- Linuxers - lists.fsci.in

RE: [ILUG-BOM] [OT] Linux (Linus??) Uses Mac
by Pillai, Gishu R (GE Energy) 05 Apr '05

05 Apr '05

Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 7:48 PM To: ilugd; ghaziabad lug; linuxbom; dehradun linux Subject: [ILUG-BOM] Linux Uses Mac Got this From a friend Check it out. The link is http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=11039 >Wednesday - March 09, 2005 >Linux creator 'switches' to Mac >By Macworld staff >Linux creator and self-confessed "media whore" Linus Torvalds has >admitted he is using a Mac as his main desktop. I believe the correct term that linus used is "tech whore" :) lost in translation I guess Gishu

2 1

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Firefox users deprived of certain sites.: Update
by Abhishek Daga 05 Apr '05

05 Apr '05

> Try Konqueror by changing it's browser id to IE Explorer. In most > sites it works. You can also try giving feedback to > webmaster@domain_name. Wine is an option and IE gets the Silver Rating (whatever that means) for it. Has anyone tried running IE via Wine? cheers abhishek __________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest

1 0

Problem related to porting Linux on mpc8248 based board
by Vikrant_Basotra 05 Apr '05

05 Apr '05

Hi All, We are having a problem with porting of linux to the 8248 based custom board. We are using the linux kernel image modified to work on an EP8248 (having the MPC8248 Processor) Board. We have our board configured the same as the EP8248 board. We have made no changes to the Kernal Image and it crashes. The last message it shows on the console is "Uncompressing Kernel....ok" and the console log_buffer has the following: "<6>Memory BAT mapping: BAT2=32Mb, BAT3=0Mb, residual: 0Mb. <4>Oops: kernel access of bad area, sig: 11.<4>NIP: 00000000 XER: 00000000 LR: 00000000 SP: 00000000 REGS: c0150000 TRAP: 0000 Not tainted.<4>MSR: 00000000 EE: 0PR: 0 FP: 0 ME:0 IR/DR: 00.<4> TASK = c014f470[0] 'swapper' Last syscall: 0 .<4>last math 00000000 last altivec 00000000.<4>Call backtrace: 00000004 ." The EP8248 Board have the following configurations: 1. 8MB Flash Port Size = 32 Bit Bootom Boot 2. 16MB SDRAM Port Size = 32 Bit 3. EEPROM 4. Memory Map ===================================================================== Memory Region Size Address Range ===================================================================== SDRAM 16MByte 0000_0000 - 00FF_FFFF Flash 8MByte FF80_0000 - FFFF_FFFF The board we are using has 1. 16MB Flash Port Size = 32 Bit Bootom Boot 2. 32MB SDRAM Port Size = 64 Bit 3. No EEPROM 4. Memory Map ===================================================================== Memory Region Size Address Range ====================================================================== SDRAM 32MByte 0000_0000 - 01FF_FFFF Flash 16MByte FF00_0000 - FFFF_FFFF The value of the IMMR in HCRW is both boards is configured to 0xF0000000. The value of IMAP_ADDR in linux/arch/ppc/platforms/ep8248.h and u-boot/include/configs/ep8248.h is 0xF0000000. The BD_INFO structure and the values are being passed perfectly from u-boot to linux. The cmd_start and cmd_end are also pefect - verified using the memory dump command in u-boot. We have performed RAM test through u-boot and it has passed it. We would be greatful if somebody could throw more light on where we are going wrong and help us successful port linux. If you require any more info i would be more than glad to provide you with the same. Thanks and Regards Vikrant ************************************************************************** This email (including any attachments) is intended for the sole use of the intended recipient/s and may contain material that is CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVATE COMPANY INFORMATION. Any review or reliance by others or copying or distribution or forwarding of any or all of the contents in this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email and delete all copies; your cooperation in this regard is appreciated. **************************************************************************

