Linux-Advocacy Digest #457, Volume #33 Mon, 9 Apr 01 01:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (Ray Chason)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... ("WGAF")
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... ("WGAF")
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... ("WGAF")
Re: Fun With Old Laptops. (: (Ray Chason)
Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman ("Les Mikesell")
Re: t. max devlin: kook (Ray Chason)
Re: t. max devlin: kook (Chad Everett)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (GreyCloud)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (JulianD.)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (GreyCloud)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 03:13:22 GMT
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >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?
Because it is the GPL that prevents distribution and places unconditional
claims on other people's work. Other licenses may have requirements
but they may be quite reasonable to meet. A license that demands that
you change the license on someone else's existing work has a
requirement that is both unreasonable and impossible to meet.
There is no way to consider those as similar encumbrances.
> >> 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?
Because it included components that did not belong to me but had
their own terms that allowed free distribution. Even if I were
able to change the terms on those other works I would consider
it unethical to do so, just as I consider the GPL's demands about
other people's works to be unethical.
>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.
That wasn't the case, but yes I would have chosen not to change the
terms on someone else's work if the choice had been mine.
> 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).
The other components had restrictions, but they had nothing to do
with redistribution.
> If you see a third possibility, I am eager to hear about it.
As I recall the wattcp library did not allow modified versions
to be distributed - the author wanted to collect and collate the
patches, if any. I think the aspii library just required attribution.
Only the GPL made impossible demands that prevented
distribution of the combination.
> >> 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.
But, it ensures that you can't share much of what you can use and others
would likely want to use as well.
> >> 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.
I thought we were talking about comparisons to free software which
allows distribution. If you have to compare to proprietary software
to find anything similar you should see that you are on the wrong track.
> >> 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?
No, why should it be significant to me that you can build something
that you are not allowed to share? Why would you prefer that to
a less restrictive license that not only provides you unencumbered
use but also leaves redistribution unencumbered?
> >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".
The GPL'd set is the only part with the redistribution restrictions.
Fortunately, the BSDL'd and MIT components have permitted some
very useful products to exist.
> 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.
'Enforcing' such a thing on the BSD and MIT portions would likely
have resulted in TCP/IP being just another forgotten protocol and
unix just another forgotten OS.
> >> 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".
And BSDL, MIT, Artistic License, none of which place any claims
on other people's work?
If you want an unbiased opinion, you don't go to the hard-core cult
followers.
> 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.
Like other cults, there is not much hope for the people who have already
deceived themselves. I am only interested in keeping the issues exposed
so reasonable people can understand them.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates...
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 03:15:52 -0000
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Take another look at the XP. Looks like a dead emoticon with its tongue
>hanging out.
Funny you should mention that. In the Spanish-language forum
Barrapunto, one often sees XP and XD used as smileys.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates...
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 03:41:32 GMT
"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:
Damn right it does and the following quote reflects the mentality in this
newsgroup which has nothing to do with the actual OSS movement:
"For many people in the open-source movement, one thing is perfectly clear:
Microsoft has never done anything right. Their products, from DOS 1.0 to
Windows XP, are famously incompetent, and the company's success is solely
attributable to a bizarre amalgam of luck and capitalistic ferocity.
Open-source developers, seemingly, have nothing to learn from the Redmond
behemoth."
Forgetting the fact that the very same same company, namely Microsoft, owns
the top spot in the desktop and the server markets. Not to mention their
Office application which is the standard office suit in many if not all of
the businesses. There are other widely used applications but enough red
herring for the Linux advocates for now. This is what Red Hat, Caldera,
Mandrake, etc, the quasi Linux corporations are trying to compete against,
with their OSS based software. From your little world's perspective you
don't really care, but the Linux corporations do. What happens to the
distros will decide what happens to the OSS movement. Should they go under
then your assumption is correct, OSS does not need to compete and it can
remain what it has been. A small niche and somewhat interesting idea. So, go
ahead and take the high road. Although the OSS movement would be better
served if you take a hike...
------------------------------
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates...
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:51:47 +1000
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:
>
> "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.
