Hello,
Some time back I had put up a challenge to the list to install Open Office 3 in Ubuntu 8.04 and looks like no one has been able to do that. Well in Windows XP you simply uninstall the older Open Office version and install the latest version. You could even install OOo3 over the older 2.x version. So on _this_ point I declare Windows XP the winner. ;-)
On Saturday I have to remove Ubuntu 8.04 from 5 machines and install Ubuntu 9.04 simply because upgrading Open Office is not possible in Linux.
There is an interesting phrase which some one sent me some time back. "all those who pull you out of shit might not always be your friends, and every one who puts you inside shit might not necessarily be your enemies".
Yes you might update what ever software in windows because their approach is different. I think it is a matter of compatibility with things like the desktop, kernel etc. This is because windows has so many unsolved bugs which cause such a lot of problem to windows users and still due to lack of awareness they still use that buggy version, afterall no alternative. GNU/linux has bugs too but they get fixt often and on a rapid pace. It might not happen now but there might be some kind of incompatibility which will surface with new upgraded software in windows as well. In case of things like ubuntu, the speed at which updates happen are very very fast and the enhancements don't sound like a rotton process like in windows. This demands major releases perhaps every 6 months.
And by the way it is not that things can be upgraded in gnu/linux, it is just the method we aught to know. And it is not windows a winner here but openoffice which respects the user's freedom.
they have given deb and rpm packages for their release. how you do with your respective distro is to be asked at the right places like the irc channel, or the mailing list.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 21:51 +0530, Rony wrote:
Hello,
Some time back I had put up a challenge to the list to install Open Office 3 in Ubuntu 8.04 and looks like no one has been able to do that. Well in Windows XP you simply uninstall the older Open Office version and install the latest version. You could even install OOo3 over the older 2.x version. So on _this_ point I declare Windows XP the winner. ;-)
On Saturday I have to remove Ubuntu 8.04 from 5 machines and install Ubuntu 9.04 simply because upgrading Open Office is not possible in Linux.
-- Regards,
Rony.
GNU/Linux ! No Viruses No Spyware Only Freedom.
Krishnakant wrote:
And by the way it is not that things can be upgraded in gnu/linux, it is just the method we aught to know. And it is not windows a winner here but openoffice which respects the user's freedom.
they have given deb and rpm packages for their release. how you do with your respective distro is to be asked at the right places like the irc channel, or the mailing list.
I don't want lectures, I want results. Off the list, it was your suggestion to upgrade to 9.04 when I tried to upgrade within 8.04 and faced problems.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday I have to remove Ubuntu 8.04 from 5 machines and install Ubuntu 9.04 simply because upgrading Open Office is not possible in Linux.
FUD. There is no need to remove 8.04 to install 9.04. I finished upgrading my sisters Ubuntu laptop from 8.04 to 9.04 last week. Took a few weeks because she's still working on a 128 kbps sify connection which disconnects every 10 minutes (I know, let's not digress into the ISP topic now). All you have to do is click on the shiny "Upgrade" button in your software updater.
Also, I haven't tried this, but it should be possible to scan the 9.04 DVD for package information and upgrade that way as well. It seems possible (from a Debian/apt viewpoint). Maybe somebody here has tried it (un)successfully?
Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday I have to remove Ubuntu 8.04 from 5 machines and install Ubuntu 9.04 simply because upgrading Open Office is not possible in Linux.
FUD. There is no need to remove 8.04 to install 9.04. I finished upgrading my sisters Ubuntu laptop from 8.04 to 9.04 last week. Took a few weeks because she's still working on a 128 kbps sify connection which disconnects every 10 minutes (I know, let's not digress into the ISP topic now). All you have to do is click on the shiny "Upgrade" button in your software updater.
Also, I haven't tried this, but it should be possible to scan the 9.04 DVD for package information and upgrade that way as well. It seems possible (from a Debian/apt viewpoint). Maybe somebody here has tried it (un)successfully?
I know this can be done but knowing Ubuntu's reputation for messing up upgrades and dependencies, I prefer to do clean installs. The point to be noted is that a distro upgrade is necessary.
Hey Rony,
OpenOffice 3.1.0 is available for Ubuntu 8.04 in the Personal Package Archives (PPA) courtesy "OpenOffice.org Scribblers". Follow this guide:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-To-Install-OpenOffice-org-3-0-in-Ubuntu-8...
Its actually for Ubuntu 8.10, so replace deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/openoffice-pkgs/ubuntu intrepid main with deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/openoffice-pkgs/ppa/ubuntu hardy main
BTW, ignore the comments on that page stating that the method does not work for hardy. The PPA page (https://launchpad.net/~openoffice-pkgs/+archive/ppa) clearly states that there are packages available for hardy. Probably the added those packages later on.
I don't have Hardy installed, so couldn't test. Do report back whether this works.
Hi,
Osric Fernandes wrote:
Hey Rony,
OpenOffice 3.1.0 is available for Ubuntu 8.04 in the Personal Package Archives (PPA) courtesy "OpenOffice.org Scribblers". Follow this guide:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-To-Install-OpenOffice-org-3-0-in-Ubuntu-8...
Its actually for Ubuntu 8.10, so replace deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/openoffice-pkgs/ubuntu intrepid main with deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/openoffice-pkgs/ppa/ubuntu hardy main
BTW, ignore the comments on that page stating that the method does not work for hardy. The PPA page (https://launchpad.net/~openoffice-pkgs/+archive/ppa) clearly states that there are packages available for hardy. Probably the added those packages later on.
I don't have Hardy installed, so couldn't test. Do report back whether this works.
Will definitely try it out on-site on Saturday. Thanks.
also don't forget the openclipart package. This is another boost if it works.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 22:00 +0530, Rony wrote:
Hi,
Osric Fernandes wrote:
Hey Rony,
OpenOffice 3.1.0 is available for Ubuntu 8.04 in the Personal Package Archives (PPA) courtesy "OpenOffice.org Scribblers". Follow this guide:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-To-Install-OpenOffice-org-3-0-in-Ubuntu-8...
Its actually for Ubuntu 8.10, so replace deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/openoffice-pkgs/ubuntu intrepid main with deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/openoffice-pkgs/ppa/ubuntu hardy main
BTW, ignore the comments on that page stating that the method does not work for hardy. The PPA page (https://launchpad.net/~openoffice-pkgs/+archive/ppa) clearly states that there are packages available for hardy. Probably the added those packages later on.
I don't have Hardy installed, so couldn't test. Do report back whether this works.
Will definitely try it out on-site on Saturday. Thanks.
-- Regards,
Rony.
GNU/Linux ! No Viruses No Spyware Only Freedom.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Osric Fernandes <osric.fernandes@gmail.com
wrote:
Hey Rony,
OpenOffice 3.1.0 is available for Ubuntu 8.04 in the Personal Package Archives (PPA) courtesy "OpenOffice.org Scribblers". Follow this guide:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-To-Install-OpenOffice-org-3-0-in-Ubuntu-8...
Its actually for Ubuntu 8.10, so replace deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/openoffice-pkgs/ubuntu intrepid main with deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/openoffice-pkgs/ppa/ubuntu hardy main
BTW, ignore the comments on that page stating that the method does not work for hardy. The PPA page (https://launchpad.net/~openoffice-pkgs/+archive/ppahttps://launchpad.net/%7Eopenoffice-pkgs/+archive/ppa) clearly states that there are packages available for hardy. Probably the added those packages later on.
I don't have Hardy installed, so couldn't test. Do report back whether this works.
I testify, OO.o 310 works fine on my Hardy. Actually, there was just one problem... I had to manually remove the duplicate entries from the Office Menu in Application Launcher.
Nitesh Mistry wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Osric Fernandes <osric.fernandes@gmail.com
wrote:
Hey Rony,
OpenOffice 3.1.0 is available for Ubuntu 8.04 in the Personal Package Archives (PPA) courtesy "OpenOffice.org Scribblers". Follow this guide:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-To-Install-OpenOffice-org-3-0-in-Ubuntu-8...
Its actually for Ubuntu 8.10, so replace deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/openoffice-pkgs/ubuntu intrepid main with deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/openoffice-pkgs/ppa/ubuntu hardy main
BTW, ignore the comments on that page stating that the method does not work for hardy. The PPA page (https://launchpad.net/~openoffice-pkgs/+archive/ppahttps://launchpad.net/%7Eopenoffice-pkgs/+archive/ppa) clearly states that there are packages available for hardy. Probably the added those packages later on.
I don't have Hardy installed, so couldn't test. Do report back whether this works.
I testify, OO.o 310 works fine on my Hardy. Actually, there was just one problem... I had to manually remove the duplicate entries from the Office Menu in Application Launcher.
Did you use the above method? If not, could you tell me the procedure you used? Thanks in advance.
On 6/12/09, Rony gnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
OpenOffice 3.1.0 is available for Ubuntu 8.04 in the Personal Package Archives (PPA) courtesy "OpenOffice.org Scribblers". Follow this guide:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-To-Install-OpenOffice-org-3-0-in-Ubuntu-8...
Its actually for Ubuntu 8.10, so replace deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/openoffice-pkgs/ubuntu intrepid main with deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/openoffice-pkgs/ppa/ubuntu hardy main
I testify, OO.o 310 works fine on my Hardy. Actually, there was just one problem... I had to manually remove the duplicate entries from the Office Menu in Application Launcher.
Did you use the above method? If not, could you tell me the procedure you used? Thanks in advance.
Yes, Very much the same procedure. Hardy appears in the drop-down list on the PPA page of OO.o Scriblers (https://launchpad.net/~openoffice-pkgs/+archive/ppa). When you select it, it gives you the deb line of their Hardy repo. Add it to your sources, import the key given on their page and reload the apt. You can see the update offered from 2.4 to 3.1. The only issue I faced, as mentioned in the previous mail was that - after updating, duplicate entries appeared in the Office Menu of Application Launcher. I had to manually remove them. Anyways, being a heavy user of spreadsheets, I didn't find visible improvements and still continue using MS-O for the purpose (another flame bait! :P )
Nitesh Mistry wrote:
Yes, Very much the same procedure. Hardy appears in the drop-down list on the PPA page of OO.o Scriblers (https://launchpad.net/~openoffice-pkgs/+archive/ppa). When you select it, it gives you the deb line of their Hardy repo. Add it to your sources, import the key given on their page and reload the apt. You can see the update offered from 2.4 to 3.1. The only issue I faced, as mentioned in the previous mail was that - after updating, duplicate entries appeared in the Office Menu of Application Launcher. I had to manually remove them. Anyways, being a heavy user of spreadsheets, I didn't find visible improvements and still continue using MS-O for the purpose (another flame bait! :P )
The method worked and I was able to install OO3 in Ubuntu 8.04.
The procedure was simple and is from this link.
https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA#Adding%20a%20PPA%20to%20your%20Ubun...
Add the PPA repos for Hardy in apt sources.lst. Copy the signature text to a file and save it with some name. Open Synaptec and add the signature file to the signatures list. Update synaptec and select OpenOffice 1.3.1.x This selects all other related packages and also marks older packages for removal. After installation the menu already had single entries for various OO components. Clicking on them directly opened OO3.
The confusing part was to select a signature from a list of 3. I used the first one in this link and copy / pasted its full text to a file.
http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x60D11217...
The only downside was that the client had already set heart on Ubuntu 9.04 so after this successful procedure I had to install 9.04 on all the machines. But thanks to you and Osric for letting me know about OpenOffice PPAs as this will help me upgrade other systems.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday I have to remove Ubuntu 8.04 from 5 machines and install Ubuntu 9.04 simply because upgrading Open Office is not possible in Linux.
Also, googling for "openoffice.org backport ubuntu hardy" (without the quotes) got me this:
http://www.howtoforge.com/how-to-install-openoffice-3.0.0-on-ubuntu-8.04
Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday I have to remove Ubuntu 8.04 from 5 machines and install Ubuntu 9.04 simply because upgrading Open Office is not possible in Linux.
Also, googling for "openoffice.org backport ubuntu hardy" (without the quotes) got me this:
http://www.howtoforge.com/how-to-install-openoffice-3.0.0-on-ubuntu-8.04
When I put up the query some time back why is it that there were no responses from members?
On Thursday 11 June 2009 21:26:20 Rony wrote:
http://www.howtoforge.com/how-to-install-openoffice-3.0.0-on-ubuntu-8.04
When I put up the query some time back why is it that there were no responses from members?
