Linux-Hardware Digest #442, Volume #10 Tue, 8 Jun 99 17:13:35 EDT
Contents:
Re: kppp (Shawn Smith)
Re: Kernel Modules Prob ("Al Kooz")
Re: kppp (steve kang)
Re: How do you know if you have a WinModem? (Mike Holden)
Re: kppp ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Kernel Modules Prob (Torsten Evers)
Re: Digital Modems & Linux? (Bob Batson)
Re: good motherboard for K6-2 450 and 350 (William Mount)
Re: Linux on closed platforms? (Dave)
HELP: Hyundai old monitor setup (Roberto Rosselli Del Turco)
-r----- 1 root root 11, 1 May 27 09:41 sr1 (Paul Gray)
Re: How do you know if you have a WinModem? (Rob Clark)
USB support? ("Fredrik Lindstr�m")
Canon BJC-250B (The Krow)
Re: USB support? ("Beat Rupp")
CD-ROM tower progress ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Adaptec AIC-7895 with Zip drive and SCSI CDROM ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux on closed platforms? (Byron A Jeff)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shawn Smith)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: kppp
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 18:56:42 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 01:19:51 +0800, "Pian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>i still can't logging to internet using kppp dialer in mandrake 6.0...it
>works perfectly in redhat before i switch to mandrake 6.0 .
If you saved the ppp files (hope you did) why not use the old ones
from redhat?
All the best,
Shawn Smith !UNT Proud!
My freeware: http://people.unt.edu/~shawns
ICQ: 475-8706 AOL/Netscape IM: "mrgitdown"
"Whatever you do will be insignificant, but
it is very important that you do it."
--Mahatma Gandhi
------------------------------
From: "Al Kooz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,ch.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.redhat,linux.redhat,linux.redhat.install,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Kernel Modules Prob
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:32:11 +0200
Thanx for your reply Richard
I have a SoundBlaster AWE 32 PnP (with 8Mb Ram). Does it make a difference
at all how I configure the kernel and how how it then compiles the modules?
I mean I know that it makes a difference in what modules are compiled at
all, but I didn't know that there was several options to compile a certain
module. Could it be that ?
Alex
------------------------------
From: steve kang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: kppp
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 12:49:07 -0500
Should you modem device be /dev/ttyS1 instead of /dev/ttys1 ?
Linux is case sensitive.
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Holden)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: How do you know if you have a WinModem?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 18:53:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 24 May 1999 11:42:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Clark) wrote:
>In article <7iabsg$4c7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Hmmm. I'm having the same difficulty as reported by "Steven". My
>>situation is that I have a Diamond SupraMax 56i PCI modem. From windows
>>I can determine that its UART is 16550AN as well. Under linux, I can't
>>get it to respond. Is it possible that modems whose UART is 16550AN are
>>winmodems?
>
>Yes, yours is a winmodem, too. The 16550AN response you are getting is an
>emulated UART, not a real UART. Software modems are incomplete without
>their "modem emulation" software,
>
I don't think you can assert that this is ALWAYS true. Win95 reports
my modem's UART as "NS 16550 AN". My modem is a Pace 56 Voice
Internal, ISA/PNP modem. However, despite your pronouncement above, I
persevered after Pace tech support said it should work.
What I finally spotted was a message from the isapnp program which was
being called as part of the Linux (RH5.2) bootup, although I hadn't
explicitly configured this (I assume it was set up as part of the
installation). When I looked at the isapnp.conf, it became apparent
that the IO address and IRQ were set wrongly. I corrected these and
rebooted, and the next time I started minicom, I got the long awaited
"OK" message, rather than nothing.
So basically, a UART of 16550AN in Windows DOESN'T always mean a
winmodem. Your statement above almost caused me to trash a perfectly
good NON-winmodem and spend money on another one.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: kppp
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 18:24:55 GMT
As you can probably well guess the log you supplie doesn't have the
cause of the problem. What you need to do is in kppp account setup go
to the pppd arguments and add 'debug' and 'kdebug 3' ( look-up these
two in pppd man page :) ) and post the resulting log back to this
thread. Good Luck
Jeld The Dark Elf
In article <7jjivb$68f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Pian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi all....
>
> i still can't logging to internet using kppp dialer in mandrake
6.0...it
> works perfectly in redhat before i switch to mandrake
6.0 .....anybody here
> facing the same problem ?...i'm using Merz 33.6 External Voice
Modem...
