July 2001 - openSUSE Edu - openSUSE Mailing Lists

thanks Gary re automounting
by James & Cybèle 18 Jul '01

18 Jul '01

>/root/mdk.iso /mnt/mdk iso9660 ro,loop=/dev/loop0 1 1 Thanks Gary, I'll give it a try. Yes I can mount the image manually. I understand 'iso9660 and 'ro' but what is loop=/dev/loop0 1 ???? Thanks James Carter

2 1

IBM ThinkPad
by ICT & Network Manager 17 Jul '01

17 Jul '01

Hi Folks, I've just loaded SuSE 7.2 on a Thinkpad - fine (except sound and modem). question, how do I get to the BIOS to change the settings? F2, esc etc. don't seem to do the trick. Needless to say I have no manual so I can't RTFM! -- Best wishes, Derek Harding, (BA MIAP) ICT & Network Manager hardingd(a)warlingham.surrey.sch.uk

4 3

Acrobat 5 does not read ps2pdf'd files
by Gary Stainburn 17 Jul '01

17 Jul '01

I've just been talking to someone who's trying to sell us a document storeage system, and he mentioned in passing that he had a meeting with Adobe last week. In this meeting he mentined that Acrobat 5 fails to read PDF files generated by Ghostscript (ps2pdf) amongst other. The Adobe rep stated that in the past, Adobe has encouraged pdf writed being created by 3rd parties. However, as of Acrobat 5, this stance has changed, as they want to actively push Adobe Distiller - which is where they make their money - and so have stopped it from reading *other* PDF files. Based on the current price of Distiller, you may want to think about this before upgrading your Windows boxes to Acrobat 5. -- Gary Stainburn This email does not contain private or confidential material as it may be snooped on by interested government parties for unknown and undisclosed purposes - Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000

1 0

Re: [suse-linux-uk-schools] software in schools/piracy
by adrian.wells 17 Jul '01

17 Jul '01

> > Anyone heard back from their MP yet? > > Why? Haven't you? You obviously have, what was the outcome? > >How long do you think we should wait > > for a reply before harassing them further? > > In your case forever. Your not keeping up, we managed to get rid of the conservative MP! that's not to say the new incumbent won't be a liar and incompetent to boot. > > It's a joy to see so many barrack-room lawyers in action :-) It passes the > > time as I lurk between changing CDs! > > Then you must be under-employed. Try getting a proper job. :-) > > > Child-maiming? > > Isn't it about time that parents started to teach their children that the > > road is for cars and the pavement for pedestrians? Getting hair out of my > > Volvo badge is a real pain! (So was it obvious that I was an > un-circumcised > > Volvo - or is it Ford - driver?) Ha well, at least you'd never catch me > > pulling a caravan! > > But we will find you trolling quite a lot, I suspect. Not sure that the following applies to me, although it does look like fun :-) "The object of recreational trolling is to sit back and laugh at all those gullible idiots that will believe *anything*. " http://www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html I don't wish to get personal (or wishing to be a troll) but since you raised the question, where does that put you Ian :-) ? It does seem rather nonsensical preaching to the converted. I have written to my MP, I do badger people, but slagging things off doesn't get the job done or raise the level of debate. We all have different opinions but consider my comments and then look back through the thread. Who else has offered physical help to move things along? Off topic You really do live and learn (then die and forget it all)! I'd never heard of trolling before (in this context) and thought it really amusing to find a site devoted to it :-)

1 0

Squid and ACLs
by norman 17 Jul '01

17 Jul '01

Hi, I am trying to use files for different control lists. The example in the user guide is : snip ------ Large decision lists can be stored in files, so that your squid.conf doesn't get cluttered. Some of the caches I have worked on have had in the region of 2000 lines of acl rules, which could lead to a very cluttered squid.conf file. You can include a file into the decision section of an acl list by placing the filename (with path) in double quotes. The file simply contains the data set; one datum per line. In the next example the file /usr/local/squid/conf/data/myNets can contain any number of IP ranges, one range per line. Example 7-6. acl myNets src "/usr/local/squid/conf/data/myNets" acl all src 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 http_access allow myNets http_access deny all snip ----- and that is working. but try as I might I cannot seem to get any other list to work. Are other types possible or am I just being dense, as usual? If there are can someone show me the syntax please? tia norman

3 2

Re: [suse-linux-uk-schools] software in schools/piracy
by adrian.wells 17 Jul '01

