Linux-Advocacy Digest #131, Volume #34 Wed, 2 May 01 19:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Graham Murray)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To Aaron ("Interconnect")
Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman (Barry Margolin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Help: Bought out by MS geeks... ("~¿~")
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Graham Murray <[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 22:04:28 +0000
In gnu.misc.discuss, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, in practice, API calls that doesn't exist are used all the time.
> They need to exist only when you are ready to compile the code.
Or even (as some languages and operating systems allow) until the time
the function is actually invoked. So that if an external reference is
unresolved when the application is started, it will run perfectly
until that function is called, at which time (using a mechanism akin
to a virtual memory page fault) the loader will be invoked to resolve
the reference and enter the function (returning an error to the
application if the reference cannot be resolved.) Alternatively, even
with systems which resolve all externals when the application is
started, it would be possible to have unimplemented/optional/extra
cost functions which are absent (and therefore calling them will
generate an error) when the application is started. So, for example, a
word processor may have a API whereby it can call a function for each
language to perform a grammar check. Suppose that, for example, nobody
has yet written an ancient Greek grammar check function but the
application supports that language. So, when the user select "grammar
check" on an ancient Greek document the application attempts to call
the function "ancient_greek_grammar_check", discovers that it is an
unresolved external so a dialog box is displayed apologising for the
unavailability of that functionality. However when someone (either the
application author or a 3rd party) subsequently writes the
"ancient_greek_grammar_check" function and the user installs it, the
same (unchanged) application will now call it.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:08:44 GMT
In article <cdUG6.654$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> I've been saying this for years. People claiming there is no difference in
> GUI speed, whether real or percieved, must have a space ship double parked
> somewhere as ~everyone~ who has used both operating systems knows. I
> remember running RH on a P90 with 32mb's in an NT dual boot.(state of the
> art pc desktop back in 95) NT's gui was in another universe compared to the
> windowmaker gui on the linux box. What did the advocates say then? "use
> another window manager, WM's too memory hungry". What do we have today?
> Gnome and KDE are the two most popular desktops and when you mention that
> they seem so much slower than the windows gui on the same machine you now
> get "try window maker, those others are hogs". HE-larious!!! Two steps
> foward, three steps back.
Oddly enough, using icewm on the P166 32M worked quite well.
> It's getting better, but it's still no where near windows. But hey, it's a
> windows world.
Too true.
> > High end Sound cards?
>
> Nope.
No 3D sound is another example.
> I beta test Whistler. Beta 2 has been very nice so far. I think it's going
> to be a decent product.
It will be interested to see how the activation key stuff affects
everything.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:10:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> I booted windows on my home machine yesterday for the first time in
> about 2 months. The reason for this was to view some recipes on a free
> cd provided by the wonderful dolmio company. Some fuckwit there had
> decided putting the recipes in plain text was a bad idea, and so they
> were built into binary executable files. Having booted windows, it
> proceeded to change the time stored in my CMOS clock, thus requiring me
> to go into setup on reboot (HAD to get back to Linux) to sort the mess
> out. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrr
Windows _asks_ you before you change the time. Did you blindy accept it
or did you bother to _read_ what it was about to do?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:12:44 GMT
Said Paolo Ciambotti in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
>In article <9cktaj$2h5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>[fish smell snipped]
>> So Flatfish why are you so hostile about a product you think is going to
>> fail. If it is really going to fail why should you care or waste your
>> time posting? It seems to be the only reason to yell really loudly
>> something is dieing is because it is a threat to you. For some reason
>> you have a great deal of anger towards linux and I am not sure why.
>> Maybe you should learn to deal with your anger in more constructive ways
>> rather then ranting on a newsgroup about something that from your own
>> statements you don't think matters at all. Meanwhile those of us using
>> linux will continue to do so just fine.
>
>I agree with Kosh 100%. Flatso, if Linux is as bad as you say why are you
>wasting your time here? Why not just let it die a peaceful death? If
>Linux is not a threat, and it's doomed to imminent failure, then there's
>no sense whatsoever in commenting about it. That's precisely why I don't
>comment about WinXP or dot-NET.
