Linux-Development-Sys Digest #380, Volume #6 Sat, 6 Feb 99 03:14:59 EST
Contents:
Re: Why I'm dumping Linux, going back to Windblows ("P. Soterinsky")
running with a RO root partition (Michael Hirsch)
Xircom cardbus ethernet driver (USERNAME)
Re: K6-2 and Linux, Are there any Bug? (Rick Onanian)
Re: Rewriting IDLE Process - Need Strategic Advice - part 1
Re: What's the best way to do process communication ?
A question about mount (mkk)
Re: disheartened gnome developer (Navindra Umanee)
Test, don't read ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why I'm dumping Linux, going back to Windblows (eagle95)
Re: Installing kernel modules at Boot (Frank McGirt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "P. Soterinsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Why I'm dumping Linux, going back to Windblows
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 23:41:44 -0500
Paul E. Lehmann wrote in message ...
>You can get all the Unix utilities and even run a Korn shell in NT by using
>software such as MKS Toolkit
>Why put up with the pain of Unix or Linux when you can have all the
>so-called advantages and a hell of a lot friendlier user environment and a
>hell of a lot more versatile environment.
excuse me ... first of all, even MKS Toolkit, which I rely on every day,
does not give NT the flexibility that even a half-experienced unix sysadmin
has. Have you ever tried to use "at" under NT to simply print w3svc logs to
a remote printer? Of course not - you can't. You have to use something that
will do regexps - for that you need MKS Toolkit... Have you ever tried to
use MKS Toolkit's scheduler to run some random script? Have you ever had it
bomb on you, every day? Grr!
Second, to describe NT as a "more versatile environment" is to reveal
yourself as someone who has never had the discipline to master a truly
versatile environment -- unix as root. When I have to handroll .inis and
random config files to get simple reverse proxy going under NT, I don't sit
back and say, "Wow, now that's a versatile environment!" NT treats its
sysadmins like idiots, like 95 users. Try doing something outside the
default configuration under NT or any BackOffice app and you'll know. Or do
you buy all that MCSE crap?
>Pearl
Before you mention the tool, learn how to use it. Or at least learn how to
spell it!
>, sed, awk, grep, vi -
>piping, redirection - they are all there without the Nerdy Unix
environment.
That "Nerdy Unix environment" lets people like me automate and manage very
complex systems without the overhead of a massive and unnecessary GUI,
without cute and fuzzy admin tools that real admins don't need, much less
want, without headaches caused by IE 4.0x or SP 4 munging the system -- have
you seen SP 4? Opens up in a cute little browser, then they have bat files
do the dirty work. They're running bat files, man! Bad tech! Can you say,
"bad tech"!?
>Sorry folks - Unix and Linux are about 20 years behind times and will NEVER
>catch up.
Sorry pal -- looks like you were expecting that big ol' tube of KY-Jelly
from Uncle Bill, and how!
MKS lets me get by on the NT systems I have to be responsible for. But any
so-called 32-bit OS that leverages off of a 16-bit slap-ass excuse for a dos
ain't worth 2 bits to me.
And what's this about Unix/Linux being a pain? You want to sit around
listening to your hdd going to hell as it loads IE 4.0x just so's you can
read the damn documentation ... you want to support some crap-bag excuse for
distributed component arch (DCOM) to do late binding just so's your
sub-moronic Visual Basic programmers don't have to type "Option Explicit" at
the top of their apps ... you go right ahead.
"If you ain't gonna get it on, then get your dead ass home."
-P. Soterinsky
------------------------------
From: Michael Hirsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: running with a RO root partition
Date: 06 Feb 1999 00:18:50 -0500
I would like to use my laptop as a router. Since it is in my bedroom
I would like the disk to spin down and stay that way.
I had the idea that I could comment out the part where rc.sysinit
remounts the filesystem in read-write mode. The problem, of course,
is that various parts of linux need rw access.
In particular, several directories in /var/ get touched regularly.
I've found /var/{lock, log, run} need to have write access.
