Re: RH9 - setting up to a print server????
On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 22:53, Brian Riley (maillist) wrote: This would defeat the whole purpose of having the print server, Then go with the first setup I described. I only mentioned SMB because its also an option. C ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Red Hat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 12:55:14 -0400 Tom Fogal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: why does one need support for a[/any] linux distribution? With respect to the other posts, I think that it is important for Linux to be commercially available. By this I mean supported by an entity that can provide support services to its clients. For this to happen, the Linux distro companies must be economically viable. - -- Jerry Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/gWqN+wA+1cUGHqkRAu48AJ9UJN5kuzfAvqiuOxEYxLWXd6qLhgCeOhhi 8cj144BnfrwolyWdMtLCuhY= =uEPT -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Red Hat
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 10:17:57 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, at 7:46pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Debian. Long release cycles, stable, testing, and bleeding edge versions all available for the same price ($0), and a ton of community support :) Unfortunately, also near-zero support from major third-party vendors, who need a traditional company and a traditional product to do business with. :-( These same problems, BTW, apply to the new RHL. With these changes by Red Hat, we're re-evaluating our plans here at Net Technologies. I'm seriously considering Debian [...] This is a large and complex question. In fact, an entire industry is wrestling with it. I can make one contribution, however: a reminder that whenever support and Debian occur in the same sentence, Libranet should come to mind. -Bill ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Proposed Software Monopoly Press Release
To the Citizens Against Government Waste, the state officials of Massachusetts, and others Paul Lussier's defense of the Massachusetts initiative for free software does not go far enough, because it endorses a grave error: the idea that government decisions about software should be based only on quality and cost, disregarding more important issues such as freedom and sovereignty. The point of free software is to give computer users the freedom to form communities and cooperate voluntarily. Free software is a matter of freedom, not price: it means you have the freedom to use, study, change and redistribute the software. Governments should must this freedom just as you and I should. With free software, the users (invidually and collectively) control what their software does. With non-free software, the developer controls it, and keeps you and the other users divided and helpless. To consider only practical quality and cost when choosing software, disregarding freedom and self-determination, is folly. To protect its sovereignty from private parties, the government must maintain full control of the software it uses. Using non-free software hands control over government operations to the software developer. This violates the government's basic obligation to its citizens. For instance, most voting machines include non-free software. There are suspicions that some elections have been rigged by the voting machine companies, whose executives have close paritisan ties. According to http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0309/S00131.htm, Attempts to examine the code used by the machines in Florida were blocked in the courts by the GOP citing, proprietary/trade secrecy protections under a law, which made it impossible for the DNC to ascertain how the machines tabulated votes. Using non-free software means you don't control what your own computers do. In this case, the state does not control what its voting machines do, but losing control over other state operations is also unacceptable. The state has a responsibility to control all its computers, which means using exclusively free software on them. But there is more at stake than that. A government has a duty to lead its its populace in the direction of freedom and well-being. That is the government's overall mission. Each government agency has a specific job to do, and should it carry out efficiently, using public money carefully. But they should not do this to the neglect of the government's overall mission. By choosing free software, the government can encourage the public to move towards free software. In the long run, this will save the citizens tremendous amounts of money. The claims that free software is more expensive to run come from organizations with financial tis to Microsoft, and are suspect; anyway, the issue is irrelevant to individuals' home computers. But more than that, widespread use of free software will build programming skills and promote self-reliance. The US Army was able to replace horses with trucks in World War II because many of America's young men had been tinkering with cars for years. They did this of their own choice, but they had the option to tinker and learn because they could get the plans, open the hood, and make changes. Free software gives the young people of America a similar opportunity to build skills. Non-free software, whose insides are a private secret, denies the public the opportunity to tinker and learn. It weakens the country, and it weakens the state economically. I hope that Citizens Against Government Waste will recognize that the investment of switching government and society to freedom-respecting software is a wise one, and will direct its efforts toward true waste. Massachusetts, and other states in the US, ought to adopt a strict policy of moving to free software, with few or no exceptions, and first and foremost to do so in the schools. Sincerely, Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation MacArthur fellow ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Red Hat
