Linux-Misc Digest #279, Volume #19 Wed, 3 Mar 99 10:13:31 EST
Contents:
Re: Easy cron question (Jayasuthan [VorHacker])
Re: Problems with NE2000 modules (Jayasuthan [VorHacker])
Re: Leafnode won't fetch articles/headers ("Peter Caffin")
Re: Is Open Source movement anti bourgeois? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Public license question (Christopher Browne)
Re: More bad news for NT (Max F Lang)
Re: Microkernels are an abstraction inversion (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: FreeAgent for Linux (Charles H. Chapman)
Re: .Tar/.gz question ("Peter Caffin")
Re: Public license question (David Kastrup)
Re: Public license question (Christopher B. Browne)
Re: aps or magicfilter? (Edwin Johnson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jayasuthan [VorHacker] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Easy cron question
Date: 3 Mar 99 12:59:42 GMT
Kerry J. Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
your cron should look like this
* * * * * /what/to/do 1>/dev/null 2>/dev/null
1>/dev/null -- pipe out normal messages
2>/dev/null -- pipe out error messages
: A friend of mine has a RedHat 5.1 quake server that has a fairly
: extensive cron job listing. However, he keeps getting tons of email
: messages to root fromthe cron process. How does one go about diabling
: any and all incoming messages from cron. Deleting over 500 messages a
: day can get tedious. We've tried piping the messages out to /dev/null
: but I think the syntax is wrong.
: I'd be most appreciative if someone could tell me where exactly I need
: to go to disable this feature, what files are involved, etc.
: Thanks.
: KJ
: --
: .-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-.
: | Kerry J. Cox Vyzynz International Inc. |
: | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Administrator |
: | (801) 596-7795 http://vii.com |
: | All Things Linux http://quasi.vii.com/linux/ |
: `-------------------------------------------------------'
--
==========
Jayasuthan
[Internal Linux System]
http://eplx01/suthan/
smtp%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
[External]
http://still.working.on
smtp%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
------------------------------
From: Jayasuthan [VorHacker] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Problems with NE2000 modules
Date: 3 Mar 99 13:00:51 GMT
Tom Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why the trouble compile it into your kernel.............. easy things !
: Greetings,
: I'm having some trouble using my new ISA Ethernet card. I'm running 2.2.1
: with NE2000 (ISA) compiled as module. However modprobe refuses to
: insert it; insmod 8390.o is fine, but when I insmod ne.o I get a seg
: fault, regardless of what I set io=0x00 or irq= or whatever.
: Any ideas would be appreciated! Otherwise I'll be stuck using Windows
: for my d/ls :( (The card works under 95)
: Cheers,
: Tom
--
==========
Jayasuthan
[Internal Linux System]
http://eplx01/suthan/
smtp%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
[External]
http://still.working.on
smtp%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
------------------------------
From: "Peter Caffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Leafnode won't fetch articles/headers
Date: 3 Mar 1999 01:43:48 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> Sam Vere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Okay, I think I've traced the problem one link up the chain: Leafnode
>> (1.7.1) is not creating the initial message, so I can't read it, so it
>> doesn't download the headers. Great.
You're meant to use a Usenet client (slrn, tin, nn, Free Agent, etc) to
connect to your Leafnode NNTPD. Then have a look in a group. You'll find
one message telling you about Leafnode and letting you know that it will
be getting that newsgroup's messages when fetch is next run.
You'll also find that newsgroup entry in interesting.groups :)
>> Is this an issue I can deal with? Should I (attempt to ) re-compile?
>> Or will simply creating files named (for instance) uk.comp.os.linux in
>> the 'interesting.groups' directory work?
>From that directory, "echo >comp.os.linux.misc" etc, should be all it
takes if you know exactly what groups you want.
Hope that helps.
