May 2001 - openSUSE Users - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[OT] More info about Windows XP's new Activation scheme
by wilson＠claborn.net 02 Jun '01

02 Jun '01

Sorry I don't have the URL this came from. >Windows Product Activation: More Details >In last month's Windows 2000 Magazine UPDATE Special Edition, I >explained what I knew about the new Windows Product Activation feature >built into Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Home Edition, and the >various flavors of Windows 2002 Server. (In case you missed the >fanfare--Microsoft has revealed the product name of what we've been >calling "Whistler Server"--Windows 2002 Server.) Many of you--hundreds >of you--responded with interesting and helpful insights. A particularly >interesting response came from one of the Microsoft folks working on >product activation, Allen Nieman. Nieman is a product manager in the >Licensing Technologies group. He was kind enough to spend about an hour >and a half with me on the phone to fill in more details about how >product activation works, and I can't thank him enough for his help. >Because I didn't have all of the information about the Windows >activation process last month, I had to speculate a bit, so this month >I'll pass along what he told me. >I'll begin with more specifics about what product activation does. When >you install a product that requires activation, it asks that you >activate it within 30 days (or that's what the final product will do; >it's 14 days in the beta). During the activation process, the OS >inventories your hardware and summarizes it as a single 50-digit string. >The hash is, I'm told, a one-way function, meaning that although a >particular set of hardware will generate a particular set of digits, >reversing it isn't easy, so merely knowing the 50 digits about your >system wouldn't tell me what size and type of hard disk you owned. But >do you believe that's all that Microsoft is gathering? A capture of the >transaction shows that a very small amount of data going over the wire >to Microsoft, so it doesn't look as if Bill is uploading your >portfolio. >Additionally, you can choose to activate your OS by calling Microsoft >and reading the 50-digit number to a carbon-based life form (rather than >sending it to a silicon-based server). The recipient will then read a >42-digit number to you, which you key in to complete your activation. >Unfortunately, that's a one-time-only 42-digit value; should you need to >reinstall the OS on that system, you must call Microsoft to get another >code. >As I explained last month, a Microsoft server then stores your 50-digit >code and your product key in a database. If someone tries to activate a >different machine using your product key, the database will see that >someone's tried to install the same copy of the OS on two different >machines and will refuse to authorize the activation. Additionally, >every time you boot that system, the system recomputes the 50-digit >value and, if it's too different from the one used to activate the >system in the first place, the OS will demand that you once more connect >to the Internet to reactivate your copy. Small hardware changes won't >require reactivation. If, however, you lend your neighbor your Windows >XP CD-ROM and product key and he installs it on his system and tries to >activate it, the Microsoft server will see a radically different set of >hardware trying to activate an already activated copy of Windows XP, and >will tell your neighbor's system not to activate itself. >But how much hardware difference is "too much"? Nieman wouldn't say >because (1) Microsoft hasn't finished Windows XP yet, so anything he'd >say might change, and (2) he didn't want to make life easier for >pirates. A reasonable answer, but I argued that a determined bunch of >people with a closet full of hardware and a day or two to play around >could (and would) soon figure that out, so why not just release the >information anyway? He demurred, but told me to stay tuned, because >Microsoft might publish that information come shipping time anyway. >But what about when I buy a new machine, FDISK the old one, and put my >copy of Windows XP on it--won't Microsoft refuse to activate Windows XP >on that new system, thinking that I'm already running it on my old >system? No, Nieman said--Microsoft will trust you and approve activating >Windows XP on the new system, deactivating it on the old. >Rampant piracy among American small businesses and home users motivates >the whole approach, according to Nieman. Microsoft believes that on the >average, those folks use four copies of a given piece of software but >pay for only one. (The company reckons the ratio outside of the