Linux-Misc Digest #625, Volume #18 Fri, 15 Jan 99 09:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Switching to Windows 95 ("jay")
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Paul Flinders)
Sound problem ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers
setting up NEC 1260 laser printer with Redhat 5.2 ("Steve Sanyal")
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Alexander Viro)
Re: GUIDs on UNIX/LINUX? (Craig Everhart)
Redhat 5.2 and cable modem configuration ("Steve Sanyal")
Re: Dell Latitude CPi300XT + Linux (RedHat 5.2) (Gustaf Erikson)
Call for Papers ("Linux I&A")
Re: Dos/Win(vfat) file to Linux file (ext2) conversion utility (Jim Nicholson)
HELP! Printer doesn't work with PS,SAMBA and OS/2 from Linux (Jesper Nee)
Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers
Red Hat 5.0 : usernet utility bug? (Neil Zanella)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 14 Jan 1999 17:49:58 GMT
In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.misc didst Paul Flinders
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> eloquently scribe:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
:> The answer to this is fairly simple. When the first PCs came out (and I'm
:> not talking IBMs here, this is before that, even) they had a microprocessor
:> and maybe 1k of RAM.
: I don't think anything which was sold outside the hoby electronics market
: had that little RAM. The early commodore PET had 8k I think, and the ZX80 (a
: little later) had 16k.
1, actually. And you could get a 4K RAMPACK! OOOOO! (4K BASIC ROM)
Then the ZX81 had 1K, with the posibility of a 16K RAMPACK. (8K BASIC ROM)
Then came the 16 and 48K ZX Spectrums. (16K BASIC ROM)
And then came to Sinclair QL (which Linux actually started programming on).
(48K ROM containing QDOS multitasking OS and SuperBasic)
Here endeth the Sinclair history lesson.
--
=============================================================================
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
=============================================================================
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------
From: "jay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Switching to Windows 95
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:15:58 GMT
That must be some good crack-
command.com is the command interpreter for the os!
John W. Rose wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>David H Hickman wrote:
>
>> repartition.
>
>Also (most important), don't forget:
> Once Win95 is re-installed, delete your ``command.com'' file
> in the c:\ directory.
>Win95, being a true OS and not a GUI shell, does not need the
>``command.com'' file.
>Win95 will run much better with that file deleted.
>
>
>>
>>
>> But windoze sucks.
>>
>> dhickman MSCE
>>
>> Evan Fuller wrote in message <6rnoe2$gft$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >I have decided to go back to windows from Linux due to its usability.
>> >However, the install file does not work under Linux and it does not
install
>> >through bootup. Can anyone tell me how I can install Windows 95 on a
Linux
>> >system?
>> >Thanks in advance.
>> >________________________________________
>> >
>> >Evan Fuller
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >http://www3.netgazer.net/users/fullers/index.htm
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
------------------------------
From: Paul Flinders <[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: 15 Jan 1999 12:37:04 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Paul Flinders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think anything which was sold outside the hoby electronics market
> > had that little RAM. The early commodore PET had 8k I think, and the ZX80
> > (a little later) had 16k.
>
> Where do you think the PC started out, anyway? There wasn't any "market" for
> them, the hobbyists started building them and writing software...which turned
> into an industry. But don't take my word for it. Go read a book or two on
> the subject.
Well I _was_ around at the time - I built my first "PC", a Z80 based system
with a massive 16k of RAM, in late 1979 and was aware of published designs
for 6800 and 8080 based systems for at least a year prior to that. However
like most people I have a fallible and selective memory.
The PC itself was arguably started by Kildall who realised that a single
"personal" machine was more cost effective for an engineer in many cases than
access to a time share system and built an 8080 based system and wrote CP/M
for it. I'm not sure what date that was - 74/75 ish? CP/M needs a few K for
itself and the BIOS and you'd need a few K more for programs so I assume even
that machine had 8 or 16k as a minimum.
There were a lot of machines around in the early 80's - the TRS-80, Exidy
Sorcerer, PET for "serious use". and the early Ataris, C-16s, C-64s VIC 20s
and spectrums for less serious use(amongst others). Later were the BBC Micro,
Atari ST and Amiga. Almost everything had more than 1k of RAM even then
(although I was wrong about the ZX80 but in the UK it was sold as a kit which
sort-of places it in the hobby electronics market).
