Linux-Advocacy Digest #935, Volume #34 Sun, 3 Jun 01 12:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Charlie Ebert)
Re: What does XP stands for ??? (Bob Hauck)
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!! ("Steven S.")
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Charlie Ebert)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Chris Morgan)
Re: RIP the Linux desktop ("Edward Rosten")
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!! (flatfish+++)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!! (flatfish+++)
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (flatfish+++)
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 18:24:02 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Köhlmann 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
> >
>
>
> Yes it can. You just have to GPL the code when your thru.
So, Apache can't use it.
Not without changing their license, right?
They don't want to do that, so they can't use GPL code.
The point is that when you release code under the GPL, you limit it to
people who are willing to release code under the GPL.
This is fine when people who invested their time in writing demand it.
I don't think that this is okay for the goverment to do this.
> It's the license which won't let you steal the code like
> BSD does.
You can't steal BSD code, period.
It's given away to do whatever you please with.
Please refrain from this type of posting in the future, they only make you
look bad, and convince no one.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 18:28:26 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9fdh74$35t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"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 can´t. 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.*
> >
>
> Once again. IF it's that big of a problem for them,
> they why don't the welfare recipients just write their OWN
> FUCKING CODE? Why do they HAVE to have it HANDED TO THEM
> ON A PLATE?
First thing, stop using caps.
Second, because they *already paid for this code in their taxes*!
Third, it doesn't block commercial software only, it block non-GPL OSS
developers who doesn't want to release their source under the GPL.
To give a new example, if a new protocol would be invented, the PHP people
wouldn't be able to use it.
Let me put it to you again, it *doesn't* hurt MS in particular, in fact, MS
is one of those who can compete with the goverment in having the men &
resources to re-write the implementation of this code.
Can Zend do the same? Can Apache invest thousands of man hours and millions
in this?
Why would they *need* to do so when *their* taxes paid for it?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 18:29:47 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> They [MS] admitted to using it. [TCP/IP stack from BSD]
Where?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 18:33:07 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9fdh72$35t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >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.
> >
>
> No it doesn't Ayende because GPL'd code IS FREE SOFTWARE!
>
So are:
a.. The BSD license
a.. The MIT license
a.. The Artistic license
a.. The Mozilla Public License v. 1.0 (MPL)
a.. The Qt Public License (QPL)
a.. The IBM Public License
a.. The MITRE Collaborative Virtual Workspace License (CVW License)
a.. The Ricoh Source Code Public License
a.. The Python license
a.. The zlib/libpng license
a.. The Apache Software License
a.. The Vovida Software License v. 1.0
a.. The Sun Internet Standards Source License (SISSL)
a.. The Intel Open Source License
a.. The Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL 1.1)
a.. The Jabber Open Source License
a.. The Nokia Open Source License
a.. The Sleepycat License
Yet the goverment releasing code under the GPL will prevent projects using
those licenses (or *any* other, for that matter) from using the code in
their products unless they are willing to turn their project to GPL.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 18:40:18 +0200
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:OasS6.105478$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've been trying to discover how this is different from Bonobo/CORBA
> technology, but the only difference I can find is that Bonobo/CORBA gives
> you everything Microsoft's WSH gives you, without the limitation of
> requiring all components to be local to the client machine. With
> Bonobo/CORBA on Linux, programs and scripts can utilize components of
> programs that reside on other machines. Using your Excel example, this
> means that a user would not have to have Excel on his own machine to
> manipulate the spreadsheet his partner emailed him -- he could use his
> partner's Excel program without leaving his desk.
I wonder how this would be covered under the TOS of Office. :-D
BTW, there is a free Excel viewer from MS.
> I admit I didn't dig very deeply, but I didn't see any mention of such a
> capability with WSH. Please correct me if I missed it.
It can do that, although I believe that this is not the default behaviour.
CORBA and COM are very similar.
But COM is geared more toward local use, while CORBA is geared toward
network use.
They aren't quite interchangable, but they are close.
You can use CORBA as you would use COM, and vice versa.
This mean that you can call a COM component from another computer, and call
CORBA component from the local computer.
But if you want to call components from over the network, it's much better
to use DCOM, I've no idea how this compare to CORBA, though.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 15:43:28 GMT
In article <9fdlrp$8mt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Köhlmann 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
>> >
>>
>>
>> Yes it can. You just have to GPL the code when your thru.
