Linux-Advocacy Digest #457, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Chad
Myers")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:47:03 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Here are a couple of Win2K servers that stayed up for a long time.
> > > >
> > > > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=partnering3.microsoft.com
> > > > 244
> > > >
> >
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=download.windowsbeta.microsoft.com
> > > > 216
> > > > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=msdnisv.microsoft.com
> > > > 189
> > > >
> >
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=corporate.windowsupdate.microsoft.c
> > > > om
> > > > 189
> > > > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=esl.one.microsoft.com
> > > > 184
> > > They are all clusters. Now, get, one, lone server loaded with Win2k
> > > Server, and then see the uptime.
> > >
> >
> > Netcraft can't handle clusters.
> These sites use clusters.
No, they're not. They're single machines. All of them.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:49:59 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > Thats right... compare RH 6.2 to the latest MS O/S. What about the
> > > latest RH 7.1 then?
> >
> > I thought that was one of the advantages of Linux, that you didn't have
to
> > upgrade to the latest to get the latest stuff?
> >
> > Or are you now saying that you HAVE to upgrade to the latest version of
the
> > distro in order to see improvements?
>
> You don't have to upgrade.
Then would you please stop contradicting yourself. Are you going to bitch
that they didn't use the latest RH 7.1, or are you going to say that you
don't need to upgrade?
[blah blah, trying to distract from the point]
> Last time I was at Staples I saw Win2K going
> for around $287 without upgrade. And for OEM install of WinME it was
> around $150. Then you have to add more money for the windows compilers
> if you want one.
GCC is perfectly free for Windows, just as it is for Linux. In fact, there
are dozens of free compilers for Windows.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:53:33 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dirc0$b0l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >You are trying to
> > propogate the FUD/lie that W2K is not capable of steller uptimes.
>
> 120 Days, according to Microsoft. Yeah, really stellar.
120 days was the MEAN, not the maximum.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 21:28:46 GMT
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9djsjs$c22$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > A> It doesn't takes weeks to do GUI. B> A good GUI allows you to do the
> > same.
> >
>
> Really? You have a GUI that can provide all the functionality of Unix
> commands and pipes? Where is this magical GUI?
Clipboard?
Piping text around isn't something you do very often in the GUI.
You do this because that's the way CLIs are designed.
I don't see many command-line flow-charts, 3D design, or
contact/calendar management apps either.
Each has their place.
-c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 21:44:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Everett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 12 May 2001 07:52:34 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Fri, 11 May 2001 18:31:58 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charles Lyttle
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>>on Fri, 11 May 2001 14:04:33 GMT
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Greg Cox wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > It wasn't my analogy but I believe it was more about how
>>>> > horrible that a unique ID number could be used to invade
>>>> > your privacy by identifying and registering your computer
>>>> > while your car already has many ID numbers on certain parts
>>>> > registered in a database somewhere completely out of your
>>>> > control.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Well, your car certainly won´t surf the net to be identified by
>>>> all those who paid MS good money for this ident info.
>>>> Your car´s numbers will only be needed should it be stolen or
>>>> in an accident.
>>>Haven't seen ODB-III have you? How do you think that "On Star" thing
>>>works? Current plans are to have all vehicles broadcast, on demand, an
>>>ID. If your car is detected, via satellite, to be speeding, it will be
>>>remotely put into limp mode.
>>
>>Even better [*] -- shut off the engine entirely; car coasts to a stop,
>>police are called and surround the now-useless vehicle.
>>
>
>Better yet... Don't buy a car with OnStar
I don't plan to, at this stage. (Not enough money; OnStar is for
upper-end vehicles only.)
But there is a service in development -- if not outright deployed --
that can be used by the police to shut down a vehicle, if it's
reported stolen and a patrol car notices it moving around.
>and don't use Microsoft Windows.
At home, I'm almost all Linux. At work, it's a mostly-NT hybrid.
Hopefully at some point, that'll change.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 12d:22h:02m actually running Linux.
I don't hate Microsoft. Just their products.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:01:18 -0500
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9djfe8$idfsu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > Clusters actually tend to show LOWER uptimes because it averages the
> > uptimes
> > of all the machines in the cluster. Netcraft doesn't simply check if
the
> > server is up every so often, it actually determines the machines actual
> > uptime from the machines packet signature.
>
> If this is true then look at which Win2k sites report the highest
uptimes -
> they are all run by MS so is there any thing to stop them making their
> systems return false uptime data to fiddle the figures?
It is true, Netcraft says so.
While yes, MS could do as you suggest, you will notice that their clustered
sites like Hotmail and www.microsoft.com show much lower uptimes. Why
wouldn't they twiddle those instead?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:31:41 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <9djs2t$bc2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "JS PL" <hi everybody!> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> The US judicial system has already failed, it is now in the "fix" phase.
