Linux-Misc Digest #366, Volume #18 Sun, 27 Dec 98 13:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Easy UNIX editor (CSO Visitor)
Re: TCP/IP between Linux and Win95 problem... :-( ("Raymond Dobbs")
Re: Netscape on debian wanting libraries ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Will Linux ever make it? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Anti-Linux FUD (Floyd Davidson)
Re: Anti-Linux FUD (Martin Skj�ldebrand)
Re: ln: Musty smell to its man page (Alexander Viro)
Re: The goal of Open Source (steve mcadams)
Re: The goal of Open Source (steve mcadams)
Re: Infringement of the GPL (steve mcadams)
Re: The goal of Open Source (steve mcadams)
Re: Torvalds distribution? (steve mcadams)
Re: Infringement of the GPL (steve mcadams)
Re: The goal of Open Source (steve mcadams)
Disk Quota Mysterious Users (Lim Chuan Wee)
Applix or Corel WP? Anyone using new version of Applix? (Phillip Deackes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: CSO Visitor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.powerpc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Easy UNIX editor
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 05:12:19 -1000
> > N. Richard Caldwell wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <72clf2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > >Lionel Parker wrote in message <72b2gi$om1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > >>I have to go along with this. vi uses less keystrokes than any other
> > > >>editor I know. As a ratshit typist this is most inportant to me.
> > > >
> > > >Well, actually there is one bug/feature in vi that drove me nuts:
> > > >To insert *ONE* character you have to type *THREE* keys: "i", the character,
> > > >and "ESC".
> > >
> > > Inserting one character is a worst case proposition for vi. Whatever
> > > time you lose in those rare instances is recouped 1000 times over
> > > during normal use simply because it's so efficient in most other
> > > respects.
> > >
This is hardly a "rare instance"! I spend a good fraction of my vi
time doing it. Is there a way to make a vi macro or somesuch to get
around this problem?
thx
------------------------------
From: "Raymond Dobbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
linux.redhat.axp,linux.redhat.install,linux.redhat.list,linux.redhat.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: TCP/IP between Linux and Win95 problem... :-(
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 10:09:49 -0600
Hint:
Never use 0 anywhere in a machine's assigned IP address
0 is reserved to indicate a NETWORK WIDE broadcast. Use a 1 -254 =
instead. 255 is a no-no too...
Hope it helps
Raymond Dobbs
Jon D. Slater wrote in message <75bdfk$s6d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I have a Linux box and a Win95 box networked using a NE2000 clone in =
each box.
>
>I set up TCP/IP on both machines and named the Linux box 192.168.0.1 =
and the=20
>Win 95 box 192.168.0.2.
>
>When I try to ping the Win95 box from the Linux box, it just sits there =
until I=20
>CTRL-C then I get a message: 100% packet loss.
>
>But, when I try to ping the Linux box from the Win95 box (5 times in a =
row) I=20
>get:
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Netscape on debian wanting libraries
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 14:34:12 GMT
Xeno Campanoli writes:
> Can someone suggest a sane way to get Netscape installed on a Debian
> distribution?
The package you need is libg++27. A better solution would be to install
the Netscape installer package.
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Will Linux ever make it?
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 14:39:56 GMT
Caspian Maclean writes:
> I was using that [kernel-package] (Debian 1.3) and looked inside the
> package, and it was indeed doing a lot automatically. What it didn't
> seem to do was keep a copy of the file made by make menuconfig. Does it
> do this?
It may now. Kernel-package has improved a lot since Debian 1.3.
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.x,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux FUD
Date: 27 Dec 1998 15:03:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Martin Skj�ldebrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Mading) wrote:
>
> >: Steve Mading wrote:
>>: >: [...]
>>: >: >and 2 - I don't want a $PATH
>>: >: > variable that's over 1000 letters long because of all the /opt/yadda
>>: >: > directories in it.
>
>I don't think the argument holds really. Why can't you simply install
>a linked file in, say, /usr/local/bin that says "/opt/yadda/app &"?
>Then you only add /usr/local/bin to $PATH.
>
>Or am I missing something?
You have to link every single executable file. That is
indeed one way to accomplish it, and it works well for packages
that keep only one or two external entry points. (XEmacs is one
example that I like to use.) However, that doesn't work well
for netpbm or for X as a couple of examples.