United >States to be even higher.) Microsoft acquired those numbers from the >Business Software Alliance (BSA--see the URL listed at the end of the >column), an organization that finds and fines software pirates. I've >never seen the methodology that led the BSA to those numbers (which have >been floating around for some time), and I personally don't believe >them. That 75 percent of the small office/home office (SOHO) software is >pirated seems a bit farfetched and, I think, insulting. And if Microsoft >truly believes that its home users--you know, the evening and weekend >versions of the people who use its commercial products by day--are >stealing 75 percent of the Microsoft products they use, that degree of >piracy would be pretty important news to Microsoft's stockholders, >wouldn't you think? "Here at Microsoft, we have great products, but >before you invest, you really ought to know that three out of four >people who use our products don't actually pay for them." Shouldn't that >information be in the company's annual report or Securities and Exchange >Commission (SEC) filings? >Actually, beyond what you or I think, it's a matter of law: If Microsoft >believes in those piracy figures, the company must disclose that >information in its SEC filings. But other than one vague reference to >piracy in its 10-K filing for 2000, Microsoft is silent about piracy--no >numbers, percentages, or damages to the bottom line are cited. >No, I'm not suggesting that Microsoft's in violation of investment >regulations for not writing "The Prospectus of Penzance"--because I >believe that the four-to-one ratio is no more than an exaggeration that >provides a convenient bit of self-justification for some industry >pundits. But we are talking legal issues here. After all, I pay for all >of my software because the law tells me to, not necessarily because I >want to. And if the irritation of activation will become part of my life >because of a wave of piracy of that supposed magnitude, surely Microsoft >should alert its investors to that piracy, by law. >And thinking about finances led to another question: What happens if >Microsoft goes out of business? No one could activate copies of Windows >XP. If Microsoft disappeared, so would your ability to use its software >during the inevitable reinstalls. And no, I don't think Microsoft is >going belly-up any time soon (unless it keeps up this product activation >stuff), but Nieman said that he hoped that this product-activation >approach would turn out to be an effective way to protect software >companies of all kinds, including many not as sturdy as Microsoft. I'd >hate to think that if Intuit disappeared, all of a sudden I wouldn't be >able to get to my checkbook or portfolio information! >Despite the many other things to consider, I'm about out of space. I >don't want to sign off, however, without answering a frequent reader >question generated by last month's column. I explained last month that >product activation wouldn't apply to those using Open, Select, or >Enterprise copies, but many of you disagreed, telling me that your Open, >Select, or Enterprise Beta 2 copies require it. According to Microsoft, >that's an issue with the beta only. Nieman said that the final copies of >Windows XP and Windows Server 2002 won't require activation--so scripts, >Ghost, Remote Installation Services (RIS), and the other rollout tools >that we know and love will work without a hitch in Windows NT's latest >incarnation. And when asked whether Windows XP would target SOHOs as a >preparatory step to visiting the activation process on bigger customers >next time, Nieman STRONGLY maintained that Microsoft had no intention of >doing that. The company feels that it has the piracy issues pretty much >under control in large organizations. >I repeat in closing that I fully agree that Microsoft has a right to >defend its copyrighted works; and I hope that the company will continue >to do so. But placing a burden of annoyance on its existing customers >seems unreasonable, particularly when the only reason that Microsoft can >impose product activation is its pre-eminence in the market. As I said >last month, could Microsoft have made such a move when Windows 3.1 came >out? Sure. But we'd have all bought OS/2 instead. And that's the point: >when you've got competition, then you can do a lot of things that you >CAN'T--or at least shouldn't--do once you're a monopoly. >http://www.bsa.org >Mark Minasi >Senior Contributing Editor, Windows 2000 Magazine >help(a)minasi.com ---------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Wilson System Administrator Cedar Creek Software http://www.cedarcreeksoftware.com Central Texas IT http://www.centraltexasit.com

