Linux-Misc Digest #437, Volume #18 Sat, 2 Jan 99 07:14:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Possible to mount a initrd.img file directly (w/o gunzipping first) ? (Jeremy
Mathers)
NE2000 PnP card problem ("John Winnard")
Re: X based news reader suggestions... (David M. Cook)
Re: Dictionary for Linux? (Gary Momarison)
Re: CD ripper for linux? (Robert Hampf)
Re: NOSPAM in addresses.. (Rick Moen)
Re: Infringement of the GPL (Floyd Davidson)
Re: Is Microsoft a nasty company ? I'm asking you this question.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: When will kernel 2.2 be released? (NF Stevens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Mathers)
Subject: Re: Possible to mount a initrd.img file directly (w/o gunzipping first) ?
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 07:46:50 GMT
In article <7566eu$h5h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Zenon Fortuna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <754i7n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Jeremy Mathers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I have an initrd.img file (initial ram disk image). I want to see
>>what is in it. I can do:
>>
>> gzip -dc < initrd.img > /tmp/ramdisk.img
>> mount -o loop /tmp/ramdisk.img /mnt
>>
>>and everything is fine. Is there any way to do it in one step,
>>without creating the intermediate file?
>
>1. To see what is inside you need to mount it
>2. I think it is impossible to mount a compressed file as a filesystem
> (the "compressed filesystem" it is something else)
>Ergo: you need the two above steps.
OK - no problem. Was just wondering if there was a way that I had
missed. There is a compressed file system type (I've never used it;
just heard about it), so, in theory at least, it might be possible to
mount a compressed initrd. Although as BMc points out, given the way
gzip is, it might have to be read-only.
>Unless ... you write an utility which would combine gunzip and fsck (or other
>filesystem parser). With the "open sources" it is not so difficult.
>
>BTW: does the initrd accept the gzipped image by startup? (Sounds logical to
>have it, especially when you can load gzipped kernels, but I believed that
>the initrd.img has to be uncompressed)
No, it doesn't. Try running 'file' on an initrd file sometime.
I just checked it on the /boot/initrd file on a Red Hat system, and it
came back as a "gzip'd file". Also check out the /sbin/mkinitrd program
and scan for 'gzip'.
------------------------------
From: "John Winnard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: NE2000 PnP card problem
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 09:10:36 -0000
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sorry to add to the noise but...
RedHat 5.1 networking wont accept the Kingston PnP network card in my P300
(It was installed easily in in95 as a standard NE2000 but W95 seems to think
it's a Realtec RTL8019 PnP LAN adapter - who cares - it works just fine).
I'm using the address and IRQ reported by windows on the same machine but it
still fails to find an NE*000 card at the specified address. I can't find
any docs to help when this happens.
Coincidentally, I can't get the SB AWE32 to work either (can't remember the
specific error message for this one). My assumption is that it's because
W95 always configures them as PnP devices at runtime - so there resources
may not be set when Linux boots. This is kind of confirmed by the fact that
I've never had a problem configuring networking on any other Linux
installation (because no previous ones were true PnP cards - though they
were a real pain to get going under windows...).
If anyone has any ideas of how I can get around these problems I'd be very
grateful.
Thanks.
J.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: X based news reader suggestions...
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 09:26:07 GMT
On 02 Jan 1999 00:29:53 -0800, Gary Momarison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gnus inside XEmacs is what I'm using. I love it now, but it
>was kinda a pain to configure and learn. Lots of reading to
>determine which few of the 1,000,000 commands you need to
>mess with.
I'd probably use Gnus since I use XEmacs all the time, but I don't find the
article window very readable. I wish they'd use a layout like slrn, but
maybe it's not possible in an emacs buffer.
Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: Gary Momarison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dictionary for Linux?
Date: 01 Jan 1999 19:24:23 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)) writes:
> Peter Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Is there a good non-commercial or cheap English Dictionary software for
> >Linux?
>
> Check out http://www.dict.org/ ; packages of their software are included in
> Debian.