Is there any reason I couldn't create ramdisks and mount them over
these directories? What else would I need to do? I guess I might
need to do something similar to /tmp.
If I did this, would I still need to make the root partition ro?
Would all the files that change be in these ramdisk directories? has
anyone tried this?
I'd appreciate any expert advice.
Thanks,
--
Michael D. Hirsch Work: (404) 727-7940
Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 FAX: (404) 727-5611
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~hirsch/
Public key for encrypted mail available upon request (or finger
[EMAIL PROTECTED]).
------------------------------
From: USERNAME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Xircom cardbus ethernet driver
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 11:47:52 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Can somebody tell me where I can get driver for
Xircom cardbus ethernet driver.
Model is CBE-10/100BTX
Thanks in advance,
ramky.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: Rick Onanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux.slackware,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: K6-2 and Linux, Are there any Bug?
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 15:46:33 -0500
Javier Pulido wrote:
> ��SOS!!
>
> Problems with the booting of linux in a computer AMD K6-2 (300 MHz) with
> i430TX (no AGP) and 128 MB, two hard drives and 1 CDROM. Can you help me?
>
> After many attempts of booting with several kernels (2.0.29, 2.0.30, 2.1.48,
> 2.0.35, 2.0.36) through a boot-disk, LILO or LOADLIN (Symbol of System,
> option F8 of Windows95), I realize only procedure that was operating:
>
> 1. I Start Windows95/98 (graphic environment)
> 2. I restart in MSDOS-Mode
> 3. C:> loadlin zImage2_2 root=/dev/hdc3 mem=128M no-hlt
I have heard of someone who ran loadlin similar to you (boot into win, then
restart in dos mode) and it wouldn't work. It did work, however, if they didn't
boot into win first - do a cold boot, and when it says starting windows 9x, hist
the F8 key, and choose "Command Prompt Only", or even better (probably more
likely to work:): "Safe Mode Command Prompt Only." The latter will totally skip
loading any piece of M$ software that's not necesary to give you a prompt. Then
try your loadlin...linux shouldn't have trouble throwing out M$ then..
Other possibility: Make sure your kernel supports: FAT, FAT32 (VFAT), and
UMSDOS. All three.
Worst case scenario: boot disk. Or chop your partition, and lilo...
rick
>
>
> If I don�t use option no-hlt, the system starts but is hung in little
> minutes, and it shown me all the processor registers, the stack and the
> message "idle task may not sleep".
>
> In the attempts rest of starting were remained hung when was ending the
> load kernel in report: Loading linux ....... (!!stop!!)
>
> My system crashes while it�s booting. I
>
> I only can boot linux in three steps:
>
> 1> loading Windows95
>
> 2> Restart in MSDOS MODE
> 3> loadlin kernel2.2 /dev/hdc3 no-hlt (root in /dev/hdc3)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Rewriting IDLE Process - Need Strategic Advice - part 1
Date: 5 Feb 1999 19:49:39 GMT
On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 21:23:18 GMT, Carl Spalletta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Feb 1999 22:10:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl Spalletta)
>wrote:
>
>> I thought it would be a nice touch to rewrite the idle process to do
>>some useful work.
Not a good idea, really.
The idle process, by design definition, is supposed to do very little
(next to nothing).
Making the idle process do something would, by definition, make it
something other than the "idle" process.
Please do not change the responsibility of a process that is correct
and complete.
If you want to write a "shredder" process, or a "defragmenter" process,
then go right ahead. . . have fun.
> The logical conclusion of this whole discussion on "shredding" files
>would seem to be: that the infeasibility of doing it in any absolute
>sense justifies _only_ either simply using the "secure delete" file
>attribute already existing in ext2 or _at most_ adding an option to
>the rm command to allow the user to preserve the zeroed out file, if
>he wishes, for final disposition.
Or, make sure you encrypt your data before storing it on the physical
disk.
After all, the ability to recover data is one thing, the ability to
decode it, another.
> So that now what has been suggested as an improvement to the kernel
>turns outto be most appropriate at the user level, only.
