Linux-Hardware Digest #594, Volume #14 Mon, 9 Apr 01 11:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Internal Modem ("LittleFish")
Intellimouse jumps to the upper left corner ("Jan Peterson")
Flash card & Linux (Arne)
Re: Can't see hard disk ("Lee Fuller")
Re: Safe hdparm settings? (Chris Elvidge)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (chrisv)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (chrisv)
Re: HP Colorado Streamer / FC 20 Controller (Dave Trahan)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (chrisv)
Re: Lucent AMR modem on suse (kernel 2.4.0-4GB) (Roberto)
Re: Can't see hard disk (Nick Condon)
Re: SCSI errors, why? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Screen is shaking!!!!!!!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Flash card & Linux ("Bastiaan Schaap")
Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Maestro 3 sound card (Kelledin Tane)
Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: SCSI issue with two cards ("Peter T. Breuer")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "LittleFish" <littlefish_au[SPAM ME AT YOUR OWN RISK]@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Internal Modem
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:16:41 +1000
Lucent chipsets are flaky at best.....save your hair get a real modem.
Littlefish
"Dranthony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have the same modem, Viking 56k LT and to my dismay I can't get it to
> work under RH7.0. It just won't initialize. It is even a little buggy in
> windoze though too.(big surprise there, right?) i now use an external
> USR 56k modem that runs "fine"
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Jan Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Intellimouse jumps to the upper left corner
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 13:56:29 +0200
Hallo,
I know this is a common problem (I found an article in the SUSE database,
but without an working solution) :
I use a MS-PS2-Intellimouse under SUSE 7.1.
gpm works well, but when I start to configure XFree with SaX or
xconfigure and xfree switches to graphicmode the mouse is in the middle of
the screen. When I move the mouse the cursor jumps to the upper right and
stays there.
The same hardware configuration worked under SUse 7.0 a few monts ago
without errors.
Has anyone a solution for this problem.
Thank you in advanced,
Jan Peterson
------------------------------
From: Arne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Flash card & Linux
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:02:49 +0200
Is it possible to boot linux from a computer with a flash ram card. A
distrobution like Red Hat is the one i use.
Arne
========================================================
Arne Koopman - student Technical Artificial Intelligence
Utrecht University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Lee Fuller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
linux.redhat.install,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,alt.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Can't see hard disk
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 22:09:34 +1000
It was master on secondary channel. But it doesn't work on primary either.
Lee.
NiHiLiST <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9apla9$dd6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I take it you have another hard drive on the master of the ATA100? If not
> then switch it from slave to master mate
>
> Lee Fuller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3ad0291d$0$25503$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I have an Abit KT7Raid motherboard which has 4 ATA100 IDE channels on
the
> > raid controller in addition to the standard 4 ATA66 channels. I have an
> IBM
> > 30G ATA100 hard disk on the secondary master of the ATA100 controller.
On
> > the standard channels I have a CD-DVD and ZIP100. The problem I'm having
> is
> > in trying to install linux. Both fdisk and disk druid do not see the
hard
> > disk. The only partition shown is 95M ("hdd" or "hdd4") being the ZIP
> drive.
> > (I have the same problem trying to install QNX) I have Win98 using 20G
on
> > the hd. Of course the Win98 fdisk sees it ok.
> > What should I do?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lee.
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: Chris Elvidge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Safe hdparm settings?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 15:55:26 +0400
"James K. Wiggs" wrote:
>
<snip>
> There's no backup device attached to that box. Backups consist
> of nightly SQL database dumps and tar's of several directories, which
> are then remotely copied to another machine where they are eventually
> burned onto CDs. I still live in fear of having to rebuild that box.
> We are planning a major hardware upgrade for it, which will include
> getting an OnStream IDE drive into a box on the same network for use
Don't use OnStream esp. not IDE. Chap. 11 has been mentioned.
If you're planning a "major" h/w upgd. get SCSI.
<2p>
Chris
> as a backup device, but that's at least 3-6 weeks off. I *really*
> don't like it, but those are the financial constraints we are working
> within right now.
>
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 12:43:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One) wrote:
>I wouldn't be able to stand the narrow view, however.
>I don't sit in a static position like a guy in a
>hospital with four limbs broken in twelve places
>while I use my computer. I sit against the headboard
>of my bed, sit indian-style on my bed, recline on my
>bed, either on my side or on my back, with my head at
>either end, move to the chair beside my bed, ...
>Basically, whatever's comfortable at the moment.
