Linux-Advocacy Digest #454, Volume #33 Sun, 8 Apr 01 18:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (GreyCloud)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (GreyCloud)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (GreyCloud)
Re: DVD on Linux? (Chad Everett)
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (Donn Miller)
Re: t. max devlin: kook (Donn Miller)
Re: Baseball (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: t. max devlin: kook (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (Goldhammer)
CLI vs. GUI (667 Neighbor of the Beast)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... ("Chris Z. Wintrowski")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a
tosser, and lies about free software)
Date: 8 Apr 2001 19:32:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Do you understand way there
>> >cannot be a new GPL'd gif-writing program?
>>
>> Because of a Unisys patent.
>>
>> >Or DVD-decoding program?
>>
>> Because of some stupid US-only law. $DEITY forbid other WIPO countries
>> to also implement article 11 of the WIPO 1996 treaty.
>
>So you do understand the specifics - but you didn't answer the general
>question: if you still maintain that all necessary combinations can be
>GPLed as a whole is it because you think other restrictions are not
>significant or that all users can do without all code where other
>restrictions
>apply?
For examples like this, read section 7 of the GPL. It is there for a
reason.
For other examples I'd say that it is entirely possible that you can
freely redistribute it under Non-GPL conditions but not under GPL ones,
but then I state that those licenses are also encumbered in its
redistribution rules. Why only blame the GPL?
>> Case in point: if you cannot change the distribution restrictions to
>> GPL, then the license is just as restrictive as the GPL. So it is not
>> only the GPL who is to blame for your being unable to distribute the
>> combination.
>
>No, for the hundredth time, the other restrictions did not, and would
>not under any circumstance prevent distribution. Only the GPL did.
Your logic is flawed here. If one part of the system is "most
restrictive" (i.e. GPL), then why couldn't you distribute the whole
system as GPL? There really are only two possibilities here:
1. It was legally possible but *you* *chose* not to distribute the whole
under the greatest common denominator (i.e. the GPL) so *you*, not the
GPL, is the restrictive force here.
2. It was legally impossible because you could not apply the GPL to the
other part(s). This means that like the GPL, the other parts were
licensed under equally restrictive conditions (i.e.: you can only
redistribute this software under license A, B or C).
If you see a third possibility, I am eager to hear about it.
>> Still, sharing is sharing and using is using. Different viewpoints.
>
>But the 'using' viewpoint is only possible after distribution is allowed,
>and the GPL prevents many instances of distribution.
Correct. The GPL ensures the freedom of use of the software you *have*.
It also ensures the freedom of use for the person that gets the software
from you.
>> This comes down to the circular argument. You keep hammering on the
>> distribution. If someone would sell me his product for big bucks under
>> the BSDL and I couldn't get it from anywhere else, this would still be
>> very legal and the software would be just as free. The license talks
>> about how I can *redistribute* the stuff, not about how I can get it.
>
>No, the license talks about the circumstances where you are prohibited
>from redistributing, and covers most of the possibilities.
Bzzt, wrong, thanks for playing. The distribution is prohibited *by
default* via copyright law. The license *allows* distribution and sets
the conditions for such allowance.
>> So
>> can you please explain to me why not being able to get the software
>> makes the software non-free?
>
>By definition: the restrictions preventing distribution make it the
>opposite of free.
So my being able to have an unencumbered use is of no significance to
you?
>> See above.
>
>Yes, only the GPL makes this sharing impossible.
See above ;-)
>> That's exactly the scope of software that I'm talking about when I refer
>> to "using".
>
>There is some small sample of code that completely meets the
>detailed requirements of the GPL and is allowed to be distributed.
>I don't see why you would want to restrict yourself to this isolated
>set of code, or why you want to prevent others from derive new and
>better versions from this base in combination with other existing
>code that might also already have the first few years of development
>bugs shaken out.
Personally, I wouldn't call the superset of all GPLed, BSDLed, MIT
licensed, public domain and much more software a "small sample of code".
BTW, nobody prevents others from deriving new code from this superset.
It is only not allowed by the deriving developer or any other person in
the chain of redistribution to add any additional restriction on top of
the set of "GPL" restrictions. The way to enforce this is GPL the
product.
>> That's your prerogative. Your viewpoint differs from mine. Big deal. The
>> only thing I object to is that one would claim that I or someone sharing
>> my view on the subject is purposly deceiving others.
