Linux-Hardware Digest #566, Volume #10 Wed, 23 Jun 99 15:13:32 EDT
Contents:
Mounting SUN disks on Intel/Redhat 5.2
3C562 Network/Modem PCMCIA Adapter and RH 6.0 ("John W. Hill")
updatedb problem in Redhat6.0 with 10Gb Harddisk ("Jong")
Soundcard w/ Avance chipset (Ingo Gellrich)
Re: Recommendation needed for Tape Backup drive (killbill)
Re: Backup recommendations? (killbill)
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (Alex Lam)
Re: RH 6 and Ultra66 ATA (Greg Bartels)
SuSE5.2 + making sound work..? (Richard Carr)
SCSI CD-writer Philips CDD3600 doesn't play audio (Willem van Veggel)
Re: Anyone ever have trouble with S3 chipsets? (Greg Yantz)
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (Alex Lam)
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (Alex Lam)
Re: Back up the system. (killbill)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: redhat.config,redhat.hardware.arch.intel
Subject: Mounting SUN disks on Intel/Redhat 5.2
Date: 23 Jun 1999 16:30:54 GMT
Folks,
I recently had a SPARC/Solaris box "die" on me, and had to transfer
the disks to another working server. They (the disks) eventually ended up
on another Solaris box, but we'd really like them on a LINUX box. A
colleague tried to move them to the following configuration:
Intel/Redhat 5.2 (kernel upgraded to 2.2.2)
Tyan S1692DL Motherboard (Intel 440LX chipset)
Symbios 8751SP Ultrawide SCSI Controller
The system would have none of it, and after an hour of fighting, finally
put the drives on the Solaris server.
We believe SCSI disks are SCSI disks, and the LINUX system shouldn't
care where they came from. Does anyone know why the hardware/software
should behave in this manner, and/or how to "fix" it?
Thanks,
Judy Gallagher
Staff Programmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: "John W. Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 3C562 Network/Modem PCMCIA Adapter and RH 6.0
Date: 23 Jun 1999 16:21:19 GMT
I previously had no problems using my 3C562 PCMCIA adapter with RH 5.1. I
installed (did not upgrade) RH 6.0 and now I cannot use the adapter.
Everything appears to be configured properly when I look at ifconfig output
and the netcfg/netconf settings. However, I cannot ping anything when using
the network function nor can I dial out when using the modem function.
Anyone have any ideas? Please email me at:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks!
------------------------------
From: "Jong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: updatedb problem in Redhat6.0 with 10Gb Harddisk
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:39:32 +0800
Dear Linux world,
I have english rh 6.0 linux and win98 on my computer with a 10Gb
harddisk. The partition for linux is around 3.9Gb. No matter I run updatedb,
it runs for a long time ( see my harddisk moving) and then hang ( harddisk
not moving but updatedb had not finish in consolel)
I killed the process but locate will have an error message ( ~
decode_db( ): (2) file or directory not found)
What is wrong? Can somebody tell me? Thank you
Regards
John
------------------------------
From: Ingo Gellrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Soundcard w/ Avance chipset
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 15:19:15 +0200
Hi everybody!
I am using an Avance soundcard (ASOUND GOLD) and just like to get it
running under Linux 2.2.5 on a KMD/2-400 PC.
I already tried the OSS Avance Logic ALS300 driver but I only got a
repitious sound out of my speakers, i.e. the first second of the sound
is re-played continuously. Seems to me that there is an IRQ conflict or
something similar...
My soundcard runs on IRQ10, DMA1, Port0xec... according to BIOS boot
information.
If anybody has a clue how to get the board running... help is really
appreciated! :-)
Tnx
Ingo.
------------------------------
From: killbill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux,comp.os.inux.admin
Subject: Re: Recommendation needed for Tape Backup drive
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:10:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Martin Kiely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm planning to co-locate an Intel box running redhat 6, can someone
> recommend a tape drive and software combination.
>
> Thanks
This has been hashed to death in several threads in (at least) the
comp.os.linux.hardware news group, look there for a full discussion.
Think about a CDRW drive for backups as well, it may meet your needs,
and give you lots of other perks (as someone else mentioned... those 4mm
dats sound terrible in my car's CD player :).
