Linux-Advocacy Digest #890, Volume #32 Mon, 19 Mar 01 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: the mismeasure of man ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
SuSE 7.1 Vs. 7.0 (Brad)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: the mismeasure of scale (The Danimal)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:55:12 -0500
Anonymous wrote:
>
> aaron 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.
> >
> > Conversely, twenty Windows administrators have a very hectic time
> > keeping ONE 1,500 user site running properly.
> >
> > When I was at Kmart headquarters, a 2,500 Windows-users site, they had
> > close to 100 Windows administrators.
> >
> > If this was running Linux or Unix, the necessary support staff for desktop
> > computers would be under a dozen people.
> >
> > Windows is false economy.
>
> that's not the scaling i'm talking about.
> reread dan's message and get back to me.
You're trying to say that clicking on a StarOffice icon is vastly
more difficult than clicking on a Word icon?
By the way, StarOffice can both read AND WRITE files in the standard
Mafia$oft formats (.doc, .exl, .ppt, etc).
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
> men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> more even than death
> - bertrand russell
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:57:35 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 19 Mar 2001 06:50:14
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >You must have some imaginary version of the GPL. The real one
>> >says nothing about having to share or redistribute in any way. It
>> >says much about conditions that prohibit any form of sharing.
>>
>> Yea. That's what I said. Are you *sure* you're smart enough to be a
>> programmer? Are you *really* too dumb to understand the difference
>> between literal text and the effect of a licenses literal text?
>
>It in no way resembles what you said.
You do not recognize the resemblance. I get it.
>> >
>> >You can't combine components with any existing restrictions that
>> >differ from the GPL's with anything with the GPL restrictions
>> >and redistribute it.
>>
>> IOW: where you don't share, you don't share.
>
>Yes, the result of the GPL is that you cannot share combinations
>of things where all other parts are freely sharable.
You use the term "freely" incorrectly in a context with "GPL". You
cannot "share combinations of things where all other parts are open
source, but do not demand they be freely sharable."
>> >> Sorry; the rule is you have to share.
>> >
>> >No, the rule is that only under certain conditions are you allowed
>> >to share.
>>
>> Yes, and the ONE and ONLY "certain condition" is, you HAVE TO SHARE.
>> You're really don't get this, do you?
>
>No, because that has nothing to do with what the license says.
Of course not. It has to do with what the license *does*. What the
result of the license is; its impact and effects on the behavior of
those using GPL software, for whatever definition of "using" you wish to
use. Its ramifications, intent; its meaning.
What is *says* is just the beginning. And where it goes you don't want
to go (for reasons I'm not entirely sure of); those who like the GPL,
however, do like where it goes, for reasons I am entirely aware of and
agree with.
>> >I don't dispute the author's right to impose whatever restrictions
>> >he wants. The issue I am having trouble with is calling it free software
>> >when
>> >in fact it is so restricted that you cannot share improvements that
>> >include any other work that actually is free.
>>
>> The issue you are having trouble with is calling it free software when
>> it is free for EVERYONE except YOU. And you don't seem to understand
>> that is on purpose.
>
>I don't understand it because it contradicts logic. Given 2 pieces of
>software hat can separately be obtained freely by anyone, the GPL prevents the
>free distribution of the combination, making the improvement free for no
>one.
Because the components can be used against future users.
>> >In those days it was the only one with several features needed as
>> >a real portable backup solution. (The --listed-incremental mode
>> >and multipart archives among others).
>>
>> So you figure you'd incorporate that little benefit into your own work,
>> huh? And you figure if GNU software says "its free", that means you
>> should be free to do that. I folla, I folla. Couldn't figure out how
>> to do with with some other tar, and couldn't use someone else's work
>> without their permission. What a shame.
>
>Yes, it is a shame that the GPL prevented the free distribution of code
>that the original author (as I recall, GNUtar evolved from something
>called pdtar, where pd=public domain) wanted to be freely available.
It is freely available. It remains freely available, as it would
regardless of whether you successfully managed to profiteer on its
availability by incorporating it in a non-free (if open source) product.
>> >I am talking about separate components of freely available software
>> >being integrated into something with new capabilities, and the one
>> >with the most outrageous claims about being free is the one that
>> >prohibits redistribution.
>>
>> That's why its the only one that makes a serious claim about being free.
>> The others are just zero cost. Free beer, not free speech; you know how
>> it goes....
>
>And that's why it is a lie any way you look at it. The restrictions prevent
>freedom under any of the definitions.
The restrictions ensure freedom under any of the definitions, by
preventing your use of someone else's code unless the results are free
software (in the GPL sense).
I guess you figured we'd just have a revolution where nobody got hurt,
huh? Well, just be glad there's only virtual blood being spilled. In
prior ages of history, that wouldn't have been the case.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
Subject: SuSE 7.1 Vs. 7.0
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brad)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:58:16 GMT
I have SuSE 7.0 Pro. running KDE 2.1
I am thinking of switching to SuSE 7.1 personal
Pros, cons?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:02:02 GMT
Said Jay Maynard in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 19 Mar 2001 13:21:00 GMT;
>On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 06:50:14 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> So you figure you'd incorporate that little benefit into your own work,
>>> huh? And you figure if GNU software says "its free", that means you
>>> should be free to do that. I folla, I folla. Couldn't figure out how
>>> to do with with some other tar, and couldn't use someone else's work
>>> without their permission. What a shame.
>>Yes, it is a shame that the GPL prevented the free distribution of code
>>that the original author (as I recall, GNUtar evolved from something
>>called pdtar, where pd=public domain) wanted to be freely available.
