Linux-Misc Digest #359, Volume #18 Sat, 26 Dec 98 20:13:08 EST
Contents:
Can't quite connect ("Sergei Gerasenko")
Re: The goal of Open Source
Re: UMAX Astra 1220P Scanner (zentara)
Re: ln: Musty smell to its man page (Steve Mading)
Re: Torvalds distribution? (Bill Unruh)
Re: When will kernel 2.2 be released? (Andrew Chen)
Re: Mounting a hard drive that "does not exist" (Stuart R. Fuller)
mysql --host='hostname' on S.u.S.E. 5.3 (Xeno Campanoli)
Re: When will kernel 2.2 be released? (Harry McGregor)
Re: Netscape 4.5 flagged messages, how to load? (Bev)
Re: RH5.1 + g++ include file "String.h" ("Jeremy Ellman")
Re: ln: Musty smell to its man page (Floyd Davidson)
Re: Torvalds distribution? (steve mcadams)
Re: Torvalds distribution? (steve mcadams)
HELP @ http://myvillage.8m.com (Naeem Tilly)
Re: Torvalds distribution? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Infringement of the GPL ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux getright? (Ivo Naninck)
3 button Mouse not working under X (Fisch)
Re: The goal of Open Source (steve mcadams)
Windows umulation (was: Unix vs Windows NT) (Steve Revilak)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Sergei Gerasenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.protocols.ppp
Subject: Can't quite connect
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 00:11:13 -0500
I just installed Linux and decided to add PPP support. Everything went well
and I can even see PPP frames in minicom (a terminal program). But that's
about it. I have also tried to use the ppp-on and ppp-on-dialer scripts and
after their excution the log file says that "serial connection has been
established", but then the next couple of lines say that SIGHUP signal was
received and that the connection was terminated. In other words, the
connection drops immediately after it has been established. I know that my
provider uses PPP. My PPP version is 2.2.0. What maybe the reason?
Thanx,
Sergei
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The goal of Open Source
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 13:49:33 -0800
On Sat, 26 Dec 1998 21:40:40 GMT, steve mcadams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Dec 1998 11:32:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
>wrote:
>
>>The idea is that programmers will make money from their services rather than
>>products. Most programmers do in fact get payed for their services and
>>don't receive any kind of royalties from product sales. The situation is
>>similar to the music industry where it's the middlemen rather than musicians
>>who get most of the profits from sales.
>
>Yah, I get paid for my services, as an employee. I get told when to
>show up, how long to work each day, how much I will get paid, and what
>I will work on. Frankly amigo, it sucks bigtime. I would far prefer
>to work out of my home writing the code that interests me and selling
>it to people who need it. So am I greedy or just an unwilling slave?
No, you're just more unrealistically idealistic than
any of us open source / free software proponents up
to and including RMS himself.
--
Herding Humans ~ Herding Cats
Neither will do a thing unless they really want to, or |||
is coerced to the point where it will scratch your eyes out / | \
as soon as your grip slips.
In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (zentara)
Subject: Re: UMAX Astra 1220P Scanner
Reply-To: ""
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 22:14:55 GMT
On Sat, 26 Dec 1998 04:31:57 +0000, Benoit Lefebvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hi, anyone have a program to scan from a UMAX Astra 1220P scanner ?
>
Ya, Windows95, couldn't resist. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Mading)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.questions,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: ln: Musty smell to its man page
Date: 26 Dec 1998 16:12:13 -0600
Navindra Umanee ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >
: > Try the same thing on a file you don't own. I have seen some programs
: I did't own the file, it was owned by root.
Oops. Right. I didn't notice that the first time.
This points out an even worse situation - making the file unreadable
isn't enough, you have to make it un*find*able by preventing people
from looking into the directory it is in. That's even worse.
--
Steve Mading: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.execpc.com/~madings
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Torvalds distribution?
Date: 26 Dec 1998 20:58:30 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams) writes:
>Who decides what goes in the various distributions? Is there a "base"
>distribution that includes only the stuff that works? How is this
Linus controls the kernel. That is it. Everything else is up to the
distrubuter to decide on. The kernel on its own is not of much use. It
can;t really do much except sit there waiting for some other program to
tell it what to do. Most distributions do include "stuff that works".
