Firefox market share bounces back
Malware Magnet
months of decline. Apple Safari is also picking up market share.
By Antone Gonsalves, TechWeb News
Nov. 4, 2005
URL:
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=173500075
The Firefox browser regained some of its heat in October, as its market
share was lifted by the announcement that the open-source browser had
achieved its 100 millionth download, a Web monitoring vendor said Friday.
The browser, developed and marketed by the Mozilla Corp., increased its
average usage share to 8.59 percent from 7.55 percent in September,
NetApplications said. Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer, meanwhile,
dipped slightly to 86.52 percent from 86.87 percent.
Firefox's rise in the market place had stalled over the last three months.
The browser, however, appeared to have benefited from Mozilla's marketing
announcement of 100 million downloads. In the final week in October,
Firefox's market share peaked at 8.65 percent.
The browser, however, has yet to reach its peak for the year, which was an
average 8.71 percent in June, NetApplications said. The browser started
the year at 2.69 percent in January.
By year-end, Mozilla may get another boost for its browser with the
release of Firefox 1.5, which promises improvements to the automated
update system, Web site rendering and performance, as well as several
security and bug fixes.
In other browser news, Apple Computer Inc.'s Safari continued to show
modest, but steady growth. Over the last 12 months, Safari has made gains
each month, reaching 2.56 percent in October. The Mac OS, which ships with
Safari, was up to 3.87 percent usage share in the month, NetApplications
said.
"When the (Apple) iPod's success is combined with Macintosh market share
gains, it appears that Apple is definitely on the right growth path,"
Vince Vizzaccaro, executive vice president of marketing for
NetApplications, said in a statement.
Rounding out the top five browsers were Netscape, which saw its share drop
to 1.26 percent from 2.16 percent in September; and Opera, which was
nearly unchanged at 0.54 percent from 0.51 percent.
NetApplications based its figures on data collected from more than 40,000
Web sites monitored globally by the Aliso Viejo, Calif., company.
The numbers were significantly lower than those of Dutch Web metrics firm
OneStat, which reported this week that Firefox had broken the 10 percent
mark to 11.5 percent usage.
--
Back from the restroom? Better scan your Windows system.
billwg
"Malware Magnet" <mal...@windows.os> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.12.05....@windows.os...
> Firefox regained a full percentage point of market share, after
> several
> months of decline. Apple Safari is also picking up market share.
>
> By Antone Gonsalves, TechWeb News
> Nov. 4, 2005
> URL:
> http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=173500075
>
> The Firefox browser regained some of its heat in October, as its
> market
> share was lifted by the announcement that the open-source browser had
> achieved its 100 millionth download, a Web monitoring vendor said
> Friday.
>
that some 91% of the Firefox users were using it on Windows 2K or WinXP
platforms. That sort of fits the estimates, i.e. if you say that
virtually all linux users and some Windows users use Firefox and Firefox
has an 8-10% share, the numbers MOL agree.
All of which makes one wonder "So What?". I personally see next to no
difference in feature, function, and associated benefits between IE and
Firefox. If you just hate MS and cannot stand them for one more
instant, Firefox may have some beneficial effect on your blood pressure,
but it doesn't affect your wallet or even what information you get or
how it is presented. It doesn't motivate anyone to switch to linux
other than to perhaps remove a blockage due to a perceived linux lack of
any other suitable browser.
What do Firefox proponents hope for?
Linønut
> All of which makes one wonder "So What?". I personally see next to no
> difference in feature, function, and associated benefits between IE and
> Firefox. If you just hate MS and cannot stand them for one more
> instant, Firefox may have some beneficial effect on your blood pressure,
> but it doesn't affect your wallet or even what information you get or
> how it is presented. It doesn't motivate anyone to switch to linux
> other than to perhaps remove a blockage due to a perceived linux lack of
> any other suitable browser.
Linux isn't the issue, really. Software libre is the issue.
> What do Firefox proponents hope for?
Ever-increasing freedom from Microsoft malware.
When someone sees how good a free/Free package is, it makes them perhaps
interested in other free/Free software.
--
I love the smell of code compiling in the morning.
It smells like... Freedom.
Malware Magnet
>
> "Malware Magnet" <mal...@windows.os> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.12.05....@windows.os...
>> Firefox regained a full percentage point of market share, after
>> several
>> months of decline. Apple Safari is also picking up market share.
>>
>> By Antone Gonsalves, TechWeb News
>> Nov. 4, 2005
>> URL:
>> http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=173500075
>>
>> The Firefox browser regained some of its heat in October, as its
>> market
>> share was lifted by the announcement that the open-source browser had
>> achieved its 100 millionth download, a Web monitoring vendor said
>> Friday.
>>
> I saw a statistic from one of our marketing survey vendors that said
> that some 91% of the Firefox users were using it on Windows 2K or WinXP
> platforms. That sort of fits the estimates, i.e. if you say that
> virtually all linux users and some Windows users use Firefox and Firefox
> has an 8-10% share, the numbers MOL agree.
>
> All of which makes one wonder "So What?". I personally see next to no
> difference in feature, function, and associated benefits between IE and
> Firefox.
Really? How long have you benchmarked the two? We run FF and IE both at my
workplace and at home (my wife uses IE.) I personally see a tremendous
difference. She uses IE and does a lot of work on ebay and a few other
online auction sites. At least once a week, IE gets so bogged with temp
files it completely freezes - which of course hangs the entire system.
I invited her to try FF, which she did for about three weeks. It did not
hang once. Ever. But guess what? She went back to using IE just to be
stubborn - she hates it when I'm right.
> If you just hate MS and cannot stand them for one more instant, Firefox
> may have some beneficial effect on your blood pressure, but it doesn't
> affect your wallet or even what information you get or how it is
> presented.
Erm... except IE won't run on my Linux laptop or my workstations, all
of which most certainly *do* favorably impact my wallet.
> It doesn't motivate anyone to switch to linux
That's not Mozilla's mission. They make a great browser and several other
applications that run on any paltform. Thunderbird is huge improvement
over OE in my opinion; and I can integrate encryption/PGP a la carte.
Can't say the same about IE or OE (well, you could but you'd be lying).
> other than to perhaps remove a blockage due to a perceived linux lack of
> any other suitable browser.
The point is that FF is a great browser and runs on Linx, as well as
Windows and Mac. Konqueror, Epiphany, Galleon, are also a good browsers,
but I prefer FF because I feel it offers the best performance - especially
1.5.
>
> What do Firefox proponents hope for?
I can't speak for Firefox proponents - only myself - and I've already
explained my perspective.
B Gruff
> I personally see next to no
> difference in feature, function, and associated benefits between IE and
> Firefox.
No reason not to use it then?
However:-
A Better Web Experience
Firefox 1.5 has an intuitive interface and blocks viruses, spyware, and
popup ads. It delivers Web pages faster than ever. And it’s easy to install
and import your favorites. Packed with useful features like tabbed
browsing, Live Bookmarks, and an integrated Search bar, Firefox will change
the way you experience the Web, for the better.
Faster Browsing
Enjoy quick page loading as you navigate back and forward in a browsing
session. Improvements to the engine that powers Firefox deliver more
accurate display of complex Web sites, support for new Web standards, and
better overall performance.
Automatic Updates
The new Software Update feature makes it easy to get the latest security
and feature updates to Firefox. Firefox automatically downloads these small
updates in the background and prompts you when they are ready to be
installed.
Tabbed Browsing
Use tabbed browsing to open multiple Web pages in a single browser
window, and quickly flip back and forth. Drag and drop open tabs to keep
related pages together.
Improved Pop-up Blocking
Firefox’s built-in pop-up blocker has been enhanced to block more
unwanted pop-up and pop-under ads.
Integrated Search
Tap into the power of the Web’s most popular search engines with the
built-in Search bar, and easily add new engines.
Stronger Security
Firefox keeps you secure when you’re browsing the Web, closing the door
on spyware, worms, and viruses. The Firefox community of developers and
security experts works around the clock to monitor security issues and
release updates to better protect you.
Clear Private Data
Protect your privacy with the new Clear Private Data tool. With a single
click, you can delete all personal data, including browsing history,
cookies, Web form entries and passwords.
Live Bookmarks
Stay up to date with your favorite Web sites and blogs. Use Live
Bookmarks that update themselves automatically with the latest content from
the Web.
Accessibility
Firefox 1.5 delivers easier navigation for everyone, including those who
are visually or motor-impaired. Firefox is the first browser to support
DHTML accessibility, which, when enabled by Web authors, allows rich Web
applications to be read aloud. Users may navigate with keystrokes rather
than mouse clicks, reducing the tabbing required to navigate documents such
as spreadsheets. Firefox 1.5 (Windows version) is also the first browser to
meet US federal government requirements that software be easily accessible
to users with physical impairments.
Customize Firefox
Select new button controls for your toolbars, install extensions to add
new features, or change the look of your browser with themes - the way
Firefox looks and works is under your control.
Next Generation Web Support
Innovative new Web applications and services deliver a richer Web
experience. Support for open Web standards in Firefox ensures you can get
the most out of this emerging class of Web-based tools.
B Gruff
> What do Firefox proponents hope for?
They hope to make Internet Explorer VERY much more secure for you!
They have taken on-board all the FUD that Firefox is only more secure
because it has so little market share. Hence, they/we hope that I.E. is
going to become infinitely more secure than it is now......
billwg
"Malware Magnet" <mal...@windows.os> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.12.05....@windows.os...
>
> at my
> workplace and at home (my wife uses IE.) I personally see a tremendous
> difference. She uses IE and does a lot of work on ebay and a few other
> online auction sites. At least once a week, IE gets so bogged with
> temp
> files it completely freezes - which of course hangs the entire system.
>
seem to do anything any differently than IE. I've never had a problem
with the cached files, but I don't see where FF could do any different.
It either caches or it doesn't and if you set the same size cache, it
will eventually fill up with the same files and behave the same way.
You may have the cache size for IE set to a huge value or something.
Else you have a very small HD.
>
> Erm... except IE won't run on my Linux laptop or my workstations, all
> of which most certainly *do* favorably impact my wallet.
>
But that is an insignificant factor for the rest of the market, mal.
You are the odd man out in this kind of survey.
William Poaster
console, was as follows:
> On Monday 05 December 2005 14:05 billwg wrote:
>
>> I personally see next to no
>> difference in feature, function, and associated benefits between IE and
>> Firefox.
>
> No reason not to use it then?
<snip>
However, Firefox complies more with WaSP standards than IE6 does.
Acid2 is a harsh test of a browser's ability in handling CSS elements, &
poorly written code. http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/
The closer they are in reproducing the reference image:
http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/reference.html the better the
browser is. The best browser I've found to faithfully reproducing the
reference image, is Konqueror 3.5.
And before the wintrolls start claiming things, I've had friends who run
windoze try it with IE6. They say it's so scrambled that without the
reference pic, they wouldn't know what it's supposed to be!
--
Q: What's a linux user?
A: Someone who has seen through the lies of Microsoft......
-- Gordon Burgess-Parker - 24hoursupport.helpdesk --
Linønut
>> Erm... except IE won't run on my Linux laptop or my workstations, all
>> of which most certainly *do* favorably impact my wallet.
>>
> But that is an insignificant factor for the rest of the market, mal.
> You are the odd man out in this kind of survey.
So what? We should succumb to a poorer solution just because it is
currently the most prevalent one?
Erik Funkenbusch
> A Better Web Experience
> Firefox 1.5 has an intuitive interface and blocks viruses, spyware, and
> popup ads.
Firefox is completely incapable of blocking viruses. Not that this is a
fault, no other web browser can either. It also cannot block spyware,
though it can obviously prevent some kinds of spyware that take advantage
of IE specific means or getting users to click the "install me" button. It
can't block spyware you download and run. It can't (without help) block
flash trackers.
IE also provides a popup blocker.
> It delivers Web pages faster than ever. And it’s easy to install
> and import your favorites. Packed with useful features like tabbed
> browsing, Live Bookmarks, and an integrated Search bar, Firefox will change
> the way you experience the Web, for the better.
Unless you don't use any of those things, which, frankly, most people
don't. Even though IE7 is also implementing many of thse features, I'm
skeptical of some of the value of them. The integrated search bar, for
instance, is particularly silly since you can accomplish the same thing in
both browsers via entering search terms in the address bar, and most of the
search engines provide toolbars with added functionality if that's really
what you want.
> Accessibility
> Firefox 1.5 delivers easier navigation for everyone, including those who
> are visually or motor-impaired. Firefox is the first browser to support
> DHTML accessibility, which, when enabled by Web authors, allows rich Web
> applications to be read aloud. Users may navigate with keystrokes rather
> than mouse clicks, reducing the tabbing required to navigate documents such
> as spreadsheets. Firefox 1.5 (Windows version) is also the first browser to
> meet US federal government requirements that software be easily accessible
> to users with physical impairments.
Huh? You can do all those things in IE as well. I really don't
underestand how they can claim to be the first browser to support them.
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:05:03 +0000, a broadcast message from the B Gruff
> console, was as follows:
>
>> On Monday 05 December 2005 14:05 billwg wrote:
>>
>>> I personally see next to no
>>> difference in feature, function, and associated benefits between IE and
>>> Firefox.
>>
>> No reason not to use it then?
> <snip>
>
> However, Firefox complies more with WaSP standards than IE6 does.
> Acid2 is a harsh test of a browser's ability in handling CSS elements, &
> poorly written code. http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/
Funny that you mention that, since Firefox doesn't pass the Acid2 test.
> The closer they are in reproducing the reference image:
> http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/reference.html the better the
> browser is. The best browser I've found to faithfully reproducing the
> reference image, is Konqueror 3.5.
Konqueror used the work done by Apple to improve KHTML, which allows them
to pass it.
> And before the wintrolls start claiming things, I've had friends who run
> windoze try it with IE6. They say it's so scrambled that without the
> reference pic, they wouldn't know what it's supposed to be!
IE6 is nearly 5 years old. You're comparing it to browsers released in the
last few weeks. IE7 also won't likely pass Acid2, but it will certainly be
much closer. They're working very closely with WaSP to achieve standards
compliance, but IE7 isn't going to be anywhere near perfect, but it will be
orders of magnatude of improvement.
What I find fascinating is that the Acid2 test was created by the CTO of
Opera and WaSP, yet opera still doesn't pass it (though it's very close,
much closer than Firefox).
However, Acid2 isn't a full compliance test of CSS and web standards, it
only stresses some very uncommon features.
billwg
"Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
news:T9ydnWELCOA...@comcast.com...
>
> Linux isn't the issue, really. Software libre is the issue.
>
do that is unique is my own. Regardless of whether or not it was built
on top of something else, it is my own creation and, to the extent that
I am clever and others recognize that talent, I should be able to
protect and sell my innovations. If I want to give it away, then I will
do that, but I do not see any real sense of mutally benficial community
in this kind of thing. There are the producers who are driven by the
inventive muses and there are the freeloaders, eager to feast for free.
Bill Gates makes them pay and then gives the money to worthwhile causes.
That is a better system, IMO.
Beowulf Trollshammer
> IE6 is nearly 5 years old. You're comparing it to browsers released in
> the last few weeks.
