Linux-Hardware Digest #585, Volume #14 Sat, 7 Apr 01 19:13:11 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice? ("Peter T. Breuer")
??Sony Cybershot DSC S30 with linux ("William Binkley")
Re: Adding SCSI devices to an EIDE Linux Machine? ("Duane Healing")
Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice? ("Matt O'Toole")
Re: Isa and pci problems ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: support for adaptec 2100s under RH7.0? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: RH7.0 on A7M266, worth it? ("Jeffrey Yu")
Re: Genius Netmouse ("Greg H.")
Re: Internal Modem (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Memory pb : 384M real, 64M effective (Leonard Danao)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: P4 & LINUX, Any Problem? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: support for adaptec 2100s under RH7.0? (Trevor Hemsley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice?
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 22:54:23 +0200
In comp.os.linux.hardware "Nils O. Selasdal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Med HAM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> My Company are willing to buy some machines to install Linux on
>> them. My question is which machine is best for Linux to run on :
>> Intel or Celeron? And if possible , can you tell me why? (ie: the
>> adventages and drawbacks of each type of processor )
> Intel makes Celeron.
> Celeron have smaller L2 cache, 128Kb whereas Pentium 3 have 256kb.
> (bigger cache -> faster machine.)
Except of course if the cache is half-speed, as was the case with the P2.
(I don't recall the P3 config).
Peter
------------------------------
From: "William Binkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ??Sony Cybershot DSC S30 with linux
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 21:23:53 GMT
I have SuSE linux 7.1 (2.4 kernel), and a Sony Cybershot DSC S30 digital camera, which
uses a USB port. Works nicely with windows, and my linux installation
seems to recognize the device (see the /proc/bus/usb/devices file copied
below). Does anybody know how to mount this device? I've read that the
memory stik is a vfat or msdos filesystem which needs to be mounted.
Thanks for any advice or pointers. I can't find an appropriate manual to
read...
/proc/bus/usb/devices file:
T: Bus=02 Lev=00 Prnt=00 Port=00 Cnt=00 Dev#= 3 Spd=12 MxCh= 2
B: Alloc= 0/900 us ( 0%), #Int= 0, #Iso= 0
D: Ver= 1.00 Cls=09(hub ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS= 8 #Cfgs= 1
P: Vendor=0000 ProdID=0000 Rev= 0.00
S: Product=USB UHCI Root Hub
S: SerialNumber=1840
C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=40 MxPwr= 0mA
I: If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 1 Cls=09(hub ) Sub=00 Prot=00 Driver=hub
E: Ad=81(I) Atr=03(Int.) MxPS= 8 Ivl=255ms
T: Bus=02 Lev=01 Prnt=03 Port=01 Cnt=01 Dev#= 7 Spd=12 MxCh= 0
D: Ver= 1.00 Cls=00(>ifc ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS= 8 #Cfgs= 1
P: Vendor=054c ProdID=0010 Rev= 2.10
S: Manufacturer=Sony
S: Product=Sony DSC
C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=40 MxPwr= 2mA
I: If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 3 Cls=08(stor.) Sub=ff Prot=01 Driver=usb-storage
E: Ad=01(O) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 64 Ivl= 0ms
E: Ad=82(I) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 64 Ivl= 0ms
E: Ad=83(I) Atr=03(Int.) MxPS= 8 Ivl=255ms
T: Bus=01 Lev=00 Prnt=00 Port=00 Cnt=00 Dev#= 1 Spd=12 MxCh= 2
B: Alloc=134/900 us (15%), #Int= 4, #Iso= 0
D: Ver= 1.00 Cls=09(hub ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS= 8 #Cfgs= 1
P: Vendor=0000 ProdID=0000 Rev= 0.00
S: Product=USB UHCI Root Hub
S: SerialNumber=1820
C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=40 MxPwr= 0mA
I: If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 1 Cls=09(hub ) Sub=00 Prot=00 Driver=hub
E: Ad=81(I) Atr=03(Int.) MxPS= 8 Ivl=255ms
T: Bus=01 Lev=01 Prnt=01 Port=00 Cnt=01 Dev#= 2 Spd=12 MxCh= 3
D: Ver= 1.10 Cls=09(hub ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS= 8 #Cfgs= 1
P: Vendor=03f0 ProdID=010c Rev= 0.02
S: Manufacturer=HP
S: Product=Multimedia Keyboard Hub
C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=e0 MxPwr=100mA
I: If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 1 Cls=09(hub ) Sub=00 Prot=00 Driver=hub
E: Ad=81(I) Atr=03(Int.) MxPS= 1 Ivl=255ms
T: Bus=01 Lev=02 Prnt=02 Port=00 Cnt=01 Dev#= 4 Spd=12 MxCh= 0
D: Ver= 1.10 Cls=00(>ifc ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS= 8 #Cfgs= 1
P: Vendor=03f0 ProdID=020c Rev= 0.02
S: Manufacturer=HP
S: Product=Multimedia Keyboard Hub
