Linux-Advocacy Digest #370, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 16:13:08 EDT
Contents:
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)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Edward Rosten")
Re: ChromeLinuxT/ WebServer (kosh)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Edward Rosten")
MS server appliance; 7 key benefits over Linux (Bob Tennent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:16 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 06:20:46
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >> So you agree a library can be derivative of a program, even if it isn't
>> >> considered part of the program?
>> >
>> >Not in the general case where the library correctly contains things not
>> >duplicated in the main program. If you write a program containing the
>> >functions first, then extract code from it into a library, the duplicated
>> >material would be derivative of the earlier copy. However, the point
>> >of having an interface definition is to separate the things on either
>> >side so that they are not derivative and need nothing else in common.
>>
>> And you don't see how this metaphysical manipulation ("extract the code
>> from it into a library") shows that you are going far beyond the
>> copyright law in your application of copyright to software?
>
>No, I am pointing out the difference between something clearly covered
>by copyright and something not even mentioned. A library extracted
>from a prior version (library or not) would be covered as a copy of
>another work. A program calling the interface has a copy of nothing.
>
>> If a library author wants to present an API for anyone to use, he will
>> use the LGPL.
>
>Really? Does Microsoft want people to use their API? Did they LGPL
>the libraries?
Yes, and no. They want people to use them enough to overcome the
application barrier, but they don't want people to use them enough to
overcome the application barrier. D'ja folla?
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:17 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 06:27:05
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >> If an API is "like a contract", then it is simply the documentation of
>> >> the agreement. Not "the agreement" itself.
>> >
>> >The API is the agreement - by definition. If you don't understand
>> >that, there is no point in arguing about what it is.
>>
>> If I am required to understand anything "by definition", then it is not
>> worth understanding. It is something to be memorized, not understood.
>
>It is specifically what must be used for the components to work together.
Really? I can't just write the program to use that library?
--
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.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:18 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 00:51:02
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9d6ud3$n4i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> WSH is just one step below programming, if at all. But people call what
>> >> perl does scripting. Oh, well.
>> >
>> > Actually - WSH IS programming. You can write more than just simple
>> > command line scripts in WSH.
>>
>> Yep, Windows is beginning to approach the functionality UNIX had 20 years
>> ago or more.
>
>Even if we accept your lame comment - so? How does what you say in any way
>make it a bad thing?
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>OK, so now it does something that unix did 20 years ago - ok, great. Windows
>does even more - this is bad? ahahah, I think you so totally underestimate
>Windows that it will simply just glide right on past you typing away at your
>little green screen CLI.
It is as impossible to underestimate Windows as it is to underestimate
the power of monopoly. 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: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:19 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 00:17:03
>"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>I considered it but you are obviously too dumb and entirely clueless about
>what I wrote. Sure these linux users used windows before switching. It's
>these same lusers that couldn't make windows work for them that I'm talking
>about. I mean, how stupid does one have to be to fail to get Windows running
>right? My child runs it, children in 2nd grade install it successfully. My
>mother has installed it and used it successfully...
This would explain the MSCE program, then?
Last year, Scientific American ran an issue on the "Oxygen" project at
MIT. The guy who wrote the article has been the head of the computer
science lab at MIT for more than twenty years. He opened the piece by
explaining how he, and some of the finest minds in the computer
industry, spent hours and hours trying to get his PCMCIA modem to work
on his Windows laptop. In the end, it 'just worked', he said; none of
these highly skilled technologists could tell either why it didn't work
before, or why it was working now.
There's some lusers for you, Jan. 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.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:20 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 00:21:02
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9d88se$b5t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Your system has to be so broken to fail a burn on a current gen burner -
>> > AND with the latest Burn-Proof technology people like Lite-on and
>> > Plextor use, it's literally impossible to fail the burn. You can pause
>> > the entire system with the pause key and the buffer can go to 0% for an
>> > hour and then resume and continue burning the CD flawlessly.
>> >
>> > Of course, I'm sure this support isn't in linux yet...
>>
>> But then you're stupid, aren't you.
>>
>
>Wow - that was really intelligent and quit an awesome comeback.
Concise, complete, and correct. What more could you ask for?
>Did you
>consider other classics like: "I know you are but what am I?" and "I'm
>rubber and you're glue, anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you"
Perhaps you didn't actually read the point, for why else would you be
trying so hard to prove it correct?
>And you go to university? I pray for our future generations, may they not be
>unix-cursed....
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. Yes, MS has been praying for that for YEARS.
