Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Did any one port blackbox to rPi?
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Avoi...@gmail.com
Mar 3, 2013, 12:51:18 AM3/3/13
to
I'm favourably impressed by the rPi system, which has chosen Debian as its
default OS. To me, the sound output [from a text-to-speech *.wav that I
created on a full size PC] is amazing. I used to read about 'sound cards',
but never had any. I'm wondering where the rPi's sound hardware is?
The fact that Debian didn't put `gpm` & `mc` in their must-have basic
installation always indicated that 'we don't think alike'.
So I'd like to start migrating over to ARM-Slakware.
But I don't want to walk in front.
Yes, I want YOU to walk in front.
BTW, for a-person-located-in-a-failed-state-needing-to-keep-lite-to-
be-able-flee-on-short-notice `blackbox` is a star window manager
and would really shine for rPi.
xfce claimed to be lightweight, but blackbox opens much faster,
and blackbox's menuing system if far superior IMO.
How is it that `fluxbox` claims to be an update on `blackbox`?
I spent a day using it, trying to find the claimed improvements,
but the menues seemed inferior. Often we miss good stuff, because we
can't taste-all-flavours. OTOH, following the herd can give poor results.
Is the WinTel monopoly ending?
== WDYS?
default OS. To me, the sound output [from a text-to-speech *.wav that I
created on a full size PC] is amazing. I used to read about 'sound cards',
but never had any. I'm wondering where the rPi's sound hardware is?
The fact that Debian didn't put `gpm` & `mc` in their must-have basic
installation always indicated that 'we don't think alike'.
So I'd like to start migrating over to ARM-Slakware.
But I don't want to walk in front.
Yes, I want YOU to walk in front.
BTW, for a-person-located-in-a-failed-state-needing-to-keep-lite-to-
be-able-flee-on-short-notice `blackbox` is a star window manager
and would really shine for rPi.
xfce claimed to be lightweight, but blackbox opens much faster,
and blackbox's menuing system if far superior IMO.
How is it that `fluxbox` claims to be an update on `blackbox`?
I spent a day using it, trying to find the claimed improvements,
but the menues seemed inferior. Often we miss good stuff, because we
can't taste-all-flavours. OTOH, following the herd can give poor results.
Is the WinTel monopoly ending?
== WDYS?
Keith Keller
Mar 3, 2013, 1:10:56 AM3/3/13
to
On 2013-03-03, Avoi...@gmail.com <Avoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>== WDYS?
STFU
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
>
>== WDYS?
STFU
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
Vlad D. Markov
Mar 3, 2013, 10:22:26 PM3/3/13
to
My experience with Debian on the rPi was that the Debian folks built
everything I wanted:
apt-get install blackbox
Their apt repository seems to be up and running.
The desktop Wintel monopoly doesn't bother me as much as the
Intel monopoly on the server. There used to be other chips,
and other Operating systems besides Unix and Windows (I include
Linux with Unix). Seems like a duopoly built on a monopoly
to me.
Peter Chant
Mar 12, 2013, 6:45:42 PM3/12/13
to
On 03/04/2013 03:22 AM, Vlad D. Markov wrote:
> The desktop Wintel monopoly doesn't bother me as much as the
> Intel monopoly on the server. There used to be other chips,
> and other Operating systems besides Unix and Windows (I include
> Linux with Unix). Seems like a duopoly built on a monopoly
> to me.
>
It will be interesting to see if arm based servers get any traction,
> The desktop Wintel monopoly doesn't bother me as much as the
> Intel monopoly on the server. There used to be other chips,
> and other Operating systems besides Unix and Windows (I include
> Linux with Unix). Seems like a duopoly built on a monopoly
> to me.
>
especially with Arm64 on the cards. I don't work in that industry
however so I've not got a good view of the implications.
Pete
Aragorn
Mar 12, 2013, 7:39:19 PM3/12/13
to
On Tuesday 12 March 2013 23:45, Peter Chant conveyed the following to
alt.os.linux.slackware...
