Linux-Development-Sys Digest #436, Volume #6 Sat, 27 Feb 99 13:13:47 EST
Contents:
Re: System.map/vmlinuz (Daniel R. Grayson)
Re: /dev/zero (Peter Pointner)
Re: PROOF: Jesus *is* Lord of the Sabbath! ("D�couvertes Tropicales")
Re: Making a distro (Paul Tiseo)
Re: monolithic kernel and source that can only be compiled as a module (David T.
Blake)
Re: "RPM's harmful to Linux" harmful to Linux (Bill Anderson)
Re: /dev/zero (Josef Moellers)
Re: PROOF: Jesus *is* Lord of the Sabbath! ("D�couvertes Tropicales")
TCP problem in 2.2.1 (Greg Beeley)
The REAL question: Can Linux... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: monolithic kernel and source that can only be compiled as a module (Tony Hoyle)
TCP Retransmission timeouts in 2.0.36 ("Ron Kundla")
Re: Overclocking (was: Re: K6-2 and Linux, Are there any Bug?) (GBP)
Re: Kernel 2.2.2 installation (Tom Herman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel R. Grayson)
Subject: Re: System.map/vmlinuz
Date: 26 Feb 1999 08:37:34 -0600
Chun-Chung Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Aaron Faby wrote:
>
> > I installed 2.2.2 and for some reason System.map, vmlinuz, and
> > vmlinuz.old
> > showed up in / as well as /boot. Anyone know why and how I can avoid the
> >
> > files being dropped in / ? Thanks.
>
> edit /usr/src/linux/Makefile, find INSTALL_PATH and uncomment it.
>
> Chung .
But if you edit that file, future patches may fail. Better to just run
make INSTALL_PATH=/boot/2.2.1 install
or whatever.
------------------------------
From: Peter Pointner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: /dev/zero
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 06:34:00 GMT
][ndigo - Stormy blue sky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi.
> Can anyone explain me the purpose of this file (except for DCC send to
> friends)?
> Thank you.
I use it mostly to "repair" hard disks screwed up by MS software: Zeroing
out partition tables and/or the beginnings of partitions by
"dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/whatever count=something" usually helps solving
assorted problems.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "D�couvertes Tropicales" <[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: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 15:41:21 +0100
==============CFEB6A21419665CC2C085354
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
will you please get out of this newgroup!!!
Ed Rodda a �crit:
> [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
==============CFEB6A21419665CC2C085354
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<B><I><U>will you please get out of this newgroup!!!</U></I></B>
<P>Ed Rodda a écrit:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Cornelius) writes:
<P>> I don't usually get in the middle of threads like this, but I just
<BR>>can't help wondering how people can be publicly gay and also call
<BR>>themselves Christian.
<P>Why not? There's nothing in the Christian part of the bible, i.e.
the
<BR>New Testament, forbidding homosexual conduct. In fact, Christ makes
no
<BR>mention of homosexuality. But he did mention eunuchs; apparently he
<BR>was big on eunuchs. I think Christ was gay; he seems to have liked
the
<BR>guys a lot; there's no mention in the bible of any girl friends.
<P>>The Bible, where Christians base their belief, clearly states that
<P>Judaists and Muslims base their belief on the same bible.
<P>>same-sex couples (sexually-intimate couples), are completely
<BR>>disgusting--an abomination to the Lord. In fact, that's one of the
<BR>>main reasons Sodom and Gomorrah (spelling?) were destroyed.
<P>Interesting, you state this as a fact. Where's the archaeological
<BR>evidence?
<P>>It's not really a narrow-minded issue, it's just the way we were
<P>Of course it's a narrow-minded issue, promulgated by narrow-minded
<BR>people, such as yourself.
<P>>created. Now, sin has plagued humanity for so many centuries, it may
<BR>>be easier for some to fall into perverted desires. However, God does
<BR>>not change. And He also offers a way out.
<P>Apparently you have to be a Christian to find your way out, Muslims,
<BR>Judaists and others needn't bother applying.
<P>>I'm not condemning. I also don't go around marching against gay rights
<BR>>(or for them!). Just like I don't put people down for smoking. Hell,
<BR>>I'm 40 pounds overweight--is that any less of a sin? What I'm saying
<BR>>is, it really bothers me when people come across like they're proud
to
<BR>>be something that totally goes against God's design for us, and in
the
<BR>>same sentance declare themselves Christian. I just can't sit quietly.