Linux Gazette had a couple reviews of that. Find links in Gary's Encyclopedia
http://www.aa.net/~swear/pedia/jargon.html#dictionaries
Also check the WordNet entry.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Hampf)
Subject: Re: CD ripper for linux?
Date: 2 Jan 1999 09:59:11 GMT
Chris Mauritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> h�lt �essu fram:
:My wife was kind enough to get me an MP3 player for my birthday. However,
:the only tools I've found for creating mp3's from audio CD's run on
:Win95/98. Are there any decent tools for doing this under linux that
:I've missed?
Try Cdparanoia
(http://www.mit.edu/afs/sipb/user/xiphmont/cdparanoia/index.html)
for ripping and Blade (http://home8.swipnet.se/~w-82625) for
encoding.
Also have a look at http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~psyche/cdda/
http://www.mpeg3.com and http://www.mp3.com.
rh
------------------------------
From: Rick Moen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: NOSPAM in addresses..
Date: 2 Jan 1999 09:47:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.setup Randal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I have my news program set to both email and post to group. I figure
: that the person may not check back to the group quickly and I assume
: that when a question is asked, the person asking wants an answer.
: Sometimes desparately.
If you do this, I _sincerely_ hope you mention in the e-mail that
your reply was both posted and mailed.
If you don't do that, then the recipient may spend considerable
time sending you an e-mail reply, only to be faced with the need
to draft a duplicate _newsgroup_ followup the next day. This can
be extremely annoying.
Speaking of annoying, this netiquette discussion is now sprawled across
three technical newsgroups. Please note that I have set follow-ups.
(Why didn't _you_?)
--
Cheers, The cynics among us might say: "We laugh,
Rick Moen monkeyboys -- Linux IS the mainstream UNIX now!
rick (at) linuxmafia.com MuaHaHaHa!" but that would be rude. -- Jim Dennis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: Infringement of the GPL
Date: 2 Jan 1999 09:28:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bill Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson) writes:
>>Bill Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Smith) writes:
>>>Unfortunately the GPL is of dubious valididty. While the user of the GPL
>>>in violation of the license may be in violation of copright, the remedy
>>>is under law, not under license. You cannot violate someone elses
>>>copyright just because they violated yours. (and even less so if the
>
>>That all may be true, however even if the remedy is not under
>>license, there is no reason to assume that said license is not a
>>valid contract. There is a great deal of reason to assume that
>
>Sure there is. invalid contracts are written every day, and if we
>believed all of them we would be paupers. A contract is something which
>two people enter into and must give their consent to and must exchange
>something of value for.
Interesting definition, but not a legal definition.
> Now you might be abole to argue in court that
>you permitted the other person to copy only under the terms in the
>license, but then that license cannot exceed those terms allowable by
>law. The GPL license, by trying to restict use, not copying, probably
>does exceed such law., just as most software licenses do by for example
>restricting uncompiling the binary code.
Absent case law to that effect, we have no reason other than
your opinion or mine, neither of which qualifies as significant
in a legal sense, to believe that any law is exceeded. It would
appear also that there must not be any great number of people
willing to put money on your side of that bet, otherwise someone
would have made a court case out of it. That hasn't been
done...
Likewise, I don't see the example of uncompiling a binary as
being at all similar. One restricts the use by the person who
is license to use it. The other restricts the *distribution* to
others. That is a huge difference.
>>it is valid, since it has never been voided in a court and has
>>been commonly been used by thousands or millions of people who
>>are all assuming that it is in fact valid. Any court would have
>
>So have bribes, and they are still illegal.
Once again, as in your last article, you are confusing criminal
law with contract law. There is no valid comparison.
>>to weigh that very heavily before upsetting that particular
>>apple cart.
>
>I am sorry? Millions of people speed, but the courts appear to have no
>difficulty in fining those who appear before it.
Once again, as in your last statement, you are confusing criminal
law with contract law. There is no valid comparison.
