Linux-Advocacy Digest #410, Volume #33 Fri, 6 Apr 01 01:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Fred K Ollinger)
Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows? ("2 + 2")
Re: Too expensive, too invasive (Bob Hauck)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Phases (Wodger)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (Craig Kelley)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux? ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 6 Apr 2001 04:21:13 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: "Marada C. Shradrakaii" wrote:
: >
: > >The clause says "GENERAL welfare" not welfare. PUBLIC ROADS constitute
: > >general welfare. AFDC, and WIC checks, and special tax breaks are
: > >*NOT* ***GENERAL*** welfare...they are specific welfare for specific
: > >individuals. Same thing goes for Social Security.
: >
: > Depends. A bunch of poor, unemployed or underemployed people with no food or
: > funds to purchase same, can probably make the general society less comfy.
: So, what you're saying is that the ends justify the means (paying off
: the unemployed justifies theft from those who are productive).
Theft?
Fred
: > --
: > Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
: > Colony name not needed in address.
: --
: Aaron R. Kulkis
: Unix Systems Engineer
: DNRC Minister of all I survey
: ICQ # 3056642
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows?
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 00:36:01 -0400
Rick wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Johnny Lee wrote:
>>
>> "pete@-" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In article <9aaslu$vq3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "2 says...
>> >
>> > >This being the case, then the open source movement, already having an
OS,
>> > >needs a framework and execution engine of its own.
>> > >
>> >
>> > No they don't. Java is here.
>> >
>> > Why reinvet the wheel?
>> >
>> > What is it that you need that Java and corba and RMI and XML do not
>> > give you?
>>
>> Speed (Java). Wide compatibility between vendors (CORBA). Lack of solid
>> development tooks (XML), and working standards (schemas).
>>
>> .Net can give you all these. Of course, it only runs with Windows. The
>> point being that all these "standards" hasn't yielded the runaway success
>> that any companies are screaming after.
>>
>
>That IS one of the points, you know, .net runs only on Windows (for now)
>Billy-Billy will only open becasue of bad publicity, and I'll bet it
>wont work as well with non-windows OS's.
>
>> >
>> > the .net and c-hash is a desparate attempt by billy to keep control
>> > inside him, and it failing miserbly.
>>
>> .Net failing? It hasn't even came out yet. It's like the Wintrolls
>> screaming OSX is failing while it was still on beta.
>>
>
>We can only hope it will fail miserably.
The best thing to hope for with the Java/.NET platform competition is that
it will spur each side on to do better and better things. This is the whole
point about competition on the desktop. Competition would have greatly
improved things for consumers.
Of course, the best competition would be the market success of Linux.
But as long as Linux doesn't develop its own component system (IMHO) then it
is stuck with its great success on the server not moving to the desktop.
I actually expected greater things from the Java platform than it has
delivered. That's why I would like to see Sun transform itself into a
software company. It would be nice to see one outdo the other.
Dell is going to eat Sun alive in the low/midrange server OEM business based
on selling both Linux and Windows 2000.
Java was really born of this "new paradymn" of cross platform to defeat the
apps-barrier-to-entry developing with Windows entering the server market.
However, two things have intruded:
1. The great success of Linux on the server.
2. XML-SOAP/RPC defeating the apps-barrier-to-entry since an app can be
easily invoked from any platform.
2 + 2
>
>--
>Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Too expensive, too invasive
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 04:43:41 GMT
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:02:38 +0000, Richard Thrippleton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sounds tempting. I don't particularly want to run the KDE
> desktop, but would it be possible to just compile KDE support
> libraries for Konqueror to use, without subverting my system to the
> will of KDE?
I run Konqueror under Blackbox just fine with no KDE desktop running.
I do have all of KDE2 installed though, because I do use it sometimes,
so I can't tell you exactly how much of it you need.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 04:44:52 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 06:26:18
> GMT;
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Les often gets hung up on the idea of software functionality and
> >> copyright. He insists "functionality is not protected", as if that is
> >> all there is to it.
> >
> >No, I have never said anything like that. What I have said is that
> >each library may have its own terms to allow you to use it. Having
> >met those terms, you may then use those libraries by running
> >code that calls their functions. However, the owner of the library
> >may not claim to own or control the separate code that calls it.
>
> Now you are not only confused about the principle you support which I
> described; now you're confused about the description, and have invented
> a whole new unrelated issue, simply because it was too much for you to
> think and to realize I was referencing an opinion you hold which is not
> necessarily related to the discussion you are currently having.
I'm not the one who is confused here, and your mistaken ideas about
my opinions are not relevant to anything.
> The
> mistakes you make concerning "functionality is not protected" have
> nothing to do with this metaphysical weirdness about "control" which you
> are now trying to make sense of.
