Actually according to this article at the Long Island Business News, Mr. Novak has stated that he intends to target the BBB with legal action as well.
Novak, meanwhile, said he has further legal targets. One is the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan New York. The BBB gives Pets Warehouse an "unsatisfactory rating," the organization's lowest.
Anyone know if this will work under the Linux emulation layer in the *BSD family?
I'm sure that when the Linux version is released that it will work just fine on the BSDs. However, be aware that if you were to actually do so, you would be in violation of the license agreement. According to The Gobe Familiy License, you are only allowed to install it on Windows and Linux computers.
Their "BSD-style" license is actually the old-style BSD license, which includes the particularly onerous Advertising Clause:
All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed or owned by Caldera International, Inc.
What most people think of now as the BSD license does not contain such a clause, and has not for quite some time.
Isn't this is like putting Capt. Hazelwood in charge of an oil tanker?
Similarly, putting the Gov. of New Jersey in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency was like putting some Amish guy in charge of the Dept. of Transportation.
From what I understand, Zelazny... was in none-too-good health when he wrote the last amber book.
Not true. Zelazny was getting on in years at the time of course, but he was certainly not in bad health. I had the fortune of meeting him at a con in 1991 just after Prince of Chaos was published. He did not die until June '95, a full four years later.
This is the same Gov. Gilmore who shoved UCITA down the throats of the Virginia Legislature like it was the greatest thing since Old Milwaukee and 12 gauge shotguns.
This is the same Gov. Gilmore who, standing in front of the Pentagon, declared that, "We can all thank God that no buildings in Virginia were affected by these acts of terrorism."
This is the same Gov. Gilmore who has completely refused to enact any budget for the state for the current year, instead prefering to throw a hissy fit because it doesn't include a tax break for luxury car owners.
The handbook has something to say about the kernel configuration, but it is out of date.
I don't currently see anything out of date regarding kernel configuration in the handbook. What specifically are you referring to?
As for your modem, it should "work" just like any other serial device.
Make sure you have sio0 through sio3 in your kernel. Since you haven't been successful in configuring a new kernel, you are probably still using GENERIC, which by default disables sio2 and sio3. Enable them and build a new kernel.
If your modem is on sio3, be sure to set the irq of the modem to 2.
Then check to make sure it is being found during boot: Set verbose_loading="YES" in/boot/loader.conf, reboot, then do a grep sio/var/run/dmesg.boot
If it is being found, can you connect to the modem via command line (man tip) and isssue commands to it?
These steps should give you help you gather more information on what, exactly, isn't "working" about your modem. With that information, you should be able to ask more specific questions to newsgroups/lists, and probably get more helpful responses.
beastie$ df
Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
...
procfs 4.1K 4.1K 0B 100%/proc linprocfs 4.1K 4.1K 0B 100%/usr/compat/linux/proc
no ALSA sound drivers
Of course there are no "Advanced Linux Sound Architecture" drivers, since they are rather Linux-specific and FreeBSD has its own sound driver implementations.
no hardware accelerated graphics in the kernel
Granted, but this issue is complicated by non-disclosure agreements on code from NVidia which has turned out to be less portable than claimed.
much worse SMP support than current Linux kernels
All of the work on FreeBSD's SMPng is being done in 5.0-CURRENT, and has inherited a lot of code from BSD/OS's widely-renowned SMP.
Remember history. The internet itself came about from software developed as free and open source by people who devoted their time and talents to something they gave away. Some examples include,
- The BSD tcp/ip stack
- Sendmail for email
- Bind for DNS
- NCSA httpd and browser for the www
- INN nntp for usenet
The benefits of open, free software like the above examples were immense both economically and socially for both businesses and individuals.
What would the internet look like today if the applications and protocols necessary had been developed as closed source and proprietary? The benefits to all of society, corporate and private, would have been far, far less.
Free, open source software that is being developed today by people who devote their time and talents to something they will give away will continue to benefit everyone into the future, just as the free open source software developed yesterday continues to benefit us all today. Isn't that reason enough? Isn't that a worthy tradition to uphold?
