October 2010 - Solar-general - lists.ourproject.org

Comentarios constructivos
by Pablo Manuel Rizzo 26 Oct '10

26 Oct '10

Es mas o menos la idea del karma que proponía antes: http://xkcd.com/810/ -- Pablo Manuel Rizzo ------------------------------- http://pablorizzo.com -------------------------------

4 7

Re: [Solar-general] Off Topic: Algunas preguntitas!
by Javier Villalba 25 Oct '10

25 Oct '10

On Saturday 23 October 2010 15:40:21 Javier Villalba wrote: >/ Hola Comunidad de Ututo! />/ />/ Bueno voy a hacer algunas preguntas! (no se si soy un inutil pero no />/ se hay va) />/ Osea yo tengo una AMD Athlon 64 X2, 2 gb de ram, 500 gb de disco sata />/ y mother biostar. />/ Logicamente tendria que instalar el ututo 64 bits no? Bueno instalo />/ ututo se instala todo bien en el cargador de arranque tengo que elegir />/ el de ata cierto? />/ Ahora me viene la parte jodida por ejemplo yo configuro el uget con k8 />/ porque me imagino que es el que representa a la arquitectura de mi />/ micro. />/ Si no lo fuera asi cual seria? />/ Otra duda por ejemplo hablo la terminal logeo como root y hago por />/ ejemplo un uget xs-update porque me dice que tengo la version ututo 7 />/ cuando anda por la 19. Lo que me parece raro que aparece como un coso />/ de error invalid package cada dos por tres tambien me pasa cuando no />/ se le instalo el pidgin ultima version que me baja como 420 paquetes. />/ Al instalar tambien otros errores. Despues de reiniciar cuando hice />/ las actualizaciones nunca mas me arranca el sistema o es error cuando />/ carga en la parte de la pantalla negra o si no se me queda tildado en />/ el fondo de pantalla de la iguana y no carga mas el login. />/ />/ Bueno nada estoy entusiasmado en lograr actualizar y dejar funcionando />/ al 100% ututo ya que es una distribucion que me gusta. />/ />/ Espero sus respuestas !! / >mmmm ¿preguntaste en las listas de ututo? No me respondió nadie... Por ahí será que están ocupado con la versión xs2011 -- , , / \ ((__-^^-,-^^-__)) `-_---' `---_-' `--|o` 'o|--' \ ` / ): :( :o_o: "-" Gnu/Linux ////////////////////////////////////////// Javier Villalba ////////////////////////////////////////// Pc Ajedrez! - Comunidad Ajedrecista http://www.pcajedrez.com/ (Viva el Software Libre al 100% !!!) ////////////////////////////////////////// Correo Electrónico: jvillalba(a)pcajedrez.com Identi.ca: http://identi.ca/pcajedrez

2 1

VPNs comunitarias
by Nicolás Reynolds 25 Oct '10

25 Oct '10

pensando en libertad en la nube y redes libres... podrían armarse VPNs comunitarias no? una especie de TAZ -- Salud! Nicolás Reynolds, xmpp:[email protected] omb:http://identi.ca/fauno blog:http://selfdandi.com.ar/ gnu/linux user #455044 http://librecultivo.org.ar http://parabolagnulinux.org

2 1

Re: [Solar-general] Leyendo Hacking Capitalism
by Javier Villalba 25 Oct '10

25 Oct '10

>obvio! >si al código lo cerrás (close) deja de ser open, jua! >eso es lo maravilloso de la BSD, conecta ambos mundos del software, es un puente. >me encantan los puentes >además, evita la hipocresia >mucha gente toma SL y lo cierra, lo vende como propio A eso llamas maravilloso? Ahi está la porqueria de lo que es el Open Source. Está bien que tomen el código pero si hacen una obra derivada hacia al publico tienen que ofrecer el código fuente. No vaya ser como Rxart que hace ocho mil vueltas para brindar el puto código fuente y para colmo hay muchos que lo defiendes porque bla bla bla se necesita de los binarios para poder reclamarla en esto yo no estoy de acuerdo. -- , , / \ ((__-^^-,-^^-__)) `-_---' `---_-' `--|o` 'o|--' \ ` / ): :( :o_o: "-" Gnu/Linux ////////////////////////////////////////// Javier Villalba ////////////////////////////////////////// Pc Ajedrez! - Comunidad Ajedrecista http://www.pcajedrez.com/ (Viva el Software Libre al 100% !!!) ////////////////////////////////////////// Correo Electrónico: jvillalba(a)pcajedrez.com Identi.ca: http://identi.ca/pcajedrez

