On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 12:20:05AM -0600, Daniel Timpson wrote:
Is there any way to make an RPM from the binaries that
I just got done compiling? Or do I have to create a SPEC file and
rebuild Quanta again with rpmbuild? Thoughts? Suggestions?
Thanks,
I've never used it, but it looks
I use it with most of the software that I install from tarballs, it works great.
On Apr 6, 2005 1:05 AM, Barry Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 12:20:05AM -0600, Daniel Timpson wrote:
Is there any way to make an RPM from the binaries that
I just got done compiling?
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 00:20 -0600, Daniel Timpson wrote:
So I'm running NLD (Novell Linux Desktop) and by default it doesn't
come with Quanta, a very good editor for web stuff. I decided to go
ahead and compile it from scratch. Over an hour later, voila Quanta
was installed. Is there any
OK, so I know you all read /. and don't need me to point this out. In
case you didn't see it, this is pretty interesting:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/4966
It will be interesting to see how things work out. I feel both good and
bad about it.
Gabe
.===.
| This
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 13:34 -0600, Gabriel Gunderson wrote:
OK, so I know you all read /. and don't need me to point this out. In
case you didn't see it, this is pretty interesting:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/4966
It will be interesting to see how things work out. I feel both good and
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 12:51 -0700, Stuart Jansen wrote:
I've already handed out some I told you sos on #utah, but I guess
I'm still good for a few more.
Was there any doubt?
;)
Gabe
.===.
| This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
| Don't Fear the Penguin.
Josh Coates wrote:
i read open source zealots ripped off (ie. stole) bitkeeper by illegally
reverse engineering it, which resulted in bitmover killing their free
version of the product.
So, is it really illegal to reverse engineer something even if its a
license agreement (non-signed contract)?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Steve Dibb
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 14:41
To: Provo Linux Users Group Mailing List
Subject: Re: Slashdot feed...
Josh Coates wrote:
i read open source zealots ripped off (ie. stole)
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 02:14:50PM -0600, Josh Coates wrote:
what i got out of the article was something a little different.
i read open source zealots ripped off (ie. stole) bitkeeper by illegally
reverse engineering it, which resulted in bitmover killing their free
version of the
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 14:47 -0600, Gary Thornock wrote:
.| This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
| Don't Fear the Penguin. |
| IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net |
`
How come your footer looks different then this one:
.===.
| This has been a P.L.U.G.
Gary Thornock wrote:
It's not illegal per se. If it were, BitMover would be suing
(or, at least, they'd have legal standing to sue) OSDL. On the
other hand, it does go against the original agreement between
BitMover and Linus, where they said we'll provide you with our
product and space on our
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 15:04, Steve Dibb wrote:
Okay, that makes sense then ... and explain why it mentioned the OSDL
employees in the article, which, at first it seemed like it wouldn't
matter.
They just came down on them because Employee A works at OSDL, but at night, he
works on a
Wow! I don't know if I've ever seen that argument turned around like
that. Usually it's the company fighting to own what the employee does
in their spare time. I hear Sears owns several of their Craftsman tools
due to that argument.
Jesse
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stuart Jansen wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 14:14 -0600, Josh Coates wrote:
I was wearing my repeat victim of proprietary software
just trying to accomplish something and move the economy forward
productively glasses.
I can understand the repeat victim part. We have all experienced that
(sjansen)
You saw OSDL employee tries to compete with BitMover. I saw, BitMover
tried to force its will on a user.
as usual, thoughtful and well said.
but in this case, you are wrong! (except for the part about the glasses..)
;-)
what i see is OSDL employee break the law
and imo, what you see is
Josh, you seem to be a BitKeeper apologist. If you don't like that
label, please explain to us why you're not because we want to give you
the benefit of the doubt.
Larry explained that a contracter still under pay from OSDL for an
unrelated project was also actively working on reverse engineering
Stuart Jansen wrote:
I was wearing my repeat victim of proprietary software
just trying to accomplish something and move the economy forward
productively glasses.
Way to move your cause forward by tacking on a positive but unproven
clause to your argument. How does avoiding proprietary software
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 17:44 -0600, Hans Fugal wrote:
The take-home lesson here is that a proprietary license for
a beer-free product can not be trusted like an open source license can.
Exactly. (With, of course, the OSS v. Free Software semantics.)
No matter how much it looks like the owner
A bit off-topic but Id like to get the lists feedback about Northface U.
A little Background: I am the typical self-taught utah admin / developer
(if I dare go that far) and since leaving my last position I have been
assessing my skills. What NU offers for cirriculum and the length of the
I'm going to disagree with you on two points.
snip off-topic inflammatory partisan remarks
To the extent that it is strong, it is so in part due to the Internet.
And that in turn runs heavily on OSS. Cases in point, Apache, Linux,
sendmail, emacs.
the economy is also strong in part due to
20 matches
Mail list logo
