Re: xorg.conf he brew question
On 7/27/06, ik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/27/06, Gil Freund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/27/06, Meir Kriheli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gil Freund wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I have the following in xorg.conf: > > > Section "InputDevice" > > >Identifier "Generic Keyboard" > > >Driver "kbd" > > >Option "CoreKeyboard" > > >Option "XkbRules" "xfree86" > > >Option "XkbModel" "pc104" > > >Option "XkbLayout" "us,il" > > >Option "XkbCompat" "group_led" > > >Option "XkbOptions" > > > "grp:switch,grp:alt_shift_toggle,grp_led:scroll" > > > EndSection > > > > > > This works nicely in kubuntu on an Compaq Evo 400, but does not work > > > in xubuntu on a Toshiba Portege 3110. > > > > > > Running: > > > setxkbmap -option grp:switch,grp:alt_shift_toggle,grp_led:scroll us,il > > > Does work. > > > > > > The Toshiba has only one Ctrl and Alt set, could this be the problems? > > > If so which XkbModel should be used? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Gil > > > > > > > > > > > > > According to: > > http://www.edginet.org/techie/linux/XF86Config-4 > > > > linked from: > > http://www.edginet.org/techie/linux/laptop.html > > > > it says pc102. > > > > > > Use the following for additional info (choose "OS Machine Compatibility" > > from the menu): > > http://newsletter.toshiba-tro.de/main/ > > > > Cheers > > -- > > Meir Kriheli > > > > > Thanks, but I guess the problem is elsewhere. I should have guessed > that, since setxkbmap worked... > > Any ideas welcome. I have strange idea (like always ;)) but if the xorg in one machine is different then the other, you might need to add the following line: option "XkbRules" "xorg" Thanks, but same difference. Is there anything that might be overriding the xkbd settings during startup. I am wondering since setxkbmap is working. I found out that some xorg versions (on debian at least) also require different xkb driver, but I do not remember it's name at the moment :( > > -- > Gil Freund, Systems Analyst > --- > Sysnet consulting > [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.sysnet.co.il > voice: +972-54-2035888, Fax: +972-8-9356026 > > Ido -- Gil Freund, Systems Analyst --- Sysnet consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.sysnet.co.il voice: +972-54-2035888, Fax: +972-8-9356026 = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xorg.conf he brew question
On 7/27/06, Gil Freund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/27/06, Meir Kriheli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gil Freund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have the following in xorg.conf: > > Section "InputDevice" > >Identifier "Generic Keyboard" > >Driver "kbd" > >Option "CoreKeyboard" > >Option "XkbRules" "xfree86" > >Option "XkbModel" "pc104" > >Option "XkbLayout" "us,il" > >Option "XkbCompat" "group_led" > >Option "XkbOptions" > > "grp:switch,grp:alt_shift_toggle,grp_led:scroll" > > EndSection > > > > This works nicely in kubuntu on an Compaq Evo 400, but does not work > > in xubuntu on a Toshiba Portege 3110. > > > > Running: > > setxkbmap -option grp:switch,grp:alt_shift_toggle,grp_led:scroll us,il > > Does work. > > > > The Toshiba has only one Ctrl and Alt set, could this be the problems? > > If so which XkbModel should be used? > > > > Thanks > > > > Gil > > > > > > > > According to: > http://www.edginet.org/techie/linux/XF86Config-4 > > linked from: > http://www.edginet.org/techie/linux/laptop.html > > it says pc102. > > > Use the following for additional info (choose "OS Machine Compatibility" > from the menu): > http://newsletter.toshiba-tro.de/main/ > > Cheers > -- > Meir Kriheli > Thanks, but I guess the problem is elsewhere. I should have guessed that, since setxkbmap worked... Any ideas welcome. I have strange idea (like always ;)) but if the xorg in one machine is different then the other, you might need to add the following line: option "XkbRules" "xorg" I found out that some xorg versions (on debian at least) also require different xkb driver, but I do not remember it's name at the moment :( -- Gil Freund, Systems Analyst --- Sysnet consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.sysnet.co.il voice: +972-54-2035888, Fax: +972-8-9356026 Ido = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xorg.conf he brew question
