Linux-Advocacy Digest #871, Volume #34 Thu, 31 May 01 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: ease and convenience ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Why does Linux / OSS community love mailing lists and hate news servers? ("wade
blazingame")
Re: What does XP stands for ??? (Bloody Viking)
Re: What does XP stands for ??? (Bloody Viking)
Re: Why does Linux / OSS community love mailing lists and hate news servers?
("Edward Rosten")
Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe (chrisv)
Re: Why should an OS cost money? (Nick Condon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 31 May 2001 07:09:41 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > > However, I can't do that because the GPL
> > > forbids it.
> > >
> > > Is that "free software"? I guess so- it's free-as-in-beer,
> > > but, you know, so is Internet Explorer.
> >
> > You again show your incredible ignorance.
> > 1. IE isnt "free" as in free beer. You pay for it when you pat for
> > window$.
>
> What, even if you are a Mac user?
>
> > 2. "free Software" isnt always $0. It can be sold. But it is "free" in
> > that the code is "free" as in anyone can use it, subject to the license
> > - and you are free to see and/or modify the source code.
>
> Well, free-as-in-beer software is $0.
> I realize that there are other sorts of
> free, of course.
>
Do you? Even Stallman has said people should be able to sell software.
> But I do not think the GNU stuff
> must be paid for.
>
IIRC, the GNU software is $0, and Free, as opposed to Open.
> [snip]
> > > > Duh. Thats one of the main points of that particular license, as
> opposed
> > > > to other licenses.
> > >
> > > That's what I don't like about it. I don't like
> > > the notion of Richard Stallman dictacting the
> > > licensing terms of anything I write.
> >
> > Then use BSD. Or write your own. Or, look into some of the restrictions
> > you can put on the use of -YOUR- code.
>
> Yes, of course. But this implies that I can't
> use GPLed anything.
>
Why do you want to use GPL code in direct opposition to the wants of the
authors and copyright holders/ What is the difference betwenn that and
jsut lifting code from micro$oft, except it would almost assuredly be
better code?
> > > A lot of companies feel the same way, and
> > > with considerably more reason that I do.
> >
> > Yeah, thats why so many are moving toward GPL and GNU/Linux.
>
> I think the number of companies even
> experimenting furtively with GPLed software
> amounts to a minority- and a small one at
> that.
>
So? What about % increase of Open and/or Free Software adopters? That is
increasing hugely. and, BTW, tell IBM how bad Linux is.
> [snip]
> > > > THEY WERENT GIVEN A CHOICE you damned idiot.
> > >
> > > They had a choice. You can get other systems. You
> > > can get a Windows system and remove Windows- that's
> > > more choice than the GPL gives you.
> > >
> >
> > Thats right. Buy a system. Pay for window$ and then wipe off windows.
> > real smart. Listen again you incredinly dense dolt. The market wasnt
> > given a choice. The m$ monopoly was forced on them.
>
> I don't subscribe to your fervid little theory-
> as you well know by now.
>
Its not MY theory, sock puppet.
> But even if I did, it would still be more choice
> than the GPL gives you.
>
Are you stupid, ignorant, or lying? The GPL doesnt force you to pay for
any software you dont want. It doesnt force you to use it. It DOES give
you an alternative other Open/Free licenses and an alternatice to
micro$oft.
> [snip]
> > > It's not the end of the world, but it's not
> > > a very nice thing to do either.
> >
> > If you dont like it, dont use it. Its not as if it is the only license
> > avaiable. There are other licenses that fall under the Open Software
> > definition of Open Software.
>
> The "Open Software definition of Open Software"?
>
There are other licenses that fall under the Open Software (the
institution)
definition of Open Software (the software license). Dolt.
> Oy. Recursive definitions. And I thought
> recursive acronyms were bad. :D
>
grinning idiot dolt.
> [snip]
> > > I wonder. It seems to me that the whole point of the
> > > GPL *is* to be a kind of cage- to prevent the escape
> > > of code into the commercial world.