>
>When you have to redefine words, you should know that a claim is
>deceptive, but even then it might be considered accidental. But
>if you persist in the claim after the deception has been pointed
>out, how can anyone interpret it other than purposful?
Because you are arrogant enough to consider it deceptive in the first
place. Tell you what, you read up on the Debian Free Software Guidelines
(you know, the 10 point list that was used by Perens and Raymond to
create the Open Source Definition), and see for yourself why they (and I
agree with them on this) call glibc, libreadline, bind and vim "free
software" and why they call pine and netscape "non-free software".
If you disagree with them on the list, please send a mail to the
debian-devel mailing list and call them a bunch of purposful deceivers,
like you just did me.
HAND.
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
"bash awk grep perl sed df du, du-du du-du,
vi troff su fsck rm * halt LART LART LART!"
-- the Swedish BOFH
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a
tosser, and lies about free software)
Date: 8 Apr 2001 19:59:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 4 Apr 2001 17:14:07 GMT, Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>So the other licenses had pretty restrictive distribution conditions
>>too, don't you think?
>
>Nope. The restrictions here are imposed by copyright law, not the license.
This goes for *every* license, including the GPL.
>Les wasn't the original author, so he had no say in how the code could be
>redistributed *as a matter of copyright law*. The licenses themselves have
>nothing to say about it.
He can have a thing to say about it if the license permits this. The
BSDL does, so it can be and is used in GPLed projects. If the other
licenses do not permit this, then they too have restrictive distribution
conditions. Don't blame only the GPL if you use incompatible licenses.
>>The difference is that the GPL "embrace & extend" guarantees *free use*
>>of the software.
>
>For suitably small values of "free".
Small enough to pass all conditions of the DFSG.
>Fine. Don't buy Windows 2000.
I won't.
>In the meantime, just how does M$ using the known working, debugged IP stack
>from BSD hurt you?
Their using it doesn't hurt me, their closing it up *does*
(hypothetically speaking, of course. I don't use W2K and I don't think I
will in the forseeable future).
>Hint: If it instead had been GPVed, M$ would never have
>touched it, and instead stuck with their own known buggy stack, and I (and
>you, indirectly) would have to put up with the breakage.
Somehow I wonder if it wouldn't serve a greater goal in the end ;-)
>>Those are REAL use examples that have nothing to do with {,not} being
>>able to distribute modifications to the software. These are the freedoms
>>that are guaranteed by the GPL while the distribution possibilities
>>suffer. The BSDL is the other way around.
>
>They're "guaranteed" by the GPV only when the code that's infected with it
>is actually used. You have yet to show that M$ would have done so. I will be
>extremely surprised if you can.
Either you or I encounter a parse error here.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:29:52 -0700
WGAF wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > Caldera is already having troubles from what I've heard on the net.
> > (A lot of things are heard about different things.) But since its still
> > Linux
> > people will weigh what is it that they're getting for their money? The
> > average user
> > doesn't need it. The 5 user license more than likely can be
> > circumvented by looking around for the equivalent for free. The spirit
> > of Linux is just that... free and good.
>
> No, the spirit of Linux is to circumvent. If that doesn't work, then crack
> it...
At least Linux was smart enough to not use that dead emoticon with its
tongue hanging out.... XP.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:32:43 -0700
"Robert@-" wrote:
>
> In article <2oRz6.92517$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "WGAF" says...
>
> >
> >> Like RPM? I installed KDE 2.1.1 (upgrade from 2.1) by doing this:
> >>
> >> $ for i in qt kdebase kdelibs kdegames ...; do rpm -U $i/*; done
>
> >
> >As oppose to downloading a single executable, running it once the dowload
> >finished and it's done? Linux really shines in that respect, doesn't it?
> >
> >Otto
>
> Otto,
>
> This is Unix mind set, it has nothing to do with Linux only.
>
> If you suggest one solution to unix people that could make it little
> easier to the end user, they respond with 20 other alternatives
> using the most convoluted and absured ways to do it, and they wonder
> why you would not try one of those unix ways.
>
> They will never get it.
>
> Any suprise windows, with all its faults, has 90% of the desktop
> marker, and %45 of the serve market?
>
> Well, Unix only had 35 years to understand the end user, they might want
> another 35 years more still, and I bet they will never get it.