I have said nothing about functionality not being protected. You obtain
the right to the functionality of a library by obtaining your own copy
under whatever terms might be required by the owner. Unless you
have agreed to a license that restricts usage, you may then use the
functions of this library by calling its functions from other code. This
other code is in no way derived from the library code and in the case
of dynamic linking the library code would not be copied or redistributed
in source or binary copies of the program.
> The owner of the library is perfectly
> entitled to claim ownership of code that calls it if that code is
> derivative of the intellectual property embodied in the library.
The normal reason for using a library is so you don't have to copy or
duplicate anything it does in your own code.
> Hell,
> the program doesn't even have to call the code, for there to be a
> potential for it to infringe.
Yes, I suppose you could include the lyrics of a popular song in there
too, but why is that relevant? You use the library to avoid repeating
what it does.
> >> But functionality does not have to be *protected*
> >> in order for copyright to involve functionality when it comes to
> >> software. If a piece of software is not functional, it might be
> >> considered code, but it can't be considered "a program", and only
> >> programs merit copyright protection. A non-functional snippet can, of
> >> course, be copyrighted, but that is because its function would be to be
> >> a non-functional snippet; a piece of text, putatively assumed to be
> >> natural language.
> >
> >The functionality is irrelevant as far as copyright protection goes. An
> >abstract work of art has the same level of protection as functional code.
>
> Correct. Now, are you going to say that the "next version" of an
> abstract work of art is the "same product"?
A series of works in the same style would have protected elements
but how does that relate to anything?
> Copyright is book-keeping,
> not metaphysics.
But no one has done all the book keeping yet and your speculation
is no better than anyone else's.
> >> >In short, how do you decide which party can sue and which can't?
> >>
> >> I'm afraid that's a conundrum with any intellectual property. All the
> >> more reason to support the GPL as the only method of *guaranteeing*
that
> >> software will remain open source.
> >
> >No, it just guarantees that a lot of useful things won't exist.
>
> If you say so. I'm of the opinion that the only reason they wouldn't
> exist is because they're not anywhere near as useful as you seem to
> think.
It doesn't matter how useful they are, the only point of the GPL is
to keep most people from obtaining them. A few people can build
their own versions or hire consultants to do it - most can't.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 14:56:37 +1000
From: Wodger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Phases
David Jordan wrote:
>
> First you learn Windows, then you discover things, then
> you learn GNU/Linux, then discover things, then you back
> to Windows to work quicker, but with a GNU/Linux
> firewall between you and the net.
And then you discover FreeBSD and make that your firewall.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: 05 Apr 2001 23:06:23 -0600
Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> webgiant wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 17:56:54 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
> >>>Jedi, what do you think about Slackware compared to Debian? I'm thinking
> >>>about Slackware for my next distribution.
> >>
> >>I never took a liking to Debian. However, I can certainly
> >>see the appeal of it's package manager. They also have a
> >>sound reputation when it comes to releases.
>
> Well, my 2 cents:
>
> I started with SuSE about three 1/2 years ago, then Slackware and Red Hat.
> I tried Caldera and a quite a few others as well. Then Debian.
>
> Debian didn't interest me at first, but I will never go back. It is just
> too stable, and everything is just done so well. It comes with an
> incredible amount of packages. Slackware's packaging system is a mess to
> me, it's fine if you're the sort who likes to compile a lot of your own
> software, since it doesn't ever get in your way. This is great for a
> developer but a headache for a sysadmin. Besides, it is bsd-style init
> which I personally do not like.
>
> The release a little slower than other distros but one can always find
> apt-sources for whatever you want. This winds up being better in the end
> than Red Hat's method of releasing unuseable .0 and .1 releases.
But adding in 3rd-party apt sources is a recipe for disaster. Every
time I've done it it has caused some problem or other (especially with
Ximian/Helix). To keep debian happy, you should only have sources for
stuff from debian.org (unless you enjoy manually fixing what apt-get
happily does and is unable to undo).
Hand-in-hand with this, why can't apt *down*grade a package? Numerous
times I had to back out of bleeding-edge stuff and I had to hunt down
everything apt upgraded to fix it's mistakes. Yes, yes, I know, it's
my own fault for using unstable -- too bad that 'stable' Debian is so
old.
Don't ge me wrong, I really like Debian and I use it on servers that
are geographically far away from me, but a full-featured CD (such as
RedHat Wolverine) is so much nicer for a desktop.
> > I've never seen the appeal of the Debian package manager. Any Linux
> > distro--such as Debian--which expands to fill your hard drive like
> > Windoze does needs a serious rewrite of its code. Expanding to fill
> > all available space is sloppy coding, not a "feature" (no matter how
> > Redmond likes to insist otherwise!)
>
> What on earth are you talking about? "expanding to fill all available
> space"?
>
> deb is lacking a few things rpm has, but apt-get is so superior to
> anything offered by any rpm based distro that it doesn't even
> matter. Red Carpet comes close, and it is pretty, but unfortunately
> it graphical only, so it's not like you can make security updates a
> cron job.
