Microsoft "Protection" Good For Linux
John Bailo
Oh, ok, get ready to flame me.
But, thinking about it, if Linux ever hopes to make money for it's work.
Wouldn't it be a good idea intially to sign up and at least get the cash
flow going back to the distro manufacturers?
I mean, seriously, who is going to pay for Xandros and Beryl and all the
rest if there isn't some entity that can lay claim to a license and
charge the consumer?
How long will it be before Ubuntu can command the superior price for
what it delivers?
Look at Apple -- they are basically selling a superior OS(X) and getting
away with it! People like OSX and appreciate it's more stable and
congruent.
In a perfect world, Linux would be worth 3x either.
But it's not perfect.
Jeanette
Jeanette wrote:
What does this have to do with paying protection money to Microsoft for
some unproven and even unidentified patent claims?
Jim
"Jeanette" <jru...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8opei.118924$3L1....@newsfe14.lga...
I think that John is referring to the "free" nature of Linux. If Linux is
free, and there are so many distros, it is damned hard to make a living
distributing a free software package. And, it is damned hard to compete with
other distros when they can just download your code and add your neat stuph
to their distro.
But, and I believe that this is the point John was making, if Microsoft can
lay claim to patented technology within Linux, then the GPL isn't worth the
paper it is written on and Linux distros can be distributed without
releasing the source code. This makes Linux a proprietary OS (like Apple)
that can be sold without giving away system code. This makes it easier for
Linux distros to compete and profit from their hard work.
While I agree that some unification of Linux is needed and I also think that
the whole idea of free software is a weak spot for Linux - I simply cannot
get excited about any plan that involves Microsoft because we will all
eventually get the shaft.
jim
BearItAll
It isn't like that really.
There is a kernel, it is a brilliant kernel, you could very easily argue
that it is faultless.
Then they are shells. Lets take the main two, gnome and kde. Both good in
their own right, both have their ardent followers as well as those that
take the view that it doesn't matter which you use because both are capable
products.
Anyone can pick these up from many download places or off a mag disc.
So a bit silly to try to charge for distributing those. A fair few of the
Linux distros are really just the kernel and one of the shells, but with
different coloured buttons and back drops. I think people see through that.
So far there isn't anything to charge for. You can not charge for what was
freely given.
So what you charge for if you want to make a living from this is additions
and services.
Example. The service that Redhat is charging for could really be summed up
in 'We charge for the fact that nothing is included into our distro until
it is fully tested and debugged. Including updates'. It is proper to charge
for this because anyone picking up a Redhat knows that they will have a
product that is fully working in all aspects of it's specified
capabilities. The main grumble with Redhat is that is is always such a long
way behind other distros, but in a critical server situation you would
rather be behind a year or so and have zero risk than have yesterdays
releases and no sleep.
Simmilar for SLES, except that SLES is more up to date, it isn't as
thoroughly tested as Redhat and you can tell if you use both side by side.
But in these days of mirrors and clusters you can afford more risk and
along with that you get Novell taking more risks to expand SLES, I like
that and think it is much more likely to push Linux forward than probably
70-80% of those on the distrowatch list.
Then they are the likes of Linspire and Xandros. At first glance it seems
that these have only writen a nice interface for apt-get and seem to be
charging for just that. But itsn't that simple. For example with Linspire a
record is kept of everything you loaded onto your machine since day one.
Then if your PC goes bad you can load the base system then login to the
site and with a single click get back every application and utility you
ever took off the free shelves or the commercial shelves.
So Linspire are charging for a service. Their main target I would say are
those who want to use Linux but don't want to have to spudy Linux. So
Xandros and Linspire make it very easy for this target area.
It is from that that they are able to charge and quite right too.
There is more, but basically I am saying that they are a lot of chargeable
areas connected to Linux, don't assume that because the kernel and shell
can be gotten for free that the support, services, additional software has
to be free too.
Jim
"BearItAll" <sp...@rassler.co.uk> wrote in message
news:118241401...@damia.uk.clara.net...
I see your point - especially about the Linspire services.
But, with the kernel being GPL and most existing Linux software also under
the GPL, doesn't Linspire have to share their code for their services?
If so, that would seem to harm Linspire because then Ubuntu could use the
same code to offer the same services with no blood sweat and tears invested
in the software development.
jim
Peter Köhlmann
>
> "BearItAll" <sp...@rassler.co.uk> wrote in message
< snip >
>> There is more, but basically I am saying that they are a lot of
>> chargeable areas connected to Linux, don't assume that because the kernel
>> and shell can be gotten for free that the support, services, additional
>> software has to be free too.
>
> I see your point - especially about the Linspire services.
>
> But, with the kernel being GPL and most existing Linux software also under
> the GPL, doesn't Linspire have to share their code for their services?
No. You can write and distribute closed source as much as you like on linux
as long as you do not incorporate GPLed software into it
> If so, that would seem to harm Linspire because then Ubuntu could use the
> same code to offer the same services with no blood sweat and tears
> invested in the software development.
>
Wrong. They are not the same, they do not provide the same services and not
the same software. The open source part, yes, those are practically the
same. The non-OSS stuff is the difference
--
It's not about, 'Where do you want to go today?' It's more like,
'Where am I allowed to go today?'
Robin T Cox
In this imperfect world, there are people who would like to charge us for
breathing fresh air. And, to be sure, there are those who believe that
everything and everyone has their price.
For the rest of us, however, the best things in life are free, and I
believe we should fight to keep them that way.
Roy Schestowitz
Well said. The coordinated fight against YouTube and online literature is
another fine example.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux: just set it and forget about it
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 96 total, 1 running, 95 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
BearItAll
Nothing is free.
Even the air you breath now is only there as long as someone puts in the
effort and the money to preserve the earth's ability to produce it.
There is nothing you do or use that does not depend on someone putting in
effort or money.
Can you drink out of your local river and are you willing to live on rabbits
cooking them on little fires after rubbing sticks together to light it. Oh,
you would have to do that naked, your clothes weren't free either you see.
The truth is that you were born naked and dependant into a world of shared
resources. If someone hadn't put in the effort to feed and protect you for
the first 10-15 years of your life you would have died. Then it becomes
your turn to add to the community.
Did you ever thank those who sacrificed their time and effort for you? Have
you ever put anything back into the community? Or do you just sponge off
the rest of us and moan about how we will only share a meagre amount, you
can have more if you put in more.
Jim
"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:f5df99$v7c$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Jim wrote:
>
>>
>> "BearItAll" <sp...@rassler.co.uk> wrote in message
> < snip >
>
>>> There is more, but basically I am saying that they are a lot of
>>> chargeable areas connected to Linux, don't assume that because the
>>> kernel
>>> and shell can be gotten for free that the support, services, additional
>>> software has to be free too.
>>
>> I see your point - especially about the Linspire services.
>>
>> But, with the kernel being GPL and most existing Linux software also
>> under
>> the GPL, doesn't Linspire have to share their code for their services?
>
> No. You can write and distribute closed source as much as you like on
> linux
> as long as you do not incorporate GPLed software into it
But isn't the kernel itselg GPL'd? So. wouldn't anything derived from using
kernel api's or code be considered GPL'd too?