--: _ _ _ _
_oo__ |_|_ |__ _ | _ |_|_o _ pc at it dot net dot a u |
//`'\_ | (/_|(/_| |_(_|| | || | it.net.au/~pc |
/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is Open Source movement anti bourgeois?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 04:04:07 GMT
On 2 Mar 1999 05:36:33 GMT, brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 02:52:51 GMT,
> Christopher B. Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> It appears that others prefer the evocative "It's not like free beer,
>> it's like free speech!" and prefer to *ignore* economic analysis or
>> outcomes.
>
>The economics don't concern me: the concern is the ability to maintain my
>own tools.
I think you're boxing off economics too narrowly.
Economics is about the decision making surrounding the allocation of
resources.
The limitation that you detail (and that I mostly elide) is a good
example of a policy that is as much economic as it is anything else.
>In short: I'm stuck using and trying to support a magical black box.
>
>I don't care whether it was free or cost a fortune. It doesn't meet my
>needs, yet I have no choice but to use it and deal with the lack of
>features. I can't fix the bugs in it. I can't get the vendor to fix the
>bugs.
>
>When the box dies, we lose customers.
>
>What's the economic cost there?
I don't know how one would attach numbers to that; this certainly speaks
to the notion that economics is not just numerical, and that it attaches
to "policies" that some might regard as "political."
>(Indeed, the problem is so bad that management now understands why I
>demand source and vows to not make a deal like that again.)
>
>> At any rate, I don't think it's provable that there are
>> "anti-economic" elements. There *is* a preference in the community to
>> discuss the political side; this does not clearly establish a shunning
>> of economics, but more likely a preference to look at ethics rather
>> than simply looking at utilitarian reasoning.
>
>The economics of the above magical box make it clear to me that demanding
>source is essential whether the product is free or not.
I'd suggest the alternative thought that it is critical to demand that
sources at least be available to more than one party.
It may be ideal for everyone that uses the software to have source; if
there are at least multiple sources of source, that diminishes the risk
of disaster arising out of some programmer someplace quitting.
>> *I* would like to establish some economic dialogue surrounding free
>> software, but that may just be me...
>
>I think economics are boring: I do expect that when I get a product,
>whether downloaded off the net, or paid for, I get source to fix it.
>I won't be a stickler on it with things like games, but certainly for
>software that I depend on to do my job.
>
>It can be argued for economically: failures of the magic black box
>cost us real money and put us at the mercy of vendors to fix the
>problems. When their sole "support" person (ie, the salesman) quits, we
>will have literally no support and be left trying to keep this thing
>running.
>
>That's not something I'd want to base a business on, and is why I've
>been trying to get source for two years. (And why management agrees that
>source is important.)
Note that the big name ERP system, R/3 (that many mistakenly name "SAP,"
thinking that the product name is the same as the name of the company
that produces it) comes with source code to the bulk of the system.
"Mission critical" systems tend to include source code.
This implies something about the risks you take if you use "binary-only"
software.
- If you don't get source, then either you had better trust the producer
implicitly.
- If you *don't* trust the producer with control over your enterprise,
you're an idiot if you use the software for anything important.
>You know what's really stupid? This package came from a hardware vendor
>(part of why they don't support it -- they don't understand software):
>they make their money selling the boxes it controls, not the controller
>itself (which is a bunch of junk hanging off OpenView).
>
>They have no financial gain in hoarding the source. Yet they do,
Agreed.
--
"(Windows NT) version 5.0 will build on a proven system architecture
and incorporate tens of thousands of bug fixes from version 4.0."
-- <http://www.microsoft.com/y2k.asp?A=7&B=5>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Public license question
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 04:04:16 GMT
On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 14:36:48 -0500, Rick Onanian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>brian moore wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 11:43:15 -0500,
>> Rick Onanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > As I understand it...The GPL is really not able to be enforced by
>> > anyone. I get the feeling the the FSF doesn't have the money to take
>> > anyone to court over a gpl violation...I also get the feeling that
>> > maybe noone really cares too much - the gpl is more a matter of intent
>> > than technicality. If you write a program and GPL it, do you necesarily
>> > make a registered copyright? Or do you just release it and hope or not
>> > care..