> And
>> who cares about what Europe thinks? Let them eat cake...err...Linux.
>
> You *are* aware to the fact that Europe is bigger, stronger, more populated
> and much richer than the US, don't you?
Of course he isn't. His view is the typical myopic american one. Microsoft
may well be still held in high regard in the US but to the rest of the
world they portray the US in the worst light possible (next to their
president of course :-)
---
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 22:33:23 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <9djuuh$ens$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001
>> >>
>> >> > >Seriously, though, I think that it's a primitive API.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is there some taxonomy of APIs within the engineering community which
> I
>> >> > am unaware of? If not, you're just begging the question, I think.
>> >> >
>> >> > Which is fine, as long as you say "I do not think it is really an
> API,
>> >> > although it is a primitive form of API". At least then we know the
>> >> > metaphysical ground you are standing on; where API's "in the wild"
> can
>> >> > be captured and domesticated and categorized.
>> >> >
>> >> > Let me ask you something; did anyone ever call DOS interrupts "an
> API"
>> >> > at the time DOS was prevalent? Or is this just hindsight that
> enables
>> >> > you to ascertain the morphology of APIs?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> No one called the first automobils cars, but they are certainly
> primitive
>> >> sort of a car.
>> >> It fits into the defination of API, so it's an API.
>> >> It doesn't fit into the same category as most APIs today, so I called
> it
>> >> primitve API.
>> >
>> > Pretty soon you guys are going to call your hands and feet APIs.
>>
>> Don't forget the mouse. Without it these guys have no use for hands and
> feet. :-)
>
> Keyboard too, lest you forget. I *adore* my keyboard.
> I had to use another one for a day and a half (PS/2 convertor seemed to be
> MOBO spesific, in this case, I'd to get another one when I upgraded), and I
> *hated* it.
Thats's why I have a Sun keyboard on my PC. You just can't beat 'em.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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 17:53:14 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > "JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > T. Max Devlin wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > [on the high probability that MS will skate...]
> > > > >
> > > > >>that will make them about as innocent as O.J. Simpson.
> > > > >
> > > > > Keep practicing statements like this. Your going to need them in a few
> > > short
> > > > > days (or weeks) Judgement day is drawing near for Sleepy Jackson. The
> > > big
> > > > > slap down is fully cocked and set with a hair trigger. He's looking up
> > > with
> > > > > his tail between his legs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sleepy is about to feel a boot in his ass from a full panel of his
> > > > > superiors.
> > > > >
> > > > > And Max is going to be doing some major spin control when his life's
> > > work on
> > > > > usenet turns to vapor in a fleeting instant, one day soon.
> > > >
> > > > If the US judicial system fails then the EU are just waiting to bring
> > > > Microsoft to justice. Microsoft don't have any political clout in the
> > > > EU and the penalties will hurt where they hurt most - up to 10% of
> > > > gross world wide sales.
> > >
> > > The US judicial system has already failed, it is now in the "fix" phase. And
> > > who cares about what Europe thinks? Let them eat cake...err...Linux.
> >
> > You are right about one thing. The US judicial system failed. microsoft
> > should have been broken up the first time, instead of being allowed to
> > skate with a worthless consent decree.
>
> > As for Linux - at them moent, Microsoft is scared to death of Linux, the
> > Open Source movement in general and the GPL in particular.
>
> I laugh whenever I see a Penguinista giving themselves all this credit
> about how "Microsoft is scared to death of Linux". Microsoft may consider
> Linux a small competitor in the server market,
When did micro$oft gain majprity in the server market? Compare the
market share between micor$oft and the *nixs.
> but Linux-based companies
> have already begun to shoot themselves in the foot. They are going out
> of business left and right and the ones that are still in business are
> losing money hand over fist.
>
Many tech businesses are going out odf business aand/or losing money.
Cisco just posted a loss. Whats your point?
> What MS is most concerned about is people's perception of them as
> a leading-edge company. There are those who are saying that Open Source
> is the future, and MS doesn't want to appear to be falling behind,
> or allow themselves to be made into an IBM by the media.
>
So, instead, micro$oft starts telling people that Linux and/or the GPL
will ruin the world. How does this prove micro$oft can compete on it's
software 's merits. It's just micro$soft again lying to the press and
general public, because they know they cant compete with free ($0)
software or Free Software (there is a difference).
> MS is addressing those concerns and the concerns of their shareholders
> by calmly stating "Just hang on, this Open Source thing will die down
> when everyone comes to the realization that you can't make money with
> the GPL, it's design to prevent you from doing just that thing!".
