Linux-Advocacy Digest #200, Volume #27 Tue, 20 Jun 00 03:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sendmail/VPOP3 (David M. Cook)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (javelina)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Andrew)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Christopher Smith")
Re: 10 things you can do with Windows... (Terry Porter)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Lawrence D�Oliveiro)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Lawrence D'Oliveiro)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Lawrence D�Oliveiro)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: iMac: the iTelligent Choice (Lawrence D�Oliveiro)
Re: stability of culture of helpfulness (Jim Bublitz)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Lawrence D�Oliveiro)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Lawrence D�Oliveiro)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Lawrence D�Oliveiro)
Re: MacOS X sceptic (was Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes) (Lawrence D�Oliveiro)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Woofbert)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Re: Sendmail/VPOP3
Date: 20 Jun 2000 05:09:47 GMT
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 05:43:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>i am having RedHat Linux 6.1 Server with mail server and virtual mail
>server using sendmail.VPOP3 is configured for virtual mail users(pop
>mail users only) to access their a/c from outlook.Now,How many ways
>virtual mail users can change thier passwords
>From file:/usr/lib/linuxconf/help.eng/mailconf/vdomain-6.html#ss6.3
====================================================================
6.3 How does a user may change his password
One problem with POP only users (and also PPP users) is that they don't have
access to any shell account from which they can easily changed their own
password.
Linuxconf provides a neat solution to this problem. This is only available
with the html interface. And it fully support virtual email domain. If you
point your browser to the following URL
http://your_server:98/htmlmod:userpass:
you will access a simple screen allowing anyone to change its own password.
"your_server" may be anyone of the virtual POP server or the normal name of
your server. Linuxconf will manage the proper password file based on the IP
number used to reach it.
It is a good idea to hide this URL in one of the information page of your
server (it is a little bit odd to type).
========================================================================
Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: javelina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 05:11:08 GMT
dcorleone75 wrote:
> I disagree. Centralized processing is a waste. You
> need to get a monstrously powerful central server if
> you're going to be splitting up the CPU horsepower
> between many people. It's easier and cheaper to just
> let people have computers on the desktop. This is why
> mainframes failed for the mostpart. They were big,
> hard to administer, ridiculously expensive, and still
> too underpowered to do what was being asked. Now
> we've got PC's that are steadily creeping toward 4-digit
> Mhz ratings, there's no need for centralized
> processing anymore.
You have completely missed the boat on the recent
resurgence of mainframes in many corporations. For
many companies, migrating to desktops created more
problems than they solved.
It's not the CPU horsepower that allows a mainframe
to serve many users, it's an I/O issue. An old VAX
6310 could serve hundreds of users, and everything
has scaled up and improved since then as well.
The demise of mainframes is a myth.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:05:51 -0400
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <k6L25.6585$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >You say they've demonstrated it. When? How?
>
> At precisely the time when unix/samba started taking a substantial
> share of file services, MS released a service pack that broke
> the authentication model that made samba easy to use.
I'm pretty tired of hearing this alleged purposeful breaking of samba. While I
will admit that MS is not happy that samba exists, and has shown in the past
that it will do things to hinder samba's growth, this move by MS was actually a
good thing. In this day and age of Internet connectivity and users with cable
modems, how many people would have their cleartext username and password going
out over the wire? It was an extra layer of security, no matter how weak. It's
something MS is regularly criticised for, and now they are being criticised for
trying to make their authentication more secure? More to the point, this did NOT
break the lanman clients on even the oldest version of Win95. Encryption was
something that was in the MS spec and not properly addressed in the older
version of samba. Samba broke because it was broken itself.
Andrew
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:31:25 +1000
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ijdec$trh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > I dare you to change the drive that your system root resides on to a
> > > > different letter.
> > >
> > > What do I win if it works ? :D
> >
> > Yea.. mine is not on C:\ as well :-)
>
> Of course you can *install* it on any letter, but *moving* it after
> the fact is a different story.
>
> I use NT on a regular basis, and anyone else who does has probably
> experienced the letter-shuffle that goes on with new devices and
> partitions.
Erm, nope. Once you've assigned letters in NT, that's where they stay. Any
new partitions are added *after* the existing drives.
> I discovered this joy when I formatted an 8MB partition
> that NT left at the beginning of the primary IDE drive (why does
> NTSETUP do that when you tell it to use all the space anyway?); it
> became C: and the rest is history.
A lot of FDISK type programs (yes, even Linux ones :) seem to leave this
little bit of space on the end of the drive (are you sure it was at the
start ? I've never seen that). I think it's either a) a BIOS bug or b) a
false assumption that everyone makes about drive geometry.
