Linux-Advocacy Digest #601, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Student run Linux server. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (ZnU)
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: License? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Student run Linux server.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:35:56 -0500
James deBoer wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am in the process of getting a Linux server running in my high
> school. This will be a tool for the students (and possibly the staff) to
> learn more about Linux, and computers in general. It will have no
> 'for-credit' course associated with it.
>
> Getting the hardware does not appear to be a problem, but I am sort of
> concerned that nobody (expect for the core group of admins) would ever
> use it. Are there any ideas out there on how we can teach people about
> Linux in a fun, and interesting way, but within the bound of a school
> environment; eg we don't want to teach them about Linux by letting them
> set up their own warez mirror, or even running a quake server...
>
> Anyways, what are your thoughts?
>
> James deBoer
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Two ways to get people started to be interested in the system would be
to set up either a news server or an IRC type of server for
discussions. Then, tell people that these *discussions* are in fact
happening on the Linux server. Another would be to provide one program
on Linux that the students would have to use once in a while to get a
certain credit (if this is for students, may not be a bad idea?), maybe
a simple script creation, or are you not looking for deep interest?
There are countless ways to get people interested in any computing
platform. Depending on how old the students are of course. In a high
school situation, probably the only way to effectively do it is to
convince people that it's *cool*. I remember my high school days in
not-so-fond a fashion as I was not a part of any of the cliches and I
often had trouble understanding the entire *it must be cool or they
wouldn't want us to avoid it*. There it is:
Tell them if they touch it they will be suspended for a week. That
ought to interest enough students to get the ball rolling:).
Sorry, being a smart-ass. It's been a long day.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:32:19 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Anyway, I rebooted and began to restore my drivers. I came to my 3COM
> NIC driver and reinstalled it. What I forgot was that I had added this
> NIC myself; it didn't come with the computer. You can probably guess
> what happened next...
Reminds me of the time that I installed an IDE tape drive and the time when
I replaced the NIC on a multiboot workstation..
The old NIC was an 16-bit ISA unit that was a "clone" of an NE2000. Under
Linux I used the NE2000 driver. Under Dos I could use any standard NE2000
driver and its custom drivers. Under BSD I could use its NE2000 driver.
Under Windows 95 I used the standard NE2000 driver. When I needed to
install a NIC into an ISA only computer I moved that NIC to the ISA computer
and purchased a new respected brand name PCI NE2000 NIC for that
workstation.
Whole installation process so far including time to download the updated
drivers between 30 and 40 minutes.
When I installed the new NIC things did not go as smooth as it should have.
Under Dos I could use the the standard NE2000 drivers, the custom drivers
for the old NIC. I then located from the NIC support site the dos drivers
for the new card and now use those drivers for it that take advantage of the
PCI nature of the card. Under Linux I could use the it's NE2000 and did
until I recompiled the kernel to include the PCI NE2000 driver. Under BSD I
could use the NE2000 driver. So far so good.
Now on to Windows 95.......
I had assumed that Windows 95 could handle the new NIC like a NE2000 at
least until I had the chance to remove the old drivers and install the new
ones. No such luck, the system would boot up and then bluescreen reporting
that explorer had died before I was able to take any action. So I rebooted
into safe mode and Windows explorer would still die. I had to reopen the
computer and remove the NIC. I rebooted and removed the NE2000 drivers.
Reinstalled the NIC into the computer. Then rebooted again and installed the
new driver's INF files. I then followed the directions to reboot and let
the computer automatically detect the new NIC. It didn't work, Windows
never has identified that NIC. So I forced the installation of the new
drivers. After another reboot, the new NIC was working under Windows 95.
Yea finally everything was right with Windows and the NIC---Right?
Not quite, a couple of days latter the Windows was again bluescreening
during startup. I have to again remove the NIC to boot up. When booting
without the NIC I discovered that Windows 95 had somehow quietly reinstalled
the old NE2000 drivers, so now the NIC and two drivers assigned to it. One
its custom driver, and the other the standard Windows NE2000 driver. So I
again removed the NE2000 driver and this time I also rmoved the NE2000
specific files. I reinstalled the NIC and rebooted. No good Windows was
complaining about the missing files and would fail to functon. Now I could
not get into Windows at all. So I booted into Linux mouted the Windows
partition and moved the files back into place. Rebooted into Windows and
found that things were worse than ever. Windows could not even boot into
safemode safely any longer even when the NIC was not installed.
Next step was to boot into linux and delete the Windows 95 partition and
change the Dos partition type to that of another OS so that Windows would
not try to hijack it. Install Windows 95, it detects a NE2000 and we are
again going down the same system failure spiral. Back to Linux this time
through a kernel floppy since Windows has already taken over the master boot
record, and again delete the Windows partition. Reinstall Windows but this
time manually controlling which devices can and cannot be detected. Windows
is installed, then comes the long process of installing other drivers and
applications; followed by the process of customizing the system and the
applications. Back into Linux and chage the type of the dos partition back
to its original value, run lilo so that the boot floppy for Linux is
nolonger required and the othes OS's were again available. Then came the
restoration of the data files from backup. Then came the finale, cating a
copy of the Winow's partition to backup media for the next time Windows
melts down. The old backup was useless, since it contained the NE2000
drivers installed. When ever it is nessary to scan for hardware I still
have to do it manually or Windows will still detect a NE2000 and try to load
the old drivers inaddition to the new drivers that are already installed.