>>>orginal GPLed work was not yours). The statement that works containing
>>>GPLed code is also GPLed is as valid as if it stated that the user of
>>>the GPLed work therafter became the indentured slave of the original
>>>writer, especially as the terms of the GPL were not agreed to by the
>>>two parties before hand.
>
>>That is clearly not a valid comparison. The GPL license does
>>not obligate either party to violate any law. Indentured
>
>Unclear. The license probably does contain restrictions which do violate
>the law.
Just as clearly you are still confusing two issues. One would
be if the license contains restrictions which violate the law.
You have not shown any such to exist. Your opinion is that some
things might be... but no court has ever ruled that to be true.
Your example of indentured servants, which the above comment
of mine was in reference to, is not a valid comparison for your
point, because it pertains to the second issue.
The second issue, is that a contract cannot obligate either
party to violate any law. Your indentured servant example fits
this issue, not the one you are discussing with the GPL. The
GPL does not obligate anyone to violate a law. You are
comparing apples and oranges.
>Do you mean that you believe everything anyone tells you which restricts
>your actions?
If I had meant that, I would have said so. I didn't and I find
your arguing against it to be obfuscation.
> If I tell you that you can only go to the bathroom by
>backing in through the door you will from nowon do so because what I
>said might be a legal contract which no court has ever ruled on?
Making up silly arguments with yourself is not productive. Would
you hire an attorney that gave that kind of statement in court to
support your side if someone brought suit against you on this issue?
I'd dump that lawyer at the next break for relief.
>>slavery would invalidate a contract because if its against the
>>law. The statement in the GPL requiring derivative works to
>>also be released under the GPL may or may not be a valid
>>contract, but until a court rules that it is not then the only
>>reasonable approach (especially given the number of years,
>>number of works, and number of people that *have* assumed it is
>>valid) is to act as if it is indeed valid.
>
>It might be a valid restriction under copyright law (Ie, the person so
>releasing the code might be found to have violated the copyright law by
>doing so) but the fact of him doing so does not lift his own right to
>copyright on his own work. Ie, the inclusion of GPL code may be
>copyright infringment, but that infringment gives noone the right to
>therefor copy the rest of the code which is clearly his to control as he
>wishes.
The initial infringement wouldn't give anyone a right to a
second infringement. However, the second infringement is not an
infringment unless the first one is. The GPL clearly gives the
first user a right to do exactly that, include GPL'd code and
release it, with each part separately copyrighted. It is also
clear from the GPL that the first user accepted the GPL
provisions in making that release, and therefore even absent any
announcement that the newly released code is totally brought
under the GPL, anyone who sees what is there can automatically,
and correctly, know that it _must_ be under the GPL. Otherwise
it could not contain other GPL'd code.
It is as I pointed out with my own GPL'd code, none of which I
have ever sent to you or announced to you the availability of,
yet we both know that if you found it somewhere and used it that
would be perfectly acceptable.
>Were he to have signed a contract which stated that any code which
>contained code under the GPL then the original writer might be able to
>sue him for breach of contract, but he would find it very difficult to
>get a court to agree that such a breach had occured with code copied
>from the net with no explicit contractual agreement directly between him
>and the holder of the GPLed copyrighted work.
Contract law is not limited to a signed piece of paper. That
just happens to be the most valuable (namely provable) form of a
contract. Other contracts are also valid, though it is true
that they are much more difficult to prove the existance of. In
this case you have been arguing that the contract exists and is
invalid, until now. I think it can be proven to exist, and I
think it is valid in the general sense (meaning that there may
be individual cases where odd circumstances make it invalid in
that case only, but not on a broad scale).
I would also argue that the long time existance without a court
case tends to suggest that everyone with money to bet on the
outcome of such a test has decided not to be on your side.
>>Any other avenue is inviting disaster.
>
>The avenue that one person can impose restrictions on the behaviour of
>the other without legislative edict or explicit agreement by both
>parties would be an avenue inviting disaster.
The lack of explicit agreement seems to be a mental block that
you have rather than a legal problem. The language of that
license is very explicit. So would be anyone's actions who
chooses to accept it. At that point it becomes hard to deny a
very valid explicit agreement even in the absence of a signed
contract.