>
It's true that he doesn't separate 'open-source movement' from
'open-source in business' clearly, but he's not talking about "loose
groups of volunteers", he's talking about open-source as used in
business. I believe there are still a few companies trying to do that.
He is also talking about winning mindshare away from M$ solutions for
inhouse development. He has some valid points about open-source
advocacy if it wants to be in business.
IanP
------------------------------
From: "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates...
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 03:49:32 GMT
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Just written by another Moron thats a sucker for more glitz! He was
> raised watching TVs' Madison Avenue garbage.
As oppose to you who grew up God knows where watching Star Trek Voyager.
Goldhammer must've been your neighbor....
------------------------------
From: "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates...
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 03:57:01 GMT
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> WGAF wrote:
> >
> > Luckily for Linux, there are people who can see behind the hype.....
> >
> > http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/01/12/index3a.html
>
> The article was written by another WinTroll. All too easy to spot.
Life is easy for you, isn't it? Go hug your fat, bloated bird....
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fun With Old Laptops. (:
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 04:04:24 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>I bought an old laptop for $50, so it is cheaper than a briefcase loaded with
>computer parts to assemble on-site (and break down later). It's an old NEC
>Versa M series briefcase box. I'm in the process of installing Slack 7.1 on
>it. I already have an old DOS on it for Loadlin.
A couple of weeks ago I sprung for a TI Travelmate 4000. 486DX2/40,
8 MB RAM, 200 MB disk, $75. I installed the A and N disk sets from
Slackware 7.0 and now I have a Linux laptop. (I had to leave out
most of the N9 disk because it wouldn't fit on a floppy; just Apache,
BIND, Samba, and INN, nothing that I actually needed.)
The thing that most complicated the install was being short of RAM.
Using the lowmem.i boot disk helped quite a lot, as did creating and
activating a 32 MB swap partition before running setup. Once
installed, I could replace the lowmem.i kernel with the bare.i kernel.
The laptop has no Ethernet and no PCMCIA, so I set up PPP over a null
modem. The PPP-HOWTO will tell you all about this, but here are the
commands I used.
On the desktop, in /etc/rc.d/rc.inet1 I have:
/usr/sbin/pppd nodetach passive persist crtscts lock \
192.168.0.1:192.168.0.2 /dev/ttyS1 57600 &
On the laptop, I have a script called /usr/bin/laplink which runs:
/usr/sbin/pppd nodetach crtscts lock /dev/ttyS0 57600 &
The options used are as follows:
"nodetach" tells pppd not to fork into the background. Combined
with the & at the end, this causes the progress messages to appear
on the console. One could leave out nodetach and &, but the
messages would not then be visible.
"passive" tells pppd to wait for a connection, rather than exiting
if another pppd cannot be contacted.
"persist" tells pppd that when the connection is lost, it should
not exit, but should wait for another connection.
"crtscts" tells pppd to use the RTS and CTS lines for flow control.
"lock" tells pppd to create a lock file to exclude other processes
from trying to use the same device.
"192.168.0.1:192.168.0.2" specifies the local and remote IP
addresses, respectively; that is, the desktop box uses 192.168.0.1
and the laptop uses 192.168.0.2. The 192.168/16 space is reserved
for private networks. The laptop does not get this parameter, and
so it relies on the desktop to set the IP addresses.
"/dev/ttyS*" is of course the serial device to be used.
"57600" is the bit rate. 115200, alas, didn't work.
Once a connection is established, any TCP/IP protocol may be run
over the null modem: telnet, FTP, HTTP, even NFS. It isn't all
that fast, of course.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 04:11:07 GMT
"Isaac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:39:02 -0700, Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >Isaac wrote:
> >> First they claim that if you distribute
> >> a program that can link only to a GPL'd library, that when you
distribute
> >> the program even without the library, you are really still distributing
> >> the program+library.
> >
> >I don't know whether they actually claim that or not, but frankly, it's
> >ridiculous.
>
> I agree with your assessment. Unfortunately, there aren't any usenet
> archives available that are older than about 6 months, so I couldn't
> pull up some of RMS's posts on the subject.
RMS almost never posts to usenet so it wouldn't matter if you
could go back farther.
> Without re-reading I can't state for sure whether that claim was
> explicitly stated or whether it was just a corrollary of some other
> facet of RMS's position.
