Linuxers

linuxers@mm.ilug-bom.org.in

14152 discussions

Re: [ILUG-BOM] An Interesting Question
by quasar＠vsnl.net 28 Sep '02

28 Sep '02

pankaj(a)ncst.ernet.in wrote >Try this on windows (it's a java program. U can write it in C and >compile with VC it will give same result) :) I dont need to, I believe you about what it does. This reminds me, there was once a feller who got down *the* "yugandhar" with a simplistic email client he was writing... remember that occasion? I dont think there is any system which is 100% secure. But I confess, I should have been a little more specific in saying that win2K is the most stable from the M$ stable. :D umm... May be I should keep a copy of the program as NCST seems to be partial to win2K which they have on most of their machines... cheers, quasi p.s. howz life sir? will you be there for the ACM meet tomorrow 1830hrs?

2 1

Re: [OT] http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in
by Amish Mehta 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

I dont think any standard would say to have 'page not found'(no page) as first page. My suggestion would be to have list of mailings lists on front page, because I wanted to change my preferences of list, and to find link to change it, I had go to my trash and open one of the emails after finding 'page not found' on mm.ilug-bom.org.in. I dont have good memory to remember long link. :-) Amish. Philip S Tellis wrote: >that's standard with mailman AFAIK. It can't redirect to any specific >mailing list, because there are multiple mailing lists on the server.

2 1

Re: Fost.com digest, Vol 1 #94 - 1 msg
by Dinesh Shah 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

> --- Philip S Tellis <philip(a)konark.ncst.ernet.in> wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Dinesh Shah wrote: > > > > > Would love to... But both are working days. Can it be > > in the evening after 6pm? > > > Or I may have to do some juggling for my schedule. ;-) > > > > 12th and 13th October are Saturday and Sunday. Sorry, Wrong calander :-) I am in... Let me know the schedule, venue and topics... Also one more Seminar is finalized for SPCE, Andheri. I have spoken to Mr. Balasubramaniam. The dates for SPCE is 18-19 Oct. (Sat-Sun). I need speakers for this event as well. Pls come forward with the topic(s) you are interested in speaking about. Looking forward to favourable response. With warm regards, --Dinesh Shah :-) Shah Micro System dinesh(a)indiamail.com http://dineshah.tripod.com Mobile : +919821311906 -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

1 0

Re: Buggy C prog
by Amish Mehta 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

Philip S Tellis wrote: >No he shouldn't. When he does char *arg[4]; That's when memory is Sorry, I was under impression he used arg array as from main(int argc, char **arg) directly. I noticed it now that he has defined arg separately. Amish.

1 0

Re: [ILUG-BOM] An Interesting Question
by jtdsouza＠softhome.net 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

On Wednesday 25 September 2002 05:41, Bhargav Bhatt wrote: > Hello Luggers! > I will play the Devil's Advocate here. snip > P.S: i dont think that the GPL can be used at M$ is too smart > at code obfuscation(i think it means obscuring source code) for > people to be able to disassemble their OS and claim it to be a > rip-off of linux. Firstly no need for all the hassle of cloning linux use freebsd. It's license is unencumbered. Infact this is where they got their TCP/IP code from. A compiler is smart enough to de obfusicate code and will finally generate machine code very close to the original, which will be very difficult for M$ to defend. While small parts of similiar code may no doubt be attributed to coincidence, it would require some stretch of imagination to forward coincidence as an argument for an entire kernel. We must also presume that M$' developers worked in complete isolation and did not at any time consult any of the free developers - another tall order considering that the orginal code writers can barely understand what they have written in the first place. Apart from the above hypothetical case, the real problem is about the development model used by closed and open software. The M$Developer will have to pick cut off date for the code they plan to copy. By the time they come up with something useable, the open version will have moved so far ahead that the old version will become pretty much useless. Also it is not the kernel which is the key, it is the applications which produce the $. So all applications on the windoze platform will have to be ported by the developers delaying the deployment by ages. rgds jtdsouza(a)softhome.net

1 0

[OT] http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in
by Amish Mehta 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

Hello, http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/ gives page not found. I think it should atleast redirect to http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers Thanks. Amish.