LOL!
Grade 'A', guys.
To Chris Ahlstrom: You were right! This group is MUCH more entertaining
with flathead/clair around.
>You also don't have a lot of credibility here, and probably won't be taken
>seriously by even the most naive lurker. How many pseudonyms have you
>posted under now, thirty-five? Your posts have been mostly fictitious
>tales of failure, fraught with technical errors in your retellings, about
>an operating system you've obviously never really used. You can't claim
>to be doing it as a public service, because you have no audience other
>that yourself. Just give it a rest, go hang out in a Microsoft newsgroup,
>and get on with your life. Your being here is just sad and wrong.
The sock puppets do not get paid to post here, any more than the
penguinistas do. That doesn't mean they don't have a financial stake in
it, though. Flathead/clair probably thinks he's helping his stock
options. He hasn't bothered to correlate his peak trolling a few months
ago corresponding with MS beginning the long slide which ended up
unseating Gates as the richest man in the world, I guess.
Doh!
--
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: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:12:45 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
>and it is a slim chance at that.
Millions and millions of users, IBM to invest $3 *billion* modifying ALL
of their products and services to support Linux, and Microsoft waiting
anxiously for the axe to fall in federal court....
>The tide is changing rapidly and Linux had better get it's act
>together quickly or it runs the risk of being a has been real fast.
>
>While Win2k was very slow out of the starting gate, support and
>interest in this OS has been building steadily for the past year or so
>and in anticipation of XP people are now taking a second look at
>Win2k.
MS has been trying desperately to foist W2K off on developers,
manufacturers, and consumers for a couple years now, and has gained less
market penetration than Linux! The consumer channel is rejecting it
wholesale (since wholesale prices are orders of magnitude more than
retail for WinDOS), and so MS has declared they will simply refuse to
continue selling any DOS-based Windows (Win98 SE included, as it is
still widely bundled, even though the majority of new PCs are ME).
Thus, their attempts to talk up XP so much, especially the 'Whistler'
that will supposedly "finally" replace WinDOS on the desktop.
>In the DAW world the WDM drivers have reduced the Sound Card latency
>to 2ms or less which allows real time input monitoring including
>effects etc.
>
>Linux has NOTHING in this world.
Most people probably don't have a clue what you're talking about; those
who do are no doubt laughing.
[...]
>I have a Midiman Delta 1010 and while I can PAY OSS for a driver, that
>is half ass and doesn't exploit the full capabilities of the card, why
>should I?
>
>I can get the Windows/Mac driver for FREE and they work perfectly.
[...]
>This is really a bone in the throat of almost everyone who believes in
>freedom of speech and anonymity.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>This is where Linux should concentrate it efforts, but sadly the
>people in charge are just too stupid to see the light.
There are no people "in charge" of Linux, moron.
>I'll bet we have 3 new compilers for Linux by years end. And who
>really cares?
People who use compilers. They adopt a technology a few years before
the people who benefit from their work do. Which gives you sock puppets
about six months to a year, tops, to try to lay enough FUD to explain
why .NET and XP are being rejected by the market. No wonder you sound
so strident and stupid.
>Nobody, because nobody will be using the applications if in fact there
>are any.
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Aaron
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 08:27:26 +1000
Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cpmp9$nj4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> this year, the US government has allocated $19billion in farming
subsidies,
> would you regard this as free trade in action?
>
> Matthew Gardiner
Also (among other things) they still have tariffs on lamb imports from
Australia.
Other protected industries include Sugar and Bananas.
Free trade? *shrug*
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <[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: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:18:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And that seems to me a breach of the letter of the GPL. Yet the
>FSF doesn't mind.
Did you see the message I posted on Monday? I think it's obvious that the
FSF never intended that clause to apply when an application is included
with a system. It was intended to apply when the application is shipped
separately and the library is included with it.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:17:49 GMT
Said pookoopookoo in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001 11:03:56
[...]
