I installed a Hylafax server in out Ubuntu 6.06
I can now send fax via winprint. But the problem is the output from the fax
machine is not that clear and it keeps on repeatedly resending the fax. My
modem is a d-link DFM-560EL serial external modem
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 1:22 AM
Subject: PLUG Digest, Vol 16, Issue 54
Send PLUG mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.hosting.qsr.com.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of PLUG digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: OT: asti.dost (Daniel Escasa)
2. Re: accessing LAN station from the internet
(Richard Jason R. Raquepo)
3. pi-el-di-ti blocking access to a website? (ES DC)
4. Re: open source bill (manny)
5. Re: open source bill (Paolo Alexis Falcone)
6. Re: open source bill (Dean Michael Berris)
7. Re: open source bill (Dean Michael Berris)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 14:38:36 +0800
From: "Daniel Escasa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [plug] Re: OT: asti.dost
To: "Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical Discussion List"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Why do you need, if I may ask, to contact the domain adminstrators of
the .gov.ph and .edu.ph domains? If it's to register, their
application forms are at https://dns.gov.ph and
http://dns.ph.net/registration.pl respectively. Otherwise, the contact
information for the .gov.ph domain administrator is off the Contact Us
link on the registration page, and that of the .edu.ph administrator,
at the bottom of each .ph.net page (I think).
--
Daniel O. Escasa
independent IT consultant and writer
contributor, Free Software Magazine (http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com)
personal blog at http://descasa.i.ph
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 18:11:54 +0800
From: "Richard Jason R. Raquepo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [plug] accessing LAN station from the internet
To: "Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical Discussion List"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
try hamachi - http://www.hamachi.cc
hth,
Richard
Jacques wrote:
scenario:
box 1: (mybox.org) // accessible from the internet
1 static PUBLIC IP address (eth0)
1 local ip address (eth1)
running centos 4
mail server (postfix/dovecot)
web server (apache)
shorewall / iptables
firewall/gateway
DNS (caching only nameserver)
box 2:
1 local ip address
mail server
windows SBS 2003
web server
exchange server
Goal:
box2 should also be accessible to internet maybe as
sub-domain of mybox.org. Exchange server should be
accessible by users ms-outlook via subdomain.mybox.org
so that the web and mail server from box1 will not be
affected. box1 will accept all the emails, box2 will
update it emails from box1, all exchange user will
update thier ms-outlook via box2, and exchange webmail
should also be access via subdomain.mybox.org in case
user access it from cafe`s, but there is only one (1)
public IP available.
Question:
1.) Is this possible?
2.) what are the system configuration involved that
this two box's work parallel like they have their own
individual public IP?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
[email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: ES DC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [plug] pi-el-di-ti blocking access to a website?
To: [email protected]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello,
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this but here goes.
Who do I call to report pi-el-di-ti blocking off access to one particular
website? 3 of my pi-el-di-ti-di-es-el connected offices cannot access it.
And here at home if I don't use a proxy, I won't be able to access it.
Right now I can access it on my laptop through an anonymous proxy.
Without proxy I get "Server not found"
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call
rates.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
https://lists.hosting.qsr.com.ph/mailman/private/plug/attachments/20060714/3c7bf6a7/attachment.html
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:13:26 +0800 (PHT)
From: manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [plug] open source bill
To: "Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical Discussion List"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
At any rate, I don't see still why government should only use free
software still when proprietary "source available" _locally developed_
software does the job as well if not better than open source software.
"Souce available" doesn't necessarily mean that the source caa be
modified and that the resulting compiled binary can be redeployed.
Therefore, "source available" software does not necessarily "do the job"
as well as open source software. It lacks one of the very features that
makes open source software a powerful tool.
God bless!
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 00:39:24 +0800
From: Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [plug] open source bill
To: "Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical Discussion List"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 23:20 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
On 11 Jul 2006 22:45:48 +0100, Ciaran O'Riordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Andre John Cruz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > which is exactly Dean's point. it's stupid to make it a requirement to
> > use
> > *ONLY* GPL
>
> I don't think anyone suggested that governments should make a
> requirement to
> use only GPL. On that point, we all agree.
>
There was discussion on the use of "Free Software" which is a very
misleading term usually connotated to software under the GNU GPL. I
for one am just being cautious about making the mistake of restricting
the software to be proposed "favored" by government.
There is nothing wrong if government favors a solution - as long as it
will favor the better welfare of its constituents (how government really
does that mandate is another matter that we could discuss over a few
bottles of beer though).
Economically speaking, Free Software for general infrastructure is very
favorable for a developing nation. It's quite cheaper to acquire and
maintain, and government would have lots of choices to source its
requirements. Expanding it as more people get skilled in the
technologies would be also favorable as government would have the rights
over the code, and can choose without getting their hands tied to a
single vendor.
Progressively speaking, having people trained to become producers of
software infrastructure rather than mere users and consumers of
proprietary software infrastructure is indeed favorable for a developing
nation - no country ever developed by just importing and consuming - a
nation must produce as well.
Although there wasn't a suggestion, I was merely being prudent about
the use of the appropriate terms granted that it was going to be for
the purpose of writing the bill. :)
> The disagreement arises over whether governments should use proprietary
> software, or should they only use free software. I argue for the
> latter,
> with my reasoning and implementation in my previous post:
> http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20060707.150213.050c0de4.en.html
>
I'm sorry if I glossed over that reply, I have a hard time reading
Tagalog/Filipino -- and forgive me if I didn't understand what you
mean in that reply.
