Linux-Advocacy Digest #444, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy (GreyCloud)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Microsoft's Activation scheme for Office 2000 ("Flacco")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (GreyCloud)
Re: The Microsoft PATH. (B'ichela)
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Yet another IIS security bug (GreyCloud)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Matt McLeod)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Les Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:03:41 -0700
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > On 9 May 2001 00:54:05 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > Perhaps this is because you would open NOTEPAD and not run
> edit.com -
> > > DOH!
> > > >
> > > > Not in a telnet session I can't.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > WHY on earth would you penalize yourself with some crappy text based
> > > > > interface when a beautiful set of antialiased fonts of any size you
> can
> > > > > imagine are right there on your desktop?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe because I'm using the new telnet server that MS provided with
> > > > their new OS. Or does it not understand window resizing either?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Perhaps when you graduate from the hell that telnet is - I mean, how
> > > limiting! - into the year 2000 and beyond you'll realize how silly your
> > > hanging on to the past is. I mean, all this worship of telnet and the
> > > command line. You sound like an Amish person swearing off technology! I
> > > can't remember the last time I needed the command line or even felt the
> urge
> > > to time travel into days of old...
> >
> > Yes...telnet is sooooooooo limiting that it's been the mainstay
> > of remote usage for 20 years.
>
> Riding horses to cross the country was done for 20+ years - then along came
> the car.
> Don't see many people riding horses from NY to LA these days do you?
>
> starting to get it now?
Yep! We get it... telnet in windows sux!
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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: Sat, 12 May 2001 04:05:15 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> Oh yes, Microsoft is so innovative. What Unix, Linux, or Mac box could
> give us all this and crashes, too? :-) (Though I'm still trying
> to figure out what "Splunge!" means. It's buried deep in the
> aicxxx section of the Linux 2.2 kernel.)
Splunge n: A word used in a Monty Python sketch during their 1st season.
It was defined as something that may be a good thing but may very well not
be a good thing, all at the same time. It was said in response to a really
stupid idea presented by a film executive to one of his yes-men.
Kind of a fitting name for a tricky piece of code, come to think of it. I'll
have to use it sometime! <g>
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft's Activation scheme for Office 2000
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 04:11:07 GMT
Welcome to your monopolistic software vendor future, Mr and Mrs America.
I am so grateful I discovered Linux when I did. At least I have a few
months' head start on the rest of the world.
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jeffrey L. Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> I was originally notified by the MS staff that I had Office installed
>> on 7 computers, then they changed that and stated that it was only 3. I
>> am still disappointed that there is erroneous information attached to
>> my name, and I do not want to fight with customers service each time I
>> have to reinstall. I originally installed Office 2000 on my Gateway
>> that I had for 2 years, and 6 months ago, I removed it from that
>> computer and put it on my new machine. My new computer had a hard
>> drive fail and Maxtor sent me a new one. Also, I upgraded the video
>> card. My Gateway computer is also on a small 2 computer network, and
>> it has been demoted to playing kids games for my son and additional
>> testing purposes. It is not a computer that requires a full Office
>> suite, and Office 2000 was never installed on that machine since I
>> upgraded my main computer. They made this retroactive to Office 2000,
>> and I would have stayed with Office 97 had I known this would happen.
>
> Isn't it the case though that by buying a new computer you must buy all
> their SW again for that computer? Or at the very least crawl to
> Microsoft stating that the original computer is no longer being used and
> hope that they believe you. Microsoft are hurting because PC sales are
> down and people are just not upgrading in the numbers they require to
> keep their sales revenue increasing quarter by quarter.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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: Sat, 12 May 2001 04:11:17 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > > > No, VMWare is my example of loading another OS. What Mac OSX does.
> > > > Cgywin or Services for UNIX provides a *copatability layer*, this
mean
> > that
> > > > you don't have another fscking OS beside the one that you already
have.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Except that with VMWare is an app that lets you run a second OS UNDER
> > > the one you are already running. Just like MacOS X does.
> >
> > Read carefully, VMware does what Mac OS X does, *bad idea*.