>
>So, Apache can't use it.
>Not without changing their license, right?
>They don't want to do that, so they can't use GPL code.
>
>The point is that when you release code under the GPL, you limit it to
>people who are willing to release code under the GPL.
>This is fine when people who invested their time in writing demand it.
>I don't think that this is okay for the goverment to do this.
>
>> It's the license which won't let you steal the code like
>> BSD does.
>
>You can't steal BSD code, period.
>It's given away to do whatever you please with.
>
>Please refrain from this type of posting in the future, they only make you
>look bad, and convince no one.
>
>
And MY point is once again, if you don't like GPL'd code then
just don't FUCKING USE IT JERKWAD!
YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE GPL'D CODE GOD DAMN IT!
WRITE YOU OWN CODE AND USE YOUR OWN LICENSE AND SHUT THE FUCK UP!
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: What does XP stands for ???
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 15:44:08 GMT
On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 11:12:02 -0600, Robert Morelli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Hauck"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is XP really an acronym?
I don't know. It could just be a made-up name like "Exxon".
> >> BASIC is of course
> > Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code <g>.
>
> Some acronym's have been altered by revisionists.
> Similarly, in the original BASIC acronym, S stood for Sissy.
> It was changed to Symbolic during the political correctness craze of the
> 1980's.
That's news to me.
> The second revision came in the early 1990's. At the influential ICA
> Theory of Languages Conference in 1989, the question was posed, "What
> programming language would provide the most inappropriate foundation
> for software development in the 1990's."
> ... but the consensus settled on BASIC.
Ok, ya got me. I didn't notice that it was April 1st. Shoulda known
with the soggy cold weather around here.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Steven S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 17:40:30 +0200
In article <9fca0a$10oq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stuart Fox"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Come on now, the printing system is so broken it requires it's own web
> site? You're joking right?
>
> I don't see a www.windowsprinting.org, or a www.macintoshprinting.org.
>
> And they say Linux is ready for home desktop use?
>
But I DO see a www.hp.com, www.epson.com,... with a "support->windows"
section. Moreover, my freshly installed Linux distro automaticly detected and
configured my printer, while Windows needed the driver supplied with the
printer.
--
Steven Sterk
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 15:47:15 GMT
In article <9fdlrt$8mt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <9fdh74$35t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"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 can´t. 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.*
>> >
>>
>> Once again. IF it's that big of a problem for them,
>> they why don't the welfare recipients just write their OWN
>> FUCKING CODE? Why do they HAVE to have it HANDED TO THEM
>> ON A PLATE?
>
>First thing, stop using caps.
>
SUCK MY DICK!
>Second, because they *already paid for this code in their taxes*!
Which is a good reason to BSD the code so it can be stolen by Microsoft
and SOLD for a profit again?
FUCK YOU IDIOT!
>Third, it doesn't block commercial software only, it block non-GPL OSS
>developers who doesn't want to release their source under the GPL.
>To give a new example, if a new protocol would be invented, the PHP people
>wouldn't be able to use it.
>
IT DOESN'T BLOCK ANYBODY IDIOT!
IF YOU DON'T LIKE TO USE GPL'D CODE THEN JUST DON'T.
WRITE YOUR OWN GOD DAMN CODE MORON AND USE YOUR OWN MORONIC LICENSE
FOR IT!
>Let me put it to you again, it *doesn't* hurt MS in particular, in fact, MS
>is one of those who can compete with the goverment in having the men &
>resources to re-write the implementation of this code.
>Can Zend do the same? Can Apache invest thousands of man hours and millions
>in this?
>
>Why would they *need* to do so when *their* taxes paid for it?
>
THEY WOULD NEED TO DO IT AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DO IT AS BSD'D
CODE ENDS UP IN THE HANDS OF MICROSOFT AND END UP GETTING SOLD
FOR A PROFIT AGAIN AFTER THE TAX PAYERS HAVE PAID FOR THE INTIAL
DEVELOPMENT.
YOU MUST BE THE BIGGEST DIP SHIT ON THE PLANET TO NOT SEE THIS.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 15:47:55 GMT
In article <9fdls2$8mt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> They [MS] admitted to using it. [TCP/IP stack from BSD]
>
>Where?
