Linux-Hardware Digest #36, Volume #10 Thu, 15 Apr 99 15:13:32 EDT
Contents:
Re: Turning an old 486 into a term/xterm ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: ! Zip AND // port (Piniek aka Piotr Ingling)
Re: All the current OSes are idiotic (was Re: Is Windows for idiots?) (Craig Kelley)
Re: ISDN modems, please read. ("Thomas Eg J�rgensen")
Re: All the current OSes are idiotic (was Re: Is Windows for idiots?)
Re: All the current OSes are idiotic (was Re: Is Windows for idiots?) ("Jon A.
Maxwell (JAM)")
2.2.5 Kernel is dead ("David Murray")
Re: All the current OSes are idiotic (was Re: Is Windows for idiots?) (westprog)
Re: All the current OSes are idiotic (was Re: Is Windows for idiots?) (westprog)
Re: All the current OSes are idiotic (was Re: Is Windows for idiots?) (Craig Kelley)
Re: x11amp crashing...
ISDN modems, please read. ("Thomas Eg J�rgensen")
Re: need help with modem setup in Redhat 5.2 (Jonathan Charles Masters)
Re: All the current OSes are idiotic (was Re: Is Windows for idiots?) (westprog)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Turning an old 486 into a term/xterm
Date: 15 Apr 1999 10:54:54 PDT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In <7eqr86$vnl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I have a pretty decent 486 DX4/100 sitting here that used to work very well
>as my primary workstation until I got a new machine. I was wondering what I
>could do with it besides using it as a doorstop/test machine...anyway I could
>turn it into an x-terminal or simply a dumb terminal to connect to my new
>machine...another keyboard/mouse/monitor setup would help me out and I was
>planning to pick up a used terminal anyway...just wondering if anyone has
>done anything like this with an old machine before...i remember seeing
>somewhere how to make an x-term but never a dumb terminal :)
>
>--Paul
>
I suppose a dumb terminal would be easy. Just boot
DOS and then load a DOS terminal emulator (Quicklink,
Pro-Comm+, etc).
I realize that this is the Linix news group, but
the DOS solution just came to mind.
--
Just my $0.02 worth.
Hope this helps,
Gordon
PS:
For e-mail: replace 'X.bleeb' with 'greeder'.
I do not tollerate spam. Any unsolicited bulk
e-mail will result in a complaint to your ISP.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Piniek aka Piotr Ingling)
Subject: Re: ! Zip AND // port
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:54:34 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dnia Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:56:44 +0200, Frankie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisa�(a):
>Xaendiss wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> You just have to upgrade to kernel 2.2.5 which as a module parport, and allows
>> you to
>> work with the lp.o and the ppa.o modules simultaneously.
>
>Both modules loaded at the same time and using them at the same time????
Yes. This feature (parallel port sharing) appeared somewhere in late 2.1.x
kernels. And it's working without a hitch for me.
Piotr Ingling
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: All the current OSes are idiotic (was Re: Is Windows for idiots?)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 15 Apr 1999 09:04:38 -0600
"Osvaldo Pinali Doederlein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So use FAT16 under Linux.
> > What's the big deal? If you want crap, Linux won't stop you.
>
> Yeah... I'm always impressed how people have hope to push Unix to
> nontechnical users by providing beautiful GUIs like GNOME or KDE, and
> ignoring more fundamental usability problems. What is user-friendly in the
> dizzying-beautiful eterm or other "user friendly" programs, if you type a
> wrong case and you still get an error message? You are not attacking the
> fundamental problems.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but do "nontechnical users" ever type a
filename after they create it? In my experience, they always go to
the file manager or File->Open inside the app.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Thomas Eg J�rgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ISDN modems, please read.
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:10:32 +0200
ops....forgot to tell i'm running KDE 1.1....
Thomas Eg J�rgensen
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:00:05 -0400
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: All the current OSes are idiotic (was Re: Is Windows for idiots?)