2 1

An Interesting Question
by Bhargav Bhatt 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

Hello Luggers! I will play the Devil's Advocate here. Consider, for a moment, that the folloing *HYPOTHETICAL* situation is true. Microsoft Corp. has been losing market value rapidly(but it still is the number 1 software company) due to the advancement a much more "stable" and "secure" operating system called GNU/Linux. Since the GNU/Linux operating system, licensed under the GPL is completely open source, *anybody* is allowed to *see* the code. Lets say that Microsoft, to stay at the top, employs a few developers who are skilled at both GNU/Linux and Windows. Microsoft, then asks them to write a clone of the linux kernel for incorporating large chunks of it, maybe even the kernel in its entirety, into the next version of windows. Since M$ is the still the leader, they have the highest market share. Now if almost everybody switches to the new version of windows(based on the linux kernel), they will be in for a pleasant surprise. They will now get a much more stable and secure OS, which unknown to them, is running a replica of the linux kernel. This new OS will please major IT companies, using M$, too, as they will not have scratch their heads over switching to a more stable operating environment. This will mean an increasing demand for the now, stable and secure, OS from Microsoft. Since all patches applied to OSS are open too, M$ can easily incorporate those into windows update. M$ in the meanwhile, does NOT disclose to *anyone* the ingredients of the new OS. Thus M$ keeps making more money, and its market grows, thereby condemning GNU/Linux to realms of geeks, where it had its humble beginnings. Since M$ does not disclose source code, there is no way for others(Read GNU/Linux supporters) to make a claim that the new Windows is a rip off of the Linux kernel. My question is, (discounting the ethical and moral concerns as these cant be counted as legal arguments and assuming that M$ pays enough $$ to the developers to keep their mouth shut) what contract/law/clause/license/etc is there right now to prevent M$ from doing something as dastardly as this? P.S: i dont think that the GPL can be used at M$ is too smart at code obfuscation(i think it means obscuring source code) for people to be able to disassemble their OS and claim it to be a rip-off of linux. Bhargav Bhatt, Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University. --------------- Is it a co-incidence that Red Hat and Robin Hood share the same initials?

4 3

sendmail problem
by Girish Hanchate 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

Do masquerading or if u r using proxy open POP3 port in squid. rgds girish i need suggestion from u, theres some configuration problem i h've setup linux 7.3 Redhat with iptables firewall, n squid proxy server now i want to configure sendmail as a mail server for internal lan user the requirement is users from lan should able to send mails through windows machine with the help of outlook express, i already have a pop3 address for receiving mails from internet for example xyz.com, so receiving is not a problem but i need to configure my gateway such a way that user from lan (windows 98 / 2000 + outlook express installed ) should able to send mails to anyone from outlook express through gatway. pls tell me abt this from scratch that how should i setup sendmail to do this task, i dont h've any registered domain name i h've 64 kbps leased line with static ip n isp dns if i use mail programme on gateway to send mails to xyz(a)yahoo.com it works now i want same thing should happen from client machine i h've done SNAT on some machines Thanx Satsonic __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com

1 0

sendmail problem
by Girish Hanchate 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

Do masquerading or if u r using proxy open POP3 port in squid. rgds giris i need suggestion from u, theres some configuration problem i h've setup linux 7.3 Redhat with iptables firewall, n squid proxy server now i want to configure sendmail as a mail server for internal lan user the requirement is users from lan should able to send mails through windows machine with the help of outlook express, i already have a pop3 address for receiving mails from internet for example xyz.com, so receiving is not a problem but i need to configure my gateway such a way that user from lan (windows 98 / 2000 + outlook express installed ) should able to send mails to anyone from outlook express through gatway. pls tell me abt this from scratch that how should i setup sendmail to do this task, i dont h've any registered domain name i h've 64 kbps leased line with static ip n isp dns if i use mail programme on gateway to send mails to xyz(a)yahoo.com it works now i want same thing should happen from client machine i h've done SNAT on some machines Thanx Satsonic __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com

