603 lines
25 KiB
Plaintext
603 lines
25 KiB
Plaintext
From: Digestifier <Linux-Misc-Request@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>
|
|
To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu
|
|
Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu
|
|
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 94 03:13:25 EDT
|
|
Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #767
|
|
|
|
Linux-Misc Digest #767, Volume #2 Fri, 16 Sep 94 03:13:25 EDT
|
|
|
|
Contents:
|
|
Re: 486/dx2-66 vs P60 vs P66 vs P90 ? (Pete Deuel)
|
|
Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors (Craig Burley)
|
|
Re: Problem with Linux Sound (is20176@otago.ac.nz)
|
|
Is there an ARCNET driver for LINUX ??? (Ramses Moya)
|
|
Re: Word Processor for Linux? (DAVID L. JOHNSON)
|
|
Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors (Jeff Kesselman)
|
|
Re: OS/2 vs. Unix Which one is better and why??? (Jeff Kesselman)
|
|
Anyone have a 3c505 driver? (Forkboy)
|
|
Re: Horrific bug in DOOM! (Greg Hennessy)
|
|
Re: The HP 560C printer (Uwe Bonnes)
|
|
Re: The snatchability factor (was Re: WABI v (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
|
|
Re: Horrific bug in DOOM! (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
|
|
Vision864 Chipset Working Yet? (Mike Armour)
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: deuelpm@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Pete Deuel)
|
|
Subject: Re: 486/dx2-66 vs P60 vs P66 vs P90 ?
|
|
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 05:11:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <Cw4C68.E9A@news.cern.ch> danpop@cernapo.cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:
|
|
>From: danpop@cernapo.cern.ch (Dan Pop)
|
|
>Subject: Re: 486/dx2-66 vs P60 vs P66 vs P90 ?
|
|
>Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 12:03:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
>In <deuelpm.63.2E7669B9@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> deuelpm@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Pete Deuel) writes:
|
|
|
|
>>In article <ESLER.94Sep12153910@kanangra.ch.hp.com> esler@ch.hp.com (Kevin Esler) writes:
|
|
>>>From: esler@ch.hp.com (Kevin Esler)
|
|
>>>Subject: 486/dx2-66 vs P60 vs P66 vs P90 ?
|
|
>>>Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 19:39:10 GMT
|
|
>>
|
|
>>>Does anybody have any benchmark figures on the relative raw CPU
|
|
>>>performance of:
|
|
>>
|
|
>>> 486/dx2-66
|
|
>>> Pentium 60
|
|
>>> Pentium 66
|
|
>>> Pentium 90
|
|
>>
|
|
>>Yup. Check the mini-howto on "BogoMips" P5-90 gateway (for us) is 36.08,
|
|
>>which toasts nearly everything else... Check it out; it's on sunsite...
|
|
|
|
>Since when is BogoMips a benchmark relevant for anything else than
|
|
>waiting loops?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well the original poster asked for benchmarks... It's the only one that I
|
|
found covered within the linux doc realm. I agree; it isn't worth much...
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the original poster has accumulated enough info to construct a
|
|
Linux-benchmark-HOWTO? (Ways to meaningfully bench Linux under differing
|
|
hardware, ways to compare Linux boxes to suns, Ibms, SCOs, etc.)
|
|
I am not knowledeable enough to write such a HOWTO, but would gladly edit it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pete
|
|
===================================================
|
|
"Actually, I'm a lab mouse on stilts..."