1 0

Migrating from windoze? links to tut
by sherlock＠vsnl.com 05 Apr '05

05 Apr '05

So you have been brain washed into ditching windoze by those communist linux zealots full of hype. Here is an article on how to do it. http://www6.tomshardware.com/howto/20040329/index.html http://www6.tomshardware.com/howto/20040412/index.html The author thinks that Debian is a difficult distro. Actually if you plan things Debian is the simplest for all types desktop, server, firewall, embedded, load balancing etc. So it makes sense for me to invest my learning time in Debian. So i can provide for a server, desktop, embedded, firewall.But then that is my opinion. The case for DIY single pc users handicapped by lack of knowledge, poor hardware support and non existent M$ software support is different rgds jtd

1 0

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Best Linux Desktop distro or maybe FreeBSD?
by sherlock＠vsnl.com 05 Apr '05

05 Apr '05

On Tuesday 05 April 2005 08:57, vaibhav samant wrote: > Another important aspect which I have experienced is that all these > desktops require powerfull PCs. I could very easily run Win SE/Me > on a Celeron 333 MHz, with 64Megs of RAM, but could not run any of > the linux desktops on this config. I believe KDE & GNOME are heavy. > Some lighter X-managers like XFCE are good, but one loses the > extensive menus etc. Debian woody worked very well on an AMD K6II 500 with 64MB. Kde 2.2 afair. That was 4 yrs ago. Still runs on that hardware. > > Pls correct me if I am wrong or I have missed any aspect. > > I too am looking for a good desktop which would run smoothly on a > Celeron 333 / P-II 220 / AMD K6 433 type PCs with good gui menus & > functionality. Ah! these beasties should be more expensive than antiques. GNU/ucLinux works on pdas and cell phones and a device with 32mb ram and 16 mb flash with X, sound, controls several external high power (KW) motors and runs on AA cells. You have to keep your software requirements, performance expectations and hardware config in line with the real world. Today's real world that is. Today's lowest performing box is a VIA C3 with 128mb and 40gb disk. And sarge works at a healthy clip on these. A base line intel box is i845 (was via p4m266A now no more available) with P IV celeron 2.8 GHz, 128MB ram and 40GB disk. rgds jtd

1 0

Best Linux Desktop distro or maybe FreeBSD?
by Abhishek Daga 05 Apr '05

05 Apr '05

Having being tormented by hajaar trojans, popups on home PCs using Windows platforms off late, I have converted them to Redhat 9.0 in the face of lot of scepticism and criticism from other users of the family. Their main concerns are: a) Ease of use b) Ease of use. The Redhat 9.0 distro was selected for no particular reason but because I had the CDs. Am not very happy though given that the CDs are a year old so support may not be available for number of things. To be able to use linux successfully as a desktop for non power users, these are the barriers I faced. a) Plug n play for devices such as USB Web cam, USB Hub, USB Card Reader. b) Internal Modem Dlink 560i+++ installation woes and lack of a versatile dialer to just click n connect for non root users. c) Winmodem detection and configuration woes. The question is: Which linux distribution can I use which will act as an effective desktop for home users which will overcome atleast most of the difficulties faced above. I am leaning towards the opinion that redhat 9.0 is not the best out there. (duh!). But whats a near ideal replacement? Gentoo? Lindows (avoidable?). Remember it's a Desktop and not Server, so rock solid stability may not be necessary and sufficient condition. thank you, Abhishek __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com

5 4

Bug in Linux?
by Net Letters 04 Apr '05

04 Apr '05

Hi List, I'm new to Linux. Just got a mail from a friend about a bug in Linux/Unix. I've not tried it yet. I'm providing the mail below for your information. Is this really a bug? Biggest bug in linux/unix!!!!! U can retrieve Password of the user. This is due a well known bug in the crypto algorithm of UNIX, used to generate /etc/passwd hash. Recent fixes have recommended usage of stronger algorithms like MD5, etc., But due to the large deployment of Unix machines, world-wide, its a very difficult task, requiring huge Logistics support. Check if your machine has the vulnerability. Just type the following command in UNIX or LINUX or Solaris, and you won't beleive that it will give you password of the user who has logged in !!! echo '82 43/25 43+65P80P82P73P76P32P70P79P79P76P10P' | dc -- Cheers__________________________ netletters(a)gmail.com ________________________________

3 2

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Bug in Linux?
by Anand M R 04 Apr '05

04 Apr '05

Enjoyed it as i'm across it for the first time since i'm a new member. Anand.

