Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #86492 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-05-12 17:33 +0200 |
| Last post | 2026-05-13 12:44 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 213 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-12 17:33 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-05-12 08:57 -0700
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2026-05-12 18:16 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-13 04:52 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-13 14:25 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-13 08:40 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 12:48 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-13 14:31 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-13 17:49 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-13 18:55 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-05-13 19:13 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-13 22:41 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-14 02:05 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-14 02:01 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-13 08:38 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-05-13 13:12 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-13 17:57 +0000
Age verification methods (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-05-13 18:26 +0000
Re: Age verification methods (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-13 22:44 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-14 03:31 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2026-05-12 20:45 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-13 06:18 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-13 00:24 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 12:55 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-13 17:54 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2026-05-13 17:15 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-14 05:44 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-15 20:29 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-05-15 13:50 -0700
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-15 21:44 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:42 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-16 03:04 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:15 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-16 08:56 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 23:55 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-17 10:59 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-17 15:11 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-17 16:44 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-18 20:35 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-18 22:49 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-18 21:09 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-19 12:16 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-20 02:02 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-20 13:16 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-20 23:46 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-21 08:39 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2026-05-18 21:12 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-19 00:54 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-19 02:13 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-19 05:08 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-19 02:03 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-19 09:03 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-19 12:42 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-19 00:50 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-18 21:06 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-17 19:59 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-17 22:42 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-22 18:40 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-23 08:43 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 00:37 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-16 09:16 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.invalid> - 2026-05-16 12:35 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-16 10:59 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:44 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:13 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-16 23:42 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-17 06:07 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-17 02:17 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-17 10:28 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-17 16:53 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-17 21:02 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-17 15:25 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-17 16:52 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-17 18:19 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-18 21:18 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-19 00:44 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-05-18 18:01 -0700
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-18 21:57 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-19 12:18 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-19 04:58 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-19 02:38 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-19 16:31 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-20 09:04 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-20 14:18 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-17 15:12 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-16 09:29 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 11:41 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-16 22:21 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-17 14:43 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-17 13:08 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-17 22:49 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-18 12:34 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-19 02:05 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-19 21:07 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-19 23:46 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-20 01:13 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-20 02:00 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-20 02:35 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-21 02:42 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-21 03:05 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-21 03:27 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-21 06:21 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-21 13:25 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-23 08:40 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-23 12:17 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-05-23 14:05 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-23 13:43 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-23 17:12 +0000
See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-05-23 17:21 +0000
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-23 21:48 +0100
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-23 20:47 +0100
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-24 09:39 +0200
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-05-24 10:33 +0000
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-24 12:19 +0100
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-24 22:18 +0200
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-24 22:50 +0100
