Linux-Development-Sys Digest #159, Volume #7 Mon, 6 Sep 99 07:13:51 EDT
Contents:
Re: Can I install Linux on an IBM PS/2 model 95 XP 486? (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?=
v.Hagen)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (EdToy)
Re: Can I install Linux on an IBM PS/2 model 95 XP 486? (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?=
v.Hagen)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (EdToy)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (EdToy)
Re: Flamage - Why? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Can I compile the kernel using a cc other than gcc? (Martin Kahlert)
system calls ? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Flamage - Why? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Peter T. Breuer)
Re: Flamage - Why? (James Andrews)
How does the exactly kernel work in SMP? (Shaun Noonan)
Re: Flamage - Why? (James Andrews)
Re: Flamage - Why? (James Andrews)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (James Andrews)
Re: Shutdown Problem (Bartosz Klimek)
Re: The conceptual sandbox? (James Andrews)
Re: Security, or Lack Thereof... (James Andrews)
Simple shell script backquote failure (Roland Paterson-Jones)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?= v.Hagen
Subject: Re: Can I install Linux on an IBM PS/2 model 95 XP 486?
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 08:09:15 +0200
Torsten Poulin schrieb:
>
> Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Specifically, what controller is it? I know IBM has used a lot of NCR
> > SCSI chips (53C7* and 53C8*) in the past. Perhaps this is because IBM
> > signed a deal with NCR many years ago allowing IBM to use NCR's SCSI
> > technology. (NCR, in exchange, got to use IBM's Micro Channel
> > technology. Someone got shorted.) Linux supports most NCR SCSI chips.
>
> Or go to http://www.dgmicro.com/mca/ and grab a kernel, copy it onto
> a Red Hat 5.2 bootdisk and proceed with the installation as normal.
> When the installation is done, boot the machine from floppy with
> the same kernel, patch the kernel source with the patches from the
no need to patch the kernel if you use kernel > 2.2.10 (probably
lower version too, but I've tried my 76 with 2.2.10 andd
it worked ok).
I have a Future Domain 16c50 (I believe), in the kernel
configuration you need to say in that case Future Domain 700/800
or so.
If you happen tu have one of these too, you might
want to try
http://www.uni-mainz.de/~langm000/linux.html
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/4781/
Even a ZIP Plus connected to the parallel port worked ok,
also a CD ROM connected to the SCSI bus.
juergen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (EdToy)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 00:53:13 -0500
In article <LeDA3.44$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jktross@cw-
f1.umd.umich.edu says...
>
> EdToy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <7qpunp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > > In comp.os.misc EdToy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > : Sounds like your agenda. So pay 'em then.
> > >
> > > the agenda is open.. the agenda is to create a new OS.
> > > is linux Torvald's agenda? do you ask him to pay
> > > contributors?
> >
> > Well he certainly didn't do any favors to the ones who gave up their time
> > so that Red Hat could make all that money that's for sure. It's the same
> > scam that built the pyramids of Egypt.
>
> It isn't about money and never has been to people who contributed to Linux.
Is that just like: "you'll get your rewards in the NEXT life"?
> > Well someone has to keep the false leaders at bay.
> >
> > > : _You're_ the one who is scanning for free labor or some such thing.
> > >
> > > it exists.. it is what built linux.. perhaps you could
> > > indicate why you seem to think I am a megalomaniac..?
> >
> > What exists? If you mean naivete, then you're right. Don't come to
> > America and ask people to give up their time without paying them for it.
> > When it boils down to it, that's all anyone has. The only reason I'm
> > picking on you is because I get the feeling you're trying to play the
> > false leader game.
>
> People who work on Linux volunteer to.
How nice of them to build Red Hat something that they can resell. PT
Barnum phrase applies?
Ed
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?= v.Hagen
Subject: Re: Can I install Linux on an IBM PS/2 model 95 XP 486?
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 08:10:58 +0200
Alan Smeltzer schrieb:
>
> I have an IBM PS/2 model 95 XP 486. This thing uses an IBM SCSI controller
> that isn't on the list of drivers included with my copy of Red Hat Linux
> 5.2. Does anyone know if there is a driver for this controller out there
> anywhere?
>
> Second: I am only trying to load Linux on this for testing purposes. If the
> PS/2 and microchannel devices are just not supported (or are a real pain),
> then I can probably scrape together a clone. If I happen to get the driver,
> should I continue or is this a waste of time?
as I've written in another posting, it wasn't difficult to
do this on my 77.
However I have had no luck to use svgalib on the MCA machine.
It complains about PCI type 1 not being supported.
