Hello Tomi, hello all,
> Ahem, well, the reason Eskay Packet under DOS or similar systems under
> DOS/Windows have a band monitoring tool built in is that on those
> (stupid) platforms something as simple as "listen" is not possible. IMNSHO
> there is _no_ reason to duplicate that kind of design in Linux. Linux is a
> good multitasking operating system and the networking model nicely permits
> running these things in separate programs that are well designed for their
> purpose.
I guess that is a question of philosophy. To speak for me
personally, I'd prefer having all those functions together in a (maybe
modular as a compromise) program package. This is the way I am
most familiar with.
Since Linux is of such a great flexibility, why shouldn't we, too? Is
it hard to accept other ways besides the "standard" one?
I think there's nothing to say about running listen in the
beackground and piping its output into a nice (filtered) screen in the
terminal program. So I would be able to choose stations whose
traffic I want to monitor and display on a separate window/screen
with only a few keystrokes.
I hope you can understand that not every Linux user wants to set
up a new and complicated script and fiddle around with regular
expressions (for example) to achieve this functionality.
For me here with only a 14" monitor it is also annoying to move a
lot of X windows around. I'd rather have all this in one single
program being able to customize what I want to see using a few,
let's say, menu commands.
Here I am a lot regaled by programs such as Eskay Packet,
Graphic Packet or The Other Packet ;)
> You won't run out of virtual consoles on Linux unless you are doing
> something really weird to occupy all of them. With X there is of course no
> limit in that sense.
But I'd rather be able to see it all on one screen or on _one_ single
window. It is simply me liking that way of work better.
The other reason is that it is sometimes very complicated for the
average user to set up commnuication between these single
programs. What is so terrible in having a shell that binds them all
together in a good way? So users would not have to reinvent the
wheel every time they want to use a certain program's functionality
in another one.
>
> > In another mail Heikki Hannikainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mentioned
> > setting only certain program parts UID root since this is only
> > required to _open_ the socket. Is this at all possible? Until now, I
> > thought that only whole programs could be set to run under UID root.
>
> Yes, it is possible. I recommend reading the man pages Hessu mentioned and
> the books too.
At this place, I want to thank you and Hessu for these hints very
much.
But I doubt that here in Germany these books are easily available.
Cheers, 73
Gerd