>
> this is the error message :
> localhost pppd[1381] : pppd 2.3.7 started by root, uid 0
> localhost pppd[1381] : Using interface ppp0
> localhost pppd[1381] : Connect: ppp0 <---> /dev/ttys1
> localhost pppd[1381] : Hangup (SIGHUP)
> localhost pppd[1381] : Modem hangup
> localhost pppd[1381] : Connection terminated
> localhost pppd[1381] : Connect time 0.3 minutes
>
> i've tried changing the ttys1 to cua1 but the same error message
> appeared....
> kindly advise...thanks in advance
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Torsten Evers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,ch.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.redhat,linux.redhat,linux.redhat.install,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Kernel Modules Prob
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 10:03:05 +0200
Reply-To: Torsten Evers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Marc Kandel wrote:
>
> Alex,
>
> As long as the sound support is compiled as a module you do not need to worry
> about settings. My AWE 64 works fine with sound compiled as a module.
> > I have a SoundBlaster AWE 32 PnP (with 8Mb Ram). Does it make a difference
> > at all how I configure the kernel and how how it then compiles the modules?
> > I mean I know that it makes a difference in what modules are compiled at
> > all, but I didn't know that there was several options to compile a certain
> > module. Could it be that ?
> >
> > Alex
Hello, Marc !
I have a different concern (don't really _now_ exactly but ...). Last
week I upgraded my RedHat 5.2 system to kernel 2.2.9, glibc 2.2.1-6 and
the new egcs system from RedHat 6.0. Then I recompiled the kernel with
that new library and it seemed to work, but ...
Packets I compiled earlier with gcc 2.7.2.3 where ok but when I tried to
recompile them, there was everything ok with the compile, no errors at
all but the attempt to start them gave me a segmentation fault and
believe me, I realy upgraded all that library stuff and compiler,
binutils and so on. So everything was on RedHat 6.0 level. So could it
be, that there is something wrong with this egcs stuff from RedHat 6.0 ?
This could also be the reason for the problems with certain modules,
couldn't it ?
Bye,
Torsten
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Batson)
Subject: Re: Digital Modems & Linux?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 19:26:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Johan Kullstam wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Batson) writes:
>
>> Can anyone tell me about a 56K external digital modem that works with
>> Linux?
>>
>> I want to use this modem in a dial-up connection to my ISP and all I've
>> found so far is a internal MultiTech MT5634ZPX. It has an ISA interface
>> & gets 56K on downloads only from a V.90 server.
>
>ok.... what is the problem here? you get 56k download from a v.90
>server. this sounds logical. did you expect your isps old 28.8k
>modem to suddenly upgrade itself?
My ISP already uses digital modems at 56K. I'm looking for a 56K external
modem that will also send UPLOADS at 56K, not just downloads.
------------------------------
From: William Mount <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: good motherboard for K6-2 450 and 350
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 10:23:13 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm very happy with my FIC VIA-503+. 2 Meg L2 Cache. 450
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Any suggestions on a decent mobo for my K6-2? I'm getting a 350 and a
> 450 to build 2 systems.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux on closed platforms?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 14:18:28 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============04382F483BF4E9C4C0DF259B
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jerry,
Thanks for your response. The word "modify" seems to be the root of most of
the discussion, as well it should. There is one other question that no one
has really hit on, and I'll bring that up in a second. First, let me
address your question.
Our physical environment will be similar in nature to a VME board, which I
understand is already supported by the kernel, with some proprietary
hardware on it that will need to at least be initialized at boot-time. This
is the only modification I can immediately think of that would present a
conflict with our ip policy. It would be nice if some mechanism were
present or introduced for releasing the contents of the "arch" directory
from the licensing restrictions, allowing companies to plug in their own
board-specific code without making their architecture public...
Here's the other question: Our platform is not a general purpose platform.
Customers can't write their own programs to run on it. The software is
indivisible - that is, the customer has no way of distinguishing the
operating system from the application. An argument could be made that the
software as a whole is a single program, part of which is the operating
system (if we can break the mindset of general purpose computers for a
moment).
I think that the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPL would have us
distribute the entire source code necessary to build the entire application,
not just part of it. This is what I was referring to when I said I don't
want loopholes. If we have to distribute a useless fraction of our system
in readable form to meet the requirements of the GPL, something has been
lost in the letter of the license. I support the spirit of the GPL, but
will it keep Linux from competing on closed platform systems?
Thanks again.
-Dave
Jerry wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I'm not sure what your problem is here - perhaps you could descibe it in
> more detail (without revealing intellectual property right of course.
>
> I'm not a lawer but as far as I understand the GPL licence there is
> nothing stopping you implementing your system under Linux. Broadly
> speaking, the only thing you cannot do is to use any GPL source code in
> your own code. If you do all of the code must be released under the GPL
> licence. However, applications written on top of Linux, additional
> device drivers etc need not contain any GPL code and therefore can be
> released/sold under you own licence and you are under no obligation to
> release source code...
