-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:52:23AM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> On 12/1/06, Kevin Mark <kevin.mark@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 01:14:34PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> A killer app is an application that compels one to use a certain
> >> system. On Debian lists, someone mentioned that meld, a GUI diff
> >> utility, was killer. I can't think of any I have because I moved to
> >> GNU/Linux for its said overall magnificence, instead of a particular
> >> application, and today there's isn't one utility I admire so much I'd
> >> consider such... maybe gnome-terminal, lsof, grep, top,
> >> epiphany-browser, or less. I'd mention admirance for Blender, GCC,
> >> Python but they are cross-platform. I'd mention GNOME, but it's a 100
> >> apps. So I give up and ask you, what's your killer app(s)?
> >Hi Tshepang,
> >from the myriad of answers, it seems clear that the answer depends upon
> >what the user think is important to them and there are different
> >requirement for each users. There is not just one user type for Gnu.
> >Some are people are looking for text processing, some graphics, some
> >audio, some programming platorm, some privacy, some no viruses, etc. It
> >takes any person _a lot_ of persistance to want to use *nix systems. At
> >least the folks that I know simply have no interest in doing anything
> >'odd' or 'difficult' or 'not what everyone uses' and that requires
> >asking questions and reading alot, what with literacy today. They must
> >have learned about something like DRM, copyright, or have been in
> >academia where *nix system are used to have a wish to depart from the
> >mainstream. I like reading about relatives or friends of *nix people
> >installing Gnu. And Ubuntu seems to be making some impression although
> >I've not really figured out how they get those average folks to use it
> >against all the pressures of todays society to not be geeks and be like
> >everyone else. The 3-clicks approach is ful to get it installed,
> >but it doesnt prevent the need for join irc or mailing lists which most
> >folks are not very interested in doing. Any way, once you set your mind
> >to install it, the rest is easy. Just ask question, wait for people to
> >answer you, and read alot. Any thought on how people come to Gnu is the
> >harder question to me, not what they use when they get here.
>
> I don't know if we both on page 20, but Windows users are often at
> luck because because there far more Windows 'experts' than GNU ones;
> Windows is easily at hand; Windows software is all over the
> place; Also, my brother loves Debian (except that he wouldn't if I
> wasn't around), but has to dual-boot since he needs a Cubase or Reason
> (music production) which don't really have FLOSS equivalents...
Hi T,
I'd take my luck with wikis, irc and mailing lists anyday rather than
rely on 'windows experts', expensive howto books, paid supportr, paid
upgrades and virsues. Exactly how useful is just learning to click this,
click than to do a task versus using the command line?
The only thing that would keep me in the ms world would be a specific
app that would not run on wine and was job critical. Besides, most
'' I used to get on Win was reformat and reinstall,
Ugh. Even rpm hell is better than that!
cheers,
Kev
- --
| .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: |
| : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com |
| `. `' Operating System | go to counter.li.org and |
| `- http://www.debian.org/ | be counted! #238656 |
| my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFc8Xxv8UcC1qRZVMRArRGAJ9f+9U3OUY7JSItbqJsXt YyhSrJIQCeJCLQ
Gj3ciV7292sAYIiYWYsfjM0=
=8SGz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:52:23AM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
<snip>
> Also, my brother loves Debian (except that he wouldn't if I
> wasn't around), but has to dual-boot since he needs a Cubase or Reason
> (music production) which don't really have FLOSS equivalents...
>
Hi T,
just recalled a post[0] by this guy pete from ubuntu about FLOSS audio
stuff. follow his blog (or like me at planet.ubuntu.com) for more a/v
stuff.
Cheers,
Kev
[0] http://www.progbox.co.uk/wordpress/?p=166
- --
| .''`. == Debian GNU/Linux == | my web site: |
| : :' : The Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com |
| `. `' Operating System | go to counter.li.org and |
| `- http://www.debian.org/ | be counted! #238656 |
| my keysever: pgp.mit.edu | my NPO: cfsg.org |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFc8ezv8UcC1qRZVMRApV+AKCHtp00ACYQ3rmtSFHb6P SP0QQEFgCfWetE
XAl7cZA4hAZ26ZBi1uZW7pM=
=W8KS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Tshepang Lekhonkhobe escribe:
> I don't know if we both on page 20, but Windows users are often at
> luck because because there far more Windows 'experts' than GNU ones;
> Windows is easily at hand; Windows software is all over the
> place; Also, my brother loves Debian (except that he wouldn't if I
> wasn't around), but has to dual-boot since he needs a Cubase or Reason
> (music production) which don't really have FLOSS equivalents...