And, I think I read that their service was simply a nice ui for apt-get.
So, wouldn't using a GPL'd product by simply wrapping it in a ui, be
considered using GPL'd source code?
>
>> If so, that would seem to harm Linspire because then Ubuntu could use the
>> same code to offer the same services with no blood sweat and tears
>> invested in the software development.
>>
>
> Wrong. They are not the same, they do not provide the same services and
> not
> the same software. The open source part, yes, those are practically the
> same. The non-OSS stuff is the difference
So they both don't use apt-get to install packages?
jim
Jim
"Robin T Cox" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:Zvrei.5355$_l6...@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
What will you fight with?
Free guns and ammo or free lawyers?
jim
Peter Köhlmann
>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:f5df99$v7c$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
>> Jim wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "BearItAll" <sp...@rassler.co.uk> wrote in message
>> < snip >
>>
>>>> There is more, but basically I am saying that they are a lot of
>>>> chargeable areas connected to Linux, don't assume that because the
>>>> kernel
>>>> and shell can be gotten for free that the support, services, additional
>>>> software has to be free too.
>>>
>>> I see your point - especially about the Linspire services.
>>>
>>> But, with the kernel being GPL and most existing Linux software also
>>> under
>>> the GPL, doesn't Linspire have to share their code for their services?
>>
>> No. You can write and distribute closed source as much as you like on
>> linux
>> as long as you do not incorporate GPLed software into it
>
> But isn't the kernel itselg GPL'd? So. wouldn't anything derived from
> using kernel api's or code be considered GPL'd too?
No. And I think it is telling that you windroids are so badly informed of
the state of things, yet you feel free to spout all kind of nonsense
You can run as much closed source on the kernel as you like
You can compile as much closed source with GCC as you want to
> And, I think I read that their service was simply a nice ui for apt-get.
> So, wouldn't using a GPL'd product by simply wrapping it in a ui, be
> considered using GPL'd source code?
Your extremely severe reading comprehension problems are your problem, not
ours
>>> If so, that would seem to harm Linspire because then Ubuntu could use
>>> the same code to offer the same services with no blood sweat and tears
>>> invested in the software development.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong. They are not the same, they do not provide the same services and
>> not
>> the same software. The open source part, yes, those are practically the
>> same. The non-OSS stuff is the difference
>
> So they both don't use apt-get to install packages?
>
What has apt to do with anything? Are you really *that* dense?
--
Howe's Law: Everyone has a scheme that will not work.
BearItAll
Oh Jim, that is very bad English, one can not say free and lawyer in the
same sentence.
Linonut
> While I agree that some unification of Linux is needed and I also think that
> the whole idea of free software is a weak spot for Linux - I simply cannot
> get excited about any plan that involves Microsoft because we will all
> eventually get the shaft.
And it won't be a "micro" shaft, either.
I suspect that the first time Microsoft/Xandros/Novell/Lindows tries
something that isn't pure aggregation, they will get some concerted
legal action against them.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> What will you fight with?
>
> Free guns and ammo or free lawyers?
Not free lawyers, dude -- Free lawyers.
In any case, you are confused. The only reason GNU/Linux is involved in
a business fight is because businesses have adopted it. The fight is
about business interests, and so business interests will defend their
use of Linux with the normal methods of business, which have little to
do with "Free" or "free".
So stick your irrelevant aphorisms.
--
Tux rox!
Dr. Hungwell
And here we have another stupid lintard making his moronic claim that lienux
is perfect (ie - "faultless")
Go crawl back under your little rock and come back out when you learn
something about real operating systems.
Jamie Hart
news:118241989...@demeter.uk.clara.net:
> Robin T Cox wrote:
>>
>> In this imperfect world, there are people who would like to charge us
>> for breathing fresh air. And, to be sure, there are those who believe
>> that everything and everyone has their price.
>>
>> For the rest of us, however, the best things in life are free, and I
>> believe we should fight to keep them that way.
>
> Nothing is free.
>
How much did you pay the last person who smiled at you?
> Even the air you breath now is only there as long as someone puts in
> the effort and the money to preserve the earth's ability to produce
> it.
>
> There is nothing you do or use that does not depend on someone putting
> in effort or money.
>
Air would be free if only everyone would stop putting in the money and
effort to mess it up :)
BearItAll
Ok, as you wish.
Real operating systems, hmmm, best I look that up on google because I don't
actually know of one that isn't real, I know of one that is absolute crap,
but that isn't the same as not being real.
Oh would you look at that, the first three returned are talking of real-time
operating systems. The fourth is talking about Linux, carrying on down the
list is a mixture of realtime and Linux and low and behold, some mention
them in the same sentance.
Therefore I conclude that I already have a real operating system.
Thankyou for your advice anyway, I'm sure you meant well and now I'm happy
as larry because that search meant that Linux is certainly not wasteing
it's time concentrating on what is important in the computing world. We get
that list to ourselves, MS don't get a single mention.
Vista, an operating system. Sorry, thats just my little joke.
ray
>
> Oh, ok, get ready to flame me.
>
> But, thinking about it, if Linux ever hopes to make money for it's work.
>
> Wouldn't it be a good idea intially to sign up and at least get the cash
> flow going back to the distro manufacturers?
>
> I mean, seriously, who is going to pay for Xandros and Beryl and all the
> rest if there isn't some entity that can lay claim to a license and
> charge the consumer?
>
> How long will it be before Ubuntu can command the superior price for
> what it delivers?
They've said they won't do that. I believe them until I see evidence to
the contrary.
>
> Look at Apple -- they are basically selling a superior OS(X) and getting
> away with it! People like OSX and appreciate it's more stable and
> congruent.
They don't seem to be getting very far. It's entirely closed and grossly
overpriced.
>
> In a perfect world, Linux would be worth 3x either.
>
> But it's not perfect.
Nothing is.
chrisv
>And here we have another
*plonk*
Geico Caveman
>
> Oh, ok, get ready to flame me.
>
No need to ask, Bailo :)
> But, thinking about it, if Linux ever hopes to make money for it's work.
Linux already makes money.
>
> Wouldn't it be a good idea intially to sign up and at least get the cash
> flow going back to the distro manufacturers?
If the distro makers want it, they can get it. Just ask Redhat and see how
they have managed.
>
> I mean, seriously, who is going to pay for Xandros and Beryl and all the
> rest if there isn't some entity that can lay claim to a license and
> charge the consumer?
No one can pay for Linux software as most of it is free. Maybe you did not
understand the licensing terms. You can make money off support and extra
documentation, installation/installation media, configuration services, if
you like.
That is beside the point that Xandros has never gained much market share
(consistently out of the top 10 distros in the inaccurate estimates),
losing out to superior distros like Redhat, Debian, Ubuntu, Mandriva, etc.
>
> How long will it be before Ubuntu can command the superior price for
> what it delivers?
It commands the only price for the software it can - $0. Any more would be
illegal.
It can command whatever support price it asks for it. Currently, it is about
$275.
>
> Look at Apple -- they are basically selling a superior OS(X) and getting
> away with it! People like OSX and appreciate it's more stable and
> congruent.
Most of us do not like to throw away about 95% of the world's hardware.
