Linux-Misc Digest #185, Volume #19 Fri, 26 Feb 99 02:13:13 EST
Contents:
Re: IDE RAID controllers for Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Gregory L. Hansen)
Re: Printing under Linux (Jeremy Crabtree)
Ultra Linux on a SS20? (Oliver Kuegow)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Paul Hughett)
Re: More bad news for NT (eagle95)
compactflash (Bill Holder)
Re: More bad news for NT (jedi)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Running LINUX under WIN NT????? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Bill Vermillion)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Bill Vermillion)
Re: linux commmands (Lew Pitcher)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Christopher B. Browne)
linux support (redhat) (Chris T.)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (brian moore)
adding drive larger than 8Gb to PCI Pentium 100MHz m/board (Paul Johnson)
Re: Printing under Linux (jik-)
Downloading at half the speed under Linux vs NT (Mike)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (jedi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: IDE RAID controllers for Linux
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:30:09 GMT
In article <7avcdl$d140$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (bill davidsen) wrote:
> In article <7auioa$g8k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | In article <7asj1e$8hr6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bill davidsen) wrote:
>
> | > The Duplidisk gives the reliability protection of RAID-1, but lacks the
> | > performance benefit, since with traditional RAID-1, if you get multiple
> | > reads to a single drive you can read one off the mirror, while with a
> | > single virtual IDE device you don't get that benefit.
> | >
> | > bill davidsen
> |
> | As you say, people looking for RAID 1 want it for the mirroring protection
it
> | offers, that is, being able to write the same data to two drives at the same
> | time. Not being able to read from both drives is irrelevant. Think about
> | it. If you only have one drive and are not doing mirroring, you're reading
> | from only one drive.
>
> But that's not how RAID-1 works. Real RAID-1 with independent access to
> each drive lets a smart operating system (or controller) process a read
> on one drive, and then the next read on the 2nd drive if the first is
> busy, and choose the drive with the heads closest to the desired data
> to reduce access time. Remember that Linux (these are Linux groups) has
> RAID-1 built in, so our choices are not limited to SCSI, expensive
> RAID controllers, etc.
>
> Traditional database applications benefit from this, as do applications
> which are really read-mostly database applications, such as usenet news,
> bbs operation, web servers, and any other application in which access is
> mostly querries.
>
> Where I see using this is for my boot/system drive, because the mirrored
> boot is a pain to install. Assuming the price is right it would be a
> time saver.
>
> --
> bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bill, it's not only a time saver. With hardware IDE RAID 1, such as the
DupliDisk provides, the second drive is not simply a copy. It's a bootable
replica of the first drive that will take over automatically (without human
intervention) if the first drive goes down. So your system just keeps
chugging along even though you've got a dead drive. You bring the system down
and replace the bad drive at a time that's convenient for you--not in the
middle of a busy work day.
Donna Barron
http://www.arcoide.com
>
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 26 Feb 1999 04:10:05 GMT
In article <7b4mie$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John S. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> You aren't seeing it from the point of view of the original author of the
>>> GPL work. "If I had wanted you to use my code for something you would
>>> sell for profit, I wouldn't have licensed it under GPL, would I?"
>>
>> That statement seems to be directly incompatable with FSF's definition
>> of 'free' software.
>>
>Bingo!, major inconsistancy. The GPL is discriminatory, demonizing
>developers.
Demonizing developers who want to sell the derived works. Maybe you just
shouldn't use it.
But how is it not free? The authors give away the software for free, they
give away the source code for free, you may freely distribute it, you're
free to use it in your own works, but your own works will also be free.
Free, free, free, free, free. Except for not being able to charge money
for derived works (that is, offer something that is not free), and
withholding soure code (that is, it cannot be freely distributed)
everything about it is free, it must remain free, and that is enforceable.
That's the whole point of GPL. If developers didn't want to produce
products that are not free, there wouldn't be a problem.
And I wouldn't say developers shouldn't charge money for their software.
I consider the GPL people something of extremists and idealists, in fact.
But I will say you shouldn't complain when other people never want money
charged for their software. I mean, they could just charge money for the
software, right? They could offer the programs but withhold the source
code, right? They could simply not release it publicly at all, right?
They're giving things away for free, and I can't believe you'd find
anything to complain about in this. It's as if someone passed you in the
street, unexpectedly gave you a quarter, and you complained that he didn't
give you a dollar. If someone gave you the shirt off his back (software
and source) you'd complain that he didn't also give you his pants (ability
to derive work and restrict access to it).