In this way it appears that Windows 95 has a death wish.
Total installation time for Linux, dos, and BSD combined at the most 40
minutes. Total installation and recovery time for Windows 95 37 hours and
some odd minutes. That is why PnP is also known as Plug and Pray!
When I installed a ATAPI IDE tape drive into a workstation, I was planning
for it to be used for backup from Linux, I was not planning to operate it
under Windows. I strapped the drive, installed it into the box. I then
booted into Linux, recompiled the kernel to support IDE tapes installed the
new kernel as there was the the tape drive under /dev/ht0 and /dev/nht0.
All done.
Then I thought that it might be nice to be able to operate the tape drive
under Windows. So I installed the driver from the included CD. Rebooted
and Windows died. Went to Linux and restored from backup the Windows
partition. Reread all the documentation, went the company's web and ftp
sites. Reviewed everything and something in an file on the ftp site that
was not mentioned either on the web site or the documentation or the box.
The driver and the software are dependent on a certain version of a DLL from
Microsoft which my CD of Windows 95 one that is too old to support the tape
drive's driver. The information from the ftp archive suggested contacting
Microsoft for an update of that file and provided an 1-800 number to do.
I called the number and was informed that the version of the files I needed
was a part of the OEM version of Windows 95 and was incompatible with the
Retail version of Windows 95 I owned. I asked how could I upgrade my
version of Windows 95 to be compatible. I was informed that to do so I
would have to purchase a prebuilt computer with Windows 95 preinstalled. I
asked "You mean that I have to buy a computer that I don't need or want to
get an upgrade for my Windows 95 Retail? Why should I spend money on a
computer that I don't need or want and will possible never use to get a new
copy of Windows for my current computer?". The reply was that the new copy
of Windows will be for that new computer only, to use it on my then current
computer would have been piracy and that if they learn of that they would
press charges. Then the support drone hung up on me.
So, the tape drive is working perfectly but not under Windows, which detects
it but can not use it.
I find the device manager properties box for the drive somewhat oxymoronic.
It lists the name of the device at the top and then under that:
Device type: Other devices
Manufacturer: Unknown Devices
Hardware version: Not available
Device status
This device is working properly.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:41:49 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:40:21 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:31:43 -0600, "John W. Stevens"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:23:18 -0600, "John W. Stevens"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >void wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 20:42:09 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Except Macs--where things just work.
>>> >>
>>> >> Tell that to my friend, who bought an iMac and had a hard time getting
>>> >> his SCSI Zip drive to work over USB.
>>> >
>>> >You do realize, don't you, that SCSI and USB are two *ENTIRELY*
>>> >different busses!?
>>> >
>>> >I mean, they aren't even the same *CLASS* of bus! SCSI is a *PARALLEL*
>>> >bus, while USB is a *SERIAL* bus (hence the name: Universal SERIAL Bus).
>>>
>>> There are USB SCSI adapters. Pretty common on the Mac marketplace.
>>
>>Where in the original article did he specify he had a converter?
>
>Should he need to?
Yup.
You never can tell with some end users...
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:44:08 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >I mean, they aren't even the same *CLASS* of bus! SCSI is a
> >> >*PARALLEL* bus, while USB is a *SERIAL* bus (hence the name:
> >> >Universal SERIAL Bus).
> >>
> >> There are USB SCSI adapters. Pretty common on the Mac
> >> marketplace.
> >
> >Where in the original article did he specify he had a converter?
>
> Should he need to?
Around here, where we get wintrolls insisting that the Mac doesn't
have plug-and-play because it won't magically work with hardware that
doesn't have any Mac drivers, it would probably be a good idea for
people to mention such things.
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:44:19 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:39:37 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bobby,
[deletia]
>servers (Sequent, HP, etc). What Linux now requires (for those interested
>in desktop software) is the final polish and, of course, those corporate
>desktop apps. I wonder what would happen to Linux if MS ported all it's
...assuming that what you do really NEEDS such apps rather
than being suitably achieved with any other application
with your threshold set of features...
[deletia]
Professional document handlers were quite productive and
successfull before even the mere existence of Microsoft's
current trapware...
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:50:50 GMT
On 11 Jul 2000 15:59:31 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 11 Jul 2000 14:11:00 GMT, Mark Wooding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>> XFree86 primarily exists due to it's gratis-ware userbase.
>>
>> Commercial and proprietary implementations are actually quite anemic.
>> This goes the same for OpenGL as well.
>
>Who does it better than SGI?
...on a remarkably limited set of systems and hardware.
It's a nice spec though, although it's somewhat dated.
>
>>>
>>>Yes. And indeed I don't believe that the base X distribution should be
>>>copyleft. I'm just considering that maybe the XFree86 code should.
>>
>> Depending on how you structure the thing, copyleft may or
>> may not be a burden on commercial development. The notion
>> that free software is necessarily a burden on commercial
>> development is just FUD spread by those with incompatible
>> motives.