>
> In a perfect world, Linux would be worth 3x either.
It is already worth as much as it is going to be per support contract.
>
> But it's not perfect.
Nothing is perfect. Including in this instance, your understanding of why
you cannot charge money for software that you did not write. Especially if
the authors of that software made it available for free (in both senses of
the term).
Give it up Bailo. Microvell is trying to graft a dinosaur proprietary
software model onto what is a free software, paid service model. Google has
figured this out, and it is making scads of money.
Your company unfortunately, is dying a slow and painful death. The coup de
grace was the borderline illegal pact it made to make money for Microsoft
for software that neither Novell and Microsoft wrote. But no matter, GPL v3
is going to be out any day now, and Novell will have an excellent choice
between poisoning Microsoft or reneging on the deal. Xandros won't even
have that choice. It already dying as Xandros users are leaving the distro
in droves.
The tragedy for you is that Novell could have been successful and perhaps
even more than Redhat, as it was well positioned to transition many of its
Netware users on to SuSe. It threw that golden opportunity away and now
finds itself in the predicament I just described. Given Novell's history of
making braindead commercial decisions, its not very surprising.
Geico Caveman
>> What does this have to do with paying protection money to Microsoft for
>> some unproven and even unidentified patent claims?
>
> I think that John is referring to the "free" nature of Linux. If Linux is
> free, and there are so many distros, it is damned hard to make a living
> distributing a free software package. And, it is damned hard to compete
> with other distros when they can just download your code and add your neat
> stuph to their distro.
>
> But, and I believe that this is the point John was making, if Microsoft
> can lay claim to patented technology within Linux, then the GPL isn't
> worth the paper it is written on and Linux distros can be distributed
> without
Only in the US, Jim. Most of the rest of the world does not even have
software patents.
The Ghost In The Machine
<sp...@rassler.co.uk>
wrote
on Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:07:30 +0100
<118243485...@proxy00.news.clara.net>:
I'm not sure I'm ready to argue that, and in any event
there are many moving parts therein; some parts of course
are reasonably simple but the modules could complicate
things past recovery if they're miscoded -- which isn't
a risk unique to kernels, of course; a fuel pump, say,
going out on a car could lead to the car stalling out,
or a very dangerous situation if gasoline leaks therefrom,
even with an otherwise perfect engine.
To be sure, if one does find a defect in Linux, one can
theoretically go in there and fix it, and of course one
can tweak the kernel to one's heart's content. However,
the same thing happened to cars in the 1950's and the car
market is now dominated by giant multinationals, so, absent
other considerations (e.g., Microsoft going bankrupt) we
may very well see Linux fading into obscurity as Microsoft
swallows it up.
I hope not, but that's the pattern I see if one uses the
auto industry (and, as it turns out, radio and TV had
much the same pattern, once upon a time) as an analogy.
Of course, Linux will never die entirely -- kit cars are
occasionally built by enthusiasts, and the Tesla Roaster
is a very exciting hotrod powered by batteries. But most
people just go to the dealer and buy a car (if they want a
new one). Will people be smart enough to avoid Microsoft,
the one stop monopoly shop for all of one's hardware and
software needs?
>>
>> And here we have another stupid lintard making his moronic claim that
>> lienux is perfect (ie - "faultless")
>>
>> Go crawl back under your little rock and come back out when you learn
>> something about real operating systems.
>
> Ok, as you wish.
>
> Real operating systems, hmmm, best I look that up on google because I don't
> actually know of one that isn't real, I know of one that is absolute crap,
> but that isn't the same as not being real.
I'm not sure what "real" means in this context, either.
Microsoft kinda lost me way back from a technical
standpoint when they claimed replacing a browser would
damage their OS -- assuming, admittedly, that "OS" referred
to just the kernel part. (Huh?)
I'm also old enough to remember using (in my youth) a
computer that had no real OS as such, though multiuser
applications such as BASIC could be loaded (through
direct memory access) via a photo punchtape reader;
this is little more than dumping the tape into RAM --
ferrule core, in its case. (To be sure, back then a user
was someone sitting at a teletype, punching in programs.
Lots of noisy clicky, but not much pointy. We did get
a dumb glass tube at one point, I think.)
MMUs, of course, came a little later -- I was using a PDP
11/70 with Unix in the early 1980's. VAXes introduced
virtual pages (the PDPs just segmented things) to BSD Unix
(version 4.2). Today almost everyone uses virtual pages.
>
> Oh would you look at that, the first three returned are talking of real-time
> operating systems. The fourth is talking about Linux, carrying on down the
> list is a mixture of realtime and Linux and low and behold, some mention
> them in the same sentance.
>
> Therefore I conclude that I already have a real operating system.
Well, I for one would claim that the Linux
kernel at least has some semblance of reality
in its design. :-) Certainly, Linux carried on
the Unix/POSIX idea of "think fork() instead of
CreateProcessWithAnUngodlyNumberOfArguments(name, rank,
serialnumber, parent, grandparent, expected children,
expected grandchildren, next of kin, priority, usability,
excitability, mother's maiden name, lingerie preferences,
...)".
>
> Thankyou for your advice anyway, I'm sure you meant well and now I'm happy
> as larry because that search meant that Linux is certainly not wasteing
> it's time concentrating on what is important in the computing world. We get
> that list to ourselves, MS don't get a single mention.
>
>
>
> Vista, an operating system. Sorry, thats just my little joke.
>
Well, sometimes it works. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992381111:
while(bit&BITMASK) ;
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Jim
"Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:f5e8q9$1e4$2...@aioe.org...
It's just as well, from the reports of software theft that abound, the rest
of the world doesn't pay for software anyway, right?
Geico Caveman
>>
>> Only in the US, Jim. Most of the rest of the world does not even have
>> software patents.
>
> It's just as well, from the reports of software theft that abound, the
> rest of the world doesn't pay for software anyway, right?
Given Microsoft's well-known preference that any pirated software be
Microsoft based software, I would say that the past and present software
pirates of the world represent a rich future cash cow for Microsoft.
Coming back to the original point, software patents are largely irrelevant
in Europe (which is not exactly a hot bed of piracy), nearly illegal in
Australia, totally illegal in India. The only industrialized countries with
sizeable software production capabilities that recognize patents are US and
Japan AFAIK.
Yes, there is a lot of piracy in many developing countries, like China and
India, but their computer using populations are miniscule, have low
purchasing power, are increasingly exposed to alternative operating systems
(mainly Linux), and most importantly, outlaw software patents.
Personally, I think that software patents are nothing more than attempts to
make money off widely used programming practices. Its especially rich for
closed source vendors to assert software patents, as no one can see their
source code and judge the validity of the patent, prior art, etc. Nothing
stops the same source code vendors to file patents on non-existent
technology either, in hope of a future honey trap scheme, that someone else
might first implement and have to pay dearly for. Or something even worse -
wholesale copying of open source code into closed source, and then
asserting patents on it.
Disclaimer :
As a part of a scientific team, who files occasional patents for engineering
processes and understands the difference between actual creativity (which
the patent system is intended to protect) and fraudulent patent stuffing
(that software patents so readily invite), I find the practice of granting
software patents abhorrent.
7
>
> Oh, ok, get ready to flame me.
