Linux-Misc Digest #610, Volume #18 Thu, 14 Jan 99 05:13:11 EST
Contents:
Re: New to Linux (Gary Momarison)
Re: * and dot files (Bob McGowan)
Re: LINUS Can Suck My Hairy Cock .. or Newbie Needs Linux Help ... (RiPT)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Michael Powe)
Re: Partitions ("Jose Urena")
Please help - Mirroring (Kiwi C)
Re: Linux, Unix or Unix alike? (James Youngman)
Re: Linux, Unix or Unix alike? (James Youngman)
re: pppd and user permissions (Frank Hale)
Web-board (Gilligsberger Bruno)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Jim G)
Re: Fonts still microscopic on Netscape ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Jim G)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gary Momarison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New to Linux
Date: 13 Jan 1999 16:26:12 -0800
"Mario Amaral" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Everyone!
>
> I am new to Linux (i've been using OS/2, NT and...VMS), and i would like to
> understand the diference between KDE, CDE, AfterStep. Wich is the best one,
> can i run the same aplications in all of them (especially Staroffice)?
You can look them up in Gary's Encylopedia at
http://www.aa.net/~swear/pedia/gui.html
Almost all apps will run under any of them, but some programs (typically
named k<something> and g<something>) use features (and vice-versa) of
KDE and GNOME which won't be available with unfriendly competitors.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:10:38 -0800
From: Bob McGowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: * and dot files
chris ulrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <kqPm2.79$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >>
> >>Important!! Make sure that you do NOT include "-r" in the above command.
> >>The wildcard ".*" will match "." and ".." and will delete the parent
> >>directory and it's contents.
> >
> >Have you tried this? You can't remove a directory that's "busy", i.e.,
> >if it's your current directory, it's "busy".
> >
> >--
> >Dave Brown Austin, TX
> >
>
> It is just flat out a *bad* idea to rely on such things. If you
> mean to specify every directory entry except . and .. , it is easy enough
> to specify almost exactly that in not very much typing:
> echo * .[!.]*
>
> (this misses files ..* which are not common. * .[!.]* ..* is correct)
>
> You will live a longer, happier life if you simply never think
> in terms of .* unless you know *exactly* what you are doing.
> chris
Amen. It does not really matter, in the original example, that /tmp is
busy or
that some mount points will still be present. Everything else would be
gone -
no /etc or /usr/bin or /dev == chaos
My favorite solution: rm .??* *
The two ? marks MUST match so .??* will find all names starting with a
dot and
having at least 2 more characters (any file names .z or .a would be
missed but
in my experience these are rare,). Then the plain * gets all the
non-dot files.
This is a holdover from older Bourne shells which did not support the
negation
operation: [!.]
---
Bob McGowan
bob dot mcgowan at usa dot net
------------------------------
From: RiPT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: LINUS Can Suck My Hairy Cock .. or Newbie Needs Linux Help ...
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:29:18 GMT
My cock has little hair, however my balls are very hairy, thus need less sucking.
what the fuck is the diffenence, little windows ( i cant use a real OS) wennies
are everywhere.
Sechylmanos wrote:
> In article <2j3m2.155$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Omni�"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I didnt say copy a file , dickwad
> > (read it next time)
> > I said create a file , from nothing
>
> First off, there is no need to be beligerant about things... The person
> who you called a 'dickwad' was stating his opinion, like you said you were
> with the original post. How can you expect people to respect a request
> like "Please do not flame me .. its only an opinion." if you are going to
> be a hypocrite (not to mention an ass) and call people things like
> "dickwad"?
>
> If you wanted some help with something you weren't sure how to do, all you
> had to do was ask. For instance "How do I create a new file?" most likely
> would have returned many responses that could have helped you out.
>
> > >While in your eyes learning linux may be like learning chinese a) over a
> > >billion people have done it ( not linux, chinese ) and b) at least at the
> > >end you would have had the satitsfaction of having accomplished something
> > >you consider difficult....
> >
> > its not really a challenge
> > learning C or 80x86 assembler was a challenge
> > I meant that it just didnt flow right , from the start
> > hell I couldnt even have installed the thing
> > if the CD I had didnt have an autoboot funtion on it
> > yu gotta remember dude
> > I'm talking like 10 minutes after instalation
> > well 10 minutes after a MSDOS installation
> > I was cruising
> > I didnt have a headache like I do with linsux
> >
>
> The way I see it, something like learning a new OS is either a challange
> or it is easy. Obviously, it is not easy for you to learn linux. If it
> was, you wouldn't be posting the messages you have been. You are used to
> dos, you are happy with dos, and there is no reason that I can see that
> you should run linux. Unless there is a specific reason you NEED to, just
> stick with what you like. Linux isnt for everyone. If you don't like it,
> don't use it, but don't waste peoples time with juvenile posts to
> newsgroups where people are asking for help.
