Linux-Advocacy Digest #858, Volume #32 Sun, 18 Mar 01 00:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jim Richardson)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jim Richardson)
Re: There is money in Linux (Jim Richardson)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Alan)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Chad Everett)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (CR Lyttle)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Jim Richardson)
Re: Seattle quake was caused by the GPL. (Jim Richardson)
Re: the truth about linux (Jim Richardson)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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 20:16:37 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:20:16 -0500,
John S. Dyson, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"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.
>>
>> 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
>
If you call that a proof, you have a funny definition of logic.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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 20:18:21 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 01:30:36 +0200,
Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"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.
>
got any examples of someone saying this?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: There is money in Linux
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 20:23:51 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 00:07:28 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I'm not going to bother quoting stock prices or revenues for corporate
>> distribution makers bacause I couldn't be bothered.
>
>Probably because you know the stock prices don't look good.
>
>> Just go in to any book shop with a computer section.
>>
>> I went in to Blackwell's the other day. The Linux section is getting
>> quite big.
>>
>> There were about 10 different CD's avaliable [*] and I couldn't be
>> bothered to count the number of books (but I did notice the Linux for
>> Dummies).
>>
>> Well, looks like someone is making plenty of money otu of Linux.
>
>Did you see anyone actually BUYING those books?
>
Free clue Chad...
When books don't sell, bookstores return them for credit and don't
bother getting any more of them. Unless you are claiming that the bookstore is
keeping them around (and ordering new ones as they are released) for the
purpose of _pretending_ to sell linux books...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 04:13:24 GMT
Sorry Chad...
I snipped Jan Johanson writing that it is complete bullshit and does
not exist.
Sorry about that.
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 04:08:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan) wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 04:03:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad
>Everett) wrote:
>
>
>>>Evidence? You call this evidence? What you wrote is complete bullshit and
>>>does not exist in anything but your fantasy.
>>>
>http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2550735,00.html
>
>MS calls it a pinhole. Some could claim you could fly a Boeing 747
>through it.
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed, without profit, for research and educational purposes only. ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 04:13:51 GMT
On 17 Mar 2001 20:19:17 -0600, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> Let's see, Erik wants actual evidence. How about a backdoor placed
>> in Microsoft software that allowed users who entered "Netscape programmers
>> are weenies" to bypass security in Microsoft's web server software
>> and access pretty much anything they wanted.
>
>Evidence? You call this evidence? What you wrote is complete bullshit and
>does not exist in anything but your fantasy.
>
Who is the one fantasizing?:
Friday April 14, 2000
======================
According to a bulletin on Slashdot (http://www.slashdot.org) this
morning, there is a gaping security hole in Micro$oft IIS. Apparently,
some smart aleck M$ programmer decided it would be funny to install a
backdoor in the system, so that anyone entering a password deriding
Netscape programmers as "weenies" would gain full access to the system.
Fortunately, you can fix the problem by deleting a DLL -- see the article
or consult Micro$oft's website for more info.
While there is little doubt that M$ can be held liable for any problems
we have as a result (read: malfeasance), it would be preferable to seek
out and delete DVWSSR.DLL before it comes to that. I don't know how many
IIS servers are in the district -- we're running Apache at the district
office -- but I believe TuHS is running IIS.
------------------------------
From: CR Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 04:33:25 GMT
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Dave Martel wrote:
> >
> > > <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17679.html>
> > >
> > > German armed forces ban MS software, citing NSA snooping
> > > By: John Lettice
> > > Posted: 17/03/2001 at 18:59 GMT
> > >
> > > The German foreign office and Bundeswehr are pulling the
> > > plugs on Microsoft software, citing security concerns,
> > > according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel.
> > > Spiegel claims that German security authorities suspect that
> > > the US National Security Agency (NSA) has 'back door'
> > > access to Microsoft source code, and can therefore easily
> > > read the Federal Republic's deepest secrets.
