KCLUG

kclug@kclug.org

3239 discussions

[OT] Yet Another Perl Conference North America 2005 announces call-for-papers
by glim＠mycybernet.net 29 Jan '05

29 Jan '05

YAPC::NA 2005 (Yet Another Perl Conference, North America) has just released its call-for-papers; potential and aspiring speakers can submit a presentation proposal via: http://yapc.org/America/cfp-2005.shtml The dates of the conference are Monday - Wednesday 27-29 June 2005. The location will be in downtown Toronto, Ontario, Canada. (Note that a different date block was previously announced, but has been moved to accomodate venue availability.) The close of the call-for-papers is April 18, 2005 at 11:59 pm. If you have any questions regarding the call-for-papers or speaking at YAPC::NA 2005 please email na-author(a)yapc.org We would love to hear from potential sponsors. Please contact the organizers at na-sponsor(a)yapc.org to learn about the benefits of sponsorship. Other information regarding the conference (e.g. venue, registration specifics) will be announced soon. We look forward to your submissions and a great conference!

1 0

on the IBM patent "donation" to OSS
by Brian Kelsay 29 Jan '05

29 Jan '05

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/technology/11soft.html?ex=1263099600&en=c… Here is the salient point quoted from the end of the article: Today's move by I.B.M. is not aimed at a specific project, but opens access to 14 categories of technology, including those that manage electronic commerce, storage, image processing, data handling and Internet communications. "This is much broader than the contributions we've made in the past," said Jim Stallings, vice president for standards and intellectual property at I.B.M. "These patents are for technologies that are deeply embedded in many industry uses, and they will be available to anyone working on open-source projects including small companies and individual entrepreneurs.." I.B.M. executives said they hoped the company's initial contribution of 500 patents would be the beginning of a "patent commons," which other companies would join. I.B.M. has not yet approached other companies, Mr. Stallings said. I.B.M. will continue to hold the 500 patents. But it has pledged to seek no royalties from and to place no restrictions on companies, groups or individuals who use them in open-source projects, as defined by the Open Source Initiative, a nonprofit education and advocacy group. The group's definition involves a series of policies allowing for free redistribution, publication of the underlying source code and no restrictions on who uses the software or how it is used. Brian Kelsay