|
|
|
|
E-mail: deuelpm@craft.camp.clarkson.edu
|
|
===================================================
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley)
|
|
Subject: Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors
|
|
Date: 16 Sep 94 04:10:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <TYTSO.94Sep14114127@dcl.mit.edu> tytso@athena.mit.edu (Theodore Y. Ts'o) writes:
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry you feel that way. But your posting was simply inaccurate
|
|
regarding the issue of interface copyright. It is a fact that Stallman
|
|
stomped on a source distribution of PGP that merely contained #ifdef's
|
|
so that it could be potentially linked with the gmp library, which was
|
|
protected by the GPL. Sure, Stallman and the FSF couched it in very
|
|
legalistic terms, and then justified the means with the ends ("Free
|
|
Software is Good, so what we did is O.K."). But that's not any
|
|
different from what Lotus did when they tried to use Copyright to
|
|
protect their user interface. It was the same sort of legal mumbo-jumbo
|
|
that led to the same sort of result --- a restriction of who can write
|
|
independent programs that implement or use a particular interface,
|
|
whether that be a UI or an API.
|
|
|
|
I am very saddened by the FSF's decision to use this very broad
|
|
interpretation of the GPL. I engaged in several e-mail messages
|
|
debating this issue with Stallman, over a year ago, when the PGP/gmp
|
|
issue came up, and he would not be moved. He believes he is right, and
|
|
he is entitled to that belief.
|
|
|
|
However, my sadness does not extend to trying to ignore the situation
|
|
for what it is. I will not sweep this situation under the rug. People
|
|
are entitled to know *all* of the issues of the GPL, both its good side
|
|
and its shadow side.
|
|
|
|
[...]
|
|
|
|
I believe the cause of free software is best furthered by putting the
|
|
truth --- the whole truth --- on the table, and letting the chips fall
|
|
where they may.
|
|
|
|
Your "cause" would be more persuasive if you'd post truths such as
|
|
these:
|
|
|
|
- The FSF has explicitly renounced interfaced copyrights, including
|
|
(specifically) on gmp
|
|
|
|
- The existence of #ifdef's in the source distribution of PGP to
|
|
which you refer did _not_ constitute the copying of an interface,
|
|
nor did the FSF ever claim it did
|
|
|
|
- It is thus perfectly safe and legal to write a body of code that
|
|
copies the _interface_ of gmp but is not GPL'ed (e.g. is public
|
|
domain, proprietary, or whatever) -- in fact, I believe this has
|
|
been done
|
|
|
|
- The gmp case bears almost _no_ legal resemblance to the Lotus 1-2-3
|
|
look-and-feel copyright suit, despite your claims to the contrary --
|
|
the only similarity I can see arises when people like yourself
|
|
call the gmp situation a case of "interface copyright", which it
|
|
is emphatically _not_ -- it is an interesting case of defining
|
|
"distribution" as referred to by the GPL, which has no parallel
|
|
in 1-2-3, which itself was a case of copying the interface but
|
|
not the code, which in turn has no parallel in the gmp situation
|
|
|
|
- It has been shown that if the FSF did not take the legal stance
|
|
they did regarding gmp, it would be fairly trivial for anyone
|
|
to write and sell proprietary (source-unavailable) software
|
|
that included GPL'ed code (by having the user do the link),
|
|
thus defeating one of the main purposes of the GPL -- for example,
|
|
GNU Objective-C compilers would almost certainly not be available
|
|
with source code, and it is quite likely that most other versions
|
|
of GNU compilers, EMACS, and so on would be source-unavailable
|
|
(or at least not freely redistributable)
|
|
|
|
That having been said, although I believe I understand the
|
|
situation well enough and agree with the FSF's stance, it is
|
|
obvious to me that many people do not understand it or, in
|
|
any case, come to a different conclusion.
|
|
|
|
However, it is deceiving to claim to state "the whole truth"
|
|
while the above points are omitted from the discussion.
|
|
|
|
Rather than engage in further debating of the above points, which
|
|
I've done in the past, I'll leave it to people genuinely interested
|
|
in the issue to consult the FSF, to read archives, and, best yet,
|
|
consult an intellectual-property lawyer (and make sure you give the
|
|
the _full_ story, not the loaded "summaries" often used by some people,
|
|
or you'll be wasting your $$).
