Re: [opensuse] Ballmer: Linux users owe Microsoft
On 11/17/06, JJ Gitties
On 11/17/06, Saill White
wrote: At the same time, to the vast credit of the Novell developers it looks like Nat Friedman and Miguel de Icaza are fighting fiercely for a rewording of the agreement:
http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonmatusow/archive/2006/11/11/your-input-requested.a...
good for them.
-- jjgitties,
"*We* need to convince OpenSUSE to fork, or let 'em die. To bad, it is a wonderful Distro. But their parent company is NOT our friend."
-- jjgitties, "*We* need to convince OpenSUSE to fork, or let 'em die. To bad, it is a wonderful Distro. But their parent company is NOT our friend." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 11/17/06, JJ Gitties
"*We* need to convince OpenSUSE to fork, or let 'em die. To bad, it is a wonderful Distro. But their parent company is NOT our friend."
I'm sorry, but I think that is idiotic. I personally want linux to make headway into the corp world. That's what Novell is trying to do. This deal *may* have been a mistake, but to trumpet splitting now is tantamount to giving in. At some point "the community" has to figure out how to accomodate the demands of the corp/commercial world without having it's feelings bruised. Right now, more than anything, what we need to do is help Novell make this work ... whether that be by changing the terms of the agreement, or figuring out how to make it clear that the commercial sector is pleased and that there is no real threat to FOSS ... Helping Novell is helping the community. Perhaps Novell need to turn around on MS right now, and challenge them to bring suit --- dare them to sue Novell for the supposed "IP infringements". Make it a put up or shut up situation. But to fork suse now? Mistake ... Peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 17 November 2006 19:43, Peter Van Lone wrote:
On 11/17/06, JJ Gitties
wrote: "*We* need to convince OpenSUSE to fork, or let 'em die. To bad, it is a wonderful Distro. But their parent company is NOT our friend."
I'm sorry, but I think that is idiotic.
I personally want linux to make headway into the corp world. That's what Novell is trying to do. This deal *may* have been a mistake, but to trumpet splitting now is tantamount to giving in.
Pruned
Peter
The ONLY headway bieng made so far is microSlopS into making a fast buck out of Linux . You talk of headway into the corperate sector well .. Fix the miriad of major show stoppers that were 10.1 and as far as i can see they are still there infesting 10.2 . Suse will never get anywhere with the hacked together bits like the painfully loathesome updater fiasco that was in 10.1 the self same infestation seems to have followed thru into 10.2 it MAY have a few more manners now but it is STILL there clutsing up the system , The original YOU update system may not have been the best thing sinced (British) sliced Bread but it was far better than zmd and friends . OpenSuse should fork and it should Retain the SuSe trademark and the Original ideals . Novell was a bad idea from day one Pete . Suse 10.0 x86-64 with no unwanted infestations . -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 11/17/06, Peter Nikolic
You talk of headway into the corperate sector well .. Fix the miriad of major show stoppers that were 10.1 and as far as i can see they are still there infesting 10.2 .
yup. it there a good reason why YOU is still breaking everytime I update? :-( -- jjgitties, "*We* need to convince OpenSUSE to fork, or let 'em die. To bad, it is a wonderful Distro. But their parent company is NOT our friend." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
* JJ Gitties
yup. it there a good reason why YOU is still breaking everytime I update?
Probably has something to do with your sig! -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 11/17/06, Patrick Shanahan
* JJ Gitties
[11-17-06 17:03]: yup. it there a good reason why YOU is still breaking everytime I update?
Probably has something to do with your sig!
Really..!! Did you come up with that all on your own or did you get help from the Dominos Pizza delivery guy? Tell the truth... -- jjgitties, "*We* need to convince OpenSUSE to fork, or let 'em die. To bad, it is a wonderful Distro. But their parent company is NOT our friend." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 17 November 2006 14:13, Peter Nikolic wrote:
OpenSuse should fork and it should Retain the SuSe trademark and the Original ideals . Novell was a bad idea from day one Peter... this really is true... and I'm not being sarcastic.
Linux must come from all directions--- not from a single corporation. Novell was a bad idea... because Novell is interested in money instead of being interested in OSS. Yup, its time to strip it back, call it SuSE again (or give it a new name), and head off with a new prong (fork that is). Actually, it is high time for M$ to go away. Actually, it is high time for M$ patents to go away. Actually, it is high time for all software patents to go away. You guys heard it your selves... Ballmer *believes* that Linux contains M$ innovation... wait... the roccos laughter is almost as explosive as the night ALGORE claimed to have invented the Internet.... I'm sick to my stomach. -- Kind regards, M Harris <>< -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
M Harris wrote:
You guys heard it your selves... Ballmer *believes* that Linux contains M$ innovation... wait... the roccos laughter is almost as explosive as the night ALGORE claimed to have invented the Internet.... I'm sick to my stomach.
And that's why the software used to run the Internet is built with Al Gore Rhythms. ;-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 23:36 -0500, James Knott wrote:
M Harris wrote:
You guys heard it your selves... Ballmer *believes* that Linux contains M$ innovation... wait... the roccos laughter is almost as explosive as the night ALGORE claimed to have invented the Internet.... I'm sick to my stomach.
And that's why the software used to run the Internet is built with Al Gore Rhythms. ;-)
And here I thought Gore was white and had no rhythm. I guess you do learn something new every day. -- ___ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ | | | | [__ | | | |___ |_|_| ___] | \/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
M Harris wrote:
On Friday 17 November 2006 14:13, Peter Nikolic wrote:
OpenSuse should fork and it should Retain the SuSe trademark and the Original ideals . Novell was a bad idea from day one Peter... this really is true... and I'm not being sarcastic.
Linux must come from all directions--- not from a single corporation. Novell was a bad idea... because Novell is interested in money instead of being interested in OSS.
Uh, guys, suse was a _commercial_ enterprise, not a community effort. Novell bought a _commercial_ company, therefore owns that _commercial_ trademark. As do a number of other _commercial_ linux vendors, who have done a great deal of good for linux. And, while it may yet turn out to have been a bad thing, that's not really clear yet. I'm not very optimistic about the Novell-Microsoft situation, myself, but please, let's understand what's really going on here, and hope for the best. -- John Perry -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 11/17/06, John E. Perry
Uh, guys, suse was a _commercial_ enterprise, not a community effort. Novell bought a _commercial_ company, therefore owns that _commercial_ trademark. As do a number of other _commercial_ linux vendors, who have done a great deal of good for linux.
And, while it may yet turn out to have been a bad thing, that's not really clear yet. I'm not very optimistic about the Novell-Microsoft situation, myself, but please, let's understand what's really going on here, and hope for the best.
I personally don't think MS will sue anyone. But they are going to put the word out there and make a few people a little queezy about adopting a Linux. I still am in Oliver Stone mode and believe the whole thing is a sham. Hovespian was planted into SUSE by the board to orchestrate the final sale and dismantling of Novell at a decent price. The sooner they fork SUSE the sooner they can get a head start on the project. For all the SUSE fans here, you should be happy of a fork. You will still have a SUSE. I will be first to admit, I have no clue as to how much work and effort is involved in creating a fork of a distro. -- jjgitties, "*We* need to convince OpenSUSE to fork, or let 'em die. To bad, it is a wonderful Distro. But their parent company is NOT our friend." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 00:24:03 AM -0500, JJ Gitties (jj.gitties@gmail.com) wrote:
The sooner they fork SUSE the sooner they can get a head start on the project. For all the SUSE fans here, you should be happy of a fork. You will still have a SUSE.
Forking is either useless or very, very expensive (effort wise) when patents are involved. It only solves easily copyright and trademark issues. E.g., to get Centos from RHEL you must, more or less, only strip and replace all the occurrences of Red Hat strings, logos and similar from the sources and recompile. A semi-automatic process. If Linux violates sw patents, to change ANY Linux distribution to something patent-free you must first *find* all the places in the source where violations occur and then, for each of them, figure out and develop another _algorithm_ to do the same thing. Assuming another way _exists_, of course. Ciao, Marco -- The right way to make everybody love Free Standards and Free Software: http://digifreedom.net/node/73 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 17 November 2006 23:24, M. Fioretti wrote:
E.g., to get Centos from RHEL you must, more or less, only strip and replace all the occurrences of Red Hat strings, logos and similar from the sources and recompile. A semi-automatic process.
Who says you have to do this? Surf on down to your /usr/src/linux/kernel directory and type: grep -i "copyright" *.c Count how many different companies names appear in SUSE's source in just one single directory. Red Hat is in there, along with HP, SGI, and IBM. You need merely add your own copyright, without removing any prior one. In fact the GPL seems to require this.
If Linux violates sw patents, to change ANY Linux distribution to something patent-free you must first *find* all the places in the source where violations occur and then, for each of them, figure out and develop another _algorithm_ to do the same thing. Assuming another way _exists_, of course.
If any Linux distro was released under the GPL (and they all are), then any of your patented code you insert in your distro is given free and clear to the community. If you inserted someone elses code, it would have to come out of every distro, and the community would jointly arrive at a solution. Go back and count how many times Red Hat code was forked, TurboLinux, Centos, Mandrake, come quickly to mind, but there are probably 8 others. Its not as expensive as you think. It might take quite a while to break even, and start making money, but even Mepis is profitable on the scale that the choose to operate. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 00:16:43 AM -0900, John Andersen (jsa@pen.homeip.net) wrote:
On Friday 17 November 2006 23:24, M. Fioretti wrote:
E.g., to get Centos from RHEL you must, more or less, only strip and replace all the occurrences of Red Hat strings, logos and similar from the sources and recompile. A semi-automatic process.
