Linux-Advocacy Digest #884, Volume #32 Mon, 19 Mar 01 08:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: What is user friendly? ("Coralie Naumann")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Nick Condon)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Frank Crawford")
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Nick Condon)
IT Department Stupidity ("Andy Walker")
Re: Yet more XBox bogification... (Rick)
Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7) (Chris Croughton)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (mlw)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux Joke (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Coralie Naumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 20:15:33 +1100
"green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:994h97$7jv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]..
.
: > Anonymous wrote:
: > >
: > > LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > > > Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > > >
: > > > >aaron wrote:
: > > > >> Anonymous wrote:
: > > > >> >
: > > > >> > aaron wrote:
: > > > >> > > Anonymous wrote:
: > > > >> > > >
: > > > >> > > > aaron wrote:
: > > > >> > > > > If you were to follow around one IQ-100 person all
day, you
: would
: > > > >> > > > > be appalled by the vast number of incredibly stupid
things
: they do
: > > > >> > > > > in the course of a day, and how many completely
fucking
: obvious
: > > > >> > > > > connections they miss, how many winning opportunities
they
: pass
: > > > >> > > > > up (because they either don't understand them, or
they fail
: to
: > > > >> > > > > even recognize that the opportunity exists in the
first
: place).
: > > > >> > > >
: > > > >> > > > now you know why i usually don't read your messages
: > > > >> > > > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
: > > > >> > > >
: > > > >> > > > p.s. windows is a pretty cool operating system
: > > > >> > > >
: > > > >> > >
: > > > >> > > Only in comparison to DOS.
: > > > >> > >
: > > > >> > > Compared to anything else, Windows is comparable to a
Formula-1
: body
: > > > >> > > slapped on top of a Ford Pinto with a sand-injection oil
system
: > > > >> > > and water-contaminated brake-lines.
: > > > >> >
: > > > >> > amiga: dead
: > > > >> > beos: fringe
: > > > >> > mac: fringe
: > > > >> > os2: dead
: > > > >> > next: dead
: > > > >> > unix: user hostile
: > > > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > > > >> Microsoft propaganda.
: > > > >
: > > > >no, personal experience.
: > > > >a generally impassable learning curve = user hostile.
: > > > >i was using windows to get work done ten minutes after
installation.
: > > > >u can't touch this
: > > >
: > > > Configuring Windows is my forte. I have been
installing/reinstalling
: > > > Windows Millennium for the last three days. I expect to have a
well
: > > > done installation within a week. I guess my idea of
"installation" is
: > > > different than most folks. Mine has to look good and be as
efficient
: > > > as possible (making Windows more nearly efficient is a Herculean
: > > > task).
: > >
: > > define efficient. i define efficient as plug and play. if it ain't
fast
: > > enough for what i want to do i just buy a faster machine.
: > >
: > > > Being done in ten minutes is unbelievable.
: > >
: > > installers are cool.
: > > i think it took another ten minutes to get office up and running.
: > > connecting to the internet was trickier. that took about a half an
hour
: > > between typing the configuration stuff (news server, mail server,
etc)
: and
: > > making the obligatory phone call to my perverted isp to resolve a
few
: > > issues on thier end.
: > > adding new peripherals is pretty simple too. what with windows
being
: > > damn near universally supported and all.
: > > i really don't see what your beef is.
: > > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
: > >
: > > men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than
ruin,
: > > more even than death
: > > - bertrand russell
: >
: > You must like the color blue very much.
: > I don't use windows because even tho the apps are nice, and you try
to
: > say you want to get some work done, I don't see how you could get
any
: > work done when you have to fight lock-ups and BSODs all day long.
:
: BSOD must be computer specific.
i think it is specific to machines with shared
memory for graphics and less than 48mb ram
overall.
:
: I only ever got compleate freezzes (mouse don't move. alt ctrl del
don't
: work. power button don't work)
Sounds like out of memory and low disk space
so virtual memory can't work either.
:
: note power button soft off. hold 5 sec's powers of fine as thats low
level
: hardware.
If you have enough disk space then try ME
i think you will be pleasantly surprised.
