Linux-Misc Digest #441, Volume #18 Sat, 2 Jan 99 18:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Unix vs Windows NT (Aaron Baugher)
Re: Best Free Unix? (Mike Lipsie)
Yo! Where did the memory go?! (Barry Coetzee)
Re: WordPerfect 8 (John Berezinski)
Re: help me choose license (William Burrow)
Re: things I'd pay to have developed for Linux... (Ilya)
Re: modprobe: can't locate module net-pf-5 (Brian Parker)
What's FUD ("James A. Cleland")
Re: egcs/g++ Hello world (Paul Griffiths)
Re: The goal of Open Source (David Steuber)
Video Editing with Linux (Thomas Brandl)
Re: parport/ppa problem with 2.2.0pre1 (Clifford Kite)
Re: help me choose license (brian moore)
Re: Netscape Communicator Hangs (Andy Johnson)
Re: Java Machine - ICQ in Red Hat 5.2 (Paul Griffiths)
Re: Best Free Unix? (Ken Deboy)
Re: Best Free Unix? (Martin Dieringer)
Re: Infringement of the GPL (Bill Unruh)
Re: WP8 installation (Bill Unruh)
Re: Best Free Unix? (Snoesje)
Re: Clocks and timeservers (Enkidu)
Re: help me choose license ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Unix vs Windows NT
From: Aaron Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 02 Jan 1999 09:46:41 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Destrius) writes:
> At the moment, tho, I really wish there were more RPGs for Linux... :)
You might check out Crossfire <URL:http://crossfire.real-time.com/>.
The author calls it a rogue-like game, but I think it's more similar
to Ultima -- level advancement, attributes, etc. It's multiplayer,
and there are servers starting up where you might find others playing.
There are both X and Java clients available, though it sounds like the
Java client isn't as stable yet as the X client (which I use).
Aaron
--
Aaron Baugher - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Quincy, IL, USA
Extreme Systems Consulting - http://haruchai.rnet.com/esc/
CGI, Perl, Java, and Linux/Unix Administration
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Lipsie)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix?
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 17:59:39 GMT
On 1 Jan 1999 14:59:11 +0800, Ilya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Which companies offer the entire pre-installed OS? I want to get one
>without any Microsoft products at all, ready to go, and later install
>a different OS if I need to.
Others have resonded to your other questions (and they are better qualified
than I) but this question seems to have been misunderstood or overlooked.
To my knowledge, none of the major PC manufacturers (such as Dell,
Gateway, ...) sell a machine with one of the free Unix variants pre-installed.
I think I read that Compaq might be planning a Linux machine but I do
not remember clearly. You will have noticed that every response you
got suggested that you do the installation.
One of the major advantages of having someone else build your machine
is that they only put in components that are supported by your OS. The
free Unices do not support nearly as many hardware components as
the Wintel world so it is important to choose components that match
your OS of choice. (Hell, that is important in the Wintel world too, it's
just easier.)
>I need all SCSI hardware, 3-button mouse, 17" Sony Trinitron Monitor
>with a .25mm dot pitch, 9GB hard drive, CDROM, all the X11 libraries, cool
>X-windows manager like fvwm, tower-case etc.
And, finally, good luck.
--
Mike Lipsie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Barry Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Yo! Where did the memory go?!
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 20:05:05 +0200
Hi to everyone!
I've been using Linux (mostly trying to figure out what it can do and
how it works) on and off for about a year now. Most basic things I
could figure out by experimenting and by studying the LDP Man pages,
INFO documents and HOWTO's.
At this stage I'm mostly using SuSE 5.3 and KDE with KDM. Most things
work fine. There' s a few things that I do not understand though - the
memory usage under Linux, to name but one.
I've been experimenting with memory tuning (after reading
memory-tuning.txt) and in the process discovered some strange things.
1) The Memory Info program in KDE reports Total , Free, Shared and
Buffer RAM:
After a fresh boot I add the Free, Shared and Buffer RAM and I get a
total more than the reported Total RAM, plus this added total is more
than the amount of installed memory - How come?
