Linux-Misc Digest #543, Volume #18 Sun, 10 Jan 99 05:13:11 EST
Contents:
Re: good office package for linux (root)
Re: CONCLUSIVE PROOF: Jesus *is* King of the Jews ! ! ! ("Brian D. Short")
Re: PPP: Weird errors logging in to ISP (Don Johnson)
Re: Benchmarks for Linux multi-processor. (Stephen E. Halpin)
Hylafax - faxq unable to exec faxsend (William Gilmore)
Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers (David Kastrup)
Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers (David Kastrup)
Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers (David Kastrup)
Linux v2.1.132,SCSI 2940/U/UW dual not working? (M Sweger)
Re: Missing memory? Not reading (Chris Welch)
Re: RH5.2 "you have new mail" (David Efflandt)
Re: Linux: Fight for survival or on victory march? (Allen Gould)
Re: setting ulimit... help ("Karsten M. Self")
Re: CONCLUSIVE PROOF: Jesus *is* King of the Jews ! ! ! (WARHORS302)
ppp with isdn (tom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,pl.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: good office package for linux
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 08:13:15 +0000
Krzysztof Kajkowski wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wyskroba�(a):
> >Hendrik Boom wrote:
> [cut]
>
> It is real problem. But what can we (people who must pay for each
> hour about 1,25$) say? I have 33.6 modem speed and when I download
> something it is good when I have transfer ca. 2.5kb but when
> some prog. is outside my country there is no way to download program
> bigger than 2MB - because of telephone bill I have to pay.
> CU!
>
I guess we're spoiled in the USA. It looks like I shouldn't complain
for the lines that suck considering that it is quite cheap compare
to some other countries.
I can be connected all day on the net for more or less than 24 cents,
depending how many times the line goes dead. It cost around 4 cents
a connection after I go over my 200 calls quota for the month.
It costs around $38 a month for telephone. We're not charged by
the minute unless we call out of the county, the state or the
country. Usually the net is on all day so I can listen to the radio
in French.
--
Tann� du plantage avec Ti-Mou?
Alors essayez donc Linux ou OS/2
http://www.netonecom.net/~bbcat/
We have software, food, music, news, search,
history, electronics and genealogy pages.
------------------------------
From: "Brian D. Short" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
rec.music.hip-hop,rec.models.rc.air,rec.woodworking,rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang,rec.sport.soccer,rec.travel.europe,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.software.year-2000,alt.prophecies.nostradamus,alt.prophecies.cayce
Subject: Re: CONCLUSIVE PROOF: Jesus *is* King of the Jews ! ! !
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 22:47:53 -0900
Quick!!! Call Art Bell now! Or maybe Richard C. Hoagland!
Or, you could just shoot yourself and spare us the torture of listening.
Brian Short
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anonymous wrote:
> Here's absolutely irrefutable, scientifically-verifiable evidence that
>
> plainly demonstrates Jesus the Nazarene called the Christ to be the
> One and Only Messiah of the Hebrew Old Testament(TaNaKh). I
------------------------------
From: Don Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: PPP: Weird errors logging in to ISP
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 02:57:20 -0500
Sir Hoagy of the Marshlands wrote:
> Don Johnson wrote:
>
> > host: gvsu.edu
> > Access Controlled
> > Login: [EMAIL PROTECTED](the @gvsu.edu is required)
> > Password: **********
>
> Try this instead:
>
> Where it says 'host', replace the 'gvsu.edu' with 'ppp'
>
> I also authenticate through Merit/Michnet.
> Western Michigan University is my ISP.
>
> This is my dialup script:
>
> '' ''
> 'ost:' 'ppp'
> 'ogin:' '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> 'ord:' '********'
> 'TIMEOUT' '5'
> '~--' ''
>
> This should get your PPP session established without any trouble.
>
> >>Matt<<
>
> --
> **********************************************************************
> Matt Rupert - 1940 Howard #538 - Kalamazoo, MI 49008 - (616) 387-7830
> Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Amateur Radio : KB8SGL
> **********************************************************************
> I love Jesus, Yes I do. Baked or broiled or in a stew...
> **********************************************************************
Thanks for the 'ppp' host suggestion. I am currently(YES!!!!!) using
Netscape 4.06 on RH5.2/2.0.36, and am connected at the upper reaches of
56K.
Thanks again.
