Linux-Advocacy Digest #503, Volume #34 Mon, 14 May 01 04:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (rockie@post)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (robert68@com)
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (kosh)
Re: The Economist and Open-Source ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Win 9x is horrid ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Win 9x is horrid ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Jan Says Win2k on par with UNIX/Linux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? ("Per Claesson")
Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux? ("David Coto")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Matt Kennel)
Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Rob S. Wolfram)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rockie@post <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: 13 May 2001 22:23:27 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ketil says...
>You won't see it if all you do is *wait*. How do you expect the
>copyright holders (FSF) to take action if you don't inform them about
>Cygnus' breach?
>
>Did you drop a mail to rms yet?
>
and what if FSF take cygnus to court and FSF loses? What will then
happend to GPL?
May be that is why FSF and RMS will not raise it?
------------------------------
From: robert68@com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 13 May 2001 22:41:21 -0700
In article <GkoL6.73$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tom says...
>
>I don't know *what* happened with Borland. They used to be second to none
>with their development tools. Ever since that Turbo Basic fiasco, they've
>went straight to pot.
>
Borland seems to be in the way back, and have turned around from the big
hole they have been dug in for years.
Their Java IDE (JBuilder) is now number one IDE. http://www.borland.com/jbuilder
They just announced Delphi6, and from the looks of it, it will rock.
http://www.borland.com/delphi
They have Kylix for Linux (Delphi for Linux), the only RAD tool for Linux.
http://www.borland.com/kylix
Soon they will release Borland C++ for Linux also.
remember that MS stole some of the top programmers from Borland few
years ago. But now Borland seems to be on the come back with really
cool new tools. (I am biased towards Borland, having used as my first
language turbo pascal).
------------------------------
From: kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 00:22:50 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mmnnoo wrote:
> In article <9dn24v$thi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> mmnnoo wrote:
>>
>>> Linux badly needs a good web browser. My wife doesn't like to use
>>> Linux for just this reason. She doesn't like it when the computer
>>> freezes up because Netscape went berserk, or when Netscape suddenly
>>> disappears because it went berserk again but I finally set a ulimit.
>>> She doesn't like it when mozilla 0.9 renders our bank's webpage as
>>> gobbeldy-gook and she can't do the checkbook.
>>>
>>> That said, I think mozilla will almost certainly become a good browser.
>>> Unless it reaches critical mass, though, web designers won't test their
>>> pages against it, and some pages won't render correctly.
>>>
>>
>> Why not try konqueror it is stable and fast. On my boxes it renders
>> pages in about half the time that opera does. Mozilla will be ready in
>> time but you should give konqueror a try.
>>
> <snip>
>
> Konqueror is nice and light, but again the problem is that it works on
> 'only' about 90% of websites. I start thinking how great it is, then it
> renders a page with areas of text on top of each other, or I can't join a
> chatroom, or access a secure site. Unfortunately, I think getting those
> last 10-20% of sites working would be 80-90% of the work in creating a
> browser.
>
The secure site has nothing to do with konqueror. The website is checking
the browser and only checks for ie or netscape so if you are not one of
those two they say it does not work. What I did for my bank is I set
konqueror to tell my bank it was ie5 and it worked perfectly.
Settings
Configure Konqueror
User Agent
Should be easy from there. Also try that for pages that don't render right
first trying telling the site you are using IE then netscape. Some times I
have seen assume you are using one or the other and so use browser specific
code for the one they assume you are and will give you closer to spec code
if you say you are something else. Also email the webmaster if you have to
do this to get them to fix it.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 06:46:36 GMT
"Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> We need a new name for people who just sit and collect pay checks doing
> the minimal amount of uncreative work on software. "Hack" was the old
> term, but that is too similar to the word "Hacker" which has a definate
> meaning of quality.
Where I work, they're called "unemployed".
As far as testing goes, if you don't manage to crash the software or render
it impotent, you haven't really tested it . I try to think of the dumbest
things a human being could do (It helps having tech-support experience) then
do them to the second or third power. Oh yeah, test all products on a plain
vanilla 95 box under load, too because nobody reads minimum requirements.
They instantly assume any Windows software works on any version and on any
hardware. - "My machine runs Windows, so it *should* run this, too. I mean,
its' a 486. Its' not like a dinosaur or something!". We have a DCOM server
app that runs quite reliably and serves its' client apps without fail on a
plane-jane 95 system by sticking to this sort of thing.
A large percentage of your beta testers must *not* be tech types. (Aged
parents and in-laws are good for this). - Nerds are too good at making
things work and overlooking little caveats that haunt you come customer
support time. As programmer's, we're downright useless in that role.
We plan to follow this creed for the *nix stuff too. We're going to try our
damndest to quell this "Unix is too complicated" nonsense. It doesn't have
to be that way at all and it can be done without compromise to the power you
and I are used to.
