Is anyone following the news of the Novell sale and some mysterious 'intellectual property assets' that were transferred to a holding company controlled by Microsoft?
On 11/22/2010 01:13 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Is anyone following the news of the Novell sale and some mysterious 'intellectual property assets' that were transferred to a holding company controlled by Microsoft?
I saw that, and can't help but wonder if we're in for another "SCO". =/
On 11/22/2010 12:14 PM, Digimer wrote:
Is anyone following the news of the Novell sale and some mysterious 'intellectual property assets' that were transferred to a holding company controlled by Microsoft?
I saw that, and can't help but wonder if we're in for another "SCO". =/
SCO didn't get off the ground since it was ruled that they didn't actually own the IP in question and Novell did. And they ran out of money for the legal process. This could be a very different game.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 13:26, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/22/2010 12:14 PM, Digimer wrote:
Is anyone following the news of the Novell sale and some mysterious 'intellectual property assets' that were transferred to a holding company controlled by Microsoft?
I saw that, and can't help but wonder if we're in for another "SCO". =/
SCO didn't get off the ground since it was ruled that they didn't actually own the IP in question and Novell did. And they ran out of money for the legal process. This could be a very different game.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
My guess (and I REALLY hope I am right) is that the IP in question is related to NetWare and eDirectory. Both products (started out to be)/are better than MS products, not Linux/SUSE stuff.
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 12:13 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Is anyone following the news of the Novell sale and some mysterious 'intellectual property assets' that were transferred to a holding company controlled by Microsoft?
Oh, sheesh, here we go. Baseless speculation and the weaving on conspiracy theories.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Is anyone following the news of the Novell sale and some mysterious 'intellectual property assets' that were transferred to a holding company controlled by Microsoft?
Just saw that today. I wonder if any of those assets is the superior (and utterly badly marketed) WordPerfect.
mark
Barry Brimer wrote:
Just saw that today. I wonder if any of those assets is the superior (and utterly badly marketed) WordPerfect.
I thought Novell sold WordPerfect to Corel a long time ago.
Maybe - I've lost track. I'm still waiting for *anyone* to actually market the damn thing - I'd *buy* it (or rather, upgrade from 6.0.c for DOS).... I'll take it over Word *or* OO.o, any day.
mark
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 14:42 -0500, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Barry Brimer wrote:
Just saw that today. I wonder if any of those assets is the superior
(and utterly badly marketed) WordPerfect. I thought Novell sold WordPerfect to Corel a long time ago.
Maybe - I've lost track. I'm still waiting for *anyone* to actually market the damn thing - I'd *buy* it (or rather, upgrade from 6.0.c for DOS).... I'll take it over Word *or* OO.o, any day.
It is nearly antique at this point.
Recent OOo has worked extremely well for me; editing complex 200+ page documents with refereces, TOCs, & indexes. I've really become a fan of OOo starting in the 3.2.x series.
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 14:42 -0500, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Barry Brimer wrote:
Just saw that today. I wonder if any of those assets is the superior
(and utterly badly marketed) WordPerfect. I thought Novell sold WordPerfect to Corel a long time ago.
Maybe - I've lost track. I'm still waiting for *anyone* to actually market the damn thing - I'd *buy* it (or rather, upgrade from 6.0.c for DOS).... I'll take it over Word *or* OO.o, any day.
It is nearly antique at this point.
Why do you call it that? What features are missing (and I haven't looked at a current copy in 10 years, btw). In general, I don't see *anything* I couldn't have done with the one from back then.
Recent OOo has worked extremely well for me; editing complex 200+ page documents with refereces, TOCs, & indexes. I've really become a fan of OOo starting in the 3.2.x series.
I guarantee WP 10-12 years ago could handle all that - most City of Chicago, and I think federal contracts, used to specify that documents be in WP format.
Besides, the files were always *much* smaller, and you could always beat it into submission with <alt><F3>, I think it was, and the way it revealed formatting... I was amazed that they didn't market that straight for designing web pages. AND not a single word processor or web page building I've seen writes them clean: both Word and OO.o write out *crap*, with font size and font and color and every damn thing on every single line, rather than only when something changes.
mark
At Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:10:41 -0500 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 14:42 -0500, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Barry Brimer wrote:
Just saw that today. I wonder if any of those assets is the superior
(and utterly badly marketed) WordPerfect. I thought Novell sold WordPerfect to Corel a long time ago.
Maybe - I've lost track. I'm still waiting for *anyone* to actually market the damn thing - I'd *buy* it (or rather, upgrade from 6.0.c for DOS).... I'll take it over Word *or* OO.o, any day.
It is nearly antique at this point.
Why do you call it that? What features are missing (and I haven't looked at a current copy in 10 years, btw). In general, I don't see *anything* I couldn't have done with the one from back then.
Recent OOo has worked extremely well for me; editing complex 200+ page documents with refereces, TOCs, & indexes. I've really become a fan of OOo starting in the 3.2.x series.
I guarantee WP 10-12 years ago could handle all that - most City of Chicago, and I think federal contracts, used to specify that documents be in WP format.
Besides, the files were always *much* smaller, and you could always beat it into submission with <alt><F3>, I think it was, and the way it revealed formatting... I was amazed that they didn't market that straight for designing web pages. AND not a single word processor or web page building I've seen writes them clean: both Word and OO.o write out *crap*, with font size and font and color and every damn thing on every single line, rather than only when something changes.
And I *still* use LaTeX. *I* won't touch a "word processor" (I tried OO *once* to create a mess-word version of my resume and it was a total disaster). I routinely create documents with something close to 1000 pages, with refereces, TOCs, & indexes, etc. Way back when I've created rather large documents with LaTeX *on a 10mhz 68000* with only 1Meg (yes *one* meg) of RAM (this was an Atari 1040ST running OS-9/68000). And a 40 *meg* hard drive. Talk about small footprint software. With pdflatex and tex4ht I can generate PDF directly and *clean* HTML. And both using Makefiles with automated tools. And TeX/LaTeX is open source.
mark
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 06:12:38PM -0500, Robert Heller wrote:
And I *still* use LaTeX. *I* won't touch a "word processor" (I tried
Feh. N00b. LaTeX. Feh.
