KCLUG

kclug@kclug.org

3239 discussions

Re: Free to good home...
by djgoku 17 May '07

17 May '07

On 5/13/07, djgoku <djgoku(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/7/07, Steven Danz <steven-danz(a)kc.rr.com> wrote: > > > > I have a 'standard' 79" tall server rack that I need to clear out of the > > garage for anyone that wants to come get it. Solid panels on three sides > > with two power strips and a fan in the top. I'm located down around > > Stanley, just south of OP. > > Do you still have this? Anyone get this? I emailed steven, but no reply after three days wondering if there is some reason and I can't directly email him off the list.

4 3

Re: Pantent infingments?
by RtX 17 May '07

17 May '07

Exchange Server comes with a client license for up to 5 clients only. This means that only 5 connections are available, any more would be refused. The company (or owner) may choose to purchase more client licenses in 5 - 10 - 25 license packs from MS for more connections. It's the same way with their Terminal Services as well. Think of Terminal Services in the same way as we use SSH for system administration. We establish a secure shell in Linux to administer the system or run programs on the server, MS uses Terminal Services or "Remote Desktop Connection" to do the same on an MS server. One must purchase the right amount of licenses to allow enough connections. On 5/16/07, Billy Crook <billycrook(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > You have to license exchange clients in addition to paying for the > exchange server and the outlook client? What a piece of shit! > > On 5/15/07, RtX <riverty(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > My boss and I had this conversation today. A lot of what Microsoft is > saying > > with this claim is that they want compensation for accessing their > > proprietary services like Exchange and such. > > > > It's screwy. A Blackberry (a non-MS product) can POP an Exchange server > for > > free but if the Linux community writes a piece of code that will > interact > > with an MS Exchange server, then this is infringement. There are even > ways > > to POP an Exchange server without it counting as a "connection" and > > therefore not subject to client fees that MS would otherwise be getting. > > There are other examples like including (or offering) the codecs to play > MS > > video or audio streams. MS feels that they should get money (of course) > for > > sucking streams using their fat codecs. > > > > I, and others, feel that this is a FUD stunt to try and gain back as > much > > server and desktop real estate as they can. Vista is nothing but Windows > XP > > (turd) painted in fruity colors (painted turd) that is killing them in > > expected revenue. Sales are not what they wanted and they are really > pushing > > hard to get as much money as they can, for as long as they can. Business > are > > listening. A company will not gamble on Linux, when the possibility of > > having an IP war with MS hangs over their heads. All they want to do is > make > > the shit they make or sell the shit they sell. They are not in the IT > > industry and don't understand the evils that MS does. > > > > Either way, it sucks. Microsoft is a very bad company. > > > > > > On 5/15/07, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 5/15/07, Jon Pruente <jdpruente(a)gmail.com > wrote: > > > > On 5/15/07, Earle Beason <Earle-Beason(a)kc.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > Anybody else know of any possible patents that could have been > > violated > > > > > by the open source project as Microsoft has claimed? > > > > > > > > MS isn't going to tell. Doing so will allow developers to code > around > > > > them, or will allow the Software Freedom Law Center to work to prove > > > > the patent invalid. They will just use this FUD to extort money > from > > > > large weenie companies who are scared of legal threats. By > revealing > > > > exactly what patents are infringed, they open the door to people > > > > working very quickly to remove the infringing parts, and thus making > > > > the code base immune from further MS claims on those patents. > > > > > > > > Jon. > > > > > > > > > In all fairness, not all patents can be coded around of. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Fedora Core 6 and proud > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Kclug mailing list > > > Kclug(a)kclug.org > > > http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > RtX... > > > > Ty Unes - Overland Park, Ks. > > riverty(a)gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Kclug mailing list > > Kclug(a)kclug.org > > http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug > > > > > -- RtX... Ty Unes - Overland Park, Ks. riverty(a)gmail.com