I did not reply as I have better things to do than install oo3 on ubuntu
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
When I put up the query some time back why is it that there were no responses from members?
I was busy with fixing RL issues..
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 12:06 +0530, Kartik Mistry wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
When I put up the query some time back why is it that there were no responses from members?
I was busy with fixing RL issues..
And we all believe it is pritty easy to find such things out. Well, when we don't get some thing working on a certain favorite proprietory OS we go all out to find a solution and not just rely on one person or a group of people. So perhaps one would do the same with gnu/linux as well.
Any ways now since people actually provided the solution, there is no point going on a historic trak of "why people did not respond early ".
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
-- Cheers, Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_ Debian GNU/Linux Developer Blog.en: ftbfs.wordpress.com Blog.gu: kartikm.wordpress.com
On Thursday 11 Jun 2009, Rony wrote:
When I put up the query some time back why is it that there were no responses from members?
Because your payment for consultancy hadn't been cleared by the bank at that time.
You cannot demand a swift, accurate, complete response from a bunch of volunteers. If that's what your requirement is, pay someone (e.g. me) lots of money for support.
Regards,
-- Raju
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Raj Mathurraju@linux-delhi.org wrote:
If that's what your requirement is, pay someone (e.g. me) lots of money for support.
Even me too :P
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 13:21 +0530, Kartik Mistry wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Raj Mathurraju@linux-delhi.org wrote:
If that's what your requirement is, pay someone (e.g. me) lots of money for support.
Even me too :P
What a beautiful business structure. Pay for only those things which directly matter to you. For example troubleshooting or installation complexities. Still once you know what to do then you can do it on the rest of the machines without paying for dirty licensing costs. So indeed one should learn to pay for *only* services like this and use free software with complete power and authority. Remember I am in mumbai so may be I can be hired for such services :) *** commertial posting not intended*** happy hacking. Krishnakant.
-- Cheers, Kartik Mistry | 0xD1028C8D | IRC: kart_ Debian GNU/Linux Developer Blog.en: ftbfs.wordpress.com Blog.gu: kartikm.wordpress.com
Krishnakant wrote:
What a beautiful business structure. Pay for only those things which directly matter to you. For example troubleshooting or installation complexities. Still once you know what to do then you can do it on the rest of the machines without paying for dirty licensing costs. So indeed one should learn to pay for *only* services like this and use free software with complete power and authority. Remember I am in mumbai so may be I can be hired for such services :) *** commertial posting not intended***
What are you saying man. It is on your advise and recommendation that I have to install Ubuntu 9.04 on those machines. You said it was not possible to upgrade to OO3 in 8.04.
there are many other reasons to upgrade to 9.04 apart from oo3 and although it might be difficult to put oo3 on 8.04.2 it is possible never the less. but as I had said in the very first reply on this thread there is a reason for keeping versions in sink with the recommended distro versions.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 20:46 +0530, Rony wrote:
Krishnakant wrote:
What a beautiful business structure. Pay for only those things which directly matter to you. For example troubleshooting or installation complexities. Still once you know what to do then you can do it on the rest of the machines without paying for dirty licensing costs. So indeed one should learn to pay for *only* services like this and use free software with complete power and authority. Remember I am in mumbai so may be I can be hired for such services :) *** commertial posting not intended***
What are you saying man. It is on your advise and recommendation that I have to install Ubuntu 9.04 on those machines. You said it was not possible to upgrade to OO3 in 8.04.
-- Regards,
Rony.
GNU/Linux ! No Viruses No Spyware Only Freedom.
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 13:14 +0530, Raj Mathur wrote:
On Thursday 11 Jun 2009, Rony wrote:
When I put up the query some time back why is it that there were no responses from members?
Because your payment for consultancy hadn't been cleared by the bank at that time.
You cannot demand a swift, accurate, complete response from a bunch of volunteers. If that's what your requirement is, pay someone (e.g. me) lots of money for support.
I second this. Remember free as in freedom and not prise. And if we can pay for proprietory software and give the money to those whom we even don't know, then why not pay for some very good transparant and open software for some professional service?
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Friday 12 June 2009 13:23:19 Krishnakant wrote:
You cannot demand a swift, accurate, complete response from a bunch of volunteers. If that's what your requirement is, pay someone (e.g. me) lots of money for support.
I second this. Remember free as in freedom and not prise. And if we can pay for proprietory software and give the money to those whom we even don't know, then why not pay for s
very true - if Rony had offered a substantial prize (possibly a six-pack of beer), I might have been tempted to pollute my computer with ubuntu and try for it.
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 13:27 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Friday 12 June 2009 13:23:19 Krishnakant wrote:
You cannot demand a swift, accurate, complete response from a bunch of volunteers. If that's what your requirement is, pay someone (e.g. me) lots of money for support.
I second this. Remember free as in freedom and not prise. And if we can pay for proprietory software and give the money to those whom we even don't know, then why not pay for s
very true - if Rony had offered a substantial prize (possibly a six-pack of beer), I might have been tempted to pollute my computer with ubuntu and try for it. --
hmmm, I am not that costly, although I would want good fee as well.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Friday 12 June 2009 13:23:19 Krishnakant wrote:
You cannot demand a swift, accurate, complete response from a bunch of volunteers. If that's what your requirement is, pay someone (e.g. me) lots of money for support.
I second this. Remember free as in freedom and not prise. And if we can pay for proprietory software and give the money to those whom we even don't know, then why not pay for s
very true - if Rony had offered a substantial prize (possibly a six-pack of beer), I might have been tempted to pollute my computer with ubuntu and try for it.
The query was to those who have already polluted their comps with Ubuntu. BTW, my systems are not polluted. :-)
Raj Mathur wrote:
On Thursday 11 Jun 2009, Rony wrote:
When I put up the query some time back why is it that there were no responses from members?
Because your payment for consultancy hadn't been cleared by the bank at that time.
You cannot demand a swift, accurate, complete response from a bunch of volunteers. If that's what your requirement is, pay someone (e.g. me) lots of money for support.
Then according to your theory, I should also charge for providing quick help to others on the list. Anyway what I want to highlight is that the responses poured in after Windows XP was declared the 'winner'.
Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday I have to remove Ubuntu 8.04 from 5 machines and install Ubuntu 9.04 simply because upgrading Open Office is not possible in Linux.
Also, googling for "openoffice.org backport ubuntu hardy" (without the quotes) got me this:
http://www.howtoforge.com/how-to-install-openoffice-3.0.0-on-ubuntu-8.04
I did the same method on my own but OO3 failed to start. That is why I put up the challenge. In the past I have successfully used this method on my own Debian Etch-KDE installation for an earlier upgrade of OO.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday I have to remove Ubuntu 8.04 from 5 machines and install Ubuntu 9.04 simply because upgrading Open Office is not possible in Linux.
#apt-get upgrade
For better mnanagement of packages we have package management systems(apt) in GNU/Linux distributions .
Regards, Pavithran
pavithran s wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday I have to remove Ubuntu 8.04 from 5 machines and install Ubuntu 9.04 simply because upgrading Open Office is not possible in Linux.
#apt-get upgrade
For better mnanagement of packages we have package management systems(apt) in GNU/Linux distributions .
'apt-get upgrade' will only upgrade installed packages to their latest version, within the scope of the existing distro.
'apt-get dist-upgrade' will upgrade your distro to the latest version. As mentioned in my earlier replies, I don't trust this process for long term peace of mind and body.
On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 20:13 +0530, Rony wrote:
pavithran s wrote:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday I have to remove Ubuntu 8.04 from 5 machines and install Ubuntu 9.04 simply because upgrading Open Office is not possible in Linux.
#apt-get upgrade
For better mnanagement of packages we have package management systems(apt) in GNU/Linux distributions .
'apt-get upgrade' will only upgrade installed packages to their latest version, within the scope of the existing distro.
'apt-get dist-upgrade' will upgrade your distro to the latest version. As mentioned in my earlier replies, I don't trust this process for long term peace of mind and body.
+1 I can confirm that the system might often become slow and will provide some tough time because some times some dependencies don't get resolved.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Krishnakantkrmane@gmail.com wrote:
I can confirm that the system might often become slow and will provide some tough time because some times some dependencies don't get resolved.
Please file a bug to relevant disto in such cases. We at Debian will love to see bugs reported from user :)
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
'apt-get upgrade' will only upgrade installed packages to their latest version, within the scope of the existing distro.
Yes *within* the scope of the existing distro . Every distribution has certain aims and release cycles. If you want bleeding edge You have some choices *Use Ubuntu *Use Gentoo *Compile packages from SVN
But if you want to see a particular package in the latest version in your favourite distro . Please join the team and be a package manager . Then it all depends on how best you could convince the other developers that "the latest version will improve the usablity and will not break the system" .
Regards, Pavithran
pavithran s wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
'apt-get upgrade' will only upgrade installed packages to their latest version, within the scope of the existing distro.
Yes *within* the scope of the existing distro . Every distribution has certain aims and release cycles. If you want bleeding edge You have some choices *Use Ubuntu *Use Gentoo *Compile packages from SVN
But if you want to see a particular package in the latest version in your favourite distro . Please join the team and be a package manager . Then it all depends on how best you could convince the other developers that "the latest version will improve the usablity and will not break the system" .
Later on I should even make my own distro by writing its code.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
pavithran s wrote:
Later on I should even make my own distro by writing its code.
If you don't like code there is a distro called Windows .. where you can happily double clik and install :D
click click anc click .. hurray I got a spledid M$ Office for 6000 Rs ... and then you can sing " I am a PC .. some is a mac" LOL
Regards, Pavithran
pavithran s wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
pavithran s wrote:
Later on I should even make my own distro by writing its code.
If you don't like code there is a distro called Windows .. where you can happily double clik and install :D
click click anc click .. hurray I got a spledid M$ Office for 6000 Rs ... and then you can sing " I am a PC .. some is a mac" LOL
The way you describe it, Linux hasn't arrived, even after 15 years.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:02 AM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
The way you describe it, Linux hasn't arrived, even after 15 years.
Linux the kernel had arrived long back and has many features.
From kernel.org :
Linux supports true multitasking, virtual memory, shared libraries, demand loading, shared copy-on-write executables, proper memory management, and multistack networking including IPv4 and IPv6.
Although originally developed first for 32-bit x86-based PCs (386 or higher), today Linux also runs on (at least) the Alpha AXP, Sun SPARC, Motorola 68000, PowerPC, ARM, Hitachi SuperH, IBM S/390, MIPS, HP PA-RISC, Intel IA-64, AMD x86-64, AXIS CRIS, Renesas M32R, Atmel AVR32, Renesas H8/300, NEC V850, Tensilica Xtensa, and Analog Devices Blackfin architectures; for many of these architectures in both 32- and 64-bit variants.
Regards, Pavithran
One more quick note. that so called "winner " named windows xp does not even support 64 bit processors which linux does. So linux wins. I would end up waisting my money if i run windows xp on an amd 64 or core2 duo. So linux the kernel is a clearcut winner. It is there for 15 years + afterall.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 12:25 +0100, pavithran s wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:02 AM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
The way you describe it, Linux hasn't arrived, even after 15 years.
Linux the kernel had arrived long back and has many features.
From kernel.org :
Linux supports true multitasking, virtual memory, shared libraries, demand loading, shared copy-on-write executables, proper memory management, and multistack networking including IPv4 and IPv6.
Although originally developed first for 32-bit x86-based PCs (386 or higher), today Linux also runs on (at least) the Alpha AXP, Sun SPARC, Motorola 68000, PowerPC, ARM, Hitachi SuperH, IBM S/390, MIPS, HP PA-RISC, Intel IA-64, AMD x86-64, AXIS CRIS, Renesas M32R, Atmel AVR32, Renesas H8/300, NEC V850, Tensilica Xtensa, and Analog Devices Blackfin architectures; for many of these architectures in both 32- and 64-bit variants.
Regards, Pavithran
2009/6/18 Krishnakant krmane@gmail.com:
One more quick note. that so called "winner " named windows xp does not even support 64 bit processors which linux does.
I thought it does support. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 17:42 +0530, Anurag wrote:
2009/6/18 Krishnakant krmane@gmail.com:
One more quick note. that so called "winner " named windows xp does not even support 64 bit processors which linux does.
I thought it does support. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx
This is a news for me. We need to confirm though if it is "64 bit ready " or has complete support for native 64 bit.