On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Rob Eamon wrote:
> Martin Ozolins wrote in message <7f0ms0$kpr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [snip]
> >NTFS is case sensitive, and HPFS too as I recall.
>
> NTFS remembers the case as provided by the user, but
> MyFileName and MyFilename refer to the same file. I'm
> not sure about HPFS but I suspect it behaves similarly.
>
HPFS acts the same way.
------------------------------
From: "Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: All the current OSes are idiotic (was Re: Is Windows for idiots?)
Date: 15 Apr 1999 17:59:34 GMT
westprog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (comp.lang.java.advocacy)
| "Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> westprog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (comp.lang.java.advocacy)
|> |
|> | CORBA servers. Why should the shell intervene to perform file
|> | expansions if I am not dealing with files in the first place?
|>
|> The shell doesn't unless you ask it to by not quoting the parameters.
|
| I ask it to by not quoting the parameters?
Yes, not quoting parameters says to the shell, do what you want with
these parameters.
| In other words, when I am not dealing with files, and I want to
| use the character in a different way, I have to wrap it up
| carefully to protect it from the intervention of the shell. Yes, I
| know that is how it works. I know that I can get the '*' into my
| command if I really try. I just don't think it is a clean way to
| work.
This is exactly why I said your objections are trivial. The shell
could easily expand patterns only if they were quoted, \* instead of
*. Few want it that way.
With applications expanding patterns you automatically nix user
feedback. You could no longer say "echo cmd *" to make sure
you had the pattern right (since echo and cmd might expand
differently). Feel free to suggest ways the shell could get this
ability back with program-defined globbing.
It is no longer acceptable for an interactive shell not to allow you
to expand parameters interactively.
Jam (address rot13 encoded)
------------------------------
From: "David Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 2.2.5 Kernel is dead
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 15:10:44 GMT
I compiled the 2.2.5 kernel on my system and now it is totall dead.. This
is what I see:
LILO boot: linux
Loading Linux........
Uncompressing Linux... OK, booting the kernel.
Then the machine is dead as a can of spam. Never does another thing. If I
boot off of a floppy and change Lilo back to use my old 2.0.36 kernel it
boots fine. I've tried recompiling the 2.2.5 kernel with different options
and still get the same thing. Any reason for this?
--DavidM
------------------------------
From: westprog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: All the current OSes are idiotic (was Re: Is Windows for idiots?)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 14:34:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Charles R. Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> westprog wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Charles R. Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Chris Welch wrote:
> > > >
...
> > > It is not good for the OS to decide that when I typed
> > > MyFirstProgram.java that Myfirs~1.jav is a better name.
> > > The worst thing about windows is that if I enter a file name bob.java,
> > > explorer automatically changes that to Bob.jav.
> > [rest of horrors of Windows file system deleted]
> >
> > Well duh - Windows short file names are crap. We all knew that. Do you
really
> > need the ability to have two files, one called MyfirstProgram.java and
another
> > called MyFirstProgram.java?
>
> Mostly when someone else wrote them and I now have to put them on my
> system for some maintenance function. But also note that some
> programming languages ( C and Java for example) are case sensitive. So
> if I refer to a file it has to have the same name in the program and in
> the language. The hardest part of making sure my Java programs run under
> Windows is making sure windows will understand the class names.
...
This is a fair point. Case sensitive languages work best with case sensitive
operating systems. I prefer both to be case insensitive. I have experienced
the same problem with C++ and Windows.
J.
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: westprog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: All the current OSes are idiotic (was Re: Is Windows for idiots?)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 14:22:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
GAZZA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> westprog wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > GAZZA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Do you have any evidence that this is a "major breakthrough"? I
> > > certainly can't recall any sleepless nights as a young'un wondering
> > > if "bob" and "BOB" were the same person.
> >
> > Like most things we learn in the first few years of life, these are
> > enormously difficult concepts which we take for granted later. The
> > ability to interpret a range of different symbols as having the same
> > meaning is one of many examples of how much smarter humans are than
> > computers.
>
> I'll take that as a "no, I don't have any such evidence", then,
> shall I?
