Linux-Development-Sys Digest #425, Volume #6 Tue, 23 Feb 99 21:13:58 EST
Contents:
Re: PROOF: Jesus *is* Lord of the Sabbath! (David Cornelius)
Re: PROOF: Jesus *is* Lord of the Sabbath! ("Jürgen Exner")
How to put Linux in suspend mode? (Tim Isaev)
Re: Create Bootable RH 5.2 CD? (Marc Lefranc)
Re: why do some processes die for no reason? (Chris Mahmood)
Re: sound card IRQ conflict (Chris Mahmood)
Re: Microsecond resolution (Felix Rauch)
Re: LINUX MERCED (Peter Samuelson)
Re: ssa driver for linux 2.2 (Steve A)
Re: ssa driver for linux 2.2 (Steve A)
Re: PROOF: Jesus *is* Lord of the Sabbath! ("Michael J. Levesque")
"RPM's harmful to Linux" harmful to Linux (Christopher Browne)
Re: PROOF: Jesus *is* Lord of the Sabbath! ("Jim H.")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Cornelius)
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.underwear,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.amiga.hardware,fr.rec.voyages
Subject: Re: PROOF: Jesus *is* Lord of the Sabbath!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Cornelius)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 19:20:38 GMT
I don't usually get in the middle of threads like this, but I just
can't help wondering how people can be publicly gay and also call
themselves Christian. The Bible, where Christians base their belief,
clearly states that same-sex couples (sexually-intimate couples), are
completely disgusting--an abomination to the Lord. In fact, that's one
of the main reasons Sodom and Gomorrah (spelling?) were destroyed.
It's not really a narrow-minded issue, it's just the way we were
created. Now, sin has plagued humanity for so many centuries, it may
be easier for some to fall into perverted desires. However, God does
not change. And He also offers a way out.
I'm not condemning. I also don't go around marching against gay rights
(or for them!). Just like I don't put people down for smoking. Hell,
I'm 40 pounds overweight--is that any less of a sin? What I'm saying
is, it really bothers me when people come across like they're proud to
be something that totally goes against God's design for us, and in the
same sentance declare themselves Christian. I just can't sit quietly.
--dc.
"Jim H." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote the following on Sun, 21 Feb 1999
13:49:34 -0800:
>The assumption seems to be that just because we are gay, we can't also be
>Christians. It's a pretty narrow minded viewpoint. If we don't practice our
>religion and worship EXACTLY like he does we must be wrong. Well, if there
>really is a day of reckoning there will be one hell of a big line of
>"so-called" Christians trying to come up with the right answers.
>
>JL wrote:
>
>> You have to wonder, if the guy is such a 'law abiding' Christian, then why
>> is he cruising through what is so obviously a GAY News Group ?
>>
>> I think he doth protest too much - just like a little closet case
>
>
>
David Cornelius [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://206.251.85.126
Programmer Analyst for Loy Clark Pipeline, Beaverton, Oregon
------------------------------
From: "Jürgen Exner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.underwear,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.amiga.hardware,fr.rec.voyages
Subject: Re: PROOF: Jesus *is* Lord of the Sabbath!
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:48:09 -0800
I'm sure someone can explain, what this trash has to do with the development
of the Linux operating system or hardware for the Amiga?????
jue
Ed Rodda wrote in message ...
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Cornelius) writes:
>
>> I don't usually get in the middle of threads like this, but I just
>>can't help wondering how people can be publicly gay and also call
>>themselves Christian.
>
>Why not? There's nothing in the Christian part of the bible, i.e. the
>New Testament, forbidding homosexual conduct. In fact, Christ makes no
>mention of homosexuality. But he did mention eunuchs; apparently he
>was big on eunuchs. I think Christ was gay; he seems to have liked the
>guys a lot; there's no mention in the bible of any girl friends.
>
>>The Bible, where Christians base their belief, clearly states that
>
>Judaists and Muslims base their belief on the same bible.
>
>>same-sex couples (sexually-intimate couples), are completely
>>disgusting--an abomination to the Lord. In fact, that's one of the
>>main reasons Sodom and Gomorrah (spelling?) were destroyed.
>
>Interesting, you state this as a fact. Where's the archaeological
>evidence?
>
>>It's not really a narrow-minded issue, it's just the way we were
>
>Of course it's a narrow-minded issue, promulgated by narrow-minded
>people, such as yourself.
>
>>created. Now, sin has plagued humanity for so many centuries, it may
>>be easier for some to fall into perverted desires. However, God does
>>not change. And He also offers a way out.
