Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Bug reporting feedback [was Re: 2 possible bugs]
On Thursday 31 January 2002 03:51 pm, you wrote: On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Darrell May wrote: It has been my experience that Mitel's current position is typically to not respond to any bug submitted by a unpaid customer. In my own personal experience I've submited a _few_ bug reports and it is common to never receive anything but the automated reply. We do not provide support to non-paying customers. But we do respond to bug reports, wherever they originate - by investigating the reported problem. If necessary, we ask for further information. If a bug is confirmed, we start the process of documenting and rectifying the problem. Note that bug fixes compete for engineering resources with new product features. The priorities are determined by the needs of Mitel's (paying) customers. We do not promise to fix all reported bugs (but I think that you'll find that our record is good). Note especially that during beta testing, we do not publish a known bugs list and we do not issue updates. In general, we find that bug reports from beta testers are usually well documented, so we are less likely to require followup to gather additional information. Moreover, if an issue arising from beta test is being discussed on devinfo, it doesn't get followed up on by the support team which monitors [EMAIL PROTECTED] /rant on/ Still, taking the time to respond to the originator of a bug report when a solution is reached IS important, and part of Darrell's (and others) original concerns. If the automated response is saying thank you for sending us a bug report, and that is the last the reporter hears, then that is not good IMHO. Having been a beta tester for many firms, I can tell you that the best ongoing relations between the testers and the fixers takes place when the information is freely shared between the two entities. Quite simply, finding out that your bug has been fixed by looking at the next piece of code, without so much as a thank you , we found it, and fixed it note, is quite a turn off to most people. In the world I grew up in, if someone takes the time and effort to send you this information you owe them a reply both at it's reception, and when you finish fixing the problem. It should not matter whether they are a dealer or not, you still owe them this courtesy. It is simply good business sense too. You, Mitel, benefit from these testers efforts at both finding the bug, and more importantly, informing you that it exists. Having said the above, I must state that on a few occassions Charlie has replied directly to me and has even issued the fix for me to beta test. These instances have been _very_much_appreciated :- The only comment I am making is for the most part, this does not happen. You don't know that. You only know what your experience has been. I think that is all he meant. That *HE* experienced this behavior. Even if ONLY he experienced this behavior, it reflects poorly on Mitel for 'speaking' to him this way. I would hold that opinion, as I hope most people would, even if he wasn't so gosh-darn prolific about his input into your product. I hope that this clarifies things. If you wish to follow up on any particular bug report which you have made, please follow the instructions which were included in the automated response you received when first reporting the bug. Since Darrell is far from a dolt, I will *ASSUME* he is already doing that. With that assumption in mind, is it possible that your bug system is not reporting back as you hoped it would ? Perhaps Darrell is merely pointing this out to you, and you should possibly have someone look into this for you. /rant off /opinion on Please show this individual more respect. It is shameful he is spoken to the way he was above. I have subscribed to this list from the earliest, and I am tired of seeing the way you treat his reports and feedback. He means you no harm, from what I can tell, and yet his reports are treated with scorn too often. I like the fact that Darrell is here to keep you guys on the straight and true path, you stray off of it a little too often. /opinion off Bob FInch Regards -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Emergency restore options
I know mkCDrec works on Mandrake. I imagine it will work on Red Hat. It is worth a looksee maybe? (maybe not) Bob On Monday 04 February 2002 11:58 pm, you wrote: On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 05:28:09PM -0500, Dan Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hash: SHA1 From: Rich Lafferty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] http://www.microwerks.net/~hugo/download.html Alas, it blew up spectacularly for me. I mean *spectactularly*. I've never seen a shell die with a floating point exception before. :-) I had the same result (more specifically, it seemed to be mondo-tarme that died and dumped core, but at least mondo-tarme is a binary, not a script). His FAQ has this to say: I was talking to Charlie today, and I've realized I've greatly underestimated what's already available. Essentially, right now you can do a desktop or tape backup, and with your reinstallation floppy, your SME Server CD, and that tape, rebuild the system. (Of course, it's much easier for us than for Hugo, as we need to support precisely one distribution and require that the restorer have OS media. :-) So the only outstanding thing is multivolume CD backups. I suspect that doesn't need anything as, erm, elephantine as mondo. :-) -Rich -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] SME on top of a distro
Hey Gang; Time for me to speak up I guess. I think the idea of creating a list of wanted and needed features and capabilities of the next releases IS part of what a developers mailing list should be about. I also feel that Mitel and its representatives should support this affirmatively, even if that only means that they are not caustic toward such efforts. I mentioned several days ago just such a question to Darrell May in a private conversation. I also mentioned that IF an rpm based distribution of a red hat nature was to be the base, then perhaps a look at the KRUD distro might be in order. The rest is what has brought us around to Greg's posting quoted below. Now is perhaps the time to speak up, perhaps not. What is important for me, is what the product will look like, and what it may or may not offer my clients in the future. It is also important to decide what that development is suppose to accomplish, and what part each of us can play. So, I agree with Greg; time to make a list of what you, the developers and users of this distro expect it to provide YOU and YOUR CUSTOMERS. Otherwise someone else will decide for you. Bob Finch Computers That Work On Wednesday 06 February 2002 04:42 pm, you wrote: sufficient hours to it. Why should Mitel's owners fund this development, if they don't see it as a pressing business need? This topic must be on Mitel's roadmap? Mitel can't possible hope to stick with the 2.2 kernel for the long term. Correct me if I'm wrong Darrell, but it appears that Darrell is trying to prevent a project fork, like Axon, by kicking off a project that goes to Mitel's long term goal for SME.. For example, at one point the type of journaling file system to be used was discussed. It would certainly be nice to get a consensus on this type of topic before blazing down a path. I can certainly understand apprehension at spending development time on HOWTOs and what not. Would it be possible to generate some type of list of wants/needs (e.g., type of file system). Maybe someone in the community could create this and then get input from the Mitel folks??? Regards, -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Fwd: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Masq modules
-- Forwarded Message -- Subject: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Masq modules Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:33:30 -0500 From: w9ya [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dan York [EMAIL PROTECTED] Finally someone at e-smith/Mitel that can state the obvious without being in middle of a cat-fight. Thank you. Now, perhaps we can take this a step further. Many other distros are being used for firewalling, including firewall centered distros (clarkconnect among others), that successfully use the 2.4 kernel. There are plenty of examples of distros that have moved early and successfully to the these newer kernels, including manged server distros. It would be nice if e-smith/Mitel could give us a time-line of when these discussed and/or needed changes are planned to take place. If there is no reasonable answer forthcoming, please do not spend the time to reply. Bob On Friday 08 February 2002 12:38 pm, you wrote: Following on what David Brown wrote: Masq modules, OTOH seem to be far more daunting, as they involve actual coding. Anyone truly interested in this thread should look into the status of masq modules for the 2.4 kernel to see if they can help port the ones we need from the 2.2 kernel series. I did find this page on the status of IP Masquerading modules: http://www.e-infomax.com/ipmasq/matrix24.html The page does not indicate how recent it was updated, and I have contacted the author to find out. Also, all masquerading in 2.4 ultimately uses netfilter/iptables, whose home page is at: http://www.netfilter.org/ Not only would this help your favorite Linux distro, it would benefit the Linux community at large. Yes, indeed. Someone out there needs to port those modules, or all of us using gateways are stuck in the situation of either: a) continuing to use 2.2; or b) losing functionality that has been there since 2.0. I don't know if it is something anyone here can do, nor do I know who we can encourage to do so out there in the larger developer community, but ultimately it needs to be done if 2.4 is going to thrive. My 2 cents, (Canadian) Dan --- -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Masq modules