>I REALLY hope Linux succeeds wildly when XP comes out. I also hope all
>the major distros get their heads out of their asses and ship XF86Config
>with 100dpi fonts, not 75 dpi ones, because it makes Linux as a whole
>look pitiful. I also hope that Adobe, since it has ported apps to MacOS
>X, will at least consider porting it's major graphic design apps to
>Linux. Oh...dreams I tell ya.
>
>What Linux needs (for me) YESTERDAY!
[...]
Most of these things seem to be problems because the distro developers
are not the computer OEMs. It seems obvious to me that if not for MS's
criminal behavior, that would be the 'natural order of things' in the
market. The PC and Linux would end up doing what the PC should have
been doing all along: allowing computer manufacturers to make their
"own" products, while still allowing interoperability in software and
interchangeability in hardware.
So if the remedy works, and the captive audience for Windows dries up,
do you think this will be 'corrected'? It seems rather likely that
RedHat will be bought by, or will buy, an OEM, and then things will go
on as if Bill Gates had never happened.
Am I being optimistic, do you think?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:16:32 GMT
In article <9cn95p$qh5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
[snipped stuff about WM]
> The idea is that you can use a really cheap computer and a light fast, wm
> or buy a big computer and use a pretty one. Answer is CHOICE. I've only
> been going forward w/ linux.
Fair enough, but Windows 98 SE appears to be running at the same speed as
icewm, but not KDE/GNOME, which indicates how far behind those two
desktops are.
> : > How about multimedia?
>
> I use a VCR. Toys are for kids.
You mean you don't have your adult toys? Or did you think getting older
meant you left childhood behind?
> Well, this means it's not supported so they make you pay. Fine. Use what you
> need to use.
And if you can't get it on Linux, use Windows, is that it?
> : Have a new digital camera? You may be able to get it work (more likely not),
> : but you don't have the software that comes with the camera that makes image
> : capture, processing, and cataloging so damn easy! What are you paying for?
>
> Then use it.
Only on Windows.
> : Setting up a home lan to share a broadband connection? Windows, couple of
> : hours. Linux, good luck getting the NIC drivers to compile. How many
>
> I can do it in 5 min on mac os classic. Are you using this? If not, why not?
> Cause it's old.
With Windows setting up a cable modem and home network was easy. With
Linux, two NIC's, one static, one DHCP and a firewall defeats it.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:17:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >It's getting better, but it's still no where near windows. But hey, it's a
> >windows world.
>
> I think you misspelled "criminal monopoly".
You know that, I know that, but how come the courts don't?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "~¿~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help: Bought out by MS geeks...
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:24:17 GMT
> >> What relivance has your snide comments have to do my original post?
> >
> > Are you asking me "what relevance -do- your snide comments ..."?
> >
> > Answer: None.
> > I should have clipped your identification from the top as I do your sig
> > from the bottom.
> > (=
> >
>
> What real world experience do you have in terms of computer related
> qualifications? because by the way you present yourself on this newsgroup,
> you sound like a desperate, pimply faced 15 year old with a chip on your
> shoulder, and feeling very insecure because you have finally realised that
> you are not as bright as you pre-emptively thought you were.
1). I've enough experience to know the definition of advocacy.
2). I've enough experience to know that personal attack != a well made
point.
3). I'm know that I am well beyond 15 years of age.
4). I know enough to know when 'pre-emptively' is being misused.
5). I know I have enough IT experience to know how much I don't know.
6). I know that I don't have pimples, and I'm glad of it.
7). I know that what I wrote above was in no way meant to be offensive.
8). I know your advocacy is nothing more than petty recalcitrance.
9). I know that I'm tired of typing digit_paren_period
10). Other than that, I'm just peachy~ thanks!
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:22:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> And I pointed out that Lyx also takes the same number of steps (neglecting
> that you failed to name the file, in your example).
You don't need to name the file, even to print it. If you want to save
it, then you need a name. Can you not name the file in LyX?
