From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 3 01:04:05 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6030916B421; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 01:03:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ps@mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CE5344D8B; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 00:56:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ps@mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1B5C461844; Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:17:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ps@mu.org Delivered-To: ps@mu.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [216.136.204.119]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EB435C9A5 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:24:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from hub.freebsd.org (hub.freebsd.org [216.136.204.18]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D659E5739C; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:24:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org) Received: from hub.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3AFC16A503; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:24:30 +0000 (GMT) Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29AFB16A4D0 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:24:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from www.centralpets.com (www.centralpets.com [216.15.161.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E6FC43D48 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:24:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cattonf@centralpets.com) Received: (qmail 23020 invoked from network); 23 Jan 2005 15:24:26 -0000 Received: from bark.centralpets.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by centralpets.com ([127.0.0.1]) with ESMTP via TCP; 23 Jan 2005 15:24:26 -0000 Received: from 203.151.40.252 (unverified [203.151.40.252]) by bark.centralpets.com (VisualMail 4.0) with WEBMAIL id 23018; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:24:26 +0000 From: "Frank Catton" To: current@freebsd.org Importance: Normal Sensitivity: Normal Message-ID: X-Mailer: Mintersoft VisualMail, Build 4.0.111601 X-Originating-IP: [203.151.40.252] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Errors-To: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on elvis.mu.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO autolearn=no version=3.0.1 X-Spam-Level: Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PAM pacthes we discuss X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 01:04:05 -0000 X-Original-Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:24:26 +0000 X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 01:04:05 -0000 I think Andrey is trying to be reasonable here, whether his changes are correct or not. You clearly are not. You need to learn that this is not DESBSD and you don't get to be an asshole anytime you like, no matter what the provocation. This is FreeBSD and this is -current. We have time to work this out if people are willing to behave reasonably. If you are not, the door is over there and you're free to use it at any time. Your contributions are appreciated, but not so appreciated that a continuing lack of interpersonal skills on your part will be tolerated. - Frank > "Andrey A. Chernov" writes: > > Could we arrange this without backing out? > > No. > > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org --------------------------------------------- This e-mail was sent using a CentralPets WebMail account Get yours at: http://mail.centralpets.com _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 6 02:28:45 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77D2E16A41C for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 02:28:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jbiquez@icsmx.com) Received: from krusty.intranet.com.mx (krusty.intranet.com.mx [200.33.246.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A44243D45 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 02:28:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jbiquez@icsmx.com) Received: from intranet.icsmx.com (t077.intranet.com.mx [200.33.246.77] (may be forged)) by krusty.intranet.com.mx (8.13.1/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j662bGLF072625 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 21:37:17 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from jbiquez@icsmx.com) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050705212648.01f50620@intranet.com.mx> X-Sender: jbiquez@mail.icsmx.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 X-Priority: 1 (Highest) Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:27:08 -0500 To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org From: Jorge Biquez Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: * A good and trusty Broker Company to recover a domain X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 02:28:45 -0000 Hello all. I have a friend that lost his domain name. Don ask me why, he just didn't pay for it. Anyway he need to get it back. Immediately after the redemption period the domain is to registered to: Registrar: COMPANA, LLC Whois Server: whois.budgetnames.com Referral URL: http://www.budgetnames.com Name Server: NS1.RENTALQUEUE.COM Name Server: NS2.RENTALQUEUE.COM Status: ACTIVE Updated Date: 24-feb-2005 Creation Date: 24-feb-2005 Expiration Date: 24-feb-2006 He is thinking on buying it but since he is not in USA he wants to have a company that could negotiate a good price and recover the domain for him. Any recommendations or suggestions based on previous experiences? Thanks in advance for all your help and comments. Take care, JB From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 6 03:08:36 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B72C16A41C for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 03:08:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dan@langille.org) Received: from nezlok.unixathome.org (nezlok.unixathome.org [66.154.97.250]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7381A43D49 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 03:08:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dan@langille.