Ever tried Solaris 8??
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:34:36 -0700
WGAF wrote:
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <snype>
> >
> > I guess you have never used Solaris before. Solaris, you download the
> self
> > exacting archive (with the extension *.class), double click on it, and a
> > wizard is launched which you click on the next button to continue the
> > installation. So, no, you comment regarding UNIX or Linux is not valid.
> A
> > more pressing issue is why, when I was running Windows 2000, did I have to
> > reboot after installing Media Player? its just a fucking media player, not
> a
> > low-level component of the operating system! explain that. Also, what
> did
> > I need to reboot after installing the high encryption pack for Internet
> > Explorer did I need to reboot? I find those more annoying, esp. when you
> have
> > update Windows 2000 and everything you update requires a system reboot.
>
> What is Solaris has to do with questionable distribution for KDE? You can
> try to deflact attention from KDE upgrade method, but it doesn't change the
> fact. The present distribution system for Linux sucks.
Because a lot of Solaris users can get KDE and make it a desktop
selection at login time.
Apparently, you do not know how to use Linux at all. Happens a lot.
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: DVD on Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 Apr 2001 15:35:06 -0500
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 19:58:08 -0000, Andy Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I was trying to find out how to get my DVD to play on Linux the other day
>and found out that there is a reverse engineered decryption package needed
>to do so.
>I then found out that it is illegal in the USA to even provide an address to
>where this code is and that a magazine has been prosecuted for providing
>this information!
>Is this true, because if it is, then it must be one of the most insane
>pieces of legislation in history.
>The way I see it, is that if I buy a DVD drive that is advertised as such
>and a DVD disk that is aledgedly compatible, then it should play on that
>unit. If it does not do this, then it is false advertising which is illegal
>and you should be entitled to your money back on said unit.
>If the manufacturers want encryption then it's up to then to imbed it it
>their hardware and up to us if we choose to use it. It is not acceptable to
>mislead us into buying the hardware and then tell us we cannot use it
>because we happen to use Linux as our operating system. The odour of greedy
>multi-national companies is rife in the air.
>
>As this law doesn't exist in the UK, does anyone know where I can get the
>necessary files?
>
What makes this ruling even more useless is that the code is readily available.
Just do a google search for decss and you'll find it.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a
Date: 8 Apr 2001 16:18:05 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ALL newsreader software that has an ID string has it embedded
> within the source code. It's a simple matter or editing it with
> vi and running make to disguise both the newsreader and the OS.
>
> And since on Linux...you have the source code....
>
> Well, I'll leave the rest as an exercise for the reader.
>
Hey fuck head - yea you, dildo breath.
Reply to this message, but change the header to indicate you are posting on
a Mac instead.
Should be effortless for a l33t programmer like yourself.
If you can do that I'll believe a tiny fraction of what you say.
If you cannot or will not that you are a fucking liar and we've all known it
forever.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:22:01 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates...
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> the author addresses your point by stating quite accurately that your
> comment ignores the fact that OSS is only moving at its current rapid
> pace because the key players are being paid by corporations.
I think the universities were another key factor, esp. UC-Berkeley.
Also, I know of one (CMU) that has staff positions involving Linux
kernel hacking. The universities are important, because they should be
presenting these open source operating systems (FreeBSD and Linux) as
valid examples of the many operating systems out there.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:31:22 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > Actually, not. Ever see a true newbie in front of a Windows machine?
> >
> > They are just as stymied by a GUI as they are by a command line.
> >
>
> You're correct! I've watched new secretaries trying to learn point and
> click for the first time. Hand-eye-coordination training is needed.
> All newbies to windows have trouble in the beginning. And then real
> troubles later on when the crapware starts giving them fits.
That's a very good point. Computer newbies whom have never used a
computer before will struggle in EVERY aspect of the machine in
general. I've seen true newbies struggle with basic concepts, such as
cutting and pasting, double-clicking, saving files, etc. They usually
will spend an entire month, at least, before they can even get those
concepts down.
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:33:29 GMT
In alt.destroy.microsoft, Chad Everett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 8 Apr 2001 10:10:27 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 07:16:48 -0600, Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>microsoft's total domination of the desktop is the result of windows.
>>no amount of alleged monopolistic tactics will cut it if the product
>>don't sell.
>
>Nope...it's due to Excel, Word, Access, PowerPoint, Exchange: Office.