> >
> > You really are that stupid, arent you? You just cant stand that there
> > are altruistic people out there that write apps and dont want those app
> > proprietized. Who are you to tell people what license to publish their
> > code under?
>
> Well, of course there are people like that;
> that has nothing to do with the GPL.
>
Except that most of them publish under the GPL.
> There are even people who want to write
> free-as-in-speech software, for that
> matter.
>
> [snip]
> > So, dont use it. Write for window$. See how much of m$ you can steal
> > before you get bombed.
>
> Why would I want to steal anything
> of MS's? They offer very reasonable
> prices for their stuff. Stealing is not
> required. :D
>
Why would I want to steal anything
GPLed? They offer very reasonable
prices for their stuff. Stealing is not
required.
> [snip]
> > As for not ready for prime time... it's OK. i prefer FVWM2 with GMOME
> > and KDE libs installed.
>
> That doesn't make the GNOME libs ready
> for prime time either. :(
>
So/ They seem to gaining in popularity. And what do you think all these
people that are adopting Linux are using for GUIs?
> KDE isn't GNU stuff. As I recall Richard Stallman
> at one point took great exception to the licensing
> terms for the widget set they use.
>
Go look at the QT license - NOW. Then complain.
> [snip]
> > > No, I do not know of any GNU shell actually. I am
> > > refering to the user interface conventions for command
> > > line apps that GNU pioneered.
> >
> > GNU pioneered command line apps?
> > What "user interface conventions for command line apps" did GNU pioneer?
>
> The one that looks like this:
>
> command --option: argument --other-option
>
> Instead of this:
>
> command -oargument -o
>
So, every shell, except those that are copyrighted by FSF use
command -oargument -o? Every one?
> [snip]
> > > > So WP, SS, DB, graphics manipulation, cd ripping... are these desktop
> > > > apps? If so then GPL software does the right tasks.
> > >
> > > Could you point me to *GPL* producst hat
> > > do these things?
> >
> > Open Office.
>
> This isn't finished, according to its
> FAQ.
>
So? Neither is m$ Office, or you wouldnt have updates.
> > Im not sure if KOffice is GPL, and it is still in beta.
>
> That would be a problem.
>
name them.
> > AbiWord (word processor)is GPLed as is Gnumeric (spreadsheet).
>
> This are bits of GNOME, and don't appear to be
> any more finished than the rest of it.
>
how is AbiWord "bits of GNOME"? How is gnumeric not finished?
> > Im sure there are some DB's that are GPLed.
>
> None that I know of. Some *are* free
> though.
>
Read further.
> > The GIMP is GPLed.
>
> It still can't do CMYK, as I understand it.
>
"as I understand it" - just what do you understand? And, BTW, I do know
you will find something wrong with just about everything that isnt m$
software. That doesnt make the GIMP any less usefull.
> > GNU SQL (relational DB system),
>
> Definitely not ready for prime time this.
>
Why not? Explain.
> > FreeAmp (mp 3 player),
>
> Well, that's something. I guess.
>
> > QUAKE (QUAKE),
>
> Notable, after it had lived out a very long
> and successful commercial life. Nice of ID
> to GPL it, so we can at least study the
> code- but it's several generations old now.
>
> > Electric, (electrical CAD),
>
> Hmmm. CAD is a desktop application?
> I dunno; maybe, but historically it has
> tended not to be treated that way.
>
Thats the best you can do to diss this app? If tis done on a desktop, it
must be a desktop app. BTW, is AutoCAD a desktop app? Hmmm?
> > Why dont you go look some up yourself?
>
> It's your argument; though what you are
> trying to prove continues to escape me.
>
Thats becasue you keep snipping things to try to make yourself look less
stupid. You wanted to know what apps were available. i ansered witht he
list. are very useful. I did it without very much effort. you REFUSE to
do ANY research on the availablity of apps.
