Searching \ for 'You want a newsgroup? Start your own!' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=you+want+newsgroup
Search entire site for: 'You want a newsgroup? Start your own!'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'You want a newsgroup? Start your own!'
1999\06\10@112551 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
But count me out.

This thread comes up regularly.

You are welcome to start any newsgroup you like.

Please don't screw up the piclist.

Get a free mail account if you don't like the volume of mail.

-Bob

1999\06\10@115112 by Tjaart van der Walt

flavicon
face
Bob Blick wrote:
>
> But count me out.
>
> This thread comes up regularly.
It's actually been a while...

> You are welcome to start any newsgroup you like.
>
> Please don't screw up the piclist.
>
> Get a free mail account if you don't like the volume of mail.
Get 'em Bob!

Here's the rest of this thread :
* A newsgroup is the answer!
* No - let's keep it the way it is!
* No - I have a 300 baud modem, and want a newsgroup!
* Then download less Pamela jpg's!
* Let's vote!
* Yes!
* No!
* Yes!
* No!
* Pink!
* UNSUBSCRIBBLE PUKELIST
* Blue!
* Maybe you have to change your mailer. Mine can make coffee.
* I've used Netscape for years, and it is best.
* But they can't make a good navigator!
* You shouldn't use Windows in the first place. You call it an OS?
* No - but it is better than the Linux wankers and wannabees!
* UNSUBSCRIBBLE PUKELIST
* Let's split up the list!
* No - let's just use markings like [OT-humour], [OT-Win vs Linux], [OT-dirty pi
ctures]
* I don't know how to set up my mailer to filter it.
* It's because you use Pegasus.
* PICs are too expensive! (hehehehe)
* UNSUBSCRIBBLE PUKELIST
* How do I unsubscribe?
* Virus warning! Don't read anything with "Penpals Wanted!"
* Everbody shut up, or I'll unsubscribe you all! Geez, I need some sleep!
.
.
.
.
* <HTML CRAP><FONT SIZE 10000000>!!UNSUBSCRIBBLE PUKELIST!!!</FONT></HTML CRAP>

--
Friendly Regards          /"\
                         \ /
Tjaart van der Walt        X  ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
spam_OUTtjaartTakeThisOuTspamwasp.co.za  / \ AGAINST HTML MAIL
|--------------------------------------------------|
|  Cellpoint Systems SA    http://www.cellpt.com   |
|--------------------------------------------------|
|     http://www.wasp.co.za/~tjaart/index.html     |
|             WGS84 : -26.0124 +28.1129            |
|             Voice : +27 (0)11 2545100            |
|--------------------------------------------------|

1999\06\10@115723 by John A. Craft

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

[OT-dirty pictures]
{Quote hidden}

CRAP>
>

lmao :)

you forgot.

I'm a newbie, and can't make my led blink.

Jc.

1999\06\10@122633 by Bob Drzyzgula

flavicon
face
On Thu, Jun 10, 1999 at 10:55:26AM -0500, John A. Craft wrote:
>
> lmao :)
>
> you forgot.
>
> I'm a newbie, and can't make my led blink.

Also,

* I'm new to PICs, what d'y'all think about Zilog?
* How do I remove code protection from my PIC?
* I just ordered from ITU... (hopefully less frequent now
  that it's all baby pictures [?])
* Atmel ROX!

BTW, how does one set the Dirty Pictures option for
PICLIST? I never get any.

--Bob

PS: FWIW, I think a newsgroup is a Bad Idea.

--
============================================================
Bob Drzyzgula                             It's not a problem
.....bobKILLspamspam@spam@drzyzgula.org                until something bad happens
============================================================

1999\06\10@155148 by Tim Hamel

picon face
In a message dated 6/10/99 9:26:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
picspamKILLspamdrzyzgula.org writes:

> BTW, how does one set the Dirty Pictures option for
>  PICLIST? I never get any.
>
>  --Bob
>
>  PS: FWIW, I think a newsgroup is a Bad Idea.
>
You never get nude PICs (no pun intended)? 'F84 looks real good in black.

Not that I have any say in this whole discussion.  But  I agree with Bob
Drzyzgula,  havin a newsgroup would open up a can of worms for WOT stuff.
Atleast with the PICLIST, you have to sign up, but with a newsgroup, you just
post and go.

My 1.997 cents,

Tim H.

1999\06\10@175416 by Jim Main

flavicon
face
From: Bob Blick <.....bobKILLspamspam.....TED.NET>
To: <EraseMEPICLISTspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: 10 June 1999 16:24
Subject: You want a newsgroup? Start your own!
rude, rude, rude!!


> This thread comes up regularly.
doesn't that tell you something?

