Linux-Advocacy Digest #873, Volume #34 Thu, 31 May 01 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Why does Linux / OSS community love mailing lists and hate news servers? (Otto
Wyss)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Who to install a .gz.tar file? (James Knott)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Bernd Paysan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 15:08:08 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > 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.
Sure. However, that's not what he does- his
still is $0. Free-as-in-beer, just download it.
[snip]
> > Yes, of course. But this implies that I can't
> > use GPLed anything.
>
> Why do you want to use GPL code in direct opposition to the wants of the
> authors and copyright holders/ What is the difference betwenn that and
> jsut lifting code from micro$oft, except it would almost assuredly be
> better code?
There is no difference, except that MS does not usually
give its product away. Usually.
[snip]
> So? What about % increase of Open and/or Free Software adopters?
I don't know what you mean by this. "Adopters"?
Does that mean companies putting out pro-Linux
press releases?
> That is increasing hugely. and, BTW, tell IBM how bad Linux is.
I needn't bother; they know all about it- and they know
how popular it is.
[snip]
> > 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.
Nobody does either of these things outside of your
imagination.
> It DOES give
> you an alternative other Open/Free licenses and an alternatice to
> micro$oft.
It gives me a license I can crib for my own code, yes,
but that can be said of MS's EULA.
[snip]
> > The "Open Software definition of Open Software"?
> >
>
> There are other licenses that fall under the Open Software (the
> institution)
The *institution*?
> definition of Open Software (the software license). Dolt.
Some of them actually let you do what you like
with the code, too.
[snip]
> > > 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.
People who want to control what their code is
used for use the GPL- or a conventional
proprietary licensing system.
The thing that makes the GPL different is that
it ensures the product has to be free-as-in-beer
at the level of the source code.
I do not really see this as altruism.
[snip]
> > 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 is more mature, as I understand it. But there reallky
isn't *any* GUI library for Linux that rises
to the level of the commercial desktop stuff.
Not yet, anyway.
> > 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.
I've no particular beef witht he QT license
per se; I only point out that these guys are not
all a single monolithic institution.
[snip]
> > 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?
No, not at all. DEC's VMS uses
COMMAND /OPTION ARGUMENT /OTHER_OPTION
And MS-DOS copied that, so that's
what NT uses too.
But the double-dash notation is compatible
with Unix-like pathnames, so there's something
to be said for it.
[snip]
> > This isn't finished, according to its
> > FAQ.
>
> So? Neither is m$ Office, or you wouldnt have updates.
Come now, you know better than this.
> > > Im not sure if KOffice is GPL, and it is still in beta.
> >
> > That would be a problem.
>
> name them.
I think you'll find that many potential
customers are surprisingly averse to using
code that is avowedly unfinished. They do
not want to be your beta testers.
That's the problem.
> > > 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?
They don't seem to have hit version 1.0 yet, basically-
they have not yet reached the point where their
creators are prepared to declare them done.
That's the same problem as with KOffice.
> > > Im sure there are some DB's that are GPLed.
> >
> > None that I know of. Some *are* free
> > though.
>
> Read further.
I think you know of no finished, GPLed
database- you are hoping that I will
stumble upon one, and make your case for you.
[snip]
> > > GNU SQL (relational DB system),
> >
> > Definitely not ready for prime time this.
>
> Why not? Explain.
It's not just that it's not finished; from
what I can tell on the web, there seems
to be very little progress being made on it.
[snip]
> > > 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?
That's interesting. You realize that nearly all
computers work "on a desktop"- at least in
the sense that your terminal or keypunch or
whatever sits on that particular item of
furniture.
[snip]
> > 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. "
This seems to suggest the answer is "no", as
I suspected.
[snip]
> > 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$.
That is irrelevant to StarOffice, which is not an
OS. A non-windows OS should use *some*
control set, though, rather then leaving it to
apps to roll their own, as StarOffice does.
> And there are several widget sets. Apps for those sets use those sets.
But apparently not StarOffice.
> With window$, you have only one choice.
Not so- you can still roll your own, just as
you do on Unix. You can roll your own widgets
and distribute them as a "widget set".
Nobody will use them, because to do so
is to abandon one of the advantages Windows
has to offer.
> LiNux users view this as good.
A rationalization; if they wanted choices they'd
want *themes*, as offered by products for
the Macintosh, OS and Windows. These themes
can substitute other widgets for the standard
ones the OS provides universally.
On Unix you have no choice; you get the
widgets the programmer felt like using.
> For some reason, you m$ view it as threatening.