>
> But, thinking about it, if Linux ever hopes to make money for it's work.
>
> Wouldn't it be a good idea intially to sign up and at least get the cash
> flow going back to the distro manufacturers?
>
> I mean, seriously, who is going to pay for Xandros and Beryl and all the
> rest if there isn't some entity that can lay claim to a license and
> charge the consumer?
>
> How long will it be before Ubuntu can command the superior price for
> what it delivers?
You have no idea what open source is for.
No one is for superior product lock in - it never works.
Its only looking to get paid for supported products.
cc
> Oh, ok, get ready to flame me.
>
> But, thinking about it, if Linux ever hopes to make money for it's work.
>
> Wouldn't it be a good idea intially to sign up and at least get the cash
> flow going back to the distro manufacturers?
>
> I mean, seriously, who is going to pay for Xandros and Beryl and all the
> rest if there isn't some entity that can lay claim to a license and
> charge the consumer?
>
> How long will it be before Ubuntu can command the superior price for
> what it delivers?
>
> away with it! People like OSX and appreciate it's more stable and
> congruent.
>
> In a perfect world, Linux would be worth 3x either.
>
> But it's not perfect.
This post is off topic and anti-charter. Any implication, inference,
or insinuation that Microsoft may possibly do anything good is against
the purpose of this group. There is an implicit understanding in the
charter of "comparison of Linux to other operating systems as long as
Linux comes out on top." As the right hand man of the Supreme Being
known as Mark Kent, it is my duty to inform you that you can no longer
post here and you must find another group to take your microtroll
rants to. Since this is your first warning, I will only send a
scathing letter about you to my Congressman. A second offense will
result in a letter being sent to your Congressman. A third offense
will result in the releasing of the hounds.
In case others are wondering about what they can do to fullfill the
charter and the decrees handed down by Mark Kent, here are a list of
acceptable topics for COLA.
Microsoft is evil.
Microsoft sucks big time.
Postings of articles that others have written.
A digest of postings of articles that others have written.
The iPhone.
Everything else is both anti-charter and off topic. Deal with it or
face the wrath of Kent.
Jim
"Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
That's interesting....
Most of these countries recognize and enforce copyrights, but not software
patents.
What could be the logic behind that? They are both written works. They are
both (supposedly) unique. And, patents expire MUCH sooner than copyrights
(which can effectively last forever).
These same countries honor utility patents. As you know, that's where
someone comes up with a totally unique way of using someone else's patented
product.
It's wildly inconsistent and illogical (IMHO) to honor copyrights and not
honor software patents. I suggest that coders have their code copyrighted.
They will have longer protection, more protection under international law
and they can effectively last forever. MUCH better protection than some
dumb old patent.
I too have a few patents myself. I invent stuff. I don't really mean to do
it, its just how my mind works. If I see a problem, my mind begins to work
on it (whether I want it to or not) and in a day or two I think to myself,
"Hey! I know how to .....".
I do not have any software patents. Mainly because I can't really conceive
of something (speaking strictly of software) that hasn't been done in prior
art at some point or another. And, I believe that some patents (like single
click purchases) woudl actually do more to hold back technological advances
than we can or should allow (think emminent domain for the internet)
I do have a stock selection process that I'd like to patent, but it may not
pass the non-obvious test. (Although if it was all that obvious, I would
think that some broker somewhere would have already used it and published a
book on the subject - like the whole CANSLIM theory.)
I wonder how things pass that test anyway. Once someone sees a new thing,
they usually say to themselves "Of course! I could have (or have) thought of
that (or something similar)!"
Anyway....if you can copyright a story (as countless stories have been told
since man learned to speak) I see nothing stopping the patenting of
software. At least software can be used to do work or accomplish a needed
task. Even War And Peace can't do that - yet it has more protection.
Odd.
jim
Geico Caveman
You bring up an interesting question that I had not fully thought through
before. I will add my comments below.
>
> These same countries honor utility patents. As you know, that's where
> someone comes up with a totally unique way of using someone else's
> patented product.
>
> It's wildly inconsistent and illogical (IMHO) to honor copyrights and not
> honor software patents. I suggest that coders have their code
> copyrighted. They will have longer protection, more protection under
> international law
> and they can effectively last forever. MUCH better protection than some
> dumb old patent.
I would find that argument a good starting point if the code by itself was
available for review by anyone wishing to do so.
If you wanted to enforce a software patent system for open source software,
there would be little problem as anyone can discover any possible prior
art, challenge the patent in court, etc. (though in the case of GPL, BSD
etc. - any patent would either be in full violation of the license terms or
run that close). With closed source software, the barrier to that process
of discovery is quite high and not accessible to most people with the
expertise to make the judgments.
However, a software patent system for open source software (where it is not
contradictory to the license) reduces in practical terms to a simple
copyright protection, which makes the idea moot even in the limited case
where I find any merit in it.
>
> I too have a few patents myself. I invent stuff. I don't really mean to
> do
> it, its just how my mind works. If I see a problem, my mind begins to
> work on it (whether I want it to or not) and in a day or two I think to
> myself, "Hey! I know how to .....".
:)
>
> I do not have any software patents. Mainly because I can't really
> conceive of something (speaking strictly of software) that hasn't been
> done in prior
> art at some point or another. And, I believe that some patents (like
Precisely my point. Yet, for many of these obvious software constructs,
patents (unasserted or otherwise) presumably exist as the dual problem of
closed source software not being readily available for review and the
shoddy and overworked USPTO system does nothing to prevent abuse.
It could be something as ridiculous as a patent on topological sort, or even
something a little more involved.
> single click purchases) woudl actually do more to hold back technological
> advances than we can or should allow (think emminent domain for the
> internet)
I agree.
>
> I do have a stock selection process that I'd like to patent, but it may
> not pass the non-obvious test. (Although if it was all that obvious, I
> would think that some broker somewhere would have already used it and
> published a book on the subject - like the whole CANSLIM theory.)
That is a problem because you are ethical in your ways - you obviously
consider patents to be a way to discriminate between obvious and
non-obvious advances. A company that relies increasingly (and this is by no
means unique to Microsoft) on leveraging its collected software patent
portfolio does not see it as a problem. It would go ahead and file a patent
anyways - whether the advancement is obvious / even marginal / incremental
or not or is even the fruit of theft of open source software with the
attendant violation of the latter's license terms.
>
> I wonder how things pass that test anyway. Once someone sees a new thing,
> they usually say to themselves "Of course! I could have (or have) thought
> of that (or something similar)!"
The overworked employees of USPTO generally do not have the luxury of
reviewing the patent with the attention it deserves. I freely admit that
too many engineering patents get by without being significant - the
corresponding barrier for collecting patents for software is a lot lower,
especially for closed source vendors (who have little to no fear of actual
exacting review like open source does).
>
> Anyway....if you can copyright a story (as countless stories have been
> told since man learned to speak) I see nothing stopping the patenting of
> software. At least software can be used to do work or accomplish a needed
> task. Even War And Peace can't do that - yet it has more protection.
>
> Odd.