1 0

Linux Uses Mac
by Gaurav Mishra 04 Apr '05

04 Apr '05

Got this From a friend Check it out. The link is http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=11039 Wednesday - March 09, 2005 Linux creator 'switches' to Mac By Macworld staff Linux creator and self-confessed "media whore" Linus Torvalds has admitted he is using a Mac as his main desktop. Torvald told ZDNet Australia: "My main machine these days is a dual 2GHz G5. It's physically a regular Apple Mac, although it obviously only runs Linux, so I don't think you can call it a Mac any more. "As to the why... Part of it is simply that I wanted to try something else, and I felt like there were enough people testing the x86 side that it certainly didn't need me. Part of it is that I personally believe there are two main architectures out there: Power [the PowerPC chip is used in the Power Mac] and x86-64 are what I think are the two most relevant ones, and I decided that I had to at least check the other side of it out seriously if I really believed that." This isn't the only reason however. Torvalds admitted: "Oh, and part of it is that I got the machine for free. I'm really a technology whore." Torvald revealed that he was no longer using a x86 processor in his main desktop machine in a forum posting in February, despite the fact that he had "single-handedly revolutionized the use of Unix on the x86 platform, according to Silicon.com.

1 0

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Best Linux Desktop distro or maybe FreeBSD?
by Abhishek Daga 04 Apr '05

04 Apr '05

> > But whats a near ideal replacement? > > Gentoo? Lindows (avoidable?). > > Just like the old adage "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" the > same is true for the Linux desktop i.e. you will get a lot of > different opinions. You will have to decide which distro works best > for you. Ah well, It is the difference of Opinions that makes horse races. I have decided to go for Sarge. The aim of getting a desktop friendly distro is to fulfil the Goal of becoming a WindowLess office (since everything will be Open) by migrating from Tata EX which is totally tied in to Microsoft platform, to Tally on Fedora/RH9/Debian. OpenOffice and Firefox pretty much cover the other major needs. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. http://personals.yahoo.com

1 0

Linux based Fullproof Gateway/Firewall
by aashish kunte 04 Apr '05

04 Apr '05

Dear Linuxers, I want to configure a low configuration machine (Ideally P1 or P2) With Linux Console Only, Which can work as Dedicated Internet GW/Firewall. Is there any Linux-Flavor Only giving the same ? I want only Logs to be mentained along with it ! Thanks in advance. Aashish

5 4

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Best Linux Desktop distro or maybe FreeBSD?
by Abhishek Daga 04 Apr '05

04 Apr '05

> > Winmodems are not supported due to patent and NDA issues from the > chip vendors. So buy an external modem. Or use M$ software and > grin and bear. Ok, so it's a lawyer thing not a programmer thing. Guess will just get a PCMCIA card as far as laptops are concerned. Cheap and best. For the desktops, avoiding the use of external modem. Will try and get the Conexant working at 48.8 K atleast. Anyone who thinks the challenge and a beer are enough incentives to get the drivers developed, raise your hand. > IMO Debian sarge fits the bill completely except for the internal > modem.I have completely clueless people using Sarge (including two > sixty two year olds) with tata indicom, dishnet, incable, sify etc. > They use webcams, usbflashdisks, burn cds and announce that they use > debian linux with a smirk at their peers when someone sobs about > virii, worms, spyware. So looks like this is what I should go for. Another question I had in mind was Support. In anycase support the linux is limited. You know what I mean. Not the company bag and laptop carrying, tie wearing support exec. But our regular hardware guy support person. So would choosing Debian or other over Fedora create support issues? Or given that support is so negligible anyways, it wouldnt matter if it's one distro or the other? Also no mention of FreeBSD in favor or otherwise, so I am assuming, we should stick to the server side for this. Also, is there a way I can get copies of the Sarge distro from you? I am bandwidth challenged. Muchos Gracias abhishek __________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest

1 0

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Best Linux Desktop distro or maybe FreeBSD?
by sherlock＠vsnl.com 04 Apr '05

04 Apr '05

On Monday 04 April 2005 11:35, Abhishek Daga wrote: > Having being tormented by hajaar trojans, popups on home PCs using > Windows platforms off late, I have converted them to Redhat 9.0 in > the face of lot of scepticism and criticism from other users of the > family. > > Their main concerns are: > a) Ease of use b) Ease of use. > > To be able to use linux successfully as a desktop for non power > users, these are the barriers I faced. > > a) Plug n play for devices such as USB Web cam, USB Hub, USB Card Debian sarge (PCQ DVD) works with USB hub and USB card readers. Which Camera? model no. vendor name. > Reader. b) Internal Modem Dlink 560i+++ installation woes and lack > of a versatile dialer to just click n connect for non root users. ???. KPPP is click and connect as is wvdial and pon. Just create a desktop icon to wvdial /pon and poff. Also add these users to the group dialout. Use the kuser package in kde to do this. > c) Winmodem detection and configuration woes. Winmodems are not supported due to patent and NDA issues from the chip vendors. So buy an external modem. Or use M$ software and grin and bear. > > The question is: > Which linux distribution can I use which will act as an effective > desktop for home users which will overcome atleast most of the > difficulties faced above. IMO Debian sarge fits the bill completely except for the internal modem.I have completely clueless people using Sarge (including two sixty two year olds) with tata indicom, dishnet, incable, sify etc. They use webcams, usbflashdisks, burn cds and announce that they use debian linux with a smirk at their peers when someone sobs about virii, worms, spyware. > > I am leaning towards the opinion that redhat 9.0 is not the best > out there. (duh!). > But whats a near ideal replacement? There is no replacement for GNU/Linux ;-). rgds jtd

1 0

RE: [SPAM] - [ILUG-BOM] Best Linux Desktop distro or maybe FreeBSD? - Bayesian Filter detected spam
by Nikunj Virani 04 Apr '05

04 Apr '05

> The question is: > Which linux distribution can I use which will act as an effective desktop > for home users which will overcome atleast most of the difficulties faced > above. Try Mandrake 10.1. It is very good for desktops. Regards, Nikunj Virani

1 0

Apologies: Subject line inappropriate
by Abhishek Daga 04 Apr '05

04 Apr '05

My previous post to the list had an incorrect subject line as a result of hitting "reply-to", to an existing mail and not making the necessary changes. It should have been titled "Which linux distribution is best for desktops" and it got incorrectly sent as part of the "TV Tuner Card" thread. apologies for the same. abhishek __________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest

1 0

Re: [ILUG-BOM] TV Tuner
by sherlock＠vsnl.com 04 Apr '05

04 Apr '05

On Saturday 02 April 2005 00:33, Revant wrote: > Can you people suggest me any TV tuner card and related things? > What I want from it is: > 1) It MUST work on Linux (Mostly Debian/Ubuntu) > 2) It should have AV Composite so that I can play my playstation on > computer with sound > 3) It should be relatively easy to configure. I'd prefer > autodetection 4) It should be avaliable in Mumbai market .... grant > road. > > I tried My friend's BT878P+ Pixelview, It works fine and is > autodetected, Only problem is, It has only AV Composite -- Video > wire, i.e Yellow, there is no Audio Left-Right female thing on the > card, So I never got to try it with sound All BT878 cards have only a single audio output. No input. Basically sound o/p from the tuner is routed out. If you want input you need a card with a audio dsp. Afaik not yet available here. you can use the line in on your sound card. Or use RF modulated o/p of your game machine with additional spkrs connected to the sound out of the tv tuner card. rgds jtd