> > A better idea, provide compatability layer, like cgywin & Services for
Unix.
> > Got that?
> >
> > > > > > > > They should've done something like Linux does with WINE &
DOSEMU
> > and
> > > > NT
> > > > > > > Why not? It works. Well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Horribly inefficent!
> > > > > > Would you accept a car that double its mile/galon ratio if you
have
> > two
> > > > > > passangers in it?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ... and VMWare is different how?
> > > >
> > > > It isn't, it's my parallel example to what Mac OSX does with OS9.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You said VMWare was a better way to run apps of a differnet OS that
the
> > > main one you are running. Now you are saying it is the same as MacOS
> > > X/Classic, but MacOS X/Classic is inferior.
> > > get your story straight.
> >
> > No, I gave VMWare as an example on the PC of what MacOS X was doing.
> > I said it was a *bad* way to do it. Then I gave *other* alternatives.
> > WINE on Linux, Cgywin & Services For Unix on Windows.
> > Any of the above is *much* more efficent than using VMWare.
> > I *never* said that VMWare was a better way.
> >
>
> And WINE sucks. Badly. Run some windows apps with it.
>
> > > > And even then, we are talking about general trend in *new*
applications
> > > > being developped.
> > > > What Apple need to do is to discourage any further development on
OS9,
> > and
> > > > porting everything to OSX.
> > >
> > > They are trying to do that very thing.
> >
> > Not enough, you will still have plenty of legacy applications that would
> > need OS9.
> > And you'll have them for *years* to come.
> >
>
> And the people that need to run them can run then under OS 9 alone or
> Classic.
>
> > > > It's bloody hard to do something like this. And users would *still*
want
> > to
> > > > use old applications.
> > >
> > > They have a successful track record in difficult switchovers.
> >
> > If this mean that users can't use their old applications *they won't
> > upgrade*, it's that simple.
> > And the way they choose to allow this backward compatability is
*stupid*.
> >
>
> But users CAN use their legacy apps. Thats what Classic is all about.
> And vendors are going about either carbonixing or writing Cocoa
> versions.
>
> > > > I did some work for an accountant that used an 8 years old DOS
program
> > to
> > > > manage the accounts. He plans to keep using this program more or
less
> > > > forever, there are plenty of people like him.
> > > > You won't see OS9 compatability going away any time soon.
> > > >
> > > > Check for other OS major upgrades for examples.
> > > > Dos -> Windows9x is a good example.
> > >
> > > A good example of what?
> >
> > Of backward compatability demands.
>
> DOS --> Windows... good backwards compatibility??
> AHAHAHAHAhahahhahhahah
That's precisely what Ayende was getting at. He's alluding to such a mess.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:12:12 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 May 2001 00:43:27 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Pete is expressing the frustrations of many professionals that have to
> >put up with bugs that never get fixed, or promised to get fixed. No O/S
> >is immune to bugs. However, Linux is the fastest to react to criticisms
> >of bugs and get them fixed. I welcome Petes bug reports to the Linux
> >community.... only that Pete should say that he reports these bugs to
> >the appropriate group that can fix them.
>
> This is really true but what is even more frustrating is what I call
> "the abandonment factor".
> As an example I offer MIDI interfaces. Most professional's use at
> least an 8x8 interface with SMPTE and other locking options and so
> forth. Typically these connect via the parallel port of the computer.
> Well Win2k, which is what XP is built on, doesn't like using these
> types of devices so USB MIDI devices came into vogue. Unfortunately
> there are some serious performance issues with USB and DAW so that's a
> real crap shoot. So now they are talking Firewire instead...So now
> those of us with $400+ MIDI interfaces are screwed into buying new
> ones just to keep up. Of course we could stay with Win98SE and things
> will be fine except...........
>
> the current high end audio boards prefer to use WDM drivers instead of
> MME types and Win98se is less than stable with the WDM drivers. Some
> work, some don't but the bottom line is manufacturers are writing for
> Win2k and XP.