On Friday 08 February 2002 02:53 pm, David Brown wrote: -Original Message- From: w9ya [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 11:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fwd: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Masq modules Finally someone at e-smith/Mitel that can state the obvious without being in middle of a cat-fight. Thank you. Apparently you missed the several posts that Charlie Brady and Dan York made in regards to the 2.4.x kernel upgrade and ext3 support. This post was simply a restatement of something that has already been discussed. Bottom line, there are not enough freely available masq modules to maintain SME's present functionality as a gateway if it moves to a 2.4.x series kernel. Is this really news to anyone that has been following this list? Well, they have NOT communicated a time-frame as near as I can tell. Sorry if it was not obvious that I am seeking an answer of when, and something more than; when somebody does this for us. Now, perhaps we can take this a step further. Many other distros are being used for firewalling, including firewall centered distros (clarkconnect among others), that successfully use the 2.4 kernel. There are plenty of examples of distros that have moved early and successfully to the these newer kernels, including manged server distros. The step further (to do it right) would be to help develop/port the necessary masq modules to the 2.4.x kernel. This seems to be the key to get Mitel to move the SME server to the 2.4.x kernel. The point is, many distros have migrated from 2.2 to 2.4 and have this functionality. I consider many of these to have done it right. Other distros have created answers to their unique or not so unique challenges with this not so 2.4.x kernel series. I am now asking when e-smith/Mitel plans to. It would be nice if e-smith/Mitel could give us a time-line of when these discussed and/or needed changes are planned to take place. If there is no reasonable answer forthcoming, please do not spend the time to reply. Mitel has no idea when third party developers will have working masq modules ready for production use, and I highly doubt that any road map they present will include them developing these modules. Why can't we as developers work on some of these modules to help out the community instead of expecting Mitel to do it for us? They have in house development staff. I would like it if the management would manage and create a time-line, with the help of third parties if they so choose, and/or with this in-house staff. So far about all I have seen is excuses why e-smith/Mitel is not and/or has not done this conversion. I am now asking when. Bob David M. Brown Frick, Frick Jetté Architects [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Masq modules
On Friday 08 February 2002 07:29 pm, you wrote: On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, w9ya wrote: On Friday 08 February 2002 06:53 pm, David Brown wrote: Understood, but I'm still curious about what other distros are successfully running on the 2.4.x series kernel and have provided ways to masq pptp, h323, icq, and all the others. ... I guess I don't understand. If I can port forward, why are these an issue ? These protocols all use multiple related connections. Access rules and/or packet forwarding needs to be changed dynamically depending on the data passed through the initiating connection. That's why they all need a helper. An example; Open H323 Proxy and H323 Gatekeeper are reported to work with 2.4 firewall/gateways, and is reported as such here; http://www.clarkconnect.org/forums/Forum4/HTML/01.html Now in answer to your question about when we will switch to the 2.4 kernel, a very simple answer is we don't know, we haven't yet decided. Thank you for the answer. Not what I wanted to hear. But at least you're not calling me a troll ! Bob -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Masq modules
On Friday 08 February 2002 08:18 pm, Graeme Robinson wrote: On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, David Brown wrote: I think it's not wise to post things like this without being more thorough. w9ya is Bob Finch, as he posted a little earlier. I don't agree with him, but I won't insult him because of it. David, Accepting that Bob has identified himself (and saying he is without providing any means of verification such as company name, contact details, web address etc is borderline identification anyway) I stand by my comment that his statements in relation to masq module upgrades are willfully ignorant of an entire thread that immediately preceded it. At best he's guilty of not reading before posting and rudeness. At the worst he is a troll subverting the list. Fine. So far all of the issues raised concerning these masq items have been spoken to by Darrell or myself today in e-mails except icq. And yes, I am the guilty party that told Darrell about KRUD, and also the rest of you about clarkconnect. Further, I have spent my time, unpaid, providing this to name callers like you. Am I likely to get paid for my time replying to you, I think not. You could have elected to go find this information out for yourself. Instead you now have it in front of you, at others expense, including mine. Are you going to pay me for this? I will not be responding to this any further. Mitel now has all the information in the past couple of days to solve almost all of these issues. If they apply thenselves further, I am sure they could solve ALL of them. I will not be telling them how, unless they choose to hire me, if I have to deal with your behavior. (I WILL be paid to put up with that.) I do not like handing this information over at no cost to you, in exchange for this name-calling behavior. I am glad that those I have been discussing this with, with the exception of you, see through your behavior. Bob Finch, the accussed troll. -=-=-==-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Graeme Robinson - Graenet consulting www.graenet.com - internet solutions -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==---=-=--=-=-= -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Masq modules
On Friday 08 February 2002 10:51 pm, you wrote: On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, w9ya wrote: An example; Open H323 Proxy and H323 Gatekeeper are reported to work with 2.4 firewall/gateways, and is reported as such here; http://www.clarkconnect.org/forums/Forum4/HTML/01.html It does appear that this combination of software can allow H323 to traverse a NATting gateway. It is certainly not a direct replacement for a transparent masquerading module. I haven't investigated it in any further detail, as I believe there are sufficient other obstacles for me to postpone the task until another time. Of course, you are welcome to decide otherwise, and I'm sure all here would appreciate it you would report your experiences here. Yeah, even while some are busy calling me names, and impuning my integrity. Now in answer to your question about when we will switch to the 2.4 kernel, a very simple answer is we don't know, we haven't yet decided. Thank you for the answer. I fail to understand how you weren't able to deduce this statement from everything that was stated earlier. Deduce perhaps, but I have been asked to respond to many things, and to clarify my earlier positions. Among the earliest messages where I made a request about knowing when, I was asking about time-line answers and I quote myself now: They have in house development staff. I would like it if the management would manage and create a time-line, with the help of third parties if they so choose, and/or with this in-house staff. I was asking a pointed question about when management was choosing to share information, and hoping to receive an answer. Up until that point, this had not been answered in a way that had any meaning to me. Mr. York has since indicated that this has not been completed. I dropped the matter right then and there, except to clarify my statements and positions when asked to since then. But at least you're not calling me a troll ! As I've said before, I try to be polite on this list. In my case you have been. Bob Finch, the accused troll, who really does own a business. -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Has anyone heard of Lanux?
Seems like another distro for profit. The site doesn;t really say, as they appear to be trying to solve someone's percieved problem(s). It is filled with high-falutin terminology, but *grin* never says just what EXACTLY it is they are selling. (Other than a solution to various problems that is.) Hm On Friday 20 September 2002 08:58 am, Brandon Friedman wrote: What exactly is it? CLIFFORD ILKAY wrote: Hi, Has anyone heard of a product called Lanux from Lanux.com? Any experience with it, good or bad? Regards, Clifford Ilkay Dinamis Corporation 3266 Yonge Street, Suite 1419 Toronto, Ontario Canada M4N 3P6 Tel: 416-410-3326 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] SquirrelMail folders
Symlink the directory maybe? On Monday 21 October 2002 09:13 am, Craig Genner wrote: Hello all, Thanks to the HOWTO on installing SquirrelMail I now have it installed and working, my problem is that SquirrelMail is set up to save it's files in the root of the users directory, rather then in the Maildir directory. And there is no option to change this Is this going to be the case with most similar products or just SquirrelMail, either way I would like to solve this but creating a 'mitelified 'version of SquirrelMail. Normally this wouldn't be a problem but I have users that when they ftp to their directory will want to know what these strange file are and play around with them. Thanks Craig -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] multiple domain accounts
On Saturday 02 November 2002 09:04 am, little bark, BIG BYTE!! wrote: On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 22:00, Togan Muftuoglu wrote: Why the hassle just stop services that you do not need so you have the same thing but operating as you intend to not what it comes out of the box. This way securty updates can be applied, upgrades can be performed. You've got a point. Your other alternative get a distrbution specifically set for being an email server SuSE Email Server 3 or if you need more functionallity the new coming SuSE Open Exchange We are looking to: 1. Use a GPL product. 2. Use an easy system of administration, we like the web panel. 3. Continue using a system like templates (makes sense to us). 4. Create a package we can easily replicate (package) for our customers also looking for something with this kind of function. You might also look at what I am using now; clark connect at clarkconnect.org which is EASY to add to with standard red hat rpm's, very secure, plus remote monitoring of servers, excellent dynamic dns (if you need it) and good web management capabilites from inside the lan (or outside if you add some packages) and their office product - whcih has most of the features you will probably need already rolled in bob Garret Ruffdogs Togan Muftuoglu -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] multiple domain accounts
On Saturday 02 November 2002 10:59 am, Togan Muftuoglu wrote: * w9ya; [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 02 Nov, 2002 wrote: You might also look at what I am using now; clark connect at clarkconnect.org which is EASY to add to with standard red hat rpm's, very secure, plus remote monitoring of servers, excellent dynamic dns (if you need it) and good web management capabilites from inside the lan (or outside if you add some packages) and their office product - whcih has most of the features you will probably need already rolled in Thanks but I would appreciate if you just send a reply to the list so I can grab my very own copy. I do not understand why many people people perefer to either CC or TO to the person who is already on a mailinglist and has not specifically asked to be send a *private copy*. Is this something lack of MUA if so change and get aproper one. If nopt then think before act why should I receive two copies of something when one is enough and think about bandwidth Do nat take this personally yet this is what I believe was and is and will be Netetiquete or was that about Jazz :-) Geeso sorry. It won't happen again...I promise !! Bob -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] devfino - where is it going?