1 0

Re: [ILUG-BOM] WinXp Vs Linux
by sherlock＠vsnl.com 04 Apr '05

04 Apr '05

On Sunday 03 April 2005 14:12, Devdas Bhagat wrote: > On 03/04/05 12:26 +0530, Rony Bill wrote: > > Devdas Bhagat wrote: > > >This depends on the particular contract you sign with the > > > vendor. I spent Sunday rereading the GPL2. I was quite sure earlier I am 100% sure now. The GPL is explicit and absolutely clear. The recepient of gpld software is entitled to his rights as guaranteed by the gpl. The distributor of gpld software has his licence to distribute revoked automatically if he abrogates any of these rights. There is no doubt about this at all. No contract can change this because if the first party offers you a contract violating the gpl (as in preventing you from distributing, modifying, creating derivatives of your copy of the software packages) he automatically has his licence to distribute revoked, and therfore he not you is doing something illegal. > > > > Dear Devdas, by vendors I was refering to the services offered by > > software suppliers who only charge for copying and courier of any > > linux distro from their list, which includes names like Suse, > > Mandrake and more. If the multi-cd packs are a direct copy of the > > original *package* It is illegal if and only if the copy contains software with EULAs and / or, incase of RH any of the RH trademarks and logos. It is not illegal to redistribute gpld software. Irrespective of ANY contract you may have signed. If the contract restricts your rights as assigned to you by the GPL, the right of the first party to distribute is automatically revoked. The affected party in this case is you, and the contributors of the package. If you have given a consideration ( cash, barter, anything), You can ask for a return of the consideration + costs, and return the package to RH. The developers can sue RH for breach of copyright and claim damages. You cant sue for breach of copyright and damages as you are not a copyright holder of a package in the distro although you are affected. The copyright holder cannot sue you. He can only serve a cease and desist notice against you. However incase of the gpl the copyright holder has given you a right so he is not going to serve any cease and desist. So even if you have signed a contract with RH, You can copy and redistribute completely legally subject to removal of EULA packages and trade marks. Happy TM_Logo + EULA package stripping and Happier legal copying. Long live the GPL. > > This depends on the policy of the original vendor wrt the pack. If > the first buyer is restrained from copying and selling the CDs as > is, because they include copyrighted material/trademarks/whatever, > then such redistribution is a violation of contract. > > > provided by the makers, then wouldn't its installation *as it is* > > be a violation of copyrights and thus a pirated one? If any > > company wants to use this *package* it would have to buy it. > > In the case of distributions like Mandrake personal, Gentoo, or > Fedora or ..., the copyright owner states that you can make > unlimited copies of it without restriction provided that their > credits and trademarks stay intact. > > To illustrate, distribution of _RHEL_ by a non RH authorised vendor > is illegal. Absolutely not. Caveat - remove RH trade marks and NVIDIA / winmodem drivers. > > I would check out the particular terms and conditions for that > distribution. No need to. As explained earlier. rgds jtd

1 0

The FLOSS Survey
by Svaksh 04 Apr '05

04 Apr '05

Hello, Check out this FLOSSPOLS project http://flosspols.org/survey/survey_part.php?groupid=sd People who develop, translate, document, promote, maintain websites, moderate mailing lists, etc... for Free/Open software can take part in the survey. -- _svaksh_

1 0

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Linux based Fullproof Gateway/Firewall
by Sameer Niphadkar 03 Apr '05

03 Apr '05

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 aashish kunte wrote : >Dear Linuxers, > > > I want to configure a low configuration machine (Ideally P1 or P2) >With Linux Console Only, Which can work as Dedicated Internet GW/Firewall. > > > Is there any Linux-Flavor Only giving the same ? I believe IPCop is the linux based firewall distribution, though there are plenty of others available as well. > I want only Logs to be mentained along with it ! You can configure any linux distro as a gw/firewall...I may recommend Trustix. > Thanks in advance. > >Aashish Sameer 'You will be what you WILL to Be' -James Allen