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nezlok.unixathome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2E956BD; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 20:08:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nezlok.unixathome.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nezlok.unixathome.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 52987-04; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 20:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bast.unixathome.org (CPE0004aca374af-CM0011e67a4a3b.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [70.26.229.230]) by nezlok.unixathome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E86A355CF; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 20:08:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wocker (wocker.unixathome.org [10.55.0.99]) by bast.unixathome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729663D37; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 23:08:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dan Langille" To: Jorge Biquez Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:08:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <42CB12E8.784.12654146@localhost> Priority: normal In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20050705212648.01f50620@intranet.com.mx> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.21c) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at unixathome.org Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: * A good and trusty Broker Company to recover a domain X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 03:08:36 -0000 On 5 Jul 2005 at 21:27, Jorge Biquez wrote: > Thanks in advance for all your help and comments. Don't accept the first price. Wait weeks or months before accepting their offer. I inquired, half-heartedly about a domain. I was originally quoted $1000s of dollars to buy it. Over the next few weeks, they kept emailing me, dropping the price each time. If I'd been interested, I could have had it for less than $100. -- Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/ BSDCan - The Technical BSD Conference - http://www.bsdcan.org/ From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 6 23:04:54 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF9D816A41C for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 23:04:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jbiquez@icsmx.com) Received: from krusty.intranet.com.mx (krusty.intranet.com.mx [200.33.246.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736B243D45 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 23:04:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jbiquez@icsmx.com) Received: from intranet.icsmx.com ([200.33.246.4]) by krusty.intranet.com.mx (8.13.1/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j66NDONq088745 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 18:13:24 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from jbiquez@icsmx.com) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050706180407.0ea19ad8@mail.icsmx.com> X-Sender: jbiquez@mail.icsmx.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 18:04:37 -0500 To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org From: Jorge Biquez In-Reply-To: <42CB12E8.784.12654146@localhost> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20050705212648.01f50620@intranet.com.mx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Subject: Re: * A good and trusty Broker Company to recover a domain X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 23:04:54 -0000 Hello all. Thanks for the comments. Seems like is not going to be easy or cheap get back that domain. The final user of the domain do not understand why someone took the domain and why now they are asking a lot of money for returning it back. The problem is that my fiend was , according to the user, the responsible of the lost. My friend is even in the mood of pay a reasonable amount to get it back and with that get a solution with this client. That's why he was looking for a broker company with experience on this and that could give results. Thanks a lot for all the time. I'll post the end of the story , if they recover the domain. Maybe this could help someone in the future. JB At 11:08 p.m. 05/07/2005 -0400, you wrote: >On 5 Jul 2005 at 21:27, Jorge Biquez wrote: > > > Thanks in advance for all your help and comments. > >Don't accept the first price. Wait weeks or months before accepting >their offer. > >I inquired, half-heartedly about a domain. I was originally quoted >$1000s of dollars to buy it. Over the next few weeks, they kept >emailing me, dropping the price each time. If I'd been interested, I >could have had it for less than $100. >-- >Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/ >BSDCan - The Technical BSD Conference - http://www.bsdcan.org/ > > >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 9 00:03:29 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E5A416A41C for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 00:03:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dmp@bitfreak.org) Received: from mail.bitfreak.org (mail.bitfreak.org [65.75.198.146]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4EDD43D46 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 00:03:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dmp@bitfreak.org) Received: from SMILEY (mail.bitfreak.org [65.75.198.146]) by mail.bitfreak.