From: ma...@mohawksoft.com [mailto:ma...@mohawksoft.com]
And you're wrong about sparse files. All of the above support sparse
files.
Yes, with enough work, you can put a V8 in a motorcycle, but that is a
strawman argument. The Mac file system HFS does not support sparse files
For disk
From: ma...@mohawksoft.com [mailto:ma...@mohawksoft.com]
And you're wrong about sparse files. All of the above support sparse
files.
Yes, with enough work, you can put a V8 in a motorcycle, but that is a
strawman argument. The Mac file system HFS does not support sparse files
For disk
ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote:
SSH does not do this on Mac easily. Yes, if you configure the bastardized
X server that you can get for Mac, you might be able to get it to work,
but not with all programs.
XQuartz is genuine X.Org. There's nothing bastardized about it, and all
X11 applications
ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote:
SSH does not do this on Mac easily. Yes, if you configure the
bastardized
X server that you can get for Mac, you might be able to get it to work,
but not with all programs.
XQuartz is genuine X.Org. There's nothing bastardized about it, and all
X11 applications
John Abreau wrote:
Actually, I was paraphrasing, and combining statements across multiple
days, and not in the order that they were posted. As I recall, Richard
responded to claims that MacOS was lacking in several regards, including
QEMU, by claiming that MacOS worked fine, then later backed up
Eric Chadbourne wrote:
I feel the same. As a developer / user I think it protects my
freedoms. Anything I write will always be under the GPL or something
very similar or I won't do it. How many of us have written something
that we can
Point: rights and freedoms are not the same thing. When
Granted, I was paraphrasing from memory. Here are the actual words:
Mark:
The shear number of tools available on Linux is just simply amazing.
Screen, ssh, PAM, qemu, libvirt, virt-manager, X, and yes, I said it,
The X Window Manager.
Richard:
QEMU: OS X doesn't ship with it but it's
John Abreau wrote:
Mark:
Not really supported by the qemu guys. How's the version updates?
Richard:
Dunnow, I don't use it. Never saw the need
While I can't speak for everyone, it sure came across to me that you
dismissed Mark's experience, then acknowledged that you hadn't actually
tried
On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 00:13 -0600, Jack Coats wrote:
Yes, sell hardware, support and installation services, books, classes
is all fine, but they are comparatively 'high touch' sources of income
where the software licensing approach is much 'lower touch' and scales
if you have a product the
On 2/12/2014 6:56 AM, js wrote:
one thing you have not mentioned are any back doors put in proprietary
operating systems by the orders of the US government. while it may not
be relevant to many, it is relevant to some people [and i'm talking
about whistle blowers or human rights activists
Somehow this starts sounding like a bad Tom Cruise movie :)
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Bill Horne b...@horne.net wrote:
On 2/12/2014 6:56 AM, js wrote:
one thing you have not mentioned are any back doors put in proprietary
operating systems by the orders of the US government. while it
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:47:02AM -0500, MBR wrote:
Hi Micky. If you're going to mention Linux and the FSF, it might be
best if you were to call it GNU/Linux rather than Linux and
explain why the FSF (and Stallman in particular) prefers GNU/Linux
to simply Linux. (See What's in a Name?
Or,
Somehow this starts sounding like a bad Tom Cruise movie :)
bad Tom Cruise Movie is a tautology
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Bill Horne b...@horne.net wrote:
On 2/12/2014 6:56 AM, js wrote:
one thing you have not mentioned are any back doors put in proprietary
operating systems by
On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 16:04 -0500, ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote:
bad Tom Cruise Movie is a tautology
You mean tortoligy ;-)
Martin,
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote:
Somehow this starts sounding like a bad Tom Cruise movie :)
bad Tom Cruise Movie is a tautology
There's Risky Business. :)
But seriously, why use Linux as an euphemism for why use Free
Software is a question of philosophy over utility. Free Software often
isn't
I'm going to pick these apart because there's a fair bit of
misinformation here.
ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote:
Linux has a better grep and find.
OS X has BSD's grep and find, etc. Whether BSD or GNU user space tools
are better than the other is a philosophical debate. Worst case,
install
Martin Owens wrote:
What you mean to say is The ideal of short term job being done is more
important to me than my or client freedom or long term growth of
software
No, it isn't, and please stop trying to shove your philosophy in my
mouth, thankyouverymuch.
--
Rich P.
Mike Small sma...@panix.com writes:
Richard Pieri richard.pi...@gmail.com writes:
Apple switched from GCC to LLVM/Clang four or five years ago
specifically because the Free Software folks were dragging their heels
on keeping GCC up to date with emerging C and C++ standards and 64-bit
From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of
In a web environment you should be using Linux, hands down. I'll amplify
this assertion a little bit as well, you should make sure your web service
environment is in a virtual
From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss-
bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of
ma...@mohawksoft.com
Ahh, there in lies the lies that lairs lie about the GPL.
