Linuxers

linuxers@mm.ilug-bom.org.in

14152 discussions

Re: [ILUG-BOM] BIS committee votes against ooxml
by Arun Khan 26 Mar '08

26 Mar '08

> Message: 9 > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:18:07 +0530 > From: "Nishit Dave" <stargazer.dave(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] BIS committee votes against ooxml > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:11 PM, krishnakant Mane > <researchbase(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > I went through the editorial. > > one more point which struck me was that it creates an impression > > that this is a "proxy for product war " > > which means all those who supported odf also had some selfish > > marketing gains. > > here we should note that people like Dr. Nagarjun have helped this > > cause due to no "marketing of product " aim. > > secondly the tone of the editorial also talks about the licensing > > cost issue and has not really emphasised on the "freedom aspect " > > which implies freedom to encript and decript the data by any one > > who wishes to do so. > > it uses words like "negociations for license costs ", correct me if > > I am remembering wrong but although my quoting might not be word to > > word correct, the tone of the article is towards saying that odf is > > for those who care about the cost of licensing and it talks nothing > > much about freedom. > > Yes, I forgot to mention that. One more reason to believe they are > reading out of Microsoft's PR briefs. Can we work upon drafting a > letter to the editor as the GNU/Linux Users Group, Mumbai? Please take the lead. IMO, the commentaries here are good **but** the Business Standard (BS) editors and readership do *not see* them unless it is posted on the BS site. Pls. register and post your comments there. The more the better. -- Arun Khan

1 0

BIS committee votes against ooxml
by Nagarjuna G. 25 Mar '08

25 Mar '08

India's BIS votes against ooxml. out of 19 members, five of them did not attend the meeting, one of them abstained, five voted in favor of ooxml, and the rest voted against. -- Nagarjuna G. http://www.gnowledge.org/

11 21

Re: [ILUG-BOM] [OT] Avoid Intel motherboards
by Arun Khan 24 Mar '08

24 Mar '08

On Wednesday 19 Mar 2008, linuxers-request(a)mm.glug-bom.org wrote: > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:25:36 +0530 > From: "Dinesh Joshi" <dinesh.a.joshi(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] [OT] Avoid Intel motherboards > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Rony <gnulinuxist(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > If anyone of you is planning to buy a system or a new motherboard > > then avoid Intel original ones like plague. They take more than a > > month to simply pick up boards in warranty and their communication > > channels are pathetic. My colleagues and I have some warranty > > boards lying with us for more than a month and they have yet to be > > picked up by Intel. Their service is too bad. > > Well, atleast Intel has a service. For GNU/Linux users, AMD Boards > should be ideally avoided like plague ;) Anyway, must be a temporary > thing. It wasn't that bad about a year ago... Any particular brand mobos for the AMD cpus? The OP identified Intel manufactured mobos, not all manufacturers of mobos for the Intel family. -- Arun Khan

8 17

Re: [ILUG-BOM] BIS committee votes against ooxml
by Arun Khan 24 Mar '08

24 Mar '08

> Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:58:17 +0530 > From: "Ravindra Jaju" <ravindra.jaju(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] BIS committee votes against ooxml .... snip ... > If someone drafts a letter to BS (wow! it indeed did write BS, no?), > please post here and count me as one of the supporters when you send! > I have posted my comment on the site <http://www.business-standard.com/common/news_article.php?tab=r&autono=31779…> Unless you send in *your own comments* directly to BS no one there will know about your views on their editorial. -- Arun Khan

1 0

Re: [ILUG-BOM] BIS committee votes against ooxml
by Arun Khan 24 Mar '08

24 Mar '08

> Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:06:49 +0530 > From: "Nishit Dave" <stargazer.dave(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] BIS committee votes against ooxml ... snip ... > > The editorial in Business Standard today again seems to speak from > Microsoft's point of view, and calls OOXML an already existing > standard!! As an interested group, we should write to them (and > other newspapers) and strongly represent our point of view. > > Any takers? Such declarations in an editorial column is unprofessional. Pls. give link to the online version (if possible) and the email address "letter to the editor", and let's all write to editor. -- Arun Khan

3 3

ps -ef | grep nobody ???
by Pradnyesh Sawant 24 Mar '08

24 Mar '08

Hello, today I noticed heavy disk utilization. I did top to find this:- ********************************************************************** nobody 10204 10203 6 10:06 ? 00:00:05 /usr/bin/find / -ignore_readdir_race ( -fstype NFS -o -fstype nfs -o -fstype nfs4 -o -fstype ********************************************************************** can somebody kindly throw some light on this _nobody_ and what is he doing on my m/c? thanks a lot in advance :) -- warm regards, Pradnyesh Sawant -- In a day, when you don't come across any problems -- you can be sure that you are travelling in a wrong path. --Swami Vivekananda

9 12

PHP Seminar on Sunday 30th March 2008
by Prashant Shah 23 Mar '08

23 Mar '08

Details : http://elite.wikidot.com Please email me to confirm your registration (only few seats are there)

1 0

Out of the box drivers (Was [OT] Avoid Intel motherboards)
by Arun Khan 23 Mar '08