Sure. Cryptographic file systems create extra overhead, and in those
cases were you do not have any security concerns, the ability to turn
off the c-to-p, and p-to-c conversions is a good thing.
John S.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: What's the best way to do process communication ?
Date: 5 Feb 1999 19:53:56 GMT
On 02 Feb 1999 16:46:07 +0100,
Markus Kohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Hi,
>I need a way to communicate between two or more processes on the
>same machine and exchange data as fast as possible.
>The data are arrays of double's with a size
>from 10^3 elements to 10^6 elements.
>Performance is VERY critical.
clone() ?
John S.
------------------------------
From: mkk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A question about mount
Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 00:34:47 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there a way to add a hard disk ( or partition ) without affecting the
directory structure ? I mean 'mount' not only adds physical storage but
ADDS TO THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF MY FILESYSTEM. I'd rather have
something which would let the system think that my drive has more
capacity and not reflect the physical structure onto my logical
structure.
TIA
Khalid
------------------------------
From: Navindra Umanee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: disheartened gnome developer
Date: 6 Feb 1999 06:36:13 GMT
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Thank you for posting this, but I'd rather have a demon that calls
>>fortune(6) every three minutes or so and writes a cookie to my
>>signature file.
>
> I run the one posted every couple hours... It doesn't examine multiple
Besides, what sense does it make to have a daemon instead of
generating the sig on the fly? Both Emacs and Vi can handle that
(check for .article*, .mutt-*, .slrn-*, .pine-* files or whatever).
-N.
--
"These download files are in Microsoft Word 6.0 format. After unzipping,
these files can be viewed in any text editor, including all versions of
Microsoft Word, WordPad, and Microsoft Word Viewer." [Microsoft website]
< http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~navindra/editors/ >
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Test, don't read
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 21:56:44 GMT
This is a test (new newsreader).
------------------------------
From: eagle95 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Why I'm dumping Linux, going back to Windblows
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 16:05:51 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on my line box i say "command -help" to get the syntax quickly, "man
command" to get a summary of the command, and then goto
/usr/doc/HOWTO/<insert the howto filename here> to get the full
classroom experience
since im obviously(?) a newbie( to linux)...is this only on the couple
of distributions i have played with or is this model( described above)
implemented on more platforms?
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> In article <7913p8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>The man pages should not be
> >>cluttered with the kind of thing that you only want to see
> >>once. They should be the place you look when you know what
> >>you want to do but you need to fine tune the options. If
> >>you turn the man pages into fluff for people that haven't
> >>learned the language, then you'll also have to re-write the
> >>real reference again for the people that need it.
> >>
> >
> >If you call examples that help people understand how to use
> >something "clutter" and "fluff", then it is beyond hope to
> >continue to argue with you.
>
> The examples you suggest for someone who doesn't know how
> to read a man page are completely obvious to someone who
> does and who has used the command before. They just get
> in the way when you are trying to find something new.
> Do you ever read the warning labels on consumer electronic
> devices these days? When they first started adding them
> they were short and contained some sensible advice. Perhaps
> they still have something of value, but since they now have
> pages of blatently obvious examples to the effect of 'do
> not use this thing while standing on your head in the bathtub
> during a thunderstorm', no one ever reads far enough to see
> the important part.
>
> >But your point now seems that examples are good, but don't belong
> >to a man page?
> >
> >well, at least this is a progress.
> >
> >I say examples do belong in man pages, since man pages are
> >the first thing one looks at to find how to use a command.
>
> And I say if you are going to look in the man pages you should
> first learn how to read a man page. It isn't difficult and is
> worth the small amount of effort. It is also worth the effort
> to learn the shell syntax if you intend to type commands into
> the shell. I am not recommending avoiding unix if you don't
> want to learn this, I am saying that it will be worth the
> effort in the long run and there are 'fill in the form' interfaces
> for most things these days if you don't want to bother.
>
> >putting examples in a book, or some other document somehwere
> >on the net will not help someone at 3 a.m. trying to figure some
> >complex command. Sure, have a separate document or book if
> >you want, but this does not mean not to have the examples in
> >the man page as well.