Hell, decades, at this point. :-D
--
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, 09 May 2001 19:35:21 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001
>On 09 May 2001 01:42:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
>wrote:
>
>
>>This is no different to how I make money from Linux.
>>
>>IBM actually have to make a physical product (hardware),
>>to make money, they can't sell Linux for any more than
>>the cost of the media.
>>
>>--
>>Kind Regards
>>Terry
>
>What if they released their own distribution like Redhat or SuSE does,
>can they charge whatever they want for it?
Not really, no. They can try, of course, but prices will inevitably
(and quickly) fall to competitive levels, only slightly higher than the
cost of the media. Improvement will occur incrementally, not in a
serious of bloated forced upgrades, because IBM would just be giving
away their value add if they tried to profiteer on their distro.
You gotta love that GPL....
--
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: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:22 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 9 May 2001 12:43:37
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >You're being deliberately dense. "Word does it straight away".
>>
>> You are apparently missing my point. Word does "it"(?) straight away?
>> What is "it"?
>>
>> No telling what "it" is, of course; Word does really weird things with
>> embedded graphics.
>
>Are you really this dense? Word inserts embedded graphics!
Word does really weird things with embedded graphics. You are correct
that sometimes "inserts" is one of them, but you're never really sure
what "it" is, when dealing with Word.
--
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: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:23 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 9 May 2001 12:46:50
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >> >> Why not just say "I just do it." Do I really need to explain to you why
>> >> >> your instructions are sort of worthless, and thus your argument is ad
>> >> >> absurdum?
>> >> >
>> >> >So, what's your explanation of how I'm wrong?
>> >>
>> >> First, tell me why I should need to explain it?
>> >
>> >To explain what you're talking about.
>>
>> What I'm talking about is what I said. It already explains how you are
>> mistaken; that is precisely what my statement was. Why are you asking
>> for an explanation you've already been given?
>
>Because you gave no explanation. I gave mine.
Then what was that monstrous series of paragraphs you snipped? I know
it wasn't your explanation, because I'm the one who wrote it. You gave
no explanation at all, IIRC.
>> >I fail to see how my instructions are worthless. I described what you do
>> >with Word. You seem to want to fail to understand.
>>
>> They were pretty vague, essentially useless, as is. I should know; I
>> taught people how to use Word for almost ten years. And the point is
>> that the explanation of the procedure for how to execute these things in
>> Unix can be made just as simple, but are far more precise, consistent,
>> and reliable then the alternative in "Whatever Way Microsoft Wants To Do
>> 'It'".
>
>Sigh... I'm not going over the steps again. They're pretty simple. I see
>no reason why someone who claims to have taught people how to use Word
>for ten years can see how they work.
Yes, I'm well aware of that. Doh!
>> >Please explain to me why you could be so stupid not to understand what I
>> >said originally, and not what you appear to think I said.
>>
>> Like I said; I taught people to use Word for years. Believe me, the
>> level of stupidity I was feigning concerning your procedures were very
>> charitable in representing what you would call the "stupidity" of the
>> novice user, who had no bias towards Windows from familiarity.
>
>So now you're pretending to be deliberately stupid. What was the point
>of that? If anything, I think you were deliberately "trolling".
>
>Thank you T. Max. for the last few posts, a whole pile of pointless
>noise.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. Word sucks lemons, for novice and expert alike. Have
a nice day.
--
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.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:24 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 00:39:02
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9d6put$g9n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> They could have done as they promised - dropped DOS after Win95. Or maybe
>> done as they next promised - dropped DOS after Win95 OSR2. Or after
>Win98.
>> Or Win98SE. Or Windmill. They have had NT - a mostly backwards
>compatible
>> OS family for years, which everyone knows is better in virtually every way
>> than Win9x, and they have been promising for years that they will drop the
>> Win9x line and move to the far superior NT kernel. Yet they have
>> consistently failed to do so. What I propose is that MS, for once in its
>> existance, actually delivers on a promise and makes XP a single code base.
>> I also propose that you don't consider it to be something marvelous when
>> (and if - I'm not holding my breath) they get it right.
>
>XP is available in beta and from this we can determine that, yes, it really
>is what they claim. There are absolutely no new versions of the Win9x line
>being worked on. That team is dead and moved on. The W2K team remains
>skeleton like only to provide fixes and service packs. There is a single
>moving forward Windows team - the XP team. This is just true and while it
>may have taken a long time with, perhaps, some broken promises along the
>way - the time has finally arrived.