5 4

Fwd: Webfilter a little tight?
by Arthur Pemberton 17 May '07

17 May '07

Anyone knows what's happening here? Does someone on the list use a web filter? or is some one monitoring this list? Cause I sure don't have any filters. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: RtX <riverty(a)gmail.com> Date: May 15, 2007 10:34 PM Subject: Re: Webfilter a little tight? To: Arthur Pemberton <pemboa(a)gmail.com> Well, for some reason when I reply to the list, I get this back. Again, please don't take this wrong. If it were me, I would want to know what's up. Maybe I'm reading it wrong?? PureMessage has detected a content threat in a mail sent by you. Westrope policies forbid the use of profanity and obscene language. Please rephrase your message and send again. Event: Threat Action: Message quarantined Message ID: < c44362420705151852m1bc682c0s9bdc74482bd08aa8(a)mail.gmail.com> Message subject: Re: Pantent infingments? Recipient: "Arthur Pemberton" <pemboa(a)gmail.com> ============================== ============================== Attachment information: Event: Threat Action: No action Filename: Body text Threat: Banned phrase ============================================================ Attachment information: Event: Threat Action: No action Filename: Body text Threat: Banned phrase ============================================================ On 5/15/07, Arthur Pemberton < pemboa(a)gmail.com > wrote: > On 5/15/07, RtX < riverty(a)gmail.com > wrote: > > Arthur, > > > > I just wanted to let you know that your mail filter at Westrope will not > > allow anything they consider profanity through the pipe and therefore, you > > might not be getting certain emails because of this. > > > > I have received a few returns from "Administrator(a)westrope.com" for content > > violations. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. I respect your > > right to not view certain material if this is your choice. On the other > > hand, if you did not choose this, or someone chose this for you, I thought > > you should know. > > > I only use this address for mailing lists. It's a simple Gmail > account. I'm not aware of any mail filter at Westrope. > > > -- > Fedora Core 6 and proud > -- RtX... Ty Unes - Overland Park, Ks. riverty(a)gmail.com -- Fedora Core 6 and proud

7 11

OS-X
by Jonathan Hutchins 16 May '07

16 May '07

For a long time, I've been under the impression, largely from friends who have been running Macintoshes for ages, that OS-X was based on one of the three BSD forks - that essentially it was a *BSD with an Apple window manager/desktop environment, and with the kernel (and other programs) locked to the Trusted Program Module (TPM). Comments from some of you lately led me to do some research. It appears that, at least on the internet, current documentation agrees that OS-X is based on Openstep, which evolved from NeXTSTEP, which was derived from 4.4 BSD (pre-fork?) and the Mach OS. It's funny how knowledge like this can evolve on the web. What gets collated, analyzed, and archived becomes the truth. What was known to be true at the time gets forgotten. Mode Emulators become Modulator/Demodulators. Other acronyms drift.

5 4

Fwd: OS-X
by Justin Dugger 16 May '07

16 May '07

On 5/16/07, Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins(a)tarcanfel.org> wrote: > For a long time, I've been under the impression, largely from friends who have > been running Macintoshes for ages, that OS-X was based on one of the three > BSD forks - that essentially it was a *BSD with an Apple window > manager/desktop environment, and with the kernel (and other programs) locked > to the Trusted Program Module (TPM). > > Comments from some of you lately led me to do some research. It appears that, > at least on the internet, current documentation agrees that OS-X is based on > Openstep, which evolved from NeXTSTEP, which was derived from 4.4 BSD > (pre-fork?) and the Mach OS. > > It's funny how knowledge like this can evolve on the web. What gets collated, > analyzed, and archived becomes the truth. What was known to be true at the > time gets forgotten. Mode Emulators become Modulator/Demodulators. Other > acronyms drift. The history of an operating system is not the same as a kernel itself. What you have is mostly correct, but misses a critical juncture in the creation of the OS X kernel. Mach uses several BSD userspace tools, but that doesn't make the kernel BSD derived. Recall that for a long time BSD was a set of software packages that ran on top of someone else's UNIX kernel. Mach was the defining implementation of microkernels. BSD kernels, like Linux kernels, are monolithic in nature. The internet is confused on the difference between an OS and a kernel, so don't trust the internet. The end result is that OS X is "Based on BSD" in a sense, but not a universal "everything should work after fifteen years of parallel development". So can get X11 apps to compile work, but probably not a driver. Justin Dugger

2 1

RE: Webfilter a little tight?
by Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO 16 May '07

16 May '07

Yes. Create a filter from message, then create a label to apply to messages picked up by filter and then you have to check a box to have it automatically moved to archive. Archive just means it goes to the all mail folder and out of the inbox or new mail. I recently set up a bunch of new labels and filters for regular mail and adverts that come into my gmail. New Egg, Circuit City, etc. I don't want to look at them all the time, but sometimes I want to scan the ads. Brian Kelsay -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Fowler Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 11:45 AM To: Jeremy Fowler; KCLUG (E-mail) Subject: RE: Webfilter a little tight? Does anyone know if there is any way to create a folder in Gmail and then automatically move new messages to that folder when they arrive? Looks like you can only apply labels, and manually at that... I would be happy to change my subscription if I could do that...