Are you having problems?
------------------------------
From: Andrew Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: When will kernel 2.2 be released?
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 14:41:37 -0800
Just run the development kernel. From the comments that I've heard, the
newest development kernel (newest 2.1.132-- I could be wrong, they seem to
change hourly) is stable enough that it could be released today.
Andrew
On Sat, 26 Dec 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> By December 1999?
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart R. Fuller)
Subject: Re: Mounting a hard drive that "does not exist"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 22:58:42 GMT
SaintZero ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: When I try to mount my vfat partition, hda1 It errors and I get "Special Device
: does not exist" I think I'm doing things correctly but I don't know Please Help
: me and please don't shoot the new kid in town...
I won't shoot you. However, you must understand that, while you did provide
some information other than "it doesn't work", it's not enough. You need to
provide more information, such as:
- the exact command line you used
- the exact error message you got
- your hardware configuration
However, I've a couple minutes available to waste guessing at your problem.
>From the information you've provided, you tried to mount hda1 and you get an
error message that says that the "special device" does not exist.
If you tried to say:
$ mount hda1 /foo
then this tells mount to find the device "hda1" in your current directory. Do
you have such a file in your current directory?
Try this:
$ mount -t vfat /dev/hda1 /foo
Of course, the existence of "/foo" is assumed.
If this doesn't help, provide the requested information, and I'm sure someone
can help.
Stu
------------------------------
From: Xeno Campanoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: mysql --host='hostname' on S.u.S.E. 5.3
Date: 26 Dec 1998 23:18:24 GMT
I've got two workstations where I get the following failures:
# mysql --host='dave.development.net' --user='root' --password='correctpassword'
ERROR 2005: Unknown MySQL Server Host (dave.development.net) (2)
My mysql_install_db script was unmodified when run, and I've added user and db and host
rows to the mysql database for dave.development.net. I also get the same problem for
another installation on 5.3 of mysql. This same installation on a Debian system at
my friend's company yields no such problem...I tried it this morning. I looked in the
sources, and the error seems to be associated with a call to a call to gethostbyname,
or possibly a hybridized version of this depending on how the i686 binary I downloaded
for both 3.22 and 3.21 are built (Mysql 3.20 doesn't seem to have this problem at all,
but it
lacks some features I've already written programs with). The Debian system that works
lists
itself as 2.0.34, whereas the S.u.S.E. workstation lists as 2.0.35. Can someone
suggest what
library or other facility I might need to upgrade to (or possibly downgrade to) to get
such
a problem cleared up? It really does seem to be the OS. I've been looking extensively
through things for a couple of days. One responder suggested I take out the quote
marks,
but this does not change the behaviour on my machine. I really kindof like S.u.S.E.,
but
I'm tempted to install Debian if I cannot figure this out by this evening. I suspect
it's
just a wayward library or configuration file though.
Sincerel,
Xeno Campanoli
Onex - Linux consulting, software analysis, design, and implementation
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Web pages: http://www.aa.net/~xeno)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harry McGregor)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: When will kernel 2.2 be released?
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 23:46:38 GMT
On Sat, 26 Dec 1998 14:41:37 -0800, Andrew Chen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just run the development kernel. From the comments that I've heard, the
>newest development kernel (newest 2.1.132-- I could be wrong, they seem to
>change hourly) is stable enough that it could be released today.
>
>Andrew
Last I heard it the 2.1.xx kernels were up the M$ quality (about
125), and are not quite up to linux quality. If you need things that
are in the 2.1.xx kernels run them, or if it's your own workstation,
give them a try, but for a server, I would stick away from them.
Harry
------------------------------
From: Bev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Netscape 4.5 flagged messages, how to load?
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 15:47:49 -0800
Dmitry wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to read news mail in off line mode , I marked (flagged)
> some messages,
> but then I couldn't find the mode to load flagged messages.
>
> I am using Netscape 4.5
>
> If anyone knows how to do in, please help me.
The linux version doesn't support offline newsreading or newsgroup
filters. Bummer, right? OTOH, if you meant MAIL, never mind...
--
Cheers,
Bev
*********************************************************
Warning: Objects in mirror appear smarter than they are.
