Linux-Misc Digest #525, Volume #18 Sat, 9 Jan 99 00:13:11 EST
Contents:
Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers (David H. McCoy)
Re: Configure Kernel for Oracle? ("Beta Tech")
Linux 1.2.13 Y2K problems (was Re: - Help is Linux Y2K Complient ??)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers (Alan Boyd)
Re: Process refuses to die (Paul Griffiths)
Re: Linksys EtherFast 10/100 Card (JunkDTectr)
ATi Rage Fury (Kaustav Bhattacharya)
Re: Can't reboot at root from "xdm" (Brett W. McCoy)
Re: LINUS Can Suck My Hairy Cock .. or Newbie Needs Linux Help ... (nobo-dy)
Re: Can't reboot at root from "xdm" ("Norm Dresner")
Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers (Jeremy Mathers)
Lynx: changing 'Return-Path' (Robert Burrows)
help needed ("THEhustler")
Re: Where can I find these programs?... (Michael Ernst)
Re: Slackware + RPM (Chad Wolfsheimer)
Re: Netscape 4.5 problem (Brett W. McCoy)
Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers (Perry Pip)
Re: Infringement of the GPL (NF Stevens)
How do I partition a large HD under Redhat 5.2? (Ilya)
Re: Linux fails to boot after dual-booting Windows 95;Reinstall LILO and it works
again!? ("Shadly")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David H. McCoy)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 22:45:47 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>Here in comp.os.linux.misc, "Netnerd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>spake unto us, saying:
>
>>The US antitrust laws are designed to protect consumers, not competitors.
>>Has the consumer been harmed? Of course not.
>
>Speak for yourself. I've had a very difficult time of it for the past
>few years finding the applications I want (and I've succeeded!) even
>though I chose a technically superior desktop solution for my home PC
>six years ago (when I left Windows 3.1 for OS/2 2.1).
[This is not address to the author, but rather a response to his
article.]
Speak for yourself. OS/2 has ceased being a superior solution do to IBM's
not developing OS/2 properly. When I felt that OS/2 was not meeting my
needs, I purchased Windows NT, compared it to OS/2, in other words, they
competed, and I found NT to be the better product.
By Richard's definition, Apple has harmed consumers because they couldn't
find a copy of Corel Office.
>Also, putting on my corporate Macintosh user hat, we've encountered a
>number of problems obtaining new versions of various applications we
>use quite a bit because many vendors are dropping all platforms but
>Win32 flavors.
Because they perceive Win32 as a more profitable market, in this case due
to Apple's incompetence.
>This means that the monopoly of Windows on the desktop has harmed me
>both in a home context and in a business context.
>
This means that Apple and OS/2 both failed to compete properly and lost
customers accordingly.
--
===========================================
David H. McCoy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================
------------------------------
From: "Beta Tech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Configure Kernel for Oracle?
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 09:43:47 -0500
Actually, this isn't required at all. I started setting up Linux with the
parameters that Oracle specifies it requires. After not finding several
parameters and having a fun time accomplishing the little that I did, I
decided to try installing. (What's the worst that can happen? It crash?)
We now have a system running with Oracle 8.0.5. (This is a system converted
over from Interactive Unix.) The conversion is almost complete and the
database is running without a problem. BTW, I used Redhat 5.1.
Terry Steyaert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linux 1.2.13 Y2K problems (was Re: - Help is Linux Y2K Complient ??)
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 14:33:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fuboco) writes:
> > I'm new to the Linux world, I just want to know is Linux and it's variants
> > going to function Ok in the year 2000??
> yes.
That's interesting; a few days ago I tested my old 486 machine, running
Slackware 2.x with a 1.2.13 kernel. Switched date forwards to 2000 in DOS,
rebooted, no problems. Booted Linux, and the date was sometime in 1970. Used
date to set the date, and it was now 2000. Rebooted; DOS still thought it was
2000. Rebooted Linux, and it was back to 1970.
Reset the date in DOS to current, and booted Linux. Date was fine. Set the
date to 2000 in Linux and rebooted to DOS. DOS claimed the date was
unchanged.