> I also pointed out that Lyx can be run remotely, using only a couple
> more steps. By remotely I mean it'l use up cpu on the *remote* linux
> box.
So what? I want to run Word on my PC, not one round the corner.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Thu, 3 May 2001 01:14:57 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:50:16
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001
05:51:57
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> >No, you claim that the implentation of API is important to
developers
> >who
> >> >> >code against this API, right?
> >> >>
> >> >> No. What gave you that idea?
> >> >
> >> >Qoutes:
> >> >
> >> >"designing the API and writing the code to support it are not two
> >> >independent things."
> >>
> >> An abstraction error on your part. Just because the designing and the
> >> writing are two "independent" things doesn't mean the API and the code
> >> are the same "thing". They are and they are not, depending on how you
> >> are using the terms. Sorry; I didn't invent the rules of language, I
> >> just try to understand and use them.
> >
> >API is about designing, you design your API according to your
application's
> >needs, when you've the API, *then* you start coding.
> >
> >You are currect about the language, though, you are misusing the
> >programmers' dialect, you use incorrect terms constantly, which appears
to
> >be largely
>
> No, YOU are misusing the "real words", presuming that, because it is a
> 'programmers terminology' (not a dialect; it shows more ignorance of the
> discussion that you suggest the word)
I use a different language to think, sometimes it slip throught.
> that the real words are somehow
> degenerate forms of the technical terms, when the opposite is the case.
Yes and no.
Force, for a someone with a PhD in physics, has a totally different
interpertation than it has to a common person.
Physics defined this word very clearly, there isn't yes or no regarding this
word in physics.
For computer programmers, there is a terminology of their own, which tries
not to leave ambiguaties
It would help if you told us what you *think* an API is, then we could
disillution you.
> Again, I must remind you that we are discussing copyright here, not
> software development.
No, it *started* as a copyright discussion, it changed to software
development, discussions do that, you know.
> The concept of when you "start coding" is
> analogous, but NOT the same, as when you "start writing" any other type
> of IP. In truth, you are "designing" the library when you design its
> API, like an author creating an outline for his book.
Of course, that is part of what an API is used for, to make sure you would
think about your design.
> Has he "started
> writing" the book yet, when he creates an outline, or describes the plot
> to someone? Note that, if someone were to use his plot, they may be
> liable for 'copying' his IP.
No, and I speak as someone who write. (www.dragonlibrary.com, search for
Barid Bel Medar my previous alias)
I often writes outlines for a story I intend to write, and I don't consider
this part of the authoring the book.
> >> "The API" is important to program developers, as is therefore "the
code"
> >> which implements it. How the code "works" doesn't matter, but then
> >> again, neither does how the API "works". Just whether it does, THAT it
> >> does.
> >
> >No, the API is the only thing that matters.
>
> They why do you need a stub library to be replaced by a real library?
Because I need some way to debug my code, and the real library isn't there
yet.
You can *code* against an API, you can't debug it until you have something
there to fill in the blanks.
An API *must* include function declarations, you just can't expect the
compiler to guess what sendMessage() does.
> >The API in about *interface*, a way to communicate with other part of the
> >the program, it has nothing to do with the code.
>
> Other than that the code is everything in "the other part". It sounds
> like a rather fragile abstraction, the way you describe it.
No, quite strong, an API abstract the implementation from the programs that
use it.
> >Again, you seem to be confusing basic stuff here.
>
> No, I am clear on all the concepts. I am not limited to your
> understanding in how I use them, is all.
No, you don't *understand*.
> >API is a declaration, a way of stating something.
>
> Or the documentation of it, or the end result of what a library
> provides, depending on how you use the term. I don't bring up these
> alternate connotations just to confuse you, merely to point out that you
> are confusing others by randomly changing from one to the other
> unannounced in your depiction of software as intellectual property.
No, I'm using here the coding term here.
An API is a declaration of a function or functions, or the public part of a
class or classes.
It define the behaviour of the library that implements this API.
It's a contract, between the library and the user of this library.
They both must follow the terms of the contract, and that mean that the
library must implement the API correctly, and that the user must use the API
correctly.