> You are welcome to start any newsgroup you like.
true

> Please don't screw up the piclist.
duhh Bob - look at the last 3 months worth of messages..

> Get a free mail account if you don't like the volume of mail.
there's no such thing as a free lunch.

1999\06\10@183512 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Thu, 10 Jun 1999, Jim Main wrote:
> rude, rude, rude!!

I meant it to carry the strength of my feeling, not be rude.

> > This thread comes up regularly.
> doesn't that tell you something?

So does UNSUBSCRIBE PICLIST, I don't think it tells me anything except
that the person writing it is too new to the piclist to have seen previous
messages on the same subject. I'm not suggesting you are that person.

> > Please don't screw up the piclist.
> duhh Bob - look at the last 3 months worth of messages..

I've got a few years of the piclist on CD, what's the point you are trying
to make - I was saying I like the piclist.

> > Get a free mail account if you don't like the volume of mail.
> there's no such thing as a free lunch.

I hear you, brother. Check out:
http://bobblick.com/bob/tanstafl.html

Friendly regards,
Bob

1999\06\10@191829 by Mark Walsh

flavicon
face
>
>I hear you, brother. Check out:
>http://bobblick.com/bob/tanstafl.html
>
>Friendly regards,
>Bob
>

Nice frames

Mark Walsh

1999\06\10@193918 by Eric Oliver

flavicon
face
FWIW, I agree. I love the PICLIST just the way it is. Occasional wildly comical
posts included.

Eric

On Thursday, June 10, 1999 2:44 PM, Tim Hamel [SMTP:IMDNICE12spamspam_OUTAOL.COM] wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1999\06\10@204938 by Eric Oliver

flavicon
face
It must have been a bad day. I laughed so hard I cried. I'm filing this for occa
sional amusement.

Eric

On Thursday, June 10, 1999 10:49 AM, Tjaart van der Walt [SMTP:KILLspamtjaartKILLspamspamWASP.CO.ZA
] wrote:
{Quote hidden}

pictures]
{Quote hidden}

1999\06\11@005523 by Tjaart van der Walt

flavicon
face
Eric Oliver wrote:
>
> It must have been a bad day. I laughed so hard I cried. I'm filing this for oc
casional amusement.
>
> Eric

Glad you liked it! I inserted a few typical relies from
a few of the regular PIClist posters.

Can anyone recognise them?

--
Friendly Regards          /"\
                         \ /
Tjaart van der Walt        X  ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
spamBeGonetjaartspamBeGonespamwasp.co.za  / \ AGAINST HTML MAIL
|--------------------------------------------------|
|  Cellpoint Systems SA    http://www.cellpt.com   |
|--------------------------------------------------|
|     http://www.wasp.co.za/~tjaart/index.html     |
|             WGS84 : -26.0124 +28.1129            |
|             Voice : +27 (0)11 2545100            |
|--------------------------------------------------|

1999\06\11@011026 by Dennis Plunkett

flavicon
face
At 06:54 11/06/99 +0200, you wrote:
>Eric Oliver wrote:
>>
>> It must have been a bad day. I laughed so hard I cried. I'm filing this
for occasional amusement.
{Quote hidden}

Nope! :)

By the way, how is the defence of the masters going?

Dennis

1999\06\11@031736 by g.daniel.invent.design

flavicon
face
> that infamous quote:
> * No - but it is better than the Linux wankers and wannabees!

reminds me:

Question: is it possible to develop Linux programs and legally withhold your sou
rce code
for such ?   I have been told that the "GNU licience" requires program release t
o contain
open source code, but this raises the question of how it is possible to develop
for example
an "access control" front end program and maintain application integrity ?     I
am sure
someone has a good (or funny) answer,   waiting...

regards,
Graham.

1999\06\11@033030 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
   Question: is it possible to develop Linux programs and legally withhold
   your source code for such ?  I have been told that the "GNU licience"
   requires program release to contain open source code...

It has never been necessary to provide source for a program that was merely
COMPILED by gnu software (ie gcc.)  At one time it was possible to interpret
the gnu license as requiring source distribution of any program that
contained actual gnu CODE (including library functions.)  At one time, cisco
(which used and uses gcc and other tools) had their own itty-bitty embedded
68k library implemented specifically to avoid needing to include any gnu
library code (this is harder in a linux invironment than an embedded
environment, of course!)

More recently, I believe that the gnu people have clarified and/or rewritten
this part of their license.  Now, if you write software that includes the
gnu library functions, you need only be willing to provide the source for
the gnu library you used (which is a piece of cake if it's not modified!)
You don't have to provide your own source code.


   ... but this raises the question of how it is possible to develop
   for example an "access control" front end program and maintain
   application integrity ?

