Subject: [os2genau_digest] No. 979
From: Digest <deadmail>
To: "OS/2GenAu Digest"<deadmail>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:01:10 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600

**************************************************
Saturday 13 November 2004
 Number  979
**************************************************

Subjects for today
 
1  Re:  Linux vs OS/2-eCS : Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut at hccnet.nl>
2  Re:  Linux vs OS/2-eCS : Ian Manners" <deadmail>
3  Re:  Linux vs OS/2-eCS : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
4  Re:  Cable Broadband : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
5  Re:  Linux vs OS/2-eCS : Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut at hccnet.nl>
6  Re:  Linux vs OS/2-eCS : Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
7  Re:  Linux vs OS/2-eCS : nickl at pacific dot net dot au
8  Re:  Linux vs OS/2-eCS : Voytek Eymont" <voytek at sbt dot net dot au>
9  Re:  Linux vs OS/2-eCS : Voytek Eymont" <voytek at sbt dot net dot au>
10  Re:  Linux vs OS/2-eCS : Dennis Nolan <dennik at swiftdsl dot com dot au>
11   Logic or Humour? : John Angelico" <talldad at kepl dot com dot au>
12  Re:  Logic or Humour? : David Shearer" <dshe5874 at bigpond dot net dot au>
13  Re:  Logic or Humour? : Voytek Eymont" <voytek at sbt dot net dot au>
14  Re:  Logic or Humour? : John Angelico" <talldad at kepl dot com dot au>

**= Email   1 ==========================**

Date:  Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:11:44 +0100
From:  Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut at hccnet.nl>
Subject:  Re:  Linux vs OS/2-eCS

Ed Durrant schreef:

>  And don't forget the still open legal issues ! If it is proved that Linux includes
>"stolen" code, people using it could effectively be considered as accepting stolen
>goods (the fact that they didn't know it was stolen is no defence).
>
>  
>
I'm afraid you better talk to your laywer prior making odd statements 
like that.

-- 
Groeten uit Gent,

   Kris

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   2 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 13 Nov 2004 02:42:30 +1100 (EDT)
From:  "Ian Manners" <deadmail>
Subject:  Re:  Linux vs OS/2-eCS

Hi Kris and Ed

> >  And don't forget the still open legal issues ! If it is proved that Linux includes
> >"stolen" code, people using it could effectively be considered as accepting stolen
> >goods (the fact that they didn't know it was stolen is no defence).
> >
> I'm afraid you better talk to your laywer prior making odd statements 
> like that.

I think if Ed and others read groklaw <http://www.groklaw dot net/> that they
will quickly form the idea that it is a certain large software company based
in seattle thats behind what SCO did, and that SCO has basically shot itself
several times, and strangly enough, is continuing to shoot itself :-)

The issue's have already been decided and it just needs to play out in
court now between SCO, IBM, Novell, Redhat, and a few other sundry
players.

It's already been proven that Linux has no stolen code, and that infact
according to the original agreements between AT&T and IBM, IBM can
add what ever it wants to UNIX/AIX and it remains IBM's property, and
not AT&T's, or its successors Novell and/or SCO. IBM can also therefore
donate what ever it owns to another entity in what ever form it likes, with
whatever license it wants to use.

I think its also been proven to many peoples satisfaction that the GPL is
not a communist threat, and is also not an aid to world terrorism.

JFS, SMP, and a few other things are not SCO's property, never were, and
in all likelyhood never will be.

As for the other assertions of SCO's, the only code they have shown the
courts so far that are the same in UNIX and LINUX are things like header
library files to do with error correction and logging that are even included
in the IBM Toolkit, and can be found in forms of software simply because
there is really only so many ways that you can say 1+6=7

If SCO were successful in there bit, then everyone would have to pay a
royalty to SCO if they use the concept of things like :-

If condition A happens, then do condition G.
ie, "IF error.log exists then ren error.log error'date'.log"

Now, the obvious problem for SCO here is that prior art exists many years
before UNIX was developed ;-)

Gee's Kris, you got me going....

Cheers
Ian Manners
http://www.os2site dot com/

Double your disk space.  Delete Windows & its apps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   3 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 13 Nov 2004 07:01:20 +1100
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Linux vs OS/2-eCS

Note the use of the words "if" and "could" .....

