Linux-Advocacy Digest #920, Volume #32 Tue, 20 Mar 01 08:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism ("Shades")
Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: What is user friendly? (Anonymous)
Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux (Anonymous)
Re: Memory needed to run linux / X windows ??? (Donn Miller)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:15:49 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Shades wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone imagine, let's say a CTO of a large multinational company,
the
> > kind Linux advocates would love say they beat MS in, jumping into one
of
> > these newsgroups and reading the "professionalism" expressed in this
> > group(see below)? Unix people have always been touted as being this
> > arrogant and narrow-minded and I have had my fair share of the
> > unprofessional manner.
> >
> > In the past I have had Unix people say there were going to slash my
tires,
> > and some sabotaged a web server farm I worked in because they didn't
like NT
> > servers being there. But here one can see it first hand. It is sad
> > because for all the good Linux and Unix may be over NT, who can trust a
> > group of people who act like this to administer it?
> >
> > If I go to any of the MS groups it isn't this way. There is no
masculinity
> > tests for how much I know or do not. People there generally comment
more
> > positively if someone says Linux is better and give good arguments both
pro
> > and con. Here however, people tend to disagree by 13 year old name
> > calling and not really giving out much in terms of information. (if you
are
> > too stupid to know I won't tell you). All anyone hears is "MS IS A
> > MONOPOLY" or "WE DID GUI FIRST", and "IF YOU CAN'T INSTALL IT YOU ARE
> > F***IN DUMB", etc, etc,... ad nauseum. But one rarely hears about
> > solutions businesses need today coming out of this.
> >
> > I don't mean to say this of all Unix/Linux people for I know some that I
> > consider good friends and they act extremely professional. But there
are so
> > many that do not and all it does is give Microsoft and others MORE
> > ammunition to scare corporations that the Linux community so desperately
> > needs away.
> >
> > My 2 cents....
>
> None of which excuses being a JACKASS by choosing Mafia$oft LoseDog
platforms.
Yep... thanks.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:19:37 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> However, if you're a corporation and want some legitimate service, you must
> now pay. On the other hand, if you want to keep your systems up to date,
> you must hire a person to monitor the daily patches and keep the systems
> up to date, thus costing you. Either way, it's still a costly proposition.
Same for Microsoft.
>
> Windows Update is very free and clear. It's obvious what must be done.
> OTOH, Red Hat forces you into a pay scheme and offers a service that
> doesn't really count for all that much.
The only difference is that Windows doesn't provide "daily patches".
> But by God, you can buy a nice red baseball cap on their site. Thank god!
Or you can buy a Microsoft "FREEDOM TO INNOVATE" T-Shirt!
http://www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/
Chris
--
[ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 05:24:39 -0700
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
mistersomeone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >This was true while MS was still shaking hands with
> >IBM and Intel. For the last 10 years or so there has
> >been a choice and the general public chose MS
> >over most other OSes including IBM's OS.
>
> OS/2 warp (IBM's OS) was a REALLY solid OS. incredibly stable and
> yes, user-friendly... problem was... lack of software development....
> and lack of popular support. Think back to the days of BETA and
> VHS... BETA was a superior technology but it lost out due to lesser
> marketing and lack of popular support... go figure...
it wasn't just marketing. (the perennial excuse of business fuckups is
'it wasn't properly marketed')
beta was put out by sony which, at least at first, was the sole
manufacturer. vhs was the result of an alliance between several large
firms. the simple fact that beta was made by one company while vhs was
made by many was a clear signal to the market which format was likely to
prevail. once that became clear no amount of technical superiority could
save beta. especially once you couldn't easily rent beta videos...
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 05:26:20 -0700
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
chuckles wrote:
> aaron wrote:
> >The Microsoft:Linux initial COST ratio isn't
> > 800:1, as i mistakenly suggested...it's 5333:1...or higher!
> >
> >
>
> Hell just tell the truth AK.
>
> It's INFINITY to 1.
linux owns infinity
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:30:04 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Memory needed to run linux / X windows ???
Brent R wrote:
> KDE & Gnome aren't Linux. They are Window managers and they need lot's
> of RAM. If you really need to run them, get more memory.
As far as KDE and GNOME are concerned, I like them, because they present
a nice infrastructure and a way to provide consistency between apps. In
practice, I'm happy just running Window Maker, because I can configure
my pop-up menus to have whatever I want in them without all the
excesses. But a lot of the KDE and GNOME apps are very good, like
Konqueror and KNode, for example.
> You're right about Windows being faster. Windows GUI apps scream
> compared to Linux. I guess that's one of the advantages of having a GUI
> built into the Kernel (one of the disadvantages would be that when the
> GUI crashes, the who thing comes crashing down).
