Linux-Advocacy Digest #340, Volume #34 Tue, 8 May 01 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
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")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Darren Wyn Rees)
Re: Windows 2K is crappy: a couple of examples ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Chad Everett)
Re: MS Must be getting really desperate ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft's move away from perpetual licensing proves that the closed source
model doesn't work! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Dave Martel)
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")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Chad Everett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 05:44:09 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001 00:00:53
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001
12:15:23
> >> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:Pg3J6.9817$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>
> >> >> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>
> >> >> > >An API is not complete without the documentation of what its
> >function
> >> >> does.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You mean the library won't work if a programmer makes a function
call
> >> >> > unless the function is documented?
> >> >>
> >> >> He means that the program must be expected to break when you upgrade
> >> >> the library to the next version if you use anything beyond what is
> >> >> documented. If you link statically that might not be a problem.
> >> >
> >> >Not the library is expected to break if what is uses have been changed
or
> >> >remove.
> >> >Otherwise, it can go on happily with any number of updates.
> >>
> >> "Can" != "will".
> >
> >Can == Will in computer world.
> >This is a deterministic enviroment, T. Max.
>
> No, it is a conditional environment; "can" != "will".
Do you *know* what deterministic mean?
If you don't break the contract, it can & *will* go on happily.
If you break the contract, it can't, and won't.
Got that?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 05:58:55 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001 00:09:18
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
03:10:39
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> >> >An API is not complete without the documentation of what its
function
> >> >does.
> >> >>
> >> >> You mean the library won't work if a programmer makes a function
call
> >> >> unless the function is documented?
> >> >
> >> >He means that the program must be expected to break when you upgrade
> >> >the library to the next version if you use anything beyond what is
> >> >documented. If you link statically that might not be a problem.
> >>
> >> No, he meant that the program must be expected to break unless you have
> >> complete documentation for the library to begin with. Have you been
> >> following the discussion?
> >
> >No, it certainly isn't expected to break if I don't have a full
> >documentation of the library that it uses.
>
> Don't people notice when they make their statements unfalsifiable? Or
> do they simply not realize how completely it refutes their own point?
Within the scope of this discussion, this is no unfalsified statement.
If I wrote a program to an older API, and the library implements the older
API plus new API, then I don't have the documentation of the whole library,
only for the old API, then it most certainly isn't expected to break if I
use the old API, even though I don't have the documentation of the library.
> >I only need documentation for the part that I use.
>
> You only need documentation if you don't already know what you're using.
False, big time.
You need documentation if you are going to work on it.
Know what you are using means that you memorized the documentation.
> IOW, the documentation is "the API", or rather as close as you can get
> to the platonic object you're referring to with 'API'.
API is a real object, you could get hurt by it.
Provable quite easy, ask a non-friend to throw at you one of Win32 API,
complete annonated reference, see how much you can get hurt by a platonic
object.
> What the term
> actually means is "library", but due to the ambiguity of the verb "use",
> a different term was needed for "use" of a library that doesn't violate
> copyright law or license agreements as some "uses" do.
You use an API, or write against an API, you link against a library.
> The "use" of a
> library which cannot infringe is metaphorically redirected to the API,
> and this mythical thing called an API is then exempted from copyright
> protection.
There are no myths in CS, (except maybe about the stable 9x and the bug free
program.)
> The "use" of a library which could still be an infringement
> of copyright is the "use" covered by licensing agreements. This is
> further discombobulated, though, by the use of trade secret agreements
> as EULAs.
Okay, this I can accept, linking to a spesific library is using the library
in a way where EULA and licenses can get involved.
So yes, the FSF can say, if you use GPL library, you must GPL the program
that uses it.
Pretty pointless, in my opinion, because a library is to be used, a more
liberated version of LGPL would've been much more logical.
> >One of many examples, Accent Express, a word processor that allows you to
> >write in one of 30 languages no matter what your OS support.
> >I've a version that was built before 9x was invented.
> >It run perfectly well on ME.
>
> That is not an example of anything, really. If you believe it refutes
> my point, it means you still don't understand my point. Ask questions;
> I'll be happy to discuss it.
This is an example of a program that was written to use a spesific API,
implemented by a spesific library, being used on a library that support a
whole lot more of APIs, but since it keeps the contract that was made when
the program was written, the program can still work.
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by
accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals. We cause
accidents.
--Nathaniel Borenstein
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 06:03:02 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> No, the question is whether it would be legal. If it would be legal for
> the FSF, it would be legal for Microsoft; THAT is what determines
> whether it *is* fair.
