Linux-Advocacy Digest #932, Volume #34 Sun, 3 Jun 01 11:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Marc Schlensog)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Marc Schlensog)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Marc Schlensog)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Marc Schlensog)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Marc Schlensog)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Marc Schlensog)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Marc Schlensog)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Marc Schlensog)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the (Marc Schlensog)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the (Marc Schlensog)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Marc Schlensog)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Marc Schlensog)
Re: UI Importance (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Marc Schlensog)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks: ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 12:37:06 +0200
GreyCloud wrote:
[Saving Bandwidth]
> I wished I could afford an Alpha with vms on it, but what about the sun
> blade 100?
> It has a sparc IIe in it. Opinions?
OK, I'm not being objective, but in my opinion, anything that hasn't got a
PC-CPU in it and doesn't run WinDOG is worth the price... if you can afford
it.
Marc
------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 14:47:20 +0200
GreyCloud wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <F2%R6.16166$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike
> > wrote:
> > > >I think Ballmer has a point. It seems evident to me that if
> > > >government
> > funds
> > > >are used to support software research, the results of that research
> > should
> > > >be, in most cases, public domain. Ballmer's contention is that the
> > > >GNU license restricts the use of software, so GNU software isn't
> > > >really
> > public
> > > >domain.
> > >
> > > Incorrect. The GPL license is the ONLY license which should be used
> > > on all government projects. We don't pay GOD DAMN TAX DOLLARS just
> > > so companies like MICROSOFT CAN POCKET THE DEVELOPMENT MONEY AND
> > > COPYRIGHT IT FOR THEIR OWN PROFITS.
> >
> > Charlie. Grow a brain. It's not just Microsoft that can't use GPL'd
> > software. Projects like FreeBSD can't use it either, nor OpenBSD, or
> > NetBSD or even the X11 Projects.
> >
> > Government funded research should be useable by all US citizens.
> > Period.
>
> Nice idealistic thought, unless the research is classified. That is the
> only way to keep researched software out of citizens hands.
>
That's one thing. Another aspect is: Is M$ software useable by all /US/
citizens in the same way as GPLed software is? M$-software *is* partially
gov't funded, isn't it?
Who stops anyone at M$ to write GPLed software? Of course, he can't charge
for it, he can't put the M$ logo on it, but he's still allowed to. Isn't
there more than enough GPLed software for Windog? On the other hand, what
is keeping you from writing proprietary software for a free OS (speaking of
*BSD and Linux) apart from having a hard time to be accepted? Doesn't
Linux have several BSD proggies in it? Just as *BSD has some GNU software?
Shit, Erik, you have actually no idea what you're talking about. *period*.
Marc
------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:04:33 +0200
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
>
>
> > > But that prevent other people from using this code.
> > > This include BSD people, Apache, X, Mozilla, Gnome, sendmail, Tcl/Tk,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > BIND
^^^^^
> > > and many other.
==================[snappy]=========================
> Yes. If the goverment paid for it, with the tax payer's money, the the tax
> payer should be able to do what s/her wants with it.
> That include extending the code and making your version closed.
> Adding it to BSD, Apache, sendmail, Bind, etc.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
=============[snippy]===========================
Shit, Ayende, everytime I read your postings I feel like having a deja-vu.
Are you able to bring on new arguments? Unfortunately the posting that
would have required > > > > > is not part of this message anymore or we
were able to read BSD, Apache, sendmail, X and the likes one more time.
Please, get new ideas or drop out.
Marc
------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 14:54:02 +0200
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Mike wrote:
>
> > >
> > > So, the question is, why shouldn't government funded software
> development be
> > > public domain?
> > >
> > > -- Mike --
> >
> > It would be nice idealistically to do this, but in reality MS would
> > incorporate the code and make a few changes and then declare it
> > proprietary.
>
> So?
> That doesn't affect the original code *at all*.
> *You* can do the same.
> You can even release it under the GPL.
eeeeeh! WRONG!