"I didn't see anything to explain that in the report."
From the article:
The one card going bad wouldn't have been such a big deal if the config in both were set up correctly. It was meant to flop to the other interface if the primary card died, which it did, but not with all the info it needed...
One of the two router cards in the 6509 died. When the failover to the other card occured, the other card didn't have all the information it needed to do its job. Thus, the original problem was the dead primary card. The contributory problem was the screwy config. But the screwy config didn't matter until the primary card died.
*BSD is dying. How else could they get the plush Beastie dolls that vibrant shade of red? Lets look at the facts. FreeBSD leader Jordan K. Hubbard, a natural brunette, recently showed up at a Bay Area BSD Users Group meeting sporting a platinum blonde hairdo. Draw your own conclusions. Need more proof that *BSD is dying? Theo de Raadt has been quoted as admitting that he doesn't even remember what his normal hair color used to be. *BSD has always been dying, just look to its history. BSD was originally developed in Berkeley, home of - you guessed it - tiedyed tshirts. Yes, *BSD is dying, has always been dying, and will continue to dye.
You have been provided with 2 different IP addresses or address spaces, one from each provider, neither of which is portable (neither provider is going to accept traffic from you with a source address in the other provider's IP block).
Neither provider is going to announce routes to you, period. Not with BGP, not even with RIP. So forget about doing path selection with any routing protocol
Sounds like what you really need is a failover/shadow scheme rather than actual multihoming.
The way I would go about that goal is:
Figure out what manual commands you go through in order to switch over your connectivity from one provider to the other, and back. Write those commands out in a script of your choice.
Determine a mechanism and write another script for determining if a connection has gone bad, and run that script as a cron job or background task. You may even desire to combine the two scripts, but personally I would keep their functionality separate.
Have the connection-testing script call the connection-changing script when your connection goes down. You could even have the testing script then test the new connection as change back to the first if it goes down, or continue to monitor the primary connection and switch back when it comes up.
More work for you of course, but have fun with it. Do a good enough job and someone else may even want to use it too.
Those same publishers were also subsequently, and successfully, sued. All the authors had to do was show the court that the contract between themselves and the publishing companies did not specifically grant electronic distribution rights.
It doesn't matter what some lawyers think. Some lawyers think whatever their clients pay them to think. What matters is what the courts think.
"in reaction to the licensing change by Darren Reed, the author of ipf."
Get this through your heads: There was no licensing change. None. The terms of the license have not changed at all.
IPFilter was never under a BSD-style license. It never mentioned the right to modify. The way copyright works is that any right not explicitly granted is implicitly reserved. Thus since the right to modify is not explicitly granted, it is implicitly reserved (ie, denied).
Lots of people read the license and either saw the word "modify" where it didn't exist, or assumed that the right to "use" includes the right to "modify", which it in a legal sense it does not.
Because of this state of confusion and false assumption, Mr. Reed clarified his license by adding the statement, "Yes, this means that derivative or modified works are not permitted without the author's prior consent. "
The addition of this statement to the license in no way changed the terms of the license itself. Any previous version of the code bearing the unclarified license still implicitly denies granting the right to modify. Now any version of the code bearing the clarified license merely explicitly denies the right to modify. No real change there.
What so worrisome about the license now that people understand it is that there is no possibility of legally fixing the code in the case of Mr. Reed's refusal or inability to do so himself. Nor is there any possibility of creating a legal fork of the code since there is no point from which to legally fork it.
Which version of Konqueror did you last try? Konqueror 2.1.1 was an astounding leap forward even from 2.1 I've found it to both very stable and very quick. Not to mention the features that can be found on few to none other browsers (cookie jar, user-agent disquising). It has become my favorite browser, bar none.
Nobody has this right. Not Microsoft, not RedHat, not Caldera. About the only ones who have this right are Stallman, Debian, and *BSD. Open Source and Free Software are not f'ing business models.
