Linux-Advocacy Digest #959, Volume #32 Wed, 21 Mar 01 02:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Scott Gardner)
Re: What is user friendly? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: C# (Rex Ballard)
Re: What is user friendly? ("green")
Re: Yet more XBox bogification... (Alan Baker)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM adapting entire disk storage line to work with Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 06:31:38 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 20 Mar 2001 04:22:44
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:12:55 GMT, Chad Myers
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >So? Stringing together hundreds of boxes isn't something to really
>> >be proud of, necessarily.
>>
>> Unless you can set a TPC record by doing it, apparently.
>
>That would be the only way Linux could win, really.
>
>However, if you look at the Windows results, it only took a few
>boxes. No armies and armies necessary as in the Linux examples.
Actually, if you look at the results, you'll see that several single
Unix boxes, and IIRC at least one single Linux box, have already beaten
several of the Windows clusters that *didn't* manage to beat all the
other single boxes (no doubt because some Windows clusters had armies of
larger size or more munitions than others).
--
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,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 06:31:39 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 19 Mar 2001 ]
>On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 19 Mar 2001
>> [...]
>>> Something in the public domain does not have a copyright on it. There
>>> is no "exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell" on works
>>> in the public domain. You're attempting to reduce a distinction between
>>> a copyright and the protections of copyright: they are one and the same
>>> thing. [...]
>> Oh, well, if *you* say so, then I guess they must be, huh?
>>
>> The reason it matters, in case you haven't caught on yet, Austin, is
>> that you are arguing, as others have noted, that you would to be able to
>> do with software which has a copyright (and copyright protection) [GPL
>> software] what you can do with software which has a copyright, but no
>> protection (BSD) and software which "has no copyright", and therefore no
>> protection (public domain, according to your definition).
>
>Sorry, Maxie, but your distinction isn't based on reality.
Gonna get existential on me, are you? You suppose there being two
different terms might indicate that the fact that there are distinctions
between them is "based on reality"?
>BSDLed
>software has a copyright and is protected under copyright law. The
>licence is trivial to accept (by which I mean comply with), but if the
>licence isn't accepted, then it's still 100% protected under copyright
>law.
This is the license which foregoes all copyright protection, the BSDL,
you're talking about, right? Wow; 100% protection without all that
messy protection. Keen.
(Forgive me, I'm baiting you; I don't believe that BSDL "foregoes all
protection". Merely that it might as well, for all the protection it
has against the kind of exploitation the GPL was meant to address.)
>There is a significant difference *in law and in reality* between
>licensing one's rights with a low barrier and public domain. Ethics
>aside, one can NOT claim BSDLed software as one's own if you didn't
>write it; one COULD do that with PD software.
The ease with which you brush ethics aside is, indeed, rather important
I'm afraid. Because it is whether infringement is facially obvious
which makes the fine difference you are dancing around (more an issue of
legality than ethics, I'll admit, but related.) It isn't whether you
can co-opt BSD code, but whether anyone can stop you from co-opting BSD
code, which is important. As the patent attorneys say "IP law is not
about protection, its about offensive power." And many open source
licenses provide no offensive power at all against commercial
exploitation of a code base.
>You also can't change the licence on BSDLed software -- only the
>copyright holder(s) may do that. PD software can be improved and
>relicensed without a second thought -- cf pdtar.
Ahhh, but the software *derived* from BSD code, you're as free to
profiteer on as you are PD software. You can also simply improve it and
relicense it like pdtar, but that's not within the problem domain the
GPL was created to deal with. The fact that the GPL makes things less
nice and dandy for honest programmers is unfortunate, but you're going
to go farther blaming the dishonest programmers* than the GPL folks, I'm
afraid.
>> I just wanted to make sure everything was laid out for you, so you could
>> see where the conflicts are. Just because BSD software can be exploited
>> as easily as public domain software does not mean that the BSDL is more
>> 'free' than GPL; merely that it is more exploitable, as it does not have
>> any copyright *protection*, regardless of whether it has a copyright.
>
>It DOES have copyright protection, though, and that's where you're
>completely, totally, utterly, and unsurprisingly wrong.
In theory maybe. Considering the sum total of those "protections" comes
out to "no protection" in practice is, again, meaningful.
>>>>> Your distinction is, like everything else you manage to
>>>>> spew about this matter, false and completely without an erg of rational
>>>>> thought behind it.
>>>> Which is to say you either didn't understand it, or haven't figured out
>>>> why it might be important. No bother.
>>> THERE IS NO SUCH DISTINCTION. I encourage you to point to the specific
>>> part of the law which makes such a distinction.
>> The part of copyright law which defines what "public domain" works are.
>> Now as to the importance of the distinction, I refer you to the previous
>> paragraph.
>
>There's no such distinction. Quote the fscking paragraph, bozo.
Then why is it the copyright law identifies, apart from things which
copyright does not apply to, "works in the public domain". It would
seem there must be a distinction, then, between things not protected by
copyright and works in the public domain.
But of course, you're right; public domain works enjoy no copyright
protection, and therefore we can consider them synonymous, if you wish.
