Linux-Advocacy Digest #726, Volume #27 Sun, 16 Jul 00 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Help with printer (Tim Palmer)
Re: Help with printer (Tim Palmer)
Re: Help with printer (Tim Palmer)
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Isaac)
Re: Microsoft ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Steve Hix)
Re: which OS is best? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (B'ichela)
Star Office to be open sourced (phil hunt)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Help with printer (Jacques Guy)
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Jacques Guy)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Russ Allbery)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: 16 Jul 2000 21:07:32 -0500
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:13:09 +0800, Aravind Sadagopan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>It has nothing to do with Winprinter
It has to do with Lie-nux not evan beeing abal to support it's own printers.
>..Sometimes Redhat fails to load
>the the parport_pc,lp modules
>so you have to play around with it then restart your lpd and suddenly it
>will work..I have noticed this
>problem with only Redhat . I dis lsmod, rmmod insmod with parport_pc
>modules and somehow managed to get it to work
>
>aravind
>
>Mig wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> Just bougth myself a printer but cant get it to work.
>> The problem seems to be that the parallel port is not detected .
>>
>> No problem with the port or printer since i prints OK from Windows.
>> Have an idea?
>>
>> Cheers
>> BTW i use RH 6.5 Workstation
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: 16 Jul 2000 21:09:25 -0500
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:11:35 +0200, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Aaron Ginn wrote:
>
>> words, it _only_ works with Windows. Also, you may not have parallel
>> port support compiled into your kernel.
>
>Youre probably right with kernel support since it does not detect it. Just
>tought it parallel port support was included in all kernels automaticly.
Wat maid you tihk that? This is LIE-nux your tocking about hear. Like you sed, it
work's fine with Windo's,
so wye not use Win and be happie?
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: 16 Jul 2000 21:10:06 -0500
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:04:59 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mig wrote:
>
>> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> > On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:20:35 +0200, Mig wrote:
>> > >Hello
>> > >
>> > >Just bougth myself a printer but cant get it to work.
>> > >The problem seems to be that the parallel port is not detected .
>> > >
>> > >No problem with the port or printer since i prints OK from Windows.
>> > >Have an idea?
>> >
>> > Is the printer listed as supported in the printing HOWTO ? What type is it ?
>>
>> Its an HP Deskjet 950C.. and its not supported directly.. but i suppose it
>> could run with other HP drivers.
>> I get an error from "printtool " (version in RH 6.2) with the following
>> error. "Error reason: Couldnt wite file /dev/lp0": no such device". Its the
>> same error if i use lp1 or lp2.
>> To me this sounds like the port stays undetected
>
>The kernel has gone to autopolling the parallel ports. Check both your
>kernel configuration and your print configuration.
...and obveeislee it doesant werk. Tippicall of CommyLie-nux.
>
>
>Colin Day
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 02:44:51 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <39709f47$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Virgo,
>
> Why are you bothering to discuss a mickey-mouse OS like win95 in this NG.
> If you need stability use Win2k, or Linux (if you don't need serious desktop
> apps).
And what serious apps are those? I have everything I need under Linux. If you
mean apps that can't save, laid out exactly as you want, to a M$ propriety
format then I'll agree. Just shows how M$ have screwed information interchange.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 03:03:09 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <8kp87q$skq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I smell a rat. 5.5 hours for Windows 2000? Twenty minutes for Linux with
> Gnome. Sounds like a fishy story to me. They both usually take around the
> same time.
Yet more lies. I would even suggest how would you know since your
Linux/Unix knowledge is abysmal. Recently a friend gave me a copy of
RedHat 6.0 he didn't need. I installed, played with it and removed it
in little over 1/2 an hour on a spare partition (I use SuSE Linux and
just wanted to see what a RedHat install was like now). From the
initial install I had X configured and networking. My previous
experience with RedHat was 5.0 and it was very easy as well. It takes
longer to install SuSE, but not that much longer, because there is
such a large choice of what to install.
Seems it's true. All the clever people did leave the UK. I left 13
years ago. :-)
If you smell a rat may I suggest you check what your nose is closest
to? :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 01:24:18 GMT
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:51:56 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I won't refute it, I have no need to. You merely expressed incredulity
>at your program now being considered derivative of a library which
>didn't exist at the time you wrote the library, but was only available
>afterwards. I agree that it was derivative, and understand why you are
>incredulous. Nevertheless, the case still stands. You aren't ignorant,
>precisely, you're merely missing some points about what it means to have
>one piece of software be considered a derivative work of another. It is
>not surprising, as software IP is a tenuous concept, and the term
>'software' applies to both abstract and corporeal things.
>
In other words, you would have no problem with a situation where it was
initially legal to distribute a program, but the distribution became
illegal once a gpl'd library was written? I suppose this would be an
acceptable consequence of releasing an incomplete program?
