Linux-Advocacy Digest #850, Volume #32 Sat, 17 Mar 01 13:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: anti-ms favicon.ico file (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Pat McCann)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Pat McCann)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Pat McCann)
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! (Rick)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Rick)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: No problem with multiple GUI's (Rick)
Re: No problem with multiple GUI's (Rick)
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! (Ralph Miguel Hansen)
Re: WOW - This is Interesting ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: WOW - This is Interesting ("Joseph T. Adams")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:07:35 +0100
In article <B9js6.1947$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete Goodwin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> No I'm not. If there is any blame to be placed here it is specifically
>> on the defaults of this particular version of Mandrake. Yet you are
>> making wild accusations about Linux in general - and refusing to take
>> any responsibility for configuring your own system.
>
> If I take the defaults, how am I responsible for what those defaults
> give me? Surely the person who designed those defaults is responsible!
> I could understand your comments if I had _modified_ them in any way,
> because I thought I knew better - except I didn't.
>
Hmm,
A bit OT, but this reminds me of Microsofts defense against the claim
that Windows is vulnerable to script viruses: They keep saying it is the
users responsiblity to turn off Outlooks braindead defaults.
IOW according to MS *you* are responsible for the default configurations,
not the distributor of your application.
Well, we all know how seriously this defense is taken in this forum <g>.
As I have stated before, Pete *has* a point, it's just the way he keeps
whining about it that grates on my (and I guess other peoples') nerves.
Mart
--
Write in C, write in C,
Write in C, yeah, write in C.
Only wimps use BASIC, Write in C.
http://www.orca.bc.ca/spamalbum/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: anti-ms favicon.ico file
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 15:21:48 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sat, 17 Mar 2001 04:26:30 GMT...
...and J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> > It was the Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:31:47 +1300...
> > ...and Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [favicon.ico]
> > > By the way Dan, Konqueror now supports these icons!
> >
> > An unwise decision. Supporting this kind of Microsoft frippery is
> > exactly what makes people think that KDE are trying to clone Windows.
>
> "frippery", how interesting....
See? You can always count on the Germans to make English fun again.
mawa
--
Der menschliche Starrsinn ist unaufhaltsam.
-- Doris Eichert
------------------------------
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
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Mar 2001 07:40:32 -0800
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I have seen claims by GPL guys (not RMS ) about how looking at a GPLd
> implementation may taint any future implementation by "negative knowledge".
I've not seen that term. Where's the "negative" come from?
> What they seemed to mean by that is that even if you don't copy the GPLd
> implementation, and even if you don't actually use the same algorithm the
> GPLd version uses, watching the GPLd code would give you information that
> you would use in your own implementation (knowledge of what NOT to do, for
> example).
I doubt that they are saying that. Copyright law covers mostly the
publishing of copies and modifications; certainly not ideas and
algorithms. That's the stuff of patent law. It IS true that one cannot
make an uncreative clone/translation of proprietary software without
infringing on the owner's copyrights. That has been interpreted to mean
the "architecture" of the code as well as smaller-grain detail like
text arrangement, so the fact that the source has been published means
that it is hard to prove that you used the same architecture by
coincidence, so you better be careful not to use the same architecture.
Which might mean that you'd better read the GPL code even if you don't
want to. Like you're supposed to read every software patent in the
books before coding, except that you have a hope of understanding it.
> This theory would, of course, make teaching o programming almost
> impossible, and turn programming into a medieval guild ;-)
They've already done that. It's called the "Guild for a New Unix (GNU)".
Except that the medievals didn't have IP laws so they keep secrets, while
the moderns have IP laws and so they keep the code proprietary and lock up
the copyrights so you can't use the copyrights (publishing of copies and
modifications) unless you become a member of the Guild for a New Unix by
accepting the license per clause 5.
------------------------------
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
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Mar 2001 07:59:07 -0800
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
The best specifications (of typical complexity) are sample
implementations, bugs and all. Any others are invariably ambiguous.
You could fairly say that the specifications of nearly all GPLed
projects are GPLed specifications. Writing it in a high-level
specification language (eg, English) doesn't change much.
One would still be free to code it (or even re-specify it) in
another or the same language as long as is not derivative. Ideas
are not copyrightable. If that is impossible or impractical, then
I guess you just treat the specification like other proprietary
specifications which happend to be unusable because of secrets
instead of unusable because of GPLed copyrights.
------------------------------
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
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Mar 2001 08:30:25 -0800
Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
Here's an objective statement: The GPL is more restrictive than the
BSDL because it contains more restrictions.
Get serious. You've let DJ drive you over the top or around the bend.
You'll loose your credibility arguing this one like he does the free
thing. It seems silly that he can't just go that one more small step
and say that it ain't free unless it's in the public domain (as his, not
the FSF's definition). And it's worse than silly that you won't
acknowledge that the GPL is more restrictive than the BSDL.
