Linux-Hardware Digest #659, Volume #14 Sat, 21 Apr 01 02:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (Charles Lyttle)
Re: sound in intel810e AC97 (Dan Smith)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Eric P. McCoy)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? (Eric P. McCoy)
Re: Printer driver for Lexmark Z42? (Michael Meissner)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: XFree-4.0.3 savage4 RH7.1:slow (Christian Garms)
Re: What's wrong with this box on a beowulf-type cluster ? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Where can I buy bridgeboards? (CBFalconer)
AS400 (Mike Kenzie)
Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video? ("Dean Kent")
Re: today's harddrives will surely fail before dialup users manage to fill them up?
(J. Clarke)
Re: linux and cray j90 (MindPatrol)
Re: today's harddrives will surely fail before dialup users manage to fill them up?
(Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: today's harddrives will surely fail before dialup users manage to fill them up?
(Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Any thoughts on a good Sparc Linux? (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: howto properly access serial devices in Perl or C (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Newbie to Linux with Modem Problems (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: UMDA/66 support (Nader)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:07:48 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles M. Kozierok) wrote:
> } No, I want a fully remappable keyboard. If there's
> } a cheaper one than the Avant, I'm open to suggestions.
>
> Get a Gateway Anykey keyboard; they sell them on auction
> sites like ebay for $20-40. 124 keys, every key can be
> remapped or have a macro added to it. Includes two
> sets of function keys (left and top) that you can use
> some of for custom functions.
Thanks for the tip; maybe I'll try out one of those
before I spend the big bucks for the Avant. (Although
the Avant also has the better quality tactile force
feedback (like the PS/2 and Northgate Omnikey).)
- 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, 21 Apr 2001 00:07:50 GMT
fammacd=!SPAM^[EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Macdonald) wrote:
> >Music attained perfection about 270 years ago (give or take
> >twenty years). HTH.HAND.
>
> WHAT?? How the hell could it predate even Beethoven...
What do you mean, "even Beethoven"? Beethoven only
wrote a few things. Whippersnapper. His complete
works will fit on a set of half a dozen CDs. Which
is better than a lot of modern music groups, but
hardly impressive. And while some of it is pretty
good, I wouldn't consider it better than the music
of the previous century. (Although it's arguably
*louder*.)
> medieval pop music!:-)
No, late baroque. Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, et cetera.
Since they died, the music industry has never been
the same.
So you listen to your Beethoven and use your qwerty
keyboard layout somewhere else, and leave me alone
so I can listen to good music and use a real keyboard :-)
- jonadab
------------------------------
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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:13:41 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charles Lyttle
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:33:15 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Greg Cox wrote:
> >>
> >> 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]
> >Essentially the version that was posted here. The DB crash, iirc, was
> >due to the cook entering too many items in a dinner menu. This crashed
> >the DB, the DB took down NT. It got restarted without anyone knowing why
> >it crashed, the cook did it again. When it crashed, it took out
> >propulsion. On the third try, the Captain decided to call for a tow
> >until the problem could be solved.
> >
> >One joke was that it should be intuitive that entering 4 entrees in the
> >dinner menu will shutdown the ships propulsion. The Navy fixed the
> >problem by making a new regulation prohibiting more than 3 entrees at a
> >meal.
>
> Oh man...what a way to solve a problem!
>
> I hadn't been aware that it was the cook putting in too many entrees
> that was causing the database to crash. Reminds me of the old song
> (poem?) about the lack of a horse's shoenail causing loss of a battle...
>
> OTOH, a database crashes when it will -- one hopes very infrequently,
> but how does one specify that a DB will crash when, say, a scratch page
> fills up and gets flushed out to a disk that's already full?
> One also hopes that next time the Navy designs a slightly more robust
> system that won't go down every time the DB server decides to powder
> its nose.
