Linux-Advocacy Digest #840, Volume #32 Fri, 16 Mar 01 22:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Interesting Google Facts! (Ransom Smith)
Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your computer")
(Peter Hayes)
Re: Dividing OS to groups. (Peter Hayes)
Re: gates messiah (Anonymous)
Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your computer")
(Bloody Viking)
Re: gates messiah (jim dutton)
Re: C# (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Selling to the masses (Bloody Viking)
Re: Interesting Google Facts! (Chad Everett)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: GNU/Linux as a Spacecraft OS (Michael Vester)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: gates messiah (Anonymous)
Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux ("Chad Myers")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("John S. Dyson")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("John S. Dyson")
Re: Selling to the masses (Michael Vester)
Humbled (Mike Martinet)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ransom Smith)
Subject: Re: Interesting Google Facts!
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:11:54 GMT
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:42:20 GMT,
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>You forgot:
>
> "DOS" : 14,200,000
> "Unix" : 9,020,000
> "VMS" : 789,000
> "Ultrix" : 181,000
>---------------------------
> Total : 24,190,000
>
>
You forget that DOS is also used to mean Denial of Service, among other
things. Most common Dos is bound to be MS-DOS. Leaving out PC-DOS and
OpenDOS and DR-DOS, try it again.
>
>>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.
>>>
[blah snip]
--
[http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=5913] [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[http://www.koth.org/] [http://www.nethack.org/] [http://www.slashdot.org/]
I reserve the right to be normal, at any time and without notice.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your
computer")
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:14:56 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 13 Mar 2001 14:11:57 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Somebody coded up a screensaver that has a number of computer crashes,
> > > among them the BSOD (both variants), Mac crash, PPC crash (I think),
> > > Amiga GURU meditation, and a SCO Unix or Xenix panic.
> >
> >
> > Find it in /usr/X11/lib/xscreensaver
> >
> > I think there's a ncc1701.dll somewhere in the NT BSOD.
>
> And the exception takes place at the hex address F0AD
Try
http://www.pla-netx.com/linebackn/evil/w2001.html
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Dividing OS to groups.
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:14:51 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 22:58:43 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where does BeOS belong?
Unix, isn't it?
Peter
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:20:09 -0700
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: gates messiah
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
some nerd:
> 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....
for a mildly clever guy you sure say some retarded shit.
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your
computer")
Date: 17 Mar 2001 01:21:50 GMT
Ray Chason ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I've also seen Mandrake and SuSE at Best Buy. You can get other
: distros at CompUSA; I've even seen them at Borders.
: CompUSA also carries FreeBSD here in Maryland.
Slackware can be found in stores in Chicago, though they are techie stores.
Slackware is going to end up a "cult classic" distro. Slackware is my
favourite as its default is to _not_ attempt to install LILO, a pet problem I
have. Also, it was the first distro I got working on any machine of mine, so
it became my pet standard.
Linux in general is great. If you need an app but don't care about file
formats and sharing with friends, no problem. StarOffice comes to mind. Even
if you don't get X working, there is emacs and CLI spreadsheets, and you can
always code up a utility for yourself if you can't find what you want. I'm one
of those remaining people who prefers a CLI over a GUI for normal use.
For a home user like myself, Linux works just fine. Need software to make the
bill paying chore easier? Just code one up. Need an amortiser? Code one up.
Chances are, sitting down and coding in C for a utility for either is easier
than fucking with Office and macros. The CLI spreadsheet I found and now use
is great. The file format is amazingly simple and hackable. Can't do that in
Winblows. For those willing to code, a CLI is great.
The thing I like about a good CLI, that being the opportunity to code homebrew
software, is the very thing most normal home users don't want. Normal people
want to just get to work and want ready-made apps to do what they want. Can
you blame them, given how programming can get maddening at times?
The biggest problem of a GUI is that for programming, you have to write a LOT
more code for a given function in the app. That means more bugs will sneak by
as it's beta tested. Beta testers won't uncover ALL the bugs simply becuse
they won't try out EVERY feature. The result is that DIY programmers will
prefer a CLI.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jim dutton)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: gates messiah
Date: 17 Mar 2001 01:23:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>some nerd:
>> 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....
>
>for a mildly clever guy you sure say some retarded shit.
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
Steve knows as much unix as the guy sitting next to him explains
in excrutiating detail. Repeatedly.
