Linux-Advocacy Digest #996, Volume #30 Wed, 20 Dec 00 20:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Bracy = Chad Myers? ("Bracy")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 19:09:24 -0500
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > And what OSes are less of an administrative headache?
>
> Well, Windows has gone a long way into making administrative tasks easier,
> and more straightforward. Apple is showing that UNIX can be powerful and
> simple to administer. And for the diehard maschorist, editing the legacy
> UNIX settings is also available.
>
> > > Exactly, it was invented in the 60's, instituted in the 70's, and
> abandoned
> > > in the 90's. Why? Because the OS is a whole component, it's programs
> are
> > > another component. Blending the two togather is an unnessecary,
> complicated
> > > and dumb idea when we no longer have to resolve issues as "terminal
> > > compatibility" and "technological propriotorization".
> > >
> >
> > And does Linux blend them together more than other OSes?
>
> No, Linux splits the user interface and treats it like it were a program.
> UNIX did this because IT HAD NO CHOICE. Linux does this because...???
No...it was done that way because it MAKES MORE SENSE and KEEPS
SYSTEM STABILITY HIGH.
> Well, the CLAIMS are pretty lame, ("Winloosers" is the worst excuse I've
> ever herd for keeping Linux being as intuitave as a rectal exam.)
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:11:08 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Bob Hauck wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:02:02 GMT, Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone out there make a Selectric style keyboard for PCs?
> >
> > I have an old Northgate keyboard with that layout that I bought at a
> > church yard sale for $3. It even clicks when you type, the better to
> > drive your office-mates batty <g>.
> >
> > I think the Happy Hacking keyboard is probably the closest thing in
> > current production.
> >
> > And please don't quote the Kulkis-sig. He gets way too much publicity
> > as it is.
>
> heh heh heh
>
> >
> > --
> > -| Bob Hauck
> > -| Codem Systems, Inc.
> > -| http://www.codem.com/
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>>Sig Sniped hee hee<<
Got a link? I haven't seen any in the local stores. I'll do a search
later. Anything is better than another windows keyboard and all my old
IBMs are going bad.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 19:10:37 -0500
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Hint: do *NOT* try to install Windows on a system that has only SCSI
> > > disk drives!!! For some reason, this causes Windows to be violently
> > > ill. Put an IDE drive in, and things get better, but beware of the TGUI
> > > 9440 cards, as Windows will simply barf all over 'em . . . and watch out
> > > for GoldStar CD-ROM drives . . . the standard Windows drivers will hang
> > > one in 30 times when attempting to access the drive when a CDR is in it.
> >
> > Why on earth would any home PC user own a SCSI hard disk drive?
>
> Why not?
>
> SCSI is faster, tougher and more efficient in a multi-tasking/multi-user
> environment.
>
All my Linux boxes use ONLY SCSI disks.
> > Scanner,
> > maybe. If your an "entusiast" who owns a SCSI primary disk drive, then you
> > should know better.
>
> Shoud know better than . . . what?
>
> Are you saying that the Windows 98 box has a big red sticker on it that
> warns me that Windows 98 doesn't support SCSI-only systems?
>
> Mac's support it, Linux suports it . . . Windows is the odd OS out.
>
> <sarcastic zing>
> I guess Windows just . . . sucks! ;-)
> </sarcastic zing>
>
> > Windows NT & 2000 (and NTFS) all feature data integrety tools.
>
> Did you notice that I was talking about Windows 98?
>
> --
>
> If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
> John Stevens
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:05:05 -0700
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:91m7of$48l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > > > The USB layer under Linux doesn't support full soft-enumeration of
> > the
> > > > > > devices under the BUS in perputiaty. WHICH IS THE POINT OF USB!
> > > > >
> > > > > What the heck are you trying to say?!
> > > >
> > > > TRANSLATION: You plug it in, and poof, it works, PERIOD.
> > >
> > > That doesn't happen in Windows, either.
> >
> > Really? I plug a USB device in, Windows detects it, asks me to wait while
> it
> > gather info about the device, install drivers if it has ones, ask for
> > drivers if it doesn't.
> > And that is *all*.
> > Next time that I'll plug the device, the driver will be loaded
> automatically
> > and I'll be able to use device I plugged in immediately.
>
> Try plugging a Kensington video camera into a Toshiba laptop. It goes
> through the motions you describe for loading the software, but then
> when you try to use it, the machine crashes....
Yah.
Refer to my other messages re: boot/standard protocol, vs. proprietary.
The stuff that has a pre-defined, public, standard protocol works pretty
well under all OS'en that have USB support.