You have a *really* twisted view about the law, if you think it has anything
to do with fairness.
------------------------------
From: Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 23:09:12 +0100
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
comp.os.linux.advocacy :
>> >Its interesting to me that most distos dont include any really good Linux games.
>>
>> I know Windows 2000 only ships with 4 games of a passable quality.
>> Most Linux distributions on the other hand ship with a lot of tripe.
>Trolling Trolling Trolling... keep them doggies rolling... rawhide...
So you remain under the illusion that Linux is a gamer's OS ?
How jolly amusing of you.
--
"S+M is outta the question, have you got a better suggestion
I'm fed up of waving my right hand" - rat salad www.ratsalad.co.uk
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2K is crappy: a couple of examples
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:19:56 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cqoin$du7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In msgid <WQ2F6.9487$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
on
> Monday 23 April 2001 16:24
>
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9c2a0m$caf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:_%0F6.9473$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > Moved the CD-RW drive to a SuSE 7.1 Linux box and with a few easy
> >> > > and well documented permission settings on a device file and I've
> >> > > got a CD-RW drive that normal users can use to create CDs.
> >> >
> >> > Well documented? About as well documented as the Windows settings to
> >> > do
> >> the
> >> > same thing.
> >>
> >> *How * can I do the same thing with Windows 2000?
> >
> > I've already said how in another post.
> >
> > 1) Run the program as administrator from your user account.
> > 2) Give the user the user rights to load and unload device drivers.
> >
>
> Does this give the user the right to load and unload *any* device drivers?
> Or just the ones for the CD-RW?
>
I don't know about other software, but Nero 5.5 came up with a box asking
me who had the rights to burn. So even Users under Windows 2K could have
burn rights if you wanted too.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 May 2001 16:52:04 -0500
On Tue, 8 May 2001 16:25:52 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Workplace OS was an actual product. I talked to the lead Workplace OS
>developer at Comdex in 1993. He assured me it was a cool product, and would
>include such things as "personality modules" to allow it to run multiple
>OS's simultaneously, among other things.
>
What happened?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MS Must be getting really desperate
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:29:39 GMT
On Sun, 6 May 2001 21:30:32 -0500, "Mad.Scientist"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Even IBM and Intel are wearing Tux shirts now. That should tell you that
>Linux is a good OS.
No. It tells you that IBM and Intel are plotting to make big bucks off
of the open sourse programmers..
Flatfish
>"kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9d2176$pkr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Their paid trolls are getting really desperate. This reminds me of the FUD
>> campaign against OS/2. You would think we were removing their ability to
>> choose which os they are using by the way they are attacking linux in this
>> newsgroup.
>>
>> Honestly I don't give a damn if a windows user hates linux and doesn't
>want
>> to use it however I expect the same courtesy in return. Also I think it is
>> wrong that when you buy a new computer you end up paying the ms tax wether
>> you want to or not. Hell most places charge you for windows even if you
>> don't get windows on that machine because of the damn agreements they have
>> with ms.
>>
>> Considering that even the SIIA thinks ms is in the wrong it looks like ms
>> will be going down but I expect them to spend a lot of time flailing
>around
>> before they die.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:31:09 GMT
On Tue, 08 May 2001 20:38:07 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Unless of course, someone simply ignores the GPL.
Jump on the Linux bandwagon and create your own disto and use it to
sell tons of hardware.
Watch IBM and see it happen......
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft's move away from perpetual licensing proves that the closed
source model doesn't work!
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:32:32 GMT
On 08 May 2001 15:10:21 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> Knowing how Microsoft thinks, and taking that into account, I suspect
>> they are testing the waters to see how they can conjure up a way to
>> "semi-open source" their products, have Open Source programming
>> community maintain and upgrade the code, and of course have Microsoft
>> some how, some way make all of the money off the entire operation with
>> the programmers getting nothing.
>>
>> Just a thought......
>
>Perhaps they suddenly remembered why DOS was so popular (open
>development, open hardware); and they kinda want to go back to their
>cash cow, know it's futile, but think they can FUD their way out of a
>hairy situation (again).
We have debated long enough for you to know that I am certainly no MS
fan..
They have something up their sleeve...You watch and see :)
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:23:03 -0600
On Tue, 08 May 2001 20:42:23 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Terry Porter wrote:
>
>> Why ?
>>
>> One is not a hypocrit for using Windows and advocating Linux imho.
>
>But in the same breathe trashes Windows, yet they're using it to post?