C:* #Ifs= 2 Cfg#= 1 Atr=e0 MxPwr= 0mA
I: If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 1 Cls=03(HID ) Sub=01 Prot=01 Driver=hid
E: Ad=81(I) Atr=03(Int.) MxPS= 8 Ivl= 10ms
I: If#= 1 Alt= 0 #EPs= 1 Cls=03(HID ) Sub=00 Prot=00 Driver=hid
E: Ad=82(I) Atr=03(Int.) MxPS= 4 Ivl=255ms
T: Bus=01 Lev=02 Prnt=02 Port=01 Cnt=02 Dev#= 5 Spd=1.5 MxCh= 0
D: Ver= 1.00 Cls=00(>ifc ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS= 8 #Cfgs= 1
P: Vendor=0458 ProdID=0003 Rev= 0.00
S: Manufacturer=KYE
S: Product=Genius USB Wheel Mouse
C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=a0 MxPwr=100mA
I: If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 1 Cls=03(HID ) Sub=01 Prot=02 Driver=hid
E: Ad=81(I) Atr=03(Int.) MxPS= 4 Ivl= 10ms
------------------------------
From: "Duane Healing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Adding SCSI devices to an EIDE Linux Machine?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.questions
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 14:34:23 -0700
I would be concerned about connection to the disk array most of all. This
Adaptec card is an old, slow, narrow, single-ended ISA card. Even if the
disk array will attach to it - which I would doubt, since most of those
types of devices use faster SCSI standards, the performance will hardly be
optimal. What type of connector is on the back of the array? does it
mention anything about if it's single-ended, differential, wide, narrow,
lvd, ultra, etc? The Exabyte should attach to it w/o a problem though.
As far as driver is concerned, if you're using the stock modularized
kernel, you should not need to recompile, you may need to massage some
config files to get the drivers to load at boot. Red Hat doubtlessly has
some front-end to deal with this, but I have no idea what it would be
since I don't like/use Red Hat.
Hope that helps some. SCSI can be a little complicated due to there not
being just one type but several, some of which are mutually incompatible.
--
-Duane
-DNAware SoftLabs
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "The News"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have come across a disk array from Sun that has 4 hard drives adding
> up to about 10 gigabytes of storage on them. At the same time, I was
> given an Exabyte 8202 - 8 mm tape drive, also SCSI. I have an Adaptec
> 1520 SCSI adapter in a PC that I can pull for this cause. How hard
> would it be to get this hooked up to my Linux machine which already had
> an EIDE drive? I got this Linux box already set up and although I was
> able to upgrade it from RH 5.0 to RH 6.1, I'm not sure I'm up to this
> especially if it means I've got to compile the kernel and stuff like
> that. Any advice?
------------------------------
From: "Matt O'Toole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice?
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 13:41:21 -0700
"Hal Burgiss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 21:45:13 GMT, Med HAM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hi folks,
> >My Company are willing to buy some machines to install Linux on
> >them. My question is which machine is best for Linux to run on :
> >Intel or Celeron? And if possible , can you tell me why? (ie: the
> >adventages and drawbacks of each type of processor )
> >As always any help could be so appreciated.
>
> Either works fine. The main advantage on Celeron is they are cheaper ;)
And now that they run on a 100MHz system bus, they're that much better a
deal. AMD chips, particularly the Duron, are a better deal still, but
paired with the appropriate motherboard, the difference might not be as
great. Also, heat and power consumption can be an issue. Not a big deal
with a few desktops, but with rooms full of servers it could be significant.
(Why someone doeesn't market a 1U server with a PPC chip is beyond me).
Anyway, Linux makes efficient use of processors, so processor speed is
rarely an issue. System bus speed is more important on anyway, not to
mention RAM. Put your money there instead.
Matt O.
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Isa and pci problems
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:33:15 +0200
Blushade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well maybe because I have to install it on linux box,
Then read the instruction manual for your room. You do HAVE the box
in a room, don't you?
> the full story, I have an isa card that is not seen bye the bios or pnpdump.
Then complain. It's the hardware's business to locate it. The OS can0t
do anything if the hardware won't! Free up an irq for it, turn off
PnP, and load the driver with the chosen irq and io parameters.