|
|
|
|
Anyway, Ian Jackson's original post still stands, and as far as I
|
|
can recall, it was basically fully accurate. I for one will be
|
|
donating GNU Fortran, the result of about 3 years of full-time
|
|
work (over a period of five years or so), to the FSF, which means
|
|
I will not own the copyright to it, the FSF will. Thus they get
|
|
to decide how to interpret the GPL for it. It is not the case that
|
|
I believe they will always do so perfectly -- it is simply the fact
|
|
that they will do a better job than I will, because unlike most or
|
|
all of the "FSF-claims-interface-copyright" claimants, they actually
|
|
pay a lawyer to tell them what the deal is -- something I don't
|
|
want to bother with. Lawyers aren't always right, of course, but
|
|
I don't want to have to hire any. (Hmm, I wonder what Linus would
|
|
do if companies started releasing proprietary, source-unavailable
|
|
versions of Linux using the kind of subterfuge the FSF would
|
|
attack in court if used on software to which the FSF holds the
|
|
copyright?)
|
|
|
|
But as his post urges, I urge developers to devote a reasonable
|
|
amount of time and effort to research and choose a licensing
|
|
method for your software, and make it clear which one you choose.
|
|
And just as a good developer shouldn't assume writing all the
|
|
code from scratch is the best way, nor should one assume that
|
|
creating a license method from scratch is best. Look around for
|
|
various schemes, find out how they have and have not worked for
|
|
popular and unpopular software using them, and only then make your
|
|
decision. The GPL is only one choice, there are many others.
|
|
There also are many different ideas people have for what the
|
|
word "free" means vis-a-vis software, so it would help if you'd
|
|
summarize your meaning if different from the GPL meaning, the
|
|
PD meaning, or whatever. (The GPL meaning is described in the
|
|
text of the GPL itself.)
|
|
--
|
|
|
|
James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Crossposted-To: alt.games.doom
|
|
From: is20176@otago.ac.nz
|
|
Subject: Re: Problem with Linux Sound
|
|
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 03:02:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <1994Sep15.122608.1@otago.ac.nz>, brentlab@otago.ac.nz writes:
|
|
>>>>In article <34rbks$1ch@news.u.washington.edu> tzs@u.washington.edu
|
|
>> (Tim Smith) writes:
|
|
>>>>>Bill C. Riemers <bcr@physics.purdue.edu> wrote:
|
|
>>>>>> 2. There is significant delay between action and sound. i.e. I
|
|
>>>>>> can fire my gun and then turn halfway around before the gun
|
|
>>>>>> sound comes through my speakers.
|
|
>>>>>
|
|
>>>>>Get shorter speaker cables.
|
|
>>>>>
|
|
>>>>>--Tim Smith
|
|
>>>
|
|
>>>>I really hope that you are kidding. I'd hate to think that our fine
|
|
>>>>educational system is producing people so stupid as to think that
|
|
>> reducing the
|
|
>>>>length of cable between an amplifier and the speakers would have an
|
|
>> observable
|
|
>>>>effect. Think about it: sound travels through the air about 730 miles per
|
|
>>>>hour at sea-level, electronic signals travel through wire at close to the
|
|
>>>>speed of light (roughly 186,000 miles per _second_). If you were to make
|
|
>>>>_any_ adjustments to the speaker placement, you'd be better off putting on
|
|
>>>>headphones (though the difference would still be virtually unobservable).
|
|
>>>
|
|
>>> I really hope that you are kidding. I'd hate to think that our
|
|
>>>fine educational system is producing people so stupid as the think that
|
|
>>>electrons net velocity down a cable is anywhere close to the speed of
|
|
>>>light. With all those electrons refusing to travel straight and bumping
|
|
>>>into each other, you are lucky if you get 1/10 C.
|
|
>>
|
|
>> I really hope that you are kidding. I'd hate to think that our
|
|
>> fine educational system is producing people so stupid that they can't
|
|
>> recognize HUMOR. I thought that the "Get shorter cables" comment was
|
|
>> actually amusing.