1 0

Anti-Simputer article...
by Frederick Noronha 27 Sep '02

27 Sep '02

More on the anti-Simputer article... Very relevant to the GNU/Linux debate too. FN From: "Vinay L Deshpande" <vinay(a)ncoretech.com> On the India-GII list Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 4:28 PM Subject: [india-gii] Reply to Scott McCollum on his article on Simputer Dear Pete: Thanks for forwarding this to me; it shows me that there ARE people who do not yet understand what the Simputer really is -- the Trust and we all need to do more to dispel misconceptions. I do hope my reply to Scott McCollum, appended below, will help clear his misconceptions. Best regards, Vinay QUOTE Dear Scott: Your September 19 article in the World TechTribune (http://www.worldtechtribune.com/worldtechtribune/asparticles/buzz/bz09192002) on how the Simputer will NOT bridge the digital divide, has just come to my attention, and I do feel you should have talked to the developers as well as some of the actual users, to get a better understanding of the product, before pontificating about something that you clearly do not understamd. Typical of some in the developed world to pretend that since they are from the developed world, they know better than the "natives." Allow me to clear your misconceptions: You said, "It's a cheap handheld that runs non standard software which will not help to bridge the digital divide." First of all, it is not cheap, it is simply inexpensive. Cheap today signifies low quality, whereas the Simputer is a high-quality product that uses state-of-the-art technology and components. Secondly, it is based on very standard software, as it uses the GNU/Linux operating system, which cannot be termed as non-standard by any stretch of the imagination, unless your definition of standard is Windows, WindowsCE, PalmOS, or Symbian. Further, the Information Markup Language (IML) that has been newly created for the Simputer, is in reality an XML application, and XML, again, cannot be termed non-standard by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, Microsoft, whose software you will perhaps agree is a standard, are promoting XML as an internet standard. Nevertheless, using the Simputer's SDK, programs can also be written in C, which is a current standard. Also, J2ME is now available on the Simputer, and J2ME, you will hopefully agree, is yet another current standard. The interfaces that the Simputer uses, such as USBn audio, IrDA, and V.90 modem, are also current standards. You then say, "by teaching an illiterate nomad how to use a computer that only other illiterate nomads use, they are not helping to bridge that digital divide," and "How can anyone honestly expect developing nations to ever help themselves if the Simputer doesn't actually teach them how the rest of the world really works?" It is rather presumptuous to think that the Simputer is only aimed at the illiterate, and further that all illiterates are nomads. What the Simputer does do, is to enable even illiterates, and yes, even the nomads among them, to use information technology as a tool to do things that matter to them, including accessing the internet for information at least in their own language, which the Simputer speaks to them using its built-in local-language text-to-speech facility. Admittedly, since they may not know English which you probably consider the only standard language, the Simputer may not just yet be able to teach them everything about how the rest of the world works, as some of that information content may not currently be available in their local language. But I dare say that there is a lot of material already available in many non-English local languages, in India as well as in other developing countries, which is still accessible to them. This we consider a good first step in bridging the digital divide. Besides, aren't use of handheld devices and internet access part of "how the rest of the world works?" By the way, hunt and peck is also how many in the "rest of the world" work, but I dare say that the illiterate nomads touching pictorial icons is hardly hunt-and-peck. In any case, a not-too-distant version of the Simputer will allow these illiterate nomads to use spoken commands in their own language, obviating the need for hunt-and-peck. As for illiterate nomads interacting with other illiterate nomads, aren't most of the interactions that any individual has, anywhere in the world, with other individuals in their local area(s)? Local here could mean a village, town, city, state, or even country. For that matter, it doesn't seem like you yourself cared to interact with the developers of the Simputer, half way around the world, to learn the facts about it, before jumping to your own ill-judged conclusions, so why should you expect the illiterate nomads to not derive any value by interacting with other illiterate nomads? Now, let's talk about applications. True, users must wait for someone to develop a specialized application and distribute it before they can enjoy the Simputer. But this is also true of any other standard handheld device if anyone in the developed world too needs an application that is outside the standard suite of PIM applications. Yes, a lot of specialized application software is available on many web sites for the standard handheld devices currently available in the market, but didn't users of such devices have to wait when such devices initially appeared, to have them written by some developer(s) ? Why should the Simputer be any different? In fact, there is already an army of independent developers, worldwide, which is creating many innovative applications on the Simputer, for bridging the digital divide, that have real meaning to the lives of those illiterate nomads as well as their literate counterparts in the cities and towns in the developing and developed worlds. One example