~/Don R. Johnson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen E. Halpin)
Subject: Re: Benchmarks for Linux multi-processor.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 08:27:44 GMT
On Sat, 09 Jan 1999 18:58:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ekihn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Still curious why Intel wants so much for .5 Mb cache. I'll have to get
>>more serious about my analysis of our needs. It will be hard to by .5 Mb
>>of cache instead of Gb's of RAM if the time comes though :).
>>I liked your cache discussion because it pointsout that no hardware
>>makes up for bad programming.
>
>About two years ago there was an article in PC Week about comparing quad proc
>servers with PPro 200s with 256K and 512K caches. The OS's used were NT and
>netware being hit by about 20+ clients. The systems were identical in each
>case. The 512K cache system had +40% performance increase because it didn't
>have to flush the cache as much when it switch processes. They used their
>server bench test. Obviously your performance will vary depending on the
>software you are running and the number of clients/processes.
>
>So you can see why Intel wants ~$3600 for a Xeon 450 with 2mb of cache.
It's also interesting to look at the workstation vendors such as SGI
and Sun who were charging $10,000 for a module with a CPU and large
cache for their workstations. The fact of the matter is that PC CPUs
are cheap because of volume and complexity. The cache on the first
Pentium Pro (256K) was a 15.5M transistor chip. Going to a 1M cache
in the same form factor meant producing a significantly more complex
chip in far lower quantity, which likely had a lower yield. You also
had to amortize extra engineering costs to design a far more complex
chip, along with managing all the thermal problems of dissipating 50%
more heat from the same carrier. Low volume and high complexity
result in high costs, and the same rules apply to the RISC chips as
well as the higher end Xeons. As some would say, "it's the cost of
doing business.."
>Paul
-Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Gilmore)
Crossposted-To: alt.fax,comp.dcom.com
Subject: Hylafax - faxq unable to exec faxsend
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 07:40:27 GMT
I am attempting to setup Hylafax 4.0pl2 on my Linux (RedHat 5.2, kernel
2.0.36) box. I installed the Hylafax RPM, hylafax-4.0pl2-3rh5.i386.rpm from
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/distributions/redhat/contrib/hurricane/i386.
Inbound faxes are working fine; but I receive the following error anytime that
I send a fax.
Jan 9 21:54:20 linux1 FaxQueuer[7784]: SUBMIT JOB 8
Jan 9 21:55:03 linux1 FaxQueuer[7784]: JOB 8: Send program terminated
abnormally; unable to exec /usr/sbin/faxsend
Jan 9 21:55:03 linux1 FaxQueuer[7784]: NOTIFY: bin/notify "doneq/q8" "failed"
"0:01"
The permissions on /usr/sbin are
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 8 12:10 sbin
The permissions on /usr/sbin/faxsend are
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 15576 Sep 29 15:45 faxsend
If I su - fax I can see and execute /usr/sbin/faxsend from bash without any
problems.
I do have the server and sesssion trace levels set to 11 but don't get any
error messages other than what is shown. There are no logs created in
/var/spool/fax/logs either.
------------------------------
From: David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers
Date: 10 Jan 1999 10:03:46 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E Larson) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Netnerd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> David Steuber wrote in message ...
> >> >
> >> >The only fact we have is that someone posted that a consumer poll said
> >> >that 81% of consumers thought that Microsoft was good for the market,
> >> >or something. That poster neglected to site the specific poll in
> >> >question, so we don't even know if such a poll took place.
> >>
> >> Would you believe the publisher was the Consumer Federation of
> >> America?
> >
> >who the hell is that? is it some kind of front group with misleading
> >title funded by microsoft?
> >
> Yes, as is obvious from this article -
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/990109-000004.html they are fully in funded by
> Microsoft.
>
> <sarcasm dripping>
I think you are confusing things. The survey is from the "Citizens
for a Sound Economy" federation. It refuses to name who paid for the
study. It does not seem to have been *created* entirely by Microsoft,
since its Website proposes a lot of other things beside letting
Microsoft do what it wants, like not spending money on education, not
signing or adhering to any international treaties against global
warming/pollution, and similar gems, as can be seen on their WebSite
http://www.csef.org
I think it is quite impolite to confuse these loonies with the
Consumer Federation of America.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
------------------------------
From: David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers
Date: 10 Jan 1999 10:05:37 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Louis B. Moore) writes:
> "Netnerd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > >
> > >The only fact we have is that someone posted that a consumer poll said
> > >that 81% of consumers thought that Microsoft was good for the market,
> > >or something. That poster neglected to site the specific poll in
> > >question, so we don't even know if such a poll took place.