5 4

In Praise of Copying, CC-licensed book from Harvard Uni Press
by Nicolás Reynolds 25 Oct '10

25 Oct '10

Title: In Praise of Copying, CC-licensed book from Harvard Uni Press Author: Cory Doctorow Date: sáb, 23 oct 2010 13:34:19 -0300 Link: http://feeds.boingboing.net/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/y75OB5D4cAk/in-praise-of-… Pidg sez, "Harvard University Press have released author Marcus Boon's new book, In Praise of Copying[1], under a Creative Commons license - and decided to release the full text as a free PDF." [image 2]"Given the topic and stance of In Praise of Copying, I wanted the text to participate openly in the circulation of copies that we see flourishing all around us. I approached Harvard to discuss options and they agreed to make the book available as a PDF online. The PDF is freely available to anyone who wants to download it, but it does come with a creative commons license that sets some intelligent restrictions on what you can do with it. Although generosity is a wonderful thing, this isn't especially intended as a utopian gesture towards a world in which everything is free. It's recognition of the way in which copies of texts circulate today, a circulation in which the physical object known as the book that is for sale in the marketplace has an important but hardly exclusive role. A PDF of a book is not an illegitimate copy of a legitimate original but participates in other kinds of circulation that have long flourished around the book-commodity: the library book; the photocopy or hand-written copy; the book browsed, borrowed or shared. We all know these modes of circulation exist, as they continue to do today with online text archives. Perhaps these online archives just make visible and more "at hand" something that was happening invisibly, more distantly, but continuously before. At the same time, something new is going on. The physical book today is one copy, one iteration of a text among others. What that means for publishers, writers, readers and other interested parties is something that we are working out - on this webpage and elsewhere." --Marcus Boon In Praise of Copying[3] Download PDF[4] (Thanks, Pidg, via Submitterator[5]) * Major Canadian copyright text is now a free download[6] * Copyright's Paradox: brilliantly argued scholarly book tackles ...[7] * Comic book brilliantly explains copyright for ...[8] * History of piracy, reviewed by EFF's senior copyright lawyer ...[9] * Patry's MORAL PANICS AND THE COPYRIGHT WARS: elegant, calm ...[10] * Bound By Law: the "Understanding Comics" of copyright, in a new ...[11] Links: [1]: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674047834/downandoutint-20 (link) [2]: http://craphound.com/images/inpraiseofcopying.jpeg (image) [3]: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/features/boon/ (link) [4]: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/features/boon/Boon_text_final.pdf (link) [5]: http://boingboing.net/submit (link) [6]: http://boingboing.net/2010/10/14/major-canadian-copyr.html#previouspost (link) [7]: http://boingboing.net/2008/09/18/copyrights-paradox-b.html#previouspost (link) [8]: http://boingboing.net/2006/02/03/comic_book_brilliant.html#previouspost (link) [9]: http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/30/history-of-piracy-re.html#previouspost (link) [10]: http://boingboing.net/2009/09/14/patrys-moral-panics.html#previouspost (link) [11]: http://boingboing.net/2008/10/24/bound-by-law-the-und.html#previouspost (link) -- Salud! Nicolás Reynolds, xmpp:[email protected] omb:http://identi.ca/fauno blog:http://selfdandi.com.ar/ gnu/linux user #455044 http://librecultivo.org.ar http://parabolagnulinux.org

1 0

Canonical, Ltd. Finally On Record: Seeking Open Core
by Pablo Manuel Rizzo 25 Oct '10