On Saturday 02 November 2002 01:39 pm, Les Mikesell wrote: From: Gordon Rowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] As for devinfo - I too worry about where it is heading. I would like to see development activity, but the list has been extremely quiet on that front. It is extremely difficult to take this statement seriously when on the one hand you (understandably) won't commit resources to making it possible to back-port outside development work to non-current releases, and on the other hand do not provide any information about where your own development is heading or time frames for release. This means that any outside development that interacts with or depends on any existing SME framework will very likely be obsolete before it is finished. No one knows when you will release your next version or what it will contain - and you have made that policy very clear. Since a little while after the sale of e-smith to mitel the information about ...where..(the) development is heading... has dried up. In the past Mitel has taken this course and been more or less up front about this. This is their right to do so. Unfortunately your point below is also well taken, as there is little point in trying to help out when the plans for the product are held too closely to help out in it's development. BTW, this is not the first or second time this thread has shown up, which in itself is quite sad. I just upgraded several servers in our main office and would have loved the convenience of using SME instead of RedHat but I need to maintain a number of customizations and decided that without knowing more about where SME is headed and when it will get there it just wasn't worth it. SME has two things going for it: your network and support services (which I basically don't need), and the ease of installation and administration (if you don't need to customize much). However if you have to change anything at all, you really have to look at where you are headed in the long run. Every potential user and customer has to ask if they want to install a system with a huge community of developers that nearly all interact openly so updates and new developments can be added piecemeal, or if they want to only have access to things a few people know how to improve and everyone else has to wait for them to put the pieces together. There is a place for both, but with the increasing popularity of Linux the place for the former is growing rapidly. Well that is why I switched to another distro for what I was using Mitel for. Mitel was smart enough to ask why, but my response while it contained what you are pointing out among other things, wasn't (apparently) enough to begin to change Mitel's chosen course. Oh well ! Bob Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] release 5.6
Clarkconnect just released a new version you might want to check out. Bob On Saturday 14 December 2002 10:26 am, Jaime Nebrera Herrera wrote: Hi Laurent, I saw a message in the General discussion forum saying that mitel has released 5.6 to their clients. Mitel has done this with other releases, they first give it to pay customers and partners and later on, they make it available for downloading. Expect like a month or two for public downloading (this is just my estimate, not Mitel's :))) I have a simple question : does SME 5.6 still a GPL licence softtware or Mitel has decided to keep the source for them ? If it's no more a source free server, does anybody know a equivalent server under GPL? Just be patient, yes, we would all like them to publish some kind of road map and expected release times, but they dont, and as you get this for free, just accept it and wait a while. In the meantime you can play with 5.6b7. About other GPL products, the closest I know of is Clarkconnect or EnGarde, but they seem more limited than E-Smith, even when EnGarde is perfect for hosting. Regards. -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Blades interface (Was Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Announcing SME Server V5.6 developer release)
I read this to essentially mean .if Mitel can't make money off of it, then you cannot use it.. Gee, what a surprise to some, perhaps not such a surprise to others. I *DO* really think it is sad to pretend that this is a matter of ...visions vs. hard reality when a decision to allow blades to accept/work with/utilize items from un-authorize sources is a coding decision as is the reverse. Or MAYBE I am too dense to understand this. Bob Finch On Thursday 16 January 2003 10:43 am, Dan York wrote: So, just to make sure I understand this clearly: In spite of everything you've (plural, not you in particular, Gordon) consistsently told us for over a year, there will _not_ be a mechanism for community-developed, unsupported blades? That's correct. Mitel will not be providing such a mechanism. We will continue to host contributions on our FTP and web sites, but we will not be providing an automated method to install unsupported add-ons. This is somewhat disappointing, in light of the clear, unequivocal, and repeated statements that such a mechanism would exist, and would soon be well-documented. I can understand a number of reasons why you might make such a decision, but the reversal is somewhat troublesome. I understand your disappointment. When we first announced the blades interface with version 5.0, we had a very grand vision of how it would evolve. In our excitement about the possibilities, much of that vision was communicated by Gordon, myself and others in this and other forums. Unfortunately, that vision ran straight into the cold, hard reality that in an economy such as the one we are in today, there is little room for grand visions that don't translate directly into revenue. As a commercial enterprise, we have to focus on the needs and wants of our commercial customers who ultimately enable us to continue working on this product we love. As the ranks of those customers have grown with our continued success, so have the requirements that we in product management have to address. When we look at the limited pool of developer hours we have to work with, we have to make some extremely tough choices. Unfortunately, that means that some of our grand visions have to stay as exactly that. Regards, Dan -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Blades interface
Joseph; Since you sent this message to both myself and the list, I am commenting here on the list. Actually I am NOT complaning...another person I respect here was. I am validating his feelings however as I hope to explain in a manner I trust will meet with your approval and standards for ...adult observation. Please re-read my comments and Dan's reply to them. Sorry if you don't get it, but I was neither complaning or disagreeing with the notion that this was a financial based decision. I was just *amused* at the fact it is ALSO a policy decision. And between the two it can easily be said that those policies that are of lesser importance are susceptible to financial presure, more so than those policy decisions of greater import. Indeed some policy decisions are not subject to financial pressures at all in some companies. And some policies are at the very core of why or how a company does business and become immutable for that company. Mr. Brown's original comments were specifically aimed at all the hubris surrounding a feature that didn't warrant their attention or further resources in the cold hard light of MITEL's financial imperatives. Which means it never warranted the *hubris* it was given. I was not surprised at this, considering other MITEL decisions over the past years. I said as much. However I support their right to act as they choose fit, in fact I would fight for their right to do so. However I also support this community here to point out how they feel as Mr. Brown did. And I would fight to support their right to say so, and in this case I DID exactly that. Enough now. I will not reply further as I do not like rewarding poor behavior with a comment. If my kids engage in name calling or similar behavior they are NOT rewarded. Bob Finch On Thursday 16 January 2003 08:02 pm, Joseph Armstrong wrote: - Original Message - From: w9ya [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 7:06 AM Subject: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Blades interface (Was Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Announcing SME Server V5.6 developer release) I've been following this list for quite some time and I feel compelled to comment on some of the appalling attitudes that I see developing of late. Firstly, keep in mind what GPL is and is not. Second, remember that people need to eat. Third, remember that under the terms of (1) above, you get quite a bit of somebody else's work gratis. I read this to essentially mean .if Mitel can't make money off of it, then you cannot use it.. That a person/s chooses to give something away at no charge with no support means that the GPL is observed, that you have a secure and functional product and you have paid nothing for it. Since these people need to eat in the meantime, it is not unreasonable to adopt a position of paid support. Within my field, I do things for my friends and family for nothing but they get it when I can afford the time since I too, have a necessity to keep my worms at bay. If their need is great, I will often sacrifice my sleep time to help out but if their need is greater then they have no qualms in paying for my time IF THEY WANT IT NOW. None of us think this is unreasonable. Gee, what a surprise to some, perhaps not such a surprise to others. This seems more like an infantile retort than an adult observation. I *DO* really think it is sad to pretend that this is a matter of ...visions vs. hard reality when a decision to allow blades to accept/work with/utilize items from un-authorize sources is a coding decision as is the reverse. Visionaries need to eat too. I presume you have a field of speciality and that might have friends who have vague familiarity with your work but you would not allow to assist you unsupervised. Or MAYBE I am too dense to understand this. You may be right. I suggest that you (and others) think about more before you complain. -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Virualdomain forwarding..help