4 4

RE: Open Source Values
by Brian Densmore 28 Jan '05

28 Jan '05

-----Original Message----- > From: Garrett Goebel > > > Brian Densmore wrote: >> Garrett Goebel wrote: >>> Brian Densmore wrote: >>>> >>>> Open source is about freedom, but not all government regulation is >>>> bad. >>> Freedom "to" or freedom "from"? >> Yes. Both. > I must strongly disagree. OSS enables people to do things. > Regulation protects you from things. So when you are talking > about OSS you are talking about a different kind of freedom > than that provided by regulations. Apples and oranges. These were two separate sentences. One talking about freedom. One about government regulation. Don't combine the two sentences into one, please. OSS is about freedom. That much we agree upon. You on the otherhand would like to see gov't regulation replaced with anarchy apparently. I, personally enjoy the fact that I can go to bed knowing that there is a police force out there that helps to prevent wholesale anarchy, and laws that set a guideline for what is and isn't acceptable in this society. I don't agree with a lot of the laws, but that doesn't mean I want to through them all away. >>>> I like knowing that not any Joe >>>> Schmoe can get a license to practice medicine, >>> In Kansas, a chiropractor can do a physical. >> But you have to be licensed as a chiropractor. > So what? A licensed chiropractor is in no way qualified to do a physical! Neither are a lot of doctors. You're point being? For what it's worth, I agree that a chiropractor isn't qualified to give a full physical. But that was your example not mine. > The whole "anything that can help" line of reasoning is a load of bunk. Do you have any children? > There are huge costs associated with governmental regulations. I don't care if it bankrupts the government. If one pedophile can be prevented from becoming a daycare provider it's worth it to me. (Before responding see later comment on self-regulation) > Regulations have tendency to grow and protect the established players No doubt. > Licensing Rules for Group Child Care Homes and Child Care Centers, > 19 CSR 30-62.102 Personnel, 1-L. And from a quick scan, I'm not sure that a > pedophile from KC, KS with a criminal record would show up in a review from > the Missouri State Highway Patrol... Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong. It's likely you are wrong. The courts use the same method for checking on potential adoptive parents and one of the things checked for is felony convictions on child abuse and neglect. Don't ask me why or how. If you're really interested I can ask a State Trooper friend of mine. > I question the cost and effectiveness of government mandated compliance. > Government regulations are slow to change, rarely are written by reputable > experts in the problem domain, and often bog down in irrelevant minutia. ... > I trust word of mouth reputation more than a government license. ... I would love to trust word of mouth, but the problem is in order for that to be effective you need to know a lot of people. > If only there was less government mandating and more voluntary independent oversight... I would love to see companies be conscientious and all government regulation go away. Only that is unlikely to happen, in any commercial market in the US in the foreseeable future. >>>> The problem is some times there's too much and other times there's >>>> not enough. >>>No. The problem is that sometimes it is coercive and sometimes it isn't. >>Whatever. > I'm fine with that. I respect your right to have an opinion and wounded backlash > sarcasm. I don't however have to agree that you or anyone else has a right to coerce > me into compliance with your opinions. Regulation == force of law == coercion. Wow! Another item we agree upon. ;') > I don't mind at all if there is a pile of government specified best practices > from here to the moon. The problem here being companies that do not adhere to them to the harm of the people. That is why we now have child labor laws. About half of my Irish ancestors who immigrated here from Ireland were killed or maimed in factories, before those laws were passed. Because companies refused to self-regulate. There were better solutions to the government mandated laws, but better solutions are only better if someone is willing to actually implement it. There are better solutions than criminalizing p2p software or suing the crap out of teens, but unless the companies making the music are willing to implement it, it is irrelevant. >>>> I also like knowing that not just any Joe Shmoe can contribute to the >>>> official Linux kernel. There are regulations in place to prevent >>>> that. >>> Huh? I assume by official, you're talking about Linus' kernel and not >>> the NSA's. Anybody _can_ contribute to Linus' kernel. There aren't >>> regulations in place to prevent that >>Yes. Ok, let's see you upload a patch to the Linux archives. What you >>can't it has to be approved by Linus or one of his people? What you >>have to certify to them that you are free to contribute the code? Oh, >>they want a letter from your company, on company letterhead stating >>that? Ok, whatever. Have it your way there are no restrictions on >> submitting patches and code to the Linux kernel... >>in your little fantasy filled world. > Calling that a regulation is a bit of a stretch. Linus' process does not have > the force of law. You're conflating the ideas of "force of law to control conduct" > and "protect your legal ass". No even before the new policies Linus was careful about accepting changes. A large part of that is to ensure that garbage and backdoors don't get into the code. > What you're referring to is: http://www.osdl.org/newsroom/press_releases/2004/2004_05_24_dco.html No I wasn't. That's part of it and I included some of that in my wording. And as I said, but you clipped out: > There are self-governing processes in place to prevent people > submitting code encumbered by coercive licenses and patents. Self-governing == self-regulating > It's still an opt-in Absolutely. The fact is not all regulations are bad. Also not all government regulations are bad. In fact some are very beneficial. Ones like it is illegal to kill your neighbor because you disagree with his point of view. It allows us to argue back and forth with some reasonable assurance neither of us are likely to hunt down and kill the other. Of course there is no guarantee of that. Just like there is no guarantee that any company will obey any given regulation. > I've contributed to the Linux kernel in the past, and time > and ability permitting someday I'd like to contribute again. It was Linux more than > anything that inspired me to revisit the roots of my interests in computers and make > a profession of it. I've never contributed code to the kernel, but I have reported bugs and > followed through on requests for information. ... I've contributed code and documentation to many > projects and cross references to pertinent information between them. In only one case have I been > asked to provide legal documentation. And in that case, nothing ever came of the project. I knew you had, and that was the reason for that particular comment. Still I doubt any of the projects you contributed would have allowed you to contribute code anonymously. If so, please let me know so I can remove those programs from my system. >>> I hate it when people use the word fair. >> I can see you have issues. > Yes. This is one of them. > How is it "fair" that existing "regulations" require a Developer's Certificate > of Ownership to prove that code submissions are unencumbered by coercive licenses > and patents? How is it "fair" that Linux kernel developers have to prove their > innocence in a society that claims you are innocent until proven guilty? Two things. One how fair is it to allow people to steal the code from companies and give that code to someone else without the companies' permission? Life isn't fair, we must do what we can to improve that as best we can. Hence, the need for regulations when necessary and all other attempts have failed. Two, who ever said our society claims you are innocent until proven guilty? There is the presumption of innocence. As opposed to the presumption of guilt. One must prove guilt not innocence, that is all the law says. Don't stretch it into something it isn't. One is charged with a crime because of suspicion of guilt. Anyway enough of this. peace, Brian