|
|
>>
|
|
>> In any case, I'd have to check my physics book for exact
|
|
>> numbers, but I've got a grasp on the general theory. First, it
|
|
>> doesn't really matter how fast the electrons are moving "along the
|
|
>> cable." What matters is the speed of the electic field. It does move
|
|
>> pretty darn close to C. Second, while the electrons are jittering
|
|
>> back and forth and bumping into one another, they do make progress in
|
|
>> the direction of the electric field. The rate, electron drift speed?,
|
|
>> is much slower than C - in fact muhc slower than .1 C.
|
|
>>
|
|
>> Gee, I hope I'm right.
|
|
>>
|
|
>
|
|
> I really hope that you are kidding! :-) We all know that sound
|
|
> travels much slower than electrons in a wire don't we.. The obvious
|
|
> solution to the original problem is to maximise the distance the sound
|
|
> has to travel as electrons and minimise the amount it has to travel as
|
|
> sound waves, so you should actually make the cables _LONGER_
|
|
>
|
|
> Sheeesh, some people just can't see the obvious can they :-) ???
|
|
>
|
|
> Cheers, Neil _Physics_isn't_my_middle_name_ Gardner
|
|
>
|
|
>
|
|
I really hope that you are kidding!!!
|
|
look, if the electric feild is move at near C, then if the wire is on a
|
|
downhill slope, then the e-field is accelerated past light speed, throwing
|
|
you into a time-warp into the past, so you here the sound later (in the real
|
|
present)
|
|
I thought that this basic concept of time-space physics was obvious :-)
|
|
|
|
later,
|
|
Julian
|
|
|
|
k
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: ramses@zeus.achilles.net (Ramses Moya)
|
|
Subject: Is there an ARCNET driver for LINUX ???
|
|
Date: 14 Sep 1994 20:05:57 GMT
|
|
Reply-To: ramses@dragon.achilles.net
|
|
|
|
I'm going to install Linux for the very first time... but before I do I would
|
|
like to know if Linux works with Arcnet cards... I know that it works with
|
|
ethernet... and that is probably better to get them.. but I'm a student so I
|
|
can't really afford them right now !!!
|
|
|
|
If any one knows where to get an Arcnet driver and some info on how to
|
|
install it I would really apriciate it a lot !!!
|
|
|
|
.-----------------.
|
|
| |\^/| | Ramses Moya
|
|
| _|\| |/|_ |
|
|
| > < | 71712.3473@CompuServe.COM
|
|
| >_./|\._< | ramses@dragon.Achilles.NET
|
|
| Ottawa | Canada | ae753@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
|
|
'-----------------'
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: dlj0@Lehigh.EDU (DAVID L. JOHNSON)
|
|
Subject: Re: Word Processor for Linux?
|
|
Date: 16 Sep 1994 04:48:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <35b3ks$l5i@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu>, FEARNLCJ@DUVM.OCS.DREXEL.EDU writes:
|
|
>stanclif@cris.com (Mike Stancliff) writes:
|
|
>>Sender: Stanclif@deathstar.cris.com
|
|
>>Message-ID: <G8xTkm6FvKeL069yn@cris.com>
|
|
>>References: <1994Sep9.033547.28629@ka4ybr.com> <Cw4np0.3Fx@mtkgc.com>
|
|
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: deathstar.cris.com
|
|
>>In article <Cw4np0.3Fx@mtkgc.com>, awasser@mtkgc.com (Adam Wasserman) wrote:
|
|
>>....stuff deleted...
|
|
>>>
|
|
>>> If linux had 1) a good word processor, 2) Quicken, and 3) ran my dos/windows
|
|
>>> multi-media toys, I'd wipe dos/windows off my disk completely. Assistance
|
|
>>> appreciated!
|
|
|
|
fdisk will help you delete your DOS partition.
|
|
|
|
>Has no one tried ez from the AUIS package (auis63LO-wp.tgz)?
|
|
|
|
No these guys, apparently.