Try to find the history of why it was necessary for RIPEM to
duplicate the gmp library as fgmp in order to release their
work without distribution restrictions. The only thing that
I see in a quick internet search is:
http://www.ptf.com/ptf/products/UNIX/current/0264.0.html
but you can probably get more details if you work at it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 04:18:43 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>Most X window managers rubberband during resize, so this facility
>may not even be available. I am tempted to write one that treats
>X resize events similarly to X move events, but I fear the performance
>in many apps may not be there -- and it will take me awhile,
>as it's not my speciality.
(Is there some reason this thread is crossposted to soc.singles?)
I'm running KDE 2.1, and it refreshes on resize.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 Apr 2001 23:21:26 -0500
On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:24:32 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>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.
>
>
My good ol' Mom bought a Windows machine three years ago. She is the
newbie of all newbies. All Windows users end of being command
line users cause eventually they'll experience a crash or lockup
that requires an "untidy" Windows shutdown (unplug the machine
cause not even the "smart" power switch will work). Then,
when the machine is rebooting they get the commandline prompt
telling them about how Windows was shutdown is a "untidy" manner
and you have to tell it something about what you want the
system to do with these dangling file thing-a-ma-jigs it has found.
This is the point where I get the call cause my good ol' Mom has
no idea whatsoever about what she's being told and asked to make
a decision about. The inevitable question is: "Son, why did
the computer do this?" and the inevitable answer: Mom, it just
Windows".... and I get this call EVERY time this happens.
Real user-friendly GUI scenario for a newbie, eh?
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates...
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:38:51 -0700
WGAF wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > Just written by another Moron thats a sucker for more glitz! He was
> > raised watching TVs' Madison Avenue garbage.
>
> As oppose to you who grew up God knows where watching Star Trek Voyager.
> Goldhammer must've been your neighbor....
At least I don't watch your shows... TeleTubbies!
------------------------------
From: JulianD. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 00:40:12 -0400
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 00:35:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(silverback) wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:24:16 -0400, JulianD. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:25:00 -0700, Robert Sturgeon
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:38:28 GMT,
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 15:18:59 -0700, Robert Sturgeon
>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:29:39 GMT,
>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>(snips)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yeah, it's right-wing socialism, characterized by vertical integration
>>>>>>>of the industrial sector.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>there is no such thing as right wing socialism dumb fuck
>>>>>
>>>>>What then do you suppose Nazi means?
>>>>
>>>>I don't give a fuck what the name means dummy. Unless yer one of the
>>>>idiots that still thinks East germany was a democracy and China a
>>>>republic.
>>>
>>>Thank you for being totally open about your willful
>>>ignorance.
>>
>>If was totally open all the time about his ignorance, this group would
>>be nothing but silvernut's posts.
>
>still think a name means more than their actions asshole? Yer a
>really dumb one ifyou do.
let's step outside.
>
>***********************************************
>
>GDY Weasel
>emailers remove the spam buster
>
>For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
>
>http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
>
>*********************************************
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates...
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:41:35 -0700
WGAF wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > WGAF wrote:
> > >
> > > Luckily for Linux, there are people who can see behind the hype.....
> > >
> > > http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/01/12/index3a.html
> >
> > The article was written by another WinTroll. All too easy to spot.
>
> Life is easy for you, isn't it? Go hug your fat, bloated bird....
Another Billy Butt Crust from Redmond.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 16:45:54 +1200
Hmm, and you totally disregard my post in answer to you question. Are you
living it denial? can't admit that you maybe wrong? trying to prepare a new
alias to once again hide under the anonymity of the net?
Matthew Gardiner
WGAF wrote:
> "Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 14:05:24 GMT, "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Dave Martel wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 03:45:47 GMT, "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >You'd have hard time naming some commercial
> > >> > >grade application for Linux. Even if you do, they won't be free.
> > >> >
> > >> > TCLPro, Corel PhotoPaint, WordPerfect, Snif+, not to mention the
> usual
> > >> > apps like GIMP and XEmacs. There's bunches more but it's been a long
> > >> > day.