Any idea what the bug is and where I'd get a patch for it? Or at least where
in the kernel I'd find the appropriate code? I hardly use this machine, but I
would like it to work in 2000 and I don't want to upgrade it to a newer
version of Linux; it only has a floppy drive and no CD-ROM, so that would be
hell. Not to mention that other than this it all works, so I have no desire
to risk breaking it.
Anon
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 21:38:57 -0600
Jeremy Mathers wrote:
>
> You have to ask yourself if it matters. Again, it is perception.
> Most users have no concept of the idea that an OS shouldn't crash at
> least once a day. Really, they just don't care. And its not like
> they are ever doing anything particularly critical anyway.
And for the people that are?
An OS should not crash...ever.
A couple of years ago there was a wide spread panic at work because the
mainframe went down at night. The first unplanned outage in 10 years.
There was a 60 person conference call (some would join, leave, come
back, etc., 60 was the max.) on how to handle the problem.
It is possible to have a stable PC OS, Linux and *BSD prove this. Just
because MS OS crashes doesn't mean it's acceptable to everyone.
Certainly not to me.
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
From: Paul Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Process refuses to die
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 07:59:05 +0000
Mike Werner wrote:
>
> Have you tried "kill -9 PID_of_offender"? That outta do in most any
> errant process.
Yep, that did the trick, the -9 sorted it out. I did try a bunch of the
identifiers, but I guess I must have missed 9 out. Cheers for the
advice.
Regards
--
Paul Griffiths
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JunkDTectr)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Linksys EtherFast 10/100 Card
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 15:08:57 GMT
The tulip driver did fine on mine (RH5.2 distro). A straight
install, select it from the default list of drivers.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Hello,
>
> I have a Linksys EtherFast 10/100 card. How do I get Linux to
> recognize the card? I am very new to Linux, so please be kind.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
> ---
> Jeff Grossman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
------------------------------
From: Kaustav Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ATi Rage Fury
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 14:59:55 +0000
Reply-To: k, dot, bhattacharya, at, bbc, dot, co, dot, uk
I'm about to buy an ATi Rage Fury graphics card for my PC. It's a new
ATi card coming out in Jan 1999 with 32MB RAM, 128bit, Hardware DVD
support for 95/98/NT4 etc etc etc. Does anyone know if there are
drivers for this card for Linux? I'm about to purchase Red Hat 5.2 this
evening....
Kozzey
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brett W. McCoy)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Can't reboot at root from "xdm"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 15:14:57 GMT
On Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:24:31 +0000, Jon D. Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Once I log in as root using an XDM login, I've noticed if I type
>"reboot" or "reboot &" in an xterm my machine does not reboot until I
>press <Alt><Ctrl><F1>, switch to a "text based" screen.
>
>Then the machine (running Redhat 5.2) reboots normally.
>
>Why can't I reboot my machine from within an XDM login session?
>
>Or maybe my question sould be "How do I reboot from an xterm run under
>an XDM login?"
I think you have to be at runlevel 3 to be able to shutdown (which then
takes the system to runlevel 0, 1, or 6). Check the man pages for more
information.
--
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.lan2wan.com/~bmccoy/
=======================================================================
"The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected."
-- The UNIX Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972
=====BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK=====
Version: 3.12
GAT dpu s:-- a C++++ UL++++$ P+ L+++ E W++ N+ o K- w--- O@ M@ !V PS+++
PE Y+ PGP- t++ 5- X+ R+@ tv b+++ DI+++ D+ G++ e>++ h+(---) r++ y++++
======END GEEK CODE BLOCK======
------------------------------
From: nobo-dy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUS Can Suck My Hairy Cock .. or Newbie Needs Linux Help ...
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup
Date: 8 Jan 1999 19:41:57 +0800
In comp.os.linux.misc Matt Templeton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> PalmII@ .com (soume yoeung guih) wrote:
> > Linus is such a pansy mother fucker. He needs real balls like bill
> > gates. Linus says "Hey Im a gay boy and give my shit away." Bill says:
> > "I own you linus mother fucker." Linus is a fuckin retard. Who else
> > would make a fuckin OS with so many security holes. How many fuckers
> > hack NT to run thier little eggdrop bots. You are all script kiddies.