Sure, you can write proprietary code, but you can't release it under GPL,
'coz if you did, everybody'd be able to use and incorporate it into his/her
own program. You, as the creator of that code should of course _always_
be mentioned, everything else would probably be piracy.
And even if M$ were to take your code, patent it and make money with it,
you'd probably have proof, that you had exact code months before, don't ya?
>
> The point of Public Domain is that anyone can do anything to it, period.
>
> Why would you want to block code from use? If you GPL something, you
> prevent it from being used in many places.
Bullshit! Did you ever read the GPL?
> And proprietary software is just one of them. X, Apache, BSD, and other
> software are all projects that you close your software from if you use the
> GPL.
Huh? WTF are you talking about?
> And those are only the high propile projects.
Again, what is keeping you from writing proprietary software for Linux?
What is keeping you from writing GPLed software for Windows?
Do you wanna know?
Nothing!
Is oracle GPLed? Does it run under Linux?
Is Gimp closed software? Does it run under Windows?
If your answers are twice no and yes, think about what you said before,
dumbass!
Marc
------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:13:51 +0200
pip wrote:
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > The point of Public Domain is that anyone can do anything to it, period.
> >
> > Why would you want to block code from use? If you GPL something, you
> > prevent it from being used in many places.
> > And proprietary software is just one of them. X, Apache, BSD, and other
> > software are all projects that you close your software from if you use
> > the GPL.
> > And those are only the high propile projects.
>
> You have a good point about the problems that open source projects who
> operate with a different license may face.
Nevertheless, let's first forget about the software, you can see the code,
you might be able to incorporate it into your own software. But here's the
cracker: who prevents you from writing proprietary software with open code
fragments? I don't think, that this would bother anyone, since noone
actually knows your code.
Now think the other way round: You want to write opensource software with
M$-code-fragments. Do you actually think, you'll be able to do it legally?
Don't you think, that M$ will jump up and sue you for having stolen their
code? All you winvocates out there, I don't get you. You bitch about the
GPL. Did you ever think about the M$-license? If you ask me, the M$ license
is worse than every open license put together.
Marc
------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:21:14 +0200
Ayende Rahien wrote:
-snip-
>
> What is a module in this context?
What do you mean with "understanding"?
DUH! Are you really that fucking stupid? Or are you BG himself, live and
colored?
-snip-
Marc
------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:24:26 +0200
Ayende Rahien wrote:
-snip-
> Actually, from the POV of a business, it's much better to license from MS
> than use GPL.
Yeah, right. You write your code and M$ says: "Since you were using our
license, this piece of junk is ours."
Are you really that boneheaded?
> I understand that the only thing that prevent someone from licensing from
> MS is the price tag ;-D
And the lack of quality.
>
> If they use GPL, their competitors can just take their products, change
> the name of the program, and sell that program, at a lower price.
> There are other things in the GPL that may cause this, too.
Yeah, but they can't say that it's theirs. Period.
Marc
------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:27:26 +0200
Ayende is as wrong as it gets.... a typical Winvocate.
Marc
------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:35:29 +0200
drsquare wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 14:06:42 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >drsquare wrote:
>
> >> >> What the HELL are you talking about?
> >>
> >> >Carpal Tunnel syndrome.... haven't you ever heard of it?? She's been
> >>
> >> No actually, I haven't.
>
> >Ever since MS windows and two button mice have been out I've noticed a
> >big increase in this problem... actually its been in the press a lot and
> >a lot of lawsuits for disability have been filed over carpal tunnel
> >syndrome.
>
> Lawsuits because someone can't use a mouse properly? 99% of people use
> a 2+ button mouse with NO problems whatsoever. Lawsuits? We'll end up
> like american in two years.
It isn't the inability to use a mouse properly, you little ignorant shit.
The problem in question is, that excessive use of keyboards and mice lead,
due to their unnatural and mostly unergonomic shape, to the so called
carpal tunnel syndrom, which is said to be very painful. And you know how
many ppl don't have an education on how to properly use a computer (there's
more to that, than just a mouse).
Marc
------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:42:17 +0200
Hmm, that puts me in front of some problem....
