Linux-Advocacy Digest #956, Volume #34 Mon, 4 Jun 01 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Kernel comparisions ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) ("Stephen S. Edwards
II")
Re: Monolithic arch's SMP, and licenses... we're all over the place today! ("Stephen
S. Edwards II")
Re: UI Importance (Nick Condon)
Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again) (flatfish+++)
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 17:11:42 +0100
>> > I'm sure the brits will have some concocted story about how they
>> > REALLY invented the Internet first and Europe had had the WWW years
>> > before the FTP rfc was even submitted.
Chad, tell me, do you know the difference between FTP and HTTP? Did you
also know that the WWW started in CERN (in europe)?
-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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 17:17:24 +0100
>> Sounds like Chad on comp.security.ssh :-)
Heh, another fool who can't admit when he's completely wrong.
> Yep, I'm glad I was killfiled by all the close-minded morons who refuse
> to admit that there are serious security issues with SSH =)
What serious issues are there with SSH2?
What serious issues are there with SSH1 it you're not on the same LAN as
the machine?
Quoting someone who has a financial interest in getting rid of SSH1 does
not count as good evidence.
> They can just keep cranking out unsecure code so that people like
> FluffyBunny can continue compromising sites like SourceForge and
> apache.org
Yeah, whatever.
Well, O wise chad, if you're better than a bunch of the worlds top
security experts then why don't you crank out a better product. Oh wait,
I forgot... you're just another random opinionated fool on usenet who
can't admit when he's wrong.
-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: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:01:00 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fg0i0$s2d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I occasionally sue cat for very small programs.
I heard about strange hobits, but suing cats is something new ;-D
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:03:25 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fg0bg$s2a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Not if they're using bash under cygwin.
> >
> > Cygwin on 9x sucks, period. And I like CMD's filename completion
> > betterthan I like bash.
>
> What's different?
I can't get Bash's to work :-D
> >> It should be assumed that you know what you want to copy in the first
> >> place though.
> >
> > Ha? And what if I don't? How do I find out what I want to copy? I've a
> > directory with several thousands pictures, scattered in couple of
> > directories. On Explorer, I can copy them based on their content, not so
> > in the CLI.
>
>
> On /content/ ? how does this work? and why couldn't you do it in the CLI?
You can set explorer to show thumbnails, instead of just generic icon.
> > So, you admit that the CLI is not fit to be used by the average user on
> > the desktop. The CLI can be very powerful, but it require much more than
> > GUI does.
>
>
> I disagree. It depends on what the user wants to do, really.
Naturally, and most (not all, but a very large precentage) of the desktop
stuff can be done more easily on the GUI.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,microsoft.public.win2000.file_system
Subject: Re: Kernel comparisions
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:54:08 +0200
Added comp.os.linux & microsoft.public.win2000.file_system because it's more
likely to get people who actually know what they are talking about there.
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > One requiest, though. Don't enter GUI, UI, or any such issues to the
debate,
> > please.
>
> Fine, UI has no place in Kernel debates (or in kernel space - but lets
> leave that one out :) )
Computers are getting faster, I wouldn't be too surprised to see the GDI
moving back to user space land.
OTOH, IIS is now traveling to kernel space... ;-D
I do wonder where the registry daemon run, though.
> > I'll start with NT's layered I/O model.
> > I think that it allow more flexibility than Linux's monolitic model.
> >
> > Any comments?
>
> OK, well hopefully some knowledgeable people will enter into the debate
> here, but as a kernel "newbie" you'll have to give a more illustrative
> example.
Okay, I'm not very strong on this subject either, so bear with me.
BTW, it might be good if you would read this:
http://www.cswl.com/whiteppr/white/Guaranteed.html
NT is full of layers (The Win32 is a good example), and the I/O is one of
them.
It'll probably be easier if I give an example first.
Consider ISAPI, those are DLLs that are being using by IIS as extentions.
You can tell IIS to call the ISAPI when someone makes a call to a certain
file (or file's extention), when it send/receive something, etc.
For example, ASP is implemented via a ISAPI, which gets call whenever the
server gets a request for .asp file.
PHP does much the same thing, btw.
The same is true for the file system.
You get the devide driver, which tell the hardware to move to sector X, and
send the data from this sector to the layer above it.
Then you get the mid-level drivers:
-- Some really funky stuff here, can't really think at the moment of some
example.
FS driver, which translate sectors on the HD to files & folders. This, I
believe, also handle permissions.
Then you got whatever you layered on top of it.
