Linux-Misc Digest #360, Volume #18 Sat, 26 Dec 98 22:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Infringement of the GPL (Jerry Lynn Kreps)
Re: Embarrassingly dumb questio (Charles Mosher)
Re: Anti-Linux FUD (Jerry Lynn Kreps)
Re: Infringement of the GPL (Jerry Lynn Kreps)
Re: Windows umulation (was: Unix vs Windows NT) (Jerry Lynn Kreps)
Re: Anti-Linux FUD (Jerry Lynn Kreps)
Re: Windows umulation ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jerry Lynn Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Infringement of the GPL
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 19:41:04 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Jerry Lynn Kreps writes:
> > You're assuming that they made a valid improvement. They did not. They
> > merely substituted one group for another. The efficacy remaind
> > unchanged.
>
> Then you should have no difficulty competing with them selling your
> original design.
>
??? Do you know what an organic chemical group is, and when changing a
group is significant and when it is not? It is sort of like changing
the font on a work of Shakespear and then publishing it as your own.
> > Even if they had "improved" the effectiveness of the compound they were,
> > like I was, standing on the shoulders of those who had gone before.
>
> As does anyone who ever does anything.
Right, except that some pay for their own research and suffer loss if it
goes nowhere, whereas a paid researcher looses nothing if the research
doesn't pan out. Since he has put nothing at risk he should not be
taking gains, especially by deception.
> > And don't give me that complaint that such and attitude toward spinoffs
> > of publicly funded research would dry up research.
>
> what 'attitude'? The only attitude I've seen so far is anger and
> hostility.
>
> > It was the taxpayers bucks that paid for it to begin with. Many of these
> > "improvements" were learned by researchers but squirreled away while they
> > were being paid out of public funds. Not honest enough to give true
> > value for what they were paid for they are seduced by dreams of wealth,
> > luxury and early retirement at other peoples expense by their thefts.
>
> Good arguments against government funding of research.
>
I agree. It has been government funding of research, via the NIH and
NSF, that have hijacked the spirit of scientific research and reduced
many "scientists" to paid whores. Research is only funded if the
proposed hypothesis agrees with the status quo. What happens to peer
review and replication and the so-called "scientific method" is why I
use the term "whore". Especially in biological and medical sciences
where so many results depend on data manipulation, cooking and
statistical analysis.
> > Taking money for someone elses work...
>
> A statement which presumes that one can own intellectual work. This would
> seem to contradict your statements above.
No such presumption is made. Try to own the air you breathe.
>
> > ...is stealing from them,...
>
> No. Stealing is depriving someone of property of which he had possession
> before the theft. If A gives B a copy of A's work and B gives a copy of
> that copy to C, A remains in possession of everything he was in possession
> of before B made the 'unauthorized' copy.
>
> > ...or denying them their right to allow others to benefit without
> > monetary loss.
>
> I can make no sense of this statement.
>
> > He lost his rights to his own code and they now own it.
>
> I wrote:
> > Wrong.
>
> > Think not? Just acquire their "prorpriatary" code and use it in your own
> > software and see if they leave you alone.
>
> They own the copyright on their code. He owns the copyright on his code.
> They created a derivative work: one which contains both their work and his.
> Either author may block copying of such a work. He chose not to do so (he
> could change his mind at any time). This does not cause him to lose any of
> his rights to his code.
In a court of law any copyright he refuses to enforce is lost to him.
> --
> John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
> Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
> Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
------------------------------
From: Charles Mosher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Embarrassingly dumb questio
Date: 27 Dec 1998 01:42:44 GMT
Jim Shaffer, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On Sat, 26 Dec 1998 02:50:12 +0000, Rich Grise
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : wrote:
:>you know what you want done, how do you find the appropriate command?)
: apropos
: --
: "Withdraw in disgust is not the same thing as apathy." --R.E.M.
Withdrawal in disgust indeed.
Apropos is damn useless. One is limited to the key words the authors see
fit to use as such. I am used to having documentation in clear text, and
being able to see what files in a directory include any words of my
choice, and then have the computer jump to them and read them, ie, scan
all the words in the files themselves, not just what some "expert" thinks
are the key words.
