See also: last week's Letters page.

Letters to the editor

From: Ian Stuart <Ian.Stuart@ed.ac.uk>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: "Who really is the leading distributor?"
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:59:54 +0100

This article should really have been called "Who really is the 
leading retail distributon?".

The article is all about retail, not distribution.  For example, 
Debian would not appear in your list, even if it existed on 75% of 
the installed systems in th US - why, because there is no retail 
distribution channel to give you statistics. (I doubt that the Debian 
Team could tell you how many system there may be, +/- 20%!).

As an article, it was interesting, but the headline was definately 
missleading..

-- 
           --==**==--
Ian Stuart - EdINA, DataLibrary, University computing services.
---------------------------------
Truth is what you believe it to be.
  I cannot force my facts on you, only make you believe my beliefs.
---------------------------------
http://lucas.ucs.ed.ac.uk/

From: (anonymous)
To: "'lwn@lwn.net'" <lwn@lwn.net>
Subject: SuSE and market share
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 12:19:03 -0800


I  think its important for everything to be in perspective- The PC Data
numbers that SuSE use to claim its "48%" market share are only for ONE WEEK-
PC Data releases weekly numbers to its subscribers and has YET to release
the numbers for February in total....obviously that one week was when SuSE
7.1 was released and the other distros were silent. Retail sales over all
for Linux distros are flat or declining - with Caldera pulling out all
together, Corel soon to be done and Turbo can't be far behind. Basically-
from a retail perspective, the distros are just trading customers and not
seeing true market growth...I encourage you folks to get the PC Data numbers
and look for yourselves- do not just rely on respective press releases...as
they say...Torture the data until it confesses.

Its best I be anonymous....

Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:44:59 +0100
From: Duncan Cragg <duncan.cragg@2020me.com>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: Embedded Linux and Freedom



So RMS says:

> I'm less concerned with what happens with embedded systems than I am with
> real computers. The real reason for this is the moral issues about
> software freedom are much more significant for computers that users see
> as a computer.  And so I'm not really concerned with what's running
> inside my microwave oven.

And I say the opposite:

	http://cilux.net

The reason we differ is simple: I predict an imminent new 'generation' of
'programmable machines' (not 'computers') which are fundamentally
embedded. I believe that we have lost a battle to Microsoft in the current
generation (Unix tried, but failed).  But we have a second chance this time
around! And in the new generation, issues of privacy and freedom come into
very sharp focus.

RMS has, in a way, hit the nail on the head: you see present-day
computers. In the future you may not.  In the future, you will see your
'virtual stuff' before you see anything that looks like a computer. And
that virtual stuff can be instantly manifest anywhere in the world many
times over. Spot the privacy issues!  But more importantly, spot the
freedom issues: 'Intellectual Property' simply becomes moot when seen in
the light of this highly volatile and mobile virtual stuff. There can be no
such thing, since it only exists by government decree and the technology
has outgrown such boundaries!

Now, in the new generation of programmable machines, you see virtual stuff
before you see any program. The stuff 'implies' and draws in to you the
programs that are needed to animate it. So (a) you can't have to license
your programs just to be able to do things with your own or your colleagues
stuff; (b) you all have to agree to use the same programs to ensure
compatibility with other virtual stuff, and (c) you have to be able to
trust (i.e., see and improve) those programs when they control virtual
stuff that could even be running your home - or running nanobots around
your home!  So the Intellectual Property absurdity over virtual stuff
applies fully to the programs used to animate it. Thankfully!

Duncan Cragg

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 14:46:05 +0100 (CET)
From: ?Erik_Inge_Bolsø <erik@tms.no>
To: lwn@lwn.net
Subject: ALSA & Suse

Greetings.

One thing that could be noted about your recent editorial about ALSA, is
that it is not exactly surprising that ALSA is included in the Suse 
distribution - since all three of Jaroslav Kysela, Abramo Bagnaro and
Takashi Iwai, the three core developers of ALSA, are employed full-time
by Suse. :)

-- 
Erik I. Bolsø, Triangel Maritech Software AS
Tlf: 712 41 699		Mobil: 915 79 512

Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 15:13:54 -0500
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: Re: Ol' Uncle Harlan
From: Zygo Blaxell <zblaxell@washu.furryterror.org>

>The *ability* copy does not confer the *right* to copy

Sorry, but I _do_ believe that the ownership and possession of an object
_does_ confer the right to do nearly anything to that object, including
but not limited to destroying it, modifying it, analyzing it, and making
(or attempting to make) copies of all or part it, provided that my doing
so does not necessarily constitute an infringement of the rights of
someone else.  I further believe that these rights deserve the highest
levels of legal protection.

I believe that activities such as using copyright works to cause direct
harm to people, whether by evading an established legal framework
for other people to derive compensation from their creative work, or
by breaking up CD media containing copyright works into sharp plastic
shards and building some kind of weapon out of them with demonstrable
intent to use the weapon on somebody, do not deserve legal protection.

Distributing copies of copyright works without permission should be
illegal.  Merely making the copies in the first place should be a
protected activity as long as privacy is maintained.

-- 
"You acknowledge that Zygo Blaxell is not responsible for the Internet
or whether it should continue to exist in its present form or whether
or not a government or governmental agency, either foreign or domestic,
will control, regulate, or disband the Internet." GPGkeyID=0x69722DEE

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE6u66CHUphDmlyLe4RArv7AKCNMfU4qzj92LEgdUZX6lGWmWQC/QCgp4ji
31aLjHEb8AeIlTfH3pHvFrY=FOmf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----