>
>Give up, Les. Max obviously is one of those GPV zealots - you know, the ones
>the folks in gnu.misc.discuss keep denying the existence of - that believes
>that if it's not GPVed, it's not free.
It doesn't require a zealot to understand and agree with the FSF
definition of "free software", which doesn't apply completely to
anything code available under a GPL.
>He is incapable of seeing that what
>you wanted was to combine multiple works, each individually free, into a new
>free work, but were prevented because the GPV does not play well with other
>licenses the FSF calls free, even if he doesn't.
No, I can see precisely what he wants to do, and I can understand why it
would seem to him to be counter-productive to prevent it from occurring.
But apparently both of you are incapable of seeing that it is not
counter-productive, and is, indeed, necessary. Perhaps unfortunate,
perhaps not. So long as the software I don't have available because of
this obvious dislike for the GP*L* which you both have remains a
theoretical loss, it simply cannot stack up against the more practical
and pressing concerns for someone who doesn't like being a victim of
profiteering and lack of scientific progress in an area which is
important to everyone on the planet.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:07:33 -0500
From: The Danimal <[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 scale
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said The Danimal in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:34:27
> >Anonymous wrote:
> >> aaron wrote:
> >> > Anonymous wrote:
> >> > > 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.
> >
> >That's because Unix administrators don't have to cope with the
> >same types of users. The daunting complexity of Unix selects for
> >highly self-sufficient users. This is like comparing the productivity
> >of two physicians, one who treats terminally ill elderlies and
> >the other who treats healthy young people. You'd be naive to think
> >the doctor with the higher patient death rate is inferior. You have
> >to compare them on the same patients.
>
> Any fool who thinks a physician using a professionally administered Unix
> box needs to care a wit about Unix's "daunting complexity" is obviously
> entirely ignorant of what "professionally administered" means.
Speaking of "fool" where did you see any reference to physicians using
a computer in the analogy of two physicians treating different types
of patients?
In any case, "professionally administered" means a box cannot function
except from behind a thick layer of scarce expensive specialized human
intelligence.
In other words it's not a GUI or a CLI but HEMI (Human-Expert-Mediated
Interface). That's not something to be proud of; rather, it's
an embarrassment.
Back when a useful computer cost about one MILLion dollars it was
no big deal to throw in a trained technician to run it. Hardly anyone
could buy such a machine, and anybody who could buy one could afford
to pay someone to do nothing other than learn how to run it. But today
the average person can buy a computer with decent power for less than
a month's disposable income.
The fact that cheap computers require any administration at all is
a horrid design defect.
It's going to get even sillier in another ten years when computers
become cheap enough to give away as prizes in breakfast cereal. The ratio
of administrative labor to hardware cost will be thousands to one
by then if the current trend of design idiocy continues.
> >The low level of real-world compatibility in Unix systems discourages
> >people from connecting them to random hardware devices and relentlessly
> >installing new kinds of application software as is routine with Windows
> >computers. [...]
>
> "Low level of real-world compatibility in Unix systems"? Guffaw!
Any box requiring professional administration is incompatible with
most of the real world and getting steadily more incompatible as hardware
costs continue to decrease and labor costs continue to increase.
Most small to medium-sized businesses cannot afford to pay a
Unix administrator $100K/yr. For most home users the maximum budget
for administration is even less: zero.
For Unix to achieve a mass market it needs to incorporate AI technology
capable of accurately simulating most of what a human Unix administrator
does.
Until that happens, Bill Gates' world domination is probably secure.
Not that this makes me happy. I'm just laying it out there
for you. If you want to rock Bill Gates' world it's going to take
more than tossing insults on Usenet. Bill will just keep getting
richer while you just keep getting angrier.
-- the Danimal
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:07:21 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 19 Mar 2001
[...]
>False, and you know it, Maxie. If something is under a source-available
>source licence with different restrictions than the GPL -- or even if it's
>basically the same licence CALLED something different -- then it is
>considered a contravention of the licences. (Try to use your brain here,
>Max: I'm going to use a thought experiment, even though I know you've got
>almost no chance of getting it.)
ESAD, shmuck.
>Pretend for a moment that I create the NPPL -- the Non-Political Public
>Licence -- as an almost identical copy of the GPL, except that it
>didn't have the political stuff attached (it DOES, however, have the
>viral nature).
What are you talking about, then? The viral nature *is* "the political
stuff". You'll have to put some thought into your thought experiment,
it seems.
>If I licence package A under the NPPL, then neither I
>nor anyone else can combine A with any GPLed package out there. It
>doesn't matter that the effects of the licences are identical.
If the effects of the license are identical, then what is the reason you
didn't GPL your stuff?
>You cannot say that I didn't want to share -- I just didn't feel like
>having a political manifesto attached to my source code. But the fact
>is that the GPL itself prohibits such sharing at that point.
You'll have to clarify what you mean by "a political manifesto". Are
you simply mischaracterizing the fact that you can't combine the GPL
with other licenses? Saying your NPPL license effects "are identical
except how they're different" seems to beg the question, doesn't it?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:08:35 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 18 Mar 2001
>"Byron A Jeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:990per$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> -Since GPL is just for code, what prevents me from copying the idea and
>> -extend it?
>
>GPL can be used for other things but code.
>I've seen it used for data, frex.
So we've heard, about twenty times. A couple of goofballs *saying* they
"GPLed their data" isn't quite the same as saying it is an actual
application of a code license to anything but code.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