>Puh-lease!
Haven't you ever known someone who drove a Yugo, but had nothing good
to say about them?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 06:24:21 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001 00:42:56
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:45:43
> >> >On Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:16 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...]
> >> >Nonsense. Copyright protects an expression of the idea, not the idea.
> >>
> >> Yes, that is the kind of metaphorical description that makes copyright
> >> law "nonsense" in the hands of the naive. Copyright protects the
bottom
> >> line, whether authors get paid, not any 'expression of ideas'.
> >
> >No, it doesn't.
>
> Oh? Why doesn't it? How doesn't it?
>
> >Copyright protects the author's right to control who copy his work.
>
> Why?
Because it's *his*? Just because it's IP doesn't mean it can't be stolen,
only that you need different set of rules, because people have clear
distinction between real objects and IP.
> >This mean that I can (legally) stop you from copying my work.
>
> To what end? Why do you have a right to control someone else's
> behavior? (Note: claiming 'property rights' is only begging the
> question; copyright law is what creates intellectual property rights,
> and so you cannot assume that intellectual property exists to begin with
> in order to justify copyright law.)
No, IP is the justification of copyright, and is the way you control your
IP, not the other way around.
To what end, you ask, to *any* end that I wish it. If I don't want you to
copy my IP, I can do it, same as I can stop you from taking my keyboard
(although you are welcome to take the one I'm using right now, my regular
won't agree with my new PC, bah!)
> >Whatever my work has any monetary value is really unimportant unless I
want
> >you to pay me for the infrigement.
>
> So your work is valuable because you demand payment, not because anyone
> is willing to provide payment?
My work is valuable if I say it is. Again, I must prove monetary value only
if I sue for damages.
It may have emotional value, and in most cases, it has. Rarely in code, of
course, but in other places.
> Copyright is not a license to monopolize, Ayende.
If I wish to sell a hello world program in three billions US$, that is my
right.
If I succesfully prove infrigement, I can sue for damages.
The infrigers could claim, probably successfully, that my program isn't
worth 3B$, but that wouldn't stop the fact that I can stop him from doing
anything with *my* property.
> >> >If the expression is not copied, the work is not derivative.
> >>
> >> This is untrue, demonstrably. If the work is derivative of the
> >> expression, it is derivative. It is not derivative if it is derivative
> >> of the idea, is what I think you are trying to say. Obviously, I
> >> haven't said it any better, because of the conflicted use of the term
> >> 'derivative'.
> >>
> >> The facts are: a derivative work does not need to contain a copy of the
> >> original to be derivative in the copyright sense. Whether any
> >> derivative work is "derivative in the copyright sense" is up to a judge
> >> to determine.
> >
> >Really? First time I heard about it.
> >That is the FSF defination of it, maybe, but that is not the defination
of
> >the rest of the (legal) work.
>
> No, this point is broader than simple software copyright. It has so far
> come up only with film scripts and things like that, AFAIK, though I
> don't know any details. The FSF's *application* is certainly novel, but
> the definition is not.
Okay, good point, but not applicable to software.
What you are talking about here is write from scratch, which, unless there
is a patent involved, nullified copyright.
Because you take the uncopyrightable *idea*, and recreate it.
On books & movies, that is the same, btw. You can take the same *idea*, and
recreate it, and no one could say a word about it.
Horror films are a good example.
What you are talking about is using elements from another work, in software,
that would probably compotents or code snippets from another program, on
books & movies, that would be basing the new book/movie on the same world,
or on the same characters.
BTW, in both cases, you should try to avoid too close result to the
original, see Apple's Look & Fell suits, for example, no idea about a
similar case in normal art.
> >In order for a work to be a derivative of another work, it had to be
based
> >on the original work.
>
> Now you've got more linguistic problems, trying to define what "based
> on" means. This is why the metaphysical idea of copyright is so
> persistently conflicted. Using the book-keeping nature of copyright, it
> is simplicity itself.
See above for what I mean.
> >I don't think that you would find someone to argue that a shell to a
library
> >is a deriative work, but *using* a library is not.
>
> I don't understand the verb "use" as used in that sentence.
Using a library in this context mean that you call its functions, but also
does non trivial stuff on your code.
HTML browser that use a library to get the data from the net would be using
a networking library.
> >Any more than making a mention of Rudyard Kipling's The Old Issue makes
this
> >post a deriative of his works.
>
> It would if it were a monetary issue; that's the point. That could
> never occur in text, because text is always open. The situation does
> indeed change, though, when you start talking about software, which
> despite much confusion, is not simply text.