>
> We are talking about Linux here aren't we? The system where
> on a normal installation:
> du -s /usr/doc
> 299714 /usr/doc
> there is clearly no lack of tutorial material unless you chose
> not to install it. How about if we add a warning label to
> every man page: "WARNING, if you don't know how to read this,
> see the corresponding HOWTO file"?
>
> >Do what is practical and convienent for the users, and use
> >common sense.
>
> We are agreed here, but you are only a new user once and you
> may be reading the man pages for another 20 years or more
> (I'm pretty close ...). You look there for the changes in
> this particular version's options compared to last year's or
> some other flavor of unix. You can do that if the man entry
> is a few pages at most and lists the options and their meanings
> in an uncluttered layout. You can't do it if there are pages
> of tutorial info and examples that get in the way. If the
> example actually reduces the text necessary to explain the
> command, then yes it belongs there. If it is really a literal
> copy of very common usage that you can cut-and-paste to the
> command line, that also has some value. If it is just a sugar
> coated version of the already shown option choices, then it
> belongs elsewhere.
>
> >>Do people typically combine many tools in VMS with pipelines and
> >>command grouping as they do in unix?
> >
> >Sure. In VMS you can do
> >
> >$pipe show file/device | search sys$input my_file_name
>
> What if you want wildcard filenames to be expanded only
> by one of the commands and one command to have a different
> working directory? I'm not being obscure here - I consider
> that sort of thing to be typical use and one of the big reasons
> for using unix in the first place.
>
> >why does combining commands prevent one from showing examples
> >of how each command byitself can be used?
>
> In unix at least, the 'combining' is done by the shell with
> its own particular syntax so the command line you actually
> need to type has much more to do with the shell metacharacter
> processing than the commands' own syntax where you generally
> just need to know the meaning of the options.
>
> >>I don't disagree here - I just don't want to see them more than
> >>once, and I don't think everyone else would either.
> >>
> >
> >I dont understand this about "not wanting to see them more
> >than once" ??
>
> OK, I'll give an example since the concise description seems
> not to be working. I regularly work with about 6 different
> versions of unix, all with subtle differences in the way
> various commands work. I might be writing a shell script
> and need to know if this particular version wants ef or ax
> as options to 'ps' and whether it wants the leading '-' or
> not. It is much harder to find the details if you have
> to visually wade though a lot of extra things that are obvious
> after the first time you have seen them.
>
> The other trouble with examples is that you can never think of a
> good one when you need it... I wanted something where the mistake
> would be destructive.
>
> >You do see the options more than once when you type man command,
> >dont you?
>
> Yes, that is precisely why I type 'man command'. If you make
> 'man command' do things besides show options concisely, then
> we will need some other command that does just show options
> concisely.
>
> >Think of examples as extension of the option list, or if you
> >dont want to see them at all, close your eyes when the page scrolls
> >down to the examples sections at the end of the page.
>
> Think of traing wheels on a bicycle. Think of telling the people
> who know how to ride how much better is is to have welded the
> training wheels on so new riders will be more comfortable.
> Perhaps someone will completely rewrite the man system as hypertext
> so you can easily jump to the tutorial without making the details
> cluttered, but I'm not holding my breath.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank McGirt)
Subject: Re: Installing kernel modules at Boot
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 21:53:18 GMT
Thanks, Chung. I'll have a look.
Frank
On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 20:14:06 -0800, Chun-Chung Chen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Frank McGirt wrote:
>
>> Would someone please list for me the files to be changed for kernel
>> driver modules to be installed at boot time rather than later with an
>> insmod command. Or better yet point me to where this procedure is
>> documented.
>
>If you just want to load certain modules during the booting process,
>you can put insmod in the booting scripts. They are files mentioned
>in /etc/inittab. If you need certain modules before you can mount
>your root file system then you should look into the initrd document.
>It's in the kernel source distribution:
>
> /usr/src/linux/Documentation/initrd.txt
>
>. Chung .
>
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.development.system) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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-Development-System Digest
******************************