Not threatening; it's a clear advantage for Windows.
[snip]
> > > 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.
I do not see how there's any question on this one.
[snip]
> > 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.
No. Users have no choice- they get
the widgets developers want.
For other desktop OSes, there are 3rd
party tools that let you substitute other
widgets for the standard ones. Even OS/2
and AmigaDOS can handle this.
Unix can't, because it has no standard
widgets to substitute anything for.
Unix offers the *least* user interface
choice of any major OS now on the
desktop.
[snip]
> 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.
There isn't. There should be, though, and it's an advantage
for Windows that it *does* have this.
[snip]
> > > how is SO unstable?
> >
> > Bloody thing goes berzerk whenever
> > I use anything 3d.
>
> You're using it on window$, arent you?
Yes.
[snip]
> > > Im suprised SO has OLE.
> >
> > Why?
>
> becasue OLE is m$ stuff.
Not everybody is a virulent MS-hater,
you know.
[snip]
> > > 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?
I was asking about the former; you told me to post
a note on one of the GNOME lists to find out of
StarOffice will support Bonobo.
I don't see how they'd know.
[snip]
> > 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.
I'm glad they realized that the had made a mistake.
But bear in mind that MS will not stand still, either.
> > My *other* complaint is tha it needs better debugging.
>
> If you are such a great programmer... go help.
:D
> > If it has anything to recommend it over MS Office,
> > then I do not see what.
> >
> > [snip]
>
> 1. You are blind.
Well, that would explain it. :D
> 2. It is NOT micro$oft.
... which may cause some people to
distrust it- those who don't understand
this whole "open source" thing, I mean.
> 3. ... a bunch.
Er... what?
I fail to see even one advantage, outside
of the price tag; no doubt this is due to
my own blindness.
So please, fill me in: What did I miss?
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 08:22:18 -0700
On Thu, 31 May 2001 07:09:41 -0400, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Daniel Johnson wrote:
>>
>> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > > However, I can't do that because the GPL
>> > > forbids it.
>> > >
>> > > Is that "free software"? I guess so- it's free-as-in-beer,
>> > > but, you know, so is Internet Explorer.
>> >
>> > You again show your incredible ignorance.
>> > 1. IE isnt "free" as in free beer. You pay for it when you pat for
>> > window$.
>>
>> 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.
>
He also says you should be able to sell other peoples software.
>> But I do not think the GNU stuff
>> must be paid for.
>>
>
>IIRC, the GNU software is $0, and Free, as opposed to Open.
>
GNU software is free as in beer. There are heavy limitations as to
what you can and cant do with the software so it is not Free. Its
still good software however and I use it all the time.
>> [snip]
>> > > > Duh. Thats one of the main points of that particular license, as
>> opposed
>> > > > to other licenses.
>> > >
>> > > That's what I don't like about it. I don't like
>> > > the notion of Richard Stallman dictacting the
>> > > licensing terms of anything I write.
>> >
>> > Then use BSD. Or write your own. Or, look into some of the restrictions
>> > you can put on the use of -YOUR- code.
>>
>> Yes, of course. But this implies that I can't
>> use GPLed anything.
>>
>
>Why do you want to use GPL code in direct opposition to the wants of the
>authors and copyright holders/ What is the difference betwenn that and
>jsut lifting code from micro$oft, except it would almost assuredly be
>better code?
>
The GNU people make a lot of noise about how source code should be
Free. Then thy restrict how it can be used with the GPL. They want
people to use GPL code, but only to produce more GPL code. while there
is nothing wrong with that it seems silly to me that they attack all
other license systems for being too restrictive. Even the ones like
BSD that let you use the code in any way you want. The choice to open
source or not should be just that, a choice. Its very hard to develop
software for Linux without sipping into any GPLd source code. This
will keep a lot of commercial developers away from the Linux platform
and limit the amount of software available.
>> > > 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.
>
Linux is fine, the GPL sucks rocks.
<snip long "is too" "is not" rant>
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Otto Wyss)
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 17:44:19 +0200
> The "convenience" of being able to post without subscribing is
> exactly what makes Usenet susceptible to spamming.
>
Well I don't think so since it's also not necessary to be subscribed to
post to mailing list. The reason IMHO is there are no filtering on news.
The advantage of news over mails (besides convenience) is I can just
download the headers and than decide which messages I wand to get.
Besides a decent web interface to the archive has the same advantage.
