But it's better than that, upgrades from EOL'd Red Hat ditros to RHES are half price, so it's more like $175 -
Red Hat does not allow upgrading from RH Linux to RH Enterprise Linux. Installing will mean a clean wipe.
In addition this is for each purchased copy of RH Linux. How many places do you know would purchase RH Linux for each server they run? Not many, why? The license allows you to install on many machines and updates are available via yum or autorpm (IMHO yum is much better than up2date).
I'm just surprised that more people aren't turning to White Box, CentOS, or TaoLinux. All of which are excellent distributions and do an amazing job of keeping in sync with Red Hat.
Not anti-redhat, just wanted to point out the following:
# If you want enterprise level support, $349 is not a bad price
That is for the Workstation version, the Server versions cost more. In addition, $349 gets you no support, just updates. $749 gets you support for a Workstation.
Try asking a random selection of 1000 people the following question: "Am I a thief if I make a tape of a friend's (copyrighted) CD?" (this is a form of copyright violation most people, even not computer literate, can understand and relate to).
That isn't copyright violation in the U.S.. It's called Fair Use and is protected by law.
If this is fair use, would a Kazaa linked with Friendster that only allows users in the personal circle be a legal p2p? How hard would an implementation of who is whose friends and only allow sharing on friends, maybe friends of friends. Would that make a legal p2p? I would see this as a direct translation to the internet of something we are all accustomed to.
Unfortunately I don't understand wht you're trying to say here. My point was that you said they are overcharging and we are being forced to pay a levy on blank CDRs. So we should be allowed to download because of that levy. I was saying we aren't being forced. You have to choose to buy the levied audio CDR. If you did, however, then by all means make use of it. I was just trying to say that the existence of a levy on some CDRs does not justify downloading music. If you don't want to pay the tax, buy data CDRs, but then don't download infringing music. If you want to download the infringing music, spend the extra dough for an audio cd.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the point is that in Canada all CD-R's are levied.
In addition, when they do these lawsuits here in the US, there has not been any reported information on people who download and use strictly levied audio cd-r's.
Would that even work as a defense? I burned all these songs to levied cd-r's, therefore I should be allowed to burn?
Would you get sued for the ones that weren't burned but are only on your hard drive because you don't have blank audio cd's?
Also, NASA's DSN (Deep Space Network) has been able to send commands asking Spirit to send tones on X-Band, and has received the response tones back. This confirms that at least the low gain antenna, antenna switch, x-band receiver, and x-band tone transmitter are functional.
Perhaps a software fault or a synchronization problem with the radios is preventing valid daa frames from being transmitted. The fact that so much is known to functional argues against a failure that will incapacitate the spacecraft indefinitely. In the coming days, if communications are not restored, the spacecraft will enter safe modes that cause it to try harder to transmit and will reset subsystems. I am optimistic at this point.
What do you expect when you got rejects from ITT running the DSN. Maybe next time they should get DeVry or Western Career College rejects.
Speaking of fair use, I had been thinking about how Fair use allows people to let friends borrow mixed tapes and burned copies of cd's. I think it'll only be a matter of time before Friendster and Kazaa have a Friendza or Kandster that uses fair use only within your 'inner circle' and be a perfectly legal p2p.
I'm actually very interested myself. This one doesn't look like an actual problem with the distribution, in that I tried various vanilla kernels and alway got a kernel panic immediately after trying to remount the partition as read/write.
I do not know the exact model of the card, because it is a pain to get in there. It is a legacy machine that doesn't get much use these days.
I eventually got it to work by using a kernel that doesn't have the do_brk and mremap() fixes. Specifically kernel 2.4.21-4.EL, the first RHEL 3 kernel. Even then I had to build it from source.
Building kernel 2.4.21-4.0.1.EL (do_brk) or 2.4.21-4.0.2.EL (mremap) from source does not work either.
I'm not sure if this is due to the fact that I have a Sony Vaio laptop (they may or may not use a standard ieee1394, for their i.link) or if firewire support is just jacked on Linux. But everytime i boot my computer, I have to run a stupid script to re-detect it. In addition it drop's off and drops back on all the time that kudzu doesn't even know what to do with itself anymore. This is all on a docking station that I never use to remove. However, it's gotten to the point where I just gave up and switched to an External USB and removed the docking station. Everything just works and I am happy.
$10 to replace the media for a $300 piece of software: reasonable. $10 to replace a the media for a $20 DVD: unreasonable.
Agreed. Too pricy, considering that I can make my own copy on my dvd burner for.79 cents (shop4tech.com).
It's pretty clear cut, IMHO. They're selling you the media. Anyone who says differently is kidding him/herself.
Also agreed. The thing that bothers me is that the RIAA/MPAA try to get the luxury of selling it as though they were selling licenses, but with the drawbacks associated with purchasing media.
