Linux-Misc Digest #233, Volume #19 Sun, 28 Feb 99 16:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
hexbin - mixed success; fail on mac-made pdf file (Dick Repasky)
Re: What if software could think? (Jerry Lynn Kreps)
Re: Where are basic linux commands (Jerry Lynn Kreps)
what assembler to use for cross-platform asm development? (steve mcadams)
Re: Linux Compatible modem? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (david parsons)
Re: More bad news for NT (John Hasler)
Re: More bad news for NT (Greg Yantz)
Re: What if software could think? (NF Stevens)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Johan Kullstam)
Re: More bad news for NT (Brian Hurt)
Re: FreeAgent for Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: soundcard problem (Gérard Milmeister)
Commercial games for Linux (Gérard Milmeister)
Re: What if software could think? (Fred Flatstone)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Alexander Viro)
Re: FreeAgent for Linux (steve mcadams)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: 28 Feb 1999 17:37:07 GMT
On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 14:03:47 -0800, The Infernal One
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I'm not sure if that would be the case. Some completely new
>users have a hard time with mouse control, buttons, and tend
>to mess up things without knowing on either system. I've
>been there, both with Linux and Windows (DOS) and neither
>was particularly harder. Although I personally find Windows
>a lot easier because I haven't had much chance to use Linux,
>this has little to do with the nature of the UI.
>
I've seen this in my own experience-- people can start using Windows
easier than they can with UNIX. I've conducted "mini-experiments,"
where I'd set up some systems with UNIX (Linux), and some with Windows.
And used people who had NO computer experience whatsoever.
As expected, those on Linux tried 'copy' 'move' because those words make
sense. They never thought of 'cp' 'mv' 'ls', etc.
In Windows, all they had to do was play with it, and in a matter of
minutes, they knew enough to start an application program.
>>Can you do that with UNIX? Not really. A newbie wouldn't think in terms
>>of "cp" = "copy", "mv" = "rename and move" and so on.
>
>You're comparing Unix CLI and Windows GUI. Not fair at all.
>I've used X86free in 1995 when it was much worse than its
>current form and I could do a lot of things without looking
>at documentation. Windows was about as hard.
The reason I compare UNIX CLI vs. Windows GUI is because of a few
reasons. 1) the CLI has all of the socalled "benefits" of the 32-bit
GUI, and 2) In UNIX, the CLI is (typically) the primary interface,
whereas in Windows, the GUI is (typically) the primary interface.
That can be changed in both (i.e., initlevel 5 as default in a Linux
box, and you can edit C:\MSDOS.SYS in Windows to not boot the GUI.)
Also, Linux is the OS. Windows is (well, according to Microsoft),
the OS. XFree86 isn't part of Linux as a part of the actual Operating
System, it is a program that sits on top of the Operating System.
Linux provides the TCP/IP, PPP, etc. itself, not XFree86. In Windows,
Windows provides that stuff, not the so called "DOS" that runs under-
neath it.
>
>>>For those who simply try to use a computer that others' are
>>>maintaining (corporate/school environment) neither Linux nor
>>>Windows poses much trouble. When it comes to maintainance,
>>>Windows is often harder because of its instability, registry,
>>>among other things.
>
>>That's why I don't fuck around with Windows on my home machine anymore.
>
>And if you decide not to mess around with the OS, Linux is
>still easier because Windows 95/98 generally requires periodical
>messing around to maintain its stability to an acceptable level.
>I'm not sure if it's fixed yet but the registry in Windows 95
>has a tendency to grow and is not compressed when entries were
>removed.
>
One of many bugs....
>>>>DOS, UNIX, etc., are for those who want to learn (except DOS only takes
>>>>maybe a day to learn...).
>
>>>Windows takes months to learn for a complete newbie. DOS
>>>takes a day to learn? Have you ever had to play with memory
>>>managers because your favorite game wouldn't run due to its
>>>outrageous conventional memory requirement? Do you expect
>>>newbies to handle config.sys/autoexec.bat?
>
>>Nope-- the DOS 6.22 memory manager worked just fine for all the games
>>I ever played/setup. MemMaker actually did a quite nice job doing all
>>of that for me... and MemMaker can be found in the DOS 6.2 HELP program,
>>which people who use DOS try first... (pretty obvious to try HELP first,
>>right?).
>
>MemMaker doesn't always optimize well and I had to learn
>the intricacies of manual finetuning of config.sys and
>autoexec.bat to play some games. Even worse, MemMaker
>could trash the configurations files under certain
>circumstances. Things are even more complicated if one
>wanted to play the Dos games in Windows 3.x.