It's quite easy to find out against what libraries you link, so that is not
applicable.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 06:28:23 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001 01:20:25
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
03:10:38
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> By "in theory" I meant to exclude such moronic ideas as those coming
> >> >> from you right now. This "here is code" is THEORY. PRACTICE is
when
> >> >> you make a real program that real people use.
> >> >
> >> >So ask any software company if in practice they wait for all
components
> >> >to be finished before writing any other components that use their
> >> >interfaces.
> >>
> >> This isn't necessary for my claim to be true. Are you saying that one
> >> component is produced and delivered before being tested with the
others?
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >> A rather sloppy development model, eh?
> >
> >No.
>
> I'm sorry; you're obviously living in a fantasy world, where you can
> deliver products that don't work and still stay in business.
>
> (Whoops.)
I live in this world, and the products works.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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, 9 May 2001 06:32:36 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
Ridicule is generally made use of to laugh men out of virtue and good
sense, by attacking everything praiseworthy in human life.
--Joseph Addison
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:41:20 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Johan Kullstam wrote:
> > >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > one *huge* weakness of pascal is that it interprets vectors and arrays
> > > of different sizes as wholy different types. thus if you make a
> > > procedure to handle strings of lenght 10, you need another, distinct,
> > > procedure to handle strings of length 11.
> > >
> > You don't need any such thing, because strings are
> > dynamically allocated and handled differently, but as far as
> > vectors and arrays are concerned, an array of length 10 is
> > actually a different type than an array of length 11: what
> > will you do with the 11th element if only ten have been
> > defined?
>
> Use the Ada's way, an array carries it size with it.
>
What I meant was. If you have an array of 10 elements it will contain
some information. An array of 11 contains extra information. Now you
can't handle both the same way. You have a lot of ways to handle this
situation in all programming languages, but the problem is how to avoid
errors. Pascal forces you to explicitly declare that in a given section
of code you're willing to treat the array as an 11 element array, and if
this is wrong, it jumps to the eye. An extra P++ in C can easily escape
even to careful scrutiny.
> > What you call a weakness is the reason I love it. When
> > you're dealing with a large project with many developers
> > involved, a strict type checking is the only way to produce
> > a robust code. You don't need to follow all the lines of
> > code to find the error: you just look at the declarations to
> > locate the potentially dangerous situations (as
> > inappropriate dereferencings and such). I know that it's
> > annoying to write extra declarations (which don't produce
> > any code, BTW), but it's better than parsing a few hundred
> > thousand lines of code in search of a few silly mistakes.
>
> Okay, what language are we talking about here?
Of object Pascal, but not only. Of a language which doesn't allow a P++
to produce a buffer overflow.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 May 2001 17:07:57 -0500
On 8 May 2001 21:19:56 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 8 May 2001 15:31:41 -0500, Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 8 May 2001 20:19:37 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:14:59 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Edward Rosten wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> > Being warm blooded is not the thing that makes a mammal, having
>>>>> >> > mammae is what makes the mammal. Birds do not nurse their young,
>>>>> >> > mammals do
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Yes they do. Hatchlings are fed by their parent(s).
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Not with breast milk.
>>>>>
>>>>> So? the other guy said "birds do not nurse their young". This is false.
>>>>
>>>>MAMMALS NURSE THEIR YOUNG WITH BREAST MILK
>>>
>>>Yes that is true. However, that doesn't make "Birds do not nurse their young"
>>>true.
>>>
>>>I must add that *some* birds don't nurse their young, but they are rare (
>>
>>Using the standard usage of "nurse" and in the context of the definition of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>mammals, birds do not nurse their young, they nourish their young.
^^^^^^^
>
>What can I say, except that apparently you only use the first meaning
>of every word? If you want to use only a specific meaning of nurse,
>implying lactation, please use a more specific word, because birds nurse
>their young.
>
Robert, can you read or not?! IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEFINITION OF MAMMAL:
context : 1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and
can throw light on its meaning
mammal : any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates
(as placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young
with milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or
less covered with hair, and include humans
nurse : to nourish at the breast : SUCKLE b : to take nourishment
from the breast of
The additional definitions of "nurse" are not appropriate to the
CONTEXT OF THE DEFINITION OF MAMMAL....now are they?
Since we we're talking about the DEFINITION OF MAMMAL and using "nurse"
in this CONTEXT, birds do NOT nurse their young.
Now get your head out of your poop shoot and read and THINK!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