|
|
|
|
I realize
|
|
>it's only 1/8th of the whole AUIS system, but Linux Journal even ran an
|
|
>article on it. So I got frustrated with this thread and d/l it from
|
|
>sunsite. It looks like a fancy word processor. Ghostview ran into
|
|
>problems when I tried to preview the sample document -- could this
|
|
>be the reason no one talks about ez when the Word Processing/Spreadsheat
|
|
>thread comes up?
|
|
|
|
Well, it's not completely trivial to set up, but not anything beyond most
|
|
people on this thread (I hope). It offers all that any other word-processor
|
|
does, and is far easier to use AND more flexible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
>One last thought: doesn't WordPerfect work under dosemu too (as well
|
|
>as iBCS2)?
|
|
>
|
|
Yes to both. Hard to know what the fuss is about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
David L. Johnson dlj0@lehigh.edu or
|
|
Department of Mathematics dlj0@chern.math.lehigh.edu
|
|
Lehigh University
|
|
14 E. Packer Avenue (610) 758-3759
|
|
Bethlehem, PA 18015-3174 (610) 828-3708
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: jeffpk@netcom.com (Jeff Kesselman)
|
|
Subject: Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors
|
|
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 03:23:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <Cw4H4x.L6D@info.swan.ac.uk> iialan@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox) writes:
|
|
>In article <ann-13210.779119813@cs.cornell.edu> Ian Jackson <ijackson@nyx.cs.du.edu> writes:
|
|
>>If you wish to place your work in the public domain, so that anyone
|
|
>>can do anything with it - including making their own derivations and
|
|
>>placing their own copyright on them without crediting you - you must
|
|
>>say so explicitly, for example with "I hereby relinquish my copyright
|
|
>>and place this work in the public domain".
|
|
>
|
|
>Before people put anything in the public domain be aware that the public
|
|
>domain doesn't mean people cannot sue you for writing crap code that
|
|
>breaks their computer! Therefore its much better to place the program
|
|
>under a license along the lines of 'Do as you please but I'm not liable
|
|
>for the results'.
|
|
>
|
|
>Alan
|
|
>--
|
|
> ..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
|
|
> // Alan Cox // iialan@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU //
|
|
> ``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''
|
|
|
|
I suppose this IS true, although I would think you could put the same
|
|
kind of dsiclaimer on a PD about suitability of purpose as you coudl ona
|
|
liscensed product.
|
|
|
|
To my mind a BIGGER issue is that, when you PD something, anyone can do
|
|
ANYTHING with your work-- including using it in ways or for purposes you
|
|
did not intend and don't want to see.
|
|
|
|
If you want to make things freely available, my sugegstion is to GPL
|
|
them. FSF has put alot of time and effort (and legal fees) into coming
|
|
up with a contract that allows free distribution and use, but lets them
|
|
retain a degree of control.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
|
|
From: jeffpk@netcom.com (Jeff Kesselman)
|
|
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix Which one is better and why???
|
|
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 03:28:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <DJOHNSON.94Sep13204609@arnold.ucsd.edu> djohnson@arnold.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) writes:
|
|
>In article <jeffpkCvy2B3.ECr@netcom.com> jeffpk@netcom.com (Jeff Kesselman) writes:
|
|
>
|
|
>(regarding OS9)
|
|
>> The multi-tasking turns OFF every time you enter the
|
|
>> kernel! Yes, thats right, this so-called multi-tasking system has a
|
|
>> non-re-entrant kernel.
|
|
>
|
|
>Sounds like UNIX! (well, maybe not some of the more forward looking
|
|
>variants, but...)
|
|
>
|
|
>> >(a multitasking, modular kernel in less than 128k. You gotta be impressed
|
|
>> >by that)
|
|
>>
|
|
>> Why should I be impressed? UNIX was orginally developed and run on 64k
|
|
>> LSI-11. And it did a whole lot more a whole lot better.
