Linux-Advocacy Digest #915, Volume #34 Sat, 2 Jun 01 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Rick)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: RIP the Linux desktop (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: What does XP stands for ??? ("Robert Morelli")
Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe ("You've got MALE.. sex
organs!")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 14:38:58 -0500
"KSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:cKUR6.846$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Michael Vester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ben Franchuk wrote:
>
> > I find a network card install in Linux quite simple. It has been over 4
> > years since I used a dial-up ISP. A Linux install with a network card
with
> > my ISP requires setting the IP address, gateway and name servers. I
never
> > experienced a Linux install that did not identify the NIC and load the
> > correct drivers.
>
> Maybe I could get you to install Linux on my computer. I've tried Debian
> and Red Hat, neither found my NIC, and I could never get networking to
work.
> Win2k came up just fine with networking and all.
This is a big problem with Linux. Many cards use a common chipset, which is
fine if Linux can detect it, but if it can't, you may not know what chipset
it's using, and the companies web site usually doesn't say.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 19:46:24 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > > YOU said he had a problem with business. Now you are changing you
> > > stance. Pick a place and stay there.
> >
> > A problem with "the business"; the business of
> > selling licenses for the use of software, in particular.
>
> If stallman has no problem with selling software, how can he have a
> proplem with the business of selling software, since selling software is
> business?
He's fine with selling disks. It's the licensing
he seems to get hung up on.
[snip]
> > I said crib the license agreement, not crib
> > the code.
>
> Yeah. right. Im sure you were talking about stealing the license as
> opposed to stealing the code. How do you steal the license? And yes, I
> just re-read you exact words. It doesnt track with the further
> conversation.
Well, I noticed, but I figure that was just
because you hadn't read what I had written.
I can't be held responsble for that.
[snip]
> > But we don't have the federal government
> > cautioning US business to avoid proprietary
> > software.
>
> Its getting close. The Fed is looking more and more into Free and/or
> Open Software.
I think it would take a larger bribe that
any OSS organzation can afford to manage
that. :D
[snip]
> > If they wanted to settle for a weaker product
> > just because it is European, they could
> > do that without slamming the many proprietary
> > European software firms.
>
> Are you dissing Mandrake, SuSU or something else?
No. I'm saying tha there are other ways
to be protectionist that make more sense.
"Proprietary" and "American" just aren't
synonymous at all.
[snip]
> > It doesn't matter what's missing.
>
> So, you CANT answer the question. You dont know whats missing, or if it
> really matters. You yourself have stated that software is often shipped
> without certain features. How is that unfinished, except that Open/Free
> developers may be more honest about it?
You just don't care to understand software
development.
[snip]
> > At least, sometimes they are. MS Office is stabler
> > than StarOffice. So it happened at least once that
> > MS was better at it.
>
> 1. - the correct usage should more stable.
Doesn't phase me a bit. :D
> 2. - How can SO on *nix be less stable than Office?
It's just a matter of not spending the effort
on QA. :D
[snip]
> > .. but what I'm trying to tell you is that their
> > choice is usually determined by the apps they
> > want to run.
> >
> > This applies to KDE vs GNOME as much
> > as Windows vs Linux.
>
> What? what choice of a window manager and/or windowing envirnment do you
> have on window$?
Developers can chose to write for X-Windows
if they like; X-Servers exist for Windows.
They don't because there's no advantage to using
X-Windows; it's not a very strong technology
next to GDI.
If you are using USER/GDI, you don't have
a "Window Manager" in the way X-Windows
does- that's really quite peculiar to X.
However, users can buy alternative widget
sets that change the way the software looks-
including how the window frames look.
In this way they can have *both* a consistant
user interface *and* their choice of widgets,
if they like that sort of thing.
[snip]
> > Yes, I am sure.
>
> I think you think you are, but you arent, really.
I'm sure I'm sure. :D
[snip]
> > I don't mean stable. I mean that its existance
> > may be relied upon; even if a Windows user
> > chooses StarOffice, Windows Explorer
> > is still available for other apps.