25 Oct '10

Canonical, Ltd. Finally On Record: Seeking Open Core Sunday 17 October 2010 by Bradley M. Kuhn I've written before<http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/02/01/copyright-not-all-equal.html>about my deep skepticism regarding the true motives of Canonical, Ltd.'s advocacy and demand of for-profit corporate copyright assignment without promises to adhere to copyleft <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft>. I've often asked Canonical employees, including Jono Bacon<http://www.jonobacon.org/>, Amanda Brock <https://opensource.com/users/brocka>, Jane Silber<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Silber>, and Mark Shuttleworth <http://www.markshuttleworth.com/> himself to explain (a) why exactly they demand copyright assignment on their projects<http://www.canonical.com/contributors>, rather than merely having contributors agree to the GNU GPL<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>formally (like projects such as Linux do), and (b) why, having received a contributor's copyright assignment, Canonical, Ltd. *refuses to* promise to keep the software copylefted and never proprietarize it (FSF<http://www.fsf.org/>, for example, has always done the latter in assignments). When I ask these questions of Canonical, Ltd. employees, they invariably artfully change the subject. I've actually been asking these questions for at least a year and a half, but I really began to get worried earlier this year when Mark Shuttleworth falsely claimed<http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/02/01/copyright-not-all-equal.html>that Canonical, Ltd.'s copyright assignment was no different than the FSF's copyright assignment. That event made it clear to me that there was a job of salesmanship going on: Canonical, Ltd. was trying to sell something to community that the community doesn't want nor need, and trying to reuse the good name of other people and organizations to do it. Since that interview in February, Canonical, Ltd. has launched a manipulatively named product called “Project Harmony”<http://opensource.com/law/10/6/project-harmony-looks-improve-contribution-a…>. They market this product as a “summit” of sorts — purported to have no determined agenda other than to discuss the issue of contributor agreements and copyright assignment, and come to a community consensus on this. Their goal, however, was merely to get community members to lend their good names to the process. Indeed, Canonical, Ltd. has oft attempted to use the involvement of good people to make it seem as if Canonical, Ltd.'s agenda is endorsed by many. In fact, FSF recently distanced itself from the process<http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/project-harmony>because of Canonical, Ltd.'s actions in this regard. Simon Phipps has similarly distanced himself before that<http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/08/on-contributor-agreemen…> . Nevertheless, it seems Canonical, Ltd. now believes that they've succeed in their sales job, because they've now confessed their true motive. In an IRC Q&A session <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/openweekMaverick/AskMark>last Thursday 0<http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/10/17/shuttleworth-admits-it.html#footnote-o…>, Shuttleworth finally admits that his goal is to increase the amount of “Open Core” <http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware.html>activity. Specifically, Shuttleworth says at 15:21 (and following): [C]ompare Qt and Gtk, Qt has a contribution agreement, Gtk doesn't, for a while, back in the bubble, Sun, Red Hat, Ximian and many other companies threw money at Gtk and it grew and improved very quickly but, then they lost interest, and it has stagnated. Qt was owned by Trolltech it was open source (GPL) but because of the contribution agreement they had many options including proprietary licensing, which is just fine with me alongside the GPL and later, because they owned Qt completely, they were an attractive acquisition for Nokia, All in all, the Qt ecosystem has benefitted [sic] and the Gtk ecosystem hasn't. It takes some careful analysis to parse what's going on here. First of all, Shuttleworth is glossing over a lot of complicated Qt history. Qt started with a non-FaiF license (QPL), which later became a GPL-incompatible Free Software license <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_Public_License>. After a few years of this oddball, license-proliferation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_proliferation>-style software freedom license, Trolltech stumbled upon the “Open Core” model (likely inspired by MySQL AB), and switched to GPL. When Nokia bought Trolltech <http://mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/28/136204>, Nokia itself discovered that full-on “Open Core” was *bad* for the code base, and (as I heralded at the time<http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/01/14/qt-lgpl.html>) relicensed