Linux-Misc Digest #364, Volume #18 Sun, 27 Dec 98 06:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: ln: Musty smell to its man page (Steve Mading)
Netscape on debian wanting libraries (Xeno Campanoli)
Re: Anti-Linux FUD (David M. Cook)
Re: Can't boot after Partition Magic 4.0 resizes (Bob Koss)
Re: 3 button Mouse not working under X (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Which book for newbie? (Tim Kelley)
Re: Windows umulation (was: Unix vs Windows NT) (Matthias Warkus)
Corrupt partition table and only L when booting. (Tobias Andersson)
making computer easyer too use and are unix better then windowes (J�rgen Spangen)
Re: Monitor Flashing (Zulfiqar Naushad)
Re: Will Linux ever make it? (Caspian Maclean)
Re: SuSE or RedHat (Zulfiqar Naushad)
Re: Modem of the Presario 1238 (M. Buchenrieder)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Mading)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.questions,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: ln: Musty smell to its man page
Date: 27 Dec 1998 03:42:30 -0600
Leslie Mikesell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: In article <763mvu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: 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.
: Right. This is based on directory permissions, not the file
: itself. But there is a trivial solution if you actually care,
: just write your own rm replacement that truncates files before
: deleting your link to them. This will break certain things
: that count on other links and open files retaining data, but
: perhaps that won't affect you.
: For single files:
: cp /dev/null $1 && /bin/rm $1
: should work.
Wrong. The *real* solution is one that the filesystem layout doesn't
allow. The *real* solution is to say that if someone wants to link
to one of my files that's just great, but when I delete all of *my*
filenames for it, then it should no longer be owned by me. (This isn't
possible, but it's the only thing that would satisfy me 100%. Your
rm aliasing is probably what I will resort to, but I will always
consider it a work-around, not a real solution.) The problem stems
from the fact that when user foo makes a hardlink, there is no record
in the filesystem that that link was made by him.
--
Steve Mading: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.execpc.com/~madings
------------------------------
From: Xeno Campanoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Netscape on debian wanting libraries
Date: 27 Dec 1998 10:02:59 GMT
I just installed Debian on one of my workstations. I needed to install
Netscape, which I could not find on the Debian ftp site, so I downloaded
the one available from netscape. It starts asking for all sorts of
libraries that I couldn't find among the Debian distribution (libc6
series, and the topper was something called libg++.so.27). Well I finally
gave up and brought over a tarred copy of my Netscape directory on a
S.u.S.E. distribution, and IT wants libg++.so.27 too!! But the
libg++.so.27 library is nowhere to be found on my S.u.S.E. installation,
even though Netscape runs on it?
Can someone suggest a sane way to get Netscape installed on a Debian
distribution? I know there are a bunch of such working workstations WITH
Netscape over at SSC/Linux Journal. Excuse me if this is all obvious and
I just missed it.
--
Xeno Campanoli
Onex - Linux consulting, software analysis, design, and implementation
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Web pages: http://www.aa.net/~xeno)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.x,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux FUD
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 10:17:56 GMT
On 25 Dec 1998 12:27:51 GMT, Floyd Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It probably should be mentioned that normal users do not
>need the sbin directories in their PATH.
If you use things like traceroute a lot it's nice to have these in your path.
Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Koss)
Subject: Re: Can't boot after Partition Magic 4.0 resizes
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 10:00:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (�ystein Eftevaag) wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Dec 1998 12:50:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Koss) wrote:
>
>>Can anyone tell me how to get up and running again?
>
>I assume you want to boot the filesystem on our harddisk, and not
>on a floppy, right?
My goal, of course, is to ultimately boot from the hard disk. If I
could just rerun LILO, I think that will happen.
>If you use the standard RedHat bootdisk, you'll get a
>screen with some text, and a prompt.
Yes.
>At this prompt you can specify what to use
>as root (it should be mentioned in the text as well).
>From memory, it's something like:
>"mount root=/dev/hda1"
>(replace /dev/hda1 with whatever device is your main root partition)
>Press enter, and it should boot your linux system just as usual.
My linux partition is on hda2, but mount root=/dev/hda2 produces:
No such image. [TAB] shows list.
Hitting TAB gives Linux and Rescue.
Selecting either of these results in a kernel panic -- unable to mount
root fs.
I'm still down <groan>
Bob
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: 3 button Mouse not working under X
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 02:30:40 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sat, 26 Dec 1998 16:52:50 -0800, Fisch...