Um, suggestion: why not offer to send him to the appropriate e-smith forum or email list ? Bob On Friday 24 January 2003 10:53 am, Charlie Brady wrote: On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Brandon Friedman wrote: Ok have posted on this topic before with little success. On this occasion at least, you appear to be posting in the wrong place. As far as I can tell you are seeking technical assistance, not discussing new development work that you are undertaking. As we have said many times, this is not a technical support forum. Please seek assistance elsewhere. Thanks. -- Charlie Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lead Product Developer Network Server Solutions Group Mitel Networks Corporation http://www.mitel.com/smallbusiness Phone: +1 (613) 592 5660 or 592 2122 Fax: +1 (613) 592 1175 -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Virualdomain forwarding..help
Oh O.Kthat wasn't at all clear to me from the content. Thank you. Bob On Friday 24 January 2003 11:33 am, you wrote: Quoting w9ya [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Um, suggestion: why not offer to send him to the appropriate e-smith forum or email list ? Maybe because he already knows where the appropriate forum is? -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Announcing unofficial SME/Alpha V5.5 for DEC Alpha architecture
Any of the source-based distros (like gentoo) can, in theory, easily be ported due to their built in ability to do the equivalent of a (bsd-style) makeworld. Many are also designed to make this even easier with some specific pre-planning as well. Bob Finch On Friday 31 January 2003 09:54 am, Rich Lafferty wrote: On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 01:39:07PM +0100, Robert van den Aker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This leaves one Linux distribution only that you could use as a basis for a Sparc port: Debian. Not true -- a handful of RH folks and others are working on Aurora, a RH7.3-based Linux distribution for Sparc: http://auroralinux.org/ According to ultralinux.org, Gentoo has bootable sparc images as well, but Gentoo wouldn't lend itself to an SME Server port. This will likely be the only option for me as well if I should want to continue my Alpha project. It would also be a good basis for a PPC port that I've heard some people on this list talk about. For PPC, there's a *very* well-maintained Red Hat based distribution: http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/ In a previous life, I used Yellow Dog heavily, and it's a very mature distribution. A PPC port would be interesting. The Macintosh-server world is a *very* strange place, although I haven't really paid attention to it since OS X arrived. Of course, if you want to get interesting, one could always port the SME Server administration framework to OS X... :-) :-) -Rich -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Shadow Copy
Um, yes rsync does this, as will even a simple (or perhaps not so simple) tar script. How is this shadow copy a special deal ? BTW, I have attended M$ Dealer seminars where this is discussed in detail, and I do not see where this is anything special except that M$ is now implementing this new feature. i.e. It is new to them. Bob On Thursday 18 September 2003 11:47 am, Micheal Kelly wrote: On Thursday, September 18, 2003, at 09:39 AM, Kevin Tollison wrote: A friend sent this link to me today with the message: I finally found at least one reason to use Windows Server! I have not found anything similar to this for Linux. Is it out there and if not would it be feasible to attempt a project like this project? http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/techinfo/overview/scr.mspx Sounds like snapshots to me. You can implement snapshots at the filesystem-level (LVM allows you to do this), or via scripts. I've got snapshot-like functionality running on two SME servers using an rsync backup script I wrote. I've seen discussions in devinfo about similar scripts in the past. Here's a good reference site: http://www.mikerubel.org/computers/rsync_snapshots/ - Mike K. -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] The road ahead for the SME Server...
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 05:58 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Devinfo list members, As has been hinted on this list, we are following Red Hat's lead with Fedora and turning the SME Server developer release over to the community. I don't think that this should come as a big surprise to anyone who has followed developments within the industry or on this list over the past years. Well for Red Hat centric distros like SME perhaps. I do NOT see a blanket relation to the rest of the *nix industry in Red Hat's latest corporate strategy. As was eloquently stated on the list earlier today, Mitel is a commercial enterprise and has decided to focus our developers on our commercial products. Some of our developers may choose to continue to stay involved with whatever community effort emerges, doing so on their own time and outside of their regular responsibilities within Mitel. As noted below, we will be continuing to develop applications on top of our commercial release and as we make changes to GPL components we will release them to the community just as any other developer should do. What does this mean for the SME Server unsupported developer release, this list, e-smith.org, our commercial products, etc.? Read on... * SME Server 6.0 unsupported developer release We will be preparing a 6.0 unsupported developer release in the next week or two that will essentially be 6.0beta3 plus a few recent security updates. This will be the last official unsupported developer release that we have planned. Any future releases are really up to you. (For all of you who have been asking for a roadmap in the past, now is your chance!) Confusing as to how you are planning to implement this - ...we will be continuing to develop applications on top of our commercial release and as we make changes to GPL components we will release them to the community just as any other developer should do. , when you also say - This will be the last official unsupported developer release that we have planned. How can you do further development without an up-to-date base ? Or are you planning to use some other base of some nature ? * e-smith.org bulletin boards We have already received agreement from the contribs.org staff that they could host the forums there and we had tentatively agreed to perform the move next week. (I was actually waiting to announce all this until after the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday and after I had received confirmation from the contribs.org folks that they were all set on their end.) * devinfo mailing list Given that the development will be taking place outside of Mitel, we would like to see another host found for this mailing list. The contribs.org staff has indicated their willingness to host the list and we will continue to maintain this list until such a list exists. * Bug reporting Again, as this will now be a community project, we are expecting that the community will start up a bug reporting database. Mitel Networks will continue to accept bug reports to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and will continue to process them there until an alternative system is running, and will thereafter forward new bug reports to the new system. Commercial customers should, of course, continue to contact their reseller for support as they do today. * Copyright and licensing The code in the SME Server remains copyright Mitel Networks and is released under the GNU General Public License. The GPL provides you with the freedom to modify the software as you choose, but also comes with the requirement to share those modifications. We trust that those people who derive software from the SME Server will comply with the requirements of the GPL. Um, has Mitel decided whether and how any such changes are distributed ? Is Mitel planning to forgo ALL support for download availability including any community supported modifications and other such contributions ? This seems quite sketchy. Can someone be more specific with what IS or IS NOT being planned for ? I am totally confused as to how this is all suppose to work from here on out. Very best regards; Bob Finch * 6000 MAS commercial release We currently use the 6000 MAS base operating system as the base for several solutions including the 6010 Teleworker Solution, the 6040 Office Server Suite and 6042 Managed VPN. Given that the 6040 Office Server Suite and 6042 Managed VPN are both mature, stable, robust products that have the range of functionality that our customers have asked for, we have moved our developer focus to the Teleworker Solution and several other upcoming products. At the current time we do not have any plans to further develop the 6040 and 6042 packages. We will continue to fix reported bugs and issue security updates
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] The road ahead for the SME Server...