If they saw it as buying the media, as you and I do, then it should come in a format I can duplicate for my backups, no exceptions. I should be able to back it up and make copies. I should have ALL fair use protections.
Else I want what comes with licensing the movie/music. When the new Higher quality formats come out, I should be able to get everything I own in those formats for a nominal fee. I want to be able to access my licensed data anywhere I see fit.
What you don't seem to understand is that the Music Industry seems to want it both ways.
When I purchase a CD for full price, if I purchased a license, I should be able to get another if my cd gets damaged for the price of the media (blank cd's are under $0.25, I assume they get an even better deal than this when they mass produce them). This is not how it currently works I should also be able to get different formats for the price of the media. If I bought a cd, why can't I download the mp3 for a modest $0.10 cent bandwidth fee?
If they aren't licensing me the music, are they selling me the cd? Doesn't that mean I should be legally allowed to copy my cd if it get's damaged? After all it is MINE! If my cd gets damaged, I would have to pay full price for something I already own. If my car get's a scratch, I can give it a paint job, I don't have to go out and buy a new car. The same is not true for cd's.
What is pissing everyone off with their restrictions is that they aren't being clear with what it is you get when you buy a cd. Is it a licensed product? Is it a sold product? There are different rules for each, and they want the protection of a license, without dealing with the drawbacks.
Better check all the software you've downloaded to make sure there are no fine print clauses requiring you to give up your first born child to Bill Gates...
Actually running a FreeBSD system, most of my software has good well known open source licenses. Not an issue for me.
also read up on specific performance and how often courts order it, even for violation of a signed contract.
Just because it is not a common thing to happen does NOT mean that it couldn't happen. I was mentioning a possible recourse. Not saying this is what the court will order if you derive from GPL and not release source code.
Perhaps you don't get that the copyright law is based on contract law. By distributing the derived code, they are agreeing to follow the rules of the contract, IE the GPL. If the court finds them in breach of contract, they can enforce the contract.
Just like anyone else found in breach of contract, the court can then come in and enforce said contract.
If they distributed the derived code, they were already required to under the GPL. They MAY just be forced to follow through with the agreement THEY made when THEY distributed GPL'd code.
In addition, how could damages of 'free' software be assesed in terms of dollars?
I would have thought that purchasing a license for a server (install everything on it) and use it as an internal update server would have been legal with this interpretation.
Legal (READ: Copyright Law)? It sure is. Does it violate the Service Level Agreement (READ: Contract) with Red Hat? Yes as well.
But having rung Redhat and read their terms and conditions it isnt. The terms and conditions were the main reason we decided to not go RH ES
You could however have a machine with a full install and download the updates src.rpm's and rpmbuild --rebuild them. Not too much more work. If you're going to roll your own update system, why bother with their binary updates? Hell why bother with Red Hat at all when Whitebox, TaoLinux, Etc. are around?
You can have an Enterprise ready system for free, but you will have to work to keep it up to date. Otherwise you can pay someone to keep it up to date for you. Considering that Red Hat releases the.src.rpm's, it's not too hard at all.
By violating the terms of the GPL you have no access to the code.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Clear as day it says that they no longer have the rights to the code. In addition, they could probably be made to open the code they distributed if they were found to have acted in bad faith, but that's for the courts to decide.
I am not anti FreeBSD, in fact I use FreeBSD as my desktop. I have nothing but respect for FreeBSD. I just don't like people spreading bullshit about Linux neither.
Your post, if true, is not a very typical experience. I installed over a hundred of these machines, and never once had an issue, using the same scsi card.
Yeah, and later you said you didn't try 64 bit RedHat because you wouldn't pay for something without trying it. Same with SuSE in a thread with Dilbert_.
I'm just calling bullshit!
Either you tried, or you didn't. Hell Fedora doesn't even have a 64 bit version, which you meantioned you tried.
Slashdot Mirror
But it's better than that, upgrades from EOL'd Red Hat ditros to RHES are half price, so it's more like $175 -
Red Hat does not allow upgrading from RH Linux to RH Enterprise Linux. Installing will mean a clean wipe.
In addition this is for each purchased copy of RH Linux. How many places do you know would purchase RH Linux for each server they run? Not many, why? The license allows you to install on many machines and updates are available via yum or autorpm (IMHO yum is much better than up2date).
I'm just surprised that more people aren't turning to White Box, CentOS, or TaoLinux. All of which are excellent distributions and do an amazing job of keeping in sync with Red Hat.
Not anti-redhat, just wanted to point out the following:
# If you want enterprise level support, $349 is not a bad price
That is for the Workstation version, the Server versions cost more. In addition, $349 gets you no support, just updates. $749 gets you support for a Workstation.
Try asking a random selection of 1000 people the following question: "Am I a thief if I make a tape of a friend's (copyrighted) CD?" (this is a form of copyright violation most people, even not computer literate, can understand and relate to).