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B89519F3B for ; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 17:05:34 -0700 (PDT) From: "Darren Pilgrim" To: "'FreeBSD-Chat'" Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 17:03:26 -0700 Message-ID: <000f01c58419$a18fc590$0b2a15ac@SMILEY> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 Subject: How well-supported is the Dell PowerEdge 1800 (RAID, management, etc.)? X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 00:03:29 -0000 I'm looking at buying an off-the-shelf server, of which a Dell PowerEdge 1800 is an option. The features are what I want and the price is excellent, but of course Dell can't tell me how well it works with FreeBSD 5.x. I'm looking for: Success stores, gotchas, gripes. Is the SMB/BMC supported for the usual system monitoring (fans, temp, memory errors, etc.)? Does the amr driver produce/log a disk failure? From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 9 03:31:04 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: chat@Freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95A3016A41C for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 03:31:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dkelly@HiWAAY.net) Received: from smtp.knology.net (smtp.knology.net [24.214.63.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0963743D4C for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 03:31:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dkelly@HiWAAY.net) Received: (qmail 16502 invoked by uid 0); 9 Jul 2005 03:31:02 -0000 Received: from user-69-73-60-132.knology.net (HELO ?10.0.0.6?) (69.73.60.132) by smtp1.knology.net with SMTP; 9 Jul 2005 03:31:02 -0000 In-Reply-To: <9A4DB033-3EF6-498F-8DF7-FD402C8E5D9C@tamu.edu> References: <9A4DB033-3EF6-498F-8DF7-FD402C8E5D9C@tamu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <2D41F1BE-5813-4A04-A3B2-7AEF78D58FC5@HiWAAY.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: David Kelly Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 22:31:00 -0500 To: chat@Freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) Cc: "R. Tyler Ballance" Subject: Re: Software patents and FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 03:31:04 -0000 This doesn't belong on Questions or Hackers. On Jul 8, 2005, at 6:28 PM, R. Tyler Ballance wrote: > Howdy, > > i'll be meeting tuesday with staffers for my congressman (since > he's still in D.C.) to discuss software patents and the "evil" > behind them. There is absolutely nothing inherently evil about so-called "software patents." If an invention has honestly been made then it makes no difference whatsoever if its implemented in software or with gears and levers, the inventor deserves protection. The problem lies with the Patent Office for issuing patents for prior art. Funniest example I know of is "Method of Exercising a Cat" http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5443036.html. Its a laser pointer. Who hasn't played with a cat using a flashlight or mirror before laser pointers were invented? Another example is that the Patent Office used to new patents for old technology simply because the new claim specified a 10" disk drive rather than 12". This silliness was mostly resolved between 5-1/4" and 3-1/2". -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@HiWAAY.net ======================================================================== Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 9 04:23:52 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: chat@Freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB5B16A41C for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 04:23:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tyler@tamu.edu) Received: from smtp-relay.tamu.edu (smtp-relay.tamu.edu [165.91.143.199]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E20343D45 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 04:23:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tyler@tamu.edu) Received: from [165.91.46.6] (tamulink-0006.vpn.tamu.edu [165.91.46.6]) by smtp-relay.tamu.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j694NkU5036271 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Jul 2005 23:23:48 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <2D41F1BE-5813-4A04-A3B2-7AEF78D58FC5@HiWAAY.net> References: <9A4DB033-3EF6-498F-8DF7-FD402C8E5D9C@tamu.edu> <2D41F1BE-5813-4A04-A3B2-7AEF78D58FC5@HiWAAY.