>
> If you need to modify the existing code then you will run into
> difficulties. I can't think why you might need to - perhaps you could
> explain.......
>
> Cheers,
> Jerry
>
> Dave wrote:
> >
> > I work for a company that develops proprietary systems in a highly
> > competitive industry. Our systems contain intellectual property either
> > developed by us or licensed from others. In addition, much of this
> > intellectual property is under strict export control. In summary, our
> > systems are not likely to become open anytime in the near future.
> >
> > We have used numerous commercial operating systems (some more
> > $commercial$ than others). I would like nothing better than to use
> > Linux in the next product, but I'm having trouble reconciling the terms
> > of the GPL with my company's interests.
> >
> > Please understand that my interest is not to exploit the free software
> > community but to support it as best I can by promoting it through my
> > company's products. We are in the business of selling systems, not
> > software applications, and the savings of moving to a free but
> > unsupported operating system is basically a wash (personal opinions
> > aside).
> >
> > Is there a mechanism in place that allows the use of GPL software
> > (namely Linux) in such a system? I'm looking for a condoned approach,
> > not loopholes. I have nothing against delivering the source code for
> > the operating system, but practically all modifications, applications,
> > and drivers we create will be confidential for the reasons mentioned
> > above and cannot be included in the source distribution.
> >
> > Much appreciated.
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Name: dcausey.vcf
> > Part 1.2 Type: text/x-vcard
> > Encoding: 7bit
> > Description: Card for Dave
==============04382F483BF4E9C4C0DF259B
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="dcausey.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Dave
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="dcausey.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Causey;Dave
tel;home:(972) 420-1932
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
x-mozilla-cpt:;0
fn:Dave Causey
end:vcard
==============04382F483BF4E9C4C0DF259B==
------------------------------
From: Roberto Rosselli Del Turco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: HELP: Hyundai old monitor setup
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 17:29:46 +0200
I have found an old Hyundai HMM-1900E monochrome monitor, together with its
HGC-1280 graphic card. I've fiddled a lot with xf86config, but to no avail,
what's more I'm afraid of doing something stupid and burning the monitor once
and for all.
I know the card/monitor combo is supported under XFree86, as reported in the
pertaining howto, but that doesn't help me very much: is there a kind soul using
the same monitor and willing to send me her/his XF86Config file?
Thanks in advance!
Ciao
--
Roberto Rosselli Del Turco e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dipartimento di Scienze [EMAIL PROTECTED]
del Linguaggio Then spoke the thunder DA
Universita' di Torino Datta: what have we given? (TSE)
Hige sceal the heardra, heorte the cenre,
mod sceal the mare, the ure maegen litlath. (Maldon 312-3)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Gray)
Subject: -r----- 1 root root 11, 1 May 27 09:41 sr1
Date: 8 Jun 1999 18:56:37 GMT
--
Paul Gray
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Math/Computer Science Department
Emory University, Atlanta, GA
150 North Decatur Building
1784 N. Decatur Rd.
Atlanta, GA 30322
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: How do you know if you have a WinModem?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Clark)
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 20:11:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mike Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 May 1999 11:42:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Clark) wrote:
>>Yes, yours is a winmodem, too. The 16550AN response you are getting is
an
>>emulated UART, not a real UART. Software modems are incomplete without
>>their "modem emulation" software,
>
>I don't think you can assert that this is ALWAYS true. Win95 reports
>my modem's UART as "NS 16550 AN". My modem is a Pace 56 Voice
>Internal, ISA/PNP modem. However, despite your pronouncement above, I
>persevered after Pace tech support said it should work.
I did not assert that this was ALWAYS true. The original poster had a
SupraExpress PCI modem that I knew to be a software modem. He asked why
Windows reported a UART, and the answer is appropriate for his
situation, IMO.
[..]
>So basically, a UART of 16550AN in Windows DOESN'T always mean a
>winmodem. Your statement above almost caused me to trash a perfectly
>good NON-winmodem and spend money on another one.
Clearly, you mistook the answer to a specific question for a
"pronouncement." Allow me to restate the concept in a more general way:
One of the functions performed by the Windows software for
certain software modems is provide a "virtual" UART for the
benefit of other communications software running on the
machine. Therefore, if Windows reports finding a UART,
there is the possibility that this UART is actually "virtual"
instead of physical, as one would find in a hardware modem.
It follows that if the modem has previously been identified as
a software modem, then-- even if Windows reports a UART-- it
is not usuable without the OEM software.