Ironic that it's just about the time nobody gives a fuck. :-)
--
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.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:25 GMT
Said Dave Martel in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 23:47:55
>On 9 May 2001 00:39:02 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>This is just true and while it
>>may have taken a long time with, perhaps, some broken promises along the
>>way - the time has finally arrived.
>
><insert cartoon of Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown>
ROTFLMAO!
--
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.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:27 GMT
Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 06:32:07
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> On 9 May 2001 00:43:02 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Your car has unique ID numbers etched into 100 locations, all recorded in a
>> >corporate database and shared with the police and other dealers - you don't
>> >have a choice. That doesn't bother you? Seen any black helicopters lately?
>> >
>>
>> But I own my vehicle outright. It's all mine and it won't refuse to run if
>> I make improvements to it.
>>
>No, but the manufacturer of your vehicle might cancel your warrenty if
>they don't like what you did to "improve" it.
Oh, really? Guffaw. Case closed. ;-)
--
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.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:30 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 06:38:27
>"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3af8d97b$0$41639$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>
>> No - a monopoly is NOT illegal. Period. YOU look it up and find out that
>I'm
>> right. I state that as a fact - prove me wrong.
>
>Right - it is what Microsoft did with the power of their monopoly that
>was proven illegal.
That's word-games, pure and simple. There's only one thing you can "do"
with the "power of monopoly". 'Monopolize'. Doh! Made illegal by
section 2 of the Sherman Act. Go figure! ;-/
--
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.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:29 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 00:48:05
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 7 May 2001 08:00:07
>> [...]
>> >> You have some verification this software isn't already in the Windows
>> >> update software?
>> >
>> >You have some proof it is?
>>
>> Yes. I have LOTS of proof it is. Not proof that you would find
>> convincing, I know, but I'm not in a contest to see which of us is more
>> clueless, as much as you might find that amusing.
>
>OK - share some proof.
You've read the proof already; I'm sure you have, because I recall your
commenting on it, trying to imagine it away. MS has routinely practice
subterfuge like this, and other companies have also produced spyware and
lied about it. Doh!
>I claim it's not there so my proof is simple. I can't show you any. See...
>look.... nothing there. I said it's not there and I can't show you any -
>lookin' good to me. So, now, make me wrong, prove me wrong: show me that
>it's there.
Wow. Must be easy to maintain illusions in your world.
[...]
>> And some say there's a sucker born every minute.
>
>Actually one guy said that first and everyone else quoted him.
So they weren't saying it? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
[...]
>No - a monopoly is NOT illegal. Period. YOU look it up and find out that I'm
>right. I state that as a fact - prove me wrong.
Check the Sherman Act, Section 2. Paraphrased (slightly), it says "any
person who monopolizes or attempts to monopolize has committed a
felony."
Where were you looking it up? The *dictionary*? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
>> >There
>> >are many monopolies in the world today, it's not so uncommon. Watch Pro
>> >football one day and look at the name on the helmet on the front.
>>
>> Which pro football? The NFL? The XFL? The Canadian league? What?
>
>The NFL.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA! Way to miss the point, dude! :-D
[...]
>> >A monopoly? Yes.
>>
>> Ummm... no. Perhaps you are ignorant of the legal definition of
>> monopoly, but I am not. Get a clue.
>
>Um. yes. but you'll perhaps learn one day.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
>> >Illegal monopoly? No.
>>
>> That's redundant; the law does not provide for exceptions; all
>> monopolization and attempted monopolization, as well as the restraint of
>> trade necessary for any monopoly, are all illegal! "Illegal monopoly"
>> is always "yes" because "monopoly" is always "illegal", yes.
>
>And that is where you continue to be wrong. A monopoly is not illegal.
>Period. End of story. Look it up - better yet, hire someone to look it up
>and explain it to you.
What the HELL are you talking about? Where is this mythical reference
I'm supposed to "look it up" in? Is there some law in the US other than
the law of statute that I'm not aware of?
--
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.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:35:26 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 00:43:02
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Wow. You ARE clueless, aren't you? You have some reason to believe
>> that Redhat spread ebola? Or you have no idea that MS is routinely
>> dishonest? Either way, I think you pretty much got the lock on the
>> "Most Clueless Person Possible" award for this decade.
>
>I really laughed out loud - I can't even stop laughing enough to type a
>reply to this. Ask some kid to explain why you sound so funny...
It was intended to be funny, Jan. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
I'm glad you got the joke. There's hope for you yet, maybe.
