Linux-Misc Digest #174, Volume #19 Thu, 25 Feb 99 10:13:43 EST
Contents:
Re: Sync'ing IDE drives (Jayasuthan)
Re: Linux and Solaris CDE (jik-)
Re: Xemacs Problem (jik-)
Re: one thing really great about Linux.... (Uwe Schuerkamp)
Re: Read/Write on UFS filesystems under 2.2.1 (Rob Fisher)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Theo de Raadt)
Re: e2fsck in multiuser mode (Jayasuthan)
Re: enlightenment themes? ("David A. Frantz")
Fax server software for Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (void)
Re: Linux Programs (jik-)
Re: KDE and shortcuts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Michael Powe)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. ("D. Vrabel")
Customising Xdm (James Porritt)
Ls command (Luca Satolli)
Re: Overclocking (was: Re: K6-2 and Linux, Are there any Bug?) ("Anthony Grace")
Re: Can someone recomend an ASCII text editor for X, not X-Emacs.... (jik-)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (jik-)
Re: Redhat 6.0 Release Schedule? (Christopher B. Browne)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Christopher B. Browne)
Linux Programs (Linux Newbie)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 21:29:38 -0800
From: Jayasuthan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Sync'ing IDE drives
Hi,
Ops here... make sure your kernel supports hdparm -f option... I found
my kernel 2.0.36 doesn't support it but kernel 2.2.0 does... Clear it up
if I am wrong here....
Mike Richardson wrote:
>
> I've had problems for a while with a machine that would regularly currupt
> data on disc - it seemed particularly fond of the root partition - whenever
> it was shut down. Having gathered the nerve to play around a bit, I've found
> that putting "hdparm -f /dev/hda" and "hdparm -f /dev/hdc" (the two hard
> drives) near the end of /etc/rc.d/init.d/halt (just after any remaining
> partitions) are remounted read-only seems to have fixed it (touch wood).
>
> Has anyone had any experiences like this. The culprit it a Seagate ST33232A
> on a m'board with a 200M Cyrix and the 430TX chipset (an ABit PX5).
>
> Regards
> Mike Richardson
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
#include <linux/geek.h>
<----|
I run around LAN for 10 Hours....
Surf WAN for 4 hours and........
play on localhost for 3 hours !
Is this mean I am qualify to become a GEEK !
|---->
"The sky looks blue but it is not"
---> Don't see things and believe <-----
------------------------------
From: jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and Solaris CDE
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 04:41:18 -0800
Jesus Borruel wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have a i586 running Linux, and just at my side there is a new Sun
> Solaris Ultra 10 which seems pretty nice.
>
> I was just wondering if I can open a session of the SUN workstation in
> my Linux machine as if I was on the same CDE environment... Can anyone
> give any help on the subject?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Jesus Borruel
You should be able to set something up in the network so that the CDE Dt
applications do thier thing on Linux X server. I do not know though
since I only have a minimal understanding of what CDE does,...I have
never seen a working sample.
------------------------------
From: jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Xemacs Problem
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 04:39:09 -0800
Steve Anderson wrote:
>
> I have an annoying problem with Xemacs 20.4-5. Whenever I move my mouse
> over the tool bar, the system beeps and this message appears at the
> bottom window:
>
> Can't instantiate image (probably cached): [xbm: mask-file "/usr/include
> /X11/bitmaps/left-ptrmask: mask data .......
Your missing an X system bitmap file. If you would like, send me an
email and I will send you a tarball of the bitmap directory, should fix
the problem right up.
Either that, or /usr/include/X11 doesn't exist...should be a sim link to
/usr/X11R6/include/X11
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: one thing really great about Linux....
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Uwe Schuerkamp)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:17:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Frank Carney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I just had a thought. Maybe we should change the logo to a burning M$
>logo. Then when you boot up maybe play the theme song glory. : )
>
>--
>To e-mail me please click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] or remove
>remove "NOSPAM" from the reply-to address.