For example, you can set up a repharse point, which is another layer, which
redirect your input to another place (soft link, on *nix).
NTFS encryption, compression, etc are implemented as layers on top of this.
The article above talk about how you can roll your own drivered for
guranteed sustained throughput I/O on NT.
Another example I can think of is to layer a FAT partition and make *sure*
that the permissions (read only, are there any others?) are respected.
> Commenting from a point of not knowing NT's IO model, I would think that
> the important aspects of IO are:
> 1) speed
> 2) speed
> 3) clean interface
> 4) following some standard's so that the external calling interface
> provides some source code portability.
>
> Remembering my time at one large company, someone beside me was writing
> a Windows driver for a IEEE1394 board. I remember his comments:
> a) The documentation sucks
> b) NT has actually quite a nice model for IO
>
> Also I know that presenting a good layered model was an issue in the
> Linux TCP/IP stack.
Can you give more details about it?
> It appears to an outsider that the Linux developers, while improving
> their current model are fairly happy with it (there are some web-casts
> from the latest kernel summit to gauge current issues -
> http://www.osdn.com/conferences/kernel/ )?
I understand that there are some trouble with the model they have now,
because it's not extensible enough.
For example, take Mac resource streams and NTFS streams. Mac resource stream
is a special case of NTFS streams.
Linux's way of handling Mac resource stream is a hack (by Linus' own
admition). And there is just no practicle way to add support for NTFS
streams.
A big part of the problem is that too many tools makes assumstion about how
the FS works.
Tar was a big issue there, IIRC.
Another part is that you can't generalize the VFS design to accomodate all
sorts of security permissions, apperantly.
(ACLs, UGO, some wierd stuff in between, some other wierd stuff that isn't
between ACL & UGO, etc)
(Just as a disclaimer, I read that thread over 6 months ago, I might have
remembered incorrectly.)
I'm not sure how Linux I/O model works (but would like an explanation ;-D ),
so I can't make any further comments.
I've already probably stuck my foot in my mouth ;-)
As a note, one way to add Ext2 support to NT is to build a FS driver, and a
shell extention that kick on on Ext2 drives (like Security tab on NTFS
drives).
I suppose that you could do the same on Linux. How do you do it, though?
------------------------------
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: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:58:39 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VFLS6.3365$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It's really pretty much standard issue
> stuff. What really sets Unix apart from many
> OSes is that it does not insist on a particular
> endianness or word-size. It *does* insist on a
> flat memory space, so it's not univerally
> portable. But it's more portable that most
> OSes are, and certainly more so than NT.
I don't think that Unix is more portable than NT.
There are at least 6 offical ports of NT that I'm aware of.
MIPS, Alpha, PPC, x86, IA-64, x86-64
I understand that there were internal build on the Sparc and some other
stuff too.
The thing that difference NT's portability from Unix is commercial viability
of this port.
Is there some *technical* reason why Unix is more portable than NT?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie.
Date: 04 Jun 2001 11:19:45 -0400
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But you are also forced to make the software avialable at no charge to
> anyone who ask for it.
> They didn't put that in the FAQ, but it's in the license.
You misread the license. You are forced to use certain license terms,
but you don't have to actually give the code to anybody. The only
situation in which anyone can demand anything is if you give them
binaries w/o source, they can demand source.
A license is an abstract right; it is not a physical copy.
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
I rarely read mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 08:22:45 -0700
"Patrick Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stephen S. Edwards II wrote:
8<SNIP>8
> them. Anyway I'll have a crack at sussing your list.
> > fag
>
> Probably a poo-pusher, of homsexual. It's also a cigarette in some places.
DING!
> > funny car
>
> That's a type of drag car, (a saloon bodied fueler maybe, I think)
DING!
More accurately, a dragster with a fiberglass
body overlay.
> > curbie
>
> Don't know, maybe a street whore?
Close. Usually a junkie, or a pot-smoker (ie:
sitting on the curb of the street)
> > basket case
>
> The state of your ex-school education
By what do you mean "ex-school"? Like
an alma mater?
If you're making a reference to "crazy",
then DING!
> > english muffin
>
> A cross between a bun and a cake
BZZZZT!
Nope. It's actually a type of bread,
which is typically toasted and buttered.
Good guess though.
> > phat
>
> No, that has me fair bushed
BZZZZT! It's a term that was created by the
hip-hop culture. It's means Pretty Hot And
Tempting.
> > stud
>
> Breeding male animal, also man with narcisisstic obsession with his own
> breeding ability
Well... okay. DING!