> On 03/04/2013 03:22 AM, Vlad D. Markov wrote:
>
>> The desktop Wintel monopoly doesn't bother me as much as the
>> Intel monopoly on the server.
Intel doesn't really have a monopoly there. AMD is just as strong in
the server rooms, and in certain ways technologically better than Intel.
Yes, I know, it's all x86-64, but don't forget that Intel is currently
licensing the AMD64 patent (which they are still rebranding as EM64T),
as their original (Netburst) EM64T technology didn't work as expected.
>> There used to be other chips, and other Operating systems besides
>> Unix and Windows (I include Linux with Unix). Seems like a duopoly
>> built on a monopoly to me.
Chip-wise, the IBM PPC is still around, and of course so is the Sun
UltraSPARC (now owned by Oracle). SGI MIPS is also still around, albeit
to a lesser degree, but at the same time, the Chinese have developed a
new processor called Longsoon, which is based upon MIPS, and which is
already in use in both servers (and even supercomputers) on the one
hand, and workstations and laptops/notebooks on the other hand.
In fact, Richard Stallman only owns one computer, which is a notebook
powered by a Longsoon processor. One of the reasons why he picked that
is because all of its hardware is capable of working without requiring
binary firmware blobs.
On account of operating systems, OpenVMS still owns part of the server
market. Novell on the other hand has ported most of the technology from
Netware over to UNIX via SuSE, and its proprietary IPX/SPX protocol,
although still supported, has been supplanted now by the far more widely
spread TCP/IP.
The reason why UNIX - in which I also include GNU/Linux and the various
BSDs - is so popular in the server rooms is because it is a very robust,
flexible, scalable, portable and especially open and standards-compliant
operating system design, and the fact that both GNU/Linux and the BSDs
are Free Software allows for very cost-effective development of server
applications and deployment of server farms and networks.
IT businesses can reserve their proprietary UNIX versions for their own
proprietary hardware architectures and they don't have to invest any
resources in the development of the operating system itself, as that is
all being done for them across the internet by many more developers than
they can ever hope to put on their payroll. Both GNU/Linux and the BSDs
have already long proved their reliability and quality, and so it's more
interesting to companies like e.g. IBM to dedicate a few developers to
supporting the further development of the Linux kernel than for them to
have to port and test their own proprietary UNIX to the x86(-64)
architecture.
The future of proprietary UNIX is uncertain, though. One the one hand
it is gradually being phased out in favor of mainly GNU/Linux (and to a
lesser degree the BSDs), and on the other hand, I believe we are
currently in the eye of a big storm...
See, in the litigation between SCO and Novell, it was ruled by the court
that Novell was the legitimate owner of the AT&T Unix patents, but
Novell has in the meantime been sold to Attachmate, and its patent
portfolio to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium led by Microsoft.
It is my firm belief and expectation that Microsoft - who were
financially sponsoring SCO in its litigations against IBM and Novell on
at least three occasions, of which twice via a sock puppet company and
once directly - are squatting on the opportunity to get hold of those
UNIX patents, if not for the sake of once again starting some patent-
trolling [*] litigation with GNU/Linux as the target, then at the very
least to kill off UNIX and pave the way for a takeover of the server
rooms. After what they've done with UEFI on account of the x86-64
platform and ARM, I would be very surprised if they weren't to jump on
this opportunity as well.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Microsoft is not after the
money. That's what everyone thinks, but the money is only a red
herring. What Microsoft is after is the monopoly and the power that
comes with it.
[*] They have already been patent-trolling for ages, but up until a
few years ago, they had always been doing it via sock puppets,
such as the lawyer firm of Bill Gates's father or via Paul Allen
personally, or some other corporate Microsoft asset. Nowadays,
they seem very much in the business of patent-trolling under their
own name, to which end they are frantically buying up lots of
patent portfolios, and Microsoft's business competitors such as
Google are doing the exact same thing. Not that I trust Google,
but Google is fighting two wars at the same time: they're fighting
Microsoft and they're also fighting Apple.