>
>
I think one of the great things about Linux is Tux, the sweet
penguin. Women love it (and so, admittedly, do I), so it's very easy
to get their attention towards Linux and maybe even use it. It's a
very friendly logo, much better than any corporate-lookalike stuff
that anyone else could have come up with. Just look at all the uses
Tux has been put to: He's wearing a hat, holding isdn boards under his
flap, reads a newspaper and so on and so on. Definitely, IMHO, one of
the best "design" decisions every made in Linux history. Get your Tux
pin today and wear it proudly for evermore, because this little
creature will soon sport many strong friends. ;-)
Regards,
uwe
--
Uwe Schuerkamp, Telemedia ////////////// Phone: +49 5241 80 10 66
Carl-Bertelsmann-Str. 161 I \\\\\\\\\\ uwe.schuerkamp at telemedia.de
33311 Guetersloh \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ http://home.pages.de/~hoover
PGP Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
------------------------------
From: Rob Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Read/Write on UFS filesystems under 2.2.1
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:00:51 +0000
> > Has anyone had any joy mounting UFS filesystems read/write under the
> > 2.2.1 kernel? I've built all the necessary into said kernel, and when I
> > mount my Solaris x86 partitions with o=rw or -w, mount reports that they
> > are mounted read/write, but any attempt to modify them results in a
> > "read-only filesystem" error.
>
> > Any ideas?
>
> I don't know but maybe this will work.
>
> mount -t ufs -o ufstype=sun /dev/XXXX /mnt
That's what I've been trying. Also
mount -t ufs -o ufstype=sun,rw /dev/hdc5 /mnt
and
mount -t ufs -o ufstype=sun -w /dev/hdc5 /mnt
But it still mounts read only!
Rob
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
From: Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 25 Feb 1999 03:34:01 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam E. Trenholme) writes:
> Why do you think more people talk about Linux than FreeBSD?
Because they started selling CDs first.
Why do more people talk about the bible than any other book? (at least
in the western world)
That question you asked there has no bearing on the facts at all, so
just drop it as a point of argument.
--
This space not left unintentionally unblank. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.OpenBSD.org -- We're fixing security problems so you can sleep at night.
(If it wasn't so fascinating I might get some sleep myself...)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 21:38:06 -0800
From: Jayasuthan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: e2fsck in multiuser mode
FSCK,
I been doing fsck without dismounting until upgrade it to new version
which warn "Hey Filesystem is MOUNTED". I think the main problem is
opened file might corrupted.. root [/] disk is impossible remount
without running into single mode... other you can how ? The device busy
is usually cause by process with use that partition... check the usage
of "fuser" from man page. Kill those who access the partition you want
to fsck.
Milos Prudek wrote:
>
> I have 2 years experience with Linux administration, but finally I came
> to a problem I can't grasp:
>
> Does not umount make the volume inaccesible?
>
> I have /boot (3MB) and / (1500MB). I want to run e2fsck for each of
> these volumes. So I copied e2fsck, fsck, mount, umount and badblocks
> binaries to /boot... When I tried to "umount /", I got "device is busy".
>
> Do I need to switch runlevel to single user before I can umount root?
> Could I possibly run "e2fsck -c" on a remote computer using ssh? I
> imagine that I would umount /, let ppp and ssh run, use the copy of
> e2fsck on /boot to check and repair the /, then mount /, umount /boot,
> and do the same for /boot. Is this possible?
>
> Also, even when I go to single user and umount /, I can still switch to
> anywhere on the HDD, and I can ls and cat anything.... why?
>
> --
> Milos Prudek
--
#include <linux/geek.h>
<----|
I run around LAN for 10 Hours....
Surf WAN for 4 hours and........
play on localhost for 3 hours !
Is this mean I am qualify to become a GEEK !
|---->
"The sky looks blue but it is not"
---> Don't see things and believe <-----
------------------------------
From: "David A. Frantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x,comp.linux.x
Subject: Re: enlightenment themes?
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:53:57 -0500
Well I'm using E on and off, often switching back to FVWM and find it very
useful. The thing is you have to be willing to give it a break after all
this is developers release 15. Its not like its the 20th version of
EMACS, you can't even call it a new Born yet. IT certainly is the coolest
windows manager going, I would love to see a stable release of E. Just a
matter of time now.
