Linux-Advocacy Digest #124, Volume #34 Wed, 2 May 01 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (The Ghost In The Machine)
To Aaron (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males (GreyCloud)
Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Craig Kelley)
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (BSD Bob the old greybeard
BSD freak)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Seán Ó Donnchadha")
Re: OEM Windows licenses not transferable to charities (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 19:20:15 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tom Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 02 May 2001 11:49:40 GMT
<ovSH6.6168$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3aeb2790$0$21772$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:51CG6.1636$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:3ae8f1ec$0$21761$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > > Well - the only claims for stability I make of W2K are simple:
>> > > I have these W2K machines - they have never crashed. They stay up as
>> long
>> > as
>> > > I leave them running. I don't know how better to claim uptime than:
>they
>> > are
>> > > always up. Whatever the history of other previous products might be -
>> the
>> > > product I use today is reliable and stable. I know this because I use
>it
>> > and
>> > > it is.
>> >
>> > And what, exactly do we do with our W2K boxes?
>> >
>> File/printer sharing, of course. ISA proxy and NAT serving. Web is a lot
>of
>> it - a lot of dynamic content using ASP. Also, SQL server and Exchange
>> hosting as well as internal development. You know - basically everything
>> cause there is more software for windows than any other platform in the
>> world.
>
>Like so many bowling balls supported by playing cards and popsicle sticks.
One just needs more chewing gum. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random sticky mess here
EAC code #191 2d:07h:28m actually running Linux.
I don't hate Microsoft. Just their products.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: To Aaron
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 07:22:32 +1200
this year, the US government has allocated $19billion in farming subsidies,
would you regard this as free trade in action?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 2 May 2001 19:41:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 22:14:29 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 27 Apr 2001 15:57:07
>>On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:55:59 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 17 Apr 2001 13:53:13
>>>>On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 04:18:27 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>>That we are not ruled by conceptual extensions of the law that exist
>>>>>>solely in your mind.
>>>>>
>>>>>It seems as true and correct a definition of "ethics" as I can come up
>>>>>with, without getting into religion. Are you not ethical?
>>>>
>>>>*I* am not ruled by conceptual extensions of the law that exist solely
>>>>in *your* mind. Gee.
>>>
>>>What about *your* mind, dufus?
>>
>>I may be ruled by them. However this one is not one of them.
>
>Sorry, I am forced to declare that statement to be incomprehensible.
>How could you possibly know in which instances you are or are not ruled
>by the concepts in your mind, if you can be ruled by them at all?
I am ruled by the concepts in my mind. This was not a concept in my mind.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 12:41:23 -0700
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > > > No..only when the consumer is DENIED the right to choose whatever
> OS
> > > they
> > > > > please.
>
> > > Or you can buy your machine with nothing preinstalled. Or you can buy
> it
> > > with WinME or Win98, then install your own OS. Still nothing preventing
> you
> > > choosing whatever OS you want. Which was, after all, the point. :)
> >
> > There is only one place in town that I can buy a computer that doesn't
> > have any O/S installed on it... Computer Renaisance. HPs, IBMs,
> > Compaqs, Gateways, etc. come with Win98SE or WinME. I asked several
> > stores if I can get one without any OS installed and the answer was no,
> > they're all pre-installed with windows. May be true in other areas tho.
>
> So? Look at the point being discussed: "denied the right to choose whatever
> OS they please." Are you being denied that? No. You're not being
> prevented from buying a box with Win98 or WinME preinstalled, reformatting,
> and installing OS/2 or Linux or whatever your particular pet OS is. You're
> not being denied the choice of OS at all. You may be denied the choice of
> what OS is _preinstalled_, but so what?
And that to is my point: So what? Most users just want a
"Pre-installed" O/S of their choosing. Too bad there wasn't a Sun store
in town... things would be different. Or a linux shop that will sell
you a PC with your choice of Linux pre-installed. In the smaller
communities these stores don't exist except Office Depot or Staples.
Most of the people that I try to help have asked if they will sell one
with linux pre-installed and the answer was "No we don't"... hence its
their perception that its a denial of choice.
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 2 May 2001 19:42:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 28 Apr 2001 02:22:12 GMT, Dylan Thurston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>Sun is going to ship GNOME linked to thir proprietary libc.
