Linux-Advocacy Digest #53, Volume #31 Mon, 25 Dec 00 09:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: open source is getting worst with time. ("Darren Winsper")
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Conclusion ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Which retail Linux distribution is best? (Nic Oliver)
Re: undefined reference to `__eh_pc' (Andres Soolo)
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action (Andres Soolo)
Re: Linuxgruven.com (Andres Soolo)
Re: What's in a name? (Andres Soolo)
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (Andres Soolo)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
SV: open source is getting worst with time. ("Lord Metalicat")
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (Yatima)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("billh")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("billh")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [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: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 09:28:32 -0000
In comp.os.linux.development.system mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> > It is a tough problem, and one of those gray areas in which a pure GPL
|> > approach is a very tough sell. To differentiate yourself and be
|> > competitive with a hardware product, you must make it good and make it
|> > competitively priced. The answer to this is proprietary software to
|> > control mass-produced trivial hardware.
|> >
|>
|> Not in a pure GPL approach, as Intel would have only a small expense in
|> the software development as would all the other camera manuafactures.
|
| But how would Intel make a case for its camera over some low priced
| clone? Why would someone pay $10 dollars more for an Intel camera? They
| wouldn't, and that would not be acceptable for someone like Intel.
This depends on whether the software can be developed in the open source
community. If the software can be made in the open, then Intel would have
no say in all the cheap $10 cameras out there which would use it. The big
issue is if Intel should release what they developed. As long as it makes
people buy their hardware instead of the clone (as long as no open source
software for clones has been done yet) then Intel won't see a business case
in releasing the source.
| Intel has a brand name, as dubious as it is, they have to make sure that
| there camera is better than a "Snap!" super el-cheapo. If they can't,
| they won't enter the market. If they release something that makes their
| camera better than the "Snap!" then, "Snap!" would be able to copy their
| image processing techniques and steal the market with price.
This is long as the "better" part is in the software. And, unfortunately
for cases like this, software is way cheaper than hardware due to the
lower incremental costs. They want their camera to be better without
(much) increase in costs (of development and manufacture, the extra price
will be taken as profit).
| GPL can not apply to hardware, because hardware is limited by finite
| numbers. Production has a proportional unit cost for the producer. While
| the software associated with a digital camera may be free, making it so
| would affect the ability to produce the camera competitively. The
| software is part of the camera.
It seems to me that one way to fight this is for more people who are
supporters of free software to do some hardware development along the
same lines, and release free designs that manufacture-only companies
might sell, which work with the corresponding free software (which
might have all real smarts in it).
--
=================================================================
| Phil Howard - KA9WGN | Dallas | http://linuxhomepage.com/ |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Texas, USA | http://phil.ipal.org/ |
=================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Darren Winsper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 09:34:45 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "matt newell"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a
> browser that is faster and more complient than IE(konqueror),
Don't be so sure.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 03:42:08 -0600
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 20:03:57 -0600,
> Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:3a3c0a6d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:91gmul$s0u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > "Donn Miller" <dmmillerzoominternet.net> wrote in message
> >> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > >> . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > Microsoft does not make or design mice, they were (at the time
that
> >> > >> > the scrollwheel was introduced) repackaged logitech mice,
designed
> >> > >> > by logitech engineers. :)
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I don't know if I'd want to give any more money to MS, even though
> >I've
> >> > > heard
> >> > >> that MS mice are pretty good. Does Logitech get any of the
profits
> >> from
> >> > >> those MS mice?
> >> >
> >> > > Note the smiley at the end of his sentance. He wasn't serious.
> >> >
> >> > Well, not entirely anyhow. Microsoft does indeed not make hardware.
> >> > Their mice are indeed repackaged.
> >>
> >> ...and Logitech DOES indeed make a wheel mouse. So you could buy from
them
> >> directly if you don't want to give money to MS.
> >
> >MS's mice are *NOT* repackaged Logitech mice. For christs sake, all it
> >takes is a brain to notice that MS's mice had the wheel 6+ months before
> >Logitech decided to add one. MS also had the new optical mouse first,
> >Logitech licensed the technology about 6 months later again (as did
Apple).
>
> Gee Erik, you wouldn't be talking about the same stuff that M$ licenced
from
> Agilent (formerly HP) would you? You wouldn't be implying that M$ owned
the
> rights to or invented that optical mouse technology would you?