<P>It's also against God's design for his sheep to eat lobster, clams,
<BR>crabs, abalone and Canadian bacon. I hope you aren't falling for any
<BR>of these perverted desires. You'll never find your way out if
you do.
<P>--
<P>Ed</BLOCKQUOTE>
</HTML>
==============CFEB6A21419665CC2C085354==
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Tiseo)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Making a distro
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:55:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> What on earth is a distro? A distribution? What kind of a distribution?
> What do you want to distribute? To whom do you want to distribute the
> stuff, and where?
Sorry, I didn't want to type 'distribution' everytime. Lazy
fingers... I figured people wouldn't chastise me for it. I want to make
something like Red Hat's or Slackware's product. I figured I am about to
do it for myself, but maybe with a little more effort (or if I can
recruit others) I could put together something that others can use also.
Giving back to the Linux community, if you will...
> I presume what you meant to ask is how does one create ones own Linux
> without having to use one of those "standard" distributions like RedHat?
Actually, how does one make a set to distribute, much like Red
hat's or SuSE's? I think that it might be worthwhile to put one together
that is compiled for the i686 and gain concomittant performance
increases.
> Caveat: I can do this because I have a direct Linux Internet connection. I
I have a cable modem. It's pretty fast.
=======================
Paul Tiseo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
Subject: Re: monolithic kernel and source that can only be compiled as a module
Date: 26 Feb 1999 07:24:15 -0800
Tony Hoyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Someone else has already given the best advice. If someone gains
>root access to your system, you have no practical alternative but to
>wipe everything and reinstall.
A backdoor has to be called as part of the system startup
to be of decent general use.
Generally, I never keep the startup binaries on anything but the
/ partition.
And unless something is on /, it is pretty
useless as a backdoor, since it will not get called
at startup.
I see no reason to wipe /home and /tmp, for example.
Is there a compelling reason ??
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: "RPM's harmful to Linux" harmful to Linux
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 16:22:17 +0000
Villy Kruse wrote:
>
> In article <7b4rgs$4fr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Todd Knarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I think there's three options for rpms:
> >
> >1. Full source ( .src.rpm ) containing the source archives, patches and
> > spec file.
> >2. No-source ( .nosrc.rpm ) containing the patches and spec file but not
> > the original source archives.
> >3. Binary ( .i386.rpm, .alpha.rpm et. al. ) containing only executables,
> > config files and the like, ready for installation.
> >
> >The virgin-source philosophy pretty much requires a full source RPM
> >when the original source changes, but patches could be distributed via
> >no-source RPMs easily enough.
>
> Agree!
>
> But they don't. It appears to be stupid to re-download the entire
> source as part of a src.rpm if the only things changed are the patch
> files and the spec file. That would make a tremendously difference in
> the amount of data you would need to download. The source tar file ar
> still available in the original src.rpm, and it could just as easily be
> retrived from there. A binary rpm would be much bigger than the combined
> patch and spec .nosrc.rpm file would have been.
>
> Only a few .nosrc.rpm are available, and that is mainly packages whose
> licence prohibits including the source in this manner. For example you
> are required to download kermit sources from Columbia University only.
>
> Villy
None of which is the fault of 'rpm', as the original posting implied.
In your example, it sounds as if it would not matter if one was using
.rpm, .deb, .tar ....
__
Bill
------------------------------
From: Josef Moellers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: /dev/zero
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:09:47 +0100
Peter Pointner wrote:
>
> ][ndigo - Stormy blue sky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi.
> > Can anyone explain me the purpose of this file (except for DCC send to
> > friends)?
> > Thank you.
>
> I use it mostly to "repair" hard disks screwed up by MS software: Zeroing
> out partition tables and/or the beginnings of partitions by
> "dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/whatever count=something" usually helps solving
> assorted problems.
One purpose is by the system to "load" "zero-fill-on-demand"-pages from,
e.g. pages in the uninitialized data area. When a pagefault occurs in
such a page, the page is either fetched from backing store (if it had
been modified before) or fetched from /dev/zero. Provides for a much
cleaner interface.
--
Josef Moellers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
UNIX - Live free or die!
PS Dieser Artikel enthaelt einzig und allein meine persoenlichen
Ansichten!