Dave
Ross Vandegrift wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> Since this is as it should be I can't understand what it
>> thinks the
>> problem is.
>
>I run E15 as well, and the theme support seems substandard. If it
>wasn't such a damn cool WM, I might switch, but... Actually, I did get
>a few different themes loaded up, but E doesn't seem to like incomplete
>themes yet; ie, if it didn't have custom icons for all the buttons on
>the desktop, then those buttons weren't there, which was a bit
>disorienting. I'm CVSing the latest updates right now: hopefully it'll
>be better.
>
>--
>Ross Vandegrift | Eric J. Fenderson
>
>ATTENTION: I have **finally** gotten my permit!!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fax server software for Linux
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:34:32 GMT
Hello
Can anyone provide me with info about this subject?
Thank you
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 25 Feb 1999 12:43:07 GMT
On 25 Feb 1999 12:20:36 -0000, Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>BSD was based on (in your words, "a reinvention of") Bell Labs Unix
>(version 6 or 7 -- long before SVR4 was thought of).
Don't you understand the difference between a branch and a clone? BSD
started as a distribution of utilities -- an add-on -- and then changed
into something more like a patchkit. It was only under pressure from AT&T
that the CSRG duplicated AT&T code.
--
Ben
"You have your mind on computers, it seems."
------------------------------
From: jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Programs
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 04:35:10 -0800
David M. Cook wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 06:28:09 GMT, Linux Newbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Here is a newbie question. When you compile and install a
> >Linux program does that program only consist of one file (the
> >executable) and maybe a configuration file?
>
> A package like XEmacs can contain hundreds of files. That's an extreme
> example, though.
>
> If you want to keep better track of installed software, I suggest installing
> a distribution with package management like Redhat, SUSE, Mandrake which use
> RPM or Debian. It'll make your Linux experience more pleasant.
Bahhh, you don't need that crap....only keeps you from learning what you
need to survive by making life look easy for a while. Don't use those
"make life easy" tools until you already know the background of what it
is doing, then test them out and see if you really find them
usefull....you may find that they're really nothing special.
Besides, rpms are only as good as thier author, a broken one can be
quite painful....especially if you don't know how to fix your system
afterwards.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: KDE and shortcuts
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:58:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Robert C. Paulsen, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > "Alvaro A. Novo" wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have just installed KDE and I am already missing my 'old' shortcuts...
> > >
> >
> > Go into the Templates folder on your desktop. Drag the program icon (a
> > gear) onto the desktop and select "copy".
> >
> > Right click the newly created icon on the desktop and edit things to
> > your heart's content. What you have is the KDE equivalent to a Windows
> > shortcut.
>
> I believe the original question concerned keyboard shortcuts (aka
> keyboard accelerators), <not> WIMP "shortcuts" (MS Windows 9x 'shortcut'
> icons).
>
> Under most X window managers, it's possible to bind keys or key
> combinations to actions such as raise, lower, minimize, maximize, and
> circulate windows or virtual desktops. These don't bind well to icons,
> and it sort of misses the point to do so (I'm trying to avoid reaching
> for a mouse and digging through a crowded/cluttered/obscured desktop).
>
> WRT the original question, I rapidly lost interest in KDE when it became
> apparent that (~ release 0.9x), KDE was intentionally limited in its
> configurability.
Weird. It does have that functionality now.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 25 Feb 1999 00:12:43 -0800
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "Frank" == Frank Sweetser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Frank> Patrick M. Hausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> But there is indeed ...
>> If I rewrote the Linux kernel to run on a Palm Pilot and this
>> software would turn this PDA into a tricorder or whatever,
>> think something truly innovative here ;-), _then_ I was
>> _forced_ by the GPL to give redistribute my software under the
>> GPL, too.
>> If I took the FreeBSD kernel instead, I could sell my
>> PMH-modified Palm-Tricorders [tm] as a hardware plus binary
>> combination only without further restriction. I could still
>> decide to release the source eventually, but that is _my_
>> decision.
