Linux-Hardware Digest #579, Volume #10 Thu, 24 Jun 99 16:14:00 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT! (Brian Hartman)
Motorola SM56 ne1 get this too work? (Jon Kee)
About sound and bus bandwidth ("Chad Dale")
Re: Promise Ultra66 controller rumor (Greg Bartels)
Re: Ensoniq AudioPCI ??? (Marcus Lauer)
Gus Max + Midi (Michael Wellman)
Re: Win98 FDISK no longer works after Linux install ("Brian Smith")
Re: Please help: RedHat6.0 Iomega 250 Parallel Zip install and config (Craig J Copi)
Re: Setting up a Creative Labs Graphics Blaster Extreme [permedia2] in RH5.2 with
XFree86 3.3.3 (Shine)
LAN connectivity problem (Richrj)
SCSI drive was on linux SPARC problem. (root)
Re: Modem and kppp ("Cesar Mateus Conceicao")
ATI Rage Fury ("Supanat Buranarom")
SyJet help (Bill Andersen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Windows easy to install? BULLSHIT!
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:42:55 -0400
DarkProphet wrote:
> Brian Hartman wrote:
>
> > > When Win95 has problems, you're up a creek. When Linux has
> > > >> problems, you can solve them.
> > > >>
> >
> > On this point, I keep coming back to certain devices: If you have a Winprinter,
> > you're up the creek if you move to Linux. (Trust me. I have an HP 820Cse.
> > I know about these things. ;))
> > And even those fixes that *are* available (through ghostscript or ppa2pbm, for
> > expample) are kludges of the first order, comparable to getting your engine to
> > work with a well-placed coat hanger.
>
> While it may not be the best solution to the problem, isn't it nice to know that
> such things can be done?
>
Well, on my particular system, the jury's still out as to whether or not it can be
done. I haven't actually gotten it to work. If you could offer any assistance, I'd
appreciate it. :)
>
> > >I had to install my
> > >56K modem as a "Standard Modem" and then turn the compression up to 115400, for
> > >example. And if you've got an MCSE, you're not an average user, anyway.
>
> I had to do the same thing with my modem in Windoze... problem is, the Standard
> Modem driver in windoze doesn't support all the features of my modem. (and I admit,
> neither does Linux, out of the box, but at least its possible to work around that)
>
> >
> > If you look at sales, Windows outsells Linux by a wide margin. (I think we
> > can all concede that.) The fact that a specific company that sells Unix boxes
> > was mentioned lends credence to the point that you have to look pretty hard to
> > find an off the shelf Unix box. In most situations, if a user is going to be
> > installing a new OS, they're going to go from Windows 95 to something else. If
> > that "something else" is Unix, they've got a long road ahead of them. Drives
> > aren't even referred to the same way in Unix as in DOS. While it's a minor
> > point, it can add to a novice's confusion.
>
> I think it would also be fair to point out that UNIX has never been a desktop OS.
> MS has been a desktop OS (of sorts) since day one. UNIX only now is starting to
> enter into the desktop scene, and when it has to compete with Microsoft, its no
> wonder that its hard to find an off the shelf UNIX box. Also, many novices don't
> realize that they have a choice in what system that they buy at all. If you're to
> ask a novice what comes to mind when they hear the word 'computer', 3 things are
> likely to come up: "windows", "mac", and "solitaire". In this regard, Microsoft has
> an advantage of being a 'household brand', and given a choice, most novices would
> probably go with something they heard of before, (not UNIX)
>
> >
> > Another point I'd like to make: I upgraded my kernel last night, and it was
> > way more difficult than anything Windows ever put me through. The upgrade had
> > at least 12 steps to it, none of which are handled programatically or even
> > cued. The whole process took about an hour and a half the first time, after
> > which I discovered I hadn't included PPP in the kernel, and therefore couldn't
> > get out on the net. So I tried again. And again. Finally I realized I was
> > missing a step and had to do it one more time. I started the process at around
> > 12 and didn't finish until 4:30. How does that compare with installing a
> > Service Pack? (which kernel upgrades are roughly equivalent to) Windows has a
> > big jump on Unix when it comes to usability, and the novice benefits from it.
> > It's only when the user outgrows the novice stage that they realize what they
> > give up for that usability. But to say that Unix is just as easy to install as
> > Windows is silliness.