But more accurately, it refers to a male who
has a "way" with the ladies.
> > JAP
>
> Obviously a person of Japan.
BZZZT!
Jewish American Princess
Note, this is not considered a racial slur, but
rather a reference to a kind of self-imperialistic
attitude in some women.
> > nuking
>
> Attack with nuclear weapons or heat in Irish-Japanese oven (Michael
O'Wave)
DING!
> > whoopass
>
> Some obscene and distasteful student party tribal ritual
BZZZT!
To beat up; kick one's ass; etc.
> > axe n' amp
>
> Nope . . .
BZZZT!
Guitar and amplifier.
> > tube
>
> Dunno. Can of beer?
BZZZZT!
Telly.
> > grunge
>
> Ragged & rough, tending towards unclean
BZZZT!
Rock/punk based out of Seattle,Washington.
> > lemon
>
> Ratshit purchase from a car dealer
DING!
Quite good. I applaud your answering a challenge
(not that it was much of one, I gather).
> > You might know some, or all of these terms,
> > but my point is, every culture has terms
> > and phrases that they use, and scoffing at
> > someone just because they aren't familiar
> > with your culture is just as bigoted as
> > someone scoffing at you because _of_ your
> > culture.
> >
> > Us Yanks don't typically use words like
> > "roller", or "rogering", or "doxy", or
> > "flat", or "taking the piss" regularly.
>
> But you (collectively) do very regularly use terms that are comon only in
> USA. So don't squeal as soon as someone uses just ONE phrase that you
> don't know.
I wasn't making a stink because it was an unused phrase.
I was making a stink because you were acting like a
wanker just because someone who is not from your continent
didn't pick up on your culture's nuances.
> > So lay off, Newzy.
>
> The rest of the world has been putting upwith your Seppo cultural
> arrogance without a murmer for years. You don't like it when it's thrown
> back at you as a joke do you? Squeal like a stuck pig don't you?
I'm not squealing at all. I'm just exposing you
for your arrogance, and nothing more.
And exactly how are Americans openly arrogant to
our allied continents? Can you provide an example?
I've never been rude to any other culture except for
the French... but don't we all hate them anyway? *grin*
*sigh*
I often gather that the ingenious way of American
life has most other cultures so green with envy,
that all they can put forward is snot.
> > > "WTF?", a Seppo abbreviation for "What the fuck?"
> >
> > No. WTF is an internet abbreviation for "What The Fuck?"
> > You know, that thing that us dumb Yankies developed as DARPAnet.
>
> WTF are "Yankies"? Do you mean Seppos?
What? You don't know? What, have you been living
in a monastery? Well, if you're going to squeal
about it, I guess I'll tell you. *grin*
English folk oft refer to us as Yanks, or Yankies...
you know, as in Yanky Doodle Dandy.
What? You don't know what Yanky Doodle Dandy is?
Have you been living in a monastery?... ad
nauseum.
Shoe. Foot. Ow.
I'm not trying to ruffle your feathers... just
making a point.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 08:24:31 -0700
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> > Don't get me wrong... I like UNIX
> > operating systems. But what you need to
> > understand is that we don't need advertising
> > in here. If you want to debate about the
> > technical merits of operating systems, that's
> > just fine and dandy. If you come across an
> > interesting article, by all means post it.
> > That's exactly what this group is for.
>
> > Besides, If you had the kind of experience with UNIX
> > that you seem to pretend to have, you'd understand
> > why the Linux kernel is completely substandard.
>
> OK, well GPL spiel aside - may I ask why you think why the Linux kernel
> is "completely" substandard ? In the interests of fairness I would like
> you to compare 2.4.x V Win2k, so we are on the same ground.
>
> May make for a more interesting thread :)
That's easy. No central distribution point of development
(ala NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD), and therefore, a severe
variance in code quality.
This can be debated forever, however, so I suspect
that discussing my own opinion on the matter would
be pointless.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Monolithic arch's SMP, and licenses... we're all over the place today!
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 08:28:12 -0700
"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I don't dislike gcc, either. I think it's a great
> >tool, and I use it under NetBSD (SCO's compiler is
> >also pretty handy). I'm just wary of others trying
> >to tell me what I have to, or even should, do with
> >my work, and that is the crux of my skepticism
> >regarding the GPL. If proprietizing one's own
> >exclusive work (read, no reused code whatsoever)
> >with gcc is geniunely a violation of the GPL, or
> >even merely against the spirit of the GPL, then it
> >should be rewritten to clearly state that, IMHO.