Any ways it is nice to know that they learned from some thing they hate so much.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
Krishna ... spking of Hacking .. i m a newbie here.. can u give me some nice / safe hacking forums / sites to kick start with .. :) :) - Vam'C
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Krishnakant krmane@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 17:42 +0530, Anurag wrote:
2009/6/18 Krishnakant krmane@gmail.com:
One more quick note. that so called "winner " named windows xp does not even support 64 bit processors which linux does.
I thought it does support. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx
This is a news for me. We need to confirm though if it is "64 bit ready " or has complete support for native 64 bit.
Any ways it is nice to know that they learned from some thing they hate so much.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 17:53 +0530, vamsi vidya sagar wrote:
Krishna ... spking of Hacking .. i m a newbie here.. can u give me some nice / safe hacking forums / sites to kick start with .. :) :)
- Vam'C
I will dig out some good resources including an article by RMS on the topic and send it to you off the list. But just one fundamental point to remember is hacking is *never* unsafe. If it is unsafe then it is "cracking " and not "hacking".
hacking is an art to inovate a solution for a problem under constrained environment.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Krishnakant krmane@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 17:42 +0530, Anurag wrote:
2009/6/18 Krishnakant krmane@gmail.com:
One more quick note. that so called "winner " named windows xp does not even support 64 bit processors which linux does.
I thought it does support. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx
This is a news for me. We need to confirm though if it is "64 bit ready " or has complete support for native 64 bit.
Any ways it is nice to know that they learned from some thing they hate so much.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
-- M.Vamsi Vidya Sagar +91-9739467004 Bangalore
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Krishnakant krmane@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 17:53 +0530, vamsi vidya sagar wrote:
Krishna ... spking of Hacking .. i m a newbie here.. can u give me some
nice
/ safe hacking forums / sites to kick start with .. :) :)
- Vam'C
I will dig out some good resources including an article by RMS on the topic and send it to you off the list. But just one fundamental point to remember is hacking is *never* unsafe. If it is unsafe then it is "cracking " and not "hacking".
hacking is an art to inovate a solution for a problem under constrained environment.
But exactly the reverse is what Institute of Chartered Accountants of India teaches in the subject of "Management Information and Control Systems" which is a separate 100 marks paper in our CA syllabus. This is what they asked us in the exam this time- "List the main threats from hacking" And I was supposed to criticise hacking or else stand to loose 4 marks!
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Nitesh Mistrymistrynitesh@gmail.com wrote:
But exactly the reverse is what Institute of Chartered Accountants of India teaches in the subject of "Management Information and Control Systems" which is a separate 100 marks paper in our CA syllabus. This is what they asked us in the exam this time- "List the main threats from hacking" And I was supposed to criticise hacking or else stand to loose 4 marks!
The word may imply different things in different context. When used in the Free Software or academic circles, it is what KK defines it as. For a lay person, when used in a technical context, it almost always implies cracking. When used in context of farming it means cutting grass. When used in the military/terrorist/killer context, it means killing people.
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 01:22 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Nitesh Mistrymistrynitesh@gmail.com wrote:
But exactly the reverse is what Institute of Chartered Accountants of India teaches in the subject of "Management Information and Control Systems" which is a separate 100 marks paper in our CA syllabus. This is what they asked us in the exam this time- "List the main threats from hacking" And I was supposed to criticise hacking or else stand to loose 4 marks!
The word may imply different things in different context. When used in the Free Software or academic circles, it is what KK defines it as. For a lay person, when used in a technical context, it almost always implies cracking. When used in context of farming it means cutting grass. When used in the military/terrorist/killer context, it means killing people.
But in the most general sence, it means what I had mentioned in my previous email. It is actually like "breaking " a problem into understandable bits and then finding solution in any given situation. So hacking is fun, hacking is being playful and hacking means being constructive and creative. If media is creating a wrong impression about the term, no matter at what scale, then it is our duty to strongly oppose this and inform the masses at large about the proper meaning.
No constitution in the world has the term "hacking " in the list of crimes. There is cyber crime for example but no "hacking ". So if some organisations or media or even educational institutes are using the word in the wrong context then instead of saying "this is what the people believe " we must make people understand that they have been misguided about the *real* meaning of hacking in context of technology.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
-- Siddhesh Poyarekar http://siddhesh.in
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Krishnakantkrmane@gmail.com wrote:
But in the most general sence, it means what I had mentioned in my previous email. It is actually like "breaking " a problem into understandable bits and then finding solution in any given situation.
It definitely does not mean this in a general sense. In the most general sense, it means cut with rough or heavy blows. The guys at MIT gave it a new meaning and the popular press gave it another. Now the fight is to decide which of the two meanings should prevail.
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 09:12 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Krishnakantkrmane@gmail.com wrote:
But in the most general sence, it means what I had mentioned in my previous email. It is actually like "breaking " a problem into understandable bits and then finding solution in any given situation.
It definitely does not mean this in a general sense. In the most general sense, it means cut with rough or heavy blows. The guys at MIT gave it a new meaning and the popular press gave it another. Now the fight is to decide which of the two meanings should prevail.
Fight it to make people understand that in terms of ICT it means doing some thing good. Unfortunately press is often controled by big business houses, but fortunately the community at large has the choice of either excepting the wrong notion because that is what people feel, or make people aware of what it actually means.
happy hacking.
Krishnakant.
-- Siddhesh Poyarekar http://siddhesh.in
Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Krishnakantkrmane@gmail.com wrote:
But in the most general sence, it means what I had mentioned in my previous email. It is actually like "breaking " a problem into understandable bits and then finding solution in any given situation.
It definitely does not mean this in a general sense. In the most general sense, it means cut with rough or heavy blows. The guys at MIT gave it a new meaning and the popular press gave it another. Now the fight is to decide which of the two meanings should prevail.
In a jungle you hack your way about, clearing branches, wines and other obstacles to move on ahead. That may be the reason why making forced entry into someone's system is called hacking.
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 20:35 +0530, Rony wrote:
Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:21 AM, Krishnakantkrmane@gmail.com wrote:
But in the most general sence, it means what I had mentioned in my previous email. It is actually like "breaking " a problem into understandable bits and then finding solution in any given situation.
It definitely does not mean this in a general sense. In the most general sense, it means cut with rough or heavy blows. The guys at MIT gave it a new meaning and the popular press gave it another. Now the fight is to decide which of the two meanings should prevail.
In a jungle you hack your way about, clearing branches, wines and other obstacles to move on ahead. That may be the reason why making forced entry into someone's system is called hacking.
That's a perfect example. Finding a way out of a jungle is like solving a problem.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Friday 19 June 2009 01:22:16 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
But exactly the reverse is what Institute of Chartered Accountants of India teaches in the subject of "Management Information and Control Systems" which is a separate 100 marks paper in our CA syllabus. This is what they asked us in the exam this time- "List the main threats from hacking" And I was supposed to criticise hacking or else stand to loose 4 marks!
The word may imply different things in different context. When used in the Free Software or academic circles, it is what KK defines it as. For a lay person, when used in a technical context, it almost always implies cracking. When used in context of farming it means cutting grass. When used in the military/terrorist/killer context, it means killing people.
and in golf it means what a clueless n00b does
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar < siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Nitesh Mistrymistrynitesh@gmail.com wrote:
But exactly the reverse is what Institute of Chartered Accountants of
India
teaches in the subject of "Management Information and Control Systems"
which
is a separate 100 marks paper in our CA syllabus. This is what they asked us in the exam this time- "List the main threats from hacking" And I was supposed to criticise hacking or else stand to loose 4 marks!
The word may imply different things in different context. When used in the Free Software or academic circles, it is what KK defines it as. For a lay person, when used in a technical context, it almost always implies cracking. When used in context of farming it means cutting grass. When used in the military/terrorist/killer context, it means killing people.
The question in my exam was asked in the context of software and academics.
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 1:22 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar < siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Nitesh Mistrymistrynitesh@gmail.com wrote:
But exactly the reverse is what Institute of Chartered Accountants of
India
teaches in the subject of "Management Information and Control Systems"
which
is a separate 100 marks paper in our CA syllabus. This is what they asked us in the exam this time- "List the main threats from hacking" And I was supposed to criticise hacking or else stand to loose 4 marks!
The word may imply different things in different context. When used in the Free Software or academic circles, it is what KK defines it as. For a lay person, when used in a technical context, it almost always implies cracking. When used in context of farming it means cutting grass. When used in the military/terrorist/killer context, it means killing people.
But I guess you may be right. It is More like how a lay person understands software. So here, hacking actually meant cracking.
Hi all, Sorry for being so late in responding but here are the facts why Openoffice.org 3.0 didn't get included for Hardy :-
1. Openoffice.org 3.0 was released too close to Hardy release hence enough testing and testers were not there.
2. During any of the Ubuntu release cycle, most of the components are stabilized around alpha 4.
3. When Openoffice.org 3.0 was released it was thought (and rightully so) that its too big, unweildy and intrusive to do such a big change at so late in the game.
In fact there is a bug where discussion is going on for backporting OO.o 3.0 for Hardy.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/hardy-backports/+bug/283137
What's happened with OO.o may & will happen again. It needs more packagers and testers alike.
Just my 2 paise.
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:19 AM, shirishshirishag75@gmail.com wrote:
What's happened with OO.o may & will happen again. It needs more packagers and testers alike.
True. Please jump in!
On Thursday 18 June 2009 23:31:56 Nitesh Mistry wrote:
hacking is an art to inovate a solution for a problem under constrained environment.
But exactly the reverse is what Institute of Chartered Accountants of India teaches in the subject of "Management Information and Control Systems" which is a separate 100 marks paper in our CA syllabus. This is what they asked us in the exam this time- "List the main threats from hacking" And I was supposed to criticise hacking or else stand to loose 4 marks!
so - did you sell your soul for 4 marks?
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.orgwrote:
On Thursday 18 June 2009 23:31:56 Nitesh Mistry wrote:
hacking is an art to inovate a solution for a problem under constrained environment.
But exactly the reverse is what Institute of Chartered Accountants of
India
teaches in the subject of "Management Information and Control Systems" which is a separate 100 marks paper in our CA syllabus. This is what they asked us in the exam this time- "List the main threats from hacking" And I was supposed to criticise hacking or else stand to loose 4 marks!
so - did you sell your soul for 4 marks?
Yes I did :P
On Saturday 20 June 2009 09:52:35 Nitesh Mistry wrote:
so - did you sell your soul for 4 marks?
Yes I did :P
shame on you
you could have at least add a line or two mentioning that there are different takes on the meaning of hacking in the context of software.
At 10:03 AM 6/20/2009, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Saturday 20 June 2009 09:52:35 Nitesh Mistry wrote:
so - did you sell your soul for 4 marks?
Yes I did :P
shame on you
Well, I think we should at least acknowledge that there are several meanings of the term and "Unauthorized attempts to bypass the security mechanisms of an information system or network " is one of the more common interpretations.
http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=define%3Ahacking&btnG=Google+...
On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 10:12 +0530, Prashant Verma wrote:
At 10:03 AM 6/20/2009, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Saturday 20 June 2009 09:52:35 Nitesh Mistry wrote:
so - did you sell your soul for 4 marks?
Yes I did :P
shame on you
Well, I think we should at least acknowledge that there are several meanings of the term and "Unauthorized attempts to bypass the security mechanisms of an information system or network " is one of the more common interpretations.
But certainly the wrong one.
I don't find any leagul definition of "hacking " as a crime.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
At 11:45 PM 6/20/2009, Krishnakant wrote:
But certainly the wrong one.
If common wisdom is wrong, and you are right, a cohesive and comprehensive refutation is expected, not a one-liner.
I don't find any leagul definition of "hacking " as a crime.
Could it be because you have not looked? If that's the case, you should put in the effort. I'll give you a hint (but don't expect spoonfeeding): Look up the Indian IT Act 2000
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 16:01 +0530, Prashant Verma wrote:
At 11:45 PM 6/20/2009, Krishnakant wrote:
But certainly the wrong one.
If common wisdom is wrong, and you are right, a cohesive and comprehensive refutation is expected, not a one-liner.
I think then your understanding of difference between common wisdom and popular believe is totally wrong.
I don't find any leagul definition of "hacking " as a crime.
Could it be because you have not looked? If that's the case, you should put in the effort. I'll give you a hint (but don't expect spoonfeeding): Look up the Indian IT Act 2000
I think that might apply to you as well. You must do proper reading and talk with experienced people to know whether what you love to believe is wisdom or *popular* belief developed by dirty propaganda.
happy *hacking*
Krishnakant.