is a Simputer-based ultrasound device to help government health workers monitor the health of mother and foetus among the aboriginal women in the remote villages of Africa where there is no electricity available for using standard ultrasound diagnostic equipment used in urban-area clinics or hospitals. That is bridging the digital divide, by passing on the benefits of modern digital technology to poor tribals in caring for their health. You finally say, "the most glaringly obvious problem of the Simputer is trumpeted as one of its greatest qualities: portability," as such portability would make the Simputer vulnerable to easy theft. No one can deny that the human temptation to steal exists among all peoples of the world, whether they live in developed countries or the developing ones. Why else would computer stores everywhere, including the developed world, do brisk business in those lockable tethers which they also use in-store, attached to laptops and handheld devices on display? The real point that you seem to have missed, is that by virtue of the smart-card facility, the Simputer can be shared among a group of persons who can't individually afford even the low $200 price, while still retaining the privacy of their data and other information. And because of such shared ownership, there will be greater care exercised to prevent theft(s). The same would be true of even Simputers which are placed in a village, say, by the government or even by "progressives" from the West, which, being community property, will be jealously guarded by the community! As for the Simputers that would be in a cyber-cafe-like Simputer Cafe in the village, the owner of the Cafe will have adequate preventive measures instituted against theft. All this does not mean that theft will be totally impossible, but it also doesn't mean that because of the likelihood of theft owing to its portability, the Simputer is not suited for use by those poor villagers. For that matter, the same poor villagers possess small, easy-to-carry or -pocket items such as traditional jewellery, farm implements, utensils, etc., which do once in a while get stolen, but which they do normally know how to protect from theft, so why should the Simputer be any different? I am afraid you do need to educate yourself, Scott. Best regards, Vinay Deshpande Managing Trustee The Simputer Trust ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Oram" <andyo(a)oreilly.com> To: <india-gii(a)lists.cpsr.org> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 5:38 PM Subject: [india-gii] Critique of Simputer > > The following article (which came to me across another > > mailing list) is worth reading carefully. It would be easy > > to sneer at. ("You're doing nobody a favor by giving them a > > graphical interface and a mouse. They've got to learn > > command-line utilities like everybody else.") The arguments > > are not presented as well as they could be, in my > > opinion. But there are several cogent arguments, somewhat > > hidden. > > > > SIMPUTERS: WHEN TECHNOLOGY DOES _NOT_ BRIDGE THE DIGITAL DIVIDE > > [SOURCE: World Tech Tribune, AUTHOR: Scott McCollum] http://www.worldtechtribune.com/worldtechtribune/asparticles/buzz/bz0919200… > > I would rephrase--and answer--McCollum's objections as > > follows: > > > > 1. Because the Simputer must use non-standard interfaces and > > applications, users must wait for someone to develop a > > specialized application and distribute it before they can > > enjoy it. > > > > Answer: this limitation sets the bar somewhat higher than > > other devices, but other users also need, for the most > > part, to wait for someone to develop a service or web > > site with the material they want. But even limited to > > Simputers, a county government or local business that > > sees a need could hire a programmer to code up an > > application and put it on a smart card. The barrier is > > still pretty low. > > > > 2. Simputer applications allow Simputer users to talk to > > each other. But there's a much wider world they need > > access to. > > > > Answer: A lot of research suggests that local > > interactions are more common than remote ones. For > > instance, people on a company LAN or extended network > > tend exchange more interactions with each other than with > > people out on the Internet. Universal access by a > > community to each other's systems is probably of greater > > interest than access to the outside. Nevertheless, > > gateways to selected outside services could be designed. > > > > 3. The Simputer traps users in baby interfaces, so they'll > > never grow into interfaces other people can use. > > > > Answer: design a teaching tool that uses the Simputer to > > help people learn more complex systems. > > > > 4. Technology cannot be introduced in a vacuum. A social > > infrastructure is needed. Thus, introducing $200 > > Simputers into poor areas will just lead to theft. > > > > Answer: This is actually a sophisticated > > argument. Infrastructure is indeed necessary. But if > > somebody thinks a Simputer worth stealing, it has proven > > its value. People in poor areas have other small, > > valuable objects and possess the street smarts to protect > > them. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Andy Oram O'Reilly & Associates, Inc. email: andyo(a)oreilly.com > > Editor 90 Sherman Street voice: 617-499-7479 > > Cambridge, MA 02140-3233 fax: 617-661-1116 > > USA http://www.oreilly.com/~andyo/ > > Stories at Web site: > > The Bug in the Seven Modules Code the Obscure The Disconnected > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ___________________________ > > Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) > > is the oldest non-profit, mass membership organization > > working on social impacts of computer technolo,

2 1

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Linuxers