The proprietary stuff, or the stuff that has no pre-defined, standard
protocol is a lot iffier.
Logitech seems to write reasonably good drivers. Kensington . . .
well . . . 'nuff said.
Windows ME USB device support is more extensive than Windows 98,
according
to the stuff I've seen, but the *quality* of USB support actually seems
to be a little bit worse.
Why, I have no idea.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:10:20 -0700
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> I thought the idea was that ALL THREE operating systems
> were used in the production!
Yup. They were.
> Windows NT is great for graphical front-end entry.
For authoring, it's great. Less crashes than the 9X kernels, too.
> I'm not sure
> where Digital Unix falls in this stuff (it may have had an app
> that helped).
Most likely, DUX ran on the various SAN nodes, and to do job scheduling,
but that's just a guess from some of the hints in the article.
> And Linux works on the backend, chugging away.
>
> The result: one of the most successful movies produced.
> Nobody can deny this, but Linux didn't do it all.
Correct.
As you might expect, the various OS'en were plugged in where a
cost/benefit analysis indicated they were best suited to be used.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:12:41 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > dvick wrote:
> > >
> > > "taking a turn at the government teat"???
> > > Isn't that just an insulting way of saying the government pays for the
> > > armed forces? Where else do you expect the military to get funding
> > > but from the government? Bakes sales? Charging money for HMMWV
> > > rides?
> >
> > Why not? That's how our schools end up raising money for frills like
> > desks and blackboards.
>
> Did it EVER fucking occur to your pitifult little walnut-sized brain
> that without a military, you wouldn't have the FREEDOM to do such
> things in the first place?
I dunno, Switzerland's doing just fine. However, you are making an
incorrect inference by implying that my worries about possibly wasting
some money mean I want to eliminate the military. And stop
trolling for a rise out of me. I don't know what the heck has
put your planets out of alignment.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Date: 21 Dec 2000 00:24:30 +1100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On 20 Dec 2000 09:26:53 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Hmm, that sounds strangely familiar. Only the roles were reversed.
>>The ultra-cheap package of CMOS video camera and BT848-based capture card
>>I bought earlier this year never worked under Windows. Just wouldn't.
>>No go.
>What brand and model camera would that be? Sounds like something is
>conflicting on your system, because if the camera didn't work under
>Windows they would never be able to sell one.
This was the sort of ultra-cheap crap where the manufacturer will usually
not admit to having manufactured it, and you have to search the "manual"
long and hard until you find a company name, in 3pt font, on the second-to-last
page.
I have no idea what company or brand. I never cared. Heck, I didn't even
try to get the silly thing to work under Windows --- my office mates did,
for some reason. This is an office full of people with graduate CS students,
all with more than enough experience with Windows. No go. Who cares?
>>If I ever have a Windows installation that goes that smoothly, I shall
>>mark the day in my calendar with a big red circle. But don't hold your
>>breath.
>Haven't had a problem since Windows 98. I agree earlier versions
>presented problems for some configurations.
At least Win98 falls over itself quite happily, too, when it encounters
hardware that is just a tad out of the ordinary.
>>Does that mean Windows is inferior to Mandrake 7.2? I don't think so.
>>It just isn't very good at dealing with changing hardware. It isn't
>>very good at a whole lot of things, just like Linux. And it's quite
>>good at some others, just like Linux. And all the anecdotal evidence
>>in the world won't change that.
>Sounds like the default gateway problem with Mandrake that screws up
>ppp. See the setup groups for information.
Uhm --- how would a "default gateway problem with Madrake" explain why
my Windows installation puked all over its routing tables, and then refused
my attempts to clean them up?
As for Mandrake --- it correctly found both my network cards, asked for the
TCP/IP configuration, including the gateway, set it all up, and has been
running perfectly ever since. I am not quite sure what "default gateway
problem" you are talking about, but whatever it is, it seems not to manifest
itself on my system.
>>P.S.: Welcome back, heather69. I suspect you will regale us with stories
>> about your retail experience in "major chainstores", and how
>> Linux is the "numero uno" returned item, right? What will your
>> relation to the manager be this time? Will she be your aunt? Your
>> daughter? Your brother's wife?
>Huh????
Cute. Do you really want to claim you are not heather69/wazzoo/hafizi/
PoppaCherry/Susan Wong? Funny... Here, spot the odd one out:
X-Trace: bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net 946429348 15711 12.78.186.44
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 977281423 12.79.168.192
X-Trace: bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 953503538 12.79.5.249
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 937858847 206.114.75.150
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 954969526 12.78.224.175
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 960422480 12.79.50.167
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 962929551 12.79.50.225
One of them is from your "flatfish" persona. The others are from the above
mentioned personae, all from articles where you relayed so-called
"experiences" in selling Linux in "major chainstores" --- which, according
to you, mainly consisted in having it returned often enough to make it the
"numbero uno" return item.