% head -20 cv .m1 0.05i .m2 0.15i .m3 0 .m4 0.11i .po 0.6c .ll 7.5i .pl 10.5i .SZ 11 .tr ~ .kern 0 .lg 0 .he ''&Stephen Harris - Curriculum Vitae\l'|0(ul'' .fo '''[Page % of 4]' .in 0.2i .fi .rs .nf .ti -0.2i .u "PERSONAL DETAILS"
with refereces, TOCs, & indexes, etc. Way back when I've created rather large documents with LaTeX *on a 10mhz 68000* with only 1Meg (yes *one* meg) of RAM (this was an Atari 1040ST running OS-9/68000). And a
The company I worked for 20 years ago had fixed on nroff with me macros. That gave us portability across so so many generations of servers that Microsoft should be envious.
Yes, documents I created in 1991 still display properly today.
40 *meg* hard drive. Talk about small footprint software. With
Heh, I supported a server with 64Mbyte disk and 15 users. And 3 telex lines. Ah, Unix... I <3 you :-)
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Stephen Harris lists@spuddy.org wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 06:12:38PM -0500, Robert Heller wrote:
And I *still* use LaTeX. *I* won't touch a "word processor" (I tried
Feh. N00b. LaTeX. Feh.
I used Chiwriter (DOS) during my college days. I'm surprised it's fan is still going after all these years. http://www.delfijn.nl/ChiWriter/chiappl.htm
Crap now I realize how old I am.....
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Robert Heller wrote:
To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org From: Robert Heller heller@deepsoft.com Subject: Re: [CentOS] Novell sale news?
At Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:10:41 -0500 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 14:42 -0500, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Barry Brimer wrote:
Just saw that today. I wonder if any of those assets is the superior
(and utterly badly marketed) WordPerfect. I thought Novell sold WordPerfect to Corel a long time ago.
Maybe - I've lost track. I'm still waiting for *anyone* to actually market the damn thing - I'd *buy* it (or rather, upgrade from 6.0.c for DOS).... I'll take it over Word *or* OO.o, any day.
It is nearly antique at this point.
Why do you call it that? What features are missing (and I haven't looked at a current copy in 10 years, btw). In general, I don't see *anything* I couldn't have done with the one from back then.
Recent OOo has worked extremely well for me; editing complex 200+ page documents with refereces, TOCs, & indexes. I've really become a fan of OOo starting in the 3.2.x series.
I guarantee WP 10-12 years ago could handle all that - most City of Chicago, and I think federal contracts, used to specify that documents be in WP format.
Besides, the files were always *much* smaller, and you could always beat it into submission with <alt><F3>, I think it was, and the way it revealed formatting... I was amazed that they didn't market that straight for designing web pages. AND not a single word processor or web page building I've seen writes them clean: both Word and OO.o write out *crap*, with font size and font and color and every damn thing on every single line, rather than only when something changes.
And I *still* use LaTeX. *I* won't touch a "word processor" (I tried OO *once* to create a mess-word version of my resume and it was a total disaster). I routinely create documents with something close to 1000 pages, with refereces, TOCs, & indexes, etc. Way back when I've created rather large documents with LaTeX *on a 10mhz 68000* with only 1Meg (yes *one* meg) of RAM (this was an Atari 1040ST running OS-9/68000). And a 40 *meg* hard drive. Talk about small footprint software. With pdflatex and tex4ht I can generate PDF directly and *clean* HTML. And both using Makefiles with automated tools. And TeX/LaTeX is open source.
Are you aware of lyx, a front end to Latex?
I used it to create the Kickstart User Guide in PDF format.
LyX combines the power and flexibility of TeX/LaTeX with the ease of use of a graphical interface. This results in world-class support for creation of mathematical content (via a fully integrated equation editor) and structured documents like academic articles, theses, and books. In addition, staples of scientific authoring such as reference list and index creation come standard. But you can also use LyX to create a letter or a novel or a theatre play or film script. A broad array of ready, well-designed document layouts are built in.
LyX is released under a Free Software/Open Source license, runs on Linux/Unix, Windows, and Mac OS X, and is available in several languages.
It's in the EPEL repo.
Name : lyx Arch : i386 Version : 1.6.6.1 Release : 1.el5 Size : 9.9 M Repo : installed Summary : WYSIWYM (What You See Is What You Mean) document processor URL : http://www.lyx.org/ License : GPLv2+ Description: LyX is a modern approach to writing documents : which breaks with the : obsolete "typewriter paradigm" of most other : document preparation systems.
Keith
At Tue, 23 Nov 2010 13:02:35 +0000 (GMT) CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Robert Heller wrote:
To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org From: Robert Heller heller@deepsoft.com Subject: Re: [CentOS] Novell sale news?
At Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:10:41 -0500 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 14:42 -0500, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Barry Brimer wrote:
> Just saw that today. I wonder if any of those assets is the superior (and utterly badly marketed) WordPerfect. I thought Novell sold WordPerfect to Corel a long time ago.
Maybe - I've lost track. I'm still waiting for *anyone* to actually market the damn thing - I'd *buy* it (or rather, upgrade from 6.0.c for DOS).... I'll take it over Word *or* OO.o, any day.
It is nearly antique at this point.
Why do you call it that? What features are missing (and I haven't looked at a current copy in 10 years, btw). In general, I don't see *anything* I couldn't have done with the one from back then.
Recent OOo has worked extremely well for me; editing complex 200+ page documents with refereces, TOCs, & indexes. I've really become a fan of OOo starting in the 3.2.x series.
I guarantee WP 10-12 years ago could handle all that - most City of Chicago, and I think federal contracts, used to specify that documents be in WP format.
Besides, the files were always *much* smaller, and you could always beat it into submission with <alt><F3>, I think it was, and the way it revealed formatting... I was amazed that they didn't market that straight for designing web pages. AND not a single word processor or web page building I've seen writes them clean: both Word and OO.o write out *crap*, with font size and font and color and every damn thing on every single line, rather than only when something changes.