That isn't copyright violation in the U.S.. It's called Fair Use and is protected by law.
If this is fair use, would a Kazaa linked with Friendster that only allows users in the personal circle be a legal p2p? How hard would an implementation of who is whose friends and only allow sharing on friends, maybe friends of friends. Would that make a legal p2p? I would see this as a direct translation to the internet of something we are all accustomed to.
Would you agree?
Unfortunately I don't understand wht you're trying to say here. My point was that you said they are overcharging and we are being forced to pay a levy on blank CDRs. So we should be allowed to download because of that levy. I was saying we aren't being forced. You have to choose to buy the levied audio CDR. If you did, however, then by all means make use of it. I was just trying to say that the existence of a levy on some CDRs does not justify downloading music. If you don't want to pay the tax, buy data CDRs, but then don't download infringing music. If you want to download the infringing music, spend the extra dough for an audio cd.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the point is that in Canada all CD-R's are levied.
In addition, when they do these lawsuits here in the US, there has not been any reported information on people who download and use strictly levied audio cd-r's.
Would that even work as a defense? I burned all these songs to levied cd-r's, therefore I should be allowed to burn?
Would you get sued for the ones that weren't burned but are only on your hard drive because you don't have blank audio cd's?
Also, NASA's DSN (Deep Space Network) has been able to send commands asking Spirit to send tones on X-Band, and has received the response tones back. This confirms that at least the low gain antenna, antenna switch, x-band receiver, and x-band tone transmitter are functional.
Perhaps a software fault or a synchronization problem with the radios is preventing valid daa frames from being transmitted. The fact that so much is known to functional argues against a failure that will incapacitate the spacecraft indefinitely. In the coming days, if communications are not restored, the spacecraft will enter safe modes that cause it to try harder to transmit and will reset subsystems. I am optimistic at this point.
What do you expect when you got rejects from ITT running the DSN. Maybe next time they should get DeVry or Western Career College rejects.
Here is the direct link for the download!
1 _1_2.ecomm...R/forms.real.com/real/realone/realone .html?beta_bypass=true&bbits=true&type=dlrhap_bb&& pp=home&src=012004realhome_1_1_2_1_1_2
http://forms.helixcommunity.org/helixdnaclient/
Here is a quick tutorial on making an rpm of it.
http://fedoranews.org/tchung/helixplayer/
And since there is no Windows version of the HelixPlayer, here is the link to the RealOne Player:
http://www.realone.com/R/RC.012004realhome_1_1_2_
This is what I get.
00:09.0 RAID bus controller: 3ware Inc 3ware ATA-RAID (rev 12)
Subsystem: 3ware Inc 3ware ATA-RAID
Flags: bus master, stepping, medium devsel, latency 74, IRQ 25
I/O ports at 5440 [size=16]
Expansion ROM at [disabled] [size=64K]
Doesn't really say, like I said I inherited this box and hardly ever get scheduled downtime for it.
I was making a mild and flamish reference to the ESA's beagle2 lander...not bagles.
c /data/w32.beagle.a@mm.html
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/ven
and crash and burn.
I do it cuz I hate that lazy fuck who calls himself the sysadmin...
Speaking of fair use, I had been thinking about how Fair use allows people to let friends borrow mixed tapes and burned copies of cd's. I think it'll only be a matter of time before Friendster and Kazaa have a Friendza or Kandster that uses fair use only within your 'inner circle' and be a perfectly legal p2p.
--
2004-01-14 02:22:59 Would Friendster + Kazaa = Legal p2p? (askslashdot,internet) (rejected)
The only reason people buy Sun is that there is quite a bit of enterprise software that only runs on Sun or Windows NT.
That quote is funny in so many ways...
I'm actually very interested myself. This one doesn't look like an actual problem with the distribution, in that I tried various vanilla kernels and alway got a kernel panic immediately after trying to remount the partition as read/write.
I do not know the exact model of the card, because it is a pain to get in there. It is a legacy machine that doesn't get much use these days.
I eventually got it to work by using a kernel that doesn't have the do_brk and mremap() fixes. Specifically kernel 2.4.21-4.EL, the first RHEL 3 kernel. Even then I had to build it from source.
Building kernel 2.4.21-4.0.1.EL (do_brk) or 2.4.21-4.0.2.EL (mremap) from source does not work either.
I can give you more information if you like
Perhaps you have not seen these two:? id=109618 .cgi?id=109618">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzil la/show_bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi
But I happen to be an owner of a 3ware card, and I regret that I inherited this piece of shit. I would have preferred something that works.