>
> Learning to spell might be hard; learning to punctuate properly
> might be hard. Learning to capitalise is not. IMHO, at least,
> and you haven't shown me that yours is anything more than YHO.
> I'm prepared to be convinced, but at the very least I'll want
> something more than rhetoric.
I will have to do some research then.
> > > So what? DOS isn't English; Unix isn't English. If that's what
> > > you're attempting to prove, then well done. Otherwise your analogy
> > > is not particularly apt.
> > As long as we use readable English text, we benefit from using the
> > same conventions, where appropriate.
> VAR a:INTEGER;
> a:=0;
> a:=a+1;
> WRITELN(a^2);
> No English text there at all, except maybe the word "integer".
> Computer programs generally resemble mathematics more than
> English, IMHO.
Yet we still read left to right, top to bottom, and sound the words in our
head. The words Write and Integer are only semi-coincidentally the same as
the English words, but that isn't the point.
var a:integer;
a:=0;
a:=a+1;
writeln(a^2);
is I think less easy to follow than you example; the keywords are not
distinguished from the variables. Like in C. Of course, you could have all
upper-case variables in C...
> > > > It is only in the strange world of Unix that we have to unlearn
> > > > this.
> > > ... as well as (I'd guess) 50%+ of programming languages.
> > Fortran? Pascal? ADA? Assembler (any that I have worked with)? DCL?
> > Basic?
> One by one, then, shall we?
> - Fortran was able to be used on machines when lower case didn't
> even exist. The fact that it is "case insensitive" is a historical
> accident.
A lucky accident.
> - By reading most Pascal books, you'd probably come away with the
> impression that they were case sensitive. It's very rare for them
> to switch case halfway through.
As we discussed earlier, I think that it would be a good idea for
languages/programming systems to enforce case consistency.
> - I've never seen any ADA code in lower case, except for the
> occasional text string. YMMV, of course.
I haven't seen much; I suppose it goes back to the Algol 60 roots.
> - Calling Assembler a "language" is a bit of a stretch, since it
> isn't "compiled" (it's "assembled", which is a very important
> distinction). But I'll give you that one, as well as Basic. I'm
> not familiar with DCL.
> > Only languages from the C family (C, C++, Java, Perl) are
> > case-sensitive in my experience. (Not that I claim to know more
> > than a handful).
> Perhaps I was hasty in my estimate. However:
> - The C family are the most widely used programming languages
> collectively (CoBOL might have them beat, though, and of course
> that is case-insensitive for much the same reason Fortran is).
> - Even in case insensitive language, one tends to enforce case
> anyway by convention.
Consistency is what is required - not conformity.
> > > Are you
> > > completely against case sensitivity, even in (say) C or Perl?
> > Yes, except in the special case where a language operates on its
> > own tokens and text strings interchangeably. (Not a common
> > situation).
> Ah. Well, we disagree.
> > > The problem is that humans aren't the only ones reading or creating
> > > files. Suppose I have a program that generates a configuration file
> > > after asking the user a few basic questions. Now, if there's already
> > > a configuration file there, I want to (at least) rename it to a
> > > backup (or possibly prompt the user for an overwrite, or whatever).
> > > Let's say that I know the configuration file is called "config.txt".
> > > If case is important, I can simply write a program to search a
> > > directory listing for "config.txt". If case is NOT important, I have
> > > to be careful to also match "Config.TXT" (typically, I suppose I'd
> > > uppercase the whole directory listing first). It's an extra step
> > > that really doesn't buy you very much, IMHO.
>
> > Search case-insensitive. Every string library has it, even C.
> It's not like I don't know HOW to do it. It's just not the "normal"
> way to do things - for me, at least.
I do it as a matter of course - if you are used to a case-insensitive
environment, it is the normal way.
> > > I'm wondering why there's even an argument, to be honest. I'd
> > > imagine the type of people that complain that "MyFilename.txt"
> > > doesn't match "myFileName.txt" are the type that would typically
> > > use a GUI File Manager of some description anyway. Certainly I'm
> > > too lazy to type that out in full; that's what filename completion
> > > is for.