8 8

Saitek SP550 Joystick/Gamepad
by Rikard DustPuppy Johnels 02 Jun '01

02 Jun '01

Has anyone gotten this little beast to function under either 2.2.18 or 2.4.2? I have a Sounblaster Live card set up with the built in driver from the kernel. I have tried making all joystick modules and intergrating them in to the 2.2.18 kernel. Same problem. No joysticks found... /dev/js0: No such device /dev/input/js0: No such device (Which /dev is the proper one??) / Under 2.4.2 i can get something out of /dev/input/js0 but only after loading ALL modules... Couldnt find out which modules i needed. :( But i have other problems with the 2.4.2 kernel so i cant use it.. :( I tried to look into the /usr/src/linux/Documentation/joystick.txt, but it didnt really give me any clues. CAn anyone help me with this? -- /Rikard -----***-----***-----***-----***-----***-----***-----***-----***-----***-----***----- Rikard Johnels Phone: +46 (070) 464 99 39 Computer Consultant Email: rjhn(a)linux.nu -----***-----***-----***-----***-----***-----***-----***-----***-----***-----***-----

2 1

[OT] Athlon Processor
by Guy Van Sanden 02 Jun '01

02 Jun '01

Hello I know this is off topic, but I just bought a new PC (for Linux), but I suspect that the guy who sold it to me isn't completely honest. So, I need some help, and I've always found friends here. The thing is, my wife has been saving for a long time to give me a decent Linux machine (for my birthday, cause my old one was getting real slow for what I use it for), and I really don't want it to break down in a couple of years. My system is an Athlon 1.333 GHZ with a ThermalTake Volcano cooler. (- Abit motherboard, to be replaced with an Asus which was out of stock - VIA chipset - Award bios) It should cool the CPU down to about 30°-40°C (specially when idle), but my CPU is constantly running at 56°C - 60°C... Even when idle (same on full load). I thought the kapmd-idle thread would keep it cool? But that guy claims that isn't so for an Athlon (only Intel). He also claims that this temperature can do no harm to my CPU, but I doubt that. Searching the internet indicates that temperatures like that shorten the life of an Athlon (most of my systems run up to 10 years, about 4-5 years with me, and than past on to family members), and on many sites, the ThermalTake volcano is rated very good (should cool to 30-35° when idle). He claims I might be able to get my CPU cooler by running (once) a windows utility that can set a register on the chipset to make it run idle when not loaded? Does anyone know if this is true? I also fear that the CPU might be a lower type (1-1.2, overclocked to 1.333), is there any way to check this? I'm sorry about posting this topic, but I really need help. Thanks for any ideas! Guy

6 6

Re: [SLE] KDE Control Center problem]
by Alexandr Malusek 01 Jun '01

01 Jun '01

Jack Reilly <aa6vn(a)pacbell.net> writes: > In ~/.kde2/share/applnk/Settings I have these directories: > > FileBrowsing Information Network Personalization > Sound WebBrowsing > Help LookNFeel Peripherals PowerControl > System YaST > > Does that list corespond to the list that should be > appearing in the left panel of my Control Center? I don't know. I suggest you ask kcontrol developers. You can check if kcontrol or its children open them by $ strace -f kcontrol 2>&1 |grep open|grep -v ENOENT|sort -u (Note the "-f" option). If the problem is related to your personal settings in ~/.kde2, then I suggest that you rename this directory (to e.g. ~/.kde2.old) and restart your KDE2 session. KDE2 will create a new one. The problem may also be related to your upgrade. One of my KDE2 upgrades failed, KDE2 didn't start at all. I didn't investigate it thoroughly, it just seemed to me I had downloaded a mixture of old and new KDE2 releases from a SuSE mirror. My experience is that, for instance, ftp.mirror.ac.uk is synchronized with ftp.suse.com well, but ftp.sunet.se sometimes also keeps old stuff in its directories. It seems to me there is no mechanism preventing users from downloading a content of an ftp mirror directory which is in the middle of its update. I compare the content of the INDEX file on ftp.suse.com and its mirror before I download packages from the mirror, but I'm not sure it's sufficient. -- Alexandr.Malusek(a)imv.liu.se

3 4

Re: Microsoft Software Cost Analysis (Was: Re: suse 7.2!!)
by Jim Osborn 01 Jun '01

01 Jun '01

Steven Hatfield <ashari(a)knightswood.net> writes: >The "business" could also be a department in a larger >business, but I'm assuming that the "business" has 25 people or less, will >have 1 central server that will be running SQL Server 2000 for their >database, that there are 24 "sales/marketing people and/or project managers" >and 1 "developer"... > >Ok, So here we do the final addition: >$3,549.00 >$4,800.00 >$6,529.95 >$279.95x25=$6998.75 >$549.95x25=$13748.75 >$1029.00 >---------------------------------------- >For a grand total of: $36,655.45 >... >Or you can get SuSE's 7.1/7.2 Professional distribution, which comes with >$40,000 worth of software, for the low low price of just $70.00. Shouldn't that be 25 * $70? I know SuSE said it was perfectly ok for me to intall my single copy on each of my home machines (2 at present), but I'd assume in a business environment, you'd want to pay for each seat. Your basic economic argument still holds... :) Jim

6 6

Blender and Nvidia
by Brian Dunaway 01 Jun '01

01 Jun '01

Any of you guys use blender? I am trying to set it up to use my Nvidia card.