>>
>> Then you don't understand it.
>
>Agreed. Noone else seemed to be helping any more than me, tho, so I
>figured I could at least spark some discussion.
>
>> Hint: do you think NeXT released their modifications to gcc for
>> 'objective C' because of warm fuzzy feelings?
>
>These ideas, in part, come from previous posts involving WordPerfect,
>StarOffice, and other non GPL'd programs available for Linux.
The Objective C situation is *far* more descriptive of the validity of
the GPL as an enforceable license. The presence of non-GPLed programs
proves nothing about the enforceability of the GPL.
>> The Free Software Foundation does have lawyers, and they do pursue
>> license violations on code they control.
>
>I did not know they even had much money. I got the feeling that they
>didn't.
The FSF doesn't have *too* big a pile of money, which you might
determine by requesting a copy of their financial statements.
They have, however, been able to receive legal counsel "pro bono" from
lawyers that are either interested parties or otherwise well disposed to
contribute something to the community.
>> That said, they don't control the Linux kernel.
>
>Or much of the other GPL'd software.
True.
>> > I'm afraid that, if they wanted to, MS could just take Debian,
>> > remove any references to GPL and remove all source code, write
>> > Microsoft all over it, sell it, and there is no specific legal
>> > ramification. Although, the linux community would backlash and
>> > it would flop... There's no law involved in any of this, AFAIK.
>>
>> Copyright law isn't law?
>
>Please read more carefully. "I'm afraid that" means that I fear what
>they could do.
Unfortunately for them, doing this would provide a hotshot young lawyer
the potential of making a name by doing battle. Microsoft doesn't have
as deep pockets as IBM has had for this, and is definitely under fire
from other perspectives.
The bad publicity surrounding a case where it could be claimed that MSFT
took (say) Debian and sold it would be quite dramatic.
>> That would be precisely as legal as duping Windows CD's: not.
>>
>> Please stop practicing law without training.
>
>Correct me if I am wrong, but to obtain an actual copyright on
>something, you have to register it with some authority? Probably,
>some government?
You are incorrect. Trademarks need to be registered, but not copyright.
>I have been told that you can copyright something simply by saying
>copyright all over it, however, I don't know how that would hold in
>a court of law.
It seems to hold quite well.
>That being said, how many parts of any given distribution of Linux
>have real copyrights? I would venture to guess that much of GPL'd
>software out there is not really copyrighted.
The GPLed software is "copylefted," which represents a use of copyright
in conjunction with a somewhat peculiar license. They are most
definitely copyrighted.
>I do not claim to know law, or programming, for that matter. I do
>not practice law; rather, I offer my opinions from a point of view
>that I believe to be [very] slightly more informed than those who
>ask.
It's a good thing that you don't claim to know law, because it's pretty
clear that you don't know copyright law very well.
--
Actually, typing random strings in the Finder does the equivalent of
filename completion. (Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc on the
intuitiveness of commands: file completion vs. the Mac Finder.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Max F Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.linux
Subject: Re: More bad news for NT
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 02:30:48 GMT
Tim Kelley wrote:
> One particularly annoying thing about Netscape is that it is always
> contacting my DNS server for no apparent reason. When I'm not connected
> I can't use netscape because it will take forever to start ...
>
Before you start blaming Netscape too much, have you tried going into NS
Prereferences then under Navigator, setting "Browser Starts with" either to
"Blank Page" or to "Home Page" with your home page set to "Bookmarks.html"? That
way NS doesn't try connecting to any external site.
Max
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microkernels are an abstraction inversion
Date: 3 Mar 1999 08:35:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels) writes:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Francois-Rene Rideau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On the other hand, the Unix API is very unhelpful by its low-level nature.
>> > Secure locking and transaction are just a MESS,
>> > not to talk about reliable distributed programming:
>> > for the Unix API cannot guarantee any of the high-level invariants
>> > that are needed, and does not have a distributed resource model.
>> > All in all, UN*X is NOT evil, it's just an obsolete primitive design.