>> And that's _all_, this whole anti-GPL argument is about.
Frank> right. or, the way i look at it - should you be able to
Frank> take somebody else's open (ie, *guaranteed* freely
Frank> available/redistributable source) work, and base a closed
Frank> work off of it without their permission?
The only thing that gripes me about FreeBSDers is that they actively
discourage programmers from protecting their own freely-released code
from being hijacked and privatized (since such hijacking is possible
under the BSD).
mp
- --
Michael Powe Portland, Oregon USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.trollope.org
"Three hours a day will produce as much as a man ought to write."
-- Anthony Trollope
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v0.9.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Encrypted with Mailcrypt 3.5.1 and GNU Privacy Guard
iD8DBQE21QXp755rgEMD+T8RAuDVAJ95F5VkBCKQg0fBPG8nvFI1B0ByrwCfQBXs
4w+rOUzuF4/GIfQ4NAjzzQI=
=RWTT
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: "D. Vrabel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:35:31 +0000
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Ryan Cumming wrote:
> > How about 10 honest reasons why you think windows98 is better than linux?
> > That would be interesting to hear from a windows hater >:)
>
> OK. I think there are more and better resons that Linux is better, but here it
> goes: (This hurts)
>
> 1. Better GUI
> 2. More software
More software for large sums of money. There is more free software for
UNIX systems.
> 3. More Hardware support
> 4. Better gaming platform
Or is this one just: More games are avilable for Windows 98.
> 5. More consistency (see my previous post)
> 6. One word: Microkernel
I have to agree that the left-overs of the DOS `kernel' are small.
> 7. No mounting
You can have automounting in linux. So this one doesn't count
> 8. Better file locking
> 9. More multithreaded apps
Why is this an advantage? Multithreading is just an implementation
detail to get some required functionality.
> 10. Better user support
David
--
David Vrabel
Engineering Undergraduate at University of Cambridge, UK.
------------------------------
From: James Porritt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Customising Xdm
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:19:16 +0000
Is there anyway to customise the Xdm login screen without hacking the
source? I can get images to appear in the background, but have found no
way of altering what gets displayed in the login window.
Cheers,
James.
------------------------------
From: Luca Satolli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Ls command
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 15:20:36 +0100
Hi,
I've seen the option --color in man pages of 'ls', I think it's very
usefull, I'd like to know if I could select it by default so that I
haven't to type it all times.
Thanks a lot & best regards
Luca Satolli
------------------------------
From: "Anthony Grace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Overclocking (was: Re: K6-2 and Linux, Are there any Bug?)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:21:49 +0800
>If this is the case can someone tell me why my K6-2 350 when overclocked
>to 400 crashes Linux on boot, it has a huge fan on it.
>
Possibly lowend RAM or video card, if you read the overclocking www's like
www.overclockers.com and tomshardware they are fussy over RAM and other
peripherals. I have an Asus P2-B Celeron 300A -> 450Mz, Millenium G200 ,
100Mz RAM and it is faultless, a very cheap P450 screamer. You may need to
slow the video and PCI bus.
Tony
------------------------------
From: jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,pl.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Can someone recomend an ASCII text editor for X, not X-Emacs....
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 04:26:08 -0800
(full text editor)
Don't you mean Folding Text Editor?
I like the fold idea very much,...I wish Xemacs did it. FTE doesn't do
Obj-C, and isn't extendable, otherwise I might use it....I used to in
Java.
The reason Xemacs is so heavy, is it contains so much. Whats the
saying? "It's not an editor, its a lifestyle"....I use Xemacs more like
an IDE, but it does more then that even. If you think of Xemacs as only
an ascii editor, your missing the whole point.
------------------------------
From: jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 04:13:11 -0800
Edward Avis wrote:
>
> John S. Dyson wrote:
>
> [about the Open Group, and X11R6.4]
>
> >They would
> >have to add VERY SIGNIFICANT IP to make $$$ (or ###, or whatever).