I do not consider it odd. I am a hobbyist author myself (I do not publish
anything - just write rather bad short stories for personal amusement that
I would not dream of letting anyone else read). The task of writing is an
inherently creative effort. While you may learn a lot about arranging a
plot etc. from a university program, the best authors, even today, the
one's that actually catch the public's imagination (as opposed to the ivory
tower, and in my view, irrelevant, world of professional criticism), are
people who are largely unschooled / self-taught in the art.
Software development is a lot more structured, formulaic, and predictable
(think in terms of Occam's Razor - most people, left to their devices,
given some effort, would arrive at a very small set (or even just one) of
simplest possible solutions to any given problem). I do think (and I say
this without any reservation as someone who codes significantly at times as
a part of my job) that the process of software development is a lot less
creative (if at all), and a lot more deductive in its development.
As an inherently less creative endeavour, with widespread coding practices
and algorithms that are in use, I do not think that software deserves
patent protection by itself (the original US Supreme Court judgment about
patent protection of software when it is inherent in a new and non-obvious
physical device and its operation is something that I find a lot to agree
with). Forgive me for saying so, but computer systems are hardly the kind
of physical devices that can be called non-obvious today. Might have been
true in the 60s, but I do not think it is true today. I hasten to add that
I do not include major advances in chip architecture and its associated
microcode (or new kinds of network hardware) under that last comment, and
do consider that latter category to be a significant enough advancement to
deserve patent protection.
Jim
"Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
I agree. Not disclosing source code on a patented system makes no sense.
You already have the patent (very widely worded I'm sure), so what's there
to hide from?
Not disclosing the patented source is a lot like saying "I have a patented
widget in this here closed, black box. And, you're violating my patent!"
You know, like MS is doing with Linux distros and supposed patents.
>
> However, a software patent system for open source software (where it is
> not
> contradictory to the license) reduces in practical terms to a simple
> copyright protection, which makes the idea moot even in the limited case
> where I find any merit in it.
>
>>
>> I too have a few patents myself. I invent stuff. I don't really mean to
>> do
>> it, its just how my mind works. If I see a problem, my mind begins to
>> work on it (whether I want it to or not) and in a day or two I think to
>> myself, "Hey! I know how to .....".
>
> :)
Got myself in trouble at Primerica with this little problem. The new VP of
Security told us all about his new implementation that would keep the
network safe from outside penetration, blah, blah, blah.... A day later,
while draining the weasel, that little voice said "pssst" (I always thought
it odd that the little voice said "pssst" when I'm busy with said draining,
but anyway) "pssst" it said, "I know how to circumvent the new VP's security
system". It told me, and I was surprised at the simplicity and ease in
which the system could be circumvented.
Like some moronic, geeky, cub scout, I trot off to the VP's office and let
him know about the huge security hole in the implementation he had just
announced. To my surprise, he was none too happy about it and angrily
ordered me not to concern myself with the security of our network in the
future.
The next flaw that I found (about 2 weeks later) was not disclosed to our
beloved VP.
>
>>
>> I do not have any software patents. Mainly because I can't really
>> conceive of something (speaking strictly of software) that hasn't been
>> done in prior
>> art at some point or another. And, I believe that some patents (like
>
> Precisely my point. Yet, for many of these obvious software constructs,
> patents (unasserted or otherwise) presumably exist as the dual problem of
> closed source software not being readily available for review and the
> shoddy and overworked USPTO system does nothing to prevent abuse.
>
> It could be something as ridiculous as a patent on topological sort, or
> even
> something a little more involved.
(see below *)
>
>> single click purchases) woudl actually do more to hold back technological
>> advances than we can or should allow (think emminent domain for the
>> internet)
>
> I agree.
>
<snip>
>>
>> I wonder how things pass that test anyway. Once someone sees a new
>> thing,
>> they usually say to themselves "Of course! I could have (or have) thought
>> of that (or something similar)!"
>
> The overworked employees of USPTO generally do not have the luxury of
> reviewing the patent with the attention it deserves. I freely admit that
> too many engineering patents get by without being significant - the
> corresponding barrier for collecting patents for software is a lot lower,
> especially for closed source vendors (who have little to no fear of actual
> exacting review like open source does).
(*) The USPTO is broken. We need a fully staffed USPTO with people
knowledgeable in each technology that we grant patents to.
If we don't have the money doe such a large USPTO, we could always go the
route of publishing filed patents (with full legal protection of course)
before they are granted to allow people in the affected fields adequate
opportunity to challenge the patent based on prior art, the technical
soundness of the claim or the obviousness of the claim. The review process
should be limited to say 6 months - after which a patent can be obtained if
no valid arguments are submitted as to why it should not be granted.
In essense, the USPTO can use the vast resources of the public to do its job
more effectively with no real increase in operational budgets - just like
open source does at virtually no cost.
>>
>> Anyway....if you can copyright a story (as countless stories have been
>> told since man learned to speak) I see nothing stopping the patenting of
>> software. At least software can be used to do work or accomplish a
>> needed
>> task. Even War And Peace can't do that - yet it has more protection.
>>
>> Odd.
>
> I do not consider it odd. I am a hobbyist author myself (I do not publish
> anything - just write rather bad short stories for personal amusement that
> I would not dream of letting anyone else read). The task of writing is an
> inherently creative effort. While you may learn a lot about arranging a
> plot etc. from a university program, the best authors, even today, the
> one's that actually catch the public's imagination (as opposed to the
> ivory
> tower, and in my view, irrelevant, world of professional criticism), are
> people who are largely unschooled / self-taught in the art.
>
> Software development is a lot more structured, formulaic, and predictable
> (think in terms of Occam's Razor - most people, left to their devices,
> given some effort, would arrive at a very small set (or even just one) of
> simplest possible solutions to any given problem). I do think (and I say
> this without any reservation as someone who codes significantly at times
> as
> a part of my job) that the process of software development is a lot less
> creative (if at all), and a lot more deductive in its development.
As a former programmer for 21 years myself, I would agree. Not much
creativity in real coding...except for things like encryption and
compression routines. I think it does take some creativity to come up with
a new mathematical sequence for size reduction.
>
> As an inherently less creative endeavour, with widespread coding practices
> and algorithms that are in use, I do not think that software deserves
> patent protection by itself (the original US Supreme Court judgment about
> patent protection of software when it is inherent in a new and non-obvious
> physical device and its operation is something that I find a lot to agree
> with). Forgive me for saying so, but computer systems are hardly the kind
> of physical devices that can be called non-obvious today. Might have been
> true in the 60s, but I do not think it is true today. I hasten to add that
> I do not include major advances in chip architecture and its associated
> microcode (or new kinds of network hardware) under that last comment, and
> do consider that latter category to be a significant enough advancement to
> deserve patent protection.
But, would you agree that a lot of software applications are themselves
virtual appliances? For instance, we have gone from physical modems to
software modems. If the physical modem deserves patent protection, why not
the software modem?
The physical modem is no more than a different arrangement of the same parts
available from and Radio Shack or elcetronics supply warehouse - much like
the algorithims used in programming the software modem are available
seperately from many sources. But, wne put together in a certain sequence,
they perform something useful.
The same could be said of a virtual PC as opposed to a physical PC. Why
should the physical PC be protected and the virtual PC software not be?
At the very least, the software should be covered by utility patents (a
different use for the patented PC by simply altering its instruction set).