>> > Something evil would be tying us to UN*X for the eternity,
>> > instead of moving on to better designs.
>>
>> The UNIX API is about the best when using the process/flat file
>> paradigm. Current OO languages are kludgy hybrids because they're
>> layered on top of this ancient paradigm - we need an OS that
>> hosts objects and orchestrates object interaction across
>> networks, not ORBs on top of UNIX and its little brother NT :-)
>> I fear that PC's having become commodities has made such a major
>> shift impossible (as such an OS will definitely *not* run
>> Word).
>
> Let's hear some examples. It's very easy to speak about how an OS
> should "host objects", but what would be the most substantial change?
> Let's just hear the first thing that pops into your mind.
OK. Let's have objects (not programs) as execution entities. Let's
have them permanently available. A shell (for lack of a better word)
that allows you to string objects together. You'd have an "editor
object" that would be used for all editing functions, instead of
a bunch of programs that have their own editors. I'd like to see
a mail interface that can be dynamically constructed from available
"objects": an editor, a mime handler, an information organizer, etc.
It should be possible to construct a news reader from the same
components, dynamically. Not a huge editor that does everything
through LISP - more a computerized Lego.
> I also
> don't buy the comment that "secure locking and transaction are just a
> MESS" (its an implementation issue, not UNIX-related): again, lets
> have something concrete rather than more CS philosophy, purist, tao
> guru nonsense (yes, I am a computer scientist as well).
I didn't say that. I did say that the UNIX API (including locking),
is about the best you can get when you have a UNIX-like OS (processes,
flat files, expensive RAM=process, cheap disk=file). Win32 is not
the future, it's a bad copy of the UNIX API (there, I had to get that in :-).
I'm always irritated when I hear people talk about OO design, when it
is patently impossible to implement such a design on the current
(mainstream) OSes, because these deal with processes and files, not
with objects.
The same applies to functional languages - the final
result is a "program" that deals with "files". Whether it be Haskell, C++
or assembler, the end product remains a program, that I have to
launch from a shell.
Back to stuff that pays the bills, now ;-)
--
Stefaan
--
PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)
___________________________________________________________________
Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add,
but when there is no longer anything to take away. -- Saint-Exup�ry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles H. Chapman)
Subject: Re: FreeAgent for Linux
Date: 3 Mar 1999 13:16:45 GMT
On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 22:49:17 -0600, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>BTW, how do you gee slrn in color in an xterm? I've seen screen shots
>of this but I've never been able to get it to work.
If you use rxvt instead of xterm, slrn does color.
Chuck
------------------------------
From: "Peter Caffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: .Tar/.gz question
Date: 3 Mar 1999 14:09:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm, you guessed it, a newbie to Linux, and for that matter, Unix. I have a
> question about .tar and .gz files. What is the difference between .tar.gz
> and a plain .tar file?
A .tar file simply contains files stacked on top of one another. When one
ends, a new one begins. No compression whatsoever.
A .tar.gz file is a .tar file that has been compressed with gzip.
You'll occasionally come across .tar files that have been compressed with
other programs (.tar.Z and .tar.bz come to mind). That's what it's all
about, really.
Oh, of course, there's the obligatory statement on how to extract files
from them :)
$ tar -zxvf file.tar.gz # gzipped files
$ bunzip file.tar.bz ; tar -xvf file.tar # bzipped files
$ uncompress file.tar.Z ; tar -xvf file.tar # compressed files
Hope that helps.
--: _ _ _ _
_oo__ |_|_ |__ _ | _ |_|_o _ pc at it dot net dot a u |
//`'\_ | (/_|(/_| |_(_|| | || | it.net.au/~pc |
/
------------------------------
From: David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Public license question
Date: 03 Mar 1999 15:02:48 +0100
Mark Mokryn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> say, "wow, evil dude, does not give back to the community." Well, I
> would contend that I am actually helping the community by basing a
> serious project on Linux, and putting people's good work to
> use. Think of me as the good little guy, who does not want
> Micros**t, for example, to come around demanding my source code, so
> they can learn from it, and build a similar project on NT, thus
> driving me out of business.
