Amir H. Firouzian writes:
> I don't understand why Mozilla Firefox isn't open source...
It is. It is also Free Software.
> And furthermore we have different branch of Firefox like Iceweasel. So
> what is that mean?
It means the Mozilla Corporation owns the trademark FIREFOX and won't
let Debian
Hello,
I don't understand why Mozilla Firefox isn't open source because in wiki it's
says:
And furthermore we have different branch of Firefox like Iceweasel. So what is
that mean?
Hello,
I don't understand why Mozilla Firefox isn't open source because in wiki it's
says:
And furthermore we have different branch of Firefox like Iceweasel. So what is
that mean?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:23:21PM -0400, Doug wrote:
>
>
> On 09/30/2015 07:37 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> /snip/
> >
> >The letter of the law my dear Shylock, the letter.
> >
> >But in spirit, Open Source and Free Software couldn't be more dif
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:52:15PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 September 2015 12:37:58 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > all
> > Free Software is Open Source.
>
> Semantics again. So you would say that Freeware is not Free Software? It is
On 9/30/2015 1:51 AM, Reco wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 08:57:13PM -0700, Seeker wrote:
If you think of non-free in terms of Debian non-free, then non-free and
proprietary
can be different things. That gets into a whole different hornets nest.
Evaluate here, please. I honestl
+1.
But as a part of their job they might be required to be qualified enough
to manage these systems.
Eliezer
On 30/09/2015 08:45, Heracles wrote:
Can we keep religious wars off the list. They fill up the inbox and
achieve nothing.
Sysadmins administer whatever they are asked to administe
2015/10/01 2:24 "Doug" :
>
>
>
> On 09/30/2015 07:37 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> /snip/
>
>>
>> The letter of the law my dear Shylock, the letter.
>>
>> But in spirit, Open Source and Free Software couldn't be more different.
>> The one is about a more efficient software production model, the o
On Wednesday 30 September 2015 18:23:21 Doug wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 07:37 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> /snip/
>
> > The letter of the law my dear Shylock, the letter.
> >
> > But in spirit, Open Source and Free Software couldn't be more different.
> > The one is about a more efficient software p
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:23:21PM -0400, Doug wrote:
>
snip...
> * The American Heritage Dictionary shows "free" first in regard to
> slavery, or arrest, etc. It goes on to discuss politics and free vs.
> dictatorship. It eventually gets to "costing nothing; gratuitous:
> _
Le nonidi 9 vendémiaire, an CCXXIV, Doug a écrit :
> Therefore, the example given above is incorrect: all free software is NOT
> open source: Firefox and Thunderbird are prime examples of free software
> which is not open source that probably most users of Linux are using today.
> They[re _free_ be
On 2015-09-30 at 13:23, Doug wrote:
> On 09/30/2015 07:37 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> /snip/
>
>> The letter of the law my dear Shylock, the letter.
>>
>> But in spirit, Open Source and Free Software couldn't be more
>> different. The one is about a more efficient software production
>> mod
On 09/30/2015 07:37 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
/snip/
The letter of the law my dear Shylock, the letter.
But in spirit, Open Source and Free Software couldn't be more different.
The one is about a more efficient software production model, the other
about the user's rights.
But such "spirit
On Wednesday 30 September 2015 12:37:58 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> all
> Free Software is Open Source.
Semantics again. So you would say that Freeware is not Free Software? It is
certainly free software.
Lisi
>> If you think of non-free in terms of Debian non-free, then non-free
>> and proprietary can be different things. That gets into a whole
>> different hornets nest.
> Evaluate here, please. I honestly can not grasp this concept.
I think he's referring to things like emacs24-common-non-dfsg.
IOW, a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:09:03PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le nonidi 9 vendémiaire, an CCXXIV, Reco a écrit :
> > 'Open-source' by itself does not imply that the software is free (as in
> > libre).
> >
> > A fine example of such software is RAR
Le nonidi 9 vendémiaire, an CCXXIV, Reco a écrit :
> 'Open-source' by itself does not imply that the software is free (as in
> libre).
>
> A fine example of such software is RAR archiver.
> They give you the source - https://packages.debian.org/stretch/rar
> They forbid you to change it. They requ
Hi.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 08:57:13PM -0700, Seeker wrote:
>
>
> On 9/29/2015 10:33 AM, Reco wrote:
>
>
>
> No, you are wrong here. First, you're trying to introduce a false
> dichotomy as if 'proprietary' and 'non-free' are different somehow.
> Second, 'non-free' is *alw
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:34:12PM -0400, Doug wrote:
>
>
> On 09/29/2015 01:33 PM, Reco wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> >On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 01:22:09PM -0400, Doug wrote:
>
> /major snip/
> >
> >
> >>Among programs which are not open and not free are several CAD programs
> >
> >That's hardly every
Hi.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 07:16:30PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 September 2015 18:33:41 Reco wrote:
> > Confusing 'open-source' with 'free software' is a common mistake.