Where is the master index to the man files, so that one can read them,
starting at the beginning, and stopping when one gets to the end,
rather than just groping a round?
What is the tool with which one can edit/repair the grammar, spelling, and
nomenclature in the man files, to make them intelligible?
Also, would folks please refer to applications by FILE name, please. I
think man requires a single word for its argument. I very much doubt that
"Midnight Commander" is the file name of that shell.
Where are the HOW-TOs? What is the correct capitalization of HOW-TO, so
that find can find them?
Where is a TREE command?
>From reading some of the HOW-TOs I though there was a convention that one
would use upper case for DOS commands like FDISK an lower case for linux
commands like fdisk, but people so not seem to be following this.
At least in MS-DOS I could start reading HELP at the beginning (HELP alt
help how to use help) and proceed to the end, and then stop, and could use
a hex editor to look inside the HELP.HLP file to read all the command line
tails that would be recognized that Microsoft did not tell us about, and
then check them all out too. In about a day of reading, one could get a
fair idea of what DOS is about.
What is the hex browser/editor provided?
What is the equivalent of DDT in Linux.
What is the equivalent of DM (Director Maven)? ProFind? List?
Where is the files list of a distribution, with their descriptions, at
least token but useful descriptions? Someone in one of these linux groups
responded to a newbie's asking for what the first level subdirectories
were for by saying /dev was for devices, etc. An insult.
At least in DOS one puts an application in a particularly directory, and
there it is. Unfortunately linux is like Windows, in that the stuff is
thrown in all together, so that it is hard to blow away one's mistakes in
choosing what to install. The wonderful secure path of linux is a trap.
I keep a minimum path in DOS, and start everything with DOSKEY macros or
batch files, and have no problems with this.
The list goes on and on. I have had RedHat 4.1 installed for a month, and
nothing is set up, because most of the documentation is _so_ bad. The
howto for printers (which I could read off the CD from DOS) says I have to
add a statement saying thus and so, for example, but they neglect to say
into what file. I have not yet succeeded in reading a howto in linux.
I already have 4 Unix books and one linux book, have read them _all_, and
fairly well studied most of them, and regularly check the indexes of books
at the bookstore for help on these questions, and find nothing.
It is the very limited and shoddy documention of Windows 9x that has
driven me to try linux, and my experience so far is not encouraging. I
have been reading these linux groups for several months now, and again,
what I read is not encouraging.
I will flush RedHat 4.1. I bought several distributions today (The Walnut
Creek 6 CD set), which I will try, but I am not optimistic.
Sorry to dump on you folks, but the mood in these groups has gotten to me.
I am not a dummy, I do things in DOS that many people think are
unbelievable, my PhD is as a microwave tube engineer, and I took my first
computer course in the 1956-7 school year, but I am finding the Linux
documentation too much of an uphill battle. It was the third parties that
saved DOS for Microsoft, and with Windows9x they effectively blew away the
third parties. What is left is linux. I wish it were better.
--
Charles Mosher
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jerry Lynn Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux FUD
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 19:47:10 -0600
Jeff Read wrote:
>
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> > I don't know if this is related but I have a book here on the 9x/NT
> > registry that states that the maximum size of an .ini file is 64Kb.
> > This is why software vendors supplied .ini files of their own before
> > the registry was designed.
>
> Bullshit. If that's true, then that's due to an incredibly brain-dead
> Microsoft API, and not to a fault of the idea of having .INI files. In
> the Real World, text-based configuration files can be of any size. But
> it is still a Good Thing to have one config file for each program rather
> than lumping them all together into one huge heap.
Easy to test.
A little code calling the API function GetProfileString() or one called
WriteProfileString() will fail to work if it cannot open a file whose
size is greater than 64Kb or create one larger than 64Kb.
However, in 10 years I can't recall seeing one that large.
I would have prefered separate ini files to the register. Most of WinXX
stability problems are due to the register. That is why there is such a
big market in "First Aid" kits to fix the bugger. If it wasn't breaking
so often for so many people then the registry repair kits wouldn't have
an economically viable market.