>
> What country uses # as a currency? :-(
I think they are reffering to pound....England
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne)
Subject: Re: Redhat 6.0 Release Schedule?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:34:02 GMT
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:34:38 +0000, Jason Clifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Any educated guesses of when a redhat release that is based on the new kernel
>> and glibc will appear?
>
>April is generally considered to be the scheduled release date for Red Hat
>6.0.
>
>Whether it will be based upon kernel 2.2 yet to be seen.
>
>Red Hat already uses glibc and has since December 1997 when ed Hat were
>the first to adopt it.
Consider that Red Hat has been known to do releases at Linux Expo, in
their "home town."
Linux Expo is scheduled for May 18-22.
I would find it totally unremarkable if the date turned out to be
roughly May 16th, thus giving them time to get boxes onto trucks to
let them start Getting Places, and then drive one of the trucks over
to the Expo location.
Let's put it this way: I don't think they're likely to do the release
on May 19th...
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - "What have you contributed to free software today?..."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:34:06 GMT
On 25 Feb 1999 07:30:52 GMT, Patrick M. Hausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>In comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 24 Feb 1999 19:14:44 GMT, Patrick M. Hausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> On 24 Feb 1999 17:59:48 GMT,
>>>> Patrick M. Hausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>I don't want to do that. I want to sell my Palm-Tricorder [tm] in any
>>>way I desire - remember my example?
>>>With GPL I have to hand my work - built upon others' work, no doubt -
>>>over to Red Hat and the like to redistribute them on CD along with
>>>instructions how to turn your standard Palm pilot into a Palm-Tricorder.
>>>Thus, I can't start a business selling these things. Or Whistle Interjets
>>>[tm] - or GNAT-boxes - or X-Terminals - or ...
>
>> Precisely *what* requires that you hand your work over to Red Hat?
>> - They didn't write the licenses.
>> - They didn't write 97% of the software.
>> - They probably could *CARE LESS* about your Palm-Tricorder.
>> - Note that you should not name Red Hat Software without also naming
>> Walnut Creek, as any "evils" are equally applicable.
>
>The GPL requires me to make the source publicly available. So _if_ they
>care about my stuff, they can get the source. Of course, this is
>true for every other CDROM distributor.
>
>> Precisely *what* stops you from selling GNAT-boxes? The fact that the
>> simplest way of satisfying the GPL is to toss a $2 CD that includes
>> relevant sources in the box that the GNAT|InterJet|Tricorder comes in?
>
>If I sell want to sell my GPL'ed GNAT-box for $1000 a license
>and it's on a Walnut Creek CD for $39 as well, how much GNAT-boxes
>am I going to sell to make a living?
If what you're *really* selling is some bizarro changes you made to
the Linux kernel that you put in it, then anyone else can replicate
the whole system pretty readily given sources, and you'll not be
pulling in too much 'windfall' here.
And in such a case, you *certainly should* use an OS kernel that may
be proprietarily locked away, such as {Net|Open|Free}BSD. I'll be the
first in line to say "go use FreeBSD for that."
But for a "GNAT box," I would think it unlikely that you'll be simply
selling a "k001 kernel."
More likely:
- You have a nifty box design so that the system only occupies 75
cubic centimetres.
That box design doesn't fall under the GPL, does it? Doubtless not.
- You have built a nifty "motherboard" that occupies only 18 square
centimetres of area.
That motherboard layout doesn't fall under the GPL, does it?
- You designed some neat ASICs to cut down on the chip count. And had
to write a custom bootloader, which doesn't fall under the GPL.
- You aren't simply using the Linux kernel, but have written some
programs specifically to configure the custom hardware in the box.
Neither the custom hardware nor the software (that isn't integrated
into the kernel) fall under the GPL.
Look at the Corel "NetWinder," which more-or-less conforms to these
sorts of non-GPL ways of "proprietarization." Corel may be required
to release under GPL any source code changes they make to the Linux
kernel in order to make it work with their hardware; seeing as how
practically nobody else makes StrongARM-based systems, this isn't
diminishing Corel's ability to sell boxes. (Pricing is another
matter; few want to pay $1K for a NetWinder. That's another story...)