Who says you have to do this?
Nobody less than Red Hat itself (http://www.redhat.com/about/companyprofile/trademark/) and the Centos developers: http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=2 "(CentOS mainly changes packages to remove upstream vendor branding and artwork)"
Surf on down to your /usr/src/linux/kernel directory and type: grep -i "copyright" *.c
Count how many different companies names appear in SUSE's source in
This (copyright on the source code or modified versions of it) has NOTHING to do with what I am talking about. Hmm, my fault here, I probably confused you when I said "Red Hat strings". I only meant those with trademark function, not those in the copyright notices. A distribution is more than source code: icons, logos, registered names... If you want to create a new distribution from an existing one you have to do more than just adding or preserving copyright notices to source code.
If any Linux distro was released under the GPL (and they all are),
Wrong. Here you are confusing the license on the Linux kernel with the one of everything else shipped in the same DVD. A distro is a software *bundle*, and there are lots of them which bundle GPL and proprietary packages. One of the proofs of this is the fact that the FSF itself only endorses as (entirely) "Free as in Freedom" _some_ Gnu/Linux distributions. Heck, even stiching to SUSE, YAST became GPL only in 2004.
then any of your patented code you insert in your distro is given free and clear to the community. If you inserted someone elses code, it would have to come out of every distro, and the community would jointly arrive at a solution.
and here you are confusing copyright with patents. Please re-read my previous messages in this thread. If sw patents were as easy as you seem to imply to neutralize, the whole Novell-MS story would have never happened. Ciao, Marco -- The right way to make everybody love Free Standards and Free Software: http://digifreedom.net/node/73 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
At 09:24 AM 11/18/2006 +0100, M. Fioretti wrote:
Content-Disposition: inline
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 00:24:03 AM -0500, JJ Gitties (jj.gitties@gmail.com) wrote:
The sooner they fork SUSE the sooner they can get a head start on the project. For all the SUSE fans here, you should be happy of a fork. You will still have a SUSE.
Forking is either useless or very, very expensive (effort wise) when patents are involved. It only solves easily copyright and trademark issues.
E.g., to get Centos from RHEL you must, more or less, only strip and replace all the occurrences of Red Hat strings, logos and similar from the sources and recompile. A semi-automatic process.
If Linux violates sw patents, to change ANY Linux distribution to something patent-free you must first *find* all the places in the source where violations occur and then, for each of them, figure out and develop another _algorithm_ to do the same thing. Assuming another way _exists_, of course.
Ciao, Marco
It would seem to be relatively simple to find patent violations: just wait until MS sues RedHat. Since they use the same Linux as anybody else, with just their own tweaks added, you would then know what code they think is infringing. OTOH, if they _don't_ sue Redhat, they probably wouldn't sue anybody else. (Nobody else has enough money or enough of the market to make it worthwhile.) --doug -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
<snip>
It would seem to be relatively simple to find patent violations: just wait until MS sues RedHat. Does that mean we now know just what parts of Linux violate SCO's
On 2006-11-18 16:44, Doug McGarrett wrote: patents/copyrights/whatever? :-) -- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
The sooner they fork SUSE the sooner they can get a head start on the project. For all the SUSE fans here, you should be happy of a fork. You will still have a SUSE.
If Novell were to become unable to distribute the software, then so would every other linux distributor, a fork would not save you. The only thing that could prevent Novell from distributing the software is the GPL section which prevents distribution of patent encumbered software without obtaining a licence for everyone to use freely. "If, as a consequence of a court judgment *or allegation of patent infringement* or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, *then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.*" Novell's stated position is that the GPLed software they distribute does not infringe Microsoft's patents, and if any infringements are found they will remove them. Indeed they must, or they cannot satisfy the requirements of the above section. The agreement with Microsoft does not let them off the hook and allow them to distribute infringing software. So if Microsoft alleges patent infringement in specific code it must be removed, Novell cannot continue to distribute it (to the US) neither can Debian, or Ubuntu, or a SUSE fork, as they cannot grant their distributees the right to freely distribute it. Forking or using another distribution will not change anything.
I will be first to admit, I have no clue as to how much work and effort is involved in creating a fork of a distro.
Indeed, apart from being an entirely pointless exercise as the fork would be just as illegal to distribute as the original, it would also never happen. I don't think you realise how small the non-suse community is so far. And how few resources it has. If you think they could provide dozens of packagers to package the wealth of software SUSE currently distribute, produce the funds to Fund hardware for core mirror infrastructure, Build service, bugzilla, mailing lists, and everything else that is involved you are deluding yourself.
"*We* need to convince OpenSUSE to fork, or let 'em die. To bad, it is a wonderful Distro. But their parent company is NOT our friend."
A tip, if you're going to use a sig that makes you sound like an idiot anyway, at least try to use correct spelling and grammar. _ Benjamin Weber -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 18 November 2006 02:21, B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
I will be first to admit, I have no clue as to how much work and effort is involved in creating a fork of a distro.
Indeed, apart from being an entirely pointless exercise as the fork would be just as illegal to distribute as the original, it would also never happen.
Really? Never? Go look at how many linux distros have sprung up from Debian recently. Why are we running xorg instead of Xfree? Forks happen all the time. A lot go nowhere, and were never intended to. Others come out of left field and smack you upside the head like Ubuntu. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 02:38:49 AM -0900, John Andersen (jsa@pen.homeip.net) wrote:
On Saturday 18 November 2006 02:21, B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
I will be first to admit, I have no clue as to how much work and effort is involved in creating a fork of a distro.
Indeed, apart from being an entirely pointless exercise as the fork would be just as illegal to distribute as the original, it would also never happen.
Really? Never? Go look at how many linux distros have sprung up from Debian recently. Why are we running xorg instead of Xfree?
Because XFree was developed, packaged and maintained in a way that pissed a lot of developers and distro packagers off. That's common knowledge, and this (the patents parts of the Novell-MS deal) an entirely different issue. You keep confusing copyright with patents, see my other message. Ciao, Marco -- The right way to make everybody love Free Standards and Free Software: http://digifreedom.net/node/73 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 18 November 2006 03:13, M. Fioretti wrote:
Indeed, apart from being an entirely pointless exercise as the fork would be just as illegal to distribute as the original, it would also never happen.
Really? Never? Go look at how many linux distros have sprung up from Debian recently. Why are we running xorg instead of Xfree?
Because XFree was developed, packaged and maintained in a way that pissed a lot of developers and distro packagers off. That's common knowledge, and this (the patents parts of the Novell-MS deal) an entirely different issue. You keep confusing copyright with patents, see my other message.
I'm not confusing anything Marco, I'm simply pointing out that the reasons for forks in the past have been MUCH LESS than the MS/Novell situation. I think the patents issue is a red herring, until and unless something, ANYTHING, can be shown to infringe. Its not germane to the discussion about people wanting to fork. <fire retardant> I'm not suggesting a fork, and not in favor of one, I simply am expressing the opinion that forks happen all the time, sometimes for very little reason, and there is no reason to think it unthinkable. > -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 12:14:26 PM -0900, John Andersen (jsa@pen.homeip.net) wrote:
I'm not confusing anything Marco, I'm simply pointing out that the reasons for forks in the past have been MUCH LESS than the MS/Novell situation.
Duh. Of course they happened for much less, like which desktop or window manager is the default one. But *only* because it was *much* easier to do in those cases.
I think the patents issue is a red herring,
There are two very distinct "patents issues" in this story: 1) "Linux does actually violate some sw patents" 2) "I explicitly act and speak as if #1 were true, to get some quick cash from MS _and_ screw my competitors" Like you, I am almost sure that #1 is indeed false, in the sense that if there had been ground for it, MS would have started a trial years ago without trying the SCO route. But regardless of the existence of issue #1, or my opinion of it, one can indeed be pissed at Novell for #2. Ciao, Marco -- The right way to make everybody love Free Standards and Free Software: http://digifreedom.net/node/73 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Hi guys! Don't you think that Suse has a strong community worldwide? I believe that the community of Suse can make the fork happens, and sustain it. I see how much difficult it should be, but we can forget how our movement is organized. We are a movement of colaboration, and i believe we are able to do it with cooperation of each single community of users and developers in the world. Don't you think? Sorry my bad english! Alencar (Brasil) John Andersen wrote:
On Saturday 18 November 2006 02:21, B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
I will be first to admit, I have no clue as to how much work and effort is involved in creating a fork of a distro.
Indeed, apart from being an entirely pointless exercise as the fork would be just as illegal to distribute as the original, it would also never happen.
Really? Never? Go look at how many linux distros have sprung up from Debian recently. Why are we running xorg instead of Xfree?
Forks happen all the time. A lot go nowhere, and were never intended to. Others come out of left field and smack you upside the head like Ubuntu.
John Andersen wrote:
On Saturday 18 November 2006 02:21, B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
I will be first to admit, I have no clue as to how much work and effort is involved in creating a fork of a distro.