>> >And, see my previous reply where I ask; even if this were so - SO WHAT?!
>>
>> Duh! So people don't want them to do it. That's SUPPOSED to be enough.
>> What gives MS special privileges?
>
>Your car has unique ID numbers etched into 100 locations, all recorded in a
>corporate database and shared with the police and other dealers - you don't
>have a choice. That doesn't bother you? Seen any black helicopters lately?
No, it doesn't bother me; I'm not a paranoid person.
I'm also not a stupid person, as you obviously are. I have no need
whatsoever to fear use of the ID, yet that does not prevent me from
being incensed at dishonest people who claim they are not using it when
they are, and charging them with fraud.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 21:39:53 +0100
> Man! Some of you can be dense. I'll try one more time...read very
> carfully and use your pea-brain to understand: Using "nurse" in the
> context of the definition of "mammal", birds do not nurse their young.
Using `nurse' in only the context of mammals to prove that birds don't
nurse is a very circular argument, and completely nonsensical. Using the
definition of nurse in all the dictionaries I have to hand, birds do
nurse their young.
> Now, if you want to use all the additional definitions of "nurse", then
> sure, birds nurse their young, bees nurse their young, and ants nurse
> their young, and human fathers nurse their young, and nurses in the
> hospital nurse their patients, and teachers nurse their students, and on
> and on...
>
> BUT USING "NURSE" IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEFINITION OF MAMMAL, BIRDS DO
> NOT NURSE THEIR YOUNG....and the definition of mammal was the original
> discussion.
that is a nonsensical thing to do. Utter gibberish. What you mean to say
is birds don't lactate. Sure thay don't.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ChromeLinuxT/ WebServer
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 13:26:33 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fmc wrote:
>
> "kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9da8vm$fu7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Look at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html it is a pretty simple
>> license to read.
>>
>> It makes no such requirement about software. I can write software for
> linux
>> and release it under any license I want. However if I use gpl code to
> write
>> my software then I have to gpl my work or ask the author for some special
>> deal. Using GPL tools has no affect on the license of the stuff you make.
>
> GPL:
>
> "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
> and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
> sections when you distribute them as separate works."
>
> Apparently Chromium feels that its product is "not derived from the
> Program" and "reasonably considered independent and separate", even though
> it DEPENDS ON AND CANNOT FUNCTION without the Apache webserver.
>
Apache is not GPL licensed
[trimmed for clarity]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:40:33 GMT
Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 9 May 2001 16:41:32
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> Fair enough. I did get the complete opposite connotation from your term
>> 'pressure'; I guess I'm the one with the knee-jerk reaction.
>
>It was perhaps the wrong word, but the only one that fitted at the time...
In the future, might I suggest "encourage" or "petition".
>> Most people who bring up the "superior technology lost" idea are.
>> Funny, isn't it?
>
>Not that funny. If they knew Betamax was alive and kicking, they wouldn't
>use it as an example... ;)
Yea. Funny. I mean, considering it is, and all. ;-)
>> I apologize for being harsh. It's Usenet; it does that to you, if
>> you're not careful. You don't come off as a kid, and that ain't as easy
>> to pull off as it sounds. Welcome to the planet, sir.
>
>I've noticed. I was slipping into the trap of escalation, so I thought I
>better just snip the bits I didn't like without replying and cool it all off
>a bit...
The world needs more people like you, Michael, even if you are clueless
about the web. ;-)
(I'm joking, I'm joking. Honest!)
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 21:41:18 +0100
>>
>>Aaron simply claimed that birds do not nurse their young. This is false.
>>He probably meany to say they don't suckle their young.
>>
>
>
> Man! Some of you can be dense. I'll try one more time...read very
> carfully and use your pea-brain to understand: Using "nurse" in the
> context of the definition of "mammal", birds do not nurse their young.
Look, you pea-brained dipstick. Read Aaron's post first before being such
an idiot. He said nothing about mammals.
He said:
"Birds do not nurse their young."
No qualifiers, just a false statement.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 21:41:39 +0100
Learn to read.
Twit.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 21:42:15 +0100
Learn to read the posts first.
Twit.
-ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Tennent)
Subject: MS server appliance; 7 key benefits over Linux
Date: 9 May 2001 19:31:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
According to
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/embedded/sak/sakcomp.asp
there is a white paper available that describes
seven key benefits to OEMs that use Windows 2000 and the SAK 2.0
over similar Linux based solutions
I've been unable to download anything usable. An empty boast perhaps?
Can anyone else get anything?
Bob T.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