>
> I dont know of a distro that doesnt include mc. GNOME always includes
> gmc (for now) and KDE always includes Knoquorer. If a user chooses SO,
> the others are there.
And you'd better integrate with the lot,
'cuz you have no way to know what your
user will be using.
[snip]
> > perhaps it is more flawed, since it has no OLE on
> > Unix.
>
> But you said bonobo was only a chromosome in difference... then it MUST
> be at least as good as OLE, maybe better... Oh, I see... its not
> micro$oft, so it just cant be better.
Exactly. :D
Though if I had to point out specific issues,
I could I suppose mention that Bonobo's
notion of a moniker is a little limited. OLE's
is more futureproof, since it does not specify
that the stored representation of a moniker
is a path.
Also, Bonobo monikers do not seem to
have bind contexts. This would seem to
imply performance problems. Also without
one, it's hard to see how they are going
to manage asynchronous binding.
Still, the big problem you get with something
like Bonobo is that it's strictly playing
catch-up. It's not better than Windows'
OLE because it isn't *trying* to be better-
it's trying to catch up.
It is hard to see how you are going to
attract a lot of developers to GNOME
like that.
[snip]
> > > We're not discussing Apple. Apple never came into this.
> >
> > Well, I'm just saying that I suspect a case
> > *could* be made for infringement of something,
> > given sufficiently energetic lawyers.
>
> We're not discussing Apple. Apple never came into this. You are avoiding
> questions again.
I don't know why you are so alergic to Apple,
but seeing as I rephrased my point so that it
had no reference to Apple, I'd think you
could stop going on about them.
[snip]
> > You did ask about that.
> >
>
> I asked a question in reference to m$. You didnt answer, again.
You really ought to read what I write
occasionally. I did answer it, and I even
did so without any reference to Apple
at all, on my second try.
You need a new excuse not to pay
any attention.
[snip]
> > I do say it is that close. Get used to it. :D
>
> If it is so close, as you say... wouldnt that imply some sort of patent
> or copyright infrinement?
Maybe. Consider that MS settled with Digitial
over the similarities between NT and VMS.
It's like that.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 15:51:17 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <F2%R6.16166$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike
> wrote:
> > >I think Ballmer has a point. It seems evident to me that if government
> funds
> > >are used to support software research, the results of that research
> should
> > >be, in most cases, public domain. Ballmer's contention is that the GNU
> > >license restricts the use of software, so GNU software isn't really
> public
> > >domain.
> >
> > Incorrect. The GPL license is the ONLY license which should be used
> > on all government projects. We don't pay GOD DAMN TAX DOLLARS just
> > so companies like MICROSOFT CAN POCKET THE DEVELOPMENT MONEY AND
> > COPYRIGHT IT FOR THEIR OWN PROFITS.
>
> Charlie. Grow a brain. It's not just Microsoft that can't use GPL'd
> software. Projects like FreeBSD can't use it either, nor OpenBSD, or NetBSD
> or even the X11 Projects.
>
> Government funded research should be useable by all US citizens. Period.
It is. Period.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 15:56:18 -0400
Bill Todd wrote:
>
> "Chris Morgan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> ...
>
> > I thought most people only got "restore" cds which put it back how the
> > manufacturer set it up (no doubt with special care over their
> > particular hardware choices etc). I'm talking about a full install. I
> > don't know that many people who have done that out of the people I
> > know who use Windows. That could be unusual of course.
>
> The only time this ever happened to me was with the purchase of an IBM
> Thinkpad recently. Otherwise, every new (desktop) PC I've ever bought came
> with a full (OEM) version of Windows (or DOS, with my first Leading Edge
> PC-XT and a used AST 386 I got next) that allowed a full-fledged
> installation. Of course, since the Leading Edge and AST they've all (4 more
> at present count) been third-tier-manufacturer systems - Dell, Compaq, and
> Gateway might do things differently.
>
> - bill
My Compaq laptop came with a restore CD and no window$ CD.
--
Rick
------------------------------
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, 02 Jun 2001 16:00:50 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > > If you know an equivalent to WindowBlinds
> > > or Kaliadioscope for any Unix (bar NextStep),
> > > point me to it.