Exactly.
All of them are useful tools -- when they're not crashing, doing
strange things to one's documents, or otherwise malfunctioning,
that is. And they interrelate with each other using ActiveX
(which may be the problem :-) ).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 2d:18h:23m actually running Linux.
The EAC doesn't exist, but they're still watching you.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:37:11 GMT
In alt.destroy.microsoft, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 08 Apr 2001 10:30:53 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Anonymous
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Sun, 8 Apr 2001 06:30:34 -0600
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Anything with a command line is easier to learn, of course, because it
>> >> is simpler
>> >
>> >i just wanted to see that again
>> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>>
>> There are advantages to the command line, but ease of learning
>> is not among them (though it depends in part on the complexity
>> thereof, the design of the GUI, and to a large part on the
>> documentation available using 'man' or 'info').
>>
>> A well-designed GUI can be very easy, especially if it has common
>> elements; this is what makes Windows so powerful. (Mac OS, too,
>> as it turns out, although the details are different, and, to
>> a slightly lesser extent, widget sets on X; the main problem there
>> is cut and paste, and resize feedback.)
>>
>> Everyone understands:
>>
>> - moving the mouse pointer
>> - clicking, dragging, and dropping
>> - double-clicking, dragging, and dropping icons
>> - folder icons as directories, document icons as files
>> - top-mounted window pulldown menus
>> - keyboard shortcuts
>> - buttons with balloon help
>> - text entry controls, both multiline and single-line
>> - Control/C, Control/X, and Control/V
>> - scrollbars
>> - scrolling lists (both horizontal and vertical)
>> - drop down comboboxes (which are actually a combination of button,
>> menu, and list)
>
>Actually, not. Ever see a true newbie in front of a Windows machine?
>
>They are just as stymied by a GUI as they are by a command line.
I have yet to see that ... but I'll admit, it wouldn't surprise me.
Of course, a brand-new user to Linux may have similar difficulties,
even were one to present him with "ta-daaah!" KDE or Gnome. :-)
(My job doesn't include training seccies, admittedly.)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 2d:18h:27m actually running Linux.
The US gov't spends about $54,000/second. I wish I could.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Subject: Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:39:28 GMT
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 14:13:02 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:N__z6.56894
>> This article presents the usual incorrect
>> picture of the OSS movement as somesort of
>> 'corporation' or 'business' whose goal is
>> to compete in the marketplace:
>
>You didn't actually READ the article, did you? You probably skimmed it and
>assumed it was just what you claim.
This kind of useless retort is popular
in c.o.l.a these days.
>In fact, the author addresses your
>point by stating quite accurately that your comment ignores the fact that
>OSS is only moving at its current rapid pace because the key players are
>being paid by corporations.
"You may be of the opinion that open-source
software does not need to compete directly
with Microsoft or any other commercial
software vendor. You may even think the
open-source movement can survive on its
own without any corporate influence. But
the truth is, at this point in time there
are very few major open-source projects that
could continue to evolve at their current rate
without some help from the for-profit sector..."
Aside from not supplying any cogent reasoning for
his hypothesis, Greenspan's conjecture is predicated
on the mistaken notion that the OSS movement is
some kind of vast business conglomerate which has
to "survive" in the same sense that Microsoft has
to "survive". That is quite nonsensical, of course.
Add to this his implicit categorization of the OSS
movement as non-profit -- another misunderstanding.
If corporations and businesses want to develop
products and services around the Linux kernels
or some Open Source project, more power to them.
Their "survival" is their own problem and the
problem of the developers involved, not an
ideological responsibility of the entire OSS
movement and associated with it.
>> "To stay competitive, open-source companies and
>> communities must do a better job of courting a
>> group for whom they seem to have little
>> understanding or respect. Ironically, it's a
>> group they should know very well."
>>
>> Natually, with this incorrect mental picture
>> of the OSS movement, it is easy to suggest
>> that OSS will fail because it has no organized
>> marketing department, no armies of PHBs, no
>> telemarketers, no advertising deparment, no
>> human resources management layer, or other
>> bogosities irrelevant to loose groups of
>> volunteers who do what they do because they
>> find it interesting.