8 8

Re: [SLE] nvidia drivers
by Wojciech Paszkowski 01 Jun '01

01 Jun '01

Dnia Czw 31. Maj 2001 22:26, Wojciech Paszkowski napisał: > Dnia Czw 31. Maj 2001 09:48, napisałeś: > HI > IT's IT? > Wojtek > > > Hello everyone > > > > I'm installing my nvidia based videocard. I downloaded the 1.0-1251 > > drivers, but in the readme file I found this part: > > > > "This file describes how to install, configure, and use the NVIDIA > > Accelerated Linux Driver Set. Please refer to the following > > additional > > README files as appropriate: > > ALI_USERS_README - for problems with ALI chipsets > > TNT_USERS_README - for problems with TNT card with > > SGRAM/SDRAM > > LAPTOP_README - for instructions on how to set up your > > laptop system > > TWINVIEW_README - for instructions on how to set up > > TwinView > > TVOUT_README - for instructions on connecting a TV " > > > > As my card has a TV-OUT and supports TWINVIEW, I would like to set it > > up... > > Does anyone know the location of these files, I can't seem to find > > them on the Nvidia site... > > > > Thanks > > > > Guy > > > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe(a)suse.com > > For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help(a)suse.com > > Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the > > archives at http://lists.suse.com > > > > --- > > Bardzo wazne informacje o pracy bezplatnej sieci KKI. > > http://www.kki.pl/kki/kkinet/wylaczenia.htm > > --- ---------------------------------------- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"; name="TWINVIEW_README" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: ---------------------------------------- --- Co 2 sek. ZNIKA jedna wolna domena internetowa, a Ty masz juz swoja >>>>> Sprawdz To nic nie kosztuje! http://new.Domeny.com <<<<< ---

3 2

Using Matrox G400 dual head under Linux ??
by Linux - User 01 Jun '01

01 Jun '01

Does some one have installed the Matrox G400 Dual Head with Linux using the booth monitors ?

2 3

Re: [SLE] [OT] More info about Windows XP's new Activation scheme
by Harold ! 01 Jun '01