Well, it's entirely Maggot$oft's fault that we have nothing more recent to
compare OSS browsers with. They thought the browser war was over, disbanded
the IE team and didn't bother to implement modern features. By 2002 IE6 was
already obsolete. If it weren't for Firefox's wild success, IE7 wouldn't even
be in vaporware stage by now.
Beowulf Trollshammer
>
> IE also provides a popup blocker.
>
Only in XP with Service Pack 2. Users of older versions of windoze are left
in the cold.
billwg
>
> So what? We should succumb to a poorer solution just because it is
> currently the most prevalent one?
>
want to use. You like being free, eh? I only point out that you are
not significant. No need for you to be significant, insignificant is
just the state you are in.
billwg
"B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3vj6juF...@individual.net...
> On Monday 05 December 2005 14:05 billwg wrote:
>
>> I personally see next to no
>> difference in feature, function, and associated benefits between IE
>> and
>> Firefox.
>
> No reason not to use it then?
>
LOL!!!
> However:-
>
> A Better Web Experience
> Firefox 1.5 has an intuitive interface and blocks viruses, spyware,
> and
> popup ads. It delivers Web pages faster than ever. And it's easy to
> install
> and import your favorites. Packed with useful features like tabbed
> browsing, Live Bookmarks, and an integrated Search bar, Firefox will
> change
> the way you experience the Web, for the better.
>
Well Firefox's "intutive interface" is obtained by copying IE, which
everyone expects to see, goat! Hardly an advantage, particularly once
MS changes the look and feel! So they look alike, hardly a reason to
change!
> Faster Browsing
> Enjoy quick page loading as you navigate back and forward in a
> browsing
> session. Improvements to the engine that powers Firefox deliver more
> accurate display of complex Web sites, support for new Web standards,
> and
> better overall performance.
>
Faster than Firefox used to be, goat, not faster than IE. Eventually
they will catch up.
> Automatic Updates
> The new Software Update feature makes it easy to get the latest
> security
> and feature updates to Firefox. Firefox automatically downloads these
> small
> updates in the background and prompts you when they are ready to be
> installed.
>
> Tabbed Browsing
> Use tabbed browsing to open multiple Web pages in a single browser
> window, and quickly flip back and forth. Drag and drop open tabs to
> keep
> related pages together.
>
> Improved Pop-up Blocking
> Firefox's built-in pop-up blocker has been enhanced to block more
> unwanted pop-up and pop-under ads.
>
I would like to see it block fewer wanted pop-ups, goat. Things like
date/time pickers for airline ticket reservations.
> Integrated Search
> Tap into the power of the Web's most popular search engines with
> the
> built-in Search bar, and easily add new engines.
>
Well I search somewhat although not as much as Ray! LOL!!! Maybe he
wants a built in search bar taking up screen real estate. I do not,
though, and I would like to get rid of a lot of the "intuition" at the
top of the screen.
> Stronger Security
> Firefox keeps you secure when you're browsing the Web, closing the
> door
> on spyware, worms, and viruses. The Firefox community of developers
> and
> security experts works around the clock to monitor security issues and
> release updates to better protect you.
>
IE folk say the same thing, goat. Who believes what?
> Clear Private Data
> Protect your privacy with the new Clear Private Data tool. With a
> single
> click, you can delete all personal data, including browsing history,
> cookies, Web form entries and passwords.
>
What are you ashamed of anyway? If you are always standing around with
your hands in your pockets, you are not fooling anyone anyhow!
> Live Bookmarks
> Stay up to date with your favorite Web sites and blogs. Use Live
> Bookmarks that update themselves automatically with the latest content
> from
> the Web.
>
Wow! You could keep up with COLA posts from lucky that way! What a
find!
> Accessibility
> Firefox 1.5 delivers easier navigation for everyone, including
> those who
> are visually or motor-impaired. Firefox is the first browser to
> support
> DHTML accessibility, which, when enabled by Web authors, allows rich
> Web
> applications to be read aloud. Users may navigate with keystrokes
> rather
> than mouse clicks, reducing the tabbing required to navigate documents
> such
> as spreadsheets. Firefox 1.5 (Windows version) is also the first
> browser to
> meet US federal government requirements that software be easily
> accessible
> to users with physical impairments.
>
Well I don't have that problem, goat, so it is a questionable value to
me. What is this (Windows version) thing? Are they making more than
one version?
> Customize Firefox
> Select new button controls for your toolbars, install extensions to
> add
> new features, or change the look of your browser with themes - the way
> Firefox looks and works is under your control.
>
Double Wow!
> Next Generation Web Support
> Innovative new Web applications and services deliver a richer Web
> experience. Support for open Web standards in Firefox ensures you can
> get
> the most out of this emerging class of Web-based tools.
>
Pie in the sky, goat, good one!
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> I have a hard time with that, nut! It seems to me that anything that I
> do that is unique is my own. Regardless of whether or not it was built
> on top of something else, it is my own creation and, to the extent that
> I am clever and others recognize that talent, I should be able to
> protect and sell my innovations. If I want to give it away, then I will
> do that, but I do not see any real sense of mutally benficial community
> in this kind of thing. There are the producers who are driven by the
> inventive muses and there are the freeloaders, eager to feast for free.
> Bill Gates makes them pay and then gives the money to worthwhile causes.
> That is a better system, IMO.
So let me get this straight. If you make some minor improvements to
Linux, for example, you feel you should be able to repackage the whole
thing under your own license and sell it?
Do you also feel you should be able make minor changes to Microsoft
Windows and sell it as your own, irregardless of the license your
original copy came with?
Just curious.
Thad
Linønut
> "Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
> news:T9ydnWELCOA...@comcast.com...
>>
>> Linux isn't the issue, really. Software libre is the issue.
>>
> I have a hard time with that, nut!
I'm not surprised.
> It seems to me that anything that I do that is unique is my own.
Not if you do it on work time at your company.
> Regardless of whether or not it was built on top of something else, it
> is my own creation and, to the extent that I am clever and others
> recognize that talent, I should be able to protect and sell my
> innovations.
You should. However, various contracts or licenses that you choose to
follow have different meanings for "protect" and "sell". For example,
by "protect", the GPL means (roughly) "prevent from forbidding others to
use your additions", and by "sell", the GPL means "provide in return for
monetary consideration".
> If I want to give it away, then I will
> do that, but I do not see any real sense of mutally benficial community
> in this kind of thing.
How can you not see it? Free and open-source software has elevated the
ability of a rather large community (consisting of end-users,
developers, and some rather large corporations) to perform computing
tasks.
> There are the producers who are driven by the
> inventive muses and there are the freeloaders, eager to feast for free.
Where the "inventive muses" also give their productions, it is hard to
argue that the receivers are "freeloaders".
> Bill Gates makes them pay and then gives the money to worthwhile causes.
Microsoft takes the largest share of the money. But at least Gates is
now doing some good stuff with his largesse.
> That is a better system, IMO.
Maybe, maybe not. Saving money can be as good as receiving it.
Linønut
> "Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
All individuals users are insignificant. Even individual Windows users.
And, even though Windows users outnumber GNU/Linux users, the latter are
not insignficant. Even in monetary terms.
Ray Ingles
> Well Firefox's "intutive interface" is obtained by copying IE
Uh, well, nope. Firefox has 'innovated' most of its interface. I think
Opera came up with "tabbed browsing" first, but even there Firefox has
improved and extended it; e.g. being able to drag-and-drop rearrange the
tabs to suit the user, and so forth.
I've asked you before, and you never answered:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/4070f5e6b2796799
"... find a feature the Microsoft claims will be available in IE7 that
is not currently available for [Firefox]."
IE is copying its forthcoming features from Firefox. Exactly the
opposite of what you are claiming.
> I would like to see it block fewer wanted pop-ups, goat. Things like
> date/time pickers for airline ticket reservations.
You're really too thick to enable pop-ups for particular sites? Well,
okay...
>> Stronger Security
>>
> IE folk say the same thing, goat. Who believes what?
No one I know. Do you have any hard data, as opposed to unsupported
claims?
>> Clear Private Data
> What are you ashamed of anyway? If you are always standing around with
> your hands in your pockets, you are not fooling anyone anyhow!
I'm not 'ashamed' of my bank account numbers, but I don't want them all
over the web either.
> What is this (Windows version) thing? Are they making more than
> one version?
You may have heard of things like "Linux" and "Macintosh". Then again,
considering your usual 'highly informed' state, I wouldn't count on it.
>> Next Generation Web Support
>>
> Pie in the sky, goat, good one!
Google for "AJAX web" some time. You don't need to use a search toolbar,
though, even MSN search will turn up a few results.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"This is a complex case with serious issues, but in extraordinary
circumstances like this, it is wisest to always err on the side of
life." - George W. Bush re: Terry Schiavo
As governor of Texas, Bush had more executions under his belt than
any in the nation since capital punishment was resumed, and rejected
clemency to a mentally retarded adult with the mentality of a 7 year
old child.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,52285,00.html
Bush ignored "many notorious examples of unfairness in Texas death
penalty cases." - examples at
http://www.commondreams.org/views/061700-102.htm
billwg
>
> All individuals users are insignificant. Even individual Windows
> users.
>
> And, even though Windows users outnumber GNU/Linux users, the latter
> are
> not insignficant. Even in monetary terms.
>
nut! Whereas GNU/Linux users are the smallest group anywhere.
> --
JDS
> Ah, but taken as a group, Windows users are the biggest group around,
> nut! Whereas GNU/Linux users are the smallest group anywhere.
"biggest" meaning what?
--
JDS | jef...@example.invalid
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/
Ray Ingles
>>
> I have a hard time with that, nut! It seems to me that anything that I
> do that is unique is my own. Regardless of whether or not it was built
> on top of something else, it is my own creation and, to the extent that
> I am clever and others recognize that talent, I should be able to
> protect and sell my innovations.
Others choose to protect their innovations by offering them under
license terms that require you to share work you derive from theirs. Who
are you to dictate what license terms they may use? I thought you wanted
people to be able to control the use and distribution of their own work?
You certainly want that right for yourself... why deny it to others?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Microsoft Wheel. Now with 8 sides for a smoother ride."
- The Ghost in the Machine
billwg
"JDS" <jef...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.12.05...@example.invalid...
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:59:17 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
>> Ah, but taken as a group, Windows users are the biggest group around,
>> nut! Whereas GNU/Linux users are the smallest group anywhere.
>
> "biggest" meaning what?
>
Numerically meaning how many individual people are in the group.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrndp964u....@localhost.localdomain...
> On 2005-12-05, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Well Firefox's "intutive interface" is obtained by copying IE
>
> Uh, well, nope. Firefox has 'innovated' most of its interface. I think
> Opera came up with "tabbed browsing" first, but even there Firefox has
> improved and extended it; e.g. being able to drag-and-drop rearrange
> the
> tabs to suit the user, and so forth.
>
side by each and they are absolutely the same in any meaningful respect.
I admit that FF is intutive, but the intuition only extends to making a
copy of IE.
> I've asked you before, and you never answered:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/4070f5e6b2796799
>
> "... find a feature the Microsoft claims will be available in IE7 that
> is not currently available for [Firefox]."
>
Not an issue, Ray. Bill Gates has his billions and he has his users.
The need is for FireFox to get some momentum going again so that they
can climb above the also-ran category. That means that YOU have to show
where FireFox has any compelling feature that can snap the world out of
its preference for IE. When you are the top dog, all you have to do is
meet the competition. Unlike Las Vegas blackjack, ties go to the house
that Bill built.
> IE is copying its forthcoming features from Firefox. Exactly the
> opposite of what you are claiming.
>
>> I would like to see it block fewer wanted pop-ups, goat. Things like
>> date/time pickers for airline ticket reservations.
>
> You're really too thick to enable pop-ups for particular sites? Well,
> okay...
>
Seems like a lot of work, Ray. It is not so hard to whack that mole
popup when it occurs that you can afford to waste a lot of time doing
the planning. Some websites pop up spamish ads when you sign in and it
would be nice to not have to view them. But other websites pop up
helpful windows that expand some topic or allow convenient data entry,
such as the airline reservation pages. Is it easier to bring up a
blocked page or easier to dismiss an unwanted popup. You COLA folk make
far too much discussion on this trivia. Albeit you have little else to
applaud.
>>> Stronger Security
>>>
>> IE folk say the same thing, goat. Who believes what?
>
> No one I know. Do you have any hard data, as opposed to unsupported
> claims?
>
Well, Ray, the Windows crowd goes on and on like the pink bunny, fat,
dumb, and happy with their computers and the COLA folk say "Aren't they
so miserable! Why don't they switch to mobutu or stackware or such? My
Windoze crashes so much!" It's like two parallel universes and you are
the Ghost Whisperer!
>>> Clear Private Data
>
>> What are you ashamed of anyway? If you are always standing around
>> with
>> your hands in your pockets, you are not fooling anyone anyhow!
>
> I'm not 'ashamed' of my bank account numbers, but I don't want them
> all
> over the web either.
>
You stored your bank numbers in your browser history file? Odd.
>> What is this (Windows version) thing? Are they making more than
>> one version?
>
> You may have heard of things like "Linux" and "Macintosh". Then again,
> considering your usual 'highly informed' state, I wouldn't count on
> it.
>
Well the context of the bullet item was that the Windows versions did
the function and others did not. So you are better apparently using
Windows to run Firefox, if you must run it, than some other OS. If you
need the accessibility help, that is.
billwg
<tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> wrote in message
news:dn25db$jre$1...@tux.glaci.com...
> billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>
> So let me get this straight. If you make some minor improvements to
> Linux, for example, you feel you should be able to repackage the whole
> thing under your own license and sell it?
>
> Do you also feel you should be able make minor changes to Microsoft
> Windows and sell it as your own, irregardless of the license your
> original copy came with?
>
> Just curious.
>
thad. I never said that there wasn't. I would sell linux as well as my
extensions to anyone who wanted linux with the extensions. I would do
the same with Windows, i.e. sell my extensions to the person who wanted
them along with Windows if the person didn't already have it. I
wouldn't expect Bill Gates to steal my IP just because it was used with
Windows and I don't thing I should have to give away my IP if it just
extends some linux function. If someone else wants to figure out a way
to do what I do, then let them do that and give it away if they want.
billwg
> After takin' a swig o' grog, billwg belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> "Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
>> news:T9ydnWELCOA...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> Linux isn't the issue, really. Software libre is the issue.
>>>
>> I have a hard time with that, nut!
>
> I'm not surprised.
>
>> It seems to me that anything that I do that is unique is my own.
>
> Not if you do it on work time at your company.
>
>> Regardless of whether or not it was built on top of something else,
>> it
>> is my own creation and, to the extent that I am clever and others
>> recognize that talent, I should be able to protect and sell my
>> innovations.
>
> You should. However, various contracts or licenses that you choose to
> follow have different meanings for "protect" and "sell". For example,
> by "protect", the GPL means (roughly) "prevent from forbidding others
> to
> use your additions", and by "sell", the GPL means "provide in return
> for
> monetary consideration".
>
The GPL offers my invention to others who have no right to it.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
> Others choose to protect their innovations by offering them under
> license terms that require you to share work you derive from theirs.