Yes it's true that the program initially written couldn't be run before the
library is released, but so what?
There was an excellent post earlier in this thread about what kinds of works
are derivative under copyright law. I think it's pretty clear that programs
which use the API of a library probably wouldn't be considered derivative
works with respect to the library.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 21:29:24 -0400
KLH wrote:
> >
> > As Microsoft is the leading competitor of Linux companies,
> > (leading in market share, not necessarily technical quality)
> > bashing Microsoft might well be Linux advocacy.
>
> If that is true, then we have already lost.
>
No. Ever hear of the term "good will" in accounting? Well
Microsoft has been pumping out "bad will".
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 17 Jul 2000 01:41:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>In the case of RIPEM, this isn't as much of a consideration...since the
>whole discussion is about the law as applied to the specific case of
>distributing a program that links to a library, not supplied with the
>program. ...or is it? If this were to be litigated, do you think it'd be a
>case of failing on the law, or failing on the facts?
I think the question of RIPEM is really a questions of law. What is
a derivative work? If not, has one of the other exclusive rights
been infringed?
Both sides would probably agree on the material facts, and each would
likely ask for summary judgement. (Summary judgement is when the
material facts of a case are not in dispute, and the judge can decide
the case by applying the law to those facts.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 17 Jul 2000 01:48:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:20:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If they want their work to be 'free to all' they can release
> it completely and drop any pretense. Otherwise, they are in
> no position to criticise anyone else's licence.
You mean, aside from having warranty attach to their work?
> Although, I rather doubt they are the hypocritical whiners
> that we see in this forum. Such twits are likely as far away
> from BSD developers as you can get.
Surprise. At least two of them are in this very thread.
------------------------------
From: Steve Hix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 18:48:48 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Right there. It wouldn't matter if a million engineers thought the Mac
> > was a stupid idea; they're still selling units. The market, not
> > "experience and logic" decides what is a stupid idea and what is not.
> >
>
> You have made a very basic blunder in logic. You assume that since the
> Mac did ok in the market and the Mac uses CMT that CMT must be good. That
> is not a logical conclusion.
At worst, it says that CMT as implemented in MacOS is adequate for
most users most of the time.
--
--
Steve Hix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 21:50:35 -0400
Tore Lund wrote:
>
> Some Unix programs are very efficient in terms of minimal finger
> movement. However, as long as every program has a different set of
> commands, this is inevitably cryptic and user-hostile. Add to this that
> these programs lean heavily on the CTRL key, which is hardly usable with
> its current position on the IBM keyboard. No wonder people prefer point
> and click instead.
>
The XF86Config file has a line that allows one to swap CTRL and caps lock.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 21:50:53 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 01:38:26 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Yes- they are free to tie whatever they want with their software
> >(*including a ham sandwich),
>
> Unless they have previously agreed to not bundle ham sandwiches and are
> attempting to get around the agreement by "integrating" instead.
>
>
> >It is ludicrous to assert that OEM's should be allowed to delete MSIE
> >before distribution or remove the Microsoft Windows start up splash
> >screen as some wanted to do a few years back.
>
> Why is it ludicrous? The OEM is the one who answers support calls for
> the system, including the installed version of Windows. The OEM is the
> one who is responsible for the "user experience". OEM's alter hardware
> components and BIOS code all the time on this basis, so what is
> different about MS software?
Then they can write they're own OS from scratch and do it at a cost of $60
per unit. The reason they didn't was because the consumer wanted and
expected Windows to be installed. Why? - Excellent marketing on Microsoft's
part.
No MS Windows Inside = No sale
Its that simple and OEM's knew it then and know it now.
Microsoft drew a line in the sand and said "Thou shalt not alter even one
byte of thine code"
OEM's still got the great deal.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 01:11:29 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 22:41:09 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Before you start whining about RMS' opinion of derivatives, know
>>that I'm aware of that opinion, and don't agree with it. RMS'
>>opinions don't have an influence on the GPL, however.
>
> No, but RMS' opinions have a very large, if not in fact controlling,
> influence on the FSF and its propensity to pursue legal action; thus, even
> if someone wins in a RIPEM-style case, vindicating your opinion on the
> subject, they've still had to deal with all that goes with being the
> defendant in a test case.
May I accept that you agree with my previous post, seeing that you
only had problems with the quoted paragraph?
--
Stefaan
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (B'ichela)
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 19:25:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:22:23 GMT, RiCHaRD HaRLoS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'll have to try this lynx browser. As a new Slackware user, I'm
>learning a lot everyday and am actually glad for the opportunity
>to interact so intimately with the OS. Probably a leftover
>sentiment from the days when MS-DOS3.3 was my favorite tinker-toy!