>
> (One would also think that the propulsion DB system and the cook's
> DB system were on different systems. Like the cooks' DB system is
> ultra-critical to ship's operation -- he could write things down on
> index cards or paper notebooks if he had to. Note quite as convenient
> of course, but certainly not life-threatening.)
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 1d:23h:40m actually running Linux.
> The EAC doesn't exist, but they're still watching you.
Mind you, I can't vouch for the accuracy of that report. But is was
offered as proof that the crash wasn't the fault of the OS. "It was a
misbehaving application that caused the OS to crash." The Navy had to
clear the OS or justify to congress why it insisted on MS when most
contractors were saying it couldn't (or shouldn't) be done. The
contractor had to clear the OS because he promised that it could be
done. But he was late, and the Navy had to either cancel a test at a
loss of millions, or go to test with a beta version. So the vendor says
"we were only a little late, if they had just waited a few more days".
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: Dan Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: sound in intel810e AC97
Date: 19 Apr 2001 15:13:24 -0400
I have an intel8x0 soundcard working under ALSA.
The snd-card-intel8x0 module needs to be loaded. Have you done a
'depmod -a'?
Now that you have all the other drivers loaded, you may be able to
load the snd-card-intel8x0 module manually. Try using 'insmod'...
--Dan
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric P. McCoy)
Date: 20 Apr 2001 20:34:46 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One) writes:
> Do I misunderstand, or do those have the squishy keys?
I hate mushy keyboards too, but I do type faster on them. On my IBM
keyboard, I manage between 60-80wpm, but on a mushy keyboard I can hit
as much as 120wpm.
--
Eric McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Knowing that a lot of people across the world with Geocities sites
absolutely despise me is about the only thing that can add a positive
spin to this situation." - Something Awful, 1/11/2001
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric P. McCoy)
Date: 20 Apr 2001 20:38:12 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One) writes:
> 24-bit is the break-even point for me; 32-bit colour
> doesn't look significantly better AFAICT.
It shouldn't. The difference between 32-bit color and 24-bit color
(on all systems I've seen) is just the addition of an 8-bit alpha
value.
--
Eric McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Knowing that a lot of people across the world with Geocities sites
absolutely despise me is about the only thing that can add a positive
spin to this situation." - Something Awful, 1/11/2001
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Printer driver for Lexmark Z42?
From: Michael Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 20 Apr 2001 20:43:09 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Does anyone know of a printer driver for the Lexmark Z42?
> Good printer at a good price, but it seems that Lexmark
> does not want to sell it to Linux users ...
Not surprising, since it is a winprinter (ie, it is cheap because the
controlling microprocessor has been replaced with your host computer).
--
Michael Meissner, Red Hat, Inc. (GCC group)
PMB 198, 174 Littleton Road #3, Westford, Massachusetts 01886, USA
Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: +1 978-486-9304
Non-work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax: +1 978-692-4482
------------------------------
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: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:56:14 -0500
"Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mind you, I can't vouch for the accuracy of that report. But is was
> offered as proof that the crash wasn't the fault of the OS. "It was a
> misbehaving application that caused the OS to crash." The Navy had to
> clear the OS or justify to congress why it insisted on MS when most
> contractors were saying it couldn't (or shouldn't) be done. The
> contractor had to clear the OS because he promised that it could be
> done. But he was late, and the Navy had to either cancel a test at a
> loss of millions, or go to test with a beta version. So the vendor says
> "we were only a little late, if they had just waited a few more days".
This is all completely untrue.
Read all the info collected by Jerry Pournelle on the issue
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/Yorktown.html
The contractor in question also stated specifically that the navy had gone
against their recomendation of installing newer software that didn't have
the problem PRIOR to the event.
http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198techbus2.html
"... the fault was with certain applications that were developed by CAE
Electronics in Leesburg, Va. As Harvey McKelvey, former director of navy
programs for CAE, admits, "If you want to put a stick in anybody's eye, it
should be in ours." But McKelvey adds that the crash would not have happened
if the navy had been using a production version of the CAE software, which
he asserts has safeguards to prevent the type of failure that occurred. "
You should also read the original article which is the source of all this:
http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/digiorgio.htm
Notice that in an article of great length, only 2 paragraphs are devoted to
NT, and none of the say the OS crashed.
