On 8 Feb 2005 at 18:58, David Hoffman wrote:
Date sent: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:58:13 -0600
From: David Hoffman <dhoffman2004@xxxxxxxxx>
To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Failure making fc3 backup image
Send reply to: David Hoffman <dhoffman2004@xxxxxxxxx>,
For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:fedora-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe>
<mailto:fedora-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=subscribe>
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:04:49 +1000, Michael D. Setzer II
> <mikes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > G4L is a sourceforge/freshmeat project, but the
> > current author doesn't seem to be around since Nov/Dec.
>
>
>
> That's not surprising considering the author of G4U pretty much put
> out a statement blatantly calling the author of G4L a thief. He even
> created a site to compare the code between the two:
>
> http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/g4l.html
>
Problem is that was with version 0.1 of G4l which was basically a
very minor change to the G4U scipts to work with linux. And it
seems none of the G4U people could be bothered to look at the new
versions. That author had made another version 0.12, which I have
never seen, but it was a new program from what I understand. The
later 0.13 and 0.14 version where written by the current author. The
current G4l script is 2000+ lines with a GUI.
Both the G4U and G4L basically break down to a script to parse
variable to feed to dd | gzip | ftp process.
I've also noted that the copywrite notice the G4U author talks about
only appears on his web site at the version end. None of it appears
in the scripts themselves. I can not speak for the author of 0.1, since
it is possible he wasn't aware of these extra restrictions. I do know
that version 0.14 is very much different from G4U scripts.
I have tried to come up with something to bridge this, but a contact
to the G4U author doesn't seem to have changed anything. I replied
with the info that his copyright requirements were not in the scripts
themselves, just (c) Copyright. I haven't gotten a reply to that. I also
point out that the current G4L has no problem giving credit to
support the author used for G4L. It gives credit to things like,
busybox, dialog, jetcat, and others. I can not speak for the authors
of G4L versions. I have added a little message that appears before
the login, and leave it to users. If one thinks it is bad, then don't use
G4L. If one doesn't think so, use whichever works best for you.
I am currently using the G4L, since I have a classroom of 20
computers I have to re-image, and G4U would occassionally fail with
a piping error when doing multiple machines. Having about a 15%
failure rate. I've never had G4L fail doing all the machines at ones,
but I think it is probable more to it using ncftp inplace of ftp.
Thank you.
P.S. I had made a donation to G4U when I was using it, and it is
where I heard about G4L.
> --
>
>
> David
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> There are only 10 kinds of people in this world,
> those who understand binary, and those who don't.
>
> --
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor
Guam Community College Computer Center
mailto:mikes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.guam.net/home/mikes
Guam - Where America's Day Begins
+----------------------------------------------------------+
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu
Number of Seti Units Returned: 15,574
Processing time: 30 years, 37 days, 18 hours, 38 minutes
(Total Hours: 263,707)
