Linux-Hardware Digest #637, Volume #14 Tue, 17 Apr 01 08:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Charles Lyttle)
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)
Install a NIC in Linux (SKeung)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Jeff McWilliams)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Jean-David Beyer)
Re: capacity of exabyte 8200? (Marcelo Rodrigues)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Greg Cox)
Gigabyte GA-7DX (AMD760) ("Kelledin")
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft gets hard (Matthew Gardiner)
Linux routers ("Mike McDade")
Re: GA-7ZXR and using Promise ATA/100 IDE3/4 (Luigi Cavallo)
Re: linux and cray j90 (Martha H Adams)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:17:14 GMT
Monte Milanuk wrote:
>
> Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > However there are a number of manufacturers who make PC equals for the
> > factory floor. They are much lower cost than traditional factory
> > hardware, especially HP or Sun systems. These systems cost lots more
> > than CompUSA trash, but still are cost effective, *IF* they have a good
> > OS loaded. Linux does have competitors in this market, QNX being one.
> > But the cost of a single BSOD is high enough to keep Windows out.
>
> I'm not so sure about that. When I left a steel mill in early 1999, the big
> thing the automation vendors were starting to push was 'SoftPLC', where the
> idea was that for normal stuff that doesn't require high speed i/o and
> distributed processing, rather than having dedicated racks of special
> processors, they could have cards connected to an x86 PC and have the CPU do
> the crunching -- kinda like a Winmodem, but a WinPLC, since the operating
> system they were touting for this task was WinNT4. Scary.
>
> Monte
I don't understand your comment. "SoftPLC" does run on x86 type
computers, but no factory I know is going to use consumer class PCs
running Windows. Think what could happen in your steel mill if a BSOD
stops everything in the middle of a pour. There are lots of PC type
modules for factories. PC-104 is just one standard form factor for
industrial use. There are lots of industrial OS around that can handle
industrial operations. Linux is just one of several.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:30:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Rohricht) wrote:
> Okay I have to ask: are you just wearing your keyboards out really quickly,
> or have you somehow found a way to interface using three at once?
The first one was a cheapie that came with the system, and the
worse-than-usual humidity we had the first summer I had it
just killed it. (We had a week of solid rain, thunderstorms
3-6 hours a day. Closest thing Ohio has ever seen to a
monsoon.) The second keyboard I've just worn out by heavy
use over the subsequent couple of years; some of the keys
stick, and the left control key is plain broken. I'm going
to get another cheapy to hold me over until I'm ready to
spring for an Avant keyboard, which I probably won't do
until I can afford to get a dehumidifier also, to prevent
its being prematurely dammaged if we have another humid
summer.
Yeah, I'm hard on keyboards.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:30:50 GMT
Anthony Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, if you get either a cable modem or DSL
Neither is available here. I have my choice of dialup
PPP or sneaker net. And I'm glad I have the former
choice, because I remember being stuck with the latter.
> >Let me guess: they made you use Power Point.
> >[Powerless & Pointless is more like it...]
>
> PowerPoint might not be the best presentation tool on the market, but
> it's quick and easy. For my needs at least, it's sufficient. Mind
> you, my needs average about 1 presentation every 2 to 3 months,
> usually lasting 10 minutes or less.
If I gave a presentation that doesn't involve stuff I
do on a computer, I wouldn't use a computer to give the
presentation. (Call me weird.) If the presentation
*did* involve stuff I do on the computer, I'd just
do that stuff during the presentation. So if I were
doing a presentation on raytracing, I'd use Emacs and
Persistence of Vision and something that displays
images (IrfanView or something) for the presentation.
Again, call me weird, but a slideshow (which is
basically what PowerPoint is) always seemed so lifeless
to me, like you're not seeing the real thing, just a
snapshot, devoid of reality, and some bulleted points.
It's so much more interesting to actually see the real
thing happen. (That's assuming the subject matter
of the presentation has any potential to be interesting
at all; if it's a presentation on accounting, nothing
will make it interesting.)
Then there's the matter that I wouldn't be doing a
presentation on raytracing in the first place, because
they'd find a graphics artist to do that, but that's
another story. (Nobody wants to see a presentation
on partitioning or automating repetitive chores with
elisp and Perl or that sort of thing, which might
explain why I don't do so many presentations.)