> > >
> > > "The Bundeswehr will no longer use American software ... on
> > > computers used in sensitive areas..."
> >
> > This makes me quite proud of my German ancestry.
>
> You are proud of ignorant paranoia?
>
> Is there ANY proof of this "back door"? Nope.
>
> The real truth is that Germany is still pissed that MS included Diskeeper
> technology whos CEO is a scientologist.
Already forgotten the "NSAKEY" backdoor? That was the "backup" key that
MS put in the OS in case they (they being MS) "forgot" the primary key
and needed to update your software.
--
Russ
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
Home of the Universal Automotive Test Set
Linux Open Source (GPL) Project
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 20:46:53 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 17 Mar 2001 20:21:11 -0600,
Jan Johanson, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17679.html>
>>
>> German armed forces ban MS software, citing NSA snooping
>> By: John Lettice
>> Posted: 17/03/2001 at 18:59 GMT
>>
>> The German foreign office and Bundeswehr are pulling the
>> plugs on Microsoft software, citing security concerns,
>> according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel.
>> Spiegel claims that German security authorities suspect that
>> the US National Security Agency (NSA) has 'back door'
>> access to Microsoft source code, and can therefore easily
>> read the Federal Republic's deepest secrets.
>>
>> "The Bundeswehr will no longer use American software ... on
>> computers used in sensitive areas..."
>>
>
>Proof ONLY that the Bundeswehr are both ignorant and paranoid.
>
Do you suggest that the US military used proprietary, closed source software
from a foreign nation in sensitive areas?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Seattle quake was caused by the GPL.
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 20:52:32 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:22:57 -0800,
GreyCloud, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>
>> > "This earthquake demonstrates the destabilizing force that Linux and the
>> > Open Source software movement has on the earth. If people continue to
>> > support this type of software then natural disasters such as this
>> > earthquake will continue to occur," said Allchin.
>>
>> Oh hell! Does that mean that 'cos I've released Open Source software an
>> earth quake is headed towards the UK? Ooooerr, hear that rumble, see that
>> cup and saucer rattle!
>>
>> --
>> Pete
>> All your no fly zone are belong to us
>
>LOL! I think the earthquake here was caused by Bills' construction crew
>on his house.
>He keeps changing the plans and his neighbors are getting pretty mad
>about the noise!
>Its been going on since he released Win95. :-))
It gets funnier, because he files so many changes and permit requests etc, the
city his house is in needed to upgrade their computer system, however, they
couldn't afford the windows licence fees, so they went with linux...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: the truth about linux
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 20:58:26 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 01:52:52 GMT,
Brett Randall, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Well, a reply taking into account the obnoxiousness of the original
>author...
>
>>>>>> "Public" == Public <Anonymous Account> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Who needs who? Both Sun and IBM can run Internet routers; we do not
>> need Linux for that. And all the applications we want are coming
>> from non-open source people. So what do need the open source people
>> for? What will they give us that we do not already have? Does the
>> world really need Linux? Do we need the open source people? Should
>> we support or encourage them? The sad fact is that the world does
>> not need the open source people, nor their lousy applications.
>
>OK, so StarOffice is not Open Source (last time I checked). But
>XFree86 is. Apache, WUFTPD, KDE, Gnome, TWM. Try sitting down at a
>Unix machine and using some software which ISN'T Open Source. Go on!
check again, SO is being open-sourced. :)
(although I understand that there are parts of it with conflicting licence
issues that prevent GPL etc)
>
>> IBM is spending so much time and money on Linux that they may as
>> well just take control of Linux and finish developing it. Who knows
>> if the open source people will ever finish Linux. Why not just let
>> IBM take over and quit encouraging this farce that open source will
>> give us a new operating system? Or why not put our support behind
>> Sun Solaris? Why support these arrogant, obnoxious, and Marxist
>> Linux people?
>
>Ask Microsoft if they will ever `finish' Windows. Sun are coming into
>the `free' field a lot now. Releasing a lab edition of Sun Solaris for
>x86 machines for free to the public. Brave move, and commendable. I
>don't mind supporting Solaris. There's a lot of OSS out there for it.