A CDRW approach works fine for many cases, and does not make sense for
many other cases. See the threads for full discussions.
If you do go with a CDRW approach, go to www.freshmeat.net and pickup a
copy of backburner (or you might want to lookup cdbackup, but I have not
tried it). It will make CD backups much easier and more flexible.
--
Bil Kilgallon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--"I believe, what I believe, has made me what I am. I did not make
it, It is making me, it is the very truth of God, not the invention
of any man". Rich Mullins, quoting G.K. Chesterton.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: killbill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Backup recommendations?
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:25:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
> I could swap tapes, and I've got enough tapes presently to handle 20
> gigs worth of data. But I don't think I'd want to use CD-RW either
> way. Even though the media cost is attractive (.99 per CD) you can
> only write once to it, and if you have a lot of data to back up, then
> you just spent a lot of money on blank CDs that have realistically
> little value. And, if you want to rewrite on CD's, the cost skyrockets
> to approximately $20 per CD, which really isn't justifiable IMHO
> concerning the amount of data that can be put on there.
That is a good analysis, but your figures are way out of date, and you
have confused a couple of (admittedly ambigous) terms.
CDR's are the common way of referring to the CD-Recordable drives that
you can only write once. As you state, they are about $1 each retail,
and can be had for as low as 50 cents if you mail order 100 or so at a
time.
CDRW are the rewritable disks, good for at least 1000 cycles (this
probably compares favorably with the lifespan of a tape). They were
about $20 years ago, but now run about $4 each retail, and as low as
$2.50 or so bulk mail ordered.
$2.50 for 500 MB uncompressed of rewritable media is pretty cost
effective. Likewise, there are often situations where you want a
permenant archive of your data, and having a $1 per gigabyte option with
the best shelf life in the industry is also very cost effective. I know
I keep permenant archives of my system from before I perform each major
software upgrade (i.e. win95 to win98, and redhat 5.2 to redhat 6.0).
Tapes are, however, much more convienient, as they do not tie up your
system during a write (while on many systems a CD burn will pause your
system for 15 to 30 minutes per CD), and they do not require as much
disk flipping.
>
> >This is what I can work out for a reasonably cost/benefit balanced
> >backup strategy. I'm also interested in other opinions.
========================================================================
> David E. Fox Tax Thanks for letting me
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] the change magnetic patterns
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] churches on your hard disk.
>
=======================================================================
>
(actually, I don't think you ever made it out of cache, so I think my
patterns are unchanged :)
--
Bil Kilgallon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--"I believe, what I believe, has made me what I am. I did not make
it, It is making me, it is the very truth of God, not the invention
of any man". Rich Mullins, quoting G.K. Chesterton.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Alex Lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 10:40:20 -0700
Brian Hartman wrote:
>
> "Martin A. Boegelund" wrote:
>
> > In article <7imhtp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Roberto Leibman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Daniele,
> > > Are you more familiar with Linux or Windows? I've been working with
> > Windows
> > > for many years now and have installed it in many strange hardware,
> > it's just
> > > a matter of knowing what its tricks are, as I'm sure its true of
> > linux and
> > > any os. If you have access to another computer, I suggest you get the
> > latest
> > > drivers for your laptop directly from compaq BEFORE you install
> > anything
> > > else, so that you have them ready when required, remember that
> > manufacturers
> > > seem to put a lot more custom stuff on their laptops than on other
> > > computers, and that NO OS testing team can test every possible
> > combination.
> > >
> >
> > He _had_ trouble installing Windows, no doubt about that. He uses this
> > experience to show that a common reason for choosing Windows over other
> > OSs because of easy installation, does not hold in the real world.
> >
> > And now you tell him to get drivers for this and that over the net?!?
> > Well, one often heard reason for _not_ liking Linux, is that you might
> > have to get special patches and other software for your specific
> > hardware-configuration over the net. This argument is often used by MS-
> > advocates...
> >
> > I'd say you just proved his point!
> >
> > > --
> > > Roberto Leibman
> > > Talaria Research, Inc.