>
> I am wondering how you went about compiling your kernel. make xconfig is a very
> easy way to select options for compiling your kernel (and even tells you what
> options you'll be most likely to want to set). Armed with that, and your
> distribution's "Installing Kernel" chapter, this is definately NOT a terribly hard
> task. The first time I compiled a kernel, it took 45 minutes (this includes reading
> what I was supposed to do, making my choices in xconfig, and the compilation
> itself). Mind you, this is all a relatively moot point, as novice users aren't all
> that likely to go around trying to compile kernels. But, even if they decide to do
> so, its no more difficult than installing your distribution to begin with
>
I got my instructions for compiling my kernel from two sources. First, there's the
redhat howto page for the kernel. Then, there's
www.thecomputergallery.com/redhat/kernel.shtml Neither of these sources mentioned
make xconfig. "Make menuconfig" sounds a lot like what you're talking about, but that
step is somewhat down the road in the configuration process. And it's not hard as in
"compile your own custom version of Netscape" hard. It's hard as in there are
numerous steps, any of which will screw you if you neglect them. Make menuconfig
probably takes the most attentive time, since neglecting to install a needed option
necessitates you doing the whole thing over. You must have a pretty fast computer,
too. :) I'm on a Pentium 166 (not all that slow, considering kernel 2.2 is supposed
to be able to run on a 386) and "make install" alone took about a half an hour to
finish.
>
> > Once it's installed, Linux might be a better OS for the novice user, because
> > things are less likely to break down than under Windows. BUT that's only
> > provided the user can understand how things work in the first place (including
> > how to deal with /etc/fstab). Therefore, when you say Linux is good for
> > novices, I think you need to make a distinction between maintenance-free
> > (provided you never upgrade the kernel) and easy to use. While Linux might have
> > fewer maintenance problems, it's ease of use needs serious improvement before
> > it's "easy to install" (which this thread is supposed to be about, anyway).
>
> I've been using Windoze for 7 years, and I was pretty fluent in the ways of Windoze
> and was pretty used to doing things in the Windoze fashon. But, I decided to give
> Linux a shot.
> I got RedHat 5.1 (off FTP, for no charge, so I figured I had nothing to lose)
> I'll admit, getting the partitions set wasn't a particularly easy task, but I
> didn't have the installation manual (since I had downloaded RH5.1 and not bought
> it).
This might be one of the things that Linux distributions suffer from: Users download
their copies, thereby foregoing the manual if they don't look at the howto pages
(which are kind of difficult to look at if you don't have Linux installed enough to
have PPP).
>
> I got ahold of a RedHat5.1 Install manual and READ it. After that, partitioning,
> along with the rest of the install, was a piece of cake. The simple fact remains
> that if you are going to install ANY OS, you need to RTFM and know what you are
> doing before you do it.
> I think the main reason it could be argued that Windoze is easy to install is well,
> you just run setup.exe and pretty much twiddle your thumbs for an hour. You have
> very little choice about how things get set up (which, for novice users, is
> generally a Good Thing(TM), since you can pretty much skip reading the install
> manual)
While skipping the install manual might not be a good idea, the fact is that you
*can* do it with Windows, while you'll have a much harder time of it with Linux.
Obviously, this is a trade-off between customization and ease-of-use. But it's not a
bad trade-off for novice users. (And I think I need to specify *Linux* novice users,
not necessarily just computer novices).
>
> Few choices is not always good. For example, EVERY TIME I install Win98, when it
> boots for the first time, it hangs and crashes. And rebooting doesn't help. I have
> to enter safe mode and start messing with the system setup. (incidentally, the
> problem keeping Windoze from booting has been different damn near every time). I
> would much rather install something like linux, and have to deal with a few choices
> during the install (which are all covered in the install manual, of course) than
> install a system with no choices and then wonder why the hell it won't boot.
>
I agree with you there. I was willing to put up with a little confusion because
I knew I would get a better system out of it in the end. However, a user who doesn't
have a lot of high-intensity tasks would not have the same motivation.
Just as an aside, I've spoken to numerous users I would consider novices since my
install of Linux. I usually cite the stability of the OS as my reason for switching
(although a close second is the frustration with the monolith of MS apps). In each
case, the novice user I was talking to either reported no problems or none significant
enough to merit changing their OS. What I'm getting at is that for the average user,
who doesn't really tax what their system can do, Linux might not have such a high
return on their time investment. For my own part, my dual-boot system (between 95 and
NT) was complex enough that I was experiencing problems, and therefore decided to make
the change.