And I *still* use LaTeX. *I* won't touch a "word processor" (I tried OO *once* to create a mess-word version of my resume and it was a total disaster). I routinely create documents with something close to 1000 pages, with refereces, TOCs, & indexes, etc. Way back when I've created rather large documents with LaTeX *on a 10mhz 68000* with only 1Meg (yes *one* meg) of RAM (this was an Atari 1040ST running OS-9/68000). And a 40 *meg* hard drive. Talk about small footprint software. With pdflatex and tex4ht I can generate PDF directly and *clean* HTML. And both using Makefiles with automated tools. And TeX/LaTeX is open source.
Are you aware of lyx, a front end to Latex?
Yes. Never used it. I use a *plain text editor* to edit LaTeX source. Always have and always will.
I used it to create the Kickstart User Guide in PDF format.
LyX combines the power and flexibility of TeX/LaTeX with the ease of use of a graphical interface. This results in world-class support for creation of mathematical content (via a fully integrated equation editor) and structured documents like academic articles, theses, and books. In addition, staples of scientific authoring such as reference list and index creation come standard. But you can also use LyX to create a letter or a novel or a theatre play or film script. A broad array of ready, well-designed document layouts are built in.
LyX is released under a Free Software/Open Source license, runs on Linux/Unix, Windows, and Mac OS X, and is available in several languages.
It's in the EPEL repo.
Name : lyx Arch : i386 Version : 1.6.6.1 Release : 1.el5 Size : 9.9 M Repo : installed Summary : WYSIWYM (What You See Is What You Mean) document processor URL : http://www.lyx.org/ License : GPLv2+ Description: LyX is a modern approach to writing documents : which breaks with the : obsolete "typewriter paradigm" of most other : document preparation systems.
Keith
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Robert Heller wrote:
160 lines of largely untrimmed quoted cr*p
You know better, Robert and by your action you say you just don't care. This kind of behaviour is the best way I can think of to drive people away from reading the list
My prior working rule on this list (and other) is that if a person cannot trim within the first screen, it gets trashed without being read further. We had a 'no discernable trimming' problem on the mirror list to the same effect last week, and two other @centos.org 'beat me to the punch' trying to get the clear disregard of the CentOS mailing list policies there. "deleting non-applicable text as required" [1] [2]
I'll have to start adding a response rule to 'shame' offenders here, I guess
-- Russ herrold
[1] http://www.centos.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=16 [2] http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-mirror/2010-November/004274.html
AND not a single word processor or web page building I've seen writes them clean:
I beg to differ. I've used Dreamweaver for years and while I can't speak for the latest versions, the MX version released in 2002 produced some of the cleanest (x)html I've seen. And with their tidy command you could get the code properly indented so it became easily readable. PHP/MySQL code otoh was brutally messy.
Drew a écrit :
I beg to differ. I've used Dreamweaver for years and while I can't speak for the latest versions, the MX version released in 2002 produced some of the cleanest (x)html I've seen.
XHTML is supposed to be semantic, e. g. it indicates clearly that "this is a quotation", "this is an abbreviation", etc. The only thing Dreamweaver can do is put cleanly indented <div></div> brackets around everything, to make sure no search engine leafing through the page will ever have the slightest clue about the content. Which is bad.
http://www.microlinux.fr --> made with Vim :oD
Cheers,
Niki
XHTML is supposed to be semantic, e. g. it indicates clearly that "this is a quotation", "this is an abbreviation", etc. The only thing Dreamweaver can do is put cleanly indented <div></div> brackets around everything, to make sure no search engine leafing through the page will ever have the slightest clue about the content. Which is bad.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly. XHTML is a derivative of HTML4 that conforms to the XML standard. It doesn't add anything not already present within HTML 4.01. And to the best of my knowledge there is no provision within xhtml for custom tags that give context or semantic information, that's what XML is for..
And the DIV & SPAN tags are a normal part of writing html now, the idea being to get rid of the random spew of formatting tags with the far cleaner CSS. How it impacts the search engines I wouldn't know, I'm just going based on the best practices suggested by the W3C.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:42 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I thought Novell sold WordPerfect to Corel a long time ago.
Maybe - I've lost track. I'm still waiting for *anyone* to actually market the damn thing - I'd *buy* it (or rather, upgrade from 6.0.c for DOS).... I'll take it over Word *or* OO.o, any day.
I know that Corel is still releasing Word Perfect, and its still a very good product. Latest version is 14, I think. Its just fine. Still has "Reveal Codes", works with Word, OO, and PDF files.
Windows only, unfortunately.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 09:29:12PM -0500, Michael Semcheski wrote:
Windows only, unfortunately.
When did they stop publishing *nix versions? I worked extensively with that monstrosity 15-16 years ago on SCO / MWC Coherent.
John
On 11/22/10 9:57 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 09:29:12PM -0500, Michael Semcheski wrote:
Windows only, unfortunately.
When did they stop publishing *nix versions? I worked extensively with that monstrosity 15-16 years ago on SCO / MWC Coherent.
I don't think they ever did a real native *nix verson - they had a slightly custom version of wine wrapped around the windows code. And there was some strange Microsoft involvement in the Corel company too - probably why you haven't heard much from them.
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:09:59 -0600 Les Mikesell wrote:
I don't think they ever did a real native *nix verson - they had a slightly custom version of wine wrapped around the windows code.
Native WP for Unix existed back in the days of WP/DOS and the like.
WP ran on a huge number of platforms. I still have WP 4.1 for Amiga laying around here somewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPerfect
"While available in DOS and Microsoft Windows versions, its popularity was based in part on the fact that it was available for a wide variety of computers and operating systems, including Mac OS, Linux, the Apple IIe, a separate version for the Apple IIgs, most popular versions of Unix, VMS, Data General, System/370, AmigaOS, Atari ST, OS/2, and NeXTSTEP."