If they both follow the contract, there are no problems.
Once again, I'm not talking about IP here, I'm talking about software, which
you seem to be clueless about.
> >In this case, your application's interface.
> >
> >You say, "You'll give me money, I'll give you a book"
> >
> >Code is the action.
>
> I understand the extraction, but please bear in mind this is an analogy,
> not a definition.
No, this is *NOT* an analogy.
This is an API:
Book sellBook(Money amountOfMoney);
This equals to the above statement.
> >You accept the money, count it, go to where you can get the book, and
give
> >it to whomever gave you the money.
> >The one who gave you the money doesn't know if you have a stock of copies
of
> >the book at home or if you went to a bookstore and bought it from there.
> >One important point in API is to limit to a minimum the amount of data
you
> >disclouse.
>
> What on earth does any of that imaginary stuff have to do with
> copyright? Bear in mind, copyright is not imaginary. Its more like
> "I'll give you money, you give me the book". This isn't imaginary; it
> is called a transaction. Just like when you use a function call "give
> me this" and it is given to you, as a program. Thus, you are *deriving*
> your value from the library, thus the program is a *derivative* work,
> according to the copyright law, even though no other part of copyright
> law is involved in this type of 'transaction', and this 'transaction'
> has no real relationship (save as potential analogy) with the monetary
> transactions which are the bread and butter of copyright law.
You are avoiding the issue, I never once talked about copyright, I entered
the discussion when you showed huge ignorance in software design. I don't
think I involved myself in this discussion other to comment to your
messages, and then, only to comment about the parts where you talked about
software design or programming.
> >> In theory, maybe. In practice? The API/library/code has to "exist"
> >> somehow for a programmer to "use" it. If you want to claim someone is
> >> using something that doesn't exist, I can understand the idea
> >> metaphorically. But analytically it is an empty concept.
> >
> >No, in practice, API calls that doesn't exist are used all the time.
>
> For a meaning of "used" that is quite useless outside of software
> development. One more time: we are discussing copyright, not software
> development. If you "use" a library in this way, you need a license,
> even if you are not distributing the library itself, because your
> copyrighted work is derivative of the library owner's copyrighted work.
A> We are talking software, I'm using terms that would be understand to
anyone who writes software.
B> I can implement Win32 API as a GPL project, does this mean that every
program that uses Win32 API now must be GPLed? Again a library is *not* it's
API, a library is an implementation of the API, nothing more.
C> AFAIK, there are no copyrighted APIs.
> I don't think I can put it any clearer than that, and I'm not sure if
> you even understand what that means, so I'll stop here, and you can ask
> questions if you like.
Again, I don't *care* about this copyright discussion, I care about your
erronomous statements about software designs.
T. Max, what do you think an API *is*?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Thu, 3 May 2001 01:16:25 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001
> >On Tue, 1 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
> >>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>>> Said Stefaan A Eeckels in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
> >>>>> Well, one of my colleagues is writing an application to a Java
> >>>>> .jar that's not yet implemented (I finished the spec, he started
> >>>>> on his application after about the third draft, when we felt it
> >>>>> was stable enough). I'll have the classes implemented when he'll
> >>>>> start testing. Hint: writing a program != coding. There's a lot
> >>>>> to do before the first line of code is written, or before the
> >>>>> first test is run.
> >>>> That's like saying "writing a book != authoring", and illustrates
> >>>> clearly why everyone gets so confused by software copyright.
> >>> Here is a perfectly legal API:
> >> [...]
> >> My consideration regards real APIs, not "legal" ones, or any other form
> >> of thought experiment.
> >
> >You've been given some. Now either shut up and learn or FOAD.
>
> Some what? There have been no examples which refute my logic presented.
> I am not simply denying there have been examples presented; there have
> been some, and I have pointed out how they were in error, not actually
> relating to the point I am making.
You don't have the knowledge to say that something is an error.
Find another person who can agree to the bunch of erronoumous statements
that you did in the last couple of days regarding software design.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
