Linux-Misc Digest #228, Volume #27 Sun, 25 Feb 01 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: adding extensions to many files in a directory (Juergen Heinzl)
Re: i586 kernel vs i686 kernel ("Ja")
Re: Linux partitioning question (Robert Heller)
Re: Resizing a EPS image ("Mark Hadfield")
Re: Linux partitioning question (Seve)
Re: LOCAL: SLUG Meeting Announcement (GOD'S CREATOR)
Re: kernel 4.1 upgrade - fail to boot again (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Rasmus_B=F8g_Hansen?=)
Re: RAID-1 under 2.2.18 or 2.4.2? (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Rasmus_B=F8g_Hansen?=)
Re: Linux partitioning question (Doug Lutterloh)
Re: MS Windows XP vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tcpdump 3.6.2 (Jochen Reitzig)
RH startup background image (Martin Lemenu)
Re: help! new kernel - can't mount cdrom (Dances With Crows)
Re: Linux as terminal emulator. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: i586 kernel vs i686 kernel (Jean-David Beyer)
Re: data recover after mkfs (Jean-David Beyer)
Re: please help with setting su password (Jochen Reitzig)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juergen Heinzl)
Subject: Re: adding extensions to many files in a directory
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:03:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Colquhoun wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 02:29:36 -0500, Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>|hello,
>|
>|is it possible to easily add .zip (in this case) to all the files in a
>|directory even when none of the files already have an 'extension' as
>|well as some end with numbers and others end with letters?
>|
>|is there any simple fast way of doing that?
>|
>|i've tried shell scripts and Perl scripts and unless i'm doing it wrong
>|I can't quite get them to be renamed. One way i did it was using the
>|pattern matching Perl string of s/[0-9]\b/.zip/ * as an argument
>|to rename(), which I had to create first of course based on code in the
>|Perl Cookbook.
>|But for some reason that still skipped some files that ended with
>|numbers and i have no clue why. As it didn't even get all the right
>|files i didn't waste time on doing something similar for files that
>|ended with letters.
>
>
>From a Bourne/Korn/BASH shell prompt this should work:
>
>for FILE in *
>do
> mv $FILE ${FILE}.zip
>done
[-]
Will overwrite an existing .zip file without further ado 8)
How about ...
#! /bin/bash -
for f in *
do
mv -i $f ${f%%[0-9]*}.zip
done
... which isn't perfect though either if some file names consist
of numbers only for instance.
Take care,
Juergen
--
\ Real name : Juergen Heinzl \ no flames /
\ EMail Private : [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ send money instead /
------------------------------
From: "Ja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: i586 kernel vs i686 kernel
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:09:48 GMT
Sorry Chris.
I only have hds and a fd in that box. I'm using Samba to access CDs from my
Win98 machines and .......????....... yep that still works.
If you installed as I did you should be able to "hit tab" and boot the
2.2.16 image to see if that image still works. I had a mount problem like
that before because I didn't unmount the Samba CDrom before I rebooted the
box. Luckily after I unmounted the device I could mount it again.
"Chris Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:itdm6.2388$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ja,
> I don't have an answer for your question, but I noticed that you just did
> the same upgrade that I just did. I was wondering, did you have any cd-rom
> problems? and do you have a cd-recorder in your system?
>
> I've got a problem with 2.2.17. I have a plain cd-rom reader and a
> cd-recorder.
> Both were working fine in 2.2.16, but with 2.2.17 I can't mount my cd-rom
> reader.
>
> Chris.
>
> Ja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:y0bm6.3486$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Does anyone know of benefits or pitfalls of using a i686 kernel instead
of
> a
> > i586 kernel?