For SOHO stuff, if an 89 year old woman can't install it, it isn't ready
yet. The more advanced stuff should enable the competent to install and
configure to his/her heart's without treating him/her like a four year old
but at the same time not let them do something silly and irrevocable with an
accidental keypress or click.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 06:51:39 GMT
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> > Windows 2000 is actually Windows 3.11 with a slightly improved desktop.
> >
> > You are correct. Oh, and they added a few other applications....
> >
> > That's about it.
>
> Well, I wouldn't say that. But, I still maintain that job control sucks
> no matter which version of Windows you're using. Unix is much more
> finely-grained when it comes to process management and job control.
> But, I suppose there is a downside to having this control, because
> hackers who break in to a unix box can tell *exactly* what's running by
> running top or ps! It's kind of hard to do this on a Windows box, you
> have to admit.
Kind of hard to expect Windows to do job control like that seeing that it
was never originally designed to fill that role. Trying to turn a desktop OS
into a server without a complete re-write and re-thinking kind of lead to
where we are now. They should have taken NT to the next level and left the
9x world behind a long long time ago.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 06:54:53 GMT
"mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MCDL6.72714$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Please don't say that. They might hear you and not change anything!
> RealPlayer is like a TV stuck on the home shopping network.
The sarcasm would certainly be lost on those folks, i'm sure....
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > Doh! I've used Realplayer under Linux and Windows all the time. It is a
> > fine bit of software that works fine.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Jan Says Win2k on par with UNIX/Linux
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 06:56:27 GMT
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dmsv8$dne$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : One really must ask the question. Why does ANYONE buy NT/2K server?
>
> To run the server side of proprietary M$-only "applications."
>
> The real question is, why would anyone build proprietary M$-only
> applications? Especially in a distributed environment, where the
> desktop monopoly really should not be an issue?
Market pressure.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 00:17:17 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>> Interestingly, the people from Agenda Computing (who produce a cute
>> Linux-based PDA) have been working on something they call "Execute
>> in place". Essentially, if you have a directly accessible mass storage
>> device (Flash), you don't need to load the program into another tier
>> of memory (RAM) to execute it. Same OS, same program, but one machine
>> makes a statutory copy, and the other doesn't.
>
> I would be interested in any evidence that this is being done with any
> legal motivation in mind, as opposed to simply reducing the amount of
> RAM needed in the device.
It's obviously done to improve performance, and to reduce memory
usage. I only brought it up because I believe that the whole
idea of associating running a program could, or should, be equated
to making a copy. Here we have an example of the same OS (Linux)
running the same program (say bash) without making a statutory copy,
whereas other implementations _do_ make a a statutory copy.
>
> (I agree that the distinction may have significant legal effect, but I
> suggest that if that does happen, it will be by accident.)
>
> ROM-based video game consoles worked this way years ago.
And drum-memory systems (where it was all fun and games laying
out the instructions in such a way as to never have the drum
make an extra revolution between instructions) did so even
earlier, but used a spinning medium instead of solid-state stuff.
So why did the people who coined the current copyright statute
find it necessary to ignore the underlying function to concentrate
on describing a particular technology (disk/RAM without any cache)?
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 07:05:12 GMT
"robert68@com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <GkoL6.73$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tom says...
>
> >
> >I don't know *what* happened with Borland. They used to be second to none
> >with their development tools. Ever since that Turbo Basic fiasco, they've
> >went straight to pot.
> >
>
> Borland seems to be in the way back, and have turned around from the big
> hole they have been dug in for years.
>
> Their Java IDE (JBuilder) is now number one IDE.
http://www.borland.com/jbuilder
>
> They just announced Delphi6, and from the looks of it, it will rock.
> http://www.borland.com/delphi
I never really got into Delphi. I played with the first version long enough
to miss the control I had using C. You could do some fast work with it
though.
>
> They have Kylix for Linux (Delphi for Linux), the only RAD tool for Linux.
> http://www.borland.com/kylix
Someday, maybe. I've become a C++ snob as of late <g>
>
> Soon they will release Borland C++ for Linux also.
I plan to use it.
>
> remember that MS stole some of the top programmers from Borland few
> years ago. But now Borland seems to be on the come back with really
> cool new tools. (I am biased towards Borland, having used as my first
> language turbo pascal).
That was my first for the DOS platform, too. Version 3, in fact. I still
have the final version but have to rewrite a portion of the RTL so's my old
apps don't crash on startup when running on faster PIII boxes. (A small
problem with the Division by Zero interrupt handler's install from the
startup code as best I can determine.)