17 Jul '01

Hi, Anyone heard back from their MP yet? How long do you think we should wait for a reply before harassing them further? It's a joy to see so many barrack-room lawyers in action :-) It passes the time as I lurk between changing CDs! Off topic! > against any other manufacturer of gas-guzzling, child-maiming, > environment-despoiling motor vehicles; I write hypothetically.) Child-maiming? Isn't it about time that parents started to teach their children that the road is for cars and the pavement for pedestrians? Getting hair out of my Volvo badge is a real pain! (So was it obvious that I was an un-circumcised Volvo - or is it Ford - driver?) Ha well, at least you'd never catch me pulling a caravan! Adrian

2 1

APC Smart UPS
by adrian.wells 17 Jul '01

17 Jul '01

Has anyone managed to install parachute on LINUX 7.2? The install stops, telling me that it can't find ./machine_id And throws up the following error. "There does not appear to be binary compatibility between installed product and this machine" Any ideas anyone? Adrian

1 0

Re: Software in Schools
by Paul Munro 17 Jul '01

17 Jul '01

The problem with software "licenses" is explained in some ways by Eric Raymond in his excellent "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". What this amounts to is one company setting an inflated price for software that should really get its cash from providing services (support etc) and not manufacturing. Software providers carrying out their work under the guise of manufacturing a product get away with it because of advertising and marketing, as well as special deals behind the scenes. They make their profit from the actual sale of the product, which is not a good business model to follow. To quote Eric Raymond: "It is also worth noting that the manufacturing delusion encourages price structures that are pathalogically out of line with the actual breakdown of development costs. If (as is generally accepted) over 75% of a typical software project's life cycle costs will be in maintenance and debugging and extensions, then the common price and relatively low or zero support fees is bound to lead to results that serve all parties poorly." P.120 The price of Office is a great example of this, and yet the service and support for Office as a product is actually quite dim. On top of that, John Honeyball of the popular PC Pro magazine has stated on many releases of this office suite that there remain major mathematical bugs in Excel that have been brought to Microsoft's attention but even still crop up in XP. This is bad for the consumer, since their end product is not what it should be through correct testing and debugging, and good for Microsoft who answer to no-one and set the price on the product themselves according to what *they* think its worth is--and this is usually calculated by man hours, development costs, packaging, advertising etc etc. Where does this then lead us? To a license that states the software is still not *yours* when you purchase it- instead it remains *ours*. Open source doesn't allow this type of marketing, and building an industry on service and support would benefit far more people than relying on marketing and manufacturing of any one particular software product. This is another reason why M$ wants subscription based licensing. Think about it. If the software isn't ever *yours*, even after purchase of hefty license fees, then under subscription based services we see total control of not only your software but also your use of the said software, and a financial hook that makes sure you continually renew your license when the subscription is due. Now its not one perpetual license, but perpetual renewing of a license! Schools suffer at the hands of this type of monopoly and business *success* because they end up paying multiple licens fees for every piece of software they own. There are CALs, end user licenses, network licenses, per seat, subscription based ad infinitum. Is it any wonder that schools and some individuals lose the plot and just give up on the whole licensing thing? It's wrong, but it happens, often out of confusion. Open source licenses offer the best value for money and reflect the service that you will get from the product once you understand the methods employed by those same providers to offer that support. SuSE may cost £60, but that money (barring commercial software) gets you the chance to install it on ALL your systems- from server to workstations, and keep it there perpetually with no subscription renewal and no technological disadvantage over using M$ products. I think that licensing scheme is easier to understand, nicer to work under, and offers a more transparent business model than the cathedral option. I've enjoyed the discussion on this subject though :-) Paul