Security-related applications had better not be dependent on "secret source"
to be secure, or they're not really secure at all.  (Been there, done that,
renamed my "password encryption" feature "password obfuscation.")

BillW
cisco

1999\06\11@034657 by Eric Smith

flavicon
face
> Question: is it possible to develop Linux programs and legally withhold your
> source code for such ?

Certainly, as long as you don't include any GPL'd code in your program.  Just
building your program with GNU tools doesn't generally make it subject to the
GPL.  Also, Linux normally uses dynamically linked shared libraries for all
the standard libraries, so you don't have to worry too much about accidentally
including GPL'd code.

> I have been told that the "GNU licience" requires program release to contain
> open source code, but this raises the question of how it is possible to
> develop for example an "access control" front end program and maintain
> application integrity ?     I am sure someone has a good (or funny) answer,
> waiting...

No funny answer here, sorry.  The only problem with using Linux in an
embedded system is that since the kernel, standard libraries, and many of
the standard tools are GPL'd, you have to provide sources for them, including
any modifications you make.  But you don't have to provide source for
user-space applications you write yourself; as the author you can license
your own code however you see fit.

If you need a Unix-like OS for an embedded system, and can't use Linux because
of the GPL, you can look at the BSD derivatives.  They are not GPL'd, except
for some variants that contain Ethernet drivers that were unfortunately stolen
from Donald Becker.

1999\06\11@035537 by Eric Smith

flavicon
face
BillW wrote:
> More recently, I believe that the gnu people have clarified and/or rewritten
> this part of their license.  Now, if you write software that includes the
> gnu library functions, you need only be willing to provide the source for
> the gnu library you used (which is a piece of cake if it's not modified!)
> You don't have to provide your own source code.

You're talking about the LGPL (Lesser General Public License, formerly the
Library General Public License).  If you use LGPL'd code, such as glibc, you
don't have to provide your source code, but...  you have to provide your
object code in a manner such that it can be linked to a newer version of the
LGPL'd code.  So you generally would have to provide your .o files or
(equivalently) a .a archive of them.

This wouldn't be a problem for a Linux application since the libraries are
typically dynamically linked, but it could be a problem for using glibc in
a non-Linux embedded system.

For typical embedded systems, Cygnus' newlib might be preferred to glibc,
Newlib is not GPL'd or LGPL'd; it's under a Berkely-style license.  You don't
have to give out source or .o files, but you do have to give CU Berkeley
credit:

   [...] and that any documentation, advertising materials, and other
   materials related to such distribution and use acknowledge that the
   software was developed by the University of California, Berkeley.

1999\06\11@062546 by Bob Drzyzgula

flavicon
face
On Fri, Jun 11, 1999 at 07:14:43PM +1200, Graham Daniel wrote:
>
> reminds me:
>
> Question: is it possible to develop Linux programs and legally withhold your s
ource code
> for such ?   I have been told that the "GNU licience" requires program release
to contain
> open source code, but this raises the question of how it is possible to develo
p for example
> an "access control" front end program and maintain application integrity ?
I am sure
> someone has a good (or funny) answer,   waiting...

As others have said, as long as you don't try to include
GPL'd source code directly -- in the form of source code --
into your own program, then you should be OK. Thus, if
for example you wanted to have some regular expression
matching capability in your program, but the stock regex
code didn't exactly work for you, you can't simply modify
the regex code and use that in your mainline code. You
*could*, however, modify the regex library, publish it
-- with source -- as a separate, GPL'd work, and then
dynamically link that into your proprietary program. It
would probably be much better, however, to work with the
regex authors first to try to come up with a version
that meets your needs.

Note that companies such as Corel, Oracle, Sybase,
Netscape and IBM are all shipping software for Linux
systems without the need to release source code.
And you can be sure that they are using GCC, or
some direct derivitive (egcs, pgcc).

Also, as Bill said, access control that depends on
obscurity is woefully ineffective. Properly written
access control software will be exactly as effective
with disclosed source as without.

--Bob

--
============================================================
Bob Drzyzgula                             It's not a problem
RemoveMEbobspamTakeThisOuTdrzyzgula.org                until something bad happens
============================================================

1999\06\11@090114 by Dave & Ann Scott

flavicon
face
Tjaart van der Walt:
> Here's the rest of this thread :

Excellent!

John A. Craft:
> I'm a newbie, and can't make my led blink.

Meanie.  (My LED blinks good.)

Bob Drzyzgula:
>  * I'm new to PICs, what d'y'all think about Zilog?

Ouch!  (See post earlier this week.)

Tjaart van der Walt:
>  I inserted a few typical relies from
>  a few of the regular PIClist posters.

I got some of those!  Starting to feel like home!

Dave Scott

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1999 , 2000 only
- Today
- New search...