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 07:16:06 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:xkwL6.703$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> Personally, I think any word processing app, even Star Office, is probably
> fine for most people and don't see the NEED to have Office, however I do
> prefer Office and would certainly WANT to have it.
Earlier versions of Office were quite good (IMO). 2000 seems a bit effects
laden and bloated. We use it at work primarily for Access as it makes it
easy to edit and proofread app-generated tables and the like. We also use
Outlook for messaging out of perverse humor (We're less than five steps
apart, yet will use internal e-mail as opposed to talking. The task feature
is quite useful at times, though)
------------------------------
From: "Per Claesson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 09:31:58 +0200
And you also have for example FreeBSD, which is better than Linux, is "real"
Unix since it is a branch of the original Berkeley Unix. It has very good
Linux emulation and although I did not try it yet, it should be able to run
Linux Oracle. Maybe someone here tried?
Per
--
VisiMedia
Säterivägen 11
270 33 Vollsjö
Tel 0416-300 07, 070 99 22 55 9
Fax 0416-300 03
www.visimedia.com
"J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Sybrand Bakker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Personally, I would always trust Solaris or AIX more than Linux, which
has
> >to do with support available and parties taking responsibility when
> >something happens.
>
> Perhaps you missed the fact that IBM is fully embracing Linux? (Not to
> mention the numerous other companies offering commercial support for
Linux)
>
> >You never know in which direction Linus Torvald is going, don't you?
>
> ITYM Torvald_s_. In any case, do you know where Scott McNealy (or Larry
> Ellison for that matter) are going?
>
> >IMO, Linux won't remain open source
>
> Linux (i.e. the kernel) is GPLed. That guarantees it will remain Open
> Source. The majority of the GNU/Linux system consists of Open Source
> software (be it GPL, BSD, MIT, X, Apache licensed or public domain).
>
> >and parties like Redhat and others will have to take measures to protect
> >their investments,
>
> Fully free GNU/Linux systems exist that are not developed by commercial
> entities, but for which commercial support is available, for example
Debian
> GNU/Linux. Red Hat is just one of the 150+ distributions of the GNU/Linux
> system and will definitely become insignificant if it strays too far into
> proprietaryaness.
>
> >so I fear propietary flavors of Linux will come in existence.
>
> They already exist. They have not destroyed Linux' roots, nor even
achieved
> significant market share in the market of Linux distributions. Why do you
> fear the arrival of proprietary flavours of Linux while recommending prime
> examples of proprietary Unix?
>
> >In that case better stick with Solaris, Sun won't go out of business.
>
> But it is likely it'll go out of some of its business areas. Sun is spread
> too thin: is it a hardware manufacturer, a software producer, a services
> company, or a buzzword generator?
>
> Ray
> --
> [Open Source] is the finest expression of the free market. Ideas are
> encouraged to proliferate and the best thinking wins. By contrast, most
> corporations today operate in a central planning straitjacket.
> http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,15772,00.html
------------------------------
From: "David Coto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oracle 8.1.6 on Solaris or Linux?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 09:33:40 +0200
> And you also have for example FreeBSD, which is better than Linux, is
"real"
> Unix since it is a branch of the original Berkeley Unix. It has very good
> Linux emulation and although I did not try it yet, it should be able to
run
> Linux Oracle. Maybe someone here tried?
I can't understand why it is always said that FreeBSD is better than
GNU/Linux, does anyone know ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 09:21:55 +0200
In article <9dm5f5$ggt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
>writes:
>>In article <9dkf33$okk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Am I correct in believing that I can create a derivative work, as
>>long as I don't try to distribute it (as that would be required to
>>make the copyright owner aware of my activities).
>
> Not if you are considering United States copyright law. The exclusive
> right to create derivative works is in addition to the exclusive right
> of distribution. So you infringe by creating the derivative work, whether
> it is distributed or not. See 17 USC 106.
>
> That said, the practicality is that the copyright owner somehow needs
> to find out about the creation of the derivative work to file suit. But
> that could be through other than its distribution, such as you bragging
> about it to somebody who tells the copyright owner. And even if there
> is no actual damages to the copyright owner, statutory damages could
> still be available.
I'm wondering if we haven't got a chicken-and-egg problem here.
If I'd like to write a pre/sequel to "GBTW" using the perspective
of Chinese railroad workers in California :=), I'm breaking the law.
But without preparing at least a substantial plot/character
outline, I cannot sollicit the copyright owner's approval, and
the outline would already be a derivative work...
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 09:35:13 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matan Ziv-Av) writes:
> On Sun, 13 May 2001 12:13:12 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>
>> Interestingly, the people from Agenda Computing (who produce a cute
>> Linux-based PDA) have been working on something they call "Execute
>> in place". Essentially, if you have a directly accessible mass storage
>> device (Flash), you don't need to load the program into another tier
>> of memory (RAM) to execute it. Same OS, same program, but one machine
>> makes a statutory copy, and the other doesn't.
