Linux-Advocacy Digest #444
Linux-Advocacy Digest #444, Volume #33Sun, 8 Apr 01 03:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Chad Everett) Re: MS and ISP's (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 8 Apr 2001 00:59:53 -0500 On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 10:33:47 -0700, Salvador Peralta [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Goldhammer quoth: ... snip... What you have shown is that it's pretty easy to decontextualize and misreperesent, or outright contrive statements by three of the most influential thinkers of the 19th century in a flippant way and make yourself look like an arrogant boob in the process. Freud was a very influentual thinker too. His theories are no longer taken seriously. They also have not withstood the test of time. Being an influential thinker of the 19th century doesn't mean we have to revere them today. -- From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: MS and ISP's Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:16:06 GMT Said 667 Neighbor of the Beast in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 07 Apr 2001 12:04:11 -0700; Bob Hauck wrote: On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:54:52 -0400, JS PL jspl@jsplom wrote: "667 Neighbor of the Beast" [EMAIL PROTECTED] But suppose microsoft actually did give away their OS and server software, SO WHAT!! Who's business is it? There are laws on the books against "dumping" in order to drive your competition out of business. Which was exactly what MS was trying to do to Netscape. Yes not only that but it is totally illegal to offer SW for free or at steep discount if you promise to, say, convert 75% of your users to IE, if you promise to only support IE, if you promise to put IE-specific stuff on your web page, etc. That is an exclusive agreement, and they are all illegal. No, Bob, they're not. They're anti-competitive. What that means is that if they are successful, they are illegal because they prove monopoly power. If they are unsuccessful, they're just stupid. But they're not illegal. -- T. Max Devlin *** The best way to convince another is to state your case moderately and accurately. - Benjamin Franklin *** -- From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:17:43 GMT Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:26:21 -0500; [...] Analogies often happen when someone forgets that they are most often fraught with enormous flaws. When dealing with incredibly stupid people like Tmax, and the oft-indoctorinated, just say 'NO' to analogies. I thought it worth reposting that, simply for how well it indicts JD's rationality. And lack of spell-check. -- T. Max Devlin *** The best way to convince another is to state your case moderately and accurately. - Benjamin Franklin *** -- From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 06:20:22 GMT Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 06 Apr 2001 04:44:52 [...] It doesn't matter how useful they are, the only point of the GPL is to keep most people from obtaining them. Because most people don't understand the danger of proprietary software; they think there's actually a *reason* to spend hundreds and thousands and millions of dollars a year on something they already have! A few people can build their own versions or hire consultants to do it - most can't. And you're relying on that fact, rather than the
Linux-Advocacy Digest #445
Linux-Advocacy Digest #445, Volume #33Sun, 8 Apr 01 08:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: XP = eXPerimental (GreyCloud)
Re: An end to legacy hardware? (GreyCloud)
Re: Baseball (*sunbird*)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (robert@-)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Robert@-)
Re: International Space Station: Russian software seems more reliable (Big Daddy)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Mathew)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Joerg Schilling)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Alex
Chaihorsky")
All of linux in this site. Instruction complete downloads ecc. go to :
http://members.xoom.it/frecell ("frecell")
From: GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: XP = eXPerimental
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 00:14:06 -0700
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In misc.invest.stocks J.T. Wenting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| "2 + 2" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
| XP = eXPerimental
|
| thought it meant ExPert?
Naw...It means eXtra Profit...
X-ray (your) Possesions?
eXamine (your) Passport?
eXcoriate (your) Pudendum?
eXit (all) Programs?
Xerxes-like Profits?
Xenophobic Posturing?
eXcess Pee?
--
[ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
Now that I look at it long enough, XP,... it looks like a dead emoticon
with its tongue hanging out.
--
V
--
From: GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An end to legacy hardware?
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 00:25:54 -0700
Axel Harvey wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Andy Walker wrote:
Lets face it, PC's are pieces of crap. They have so many legacy problems
such as interrupt configurations, memory and backwards compatability that
they belong in the 1980's if not the 70's. In reality it's like getting an
old Cortina and trying to get it to perform like a Ford Focus.
Gee! I thought legacy hardware was something like my Cromemco Z2X
(preciously mothballed in my cellar)--and I think of it more as a
Duesenberg J than as a Ford.
Oooh! You do have a real collectors item there! I remember it in all
of the early Byte magazines. A very rugged machine.
--
From: *sunbird* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 03:01:31 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
Ah, yes. Always the "if". "If" there's nothing else to blame it on,
name any software that works if you install it on bad hardware or with
bad drivers. that IF is a reality of life.
i have debugged a lot of trouble on NT systems. usual answer is idiot
set it up.
despite NT's reprehensibly bad design and well documented deficiencies,
then and only then could you consider blaming Microsoft. Guffaw.
well documented deficiencies is a good thing. no software is bugless,
and knowing what the bugs are is the next best thing.
again, a real world concept from someone who knows what they are doing.