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-24 12:16 +0100
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-24 17:44 +0000
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-24 23:02 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-23 20:46 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-24 05:47 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-05-25 07:14 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-25 11:39 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-25 21:50 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-25 23:47 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 08:21 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 00:16 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-25 18:15 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-25 21:49 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-25 23:45 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-05-26 07:18 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-26 05:40 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-26 07:27 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 08:22 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-26 07:18 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-05-25 06:54 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-25 13:00 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-25 18:04 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-25 21:13 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-23 18:06 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-24 01:03 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-24 05:53 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-24 12:15 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-21 16:58 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-21 13:43 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-21 17:17 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-21 17:52 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-22 10:59 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-23 04:21 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-23 00:34 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-23 11:18 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-23 18:06 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-23 01:15 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-23 17:29 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-23 17:21 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-21 04:48 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-21 17:52 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-21 21:51 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-21 23:22 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-22 00:05 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-22 02:21 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-22 05:03 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-22 02:48 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-22 09:48 +0200
[OT] Means of proportional representation (was: Re: Linux to be illegal in California?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-22 09:09 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-21 13:40 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-21 17:22 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-21 17:52 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-21 23:23 +0000
[OT] Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-20 08:57 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-20 08:54 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-05-20 06:51 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-20 13:09 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-05-20 14:54 +0200
[OT] Copies of identification documents (was: Re: Linux to be illegal in California?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-04 18:10 +0100
Re: [OT] Copies of identification documents "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-04 20:16 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-21 02:53 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-21 08:46 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-21 08:56 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-21 10:26 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-21 13:48 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-24 11:59 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-24 21:30 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-05-21 11:12 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-20 08:47 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-20 18:26 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.invalid> - 2026-05-16 12:32 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-05-16 09:49 -0700
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-16 21:32 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.invalid> - 2026-05-18 12:44 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-16 20:40 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 23:09 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-16 21:27 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 22:14 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.invalid> - 2026-05-18 12:37 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-18 13:48 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-18 18:09 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-18 16:14 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-19 02:07 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-19 04:52 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-19 12:52 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-16 21:16 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-15 22:54 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-15 23:56 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:47 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:11 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 11:24 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-05-16 20:15 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 22:05 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-16 22:24 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-05-16 16:21 -0700
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-16 23:38 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 12:44 +0100
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
| From | Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-12 17:33 +0200 |
| Subject | Linux to be illegal in California? |
| Message-ID | <srh60ltoood4poiptb058moj69arp89uu4@4ax.com> |
Any truth in the rumour that California has just passed a law that would make Linux illegal there? Is California run by Maga now? -- Terms and conditions apply. Steve Hayes
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-12 08:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10tvilg$22ol7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86492 |
On 5/12/26 08:33, Steve Hayes wrote: > Any truth in the rumour that California has just passed a law that > would make Linux illegal there? Not at all.> > Is California run by Maga now? Hardly. This law about OSes getting proof of age is more Nanny Law. I will illegally use Linux anywhere I happen to be which is San Francisco, California. We have some MAGA but mostly they are farmers in the Central Valley.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-12 18:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10tvqpm$25kt4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86497 |
