Linuxers May 2005

linuxers@mm.ilug-bom.org.in

105 participants
254 discussions

Re: [ILUG-BOM] A little piece of computer history for sale
by sherlock＠vsnl.com 24 May '05

24 May '05

On Tuesday 24 May 2005 13:09, Amol Hatwar wrote: > > Oh dear. You coud not live without pctools. And sidekick. And > > changing some byte to make the prince of persia invincible or to > > jump to level 10. > > Changing a byte? Wasn't it "makinit" :)? No. I edited some byte using de. One byte decided the runlevel and two others energy. Actually traced it out using Borland turbo debugger. That inspite of being able to reach level 10 in about 30 minutes. I must have been seriously retarded then. rgds jtd

1 0

RE: [ILUG-BOM] Eclispe meet
by Pillai, Gishu R (GE Energy) 24 May '05

24 May '05

*snip* >Met too, i also attended the first ILUG Bom meeting and the eclispe guy was >amazing. He said he is an open source Evangelist and then the glorious >question came. But i think we should commend the guys who organised it. I >mean the meting fulfilled its purpose at least for me it got me an insight >into the pluggable eclipse architecture . So now its upon us to explore. And >the second part of the session was real cool esp the QnA session brought out >some rela good qs. All said and done, the meet was worth my time. Now only if I could get Eclipse installed... The main download page has a big bold link for Windows while Linux downloads are hidden behind the link 'Other downloads for 3.0.2.' Are these the people that are pushing open source for 'ON DEMAND' business ? What do I download for RHL 8 the GTK2 zip or the MOTIF zip? The OSDL guys were quite forthcoming about the work that they do. Nice work whoever was behind the scenes.. Gishu

2 1

Eclispe meet
by Puneet Lakhina 24 May '05

24 May '05

>>Hi, >>Is it just me or is that Rony really gets slugged a lot everytime he mentions Windows on this list. >>* I attended my first LUG Meet yesterday. There was a demo on Eclipse from some heads from IBM -"Open Source" is the basis of "ON Demand" business, which made absolutely no sense to me. In the QnA that ensued, someone popped a q asking if their pluggable architect. mimics emacs. The IBM guy apparently did not know his Open source that well and he popped the magic question 'Is emacs open source?' (uproar-jeering-chaos for someone who sure is not coming back for an encore). Linux in India lacks general awareness. Met too, i also attended the first ILUG Bom meeting and the eclispe guy was amazing. He said he is an open source Evangelist and then the glorious question came. But i think we should commend the guys who organised it. I mean the meting fulfilled its purpose at least for me it got me an insight into the pluggable eclipse architecture . So now its upon us to explore. And the second part of the session was real cool esp the QnA session brought out some rela good qs. And about windoze or M$ bashing , i guess the desktop worrld can learn from it a lot and anatgonism is never gona be helpful windoze does have some good features thats why so many people use it.... And like it or not M$ is good at marketing what its got no matter how crappy. Moreover MS is the company that over the years has made the least amount of bad business decisions. So take the good from M$ and Windoze rather than just bash it... I mean Lotus made mistakes IBM did .. ciao, pl

2 1

Windows vs Linux - Programming Model only
by M.R.Anand 24 May '05

24 May '05

Why is it that we keep bringing up the same old topic of windows vs linux from a user's point of view?? I've programmed for/on windows before (dont flame me for this) and would really like to know how linux compares to M$ on the development front. It would be really usefull if someone could throw some light on - dll, COM, windows api equivalents on GNU/Linux. I doubt there exist a common api (for GUI) since there r different options available for different window managers. But then again x server is common. I really have limited knowledge on this front so i may be totally of the mark here. Also i'm aware about python and java which allow the program to be platform independent, but i'm looking at equivalent to M$ technologies here. Since Linux was not designed ground up as a replacement to windows but infact unix (did i get my facts right?) so there is bound to be some difference in the structure or api or whatever its called (i think its called the programming model...??), thats the difference i'm looking to understand. Anand. PS: "users" never learn untill they lose their precious data, so till then let em keep using M$.

4 4

[Fwd: Printfu in India]
by Anurag 24 May '05

24 May '05

[Cross-Posted Again :-) ] Can someone in Mumbai take this up? People would love to get their PDF downloads printed and delivered at door steps. Anurag -- __ __ gnu /noo/ n. Ox like antelope; (abbr.) /gnoo/ (recursive acronym) Gnu's Not Unix.

2 2

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Windows vs Linux - Programming Model only
by sherlock＠vsnl.com 24 May '05

24 May '05

On Tuesday 24 May 2005 14:22, Pillai, Gishu R (GE Energy) wrote: > *snip* > > >Missing a minor detail.M$ has patents on large portions of the > > .Net architecture. They have granted a royalty free in perpetuity > > licence to the C# and CLI portion of the technology only. Other > > portions are licenced on different RAND terms. In short pay for > > commercial use. You are courting disaster, particularly with a > > Company as horrendous as M$. > > AFAIK the CLI is the specification submitted to ECMA. > http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.h >tm The CLR (similar to Java VM) is the implementation of CLI, which > is owned by Microsoft. So (a big hypothesis coming up) if I wanted > to write a new implementation of the CLI, would I be required to > pay anything to MS ? Not clear on this. No. Mono is one such FLOSS project trying to implement the dotnet framework. But even they are cluless about any M$ patents that they might be violating. The general feeling is that Miguel & co. are more likely than not to be in violation. The problem is that reading the patents automatically taints you, thus preventing you from doing anything useful. rgds jtd