How do you move your mouse? Do you move it with your entire hand or do you
rest your hand on the mouse pad and push the mouse with your fingers?
'coz if you'd use your entire hand, you'd use your entire arm just to move
your mouse, putting some pressure onto your arm, and when you curl your
fingers, you'll _have_ to use your entire hand. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Marc
------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:47:10 +0200
You've got MALE.. sex organs! wrote:
> But YOU made the idiot generalization that homosexuals were
> spreading the disease by working at restaurants where the Noble
> Republican Straight White People eat..
>
male organs, please save bandwidth!
OK, now my question: is this still c.o.l.a?
Marc
------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:49:59 +0200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
---[snippage]---
> 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.
>
>
>
You are able to take the card out of your case and look at the chip and
write down what's written on there? Yes? Are you?
SHIT, ERIK, YOU MAKE ME FUCKING PUKE!!! YOU'RE A TYPICAL WINDOG-DUMBASS WHO
DOESN'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT HIS SYSTEM, JFC!!!!
phiew, sorry....
Marc
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 15:56:23 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$51
>
> A good article about why people think so highly about UI.
> It's a good approach, I believe.
>
> Any comments?
Consistency is important. In X, most things are consistent (resizing,
minimize, hide etc.) BUT the key bindings differ (take GNOME vs KDE).
Even M$ Windows is not consistent with everything. Take some differences
between O2K and O97:
1) To change the view to page layout, you clicked View > Page Layout
(O97), but in O2k this changed to View > Print Layout. The difference
didn't even occur to me, but I found many "normal" users have trouble
understanding the logic. They were used to the O97 naming, and they
can't understand why it's different in O2k.
2) Clip-Art gallery - Major changes ! The O97 version showed everything
on one dialog box, and it was straight forward. Even the buttons had
words from the start. O2k has an IE kind of interface, no text on the
buttons and the dialog does not disappear after you inserted an image -
making many old O97 users think they did something wrong. MEGA
FRUSTRATIONS...
3) Help system - I take as an example getting a list of shortcut keys.
Getting what you want takes about two to three mouse clicks more in O2k!
I thought developers should always try and minimize the amount of mouse
clicks, not increase it - after all, this is one of the arguments that
makes the command line faster, because you can type certain commands
faster then clicking through a maze of options.
Other interesting UI facts: Copying a file in a CUI vs GUI:
CUI:
Assuming you are working in a command line UI, you just need one step:
1.) # cmd [options] file(s) destination
example:
# cp *jpg /mnt/floppy
GUI:
Using M$ Windows as example, there are several steps:
1.) Launch Windows Explorer ( Start > Programs > Windows Explorer )
2.) Nav through the file system to get to the files (one to several
clicks - assuming "c:\my documents\my pictures", it will take at least
twp clicks - first expand the directory "My Documents", then click on
"My Pictures"
3.) Select files. This can also be anything from one click to several
clicks. Selecting all JPG files involves in first arranging icons by
type (View > Arrange Icons > by Type - one click), then select all the
JPG files by dragging (count as one click). Total in this example is two
clicks.
4.) Right click on selected files (one click)
5.) Select Send To > Floppy from menu (One click)
Total Clicks: 7 or more clicks.
Add to that waiting period for Windows Explorer to launch and you have
just taken quit a bit longer to do something in a GUI. Also, in Windows
the copying process must finish before you can continue work in Windows
Explorer, where as in *nix you can continue work while the copying is
done in the background. I personally find this the biggest irritation
when I work on M$ platforms.
LASTLY, I think the M$ GUI problems is not bound to M$ allone - Linux,
MAC and other GUI systems (or systems that can use GUI's) will have
similar problems. I think it's time we rethink this whole thing. Yes,
there are instances where I like a GUI, for example Graphic Design. But
for many applications, the command line will remain KING.
Cheers.
Nico Coetzee.
======
Also visit http://twc11.tripod.com/ - a site aimed in making Linux
popular in South Africa.
Please spread the word to your South African friends and contacts...