Jerry
------------------------------
From: Jerry Lynn Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Infringement of the GPL
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 20:08:48 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > And that's a reason not to use the GPL? It would piss you off less had
> > you used a different license?
>
> steve mcadams writes:
> > Absolutely, because I'd use a proprietary license and distribute the
> > source code to paying customers with a non-redistribution restriction.
>
> I meant a different free license, of course. But let me get this straight.
> It would bother you less to have your copyright infringed by a paying
> customer with a non-redistribution license than by someone with a free
> license?
>
> > So I would earn some income from the work, and possibly be in a position
> > to earn more by sueing the copyright infringers. With GPL I get nothing
> > for doing the work, they get money for unlicensed use, and I can't afford
> > to sue. In my book, that sucks.
>
> Then don't use the GPL. It isn't compulsory. Interesting phrasing here,
> though. You say you *would* use a proprietary license. Have you ever
> tried to sell software under such a license? Hint: you won't get far
> unless you are Larry Wall or another Name (and how did Larry get to be a
> Name?)
>
> > I'm starting to think that the GPL is just for hobbyists. I probably
> > would have thought it was swell when I was 25; now at almost 50 and
> > wondering what I'll do about retirement (cardboard box anyone?) I'd like
> > to earn money for doing work, not just do it for the fun of it.
>
> So you have lived most of your life under the proprietary system, it has
> left you with no savings, and yet you want to stick with it.
>
> > I wonder what Richard Stallman thinks about free software now that he's
> > older...
>
> He is as devoted to his principles as ever, and no doubt delighted to see
> his ideas beginning to penetrate organizations such as IBM and Sun and to
> see the dream he has fought for all his life begin to take shape in
> reality.
>
> > assuming he's nearing retirement age?
>
> I really doubt RMS intends to retire. I also doubt he is hurting for
> money.
>
> > ...and hasn't skimmed a million or so off the FSF along the way...
>
> I'm fairly sure that the FSF has never paid him anything at all. He
> supports himself writing software, consulting, and with the occasional
> McAurthur Foundation grant.
>
> > Maybe I sound like a greedy asshole,...
>
> You sound like a short-sighted, timid one.
>
> > ...but unless you are at least 50-ish and have raised kids instead of a
> > stock portfolio, you need to think about it before you say so.
>
> I am 52 and undoubtedly have less money than you do. When I was 25 I would
> have agreed with you. Now I agree with RMS.
I'm 57, John, and have spent all my programming life under the
Cathederal. Having moved into the Bazzar 7 months ago, and looking back
over the years, I also agree with RMS and regret those efforts. I
compare it to my early adult life when I spent many hours hunting and
killing game. Two things happened. First, I switched to bows and that
forced me to watch them instead of putting a cross hair on them.
Secondly, my dog Daisy who, over the last 16 years, has taught me that
she is an intelligent creature with feelings, emotions, likes and
dislikes. Certainly not a dumb animal. I now deeply regret every
squirrel, every deer, every racoon and every bird I every shot. The
bazzar puts people and pride of craftmanship above profit. The
Cathederal is more like a pyramid or MLM scheme that benefits only those
that got in on the ground floor and robs everyone else.
Jerry
------------------------------
From: Jerry Lynn Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Windows umulation (was: Unix vs Windows NT)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 20:22:54 -0600
Steve Revilak wrote:
>
> dstephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 98 percent of the software that I like to use is 95 or Nt only. A lot of
> > really great games that I like to play mostly. I perfer Nt over 95 for
> > gaming (if the game runs under NT, otherwise use 95 ) since the game
> > crashes but not the os (I've gotten NT to a real stable point)
>
> This may be a silly notion, but has anyone written a windows emulator
> for windows? Perhaps I'm crazy, but one would think that such a
> creature would make Linux a much more attractive offering, particularly
> to an organization with a large base of existing ms apps.
It's called WINE, and work has been going on with it for several years.