>
> This is unclear. Are you under the impression that binaries compiled
> with gcc fall under the GPL? They don't, not unless you link with a
Yes, that is exactly my problem with it.
> GPL'd library; and even glibc carries an amendment to the GPL so that
> no GPLish terms are invoked merely from linking to the library.
Well, your contention puts me at a bit more ease.
Is there some kind of legal translation of the GPL
that you might be able to point my nose to?
> I cannot name even a single development tool that brings your work
> under the GPL simply because you used the tool to process your work.
> This used to be true of Bison, but Bison now carries an exception to
> the GPL so that this is no longer true.
I see. So "based on" doesn't necessarily mean "originating
from" or "derived from" in the context of manufacture or
processing, yes (note: genuniely asking, not smartmouthing :-)?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: 4 Jun 2001 15:32:45 GMT
Robert Morelli wrote:
>In article <9fda7d$o8l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
><don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
>>
>
>Wouldn't it be great if people from the Linux/UNIX world
>had the kind of common sense and competence that
>Windows programmers like the author of this article has.
What any of them? Just one? How about this one:
A Tribute to KDE http://www.csh.rit.edu/~benjamin/log/e_kde.shtml
>I actually have strong feelings about this issue because I think
>the neglect of UI is a serious bottleneck in the progress of
>Linux.
If you're going to have strong feelings about it, you ought to try to keep
up with current events, don't you think? Your post is straight out of 1995.
Besides KDE, there's also Gnome. The desktop is major focus of open-source
development (neither one of them is bound to just Linux) here in 2001.
>Unfortunately, a lot of Linux/UNIX people are still
>trying to understand the GUI revolution that took place 20
>years ago. It's really a terrible shame because the payoffs
>could be so tremendous. Think of where we'd be today if
>Linux had the technology to be a decent end user OS.
Here you are confusing "important" with "important to you". As a result you
overrate the importance of the GUI, it only means anything on the desktop.
I work on high-end Sun clusters for living, and they don't even have
graphics cards installed in them. All my work is accomplished on the
command line. I do lots of scripting :-)
>Instead of confronting the challenge, UNIX people try to
>disparage UI by spouting vague bullshit about
>supposedly more serious aspects of programming.
>I have a PhD in mathematics and I don't like vague
>bullshit, so that kind of thing pisses me off.
Since you "don't like vague bullshit", try and show a little precision in
your writing. The command line *is* a UI, what you are actually talking
about is a *graphic* UI - the GUI. The term "UI" is not interchangable with
the term "GUI", they are not the same.
>If there's
>some fancy, deep, complex technology Linux
>programmers have been doing that's more important
>than UI, I'd like to hear about it.
Like I said, you are confusing "important" with "important to you". It was
important that Linux sorted out it's SMP, for example. Just because you
don't have any use for it doesn't mean it is less important.
>To my mind, a programmer who disparages UI is as ridiculous
>as a programmer who says he doesn't understand for-loops, or
>doesn't "get" syntax, etc. The purpose of software is to create
>a bridge between a human user and computer hardware. At
>the bottom, low level software interacts directly with the hardware.
>At the top, application software interacts directly with a
>human user. Other software sits between. Each layer of
>software performs some services, and interfaces
>layers below it, above it, and also at the same level.
>
>It takes intelligence and competence to design the interfaces
>at all levels well. I'm very skeptical of the idea that there are
>programmers who can program well but can't do UI well.
I'm one of those people, I'm professional developer, but I'm not very
interested in GUI design. I mainly write tools for myself and my team, I
use a clean and consistent, Unix-style UI; none of them has a GUI.
>Of course, there're going to be people who take this an
>unwarranted attack on Linux. That's not my purpose.
>In my opinion, we ought to be thinking long term. The
>short term battle is progressing well. Linux has made
>incredible gains. Linux is overtaking Windows in some
>server markets and it's knocking the wind out of MS in
>the embedded market. But Linux can't win the whole game
>in the short term. The technology just isn't there to knock
>Microsoft out on the desktop.
I disagree. The available desktop technology is excellent. However, it is
not enough. Nobody ever beat Microsoft through superior technology.
>So what do I think we need to do? If you write code, do
>your homework and gain competence in everything,
>including UI.
Thanks for your suggestions, but I don't think I will. Programming is an
enormous field, far more than one single person could ever hope to master.
Neither I nor my employer have any use for GUI skills.
>Expect Linux programmers to strive for the same quality
>that Windows programmers produce.