They're not offering *your* software for free. They're writing their own.
They can do whatever they want with it. They should be able to do
whatever they want with it. *You* should not be able to do whatever you
want with it, not without negotiating with the authors. Exactly the same
as you'd expect for anyone's payware, except you can copy and use it for
free.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Crabtree)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Printing under Linux
Date: 26 Feb 1999 05:57:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gregory Leblanc allegedly wrote:
>I know how to get simple directory listings and plain text to print on
>my printer, but what about color images from GIMP? I've got a couple
>of color HP inkjet printers, and I wanted to do some of image
>processing from there. Thanks,
You look into installing GhostScript(1) The GIMP should, however, have
several built-in printer drivers, just right click the image you
want to print and select the "print" option from the menu. You may
have to experiement a bit to find the driver that works with your
printers.
--
"Being myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself
the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts
that are not hard" --Silvanus P. Thompson, from "Calculus Made Easy."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Oliver Kuegow)
Crossposted-To: alt.sys.sun,comp.sys.sun.admin
Subject: Ultra Linux on a SS20?
Date: 24 Feb 1999 17:30:26 GMT
Hi,
I just got a copy of UltraLinux1.1.9 on CDROM.
But somehow it doesn't boot up....
My CDROM is an external Sony CDROM connected to the second
scsi bus. When I try to do a "boot cdrom" at the ok-prompt
it says
So I tried ok: boot /iommu/sbus/dma@1,81000/esp@1,80000/sd@6,0
This time I got the SILO boot: prompt and it told me I should
hit Enter to start the installation. So did I.
But unfortunately, after booting the kernel, it said:
Kernel Panic: Unable to mount root-fs at 00:00.
I am not new to Linux, only to the SPARC architecture.
Thanks for helping,
Olli
--
Oliver Kuegow -- Siemens Business Services -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners." --Ernst Jan Plugge
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hughett)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 25 Feb 1999 15:27:40 GMT
Edward Avis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 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? :-(
In the US we call # a pound sign. Is that enough hint?
Paul Hughett
------------------------------
From: eagle95 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.linux
Subject: Re: More bad news for NT
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:09:07 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In fact, PC Week has been showing a lot of coverage of the recent growth of
Linux. PCMag has a long history of either ignoring it completely or showing a
definite M$/Wintel bias. por exempler: PC Week has had a cover story on Linux in
one form or another almost every issue of the last 2 months. I see little bias
there. And the xeon 4 cpu system benchmark race b'tween Linux 2.2 kernel and NT
shows the thru put from Linux *IS* Faster. ( see article entitled "Linux-
Enterprise Ready" or something very close to that( memory overflow..sorry)).
Craig Kelley wrote:
> "Jon Wiest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > >> The diagnostics have been done, and NT is faster and scales better, at
> > least
> > >> with kernel 2.0 or 2.1. 2.2 might change things...
> > >>
> > >> Jon
> > >
> > >Care to provide a link to this info???
> >
> > PCMagazine test of web server scalability, damn, I think it was November or
> > December...
> >
> > No doubt somebody will slam PCMag as a Wintel source. I think they've been
> > pretty fair covering the Linux movement and community.
>
> No, but you should have stated that it was an "Apache vs. IIS" instead
> of "Linux vs. NT".
>
> PC Week has already stated that the 2.2 kernel is faster at serving
> out i/o than NT on a 4-way xeon box.
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
--
Work like you don't need money,
Love like you've never been hurt,
And dance like no one's watching
------------------------------
From: Bill Holder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: compactflash
Date: 26 Feb 1999 05:23:57 GMT
Hi all,
I've finally got my Linux box to recognise my CompactFlash card
reader (plugs into parallel port, asshole of an idea), but now it can't
find a valid filesystem.
Does anyone know what filesystem compactflash uses? I'm using
Kodak digital cameras if that makes a difference...
...bilbo...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jedi)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.linux
Subject: Re: More bad news for NT
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:16:34 -0800
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:41:39 -0600, Jon Wiest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>jedi wrote in message ...
>>Microsoft refugees.
>
>O lord, you are so oppressed. Here you are doing what you want, imagining
>you are a refugee and complaining.
It's called CAPITALISM, where product is supposed to be
more than just displays in a museum and why it's supposed
to be somehow better than some form of COMMUNISM or
FASCISM.