--
Coralie
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove the "-" to email me)
:
:
:
:
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To:
gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property,aus.politics
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 19 Mar 2001 09:25:56 GMT
Karel Jansens wrote:
>Nick Condon wrote:
>> Paul Repacholi wrote:
>> The referendum result means Australia continues to be monarchy; but
>> "rule"? No. The Queen "reigns", she is the Australian Head of State,
>> but she does not rule Australia.
>
>So who appoints the prime minister in Australia? I'm genuinly interested
>to know.
It's an elected office, same as in the 15 other nations where Elizabeth
reigns.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: "Frank Crawford" <[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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 09:38:41 +0000
"Rex Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
[snip]
>
> They don't have to. SuSE has done a very good job of doing this for
> them, and is willing to provide assurances for a certain level of
> distributions. In reality, the most common hacker attacks on Linux are
> Denial of Service attacks. With the exception of some WebSphere
> customers who never bothered to generate a unique private encryption key
> (listed in the installation procedures as a critical step
> - but who
> reads manuals these days :-), there have been very few security hacks.
> You have to deliberately keep the doors open. Sure, if you have a
> userid of root, with a password of root, you will probably get cracked
> wide open, but then again, most experienced administrators know that one
> of the first things you should do is change the name of the super-user,
> set the password to something pretty hard to crack
> (many companies
> use randomly generated passwords exclusively). With OpenSSH you can
> control your certificates.
>
> Microsoft openly admits that they have back-doors, which they claim to
> use for tracking software piracy. Given how difficult it is to purchase
> a computer system without Microsoft software, it's quite likely that
> Microsoft may have other practical uses for it's "back doors".
>
> We know that Microsoft puts critical serial numbers in Word documents
> shipped across the internet. We know that these serial numbers can be
> used to ease the cracking of DES and RC5 encryption keys (having a
> known pattern eliminates the need for a brute-force hack).
>
> We know that ActiveX controls can be used to read any file and have it
> transferred to any site, at a random interval after a site is visited.
> We know that VBScript attachements can be used to capture critical
> information and have it e-mailed to a key location.
>
> We know of nearly 40 viruses, and we know that Microsoft's "Solutions"
> to these viruses has been blocking filters that were ineffective at
> blockng even more destructive versions of the same core infrastructure.
>
>> "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.
>
> This may be one of the reasons that Microsoft has managed to remain
> above the law, immune to criminal prosecution, able to get swiss-cheese
> settlements, and win appeals. Snitches are rarely "upstanding
> citizens", and often take advantage of their priviledged status. Hey,
> if Microsoft can wire-tap the Bundeswehr and the Kremlin, we can
> overlook a few hundred companies driven into bankruptcies and a little
> insider trading.
>
> Microsoft might not even be aware of all the colorful characters on
> staff. Why do excessive favors when you can simply place a few
> operatives in key positions.
>
>> > "The Bundeswehr will no longer use American software ... on
>> > computers used in sensitive areas..."
>
> It's a bit naive to think that not using Microsoft would stop the NSA.
> On the other hand there's no point in turning yourself into an "open
> book" for every terrorist and extremist organization in the world. If a
> high-school kid from the Phillipenes can do 2.5 billion in damages, just
> imagine what could happen when a professional terrorist from Iraq or
> Libya decides to
> "have a little fun".
>
> I would hope that the U.S. follows suit. It would be a bit silly to be
> the only country whose banks, military, regulatory angencies, and
> financial markets could be tapped like a wide open book.
>
I would like to say how impressed I am with this post. Lots of facts
supporting intelligent, well written arguments.
I also agree with the German decicision and hope the rest of Europe
has the good sense to follow their example.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: 19 Mar 2001 09:42:58 GMT
Eugenio Mastroviti wrote:
>Nick Condon wrote:
>> Bringing up a Linux installation is *easier* than doing it in Windows.
>
>This is simply not true. Again, it is from my and your point of view (a
>*really working* Win installation is not simply harder, it's
>impossible...). It is not from Joe User's point of view.
The only people who install operating systems are people who build their
own PCs and corporate techies. Everyone else gets a PC with an OS already
on it, so Joe User is irrelevant to this discussion.
When I got the single CD version of SuSE 7.0, it booted off the CD into a
graphical installion routine that detected all my hardware correctly;
helped me chose the packages I wanted; setup my disk partitions for me,
including the existing Win98 one. (Actually I wanted something different so
I point-and-clicked a different setup, opting for more partitions and
Reiser filesystem, all without leaving the setup tool). Installion
completed smoothly, and I eventually logged onto a desktop without ever
seeing a command-line. It doesn't come any easier than that. Even Joe User
could do it.