>>The exception allowing linking to libc is only valid if the library
>>is not shipped along the GPLd binary.
>
>From the GPL, clause 3:
>
>... However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
>include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
>form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
>operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
>itself accompanies the executable.
>
>Thus there is a special exemption to allow linking with proprietary
>libcs. (Whether or not its necessary has been the subject of extensive
>flame wars, which I'd rather not touch off.)
Read it. This exception applies "unless that component (the libc)
itself accompanies the executable (GNOME)"
Sun is planning to ship GNOME with Solaris (and it's libc) thus making
this exception not apply.
>Note the Sun already distributes, e.g., bash and gcc with Solaris.
And that seems to me a breach of the letter of the GPL. Yet the
FSF doesn't mind.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[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: 02 May 2001 13:44:11 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) writes:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>> This mean that I can implement this as a C array, linked list, binary tree,
> >>>> hell, I could implement it as a database object, and anyone using this
> >>>> wouldn't have a clue how I do it.
> >>> Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
> >>> not working as expected. Right?
> >>
> >>Wrong. An API defines access to a service -- and if that service isn't
> >>working right, then you go to the provider of that service to get it
> >>fixed. The details of implementation aren't important to the user of
> >>the API. (In general; there are cases when the implementation may be
> >>discussed between supplier and customer, but this has more to do with
> >>performance requirements than anything else.)
> >
> >In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know more
> >about a function than the API documentation itself can provide.
>
> You know this because of your extensive programming eperience, right?
> Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
> arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
Well, there are little things like in C++ you have no guarantee that a
const-less method won't modify a passed-in object. It *may* or it
*may not*, but that information is usually important.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: 2 May 2001 19:45:00 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 28 Apr 2001 00:52:11 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 00:58:46 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>> Consider the fact that upon graduation, an undergraduate Physics major
>>> is expected to understand everything that Einstein knew about physics,
>>> and more.
>>
>> Bollocks. How many undergraduate physics students study GR? They don't
>> study the mathematics for GR for a start.
>
>You'd be surprised -- in Australia, they can take GR in undergrad (honors
>year, which is fourth year there).
Well, I must say that after you get differential geometry, GR is not too
tough a cookie, if you have an open mind. It doesn't require much
of a physics background, either, at least to understand the thing :-)
>However, I don't think they learn it in the same depth as Einstein. For
>starters, they don't cover the math properly. The math for GR is at a
>high enough level that if you understand it, you're probably publishing
>papers (or working on publishables)
Yup. Or you have a very sick interest in obscure branches of math :-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: BSD Bob the old greybeard BSD freak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 2 May 2001 19:25:11 GMT
In comp.unix.advocacy Bill Vermillion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I think VI and all the useless other editors ...
> When you need an 'editor' vi is pretty good. But no end-user
> should ever have to use an 'editor' when they need a
> word-processor.
Why not, Bill? (ed or vi) + troff == prettygoodwordprocessor
(ed or vi) + TeX == prettygoodwordprocessor
(Yeah, I know, we all grumble at ed, but I use it as an example.)
The thought processes are markup rather than peecee WYSIWYG.
In the former, one writes first and then lets the processing
engine do the word wizardry for you, on its own.
In the latter, one writes and tries to outguess the guts of the
beast at the same time (usually poorly), and still pulls out the
hair, in the end.
The output is words processed.
But, the thought processes were the difference that the
pointyclicky types don't handle well. I have noticed that
of late, in that students can't grasp the fundamentals that
underly the processing of words. They are too used to pointing
and clicking, and don't think about how to approach the problem,
first. Maybe the word processing point and click approach has
ruined them.
Bob
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 19:46:57 GMT
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 02 May 2001 16:34:31 GMT, "Daniel Johnson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Microsoft was thinking of the future. They don't need
> >the limitations of being stuck with a DOS codebase;
> >they would like to be able to do things like switch
> >processor architectures if needed.
>
> Oh yeah, we all know portable MS operating systems are. ;)
We all know how portable Windows 95 *isn't*. :D
This is the problem Microsoft still has to overcome.
Sure, 80x86 is the enegerizer bunny of CPUs, but nothing
lasts forever. Sooner or later Microsoft will *have* to
support something else.