At any rate, I don't see still why government should only use free
software still when proprietary "source available" _locally developed_
software does the job as well if not better than open source software.
But then I think that's just me.
Having source code is useless for government if the government does not
have the right to reuse it freely to further the public interest. With
the source code under a Free Software license, the source code isn't
merely present - it now becomes an enabler. That, along with the right
people who could use the code - which government can choose freely,
would serve the public interest better.
--
Paolo Alexis Falcone
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:09:11 +0800
From: "Dean Michael Berris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [plug] open source bill
To: "Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical Discussion List"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 7/15/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Souce available" doesn't necessarily mean that the source caa be
modified and that the resulting compiled binary can be redeployed.
Therefore, "source available" software does not necessarily "do the job"
as well as open source software. It lacks one of the very features that
makes open source software a powerful tool.
Okay, now I get it. But then again, it's a catch 22 -- if the software
that does the job is not under any open source license, and the
government will require all software to be used/acquired to be under
an open source license, what will be done?
This is precisly why I think making a bill that will require
government to use only open source software is a big hindrance to
_measurable_ productivity and progress.
I still believe that the Philippine government cannot afford to be
choosy of the solutions that work, since we still have problems with
delivering basic services to the constituency. If it comes from
Microsoft and costs lots of money but works and does the job, then why
should we stop that solution from being used because of a
_philosophical difference_?
Don't get me wrong, I love open source software, and develop open
source software myself. But the thing is, I don't think _our_
government should favor it or require it be the only type of software
to be used.
--
Dean Michael C. Berris
C/C++ Software Architect
Orange and Bronze Software Labs
http://3w-agility.blogspot.com/
http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/
Mobile: +639287291459
Email: dean [at] orangeandbronze [dot] com
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:22:17 +0800
From: "Dean Michael Berris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [plug] open source bill
To: "Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Technical Discussion List"
<[email protected]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 7/15/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 23:20 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>
> There was discussion on the use of "Free Software" which is a very
> misleading term usually connotated to software under the GNU GPL. I
> for one am just being cautious about making the mistake of restricting
> the software to be proposed "favored" by government.
>
There is nothing wrong if government favors a solution - as long as it
will favor the better welfare of its constituents (how government really
does that mandate is another matter that we could discuss over a few
bottles of beer though).
I like the thought of that discussion happening soon. ;)
Economically speaking, Free Software for general infrastructure is very
favorable for a developing nation. It's quite cheaper to acquire and
maintain, and government would have lots of choices to source its
requirements. Expanding it as more people get skilled in the
technologies would be also favorable as government would have the rights
over the code, and can choose without getting their hands tied to a
single vendor.
Yes, these are big plusses. However, the predicament that we are
currently in -- the government currently using non-open source
solutions that _already work_ and open source solutions (locally
grown) that work but not as well as I personally would like -- we need
to be pragmatic about it.
If a local firm can actually get a fair playing field with regards to
getting a contract sourced to them by developing open source solutions
for goverment software requirements and then develop _quality_
software, that would be a good thing. However, right now, not all open
source development firms in our country owned fully by Filipino
nationals are qualified to bid for government software requirement
projects. If that can be somehow addressed, perhaps that will be a
good thing. But right now, I don't know a lot of firms that can
deliver in case the government _will_ require or favor open source
software for all software requirements in government.
Progressively speaking, having people trained to become producers of
software infrastructure rather than mere users and consumers of
proprietary software infrastructure is indeed favorable for a developing
nation - no country ever developed by just importing and consuming - a
nation must produce as well.
Yes, but this is like sitting in an Ivory Tower. Sure, it would great
to think of the ideal case, but in the real world "training" is
paramount to "doing" -- meaning, there is no better training than
actually doing it.
But please, don't get me wrong -- I would want to see the Philippines
be treated as one of the premiere software development source
countries alongside India and the US. However, I don't think it's the
government's job to make that happen: it ultimately has to be done by
us, the entrepreneurs and the youth that will drive the economy and
growth of the nation, and eventually in the future run it. Until then,
I personally will do my share -- but I don't let myself get
disillusioned by the politics that is involved with getting anything
done in _our_ government today and avoid making mistakes (IMO) such as
requiring or unconditionally favoring open source software in the
government.
>
> At any rate, I don't see still why government should only use free
> software still when proprietary "source available" _locally developed_
> software does the job as well if not better than open source software.
> But then I think that's just me.
Having source code is useless for government if the government does not
have the right to reuse it freely to further the public interest. With
the source code under a Free Software license, the source code isn't
merely present - it now becomes an enabler. That, along with the right
people who could use the code - which government can choose freely,
would serve the public interest better.
Then a bill favoring Free Software license is not the solution: the
solution would be a bill/law that will require that all software
developed for government under a valid contract have as part of the
stipulations the source code be turned over and made available for
reuse and modification by the government, or a third party found to be
suitable to extend the software in the future. This bill should not
have anything to do with open source licenses, but rather the
definition of the stipulations of contracts undertaken by the
Philippine government.
--
Dean Michael C. Berris
C/C++ Software Architect
Orange and Bronze Software Labs
http://3w-agility.blogspot.com/
http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/
Mobile: +639287291459
Email: dean [at] orangeandbronze [dot] com
------------------------------
_________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
[email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
End of PLUG Digest, Vol 16, Issue 54
************************************
_________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
[email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