On 7/27/06, Meir Kriheli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Gil Freund wrote: > Hi, > > I have the following in xorg.conf: > Section "InputDevice" >Identifier "Generic Keyboard" >Driver "kbd" >Option "CoreKeyboard" >Option "XkbRules" "xfree86" >Option "XkbModel" "pc104" >Option "XkbLayout" "us,il" >Option "XkbCompat" "group_led" >Option "XkbOptions" > "grp:switch,grp:alt_shift_toggle,grp_led:scroll" > EndSection > > This works nicely in kubuntu on an Compaq Evo 400, but does not work > in xubuntu on a Toshiba Portege 3110. > > Running: > setxkbmap -option grp:switch,grp:alt_shift_toggle,grp_led:scroll us,il > Does work. > > The Toshiba has only one Ctrl and Alt set, could this be the problems? > If so which XkbModel should be used? > > Thanks > > Gil > > > According to: http://www.edginet.org/techie/linux/XF86Config-4 linked from: http://www.edginet.org/techie/linux/laptop.html it says pc102. Use the following for additional info (choose "OS Machine Compatibility" from the menu): http://newsletter.toshiba-tro.de/main/ Cheers -- Meir Kriheli Thanks, but I guess the problem is elsewhere. I should have guessed that, since setxkbmap worked... Any ideas welcome. -- Gil Freund, Systems Analyst --- Sysnet consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.sysnet.co.il voice: +972-54-2035888, Fax: +972-8-9356026 = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: xorg.conf he brew question
Gil Freund wrote: > Hi, > > I have the following in xorg.conf: > Section "InputDevice" >Identifier "Generic Keyboard" >Driver "kbd" >Option "CoreKeyboard" >Option "XkbRules" "xfree86" >Option "XkbModel" "pc104" >Option "XkbLayout" "us,il" >Option "XkbCompat" "group_led" >Option "XkbOptions" > "grp:switch,grp:alt_shift_toggle,grp_led:scroll" > EndSection > > This works nicely in kubuntu on an Compaq Evo 400, but does not work > in xubuntu on a Toshiba Portege 3110. > > Running: > setxkbmap -option grp:switch,grp:alt_shift_toggle,grp_led:scroll us,il > Does work. > > The Toshiba has only one Ctrl and Alt set, could this be the problems? > If so which XkbModel should be used? > > Thanks > > Gil > > > According to: http://www.edginet.org/techie/linux/XF86Config-4 linked from: http://www.edginet.org/techie/linux/laptop.html it says pc102. Use the following for additional info (choose "OS Machine Compatibility" from the menu): http://newsletter.toshiba-tro.de/main/ Cheers -- Meir Kriheli = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
xorg.conf he brew question
Hi, I have the following in xorg.conf: Section "InputDevice" Identifier "Generic Keyboard" Driver "kbd" Option "CoreKeyboard" Option "XkbRules" "xfree86" Option "XkbModel" "pc104" Option "XkbLayout" "us,il" Option "XkbCompat" "group_led" Option "XkbOptions" "grp:switch,grp:alt_shift_toggle,grp_led:scroll" EndSection This works nicely in kubuntu on an Compaq Evo 400, but does not work in xubuntu on a Toshiba Portege 3110. Running: setxkbmap -option grp:switch,grp:alt_shift_toggle,grp_led:scroll us,il Does work. The Toshiba has only one Ctrl and Alt set, could this be the problems? If so which XkbModel should be used? Thanks Gil -- Gil Freund, Systems Analyst --- Sysnet consulting [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.sysnet.co.il voice: +972-54-2035888, Fax: +972-8-9356026 = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SpamAssassin eating up my CPU
--Boundary_(ID_xwPbwSwhBJ/mhXVGHevZ3A) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT >ideas to get the load lower? dspam any good? I think I asked that >before, but everything I implemented is still not helping much. I'll >feel really annoyed if I have to upgrade the expensive hardware because >of spammers. > > You could set up a secondary MX (which attracts more spam than a primary) with anti-spam and rbls, and configure your MTA in the main MX to stop recieving mail after reaching a load average of, say, 12. This way you could reduce the amount of spam reaching your main server and keep it from interfering with it's normal operation. Meanwhile, your secondary MX will receive the mail and send it over when the load average in the main MX permits. >how bad is the spam on YOUR servers? > > Pretty bad. Some days my server catches up to 11.000. The maximum reached this past month was ~14.000. Cheers, Henry --Boundary_(ID_xwPbwSwhBJ/mhXVGHevZ3A) Content-type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8; name=ficher.vcf Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: attachment; filename=ficher.vcf begin:vcard fn:Henry Ficher n:Ficher;Henry email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] tel;work:03-5588788 tel;home:03-6474132 tel;cell:0546-800727 x-mozilla-html:TRUE version:2.1 end:vcard --Boundary_(ID_xwPbwSwhBJ/mhXVGHevZ3A)-- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question related to block layer in 2.4.xx