>
> Of course you conveniently forget that the processor used must have
> internal cache memory, so a copy is still made.
I don't think CPU cache qualifies for the definition of "copy"
in the statutes.
>From 17 USC 101:
| ''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in
| which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed,
| and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or
| otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a
| machine or device. The term ''copies'' includes the material
| object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first
| fixed.
Due to the extremely transient nature of data in the cache,
and the inability to address it specifically (unlike RAM or a
disk), one cannot "perceive, reproduce or otherwise communicate"
the program being executed. And because the cache is all on-chip,
it's not identifiable as a separate device, so there can't possibly
be a copy, unless you want to argue that the data in the CPU's
registers, if observed and recorded long enough, also constitutes
a statutory copy.
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 07:43:47 +0000 (UTC)
Reply-To: mbkennel@<REMOVE THE BAD DOMAIN>yahoo.spam-B-gone.com
On Sun, 13 May 2001 22:36:58 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> The above statement is true.
:> So is this one: "Heterosexual intercourse leads to AIDS... especially
:> when a condom breaks".
:
:Only in Africa.
:
:You see, the female reproductive tract is MADE to deal with foreign genetic material.
:The rectum is not.
The same principle applies in Africa.
:Hope that helps.
We are lucky the African strain isn't spreading here.
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
*
* "To chill, or to pop a cap in my dome, whoomp! there it is."
* Hamlet, Fresh Prince of Denmark.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: Caldera CEO agrees with MS
Date: 14 May 2001 06:11:54 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Tennent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Because the sources of all the forks must be available to all. The
>> effect is that the good ideas tend to get merged. If the sources to
>> derived works don't have to be made available, there is more
>> temptation to producing proprietary differentiation, whether with
>> good ideas or bad, and forks become permanent.
>
>Not true. You don't have to make the source available to all. You don't
>even have to make the source available to the original authors. You need
>only provide source to the people you give or sell your changes to.
While you are technically correct, the net result is that whe we talk
about a forked development tree, i.e. code that is being distributed to
the wild, the sources to that code *is* being made available to all
(e.g., Xemacs, egcs). BSDLed code differs here (e.g. the W2K TCP/IP
stack).
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make
it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies and the other is to
make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
-- C.A.R. Hoare
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?)
Date: 14 May 2001 06:21:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mikkel Elmholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Still, I dislike SUSEs policy for using such a limited license for the
>> main tool of their distribution, while OTOH riding the Linx bandwagon.
>>
>> Politics is quite an important argument why I use Debian...
>
>How is politics going to pay the salaries of all the good and qualified
>developers working full time for SuSE?
Where have I said or even implied that one is not allowed to make money
off Linux distros? A counter question for you: how is RedHat paying all
the good and qualified developers that work full-time for them while
releasing their code under the GPL?
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
Mr. Cole's Axiom:
The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the
population is growing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?)
Date: 14 May 2001 06:31:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rob is another, "the whole world owes be a free iso image". At least
I won't actually dispute that. While I agree that non-free software is a
given in today's world, I find it a great pity that there are so many
people who use a GNU system on a day to day basis without taking the
time to educate themselves on how it came to be and what it stand for.
>SuSE makes a bloody effort to make Linux easy. Compare that to Redhat, a
>couple of packages, wab, bam, no work what so ever by Redhat, and out
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Guess what the "r" in "rpm" means. Guess what its license is. Guess what
package management SuSE uses. Guess who pays developers full-time to
work on Gnome.
>shoots another crappy release.
I think YaST is a mighty fine admin tool. I consider it a loss for the
people at large that this tool cannot be reused in other distributions /
OSes.
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
So I have to ask. Is there a spreadsheet hidden in Microsoft Flight
Simulator?
-- Jim Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in a.f.c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?)
Date: 14 May 2001 06:36:24 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roy Culley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You can download SuSE ISO's for all their releases. Yes, these are cut
>down but that is mainly because they provide commercial SW on their
>boxed sets and cannot provide that online. This is no different to
>other distributions that include commercial SW.
True, but I'm not sure I can mirror their download site. What I *am*
sure of, is that I am not allowed to sell their distro. I am allowed to
sell Mandrake and Redhat distros just fine (as I can with Debian, but
that's not a commercial distro).
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
The best way to accelerate a computer running Windows is at
0.0713 furlongs per square microfortnight
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Date: 14 May 2001 06:40:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Weevil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>--
>Weevil, who is now wondering if there is a single honest Windows advocate
There are, but you won't find them hanging aroud in COLA (John Wiltshire
springs to mind).
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
The Wright Bothers weren't the first to fly. They were just the
first not to crash.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
