Just a little article I came across in the Bangkok Post I.T. Database today.
The article can be found at
Wanda Sloan (Sloan Ranger) has also done a review on Netscape 8 in late
beta stage which has an IE rendering engine for sites that don't render
properly in the Mozilla engine, which can be found here.
Patent grabbing could harm the Internet
The US Patent Office seems to be granting patents for just about
anything these days
It was discovered recently by the Public Patent Foundation (Pubpat) that
Microsoft had filed a patent application for something very similar to
IPv6, which is to be the next generation of the Internet Protocol. This
kind of patent grabbing can only damage the Internet as a whole. Over
the past few years some companies have been trying to get as many
patents as they could registered by the US Patent Office, which seems to
have been going through a period where they granted everything.
They probably won't ever assert the patent, especially since they forgot
to mention any of the work done by the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF) on the process, but like SCO's efforts it could keep a few
companies in line who might be worried about Microsoft ever trying to.
Pubpat at http://www.pubpat.org is a group that works to protect the
public from damage caused by poor implementation of the patent system.
Patent number 6101499, "Method and computer program product for
automatically generating an Internet Protocol (IP) address," was issued
to Microsoft in 2000.
By granting these types of patents the Patent Office is essentially
supporting the monopolistic nature of a company like Microsoft and at
the same time reducing the chances that the next generation of standards
will be good ones.
In this case the MS employees listed as the inventors were on the IPv6
committee of the IETF, the real inventors of the system. Ironically, in
other recent news Microsoft has demanded reform of the US patent system
to improve patent quality.
How do we delete pages on the Wiki or do only certain people possess
this power to stop most plebs trashing our site? I was just looking at
tidying up bits and pieces and can't find this info.
I did RTFM and did look at the FAQ:
and found nothing (I will edit FAQ after I get an answer).
I will be removing my self from this mailing list today.
The amount of junk has now exceeded the amount of value.
From: Daniel Lawson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tue 5/04/2005 11:58
To: Waikato Linux Users Group
Subject: Re: [wlug] Mailing list etiquette (was Re: Sudo)
>>Also, many people read mailing lists in digest form. HTML (and other
>>formats) tend to break in digest mode.
> I hope you won't take offense, but this seems like the only good reason
> to me. Surely, in the year 2005, when the HTML 4 spec has been around
> for eight years and has been commonly used to style emails for not much
> less time than that, it is reasonable to assume that any mail reader can
> parse it?
No, it's not reasonable at all. Especially not for a mailing list which
will have a high rate of people using command line only mail clients, or
perhaps self-written mail clients. And people using telnet to read mail.
It will happen, if only because it's *this* group of people.
> From a purist point of view, I agree that emails should be in plain
> text. The reason I style them is because I like them to look pretty for
So do it?
> less computer-savvy types who I regularly email, who don't know how to
> style things on their end. Additionally, there are some things that
> plain text simply won't do, and which I do occasionally use (lists being
I can do lists very easily in plain text:
* This is an example of a list
* This is a second entry in a list, which has a longer line which I
* And here we have a third entry in a list
* Look, I can do sublists too!
> I'm not meaning to stir or be a pest; I just don't understand why any
> mail client in use today would not support HTML; or why people would
> turn it off? Surely, unless you're using OE, security isn't a problem.
> People seem to manage browsing the web without issues, and that's a far
> less controlled and predictable environment than email.
Just because *you* use a mail client that supports HTML emails, does not
mean every one *else* does. As I've said, this is mitigated by
configuring your client to send an HTML block and a plain text block,
however your client was not originally configured to do this, which is
*probably* what prompted the "fix your client" thing anyway.
> So, as I asked before with my sudo question, what am I missing? Are
> people just pig-headed snobs who like to feel wronged and stand out as
> martyrs for the Old School?
HTML emails are horrible, plain and simple. All it takes is getting mail
from someone using Incredimail for you to see the truth in this statement.
wlug mailing list | wlug(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
> > Have you considered using pscp from
> > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/
> > I have found the putty suite to be very useful under windows and doing
> > an scp transfer should get around any possible issues with samba and
> > at least narrow down the possible cause of the problem if it still
> > fails.
> On a side note, pscp is god awful slow - feels like half the speed of Linux
> scp, and of course these are both slower than smb due to the encryption
> overhead. Useful, sure, but very slow. WinSCP is no better as it uses
> PuTTY's encryption code.
Still FTP (vsftpd is nice) is an option and one I use on my samba server for big transfers... dunno why, but samba is slow to transfer anything over 1GB is a single file or a collection of smaller files.
I am running a machine with RH 7.1, samba-2.0.10
I moving some large files from a Windows XP machine to the large amount
of diskspace that is available ont he Linux machine.
Files that are larger than 4GB fail to copy. Once the progress reaches
4GB windows prompts you if you wish to overright the exisiting file.
I am already planning on installing a newer release on the linux box,
probably Fedora Code 3 (or 4, as It will probably be out by the time I
get around to it).
I would like to know if any of you have successfully copied files larger
than 4GB from a Windows machine to a recent build on samba. I'm not
sure if it's Samba, Windows XP or the SMB protocol that is limited at
4GB. I realy don't care either, but I would like to know if this will
work, it might motivate me to upgrade a little faster ;-)
Anyone with FC3 able to confirm that this has worked.
After Rodney Hide spoke to us last year, he suggested that our most
effective tool for advocacy would be to formulate a list of
parliamentary questions. A good explanation of the usefulness of these
can be found here:
Mr. Hide has offered to put our questions forward, but at the moment
they are a tad incoherent. Could we have some keen volunteers to edit
Be brutal. Don't worry about retaining comments - they are retained in
the wiki's revision history. I'd really like to submit these in "ready
to ask" form to Mr. Hide by the end of this month.
Please note: The WLUG has no political affiliation with ACT or any
other political party, but we know a useful tool when we see one. :)
Please don't submit these questions yourself, as we would like them to
all be submitted together from a single point of contact to maximise
I'm wondering if someone can explain the rationale behind sudo. Ubuntu
uses sudo by default, rather than having normal root access, although
you can use root access if you wish. This is supposedly done with
security in mind, but I don't see how it makes things more secure. It
seems to me that allowing a user to execute commands which require root
privileges, without having the root password, is really dangerous. For
example, logged in as bnonn I can execute:
$ sudo passwd root
And change the root password. This doesn't seem secure to me!
What am I missing?
> I am running a machine with RH 7.1, samba-2.0.10
> I moving some large files from a Windows XP machine to the large amount
> of diskspace that is available ont he Linux machine.
> Files that are larger than 4GB fail to copy. Once the progress reaches
> 4GB windows prompts you if you wish to overright the exisiting file.
> I am already planning on installing a newer release on the linux box,
> probably Fedora Code 3 (or 4, as It will probably be out by the time I
> get around to it).
> I would like to know if any of you have successfully copied files larger
> than 4GB from a Windows machine to a recent build on samba. I'm not
> sure if it's Samba, Windows XP or the SMB protocol that is limited at
> 4GB. I realy don't care either, but I would like to know if this will
> work, it might motivate me to upgrade a little faster ;-)
> Anyone with FC3 able to confirm that this has worked.
Possible some sort of file size limit.. not sure.
Is it possible to setup a ftp server and copy them off?
At 15:27 5/04/2005, you wrote:
>I will be removing my self from this mailing list today.
>The amount of junk has now exceeded the amount of value.
I don't appreciate receiving this kind of junk from mailing lists.
Please stop sending it to this list.