> It will be interesting to see if arm based servers get any traction,
> especially with Arm64 on the cards. I don't work in that industry
> however so I've not got a good view of the implications.
There will definitely be server-based ARM64 implementations, but
although ARM64 has some interesting prospects, it does at the same time
also lack several technologies which are present in modern-day x86-64,
such as hardware-assisted virtualization support. Given the growing
popularity of "the cloud" - even if it only turns out a temporary hype
until the next "best thing ever" comes along - this is an important and
much-desired piece of technology today.
I therefore suspect that ARM64 will probably be deployed in the
construction of supercomputers and possibly also in rendering farms, but
it probably won't gain much ground in other areas than the embedded
devices market.
--
= Aragorn =
http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
alt.os.linux.slackware...
> On 03/04/2013 03:22 AM, Vlad D. Markov wrote:
>
>> The desktop Wintel monopoly doesn't bother me as much as the
>> Intel monopoly on the server.
the server rooms, and in certain ways technologically better than Intel.
Yes, I know, it's all x86-64, but don't forget that Intel is currently
licensing the AMD64 patent (which they are still rebranding as EM64T),
as their original (Netburst) EM64T technology didn't work as expected.
>> There used to be other chips, and other Operating systems besides
>> Unix and Windows (I include Linux with Unix). Seems like a duopoly
>> built on a monopoly to me.
UltraSPARC (now owned by Oracle). SGI MIPS is also still around, albeit
to a lesser degree, but at the same time, the Chinese have developed a
new processor called Longsoon, which is based upon MIPS, and which is
already in use in both servers (and even supercomputers) on the one
hand, and workstations and laptops/notebooks on the other hand.
In fact, Richard Stallman only owns one computer, which is a notebook
powered by a Longsoon processor. One of the reasons why he picked that
is because all of its hardware is capable of working without requiring
binary firmware blobs.
On account of operating systems, OpenVMS still owns part of the server
market. Novell on the other hand has ported most of the technology from
Netware over to UNIX via SuSE, and its proprietary IPX/SPX protocol,
although still supported, has been supplanted now by the far more widely
spread TCP/IP.
The reason why UNIX - in which I also include GNU/Linux and the various
BSDs - is so popular in the server rooms is because it is a very robust,
flexible, scalable, portable and especially open and standards-compliant
operating system design, and the fact that both GNU/Linux and the BSDs
are Free Software allows for very cost-effective development of server
applications and deployment of server farms and networks.
IT businesses can reserve their proprietary UNIX versions for their own
proprietary hardware architectures and they don't have to invest any
resources in the development of the operating system itself, as that is
all being done for them across the internet by many more developers than
they can ever hope to put on their payroll. Both GNU/Linux and the BSDs
have already long proved their reliability and quality, and so it's more
interesting to companies like e.g. IBM to dedicate a few developers to
supporting the further development of the Linux kernel than for them to
have to port and test their own proprietary UNIX to the x86(-64)
architecture.
The future of proprietary UNIX is uncertain, though. One the one hand
it is gradually being phased out in favor of mainly GNU/Linux (and to a
lesser degree the BSDs), and on the other hand, I believe we are
currently in the eye of a big storm...
See, in the litigation between SCO and Novell, it was ruled by the court
that Novell was the legitimate owner of the AT&T Unix patents, but
Novell has in the meantime been sold to Attachmate, and its patent
portfolio to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium led by Microsoft.
It is my firm belief and expectation that Microsoft - who were
financially sponsoring SCO in its litigations against IBM and Novell on
at least three occasions, of which twice via a sock puppet company and
once directly - are squatting on the opportunity to get hold of those
UNIX patents, if not for the sake of once again starting some patent-
trolling [*] litigation with GNU/Linux as the target, then at the very
least to kill off UNIX and pave the way for a takeover of the server
rooms. After what they've done with UEFI on account of the x86-64
platform and ARM, I would be very surprised if they weren't to jump on
this opportunity as well.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Microsoft is not after the
money. That's what everyone thinks, but the money is only a red
herring. What Microsoft is after is the monopoly and the power that
comes with it.
