Quoth Etay Nir on Tue, Feb 10, 2004:
> "Leave Philosophy to Philosophers" and leave technology evolution to those
> who envision it and work to make it happen.
Open Source is not only about technology, but also about worlview
(dare I say "philosophy"?), economics and sociology.
Not that I agree w
e has the courage to lose sight of
the shore..."
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Aaron
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 11:47 AM
To: Orna Agmon
Cc: Linux-IL
Subject: Re: Article on YNet
Thanks for the translation,
A few notes.
1. I infact a
good now we can have it slashdotted and then we'll see them:P
Ely Levy
System group
Hebrew University
Jerusalem Israel
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Orna Agmon wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Aaron wrote:
>
> > Just for the curious could someone parphrase in english what this is all
> > about?
> >
> > Th
Thanks for the translation,
A few notes.
1. I infact agree with Dr Saur on a few points. Linux software is infact
the same as commercial software and competes against it. Good software
is good software and bad software is bad software. Part of what makes
Linux good is a Unix way of doing thing
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Aaron wrote:
> Just for the curious could someone parphrase in english what this is all
> about?
>
> Thanks
> Aaron
>
> >http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-2872838,00.html
This is a full translation, full of mother tongure interferance, though.
Illusions that are sold
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 06:58:58PM +0200, Ely Levy wrote:
> what for? he is capitalist economics lecture
> isn't that punishment enough?
> what do you expect from those guys who spend their life making redicules
> theories which opensource totally ignore?
> would you think he would admit being wron
Just for the curious could someone parphrase in english what this is all
about?
Thanks
Aaron
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-2872838,00.html
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in
what for? he is capitalist economics lecture
isn't that punishment enough?
what do you expect from those guys who spend their life making redicules
theories which opensource totally ignore?
would you think he would admit being wrong?
Ely Levy
System group
Hebrew University
Jerusalem Israel
On T
Hi All,
I think someone should flame this guy...
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-2872838,00.html
--
::.
Amichai Rotman
Short text-only e-mails: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
UIN#: 6401746
Registered Linux User#: 201192
=
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Shaul Karl wrote:
> > xterm.
> >
> > Both gnome and kde are just too bloated, when you run many xterms,
> > and one or two "other" programs.
> >
> > WindowMaker is actually optimized for this mode of operation
>
> Can you give more details in what sense (does WindowMaker act
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 10:37:19AM +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > My desktop environment management is:
> > -
> > 1. Only KDE.
> > 2. I prefer KDE.
> > 3. Both.
> > 4. I prefer Gnome.
> > 5. Only Gnome.
> > 0. None.
>
> 0
>
> >
> > Reasons (please check all th
My desktop environment management is:
-
> > 1. Only KDE.
> > 2. I prefer KDE.
> > 3. Both.
> > 4. I prefer Gnome.
> > 5. Only Gnome.
> > 0. None.
>
I assume (0. None) is Console mode:
So it's 2 and 0 .
Ran Zahor
Ampersand Advise and Support Ltd.
Mailto:[E
On Tue, 2003-01-14 at 10:05, Eli Marmor wrote:
[snip]
> Questions:
> ==
> My desktop environment management is:
> -
> 1. Only KDE.
> 2. I prefer KDE.
> 3. Both.
> 4. I prefer Gnome.
> 5. Only Gnome.
> 0. None.
1(+Icewm+Fluxbox)
> Reasons (please check
==
My desktop environment management is:
-
1. Only KDE.
2. I prefer KDE.
3. Both.
4. I prefer Gnome.
5. Only Gnome.
0. None.
4
Reasons (please check all that apply):
--
A. Better Hebrew support.
B. Licensing.
C1
On 2003-01-14 Eli Marmor wrote:
> Just to clarify:
>
> The meaning of the answer "None" included "other".
OK :)
See below for my survey answers
<<1>> my home machine:
> My desktop environment management is:
0: None/Other (fvwm2)
> Reasons (please check all that apply):
G2: I've got used
Christoph Bugel wrote:
>
> On 2003-01-14 Eli Marmor wrote:
> > My desktop environment management is:
> > -
> > 1. Only KDE.
> > 2. I prefer KDE.
> > 3. Both.
> > 4. I prefer Gnome.
> > 5. Only Gnome.
> > 0. None.
>
> Wait! As an fvwm2 user (at home) I feel thi
Eli Marmor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If there will be enough answers, and they will make sense, I'll publish
> a summary. I ask in advance, that when such a summary is published,
> please don't take it's results as a proof for anything, and don't
> conclude that one product is superior.
>
> D
Something that you left out of your survey:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Eli Marmor wrote:
> > p.s.
> > I prefer GNOME over KDE- it has much less of the windows chunkiness
> > that KDE has.
>
> With no intention to raise a religious war, just for curiousity
> purposes, I want you to answer the following
On 2003-01-14 Eli Marmor wrote:
> My desktop environment management is:
> -
> 1. Only KDE.
> 2. I prefer KDE.
> 3. Both.
> 4. I prefer Gnome.
> 5. Only Gnome.
> 0. None.
Wait! As an fvwm2 user (at home) I feel this survey is 'offensive'
There is no right answer
> p.s.
> I prefer GNOME over KDE- it has much less of the windows chunkiness
> that KDE has.