Has anybody managed to get sgvgalib running on an MCA?
thanks
juergen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (EdToy)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 00:58:44 -0500
In article <7qvgo7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> In comp.os.misc EdToy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Well he certainly didn't do any favors to the ones who gave up their time
> : so that Red Hat could make all that money that's for sure. It's the same
> : scam that built the pyramids of Egypt.
>
> I do think that the red hat thing could eventually
> backfire..
>
> : Well someone has to keep the false leaders at bay.
>
>
> what do you feel constitutes a "false leader"..
>
> : What exists? If you mean naivete, then you're right. Don't come to
> : America and ask people to give up their time without paying them for it.
>
> time is precious, but the above system is not how linux was
> built, and the whole concept that the only way meaningful
> things are accomplished is when people are paid to do it
> is quite laughable.
And the practice of not paying someone for their efforts
_especially_in_a_capitalistic_society_ is exploitation.
> : Better though: just create it on your own and leave those who would steal
> : your ideas out of the picture entirely. Now that's good advice.
>
>
> haha. "steal my ideas". I am begging/pleading w/everyone to steal my
> ideas. what do you think ideas are worth, anyway? they are both
> priceless and worthless, in my experience.
Right, so the way to "mine" for them is to create some really good
marketing campaign and hope a few of the naive "contributors" will come
up with something. Can you say "open source"?
But I really don't want to have this flamelike issue discussion. So bye.
Ed
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (EdToy)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 00:49:41 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> On Sat, 4 Sep 1999 18:13:28 -0500, EdToy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <7qpunp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >>
> >> the agenda is open.. the agenda is to create a new OS.
> >> is linux Torvald's agenda? do you ask him to pay
> >> contributors?
> >
> >Well he certainly didn't do any favors to the ones who gave up their time
> >so that Red Hat could make all that money that's for sure. It's the same
> >scam that built the pyramids of Egypt.
>
> Linus doesn't receive money from Red Hat either.
>
> He was working for free on Linux long before anyone made a cent off of
> it. I'm no Linus-worshipper, but accusing him of greed and exploitation
> is blatant revisionism.
I didn't accuse him of anything (I'm sure he's a fine techie). I just
said how it's all working out in the hands of the capitalists: those who
do the work, don't get the rewards of it. And my gut feeling is that
Vladimir is more on the exploitation side than the techie side.
C'mon Vlad, fess up.. who are you working for the Russians? or even
worse, Microsoft?! ;)
Ed
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Flamage - Why?
Date: 6 Sep 1999 08:36:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
bilge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vladimir Z. Nuri [EMAIL PROTECTED] blared:
>> "the impossible only takes longer"
>
> is this "longer" a countable or an uncountable "longer"
Are you using a discrete or continuous time model?
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Kahlert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.portable
Subject: Re: Can I compile the kernel using a cc other than gcc?
Date: 6 Sep 1999 07:25:30 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake) writes:
> Randall Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The DEC C compiler is way faster on Alpha. So if Compaq/DEC/et
>> al could get Linux ported to that compiler then Alpha Linux could
>> be much faster.
>
> I get about 10-15% speed improvements for cc over gcc under OSF
> if I take my time and try different combinations of optimizations
> for each.
>
> You can note this comparison is impossible to do under linux
> as Dec doesn't have ANY compiler that works under linux.
Yes they do: Compaq has a beta version of a fortran compiler
for Linux AXP. It's a port of DEC's own compiler for their
Unix for Alpha.
I tried it on a 1 MB source analog circuit simulator
and the binary was a factor of 2 faster than g77's
(from gcc-2.95.1).
This speedup seems to be quite stable with all progs i tried.
I'm looking forward to a corresponding C compiler.
Bye,
Martin.
--
esa$ gcc -Wall -o ariane5 ariane5.c
ariane5.c: 666: warning: long float implicitly truncated to unsigned type
esa$ ariane5
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: system calls ?
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 07:31:19 GMT
hi,
When a user process calls a system call the parameters are pushed into
the user stack ( ss3:esp3 in x86). Then the process switches into kernel
mode using int 0x80 (if ive understood the code correctly) and goes to
the entry point system_call. From here the actual system call is called.
My question is :- how does the actual system call function get the
parameters other than simple copy (memcpy_from_fs)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Flamage - Why?
Date: 6 Sep 1999 08:34:14 GMT
In article <7qq5c4$ovp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Vladimir Z. Nuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>> Tao is The Way!! haha but when the ignorant and the arrogant hear of
>> the Tao, they laugh & scoff. haha
>
> Insert Sagan "Bozo" quote. I laugh and scoff at efforts to turn lead
> into gold, too. Does this make me ignorant or arrogant?
Hmm. Turning lead into gold is possible. It just is not practical in
any way, given how cheap it is to dig gold out of the ground in
comparison.