Protecting the reuse of common code to form a new application is like the
protection of utility patents...the programmers really don't invent many new
things, but they find lots of new uses for someone else's code (invention or
work).
I am not against software patents, But, there MUST be more peer review in
the process, and any software that stores the user's input for the user must
publish its data formats (before distributing the sfotware) to allow the
users maximum data portability of their data and not to trap the user into a
certain software package just because their data is stuck in a proprietary
format.
Data is the user's, and should be easily transported to another vendor
should the user choose to do so. Proprietary data formats should not
imprison your data.
jim
Kier
>
> Data is the user's, and should be easily transported to another vendor
> should the user choose to do so. Proprietary data formats should not
> imprison your data.
>
That's one statement I absolutely agree with. It's mmore important than
ever nowadays. If not, a huge amount of knowledge is going to be lost to
the future generations. We are stiill able to read documents written a
thousand years ago. In a thousand years from now, will they be able to
read ours?
--
Kier
BearItAll
When is the last time you had a Linux kernel crash? By faultless I don't
really mean that they isn't room for changes, only that as it stands the
main kernel configurations don't cause crashes or problems of any kind for
most users.
That doesn't take into account specialist builds.
I do agree about modules, that is always a risk area, how much dare we put
down there. Speed advantages for the likes of graphics engines make it very
tempting, but also very risky. Then they are other parts who that might
benefit from being down there. But how much should be allowed.
We already know that some groups want to take the kernel out of the current
hands to make changes. I like risk in computing, but dare we let the kernel
go into someone elses hands, they are many programming groups that I admire
and still have close friends who work at system levels, but I'm not sure I
would even allow those get hold of the kernel, I mean if the decision was
mine.
The primary strength of Linux is that kernel, just a couple of bad or weak
releases and we have lost the strong base that holds the rest in place.
Gui shells will come and go, applications will evolve and change, but they
can only do that if they can depend on the underlieing kernel to stand
firm.
So I am wary of modules for the kernel, do all of the items suggested as
modules really need to be down there, some I have seen suggested wouldn't
benefit in the least from being at kernel level, it is enough for them to
form a part of the general purpose libs available for programmers. So I for
one am really happy to have the kernel in the hands of a particularly
stuborn man ( well he is really isn't he :) ).
Linonut
> It's wildly inconsistent and illogical (IMHO) to honor copyrights and not
> honor software patents.
Why? They're two different statutes.
> Anyway....if you can copyright a story (as countless stories have been told
> since man learned to speak) I see nothing stopping the patenting of
> software. At least software can be used to do work or accomplish a needed
> task. Even War And Peace can't do that - yet it has more protection.
>
> Odd.
What's odd is your confusion of copyrights and patents. They're two
different animals.
Even more odd is that you think software doesn't have copyright
protection.
--
Tux rox!
chrisv
No problem. Just keep paying the Microshaft tax for all ETERNITY.
After all, as Erik reminds us, that's preferable to having to pay to
"retrain" people...
dapunka
>
> How long will it be before Ubuntu can command the superior price for
> what it delivers?
Canonical, the people "behind" Ubuntu, make their money by charging
for services to commercial customers. Mark Shuttleworth has said that
Ubuntu will always be available free for download. On top of that,
Ubuntu CDs are available free, from http://shipit.ubuntu.com
Charging for services and distributing the software for free is the
FOSS way - soon to be /the/ way in which software is made and
distributed. The likes of Microsoft and Apple are dinosaurs, well on
their way to extinction.
Linonut
> This post is off topic and anti-charter. Any implication, inference,
> or insinuation that Microsoft may possibly do anything good is against
> the purpose of this group. There is an implicit understanding in the
> charter of "comparison of Linux to other operating systems as long as
> Linux comes out on top." As the right hand man of the Supreme Being
> known as Mark Kent, it is my duty to inform you that you can no longer
> post here and you must find another group to take your microtroll
> rants to. Since this is your first warning, I will only send a
> scathing letter about you to my Congressman. A second offense will
> result in a letter being sent to your Congressman. A third offense
> will result in the releasing of the hounds.
>
> In case others are wondering about what they can do to fullfill the
> charter and the decrees handed down by Mark Kent, here are a list of
> acceptable topics for COLA.
>
> Microsoft is evil.
> Microsoft sucks big time.
> Postings of articles that others have written.
> A digest of postings of articles that others have written.
> The iPhone.
>
> Everything else is both anti-charter and off topic. Deal with it or
> face the wrath of Kent.
Don't be an idiot.
Relax, and light up a Kent.
--
Tux rox!
cc
I can't relax. Mark Kent has his head way up his own ass over this
whole anti-charter, off-topic business, so it's fallen to me to
regulate. Technically since you implied that the anti-charter stance
is idiocy, you are posting off topic. You have now been banned from
COLA too. Although I'm not above bribery...
Linonut
>> Relax, and light up a Kent.
>
> I can't relax. Mark Kent has his head way up his own ass over this
> whole anti-charter, off-topic business, so it's fallen to me to
> regulate. Technically since you implied that the anti-charter stance
> is idiocy, you are posting off topic. You have now been banned from
> COLA too. Although I'm not above bribery...
Idiocies in COLA:
* net copping
* claiming Linux is x% (for x > 125 to 200, depending on task)
faster than Windows
* claiming that Windows is unadulterated shit
* claiming that Linux is unadulterated shit
* claiming that Linux will kill Microsoft
* claiming that Microsoft will kill Linux
* claiming that Microsoft is not or never was a monopoly
* fill_in_the_blank
All of this stuff may have elements of truth, but the only way to tell
is to do your own footwork.
Anyway, this place is a nice rowdy bar, and that's the way it should be.
--
Tux rox!
Rozzie
> When is the last time you had a Linux kernel crash? By faultless I don't
> really mean that they isn't room for changes, only that as it stands the
> main kernel configurations don't cause crashes or problems of any kind for
> most users.
I've never had the Linux kernel crash other than when I had a bad
install or mucked around with compiling my own kernel. I haven't had kde
crash on me in years either. Applications are another story however, but
even those that I use regularly are highly stable. Linux taken as whole
is highly stable in my experience.
Rozzie
Very true. Look at the Rosetta Stone. Had the stone not been discovered
much of the translations could never have been done and the content
would still be a mystery. Proprietary formats are much the same. Without
the program to unlock the document, so to speak, the document is a mystery.
Rozzie
> No problem. Just keep paying the Microshaft tax for all ETERNITY.
>
> After all, as Erik reminds us, that's preferable to having to pay to
> "retrain" people...
Migration costs are almost always front loaded.
BTW something has gone amok with your spell checking program.
Rozzie
> Canonical, the people "behind" Ubuntu, make their money by charging
> for services to commercial customers. Mark Shuttleworth has said that
> Ubuntu will always be available free for download. On top of that,
> Ubuntu CDs are available free, from http://shipit.ubuntu.com
But he has never said that *the same version of Ubuntu* would always be
available for free download.
I'm suspicious that at some point he will pull a Novell or Redhat/Fedora
and offer a commercial version as well as a stripped down free version.
Kier
Nothing wrong in that. No part of the GPL has ever prohibited making
money. Some people won't like it, though. IMO, he won't do it, he has no
particular incentive to.