> > > http://www.talaria.com
> > > Cxi tioj opinioj ne necese estas la opinioj de la administrantaro
> >
> > [snipped]
> >
> > --
> > ------------------
> > Mr Sparkle - Aka Martin A. Boegelund
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
> Working with Linux is *much* more difficult than working with Windows for
> an install. For one thing, Windows plug and play (while it's hardly
> stellar) is much further along than Linux, so you don't have to manually
> configure as much hardware. Secondly, in a Windows environment, you don't
> have to worry about mounting and unmounting. Your drives are just
> there. Thirdly, hardware support for Linux is way behind that for
> Windows. Couple this with the fact that people buy hardware thinking
> it'll be easy to set up, only to find when they switch to Linux that it's
> designed for Windows. Linux requires a great deal more initial planning
> before you set it up, whereas most of the problems with Windows happen
> *after* you install it.
Excuse me...
Windoze easy to install?
Heck. I've been using Windoze since 3.0, then NT since 3.5, and Linux
since kernel 1.x. Yes, Linux WAS difficult to install. But now, with all
the advanced installers from some distributions, installation is a snap.
It took me all but 35 or 40 minutes to do a full installation with
SuSELinux, with all the basic services all configured and running
properly, and connected to the net with xDSL.
Shitzzzzz. Windoze takes almost that much time on the zillions reboots
it needs, plus you need to say your prays with the "plug 'n' pray"
craps.
And the only real multi-tasking Windoze can do is to boot and crash at
the same time.
And Dr. Watson from NT. What a joke! It just keep sending you through
a loop without really identifying the problem. And the Help file from
Win 98 - keep telling you the same thing, and going round and round in
circle, then, tell you to call your system admin. Do you call that help?
What if that poor soul is a home user?
At least, the error message from Linux does clearly identify the
problem, yes, you need to know how to interpute the message, but at
least it gives you a precise diagnosis, and you can actually take this
message and ask someone who knows how to interpute it to solve the
problem, like posting on usenet.
Or you can call M$ support and they keep you on hold for an hour or so
while your long distance phone bill is ticking, and still not getting
your problem resolved.
Just my $0.000000002 from a long time M$ user, now almost completed his
system migration to Linux.
Alex Lam.
--
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Remove all the upper case Xs from my email address if reply by e mail.
**************************************************
*If you receive any spam from my domain name. It's forged.
I DO NOT send spam e mail. But I've found out that my
domain has been forged many times.
**************************************************
------------------------------
From: Greg Bartels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: RH 6 and Ultra66 ATA
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:12:09 -0400
TS Stahl wrote:
> My new drive is also ultra66, but it's in an older motherboard. The setup
> works fine for me with caldera 2.2.
after some time on hold on the Promise Tech support phone line,
I got this blip of info:
Promise is working on a linux driver for their Ultra66 card now,
(PCI/66 slot driving an Ultra-ATA/66 hard drive)
and should be made available between now and the end of summer.
He didnt know if you could run the Ultra66 card on a linux system
at the slower 33 mhz.
The guy mentioned Red Hat, and I forgot to follow up on that part.
I'm thinking of getting a system with the Promise Ultra 66 card,
and wouldn't mind running it at 33mhz until the driver is available.
but I'd want to make sure I can at least run it at the slower speed.
anyone have more info?
does the card work at 33 mhz with Caldera??
Greg
------------------------------
From: Richard Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: SuSE5.2 + making sound work..?
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:55:39 GMT
Hi,
Can anyone help here?
I have an Ensoniq ES1371 soundcard. SuSE 5.2, kernel 2.2.9 and KDE1.0.
Under RedHat 5.2 the sound was installed perfectly. However with SuSE
5.2 I have never seen an option to configure the sound/soundcard, nor
can I find any options in YaST or KDE1.0.
Can anyone tell me how to get sound installed then?
Thanks,
Richard
--
Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/quort/
Room 101: http://room101.virtualave.net/
RPG site: http://www.rpghost.com/future/
Email me: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Willem van Veggel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: SCSI CD-writer Philips CDD3600 doesn't play audio
Date: 23 Jun 1999 18:37:24 GMT
Hi
Have some problems with my SCSI CDD3600 CD-(Re)Writer (Philips).