Yes, under some bizarre, academic circumstance, one could view the
BSDL as more restrictive for one's purposes, but please play fair.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 12:06:37 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> "And lo it came to pass, that I desire to post an article, so I did take
> up mouse and keyboard, and enter via the excellent application called
> KNode. Yea verily, it did crash out on me, whereas before it had worked
> fine".
>
> This is on SuSE 7.1 Personal, with KDE 2.1. You know, the Windows killer.
> Got a ways to go yet, I see.
>
> --
> Pete
> All your no fly zone are belong to us
Yada, yada, yada... and Windows apps dont mysteriously crash... and pigs
do fly.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 12:09:23 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <yjer6.38667$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > A couple of weeks ago I reformatted a hard drive and installed Win98 from
> > scratch. The only piece of hardware it recognized was the Microsoft mouse.
> > I had no network and a generic VGA driver for my display. I had to install
> > the vendor's drivers for everything but the mouse. And of course, I had to
> > reboot a dozen or so times. The internet configuration was a bit of a pain,
> > as it always is with Windows.
>
> And when you used the vendor's drivers, it all worked fine, didn't it?
>
> > By contrast, I installed a little known Linux distribution (called Peanut
> > Linux) on a blank partition, and the only thing I had a problem with was the
> > Microsoft mouse. I actually had to tell Peanut Linux what kind of mouse I
> > had. Everything else was detected and set up flawlessly, and I was on the
> > internet through my @home cablemodem immediately. No reboots, of course.
>
> And when I installed Linux SuSE 7.1 it recognised everything alright but
> then decided to assign the wrong driver to the wrong network card when
> DHCPCD runs. This is a known problem, and unfortunately, the solution
> doesn't work either.
>
> I tried to configure my mouse to be a Logitech mouse with a mousewheel.
> This worked on Linux Mandrake but fails to work on SuSE!
>
> > It had been so long since I had installed Windows from scratch, rather than
> > "installing" on top of an existing Windows, that I had forgotten how deeply
> > stupid Windows reallly is. It doesn't detect ANYthing. If there isn't a
> > little ".inf" file to give it a clue, Windows has no idea about anything on
> > your system.
>
> There are some drivers with Windows, ones that get through the WHQL
> testing. Those that don't are on the CD, and you need to get them from
> the vendor or whatever they were supplied with.
>
> Linux approach is to supply everything on a distro - however, not all
> hardware is supported, and even ones that are, you can't always expect an
> easy ride.
>
> --
> Pete
So --dont use it-. What a concept. Go use your Windoze and quit whining
here.
--
Rick
------------------------------
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 18:57:38 +0200
"Pat McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> The best specifications (of typical complexity) are sample
> implementations, bugs and all. Any others are invariably ambiguous.
>
> You could fairly say that the specifications of nearly all GPLed
> projects are GPLed specifications. Writing it in a high-level
> specification language (eg, English) doesn't change much.
> One would still be free to code it (or even re-specify it) in
> another or the same language as long as is not derivative. Ideas
> are not copyrightable.
"This specification is GPLed, the specification should be regarded as source
could, an implentation, whatever in source or binary, is considered compiled
code."
Put this on a spec, and you can't code it without making the code GPL. I'm
not so sure that you could even re-specify it.
If they can GPL data, why not specifications?
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No problem with multiple GUI's
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 12:12:31 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <98pccd$m9m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > >> Switching from distribution to distribution is a waste of time.
> > >> Spending your time learning how to use the tools is not.
> > >
> > > I'm not terrible interested in "learning to use the tools".
> >
> > As I said, you don't get it.
>
> I switched because I was looking for something less problematic than
> Mandrake. Wether I learn to use the tools is not terribly relevant.
>
> > linux's tools enable one to do things with little effort that are very
> > difficult to do on windows. The fact that I learned the system better,
> > faster, is simply an added attraction.
>
> Like printing you mean?
> Or viewing thousands of images as thumbviews as moving around them
> easily? (HINT: I haven't found anything on Linux that does this well).
> Or talking to my cable modem?
> Or configuring my sound card?
> Or my scanner?
> Or my web-cam?
>
> The list goes on.
>
> > >> Which explains why Mandrake is the fastest growing linux distribution
> > >> and why it has accounted for 20-30% of all distribution sales since
> > >> December. Mandrake might be a poor choice for someone who has been
> > >> using Debian or Slackware since 1994 ( then again I know plenty of
> > >> admins who have been using linux for a long time who love mandrake,
> > >> and I am one of them )
> > >
> > > Are you using Mandrake, or are you just reading their stats?
> >
> > I've been using Mandrake probably since before you even heard of Linux,
> > Pete. My first distribution was debian in 1995-96.
>
> 1995! HAH! I used Slackware before then.