Indeed, apart from being an entirely pointless exercise as the fork would be just as illegal to distribute as the original, it would also never happen.
Really? Never? Go look at how many linux distros have sprung up from Debian recently. Why are we running xorg instead of Xfree?
Forks happen all the time. A lot go nowhere, and were never intended to. Others come out of left field and smack you upside the head like Ubuntu.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
So if Microsoft alleges patent infringement in specific code it must be removed, Novell cannot continue to distribute it (to the US) neither can Debian, or Ubuntu, or a SUSE fork, as they cannot grant their distributees the right to freely distribute it. Forking or using another distribution will not change anything.
Microsoft can allege all they want. Novell is the only linux distributer that would listen to them. For anyone to think Microsoft might actually be able to prove any patent infringement on any current linux dist in a court of law is ridiculous. Unless that would actually happen I only see the Novell linux dist being bullied by MS. Mark -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 07:55:15 AM -0500, Mark Hounschell (dmarkh@cfl.rr.com) wrote:
Microsoft can allege all they want. Novell is the only linux distributer that would listen to them. For anyone to think Microsoft might actually be able to prove any patent infringement on any current linux dist in a court of law is ridiculous.
For anyone to think that the great majority of end users can financially survive till they see the _end_ of such a trial is ridiculous. Microsoft doesn't need to be right. It only needs to say "we may sue end users, since they'll go bankrupt for legal fees much before the court finds us wrong". Marco -- The right way to make everybody love Free Standards and Free Software: http://digifreedom.net/node/73 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
M. Fioretti wrote:
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 07:55:15 AM -0500, Mark Hounschell (dmarkh@cfl.rr.com) wrote:
Microsoft can allege all they want. Novell is the only linux distributer that would listen to them. For anyone to think Microsoft might actually be able to prove any patent infringement on any current linux dist in a court of law is ridiculous.
For anyone to think that the great majority of end users can financially survive till they see the _end_ of such a trial is ridiculous. Microsoft doesn't need to be right. It only needs to say "we may sue end users, since they'll go bankrupt for legal fees much before the court finds us wrong".
The _end_ would be sure and swift. There would be no trail. It would be dismissed as frivolous. I said nothing about end users anyway. MS wouldn't dare sue me or you for using OS linux. Although you might run and turn all your linux boxes off and claim defeat right away, I have nothing to loose and I would fight to the death. Somehow I don't think I would be alone though. Again though, Novell is a (the only) linux distributor now in bed with MS. You know all the diseases MS carries. What would happen if MS were able to coerce Novell into actually sneaking some of its IP into linux (glibc/kernel etc) only to be 'discovered' at some time convenient to MS? Mark -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 19 November 2006 01:28, Mark Hounschell wrote:
What would happen if MS were able to coerce Novell into actually sneaking some of its IP into linux (glibc/kernel etc) only to be 'discovered' at some time convenient to MS?
Mark
That seems pretty far fetched. Why do it so publicly? If you are into conspiracy theories, heres one for you: It seems more likely to me that Novell caught Microsoft with some GPL code in Vista the day before it went to production and the big hurry up was all about getting SOMETHING in place so that Vista could ship. Then they can work to replace it via normal update means later. I don't buy the Oracle response theory, cuz Microsoft has no product that is competitive with Oracle anyway, so why would they have to respond to that. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
John Andersen wrote:
On Sunday 19 November 2006 01:28, Mark Hounschell wrote:
What would happen if MS were able to coerce Novell into actually sneaking some of its IP into linux (glibc/kernel etc) only to be 'discovered' at some time convenient to MS?
Mark
That seems pretty far fetched. Why do it so publicly?
If you are into conspiracy theories, heres one for you:
Actually I am, but unfortunately, despite 'anything said or read anywhere by anybody', the fact is, MS wants linux gone and nothing it 'intentionally' does is going to help linux or any linux distributer in the long run. Including Novell.
It seems more likely to me that Novell caught Microsoft with some GPL code in Vista the day before it went to production and the big hurry up was all about getting SOMETHING in place so that Vista could ship. Then they can work to replace it via normal update means later.
But Novell, nor anyone else, has the access to MS code that could enable such a find. Unless it was something as obvious as say finding KDE on the desktop. This seems impossible to me.
I don't buy the Oracle response theory, cuz Microsoft has no product that is competitive with Oracle anyway, so why would they have to respond to that.
Agreed. Mark -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mark Hounschell wrote:
John Andersen wrote:
On Sunday 19 November 2006 01:28, Mark Hounschell wrote:
What would happen if MS were able to coerce Novell into actually sneaking some of its IP into linux (glibc/kernel etc) only to be 'discovered' at some time convenient to MS?
That seems pretty far fetched. Why do it so publicly? If you are into conspiracy theories, heres one for you:
Actually I am, but unfortunately, despite 'anything said or read anywhere by anybody', the fact is, MS wants linux gone and nothing it 'intentionally' does is going to help linux or any linux distributer in the long run. Including Novell.
Indeed. But MS is currently very concerned about being booted out of state institutions, and the EU plays a big role here. MS is trying to show that they can "play nice", especially in terms of interoperability. We'll see. Sun has pretty much the same deal with MS since April. There's an interview of Gosling (the father of Java) somewhere on the net where he says that deal hasn't really brought much technical developments in terms of interop. But then, Java/.NET is one thing, Linux/MS is another (active directory, virtualization, etc...)
It seems more likely to me that Novell caught Microsoft with some GPL code in Vista the day before it went to production and the big hurry up was all about getting SOMETHING in place so that Vista could ship. Then they can work to replace it via normal update means later.
Well, who knows. It's possible but far fetched.
But Novell, nor anyone else, has the access to MS code that could enable such a find. Unless it was something as obvious as say finding KDE on the desktop. This seems impossible to me.
Potential patent infringement accusations don't need access to source code. Most of the trivial patents actually cover things like buying with a single click (Amazon).
I don't buy the Oracle response theory, cuz Microsoft has no product that is competitive with Oracle anyway, so why would they have to respond to that.
Agreed.
I wouldn't say that. MS SQL is most probably the worst database in the
industry, but MS definitely considers it a competitive product to
Oracle. And I'm sure Oracle keeps an eye on MS SQL market share as well.
Oracle is also a vendor of a JEE stack and a Java development environment.
Note sure the "JDeveloper vs MS Visual .NET" or "OAS vs ..." .. erm...
IIS? applies, but still, saying that MS has nothing competitive in
Oracle's market segments isn't quite true.
(hm... okay, .NET has nothing comparable to a JEE application server)
cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
On Sunday 19 November 2006 12:44, Mark Hounschell wrote:
But Novell, nor anyone else, has the access to MS code that could enable such a find.
The shared source thing may not be open source, but it is still "source availability". There are quite a few governments and universities out there with read access to the windows source code, who could find copyright violations Patent violations, of course, don't even need source code access -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 19 November 2006 04:31, Anders Johansson wrote:
...
Patent violations, of course, don't even need source code access
How do you figure? Patents are about how something is accomplished as much as what is accomplished. They are about specific mechanisms, not just specific outcomes. Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 19 November 2006 16:35, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Sunday 19 November 2006 04:31, Anders Johansson wrote:
...
Patent violations, of course, don't even need source code access
How do you figure? Patents are about how something is accomplished as much as what is accomplished. They are about specific mechanisms, not just specific outcomes.
Patents are not about how something is accomplished, no. That is copyright. Patents are about what is accomplished. There is no way to design around it. If a particular function is patented, the only way to avoid infringing on the patent is to throw out the patent (or, naturally, invalidating the patent by showing prior art, but that's another story) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 19 November 2006 16:43, Anders Johansson wrote:
on the patent is to throw out the patent (or, naturally, invalidating the
which of course should have read "...to throw out the feature..." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 19 November 2006 07:43, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 19 November 2006 16:35, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Sunday 19 November 2006 04:31, Anders Johansson wrote:
...
Patent violations, of course, don't even need source code access
How do you figure? Patents are about how something is accomplished as much as what is accomplished. They are about specific mechanisms, not just specific outcomes.
Patents are not about how something is accomplished, no. That is copyright. Patents are about what is accomplished. There is no way to design around it. If a particular function is patented, the only way to avoid infringing on the patent is to throw out the patent (or, naturally, invalidating the patent by showing prior art, but that's another story)
Copyright is about specific works of authorship. Period. Patents are about mechanisms (now including algorithms). Naturally, mechanisms and algorithms do specific things. But you cannot patent the result. You patent a means of producing that result. Patent infringement means you replicated the patentent mechanism, algorithm or process without a suitable agreements to do so with the patent holder. It is not an infringement to find a new way of doing something for which there is a patent. Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 07:49:47AM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Patents are about mechanisms (now including algorithms). Naturally, mechanisms and algorithms do specific things. But you cannot patent the result. You patent a means of producing that result.
Patent infringement means you replicated the patentent mechanism, algorithm or process without a suitable agreements to do so with the patent holder. It is not an infringement to find a new way of doing something for which there is a patent.
Interesting point... So, just for an example, I'm curious how you "find a new way of doing" such an innovative thing like a progress bar. Please note that there is a big difference from what the patent thingy was meant for (about 100 jears ago) and what they have made of it. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 11/19/2006 07:35 AM, Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Sunday 19 November 2006 04:31, Anders Johansson wrote:
...