A little judgement has to be used, and the problem is the
(MicroSoft) mindset where each package is in its own directory,
even when that is NOT the best route to take.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pictures of the North Slope at <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Skj�ldebrand)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.x,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux FUD
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 16:57:27 GMT
On 27 Dec 1998 15:03:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd
Davidson) wrote:
> However, that doesn't work well
>for netpbm or for X as a couple of examples.
Hmm, I suspected something like that. But there must be a way to keep
track of where all files in tarballs go.
M.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.questions,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: ln: Musty smell to its man page
Date: 27 Dec 1998 11:10:54 -0500
In article <764ve6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>consider it a work-around, not a real solution.) The problem stems
>from the fact that when user foo makes a hardlink, there is no record
>in the filesystem that that link was made by him.
... that is, except the place where the link was created. Don't
give 'em too many directories where they could write and you are OK.
Keeping /home and /tmp on separate filesystems is the Good Thing (tm)
by *many* reasons. If you are concerned about root doing such things...
well, root can simply decrease your qouta and be done with that.
--
Luser, n.:
Human-like creature that doesn't dare to use elevator, because of
its belief that only horrible geeks can master arcane and obscure art of
using control panel.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Subject: Re: The goal of Open Source
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 16:15:53 GMT
On 27 Dec 1998 03:23:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore) wrote:
>The only ones it hurts are those that want their solution to be
>proprietary.
I'm beginning to wonder about the true nature of "proprietary".
>Of course, if you don't think you have the ability to meet the exact
>needs of a customer, I can see why you'd be so adamant against giving
>out source.
I'm not adamant about giving out source. I've released two products
of my own and both included source, and both included a
non-redistribution restriction in the license.
>(Hint: programmers may be "hired help", but that "hired help" can make
>more money per hour than the CEO's of the companies they sell to.)
I'm sure it's possible if you have the right set of skills. I'm not a
bullshit-artist (aka "marketeer") myself. -steve
========================================================
Tools for programmers: http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Subject: Re: The goal of Open Source
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 16:15:55 GMT
On 26 Dec 1998 23:15:27 -0800, Michael Powe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You really ought to go by www.fsf.org and check out what it's all
>about.
I've been there, but I will go there again for a more in-depth look.
You may be right that I don't understand their concept very well, I'll
have to find out.
>The plain fact is, anyway, your "independence" is bought at the price
>of someone else's.
How so? I build a product, I sell a product, I release the source
code so people who buy the product can maintain it themselves if they
so choose. All I ask is that customers not give my product away for
me. I don't see how this takes away anyone's independence.
On the other hand the open-source concept seems to take away my
freedom, since basically (as I understand it) it says I can't sell a
product I have to give it away, I can only sell services.
> Instead of
>"ownership" and its twin brother, "independence," we could have
>... equality.
Equality is great, as long as it doesn't amount to equal slavery for
all, in which case it sucks. -steve
========================================================
Tools for programmers: http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Subject: Re: Infringement of the GPL
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 16:16:00 GMT
On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 00:29:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> So I would earn some income from the work, and possibly be in a position
>> to earn more by sueing the copyright infringers. With GPL I get nothing
>> for doing the work, they get money for unlicensed use, and I can't afford
>> to sue. In my book, that sucks.
>
>Then don't use the GPL. It isn't compulsory.
I'm considering using LGPL or something similar, and I'm trying to
figure all this alien stuff out.
> Interesting phrasing here,
>though. You say you *would* use a proprietary license. Have you ever
>tried to sell software under such a license?
Hint: click the siggy url. Answer for the lazy: yes, I have sold code
under proprietary license.
> Hint: you won't get far
>unless you are Larry Wall or another Name (and how did Larry get to be a
>Name?)
Hint: It doesn't matter what your name is, you won't get far if
you're spending 40+ hours a week doing something else that you don't
love doing because you have to in order to pay your bills.
>So you have lived most of your life under the proprietary system, it has
>left you with no savings, and yet you want to stick with it.
I have lived most of my life as an EMPLOYEE and it has left me with no
savings, and I want to get into the proprietary system before I end up
living in a cardboard box.
>I'm fairly sure that the FSF has never paid him anything at all. He
>supports himself writing software, consulting, and with the occasional
>McAurthur Foundation grant.