------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 16:04:12 +0200
Marc Schlensog wrote:
>
> Nevertheless, let's first forget about the software, you can see the code,
^^^^^^
I meant license, of course!
Snip!
Marc
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[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 16:07:17 +0100
> Over the past year, there have been literally dozens of
> anti-Microsoft/pro-Linux loonies posting in COMNA, and it really did get
> out of control at one point.
Sounds like COLA in reverse. We seem to get infested with wintrolls.
There's some pretty lame ones here.
> Have you read any posts from Aaron R. Kulkis? How about Matt Templeton?
> Mig? Derek Currie? Mark S. Bilk? Ugh! And those are just a minute
> few.
I haven't heard from most of those for a while, except Aaron. Aaron is a
bigoted right wing net.kook twit with an idiotic sig, who deserves to be
in everyone's killfile. He's certainly in mine.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks:
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 16:11:44 +0100
>>>>>>G******s law?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh fuck off.
>
>>>>Before you start being rude, tru making sense. I have absoloutely no
>>>>iead what you're going on about.
>>>
>>> He's trying to invoke Godwin's law, which only a complete cunt would
>>> do.
>>
>>Firstly, you were the one who mentioned the Nazis for absoloutely no
>>reason, so I assumed you were going after Goodwin's misinterpreted law.
>>Are you calling yourself a cunt?
>
> I didn't invoke any laws. I didn't realise mentioning the Nazis was not
> allowed on this newsgroup.
I was guessing at your meaning, since I had no idea what you were talking
about.
>>Secondly, Goodwin's law is not something can be invoked. Goodwin's law
>>merely states that the longer the thread, the more likely the mention of
>>nazis.
>>
>>There is often an extension (I know not to whom it is attributed) that
>>says that when the thread gets on to the nazis is is so far off topic
>>that it may as well not be there.
>>
>>Many people use this as a time to end the thread.
>>
>>Hopwever, that is nothing to do with Goodwin's law.
>
> People who decide to end threads because of a mention of the Nazis
> really have problems. With restrictions like that, we may as well be
> under the Nazis!
True.
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 14:18:49 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > I think it gets more QA. Having lots of people
> > run your software is not really much of a substitute
> > for that.
>
> ahahahahahahahahah.ahahahahahahahahahah
> How do you think you test software, with specs? You have to run it. If
> you have hundreds of people running it and turn in bug reports, how can
> m$ compare. m$ even tried it with their beta testing program. another
> idea they stole.
Interesting. So beta testing is an idea MS stole from
open-source software, in your world. :D
But seriously, there are lots of ways to verify and
improve the quality of software. Testing is one way,
but what open-source software gets is rather hit-or-miss;
there's no way to even verify coverage.
*Automated* testing is far more valuable; this can
be black-box tests that excercise the system according
to a script, or white-box tests that take the cover off
and manipulate internal mechanisms.
Either way they have the tremendous advantage
that they can be run immediately after each
change is made; in this way debugging is much
simpler. You know the mistake is most likely
whatever you just did.
There are many other approaches. Not all
involve testing at all. Reviews or inspections
are very popular, for instance.
There's a lot more to software QA than
beta-testing!
[snip]
> > One of the main advantages Unix does have is
> > portability- it can easily be ported to new hardware,
> > and to a wider variety of same than many other
> > alternatives. You can even do it yourself.
> >
> Um, if developers dont write for X-Windows, why am i writing this on
> Netscape/Linux? why are there so many apps for X-windows?
>
> I didnt say a thing about why do all those apps run on so many
> platforms. Answer the damn question, or admit you cant. Dont squirm
> around.
Well, the short answer is that there aren't all that many
apps for X-Windows. There are *some*, and the reason
why there are some is that sometimes it is highly desirable
to be portable to the latest and snazziest hardware.
And there is a market for utility software on
every platform that has users, of course.
> > If this is what you are after, then X is really
> >
>
> So are you saying *nix apps cross platofrms better than m$ apps?
Well, only if you mean "hardware platforms"; they
don't port to other OSes particularly well, naturally.