Further, the same author that wrote the gcn article (which quotes from the
usni article) also clarifies his statements in a followup article:
http://www.gcn.com/archives/gcn/1998/november9/6.htm
------------------------------
From: Christian Garms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XFree-4.0.3 savage4 RH7.1:slow
Date: 21 Apr 2001 12:03:09 +0200
ASF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My problem is that it takes my PC 40 sec to get into X....
> I try to disable the "accel" but same thing happens: too slow...
Maybe your VGA-BIOS is broken, there are some switches in the
Xconfig-file or read the manual.
> I know my PC is pretty old (PPro200) but with 3.3.6 it was faster
> faster....
Maybe it is better to downgrade. I'm using a Diamond Stealth S540
and everything runs fine under XFree86 3.3.6. It is also important
to know, that the XFree-Community didn't get the best information
from VIA/S3 to write the driver and the Video-Driver supplemented
in XFree86 4.0.3 is still experimental (not every possible hardware
acceleration is included). It is the same thing like X3.3.5/3.3.6:
With 3.3.5 the Savage4 supports starts, with 3.3.6 it was fine.
I'll expect that the driver will be fine with the next X release.
> Furthermore, my video card is a bad one but....
Well, I've got the Diamond one I'm very happy with it. Best hardware
for that low price (paid ~70EUR).
> Can anyone help me?
Parfaitement!
--
regards,
Christian mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Re: What's wrong with this box on a beowulf-type cluster ?
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 19:14:48 +0600
Luigi Cavallo wrote:
> I have a small cluster of 6 AMD boxes, and I run PVM programs on top of
> them. One of the boxes is giving me problems, and I don't know what is
> wrong. The configuration of all the boxes is:
>
> ASUS A7V MB AMD Duron 1000MHz 128 MB RAM
> RH 7.0 Kernel 2.4.3
>
> When I run something on the problematic box, the program simply crashes
> after 15-20 mins, and this is what I found at the end of dmesg.
> ...
> kernel BUG at page_alloc.c:191!
> invalid operand: 0000
I've been having similar problems. I've been updating my kernels with the
-ac* patches from kernel.org, and I haven't had any problem since I
updated to -ac9 a couple of days ago. I think he's up to -ac11 today, but
I haven't updated to that one yet.
You may want to report this to the linux-kernel mailing list. Alan Cox is
trying to track down various problems that people are reporting with
Athlons under 2.4.3, particularly those running on VIA chipsets.
He suggested to me that I should test my memory with memtest86, which can
be obtained at http://reality.sgi.com/cbrady_denver/memtest86/. That
turned out not to be the problem in my case, but you may want to run the
tests anyway.
Finally, if you're compiling your own kernels, specify your boxes as
"i686" rather than "Duron/Athlon/K7" for now. Lots of people are
reporting problems with kernels compiled as Athlons (though Alan is
beginning to suspect that that is also a VIA issue).
Good luck,
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: CBFalconer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.periphs.scsi,comp.os.cpm,comp.sys.tandy
Subject: Re: Where can I buy bridgeboards?
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 01:51:28 GMT
B'ichela wrote:
>
> I KNOW this is OBS hardware. Yet I also know that usenet has
> many computer enthusiasts who have resources of these estoteric
> devices or web dealers. (I don't want EBAY). What I need is a Adaptec
> ACB-4000a scsi-1 to MFM bridgeboard. It appears that my ACB-4070 is
> having hardware problems with MFM drives (I tried two and I don't have
> any RLL drives sitting around). the problem also may be with the board
> itself as I am having problems rezeroing the drives.
... snip ...