> Or are you now only
>entering your bathroom backwards.
You just shit in your pants again. Arguing with yourself is not
conducive to an agreeable exchange. Referencing me to YOUR
argument is not acceptable. If you want to say that YOU are
just now wishing you had been in the bathroom, backwards or
otherwise, before soiling yourself, then I would have to agree
with you, out of politeness of course.
>>> Ie, just because it is written in a so called
>>>license, does not mean it is legal.
>
>>But it generally is a good indication that one best take some
>>extreme care in any assumption that it is not, because the
>>consequences of making the wrong decision are very clear!
>
>I guess you had better be careful in your toilet from now on.
I always have been, which is why it was you that soiled your pants.
>(Just to be clear, I imposed the copyright restriction on you that you
>are allowed to copy this message to your computer in order to read it
>only under the condition that you ufrom now and henceforth only enter
>you bathroom backwards. Your reading this message, and in particular
>your replying to it indictes your acceptance of this condition.)
1) You did not impose that restriction on me.
2) You have released it to others without restriction, and
they have given it to me, also without restriction.
3) You are being absurd.
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] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.linux.x,gnu.misc.discuss,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft a nasty company ? I'm asking you this question.
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 06:06:22 -0500
On Wed, 30 Dec 1998 02:29:05 GMT, Frank Pittel
wrote these thought provoking words :
[...]
: : You have lost all credibility here. Nothing *ever* comes out the way
: : you want it to? Why torcher yourself then? Ditch the thing!
:
: I do have to admit that I never spent more then ten or twelve hours trying to use
:the
: stuff. I got the hang of WP5.0 faster and keep hearing aobut how easy word is to
:use.
: Right!!
Word is very similar to word perfect in how you go about doing things,
so I agree with your reaction, "Right!!".:-)
: : When you can do the somersault, your training is finished. No more
: : training is required. Very bad analogy indeed. A gymnast does not need
: : to train for 5 hours everyday for 5 yrs to learn how to do that.
:
: Not unlike using "easy" software. Once you learn to do something that's as good as
:you
: ever get.
Yes.
: : Outlook Express, and Netscape mail are e-mail apps that take a short
: : time to learn. They however lack. versatility. Once you have learnt
: : how to use their limited feature set and what they cannot do, there is
: : nothing else to learn. You either stick with their limited function or
: : find something that better suites your needs. I personally have not
: : stuck with them. I have tried others and have settled down with what I
: : think is best for the windows platform, Forte' Agent.
:
: It however takes longer to learn to use the more advanced software.
Usually, yes.
: For mail I use the mail reader mutt. When I first brought it up it was usable. The
: longer I use it the more I find it can do. It has taken time to learn how to use a
:small
: part of what it can do.
:
: : If there is no depth in a particular app which severely limits its
: : versatility and gets in your way so that nothing ever comes out the
: : way you want it to, then it usually does not take long to learn,
: : because there is usually not much to learn in the first place.
:
: In other words it's "easy".
Yes, it's easy to learn and easy to use, but lacks depth in that it
has no advanced features.
[..]
: : You seem to be on a MS vendetta. Can we keep it out of the argument?
:
: Since the first time I used a pc I disliked ms software. Nothing they've released
:since
: then has changed my mind. You'll notice that I only mentioned ms as a reference to
:their
: UI. With nothing bad said. I still stand behind my opinion of the MS standard UI
:still
: stands.
OK.
: : I find practicing surgery quite easy and efficient once I have learnt
: : it. That's the active term...."once I have learnt it." It is not often
: : that I hear surgeons saying this. I however see the many individuals
: : who failed out on the way or could not take the rigourous training
: : required seething with anger at the arrogance of such a statement.
:
: : I have a profession that fits very nicely in the bracket of being easy
: : when learnt but the road to that appreciation of ease and efficiency
: : ain't easy.
:
: Then you should understand the point I'm making.
Not really.