FreeWill can actually be exercised...
...rather than just being forced to buy whatever
crap the state factories decide to churn out this year.
--
Herding Humans ~ Herding Cats
Neither will do a thing unless they really want to, or |||
is coerced to the point where it will scratch your eyes out / | \
as soon as your grip slips.
In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 26 Feb 1999 00:02:38 -0600
In article <7aqh6t$42p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Think of GPL as a kind of "global resource" thing. Infrastructure.
>Things that everybody needs. And I'd agree to "stable state of
>technology" too.
Why would you want these 'things that everybody needs' to be
prohibited from being included into products that necessarily
require non-GPL'd components?
>Id argue the reverse: for infrastructure kinds of things, _everybody_
>wants to have the best one. You want a good road system: yes, having
>good roads will help your competition too, but if you really are an
>aggressive company, you'd better be convinced that you can take better
>advantage of the existing infrastructure than the competition can,
>otherwise you might as well fold.
Having built and tested such an infrastructure, why then prohibit
anyone from using it?
>In short, maybe the GPL makes sense after all, John? Maybe not for
>everything, but maybe for infrastructure? For the stable stuff? For
>things that you use daily, and you shouldn't even worry about, because
>you expect it to just work? For a compiler, for example? Or your
>operating system? Or the shell you use every day? Or your editor? Or
>your window manager?
For the parts that can't possibly require any other components?
Complete, finished works? Are there such things?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Running LINUX under WIN NT?????
Date: 26 Feb 1999 05:23:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[RE: Interix]
> marketed in at least one form as a _Linux_ subsystem, not a POSIX
> subsystem, though recompiling is required as you observe.
Yes, that's true. Some of their marketing literature touts
Interix as a solution for "Linux users stuck with NT at work" or
something like that.
Some GNU stuff is included. I had a lot of trouble getting RCS
to work right under CygWin32, which is why I was tempted by the
Interix ad I got in the mail one day. RCS is included and does
work, as do gmake and gcc.
>> > Personally, I'd pursue the 2nd, freestanding Linux server +
>> > X terminal
>> This is by far easier to deal with and ultimately more effective,
> Which makes me wonder why the damned thing was created in the first
> place. Not my problem.
So NT Solution Providers can tell PHB's that switching to NT
won't irritate the engineers because they "can still use that
nasty Unix stuff". Or something like that <grin>.
Don't get me wrong here, I don't mean to put down Interix. The
product works, is easier to get set up to a useful state than
CygWin32, and can be handy (e.g. you have Unix code that you'd
like to put on NT). But it is more "generic Unix" than Linux.
--
Bob Hauck, Software Engineer - Will program for food.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:00:48 GMT
In article <7b3src$bvd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Richard E. Hawkins Esq. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Edward Avis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>John S. Dyson wrote:
>
>>>They would
>>>have to add VERY SIGNIFICANT IP to make $$$ (or ###, or whatever).
>
>>What country uses # as a currency? :-(
>Freedonia, for openers. But they're rather inconvienent to lug around.
But then you'd have to mark up the country in little squares,
package it, ship it and re-assemble it later.
Oh? You meant transport pounds, not Freedonia? :-)
--
Bill Vermillion bv @ wjv.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:58:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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
And all you have to do is change one flag in termcap (for example),
and the key that displayed # now displays L (as close as I could
get in 7 bit character mode and no vt emulation). (decimal 35)
--
Bill Vermillion bv @ wjv.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lew Pitcher)
Subject: Re: linux commmands
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:27:45 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:56:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook) wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:41:00 +0000, Natanael Copa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>how do i turn my computor off? Now I use "reboot" or just ctrl-alt-del
>>and wait until linux is shut down and turn it off before lilo restarts.
>>I'm shure there is a better way...
>
>You can make ctrl-alt-del do a shutdown instead of a halt by editing
>/etc/inittab:
>
># Trap CTRL-ALT-DELETE
>ca::ctrlaltdel:/sbin/shutdown -t3 -h now
>
>I find that pretty convenient. If you have a newer machine that will poweroff
>on shutdown, you can recompile your kernel to support this.
>
>However, if it's a desktop machine I'd just leave it on continuously.
shutdown -h now
Lew Pitcher
Joat-in-training
------------------------------
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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 04:18:02 GMT
On 25 Feb 1999 21:14:27 -0600, drwho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> But the madness doesn't stop there, as the GPL forces this to be a
>> two way street. See something you like under GPL? Sorry, you'll
>> have to rewrite it from scratch if you actually want to use it.