I fail to see any way in which the above scenario would justify you
calling yourself helping a community, calling yourself a good little
guy and whatever.
You want to be in some business, you do not want to give your trade
secrets to anybody else, you want to keep closed source, you don't
want anybody else to be able to port your software to other platforms
you find strategically uncomfortable. In short, you want to do just
as Microsoft does. Which may be fine, but why do you call yourself a
community helper and good guy for it?
You want to base your business on Linux, fine. But for the sort of
business you want to do, you need not feel like God's gift to
programmers. You certainly can feel free to behave the Microsoft way,
but I find it silly for you to demand that we would feel proud of you
for it.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Public license question
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 13:30:31 GMT
On Wed, 03 Mar 1999 10:03:00 GMT, Mark Mokryn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>In article <4x2D2.3640$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> It's a good thing that you don't claim to know law, because it's pretty
>> clear that you don't know copyright law very well.
>Okay, guys... as the originator of this thread, I must protest - this
>discussion is not what I intended. I assume that at least the vast
>majority of us, if not all of us, are engineers, and not (thank god)
>lawyers. So let's cut the legalese bullshit, since that's exactly what
>it is. Please, let's talk in more concrete terms we can all
>understand.
The problem is that you can't separate the issues.
When you start talking about licensing, you *are* talking about a
matter that is quite firmly in the legal arena, and is not "simply" a
matter of engineering.
>My original question pertained to the intent of the GPL. Can one indeed make
>money on a project based on the Linux platform? And I do not mean to make
>money the Red Hat way, i.e. open up the source code and sell support. For
>argument's sake, let's say I intend to build a proprietary box (e.g.
>super-duper new video server) running on some OS, possibly Linux. Of course,
>an open-source OS can really help, and I can promise to release any
>modifications to the existing OS platform. I would most certainly not want to
>release the codebase to my project, however. I understand some of you may
>say, "wow, evil dude, does not give back to the community." Well, I would
>contend that I am actually helping the community by basing a serious project
>on Linux, and putting people's good work to use. Think of me as the good
>little guy, who does not want Micros**t, for example, to come around
>demanding my source code, so they can learn from it, and build a similar
>project on NT, thus driving me out of business. The prospect of this may
>cause one to seek another platform (even Windows!), which would not require
>everything to be released.
The critical question is whether or not the work that this project
produces is either:
a) An independent work that happens to run layered atop other code
that may be licensed under the GPL, or
b) A work *derived* from code licensed under the GPL.
Note that again, this is not an engineering issue, nor is it
forcibly an ethical issue (although there are ethical questions
that can usefully be asked), but is again quite firmly in the legal
arena.
The crucial question is of whether, from a legal/licensing
perspective, the work is derived from GPLed code. If so, then the GPL
must be extended to cover the project's code (or at least the portions
of the project's code that are thus derived). If not, then not.
--
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] (Edwin Johnson)
Subject: Re: aps or magicfilter?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 3 Mar 1999 14:21:23 GMT
I use apsfilter and it does everything I need with Ghostscript, but I've
never used magicfilter.
...Edwin
On 3 Mar 1999 01:49:00 GMT, Peter Caffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Which filter is best used for printing aps or magicfilter?
>
>Magicfilter is very easy and has a lot of supported printers.
>OTOH, I haven't tried APS so I can't comment on it.
>
>--: _ _ _ _
> _oo__ |_|_ |__ _ | _ |_|_o _ pc at it dot net dot a u |
>//`'\_ | (/_|(/_| |_(_|| | || | it.net.au/~pc |
>/
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Edwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~
~ http://www.prysm.net/~elj ~
~ ~
~ "Once you have flown, you will walk the ~
~ earth with your eyes turned skyward, ~
~ for there you have been, there you long ~
~ to return." -- da Vinci ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