That anything really powerful in function takes a long time to learn
but once learnt is quite easy?
: : Take a look at OS/2 to see what I mean. This is an OS which has sorted
: : out usability and learning curve issues very well with efficiency and
: : versatility. Two separate virtues of an app or an OS, both of which
: : need to be addressed for it to be significantly successful.
:
: : -> Learning how to use software is done once. For software I use a lot I would
:rather a
: : -> longer learning curve if it meant easier and more efficient use later.
:
: : I prefer that as well.:-)
:
: Unfortunatly as you yourself said it takes time to learn to use software with a
:large and
: versitle feature set.
Yes, but I have dumped many which I have felt make things
unnecessarily difficult for me. This is a possible situation isn't it,
i.e., an advanced app that makes things more difficult than necessary
for the user. Unnecessary difficulty, like the modern word perfect
for you.
: : Many however seem to be willing to sacrifice some of that wonderful
: : efficiency to find something with a more palatable learning curve but
: : less efficiency.
:
: I and many others however find that a lot of "easy" software is harder to learn to
:use
: then the so called "hard" software.
What is this easy software that you speak of. Not "Word" and "Excel"
or "WordPerfect 8"? Those are not easy at all.
: : You go ahead and develop your app that is very hard to learn but
: : efficient to use at the arduous end of that learning curve and see how
: : many people buy it!
:
: There are always tradeoffs and I'm sure you agree. However it is also a mistake to
:say
: that software is easy to use because it has a pretty GUI.
Of course it is a mistake!
[..]
: : Maybe I could have done it more efficiently with WP5 but somehow I do
: : not think so. I know many veterans who used to use WP5 and have not
: : *really* missed it. They loved it's simplicity (yes, they say it was a
: : lot simpler) but all seem to prefer WP7's richer feature base. <sigh>
:
: I use wp7 and miss wp5.?. I also know a number of people that were forced to switch
:to
: wp7 and didn't like the change.
Yeah, to each his own.
[..]
: : I see you have been missing the point of our discussion.
:
: : My point is that the learning curve involved in mastering an
: : application is a very important aspect of making that particular app a
: : winner instead of just putting all the eggs in the basket of
: : efficiency with no real concern about how long it takes to achieve and
: : master that level of efficiency.
:
: Unfortunatly I see that the learning curve is used to judge the quality of the
:software.
: I've actually seen linux judged by the complexity of the insallation. Makes you
:wonder
: if it was even used after the installation.
The learning curve as well as the features or abilities of the
software * together* judge the quality of software. I have used
software with the same feature set. One is more intuitive, aesthetic
and very nice in how it goes about doing things than the other,
making it easier to learn and nicer to use, hence I ditched the other.
I do not use the learning curve to judge software. I think that it is
something not to ignore because you can change the learning curve
without changing your applications feature set.
The differences in computer interfaces and application interfaces
exist to address this issue. That of useability and the learning
curve. Some mess up and some don't.
I still think that an OS with a GUI is easier to learn than one
without a GUI. Applications are different. An application with a
pretty GUI can be very difficult to use indeed.
: : Linux in it's early stages was just efficiency based. I can stake a
: : big bet that it would be no microsoft threat in that state. It's only
: : now, when the usability and learning curve issues are being ironed
: : out, that linux can become a threat to *anything* out there.
:
: In the early days of linux there was a lot of effort put into adding functionality.
:By
: improving the learning curve I assume you mean the installation process.
No, not at all. I had most useability problems with linux *after* I
installed it. How could I mean that anyway?
: Other then removing some of the pain in the neck of choosing which package to add.
: Not much has changed.
The GUI has gone through a lot of enhancements.
-== Allie ==-
"We are discreet sheep; we wait to see how the drove is going,
and then go with the drove." ...Mark Twain
*----------------------*
Allie Martin (Mr.)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*---------/*\----------*
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: When will kernel 2.2 be released?
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 10:47:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (erikc) wrote:
>
>Oh, really? What *do* they use? Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)
>
IIRC solaris.
Norman
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