[*] They have already been patent-trolling for ages, but up until a
few years ago, they had always been doing it via sock puppets,
such as the lawyer firm of Bill Gates's father or via Paul Allen
personally, or some other corporate Microsoft asset. Nowadays,
they seem very much in the business of patent-trolling under their
own name, to which end they are frantically buying up lots of
patent portfolios, and Microsoft's business competitors such as
Google are doing the exact same thing. Not that I trust Google,
but Google is fighting two wars at the same time: they're fighting
Microsoft and they're also fighting Apple.
> It will be interesting to see if arm based servers get any traction,
> especially with Arm64 on the cards. I don't work in that industry
> however so I've not got a good view of the implications.
although ARM64 has some interesting prospects, it does at the same time
also lack several technologies which are present in modern-day x86-64,
such as hardware-assisted virtualization support. Given the growing
popularity of "the cloud" - even if it only turns out a temporary hype
until the next "best thing ever" comes along - this is an important and
much-desired piece of technology today.
I therefore suspect that ARM64 will probably be deployed in the
construction of supercomputers and possibly also in rendering farms, but
it probably won't gain much ground in other areas than the embedded
devices market.
--
= Aragorn =
http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157
+Alan Hicks+
Mar 14, 2013, 12:08:28 PM3/14/13
to
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2013-03-12, Aragorn <str...@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> See, in the litigation between SCO and Novell, it was ruled by the court
> that Novell was the legitimate owner of the AT&T Unix patents, but
> Novell has in the meantime been sold to Attachmate, and its patent
> portfolio to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium led by Microsoft.
>
> It is my firm belief and expectation that Microsoft - who were
> financially sponsoring SCO in its litigations against IBM and Novell on
> at least three occasions, of which twice via a sock puppet company and
> once directly - are squatting on the opportunity to get hold of those
> UNIX patents, if not for the sake of once again starting some patent-
> trolling
Factually incorrect. Novell was found to be the legitimate owner of the
UNIX _copyright_, not UNIX _patents_. In fact I'm unsure that there
even is such a thing as a UNIX patent. In order for those copyrights to
be of any use to Microsoft, MS would have to prove that the copyrighted
code A) exists in Linux and B) isn't part of openly available code such
as that under a BSD license or in the public domain before it was
included in the Linux kernel.
All-in-all the SCO lawsuit taught MS that attacking the Linux codebase
through copyrights was a complete WOMBAT[0]. They won't make that same
mistake twice. It is more likely that MS would attack Linux through the
patent system, claiming that legitimately copyrighted code in Linux
still violated one or more of their patents. Depending on the
particular section of code involved, this could be a real challenge. To
that end, there are non-profit companies and for-profit companies with
a vested interest in Linux's success that would counter sue with their
own patents.
Patents are all pretty much a total mess these days. Companies garner
patents the way the USA and USSR used to garner nuclear ballistic
missiles. They're largely a deterent on a scale of economic mutually
assured destruction.
[0] Don't know what that is? Type this into a terminal on any Slackware
box:
$ wtf is wombat
- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRQfX8AAoJEFjF6cqzLbBIJMIIALSYR7fd5KzcvLNwVq8BHFbS
ohI1QQD7xg5eUWeKY9NlI43L40Krm9PlwYv1azGKVSs6iFwUmXTeQCMZotYRwfwQ
+e+qaLjgtGBF4pSD3ChE4tDfen9IL8qpybBPm1vZSw5YOXFTbMAnfA5sHavBs8F5
J0qnIVLGy+FPqDjHbm8WXfWCyUcVZ+89JN38n/0C8VdZIUNQE12GQ8Oyi5yyYuLD
SGqEdQhZgH/+cjMwK8HVIIbNWC4cNKWvjBK2XFm80ymXCmgGatt4Zyuyg311ZIy2
z2q/x+apS9VjXXVC4gSAhK0pKsgouqljGx8jMElky/O8lPNSDbd8JrWd//OiZRQ=
=oLpO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2013-03-12, Aragorn <str...@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> See, in the litigation between SCO and Novell, it was ruled by the court
> that Novell was the legitimate owner of the AT&T Unix patents, but
> Novell has in the meantime been sold to Attachmate, and its patent
> portfolio to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium led by Microsoft.
