Linux-Advocacy Digest #841, Volume #32 Fri, 16 Mar 01 23:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Interesting Google Facts! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Here's a load of horse crap (Chris Ahlstrom)
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: Humbled (mlw)
Re: Humbled (mlw)
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)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("John S. Dyson")
Re: Humbled (Mike Martinet)
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! (Steve Chaney)
Re: the mismeasure of man (Michael Vester)
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 (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Getting first W2K server ("Walter Hill")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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 03:10:08 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "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
The difference is IBM doesn't own Linux, nor do they have a
deal with Microsoft concerning Linux.
Just more fuzz-testing of NNTP, courtesy of Chad "Chaff" Myers.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:12:39 -0800
JD wrote:
> That is strictly not true, because most people who really don't like the GPL,
> don't like it because it is associated with people who lie about it being free.
Frankly, that's nonsense.
In my experience, most people who don't like the GPL don't like it
because they don't like the idea of source code being released at all.
They wouldn't like the idea of of releasing their software using the MIT
license either.
The people who obsess about what they claim the word "free" is supposed
to mean and about the the FSF being guilty of "false advertising" are,
in my experience, a *tiny* fringe group. Probably no more than a few
dozen such people exist, if that many.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Interesting Google Facts!
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 03:19:27 GMT
Chad Everett wrote:
> >>>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?
Search on "shit" on google yields 2.16 M references.
"fuck" yields 4.85 M.
"them" yields 53.7 M.
"the" won't work at all.
"linux" yields 32.4 M.
"unix" yields 9.2 M.
"soccer" yields 4.9 M.
"god" yields 15 M.
--
[ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Here's a load of horse crap
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 03:20:17 GMT
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/default.asp
--
[ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
------------------------------
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 22:20:16 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message =
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "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.
>=20
> 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.
>
Begs the issue that my gripe is the dishonest claim that the GPL is =
'free'.
I only WEAKLY make the claim that the BSDL is free, and probably in
a relative sense to almost every possible license. The issue that
the GPL is unfree is the ENTIRE point to my discussion.
So, the operative issue is that calling the GPL 'free' is a lie. You =
have
assisted me nicely in the proof...
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 22:23:42 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message =
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
>=20
> "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"
>
That restriction isn't operative UNLESS the are used. :-). That means =
that
to loose the right to redistribute, YOU have to perform an action.
With the GPL, you are not allowed by default, unless you perform actions
or activities.
So, by default, the GPL isn't free.
So, by default, the BSDL is free.
One cannot force someone to have the right to redistribute, so the =
'freedom'
in redistribution isn't lost with the BSDL, it is entirely voluntary.
With the GPL, the right isn't granted unless you do some lineage things.
Anyway, proving that the BSDL free isn't interesting to me, but the GPL =
being
unfree is indeed proven. Jeffery, you have certainly helped in the =
little part
time exercise. I am quite suprised that no-one has done this before, =
but I
haven't had time to spend on it until recently (I don't have to work =
anymore,
you know -- timing the stock market pullout :-)).
John
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Humbled
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:31:30 -0500
Mike Martinet wrote:
>
> 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.
It is all smoke and mirrors. Truth be told, we are all jr high school students,
smoking pot in a basement.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Humbled
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:35:46 -0500
mlw wrote:
>
> It is all smoke and mirrors. Truth be told, we are all jr high school students,
> smoking pot in a basement.
Wait... I thought someone may take that seriously. A sense of humor can
ricochet if you are not careful. No, I am not in jr. high. I wrote my first
computer program in 1977 on a PDP-8e, punch cards and all.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
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 19:36:45 -0800
"John S. Dyson" wrote:
> "Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
> >
> ...
>
> So, the operative issue is that calling the GPL 'free' is a lie. You have
> assisted me nicely in the proof...
I haven't the slightest idea what you think has helped you with this
proof, but if your definition of free is "lacks restrictions", then only
software which is effectively in the public domain (in which I would
include software where the copyright is theoretically retained but the
copyright holder has given up all of his rights under copyright) is
really free.
Congratulations, you've invested another name for public domain.