23 Mar '08

On Friday 21 Mar 2008, jtd wrote: > Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 12:22:50 +0530 > From: jtd <jtd(a)mtnl.net.in> > Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] [OT] Avoid Intel motherboards > > On Friday 21 March 2008 11:58 am, Arun Khan wrote: > > On Thursday 20 Mar 2008, linuxers-request(a)mm.glug-bom.org wrote: > > > Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:18:11 +0530 > > > From: jtd <jtd(a)mtnl.net.in> > > > Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] [OT] Avoid Intel motherboards > > > > ...... snip ..... > > > > > AMD is any day a better bet as far as drivers go. They have > > > opened the specs to the cpu, chipset and the 3d graphics engine > > > as well. Only a matter of time before you have full 3d support on > > > all AMD chipsets. ... snip ... > > About 18 months ago, when I was researching Linux compatibility for > > a notebook purchase. Intel chipset based models were the best bet. > > > > All major Linux distros - everything worked out of the box (WiFi, > > 3D graphics). > > Afaik the intel chipsets have relatively pathetic 3d. Maybe for the power user *but* for the average desktop user, the out of the box compiz-fusion 3D experience is plenty. I have not seen any discernable difference compared to ATI or NVidia (prop. drivers). Other posts have similar comments. > > Whereas on a HP AMD Turion notebook of same vintage (ATI chipset), > > even today I have to opt for downloading prop. drivers to get full > > 3D. > > A dell laptop with AMD turion worked out of the box with etch about 8 > months ago. 2D or 3D? Which ATI chipset? In my case, it is ATI Radeon Express 200M. I have no issues with 2D. Indeed, most Linux distros install on it. To the best of my knowledge, even today I have to download ATI prop. drivers to get 3D support. It is the only way to get compiz-fusion working on it :) ... snip ... > > The specs for the older chipsets have not been released (for reasons > best known to AMD). But specs for the newer chipsets have been The reason is on their web site <http://ati.amd.com/products/catalyst/linux.html#4> > released. One would have to check which chipsets before buying. Most Linux'ers do check for compatibility but one cannot expect the average end user to break their head on such issues. For clients (office desktops), I suggest hardware that has the most "out of box" drivers in the current Linux distros, not something that will have support in the future. IMO, Intel chipsets have an edge over AMD. > Afaik only newer mobos not yet available in India (for desktops) have > these chipsets. But then who needs 3d on a server. Great, the latest GPUs from AMD will have "out of box" 3D drivers (full functionality compared to windows drivers) in the Linux distros released in the future but the poor souls who have earlier ATI/AMD GPUs still have to deal with prop. drivers. Perhaps this is OK for a onezy or twozy desktops but to support several desktops this could be a nightmare. Agree, don't need 3d on servers (even for MS Windows server edition) but it is the mobo manufacturers who are putting it - maybe the incremental cost between a generic and a 3d chipset is marginal at their volumes. > While everyone would like 3D now, it would be a little longer with X, Now - yes, absolutely. For Linux to grow on the desktop segment, this is a must. I have demo'd compiz-fusion @ colleges, to fellow passengers on flights and trains and they have been wowed. At least, those individuals are now aware of a Linux desktop. > given that this is the first time that 3d engine specs have been > released at all. First time by AMD - their competitor has an edge on this. Case history - 2 months ago a friend bought a high end Sony VAIO notebook (intel chip set) - installed Debian and everything worked out of the box (3D, Webcam, WiFi, card reader, bluetooth) - he is a happy camper. His earlier notebook (mobo crashed) was AMD64 with SiS chipset (no 3d support at all) and he had to use ndiswrapper to get his WiFi working. For the new purchase, the competitive notebooks with AMD Turion either had ATI or NVidia GPUs requiring prop. drivers for 3D. I evaluate the best "out of box" driver support be it AMD or Intel and go with it. -- Arun Khan

1 0

Re: [ILUG-BOM] [OT] Avoid Intel motherboards
by Arun Khan 23 Mar '08

23 Mar '08

On Thursday 20 Mar 2008, linuxers-request(a)mm.glug-bom.org wrote: > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:18:11 +0530 > From: jtd <jtd(a)mtnl.net.in> > Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] [OT] Avoid Intel motherboards ...... snip ..... > > AMD is any day a better bet as far as drivers go. They have opened > the specs to the cpu, chipset and the 3d graphics engine as well. > Only a matter of time before you have full 3d support on all AMD > chipsets. ...... snip ..... It has been about a year+ (?) since AMD acquired ATI, and we still have "prop." drivers for the ATI chips. About 18 months ago, when I was researching Linux compatibility for a notebook purchase. Intel chipset based models were the best bet. All major Linux distros - everything worked out of the box (WiFi, 3D graphics). Whereas on a HP AMD Turion notebook of same vintage (ATI chipset), even today I have to opt for downloading prop. drivers to get full 3D. For the majority of end users (open to embrace Linux) should we tell them to wait or get something that works today? -- Arun Khan

5 5

Your Industry profile
by agnello george 22 Mar '08

22 Mar '08

Hi, I started your industry profile on Orglex by adding you as my contact and joined Management Consulting, Commercial Banks, Mobile Operators, Magazines, Social Networking, Software Testing Hubs. Orglex delivers relevant news, information, networking and jobs within your Industry Hubs. The more industry contacts and influence you have, the better your access to industry recruiters, jobs and business opportunities. Click on the below link to accept my Invitation and increase both your Industry connections and influence. [1]http://www.orglex.com/joinhubs/3508f0afb5c384e39f0f/ Thanks References 1. http://www.orglex.com/joinhubs/3508f0afb5c384e39f0f/

6 7

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