1 0

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Invitation
by Vickram Crishna 03 Apr '05

03 Apr '05

At 3:20 PM +0530 4/1/05, Satya wrote: >On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 08:51:43PM +0530, Sajid ali Baig wrote: >>The message was sent accidently .i apologise for the same. > >hi5 is a notorious address-book harvester. They usually send email like >this with no warning to the poor user, who then has to go apologise to >his boss, various lists, etc. > >How the hell they can access your address book, I don't know. Mine's >usually in ~/.mutt/aliases. if they can get at it, something's very >wrong. > >>Kenneth,were u not taught manners in school?????????? > >Was that really necessary? While flaming is a common and not unexpected feature of nerdie maillists, it doesn't take all that much restraint to keep annoyance within limits. I also have no idea how hi5, Ringo and all the other weirdo address book managers (that call themselves network facilitators) floating around on the net do their viral marketing, but I don't really care either. I know they do, which is all I want to know, so I ignore the mails from my friends and acquaintances that invite me to join these things. Hopefully that keeps me from seeming to be an offender. If someone contacts me offline or with a direct personal mail, I explain my stance privately. Remember, a cruel or angry word can't be taken back, nor is an apology worth the bytes or mindspace it consumes. -- Vickram

2 1

Re: [ILUG-BOM] WinXp Vs Linux
by sherlock＠vsnl.com 03 Apr '05

03 Apr '05

On Friday 01 April 2005 19:56, Rony Bill wrote: > sherlock(a)vsnl.com wrote: > >In effect the commercial distros companies are providing expertise > >not just software and they are fully justified in charging what > > ever they please. And you can have a completely legal parasitic > > existence by the above methods. In fact you can provide better > > services and charge more (after RTFM) than them. > > > >So then happy legal copying and installing of RH, Suse, whatever. > >If you ask me i would tell you to use Debian and avoid the pain > >trying to remove logos while simultaneously not providing word > >of mouth advertising and a ready-to-eat client to your competitor. > Thanks for the information. It does clarify that one cannot simply > copy and install a full pack of a paid linux distro without YOU CAN COPY A COMMERCIAL DISTRO. And as i said earlier you are one biased character who will selectively pick miniscule portions of a discussion and twist it around to your ridiculously biased opinion. I really mean every word of the above sentence. I have come across a few characters in my time but you take the cake. > stripping it off its copyrighted material, something that may be > usefull for an organisation for full driver support and manual > reference. Trade marks are marks which identify certain qualities and attributes of the product in a very easy and recognisable way. It's called branding. Companies spend plenty of money to make the link between the trade mark and these qualities and attributes. If someone copies the product with these Trade marks that someone is misleading the public into believing that those qualities and attributes are still in the product. In this case (RH believes) the quality is in the service and manuals. Remove these and substitute it with an ignorant windoze certified zombie cd in hand and you have a disaster in the making.And the manual costs money to create. You are most welcome to read the manpages and make your own manual. Of course that would be hard work and to me it seems that work is a FOUR letter word to you. > usefull for an organisation for full driver support and manual > reference. use legal software in my comps even > though its very easy to use the pirated ones. Oh dear me what a wonderful model citizen you are. Lets nominate you for the Padma Bhushan. Do me a favour please go pirate billy boys stuff. > What I don't like is > the unnecessary hype about linux being free and the way people > attack microsoft for making money. People dont attack M$ and billy baba for making money. They are attacked for making money ILLEGALLY. And piracy. They have been convicted on both counts time and time again. UNDERSTAND? > I do admire Bill Gates for the > way he set up an international empire right from a small shed. > Ultimately every software company wants to make money and capture > the market. Without doubt. After all pirates of a feather flock together. > > I will get the debian cds and try it out. Please dont. I think pirated billybaba software is best for you. rgds jtd