If it is the application only that is crashing, then that is an
application fault, not an OS fault.[...]
I'm terribly sorry, I'm going to have to, at this point, declare such a
statement to be hopelessly naive, or a sock puppet fabrication. A
crappy design of a platform is the platform's, fault, even when its
evidenced by the failure of applications on that platform.
platforms are what they are. i have many applications that manage to
run
on NT without what I would call difficulty.
if some programmer cannot bother to read about the well documented
difficiencies and take these into account when coding then it is most
certainly the app writer's fault.
again, no code is buggless. know your platform and work with it. not
some blind ideal.
or sit around and bitch because something isn't perfect. and then of
course you will fail to show me anything else that is.
sunbird
--
From: robert@- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: 8 Apr 2001 00:49:32 -0700
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob says...
I don't prefer to download 150 MB files, and sometimes only want to
grab a part of the distribution.
The original poster has a valid point.
What is so hard if KDE provides one large tgz file that contains all
the other files as an OPTION in addition to the current system?
Those who want to download the one file can do so.
You need to think outside the box, which from your ranting you seem
to unable to do.
--
From: Robert@- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lack of linux
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447
Linux-Advocacy Digest #447, Volume #33Sun, 8 Apr 01 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: t. max devlin: kook (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a luser... (was Re:
Chinese airforce adopted Win2k infrastructure) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Linux is just another Unix (yawn) (Peter R. Wood)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Baseball (Anonymous)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: XP = eXPerimental (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a (Goldhammer)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 13:42:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Anonymous
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Sun, 8 Apr 2001 06:30:34 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anything with a command line is easier to learn, of course, because it
is simpler
i just wanted to see that again
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
There are advantages to the command line, but ease of learning
is not among them (though it depends in part on the complexity
thereof, the design of the GUI, and to a large part on the
documentation available using 'man' or 'info').
A well-designed GUI can be very easy, especially if it has common
elements; this is what makes Windows so powerful. (Mac OS, too,
as it turns out, although the details are different, and, to
a slightly lesser extent, widget sets on X; the main problem there
is cut and paste, and resize feedback.)
Everyone understands:
- moving the mouse pointer
- clicking, dragging, and dropping
- double-clicking, dragging, and dropping icons
- folder icons as directories, document icons as files
- top-mounted window pulldown menus
- keyboard shortcuts
- buttons with balloon help
- text entry controls, both multiline and single-line
- Control/C, Control/X, and Control/V
- scrollbars
- scrolling lists (both horizontal and vertical)
- drop down comboboxes (which are actually a combination of button,
menu, and list)
Windows does have advantages. However, MS may be frittering
away some of them; the latest Windows appear to have movable
menubars. What use is that? Detach a menubar from the window,
and it becomes a floating menubar -- um, now what app did
that floating menubar correspond to?! (Netscape and GTK have
the same capability, so it's not limited to Windows.)
And then there's the famous gorgeously slow disappearing and
scrolling out menus. Waste of CPU cycles, IMO. What's
next, rapidly rotating dialog boxes a la old filmreels and cartoons? :-)
At least balloon help serves a purpose, especially since some of
those icons aren't exactly intuitive. Even pulldown menus
are an aid to documentation; they show the capabilities of the
program -- which makes the "hide less recently used" option
on pulldown menus in Windows a bit puzzling. Then again,
one can make a case either way.
The horizontal scrolling file requester is an abomination, but
we're used to it now, even to the point of duplicating it,
bodge for bodge, in the Wine project -- although that may
be because I'm using it with Win95 and the Microsoft DLLs are
setting that up.
One other advantage with Windows -- IE has instantaneous refresh
during resize; Netscape does not. This feedback is very helpful
to the user who wants to see the web page just so, and may explain
in part why IE is so popular in the first place.
Most X window managers rubberband during resize, so this facility
may not even be available. I am tempted to write one that treats
X resize events similarly to X move events, but I fear the performance
in many apps may not be there -- and it will take me awhile,
as it's not my speciality.
Compared to all this, the command line is extremely dry and
uninteresting, although improvements have been made there, too;
older systems don't have:
- filename completion
- command completion
- filename and command listing on double-TAB
- arrow-key history and editing (although some used VI-style keys)
Heck, HP-UX can still come up using @ for linekill and # for backspace.
Arcane? You bet your sweet bippy. But the users have changed;
we're more demanding and fickle now.
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more
Linux-Advocacy Digest #448
Linux-Advocacy Digest #448, Volume #33Sun, 8 Apr 01 11:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("Mart van de Wege")
What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman (Isaac)
Re: Baseball (Jim Ledford)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (Goldhammer)
Re: t. max devlin: kook ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes ("WGAF")
Read this clueless Linux advocates... ("WGAF")
Re: t. max devlin: kook (Sean)
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
From: "WGAF" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 14:13:02 GMT
"pip" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Salvador Peralta wrote:
I shudder to think about what might happen if you actually took the
time to learn your system before favoring us with these jewels of
ignorance.