Unfortunately, practicality would indicate that we should then consider
works which are BSDL to also be in the public domain.
* I am not impugning the integrity or honesty of any actual programmers.
It is commercial developers/producers, generally corporate entities,
that often do not program anything personally, who wrap copyrighted
works in a trade secret in order to profiteer on them. This is, in my
opinion, a fundamentally dishonest method of "production" of software,
unless the licenses are, literally, about as cheap as dirt.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 06:31:40 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 19 Mar 2001 21:06:02
>J Sloan wrote:
>
>>> No, its used as a file server. I put a web server on it a long while ago
>>> to test something out. The web server keeps a record of how long the
>>> machine has been up - handy when I find people claiming Windows can't
>>> stay up for long, when I have a machine that gives the lie to their
>>> statement.
>>
>> This is odd, you "have proof" that windows is very reliable,
>> and that Linux is not.
>
>No, it's just that Windows can work and stay up for long periods of time.
>There are some here who say Windows won't stay up more than a few hours!
I don't think anyone would disagree that it "can". The question, Pete,
is "will".
>> Do we have an agenda, or what?
>
>I have no agenda? Do you?
Apparently your agenda is to proselytize sub-standard software. Why?
--
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]>
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 06:31:41 GMT
Said Weevil in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:23:21 GMT;
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>My Windows box freezes up completely on a regular basis. Ctrl-Alt-Del
>doesn't even work. Only a hard reset brings the system back up.
>
>Yours does too, Pete. All Windows machines do this pretty much daily.
Three times today, now that I'm back on WinDOS. NT, frankly, only
locked solid or BSOD'd every week or so, though it needed to be rebooted
every couple of days because of some glitch or other.
[...]
--
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: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 06:31:42 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 19 Mar 2001 23:07:24 -0500;
>"Graham Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In gnu.misc.discuss, "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Free software obviously means that it can be passed on to other people with
>> > no restrictions.
>>
>> That is not at all obvious. Mention of often made of free speech and
>> free beer, but what about the concept of free as in "free man"?
>>
>Free software being the same as 'free man' is rather absurd.
Only if you have trouble grasping abstractions.
>Software has
>no will. In fact, software has less will than a cat or dog, probably less than
>a cockroach.
"Range" has even less will, and is even more ephemereal a concept. But
a "free range" is a valid concept.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 06:31:42 GMT
Said Jon Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 19 Mar 2001 10:21:05
>http://www.redhat.com/products/network/service_changes.html
>
>I guess this is where it'll be going... can't afford to keep leaking money
>out of every oriface forever...
>
>So, this is like paying $19.95 per month to use Windows Update - MS updates
>have been, are and will always be free.
No, I'd say it would be closer to Windows Data Center Updates, only you
get an unlimited license for unlimited systems with unlimited CPU's (and
source code for the base and all updates) for $0 when you subscribe.
>Wonder what trojan's can be hacked onto the back of their subscription
>agent... time will tell...
Guffaw.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 06:31:43 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 19 Mar 2001 18:53:11
>"Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:995c52$ic1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jon Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> : http://www.redhat.com/products/network/service_changes.html
>>
>> : I guess this is where it'll be going... can't afford to keep leaking money
>> : out of every oriface forever...
>>
>> Assuming that RedHat == Linux is going to piss a lot of Linux users off.
>
>That's their problem. It's the singular most popular distrib of Linux and
>others tend to follow it's lead.
Only if their customers tend to like what RedHat is doing. Welcome to
the wonderful world of free markets.
>> In actuality, it's $19.95 for access to RedHat's premium auto-update
>> facilities. If you don't like it, update by hand (rpmfind.net)
>
>Didn't see that, sure looks to me like it's $19.95 for any updates.
Perhaps you should have looked. Welcome to the wonderful world of free
markets.
>> or switch to Debian. The distro and updates themselves are just as
>> free as ever.
>
>We'll see for how long...
Indeed, we will. Welcome to the wonderful world of free markets.
>> : So, this is like paying $19.95 per month to use Windows Update - MS
>updates
>> : have been, are and will always be free.
>>
>> So Windows 95, 98, 98SE and ME are free? That's new.
>
>Those aren't updates, those are new versions/upgrades. You DO know the
>difference right?
Yea, but Linux is free, whether you pay for the updates or not.
>I'm talking about patches and things you find in Windows
>Update like media player, messenger, IE, system updates, security updates,
>new themes, new device drivers, etc.
Now if only we could tell which was which. ;-)
>> : Wonder what trojan's can be hacked onto the back of their subscription
>> : agent... time will tell...
>>
>> Probably the same ones that are hacked onto the Windows updater...
>
>Never happened
Indeed, because the Windows updater doesn't work, so nobody uses 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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 06:31:44 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:31:40
>"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jan Johanson wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Jon Johanson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >http://www.redhat.com/products/network/service_changes.html
>> >> >
>> >> >I guess this is where it'll be going... can't afford to keep leaking
>> >> >money out of every oriface forever...
>> >> >
>> >> >So, this is like paying $19.95 per month to use Windows Update - MS
>> >> >updates have been, are and will always be free.
