Linux-Advocacy Digest #918, Volume #34 Sat, 2 Jun 01 20:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (Shane Phelps)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Larry Elmore)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Rick)
Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie. (Rick)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Ben Franchuk)
Re: ease and convenience (*long* and possibly boring;-) (Rick)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Anonymous)
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: What does XP stands for ??? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: ease and convenience (*long* and possibly boring;-) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer (pip)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (pip)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: What does XP stands for ??? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: What does XP stands for ??? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 08:46:19 +1100
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> > >
> > > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > I found this article interesting and not at all fanatical:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.sdmagazine.com/articles/2001/0105/0105a/0105a.htm
> > > >
> > > > Here's the teaser lines for it:
> > > >
> > > > Is Open Source for You? May 2001
> > >
> > > If it was, would we be running WindowsNT?
> >
> > Read the article, please.
>
> I used to be a GNU/GPL/Linux proponent. I
> was using Linux before it reached v1.x. I
> know what the spiel is. But yes, I did
> read the article. SSDD.
>
> > > My Lord, you are a dense one, aren't you.
> >
> > Is this your approach to life -- contumely, ridicule, and
> > insults?
>
> Your constant barrage of advertising for
> GNU/Linux into COMNA is the reason why
> I'm picking on you.
>
> We don't use OpenSource software, because
> we know it doesn't work for us. Hence, the
> name of this newsgroup,
>
> comp.os.ms-WINDOWS.NT.advocacy.
>
Well, I for one thought that NT was an Operating System,
not a philosophy. Oddly enough, I use a mix of commercial
and Free/Open software on Windows 9x, NT (4 & 5), MacOS,
Solaris and *BSD Linux (and even DOS for specific purposes).
In some cases the commercial product is best, in others it's not.
Pick the proper tool for the job and don't be blinded by ideology.
It's all so binary for some people, isn't it?
</grump>
[ snip ]
------------------------------
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 18:50:03 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > > 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?
>
> Oh, there *are* tons of widget sets. For
> all these OSes.
>
So, whats the problem?
> > > 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.
>
> I guess you haven't been reading my posts, again.
>
i have been reading your tripe. You continue to move goal posts... first
you say you can substitute widgets and get proven wrong, then you say,
oh, I really didnt mean widgets...
> [snip- exposition on CreateWindow]
> > > 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?
>
> No, it isn't. Any further quesitons?
>
Yeah.. suppose you tell us just what widnow managers do.
> [snip]
> > > 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?
>
> Yes. No matter *what* you call them, the
> infrastructure that deals with them must be
> used in apps before it can accomplish
> anything.
You have again agreed that themes=skins=widget sets. Which means I can
change widget sets any time I want by changing themes/skins. So... whats
your problem?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Larry Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 22:47:45 GMT
Ben Franchuk wrote:
>
> Ian Pulsford wrote:
> >
> > That is so arrogant. If you tried to install the Yoyodyne 2020 system
> > first time you would probably fail too. You are saying inexperienced
> > people shouldn't even try. First time I ever tried DOS, OS/2, Linux,
> > and FreeBSD I failed at installations. I redid them till I got them
> > right. You are no smarter than the average man on the street, the only
> > advantage you have is experience. Determined people always succeed
> > eventually, those who don't usually just aren't interested in installing
> > an OS in any case.
>
> And with new computers you DOZE bundled with Wxx already installed.
> How if you want an computer with NO OS you don't get $XXX discount
> for not having Wxx?
If you want a custom car, you go to a custom car dealer. If you want a
mass market car, but _without_ a transmission because you want to
install your own special one, do you honestly expect to be able to go to
a mass market auto dealer and pay _less_ for that car? _If_ there was a
sufficiently large market for cars without certain major systems,
certainly the manufacturers and dealers would offer some that way.
Obviously, there simply isn't enough demand for computers without OS's.
Anybody wanting a computer without an OS can _build one from parts_!
(anyone who can install a non-Windows OS can certainly build their own
system) How much money will you save by _not_ paying for Windows that
way? Not very much, if you price it out. Most people I know that build
their own systems pay _more_ for the box because they want known
high-quality components, not the unknown generics that are liable to
show up in a cheap pre-built box. You certainly wouldn't save
triple-digit amounts!!!