--
Kier
Roy Schestowitz
> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> Relax, and light up a Kent.
>>
>> I can't relax. Mark Kent has his head way up his own ass over this
>> whole anti-charter, off-topic business, so it's fallen to me to
>> regulate. Technically since you implied that the anti-charter stance
>> is idiocy, you are posting off topic. You have now been banned from
>> COLA too. Although I'm not above bribery...
>
> Idiocies in COLA:
>
> * net copping
I don't do this. Some people do. I can't say that I resent them for it because
some people comes here to harrass, to ridicule, to pollute, and maybe even to
shill.
> * claiming Linux is x% (for x > 125 to 200, depending on task)
> faster than Windows
> * claiming that Windows is unadulterated shit
> * claiming that Linux is unadulterated shit
> * claiming that Linux will kill Microsoft
> * claiming that Microsoft will kill Linux
> * claiming that Microsoft is not or never was a monopoly
> * fill_in_the_blank
That's a case of taking things to the extremely. Some of try to provide
balanced facts that are being checked before publication in the press. The
facts can speak for themselves, so there's no need to embellishment. It's open
for interpretation, so we usually go further and extrapolate.
> All of this stuff may have elements of truth, but the only way to tell
> is to do your own footwork.
>
> Anyway, this place is a nice rowdy bar, and that's the way it should be.
--
~~ Best of wishes
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
20:20:01 up 7 days, 1:48, 6 users, load average: 2.20, 1.53, 1.17
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
cc
A nice rowdy bar is completely anti-charter and off-topic. Tell him
Mark!
Rafael
> Linonut wrote:
>
>> Idiocies in COLA:
>>
>> * net copping
>> * claiming Linux is x% (for x > 125 to 200, depending on task)
>> faster than Windows
>> * claiming that Windows is unadulterated shit
>> * claiming that Linux is unadulterated shit
>> * claiming that Linux will kill Microsoft
>> * claiming that Microsoft will kill Linux
>> * claiming that Microsoft is not or never was a monopoly
>> * fill_in_the_blank
>>
>> All of this stuff may have elements of truth, but the only way to tell
>> is to do your own footwork.
>>
>> Anyway, this place is a nice rowdy bar, and that's the way it should be.
>
> A nice rowdy bar is completely anti-charter and off-topic. Tell him
> Mark!
Barkeep, plastic's on the table, a refill for all and a double
jigger for Linonut.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
[quote]
The charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy is:
For discussion of the benefits of Linux compared to other
operating systems.
That single sentence is the one and only charter of the
newsgroup comp.os.linux.advocacy. The newsgroup's charter is for
the newsgroup as a place for supporters of Linux to gather to
discuss Linux, for the betterment of the Linux community and the
promotion and development of Linux.
[/quote]
Charter says this forum is a place to gather and discuss Linux,
for the betterment of the community. Like in any bar, there is
need for a bouncer.
Stop behaving as a sycophant and you can have a refill, too.
--
Cheers, Rafael
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm
cc
See! Thanks for setting him straight Roy Culley #2. I've kicked him
out of COLA, problem solved. I'm going to go all Spanish Inquisition
in this mother and remove all anti-charter off-topic wintrolls.
Tim Smith
wrote:
> The charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy is:
>
> For discussion of the benefits of Linux compared to other
> operating systems.
>
> That single sentence is the one and only charter of the
> newsgroup comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Right.
> The newsgroup's charter is for the newsgroup as a place for
> supporters of Linux to gather to discuss Linux, for the betterment of
> the Linux community and the promotion and development of Linux.
Wrong. Could you try actually READING the charter? It doesn't say
anything about the group being for supports of Linux. Everyone who
wants to discuss the benefits of Linux compared to other operating
systems is welcome, according to the charter. And that includes those
who want to say that Linux loses in that comparison--that was the
*REASON* COLA was created, in fact, so that such discussion would take
place here instead of the technical groups.
It is astounding that you actually post the complete charter and then
lie about what it says.
--
--Tim Smith
Rafael
You are a bore. You can't even argue effectively. You don't
listen to your own advice:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/43955c0c2f26ccd9
bringing up subject of suicide during an FAQ discussion.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/1e4b902d7d72165b
This is a closer reflection, IMHO, of what is happening:
> There is a marginal point where a reader/poster becomes a
> troll, I think. For example, I am yet to witness what makes
> Tim Smith so skeptic that he should be ignored. I still think
> he participates in the wrong newsgroup because he is not here
> to advocate Linux, but only to challenge those who do.
> Nonetheless, his presence here, much like the presense of all
> trolls is an implication of their desire to embrace Linux.
> It's like the criminal that hangs around the scene of a crime,
> hoping to be caught.
Gregory Shearman
> I've never had the Linux kernel crash other than when I had a bad
> install or mucked around with compiling my own kernel. I haven't had kde
> crash on me in years either. Applications are another story however, but
> even those that I use regularly are highly stable. Linux taken as whole
> is highly stable in my experience.
Never seen a kernel crash?
Try running an ATI graphics card with the ATI binary blob driver. Every now
and then they fuck up with a driver update and it will crash the kernel.
Hasn't happened to me for a year or so now.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Manny
> ____/ Linonut on Saturday 23 June 2007 16:11 : \____
>
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, cc belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>>> Relax, and light up a Kent.
>>> I can't relax. Mark Kent has his head way up his own ass over this
>>> whole anti-charter, off-topic business, so it's fallen to me to
>>> regulate. Technically since you implied that the anti-charter stance
>>> is idiocy, you are posting off topic. You have now been banned from
>>> COLA too. Although I'm not above bribery...
>> Idiocies in COLA:
>>
>> * net copping
>
> I don't do this. Some people do. I can't say that I resent them for it because
> some people comes here to harrass, to ridicule, to pollute, and maybe even to
> shill.
>
You're a lying arsehole.
>> * claiming Linux is x% (for x > 125 to 200, depending on task)
>> faster than Windows
>> * claiming that Windows is unadulterated shit
>> * claiming that Linux is unadulterated shit
>> * claiming that Linux will kill Microsoft
>> * claiming that Microsoft will kill Linux
>> * claiming that Microsoft is not or never was a monopoly
>> * fill_in_the_blank
>
> That's a case of taking things to the extremely. Some of try to provide
> balanced facts that are being checked before publication in the press. The
> facts can speak for themselves, so there's no need to embellishment. It's open
> for interpretation, so we usually go further and extrapolate.
"open for interpretation" <snicker>
--
The dishonest liar Roy Schestowitz is to Linux as Pat Robertson is
to Christianity. He drives away more people than he converts.
Tags for search engines: Roy Schestowitz, liar, paranoid, credibility,
pathetic, job, HR, human resources, employment, job, hire, interview,
background check, background investigation, character, record. - LQ
Manny
>
> Idiocies in COLA:
>
> * net copping
Kent, ninja turtle, Liar, 'omo; you useless twat rags listening ?
> * claiming Linux is x% (for x > 125 to 200, depending on task)
> faster than Windows
Several idiots claimed up to 50x, not 200%.