As luck would have it, there's an article in PC Magazine concerning the 2.2 kernel.
They don't seem to be all that thrilled with it for novice users, either. Anyone who
wants to read that part of the article (which asks the question if Linux is the
perfect OS) should go to:
http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/pctech/content/18/11/tf1811.005.html One thing in the
article (which has been in contention throughout this thread) is that Linux's plug and
play is not as far along as MS's. Another is the lack of USB support in Linux. All
of these things are factors to an installation, and speak directly to the question of
ease of installation and use.
>
> >
> > Every OS has some driver issues. I'll concede that. And driver issues are
> > a pain in the ass in every OS. I'll concede that, too. But device for device,
> > you're going to have less problems at the novice level with Windows. Plus,
> > there are just more drivers out there.
>
> I'll agree with this. For the most part, it is easier. But its a helluva lot more
> inconsistant.
> I've installed (uh, I mean REINSTALLED) Win98 on the same machine maybe 5 or 6
> times, and EVERY TIME, it fails to detect and/or configure one of the devices it
> configured fine the last time I installed. What the hell is up with that? Gah, at
> least with Linux, if you do manage to get a driver for your devices it will either
> work, or it won't. Same results everytime. (Thats got to make developing a driver
> easier, I'd think)
>
I had the same problem with my modem. When I first installed it, it only recognized
it as a Standard Modem. If I tried to install it as a 56K modem, it installed it, but
didn't recognize it as an RAS device. Well, some time down the road my NT
installation went belly-up, and I had to reinstall. When I did, suddenly my modem was
recognized as what it was, and was on the list of RAS devices. I can't explain it.
I'm just reporting it.
>
> --
> #-------------------------------------------------#
> | | | | | | ` |
> | | | | | | ` |
> | | | | | |~\ ` |
> | | | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | |
> | | | | | / , |
> | | | | ~ , |
> | | | | , |
> | | | | |~~~ |
> | | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | |
> | | | | | | | |
> #~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#
> |XYPHOID TECHNOLOGIES: WHERE DID YOU GO YESTERDAY?|
> #~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~#
------------------------------
From: Jon Kee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Motorola SM56 ne1 get this too work?
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:51:31 -0400
as the title says, no luck with this modem.
its using com4 irq7 address 220 in microsucks
tried using setserial to assign the irq to 7 and address to 220 for cua3
but still no go.
ne1 have an idea?
Jon
------------------------------
From: "Chad Dale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: About sound and bus bandwidth
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 07:36:42 GMT
I noticed that ever since I upgraded my system from a P200 to a
Celery300A~450 that my MP3 players (WinAmp under Windoze and X11Amp under
Linux) have been subject to odd "hickups" from any action which causes heavy
screen changes (ie, scrolling through a webpage, moving windows around).
I read on the Winamp homepage that this is an issue of the video card eating
up bus bandwidth, but I am wondering why I only see this now on my faster
system.
But I have a hard time believing this is the problem, I have an Abit BH6
motherboard, with a retail C300A chip. I have 64MB SDRAM (PC100), and
everything leads me to think I should have less I/O bottlenecks on this
system than on the P200, with it's slower FSB and Memory speed/data width.
Does anyone know if there is anything I can do with this hardware to get rid
of this problem? I was thinking that maybe I have neglected some BIOS
setting which does somethign stupid to my PCI bus or something.
thanks.
------------------------------
From: Greg Bartels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Promise Ultra66 controller rumor
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:13:11 -0400
the following motherboards are the only ones I
currently know of that support PCI/66:
ASUS: P5S-VM
DFI: PW65D
INTEL: L440GX+
you might be able to get it to work, but my
guess is that you'll get the same performance
until you upgrade your motherboard.
i.e. your motherboard will talk to the Promise
card at 33Mhz.
the spec on the Intel board says it has 2 PCI
slots that support PCI/66 and 4 PCI slots that
support 33mhz. and somehow it uses the AGP
to do the PCI/66 stuff. I dunno.
Greg
Neil L wrote:
>
> I don't think this is quite true.
>
> I am in the process of setting up an old Gateway system with a Promise
> Ultra66 card connected to a WD 18 GB Expert drive, and I have a 3-com
> ethernet card.
>
> I had to compile Kernel 2.3.8 to get it going, but I have- no problems so
> far.