> > Who the fuck would let other people butt rape him for a kernel. Bill
> > gates owns you all. I think we need to start putting tatoos on all
> > these fuckin artic following homos heads.. And hopefully that tatoo
> > will have bill gates head with a windows 2000 logo. I could write a
> > better OS out of basic on a toaster. My on screen programming for my
> > VCR is better than the gui for linux. I hope linus gets nut cancer and
> > dies. Microsoft will soon buy linux so you all can get a real os. I
> > cant wait for microsoft brings msinux to rape all you linux fags.
No need to flame you, boy. It is funny.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
From: "Norm Dresner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can't reboot at root from "xdm"
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:11:21 GMT
Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Jon D. Slater wrote:
>
> > Once I log in as root using an XDM login, I've noticed if I type
> > "reboot" or "reboot &" in an xterm my machine does not reboot until I
> > press <Alt><Ctrl><F1>, switch to a text based" screen.
> >
> > Then the machine (running Redhat 5.2) reboots normally.
> >
> > Why can't I reboot my machine from within an XDM login session?
> >
> > Or maybe my question sould be "How do I reboot from an xterm run under
> > an XDM login?"
> >
> > Please send suggestions to: JSlater<at>Qualcomm<dot>Com
> >
> > Thanks in advance!!
>
> The shutdown system doesn't know that you have xdm is running. Disable
whatever
> you're currently doing to start it, and instead start it by editing
> /etc/inittab, changing the line
>
> id:3:initdefault:
>
> to
>
> id:5:initdefault:
>
> This is known as "run level 5", and will automatically start xdm at boot
time
> under RedHat, and will leave some kind of trail so that the shutdown
system
> knows that xdm needs to be killed inter alia.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
>
You can use the command
init 5
from the command line shell to switch to run-level 5 any time you want, and
init 3
to switch back.
Assuming you're using LILO, you can boot directly in to any level (only 3
and 5 except for exceptional circumstances) by responding to the LILO:
prompt with
{liunuz-kernel name} #
where # is the run-level you want to start with.
Once you're comfortable with run-level 5, then you can make the boot to 5
"permanent" by editing /etc/inittab as above.You can still use the LILO
method to by-pass this on any individual boot.
Norm D.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss,uk.comp.os.linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Mathers)
Subject: Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 19:16:12 GMT
In article <775g0n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Liang-Shing Ng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>It is as good as public opinion that says Clinton shouldn't be
>impeached.
The thing you have to keep in mind when interpreting the Clinton polls
is that 85% of the population doesn't know what impeachment is.
Seriously, the same polls that find these ridiculously high approval
numbers for Clinton also find that only 15% of those surveyed don't
think that impeachment == removal from office.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Burrows)
Subject: Lynx: changing 'Return-Path'
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 03:51:24 GMT
When using mailto: with lynx 2.8 I sometimes (10-20% of the time?) get
bounced mail. The message is "From: <mylogin>@localhost.localdomain,
Domain name does not resolve".
I think this problem arises from the Return-Path that lynx uses. How can I
change it to my email address? I have rummaged through lynx.cfg but could
not find anything that did the trick.
TIA,
--
Robert Burrows
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "THEhustler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: help needed
Date: 9 Jan 1999 03:58:14 GMT
I've just installed RH5.2, replacing 5.0, and my dumb @$$ forgot to backup a
few important files (pap secrets and options). Anyways, I'm changing isps
and I can connect fine, but after about 15-20 secs, the pppd daemons dies.