> > Unix isn't worthless- not at all. It has advantages
> > all its own. It's not just real strong for ordinary
> > desktop use.
>
> Its not? (here we go again) Then why do we have all those desktop apps?
> Go to freshmeat. look around.
"All those desktop apps"?
[snip]
> You are pathetic... seizing on a typo..
>
> Remember - YOU said skins=themes=widgets
>
> You knw you said it, and you used this excuse NOT ANSWER.
Answer what? You aren't asking a question. I did
say that, and it's even more-or-less true. I don't
see what it has to do with anything.
[snip]
> > I think you are reading too much into
> > ".. takes a chromosone count to tell the difference".
>
> Nope.. you said they were almost exactly the same and equal ...
I didn't say that. I did say the thing about the
chromosone count, but "equal"? Not likely.
[snip]
> > > The why isnt there some sort of suit? Um, like that?
> >
> > What makes you think the Gnome
> > Foundation has enough money for it to be
> > worthwhile?
>
> Gnome Foundation? Whats that, and who would they sue? And why?
It's the only organization related to Gnome that
I can think of, which MS might sue if they felt
like it.
> You said OLE was newer than Bonobo...
I did not. OLE is older than Bonobo.
> why would they sue?
Presuambly for the money- that's the usual
reason. If there was any money to be get
this way, anyway.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 16:54:39 +0200
"Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> >
> > What is a module in this context?
>
> What do you mean with "understanding"?
A module can mean a lot of thing, it can mean a seperate part of the
program, a linux kernel module, apache's module, ISAPI DLLs, COM, ActiveX.
There are a lot of stuff that you use to interupt what a module is.
I'm asking what a module mean in this context, so I could form a reply based
on the meaning of the word in the correct context.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 16:56:21 +0200
"Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> > Actually, from the POV of a business, it's much better to license from
MS
> > than use GPL.
>
> Yeah, right. You write your code and M$ says: "Since you were using our
> license, this piece of junk is ours."
>
> Are you really that boneheaded?
Are you really that boneheaded?
Do you know what this mean to license code from a software company?
> > If they use GPL, their competitors can just take their products, change
> > the name of the program, and sell that program, at a lower price.
> > There are other things in the GPL that may cause this, too.
>
> Yeah, but they can't say that it's theirs. Period.
So? Your bottun line is still hurt, badly.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 17:01:41 +0200
"Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> >
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > >
> >
> >
> > > > But that prevent other people from using this code.
> > > > This include BSD people, Apache, X, Mozilla, Gnome, sendmail,
Tcl/Tk,
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > BIND
> ^^^^^
> > > > and many other.
> ------------------[snappy]-------------------------
> > Yes. If the goverment paid for it, with the tax payer's money, the the
tax
> > payer should be able to do what s/her wants with it.
> > That include extending the code and making your version closed.
> > Adding it to BSD, Apache, sendmail, Bind, etc.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> -------------[snippy]---------------------------
>
> Shit, Ayende, everytime I read your postings I feel like having a deja-vu.
> Are you able to bring on new arguments? Unfortunately the posting that
> would have required > > > > > is not part of this message anymore or we
> were able to read BSD, Apache, sendmail, X and the likes one more time.
> Please, get new ideas or drop out.
Unfortantely, people seem to think that GPL only block code from being used
by propreity software.
I'm pointing out that the GPL block it from other, free software, as well.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 17:07:02 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fdf6b$ce8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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
>
> Sure it can. The BSD licanse is compatible with the GPL according to the
> FSF.
No, compatible mean that BSD allows to turn BSD software to GPL software.
This mean that if I'm writing a plugin to the GIMP, I can license it under
the BSD?
Will I be able to take some GIMP plugin and turn it to a photoshop plugin.*
Above question assume that:
A> Both GIMP & Photoshop uses in process (IE, no fork()/exec()) for plugin.
B> GIMP is GPL.
Based on those questions.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF
I've no idea about A (although, considerring that at least Photoshop has to
do a lot of IPC, I would tend to believe that it does it in proccess)
I believe that B is true, I can't be sure, my ISP is giving me trouble at
the moment.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