------------------------------
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 19:38:08 -0800
"John S. Dyson" wrote:
>
> "Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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"
> >
> That restriction isn't operative UNLESS the are used. :-). That means that
> to loose the right to redistribute, YOU have to perform an action.
There is no real difference between performing an action which is
forbidden and failing to perform an action which is required.
------------------------------
From: "John S. Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:41:03 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message =
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JD wrote:
> > That is strictly not true, because most people who really don't like =
the GPL,
> > don't like it because it is associated with people who lie about it =
being free.
>=20
> Frankly, that's nonsense.=20
>
It isn't nonsense that the GPL isn't free. Alot of people don't like =
insulting
liars (which is one reason for the GOP sometimes winning.) The GOP
might lie, but aren't often quite as insulting (e.g. Defining IS, didn't =
inhale,
my brother paid the bribe money back, etc.)
Remember: I write free software... One interest is in the avoidance of
the dilution of the language. I have NO commercial interest in GPLed =
code,
and have NO intent of investing any more time other than needed to bring =
a tool
up-to-spec for my own purposes. My intentions are clear.
I write free software, and GPL isn't free. I don't dislike GPLed code, =
I just
don't care about it either (other than it being useful just like Bad-boy =
Bill
Gate's stuff.) I NEVER hide my intentions. As I have said several =
times over:
GPL is useful in much the same way as Bill Gate's stuff is, and it is no
better and no worse considering the various tradeoffs of cost, =
performance,
quality, etc. There are sometimes better free alternatives over a GPLed
piece of code, and there are sometimes better reasons to use the free
code instead of the GPLed code... Being religiously pro-GPL is only =
being
religious.
However, you have helped me prove that the GPL isn't free. Only the =
most
intentionally dishonest person, after reading these threads, will make =
public
claims about GPLed code being free anymore. (One could certainly make
a stronger point that the LGPL is freer, but that is only a straw =
argument
akin to the BSDL being free.)
It is CERTAINLY easier to prove that the BSDL is free, while it is =
almost
impossible (cannot prove impossibility, but it is certainly not =
probable) to
prove that the GPL is free. When making an assertion (especially a =
strong
claim like the GPL being free) the onus is on the person making the =
original
claim. The claim that the GPL is a license of free software remains =
unproven.
The silly mistake made OVER AND OVER AGAIN is that the GPL-being-free
advocates often justify the GPL, but forget that doesn't prove that the =
GPL
is a license of free software.
In these discussions, I didn't have an interest in a competition between =
BSDL
and GPL, but the assumption that I wanted to advocate the BSDL has been
useful to me. It is amazing that when the simple truth is stated, that =
the assumption
is made by people who can claim that the GPL-is-free that I am as =
dishonest as
they are... I cannot have made it much clearer, yet their distorted =
perceptions
created distracting thoughts for them... That is really a symptom of =
their own
psychosis.
Statement of personal position: When writing new code, I certainly =
won't use
the BSDL. Whether or not the BSDL is a 'good' license, it is provably =
free. I
really don't care to waste the time, mostly because people in the BSD =
community
don't waste time with such claims, and certainly don't fabricate lies as =
commonly
as those that are so common in the GPL-being-free community.
John
=20
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Humbled
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 20:50:02 -0700
mlw wrote:
>
>
> It is all smoke and mirrors. Truth be told, we are all jr high school students,
> smoking pot in a basement.
Ha!
Hell. I thought I knew something. But exchanges here have left me
numbed. I've saved over 20 posts from this group explaining things I
need to do/know/learn. Excellent.
I guess I posted this thread because I didn't want to appear to have
come on the scene, talked shit and then disappeared. I did talk shit,
but when I found out it was excrement, I shut up and started reading.
This is good.
MjM
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Chaney)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses!
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 03:46:06 GMT
On 16 Mar 2001 05:40:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>
>Steve Chaney ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>: The truth of the matter is, the more KDE and GNOME make the Linux a
>: more user friendly system, the more devastation is done to the
>: credibility of Microsoft.
>
>Don't matter if people use GNOME, KDE, X, or whatever on Linux. So long as
>they don't use Windows. (and I'll use my CLI)
I like how in Linux the GUI apps are migrating towards being a front
end for existing CLI apps. The cli apps authors are being nice and
putting all their functionality into libraries so GUI apps can
function through the libraries. Total interchangeability is achieved,
and the wheel doesn't get re-invented.