2) Watching the totals for Free, Shared and Buffer RAM after I've used
the system for a while (about a day or so), I've noticed that the total
for Free, Shared and Buffer adds up to about half the installed RAM in
my system - so where did the missing memory go?
I've tried a clean install with RedHat, Slackware, and SuSE to no avail.
I recompiled the kernel a few times under each distribution and used
about all the different window managers I could download. I eventually
used 'cat /proc/meminfo' - with the same results. I've also started
reading about how 'init' works, but I'm still totally in the dark on
that one.
Can somebody help me in understanding this? I don't really care much for
a "solution" as such, if someone can just tell me where to go or what
to read so I can know why this is happening and understand how it's
happening I'll be content.
------------------------------
From: John Berezinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WordPerfect 8
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 12:40:04 -0600
Bill Unruh wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Berezinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >I've just down loaded Wordperfect 8. When I try to unzip the file(s), gunzip says
> >the last file is missing (the one that has header info?) and if I use unzip, it
> >says its not in zip format. I am using a recent version of Slakware.
>
> a) That is gunzip, not unzip
> b) The files are probably not gz files. Try just untarring them
> tar -xf *
Tried it, it does appear not to be zipped. However, what I get now is 3 files
and then several messages about skipping headers. Reading the script, it
looks like the tar was supposed to extract a subdirectory (and it didn't). When
I try to run Runme, it errors out because the installation sub-directory does
not exist. When I try to view (list) the tar file with the tar command, the
command just sits there and I have to interrupt it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Burrow)
Subject: Re: help me choose license
Date: 2 Jan 1999 18:05:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 02 Jan 1999 16:00:14 GMT,
steve mcadams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
Ditto.
>On Sat, 2 Jan 1999 00:01:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>1. I would like the code to be free for use in free products, ie
>products that are not sold. So it could go into distribution X, be on
>the cheapbytes cdroms, etc. Very close to, if not identical to, GPL
>code (though I'll have to closely review the GPL again to see if there
>are any sticking points that I've forgotten).
>
>2. I would like it to be available for use in commercial products via
>purchase of a proprietary license.
You might like to look at the Qt license. Should be somewhere on:
http://www.troll.no/
As to what free software people think of such a license, investigate any
KDE thread.
The advantage of using someone else's license is that it has gone through
reality checks, public criticism and (presumably) hours of lawyer time.
>It seems that my thinking on the whole licensing issue is clearing up
>a little at a time as I learn about more available options. I'm still
>trying to determine how to handle the contribution aspect while
>retaining the option of selling proprietary licenses. This is, to me
>at least, a very difficult issue (from a moral/ethical standpoint if
>nothing else).
This does strike me as a sticky issue. How does the Sendmail group or
Troll Tech handle this?
--
William Burrow, VE9WIL -- New Brunswick, Canada o
Copyright 1999 William Burrow ~ /\
~ ()>()
------------------------------
From: Ilya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: things I'd pay to have developed for Linux...
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.hardware
Date: 2 Jan 1999 12:50:47 +0800
JFS.
LVM.
Mirroring and stuff
Please.
------------------------------
From: Brian Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: modprobe: can't locate module net-pf-5
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 19:06:28 +0000
Brian Stephen Faivre wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm having the problem mentioned below, but my distribution (redhat) does not
> contain the files /etc/modules.conf or
> /etc/modutils/aliases listed in the linked webpage. Do you have another
> suggestion?
>
You can create this file yourself:-
/sbin/modprobe -c | grep -v '^path' > /etc/conf.modules
You can call the file conf.modules or modules.conf
Courtesy of the kerneld mini howto.
Brian Parker
------------------------------
From: "James A. Cleland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: What's FUD
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 16:31:37 -0500
What's FUD?
------------------------------
From: Paul Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: egcs/g++ Hello world
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 21:37:36 +0000
Crispg wrote:
>
> Don't you have to do a
>
> #include <iostreams.h>
>
> instead of
>
> #include <iostreams>
>
> ?
Nope. #include <iostream> just doesn't include the functions in the
global namespace.