Patent violations, of course, don't even need source code access
How do you figure? Patents are about how something is accomplished as much as what is accomplished. They are about specific mechanisms, not just specific outcomes.
Anders is right. One doesn't need access to the code to show a patent violation. Copyright violation, yes, because what is copyrighted is that exact text of the code. A patent reserves the right to use described systems and methods. One might, for instance, patent a method of tagging files so that they can be nicely arranged in different views of a shared file system. One doesn't need to see the code in order to notice that someone else's system is doing that. The patent violation may or may not be obvious to the user, but to someone working on interoperability it may become very apparent, even without source code being evaluated. Here is a list of the US patents assigned to Novell: http://makeashorterlink.com/?D4FC1283E You can do this yourself by going here and entering a company name for "Term 1" and choosing "Assignee Name" for "Field 1": http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html Just for fun, try entering "Microsoft" in Field 1. Given that a patent examiner is allocated four hours to generate the first response to a patent, a lot of these patents step on each others toes a little, which means in a court of law it comes down to lawyers and judges when deciding who infringed on whom. And lawyers and judges are human and as susceptible to FUD, hype and mass hysteria as the rest of us. Also lawyers are very, very expensive. Try calling your lawyer and asking how much it would cost for him to prove that the code in your widget doesn't violate a Microsoft patent. Saill
Randall Schulz
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 19 November 2006 11:32, Saill White wrote: ...
You can do this yourself by going here and entering a company name for "Term 1" and choosing "Assignee Name" for "Field 1": http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html ...
Interesting link. I have feeling that this looks more like the Gordian Knot. Does anyone can explain this one: Apparatus and method for generating and using multi-direction DC and AC electrical currents #7,041,203 I know that current can flow from + to -, also one can reverse polarity and than current will go in opposite way, but still from + to -. If reversal is done periodically than we call that alternating current, but multi-direction DC and AC?! Can someone shed some light on this? -- Regards, Rajko M. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Rajko M wrote:
On Sunday 19 November 2006 11:32, Saill White wrote: ...
You can do this yourself by going here and entering a company name for "Term 1" and choosing "Assignee Name" for "Field 1": http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html
...
Interesting link.
I have feeling that this looks more like the Gordian Knot.
Does anyone can explain this one: Apparatus and method for generating and using multi-direction DC and AC electrical currents #7,041,203
I know that current can flow from + to -, also one can reverse polarity and than current will go in opposite way, but still from + to -. If reversal is done periodically than we call that alternating current, but multi-direction DC and AC?!
Can someone shed some light on this?
Well, for starters, electricity i.e. electrons flows from negative to positive. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 19 November 2006 16:35, James Knott wrote: ...
Well, for starters, electricity i.e. electrons flows from negative to positive.
I thought too, but this makes my knowledge obsolete ;-) -- Regards, Rajko M. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
At 05:09 PM 11/19/2006 -0600, Rajko M wrote:
Content-Disposition: inline
On Sunday 19 November 2006 16:35, James Knott wrote: ...
Well, for starters, electricity i.e. electrons flows from negative to positive.
I thought too, but this makes my knowledge obsolete ;-)
-- Regards, Rajko M.
ELECTRONS flow from a negative point to a more positive point; what is known as "conventional current" --what all engineers design with-- goes from positive to negative. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who made the original mistake, in deciding that current flows from a positive terminal to a negative. It really makes no difference to design calculations, so long as you keep your conventions in mind. --doug -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 19 November 2006 18:09, Doug McGarrett wrote:
At 05:09 PM 11/19/2006 -0600, Rajko M wrote:
Content-Disposition: inline
On Sunday 19 November 2006 16:35, James Knott wrote: ...
Well, for starters, electricity i.e. electrons flows from negative to positive.
I thought too, but this makes my knowledge obsolete ;-)
-- Regards, Rajko M.
ELECTRONS flow from a negative point to a more positive point; what is known as "conventional current" --what all engineers design with-- goes from positive to negative. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who made the original mistake, in deciding that current flows from a positive terminal to a negative. It really makes no difference to design calculations, so long as you keep your conventions in mind.
--doug
That is what I used whole life, but now somebody found new way :-D Please see the other post. It is just so fun to read patent claims that start with "new way to connect multitude of fibers in one composite object" referring to new shaped needle that make sawing easier. -- Regards, Rajko Matovic. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 19 November 2006 18:09, Doug McGarrett wrote:
ELECTRONS flow from a negative point to a more positive point; what is known as "conventional current" --what all engineers design with-- goes from positive to negative. I think it was Benjamin Franklin who made the original mistake, in deciding that current flows from a positive terminal to a negative. It really makes no difference to design calculations, so long as you keep your conventions in mind.
--doug
True - Since in a battery the neg terminal has an excess of electrons and the pos a deficit, then it stands to reason that the current flow within the battery is from pos to neg (actually, it isn't, it just seems that way). In normal metallic conductors the current flows from neg to pos but in semiconductors, the majority current carriers are the "holes", or electron deficits. All things considered, though, just ignore the damn physics 'cause it really isn't important to anyone but physicists. Just remember that electron flow is against the arrow and you're ok. Then try to figure out what in Hell Basic Electronics has to do with a Suse list. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Hi, All of this talk has, to some extent, confused current, charge and one particular charge carrier, the electron. Any movement of charge is, by definition, an electrical current. Charge is always associated with particles of matter, never with massless particles such as photons. Charge is carried by many fundamental particles: electron, proton, positron, antiproton, as well as by unstable or inseparable particles such as quarks. The stable particles, electrons, positrons, protons and antiprotons, each carry a unit of charge. Quarks carry 1/3 or 2/3 (plus or minus) of electrical charge. Quarks do not have stable existences unless they're combined in certain groups of three, which always yield unit (+/- 1) charge quantities. In everyday electronics (*), the only charge carrier that matters is the electron, and it carries negative charge. The direction of current flow is dictated by the sign of the charge associated with the carrier and the potential (voltage) difference that drives the charge motion. This is analogous to how mass naturally moves "downhill" (from region of higher gravitational potential energy to a region of lower potential energy, though gravity is not bipolar, so there's only attraction, and it has no dual as electricity and magnetism are duals). When current it is carried by electrons, which carry negative charge, it flows from a region of more negative potential (which we conventionally symbolize with a minus sign) to a region of less negative or more positive potential (symbolized by a plus sign). In order for there to be a potential difference between two places, there must be a non-zero resistance between them (were there zere resistance, current would flow until the potential was equalized). In order for current to flow, there must be a finite resistance (and a non-zero potential difference). (*) There's something that might seem like an exception here when it comes to semiconductors. In doped semiconductor materials there can be either an excess of free or conduction-band electrons (yielding so-called N-type material) or a deficit of conduction-band electrons (yielding P-type materials) w.r.t. the pure semiconductor element. The distinction is what gives the semiconductor junction its special properties and makes possible all of what we call "solid state" electronics (a name coined to distinguish it from vacuum tube devices that preceded it and which are now used solely for very high power or high power + high frequency uses). Still, the only charge carrier that matters in known or foreseeable technology is the electron and electronic devices, whether they're semiconductor-based, vacuum tube-based or electromechanical are legitimately deemed "electronic." Sometimes I miss working with hardware. There's something nice about knowing when your design has a bug by simply seeing the smoke curling up from your prototype... And then there's tantalum electrolytic capacitors. What fun! As for the ambi-directional DC current, I suspect that's just some crank with too much time on his hands and insufficient grounding in electrostatics and electrodynamics--the math is pretty hairy, especially for AC systems with reactive components. RRS -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Randall R Schulz wrote:
[...] a lot of crap that doesn't belong here
Now does it really get any more OT than this ?
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
Pascal, On Sunday 19 November 2006 18:26, Pascal Bleser wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote: [...] a lot of crap that doesn't belong here
Now does it really get any more OT than this ?
Oh, yeah. Way, way more off-topic. Way, way, way far more off-topic than a factual discussion of the nature of electrical current, as yet the primary foundation of all the technology we use in computing. But if you want something closer to home, why does the Guru's RPM repository keep changing out from under me when I'm trying to install packages. That is, between the time when I launch YaST's Software Management module and when I select packages to install or update and the time the download is to take place, YaST detects that the repoistory has changed. Yesterday I had to go back three times just to get the new Amarok package and dependencies installed. Can you do something about that? Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Randall R Schulz wrote:
On Sunday 19 November 2006 18:26, Pascal Bleser wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote: [...] a lot of crap that doesn't belong here
Now does it really get any more OT than this ?
Oh, yeah. Way, way more off-topic.
Way, way, way far more off-topic than a factual discussion of the nature of electrical current, as yet the primary foundation of all the technology we use in computing.
Get an IRC client, a dog, a wife, a friend, whatever but please stop making this list useless with OT posts.
But if you want something closer to home, why does the Guru's RPM repository keep changing out from under me when I'm trying to install packages. That is, between the time when I launch YaST's Software Management module and when I select packages to install or update and the time the download is to take place, YaST detects that the repoistory has changed. Yesterday I had to go back three times just to get the new Amarok package and dependencies installed.
The repository is updated 3-4 times a day.
Files are rsynced from my staging server to ftp4.gwdg.de, the apt-rpm
metadata is generated there, and then everything is copied in a batch to
ftp.gwdg.de (and later to other mirrors such as ftp.skynet.be).