Interconnecting different audio apps using jack is as funny as using
Reason. And an equivalent to Cubase depends on if he's using MIDI
(then Rosegarden or Muse should be tried) or mainly for mixing audio
(then Ardour which for many people is as powerful as ProTools.)

One can do audio and MIDI work with linux, it's a matter of changing
minds.

Cordially, Ismael
--
Ismael Valladolid Torres

http://lamediahostia.blogspot.com/ m. +34679156321
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ivalladt j. ivalladt@jabberes.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin)

iD8DBQFFc+xg59Nokt5yGvQRAqQgAJ9Rh0PhOcVQSnkebCNzIU Ho6tv87QCcCEKg
uVgGf011n1zt23CY9SwoCFc=
=Iopl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Chris Bannister wrote:
>
> Ahhh, Larry Lounge Lizard ...

I was thinking of "Dungeon Keeper 2" myself. :-)


--
George Borisov

DXSolutions Ltd


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:52:16PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
>> Both the GPL *and* commercial licenses are ultimately based on FUD. If
>> you're scared of the consequences of simply taking some code and using
>> it as you please and/or the consequences of doing so: You want a
>> license to tell you how you may or may not use it.
>>
>> Neither is Freedom. Both are restricted. Otherwise they wouldn't be
>> licenses.
>>
>> If you simply do what you wish with whatever code you have, and accept
>> the consequences, whatever they might be, you don't need a license.
>>
> s/code/books/
>
> Your argument does not hold. In the early days, so few people were
> using code that it really didn't matter. As more people came along and
> became education in programming and computer science, more people
> started founding companies to develop software. These people realized
> that like a book, someone could copy it without permission and sell
> those copies without the original author getting the benefit. That is
> called copyright. It has existed for a very long time.

Totally unrelated to my point. In fact, you completely missed it.

I can send you some non-GPL'ed non-Copyrighted code right now. Would
you like some?

You're adding things that simply don't need to exist. They *do* exist
for *some* code, including GPL'ed code, but licensing of ANY sort
(including Copyright, which is nothing more than another contrived
license allowed by law in many places) *restricts* the use of code in
some fashion. The only truly FREE code is code without any license at all.

Code does NOT inherently *require* licensing or Copyright. You just
think it does.

What would you like me to send you? A two line BASIC program?

10 PRINT "HELLO"
20 GOTO 10

Look - there you go. Free code. No Copyright, no license. Freely
distributed.

I would tell you to do with it what you wish, but that would insinuate
that you need to follow my wishes. You don't. It has no license or
copyright. (Many countries call this "Public Domain".) You may
incorporate my code into your own works freely without any encumberances
of any kind. Enjoy. Or don't. Your choice.

Do you get it now?

I'm not arguing for or against the GPL, just pointing out that code
doesn't need to be licensed just because anyone (or even a majority of
anyone) says it does.

Nate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 09:52:16PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
>> hendrik@topoi.pooq.com wrote:
>>
>>>> My assertion: The kernel is more important than the license. Code
>>>> trumps license. No code, no need to even use or have a license...
>>>> whatever it is.
>>> Code without licence tends not to propagate. Linux wasn't the first
>>> Unix-compatible one to have been written. It seems to me there was a
>>> Unix-compatible kerlen written in the language TURING sometime in the
>>> late 70's or early 80's. But it didn't have a free license, and --
>>> well, have any of you ever heard of it?
>> Code before licenses were popular propagated just fine. Ask RMS! It's
>> the basis for the entire GNU movement! Code *was* propagating just fine
>> until greedy companies added licenses. Then the so-called battle was
>> enjoined.
>
> True. I remember those days from back in the sixties. What you need
> the license for is to grant the users the right to propagate the code.
> Placing it in the public domain (which to my mind is a kind of license,
> whatever the legal technicalities may say) has the effect that companies
> can take the code private, privately enhance it to the degree that they
> effectively own what the original code has become, which may atrophy.
> This may or may not be what is intended, but the larger the developer
> community, and the greater the utility of the code, the less likely is
> will be to happen.
>
> GPL did prevent that kind of taking-private, but its contagion
> provisions are, in my mind, more restrictive than necessary to
> accomplish this aim.

GPL prevents it, but people CHOOSING to purchase the commercial version
in the first place caused the problem. GPL was not necessary if people
had simply refused to use the commercialized versions.