> Who
> are you to dictate what license terms they may use? I thought you
> wanted
> people to be able to control the use and distribution of their own
> work?
> You certainly want that right for yourself... why deny it to others?
>
my right. Most of the OSS stuff is no more exotic or useful than the
millions of lines of sample code distributed by Microsoft and it is used
in much the same way by people who want to go beyond the ordinary and
produce something that has value in some set of circumstances..
Microsoft distributes their samples with no strings attached to their
customer's ability to keep extensions proprietary. The GPL does not
want to do that.
Linønut
> Now that is just plain ignorance on your part, Ray! I've got both open
> side by each and they are absolutely the same in any meaningful respect.
"Meaningful" as defined by billwg <grin>
Linønut
> "Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
Actually, the smallest group might be Solaris or FreeBSD, or even,
marginally, the Mac.
But it doesn't matter. Windows was once a minority "operating
environment", and it will itself one day succumb to some other
product.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Others choose to protect their innovations by offering them under
> license terms that require you to share work you derive from theirs. Who
> are you to dictate what license terms they may use? I thought you wanted
> people to be able to control the use and distribution of their own work?
> You certainly want that right for yourself... why deny it to others?
That, is the wrong way to look at it. You want compensation for your work
in the form of access to derived work. There's nothing wrong with that,
but it's not what Freedom is about, and it's certainly not what the GPL is
about.
The GPL is a tool, used by the Free Software Foundation in their goal to
bring about the destruction of intellectual property rights. It uses
Intellectual Property Rights to enforce this, which is what makes it such a
unique political agenda. But, make no mistake, it's not about giving you
something for what you've done. It's about making it so that NOBODY can
protect their intellectual property.
The problem the FSF has, is that they can't compel people to give away
source code without intellectual property rights. It's like someone
holding another person at knife point and saying "You're going to be free,
or i'll kill you".
What the FSF wants is unachievable, so they're doing the next best thing
and creating the closest they can get with the very laws it despises.
The Ghost In The Machine
<bi...@twcf.rr.com>
wrote
on Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:44:28 GMT
<ME1lf.11620$6e....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
And therefore, one can draw the following "conclusions".
[1] Standards don't matter; majority rules.
[2] IE is the best because its market share is the biggest.
[3] Microsoft Knows Best.
:-P
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
MS stops developing IE for years, and that's *out* fault?
Agreed that IE6 needs magnitudes of improvement to even begin to compete
with FireFox though.
> What I find fascinating is that the Acid2 test was created by the CTO of
> Opera and WaSP, yet opera still doesn't pass it (though it's very close,
> much closer than Firefox).
>
> However, Acid2 isn't a full compliance test of CSS and web standards, it
> only stresses some very uncommon features.
Uncommon because IE doesn't support them?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDlLGrd90bcYOAWPYRAgKuAKC2OHTKOC2WxA8Lyci50Wi27/CM3QCfSegc
YTdd4IrAB/wWZSoYcolt8mg=
=R0sy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Life imitates art, but does it have to imitate satire?
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
And it's a crappy pop up blocker to boot.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDlLHqd90bcYOAWPYRAqKYAKDqp/RBCqrVBMDnKhatuD7+Yn24xwCghkob
b1Efgu+2l80dDYz80MaE8uw=
=VAo1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Black holes are where God divided by zero".
Cyberwasteland
AAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!
"Irregardless" is *not* a freakin' word!! Just say "regardless" !!
Christ almighty I hate it when people use that word!!
*sigh* ... oh welll....
it's a "mute" point anyhow.
AAARRRGH!! BWWAAHAAHAA!! AAARRRGH!!
Erik Funkenbusch
> MS stops developing IE for years, and that's *out* fault?
No, i'm simply saying that it's not exactly a fair complaint. And
Microsoft *IS* developing IE now. If MS were still doing nothing, you
might have a valid argument, but you've just used an advantage in timing
(that FF and Safari and Konq have all released versions in the last few
weeks) as your basis of argument.
>> What I find fascinating is that the Acid2 test was created by the CTO of
>> Opera and WaSP, yet opera still doesn't pass it (though it's very close,
>> much closer than Firefox).
>>
>> However, Acid2 isn't a full compliance test of CSS and web standards, it
>> only stresses some very uncommon features.
>
> Uncommon because IE doesn't support them?
Actually, large parts of the Acid2 test are invalid HTML and CSS, designed
to prove negative tests.
But, I say "uncommon" because, until Acid2, no browser bothered to support
them, probably because there was little reason to. Acid2 just gave them a
reason.
Cyberwasteland
> You are the odd man out in this kind of survey.
Odd man out with 100 million downloads of FF? When you're wrong, you're
*really* wrong!
We use Firefox here - mostly because if it has any problems - such as a
misconfigured application/file setting (which happened last week) - it
doesn't jam the entire system.
If such a thing happens using IE, it usually jams the entire system.
Linønut
> The GPL offers my invention to others who have no right to it.
No it doesn't. It is *you* who would be choosing to make such an offer,
by choosing the GPL as your license.
Surely the concept of choice is clear to you?
Linønut
> They are polluting the idea by trying to leverage their right to usurp
> my right.
You are the one who can choose whether to accept the GPL or not. If you
don't like its terms, don't get involved with it. Find another project
with the code you like and the licensing terms you like.
Surely this is basic business.
> Most of the OSS stuff is no more exotic or useful than the
> millions of lines of sample code distributed by Microsoft
Wow. Billwg claims that Microsoft sample code compares with code for a
complete operating system, a number of complete office suites,
compilers, window managers, network security suites, mathematical and
plotting packages, web, DNS, file, database, and graphics servers....
Billwg is one nutty fellow!
> Microsoft distributes their samples with no strings attached to their
> customer's ability to keep extensions proprietary.
That is good, but it is a drop in the bucket.
> The GPL does not want to do that.
Obviously. The GPL "wants" everyone to benefit from improvements and
extensions.
Cyberwasteland
> No need for you to be significant, insignificant is just the state you are in.
Insignificant enough for the whole of China to dump Windows altogether
and use Linux as their primary OS. Insigificant enough for Billy G and
his cronies to craft and offer free versions of their software.
Insigificant enough for them to have to modify MSO to accommodate open
standards. Insignificant enough for them to cram "Get the Facts"
campaign propaganda in every cyber-nook and cranny they can find.
Yeah... pretty insigificant.
But don't take it from me. Just look at what is driving the majority of
Web servers around the world. It ain't Windows.
Linønut
> On 5 Dec 2005 15:29:28 -0500, Ray Ingles wrote:
>
>> Others choose to protect their innovations by offering them under
>> license terms that require you to share work you derive from theirs. Who
>> are you to dictate what license terms they may use? I thought you wanted
>> people to be able to control the use and distribution of their own work?
>> You certainly want that right for yourself... why deny it to others?
>
> That, is the wrong way to look at it. You want compensation for your work
> in the form of access to derived work. There's nothing wrong with that,
> but it's not what Freedom is about, and it's certainly not what the GPL is
> about.
You are confusing two freedoms: the freedom to make money, and the
freedom to use and modify software.
You are also, improperly, ignoring that a developer is free to choose to
use GPL software, or not.
If the developer cannot find non-commercial (e.g. Microsoft) software or
unrestricted/gratis (e.g. BSD) software that fits his/her needs,
wouldn't the emphasize the "superiority" of GPL software.
To put it in a "selfish gene" manner: is it true that developer's tend
to avoid "cheaters"?
> The GPL is a tool, used by the Free Software Foundation in their goal to
> bring about the destruction of intellectual property rights.
Whoa, Nelly! You're grossly overgeneralizing.
> It uses
> Intellectual Property Rights to enforce this, which is what makes it such a
> unique political agenda.
No, it does not. It uses one right, copyright.
> But, make no mistake, it's not about giving you
> something for what you've done. It's about making it so that NOBODY can
> protect their intellectual property.
How so? Are you not free to pursue alternative licenses?
> The problem the FSF has, is that they can't compel people to give away
> source code without intellectual property rights.
As experience shows, no compulsion is necessary. Many people give away
their software. And yet they retain their copyright! Think of Qt, for
example!
> It's like someone
> holding another person at knife point and saying "You're going to be free,
> or i'll kill you".
You're analogy is over the top. And, in actuality, you have the freedom
to say, "I don't want to play that."
> What the FSF wants is unachievable, so they're doing the next best thing
> and creating the closest they can get with the very laws it despises.
You have an incredible gall, mischaracterizing the FSF in a manner that
is not only uncharitable, but denigrating, and a lie.
All the FSF wants is a body of code that they and others can maintain,
without code being monopolized by selfish or evil entities.
William Poaster
Richardson console, was as follows:
<snip>
> Uncommon because IE doesn't support them?
Because M$ doesn't recognise *any* standards, & makes it's own?
--
Q: What's a linux user?
A: Someone who has seen through the lies of Microsoft......
-- Gordon Burgess-Parker - 24hoursupport.helpdesk --
William Poaster
Linųnutlinųnut console, was as follows:
<snip>
> Billwg is one nutty fellow!
billwg is an idiot, period.
Cyberwasteland
> The need is for FireFox to get some momentum going again so that they
> can climb above the also-ran category. That means that YOU have to show
> where FireFox has any compelling feature that can snap the world out of
> its preference for IE. When you are the top dog, all you have to do is
> meet the competition. Unlike Las Vegas blackjack, ties go to the house
> that Bill built.
Ahh... good. That's exactly the mindset that got Levi Strauss in so
much trouble - almost bankrupt. Hopefully, Microsoft will only ever
strive for the status quo - and listen to your business strategies.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
> Well I think there is an obligation to pay for the base product too,
> thad. I never said that there wasn't. I would sell linux as well as my
> extensions to anyone who wanted linux with the extensions. I would do
> the same with Windows, i.e. sell my extensions to the person who wanted
> them along with Windows if the person didn't already have it. I
> wouldn't expect Bill Gates to steal my IP just because it was used with
> Windows and I don't thing I should have to give away my IP if it just
> extends some linux function. If someone else wants to figure out a way
> to do what I do, then let them do that and give it away if they want.
OK, that is more clear to me. I would assert, however, that the
*payment* you make for GPL software is agreeing to abide by the
license. That might be too steep for some people... fine, just
choose something else then. This may close off an avenue for
commercial benefit, but it also has the benefit of reducing
fragmentation of the code base and ensuring a free, open, and
ubiquitous platform.
And recall that you can still sell closed source components that
ride on GPL infrastructure, so this opens up a wide field for
commercial innovation. You can even use most open source tools
and libraries to make closed source applications. Linux, Apache,
perl, python, PHP, JBoss, SDL, MySQL, Mesa, ... I've lost count
of the open source components I've used when crafting solutions I
sell to my customers, including solutions that are mass produced
and sold as a bundled product. One client even found it worth
while to modify an open source product and release the changes
back to the community (check out embedded Mesa to see the fruits
of that effort).
Mesa is a good example actually. It was written by an old
college friend of mine. He wrote it while working on his
Master's degree at UW Madison and released it for free. He
is now a founding partner in a company that specializes in
customizing and extending that software. If he had not
released Mesa as open source, it is unlikely it would have
become popular enough to provide that opportunity.
So, yes, there are trade-offs in adopting the GPL and
similar open source licenses, but increasingly developers
are finding it worth while.
Thad
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> The GPL is a tool, used by the Free Software Foundation in their goal to
> bring about the destruction of intellectual property rights. It uses
> Intellectual Property Rights to enforce this, which is what makes it such a
> unique political agenda. But, make no mistake, it's not about giving you
> something for what you've done. It's about making it so that NOBODY can
> protect their intellectual property.
not trying to destroy the concept of Intellectual Property. RMS
is very vocal about NOT supporting 'Open Source' (a term invented
by Eric Raymond) but 'Free Software'. The movement has essentially
moved beyond RMS toward something more compatible with the larger
commercial software industry.
> The problem the FSF has, is that they can't compel people to give away
> source code without intellectual property rights. It's like someone
> holding another person at knife point and saying "You're going to be free,
> or i'll kill you".
Let's not bring the Iraq war into this. >:o
> What the FSF wants is unachievable, so they're doing the next best thing
> and creating the closest they can get with the very laws it despises.
It will be interesting to see what the GPL 3 looks like. If RMS
tries to push something that is overly hostile to commercial
interests, most Open Source proponents might just give it a miss
and stick with GPL 2 or create some other license. The rift between
the Free vs. Open crowd (almost non-existent now) might actually
grow to something substantial.
Either way, the genie is out of the bottle and won't go back
in. Open source is taking over vast swaths of the computing
infrastructure.
Thad
Bob Hauck
<er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:31:23 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> MS stops developing IE for years, and that's *out* fault?
>
> No, i'm simply saying that it's not exactly a fair complaint.
Sure it is. If the most current version of IE is five years old, that
is a disadvantage of IE.
> And Microsoft *IS* developing IE now.
Bully for them. Maybe they'll eventually be competitive again.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| A proud member of the reality-based community.
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Erik Funkenbusch
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 5 Dec 2005 15:29:28 -0500, Ray Ingles wrote:
>>
>>> Others choose to protect their innovations by offering them under
>>> license terms that require you to share work you derive from theirs. Who
>>> are you to dictate what license terms they may use? I thought you wanted
>>> people to be able to control the use and distribution of their own work?
>>> You certainly want that right for yourself... why deny it to others?
>>
>> That, is the wrong way to look at it. You want compensation for your work
>> in the form of access to derived work. There's nothing wrong with that,
>> but it's not what Freedom is about, and it's certainly not what the GPL is
>> about.
>
> You are confusing two freedoms: the freedom to make money, and the
> freedom to use and modify software.
No, I'm not. If anything, Ray was. The GPL makes no distinction about
"making money", although it makes it practically impossible to do so from
the code itself.
> You are also, improperly, ignoring that a developer is free to choose to
> use GPL software, or not.
Yes they are, today. But this is NOT what the FSF's goals are.
> If the developer cannot find non-commercial (e.g. Microsoft) software or
> unrestricted/gratis (e.g. BSD) software that fits his/her needs,
> wouldn't the emphasize the "superiority" of GPL software.
I don't follow. You're saying that just because no software exists in
other licenses, that means the GPL is superior? What about all that
proprietary software that doesn't exist in open source? Does that mean the
proprietary licenses are superior (using your logic)?
> To put it in a "selfish gene" manner: is it true that developer's tend
> to avoid "cheaters"?
You're going to have to explain further. You're not making any sense.
>> The GPL is a tool, used by the Free Software Foundation in their goal to
>> bring about the destruction of intellectual property rights.
>
> Whoa, Nelly! You're grossly overgeneralizing.
No, i'm not. Though I may be over-emphasizing it. My comments ARE what
the FSF's goals are.
>> It uses
>> Intellectual Property Rights to enforce this, which is what makes it such a
>> unique political agenda.
>
> No, it does not. It uses one right, copyright.
You're contradicting yourself. Copyright is included in Intellectual
property rights.
>> But, make no mistake, it's not about giving you
>> something for what you've done. It's about making it so that NOBODY can
>> protect their intellectual property.