> >
> > I've just upgraded my RH6.2 kernel from 2.16-3.i386 to 2.17-14.i586 but
I
> > have a Cyrix 6x686 CPU and it looks like I'll have to upgrade a bunch of
> > packages before upgrading to the i686 kernel.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: Robert Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux partitioning question
Date: 25 Feb 2001 15:09:04 -0600
"Gregg Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
In a message on Sun, 25 Feb 2001 12:32:56 -0800, wrote :
"B> I'm reading up on setting up linux, and it states that many will setup
"B> separate partitions for /usr and /home besides ones swap space. I would
"B> like to ask you how you usually setup your partitioning. I was a little bit
"B> confused on it, for you at least need a mounting point of root. This is how
"B> I did it, but I'm not sure if it's how it should be done. I set one
"B> partition for about 3/4 of the drive as '/'. I thought that would cover my
"B> separate partition for /usr as well as the mount point. My second partition
"B> and about 1/4 of the drive (not all, as the last is for swap) I set as mount
"B> point /home. Then of course the remaining 256 megs I set for swap.
"B>
"B> At first I was going to create a 7 meg partition just for mounting root,
"B> then the larger 3/4 approx for /usr, and then the last primary for /home but
"B> I thought it just made more sense to make just a / and /home partition.
"B> Maybe I'm just not thinking about this correctly. Any suggestions would be
"B> appreciated!
"B>
"B> I'm running Mandrake 7.2
This is my 'rule of thumb' for partitioning for Linux:
Assuming an IDE disk, non-dual boot system (pure linux):
Partition dev Size mount point Comments
/dev/hda1 128meg / This is the base
file system
/dev/hda2 128meg <swap> swap partition
/dev/hda3 1.5-2gig /usr /usr file system
/dev/hda4 <rest of disk> <Extended>
/dev/hda5 128meg /var /var file system
/dev/hda6 128-512meg /var/spool Print spool
mainly (optional)
/dev/hda7 <rest of disk> /home user personal
files
This may *seem* like a lot of file systems and very complicated, but it
will save your bacon many times. Because UNIX (Linux) uses a single
file system tree (no silly drive letters), once things are set up, the
partitioning itself is invisible. By having the root file system
separate from all of the others and (comparitivly small), the system will
be able to come up sanely, even if it gets broght down badly. If the
O/S file systems get trashed (/, /usr, and /var), things can be
re-installed *and /home can be left alone* -- thus if you should manage
to do something like trash your RPM database or something and cannot
boot to do a backup, you should be able to a fresh re-install and not
lose ANY of your *personal* files! If you should decide to install a
second disk and install a *different* flavor of Linux, you can share
/home between the two flavors. If you should somehow manage to fill the
home file system, the base system will still be able to boot and run
fine. If you fail to rotate the log files, the system won't be brought
to its knees, etc.
--
\/
Robert Heller ||InterNet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/~heller || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.deepsoft.com /\FidoNet: 1:321/153
Posted Via Nuthinbutnews Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
==========================================================
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION **
==========================================================
http://www.nuthinbutnews.com
------------------------------
From: "Mark Hadfield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Resizing a EPS image
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:10:19 +1300
"Bob van der Poel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I have a eps file from my scanner which I'd like to printout as a full
> page pic. I thought there was a program which would resize this, but I
> can't find anything. I do have psresize, but it only seems to work with
> ps, not eps files.
>
> So, what I want is a psresize which will take a eps file and enlarge it
> to fit a lettersize sheet.
Try epsffit. Like psresize this is part of the PSutils package.
---
Mark Hadfield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://katipo.niwa.cri.nz/~hadfield
National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research
------------------------------
From: Seve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Linux partitioning question
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:23:51 -0800
Gregg Black wrote:
> I'm reading up on setting up linux, and it states that many will setup
> separate partitions for /usr and /home besides ones swap space. I would
> like to ask you how you usually setup your partitioning. I was a little
> bit
> confused on it, for you at least need a mounting point of root. This is
> how
> I did it, but I'm not sure if it's how it should be done. I set one
> partition for about 3/4 of the drive as '/'. I thought that would cover
> my
> separate partition for /usr as well as the mount point. My second
> partition and about 1/4 of the drive (not all, as the last is for swap) I
> set as mount
> point /home. Then of course the remaining 256 megs I set for swap.
>
> At first I was going to create a 7 meg partition just for mounting root,
> then the larger 3/4 approx for /usr, and then the last primary for /home
> but I thought it just made more sense to make just a / and /home
> partition.