>
>Apparently you have to be a Christian to find your way out, Muslims,
>Judaists and others needn't bother applying.
>
>>I'm not condemning. I also don't go around marching against gay rights
>>(or for them!). Just like I don't put people down for smoking. Hell,
>>I'm 40 pounds overweight--is that any less of a sin? What I'm saying
>>is, it really bothers me when people come across like they're proud to
>>be something that totally goes against God's design for us, and in the
>>same sentance declare themselves Christian. I just can't sit quietly.
>
>It's also against God's design for his sheep to eat lobster, clams,
>crabs, abalone and Canadian bacon. I hope you aren't falling for any
>of these perverted desires. You'll never find your way out if you do.
>
>--
>
>Ed
------------------------------
From: Tim Isaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: How to put Linux in suspend mode?
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 17:57:33 +0300
Hi all,
In Windows 95/98 there is a possibility to put PC into suspend mode.
Is it possible in Linux? I was looking through megabites of docs
but haven't found anything about it. I'll appreciate any help.
Timur Isaev
------------------------------
From: Marc Lefranc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Create Bootable RH 5.2 CD?
Date: 22 Feb 1999 15:10:08 +0100
Elvis Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> great explaination, however, I just have a small question:
>
> I have mastered/burned RH52 image with the above mkisofs commands. The CD
> is bootable, and the installation process promptly shows up. The problem
> is, when I indicated that I'm installing from "local CDROM", it probes the
> CDROM, and hangs there. This happends to 3 machines I have tested.
Do you have the RedHat directory (or a symlink to that directory) at
the root of the cdrom filesystem ? The install program mount the CD on
/mnt/cdrom and looks for /mnt/cdrom/RedHat.
--
_____________________________________________________________
Marc Lefranc, Charge de Recherche au CNRS
Laboratoire de Physique des Lasers, Atomes, Molecules
Bat P5, UFR de Physique
Universite des Sciences et Technologies de Lille
F-59655 Villeneuve d'Ascq CEDEX (FRANCE)
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; FAX : +33 (0)3 20 33 70 20
_____________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: Chris Mahmood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: why do some processes die for no reason?
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:27:01 -0800
change your ulimit setting so you can look at the core dumps. Sounds
like the problem is with the simulation (i'd start looking there
anyway) since it's intermitant.
------------------------------
From: Chris Mahmood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: sound card IRQ conflict
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:30:03 -0800
Mircea wrote:
>
> What were the 4 devices sharing IRQ11? What kind of motherboard do you
> have? Does it allow to assign spaeific IRQs to the PCI slots? (ps: I bet
> 2 of the 4 were "IRQ holder for PCI steering", weren't they? That means
> you only have 2 PCI devices sharing IRQ11)
what's "IRQ holder for PCI steering"?
-ckm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Felix Rauch)
Subject: Re: Microsecond resolution
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.dev,linux.redhat.development,comp.os.linux.hardware
Date: 24 Feb 1999 01:05:52 +0100
[Followup-To set to one newsgroup]
In comp.os.linux.development.system Timothy Babin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there anyway to get microsecond resolution
> from the linux kernel. I am trying to get
> packet captures using libpcap with microsecond
> resolution. The code supports it if the kernel
> gives that type of resolution, but how do I make
> sure the kernel is giving microsecond resolution?
You can have an even better resolution if you use performance counting
registers. E.g. then Pentium(Pro|II) offer a Cycle Counter which
counts cycles (the Alpha probably supports something similar). At
least you can measure times quite exact, but it won't give you the
clock time.
- Felix
--
Felix Rauch, research assistant @ ETH Zurich, Institute for Computersystems
Homepage: http://nice.ethz.ch/~felix/ (includes PGP public key)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -> This article contains my personal views only <-
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: LINUX MERCED
Date: 23 Feb 1999 18:43:49 -0600
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Ajay Khanna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> I fully expect Linux hackers to swarm to IA-64 en masse and quickly
> adopt the new architecture.
Linus has indicated as much. Intel has also made noises about helping
out in this regard -- hardware donations to key developers, I suspect.
For others (other kernel people, glibc people, XFree86 people, device
driver people, distributions people, and all the little misc guys like
me), I guess early adoption and hacking will depend on how easily
available and affordible an IA64 platform turns out to be.
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve A)
Subject: Re: ssa driver for linux 2.2
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:47:59 GMT
On Wed, 10 Feb 1999 14:43:37 -0000, "Stephen Collyer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andy Key wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> >Would anyone out there like to comment on how desirable they find putting
> >SSA storage on Linux systems.