> [snip]
> > > GPL stands for "General Public License". Not
> > > every acronym has to be recursive. :D
> >
> > OK... jsut to make everything VERY clear. I mean the GNU GPL, which is
> > what most people mean when they say GPL. And everything GPLed ISNT a
> > "GNU" app. However... most people equate the GPL ( specifically the
> > GGPL) with being a "GNU app". Could be technically wrong, but I did want
> > to make things clear.
>
> The "GNU GPL"? Is there some *other* GPL out
> there that I don't know about?
>
Learn to research, jerk:
>From the GNU FAQ:
"What does "GPL" stand for?
"GPL" stands for "General Public License". The most widespread
such license is the GNU General Public License, or GNU GPL for short.
This can be further shortened to "GPL", when it is understood that the
GNU GPL is the one intended. "
> [snip]
> > > Kinda hard to do when you don't tell me what
> > > it is I should research.
> >
> > Or is it becasue you are too stupid and/or lazy to go to a machine,
> > issue a couple of rpm commands, or look in /usr/bin or /usr/sbin? Or too
> > stupid and/or lazy to look at some sites that house these apps? I
> > already gave you URLs.
>
> You did?
>
Yes, I did.
> I seem to have missed them. Care to
> reiterate them for me?
>
No. Use Google.
> [snip]
> > > > "Normal" control set. Does everything HAVE to use window$ control sets
> > > > to be normal?
> > >
> > > On Windows it does. Consistancy doncha know.
> >
> > We are not talking about window$. Why should a non-window$ OS use
> > window$ control sets? its not window$
>
> Applications like StarOffice need to use the
> native widget set. The problem with Unix is
> that there's isn't one.
>
Answer the damn question:
Why should a non-window$ OS use window$ control sets? its not window$.
And there are several widget sets. Apps for those sets use those sets.
With window$, you have only one choice. LiNux users view this as good.
For some reason, you m$ view it as threatening.
> [snip]
> > > > So? Star Office isnt window$. Its Star Office.
> > >
> > > Microsoft Office does not suffer from
> > > this problem. Well, it does not suffer as
> > > badly. It has it's problems in this area
> > > too, but it has been getting better lately.
> >
> > What problem?
>
> Being in its own little world of user
> interface, of course.
>
It seems you are one of the few people that have a problem with it.
> [sni]
> > > It's not much of alternative to Windows- it is
> > > not a platform at all, as far as I can see.
> >
> > It was meant, originally as an "office-type environment". It -IS- an
> > alternatice m$ office.
>
>
>
Dolt, I said that before. Now you respond with...That's what I thought.?
> [snip]
> > > "Has been noticed"?
> > >
> > > You'd think they'd have noticed it when
> > > they wrote it!
> >
> > It was writtne to be monolithic. It was. That has become a liability, so
> > it is being changed.
>
> Indeed. I think Office is way ahead of them
> there.
>
maybe. Maybe not.
> [snip]
> > > It should be, when running on Windows.
> > > Consistancy. It's what Unix hasn't got. :/
> > >
> >
> > This is not frelling window$.
> > KDE apps have consistency.
> > GNOME apps have consistency.
> > *nix has lots of choices... it's what you m$ sock puppets dont have.
>
> What Unix has not got is a consistant
> user interface. It has lots of choices.. for
> developers.
>
it has lots of choices .. for users, too.
> Some developers like that, yes, but those
> that want to sell their software are often
> concerned with what the end-users will
> like.
>
Then write software based on what endusers will like.
> [snip]
> > > I think I show my knowledge of Unix- the need
> > > for such an "environment" exists because Unix
> > > does not provide it; Windows does.
> >
> > window$ does NOT provide an "office environment". m$ Office does. unix
> > does NOT provide an "office environment". Star Office can.
>
> Windows does provide Windows Explorer, not to mention
> tools like OLE. StarOffice duplicates a great deal of
> functionality.
>
window$ is NOT an "Office" environment. And so what if SO duplicates
Windows Explorer functionality? There is no WE for Unix, and if there
was, that would just be more choice.