>
>That is not to mention the number of problems with the
>trashed swap file Win 3.1 used to have, which sometimes
>required reinstallation (or manual editing of INI files)
>to solve. At least Windows 95 was more robust in the
>sense that it usually boots to a GUI state before it
>eats itself.
>
Well, I never played DOS games under Windows--- I did that once
and saw a huge performance hit... so I never did it again until
we had Win95, and it was OK... but my old DOS games crashed with
illegal instructions in Windows all of the time. =(
>>As far as CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT-- that's always been like the
>>Windows registry is today-- typical users didn't edit those types of
>>things because PC World and other computer magazines always carried
>>hefty warnings about editing CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT.
>
>Typical users didn't edit those things, just in the sense
>that Unix users don't necessarily have to write shell
>scripts or edit complicated configuration files to do
>their task. The same amount of knowledge of course
>corresponds to the same amount of expertise, although
>in Dos/Windows you quickly get to reach the upper boundary
>posed by the buggy, inconsistent, amd weak nature of the
>system
>
However, we're discussing the average user. The average user has to
install their own stuff, set it up by themselves, etc. In Windows,
you don't have to touch a file by hand-- all of the stuff in the GUI
does it for you. In UNIX, you have to do the same things-- however,
you have to do it yourself, by hand. Therefore, you have to learn more
to do something in UNIX than you had to in Windows.
>that doesn't mean that more knowledge is required to reach
>the same level of usability.
Yes it does. Let me give you an example: A given user wants to set
up their sound card. In Windows, all you have to do is go to the
Control Panel, hit Add New Hardware, tell it to search, and if that
don't work, hit "Have Disk", click on whatever drive has your driver
and it installs itself. (Then you have to reboot.)
In Linux... You have to:
a) check to see if the kernel supports it
b) if the kernel doesn't natively support it, see if there
is a module for it (that's compiled)
c) If there isn't a module for it, and it's not natively
compiled in... well, welcome to the wonderful act of
recompiling the kernel... and making decisions.
d) Decision: Do I want the driver built in or modularized?
e) Based on that decision, you then have to configure
the kernel (make menuconfig).
This gives us a bunch of options that a COMPLETE NEWBIE
would crumble at.
f) Recompile the kernel, compile the modules, install the
modules.
g) install the kernel
h) edit /etc/lilo.conf, and run /sbin/lilo
i) reboot system.
That seems to be *just* a bit more complicated than in Windows. I don't
mind going through that process now, I've done it a few times, but a
COMPLETE NEWBIE would CRUMBLE at (e). The documentation is written for
someone who knows what this stuff is, whereas a complete newbie will be
left in the dark.
>>Windows does not require the same amount of effort/knowledge/expertise
>>because an idiot can sit down, and if they think a teeny bit, can figure
>>it out.
>
>I feel that you're far overestimating the aptitude of
>computer illiterates.
>
See above for this one. I'm not underestimating anything here.
- Mike
--
=====================================================================
Michael B. Trausch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
V: (419) 838-8104 F: (815) 846-9374
ICQ UIN: 32369835
"Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that
curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly."
- Arnold Edinborough
If you do not have my public PGP key, you are encouraged to obtain it
from my website at http://www.wcnet.org/~mtrausch/mykey.zip. You need
to have PGP 5.0i or newer to use the key.
=====================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dick Repasky)
Subject: hexbin - mixed success; fail on mac-made pdf file
Date: 28 Feb 1999 17:48:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've had mixed success using hexbin (macutils 2.0b3 ix86) on files that I
receive from Mac users. Hexbin itself always runs fine, but the
result may not be usable. The latest failure was with a portable
document format file (.pdf) that was made on a macintosh and sent as
an e-mail attachment. Hexbin reported no error, but I was unable to
process the file using ghostscript. Eventually, I used a mac to fetch
the file over to the mac (fetch automatically unbinhexed the file) and
then fetched the result back to my linux box. The resulting pdf file
works perfectly with ghostscript. When using hexbin, I generally use
either the -d or -u flags. Am I doing something wrong?
Thanks,
Dick
--
------------------------------
From: Jerry Lynn Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: What if software could think?
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 09:00:34 -0600
Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) writes:
> >
> > > It is _you_ who misuse the term "free". You aren't the only one, but
> > > most other people who use your notion of freedom seem to love in small
> > > shacks somewhere in the middle of nowhere, preferably Montana.