> Maybe I'm just not thinking about this correctly. Any suggestions would
> be appreciated!
>
> I'm running Mandrake 7.2
>
>
Well, sometimes one can argue on how to approach this partitioning. I'll
just show you how I do it. From your posting, your drive must be 1GB in
size. It's a bit small for a full install of LM-7.2
Let's just say you had a HD of sufficient size: I'll break it up into the
following partitions. Also I tend to do it in this order with hda5 being
"/boot" and Swap being hda13:
/boot - 0.1GB
/usr - 3GB (2.6gig minimum for full LM-7.2 install)
/usr/local - 0.5GB (dependant on quantity of non-LM installs)
/usr/src - 0.2GB (higher if U like playing w/ the Kernel)
/var - 0.5GB
/tmp - 0.5GB (should be more if Taper b/u huge files)
/ - 0.2GB (only for /root & SuperUser)
/home - Whatever remains of your HD
+swap - 0.5GB (higher for heavy Gimp usage & low RAM)
But since you have a 1GB drive, at least have one of the partitions being
/home because that's where your personal settings will reside. And as long
as you don't format the /home partition on a subsequent install, you keep
your settings.
Seve
------------------------------
From: GOD'S CREATOR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LOCAL: SLUG Meeting Announcement
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:24:23 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> *********************************************
> ***** Suncoast Linux Users Group (SLUG) *****
> *********************************************
> ======================
> DUNEDIN MEETING NOTICE
> ======================
>
> WHEN:
>
> *** NOTE: THIS IS AN AFTERNOON MEETING! ***
> Saturday 24 February 2001, 13:30 to 16:30 local, starts promptly
>
> WHERE:
>
> Dunedin Public Library
> 223 Douglas Ave, Community Room A
> Dunedin
>
> See the SLUG website (www.suncoastlug.org/meetings.html) for
> directions.
>
> WHAT:
>
> SWAP MEET! Bring your old gear, parts, distros. Mix-n-match.
> Raffle... maybe.
>
> AS USUAL:
>
> Bring your computers, questions or problems.
> We are here to help.
> And don't forget to start installs early.
>
> FOLLOWING MEETINGS:
>
> Thursday, 1 March, 20:00 to 22:00 in Brandon
> Saturday, 2 March, 13:00 to 15:00 in New Port Richey
> Wednesday, 14 March, 19:00 to 21:00 in Tampa
>
> - --
> This article has been digitally signed by the moderator, using PGP.
> http://www.iki.fi/mjr/cola-public-key.asc has PGP key for validating signature.
> Send submissions for comp.os.linux.announce to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> PLEASE remember a short description of the software and the LOCATION.
> This group is archived at http://www.iki.fi/mjr/linux/cola.html
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.3ia
> Charset: latin1
>
> iQCVAgUBOpGEVFrUI/eHXJZ5AQFuJwP+Ibzv1ZXhFqRx24NSIbSfQnC9o9OZwabX
> iEG/YXXfzYv3y721b2q5vkb9sqtS7oFb2seHHRnq4MJ3aiDSM+JAAom/i7uC1iug
> hFtpsZKxdc7PUvpRJvVPn6EsQZh9jawr0EIZa+KcrS+NoIawp0wUBxA+ibNj5Vl2
> 4djmb1VdNYI=
> =xxYp
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
The Real God! thus spake;
The Real God! (The sinless one) I don't forgive nothing....
http://fullcoverage.yahoo.com/Full_Coverage/World/Religion_News/
Wise men stare at the unknown, and boldly! asks, WHY?
Others... fall on their hands and knees, and start mumbling...
-- The Real God! --
HYPNOTISM, ALL RELIGIOUS LEADERS SCEPTER
-------------------------------------------------
http://dir.yahoo.com/Society_and_Culture/Religion/Faiths_and_Practices/
http://www.royhunter.com/HYPNOFAQ.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
news:alt.hypnosis
------------------------------
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Rasmus_B=F8g_Hansen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: kernel 4.1 upgrade - fail to boot again
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 22:36:00 +0100
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, bart wrote:
> Hello linus lovers,
>
> I recently upgraded my 2.2.14 kernel to 2.4.1 ... everything worked all
> right but when I try to boot with the new
> kernel it complains that it can't mount the root filesystem ... !