1 0

Re: [suse-linux-uk-schools] software in schools/piracy
by Mark Evans 17 Jul '01

17 Jul '01

> Alan Davies wrote: > > > I think, as with most laws, the owness is on YOU to know and/or find out > > what the laws are. Its > > part of your job - even if its not in the Job description. > > The word is "onus" and I'm pretty sure it's on the *supplier* (acting on behalf > of the manufacturer) to tell you when they subject you to an agreement which > differs from a conventional retail purchase in any way. The law about buying > and selling goods is clear and well-established. Any additional conditions > sellers might want to impose on buyers---*not* "licensees", are open to legal > question. > > No number of shrink-wrap clauses can change the Sale of Goods Act---a product > should be "fit for its advertised purpose" for example. (No matter what M$ > says, if they sell you a word-processor that doesn't word-process you are > entitled to your money back---and I believe this one in particular has a > concrete precedent with M$'s own software in an English court.) > > I am pretty sure that many of the conditions attached to software "licences" The whole idea behind a software licence is that you can't use software without copying. Which was apparently good enough technobabble to convince some US courts. But probably not quite good enough, hence UCITA... > simply wouldn't stand up under English law and it's noticeable that M$ and > others are in no hurry to test them out in front of a judge. The idea, for There are two issues here. a) a fair number of the terms and conditions in these licences are void under UK and EU law anyway. b) they don't appear to fulfil the conditions for a contract under UK law at all. > example, that they continue to own *your* copy of the software after selling it > to you is absurd. How can you state on the outside of a packet that the > purchaser actually receives nothing for his or her money and then complain when > people choose not to pay for that same precisely delineated nothing? Even if > some court was mad enough to uphold that clause of their "EULA" do you think > Bill et al. would want that aspect of their "contract" with their "licensees" > to be made public? Not likely. People who pirate M$ software on a large scale > and then, when they've been rumbled, settle out of court play straight into the > big software companies' hands (see below). Problem is that it litigation dosn't work well where one party has much deeper pockets than the other. Effectivily the latter can drag things out until the former is bankrupt. The only way of even getting a fair chance would be through legal aid. > > > YOU could therefore be found wanting if materials in use in your school are > > not licenced correctly. > > > > I have little sympathy with those who flaunt licencing laws. > > I think the word you're looking for is "flout" and I *do* have a great deal of > sympathy with people who "break" the questionable *letter* of many proprietary > "licenses", but not the legal *spirit* of copyright law. Ironically, I go to > extraordinary lengths to avoid doing either myself. (Just in passing, what are Problem is that even "extraordinary" lengths might not be sufficent to comply with the letter of some of these licence agreements. It wouldn't surprise me if the actually *letter* is mutually exclusive with use in schools. But it's politically incorrect to refuse to use the software. > these "licencing laws" of which you write? Are multinational software > companies framing this country's legislation now?) Even people here at the Considering they have been framing at least one country's legislation it wouldn't surprise me. Especially since Bill and Tony appear a little too friendly :) > Institute of Cancer Research---where we are already extremely anal about > software "licensing"---gasp at my excruciating > nose-cutting-off-to-spite-my-face. I pride myself on not doing anything which > might "break" a "license", except where this involves breaking the *real* law > or the laws of physics, because it allows me to take the high moral ground over > proprietary software issues (which I do with tedious frequency). > -- Mark Evans St. Peter's CofE High School Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109 Fax: +44 1392 204763

1 0

Re: [suse-linux-uk-schools] software in schools/piracy
by Ian Lynch 17 Jul '01

17 Jul '01

In essence, much of the licensing is so blatantly geared to exploiting the customer its surprising that there isn't more of a fuss. Its down to ignorance in the end. Look at the recent publicity about "rip off" Britain where cars are a bit more expensive here than in other countries. Now look at the variation in price of software depending on whether its OEM, a boxed copy or Multiple license pack or Education or Agreement or Select, upgrade, competitive upgrade, client access licenses etc etc. Same bit of software in many cases, vastly different prices to different groups. This causes a great deal of confusion so people get the details wrong - not just end-users, some representatives of the software vendors don't even understand it! Also some cases eg running Windows on say a thin client under VMWare are difficult to know whether they conform to any of the manufacturer's rules. Since you can only buy Windows as OEM or boxed copy for a single piece of hardware how can you run it on a thin client where the number of users varies and it isn't actually on their machine? Under normal circumstances it would be reasonable to just say don't buy the product, but this isn't normal circumstances because there is a monopoly that is holding everyone to ransom. Easiest way round it is to keep accelerating the use of Linux simply because then you don't have to worry. With Compaq laying off 8500 worldwide seems that the PC building is likely to be slowing which means fewer operating systems so I expect more rather than less pressure on software protection. If this raises the inconvenience level to end users beyond the level of tolerance, so much the better in the long run. -- IanL > Damian COUNSELL http://www.icr.ac.uk/cmb/bioinformatics/ > CMB Bioinformatics phone: +44 020 7352 8133 x5226 > Institute of Cancer Research direct: +44 020 7878 3850 > London SW3 6JB fax: +44 020 7351 3325

3 2