In the late 70's a 4 or 8k basic interpreter was hardly bloatware, especially
as it usually went in ROM.
Moving on, the BBC had a 68000 add-on card which ran some version of Unix (I
still have one of the cards somewhere but I never got any software for
it). That 68000 card was around well before 1990 which brings me back to one
of the points of yours that I'm trying to show you is wrong - there were
quite definitely machines which were available in the PC market (even the
home PC market, such as it was) which could run Unix well before 1990.
> > There was a 2k basic available for 8080 (from Palo-Alto?). The Altair was
> > definately a hobby machine. In any case the BASIC on the early machines
> > went in ROM and 4k and 8k ROMS were easily available by the early 80's and
> > Microsoft BASIC wasn't ubiquitous by any means. In any case it was one of
> > the better ones.
>
> Early '80s eh? My DAD had a PC (DEC Rainbow 100, remember those?) in 1983.
> Christ, I was programming 8085s in 1982. Dunno exactly when they came out,
> but it was long enough before then for the Purdue labs to have some. You
> should remember that several years passed between the Altair and the first
> IBM PC.
'82/83 or so wasn't it vs '74/75
> > What do you mean by "UNIX-type" - multiuser/multitasking? Also you swing
> > from "UNIX-type" to Linux almost in one sentence. Since Linus used a 386
> > machine and 386 specific features then by definition Linux needed a 386
> >
> Listen...I was playing around with DEC Unix in 1979. That clearly is not
> something you could have ported (at that time) for any piece of hardware you
> could have had in your home for under, say, $4000. Probably a lot more. Can
> you now run Linux, SCO Unix, FreeBSD, etc on a home computer costing less than
> $2000 (which translates to a damn sight more in 1979 dollars) with network
> support? You bet your ass you can. Fortran, C and other languages thrown in?
> Certainly. My point is, Bill has, through software bloat, pushed hardware
> design to the point that people can now afford a machine that has all the
> capabilities of, say, a VAX 11/780, and is a LOT faster, has more HD
> capacity...what else is there to say here?
In 1979, yes I'd have to agree you probably weren't going to run a
multiuser system on anything you could afford as an individual.
However even by '82 or so things had changed - there were two strong 16 bit
microprocessors, the 8086 and the 68000 and both had multitasking OSes
available. IBM didn't choose CP/M 86 and the rest is history :-(
Seventh edition Unix would easily have run on an 8086 and it appeared in 1978
> > of machines around in the mid to late 80's which could run multiuser
> > multitasking operating systems, including versions of Unix (anyone remember
> > Zeus - I had an account on one of those around 84/85 or so)
> >
>
> Yes, and by then you probably had at least 500k of RAM to play with and maybe
> even a 20MB HDD (in the mid to late 80s, that is).
On that machine 256k, I think. Can't remember how much disk. It was
multiuser anyway so I shouldn't really have mentioned it in a "PC"
argument.
> > You seem to be arguing at least two things - that personal computers were
> > not powerful enough to run multiuser/multitasking operating systems prior
> > to 1990 which is wrong as there were a number of miroprocessor based
> > systems many of which could reasonably be called "personal" computers (the
> > Ataris & Amigas for instance) which not only had the power to run decent
> > operating systems but actually did so. All at a time when Bill was still
> > writing Basic interpreters.
>
> HALT! DOS was around LONG before 1990. Maybe you misunderstood me, there.
> What I was saying was, there wasn't a machine you could put in your HOUSE
> that would run anything like Unix, back when DOS was first sold to IBM.
> Am I wrong there? Show me. Bill was writing BASIC in 1976 or so, so if
> there were Ataris around at that time that had all that capability, then
> their dicks are squashed flatter than the guy who passed on selling CP/M to
> IBM.
I disagree. I had a Z80 which could certainly run "something like Unix",
(although, OK, mine didn't) in my house in 1980 and a 68000 board which was
actually built to run Unix a little after the time that the PC came out.
Friends had Amigas and Ataris which ran multitasking OSes around that time
as well.
In any case you didn't put an IBM PC in your house when it was introduced -
they were aimed at business. And what's 1976 got to do with it - I thought
we were discussing the 80-90 time frame.