At Tue, 12 May 2026 08:57:36 -0700 Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > > > On 5/12/26 08:33, Steve Hayes wrote: > > Any truth in the rumour that California has just passed a law that > > would make Linux illegal there? > > Not at all.> I believe the law only (theoritaly) affects *vendors*, whatever that means when it comes to Linux -- it might be a can of worms that the California lawmakers might not really understand they are opening. > > Is California run by Maga now? > Hardly. This law about OSes getting proof of age is more > Nanny Law. > > I will illegally use Linux anywhere I happen to be which > is San Francisco, California. We have some MAGA but mostly > they are farmers in the Central Valley. > > -- Robert Heller -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364 Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services heller@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 04:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6iec9F5itqU7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #86524 |
On Tue, 12 May 2026 18:16:23 -0000 (UTC), Robert Heller wrote: > I believe the law only (theoritaly) affects *vendors*, whatever that > means when it comes to Linux -- it might be a can of worms that the > California lawmakers might not really understand they are opening. Most 'lawmakers' primary skill set is getting elected. Even leaving out the ones that are congenitally stupid few really understand the fields they are legislating. What they do understand is the lobbyists whispering in their ears and promising to fund their next campaign.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 14:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10u21ko$2odeg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86556 |
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > On Tue, 12 May 2026 18:16:23 -0000 (UTC), Robert Heller wrote: > >> I believe the law only (theoritaly) affects *vendors*, whatever that >> means when it comes to Linux -- it might be a can of worms that the >> California lawmakers might not really understand they are opening. > > Most 'lawmakers' primary skill set is getting elected. Even leaving out > the ones that are congenitally stupid few really understand the fields > they are legislating. What they do understand is the lobbyists whispering > in their ears and promising to fund their next campaign. Which shows if one goes and reads some of the California age verification bill's text (which is shockingly similar to the same bills that have popped up in other state houses, feeding the "Meta is behind this" belief, given that only a few months prior Zuck was testifying in the 'addiction trial' that "the best place to perform age verification is in the operating system"). But, reading the bill text, one sees that whomever wrote the text has a very narrow view of "computing" because the way the bill is written, it (while never directly stating so) assumes that the only computer that anyone owns is a cell phone, and that the only way anyone installs software on their computer (that cell phone) is via an "app store" that is provided by the maker of the cell phone's OS. Now, for some of the 30yo and less population, the only computer they may have ever owned is a cell phone, but the field of 'computers' is way larger than "cell phones", even if cell phones are the primary computing system used by most folks today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 08:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p4780ll81kqmlc0lh6c147ch96vjahmr62@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #86524 |
On Tue, 12 May 2026 18:16:23 -0000 (UTC), Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> wrote: >At Tue, 12 May 2026 08:57:36 -0700 Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 5/12/26 08:33, Steve Hayes wrote: >> > Any truth in the rumour that California has just passed a law that >> > would make Linux illegal there? >> >> Not at all.> > >I believe the law only (theoritaly) affects *vendors*, whatever that means >when it comes to Linux -- it might be a can of worms that the California >lawmakers might not really understand they are opening. Indeed, and perhaps that needs to be pointed out to them before other places make similar laws. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 12:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10u1oea$2jago$16@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86524 |
On 12/05/2026 19:16, Robert Heller wrote: > At Tue, 12 May 2026 08:57:36 -0700 Bobbie > Sellers<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On 5/12/26 08:33, Steve Hayes wrote: >>> Any truth in the rumour that California has just passed a law >>> that would make Linux illegal there? >> Not at all. > I believe the law only (theoritaly) affects*vendors*, whatever that > means when it comes to Linux -- it might be a can of worms that the > California lawmakers might not really understand they are opening. I think the idea is that sweet little children must be indoctrinated in communism and Green cant uninterrupted by contact with the RealWorld™ By the time their bigotry is firmly established, its already too late to change them anyway -- The higher up the mountainside The greener grows the grass. The higher up the monkey climbs The more he shows his arse. Traditional
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 14:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10u220i$2odeg$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86582 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 12/05/2026 19:16, Robert Heller wrote: >> At Tue, 12 May 2026 08:57:36 -0700 Bobbie >> Sellers<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 5/12/26 08:33, Steve Hayes wrote: >>>> Any truth in the rumour that California has just passed a law >>>> that would make Linux illegal there? >>> Not at all. > >> I believe the law only (theoritaly) affects*vendors*, whatever that >> means when it comes to Linux -- it might be a can of worms that the >> California lawmakers might not really understand they are opening. > > I think the idea is that sweet little children must be indoctrinated in > communism and Green cant uninterrupted by contact with the RealWorld™ The reality is that the cry "think of the children" (at least in the US political realm) has often been used as the subterfuge to garner support from voters for some turd of a legislation agenda by framing it as a "it will protect your children" item. Such plays on the instinctual "protect the kids" nature of parents (esp. mothers) and manipulates them into supporting something they might otherwise not have supported had the actual truth been on display. The wise-man's view of this is if some legislation comes packaged as "think of the children" then the legislation is not actually intended to protect any children and instead is someone one should oppose greatly because the actual reality being pushed behind the scenes will be some Orwellian nightmare of some form or another. But getting past the emotional, instinctual "protect the kids" to have the rational brain engage and realize what's up is difficult.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 17:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6jrthF2dl2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #86591 |
On Wed, 13 May 2026 14:31:46 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote: > But getting past the emotional, instinctual "protect the kids" to have > the rational brain engage and realize what's up is difficult. I'm of the wrong generation. In the '50s us kids did a good job of protecting ourselves. Only a few got removed from the gene pool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 18:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10u2hf9$2tm2g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86613 |