>
> Another example:
> Event electronics Layla card was originally a 20 bit card. Later they
> released a 24 bit card. Finally they are releasing WDM drivers, but
> only for the 24 bit version. They have been coy as to whether or not
> the 20 bit folks will ever see WDM drivers.
> That's really wonderful. A $1000 card that can't be used anymore.
>
> While one can always stick with what works meaning staying with
> Win98SE, the problem arises with all of the other programs that are
> getting upgrades and so forth and depend upon the hardware drivers
> etc. It is a frustrating, vicious and very expensive cycle that never
> ends.
>
> Add into this all of the bugs that get introduced with all of these
> changes and it becomes a real nightmare.
>
> THIS is what is pissing us in the audio/music field off and THIS is
> why Linux comes up as a topic in discussions over and over again. We
> are tired of shelling out $500.00 for a piece of software/hardware
> only to find it gets orphaned 2 years later with no hope of upgrading.
>
> We are sick of MS changing the standards over and over again and
> putting us behind a financial 8-ball and that is the truth.
>
> Flatfish
>
>
Very good! I purchased a MIDI card and software (Cakewalk) to run under
Win95.
Upgraded to Win98SE... doesn't work anymore.
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (B'ichela)
Subject: Re: The Microsoft PATH.
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 03:22:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11 May 2001 08:45:12 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, the C64 had no block device system at all; the 1541 is a tape
>drive for all intents and purposes. That's why its so huge, they had
>to put basically a second computer in it to run the block drive and
>then to masquarade as a serial device to the C64. That's also why it
>was so slow. In fact, the 1541's "CPU" is another 6502 chip!
A hack that is being redone. I am talking about the Commodores
SErial buss. Lets be honest its the granddaddy of USB!
Actually the 1541 and its children the 1571 and the 1581 use
highlevel commands to recieve/send data to the main computer.
I have a 1571 sitting here, Only I don't have a c64 or a c128
to plug it into! I grew up with them! Unlike USB you don't need a
"hub" if you want to plug more than one serial device it. the device
plugs into the last device (daisy chained).
Now some would argue this includes Firewire as well. it does
but... Firewire is not as commonly being pushed as hard as USB is.
BTW on most of the computers of that vintage. Including the
Apple and Atari lines the drives are HUGE! Remeber they had to put the
power supply in them! (in the case of the 1541 its a Linear power
supply. the "HEATERS" were the voltage regulators. If you took a 1541
and rebuilt it today it would be not much bigger than a ZIP drive!
(miniturization and all).
Oh btw does anyone have an old C64 or C128 laying around? I am
looking for one. Email me off list if you do.
--
B'ichela
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 04:18:38 GMT
"JS PL" <hi everybody!> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > >My Win98 box doesn't crash either, but it appears to be on and
producing
> > >light whenever I look over there at it.
> > >
> >
> > So you're just using it to waste electicity then?
>
> I don't live in California anymore. So I have the luxury of wasting
> electricity. The amount of wasting I do could probably feed a small
village
> in Malnutrania.
California could have all the power it needed and then some if only they'd
make the tree-huggers who complain about building power plants run on a
tredmill. If people keep caving into the lunatic fringe's demands, we'll be
a third world country before you know it.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Yet another IIS security bug
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:20:52 -0700
Paolo Ciambotti wrote:
>
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> >>
> >> GreyCloud wrote:
> >> > A friend of the family needs a little help in the court system. Do
> >> > you or anybody know of the use of computers in court to prove one way
> >> > or the other who is at fault in a traffic accident? This particular
> >> > approach would use the laws of physics to determine the speed of the
> >> > offender. I would think that the side of the car bashed in by an SUV
> >> > could give clues to the approximate speed of the SUV.
>
> Most of the commercially available accident reconstruction software is
> little more than AutoCAD with a built-in calculator. Useless in court
> without expert testimony to back it up, and not always admissable. Do
> your friend a favor, and have him ask his attorney to contract with a
> professional expert witness who does this stuff. The police probably
> won't have anything more sophisticated than Crash-Zone printouts, but they
> will be able to depose an investigator with years and years of experience
> who knows how to present his findings effectively, and can stand up to
> tough examination in court. Your friend will have to match that, and even
> the most elegant software alone won't do it.