Rob Clark, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.o2.net/~gromitkc/winmodem.html
------------------------------
From: "Fredrik Lindstr�m" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: USB support?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 21:32:53 +0200
does linux have any USB support? .
Where kind I find info about USB linux implementations ..
Regards Fredrik
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Krow)
Subject: Canon BJC-250B
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 19:41:39 GMT
has anyone has any luck geting color from a BJC-250B? I can get
perfect blak text, but no color. ideas? Hints?
The krow
------------------------------
From: "Beat Rupp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: USB support?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 22:49:36 +0200
www.linux-usb.org
Fredrik Lindstr�m schrieb in Nachricht <7jjt51$b0d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>
>does linux have any USB support? .
>
>Where kind I find info about USB linux implementations ..
>
>Regards Fredrik
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,linux.redhat.misc,linux.samba
Subject: CD-ROM tower progress
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 19:23:07 GMT
I started the install of the CD-ROM tower this morning! It's got 28
drives, and I've posted a couple of times with questions. I've put up a
page that I'll be updating throughout the day with the progress of our
install. It's at http://www.cu-portland.edu/is2/tower/ If you're
interested, check it out.
Greg
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Adaptec AIC-7895 with Zip drive and SCSI CDROM
Date: 8 Jun 1999 20:39:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have an Adaptec AIC-7895 UW SCSI card built into my motherboard. It's
> one of those ones that have two channels. For a while, now, I've had
> a Scanner and a Zip drive hooked up to Channel A of my SCSI interface
> without any trouble, either on Win98 or Linux. However, I just got a new
> SCSI CDROM drive and hooked it up to channel B. It gets recognized fine
> and works without any problems under Win98. However, I cannot mount
> it with Linux... Anyone have any idea what's causing this?
Info, info, info. Is the drive recognized at boot time? Check
/var/log/dmesg. What command are you using to try to mount the drive?
Are you pointing to the right device? What error are you getting?
--
====================================
Joshua Baker-LePain
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Duke University
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux on closed platforms?
Date: 8 Jun 1999 16:47:15 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
===============04382F483BF4E9C4C0DF259B
-Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
-Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-
-Jerry,
-
-Thanks for your response. The word "modify" seems to be the root of most of
-the discussion, as well it should. There is one other question that no one
-has really hit on, and I'll bring that up in a second. First, let me
-address your question.
-
-Our physical environment will be similar in nature to a VME board, which I
-understand is already supported by the kernel, with some proprietary
-hardware on it that will need to at least be initialized at boot-time. This
-is the only modification I can immediately think of that would present a
-conflict with our ip policy. It would be nice if some mechanism were
-present or introduced for releasing the contents of the "arch" directory
-from the licensing restrictions, allowing companies to plug in their own
-board-specific code without making their architecture public...
How early in the process does the proprietary hardware need to be initialized?
If it can wait until module loading time, then you can simply load a module
to init the hardware before any real applications are running.
-
-Here's the other question: Our platform is not a general purpose platform.
-Customers can't write their own programs to run on it. The software is
-indivisible - that is, the customer has no way of distinguishing the
-operating system from the application. An argument could be made that the
-software as a whole is a single program, part of which is the operating
-system (if we can break the mindset of general purpose computers for a
-moment).
-
-I think that the spirit, if not the letter, of the GPL would have us
-distribute the entire source code necessary to build the entire application,
-not just part of it. This is what I was referring to when I said I don't
-want loopholes. If we have to distribute a useless fraction of our system
-in readable form to meet the requirements of the GPL, something has been
-lost in the letter of the license. I support the spirit of the GPL, but
-will it keep Linux from competing on closed platform systems?
The user's perception of the application is irrelevant. The GPL is clear. If
you use GPL code in your application, then it must be GPL. If not, you can use
any license you want. I think the war is over in terms of shared libraries and
the LGPL. As long as your application is dynamically linked, you can use all
the LGPLed libraries you like.
Linus has it straight. If you can delay the initialization of your hardware
until module loading time, write all your own application code, and not
fiddle with the kernel, you're fine. BTW even if you fiddle with the kernel
you only have to GPL the kernel modifications, not the application that uses
the modified kernel.
Linux and the GPL can compete. You can mix and match Open and Closed Source
as long as you follow the rules. Modules and wholly written applications are
the ticket.
You're missing the Sprit of Open Source in this instance. The GPL is designed
so that you can't take GPL'ed code and make it proprietary. You're not doing
that. You'll write all your code for the modules and the applications from
scratch. You're just a kernel user just like everyone else. That's fine. You
cross the line when you start changing and value adding existing code and then
claiming those changes as closed source. You won't have to do that as long
as you don't fiddle with the kernel.
BAJ
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