It's connected to an Adaptec 2940 U2W scsi controller.
The CD-ReWriter runs OK with windows 95 and windows NT 4.0; I can
read (and write) data and play audio CD's without any problem.
When running Linux with Redhat 5.2 (kernel 2.0.36) I can actually
access the CD-Rewriter for reading data CD-ROMs by mounting it
(/dev/scd0); no problem at all.
Reading the number of audio tracks and their duration works OK when
using CD-audio tools such as xplaycd, cdp, ascd, cdtool. But actually
playing audio using the tools mentioned does NOT work. What happens
when I press play: the CD-ROM led starts blinking a few times and
the kernel ioctl reports a CDROM not ready message.
Anyone an idea about what's wrong. I already tried patching aic7xxx
to version 5.1.16 but that didn't improve anything.
Willem van Veggel
==================
Some tech details
==================
My /proc/scsi/scsi:
Attached devices:
Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00
Vendor: IBM Model: DCAS-34330W Rev: S65A
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 01 Lun: 00
Vendor: PHILIPS Model: CDD3600 CD-R/RW Rev: 2.00
Type: CD-ROM ANSI SCSI revision: 02
My /proc/scsi/aic7xxx/0:
Adaptec AIC7xxx driver version: 5.1.16/3.2.4
Compile Options:
TCQ Enabled By Default : Disabled
AIC7XXX_PROC_STATS : Disabled
AIC7XXX_RESET_DELAY : 15
Adapter Configuration:
SCSI Adapter: Adaptec AHA-294X Ultra2 SCSI host adapter
Ultra-2 LVD/SE Wide Controller
PCI MMAPed I/O Base: 0xe7000000
Adapter SEEPROM Config: SEEPROM found and used.
Adaptec SCSI BIOS: Enabled
IRQ: 12
SCBs: Active 0, Max Active 2,
Allocated 15, HW 32, Page 255
Interrupts: 3642
BIOS Control Word: 0x18a6
Adapter Control Word: 0x145d
Extended Translation: Enabled
Disconnect Enable Flags: 0xffff
Ultra Enable Flags: 0x0000
Tag Queue Enable Flags: 0x0000
Ordered Queue Tag Flags: 0x0000
Default Tag Queue Depth: 8
Tagged Queue By Device array for aic7xxx host instance 0:
{255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255,255}
Actual queue depth per device for aic7xxx host instance 0:
{1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1}
Statistics:
(scsi0:0:0:0)
Device using Wide/Sync transfers at 40.0 MByte/sec, offset 15
Transinfo settings: current(12/15/1/0), goal(12/127/1/0), user(12/127/1/0)
Total transfers 3486 (2947 reads and 539 writes)
(scsi0:0:1:0)
Device using Narrow/Sync transfers at 10.0 MByte/sec, offset 15
Transinfo settings: current(25/15/0/0), goal(25/127/0/0), user(25/127/0/0)
Total transfers 2 (2 reads and 0 writes)
------------------------------
From: Greg Yantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Anyone ever have trouble with S3 chipsets?
Date: 23 Jun 1999 14:58:41 -0400
Hylke van der Schaaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Robert Kaiser wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Goodell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I'm looking into buying a new video card to replace my old 256k trident
> > > and I want >4Mb of RAM. There seem to be a lot of S3 cards out there
> > > and I'm wondering if that's because they're faulty somehow.
They're cheap.
> > > If anybody
> > > has any information about that could you post here? Not just the S3,
> > > but the ViRGE also.
S3 cards more recent than the 968 (anything that uses EDO RAM) are very
cheap and very popular with OEM's.
> > I have been using various S3 cards for a long time. Their're good
> > under XFree86 as long as your viewscreen is <= 17 inch and as long
> > as you are satisfied with 8 bits per pixel. For 16bpp, pixel clock
> > is limited to 80Mhz (at least with all the cards I have been using).
I have a Virge card in one machine... works fine for 2D so long as
I only use 8 bit color only. Oh, and did I mention it's cheap?
