Linux-Advocacy Digest #126, Volume #34 Wed, 2 May 01 17:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars. (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: OEM Windows licenses not transferable to charities (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OEM Windows licenses not transferable to charities (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OEM Windows licenses not transferable to charities (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Yet another IIS security bug (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:27 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 2 May 2001 09:34:49
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In alt.destroy.microsoft, Ayende Rahien
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:54:26 +0200
>> <9cn829$e9t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 1 May 2001
>11:18:42 -0500;
>> >> >On Tue, 1 May 2001 16:38:01 +0100, Michael Pye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> >> >>> No. Seriously. Honestly. Chalk it up, if you want, to the fact
>that
>> >> >>> I've never been spoiled by something better. I can certainly
>imagine
>> >a
>> >> >>> browser which is less clumsy, "better presented" (whatever that was
>> >> >>> supposed to mean), lower on memory use or quicker to load. Its
>just
>> >> >>> that I have never found any. Even after I looked. Seriously.
>> >> >>> Honestly.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Well, I find IE is most of those for Windows. I may not like the
>> >authors,
>> >> >>but it is undoubtably a better browser...
>> >> >
>> >> >If you run it on Windows. Ever try the Solaris version of IE? What a
>> >joke.
>> >>
>> >> That's what happens when you have to port the registry to Unix. Ugh.
>> >
>> >Wine did it quite successfully, I believe.
>>
>> Successfully, yes. Quickly, not sure. Every time I run Wine -- even
>> if it's something as simple as playing Solitaire -- it feels like
>> I'm rebooting Windows. (That it does so more quickly than Windows
>> itself is a credit to the Wine authors. :-) )
>>
>> Unless I'm missing something with wineserver.....?
>
>If we are talking about WINE & registry, then I really don't undesrtand why
>it takes a long time.
>It store the data in a lot of files, IIRC. You've something like:
>/Registry/HKLM/
>/Registry/HKCU/
>With the registry mapping layout as a FS, so it shouldn't be *overly* slow.
>Windows would do it faster, because the registry is a hirercial database,
>which is a damn fast design.
Just so the other technologists don't laugh at you for using the wrong
word, Ayende, I thought I'd point out that this isn't, then a 'port' of
the registry. It is instead an emulation of the registry. A port would
be what IE does, or what Seagate (now Veritas) Nervecenter does.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:29 GMT
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 01 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Edward Rosten in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:38:12
>> [...]
>> >Yes. However, there are quite a lot of them and NN allows you to choose
>> >about options for 5 different things. I would personally like more
>> >control over how a `default' page is displayed.
>>
>> For that to happen, we'd need a lot more standardization concerning what
>> constitute "a page".
>>
>> This is the problem as I see it with the current web. The design and
>> development of the technology itself is suited to large amounts of
>> information, and small amounts of navigation; the whole point of a
>> hyperlink is cognitive convenience. But the commercialization of the
>> web, while not a "bad thing" in the abstract, was a flawed technical
>> implementation. The desire is to have a commercial console, fully
>> graphically driven, and interface to a "site", not an interface to a
>> page. Navigation becomes a critical concept for site and page designers
>> (and the general lack of distinction makes the problem obvious, I
>> think), but not in the same way at all. It isn't like they abandon any
>> thought for convenience; it's just that their goals are in conflict with
>> it.
>>
>> I think "the Web" should split between actual web pages, and an entirely
>> different protocol, designed from the start to provide a
>> high-functionality "commercial console" interface. It wouldn't hurt to
>> come up with some method of organizing the mess, too. But somehow I
>> don't think any of these kinds of standards are going to be developed so
>> long as the software and Internet and media industries refuse to engage
>> in free market competition.
>
>Honestly, Max, if the web were split into two entities, one providing
>web pages simple and sober (such as could be easily viewed with NN 3)
>with a lot of useful information, no fancy ads, no first grade graphic
>art student exploits, and a second one only providing commercial stuff
>(i.e. advertisement) stuffed with fancy graphics requiring 5 minutes to
>load a page, only supported by the latest newest
>browser/OS/platform/broadband connection combination, do you believe
>that the latter would survive longtime?