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 16:01 +0530, Prashant Verma wrote:
At 11:45 PM 6/20/2009, Krishnakant wrote:
But certainly the wrong one.
If common wisdom is wrong, and you are right, a cohesive and comprehensive refutation is expected, not a one-liner.
I don't find any leagul definition of "hacking " as a crime.
Could it be because you have not looked? If that's the case, you should put in the effort. I'll give you a hint (but don't expect spoonfeeding): Look up the Indian IT Act 2000
ok, then let the list moderator bann me for favoring criminal and terrorist tendencies like "hacking".
happy ahcking. Krishnakant.
At 04:14 PM 6/21/2009, Krishnakant wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 16:01 +0530, Prashant Verma wrote:
At 11:45 PM 6/20/2009, Krishnakant wrote:
But certainly the wrong one.
If common wisdom is wrong, and you are right, a cohesive and comprehensive refutation is expected, not a one-liner.
I don't find any leagul definition of "hacking " as a crime.
Could it be because you have not looked? If that's the case, you should put in the effort. I'll give you a hint (but don't expect spoonfeeding): Look up the Indian IT Act 2000
ok, then let the list moderator bann me for favoring criminal and
terrorist tendencies like "hacking".
If he decides to ban you for making illogical comments and wrong inferences, I wouldn't mind. But otherwise you're OK :-)
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 16:18 +0530, Prashant Verma wrote:
At 04:14 PM 6/21/2009, Krishnakant wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 16:01 +0530, Prashant Verma wrote:
At 11:45 PM 6/20/2009, Krishnakant wrote:
But certainly the wrong one.
If common wisdom is wrong, and you are right, a cohesive and comprehensive refutation is expected, not a one-liner.
I don't find any leagul definition of "hacking " as a crime.
Could it be because you have not looked? If that's the case, you should put in the effort. I'll give you a hint (but don't expect spoonfeeding): Look up the Indian IT Act 2000
ok, then let the list moderator bann me for favoring criminal and
terrorist tendencies like "hacking".
If he decides to ban you for making illogical comments and wrong inferences, I wouldn't mind. But otherwise you're OK :-)
I hope that the moderater really thinks what you consider as illogical and I really hope the community on this mailing list considers my signature "happy hacking " as a criminal tendencie. Really, I wait for that day.
Dear list, Please consider Prashant when you take this decision. He has such a valid point against me you know?
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
At 04:25 PM 6/21/2009, Krishnakant wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 16:18 +0530, Prashant Verma wrote: I hope that the moderater really thinks what you consider as illogical and I really hope the community on this mailing list considers my signature "happy hacking " as a criminal tendencie. Really, I wait for that day.
Dear list, Please consider Prashant when you take this decision. He has such a valid point against me you know?
The only point I have 'against' you is that you read, but you misinterpret. You try to reason, but appear weak in logic.
More of this type of stuff from you and I will only put you on ignore, nothing more. So please carry on regardless.
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 16:29 +0530, Prashant Verma wrote:
At 04:25 PM 6/21/2009, Krishnakant wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 16:18 +0530, Prashant Verma wrote: I hope that the moderater really thinks what you consider as illogical and I really hope the community on this mailing list considers my signature "happy hacking " as a criminal tendencie. Really, I wait for that day.
Dear list, Please consider Prashant when you take this decision. He has such a valid point against me you know?
The only point I have 'against' you is that you read, but you misinterpret. You try to reason, but appear weak in logic. *appear*. More of this type of stuff from you and I will only put you on ignore, nothing more. So please carry on regardless.
Great. any ways you are most welcome to make personal interpritations of a perticular list members week or strong logic.
And I respect your decision of ignoring my messages because then it will not affect others who would perhaps like to think on real terms and given the arguements so far and examples from real life there will be people who will at least think about the entire issue with a neutral mindset and not going by the popular wisdom.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 09:52 +0530, Nitesh Mistry wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.orgwrote:
On Thursday 18 June 2009 23:31:56 Nitesh Mistry wrote:
hacking is an art to inovate a solution for a problem under constrained environment.
But exactly the reverse is what Institute of Chartered Accountants of
India
teaches in the subject of "Management Information and Control Systems" which is a separate 100 marks paper in our CA syllabus. This is what they asked us in the exam this time- "List the main threats from hacking" And I was supposed to criticise hacking or else stand to loose 4 marks!
so - did you sell your soul for 4 marks?
Yes I did :P
what a shame. It is such blunders intentional or unintentional that helps to fuel the fire started by dirty publicity. Most of the people have "thirdclass mentality " to say "this is what people believe popularly as being right, so let's continue". I know those 4 marks were important, but the answer could start like "although there are different takes on the term hacking, including positive ones ...". If we are just going to believe in some thing which is popular, then we should not have stopped the *popular* tradition of a wife going sati when her husband died. It was popularly believed to be wright.
as a side note, I often ware a t-shirt with the word "hacker " printed in the "s" stype of superman and was never cought at airport or any secured zone :)
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
Krishnakant wrote:
On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 09:52 +0530, Nitesh Mistry wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.orgwrote:
On Thursday 18 June 2009 23:31:56 Nitesh Mistry wrote:
hacking is an art to inovate a solution for a problem under constrained environment.
But exactly the reverse is what Institute of Chartered Accountants of
India
teaches in the subject of "Management Information and Control Systems" which is a separate 100 marks paper in our CA syllabus. This is what they asked us in the exam this time- "List the main threats from hacking" And I was supposed to criticise hacking or else stand to loose 4 marks!
so - did you sell your soul for 4 marks?
Yes I did :P
what a shame. It is such blunders intentional or unintentional that helps to fuel the fire started by dirty publicity. Most of the people have "thirdclass mentality " to say "this is what people believe popularly as being right, so let's continue". I know those 4 marks were important, but the answer could start like "although there are different takes on the term hacking, including positive ones ...". If we are just going to believe in some thing which is popular, then we should not have stopped the *popular* tradition of a wife going sati when her husband died. It was popularly believed to be wright.
as a side note, I often ware a t-shirt with the word "hacker " printed in the "s" stype of superman and was never cought at airport or any secured zone :)
A student is supposed to follow a syllabus and give answers within its limits. When we cannot make the college change its syllabus, why put pressure on the students to take risks in their exams. Anyway it is a word with different points of view in different environments so lets not hang him for following his curriculum.
Hi,
--- On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote: | A student is supposed to follow a syllabus and give answers within its | limits. --
That is where all students have failed, IMO.
Just passing an exam, and getting a degree does not make one an engineer.
A student is expected to learn more than what is prescribed in the syllabus, to seek out for knowledge by reading, and practising whatever he/she has learnt (if any).
The ability of ones' own to gain knowledge through self-study, and solve problems by themselves is an art that is very rare to be seen amongst students, and that is a very important skill expected of an "engineer".
--- | When we cannot make the college change its syllabus, why put | pressure on the students to take risks in their exams. --
You don't have to change the syllabus to do self-study, learn and deliver in F/OSS projects.
--- | Anyway it is a | word with different points of view in different environments so lets not | hang him for following his curriculum. --
Just because others' commit suicide, it doesn't mean we should too. Yes, the media and few others have been misusing the term.
There is only one definition. Hacking in the Free Software world has been prevalent for decades.
Hacker culture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(academia)#Definition
How to become a hacker: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html
SK
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 15:08 +0530, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
Hi,
--- On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote: | A student is supposed to follow a syllabus and give answers within its | limits. --
That is where all students have failed, IMO.
Bingo!
Just passing an exam, and getting a degree does not make one an engineer. Very true. And by the way I never said in my mail to change the course. I had just recommended to start with a note saying "although hacking has been given different meanings ..." and then do the *forced* criticism of such a beautiful art.
A student is expected to learn more than what is prescribed in the syllabus, to seek out for knowledge by reading, and practising whatever he/she has learnt (if any).
Unless the sutdent wans to do mugging up and pass the exam.
The ability of ones' own to gain knowledge through self-study, and solve problems by themselves is an art that is very rare to be seen amongst students, and that is a very important skill expected of an "engineer".
Provided we want to create good engineers who don't want to follow popular beliefs.
| When we cannot make the college change its syllabus, why put | pressure on the students to take risks in their exams. --
You don't have to change the syllabus to do self-study, learn and deliver in F/OSS projects.
You don't take a risk by putting a starting note. I think now a days teachers tell students to learn and not mug up.
By the way I am not baliming the student here, but trying to generalise the way to approach the problem in a proper way, instead of following what is popular.
| Anyway it is a | word with different points of view in different environments so lets not | hang him for following his curriculum. --
Just because others' commit suicide, it doesn't mean we should too. Yes, the media and few others have been misusing the term.
Exactly my Point. That's why I gave an example of a woman going sati after her husband's death. It was practiced very extensively and not following it was considered to be a sin as bad as hacking.
But some people felt that it was wrong although practiced extensively. So it is the same case with hacking. It is considered to be a sin to be a hacker. But that's not true. Infact it was never considered to be a bad thing untill the big giants and their dear media made it appear to be a sinful thing.
happy ahcking. Krishnakant.
There is only one definition. Hacking in the Free Software world has been prevalent for decades.
Hacker culture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(academia)#Definition
How to become a hacker: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html
SK
-- Shakthi Kannan http://www.shakthimaan.com
Krishnakant wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 15:08 +0530, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
Just because others' commit suicide, it doesn't mean we should too. Yes, the media and few others have been misusing the term.
Exactly my Point. That's why I gave an example of a woman going sati after her husband's death. It was practiced very extensively and not following it was considered to be a sin as bad as hacking.
But some people felt that it was wrong although practiced extensively.
My views on this are given in my earlier mail.
So it is the same case with hacking. It is considered to be a sin to be a hacker. But that's not true. Infact it was never considered to be a bad thing untill the big giants and their dear media made it appear to be a sinful thing.
Hacking as breaking into other's systems was bad and is still bad. According to your observation above, what may have changed is the use of a word that defined a good act to now define a bad act. Maybe a new word can be coined to define the good act and clear the matter once and for all, to everyone's satisfaction.
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 17:31 +0530, Rony wrote:
Krishnakant wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 15:08 +0530, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
Just because others' commit suicide, it doesn't mean we should too. Yes, the media and few others have been misusing the term.
Exactly my Point. That's why I gave an example of a woman going sati after her husband's death. It was practiced very extensively and not following it was considered to be a sin as bad as hacking.
But some people felt that it was wrong although practiced extensively.
My views on this are given in my earlier mail.
So it is the same case with hacking. It is considered to be a sin to be a hacker. But that's not true. Infact it was never considered to be a bad thing untill the big giants and their dear media made it appear to be a sinful thing.
Hacking as breaking into other's systems was bad and is still bad.
Breaking into others systems is always bad but it is not hacking but "cracking". that is wy we all windows lovers will never buy a license and use a "crack". I never herd of a software hack. I read about serial numbers which are called cracks.
According to your observation above, what may have changed is the use of a word that defined a good act to now define a bad act. Maybe a new word can be coined to define the good act and clear the matter once and for all, to everyone's satisfaction.
The point here is that hacking was never bad and will be never bad. As I said it is a matter of last few years that hacking was *given* a bad name. Those who did it knew that hacking is a good thing and free software community in particular respects its real meaning. So by giving a wrong and dirty meaning to that term itself will make these people look bad and unorganised. So who ever carries the tak is bad. So why should we coin a new term for some thing which already exists. Are you suggesting that we except some wrong propaganda just because it is a popular misconception started by media and big businesses off late?
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
-- Regards,
Rony.
GNU/Linux ! No Viruses No Spyware Only Freedom.
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Krishnakantkrmane@gmail.com wrote:
Hacking as breaking into other's systems was bad and is still bad.
Breaking into others systems is always bad but it is not hacking but "cracking". that is wy we all windows lovers will never buy a license and use a "crack". I never herd of a software hack. I read about serial numbers which are called cracks.
A software hack is basically a shortcut of sorts in a program. It generally involves making some assumptions about how the underlying compiler/OS will execute your code or how the underlying library call is implemented. The word is generally preceded by the words "elegant", "clever" or "ugly", "quick" to signify whether the author thinks the solution is exceptionally clever or exceptionally dirty.
The point here is that hacking was never bad and will be never bad. As I said it is a matter of last few years that hacking was *given* a bad name. Those who did it knew that hacking is a good thing and free
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(computing)
to get a more balanced view about the word in computing terms. It has always been fuzzy since phreakers and black hats also call themselves hackers. People who are part of the Free software movement know and understand what you mean when you say "happy hacking". Someone new to this movement will not, and if he/she does not learn this from context/reading he/she should be told what we mean when we say "hack".