-Jeem, and slowly
=========================================================================
Visit my homepage:
www.bishopdutton.org and www.pat-acceptance.org
=========================================================================
**whoop whoop chany alert**
now me, i wouldnt call chanby a philistine.
he's a fanboy. an angry one ... much like the angry ape in the passage
from Measure For Measure that i quoted above. and accordingly we see
chabny once again adopting the cartoontoothed battle-postures of Quake
Arena in order to give his inferiority complex a temporary boner, a
sad, tiny, angry, miniature boner that will last long enough to drop
doomed legacyless chanbyseed across multiple pages of the japanese
preteen rape comix that he holds so defensively close to his heart.
-cb
>Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 19:21:16 -0600 (MDT)
>From: What happens if I press THIS button? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Talk-List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: This is the side of Tawnya that GunHed won't tell anyone. (snip)
>There was a lot that caused me to no longer want to be with Steve. Some
>of it was the fact that he was too .. rigid. To me, he had no sense of
>humour and he took all my questions to be personal attacks. Yes, I
>admit that I was a bitch to him for the last year. That's because I did
>not want to be with him. Since April of '94, I told him that I wanted
>out of the relationship. But he wouldn't let me go. He refused to let
>me leave him even though he knew I wasn't happy with him. So, I started
>arguments at any opportunity I could. I made his life a living hell
>trying to get him to let me go, but he wouldn't. (snip)
>It was almost fateful the night that Steve and I got into a monstrous
>argument. It was a stupid argument over which wordprocessor was better:
>WordPerfect 6.0 for DOS or MS-Word6.0. For nearly 2 hours, we argued.
>Finally, Steve cut the "TALK" session that we were holding at 6:58pm,
>MST, on Thursday, March 9th. Since I had a class at 7, I simply logged
>out and went to class. I came back at 10pm, MST, and there was a very
>nasty letter in my box saying that I "fucked up" and he was leaving me
>because "he was tired of my bullshit and how I was treating him like
>shit". It was then that I realized that I was finally free of him. I
>didn't leave him, he left me. (snip)
>Monday morning when I went back online, I found out that Steve had
>started spreading that I cheated on him. I tell you this. I did not
>cheat on him. It was not until the 10th of March, the day AFTER Steve
>left me, that I finally agreed to go out with John. AFTER he had left
>me.
>
>Then, he swore to me that if I did not leave John then he would come
>after me with a shotgun. Now that seems a little farfetched as he won't
>come to New Mexico, where I have always lived and he also swore that if
>I came to California, then he would have a shotgun ready for me and/or
>have me arrested.
>
>But for what? I never once said that I would go see him, and I don't
>think that he owns all of California. He has threatened to do too many
>things to me, anything from Netdeath to reality death. And this hasn't
>been just because I left him, but because I wasn't lett him control me
>any longer.
>
>When he came here in January of '94, it was a happy time. Until I saw
>that he lived for control. I went on IRC one night just to check my
>mail and to say Hi to anyone I knew, I was kicked off by a dork who had
>taken over #talk. But because I didn't go into catatonics, Steve went
>crazy.
>
>He stomped around my room with fists clenched and there was a wild look
>in his eyes. Now I'm 6' and weigh approximately 200 (give or take 5
>lbs) lbs and I know how to defend myself. However, I was afraid of what
>Steve was going to do as he slammed his fist against the wall (which
>caused it to boom out loudly) and I knew that if he were to strike me, I
>wouldn't be in a good position to do anything against him considering
>he's 6'0 and weighs nearly 300lbs. Basically, I was not safe with him,
>or so I felt.
>
>Probably by now, all of you are bored stiff. I admit that this is not
>what you designed this talk-list for. But please, realize this. I did
>NOT cheat on Steve. He dumped me and there was someone here who was
>willing to go out with me. John is here, with me, in the same area as I
>am. He's not pushing marriage on me. Steve was going to make me either
>have his children or raise them, whereas I didn't want either. Also,
>John shares my love for animals, whereas Steve would rather seem them as
>roadkill. (snip)
>I leave the judgement up to God's hands, as we humans are too flawed to
>judge ourselves. Only the Purest may decide.
>
>Toni A. Anaya
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: C#
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:34:14 GMT
In article <98u73p$3gb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
>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
>
Yet more evidence of wasted bandwidth by EF.
Tisk tisk.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Selling to the masses
Date: 17 Mar 2001 01:48:45 GMT
Andy Walker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: 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.