>
>This isn't an incorrect picture. If Linux is to stay competitive,
I'm a bit curious about preambles beginning with
"if Linux is to stay competitive..." or "to stay
competitive, open source companies and communities
must..." I suspect these are but ill-considered
content-free jingoisms. For instance: what is
competing with what? Do you mean corporations
which package Linux distros competing with other
software corporations? Or do you mean "Linux" competing
with Microsoft? "Linux" is not a corporation. How do
"communities" "stay competitive"? In what sense do you
imagine communities competing with corporations?
It would be like saying "If eating at home is to remain
competitive against fast food corporations..." or "if
personal motivation is to remain competitive against
corporate labour... " or better yet: "to stay competitive,
the Polish Veteran's Society must..." or even "to survive
amid fierce competition in the entertainment industry,
groups of individuals who gather at the local bar for a
round of beer & 8-ball must do a better job courting
Time Warner..." What are these supposed to mean?
>is the
>key phrase. If you don't care if it's competitive or not, fine. But many
>people, probably most do.
Lots and lots of stupid advice has been offered
on how Linux can "stay competitive" or "survive
in the markets". 'If Linux or OSS is to survive,
it's got to learn some lessons from
ActiveState/Borland/Microsoft/whatever.' Advice
like this is just polemical rubbish, because OSS
is not a corporation. Some people just can't grasp
this point.
For instance, a Microsoft drone recently explained
that, in order for Linux to "stay competitive", Gnome
and KDE must somehow merge so that one, and *only* one
GUI desktop is offered to the masses. This is really
dumb advice, because again, it assumes that the whole
OSS movement is just one conglomerate or corporation
run by Linus or Stallman or an invisible board of
directors. It fails to realize the diverse purposes
and motivations behind different OSS projects.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: 667 Neighbor of the Beast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: CLI vs. GUI
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 14:53:54 -0700
> "Aaron R. Kookoonut" wrote:
> >
Ever see a true newbie in front of a Windows machine?
> >
> > They are just as stymied by a GUI as they are by a command line.
Yes it has been proven that DOS accounting apps are 3X more productive
for a business to use than GUI accounting apps cuz the office workers
find them so much easier to use.
--
> > Aaron R. Kookoonut
> > Unix Systems Engineer
> > DNRC Minister of all I survey
> > ICQ # 3056642
> >
> > K: Truth in advertising:
> > Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Misspelling of Shalala.
> > Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Misspelling of Farrakhan.
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You crossposted
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Your stupidity is astounding
[ ] You suck
[ ] Other (describe)
------------------------------
From: "Chris Z. Wintrowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates...
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:55:50 GMT
Goldhammer wrote:
>
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 14:37:23 GMT, WGAF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Luckily for Linux, there are people who
> >can see behind the hype.....
> >
> >http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/01/12/index3a.html
>
> This article presents the usual incorrect
> picture of the OSS movement as somesort of
> 'corporation' or 'business' whose goal is
> to compete in the marketplace:
Whilst you are partly correct, let me remind you that there are
companies out there that are totally based on the OSS movement. Does
RedHat ring a bell? What about Ximian? Eazel?
> "To stay competitive, open-source companies and
> communities must do a better job of courting a
> group for whom they seem to have little
> understanding or respect. Ironically, it's a
> group they should know very well."
>
> Natually, with this incorrect mental picture
> of the OSS movement, it is easy to suggest
> that OSS will fail because it has no organized
> marketing department, no armies of PHBs, no
> telemarketers, no advertising deparment, no
> human resources management layer, or other
> bogosities irrelevant to loose groups of
> volunteers who do what they do because they
> find it interesting.
This is not an incorrect mental picture of the OSS movement. Like I
stated above, there are lots of companies out there who are totally
based on the OSS movement. As with the communities who have devoted
themselves to OSS devlopment, these companies make their money through
providing support and services to other businesses who have decided to
use the OSS software.
Therefore, these OSS-based companies and communities are not going to
make any cash unless they shape their OSS software into something that
appeals to other business and makes them choose the OSS software rather
than proprietary software. This means that they are going to have to go
into direct competition with people like Microsoft, or Oracle, etc.
Whilst I agree that the possible failings of any OSS-based company or
community is by no means going to spell the end of the OSS movement, it
*is* necessary for these OSS-based companies or communities to "stay
competitive" if they ever hope to succeed.
- Chris Z. Wintrowski -
* "In Portadown, 'fanny' means 'cunt'" *
- Some Irish guy -
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