..and <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
I don't think the Microsoft mouse protocol supports three buttons. Switch
that mouse to PC mode and try it again, with a different protocol setting.
If you have already done that and I just fail to see that from your posting,
feel free to completely ignore this message.
mawa
--
Matthias Warkus | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Dyson Spheres for sale!
My Geek Code is no longer in my .signature. It's available on e-mail request.
It's sad to live in a world where knowing how to program your VCR actually
lowers your social status...
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Which book for newbie?
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 04:41:26 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I've got quite a bit of dos/win31/win95 experience and would like to
> get experienced with Linux. The two books I'm considering as an
> initial purchase are:
> 1. Red Hat Linux Secrets 2 ed., by Naba Barkakati, IDG Books
I don't know about his new book, but the old one (based on Slackware
3.0) was a gem. Outdated now, though.
I think his new book is based on SuSE.
>2. Special Edition Using Linux 4 ed., by Jack Tackett & Steve Burnett,
>Que Books
This is an good general purpose book for those who are experienced with
computers but not with Linux. Typically, it tries to teach you
*everything*! A different approach might be to get several books that
were more focused in their scope. In hindsight, this is probably a
faster way to learn.
You will eventually find (if you are adventurous) you need to know
more.
I would also recomend "Learning the Bash Shell" (O'Reilly). This book
will save you many headaches and make your linux transition easier. It
assumes you know most of the basic commands, though.
> I'll probably end up buying some kind of reference as well. "Linux in
> a Nutshell", maybe?
A good book, but you would need to know the shell basics first before
needing a desktop reference.
> I'll probably be using RedHat. Is it worth trying other distributions
> as well?
SuSE is good too. Red Hat 5.2 is great, and many swear by Debian (the
only one I have never installed).
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Orleans, LA
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Windows umulation (was: Unix vs Windows NT)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 02:31:39 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sat, 26 Dec 1998 20:04:38 -0500, Steve Revilak...
..and <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Ahem, you know that there are Wine and WABI? Both are, from a
not-too-technical point of view, Windows emulators for Linux. Wine even runs
Starcraft.
mawa
--
Matthias Warkus | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Dyson Spheres for sale!
My Geek Code is no longer in my .signature. It's available on e-mail request.
It's sad to live in a world where knowing how to program your VCR actually
lowers your social status...
------------------------------
From: Tobias Andersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Corrupt partition table and only L when booting.
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 11:51:26 +0100
Hello.
I tried to install Redhat Linux 5.2. I created two partitions. One
native as / (root) and another on my second harddrive as swap.
The installation seemed to work out fine. When it was time to reboot I
did so. Then I only got the first letter in LILO boot. A "L" and the
system crashed/hanged.
I thought that only the LILO boot wasn't installed correctly. I tried to
install Redhat Linux 5.2 again. Full installation again, and on the same
partitions. But this didn't help, same result. Then I wrote fdisk /mbr
at my two harddrives and restored everything as it was before the
installation, without any LILO boot.
Then I thought that the LILO boot was destroyed at the CD with Redhat
Linux 5.2 so I decided to install Redhat Linux 5.0 and upgrade that
version to 5.2. I created a startdisk and tried to install 5.0. When I
came to the part where you choose to use "Diskdruid" I got a warning
message:
"The partition table on device hda is corrupted to create new partitions
it must be initialized, causing the loss of ALL DATA on this drive"
The first drive, hda is the drive which I run Win 95 from. It seem to
work :), but something is probobly wrong. I couldn't boot 5.2 and 5.0
refuses to use my old partitions. The partition which I used for Linux,
on my first drive (hda) has never been formatted under DOS or Win 95 or
any OS. It comes directly from the factory. Maybe there is a small error
on the disk?
Do I have to initialize my harddrive and lose ALL DATA? In that case I
have buy I CD-rom writer first... :)
I would really appreciate some help.
Thanks!
/Tobias
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J�rgen Spangen)
Subject: making computer easyer too use and are unix better then windowes
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 10:41:50 GMT
>>Despite confusing nomenclature, XML is not a "programming
>>>language", so the answer would be "no". :-(
>>hm i readed that in a atrickel from wired that it could
>>but nerdes like u (not mean as a offens) lookes like have been in the
>>bussnis much longer the woired so u have prbebly rhigt :)
>
>Wired is known for flash and "geek culture/nerd cool", not
>technical accuracy. :-)
>
>Then again, the publication which _are_ supposed to be known for
>technical accuracy have about as much likelihood of being wrong
>when you get right down to it, as well. :-/
>
>>nice that u take time too rasie wanne be geeks :) and not that arogant
>>u-have-too-read a 600 page manaul too ever ask my qustien thining as many
>>linux/nerdes have
>
>Don't blame the Linux nerds; it is not their fault. From my
>perspective (which is solidly on the fence, with an end-user
>view of the geeks and a techie view of the users), it is clear
>that what is often assumed to be "arrogance" is generally
>run-of-the-mill cluelessness coupled with technical precision.