------------------------------
From: "Jeremy Ellman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RH5.1 + g++ include file "String.h"
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 23:25:20 -0000
Eusebio Garate wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Hi Jeremy,
>The string.h header file is part of the glibc-development libraries. On my
RH
>5.2 they are located (using the control-panel) in
Development/Libraries/Libc.
>The version in RH2 is: 2.0.7-29. Hope this helps.
>
Thanks for that, but it is "String.h" rather than "string.h". There's
another file too that must be in the same library "Pix.h".
String.h seems to define a String class rather than the usual 'C' string ops
If anyone knows which library this is in please let me know. I have just
re-installed all the RH51libraries, but I still can't "find" it
Jeremy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.questions,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: ln: Musty smell to its man page
Date: 26 Dec 1998 23:05:02 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Navindra Umanee ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: >
>: > Try the same thing on a file you don't own. I have seen some programs
>
>: I did't own the file, it was owned by root.
>
>Oops. Right. I didn't notice that the first time.
>
>This points out an even worse situation - making the file unreadable
>isn't enough, you have to make it un*find*able by preventing people
>from looking into the directory it is in. That's even worse.
Oh, My God that is so *horrible* the sun probably won't come up
tomorrow! Whatever will we do? :-)
Seriously, what makes that worse? What that means is you can
configure for whatever the desired effect is, and get it. That
translates to effective because it is flexible.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Subject: Re: Torvalds distribution?
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 00:15:45 GMT
On 26 Dec 1998 21:00:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh) wrote:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams) writes:
>>So far I've tried RedHat 5.1 and RedHat 5.2 and both seem to have
>>things that simply don't work. I've ordered several other distros but
>
>Well, I have used 5.1 and things do work. You might get further if you
>actually said what it was that tyou were having problems with.
Thanks Bill. Been there, done that. Top-of-my-head example is
Midnight Commander x-windows version which in 5.1 *says* it's not
complete and most of its useful functions therefore don't work. I
started 5.2 and clicked on one of the control-panel buttons, don't
remember which one it was, and things just went out to lunch; blue
fvwm screen with nothing on it. I don't remember which button it was
because immediately after this I reformatted that drive, with the
intention of putting something more useful than RH5.2 on it. -steve
========================================================
Tools for programmers: http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Torvalds distribution?
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 00:15:46 GMT
On 26 Dec 1998 20:58:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh) wrote:
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams) writes:
>>Who decides what goes in the various distributions? Is there a "base"
>>distribution that includes only the stuff that works? How is this
>
>Linus controls the kernel. That is it. Everything else is up to the
>distrubuter to decide on. The kernel on its own is not of much use. It
>can;t really do much except sit there waiting for some other program to
>tell it what to do. Most distributions do include "stuff that works".
>Are you having problems?
I've only tried 2 distros so far, RH5.1 and RH5.2. I started as a
total Linux newbie about a month ago. At the moment I'm waiting for
some cheapbytes cdroms with about a half-dozen distros. I'll pick the
best (or least bad as the case may be) and go with whatever that turns
out to be. -steve
========================================================
Tools for programmers: http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Naeem Tilly)
Subject: HELP @ http://myvillage.8m.com
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 22:05:31 GMT
Hi
http://myvillage.8m.com
includes a new Linux Help Forum for beginners and advanced users. This
forum is still new, so start posting. But the main feature of this
site is its software archive for Linux. It will soon be having a
search engine but it currently neatly categorized.
Check out this site now.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Torvalds distribution?
Date: 27 Dec 1998 00:17:28 GMT
In linux.redhat.misc steve mcadams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# I've only tried 2 distros so far, RH5.1 and RH5.2. I started as a
that's 1 distro, 2 versions. 8) just a clarification.
--
To reply via mail, please remove the obvious from the email address.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Infringement of the GPL
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 00:29:17 GMT
I wrote:
> And that's a reason not to use the GPL? It would piss you off less had
> you used a different license?
steve mcadams writes:
> Absolutely, because I'd use a proprietary license and distribute the
> source code to paying customers with a non-redistribution restriction.
I meant a different free license, of course. But let me get this straight.
It would bother you less to have your copyright infringed by a paying
customer with a non-redistribution license than by someone with a free
license?