PS This article contains my own, personal opinion only!
------------------------------
From: "D�couvertes Tropicales" <[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: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 15:43:52 +0100
==============C02025369F058CC0D6D4A459
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
WILL YOU PLEASE STOP SPAMMING THIS NEWSGROUP!!!!!
==============C02025369F058CC0D6D4A459
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<B><I><U>WILL YOU PLEASE STOP SPAMMING THIS NEWSGROUP!!!!!</U></I></B>
<BR>
<BR> </HTML>
==============C02025369F058CC0D6D4A459==
------------------------------
From: Greg Beeley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: TCP problem in 2.2.1
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:21:57 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
I've come across a rather strange problem in the TCP stack in 2.2.1. I
glanced over the patches to 2.2.2 and none seemed to affect this part, most
were tuning things or SYN updates.
I have a TCP network connection between a Linux box and a Lantronix LRS16
server with a printer attached to a port. The LRS16 accepts connections
on a given TCP port to write data to the serial port. In this case, the LRS16's
port is 3001. The linux process makes a network connection, writes a bunch
of data, and does a standard lingering close.
Near the end of the connection's lifespan, the thing seems to lock up, with
netstat reporting state=FIN_WAIT_1 and send_q = some small number of bytes
(like 200-900 bytes). I did a tcpdump, and this is what came up:
11:25:48.523709 lrs16.3001 > adam.1286: . ack 33993 win 1406
Ok, the LRS16 has offered a window of 1406 bytes. Now, adam (our linux server)
will take advantage of part of that window.
11:25:48.523750 adam.1286 > lrs16.3001: P 33993:35297(1304) ack 1 win 32120 (DF)
11:25:48.573205 lrs16.3001 > adam.1286: . ack 35297 win 102
Good. the LRS16 acknowledges the bytes and offers the remaining window
of 102 bytes. So far, so good.
11:25:48.763800 adam.1286 > lrs16.3001: . 35297:35399(102) ack 1 win 32120 (DF)
11:25:48.813216 lrs16.3001 > adam.1286: . ack 35399 win 0
Ok, the linux server ate up the remaining 102 bytes. The LRS16 acknowledges
and tells the linux box to stop via a window of 0 bytes.
11:25:48.963788 adam.1286 > lrs16.3001: . 35297:35399(102) ack 1 win 32120 (DF)
11:25:48.964536 lrs16.3001 > adam.1286: . ack 35399 win 0
Hmmm... wow. The linux server didn't get the point. It seems to think that
the ACK was never received. But, the LRS16 happily acknowledged the seemingly
duplicate packet.
11:25:49.363786 adam.1286 > lrs16.3001: . 35297:35399(102) ack 1 win 32120 (DF)
11:25:49.364544 lrs16.3001 > adam.1286: . ack 35399 win 0
11:25:50.163787 adam.1286 > lrs16.3001: . 35297:35399(102) ack 1 win 32120 (DF)
11:25:50.164558 lrs16.3001 > adam.1286: . ack 35399 win 0
11:25:51.763791 adam.1286 > lrs16.3001: . 35297:35399(102) ack 1 win 32120 (DF)
11:25:51.764560 lrs16.3001 > adam.1286: . ack 35399 win 0
11:25:54.763929 lrs16.3001 > adam.1286: . ack 35399 win 1406
11:25:54.963788 adam.1286 > lrs16.3001: . 35297:35399(102) ack 1 win 32120 (DF)
Alright. Some time has passed and the buffers to the printer have cleared
out somewhat in the LRS16. The linux box, however, is still insistent on
transmitting those already-acknowledged 102 bytes.
11:25:54.964590 lrs16.3001 > adam.1286: . ack 35399 win 1406
11:25:56.493589 lrs16.3001 > adam.1286: . ack 35399 win 2048
11:26:01.363790 adam.1286 > lrs16.3001: . 35297:35399(102) ack 1 win 32120 (DF)
And after more time the LRS's window gets even larger. But, the linux
box is _still_ insistent on those 102 bytes, even though it still has quite
a few (nine-hundred-some) still in the send-q. The connection continued to
go on like this, with an occasional retransmit from the linux box of the 102
bytes and an acknowledge from the lrs16 offering the 2048 byte window.
Any ideas? I can send a full transcript of the tcpdump session if anyone
wants to take this one on.