Also, if someone comes around here asking about "hacking sites", it is not right to direct them to securityforums or something. I feel the right thing would be to explain what hacking means when we mention it and how it is different from the network security related stuff.
software community in particular respects its real meaning. So by giving a wrong and dirty meaning to that term itself will make these people look bad and unorganised. So who ever carries the tak is bad. So why should we coin a new term for some thing which already exists.
Are you suggesting that we except some wrong propaganda just because it is a popular misconception started by media and big businesses off late?
It was not big businesses that claimed hacker == evil. It is just that phreakers and black hats have always called themselves hackers all along. The press simply tagged along. Business never cared until they saw that their data was in danger from some miscreants who called themselves "hackers".
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 18:40 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Krishnakantkrmane@gmail.com wrote:
Hacking as breaking into other's systems was bad and is still bad.
Breaking into others systems is always bad but it is not hacking but "cracking". that is wy we all windows lovers will never buy a license and use a "crack". I never herd of a software hack. I read about serial numbers which are called cracks.
A software hack is basically a shortcut of sorts in a program. It generally involves making some assumptions about how the underlying compiler/OS will execute your code or how the underlying library call is implemented. The word is generally preceded by the words "elegant", "clever" or "ugly", "quick" to signify whether the author thinks the solution is exceptionally clever or exceptionally dirty.
The point here is that hacking was never bad and will be never bad. As I said it is a matter of last few years that hacking was *given* a bad name. Those who did it knew that hacking is a good thing and free
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(computing)
to get a more balanced view about the word in computing terms. It has always been fuzzy since phreakers and black hats also call themselves hackers. People who are part of the Free software movement know and understand what you mean when you say "happy hacking". Someone new to this movement will not, and if he/she does not learn this from context/reading he/she should be told what we mean when we say "hack".
Also, if someone comes around here asking about "hacking sites", it is not right to direct them to securityforums or something. I feel the right thing would be to explain what hacking means when we mention it and how it is different from the network security related stuff.
That's exactly what I attempted to do but alas ... Any ways, your point is right but there are some so called free software lovers (well most are "open source " freeks ) who themselves want to go with popular misconceptions and would even go to the extent of promoting the same for some or the other bennifit.
As I had explained in one of the earlier emails for the bennifit of new comers, hacking is the method of breaking down problems into understandable bits and then finding a clever solution for the problem.
software community in particular respects its real meaning. So by giving a wrong and dirty meaning to that term itself will make these people look bad and unorganised. So who ever carries the tak is bad. So why should we coin a new term for some thing which already exists.
Are you suggesting that we except some wrong propaganda just because it is a popular misconception started by media and big businesses off late?
It was not big businesses that claimed hacker == evil. It is just that phreakers and black hats have always called themselves hackers all along. The press simply tagged along. Business never cared until they saw that their data was in danger from some miscreants who called themselves "hackers".
There might be a further deep down history behind how the term got wrong meaning, but let's not get into that here. Any ways I think we can stop this arguement, the new comers have their own choices, our work is to tell them the truth.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
Krishnakant wrote:
That's exactly what I attempted to do but alas ... Any ways, your point is right but there are some so called free software lovers (well most are "open source " freeks ) who themselves want to go with popular misconceptions and would even go to the extent of promoting the same for some or the other bennifit.
Don't indulge in name calling and slander. Stick to the point technically.
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 22:09 +0530, Rony wrote:
Krishnakant wrote:
That's exactly what I attempted to do but alas ... Any ways, your point is right but there are some so called free software lovers (well most are "open source " freeks ) who themselves want to go with popular misconceptions and would even go to the extent of promoting the same for some or the other bennifit.
Don't indulge in name calling and slander. Stick to the point technically.
-- Regards,
Rony.
Who's name? happy hacking. Krishnakant.
GNU/Linux ! No Viruses No Spyware Only Freedom.
Krishnakant wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 22:09 +0530, Rony wrote:
Krishnakant wrote:
That's exactly what I attempted to do but alas ... Any ways, your point is right but there are some so called free software lovers (well most are "open source " freeks ) who themselves want to go with popular misconceptions and would even go to the extent of promoting the same for some or the other bennifit.
Don't indulge in name calling and slander. Stick to the point technically.
-- Regards,
Rony.
Who's name?
Name calling means calling using insulting words to address people who disagree with you. You pretend to be open to alternate suggestions or opposing views but you can't actually tolerate it.
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Krishnakantkrmane@gmail.com wrote:
Hacking as breaking into other's systems was bad and is still bad.
Breaking into others systems is always bad but it is not hacking but "cracking". that is wy we all windows lovers will never buy a license and use a "crack". I never herd of a software hack. I read about serial numbers which are called cracks.
A software hack is basically a shortcut of sorts in a program. It generally involves making some assumptions about how the underlying compiler/OS will execute your code or how the underlying library call is implemented. The word is generally preceded by the words "elegant", "clever" or "ugly", "quick" to signify whether the author thinks the solution is exceptionally clever or exceptionally dirty.
The point here is that hacking was never bad and will be never bad. As I said it is a matter of last few years that hacking was *given* a bad name. Those who did it knew that hacking is a good thing and free
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(computing)
to get a more balanced view about the word in computing terms. It has always been fuzzy since phreakers and black hats also call themselves hackers. People who are part of the Free software movement know and understand what you mean when you say "happy hacking". Someone new to this movement will not, and if he/she does not learn this from context/reading he/she should be told what we mean when we say "hack".
Also, if someone comes around here asking about "hacking sites", it is not right to direct them to securityforums or something. I feel the right thing would be to explain what hacking means when we mention it and how it is different from the network security related stuff. We hackers are not afraid to use our real names while the black hats/phreakers hide behind secretive handles.
software community in particular respects its real meaning. So by giving a wrong and dirty meaning to that term itself will make these people look bad and unorganised. So who ever carries the tak is bad. So why should we coin a new term for some thing which already exists.
Are you suggesting that we except some wrong propaganda just because it is a popular misconception started by media and big businesses off late?
It was not big businesses that claimed hacker == evil. It is just that phreakers and black hats have always called themselves hackers all along. The press simply tagged along. Business never cared until they saw that their data was in danger from some miscreants who called themselves "hackers".
On Sunday 21 June 2009, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Krishnakantkrmane@gmail.com wrote:
Hacking as breaking into other's systems was bad and is still bad.
Breaking into others systems is always bad but it is not hacking but "cracking". that is wy we all windows lovers will never buy a license and use a "crack". I never herd of a software hack. I read about serial numbers which are called cracks.
A software hack is basically a shortcut of sorts in a program. It generally involves making some assumptions about how the underlying compiler/OS will execute your code or how the underlying library call is implemented. The word is generally preceded by the words "elegant", "clever" or "ugly", "quick" to signify whether the author thinks the solution is exceptionally clever or exceptionally dirty.
The term was originally used and still is to describe a writer of poor prose or press reports, in the early days of mass printing. The term originated in London. It's probably derived from the word hackneyed meaning unoriginal or run of the mill. Software writers picked it up to self depreciatingly describe themselves. Ofcourse early software hacks were anything but hackneyed. And those hackers were the builders of the IT industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_writer
The point here is that hacking was never bad and will be never bad. As I said it is a matter of last few years that hacking was *given* a bad name. Those who did it knew that hacking is a good thing and free
Read this:
Also, if someone comes around here asking about "hacking sites", it is not right to direct them to securityforums or something. I feel the right thing would be to explain what hacking means when we mention it and how it is different from the network security related stuff. We hackers are not afraid to use our real names while the black hats/phreakers hide behind secretive handles.
In India stupid security practices resulting in breaches are also classified as hacks and the idiots who walk into such machines are termed "hackers". They wouldn't qualify to wipe cds let alone "hack" a few lines of code.
As pointed out by others, things aren't going to change in a hurry. So just correct anyone wrongly using the term and forget about it.
There are any number of words that have a dict meaning exactly opposite of it's social meaning, and one does not get into a spat over it. eg. sophisticate - social meaning someone with style. Dict meaning someone indulging in deception / subterfuge.
No point endlessly arguing about third party idiocity. IMO anyone saying hack while implying crack is not worth even two words.
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 19:20 +0530, jtd wrote:
In India stupid security practices resulting in breaches are also classified as hacks and the idiots who walk into such machines are termed "hackers". They wouldn't qualify to wipe cds let alone "hack" a few lines of code.
But stupids also clame that calling these people as hackers is right, just because some one has started this trend off late.
Add to it some more stupids call them selfs as "certified ethical hackers ". as if there was some unethical hacking happening.
As pointed out by others, things aren't going to change in a hurry. So just correct anyone wrongly using the term and forget about it.
Yes totally agreed. People will take time to realise that the real meaning of hacking is nothing to do with computers as such and just like other bad but popular things,this will also change. I hope that responsible and knowledgable members will continue to do what JTD suggested and there are enough evidances of the real meaning of hacking.
There are any number of words that have a dict meaning exactly opposite of it's social meaning, and one does not get into a spat over it. eg. sophisticate - social meaning someone with style. Dict meaning someone indulging in deception / subterfuge.
No point endlessly arguing about third party idiocity. IMO anyone saying hack while implying crack is not worth even two words.
AGreed. As said before I hope this thread will soon come back to its original topic (if the hack for openoffice has not worked for some people).
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
Krishnakant wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 17:31 +0530, Rony wrote:
Krishnakant wrote:
Hacking as breaking into other's systems was bad and is still bad.
Breaking into others systems is always bad but it is not hacking but "cracking". that is wy we all windows lovers will never buy a license and use a "crack". I never herd of a software hack. I read about serial numbers which are called cracks.
Don't put everyone in the same league. There are many Windows lovers who buy legal software. Till I started using Linux, I bought legal copies of Windows for my systems and used OpenOffice for Windows.
According to your observation above, what may have changed is the use of a word that defined a good act to now define a bad act. Maybe a new word can be coined to define the good act and clear the matter once and for all, to everyone's satisfaction.
The point here is that hacking was never bad and will be never bad. As I said it is a matter of last few years that hacking was *given* a bad name. Those who did it knew that hacking is a good thing and free software community in particular respects its real meaning. So by giving a wrong and dirty meaning to that term itself will make these people look bad and unorganised. So who ever carries the tak is bad. So why should we coin a new term for some thing which already exists. Are you suggesting that we except some wrong propaganda just because it is a popular misconception started by media and big businesses off late?
Free Software is called Open Source Software, FOSS, FLOSS, Libre software simply to remove any previous mis-understandings.
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Free Software is called Open Source Software, FOSS, FLOSS, Libre software simply to remove any previous mis-understandings.
Free Software movement believes that all software should be free (freedom). Open Source movement aims for business acceptably,which means that free and proprietary software should coexist. So they're ideologically different movements.
Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Free Software is called Open Source Software, FOSS, FLOSS, Libre software simply to remove any previous mis-understandings.
Free Software movement believes that all software should be free (freedom). Open Source movement aims for business acceptably,which means that free and proprietary software should coexist. So they're ideologically different movements.
Thats why the word Libre software was coined to remove any ambiguity.
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Free Software movement believes that all software should be free (freedom). Open Source movement aims for business acceptably,which means that free and proprietary software should coexist. So they're ideologically different movements.
Thats why the word Libre software was coined to remove any ambiguity.
No, Libre is used when there is need to clarify that it is free as in freedom. Which means that it is still Free software. Which is different from Open Source.
A practical difference is this:
Free Software: GPL licenses only. Hence, freedom and rights of the user and developer are protected
Open Source Software: BSD, MIT, GPL, Creative Commons, etc. Basically licenses under which source code reuse and redistribution is allowed, regardless of whether the rights are passed on/retained or not.
On Sunday 21 June 2009 19:25:23 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Free Software is called Open Source Software, FOSS, FLOSS, Libre software simply to remove any previous mis-understandings.
Free Software movement believes that all software should be free (freedom). Open Source movement aims for business acceptably,which means that free and proprietary software should coexist.
this is FUD. The definition of Open Source is here:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
the difference between the FSM and OSM is that the FSM _restricts_ the rights over software whereas the OSM does not.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Kenneth Gonsalveslawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On Sunday 21 June 2009 19:25:23 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Free Software is called Open Source Software, FOSS, FLOSS, Libre software simply to remove any previous mis-understandings.