>
>
> Yes. I suggested it to you about 2 years ago - where is it ? :-)
>
> I guess a fundamental problem here, when compared to development of SCSI
> drivers for example, is that of interfacing to the IBM proprietary firmware
> on
> the SSA adaptor.
Yup. The adaptor runs an on-board PowerPC CPU (used to be an ARM) that
executes microcode. The device driver would talk to this microcode,
not the hardware itself.
> I suspect SSA-on-Linux will never happen unless someone at
> IBM (or
> another vendor) writes the driver.
True. I gather that they're considering it...
--
Warning: end of message imminent. Stop reading now.
We operate a zero-tolerance policy on UCE and spam.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve A)
Subject: Re: ssa driver for linux 2.2
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:47:58 GMT
On 7 Feb 1999 22:29:31 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter
Samuelson) wrote:
> [Andy Key <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > Would anyone out there like to comment on how desirable they find
> > putting SSA storage on Linux systems.
>
> I think it would be really cool. Ever since we got our RS/6000 server
> (a 5025-F50) I've wished I could convince people to install Linux on it
> rather than AIX 4.3.1 which, for all its nice features, can be a PITA.
> I am very unlikely ever to win this one, but I know there is *no*
> chance as long as Linux doesn't support 45GB of our disks.
I suggest you make your views known to the storage systems division of
IBM (in San Jose, ISTR). I believe that some consideration is
being/has been given to producing Linux drivers for the PCI SSA
card...
--
Warning: end of message imminent. Stop reading now.
We operate a zero-tolerance policy on UCE and spam.
------------------------------
From: "Michael J. Levesque" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.underwear,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.amiga.hardware,fr.rec.voyages
Subject: Re: PROOF: Jesus *is* Lord of the Sabbath!
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:03:40 -0500
When was the last time you re-translatted the original texts that the
the bible is based on. Any english language bible is NOT a direct
translation, it is a best guess. There are many words and phrases in
the original transcripts for which there is no similar english word. In
short the Bible has been perverted over centuries of rehashing to
inflect translators beliefs and biases. If you want to base an your
argument on the bible you might as well base your argument on pile of
used toilet paper... it's all crap.
David Cornelius wrote:
>
> I don't usually get in the middle of threads like this, but I just
> can't help wondering how people can be publicly gay and also call
> themselves Christian. The Bible, where Christians base their belief,
> clearly states that same-sex couples (sexually-intimate couples), are
> completely disgusting--an abomination to the Lord. In fact, that's one
> of the main reasons Sodom and Gomorrah (spelling?) were destroyed.
>
> It's not really a narrow-minded issue, it's just the way we were
> created. Now, sin has plagued humanity for so many centuries, it may
> be easier for some to fall into perverted desires. However, God does
> not change. And He also offers a way out.
>
> I'm not condemning. I also don't go around marching against gay rights
> (or for them!). Just like I don't put people down for smoking. Hell,
> I'm 40 pounds overweight--is that any less of a sin? What I'm saying
> is, it really bothers me when people come across like they're proud to
> be something that totally goes against God's design for us, and in the
> same sentance declare themselves Christian. I just can't sit quietly.
>
> --dc.
>
> "Jim H." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote the following on Sun, 21 Feb 1999
> 13:49:34 -0800:
>
> >The assumption seems to be that just because we are gay, we can't also be
> >Christians. It's a pretty narrow minded viewpoint. If we don't practice our
> >religion and worship EXACTLY like he does we must be wrong. Well, if there
> >really is a day of reckoning there will be one hell of a big line of
> >"so-called" Christians trying to come up with the right answers.
> >
> >JL wrote:
> >
> >> You have to wonder, if the guy is such a 'law abiding' Christian, then why
> >> is he cruising through what is so obviously a GAY News Group ?
> >>
> >> I think he doth protest too much - just like a little closet case
> >
> >
> >
>
> David Cornelius [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://206.251.85.126
> Programmer Analyst for Loy Clark Pipeline, Beaverton, Oregon
--
Michael J. Levesque
http://www.globalserve.net/~magic001/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: "RPM's harmful to Linux" harmful to Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:36:36 GMT
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:21:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The most popular distribution today is RedHat. RedHat uses the rpm format for
>software components instead of the more generic tarball format. Other Linux
>distribution vendors are starting to follow suit. This causes some problems.
>Most software (including the Linux source) are distributed first in tarball
>(tar + gzip) format. The rpm format comes second if at all. I use products
>such as mup (music notator) and msql (lightweight dbms) which come in tarball
>format only. That way they can be used by BSD as well as Linux users.