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:31:05 GMT
Joeri Sebrechts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Redhat and Mandrake are designed to be newbie-oriented.
> > Which, in itself, is not a bad thing.
>
> Either you mean "easy to install, and easy to use",
I mean mainly "easy to install" in the case of Mandrake.
The only thing I've seen install easier is the BeOS.
By comparison, installing Windows the first time, when
you don't know what you're doing, is like climbing up
a craggy mountain on your knees blindfolded. Debian
last I saw it was somewhere in between; admittedly,
it's been a couple of versions; perhaps I should try
a more recent Debian and give it another shake.
Also by newbie-friendly I mean "cute box art"; you'd
be amazed how much difference that first impression
can make.
> If you want to see a REALLY easy to use
> unix-like OS, look at MacOS X.
Easy to use is one thing, and easy to learn to use
is something else again. MacOS 9 is easy to learn
to use at the basic level; however, relative to Unix
it's rather difficult to use beyond a basic level.
MacOS X I haven't seen, but since it's based partly
on NeXT, which is essentially Unix, I imagine it's
better than MacOS 9 in this regard.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: SKeung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Install a NIC in Linux
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 07:30:10 -0000
I have a problem on installing my NIC(DAVICOM DM9102) in RedHat Linux 7.0
Altought redhat has no bulit-in driver, DAVICOM(www.davi.com.tw) have
already published the driver.
When i complie the source file, some error message is shown.
The message is shown as belwon:
/tmp/ccihP232.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/ccihP232.s:9: Warning: Ignoring changed section attributes
for .modinfo
After this, there is no kernel module in linuxconf
Then i cannot conutine to setup.
What can i do now? Please help me!!! Thank you!!!
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff McWilliams)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:08:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Charles Lyttle wrote:
>Monte Milanuk wrote:
>>
>> Monte
>I don't understand your comment. "SoftPLC" does run on x86 type
>computers, but no factory I know is going to use consumer class PCs
>running Windows. Think what could happen in your steel mill if a BSOD
>stops everything in the middle of a pour. There are lots of PC type
>modules for factories. PC-104 is just one standard form factor for
>industrial use. There are lots of industrial OS around that can handle
>industrial operations. Linux is just one of several.
Just to add my two cents here. I do software application development for
the industrial automation sector here in the Detroit, Michigan area.
The acceptance of Windows NT as a platform to run software on the plant floor
has become more accepted in recent years than you think. Mind you,
most of the uses of the NT platform based systems are not necessarily
critical to the production process per se. Rockwell Automation does
produce the SoftLogix Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) software
that almost exactly works like a standard Allen-Bradley PLC5 but runs
under Windows NT. However, most of the automation integration I've seen
being done at Fanuc Robotics (where I do a lot of work) still uses 99.99%
Allen-Bradley PLC5 and ControlLogix 5500 series PLC's. And of course,
the robots themselves are still run with proprietary OSs.
However, a really important emerging area in industrial automation
is to bring together Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
functionality and begin merging this with a manufacturer's ERP systems
(like BAAN) to push production schedules down to the floor, and to pull
production, downtime, and maintenance information up.
Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) is a big buzzword these days.
Everybody wants to identify production bottlenecks and improve the
OEE number.
Rockwell Software (part of Rockwell Automation) has an entire line of
plant automation software that is entirely NT based, including
Plant Metrics, Historial, and RSSql. GE Fanuc's CIMPLICITY software
is similar. This software is designed to gather data from mainly
PLC's and store it in a database (e.g. MS SQL Server) and used to
generate reports, including OEE.
We've been writing custom SCADA packages that run under Windows NT
for years. Even in a place as dirty as the Ford Woodhaven
press plant I've worked on Dell Optiplex PC's running 24/7.
This was not my idea,
by the way. They do have failures. The standard Western Digital IDE
hard drives in the Optiplex series typically last about 3 years before
they begin to malfunction. CD-ROM drives die an early death as well.
I've been suggesting using IDE RAID mirroring for about a year
now but this particular automation customer just doesn't seem to be
dedicated to improving their reliability.