It's not a lie, it's a common misunderstanding. You should tone down your
rhetoric.
ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote:
QEMU and KVM are standard in most main stream Linux distros. This blows
every other system out of the water. In debian, it is merely apt-get
install ... The networking with QEMU and support packages is better than
most proprietary systems on Windows and Mac.
sudo
Hi Micky. If you're going to mention Linux and the FSF, it might be
best if you were to call it GNU/Linux rather than Linux and explain
why the FSF (and Stallman in particular) prefers GNU/Linux to simply
Linux. (See What's in a Name?
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html, Linux and the
ma...@mohawksoft.com wrote:
Tread lightly, being absolutist means you will convince no one and are
merely singing to the choir. If you are fair and balance the facts, give
credit where credit is due, open minded people will hear you.
Yep. I mean, I have two very up-front reasons not to use
A few years back, I wrote an article for O'Reilly about something I'd
noticed starting in the 1980s. Unix (and later Linux) had grown in the
direction of readable (i.e. ASCII) file formats, where MS-DOS had grown
in the direction of unreadable formats. I think this is related to what
you're
On 2/11/2014 7:37 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote:
Trust in the transparency and benevolence of Oracle, Apple, and
Microsoft is a slogan I don't foresee catching on anytime soon.
Actually, I /can/ see it catching on - as a sarcastic slogan promoting
Linux!
Mark
MBR wrote:
that anyway. But if she reads and understands those articles, she'll be
much better prepared to answer questions and carry on knowledgeable
conversations with people who might approach her after her talk.
Just remember that the article in question, like the FSF itself, is
rather
John Abreau wrote:
More precisely, RMS says that he makes no distinction between users and
developers, because developers are also users. He argues that limiting
freedom to only a subset of users is divisive and antithetical to the
concept of freedom.
That's what RMS says. The anti-Tivoization
The GPL has always denied some freedoms to developers, such as the
right to exclusively make money from their work. The anti-TiVo clause
in GPLv3 is an additional constraint, and the rarely seen Affero
license further limits developers. (Basically, the Affero license is
GPLv3 with the additional
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Pieri richard.pi...@gmail.comwrote:
John Abreau wrote:
Freedom only for developers is kind of like a democracy where only
wealthy landowners are allowed to vote.
As if freedom only for users is any better.
Developers are themselves users. Saying
The GPL has always denied some freedoms to developers, such as the
right to exclusively make money from their work.
Ahh, there in lies the lies that lairs lie about the GPL. The GPL does not
deny any developer the right to make money from their work. Lies! It only
denies a developer from using
Huge thanks to everyone that has thought about this and responded.
This is a wealth of information. I am not a newcomer to RMS or FSF
ideologies, I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss any key items
that are relevant to a Drupal crowd or a newcomer to programming. Many
Drupal people have entered
This discussion reminds me of that time a number of years ago when RMS crashed
one of our BLU meetings to make exactly that point: when referring to Linux,
he'd prefer that we call it the GNU/Linux system rather than just Linux.
I've got a long enough history with this that I remember debating
Huge thanks to everyone that has thought about this and responded.
This is a wealth of information. I am not a newcomer to RMS or FSF
ideologies, I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss any key items
that are relevant to a Drupal crowd or a newcomer to programming. Many
Drupal people have
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:38:39 -0500, Richard Pieri wrote:
John Abreau wrote:
Developers are themselves users. Saying that freedom is only for users
is the same as saying freedom is restricted only to everybody. The
The issue isn't the use of the word only. It's the use of the words free
and
Robert Krawitz wrote:
Actually, I'd say that if anything the GPL is weighted toward
users-as-developers -- ensuring that users can be developers
themselves.
At the expense of the original developers.
Try this on for size (this also addresses Mark's point and the other
Mark's failure to read
This is turning into yet another copy of the same old tired argument that
we'll never agree on. One definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the
same thing and expecting different results, and this argument certainly
qualifies as such.
I think it would be best if we drop it at this point.
On
Robert Krawitz wrote:
Depending upon the goals of the original developers. Your arguments
below appear to apply to *any* FOSS license, not the GPL
specifically. With one exception, that I'll discuss at the bottom
(and that exception is *not* the original developers at all).
No, they don't. I
Yes, developers give away some rights if they develop under GPL, but
they have the option to NOT develop for the open community and do
their own closed source efforts.
Many are not willing to do this and go open source. I know several
developers
that bemoan being 'required' to go open source,
Yes, developers give away some rights if they develop under GPL,
This is simply not true. If I develop my software and publish it under the
GPL, I give away NONE of my freedoms.
If I base my software on the work of others, then my work must align
itself with the original project. Its very easy
39 matches
Mail list logo