Free Software movement believes that all software should be free (freedom). Open Source movement aims for business acceptably,which means that free and proprietary software should coexist.
this is FUD. The definition of Open Source is here:
That is how Bruce Perens had put it in the movie "The Code".
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
the difference between the FSM and OSM is that the FSM _restricts_ the rights over software whereas the OSM does not.
The last post I made elaborates on this concept. Again, one of the primary aims of OSM is making entry easier for businesses, which is why they do not stress on the rights as much as Stallman and the FSM does. Their main promotion criterion to businesses is "Openness" of the software.
On Monday 22 June 2009 09:05:19 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 5:36 AM, Kenneth Gonsalveslawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On Sunday 21 June 2009 19:25:23 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Free Software is called Open Source Software, FOSS, FLOSS, Libre software simply to remove any previous mis-understandings.
Free Software movement believes that all software should be free (freedom). Open Source movement aims for business acceptably,which means that free and proprietary software should coexist.
this is FUD. The definition of Open Source is here:
That is how Bruce Perens had put it in the movie "The Code".
it is still FUD
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
the difference between the FSM and OSM is that the FSM _restricts_ the rights over software whereas the OSM does not.
The last post I made elaborates on this concept. Again, one of the primary aims of OSM is making entry easier for businesses, which is why they do not stress on the rights as much as Stallman and the FSM does. Their main promotion criterion to businesses is "Openness" of the software.
where is the source for this allegation? In the definition of Open Source given in the link above, they make 10 points and none of them 'making entry easier for business'. You may not like Open Source or may disagree with it's goals, but you cannot mislabel it as you are doing. This is the definition:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Kenneth Gonsalveslawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
where is the source for this allegation? In the definition of Open Source given in the link above, they make 10 points and none of them 'making entry easier for business'. You may not like Open Source or may disagree with it's goals, but you cannot mislabel it as you are doing. This is the definition:
No, you're misunderstanding my point. It does not make entry easier for business. It does two things:
1) Put things in a "business friendly" language. It's like making meat flavoured spinach to please the dog. 2) Includes licenses that do not preserve the freedom of the developer
On Monday 22 June 2009 09:29:40 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Kenneth Gonsalveslawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
where is the source for this allegation? In the definition of Open Source given in the link above, they make 10 points and none of them 'making entry easier for business'. You may not like Open Source or may disagree with it's goals, but you cannot mislabel it as you are doing. This is the definition:
No, you're misunderstanding my point. It does not make entry easier for business. It does two things:
I have understood your point - you want to spread FUD
- Put things in a "business friendly" language. It's like making meat
flavoured spinach to please the dog. 2) Includes licenses that do not preserve the freedom of the developer
more FUD
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Kenneth Gonsalveslawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
- Put things in a "business friendly" language. It's like making meat
flavoured spinach to please the dog. 2) Includes licenses that do not preserve the freedom of the developer
more FUD
Do you mean to say that the FSDM endorses BSD licenses? Or the OSM does not?
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekarsiddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com wrote:
Do you mean to say that the FSDM endorses BSD licenses? Or the OSM does not?
Sorry that should have read FSM.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Kenneth Gonsalveslawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On Monday 22 June 2009 09:29:40 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Kenneth Gonsalveslawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
where is the source for this allegation? In the definition of Open Source given in the link above, they make 10 points and none of them 'making entry easier for business'. You may not like Open Source or may disagree with it's goals, but you cannot mislabel it as you are doing. This is the definition:
No, you're misunderstanding my point. It does not make entry easier for business. It does two things:
I have understood your point - you want to spread FUD
- Put things in a "business friendly" language. It's like making meat
flavoured spinach to please the dog. 2) Includes licenses that do not preserve the freedom of the developer
more FUD
And you might want to read the link you provided once again. All it implies is that the licenses should compulsorily provide freedom to the user of the software. It may or may not protect the rights of the developer based on the individual licenses. There is nothing in the link you provided that says something to the effect of "The license must necessarily facilitate sharing back of changes made to original works with the original developer".
The FSM does require that. Both, the rights of the developer and the rights of the user are central to the FSM. BSD licenses are not endorsed by the FSM. They are, by the OSM.
On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 05:36 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Sunday 21 June 2009 19:25:23 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Free Software is called Open Source Software, FOSS, FLOSS, Libre software simply to remove any previous mis-understandings.
Free Software movement believes that all software should be free (freedom). Open Source movement aims for business acceptably,which means that free and proprietary software should coexist.
this is FUD. The definition of Open Source is here:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
the difference between the FSM and OSM is that the FSM _restricts_ the rights over software whereas the OSM does not.
That is a mis interpritation of free software. Free software believes that freedom is for every one and freedom granted does not imply that you get permission to deny freedom to others. Open source allows people the freedom to deny freedom to others. For example GPL statutes that if you make changes to the free software code, you have the right to re-distribute the softwrae with change but also pas on the same rights or freedom to others who get that code. So free software means you *must* get the freedom but also respect the freedom of others. You will not deny freedom to share the software. So we beleive that every ones freedom is to be respected. I won't be allowed to take some free software and then making it "mine " or proprietory so to speak. But with many other licences other than GPL I will get the facility of not shareing with you what I got from some one who shared with me.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
On Monday 22 Jun 2009, Krishnakant wrote:
That is a mis interpritation of free software. Free software believes that freedom is for every one and freedom granted does not imply that you get permission to deny freedom to others. Open source allows people the freedom to deny freedom to others. For example GPL statutes that if you make changes to the free software code, you have the right to re-distribute the softwrae with change but also pas on the same rights or freedom to others who get that code. So free software means you *must* get the freedom but also respect the freedom of others. You will not deny freedom to share the software. So we beleive that every ones freedom is to be respected. I won't be allowed to take some free software and then making it "mine " or proprietory so to speak. But with many other licences other than GPL I will get the facility of not shareing with you what I got from some one who shared with me.
Once again, please do not mix up licences with philosophies of the free software and open source movements. OSI recognises the GPL as an Open Source licence, and FSF recognises the BSD licence as a Free Software licence.
There are multiple issues here, which are unfortunately being made into a khichdi by this thread:
1. The philosophies of the free software and open source movements.
2. The methodologies the FS and OS movements use, advocate and propagate to achieve their ends.
3. Strong and weak copyleft licences, the reasons for their existence, and their effects.
Choose any one you like and and discuss it to your heart's content, but, as Monsanto would say, please do not cross-pollinate ideas of one stream with facts from another!
Regards,
-- Raju
On Monday 22 June 2009, Raj Mathur wrote:
On Monday 22 Jun 2009, Krishnakant wrote:
That is a mis interpritation of free software. Free software believes that freedom is for every one and freedom granted does not imply that you get permission to deny freedom to others. Open source allows people the freedom to deny freedom to others. For example GPL statutes that if you make changes to the free software code, you have the right to re-distribute the softwrae with change but also pas on the same rights or freedom to others who get that code. So free software means you *must* get the freedom but also respect the freedom of others. You will not deny freedom to share the software. So we beleive that every ones freedom is to be respected. I won't be allowed to take some free software and then making it "mine " or proprietory so to speak. But with many other licences other than GPL I will get the facility of not shareing with you what I got from some one who shared with me.
Once again, please do not mix up licences with philosophies of the free software and open source movements. OSI recognises the GPL as an Open Source licence, and FSF recognises the BSD licence as a Free Software licence.
There are multiple issues here, which are unfortunately being made into a khichdi by this thread:
The philosophies of the free software and open source movements.
The methodologies the FS and OS movements use, advocate and propagate
to achieve their ends.
- Strong and weak copyleft licences, the reasons for their existence,
and their effects.
Choose any one you like and and discuss it to your heart's content, but, as Monsanto would say, please do not cross-pollinate ideas of one stream with facts from another!
The above sentence must be pasted at the beginning of every philosophy / licence discussion.
Secondly "promoting opensource" in business is like teaching a tiger to hunt - always very dangerous. Also Businesses will always seek an optimum level. Those who dont sink. There is no need to muddle about with philosophy to "teach / promote / introduce / whatever" businesses about "Opensource".
On Sunday 21 Jun 2009, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
Free Software is called Open Source Software, FOSS, FLOSS, Libre software simply to remove any previous mis-understandings.
Free Software movement believes that all software should be free (freedom). Open Source movement aims for business acceptably,which means that free and proprietary software should coexist. So they're ideologically different movements.
Not completely true. The free software movement believes that software should be free for moral and ethical reasons. The open source movement believes that software should be free because the open source methodology results in better, more relevant software. They both agree to the ends, the only disagreement is between the reasons for achieving those ends. In all the years I've spent interacting with the OSI, I've yet to see an example of someone from OSI advocating proprietary software.
As for licences, the list of licences considered free by the FSF (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/) and the list of licences considered open source by the OSI (http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical) are more or less the same, so please don't mix up licensing issues into this discussion.
Regards,
-- Raju
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Raj Mathurraju@linux-delhi.org wrote:
those ends. In all the years I've spent interacting with the OSI, I've yet to see an example of someone from OSI advocating proprietary software.
They do not advocate proprietary software. They have without doubt advocated open source software. They just believe that they can coexist.
As for licences, the list of licences considered free by the FSF (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/) and the list of licences considered open source by the OSI (http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical) are more or less the same, so please don't mix up licensing issues into this discussion.
Ok, I stand corrected on the BSD license bit.
On Monday 22 June 2009 10:23:04 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Raj Mathurraju@linux-delhi.org wrote:
those ends. In all the years I've spent interacting with the OSI, I've yet to see an example of someone from OSI advocating proprietary software.
They do not advocate proprietary software. They have without doubt advocated open source software. They just believe that they can coexist.
and where is the evidence for that?
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Kenneth Gonsalveslawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
They do not advocate proprietary software. They have without doubt advocated open source software. They just believe that they can coexist.
and where is the evidence for that?
As I had mentioned earlier. Bruce Perens, in the documentary "The Code".
On Monday 22 June 2009 10:41:22 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Kenneth Gonsalveslawgon@au-kbc.org
wrote:
They do not advocate proprietary software. They have without doubt advocated open source software. They just believe that they can coexist.
and where is the evidence for that?
As I had mentioned earlier. Bruce Perens, in the documentary "The Code".
that is evidence? or an opinion?
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Kenneth Gonsalveslawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
and where is the evidence for that?
As I had mentioned earlier. Bruce Perens, in the documentary "The Code".
that is evidence? or an opinion?
Should it matter if it comes from one of the founders of the OSD?
On Monday 22 June 2009 11:01:34 Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Kenneth Gonsalveslawgon@au-kbc.org
wrote:
and where is the evidence for that?
As I had mentioned earlier. Bruce Perens, in the documentary "The Code".
that is evidence? or an opinion?
Should it matter if it comes from one of the founders of the OSD?
I give up
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Kenneth Gonsalveslawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
Should it matter if it comes from one of the founders of the OSD?
I give up
So soon?? :D
Shakthi Kannan wrote:
Hi,
--- On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote: | A student is supposed to follow a syllabus and give answers within its | limits. --
That is where all students have failed, IMO.
Just passing an exam, and getting a degree does not make one an engineer.
Not passing an exam and not getting a degree would also not make him an engineer, at least officially recognized, on paper.
A student is expected to learn more than what is prescribed in the syllabus, to seek out for knowledge by reading, and practising whatever he/she has learnt (if any).
The ability of ones' own to gain knowledge through self-study, and solve problems by themselves is an art that is very rare to be seen amongst students, and that is a very important skill expected of an "engineer".
The above argument is right in the philosophy of learning but not in the context of giving answers in exams in India, that are acceptable within the syllabus limitations.
| When we cannot make the college change its syllabus, why put | pressure on the students to take risks in their exams. --
You don't have to change the syllabus to do self-study, learn and deliver in F/OSS projects.
You still have to give the 'right' answers to pass in the Indian exams.
| Anyway it is a | word with different points of view in different environments so lets not | hang him for following his curriculum. --
Just because others' commit suicide, it doesn't mean we should too. Yes, the media and few others have been misusing the term.
Here we are debating the common use of a word for 2 different acts, one good and one bad. Suicide or Sati as an act would be bad, irrespective of what word one wants to use for it. The issue here is about the defining word for an act, not the act itself being good or bad. We all agree that breaking into peoples' systems is wrong. It is just the word to define it that is controversial. Hacking already has so many meanings in different scenarios.
There is only one definition. Hacking in the Free Software world has been prevalent for decades.