Both "webs" would benefit from development. They just wouldn't be at
cross-purposes. The latter would not have "pages", only sites and
however they display information ("screens"?), it would not use
"browsers" ("portal interface?"), and would survive as long as people
wanted to "transact" things (rather than merely retrieve them) over the
Internet.
Usenet's still here, Guiliano, even though most people have been using
web-based discussion groups (dummies) for years.
>The crap survives only because
>it's riding on an useful web, and exploiting it.
>(Well, maybe I didn't take into account porno sites, which, according
>some analyst are the only profitable commercial activities on the web).
Quite right: you did not take into account the usefulness of the
'non-web'. It isn't ONLY a matter of vendors shoving advertising and
e-commerce and flash down everyone's throat; there is value there. It
just happens to be at cross-purposes to the value of the web itself.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
us.military.army,alt.destroy.microsoft,soc.singles,soc.ment,alt.military.folklore,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:34 GMT
I would have simply ignored your post and failed to reply, because
you're just engaging in your standard quibbling, getting both defensive
and moronic as you go. But I wanted to make sure that you didn't think
I was ignoring your response because it was so compelling, and I knew if
I didn't respond, your pea-size brain would take it for granted.
Aaron, what you call something does not determine what that something
IS. A strategic platform is a strategic platform (check your comments
for an analog) because it has been tried and tested and found to be a
good strategic platform. A commander who uses it as a tactical platform
is not being "innovative", they are being stupid.
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 01 May 2001
16:28:17 -0400;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 01 May 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
>> >> >rifleman1 wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > So your clearly erroneous claim that the C-130 is a strategic platform
>> >> >> > > is now joined by your contention that tanks are construction vehicles?
>> >> >
>> >> >The point, Bill Hudson, is that tanks WERE USED AS "earth movers" because
>> >> >that's what the situation called for...REGARDLESS of what the guys at
>> >> >TACOM headquarters in Warren Michigan, or the various tank plants around
>> >> >Detroit thought.
>> >>
>> >> My point (not Bill Hudson's) was, Aaron, that REGARDLESS of this
>> >> occurrence, a tank is not a construction vehicle, and a C-130 is not a
>> >> strategic platform, it is a tactical platform.
>> >
>> >Cargo planes with MUCH shorter range, and MUCH smaller cargo volume
>> >and lift capacity were used for STRATEGIC lift in the China-Burma-India
>> >theater of operations in World War 2.
>>
>> So a tank is a construction vehicle, because tanks have been used as
>> construction vehicles, is that what you're saying?
>
>It was an EXAMPLE of a piece of equipment not only succesfully use in
>an unorthodox way....in fact in which the victory DEPENDED on the use
>of the tank in an unorthodox way.
>
>Is the typical a tank DESIGNED to be an earth mover?
>No
>
>Since then, do we now have tanks which *ARE* designed to be earth movers?
>Yes
>
>M-1 Grizzly breaching vehicle.
>
>
>If it's a stupid idea, and it works, then it's not a stupid idea.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> You may have noticed that neither Bill or I are arguing against your
>> contention that this tactical asset could be (or has been) used
>> strategically. This does not make it a strategic platform.
>>
>> Your assumption that 'breaking the rules' is simple delusion in
>> hindsight. Suppose the tanks had gotten mired and ruined? Suppose the
>> "quick thinking" of the moron in the field causes thousands of deaths,
>
>Suppose a frog had wings...
>
>since the frogs, in fact, do not have wings, then any discussion
>about frogs with wings has as much relationship to reality as
>talking about tanks that "got mired" which didn't get mired.
>
>Clue for the clueless: the hedgerow breaching-equipment was TESTED
>before they started putting it on additional tanks.