>
> How so? Are you not free to pursue alternative licenses?
Yes, because the FSF has not yet had it's way.
>> The problem the FSF has, is that they can't compel people to give away
>> source code without intellectual property rights.
>
> As experience shows, no compulsion is necessary. Many people give away
> their software. And yet they retain their copyright! Think of Qt, for
> example!
You're only looking at the original contributors. The GPL compels those
that derive works from it and distribute their binaries to distribute
source. Many times, this has been unwillingly.
>> It's like someone
>> holding another person at knife point and saying "You're going to be free,
>> or i'll kill you".
>
> You're analogy is over the top. And, in actuality, you have the freedom
> to say, "I don't want to play that."
But not if the FSF gets its way.
>> What the FSF wants is unachievable, so they're doing the next best thing
>> and creating the closest they can get with the very laws it despises.
>
> You have an incredible gall, mischaracterizing the FSF in a manner that
> is not only uncharitable, but denigrating, and a lie.
>
> All the FSF wants is a body of code that they and others can maintain,
> without code being monopolized by selfish or evil entities.
No, the FSF's goal is to disband intellectual property. However, that's
not enough, because disbanding IP won't guarantee that people will publish
their source, it only means they can't sue you for using theirs if you
acquire it (say, by reverse engineering or some other means). What The FSF
wants is to create a world where all software is "Free", and that can only
be achieved by thwarting copyright.
If you don't believe this, you need to read more of the essays on
intellectual property from RMS.
One really only need look no further than the Mission statement of the FSF:
"The Free Software Foundation (FSF), established in 1985, is dedicated to
promoting computer users' rights to use, study, copy, modify, and
redistribute computer programs."
Note that it doesn't say "Free Software", but rather "computer programs".
In other words, ALL computer programs. Of course, you may think i'm
reading too much into it, but let's look further:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/pragmatic.html
"My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading
freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to spread,
replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our
society better."
His goal is to replace proprietary software, and make society "a better
place". Lots of evil has been done in this world in the name of making
society a better place, but let's not go into that.
Unfortunately, the FSF has moved to newer content management software, and
many of the older essays are no longer on their site. There used to be one
detailing the reasons for the creation of copyleft (in more detail than the
current 'why copyleft'). It included his belief that Copyright was bad,
but that it was a necessary evil to avhieve their goals. I've been trying
t remember a unique phrase from the essays I read to do a search on it, but
have been drawing a blank so far (there's way too much stuff out there to
find it with generic terms).
I'm also not the only person that recognizes what the FSF wants to do.
Sun's COO Jonathan Schwartz (Who's a lawyer, BTW) said this:
http://www.computeractive.co.uk/vnunet/news/2127094/sun-slams-predatory-gpl
"The GPL is wrongly used as a way force developers to share their work
because the creators have a hidden agenda of forcing a social model on the
world"
Erik Funkenbusch
wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>
>> The GPL is a tool, used by the Free Software Foundation in their goal to
>> bring about the destruction of intellectual property rights. It uses
>> Intellectual Property Rights to enforce this, which is what makes it such a
>> unique political agenda. But, make no mistake, it's not about giving you
>> something for what you've done. It's about making it so that NOBODY can
>> protect their intellectual property.
>
> Richard Stallman's extremism aside, the open source movement is
> not trying to destroy the concept of Intellectual Property.
I'm aware of that. That's why I explicitly said the FSF.
> RMS
> is very vocal about NOT supporting 'Open Source' (a term invented
> by Eric Raymond) but 'Free Software'. The movement has essentially
> moved beyond RMS toward something more compatible with the larger
> commercial software industry.
Exactly, because he believes Open Source is contrary to his goals. Open
source is pragmatic about the issue, while RMS is an Idealog.
>> The problem the FSF has, is that they can't compel people to give away
>> source code without intellectual property rights. It's like someone
>> holding another person at knife point and saying "You're going to be free,
>> or i'll kill you".
>
> Let's not bring the Iraq war into this. >:o
Lol. Good one.
Linønut
>> You are confusing two freedoms: the freedom to make money, and the
>> freedom to use and modify software.
>
> No, I'm not. If anything, Ray was. The GPL makes no distinction about
> "making money", although it makes it practically impossible to do so from
> the code itself.
Quite a number of companies make some bucks peddling GPL'ed code.
>> You are also, improperly, ignoring that a developer is free to choose to
>> use GPL software, or not.
>
> Yes they are, today. But this is NOT what the FSF's goals are.
Of course. They represent those developers that choose the goals of the
GPL.
>> If the developer cannot find non-commercial (e.g. Microsoft) software or
>> unrestricted/gratis (e.g. BSD) software that fits his/her needs,
>> wouldn't the emphasize the "superiority" of GPL software.
>
> I don't follow. You're saying that just because no software exists in
> other licenses, that means the GPL is superior? What about all that
> proprietary software that doesn't exist in open source? Does that mean the
> proprietary licenses are superior (using your logic)?
I'll back off a little on that one. Reduce it to saying that GPL can
fit the needs of some developers; for them, it is "superior".
>> To put it in a "selfish gene" manner: is it true that developer's tend
>> to avoid "cheaters"?
>
> You're going to have to explain further. You're not making any sense.
I was intending to note that developer's who have used totally
unrestricted licenses may get upset when others take their code and use
it in commercial products without any kind of recompense or exposure,
i.e. "cheating".
>>> The GPL is a tool, used by the Free Software Foundation in their goal to
>>> bring about the destruction of intellectual property rights.
>>
>> Whoa, Nelly! You're grossly overgeneralizing.
>
> No, i'm not. Though I may be over-emphasizing it. My comments ARE what
> the FSF's goals are.
I disagree. The FSF realizes that such a goal is completely
unrealistic. They want, however, some body of code in which
"intellectual property rights" (an unfortunate and diffuse term) are
available to everyone who uses of modifies the code.
Of course, the FSF would like all code to be so available, but they know
that will not happen.
>>> It uses Intellectual Property Rights to enforce this, which is what
>>> makes it such a unique political agenda.
>>
>> No, it does not. It uses one right, copyright.
>
> You're contradicting yourself. Copyright is included in Intellectual
> property rights.
But not vice versa. Big difference.
>
>>> But, make no mistake, it's not about giving you
>>> something for what you've done. It's about making it so that NOBODY can
>>> protect their intellectual property.
>>
>> How so? Are you not free to pursue alternative licenses?
>
> Yes, because the FSF has not yet had it's way.
Let me get this straight. You think that a relative small band of
altruistic developers are, without the cooperation, assistance, and
accord of a large number of other people, going to force their will on
the corporations and users who prefer the selling and buying of software
licenses?
>> As experience shows, no compulsion is necessary. Many people give away
>> their software. And yet they retain their copyright! Think of Qt, for
>> example!
>
> You're only looking at the original contributors. The GPL compels those
> that derive works from it and distribute their binaries to distribute
> source. Many times, this has been unwillingly.
As you so callously remarked in regard to the students who signed up for
Microsoft's "IP" land grab, tough. Read the fine print.
>>> It's like someone
>>> holding another person at knife point and saying "You're going to be free,
>>> or i'll kill you".
>>
>> You're analogy is over the top. And, in actuality, you have the freedom
>> to say, "I don't want to play that."
>
> But not if the FSF gets its way.
The FSF will never "get its way". The "worst" (in your eyes,
apparently) that will happen is that nearly everyone will decide that
the GPL and its enforced community is indeed the best way to ensure
software availability and efficient development and maintenance of code,
document, and services for all to use.
> No, the FSF's goal is to disband intellectual property. However, that's
> not enough, because disbanding IP won't guarantee that people will publish
> their source, it only means they can't sue you for using theirs if you
> acquire it (say, by reverse engineering or some other means). What The FSF
> wants is to create a world where all software is "Free", and that can only
> be achieved by thwarting copyright.
The FSF is not "thwarting" copyright. It is using it. Properly.
> If you don't believe this, you need to read more of the essays on
> intellectual property from RMS.
RMS is not the FSF (though close). The FSF is not the whole GPL
community.
But I have read his book, Free Software, Free Society, and I pretty much
agree with it. And I don't believe he thinks he can achieve a total
world of Free software, even though he may believe it desirable.
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/pragmatic.html
>
> "My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading
> freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to spread,
> replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our
> society better."
>
> His goal is to replace proprietary software, and make society "a better
> place".
>
> Unfortunately, the FSF has moved to newer content management software, and
> many of the older essays are no longer on their site. There used to be one
> detailing the reasons for the creation of copyleft (in more detail than the
> current 'why copyleft'). It included his belief that Copyright was bad,
> but that it was a necessary evil to avhieve their goals. I've been trying
> t remember a unique phrase from the essays I read to do a search on it, but
> have been drawing a blank so far (there's way too much stuff out there to
> find it with generic terms).
>
> I'm also not the only person that recognizes what the FSF wants to do.
> Sun's COO Jonathan Schwartz (Who's a lawyer, BTW) said this:
>
> http://www.computeractive.co.uk/vnunet/news/2127094/sun-slams-predatory-gpl
>
> "The GPL is wrongly used as a way force developers to share their work
> because the creators have a hidden agenda of forcing a social model on the
> world"
Even if true, so what? We've already got a "me first, fuck you"
commercial model being rammed so far down our throats it has become a
social model itself.
Linønut
> Exactly, because he believes Open Source is contrary to his goals. Open
> source is pragmatic about the issue, while RMS is an Idealog.
RMS is the pragmatic one. He knows what is need to achieve the goal of
keeping a body of software packages freely available for community use.
I will grant you that he is extreme in his devotion to the cause. I
certainly would not have his energy and will power.
billwg
> After takin' a swig o' grog, billwg belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> They are polluting the idea by trying to leverage their right to
>> usurp
>> my right.
>
> You are the one who can choose whether to accept the GPL or not. If
> you
> don't like its terms, don't get involved with it. Find another
> project
> with the code you like and the licensing terms you like.
>
> Surely this is basic business.
>
of software. That is the same attitude that you say is monopolistic on
the part of Microsoft, too.
>> Most of the OSS stuff is no more exotic or useful than the
>> millions of lines of sample code distributed by Microsoft
>
> Wow. Billwg claims that Microsoft sample code compares with code for
> a
> complete operating system, a number of complete office suites,
> compilers, window managers, network security suites, mathematical and
> plotting packages, web, DNS, file, database, and graphics servers....
>
> Billwg is one nutty fellow!
>
I'll even go out on a limb and say that the sample stuff is superior
since it is a lot more up to date, nut. When you need to learn about a
new area, where do you go? Source forge? LOL!!!
One hardly ever has any need for a complete operating system or even a
complete office suite upon which to base an application. Even
compilers. These are clumsy tools that an impoverished wannabe can use
instead of the real stuff to get along in computer program developement,
nut, but I bet that you don't use them yourself, given that you claimed
to be a commercial developer. What do you really use?
>> Microsoft distributes their samples with no strings attached to their
>> customer's ability to keep extensions proprietary.
>
> That is good, but it is a drop in the bucket.
>
>> The GPL does not want to do that.
>
> Obviously. The GPL "wants" everyone to benefit from improvements and
> extensions.
>
I think it more likely that the GPL wants to prevent anyone from getting
filthy rich from a hit program, nut. I distinctly get that impression.
billwg
If personal computers go away and are replaced by some aggregation of
telephones, music players, video players, and calculators. I think that
if the package remains in its classic form, i.e. integrated keyboard,
monitor, and central unit, MS Windows will continue to dominate the
operating system platform field.
billwg
> After takin' a swig o' grog, billwg belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Now that is just plain ignorance on your part, Ray! I've got both
>> open
>> side by each and they are absolutely the same in any meaningful
>> respect.
>
> "Meaningful" as defined by billwg <grin>
>
billwg
"Cyberwasteland" <brain...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133825624....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ahh... good. That's exactly the mindset that got Levi Strauss in so
> much trouble - almost bankrupt. Hopefully, Microsoft will only ever
> strive for the status quo - and listen to your business strategies.
>
dead actually. But what has that to do with Microsoft?
billwg
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:4hoe63-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
the truth.
1. It would seem to me that the most common presentations are the
standards or at least are the expectations of the majority. Standards
describe what has happened and never lead the market.
2. People have accepted it by the largest margin, ghost. There is no
argument other than the lame claims that the people were massively duped
or are massively stupid or totally without taste or the variations on
that theme that the COLA choir chants on occasion.
3. You would have to admit that Microsoft knows better than most about
personal computer software in general. There is a very strong
possibility that they do know best, since they are certainly in the top
10 and a strong candidate to boot.
billwg
> AAAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!
> "Irregardless" is *not* a freakin' word!! Just say "regardless" !!
> Christ almighty I hate it when people use that word!!
> *sigh* ... oh welll....
> it's a "mute" point anyhow.
> AAARRRGH!! BWWAAHAAHAA!! AAARRRGH!!
>
"moot"?
Linønut
> Sure it is, nut, and it is the reason why most companies avoid this kind
> of software.
You're talking about companies such as Hewlett-Packard, SGI, IBM,
AutoZone, Novell, Daimler-Chrysler, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange,
Google, I take it?
> That is the same attitude that you say is monopolistic on
> the part of Microsoft, too.
No comparison. At all.
>> Billwg is one nutty fellow!
>>
> I'll even go out on a limb and say that the sample stuff is superior
> since it is a lot more up to date, nut.
Yeah, you went out on a limb, and it broke on you.
> When you need to learn about a
> new area, where do you go? Source forge? LOL!!!
No. I go to openoffice.org, firefox.com, gnu.org, gnome.org, kde.org,
intel.com,
What I find incredible is that you seem to believe your petty and
erroneous disparagement have any merit whatsoever, even as devices of
ridicule.
Some of the ideas you have about Free software and open source are so
outdated as to be worthy of ridicule.
> One hardly ever has any need for a complete operating system or even a
> complete office suite upon which to base an application. Even
> compilers. These are clumsy tools that an impoverished wannabe can use
> instead of the real stuff to get along in computer program developement,
> nut, but I bet that you don't use them yourself, given that you claimed
> to be a commercial developer. What do you really use?
For work, our official products are Visual Studio .NET (but we don't use
the .NET stuff, and I make sure the libraries also compile with gcc),
Qt (you know, the open-source product, free for non-commercial use, but
we pay $1300/seat for it), MS SQL/Server with ODBC, and Borland C++
Builder.
But, if it were up to me, I'd go with gtk+, gcc/g++, mysql (our database
needs aren't heavy), and makefiles.
However, billwg, even if my work forced me to use nothing but MS
products, it would not support your argument one wit. The work-universe
is much larger than you or I.
>> Obviously. The GPL "wants" everyone to benefit from improvements and
>> extensions.
>>
> I think it more likely that the GPL wants to prevent anyone from getting
> filthy rich from a hit program, nut. I distinctly get that impression.
You're very impressionable. That's why you hew to Microsoft marketing.
Linønut
> If personal computers go away and are replaced by some aggregation of
> telephones, music players, video players, and calculators. I think that
> if the package remains in its classic form, i.e. integrated keyboard,
> monitor, and central unit, MS Windows will continue to dominate the
> operating system platform field.