On 11/22/10 10:28 PM, Frank Cox wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:09:59 -0600 Les Mikesell wrote:
I don't think they ever did a real native *nix verson - they had a slightly custom version of wine wrapped around the windows code.
Native WP for Unix existed back in the days of WP/DOS and the like.
WP ran on a huge number of platforms. I still have WP 4.1 for Amiga laying around here somewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPerfect
"While available in DOS and Microsoft Windows versions, its popularity was based in part on the fact that it was available for a wide variety of computers and operating systems, including Mac OS, Linux, the Apple IIe, a separate version for the Apple IIgs, most popular versions of Unix, VMS, Data General, System/370, AmigaOS, Atari ST, OS/2, and NeXTSTEP."
That's going back to the character-mode days. I meant the GUI version.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On 11/22/10 10:28 PM, Frank Cox wrote:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:09:59 -0600 Les Mikesell wrote:
I don't think they ever did a real native *nix verson - they had a slightly custom version of wine wrapped around the windows code.
Native WP for Unix existed back in the days of WP/DOS and the like.
WP ran on a huge number of platforms. I still have WP 4.1 for Amiga laying around here somewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPerfect
"While available in DOS and Microsoft Windows versions, its popularity was based in part on the fact that it was available for a wide variety of computers and operating systems, including Mac OS, Linux, the Apple IIe, a separate version for the Apple IIgs, most popular versions of Unix, VMS, Data General, System/370, AmigaOS, Atari ST, OS/2, and NeXTSTEP."
That's going back to the character-mode days. I meant the GUI version.
I used an X11 version on some Unix variant a long time ago - possibly IRIX, but it may have been the DEC one (or both.) This was several years before they released the WINE based thing you are talking about, which I believe was Linux only. In fact, I think there was a Linux version of the "native" X11 port, too - then they replaced it with the wine variant to avoid maintaining so many different branches of the code, or something. (BAAAD decision...)
- Toralf
This e-mail, including any attachments and response string, may contain proprietary information which is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachment immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, forward, copy, print or rely on this e-mail in any way except as permitted by the author.
On 11/24/2010 10:32 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
That's going back to the character-mode days. I meant the GUI version.
I used an X11 version on some Unix variant a long time ago - possibly IRIX, but it may have been the DEC one (or both.) This was several years
Thats good, but how is that even remotely related to his list ?
If there is enough interest to build a social sort of list around the centos community, we can always fire up a centos-chatter or centos-social mailing list. Doing this on irc has been, imho, most successful.
- KB
Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 11/24/2010 10:32 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
That's going back to the character-mode days. I meant the GUI version.
I used an X11 version on some Unix variant a long time ago - possibly IRIX, but it may have been the DEC one (or both.) This was several years
Thats good, but how is that even remotely related to his list ?
It's *remotely* related in that it means someone, somewhere must have source code that would probably compile more or less directly under CentOS, for the (currently unsupported) software in question.
Apart from that, it's sometimes hard to resist commenting on obviously incorrect statements even in an off-topic thread...
- T
If there is enough interest to build a social sort of list around the centos community, we can always fire up a centos-chatter or centos-social mailing list. Doing this on irc has been, imho, most successful.
- KB
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
This e-mail, including any attachments and response string, may contain proprietary information which is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, please notify the author by return e-mail and delete this message and any attachment immediately. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, forward, copy, print or rely on this e-mail in any way except as permitted by the author.
On 11/24/2010 02:34 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Thats good, but how is that even remotely related to his list ?
It's *remotely* related in that it means someone, somewhere must have source code that would probably compile more or less directly under CentOS, for the (currently unsupported) software in question.
well, ok :)
but it would still be nice to see what people think about a centos-social or a centos-offtopic or a centos-chatter list.
- KB
On 11/24/10 8:37 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 11/24/2010 02:34 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Thats good, but how is that even remotely related to his list ?
It's *remotely* related in that it means someone, somewhere must have source code that would probably compile more or less directly under CentOS, for the (currently unsupported) software in question.
well, ok :)
but it would still be nice to see what people think about a centos-social or a centos-offtopic or a centos-chatter list.
What we need is a "What would a good sysadmin think?" list where one of the criteria for being a good sysadmin would obviously be that you know something about Centos but the rest of the scope covers applications, conversions, product comparisons, legal issues, etc. The kind of stuff most of us do every day...
On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 08:50 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 11/24/10 8:37 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 11/24/2010 02:34 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Thats good, but how is that even remotely related to his list ?
It's *remotely* related in that it means someone, somewhere must have source code that would probably compile more or less directly under CentOS, for the (currently unsupported) software in question.
well, ok :) but it would still be nice to see what people think about a centos-social or a centos-offtopic or a centos-chatter list.
What we need is a "What would a good sysadmin think?" list where one of the criteria for being a good sysadmin would obviously be that you know something about Centos but the rest of the scope covers applications, conversions, product comparisons, legal issues, etc. The kind of stuff most of us do every day...
Why not head over to LOPSA and join one of their lists? https://lopsa.org/ https://lopsa.org/mailman/listinfo
<quote> The League of Professional System Administrators (LOPSA) is a nonprofit corporation with members throughout the world. Our mission is to advance the practice of system administration; to support, recognize, educate, and encourage its practitioners; and to serve the public through education and outreach on system administration issues.
LOPSA membership benefits fall into two classes. The first involves support of you as a member and a sysadmin. LOPSA is working to provide educational and networking opportunities, a forum for support and ideas, and an active community engaged in discussion of sysadmin issues. </quote>
I've always though communities making *-offtopic lists didn't make much sense - go find an on-topic list.
What we need is a "What would a good sysadmin think?" list where one of the criteria for being a good sysadmin would obviously be that you know something about Centos but the rest of the scope covers applications, conversions, product comparisons, legal issues, etc. The kind of stuff most of us do every day...
Hmm... I had been contemplating a generic linux-sysadmin or linux-systems list for quite a while. My vision for the list would be OS distribution neutral, though. Some of us do work in multi-OS shops, afterall. If there is enough interest (reply to me privately, please) I can set something up.
Otherwise a centos-sysadmin list is a good idea, I think.