> Didn't think so...
What exactly is your point? I never said or implied any such thing. Why
don't you stop being captain obvious and quit pointing out what i'm not
saying.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 03:48:14 -0600
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If the OS is detected correctly, and the uptime returned for that system
is
> accurate. Then what diff does it make whether it is listed as a webserver
or
> firewall if what you are after is uptime ?
You're making the same mistake you've been making all along. You're
assuming that Netcraft will identify a web server with a firewall as the
firewall, but that's not what happens in many cases (including my own).
Netcraft reports the server and OS as Linux, but it's getting it's uptime
data from my firewall, which is neither Linux or Unix based (actually it's
getting no uptime at all because my firewall doesn't give out that data).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 08:47:31 GMT
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:54:21 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> The thing you are missing is that most NT users must operate with OS
>> privileges which would allow a virus to spread
>
>That's not true. NT is perfectly capapble of being used in locked down way.
>
This is precisely correct. You can lock down NT to the point of being
almost unusable if you so wish.
It can sometimes be a rather annoying when people who apparently have
no understanding of NT make these silly generalizations.
There appears to be a perception amongst people within this group that
NT (and Microsoft products in general) should be completely secure
"out of the box". On the other hand Unix systems in general require
attention from an experienced administrator to secure them. Apply the
same time and effort to an NT system and you will easily achieve the
same level of security.
Most Unix systems still run ftp, telnet and nfs daemons. These
systems lack any sort of security. Anyone who knows how to program an
Ethernet card may break a networked Unix system running any of these
daemons.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 10:54:02 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In Windows NT, one can assign themselves any privileges they wish.
> Often
> > > > times, as I have said before, and is made evident from some of
> > > > Microsoft's own knowledge base articles, one must assign themselves
> many
> > > > privileges which are dangerous, just to install and use software.
> > >
> > > Install, yes. Use, no. There are some knowledge base articles about
> older
> > > versions of office, which, in their default configuraitons required
> write
> > > access to the windows directory, however you could change the
> > > locations
> of
> > > these files and invalidate that need. This isn't the case with Office
> 97+.
> >
> > You are speaking only of office. I am talking about racks of Windows
> > software at the store.
>
> The *ONLY* software i've ever heard of that *REQUIRED* write access to the
> Windows directory is Office. Perhaps you know some specific others.
> Generic "racks" is not acceptable.
>
> > > Further, Windows 2000 allows you to install software with admin privs
> > > without giving them to yourself. Simply run a setup program and Win2k
> asks
> > > you how you want to install it, and if you want to install with
> > > administrator privs (requiring that administrator password).
> >
> > Provided that the software has the newest installer, perhaps.
>
> Has nothing to do with the installer used.
>
Heyk, thats really cool. So if you have a shop with, say 200 Nt / 2k-boxes,
200 people will call the adminsitrator yelling "I need your password".
Otherwise he has to go to 200 boxs himself (naturally distiributed around
an area the size of New York)
------------------------------
From: Nic Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which retail Linux distribution is best?
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 10:40:49 +0000
I've tried Red Hat, Suse and Mandrake, all on workstations or laptops.
Suse is cool although the manuals are a straight translation from the
German and can sometimes be confusing. Suse's installer, YAST, is great if
you want control of the machine.
Red Hat seems to be the industry standard but I binned it back in the days
when StarOffice was the only decent intergrated office suite around and
getting it to install under Red Hat was a pain. It also lagged behind for
laptop use.
Mandrake is my current choice... I've found a CD with Mandrake 7.2 and KDE
2 on it. KDE Office is far easier and memory friendly than StarOffice. 7.2
also rocks on the laptop.
Regards
Nic
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: undefined reference to `__eh_pc'
Date: 25 Dec 2000 11:26:56 GMT
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tried this:
> find /lib -name '*.so' -exec nm {} \; | grep __eh_pc
> find /usr/lib -name '*.so' -exec nm {} \; | grep __eh_pc
> And came up with no matches; it's not a symbol in any standard library
> on my system here (RedHat 6.2).