>> If you've burned a single ASIC in the process, this nicely
>> "proprietarizes" the product, even if the source code to the software is
>> all available, by the way...
>
>Nice idea ... ;-)
And look at the other items mentioned above. There are ample sets of
"games" that someone that one can "play" to keep a particular product
proprietary, despite some GPLed components.
>> Precisely *why* is it advantageous to not distribute sources?
>
>Because it enables small startup companies or individual programmers
>to stay ahead of the competition for a couple of months and get
>some revenue.
If reverse-engineering hardware is impractical, then a solution
integrating software and hardware can reject this argument.
>> Trade secrets seem to prevent the release of names, but there are
>> reportedly printer manufacturers that embed Ghostscript in their
>> systems, so the notion that it is impossible to do such things is
>> clearly not the case.
>
>Are there? This is news to me, so please name one.
I can't; that's apparently a secret.
<http://devlinux.org/ghost/interview.html>
L. Peter Deutsch is on record with the following:
"I can tell you that the number of companies making hardcopy output
devices that have licensed Ghostscript is more than ten and less than
a hundred. I don't even know the whole list any more because my
licensing business handles that, but I can tell you that at least two
quite well known companies license Ghostscript, or other
freely-redistributable technology from Aladdin, for incorporation into
hardcopy output devices."
>>>Side note: yes, I do know that many printer boxes still feature awful bugs
>>>that were present in early lpds and which the manufacturers haven't fixed
>>>yet - so much about "enhancing state of the art" ;-) Still, with GPL, we
>>>would have no interoperating print servers at all.
>
>> Obviously not. And we wouldn't have web servers, or C compilers, or C++
>> compilers.
>
>How many manufacturers deliver GCC as part of their proprietary
>development environment? One - Apple/Next.
You might want to take a look at where Cygnus is selling into...
>How many deliver apache as _part_ of their _proprietary_ webserver?
>None.
IBM is claiming to provide support for Apache. That's not an
inclusion into proprietary product; that is still a (still embryonic)
business situation.
>How many manufacturers deliver BSD based IP-stacks as part
>of their proprietary OSes? Almost all of them.
>How many different brands of network print servers with BSD lpd
>code embedded are there? Hundreds.
>How many different brands of X-Terminals are there? Dozens.
>
>QED.
When TCP/IP in BSD represents a reverse-engineering of the previous
proprietary forms, I can't go along with the notion that BSD
represents the progenitor.
The *important* thing about LPD is the protocol. There are quite a
few "enhanced" versions of lpd, which takes sting out of the assertion
that it can only be done based on BSD code.
And X-Terms have tended to be things that vendors wanted to keep as
proprietary as possible, which, in light of the fact that what they
actually *do* looks more commodity-like than it does like a "unique
thing" that makes sense to keep hidden. The rationale there is a bit
questionable; apparently everyone trying to build the "new wheel"
first and then keep it hidden. The not-very-scintillating sales of
X-terms is supportive of the assertion that the source code is not the
only thing that has been successfully hidden; "decent sales" seem to
be invisible...
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - "What have you contributed to free software today?..."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linux Newbie)
Subject: Linux Programs
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 06:28:09 GMT
Here is a newbie question. When you compile and install a
Linux program does that program only consist of one file (the
executable) and maybe a configuration file? You know how a Win98
program has like dozens of other programs and config files and some
are dumped into the system dir of windows and some dumped into various
dirs. Are linux progs the same? Most of the linux progs I've run
seems to only consists of one executable. And do all of the necessary
files the programs need in order to run reside in it's own dir, sorta
like DOS.
If I wanted to uninstall a program in win98, I wouldn't know which
files to delete from the system dir if the uninstall program didn't
work. I'm hoping linux is simplier. I remember in DOS, if I wanted
to get rid of a program I just delete the dir it's in and it's gone
for good.
--
"Linux: The best things in life are free"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