> >
> > Why bar nextstep? and are you also barring MacOS X, which has been
> > declared a Unix distro?
>
> D'oh! And I posted that on c.s.mac.advocacy!
>
> I should have said "MacOS X" of course.
> Please don't kill me. :D
>
> The reason I bar it is that it is quite
> a different product from the point of
> view of both users and developers, of
> course.
Quite a differnet product than what? Even Apple has been trumpeting the
BSD part of OS X. There are even a couple of X Servers (*nix). It seems
to be a BSD with a microkernel and a proprietary windowing/display
environment.
--
Rick
------------------------------
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: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 19:59:56 GMT
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:c7bS6.103898$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:F69S6.61334$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> > For instance, Unix has no equivalent of
> > MS's "Windows Scripting Host" or
> > Apple's "Open Scripting Architecture".
>
> You keep saying this. I've looked and looked and I cannot find anything
> special about "Windows Scripting Host." I don't know anything about
Apple's
> OSA, so I can't comment there.
Well, if you want to learn about it, you can go here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/scripting/
> WSH is little more than a ragged attempt to shore up one of Windows'
> weaknesses -- poor scripting support.
Well, yes. I think it's a moderately succesful
attempt, but whatever.
> This, of course, is one of the giant
> strengths of Unix/Linux.
Not really. It was the Macintosh that
Microsoft was trying to catch up with.
Unix shell scripts are old hat; *DOS*
was doing that sort of thing (albeit
not very well).
This is something else, something
DOS could not do at all.
> With WSH, Windows finally moves beyond DOS BATch files,
> and this is the big technical innovation you've been crowing about?
I didn't call it an "innovation"; they are sponging of
Apple again. MS is always doing that. :/
> Linux has never been so primitive.
Unix has shell scripts. These are
better than DOS batch files, but
that's really not much of a compliment.
Not that aren't fine things, in their
own right, of course. If they are
what you want.
But I'm talking about something a
little different.
------------------------------
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, 02 Jun 2001 16:03:42 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > It sounds like we need to clear up the meanings of
> > "widget set" versus "themes" versus "skins".
> > Maybe?
>
> Oy. Tall order. :D
>
> And I'm not sure it matters. In a real sense themes
> are skins and skins are widget sets. The differences
> are not really worth arguing over.
>
So, if themes=skins=widget sets, and there are tons of themes and skins
for * how are there not tons of widget sets?
> What I'm trying to get at is a layer deeper. Not the
> widget set but the supporting infrastructure.
>
You've been saying widget sets, not you are changing what you are
saying.. big suprise.
> When you create a button, how do you do it?
> On Windows you say this:
>
> HWND hbutton=
> CreateWindow(..., "BUTTON", ...);
>
> And it loads the widget by name.
>
> CreateWindow does not know anything
> about what a "BUTTON" is- it is mechanism,
> rather than policy. But there is a convention-
> whatever "BUTTON" is, it will be some sort
> of pushbutton, and it will respond to a particular
> set of messages and styles.
>
> Think of it this way. When you ask for a
> "BUTTON" in windows, you are specifing
> a particular policy, but you aren't specifying
> the implementation of it.
>
> You are asking for a pushbutton, but you
> aren't asking for a particular one.
>
> What Unix apps do is link the policy
> to the implementation; you decide you
> are going to use the Qt pushbutton, and
> you get that pushbutton.
>
> It's possible to implement a layer on top
> of X that would provide for this, but
> you'd have to convince developers to use it,
> and that may be hard- they have already written
> a lot of code to the various present-day
> implementations. They'd have to port to it.
>
Isnt this what window amangers do?
> So I expect that the practical limitations
> that Unix has here will remain for some
> time, even if the needed infrastructure
> materializes tomorow.
Even tough, as you've stated, themes=skins=widget sets?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 16:17:31 -0400
drsquare wrote:
>
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 17:22:28 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesse F. Hughes)) wrote:
>
> >drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> >Consequently, murder/suicide is not a crime. After all, if I kill
> >> >myself after offing whoever is annoying me, I will not be convicted.