> Compiled using make zBimage
> I just copied the lilo entry for the 2.2.14 kernel ... where the root
> should be exactly the same as before, activated this
> by invoking lilo ... but it doesn't work. Linux boots but fails with a
> panic since it can't mount the root filesystem.
> Did I forget something ?
Did you compile in support for ext2 filesystem (or what you use for root
fs)? That is, in the kernel - ot as a module...
Rasmus
------------------------------
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Rasmus_B=F8g_Hansen?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: RAID-1 under 2.2.18 or 2.4.2?
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 22:47:26 +0100
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> > With 2.2.18, you have to download a raidpatch if your distro does not
>
> No you don't. RAID1 has been part of the standard kernel forever. Since
> 1.2 days at least.
Ouch, yes you are right. It is only the raid-autodetect part, that is
not...
Rasmus
------------------------------
From: Doug Lutterloh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Linux partitioning question
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:56:59 GMT
I have never agreed with the suggested partitioning scheme in most
install docs for Linux, at least not for the home user. I usually set up
with 3 partitions on my machine. One for windoze because I dual
boot, one for Linux swap, and one for Linux. Why confuse the issue?!!?
Why do I want to guess how much I will need for /home and /usr when
I can just lump them together in one big partition and use all my
space as efficiently as possible.
You might hear some nonsense about the system running faster with
the ten-gillion partition setup because it checks over the file system at
bootup and a few other reasons. My experience has been that having
one big partition doesn't hurt anything. I've also heard that multiple
partitions make updating easier. I don't know about that for sure. Usually
when I update I format the whole drive and start over anyway, or get a new
machine, or whatever. Even so, I'm guessing Linux is smart enough to
do a proper update when you don't use the traditional partition setup.
Well, that's my 2 cents. If I weren't dual booting with windoze (and I'm
starting
to wonder why I even bother) my machine would only have 2 partitions.
One for Linux swap and one for Linux.
Doug
Gregg Black wrote:
> I'm reading up on setting up linux, and it states that many will setup
> separate partitions for /usr and /home besides ones swap space. I would
> like to ask you how you usually setup your partitioning. I was a little bit
> confused on it, for you at least need a mounting point of root. This is how
> I did it, but I'm not sure if it's how it should be done. I set one
> partition for about 3/4 of the drive as '/'. I thought that would cover my
> separate partition for /usr as well as the mount point. My second partition
> and about 1/4 of the drive (not all, as the last is for swap) I set as mount
> point /home. Then of course the remaining 256 megs I set for swap.
>
> At first I was going to create a 7 meg partition just for mounting root,
> then the larger 3/4 approx for /usr, and then the last primary for /home but
> I thought it just made more sense to make just a / and /home partition.
> Maybe I'm just not thinking about this correctly. Any suggestions would be
> appreciated!
>
> I'm running Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MS Windows XP vs Linux
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:59:35 GMT
Harlan Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Arctic Storm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>MS Windows XP vs Linux Microsoft's new Windows XP is touted as the
>>easiest Windows ever, and is expected to unify Windows OS's.
> MS has been talking about Grand Unification since they rolled out Win95.
> As for easiest to use, Apple's MacOS is still simpler.
LOL... Anyone remember that pre-win95 MS attempt at making computers
easier? Microsoft BOB?
Every time MS sets out to try to make something easy to use they wind
up constraining the user. A friend of mine just switched from Mac OS
to Windows because of a family hand-me-down. He is totally green
vis-a-vis MS products. His big complaint is that they "try to make it
so easy that you can't get anything done" - this he said while he was
attempting to clean the hard drive up. He is in many ways... the
classic new user. He is new and inexperienced yet he wants to feel
that he has control over this object on his desk. He wants to decide
where to install software, he wants to decide where to put his files.