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 09:42 pm, Michael P. Soulier wrote: On 26/11/03 [EMAIL PROTECTED] did say: Confusing as to how you are planning to implement this - ...we will be continuing to develop applications on top of our commercial release and as we make changes to GPL components we will release them to the community just as any other developer should do. , when you also say - This will be the last official unsupported developer release that we have planned. It's quite simple. At the moment, we have no plans to make any additional unsupported releases after 6.0. Thus, we will not be providing a cohesive .iso image after 6.0. To honour the GPL, we will make the source code for our changes to any code licensed under said GPL, available to the community, in the form of source rpms. What the community does with those source rpms, is entirely up to said community, and our obligation with respect to the GPL is satisfied. How can you do further development without an up-to-date base ? Or are you planning to use some other base of some nature ? The base we choose for our commercial product is irrelevant here. Um, has Mitel decided whether and how any such changes are distributed ? Is Mitel planning to forgo ALL support for download availability including any community supported modifications and other such contributions ? This seems quite sketchy. Can someone be more specific with what IS or IS NOT being planned for ? Anything licensed under the GPL will continue to be made available, including any modifications to that code that we make. That is our only obligation. Any changes that the community makes should also be made available, presumably via contribs.org. O.k..good enough as far as it goes and thanxs for taking the time to answer. I am still curious as to where you plan on doing this. Best regards; Bob FInch Regards, Mike -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] The road ahead for the SME Server...
On Wednesday 26 November 2003 09:34 pm, Charlie Brady wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can you do further development without an up-to-date base ? Or are you planning to use some other base of some nature ? Although I can understand your curiosity about Mitel's plans, I see no reason why your questions should be answered here. Perhaps not. Let me be more specific. If Mitel is planning to make changes to some base distro, and makes no attempt to return said changes in source form to the larger *nix community, and uses it's SME as a base distro , or some other distro derived from SME, for these modifications, then my questions below are very important. i.e. If Mitel is planning to distribute ANY binaries that conform in ANY way to the above paragraph, then you are REQUIRED to make these available. That is the license you agreed to as I understand it. Perhaps I am wrong about the license SME was released under. I notice that Mitel is saying it WILL comply with GPL, so my questions are appropriate at this time or in the near future. So I ask again, what are your (Mitel's) plans about this Charlie ? Very best regards; Bob Finch * Copyright and licensing The code in the SME Server remains copyright Mitel Networks and is released under the GNU General Public License. The GPL provides you with the freedom to modify the software as you choose, but also comes with the requirement to share those modifications. We trust that those people who derive software from the SME Server will comply with the requirements of the GPL. Um, has Mitel decided whether and how any such changes are distributed ? Mitel has no control over how any derived works would be distributed by those who develop them. Dan is simply saying that any derived works must be distributed in compliance with the GPL. Moreover, it's in the interest of the community to help ensure that that takes place (for example, by reporting any breaches). I am totally confused as to how this is all suppose to work from here on out. You can either: - become involved or - be patient -- Charlie Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mitel Networks Corporation http://www.mitel.com/ Phone: +1 (613) 592 5660 or 592 2122 Fax: +1 (613) 592 1175 A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text? -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] The road ahead for the SME Server...
On Monday 01 December 2003 09:21 am, Charlie Brady wrote: On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I notice that Mitel is saying it WILL comply with GPL, so my questions are appropriate at this time or in the near future. So I ask again, what are your (Mitel's) plans about this Charlie ? Your question has already been answered, as you state above. NO, not at all. But since your reply has significantly trimmed the orginal message, you may *think* the several (more than one) questions have been answered. But, IMHO sadly, this is/was clearly not the case. Sigh Bob Finch [Please remember to trim quoted material whenever you post to lists.] -- Charlie Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mitel Networks Corporation http://www.mitel.com/ Phone: +1 (613) 592 5660 or 592 2122 Fax: +1 (613) 592 1175 A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text? -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] The road ahead for the SME Server...
On Monday 01 December 2003 10:01 am, Craig Jensen wrote: In Other Words... They will comply with GPL and source will therefore be made available. What kernel or dist that source is compiled against... Or any other unknown, will be known when it is released... Right? I think I got it a week or so ago, actually :-) Fear of the unknown can, buif we let it/b/u, cause much undue stress... One of those 'human' traits we all inherit, I believe. Craig Jensen Craig; Yes, I fear the unknown. I also fear what I know too. (Grin) Suffice it to say, in this case, it is the later more than the former. If this makes no sense to you, well, um, let me put it this way: History often repeats itself, especially when the same player(s) are involved. A week or so (maybe a month or so,) might be quite telling on this matter. BTW; thanxs for being so polite. That often (sadly) is not the case on this list. VERY best regards; Bob FInch -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Rough development plan
On Monday 08 December 2003 08:19 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Dan Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 11:06:47PM -0800, Des Dougan wrote: Given Red Hat's stated direction, and the lack of clarity of how Fedora Core will develop, might v 7.0 be the time to address basing the server on a different distribution to provide a more stable base than FC may be able to provide? Which distribution did you have in mind? Theoretically, a switch to Debian (for example) isn't too drastic because the core configuration and architecture of E-smith is in the Perl template/events structure. In practice it would be a huge amount of work and the upgrade path would be a real challenge. I think a move to a stable distro like Debian would have a number of advantages (not least of which might be a new pool of willing volunteers!). It also has the best update/install system (in APT) that I have come across. I can see that the upgrade path would be a big issue though. Dan. Well, Here is what I've seen so far. Redhat and RPM although relible and well estabilshed are NOT good package management systems. Too much micromanagment is required on the part of the system administrator. Debain Supports both RPM and APT, there are a number of tools that will cross install. The main issue would be the minor diffrences in file system layout (Debain is also more efficent than RedHat in this respect). Debain also recently modified anaconda to support apt! One good system that comes to mind is Gentoo, as they have THE BEST package management system I've ever used (On a linux distro). It's more akin to the BSD Ports tree, however seeing as this is a firewall, haveing a complier handy is not the greatest idea. If you believe in apt and like BSD style ports and want the ultimate in KISS (keep it simple stupid) you might want to look at the package management in the arch-linux distro. It is quite obvious that the developers have studied the faults and piccadillos in rpm, urpm, tgz, apt, and have created an amazing package management system. I switched to this for most of my development a year ago, and have stayed with it longer than any other distro I have tried over the past 6 years. (Yes, I am picky and demanding.) For those of you that will want to confuse your opinion of me with arch linux and wont give it a looksee; well I am not a developer and mores the pity for you. The only other distro I would even remotely consider these days would be open-BSD. However I think linux may well be a better fit for the future. Very best regards; Bob Finch Computers That Work So here is the ages old debate, Which distro and do I need a complier? Since the future of redhat is murky, perhaps the Dev Crew would contact Redhat? Simply because re-codeing the wheel is a gargantuian task. Personally, I think E-smith should be developed for OpenBSD, it's there, supports all the packages that e-smith uses and is inherently more secure than linux of any kind. As of 3.4 the ld linker loads libraries in a randomized order effectivly nullifying or making buffer overflows increadably difficult. It also has a stable tree, has a reputation and a huge following in the security industry. Perhaps there were liscencing issues? Either way, I hope you all feel that this is food for though and not a complete waste of time. The open source playing feild is pretty daunting at times, and E- smith may be locked into one core by virtue of the scrpts used. Just my two cents, Hazen. Where my perl skills sharper and my free time more plentiful I'd do it myself. -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Rough development plan
On Monday 08 December 2003 10:16 am, Greg Zartman wrote: In concept, porting e-smith to a different distro might be a good idea. In reality, it isn't feasibly for this group to do this. I don't think you guys realize the undertaking this would be. SME (e-smith) is so integrated into Redhat that it would take hundreds, if not thousands, of hours to replicate it on another platform. I had not thought of that, but I definitely agree that Whitebox might well be a better fit than fedora. I think that the red hat community will have many problems moving from the corporate employee development model to the community development model. Mandrake is having many problems right now that can often be traced to a very similar change. I am not saying community development models don't work, but rather that distros not built using a community model. These distros have many problems adapting to such a community based model when it comes time to deal with (but not limited to) the coding issues involved. I long ago moved from corporate developed distros to community developed distros because they *can* develop easier to manage code in the long run. Most importantly whitebox-linux could offer a suitable platform but be aware that Red Hat may, using various techniques, could make whitebox-linux ineffective or too hard to manage. Moving to such a distro that will also evaporate (again) might be a major time waster, perhaps more than deciding to switch now. What do you guys think ? Very best regards; Bob Finch Our development time is much better spent on more realistic projects, IMO. Regards, -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] E-smith to Debian?