>
> It is my firm belief and expectation that Microsoft - who were
> financially sponsoring SCO in its litigations against IBM and Novell on
> at least three occasions, of which twice via a sock puppet company and
> once directly - are squatting on the opportunity to get hold of those
> UNIX patents, if not for the sake of once again starting some patent-
> trolling
UNIX _copyright_, not UNIX _patents_. In fact I'm unsure that there
even is such a thing as a UNIX patent. In order for those copyrights to
be of any use to Microsoft, MS would have to prove that the copyrighted
code A) exists in Linux and B) isn't part of openly available code such
as that under a BSD license or in the public domain before it was
included in the Linux kernel.
All-in-all the SCO lawsuit taught MS that attacking the Linux codebase
through copyrights was a complete WOMBAT[0]. They won't make that same
mistake twice. It is more likely that MS would attack Linux through the
patent system, claiming that legitimately copyrighted code in Linux
still violated one or more of their patents. Depending on the
particular section of code involved, this could be a real challenge. To
that end, there are non-profit companies and for-profit companies with
a vested interest in Linux's success that would counter sue with their
own patents.
Patents are all pretty much a total mess these days. Companies garner
patents the way the USA and USSR used to garner nuclear ballistic
missiles. They're largely a deterent on a scale of economic mutually
assured destruction.
[0] Don't know what that is? Type this into a terminal on any Slackware
box:
$ wtf is wombat
- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRQfX8AAoJEFjF6cqzLbBIJMIIALSYR7fd5KzcvLNwVq8BHFbS
ohI1QQD7xg5eUWeKY9NlI43L40Krm9PlwYv1azGKVSs6iFwUmXTeQCMZotYRwfwQ
+e+qaLjgtGBF4pSD3ChE4tDfen9IL8qpybBPm1vZSw5YOXFTbMAnfA5sHavBs8F5
J0qnIVLGy+FPqDjHbm8WXfWCyUcVZ+89JN38n/0C8VdZIUNQE12GQ8Oyi5yyYuLD
SGqEdQhZgH/+cjMwK8HVIIbNWC4cNKWvjBK2XFm80ymXCmgGatt4Zyuyg311ZIy2
z2q/x+apS9VjXXVC4gSAhK0pKsgouqljGx8jMElky/O8lPNSDbd8JrWd//OiZRQ=
=oLpO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lew Pitcher
Mar 14, 2013, 12:25:07 PM3/14/13
to
Hi, Alan
On Thursday 14 March 2013 12:08, in alt.os.linux.slackware,
al...@lizella.netWORK wrote:
[snip]
bit, which is a piece of UNIX technology.
> Abstract of US4135240 (A)
> An improved arrangement for controlling access to data files by computer
> users. Access permission bits are used in the prior art to separately
> indicate permissions for the file owner and nonowners to read, write and
> execute the file contents. An additional access control bit is added to
> each executable file. When this bit is set to one, the identification of
> the current user is changed to that of the owner of the executable file.
> The program in the executable file then has access to all data files owned
> by the same owner. This change is temporary, the proper identification
> being restored when the program is terminated.
IIRC, afterwards, he placed the patent in the public domain.
[snip]
--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
On Thursday 14 March 2013 12:08, in alt.os.linux.slackware,
al...@lizella.netWORK wrote:
[snip]
> Factually incorrect. Novell was found to be the legitimate owner of the
> UNIX _copyright_, not UNIX _patents_. In fact I'm unsure that there
> even is such a thing as a UNIX patent.