> >
> > Linus, you are becoming more and more rude.
> >
> > I would suggest you start reading what John is saying, and turn your
> > socialist idealogy off for a minute. Socialism does not apply to
> > everything.
>
> You are analyzing Linus's response incorrectly. Socialism has nothing
> to do with it. Slavery has everything to do with it.
>
> Imagine if software were sentient. What kind of freedoms would it
> have? John is arguing that free software should be allowed to be
> thrown into bondage, and all its descendents. I think that the free
> software would argue otherwise, were it able to argue on its own
> behalf.
>
> In a very real sense, software is evolving towards sentience. The
> software which is a good fit in its environment encourages people to
> use it and improve it. If the software can out-compete other software
> in its niche, it survives into the next generation. Otherwise it
> dies.
>
Interesting concept - software being sentient.
While teaching CS courses I often compared programs to living things.
A computer program:
1) consumes resources
2) generates waste
3) procreates
4) is susceptible to viral and parasitic infections,
5) mimics organic intelligence, espeically if it contains neural net or
fuzzy algorithms
But, your arugment doesn't prove sentient software, it proves sentient
software users.
I could apply your arugment to the paper that code can be printed on:
"Imagine if paper were sentient. What kind of freedoms would it
have? John is arguing that free paper should be allowed to be
thrown into bondage, and all its reincarnations. I think that the
free
paper would argue otherwise, were it able to argue on its own
behalf"
or to any other object, say a rock. It proves too much, so it proves
nothing.
Your arugment fails because, using a computer term, you have a type
violation, which arises because you attempt to create a composite object
from two ancestor objects which have different properties and methods.
ie., attempting to store a string in an integer variable, so to speak.
;->
Nice try, though!
Jerrry
------------------------------
From: Jerry Lynn Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where are basic linux commands
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 13:32:36 -0600
"George F. Laun" wrote:
>
> I am a beginner at RedHat Linux and don't even know the basic commands
> like MD, COPY & etc. Where can I find them?
>
> George Laun
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
George,
I you purchased a complete distro (which I don't think you have, or you
wouldn't be asking this question) then RH has a very nice manual which
starts you on your way. Otherwise, you need to consult other
documentation. Besides the RH manual, there is a book, "Running
Linux", 2nd edition, by Matt Welsh and Lar Kaufman, O'Reilly pubs, ISBN:
1-56592-151-8, that is similar to the RH manual. As is another book,
"Learning Linux in 24 hours" by Bill Ball.
You can also go to www.metalab.unc.edu and locate the LDP (Linux
Documentation Project), which contains all sorts of documentation on
doing absolutely everything in Linux. Those, howto's and other docs can
be downloaded freely.
Remember, "everything is easy once you know how"
Jerry
(9 month newbie)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Subject: what assembler to use for cross-platform asm development?
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 20:00:48 GMT
I'm not sure but I think the one SuSE installs is called "bin86".
NASM looks good because there are working ports (apparently) for Linux
and WinNT.
Anything else out there that is better than NASM? tia.
____________________________________________________________________________________
"The meaning of life is of dubious value..." -steve, http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux Compatible modem?
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:58:39 GMT
Where do you disable this option? I have a dual 56K zoom also.
It seems to dial and connect OK, but I can't log on manually or
start ppp... Just sits there for a minute and then disconnects.
Is this similar to the problem you were having?
Thanks!
On 28 Feb 1999 01:51:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (william) wrote:
>I have the Zoom 56K, and it would not work until I disabled the assert CD
>line option.........then smooth sailing.......
>
>In article <7aj54i$p4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] blabbers:
>>
>>Hi everyone!
>>
>>Could you tell me whether I can use either a Diamond Supra Express 56K v90
>>modem or a ZOOM DUalMode 56K modem with Linux?
<snip...>
------------------------------
From: o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s (david parsons)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 28 Feb 1999 11:20:16 -0800
In article <7bbgfe$3qv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>
>>> One of my main concerns as to Linux and the GPL is proprietery
>>> drivers....I only hope that it won't cause a problem that the Kernel was
>>> GPLed instead of some 'other' licence which would have been less hazy in
>>> this area. Actually seems to me that the GPL might totally be a problem
>>> since drivers ARE linked to the kernel,....some people/groups might have
>>> coniption fits if a company tries this. Besides that though, I have no
>>> opinion....just glad linux is free.