I have a question about block layer in 2.4 kernel. I'm printing info about block devices and noticed There are not request_fn and make_request_fn for major numbers 8 and 3(scsi and ide) Parameter head_active == 0 for both. But do_hd_request and scci_request_fn do get called of course. The flow for read/write is: Block_read->ll_rw_block->submit_bh->generic_make_request->make_request_fn->__make_request .. Default make_request_fn is __make_request which is called by blk_init_queue. Do I understand right the picture ? Why make_request_fn == 0 for ide and scsi? Actually only floppy device has both function != 0. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results of search for list of Fedora Core packages
Shlomi Fish wrote: 1. It is edited by a few editors (possibly even one) with some submissions from the public. 2. Sometimes the editors find a package themselves and add it there, after sending an email to the creator with clarifications. Which doesn't explain how rsyncrypto made it there. I didn't submit it to them myself, and was never contacted by them about it. Not that I mind, you see. Just pointing it out. can run on Linux No, it restricts itself to software that runs on Unix. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Results of search for list of Fedora Core packages
On Monday 24 July 2006 15:26, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Omer Zak wrote: > > even FSF has a list of software > > packages (at http://directory.fsf.org/). > > Except I was never able to figure out what is this a list OF. > > It has only 4,300 enteries, so it cannot possibly presume to be > complete. On the other hand, it contains some obviously > (http://directory.fsf.org/rsyncrypto.html) non-GNU > packages. It appears to be a list of whatever software happened to catch > the FSF's fancy to be "useful", under some unclear definition of "useful". OK, here's what I know of the FSF/UNESCO directory ( http://directory.fsf.org/ ): 1. It is edited by a few editors (possibly even one) with some submissions from the public. 2. Sometimes the editors find a package themselves and add it there, after sending an email to the creator with clarifications. 3. It is exclusively about free software (according to the FSF definition) that is not dependant on non-free software. It should include Java programs that run on top of a free-as-in-speech Java implementation as well as Windows programs that can run on top of wine. Otherwise software of all free software licenses (copyleft, BSD-style, LGPL, GPL-compatible or not compatible with the GPL) is represented. 4. There's an LWN interview with the chief editor here: http://lwn.net/Articles/97521/ - Now Freshmeat.net is more active, has more projects, the feedback is much better, has more editors, etc. However, it contains some non-open-source software (not that I mind it too much) and restricts itself to software that can run on Linux (while still having some sections for themes, for OS X software, and for Palm). I also think that the source code of the site is not available for download, even though it was once upon a time. (Before VA Linux bought Andover.net). I also noticed that a few editorials have disappeared from it, at least after the switch to Freshmeat 2, along with all their comments. Some of my projects are in the FSF directory too, but not all. Regards, Shlomi Fish - Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage:http://www.shlomifish.org/ Chuck Norris wrote a complete Perl 6 implementation in a day but then destroyed all evidence with his bare hands, so no one will know his secrets. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
websphere and Fedora core 5.