> * claiming that Windows is unadulterated shit
> * claiming that Linux is unadulterated shit
> * claiming that Linux will kill Microsoft
> * claiming that Microsoft will kill Linux
> * claiming that Microsoft is not or never was a monopoly
> * fill_in_the_blank
>
Treason, treason I say ! Hang the Nut !
Tim Smith
wrote:
> You are a bore. You can't even argue effectively. You don't
If it is not an effective argument, then why can't you address it?
The charter is one sentence. It says nothing about who is welcome here.
Anyone who wants to discuss the benefits of Linux compared to other
systems is welcome here, according to the charter. And that includes
discussing whether there are benefits or not--that is clear from the
pre-history of the group.
--
--Tim Smith
Rafael
> See! Thanks for setting him straight Roy Culley #2. I've
> kicked him out of COLA, problem solved. I'm going to go all
> Spanish Inquisition in this mother and remove all anti-charter
> off-topic wintrolls.
Are you for real?
Rafael
> Rafael wrote:
>
>> You are a bore. You can't even argue effectively. You don't
>
> If it is not an effective argument, then why can't you address it?
>
> The charter is one sentence. It says nothing about who is welcome here.
> Anyone who wants to discuss the benefits of Linux compared to other
> systems is welcome here, according to the charter. And that includes
> discussing whether there are benefits or not--that is clear from the
> pre-history of the group.
We have already been through this. You prefer selective amnesia
for the facts, selective snippages with rants over old hat, hence
why you are a bore. Reference Charter statement: "For discussion
of the benefits of Linux compared to other operating systems."
Excerpts from http://www.webster.com:
|Main Entry: ad-vo-ca-cy
| : the act or process of advocating or supporting a cause or
| proposal
| Main Entry: ad-vo-cate
| 1 : one that pleads the cause of another; specifically :
| one that pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or
| judicial court
| 2 : one that defends or maintains a cause or proposal
| 3 : one that supports or promotes the interests of
| another
| Main Entry: ben-e-fit
| 2 a : something that promotes well-being : ADVANTAGE b :
| useful aid : HELP
Per On-line Thesaurus:
| Entry Word: benefit
| 1 : a thing that helps <it would be a real benefit if
| you could keep track of what you have already bought> --
| see HELP 2
| 2 : something that provides happiness or does good for a
| person or thing <the meal service is a great benefit
| to invalids and the elderly> -- see BLESSING 2
Again:
| Main Entry: dis搾us新ion
| 1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal
| debate
| 2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing
"Advocacy for Linux" implies "defend, support, promote
Linux".
"Benefit" implies "advantage, helpful, does good, provides
happiness, blesses".
Thus, content of anti-Linux nature that is short of consideration
of a question in open and usually informal debate on defending,
supporting, promoting advantages, helpfulness and happiness Linux
brings is inappropriate per charter.
Reference ftp archive:
ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/comp/
Per text document "comp.os.linux.advocacy"
16 year old Danny Gould, Unix Sysop, Montgomery Blair High
School's RFD of 1994 Feb 14 (Valentine's Day) went nowhere. It
died without further pursuit.
Also reference
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.help/browse_frm/thread/
a95ddb62efea3e7a/817bad7d4a8b0bde?lnk=gst&q=RFD%3A&rnum=4&hl=en#
817bad7d4a8b0bde
There was more active debate over Mr. Sill's use of a straw poll
initiated 1994 Aug 17 to find out whether it was worthwhile to
even pursue splitting comp.os.linux.help newsgroup into several,
than over advocacy.
Reference FTP text document "comp.os.linux-reorg3"
Fact is the charter through popular vote was established as "For
discussion of the benefits of Linux compared to other operating
systems." c.o.l.advocacy was established with a vote of 1337 for,
167 against.
Advocates have been down this road with your previously, so I
will not pursue this any further with you.
Tim Smith
wrote:
> We have already been through this. You prefer selective amnesia
> for the facts, selective snippages with rants over old hat, hence
> why you are a bore. Reference Charter statement: "For discussion
> of the benefits of Linux compared to other operating systems."
>
> Excerpts from http://www.webster.com:
>
> |Main Entry: ad-vo-ca-cy
> | : the act or process of advocating or supporting a cause or
> | proposal
> | Main Entry: ad-vo-cate
> | 1 : one that pleads the cause of another; specifically :
> | one that pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or
> | judicial court
> | 2 : one that defends or maintains a cause or proposal
> | 3 : one that supports or promotes the interests of
> | another
> | Main Entry: ben-e-fit
> | 2 a : something that promotes well-being : ADVANTAGE b :
> | useful aid : HELP
The word "advocacy" does not appear in the charter. Nice attempt to try
to add bulk to make your weak argument look strong, though.
--
--Tim Smith
Manny
>
> W <snip>
Why did you nymshift from High Plains Thumper ?
cc
> cc wrote:
> > See! Thanks for setting him straight Roy Culley #2. I've
> > kicked him out of COLA, problem solved. I'm going to go all
> > Spanish Inquisition in this mother and remove all anti-charter
> > off-topic wintrolls.
>
> Are you for real?
>
You know it.
Rafael
> Rafael wrote:
>
>>
>> |Main Entry: ad-vo-ca-cy
>> | : the act or process of advocating or supporting a cause or
>> | proposal
>> | Main Entry: ad-vo-cate
>> | 1 : one that pleads the cause of another; specifically :
>> | one that pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or
>> | judicial court
>> | 2 : one that defends or maintains a cause or proposal
>> | 3 : one that supports or promotes the interests of
>> | another
>> | Main Entry: ben-e-fit
>> | 2 a : something that promotes well-being : ADVANTAGE b :
>> | useful aid : HELP
>
> The word "advocacy" does not appear in the charter.
Yawn ..... Yes it is, it is in comp.os.linux."ADVOCACY".
George N.
>
> Oh, ok, get ready to flame me.
>
> But, thinking about it, if Linux ever hopes to make money for it's work.
>
> Wouldn't it be a good idea intially to sign up and at least get the cash
> flow going back to the distro manufacturers?
>
The problem with riding a tiger, while it may be exciting at first, is
that you can never get off without being eaten.
GN
Hadron Quark
> Tim Smith wrote:
>> Rafael wrote:
>>
>>> The charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy is:
>>>
>>> For discussion of the benefits of Linux compared to other operating
>>> systems.
>>>
>>> That single sentence is the one and only charter of the newsgroup
>>> comp.os.linux.advocacy.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> The newsgroup's charter is for the newsgroup as a place for
>>> supporters of Linux to gather to discuss Linux, for the betterment
>>> of the Linux community and the promotion and development of Linux.
>>
>> Wrong. Could you try actually READING the charter? It doesn't say
>> anything about the group being for supports of Linux. Everyone who
>> wants to discuss the benefits of Linux compared to other operating
>> systems is welcome, according to the charter. And that includes
>> those who want to say that Linux loses in that comparison--that was
>> the *REASON* COLA was
>> created, in fact, so that such discussion would take place here
>> instead of the technical groups.
>>
>> It is astounding that you actually post the complete charter and
>> then lie about what it says.
>
> You are a bore. You can't even argue effectively. You don't listen
> to your own advice:
ROTFM.
Rafael, you are in above your head again. Go away.