> I've used a Diamond Stealth 64 Video Vram (Video 3000) for years on
> a 17" screen, 1024x768x16@106Hz with a beautiful picture. And that card
> is based on the S3 968 Chipset.
IMO, after the 968 S3 took a major step backward. They gave up on high
performance and went after cheap. They're only now trying to regain the
reputation and respect they lost for doing that...
> So the S3 chipsets are OK, as long as they're out in cards together
> with good other components (clockchip/memory/RAMDAC etc).
Which means you don't want a Trio or Virge- they use components that
are selected for cheapness- unless you can live with mediocrity. If you
can find an old VRAM card (968 or the like) more power to you; but then
you're just as likely to find a Millenium (1st gen, PCI) as cheaply.
> Cya,
> Hylke
-Greg
------------------------------
From: Alex Lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:05:38 -0700
Brian Hartman wrote:
>
> Rod Roark wrote:
>
> > Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Working with Linux is *much* more difficult than working with Windows for
> > >an install...
> >
> > Um, no. Just this past weekend I tried to install Win 98 on a machine for
> > dual boot with NT 4.0. '98 would not work with the ATI video card (except
> > in 640x480 16-color), with or without the vendor-supplied drivers. Also
> > somewhere in the course of the install it lost the ability to see the
> > (standard ATAPI) CD-ROM drive.
> >
>
> How often have you had to partition anything in order to get Windows
> installed? You can install Windows on a clean hard disk with one partition
> with absolutely no fuss, just going through the steps. By contrast, in order
> to install Linux, you have to deal with Disk Druid and partitions and mount
> points and swap files. You can't seriously tell me this is less difficult
> than Windows, can you??
>
I can install Linux on a fresh clean drive without my involvement in
partitioning it as well. At least SuSE 6.0 and later can do it with its
automated installer.
And it detected EVERYTHING correctly on the 1st pass.
> In the first place, dual-boots are always a lot harder to set up than
> plain-vanilla installs. Secondly, the problem you seemed to be having isn't
> with Windows, but with ATI. There are plenty of badly-written drivers out
> there for both platforms. And NT's support for hardware isn't much better
> than Linux's (particularly because Win9x drivers access the hardware in ways
> NT doesn't allow).
>
Bull. I have Linux/Win NT/Win98 triple boots in one of my boxes. It's
not that hard to set up.
And now, with vmware, you can install Linux, then install all the
Windoze you like, and have your Windoze running from inside Linux almost
like running in its own native mode. Can Windoze do that?
> >
> > Even worse, it trashed the NT installation, and NT after that could
> > not even be reinstalled until after I finally figured out that the
> > active-partition flag had to be re-set (the NT install made no provision
> > for this, I had to do it via Linux fdisk). It seems Win95 had silently
> > changed it.
> >
>
> I've had numerous problems with my 95/NT dual-boot system. Generally, the
> way it works is this: Install 95 first, then install NT from within 95.
> That's always worked for me without a hitch. Again, once you actually get
> things installed is when the real fun begins. At the very least, if you knew
> your video card supported SVGA, you should have been able to select standard
> SVGA drivers for the install and gotten it up and running fine in 1024x768.
>
> >
> > Then I had to reinstall the ATI driver for NT. Well it didn't work there
> > either, and I finally found out from ATI's web site that you have to
> > upgrade to Service Pack 3 before it will work (the included instructions
> > did not mention this little detail). God only knows what you have to do
> > to get it working with '98. And I can't count the number of times I had
> > to reboot the machine in the course of the above.
> >
>
> Again, your problem here is with the video card, not the OS. I don't know if
> you tried this, but you might want to try just setting it up with standard
> SVGA drivers included with the system. That's what I had to do with my NT
> install. If we're gonna talk about hardware problems, let's talk about the
> fact that when I was doing my Linux install not only did Linux not recognize
> my CD-ROM (which is a standard SoundBlaster CD-ROM that's been around for
> God-knowns-how-many years) but even after install, trying to get it to mount
> was an excercise in frustration. After wading through the HOWTO information
> (which was both incomplete and incorrect) I was finally able to cobble
> together a solution that was suitable. It's now almost 2 weeks after I got
> my Linux CD, and I'm just now able to mount and unmount the CD-ROM through
> the GUI.