I cant determine if theres a problem with the pap or the options (I believe
its the options, but i cant confirm) I am using ezppp, cause I can;t get
scripts to work (newbie)
here is what my pap-secrets file looks like:
# Secrets for authentication using PAP
# client server secret IP addresses
"acudzilo" * "mypassword" *
i have tried variations, liek [EMAIL PROTECTED], but I don't think thats the
problem because I still get to logon, just dies after a while
my options file looks like this:
lock
defaultroute
noipdefault
modem
/dev/modem
11520
crtscts
debug
passive
I had a problem with a different ISP (that im using now cause I can;t get
the other one to work) and after I filled the options file with the above,
it worked fine. So, im stumped
I don;t have anything in my resolv.conf file, because I use netscpae and it
writes to it.
I know the isp uses pap, I went down there and talked to them.
so that narrows it down to
1) something is wrong with pppd
2) something is wrong with the options file
3) your screwed and your going back to windows....(please god no!)
thanks for taking the time, Andrew
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Michael Ernst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Where can I find these programs?...
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 21:17:53 -0600
Jan Lundstrom wrote:
> Does anyone know what these programs are called and where can I find them?
> See attached picture.
>
> Jan Lundstrom
> http://195.67.108.20/user/sdujalm/lcc.nsf
>
> [Image]
You can find em all at
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/xose/wm/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Wolfsheimer)
Subject: Re: Slackware + RPM
Date: 8 Jan 1999 15:30:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Please point me to the site where I can get the How to for installing RPM on
: slackware. Thanx
http://sunsite.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: > install a rpm package i get failed dependencies to libs/files that are
: > already installed. I am pretty sure that there should be a file to tell
rpm -i <file.rpm> --nodeps
will ignore dependencies. Use this when you are sure you have all the
dependencies. I usually just do "rpm -i <file.rpm>" first to see what
dependencies it thinks I don't have, and then I use --nodeps. Also try the
--force option.
//============== Chad Wolfsheimer ===== Brown University ==============\\
//================== UNIX System/Network Administration =================\\
\\= [EMAIL PROTECTED] == [EMAIL PROTECTED] =//
\\=========== http://static-243.goddard.brown.edu/~cwolfshe ===========//
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brett W. McCoy)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Netscape 4.5 problem
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 15:43:34 GMT
On 7 Jan 1999 12:27:44 -0800, Paul Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>MY problem with netscape 4.5 is that trying to get a *.rpm file,
>realplayer plugin starts up; also a problem with some *.gz files like
>the wordperfect file where it arrives as a "text" file (could be due
>to a short file name?).
That sounds like a problem with the way the helper applications are set
up. Netscape will unzip a .gz file on the fly. I discovered this when I
downloaded WordPerfect. The file it put on my hard drive was gunzipped,
and only needed untarring (even though it kept the extension). The rpm is
also throwing off the helper application (.rpm may be used by RealPlayer).
--
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.lan2wan.com/~bmccoy/
=======================================================================
"The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected."
-- The UNIX Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972
=====BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK=====
Version: 3.12
GAT dpu s:-- a C++++ UL++++$ P+ L+++ E W++ N+ o K- w--- O@ M@ !V PS+++
PE Y+ PGP- t++ 5- X+ R+@ tv b+++ DI+++ D+ G++ e>++ h+(---) r++ y++++
======END GEEK CODE BLOCK======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 04:23:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, you wrote:
>
>David Kastrup wrote in message ...
>>"Netnerd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> The latest consumer poll shows that 81 percent of consumers think
>>> Microsoft has been good for consumers, and 52 percent think the case
>>> was brought to help Microsoft's rivals.
>>
>>Microsoft is not under accusation because of being bad to customers,
>>but because of illegal means for fighting competition. And of course
>>the case was brought to help Microsoft's rivals. They are the damaged
>>party of the alleged business practices. Of course it helps them if
>>Microsoft is restricted to fighting them by legal means.
>
>
>The US antitrust laws are designed to protect consumers, not competitors.
>Has the consumer been harmed? Of course not.
Of course not???
1) Consumers are overpaying for software, because their's no competition
allowing prices to be artificially high.
2) Consumers are buying more hardware than is necessary, and replacing it
more often.
See the report at http://www.stateandlocal.org/report.html for a detailed
explaination.