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "R. Tyler Ballance" Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 23:23:49 -0500 To: David Kelly X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) Received-SPF: pass (smtp-relay.tamu.edu: 165.91.46.6 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism) Cc: chat@Freebsd.org Subject: Re: Software patents and FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 04:23:52 -0000 > There is absolutely nothing inherently evil about so-called > "software patents." If an invention has honestly been made then it > makes no difference whatsoever if its implemented in software or > with gears and levers, the inventor deserves protection. > > The problem lies with the Patent Office for issuing patents for > prior art. Funniest example I know of is "Method of Exercising a > Cat" http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5443036.html. Its a laser > pointer. Who hasn't played with a cat using a flashlight or mirror > before laser pointers were invented? Doesn't the fact that the patent office is unable to check for prior art make software patents inherently evil? There is almost no plausible way, given the nature of the internet, to check for prior art in software. Especially if companies are trying to patent computing concepts, like email, or a web server, etc. > > Another example is that the Patent Office used to new patents for > old technology simply because the new claim specified a 10" disk > drive rather than 12". This silliness was mostly resolved between > 5-1/4" and 3-1/2". There is nothing wrong with being compensated for ones work, and own ideas; but given that in the new world of computing and software (relatively) it's damn near impossible to make sure that it is your _own_ ideas and work that you're trying to patent and play off as your own. -R. Tyler Ballance From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 9 08:22:14 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2CB016A41C for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 08:22:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from chu@h33.erkki.ton.tut.fi) Received: from h33.erkki.ton.tut.fi (h33.erkki.ton.tut.fi [193.166.84.86]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 745EE43D45 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 08:22:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from chu@h33.erkki.ton.tut.fi) Received: from [10.10.1.4] (helo=localhost) by h33.erkki.ton.tut.fi with esmtp (Exim 4.50 (FreeBSD)) id 1DrAYR-000Jn3-GO for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2005 11:19:19 +0300 Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 11:22:11 +0300 From: "Vladimir Chukharev" To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org References: Message-ID: Organization: @home In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera M2/8.01 (FreeBSD, build 1204) Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=utf-8 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: NFS, access problem [SOLVED] X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 08:22:15 -0000 Hi, I can happily report that latest -STABLE does not show the described behaviour. So, something was corrected within last month (next door Linux Ubuntu continues denying access to the same files). Thanks to everybody! -- V.Chukharev > Hi, > > I have a weird problem of access to files on an NFS-mounted > file system. I cannot read (and write to) files, which I think > I should be able to read and write. > > I checked everything what I can think of, but I cannot find > why access is denied. > > I tried to google the problem, no result. It is not FreeBSD > specific, nevertheless I will ask here. > > > What has been checked: > permissions, > owner and group, > that I belong to the group on both computers, > correspondence of the groups on the two computers, > correspondence of /etc/group to /etc/gshadow on the server (FC3/AMD64), > number of groups I belong to (6 on client, 7 (or 6 as a test) on server), > that SELinux on the server is disabled, > that the same is with a client under FreeBSD, Mandrake and Gentoo, > that /etc/exports on the server does not put any special restrictions, > that mount on the client is done without any special tricks, > that local system (i.e. FreeBSD) does not have flags on the files, > that there is no second name for the group, on both computers. > > > I am lost... What do I look at and do not see? > What else can be the reason? > > > A test case is prepared. One file belongs to group 'research', > another to group 'devel'. I cannot understand why I have no > access to the second file. > > > First, on the local machine (client). > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > chu@chu:/mnt/kemia/home/Research/Devel 09:38:10 $ cat test1 > This I can read and write locally and over NFS. > chu@chu:/mnt/kemia/home/Research/Devel 09:48:52 $ cat test2 > cat: test2: Permission denied > chu@chu:/mnt/kemia/home/Research/Devel 09:48:52 $ ls -Fail > total 24 > 12763141 drwxrws--- 4 chu devel 4096 Jun 29 22:00 ./ > 12763137 drwxr-sr-x 10 root research 4096 Jun 8 16:53 ../ > 12913617 drwxrws--- 21 chu devel 4096 Mar 1 11:31 Instr/ > 12914575 drwxrws--- 17 501 devel 4096 Mar 14 14:33 prog/ > 12770983 -rw-rw---- 1 root research 48 Jun 29 21:59 test1 > 12770877 -rw-rw---- 1 root devel 58 Jun 29 22:00 test2 > chu@chu:/mnt/kemia/home/Research/Devel 09:48:53 $ ls -Failn > total 24 > 12763141 drwxrws--- 4 540 1007 4096 Jun 29 22:00 ./ > 12763137 drwxr-sr-x 10 0 1001 4096 Jun 8 16:53 ../ > 12913617 drwxrws--- 21 540 1007 4096 Mar 1 11:31 Instr/ > 12914575 drwxrws--- 17 501 1007 4096 Mar 14 14:33 prog/ > 12770983 -rw-rw---- 1 0 1001 48 Jun 29 21:59 test1 > 12770877 -rw-rw---- 1 0 1007 58 Jun 29 22:00 test2 > chu@chu:/mnt/kemia/home/Research/Devel 09:48:53 $ grep -i chu /etc/group | wc -l > 6 > chu@chu:/mnt/kemia/home/Research/Devel 09:48:53 $ grep -iE '(devel)|(research)' /etc/group > research:*:1001:chu > devel:*:1007:nick,chu > chu@chu:/mnt/kemia/home/Research/Devel 09:48:53 $ uname -a > FreeBSD