But point taken.

Cheers/2

Ed.

Kris Steenhaut wrote:

> Ed Durrant schreef:
>
> >  And don't forget the still open legal issues ! If it is proved that Linux includes
> >"stolen" code, people using it could effectively be considered as accepting stolen
> >goods (the fact that they didn't know it was stolen is no defence).
> >
> >
> >
> I'm afraid you better talk to your laywer prior making odd statements
> like that.
>
> --
> Groeten uit Gent,
>
>    Kris
>

>  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   4 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 13 Nov 2004 07:04:00 +1100
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Cable Broadband

Paul Smedley wrote:

> Hi Ed,
>
> Ed Durrant wrote:
> > When the link stops, the rest of the router is OK and I only need to do a disconnect
> > and re-connect via the Web Interface (effectively a logoff - logon), so this may not
> > be the same problem your friend has.
>
> I had the same issue with my Netgear WGR614v2 - for a while there I even
> disabled the login on the router and had bpalogin running on the desktop
> but still using the router for wireless.
>
> The Telstra heartbeat server is sporadically not sending the regular
> heartbeat - bpalogin and the telstra login automatically log back in if
> the heartbeat is not received - most routers don't.
>
> Mine is much better since I change the frequency used by the cable modem
> - how to do this depends which cable modem you have...  there were
> thread on Whirlpool about this.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul.

  The router does have a "reconnect" option however it's an either or, situation - Dial on
Demand with reconnect or permanent connected, I think - I'll recheck.

  Unfortunately I have the older Docis modem a CM115 which cant change frequency channels.

Cheers/2

Ed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   5 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 13 Nov 2004 00:55:18 +0100
From:  Kris Steenhaut <kris.steenhaut at hccnet.nl>
Subject:  Re:  Linux vs OS/2-eCS

Ian Manners schreef:

>will quickly form the idea that it is a certain large software company based
>in seattle thats behind what SCO did, and that SCO has basically shot itself
>several times, and strangly enough, is continuing to shoot itself :-)
>
>  
>
I do know that for many years already.

What I was saying was and is, "to  steal" is a criminal act and stolen 
goods are in the state of stolen as a result of a criminal act.

WHEREAS, if we are speaking  (supposed we do know what we are speaking  
about)  about  undue use of software and all what might be around it, we 
are speaking about CIVIL matters and civil law. Hence there never can be 
any mention of thiefs stolen goods.

And by the way, dunno how it fares in oz criminal legislation, but if my 
car is stolen and the thief sells my car to someone _really_ not knowing 
the car was stolen, I can forget about my car. At best I can hope to 
retrieve the money the thief got from the deal.
Criminal laws do differ in different countries, but what I'm describing 
above is the rule in most EU countries.

>The issue's have already been decided and it just needs to play out in
>court now between SCO, IBM, Novell, Redhat, and a few other sundry
>players.
>
>  
>
Whatever the outcome is, it's a civil case, and there never can be any 
ruling about "stolen goods".

>It's already been proven that Linux has no stolen code,
>
There was never an allegation about stolen code, remember, it was, it 
still is a CIVIL matter appearing in CIVIL courts.

> and that infact
>according to the original agreements between AT&T and IBM, IBM can
>add what ever it wants to UNIX/AIX and it remains IBM's property, and
>not AT&T's, or its successors Novell and/or SCO. IBM can also therefore
>donate what ever it owns to another entity in what ever form it likes, with
>whatever license it wants to use.
>
>  
>
Of course. But even if it was the opposite, there never could be any 
ruling about "stolen goods" for the very good reason only CRIMINAL 
courts can rule in such matters.

>I think its also been proven to many peoples satisfaction that the GPL is
>not a communist threat, and is also not an aid to world terrorism.
>
>  
>
According to Mr Bush and his British and OZ allies it is, but that's an 
entire other matter <G>.

>JFS, SMP, and a few other things are not SCO's property, never were, and
>in all likelyhood never will be.
>
>  
>
Well, we have to grant it to them, they never made a complaint about 
theft(s).