> But this is still a work-in-progress.
>
> Neil
>
> _______
> Greg Bartels wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Someone just told me that to run a PCI card at
> 66 mhz, all PCI cards in the computer
> need to be 66 Mhz. is this true?
>
> if so, where the H am I going to get a
> PCI 66 mhz ethernet card and modem?
>
> is a differnt motherboard chipset used
> to run PCI66 Mhz? how do I identify
> a motherboard that can even handle PCI 66?
>
> Greg
------------------------------
From: Marcus Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,comp.os.linux.questions,linux.dev.sound
Subject: Re: Ensoniq AudioPCI ???
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:05:30 -0700
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Richard Carr wrote:
>In article <7ke6im$q57$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> In article <sBna3.669$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Dariusz Goi�ski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Greetings form Poland !!!
>> >
>> > I have Ensoniq AudioPCI sound card, but I can't configure it. Is
>there
>> any
>> > source code or driver for Linux. I'm using RedHat 6.0
>> >
>> > Please send answers to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > Thank YOU :-)
>> >
>> >
>> Try logging in as root and typing
>>
>> # sndconfig
>>
>> or, if that didn't work, provide more detail on
>> what you tried, and what happened.
>>
>> -A
>>
>
>I have no answer to this, in fact I am seeking one. I too have an
>Ensoniq ES1371 card, and I cannot make it work in SuSE 5.2 with KDE 1.
>The problem is I've never found a config tool for it, and sndconfig and
>soundcfg are 'not recognised commands'.
>
>Though I will now try # sndconfig (different to sndconfig I notice).
>
>BTW I have had this card working fine under RedHat 5.2 so I (and you)
>know it will work, it is worth persevering (unlike a friend of mine who
>tried for days on end to install a card that was not supported :p )
>
>Richard
>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>>
>
>--
>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.
You may be able to find modules for both the ES1370 and ES1371 chipsets
in your modules directory (in RedHat: /lib/modules/2.2.5/misc). Basiclally,
you need to load these modules using the command "insmod <modulename>"
(include the full path to the module in the modulename). Stick this command in
your rc.local file (in /etc/rc.d) and you're set. You might also recompile your
kernel with support for these cards, if you're into that soft of thing. That's
what I did (using kernel 2.2.10 on RedHat 6) and it works just fine.
Marcus Lauer
------------------------------
From: Michael Wellman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Gus Max + Midi
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:24:11 GMT
I've got Redhat 6.0 and I'm using a Gus Max sound card. I've got it=20=
installed and working using the included drivers.
However, I can't get midi to work. I've used Linux off and on since=20=
the .90 kernels and I know that I used to have a midi player that used=20=
a command line option to load the midi patch set. But I forgot what=20=
that program was!
Playmidi -g makes no sound. I would at least like to find a program=20=
that can play midi on the gus. Even better would be a way to make=20
midi playing available to any midi player.
------------------------------
From: "Brian Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win98 FDISK no longer works after Linux install
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 14:11:50 -0400
Had the same problem, to get rid of lilo boot, use fdisk /mbr then try
again.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig J Copi)
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Please help: RedHat6.0 Iomega 250 Parallel Zip install and config
Date: 24 Jun 1999 19:26:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The RZA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since you have the ZIP 250 drive, you should be using IMM rather than
> the
> older PPA. Also, instead of 'insmod imm' do a 'modprobe imm'... it
> worked for me and I didn't even have to edit my conf.modules file.
But what if you want kmod to do the work for you. Then what do you put in
conf.modules? I tried setting scsi_hostadapter (and some other things I made
up as I went along) but none of them worked. Just curious. A modprobe in
rc.local works for now but I just hate to see "all that" memory wasted when
the drive isn't being used;)
--
Craig J Copi | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Case Western Reserve University | http://erebus.phys.cwru.edu/~copi/
Department of Physics | (216) 368-8831
------------------------------
From: Shine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Setting up a Creative Labs Graphics Blaster Extreme [permedia2] in RH5.2
with XFree86 3.3.3
Date: 24 Jun 1999 19:30:57 GMT
I have the exactly the same problem. If you find any solution please e-
mail me ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
GTZ wrote:
>
> I installed XFree86 3.3.3 from the rh updates page and i can pick the
card
> from XF86Setup. I've tried picking almost any mode you can think from
> 640/480 8bpp to 1024/768 32bpp . When I run startx I get black screen
that
> you can't shutdown the x server [ctrl/alt/backspace from] to regain the
> screen. Has anyone else gotten this card to work? Any ideas?