>
See, they are lying to the public. There are ways to make money using
GPL software. You CAN sell GPL software. micro$oft is just lying
-again-.
> And they're right. We're seeing all the companies dying rapid deaths
> and the rest hanging by a thread.
>
But, at the same time, Linux is gaining marketshare.
> What the future is, as MS stated, is that public access to the source,
> while still maintaining the license is the future. Corporations will
> allow increased access to their source by clients and universities
> to help advanced the state of the industry and computer science.
>
GPL already does this, as does the BSD license.
> MS has started this somewhat and I think you'll see more companies
> follow their lead (as usual).
>
The only companies that can follow M$'s lead are predatory monopolies.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:04:23 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
> >"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Here are a couple of Win2K servers that stayed up for a long time.
> >> >
> >> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=partnering3.microsoft.com
> >> > 244
> >> >
>
>http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=download.windowsbeta.microsoft.com
> >> > 216
> >> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=msdnisv.microsoft.com
> >> > 189
> >> >
>
>http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=corporate.windowsupdate.microsoft.
c
> >> > om
> >> > 189
> >> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=esl.one.microsoft.com
> >> > 184
> >> They are all clusters. Now, get, one, lone server loaded with Win2k
> >> Server, and then see the uptime.
> >
> >Clusters actually tend to show LOWER uptimes because it averages the
uptimes
> >of all the machines in the cluster. Netcraft doesn't simply check if the
> >server is up every so often, it actually determines the machines actual
> >uptime from the machines packet signature.
>
> BZZZZZ Somebody check Google. We already spanked Erik's bottom a nice
> cherry red on this point before.
Yes, let's
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?mode_u=off&mode_w=on&site=www.google.com
90 day average is 34.92 days.
You were saying?
> All of these long uptimes are because the systems are clusters; the
> numbers sited are for cluster uptime. Erik's contention about
> "averaging" are complete horse-shit.
You should check before you open your mouth (or type as the case may be).
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[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 12:47:27 +0200
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9dis2j$bia$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > And WINE sucks. Badly. Run some windows apps with it.
> > >
> > > That's because the Windows API is buggy and poorly documented. IIRC
> > > Linux/PPC can run MacOS programs rather beter than Wine can run
Windows
> > > programs.
> > > -Ed
> > >
> >
> > Linux/PPC does the same thing as OS X (IE, load the Mac OS to run its
> > application).
> > An API can't be buggy.
>
> It cant?
No, an API *implementation* can be buggy, but that doesn't reflect on the
API.
> > And the Windows API is very well documented, it's just *very* big.
>
> If its so well documented, why are Microsoft's competitors continually
> pointing out that micro$oft engineers have access to APIs that they
> dont?
*Shrug*, Linux's API are open, show me the browser that can compete with IE,
please.
There are a couple of API that are undocumented, but they are usually
trivial ones like PickIconDlg() and other minor UI ones.
I'm not aware of any "big secret API" that can make a program so much better
in Windows.
Can you provide proof for such a thing?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 12:51:00 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:4DfL6.16363$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Do the same thing you did with all of your Win 1.0, 2.0, 3.1, WFW, Win95,
> etc. programs. Upgrade or toss them, or keep running the old system that
> worked. For the many thousand apps that come in a typical Linux
> distribution, you take care of the whole problem in a few minutes as
> you load the new copy. With Windows you spend as long just to get
> the OS in, then you have to feed the box another 20 CD's over the course
> of the next week to get all of your apps reloaded.
Actually, Win95 could use most of DOS' drivers.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:56:39 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:9dis2j$bia$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > And WINE sucks. Badly. Run some windows apps with it.
> > > >
> > > > That's because the Windows API is buggy and poorly documented. IIRC
> > > > Linux/PPC can run MacOS programs rather beter than Wine can run Windows
> > > > programs.
> > > > -Ed
> > > >
> > >
> > > Linux/PPC does the same thing as OS X (IE, load the Mac OS to run its
> > > application).
> > > An API can't be buggy.
> >
> > It cant?
> >
> > > And the Windows API is very well documented, it's just *very* big.
> >
> > If its so well documented, why are Microsoft's competitors continually
> > pointing out that micro$oft engineers have access to APIs that they
> > dont?
>
> Because they're sore losers and the only way they can justify their
> crappy software in the market place is to blame Microsoft for all
> the world's woes.
>
Yeah, sore losers. Those compaies that microsoft stole IP from
(Stac-compression, Apple-quicktime routines, Go- pen computing, Digital
research - CP/M routines in DOS), yeah, they are sore losers.
> The fact is, MS uses no special APIs (this is quite easily demonstrated
> with Office97 and later).