Of course no one is going to make money selling the code. This should surprise no one, nor should anyone care. Its not about making money. Its about making code. The BSD license says, "If you find the code useful, great!" The GPL says, "If you find the code useful, share!"
So then RedHat, et al, come along and say, "If you find the code useful, give us money!" But they are having problems reconciling the "share" the with "make money". This is not a weakness of the code nor the license, nor the nonexistent "open source business model". It is a weakness of their business model. Of course they will fail, but the code will still be there long after they are gone.
If they had truly understood Open Source and/or Free Software to begin with, they would have gone the same route as FreeBSD: Non Profit Corporation.
An analogy. Imagine that the FSF and Linus Torvalds jointly decide that any futher development they make towards GNU software and the Linux kernel will be proprietary. Forget that they wouldn't ever do that, just realize that because they own the copyright they could. But sitting on your desk is a CD of your Linux distribution of choice. It contains all the source code, and that version of the code is under a free license. You could take all that source code and continue developing it yourself. It would not die, as long as someone was willing to keep it going.
The same is true for FreeBSD. WindRiver could say that all further development they make to FreeBSD will be proprietary. But sitting on the desks of all the FreeBSD developers is a CD containing all the source code to FreeBSD, and that particular version of the source code is covered by a free license. They would simply take that source code and continue their project unhindered.
And you can believe that if WindRiver turns out to be a bad host, the FreeBSD developers will do exactly that; WindRiver can't prevent them from taking their toys and going to play somewhere else.
But compared to the more than 8 YEARS that FreeBSD has been doing it, apt-get nothing cool at all.
Both of you suffer from the same delusion, namely "My OS does [whatever], so yours doesn't matter".
Just because Debian comes along and offers excellent port/package tools too doesn't invalidate FreeBSD. Just because FreeBSD has offered excellent port/package tools for years before Debian did doesn't invalidate Debian.
Slashdot Mirror
Blocking port 70 does nothing. The following is a perfectly valid url:
gopher://lame.scriptkiddies.net:80
Protocols are independent of ports.
Actually according to this article at the Long Island Business News, Mr. Novak has stated that he intends to target the BBB with legal action as well.
And so it begins...
Anyone know if this will work under the Linux emulation layer in the *BSD family?
I'm sure that when the Linux version is released that it will work just fine on the BSDs. However, be aware that if you were to actually do so, you would be in violation of the license agreement. According to The Gobe Familiy License, you are only allowed to install it on Windows and Linux computers.
Their "BSD-style" license is actually the old-style BSD license, which includes the particularly onerous Advertising Clause:
What most people think of now as the BSD license does not contain such a clause, and has not for quite some time.
Requiring sendmail is silly.
Agreed.
Plus, if you delete it, a make world will recreate it.
Not true. Uncomment "NO_SENDMAIL= true" in make.conf, problem solved.
Isn't this is like putting Capt. Hazelwood in charge of an oil tanker?
Similarly, putting the Gov. of New Jersey in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency was like putting some Amish guy in charge of the Dept. of Transportation.
From what I understand, Zelazny... was in none-too-good health when he wrote the last amber book.
Not true. Zelazny was getting on in years at the time of course, but he was certainly not in bad health. I had the fortune of meeting him at a con in 1991 just after Prince of Chaos was published. He did not die until June '95, a full four years later.
This is the same Gov. Gilmore who shoved UCITA down the throats of the Virginia Legislature like it was the greatest thing since Old Milwaukee and 12 gauge shotguns.
This is the same Gov. Gilmore who, standing in front of the Pentagon, declared that, "We can all thank God that no buildings in Virginia were affected by these acts of terrorism."
This is the same Gov. Gilmore who has completely refused to enact any budget for the state for the current year, instead prefering to throw a hissy fit because it doesn't include a tax break for luxury car owners.
http://www.acme.com/software/http_load/
The handbook has something to say about the kernel configuration, but it is out of date.
I don't currently see anything out of date regarding kernel configuration in the handbook. What specifically are you referring to?
As for your modem, it should "work" just like any other serial device.