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 10:17:57AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's at least one project that exists to independently build binary RPMs for RHEL, from the SRPMs which RHS must, by law, provide. See: http://www2.uibk.ac.at/zid/software/unix/linux/rhel-rebuild-l.html http://www2.uibk.ac.at/zid/software/unix/linux/rhel-rebuild.htm RH only needs to provide the source for software with GPL, LGPL, or similar licenses. RH does not need to provide the source for software with BSD-like licenses. For instance, I ran into this with Ensim and Apache. Ensim distributes there own Apache binary RPM, but not the associated SRPM, since Apache's license does not require them to do so. -- Bob Bell ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Red Hat
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, at 1:03pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: RH only needs to provide the source for software with GPL, LGPL, or similar licenses. A, good point. Red Hat, so far, has always maintained that they will provide source for all of their Open Source products, even non-GPL ones, but there is certainly no law keeping them from changing their policy... -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | | not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. | | All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Hosstraders report
Hello list, As mentioned previously, GNHLUG had a booth at the Fall 2003 Hosstraders. We sold a lot of Linux CDs -- approximately 130 discs. Any money left over after expenses will be added to the GNHLUG General Fund. (I'm assuming we have a General Fund. If not, we'll have to create one.) We also answered many questions, and told lots of people about GNHLUG, so hopefully we will have some new members joining us soon! I want to extend my personal thanks to everyone who helped out, especially Mike Ledoux, and, of course, Jon maddog Hall, who paid for the tickets and the table rentals (again). For more information on Hosstraders, or how amateur radio and Linux go together, see: http://wiki.gnhlug.org/twiki2/bin/view/Www/HamRadio See you again next year! -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Red Hat
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, at 9:37am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: With these changes by Red Hat, we're re-evaluating our plans here at Net Technologies. I'm seriously considering Debian, but the lack of support from our vendors (e.g., Dell) means other problems. Vendors schmendors. Nice to say. I'm afraid most of our clients don't agree. Nor would I advise them to. When you're business is on the line, you don't play games like that. Additionally, we're a small company, and we don't have the resources for massive in-house support engineering efforts. -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | | not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. | | All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Red Hat
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, at 10:43am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Debian... ... near-zero support from major third-party vendors ... ... whenever support and Debian occur in the same sentence, Libranet should come to mind ... Clarification: I'm not referring to getting support in administering Debian. *We* can do that. I'm referring to how third-party companies (in our case, especially system vendors like Dell, Compaq, et. al.) support the software. As in providing pre-compiled drivers, kernel support, specs, software utilities and diagnostics, engineering level tech support, etc. Most large companies cannot handle the idea of a software platform that doesn't have a company like Red Hat promoting it. They also take issue with some of Debian's policies. -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | | not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. | | All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Hosstraders report
I'd like to take a moment to thank Ben, Maddog, Mike, and all the others who put their very valuable time into these activities. It does wonders for the group, but most importantly, it gets the word out and establishes a good and friendly foundation among the more knowledgeable users. We get this investment back with interest! --Bruce On Mon, 2003-10-06 at 17:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello list, As mentioned previously, GNHLUG had a booth at the Fall 2003 Hosstraders. We sold a lot of Linux CDs -- approximately 130 discs. Any money left over after expenses will be added to the GNHLUG General Fund. (I'm assuming we have a General Fund. If not, we'll have to create one.) We also answered many questions, and told lots of people about GNHLUG, so hopefully we will have some new members joining us soon! I want to extend my personal thanks to everyone who helped out, especially Mike Ledoux, and, of course, Jon maddog Hall, who paid for the tickets and the table rentals (again). For more information on Hosstraders, or how amateur radio and Linux go together, see: http://wiki.gnhlug.org/twiki2/bin/view/Www/HamRadio See you again next year! -- Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