> His Windows
>installation will probably crash on him repeatedly, but there's a good
>chance that his Linux install won't start up at all, and that's it.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IT Department Stupidity
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 06:49:50 -0000
This should make you laugh or possibly cry..
My company uses Windows (they don't appear to have even heard of anything
else) and I spent two years trying to get a Lotus Notes account, they said
they no longer had the budget for any more licences. I didn't want anything
more than e-mail facilities, our network makes our internet access even
slower than my 33k modem at home anyway, but of course it wasn't their
policy to allow me to use Outlook Express even though every machine has it.
I could of course use Outlook Express to access the newsgroups but only once
my Lotus Notes account was enabled!
I finally got my Notes account, unfortunately no one from IT bothered to
contact me and let me know that it was available. I was then told that as my
account had not been used for a month that the licence had been transfered
to someone on the waiting list! After being told that I needed a refresher
course on Notes as it was so long since I went on the course (I went on it
two years ago),I finally got an account after much arguing. I've only ever
used the e-mail and news groups and find Notes to be more of a libility than
a help.
The moral of this story is that big companies don't care how much their IT
departments cost, as long as they are costing the same as any other company
of a similar size they don't bat an eyelid. Microsoft can charge what they
like because nobody ever questions using anything else, the reply seems to
be it costs to much to change although nobody has ever tried costing a
change in!
Finally no one in the IT department has a clue about anything that isn't
Microsoft certified and even then if it is more than a simple reload of
Windows it may be a very long wait indeed.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet more XBox bogification...
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 06:40:37 -0500
Edwin wrote:
>
> Jim Naylor wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edwin
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Jim Naylor wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edwin
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > There's no "lying" going on at all. I've seen protypes
> > > > from other game companies. This is common practice.
> > > > >
> > > > > Edwin
> > > >
> > > > "I have never outrightly lied on this group in spite of
> > > > whatever you think to the contrary. Alright I lied. But
> > > > except in the case of Macsbug and DONK nobody had me
> > > > dead to rights. I lied. So sue me." -- EdWIN Thorne
> > >
> > > Jim Naylor once again trots out his cut-and-paste
> > > creation. He wants to make certain no one will ever
> > > mistake him for one who pocesses morals or ethics.
> >
> > Hey EdLOOPS, what's a protype?
>
> Go get an education.
>
Using words you dont (and nobody else does) undestand? Tch, tch.
> > "I have never outrightly lied on this group
> > in spite of whatever you think to the contrary.
> > Alright I lied. But except in the case of
> > Macsbug and DONK nobody had me dead to rights.
> > I lied. So sue me." -- EdWIN Thorne
> >
> If Jim can do it, so can I:
>
I see you are a liar again.
> --
> I'm a pedophile. I've been locked up for years for molesting little
> boys,
> but I just can't stop. I wish somebody would kill me. -- Jim Naylor
You might want to ba a little careful about this quote. It seems very
close to libel.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Croughton)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7)
Date: 19 Mar 2001 12:34:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 17 Mar 2001 18:37:59 GMT, Joseph T. Adams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm mostly with RMS on this one, but I admire and respect the *BSD
>folks as well, and don't want to hurt them; I just don't want to see
>proprietary vendors use them and thereby hurt the larger free
>software community as a whole.
Has this ever happened? Someone taking BSD code and making it
proprietary so that other people can't use it, I mean, I don't consider
that anyone using 'free' software is harming the 'free software'
community just because their own code is not free.
As far as I'm concerned, if The Evil Empire want to use a utility I
wrote in their development, that's fine. I am only concerned if they
then try to claim it as their own work and restrict it. For instance,
if they built VC++ using GCC I would have no objections (but I know some
"Free Software" fundies who would!).
>I prefer the GPL and LGPL because I believe that copyleft tends to
>maximize freedom in the imperfect world in which we currently live.
"Copyleft" in the general sense, yes, I don't think that the GPL is the
only (or the best) way to implement it, nor do I think that saying "if
you want to use our code you have to play by our rules" is a good way to
promote code reuse. There are situations where it is not only not a bad
thing to restrict the availability of code but where it is dangerous to
make it available.