> >
> > Would you believe the publisher was the Consumer Federation of America?
>
> Say netnerd have you read:
>
> http://www.stateandlocal.org/report.html
>
> "THE CONSUMER COST OF THE MICROSOFT MONOPOLY:
> $10 BILLION OF OVERCHARGES AND COUNTING
> Consumer Federation of America
> Media Access Project
> US Public Interest Research Group
> January 1999"
>
> ?
He is confusing this federation with a group of loonies called the
"Citizens for a Sound Economy), http://www.csef.org. They don't say
who paid for the study, but they also demand things like not investing
money in education, not signing any treaties against global pollution
and so on.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
------------------------------
From: David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers
Date: 10 Jan 1999 10:09:06 +0100
"Poison Ivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Johan Kullstam wrote in message ...
>
> >> If Microsoft wanted to maximize profits, they would jack up the price of
> >> Windows to $500. *That* would be a monopoly behaving at its worst,
> gouging
> >> consumers. A monopoly that keeps prices low does no harm to consumers.
> >
> >microsoft has never been interested in money. the money is simply a
> >byproduct and tool. what bill gates wants is *control*. his goal is
> >not `to be the richest guy on the planet' but `windows everywhere'.
>
>
> I believe you hit the nail on the head, Johan.
>
> Gates controlling the industry is not bad for consumers, though. If
> consumers get a valuable product for a cheap price, they will be happy.
>
> Consumer harm doesn't occur until the monopoly jacks the prices way up.
Last time I looked, Win98 was quite more expensive than Win95 without
any crucial functinoality more. And Windows 95 was more expensive
than its predecessors as well. And all this while the market spread
increased.
If a company is having a revenue level of more than 40% on mass market
products, there is no effective competition at work. So it seems that
the monopoly already jacked the prices up.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M Sweger)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Linux v2.1.132,SCSI 2940/U/UW dual not working?
Date: 7 Jan 1999 11:59:31 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Has anybody gotten Linux v2.1.132 working with the Scsi 2940U/UW Dual
adapter with SCSI Bios v1.33S2 and a 9.1Gig Western Digital hard drive?
Presently, I'm using DosLinux (the latest) and on bootup, the SCSI card
seems to be recognized for SCSIDs configurations (such as terminations)
and interrupts, but hangs forever and never sees the 9.1Gig WD hard drive
on SCSID0. Are there still problems with the 2940 SCSI driver?
The SCSI card has the AIC 7895 chipset too.
I see the Adapatec has agreed to help the Linux driver people out
developing SCSI drivers for Linux. How is this going, particuarlily
in resolving problems?
Here is my configuration and partition setup.
c:\ MSDOS and Win95 partition of 2Gigs running Doslinux from here
(at least I'm trying to).
d:\ NT4.0 and FAT32 of 2Gigs
e:\ MSDOS partitions of 2Gigs
f:\ MSDOS partitions of 2Gigs
H:\ MSDOS partitions of the remaining disk space.
NT4.0 works okay when I boot into it and it recognizes the disk.
MSDOS works okay when I boot into it from the boot menu and recognizes
the disk.
After booting into MSDOS and start setup.bat (the DOSlinux mini
boot before installing the full install) it hangs trying to find
the disk.
I would think that if the SCSI driver can't find the attached
devices it would time out and tell the user that no devices
found or that something may be conflicting/misconfigured instead
of just hanging.
Any help appreciated, since I'll have to revert back to my
100mhz 1Gig IDE machine (thats out of space) and can boot
without problem and version of DOSLINUX from my new 333mhz
9.1GIG ultra SCSI machine (DELL Optiplex GX1) that now the
only Unix that it'll run is NT4.0. :)
--
Mike,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Mike,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Chris Welch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Missing memory? Not reading
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 06:56:44 -0600
"(BXTC)" wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am running RedHat 5.1 3.0.34 and I had 64m ram running on a P166MMX.
