Mail Archives: opendos/2001/06/25/23:43:09
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthias Paul" <Matthias DOT Paul AT post DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
To: <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: New DR-DOS Club and eGroup
> On 2001-06-24, Patrick Moran wrote:
>
> Thanks for the explanation, Pat. I think it helped to
> distinguish the purpose of the two groups. Still some
> comments [Warning: Off-topic again...]
>
> > I think you missed my point. I am sick and tired of links
> > not working and referring people to links for files that
> > do not exist any more. I will give some examples as I go
> > with this message. I do have a link to the www.drdos.org
> > site as it still works and use it often, but many links
> > on that page are broken. I cannot find one good link any
> > place for WEBSPYDER Beta 2. The link that I think you
> > mentions in the DOS FORUM WEB page for DR-DOS 5.0 is no
> > good.
>
> Hm, I do not usually frequent web-based forums because it
> takes too long to fill out web forms. Online costs are still
> very high in Europe... Also I see no point in supporting
> web-based forums, when email is a much more convenient,
> resource-saving, and cost-effective medium for everyone.
Maybe it was someone else. I read some many messages that
sometimes I get a little mixed up. I believe it was one of those
cjb.net sites and I have nor been able to get on any of them for a
while now.
> Anyway, I am positive that I never mentioned any link to
> DR DOS 5.0 for download, except for - maybe - the partial
> copy on Lineoīs FTP-Server ftp://ftp.lineo.com, which
> unfortunately is a broken archive, like all the other old
> DR DOS issues there - at least I have never been able to
> make any use of them. Anyone?
It probably wasn't and the message is no longer there for me to
check.
> It is a pity that DR-WebSpyder BETA 2 and all the other candies
> disappeared, but I strongly assume that this happened for the
> same reasons why other Caldera archives vanished, the license
> included in the archive simply does not allow re-distribution,
> so - without Calderaīs/Lineoīs permission to the contrary -
> this would not be legal, Iīm afraid.
Well it's been on a few sites for download. In fact before Lineo
took over the DR stuff, you had to go to a page and acknoledge
some agreement, then get the password to unzip the file. Quite
frankly, I don't think they give a damnn what we do with it. I
think Caldera just bought it to nail Gates in the law suit and of
course they agrred to split the proceeds with Novell, they both
made a ton of monet. How else could Caldera buy out SCO and other
companies? So I am not going to worring about distributing
Webspyder, they no longer support it and there will not be any
official versions. It's just a BETA. BEtA software is for testing,
I am just letting a lot of people test it<G>
> > Now people from anywhere can go to this group I made and
directly
> > download these files from there. I currently have DR-DOS 3.40,
> > 3.41, 5.0, 6.0, Novell DOS 7.0, Concurrent DOS-386 v2.0, and
the
> > Novell DOS 7.0 TIDs, TIPs, Tutors, and other related stuff. No
one
> > has all of this at any one place. Most or some and maybe all
of
> > this is very hard to find, especially the latest versions,
> > updates, and working automatic updates.
>
> I see the point, yes. This is quite different from what
> <opendos AT delorie DOT com> is about...
>
> BTW. OpenDOS 7.01, DR-DOS 7.02, and DR-DOS 7.03 should be
available
> on ftp://ftp.lineo.com. Also the mailing list archives of the
> old "offical" <caldera-opendos AT rim DOT caldera DOT com> mailing list
> 1997-1999 should be available for download there.
Yes it is all there and so is the PNW TUTOR, kernels and even
DJGPP and some other "C" stuff and the last version of GEM with
source code. The Linux HDIMAGE file is somewhere in the .private
directory and hidden. I had the complete path one time and could
just go and get it from FTP, but without knowing the complete
path, you have to dl it from the WEB site and the dorks didn't
even compress it. It's something like 8MB and I compressed it with
TAR and GZIP to under 500k! Since it's a Linux file they should
have tgz'd it like I did. I did it in DOS.
> >> or Christophīs http://www.drdos.net? (Well, my site is still
> >
> > This page is no good. All I get when I try to get on this site
> > is error 403: forbidden.
Also I get this same error with docdos.
> Upps, I havenīt checked it recently. Is it down?
I have tried several times in the last few weeks and have not been
able to get to the site. You may want to check it yourself.
> > Also, it seems that your page or pages have been changed as
well,
> > my bookmarks do not work any more for your web pages.
>
> Yes, unfortunately the server moved slightly in 2001-02. Remove
> the "rhrz" from the http link (or use the link or forwarder in
> my signature) and everything will be fine again. I did, however,
> announce the change in this and other forums and have sent
> private mails to all people I could identify who had set
> links to my pages.
I have not been able to keep up with the messages, I am way
behind. In fact someone forwarded a message to me from someone
looking for BACKIT so they could restore some old backups (360k
floppies) I haven't used that thing since the eighties!!!!