>:-)
>
>And it isn't so much that a nerd will say "you have to read the
>600 page manual before you can ask a question", as that an
>expert will say "you have to read the 600 page manual before the
>answer will do you any good, anyway, so why don't you do that
>first".
>
>Plus, you have to bear in mind; I'm a "special case". I make my
>living as a teacher of technologists; it is my life's work to
>"raise wannabe geeks". :-)
>
>>>In order to be *possible*, scripting must be supported by the
>>>operating system. But in order to be *useful*, scripting must
>>>be individually supported by each and every application.
>>
>>so too make that script stuff posibbel u have to make a new oss whit a
>>bios/config sys like file whop is written that u can record youer scritp?
>
>It isn't really an issue of specific technical requirements like
>a place to "record the script", but the scripting must be
>"system wide". Scripting support is not part of the "classic"
>definition of an *operating system*. *Unix* itself, for
>example, doesn't really have "scripting"; it is just part of the
>"Unix philosophy", and so scripting is built into all the
>_shells_ (user interfaces, as in the classic "command line
>prompts") and many of the applications.
>
>The real question is whether the more /advanced/ applications
>(like desktop software) will support scripting, and if a
>consistent scripting capability can be created, with adequate
>common capabilities, coding, and libraries/environment software
>to allow the scripting to be 'system wide'.
>
>>>[...]From your earlier
>>>mention of the 'bad old days of DOS, having to type in each
>>>command', I'd guess that whether you think Linux "will ever be
>>>user friendly" isn't a very qualified statement. :-)
>
>> ok but after talking
>>whit those guyes i know have installed linux(nerdes and those kind off
>>nerdes that evrything was better before and computers is not suposed too be
>>any easyer ... maybe becuse they are afrid that what they have learnd will
>>be obselt and ppl who are not as nerdy as them will take over? and lurking
>>a bit in linux newsgroupes
>
>You have a biased impression. Allow me to observe that this is
>due to your own defensiveness as much as the attitude of the
>"nerds". Are they "afraid" that "people... not as nerdy as them
>will take over?" Of course they are! They should be! Foolish
>newbies who think that the way computers "work" has changed
>because they can point and click through the most pathetically
>trivial procedures would be capable of nothing more than
>mandating "lowest common denominator" functionality that would
>make the skills these experts have mastered obsolete; not by
>replacing them with something better, but simply by removing the
>capability for advanced functionality. :-)
>
>>>I don't mean that as an insult. But you aren't 'a geek',
>>
>>eh im a wanne be geek :) i reconginde me as that what jon katz descrbe as
>>a geek but in not a nerd (u know the difrenms bettwenn geek and nerdes?)
>
>Whatever the current punch lines are, they are irrelevant. I
>put the phrase 'a geek' in quotes because it is a meaningless
>word commonly used in place of "technically self-sufficient
>expert". :-)
>
>I do enjoy Katz, however; I think he is hilarious. :-)
>
>If you are a wanna-be-geek, then your first step is recognizing
>that software is as stupid as dirt: ALL intelligence must be
>added by the human user. Once you realize how complicated that
>task is, you start to recognize that, far from being
>"rudimentary" or "arcane" (or 'needlessly complicated'), the
>command-line and text file configuration methods these experts
>use are terse and cryptic because that is more *EFFICIENT*.
>
>The reality is, it isn't an issue of them thinking "computers
>are not supposed to be easy to use". It is a question of them
>understanding, because of their knowledge and experience, that
>computers AREN'T easy to use, they never *have* been, and they
>are never *going* to be! The illusion of 'easy to use' is
>marketed hard and long by those with a financial interest in
>talking as many unsuspecting newbies into paying as much as they
>can for software which costs as little as possible to make.
>
>Computers haven't gotten any "easier to use" in the last decade;
>they just *look* easier BECAUSE THEY DO LESS! The only way to
>make using a computer "simple" is to make WHAT IT DOES *simple*.