Nah. I've even heard one pundit state the belief that, ultimately,
Windows will be given away free.
In any case, Windows may, in some venues, dominate in numbers. But it
doesn't dominate in tech specs. The vast majority of Windows OS
installs are simply consumer desktop products, hardly a market where
technical excellence carries the day.
Linønut
> "Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
> news:_8SdnT0cCb4HLwne...@comcast.com...
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, billwg belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Now that is just plain ignorance on your part, Ray! I've got both
>>> open side by each and they are absolutely the same in any meaningful
>>> respect.
>>
>> "Meaningful" as defined by billwg <grin>
>>
> Well where do they differ, nut? And why is that meaningful?
Too many ways to bother with. I'll settle for the two I like the best:
o Firefox is, overall, safer to use
o Firefox comes with source code
A third one that Microsoft is currently working to copy: tabs.
Linønut
> 1. It would seem to me that the most common presentations are the
> standards or at least are the expectations of the majority. Standards
> describe what has happened and never lead the market.
Then why is the Internet standard the most popular open-access network
out there? What happened to MSN's original vision?
> 2. People have accepted it by the largest margin, ghost. There is no
> argument other than the lame claims that the people were massively duped
> or are massively stupid or totally without taste or the variations on
> that theme that the COLA choir chants on occasion.
No, you've missed it completely, billwg. You forgot that the choice of
OS's has, since the late 1980's, been hidden from consumers.
> 3. You would have to admit that Microsoft knows better than most about
> personal computer software in general.
Not really.
> There is a very strong
> possibility that they do know best, since they are certainly in the top
> 10 and a strong candidate to boot.
Meaningless drivel.
Mark Kent
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com <tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> espoused:
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>
>> The GPL is a tool, used by the Free Software Foundation in their goal to
>> bring about the destruction of intellectual property rights. It uses
>> Intellectual Property Rights to enforce this, which is what makes it such a
>> unique political agenda. But, make no mistake, it's not about giving you
>> something for what you've done. It's about making it so that NOBODY can
>> protect their intellectual property.
>
> Richard Stallman's extremism aside,
Richard Stallman is /not/ an extremist. He is taking a particular
position on freedom. As RMS himself says, you should avoid using the
term Intellectual Property, as another of our regular off-topic posters
above is using it, as it's meaningless. Either you mean patent law or
you mean copyright law - it's very important to be specific about it.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Spouse, n.:
Someone who'll stand by you through all the trouble you
wouldn't have had if you'd stayed single.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 16:33:34 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:31:23 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> MS stops developing IE for years, and that's *out* fault?
>
> No, i'm simply saying that it's not exactly a fair complaint. And
> Microsoft *IS* developing IE now. If MS were still doing nothing, you
> might have a valid argument, but you've just used an advantage in timing
> (that FF and Safari and Konq have all released versions in the last few
> weeks) as your basis of argument.
>
Of course it's a fair complaint! IE6 is the latest available from MS,
when IE7 is released, it will be fair to compare it then.
The fact that MS doesn't develop as fast as the OSS projects is part of
MS's problem. We have to compare to XP SP@ for example, because for
desktops, that's as new as it gets from MS.
>>> What I find fascinating is that the Acid2 test was created by the CTO of
>>> Opera and WaSP, yet opera still doesn't pass it (though it's very close,
>>> much closer than Firefox).
>>>
>>> However, Acid2 isn't a full compliance test of CSS and web standards, it
>>> only stresses some very uncommon features.
>>
>> Uncommon because IE doesn't support them?
>
> Actually, large parts of the Acid2 test are invalid HTML and CSS, designed
> to prove negative tests.
>
> But, I say "uncommon" because, until Acid2, no browser bothered to support
> them, probably because there was little reason to. Acid2 just gave them a
> reason.
as I said, "uncommon because IE doesn't support them"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDlWd0d90bcYOAWPYRArckAKC+hrF6nmCGDaCmklN2vw/NmU+AxACfekJi
gvEC9B/XbwYAG9TuhjLwoQU=
=1exV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
The reason the Irish are always fighting each other
is they have no other worthy opponents.
billwg
> After takin' a swig o' grog, billwg belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Sure it is, nut, and it is the reason why most companies avoid this
>> kind
>> of software.
>
> You're talking about companies such as Hewlett-Packard, SGI, IBM,
> AutoZone, Novell, Daimler-Chrysler, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange,
> Google, I take it?
>
will agree, but the issue was in using GPL code as a starting for
continued product development. I don't think any of them do that.
>> That is the same attitude that you say is monopolistic on
>> the part of Microsoft, too.
>
> No comparison. At all.
>
Well, MS basically said to the OEM, "Hey, use Windows the way we created
it or use something else!" And they were found to have a monopoly.
Stallman says "Hey, use the GPL the way I wrote it or use something
else!". How is that any different? I think you are biased, nut!
>>> Billwg is one nutty fellow!
>>>
>> I'll even go out on a limb and say that the sample stuff is superior
>> since it is a lot more up to date, nut.
>
> Yeah, you went out on a limb, and it broke on you.
>
Easy for you to *say*, nut, but much more difficult to demonstrate.
>> When you need to learn about a
>> new area, where do you go? Source forge? LOL!!!
>
> No. I go to openoffice.org, firefox.com, gnu.org, gnome.org, kde.org,
> intel.com,
>
> What I find incredible is that you seem to believe your petty and
> erroneous disparagement have any merit whatsoever, even as devices of
> ridicule.
>
> Some of the ideas you have about Free software and open source are so
> outdated as to be worthy of ridicule.
>
Well consider that what I want to do is come up with a new application
that does something beyond the ordinary and might appeal to a limited
audience who could profit from its use. Is that a reasonable goal.
Because I am going to provide my target customer with valuable
assistance in making his own processes more efficient, I expect to be
rewarded and substantially so for my brilliance. My target customer is
not the starving masses in Zambesia or such, it is a rich manufacturing
corporation such as Lockheed-Martin and they will make millions by using
my programs.
So I want to lock up my programs so that my customer must pay me for
each "seat" or such using my inventions. How do I do that if my
invention is an extension of some GPL program? Say I need some basic
PNG image processing to achieve my goal. What would I use?
I cannot use a GPL base and place any restriction on the part that I
added, I have to use the same terms as the basis program that I am
modifying. Well, tell Richard Stallman to sit on his thumb and whistle
Dixie. I will use the CImage class from Microsoft and add some of the
suggested extensions from the samples and then I will add my own special
understanding and wrap it all up in a product that I will sell with
whatever terms I can get to benefit myself.
Contributing to the welfare of Lockheed-Martin by giving away your IP is
stupid, IMO. Giving it away to IBM, RHAT, NOVL, or any other company
that profits from the proliferation of linux, including Linus himself
now that he charges to use the name, is equally stupid.
BTW, I think that "ridicule" is overused in your post, nut! I would
substitute "laughable" in the second instance. Just a suggestion.
>> One hardly ever has any need for a complete operating system or even
>> a
>> complete office suite upon which to base an application. Even
>> compilers. These are clumsy tools that an impoverished wannabe can
>> use
>> instead of the real stuff to get along in computer program
>> developement,
>> nut, but I bet that you don't use them yourself, given that you
>> claimed
>> to be a commercial developer. What do you really use?
>
> For work, our official products are Visual Studio .NET (but we don't
> use
> the .NET stuff, and I make sure the libraries also compile with gcc),
> Qt (you know, the open-source product, free for non-commercial use,
> but
> we pay $1300/seat for it), MS SQL/Server with ODBC, and Borland C++
> Builder.
>
Seems kind of helter-skelter to me, nut. You are saying that you buy
VS.NET, Qt, and Borland for each developer? That seems incredibly
screwed up to me. Does your company make any money? What basic
industry are you involved with?
> But, if it were up to me, I'd go with gtk+, gcc/g++, mysql (our
> database
> needs aren't heavy), and makefiles.
>
LOL!!!
> However, billwg, even if my work forced me to use nothing but MS
> products, it would not support your argument one wit. The
> work-universe
> is much larger than you or I.
>
Well the point was to find out what people who do this for money, i.e.
the pros, use. I think they use VS.NET if they are making Windows
compatible programs. You seem to be doing that, too, but you throw in
all these other names as a diversion.
>>> Obviously. The GPL "wants" everyone to benefit from improvements
>>> and
>>> extensions.
>>>
>> I think it more likely that the GPL wants to prevent anyone from
>> getting
>> filthy rich from a hit program, nut. I distinctly get that
>> impression.
>
> You're very impressionable. That's why you hew to Microsoft
> marketing.
>
I think you are misusing the term, nut.
billwg
> After takin' a swig o' grog, billwg belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> 1. It would seem to me that the most common presentations are the
>> standards or at least are the expectations of the majority.
>> Standards
>> describe what has happened and never lead the market.
>
> Then why is the Internet standard the most popular open-access network
> out there? What happened to MSN's original vision?
>
status quo after the maturity of the function. I don't know that MSN
had an original vision other than to mimic AOL, but whatever it was is
long past.
>> 2. People have accepted it by the largest margin, ghost. There is
>> no
>> argument other than the lame claims that the people were massively
>> duped
>> or are massively stupid or totally without taste or the variations on
>> that theme that the COLA choir chants on occasion.
>
> No, you've missed it completely, billwg. You forgot that the choice
> of
> OS's has, since the late 1980's, been hidden from consumers.
>
Not from you COLA clowns, nut, you all brag about your perceptions that
lead you to linux! How is it that you have the superior intellects?
LOL!!!
>> 3. You would have to admit that Microsoft knows better than most
>> about
>> personal computer software in general.
>
> Not really.
>
>> There is a very strong
>> possibility that they do know best, since they are certainly in the
>> top
>> 10 and a strong candidate to boot.
>
> Meaningless drivel.
>
You are in denial, nut. If not Microsoft, then who is it. This is a
finite universe, so someone has to be best.
Ray Ingles
>
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrndp98kh....@localhost.localdomain...
>>
>> Who are you to dictate what license terms they may use? I thought you
>> wanted people to be able to control the use and distribution of their
>> own work? You certainly want that right for yourself... why deny it
>> to others?
>>
> my right.
Polluting what idea specificially?
> Most of the OSS stuff is no more exotic or useful than the
> millions of lines of sample code distributed by Microsoft
Not in my experience, but let's assume, for the moment, that that's
true. If that's the case, then it's not particularly valuable and you
don't really need it, right? The people who are releasing the code are
just charging too much for it in your not so humble opinion, right?
> and it is used in much the same way by people who want to go beyond
> the ordinary and produce something that has value in some set of
> circumstances..
Hmm. This is interesting. "The OSS stuff" is trivial, but it's *also*
"used... to go beyond the ordinary and produce something that has
value". Kind of a contradiction there, especially since the stuff that
"has value" is also covered by the GPL, too. So there must be stuff
under the GPL that has value.
> Microsoft distributes their samples with no strings attached to their
> customer's ability to keep extensions proprietary. The GPL does not
> want to do that.
Yup, people who use the GPL for their code are saying, "Here, feel free
to learn from this code. You can also use it in your own projects if you
agree to release the code you base on this under the GPL, too." No one
is forcing you to take them up on the offer if you don't like it, but
you're still free to study and learn from it.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The Nevada Supreme Court has said police may plant tracking
devices on or underneath people's cars without a search
warrant." - http://www.politechbot.com/p-03452.html
billwg
>> Well where do they differ, nut? And why is that meaningful?
>
> Too many ways to bother with. I'll settle for the two I like the
> best:
>
> o Firefox is, overall, safer to use
>
> o Firefox comes with source code
>
violation?
But we were talking about "intuitive operation" and whether or not the
GUI was copied from IE. How is this relevant?
billwg
> After takin' a swig o' grog, billwg belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> If personal computers go away and are replaced by some aggregation of
>> telephones, music players, video players, and calculators. I think
>> that
>> if the package remains in its classic form, i.e. integrated keyboard,
>> monitor, and central unit, MS Windows will continue to dominate the
>> operating system platform field.
>
> Nah. I've even heard one pundit state the belief that, ultimately,
> Windows will be given away free.
>
technicians, even? No. They are English Lit majors who could not get a
job with a major newspaper or magazine company and have so descended to
writing about things that people who pay for printed media are not
interested in knowing. They are wannabe writers in the same vein as the
wannabe developers who haunt Source Forge.
> In any case, Windows may, in some venues, dominate in numbers. But it
> doesn't dominate in tech specs. The vast majority of Windows OS
> installs are simply consumer desktop products, hardly a market where
> technical excellence carries the day.
>
Correct, nut! Familiarity is a lot more important in that market than
technical spec domination. It is like newspapers and books of poetry.
In the newspaper business, news is more important than literary style,
but vice-versa for books of poetry.
Ray Ingles
> Standards describe what has happened and never lead the market.
False. For simple, real-world examples, look at AA batteries and
railroad gauges and phillips-head screws and electrical sockets.
Standards allow interoperation and multiple vendors and all the other
good things we associate with modern capitalism.
Standards allow things like the Internet to exist. Note that most of
the Internet standards, or RFCs, were proposed and documented long
before they became common and popular. Indeed, you can find many RFCs
that are unused or superseded. Far from codifying existing practice,
the standards *led* (and lead) the development of the Internet.
> 2. People have accepted it by the largest margin, ghost.
Because at the time it was the least expensive option and came
preinstalled. That's "accepting" but it sure isn't "selecting". Of
course, Microsoft mucked with the protocols and ignored the standard
ways of doing things to encourage lock-in, too.
> 3. You would have to admit that Microsoft knows better than most about
> personal computer software in general.
I would say they knew best about creating a monopoly. That's about as
far as I would go.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Microsoft Windows - A mistake carried out to perfection.
Jatinderpal-ram Vishnuraman
> does it mean your gay if you toss off?
Ray Ingles
> Now that is just plain ignorance on your part, Ray! I've got both open
> side by each and they are absolutely the same in any meaningful respect.
That's because IE was based on Mosaic, the first widespread web
browser, and both it and Firefox have inherited from it. But Firefox has
developed it much, much further.
>> "... find a feature the Microsoft claims will be available in IE7 that
>> is not currently available for [Firefox]."
>>
> Not an issue, Ray. Bill Gates has his billions and he has his users.
Yeah, who cares about customer service at that point, right? You must
be fun to buy from.
> The need is for FireFox to get some momentum going again so that they
> can climb above the also-ran category.
If you think Firefox doesn't have 'momentum', you really need to get
out more.
> That means that YOU have to show where FireFox has any compelling
> feature that can snap the world out of its preference for IE.
Everything IE has plus better security. And more and more people are
noticing, and switching. Up to 10% now. IE's lost 15% of its share in
the last couple of years. But you don't see any trends from that, I
know.
>> You're really too thick to enable pop-ups for particular sites? Well,
>> okay...
>>
> Seems like a lot of work, Ray. It is not so hard to whack that mole
> popup when it occurs
And Bill derides Unix people for doing things the 'old, slow, manual
way'... :->
>> No one I know. Do you have any hard data, as opposed to unsupported
>> claims?