> I have a pci card that is seen be the bios, and is not seen bye linux.
Nonsense. Linux just reads the pci bus registers, The O/S has nothing
to do with pci handshaking and negotiation. Cat /proc/pci and see!
Your problem is that you have a misconception. Get it out of your head.
When you realize that the hardware configures the card, and the O/S
reads the hardwares output, and that you have to load a driver for the
hardware, you will be beginning to get somewhere ...
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.dev.raid
Subject: Re: support for adaptec 2100s under RH7.0?
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 23:43:09 +0200
In comp.os.linux.hardware Trevor Hemsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 16:22:57, "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> The question is whether term-pwr does anything when the
>> disk itself is the terminator (i.e. last on the line, and the physical
>> end of bus too, and set to term).
> I don't think *any* LVD disk has built in terminators. WD had some
> duff documentation that said that their drives did but in fact they
> didn't (the LVD spec actually requires that devices do not include
> termination resistors).
Ahmmmmmmm! Yes, that would certainly explain it. The disks have jumpers
on the back labelled "term", but those aren't brought out to the front
jumpers (on the sca to lvd converter socket).
Owwwww.
> You need a separate terminator for LVD devices.
> Term power has nothing to do with termination BTW. It just controls
I understand this. It's just that it's not clear if - supposing there
were termination available on the disk - if term-pwr also needs to be
set to have the disk supply power to it (i.e. for active termination),
rather than the power for the internal termination - it it existed -
coming off the bus.
> who or how many devices supply the power for termination to function.
> Under normal circumstances the host adapter should supply term-pwr
The controller? I.e. power comes off the bus for it.
> without being asked. Some HA's have an option to provide/not provide
> term-pwr - my DPT PM3334UW does for example - others don't mention it
> at all or have undocumented jumpers that en/disable it (Adaptec 2940UW
> f.e.). For most SCSI bus lengths it's usually sufficient that one
So I presume it would also cause sparks to have term-pwr enabled both
on a controller and on a disk .. assuming that either worked!
> thing supplies term-pwr but for extra long cables it might be
> necessary to enable term-pwr on a device near the far end of the cable
> as well as on the HA.
> Your symptoms sound suspiciously like lack of termination to me. With
> only one or two devices on a bus you can often get away without it.
> The more devices you have on the bus, the more likely it is to show up
> as nasty errors wehn one end of a bus is unterminated.
Yes, I agree. Thanks.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey Yu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.hardware.amd.thunderbird,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: RH7.0 on A7M266, worth it?
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:16:45 GMT
It appears this subject should be changed to "The in-depth discussion of
Micron(crucial)'s DDR memory".
Can we talk about the experiences of RH7.0 on A7M266? Thanks.
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.setup Colorado Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is it possible for people to DISCUSS an issue without resorting to
> > profanity, name-calling, and insults?
>
> NO waay, dingbat! And please post after quoting! (and editing!).
>
> > "Yozza" <reply.to - [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:nrHz6.4673$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> What a load of crap!
>
> > "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> get your facts straight before you spew your semen all over the place
> > boy.
>
> I believe he meant to insult him more politely. He forgot to say
> "please".
>
> Peter
------------------------------
From: "Greg H." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Genius Netmouse
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:24:01 GMT
Jan Siero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want to use the "Magic Button" on my genius netmouse with X11. I'm
> using XFree 3.3.6-10. If I use XF86Setup and choose NetMouse, my mouse
> starts bouncing around on my screen. I can't find anything on the net
> about it. Can anybody help me?
Try setting up X with xf86config instead; it's text based. I have the
same problem and this works for me.
Greg
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Subject: Re: Internal Modem
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:42:32 GMT
"Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a Viking 56k LT internal modem and everything i read says it should
> work fine, but it never has. I've followed all the instructions i can find,
> but no luck.
I had problems getting my (Zoom) modem to work under various OSes
until I disabled the "PNP OS installed" and "Allocate IRQ for USB"
settings in the BIOS. Don't know if this is related to your
problem, but it's probably worth trying.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:42:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams) wrote:
> > Still, I prefer mono SVGA. Sharper and no flicker.
>
> I prefer my UXGA (or whatever it's called) on my ThinkPad
A laptop display? Now *those* I can't stand. I'd go
blind from squinting. Not only are they far too small
(my 17" is barely large enough to get me by, call me
spoiled), but you have to hold your head straight in
front of them, because you can't view them from any
kind of angle. So you can't change positions easily,
which after a few minutes causes bodywide discomfort.
Nope, I'm sticking with a real CRT, thanks.