> I recently took 36m ram more out of another machine and installed it
> into this one. When I boot it reads 96m ram so I figured it was all
> working fine. I was disappointed when I didn't see any performance
> enhancement. Recently I ran top and saw that it only showed 64
> available. Then I ran free and it showed the same. Does anyone know
> what I have done wrong/or didn't do? Do I have to read some kind of
> programs to tell linux I have more memory than when I installed it? This
> is my first memory upgrade in linux so I am working on little
> experience. Thanks for your time/and hopefully your response,
You should read through the group to see if anyone asked the same
question. I told him to RTFM, something I suggest you do. You should
check out buying a Linux book. Running Linux is a good one. Find these
things out for yourself! It's much more fun and rewarding. Not to
mention it'll break a bad habit. Check Dejanews as well.
--
/----------------------------------------------------------\
| http://www.chaotic42.cx |
| |
| Brain: It must be inordinately taxing to be such a boob. |
| Pinky: You have no idea. |
\----------------------------------------------------------/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Efflandt)
Subject: Re: RH5.2 "you have new mail"
Date: 8 Jan 1999 07:33:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 13:40:21 +0000, Ian Briggs
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>David Efflandt wrote:
>
>> On 4 Jan 1999 06:42:15 GMT, brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > David Efflandt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Why does RedHat 5.2 put a dummy email msg in the spool that is not
>> >> visible to pine and says it should not be deleted. This gives me a
>> >> "you have new mail" every time I logon. Where does this originate and
>> >> how do I tell the system (biff?) to ignore this dummy? RH5.0 didn't
>> >> do that.
>> >
>> >PINE puts it there. Stop deleting it and it will stop telling you about
>> >new mail.
>>
>> Actually if I do not touch it, it just says "you have mail" when I login
>> and the mail icon appears in X. If cp /dev/null to it, the bogus mail
>> notifications stop until it is recreated the next time I get mail. So how
>> do I stop mail notification for this bogus message? I never had that
>> problem with any earlier version of pine.
>
>I've just started getting a "you have mail" message when I login as root
>(but not as myself).
>
>Assuming this message is genuine, where might I look for this mail? (I doesn't
>appear in my usual Netscape inbox -- but then it seems to have materialized
>without any help from Netscape.)
I got the answer from the pine newsgroup. In pine configuration ("S","C")
see help (?) for quell-folder-internal-msg and X it.
Then "cd /var/spool/mail" and "cp /dev/null root".
--
David Efflandt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.xnet.com/~efflandt/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Allen Gould)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux: Fight for survival or on victory march?
Date: 9 Jan 99 21:29:24 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>
>>>This thing has been free for 3 years, and yet %90 of home users still use
>>>windows and applications written for windows.
>>
>>What an assinine argument!
>
>yea? just to let you know, I won first place at my school arguing
>compition. out of 50 students, I was the only one left arguning when
>eveyone gave up. so, here you go.
Which could just mean you're an even bigger blowhard than we
thought. (Really, if you won a debate contest I'd be impressed. But an
Arguing competition? Sheesh.)
>>Windows comes pre-installed in damn near every computer sold unless the
>>customer requests something else.
>
>yea, sure. first, one of you guys claim that Linux will be popular because
>it is free. now you claim the reason Linux is used becuase Windows is
>pre-installed.
>
>why dont you guys make up your minds which is it??
>
It can't be both? I started with Win3.1 because that's what was on the
box. I switched to Linux because (a) it was free, and (b) the
applications I needed were free as well. (the C compiler being the big
one.)
>>Same goes for apps as goes for the OS. Install linux on every computer sold
>>and OF COURSE people are going to be buying Linux apps.
>
>Nothing prevents anyone from downloading Linux for free and installing
>it. but after many years, still people are not doing this and there are
>today more Window PC than ever!
>
The normal user balks at setting their VCR - you expect them to start
installing operating systems? I don't know that many non-tech friends
who don't call for help when the mouse gets ditry.
>>Winblows apps can't hold a candle to Linux apps when it comes to quality
>>and stability.
>
>really? this is why eveyone call Netscape on Linux junk while the same
>Netscape product on windows is cool?? is this why Corel wordperfect 8 on
>Linux looks so bad on Linux while same one on NT looks so much better?
Haven't seen WordPerfect yet (debating if it'll run on my system), but
I know that Netscape looks identical on Linux than it does on Win or
Mac (except for the obvious changes in OSes). Plus, it runs faster.
>I can go on and on. as a matter of fact, applications on Linux are worst
>than those on windows. just mention ONE user oritented application on Linux
>that is better than its counterpart on Windows. just ONE !