He supports himself writing software that he then gives away? I guess
I'm stupider than average, cause I just simply don't get this.
>I am 52 and undoubtedly have less money than you do. When I was 25 I would
>have agreed with you. Now I agree with RMS.
Why? What has made you think it's a good thing? -steve
========================================================
Tools for programmers: http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Crossposted-To: alt.macdonalds.crew
Subject: Re: The goal of Open Source
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 16:15:57 GMT
On 27 Dec 1998 03:26:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore) wrote:
>Welcome to the real world: if your software doesn't meet the needs of
>the customer, why would they pay you for it?
They wouldn't, and I'd write something else that would.
>'codetools' must make some really awful products considering you have no
>desire to be a 'maintenance grunt' making your software do what
>customers want.
Actually I have released 3 products to date. The first one was a set
of MFC extensions. Although my customers seemed to think it was one
of the better toolkits around, I decided that I couldn't realistically
take it any further because it was built on top of MFC. MFC quite
frankly is "not scottish" as they say on saturday night live. I can't
build a solid house on a hill of sand. I am currently working on a
replacement product that does not use MFC and will also target X apps
fwiw. Source code was released with every version, along with a
non-redistribution of source restriction in the license.
My second product was an implementation of keyed containers (maps)
based on my own self-balancing binary tree algorithm. It's a decent
enough product but the STL <map> class makes it hard to sell (I
developed it before learning about STL, silly me). Source code was
released with every version, along with a non-redistribution of source
restriction in the license.
My third product was just released a couple weeks ago. It's more of
an end-user product for backups etc on NT or Win9x systems, and it's
too early to tell what "customers" will think of it. Frankly it's one
I wrote for my own use because there were no usable alternatives and
then decided to release. This is the only one source code has not
been released for; I'm not sure if I'll ever release the source for
it, no point in releasing the source until I find out if there's any
market for the functionality it provides.
The first product I mentioned has been around for about 4 years, and I
have added a lot of features that customers asked for. There is a big
difference in my view between adding features that customers ask for
and writing custom apps for "Bills Warehouse" or whatever customer. I
prefer selling a standard product for a price, and adding new features
that look to be of general use for free; apparently open-source takes
the viewpoint of giving away the standard product and then charging to
the max for "enhancements" that make it usable, though I admit that
I'm still trying to figure open-source out.
Unfortunately these are all the products that I have had time to
develop since I spend most of my time doing what the boss needs done
at my "real" job. -steve
========================================================
Tools for programmers: http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Torvalds distribution?
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 16:16:05 GMT
On 27 Dec 1998 00:17:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In linux.redhat.misc steve mcadams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
># I've only tried 2 distros so far, RH5.1 and RH5.2. I started as a
>
>that's 1 distro, 2 versions. 8) just a clarification.
Quite. What I meant was "installable versions of Linux" but used
"distros" instead. I don't like the term anyway, but it's shorter
than distributions and seems fairly common. -steve
========================================================
Tools for programmers: http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Subject: Re: Infringement of the GPL
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 16:16:02 GMT
On 27 Dec 1998 04:28:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Smith)
wrote:
>So basically you just don't like the idea of using the GPL for your own
>code. Fine.
I'm trying to figure out whether to use the GPL, the LGPL, or
something else for a project I'm currently working on, which won't be
complete for some time yet.
> That's perfectly legitimate, though I'm sure it won't earn
>you any points with RMS or the FSF.
What are these points good for (serious question)?
> What you don't seem to be
>acknowledging is the fact that the GPL (and other open source licenses)
>reflect a philosophy of NOT milking every effort for maximum monetary
>profit.
I'm not looking to screw anybody or become another Bill Gates. But I
would like to earn enough, whether on an ongoing basis or in a single
chunk, to be able to buy a cabin in the boonies with a land-line for a
modem and a woodstove at minimum, and not have to (a) report in for
duty at the same time every day, (b) hang with people I don't
necessarily want to hang with, (c) work on projects that don't
interest me, (d) work a specified number of hours minimum, (e) etc. I
expect that I'll always continue writing code because _it's_what_i_do_
and in effect it's my religion (or at least an expression of it).
What I'm after is the ability to do it on my own terms. This is not, I
think, "milking every effort for maximum monetary
profit".