>The great majority of "easy to use" in the modern PC is a result
>of limiting what it can do to only those things a moron can
>figure out in less than an hour. :-)
>
>>>I am not sure what advantage there would be in writing a "new"
>>>OS,
>>whey not ?
>
>The question is "why", not "why not". What about being new
>makes an OS any better?
>
>>and even windowes is too hard too learn for fokes who are not intrested in
>>computers..
>
>Using computers requires learning. The more you want to do with
>a computer, the more learning you have to do. There is no such
>thing as "too hard to learn". If it is too hard to learn, if
>you are not interested in using the computer, then the simple
>answer is don't bother to learn, and don't bother to use the
>computer. There is no magic, Jorgen. A computer is incapable
>of doing anything that the human running the computer is capable
>of figuring out how to do.
>
>There is, of course, the "someone else automated it" method of
>"buying software". But that generally is about as easy as simply
>paying someone else to do whatever it is you need done. :-)
>
>I'm sure you can tell by now, I am not a proponent of the "make
>the PC as simple as a VCR/toaster/microwave/remote control"
>theory. A computer that is as simple as a VCR is only as useful
>as a VCR: I have much more complex requirements, and would find
>it far more valuable if everyone stopped pretending that *using*
>a computer is supposed to be "easy", and started working on
>making *programming* a computer as easy as possible. The reason
>personal computers are useful is not because you don't need to
>program them; it is because you (theoretically) don't need OTHER
>PEOPLE to program them.
>
>>btw have u seen that magic cap os who was used on that geeneral magic pda?
>
>No, but it was designed for an extremely limited function set;
>any such effort can make things "easier". For any arbitrary
>level of complexity, however, the OS can only make things
>*different*, not *easy*.
>
>>what abut opera? will that be any os all opera (fast and do the neesary
>>stuff whioute the hype)and just take a few megbyte ?
>
>An "opera" approach works well, as the Opera people have
>demonstrated, but with one major flaw. It's all well and good
>to design a piece of software to "do the necessary stuff"
>without extras and as fast as possible. The problem is that as
>soon as people find it useful to do that stuff fast, then
>suddenly a bunch of things are *added* to the list of what is
>considered "necessary". And, of course, the naive and clueless
>end-user expects all the "extras" to be accomplished without
>sacrificing any speed. :-/
>
>As long as you are willing to limit what you want to be able to
>do, "easy" and "fast" are both possible. Too bad no end user is
>ever willing to hear "you can't do that; sorry" when they say "I
>want to...." :-(
>
>>a os for those who dont use computers today or for poor studentd whoit old
>>machines?
>>i dont know if anyone have thugt abut just got the idea rhigt now :)
>
>Heh. A guy named Jobs had that idea about twenty years ago
>(without the "old machines" bit, of course), to be honest.
>Worked out rather well for him; he's a millionaire many times
>over.
>
>I think your idea should be more clearly stated. "An OS that
>only supports web browsing and email." That's been done, too.
>It's called WebTV. :-)
>
>>is MS real doomed or is it just infomatuion warfer(s)?
>
>One way or the other, MS is doomed, yes. The real danger is if
>they aren't stopped quickly and easily by the US anti-trust
>laws. If they manage to get legal grounds for their dominance
>of the technology industry, it is going to be a very long, very
>bloody, and very expensive trip to hell, I assure you.
>
>MS is doomed, without a doubt, because ignorance is doomed, and
>Microsoft's wealth is based on ignorance. Ignorance of their
>customers to the reality of computers. Things like what I
>explained above: if you aren't willing to deal with the fact
>that you have to know more about what you want than the software
>does, then you aren't "using a computer"; you're just along for
>the ride, and may as well be watching MTV for all the value you
>are getting from the technology.
>
>>BWT is and resson to post does mail too a newsgroupes?
>>so we got some more wiews? or isnt it?
>
>I didn't quite follow that one, sorry. I am not posting to the
>newsgroups any more; I just don't have the time or the
>inclination.
>If you are asking why someone would post something to newsgroups
>rather than email, I guess "to get more views" might be
>accurate. I think my question would be "who are you going to
>email your views to?" I have you, of course, because you
>forwarded me a response to one of the messages I left on
>alt.destroy.microsoft before I stopped posting there. But I
>just don't care to deal directly with newsgroups any more. I am
>already well aware of what other views there are, why I disagree
>with them, and what arguments exist against my position. I also
>feel quite secure that those arguments are incorrect, or else I
>wouldn't hold this position. After a few months, it became
>obvious that nobody was going to be able to tell me anything
>important that I didn't already know (in terms of concepts and
>understanding, not in terms of facts and knowledge; I have as
>much of those to learn as anyone else does).