>
> No, Reco. _You_ are confusing the language.
I beg to differ, Lisi.
> In English English "free
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:34:12PM -0400, Doug wrote:
[...]
> You may just be cheap, Reco. I'm willing to pay for what is not free
> when I deem it is worth my money to do so. YMMV.
Sigh. The usual red herring.
As Stefan points out downthread, Free
Do I beg to disagree, or do I simply want to beef?
Well, I've done a bit of beefing, and when I get a few free moments, this
thread may result in another post on a certain blog of mine. Probably not
today. Anyone interested in wasting a few more moments reading about
free-is-not-free is welcome to
On 30/09/15 14:20, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
Leaving debian, ubuntu, redhat, ms and all the others aside for a sec,
what a company expects from a sysadmin is not to be programmer.
Can we keep religious wars off the list. They fill up the inbox and
achieve nothing.
Sysadmins administer whate
Hey Reco,
I want to verify couple things to make sure we do understand couple basics.
What certifies a sysadmin? is there any requirement else then knowledge
and experience? is there an alternative to understanding the
fundamentals of computers?
And I would try to clear the question in couple
> You may just be cheap, Reco. I'm willing to pay for what is not free
> when I deem it is worth my money to do so. YMMV.
Free Software is about freedom, not about money, nor about
technical advantages.
Freedom to run the software without having to accept some ridiculous EULA.
Freedom to share t
On 9/29/2015 10:33 AM, Reco wrote:
No, you are wrong here. First, you're trying to introduce a false
dichotomy as if 'proprietary' and 'non-free' are different somehow.
Second, 'non-free' is *always* a bad choice.
/"Hear me now, I have seen the light! //
//They have a consciousness, they ha
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 01:22:09PM -0400, Doug wrote:
>
>
> On 09/27/2015 04:12 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> >On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 02:58:20PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> >>On 27/09/2015 13:47, Reco wrote:
> >>>
> >The above is one of the main reasons that many sysadmins prefer to use
> >
On 09/29/2015 02:52 PM, Joe wrote:
/very large snip/
And the other really big difference between the free and non-free
worlds is that writers of free software are (so far, mostly) not under
the impression that they own your computer and are free to do as they
like with your Internet connectio
On 09/29/2015 01:33 PM, Reco wrote:
Hi.
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 01:22:09PM -0400, Doug wrote:
/major snip/
Among programs which are not open and not free are several CAD programs
That's hardly everyone's necessity.
and at least one office suite.
That Chineese one, or M$ on
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:38:33 +0300
Reco wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 07:03:57PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > * And if indeed the basic requirement from a system operator would
> > be "a programmer" then it would suck to be a sysadmin for many.
>
> -1.
>
> Being a sysadmin
On Tuesday 29 September 2015 18:33:41 Reco wrote:
> Confusing 'open-source' with 'free software' is a common mistake.
No, Reco. _You_ are confusing the language. In English English "free
software" measn BOTH "open source" and "costs nothing". He is confusing
nothing, though he certainly didn
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 07:03:57PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> +1
>
> * And if indeed the basic requirement from a system operator would be "a
> programmer" then it would suck to be a sysadmin for many.
-1.
Being a sysadmin requires task automation (among other things), and
that inevitably
Hi.
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 01:22:09PM -0400, Doug wrote:
>
>
> On 09/27/2015 04:12 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:
> >On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 02:58:20PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> >>On 27/09/2015 13:47, Reco wrote:
> >>>
> >The above is one of the main reasons that many sysadmins pref
+1
* And if indeed the basic requirement from a system operator would be "a
programmer" then it would suck to be a sysadmin for many.
Eliezer
On 27/09/2015 20:22, Doug wrote:
There is Linux software that is proprietary and not free. Just because
that's the
case does not make such software a
On 09/27/2015 04:12 PM, Bob Holtzman wrote:
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 02:58:20PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
On 27/09/2015 13:47, Reco wrote:
The above is one of the main reasons that many sysadmins prefer to use
RedHat and Windows despite the fact that both companies cannot always be
awar
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 02:58:20PM +0300, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> On 27/09/2015 13:47, Reco wrote:
> >
> >>>The above is one of the main reasons that many sysadmins prefer to use
> >>>RedHat and Windows despite the fact that both companies cannot always be
> >>>aware of very critical bugs.
> >Oh.
On 27/09/2015 13:47, Reco wrote:
>The above is one of the main reasons that many sysadmins prefer to use
>RedHat and Windows despite the fact that both companies cannot always be
>aware of very critical bugs.
Oh. Now you put the Red Hat Enterprise Linux in the non-free category.
May I ask why
Hi.
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:06:37 +0300
Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> Hey Reco,
>
> I must admit that this is not the first time I was confused as a
> trolling creature.
For the record - I did not 'confuse' you as a troll and did not call
you one. I could not care less about it, actually.
> And
38 matches
Mail list logo