>>
>> BSD encourages reuse. GPL encourages rewrite.
>>
>> Because of this, GPL is only usable for home toy projects. Outside
>> that realm it breaks down quickly
>>
>
>Just for a little "insight" into the BSD vs. GPL argument, please have a
>look at http://www.xnet.com/~drwho/share/lit/gpl.html for a little something
>I threw together on the subject.
The commentary is interesting enough; a couple of details:
GPL: "Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or
contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the
intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of
derivative or collective works based on the Program."
Commentary: [ This clause reeks of political extremism, and is not
entirely true. When a program or work is released under a license,
this means that you are in effect ``licensed to use the program''. If
this is the case, then *you* are not the real owner of your code, the
Free Software Foundation is! Particularly when it comes to controlling
the ``distribution of derivative or collective works based on the
Program''. After all is said and done, the only part of this work that
you actually *own* is the Copyright itself. And that copyright is
subject to the terms of this license. ]
And this commentary also isn't true.
The GPL does not name the Free Software Foundation as the universal
holder-of-copyright of anything.
If I happen to write the "Frobozzinator," version 1.0, use the GPL as
the license, and then release it, to you, who then release version
2.0, the Free Software Foundation doesn't figure into the picture.
After all, neither you nor I are non-profit corporations incorporated
in the Commonwealth of Taxacheussetts.
We could argue that *I* am the owner of both Frobozzinator 1.0, and
inheritor of joint ownership of Frobozzinator 2.0 along with you in
your contribution of code. The guy who works on version 3.0 then has
to "share" ownership with you and I.
None of this chain forcibly has to include the Free Software
Foundation.
After many links, the "community" may very well own the code, as is
the case with the Linux kernel.
Commentary... [ Essentially this is the rudimentary philosophy of
Communism, in which you can create something, but you only own it as
much as everyone else owns it. ]
Unfortunately, the following quote (whose source I do not recall) is
as true today as it was a year or so ago when I first saw it:
"There are parallels to be drawn between the FSF/GNU/Linux and
Marxism, but if you've shown one thing clearly by your post, it is
that even the mention of Marx is too politically charged to allow
any such parallels to be profitably discussed."
Peoples' opinions tend to be so focused on one or another
interpretation of what *they* think communism is about that such
comparisons are roughly as useful as comparing the leaders of projects
like Linux, the FSF, GNOME, KDE, or various BSDs with that
not-to-be-named in order to avoid Godwin's Law "notable strong-arm
leader of one of the belligerent states in World War II."
--
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?..."
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.redhat,comp.os.linux.setup
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris T.)
Subject: linux support (redhat)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:42:16 GMT
Does anyone know of any IRC site that support linux (redhat version)?y
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 26 Feb 1999 06:07:49 GMT
On 25 Feb 1999 23:15:00 -0600,
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> You aren't seeing it from the point of view of the potential user
> >> of the value-added work. They have been given the right to use
> >> the base code, but it doesn't do what they want. If the base code
> >> is GPL'd they won't be able to get a mass-market version of the
> >> derived work. Who is it that is keeping them from getting use
> >> out of the shared code?
> >
> >And the mass market version will do what that want? Excuse me?
>
> Why would people buy it otherwise?
> I'm perfectly happy with my routers. Lots of people are happy
> to buy xterminals, workstations, print servers, and so on regardless
> of they fact that they may contain embedded BSD-based code and
> don't come with the source. I don't see why this is even an issue
> in the context of buying something where if it doesn't work, you
> send it back.
And this relates to your original assertion how?
You have implied:
1) the GPL version will not do what they want
why not?
why can't it be changed (especially since it would be a given
that source is available)
2) the "mass market" version will meet their needs better than one
with source that they can customize.
That is utter nonsense: mass market software is LESS likely to meet the
needs of a company than software with source.
> >> Yes and if the base TCP/IP had been GPL'd, every company would have
> >> gone with their own incompatible proprietary network protocal. Why
> >> would you consider that to be a good thing???
> >
> >Not true. GPL doesn't cover protocols (and considering the usual FSF
> >feelings about patents, I doubt they'd want it to). There are GPL'd
> >TCP/IP stacks, ya' know, and the world hasn't come crashing to a halt.
>
> It is irrelevant how many restricted versions of something exist.