> "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents...
> We borrow it from our children."
And those of us who do not have children, are we stealing the planet
from other people's children? Or are they stealing it from us? :)
Larry
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 18:59:03 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > If micro$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.
>
Ballmer's comments are FUD, meant to scare everyone, --everyone--, away
from Open SOurce in general and GPL, in particular.
> 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?
What?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie.
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 19:00:57 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "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.
Um, no, they cant. If you are abiding by the GPL, that code is aready
published.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Ben Franchuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 20:49:01 -0600
Larry Elmore wrote:
> If you want a custom car, you go to a custom car dealer. If you want a
> mass market car, but _without_ a transmission because you want to
> install your own special one, do you honestly expect to be able to go to
> a mass market auto dealer and pay _less_ for that car? _If_ there was a
> sufficiently large market for cars without certain major systems,
> certainly the manufacturers and dealers would offer some that way.
> Obviously, there simply isn't enough demand for computers without OS's.
You mean other M$ os's.
What would you say instead if the car manufactures all got together
and said "we will only make Automatic Transmissions". Nobody drives
standard anymore. For a $500 upgrade we will fix "drive" shifting into
"park" and add 2 speed reverse.
Just food for thought.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ease and convenience (*long* and possibly boring;-)
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 19:01:35 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fagp6$6t2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > > The jury is still out here whether XP will really be the continuation in
> > > our household or not. It all hangs on any silly licensing agreements
> > > that may require an annual license fee. If they want a fee we're outta
> > > MS camp.
> >
> > Eventually, most software will be written for XP... and MS will be smart
> > enough to add new APIs to XP so that previous versions of Windows can't
> run
> > the new software. This is what they must do to get revenue.
>
> Actually, as far as I understand it, most of the new stuff in XP is just a
> layer on the existing API.
> Win2K can do most to all of what XP does.
Without the registration requirements?
--
Rick
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 19:06:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Not true. You can't patent code, you can only copyright it. You can patent
> algorithms, but the public domain code is a clear example of prior art.
There's not much of a difference between code
and an algorithm. Code is just an implementation
of an algorithm, in fact, patenting the algorithm
is even worse because then you can't even use another
language to implement the algorithm.
Although the law states you can't patent something
used before in the public domain, in reality
the PTO doesn't have the resources
to check all the public domain code for every
existing algorithm in use, therefore nothing
keeps anyone from patenting an algorithm
which already exists in the public domain.
Otherwise, Amazon's silly "one-click" patent would never
have been accepted.
All patents on software algorithms should be invalidated.
Patents on algorithms is a lot like having a patent
on Newton's Law or Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
This should never be allowed.
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 01:38:47 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9fbjgr$4ir$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >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?
> >
> >
>
>
> As BSD has already proven us, Microsoft stole their code and with
> their lousy license it's gone forever.
First, what code has MS stole from BSD?
Second, gone forever? Have the BSD code suddenly became less free because MS
use it?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 01:41:04 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> GPL'd code can be used by anybody in the world.
No, it can't. It can only be used by someone willing to license their code
under the GPL.
Show me the BSD that uses GPL code.
Where is the GPL code in Apache?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does XP stands for ???
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 02:02:06 +0200
"Zsolt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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!
Mozilla use XP for "Cross Platfrom"
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 02:03:56 +0200
"Larry Elmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Anybody wanting a computer without an OS can _build one from parts_!
They don't even have to do that.
They can go to a computer store, hand the clerk Dell's ad, and say, I want a
computer like that, without OS, make it so.
And they will *get* it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ease and convenience (*long* and possibly boring;-)
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 02:05:42 +0200
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9fagp6$6t2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > > > The jury is still out here whether XP will really be the
continuation in
> > > > our household or not. It all hangs on any silly licensing
agreements
> > > > that may require an annual license fee. If they want a fee we're
outta
> > > > MS camp.
> > >
> > > Eventually, most software will be written for XP... and MS will be
smart
> > > enough to add new APIs to XP so that previous versions of Windows
can't
> > run
> > > the new software. This is what they must do to get revenue.