It probably doesn't have to, I guess it only belongs to the CRT part--
which can't be a shared library, for obvious reasons :-)
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Logic is a little bird, sitting in a tree, that smells AWFUL.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Date: 25 Dec 2000 11:31:59 GMT
Keith Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> more mature way of doing it. It just amazes me to see people insert these tags
> and without compunction dismiss an entire line of products that,
> problematic or not, get the job done.
Why should it amaze you that people dismiss an entire line of products that
gets the job done in a problematic way?
>>Everyone should be allowed to joust the windmills. Perhaps we can even
>>bring down the empire with the crushing double edged sword of dedication
>>and snide remarks. ;-)
> That made me smile. :)
Now just imagine a vast army of knights on bicycles, swinging their
bytesabers :-)
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality.
-- Jules de Gaultier
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linuxgruven.com
Date: 25 Dec 2000 11:34:45 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jason Portell wrote:
>> should be VERY aware of. The name is linuxgruven.com . The company is
[...]
> This sort of post is the worst sort there is. A proclamation that some
> person or company is bad, with no facts or report.
Isn't he the one who described his bad experience while trying to get
a job there? If so, he has posted the (supposed) facts publically.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SNAPPY REPARTEE:
What you'd say if you had another chance.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's in a name?
Date: 25 Dec 2000 11:57:13 GMT
Spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Silly me. I thought Linux was named after/by Linus.
To be exact, Linux the kernel was named after Linus.
And GNU/Linux the OS was named after Linux the kernel.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hand, n.:
A singular instrument worn at the end of a human arm and
commonly thrust into somebody's pocket.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: 25 Dec 2000 12:07:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Most of it was just ordinary trolling, so I've skipped it but there's
one interesting paragraph that shows an interesting detail of a MSWvocate
thinking:
>> 2.. The "Image Files" require a CD writing device. That is a commodity, not
> a typical component. Most people DON'T own a CD writing device.
It never occurred to you that the folks might cooperate?
For a RL example, I have a CD recorder. Most of my friends don't. So I
just burn the images for them. Three packs of Debian/potato have found
a new home during the last Christmas. At least one person with a CDR I know
does the same (doesn't know the results though).
The apparent cause seems to be the continuous MS brainwashing that
``software copying is bad''.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A conservative is a man
with two perfectly good legs who has never learned to walk.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 12:43:44 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > >
> > >Al Franken is a failing comedian, was never too funny, and must latch
onto
> > >popular writers for subject matter to sell his pathetic books.
> > >
> > >Does Rush Limbaughs truth spewing feel like holy water on a vampire? It
does
> > >seem to have that effect on the most extreme socialists who's one true
enemy
> > >IS TRUTH.
> >
> > Meanwhile, back in the real world, you can tell how vapid a
> > conservative's arguments are by how often they have to trot out this
> > lame-ass ad hominem. Rush Limbaugh's 'spewings', certainly an accurate
> > phrase there, are simply offensive to anyone who actually uses their
> > brain, and that entirely explains the fatigued ridicule which is about
> > all most people can generate for Rush these days.
>
> And, anyway, Al Franken is far more enjoyable that Rush. I'm sure "Mein
> Kampf" is a better seller than "The Way Things Ought to Be".
Probably so since "Mein Kampf" was required reading for the German poplace.
Fortunately, its' American audience is confined to run-down trailer parks
and is of no consequence.
I find Al Franken far more irritating than Rush. Mostly because he is an
painfully non-funny comedian. He, David Brenner, and Garry Shandling set my
teeth on edge.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Lord Metalicat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 14:10:06 +0100
You must be an idiot..
If you can't figure this out, I suggest you install Helix gnome or
something.
That one installs everything automaticly for you.
Besides, if you install rpm4, you'll easily loose your old rpm database..
(Anyway I once installed rpm4, and that was no problem at all.)
You say in windows, you wouldn't have suck a problem. That's because windows
isn't as advanced that this utility would be possible at all.
- Lord Metalicat
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 24 Dec 2000 00:13:44 -0800, steve@x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Ok, I wanted to try this program that is supposed to be good.
> >
> >When I tried to install AbiWord using rpm, I get the error
> >
> >"only packages with major numbers <= 3 are supported by this version of
RPM"
> >
> >Ok, after searching the net, I found rpm version 4 out there
> >(I was using rpm 3.0.3). So, I download rpm for rpm 4.0, but
> >when I try to install rpm 4.0 using my current rpm, I also get
> >the same error.