There is no essential difference between RLL and MFM drives - the
data rates are the same. The requirements for RLL are slightly
more stringent to maintain clock sync. In the old days we could
often buy an MFM drive and run it on an RLL controller for about
30% increase in capacity.
Hook up the MFM drive, low level format it, and then test the
result. The 40M should become 64M, and you will have more sectors
per track.
--
Chuck F ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.qwikpages.com/backstreets/cbfalconer
(Remove "NOSPAM." from reply address. my-deja works unmodified)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (for spambots to harvest)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie)
Subject: AS400
Date: 21 Apr 2001 02:32:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie)
Is there a version for the AS400?
Will it work without OS/400 being installed first?
--
Collector of Vintage Computers
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Dean Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Dean Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips
Subject: Re: Switchboxes for keyboard, mice, video?
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 20:14:09 -0700
Jonadab the Unsightly One <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
~snip~
>
> So you listen to your Beethoven and use your qwerty
> keyboard layout somewhere else, and leave me alone
> so I can listen to good music and use a real keyboard :-)
Sex Pistols and Naturally Speaking....
Get into the 20th century, at least... <VBG>...
Regards,
Dean
>
> - jonadab
------------------------------
From: J. Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch.storage,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
Subject: Re: today's harddrives will surely fail before dialup users manage to fill
them up?
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:22:13 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> J. Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Yes, but with a mere 30GB of difference in the sizes of the
> > > caches, the difference in speed can be insignificant.
> >
> > So how big do they have to be before it becomes significant?
>
> Bigger than a browser cache ever needs to be.
>
> > And what constitutes "significant" in your book?
>
> Noticeable by the user.
>
> > And since this started out in the context of commercial web browsers,
> > since you're so sure this is easy, why not provide an improved cache for
> > some web browser or other?
>
> Because the existing caches are sufficient. The time you
> perceive that it takes to find a page in the cache
> consists almost entirely of the time the browser spends
> doing *other things*, such as loading the page after it
> finds it (which is limited by the hard drive's transfer
> rate), comparing its cached copy to the copy on the
> web, rendering it for display, repainting the window,
> and so on.
Then why didn't you just say that in the first place?
--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MindPatrol)
Subject: Re: linux and cray j90
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 05:17:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 20 Apr 2001 00:29:47 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Hartmann Schaffer) wrote:
>>Cray (the company) has to be concerned with reliabilty and
>>maintainabilty, of course, but speed is what sells their
>>machines. Of course, the new Cray company is not the one
>>that Seymore founded.
>
>which one would that be? he (co)founded at least 3, probably 4
>
By the "new Cray company", I meant Cray Inc., formerly known
as Tera Computer. You are of course correct that Seymour
Cray (co)founded several companies, but only one of these
could be called a commercial success. Please correct me if
I'm wrong about this, I'm certainly no expert on the history
of Cray computers.
Sorry I spelled Mr Cray's first name incorrectly in my
original post.
Back to the Linux connection ...
I've blundered around the Cray web site, and I can't find
any low level programming details. Anyone have any insight
into why this is so? I'd like to learn enough about the
hardware to write an instruction set simulator.
I asked this one already, but no answers, so I'll ask again.
Does anyone know why GCC has never been ported to the Cray
architecture?
Thanks
--
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: comp.arch.storage,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
Subject: Re: today's harddrives will surely fail before dialup users manage to fill
them up?
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 05:31:13 GMT
"Jukka Liimatta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hashed indexes (they can search millions of items in a heartbeat if well
> > used). Or balanced trees (though you need to do rebalancing, which comes
>
> More data still means more likehood of having a hash collision. It's much
> more relevant what happens on collisions- this is going to access HD for
> sure, which will end up with "order of magnitude" slower search.
<oversimplified example>
You just nest the hashes about five deep (using five different
hashing algorithms), so you get maybe 64 (just picking a number
here) "baskets", which contain 64 baskets each, and each of those...