> So I would earn some income from the work, and possibly be in a position
> to earn more by sueing the copyright infringers. With GPL I get nothing
> for doing the work, they get money for unlicensed use, and I can't afford
> to sue. In my book, that sucks.
Then don't use the GPL. It isn't compulsory. Interesting phrasing here,
though. You say you *would* use a proprietary license. Have you ever
tried to sell software under such a license? Hint: you won't get far
unless you are Larry Wall or another Name (and how did Larry get to be a
Name?)
> I'm starting to think that the GPL is just for hobbyists. I probably
> would have thought it was swell when I was 25; now at almost 50 and
> wondering what I'll do about retirement (cardboard box anyone?) I'd like
> to earn money for doing work, not just do it for the fun of it.
So you have lived most of your life under the proprietary system, it has
left you with no savings, and yet you want to stick with it.
> I wonder what Richard Stallman thinks about free software now that he's
> older...
He is as devoted to his principles as ever, and no doubt delighted to see
his ideas beginning to penetrate organizations such as IBM and Sun and to
see the dream he has fought for all his life begin to take shape in
reality.
> assuming he's nearing retirement age?
I really doubt RMS intends to retire. I also doubt he is hurting for
money.
> ...and hasn't skimmed a million or so off the FSF along the way...
I'm fairly sure that the FSF has never paid him anything at all. He
supports himself writing software, consulting, and with the occasional
McAurthur Foundation grant.
> Maybe I sound like a greedy asshole,...
You sound like a short-sighted, timid one.
> ...but unless you are at least 50-ish and have raised kids instead of a
> stock portfolio, you need to think about it before you say so.
I am 52 and undoubtedly have less money than you do. When I was 25 I would
have agreed with you. Now I agree with RMS.
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
------------------------------
From: Ivo Naninck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux getright?
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 23:42:43 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But, off course....
wget
> Peter Lee wrote:
>
> Is there a Getright(win95/98) type of utility for Linux???
>
> Thanks
>
> Peter
>
>
--
Best regards, and don't let the bits byte!
Ivo Naninck.
~
~
:wq!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fisch)
Subject: 3 button Mouse not working under X
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 16:52:50 -0800
I can't get the middle button of my mouse to work under X.
When I'm not in X, the middle button works (will past what has been highlited).
But when I start X, the middle button does nothing.
I've tried two different (9 pin serial) mice.
One is circular with 3 rectangular buttons on the front.
The other looks like the curved microsoft mouse, with the very
narrow button with the bump in the middle. It has a switch on the underside
that switches between MS or PC.
In my XF86Config file I have specified:
Protocol "Microsoft"
Device "/dev/mouse"
Buttons 3
I tried running XF86Setup, and none of the other protocols seem to give
me the third button either. I'm sure the mouse works. Why doesn't the
3rd (middle) button work though?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Subject: Re: The goal of Open Source
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 00:15:43 GMT
On Sat, 26 Dec 1998 13:49:33 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>Yah, I get paid for my services, as an employee. I get told when to
>>show up, how long to work each day, how much I will get paid, and what
>>I will work on. Frankly amigo, it sucks bigtime. I would far prefer
>>to work out of my home writing the code that interests me and selling
>>it to people who need it. So am I greedy or just an unwilling slave?
>
> No, you're just more unrealistically idealistic than
> any of us open source / free software proponents up
> to and including RMS himself.
Thanks Jedi. That's quite a compliment for an old fart like me to
receive, and I appreciate it! 30 years as a slave in this business
and still unrealistically idealistic... talk about
unindoctrinatable<G> -steve
========================================================
Tools for programmers: http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Revilak)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Windows umulation (was: Unix vs Windows NT)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 20:04:38 -0500
dstephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 98 percent of the software that I like to use is 95 or Nt only. A lot of
> really great games that I like to play mostly. I perfer Nt over 95 for
> gaming (if the game runs under NT, otherwise use 95 ) since the game
> crashes but not the os (I've gotten NT to a real stable point)
This may be a silly notion, but has anyone written a windows emulator
for windows? Perhaps I'm crazy, but one would think that such a
creature would make Linux a much more attractive offering, particularly
to an organization with a large base of existing ms apps.
I'm aware of several usable incarnations that run on the macintosh, so
it should be a doable thing.
--
Steve Revilak
[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 (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Misc Digest
******************************