Either you've just been unlucky and hit the repository maintainance
window, or it's a bug in yast/ZMD.
cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\
On Sunday 19 November 2006 19:34, Stevens wrote:
On Sunday 19 November 2006 18:09, Doug McGarrett wrote: .... Then try to figure out what in Hell Basic Electronics has to do with a Suse list.
Well, approximate the same as the patents, copyright and business decisions have. -- Regards, Rajko M. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 05:35:13PM -0500, James Knott wrote:
Rajko M wrote:
Does anyone can explain this one: Apparatus and method for generating and using multi-direction DC and AC electrical currents #7,041,203
I know that current can flow from + to -, also one can reverse polarity and than current will go in opposite way, but still from + to -. If reversal is done periodically than we call that alternating current, but multi-direction DC and AC?!
Can someone shed some light on this?
Well, for starters, electricity i.e. electrons flows from negative to positive.
Please explain how your statement invalidates Rajko's argument. While you are correct with "electrons flow from neg to pos", there's something strange going on with the "multi-direction DC and AC current". The difference between AC and DC is common knowledge for about 100 years now. What's the point of granting a patent covering common knowledge right now? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 21 November 2006 12:29, Josef Wolf wrote:
... What's the point of granting a patent covering common knowledge right now?
500-to-1 it's pure bunk. The world is full of crackpot "inventors." Did you know that Einstein was full of it and that a century of physicists have been duped into believing his BS? It's true, just read sci.physics.*, sci.energy.* etc. RRS -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 2006-11-21 14:29, Josef Wolf wrote:
<snip>
Please explain how your statement invalidates Rajko's argument. While you are correct with "electrons flow from neg to pos", there's something strange going on with the "multi-direction DC and AC current". The difference between AC and DC is common knowledge for about 100 years now. What's the point of granting a patent covering common knowledge right now?
This thing has nothing to do with the difference between AC and DC. It has a lot to do with not understanding the simple physics of an induction coil placed in any electric circuit. Randall, you are quite correct, it is sheer bunk. All it does is replace an ordinary electrode with a coil, and the claim is that this alone will significantly increase the rate of electrolysis of water, due solely to "magnetic shears and stresses on the molecule". I don't recall all the numbers (been a long time since I did any of this sort of quantum physics), but the magnetic moment of water isn't *that* high. Can we kill this now? -- The best way to accelerate a computer running Windows is at 9.81 m/s² -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 19 November 2006 23:02, Rajko M wrote:
Does anyone can explain this one: Apparatus and method for generating and using multi-direction DC and AC electrical currents #7,041,203
I know that current can flow from + to -, also one can reverse polarity and than current will go in opposite way, but still from + to -. If reversal is done periodically than we call that alternating current, but multi-direction DC and AC?!
Can someone shed some light on this?
Google for "Sully direct current". Apparently it's some guy who claims to have invented a new form of power transmission in addition to AC and DC I'm not good enough at physics to be able to decipher it, but from general principles, it seems to me that a discovery like that, if it had any merit, would have been more publicised When I first read it though, it did look a bit like someone had managed - in 2006 - to patent Alternating Current -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 19 November 2006 16:53, Anders Johansson wrote:
I'm not good enough at physics to be able to decipher it, but from general principles, it seems to me that a discovery like that, if it had any merit, would have been more publicised
Sure.
When I first read it though, it did look a bit like someone had managed - in 2006 - to patent Alternating Current
That is the reason I started to read :-) and as I couldn't quite understand what it was about I asked for opinion. To me, it seems just as generator of impulse current explained overly broad. -- Regards, Rajko M. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
At 04:02 PM 11/19/2006 -0600, Rajko M wrote:
Content-Disposition: inline
On Sunday 19 November 2006 11:32, Saill White wrote: ...
You can do this yourself by going here and entering a company name for "Term 1" and choosing "Assignee Name" for "Field 1": http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html ...
Interesting link.
I have feeling that this looks more like the Gordian Knot.
Does anyone can explain this one: Apparatus and method for generating and using multi-direction DC and AC electrical currents #7,041,203
I know that current can flow from + to -, also one can reverse polarity and than current will go in opposite way, but still from + to -. If reversal is done periodically than we call that alternating current, but multi-direction DC and AC?!
Can someone shed some light on this?
-- Regards, Rajko M. -- In a mismatched transmission line, that is to say, for example, a 50 ohm coaxial line terminated in 100 ohms, a reflection will exist. The current, or voltage, will reflect from the 100 ohm mismatch, and this will propagate down the line in the reverse direction. This applies to AC, and is usually a high-frequency radio signal. The ratio of forward voltage to reverse voltage is called the Voltage Standing Wave Ratio, or VSWR. I don't know how this might be applied to DC, however.
--doug -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 19 November 2006 17:52, Doug McGarrett wrote:
At 04:02 PM 11/19/2006 -0600, Rajko M wrote:
Content-Disposition: inline
On Sunday 19 November 2006 11:32, Saill White wrote: ...
You can do this yourself by going here and entering a company name for "Term 1" and choosing "Assignee Name" for "Field 1": http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html
...
Interesting link.
I have feeling that this looks more like the Gordian Knot.
Does anyone can explain this one: Apparatus and method for generating and using multi-direction DC and AC electrical currents #7,041,203
I know that current can flow from + to -, also one can reverse polarity and than current will go in opposite way, but still from + to -. If reversal is done periodically than we call that alternating current, but multi-direction DC and AC?!
Can someone shed some light on this? ...
In a mismatched transmission line, that is to say, for example, a 50 ohm coaxial line terminated in 100 ohms, a reflection will exist. The current, or voltage, will reflect from the 100 ohm mismatch, and this will propagate down the line in the reverse direction. This applies to AC, and is usually a high-frequency radio signal. The ratio of forward voltage to reverse voltage is called the Voltage Standing Wave Ratio, or VSWR. I don't know how this might be applied to DC, however.
--doug
Hi Doug, how line impedance mismatch applies to "multidirectional DC and AC". The signal still travels either forward or backward, but not perpedicular. Well, yes, the electromagnetic energy around the conductor is multidirectional in space. I guess that my attention was caught with a sentence where author tells that by now we had DC and AC, and new is that we have multidirectional current too. That implies that I never understood electricity, or the article is just clumsy "include all in it" attempt. If I find time I'll see that again. -- Regards, Rajko M. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
into electronic streams flowing thru the cosmos On Sunday 19 November 2006 6:44 am, Mark Hounschell wrote:
John Andersen wrote:
On Sunday 19 November 2006 01:28, Mark Hounschell wrote:
What would happen if MS were able to coerce Novell into actually sneaking some of its IP into linux (glibc/kernel etc) only to be 'discovered' at some time convenient to MS?
Mark
That seems pretty far fetched. Why do it so publicly?
If you are into conspiracy theories, heres one for you:
Actually I am, but unfortunately, despite 'anything said or read anywhere by anybody', the fact is, MS wants linux gone and nothing it 'intentionally' does is going to help linux or any linux distributer in the long run. Including Novell.
It seems more likely to me that Novell caught Microsoft with some GPL code in Vista the day before it went to production and the big hurry up was all about getting SOMETHING in place so that Vista could ship. Then they can work to replace it via normal update means later.
But Novell, nor anyone else, has the access to MS code that could enable such a find. Unless it was something as obvious as say finding KDE on the desktop. This seems impossible to me.
<snip> Novell doesn't have access, but it's possible that at least one of the companies it does business does. Via that free peeckaboo MS gave some of their most favoured customers and "partners" remember ? That flap over someone mistakenly published some of the code on the web?? If such a company had become lets say disenchanted w/ the wait looooong promised features in Vista being dropped etc... they have a relationship w/ Novell for it's non Linux products, probably from long ago.. Now, they think they might try what somebody at Novell has been telling them, linux... first only as servers, which don't fail and don't get worms and don't do anything accept sit in their corner and work.. So they put a small test project in place to see how much trouble it would be to switch at least some of their desktops over... and well , people just will talk.. if someone at the company happens to know about the code peak they were given and begins talking to linuxers about the different way it works. they could just mention the slipshod code they saw in the code they saw... It could happen. ' I'm just sayin ' -- j If a hurricane doesn't leave you dead; it will make you strong. Don't try to explain , just nod your head. Breathe out breathe in, move on. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
a traditional problem with geeks has always been that they are very opinionated, especially sitting in their undies typing away in a dark room on a back lit keyboard. however, when geeks start to interpret law and pretend to be lawyers -- now that takes the cake. :-) -- jjgitties, "Precious Father, why have you given me this desire to wrestle and then made me such a stinky warrior?", Ignacio (aka. Nacho Libre) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 19 November 2006 11:28, Mark Hounschell wrote:
The _end_ would be sure and swift. There would be no trail. It would be dismissed as frivolous.
The SCO trial is still running, and no one outside that company believes they are right. Microsoft has people like Groklaw's PJ on their side in claiming they have patented ideas in linux (see the claims of OSRM, which when they started included Pamela Jones) Justice may get there in the end, but anyone who thinks it's swift has not been watching the news the past few decades
I said nothing about end users anyway. MS wouldn't dare sue me or you for using OS linux.