Thanks.
========
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: The REAL question: Can Linux...
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:05:44 GMT
>From a practical perspective, can Linux truly act as a full server to Windows
95/NT boxes? I want the server to have a SQL database that is accessed and
updated by the Windows machines. For example, users would have to be able to
use MS-Access to manipulate the database. How would the ODBC drivers on the
Windows machines work in this case?
If possible, give me a working example (with a SQL database whether commercial
or open that would be comparible to what MS would offer).
This sql database in our example would also be published on the web, with the
linux server running apache.
BTW Could you house access database files on a linux server and have the
local Win boxes connect to it? are there odbc drivers in linux that could
manipulate the access database files?
Thanks in advanced. I have been using linux and have become familiar with the
environment...but the answers to these questions will allow me to devote time
into diving right in.
AP
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Tony Hoyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: monolithic kernel and source that can only be compiled as a module
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 16:00:28 +0000
"David T. Blake" wrote:
>
> Tony Hoyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Someone else has already given the best advice. If someone gains
> >root access to your system, you have no practical alternative but to
> >wipe everything and reinstall.
>
> A backdoor has to be called as part of the system startup
> to be of decent general use.
>
> Generally, I never keep the startup binaries on anything but the
> / partition.
>
> And unless something is on /, it is pretty
> useless as a backdoor, since it will not get called
> at startup.
A backdoor that lets you login as root can be run anytime (for example
login is
run by getty as users connect to the system). However I see what you
mean.
> I see no reason to wipe /home and /tmp, for example.
> Is there a compelling reason ??
No, I'm just being paranoid... If /home is on a separate partition just
scan it for
SUID stuff and leave it alone. (No point in keeping /tmp, after all its
temporary!)
The pain in the neck in this situation is you have to be very careful
about your
configuration files... It's safer to junk the lot, but it'll then take
extra time
setting up everything to run properly again (of course keeping
/etc/passwd so the users
can log in afterward is useful!)
Tony
====================================================================================
Linux renders ships... NT renders ships useless.
====================================================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://betty.magenta-logic.com
====================================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Ron Kundla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: TCP Retransmission timeouts in 2.0.36
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:02:13 -0600
Hi all!
I have been experimenting with the 2.0.36 kernel to intercept ethernet
frames from the interface. When intercepting incoming frames from the
hardware, I am able to process them and then send them back into the receive
queue using netif_rx function with no problems.
When I try to intercept frames coming into the dev_queue_xmit function,
process them and send them back out to the hardware, I run into some
problems. I can pass ethernet frames with NFS information, but when I try to
ping, telnet or ftp (and probably any other program that requires DNS or ARP
resolution), my frames do not make it to their destination.
After a period of time hanging on this failures, I get an OOPS from the
kernel with references to TCP_RETRANSMISSION and other TCP-type things.
Does anyone know if there is any timer parameter I need to change in TCP to
push-back the retransmission time?
If I by-pass my interceptor, it works just fine (obviously... ;)
Thanks,
Ron
============= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ============
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
============= Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ============
------------------------------
From: GBP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux.slackware,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Overclocking (was: Re: K6-2 and Linux, Are there any Bug?)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:31:54 -0500
why do you suggest that it will burn out
> quicker than a comparable Pentium II at the same speed?
>
I don't know what he's thinking. The opposite should be true. Celerons
now use 18 micron technology, i think those P2-300's would be 25 micron
tech.
------------------------------
From: Tom Herman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.2.2 installation
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:51:34 GMT
Aaron Faby wrote:
I would recommend re-adding the loopback device on another
kernel build. I think it's a small device. But mainly,
it may be necessary have it available in the kernel when
you get around to making your own file systems in RAM
for rescue disks.
I think RAM file systems are pretty cool things and I want
to learn more about them.
Tom
--
>
> I finally got the damn thing to compile and install! I didnt add the loopback
> but since I dont have SCSI on my machine I didnt bother to run mkinitrd.
> Compiled and installed like a charm this time! Even booted without error,
> and as far as I can tell everything seems to be ok.
>
> See if I ever listen to Red Hat anymore. :)
>
> --
> Aaron Faby
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> System Administrator/Technical Support
> Yourlink, Inc.
--
The views expressed are the author's and do not necessarily
reflect the official position of GTE or any of its subsidiaries
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