>
> > > "Operator error"? I think not. More like "Installation script error".
> >
> > Most people don't like owning up to their mistakes. Like not
> > installing certain fonts, looking for help files that one never
> > bothered to install on the machine, etc. Or even not bothering to take
> > the time during installation to verify what packages are being added.
> > It is then easy to go back and say "The installer did it."
>
> If I take all the defaults and everything appears to install smoothly,
> and then I find it does not work, how is that _not_ an installation
> error?
>
> --
> Pete
> All your no fly zone are belong to us
Then go use Windows and leave us the frell alone. Whine elsewhere.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No problem with multiple GUI's
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 12:15:01 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
> > > So when the going gets tough, you back down.
> >
> > Allow me to rephrase, then.
> >
> > Linux works for me; it works for many many others as well; linux is not
> > a commercial product, it requires attention from its user; I feel no
> > compelling reason to waste my time arguing with someone who apparently
> > insists that others do everything for him, and if they don't, starts
> > whining how linux is still not Windows yet.
>
> I've never "whined" how much Linux is not Windows. What I have complained
> about is how Linux appears to do unreasonable things, and from a Windows
> perspective!
>
You are not using Windows, you are using Linux. Look at it from a Linux
perspective and things might get easier. Learn to do things the Linux
way in Linux and the Windows way in Windows.
> > Better?
>
> Only a bitter mind would consider that makes me feel better.
>
> > But, if it makes you feel better (and Bog knows you need that!): Yes,
> > I'm backing down.
>
Im not.
> The bye, bye and have a nice day.
>
So far, it has been pretty nice.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Ralph Miguel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 18:25:31 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> "And lo it came to pass, that I desire to post an article, so I did take
> up mouse and keyboard, and enter via the excellent application called
> KNode. Yea verily, it did crash out on me, whereas before it had worked
> fine".
>
> This is on SuSE 7.1 Personal, with KDE 2.1. You know, the Windows killer.
> Got a ways to go yet, I see.
>
Astonishing. You got KNode crashing ? How did you manage this ? You must
have installed KDE 2.1 in the wrong way, because SuSE 7.1 is shipped with
KDE 2.01. Playing around with Kernel 2.4 or XFree86 4.0.2 without knowing
how to do it the right way ? I am using Linux for years, there have been
some crashes of Applications but it seems to me that every flavour of Linux
is crashing immediately if you are sitting in front of the monitor. You
are probably not the right kind of a user for OSes beyond click-and-point.
A lot of KDE-Applications are in Beta-Status, the developers like to get
bug-reports. This is the way Open Source works. Open Source is NOT made
for Pete Goodwin to give him a good OS and applications for little money.
If you don't like the Beta-Apps, kick them out of your menues. Work with
the stable ones (oh yes, I know, Pete Goodwin has found there are no stable
Apps in Linux) or let it be.
Cheers
Ralph Miguel Hansen
Using S.u.S.E. 4.3 and SuSE 7.1
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WOW - This is Interesting
Date: 17 Mar 2001 17:54:22 GMT
Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
: FreeBSD seems to be my next web platform !!!
: I don't know how often the updates are run, but now (Wednesday, 14 March
: 2001, 22:22 GMT+2) FreeBSD had all of the first 20 places!
: Out of 50, it claimed 47 sites with the longest uptime. M$ does not
: feature, but I miss Linux from that list even more!
: So, what makes FreeBSD that different from Linux? Can it be that the
: sites mentioned has low volumes?
: Just wondering...
Linux also is capable of unlimited uptimes. However, it also is
growing and evolving rapidly, and people often install newer kernels,
which requires a reboot.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WOW - This is Interesting
Date: 17 Mar 2001 18:05:21 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>> So, what makes FreeBSD that different from Linux? Can it be that the
:>> sites mentioned has low volumes?
:>
:>No, FreeBSD has a different uptime counter than Linux, and doesn't cycle
:>after 479 days.
:>
:>> Just wondering...
:>
: FreeBSD also doesn't have one other thing. A Working EMU10K driver
: for you soundblaster card. And beyond that I can only think of about
: 15,000 other drivers that their missing.
: FreeBSD is a sinking ship. And it's no surprise to see Erik Fukenbush
: choose it as his flagship.
While I prefer Linux, FreeBSD is a fine OS as well. It's probably
what I'd be running if I couldn't run Linux.
There is NO reason for animosity between Linux and *BSD advocates.
Remember, we are fighting for a common goal (freedom, and all the neat
things that come with it) and against a common enemy (Mafia$oft first
and foremost, and other vendors of buggy, proprietary bullshit as
well).
I can understand your frustration with Funkenbusch and his incessant
trolling for Windows, but please don't let that blind you to the fact
that he also uses and benefits from a free, high-quality OS in
addition to (and at least in certain situations in preference to)
Windows.
Joe
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