I'm sure there were consumers who loved Standard Oil, just cause it was
great to be driving a car.
--
Show the code....or hit the road.
Perry Piplani www.open-systems.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] perrypip.netservers.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens)
Subject: Re: Infringement of the GPL
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 11:40:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh) wrote:
>In <76kosf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson) writes:
>>>>to weigh that very heavily before upsetting that particular
>>>>apple cart.
>>>
>>>I am sorry? Millions of people speed, but the courts appear to have no
>>>difficulty in fining those who appear before it.
>
>>Once again, as in your last statement, you are confusing criminal
>>law with contract law. There is no valid comparison.
>
>Speeding and most vehicle offenses are not criminal law.
I'm not sure which jurisdiction you are considering but in England
they most certainly are criminal offences.
>>Just as clearly you are still confusing two issues. One would
>>be if the license contains restrictions which violate the law.
>
>There are two issues. The first is under Copyright law. What
>restrictions are you able to impose on another person under copyright
>law? In particular you can only impose restrictions that relate to
>copying, not to use.
In this case surely putting GPL source code into your program is
copying, whereas running the existing GPL program is use.
>The second issue is contract law? You can clearly impose much more under
>a contract. However, the concept of contract is much more stringent, and
>a contract cannot be entered into unilaterally. Both parties MUST agree
>to the terms of a contract for it to be binding, and the fact that both
>parties did agree must be probable in a court before the court will find
>that contract to be a contract. I cannot enter you into a contract
>without your explicit consent. In many jurisdictions, a contract must
>furthermore be a contract in which value is exchanged.
To take the second point first, value is exchanged. The person who
incorporates the GPL code into his own is receiving the value of
prewritten source code. The person who originally wrote that
source code is receiving the value of more software released
under terms which allow that person (and others) to use the
code freely.
The other point is whether there is an agreement at all. For
there to be a contract there must be an offer and the acceptance
of that offer by the other party. It seems clear to me that in this
sense the GPL is an offer; it clearly sets out the terms of the
putative contract. The offer is accepted when the second
person makes use of the original source code in a new
work. Note that the contract comes into effect as soon as
the offer is accepted; when the news of that acceptance
reaches the first party is irrelevant.
>
>Now, what constitutes explicit agreement, and what constitues value can
>be argued. However the courts are loath to interpret agreement
>toowidely, or else my contract with you in which you agreed to only ever
>enter the bathroom backwards, and to which you gave explicit consent by
>replying to my message, would be deemed a valid contract.
There is no contract. You gave nothing of value. Publishing your
post on the internet where it is freely available for anyone to
download and read implies that you consider there to be
value in that post.
>
>>You have not shown any such to exist. Your opinion is that some
>>things might be... but no court has ever ruled that to be true.
>
>Courts have ruled on what constitutes a contract many times. Now, they
>may decide, against all that precident, that including the GPL in a
>distribution which a user downloaded for free, was actually a contract.
It is not a contract. It is an offer. Downloading the software does
not bind you to anything. If you do not like the program or the
terms of the license you can delete it from your system without
any further consequence. Using the software implies that you
have accepted the offer and a contract is made.
>One never knows what a court could decide. But I do not think it is
>something you would be advised to bet on.
Quite.
>>The initial infringement wouldn't give anyone a right to a
>>second infringement. However, the second infringement is not an
>>infringment unless the first one is. The GPL clearly gives the
>>first user a right to do exactly that, include GPL'd code and
>>release it, with each part separately copyrighted. It is also
>>clear from the GPL that the first user accepted the GPL
>>provisions in making that release, and therefore even absent any
>>announcement that the newly released code is totally brought
>>under the GPL, anyone who sees what is there can automatically,
>>and correctly, know that it _must_ be under the GPL. Otherwise
>>it could not contain other GPL'd code.
>
>And insofar as the GPL does it it exceeds its legal mandate. The GPL
>cannot encumber someone elses copyright. It can only make assertions
>about the material that the user owns copyright to. It might state that
>the other person has no right to copy material under certain conditions,
>but has no authority under the Copyright act to encumber the copyrights
>of material which is clearly not material covered by the original
>owner's copyright.