As I understand it, RPM runs on a variety of platforms and
distributions, and not solely Red Hat's distribution. The sets of
distributions for Linux kernels include:
- Red Hat (IA-32, SPARC, Alpha, M68K, PPC, MIPS, ARM)
- SuSE (IA-32)
- Debian (IA-32, Alpha, probably others)
- Caldera (IA-32)
- TurboLinux (IA-32, PPC)
as well as other non-Linux-related OSes, including
- Solaris (IA-32, SPARC)
- HP/UX
- SCO
- Digital UNIX
- AIX
- NCR
I'm not *specifically* aware that there is an RPM port to FreeBSD,
OpenBSD, or NetBSD, but would be surprised to find it an overly
difficult task.
At any rate, the *BSD folk don't use a "pure tarball" approach for
software, but rather use the "Ports" system.
See <http://www.freebsd.org/handbook/ports.html> for more details on
Ports, and the "care and feeding" requirements that result from its use.
>Many RedHat users have no knowledge of tarball. They insist on rpm format
>because that is what they have experience with. Just read the pleas on the net
>"where can I find an rpm version." This puts an extra burden on developers who
>must maintain a tarball version for BSD users and for Slackware etc. users on
>the Linux side, and an rpm version as well. I am aware that gzip and tar exist
>on the RedHat distribution. But not everyone who gets RedHat is familiar with
>these tools.
... Much as Debian users prefer to insist on the DPKG format because
that allows them to use utilities like APT to automate upgrades. This
puts an additional burden on developers that enough have been apparently
been willing to accept as to result in there being on the order of two
thousand such packages made available for Debian.
... Much as the BSD community has had to take on the burden of
maintaining Ports information, which, while not isomorphic to RPM spec
files or the Debian metadata, represents a general equivalent.
>So I propose that the Linux community concentrate on the more generic tarball
>format and that vendors, including RedHat include instructions on installing
>tarball (gtz suffix) packages in their manuals and howto's. That way we can
>maintain some degree of exchange between the Linux community and other free
>software communities.
Which "tarball format" do you suggest be used?
a) Tarballs of pristine sources that must then be manually patched so
as to put them in the right places?
b) Tarballs of binaries, set up by someone else so as to put themin the
right places?
c) Tarballs of the combination of sources and necessary patches and
other metadata?
d) Gzipped CPIO archives of binaries and metadata?
e) Gzipped CPIO archives of pristine sources and metadata for
construction of binaries?
f) A tarball containing sources along with metadata to validate
correctness along with URLs to alternative locations of sources along
with patches for localization?
Are you suggesting instead that users should make themselves familiar
with how to set up GNU autoconfig? That would be a pretty universally
useful approach, far moreso for encouraging portability than merely
knowing how to use TAR and GZIP, which implies absolutely nothing about
interoperability between differing systems.
--
"Linux is a very complete, sophisticated OS" - Paul Maritz of Microsoft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
------------------------------
From: "Jim H." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.underwear,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.amiga.hardware,fr.rec.voyages
Subject: Re: PROOF: Jesus *is* Lord of the Sabbath!
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:59:51 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course this isn't an appropriate article to be posting here. It resulted
from some "Christian" spam that was posted some time ago, and since it was
posted here I chose to respond. I really don't know what the point was,
posting it here in the first place. It was probably a mistake, pretty clearly
the person who posted it originally isn't the brightest star in the sky!
Paul McGrane wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ed Rodda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I don't usually get in the middle of threads like this, but I just
> > >can't help wondering how people can be publicly gay and also call
> > >themselves Christian.
> >
> > Why not? There's nothing in the Christian part of the bible, i.e. the
> > New Testament, forbidding homosexual conduct. In fact, Christ makes no
> > mention of homosexuality. But he did mention eunuchs; apparently he
> > was big on eunuchs. I think Christ was gay; he seems to have liked the
> > guys a lot; there's no mention in the bible of any girl friends.
>
> Ahh this is awful..hehe....I'm surprised there aren't any responses after
> it yet, maybe my news server is slow. :^)
>
> I'd think in most countries people have a right to do whatever they like
> and practice whatever religion they want to follow without having
> strangers tell them they're not allowed. I apologize if I have offended
> citizens of countries run by a ruthless totalitarian regime...
>
> Anyway, is any of this really appropriate to the newsgroups we're in? I
> mean, even a platform war debating the comparative merits of the
> Macintosh, Linux, Amiga, and Underwear...would be more on topic. Is this
> how far we've fallen?!
>
> --
>
> ...Paul McGrane
>
> *As always, my email is a fixer-upper*
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