>
EVRYTHING IS JUST A SATE OF MIND
------------------------------
From: Zulfiqar Naushad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Monitor Flashing
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 11:01:20 GMT
I think I know what is going on.
Even though I am running S.u.S.E 5.3, I had the same problem, and I narrowed it
down to a graphical login.
Make sure that your login is text based and not graphical, and everything should
be hunky dory.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I ran through the entire compilation of the kernel, and everything
> seemed to run smoothly. I changed my lilo to reflect the new change. I did
> keep a backup of the old kernel, just in case.
> Now, here's what happens. I load up the new kernel. Everything seems to load
> up normally, as it did before. I get to the opening screen, which says the
> usual bit, including the new version change: (was 2.0.32 before)
>
> Red Hat Linux release 5.0 (Hurricane)
> Kernel 2.0.36 on an i586
>
> login:
>
> Now, if I don't type anything, after about 2 seconds, the monitor starts
> flashing on and off. I've tried logging in quickly, and I can usually get to
> the first prompt after password, but once the screen starts flashing, all
> commands are frozen. The only way I could see how far I got was the
> cntl-alt-delete sequence, but then it reboots. I figured it's just the X
> Windows messing up on me with the new kernel, so I tried a cntl-alt-backspace
> to exit out. However, I had changed my inittab file to make it start up in X
> Windows every time. So when I try to exit out, it puts me right back in
> again. I can't get past that first prompt to get into inittab to change
> anything around. Is there anything I can do to stop it and get it back to
> normal, or am I going to have to wipe everything away, and just start over
> again? Oh, and I tried the old kernel to see if it would boot up that way. No
> good. It starts loading up, then gives me a line saying somethign to the
> effect of Kernel panic: can't load extended fs, or something like that.
>
> Eric
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Caspian Maclean)
Subject: Re: Will Linux ever make it?
Date: 27 Dec 1998 18:22:54 +0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Caspian Maclean writes:
>> Some system for keeping track of which kernel was built with which
>> config file would have helped me, and which one was currently
>> installed.
>Which is, among other things, what Debian's kernel-package does.
I was using that (Debian 1.3) and looked inside the package, and
it was indeed doing a lot automatically. What it didn't seem to
do was keep a copy of the file made by make menuconfig. Does it
do this? What I ended up doing for the last kernel rebuild was
make a directory with a subdirectory for each version (only one
so far,) containing the kernel package and the config file.
------------------------------
From: Zulfiqar Naushad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SuSE or RedHat
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 11:08:21 GMT
This is what I have found.........
SuSE is more on stability, plus it is more POSIX compliant.
RH is more user friendly, having more resources (ie, usenet groups, mailing
lists) than SuSE
Both are very fast and stable.
Both support the RPM package format.
In the end it ends up as a personal choice more than anything......
I use SuSE 5.3 and am NOT willing to change.
ZioBudda wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 1998, darkstart wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Please help me choose a Linux distribution: SuSE or RedHat ?
>
> alt.. stop the religion war...
>
> > Particularly, I'm considering:
> >
> > 1. Ease of Installation with X, and upgrades too.
>
> RH and SUSE
> > 2. Totally commandline oriented installation -- no X, and upgrades too.
>
> RH and SUSE
>
> > 3. Stability.
>
> all
>
> > 4. Minimum patches on new installation.
>
> all and no-one.
>
> I use RH.
>
> Merry Christmas and Happy GNU year
> --
> Morelli <ZioBudda> Michel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> help:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ziobudda.enter.it
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Buchenrieder)
Subject: Re: Modem of the Presario 1238
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 07:50:05 GMT
[non-existant group c.o.l.questions deleted]
autodata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Javier Minero wrote:
>> Hi out there,
>>
>> Just got for Christmas a little laptop (Presario 1238) and I am planning
>> to install Linux on it. I understand that the video controller (NeoMagic) is
>> supported (at least on Beta version). The only problem I will have is the
>> modem, I suspect.
[...]
Right. All Presario models come with built-in WinModems. There's no hope
for you to get it working. Buy a real PCMCIA modem instead.
Michael
--
Michael Buchenrieder * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.muc.de/~mibu
Lumber Cartel Unit #456 (TINLC) & Official Netscum
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