> [snip]
> > > Had the StarOffice developers not had to
> > > waste their time on this, they might have
> > > produced a more stable product- or one
> > > with a better featureset that MS Office.
> >
> > how is SO unstable?
>
> Bloody thing goes berzerk whenever
> I use anything 3d.
>
You're using it on window$, arent you?
> [snip]
> > > I would have slammed it for not
> > > supporting OLE if this hadn't been
> > > there, of course. :D
> >
> > Im suprised SO has OLE.
>
> Why?
>
becasue OLE is m$ stuff.
> [snip]
> > > Somebody wrote in support for
> > > it. I wonder if it will support
> > > the OLE clone that is in GNOME.
> >
> > Post a note on one of the GNOME lists. You can proably converse quite
> > readily with the actual developer.
>
> How would he know what StarOffice will do?
>
How would a Star Office developer know aht Star Office will do? How will
a GNOME developer know what GNOME will do?
> [snip]
> > > I'm sure it is. I've seen far worse than
> > > StarOffice. But I think it's clear that
> > > the StarOffice people put a lot of effort
> > > into duplicate functionality included
> > > in Windows.
> >
> > The tell micro$oft to produce a Unix version of m$ Office, and a LInux
> > version. Since it doesnt exist, SO cannot be a duplication of effort.
>
> I dunno. Most people just favor MS Office,
> and consequently use Windows not Unix on
> the desktop.
>
You are lying.
> There's are reasons why MS Office is better
> though, and I think a big one is that they
> don't have to duplicate so much functionality,
> because they target OSes with reasonable
> support for desktop apps.
>
You are lying.
> [snip]
> > it seems to me your main complaint against Star Office is that it
> > exists, as opposed to everyone having to run m$ Offcie and window$.
>
> My *main* complaint is that it is a monolithic mass
> with poor integration to anything outside of itself.
>
So what? It was intended to run as an environment. Open Office is being
developed to be more component centered.
> My *other* complaint is tha it needs better debugging.
>
If you are such a great programmer... go help.
> If it has anything to recommend it over MS Office,
> then I do not see what.
>
> [snip]
1. You are blind.
2. It is NOT micro$oft.
3. ... a bunch.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 11:29:14 GMT
Rotten168 wrote:
>
> Did the geniuses who wrote X consider Trackballs of varying designs when
> they chose the 'middle button' cut & paste?? Probably not, because it's
> very unwieldy for me and my Logitech trackball.
Consider this, Johnny... Back around 1990, even before Windows 3.0
came out, X was running on Sun workstations and other workstations.
These workstations provided mice with three buttons.
Apple, of course, thought one button was enough. PC makers
provided two.
If your mouse proves too difficult on which to press two
buttons (a feature also supported by Windoze), why do you
continue to use it?
Chris
--
Please enter your Microsoft Client Access Code now,
or rat on your system administrator
at http://www.bsa.org/intnatl/report.phtml or
at http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/reporting/
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 15:50:27 +0200
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 31 May 2001 09:24:15 +0100,
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > Ah I see what you mean. You mean control of windows. I had noticed you
> > can drag around a window in Linux when its process is hung, something
> > you can't do on Windows. However, that's not a huge advantage. I have
> > seen you can kill a window on X but leave its process still hung and
> > running. I think the same is possible on Windows.
>
> If Windows had a native process display, then you would know.
>
> With Linux if an app hangs and its window is unusable, one can easily find
> the process and kill it.
Same in Windows, what is your point?
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 15:24:20 +0100
>> > You are comparing 9x with Linux in terms of robustness? Even I will
> admit
>> > that Linux *hands down* wins over the 9x 'OS' group any day.
>> Usability is the correct word I think ?
>
> I believe 9x platforms are still more usable than Linux - if you take
> that to mean 'ease-of-use'.
Depends how you define ease-of-use. I find windows a lot harder to use
than UNIX.