3 4

Re: [ILUG-BOM] WinXp Vs Linux
by Vickram Crishna 03 Apr '05

03 Apr '05

At 12:22 PM +0530 4/2/05, Rony Bill wrote: >sherlock(a)vsnl.com wrote: > > >> In effect the commercial distros companies are providing >expertise not just software and they are >> fully justified in >charging what ever they please. > >What I don't like is the unnecessary hype about linux being free and >the way people attack microsoft for making money. I do admire Bill >Gates for the way he set up an international empire right from a >small >shed. Ultimately every software company wants to make money and >capture the market. I guess that depends on how you define 'company' - if you mean commercial organisation, then you are probably right. However, there are very many non-profit and not-for-profit organisations (the latter being 'companies' in the legally Indian sense of the word) who develop and make available software that is intended to benefit its users. Upfront payment is not the issue here - it is the overall benefit to the community that drives such organisations and their people. While BG did a great commercial job, his first foray resulted from scamming IBM into buying a piece of software that the fledgling MS had not developed. This is sometimes called arbitrage in the commercial world, and the people who do it on a large scale are sometimes called robber barons. They succeed because they conceal information. The money is made from concealing and causing to be concealed such information. GNU/Linux has developed from a basically different approach to life and society. -- Vickram

1 0

Re: [ILUG-BOM] File Locking using smbmount-disclaimers and top-posting
by Svaksh 03 Apr '05

03 Apr '05

On Apr 2, 2005 12:25 AM, Keith Fernandez <keith(a)rilinfo.net> wrote: > Regards, > Keith Fernandez > -------------------------- > Reliance IDC > DAKC > Navi Mumbai > 022-30374188 > -------------------------- > Disclaimer: > This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the > original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited Hello Keith, Kindly refrain from top-posting. Top posting an answer breaks the flow of conversation and you don't know what is being referred to which is confusing. It is more commonly accepted etiquette to narrow down the original message to only the relevant information, and then **following** that information with one's reply, which is considered proper etiquette when participating in conversations on mailing lists. Secondly, your disclaimer is pointless for a public mailing list. Use a different (free) email account if your company insists on tagging each outgoing message. -- _svaksh_ Notre Bene : I assume you are new to this list like me and this request is from one newbie to another. It is not meant to start a flame war.