>
> remove the "-" from my email if you want to email a response
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: Richrj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,redhat.networking.general
Subject: LAN connectivity problem
Date: 24 Jun 1999 19:31:00 GMT
NEED HELP:
I can ping my eth0 card but can't ping out to any other machines on my LAN.
I am running dualboot on my Linux machine. When I boot to windows instead
of Linux, I can see the other machine on my network fine.
SPECIFICATIONS:
ethernet card = D-Link-220P
LAN = 2 pc's directly connected via UTP
IP address = 192.168.0.1
network = 192.168.0.0
broadcast = 192.168.0.255
subnet = 255.255.255.0
ROUTE TABLE:
DESTINATION GATEWAY GENMASK FLAGS METRIC REF USE IFACE
localnet * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 2 eth0
loopnet * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 2 lo
default test.linux.com 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 13 eth0
ERROR MESSAGE FROM DMESG:
eth0: Tx timed out, lost interrupt? TSR=0x43, ISR=0x2, t=800
ARP: arp called for own IP address
Can anyone help??????
thanks,
Rich
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
Subject: SCSI drive was on linux SPARC problem.
From: root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 14:48:43 -0400
Hi All:
was running linux on a SPARC with external SCSI disk drives.
Have now moved the externals to a Linux PC box. Even though
the drives were running ext2 when on the SPARC I can't
read them now.:
[root@godzilla /root]# mount -t ext2 /dev/sda1 /temp
mount: /dev/sda1 is not a valid block device
[root@godzilla /root]# fdisk /dev/sda
Command (m for help): p
Disk /dev/sda (Sun disk label): 16 heads, 86 sectors, 3043 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 1376 * 512 bytes
Device Flag Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 u 894 1043 102512 83 Linux native
/dev/sda3 u 0 3043 2093584 5 Whole disk
/dev/sda5 1490 1788 205024 83 Linux native
/dev/sda6 1788 1937 102512 83 Linux native
/dev/sda8 2831 2980 102512 83 Linux native
Command (m for help): q
I was able to mount one of these drives by just specifiying
the whole drive but it only had one partition:
/mount /dev/sdb /temp
But /dev/sda has more than one so stuck.
fsck shows:
[root@godzilla /root]# fsck /dev/sda
Parallelizing fsck version 1.14 (9-Jan-1999)
e2fsck 1.14, 9-Jan-1999 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09
Couldn't find ext2 superblock, trying backup blocks...
fsck.ext2: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/sda
The superblock could not be read or does not describe a correct ext2
filesystem. If the device is valid and it really contains an ext2
filesystem (and not swap or ufs or something else), then the superblock
is corrupt, and you might try running e2fsck with an alternate
superblock:
e2fsck -b 8193 <device>
Trying other superblocks dosen't help.
I'm out of ideas. Help please.
Thanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Cesar Mateus Conceicao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Modem and kppp
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 16:07:38 -0300
Reply-To: "Cesar Mateus Conceicao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have the same problem !!!
--
==============================
Cesar Mateus Conceicao
==============================
Equipe de Operacoes Tecnicas AX
Sistema AlterNex
APC Network Member
BookMarks�(http://www.bookmarks.com.br)
**********************************
Seu site de busca na Internet Brasileira.
Mais de 800.000 paginas indexadas
**********************************
Laine Walker-Avina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7kp4va$fdf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> i'm using kppp for a dialer, and when i try to use my modem on /dev/ttyS2
it
> says its busy. I have OpenLinux. My modem is also a PnP.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Supanat Buranarom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ATI Rage Fury
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:02:07 -0400
I have ATI Rage Fury graphic card on my computer. However, I don't know how
to get it to work under X. What should I do?
-Supanat
------------------------------
From: Bill Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: SyJet help
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:54:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm fairly new to Linux so I hope this isn't going to seem
like a naive "RTFM" question...
I have a SyJet drive I want to hook up to my PC (Gateway
E-5200). I'm running Red Hat Linux 5.2. Anyone know how to
do this or maybe where I can look to find out?
Thanks!
..bill
============================================================
Bill Andersen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 410-563-6444
Knowledge Bus, Inc., 7549 Teague Rd. Hanover, MD 21076-1229
============================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
