On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 09:51:25 +0000 (UTC), tony@aplawrence.com wrote:

>FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote:
>>On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 19:02:50 +0000 (UTC), tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
>
>>[...]
>
>>>I was just wondering this: y'all seem to believe that SCO has no
>>>case, that it's all b.s. and that they've cooked their goose with
>>>the GPL anyway. OK, fine.
>>>
>>>So why so angry then? If it's all crap, and if the GPL is going
>>>to roast them on a spit, why be so angry and full of hate?
>
>>Let me ask you something, Tony: If some loudmouthed lout stood outside
>>your house passing out leaflets proclaiming you a child molester, or
>>wife beater, would you be mad, or simply sit back and do nothing,
>>since it would be untrue?
>
>It's IBM being accused, not you.


And Redhat, and SuSE:

"...But Red Hat has had a free ride. In its IPO filings, one of the
warnings to investors stated clearly that Red Hat may be violating IP
and one day they may have to step up and pay royalties. Why not? Every
time I ship a copy of my operating system, I pay royalties to Novell
and Veritas. There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE
when this is done. But we're focused on the IBM situation."
-- Darl McBride, 2003-04-24


And SGi:

"SGI flagrantly permitted the copying and use of our proprietary
information without any knowledge of the identities of the recipients"
and "subjected our source code to unrestricted disclosure,
unauthorized transfer and disposition, and unauthorized use and
copying."
-- Darl McBride, 2003-10-02


And all Linux users (this would include both you, and me Tony):

"We have the ability to go to users with lawsuits and we will if we
have to,"
-- Darl McBride, 2003-08-06


And, it appears, everyone else:

"McBride also confirmed that the company has hired high-profile
attorney David Boies and his legal firm to investigate whether
Windows, Mac OS X, Linux and versions of BSD infringed on the Unix
intellectual property it owned.

While claiming that it is hard to estimate how many people are
technically in breach of its licensing terms, McBride said it's "very
widespread and would generate a revenue stream in the millions of
dollars. We know who they are."
-- Darl McBride, 2003-01-22

Although in this last case I'm assuming that since Microsoft are
funding their current court farce, SCO's spud-gun of justice won't be
targeting them.

--
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 10:40:27 +0000 (UTC), tony@aplawrence.com wrote:

>FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote:
>
>>So don't upgrade to the latest version of the binary! I find it
>>strange when people complain about the ever-changing nature of Linux.
>>Yes, it's evolving much faster than other OS' (especially SCO), but
>>you're not being dragged along and forced to constantly upgrade;
>>unlike the victims of a certain other criminal monopoly I could
>>mention.
>
>Again, sounds like the viewpoint of a single system user.

Hardly. Unless you consider my working with Solaris, HPUX, Linux
2.2/2.4 servers, plus OSX and W95/98/NT/2K/XP clients, a single system
;-)

>Changing Samba is expected: it has to keep up with Microsoft. Changing
>bc or ps etc. is just stupid.

The warnings are given, the authors have the final say in what they
wish to write. If you want to stay with the older versions of the
tools you can grab the source code or binaries and carry on using them
for as long as you like. You can even modify the code yourself;
imagine that! As I said, nobody forces you to use the latest tools.

Personally, I tend to check the impact an upgrade will have upon a
commercial system before installing it. In fact, the first question I
ask is "do I need to upgrade the current version of (for example) ps?"
This way, I'm not going to be surprised by these "abrupt" changes...

--
FyRE < "War: The way Americans learn geography" >

FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 10:40:27 +0000 (UTC), tony@aplawrence.com wrote:

>>FyRE <FyRE@toktik.demon.ku.oc.x> wrote:

>The warnings are given, the authors have the final say in what they
>wish to write. If you want to stay with the older versions of the
>tools you can grab the source code or binaries and carry on using them
>for as long as you like. You can even modify the code yourself;
>imagine that! As I said, nobody forces you to use the latest tools.

I don't give a rat's ass if the warnings are on cereal boxes: it's
still STUPID.