the codebase to LGPL<http://qt.nokia.com/about/news/lgpl-license-option-added-to-qt>(the *same* license used by Gtk). A few months after that, Nokia abandoned copyright assignment completely for Qt<http://labs.qt.nokia.com/2009/05/11/qt-public-repository-launched/>as well! (I.e., Shuttleworth is just wrong on this point entirely.) In fact, Shuttleworth, rather than supporting his pro-Open-Core argument, actually gave the prime example of Nokia/TrollTech's lesson learned: “don't do an Open-Core-style contributor agreement, you'll regret it”. (RMS also recently published a good essay on this subject<http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/assigning-copyright> ). Furthermore, Shuttleworth also ignores completely plenty of historical angst in communities that rely on Qt, which often had difficulty getting bugfixes upstream and other such challenges when dealing with a for-profit controlled “Open Core” library. (These were, in fact, among the reasons Nokia gave in May 2009 for the change in policy<http://labs.qt.nokia.com/2009/05/11/qt-public-repository-launched/>). Indeed, if the proprietary relicensing business is what made Trolltech such a lucrative acquisition for Nokia, why did they abandon the business model entirely within four months of the acquisition? Although, Shuttleworth's “lucrative acquisition” point has some validity. Namely, “Open Core” makes wealthy, profit-driven types (e.g., VCs) drool. Meanwhile, people like me<http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware.html>, Simon Phipps<http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/06/open-core-is-bad-for-yo…>, NASA's Chris Kemp<http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/07/20/why_nasa_is_dropping_eucalyptus…>, John Mark Walker <http://www.ostatic.org/blog/open-core-or-open-snore>, Tarus Balog <http://www.adventuresinoss.com/?p=863> and many others are either very skeptical about “Open Core”, or dead-set against it. The reason it's meeting with so much opposition is because “Open Core” is a VC-friendly way to control all the copyright “assets” while *pretending* to actually have the goal of building an Open Source community. The real goal of “Open Core”, of course, is a bait-and-switch move. (Details on that are beyond the scope of this post and well covered in the links I've given.) As to Shuttleworth's argument of Gtk stagnation, after my trip this past summer to GUADEC <http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/08/05/guadec.html>, I'm quite convinced that the GNOME community is extremely healthy. Indeed, as Dave Neary's GNOME Census shows<http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2010/07/28/gnome-census/>, the GNOME codebases are well-contributed to by various corporate entities and (more importantly) volunteers. For-profit corporate folks like Shuttleworth and his executives tend not to like communities where a non-profit (in this case, the GNOME Foundation<http://foundation.gnome.org/>) shepherds a project and keeps the multiple for-profit interests at bay. In fact, he dislikes this so much that when GNOME was recently documenting its long standing copyright policies <http://live.gnome.org/CopyrightAssignment>, he sent Silber to the GNOME Advisory Board (the first and only time Canonical, Ltd. sent such a high profile person to the Advisory Board) to argue against the *long*-standing GNOME community preference for no copyright assignment on its projects1<http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/10/17/shuttleworth-admits-it.html#footnote-c…>. Silber's primary argument was that it was unreasonable for individual contributors to even *ask* to keep their own copyrights, since Canonical, Ltd. puts in the bulk of the work on their projects that require copyright assignment. * Her argument was, in other words, an anti-software-freedom equality argument: a for-profit company is more valuable to the community than the individual contributor.* Fortunately, GNOME Foundation didn't fall for this, continued its work with Intel to get the Clutter codebase free of copyright assignment (and that work has since succeeded). It's also particularly ironic that, a few months later, Neary showed that the very company making that argument contributes 22% *less* to the GNOME codebase than the volunteers Silber once argued don't contribute enough to warrant keeping their copyrights. *So, why* have Shuttleworth and his staff been on a year-long campaign to convince everyone to embrace “Open Core” and give up all their rights that copyleft provides? Well, in the same IRC log (at 15:15) I quoted above, Shuttleworth admits that he has some work left to do to make Canonical, Ltd. profitable. And therein lies the connection: Shuttleworth admits Canonical, Ltd.'s profitability is a major goal (which is probably obvious). Then, in his next answer, he explains at great length how lucrative and important “Open Core” is. *We should accept “Open Core”, Shuttleworth argues, merely because it's so important that Canonical, Ltd. be profitable.