Doom. I own a 486/25 SX computer. It runs Win 3.1, and will run
Win95. It has run Doom on Win95. Very slowwwwly. Switched over to
Linux, tried running Doom again. Linux version runs very nicely. I
run Netscape 4 for Linux - same box wouldn't run Netscape 3 under Win95.
>there are 300 millions in the US alone who use windows everyday and think
>you blow smoke. if Linux applications are so much, and Linux is so much easier
>and better than windows, and it is free, then why is it hardly anyone out
>there in the real world uses it????? (other than the few geeks offcourse).
Simple. Look at the want ads - what do they require? Windows. What
does 99% of the computers come pre-installed with? Windows. What do
the games (and yes folks, let's face it - Joe User bought that P300
for StarCraft, not for graphics rendering) require? Windows. And,
while people may be getting more comfortable with technology, they
still don't want to have to bother learning about the insides.
It's starting to change though. One of the best things a Linux user
can do is let people see what they do with their boxes. My mother owns
a P120. Her computer is better, using any standard you want -
processor, memory, hard drive, monitor, sound card - anything. But she
likes my computer. Why? Because her Win95 will crash anywhere from
three times a week to three times a day, depending on how much they
use it. My computer *reboots* maybe once every six weeks, with the
exception of when I'm actively screwing around with the innards. The
only reason she hasn't switched over is that she can't use some of her
standard applications with it. But she happens to use WordPerfect, so
it's slowly approaching the point when I can install Linux on her
computer. I look forward to that day.
--
Allen Gould <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Volunteer Coordinator, HTML Writers Guild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ST:CCG Tournament Director, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
The Ultimate ST:CCG Reference: <http://www.connect.ab.ca/~society/stccg/>
===============
"So, was this a two-case or three-case idea?"
- Drew Carey, "The Drew Carey Show"
===============
Edmonton ST:CCG Tournaments:
http://www.connect.ab.ca/~society/tournaments/
------------------------------
From: "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: setting ulimit... help
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 10:01:19 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rajeev Ramamurthy wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am having trouble setting the stack size (from the default 8192 KB) to
> 65536 KB using ulimit -s 65536. I have this command in the /etc/profile
> file. It works well for root, but if i login as a user then i get the
> message "operation net permitted". I really need with this. Please help...
Only root can raise a hard limit, which you may be trying to do.
Depending on your system you'll find ulimit specified in various
places. Contact your sysadmin to raise the limit for your userid or
group, or identify the method to do so yourself. This varies even among
Linuxen, BTW....
--
Karsten M. Self ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Welchen Teil von "Gestalt" verstehen Sie nicht?
web: http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
SAS/Linux: http://www.netcom.com/~kmself/SAS/SAS4Linux.html
1:51am up 8 days, 3:04, 10 users, load average: 0.26, 0.16, 0.15
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (WARHORS302)
Crossposted-To:
rec.music.hip-hop,rec.models.rc.air,rec.woodworking,rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang,rec.sport.soccer,rec.travel.europe,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.software.year-2000,alt.prophecies.nostradamus,alt.prophecies.cayce
Subject: Re: CONCLUSIVE PROOF: Jesus *is* King of the Jews ! ! !
Date: 10 Jan 1999 07:31:53 GMT
>From: Anonymous <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]>
>Date: Sun, Jan 10, 1999 01:45 EST
>Message-id: <b3a43b2681a24d42af03e39ec77ffc2c@anonymous>
You moron. If you want to preach or debate go post your religous views
somewhere else. This is a newsgroup for Mustangs. Stupid idiot.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tom)
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.linux.isp,;,alt.linux,;,alt.os.linux,;,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions,;,comp.os.linux.help,;,;,comp.os.linux.networking,;,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: ppp with isdn
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 09:56:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi I'm really new to Linux and need a little help.
I just bought RedHat 5.2 and installed it on my Pentium200.
Installation went flawlessly. X windows is up and running. Now I
want to connect to the internet.
I have a 3com Impact IQ external ISDN adapter connected to com2.
I've been using the control panel utility to configure my computer in
X. I used the modem utility to configure the modem on com2. I then
added the device 'ppp0' in network devices. I then entered my
username and password for my ISP for this device.
Now what? How do I connect to my ISP?
Thanks for the help,
Tom Bissell
[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
******************************