Hello I am trying to set up the latest version of WAS trail on FC5. I have downloaded WAS from IBM few days ago. it's version 6.1 WAS has a web-based installer. When i click on the "Launch wesphere application server trail" link nothing happens. copying the shortcut reveals its a link to "javascript:void 0" has anybody had similar experience with websphere and fedora? the same web based installer worked fine on windows. thanks in advance. Nezer J. Zaidenberg __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OLS 2006 recordings
On Thursday July 27 2006 12:50, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > Since you mentioned it, proceedings are at > http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2006/proceedings.php. The organizers > also asked the presenters to send their slides, so those should show > up on the site sometime too. I check them on daily basis. And still no slides for the events I wanted, neither on the site, nor on the personal sites. Sitting there soldering (all of a sudden, I have plenty of free time to dedicate to all the circuitry gathering dust on my desk), rewriting procmail rules and the lovely song of the sirens doesn't help either. My patience is running out, another week and I'll start mailing the relevant presenters :) P.S. I really recommend ham radio or another harmless hobby for all these returning from the shelters. Keeps you calm. -- Sincerely Yours, Michael Vasiliev "...this does not mean that some of us should not want, in a rather dispassionate sort of way, to put a bullet through csh's head." Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are there non-free versions of Linux?
On 7/27/06, Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Uri Even-Chen wrote: > They may also include technical means to > prevent people from installing it without a license (such as > "activation" in Windows XP). They cannot, in actuality. First of all, it is a GPL violation to modify the kernel in such a way. [snip] They can attach the license to non-GPLed components, but then only those components will be protected by it. They don't have to modify the kernel. They can create a new distribution, an "operating system", with some proprietary programs included in it. These proprietary programs will require a license, and they will make sure that the entire "operating system" will not work without activation (which will require buying a license). What will stop them from doing it? It's possible both technically and legally. If you will not want to use the proprietary components of this distribution, you will probably install another distribution, won't you? Why would you use such a distribution? And they can make sure that the entire distribution will not work without activation. The only reason why a company would not want to do it, is for business reasons (competition). But I don't see any legal problem. Uri. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please unsubscribe me from the list, Thanks
- Meir ***This email message and any attachments thereto are intended only for use by the addressee(s) named above, and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the [EMAIL PROTECTED] and destroy the original message.***
Re: Are there non-free versions of Linux?
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 12:14:50PM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > They cannot, in actuality. First of all, it is a GPL violation to modify > the kernel in such a way. Section 6: Each time you redistribute the > Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically > receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or > modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not > impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the > rights granted herein. > > Changing the kernel to only work on specific hardware, or using specific > keys, could be read as a violation of the above. Sorry, but in practical terms, that argument is meaningless. All I need do is create a hardware modification that requires a special code to run. For example, a subprocessor that requires a special key or every 5 minutes, it issues an NMI. Or shuts down the power, zeros memory, whatever. Now I just include a GPL'ed kernel module that answers a system call with "here is the key" and transfers it to the subprocessor. You could even make that module object code only, and it would still be ok. You just have to call it a "device driver". Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are there non-free versions of Linux?