That's a good point. Especially at home, I move around a lot, both in
angle and distance, from my monitor. The CRT has the wide viewing
angle I need, plus there's no "native resolution" problems, so if I'm
farther away I just drop the resolution to get bigger text.
>A good 17" display is at LEAST 16" viewable.
Well, that's not really a true statement. "ABOUT 16" would be more
accurate one. In any case, I'm like you in that even 1280x1024 is too
much, for me, on that size of screen. Hell I usually run 1280x1024 on
my 21"
>I've seen 'em in stores, costing three times what a
>better CRT costs and more.
And the price is the final nail. I see LCD's as being an inferior
product that costs MUCH more. Put it back in the oven, it ain't done
yet.
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 12:48:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One) wrote:
>At work, where nearly all the
>monitors use 60Hz (several of them are using 256 or
>even 16 colours for lack of a good graphics card),
Like a graphics card that can do better than this costs more that $25
these days? Are people really that cheap? If my boss didn't buy me
one I'd get it myself. Sheesh.
------------------------------
From: Dave Trahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: HP Colorado Streamer / FC 20 Controller
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 08:52:35 -0400
Did you verify that /dev/ftape actually exits? You may need to MAKEDEV ftape or it
may need to be linked to another /dev device, I am not sure since I have switched
to a SCSI tape drive.
Thomas Hageböke wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> I have an old P1 computer equipped with a HP Colorado 1000 Travan floppy
> streamer.
> That streamer is connected to a FC 20 controller (for compression
> purposes).
> The distribution I use is SuSE 7.1 (kernel 2.4)
>
> Background:
> with kernel 2.0.xx, I used ftape as a module - the streamer worked
> perfectly.
> Then, with kernel 2.2.13 (SuSE 6.3), I suddenly had to compile streamer
> support into the kernel
> and use zftape/compressor support. And BTW: the module-version didn't
> work any more.
>
> Now I installed SuSE 7.1 with kernel 2.4 which has a pre-compiled module
> support for the
> ftape and zftape interfaces. But none of them actually do work. I always
> get the response
>
> /dev/ftape: No such device
>
> The same applies for zftape.
>
> My aim is getting that streamer working (of course) with
> zftape/compressor support.
> An if possible - somehow - by using a module which is loaded on demand.
>
> The streamer/controller settings are the defaults:
>
> FC 20: I/O 210-217
> DMA 3
> IRQ 9
>
> Colorado: I/O 180-187
>
> This configuration works perfectly under windows - and it did with
> previous kernel versions
> (as described).
>
> Please help me with 2.4.
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Thomas Hageböke (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hageboeke.de)
> Linux-powered! - Future is beyond Microsoft!
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 12:57:50 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith R. Williams) wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 12:38:03, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Time to go for lcd flatscreens.
>>
>> 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.
Perfect? Only at the native resolution are they so "perfect". In
overall perfromance, I like the CRT better.
><snip>
>
>In short, you are *WRONG*. You may be cheap, but you are
>still *wrong*. Flatscreens are the way to go.
I'm *wrong*. Boy are you sure of yourself. I guess my "cheap" Sony
F500 is a real piece of crap compared to your LCD screen. Not.
------------------------------
From: Roberto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lucent AMR modem on suse (kernel 2.4.0-4GB)
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:07:31 GMT
Dances With Crows wrote:
>
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 14:43:10 GMT, Roberto staggered into the Black Sun
> and said:
> >A friend bought an Acer travelmate 201T equipped with one of this
> >@#$!%^@#!% lucent AMR winmodems. It seems there are no drivers for it.
> >SOB SOB... Any clue?
>
> AMR? On a laptop? Hmm, I thought AMR was a specification for a slot
> that combination audio/modem hardware could fit into. Anyway, if you
> misspoke and meant to say "Internal Lucent LoseModem", then go to
> http://www.walbran.org/sean/linux/stodolsk/ and try that out. Works
NO misspoke, the winxxxx driver tells me really Lucent AMR modem, it
should be the same/similar modem equipped with IBM iseries notebook.
I visited already the link you give me, but i get errors when trying to
load the module 'modprobe ltmodemxxxx'.
I will post the exact error as soon as possible.
thanx for now.