I believe people said the same about the RIAA and end users downloading mp3s
Although you might run and turn all your linux boxes off and claim defeat right away, I have nothing to loose and I would fight to the death. Somehow I don't think I would be alone though.
You think many people would run to put up millions to help in your defence? I know you would have many people saying they sympathise with you, but how many people do you think would actually put their money where their mouths are? Cases like this require quite a number of millions of dollars. Defend yourself, and you'd lose, even if the charge was that you assassinated Lincoln
Again though, Novell is a (the only) linux distributor now in bed with MS.
There is no "bed" here. microsoft is turning on the spin machine. This needs to be stopped asap. Novell does not accept the claim that the payments are patent royalties.
You know all the diseases MS carries. What would happen if MS were able to coerce Novell into actually sneaking some of its IP into linux (glibc/kernel etc) only to be 'discovered' at some time convenient to MS?
Silly. Given that Novell has bet the house on linux, what would the gain be? This is still a billion dollar company, remember. Not something teetering on the brink of bankrupcy. With 4000+ employees, you don't do suicide pacts like that Besides, Novell doesn't maintain either the kernel or glibc. The kernel is with the OSDL, and glibc is maintained by red hat. If microsoft has plans like that, it would be far simpler to put out some "undercover" developers, submitting patches from home -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 19 November 2006 13:29, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 19 November 2006 11:28, Mark Hounschell wrote:
The _end_ would be sure and swift. There would be no trail. It would be dismissed as frivolous.
The SCO trial is still running, and no one outside that company believes they are right. Microsoft has people like Groklaw's PJ on their side in claiming they have patented ideas in linux (see the claims of OSRM, which when they started included Pamela Jones)
Where do you come up with this stuff? Unless you live in a very protected world, you would know that PJ has had nothing to do with OSRM for quite some time. At one time she did, but has long since given it up. You are about 2 years behind times according to this article. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041120102008604&query=OSRM How about getting your facts straight before spouting off? Mike -- Powered by SuSE 10.0 Kernel 2.6.13 X86_64 KDE 3.4 Kmail 1.8 1:43pm up 33 days 20:24, 5 users, load average: 2.14, 2.13, 2.09 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 19 November 2006 13:51, Mike wrote:
Where do you come up with this stuff? Unless you live in a very protected world, you would know that PJ has had nothing to do with OSRM for quite some time. At one time she did, but has long since given it up. You are about 2 years behind times according to this article.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20041120102008604&query=OSRM
How about getting your facts straight before spouting off?
I know she left it, but she was a part of it, which means she lent her name to the scam. And this is the organisation behind the claim that Microsoft has a couple of dozen patent claims against linux - a big reason why potential customers think twice about adopting linux. And re. getting my facts straight before spouting off: why should I, when no one else does? PJ helped spreading FUD about linux by joining that organisation, Novell is being accused of helping to spread FUD through this deal, even though the management persistently claim this was never the intention, and that the inferences are unwarranted, that the contract doesn't say what people (including Microsoft) claim it says. One gets forgiven, the other........... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 19 November 2006 11:28, Mark Hounschell wrote:
The _end_ would be sure and swift. There would be no trail. It would be dismissed as frivolous.
The SCO trial is still running, and no one outside that company believes they are right. Microsoft has people like Groklaw's PJ on their side in claiming they have patented ideas in linux (see the claims of OSRM, which when they started included Pamela Jones)
Again I say that if MS were to sue _ME_ for using linux today the end would be sure and swift. I would not need money.
Justice may get there in the end, but anyone who thinks it's swift has not been watching the news the past few decades
I said nothing about end users anyway. MS wouldn't dare sue me or you for using OS linux.
I believe people said the same about the RIAA and end users downloading mp3s
I'm not up really knowledgeable on what happened there. Did any end home user actually get sued and have to pay restitution for downloading mp3s?
Again though, Novell is a (the only) linux distributor now in bed with MS.
There is no "bed" here. microsoft is turning on the spin machine. This needs to be stopped asap. Novell does not accept the claim that the payments are patent royalties.
I hope that is true. But... I personally don't believe it.
You know all the diseases MS carries. What would happen if MS were able to coerce Novell into actually sneaking some of its IP into linux (glibc/kernel etc) only to be 'discovered' at some time convenient to MS?
Silly. Given that Novell has bet the house on linux, what would the gain be? This is still a billion dollar company, remember. Not something teetering on the brink of bankrupcy. With 4000+ employees, you don't do suicide pacts like that
I now even wonder if MS was somehow involved in the purchase of SuSE by Novell. The conspiracy thickens...
Besides, Novell doesn't maintain either the kernel or glibc. The kernel is with the OSDL, and glibc is maintained by red hat.
No, but they contribute a lot to both. They are in the proper position.
If microsoft has plans like that, it would be far simpler to put out some "undercover" developers, submitting patches from home
Thats probably true. Unless they wanted to insure it was done right?? And sometimes it's easier to buy company then it is to buy a person. Mark -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 19 November 2006 14:38, Mark Hounschell wrote:
I now even wonder if MS was somehow involved in the purchase of SuSE by Novell.
Given the historic animosity between the two companies, this is so unlikely you can't even begin to spell it. The one major thing about the Microsoft deal isn't the details of the contract, it's that they were talking to each other in the first place. Old Novell hates Microsoft more than all linux users put together Besides, if Microsoft wanted to get rid of suse, they would have prevented the purchase, not encouraged it -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Sunday 19 November 2006 14:38, Mark Hounschell wrote:
I now even wonder if MS was somehow involved in the purchase of SuSE by Novell.
Given the historic animosity between the two companies, this is so unlikely you can't even begin to spell it. The one major thing about the Microsoft deal isn't the details of the contract, it's that they were talking to each other in the first place.
Right, this whole thing just seems to be to unbelievable and unlikely. And then we only know about what which we are being told by the parties.
Old Novell hates Microsoft more than all linux users put together
Right, but enough money can make even the OLDest feel NEW...
Besides, if Microsoft wanted to get rid of suse, they would have prevented the purchase, not encouraged it
Yea but what if they wanted to get rid of LINUX? Mark -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Mark Hounschell wrote:
If microsoft has plans like that, it would be far simpler to put out some "undercover" developers, submitting patches from home
Thats probably true. Unless they wanted to insure it was done right?? And sometimes it's easier to buy company then it is to buy a person.
Mark
That can be tricky. IIRC, Rambus tried to slip patented technology into a standard, with the intent of suing later. They got caught. http://www.kickassgear.com/Articles/rambus_in_court.htm -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 05:28:50 AM -0500, Mark Hounschell (dmarkh@cfl.rr.com) wrote:
M. Fioretti wrote:
For anyone to think that the great majority of end users can financially survive till they see the _end_ of such a trial is ridiculous. Microsoft doesn't need to be right. It only needs to say "we may sue end users, since they'll go bankrupt for legal fees much before the court finds us wrong".
The _end_ would be sure and swift. There would be no trail. It would be dismissed as frivolous.
So, only trials where there *is* an actual case happen? Get real, please.
I said nothing about end users anyway. MS wouldn't dare sue me or you for using OS linux. Although you might run and turn all your linux boxes off and claim defeat right away, I have nothing to loose and I would fight to the death.
If MS _did_ sue you (or me, of course), you would just fight to bankruptcy, not death, as others have already pointed out. This said, of course Microsoft would never sue you, me or any other individual for what he or she does at home, for the same reason they don't do it to the millions of home Windows installations which are illegal _beyond_ any doubt: they don't need to do it. "End users" means all those who download or buy software just to _use_ it. This includes Public Administrations, large corporations and small businesses. If they succeed in scaring them away from FOSS with Ballmer-style declarations (regardless of what the Novell FAQ says) they'll keep to continue the end users who do pay (sometimes with our taxes) locked in. At that point, whatevery I or you run at home couldn't matter less. Ciao, Marco -- The right way to make everybody love Free Standards and Free Software: http://digifreedom.net/node/73 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 11/18/06, B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk
"*We* need to convince OpenSUSE to fork, or let 'em die. To bad, it is a wonderful Distro. But their parent company is NOT our friend."
A tip, if you're going to use a sig that makes you sound like an idiot anyway, at least try to use correct spelling and grammar.
_
Sorry. I can't make changed to that sig. I nabbed it from some guys post somewhere else. I thought it was funny. Not allowed to change it, even the poor spelling, lest I get sued. However, I updated my sig because it generates as much fuss as my posts. I think the new one is also on track and funny. Hope you like it. -- jjgitties, "Precious Father, why have you given me this desire to wrestle and then made me such a stinky warrior?", Ignacio (aka. Nacho Libre) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
So since the tabbed browsing of IE7 has been in Firefox and Opera and others for a while, is Microsoft going to sue itself to stop itself from using tabbed browsing? After all, aren't patents are about protecting IP in the first place, so maybe they should sue themselves for using a GUI at all since it was developed at XEROX. This was a silly statement, by someone who could take a lesson from all of the flubs in the political arena and shut up. If he can run his company, sell better software, and make money while competing fairly, more power to him. The problem is that Microsoft has not been willing to compete on a level playing field, and even the perception that a company that has decided to spearhead a major linux distribution is in bed with them in any way is a MAJOR problem. I am sure that the people at Novell that put this together did so with all the best intentions, but someone has to wake up. Sc*** me one, shame on you, Sc*** me twice, shame on me, and Microsoft has been doing that for years. I'm not talking about the grunts and engineers, because they have some of the best in the world. I am talking about the senior management. That is the problem with Microsoft. On Friday 17 November 2006 23:29, M Harris wrote:
On Friday 17 November 2006 14:13, Peter Nikolic wrote:
OpenSuse should fork and it should Retain the SuSe trademark and the Original ideals . Novell was a bad idea from day one
Peter... this really is true... and I'm not being sarcastic.