> A21p. If I could find a secondary monitor that would play
> that game I'd be happy. A sharp display like the 15"
> 1600x1200 on the A21p will simply spoil you. TFT displays
> don't flicker.
Wait, 1600x1200 on a 15"? *AAARGH*. I have substantially
better than 20-20 vision, but I can't handle resolutions
anywhere near that high even on a 17" display.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:42:35 GMT
Anthony Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That being said, I've known plenty of people who never notice the
> slightest problem with their refresh rate set at 60Hz. Just one of
> those subtle differences between people I guess.
Incidentally, I don't have any problems with 60Hz, but I can't
stand blindingly bright backgrounds, *especially* full white,
for any time at all hardly. And I can't handle high resolutions
on small displays, either. So I guess we all have our foibles.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:42:36 GMT
fammacd=!SPAM^[EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Macdonald) wrote:
> I've seen this "warble" (I'd say wobble) in one 2nd floor corner of our
> office and it seems to vary with monitor brand and vertical sync frequency
> - the video card used doesn't seem to matter. This is a small office
> building and the main power cable is routed along the outside top of that
> corner of the wall before it goes down to the ground and into the basement.
> The effect is worst when the A/C is running - IOW large draw on the main
> power - and you can see it worsen as an A/C compressor kicks in.
Yeah, EMI will definitely do that. The VT510 on my desk at work is
about two feet from the office microwave oven, and whenever someone
uses the microwave I have to do something else for a couple of
minutes, because the display jumps an eighth of an inch or so about
every quarter of a second.
> Sometimes you just have to admit: "this is out of my control".:-)
That's what wheeitology is all about.
(c.f. http://www.bright.net/~jonadab/whee/ )
> Remember some people have bad eyes and don't want to admit just how bad
> they are. I have people who'll run 800x600 with a 19" because they can
> read it;
I don't think it's about bad eyes so much as liking to see all the
details. I have better than 20-20 vision; I can read my two-volume
condensed OED at arm's length, but I use a display size of either
640x480 or 800x600 on my 17", because I can see it. (Don't talk
to me about font size; it's not just about reading text; I like to
be able to see the details on images, too.) I used to have to use
640x480 exclusively before I rearranged my room. (My monitor is
now a good six inches closer to where I sit, allowing up to
800x600 to be properly visible.) If I can't distinguish which
pixel the mouse pointer is on, the display is too small or the
resolution too high, and it makes me uncomfortable.
> I also have people who'll run 1152x864 at 60Hz (monitor won't do
> better) rather than 1024x768 at 75 or 85Hz on a 17" because they can
> squeeze more stuff on the screen.
I can definitely identify with the desire to squeeze more stuff
on the screen. I'm continually tempted to go out and spend a
lot of perfectly good money on a much larger monitor; someday
I probably will break down and do it.
> I've showed them "how much better" it
> looks at higher vertical frequency but they don't get it.<shrug>
The freqency thing just doesn't seem to do anything for me.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:42:38 GMT
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Time to go for lcd flatscreens.
I hate those things.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: Leonard Danao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Memory pb : 384M real, 64M effective
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:38:07 GMT
try upgrading the bios. i had the same situation with my MB. it is a MS
6195 from microstar after I upgraded bam.. it saw everything
later
LEN
Stephen Rank wrote:
> "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In comp.os.linux.hardware Pantalacci Christophe
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I've got this kind of problem : Linux only sees 64M of RAM. When I
> > > modify lilo.conf by adding
> >
> > There's no problem with that.
> >
> > > append="mem=384M" and executing lilo, my whole system crashes at
> > > reboot with segmentation faults everywhere, and i must reinstall.
>
> [ replying to a reply, as the parent post has gone AWOL ]
>
> You don't need to reinstall: just pass the `mem=xxxM' to the kernel
> via the Lilo prompt when you boot (e.g., ``Linux mem=300M''). Once
> your system boots, you can adjust your lilo.conf appropriately and
> then run lilo.
>
> HTH,
>
> Stephen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:42:39 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams) wrote:
> > Yuck. None for me, thanks. They're fine if you only use the one
> > native resolution, otherwise, not so good.
>
> Wrong. They are perfect, as long as you have a good one.
Except you later admit...
> with the right graphics controller they will, ok, not
> that well) as long as they are *perfect* at their native
> resolution.
Some of us need to see the details that can only be seen
at lower resolutions.
> Need glasses: get them.
It's not a matter of eyesight. It's more a matter of
how many details you need to be able to see. And no
answer other than "all of them" makes any sense to me.
It also makes a significant difference how close you
can put your face to the monitor.