-Geoff
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Les Mikesell wrote:
To: centos@centos.org From: Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com Subject: Re: [CentOS] Novell sale news?
On 11/24/10 8:37 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 11/24/2010 02:34 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Thats good, but how is that even remotely related to his list ?
It's *remotely* related in that it means someone, somewhere must have source code that would probably compile more or less directly under CentOS, for the (currently unsupported) software in question.
well, ok :)
but it would still be nice to see what people think about a centos-social or a centos-offtopic or a centos-chatter list.
What we need is a "What would a good sysadmin think?" list where one of the criteria for being a good sysadmin would obviously be that you know something about Centos but the rest of the scope covers applications, conversions, product comparisons, legal issues, etc. The kind of stuff most of us do every day...
Sounds OK to me.
Keith
Toralf Lund wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 11/24/2010 10:32 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
<snip>
Thats good, but how is that even remotely related to his list ?
It's *remotely* related in that it means someone, somewhere must have source code that would probably compile more or less directly under CentOS, for the (currently unsupported) software in question.
Apart from that, it's sometimes hard to resist commenting on obviously incorrect statements even in an off-topic thread...
<snip> Not I can't resist the old quote: Someone, somewhere on usenet, posted something that was ...wrong.
mark
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 at 10:00am, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote
Not I can't resist the old quote: Someone, somewhere on usenet, posted something that was ...wrong.
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 at 10:00am, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote
Not I can't resist the old quote: Someone, somewhere on usenet, posted something that was ...wrong.
Yep. But I remember seeing that quote, hanging out on usenet, at least by the mid-nineties, and I think it was old, then.
mark "shall I correct you?"
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010, Toralf Lund wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 11/24/2010 10:32 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
That's going back to the character-mode days. I meant the GUI version.
I used an X11 version on some Unix variant a long time ago - possibly IRIX, but it may have been the DEC one (or both.) This was several years
Thats good, but how is that even remotely related to his list ?
It's *remotely* related in that it means someone, somewhere must have source code that would probably compile more or less directly under CentOS, for the (currently unsupported) software in question.
I find lists where there's fairly open discussion of topics more useful than those that deal with very narrow topics. It's amazing how many times I learn something useful that I never would have seen on a restricted list (e.g. I learned about the Mac RSS reader NetNewsWire on a local Linux group list).
If a topic is uninteresting, ctrl-d with mutt on the thread nukes it quickly.
Bill
On 11/24/2010 05:36 PM, Bill Campbell wrote:
I find lists where there's fairly open discussion of topics more useful than those that deal with very narrow topics. It's
generic lists are more suited to, as you pointed out LUG's and social groups - this is a fairly product/ platform centric list. Besides, talking about the platform it would be hard to say that this is a very narrow focused list. the ppc-on-cell-bootloader list might fit that mould quite well, I dont think the CentOS list does.
amazing how many times I learn something useful that I never would have seen on a restricted list (e.g. I learned about the Mac RSS reader NetNewsWire on a local Linux group list).
Its more than a bit disheartening to see this list compared to a LUG effort :(
If a topic is uninteresting, ctrl-d with mutt on the thread nukes it quickly.
Thats looking at things, much like many others did, from a personal perspective and not one of the project / list admins. I might want the list to go in a specific way, but that may or may not be what's good for the longer term health of the list.
- KB
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:09:59PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
I don't think they ever did a real native *nix verson - they had a slightly custom version of wine wrapped around the windows code. And there was some strange Microsoft involvement in the Corel company too - probably why you haven't heard much from them.
No, there were native iBCS2 execs for SCO and similar. I was doing the product and integration testing for Mark Williams back then and was tasked with that POS back in the '94-'95 timeframe.
John
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 22:09 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 11/22/10 9:57 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 09:29:12PM -0500, Michael Semcheski wrote:
Windows only, unfortunately.
When did they stop publishing *nix versions? I worked extensively with that monstrosity 15-16 years ago on SCO / MWC Coherent.
I don't think they ever did a real native *nix verson - they had a slightly custom version of wine wrapped around the windows code. And there was some strange Microsoft involvement in the Corel company too - probably why you haven't heard much from them.
I'm pretty sure they did have such a version; WP was the first 'real' word processor available for LINUX. I ran it on a LINUX host and a dozen or so NCD X-terminals. It worked, but I can't imagine anyone having been a fan. It was slow, clunky, and just ugly.
And as for reveal codes... OOo has a mode that displays non-printable characters. Beyond that I just don't see the point. OOo's document collaboration and versioning tools are far and away better than what I recall from WP.
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 22:09 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 11/22/10 9:57 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 09:29:12PM -0500, Michael Semcheski wrote:
Windows only, unfortunately.
When did they stop publishing *nix versions? I worked extensively with that monstrosity 15-16 years ago on SCO / MWC Coherent.
I don't think they ever did a real native *nix verson - they had a slightly custom version of wine wrapped around the windows code. And there was some strange Microsoft involvement in the Corel company too - probably why you haven't heard much from them.
I'm pretty sure they did have such a version; WP was the first 'real' word processor available for LINUX. I ran it on a LINUX host and a dozen or so NCD X-terminals. It worked, but I can't imagine anyone having been a fan. It was slow, clunky, and just ugly.
WordPerfect was available for SCO Xenix decades ago. I wrote a conversion program to convert Radio Shack Scripsit files to WP 4.3 which was pretty much the Lingua Franca of WP files in the late 1980s and early '90s (amazingly I sold a copy of this within the last 6 months to a police department that had been using Scripsit continuously).
And as for reveal codes... OOo has a mode that displays non-printable characters. Beyond that I just don't see the point. OOo's document collaboration and versioning tools are far and away better than what I recall from WP.
WP users *LOVED* reveal codes as it allows people to see exactly what's going on under the hood, and even fix some things when the files get out of whack. I answered the phone one time, and the opening from the caller was ``I want Reveal Codes''.
I have never used word processing programs for much of anything serious, using vim and groff or docbook xml for most things. Back when I was managing Radio Shack Computer Centers, I got pretty good with Scripsit, mostly so I could sell and answer people's questions (and was a whiz with VisiCalc and MultiPlan :-).