1 0

Re: [ILUG-BOM] WinXp Vs Linux
by sherlock＠vsnl.com 03 Apr '05

03 Apr '05

On Saturday 02 April 2005 12:46, Devdas Bhagat wrote: > On 02/04/05 11:39 +0500, sherlock(a)vsnl.com wrote: > > Nope. You are eliminating the case of derived work. It does > > concern itself with binaries too. A binary is a derived work of > > the source - as are modifications, bugfixes, enhancements etc. > > The GPL only states that in case of derived work, the source code > must be made available. Like I said, the GPL is only concerned with > ensuring that source code is always available for distributed GPLed > software. No. Here is part of the preamble "Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it." It clearly separates software and source code for the software, and allows you to access and distribute both. The para also makes it amply clear about trying to remove those rights - contract or no contract. Infact RH cannot sign a contract abrogating your rights as granted to you by the developers and is a sitting duck for any developer wanting to sue if they have signed such contracts. Please note IANAL. > > > Therefore the terms of the gpl apply to the binaries too. Also > > "distributing" includes putting a binary into a flash rom and > > sticking it inside your gizmo and selling the gizmo. (I had too > > do some talking with some distributors of embedded products here > > on this issue.) This action (selling the gizmo) is distribution > > and requires gpl compliance. Therfore source code must be made > > Right. However, the effort of putting the binary into the Gizmo is > chargable. As is the hardware. Sure. I am not disputing the right to charge for the first copy (the wrapper is really superfluos), I am disputing anyones right to restrict the rights avaialable to me under the gpl. > > > available. You can make copies of the binary hex file from the > > prom and use as you deem fit without any copyright violation. > > Even if "opening this parcel means that you agree" to whatever. > > The reason is that the gpl licence has given you a right the > > moment the act of giving and taking takes place. Adding wrappers > > - physical or software does not change the fact of distribution. > > There is no way that anyone (RH, Novell, Microsod whoever) can > > circumvent this - thank god. > > But RedHat is not trying to circumvent this. > > > > Linux distributors take the GPLed source, package it, build it > > > into binaries, and test those. > > > That is a service. RedHat et al charge for that service. Since someone has paid for the first copy RH have already recieved what ever they deemed fit for it. Subsequent copies does not involve RH in any way at all. > > > > > > When you "buy" RedHat ES/AS versions, you are paying for their > > > compiling and testing services, not for the software itself. > > > This _support_ purchase is a contract, which states that you > > > may not install the software from those binaries on more than > > > one system. > > > > That is a violation of the gpl and will not stand in a law court. > > No it isn't. The RedHat contract has been FSF approved. RedHat > _charges_ for their effort in building a binary. They are saying > that they will build a binary for you provided that you do not > redistribute it... > . RH cannot do that. Links to FSF approval of the contract please. Couldnt find any on the FSF site (so maybe more smoke from RH). RH has a copyright on the distro. That is sure. But I am permitted by the gpl to copy binaries and install and use and obtain the source and do as i please subject to the terms of the gpl without paying a paisa to RH. Note in the case of Suse the YAST tool is not gpl compliant. So if you copy Suse for sale you will have to remove Yast. No problem if you give it free tho. What redhat may imply in their contract is that they will not support more than the number of machines stipulated in the contract and that you are prohibited from installing the distro on other machines and obtain service from redhat on the additional machines. > > This is a separate argument from the GPL itself. The contract is > for the effort that RedHat puts into building the distribution. > > To put it another way, RedHat provides binaries as a service to its > customers. They charge for that service. They have an additional > clause in the service contract that states that you may not > redistribute the binaries. This is part of the service contract, > and does not constitute a violation of the GPL itself. It does. The GPL preamble above is clear as light. > > > I have not read the contract but if you have one please post it. > > We can takeon redhat on this. The binary IS a derived work of > > the source. If the source is gpld so is the binary. > > Distributing the binary would be a violation of your support > contract. It is not a GPL violation. Maybe RH can terminate your support. But they cannot stop you from copying and redistributing after stripping the logos. > This is in the area of > contract law, not copyright law. RedHat does not impose additional > restrictions on redistribution via copyright/EULAs. It does impose > restrictions via contract, a contract which you willingly enter > into when you purchase support from RedHat. The contract itself is probably illegal as RH (or anyone else) does not hold the rights on individual programs and would have to obtain rights from individual contributors to allow them to override the gpl. Which is what dual licence is all about. The economics of such an excercise is ofcourse a different story. They cannot impose restrictions by contract stuff released under the gpl as is expressly stated in the preamble. I am quite sure about this as i follow GL daily and the gpl was discussed ad nauseum. Once released under GPL, nobody can by contract / DMCA or any means change the terms. rgds jtd

3 2

ParallelKnoppix 2005-04-01 Released
by Gaurav Mishra 03 Apr '05

03 Apr '05

ParallelKnoppix is a remaster of Knoppix that allows setting up a cluster of machines for parallel processing using the LAM-MPI and/or MPICH implementations of MPI. Getting the cluster up and running takes less than 15 minutes, if the machines have PXE network cards. Get it from here http://pareto.uab.es/mcreel/ParallelKnoppix/parallelknoppix-2005-04-01.iso ftp://volcano.uab.es/pub/parallelknoppix-2005-04-01.iso http://pareto.uab.es/mcreel/ParallelKnoppix/parallelknoppix-2005-04-01.iso.…

1 0

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