Actually, Red Carpet is only one of many tools that perform the same
thing as apt only for RPM packages.
I must agree that Red Carpet isn't very intelligent.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 05:07:37 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Any program that "uses" a library (regardless of the mechanism or
> >> semantics) but does not require that library in order to be "useful" in
> >> operation does not infringe, IMHO.
> >
> >What part of copyright law says anything about being "useful"? Or
> >that the covered program must work at all?
>
> The one that makes it part of the laws of the United States of America,
> where epistemological arguments are not allowed to make an individuals
> rights disappear in a puff of smoke.
Then I guess you won't have any trouble quoting that section before
going on with any more nonsense.
> >Aside from this fantasy having nothing to do with the law, if the
> >operator must 'have' this component, then it becomes a use issue.
> >That is, you have a copy of the library under its own terms and
> >anything dynamically linking to it does not make a copy but uses
> >the existing copy which you have the right to use.
>
> Fuck that. Metaphysical hogwash.
Is that the technical term?
> To be specific:
> Aside from this fantasy of yours having nothing to do with the law, the
> operator doesn't give a rat's ass about what "dynamical linking" is. If
> the program doesn't work if the operator doesn't have that library, the
> program is derivative of the library, regardless of how many copies
> there are anywhere of anything.
No it isn't. You can't drive a car without a car. Are you a derivative
of a car?
> Saying the operator already had a
> library, so the program doesn't "need" it even though it "uses" it, is
> just more of the loop-hole oriented thinking you seem to bring to
> copyright law.
No, it is a recognition that multiple components each play their
own parts and each may have their own separate terms to
obtain and use. Only the GPL speaks of placing terms on
the 'work as a whole' even though much of it may belong
to other parties.
> You sound like a lawyer, Les, who's honesty is entirely
> dubious, trying to defend a client.
And you?
> I am not telling you that your
> client is wrong, Les. Copyright may work the way you think. But your
> arguments are metaphysical hogwash and have nothing to do with the real
> world, though they defend your client admirably if we blind ourselves to
> the ethics of the situation.
There is nothing ethical about placing claims and requirements on the work
of others as the GPL does.
> [...]
> >The case the FSF claims does infringe is where there is no known
> >alternative to a GPL'd library and it is required for operation of
> >the program. Aside from having no real basis for such a claim,
> >whether a program infringed or not could change after it was
> >written,
>
> Only using a gedanken experiment which results in a need for a time
> machine.
No, this one is historically played out by RIPEM and the fgmp library.
You have claimed that a program is derivative or not at the
time it is written, yet the FSF claim is that the development of the
fgmp library affected the status of the RIPEM code so that it became
non-derivative after being written and without any changes.
> >or could be incorrectly decided based on not knowing
> >about the existence of an alternative library that might be used.
>
> That's what courts of law are for. They examine this thing called
> "evidence".
And the law itself, something you have avoided considering.
> Your a priori consideration of the issues seems to me to be
> little more than justification for your lack of a posteriori support for
> your position, not a serious legal argument.
Yes, I am speculating just as you are about what a court decision
might be, but I just don't see any basis in law for a claim of
copyright infringement over something that doesn't involve
copying anything and even if it did, that something would be
something that the end user had explicitly been given the right
to obtain and use separately anyway.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux?
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 05:06:56 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:55:46 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Really? Hmm. As far as I can tell, the _only_ things I can't get out of
> >the InstallShield-created packages I'm developing are custom scripts and
> >install-time custom DLLs, and I'm not sure I can't get those.
>
> [snip list of nifty information he can get]
>
> But the question is, can an end-user get that stuff as he can with
> RPM. And if he can, how? I for one would like to know how to at least
> get a list of files and registry keys that were installed.
Depends. MSI - Microsoft's new installation file format, exposes a list of
everything which could be installed; you can snarf a copy of the MS "Orca"
tool to examine the MSI files. InstallShield is but one vendor supplying
MSI creation tools. Or you can use MSISpy to poke around at products which
are installed.
One big difference between this technology and previous install technology
is that "is installed" takes on something of a vague meaning; in a lot of
cases, while the product is "installed", perhaps only a meg or two of it are
actually copied to the machine - the rest can be faulted in as needed. An
800Mb product which is installed this way may, given a year's use, end up
actually consuming 800Mb - or it might only ever consume 30 or 40 Mb,
depending on what the user does. Or it can all be installed locally. It
can also be repaired easily (missing files, etc), even under the
application's own control.
Conventional InstallShield packages (e.g. those produced by IS 5.x) don't
appear to have this sort of exposure; that was, apparently, a design
decision made by InstallShield coporation. Although they may now have tools
to poke around inside their install packages; I haven't used a non-MSI
InstallShield product in a year or more.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
