
>
http://www.google.com/ is your friend.
> Thanks,
>
> Peter
--
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.
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:48:33 +0000
> >> 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?
> >
> > I'd agree that it's a GIMP or MDK problem _NOT_ a Linux problem as you
> > origionally claimed with glee (read the subject header).
>
> I did point out the _perception_ about "Linux", didn't I?
I don't think you did at beginning, byt the OP has expired, so I can't
check.
-ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous |u98ejr
Hackenthorpe rock, which is over three trillion years |@
old? |eng.ox
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies |.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:50:51 +0000
> > You said that you haven't seen one. I pointed out one. Just coz its bad
> > doesn't mean its not there. Anyway, now you can no longer claim that you
> > don't have an app on your windows box that can't dump raw data to the
> > printer.
>
> Yes but I don't use them that way.
I assume that the ones that did do that, you have now set up not to?
If so, what is so bad about having to do the same with the GIMP?
-Ed
PS
I do think it's a stupd default to have.
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous |u98ejr
Hackenthorpe rock, which is over three trillion years |@
old? |eng.ox
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies |.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:55:03 +0000
> >> What I said all along was that The Gimp got it wrong.
> >
> > Not to start with.
>
> Forgetting how people perceive Linux are we?
Forgetting how people perceive a thread (based on the subject)?
> >> So you disagree when I say The Gimp got it wrong? Above you appear to be
> >> agreeing with me.
> >
> > I forget exactly what I'm disagreeing with you about, but it isn't about
> > what you just said.
>
> Then... I guess that's closed now.
I suppose...
> >> Yet for some reason UNIX is the only OS that uses PS as it's standard.
> >> Windows doesn't, neither did OpenVMS.
> >
> > Yet for some reason, Windows is the only OS that uses the windows print
> > system as the standard. UNIX doesn't, neither does OpenVMS or RiscOS or
> > BEOS or MacOS.
>
> Huh? How can any of the other OS's use the windows print system as
> standard? OpenVMS certainly didn't use Postscript internally, and neither
> did RISC OS.
You seemed to be complaining that UNIX used PS as the standard printer
metadata format because it is not standard. I was pointing out that
there is no standard (by using a trivial example).
So, Windows, UNIX, OpenVMS, RiscOS and MacOS al;l use different printer
metadata formats as standard on that platform. Why is UNIX worse for
using PostScript (as you seemed to be implying).
> >> I think I was right the first time. You appear to be agreeing with me.
> >
> > You were qwrong about some things. I was disagreeing about those.
>
> What things? You said you'd forgotten what these were, so what are they?
I can remember what something wasn't without remembering what it was.
Anyway, since we've both forgotten, I suggest we call this part of the
message a day.
-ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous |u98ejr
Hackenthorpe rock, which is over three trillion years |@
old? |eng.ox
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies |.ac.uk
------------------------------
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: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:17:57 +0100
In article <Ehis6.19144$[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.
>
> I think you miss the point of freely available code. If something
> is bad about it you can fix just that part and contribute the
> patch back to the maintainer. You don't have to start
> over unless the whole design was bad.
I'm not missing that at all. As I understand it, the argument
pro having everyone use the same (free) code base is that there
would be no bad implementations, or no differences of
interpretation, and hence no interoperability problems, and
that this is somehow the epitome of software virtue.
My contention is that this stifles innovation just as much
as a monopoly.
>> 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.
>
> Not at all. If everyone can use the same code you
> can't have a monopoly and it is in everyone's interest
> to help make all versions interoperate correctly (a
> concept that seems to have escaped Microsoft).
I perceive a contradiction here -- if the code base is the
same, then there are no interoperability problems.
Alternatively, one could argue that integrating a UNIX
based development such as the BSD networking stack
into an OS like Windows will in itself create enough
problems to thwart guaranteed compatibility.
>> 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?
>
> Not philosophically, but realistically I consider seeing
> even one free implementation of a large complex body
> of code in a lifetime a lot to expect. Thus in a practical
> sense it is better to allow everyone to reuse and help
> improve that one version than have many starting over
> from scratch and repeating the early mistakes.
Or finding better ways to implement the standard. It's
a two-edged sword, really.
--
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: "Masha Ku' Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: so can Windows do this ?
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:09:58 -0500
>
> "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I know software RAID has
> > processor overheads but lets face it, when you can't multitask properly
> like
> > Windows...
>
> what do you mean by this? windows does multitask "properly".
>
More accurately, Windows does not multitask well.
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fun installing a Graphics card.
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:12:45 +0000
My graphics card died a while back (you may remember an earlier post on
it). Anyway, the other day, a card I'm happy with finally arrived. It
was a Videologic GrafixStar 670[*].
I powered down my computer and installed the new card. The installation
went something like this:
Power up
Insert the CD
Type Linux 1 at the boot prompt to avoid X complaining and to avoid me
having to log on as root.
<wait for boot> (Hey this is short, I need some filler)
mount the cd.
cd /cdrom/Linux
./install.sh
Run Xconfigurator and set the new screen mode.
init 5
That was it. A couple of minutes after booting up, I had X working with
my shiny new graphics card. Wonderful, could it have been easier?
Apparently not...
I then decided to install it under Windows (I keep 'doze for the odd
game and testing 'doze related stuff).