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > On Wed, 13 May 2026 14:31:46 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote: > > >> But getting past the emotional, instinctual "protect the kids" to have >> the rational brain engage and realize what's up is difficult. > > I'm of the wrong generation. In the '50s us kids did a good job of > protecting ourselves. Only a few got removed from the gene pool. The problem of "protect the children" has definetly gotten worse as time as gone along. My dad used to tell stories of his childhood of riding off some miles away from home on his bike, with a 22cal rifle, to go shoot tin cans in the forest, and no one caring or even blinking an eye. By the time I would have been old enough to do the same myself, not only would my mother have panicked to no end and forbade such, it was also illegal to discharge a firearm in the locality where I grew up, so even if mom had not stopped things, I'd very likely have been picked up by the police and returned home, and/or have a 'record'. Now I read stories today of parents being charged with "child endagenerment" by just letting their 12yr walk two blocks to the corner 7/11 for a slurpee without an adult holding their hand while they do so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 19:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <movie-20260513201234@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #86619 |
Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote or quoted: >My dad used to tell stories of his childhood of riding off some miles >away from home on his bike, with a 22cal rifle, to go shoot tin cans in >the forest, and no one caring or even blinking an eye. Yeah, there's this one movie where four best friends hike down a railroad track for days just to find a dead body, and kids today watch it and completely freak out over how they survived without smartphones, GPS, or their parents tracking their exact location. "Stand by Me" (1986)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 22:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <394fdmx7s1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #86622 |
On 2026-05-13 21:13, Stefan Ram wrote: > Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote or quoted: >> My dad used to tell stories of his childhood of riding off some miles >> away from home on his bike, with a 22cal rifle, to go shoot tin cans in >> the forest, and no one caring or even blinking an eye. > > Yeah, there's this one movie where four best friends hike down a > railroad track for days just to find a dead body, and kids today > watch it and completely freak out over how they survived without > smartphones, GPS, or their parents tracking their exact location. > > "Stand by Me" (1986) > > Yep. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-14 02:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6kovlF6k1sU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #86622 |
On 13 May 2026 19:13:37 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote: > Yeah, there's this one movie where four best friends hike down a > railroad track for days just to find a dead body, and kids today watch > it and completely freak out over how they survived without > smartphones, > GPS, or their parents tracking their exact location. That's what siblings are for. I remember warm summer twilights hearing the plaintive cry of 'David, David' as his big (8th grade) sister walked around town trying to find the little bugger. Nobody cared where he was until bedtime.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-14 02:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6koo4F6k1sU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #86619 |
On Wed, 13 May 2026 18:55:37 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote: > My dad used to tell stories of his childhood of riding off some miles > away from home on his bike, with a 22cal rifle, to go shoot tin cans in > the forest, and no one caring or even blinking an eye. And without a helmet... I don't think my first bike had reflectors laced into the spokes and on the pedals. It wasn't all roses. When I was in grade school a classmate's younger brother was hit and killed on his bike. I 7th grade a classmate's older brother who was in 8th grade was killed when a bunch of boys were shooting in a gravel pit. The story was he had wandered up to the top of the pit and caught a ricochet. Maybe. It was a small town where everybody knew each other. What do you say to a kid after his brother was killed? We didn't have grief counselors and I don't remember the teachers doing much. Shit happens and that's the way it is. When I was 4 or 5 we had a '51 Chevy. There were two hand prints on the steel dashboard where I'd worn the finish down to the primer. I liked to scoot forward and lean on the dash to see where we were going. I feel sorry for today's kids strapped into an Apollo quality escape module and put in the rear sear. Most of us survived, maybe with a few broken bones or powder burns from improvised explosives. One kid learned the hard way that stuffing strike anywhere match heads into a CO2 capsule wasn't a good idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 08:38 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <9v680l5s582c44d6dh642puj067dmtscs4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #86497 |
On Tue, 12 May 2026 08:57:36 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > >On 5/12/26 08:33, Steve Hayes wrote: >> Any truth in the rumour that California has just passed a law that >> would make Linux illegal there? > > Not at all. What about this, then? "A recently enacted law in California imposes an age-verification requirement on operating-system providers beginning next year. The language of the Digital Age Assurance Act does not restrict its requirements to proprietary or commercial operating systems; projects like Debian, FreeBSD, Fedora, and others seem to be on the hook just as much as Apple or Microsoft. There is some hope that the law will be amended, but there is no guarantee that it will be. This means that the developer communities behind Linux distributions are having to discuss whether and how to comply with the law with little time and even less legal guidance. The law requires operating-system providers to provide a form of age verification that can be queried by any web site, application, or online service "that distributes and facilitates the download of applications from third-party developers" for computers, mobile devices, or other general-purpose computing devices. The law goes into effect on January 1, 2027, which leaves less than ten months for distributions to determine if the law applies to them and then implement a solution if it does." See here: <https://lwn.net/Articles/1062112/> > >> Is California run by Maga now? > Hardly. This law about OSes getting proof of age is more >Nanny Law. > > I will illegally use Linux anywhere I happen to be which >is San Francisco, California. We have some MAGA but mostly >they are farmers in the Central Valley. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 13:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10u1tbh$1g2b1$2@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #86559 |
In article <9v680l5s582c44d6dh642puj067dmtscs4@4ax.com>,
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
...
>What about this, then?