Actually the mailmain or mailman doesn't have an html page yet, or so it is reporting. The other two appear to be working. Best regards; Bob Finch On Friday 12 December 2003 07:00 pm, Hsing-Foo Wang wrote: Hi TekUnsupported, (we would prefer real names though) Please visit contribs.org and subscribe to the lists over there, for discussion of the future direction on the distro will be discussed over there with all involved (future) developers. http://contribs.org http://contribs.org/forums http://contribs.org/mailmain Regards, Hsing-Foo TekUnsupported wrote: Greetings, With all the traffic that has been generating on this list as of late, I was wondering if I could get some info. My question to the developers would be that due to Red Hat dropping support for nothing other than their enterprise editions, and with the possibility of E-smith being ported to Debian as a result, has anybody considered re-initiating E-smith support on platforms such as Sparc or Alpha since the Debian distros are still rather loyal to the respective aforementioned architectures? SME Alpha 5.5 died altogether last year almost to this day when RHL ceased support for the 7.2 kernels. Perhaps Hsing would consider reviving the project? -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Something of interest
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 06:25 am, Dick Morrell wrote: (apologies for top posting) There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the base we have at all. Remember Linux is Linux forget the RedHat issues its a non starter - just think like engineers. For those that want to realise why this isnt a major issue let me explain. Four years ago at VA Linux when we were building the servers that power Google, Yahoo, Akamai and a lot of the major .coms that formed the basis of the so called .com revolution we identified that if we ever put all our eggs in one basket and backed a vendor based distro we'd be screwed. The potential situation of what RH are doing now effectively would have been dire. So day one we decided to shadow their work but be a little more sensible and RH VALE was born, this was Red Hat VA Linux Enhanced. It was an entirely seperate distro with our own kernel, better support for SCSI devices, IDE RAID, Gigabit networking and a lot of inherent Cluster support bits. Also far better support for things like Oracle and MySQL than even current RedHat Advanced Server has. It also formed the basis of the first three builds of SmoothWall although SW is now entirely LINUX based, e.g it's own distro built from source. Now when we left VA (I left to form SW corporate pre VA cannings), we all worked on seperate things however VALE didnt die, in fact its now called Vermillion is BASED on RH 7.3 but updated independently by my friend Michael Jennings (he of ETerm fame), and you can find more info at http://www.kainx.org - including three ISO's. Please dont drown his limited bandwidth. Vermillion includes APT out the box as well as revised updated packages and has pedigree breeding. It's last release was October 03. Why haven't you heard of it ?? Well we wanted it off Red Hats radar Lets not all have bottom wobbles please, RH may be stopping the issue of isos and support but Linux is Linux, don't lose sight of that. BSD I love, BSD I use, BSD - you can't port SME to - you havent the skills nor the time, nor the awareness of whats needed - PORTS - go look it up. Guys, I have seen enough of this to last a lifetime from this reflector. Please refrain from putting others down. There is *NO* need to say things like ...you havent the skills nor the time, nor the awareness of whats needed... (sic) , even if you are convinced you are right. It is in poor taste and only reflects upon yourself. As for using BSD. Yes it is nice. So is linux. I *hate* RPM , but that is a personal problem of mine. If it was up to me, I would switch to something so easy, powerful, and generic that what distro is used as a base wouldn't require someone sitting somewhere melding apt into something and maintaining it like a monk. (See the large paragraph in the original post above.) i.e IF a move takes place, I suggest making it linux for performance, and making it a decent package management system that fulfills the requirements I outlined. They exist. Anyways, I could be easily accused of repeating myself from an earlier message. And my real intent was to try to point out that poor behavior on this list is sad to see. Very best regards; Bob FInch P.S. I am glad that it appears that Mitel is intending to follow through on its' promises and releasing ALL the source for SME. It has been a long wait for some packages, and it is nice to see. On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Tivon Coles wrote: Hi Guys, I know a lot of people think its still to early to start thinking about changing the base OS...there are also a few of us that feel it needs to be looked at quite quickly (have something getting up and running in parallel). so if we all ever to get round to it *Smile* here is a site to look at for some pros toward BSD http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html It compares FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows 2000. and yes its probably a bit bias but isn't everyone? I just want the best kickarse system we can possibly make. There we go, we shouldn't tie the devlist with this just yet far more important things to discuss atm...Right guys?... so for the people who do want to discuss it more you can always contact me directly and I'll put together a report and present it to contribs when it becomes an option. Cheers Tivon (The BSD's Little Devils Advocate) -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands,
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Something of interest
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 08:33 am, Dick Morrell wrote: Guys, I have seen enough of this to last a lifetime from this reflector. Please refrain from putting others down. There is *NO* need to say things like ...you havent the skills nor the time, nor the awareness of whats needed... (sic) , even if you are convinced you are right. It is in poor taste and only reflects upon yourself. Bob - its a fact. To do this port would take a LONG time, to port a lot of the perl and the RH specific stuff is too damn tricky. It's also a fork. To say there isnt the skill here is a fact. No-one is attacking anyone and if I get one more person try and stick a knife in me I'll react. I am pointing out facts - while showing you an alternative that DOES work. Please stop name calling and grow up. Yep this is about the response I have come to expect here. Bob -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Source packages
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 07:37 pm, Charlie Brady wrote: On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 16 December 2003 11:11 am, Gordon Rowell wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 08:30:58AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It has been a long wait for some packages, and it is nice to see. Please provide specifics - you presumably have packages in mind with such a statement - what are they? Is this is truely important, now that it appears that you have complied with releasing everything ? For the most part, there is nothing to comply with, Bob. Mitel is the copyright holder to the e-smith-* packages in the SME server. The GPL does not apply to Mitel for these packages, and Mitel is under no obligation to release the source. When it does so, it is a gift, to you and the community. The GPL attached to these packages is the license that Mitel gives you. Once again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I say thank you for supplying the source code. As to packages that were not forthcoming in the past, and ONLY because you guys can't seem to leave my thank you lie still, here's a partial list of the items that were , as of quite recently, not forthcoming with source; ServiceLink 6.0 - based on Mitel SME Server (GPL) Blades: -- Fax Server Blade - based on mgetty+sendfax (GPL) -- Free/Busy Scheduling Blade - based on Mitel SME Server (GPL) -- Groupware Blade - based on Twig (GPL) -- Instant Messaging Blade - based on Jabber (GPL) -- Web Access Control Blade - based on Squidguard (GPL) And, as I said in the previous message, there were reasons given in the past as to why they were not forthcoming, but I am glad that Mitel is now releasing this source as it should do with it being in GPL. If so then I can supply some details. You made the accusation/insinuation, so you should clarify exactly what you have had a long wait for. It seems that you feel you have been badly treated by me/us/Mitel. Perhaps you can explain why you feel that. I said nothing to give you this impression concerning my feelings. Nothing. So there is nothing to explain. As I said repeatedly, I am pleased the source code is all being released. That should be welcomed and not overly critiqued. It *really* is a thank you I sent out. However I am, as I stated above, thrilled that you guys are doing all that you can to make sure all the source is around to use in the future. I'm curious, Bob, as to why you are so interested in the source availability. Are you planning to make some modifications? Do you have any source code to share with us? I am interested, because it was promised at one point, and (againsigh) I wanted to thank you guys for placing it with contribs.org. I can send another reply to your reply to this message, and repeat myself again if necessary. i.e. If you like to hear me respond with thank you, I can keep doing that. Regards; Bob Finch -- Charlie Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mitel Networks Corporation http://www.mitel.com/ Phone: +1 (613) 592 5660 or 592 2122 Fax: +1 (613) 592 1175 A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text? -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Source packages