You know quite well Salvador!
a) Beard Growth
b) Extra strength glasses
c) Those Corduroy slacks
d) Dream of PERL or BASH scripts
e) Attending AA meetings (Administrators Anonymous)
f) Start scratching Windows Installation CD's for fun
g) Actively volunteer for taking minutes during LUG meetings and
producing PHP scripts to display them in a variety of interesting garish
colour schemes.
...and finally...
h) Installing an early version of slackware to reminisce with the ways
things "used to be in the good 'old days"
i) Pocket protectors
j) Do the "Dew"
k) Sell the answering machine on Ebay (Useless...)
l) Refuse to attend CA meetings (Computer Anonymous)
--
From: "Mart van de Wege" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 16:19:41 +0200
In article i2_z6.93564$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "WGAF"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Mart van de Wege" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In article 2oRz6.92517$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "WGAF"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Bob Hauck" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Oh, maybe you've only got a text-mode system. Then you'd have to
use the "get tarred directory" feature that most Unix ftp servers
have:
ncftp ftp.kde.org
cd ...some long path...
get RPMS rpms.tar
Snip...
Like RPM? I installed KDE 2.1.1 (upgrade from 2.1) by doing this:
$ for i in qt kdebase kdelibs kdegames ...; do rpm -U $i/*; done
As oppose to downloading a single executable, running it once the
dowload finished and it's done? Linux really shines in that respect,
doesn't it?
Otto
Tell me again how all those Windows viruses propagated? Isn't this very
mindset of blindly clicking on downloaded binaries to blame? If the
administrators show this behaviour, how then can they blame the users
when they click on yet another .vbs?
Yet another post which tries to make a different subject out of the
questionable KDE upgrade method. You do admit that the upgrade path for
KDE sucks, right?
Well,
I'd say that 'apt-get install task-kde' is a lot simpler than just
downloading some rpm's, but the argument presented was that even Joe
Average should be able to make a multiple selection in a GUI to download
the stuff and then type a simple command to install.
So while I have some issues with the way most rpm-based distros handle
this, I think it's perfectly valid to say that it is not difficult at
all.
As to my changing the subject, it was you who brought up that detestable
Windows habit of just downloading a binary and blindly clicking on it. I
admit it is easier, for those windows viruses to spread that is.
Mart
--
Write in C, write in C,
Write in C, yeah, write in C.
Only wimps use BASIC, Write in C.
http://www.orca.bc.ca/spamalbum/
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 14:07:07 GMT
On 06 Apr 2001 22:38:49 +, Graham Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In gnu.misc.discuss, T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nothing needs to be copied to violate copyright. That's what 99% of
the copyright law is all about.
If this is true does it not indicate a fundamental flaw in copyright
law? Going back to first principles, what is copyright if not "the
right to control copying"? So copyright law has no right (pun
intended) to concern itself with anything other than copying. If it is
true that 99% of copyright law is "off-topic" then is it not in urgent
need of reform to bring it back
Linux-Advocacy Digest #449
Linux-Advocacy Digest #449, Volume #33Sun, 8 Apr 01 12:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (Goldhammer)
Re: t. max devlin: kook ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: t. max devlin: kook ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a luser... (was Re:
Chinese airforce adopted Win2k infrastructure) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is just another Unix (yawn) (Chad Everett)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Salvador Peralta)
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: soc.singles
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 10:44:00 -0400
GreyCloud wrote:
WGAF wrote:
"Salvador Peralta" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:9akl37$oel$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
WGAF quoth:
Conversely, for 35 years Unix couldn't manage to come up with a
usable version for the end users. Catering for small area is fine,
but then it should not be compared to technology aimed at the mass
user market. The requirements and the subsequent pricing are
different among other things.
A very good point. By the release of KDE 2.1, Linux is finally at a
point where it competes on basically equal terms with Windows on
the "end user" desktop -- the caveat here is presentation software
which is not yet up to par with power point.
The "basically equal terms" part is arguable at best. KDE still requires
more computer knowledge from the average end users, more than most of them
willing to learn when alternate OSes with less knowledge requirements are
easy to come by. Couple this with lack of quality software, support, and the
end user has no reason to change his/her desktop system at the moment.
Hi Otto. I think my wife, (accountant), will disagree with you. I
recently introduced her to the CDE desktop environment (Motif)(Sun
Solaris 8) and she found it very easy to use. Once set up, as a
workstation, it requires very little admin. Compare that with the
problems of the normal end user that purchases an off the shelf pc with
Win98 or WinME and the problems start escalating a couple months later.
Thats when the trouble starts... you have to start fixing things, and at
worst a total O/S re-install. Win9x series or ME just start corrupting
for some reason. And after a few bangs across the head to fix windows
I'm seriously looking for an alternative. Looks like we'll be buying a
couple of Sun systems. She really liked the ease of use.