> > >>
> > >> Sorry, for a win-advocate (such as WGAF), unless Microsoft produces an
> > >> application for Linux, then everything else that runs on it must be
> > >> sub-standard!
> > >
> > >As oppose to a lin-advocate for whom quality doesn't matter as long as
> the
> > >software isn't from Microsoft, right?
> > >
> >
> > You're confusing glitz with quality.
> >
>
> And you're confusing media blitz with quality...
>
> >
--
Disclaimer:
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you do not like it go: [rm -rf /home/luser] and
have a nice day :)
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:49:19 -0700
WGAF wrote:
>
> As oppose to typical Linvocate style, where little things like facts you
> don't bother with. So long....
>
> Otto
You haven't even used Linux... you don't have any facts, WinTroll!
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Typical Wintrol. Several government departments in New Zealand have adopt
> > Linux/UNIX. For example, Social Welfare uses a UNISYS Mainframe loaded
> with SCO
> > UNIXWARE to handle up to 1 Million records. Their web site web site runs
> on
> > Linux. The army uses Linux in a purpose built cluster for simulations.
> The
> > New Zealand Government web site is running using linux. Also, that's not
> > including the small business that have moved their desktops and servers to
> > Linux as they can no longer afford to pay for the new version (plus
> required
> > hardware upgrades) which will fix the instability, security and numerous
> other
> > problems, so instead, many opt. for Linux as a cheaper alternative upgrade
> > path.
> >
> > Matthew Gardiner
> >
> > WGAF wrote:
> >
> > > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Have you ever heard the term, "the best technology doesn't always win
> on
> > > the
> > > > day". UNIX has been around for 35 years, and has never been intended
> to be
> > > run on
> > > > end lusers systems such as yours, that is why they have stuck with
> high
> > > end
> > > > servers and workstations, the area where the end user has some grey
> matter
> > > in
> > > > their head.
> > >
> > > Conversely, for 35 years Unix couldn't manage to come up with a usable
> > > version for the end users. Catering for small area is fine, but then it
> > > should not be compared to technology aimed at the mass user market. The
> > > requirements and the subsequent pricing are different among other
> things.
> > >
> > > > Also, if you were to look at Linux as the Desktop version of UNIX,
> > > > considering it has only been around for 9 years, it has made
> tremendous
> > > inroads
> > > > into the OS market, considering that not only is it competing against
> UNIX
> > > is
> > > > some areas, but the illegally maintained monopoly of Microsoft in the
> OS
> > > market.
> > >
> > > You says "tremendous inroads", others say hardly visible dent in the OS
> > > market.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I also refute those statistics.
> > >
> > > No, you do :)? Partially because it doesn't show Linux on the the top,
> > > right?
> > >
> > > > Many of them never include the number of
> > > > downloaded copies of Linux, or the "borrowed" copy, or the number of
> > > people
> > > > outside the US adopting Linux as their main OS.
> > >
> > > And the number of copies bought, tried once and thrown away aren't in
> the
> > > statistics either. Not to mention the fact that most of the statistical
> data
> > > for OSes gathered for US only with little or no regards to other
> countries.
> > >
> > > > It will be rather interesting if
> > > > Linux becomes the defacto standard on chinese computers, and even if
> Linux
> > > has a
> > > > 20% share in the Chinese OS market, that will equal 240 Million
> copies,
> > > thus
> > > > definitely putting it a serious position.
> > >
> > > What would be interesting to see is how you derived the above numbers?
> > > Besides, which OS would have the 80% therefore the majority of the OS
> > > market?
> > >
> > > > Also there is a matter with Red Flag
> > > > Linux, which, if the Chinese government agrees, could become the
> standard
> > > OS used
> > > > on government computers, thus, end users in china will follow suite,
> and
> > > use
> > > > linux as well.
> > >
> > > Could, would, should, all it means that it remains to be seen and by no
> > > means it's a guarantee either way. All the sudden and users aren't "end
> > > lusers" once they turn to Linux. Name calling helps a lot, doesn't it?
> > >
> > > Otto
> >
> > --
> > Disclaimer:
> >
> > I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
> >
> > If you do not like it go: [rm -rf /home/luser] and
> > have a nice day :)
> >
> >
> >
--
V
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