>
> > I cant even get to the CD drive
> > I type \dev\hdb andf I get permission denied
> > and I'
> > m supposed to be root
> > WTF???
>
> OK, so you get an error when you try to do something. It happens on any
> operating system that is out there.. and no matter how loud you yell,
> complaining about it isnt going to solve the issue. Did you check the
> permissions on the CD-ROM? Are you sure it's at /dev/hdb? did you
> remember to type 'cd /dev/hdb'? I have gotten my share of permission
> denied messages, and I have figured out why, and solved the problem. It
> is that simple.
>
> > and I'm just wondering if its going to be worth learning this illogical OS
> > as I dont believe it has a better future than any MS product
> > we are talking user friendly here
> > after all it is PnP these days
> > and no-one can screw up a win or NT instalation
> > but look atr all the
> > "hel" posts on the unix NG's
> > I rest my case
>
> Is it going to be worth learning? In my opinion, if you take the time to
> learn Linux, you will see why so many people are using it. It is solid,
> completely customizable to your needs, and free of charge. You can get a
> huge amount of software for almost any need (most of it free), and once
> you have it set up the way you like, you most likely will never have to
> touch the configuration again.
>
> You say no one can screw up a Windows or WinNT install? That's new to me.
> I work as a computer consultant, and I see the results of people
> (apparently doing the impossible) screwing up an install. You point out
> that there are a huge amount of "help" posts to unix newsgroups... That
> says to me that the unix users know how to find help and information.
> Most people I have to support daily would not have any clue what a
> newsgroup is.
>
> Everything is PnP these days because noone wants to take the time to do
> ANYTHING for themselves. Noone wants to know how a computer works, they
> just want it to do exactly what they need, right then, and right there,
> with no effort on their part. I can see someone wanting 'user friendly',
> but anything worth having requires effort of some sort. Personally, I
> found linux installation to be just as 'user friendly', if not more so,
> than a windows95 or NT installation.
>
> Once again: Basically, if you don't like it, don't use it. Noone will
> get their feelings hurt if you want to use windows.
>
> Sechylmanos
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 20:36:56 GMT
I have been reading these type of posts for a long time now and I just have 1
question.
Who Cares???
Why does anyone care if Windows is an easier to use OS than Linux (unless it's
to help improve Linux)? Why does anyone care if other people use Windows and
like it better? If most people agree that Linux is better than Windows from a
purely technical, OS design & implementation point of view, who cares if Mom,
Grandma, and the local 4th grader use Windows? I like Linux but I could care
less if by neighbor uses Windows.
I like to control every little thing on my stereo so I buy a digital
reciever, a DVD, a 100 disk changer, surround-sound, and $2000 speakers. All
you care about is listening to the local radio stations so you buy a $19.95
walkman. While you could listen to the same radio stations on my system
there are 100 buttons and 8 different components you need to deal with - with
the walkman you take it out of the box and it works. If 90% of the people
decide to use walkmans why would the other 10% care if they do?
If you want to argue about Windows being forced on people by MS monopolistic
practices, or how a single OS dominating the computer market is bad for
innovation, or Windows technical capabilities vs. Linux, or how to improve
Linux, that's something worth talking about. But these religious wars amaze
me - although I do have to admit - they sure are fun. . .
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: 13 Jan 1999 11:15:51 -0800
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "somebody" == somebody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Bill Gates is the Ultimate Businessman.
somebody> he has manipulated the inside track from the beginning.
somebody> his mom secured the dos deal for him.
Actually, Gates got the deal with IBM because the guy who originally
created the DOS refused to have dealings with IBM. Gates sent IBM to
him and the guy stood them up. So, they went back to Gates. At that
time, MS was an applications software company.
And what's the point of disparaging Gates' intelligence? He's
obviously a very intelligent man. Like it or not, MS created the
"personal computer" market. Gates has made nowhere near the marketing
blunders that have been made by people like that so-called "genius,"
Steve Jobs -- who is as remarkable as a cat. After making all the
decisions that insured Apple would always be an insignificant figure
in the PC market, he still has managed to get people to think of him as
the "rescuing angel" of Apple.
