Linux-Advocacy Digest #920, Volume #34 Sat, 2 Jun 01 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why should an OS cost money? ("Joe Ogiba")
Re: Linux is shit (pip)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Rick)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Craig Kelley)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Craig Kelley)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Rick)
Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie. (Rick)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Rick)
Re: Why should an OS cost money? ("Ayende Rahien")
Bill Gates is blamed for economic slowdown ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is shit ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (.)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Rick)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: ease and convenience (Terry Porter)
Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
("Patrick Ford")
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Rick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joe Ogiba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should an OS cost money?
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:04:46 GMT
"Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Stuart Fox wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> If one thinks about the history of man, and the nature of
invention,
> > > >> one
> > > >must
> > > >> ask themselves why an OS costs any money.
> > > >>
> > > >Wrong question, the real question is why shouldn't an OS cost money?
> > > >
> > > >An OS should cost money, because it is derived from effort, which
most
> > > >humans expect to be paid for. Total up the amount of time that Linux
> > > >has taken to develop, and then try and recover that cost. Linux of
> > > >course is a special example, as it is allegedly developed by people
on
> > > >their "free" time. Of course, this doesn't include people who are
paid
> > > >to develop it (Linus by Transmeta, Alan Cox by Redhat). I don't see
too
> Hmm... isn't Linus paid by Transmeta for doing something totally
> different?
> > > >many Linux companies actually making money - because they can't
recover
> > > >the costs of their effort.
> OK, I will pay a rational price for software, a price that this software
> is worth.
> Paying $250 for a CD and a booklet (Win9x) or $700 for an office-suite
> is not
> priceworthy, if you ask me. I really don't want to take my month of work
> and buy
> software with it, when I can have all that and even more for about 10%.
>
> [Snipped]
Who the hell pays $250 for Win 9x and $700 for MS Office ? I paid $125 for
Windows 2000 Server and $99 for Office 2000 Premium w/ Frontpage 2000 and
PhotoDraw 2000 a year and a half ago.
> They're only trying to make me LOOK paranoid!
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is shit
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 02:08:13 +0100
drsquare wrote:
>
> It really is. I'm sticking to windows. You can't even install a
> printer for christs sake.
Good for you. We all find our own level.
Bye..... Have fun....
Hugs and Kisses and all that.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 21:18:42 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > Ballmer's comments are FUD, meant to scare everyone, --everyone--, away
> > from Open SOurce in general and GPL, in particular.
>
> Whatever, *I* will make that claim.
> Goverment fund code should be public domain, not GPL.
> Will you argue with this statement now?
>
I stand by my statement. Ballmer is only interested in spreading FUD. m$
is NOT insterested in anything but protecting THEIR marketshare, and the
GPL is a threat to that, as is all open software.
You want to argue with that?
> > > 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.
Thats not strictly true. An app is eithe GPL or not, but you can have
non-GPL apps interact with GPL apps.
> That include MS, but also BSD, Apache & X.
>
> This is because of the viral nature of the GPL.
Yeah, so?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: 02 Jun 2001 19:15:57 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html:
>
> Q: Do you view Linux and the open-source movement as a threat to Microsoft?
>
> A: Yeah. It's good competition. It will force us to be innovative. It will
> force us to justify the prices and value that we deliver. And that's only
> healthy. The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds
> open-source work. Government funding should be for work that is available
> to everybody. Open source is not available to commercial companies. The way
> the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to
> make the rest of your software open source. If the government wants to put
> something in the public domain, it should. 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.
>
> (end quote)
>
> You couldn't say anything more ridiculous if you tried.
>
> The Govt. sends millions (at least) to MS every year for shrinkwrapped
> software, funding the development of code that is proprietary MS
> property. But that doesn't seem to bother Ballmer quite so much.
Exactly. If the government shouldn't "fund" GPL development (which I
agree with to a certain extent), it should be also be that commercial
software recieves the same treatment.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: 02 Jun 2001 19:17:43 -0600
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, the question is, why shouldn't government funded software
> development be public domain?
Purchasing software = funding development
Why should the governments of the world fund commercial software? It
works both ways.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 21:20:43 -0400
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Actually, GLed code CAN be copyrighted. IIRC correctly, if an autohr
wants his/her app to be a GNU app, the copyrigt will be awarded to the
FSF. All contributors retain copyrights and credits. for their
submissions.
> 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
> -------
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie.