>
>All told, only about 50 tanks at Normany were ever outfitted with
>the ad-hoc equipment.
>
>
>> because they figured its "only" the fact that it is described as a
>> strategic platform that makes something a strategic platform? Do you
>> realize how thoroughly you are going to get your little-general ass
>> kicked if you try to use tactical platforms strategically, against an
>> opponent who is not so inexperienced, clueless, and full of his own
>> genius?
>
>
>Just like General Stillwell when he successfully used cargo planes with
>a MUCH smaller capacity and MUCH shorter range for strategic supply in
>the China-Burma-India theater of operations....
>
>>
>> [...]
>> >And most weapons experts will tell you that most weapons are capable
>> >of fulfilling roles which the pentagon paper-pushers have NOT designated
>> >to them.
>>
>> So?
>>
>> >Look at any war, and, if the people at Training and Doctrine had their
>> >way, a good many SUCCESSFUL commanders would be sent away for employing
>> >equipment in ways not endorsed by TRADOC.
>>
>> That's bullshit. They would order those commanders to encode their
>> tactics and their doctrine. Doh!
>
>The most difficult thing about fighting the Americans is that their
>officers refuse to follow their own doctrine"
>
>Blind obediance to officially documented doctrine allows your
>opponents to predict your every move.
>
>Hope that helps.
>
>>
>> --
>> T. Max Devlin
>> *** The best way to convince another is
>> to state your case moderately and
>> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: OEM Windows licenses not transferable to charities
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:35 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 1 May 2001
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9cm3rh$ak1
>> No, this is a disclaimer - it never has been FUD, no matter who writes it.
>> The cop-out clause (i.e., the part of a EULA dismissing all
>responsibilities
>> for the actions of the software) used by MS (and many others, probably
>> including Sun) is not FUD either. Stating the software's limitations
>> provides the customer with essential information and provides the supplier
>> with legal protection - software licences should always include it. The
>> full cop-out clause is fine for free software (it is unreasonable to
>expect
>> guarentees on something you haven't paid for), but for commercial software
>> it goes against every consumer protection law and principle.
>
>So you're saying that the mere concept of charging for something should make
>it fit for any possible purpose the end-user might put it to?
>
>So, if you buy a Yugo, you should expect it to be able to haul rocks in a
>quarry?
>
>Some products are sold at a much cheaper cost simply because they are not
>intended to be used for heavy duty purposes. Taking on liability is costly,
>and so is making the product fit for that liability.
Guffaw
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: OEM Windows licenses not transferable to charities
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:37 GMT
Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 2 May 2001 12:54:06
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message ...
>>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:9cm3rh$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.
Maryland passed a law within the last couple of years exempting
software, specifically, from any such implied fitness. If a company
drafts its EULA under Maryland law, then 'caveat emptor' becomes "a
license to steal", literally. If the product is utter crap and doesn't
work for ANY purpose (hell, if it is non-existent, just a bunch of
useless files on a CD) then that's your problem, not the producer's.
>>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.
So does the government, typically. Maryland is an acception; they would
do almost anything to attract rich corporations to their state.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OEM Windows licenses not transferable to charities
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:39 GMT
Said Nigel Feltham in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:17:56
>> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! Yea, "similar". Guffaw. (MS claims their software
>> is not fit for ANY particular purpose.)
>
>Is there an official MS webpage that states this - if there is then we have
>real legal grounds to get refunds (and maybe even compensation) for being
>sold something that's not fit for intended purpose.
If the EULA is drafted under Maryland law (and I think most of the new
ones are) then this is unstated but still part of the license itself.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Yet another IIS security bug
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:40 GMT
Said Pancho Villa in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 01 May 2001 23:08:50
>Interconnect wrote:
>>
>> Hehe, I heard on the radio that a hacker could relatively *quickly* take
>> control of the whole computer, via some bug in the printers set up utility
>> and how it interacts with IIS.