Make sure you have sio0 through sio3 in your kernel. Since you haven't been successful in configuring a new kernel, you are probably still using GENERIC, which by default disables sio2 and sio3. Enable them and build a new kernel.
If your modem is on sio3, be sure to set the irq of the modem to 2.
Then check to make sure it is being found during boot: Set verbose_loading="YES" in
If it is being found, can you connect to the modem via command line (man tip) and isssue commands to it?
These steps should give you help you gather more information on what, exactly, isn't "working" about your modem. With that information, you should be able to ask more specific questions to newsgroups/lists, and probably get more helpful responses.
beastie$ df
Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
...
procfs 4.1K 4.1K 0B 100%
linprocfs 4.1K 4.1K 0B 100%
Of course there are no "Advanced Linux Sound Architecture" drivers, since they are rather Linux-specific and FreeBSD has its own sound driver implementations.
Granted, but this issue is complicated by non-disclosure agreements on code from NVidia which has turned out to be less portable than claimed.
All of the work on FreeBSD's SMPng is being done in 5.0-CURRENT, and has inherited a lot of code from BSD/OS's widely-renowned SMP.
BSD's FFS with softupdates could be considered to obviate the need for journalling.
Read Journalling Versus Soft Updates for a good Usenix 2000 paper comparing both approaches, which concludes that:
and that
Both methods achieve the same goals by different means.
Remember history. The internet itself came about from software developed as free and open source by people who devoted their time and talents to something they gave away. Some examples include,
- The BSD tcp/ip stack
- Sendmail for email
- Bind for DNS
- NCSA httpd and browser for the www
- INN nntp for usenet
The benefits of open, free software like the above examples were immense both economically and socially for both businesses and individuals.
What would the internet look like today if the applications and protocols necessary had been developed as closed source and proprietary? The benefits to all of society, corporate and private, would have been far, far less.
Free, open source software that is being developed today by people who devote their time and talents to something they will give away will continue to benefit everyone into the future, just as the free open source software developed yesterday continues to benefit us all today. Isn't that reason enough? Isn't that a worthy tradition to uphold?
Can someone please tell me how my post was offtopic?
Okay, I'll bite. Maybe its because the LECs' abuse of monopoly power has nothing to do with the release of KDE 2.2? Just a guess...
"I didn't see anything to explain that in the report."
From the article:
One of the two router cards in the 6509 died. When the failover to the other card occured, the other card didn't have all the information it needed to do its job. Thus, the original problem was the dead primary card. The contributory problem was the screwy config. But the screwy config didn't matter until the primary card died.
*BSD is dying. How else could they get the plush Beastie dolls that vibrant shade of red? Lets look at the facts. FreeBSD leader Jordan K. Hubbard, a natural brunette, recently showed up at a Bay Area BSD Users Group meeting sporting a platinum blonde hairdo. Draw your own conclusions. Need more proof that *BSD is dying? Theo de Raadt has been quoted as admitting that he doesn't even remember what his normal hair color used to be. *BSD has always been dying, just look to its history. BSD was originally developed in Berkeley, home of - you guessed it - tiedyed tshirts. Yes, *BSD is dying, has always been dying, and will continue to dye.
You have 2 basic problems with this scheme:
- You have been provided with 2 different IP addresses or address spaces, one from each provider, neither of which is portable (neither provider is going to accept traffic from you with a source address in the other provider's IP block).
- Neither provider is going to announce routes to you, period. Not with BGP, not even with RIP. So forget about doing path selection with any routing protocol
Sounds like what you really need is a failover/shadow scheme rather than actual multihoming.The way I would go about that goal is:
- Figure out what manual commands you go through in order to switch over your connectivity from one provider to the other, and back. Write those commands out in a script of your choice.
- Determine a mechanism and write another script for determining if a connection has gone bad, and run that script as a cron job or background task. You may even desire to combine the two scripts, but personally I would keep their functionality separate.
- Have the connection-testing script call the connection-changing script when your connection goes down. You could even have the testing script then test the new connection as change back to the first if it goes down, or continue to monitor the primary connection and switch back when it comes up.