--
Paul Griffiths
------------------------------
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The goal of Open Source
Date: 27 Dec 1998 19:41:25 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook) writes:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 1998 21:40:46 GMT, steve mcadams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Ooooh, yummy! Open Source takes over the world, then I get to be a
> >maintenance grunt for the rest of my life, cleaning up other peoples'
> >garbage so it works to company spec-of-the-week. Arrgh. -steve
>
> Isn't that what programmers usually do anyway?
I do a little of that. Mostly, I create the garbage for others to
clean up! But the others have caught on to that, so now I have to
clean up my own messes.
Open Source may, or may not, make things tougher on an ISV. I would
also like to be an ISV someday. But I feel that I would be better off
either including the source, or shipping just the source. Why? So my
users can debug it for me! Will I make money? Well, I have a day job
that provides much more security than self employment at a company
that is flexible about what I wear and what hours I work.
Even if Open Source (more to the point, the FSF) causes all software
to become free, it won't have the effect of making programmers poor,
comodity labor. We will still be needed to find the existing packages
and put them together so that they work to fulfill a bussiness goal.
We aren't unskilled labor. We will continue to be needed in greater
numbers than can likely be produced by the gene pool. Talented
engineers are rare.
Just look at all the 'free' source code that is out there. The range
in quality is tremendouse. Much of the code that works is a
maintainance nightmare if you want to add new features. Much of it is
targeted to a specific task in a way that makes it hard to generalize
into a class of related tasks. This is because writting good software
is hard. By making it open source, without necessarily releasing
control of it, programmers can have others do their debugging for
them.
There are many roads to follow. Natural selection will probably solve
the dilema of which road to take. More than likely, there will always
be more than one road. But the road that follows the black box,
propietary, patented technology, no reverse engineering, right of way
will probably fall into disrepare.
Personaly, I think closed source is not to hide trade sercrets, but to
hide bad code.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 19:26:40 +0100
From: Thomas Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Video Editing with Linux
Hi!
I did some short shootings with a Hi8 camcorder. Now I would like to edit
the videos. Does anyone have some experiences with video editing under
Linux (supported & recommended HW, SW, more specific newsgroup, web sites -
I already know a site "Video for Linux resources, www.exploits.org/v4l")?
Please reply to my email address, too!
Thank you very much!
Thomas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clifford Kite)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: parport/ppa problem with 2.2.0pre1
Date: 2 Jan 1999 13:37:52 -0600
Griffin Caprio ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: > > I can't even get my printer to work under 2.2.0pre1. It works fine in
: > > 2.0.36, but not in the newer kernels. I tried to switch from lp1 to lp0
: > > and it still doesn't work. Any tips?
: The weird thing is I can cat to it, just not with lpr. maybe I need a newer
: distro of lpr?!?
Under 2.1.131 I had no problem printing after adjusting the /etc/printcap
file but found that I couldn't "lprm - " a print queue. It was apparently
a permissions thing since "chmod 2511 /usr/bin/lprm" cured it - my lprm
and print queue directory both are group lp and the directory permissions
didn't permit an ordinary user to write to it. My /usr/bin/lpr already
had those permissions.
--
Clifford Kite Not a guru. (tm)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Better is the enemy of good enough.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Subject: Re: help me choose license
Date: 2 Jan 1999 20:45:24 GMT
On Sat, 2 Jan 1999 18:43:30 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> steve mcadams writes:
> > 1. I would like the code to be free for use in free products, ie
> > products that are not sold. So it could go into distribution X, be on
> > the cheapbytes cdroms, etc.
>
> Cheap Bytes CD's are sold, so it could not go on them. All major Linux
> distributions are sold, so it could not go in any of them. See the Debian
> Free Software Guidelines at www.debian.org or the Open Source Definition at
> www.opensource.org for explanations and examples of free software licenses.
> I think you will want Open Source certification.
OTOH, with a GPL license (as opposed to 'you can not sell this'
licenses), its very difficult to make money selling the code: as soon as
PersonA starts making money, there's nothing to stop PersonB from
selling the same package at 10% less... or PersonC... etc.
It very quickly makes it impossible to profit by selling the code.
(Which is why what Redhat is really selling is support. You can get
the same thing without the support for $2 instead of $30-50.)
--
Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach
Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain."
Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 17:27:56 -0500
From: Andy Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Netscape Communicator Hangs
Unfortunately, I don't exactly have an answer to your problem; however, I
would like to point out that Java & JavaScript are 2 completely different
animals, and are controlled by different checkboxes in the Preferences box.
zentara wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jan 1999 08:37:18 -0700, Jack Slater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm having trouble with Netscape communicator 4.5 occasionally hanging
> >when
> >reading pages from the web. Certain files (e.g. Barnes and Noble's
> >magazine
> >list) will hang it every time. It is not a random event. Communicator
> >is then
> >crashed. I had similar trouble with an earlier version (maybe 4.08),
> >but in
> >that case the problem could always be fixed by turning off the Java
> >Script
> >capability. Now if have it (Java) off and still have trouble.
> >
> >I'm using Slakware 3.4 with the 2.0.30 kernel and the libc5 library.
> >
> >Has anyone see behavior like this? Any ideas?
>
> There is one thing to do for sure, it is a security flaw, and
> it is described on Netscapes website.
> In edit/preferences/navigator/applications there is an entry
> called * and it's setup to be handled by "default plugin"???
> I don't remember for sure; BUT it should be changed to
> "Unknown: Prompt User".
>
> I'm recalling this from memory, so I may be wrong. Check out
> Netscape's site for yourself.
>
> I have seen some weird behavior with 4.5.
> My problem used to be a complete netscape shutdown,
> when clicking on a "mailto:", with the message only
> saying "bus error".
> That problem has disappeared after some upgrading,
> I don't know why.
> So far I've been lucky with this install. :-)
> Knock on wood.
------------------------------
From: Paul Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Java Machine - ICQ in Red Hat 5.2
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 21:40:38 +0000
John Robicheau wrote:
>
> Hi all!
>
> Here is something that has been buggin the heck outta me.
>
> I am relatively new to Linux / Unix OS's. But I am learning something
> new every day. The thing that I can not figure out how to do at this point
> is how to get the VJM (Virtual Java Machine) up and running so I can try to
> get this silly Java version of ICQ to work in Red Hat 5.2.
>
> Is there anybody out there than can help me on this one? I really would
> appreciate a hand with it. As I use ICQ every Day and is primarily one of
> the main reasons that I must (for the time being) keep windoze on the
> flipside.
You just need to download the Linux port of the Sun JDK v1.1.7, and ICQ
should work fine. I forget the URL for it, but someone round here is
sure to know.
HTH
--
Paul Griffiths
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 09:23:27 -0800
From: Ken Deboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix?
chas wrote:
>
> One consideration in the SCO vs Solaris decision, both are for
> non-commercial use. For education, developers & hobbyists.
Also, when I look at SCO's compatibilty list, it only works with
SCSI hard drives, so I got Solaris because my computer has EIDE
drives. It (Solaris) is a lot of fun, but I use Linux mostly for
Unix in case I accidentally use my computer for something that
isn't non-commercial.
>
> Having been an UNIX admin (SCO, AIX, HP/UX) ranked on the order of
> ease of setting up, installing and levels of support, I rank the
> "free" releases as:
>
> 1) FreeBSD
> 2) SCO
> 3) Linux ->Any flavor
> 4) Solaris
>
> The above is like a belly button, every body has one, and that's mine,
> for the $.02 it's worth.
>
You thought Solaris was harder to setup than FreeBSD?
> Charlie
> UNIX uber alles!
Cheers,
Ken
------------------------------
From: Martin Dieringer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix?
Date: 02 Jan 1999 19:43:26 +0100
Ken Deboy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just got my copy of Solaris...
> As you mention, the price is ridiculously low. As far as installation
> I found it easier to install than FreeBSD. The problem with it is the
> licensing terms. As long as you're using it on a single system it's ok,
> but for anything else the price (of a legal license) is very high. I do
> think it's a nice system, but except for ease of installation, I don't
> see any advantage over FreeBSD (or Linux).
The only one is probably that you get the latest Java-Development-Kit first
on Solaris (besides Win)
M.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: Infringement of the GPL
Date: 2 Jan 1999 22:33:25 GMT
In <76kosf$[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.