>: On a side note, talking about how good Linux is, I uninstalled my
>: network card driver and installed new drivers as kernel modules,
>: without rebooting. I changed my DSL settings without rebooting, indeed
>: I switched from a DHCP setup to a pppoe setup. Try doing THAT in
>: Windows! LOL.
>
>Cool. No need to be an expert to do something on Linux that can't be done on
>Windows. Write a simple utility.
I converted yet another girlfriend to Linux (in curiosity mode, at
least) by its flexibility. But she can't live without the GUI.
BTW how do you think newbies should learn Linux?
-- Steve
===============================
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove the "-" to email me)
This site is just TOO COOL for a counter! http://www.self-acceptance.org
"As long as an enemy is judged solely by his
appearance, his victory is assured." - Outer Limits
STOP SMOKING NOW!!! ASK ME HOW!!! http://www.geocities.com/brenduh52/
The alt.bonehead.jim-dutton FAQ @ http://www.best.com/~paladin/jjd-faq.shtml
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[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 20:32:44 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > [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.
>
> It takes a minimum of FIVE Windows adminstrators to get the same productivity
> of ONE Unix administrator.
>
> The last time I worked for EDS, a mere TWENTY Unix administrators did
> ALL systems administration for approximately 15,000 of Unix machines
> throughout General Motors, all over the country.
>
Where I work one part time Unix admin does the the work of three losedos
full time admins. The unix admins system supports 20 times the workload as
the losedos systems.
> Conversely, twenty Windows administrators have a very hectic time
> keeping ONE 1,500 user site running properly.
=======================================~~~~~~~
You mean barely. One to 75 would be very demanding in a losedos
environment. I have supported just over a 100 users in a losedos but I am
an exceptional tech support resource. My predecessor left me 6 servers
for a mere 100+ users. Ridiculous amount of server, air conditioned racked
computer room, very nice. Too bad it was running losedows neutered
technology 4 bug patch 3 then a 4. . Each server had one task; Exchange,
RAS, file sharing, printing, dhcp and ms-sql (processing a whopping 4
inserts and 20 selects a day). I have to admit it was stable. Under my
care, the users never experienced any down time due to server crashes for
a whole year. Of course, I was bored and glad when my contract expired. I
was replaced by 2, much less experienced MSCEs.
> When I was at Kmart headquarters, a 2,500 Windows-users site, they had
> close to 100 Windows administrators.
>
That is more like it for the average losedos shop. The users still have
to fend for themselves. My losedos w2k box needs some attention but I
guess I am not important enough. 16,000 losedos site with 700 MSCE's. I am
now just a stupid user on a corporate losedos wk2 box without admin
privileges. All I can do is wait for one of the 700 hundred trained and
fully qualified MSCE's to show up and make my Voyager FTP work. There are
9 copies MCLT40.DLL's on my C: drive. I am going to time how long it
takes the MSCE to actually fix the problem. I found my pc like that when
I started to work. It was the best of the bunch.
> If this was running Linux or Unix, the necessary support staff for desktop
> computers would be under a dozen people.
>
For so many reasons.
> Windows is false economy.
Not to Bill and not to the vast herd of MSCE's out there. losedos has
created a huge pool of semi talented IT workers. Fortunately, all the
ones I know are running Linux at home learning Java, Perl and industrial
quality databases.
<snip their sigs so mine is not obscured>
--
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: "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 22:54:13 -0500
"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message =
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "John S. Dyson" wrote:
> >=20
> > "Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message =
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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"
> > >
> > That restriction isn't operative UNLESS the are used. :-). That =
means that
> > to loose the right to redistribute, YOU have to perform an action.
>=20
> There is no real difference between performing an action which is
> forbidden and failing to perform an action which is required.
>
Of course there is... The difference is that by default:
Free software:
The door is unlocked unless you do something wrong. These wrong =
things
are not likely to be done by an end user, and not needed to be done =
by
an ethical business. Free software cannot protect an unethical =
business or
insane individual from themselves though.