* Shuttleworth's argument reminds me of a story that Michael Moore<http://www.michaelmoore.com/>(who famously made the documentary Roger and Me <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_&_Me>, and has since made other documentaries) told at a book-signing in the mid-1990s. Moore said (I'm paraphrasing from memory here, BTW): Inevitably, I end up on planes next to some corporate executive. They look at me a few times, and then say: Hey, I know you, you're Roger Moore [audience laughs]. What I want to know, is what the hell have you got against *profit*? What's wrong with profit, anyway? The answer I give is simple: There's nothing wrong with profit at all. The question I'm raising is: What lengths are acceptable to achieve profit? We all agree that we can't exploit child labor and other such things, even if that helps profitability. Yet, once upon a time, these sorts of horrible policies were acceptable for corporations. So, my point is that we still need more changes to balance the push for profit with what's right for workers. I quote this at length to make it abundantly clear: I'm not opposed to Canonical, Ltd. making a profit by supporting software freedom. I'm glad that Shuttleworth has contributed a non-trivial part of his personal wealth to start a company that employs many excellent FLOSS developers (and even sometimes lets those developers work on upstream projects). But the question really is: Are the values of software freedom worth giving up merely to make Canonical, Ltd. profitable? Should we just accept that proprietary network services like UbuntuOne<https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntuone-servers/+bug/375272>, integrated on nearly every menu of the desktop, as reasonable merely because it might help Canonical, Ltd. make a few bucks? Do we think we should abandon copyleft's assurances of fair treatment to all, and hand over full proprietarization powers on GPL'd software to for-profit companies, merely so they can employ a few FLOSS developers to work primarily on non-upstream projects? I don't think so. I'm often critical of Red Hat, but one thing they do get right in this regard is a healthy encouragement of their developers to start, contribute to, and maintain upstream projects that live in the community rather than inside Red Hat. Red Hat currently allows its engineers to keep their own copyrights and license them under whatever license the upstream project uses, binding them to the terms of the copyleft licenses (when the upstream project is copylefted). Red Hat even encourages outside contributors to give under their own copyright under the outbound license Red Hat chose for its projects (some of which are also copylefted). This set of policies has some flaws (details of which are beyond the scope of this post), but it's orders of magnitude better than the copyright assignment intimidation tactics that other companies, like Canonical, Ltd., now employ. So, don't let a friendly name like “Harmony” fool you. Our community has some key infrastructure, such as the copyleft itself, that *actually* keeps us harmonious. Contributor agreements aren't created equal<http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/02/01/copyright-not-all-equal.html>, and therefore we should oppose the idea that contributor and assignment agreements should be set to the lowest common denominator to enable a for-profit corporate land-grab that Shuttleworth and other “Open Core” proponents seek. I also strongly advise the organizations and individuals who are assisting Canonical, Ltd. in this goal to stop immediately, particularly now that Shuttleworth has announced his “Open Core” plans. ------------------------------ 0<http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/10/17/shuttleworth-admits-it.html#return-omg…>I originally credited OMG Ubuntu as publishing Shutleworth's comments as an interview<http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/10/mark-shuttleworth-talks-projcet-harmony-…>. Their reformatting of his comments temporarily confused me, and I thought they'd done an interview. Thanks to @gotunandan<http://identi.ca/gotunandan>who pointed this out <http://identi.ca/notice/56487822>. 1<http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/10/17/shuttleworth-admits-it.html#return-can…>Ironically, the debate had nothing to do with a Canonical, Ltd. codebase, since their contributions amount to so little (1%) of the GNOME codebase anyway. The debate was about the Clutter/Intel situation, which has since been resolved. Posted on Sunday 17 October 2010 at 11:30 by Bradley M. Kuhn. Comment on this post in this identi.ca conversation<http://identi.ca/conversation/55760715#notice-56485409>. http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/10/17/shuttleworth-admits-it.html -- Pablo Manuel Rizzo ------------------------------- http://pablorizzo.com -------------------------------