> >
> > Actually, as far as I understand it, most of the new stuff in XP is just
a
> > layer on the existing API.
> > Win2K can do most to all of what XP does.
>
> Without the registration requirements?
Yes.
You need extra software for that, though.
http://www.stardock.com will sell you a product that can give Windows (any,
but especially 2000, since that is where new display API exist) any UI that
you want.
You don't get the other stuff that XP does from them, thought.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 02:07:29 +0200
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> Ballmer's comments are FUD, meant to scare everyone, --everyone--, away
> from Open SOurce in general and GPL, in particular.
Whatever, *I* will make that claim.
Goverment fund code should be public domain, not GPL.
Will you argue with this statement now?
> > 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?
>
> What?
Put simply, GPL code cannot be used in non-GPL products, this mean that a
lot of people can't use GPL code at all.
That include MS, but also BSD, Apache & X.
This is because of the viral nature of the GPL.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie.
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 02:10:19 +0200
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Um, no, they cant. If you are abiding by the GPL, that code is aready
> published.
>
You said, and I quote:
> > > The GPL only gives you rights to the software you have in your
posession,
> > it
> > > doesn't give you rights to someone eleses software.
Clearly, GPL 2,B *does* gives you rights to someone else's software, you can
demand that they will give you the software, at no charge.
> > >You can't demand they
> > > give you their GPL'd software.
Yes you can.
I'm not talking about source code here.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 00:13:33 +0100
Mike wrote:
> Now, on to your arguments.
>
> Yes, the issue with GPL seems to center around its effect on the programs
> that it's integrated with. The fear that many companies have is that if they
> use GPL code anywhere in their product, that it could potentially expose
> them to loss of their product. Effectively, that makes GPL code unusable by
> any company, large or small, that markets a proprietary product.
That's right - a "proprietary product" will certainly not allowed.
However there is a distinction between a product and a technology or
technique.
For example would a CORBA component be allowed in a commercial product ?
I'm not sure. How about a server side-technology where the innovation
could be on the client side ?
> You argue that Microsoft, as a large company, should be forced to do a clean
> room implementation of GPL code. The implication is that small companies
> shouldn't have to, but GPL makes no such distinction. I'd argue that small
> companies need protection for their intellectual property far more than
> large companies do, yet they are potentially exposed to the most risk by
> GPL.
>
> My argument is that the results of government funded research should not be
> made available based on whether a company is public or private, or what
> their business model is. Everyone gets to share in the benefit, like it or
> not.
I can see this argument, and it's a good one. After all corporations pay
lots of tax so it would be unjustified if they could not utalise the
code. However, for me the emphasis is on empowering users of the
software. That means sometimes a hard line stance is required. And, no
it's not always "fair". But for users it is.
Lets take the example of a protocol. Lets say there is this new
protocol, and the government researches, formulates and implements it. A
company like Microsoft can come along and use the code right away - and
add their own proprietary extensions and hooks into it. Because of their
market power this becomes the de-facto standard. Something that was
"available" for everyone has been commoditised and "stolen" into close
source - and the protocol is "broken" from the original spec. Should tax
be for this? You see, I just can't concede that this is a public good.
Also I can't concede that small business will be put on a level playing
field with the big boys because of the market power factor. As much as I
would like for it to be the case it s not. Therefore my issue is to
protect the implementation from being exploited directly.
> One last point, that everyone seems to be missing. Microsoft isn't making
> these arguments about GPL for any altruistic reason, or because they're
> worried about their own code base. This being cola, though, it's doubtful
> whether anyone here realizes what Microsoft's strategy is. Do you?
I am not quite sure what you mean ? Microsoft's strategy is very clear :
FUD.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 00:15:01 +0100
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Mike you blockheaded dipshit!
>
> They have already admitted they use BSD code in the OS.
>
> What more do you fucking want here?
Hmmmm. What an interested "debating" style.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 23:25:10 GMT
In article <9fbrkt$dtl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>Whatever, *I* will make that claim.
>Goverment fund code should be public domain, not GPL.
>Will you argue with this statement now?