But for the IT workstation, an integrated desktop / local server
environment, Linux far surpasses windows in terms of tco and roi. it
requires less maintenance, the upgrade path is essentially no cost,
and the hardware lifecycle is *much* longer for Linux simply because
its server and database software is less greedy in
terms of required resources.
That maybe true, however, it isn't as clear cut as you seem to suggest.
There are other factors which need to be considered when one picks an OS.
One of them is the available resources to handle such a system and the other
is the end user's knowledge base. One'd need a much wider availability of
Linux admins and users before one can even think of using Linux platform.
There has been some progress in that area, nonetheless it still can't
compete with the other OSes admin and user support base as of yet.
You says "tremendous inroads", others say hardly visible dent in the
OS market.
I think you mean desktop market. Through last year, with no real
major vendor support, Linux remained the #2 server OS in terms of
licenses shipped and #1 in terms of growth. This, despite the fact
that GNU licensing promotes building multiple copies off of a single
disk and the distribution chain promotes installation via ftp or
burning your own iso's.
And NT remained the #1 server OS in the market, gaining about 6%. Most of
the Linux' gains came at the expense of Unix and Novell platform and not NT.
Now we've got Linux supported across IBM's entire mainframe and
midrange architecture and their Global Services group actively
promoting the OS. It is poised, if anything, to grow at an even more
rapid rate than before.
The numbers for this years growth contradict your statement. Linux seems to
slowed down so far this year.
And the number of copies bought, tried once and thrown away aren't
in the statistics either. Not to mention the fact that most of the
statistical data for OSes gathered for US only with little or no
regards to other countries.
Which is one of the reasons that many people feel
Linux-Advocacy Digest #450
Linux-Advocacy Digest #450, Volume #33Sun, 8 Apr 01 12:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Salvador Peralta)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Baseball ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Baseball (Chad Everett)
Re: Chimp in TV program downloads Linux to talk ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
From: Salvador Peralta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 08:24:33 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WGAF quoth:
I've never that happen in v2.1. I have application crashes, and
application lockups ( so far, only knode in v2.1 ), but that is a
simple PS -A, kill PID. Or XKill.
Hmm... Tha application locks up but you kill X. Did you say that the
X never locks up?
No. XKill is a graphical front end where you simply put the
skull and bones on the frozen app and click to kill it. Clearly you
don't even know what the tools are -- and that one has been around
for years.
You'd have similar functionality on windows, but application crashes
usually result in system crashes so probably no one ever thought of
it.
I said better integration between the browser and applications.
Can you specify that you want to use an image editor to open images
in
IE? Can you select what application you'd like to use to view
source? Can you specify what mail client you'd like to use? Which
news client? How much configuration can you do on your key
bindings?
Can you open zipped and gzipped files without uncompressing them?
Can you set HTTP user agent?
Sure you can, there's MS Outlook and Outlook Express mail clients.
So what you are saying is that IE is not as fully integrated with the
applications on your desktop as Konqueror. You cannot set key
bindings. You cannot select *ANY* mail client as the default. You
cannot select an image editor ( like Gimp ) to open images from the
browser. You cannot specify your newsreader, etc. you cannot even
view compressed files.
Thanks for clarifying that issue.
Simply untrue. The only application on my desktop that I do not
have full cut-and-paste capabilities with other applications is
Mozilla. And that's because the project made a poor choice of
widget sets to work with.
Therefore the copy/paste doesn't work doesn't work within apps on
the Linux platform.
Within 1 application. Works fine on the rest of the ones I have on
my desktop. What you are suggesting that you cannot copy and paste
at all, which is untrue and misleading. I can even paste from a
graphical app into a terminal window. Try that on windows.
Some people might justify spending a few hundred on that
piece of functionality. I cannot.
Really, how about Visio?
I use pic. With it I can do what visio does and a great deal more.
Tomcat can't hold a candle to Jrun 3.0. Etc, etc
lol.
As for Linux not
being a commercial desktop option until now, that in itself says a
lot about all of the arguments from last year.
I wasn't making that case last year beyond saying that Linux was more
stable and better for power users. Linux didn't surpass windows for
"average joe user" until kde 2.1.
I hope you have licenses for all of those copies. If not, you are
admitting to a criminal act in a public forum.
The licenses came with the PC from the OEM, which isn't really a
copy of W2K anyway just a restore CD. Nice of you to assume that I
don't have the necessary licenses, typical Linux mentality since
that's what you would've done.
I wouldn't have to worry about it. I can legally install as many
systems as I want off of a single copy of linux.
In any case, I didn't assume anything. I simply said I hope that all
of your copies are licensed. 6 OEM versions of PC's in a year? Very
few home users have the resources to purchase 6 new pc's in a year.
Are you sure you want to keep talking about this in a public forum?
Not at all. I've made the case for Linux being superior with the
applications that are bundled with it. If you'd like to make a
case for windows plus a bunch of commercial add-on's, don't forget
to throw in the costs associated with each purchase required to
bring it's suite of applications up to or above what I have for
free on linux.