>
>"A recently enacted law in California imposes an age-verification
>requirement on operating-system providers beginning next year. The
>language of the Digital Age Assurance Act does not restrict its
>requirements to proprietary or commercial operating systems; projects
This has all been hashed out many times in many different forums.
There really is nothing to fear here.
It all boils down to one or more of the following interpretations:
1) It will be no big deal for Linux to comply, should it (eventually)
prove necessary to do so. They will comply in the same way as the
other OSes will do.
2) No OS can actually age-verify the user. All they can do is report
what the user tells them (*). Doesn't matter if you are MS, Apple,
Google or Debian.
3) It (the law) is actually a Good Thing, for some people, while being
irrelevant to the rest of us. In fact, this law is a thing for
paranoid parents to control their kids, should they (the parents) be of
such a mindset. Needless to say, this is irrelevant to me (and, I
would imagine, to most of you reading this).
4) The idea of the OS tracking this info (as best as it can) is
actually not bad (IMHO).
(*) Given current levels of technology. Someday, I suppose you will have
your brain hard-wired to the computer and it will then be able to actually
determine your real chronological age (**).
(**) But then of course some people will come and tell us that they
"identify" as being 25.
(Posted from: comp.os.linux.misc)
--
2026: The hottest summer of your life (so far...)
2026: (Also) The coolest summer of the rest of your life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 17:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6jsc0F2dl2U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #86586 |
On Wed, 13 May 2026 13:12:17 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote: > (*) Given current levels of technology. Someday, I suppose you will > have your brain hard-wired to the computer and it will then be able to > actually determine your real chronological age (**). Supposedly some kids have fooled the facial recognition approach by borrowing their sister's eyebrow pencil and drawing a mustache.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 18:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Age verification methods (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) |
| Message-ID | <10u2fnt$1gs21$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #86616 |
In article <n6jsc0F2dl2U4@mid.individual.net>, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >On Wed, 13 May 2026 13:12:17 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote: > >> (*) Given current levels of technology. Someday, I suppose you will >> have your brain hard-wired to the computer and it will then be able to >> actually determine your real chronological age (**). > >Supposedly some kids have fooled the facial recognition approach by >borrowing their sister's eyebrow pencil and drawing a mustache. That's cute. Then there's the other side of it. Someone who actually is 21 (or whatever) but looks younger. That person will end up suing somebody. Just out of curiosity, which existing systems actually do this (attempt to age-verify on-the-fly, using "facial recognition") ? Anyway, wouldn't it just be easier to substitute a picture of your father? -- The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4 lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL: http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/RoyDeLoon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-13 22:44 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Age verification methods (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) |
| Message-ID | <ie4fdmx7s1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #86618 |
On 2026-05-13 20:26, Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <n6jsc0F2dl2U4@mid.individual.net>, > rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 13 May 2026 13:12:17 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote: >> >>> (*) Given current levels of technology. Someday, I suppose you will >>> have your brain hard-wired to the computer and it will then be able to >>> actually determine your real chronological age (**). >> >> Supposedly some kids have fooled the facial recognition approach by >> borrowing their sister's eyebrow pencil and drawing a mustache. > > That's cute. Then there's the other side of it. Someone who actually is > 21 (or whatever) but looks younger. That person will end up suing > somebody. > > Just out of curiosity, which existing systems actually do this (attempt to > age-verify on-the-fly, using "facial recognition") ? Some web sites, I think. > > Anyway, wouldn't it just be easier to substitute a picture of your father? > It doesn't move on video. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-14 03:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn110agg5.ad6.spamtrap42@one.localnet> |
| In reply to | #86616 |
On 2026-05-13, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > On Wed, 13 May 2026 13:12:17 -0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack wrote: > >> (*) Given current levels of technology. Someday, I suppose you will >> have your brain hard-wired to the computer and it will then be able to >> actually determine your real chronological age (**). > > Supposedly some kids have fooled the facial recognition approach by > borrowing their sister's eyebrow pencil and drawing a mustache. There is a reference link here: https://notthebee.com/article/kids-are-circumventing-age-detection-software-by-drawing-mustaches-on-their-faces The reference link is: https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/home-news/children-bypassing-age-verification-social-media-b2968803.html -- Robert Riches spamtrap42@jacob21819.net (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web