Linux must come from all directions--- not from a single corporation. Novell was a bad idea... because Novell is interested in money instead of being interested in OSS.
Yup, its time to strip it back, call it SuSE again (or give it a new name), and head off with a new prong (fork that is).
Actually, it is high time for M$ to go away.
Actually, it is high time for M$ patents to go away.
Actually, it is high time for all software patents to go away.
You guys heard it your selves... Ballmer *believes* that Linux contains M$ innovation... wait... the roccos laughter is almost as explosive as the night ALGORE claimed to have invented the Internet.... I'm sick to my stomach.
-- Kind regards,
M Harris <><
-- Thanks, Rob -- Rob Hutton Service Manager rob@getuwired.us www.getuwired.us (877) 236-9094 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 18 November 2006 05:29, M Harris wrote:
On Friday 17 November 2006 14:13, Peter Nikolic wrote:
OpenSuse should fork and it should Retain the SuSe trademark and the Original ideals . Novell was a bad idea from day one
Is opensuse a fork? Or is the Novell too? Confused. Steve. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 18 November 2006 01:25, Primm wrote:
Is opensuse a fork? Or is the Novell too? "fork" , a play on unix terms just means a legal copy....
When a unix process is forked, it is copied precisely, only the process number changes. Sever parent/child sockets applications frequently use the technique.... When a distro is "forked" it is merely copied (following the GPL) precisely and legally, but under different management (if you will). Novell bought SuSE... but, the Suse distro can be pasteurized and redistributed (removing Novell and M$ from the mix) and yet preserving the distro for the people who really matter... the Suse Linux community. -- Kind regards, M Harris <>< -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Friday 17 November 2006 23:25, Primm wrote:
On Saturday 18 November 2006 05:29, M Harris wrote:
On Friday 17 November 2006 14:13, Peter Nikolic wrote:
OpenSuse should fork and it should Retain the SuSe trademark and the Original ideals . Novell was a bad idea from day one
Is opensuse a fork? Or is the Novell too?
openSUSE is a Novell sponsored product. It is similar in vein to Fedora, which is a Red Hat product. Both are more "bleeding edge" than the corporate versions and are not "intended" to be used in such an environment. -- kai www.perfectreign.com || www.4thedadz.com a turn signal is a statement, not a request -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Kai Ponte wrote:
On Friday 17 November 2006 23:25, Primm wrote:
On Saturday 18 November 2006 05:29, M Harris wrote:
On Friday 17 November 2006 14:13, Peter Nikolic wrote:
OpenSuse should fork and it should Retain the SuSe trademark and the Original ideals . Novell was a bad idea from day one Is opensuse a fork? Or is the Novell too?
openSUSE is a Novell sponsored product. It is similar in vein to Fedora, which is a Red Hat product. Both are more "bleeding edge" than the corporate versions and are not "intended" to be used in such an environment.
Well, fedora has always been bleeding edge, and redhat has always denigrated it, saying that it's for hobbyists only. OTOH suse has historically been perfectly suitable for corporate use, but novell does encourage the use of sles instead, and so, unfortunately, they have also made disparaging comments about opensuse and hobbyists. The big difference is that fedora is a completely different codebase from red hat enterprise, while suse and sles are the same code base. In practical tersm, this means, what works on opensuse 10.1 works on sled/sles, and vice versa. I can tell you, several businesses are still using regular suse on their servers, not sles, and the uptime is every bit as good. So, yeah, apart from those huge differences, opensuse is kind of like fedora... Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 18 November 2006 20:43, J Sloan wrote:
Well, fedora has always been bleeding edge, and redhat has always denigrated it, saying that it's for hobbyists only. OTOH suse has historically been perfectly suitable for corporate use, but novell does encourage the use of sles instead, and so, unfortunately, they have also made disparaging comments about opensuse and hobbyists.
You haven't been around very long, have you. SLES was always the version intended for the enterprise (which is why the E stands for Enterprise). This isn't exactly new with Novell 10.1 and SLES10 are indeed based on the same code base, the main difference is that 10.1 contains a ton more stuff, which isn't supported (and in most cases not supportable) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Anders Johansson wrote:
On Saturday 18 November 2006 20:43, J Sloan wrote:
Well, fedora has always been bleeding edge, and redhat has always denigrated it, saying that it's for hobbyists only. OTOH suse has historically been perfectly suitable for corporate use, but novell does encourage the use of sles instead, and so, unfortunately, they have also made disparaging comments about opensuse and hobbyists.
You haven't been around very long, have you. SLES was always the version intended for the enterprise (which is why the E stands for Enterprise). This isn't exactly new with Novell
I've probably been around longer than you. Yes, we know that suse started offering an enterprise version IIRC during the suse 7 days. However, they also continued to offer the reasonably priced shrink wrapped suse versions, with support and documentation, and many businesses used suse linux, just as many businesses used redhat before redhat dumped their shrinkwrap userbase. I was one of the those who moved from redhat to suse after the redhat 9 -> fedora debacle. Joe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 18 November 2006 11:08, Anders Johansson wrote:
10.1 and SLES10 are indeed based on the same code base, the main difference is that 10.1 contains a ton more stuff, which isn't supported (and in most cases not supportable)
And SLED contains tons less. Which is not to say you can't add it back in. Actually, I think SLES has less stuff than Opensuse, but it does have more packages aimed at the enterprise, and the structure is radically different using Ldap as the primary authentication means, and allowing the hosting of huge numbers of mail accounts with no underlying user accounts. All of this you can of course do in opensuse if you want, its just SOP in SLED. .... But then I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
John Andersen a écrit :
using Ldap as the primary authentication means, and allowing the hosting of huge numbers of mail accounts with no underlying user accounts. All of this you can of course do in opensuse if you want,
could you elaborate how? eventually making a fork to this endless discussion :-) I need this for a LUG server :-)) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://dodin.org/mediawiki/index.php/GPS_Lowrance_GO -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 18 November 2006 12:56, jdd wrote:
All of this you can of course do in opensuse if you want,
could you elaborate how? eventually making a fork to this endless discussion :-)
I need this for a LUG server :-))
I would not be the best person to do this for you. I'm not totally sure I understand all parts of it myself, and quite frankly my familiarity with SUSE got in the way while installing SLES, because I was tempted to do things the SUSE way instead of the SLES way. Mail goes to Postfix -> Amavisd (virusscan +spamassassin) -> Cyrus Cyrus replaces procmail and pop3d and imapd. On top of that postfix is set up as a double pass MTA, where incoming mail is routed through it twice (initially, and then again after amavisd blesses it). Postfix and cyrus use ldap for authentication/validation, and mail does not need a login account for each user, nor a home directory for each user. Users are managed via the Yast Ldap module. I think it would be difficult to get this all working in opensuse just because its complex, not because any piece is missing. Some very sharp folks set it up for you in SLES. You can download SLES and try it out I suppose. There is a huge PDF in the install explaining all this stuff. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On the Postfix site, there are several documents call something like Postfix+Amavisd+LDAP+virtual+Cyrus. They will give you the step by step how two. You may need to read two or three of them to get it all right... It's not that hard, you will have to read until you understand though. On Saturday 18 November 2006 17:11, John Andersen wrote:
On Saturday 18 November 2006 12:56, jdd wrote:
All of this you can of course do in opensuse if you want,
could you elaborate how? eventually making a fork to this endless discussion :-)
I need this for a LUG server :-))
I would not be the best person to do this for you. I'm not totally sure I understand all parts of it myself, and quite frankly my familiarity with SUSE got in the way while installing SLES, because I was tempted to do things the SUSE way instead of the SLES way.
Mail goes to Postfix -> Amavisd (virusscan +spamassassin) -> Cyrus Cyrus replaces procmail and pop3d and imapd.
On top of that postfix is set up as a double pass MTA, where incoming mail is routed through it twice (initially, and then again after amavisd blesses it).
Postfix and cyrus use ldap for authentication/validation, and mail does not need a login account for each user, nor a home directory for each user. Users are managed via the Yast Ldap module.
I think it would be difficult to get this all working in opensuse just because its complex, not because any piece is missing. Some very sharp folks set it up for you in SLES.
You can download SLES and try it out I suppose. There is a huge PDF in the install explaining all this stuff.
-- Thanks, Rob -- Rob Hutton Service Manager rob@getuwired.us www.getuwired.us (877) 236-9094 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 13:43:51 PM -0600, Peter Van Lone (petervl@gmail.com) wrote:
I personally want linux to make headway into the corp world. That's what Novell is trying to do.
From what I've read, this is not the case at all. My understanding is that what Novell is trying to do is make sure that ONLY the variety of Linux controlled by Novell can be used (paying!) where it really matters and makes a difference (public administrations, schools and businesses).