And don't forget to mention that, just like with anything else you
get what you pay for.
Post the applications and their costs and we'll see whether that
holds water. I suspect that in most cases, it does not.
Which makes me wonder why microsoft simply isn't improving as
quickly.
That's funny...
Yes, it is.
You forgot an adjective, let me correct it for you. "more useless
Linux-Advocacy Digest #451
Linux-Advocacy Digest #451, Volume #33Sun, 8 Apr 01 13:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Mathew)
Re: Linux is just another Unix (yawn) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Does OSS evolve? (Wilbert Kruithof)
Re: Too expensive, too invasive (Bob Hauck)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Bob Hauck)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Bob Hauck)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Bob Hauck)
Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes (Johan Kullstam)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Bob Hauck)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Bob Hauck)
Re: Xerox bans XP = eXPerimental beta (Goldhammer)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
From: Mathew [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 01:33:02 +1000
On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
Mathew wrote:
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
"Scott D. Erb" wrote:
Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
"Scott D. Erb" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
However, I suspect Marx would be spinning in
his grave to see his ideas associated with Stalin or Mao. Ideological
development is complex.
I have to address this before I address anything else, because I think this
is pivotal.
Marx was a monster. If you read Manifesto you will find:
Marx was naive. He believed that if you got rid of capitalism you could have
complete
liberty, the state would whither away, you would end exploitation. He was
motivated
by the industrial slums, and how horrid the workers were paid. He wanted the
workers
to rise up against that, and believed if they did they could collectively
control the
means of production and everyone would be better off.
And yet, you still promote the policies based on the theories of this
man WHO YOU HAVE JUST ADMITTED was a fool.
And you promoted dealing with a totalitarian facist fundamentalist Iran.
Now tell me how you are not a Commuinist?
Iran is fascist now
They have been fascist since the Ayatollah took over,but also a bit
under the Shah.
Must be some new definition of fascist with which the rest of the
English-speaking is unfamiliar.
Or by "fascist" do you merely mean "non-Communist"
You should know what fascist means.
He was wrong. Dead wrong. Tragically wrong. But there is no way Marx or
Engels (and
I've read a lot of their private writings, including a lot of Engels stuff in
the
original German) would have ever supported the kind of brutal tactics of a
Stalin, Mao
or Pol Pot.
And yet, you still push for the kinds of policies which can ONLY be
successfully implemented by a Stalin, Mao, or Pol P
Why is that?
1. Complete liquidation of private property
2. Liquidation of the family, introduction of "official, open mutual
ownership of wives"
3. Children taken from families are brought up by community (Hillary,
hello!)
4. Industrial armies, not employer - employee, (and that is from the guy
who
LOVES proletariat!)
5. Central credit by central banks with total banking monopoly for the
State.
6. Age when children start working - 9 years of age (Resolution of Geneva
International Congress).
If this is not the most monstrous document in the history of the
civilization, please, state which one is.
This system was implemented four times almost totally - in Hitler's
concentration camps, Stalin's GULAG and Mao's re-educational settlements
and
Pol Pots' Cambodia camps.
Partially - USSR, Red China, Vietnam, North Korea.
Superficially - Poland, E. Germany, Hungary, Mongolia, Czeckoslovakia
Why would Marx be spiining other than out of excitment?
Typical (I hate this word) socialist attitude - they all have aberrated
Marx. NO! THEY DIDN'T!
All socialists remain civilized untill they seize the power. Then the
Marxist bestiary begins.
EVERY TIME.
Marx was fantasizing about what he thought would lead to a utopia. He was
wrong. He
thought the state would whither away, it didn't. His goal was to end
alienation and
create perfect liberty, his ideas did not lead that direction. His errors were
typical of 19th century social science (over-determination, bad predictions),
and
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452
Linux-Advocacy Digest #452, Volume #33Sun, 8 Apr 01 15:13:12 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
DVD on Linux? ("Andy Walker")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: DVD on Linux? (Salvador Peralta)
Weekly Posting: Where to Find Linux Frequently Asked Questions with Answers
(Pointer) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 17:09:21 +
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 7 Apr 2001 14:06:02 -0500...
...and Logan Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, TeX is decent, reliable, and available for every single platform
I've ever heard of in my life (except PalmOS, but I might be wrong
about even that). But, a typesetting tool like that might be overkill
for many purposes.
Is there a DVI viewer for PalmOS?
mawa
--
Shoot someone, get shot. Sounds good, at least in theory.
Have people think you shot someone, get shot. Who will shoot them?
-- mawa in a mail to Eric S. Raymond
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 8 Apr 2001 18:36:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roger Perkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's reality, Roberto. Not opinion. My graduate degree is in
International Relations so I am familiar with this field. You bring up
generalities and expect specifics in return.
Uh? If bringing up the US support of Pinochet and the answer is
"the US acts in the best interest of the US" I think you are
the one trading specifics for generalities.