|
|
>
|
|
>You're simplifying things too much. The original unix didn't do
|
|
>a whole lot. And it also relied upon swapping, so that 64K wasn't
|
|
>as restrictive as it might seem (it swapped whole processes though,
|
|
>instead of paging). The PDP had nicer machines to work with,
|
|
>especially memory-management-wise, than most OS9 machines.
|
|
>--
|
|
|
|
I won't disagree with you tah the PDP was a fairly ncie machien for its
|
|
time. I WILL disagree with you, and give away my age, by sayign that I
|
|
worked on some of the early LSI-11 Unices, and they were better thought
|
|
out, and thus mroe intrinsicly pwoerful system then the OS9 version I
|
|
worked with (CD-RTOS).
|
|
|
|
It also had signifcantly better development tools. (Like a non-broken
|
|
optimizing C compiler...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: kmzoerho@mtu.edu (Forkboy)
|
|
Subject: Anyone have a 3c505 driver?
|
|
Date: 14 Sep 1994 00:32:28 -0400
|
|
|
|
Subject says it all. Anyone have one? Know where I could find one? I've
|
|
looked on the ftp sites, and haven't found one yet. It isn't terribly
|
|
important, but I would like to be able to use my 3c505 under Linux.
|
|
|
|
|
|
==================================================================
|
|
| Lunatic | lunatic@worf.infonet.net | Encounters BBS |
|
|
| Magnet | dust@freenet.grfn.org | (906) 482-6248 |
|
|
==================================================================
|
|
| My World Wide Web homepage -- http://www.grfn.org/~dust |
|
|
==================================================================
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: gsh@tantalus.digex.net (Greg Hennessy)
|
|
Subject: Re: Horrific bug in DOOM!
|
|
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 04:40:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <1994Sep13.211511.807@taylor.infi.net>,
|
|
Mark A. Davis <mark@taylor.infi.net> wrote:
|
|
>My point, originally, is that the word DOS has nothing to do with
|
|
>Microsoft... neither does the word "windows". The proper names for those
|
|
>products always have been, and still are MS-DOS and MS-Windows! Microsoft
|
|
>could not, cannot, and will not be able to register common, generic
|
|
>English words to their exclusive use.
|
|
|
|
Well, the Washington post claimed this week that Microsoft *was*
|
|
granted a trademark on "Windows" on appeal, after first being denied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: bon@lte.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de (Uwe Bonnes)
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
|
|
Subject: Re: The HP 560C printer
|
|
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 05:05:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
SHAKER Kamal (cscks@news.latrobe.edu.au) wrote:
|
|
> We're now looking for a new printer, has to be colour for my
|
|
> brothers design work, and my mother wants the Hewlett Packard 560C.
|
|
> What I'd like to know is whether it is well supported under OS/2
|
|
> and Linux ( my OS's of choice, I assume it has decent drivers for
|
|
> Windows ). So, does it? Or does anyone else know of a similar printer
|
|
> for about the same price.
|
|
|
|
Ghostscript supports the 550 and so the 560 on Linux, and should do so too
|
|
on OS2
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Uwe Bonnes bon@lte.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: mah@ka4ybr.com (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
|
|
Subject: Re: The snatchability factor (was Re: WABI v
|
|
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 22:51:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Anselm Lingnau (lingnau@informatik.uni-frankfurt.de) wrote:
|
|
: In article <1994Sep14.081931.16107@ka4ybr.com>,
|
|
: Mark A. Horton KA4YBR <mah@ka4ybr.com> wrote:
|
|
|
|
: > Since the
|
|
: > product is not supported by WP corporation in the target environment, should
|
|
: > one purchase such a product and then manage to "make it work" through the
|
|
: > addition of software in no way connected with the original work (i.e. the
|
|
: > IBCS/COFF support) could the purchaser then return the purchased product for
|
|
: > a refund due to "lack of suitability" to the purchaser's environment and yet
|
|
: > still continue to use the "assisted" product which the vendor choses not
|
|
: > to support? Is this piracy? The product is not running in any "supported"
|
|
: > or even officially "sanctioned" environment and is thus unusable and
|
|
: > ineligible for support which is a factor in the purchase price of the said
|
|
: > product.