>>
> Well, Ray, the Windows crowd goes on and on like the pink bunny, fat,
> dumb, and happy with their computers and the COLA folk say "Aren't they
> so miserable! Why don't they switch to mobutu or stackware or such? My
> Windoze crashes so much!" It's like two parallel universes and you are
> the Ghost Whisperer!
So, yeah, no actual data. Thought so. (Knew so, really.)
>> I'm not 'ashamed' of my bank account numbers, but I don't want them
>> all over the web either.
>>
> You stored your bank numbers in your browser history file? Odd.
You've never done internet banking? You don't accept any cookies at
all? Boy, you really *do* like doing things by hand...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in
times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too
extravagant to endure." - Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall
Ray Ingles
> since it is a lot more up to date, nut. When you need to learn about a
> new area, where do you go? Source forge? LOL!!!
That's where I went when I wanted a GPL SHA-1 implementation. I could
search by license. Worked, too.
> I think it more likely that the GPL wants to prevent anyone from getting
> filthy rich from a hit program, nut. I distinctly get that impression.
Your opinions, and their value, have been noted before.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The computing industry is given 12 months to deploy a technology
that does not exist and whose sole purpose is to protect profits.
The car industry was allowed decades to deploy safety features such
as seat belts and air bags that were designed to save lives."
- Zeinfeld, on the SSSCA, a proposed law that would mandate all
computers to prevent any file copying whatsoever unless explicitly
approved by the entertainment conglomerates
Ray Ingles
>> AutoZone, Novell, Daimler-Chrysler, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange,
>> Google, I take it?
>>
> These companies may use linux instead of unix for their server needs, I
> will agree, but the issue was in using GPL code as a starting for
> continued product development. I don't think any of them do that.
Google doesn't use Linux for their products? Are you really trying to
claim that?
> Well, MS basically said to the OEM, "Hey, use Windows the way we created
> it or use something else!" And they were found to have a monopoly.
> Stallman says "Hey, use the GPL the way I wrote it or use something
> else!". How is that any different? I think you are biased, nut!
No, Stallman (and others using the GPL for their code) say, "Here, take
this code and change it however you like, you don't need to keep it the
way we created it. If you use it as a basis for your code, though,
you'll need to share it with others like we did. Of course, you can
study and learn from it, and even reimplement it without any strings at
all."
> Well consider that what I want to do is come up with a new application
> that does something beyond the ordinary and might appeal to a limited
> audience who could profit from its use. Is that a reasonable goal.
Sure, just about any program does that.
> Because I am going to provide my target customer with valuable
> assistance in making his own processes more efficient, I expect to be
> rewarded and substantially so for my brilliance.
Well, no brilliance is so far in evidence from you, but I suppose
miracles happen sometimes.
> My target customer is
> not the starving masses in Zambesia or such, it is a rich manufacturing
> corporation such as Lockheed-Martin and they will make millions by using
> my programs.
If they are, in fact, *your* programs, then bully for you.
> So I want to lock up my programs so that my customer must pay me for
> each "seat" or such using my inventions. How do I do that if my
> invention is an extension of some GPL program?
Well, you can't. Of course, no one's forcing you to use code licensed
under the GPL as the basis for your brilliant program, either, you know.
> Say I need some basic
> PNG image processing to achieve my goal. What would I use?
You could study a GPL PNG library and reimplement it, and be free and
clear. Go for it.
Or, you could 'substantially reward' some commercial programmer for
*their* brilliance and license some commercial PNG code. Why don't you?
This is the business model you profess to love, why not stick to it? Or
is it just that you want something for nothing?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
On July 4, 1951, the Madison, Wisconsin Capital-Times circulated
a petition composed entirely of quotes from the Bill of Rights
and the Declaration of Independence. Thanks to the Red Scare,
only one person out of 112 signed it; some called the FBI to
investigate the 'subversive' petition.
- http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=1108
Linønut
> "Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
> news:VNOdne0pEKH6kQje...@comcast.com...
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, billwg belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Sure it is, nut, and it is the reason why most companies avoid this
>>> kind
>>> of software.
>>
>> You're talking about companies such as Hewlett-Packard, SGI, IBM,
>> AutoZone, Novell, Daimler-Chrysler, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange,
>> Google, I take it?
>>
> These companies may use linux instead of unix for their server needs, I
> will agree, but the issue was in using GPL code as a starting for
> continued product development. I don't think any of them do that.
I'll bet they all do. I know IBM, Novell, and maybe HP do. I know
Google does it internally, and I'll ther rest do, too, internally.
> Well, MS basically said to the OEM, "Hey, use Windows the way we created
> it or use something else!" And they were found to have a monopoly.
> Stallman says "Hey, use the GPL the way I wrote it or use something
> else!". How is that any different? I think you are biased, nut!
I dub thee "Dr. Pangloss".
> So I want to lock up my programs so that my customer must pay me for
> each "seat" or such using my inventions. How do I do that if my
> invention is an extension of some GPL program? Say I need some basic
> PNG image processing to achieve my goal. What would I use?
As I've said, the GPL is not about marketing or riches. It is about
sharing code.
No likee? Don't usee? And, if you don't usee, don't complain. It was
your choice.
> Well the point was to find out what people who do this for money, i.e.
> the pros, use. I think they use VS.NET if they are making Windows
> compatible programs. You seem to be doing that, too, but you throw in
> all these other names as a diversion.
You are easily diverted. You need more focus to your arguments.
You also need to open up your eyes to the world of development tools
beyond Microsoft, if you want to argue effectively here.
Linønut
> "Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Then why is the Internet standard the most popular open-access network
>> out there? What happened to MSN's original vision?
>>
> Because it is what evolved, silly. Exactly my point.
No. You say a standard describes something old. I say a standard is a
platform for new things. TCP/IP and the internet are my evidence.
> Not from you COLA clowns, nut, you all brag about your perceptions that
> lead you to linux! How is it that you have the superior intellects?
> LOL!!!
Don't be silly.
>> Meaningless drivel.
>>
> You are in denial, nut. If not Microsoft, then who is it. This is a
> finite universe, so someone has to be best.
More meaningless drivel.
Linønut
>> Nah. I've even heard one pundit state the belief that, ultimately,
>> Windows will be given away free.
>>
> Well consider their origins, nut! Are they engineers? No. Are they
> technicians, even? No. They are English Lit majors who could not get a
> job with a major newspaper or magazine company and have so descended to
> writing about things that people who pay for printed media are not
> interested in knowing. They are wannabe writers in the same vein as the
> wannabe developers who haunt Source Forge.
You mean like Robert Cringely?
>> In any case, Windows may, in some venues, dominate in numbers. But it
>> doesn't dominate in tech specs. The vast majority of Windows OS
>> installs are simply consumer desktop products, hardly a market where
>> technical excellence carries the day.
>>
> Correct, nut! Familiarity is a lot more important in that market than
> technical spec domination. It is like newspapers and books of poetry.
> In the newspaper business, news is more important than literary style,
> but vice-versa for books of poetry.
Thanks for agreeing with me for a change.
Linønut
> "Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
> news:VNOdne8pEKFNkAje...@comcast.com...
>>> Well where do they differ, nut? And why is that meaningful?
>>
>> Too many ways to bother with. I'll settle for the two I like the
>> best:
>>
>> o Firefox is, overall, safer to use
>>
>> o Firefox comes with source code
>>
> I installed Firefox and I have no source code anywhere. Is that a GPL
> violation?
No. Go get the code if you want it. Same site.
> But we were talking about "intuitive operation" and whether or not the
> GUI was copied from IE. How is this relevant?
Unless you elaborate, I see no substantive question here to answer.
chrisv
>(snip claptrap)
You should reduce the verbosity of your claptrap, if you expect
anyone to bother reading it, troll.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> Well, MS basically said to the OEM, "Hey, use Windows the way we
>> created
>> it or use something else!" And they were found to have a monopoly.
>> Stallman says "Hey, use the GPL the way I wrote it or use something
>> else!". How is that any different? I think you are biased, nut!
>
> No, Stallman (and others using the GPL for their code) say, "Here,
> take
> this code and change it however you like, you don't need to keep it
> the
> way we created it. If you use it as a basis for your code, though,
> you'll need to share it with others like we did. Of course, you can
> study and learn from it, and even reimplement it without any strings
> at
> all."
>
Exactly, Ray! Where do you come up with the initial "No,"?
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrndpbbq5....@localhost.localdomain...
>
>> application
>> that does something beyond the ordinary and might appeal to a limited
>> audience who could profit from its use. Is that a reasonable goal.
>
> Sure, just about any program does that.
>
>> Because I am going to provide my target customer with valuable
>> assistance in making his own processes more efficient, I expect to be
>> rewarded and substantially so for my brilliance.
>
> Well, no brilliance is so far in evidence from you, but I suppose
> miracles happen sometimes.
>
but I'm not here for that! LOL!!!
>> My target customer is
>> not the starving masses in Zambesia or such, it is a rich
>> manufacturing
>> corporation such as Lockheed-Martin and they will make millions by
>> using
>> my programs.
>
> If they are, in fact, *your* programs, then bully for you.
>
>> So I want to lock up my programs so that my customer must pay me for
>> each "seat" or such using my inventions. How do I do that if my
>> invention is an extension of some GPL program?
>
> Well, you can't. Of course, no one's forcing you to use code licensed
> under the GPL as the basis for your brilliant program, either, you
> know.
>
>> Say I need some basic
>> PNG image processing to achieve my goal. What would I use?
>
> You could study a GPL PNG library and reimplement it, and be free and
> clear. Go for it.
>
> Or, you could 'substantially reward' some commercial programmer for
> *their* brilliance and license some commercial PNG code. Why don't
> you?
> This is the business model you profess to love, why not stick to it?
> Or
> is it just that you want something for nothing?
>
The only commercial PNG code that I am aware of is the MS stuff, Ray.
It does the job and it's free to use inside your own program without
having to pay anyone anything or disclose anything to anyone. It is
much more free than the GPL crap and a lot better packaged, wouldn't you
agree?
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Richard Stallman is /not/ an extremist. He is taking a particular
> position on freedom. As RMS himself says, you should avoid using the
> term Intellectual Property, as another of our regular off-topic posters
> above is using it, as it's meaningless. Either you mean patent law or
> you mean copyright law - it's very important to be specific about it.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate RMS's accomplishments and share many
of his views. But when you plot out viewpoints on copyright and the
like, you end up with a continuum with Microsoft on one side, Richard
on the other, and most of Open Source community distributed somewhere
in the middle. By that definition, both RMS and MS have 'extreme'
views.
As for the term 'intellectual property', it is commonly agreed that
it encompasses patent, copyright, and trademark law... the major
body of law that regulates the use of human created intangibles.
I know many people hate the use of the term 'property' when referring
to intangibles, but there is a thread that connects them. Property
is something you can own. Ownership is defined as the right to
control the use of something. When we grant someone a patent,
copyright, or trademark, we are granting a right of control... hence
the tendency to think of those intangibles as 'property'.
I am not defending the status quo here. The copyright duration is
too long, the DMCA has to go, and the patent system is a mess beyond
description. But the term 'intellectual property' exists and words
trend to mean what people think they mean... you are better off
fighting the laws than the language. You are right, though, in
that people often confuse copyright and patent law (which are
very different)... I think they often use the IP term out of laziness,
not knowing which laws really apply.
I find it interesting when people express such certainty about
'intellectual property' and what is the one 'right way' to handle
it. Recall that the very concept of property (tangible or not) is
an artificial construct. It exists only because we all agree that
it exists. Any definition of 'property' will only be valid if
society as a whole accepts it.
The RIAA seems to think that just about everyone, given the chance,
will 'pirate' music rather than buy it. But if almost everyone
feels they have the right to share music, then shouldn't the
copyright laws change to reflect that? It is not as if factories
will shut down and farmers will stop planting if a few record
labels go under. Why are we passing draconian laws that do not
reflect the will of the public? (don't answer that, I'm being
rhetorical) And in reality, loosening of copyright restrictions
will not spell the death of the content industry, it will just
change. Prices will drop (but so will distribution cost),
equilibrium will be reached, and life will go on with a continuing
supply of music, movies, etc. The same holds true in the
software industry.
Later,
Thad
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrndpbbq5....@localhost.localdomain...
>>> You're talking about companies such as Hewlett-Packard, SGI, IBM,
>>> AutoZone, Novell, Daimler-Chrysler, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange,
>>> Google, I take it?
>>>
>> These companies may use linux instead of unix for their server needs,
>> I
>> will agree, but the issue was in using GPL code as a starting for
>> continued product development. I don't think any of them do that.
>
> Google doesn't use Linux for their products? Are you really trying to
> claim that?
>
of linux code, Ray. Do you see that as different?
Erik Funkenbusch
> Of course, the FSF would like all code to be so available, but they know
> that will not happen.
I see. To take an extreme example, if your interests were served by a
group that was intent on doing something evil (note, i'm not saying the FSF
wants to do evil, i'm just using an extreme example), but you knew that
they could never achieve those goals, would you still support them?
That's called "situational ethics".
If you support the FSF, yet you don't believe in their goal of making it
impossible to protect your rights as an author (for the good of the
community), then you're simply piggybacking on them to get your own
intersts satisfied.
>> Yes, because the FSF has not yet had it's way.
>
> Let me get this straight. You think that a relative small band of
> altruistic developers are, without the cooperation, assistance, and
> accord of a large number of other people, going to force their will on
> the corporations and users who prefer the selling and buying of software
> licenses?
No, I think the FSF, through deception and misrepresentation can do a lot
of damage to intellectual property rights, and make it very difficult ot
make a living.
>>> As experience shows, no compulsion is necessary. Many people give away
>>> their software. And yet they retain their copyright! Think of Qt, for
>>> example!
>>
>> You're only looking at the original contributors. The GPL compels those
>> that derive works from it and distribute their binaries to distribute
>> source. Many times, this has been unwillingly.
>
> As you so callously remarked in regard to the students who signed up for
> Microsoft's "IP" land grab, tough. Read the fine print.
Look carefully at this exchange. It happens all the time. Someone like
yourself says "no compulsion is necessary", to which I provide examples of
how it is, to which you then say 'but you don't need to use it'. That's
beside the point and doesn't address the original statement.
>>> You're analogy is over the top. And, in actuality, you have the freedom
>>> to say, "I don't want to play that."
>>
>> But not if the FSF gets its way.
>
> The FSF will never "get its way". The "worst" (in your eyes,
> apparently) that will happen is that nearly everyone will decide that
> the GPL and its enforced community is indeed the best way to ensure
> software availability and efficient development and maintenance of code,
> document, and services for all to use.
I find that the open source model, while vastly cheaper, produces software
at a far slower rate than commercial software. Commercial software, by its
nature, produces software that people will pay for, ie what the end users
want. open source models produce software that the DEVELOPERS want.
Occasionally those intersts insect, but more often than not, they don't.
By turning the world into a forced "Free Software" environment, you create
an environment where users don't get what they want.
>> No, the FSF's goal is to disband intellectual property. However, that's
>> not enough, because disbanding IP won't guarantee that people will publish
>> their source, it only means they can't sue you for using theirs if you
>> acquire it (say, by reverse engineering or some other means). What The FSF
>> wants is to create a world where all software is "Free", and that can only
>> be achieved by thwarting copyright.