>>
>> I hope my medical / insurance / banking records don't reside on such a
>> system.
>
>The insurance and banking industries are heavily into OS/2 Warp.
Only because they were previously and are still heavily into IBM's "big
iron". While I do not denigrate OS/2 on its merits (its vastly superior
to MS crapware), I think its only fair to point out that the bulk of its
popularity is in "true blue" shops, who buy it based on the fact the IBM
makes it, rather than any actual competitive merits.
>Not
>sure what the medical industry runs on. A lot of my docs seem to run
>on Windows but one runs on Unix. Of course, all three are pretty
>heavy into NT too, though. :(
:-(
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:41 GMT
Said Ed Allen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 04:00:45
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:32:30
>>>The only
>>>thing I am trying to convice anyone about is that we are all better
>>>off that it didn't, and that instead the Internet developed around
>>>open TCP/IP instead of some protocol owned by a single vendor.
>>
> SCO took the open TCP code and rewrote it and then
> charged people $500 extra for every machine it was copied to.
>
> That is profiteering because they depended upon the scarcity of
> access to their code to allow them to charge more than would have
> been acceptable if they had not kept that code hidden.
>
> They kept anyone else from being able to benefit from code that
> was "shared properly" by your definition.
>
> That is the kind of abuse that non-GPL code invites.
But Les would have a point, then, because it didn't really work very
well. Still, you are correct, SCO did do this, and they did make quite
a bit of money from it.
>>Yes, that's what I said, you have a fanciful idea that without the
>>ability to profiteer, software wouldn't exist. There is no particular
>
> I don't think that he believes that software without profiteering is
> impossible, GPL software shows that.
He believes GPL will prevent software from being developed, so it seems
to support my point.
> He just does not want the opportunity to profiteer taken away
> because if it can no longer be abused then the software cannot be
> used to extort more money from the people being kept ignorant of
> the alternatives. Which seems to be what "its not really free" means.
I do not believe that Les wants to encourage profiteering (though I
would submit that he does not understand our use of the term.) He
believes that modern commercial distribution of software (profiteering)
is necessary for profitable development of software. Which is, of
course, true, as long as the profiteering is allowed.
It is not that inability to extort more money prevents it from being
free, it is that it prevents it (in Les's mind) from being produced and
distributed. He has it backwards, of course; the GPL prevents
extortion, not production or distribution.
>>>This is just the most obvious case, but in every case where a
>>>working, well-tested reference code base is shared without
>>>restrictions everyone involved comes out ahead.
>>
> Please explain how the people who paid $500 per machine for years
> to SCO were benefitting from the open reference implementation ?
They got TCP/IP! And if they paid that much for it, that means that's
how much it is worth. Why should the fact that SCO didn't pay a dime
for it matter? They had to write it into their OS, and that is effort,
and deserves reward, and they simply charged what the market would bear.
It was only those exorbitant profits, after all, that induced SCO to
implement IP so early (in comparison to other PC OSes); they have no
need, we are to believe, to improve their product without jacking up the
price, just because it would help them sell more units.
> Obviously they recouped their development costs quickly since they
> could rewrite pieces of the reference implementation and test each
> against the original code before going on.
>>
>>Now, if you're going to use the abstraction 'software' on a different
>>level, then of course you can share GPL code to your heart's content,
>>and the license specifically ensures that this is true. What you can't
>>do is tell the people you share it with that they can't share it.
>>
> Actually it insists that you notify them that they are *expected*
> to share in the exact same fashion with access to your changes and a
> reference to the original.
That might be going a bit far, into the realm of the metaphorical.
Analytically, GPL has no 'expectation' or requirement to change or share
the code. You forget; the vast majority (now) of GPL licensees are not
developers.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:43 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 06:34:41
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:32:30
>> >>The only
>> >>thing I am trying to convice anyone about is that we are all better
>> >>off that it didn't, and that instead the Internet developed around
>> >>open TCP/IP instead of some protocol owned by a single vendor.