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 10:09 pm, Charlie Brady wrote: On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 16 December 2003 07:37 pm, Charlie Brady wrote: On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 16 December 2003 11:11 am, Gordon Rowell wrote: On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 08:30:58AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It has been a long wait for some packages, and it is nice to see. Please provide specifics - you presumably have packages in mind with such a statement - what are they? Is this is truely important, now that it appears that you have complied with releasing everything ? For the most part, there is nothing to comply with, Bob. Mitel is the copyright holder to the e-smith-* packages in the SME server. The GPL does not apply to Mitel for these packages, and Mitel is under no obligation to release the source. When it does so, it is a gift, to you and the community. The GPL attached to these packages is the license that Mitel gives you. Once again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I say thank you for supplying the source code. As to packages that were not forthcoming in the past, and ONLY because you guys can't seem to leave my thank you lie still, ... It was you that raised the issue, Bob. Well yes and no. Others were/are also interested, including some not otherwise sending mail to this reflector concerning these things. here's a partial list of the items that were , as of quite recently, not forthcoming with source; ServiceLink 6.0 - based on Mitel SME Server (GPL) As I carefully explained to you previously, the fact that Mitel releases its SME Server code to you under the GPL does not create any obligation for it to release its own ServiceLink code to you. Where Mitel has used software which is licensed to it by others, Mitel will comply with the appropriate licenses, as has been stated previously. Blades: -- Fax Server Blade - based on mgetty+sendfax (GPL) The mgetty and mgetty+sendfax RPMs are from RedHat. Source RPMs are available to you on request, or you can fetch them from your local RedHat mirror. The Blade itself is Mitel proprietary. -- Free/Busy Scheduling Blade - based on Mitel SME Server (GPL) As mentioned previously, the based on Mitel SME Server is irrelevant. The Free/Busy Scheduling Blade is Mitel proprietary software, and source code will not be made available. -- Groupware Blade - based on Twig (GPL) The Groupware Blade is not based on Twig, but includes Twig as one of its components. Twig source code is available on request, or you can obtain a slightly newer version from http://www.informationgateway.org/, or in RPM format from http://rpmfind.net/. The other components of the Groupware blade are Mitel proprietary. -- Instant Messaging Blade - based on Jabber (GPL) The Instant Messaging Blade is not based on Jabber, but includes Jabber as one of its components. Jabber source code is available on request, or can be obtained from http://www.jabber.org/, or in RPM format from http://rpmfind.net/. The other components of the Instant Messaging Blade are Mitel proprietary. -- Web Access Control Blade - based on Squidguard (GPL) The Web Access Control Blade is not based on Squidguard, but includes Squidguard as one of its components. Squidguard source code is available on request, or you can obtain a newer version from http://www.squidguard.org/, or in RPM format from http://rpmfind.net/. The other components of the Web Access Control Blade are Mitel proprietary. And, as I said in the previous message, there were reasons given in the past as to why they were not forthcoming, but I am glad that Mitel is now releasing this source as it should do with it being in GPL. Bob, I'd strongly suggest that you carefully read the GPL and the FSF commentary on the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html), so that you can better understand what the license means to us all. So what constitutes a working SME system is not ALL going to be released into open-source AND you are considering parts of SME and/or Red Hat as LGPL in some cases to make this determination. Thank you again Charlie for being so illuminating. It is good that you can speak to the specifics and I am glad you have taken the time and encouraged me to be specific so we can ALL see your replies above. I seriously doubt we need to discuss this further here or in private. Very best regards; Bob Finch -- Charlie Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mitel Networks Corporation http://www.mitel.com/ Phone: +1 (613) 592 5660 or 592 2122 Fax: +1 (613) 592 1175 A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text? -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Source packages
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 10:52 pm, Michael P. Soulier wrote: On 16/12/03 [EMAIL PROTECTED] did say: So what constitutes a working SME system is not ALL going to be released into open-source AND you are considering parts of SME and/or Red Hat as LGPL in some cases to make this determination. *blink* 1. smeserver 6.0 unsupported works fine. The 6000 MAS + blades works better. 2. We need not consider packages from RedHat as having any particular license. The license in each and every case is very clearly stated. Assuming that every package from RedHat is licensed under the GPL, we are free to build upon those packages without releasing that code, as long as we do not modify that code. Any modifications to GPL'd code have been released, and will continued to be released upon request. However, as Charlie so clearly pointed out, we are _not_ required to release any of our proprietary work. You have a clear misunderstanding of the nature of the GPL, and I suggest you follow Charlie's suggestion and go read it again. Oh I understand the GPL. I also understand you are, or could be, using some items as LGPL. That is quite evident. And I am going to take it on faith and your assurance above that you (Mitel) have throughly made sure you are in compliance with due care and due-diligence. I have no reason to believe otherwise. What was bothering me, in part were two issues. 1 - That everyone here understand just *EXACTLY what they are getting. You have done a good job, along with Charlies reply to me what this release will entail. It is much better than just saying the often touted blanket statements such as Charlie and other Mitel employees had in much earlier emails. Many people did not understand just what programs would be released. In private emails I have gotten on this subject some people WERE expecting some of the programs outlined in Charlies' most immediate email to this list to be a part of the released source code ! That there was confusion, and that it , at least in part, will be alleviated is a good thing. In other words; I am very happy we could flush this out and get some specifics, and that Charlie was willing to do so is wonderful. Therefore I am, of course, no longer bothered by this. 2- That the specifics of including parts of other works to make up your proprietary code would entail the LGPL. Other than the modular kernel, I am not personally aware that libs and other derivative works released under GPL can be made part of another program that is proprietary without such libs and other programs being used as LGPL. *When* this is allowed, then MItel, of course, has a prefect right to do so. I am not bothered that you are using the GPL in any way inappropriately. If that is what you have gotten out of my emails, then you need to relax and not be concerned. I am *not* saying that, nor have I said that. But, again, I was making sure that everyone here was prepared for these issues and that certain programs would not be a part of the source code being being released into GPL and this new community effort. Since this is accomplished, I am no longer bothered by this either. Thanks to Charlie for goading me into talking about these specifics. Also; thank you and Charlie again for illuminating these very specific examples and the terms by which you are interpreting the GPL, and thereby what you are specifically reserving to Mitel's use only and what you are releasing under GPL. Very best regards; Bob FInch Regards, Mike -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Is this alowed?
If it is gpl stuff only, in a word: yes. On Monday 29 December 2003 10:04 am, Jaap van Hemert wrote: Hi, Your E Sale (http://youresale.com/) sels/ships four types of YES servers based on e-smith distro without any reference. Is that alowed to put your own brand to it? Jaap -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Is this alowed?
On Monday 29 December 2003 12:50 pm, Charlie Brady wrote: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, John Cusick wrote: Were you about to make a comment, or was this a subtle comment on the excessive top-posting and lack of cleaning up previous messages? :-) Sorry, my mistake. I was going to make a comment, but coffee arrived, and I hit the wrong button. Just a quick comment to point out I was rather roundly trounced and then asked to not discuss this anymore on this dev-list the very last time such a topic came up. I guess it is who makes a comment more than what is being said that matters here. Sigh. Bob Finch Back to the topic: As to what is allowed and not allowed, I would re-iterate that people should read the licenses which they are given, and if in doubt, consult a lawyer. As to the distribution in question, one would need to examine the software in more detail to verify compliance with the GPL. As you can see here: http://youresale.com/products/yes_license_agreement.php they 1) inform their customers that the GPL applies to some included software components and 2) assert licensing restrictions which are incompatible with the GPL on the product as a whole. IANAL, so I won't comment on the legality of their operation (Mitel's lawters can ponder that question). As a free software developer, I can say that their operation does not comply with the spirit of free software development - they are attempting to limit distribution of the software to genuine MaPs (Mom and Pop Store), and they are sharing none of their own developments/modifications with you and me. -- Charlie Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mitel Networks Corporation http://www.mitel.com/ Phone: +1 (613) 592 5660 or 592 2122 Fax: +1 (613) 592 1175 A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text? -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Is this alowed?