> >
> >So, I search the net again, and I find someone saying that rpm 3.0.5
> >will not give the above error. So, I search for rpm 3.0.5 and
downdownload
> >the rpm file for it.
> >
> >I rpm -Uhv it, but I get dependcy error, it wanted these
> >
> >error: failed dependencies:
> > textutils is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> > sh-utils is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> > bzip2 >= 0.9.0c-2 is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> > libbz2.so.0 is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> >
> >Ok, so I hit the net again searching for textutils, I download
> >it, then I do
> >
> >root>rpm -Uhv textutils-2.0g-1.i386.rpm
> >only packages with major numbers <= 3 are supported by this version of
RPM
> >error: textutils-2.0g-1.i386.rpm cannot be installed
> >root>
> >
> >
> >Ok, so to update my rpm, I need an rpm that needs a packages that
> >will not install with my current rpm.
> >
> >This is so amazing. NO wonder 90% of the world uses windows.
> >
> >On windows, I never had such idiotic installation problems. never.
> >
> >back to windows, you guys can keep this junk.
> >
> >it is true what they say, linux is for those whose time is worthless.
> >It has been years, and this system is still as hard to install
> >programs for as ever, I thought maybe after all this time, someone
> >would have fixed this crap. But I was wrong.
>
>
> And we have another winner ladies and gentlemen!
>
> Seriously, welcome to Linux where time is worthless, just like Linux.
> Simple tasks, like installing applications become crusades as you
> search through reams of How-To's in the quest to perform a simple
> task.
>
> The Penguinista's love that kind of crap so they don't mind.
>
> I suspect you will get a 100 responses calling you an idiot and making
> sure you know that it worked fine for them and you are the only idiot
> in the world that can't make it work.
>
> Don't be fooled!
> Some of them are having the exact same problems you are, only they are
> too stupid to admit it because of their religious desire to not
> blaspheme Linux.
>
> Linux is pathetic.
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yatima)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 13:46:56 GMT
On 25 Dec 2000 12:07:40 GMT, Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>It never occurred to you that the folks might cooperate?
>
>For a RL example, I have a CD recorder. Most of my friends don't. So I
>just burn the images for them. Three packs of Debian/potato have found
>a new home during the last Christmas. At least one person with a CDR I know
>does the same (doesn't know the results though).
>
>The apparent cause seems to be the continuous MS brainwashing that
>``software copying is bad''.
>
Also, there is always cheapbytes. $3.99US for Mandrake 7.2 (2 CDs) or
$5.99US for Debian 2.2 (3 CDs). You can also get Redhat and other
distros for about $2.OOUS per CD.
This whole "Linux isn't affordable" whining is bullshit.
--
yatima
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[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: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 13:51:17 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > My uniform layout is as follows
> > >
> > > [ACM][AAM]
> > > [RCGCM][ASR][NDSM]
> > > [PUC][JMUC] [SWASM][OTR][IOSR]
> > >
> >
> > Again, you lie, KuKu. You are truly pathetic. Firstly, unit awards are
> > only worn above the right pocket. Secondly, you haven't been awarded
the
> > PUC. Now, go somewhere else and try to inpress some teenagers bercause
you
> > sure haven't impressed any soldiers.
> >
> > BTW there is no medal known by the acronym "ACM". It's "ARCOM",
wannabe.
>
> Tell us again about your theory that German, Japanese, North Korean,
> Chinese, VietCong, and North Vietnamese troops ALL obeyed the
> Geneva Convention and NEVER fired at American medics.
Having trouble staying on topic again, eh, "reading comprehension boy"?
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[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: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 13:53:40 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > >Kulkis has claimed to do things he hasn't. One is that he has
claimed to
> > > >have been on classified ops that he can't talk about, yet he talks
about
> > > >them. [...]
> > >
> > > He's yanking your chain, dude.
> >
> > No, actually he just pathetically and desperately tries to impress
others by
> > lying and can't handle it when he gets caught in those lies.
>
> Bill even misses subtle clues like 'yank, yank, yank'
No I won't let you change the truth of the matteer. You lied, and continue
to do so, and now want to pull it of as trolling. You have no integrity and
no honor. You are simply a pathetic war-hero-wannabe. Everyone knows that.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