[ Returning you to your reegularly scheduled programmme after this
word from our sponsors. "Onomatopoeia" ]
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter T. Breuer)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: 6 Sep 1999 08:56:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vladimir Z. Nuri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: In comp.os.misc Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: : You say that the derivation of the contradiction is invalid. But you say
: : so claiming that we cannot call the program whose existence we desire
: : to refute.
: a mathematical system is a set of axioms that models something
: else.
Well, that is a proof theoretic view (you say it a formal system of
rules that are sound with respect to a semantic model, the latter
being ... ?).
: the question is, are your axioms valid for what we are
: studying.
My "axiom" here is that if you have a code listing of a program (virus
checker), you can execute it, either by compiling it and executing it,
copying an already compiled copy and executing that, or copying the code
verbatim into your program and recompiling it, and executing that, etc.
etc, or calling the compiled code as a subroutine, after relinking.
If you can''t execute a virus checker, then you have proven what I
said: an always correct virus checker does not exist. In your claim,
it will always give the incorrect result "help, I cannot execute".
: this is a model based argument. you are saying the
: proof is valid, given the axiom that all subroutines that
: exist are equally accessable.
The proof is by contradiction (I accept the axiom - its the
internalization axiom). The proof goes through to false, and therefore
we reject one at least of the hypotheses. I say that it is the
existence of an always correct virus checker. You say it is the
executability of an always correct virus checker. Big difference (NOT).
: I am saying to adequately model
: a sandbox system, that is an invalid axiom. not all subroutines
: are equally accessable. the security model rejects this.
In detail, you are saying that the virus checker used to construct
the counter-example program is not executable. That's good enough for
me.
--
Peter
------------------------------
From: James Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Flamage - Why?
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 09:40:39 +0000
Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Vladimir Z. Nuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > Tao is The Way!! haha but when the ignorant and the arrogant hear of
> > the Tao, they laugh & scoff. haha
>
> Insert Sagan "Bozo" quote. I laugh and scoff at efforts to turn lead
> into gold, too. Does this make me ignorant or arrogant?
>
Both, it has been done during particle acceleration experiments in
switzerland :-P. It made national news in every country in Europe about
two years ago,
James
------------------------------
From: Shaun Noonan <shanoo@shore-don't-spam.net>
Subject: How does the exactly kernel work in SMP?
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 09:26:38 GMT
This seems like a fairly simple question, but how exactly does the kernel
work when running on a SMP machine? Is the kernel multithreaded and does
it run across all CPUs? Does it execute on one CPU at one time? Do all
CPUs run the kernel at the same time? I am suspecting it is the last
option from what I could guess from the kernel source..
Is there an recent FAQ on the SMP capabilities in the 2.2.x and 2.3.x
kernels? The latest one I found was for 2.0.36.
Thanks!
-Shaun
------------------------------
From: James Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Flamage - Why?
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 10:03:11 +0000
You must admit though, the majority of good ideas are initially
spontaneous, and then cleaned up and developed into a fully fledged
execution. Programming is a conceptual art, hence why people find it so
very much easier to design using various conceptual models. With the
introduction of these conceptual models, people began to realise that
computers can actually do a lot more than we had originally
anticipated. We had previously thought that the complexity of certain
types of software made them "impossible" to implement. Just maybe we're
still standing on the doorstep to this whole arena of discovery. As
long as the intended result is better than that to which we are
acustomed, I wouldn't discount most ideas until they have been attempted
and failed at least ten times. A computer, as a tool to the software
engineer, is like an artist with his canvas, you can never tell exactly
how good the artist is going to be, and every now and then one stuns you
by creating a masterpiece beyond your wildest imagination. No one will
ever credit the aforementioned artist until after the masterpiece is
created, but how many may we be preventing with this attitude? I don't
say everyone jump on and grab a text editor, it would be bedlam, but
don't shoot down ideas just because you personally cant work out how to
implement them. If the concept is good, then consider the concept,
leave it to someone else to work out the implementation. The greatest
works were the fruits of both imagination and implementation. Neither
is a solution on its own.
James
P.S Actually, I quite liked my walking on the moon analogy, and best of
all, its completely true. Although if my grandparents were alive today,
stubborn as they were, they'd probably still say they didn't believe it
:-P.
------------------------------
From: James Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Flamage - Why?
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 10:12:51 +0000
We don't actually have a specific mailing list as yet, because we all
live in the same city. I actually have a telnet chat program I wrote,
which we run privately for such discussion. If you are interested, I
could set one up pretty easily. I have a web page for the project, but
most of the information is still either on my machine at home, or on
scraps of paper lying about atm. In two weeks I'll return to part time
hours for the university term and should have much more time to update
some things.