> >> >
> >> >Brilliant. No convictions, no crimes.
> >> >
> >> >I'm not entering the debate here, but that kind of tortured reasoning
> >> >deserves comment. Clearly, some *crimes* go unsolved (or unpunished),
> >> >but no one has any doubt that a crime has been committed.
>
> >> Well, that's relevant.
>
> >It looks relevant to me. If we look back at the quotes above, we see
> >that you were denying that there is a difference between convictions
> >and number of crimes reported.
>
> Yet again, you are completely incorrect. I was merely stating you
> cannot call someone a criminal unless they have been convicted as
> such. You cannot consider a reported crime a crime without a
> conviction.
>
You can state a crime has been committed without having a perpetrator.
If somone has been murdered, a crime has been committed. Large numbers
of murders (crimes) go unsolved all the time. If you exceed the speed
limit, you are commiting a crime, wether you are convicted or not.. and
so on.
webster's new world dictionary:
crime: n. an act commited or omitted in violation of a law. Notice it
doesnt say anything about a conviction.
> >My response is intended to refute that
> >denial. Seems to be relevant to the quotations above.
> >
> >Perhaps you mean that *your* statement was irrelevant, and hence so
> >was my refutation? I don't know if that's what you intended, but
> >looks to me like my response must be as relevant as the statement to
> >which I was responding here.
> >
> >Well, no matter.
>
> Stop talking out of your arse, and maybe we'll begin to take you
> seriously.
maybe you should take you aown advice.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[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, 02 Jun 2001 13:34:19 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > > Yes, I can. I can make Windows look like anything that I want. And every
> > > application that uses the standard widget set will comply to the new
> look.
> > > On Linux? You may be able to switch windows managers, but the
> applications
> > > will not comply with the new look.
> >
> > That is not true in regards to the widget set. I ported the source of
> > xgdb from linux (KDE) to Solaris 8 (Motif) and just compiled the
> > source. When I ran xgdb it was not using the KDE widget set but Motif
> > widget set. Everything ran as it should.
>
> When you are talking about ported, what are you talking about?
In my means, just grabbing or downloading source from the web and just
compiling the source code.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Robert Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does XP stands for ???
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:42:35 -0600
In article <9f9aqn$ecc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
>> > Of course, acronyms are often chosen prior to working out exactly
>> > what they stand for. You don't believe PASCAL, ADA, BASIC, etc.
>> > are all accidents, do you?
> Ada is not an acronym, it's a name.
> What does Pascal stand for? I thought it was named for it's developer.
Pascal is the name of a 17th century mathematician and philosopher. One
of his lesser acheivements was to build some kind of primitive mechanical
calculator. The point is, you start with PASCAL and then you look for
a way to make it an acronym that matches the language. Like I said,
different people may come up with different ways. How about:
Procedural And StruCtured Algol-derived Language
As for ADA, it's from Ada Lovelace, who programmed Babbage's
mechanical computers. On the other hand, what about
Another Defence department Abomination
BASIC is of course
Bill's Anachronistic Sissy Instruction Code
------------------------------
From: "You've got MALE.. sex organs!" <[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: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 14:49:26 -0600
Jesus, Aaron, you're going to deny you are right wing fuckhead?
What will all your right wing fuckhead buddies think?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> drsquare wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 31 May 2001 20:16:56 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > ("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >
> > >"Vallely's Dirt in Boss King's Ditch.." wrote:
> >
> > >> Also, there's the fact that you ARE a proven right wing fuckhead..
> >
> > >Bzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong.
> > >
> > >I opposed fascism and nazism just as much as i oppose communism
> >
> > Irrelevent. It's still pretty clear that you're a right wing nut.
>
> How can I be "right wing" when I OPPOSE right-wing ways, methods, and philosophies?
>
> Do you even KNOW what the fuck "right wing" is?