Non-free software:
The door is locked, unless you do the right things. Some of those =
'right' things
would not necessarily be done by an average user, and some of those =
'right' =20
things might be costly to a distributor.
REMEMBER, even though a free license MUST be non-discriminatory, =
especially considering
the so-called 'moral' superiority of the GPL :-), remember also that =
developers are not the
only individuals who modify the constituents of a distribution!!! A =
simple example of such a process
would be an image save mechanism, similar to that used by emacs.
There are other case of the GPL being BAD for redistribution, but it =
only takes one reasonable
case to show that BY DEFAULT the GPL can screw you IFF you believe that =
the GPL is a license
of free software.
Free software certainly allows partial redistribution, non-free software =
can make you send all of
the 'prescribed' parts along. Non-free software makes you carefully =
read the license terms (or
go to a license seminar) so that you understand when you can and cannot =
redistribute the code.
Free software allows you to freely give the code to a friend, without =
conditions and/or seminars.
AS END USERS:
To give commercial software to a friend, you pay for a copy of it. To =
give GPL software
to a friend, you perform certain checks and/or tasks in order to verify =
that you can give it away.
To give free software to a friend, you GIVE the software to him/her -- =
no checks or seminars
are needed for non-advertising or exploiting users, and exploiting users =
might make sure that
they don't do something wrong (e.g. try to give it to a trade restricted =
foreign power.)
John
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: misc.int-property,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 20:00:36 -0800
"John S. Dyson" wrote:
> "Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JD wrote:
> > > That is strictly not true, because most people who really don't like the GPL,
> > > don't like it because it is associated with people who lie about it being free.
> >
> > Frankly, that's nonsense.
> >
> It isn't nonsense that the GPL isn't free.
That's not the claim you made (for once). The claim you made is
nonsense.
> However, you have helped me prove that the GPL isn't free. Only the most
> intentionally dishonest person, after reading these threads, will make public
> claims about GPLed code being free anymore.
Not according to your definition of "free", it isn't, I suppose,
although you *still* have not clearly defined what you mean by the term
"free," so it is impossible to know if this is really true.
It is also unlikely (thought not impossible) that anyone else actually
cares how *you* define "free."
> The silly mistake made OVER AND OVER AGAIN is that the GPL-being-free
> advocates often justify the GPL, but forget that doesn't prove that the GPL
> is a license of free software.
You can't prove *anything* without axioms. The axioms used by the FSF
to prove that GPL is free software are here:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
If there is a defect in that logical system, you certainly haven't
proven it.
------------------------------
From: "Walter Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting first W2K server
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 04:09:28 -0000
Edward Rosten wrote in message <94qasa$hgb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In article <ni_b6.231$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> message
>> news:UdVb6.8145$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >I and
>>> > programming and admins are wondering what ugly surprises is lurking
>>> > for
>> us in
>>> > running W2K in this situation.
>>>
>>> Well, we just moved a system from AIX to Win2K two days ago. Worked
>>> fine
>> under
>>> AIX, but now print jobs max out the CPU (like, 100%) when printing to a
>> text
>>> printer on a local LPT port. Easily enough solved by putting the
>>> printer
>> on
>>> its own box, but why is that an issue in Windows? It shouldn't be.
>>
>> What are you talking about? Printing does not take 100% of the CPU, not
>> even in Windows 3.1.
>
>Wouldn't suprise me. I used a 2x PII 400 a few years back which went up
>to 100% utilization on both processors for about a minute, whilst
>searching for a modem (or was it initializing-I don't remember). Oh, and
>it was MS' driver shipped with Windows.
Shows just how hard Windows is working for you.....
>
>-Ed
>
>
>
>--
>Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
>weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
> - The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
> |eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
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 20:09:28 -0800
"John S. Dyson" wrote:
> > There is no real difference between performing an action which is
> > forbidden and failing to perform an action which is required.
> >
> Of course there is... The difference is that by default:
>
> Free software:
> The door is unlocked unless you do something wrong.
Doing "something wrong" includes failing to continue doing the right
things.
> Non-free software:
> The door is locked, unless you do the right things.
Doing "the right things" include continuing to not do something wrong.
This is a distinction without a difference.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