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 21:23:55 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "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:
>
-I- didnt say that. I said the code was already published.
> > > > 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 cant demsnd they _give- you code, unless you are talking about the
clause that states source must be freely available.
And you can CHARGE for software. Go read the damn license in whole.
> > > >You can't demand they
> > > > give you their GPL'd software.
>
> Yes you can.
No you cant.
>
> I'm not talking about source code here.
Then you are wrong.
--
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 21:25:09 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "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.
Yeah?... walk into circuit city and say that.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should an OS cost money?
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 04:12:25 +0200
"Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> OK, I will pay a rational price for software, a price that this software
> is worth.
> Paying $250 for a CD and a booklet (Win9x) or $700 for an office-suite
> is not
> priceworthy, if you ask me. I really don't want to take my month of work
> and buy
> software with it, when I can have all that and even more for about 10%.
I can get Win2K for $129
I'm quite certain that I can get a decent price cut on Office as well.
I agree with you on the high prices, though.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Bill Gates is blamed for economic slowdown
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 04:15:16 +0200
http://biz.yahoo.com/fo/010319/aelds9c4_rcfle9rgswo2g_2.html
Read it, quite interesting.
Personally, I think that this is stretching it a bit.
I do reminded by a BG qoute about what would happen to the economy if DOJ
will sue MS.
Can anyone dredge that up?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is shit
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 04:16:05 +0200
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It really is. I'm sticking to windows. You can't even install a
> printer for christs sake.
Don't take it as an insult, but if you think so lowly of Linux, please
refrain from posting here again.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: 3 Jun 2001 01:22:38 GMT
drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2001 18:47:39 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)) wrote:
>>drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> Because then I'd miss other posts.
>>
>>>>Because youre an idiot and you dont know how to killfile properly. "Years"
>>>>my ass.
>>
>>> Sorry, but my newsreader isn't capable enough to filter in such a way.
>>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
>>
>>Apparantly it is, you ignorant turd.
> It is not capable to filter in such a way.
>>>>> Oh no, that would be a complete DISASTER.
>>
>>>>If you actually knew what a killfile was, id buy that sincerity.
>>
>>> You're right. I really wish I knew what a killfile was. I really do.
>>> Could someone please explain?
>>Why dont you impress everyone AND DO A FUCKING WEBSEARCH.
>>
>>Or better yet, READ THE GODDAMN INSTRUCTIONS THAT CAME WITH AGENT.
> I have, yet there is still no way.
> You are still incorrect.
I searched for all of ten seconds until I found this blurb in a FAQ
about forte agent:
"The Newsreader FORTE AGENT has a "killfile" capability.
You can actually select *to read* the writing of
certain authors, and automatically screen out the rest.
Also, you may read all but certain writers."
You really are an idiot. Thank god you arent going to attempt to
use linux, it would probably kill you.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 21:27:26 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > GPL'd code can be used by anybody in the world.
>
It can still be used by anyone in the world.
> No, it can't. It can only be used by someone willing to license their code
> under the GPL.
>
The code (or app) can be used by anyone in the world. The code (source)
can be used by anyone in the world... yes, they'll almost certainly have
to publish under the GPL, but they CAN use it.
> Show me the BSD that uses GPL code.
> Where is the GPL code in Apache?
Those are apps, not people. and anyone in the world can use them, and
their source.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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 01:28:43 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> In COMNA, we advocate the use of WindowsNT. Chris
> seemed to be advertising as to why we should use
> OpenSource software exclusively. In a newsgroup
> where a commercial operating system is the topic,
> such a thing makes no sense.
Learn to read. Read to learn.
> > It's all so binary for some people, isn't it?
>
> It has nothing to do with being binary. It has
> everything to do with "trolling" a newsgroup with
> material that is not desired (at least, by me (I
> can only suspect that others here feel somewhat
> the same as I do about this)).
I'll stop when the WinTrolls stop infesting COLA.
In the mean time, try to read and learn something.
Imagine saying that just because one uses gcc
to compile one's code, one has to give it away.
Ye gods.
Chris
------------------------------
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 04:24:42 +0200
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "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.
>
> Yeah?... walk into circuit city and say that.
Okay, are you going to pay for my plane ticket?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie.
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 04:35:52 +0200
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> -I- didnt say that. I said the code was already published.
>
> > > > > 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 cant demsnd they _give- you code, unless you are talking about the
> clause that states source must be freely available.