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
> can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
> Special Interest Sierra Club,
> Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:03:13 +0200
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> If micro$oft wants proprietary code, they can damn well write it
> themselves. Ballmer's comments have nothing to do with the "public good"
> and everything to do with micros$oft being unable to take GPL code
> (specifically) and make it their's. He also realizes that good software
> (or even "just good enough") thats is Free (as in code and possibly in
> $) may well displace micro$oft software. Afterall, he has tried several
> times to convince everyone ... what's go for m$ is good for the USA...
> hell maybe the planet, possibly the galaxy. Well, it just ain't so.
No, Ballmer comments are that *governent funded* research should be *public
domain*, and not GPL.
Putting code under GPL block the ability of BSD, X , Apache, as well as a
host of other products wouldn't be unable to do that.
Are you claming that this is good, somehow?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:05:22 +0200
"Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike wrote:
>
> > I think Ballmer has a point. It seems evident to me that if government
funds
> > are used to support software research, the results of that research
should
> > be, in most cases, public domain. Ballmer's contention is that the GNU
> > license restricts the use of software, so GNU software isn't really
public
> > domain.
> >
> > So, the question is, why shouldn't government funded software
development be
> > public domain?
>
> The problem with public domain software
> is that commercial companies can incorporate
> parts of it in their own code, patent it,
> then the public domain code becomes illegal
> to redistribute.
>
> Once you put code in the public domain,
> anyone can do whatever they want with it
> by definition, including assigning themselves
> the copyright, patenting the code, and denying
> the public the right to use that code later.
No, they can't.
First, you can't patent code, only the algoritm, and the PD code is an
example of prior art.
Second, *nothing* can take something from PD, you can't copyright PD code,
you can't do anything to PD code that will take it from the PD.
The only difference between PD & BSD, is that in PD, you are not required to
post credintals.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie.
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:09:14 +0200
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:n8bS6.4933$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html
> >
> > "The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software,
> > you have to make the rest of your software open source....Linux is not
> > in the public domain. Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an
> > intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way
> > that the license works."
> >
> > Classic FUD. OK, this is true if "use" means "use the source code in
> > another product." It's not true if "use" means "run the compiled
> > software," an act which the GPL specifically says is unrestricted.
>
> It's unrestricted if you get ahold of it. You have to get your hands on
the
> GPL'd software to be able to do it.
>
> The GPL only gives you rights to the software you have in your posession,
it
> doesn't give you rights to someone eleses software. You can't demand they
> give you their GPL'd software. If you have the software, you can demand
the
> source, but that's a different argument.
2)
...
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be
*licensed as a whole* at *no charge* to *all third parties* under the terms
of this License.
Guess what? This mean that other people *can* demand that you give them your
GPL software.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:25:19 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:mx8S6.59180$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Yes, I can. I can make Windows look like anything that I want.
> >
> > How, Ayende? If this is possible, I'd like to know, because
> > the current look is boring to me. All I can change is colors,
> > fonts, and border widths.
>
> Go to www.stardock.com and download
> WindowBlinds. It does it.
>
> Stock Windows includes only one (1) widget
> set. But the *infrastructure* is there, and that's
> the thing I am trying to get at.
>
> XP is apparently going to add a second
> widget set to the stock OS, but you'll still
> need WindowBlinds if you want a third;
> or so I hear.
No, you'll need to get a third *widget set*, not WindowsBlinds.
------------------------------
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, 2 Jun 2001 23:27:47 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > How, Ayende? What Control Panel entry gives me this?
> >
> > WindowsBlinds entry, if they have one.
> >
> > On XP, it's: Display>Themes
> >
>
> Oh, okay, I understand. It's not part of Windows NT/2000 and
> below, but is now bundled into XP. Is that what you mean?
It is a part of them. You just don't get the software to change that in the
previous versions with it.
(Think hard link with NT, and you'll see my example.)
I know that Win2K has a lot of API that does everything that XP's UI does.
> >
> > I don't want a theme, I want a differenct WM, that is the difference.
>
> I'm thinking we don't have congruent definitions of window manager in
> mind.
Okay, tell me what is the difference between putting a theme on KDE & using
GNOME?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