That gives you a total of over a billion leaf baskets,
so it'd take a WHOLE lot of entries before any of them
is likely to have more than a few files. (And if you
want to bump the whole thing up a notch, just come up
with a sixth hash and next it six deep.) Since there
are only a few entries in each directory, the filesystem
can locate the file quickly.
Each basket is a subdirectory. For the filename, you mung
the URL in any lossless fashion that creates a legal filename.
So you can calculate the full pathname and then go to disk
once and retrieve it.
Numbers in the above, like "five" and "64" are of
course arbitrary for the purpose of example.
</example>
> I'm curious how you can claim the amount of data is
> irrelevant to the runtime.
The algorithm does have to be planned to deal with the
amount of data in question, so it's not irrelevant as
such, but it also is not an insurmountable obstacle.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Subject: Re: today's harddrives will surely fail before dialup users manage to fill
them up?
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 05:31:15 GMT
Joeri Sebrechts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Or balanced trees (though you need to do rebalancing, which comes
> > > at a cost)
> > And how long does it take you to build the tree?
>
> Longer. Although reiserfs (the new journaling filesystem) uses trees to
> navigate the filesystem, and in my subjective experience it's faster
> than ext2. At least the find was faster. A lot faster.
Some filesystems (e.g., the BFS) maintain a database-like
index by file attribute, for the express purpose of making
finding operations fast. For a browser cache, however, I
think the hash system would still produce faster results.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Subject: Re: Any thoughts on a good Sparc Linux?
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 05:31:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Yung) wrote:
> X is very slow with 16M of ram.
Veritably. 16M of RAM you *can* run X, and I have, but it takes
a while to start, and you want a lightweight window manager if
possible. You won't want to run very many processes at once.
Make sure you have swap space.
> 32M runs pretty good in my Classic
> and it is much better than my Intel P-133.
Filter my statement above (and also what follows)
through the fact that I was working with only
Intel-based hardware.
> I don't run KDE nor GNOME.
KDE in my experience likes 32MB of RAM or more (more if
you want to run heavy apps) and Gnome wants at least
64MB, more if you want to run heavy apps. (By "heavy
apps", I mean things like WINE, StarOffice, &c.)
Also, if you run Linux without a lot of RAM, make sure
you have enough swap space. Linux does Not Like to run
out of swap space. If it runs out of RAM it slows down,
but if it runs out of swap space also it *REALLY* slows
down. For KDE, I'd want RAM and swap to total at least
64MB; for Gnome, at least double that. More if you have
the hard drive space to spend. With a lightweight window
manager, you might get by with RAM and swap totaling
perhaps 32-48MB. Without X, you can get by with less.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,de.alt.comm.isdn4linux
Subject: Re: howto properly access serial devices in Perl or C
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 05:31:17 GMT
"Bob Parnass, AJ9S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you considered using Expect instead of
> Perl or C? It's easier.
A language easier than Perl?
[Adds Expect to languages-to-investigate list.]
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Subject: Re: Newbie to Linux with Modem Problems
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 05:31:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Modem commands to type in minicom]
> at (hi modem how are you)
>
> ok
ATZ sometimes too, depending on the modem.
> at&f1 (resets USR modem to factory defaults)
>
> at&w (saves these settings such as the reset)
Also helpful:
ATDT4681377 (substitute some phone number, maybe your ISP)
You should hear your modem dialing.
(This is for tone dial; for pulse, use ATDP instead of ATDT.)
If you can hear your modem dial, the modem is almost
certainly working, and maybe kppp isn't looking at the
right device or something.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: Nader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UMDA/66 support
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 22:56:57 -0700
Todd Siegel wrote:
> Does the 2.2 kernel support UMDA/66?
>
Not without a patch.
>
> Does the 2.4 kernel support UMDA/66?
>
Yes, it can be configured to do so.
>
> Thanks in advance, Todd.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