You wouldn't normally think of data gathering as being as critical
as the second-to-second process control that's handled by the PLC's is.
However, gathering accurate OEE information is becoming more imporant
all the time. I've been working with one customer who is going to install
a dedicated Windows NT 2-node cluster to guarantee that production data
is always gathered. The Compaq CL-1850 is sitting on a bench at
the office right now.
Some other interesting things:
Rockwell Automation provides a set of devices called PanelViews.
These have typically been small embedded devices running QNX or some other
embedded OS, with a small touch-screen face. Proprietary Rockwell
software runs on the device providing simple (circle, square, text)
indicators and push-buttons that help control plant automation.
Their newest PanelViews are Windows CE based. These devices
boot up into Windows CE, then immediately load a Citrix WinFrame client
and attach to a Windows Terminal Server server. Using this method,
they run a full copy of Rockwell Software's RSView32
plant visualization and control software for Windows NT. The architecture
requires a decidated Terminal Server box as well as a dedicated
RSView server to drive the PanelViews.
When it comes to PC hardware for the shop floor, I would MUCH rather
go with some standard off the shelf hardware in a 4 or 5U rackmount
"industrialized" enclosure and provides some additional cooling fans
and air filters and configure them with redundant IDE RAID mirroring.
This would go a long way toward improving upon the reliability of those
Dells I see being used. It's not my decision, however. I'm primarily
a C++ software developer, the guy sitting in the corner shaking his head
when he hears some of these silly things being discussed.
Jeff
------------------------------
From: Jean-David Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:20:56 -0400
Charles Lyttle wrote:
>
> Monte Milanuk wrote:
> >
> > Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > However there are a number of manufacturers who make PC equals for the
> > > factory floor. They are much lower cost than traditional factory
> > > hardware, especially HP or Sun systems. These systems cost lots more
> > > than CompUSA trash, but still are cost effective, *IF* they have a good
> > > OS loaded. Linux does have competitors in this market, QNX being one.
> > > But the cost of a single BSOD is high enough to keep Windows out.
> >
> > I'm not so sure about that. When I left a steel mill in early 1999, the big
> > thing the automation vendors were starting to push was 'SoftPLC', where the
> > idea was that for normal stuff that doesn't require high speed i/o and
> > distributed processing, rather than having dedicated racks of special
> > processors, they could have cards connected to an x86 PC and have the CPU do
> > the crunching -- kinda like a Winmodem, but a WinPLC, since the operating
> > system they were touting for this task was WinNT4. Scary.
> >
> > Monte
> I don't understand your comment. "SoftPLC" does run on x86 type
> computers, but no factory I know is going to use consumer class PCs
> running Windows. Think what could happen in your steel mill if a BSOD
> stops everything in the middle of a pour. There are lots of PC type
> modules for factories. PC-104 is just one standard form factor for
> industrial use. There are lots of industrial OS around that can handle
> industrial operations. Linux is just one of several.
I thought that a few years ago, the U.S.Navy tried a computer
controlled battleship, and the computers ran Windows NT (probably 3.51
in those days), and it crashed so bad the ship had to be towed into
port. (I may not have the facts exactly correct, but it was pretty
much like this.) Maybe the computers were not exactly your
bargain-basement PCs, but the software must have been. If the U.S.Navy
is dumb enough to use Microsoftware in a battle-critical system, why
would not some private industry be just as dumb?
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 6:15am up 15 days, 13:03, 3 users, load average: 2.27, 2.16,
2.03
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED](Marcelo Rodrigues)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: capacity of exabyte 8200?
Date: 17 Apr 2001 10:36:55 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED](Marcelo Rodrigues)
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Lupei Zhu wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have an Exabyte 8200 tape drive, connected to a PC running Linux
> RH7.0 and Solaris 2.6. Under solaris, it can hold up to 2.3G. but when I
> try to dump a 1.7G file system using this:
> dump -0 -f /dev/st0 /
> I got a message saying the dump is estimated to be on 40 volumes
> (tapes) and I was soon prompted to put the second tape. I tried
> /dev/nst0, /dev/st0a, ..., no luck. Can anyone tell me what I need to
> do?
