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

* 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! -- 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 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

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

On 11/17/06, John E. Perry wrote:

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 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

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

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 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 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

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

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

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

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 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 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 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

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

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:

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

-----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/ /\\ _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFYRJMr3NMWliFcXcRAoaLAKCIfA67a/E2AW9tWB/FeU/oJuBFKwCfQZPH RxPag5+ktkBpxdq2z3BVbwM= =9H/C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- 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/ /\\ _\_v The more things change, the more they stay insane. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFYXoRr3NMWliFcXcRAlNgAKCxuQP7/YLzAutxj5ZjPmmqeFFJNQCgpurL t6lxIOScZW6YhhLPWmDXUhs= =CDuW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- 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 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 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

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

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 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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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 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 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 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 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