Bill
On 11/23/2010 12:49 PM, Bill Campbell wrote:
WP users *LOVED* reveal codes as it allows people to see exactly what's going on under the hood, and even fix some things when the files get out of whack. I answered the phone one time, and the opening from the caller was ``I want Reveal Codes''.
Well, sorry, but I'm 'lured' into this thread now. I tried to resist.
WordPerfect at one point in time was pretty much the defacto standard word processor... at least in the Windows world. This is a prime example of Microsoft's not playing fair. They started giving away Microsoft Office on just about every new computer with Windows pre-installed. Slowly, WordPerfect slipped to second and now almost oblivion. Further, if anyone has looked, there is no upgrade path to Office 2010, but instead you must buy the full version. So, we have gone from free to kill off (almost) all competition to one of the more expensive software suites. During this time, it has pretty much become a necessity in the business world, as everyone sends around Office filetypes. Crud, even certain Cad packages require Word to be installed if you want to use a spellchecker in your drawing. At the same time, to me, the Office suite has become on of the worst 'bloatwares' on the market. Yes, there are legal, medical, bookwriting and all sorts of templates and functions, but what most people need is simply a WordProcessor. Yes, I still have Perfect Office installed on my Windows system and I very much prefer it over Office. Yes, reveal codes is one of the reasons, but I don't feel it is bloatware. It has what I need and it is where I can easily find it. Also, Quattro runs circles around Excel in data handling and ease of use. Just try out the Quattro formula builder and you'll wonder what Microsoft was thinking when they built theirs for Excel.
OK, sorry... but this is more of a Microsoft bashing and Perfect Office, along with many other innovations have been purchased and buried by M$. I hate how they use 'Explorer' for their products. They are 'settlers', not 'explorers'.
John Hinton wrote:
On 11/23/2010 12:49 PM, Bill Campbell wrote:
WP users *LOVED* reveal codes as it allows people to see exactly what's going on under the hood, and even fix some things when the files get out of whack. I answered the phone one time, and the opening from the caller was ``I want Reveal Codes''.
Well, sorry, but I'm 'lured' into this thread now. I tried to resist.
Yeah, it's a slippery slope. <g> <snip>
but what most people need is simply a WordProcessor. Yes, I still have Perfect Office installed on my Windows system and I very much prefer it over Office. Yes, reveal codes is one of the reasons, but I don't feel it is bloatware. It has what I need and it is where I can easily find
Oh, yes: in '95, PC Magazine ran a review of word processors, and noted that 90% of the people IN 1995 using word processors only used 10% of the features that were available then, and of the other 10% of the folks who did use the other features, they only used any of the 10% of the time. But if you add new bloat, er, features, you can try to sell people new versions of your package, and charge a lot more than just an extra features pack.
it. Also, Quattro runs circles around Excel in data handling and ease of use. Just try out the Quattro formula builder and you'll wonder what Microsoft was thinking when they built theirs for Excel.
I think they were thinking they were trashing Lotus 1-2-3. Remember the look-and-feel lawsuits? (Ghu, I *LOATHE* the way Excel, and scalc, the Excel clone, handle movement and editing.) <snip> mark
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 02:05:58PM -0500, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Oh, yes: in '95, PC Magazine ran a review of word processors, and noted that 90% of the people IN 1995 using word processors only used 10% of the features that were available then, and of the other 10% of the folks who did use the other features, they only used any of the 10% of the time. But if you add new bloat, er, features, you can try to sell people new versions of your package, and charge a lot more than just an extra features pack.
Finally, an explanation for emacs! ;-)
--keith
Keith Keller wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 02:05:58PM -0500, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Oh, yes: in '95, PC Magazine ran a review of word processors, and noted that 90% of the people IN 1995 using word processors only used 10% of the features that were available then, and of the other 10% of the
folks who
did use the other features, they only used any of the 10% of the time. But if you add new bloat, er, features, you can try to sell people new versions of your package, and charge a lot more than just an extra features pack.
Finally, an explanation for emacs! ;-)
ROTFLMAO! What, you mean the windowing operating system masquerading as a text editor?
mark "really *should* try to run Brief under wine, vastly smaller and great"
Bill Campbell wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 22:09 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 11/22/10 9:57 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 09:29:12PM -0500, Michael Semcheski wrote:
Windows only, unfortunately.
When did they stop publishing *nix versions? I worked extensively with that monstrosity 15-16 years ago on SCO / MWC Coherent.
I don't think they ever did a real native *nix verson - they had a slightly custom version of wine wrapped around the windows code. And
there was
some strange Microsoft involvement in the Corel company too - probably
why
you haven't heard much from them.
I'm pretty sure they did have such a version; WP was the first 'real' word processor available for LINUX. I ran it on a LINUX host and a dozen or so NCD X-terminals. It worked, but I can't imagine anyone having been a fan. It was slow, clunky, and just ugly.
Yup. And Corel put out a distro - I *have* it, on a CD, from about 10 years ago. Unfortunately, shortly after that, a group led by M$ bought a major chunk of Corel, and immeditely shut that all down. Deliberately. But then, it's not "alleged", since the court cases are long decided, that M$ paid and leaned on hardware manufacturers to only provide Windows & Office.
WordPerfect was available for SCO Xenix decades ago. I wrote a conversion program to convert Radio Shack Scripsit files to WP 4.3 which was pretty much the Lingua Franca of WP files in the
UGH! I wouldn't use WP before 5.0, and then it was really useable. <snip>
And as for reveal codes... OOo has a mode that displays non-printable characters. Beyond that I just don't see the point. OOo's document collaboration and versioning tools are far and away better than what I recall from WP.
WP users *LOVED* reveal codes as it allows people to see exactly what's going on under the hood, and even fix some things when the files get out of whack. I answered the phone one time, and the opening from the caller was ``I want Reveal Codes''.
Yup. A number of years ago, I wasted 20-25 min, because Dirt, er, Word didn't think "right justify this paragraph" was a code to be revealed.