>>
>>
>>Well, it has happened. A company has released a kernel module which is
>>binary. Too bad for them, too bad for us,...too bad for
>>Linux....because the kernel was GPLed.
>>
>>This sucks, but I knew it would happen....with all the talk about how
>>much we want commercial developers to take Linux seriously,...the MINUTE
>>one does they get egged. This is why Linux will never make it much
>>further then it already has.
>
>They got exactly what they deserved. That kernel module as you put it
>*MODIFIED* the linux kernel which is against the rules and everybody pretty
>much knows it.
The GPL lets you modify the code it applies to, and Linus explicitly
allows binary-only modules. It's seems pretty clear-cut in that it
does NOT break the rules.
If Linus's intention was to assert an interface copyright (you may
only distribute binary modules if they will work on an officially
blessed kernel) he chose the wrong license for the Linux kernel.
>They tried pulling a fast one and got nailed for it. End of story.
Bullshit. The GPL does not, contrary to the dimwitted fuckheads
who infest the Linux newsgroups, only give rights to people who
the authors of the code approve of.
If this sort of legal nonsense is allowed to continue, I won't be
able to write any more enhanced memory detection code, because that
code is modifying the linux kernel to talk to proprietary
binary-only modules. Ditto for the UDI shim module I'm working
on.
____
david parsons \bi/ Makes the BSD license look much more appealing,
\/ doesn't it?
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.linux
Subject: Re: More bad news for NT
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 20:11:41 GMT
Jon Wiest wrote:
> How many of us started with Linux as our first OS?
Not me. I started with JCL. I went from that to MTS, then to the hex
monitor on my MOSTEK evaluation board, to the homebrew OS I wrote for that
hardware, next to 8th, the Forth clone I helped write for the 1802 system I
helped develop, to CP/M, to CP/M86, to Unix System III, to BSDI's BSD/OS,
and finally to Linux.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: Greg Yantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.linux
Subject: Re: More bad news for NT
Date: 28 Feb 1999 15:44:39 -0500
Jerry Lynn Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Jim Ross wrote:
> <snip>
> > Maybe running as root is my problem but clicking around in the Control
> > Center of KDE often hangs my Linux system. The hard drive cranks, like KDE
> > is in a loop, I can't do crtl-alt-del or ctrl-alt-f2 or anything. I have
> > push my reset button. I find this disturbing. Like when MS said 32-bit
> > programs couldn't crash other 32-bit programs or the OS, but yet they in
> > fact could.
> > Jim
>
> Have you cntrl+alt+F2 (or F3 -F6) to open another console, log in as
> another user, and run ps to get a PID number to kill the Xserver, or
> just "shutdown -r now"?
It's quite possible that his display was so totally hosed that any kind
of keyboard input was no longer an option. Ctrl-Alt-F2 may not have done
anything.... I've had similar problems myself; very occasionally bad
things happen when you change screen resolutions while xawtv is
running. ;)
However, I've always been able to clean things up by telnet-ing into the
machine. Even when the X server goes south in such a way that it makes
your console unusable, the whole system isn't toast. You certainly can't
say that about an MS system.
-Greg
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: What if software could think?
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 20:32:59 GMT
Fred Flatstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX The real difference
>> between John (and the other GPLophobes) and the GPLophiles
>> is to whom "free" software is free. John thinks freedom means
>> the freedom for developers to use it in other (jproprietory, money
>> making) works. Those on the other side want the software to be
>> free for users to use. These two definitions of freedom are of
>> course incompatible.
>
>John apparently thinks freedom means freedom. Why don't you?
>
You, and John, seem to think that your definition of freedom is
the only one. Somewhere the freedom to own private goods
and the freedom to appropriate other people's goods collide
head on.
But the discussion wasn't about "freedom". It was about "free
software". Since GPL code is free for use, and will remain
free for use, it _is_ "free software".
Norman
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 Feb 1999 13:01:48 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 06:29:21 +0000, Colin Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >So use aliases, duh!