Instead, MS has decided that the way to make a computer easier is to
use is to take these decisions away from the user. This is a condescending
attitude that is probably imho the single biggest reason why many home
users decide to give linux a shot. At least with linux ur machine is
ur machine... u set it up the way you want it and u maintain it the
way you want. New users want this power also... hell with MacOS you
could drag your folders and programs pretty much wherever u wanted...
I doubt if MS' "improvements" to windows will do anything other than further
constrain users to Bills vision of how a computer should be organised.
They have been mired in this condescending attitude toward their users
for too long.
------------------------------
From: Jochen Reitzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.programmer,comp.os.linux.networking,alt.os.linux,comp.dcom.net-management,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Tcpdump 3.6.2
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:12:43 -0500
My exprerience with tcpdump is that the timestamps are not very accurate.
It happens that you get like 20 packets all with the same timestamp. My
explanation for this is, that the timestamp is created when the packet is
served by the kernel and not when the packet has been taken off the cable
by the network card.
What I want to point out: Donīt use tcpdump, if you need absolut accurate
timestamps. I Am not sure about how good SNORT is when it comes to that.
Bye, Jochen
Rick Goh wrote:
> I'm working on a socket programming project: requires me to find out the
> time-stamp when i send and receive the same data i sent to the echo
> server.
>
> Is there any way i can out the actual DATA into a file along with its
> time-stamps ??
>
> I can use Ethereal to see the DATA but however, there is no time-stamp
> along with the DATA.
>
> Do you know the command for tcpdump to show the DATA along with the
> time-stamp??
>
>
> Regards.
>
>
>
>
--
Jochen Reitzig 99 Woodbridge Ave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Iselin, NJ 08830, USA
------------------------------
From: Martin Lemenu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RH startup background image
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:06:51 -0500
Hi there,
I would like to know where is the file containing the initial bootup
background image in RH 7.0 when there is more than 1 OS? Can anyone tell
me where it is and what type of image it is?
Thanks,
Martin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dances With Crows)
Subject: Re: help! new kernel - can't mount cdrom
Date: 25 Feb 2001 22:04:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:13:30 -0500, Chris Coyle staggered into the Black
Sun and said:
>A. Yes on my system it is /dev/cdrom0, because yes I do have another cdrom
>drive ( /dev/cdrom1 ), and yes I know they are both links to the "real"
>devices, because I created those links myself (cdrom0 -> hdc, cdrom1 ->
>hdd).
>B. No its not /dev/cdrom, because I removed that link.
>
>As I said, 2.2.16 works OK, specifically including "mount /dev/cdrom0"
>so the device link is not the problem.
>
>I think it has something to do with the 2.2.17 ide-scsi module.
>I think its aggressively "taking over" both cdroms, whereas with 2.2.16
>it just uses hdd like I told it to.
Yep. For reasons which are opaque to me, if you have two devices on an
IDE channel, and one of them is under ide-scsi emulation, it's better to
treat both of them as if they were under ide-scsi emulation. Your
CD-ROMs are most likely under /dev/scd[01] , so change the links around
and fugghedaboutit. Or pass a kernel parameter like "hdd=ide-cd"?
--
Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin / Workin' in a code mine, hittin' Ctrl-Alt
http://www.brainbench.com / Workin' in a code mine, whoops!
=============================/ I hit a seg fault....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.protocols.kermit.misc
Subject: Re: Linux as terminal emulator.
Date: 25 Feb 2001 22:22:35 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: However good you may consider the excuses to be, the licensing made
: Kermit disappear from view _very_ effectively. Which was extremely
: unfortunate, as there were considerable improvements to Kermit in the
: mid-90's that _should_ have made it vastly more popular.
I've never had an operating system where Kermit came bundled with the
distribution, before or after licensing issues.
I've also not had an operating system where kermit was not available for
free download, until Windows managed to munge the direct hardware interface
to the point that I bought Kermit95, which is a commercial product.
All of the other platforms, including a RedHat RPM, packaged by someone at
RedHat, continue to be available for free download.