I do know that its been happening for _years_ with all sorts of different
partitioning programs, and a lot of old disk maintenance tools like Norton
Disk Doctor will actually break quite horribly if that little bit of empty
space isn't there.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: 10 things you can do with Windows...
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 20 Jun 2000 14:09:10 +0800
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:07:33 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>#1. Install that needed service pack!
Hey don't worry, it will be out "soon".
>
>#2 Wait for that needed service pack!
Ok its taking a while, but thats because Windows is so easy to use.
>
>#3. Launch 3 applications in ultra priority and wait for the blue
>screen!
Hey the Blue Screen is a sign my Windows is working correctly!
>
>#4. Play a game of Quake and watch it blue screen!
Thats the Windows user friendly method of forcing me to take a break
, shame it kills my chance of winning tho.
>
>#5. Upgrade to the next version!
Yes, I *must* upgrade, soon Windows may be as good as Linux!
>
>#6. Upgrade all your applications to match your new Windows Version!
Yes Ms knows all, I never question that!
>
>#7. Help spread deadly viruses!
Well, they sent them to me, and anyway Windows has *always* propogated virii
its meant to, the design nurtures virii. Thats cause its user friendly.
>
>#8. Re-install your windows version!
Well I admit that does bother me, I could have learnt Linux in the time I've
wasted re-installing Windows.
>
>#9. Launch your disk drive de-fragger!
Oh yeah, its reasuring to see Windows repair its own fragmentation, makes me
feel all warm and fuzzy. I can also go to lunch, as it takes so long.
>
>
>And the top reason!
>
>
>#10. Break out on a cold sweat over this breakup thing and post to
>COLA!
Yeah thank GOD for COLA, as a frustrated Windows user, I need a place to vent
my spleen, because Windows shits me to death, naturally I cant tell you what
a total loss Windows has been to me, because my investment is huge and
I'm locked in. So I deride Linux. Hey if Windows has stuffed up my life
perhaps I can deter some Windows users from Linux, so that I dont have to
suffer alone ?
Thank you COLA!
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by Windows3000 and has been
up since I turned it on this morning.
** Registration Number: 0001 http://www.microscum.com **
------------------------------
From: Lawrence D�Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:21:51 +1200
In article <8igon7$2us$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>...when you move up to NT or Win2k and can set the drive letters
>yourself, it becomes just like the Mac system, albeit with only one letter
>volume names.
Except that configurable drive letters are still drive specifications,
not volume specifications, right? If, say, I have a CD-ROM drive called
X:, and a CD-Writer called Y:, and I have a CD called "My Photos",
there's no way I can refer to the CD by its volume name, only by its
drive letter, and the drive letter depends on which drive I put the CD
into, right?
Not like the Mac system, where I can refer to the CD by its volume name,
regardless of which drive it's in.
------------------------------
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:26:33 +1200
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>You'd mount the Zip disk you stuck in there, and it would
>appear at the mount point of your choice (/mnt/zip, say). Want
>another Zip disk? Umount /mnt/zip, and pop out the disk (a modern
>Unix implementation can frequently do that with "eject /mnt/zip"),
>stick in the new Zip disk, and do the mount thing again.
And an application that was expecting to access files on the previous
Zip volume would not notice that it had changed, and blithely try to
access the new volume.
Not necessarily what you want...
------------------------------
From: Lawrence D�Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:28:54 +1200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>There are no such "reserved" pathnames on
>>MacOS (not even the names of the System Folder or the System or Finder
>
> ...instead you get possible VolumeName collisions.
The Mac OS is quite capable of dealing simultaneously with multiple
volumes with the same name. There is more to the identity of a volume
than just its name. That's why we have the Alias Manager, which provides
"aliases" that are sort of like UNIX hard links, only more robust and
working across filesystems.
>>Thus it is quite clear that this "feature" of referring to an object on
>>a removable filesystem by different names on different systems is in
>>fact a drawback, since it doesn't allow you to store stable object
>>references on that volume, or indeed on any other.
>
> Those "stable object references" have their own problems.
Such as?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 20 Jun 2000 01:41:06 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >You say they've demonstrated it. When? How?
>>
>> At precisely the time when unix/samba started taking a substantial
>> share of file services, MS released a service pack that broke
>> the authentication model that made samba easy to use.
>
>I'm pretty tired of hearing this alleged purposeful breaking of samba. While I
>will admit that MS is not happy that samba exists, and has shown in the past
>that it will do things to hinder samba's growth, this move by MS was actually a
>good thing. In this day and age of Internet connectivity and users with cable
>modems, how many people would have their cleartext username and password going
>out over the wire? It was an extra layer of security, no matter how weak. It's
>something MS is regularly criticised for, and now they are being criticised for
>trying to make their authentication more secure? More to the point, this did NOT
>break the lanman clients on even the oldest version of Win95. Encryption was
>something that was in the MS spec and not properly addressed in the older
>version of samba. Samba broke because it was broken itself.