>
> Sure, and a newbie is going to think of that, right?
windows is easier to learn than unix. a macintosh is easier still.
i'd rather use a mac since it is more consistent with the gui
approach. macs do not suggest putting your files in the same
directory with the executable and other sundry libraries and private
data files like almost all windows apps come configured to do right
out of the box.
the real problem here is that easy to learn is not the same as easy to
use in a long term day in and day out sense. you are only a newbie
for a short while. you have to live the design for years. if you are
not using the computer on a daily basis and doing complex scripting
stunts, then unix is not for you. however, if you *are*, then unix is
much easier to *use*.
i don't mind windows being around. i just resent having to use it at
work. being sacrificed on the altar of catering to the newbie and
lowest common denominator isn't my idea of fun.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.linux
Subject: Re: More bad news for NT
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Hurt)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 20:46:06 GMT
"David Hawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote many things,
including:
>Now this sort of attitude is exactly what pisses me off about Linux
>newsgroups - 'Microsoft is worthless crap full stop'. Well, no, actually,
>it's not. It has brought computing to the masses by providing an operating
>system which does not require deep understanding on the part of the user.
I thought the Mac had this distinction.
Brian
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FreeAgent for Linux
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 20:08:16 +0100
I have heard rumours (from god knows where) that there is a Linux porting
project of the Agent reader going on. Can anyone confirm this?
Glen Scurr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a way there is a free agent for linux, run it under wine.
--
Anders Gulden Olstad @ Brinkley | * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RedHat 5.2 Linux kernel 2.0.36 | "Penguins are generally nice creatures"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gérard Milmeister)
Subject: Re: soundcard problem
Date: 28 Feb 1999 20:33:30 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 18:09:14 GMT, uday kiran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> My pc has a yamaha sound card and linux 5.0 does'nt
^
Is this a Freudian slip?
> recognize it any solutions........
>
--
Gérard Milmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tannenrauchstrasse 35
8038 Zürich
Switzerland
+41 1 481 52 48
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gérard Milmeister)
Subject: Commercial games for Linux
Date: 28 Feb 1999 20:33:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How can companies be brought to port their
game software to Linux? Nowadays it should be
possible to develop games using a platform
independent development kit, so that it be
easy to compile them for Windows, Macintosh
and Linux and possibly other OS. There should
be a great many Linux users that would be glad
if they could remove Windows, which they need
only to run their favourite games.
--
Gérard Milmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tannenrauchstrasse 35
8038 Zürich
Switzerland
+41 1 481 52 48
------------------------------
From: Fred Flatstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: What if software could think?
Date: 28 Feb 1999 10:50:44 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens) writes:
[...]
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX The real difference
> between John (and the other GPLophobes) and the GPLophiles
> is to whom "free" software is free. John thinks freedom means
> the freedom for developers to use it in other (jproprietory, money
> making) works. Those on the other side want the software to be
> free for users to use. These two definitions of freedom are of
> course incompatible.
John apparently thinks freedom means freedom. Why don't you?
If you think the GPL is the best licence, that's an opinion
which I can respect, but selling your philosophy by misusing
language is a tactic which deserves our condemnation.
BTW, your "jproprietory, money making" crack is another example
of GPL-lover's deceit, or more likely, their delusion. The GPL
also restricts the use of GPL'd software with other no-cost,
even Public Domain, software. If I can't link a GPL'd subroutine
subroutine to a Public Domain subroutine and release the binary
to the Public Domain, then that GPL'd subroutine doesn't fit the
term "free" by any definition acceptable to me. I don't understand
why so many are able to use such grossly distorted meanings.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 28 Feb 1999 14:50:39 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andy Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <7b933k$97i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee) writes:
>> Yeah. Too bad for you that Linus took steps to prevent people like you from
>> stealing the work he and others have put into linux and other OSS software.
>>
>> A damned shame, isn't it. NOT.
>
>Have any of the Linux developers acknowledged Ken Thompson?
Yes.
>Do most of them even now who he is?
Yes. And stop this idiocy, both of you. At least take your DSW
away from technical groups. Pox on whining advocates of all kinds...
If you have too much free time on hands - look around for open bug reports.
There is a lot of them. On all sides.
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Subject: Re: FreeAgent for Linux
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 20:53:02 GMT
[Posted & mailed, snipped, quoted is ">"]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Glen Scurr) wrote:
>In a way there is a free agent for linux, run it under wine.
>
>I'm an Agent addict myself and I would never be able to switch to Linux without
>something similar available on the linux platform. I was very encouraged to
>see that Agent and Free Agent got very useable ratings when running under wine
>for linux.
Is it that good? Hmmm, I had the impression it was able to run
NotePad but stopped about there. Do you need to run a hooked loader
so it can recognize the windows exe-format and pass it to wine? Or do
you need to rebuild the app under a special library? Or point wine at
each executable you want to run?
This may bear some looking into <growing grin>
____________________________________________________________________________________
"The meaning of life is of dubious value..." -steve, http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