O. Wyss
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 17:46:54 +0200
In article <s1tR6.4618$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<several very good points by Erik snipped>
>
>> Effectively, XP is only an improvement if you administer it well, thus
>> increasing it's complexity, otherwise it will appear no different to
>> 9x, and creating the perception in people that its launch *was* all
>> hype.
>
> No, XP is a vast improvement whether or not you administer it well.
> Administering it well gives even greater improvement.
>
> Like Windows 98, most people will probably not notice most of the
> changes because they're under the covers, but when they go back to 9x
> after having used XP for a while, it will become painfully obvious how
> different they are. I mean really, do most people really notice the
> difference between kernel 2.2 and 2.4? Does that mean nothing changed?
> Of course not.
>
>> Thoughts anyone?
>
>
>
>
Very good points Erik. You do see however that I left one open; I am
primarily concerned with the *perception* in the public's eye that XP
will not be much of an improvement. Yes, it is better under the covers,
I'll grant you that, but as you said yourself: most people will probably
not notice. I think MS is going to have a hard sell on this one, at least
in their retail channel.
Thanks for your input,
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: James Knott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
linux.redhat.misc,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.redhat,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Who to install a .gz.tar file?
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 15:51:47 GMT
Jody wrote:
>
> "James Knott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Fred K Ollinger wrote:
> > >
> > > Scsi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > : Yeah ... why should I be penalized through levied taxes and
> taxation because
> > > : someone else downloads copyrighted materials? Too much
> government = slavery.
> > > : Down here in the US the government = big business and we have
> all become
> > > : robots and slaves to a group of captialist and greedy folks. Uh
> ... not all
> > > : of us but 90% perhaps. So blind.
> > >
> > > : Scsi2
> > >
> > > : "James Knott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> in message
> > > : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > : > Mladen Gogala wrote:
> > > : > >
> > > : > > Voila! Mkisofs is installed into /usr/local/bin.
> > > : > > Make sure that you do not burn copyrighted music to your CDs
> as it is
> > > : > > bad for your soul and for the recording industry profits.
> > > : >
> > > : > FWIW, Canadians can now legally copy copyrighted music, for
> their own
> > > : > use. The copyright owners get reimbersed through a levy the
> government
> > > : > slapped on blank CDs, audio cassettes etc.
> > >
> > > Do the taxes apply to hard drives? You can always go over border
> and buy
> > > blank cds.
> >
> > No, just stuff blank CDs and tapes.
>
> How do they actually apply this levy? I mean, how do they know Mr Joe
> Blow is making copies of linda ronstadt or ugly kid joe?
> Where does the levy taxes exactly go?
>
It certainly gets charged. Beyond that, I couldn't say where the money
goes.
--
Replies sent via e-mail to this address will be promptly ignored.
To reply, replace everything to the left of "@" with "james.knott".
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 15:52:20 GMT
>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>>
Aaron> Grzegorz Borek wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:
>> >> > Wrong.
>> >> >
>> >> > You have no choice over your DESIRES.
>> >> >
>> >> > You have COMPLETE control over your actions.
>> >>
>> >> Try very hard, and think this over:
>> >> Who gave gay people their desires?
>>
Aaron> Would my desire for millions of dollar justify robbing banks
>>
Aaron> A) yes
Aaron> B) NO
>>
Aaron> No more questions, your honor.
>>
>> Does a bank robber have a victim? Yes.
Aaron> So do gays.
Aaron> Or are you unaware of the numerous people who get Hepatitis from
Aaron> gay restaurant employees
Check your "logic".
>> Hence it is wrong.
>> Does consensual sexual relations have a victim? No.
>> Hence there is nothing wrong with consensual sexual
>> relations.
>> QED.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 17:47:37 +0200
From: Bernd Paysan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Bloody Viking wrote:
> Linux is an OS that appeals to techie types, not normal home users in general.
> The install can be a pain depending on equipment and distro used. At times,
> you get to play "hacker" with the install, like on a stubborn laptop. Being a
> Linux fan, I have to admit that it's not an OS for everyone, certainly not
> yet.
No normal user ever installs his OS, at least not when you don't have to
(as it is often necessary with Windows 9x). The distributor installs it.
And the distributor installs it by cloning the hard disk. Cloning the
hard disk is not a bit more difficult on Linux than on Windows (except
that Linux has the hard disk clone program as part of every
distribution: dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/hdc).
The main "install nightmare" issue comes from wanabe techies who try to
install Linux themselves and fail. A lot of them would fail if they had
to try to install Windows, too.
Ah, and BTW: Installing Linux with current distribution doesn't even
give the slightest kick of "hacker achievement" as it did in Slackware's
time.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