7 11

Re: [Solar-general] Científicos publican un test genético libre pese a patentes
by Javier Villalba 25 Oct '10

25 Oct '10

>http://ciencia.barrapunto.com/article.pl?sid=10/10/22/2136258&from=rss <http://ciencia.barrapunto.com/article.pl?sid=10/10/22/2136258&from=rss> >relacionado con lo q se discutía hace un tiempo en solar-socios. >Para los que no estén en socios, se discutía sobre los derechos de >autor, y si es delito o no compartir libros (música o lo que sea) cuando >existen este tipo de patentes. >Quienes justifican este tipo de prohibiciones (llamensé patentes, >derechos de autor, etc) dicen que son una forma (la única, dicen >algunos) de incentivar la producción de los autores con los ingresos >producidos. >Este caso es un extremo (es una extrema pelotudez patentar el genoma >humano!) que demuestra que este tipo de prohibiciones son, mas que un >incentivo, un freno al progreso. >Lo que mas me gustó de la noticia fue la última parte, cito: >"Además, en Nature News entrevistan a Salzberg, quien indica que no >espera que le demanden porque no se considera un objetivo interesante >(Myriad no ganaría nada con ello, en su opinión); de cualquier modo, >resalta que si le exigieran retirar la aplicación no perdería nada, >porque al liberarla con esa licencia ya se ha difundido." >Es una suerte de hack a la patente :). Algo asi como decirle a la >empresa: "ya lo publiqué, y no lo vas a poder parar, el conocimiento ya >se difundió. Además no ganas nada haciendome juicio, asiq metete tu >patente en el orto y anda a llorar a la iglesia" >ja >saludos, >mati Que raro justamente estaba releyendo el tema de las patentes en el libro de RMS Software Libre para una Sociedad Libre. Y si son una cagada las patentes, lastima que lo liberaron desde el open source. -- , , / \ ((__-^^-,-^^-__)) `-_---' `---_-' `--|o` 'o|--' \ ` / ): :( :o_o: "-" Gnu/Linux ////////////////////////////////////////// Javier Villalba ////////////////////////////////////////// Pc Ajedrez! - Comunidad Ajedrecista http://www.pcajedrez.com/ (Viva el Software Libre al 100% !!!) ////////////////////////////////////////// Correo Electrónico: jvillalba(a)pcajedrez.com Identi.ca: http://identi.ca/pcajedrez

6 10

Campaña Nacional por el Derecho al Aborto
by Luis Palombo 25 Oct '10

25 Oct '10

Compañeras/os: xfa entren a la siguiente página y voten, difundan, está propuesta la Campaña Nacional por el Derecho al Aborto en el área social. Hay que votar en todos los rubros y lleva unos minutos, luego tiene que confirmar la votación con un mensaje que les llega a sus correos, no dejemos de votar!!!!!!! http://www.premiosdemocracia.org.ar >

1 0

Off Topic: Algunas preguntitas!
by Javier Villalba 25 Oct '10

25 Oct '10

Hola Comunidad de Ututo! Bueno voy a hacer algunas preguntas! (no se si soy un inutil pero no se hay va) Osea yo tengo una AMD Athlon 64 X2, 2 gb de ram, 500 gb de disco sata y mother biostar. Logicamente tendria que instalar el ututo 64 bits no? Bueno instalo ututo se instala todo bien en el cargador de arranque tengo que elegir el de ata cierto? Ahora me viene la parte jodida por ejemplo yo configuro el uget con k8 porque me imagino que es el que representa a la arquitectura de mi micro. Si no lo fuera asi cual seria? Otra duda por ejemplo hablo la terminal logeo como root y hago por ejemplo un uget xs-update porque me dice que tengo la version ututo 7 cuando anda por la 19. Lo que me parece raro que aparece como un coso de error invalid package cada dos por tres tambien me pasa cuando no se le instalo el pidgin ultima version que me baja como 420 paquetes. Al instalar tambien otros errores. Despues de reiniciar cuando hice las actualizaciones nunca mas me arranca el sistema o es error cuando carga en la parte de la pantalla negra o si no se me queda tildado en el fondo de pantalla de la iguana y no carga mas el login. Bueno nada estoy entusiasmado en lograr actualizar y dejar funcionando al 100% ututo ya que es una distribucion que me gusta. Espero sus respuestas !! Saludos PD: Mientras tanto ando usando Trisquel. -- , , / \ ((__-^^-,-^^-__)) `-_---' `---_-' `--|o` 'o|--' \ ` / ): :( :o_o: "-" Gnu/Linux ////////////////////////////////////////// Javier Villalba ////////////////////////////////////////// Pc Ajedrez! - Comunidad Ajedrecista http://www.pcajedrez.com/ (Viva el Software Libre al 100% !!!) ////////////////////////////////////////// Correo Electrónico: jvillalba(a)pcajedrez.com Identi.ca: http://identi.ca/pcajedrez

2 1

malcom x
by Diego Saravia 25 Oct '10

25 Oct '10

"Si no estáis prevenidos ante los Medios de Comunicación, os harán amar al opresor y odiar al oprimido" "Si no estás preparado para morir por ella, saca la palabra "libertad<http://es.wikiquote.org/wiki/Libertad>" de tu vocabulario." -- Diego Saravia Diego.Saravia(a)gmail.com NO FUNCIONA->dsa(a)unsa.edu.ar

1 0