Just because you don't like my
answers doesn't make them incorrect.
Just because they are yours, that doesn´t make them specific.
--
Roberto Alsina
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 8 Apr 2001 18:40:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"T. Max Devlin"
So "though shalt not assassinate" means murder is wrong but killing is
OK? "Though shalt not slay" means the same thing? Sounds more to me
like it isn't so much murder as killing of a human (as opposed to
killing a calf, which obviously isn't going to fly in the Old
Testament.) Which is to say, it says "though shalt not kill", as
indicated, despite this linguistic quibbling that you use to try to
justify war.
Read Exodus and Numbers. God instructed the Israelites to wage war and kill
entire populations. The quibble is using one verse from scripture to state
all killing is wrong, when in fact, use of that one verse of scripture to
support such a position is wrong.
Suppose instead of God, your general (when you were in the army)
told you "don´t kill people". Then later, he told you "kill these
specific persons".
You would probably not see any contradiction if you went and killed
those specific persons, right?
It would be logical, for a theocratic army, to kill if told God
ordered to kill, even if god had previously ordered not to kill
in general, because it would be a more specific command.
Now, if you are using the bible to support war, I will agree it
makes sense, as soon as you mention me when god told you to wage
war against whom.
--
Roberto Alsina
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 8 Apr 2001 18:42:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 18:27:55 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roberto Alsina wrote:
billh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Roberto Alsina"
That would be a sin of omission in catholicspeak.
Since you said in another post, "Well, I don't really give a damn about
the
bible, to be honest", why do you conitue to speak from the "catholic"
point
of view
I don't speak from a catholic point of view, I speak from my point of
view.
In this particular case, it's close to there.
or use "catholicspeak"?
Well, I am not english, yet you don't see me posting in french.
So you don't care for the Bible but use it in an attempt to
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454, Volume #33Sun, 8 Apr 01 18:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (GreyCloud)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (GreyCloud)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (GreyCloud)
Re: DVD on Linux? (Chad Everett)
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (Donn Miller)
Re: t. max devlin: kook (Donn Miller)
Re: Baseball (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: t. max devlin: kook (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (Goldhammer)
CLI vs. GUI (667 Neighbor of the Beast)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... ("Chris Z. Wintrowski")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a
tosser, and lies about free software)
Date: 8 Apr 2001 19:32:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Rob S. Wolfram" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you understand way there
cannot be a new GPL'd gif-writing program?
Because of a Unisys patent.
Or DVD-decoding program?
Because of some stupid US-only law. $DEITY forbid other WIPO countries
to also implement article 11 of the WIPO 1996 treaty.
So you do understand the specifics - but you didn't answer the general
question: if you still maintain that all necessary combinations can be
GPLed as a whole is it because you think other restrictions are not
significant or that all users can do without all code where other
restrictions
apply?
For examples like this, read section 7 of the GPL. It is there for a
reason.
For other examples I'd say that it is entirely possible that you can
freely redistribute it under Non-GPL conditions but not under GPL ones,
but then I state that those licenses are also encumbered in its
redistribution rules. Why only blame the GPL?
Case in point: if you cannot change the distribution restrictions to
GPL, then the license is just as restrictive as the GPL. So it is not
only the GPL who is to blame for your being unable to distribute the
combination.
No, for the hundredth time, the other restrictions did not, and would
not under any circumstance prevent distribution. Only the GPL did.
Your logic is flawed here. If one part of the system is "most
restrictive" (i.e. GPL), then why couldn't you distribute the whole
system as GPL? There really are only two possibilities here:
1. It was legally possible but *you* *chose* not to distribute the whole
under the greatest common denominator (i.e. the GPL) so *you*, not the
GPL, is the restrictive force here.
2. It was legally impossible because you could not apply the GPL to the
other part(s). This means that like the GPL, the other parts were
licensed under equally restrictive conditions (i.e.: you can only
redistribute this software under license A, B or C).
If you see a third possibility, I am eager to hear about it.
Still, sharing is sharing and using is using. Different viewpoints.
But the 'using' viewpoint is only possible after distribution is allowed,
and the GPL prevents many instances of distribution.
Correct. The GPL ensures the freedom of use of the software you *have*.
It also ensures the freedom of use for the person that gets the software
from you.
This comes down to the circular argument. You keep hammering on the
distribution. If someone would sell me his product for big bucks under
the BSDL and I couldn't get it from anywhere else, this would still be
very legal and the software would be just as free. The license talks
about how I can *redistribute* the stuff, not about how I can get it.
No, the license talks about the circumstances where you are prohibited
from redistributing, and covers most of the possibilities.
Bzzt, wrong, thanks for playing. The distribution is prohibited *by
default* via copyright law. The license *allows* distribution and sets
the conditions for such allowance.
So
can you please explain to me why not being able to get the software
makes the software non-free?
By definition: the restrictions preventing distribution make it the
opposite of free.
So my being able to have an unencumbered use is of no significance to
you?