>> >
>> SCO took the open TCP code and rewrote it and then
>> charged people $500 extra for every machine it was copied to.
>
>Were people forced to buy it, or did they choose to because
>it was worth the cost to them?
That is a meaningless question. It is not the government's intent to
second-guess consumers, merely to protect them from being ripped off.
Obviously, you do not believe they were ripped off, having to pay
exorbitant prices for what SCO got for free. I refuse to question your
ethics, but I must wonder about your comprehension of the situation.
"What the market will bear" is not a license to steal.
>> That is profiteering because they depended upon the scarcity of
>> access to their code to allow them to charge more than would have
>> been acceptable if they had not kept that code hidden.
>
>Do you think SCO is unreasonably wealthy for a company?
A meaningless question. Our intent is not to second-guess SCO's
actions, merely to observe their reasons. Apparently, you think they
were acting reasonably when they charged $500 for what they got for
free. But there is, indeed, a thing called "profiteering", and whether
you agree it applies in this instance or not, you are still responsible
for knowing it is unethical behavior.
>> They kept anyone else from being able to benefit from code that
>> was "shared properly" by your definition.
>
>In what way did anything they could have done affect anyone's ability
>to use the base code or buy corresponding products from competitors?
Their customers do not have any ability to use any base code or
corresponding product; they have SCO, and they want TCP/IP. Are you
saying that the question of what a reasonable price is should be based
on how much SCO can "hold them up" for? So Microsoft is justified,
then, in claiming unlimited and perpetual ownership of all intellectual
property sent through hotmail, because they can, and they don't
physically force anyone to use hotmail?
>If you didn't like SCO you did not have to buy anything from them.
How wonderfully naive. I wish I still had that amount of innocence.
Perhaps your belief in the rock-solid reality of the law, your
assumption it has no contradictions or weaknesses or inappropriate
extensions, is due to your legal background?
>> That is the kind of abuse that non-GPL code invites.
>
>I can't see how people who were able to use that code were abused. They
>had the choice of buying it or not. Now if it had been a GPL'd code base
>they wouldn't have had that choice, because the choices likely would not
>have existed at all.
Begging the question, Les. Rather pathetically, in fact.
>> >Yes, that's what I said, you have a fanciful idea that without the
>> >ability to profiteer, software wouldn't exist. There is no particular
>> I don't think that he believes that software without profiteering is
>> impossible, GPL software shows that.
>
>Yes, GPL software of that era showed that it could take 20 years to
>get an editor and a compiler to work. Or have you forgotten?
Non-GPL software of that era indicates the same result, I think. Unlike
non-GPL software, the situation exponentially improves with every
development, with GPL. That is, in fact, the point. Three or five
years from now, there will be "wizards" who continue to use proprietary
crapware and wave dead chickens and hope, and "scientists" who use GPL
code.
>> He just does not want the opportunity to profiteer taken away
>> because if it can no longer be abused then the software cannot be
>> used to extort more money from the people being kept ignorant of
>> the alternatives. Which seems to be what "its not really free" means.
>
>No one is abused by being offered choices from different vendors. They
>are abused when only one vendor is able to provide products.
Not if it is GPL; they can't be abused then because the situation never
occurs. Get it?
>> >>This is just the most obvious case, but in every case where a
>> >>working, well-tested reference code base is shared without
>> >>restrictions everyone involved comes out ahead.
>> >
>> Please explain how the people who paid $500 per machine for years
>> to SCO were benefitting from the open reference implementation ?
>
>Did it work? Did it interoperate correctly with other vendors' products?
>Did it cost less that an equally well tested version without the reference
>code would have?
Why the hell does it matter if it costs less, if SCO is bilking their
customers for $500 a pop?
>> Obviously they recouped their development costs quickly since they
>> could rewrite pieces of the reference implementation and test each
>> against the original code before going on.
>
>Are you suggesting that this is some sort of problem?
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