1 0

Re: Webfilter a little tight?
by RtX 16 May '07

16 May '07

I just got another return about 1 hour ago. I guess I don't know what's going on. Seems strange to be getting these replies all of the sudden. Nothing has changed on my end. BTW - I use Gmail exclusively. This is the most recent return. Check it out: Delivered-To: riverty(a)gmail.com Received: by 10.82.191.8 with SMTP id o8cs96102buf; Wed, 16 May 2007 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.98.3 with SMTP id a3mr15121779pym.1179325776205; Wed, 16 May 2007 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <Administrator(a)westrope.com> Received: from ex2.westrope.com (mx1.westrope.com [63.77.141.245]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id y78si3900307pyg.2007.05.16.07.29.35; Wed, 16 May 2007 07:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of Administrator(a)westrope.com designates 63.77.141.245 as permitted sender) X-PMWin-Version: 2.6.1, Antivirus-Engine: 2.45.3 Received: from mail pickup service by ex2.westrope.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 16 May 2007 09:29:04 -0500 From: <Administrator(a)westrope.com> Thread-Topic: Westrope PureMessage has detected a content threat PureMessageGuid: {0A2A120E-A4A0-48E6-A7FF-7D3B3AAA1FB4} To: "RtX" <riverty(a)gmail.com> Reply-To: <Administrator(a)westrope.com> thread-index: AceXxo4rsOQIlx/+RZCtqV6VB1hsuQ== Cc: Bcc: Subject: Westrope PureMessage has detected a content threat Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 09:29:04 -0500 Message-ID: <528381807CDF4EF9BBD0B0A8B362E91B(a)westrope.corp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft CDO for Exchange 2000 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Importance: normal Priority: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3959 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 May 2007 14:29:04.0989 (UTC) FILETIME=[8E4A20D0:01C797C6] PureMessage has detected a content threat in a mail sent by you. Westrope policies forbid the use of profanity and obscene language. Please rephrase your message and send again. Event: Threat Action: Message quarantined Message ID: <c44362420705160657s2a11d4cpc37bdd8eee96b8eb(a)mail.gmail.com> Message subject: Re: Pantent infingments? Recipient: "Group - KC Linux Users Group" <kclug(a)kclug.org> ============================================================ Attachment information: Event: Threat Action: No action Filename: Body text Threat: Banned phrase ============================================================ Attachment information: Event: Threat Action: No action Filename: Body text Threat: Banned phrase ============================================================ On 5/16/07, Geoffrion, Ron P [IT] < Ron.Geoffrion(a)sprint.com> wrote: > > Shit. (testing). LOL. > > > Thanks, > > Ron Geoffrion > 913.488.7664 > > -----Original Message----- > From: kclug-bounces(a)kclug.org [mailto: kclug-bounces(a)kclug.org] On Behalf > Of Arthur Pemberton > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:37 AM > To: RtX > Cc: KCLUG (E-mail) > Subject: Re: Webfilter a little tight? > > On 5/16/07, RtX < riverty(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Arthur, > > > > I could be wrong but it seems like you have 2 email addresses listed > > in the KCLUG group. One for Gmail and one for your office? If someone > > writes a post and puts a dirty word in the message body, the copy > > going through the email box at Westrope gets filtered and any message > > with questionable material gets redirected to the equivalent of > > /dev/null. You get the Gmail message fine, but I don't think your > > getting the messages at Westrope. I am assuming you work at Westrope. > Just a guess but seems reasonable. > > > Dude, I'm telling you. I only use this gmail account for mailing lists. > And I don't work at Westrope. Nor do I have multiple addresses for this > list. Something weird is going on. > > > -- > Fedora Core 6 and proud > _______________________________________________ > Kclug mailing list > Kclug(a)kclug.org > http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug > > > -- RtX... Ty Unes - Overland Park, Ks. riverty(a)gmail.com

1 0

USB sound
by Eric Johnson 16 May '07

16 May '07

I'm working on a device and might need to attach an external sound card for testing. If I don't really care about audiophile quality, what's the easiest (and cheapest) USB sound card for a moderately current 2.6 kernel? It'd be nice if it's something available off the shelf at MicroCenter. -- Eric Johnson "Where your pleasure is, there is your treasure: where your treasure, there your heart; where your heart, there your happiness." Saint Augustine

2 2

RE: Pantent infingments?
by Kelsay, Brian - Kansas City, MO 16 May '07

16 May '07

I thought there was something about the right to make other systems interoperable that would not cause an infringement? Like putting Appletalk protocol in Linux. If the original company doesn't create a tool to allow you to tranfer information in/out using your existing systems, then of course you want to make your own. But what do I know, I'm barely awake. Brian Kelsay -----Original Message----- From: Jon Pruente Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 8:37 PM On 5/15/07, Arthur Pemberton wrote: > In all fairness, not all patents can be coded around of. True, and I'll venture a guess that most of the patents involved would tie into NTFS support and/or Samba, or even Mono. If that's true, simple removing those packages from a distro might free up a lot of threats. Jon.

1 0

Pantent infingments?
by Earle Beason 16 May '07

16 May '07

With all the gruff about patent infringement going on, I thought I would investigate th i am most likely to have violated so I took a look at the licensing page for it, and I discovered a wonderful blurb "However, no license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with associated annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00." *//**/http://mp3licensing.com/help/index.html I checked out the site for DVD but it wasn't expressively clear, so i asked them in an email, I'll share the response when it gets back. Anybody else know of any possible patents that could have been violated by the open source project as Microsoft has claimed? /*

6 6

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

KCLUG