>
> The FSF is not "thwarting" copyright. It is using it. Properly.
Because they have no other choice at this point in time.
>> If you don't believe this, you need to read more of the essays on
>> intellectual property from RMS.
>
> RMS is not the FSF (though close). The FSF is not the whole GPL
> community.
RMS created the FSF, and thus it's goals.
> But I have read his book, Free Software, Free Society, and I pretty much
> agree with it. And I don't believe he thinks he can achieve a total
> world of Free software, even though he may believe it desirable.
RMS is very good at writing things which get people motivated to help him
achieve his goals, but it's only seldomly that he seems to let his real
intent out. He's hooked you by pandering to your intersts, just like any
politician would, regardless of his true goals.
>> I'm also not the only person that recognizes what the FSF wants to do.
>> Sun's COO Jonathan Schwartz (Who's a lawyer, BTW) said this:
>>
>> http://www.computeractive.co.uk/vnunet/news/2127094/sun-slams-predatory-gpl
>>
>> "The GPL is wrongly used as a way force developers to share their work
>> because the creators have a hidden agenda of forcing a social model on the
>> world"
>
> Even if true, so what? We've already got a "me first, fuck you"
> commercial model being rammed so far down our throats it has become a
> social model itself.
While I disagree that it's a social model, I do agree that things have to
change. I just don't agree that the GPL is the right answer.
The Ghost In The Machine
<bi...@twcf.rr.com>
wrote
on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:13:07 GMT
<T%glf.17505$8d....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
>
> "Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
> news:VNOdne4pEKEVkwje...@comcast.com...
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, billwg belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> 1. It would seem to me that the most common presentations are the
>>> standards or at least are the expectations of the majority.
>>> Standards
>>> describe what has happened and never lead the market.
>>
>> Then why is the Internet standard the most popular open-access network
>> out there? What happened to MSN's original vision?
>>
> Because it is what evolved, silly. Exactly my point. It describes the
> status quo after the maturity of the function. I don't know that MSN
> had an original vision other than to mimic AOL, but whatever it was is
> long past.
Probe a little deeper and one might find some interesting quirks.
For starters...whatever happened to Microsoft IPX? Or NetBEUI?
I wish I could be more specific but someone did say at some point
that the Web should be driven by Visual Basic.
>
>>> 2. People have accepted it by the largest margin, ghost. There is
>>> no
>>> argument other than the lame claims that the people were massively
>>> duped
>>> or are massively stupid or totally without taste or the variations on
>>> that theme that the COLA choir chants on occasion.
>>
>> No, you've missed it completely, billwg. You forgot that the choice
>> of OS's has, since the late 1980's, been hidden from consumers.
>>
> Not from you COLA clowns, nut, you all brag about your perceptions that
> lead you to linux! How is it that you have the superior intellects?
> LOL!!!
The choice of OS is a complicated one, and largely irrelevant, as
long as it fulfills the contracts required by application programs.
Yes, contracts. OS in a modern-day distribution is a
series of procedure calls, or perhaps object-oriented
method calls. These calls promise something. (This isn't
all that different from a classical OS, except perhaps
for the mechanism: CALL/JSR versus INT. One other difference
is that the user-level program can't look behind the barricade,
if INT calls are used in conjunction with a 286-era kernel design.
The 386 brought 32-bit flat address spaces...and Linux was born.)
>
>>> 3. You would have to admit that Microsoft knows better than most
>>> about
>>> personal computer software in general.
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>>> There is a very strong
>>> possibility that they do know best, since they are certainly in the
>>> top
>>> 10 and a strong candidate to boot.
>>
>> Meaningless drivel.
>>
> You are in denial, nut. If not Microsoft, then who is it. This is a
> finite universe, so someone has to be best.
>
It depends on the metric used.
The Amiga was best -- and it's for all intents and purposes
dead, though there are hints it's being used in casino
gaming (a reasonable fit).
BeOS was a shining star, if a small one, for multimedia -- and it
is now effectively dead as well.
OS/2 was an excellent choice for many -- and *it* is now dead,
killed by IBM (though it was admittedly moribund anyway, which
is a bit of a pity; I'm hoping IBM can resurrect the Shell in
some form of freeware).
QNX is arguably best at realtime development -- and few have ever
heard of it, outside of those knowledgable about such things.
(Me, I know *of* it, but haven't used it.)
The 68000 was best but came too late to the party; we're
mostly using 80x86 derivatives now, though they're far more
capable than the 4.77 MHz 8-bit data bus 1 MB-capable chip
installed in the original IBM PC.
Microsoft is definitely the best when it comes to making
money for operating system software. That does not
necessarily equate to making the best operating system
software.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Linønut
> The only commercial PNG code that I am aware of is the MS stuff, Ray.
How com MS isn't using it in their own browser, then?
And you obviously never heard of Lead Tools or Accusoft.
> It does the job and it's free to use inside your own program without
> having to pay anyone anything or disclose anything to anyone.
Post a link to its license.
> It is much more free than the GPL crap and a lot better packaged,
> wouldn't you agree?
Are you saying you have access to the "MS PNG" source code?
If not, then you are using a library or a DLL. Many OSS libraries are
covered under the weaker LGPL, and you can use them without disclosing
your source. (There are exceptions, though, readline being one of
them).
As far as being crap, that's merely your opinion. Frankly, I think it
is simply sour grapes on your part.
And yet again with the "packaging". Are you feigning ignorance?
Linønut
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:48:25 -0600, Linųnut wrote:
>
>> Of course, the FSF would like all code to be so available, but they know
>> that will not happen.
>
> I see. To take an extreme example, if your interests were served by a
> group that was intent on doing something evil (note, i'm not saying the FSF
> wants to do evil, i'm just using an extreme example), but you knew that
> they could never achieve those goals, would you still support them?
No. Because there's a difference between doing evil and doing good.
> That's called "situational ethics".
All ethics is situational.
> If you support the FSF, yet you don't believe in their goal of making it
> impossible to protect your rights as an author (for the good of the
> community),
You are a real genius at slipping in an incorrect and erroneous
assertion inside your sentences.
Does Microsoft have a class or a certification in that? Are you an MVF
(Most Valuable FUDster)?
> then you're simply piggybacking on them to get your own
> intersts satisfied.
Nah. I believe in what the FSF states, which, by the way, may well not
go as far as RMS's internal beliefs go.
> No, I think the FSF, through deception and misrepresentation can do a lot
> of damage to intellectual property rights, and make it very difficult ot
> make a living.
So you do fear Free software!
> I find that the open source model, while vastly cheaper, produces software
> at a far slower rate than commercial software.
<guffaw>
> Commercial software, by its
> nature, produces software that people will pay for, ie what the end users
> want. open source models produce software that the DEVELOPERS want.
> Occasionally those intersts insect, but more often than not, they don't.
The whole GNOME desktop puts the lie to that statement.
> By turning the world into a forced "Free Software" environment, you create
> an environment where users don't get what they want.
Bulllllllllllll
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhit!
>> The FSF is not "thwarting" copyright. It is using it. Properly.
>
> Because they have no other choice at this point in time.
So what? Although you try to say "I'm not saying the FSF is evil", you
also seem to be saying that "They'd be evil if they could."
> RMS is very good at writing things which get people motivated to help him
> achieve his goals, but it's only seldomly that he seems to let his real
> intent out. He's hooked you by pandering to your intersts, just like any
> politician would, regardless of his true goals.
I do not believe your characterization of him, at all.
> I just don't agree that the GPL is the right answer.
It is working well for a lot of people.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> I see. To take an extreme example, if your interests were served by a
>> group that was intent on doing something evil (note, i'm not saying the FSF
>> wants to do evil, i'm just using an extreme example), but you knew that
>> they could never achieve those goals, would you still support them?
>
> No. Because there's a difference between doing evil and doing good.
While I don't believe the FSF is doing evil, I don't think they're doing
good.
>> That's called "situational ethics".
>
> All ethics is situational.
Then they're not ethics. The whole point of ethics is that situations
don't influence you to do things outside your belief.
>> If you support the FSF, yet you don't believe in their goal of making it
>> impossible to protect your rights as an author (for the good of the
>> community),
>
> You are a real genius at slipping in an incorrect and erroneous
> assertion inside your sentences.
>
> Does Microsoft have a class or a certification in that? Are you an MVF
> (Most Valuable FUDster)?
In the FSF's "utopian" world, all software is community software that
nobody owns, nor can they restrict.
>> then you're simply piggybacking on them to get your own
>> intersts satisfied.
>
> Nah. I believe in what the FSF states, which, by the way, may well not
> go as far as RMS's internal beliefs go.
Hmm.. so you believe that RMS will actually divorce himself from his
beliefs.
>> No, I think the FSF, through deception and misrepresentation can do a lot
>> of damage to intellectual property rights, and make it very difficult ot
>> make a living.
>
> So you do fear Free software!
Not at all. You seem to have a knack of confusing Free software with the
FSF's agenda.
>> I find that the open source model, while vastly cheaper, produces software
>> at a far slower rate than commercial software.
>
> <guffaw>
>
>> Commercial software, by its
>> nature, produces software that people will pay for, ie what the end users
>> want. open source models produce software that the DEVELOPERS want.
>> Occasionally those intersts insect, but more often than not, they don't.
>
> The whole GNOME desktop puts the lie to that statement.
The Gnome desktop sucks for the average user. It's difficult to use and
configure, not very featureful, and is artificually limited by the FSF's
insistance on using only Free components.
Even KDE, which I consider to be a kludgey mess, is far superior to gnome
feature wise.
>> By turning the world into a forced "Free Software" environment, you create
>> an environment where users don't get what they want.
>
> Bulllllllllllll
> shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhit!
Users PAY for what they want. Users also don't want to pay for the cost of
developing what the want, because doing so is very expensive. They are
willing to pay a portion of the cost, but Free software has very few ways
to accomplish that goal.
>>> The FSF is not "thwarting" copyright. It is using it. Properly.
>>
>> Because they have no other choice at this point in time.
>
> So what? Although you try to say "I'm not saying the FSF is evil", you
> also seem to be saying that "They'd be evil if they could."
No, I just don't compare thwarting intellectual property rights to being
evil. Put some perspective into your views.
JDS
> 1. It would seem to me that the most common presentations are the
> standards or at least are the expectations of the majority. Standards
> describe what has happened and never lead the market.
>
> 2. People have accepted it by the largest margin, ghost. There is no
> argument other than the lame claims that the people were massively duped
> or are massively stupid or totally without taste or the variations on
> that theme that the COLA choir chants on occasion.
>
> 3. You would have to admit that Microsoft knows better than most about
> personal computer software in general. There is a very strong
> possibility that they do know best, since they are certainly in the top
> 10 and a strong candidate to boot.
You are so full of shit. And your logic is faulty. And history has shown
your statements to be false.
"people", for the most part, at least when it comes to computers, *are*
stupid, tasteless, and other variations on that theme.
MS does not "know" better than most about pc software in general. They
are better at marketing, strongarm tactics, and using market share to
their advantage than usual. But do they make the best PC Software?
Hardly. Of course, they don't really "make" too much of their software,
and never have.
Mind you, I don't have any real issues with MS Windows as an OS. (Except
that I hate using it but that is personal preference and I understand
that). I *do* have issues with the way MS handles itself in the
marketplace.
--
JDS | jef...@example.invalid
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/
JDS
> You are in denial, nut. If not Microsoft, then who is it. This is a
> finite universe, so someone has to be best.
You are retarded. What (or who) is the best
car?
deity?
facial tissue?
rock guitarist?
basketball player? (bad example -- obviously MJ! :)
tasting fruit?
flavor of ice cream?
Even in a finite universe, such things as perceptions affect "the best".
Why are you even here if you like MS Windows so much? I mean, what I don't
get, what I really don't get, is why MS lovers even post at *all* to COLA!
*Linux* *Advocacy*! Duh!!!
Now turn off your computer, 12 year old, you mother is calling you.
JDS
> I love the smell of code compiling in the morning. It smells like... Freedom.
Wow, I just noticed your sig. My Geekometer is about to explode.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2005-12-06, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> Standards describe what has happened and never lead the market.
>
> False. For simple, real-world examples, look at AA batteries and
> railroad gauges and phillips-head screws and electrical sockets.
> Standards allow interoperation and multiple vendors and all the other
> good things we associate with modern capitalism.
>
things were first sold?
>> 2. People have accepted it by the largest margin, ghost.
>
> Because at the time it was the least expensive option and came
> preinstalled. That's "accepting" but it sure isn't "selecting". Of
> course, Microsoft mucked with the protocols and ignored the standard
> ways of doing things to encourage lock-in, too.
>
Same thing, Ray. The DOJ spent a year and some just stating over and
over that people would not buy a computer without Windows installed so
that constituted a monopoly. Now if that is just "accepting" you are
correct, but it seems to me that by refusing to buy unless the
"acceptable" OS is present is a very strong form of "selection".
>> 3. You would have to admit that Microsoft knows better than most
>> about
>> personal computer software in general.
>
> I would say they knew best about creating a monopoly. That's about as
> far as I would go.
>
Well they go hand in glove, eh? Lotus knew a lot about spreadsheets and
about how to create a monopoly, too, with 123. WordPerfect knew a lot
also about word processors and how to be the big dog. Then along came
Bill, who apparently knew even more!
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>
>> Now that is just plain ignorance on your part, Ray! I've got both
>> open
>> side by each and they are absolutely the same in any meaningful
>> respect.
>
> That's because IE was based on Mosaic, the first widespread web
> browser, and both it and Firefox have inherited from it. But Firefox
> has
> developed it much, much further.
>
projects do with other commercial innovations.
>>> "... find a feature the Microsoft claims will be available in IE7
>>> that
>>> is not currently available for [Firefox]."
>>>
>> Not an issue, Ray. Bill Gates has his billions and he has his users.
>
> Yeah, who cares about customer service at that point, right? You must
> be fun to buy from.
>
Well, to keep his users, Bill takes care of their needs, eh? No reason
to switch, so they don't switch.
>> The need is for FireFox to get some momentum going again so that they
>> can climb above the also-ran category.
>
> If you think Firefox doesn't have 'momentum', you really need to get
> out more.
>
No, you need to understand momentum. If you have none at all, a 10%
acceptance may look like a lot, but if you saw where 9 out of 10 doctors
agree - OSS blows chunks! You would understand how 90% is a lot better.
>> That means that YOU have to show where FireFox has any compelling
>> feature that can snap the world out of its preference for IE.
>
> Everything IE has plus better security. And more and more people are
> noticing, and switching. Up to 10% now. IE's lost 15% of its share in
> the last couple of years. But you don't see any trends from that, I
> know.
>
These studies don't show that, IIRC, Ray.
>>> You're really too thick to enable pop-ups for particular sites?
>>> Well,
>>> okay...
>>>
>> Seems like a lot of work, Ray. It is not so hard to whack that mole
>> popup when it occurs
>
> And Bill derides Unix people for doing things the 'old, slow, manual
> way'... :->
>
Well, Ray, you act like that is the end of the story, but popups are not
so terrible and IE has been blocking them for quite a while as well.