> It just takes one version with reasonable restrictions, and you
> can translate reasonable as either free or cheap.
Ah, okay, so OpenGL, which has a pretty unreasonable (it is neither
free, nor cheap, nor liberated) license is not a standard 3D library.
Thanks for clearing that up. Do inform SGI, Sun, Microsoft and the 3d
video card makers. I'm sure they'll be glad to hear that proprietary
standards never work.
> >> >Unprovable assertion. Where there is demand, product is created.
> >>
> >> We know what happened, why should anyone have to prove it? Industry
> >> loves to produce incompatible, proprietary products. TCP is
> >> an extraordinary exception.
> >
> >Really? Like PostScript, an incompatible and proprietary (and
> >exceedingly expensive originally) protocol for printing... But now it's
> >effectively a standard.
>
> It doesn't have to be free, it just has to have reasonable
> licensing.
Neither of which described PostScript until recently.
Even things that are non-free and have unreasonable licensing (say, RSA
and Diffie-Hellman in the US until '97) managed to become standards.
Try to use HTTPS without RSA.
> >Sorry, as much as I believe that Free Software and "reference
> >implementations" are important, there are many proprietary works that
> >don't use any of it. There are many works that due to the nature of
> >patents on the technology can't have an unencumbered implementation.
> >
> >Yet they seem to exist as standards in the real world nonetheless.
>
> And this is the real problem with developing any reliance on
> GPL-restricted work. If it ever turns out that you need something
> where there is no GPL equivalent in a way the the FSF imagines
> to be a 'derived work', then you have to abandon it all and start
> over, or do everything as custom works that are never distributed.
"Mommy! Billy won't give me ice cream unless I let him share my candy!
Make him give me his ice cream!"
Nothing is forcing you to use the work of others. You have no right to
force others to give you their works. They have every right to ask you
to share your changes to their works, though.
If you don't like it, don't use their works.
--
Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach
Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain."
Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 16:22:09 +1030
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Johnson)
Subject: adding drive larger than 8Gb to PCI Pentium 100MHz m/board
Hi
I want to hook up a 13 Gb drive to my linux box running on a P100 PCI
motherboard. It copes OK with a 270Mb+2Gb currently.
If I add the 13Gb drive as a third drive will it be OK? Or must I use an
<8Gb drive?
Thanks
Paul
------------------------------
From: jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Printing under Linux
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 21:42:28 -0800
Gregory Leblanc wrote:
>
> I know how to get simple directory listings and plain text to print on
> my printer, but what about color images from GIMP? I've got a couple
> of color HP inkjet printers, and I wanted to do some of image
> processing from there. Thanks,
> Greg.
Gotta use ghostscript and set it up as a filter in /etc/printcap.
Graphic files have to be turned into PS files, and then turned into PDL
files by gs....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike)
Subject: Downloading at half the speed under Linux vs NT
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 05:41:56 GMT
Hi all,
I have a USRobotics internal 56k v.90 modem that works just fine under
Linux except that I seem to consistently get about half the download
speed or less than I do under NT, plus it stalls up to 3-4 times a
minute sometimes. Where should I start to look for things to tweak to
try and get it up there? I have seen a serial port HOW-TO is there a
modem HOW-TO? Also seems to happen most under Netscape, I think I'm
running 4.08. Could that be the problem? I hate to keep having to
reboot into NT to go download stuff that I need for Linux.
Thanks for your help!
mike
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jedi)
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 21:04:29 -0800
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:59:41 -0800, Ryan Cumming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Colin Day wrote:
>
>> iratheous wrote:
>>
>> > I'm glad to see honesty, even when dealing with something you dont like :)
>> > Oh btw, I don;t liek counter arguments of 'it's debatable' without actually
>> > presenting a debate! It's a cop-out. "It isn't as good", "Why" , "Because
>> > it isn't!"
>>
>> If you are criticizing jedi for not backing up his claims, then what about
>> the original poster (Mr. Cumming)?
>
>Sorry. However I did more than put a "it's debateable" under everything. BTW,
>you could probably peice together a full argument from all my posts :)
>
No you couldn't. You just made a bunch of bald assertions.
Whereas: "doesn't need to upgrade a gaming api to install
a vidcap card" is a bit more detailed.
--
Herding Humans ~ Herding Cats
Neither will do a thing unless they really want to, or |||
is coerced to the point where it will scratch your eyes out / | \
as soon as your grip slips.
In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