Solaris is cool, if you have hardware it likes.
>
>> IBM could continue to provide Linux to the customers who insist upon
>> it, but they should quit encouraging the open source movement.
>
>Why? They are building on 10 years worth of work which hasn't yet cost
>them a cent (other than the US$1 billion they are about to put in). I
>don't doubt for a second that a lot of the people that IBM are going
>to employ to develop their Linux market have been developing OSS for
>many years.
He's just ticked that IBM is putting money into linux.
>> Is progress slow with Linux? Linux was released in 1991, so it has
>> been in development for almost 10 years. Is progress slow with
>> Linux? Or is Linux simply so advanced that it requires a lot of
>> time?
>
>Macintosh OS was released even earlier. Ask them how progress is
>going.
If he thinks that there's been no progress since kernel v0.02...
>> Most of the people who work on Linux and Linux related
>> software do not provide much information on their lives, but there
>> are a couple of Web sites where some of the developers are
>> interviewed. At the KDE site some people describe whether or not
>> they are paid for their work and how much work they do. Here is what
>> I found:
>
>So the fact that some people may enjoy their spare time makes you
>cringe, does it?
>
remember, a puritan is someone who is firmly convinced that someone, somewhere
is having fun, and wants to put a stop to it...
><snip>
>
>> Question: How much time do you spend on KDE?
>
>How much time do you spend writing unresearched articles?
>
><snip>
hopefully not much, or else his quality<->effort ratio is _way_ too low.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 21:04:04 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 14:41:30 -0800,
Brock Hannibal, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:20:58 -0800,
>> Brock Hannibal, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>> >Arthur Frain wrote:
>> >
>> >> Maybe I'm not an expert in stats, but a .4 correlation
>> >> coefficient doesn't seem very impressive to me. Wouldn't
>> >> impress a physicist, I'm sure.
>> >
>> >Let's consider a case of a frequency modulated waveform as used in
>> >FM radio. How correlated is the resultant waveform to either the
>> >carrier frequency or the frequency of the modulating audio
>> >information? It's certainly less than 1, wouldn't you say, and yet
>> >we are able to almost completely separate the mixed waveforms.
>> >
>> >It's obvious your understanding of the uses of correlation is
>> >extremely lacking.
>> >
>>
>> I don't know from stats, but the example above seems poor in the sense that
>> when we demod an FM signal, we allready know the carrier,
>
>No, we use a BFO to discover the carrier. It's called the tuning
>process.
That's one way, a PLL is another. But we tune either one to the approx area of
the carrier because we know where it is.
>
>> and the mod-scheme,
>
>That's true but not necessary. For instance an FFT of the
>undemodulated signal will show the carrier and the other frequency
>components around the carrier. These can be filtered out and then
>converted back to the time domain.(A use of corrrelation)
True, but what you are saying is that we can discover the mod-scheme, even if
we don't allready know it. It still has a 1-1 correlation with the data.
>> the only unknown is the audio which correlates 1-1 with the modulation. (in
>> this sense, correlation would seem to mean has a known, predicable
>> relationship.) But I digress from the digression...
>
>That's what correlation, in essence, is used to try to discover,
>first wheteher there is a relationship and then whether it is
>repeatable and therefore predictable.
yup, which is why I questioned the analogy in the first place.
>> --
>> Jim Richardson
>> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
>
>Do you believe in Magic Nose Goblins?
>
I don't even believe in non-magic ones...
>
>> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
>> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>
>Linux has bugs. It just turns out that the Unix type operating
>systems are better protected against total system crashes, not
>completely immune.
hey, it's a one liner in a .sig! whadya expect?
(how about
Linux, because life's too short for BSOD)
>[unix} segmentation fault
>
>--
>Brock
>
>"Put a $20 gold piece on my watch chain so the boys'll know I died
>standin' pat"
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