-- 
Groeten uit Gent,

   Kris

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   6 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:10:33 +1100
From:  Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Linux vs OS/2-eCS

Kris Steenhaut wrote:

> Ian Manners schreef:
>
> And by the way, dunno how it fares in oz criminal legislation, but if my
> car is stolen and the thief sells my car to someone _really_ not knowing
> the car was stolen, I can forget about my car. At best I can hope to
> retrieve the money the thief got from the deal.
> Criminal laws do differ in different countries, but what I'm describing
> above is the rule in most EU countries.

In the UK it used to be that the person buying the stolen car, would lose out on the
whole deal (and possibly face charges themselves, if it could be proved that they new
the car was stolen). The "real" owner would get the car back (which might not be what
they wanted as they've probably already been paid out by the Insurance company and
have to pay that money back). If the "Euro-Law" now overrides the British Law, it's
probably an improvement. I don't know how the Australian Law stands, it could even be
different on a state by state basis however since *in general* the Australian Law was
originally based on the UK Law, I would suspect it is the same as I described above.
i.e. it is the duty of the purchaser to ensure the car is not stolen (or still owes
money on a lease or Hire Purchase agreement).

Cheers/2

Ed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   7 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:31:59 +0800
From:  nickl at pacific dot net dot au
Subject:  Re:  Linux vs OS/2-eCS

Hi All.

In <41955F09.EA788668 at bigpond dot net dot au>, on 11/13/2004 
   at 12:10 PM, Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au> said:

>Kris Steenhaut wrote:

>> Ian Manners schreef:
>>
>> And by the way, dunno how it fares in oz criminal legislation, but if my
>> car is stolen and the thief sells my car to someone _really_ not knowing
>> the car was stolen, I can forget about my car. At best I can hope to
>> retrieve the money the thief got from the deal.
>> Criminal laws do differ in different countries, but what I'm describing
>> above is the rule in most EU countries.

>In the UK it used to be that the person buying the stolen car, would lose
>out on the whole deal (and possibly face charges themselves, if it could
>be proved that they new the car was stolen). The "real" owner would get
>the car back (which might not be what they wanted as they've probably
>already been paid out by the Insurance company and have to pay that money
>back). If the "Euro-Law" now overrides the British Law, it's probably an
>improvement. I don't know how the Australian Law stands, it could even be
>different on a state by state basis however since *in general* the
>Australian Law was originally based on the UK Law, I would suspect it is
>the same as I described above. i.e. it is the duty of the purchaser to
>ensure the car is not stolen (or still owes money on a lease or Hire
>Purchase agreement).

>Cheers/2

>Ed.

Here in W.A., we have a thing called REVS. You can call to see if there's
money owing on a potential purchase. That *may* solve the problem of
"receiving stolen goods".

However if you buy privately, you are "on your own" if you haven't
contacted REVS. If you buy from a Dealer, his Dealer License Number
(DLxxxx) *should* isolate you from that.

Hope that helps.

NICK

> 

-----------------------------------------------------------
nickl at pacific dot net dot au
-----------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   8 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:42:38 +1100 (EST)
From:  "Voytek Eymont" <voytek at sbt dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Linux vs OS/2-eCS

Ed Durrant said:
> Kris Steenhaut wrote:
>> Ian Manners schreef:
>>
>> And by the way, dunno how it fares in oz criminal legislation, but if my
>> car is stolen and the thief sells my car to someone _really_ not knowing
>> the car was stolen, I can forget about my car. At best I can hope to
>> retrieve the money the thief got from the deal.
>> Criminal laws do differ in different countries, but what I'm describing
>> above is the rule in most EU countries.
>
> In the UK it used to be that the person buying the stolen car, would lose
> out on the
> whole deal (and possibly face charges themselves, if it could be proved
> that they new
> the car was stolen). The "real" owner would get the car back (which might
> not be what
> they wanted as they've probably already been paid out by the Insurance
> company and
> have to pay that money back). If the "Euro-Law" now overrides the British
> Law, it's
> probably an improvement. I don't know how the Australian Law stands, it
> could even be
> different on a state by state basis however since *in general* the
> Australian Law was
> originally based on the UK Law, I would suspect it is the same as I
> described above.
> i.e. it is the duty of the purchaser to ensure the car is not stolen (or
> still owes
> money on a lease or Hire Purchase agreement).