>>> No one I know. Do you have any hard data, as opposed to unsupported
>>> claims?
>>>
>> Well, Ray, the Windows crowd goes on and on like the pink bunny, fat,
>> dumb, and happy with their computers and the COLA folk say "Aren't
>> they
>> so miserable! Why don't they switch to mobutu or stackware or such?
>> My
>> Windoze crashes so much!" It's like two parallel universes and you
>> are
>> the Ghost Whisperer!
>
> So, yeah, no actual data. Thought so. (Knew so, really.)
>
>>> I'm not 'ashamed' of my bank account numbers, but I don't want them
>>> all over the web either.
>>>
>> You stored your bank numbers in your browser history file? Odd.
>
> You've never done internet banking? You don't accept any cookies at
> all? Boy, you really *do* like doing things by hand...
>
I use Quicken. No browser necessary.
Linønut
> In the FSF's "utopian" world, all software is community software that
> nobody owns, nor can they restrict.
That would indeed be a utopia. A true level playing field for the mind.
> Hmm.. so you believe that RMS will actually divorce himself from his
> beliefs.
No. He seems to have always been a thoughtful, careful person who
cogitates long and hard about a situation, and then acts solely based on
his analysis.
> Not at all. You seem to have a knack of confusing Free software with the
> FSF's agenda.
GPL==Free in my book.
>> The whole GNOME desktop puts the lie to that statement.
>
> The Gnome desktop sucks for the average user. It's difficult to use and
> configure, not very featureful, and is artificually limited by the FSF's
> insistance on using only Free components.
I see you couldn't resist adding your obligatory quota of bullshit.
> Even KDE, which I consider to be a kludgey mess, is far superior to gnome
> feature wise.
I doubt it. But I really don't use them to full advantage. Fluxbox
does all I need.
>> So what? Although you try to say "I'm not saying the FSF is evil", you
>> also seem to be saying that "They'd be evil if they could."
>
> No, I just don't compare thwarting intellectual property rights to being
> evil. Put some perspective into your views.
Pfffft.
Mark Kent
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com <tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com> espoused:
> Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Richard Stallman is /not/ an extremist. He is taking a particular
>> position on freedom. As RMS himself says, you should avoid using the
>> term Intellectual Property, as another of our regular off-topic posters
>> above is using it, as it's meaningless. Either you mean patent law or
>> you mean copyright law - it's very important to be specific about it.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I appreciate RMS's accomplishments and share many
> of his views. But when you plot out viewpoints on copyright and the
> like, you end up with a continuum with Microsoft on one side, Richard
> on the other, and most of Open Source community distributed somewhere
> in the middle. By that definition, both RMS and MS have 'extreme'
> views.
Well, you could define any scale you liked and get the result you want,
I suppose, so using your definition, you're right. I don't think that
MS are in reality anywhere near as vehement or extreme on this as the
Pop and Film industries, though.
>
> As for the term 'intellectual property', it is commonly agreed that
> it encompasses patent, copyright, and trademark law... the major
> body of law that regulates the use of human created intangibles.
> I know many people hate the use of the term 'property' when referring
> to intangibles, but there is a thread that connects them. Property
> is something you can own. Ownership is defined as the right to
> control the use of something. When we grant someone a patent,
> copyright, or trademark, we are granting a right of control... hence
> the tendency to think of those intangibles as 'property'.
Whilst that argument appears sound at first blush, in reality, intangibles
cannot be property, because intangibles are abstracts, like ideas, and
property is something with, amongst other things, some fairly firm legal
definitions (otherwise theft would be hard to nail down). Here's how I
see it:
Patent is about providing a monopoly on an idea for a limited period,
copyright is providing protection for an implementation of something for
it's full period of existence, and a trademark provides protection for a
name. Copyright is used for things which are tangible, and can be
reproduced in some way, like a book or film. Patent is a monopoly on an
idea of some kind for a period, with the original intention that the
costs of development of that idea, whatever it might be, could be
recuperated. This worked quite well until the US began granting
software patents, then it all fell apart into a total mess.
>
> I am not defending the status quo here. The copyright duration is
> too long, the DMCA has to go, and the patent system is a mess beyond
> description. But the term 'intellectual property' exists and words
> trend to mean what people think they mean... you are better off
> fighting the laws than the language. You are right, though, in
> that people often confuse copyright and patent law (which are
> very different)... I think they often use the IP term out of laziness,
> not knowing which laws really apply.
Or possibly not caring, for that matter... I suspect it often serves
people well to leave these items ill-defined, however.
>
> I find it interesting when people express such certainty about
> 'intellectual property' and what is the one 'right way' to handle
> it. Recall that the very concept of property (tangible or not) is
> an artificial construct. It exists only because we all agree that
> it exists.
Which is kind of my problem with it!
> Any definition of 'property' will only be valid if
> society as a whole accepts it.
True.
>
> The RIAA seems to think that just about everyone, given the chance,
> will 'pirate' music rather than buy it. But if almost everyone
> feels they have the right to share music, then shouldn't the
> copyright laws change to reflect that? It is not as if factories
> will shut down and farmers will stop planting if a few record
> labels go under. Why are we passing draconian laws that do not
> reflect the will of the public? (don't answer that, I'm being
> rhetorical) And in reality, loosening of copyright restrictions
> will not spell the death of the content industry, it will just
> change. Prices will drop (but so will distribution cost),
> equilibrium will be reached, and life will go on with a continuing
> supply of music, movies, etc. The same holds true in the
> software industry.
As was said elsewhere, it probably suits the record industry to take
this position, because they get to re-sell the same material many times
over to their victims. Sorry, customers...
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Spouse, n.:
Someone who'll stand by you through all the trouble you
wouldn't have had if you'd stayed single.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> Well, you could define any scale you liked and get the result you want,
> I suppose, so using your definition, you're right. I don't think that
> MS are in reality anywhere near as vehement or extreme on this as the
> Pop and Film industries, though.
customers (though there is the occasional BSA raid).
> Whilst that argument appears sound at first blush, in reality, intangibles
> cannot be property, because intangibles are abstracts, like ideas, and
> property is something with, amongst other things, some fairly firm legal
> definitions (otherwise theft would be hard to nail down). Here's how I
> see it:
I was only attempting to show why the property metaphor has traction;
I realize the law treats it differently (as it should).
> Patent is about providing a monopoly on an idea for a limited period,
> copyright is providing protection for an implementation of something for
> it's full period of existence, and a trademark provides protection for a
> name. Copyright is used for things which are tangible, and can be
> reproduced in some way, like a book or film. Patent is a monopoly on an
> idea of some kind for a period, with the original intention that the
> costs of development of that idea, whatever it might be, could be
> recuperated. This worked quite well until the US began granting
> software patents, then it all fell apart into a total mess.
This is where the patent attorneys will jump in and shout 'patents
don't cover ideas!'... but I get your point. As for copyright
being used for tangibles, that is not quite right. If I perform
a play that I have memorized, I can still violate the authors
copyright. Is my performance of the play tangible? Are the bits
stored on my Tivo tangible?
Think about it this way. If I take a bunch of scrabble tiles and
use them to spell out an author's work and display it in the public
square, I can be in violation of the copyright. Now rearrange those
tiles into another pattern, and suddenly I am not. Same physical
tiles... different content. It is not the tangible medium that is
at issue, but the specific expression of content that matters.
>
> Or possibly not caring, for that matter... I suspect it often serves
> people well to leave these items ill-defined, however.
Yes, the content industry likes to confuse IP with physical
property because it makes it easier for them to justify
draconian laws.
>> it. Recall that the very concept of property (tangible or not) is
>> an artificial construct. It exists only because we all agree that
>> it exists.
>
> Which is kind of my problem with it!
Well, we can be even more broad. All law is a social construct
that exists only when accepted by the population (whether they
like it is another matter).
> As was said elsewhere, it probably suits the record industry to take
> this position, because they get to re-sell the same material many times
> over to their victims. Sorry, customers...
True. It will be interesting to see if experiments with the public
commons and similar licenses will gain traction. If a content
revolution on the level of the open source movement picks up steam,
it has the potential to really shake up the status quo. I would
be pessimistic, but then 'Star Wreck' (a free, independent movie) is
topping charts in Finland right now. Who would have thunk it.
Thad
The Ghost In The Machine
<linøn...@bone.com>
wrote
on Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:30:46 -0600
<tJOdnVftpINbVwje...@comcast.com>:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, billwg belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> The only commercial PNG code that I am aware of is the MS stuff, Ray.
>
> How com MS isn't using it in their own browser, then?
Because BMP is far more to their liking, of course. Or was
it GIF? The former of course is a bloated uncompressed
proprietary (though reasonably easy to decode) format,
and the latter was until recently a proprietary patented
format with a limit of 256 colors.
Can't be too careful with that PNG format; it might lead to dancing.
Especially since RFC2083 explicitly publishes a CRC algorithm, and
there are many image libraries that can properly process PNG.
Oh, the horror.
>
> And you obviously never heard of Lead Tools or Accusoft.
Presumably
http://www.leadtools.com/
http://www.accusoft.com/
>
>> It does the job and it's free to use inside your own program without
>> having to pay anyone anything or disclose anything to anyone.
>
> Post a link to its license.
Hmm...a search for "PNG code" or "PNG source code" on
www.microsoft.com pulled up vulnerability MS05-009 (890621).
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/Bulletin/MS05-009.mspx
Fortunately, this one's been patched.
The Code Center didn't fare that much better; half of
the first 10 results mention PNG transparency problems,
either in IE or FrontPage.
I'm not hopeful.
>
>> It is much more free than the GPL crap and a lot better packaged,
>> wouldn't you agree?
>
> Are you saying you have access to the "MS PNG" source code?
He might. I can't say I do.
>
> If not, then you are using a library or a DLL. Many OSS libraries are
> covered under the weaker LGPL, and you can use them without disclosing
> your source. (There are exceptions, though, readline being one of
> them).
Probably depends on what "derived work" means. I could probably
twist it ridiculously but IANAL; however, any program that
uses readline could be construed as deriving utility from
the readline library and therefore is a derived work of the
readline library (which presumably stands the GPL intent on
its head!) and therefore no one will use readline because they'd
have to publish *everything*. :-)
(Unless they intended to release the product GPL anyway, of course.
Separate issue.)
>
> As far as being crap, that's merely your opinion. Frankly, I think it
> is simply sour grapes on your part.
>
> And yet again with the "packaging". Are you feigning ignorance?
>
It's only "packaged" if it can be dropped on the desktop and
installed via double-click, presumably. :-) (Personally,
I prefer "emerge"; others here use "rpm" and derivatives,
"yum", and "dpkg" or "apt".)
Microsoft Package Installation. So simple, a worm can do it.
Kier
<snip>
> The Gnome desktop sucks for the average user. It's difficult to use and
> configure, not very featureful, and is artificually limited by the FSF's
> insistance on using only Free components.
Man, you are talking out of your arse. Difficult to use? Like, how? Nor do
I find it hard to configure. There may be fewer options but that is
intentional. Gnome is meant ot be simpler and more straight-forward, it's
focus is on usability, not on having every bell and whistle know to man.
>
> Even KDE, which I consider to be a kludgey mess, is far superior to gnome
> feature wise.
KDE has more options, true, and some extras features (which I like), but
Gnome isn't unusable when compared to it. Just different. More
streamlined, is perhaps the term. And KDE isn't a kludgy mess. It's way
superior to what you get with Windows, that's for certain.
Gnome 2.12 is terrific.
--
Kier
Erik Funkenbusch
>> The Gnome desktop sucks for the average user. It's difficult to use and
>> configure, not very featureful, and is artificually limited by the FSF's
>> insistance on using only Free components.
>
> Man, you are talking out of your arse. Difficult to use? Like, how? Nor do
> I find it hard to configure. There may be fewer options but that is
> intentional. Gnome is meant ot be simpler and more straight-forward, it's
> focus is on usability, not on having every bell and whistle know to man.
For even basic configuration you have to go to the gconf editor. This is
fine if you're going to roll it out to a network of users that will never
manage their own systems, but not so fine for stand-alone users.
>> Even KDE, which I consider to be a kludgey mess, is far superior to gnome
>> feature wise.
>
> KDE has more options, true, and some extras features (which I like), but
> Gnome isn't unusable when compared to it. Just different. More
> streamlined, is perhaps the term. And KDE isn't a kludgy mess. It's way
> superior to what you get with Windows, that's for certain.
>
> Gnome 2.12 is terrific.
Fine, that's your opinion, but even if true, a few exceptions do not
invalidate my point. Linux software is typically developer driven, not
user driven.
Kier
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 23:43:39 +0000, Kier wrote:
>
>>> The Gnome desktop sucks for the average user. It's difficult to use and
>>> configure, not very featureful, and is artificually limited by the FSF's
>>> insistance on using only Free components.
>>
>> Man, you are talking out of your arse. Difficult to use? Like, how? Nor do
>> I find it hard to configure. There may be fewer options but that is
>> intentional. Gnome is meant ot be simpler and more straight-forward, it's
>> focus is on usability, not on having every bell and whistle know to man.
>
> For even basic configuration you have to go to the gconf editor. This is
> fine if you're going to roll it out to a network of users that will never
> manage their own systems, but not so fine for stand-alone users.
How much configuration is needed? I haven't touched GConf at all since I
started using Gnome again, and I don't recall ever doing so when I used t
before.
The issues that do exist are being addressed.
And I'm no expert geek. I'd never even used a computer until six years ago.
>
>>> Even KDE, which I consider to be a kludgey mess, is far superior to gnome
>>> feature wise.
>>
>> KDE has more options, true, and some extras features (which I like), but
>> Gnome isn't unusable when compared to it. Just different. More
>> streamlined, is perhaps the term. And KDE isn't a kludgy mess. It's way
>> superior to what you get with Windows, that's for certain.
>>
>> Gnome 2.12 is terrific.
>
> Fine, that's your opinion, but even if true, a few exceptions do not
> invalidate my point. Linux software is typically developer driven, not
> user driven.
That's true, up to a point. But as Linux is now making a strong
showing on the desktop, more and more average end-users expect to be
catered for. Look at SUSE, Madriva or Ubuntu - they're aimed as much at
average home users as anyone else. And this trend is likely to continue as
Linux grows in popularity.
I certainly don't see where the Windows GUI is in any way better or more
usable.
--
Kier
billwg
> After takin' a swig o' grog, billwg belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> "Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Then why is the Internet standard the most popular open-access
>>> network
>>> out there? What happened to MSN's original vision?
>>>
>> Because it is what evolved, silly. Exactly my point.
>
> No. You say a standard describes something old. I say a standard is
> a
> platform for new things. TCP/IP and the internet are my evidence.
>
>> Not from you COLA clowns, nut, you all brag about your perceptions
>> that
>> lead you to linux! How is it that you have the superior intellects?
>> LOL!!!
>
> Don't be silly.
>
Well, nut, you claim that "the choice of OS's has, since the late
1980's, been hidden from consumers", but how then did YOU find an
alternate. You are clearly not the sharpest fellow in the world, so at
some level it is NOT hidden. Now how low does that level go?