mp
8<---------------how-easy-is-it-to-demunge-an-address?------------------->8
#! /usr/bin/perl # if you are [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Another Luser):
while ($line = <>){ if ($line =~ m/^\s*$/ ){ last; }
if ($line =~ m/^From: (\S+) \(([^()]*)\)/){ $from_address = $1; } }
if ($from_address =~ m/\S+NOSPAM\S+/){ $x = index($from_address, NOSPAM);
substr($from_address, $x, 6+1) = ""; printf("The real address is %s\n",
$from_address);}else { printf("No munge, just plain %s\n",$from_address);}
printf("\nBrought to you by the Truth In Mail Headers Foundation\n");
8<-----------------------here's-one-example------------------------------>8
- --
Michael Powe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.trollope.org
Portland, Oregon USA
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v0.9.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Encrypted with Mailcrypt 3.5.1 and GNU Privacy Guard
iD8DBQE2nPDQ755rgEMD+T8RAq04AJ9kebqrBdN/jik5yWqZw47d9x9sYwCfbaxE
EKnYmSTdgaCcRc7vWljU/OI=
=xxvR
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: "Jose Urena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Partitions
Date: 13 Jan 1999 20:37:56 GMT
citizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in article <369c33ab.0@calwebnnrp>...
> Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> I am proposing something like this. This is for my personal workstation,
> but who knows what I might do with it. I usually compile a lot of
software.
>
> /proc boot stuff 50MB
/proc is not a real directory. it is a virtual directory that goes away
when you turn off linux
> / - static 0.5GB
I think this is a little large, 200MB might be OK.
the only thing that you really need to store in / is the kernel, /libs,
/etc, /bin, /sbin and boot utilities
almost everything else can mounted afterwards
> /usr - software - grows 3GB
> /var - log files - grows 2GB
> /home - user files - grows 1GB
how many people are you setting up for?
> /tmp - tmp files - grows 1GB
> /swap - swap 0.5GB
if you are reffering to the memory swap drive, linux will not use more than
125MB per swap drive
>
>
>
> I want all variable directories to have their own mount points because
say,
> I run a bad script that fills up /tmp and that has no consequence on the
> rest of the system. Same for /home.
>
> What do you think about this? Any suggestions?
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 12:38:30 -0800
From: Kiwi C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Please help - Mirroring
Please help. I been searching for a solution to mirror two harddrive in
Redhat. I could do it with my sun station but not on Redhat. Please
help. This is my third request any reply welcome.
Mail to : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks a lot. =o)
------------------------------
From: James Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, Unix or Unix alike?
Date: 12 Jan 1999 21:32:02 +0000
Sean Yamamoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> UNIX is a registered trademark of The Open Group.
True.
> Legally speaking, Linux is not UNIX because the source code
> tree isn't derived from their tree.
False (but this _used_ to be the case, years ago).
> You have to pay The Open Group a license fee in order to adopt the
> UNIX name officially.
True.
> Linux does mimic the form and function of Unix enough so that
> for all practical matters, it is Unix. It is not Unix in a
> court of law. If you read the documentation on www.linux.org,
> you will notice that they rather gingerly call it a "Unix-like"
> operating system. Read more about Unix on The Open Group's
> web site, www.opengroup.org, if this topic continues to
> interest you.
TOG are quite favourable (or so I have heard) to the idea of Linux
getting Unix certification, but part of the problem is that you stick
a version of your OS through the expensive conformance testing
process, and at the end you (probably) end up with UNIX certification,
but only for that specific version of your product. This is not a
brilliant approach for Linux, really. Money is also a problem (or
was...).
--
ACTUALLY reachable as @free-lunch.demon.(whitehouse)co.uk:james+usenet
------------------------------
From: James Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, Unix or Unix alike?
Date: 12 Jan 1999 21:34:02 +0000
Andy Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And, while it's true all the companies you mentioned have paid the The
> Open Group so they can say they're "UNIX", Digital UNIX, IBM AIX, and I
> believe HP-UX are not based on the AT&T UNIX kernel.
The HPUX kernel was originally based on BSD 4.2, many years ago. God
knows what AIX looks like underneath, but I bet it's very interesting.
--
ACTUALLY reachable as @free-lunch.demon.(whitehouse)co.uk:james+usenet
------------------------------
From: Frank Hale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: re: pppd and user permissions
Date: 13 Jan 1999 23:43:53 GMT
Mark Giesbrecht wrote:
>
> Hey there Frank,
>
> What I had to do in this case was to change the setuid permissions, so
> pppd can be started and killed by the _user_; this was done by:
>
> # chmod a+s /usr/sbin/pppd
>
> I read this about a month and half ago in this newsgroup, and have
> been thankful ever since. Hope this helps,
>
Yes the command in deed does set it to have root privileges. But it
still will not execute for a user. Here is the command I use in my perl
script which calls the pppd command.
$command="/usr/sbin/pppd name \"".$NAME."\"".
" -d connect \'/usr/sbin/chat -t 45 -v ABORT BUSY \"\" ATDT".