Everyone does not live in the free software world.
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 17:22 +0530, Rony wrote:
Shakthi Kannan wrote:
Hi,
--- On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote: | A student is supposed to follow a syllabus and give answers within its | limits. --
That is where all students have failed, IMO.
Just passing an exam, and getting a degree does not make one an engineer.
Not passing an exam and not getting a degree would also not make him an engineer, at least officially recognized, on paper.
Except for becoming a "sarkari babu" no one really respects degree when it comes to real work and job. guess what? I don't have a degree for computer engineering, yet I lead projects and provide IT advice to organisations internationally. But if I want a government job then I will need it.
A student is expected to learn more than what is prescribed in the syllabus, to seek out for knowledge by reading, and practising whatever he/she has learnt (if any).
The ability of ones' own to gain knowledge through self-study, and solve problems by themselves is an art that is very rare to be seen amongst students, and that is a very important skill expected of an "engineer".
The above argument is right in the philosophy of learning but not in the context of giving answers in exams in India, that are acceptable within the syllabus limitations.
Exactly. So it is about exam and not learning.
| When we cannot make the college change its syllabus, why put | pressure on the students to take risks in their exams. --
You don't have to change the syllabus to do self-study, learn and deliver in F/OSS projects.
You still have to give the 'right' answers to pass in the Indian exams.
| Anyway it is a | word with different points of view in different environments so lets not | hang him for following his curriculum. --
Just because others' commit suicide, it doesn't mean we should too. Yes, the media and few others have been misusing the term.
Here we are debating the common use of a word for 2 different acts, one good and one bad. Suicide or Sati as an act would be bad, irrespective of what word one wants to use for it. The issue here is about the defining word for an act, not the act itself being good or bad. We all agree that breaking into peoples' systems is wrong. It is just the word to define it that is controversial. Hacking already has so many meanings in different scenarios.
Right. But te issue is whether we just go by *popular* belief which is a result of dirty propaganda all done by using money power or as good humans make an attempt to change the meaning to the real one. That way the analogies given about sati is right. The fundamental question I raised was not about the concept persay, but should one consider "what is popular is essentially right."
There is only one definition. Hacking in the Free Software world has been prevalent for decades.
Everyone does not live in the free software world.
But the art of hacking is nothing to do with free software or software itself.
read this article. http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html Although it is by RMS himself, it does not talk about hacking just in context of software. As another side note I have been to more than one event by the name hacker dome which is a large scale event with media coverage. The latest one was in trichur (Kerala). But I did not see any objection from police or media about that word.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
-- Regards,
Rony.
GNU/Linux ! No Viruses No Spyware Only Freedom.
Krishnakant wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 17:22 +0530, Rony wrote:
Shakthi Kannan wrote:
Hi,
--- On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote: | A student is supposed to follow a syllabus and give answers within its | limits. --
That is where all students have failed, IMO.
Just passing an exam, and getting a degree does not make one an engineer.
Not passing an exam and not getting a degree would also not make him an engineer, at least officially recognized, on paper.
Except for becoming a "sarkari babu" no one really respects degree when it comes to real work and job. guess what? I don't have a degree for computer engineering, yet I lead projects and provide IT advice to organisations internationally. But if I want a government job then I will need it.
A degree is needed even in private organisations.
The above argument is right in the philosophy of learning but not in the context of giving answers in exams in India, that are acceptable within the syllabus limitations.
Exactly. So it is about exam and not learning.
The topic of the discussion was about an exam.
Here we are debating the common use of a word for 2 different acts, one good and one bad. Suicide or Sati as an act would be bad, irrespective of what word one wants to use for it. The issue here is about the defining word for an act, not the act itself being good or bad. We all agree that breaking into peoples' systems is wrong. It is just the word to define it that is controversial. Hacking already has so many meanings in different scenarios.
Right. But te issue is whether we just go by *popular* belief which is a result of dirty propaganda all done by using money power or as good humans make an attempt to change the meaning to the real one. That way the analogies given about sati is right. The fundamental question I raised was not about the concept persay, but should one consider "what is popular is essentially right."
Nothing is fixed. Languages are constantly evolving. In languages what is popular, eventually becomes right. This goes for the bad grammar and wrong words that are used daily.
There is only one definition. Hacking in the Free Software world has been prevalent for decades.
Everyone does not live in the free software world.
But the art of hacking is nothing to do with free software or software itself.
read this article. http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html Although it is by RMS himself, it does not talk about hacking just in context of software. As another side note I have been to more than one event by the name hacker dome which is a large scale event with media coverage. The latest one was in trichur (Kerala). But I did not see any objection from police or media about that word.
From Stallman's article, hacking does show a naughty side, a breaking of rules, of breaking security to some extent. It is not surprising that the term hacking is now used for those who breach security.
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 18:51 +0530, Rony wrote:
Krishnakant wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 17:22 +0530, Rony wrote:
Shakthi Kannan wrote:
Hi,
--- On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote: | A student is supposed to follow a syllabus and give answers within its | limits. --
That is where all students have failed, IMO.
Just passing an exam, and getting a degree does not make one an engineer.
Not passing an exam and not getting a degree would also not make him an engineer, at least officially recognized, on paper.
Except for becoming a "sarkari babu" no one really respects degree when it comes to real work and job. guess what? I don't have a degree for computer engineering, yet I lead projects and provide IT advice to organisations internationally. But if I want a government job then I will need it.
A degree is needed even in private organisations.
The above argument is right in the philosophy of learning but not in the context of giving answers in exams in India, that are acceptable within the syllabus limitations.
Exactly. So it is about exam and not learning.
The topic of the discussion was about an exam.
Here we are debating the common use of a word for 2 different acts, one good and one bad. Suicide or Sati as an act would be bad, irrespective of what word one wants to use for it. The issue here is about the defining word for an act, not the act itself being good or bad. We all agree that breaking into peoples' systems is wrong. It is just the word to define it that is controversial. Hacking already has so many meanings in different scenarios.
Right. But te issue is whether we just go by *popular* belief which is a result of dirty propaganda all done by using money power or as good humans make an attempt to change the meaning to the real one. That way the analogies given about sati is right. The fundamental question I raised was not about the concept persay, but should one consider "what is popular is essentially right."
Nothing is fixed. Languages are constantly evolving. In languages what is popular, eventually becomes right. This goes for the bad grammar and wrong words that are used daily.
Languages don't evolve or change due to dirty propaganda. Such things mostly change in politics and dirty business. Just because some people want to make peole believe that wat was true for years is wrong in the real sence, it does not men that it is some thing which should be endorced to be right. as they say in hindi "chillane se sach nahin badalta ". Just because some people shout "hacking is crime, crime and crime " it does not change the truth.
There is only one definition. Hacking in the Free Software world has been prevalent for decades.
Everyone does not live in the free software world.
But the art of hacking is nothing to do with free software or software itself.
read this article. http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html Although it is by RMS himself, it does not talk about hacking just in context of software. As another side note I have been to more than one event by the name hacker dome which is a large scale event with media coverage. The latest one was in trichur (Kerala). But I did not see any objection from police or media about that word.
From Stallman's article, hacking does show a naughty side, a breaking of rules, of breaking security to some extent. It is not surprising that the term hacking is now used for those who breach security.
I think one needs to hav a reading brains to read what that article says. Even if those things involve a naughty side they all mean harmless entertainment or some kind of bennifit that does not hert others (except those who are doing wrong propaganda about this term) :). happy hacking. Krishnakant.
Krishnakant wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 18:51 +0530, Rony wrote:
From Stallman's article, hacking does show a naughty side, a breaking of rules, of breaking security to some extent. It is not surprising that the term hacking is now used for those who breach security.
I think one needs to hav a reading brains to read what that article says. Even if those things involve a naughty side they all mean harmless entertainment or some kind of bennifit that does not hert others (except those who are doing wrong propaganda about this term) :).
One also needs reading brains to understand what others on this list are trying to say.
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 22:06 +0530, Rony wrote:
Krishnakant wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 18:51 +0530, Rony wrote:
From Stallman's article, hacking does show a naughty side, a breaking of rules, of breaking security to some extent. It is not surprising that the term hacking is now used for those who breach security.
I think one needs to hav a reading brains to read what that article says. Even if those things involve a naughty side they all mean harmless entertainment or some kind of bennifit that does not hert others (except those who are doing wrong propaganda about this term) :).
One also needs reading brains to understand what others on this list are trying to say.
The simple solution is that those who want to disagree may disagree. But truth still remains the same. I beleive the point raised by siddesh is very valid. Those who know the truth have no objection, those who are new comers need to be explained. I would just like to add one more point. Those who don't want to agree regardless of whether they are old members of this list or new ones may choos to do so. By all means continue the wrong propaganda and we will continue to reverce it.
I think a lot of arguements have been made and a lot of resources firnished to explain what hacking actually means in terms of programming or ICT for that matter. JTD also provided the history. Let's stop this debait because nither trooth is going to change nor those who disagree.
happy hacking. Krishnakant.
-- Regards,
Rony.
GNU/Linux ! No Viruses No Spyware Only Freedom.
Krishnakant wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 22:06 +0530, Rony wrote:
Krishnakant wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-21 at 18:51 +0530, Rony wrote:
From Stallman's article, hacking does show a naughty side, a breaking of rules, of breaking security to some extent. It is not surprising that the term hacking is now used for those who breach security.
I think one needs to hav a reading brains to read what that article says. Even if those things involve a naughty side they all mean harmless entertainment or some kind of bennifit that does not hert others (except those who are doing wrong propaganda about this term) :).
One also needs reading brains to understand what others on this list are trying to say.
The simple solution is that those who want to disagree may disagree. But truth still remains the same. I beleive the point raised by siddesh is very valid. Those who know the truth have no objection, those who are new comers need to be explained. I would just like to add one more point. Those who don't want to agree regardless of whether they are old members of this list or new ones may choos to do so. By all means continue the wrong propaganda and we will continue to reverce it.
I think a lot of arguements have been made and a lot of resources firnished to explain what hacking actually means in terms of programming or ICT for that matter. JTD also provided the history. Let's stop this debait because nither trooth is going to change nor those who disagree.
The issue was about pressurising students to give answers in exams that are opposite to those in their syllabus. We all know the difference between hacking and cracking.
On Sunday 21 June 2009 17:45:33 Krishnakant wrote:
Not passing an exam and not getting a degree would also not make him an engineer, at least officially recognized, on paper.
Except for becoming a "sarkari babu" no one really respects degree when it comes to real work and job. guess what? I don't have a degree for computer engineering, yet I lead projects and provide IT advice to organisations internationally. But if I want a government job then I will need it.
I have a government job without any qualifications in computing or engineering.
Hi,
--- On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote: | Not passing an exam and not getting a degree would also not make him an | engineer, at least officially recognized, on paper. --
That is not what I said as a requirement for an engineer. Please re-read my reply.
SK
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:53 PM, vamsi vidya sagarbunnynu@gmail.com wrote:
Krishna ... spking of Hacking .. i m a newbie here.. can u give me some nice / safe hacking forums / sites to kick start with .. :) :)
- Vam'C
I hope you don't mean hacking as in breaking into systems or causing havoc. That is not what KK's sig means.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekarsiddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com wrote:
I hope you don't mean hacking as in breaking into systems or causing havoc. That is not what KK's sig means.
Unfortunately that's what the new user wants :(
@list : Sorry for giving wrong direction for a potential free software user/contributor but am answering his question directly Vamsi please have a look at http://www.security-forums.com/
Regards, Pavithran
Thanks all .. for the sources ... :)
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:58 AM, pavithran s pavi.eu@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekarsiddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com wrote:
I hope you don't mean hacking as in breaking into systems or causing havoc. That is not what KK's sig means.
Unfortunately that's what the new user wants :(
@list : Sorry for giving wrong direction for a potential free software user/contributor but am answering his question directly Vamsi please have a look at http://www.security-forums.com/
Regards, Pavithran -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Krishnakant wrote:
One more quick note. that so called "winner " named windows xp does not even support 64 bit processors which linux does. So linux wins. I would end up waisting my money if i run windows xp on an amd 64 or core2 duo.
Doze supports 64 bit with its 64 bit version.
pavithran s wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 6:02 AM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
The way you describe it, Linux hasn't arrived, even after 15 years.
Linux the kernel had arrived long back and has many features.
From kernel.org :
Linux supports true multitasking, virtual memory, shared libraries, demand loading, shared copy-on-write executables, proper memory management, and multistack networking including IPv4 and IPv6.