>
Soundblaster/Creative Labs is well known to be very uncooperative with
Linux developers, until very recently.
And NT didn't even recognize the old modem it has been running with for
4 years after my last reinstallation (one of the routine once every
couple months requirement to keep NT alive.)
> >
> > This "easy to install" MS Windows myth is indeed, as the title so
> > eloquently states, bullshit. It's only easy if you're doing just what
> > MS thinks you should be doing, nothing more.
> >
>
> Linux not only demands that you install software just so, but it also limits
> your hardware to whatever freelance developers decide to develop drivers and
> jerry-rigs for. It's obviously not Linux's "fault", bit drivers for Linux
> are much harder to come by than for Windows. Hell, I'm still trying to
> figure out how to print to my printer. There's not an OS out there that
> doesn't demand that you install hardware in a specific procedure. The
> procedure for installing Linux happens to be (on average, on a system with
> all main components compatible) much more drawn-out and complicated than with
> Win9x or NT.
>
Yes, to a certain degree, but the progress on Linux has been moving at
very high speed, and new drivers, patches and what not are showing up
almost on a daily bases.
> None of this is really meant to say that Linux is a bad operating system. In
> general, I like Linux, and would probably recommend it to anyone I knew that
> could handle setting it up. I'm just pointing out that it's not as easy to
> install.as Windows, your charming little anecdotes to the contrary. ;)
>
Wrong. Linux is hard to install/use only to those who have been poisoned
by M$.
I've taught two totally computer newbies to install and use Linux. And
non of them have any problem with the basic stuff; because they started
with a clean mind, without any M$ poison in their head. So, your point
is questionable.
Alex Lam.
> >
> > By the way I'm no newbie; I've been developing software (including for
> > MS Windows) for 25 years.
> >
> > -- Rod
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Sunset Systems Preconfigured Linux Computers
> > http://www.sunsetsystems.com/ and Custom Software
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Remove all the upper case Xs from my email address if reply by e mail.
**************************************************
*If you receive any spam from my domain name. It's forged.
I DO NOT send spam e mail. But I've found out that my
domain has been forged many times.
**************************************************
------------------------------
From: Alex Lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:25:26 -0700
Chris Harshman wrote:
>
> Hmm. Aspects of Linux are starting to sound like a familiar
> large company based in Redmond... Anyone else a little perturbed
> by that?
>
I can see that started happening with Redhat. Maybe all the noise and
attention that it's getting lately is getting to their heads?
IMO, Redhat is less developed than some other distro.
Alex Lam.
> Johan Groth wrote:
> > Neither GNOME nor Enligthenment are finished products. The latest
> > 'stable' of Enlightenment you can find is 0.15.5 and as you can see it
> > isn't a 1.x release. Many feel that the release of a 1.x of GNOME was
> > too early. Too much of didn't work well. I'm one of them that thinks
> > GNOME shouldn't have been released even now. It's still a bit unstable.
--
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Remove all the upper case Xs from my email address if reply by e mail.
**************************************************
*If you receive any spam from my domain name. It's forged.
I DO NOT send spam e mail. But I've found out that my
domain has been forged many times.
**************************************************
------------------------------
From: killbill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Back up the system.
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 13:05:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
S Sachdeva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> What is a good way to back up the whole system on a ZIP Drive.
>
> Thx 4 your help.
> Sandeep
Go to www.freshmeat.net and lookup backburner. It supports removable
media types as a backup option, and should work well. It will create
either an image backup (dd) or a file system archive (tar).
It relies on unix tools (like dd, gzip, and tar), so if you are not used
to those tools you may have to study up a little, but they are easy and
I have given examples, so it should not be too bad. They are important
tools to know how to use anyway.
Enjoy. Backburner appears to be stable (the only time I have had a
problem with the latest version is when I had the tar command messed
up). I have had several people email me and indicate they have used it
successfully.
--
Bil Kilgallon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
--"I believe, what I believe, has made me what I am. I did not make
it, It is making me, it is the very truth of God, not the invention
of any man". Rich Mullins, quoting G.K. Chesterton.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