$PHONE." CONNECT \"\"\' ".$MODEM.
" 115200 noipdefault modem defaultroute crtscts";
As you can see I pass pppd the name option here. The error message I get
is
FranksPC frank ~> ppp-on
/usr/sbin/pppd: using the name option requires root privilege
If I look at the file with a ls -l I get the following output
FranksPC root /home/frank> ls -l /usr/sbin/pppd
-rwsr-sr-x 1 root root 106876 Jun 8 1998 /usr/sbin/pppd*
Showing in fact that it is indeed setuid root.
If it is setuid root how come a user cannot execute the command? Am I
missing something silly here? I have tried every possible combination of
permissions but no luck only root can execute the script.
Thanx in advance.....
--
From: Frank Hale
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: 7205161
Homepage: http://members.xoom.com/frankhale/
Jade: http://jade.netpedia.net/
------------------------------
From: Gilligsberger Bruno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Web-board
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:48:57 +0000
SSB3YW50IHRvIHNldCB1cCBhIHdlYi1ib2FyZCAod2ViLWJ1bGxldGluKSAuIFdobyBrbm93
cyBzb2Z0d2FyZT8NCg==
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim G)
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:33:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>spake unto us, saying:
>
>>And what's the point of disparaging Gates' intelligence? He's
>>obviously a very intelligent man. Like it or not, MS created the
>>"personal computer" market.
>
>I thought Apple created the initial mass public acceptance of personal
>computers with the release of the very successful Apple ][ line?
>
>And I thought IBM created the hardware and made the specs available so
>other companies could clone the boxes and create a popular machine?
Actually no - Compaq reverse engineered the IBM design and convinced
Gates to sell them MS-dos, which they customized for their BIOS and
system design. In those days there was no "industry standard BIOS"
so MS-dos had to be tweaked for each different system. BTW - IBM
sued compaq and lost - this lead to the rise of phoenix technologys
and their system independant BIOS.
>Windows rode on the coattails of the IBM-compatible PC, not the other
>way around...
All the IBM clones used a tweaked version of MS-dos to be compatable
with IBM and steal market share away from them. After the Lisa came
out, MS realized that making the user interface easier to use, would help
them grow the computer market - they knew the CLI interface of dos
was limiting their ability to sell systems. They "borrowed" from the
Lisa design to create windows.
Basicaly the PC market grew for several reasons:
IBM designed a cheap system
Clones copied the IBM PC and gave people a less expensive
choice than IBM
MS chose to sell lots of their OS at cheap prices instead of getting
a high markup on each copy (at this time getting a commercial
license for unix cost almost US$50K per system)
The unix folks thought the "toys" were harmless and wouldn't amount
to much. They basically lacked the vision that the PC founders had.
Jim G.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Fonts still microscopic on Netscape
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:45:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i mean, there really isn't any reason not to
> have higher resolution and simply use fonts which display at a decent
> size for viewing.
I suppose you're right. The 100 dpi fonts that looked too big when
I tried 'em at 1024x768 would probably be just right at 1280x1024.
> if you monitor and video card both support the
> higher resolution
Well that puts me out of the running right there. I have a
crappy Daewoo monitor that is not to be trusted at greater
than 60 vertical, 48.5 horizontal. It's a replacement for
the last one that blew up running at the RECOMMENDED
refresh rates. Damn thing has deflectors made outta chewing
gum wrappers.
s
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim G)
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:04:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Let's be realistic here. MS didn't create stupid users. They existed
>already. Windows et al made computers so common, everyone seems to have
>one. That's why you see so many clueless users. It's like making cars
>accessable to everyone, you're bound to uncover people who can't drive
>at all. Some people just don't have any sense whatsoever.
One thing I can not understand about Linux folks is why they think they are
so much better than 95% of the people in the world just because they
happened to figure out how to get a Linux system running with out burning
down their house.
A lot of my customers and friends are very talented people - they are NOT
STUPID and virtually all would be insulted by the statements above and some
would would be ready to reshape Chris' anatomy for his views.
The simple fact is that 95% of the folks in this world could not write a
simple basic program or wire their house for phones, but they share their
talents with us and help us live better. All these folks want to do is use
computers to enhance their existing talents - they have ZERO desire to
learn about OSes, drivers, compilers, etc.
The real challenge for the linux community is to figure out how to use
linux to enrich the lives of 95% of the world without them having to learn
anything about computers. If the linux community can do that better
than MS and the other commercial software folks, then linux will
become dominant. If the linux community either is unable or unwilling
to accept the challenge, then linux will remain a toy for the geeks
of the world.
Linux folks argue about technology nits, when what the world really wants
are tools to make their life easier.
Jim G.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