I currently run Kermit-95 (commercial) on Win95 and Win2K. I run freely
downloaded objects on Solaris, Linux, SCO, Unixware, Esix, and MSDOS.
http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/ckermit.html
or, more specifically
ftp://kermit.columbia.edu/kermit/archives/C-Kermit-7.0.196-1.i386.rpm
--
---
Clarence A Dold - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- San Jose & Pope Valley (Napa County) CA.
------------------------------
From: Jean-David Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: i586 kernel vs i686 kernel
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:23:18 -0500
Ja wrote:
>
> Does anyone know of benefits or pitfalls of using a i686 kernel instead of a
> i586 kernel?
>
> I've just upgraded my RH6.2 kernel from 2.16-3.i386 to 2.17-14.i586 but I
> have a Cyrix 6x686 CPU and it looks like I'll have to upgrade a bunch of
> packages before upgrading to the i686 kernel.
>
I do not know for sure, but if you have Intel 686 CPU(s), you
might benefit from running a kernel (and other applications
perhaps) with versions compiled for an Intel 686. The pitfalls of
running Intel 686 code on a machine other than an Intel 686 could
be considerable, but one would have to read and understand the
principles of operation manual for both the Intel 686 and the
chip you have to know. The worst that could happen is to execute
instructions you do not have (which, if you are lucky, would only
crash the system), but might make subtle timing problems that
would drive you crazy.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 5:15pm up 5 days, 49 min, 5 users, load average: 3.12,
3.21, 3.21
------------------------------
From: Jean-David Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: data recover after mkfs
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:19:14 -0500
Adriano Algeri wrote:
>
> I was installing a new hdd on my PC. After partitioning instead to issue
> the command mkfs.ext2 /dev/hdc2 i wrote mkfs.ext2 /dev/hda2. I've
> created a brand new
> filesystem on my data partion. This partition was unmounted so no
> warning from mkfs.
> Very big and stupid mistake!
> Is there any way to recover data from old hd partition ?
>
Not directly, but it should all be on your backup tape. Just
restore it from there.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 5:15pm up 5 days, 49 min, 5 users, load average: 3.12,
3.21, 3.21
------------------------------
From: Jochen Reitzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: please help with setting su password
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:30:32 -0500
If you want to I can send you an image from the SUse start Disk which you
can dd on a floppy. This defenitly works for getting a prompt and mounting
the device.
You should also be able to get at:
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/7.0/disks
You need bootdisk and rescue.
Good bye, Jochen
richard noel fell wrote:
> Thank you, Michael, for your reply. I booted from the boot diskette,
> entering linux rescue, as instructed. However, all that happened was the
> beginning of the installation procedure. I did the same from the cd -
> linux rescue at the prompt and again, the installation procedure started.
> Perhaps, one cannot enter rescue mode from either the boot diskette or the
> cd? Is this trur?
> Dick Fell
>
> Michael Heiming wrote:
>
>> richard noel fell wrote:
>>
>> > For reasons unbeknownst to me, my system, redhat 7.0, will no longer
>> > accept the password for su. This prevents many things, such as being
>> > able to print, etc. How can I reset the password if I can not log on
>> > as su? I can't imagine that I have to reinstall the software. My
>> > purchase of 7.0 comes with a boot diskette. Will this be of any help?
>> > Thanks to all in advance,
>> > Dick Fell
>>
>> Boot from your boot diskette, mount your / device to /mnt
>>
>> vi /mnt/etc/shadow
>>
>> root:deleted_your_crypted_passwd:
>>
>> umount /mnt
>>
>> Reboot and you should be done, set a new root pwd, as you shouldn't have
>> one anymore!
>>
>> Good luck
>>
>> Michael Heiming
>
> --
> Please note new email address:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Richard Fell
> 13 Davida Road
> Burlington, Ma 01803
> (781)273-2126
>
>
>
>
--
Jochen Reitzig 99 Woodbridge Ave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Iselin, NJ 08830, USA
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.misc.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Misc Digest
******************************