>
> The URL below is a good starting place to look for expert witnesses in
> your area. Your friend's attorney should already have a list on file.
>
> http://expertpages.com/experts/failureanalysis.htm
Thank you much! Shall do!
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 04:27:51 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:TxKK6.14085$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >Media Player 7 is unusable on a P133 with 32M Ram for either CD
> > >or mp3 playing while winamp works just fine. It works on a
> > >P300 laptop with 128M, but I don't have anything in between to
> > >try.
> >
> > Thanks for the backup Les. I'd have to wonder whether winamp really
> > "works just fine" on such a limited system, though. It seems hard to
> > imagine that the OS itself would "work just fine", let alone a program
> > on top of it. ;-)
>
> Is your memory that poor? People really did use computers for useful
> things earlier than last year. I was running a unix system driving about
> 40 serial lines in the mid 80's with an 80 gig hard drive, 2 gigs of RAM
> and a CPU with about the power of a '286. It didn't draw any pretty
> pictures on the screen but it got a lot of work done and ran for years
with
> next to no attention.
Hell, I ran nine Wyse terminals off a first generation 386-16 with only two
megs of RAM and a full-height 80 Meg MFM drive (SCO-Xenix V) at about that
time period. Glad to know someone out there had the good fortune to use real
iron <g>
Oddly enough, that system (Zenith Z-386) and setup ran without a hitch for
years and the box still runs to this day even the hard drive (Seagate
ST-4096 which was known for unreliability and HDA failures). That machine
was truly blessed!
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 04:30:37 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3DZK6.15725$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>>
> > >>> In the mid 80's there were no such thing as 80Gig hard drives.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>GreyCloud, I hate to contradict you, but there were.
> > >>I had one, and they were horribly expensive.
> > >>
> > >>Peter
> > >>
> > >
> > > If you "had one", the please tell us how much did they cost and
> > > who made them?
> > >
> > >
> > Sorry, did not read correctly.
> > I read 80Meg, where 80Gig is written.
> > At that time even the mainframes did not have 80gig drives.
> >
> > Peter
>
> Oops - I typed 80Gig when I meant 80Meg. Seemed natural - I guess
> times really have changed now that this is a couple of hundred dollars
> worth of disk space and that 80Megs cost many thousands.
I had assumed you were talking of the total combined disk space of a large
server pool or something.....
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 04:33:46 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3afb334d$0$78413$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Use Linux if you don't like the licensing deals other software offer. Then
> again even Linux has the GPL but apparentely communism is prefered over
> capitalism with that bunch...
That statement is just a bit too foolish to take seriously....Try again.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt McLeod)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 12 May 2001 14:50:37 +1000
In article <9dh710$2v3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Igor Sobrado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In alt.solaris.x86 Matt McLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I got in trouble for trying to use LaTeX here when I started a
>> few years ago. But with the changes coming up, it looks like
>> LaTeX and LyX will become our standard doc tools.
>
>I know that the LaTeX learning curve is so hard at the beggining.
>But I think that in a week or two you can obtain better docs that,
>for example, a Word user.
The reasoning back then was "but how will other people edit it!".
I think the manager making that decision thought that LaTeX was
another proprietary application with it's own closed file format
like Word or WordPerfect.
>I do not like LyX a lot because when I installed it, some years
>ago, it was not so good as it should be and the output files
>were not portable to other TeX environments. I am sure it is
>better now. By the way, I read that Gnu is developing another
>front-end for TeX at present. Perhaps you want to try it.
My understanding of LyX is limited, but AFAIK it produces files
in it's own format, but those are readily-convertable to ordinary
LaTeX source files and back again.
I'd probably just write LaTeX source using whatever editor I want,
but providing LyX as an option would make it a lot easier to get
people who need to write docs but who don't know LaTeX (or who
don't do enough docco work for that to be worthwhile for them)
into the system and remove the "but Word is easier!" argument.
I was pleased to hear that, during a consultation session with our
developers, once one of them piped up and said "how about we use
LaTeX instead of Word?" all of them, including the guys who prefer
Windows for their desktops, thought that was a good idea.