The other thing is, think about what the display looked like under reveal codes on WP... and tell me it isn't almost 1:1 for HTML, maybe with a few codes labeled differently. Hmmmm, something that just hit me as I typed that: no one used Word before the mid-nineties, everyone was using WP... and I'll wager Sir Berners-Lee and others were using it also....
I have never used word processing programs for much of anything serious, using vim and groff or docbook xml for most things.
I've done lots of documents, documentation, and even some published articles in SysAdmin (before it sadly went under), and everyone wants word processing docs; up through the end of the nineties, it was all WP, then it shifted to *bleah* Word. <snip> mark
On 11/23/2010 12:55 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I have never used word processing programs for much of anything serious, using vim and groff or docbook xml for most things.
I've done lots of documents, documentation, and even some published articles in SysAdmin (before it sadly went under), and everyone wants word processing docs; up through the end of the nineties, it was all WP, then it shifted to *bleah* Word.
<snip>
I'm not exactly a word processing expert, but I always thought the trick to make Word tolerable was to never apply raw formatting to individual pieces of text but instead make some styles of your own so you can subsequently modify the style definitions and have it take effect throughout the document.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On 11/23/2010 12:55 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I have never used word processing programs for much of anything serious, using vim and groff or docbook xml for most things.
I've done lots of documents, documentation, and even some published articles in SysAdmin (before it sadly went under), and everyone wants word processing docs; up through the end of the nineties, it was all WP, then it shifted to *bleah* Word.
<snip>
I'm not exactly a word processing expert, but I always thought the trick to make Word tolerable was to never apply raw formatting to individual pieces of text but instead make some styles of your own so you can subsequently modify the style definitions and have it take effect throughout the document.
I dunno, that seems too complicated for me, esp. if I want to *emphasize* a single word, or ->a short phrase<-.
mark
On 11/23/2010 1:50 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
On 11/23/2010 12:55 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I have never used word processing programs for much of anything serious, using vim and groff or docbook xml for most things.
I've done lots of documents, documentation, and even some published articles in SysAdmin (before it sadly went under), and everyone wants word processing docs; up through the end of the nineties, it was all WP, then it shifted to *bleah* Word.
<snip>
I'm not exactly a word processing expert, but I always thought the trick to make Word tolerable was to never apply raw formatting to individual pieces of text but instead make some styles of your own so you can subsequently modify the style definitions and have it take effect throughout the document.
I dunno, that seems too complicated for me, esp. if I want to *emphasize* a single word, or ->a short phrase<-.
If you set more than one attribute (font type, size, bold, color, etc.) and use it twice you break even. Naming the style is the only extra work. If you get it wrong and change it, it's a win. In a big document where you used it many times its a big win.
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 11/23/2010 12:55 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
I have never used word processing programs for much of anything serious, using vim and groff or docbook xml for most things.
I've done lots of documents, documentation, and even some published articles in SysAdmin (before it sadly went under), and everyone wants word processing docs; up through the end of the nineties, it was all WP, then it shifted to *bleah* Word.
<snip>
I'm not exactly a word processing expert, but I always thought the trick to make Word tolerable was to never apply raw formatting to individual pieces of text but instead make some styles of your own so you can subsequently modify the style definitions and have it take effect throughout the document.
Well, if you know what a "style" is you are closer to being a word processing "expert" than many - because what you describe is the proper way to use a Word Processor and has been since far back into the hey day of products like WP.
It is always a bear to get users to use the Stylist (as OOo calls it, every word processor has an equivalent). But once you get them around that corner most of the problems disappear and they'll never choose to go back to hacks like highlight-click-bold. It is not more complicated, as they first always complain, its simpler and faster; and as the document grows *way* more managable - or, I take that back - it *is* manageble.
[always amused at people who have powerfully strong opinions about a category of applications rought one sentance after saying they almost never use them].
On 11/23/2010 2:12 PM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
Well, if you know what a "style" is you are closer to being a word processing "expert" than many - because what you describe is the proper way to use a Word Processor and has been since far back into the hey day of products like WP.
It is always a bear to get users to use the Stylist (as OOo calls it, every word processor has an equivalent). But once you get them around that corner most of the problems disappear and they'll never choose to go back to hacks like highlight-click-bold. It is not more complicated, as they first always complain, its simpler and faster; and as the document grows *way* more managable - or, I take that back - it *is* manageble.
The problem is that the GUI's make the individual formatting too easy to apply so people do it without thinking. No one would consider of using nroff/troff without a macro package and styles are pretty much the equivalent mapping of the high level concepts into the low level grunge that does the work.
Bit of info on WordPerfect and Linux. WP was ported to SCO Xenix by SDC of Utah in the early 90's. Several of us figured out how to get it running on Linux (1.0 or 1.2 series kernels, libc5) using the SCO libs and iBCS2 the old Intel binary compatible interface (I wrote the Linux WP mini-howto about 15 years ago).
The SDC version was WP 6 or 7. They later made native Linux versions of WP 7 and 8. There were several serious problems with macros and some stability problems which AFIK were never fixed.
In the late 90's, I wrote numerous long documents in WP on my Linux desktop! For long docs it was far better than Word.
Novel bought WordPerfect for $885M in 1993-94 and sold it to Corel for $185M in 1996. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPerfect
After Corel purchased WP, they stopped working with SDC (WP/UNIX/Linux was SDC's major contract if I recall correctly). Corel then released WP9 for Linux using Wine and also made a lot of improvements to wine in the process. This version was nearly identical to the Windows version but seemed slower and had stability issues.
However, when Microsoft bailed out Corel, Corel stopped shipping both Corel Linux and WP for Linux. This left a big hole in office suites and was a major impediment to Linux on the desktop for YEARS until OpenOffice came out and was stable (last few of years). A strategic move by Microsoft.
Some organizations still use WP (governments, medical, legal, etc.). Most have migrated to Word.