If the copyright legislation gives the copyright owner the right
to prevent others using that software in a certain way then
an offer to waive that right can be consideration for a valid
contract.
>And again, the GPL is not a contract.
No. It is an offer.
>>It is as I pointed out with my own GPL'd code, none of which I
>>have ever sent to you or announced to you the availability of,
>>yet we both know that if you found it somewhere and used it that
>>would be perfectly acceptable.
>
>Yes, because you have given me permission to use it by stating the
>conditions under which you will allow anyone to use it. You are
>perfectly free to give up any of your own rights. You are not free to
>encumber anyone elses rights without their explicit permission however.
If they accept the offer as set out in the GPL then they are willingly
giving up their rights in return for the use of the GPL'd code.
There is no compulsion involved. The second person does not
have to use the original code. They could, in theory, write their
own version of that code which would not be subject to someone
else's copyright.
>
>>Contract law is not limited to a signed piece of paper. That
>>just happens to be the most valuable (namely provable) form of a
>>contract. Other contracts are also valid, though it is true
>>that they are much more difficult to prove the existance of. In
>>this case you have been arguing that the contract exists and is
>>invalid, until now. I think it can be proven to exist, and I
>
>Sorry a contract cannot "exist" and be "invalid" An invalid contract
>does not exist. One of the parties may claim that it exists, but that
>claim is false if the contract is invalid.
>In particular a contract requires explicit agreement by both parties, an
>agreement which would be difficult to demonstrate in the case of someone
>using GPL code.
See above.
[snip]
Norman
------------------------------
From: Ilya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: How do I partition a large HD under Redhat 5.2?
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.questions
Date: 8 Jan 1999 20:17:49 +0800
How do I partition a large HD under Redhat 5.2? By that, I mean
how many partitons do I make and how big do I make them. the HD
is 9.1GB.
Please post.
------------------------------
From: "Shadly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Linux fails to boot after dual-booting Windows 95;Reinstall LILO and it
works again!?
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:02:58 -0600
It sounds like the port configuration is different in win than in linux.
With this modem, you may have to power the computer off, then back on before
you can switch. I have had to do this before.
I would suspect the port/boot combo problem, not the modem.
Eric Hardwick wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Hi,
> Has anybody ever had problems booting Linux after exiting
>Windows 95 on a dual boot system using LILO?
>
>I had a perfectly working dual boot system (Debian 2.0 / Win95) a few
>days ago but after I installed a US Robotics 56k Plug N Play external
>modem under Linux and then Win95 (both without problems) I couldn't
>boot Linux off the hard-drive when the last boot-up was to Windows
>95...
>
>I don't think LILO is really failing since I get almost all the way
>through the boot sequence before the computer simply resets itself
>(like someone pushed the Reset switch) at the 'Loading vfat' line and
>I am left watching the BIOS bootup screens.
>
>So the order of events is like this:
>1. Turn on machine; Get LILO boot: prompt.
>2. Choose Windows 95; Win95 boots correctly.
>3. Shut down Win95; Reboot machine; Get LILO boot: prompt.
>4. Choose Linux; Watch boot messages (gets past HDD detection,
>mounting drives, fsck)
>5. Machine reboots itself when loadable modules line is displayed
>(Loading vfat...), right after vfat item is displayed.
>6. Insert Linux bootable floppy made during inital installation.
>7. Boot again; No LILO prompt (from hard-drive).
>8. Boot correctly all the way.
>9. Reinstall LILO; Reboot machine; Get LILO prompt.
>10. Choose Linux; Boot correctly all the way.
>
>This is so strange since this system worked perfectly before I
>installed the 56k modem, which works great under both OS's! Why would
>re-installing LILO fix the Loading vfat module problem? What does a
>modem have to do with LILO?
>
>Please give me any advice you can, I am losing my mind...
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Eric Hardwick
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
------------------------------
** 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.misc) 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-Misc Digest
******************************