> > GUI's just mask the problem to a limited extent. Name completion
> > doesn't work for myfilename if the file is called MyFileName.
> Then make a shell where it WILL work. There's certainly no reason
> it can't be done.
See other post.
> > > What OSes do a "one-line conversion"?
> > One line of C. Equivalent code in any other language.
> Oh; you mean search for a file name case insensitive.
> Yes, Unix shells don't do this. They could, but nobody (to my
> knowledge) has written one that does yet.
> > > It sounds suspiciously like
> > > you're suggesting if I name a file "gazza.txt" it should store it
> > > as "GAZZA.TXT" the way DOS used to do.
> > No, it should store it as gazza.txt, and retrieve gazza.txt when I
> > enter GAZZA.txt . Case preservation, not sensitivity.
> As long as we're agreed that case is preserved, then, all you need
> to do is write or locate a shell that will retrieve files with
> case insensitivity.
See other post on this one.
> > > OTOH, if you're suggesting that every Unix application go through
> > > an extra level of indirection (ie a case-insensitive string match)
> > > just to identify files, then I respectfully disagree.
I'm not interested in changing Unix, but otherwise you have the idea.
> > Would you like to compare the cost of a case insensitive compare (the
> > conversion is, as I said, one line of C) with the time taken to read a
> > directory or take input from a keyboard? Negligible, IMHO.
> Note that I said "every Unix application". I'm not opposed to the
> idea of creating a shell that did this (so that the other applications
> could just ignore it). I wouldn't USE such a shell, but who am I to
> tell people what shell to use?
Refer to my shared library vs. thread discussion - the apps would do the
conversion, but through a common set of functions.
> > > and so forth (that is, autogenerated filenames that simply step
> > > through ASCII to generate the next one). It's a nice feature of
> > > Unix that even special characters like quotes, spaces and the like
> > > CAN be part of a filename. It's true that humans see little use
> > > for this, but they do allow some nice tricks for computer-generated
> > > filenames. It would be a shame, IMHO, to remove this facility.
> > char filename[2];
> > filename[0] = 'A';
> > filename[1] = 'A';
> > filename[2] = 0;
> > for(int i=0;i<NUMFILES;i++)
> > {
> > // write the file
> > c[0]++;
> > if (c[0] > 'Z') {c[1]++; c[0] = 'A'};
> > };
> > Sensible filenames with a tiny block of code (albeit scribbled
> > down and untested).
> Sure, it's a solution. I could also just use numbers at the end.
> The point being: I can do it either way with Unix as it currently
> is, but I can't do it my way if the file system starts to ignore
> case. Flexibility is generally a good thing.
> --
> Cheers,
> GAZZA
I'm sure there is more to be squeezed out of this yet.
J.
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: All the current OSes are idiotic (was Re: Is Windows for idiots?)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 15 Apr 1999 09:21:59 -0600
westprog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> PEOPLEOFTHEROMANEMPIERONCEWROTELIKETHISBUTTHEYQUITPRETTYSOONAFTER
> DISCOVERINGCAPSANDSPACES
Some usenet posters still write like that. :)
> sowhostillwriteslikethis, or_sometimes_like_this,
> ORSOMETIMESLIKETHIS? People on Unix, and C programmers, that's
> who. On a case preserving file system, I can create my file
> MyFileName, and that is how it will appear. How many files are there
> on Unix systems named like that? Hardly any, because it is so hard
> to retrieve the file if you misremember the case. I just did a
> random scan of my Solaris system, and guess how many files I found
> that used upper case in any way? Not one. That is what a case
> sensitive system turns out as in practice - a lower case only
> system.
# uname -a
Linux bleep.isu.edu 2.0.36 #1 Sun Nov 29 14:42:08 MST 1998 i586 unknown
# find / | egrep [A-Z] | wc -l
65732
Of course, that's our main fileserver box -- but anyway.