If I'm wrong, that's good, but then can you please point me to official declarations from Microsoft, Novell or their single executives stating or admitting that any organizations or end user can professionally use or develop other "brands" of "Free as in Freedom" software without legal risks?
Helping Novell is helping the community.
That's difficult to believe *if* what Novell is doing strenghtens the concept that the community has no right or legal guarantees to develop or use, for any purpose, other Free Software. Again, please provide proofs that this is not the case, I'd really like (seriously) to be wrong on this.
But to fork suse now? Mistake ...
This is correct, because forking is useless or undoable when the problem is software patents. See my other message in this thread. Ciao, Marco -- The right way to make everybody love Free Standards and Free Software: http://digifreedom.net/node/73 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 18 November 2006 02:38, M. Fioretti wrote:
But to fork suse now? Mistake ...
This is correct, because forking is useless or undoable when the problem is software patents. See my other message in this thread. No...
The fork (done properly) removes the patent issue. Every distro these days ships both GPL and prop packages... no GPL package can (by legal definition) contain patentable code... doesn't matter who might have put it in there or who thinks they really own it... if it is GPL and if it ships at all the *entire* thing becomes GPL... period. The only thing that needs to happen is to remove the prop packages from the distro (sanitize the logos,.. not strictly required) and repackage. This has been done many times... its legal... and its untouchable. Remember... there isn't a patent controversy here... only FUD. We always need to keep reality and fantasy separate. -- Kind regards, M Harris <>< -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 23:06:33 PM -0600, M Harris (harrismh777@earthlink.net) wrote:
On Saturday 18 November 2006 02:38, M. Fioretti wrote:
This is correct, because forking is useless or undoable when the problem is software patents. See my other message in this thread.
No...
The fork (done properly) removes the patent issue.
Removes my foot. Again: sw patents are not copyright. Please learn the difference. Patents forbid the use of _algorithms_, not that of already typed files of source code.
no GPL package can (by legal definition) contain patentable code...
see your confusion? Code is not patentable, is copyrightable. Besides that, a developer should know in advance (that is, have legal expertise and spend a _lot_ of time digging patents databases) that an ALGORITHM is already patented and cannot be used NO MATTER HOW YOU TYPE IT.
if it is GPL and if it ships at all the *entire* thing becomes GPL... period.
Absolutely not. What you say _may_ happen only if it is the patent holder who also releases the code under GPL. But if the generic developer ships as GPL an implementation of an algorithm already patented by somebody else (something not so easy to find out unless you're a specialized lawyer) the code can be used.
The only thing that needs to happen is to remove the prop packages from the distro (sanitize the logos,.. not strictly required) and repackage.
and here you prove that I am right, that is that no fork can solve a patent problem. What if the "prop package" is the kernel or gcc? What if the problem is, say, the ALGORITHM in the kernel that schedules processes? how easy it is to rewrite the kernel so that a whole distro works with another algorithm, and how useable would the result be if all the unpatented algorithms left have very poor performance?
Remember... there isn't a patent controversy here... only FUD. We always need to keep reality and fantasy separate.
Please start yourself then. All the Uncertainty and Doubt you and others are spreading by confusing all the time patents and copyright doesn't help. It doesn't even really matter if and how the Linux kernel or any other GPL package violates some sw patents. What matters in reality is how users (especially corporate and governments ones) and developers are scared away from GPL systems and how feasible it is for almost everybody to survive (financially) a patent lawsuit from Microsoft. Even if they are surely wrong, you'd go bankrupt long before proving it. This happens all the time, not just in software. If you were right (both in theory and in practice), Stallman and the FSF would not spend half their time worldwide to scream against sw patents. The reasons they do is exactly because they have effects like the ones I have described. Ciao, Marco -- The right way to make everybody love Free Standards and Free Software: http://digifreedom.net/node/73 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 19 November 2006 01:18, M. Fioretti wrote:
If you were right (both in theory and in practice), Stallman and the FSF would not spend half their time worldwide to scream against sw patents. The reasons they do is exactly because they have effects like the ones I have described. No... and maybe...
The spend *most* of their time fighting sw patents... mostly because they don't want the EU to have the same lame patent system the US suffers with... true story. You counter point proves my point precisely... Stallman and the FSF (and thousands of others) have made sure that the GPL core code (kernel, gcc, *nix util packages, etc) are clean. If there were patented algorithms in the (open source, as in everybody can read it !! ) kernel ( or FSF core ) then it would have surfaced long ago... SCO would have won... and M$ and *UNIX* would have driven a wooden stake through Stallman's heart long ago.... the fact is... the code is clean. (end of story) Anything other than that is pure FUD, pure and simple. No... about the only patented innovation that M$ can claim from the Suse distro at this point is that the little grean lizzard face at the lower left hand corner of my desktop behaves amazingly like the M$ Start button... ooops. But is that a Suse snafu, or KDE? -- Kind regards, M Harris <>< -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 01:31:30 AM -0600, M Harris (harrismh777@earthlink.net) wrote:
You counter point proves my point precisely... Stallman and the FSF (and thousands of others) have made sure that the GPL core code (kernel, gcc, *nix util packages, etc) are clean.
Mike, please re-read the message you answered to. What I am criticizing is almost exclusively the belief/confusion, from you and others, that a simple fork, like XFree->Xorg or Debian->Ubuntu solves a patent violation issue, that you just remove a few packages or source files and you're done. I have not said that there *are* patent violations in Linux. In the context of _this_ discussion, it really doesn't matter if such violations exist or not. What I was and am still suggesting is just that a few people here get straight the deep differences between: 1) patents and copyright 2) what one thinks _should_ be legal and what _is_ legal today 3) the gut reactions of a few geeks and those of the mass of suits who _do_ make company or state policies
If there were patented algorithms in the (open source, as in everybody can read it !! ) kernel ( or FSF core ) then it would have surfaced long ago... SCO would have won...
This is just what I meant when I said "confusion": SCO sued for break of trade secrets and copyright. Not for patent violation. It was IBM that, just to hurt SCO as much as possible, threw in a few patent violations in the _counterclaim_ . Ciao, Marco -- The right way to make everybody love Free Standards and Free Software: http://digifreedom.net/node/73 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sunday 19 November 2006 12:49, M. Fioretti wrote: ...
If there were patented algorithms in the (open source, as in everybody can read it !! ) kernel ( or FSF core ) then it would have surfaced long ago... SCO would have won...
This is just what I meant when I said "confusion": SCO sued for break of trade secrets and copyright. Not for patent violation. It was IBM that, just to hurt SCO as much as possible, threw in a few patent violations in the _counterclaim_ .
Hi Marco, The confusion is bad adviser, but it is so if people don't want to look for definitions of copyright and patent. I read some titles of patents today, and whoever claims that patent violating code can be removed easily, lives in some other world. Who thinks that this is not the fact should look at http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm and enter in Query field "an/microsoft" and later "an/novell" and look just titles of patents. Both have patents on methods that are essential for computing. I can recall that in some early discussions was asked, what makes situation after agreement different than before? The answer was nothing. Both parties had the same portfolio before, agreement didn't change legal system a bit, so patents were and are enforcable. The only thing that some can complain is that agreement left them in the air, but we talking about two companies out of myriad. Have anybody looked in other companies portfolios about anything related to computing. There is almost nothing that one can write about that is not protected, so patent violations are all over. The only thing that prevents one to start suing is fear from retaliation. I can imagine if anybody tries to disturb the balance, it can expect to be attacked from all directions. This agreement doesn't change environment a bit. It is more psychological move that will tell their customers that they do something. -- Regards, Rajko M. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
M Harris
On Saturday 18 November 2006 02:38, M. Fioretti wrote:
But to fork suse now? Mistake ...
This is correct, because forking is useless or undoable when the problem is software patents. See my other message in this thread. No...
The fork (done properly) removes the patent issue. Every distro these days ships both GPL and prop packages... no GPL package can (by legal definition) contain patentable code... doesn't matter who might have put it in there or who thinks they really own it... if it is GPL and if it ships at all the *entire* thing becomes GPL... period. The only thing that needs to happen is
That's not correct. IBM for example has granted a license to use RCU in GPL code, like in the LInux kernel, and some graph coloring register allocation algorithm in GPL code, like in GCC. Both are universal patent licenses for any GPL code - and everybody distributes them. The difference here is that this is a license for everybody.
to remove the prop packages from the distro (sanitize the logos,.. not strictly required) and repackage. This has been done many times... its legal... and its untouchable.
Remember... there isn't a patent controversy here... only FUD. We always need to keep reality and fantasy separate.
Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
participants (30)
-
Anders Johansson
-
Anderson Fernandes de Alencar
-
Andreas Jaeger
-
B.Weber@warwick.ac.uk
-
Carl William Spitzer IV
-
Darryl Gregorash
-
Doug McGarrett
-
J Sloan
-
James Knott
-
jdd
-
jfweber@gilweber.com
-
JJ Gitties
-
John Andersen
-
John E. Perry
-
Josef Wolf
-
Kai Ponte
-
M Harris
-
M. Fioretti
-
Mark Hounschell
-
Mike
-
Pascal Bleser
-
Patrick Shanahan
-
Peter Nikolic
-
Peter Van Lone
-
Primm
-
Rajko M
-
Randall R Schulz
-
Rob Hutton
-
Saill White
-
Stevens