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 11:51:20AM +0300, Uri Even-Chen wrote: > On 7/27/06, Geoffrey S. Mendelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But is it or is it not legal to install the binary (compiled) version > on more computers without a license? GPL should be free, also when > using the binary form of the software. AFIK, there is nothing in the GPL about selling combinations or compilations (as in collections of things), etc. You can also sell GPL'ed binaries. The freedom refered to in the GPL has nothing to do with the price that you pay for the product. > It looks as if this gray area is big enough, so that it could happen > that companies will take a distribution of Linux, modify it, maybe add > some proprietary software to it, and then sell it as a proprietary > software - like MS-Windows. That's perfectly fine according to the GPL, as long as the source code is available, you can download, compile the program and use it. Keep in mind that the GPL predates Linux. Public domain (the old name for free) software was distrubted in source code. IBM used to have a large group of people maintaing a library of software that was free (as in beer) and there were many other groups, both affiliated with manufacturers and not. When home computers started to appear, people who bought them often did not have the money to buy the equipment and software needed to compile programs. This started the distribution of programs as runable object code. Since the faliure rate for new companies is about 75%, many people bought expensive binary licences, built their business around the "new" computers, a small office could suddenly afford and then became "stuck" as the software vendor went out of business leaving them with software that was out of date, data no one else could read and nowhere to turn to. Please don't start the old "if it works now, it will still do the same thing forever" argument, it does not hold water for payroll or most other business software. It's also not 100% true on Linux, my TV card no longer works due to Kernel changes and no/slow support from the authors of the program. Thanks to the GPL, I could fix it if I wanted to spend the time, but 99.99% of the people using it can't. But .01% is better than none. That's the freedom of the GPL, not the price. This was what I was saying before about gray areas, one company took software they released under the GPL, solicited improvments, some of them major modules, incorporated them into the code and then sold proprietary licenses to that code. If the GPL is freedom, then they took "free" code and sold it into slavery. Why anyone uses their software, or buys their hardware is beyond me, but it's popular on this list. > They may also include technical means to > prevent people from installing it without a license (such as > "activation" in Windows XP). The yearly subscription for online > security patches is a step in this direction. That's fine with me. I don't have to use their subscription, if the software is licensed under the GPL, they have to give me the source code for free, I can apply the patches, or not as the case may be. Even Microsoft does not withhold their patches to people who use bootleg versions of their software. They make it difficult, but the patches are there for the downloading if you know where to look, and they will apply and work. I also am free to use or not use their software. If I don't want to use Linux, I can use any of the versions of BSD, MacOs, Solaris, etc. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: OLS 2006 recordings
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 12:36:22PM +0300, Michael Vasiliev wrote: > Hello all, > I believe these might interest some of you. OLS 2006 recordings, courtesy of > Shawn Starr. > > http://christian-leber.de/~ijuz/ols2006.torrent Since you mentioned it, proceedings are at http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2006/proceedings.php. The organizers also asked the presenters to send their slides, so those should show up on the site sometime too. Cheers, Muli = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OLS 2006 recordings
Hello all, I believe these might interest some of you. OLS 2006 recordings, courtesy of Shawn Starr. http://christian-leber.de/~ijuz/ols2006.torrent -- Sincerely Yours, Michael Vasiliev This door is baroquen, please wiggle Handel. (If I wiggle Handel, will it wiggle Bach?) -- Found on a door in the MSU music building = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are there non-free versions of Linux?
Uri Even-Chen wrote: On 7/27/06, Geoffrey S. Mendelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You're confusing free as in the GPL and free as in beer. The GPL does not restrict people from charging for their products, it requires that if you release the source code for them. But is it or is it not legal to install the binary (compiled) version on more computers without a license? Yes. You are not allowed to connect to their update service from the non-licensed computer, but they cannot stop you from installing it on a new machine inside your organization. You are not allowed (according to RedHat) to give me a copy of the disc, unless you first remove the two trademarked files. Otherwise, all is fine. It looks as if this gray area is big enough, so that it could happen that companies will take a distribution of Linux, modify it, maybe add some proprietary software to it, and then sell it as a proprietary software - like MS-Windows. It has been done before, after all. They may also include technical means to prevent people from installing it without a license (such as "activation" in Windows XP). They cannot, in actuality. First of all, it is a GPL violation to modify the kernel in such a way. Section 6: Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. Changing the kernel to only work on specific hardware, or using specific keys, could be read as a violation of the above. In any case, the company is required to distribute the sources to any such change to the kernel, which would make any such modification moot. They can attach the license to non-GPLed components, but then only those components will be protected by it. The yearly subscription for online security patches is a step in this direction. I can understand that RedHat wishes to make money from the distribution. I have no qualm with that. I do protest the fact they are using scare tactics in order to do so, as well as the fact that they do not seem to be giving back their money's worth in support. Uri. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are there non-free versions of Linux?