So maybe there is some hope for the world after all. :)
--
"See? Mention 21 inchers and he gets all excited!"
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 05:09:38 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dhtmj$ddf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > > So don't buy licensed software who's terms you don't agree with.
> > Simple.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That would be a reasonable statement in a legally competitive
> > > > environment where the user would have a choice about the
> > > > matter. We all know that doesn't exist.
> > >
> > > Unless you live in an alternate reality from the one the rest of us
live
> > > in - you have more than a few choices.
> > >
> > > Use Linux if you don't like the licensing deals other software offer.
> Then
> > > again even Linux has the GPL but apparentely communism is prefered
over
> > > capitalism with that bunch...
> >
> > As far as the OS itself goes, we could all get along fine with Linux or
> > the less-restricted freebsd. However, for this to work all the major
> > applications vendors would have to treat the platforms equally,
including
> > the one(s) illegally intimate with MS-Windows.
>
> *Less* restricted FreeBSD? In what way Linux is less restricted then
> FreeBSD?
FreeBSD is the less-restricted one. You can add anything you want to
code with the BSD license and distribute it anyway that is still
compatible with the additions. Linux allows binary kernel modules
that are not GPL'd but does not encourage them by freezing the
interface, so it may turn out to be a dead end in software if more
hardware requires proprietary-licensed drivers and the vendors
aren't interested in supplying them for system that changes on a
whim.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Sat, 12 May 2001 05:09:38 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >A developer or anyone else has the right to use GPL libraries any
> >way they want whether they agree to the licence or not.
>
> I'm afraid your use of "developer" and "use" in the same statement
> indicates a very fundamental inconsistency between your words and the
> conventions of the software industry. Developers can only possibly have
> the right to "use" the software as end users, unless and until they
> agree to a license otherwise.
Please quote the part of the GPL that mentions restrictions on developing
or any difference between an end user and a developer.
> If you want to flaunt software convention that says a developer can just
> use an end-user license to produce his product, then I will AGAIN tell
> you that I'm not at all averse to seeing you prove your case in court.
Tell me something from the GPL that supports that position. There
has never been any problem with one-off custom development
using GPL'd components in ways that can't be redistributed. In fact
I thought the FSF at least unofficially encouraged this model of
development as a service rather than a commodity.
> You are arguing against the "metaphoric meaning" of the GPL, not the
> factual, analytic facts of the FSF's position.
The GPL is very specific and contains no restrictions against
developers.
> Thus, what you see as reason, I see as nonsense involving metaphysics,
> and what I see as reason, you see as nonsense in terms of copyright or
> contract law.
>
> All you have to do is agree to that, and we're done.
Well we are halfway there. I agree that what you are saying is nonsense
in terms of both copyright law and what the GPL says. I don't see
why anything else is relevant to the situation. If the GPL wanted
to prohibit developers from calling interfaces where only a GPL
covered library exists, it should have said so instead of relying on
metaphysics or black magic.
> > The GPL
> >only restricts distribution and you are only forced to agree if you
> >distribute the covered material. Otherwise it is like a shrink-wrap
> >licence of questionable relevance.
>
> Forgive "my" assumption that the distinction between developer and
> distributor is pedantry, in this context.
The relevant distinction is whether the distributor is in fact distributing
something covered by the GPL (regardless of who developed it). In
the case where the library isn't included in the distribution, they aren't.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 05:09:38 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dhrvm$bcs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > > I've not encounter a DLL Hell problem in about three years, maybe
more.
> >
> > Once you learn what causes them and stop doing it, you won't have
> > them any more. That doesn't mean the underlying problem is fixed.
>
>
> Considerring that every once in a while I install couple of dozens
> applications, I don't think that this is the reason for that.
Don't underestimate the value of your experience. Other people still
have plenty of trouble with DLLs. In fact, last week one (out of
8) of my problematic win2k IIS servers decided for no obvious
reason that the asp.dll file wasn't registered anymore. Nothing new
had been loaded or changed.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