01 Jun '01

Where do I get my "I was running Linux BEFORE Windoze XP!" Bumper stickers and t-shirts? Ambrosius >From: Steven Hatfield <ashari(a)knightswood.net> >Reply-To: ashari(a)knightswood.net >To: wilson(a)claborn.net (Jonathan Wilson), suse-linux-e(a)ns2.suse.com >Subject: Re: [SLE] [OT] More info about Windows XP's new Activation scheme >Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 15:45:42 -0400 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Received: from [202.58.118.3] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id >MHotMailBCD801DA003A4004375FCA3A7603079F0; Fri May 25 12:47:39 2001 >Received: (qmail 28879 invoked by alias); 25 May 2001 19:45:50 -0000 >Received: (qmail 28769 invoked from network); 25 May 2001 19:45:48 -0000 >From suse-linux-e-return-58620-ambrosius1972 Fri May 25 12:48:31 2001 >Mailing-List: contact suse-linux-e-help(a)suse.com; run by ezmlm >Precedence: bulk >X-No-Archive: yes >list-help: <mailto:suse-linux-e-help@lists.suse.com> >list-unsubscribe: <mailto:suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@lists.suse.com> >list-post: <mailto:suse-linux-e@suse.com> >X-Mailinglist: suse-linux-e >Delivered-To: mailing list suse-linux-e(a)lists.suse.com >Organization: Symphoni Interactive, LLC >X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] >References: <5.1.0.14.0.20010525144742.0277efe0(a)mail.claborn.net> >In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20010525144742.0277efe0(a)mail.claborn.net> >Message-Id: <01052515454200.27468@lancelot> > > >Yes! This has been what I've been waiting for... a foolproof >copyright/activation system. The crackers will have a VERY hard time >breaking >this.. it's not simply a "here's the key" deal! > >Now, when people realize that they actually have to PAY for their OS, >they'll >start looking for "free" alternatives... I bet you that we will see a HUGE >insurgance of newbies maybe 1 year after WinXP comes out. > >Why one year? Because it'll be at that point that people start feeling >really >"left behind" by windows.. .Microsoft isn't going to release a lot of the >new >software that will work on anything other than WinXP.. so they'll feel very >left behind and they will be forced to either pay up or look somewhere >else. > >Mark my words -- look for a TON of new users between Oct 25, 2001 and Dec >31, >2002... a TON. > >Laters all, >Steven > >On Friday 25 May 2001 03:48 pm, Jonathan Wilson wrote: > > Sorry I don't have the URL this came from. > > > > >Windows Product Activation: More Details > > >In last month's Windows 2000 Magazine UPDATE Special Edition, I > > >explained what I knew about the new Windows Product Activation feature > > >built into Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Home Edition, and the > > >various flavors of Windows 2002 Server. (In case you missed the > > >fanfare--Microsoft has revealed the product name of what we've been > > >calling "Whistler Server"--Windows 2002 Server.) Many of you--hundreds > > >of you--responded with interesting and helpful insights. A particularly > > >interesting response came from one of the Microsoft folks working on > > >product activation, Allen Nieman. Nieman is a product manager in the > > >Licensing Technologies group. He was kind enough to spend about an hour > > >and a half with me on the phone to fill in more details about how > > >product activation works, and I can't thank him enough for his help. > > >Because I didn't have all of the information about the Windows > > >activation process last month, I had to speculate a bit, so this month > > >I'll pass along what he told me. > > >I'll begin with more specifics about what product activation does. When > > >you install a product that requires activation, it asks that you > > >activate it within 30 days (or that's what the final product will do; > > >it's 14 days in the beta). During the activation process, the OS > > >inventories your hardware and summarizes it as a single 50-digit >string. > > >The hash is, I'm told, a one-way function, meaning that although a > > >particular set of hardware will generate a particular set of digits, > > >reversing it isn't easy, so merely knowing the 50 digits about your > > >system wouldn't tell me what size and type of hard disk you owned. But > > >do you believe that's all that Microsoft is gathering? A capture of the > > >transaction shows that a very small amount of data going over the wire > > >to Microsoft, so it doesn't look as if Bill is uploading your > > >portfolio. > > >Additionally, you can choose to activate your OS by calling Microsoft > > >and reading the 50-digit number to a carbon-based life form (rather >than > > >sending it to a silicon-based server). The recipient will then read a > > >42-digit number to you, which you key in to complete your activation. > > >Unfortunately, that's a one-time-only 42-digit value; should you need >to > > >reinstall the OS on that system, you must call Microsoft to get another > > >code. > > >As I explained last month, a Microsoft server then stores your 50-digit > > >code and your product key in a database. If someone tries to activate a > > >different machine using your product key, the database will see that > > >someone's tried to install the same copy of the OS on two different > > >machines and will refuse to authorize the activation. Additionally, > > >every time you boot that system, the system recomputes the 50-digit > > >value and, if it's too different from the one used to activate the > > >system in the first place, the OS will demand that you once more >connect > > >to the Internet to reactivate your copy. Small hardware changes won't > > >require reactivation. If, however, you lend your neighbor your Windows > > >XP CD-ROM and product key and he installs it on his system and tries to > > >activate it, the Microsoft server will see a radically different set of > > >hardware trying to activate an already activated copy of Windows XP, >and > > >will tell your neighbor's system not to activate itself. > > >But how much hardware difference is "too much"? Nieman wouldn't say > > >because (1) Microsoft hasn't finished Windows XP yet, so anything he'd > > >say might change, and (2) he didn't want to make life easier for > > >pirates. A reasonable answer, but I argued that a determined bunch of > > >people with a closet full of hardware and a day or two to play around > > >could (and would) soon figure that out, so why not just release the > > >information anyway? He demurred, but told me to stay