To me, it is like trying to nail jelly to a wall. The same problem OS/2
had making WIndow run under it. M$ would tweek the code ever so
slightly and bingo! OS/2 can't run Windows any more. IBM was always
trying to catch up with the last patch Ms$ released to "fix a bug". I
downloaded the Nov 19th release of WINE and tried it out on Solitare and
some other apps. It ran ok. Never tried it with Quicken, which is the
only reason I would use it. But, it took 200MB of disk space. An
install of Win95 only takes 90MB. So, except for the annoyance of dual
booting, if you have to run Win95 - run it.
WHen I find a suitable replacement for Quicken then Windows is history
on my box.
Jerry
>
> I'm aware of several usable incarnations that run on the macintosh, so
> it should be a doable thing.
>
> --
> Steve Revilak
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jerry Lynn Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux FUD
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 19:56:31 -0600
Jeremy Crabtree wrote:
>
> W R Carr allegedly wrote:
> >
> >
> >Jeremy Crabtree wrote:
> >
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 25 Dec 1998 16:23:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >> >>On Fri, 25 Dec 1998 15:55:37 +0000, mlw wrote these thought provoking
> >> >>words :
> >> >>
> >> >> :[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> :>
> >> <<clip>>
> >
> >> >>The file was not corrupted. It was deleted. Wow.
> >> >>
> >> >>Very unfortunate.
> >> >
> >> > You do realize that it does take some intent to
> >> > delete a system file even under DOS.
> >>
> >> Especially those two files. In Win95 even the DOS "kernel" is hardcoded to
> >> not let you touch them. (you can't even copy the buggers, making backup
> >> rather awkward)
> >
> >In my experience, that's not true. It's a simple matter to execute
> >"ATTRIB -S -R -H *.* /S" to have access to all files in the system
> >and do anything desire. The same is also true in Windows 98. Pure
> >DOS allows you to wreak havoc on any file you choose...
>
> HRMPH! I must have a broken copy of DOS then, because I assure that no
> matter what, the only way I could successfully copy those things was to
> use a third part applet with its own, built-in copy routine.
>
> (I will try again later...I may have forgotten to attrib them, though)
Jeremey is right. Using attrib to remove system, hidden and readonly
attributes makes those files accessible. And, it IS quite easy to
delete any and all files on a DOS system. When I was writing an
accounting system for a mom&pop store, back in 1983, I had just finished
two weeks of coding and was looking for a clean floppy to copy the code
to so I could take it to the client. I was sticking in floppy after
floppy and hitting F3 <RET> which re-excutes the last command (dir a:)
and looking for one that I didn't mind deleting the contents of. Back
then , 5 1/4" floppies were expensive. I found one and with rapid finger
strokes typed "del *.* <RET>" and only an instant later realized that I
should have typed "del a:*.* <RET>". Too late. It was 2:30 AM and my
wife came running down the stairs from the bedroom wondering why I was
screaming and pounding my head against my office wall. This was before
the advent of undelete programs. Save frequently. Backup often.
Jerry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Windows umulation
Date: 27 Dec 1998 03:02:07 GMT
In comp.unix.questions Steve Revilak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: dstephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> 98 percent of the software that I like to use is 95 or Nt only. A lot of
:> really great games that I like to play mostly. I perfer Nt over 95 for
:> gaming (if the game runs under NT, otherwise use 95 ) since the game
:> crashes but not the os (I've gotten NT to a real stable point)
: This may be a silly notion, but has anyone written a windows emulator
: for windows? Perhaps I'm crazy, but one would think that such a
: creature would make Linux a much more attractive offering, particularly
: to an organization with a large base of existing ms apps.
: I'm aware of several usable incarnations that run on the macintosh, so
: it should be a doable thing.
Wine http://www.winehq.com/ apparently does a pretty good job at
Win3.1 and even does some of Win95 API. Don't expect good game
performance, however.
For a commercial app, try SoftWindows95
http://www.insignia.com/softwindows/
I believe they have access to the Windows source code and the result
is acceptable. Once again performance suffers immensely due to
emulation.
--
Michael Cope: Harvey Mudd College '00; Armand Hammer UWC '96
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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-Misc Digest
******************************