BTW, I wrote all the papers for my MBA using macros in DEC Runoff, spooled the papers to 9-track tape, and drove 1/2 mile to the other building to use the DG-controlled 20' long LASER printer.... Now my kids write all their High School & College papers using OpenOffice and print at home in color. Very different skill set and it gets the job done (less time learning the tool and more focusing on content).
Cheers, -- Wade Hampton
Wade Hampton wrote:
Bit of info on WordPerfect and Linux. WP was ported to SCO Xenix by SDC of Utah in the early 90's. Several of us figured out how to get it running on Linux (1.0 or 1.2 series kernels, libc5) using the SCO libs and iBCS2 the old Intel binary compatible interface (I wrote the Linux WP mini-howto about 15 years ago).
I think I found it when I tried to get SWP working on Linux about 10 years ago. Thank you, very much, for that. <snip> mark
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, Wade Hampton wrote:
The SDC version was WP 6 or 7. They later made native Linux versions of WP 7 and 8.
I still have a copy of WP 8; I haven't used it in years. The tar file is 28 MB in size. The Runme script says:
Available Platforms:
decalph hp9000 linux ncr rs6000 sco scodt sol86 solaris sunos
Enter Selection:
-Steve ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Thompson E-mail: smt AT vgersoft DOT com Voyager Software LLC Web: http://www DOT vgersoft DOT com 39 Smugglers Path VSW Support: support AT vgersoft DOT com Ithaca, NY 14850 "186,282 miles per second: it's not just a good idea, it's the law" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tuesday 23 November 2010 19:25:05 Les Mikesell wrote:
I'm not exactly a word processing expert, but I always thought the trick to make Word tolerable was to never apply raw formatting to individual pieces of text but instead make some styles of your own so you can subsequently modify the style definitions and have it take effect throughout the document.
If you push that idea to its extreme, you'll eventually end up with LaTeX. :-)
From my POV, the trick is essentially about pain/gain evaluation. If you are about to write one single document for your boss or someone, it is easier to fire up Word and use the "quick and dirty" raw formatting. And if you are facing a task of writing a thousand documents of the same type in the following year, it makes sense to invest some time and learn how to use styles and stuff. And yet if you are facing a task of properly typesetting, editing and publishing a book or a series of conference proceedings or several PhD theses full of music scores or something similar, it makes sense to invest a month or two and learn to use TeX.
The problem is that people start with small things, get used to doing things the "quick and dirty" way, and then are reluctant to change their habits when these start to backfire on them. And this is not just a word processing problem, it happens everywhere in life in general.
There is no "easy" way to do word processing --- you either go through a learning curve of doing things *properly*, or you end up creating lousy documents, regardless of the software you use. ;-)
:-) Marko
"ATW" == Adam Tauno Williams awilliam@whitemice.org
ATW> I'm pretty sure they did have such a version; WP was the ATW> first 'real' word processor available for LINUX. I ran ATW> it on a LINUX host and a dozen or so NCD X-terminals. It ATW> worked, but I can't imagine anyone having been a fan. It ATW> was slow, clunky, and just ugly.
At a previous job, we ran it on HP-UX (with lots of terminal sessions). Over time, most everyone ended up with Windows machines, but still with WordPerfect/PerfectOffice. By the time I left, there was a push to move to Word (I got out just in time!).
ATW> And as for reveal codes... OOo has a mode that displays ATW> non-printable characters. Beyond that I just don't see ATW> the point. OOo's document collaboration and versioning ATW> tools are far and away better than what I recall from WP.
These days I prefer LaTeX's reveal-codes feature, with collaboration and versioning provided via Subversion or git. ;-)
Claire
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Claire M. Connelly cmc@math.hmc.edu System Administrator, Dept. of Mathematics, Harvey Mudd College *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Les,
On 11/22/2010 06:13 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Is anyone following the news of the Novell sale and some mysterious 'intellectual property assets' that were transferred to a holding company controlled by Microsoft?
Did you really struggle to find a more appropriate place to discuss something like this ? :)
Lets try a bit harder to maintain focus on the list guys.
- KB
On 11/23/10 4:42 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Les,
On 11/22/2010 06:13 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Is anyone following the news of the Novell sale and some mysterious 'intellectual property assets' that were transferred to a holding company controlled by Microsoft?
Did you really struggle to find a more appropriate place to discuss something like this ? :)
Where is a group of people that might be more affected by the fallout? Not that there's much we can do about it...
On Tuesday, November 23, 2010 09:41 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 11/23/10 4:42 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Les,
On 11/22/2010 06:13 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Is anyone following the news of the Novell sale and some mysterious 'intellectual property assets' that were transferred to a holding company controlled by Microsoft?
Did you really struggle to find a more appropriate place to discuss something like this ? :)
Where is a group of people that might be more affected by the fallout? Not that there's much we can do about it...
Maybe KB wants a centos-offtopic list or something :-p
For those of us not in the US, perhaps we won't have to do anything about it if anything comes of this.
Hi,
On 11/23/2010 01:41 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Did you really struggle to find a more appropriate place to discuss something like this ? :)
Where is a group of people that might be more affected by the fallout? Not that there's much we can do about it...
Most of the conversation that has resulted from that post is irrelevant to this list or what we do here. Pretty much every impact you can imagine from here is imagination, guesstimate and fud.
Please keep off topic stuff away from this list. We have quite a nice signal:noise ratio and we've also had quite a few new people join up the lists and contribute to issues on and around CentOS, the technical ecosystem and help each other with centos specific stuff. Lets try and keep it to that.
- KB
-
Adam Tauno Williams -
Barry Brimer -
Bill Campbell -
C.M. Connelly -
Christopher Chan -
Digimer -
Drew -
Fajar Priyanto -
Frank Cox -
Geoff Galitz -
John Hinton -
John Kennedy -
John R. Dennison -
Joshua Baker-LePain -
Karanbir Singh -
Keith Keller -
Keith Roberts -
Les Mikesell -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Marko Vojinovic -
Michael Semcheski -
Niki Kovacs -
R P Herrold -
Robert Heller -
Stephen Harris -
Steve Thompson -
Toralf Lund -
Wade Hampton