As for my disagreement with your method, its more down to the level of
abstraction. I'm a firm believer that everything should have a schemata
attached which seems tangible. I feel some of your ideas seem to
abstract the functionality of a computer to above the level of
usefulness. Concepts like unifying storage space are good ideas, but
other concerns will arise, such as how to handle removable media. The
idea of creating an OS that can unify differing device types into one
mass of space is relatively simple and easy to implement, but the
consequences have to be considered very carefully. Abstraction is only
a positive action when it is used with due diligence.
Yes, people in general like to see the colour of money. And it seems
code is the currency of acceptance on this group, hence I have yet to
officially announce my project (but dont worry non-believers, for the
time is almost at hand ;-). I'm finding it hard to scrape together some
time, but soon that will change.
I agree that any major OS project should be a combined effort by as many
people as possible, but there are obvious concerns. Firstly, the
skeptics will be quick to point out that few people will work for
nothing. Second, Organisation and quality control is difficult with
many people. Last (in this post, keeping it quite short for once) of
all, code can very rarely be written before a collaborative project is
formed as the concepts tend to get jiggled a bit by the creative input
of others.
James
------------------------------
From: James Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 10:21:26 +0000
Dammit, I don't understand him or his beliefs, anyone have a cross and
some nails handy?
Hmm, maybe a distasteful post for an athiest, better get me a few layers
of abestos, theres a storm brewing :-P
James
------------------------------
From: Bartosz Klimek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Shutdown Problem
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 10:24:48 GMT
M van Oosterhout wrote:
>
> > IMO, the distribution installs ought to provide the option to tell them
> > to put the OS on a partition that will be read-only (except when being
> > updated), all the temp files on a different partition, and all the config
> > files (dialer files, hosts, etc) on yet another partition.
>
> This has already been done. For example on my machine:
> / contains config (/etc) and boot file (/boot, /bin, /sbin),
> rarely changes
> /usr All installed programs. This is mounted read-only
> /var All the data that changes regularly (logs, databases, spool
> files)
> /home The rest, also changes fairly infrequently.
>
> The / partition contains everything needed to boot and since it is
> almost never written to, it's almost impossible for my machine not
> to boot. After that everything on /usr works because it never changes.
What about /tmp? Did you put it on a separate partition or is it on /?
/etc is quite often written to. Examples: mtab, issue. Of course it
depends on how often you boot your machine and mount your CD, floppy and
other file systems.
Regards,
--
Bartosz Klimek
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: James Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: The conceptual sandbox?
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 10:42:51 +0000
If your OS controls who gets to write to the initialisation scripts,
then how exactly would a program foirce itself to be restarted with the
machine/OS? Monitoring startup script changes was one of the earliest
virus warning methods, and a decent OS should be very careful over who
gets to access such files. Surely it wouldnt be a huge burdon just to
throw up a requestor saying "xxxx is attempting to write changes to your
startup, are you sure you wish to authorise this?" with options to
accept or deny this process. You could even implement a simple "expert"
mode which allows a fake file to be created and changed by the sandboxed
program, thus your sandbox could be the psychologists maze to see
exactly what suspect programs do.
Its actually an easier problem than you would first expect, as you say
restricting the damage a task can do once running would be really quite
easy with a new OS, but it would be easier to stop it propogating, as it
wouldnt be able to write changes to any important files without
justification. As for the comments somewhere further back about none of
this being new ideas, its very true, but some of it is new, and some of
it constitutes new perspectives of old ideas. What it does represent is
a conglomorate of ideas that have not been combined quite in this way
before, to use the whole, not the sum of the parts, to combat some age
old problems. Whether it is the answer or not is irrelevant, its the
trying that counts. The fear of failure and responses like those
Vladimir has had here have resulted in less people trying to push the
boundaries. If we all failed a little bit more, maybe we'd get
somewhere,
James
------------------------------
From: James Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Security, or Lack Thereof...
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 10:18:31 +0000
It sounds like you have proven that sandboxes are fine, but require an
OS capable of high levels of priveledge "tuning".
I'll get back to you once I've had a serious stab at implementing my
ideas ;-)
James
------------------------------
From: Roland Paterson-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Simple shell script backquote failure
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 12:41:45 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all
(Is this the right forum?)
The following script fails intermittently:
#! /bin/sh
J_HOME=`pwd`
if [ -z "$J_HOME" ]; then
echo failed
exit 1
fi
... in that every now and then J_HOME does not get set. The following
error message goes to stderr:
./script: Can't reopen pipe to command substitution (fd 4): No child
processes
This is on Redhat 6.0 (2.2.5-15).
Can anyone tell me why this is failing? On the face of it, this looks
like a resource problem causing fork() or exec() failure in the shell
(or out of file descriptors?). However, the machine is not loaded at the
time of failure, and it always succeeds second time round.
Thanks fo any help
Roland
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