On Monday 29 December 2003 05:32 pm, Mike Sensney wrote: At 11:48 AM 12/29/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, my mistake. I was going to make a comment, but coffee arrived, and I hit the wrong button. Just a quick comment to point out I was rather roundly trounced and then asked to not discuss this anymore on this dev-list the very last time such a topic came up. I guess it is who makes a comment more than what is being said that matters here. Sigh. No Bob. It was entirely what you were saying. The Mitel people on this list answered your multiple email messages on that thread the best they could and to considerable length. They said that they believe Mitel to be in complete compliance with GPL. They also requested that if you have further questions about GPL compliance to contact the Mitel legal staff. This should have been the end of the thread, but you would not let it drop. I was asked questions, which I took the time to answer. Nothing more. I asked some questions which Mitel took the time to answer. Nothing more. As for whatever Mitel employees told me about how they had complied with GPL, they are welcome to that opinion and they are certainly welcome to tell me whatever makes them happy. - That is their right and I will fight for them to have it. I certainly welcomed it, but the fact that they said it was of their own doing, not mine. The odds of SME 6.0 unsupported's survival will be vastly improved if the Mitel people decide to stick around and help us over the rough parts. There is no obligation for them to do so. Whether or not they choose to participate will in part be determined by how they are treated. Your pressing this issue was at best not polite. At worst it was threatening the survival of SME 6.0 Unsupported by alienating the people who are most knowledgeable about its internal structure. This is nothing more than silver coated bull droppings. There is NOTHING released that requires or is significantly enhanced by said people once the material is turned over. And NOTHING I did would have prevented the material from being turned over. Remember almost all of the development efforts by employees of Mitel, since esmith was bought by Mitel, have been in packages that are NOT being placed into SME6, as these packages are NOT being released under GPL and SME6 will ONLY be GPL. Your paragraph above leaves exactly the opposite impression. As such it is specious. As such I thought that thread should end. Exactly what I was referring to. Thank you for making my point. It *IS* who(m) is talking. Very best regards; Bob Finch -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Is this alowed?
On Monday 29 December 2003 07:02 pm, Richard Morrell wrote: IF you are looking for another product that works well and is VERY similar to the above products you could look into clark-connect. It is rock solid AND comforms to GPL completely. Bob, I like what Clark Connect and their CEO stand for, he's a great guy who I respect a lot, however the product isn't rock solid. Go install 2.0 (paid for version). Run Nessus against it, go look at versions of Squid, Spam Asssassin and particularly Squirrelmail, PHP and other services. Then post its rock solid. Hey Ricard; Thanxs for the very polite reply. Well I was referring to 2.1 which has been out for almost a month now. It is a good product and seems very solid to me. YMMV of course. I agree that 2.0 was less than stellar, but the clark staff also was quick to point out that it was an interim, sorta test release. I think ALL distributions have some releases that are less than others. Not sure about the Nessus tests per say, so I have no reason to doubt what you say. It shows great great thought, great APT updater, brilliantly designed commerce interface and re-billing, good conceptual awareness of how it should work. Installer is dated but functional (would be a quick rewrite). It doesn't handle Samba permissions well, or the intelligent hosting of domains in a way that would be simple to modify. Well intelligent people speaking intelligently can disagree with this. I don't have a problem in this area per say, but I can definitely see what you are referring to. Samba works fine here with clark-connect, including permissions, so I guess I am not sure what you are referring to on that particular item. I also host domains with it and find it essentially fine, no problemos. I'm not here to knock anyone but please don't compare it to SME, SME is an engineered product that is a SUV compared to ClarkConnects small family sports hatchback. Both well thought out but you're not comparing apples and apples. Well Mitel's proprietary product is very good. SME is good too, but a lesser product in many respects. AS such, I was comparing to it; well sorta comparing it SME specifically by saying it was similar. For many folks it is all the similarity they need or want and then becomes VERY similar. Perhaps I should have been more specific. Thanxs for the heads up. Hey and thanxs Richard for not lambasting me for having an opinion that is not exactly as yours. Nice to see that on this list for a change. Very best regards; Bob Finch Richard -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Is this alowed?
On Monday 29 December 2003 07:05 pm, you wrote: IF you are looking for another product that works well and is VERY similar to the above products you could look into clark-connect. It is rock solid AND comforms to GPL completely. This sounds like you still do not agree / believe / feel that Mitel unsupported developers release is GPL compliant. If you want to continue to discuss your opinion with others I would suggest that the general discussion forum is a more appropriate place for that with a broader audience. I *never* said that. Others said I said that, I did not. Period. Like the new person that asked a simple question to start this thread, I *long ago* asked a simple question about *what specific items* would be included in the SME release, since it was going to be a GPL release. The discussion then went elsewhere, spurred on by comments like those you saw earlier in this discussion BY MITEL EMPLOYEES. The comments were well meaning I suppose but none the less were off target related to the question asked. JUST LIKE IN THIS THREAD. And once again this is too rediculous to continue. Bob The initiating author is already satisfied and expressed his gratitude for all the feedback. Hsing-Foo -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Is this alowed?
On Monday 29 December 2003 07:07 pm, Jaap van Hemert wrote: You where the first, and the first with an answer I was looking for. Thanks for the answer and advice. No problemo with either. My pleasure. And the best of luck with whatever you decide to do. Very best regards; Bob Finch Jaap (PE1RHB) -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: dinsdag 30 december 2003 0:57 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Is this alowed? On Monday 29 December 2003 06:29 pm, Jaap van Hemert wrote: Sorry for posting this topic, I'm rather new in this list and was only expecting a yes or no. Well the answer to your orginal question is : yes. Some others illuminated on this I suppose, I wasn't one of them. as I answered in one sentence. Just from a user perspective SW and esmith are both great products with their pro's and con's. Without knowing anything of GPL, MaPs, OSI, ect... my gutfeeling says it's not right to do so. But I could be wrong. If you are suggesting that sometimes companies do the wrong thing; yeah I agree. IF you are looking for another product that works well and is VERY similar to the above products you could look into clark-connect. It is rock solid AND comforms to GPL completely. Perhaps that isn't much of an answer on the surface, but if you probe it a bit, it should tell you what you need to know. Very best regards; Bob Finch Thanks for the answer(s) Jaap -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Mike Sensney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: maandag 29 december 2003 23:33 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] Is this alowed? At 11:48 AM 12/29/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, my mistake. I was going to make a comment, but coffee arrived, and I hit the wrong button. Just a quick comment to point out I was rather roundly trounced and then asked to not discuss this anymore on this dev-list the very last time such a topic came up. I guess it is who makes a comment more than what is being said that matters here. Sigh. No Bob. It was entirely what you were saying. The Mitel people on this list answered your multiple email messages on that thread the best they could and to considerable length. They said that they believe Mitel to be in complete compliance with GPL. They also requested that if you have further questions about GPL compliance to contact the Mitel legal staff. This should have been the end of the thread, but you would not let it drop. The odds of SME 6.0 unsupported's survival will be vastly improved if the Mitel people decide to stick around and help us over the rough parts. There is no obligation for them to do so. Whether or not they choose to participate will in part be determined by how they are treated. Your pressing this issue was at best not polite. At worst it was threatening the survival of SME 6.0 Unsupported by alienating the people who are most knowledgeable about its internal structure. As such I thought that thread should end. -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