Note that (a) MS was perfectly happy to give us this level of
security before samba was popular, (b) the clients always
use encryption if the server accepts it, so it was not necessary
to change the clients to get encryption, and (c) the LanMan hashed
value used now is not a challenge/response so it is just as
usable as a plaintext password to someone who wants to break
in with some custom client code that uses it directly. Also,
the LanMan hash is not considered difficult to break and now
samba servers are required to keep these easily broken values
in a file. Samba was able to use encrypted values as an option
before the service pack change, but if your ethernet is
reasonably secure from sniffing, keeping a separate file of
easily broken passwords in addition to the usual unix
passwd file is not only more trouble but likely to actually
reduce your security. Now, to use the plaintext option you
have to touch every client after every install and update.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 20 Jun 2000 01:46:41 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Lawrence D�Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Infact, such "stable references" don't
>> seem to provide for any sort of namespace collisions.
>
>Definitely too accustomed to the Windows/UNIX way of doing things:
>you're still thinking in terms of pathname strings, whereas MacOS
>supports "aliases", which have more information in them than just name
>strings. Result: robust references that aren't confused by superficial
>similarities of name.
How does the user find out about these so he knows how to
reference the file he wants, given 2 identical disks in
different places?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Lawrence D�Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: iMac: the iTelligent Choice
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:52:11 +1200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:31:19 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>>"void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>> I would and do describe NT's hardware requirements
>>> as extreme.
>>
>>You can name some other system offering as much with significantly lower
>>requirements ?
>
> Unix/X.
X is definitely extreme--if you thought games ran slowly under NT, you
should try them under X. It's too complex, too unwieldy and too
resource-hungry to make for a good game platform.
Trouble is, the UNIX folks think this is a virtue. Try to suggest to
them that the graphics engine should be integrated into the kernel for
efficiency, and you can see their brains just switching off.
------------------------------
From: Jim Bublitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: stability of culture of helpfulness
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:54:21 -0700
Oliver Baker wrote:
> 1)Does this make sense--that they could reduce their support staff? (and
> if so, by how much? if anybody cares to make an estimate.)
No idea - too many variables.
> 2) Is this culture of on-line helpfulness impervious to a)increasing
> numbers of Linux users, b)increasing numbers of queries from Linux users
> at companies who--it might be perceived--could afford to hire people to
> generate in-house the answers they are instead getting through the
> kindness of strangers.
Several people have mentioned the usual info sources: usenet
questions, or usenet or mailing list archives. In the past
I've used archives mostly, since the "response time" is
better and you don't waste people's time asking alredy
answered questions. For "standard" Linux, the archives are
good enough (and of course man pages, how-to's, docs with
programs) that I've never posted a question to usenet.
Recently I've started subscribing to mailing lists for some
very alpha or beta stuff I'm testing. I've posted a few
questions and the responses have been phenomenal. Usually
I'll get an immediate answer from one of the developers
or someone really expert in the application. Especially
when I've been beating on something all day and finally
post a request for help late at night, someone from
Europe has an answer in my mailbox the next morning.
> So far, one person has said it doesn't matter what the affliation is of
> who is asking (though their perceived attitude does).
In most cases no one knows who am I, what I do, or where
I work. What is helpful is to ask questions only after
you've made an effort at solution yourself, and in a
way that indicates you have at least some familiarity
with the subject at hand. You can still be a clueless
newbie and most people will be helpful - it's just not
helpful to appear to be a whiny or lazy clueless newbie.
And of course it isn't useful to *demand* help, since
all of this relies on the charity of strangers.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: Lawrence D�Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:43:11 +1200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> You've still yet to demonstrate what's really "so modern" about
> the way MacOS does things...
Robust filesystem object references, that don't depend on which drive
you put a volume into, or the precise idiosyncrasies of how your system
is configured.
Of course, if I interpreted your query more widely, I could mention
other things, like the low-overhead, fast QuickDraw graphics engine,
closely integrated into the kernel (something that UNIX folks are still
incapable of grasping...).
------------------------------
From: Lawrence D�Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:34:15 +1200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> There's no good reason why a system would need to depend on
> "stable references".
You only think that because you've never used them. Stable references
are what allow me to move applications around on my disk after
installing, without breaking them. Have you noticed that, under MacOS,
the System Folder isn't protected against a user changing its name?
That's because it's quite all right to do so--the system will still work!