Although originally developed first for 32-bit x86-based PCs (386 or higher), today Linux also runs on (at least) the Alpha AXP, Sun SPARC, Motorola 68000, PowerPC, ARM, Hitachi SuperH, IBM S/390, MIPS, HP PA-RISC, Intel IA-64, AMD x86-64, AXIS CRIS, Renesas M32R, Atmel AVR32, Renesas H8/300, NEC V850, Tensilica Xtensa, and Analog Devices Blackfin architectures; for many of these architectures in both 32- and 64-bit variants.
No doubt. But its the smaller things like problems in network-manager, OO versions and such that get even advanced Linux _users_ bugged. Coming back to the topic of the thread, doesn't the PPA for OO do what users expect from the regular packagers? Just because a code was not created, it doesn't mean it cannot be.
On Wednesday 17 June 2009, pavithran s wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Ronygnulinuxist@gmail.com wrote:
'apt-get upgrade' will only upgrade installed packages to their latest version, within the scope of the existing distro.
Yes *within* the scope of the existing distro . Every distribution has certain aims and release cycles. If you want bleeding edge You have some choices *Use Ubuntu *Use Gentoo *Compile packages from SVN
Unless some sense is knocked into some brain dead developers in debian and ubuntu, i for one will stop using both. One of the developers of a note taking app -tomtom or somesuch - ( we know how important note taking is to the survival of the whole universe), is dragging in the whole patent infested Mono library into debian and Ubuntu. 40+ MB of patent crap for a note taking app???. Something has gone real rotten in debian.
Of course one can go about getting rid of it, but if a distro is going to be as brain dead, one might as well ditch it at the first opportunity.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:49 PM, jtd wrote:
Unless some sense is knocked into some brain dead developers in debian and ubuntu, i for one will stop using both. One of the developers of a note taking app -tomtom or somesuch - ( we know how important note taking is to the survival of the whole universe), is dragging in the whole patent infested Mono library into debian and Ubuntu. 40+ MB of patent crap for a note taking app???. Something has gone real rotten in debian.
Of course one can go about getting rid of it, but if a distro is going to be as brain dead, one might as well ditch it at the first opportunity.
Well, none of this happens if you first install the barebones system and then install just the packages you desire. Tomboy has been made a dependency of the "gnome" metapackage, so all you need to do is to do a base install and avoid saying "apt-get install gnome". Nobody is forcing you to choose the Gnome desktop option during install, so your point is moot.
Kumar -- Kumar
On Thursday 18 June 2009, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:49 PM, jtd wrote:
Unless some sense is knocked into some brain dead developers in debian and ubuntu, i for one will stop using both. One of the developers of a note taking app -tomtom or somesuch - ( we know how important note taking is to the survival of the whole universe), is dragging in the whole patent infested Mono library into debian and Ubuntu. 40+ MB of patent crap for a note taking app???. Something has gone real rotten in debian.
Of course one can go about getting rid of it, but if a distro is going to be as brain dead, one might as well ditch it at the first opportunity.
Well, none of this happens if you first install the barebones system and then install just the packages you desire.
Really? Gnome is the default desktop with Debian and Ubuntu. And one would be recommending Ubuntu to many first timers.
Tomboy has been made a dependency of the "gnome" metapackage,
Why? Especially when it is encumbered? and there exists gnotes.
so all you need to do is to do a base install and avoid saying "apt-get install gnome". Nobody is forcing you to choose the Gnome desktop option during install, so your point is moot.
How about putting that crap else where and saying apt-get install some-rubbish. That way you put self in the soup, rather than trying to extract self.
The whole logic of making gnome dependent on mono is thoroughly perverse.
so all you need to do is to do a base install and avoid saying "apt-get install gnome". Nobody is forcing you to choose the Gnome desktop option during install, so your point is moot.
How about putting that crap else where and saying apt-get install some-rubbish. That way you put self in the soup, rather than trying to extract self.
Sorry, that made no sense to me. But if you don't agree with what I said, that's fine; though you can say it more clearly and without getting worked up about it.
The whole logic of making gnome dependent on mono is thoroughly perverse.
I don't disagree. Let's see if they retain the "Recommends" on Tomboy for long, or whether the ongoing discussion causes a change in stance.
Kumar -- Kumar
On Thursday 18 June 2009, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
so all you need to do is to do a base install and avoid saying "apt-get install gnome". Nobody is forcing you to choose the Gnome desktop option during install, so your point is moot.
How about putting that crap else where and saying apt-get install some-rubbish. That way you put self in the soup, rather than trying to extract self.
Sorry, that made no sense to me. But if you don't agree with what I said, that's fine; though you can say it more clearly and without getting worked up about it.
Ah. It wasnt directed at You but to the specific developers. I am not shooting the messenger ;-). But I am really all worked up about Mono being a default.
The whole logic of making gnome dependent on mono is thoroughly perverse.
I don't disagree. Let's see if they retain the "Recommends" on Tomboy for long, or whether the ongoing discussion causes a change in stance.
I sure hope so.
2009/6/17 jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in:
Why? Especially when it is encumbered? and there exists gnotes.
Because mono is in debian main. It qualifies to be a part of Debian once it complies with DFSG.
The whole logic of making gnome dependent on mono is thoroughly perverse.
tomboy is an official gnome module and it is upto the maintainers of gnome to decide what goes into default. Even though I personally does not want to use mono, from debian's perspective, there is nothing stopping to ship a software in debian main in default install -- especially if it is an upstream selection, like this case.
What do you say about debian shipping patent encumbered mp3 codecs when ubuntu, fedora and others does not?
- Praveen
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Praveen A pravi.a@gmail.com wrote:
Because mono is in debian main. It qualifies to be a part of Debian once it complies with DFSG.
On a related story slashdot has a submission http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/1251228/Mono-Squeezed-Into-Debian-D... comments are interesting :D
Regards, Pavithran
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:49 PM, jtdjtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Wednesday 17 June 2009, pavithran s wrote: One of the developers of a note taking app -tomtom or somesuch - ( we know how important note taking is to the survival of the whole universe), is dragging in the whole patent infested Mono library into debian and Ubuntu. 40+ MB of patent crap for a note taking app???. Something has gone real rotten in debian.
Since it's all because of GNOME . Please file a bug in GNOME Bugzilla . http://bugzilla.gnome.org/
Regards, Pavithran
On Thursday 18 June 2009, pavithran s wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:49 PM, jtdjtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Wednesday 17 June 2009, pavithran s wrote: One of the developers of a note taking app -tomtom or somesuch - ( we know how important note taking is to the survival of the whole universe), is dragging in the whole patent infested Mono library into debian and Ubuntu. 40+ MB of patent crap for a note taking app???. Something has gone real rotten in debian.
Since it's all because of GNOME . Please file a bug in GNOME Bugzilla . http://bugzilla.gnome.org/
It's not a bug. Infact i would say it's working exactly as certain vested interests intended it to.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 10:21 PM, jtdjtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
It's not a bug. Infact i would say it's working exactly as certain vested interests intended it to.
Best place to go/cry/complain/do_something is http://live.gnome.org/GnomeLove
The image in the URL should help you love GNOME :D
Regards, Pavithran
Hey !
jtd wrote:
On Thursday 18 June 2009, pavithran s wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:49 PM, jtdjtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Wednesday 17 June 2009, pavithran s wrote: One of the developers of a note taking app -tomtom or somesuch - ( we know how important note taking is to the survival of the whole universe), is dragging in the whole patent infested Mono library into debian and Ubuntu. 40+ MB of patent crap for a note taking app???. Something has gone real rotten in debian.
Since it's all because of GNOME . Please file a bug in GNOME Bugzilla . http://bugzilla.gnome.org/
It's not a bug. Infact i would say it's working exactly as certain vested interests intended it to.
I find it ironic that you want to use GNOME and then are complaining about bloat :D
ha ha, only serious - steve
On Thursday 18 June 2009, steve wrote:
Hey !
jtd wrote:
On Thursday 18 June 2009, pavithran s wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:49 PM, jtdjtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Wednesday 17 June 2009, pavithran s wrote: One of the developers of a note taking app -tomtom or somesuch - ( we know how important note taking is to the survival of the whole universe), is dragging in the whole patent infested Mono library into debian and Ubuntu. 40+ MB of patent crap for a note taking app???. Something has gone real rotten in debian.
Since it's all because of GNOME . Please file a bug in GNOME Bugzilla . http://bugzilla.gnome.org/
It's not a bug. Infact i would say it's working exactly as certain vested interests intended it to.
I find it ironic that you want to use GNOME and then are complaining about bloat :D
Umm. No i dont use Gnome most of the time. It's KDE.... And it's not about me. I can wind my way thru - including rolling my own distro if needed. It's about the stupidity of exposing a whole swath of users to potential patent liability. The only users who would be protected are ones who have distros with patent protection clauses signed up with M$- Novell, Lindows and RH?. We know that codevelopment deal was partly about virtualisation. But that's what they told us.
jtd wrote:
On Thursday 18 June 2009, steve wrote:
Hey !
jtd wrote:
<...snip...> It's not a bug. Infact i would say it's working exactly as certain vested interests intended it to.
I find it ironic that you want to use GNOME and then are complaining about bloat :D
Umm. No i dont use Gnome most of the time. It's KDE.... And it's not about me. I can wind my way thru - including rolling my own distro if needed. It's about the stupidity of exposing a whole swath of users to potential patent liability. The only users who would be protected are ones who have distros with patent protection clauses signed up with M$- Novell, Lindows and RH?. We know that codevelopment deal was partly about virtualisation. But that's what they told us.
Well, what i said was just a joke but if you insist on being pedantic:
a. Don't know about Novell and Lindows but on my Fedora box: [steve@laptop ~]$ cat /etc/fedora-release Fedora release 10 (Cambridge) [steve@laptop ~]$ rpm -q gnome-desktop gnome-desktop-2.24.3-1.fc10.x86_64 [steve@laptop ~]$ rpm -q tomboy package tomboy is not installed [steve@laptop ~]$ rpm -q mono-core package mono-core is not installed
so, if it is separate in Fedora, i'd assume it is the same in RHEL too (i don't have access to an RHEL box to confirm)
b. About the virtualization interoperability deal, rather that not 'telling us' whether there are any patent protection clauses, Red Hat preferred to be *explicit* about the fact there *isn't* such a clause:
https://www.redhat.com/promo/svvp/?intcmp=70160000000HiHHAA0
(bullet 5 under key components of the agreement) ...which sounds a like going a bit too far to hide a fact, if that was the intent :)
Anyways, you still can choose the reality you wish to live in and defend it.
cheers, - steve
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 2:51 AM, jtdjtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Thursday 18 June 2009, pavithran s wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:49 PM, jtdjtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Wednesday 17 June 2009, pavithran s wrote: One of the developers of a note taking app -tomtom or somesuch - ( we know how important note taking is to the survival of the whole universe), is dragging in the whole patent infested Mono library into debian and Ubuntu. 40+ MB of patent crap for a note taking app???. Something has gone real rotten in debian.
Since it's all because of GNOME . Please file a bug in GNOME Bugzilla . http://bugzilla.gnome.org/
It's not a bug. Infact i would say it's working exactly as certain vested interests intended it to.
Mono has always been part of Debian main repository. So fear of getting sued really does not apply here.
On Thursday 18 June 2009, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 2:51 AM, jtdjtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Thursday 18 June 2009, pavithran s wrote:
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:49 PM, jtdjtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
On Wednesday 17 June 2009, pavithran s wrote: One of the developers of a note taking app -tomtom or somesuch - ( we know how important note taking is to the survival of the whole universe), is dragging in the whole patent infested Mono library into debian and Ubuntu. 40+ MB of patent crap for a note taking app???. Something has gone real rotten in debian.
Since it's all because of GNOME . Please file a bug in GNOME Bugzilla . http://bugzilla.gnome.org/
It's not a bug. Infact i would say it's working exactly as certain vested interests intended it to.
Mono has always been part of Debian main repository. So fear of getting sued really does not apply here.
But never installed as part of Gnome. U cant get sued without using it.
-
Anurag -
jtd -
Kartik Mistry -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Krishnakant -
Kumar Appaiah -
Nitesh Mistry -
Osric Fernandes -
pavithran s -
Prashant Verma -
Praveen A -
Raj Mathur -
Rony -
Shakthi Kannan -
shirish -
Siddhesh Poyarekar -
steve -
vamsi vidya sagar