>
Did you read the OTHER posts of the gentlemen who came to
my aid? They have the BSD license in dozens' of Windows .dll's.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 15:49:58 GMT
In article <9fdls4$8mt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <9fdh72$35t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >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.
>> >
>>
>> No it doesn't Ayende because GPL'd code IS FREE SOFTWARE!
>>
>
>So are:
>a.. The BSD license
>a.. The MIT license
>a.. The Artistic license
>a.. The Mozilla Public License v. 1.0 (MPL)
>a.. The Qt Public License (QPL)
>a.. The IBM Public License
>a.. The MITRE Collaborative Virtual Workspace License (CVW License)
>a.. The Ricoh Source Code Public License
>a.. The Python license
>a.. The zlib/libpng license
>a.. The Apache Software License
>a.. The Vovida Software License v. 1.0
>a.. The Sun Internet Standards Source License (SISSL)
>a.. The Intel Open Source License
>a.. The Mozilla Public License 1.1 (MPL 1.1)
>a.. The Jabber Open Source License
>a.. The Nokia Open Source License
>a.. The Sleepycat License
>
>Yet the goverment releasing code under the GPL will prevent projects using
>those licenses (or *any* other, for that matter) from using the code in
>their products unless they are willing to turn their project to GPL.
>
NO IT WON'T! They can use the code in their project so long as the
finished result is GPL'D. OTHERWISE, it would end up having a sick
BSD license on it and end up as part of Windows XP or Apples OS
and be SOLD again for a PROFIT thus SCREWING the TAXPAYER TWICE.
What your for is FUCKING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER.
YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY FOR EVERYTHING WHICH IS WRONG!
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: Chris Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: 03 Jun 2001 11:54:02 -0400
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My IBMs restore CD, which I had to use a few times, formats the hard
> drive and then installs from scratch.
Yes but is it a fully automatic process putting it into only one
state, or is it the normal install process of retail, or OEM,
non-upgrade, Windows? I think not. Restore CDs are a way to sell
people windows without letting them have anywhere near as much choice
as the full product. As such they are much simpler to use. Of course
sometimes they don't even really give you a cd, they just steal some
of your hard disk space with the "cd" and then restore from there
e.g. a Compaq I have had to fix a couple of times.
--
Chris Morgan <cm at mihalis.net> http://www.mihalis.net
Temp sig. - Enquire within
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 17:58:12 +0100
>>> And if there's no conviction, how do you know it's a crime?
>>
>>Did you not read the definition. Does take a genius to figure out if a
>>building burns down becasue of arson, that a crime has been committed.
>>The arson was the crime, wether the arsonist was found or not.
>>
>>If you run a red light, it is a crime wether you are caught or not.
>>
>>If you walk up an blow someone's brain out, it is murder.
>>
>>By defintion. Read it.
>
> Sorry, but where I come from, you're innocent until proven guilty.
If a murdered body has been found, a crime has been comited, whether a
culprit is found or not. A lack of a culprit does not make the crime
disappear, it merely means the crime is unsolved.
> If someone's been accused of doing something, They're not considered a
> criminal until proven guilty.
So? It dsoesn't make it any less of a crime.
> I don't know what repressive authoritarian
> state you come from, but I'm glad I don't live there.
--
(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: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 16:00:45 GMT
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:12:30 +1200, "Stuart Fox"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9fbnku$42j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Philip Neves wrote:
>>
>>
>> Try this
>> http://www.linuxprinting.org/show_printer.cgi?recnum=464242
>>
>> In general if you have prnting problems go to linuxprinting.org
>>
>> That printer is listed as working perfectly so just follow the
>instructions
>> on that page.
>
>Come on now, the printing system is so broken it requires it's own web site?
>You're joking right?
>
>I don't see a www.windowsprinting.org, or a www.macintoshprinting.org.
>
>And they say Linux is ready for home desktop use?
I like the 1500 hits that come up on a Google search of:
font+deuglification.
The first time the newbie plugs his non PS printer in and tries to
print and it goes into autopilot spewing out 100's of pages of ASCII
with no visible means of stopping it short of hitting the button, that
will be the end of Linux on THAT desktop.