>However, it does bother me that the *BSD folks can't use this code as
>readily as they should be able to. Consequently, if asked to release
>code under a BSD-compatible license in addition to GPL and/or LGPL, I
>normally will as long as doing so doesn't risk compromising the
>freedoms of the users of my software and other free software in
>general.
When talking with people whose code is normaly released under GPL I've
generally found that, like you, they are quite willing to either
use another licence or to give specific permission for my use.
I don't think that BSD (and other free licence) folks in general are
very restricted, as long as they are only using the GPL code as a whole
rather than using it in their own products. For instance, I can happily
use the GCC compiler and libraries because I don't distribute
executables, I distribute source code, so it doesn't matter to the GPL
that in development I'm using a different licence.
Note that the LGPL isn't so restrictive, it only 'contaminates' if you
modify the code and use that, if it's only linked in there isn't a
problem.
>I don't want my code used in ways that limit freedom if I can help it -
>only ways that promote it, or, at worst, are freedom-neutral.
That's your choice, entirely. I've seen licenses which say that code is
not to be used in military projects, for example (and they aren't
compatible with the GPL, due to a different definition of 'freedom'),
and I will respect that. If someone wants to set conditions which mean
that for a particular project I can't use their code, that is their
choice just as it is mine to decide (regretfully, in some cases) that I
can't use it.
>Ordinarily, I *don't* want to help proprietary software vendors. I'm
>not out to screw them over, and I'm usually willing to work with them
>when it's in the best interests of my clients and/or employers, but, as
>a rule, I'd far rather see them get more involved in free software,
>rather than taking free software and making it unfree.
Taking free software and making it unfree (i.e. restricting other
people's use of the software) as opposed to simply using the free
software in their own projects which aren't released in source form, is
a practice to which I am very opposed. I complained loudly at one
company who were using BSD software and removing the copyright
information in the source files (and replacing it with their own
boilerplate), because that is a deliberate breach of the licence
conditions and is straight theft of copyright. To be fair, they then
realised that this was Not A Good Idea and went back and replaced all of
the original headers.
There are some things, though, which need to be kept proprietary, as I
mentioned above. For instance, I have worked several times for mobile
phone companies. Often the phones can be reprogrammed via a special
port, and customers cannot be allowed to do that because of the risk of
killing the entire network. Since the source would contain not only the
network protocols, user interfaces etc. but also the reprogramming
methods, this would be disastrous.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: 19 Mar 2001 12:34:20 GMT
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 23:39:07 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Chad Everett wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:25:20 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >As an undegraduate, they don't have even the slightest expectation
>> >that you will 'understand' the math, only that you know how to use it.
>> >
>> >You aren't expected to truly understand ANYTHING until you get a PhD.
>> >
>>
>> Not true. One achieves total understanding at the Masters degree level.
>> If you proceed to the PhD level you start loosing the ability to do
>> things like button your shirt and remember where you parked you vehicle.
>
>You're missing the point entirely.
>
>With a BS degree, you are expected to know which equations to plug-and-chug.
>
>With an MS degree, you are expected to know how to derive fundamental equations
>as needed.
>
>With a PhD, you are expected to have a clear understanding of the actual
>phenomena which are described by the equations that are taught to the
>undergraduate student.
>
>Either that, or several Electrical Engineering profs at Purdue lied to me.
My experience was that we were supposed to do things like derive
formulas for various derivatives, compute sums for integrals,
prove several theorems (including for example computing the
fundamental group of all closed orientable surfaces) all in our
undergrad degrees. I suppose it depends on which school you attend
and which courses you take.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 07:37:12 -0500
Andy Walker wrote:
"Blue Screen of Death" has a whole new meaning.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 19 Mar 2001 12:37:13 GMT
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 00:06:25 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>How about gas, for example ? Have prices gone down in the last several
>>years ?
>
>Get a brain, and get back to me.
This is an honest and reasonable question. I am trying to work out
what you mean by "all prices go down". This statement is obviously
untrue, and needs to be refined.
The fact that you aren't capable of expressing yourself coherently
doesn't make me stupid at all, it makes you a tad inarticulate at
times.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: 19 Mar 2001 12:38:14 GMT
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 23:39:48 GMT, J Sloan wrote:
>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 04:33:00 GMT, J Sloan wrote:
>> > >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Bsiasically, I trust the gcc maintainers to maintain gcc more than I trust
>> > >> RedHat to do the same. In other words, I trust gcc's "real" release more
>> > >> than I trust the unauthorised RedHat version.