They've got no hope of doing it with the Windows 95
codebase.
Frankly, they have been lucky that 80x86 has lasted
as long as it has. They'd had nothing but trouble
trying to get away from DOS. It's 2001, and most of
us still have DOS bits sprinkled liberally over our
OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 2 May 2001 19:48:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 02 May 2001 13:44:11 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) writes:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>> This mean that I can implement this as a C array, linked list, binary tree,
>> >>>> hell, I could implement it as a database object, and anyone using this
>> >>>> wouldn't have a clue how I do it.
>> >>> Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
>> >>> not working as expected. Right?
>> >>
>> >>Wrong. An API defines access to a service -- and if that service isn't
>> >>working right, then you go to the provider of that service to get it
>> >>fixed. The details of implementation aren't important to the user of
>> >>the API. (In general; there are cases when the implementation may be
>> >>discussed between supplier and customer, but this has more to do with
>> >>performance requirements than anything else.)
>> >
>> >In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know more
>> >about a function than the API documentation itself can provide.
>>
>> You know this because of your extensive programming eperience, right?
>> Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
>> arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
>
>Well, there are little things like in C++ you have no guarantee that a
>const-less method won't modify a passed-in object. It *may* or it
>*may not*, but that information is usually important.
If it's const-less, you must assume it may be modified.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Seán Ó Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 15:51:44 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >Now you are forced to use Windows
> >because I'm a pathetic moron. :-) What's the excuse going to be next
month?
>
> None of these are 'excuses', anonymous troll. I have no need for
> excuses.
>
No, psycho. What you have a need for is some strong medication.
*G*U*F*F*A*W*!!!
The choices are out there and have been out there since the dawn of PCs.
That you and perhaps other lemmings like you are too dumb to find them - and
that less competitive companies find it too difficult to educate you of
their products - doesn't make Microsoft a monopoly.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OEM Windows licenses not transferable to charities
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 12:54:32 -0700
David Brown wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message ...
> >"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:9cm3rh$ak1
> >> No, this is a disclaimer - it never has been FUD, no matter who writes
> it.
> >> The cop-out clause (i.e., the part of a EULA dismissing all
> >responsibilities
> >> for the actions of the software) used by MS (and many others, probably
> >> including Sun) is not FUD either. Stating the software's limitations
> >> provides the customer with essential information and provides the
> supplier
> >> with legal protection - software licences should always include it. The
> >> full cop-out clause is fine for free software (it is unreasonable to
> >expect
> >> guarentees on something you haven't paid for), but for commercial
> software
> >> it goes against every consumer protection law and principle.
> >
> >So you're saying that the mere concept of charging for something should
> make
> >it fit for any possible purpose the end-user might put it to?
> >
> >So, if you buy a Yugo, you should expect it to be able to haul rocks in a
> >quarry?
> >
>
> No, there is a step in between. MS (and others - MS typifies this type of
> EULA, but they are not alone) says that even though you paid for the
> software, they don't guarentee that it is fit for anything. I think that
> standard consumer laws should apply to software. If you buy a Yugo, clearly
> advertised and sold as a personal transport vehicle, then you are within
> your rights to expect it to perform as advertised and to be able to
> transport people. It was never claimed to be suitable for carting rocks -
> if your quarry-load of rocks breaks the back axle, then it is your fault.
> But if the Yugo breaks down under normal use during its guarentee period,
> then you can complain and demand a fix or your money back.
>
> >Some products are sold at a much cheaper cost simply because they are not
> >intended to be used for heavy duty purposes. Taking on liability is
> costly,
> >and so is making the product fit for that liability.
> >
>
> I have no problem with that, and that is exactly what Sun does. You can buy
> software from Sun with restrictions on use and liability (i.e., non
> life-critical uses), or you can pay more for versions designed for higher
> reliability (this may be a different version, possibly older and better
> tested, or with non-critical features removed, or it may simply be a higher
> price to cover the insurance).
>
> I just think that if a company has charged money for some software, then
> they should accept a certain degree of responsibility and liability for it.
I wonder if Suns' critical use O/S is called "Trusted"?
Like Trusted Solaris 7.
--
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
******************************