> However, given 9x crashes more than it should, you could argue that it
> isn't very usable at all. Hence I don't use it :)
>
> If that was the case... it may be enough. But I still doubt it given
> that
> *if* you ever needed to *figure* out how to do something under Linux, it
> would be harder to do than if they were running Windows. (Assuming both
> Windows and Linux were capable of doing the task at hand)
I don't believe that to be the case in general. It depends on what you're
more used to.
> My personal opinion is that computers are going to become more like
> appliances:
>
> OS in ROM, quick turn on. Then the OS can't be overwritten.
I wonder. They used to be like that, but no longer.
> Since I only use RedHat, I can't comment on other distros. But the w2k
> installer is definitely better than RedHat's. And the w2k installation
> is all integrated with the add/remove apps., etc.
I've found RedHat simple a case of putting in the CD and selecting the
packages you want. I can't see how anything could get much easier.
> I *think* my card is recognized, because when you boot up, I can see
> that the en0 device ? points to a 3com card.
>
> But, no network connectivity. I need to somehow configure the DHCP.
You have RedHat?
run control-panel as root (under X), click on the network icon. It's
pretty easy after that.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "wade blazingame" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Linux / OSS community love mailing lists and hate news servers?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 13:29:19 GMT
>> I'm not just asking for myself; simplifying access to mailing lists
>> makes Linux more friendly on the desktop to new users.
>
> Are you unable to get it? Route your mailing list to a news server if
> you feel like it! There are plenty of news/mail gateways! I run a
> three-way gateway on all my lists: news, mail and http.
I think you're the one who's not getting it.
How is Joe Bumfuck, who just installed Linux to try it out before
upgrading to WinXP, supposed to have the faintest idea how to set up a
news/mail gateway?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: What does XP stands for ???
Date: 31 May 2001 13:46:02 GMT
Zsolt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I've seen some rather good, although 'unofficial' explanations about the XP
:abbreviation in
: Windows XP. Let's try to collect them in this thread. Anybody, who has other good
:idead, please
: post them here!
: To kick-off the collection, some idea's I've seen so far on this newsgroup:
: eXPerimental
: eXtra Problems included
: eXtremely Pathetic
My vote is your third one being X-tremely Pathetic.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
CUIDADO: Las Puertas Estan Listo Para Cerrar.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: What does XP stands for ???
Date: 31 May 2001 13:49:51 GMT
Brian Langenberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: eXtra Profits
X-Treme Profits. Same concept, different spelling.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
CUIDADO: Las Puertas Estan Listo Para Cerrar.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Why does Linux / OSS community love mailing lists and hate news servers?
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 15:59:28 +0100
>> Are you unable to get it? Route your mailing list to a news server if
>> you feel like it! There are plenty of news/mail gateways! I run a
>> three-way gateway on all my lists: news, mail and http.
>
> I think you're the one who's not getting it.
>
> How is Joe Bumfuck, who just installed Linux to try it out before
> upgrading to WinXP, supposed to have the faintest idea how to set up a
> news/mail gateway?
What the fsck is Jou Bum(?)fuck going to be doing on a mailing list if
he's just iinstalled Linux before upgrading (if that is the right word)
to XP?
Seriously, this is not a very realistic situation
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 13:59:53 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Hope that helps.
>>
>> It didn't. Your anal, literal interpretation of what I wrote just
>> made you look like an idiot bent on ignoring my point.
>
>Are you saying that I should interpret your words in some way
>other than what you wrote?
>
>Do what you say. Say what you mean. One thing leads to another.
Sorry, but there's many non-literal forms of effective communication.
Morons who simply pretend not to understand are not helpful.
Hope that helps.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: Why should an OS cost money?
Date: 31 May 2001 14:05:14 GMT
Donn Miller wrote:
>mlw wrote:
>>
>> If one thinks about the history of man, and the nature of invention,
>> one must ask themselves why an OS costs any money.
>
>Tech support and media costs.
Tech support does and should cost money, so does media. However, the
question is why should an *OS* cost money? You can get an OS without
incurring media or tech support costs. They are three seperate things.
--
Nick
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