But, is it easier to add a GUI to Linux than to add a command line to
Windows? Also, does adding unix-like command-line tools slow Windows
down more than adding a desktop environment to unix? Cygwin runs
awfully slow when doing configure scripts, and sometimes the configure
script will hang right in the middle. It does this quite a bit, and
always in the middle of a configure script. To get around this, I have
to turn off the screensaver, and shut down all apps so that the
configure script has a greater chance of not hanging the DOS sessions
before it's finished. Once the build starts, it's usually alright.
Even then, `make' manages to lock up my Cygwin session. Also, Cygwin
causes some nasty things to happen to the Windows 98 kernel sometimes.
I say you're better off adding more GUI with KDE and GNOME to Linux than
the opposite, which is running Cygwin on Windows. OTOH, I've never
tried Cygwin on anything other than Win 98/ME, and I'm sure it can't be
as painful on NT. Do Cygwin sessions lock up on NT/2000 as well, or
just 98/ME? I think it's a great thing, because I can compile XEmacs on
Windows.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:28:17 -0300
Rob S. Wolfram wrote:
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In particular, I can read the GDBM man page from
>>http://software.oit.pdx.edu/cgi-bin/hman-gnu?ManSection=3&ManTopic=gdbm
>>WITHOUT obtaining a copy of GDBM, and without licensing anything under the
>>GPL.
>>
>>Reading that man page, I'm sure you can agree it's trivial to port a NDBM
>>program to use GDBM, then build a stub library so I can distribute a
>>binary.
>
> Frankly, I *do* agree. But this would in fact mean that you can also
> obtain a copy and ship GDBM along with your binary, as long as your
> compilation did not use GDBM but your stub instead, because your
> agreement to the GDBM is disjunct from whatever you do with other
> software. Even here I agree. But this does make the LGPL moot and in
> fact "downgrades" the GPL to the LGPL.
I knew it had a good effect ;-)
> Like I said, a judge should decide this.
>
>>> I dunno. I'd say the word of a judge would be welcome. BTW, I am not a
>>> member of, nor speak in behalve of the FSF. I'm just a supporter of
>>> their cause.
>>
>>I'm sure you will be healed over time ;-)
>
> ;-)
> Don't bet too much on that...
>
>>> Case a., b. and c. are dynamic links (no RPC or CORBA, those are
>>> obvious). Cases d. and e. are statically linked.
>>
>>Why is RPC or CORBA obviously different from dynamic linking? I see no
>>such thing!
>
> The obvious difference is that they run in different contexts.
Sorry, but I don't see that. The only difference is that to pass an
argument to a function you push it in the stack, and to pass an argument to
a RPC proc you use a protocol. Pushing args in the stack follows a
convention: a protocol.
The only difference is that the RPC proc can't access global variables from
the main process. That seems awfully trivial to me.
>>My personal lemma is: "If you think you understand exactly what the GPL
>>allows and disallows, you need to read it some more"
>
> That would mean that the GPL is infinitely ununderstandable (proof by
> induction skipped) which is only possible if there are an infinite
> number of phrases that describe what is {,dis}allowed which is in
> contradiction with its size of 17992 bytes, so your lemma is incorrect.
> ;-)
Well, it could also mean that it is practically ununderstandable.
Considering that each symbol can combine with the 17991 others to form
different (un)understandable meanings, I leave the proof as an exercise ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:30:49 -0300
Rob S. Wolfram wrote:
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Rob S. Wolfram wrote:
>>> Simple. The "same address-space" argument.
>>
>>Sorry, I can't find any reference to "same address-space" in the GPL ;-)
>
> True. It was one of RMS' arguments. Personally I would be in favour of
> drawing the line at static linking. That would make the whole GPL v.s.
> LGPL and KDE/Qt issues moot. RMS seems against this because it would
> have less of a forcing (or viral if you wish) effect.
In fact, he opposes this because it would make the GPL the same as the LGPL.
Anything that you can put in an object file to link statically, you can put
in a library to dlopen().
> OTOH, if a judge
> would rule the GPL as invalid because of this distinction, we end up
> with lots of legally unusable code.
Actually, the GPL covers that. If a section is invalid, you have to apply
the others. I suppose that would make things BSD-like.
>>>Your process does a JMP to
>>> another part of memory and starts executing code. If this code is part
>>> of library whether being called via dlopen() or just by being an
>>> integral part of your program (in case of a static link) makes no real
>>> difference IMHO, the final executed code is one integral part.
>>> If you have some communication protocol between two seperate processes,
>>> I'd say the code of one process is not derived from the other.
>>
>>What about GPLd programs in a single-memory-space multitasking
>>environment? Are they illegal to port to such a system? Are all the
>>Linux/Amiga ports illegal?
>
> I have no idea how the Amiga works. Is there no notion of context
> switching in Linux/Amiga?
I am not quite sure. Let's just say: GPLd TSRs on DOS :-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