Since you had to install the n disk sets. it is one of the
packages on the disk set. The fastest way (I assume you did not
install ALL of the n series? If you did. its easy to use just type
lynx http://www.yahoo.com
that will fire up www.yahoo.com. No pictures. no advertisements
either! (that ALONE is a blessing!). You will notice that things go
much faster when using text or console mode. Also you can use trn or
rn or pine to read your newsgroups. If you want to grab slrn (it may
be available on the slackware download site. ftp://ftp.slackware.org
or at ftp://ftp.freesoftware.com/pub/linux/slackware7.1 (forgive me if
I got the address wrong, typing from memory).
Slrn and lang are available from the authors ftp directory at this url
ftp://space.mit.edu/pub/davis
>Just a word of praise for this relatively rudimentary setup: I have
>a Pentium2 processor using an old, isa ne2k ethernet clone to connect
>to the internet via cable modem.
>
>My initial install of Linux was Slackware's BigSlack 7.1, running the
>UMSDOS filesystem over Win98's FAT32 scheme. After a couple of
>questions in alt.os.linux.slackware, I was connected to the 'net
>and feelin' fine!
I always found slackware easy to configure. Especially if one
is willing to take the time to learn.
for example: I was playing around with the shadow password
package. I was reading the man pages (PLEASE STOP the INFO stuff guys!
or give me a info2man conversion tool!) and found out all kinds of
neat stuff like how to turn shadow passowrds off! (grin) or if you
look at man shadowconfig you learn a few neat tricks. also look at
login.defs man pages as well as login.access man pages! and those
redhatters wonder how they can shorten the passwords. DOH! its right
there! The fact is, I find it just fun to dwaddle in the man pages for
little weird stuff ;) then I consider what I read and if I don't see
it as a danger to my system. I try them out ;)
>
>I heartily share your sentiment! :)
Right on! Lets face it. with all of this prepackage (its like
instant Microwaveable food, I rather home cook my software. even if it
is really more of a pain! Although sometimes I use a mix ie: software
program one just adds a few lines, runs a makefile (kinda like baking
a "Betty Crocker" cake mix. AT least with Linux I got the full kitchen
utensils for cooking either type of software. either made from scratch
or partially made software one just "adds eggs and water and mix" type
of software. or I can always order take out ie: precompiled binarys
No wonder Windows 2000 is fat! all it eats is take out! ;)
--
B'ichela
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 02:59:09 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've just read a news article linked from Linux Today that Sun are
thinking of open-sourcing Star Office under the GNU GPL.
Does anyone have any speculation as to why they might do this? Apart
from hurting MS, of course?
The article is at
<http://www.zdnet.com/sp/stories/news/0,4538,2604174,00.html>
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 17 Jul 2000 02:09:12 GMT
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 18:48:48 -0700, Steve Hix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Hallock
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You have made a very basic blunder in logic. You assume that since the
>> Mac did ok in the market and the Mac uses CMT that CMT must be good. That
>> is not a logical conclusion.
>
>At worst, it says that CMT as implemented in MacOS is adequate for
>most users most of the time.
True, but remember that the adequacy point moves as the state of the art
advances.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 02:24:04 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:11:35 +0200, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Wat maid you tihk that?
Yes, Her Mig, what maid makes you tick?
(Or is it "thick"? No, this is a family
forum, such innuendoes are a no-no)
> so wye not use Win and be happie?
Yes, but which witch? Gwyn or Win[ifred]?
And does he really want to turn into a
harpy?
Whale cum (1) baqc, Tymm!
(1) Whale cum: there *are* animals called "sperm whales,"
so there!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 02:39:29 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Tim Palmer wrohgut sick thymes ova sofa:
> To get Active Derectary.
Sough hit lucks liek hee hadtoe trye agen
hand a gane, mey bee his nought finnish
yet. Loo cout four wan moor tyme.
(I think he *is* cheating. Misspelling
to that extent is just too bloody
difficult. He's overwritten the dictionary
of some spell-checker, or written his
own transmogrifier. He ought to be
disqualified from the Worst Speller
Competition.).
------------------------------
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 16 Jul 2000 19:42:30 -0700
In gnu.misc.discuss, T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps if you think of it as "deriving functionality from" rather than
> "deriving its creation from" it might make more sense to you. If a
> program derives all of its functionality from a certain library, then
> the program's IP is "a derivative work" of that library, even if the
> library wasn't written down until after the program was written down.
Could you please produce a legal citation for this assertion? US
copyright law doesn't say anything even remotely like this, so in the
absence of any further support, it looks like you're just making this up
out of whole cloth.
NB: Logic, arguments from basic principles, or assertions that this is the
only system that "makes sense" are not legal citations.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