EEK! What a terrifying thought!
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 15:30:50 GMT
On 04 Jun 2001 06:07:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
wrote:
>14:34 ... d/l Knews
>14:37 ...
>set options (news server etc), and compile the source
>14:51 ...
>error main.c:138 parse error before '/'
>oops I didnt remove the "*/" at the end of one config line!
>fix it
At which point the average newbie takes knews and moves it right into
the trash can and comes on COLA and screams about how much Linux
sucks.
Another Linux user is lost and another Winvocate is born and the
process continues on.
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 18:36:53 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fg161$scl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> This is a very common, completely false statment. GPL applies to code,
> >> ie an implementation of a protocol, not the protocol itself. If someone
> >> implements a protocol in GPL code, then the protocol is completely open
> >> (you can see how it works) and anyone is free to implement any way they
> >> wish under any license they wish.
> >
> > Actually, you could probably GPL a protocl, as well as all the
> > implementation.
>
> I didn't think you could. I thought that restriction a protocal as
> against everything the FSF stands for.
I don't see how they can do something about it.
"This protocol is GPL.
For the purpose of the license, the spec for this protocol is considered the
source, and compiled code is the implementation, both in source and binary
form"
Should be enough to do it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie.
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 18:41:15 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But you are also forced to make the software avialable at no charge to
> > anyone who ask for it.
> > They didn't put that in the FAQ, but it's in the license.
>
> You misread the license. You are forced to use certain license terms,
> but you don't have to actually give the code to anybody. The only
> situation in which anyone can demand anything is if you give them
> binaries w/o source, they can demand source.
>
> A license is an abstract right; it is not a physical copy.
Okay, how am I suppose to read the GPL in this regard?
I'm spesifically talking about section 3, sub section B.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 18:43:28 +0200
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> pip wrote:
> > and now after saying the above about Joel I read :
>
> http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$245
>
> quotes (assuming this example is real):
>
> 1)
> "Mikey the Programmer is hacking away on the new FTP client feature of
> his groovy Macintosh software. At some point, because he's feeling
> frisky, he writes his own string-copy function. That'll teach them pesky
> reusability police! Bwa ha ha!"
>
> In Joel's company website he states how code re-use is their policy.
> They also state that they hire only the BRIGHTEST programmers.
>
> Strike one
> Strike two
>
> Note the work "hacking away", then look at
> http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$212
He also explains why programmers like to role their own.
Personally, I doubt that anyone would create their own string copying
routine.
A> It's a *very* simple routine.
B> Unless you know assembly, you're unlikely to get a better routine.
B,1> Even if you know assembly, you are *still* unlikely to get a better
routine.
C> If you don't know strcpy(), you shouldn't be programming.
Then again, I've seen more stupid things happinging.
>
> 2)
> "Suddenly something very strange happens: the ftp daemon she was testing
> against crashed. Yes, I know it's a Linux machine and Linux machines
> never crash (no snorting sounds from the slashdot crowd, please) but
> this dang thing crashed. And she wasn't even touching the server, she
> was just FTPing files to it using Mikey's Mac code."
>
> So a program crashing is equated with a systems crash ? Hmmmmm.
You don't read Slashdot very often, do you? :-D
> 3)
> "Now, Jill is a very, very good tester, so she's kept a careful log of
> what she was doing (the precise pitch and yaw of her head as she rolled
> it on the keyboard is in her lab book, for example). She reboots
> everything, starts with a clean machine, repeats the steps, and -- Lo
> and Behold -- it happens again! The Linux ftp daemon crashed again!
> That's twice in one day, now! Take that, Linus."
In this case, I agree with Jill.
Reboot the client machine, reboot the server machine, try again.
This clean up the act, meaning that there are no foreign interferences.
> I am sure that Linus wrote the particular ftp server they are using.
> Note the "reboot" mentality.
I would be very surprised if Linus *didn't* write an ftp server.
It's not a trivial task, but it's not very hard, either.
However, that FTP daemon that they are using isn't very good, if you are
able to crash it by sending some random to it.
> Strike 3 - "you're out of it son"
>
> Hmmmmmmm. Maybe I should not take as many things on face value. I wonder
> if he is just "marketing" ? He does not appear to walk his talk ? Even
> if this example is fictitious, it is interesting the attitudes within.
He is a programmer, he took part in writing Excel, and then in writing
Juno's software.
I suggest that you read the article about writing specs, it may be that he
tries to entertains the reader.
He does have a talent for writing.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