On 7/27/06, Geoffrey S. Mendelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You're confusing free as in the GPL and free as in beer. The GPL does not restrict people from charging for their products, it requires that if you release the source code for them. But is it or is it not legal to install the binary (compiled) version on more computers without a license? GPL should be free, also when using the binary form of the software. There is a gray area, It looks as if this gray area is big enough, so that it could happen that companies will take a distribution of Linux, modify it, maybe add some proprietary software to it, and then sell it as a proprietary software - like MS-Windows. They may also include technical means to prevent people from installing it without a license (such as "activation" in Windows XP). The yearly subscription for online security patches is a step in this direction. Uri. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are there non-free versions of Linux?
Thank you, all, for your reply. that's an effective PR machine that spreads misinformation and FUD. even the people here on the list get confused. It's embarrasing to admit that until 5 minutes ago, I had no idea what FUD is. So I checked at [http://www.answers.com/FUD]. Here's what I got (quote): --- Hacker Slang FUD Defined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM to found his own company: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering [Amdahl] products." The idea, of course, was to persuade them to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software. See IBM. After 1990 the term FUD was associated increasingly frequently with Microsoft, and has become generalized to refer to any kind of disinformation used as a competitive weapon. [In 2003, SCO sued IBM in an action which, among other things, alleged SCO's proprietary control of Linux. The SCO suit rapidly became infamous for the number and magnitude of falsehoods alleged in SCO's filings. In October 2003, SCO's lawyers filed a memorandum in which they actually had the temerity to link to the web version of this entry in furtherance of their claims. Whilst we appreciate the compliment of being treated as an authority, we can return it only by observing that SCO has become a nest of liars and thieves compared to which IBM at its historic worst looked positively angelic. Any judge or law clerk reading this should surf through to my collected resources on this topic for the appalling details.—ESR] --- There is also a longer, interesting description on this page: http://www.answers.com/topic/fear-uncertainty-and-doubt Uri.
Re: Are there non-free versions of Linux?
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 10:25:50AM +0300, Yedidyah Bar-David wrote: > And this very definition might be quite significant regarding what you > can or can't do with the software. Isn't it? > I talked to a rep a few months ago, and he told me I can't e.g. purchase > a license (or subscription, or whatever it's called) for one year, > install a machine with it, then continue using it for more than one > year, because of this trademark thing. You're confusing free as in the GPL and free as in beer. The GPL does not restrict people from charging for their products, it requires that if you release the source code for them. There is a gray area, not to me but to several large companies, that you can release a product under the GPL, solicit modifications to it under the GPL and then sell the modified code as proprietary to companies who will modify it and not release the source code. One company did this and it was well documented, while their product is still well supported and well thought of by many users, some on this list. That is very different from BSD's artistic license which says (I'm paraphrasing) "here it is, you can do what you want with it". > That I will (theoretically) need > to chase each and every mention of any of their trademarks, in any of > the files on the system, and remove it. I didn't feel like arguing, and > did not ask a laywer, but I really don't know if he has any substance in > what he said. It also depends upon where you buy it from. RedHat has their license terms, there is nothing from stopping a vendor from adding their own license terms. You are free to buy the product from them or not. Requiring you to buy a yearly support contract may in fact, be part of the license. The advantage of the GPL is that you are free to download the source code, compile and install it if you wish. You can even sell it if you wish, you just can't call it RHEL. Nor can you call it Solaris, or Bamba, but you probably would not anyway. > You might find some relevant info on e.g. centos.org. They > keep writing there, tens of times, "a prominent North American > Enterprise Linux vendor" instead of RedHat, for this very reason. But > they did not change every occurence of RedHat in the sources themselves, > as far as I could see. They legally can't. They can remove the logo, splash screens, etc, but they can not remove any claims of authorship and copyright. The copyright notices are essential, without them there would be no GPL. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are there non-free versions of Linux?