> It would be like
>telling a meat eater (commercial license user) that the price of meat was
>going down slightly. That might be good news for the meat eater (another
>reason to use a commercial license), but it'll be irrelevant for most
>vegetarians (GPL license users).
Don't bother with the meat-eater vs vegetarian arguments Rod. I was
strict vegan for about 5 years and it was great. Once I got married I
couldn't afford it anymore (nuts at $5/pound when the kids are
hungry?) If you have real difficulty in putting up with shit, with
not telling your boss to shove his idiotic project where the sun don't
shine because you're sick of working for a _maximum_wage_, staying
employed fulltime isn't easy<g> I am as bad as an employee as I am
good as a computer scientist (defined by me as someone who uses
scientific method in computational experiments for the purpose of
advancing the state of the art).
>Tell that to Netscape, Red Hat, and Corel. Sure, the GPL essentially
>kills the ability to make money off of the sale of the software itself,
>but money can be made in various other ways. Eric Raymond covers this
>ground extensively in his essays (sorry, I don't have any URLs handy).
I don't want to be a Netscape employee, and I don't want to be the CEO
of a Netscape equivalent. I want to write the code I want to write
when I want to write it the way I want to write it, and not starve
while I'm doing it, and not kiss every customer's ass on the way,
though lots of customer ideas are good ones. Basically I want Freedom
with a big F. I'll continue struggling toward it until either I
achieve it or until they burn my ashes.
IN BIG LETTERS: You convince me FSF, Open-Source, GPL, are the way to
achieve this, then I'll release every future piece of code I write
(not as an employee) under GPL or whatever until I find out I've been
screwed (if this doesn't happen it means forever).
>At the moment, the open source software movement is a very interesting
>economic and sociological experiment. It may or may not succeed in the
>long term.
I appreciate your honesty in admitting that it's an experiment, not an
established fact.
> If it does succeed and your worst fears come true, though, it
>won't be the end of the world. Society (and the individuals which make
>up society) have adapted to plenty of other social and economic
>upheavals. It's not always pleasant for the individuals, of course, but
>that's the price we necessarily pay for living in a dynamic society which
>experiences rapid technological changes.
This kind of communistic claptrap I can do without. "Screw the
individual and it'll be better for mankind in the long run" is the
kind of philosophy that's come from the mouths of such great
philosophers as Adolph Hitler. Try "this works for individuals
because xxx and it also works for society because yyy" and I'll read
every word of it like it was a tome from God. -steve
========================================================
Tools for programmers: http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Subject: Re: The goal of Open Source
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 16:15:59 GMT
On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 05:22:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
wrote:
>Isn't that what programmers usually do anyway?
We all clean up our own messes and deserve every minute of it. Nobody
deserves having to clean up a mess left by someone who should never
have been hired to begin with, code that should be tossed and
rewritten, but which can't justify a rewrite. That's what programmers
usually do anyway, unless they're doing something really thrilling
like writing some kind of penny-counter. -steve
========================================================
Tools for programmers: http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:23:07 +0800
From: Lim Chuan Wee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Disk Quota Mysterious Users
Hi,
I have just enable the disk quota system in Linux. When I do a repquota
-a, a list of users with their disk usage is display.
I notice that there are a few unknown users listed in the report. The
users name are like 1046,7000,7824,8482, etc mostly all numbers.
Does anyone know what or who these users are?? And is the disk usage
reported by repquota really accurate and what is the error margin of
it??
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phillip Deackes)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Applix or Corel WP? Anyone using new version of Applix?
Date: 27 Dec 1998 17:02:55 GMT
I have been using StarOffice 5 but have now removed it from my system
because it is such a memory hog. MS Office is slyph-like compared to SO.
I have downloaded Corel WP 5 and like it a lot, but I also like
Applixware (I have version 4.3.7). Has anyone upgraded to the latest
Applix? If so, can you give me some idea of how different it is from the
version I have.
What do those of you using Applix / Corel WP 8 think?
Does anyone know if the text manipulation features of Corel WP for
Windows 95 will be available in the retail version for Linux? You know -
the 'Word Art' like module which allows you to manipulate text into
shapes etc. very easily.
Many thanks.
--
Phillip Deackes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Debian Linux v.2.0
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Misc Digest
******************************