Should I repost the article providing the details and quotes? It's not
even half a year old; Heck, Deja will still have it.
Bernie
--
I find that a great part of the information I have was acquired
by looking up something and finding something else on the way
Franklin P. Adams
American newspaper columnist, 1881-1960
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:20:41 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > The Linux users need a reality check to see how much they are missing
> > since they last used Windows circa 3.0
> >
>
> This is very true, I see people bashing Windows for problems it's had dating
> back to Windows for Workgroups 3.11 now THAT'S sad;
But I'm still having the same problems that I had with Windows for
Workgroups. Thats sad. 6 years and still can't fix the bugs.
Unfortunately, IT types are still buying Windows.
>being so angry at a
> computing platform for nearly six years now. Although it's more often that
> I find Linux zealot's complaining that "Windows is the platform of satan"
> because it "crashes so much".
>
> Of course they are refering to Windows 95 and 98's hideous stability
> problems, not Windows NT (after SP3) Windows 2000 or Windows Me. They don't
> realize that OS's change.
>
> Which is the only reason I still use Linux, too see if SOMETHING has
> changed. 5 Years and counting, the result? No.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 01:20:45 +0100
John W. Stevens wrote:
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Hint: do *NOT* try to install Windows on a system that has only SCSI
> > > disk drives!!! For some reason, this causes Windows to be violently
> > > ill. Put an IDE drive in, and things get better, but beware of the
> > > TGUI 9440 cards, as Windows will simply barf all over 'em . . . and
> > > watch out
> > > for GoldStar CD-ROM drives . . . the standard Windows drivers will
> > > hang one in 30 times when attempting to access the drive when a CDR is
> > > in it.
> >
> > Why on earth would any home PC user own a SCSI hard disk drive?
>
> Why not?
>
> SCSI is faster, tougher and more efficient in a multi-tasking/multi-user
> environment.
>
> > Scanner,
> > maybe. If your an "entusiast" who owns a SCSI primary disk drive, then
> > you should know better.
>
> Shoud know better than . . . what?
>
> Are you saying that the Windows 98 box has a big red sticker on it that
> warns me that Windows 98 doesn't support SCSI-only systems?
>
> Mac's support it, Linux suports it . . . Windows is the odd OS out.
>
> <sarcastic zing>
> I guess Windows just . . . sucks! ;-)
> </sarcastic zing>
>
> > Windows NT & 2000 (and NTFS) all feature data integrety tools.
>
> Did you notice that I was talking about Windows 98?
>
> --
>
> If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
> John Stevens
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tell you what, I own 2 systems SCSI only. Both are a horror to install
with windows (ANY version). Both work without any hitch with SuSe Linux
(before that with OS/2, also without any problems)
------------------------------
From: "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bracy = Chad Myers?
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:05:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donn Miller"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep, this is definitely Chad Myer.s
I am not who you say I am. What am I supposed to do? Prove it
to you somehow? Should I care enough about your false and
baseless accusation to dignify it by defending myself?
A quick search on deja.com will show that I've posted here, off
and on, for about a year. I used to have a flash.net dialup account,
and posted from it until I recently switched to RoadRunner cable.
For consistency, I decided to continue to use the handle "Bracy"
that I had been using on flash.net.
I've seen Chad post here some, but know little else. I looked up
his name after your accusation, and sure enough, he has a
RoadRunner account, and from Austin no less, so I can understand
why you might think I may be him. Nevertheless, I don't believe
that the burden of proof should be on me, but on you who make the
accusation.
If I change my mind and feel compelled to prove my innocence, I
could provide BBS forums that I participate in, and one which I help
moderate, Linux mailing lists that I particpate in, etc.
Bracy
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:18:50 -0700
"B. P. Uecker" wrote:
>
> John W. Stevens wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >If this is the sticking point . . . then Linux will win hands down.
> >Linux TCO is much lower than Windows TCO is.
>
> Ha ha ha! Good one! Ever tried to support Linux on the desktop?
Yes, I have.
> I
> thought not.
I suspect you were wrong . . .
> >The distributed, open nature of the Linux support paradigm automatically
> >makes it better and more responsive.
>
> Huh huh..."paradigm"...cool!
You like that word?! Good! You can have it for a song!
Let's start the bidding at 50 cents . . . do I hear 50? Going, going .