yes, if you buy a car that is stolen, or, has money owing, you'll loose
your money, and, have to pay out any money owing, unless you can find the
former owner and make him pay, the car/boat/whiet goods title is not
absolute

on the contrary, property title is absolute, if you buy a stolen house,
and, get the title deeds to it, you own it

there was a case in Sydney some years ago, when this happened, a conman
assumed someone elses identity, and, collected title deeds from bank,
then, sold the (empty) house, when the real/former owner came few month
later, his house wasn't his anymore. I suspect the bank coughed up the
value of the house to the real/former owner

the new owner kept the house, as he received clear title deeds from the
conman/vendor

that was reported in Sydney papers at the time

-- 
Voytek
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
**= Email   9 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 13 Nov 2004 14:46:05 +1100 (EST)
From:  "Voytek Eymont" <voytek at sbt dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Linux vs OS/2-eCS

nickl at pacific dot net dot au said:

> In <41955F09.EA788668 at bigpond dot net dot au>, on 11/13/2004
>    at 12:10 PM, Ed Durrant <edurrant at bigpond dot net dot au> said:

>>Kris Steenhaut wrote:
>
>>> Ian Manners schreef:

> Here in W.A., we have a thing called REVS. You can call to see if there's
> money owing on a potential purchase. That *may* solve the problem of
> "receiving stolen goods".
>
> However if you buy privately, you are "on your own" if you haven't
> contacted REVS. If you buy from a Dealer, his Dealer License Number
> (DLxxxx) *should* isolate you from that.
>

yes, REVS check (registry of encumbered vehicles) will guarantee a clear
car  title.

you pay a small fee, I think ? and, the clear check is valid for 48 hours
or something

definitely worth doing

REVS is Oz-wide
-- 
Voytek
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
**= Email   10 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:11:35 +1100
From:  Dennis Nolan <dennik at swiftdsl dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Linux vs OS/2-eCS

Hi All

In Victoria people who had contacted, and cleared the purchase through 
the registry, and who have bought vehicles from dealers have lost their 
re-birthed, stolen vehicles.
These are vehicles that have been stolen and given the identity of a 
same model, written-off vehicle.
The police have taken the vehicles from the current owners and, I 
assume, turned them over to the respective Insurance companies.
I thought that this was standard in all states, otherwise any state 
which allowed the current owner to retain the vehicle would be the 
re-birthed capital of Australia. Also what would it do to interstate 
tourism? Cross over the border and have your car re-posessed.  Also, 
re-birthed cars are normally moved to a different state for sale, less 
chance of their former owner stumbling across their stolen vehicle.
Property law is different, and changing. I have heard cases of bank 
employees with access to customers title deeds, mortaging the property. 
They get the money and the property owner gets the debt.
But property law is changing, and I beleive they are going over to a 
computerised registry to record land title. But I don't know how far 
down that track we are.

Regards

Dennis.

Voytek Eymont wrote:

>Ed Durrant said:
>  
>
>>Kris Steenhaut wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Ian Manners schreef:
>>>
>>>And by the way, dunno how it fares in oz criminal legislation, but if my
>>>car is stolen and the thief sells my car to someone _really_ not knowing
>>>the car was stolen, I can forget about my car. At best I can hope to
>>>retrieve the money the thief got from the deal.
>>>Criminal laws do differ in different countries, but what I'm describing
>>>above is the rule in most EU countries.
>>>      
>>>
>>In the UK it used to be that the person buying the stolen car, would lose
>>out on the
>>whole deal (and possibly face charges themselves, if it could be proved
>>that they new
>>the car was stolen). The "real" owner would get the car back (which might
>>not be what
>>they wanted as they've probably already been paid out by the Insurance
>>company and
>>have to pay that money back). If the "Euro-Law" now overrides the British
>>Law, it's
>>probably an improvement. I don't know how the Australian Law stands, it
>>could even be
>>different on a state by state basis however since *in general* the
>>Australian Law was
>>originally based on the UK Law, I would suspect it is the same as I
>>described above.
>>i.e. it is the duty of the purchaser to ensure the car is not stolen (or
>>still owes
>>money on a lease or Hire Purchase agreement).
>>    
>>
>
>
>yes, if you buy a car that is stolen, or, has money owing, you'll loose
>your money, and, have to pay out any money owing, unless you can find the
>former owner and make him pay, the car/boat/whiet goods title is not
>absolute
>
>on the contrary, property title is absolute, if you buy a stolen house,
>and, get the title deeds to it, you own it
>
>there was a case in Sydney some years ago, when this happened, a conman
>assumed someone elses identity, and, collected title deeds from bank,
>then, sold the (empty) house, when the real/former owner came few month
>later, his house wasn't his anymore. I suspect the bank coughed up the
>value of the house to the real/former owner
>
>the new owner kept the house, as he received clear title deeds from the
>conman/vendor
>
>that was reported in Sydney papers at the time
>
>  
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   11 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:31:01 +1100 (AEDT)
From:  "John Angelico" <talldad at kepl dot com dot au>
Subject:   Logic or Humour?

Hi everybody

Found by my sons in reference to Firefox vs IE
>http://news dot com dot com/Microsoft+says+Firefox+not+a+threat+to+IE/2100-1032_3-5448719.html?tag=nefd.top

Could be worth a laugh at the next SIG meeting!

Best regards
John Angelico
OS/2 SIG
os2 at melbpc dot org dot au or 
talldad at kepl dot com dot au
___________________

PMTagline v1.50 - Copyright, 1996-1997, Stephen Berg and John Angelico
.... WARNING: This post has no nutritional value and is 100% neurotoxic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   12 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 13 Nov 2004 20:25:51 +1000
From:  "David Shearer" <dshe5874 at bigpond dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Logic or Humour?

What is very interesting is that recently mainstream PC mags such as APC and PC User have been 
advocating NOT usingn IE in favour of alternatives such as Firefox etc.

Indeed in Saturday's Courier Mail here in Qld - the liftout section about PC issues advocates alternative 
windows browsers.

David Shearer

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**= Email   13 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:40:42 +1100 (EST)
From:  "Voytek Eymont" <voytek at sbt dot net dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Logic or Humour?

few weeks ago, I even heard it on ABC radio, 'do not use Xploder'

some other comments:

http://www.securityfocus dot com/printable/columnists/250
http://www.securityfocus dot com/printable/columnists/249

-- 
David Shearer said:
> What is very interesting is that recently mainstream PC mags such as APC
> and PC User have been
> advocating NOT usingn IE in favour of alternatives such as Firefox etc.
>
> Indeed in Saturday's Courier Mail here in Qld - the liftout section about
> PC issues advocates alternative
> windows browsers.
>
>
> David Shearer
>
>
>
>

>  

>

-- 
Voytek
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
**= Email   14 ==========================**

Date:  Sat, 13 Nov 2004 22:39:36 +1100 (AEDT)
From:  "John Angelico" <talldad at kepl dot com dot au>
Subject:  Re:  Logic or Humour?

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 21:40:42 +1100 (EST), Voytek Eymont wrote:

>few weeks ago, I even heard it on ABC radio, 'do not use Xploder'
>
>some other comments:
>
>http://www.securityfocus dot com/printable/columnists/250
>http://www.securityfocus dot com/printable/columnists/249
>
>-- 
>David Shearer said:
>> What is very interesting is that recently mainstream PC mags such as APC
>> and PC User have been
>> advocating NOT usingn IE in favour of alternatives such as Firefox etc.
>>
>> Indeed in Saturday's Courier Mail here in Qld - the liftout section about
>> PC issues advocates alternative
>> windows browsers.

Not only that, but also we have saved the text for studies in logical
fallacies...

PS: finally found the apropos tagline - see below

Best regards
John Angelico
OS/2 SIG
os2 at melbpc dot org dot au or 
talldad at kepl dot com dot au
___________________

PMTagline v1.50 - Copyright, 1996-1997, Stephen Berg and John Angelico
.... Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced with the choice between changing
one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets
busy on the proof.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------