Time to develop a robot that hooks to the printer fitting that does an
endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy. Swill down some cough syrup, run a
programme, and get under your own knife with joystick! Or, go and get the
patent and manufacture guanethidine and build an injection robot nearly the
same way.
Given the healthcare bullshit, the development of DIY drug manufacture and DIY
surgery robots are almost inevitable. Pretty sad, actually. Given my financial
situation, worsened by the GOP, I'm back to thinking about such bullshit. If I
ever expect to get social at all apart from bars I will need to build such a
machine with surplus parts from http://www.sciplus.com and any other supplier.
):
Already we have illegal drug manufacture in that industry. The invention of
DIY manufacture or extraction of blood pressure drugs is close at hand, only
with the caveat of hirsutism. (getting hairy like an ape)
There ARE ways to fix "being socially inadequate". But I doubt that most Linux
fans would ever have to consider researching up a fix for it like I've so far
done.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Interesting Google Facts!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:08:51 GMT
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Ransom Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:42:20 GMT,
>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>You forgot:
>>
>> "DOS" : 14,200,000
>> "Unix" : 9,020,000
>> "VMS" : 789,000
>> "Ultrix" : 181,000
>>---------------------------
>> Total : 24,190,000
>>
>>
>
>You forget that DOS is also used to mean Denial of Service, among other
>things. Most common Dos is bound to be MS-DOS. Leaving out PC-DOS and
>OpenDOS and DR-DOS, try it again.
>
>>
>>>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.
>>>>
I didn't forget a thing. Thanks for helping me make my point: like "Windows"
doesn't have any other meanings?
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[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 18:10:42 -0800
JD wrote:
> The GPL's redistribution restriction makes it more restrictive than the
> other 'free' licenses. This statement is indeed true.
Not if you are referring to BSDL. The BSDL contains at least one
restriction that the GPL does not contain. Therefore, neither set of
restrictions is a subset of the other and it is impossible to make an
objective statement about which is "more restrictive." They're just
restrictive in different ways.
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GNU/Linux as a Spacecraft OS
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:06:10 -0700
Adam Warner wrote:
>
> Goodness, another case of Un-American and inappropriate software
> development, funded by NASA:
>
> http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/13/2112221
>
> Embedded GNU/Linux in space. Is there anything a Wildebeest and a Penguin
> cannot do? ;-)
>
> Adam
I posted almost two years ago, "Linux has the right stuff." Being able to
operate with less hardware is a real plus in space. You simply cannot have
BSOD's or system freezes in a space craft. If losedos is used in space,
it will be relegated to non critical systems. Maybe Bill can buy a
shuttle and replace all it's systems with losedos and show that losedos
can be used in space. Of course, the shuttle never makes it off the
ground. How could it?
--
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
------------------------------
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 04:24:34 +0200
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD wrote:
> > The GPL's redistribution restriction makes it more restrictive than the
> > other 'free' licenses. This statement is indeed true.
>
> Not if you are referring to BSDL. The BSDL contains at least one
> restriction that the GPL does not contain. Therefore, neither set of
> restrictions is a subset of the other and it is impossible to make an
> objective statement about which is "more restrictive." They're just
> restrictive in different ways.
What is this restriction?
I just read BSDL, (I don't read GPL unless I *really* have too) but I think
that everything that the BSD has the GPL has also.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:31:07 -0700
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: gates messiah
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
that weird monkey guy who isn't stebe:
> Dark Angel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : 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....
>
> And Jackie Pokemon didn't need a recount to realise it's time to concede.
do you speak japanese?
if not
does that make you dumber than someone who can?
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:21:47 GMT
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5161325.html
> http://www.ibm.com/news/2001/03/16.phtml
>
> This has been cross-posted to comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy because of
> the Maxtor announcement less than two weeks ago posted in that forum:
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5009496.html
>
> Even though these are slighly different topics (compatibility with Linux
> versus which embedded OS is used) I consider this is a more significant
> announcement given the comprehensiveness of the support.
I'll have to file this in my "Stupid Linux Quotes" folder so that about
2-3 years from now when we're arguing with you guys just like we
argue with the OS/2 losers, we can poke fun at you.
You remember OS/2 don't you? You know, the other OS in which IBM invested
heavily and drove it into the ground as well?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "John S. Dyson" <[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 21:41:34 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message =
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD wrote:
> > The GPL's redistribution restriction makes it more restrictive than =
the
> > other 'free' licenses. This statement is indeed true.