tuned, because > > >Microsoft might publish that information come shipping time anyway. > > >But what about when I buy a new machine, FDISK the old one, and put my > > >copy of Windows XP on it--won't Microsoft refuse to activate Windows XP > > >on that new system, thinking that I'm already running it on my old > > >system? No, Nieman said--Microsoft will trust you and approve >activating > > >Windows XP on the new system, deactivating it on the old. > > >Rampant piracy among American small businesses and home users motivates > > >the whole approach, according to Nieman. Microsoft believes that on the > > >average, those folks use four copies of a given piece of software but > > >pay for only one. (The company reckons the ratio outside of the United > > >States to be even higher.) Microsoft acquired those numbers from the > > >Business Software Alliance (BSA--see the URL listed at the end of the > > >column), an organization that finds and fines software pirates. I've > > >never seen the methodology that led the BSA to those numbers (which >have > > >been floating around for some time), and I personally don't believe > > >them. That 75 percent of the small office/home office (SOHO) software >is > > >pirated seems a bit farfetched and, I think, insulting. And if >Microsoft > > >truly believes that its home users--you know, the evening and weekend > > >versions of the people who use its commercial products by day--are > > >stealing 75 percent of the Microsoft products they use, that degree of > > >piracy would be pretty important news to Microsoft's stockholders, > > >wouldn't you think? "Here at Microsoft, we have great products, but > > >before you invest, you really ought to know that three out of four > > >people who use our products don't actually pay for them." Shouldn't >that > > >information be in the company's annual report or Securities and >Exchange > > >Commission (SEC) filings? > > >Actually, beyond what you or I think, it's a matter of law: If >Microsoft > > >believes in those piracy figures, the company must disclose that > > >information in its SEC filings. But other than one vague reference to > > >piracy in its 10-K filing for 2000, Microsoft is silent about >piracy--no > > >numbers, percentages, or damages to the bottom line are cited. > > >No, I'm not suggesting that Microsoft's in violation of investment > > >regulations for not writing "The Prospectus of Penzance"--because I > > >believe that the four-to-one ratio is no more than an exaggeration that > > >provides a convenient bit of self-justification for some industry > > >pundits. But we are talking legal issues here. After all, I pay for all > > >of my software because the law tells me to, not necessarily because I > > >want to. And if the irritation of activation will become part of my >life > > >because of a wave of piracy of that supposed magnitude, surely >Microsoft > > >should alert its investors to that piracy, by law. > > >And thinking about finances led to another question: What happens if > > >Microsoft goes out of business? No one could activate copies of Windows > > >XP. If Microsoft disappeared, so would your ability to use its software > > >during the inevitable reinstalls. And no, I don't think Microsoft is > > >going belly-up any time soon (unless it keeps up this product >activation > > >stuff), but Nieman said that he hoped that this product-activation > > >approach would turn out to be an effective way to protect software > > >companies of all kinds, including many not as sturdy as Microsoft. I'd > > >hate to think that if Intuit disappeared, all of a sudden I wouldn't be > > >able to get to my checkbook or portfolio information! > > >Despite the many other things to consider, I'm about out of space. I > > >don't want to sign off, however, without answering a frequent reader > > >question generated by last month's column. I explained last month that > > >product activation wouldn't apply to those using Open, Select, or > > >Enterprise copies, but many of you disagreed, telling me that your >Open, > > >Select, or Enterprise Beta 2 copies require it. According to Microsoft, > > >that's an issue with the beta only. Nieman said that the final copies >of > > >Windows XP and Windows Server 2002 won't require activation--so >scripts, > > >Ghost, Remote Installation Services (RIS), and the other rollout tools > > >that we know and love will work without a hitch in Windows NT's latest > > >incarnation. And when asked whether Windows XP would target SOHOs as a > > >preparatory step to visiting the activation process on bigger customers > > >next time, Nieman STRONGLY maintained that Microsoft had no intention >of > > >doing that. The company feels that it has the piracy issues pretty much > > >under control in large organizations. > > >I repeat in closing that I fully agree that Microsoft has a right to > > >defend its copyrighted works; and I hope that the company will continue > > >to do so. But placing a burden of annoyance on its existing customers > > >seems unreasonable, particularly when the only reason that Microsoft >can > > >impose product activation is its pre-eminence in the market. As I said > > >last month, could Microsoft have made such a move when Windows 3.1 came > > >out? Sure. But we'd have all bought OS/2 instead. And that's the point: > > >when you've got competition, then you can do a lot of things that you > > >CAN'T--or at least shouldn't--do once you're a monopoly. > > >http://www.bsa.org > > >Mark Minasi > > >Senior Contributing Editor, Windows 2000 Magazine > > >help(a)minasi.com > > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Jonathan Wilson > > System Administrator > > > > Cedar Creek Software http://www.cedarcreeksoftware.com > > Central Texas IT http://www.centraltexasit.com > >-- >To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe(a)suse.com >For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help(a)suse.com >Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the >archives at http://lists.suse.com > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

6 6

RE: [SLE] Athlon Processor - Checking the temp under Linux
by Sinan S 01 Jun '01

01 Jun '01

Hi Paul, Goto this link http://www.icrontic.com/faq/index.php3? theme=4&level=2&document_id_select=3 In the left part of the page, select "17. Unix" then "17.2". I havennt checked the program yet since I just found out about it today. Note I pasted the single link into two lines! Sinan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

4 3