>> >>
>> >> How very naive.
>> >
>> >Oh really? Your crystal ball shiny and new?
>>
>> Microsoft is desperate to get a slice of the pay-by-subscription cake.
>> You're not paying for Windowsa Update at the moment but it's in the post.
>>
>> Here's just one example just from today's news.
>>
>> Pay-to-Play: Microsoft erects .NET tollgate
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17709.html
>
>Well, first, we know that Register lies frequently (cite: German Army
>to Ban Microsoft software), so this article means nothing. Secondly,
>it's even worse since Register begins spreading FUD in the first 6
>words of this article. Thirdly, only a small portion of MSN's services
>will be for-pay in the future. There were still be a significant
>amount of services available for free. Almost all of the services will
>be free, and most will have extended services for pay.
>
>The .NET is a framework for businesses to offer web services (for pay
>or for free). Since Red Hat seems to be a pioneer in this, perhaps
>they should be interested in .NET?
>
>Anyhow, there is not, nor ever has been discussion of ever changing
>the free nature of Windows Update. It doesn't make sense for MS
>since they have a different business model than Red Hat and... oh yeah,
>MS can make money without having to charge for every little support
>service they offer like Red Hat who is scraping the barrel.
I think we've all become a little jaded when such a textbook example of
a well-executed troll goes by unremarked. Chad, you've done your job
too well; nobody really gives a crap what you say anymore.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 06:37:40 GMT
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:58:07 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We may be using different definitions for "Joe User" (a problem that
>> has been addressed elsewhere in this group), but my post was talking
>> about the *consumer* desktop environment, which I believed I stated
>> later in my post. Sorry for my lack of clarity.
>
>Joe home user will use whatever his workplace management puts
>on his desktop.
>
>
>That's why Mafia$oft became the dominant home platform instead
>of the far-easier to use Macintosh.
>
>
>
>>
>> Scott
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
Good point. I had neglected to consider the "I want to be compatible
with my office computer" factor.
Scott
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 06:39:30 GMT
Said Shades in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 20 Mar 2001 15:46:41 -0500;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >Hmm... too bad Sun/HP and CERTAINLY SGI doesn't have the business acumen to
>> >make it happen. Otherwise I would agree with you.
>>
>> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! And what large manufacturer of technology do *you*
>> run, Mr. "Business Accumen"?
>
>I don't but you don't need to be President of the US to know if he is doing
>a sucky job.
The US isn't as profitable as either Sun or HP. ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C#
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 06:45:14 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============3D8E9B640A4E9ADE84252517
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I've looked into ms's C#... looks like the spitting image of java to me!
> > Looks like trouble on the horizon. I wonder if Sun will sue them again??
>
> Actually, it's not. There are a lot of differneces. The first being that
> it's not interpreted.
More specifically, it is compiled into an .exe file that requires
proprietary
Microsoft DLLs instead of java class files. Simply put, if you
develop in Java,
you can support all platforms. If you develop in C#, you will very
quickly end
up in a dark alley where Bill's boys will meet you for yet another
shake-down.
> Second, even if it were an exact clone of Java, it's already been ruled in
> court that doing so is legal, and there's noting Sun can do about it other
> than enforcing their Java trademark.
Actually, there was no final judgment, but rather a settlement for
undisclosed terms.
Sun still controls the trademark and their compiler. Furthermore,
they control
JDK 1.2 and JDK 1.3 with Microsoft unable to offer their own version.
Java also supports industrial multiplatorm standards such as CORBA and
MQSeries,
while C# only support DCOM and MSMQ.
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============3D8E9B640A4E9ADE84252517
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:908-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============3D8E9B640A4E9ADE84252517==
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 16:54:58 +1000
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> green wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Which really sucks if you own a Pentium III, doesn't it....
> >
> > no one had a pIII at that time. but it was as I recall optimised for a p
pro
> > so it dosn't suck as much as running it on a 486.
>
> Are you saying that people who run NT servers RIGHT NOW, TODAY aren't
> using PIII's to run them???
>
no just running it on a pII or pIII or athlon or what ever dosn't "suck" as
mush as unning it on a system that was around in the day it was made.
nothing to do with nt just technology we run stuff on has progressed to
where what was slow and clumbsy is now bearable due to faster and biger
(memory wise) hardware.
People who run < nt4 should be considering ther options by now....
------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet more XBox bogification...
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 06:46:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
>>
>> You are so very fortunate that the dejanews archive is unvailable.
>>
>> It lets you spin out this lie almost as long as you denied that you
>> posted as Macsbug and the rest.
>
>I suspect he'll keep lying even after you post the proof. Witness some
>of his behavior just today in the "Somebody ought to sue Apple!" thread,
>where he accuses of lying about which posts I was responding to even
>after I posted article references.
What makes it extra annoying is that I'm almost certain that he made the
quote statements in a message to me. <g>
>I really don't understand what drives him to do things like this. Does
>he see it as some kind of victory when people refuse to debate with him
>because he won't acknowledge facts that are sitting under his nose?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