>=20
> Not if you are referring to BSDL. The BSDL contains at least one
> restriction that the GPL does not contain. Therefore, neither set of
> restrictions is a subset of the other and it is impossible to make an
> objective statement about which is "more restrictive." They're just
> restrictive in different ways.
>
The restrictions in the BSDL are not normally operative, and require an =
action
by the licensor for a restriction to take hold. With the GPL, you have =
no
rights to redistribute code without dealing with code lineage issues =
(e.g. source
pointers.)
So, BY DEFAULT, the BSDL is quite free. You can give away your right to
redistribute, but it exists by default (sure, the language gives =
conditions, but
those conditions don't happen without ACTIONS of the redistributor.)
So, BY DEFAULT, the GPL requires review of potential changes and/or
dealing with lineage issues (to allow redistribution.)
Alas, the BSDL 'restrictions' are minimal, mostly re-iterating the fact =
that
you cannot take ownership of something that you don't own :-). =
(Criminal
conversion.)
Makes no difference (the BSDL thing is a straw argument.) You admit to
restrictions in the GPL, therefore IT AIN"T FREE. :-).
Proven: Knowingly RMS is a liar... Alot of other GPL-being-free =
advocates
are liars or misinformed.
My goal is met, thank you!!!
John
------------------------------
From: "John S. Dyson" <[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 21:44:07 -0500
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message =
news:98u82t$aha$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>=20
> "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Pjws6.356$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>=20
>=20
> > 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...
>=20
> 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.
>=20
One more comment, after thinking again.
This also shows how INCREDIBLY evil that some (certainly not all) GPL =
advocates
are. I use the term 'evil' in the truest sense of being certain and =
absolute destruction,
showing hatred for the best of humanity... Actually, it is only an =
extension of RMS
himself (does he wear a turbin? :-)).
John
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Selling to the masses
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:38:38 -0700
Andy Walker wrote:
>
> 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.
> Perhaps it's a deep seated complex that causes these people to resent
> anyone else joining their exclusive little club, but the only ones they
> really hurt are themselves. Their behavior only puts off others and
> consequently software companies from supporting Linux.
> The normal people amongst us try and help other people progress their
> knowledge of Linux but there are sadly far too many who just dedicate their
> lives to rudeness and attempt to put others off.
> Maybe it all stems from being bullied at school for being nerds or
> something....
Very few of the mass actually read this group. All the Linux advocates I
know do a great job helping the newbie out. We have a user group that
meets monthly and has a very active mail list. Everyone is welcome. We
even have girls at our meetings. If anything, I notice a certain
aloofness from the Microsoft side of technical workers. They are reluctant
to share their coveted MSCE knowledge.
I always felt that this group was a place where you can hurl insults,
argue and shout in an extremely level playing field. We are only what we
can type on a keyboard.
--
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
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Humbled
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 20:07:01 -0700
After 10 years in electronics, followed by 8 in the software industry, I
can't believe how little I know.
You people have humbled me with your knowledge and experience.
I am still here, but I find I have little to say; I learn much more by
reading.
mlw
Craig Kelley
T. Max Devlin
Bloody Viking
Aaron R "six-figure-sig" Kulkis
hell, even Erik "The Terrible" Funkenbusch
You all know a hell of a lot more than I.
Thanks for sharing,
MjM
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[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 19:04:41 -0800
"John S. Dyson" wrote:
> > Not if you are referring to BSDL. The BSDL contains at least one
> > restriction that the GPL does not contain. Therefore, neither set of
> > restrictions is a subset of the other and it is impossible to make an
> > objective statement about which is "more restrictive." They're just
> > restrictive in different ways.
> >
> The restrictions in the BSDL are not normally operative, and require an action
> by the licensor for a restriction to take hold.
You can try to attach all the value judgments you want, but the
objective fact is that BSDL has restrictions, GPL has restrictions, and
neither can *objectively* be said to be "more restrictive" than the
other. Claims to the contrary are merely advocacy, and not factual.
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[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 19:08:30 -0800
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> I just read BSDL, (I don't read GPL unless I *really* have too) but I think
> that everything that the BSD has the GPL has also.
"Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
this software without specific prior written permission"
It could *probably* (without a careful analysis of the details of the
warranty and liability disclaimer, it is not certain) be said that the
MIT License is less restrictive than the GPL, but not the BSDL.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