2 1

Mailman
by Chris Wagner 27 Jan '05

27 Jan '05

I was wondering if anyone could tell me if there's any way to display any kind of user information about the user apart from just the address on the Membership Management administrative interface...... Thanks, Chris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

[OT]Not for Profit Question
by Paul Taylor 27 Jan '05

27 Jan '05

Anyone know of a not-for-profit entity in Kansas City metro or surrounding area that might be interested in website and/or networking done for them? I've got a capstone project at Rockhurst that requires I help a non-profit upgrade/install for free and document the project thoroughly. Any suggestions would be welcome. You can e-mail me directly. Regards, Paul

2 1

RE: Open Source Values
by Brian Densmore 27 Jan '05

27 Jan '05

-----Original Message----- From: Garrett Goebel > Brian Densmore wrote: >> >> Open source is about freedom, but not all government >> regulation is bad. > Freedom "to" or freedom "from"? Yes. Both. > That's a kind of empty statement. Thanks, I needed to empty anyway. >> I like knowing that not any Joe >> Schmoe can get a license to practice medicine, > In Kansas, a chiropractor can do a physical. But you have to be licensed as a chiropractor. You can't just print off a certificate and be a chiropractor. >> or that vehicles have to meet a minimum standard of >> to be considered road worthy > Have you been outside lately? Cars only have to have _once_ been considered road worthy. Frequently. True, but at least I know that new cars aren't being built out of termite infested wood painted to look like metal. The kind of control it would take to ensure that all vehicles are always road-worthy is much too encroachment for me to want. Please refer to my original response that *not ALL gov't regulation is bad*) I never said "Ooooh, I love gov't regulation. Please give me more! >> or that daycare facilities need to check for criminal >> records before hiring. I like the idea of my children >> being cared for by people who haven't been convicted >> of being a pedophile. Call me crazy. > Do they really? Can you cite the statute? How effective has it been? Yes, they do. Criminal background checks are required of all licensed daycare in MO. No I can't cite it (well I could but I'm too lazy to go to the web and look it up). I don't know how effective it is. It's not of course going to catch those that have been smart enough to not get caught, but it's certainly better than nothing. If you can't see this then I pity you, as there are a lot of sick people out there and anything that can help to reduce the risk is in my book a *good thing*. >> The problem is some times there's too much and other times >> there's not enough. >No. The problem is that sometimes it is coercive and sometimes it isn't. Whatever. > People love to talk about how the FDA protects us from bad drugs. Not me. >> I also like knowing that not just any Joe Shmoe can contribute >> to the official Linux kernel. There are regulations in place to >> prevent that. > Huh? I assume by official, you're talking about Linus' kernel and not the NSA's. Anybody _can_ > contribute to Linus' kernel. There aren't regulations in place to prevent that Yes. Ok, let's see you upload a patch to the linux archives. What you can't it has to be approved by Linus or one of his people? What you have to certify to them that you are free to contribute the code? Oh, they want a letter from your company, on company letterhead stating that? Ok, whatever. Have it your way there are no restrictions on submitting patches and code to the Linux kernel... in your little fantasy filled world. >> I like the idea that any Joe Schmoe has the freedom to qualify >> under the existing fair regulations to be able to contribute to >> the Linux kernel. Freedom is great but without some form of >> control there is chaos and chaos is not always a good thing. > I hate it when people use the word fair. I can see you have issues.

