Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 11th Jan 2007 11:39 UTC, submitted by falko
Thread beginning with comment 200773
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: g4u/g4l Copyright Infringement Analyzis
by msetzeriigm on Fri 12th Jan 2007 14:48
in reply to "RE: g4u/g4l Copyright Infringement Analyzis"
I agree that g4u is a great product, and I made a $20 donation to the author when I started using it. My College had a Ghost site license, but it then failed with disks with LVM partition, and Symantec was of no help. Found g4u, and it worked fine. Only problem I had was when trying to image a full classroom of machines at the same time, it would usually have about 25% of the machines fail. Later tired g4l, and it never had the problem with the ftp. Since then, I generally use udpcast, which is even better for doing many machines.
RE[3]: g4u/g4l Copyright Infringement Analyzis
by eMagius on Fri 12th Jan 2007 21:18
in reply to "RE[2]: g4u/g4l Copyright Infringement Analyzis"






Member since:
2005-07-06
It's pretty clear that early versions of g4l were copied from g4u, but less clear that any g4u code remains in g4l at the moment. Of course, even removing the infringing code later doesn't absolve g4l's developer(s).
g4u's a solid product, in any case--I use it to image and deploy the machines in my lab.