It boots up.
Spends *ages* thrashing the harddisk (I guess it thinks it'll find the
card somewhere on the harddisk, heh).
Finally it boots and claims it has found a new card (no shit!).
So I click the relavent buttons and after reading the empty floppy
drive it gets the drivers off the cd until *BONG*. It can't find the
file on the cd. So, I type [cdpath]:\ in the box, press OK and it finds
it. Odd. Time for a reboot.
Boots up again and decides it has found my new moniter (AGAIN!). I tell
it again that it's just a moniter and moniters really don't need drivers
and I'm not about to install any drivers for a moniter which was working
just fine before.
Anyway, it wants to continue the install. I have to dissuade it from
installing an AGP patch because I don't have an AGP port. So it installs
directx (takes its time) and reboots.
This time, I'm busy reading something and forget to type anything at the
Lili probmpt, so it boot Linux (oops :-). Anyway, it wants to install
some more stuff, so I press the buttons (repeat AGP bit) and it installs
yet more stuff.
*Reboot*
Finally it boots up and I have to set the display mode.
Well, which was the easier procedure? Which took 2 mins and which took
20?
Note, Linux would have worked just fine if I let it boot p to level 5
and logged in as root, it's just even quicker this way.
-Ed
[*] I'm going to plugg vedeologic now because they supply Linux drivers
for their card, on the CD. Which is nice.
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous |u98ejr
Hackenthorpe rock, which is over three trillion years |@
old? |eng.ox
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies |.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Selling to the masses
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:15:36 +0000
> > The main thing holding back Linux from the masses is not the O.S. but
> > the sad socially inadequate people who critisise anyone or anything who have
> > problems learning how to use it.
>
> Thats right, you goddamned idiot, everyone who wants to switch from anything
> to linux reads this newsgroup before they do.
>
> Go away, you buttfucking turd.
I'll second that.
Hmm. Launch personal attacks on the people in the group and then
complain when thay flame. Could this person be a very poor troll?
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous |u98ejr
Hackenthorpe rock, which is over three trillion years |@
old? |eng.ox
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies |.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C#
Date: 16 Mar 2001 23:20:25 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: No, I wasn't. I used the wrong term when i said those things. It's clear
: in the context that I'm talking about the byte code, since the byte code is
: what's interpreted. Byte code is a language in and of itself, different
: from the Java language.
: Yes, I used the wrong term a few times. Sue me.
Byte me. :)
No one calls Java bytecode "Java." They call it "Java bytecode." And
few people other than compiler and/or interpreter vendors ever need to
be terribly concerned about it.
Joe
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:29:22 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WOW - This is Interesting
Chad Everett wrote:
> Ha, Ha, Ha! I'm ROTFL. "It's just a matter of writing the software"
> That's the best line I've heard in a long time.
>
> I can assure you that the engineers working on the world's faster
> supercomputer clusters are well aware of all the OS options out
> there....and it's not because of publicity.
Well, you've personally used both FreeBSD and Linux in a supercomputer
application, and found Linux to be better? Little monkey spanking
pimple-faced dweebs like you should stay way from mommy and daddy's
Linux machine in the basement.
====== 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: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:30:36 +0200
"JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Pjws6.356$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Of course, there is. GPL doesn't solve that problem, partially because
embrace
> and extend is a standards/specification issue. Implementation is only a
small
> part of the problem. Microsoft can easily rewrite an incompatible TCP/IP,
without
> copying any code from GPL or BSDLed works. Kerberos was an example of a
> specification issue also. No source code required...
What scares me is something like :
This specification is released under the GPL, the specification is to be
treated as the source code, an implentation, whatever as a source code or
any other form, should be considered as the compiled result.
------------------------------
From: Dark Angel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: gates messiah
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:42:10 GMT
In soc.singles Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| having to deal with unix taught me to count my windows blessings.
| jackie 'anakin' tokeman
Your archnemisis, Steve Chaney, seems to have had no trouble learning
to use unix. Guess you're finally conceding that Chaney's smarter
than you....
--
Dark Angel
"Well well well, someone who's two hours late for work looks like they
were a dirty little party girl last night - My god girl, look at your
eyes! What have you been drinking, gasoline?"
"I had to have radical emergency amateur brain surgery to remove a
nanochip from my cerebellum before I stroked out from a neuro-chemical
overload."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: WOW - This is Interesting
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 00:03:33 GMT
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:29:22 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Everett wrote:
>
>> Ha, Ha, Ha! I'm ROTFL. "It's just a matter of writing the software"
>> That's the best line I've heard in a long time.
>>
>> I can assure you that the engineers working on the world's faster
>> supercomputer clusters are well aware of all the OS options out
>> there....and it's not because of publicity.
>
>Well, you've personally used both FreeBSD and Linux in a supercomputer
>application, and found Linux to be better? Little monkey spanking
>pimple-faced dweebs like you should stay way from mommy and daddy's
>Linux machine in the basement.
Wow! You couldn't have called this one more incorrectly if you'd
tried. Yes, I have used Linux in a supercomputer cluster..almost
every day. The whole point of the discussion at this point was
that FreeBSD is NOT being used in supercomputer clusters...and
it ain't because of publicity. Oh yeah...I forgot..."It's just
a matter of writing the software."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************