>
> thanks.
>
> Lupei
>
You have to tell dump the density and length of the tape otherwise
dump assumes ridiculous values. Look at the man pages to see how
its done. A quick and dirty alternative solution is to use the 'a'
switch like :
dump -0 -a -f /dev/st0 /
>
>
--
"NeXTMail" OK at this address only.
------------------------------
From: Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 10:57:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
<snip>
>
> I thought that a few years ago, the U.S.Navy tried a computer
> controlled battleship, and the computers ran Windows NT (probably 3.51
> in those days), and it crashed so bad the ship had to be towed into
> port. (I may not have the facts exactly correct, but it was pretty
> much like this.) Maybe the computers were not exactly your
> bargain-basement PCs, but the software must have been. If the U.S.Navy
> is dumb enough to use Microsoftware in a battle-critical system, why
> would not some private industry be just as dumb?
>
>
The version of the story I heard was that the first ship of a new class
of Navy ship was out testing a new ship's control system programmed
using a custom database running on NT4 and the DB software crashed, not
NT. I believe the story goes that the captain said in his report that
the DB software crashed a couple of times and was successfully restarted
but the ship was towed in on the third crash with the system left in its
crashed state for later analysis by the developers...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Kelledin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Gigabyte GA-7DX (AMD760)
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:02:04 GMT
Has anybody managed to get this board to work?
On this board, kernel 2.4.2 detects PCI devices and then locks the system up
*hard*. Same seems to happen with a 2.2.16 kernel.
Kelledin
http://kelledin.tripod.com/scovsms.jpg
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:10:34 -0500
"Jean-David Beyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> I thought that a few years ago, the U.S.Navy tried a computer
> controlled battleship, and the computers ran Windows NT (probably 3.51
> in those days), and it crashed so bad the ship had to be towed into
> port. (I may not have the facts exactly correct, but it was pretty
> much like this.) Maybe the computers were not exactly your
> bargain-basement PCs, but the software must have been. If the U.S.Navy
> is dumb enough to use Microsoftware in a battle-critical system, why
> would not some private industry be just as dumb?
Why let the facts get in the way of a good dis, right? Your lack of
knowledge on the issue doesn't seem to prevent you from jumping to
conclusions.
The facts in the matter are a) that it wasn't a battleship, and b) that they
were running a beta version of the control software which did not validate
entry fields. As such, when an operator entered a 0 into a field, it was
stored in the database, causing all subsystems that depended on that
information to fail with a divide by zero exception.
The application could not be restarted because every time they restarted it,
it would re-read the data values and crash again, thus the ship was dead in
the water. Further, the ship wasn't towed in, the ship had alternate
propulsion mechanisms onboard because it was an experimental project running
beta software.
The Navy and the canadian company that wrote the software stated that the
problem was not related to NT in any way. In fact, the canadian contractor
laid the blame on the Navy for not installing their validated version before
the incident, which would have prevented the problem from ever occuring.
The navy, however, believed that they should shake out the vessel and see
where the potential failures might be so that in real emergency situations,
they would know how to respond.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft gets hard
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:44:21 +1200
JS PL wrote:
>
> "David Ehrens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:aFHC6.18762$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > ...
> > > That looks pretty proportional to their claim of 32,000 worldwide!
> >
> > Microsoft partners include companies who have several MS-certified
> > (MCSE, MCP, MSD) employees on staff, or who at one point were interested
> > in riding the Microsoft wave. I am one of the many former "paper"
> > partners that MS had at one point. The advantages to these programs were
> > minimal, aside from the legitimacy that certification confers on
> > individual technicians. For instance, we had to pay distributor prices
> > 5-10x higher than Compaq, Dell, and Gateway for product, were
> > continually beat up by educational "partners" who were selling product
> > illegally at academic discount prices, and as a company outside an urban
> > hub, were routinely passed over (in referrals) in favor of preferred
> > partners in major cities, in some cases in other states. It was a big
> > disappointment. I know others who bailed out of various MS programs.
> >
> > I don't care if Microsoft can prove they have 500,000,000 partners.