There are things I really like about Linux, but I don't
drink the Koolaid as you apparently do.

--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

On Sun, Oct 19, 2003, tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
....
>Changing Samba is expected: it has to keep up with Microsoft. Changing
>bc or ps etc. is just stupid.

I think you're being a bit optimistic if you think ``ps'' won't change.
It's always been a bit idiosyncratic, varying amongst different *ix
branches (e.g. SYSV and BSD have always had their own ideas of what ps
should produce).

I've used various gnu tools since 1985 or so to provide a standard API for
most of the more common commands (e.g. df, find, diff, etc.), but the ps
family of programs tends to want to look into kernel structures, so by
their very nature tend to vary. This isn't to say that I wouldn't like to
see tools that would be portable, but I'm not holding my breath.

Two programs that have caused me grief recently are ``uname'', and
``hostname'', particularly since the gnu-ish version of ``hostname'' seems
to have changed it's API (e.g. the -s option for short hostname seems to
have disappeared causing SuSE 8.x to set the hostname to ``-s'' instead of
giving the short name).

Bill
--
INTERNET: bill@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/

``It's not what you pay a man but what he costs you that counts.''
Will Rogers

On Sun, Oct 19, 2003, tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
>Joe Dunning <joe@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I'm still waiting for a god explanation of why SCO showed examples at
>>SCOForum that were deeply flawed. Oh, I know there are some vague BS
>>ideas that this is intended to wrong-foot the open source community, but
>
>Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
>stupidity.

On the other hand, consider that there may be people with malice
manipulating stupid and/or ignorant people. Lenin referred to these as
``useful fools'', and Cecil Rhodes more politely referred to them as
``helpers''. F.A. Hayek has an excellent chapter on this, ``Why the Worst
Get on Top'' in his book ``Road to Serfdom''.

Bill
--
INTERNET: bill@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/

``It's not what you pay a man but what he costs you that counts.''
Will Rogers

Bill Campbell <bill@celestial.com> wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 19, 2003, tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
>...
>>Changing Samba is expected: it has to keep up with Microsoft. Changing
>>bc or ps etc. is just stupid.

>I think you're being a bit optimistic if you think ``ps'' won't change.
>It's always been a bit idiosyncratic, varying amongst different *ix
>branches (e.g. SYSV and BSD have always had their own ideas of what ps
>should produce).

Of course it varies from Unix to Unix, but once you decide what it should
do, you shouldn't change. Every time I sit down at a Linux box I
have to wonder whether I am to use bsd or SysV syntax. I don't
give a damn which it is: just be consistent. Add new flags, fine.
If the kernel changes so much that there's new info to display,
fine, add it with a new flag. But don't change just because some
new jackass doesn't like the way it was done previously.

--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:14:24 +0000 (UTC),
tony@aplawrence.com <tony@aplawrence.com> wrote:

>Bill Campbell <bill@celestial.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, Oct 19, 2003, tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
>>...
>>>Changing Samba is expected: it has to keep up with Microsoft. Changing
>>>bc or ps etc. is just stupid.
>
>>I think you're being a bit optimistic if you think ``ps'' won't change.
>>It's always been a bit idiosyncratic, varying amongst different *ix
>>branches (e.g. SYSV and BSD have always had their own ideas of what ps
>>should produce).
>
>Of course it varies from Unix to Unix, but once you decide what it should
>do, you shouldn't change. Every time I sit down at a Linux box I
>have to wonder whether I am to use bsd or SysV syntax.

Well, you can use either! You must have experienced networks that had
both SunOS 4 (BSD-based) and SunOS 5 (SysV based) side-by side --
however did you figure out how to use ps then?

> I don't
>give a damn which it is: just be consistent. Add new flags, fine.
>If the kernel changes so much that there's new info to display,
>fine, add it with a new flag. But don't change just because some
>new jackass doesn't like the way it was done previously.

OK, let's look at the date at the end of the man page from a very up
to-date Gentoo box: July 8, 1998! That was 5 years ago. Doen't look like
it is changing very much. Also, briefly scanning the man page from a 6.2
RedHat box (1997), the man page seems to be almost identical.