So I dug it out from my tapes and sent it to them. Some senator in
FLA needed it.
> >> around as well, but many external links on the OpenDOS page
> >> are broken and the info has not been updated. This will
remain
> >> so for "historic reasons" - I would like to add new pages
> >> but I donīt find the time...)
> >
> > This is a real pain in the butt. When I refer people to the
> > OpenDOS page and the links are broken. I do not have the time
to
> > go to all of the DOS/CP/M/GEM and other websites and check out
> > their links. The owners should check them and update them. If
they
> > are there for historical purposes, say so and state link no
longer
> > valid next to it.
>
> I clearly state this in the very first paragraph of my OpenDOS
> pages... ;-)
>
> The other pages should still have valid links, if not, I will
> update them as soon as I learn about a dangling pointer.
>
> >> - By joining them you declare that they can do whatever
> >> they what to do with the contents and thereby they
> want
> >> undergo common copyright laws, which are maintained
> >> in most individually or university funded newsgroups
> >> and mailing lists...
> >
> > You can use phoney filenames and encrypt them and who can do
> > anything about that?
>
> Sorry, Iīm not sure I understand this sentence.
If I post a file for someone to dl and it's commercial but
outdated but not yet abandonware, I just use some phoney name for
the file and encrypt it, no one will ever know what the file was
and cannot get into it unless they use a Ctay super computer for a
hundred years or so to crack it.
> My point was that - unless declared otherwise - when you
> make a substantive contribution somewhere, this gets copy-
> righted automatically. There is nothing special about it,
> thatīs just common international and local copyright law.
>
> This means that noone is allowed to just reuse your work
> and declare it as his own IP, and will also prohibit many
> other uses of the contents without the authorīs prior
> permission. I donīt have a problem with this and have
> always given my permission when asked, but I can get
> quite upset when I find myself falsely cited somewhere
> in inappropriate context so that the reader must draw
> wrong implications on the subject or intentions, or even
> more worse, when I find verbatim excerpts of my writings
> or posts anonymously reused in other peopleīs work and
> declared as their own work without any indication of
> sources at all and without my knowledge.
> (Besides it also has practically reasons, I can only
> update info, when I know where it is (re-)used.)
>
> Posting in Yahoo groups, one gives up many of his rights,
> or at least allows them to use the contents for commercial
> task without ones own knowledge and control - including
> raster-scanning and profiling for marketing purposes and
> other IMHO bad excesses, which more and more destroy the
> original atmosphere and net culture.
Yeah I agree with this. I belong to one site where I have written
articles, I get paid everytime someone reads it, but the site can
do whatever they wish with it, but it's still my copyright and I
believe I still get named as the author.
> That this already happens everywhere and without permission
> does not make it more legal - for example S P A M is simply
> and plainly illegal in many countries including France,
> Austria, and Germany. There is no excuse, itīs just very
> difficult to catch the culprits...
What I would like to do it get a group of hackers together and
trace these spammers down, then flood them with e-mails with
viruses and knock then off the net.
> Of course, one could post anonymously or with faked
> addresses, but this is clearly against the Netiquette
> and opens many ways to abuse - look at all the S P A M
> and other junk around. People who think they must hide
> themselfs under pseudonyms instead of posting under
> their real names are often prone to make false claims,
> or otherwise show wrong attitude and habits. In many
> cases, they donīt take it serious and hence are not
> worth listening... (There are a few exceptions, for
> example if they report about massacres in dictatorships
> and would risk their lifes when revealing their true
> identities - but fortunately this is not an issue in
> technical groups.)
I use a genuine e-mail here, but they do not have any real info on
me, they do not even ask. But when I go to a site and they want
personal info on me, and I do not trust them, I use one of these
mailboxes and a phoney name, address, phone number and other
stuff. I cannot be traced. I do this because sometimes I start
getting a bunch of SPAM and I just dump the mailbox and get
another.
> A basic principle of justice is that you cannot
> reasonably argument against something when doing just
> the same (but for a "good purpose").
>
> >> Well, I think that DJ Delorie has done a great job in
> >> keeping this forum open and up for more than four years
> >> now and it does not look as if he would plan to abandon it.
> >
> > Yes this is a good forum, however he has a lot of restrictions
> > and a lot of my messages get bounced.
>
> Yes, I also had a problem once when my variable names
> contained too many xīes... It took me quite some time
> to find out why... ;->
>
> But this happened in one single occasion and I think
> I post quite often here... ;-) IMHO it is better this
> way than the other way around, where we would all get
> swamped with S P A M.
>
> > DB
> ??? Pat, are you actually writing this, or is someone
> making this up???
DB is making it up, not me<G>
Pat
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
- Raw text -