Now, how do I find all the mixed-case files under NT again? :>
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: x11amp crashing...
Date: 15 Apr 1999 17:53:13 GMT
On Thu, 15 Apr 1999 11:23:55 -0400, Michael Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>
>>
>> i'd used the 2.0.36 kernel, Red Hat 5.2 distribution... what specific
>> advantages are you going to get by using the newer kernels?
>>
>> use a stable distribution and play .mp3s to your heart's content,
>> and wait until the drivers/kernel/mp3 player situation stabilizes..
>>
>
>Okay, sure, but it still crashed like crazy before I installed starbuck (2.0.34)
>so I'm thinking its something with the driver or the hardware. I emailed the oss
>folks last night so lets see what they say.
i believe it is definitely the x11amp client.... i've been able to play music
CDs with kscd and other cd players without a problem...
>
>Michael
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Thomas Eg J�rgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ISDN modems, please read.
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 17:03:48 +0200
Hi
I recently installed RedHat 5.9 and it is running ok now. This version
supported my gfx card (Matrox Productiva G100 APG 8mb) without any new
x-windows.
BUT, BUT, BUT: my modem. I got a ISDN modem(Fritz!PC) and i thought "ask the
manufactor for driver"....but they replied: "We released the specifications,
but noone want to make one"....DOH!
What do i do now? buy myself a whole new modem(250$?) or do i try to make my
own driver?;-)
The modem is external and is connected to my Com1. Can i use somkinda
"standard modem", or is this impossible?
I got almost no Linux experience, so please be gentle:-)
Best Penguin regards
Thomas Eg J�rgensen
mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: 8548327 (aka: BaDHAB�T)
------------------------------
From: Jonathan Charles Masters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,alt.os.linux.dial-up,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: need help with modem setup in Redhat 5.2
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 19:59:51 +0100
Bill Spargur wrote:
> hello..
>
> i am relatively new to the Linux environment and am having trouble
> setting up my modem configuration. In Win 98, the modem is set
> for COM4, IRQ 11 (it is a Creative Labs Modem Blaster 56k v.90 KFlex).
> However, when my Linux OS boots up (Redhat 5.2), it
> doesn't detect the modem and I can't seem to configure anything
> to match it, even using symbolic links. Can anyone please help?
OK, make sure that you read the MODEM howto ***again*** - try disabling a
spare COM port and replacing that COM port with your internel modem.
periscope
------------------------------
From: westprog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: All the current OSes are idiotic (was Re: Is Windows for idiots?)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 14:48:03 GMT
In article <7f2hqh$1jff$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
> In article <7f28nm$9cn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> westprog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> >If I am working with CORBA, for example, I will possibly be working with
> >CORBA servers.
> So how do you interact with humans or files? With pipelines the interface
> is the same. Do you have to make special-case handling for every
> possibility on every interface that depends on whether the thing on
> the other end is a human (tty-like device), a file, a pipe, a
> socket, a tape drive or your corba-aware counterpart?
I would provide system services for all standard cases, and allow commands to
override for special cases.
> >Why should the shell intervene to perform file expansions if I
> >am not dealing with files in the first place? If I want file expansion as
> >provided by the shell - which is appropriate in the case of cp, rm and such
> >commands - I can call a standard library to parse the input.
> This just falls out of the simplicity of treating everything the
> same. If you want the shell to expand file metacharacters you
> let it see them unquoted. If you don't, then you quote them
> for programs like 'find' that have their own concept of expansion.
I would not use the words "simplicity" and "find" in the same paragraph.
> >I do not suppose that any such scheme could be made to work sucessfully for
> >Unix.
> You could if you want to do away with the shell as the primary command
> interpreter. What would be the point? If you don't like the traditional
> programs, don't use them. Write a program that prompts for input
> so the shell won't touch it if that's what you want. Other users
> on the machine may prefer to continue to run existing programs.
Fundamentally, I envisage a future system that is object-oriented in the way
that Unix is file-oriented.
J.
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
** 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.hardware) 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-Hardware Digest
******************************