>
Really. This can be demonstrated by Office? Office addresses all Windows
APIs? Interesting.
> MS's competitors are known for their whiny nature and their penchant
> for running to Mommy (the government) when things don't go their
> way (rather than just making better software and beating MS).
>
M$'s competitors are known for being murdered, in the corporate sense.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:08:15 -0500
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 11 May 2001 15:33:35 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Quite, apparently. No computer generated algorithm can generate truly
> > random numbers. /dev/random can create exceeding complicated
predictable
> > patterns, but that doesn't make the truly random.
>
> /dev/random is not a PRNG. It is more akin to the various hardware
> schemes that people have mentioned (resistor noise, radioactive decay,
> etc). The generated numbers will meet lots of statistical tests for
> randomness, and they also meet your critera of being extremely hard
> (probably impossible in practice) to predict from past behavior. They
> do not repeat in a cycle as the output of a PRNG would. The source code
> contains this explanation:
[explanation deleted]
However, this only produces a small finite amount of randomness. We're
talking about things like a one-time pad which might need 500MB of
randomness, which is not something that this could product without repeating
or some other predictable pattern.
------------------------------
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 22:03:27 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les, not wanting to support Microsoft, is just caught in the cross-fire.
> The FSF does appear, as he claims, to make many of the same arguments as
> Microsoft's most extreme "we can do anything we want because we own the
> code". The difference is the GPL is completely honest and up-front
> about it, and is not seeking to commercially exploit the issue at all.
There was nothing up-front about the RIPEM claim. It was a surprise
to everyone and it is too bad that it is currently difficult to find much
of the subsequent discussion archived.
> Quite the opposite; the only reason they make the claims they do is to
> *prevent* commercial exploitation of GPL code.
I wouldn't try to second guess their motives. The claims affect every
non-GPL license equally with no distiction between commercial or
less restricted versions.
> Most crucially, the only
> encroaching on end user rights involves only one very limited and
> specific set of individuals: end users who are developers.
This part exists only in your imagination. There is no such distinction
made in the GPL.
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 22:03:27 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Sit down. Write a program that uses a GPL library which you've never
> seen and don't have. (This is the issue, I know; you think the
> developer should have end-user rights of fair use, particularly with
> open code.) Using only the API specification, and no prior testing save
> a stub library, create the program. Distribute it under a non-GPL
> license. Wait for the FSF thugs to threaten to take you to court. (So
> far just like the RIPEM guys, right? Except they begged the question by
> using the library itself, not only the API and a stub.)
This is irrelevant since they have the right to use the library, they just
don't have the right to redistribute it as part of a non-GPL product,
which they didn't.
> Then, with my compliments and support, tell the FSF to fuck off, that
> there is no way their argument can stand in court. Let me know what
> happens; believe me I'll be interested.
Who's going to cough up the money for the lawers? Or the time
to deal with it?
> So you're right, you don't have to agree to the contract. You have to
> do more. You have to break the contract, according to the FSF, and
> prove them wrong in court.
They aren't claiming anything about contracts. They claim that
copyright law gives them control.
> Should be so pitifully trivial, for all the
> "no copyright attorney" crap I've been getting here, so you're just
> pissing in the wind by continuing to argue it with me.
As are you, arguing the side which has no obvious support from the law.
> Now, as for the issue of fair use, the point isn't to compare how it
> works with other open code. You want BSD? Stick with BSD, and stop
> pretending anybody cares about your little holy war with GPL. The GPL
> effectively combats *closed* source licensing, something the BSD and all
> the other licenses (despite any pretensions otherwise) fail to do.
The GPL combats everything else equally, more open just the same as
closed. Open licences maintain the openness of the original without
removing the ability of others to control their own additions.
> You've just run out of arguments, no two ways around it. The contract
> could be overturned; any contract can. Its perfectly valid, it cannot
> coerce anyone, and you can choose to ignore it, even, as far as I am
> concerned, though you're apparently going to have to argue the matter in
> court.
The contract is irrelevant - it only covers distribution of something that
wasn't being distributed.
> Copyright doesn't contradict it, nor does any other legal
> argument accept to claim that end-user license restrictions on software
> are unlawful.
No one has claimed that they are. However they are not involved in
the FSF claim.
> OK? Are we DONE now?
Not till you get it right...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
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 18:10:12 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >> MS stands convicted of monopolization and restraint of trade on three
> >> counts.
> >
> >Yet the indictment and trial was supposed to be about tying of a browser.
> >http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f1700/1763.htm
>
> It was, and so are the convictions.
And so will be, the appeal. Matter of fact they've already told Jackson he
was wrong once. Now the second time he's got to be told the same thing (that
tying is a good thing). I suspect they won't be so nice about it.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