chu.xxx.xxx.xx 5.4-STABLE FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE #30: Mon Jun 20 19:39:44 EEST 2005 root@chu.xxx.xxx.xx:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/CHU i386 > chu@chu:/mnt/kemia/home/Research/Devel 10:07:35 $ grep kemia /etc/fstab > kemia.xxx.xxx.xx:/home /mnt/kemia/home nfs rw,bg,tcp,intr,soft,noauto 0 0 > chu@chu:/mnt/kemia/home/Research/Devel 10:16:13 $ grep chu /etc/passwd > chu:*:540:540:Vladimir Chukharev:/home/chu:/usr/local/bin/bash > -------------------- > > Now, on the remote server, which exports the FS. > ++++++++++++++++++++ > chu@kemia:/home/Research/Devel 09:53:46 $ cat test1 > This I can read and write locally and over NFS. > chu@kemia:/home/Research/Devel 09:53:49 $ cat test2 > This I can read and write only locally, but not over NFS. > chu@kemia:/home/Research/Devel 09:53:49 $ ls -Fail > total 24 > 12763141 drwxrws--- 4 chu devel 4096 Jun 29 22:00 ./ > 12763137 drwxr-sr-x 10 root research 4096 Jun 8 16:53 ../ > 12913617 drwxrws--- 21 chu devel 4096 Mar 1 11:31 Instr/ > 12914575 drwxrws--- 17 nick devel 4096 Mar 14 14:33 prog/ > 12770983 -rw-rw---- 1 root research 48 Jun 29 21:59 test1 > 12770877 -rw-rw---- 1 root devel 58 Jun 29 22:00 test2 > chu@kemia:/home/Research/Devel 09:53:49 $ ls -Failn > total 24 > 12763141 drwxrws--- 4 540 1007 4096 Jun 29 22:00 ./ > 12763137 drwxr-sr-x 10 0 1001 4096 Jun 8 16:53 ../ > 12913617 drwxrws--- 21 540 1007 4096 Mar 1 11:31 Instr/ > 12914575 drwxrws--- 17 501 1007 4096 Mar 14 14:33 prog/ > 12770983 -rw-rw---- 1 0 1001 48 Jun 29 21:59 test1 > 12770877 -rw-rw---- 1 0 1007 58 Jun 29 22:00 test2 > chu@kemia:/home/Research/Devel 09:53:49 $ grep -i chu /etc/group | wc -l > 7 > chu@kemia:/home/Research/Devel 09:53:49 $ grep -iE '(devel)|(research)' /etc/group > research:x:1001:nick,chu, [deleted] > devel:x:1007:nick,chu, [deleted] > chu@kemia:/home/Research/Devel 09:53:49 $ uname -a > Linux kemia.xx.xx.xx 2.6.10-1.770_FC3 #1 Thu Feb 24 18:09:38 EST 2005 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > chu@kemia:/home/Research/Devel 09:53:49 $ > chu@kemia:/home/Research/Devel 09:53:49 $ sudo grep -i chu /etc/gshadow | wc -l > 7 > chu@kemia:/home/Research/Devel 09:53:49 $ sudo egrep '(devel)|(research)' /etc/gshadow > research:::nick,chu, [deleted] > devel:::nick,chu, [deleted] > chu@kemia:/home/Research/Devel 09:53:49 $ cat /etc/exports > /home/Research xxx.xxx.xx.0/255.255.255.0(sync,rw) > /home/Public xxx.xxx.xx.0/255.255.255.0(sync,rw) > /home/users xxx.xxx.xx.0/255.255.255.0(sync,rw) > /home xxx.xxx.xx.0/255.255.255.0(sync,rw) > chu@kemia:/home/Research/Devel 10:07:20 $ grep chu /etc/passwd > chu:x:540:540:Vladimir Chukharev:/home/users/chu:/bin/bash > ---------------------- > > Note, that the deleted part of the group devel is shorter, than that of research. > It is not the cause of the problem, I tried to make it short. > > ANY ideas? Please? > > Best regards, From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 9 16:19:38 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: chat@Freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7D5416A41C for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 16:19:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dkelly@HiWAAY.net) Received: from smtp.knology.net (smtp.knology.net [24.214.63.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B24C43D4C for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 16:19:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dkelly@HiWAAY.net) Received: (qmail 16615 invoked by uid 0); 9 Jul 2005 16:19:36 -0000 Received: from user-69-73-60-132.knology.net (HELO ?10.0.0.6?) (69.73.60.132) by smtp6.knology.net with SMTP; 9 Jul 2005 16:19:36 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) In-Reply-To: References: <9A4DB033-3EF6-498F-8DF7-FD402C8E5D9C@tamu.edu> <2D41F1BE-5813-4A04-A3B2-7AEF78D58FC5@HiWAAY.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: David Kelly Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 11:19:33 -0500 To: chat@Freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) Cc: Subject: Re: Software patents and FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 16:19:38 -0000 On Jul 8, 2005, at 11:23 PM, R. Tyler Ballance wrote: > Doesn't the fact that the patent office is unable to check for > prior art make software patents inherently evil? There is almost no > plausible way, given the nature of the internet, to check for prior > art in software. Especially if companies are trying to patent > computing concepts, like email, or a web server, etc. The fact that its implemented in software doesn't change anything. There is no way any patent claim can cover all possible prior art, nobody ever claimed it could. A patent is not an absolute grant of license from the government, but a registration of claim of invention. That on initial investigation the government agrees that its likely one invented the claimed and a patent is issued. Then one must defend their patent against claimed infringement and in doing so puts the patent at risk. If the infringer demonstrates prior art then the patent becomes unenforceable. A patent grants the right to sue for 20 years in exchange for public disclosure as to the details of the invention. In exchange for that exclusivity after 20 years the disclosed claims of the invention is public domain and remains an easy reference of prior art. If one believes "software patents" are a problem then the solution is to amass a searchable library of documented prior art to nip the not-new- invention patent applications in the bud. Search a bit online, there are several projects doing exactly that. Software is nothing new to the patent process, its simply a different angle. There have always been those who claim patents are bad, that "everything has already been invented." On the other hand the only countries who grow their economies with innovation have strong patent laws. Nothing of significance is invented in the absence of patent protection. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@HiWAAY.net ======================================================================== Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 9 18:04:18 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B9D16A41C for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 18:04:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bryan.maynard@reallm.com) Received: from hosting.sourcit.net (mail3.eitsolutions.net [68.23.20.100]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C49EC43D45 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 18:04:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bryan.maynard@reallm.com) Received: (qmail 23031 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2005 13:04:17 -0500 Received: from al1-24.207.169.154.charter-stl.com (HELO ?192.168.1.100?) (24.207.169.154) by hosting.sourcit.net with SMTP; 9 Jul 2005 13:04:16 -0500 From: Bryan Maynard Organization: Sofos Nikitis To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:03:11 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 References: <9A4DB033-3EF6-498F-8DF7-FD402C8E5D9C@tamu.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200507091303.13823.bryan.maynard@reallm.com> Subject: Re: Software patents and FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 18:04:18 -0000 On Saturday 09 July 2005 04:19 pm, David Kelly wrote: > On Jul 8, 2005, at 11:23 PM, R. Tyler Ballance wrote: > > Doesn't the fact that the patent office is unable to check for > > prior art make software patents inherently evil? There is almost no > > plausible way, given the nature of the internet, to check for prior > > art in software. Especially if companies are trying to patent > > computing concepts, like email, or a web server, etc. > The fact that its implemented in software doesn't change anything. > There is no way any patent claim can cover all possible prior art, > nobody ever claimed it could. A patent is not an absolute grant of > license from the government, but a registration of claim of > invention. That on initial investigation the government agrees that > its likely one invented the claimed and a patent is issued. Then one > must defend their patent against claimed infringement and in doing so > puts the patent at risk. If the infringer demonstrates prior art then > the patent becomes unenforceable. Your points are good and valid - and look perfectly fine on paper. However, what you are not taking into consideration is: money. The legal teams present at companies like Mircosoft and Adobe would make it impossible for individuals - who usually truely "innovate" by making changes to "ideas", "concepts", and/or "products" already in use. The reason for putting innovate, ideas, concepts, and products is because these things are neither tangible not referenceable: who created the web server? Who created Object Oriented Programming? Kodak seems to think they did. They sued Sun - with that as their claim (Kodak claims to have invented the concept of: "two machines communicating in an Object Oriented way"). These stories 1 ::2 :: show one example of how a perfectly legal and, seemingly benign, patent could possibly destroy innovation not initiated or gaurded by a mega-corporation. There is no way most software companies could come up with $92 million to settle a patent infringement case. As anyone who has been involved in court will tell you, money walks. Layers can prove almost anything if they are paid enough - jury or no. This is where to reall threat from software patends comes from as I see it. > A patent grants the right to sue for 20 years in exchange for public > disclosure as to the details of the invention. In exchange for that > exclusivity after 20 years the disclosed claims of the invention is > public domain and remains an easy reference of prior art. If one > believes "software patents" are a problem then the solution is to > amass a searchable library of documented prior art to nip the not-new- > invention patent applications in the bud. Search a bit online, there > are several projects doing exactly that. > Software is nothing new to the patent process, its simply a different > angle. There have always been those who claim patents are bad, that > "everything has already been invented." On the other hand the only > countries who grow their economies with innovation have strong patent > laws. Nothing of significance is invented in the absence of patent > protection. Indeed you are correct; software is nothing new to the patent process. Something you miss is how the patents that have been granted to software have destroyed innovation for that product. "The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office historically has been reluctant to grant patents on inventions relating to computer software. In the 1970s, the P.T.O. avoided granting any patent if the invention utilized a calculation made by a computer. Their rationale was that patents could only be granted to processes, machines, articles of manufacture, and compositions of matter." --taken from: http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/history.html I am an Open Source prject