>
>The inability to combine code with any existing code not restricted
>in exactly the same way has to be a burden on development. The
No it doesn't. Do you actually DO software development?
Quite often it is not required to alter some common
facility or to treat it as your own personal property in
order to build useful things.
If this were so, the current proprietary model would be
a considerably larger burden.
>notion that such restrictions are not a problem or that they
>are necessary to prevent some imagined threat is FUD spread by
>those with a peculiar political agenda.
Your comments are simply out of touch with the realities
of the vast majority of most software development projects
and flatly contradicts the success of several industries.
>
>> Infact, it is the common and well established condition that
>> common facilities are not able to be 'assimilated' by any
>> random party and that has not slowed the industry down one
>> bit.
>
>This part is true enough, and there is no need for the common
>code to assert any restrictions on derivatives to remain
>free itself.
>
>>--
>> The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
>> as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
>> barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
>
>And what possible motivation can someone claiming to produce free
>software in trying to assert control over libraries done by
>others, or in restricting the ways that this supposedly free
>work can be redistributed?
I don't know and it isn't really relevant. It's just a poor
strawman on your part.
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: License?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:53:19 -0400
darkstar51 wrote:
> I have a Red Hat CD. Can I install it on company computers. Is there
> any License Agreement that I might violate? The Network Manager keeps
> swearing you have to have a license.
You could buy a bunch of Cheapbytes CD's.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:54:47 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:02:18 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:36:15 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[deletia]
>> >
>> >More or less. You can keep it fairly portable by being careful
>>
>> Also, having one codebase deployed on multiple platforms can
>> be very useful in QA. Bugs that show up in subsequent ports
>> tend to reflect problems in the original sourcecode base. I
>> have seen this occur firsthand in a multi-unix shop and
>> several game developers have claimed this to be the case for
>> various cross platform projects.
>>
>> Besides, we're talking about Micro$oft here: they could bleed
>> money for years to little ill effect.
>
>That doesn't matter at all.
Sure it does.
That's how we have Internet Exploder and MonopolySoft Money.
Both are projects that MS can simply throw money at without
the need to be immediately profitable.
Get in the ring with Mike Tyson and we would all see just how
irrelevant physical endurance or relative abilities to bleed
are...
>
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> The excuse of "it costs too much" simply doesn't wash for
>> MonopolySoft. It works for Be, but is simply absurd for
>> the market's 800lb gorilla.
>
>But that is not the excuse. Microsoft, as any publicly traded company,
So? All they have to do is be profitable on the macroscopic
scale. As long as their balance sheets show a positive result
the plantiffs lawyers and stockholders aren't going to notice
a damn thing.
This is what distinguishes a Microsoft or Intel from a Be. Even
a large loss can be made to look infinitesimal given large enough
numbers to average against.
>has a duty to make as much money as possible. If the analysis they
>make says porting to MIPS will lose money, then they won't port,
>end of the story.
>
>That's the only reasonable thing for them to do.
No, you simply don't understand the mathematics of the situation.
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:59:43 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:14:02 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:46:57 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
>> >>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> > [...]
>> >>> The GPL would only prevent it being used in one single
>circumstance:
>> >>> profiteering.[...]
>> >
>> >>Uh.... suppose the BSD TCP stack was GPL.
>>
>> This is a false strawman.
>
>No, it's something much simpler, a hypothesis.
No, it is an artificially created set of conditions meant
to yeild a particular conclusion. It is a post-factum
argument meant not to really illustrate anything but to give
the false impression of the validity of a particular argument.
If there existed some libsockets package, the most likley
copylefted licence to be associated with such a package
would specifically be designed to NOT create the artificial
situation you describe.
>
>> Free Software doesn't have to use the GPL in particular in order
>> to be copylefted. Infact, the vast majority of software of that
>> kind is licenced under the LGPL.
>
>So, what? I am making a hypothetical case.
You're a lying dishonest ass, that's so what.
[deletia]
--
The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 22:02:40 GMT
In article <8kg27l$7dh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>In article <8kflas$eo1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar) wrote:
>> In article <8kfioi$qlf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Roberto Alsina
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > The copyright law, in
>> >principle, grants you no right, except the ones given by the license
>> >itself. Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>> Wrong. The right to copy and adapt the copy of a computer program
>> you own as necessary to archive and use. (17 USC 117) The right to
>> redistribute a copy that you own. (17 USC 109) The right to reverse
>> engineer a program, including making any necessary intermediate
>copies.
>> (Found by courts to be a fair use under 17 USC 107) The right to
>> make copies of unprotected expression, such as portions needed for
>> interoperatbility. (17 USC 102b)
>AFAIK, you never own a program you license.
It's not whether you one the program, but whether you own a copy of
the program.
With most proprietary licenses, you only have a right to use the program,
not ownership of a copy. There is not a similar restriction in the GPL.
>And if you are not granted the right to use by the license, none
>of those rights you mention exists, right?
Depends on whether you are the owner of a copy or not. And even
if you aren't, you may still be able to reverse engineer as a
fair use.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