>
>> I could send you some code in e-mail right now if you'd like. You could
>> modify it and send it on privately to someone or use it in your business
>> and I'd never know about it. Code propagates just fine without licenses.
>
> And if you ever found out about it seven years form now when you've
> acquired a different mindset? Would you sue? Are you sure? If you
> did sue, would you win? And even if you are sure you wouldn't sue or
> couldn't win, can I be sure unless you do explicitly place it in the
> public
> domain?

Depends on my morals and ethics, doesn't it? I could GPL it and later
still sue, no difference there. GPL would limit whatever damage I could
cause by suing -- maybe. That remains to be seen in court.

> Under current international law, code is automatically copyright by the
> author. Unless a license is explicitly or implicitly granted, no one
> else has the right to make copies.

What if I don't WANT a Copyright. Stupid. What if I want nothing to do
with it once released? I don't want an "automatic license" if I mail
you some code without a license on it. That's stupid and sounds like it
was creaed for idiots who forgot to license their code.

You guys do realize I'm playing Devil's advocate here, and would always
explicitly license any code I released as a matter of course. Or
explicitly release Copyright and place it in the Public Domain.

I completely understand all you guy's comments, but I disagree heavily
that code ever *REQUIRES* a license.

And that is the point I'm trying to drive home to anyone who believes
that code requires a license. It simply doesn't.

Code is code, and is always Free, unless created under contract that it
remain non-Free or released under a restrictive license like the GPL or
BSD or anything else... anything other than raw code is encumbered with
non-Freedom. And that's okay... it's just a point that few in the GPL
fan-boy community ever even think about, let alone really digest fully.

Nate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Nate Duehr writes:
> What if I don't WANT a Copyright.

The politicians and lawyers who created copyright law cannot conceive of
such a thing. Consequently copyright is compulsory. The best you can do
is explicitly license it for anyone to do anything they want with it.

> And that is the point I'm trying to drive home to anyone who believes
> that code requires a license. It simply doesn't.

If you give or sell me a copy of a work of yours I own that copy and can do
as I please with it (that includes running it if it is a computer program)
with no need for a license. However, copyright law forbids me to make and
distribute copies of it without your permission.

> Code is code, and is always Free, unless created under contract that it
> remain non-Free or released under a restrictive license like the GPL or
> BSD or anything else... anything other than raw code is encumbered with
> non-Freedom.

Code is protected by copyright by default and may not be copied and
distributed without permission of the copyright owner.

> it's just a point that few in the GPL fan-boy community ever even think
> about, let alone really digest fully.

Perhaps you should try actually reading the copyright law. It is available
on line at
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17.html>.

--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

John Hasler wrote:

> If you give or sell me a copy of a work of yours I own that copy and can do
> as I please with it (that includes running it if it is a computer program)
> with no need for a license. However, copyright law forbids me to make and
> distribute copies of it without your permission.

Feel free to feel bound and to limit your own freedom if you so choose.

It's a self-imposed limitation in the case of my example of
non-licensed, non-attributed code that I typed into the mailing list.

> Code is protected by copyright by default and may not be copied and
> distributed without permission of the copyright owner.

If you feel you need to follow that law in every circumstance, go right
ahead. Breaking copyright in the case of someone releasing something
without a license appears to be a victim-less crime.

Thus, copyright in the real world only matters if the author chooses to
exercise it.

By your definition, you could have hit reply with quoting turned on in
your MUA to my code example I sent -- and then you would have been a law
breaker!

I could start sprinkling code into my signature line and then sue
everyone who quotes it on a mailing list? Yeah, right. It'd actually
be fun to see someone try that and see how far it got in the legal system.

I continue to contend that if you put it up in public (not private,
there are differences there) for anyone to see, and it has no license or
stated Copyright -- you'll have no leg to stand on if you attempted to
take that to a court to enforce copyright later. No matter how the law
is written, no Judge with half a brain cell operating would allow me to
sue you for hitting "reply" and "copying" my code.

Therefore the most effective way to "share" code with absolutely zero
encumbrances, is simply to post it somewhere in public, and to force
people to grow up and make their own decisions about whether or not they
wish to copy it and use it. No license required.

Copyright may be automatic, but doesn't apply unless the author chooses
to enforce it. And by posting it in public, they've taken all their own
teeth out if they were ever dumb enough to try to retroactively enforce
it later on.

Nate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org