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 18:02:31 +0100
>>Plus Ed is a knowledgable guy, I think its silly to piss him off.
>>
>>Up to you tho, usenet is still a free medium.
>
> Which is one of its major faults. There should be some way that I can
> moderate this newsgroup.
Well, feel free to create a comp.os.linux.advocacy.moderated group, but
with opiniois such as yours, don't expect anyone to read it if you're
doing the moderating.
Besides, why should you have more of a right than anyone else to moderate
the group?
-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: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 18:03:11 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "drsquare"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 03 Jun 2001 02:29:42 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jun 2001 13:40:33 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>
>>>>You're a new poster to COLA, Drsquare, why not just get a news
>>>
>>> New poster? I've been posting here for years.
>>I have NEVER seen you before the last few weeks. You must either post
>>very infrequently, or you have changed your name ?
>
> I have changed my name.
Are you rotten186?
-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: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 16:04:35 GMT
On 03 Jun 2001 03:46:31 -0400, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>The Wintrolls will probably start whining about how hard it is to use
>lpr. Oh wow, a one line command. ("Waaa! But I want my apps to
>print from a menu!") But, even then, a lot of apps can pipe the
>print job to lpr, so I guess you could set it up that way if you
>choose to print via Appsfiter/lpr.
Nothing wrong with lpr, but it is assumed that if I have a printer
connected and it works from one program, it should work from all
programs installed.
This IS the case with Win2k.
This is NOT the case with Linux.
I had lpr working, and Netscape working (sort of), but I couldn't
print from StarOffice (pages of ASCII), nor could I print from
Wordperfect.
I could print under kde but not under Gnome.
I didn't try Gimp.
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 16:07:21 GMT
What does Linux need for the desktop?
Some users would be nice :)
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 19:07:17 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And MY point is once again, if you don't like GPL'd code then
> just don't FUCKING USE IT JERKWAD!
>
And *my* point is that the goverment shouldn't release code under the GPL,
for reasons I've already mentioned.
Your posting style is despicable. Try to read netettique.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 19:08:34 +0200
Sorry, I'm not going to keep on this discussion with you.
I've tried to reason with you.
But you seem to be interested in insults rather than rational discussions.
Congrationlation, you're only the third to be on my kill-file.
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9fdlrt$8mt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <9fdh74$35t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"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 can´t. 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.*
> >> >
> >>
> >> Once again. IF it's that big of a problem for them,
> >> they why don't the welfare recipients just write their OWN
> >> FUCKING CODE? Why do they HAVE to have it HANDED TO THEM
> >> ON A PLATE?
> >
> >First thing, stop using caps.
> >
>
> SUCK MY DICK!
>
> >Second, because they *already paid for this code in their taxes*!
>
> Which is a good reason to BSD the code so it can be stolen by Microsoft
> and SOLD for a profit again?
>
> FUCK YOU IDIOT!
>
>
> >Third, it doesn't block commercial software only, it block non-GPL OSS
> >developers who doesn't want to release their source under the GPL.
> >To give a new example, if a new protocol would be invented, the PHP
people
> >wouldn't be able to use it.
> >
>
>
> IT DOESN'T BLOCK ANYBODY IDIOT!
>
> IF YOU DON'T LIKE TO USE GPL'D CODE THEN JUST DON'T.
>
> WRITE YOUR OWN GOD DAMN CODE MORON AND USE YOUR OWN MORONIC LICENSE
> FOR IT!
>
> >Let me put it to you again, it *doesn't* hurt MS in particular, in fact,
MS
> >is one of those who can compete with the goverment in having the men &
> >resources to re-write the implementation of this code.
> >Can Zend do the same? Can Apache invest thousands of man hours and
millions
> >in this?
> >
> >Why would they *need* to do so when *their* taxes paid for it?
> >
>
> THEY WOULD NEED TO DO IT AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DO IT AS BSD'D
> CODE ENDS UP IN THE HANDS OF MICROSOFT AND END UP GETTING SOLD
> FOR A PROFIT AGAIN AFTER THE TAX PAYERS HAVE PAID FOR THE INTIAL
> DEVELOPMENT.
>
>
> YOU MUST BE THE BIGGEST DIP SHIT ON THE PLANET TO NOT SEE THIS.
>
>
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