|
|
|
|
: This is ridiculous. Of course this is piracy. By your reasoning I
|
|
: could buy any Windows software to run under WABI (or Wine, or whatever),
|
|
: copy it and return the original just because I've suddenly discovered I
|
|
: don't have Windows on my machine -- just a piece of software that will
|
|
: `assist' me in running the program after all. The claim of `lack of
|
|
: suitability' is self-defeating.
|
|
|
|
: Anselm
|
|
|
|
Jeeze! Don't get your panties in a wad! I wasn't advocating piracy
|
|
at all... It was just a RHETORICAL question posed in a humourous
|
|
vein! Perhaps you stroked out before reading the ending of my
|
|
post which stated :
|
|
"
|
|
Could prove an interesting situation. I personally don't give a damn...
|
|
don't use WP, don't like it, prefer nroff and troff with perhaps a bit
|
|
of LaTeX or idoc for some REALLY fancy stuff. But then I'll freely admit
|
|
to being an anachronistic old curmudgeon (before anyone else labels me!)
|
|
|
|
"Have a nice time storming the castle, boys..." ;-) "
|
|
|
|
Lighten up! (The quote, BTW is from the movie "The Princess Bride"
|
|
-- guess I'd better add that before I get sued for plagarism, too,
|
|
huh?)
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
On the Information SuperHighway, I'm the guy with a hat driving 50 in the fast
|
|
lane with my blinker on and my seatbelt hanging out the door making sparks.
|
|
(I don't know who came up with this one, but I like it!)
|
|
============================================================
|
|
Mark A. Horton ka4ybr mah@ka4ybr.atl.ga.us
|
|
P.O. Box 747 Decatur GA US 30031-0747 mah@ka4ybr.com
|
|
+1.404.371.0291 33 45 31 N / 084 16 59 W
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: mah@ka4ybr.com (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
|
|
Subject: Re: Horrific bug in DOOM!
|
|
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 22:56:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Stephen David Wray (swra01@cs19.cs.aukuni.ac.nz) wrote:
|
|
|
|
: Bizzarre -- here, QDOS is a brand of underpants...
|
|
: Hmm... maybe theres a connection...
|
|
|
|
I LOVE IT! This is the best one ever! My hat's off to
|
|
you, sir! Have a brew on me!
|
|
|
|
- Mark
|
|
--
|
|
"Using TSO is like kicking a dead whale down the beach." -- D. M.
|
|
Ritchie
|
|
============================================================
|
|
Mark A. Horton ka4ybr mah@ka4ybr.atl.ga.us
|
|
P.O. Box 747 Decatur GA US 30031-0747 mah@ka4ybr.com
|
|
+1.404.371.0291 33 45 31 N / 084 16 59 W
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: mikea@iconz.co.nz (Mike Armour)
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.i386unix
|
|
Subject: Vision864 Chipset Working Yet?
|
|
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 17:12:51 +1200
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi (Again) All,
|
|
|
|
Are there Any patchs for Xfree86 (Am i correct in assumeing that it will work under normal Linux?) to get the Vision864 Chipset to work,even in only SVGA mode ?
|
|
|
|
Or more importantly are they going to be supported in the next XFree Release ??
|
|
|
|
Email replies please,its pretty urgent :)
|
|
|
|
Cheers
|
|
Mike
|
|
--
|
|
Warning Boring .Sig Follows
|
|
mikea@iconz.co.nz
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
|
|
|
|
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
|
|
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
|
|
|
|
Internet: Linux-Misc-Request@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU
|
|
|
|
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:
|
|
|
|
Internet: Linux-Misc@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU
|
|
|
|
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
|
|
nic.funet.fi pub/OS/Linux
|
|
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
|
|
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
|
|
|
|
End of Linux-Misc Digest
|
|
******************************
|