I'm not sure if this is due to the fact that I have a Sony Vaio laptop (they may or may not use a standard ieee1394, for their i.link) or if firewire support is just jacked on Linux. But everytime i boot my computer, I have to run a stupid script to re-detect it. In addition it drop's off and drops back on all the time that kudzu doesn't even know what to do with itself anymore. This is all on a docking station that I never use to remove. However, it's gotten to the point where I just gave up and switched to an External USB and removed the docking station. Everything just works and I am happy.
$10 to replace the media for a $300 piece of software: reasonable.
.79 cents (shop4tech.com).
$10 to replace a the media for a $20 DVD: unreasonable.
Agreed. Too pricy, considering that I can make my own copy on my dvd burner for
It's pretty clear cut, IMHO. They're selling you the media. Anyone who says differently is kidding him/herself.
Also agreed. The thing that bothers me is that the RIAA/MPAA try to get the luxury of selling it as though they were selling licenses, but with the drawbacks associated with purchasing media.
If they saw it as buying the media, as you and I do, then it should come in a format I can duplicate for my backups, no exceptions. I should be able to back it up and make copies. I should have ALL fair use protections.
Else I want what comes with licensing the movie/music. When the new Higher quality formats come out, I should be able to get everything I own in those formats for a nominal fee. I want to be able to access my licensed data anywhere I see fit.
What you don't seem to understand is that the Music Industry seems to want it both ways.
When I purchase a CD for full price, if I purchased a license, I should be able to get another if my cd gets damaged for the price of the media (blank cd's are under $0.25, I assume they get an even better deal than this when they mass produce them). This is not how it currently works I should also be able to get different formats for the price of the media. If I bought a cd, why can't I download the mp3 for a modest $0.10 cent bandwidth fee?
If they aren't licensing me the music, are they selling me the cd? Doesn't that mean I should be legally allowed to copy my cd if it get's damaged? After all it is MINE! If my cd gets damaged, I would have to pay full price for something I already own. If my car get's a scratch, I can give it a paint job, I don't have to go out and buy a new car. The same is not true for cd's.
What is pissing everyone off with their restrictions is that they aren't being clear with what it is you get when you buy a cd. Is it a licensed product? Is it a sold product? There are different rules for each, and they want the protection of a license, without dealing with the drawbacks.
Better check all the software you've downloaded to make sure there are no fine print clauses requiring you to give up your first born child to Bill Gates...
Actually running a FreeBSD system, most of my software has good well known open source licenses. Not an issue for me.
also read up on specific performance and how often courts order it, even for violation of a signed contract.
Just because it is not a common thing to happen does NOT mean that it couldn't happen. I was mentioning a possible recourse. Not saying this is what the court will order if you derive from GPL and not release source code.
Perhaps you don't get that the copyright law is based on contract law. By distributing the derived code, they are agreeing to follow the rules of the contract, IE the GPL. If the court finds them in breach of contract, they can enforce the contract.
Just like anyone else found in breach of contract, the court can then come in and enforce said contract.
If they distributed the derived code, they were already required to under the GPL. They MAY just be forced to follow through with the agreement THEY made when THEY distributed GPL'd code.
In addition, how could damages of 'free' software be assesed in terms of dollars?
I would have thought that purchasing a license for a server (install everything on it) and use it as an internal update server would have been legal with this interpretation.
.src.rpm's, it's not too hard at all.
Legal (READ: Copyright Law)? It sure is. Does it violate the Service Level Agreement (READ: Contract) with Red Hat? Yes as well.
But having rung Redhat and read their terms and conditions it isnt. The terms and conditions were the main reason we decided to not go RH ES
You could however have a machine with a full install and download the updates src.rpm's and rpmbuild --rebuild them. Not too much more work. If you're going to roll your own update system, why bother with their binary updates? Hell why bother with Red Hat at all when Whitebox, TaoLinux, Etc. are around?
You can have an Enterprise ready system for free, but you will have to work to keep it up to date. Otherwise you can pay someone to keep it up to date for you. Considering that Red Hat releases the
Not nessecarily.
By violating the terms of the GPL you have no access to the code.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.
Clear as day it says that they no longer have the rights to the code. In addition, they could probably be made to open the code they distributed if they were found to have acted in bad faith, but that's for the courts to decide.
I stand corrected re: Fedora/64 Bit.
I am not anti FreeBSD, in fact I use FreeBSD as my desktop. I have nothing but respect for FreeBSD. I just don't like people spreading bullshit about Linux neither.
Your post, if true, is not a very typical experience. I installed over a hundred of these machines, and never once had an issue, using the same scsi card.
Yeah, and later you said you didn't try 64 bit RedHat because you wouldn't pay for something without trying it. Same with SuSE in a thread with Dilbert_.
I'm just calling bullshit!
Either you tried, or you didn't. Hell Fedora doesn't even have a 64 bit version, which you meantioned you tried.
BULLSHIT!!!
try this link
Finding a 64 bit SuSE is easy. This is not the Enterprise Edition, but if you want Enteprise, you will have to pay first.