Here's one key statement in the man pages: "This ps can be set to
conform to version 2 of the Single Unix Specification." Isn't that
enough for you?

So, we have 2 different distros, one from 1997, the other from 2003 and
there seem to be no significant changes. What are you complaining about?
That it might be different to an SCO box?

Joe Dunning <joe@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>Here's one key statement in the man pages: "This ps can be set to
>conform to version 2 of the Single Unix Specification." Isn't that
>enough for you?

Not if the DEFAULT behavior was changed. And that's what I THINK
I have noticed, though of course I could be wrong: I work on
too many systems that I didn't set up.

>So, we have 2 different distros, one from 1997, the other from 2003 and
>there seem to be no significant changes. What are you complaining about?
>That it might be different to an SCO box?

Didn't mean that, and perhaps I picked a bad example. I was under the
impression that Linux ps started out with the default being "I want
a broken ps" set, but that was probably just some specific distro I used.

The "bc" example someone else gave was probably better. The POINT
is that it doesn't matter what kinds of warnings you give, it is DUMB to
change things because you think your way is better. Consistency is
better. Please lets not caught up in dumb arguments about
specific commands. You argued that change is OK if there is plenty
of warning; it isn't. Sometimes change IS necessary, I agree, but
you should break your back trying to maintain consistency.

--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

Joe Dunning <joe@blahblah.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:14:24 +0000 (UTC),
>tony@aplawrence.com <tony@aplawrence.com> wrote:

>>Bill Campbell <bill@celestial.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, Oct 19, 2003, tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
>>>...
>>>>Changing Samba is expected: it has to keep up with Microsoft. Changing
>>>>bc or ps etc. is just stupid.
>>
>>>I think you're being a bit optimistic if you think ``ps'' won't change.
>>>It's always been a bit idiosyncratic, varying amongst different *ix
>>>branches (e.g. SYSV and BSD have always had their own ideas of what ps
>>>should produce).
>>
>>Of course it varies from Unix to Unix, but once you decide what it should
>>do, you shouldn't change. Every time I sit down at a Linux box I
>>have to wonder whether I am to use bsd or SysV syntax.

>Well, you can use either! You must have experienced networks that had
>both SunOS 4 (BSD-based) and SunOS 5 (SysV based) side-by side --
>however did you figure out how to use ps then?

Uh, duh, because when I sit down at the box I know whether it is
SunOs or Solaris..

--
tony@aplawrence.com Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: http://aplawrence.com
Get paid for writing about tech: http://aplawrence.com/publish.html

In article <bmunqg$ih9$1@pcls4.std.com>, <tony@aplawrence.com> wrote:
>Bill Campbell <bill@celestial.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, Oct 19, 2003, tony@aplawrence.com wrote:
>>...
>>>Changing Samba is expected: it has to keep up with Microsoft. Changing
>>>bc or ps etc. is just stupid.

>>I think you're being a bit optimistic if you think ``ps'' won't
>>change. It's always been a bit idiosyncratic, varying amongst
>>different *ix branches (e.g. SYSV and BSD have always had their
>>own ideas of what ps should produce).

>Of course it varies from Unix to Unix, but once you decide what it should
>do, you shouldn't change. Every time I sit down at a Linux box I
>have to wonder whether I am to use bsd or SysV syntax.

Or some syntax that is in neither ? :-)

>I don't give a damn which it is: just be consistent.

And if something changes there should be some option to keep
legacy shell scripts working that would fail on new syntax.
You won't be able to fix all scripts overnight. And as the history
of computer software has shown, sometimes something comes up that
was not immediately noted in the change - that or an unintended
consequence.

>Add new flags, fine. If the kernel changes so much that there's
>new info to display, fine, add it with a new flag. But don't
>change just because some new jackass doesn't like the way it was
>done previously.

My Sediments Exactly [which is the name of a wine company
a friend owns].

Bill


--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com