1 0

RE: [ILUG-BOM] For the AHs
by Dinesh Joshi 24 May '05

24 May '05

>From: "Amol Hatwar" <amol(a)hatwar.org> >And to all the nay-sayers that viruses in Windows exist only because it is >popular, read the fine print. Unix-like operating systems have been around >for decades now. The unix environment and architecture is much older that >Windoze offers. So theoretically, there should be more virii and exploits >in >the GNU/Linux world isn't it? The reason why this doesn't happen is because >of something we call "Architecture". Plus, the source code for Linux kernel and GNU apps have been around for atleast a decade. When you have the source code it's easier to write exploits, virii but it just doesn't seem so with GNU/Linux ;) Regards, Dinesh _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

2 1

RE: [ILUG-BOM] Windows vs Linux - Programming Model only
by Pillai, Gishu R (GE Energy) 24 May '05

24 May '05

*snip* >Missing a minor detail.M$ has patents on large portions of the .Net >architecture. They have granted a royalty free in perpetuity licence >to the C# and CLI portion of the technology only. Other portions are >licenced on different RAND terms. In short pay for commercial use. >You are courting disaster, particularly with a Company as horrendous >as M$. AFAIK the CLI is the specification submitted to ECMA. http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm The CLR (similar to Java VM) is the implementation of CLI, which is owned by Microsoft. So (a big hypothesis coming up) if I wanted to write a new implementation of the CLI, would I be required to pay anything to MS ? Not clear on this. Thanks, Gishu

1 0

RE: [ILUG-BOM] LINUX on AMD Athlon 64
by Mohanram Gudipati 24 May '05

24 May '05

Hi, I have an AMD64 with Fedora core 2. It works just fine. I tried a Gentoo install, but I kept having problems with my RAID card. Fedora was painless. Hope this helps. Cheers, Mohan "Laziness is an optimisation protocol" ---------- Original Message ----------- From: "Amol Hatwar" <amol(a)hatwar.org> To: "'GNU/Linux Users Group, Mumbai, India'" <linuxers(a)mm.ilug-bom.org.in> Sent: Tue, 24 May 2005 12:52:09 +0530 Subject: RE: [ILUG-BOM] LINUX on AMD Athlon 64 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linuxers-bounces(a)mm.ilug-bom.org.in [mailto:linuxers- > > bounces(a)mm.ilug-bom.org.in] On Behalf Of Dinesh Joshi > > Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 12:07 PM > > To: linuxers(a)mm.ilug-bom.org.in > > Subject: RE: [ILUG-BOM] LINUX on AMD Athlon 64 > > > > >From: "Richard Chang" <richard(a)hinditron.com> > > > > > >Would like to know which FC3 kernel can we load on the AMD Athlon 64 > > 2800+. > > >Is it FC3-x86_64 ot the FC3-i386 kernel. Anyone who is using the above > > >mentioned processor with LINUX ?. > > > > You'll need to use the x86-64 kernel. > > Or if you have the time and inclination you can try installing > Gentoo from Stage 1 > > Regards, > > ah > > -- > http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers ------- End of Original Message -------

1 0

Re: [ILUG-BOM] Windows vs Linux - Programming Model only
by sherlock＠vsnl.com 24 May '05

24 May '05

On Tuesday 24 May 2005 12:34, Dinesh Joshi wrote: > >From: Satya <ilugbom(a)thesatya.com> > > Dude, you have some major misconception here. Let me clear it up. > > >It compares much better, as I can write useful production code > > without having to pay someone hundreds of dollars. I do this for > > a living, too. Oh, and the code is usually plain text so you can > > hack with a text editor and don't need an IDE-- though you can > > get those, too. > > You don't need to pay microsoft a penny to write code, compile it > on their .NET platform, sell it, distribute or any kind of > commercial activity with *your* software. Missing a minor detail.M$ has patents on large portions of the .Net architecture. They have granted a royalty free in perpetuity licence to the C# and CLI portion of the technology only. Other portions are licenced on different RAND terms. In short pay for commercial use. You are courting disaster, particularly with a Company as horrendous as M$. One reason for .Net was M$ losing a court case to distribute their mangled version of java. So now they can use the patented portions of .net for tying in customers to their products and services while anybody else wanting to develop a similiar service pays royalty. At the same time they can shout that the technology is free and open which it is not. Btw IS NOT is patented by M$ Do post any pointers negating the above. " Beppe, As one of the inventors on that patent as well as the person heading up the standardization efforts for the CLI, I'd like to explain why I've never felt the two are in conflict. The ECMA process requires that all patents held by member companies that are essential for implementing its standards are available under "reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms" for the purpose of implementing those Standards. This is the normal condition used in all International Standards organizations, including both ECMA and ISO. But Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C# and CLI will be available on a "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" basis for this purpose. Furthermore, our release of the Rotor source code base with a specific license on its use gives wide use to our patents for a particular (non-commercial) purpose, and as we explicitly state we are open to additional licenses for other purposes. " rgds jtd

1 0

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
26
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Linuxers May 2005