. .
> Nice to see that open source not only
> makes your dick bigger, but it magically makes software more
> responsive (er...fallacious logic alert!).
Silly boy, we aren't talking about software here! ;-)
> >Been there, done that. No problems. What else you got for me?
>
> A big, fat, wet kiss!
Geeze, and I thought you didn't care!
> >Nobody will go belly up 'cause of a choice of OS, regardless of what
> >that OS is.
>
> Typical extremist statement from a religious zealot.
Me? "Religious Zealot?"
I've done it all, and currently work for a company that sells/supports
all three.
> Go ahead and
> deploy Linux on the desktop...the company you work for may not go
> belly up, but you will soon be scanning the want ads.
Did it . . . and it didn't happen.
> >If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
> Given the sad nature of HP support, that wouldn't be unfortunate.
If you have a problem with HP support . . . tell us so. Our customer
satisfaction rate seems to be quite high, compared to the industry
average.
But if you have useful feedback, we'd love to hear it.
> What can you say about a major manufacturer that uses a 900 number for
> tech support.
What, you'd like us to include the cost of support THAT YOU DON'T NEED,
or NEVER USE into your original purchase price?
The "pay as you go" model is fairer, as only those who require it, have
to pay for it.
Do you really want to pay for support for . . . other people to use?
> And, what a coincidence, you just happen to work for
> them. I think I'll take anything you post with a few tons of salt.
Which will speed you into an early grave . . . don't say I didn't warn
you.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:22:07 -0700
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sat, 16 Dec 2000 22:30:52 -0500
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> [snip]
>
> >ed is the one true editor.
>
> Does anyone else remember TECO? :-) (Yes, I've used it. Way back
> even *before* my college daze...)
TECO GAMES: take any given set of line noise, enter it into a TECO edit
session, and see what happens . . .
Or, as we used to say, "GOD, PLEASE DON'T LET MY TELEPHONE LINE GET
NOISY WHILST MY TECO SESSION IS ONGOING!"
8-)
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:23:23 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> jtnews wrote:
> >
> > If I reverse engineer the camera protocol through the USB interface,
> > develop a Linux driver, distribute the driver under the GPL
> > over the Internet, can I be sued by Intel for violating their
> > intellectual property?
> >
>
> NOPE!
>
Unfortunately, the correct answer is YEP. You might win, Intel might
loose, but in the meantime, who has money to pay for lawyers? I would
suggest contacting Intel and clearing it with them first. Otherwise post
the code as "anonymous coward" somewhere from a cybercafe.
> > Kasper Dupont wrote:
> > >
> > > jtnews wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Intel Easy PC camera is not supported in Linux!
> > > > You can't even write a driver for it!
> > > >
> > > > I got it as a "free" add-on with my new Dell Dimension
> > > > L600cx, but now it seems I made the wrong choice!
> > > >
> > > > Why does a $40 cheapo camera have to be proprietary for
> > > > Intel? I thought Intel made all their money because they make
> > > > huge volumes of flash memory chips over their competitors.
> > > >
> > > > I better choose the Lexmark color printer as a free add on next
> > > > time!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Of course it is posible to write a driver for that
> > > camera, but you would have to reverse engineer the
> > > protocols.
> > >
> > > Depending on how it is connected you could hook in
> > > a piece of hardware or software to watch the
> > > communication.
> > >
> > > I don't understand Intel's policy, a Linux driver
> > > would allow more people to use the camera and then
> > > they could expect to sell more cameras. But
> > > perhaps they have some secret agreement with MS.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kasper Dupont
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 01:23:04 +0100
John W. Stevens wrote:
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Swangoremovemee wrote:
> >
> > > > Neither do the folks who run Solaris, SCO or Aix, MVS, VM or Mac/OS.
> > >
> > > But when having that choice might benefit them . . . they're stuck,
> > > while on the other hand, when I wanted RAID-0 and RAID-5 capability on
> > > my Linux box, all I had to do was download the patch, apply it,
> > > recompile, reboot, and I was off and running.
> > >
> > > That isn't something you can do with Windows or the MacOS.
> >
> > Yes you can, Win2K support RAID-0, RAID-5 and another one, who number I
> > forgotten, it may be RAID-1, but I'm totally not sure here.
>
> No, the issue was "patch, recompile, and install a new kernel", not
> whether or not you can do RAID.
>
> But, tell me, how do you do RAID on Windows 98?
>
> --
>
> If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
> John Stevens
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, like anyone would think a windows-user does.
He makes a WORD document concerning the bad things about RAID
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