More work for you of course, but have fun with it. Do a good enough job and someone else may even want to use it too.Those same publishers were also subsequently, and successfully, sued. All the authors had to do was show the court that the contract between themselves and the publishing companies did not specifically grant electronic distribution rights.
It doesn't matter what some lawyers think. Some lawyers think whatever their clients pay them to think. What matters is what the courts think.
"in reaction to the licensing change by Darren Reed, the author of ipf."
Get this through your heads: There was no licensing change. None. The terms of the license have not changed at all.
IPFilter was never under a BSD-style license. It never mentioned the right to modify. The way copyright works is that any right not explicitly granted is implicitly reserved. Thus since the right to modify is not explicitly granted, it is implicitly reserved (ie, denied).
Lots of people read the license and either saw the word "modify" where it didn't exist, or assumed that the right to "use" includes the right to "modify", which it in a legal sense it does not.
Because of this state of confusion and false assumption, Mr. Reed clarified his license by adding the statement, "Yes, this means that derivative or modified works are not permitted without the author's prior consent. "
The addition of this statement to the license in no way changed the terms of the license itself. Any previous version of the code bearing the unclarified license still implicitly denies granting the right to modify. Now any version of the code bearing the clarified license merely explicitly denies the right to modify. No real change there.
What so worrisome about the license now that people understand it is that there is no possibility of legally fixing the code in the case of Mr. Reed's refusal or inability to do so himself. Nor is there any possibility of creating a legal fork of the code since there is no point from which to legally fork it.
Which version of Konqueror did you last try? Konqueror 2.1.1 was an astounding leap forward even from 2.1 I've found it to both very stable and very quick. Not to mention the features that can be found on few to none other browsers (cookie jar, user-agent disquising). It has become my favorite browser, bar none.
Nobody has this right. Not Microsoft, not RedHat, not Caldera. About the only ones who have this right are Stallman, Debian, and *BSD. Open Source and Free Software are not f'ing business models.
Of course no one is going to make money selling the code. This should surprise no one, nor should anyone care. Its not about making money. Its about making code. The BSD license says, "If you find the code useful, great!" The GPL says, "If you find the code useful, share!"
So then RedHat, et al, come along and say, "If you find the code useful, give us money!" But they are having problems reconciling the "share" the with "make money". This is not a weakness of the code nor the license, nor the nonexistent "open source business model". It is a weakness of their business model. Of course they will fail, but the code will still be there long after they are gone.
If they had truly understood Open Source and/or Free Software to begin with, they would have gone the same route as FreeBSD: Non Profit Corporation.
If code isn't expressive, then how can copyright law be applicable to code?
If code is copyrightable, then it must be expressive.
Either DeCSS is free speech, or there is no such thing as software piracy.
This is real simple.
An analogy. Imagine that the FSF and Linus Torvalds jointly decide that any futher development they make towards GNU software and the Linux kernel will be proprietary. Forget that they wouldn't ever do that, just realize that because they own the copyright they could. But sitting on your desk is a CD of your Linux distribution of choice. It contains all the source code, and that version of the code is under a free license. You could take all that source code and continue developing it yourself. It would not die, as long as someone was willing to keep it going.
The same is true for FreeBSD. WindRiver could say that all further development they make to FreeBSD will be proprietary. But sitting on the desks of all the FreeBSD developers is a CD containing all the source code to FreeBSD, and that particular version of the source code is covered by a free license. They would simply take that source code and continue their project unhindered.
And you can believe that if WindRiver turns out to be a bad host, the FreeBSD developers will do exactly that; WindRiver can't prevent them from taking their toys and going to play somewhere else.
But compared to the more than 8 YEARS that FreeBSD has been doing it, apt-get nothing cool at all.
Both of you suffer from the same delusion, namely "My OS does [whatever], so yours doesn't matter".
Just because Debian comes along and offers excellent port/package tools too doesn't invalidate FreeBSD. Just because FreeBSD has offered excellent port/package tools for years before Debian did doesn't invalidate Debian.