See above.
Yes, only the GPL makes this sharing impossible.
See above ;-)
That's exactly the scope of software that I'm talking about when I refer
to "using".
There is some
Linux-Advocacy Digest #455
Linux-Advocacy Digest #455, Volume #33Sun, 8 Apr 01 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: DVD on Linux? (Black Dragon)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (Goldhammer)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Robert
Sturgeon)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... ("Chris Z. Wintrowski")
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (Goldhammer)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (robert@-)
Re: XP = eXPerimental (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Xerox bans XP = eXPerimental beta (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: t. max devlin: kook (mlw)
Re: Baseball (".")
Re: XP = eXPerimental (Goldhammer)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (silverback)
Re: t. max devlin: kook ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Becker)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Robert
Sturgeon)
Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: DVD on Linux? (Nigel Feltham)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Black Dragon)
Subject: Re: DVD on Linux?
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:57:39 GMT
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 19:58:08 - in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] `Andy Walker' said:
: I was trying to find out how to get my DVD to play on Linux the other day
: and found out that there is a reverse engineered decryption package needed
: to do so
[...]
: As this law doesn't exist in the UK, does anyone know where I can get the
: necessary files?
Download it from a Internet DNS server near you with this script:
=
#! /bin/sh
for DVDs in Linux screw the MPAA and ; do dig $DVDs.z.zoy.org ; done | \
perl -ne 's/\.//g; print pack("H224",$1) if(/^x([^z]*)/)' | gunzip
===
--
Black Dragon
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Subject: Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:07:25 GMT
On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:55:50 GMT, Chris Z. Wintrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goldhammer wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 14:37:23 GMT, WGAF [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Luckily for Linux, there are people who
can see behind the hype.
http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/01/12/index3a.html
This article presents the usual incorrect
picture of the OSS movement as somesort of
'corporation' or 'business' whose goal is
to compete in the marketplace:
Whilst you are partly correct, let me remind you that there are
companies out there that are totally based on the OSS movement.
Does RedHat ring a bell? What about Ximian? Eazel?
Yes, these are, as you say, based on the OSS movement,
in some sense at least. But these companies, although
"based" in some sense on the OSS movement, are not
*the OSS movement*. Greenspan is talking about the
competitive survival *the OSS movement*, not just
companies "based on the OSS movement":
"You may even think the open-source movement can
survive on its own..."
Whilst I agree that the possible failings of any OSS-based company or
community is by no means going to spell the end of the OSS movement, it
*is* necessary for these OSS-based companies or communities to "stay
competitive" if they ever hope to succeed.
Sure. Companies need to stay competitive in order
to succeed. Why does "the open source movement"
"need to stay competitive" in order to "succeed"?
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
--
From: Robert Sturgeon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 15:18:59 -0700
On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:29:39 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback) wrote:
(snips)
Yeah, it's right-wing socialism, characterized by vertical integration
of the industrial sector.
there is no such thing as right wing socialism dumb fuck
What then do you suppose Nazi means?
(rest snipped)
--
Robert Sturgeon-
Proud member of The Vast Rightwing Conspiracy.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
--
From: "Chris Z. Wintrowski" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates...
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:26:42 GMT
Goldhammer wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2001 14:13:02 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Goldhammer" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:N__z6.56894
"You may be of the opinion that open-source
software does not need to compete directly
with Microsoft or any other commercial
software vendor. You may even think the
open-source movement can survive on its
own without any corporate influence. But
the truth is, at this point in time there
are very few major open-source projects that
could continue to
Linux-Advocacy Digest #457
Linux-Advocacy Digest #457, Volume #33Mon, 9 Apr 01 01:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (Ray Chason)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... ("WGAF")
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... ("WGAF")
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... ("WGAF")
Re: Fun With Old Laptops. (: (Ray Chason)
Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman ("Les Mikesell")
Re: t. max devlin: kook (Ray Chason)
Re: t. max devlin: kook (Chad Everett)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (GreyCloud)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (JulianD.)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (GreyCloud)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (GreyCloud)
From: "Les Mikesell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a
tosser, and lies about free software)
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 03:13:22 GMT
"Rob S. Wolfram" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
So you do understand the specifics - but you didn't answer the general
question: if you still maintain that all necessary combinations can be
GPLed as a whole is it because you think other restrictions are not
significant or that all users can do without all code where other
restrictions
apply?
For examples like this, read section 7 of the GPL. It is there for a
reason.
For other examples I'd say that it is entirely possible that you can
freely redistribute it under Non-GPL conditions but not under GPL ones,
but then I state that those licenses are also encumbered in its
redistribution rules. Why only blame the GPL?
Because it is the GPL that prevents distribution and places unconditional
claims on other people's work. Other licenses may have requirements
but they may be quite reasonable to meet. A license that demands that
you change the license on someone else's existing work has a
requirement that is both unreasonable and impossible to meet.
There is no way to consider those as similar encumbrances.