>> > >
>> > >What's "authorized" about the what you call the "real" gcc?
>> >
>> > I suppose what it boils down to is that I trust the gcc maintainers
>> > to maintain gcc more than I trust Redhat to do the same.
>>
>> Those maintainers kind of hint at the naughtiness of Red Hat here:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.95/gcc-2.95.3.html
>>
>> gcc-2.95.3 is out!
>
>Cool, does it have all the fixes that are in 2.96?
Especially the essential fix that makes it incompatible with
every non-RedHat version.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 07:38:23 -0500
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> I think this line of questioning is very important, as it shows the
>>> abstract nature of the underlying arguments. First, there is a
>>> technical difference, it seems, between public domain and something
>>> "without a copyright".
>> No, there isn't. The two mean exactly the same thing.
> No, not exactly. They *can* mean the same thing, of course, since one
> is a description ("without a copyright") and the other a characteristic
> ("public domain"). But something which is "without a copyright" is
> impossible, according to current laws, while public domain, obviously,
> is covered (in fact, defined) by those laws.
Do you ever have anything worthwhile to say, Max? Something in the
public domain does not have a copyright on it. It is "without a
copyright". Your distinction is, like everything else you manage to
spew about this matter, false and completely without an erg of rational
thought behind it.
>>> For one thing, the latter (software, or any work of authorship,
>>> without a copyright) is not possible, presently. As a legal
>>> abstraction, it existed up until the mid 80s, I think, when the Berne
>>> Convention was adopted almost globally.
>> Meaninless tripe. (Hint: I can write something and release it into the
>> public domain. From that point forward, it is "without a copyright.")
> If it were without a copyright, you couldn't own it, and therefore
> couldn't release it into the public domain. It is "without copyright
> restrictions". Yes, the difference is small. Whether its meaningless
> tripe depends on your premise, which you haven't furthered at all so
> far.
It's meaningless tripe, just like everything else you say. You invent
these foolish and worthless "distinctions" on points which aren't
distinctions at all -- you did this the last time someone brought the
conversations from where you reside to gmd, and you eventually left
with your tail between your legs (only you called it a victory instead
of the shaming it was). The "difference" you bring up is only in your
own mind.
>>> I think that's
>>> where the GPL discussion comes down to; "GPL isn't free" zealots seem to
>>> believe they have a *right* to profit on what they received for free.
>> Complete lie. You keep repeating it despite the fact you've been told
>> otherwise. Keep believing it, Maxie, but it'll never be true.
> Whether something is true has nothing to do with whether I believe it,
> Austin. And, just in case you aren't really nothing more than an
> obnoxious bore, you can call me "Max".
You're more like a "Min" -- seeing as you apply no thought at all to
your arguments. Your statement above is a false statement: keep
repeating it and you become a liar, because you've been informed that
it's a false statement. Oh, that's right ... you ARE a liar because you've
been informed of this fact before...
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 07:39:19 -0500
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 17 Mar 2001 06:21:56
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> Why is it a good thing to force people to do something against
>>>> their will?
>>> Because it maintains freedom.
>> I guess logic isn't a requirement here....
> The statement is perfectly logical. The ability to handle complex
> abstractions is, unfortunately, a requirement, though.
It's logical to the degree that it's a circular statement. You've advanced
nothing, Maxie.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 07:41:44 -0500
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Actually, I'm quite correct. Freedom 2 itself is contravened by the GPL.
> "Contravened"? Not at all. Freedom 2 gives you the right to distribute
> the software to help you neighbor. The fact that the GPL makes it
> impractical or impossible to make a profit on it without providing a
> value add, well, that doesn't mean you can't distribute the software to
> help your neighbor.
No, it actually makes it impractical or impossible to distribute
value-added to the software without giving up significant rights of
your own. It contravenes freedom 2 -- you're NOT free to redistribute
... except under the restrictions of the GPL.
Stallman has delineated these freedoms, and the he's not consistent
enough to actually follow through with them -- he assumes something (in
the paragraph following this delination) that isn't itself a freedom.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