>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.
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.
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.
>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.
One never knows what a court could decide. But I do not think it is
something you would be advised to bet on.
>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.
And again, the GPL is not a contract.
>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.
>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.
>think it is valid in the general sense (meaning that there may
>be individual cases where odd circumstances make it invalid in
>that case only, but not on a broad scale).
>I would also argue that the long time existance without a court
>case tends to suggest that everyone with money to bet on the
>outcome of such a test has decided not to be on your side.
Long? The GPL has only existed for about 15 years. That is instantaneous
as far as the courts are concerned. The fact that it has not yet been
challenged simply means that noone has considered it worth
challenging and says nothing about how a court would view such a
challenge.
>>(Just to be clear, I imposed the copyright restriction on you that you
>>are allowed to copy this message to your computer in order to read it
>>only under the condition that you ufrom now and henceforth only enter
>>you bathroom backwards. Your reading this message, and in particular
>>your replying to it indictes your acceptance of this condition.)
> 1) You did not impose that restriction on me.
> 2) You have released it to others without restriction, and
> they have given it to me, also without restriction.
> 3) You are being absurd.
Yes, I did. I clearly stated that this restiction applies to you and you
alone (which under law is my right). You indicted your agreement by responding.
And yes, I am being absurd, on purpose. It is this kind of "agreement"
which you are suggesting the courts might look favourably on with
respect to regarding the GPL as a contract.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: WP8 installation
Date: 2 Jan 1999 22:35:03 GMT
In <voCckDAPYkj2Ew$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Neil Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>registration card!!!! I went to the Corel site and registered myself
>and got a registration number, but the installation program won't
>accept it. What am I supposed to enter into that box??
Well, it accepted mine. Are you sure you entered it EXACTLY as they gave
it to you? (eg you used copy and past from the Web screen)?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Snoesje)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix?
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 22:42:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Mauritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Mike Lipsie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 1 Jan 1999 14:59:11 +0800, Ilya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Which companies offer the entire pre-installed OS? I want to get one
>>>without any Microsoft products at all, ready to go, and later install
>>>a different OS if I need to.
>>
>> Others have resonded to your other questions (and they are better qualified
>> than I) but this question seems to have been misunderstood or overlooked.
>
>> To my knowledge, none of the major PC manufacturers (such as Dell,
>> Gateway, ...) sell a machine with one of the free Unix variants
> pre-installed.
>> I think I read that Compaq might be planning a Linux machine but I do
>> not remember clearly. You will have noticed that every response you
>> got suggested that you do the installation.
>
>I had a number of problems getting RH 5.1 and 5.2 to install on Compaq
>rackmount Proliant machines. There seems to be no driver on the boot/supp
I had no problem with FreeBSD 3.0 on a proliant 5000R. The only tricky thing
was getting the fscking hardware to support full APIC, for which I had to
install the sucky Compaq software on one of the disks. (It would not work
from the bootable Crappaq cdrom).
--
If you receive an e-mail titled JOIN THE CREW or PENPALS open
it!!!!! It will not erase EVERYTHING on your hard drive! Send
this letter out to as little people as you can....this is a hoax
virus and many people hate it!!
------------------------------
From: Enkidu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Clocks and timeservers
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 11:44:13 +1300
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Steuber wrote:
>
> If such a clock isn't too expensive, I would like to get one
> for my linux network. Does anybody know anything about doing
> this, how much a reasonable clock costs, and what the set up
> involves?
>
I presume you know of the atomic clocks on the Internet using the
SNTP protocol? Do you need better than 70msec accuracy?
Cliff
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: help me choose license
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 22:15:23 GMT
brian moore writes:
> OTOH, with a GPL license (as opposed to 'you can not sell this'
> licenses), its very difficult to make money selling the code: as soon as
> PersonA starts making money, there's nothing to stop PersonB from selling
> the same package at 10% less... or PersonC... etc.
Steve is proposing a library, not an application. If he releases it under
the GPL, applications that use it must also be under the GPL. Free
software authors will of course be quite willing to GPL their programs, but
companies that want to use his library in proprietary programs will have to
purchase licenses from him.
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