> Font too small: make it bigger
Making the font bigger doesn't do anything for images.
> TFT displays are *good*, though expensive.
They're good only in the sense that they take up less
physical space and use less power. (If you live in
CA, I'm sure that's probably a major consideration.
Around here nobody seems to notice or care how much
power anything uses.) As far as display quality, they
rather thoroughly suck. The second your head is a few
degrees out of alignment with the Perfect Position, you
can't see things properly. That alone is enough reason
for me to never consider getting one. Give me a CRT any
time. Now, a nice CRT with a flat screen, yeah, of course.
As big as the available funds can obtain, yeah, obviously.
(It drives me nuts that at work we have nothing larger
than 15" in the whole blasted building.)
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:42:40 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams) wrote:
> We're not talking about text editing here, though FrameMaker
> tool windows have been been seen on my secondary display.
> ;-) Give me a desktop and I'll fill it!
[a cartoon image of a light bulb appears above my head]
[you hear a dinging sound]
I just realised your problem. You are operating under the
second-millennium superstition that the size of the desktop
is limited to the size of the display.
It is not. My display res is 800x600, but my desktop
(yes, I'm using just one continuous desktop) is 1600x1200.
I'm using Matrox AGP PowerDesk to achieve this in Windoze,
but of course X can do it natively. (And X does it better,
because the window managers are smarter about new-window
placement; Explorer is dumb about this, because it wasn't
designed to handle an oversized desktop. Fortunately,
Matrox AGP Powerdesk supplies a couple of hotkeys that
partially compensate for this by moving and resizing
windows and by centering the display) My desktop is set
to 1600x1200 because that's what my video card can handle;
if my video card had enough RAM to do more, I'd crank it
even higher.
An oversized desktop is addictive. Once you get used to it,
it's hard to go back to a display-sized desktop again.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:42:41 GMT
Robert Redelmeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First, unplugging and replugging ethernet (10baseT or 100baseTX)
> shouldn't cause trouble. The driver should autodetect. If it
> doesn't, you may have a broken driver or card.
Ah. Well, the system where I saw this problem (at work) is
using Windows '95 OSR2, so a broken driver wouldn't be any
great surprise to me. But I'm getting ready to set up a
LAN in my house, and it's going to have Linux involved,
so your info is good to have just in case. Thanks.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:42:42 GMT
Anthony Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm.. current uptime on the above mentioned gateway system is 73 days
> and counting :> Ahh, I do like Linux for applications like this.
Yes, I've just purchased an older system on ebay and plan to use
Linux to turn it into a server/router with NAT to distribute my
PPP connection to two PCs.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Subject: Re: P4 & LINUX, Any Problem?
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 22:42:43 GMT
"John Pfaff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe I'm confused. I thought that the P4 the OP was referring to was the
> version control system made by Perforce (www.perforce.com). We use it a lot
> here, but I've only ever personally used it under Unix. It is very good.
Oh. That's different.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trevor Hemsley)
Crossposted-To: linux.dev.raid
Subject: Re: support for adaptec 2100s under RH7.0?
Date: 07 Apr 2001 22:56:33 GMT
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:43:09, "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> It's just that it's not clear if - supposing there
> were termination available on the disk - if term-pwr also needs to be
> set to have the disk supply power to it (i.e. for active termination),
> rather than the power for the internal termination - it it existed -
> coming off the bus.
You should mostly only need one source of term-pwr on a SCSI bus. As I
said, it depends on bus length to some extent, more being required if
the bus is exceptionally long. It usually doesn't _hurt_ to have more
than one thing providing term-pwr on the same bus though I suspect
that if you enabled it on all your devices at once it might have
negative effects (there are fuses on most host adapters that will blow
and have to be replaced).
> > who or how many devices supply the power for termination to function.
> > Under normal circumstances the host adapter should supply term-pwr
>
> The controller? I.e. power comes off the bus for it.
>From reading comp.periphs.scsi over a few years I've gathered that
"controller" in SCSI terms refers to the chip that sits on each
device. What thee and me generally refer to as a controller is more
properly known as a host adapter.
The jumper on the drive is used to tell it whether to feed term-pwr
onto the bus. Some Seagate drives have a multiple choice of how
term-pwr is provided. On my ST34371W you can select from a bank of
three jumpers that
A Drive Supplies Bus
B Drive Supplies Own
C Bus Supplies Drive
I'd guess that if it is on an LVD drive and it's not that specific
then it means that it'll supply term-pwr to the bus (since LVD drives
don't have their own terminators to power).
--
Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.hardware.
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
******************************