--
Saluti..Gr"usse..Salutations..Regards..Saludos.. Rag.Roberto Basville
http://basrob.firenze.net/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To:
linux.redhat.install,alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.abit,alt.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Can't see hard disk
Date: 9 Apr 2001 13:20:01 GMT
Lee Fuller wrote:
>I have an Abit KT7Raid motherboard which has 4 ATA100 IDE channels on
>the raid controller in addition to the standard 4 ATA66 channels. I have
>an IBM 30G ATA100 hard disk on the secondary master of the ATA100
>controller. On the standard channels I have a CD-DVD and ZIP100. The
>problem I'm having is in trying to install linux. Both fdisk and disk
>druid do not see the hard disk. The only partition shown is 95M ("hdd"
>or "hdd4") being the ZIP drive. (I have the same problem trying to
>install QNX) I have Win98 using 20G on the hd. Of course the Win98 fdisk
>sees it ok. What should I do?
Sounds like the auto-detection is switched off on your secondary IDE
channel. Get into your BIOS, and have a look at the "Standard CMOS
Features" menu, select "IDE secondary master" and make sure both options
are set to auto.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SCSI errors, why?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 11:54:29 GMT
On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 10:39:07 +0000, Trevor Jenkins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Since connecting a Jaz and Zip drive on my workstation's SCSI bus I've
>been seeing odd behaviour from the (SCSI) CD-ROM. Prior to introducing
>these new devices I didn't have a problem using the CD-ROM .
>
>The most obvious symptom is that the machine hangs for a time when the
>CD-ROM is in use. When this happens I get the following events in the
>syslog file:
Do you have good termination at both ends of the SCSI bus? Active
terminators are probably what you should be using. The other thing to
look out for is bus length (which includes how long the wires are
inside the devices).
Gord
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Screen is shaking!!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 08:38:11 -0500
I had the same problem when I got a new Monitor. I had to changed to a higher
refresh rate.
Something > 60MHz, anything lower and I get the shakes man.
Thanks
Mike
Richard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After installing the linux(mandrake or redhat), my screen seems to be
> shaking.(it's driving me nutz!!)
>
> Have 1ghz AMD T , Abit k7 motherboard and 32mb ATI something(i will post the
> exact name if you want later).
>
> I don't think it has anything to do w/ installation for x because my reg
> mode(prior to do starx) is also shaking.
>
> I have dual boot w/ win98 which is not causing that problem.
>
> I am only getting it when i am in linux mode.
>
> Although, hardware is really new and in fact i am having some problem w/
> bios setting, I am not sure why this is the case under only linux.
>
> Any idea?
>
> ps: if you need any other specific info to troubleshoot, PLease let me know.
>
> Thank you
------------------------------
From: "Bastiaan Schaap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Flash card & Linux
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:50:31 +0200
I used to work for these guys: http://www.interact-automation.nl They've
created a little computer, the size of a matchbox, that logs measurements.
It holds linux on a flashcard, there's even a webserver and an application
on it (the uTC). So I know it can be done, however I believe they use
slackware, because that's easier for them to make very small kernels. So I
figure it should be doable with any distro.... all distro's use the same
kernels don't they?? Red Hat 6.2(?) and SuSE 6.4 both use the 2.2.14
kernel, which should basically be the same (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Maybe you could try to get some info from them, in general they're very
willing to help. If not, let me know, I'll hook you up with one of them..
HTH,
Bastiaan Schaap
Desyde BV
________________________________
I can read your mind, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice?
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 15:43:12 +0200
Jonadab the Unsightly One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Celeron's are not often chosen in server systems, because they don't perform
>> > too well... So I'd say Pentium. Keep in mind however that Pentium II and III
>>
>> They perform just fine!
> All Celerons are not created equal.
Actually they are .. then some of them are castrated or tethered to the
wall.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Kelledin Tane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Maestro 3 sound card
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 07:41:40 -0500
There's a slightly-less-than-stable driver at http://www.zabbo.net/maestro3/
which works with kernel 2.2 and 2.4. The Alsa project
(http://www.alsa-project.org/) also supports this sound card.
Although I haven't checked this out for myself yet, I've also seen references
to a maestro3 driver in kernel 2.4.2.
Kelledin, the Dreaming Minstrel
http://kelledin.tripod.com/scovsms.jpg
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux on Intel Or Celeron? what is the best choice?
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 14:09:25 GMT
Bastiaan Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually I did check the tests and benchmarks.....
Then you didn't look very hard!
> Please remember the cpu's are meant for a working environment. I don't know
I don't know of any other environment.
> too many bosses who are excited if you overclock cpu's. They're often quite
That word is your invention. There is "no such thing", and I say that as
professor of hardware engineering. The design spec for celerons is as
high or higher than the design spec for anything else (and in the case
of the 300a, it was way higher than for P2's, as intels strategy wss to develop the new
micron technology using the celeron factories, while they kept the old
technology going struggling to produce P2's)! Intel simply underclock
them to fill the market niche .. or do you think that they deliberately
have two production lines in each factory, one producing high speed and
one producing low speed chips :-). No, they do not. All chips have to
be as good as they can get them, or they'd cut their own yields. That
means that they have to underclock the devices to keep filling the
market niche when their production process has moved way beyond
producing chips that operate at way beyond that clockspeed.