With no intention to raise a religious war, just for curiousity
purposes, I want you to answer the following survey. You can send your
responses personally to my private e-mail, if you prefer. If you are
r
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Hetz Ben Hamo wrote:
> > KDE's authors were certainly pragmatists. But many in the linux community
> > did not like this. Partly because of ideaological reasons (which are clear
> > enough, and I'll spear them here) and partially for practical reasons:
> >
> > QT HAS A MONOP
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 18:28:32 +0200 (IST)
Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > - What if QT doesn't want to support it anymore?
Just one note. IIRC when KDE started working (pre-GPL), they've
got some kind of official letter from Trolltech, containing
assurances for various possible probl
> KDE's authors were certainly pragmatists. But many in the linux community
> did not like this. Partly because of ideaological reasons (which are clear
> enough, and I'll spear them here) and partially for practical reasons:
>
> QT HAS A MONOPOLY
s/HAS/HAD ;)
> - What if I want to apply a patc
On Monday 13 January 2003 15:22, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2003, Hetz Ben-Hamo wrote about "Re: article on ynet":
> > I have emailed him few weeks before Trolltech has announced that
> > Trolltech are switching from QPL to dual license (GPL. & Q
On Monday, Jan 13, 2003, at 13:41 Asia/Jerusalem, Hetz Ben-Hamo wrote:
You do agree, i (and almost all KDE developers) don't from the very
simple
reason - people are not starting to use Linux as their first OS, they
are
coming from Windows world and most of them simply don't want to learn
eve
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 03:07:21PM +0100, Lars Knoll wrote:
> Can you name the the ones who don't patch it? Can you list their
> reasons? Why would a distribution patch it in the first place rather
> then pick it off the shelf as it is?
I know that RedHat had some bigger patches in their vers
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 03:07:21PM +0100, Lars Knoll wrote:
> Hi,
>
Hello,
> You're allowed to patch
> it as much as you want (assuming you GPL your patches). Actually most
> distributors do that.
Can you name the the ones who don't
Hi Lars,
The quotes are part of what I describe as the situation before the license
change.
If it was not clear from my post: I have nothing agaist the current
licensing of QT, and of the fact the KDE uses it, at present (as opposed
to the past)
And BTW: it was perfectly legitimate of TrollTech
Lars Knoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wrong. Qt is under the GPL (since more than 2 years).
This discussion focuses on the dark ages when Qt was not GPL...
--
Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Taking any religion too seriously ... can be
hazardous to your health." [Richard M. Stallman]
Hi,
I won't engage into any discussions about which desktop is better (for maybe
obvious reasons), but let's still put a few facts straight:
> QT HAS A MONOPOLY
Depends on what you call a monopoly. Its (IMO) the best available C++ GUI
toolkit on X11. In that sense it might have one.
> - Wha
"Nadav Har'El" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So it's not such a huge loss if some work is duplicated. I'm not
> saying all work should be duplicated 10 times (like is happening in
> the commercial software world), but if parts of it is done a couple
> of times - it's not that horrible.
It may act
On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Hetz Ben-Hamo wrote:
> > I suspect the chances of any of us actually moving RMS (is that what
> > the M stands for Mr? ;) are slim to none. He is a man of strong
> > convictions. I'm sure he would have reminded you that when Gnome
> > started, KDE was not free, among other thi
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003, Hetz Ben-Hamo wrote about "Re: article on ynet":
> I have emailed him few weeks before Trolltech has announced that Trolltech
> are switching from QPL to dual license (GPL. & QPL) - if he would have treated
> this mail, we probably wouldn'
> I suspect the chances of any of us actually moving RMS (is that what
> the M stands for Mr? ;) are slim to none. He is a man of strong
> convictions. I'm sure he would have reminded you that when Gnome
> started, KDE was not free, among other things.
I have emailed him few weeks before Troll
Hetz Ben-Hamo wrote:
(and there's GNOME - a
thing which if Mr. RMS would have read my private email to him, wouldn't
exist).
I suspect the chances of any of us actually moving RMS (is that what the
M stands for Mr? ;) are slim to none. He is a man of strong convictions.
I'm sure he would hav
> For a change, Dvorak actually wrote something I agree with :-) This
> has been on of my main complaints about Linux for some time now,
> especially KDE (that I almost never use these days, exactly for that
> reason). It just feels too much like Windows. And one of the reasons
> I don't use Wi
On Monday, Jan 13, 2003, at 12:39 Asia/Jerusalem, Nadav Har'El wrote:
But not the typical comparison -
in this article Dvorak is complaining the Linux [1] software developers
are getting caught in a loop emulating Microsoft, including all their
mistakes,
For a change, Dvorak actually wrote som
Ynet is running an interesting article, a translation of a PC-Magazine
article about Linux vs. Windows vs. Mac. But not the typical comparison -
in this article Dvorak is complaining the Linux [1] software developers
are getting caught in a loop emulating Microsoft, including all their
mistakes, an
Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/28155.html
>
> I took the liberty to email John Lettice to draw his attention to
> Gilad's response and, for completeness, to MK Ronen's one, just in
> case The Reg decide to follow up, as they do on occasion.
>
> I wonder who tol
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/28155.html
I took the liberty to email John Lettice to draw his attention to
Gilad's response and, for completeness, to MK Ronen's one, just in
case The Reg decide to follow up, as they do on occasion.
I wonder who told them in the first place - they had to
40 matches
Mail list logo