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 10:52:20AM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > One substance. He wants to make money. That's for sure. :-) >Every indication I have (and i did consult a lawyer) > shows that they cannot stop you from writing "Derived from RedHat > Linux", however, assuming it is true. You cannot say, in the U.S. that the product is RHEL or "Red Hat Linux", or represent it in any way as being the product sold by Red Hat, or include a picture of a red hat. You can call it "dead rat linux" or something else, show other icons, except a yellow dog (which someone else got first). Since the source code was released under the GPL, you can claim that your product contains code developed or distributed by Red Hat. "Derived from Red Hat Linux" would therefore be ok as long as you in no way represent yourself as being Red Hat or affiliated with them. The whole thing started because people were selling "Red Hat Linux" CDs on an auction site without paying any royalty to Red Hat for the use of their name. Customers were upset because they thought they were getting a package deal of the CD's, some printed documentation and 90 days free support from Red Hat. What they got was a set of home made CD with the words "Red Hat Linux" written on them in magic marker. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are there non-free versions of Linux?
Yedidyah Bar-David wrote: I talked to a rep a few months ago, and he told me I can't e.g. purchase a license (or subscription, or whatever it's called) for one year, install a machine with it, then continue using it for more than one year, because of this trademark thing. That's false, and RedHat's own policy specifically says so. That I will (theoretically) need to chase each and every mention of any of their trademarks, in any of the files on the system, and remove it. Their trademark policy states that even if, for some strange reason, you needed to get free of their trademark license after a year (which you don't), all you really had to do was to change two files. I didn't feel like arguing, and did not ask a laywer, but I really don't know if he has any substance in what he said. One substance. He wants to make money. You might find some relevant info on e.g. centos.org. They keep writing there, tens of times, "a prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor" instead of RedHat, for this very reason. Yes, that's one place where I think RedHat are being deliberately misleading in their "trademark use policy" document. They claim you are not entitled to write on your product "contains RedHat Linux" without their permission. Every indication I have (and i did consult a lawyer) shows that they cannot stop you from writing "Derived from RedHat Linux", however, assuming it is true. But they did not change every occurence of RedHat in the sources themselves, as far as I could see. Like I said, RedHat does not require them to. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are there non-free versions of Linux?
Quoting Yedidyah Bar-David, from the post of Thu, 27 Jul: > I talked to a rep a few months ago, and he told me I can't e.g. purchase > a license (or subscription, or whatever it's called) for one year, > install a machine with it, then continue using it for more than one > year, because of this trademark thing. of course he is absolutely and dangerously wrong. the only thing you are not allowed after a year is to get the automatic updates (the RHN will lock you out anyway) > That I will (theoretically) need > to chase each and every mention of any of their trademarks, in any of > the files on the system, and remove it. I didn't feel like arguing, and > did not ask a laywer, but I really don't know if he has any substance in > what he said. it's against both Israeli and American fair use laws. plus, if you notice, when buying an entitlement online you have to click through an EULA. not so when you buy from Matrix, you are not signing any agreements, so even if that part of the EULA was legal (which IMHO it isn't), you are exampt. > You might find some relevant info on e.g. centos.org. They > keep writing there, tens of times, "a prominent North American > Enterprise Linux vendor" instead of RedHat, for this very reason. But > they did not change every occurence of RedHat in the sources themselves, > as far as I could see. they don't remove the copyright notices from things that ARE copywritten by RH but released under GPL, that's exactly according to RH's own instructions. the only things you have to remove are the IP that are not under free license - logos and graphics that are Red Hat's own. -- Undercover brother Ira Abramov http://ira.abramov.org/email/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are there non-free versions of Linux?