2 1

Re: Live CD for Windows Users
by bkelsay＠comcast.net 27 Jan '05

27 Jan '05

ftp://ftp.cise.ufl.edu/pub/mirrors/mepis/released/SimplyMEPIS-2004.06.iso That should do it. > On Wednesday 26 January 2005 01:28 pm, Brian Kelsay wrote: > > > http://www.mepis.org/book/view/1462 > > I forgot to put this link in here. This shows all the mirrors. > > Thanks. Which of the eighteen files in the mirrors is the live CD? Do I want > cd1 or cd2? > _______________________________________________ > Kclug mailing list > Kclug(a)kclug.org > http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug

1 0

Re: Live CD for Windows Users
by Brian Kelsay 27 Jan '05

27 Jan '05

http://www.mepis.org/book/view/1462 I forgot to put this link in here. This shows all the mirrors. YMMV on the speed of the download, but there isn't a big drain right now because it's been out for a month. Brian Kelsay >>> "Brian Kelsay" <> 01/26/05 11:34AM >>> Here's one. http://www.mrbass.org/linux/mepis/ Get the Simply Mepis. It's all you need. The old 2 disk set had server stuff and you don't need that for your dad. After you have it installed you can "apt-get update" and "apt-get install <packagename>" for anything you don't have yet.

2 1

contributing to the Linux kernel
by Bailey, Michael L [NTK] 26 Jan '05

26 Jan '05

Messieurs Goebel and Densmore disputed thusly >> Huh? I assume by official, you're talking about Linus' kernel and not the >>NSA's. Anybody _can_ contribute to Linus' kernel. There aren't >>regulations in place to prevent that >Yes. Ok, let's see you upload a patch to the linux archives. What you can't >it has to be approved by Linus or one of his people? Isn't it true that I could take the kernel, add my code (which would really mess it up) without anyone's approval, and distribute it or whatever providing I met the provisions of the GPL? But I couldn't represent it as Linus's kernel in that case. Interesting discussion, though. Distinction between custom and authority: what we really need is cultural customs promoting quality. What we get when we rely on government, whose difference from private enterprise is its purported monopoly on the use of force, is the application of force to what can't be forced: innovation, caring, responsibility. These things bubble up despite government. State power is great at applying the stick (if you want to kill a lot of people, government's your best bet) but tends to apply the carrot unfairly due to the fact that the carrot's stolen in the first place, and crowds of interested parties who all have to be paid stand between it and the intended recipients. Hard-core libertarian thinking would even leave the use of force up to private parties (thesis being that rather than keeping violence down, restricting its use to the government actually increases it.) I prefer to try to build a cultural custom of respect for the government we have - as the adage goes, it's the one I deserve - without expecting it to be reasonable by my standards. It has its own inner logic, and it's bigger than I am. Now I'm going to back to my revision of the kernel...

1 0

RE: Open Source Values
by Garrett Goebel 26 Jan '05

26 Jan '05

Jason Clinton wrote: > The text we used is called _Power_and_Choice_ by W. Phillips > Shively and can be had for under $20 off the internet. Thank you. I'll check it out and perhaps add it to my wish list. > "Any act of politics may be viewed from either of two > perspectives, either as a cooperative search for an answer > to common problems or as an act by which some members of a > group impose their will on other members of the group. It > is important to remember that generally both viewpoints are > valid." A good point, and the point I was trying to make. I think of OSS as the common search without the coercion. Jason Clinton wrote: > Based on all the benefits that organized forms of government > have brought to the human race over the past 30,000 years, > I would have to conclude that coercion or at least the threat > of coercion has had a net-positive effect. But you just said... > Several centuries ago, most people were almost unaware of the > state in which they lived; they noticed it only if the king's > soldiers marched through their fields. At that time, many > large geographic areas could hardly be said to have been > organized as states at all. So you can hardly credit the nation state for 30,000 years of progress, when it only arrived on the scene in the last 300. As technology provided for longer healthier lives and provide an impetus to create large cities with significant population densities... government became more significant. But government does not imply that all such city states were centralized and coercive. Colonial America is a nice example. Here's a book on my reading wish list which you might want to take a look at: Conceived in Liberty http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0945466269/ It is a history of colonial American from the 1600-1800's which shows that our societies political heritage has been quite the opposite of the coercive centralized political state. > Quite frankly, your comments make me conclude you're either > an extremist libertarian or an anarchist -- neither of which > are healthy political persuasions. People called Jefferson an anarchist. I don't think I'm either. You have to put it all in context. There are ideals and practicalities. I think government should be as decentralized as is feasible. I just happen to think we're a long way from what's feasible. -- Garrett Goebel IS Development Specialist ScriptPro Direct: 913.403.5261 5828 Reeds Road Main: 913.384.1008 Mission, KS 66202 Fax: 913.384.2180 www.scriptpro.com garrett at scriptpro dot com

1 0

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