> > Their allegiances lie with companies in their size and weight class, not
> > small consulting or integration outfits.
>
> So before we get away from the assinine Linvocate statement that "there is
> ONE word for a Microsoft Business partner, extinct"
> Since you actually are or "were" classified as a Microsoft Business Partner,
> I can safely assume that your now "extinct" like the other 32,000 that he
> claims are now extinct, since all business partners of Microsoft are
> supposedly EXTINCT? Or could it be that there are really NO business
> partners who are extinct, or such a small percentage that it mirrors the
> natural rate of extinction?
>
> You see, it's these stupid assed statements that will be the death of Linux.
> Normally when someone is choosing between two people to do business with,
> they WON'T choose the guy that's bad mouthing and making proposterous
> statements against the competitor. Statements like, "there's one word
> for......." show nothing but immaturity and poor judgement. Not good
> qualities.
Just out of general curiousity, what is your occupation and what company
do you work for?
Matthew Gardiner
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
Running SuSE Linux 7.1
The best of German engineering, now in software form
------------------------------
From: "Mike McDade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux routers
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 11:53:07 GMT
Anyone know where to find a PCI card that acts like a sync serial
V.35 and CSU/DSU combination? ...or does this combination
not make sense due to power draw on the bus, etc?
Mike
----
It is the empty space that makes the vessel useful. --Lao Tsu
------------------------------
From: Luigi Cavallo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GA-7ZXR and using Promise ATA/100 IDE3/4
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 13:02:33 +0200
Hi,
there's an easy solution to boot from /dev/hde. At least, it works with my ASUS A7V MB.
When compiling the kernel, turn ON the the IDE_OFFBOARD option. The order of the IDE
channels
is reverted, and the once IDE2 becomes IDE0, and thus /dev/hde becomes /dev/hda.
BTW, if you use the LABEL keys in /etc/fstab, you can boot from the floppy, and have
the HD as
/dev/hde, or from the HD itself, and have it as /dev/hda. Clearly, the HD partions
MUST be labeled
to have it working.
Hope it helps,
gg
P.S. I am using Kernel 2.4.3 & RH 7.0
#
# IDE chipset support/bugfixes
#
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_OFFBOARD=y
CONFIG_IDEDMA_PCI_AUTO=y
Heribert Adamsky wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> > Any experience using the GA-7ZXR (rev 1.0) motherboard
> > with linux, and especially with using (booting from??)
> > the Promise IDE controller's IDE3 and IDE4 when using
> > the "original" VIA IDE1 and IDE2 as well? [IDE0-3, not 1-4 according to the
>BIOS's definition]
>
> With this configuration - IDE-0: none, IDE-1: CDROM, IDE-2: IBM-307030
> with Linux-2.4, IDE-3: none, Jumper 19: Raid disabled, Jumper 20: ATA100
> Function - Linux only boots from floppy (Lilo with root=/dev/hde1).
> Although the BIOS looks for a boot record from IDE-2, it does not find
> it. If I attach the disk to IDE-1 (identical content, I only changed
> hde->hda in fstab an lilo.conf), Linux boots fine, but write-speed slows
> down by a factor of 2 (from 12 to 6 MB/s). This looks like ATA-66 on
> IDE-2 and ATA-33 on IDE-1, doesn't it?
>
> I hoped for a bootable system with ATA100 speed, but I got none of them
> ;-(
>
> Any further progress since your posting end of March?
> Any advice are welcome!
>
> Regards,
>
> Heribert
>
> --
> Heribert Adamsky
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], http://heribert-adamsky.de
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martha H Adams)
Subject: Re: linux and cray j90
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:01:26 GMT
You've got an old *Cray*? Wow! What specs? How much power does it want?
Sounds to me like you're into a group project there. I hope you'll post
in here with news about how you're getting on, or not. This is interesting!
If you're anywhere near a university, try visiting in their computer science
school, and buzz this past a few grad students there. You just have to find
the right people, and grad students generally are this world's hardest
working and most interesting people.
Especially, look for people at MIT Lab for Computer Science.
If you get Linux running in your Cray, do make a big noise about it. Lots
of people are going to be interested in what you're doing.
Cheers -- Martha Adams
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