Quoting Shachar Shemesh, from the post of Thu, 27 Jul: > > They said that you buy a license for each > >computer, and it's not legal to use it without a license. They referred > >specifically to Red Hat. > Actually, RedHat are free, last time I checked. Either the company or > its local subsidiery (I suspect the former) are delibiratly murking the > difference between the software, the RedHat trademark and their support, > so that they can cause people to think like the people you mention. that's an effective PR machine that spreads misinformation and FUD. even the people here on the list get confused. If you read their docs they are VERY specificly kicking out any mention of licenses other than when it reffers to the GPL or whatever free license the package is released under. the word here is "entitlement". they spend man hours and money to keep their systems up to date AND certified by a large number of software vendors, like EDA companies, Rational (IBM), Oracle, and many others. for that there are rules to follow and pricey conformity tests. The problem - it IS free software, and they are NOT allowed to limit your use, so they limit your access to the COMPILED base and updates (you can still download them free and anonymously as sources from ftp.redhat.com). their only official excuse as to why you can't buy 10 entitlements and install on 11 machines, is that the installation includes their trademark and so by using it on the extra machine you are "diluting" (MEDALEL) their Intelectual propperty. a heap of hot bull's*hit if you ask me :) What they instruct you to do is peal away all their intelectual propperty and you are good to go. that's what the CentOS project is about. for many clients that "ran out of entitlement" after a year, I just installed YUM, and they continued to get free updates for their systems. only in the one or two cases where the application was looking at /etc/redhat-release I had to rewrite that file to say it is RHEL so the tool won't complain. > > And if not, what makes them > >think that it's true? > See above. FUD mainly, as we said. -- One size fits all Ira Abramov http://ira.abramov.org/email/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Are there non-free versions of Linux?
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 09:24:28AM +0300, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > Uri Even-Chen wrote: > > >Hi people, > > > >Today I had a meeting with people at a software company. We talked > >about Linux, and they said that today there are versions of Linux which > >are not Free Software. > That is true. The moment "Linux" means "A Linux distribution", there is > nothing stopping you from bundling in non-free applications, and > charging a fee for the collection. Suse did that for a long time, before > Novel opened Yast. > > They said that you buy a license for each > >computer, and it's not legal to use it without a license. They referred > >specifically to Red Hat. > Actually, RedHat are free, last time I checked. Either the company or > its local subsidiery (I suspect the former) are delibiratly murking the > difference between the software, the RedHat trademark and their support, > so that they can cause people to think like the people you mention. > > RedHat is free software, but their support services are given > per-computer and must be bought, as well as the use of their trademark > (for some strange definition of that word). And this very definition might be quite significant regarding what you can or can't do with the software. Isn't it? I talked to a rep a few months ago, and he told me I can't e.g. purchase a license (or subscription, or whatever it's called) for one year, install a machine with it, then continue using it for more than one year, because of this trademark thing. That I will (theoretically) need to chase each and every mention of any of their trademarks, in any of the files on the system, and remove it. I didn't feel like arguing, and did not ask a laywer, but I really don't know if he has any substance in what he said. You might find some relevant info on e.g. centos.org. They keep writing there, tens of times, "a prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor" instead of RedHat, for this very reason. But they did not change every occurence of RedHat in the sources themselves, as far as I could see. -- Didi = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fedora core 5 burn problems.
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 09:39:13AM +0300, Aharon Schkolnik wrote: > I had very similiar problems - couldn't manage to burn CDs that would pass > the > CD test. I finally gave up and risked using the CDs anyway. I had no problems > with the installations using the disks which failed the tests. Sometimes it's caused by a package on the disk being updated just before release and someone forgetting to update the checksums. The other, more common reason is that the mirrored files are made from CDs and not downloads of the ISO images. Depending upon which program you use to read the CD and sometimes the driver options selected, the ISO image has extra blocks, usually containing binary zeros, appended to it. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