I don't know about /UNIX/ patents, but Dennis Ritchie /did/ patent the SUID
> UNIX _copyright_, not UNIX _patents_. In fact I'm unsure that there
> even is such a thing as a UNIX patent.
bit, which is a piece of UNIX technology.
> Abstract of US4135240 (A)
> An improved arrangement for controlling access to data files by computer
> users. Access permission bits are used in the prior art to separately
> indicate permissions for the file owner and nonowners to read, write and
> execute the file contents. An additional access control bit is added to
> each executable file. When this bit is set to one, the identification of
> the current user is changed to that of the owner of the executable file.
> The program in the executable file then has access to all data files owned
> by the same owner. This change is temporary, the proper identification
> being restored when the program is terminated.
IIRC, afterwards, he placed the patent in the public domain.
[snip]
--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
Chris Vine
Mar 17, 2013, 10:39:45 AM3/17/13
to
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:08:28 +0000
+Alan Hicks+ <al...@lizella.netWORK> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2013-03-12, Aragorn <str...@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> > See, in the litigation between SCO and Novell, it was ruled by the
> > court that Novell was the legitimate owner of the AT&T Unix
> > patents, but Novell has in the meantime been sold to Attachmate,
> > and its patent portfolio to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium led by
> > Microsoft.
> >
> > It is my firm belief and expectation that Microsoft - who were
> > financially sponsoring SCO in its litigations against IBM and
> > Novell on at least three occasions, of which twice via a sock
> > puppet company and once directly - are squatting on the opportunity
> > to get hold of those UNIX patents, if not for the sake of once
> > again starting some patent- trolling
>
> Factually incorrect. Novell was found to be the legitimate owner of
> the UNIX _copyright_, not UNIX _patents_. In fact I'm unsure that
> there even is such a thing as a UNIX patent. In order for those
> copyrights to be of any use to Microsoft, MS would have to prove that
> the copyrighted code A) exists in Linux and B) isn't part of openly
> available code such as that under a BSD license or in the public
> domain before it was included in the Linux kernel.
Those are some of the things that SCO had to prove to win its case (as
+Alan Hicks+ <al...@lizella.netWORK> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2013-03-12, Aragorn <str...@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> > See, in the litigation between SCO and Novell, it was ruled by the
> > court that Novell was the legitimate owner of the AT&T Unix
> > patents, but Novell has in the meantime been sold to Attachmate,
> > and its patent portfolio to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium led by
> > Microsoft.
> >
> > It is my firm belief and expectation that Microsoft - who were
> > financially sponsoring SCO in its litigations against IBM and
> > Novell on at least three occasions, of which twice via a sock
> > puppet company and once directly - are squatting on the opportunity
> > to get hold of those UNIX patents, if not for the sake of once
> > again starting some patent- trolling
>
> Factually incorrect. Novell was found to be the legitimate owner of
> the UNIX _copyright_, not UNIX _patents_. In fact I'm unsure that
> there even is such a thing as a UNIX patent. In order for those
> copyrights to be of any use to Microsoft, MS would have to prove that
> the copyrighted code A) exists in Linux and B) isn't part of openly
> available code such as that under a BSD license or in the public
> domain before it was included in the Linux kernel.
well as ownership of the copyrights). That cannot now be done. Novell
was held to have owned the copyrights after all. Novell for a number
of years, including during the period it was asserting (as it turned
out correctly) that it owned the copyrights, released the linux kernel,
including with any of the copyrighted material owned by it, under the
GPL via its wholly owned subsidiary Suse [1].
This is now a dead-end legally, as well as practically.
Chris
[1] SCO also had to deal with the defence made by IBM that SCO had
also released the allegedly infringing code under the GPL via Caldera
linux. SCO responded that they did so unknowingly. If the
breach of copyright claims in the IBM case had come to trial, they
would probably have lost since lack of knowledge is not in general an
answer where Caldera/SCO had chosen to market a similar product
(linux) of that kind.
0 new messages