Undo intels attempted sabotage and you have the chip the way back it
was supposed to be.
> fond of warranty and stuff. Offcourse you're right about the performance,
Warranty is not affected by clockspeed. No harm is done by clocking a
device at a different clockspeed .. it simply works or does not work.
If it's iffy, clock it down. If it goes well, clock it up until you
find where it stops working. There is no guarantee that chips will work
at their RATED clockspeed, let alone at any other. This is all
statistics, not certainties.
> but we're not talking about the computers with the open case we have in the
> attick, but systems that have to perform well as OEM.
I would recommend some fast durons as good speed for cost. You need
special mobos, however. There is currently no reason to go intel except
for SMP and wide compatibility.
> Can you point me out to some of the articles you read about the P4 being
> bad? A processor eventually being sold with different specs than first was
http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm
The table below shows the original results posted in December, with the
new systems and benchmarks added in italics.
Chip speed and type Elapsed time (seconds) Clock cycles (billions)
1.2 GHz AMD Athlon DDR 413 496
1.0 GHz Pentium III Xeon (single)
473 473
* 1.5 GHz Pentium 4 484 726
1.0 GHz Pentium III Xeon (dual)
520 520
900 MHz AMD Athlon DDR 535 482
900 MHz AMD Athlon 544 490
670 MHz Pentium III (single)
680 456
670 MHz Pentium III (dual)
743 498
650 MHz Pentium III 757 492
533 MHz Celeron 858 457
600 MHz AMD Athlon 922 553
500 MHz Pentium III 946 473
600 MHz Crusoe 1369 821
> announced hardly qualifies as an arguement... But however I take your word
?? It certainly does. It's a killer. Why aren't you up in arms about
it? You're being misled. Schlumbuzzled. Bamboozled. Had for a
schmuck. Being sold snake-oil. Or do you like being told in the
brochure that your holiday will be in the bahamas, then find that it's
actually in torquay?
Here's the old roadmap from aug 2000. Compare:
http://www.inqst.com/p4roadmap.htm
> on this, you probably have more experience with P4's than I do...
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SCSI issue with two cards
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 16:48:34 +0200
Don Gingrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>> Don Gingrich <"gingrich"@melbpc(dot)org(dot).au> wrote:
>> But you can force the detection order .. pci
>> cards are detected in ascending slot order. Slot 1 (furthest from cpu)
>> is detected first. You can reverse the pci scan order too if you
>> prefer. It's a boot param.
>>
>> In general you can force the detection order between two differnet
>> drivers by just choosing which driver you load first!
> OK, but in the case of already having the drivers in the
> kernel this is not an option. BTW where is setting the load
> order documented?
If both drivers are in the kernel, then you will always get one
installed before the other CONSISTENTLY, since you have different
dirvers, and the kernel can only load one at a time, and it cannot do
two things at once.
So you have no problem.
If one driver is in the kernel, and the other is a module, then the one
in the kernel will be loaded first by definition (as the kernel starts
before anything takes place in userspace, such as loading modules),
CONSISTENTLY.
So you have no problem.
If both devices are modules, then they load when you choose to load
them, and so the "order is determined by YOU.
So you have no problem.
>> > I've got an adaptec 1542c and a 2940U. Obviously,
>> > (to a human) the 2940 is the primary. I'm thinking
>>
>> Whichever one you like may be considered primary by a human!
> Given that the 2940 is PCI and Ultra it is clearly the superior
> card and thus should be used as the primary.
Eh? The word "primary" has no significance here. The devices are on
whichever controller they are on. That doesn't change according to the
word you use to describe it!
>> > that one option may be to put the driver for the
>> > 2940 in the kernel and make the 1542 a module.
>> > Does this sound like a good strategy? Any other
>> > thoughts or suggestions?
>>
>> Just load the driver you want loaded first, first.
> See above response. Also remember that I tried looking
See above response too. Are you deliberately being dense about it?
> for a FAQ which is unavailable. Sorry if this is a repeat
> question which should be answered by RTF FAQ.
You are apparently labouring under some misconception that is
yours alone. Either that or you haven't expressed your problem is a way
that I can comprehend. You have asked how to determine the load order,
and I have told you.
Peter
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