Case in point: if you cannot change the distribution restrictions to
GPL, then the license is just as restrictive as the GPL. So it is not
only the GPL who is to blame for your being unable to distribute the
combination.
No, for the hundredth time, the other restrictions did not, and would
not under any circumstance prevent distribution. Only the GPL did.
Your logic is flawed here. If one part of the system is "most
restrictive" (i.e. GPL), then why couldn't you distribute the whole
system as GPL?
Because it included components that did not belong to me but had
their own terms that allowed free distribution. Even if I were
able to change the terms on those other works I would consider
it unethical to do so, just as I consider the GPL's demands about
other people's works to be unethical.
There really are only two possibilities here:
1. It was legally possible but *you* *chose* not to distribute the whole
under the greatest common denominator (i.e. the GPL) so *you*, not the
GPL, is the restrictive force here.
That wasn't the case, but yes I would have chosen not to change the
terms on someone else's work if the choice had been mine.
2. It was legally impossible because you could not apply the GPL to the
other part(s). This means that like the GPL, the other parts were
licensed under equally restrictive conditions (i.e.: you can only
redistribute this software under license A, B or C).
The other components had restrictions, but they had nothing to do
with redistribution.
If you see a third possibility, I am eager to hear about it.
As I recall the wattcp library did not allow modified versions
to be distributed - the author wanted to collect and collate the
patches, if any.I think the aspii library just required attribution.
Only the GPL made impossible demands that prevented
distribution of the combination.
Still, sharing is sharing and using is using. Different viewpoints.
But the 'using' viewpoint is only possible after distribution is allowed,
and the GPL prevents many instances of distribution.
Correct. The GPL ensures the freedom of use of the software you *have*.
It also ensures the freedom of use for the person that gets the software
from you.
But, it ensures that you can't share much of what you can use and others
would likely want to use as well.
This comes down to the circular argument. You keep hammering on the
distribution. If someone would sell me his product
Linux-Advocacy Digest #458
Linux-Advocacy Digest #458, Volume #33Mon, 9 Apr 01 01:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (GreyCloud)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (GreyCloud)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (silverback)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (GreyCloud)
Re: MS and ISP's (Ed Allen)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (GreyCloud)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Robert
Sturgeon)
From: Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 16:53:02 +1200
snype
Kernel in itself can do nothing applications are the entities what makes it
worth while to turn on the machine. That's how the distros get the companies
to pay for their distros. It won't be long before even the desktop versions
will be licensed. Sure, you still can have the barebone freebie but there
will be no compelling reason to have it without the apps.
Would I object to that? no. Even though there are a few out there who thinks
the whole world owes them a free copy of [insert favourite software title], I
am quite prepared to pay for a copy of Linux. In fact, I normally buy a new
distro every time there is a new, major kernel release, such as moving from 2.2
to 2.4, I can't be bothered downloading a tonnes of files, so I buy it it on
cd, and as a bonus, I get 90 days free technical support. Compared that to
Windows 2000, which comes with no free technical-support, and when you want it,
the only way to get in contact them is via a toll call, and on top of that,
they expect you to pay the support on top of the cost of the call. If that is
what you call quality software with customer support, I would hate to know what
isn't.
Matthew Gardiner
--
Disclaimer:
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you do not like it go: [rm -rf /home/luser] and
have a nice day :)
--
From: GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:52:17 -0700
WGAF wrote:
"Matthew Gardiner" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Dave Martel wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 03:45:47 GMT, "WGAF" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You'd have hard time naming some commercial
grade application for Linux. Even if you do, they won't be free.
TCLPro, Corel PhotoPaint, WordPerfect, Snif+, not to mention the usual
apps like GIMP and XEmacs. There's bunches more but it's been a long
day.
Sorry, for a win-advocate (such as WGAF), unless Microsoft produces an
application for Linux, then everything else that runs on it must be
sub-standard!
As oppose to a lin-advocate for whom quality doesn't matter as long as the
software isn't from Microsoft, right?
Otto
You're too used to doing things the MickeySoft way.
You wouldn't know quality if it came up and bit ya on the ass.
--
V
--
From: GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:54:27 -0700
WGAF wrote:
"GreyCloud" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
Caldera is already having troubles from what I've heard on the net.
(A lot of things are heard about different things.) But since its still
Linux
people will weigh what is it that they're getting for their money? The
average user
doesn't need it. The 5 user license more than likely can be
circumvented by looking around for the equivalent for free. The spirit
of Linux is just that... free and good.
No, the spirit of Linux is to circumvent. If that doesn't work, then crack
it...
Yep, and the spirit of Mafia$oft is to covertly steal others works.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback)
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 03:00:04 GMT
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 00:40:12 -0400, JulianD. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 00:35:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(silverback) wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 22:24:16 -0400, JulianD. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:25:00 -0700, Robert Sturgeon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 21:38:28 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback) wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 15:18:59 -0700, Robert Sturgeon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:29:39 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback)