owner. My project can be found at http://reallm .com . Personally, the problem I have with software patents is that they may potentially take tools I need out of my toolbox - and make it impossible to complete my project. The reason for this is that if a certain tool (Spring) needs to be patented, Ican no longer modify - or possibly even use - that tool. This is why licensing exists for software. Licensing protects the creator of an intellectual property against that property being used either without concent or in an unauthorized manner. That is all software is - an intellectual property. If you enter "define: software" into Google or search for "< a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software">software" at wikipedia.org you'll find that software has no physical presense whatsoever. Software, by definition, is an abstract concept. If patents are applied to software, at what level of astraction do we stop allowing patents? As Kodak has, so elequently, show - you can obtain a patent for: "two machines communicating in an Object Oriented way". This means that it is not only possible, but plausible and adventageous to patent the for loop and other computational constructs. Within a year all consrtucts of computing could, very realisticly, be patented. > -- > David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@HiWAAY.net > ======================================================================== > Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad. Before I close, I would like to return to my point on software licensing. One question: Why are movies not patented? Why are "types" of movies not patented? I am not talking about patenting "action" movies or "love" stories (although that would be possible using the logic of those who currently support software patents). I am talking about the patenting of documentable, movie formulas: 1.a) Boy meets girl 1.b) Boy falls in love with girl 1.c) Boy losses girl 1.d) Boy gets girl back 1.e) Boy and girl live happily ever after 2.a) Evil genius hates world 2.b) Evil genius makes plan to "make world pay/understand/suffer" 2.c) Evil genius begins preparations to implement plan 2.d) World power/commitee/government discovers Evil genius's plan 2.e) World power/commitee/government employes Hero to "save the day/world/daughter" 2.f) Hero (and possible sidekick/comic relief) embarks on mission 2.g) Evil genius cathces Hero (and possible sidekick/comic relief) 2.h) Evil genius prepares Hero (and possible sidekick/comic relief) for turture and death 2.i) Evil genius informs Hero (and possible sidekick/comic relief) of plans since there is nothing the Hero (and possible sidekick/comic relief) can do to stop him/her 2.j) Hero escapes 2.j.i) Sidekick/comic relief dies dramatically 2.j.ii) Sidekick/comic relief narrowlly escapes death, saved by Hero 2.k) Hero (and possible sidekick/comic relief - if saved) use information gathered from Evil genius's "monologue" to defeat Evil genius and save world/country/day 2.l) Hero is hansomly rewarded 2.l.i) Sidekick/comic relief - if saved - is hansomly rewarded also 2.l.ii) Sidekick/comic relief - if saved - is not rewarded (comic relief) 2.l.iii) Sidekick/comic relief - if notsaved - is fondly remembered by Hero 2.l.iv) Sidekick/comic relief - if not saved - is fondly remember by Hero and world/commitee/government/town/family Additional stipulation: patent holder reserves the right to insert male/female/animal at any point - for the purpose of increasing dramatic tension. That was a rather lengthy example, but very plausible is film makers and story tellres were allowed to patent their art. All the nasty, tangled, confusing questions surrounding software patents apply to movies as well: What about previous art? Where would patentability end - script pacing, story arch, catch-phrases, specific word arrangement, lighting configuration, camera anges, fade/wipe techniques. . . ? This is the exact reason that licensing was forst applied to film and televsion: allow artists maximum creative versatility while preserving specific instances of creator recongnition and defining specific and enforcable usage rights and restrictions. Licensing terms gaurantee IP creators and holders any and all desired rights to their creations. Patents take the concept of licensing one step further. For items that have specific physical designs, requirments, and implementations patents work very well: they provide the same level of protection and freedom that licensing grants to IPs. Many industries have this concept: use the right tool for the job. The converse is also a well-known idiom: When all you have is a hammer, everthing looks like a nail. This brings the issues of software patents info perfect focus: What is the proper tool for the job? There are a great variety of software licenses availible - thereallm is licensed under the CPL version 1.0. There are several benefits to licensing software: 1) The license can be changed at any time This means that, for a future version of thereallm, the license could be switched to the GPL, BSD, or any other license as needed. 2) The license itself ccan change and adapt The creator/maintainer of the CPL can change the license as they see fit at any time. Both of these things work very well for software since software is always changing and growing. By contrast, patents provide these benefits: 1) Patents are immutable Once granted, a patent stays the same and provides the same protection for the life of the patent. 