>
And *I* will say your full of shit.
The government and anybody can use GPL'd code.
They just can't copyright it and claim it as their
own like with other licenses.
The Government MUST GPL code.
>
>Put simply, GPL code cannot be used in non-GPL products, this mean that a
>lot of people can't use GPL code at all.
>That include MS, but also BSD, Apache & X.
>
>This is because of the viral nature of the GPL.
>
The nature of the GPL is not VIRAL.
It's never VIRAL to keep public code public.
The problem with the public license is it allows
people to copyright the code and steal it away.
GPL'd code can't be copyrighted and thus remains
free from copyrights and available to the public
at no cost. And that's the way it should be.
Bottom line... If you want to make copyrighted code
then do so .... But don't expect the government to
create YOUR company for you when you contract with
the US. The work created BELONGS to the people and
not the contractor.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 23:26:58 GMT
In article <9fbrkl$dtl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>
>First, what code has MS stole from BSD?
>Second, gone forever? Have the BSD code suddenly became less free because MS
>use it?
>
They stole the TCP-IP stack software from FreeBSD.
They modified the code slightly and recopyrighted it
as allowed for under the BSD license.
The BSD people became aware of this too late.
Otherwise the Board of Regents notice would have
to have been placed on the code just as with all
BSD code.
So Microsoft stole the code from BSD then never
gave them credit for this.
Then they admitted it, thus ending the debate.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 23:28:45 GMT
In article <9fbrkn$dtl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> GPL'd code can be used by anybody in the world.
>
>No, it can't. It can only be used by someone willing to license their code
>under the GPL.
>
Correct. And the problem is?
>Show me the BSD that uses GPL code.
>Where is the GPL code in Apache?
>
The BSD folks are using the GNU's based tool sets, compilers
and even the desktops GNOME and KDE and so on so forth.
Of the BSD distribution, less than 35% of it is under the
BSD license as of right now.
But if you really knew anything about OS's you wouldn't
be asking this idiotic question in front of so many
knowledgable people.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 01:07:51 +0200
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> Moronic BULLSHIT EF.
>
> GPL'd code can be used by anybody in the world.
>
No, it canīt.
It can not be used with other. also free code, like BSD
> Microsoft copyrighted code CAN NOT without PAYING A FEE and
> then you ONLY get to use the BINARY'S as they won't give you
> the source code.
>
> This is exactly why Microsoft is a CANCER UPON THE WORLD
> and the GPL is it's savior.
>
No, it is MSīs right to get your money if you want to use their code.
If it is a pile of shit (as it is), why would you want to use it?
MS code is just a pile of horseshit, GPL is cancer.
Even if I like the cancer better in this case, it still is.
By the way, please stop your shouting (ie CAPS). You look like
Aaron Kookis that way, and that jerk is really a moron.
Peter
--
The last good thing written in C was Schubert's Symphony No. 9.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does XP stands for ???
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 01:11:17 +0200
cash wrote:
>
> It means eXPerience. In other words, WinXP with be a great eXPerience for
> users.
>
Yep, they eXPerience that great feeling to be ripped off.
Peter
--
Get the new Windows XP. Now with eXtra Problems included
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: What does XP stands for ???
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 23:43:51 GMT
On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 02:42:35 -0600, Robert Morelli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <9f9aqn$ecc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
PASCAL isn't the name of the language though. That is "Pascal:, and it
is not an acronym. It is named after the mathematician.
> As for ADA, it's from Ada Lovelace, who programmed Babbage's
> mechanical computers. On the other hand, what about
Again, the name of the language is Ada, not ADA, and it is not an
acronym. It is named after Babbage's programmer friend.
I agree with your point, but these are bad examples.
> BASIC is of course
Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code <g>.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 23:43:57 GMT
On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 19:28:01 GMT, Jonas Due Vesterheden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <9fbdk1$5mf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ian Pegel wrote:
> > I'm kind of new to Linux, I like what I see so far - my only
> > reservation is leaving apps like Dreamweaver and Photoshop behind.
> Have you tried the alternatives to these programs?
The de-facto Photoshop alternative for Linux would be GIMP. Most
distros seem to come with it.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