Yes, I can.
If they distribue it under the GPL, they must make it available to all third
party (which include me, incidently) at no charge at all.
> And you can CHARGE for software. Go read the damn license in whole.
No, you can't, at most, you can charge for transfer fees.
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.
....
3)
...
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to
give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically
performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the
corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1
and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
In other places, it says that you can charge for transfer fees, and offer
warranity at extra charge.
It also says that you can charge for the services of handing those free
copies.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Quote the relevent passages to your argument, please.
> > > > >You can't demand they
> > > > > give you their GPL'd software.
> >
> > Yes you can.
>
> No you cant.
This is getting silly, you know.
> > I'm not talking about source code here.
>
> Then you are wrong.
I'm talking about the product as a whole, which include the source & the
binaries.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 04:38:20 +0200
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "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?
> >
>
> I stand by my statement. Ballmer is only interested in spreading FUD. m$
> is NOT insterested in anything but protecting THEIR marketshare, and the
> GPL is a threat to that, as is all open software.
>
> You want to argue with that?
No, I'm not interested in that, I'm interested in talking whatever or not
the goverment should release their code under PD or 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?
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Thats not strictly true. An app is eithe GPL or not, but you can have
> non-GPL apps interact with GPL apps.
That is quite tricky, though.
Apperantly, using a DLL is enough to make the FSF believe that the
application that call this DLL should be GPLed.
What about D/COM/+ objects?
What about SOAP, for that matter? UDDI?
And what if I want to ship my product with a GPL plug-in, frex? Then I
*must* make the whole thing GPL.
> > That include MS, but also BSD, Apache & X.
> >
> > This is because of the viral nature of the GPL.
>
> Yeah, so?
So if the goverment release code under the GPL, they block much more than
MS.
And who is it going to hurt most, anyway?
MS has the funds to develop a parallel implentation, most of the OSS
developers doesn't have anywhere near the resources that MS has.
Hell, I would say that all of them doesn't. Maybe even put together.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 03 Jun 2001 01:38:45 GMT
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 05:38:56 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 03:21:42 +0200,
>> Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> > They do. Get XP when it is out. Personal would cost as much as 9x.
>>
>> They don't,
>
> Argueable.
Of course, my opinion only :)
>
>> and considering the 'Locktivation' feature of XP, it should
>> be free.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised to see XP discs on magazine covers, etc.
>
>
You're probably right, afterall wont XP be usless without the
"locktivation' code ?
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 21:42:58 -0400
"You've got MALE.. sex organs!" wrote:
>
> Jesus, Aaron, you're going to deny you are right wing fuckhead?
How can I be "right wing" when I OPPOSE right-wing ways, methods, and philosophies?
Since YOU are making the accusation that I am "right wing", then
first, you must PROVE that I agree with their ways, methods, and philosophies.
Until then, you're a slandering asshole
>
> 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.
--
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: "Patrick Ford" <[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
dust!
Date: 3 Jun 2001 13:44:04 +1200
drsquare wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2001 13:40:41 +1200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Patrick Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >drsquare wrote:
>
> >> >> Too annoying? Are you taking the piss?
> >>
> >> >"Taking the piss"? WTF does that mean?
> >>
> >> What do you mean "WTF"? How can you not know what that means?
> >
> >He's a seppo, perhaps?
>
> A what?
What do you mean "A what"? How can you not know what that means?
--
--
My domain contains .co, not .com as appears in the header.
Patrick Ford Auckland, Aotearoa (New Zealand)
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 21:47:32 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 01:07:51 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > (Peter Köhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >
> > >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Moronic BULLSHIT EF.
> > >>
> > >> GPL'd code can be used by anybody in the world.
> >
> > >No, it can´t.
> > >It can not be used with other. also free code, like BSD
> >
> > Says who?
>
> GPL iteself, FSF, etc.
>
> You can't use a GPL code with non-GPL code, you've to GPL the non-GPL code
> to do so.
Actually.. not completely true.
>From the GNU GPL Faq:
If I add a module to a GPL-covered module, do I have to use the GPL as
the license for my module?
The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released under
the GPL. So your module has to be available for use under the GPL.
But you can give additional permission for the use of your code. You
can, if you wish, release your program under a license which is more lax
than the GPL but compatible with the GPL. The license list page gives a
partial list of GPL-compatible licenses.
--
Rick
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