2) Patents, and their terms, are created and maintained by the Government This means that patents are always the same and all patent related questions and issues can be taken to a single source. These benefits actually would provide no service for software. If, for example, a patented routine or software package was changed in a certain way the patent governing that routine or software would no longer be valid and another patent would need to be obtained. This brings up another issue with patents: they cost money. Licenses are free to develop, distribute, and enforce. Patents, however, require a great deal of financial resources to develop, distribute, and enforce (as tthe Kodak-Sun case proved). Again, this brings us back to the issue of using the proper tool for the given job. Patents are, indeed, not evil. They provide much-needed services in many sectors. However, they are simply not the proper tool for enforcing ownership of IPs. Licenses fit this need perfectly - for the reasons listed above. Thank you for your time. This is a lengthy comment on an important issue. If needed, you are wlcome to contact me at bryan.maynard@reallm.com . Again, thank you for your time - and I thank the other contributors to this topic for their opinions, insite, and dedication. Bryan -- Open Source: by the people, for the people. From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 9 20:31:12 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE03E16A41C for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 20:31:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dkelly@HiWAAY.net) Received: from smtp.knology.net (smtp.knology.net [24.214.63.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 279A943D48 for ; Sat, 9 Jul 2005 20:31:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dkelly@HiWAAY.net) Received: (qmail 24786 invoked by uid 0); 9 Jul 2005 20:31:11 -0000 Received: from user-69-73-60-132.knology.net (HELO ?10.0.0.6?) (69.73.60.132) by smtp8.knology.net with SMTP; 9 Jul 2005 20:31:11 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730) In-Reply-To: <200507091303.13823.bryan.maynard@reallm.com> References: <9A4DB033-3EF6-498F-8DF7-FD402C8E5D9C@tamu.edu> <200507091303.13823.bryan.maynard@reallm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <2BDDEF4D-C4F2-465F-B8C5-9841383466FB@HiWAAY.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: David Kelly Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 15:31:06 -0500 To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730) Subject: Re: Software patents and FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 20:31:12 -0000 On Jul 9, 2005, at 8:03 AM, Bryan Maynard wrote: > If patents are applied to software, at what level of astraction do > we stop > allowing patents? As Kodak has, so elequently, show - you can > obtain a patent > for: "two machines communicating in an Object Oriented way". This > means that > it is not only possible, but plausible and adventageous to patent > the for > loop and other computational constructs. Within a year all > consrtucts of > computing could, very realisticly, be patented. An invention implemented in software has long been patentable. Your "Within a year all consrtucts of computing could, very realisticly, be patented" is already demonstrated as unrealistic. Just because something can be abused there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Its pretty well documented that money can buy lawyers to make up == down, set Simpson, Jackson, and Scrushy free. The problem is not "software patents" but that fool patents are issued for existing art. Likely that is the case with the Kodak patent mentioned. It certainly is the case in "Method for Exercising a Cat." Another which comes to mind claimed a patent on numbering the frames for use as an index in a multimedia data file, as if film hasn't been marked with footage during manufacture the past 50 or 80 years. As I said earlier the wrongness is in considering software to be any different than any other implementation, just as in the past a 10" disk platter was considered fresh territory where 12" platter patents did not apply. > Before I close, I would like to return to my point on software > licensing. > > One question: Why are movies not patented? Why are "types" of > movies not > patented? I am not talking about patenting "action" movies or > "love" stories > (although that would be possible using the logic of those who > currently > support software patents). I am talking about the patenting of > documentable, > movie formulas: > > 1.a) Boy meets girl > 1.b) Boy falls in love with girl > 1.c) Boy losses girl > 1.d) Boy gets girl back > 1.e) Boy and girl live happily ever after The answer is very simple, "prior art." The screenwriter did not invent "boy meets girl." Or "boy meets boy." Or "boy meets dog." Or "boy meets alien." Copyright protection last much longer than patent and is easier to get. Especially when heavily borrowing from other's ideas. Yet when one borrows too much one must hire lawyers for defense. How much is too much? Well, the rich guys have to settle that with battling lawyers. Exactly the same as with patents. The wrongest solution is to deny a patent simply because it is implemented in software. The ideal solution would be to have better patent examiners, but "better" is anathema to government. USPO examiners are patent lawyers perpetually showing off to prospective employers at taxpayer's expense. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@HiWAAY.net ======================================================================== Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.