> Infact, such "stable references" don't
> seem to provide for any sort of namespace collisions.
Definitely too accustomed to the Windows/UNIX way of doing things:
you're still thinking in terms of pathname strings, whereas MacOS
supports "aliases", which have more information in them than just name
strings. Result: robust references that aren't confused by superficial
similarities of name.
------------------------------
From: Lawrence D�Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:44:54 +1200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:30:32 +1200, Lawrence D�Oliveiro
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On the Mac, the pathname "My
>>Photos:Fred the Cat" is still valid whether you put the CD in the CD-ROM
>>drive or in the CD writer.
>
> Which is fine so long as none else decides to name their cat Fred.
No reason why they can't. Remember, there's more to MacOS filesystem
object references than just name strings.
------------------------------
From: Lawrence D�Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: MacOS X sceptic (was Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes)
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:40:13 +1200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Lawrence D�Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Who uses POSIX any more?
>
>MacOS X, of course.
>
>> >We certainly wouldn't like it if critical utilities like Sendmail,
>> >XFree86, and such suddenly would stop working.
>>
>> Why not fix those programs to work with a more modern filesystem? I
>> know--because they would then break on UNIXes still using the old
>> filesystem.
>
>But MacOS X will *use* UNIX conventions... Seems Apple has seen the
>light. :)
If they had, they wouldn't be trying to produce yet another MacOS/UNIX
combined Frankensystem. Let me see: first there was A/UX from 1988 or
so, then Apple bought NextStep/OpenStep, turned it into Rhapsody/Yellow
Box, and now is calling it Cocoa in MacOS X--I make that four attempts
in all, not counting those short-lived AIX servers. None of them have
been successful, and I don't think the latest effort will be either. Mac
users just don't see the point in UNIX on the desktop. (Nor, it appears,
does anybody else, for that matter...)
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:01:04 -0700
In article <8imud8$kbq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, javelina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dcorleone75 wrote:
>
> > I disagree. Centralized processing is a waste. You
> > need to get a monstrously powerful central server if
> > you're going to be splitting up the CPU horsepower
> > between many people. It's easier and cheaper to just
> > let people have computers on the desktop. This is why
> > mainframes failed for the mostpart. They were big,
> > hard to administer, ridiculously expensive, and still
> > too underpowered to do what was being asked. Now
> > we've got PC's that are steadily creeping toward 4-digit
> > Mhz ratings, there's no need for centralized
> > processing anymore.
>
> You have completely missed the boat on the recent
> resurgence of mainframes in many corporations. For
> many companies, migrating to desktops created more
> problems than they solved.
>
> It's not the CPU horsepower that allows a mainframe
> to serve many users, it's an I/O issue. An old VAX
> 6310 could serve hundreds of users, and everything
> has scaled up and improved since then as well.
>
> The demise of mainframes is a myth.
Well, it depends on what you're doing. If you're talking to a big
corporate database, then you need a big corporate mainframe. If you're
developing software, multimedia, or print; or pushing words and numbers
around, then you need a desktop Linux box or a Mac. If you need to
employ a bunch of help-desk people, then you needd to get everyone
Windows boxes.
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
Datadroid
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation.
http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert/index.html
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:15:54 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I knew some one would point out the lincenses of the copies of the Windows
that came preinstalled on a computer when it is first purchased. None of my
computer came with any Windows or other software, since my computers were
built by me. Therefore, I have no unused licenses, I didn't have any extra
copies forced on through computer purchases.
The information you provide may be valid for the current upgrades but the
license agreements on the older upgrades, were worded so that this is not
applicable.
John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:29:22 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I *think* you can still get licenses for these products if you try
> >> really hard. You'd probably have to talk directly to someone in MS
> >> though. With some license rationalization you can probably find
> >> you've got extra Win9x licenses lying around anyway so you can
> >> 'unupgrade' the original licenses and survive an audit.
> >
> >Really? Extra unused Windows 9x licenses lying around, tell where would
> >someone find them. Where do they come from. I can assure you that there
> >are none around here, since they don't come in cracker jack or cereal
boxes.
>
> No, as pointed out by some advocates, they come with new computers.
> If you've ever bought a computer with Windows pre-installed then you
> have a new license. If that machine replaces another machine then you
> more than likely have a spare Windows license.
>
> Your comment on the new licensing invalidating the old product is
> incorrect as well. Go read
>
http://support.microsoft.com/support/windows/InProductHelp98/lic_upgrade_cha
nge_eula.asp
>
> You'll notice that you have the right to run the new version or the
> old one, but not both as the two products are now considered one
> licensed unit. That means a dual boot configuration is probably ok.
>
> John Wiltshire
>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