> OK, enough. I am not ignoring the presence of the 680x0 processors. I think
> they were very nice machines and it's too bad they didn't hack it on the
> market.
They were pretty successful in the market of the time (in the UK at least)
things change, though.
> turned out well-designed software. NOOOOOO.). Hence my point. If you
> disagree, fine. Just don't throw irrelevancies out there. I'll give you
> that there may have been other platforms that could run some pretty decent
> OSs, but they weren't there at the start, and they weren't Johnny-on-the-spot
> like Bill Gates was.
I don't think it's an irrelevance - I was just trying to point out that
Motorola without the benefit of Bill G's bloated software still felt the need
to produce faster processors. That means something other than M$ software was
soaking up cycles and driving for faster CPUs.
I'm not actually disagreeing that there is a tendency for software to become
more bloated - I think that the cycle runs something like this.
>From some steady base CPU manufacturers produce faster CPUs, denser RAMs
and higher capacity hard disks. There is a natural tendency for them to do
this as the manufacturing process improves. Often improvements in
performance are a side effect of reducing manufacturing costs - eg for IC
production decreasing mask size decreases unit cost but also increases
speed. There is also a marketing lead tendency to want a performance edge
over the competition (and everyone wants a faster computer or more disk
space).
Given the increased performance software writers realise that they can
either a) produce software faster because they no longer need to pay so
much attention to optimisation or b) add more and more complex features
because the extra hardware performance. Sometimes whole application genres
become feasible because of the increase in performance - e.g speech
recognition.
Owners of hardware from the last cycle realise there's no way they're going
to be able to run the new software and have to upgrade. Repeat until Intel
have all your money :-)
Basically I think you're wrong that no PC was powerful enough to run Unix
prior to 1990. 1990 is only significant because that was the time that Linus
actually started to think about writing Linux. Naturally as a 90's piece of
software Linux would have difficulty running on 80's hardware but so would
most others. Unix started on 16 bit machines (or was the PDP-7 18?), 16 bit
microprocessors were available in 81/82 or so.
You're wrong that software bloat alone drives hardware performance - it's
part of the picture but I don't think that it's the main driver.
You're wrong that M$ produces all, or even the majority, of the bloated
software.
You're wrong that it's just increases in hardware performance which mean I
can now effectively run a multitasking OS on a computer which has more power
than an early 80's multiuser system. A big part is the fact that all computer
hardware (and software) is now vastly cheaper in real terms because it is now
produced in such large volumes compared with the late 70's or early 80's
And to tie all these up and say "we have to thank Bill Gates for Linux" is
actually funny.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Sound problem
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:10:18 GMT
I am running RH5.2
I am having a problem with an audio hum or buzz coming through my
speakers. This happens when I move the mouse on its pad or drag
windows arround on the desktop.
I also notice noise from the keyboard, for instance when a key is held
down to repeat, the buzzzz or hummmmmmmmm will be there untill the
key is released.
I use a AWE64 card
Has anyone else had this problem with feedback???
Thanks in advance for any help
Sean
------------------------------
From: [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: 14 Jan 1999 22:06:17 GMT
On Fri, 08 Jan 1999 09:37:49 -0500,
Victor Danilchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Netnerd wrote:
>>
>> David Kastrup wrote in message ...
>> >"Netnerd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >> The latest consumer poll shows that 81 percent of consumers think
>> >> Microsoft has been good for consumers, and 52 percent think the case
>> >> was brought to help Microsoft's rivals.
>> >
>> >Microsoft is not under accusation because of being bad to customers,
>> >but because of illegal means for fighting competition. And of course
>> >the case was brought to help Microsoft's rivals. They are the damaged
>> >party of the alleged business practices. Of course it helps them if
>> >Microsoft is restricted to fighting them by legal means.
>>
>> The US antitrust laws are designed to protect consumers, not competitors.
>> Has the consumer been harmed? Of course not.
>
> Hell yes, consumer has been harmed -- they have been duped into using a
>vastly inferior OS and set of applications, and they have been duped
>into not knowing how inferior they are.
"Vastly inferior"?
I'll admit, I do not like Microsoft or its software, but it's not
"vastly inferior", though it does depend on what criteria one uses
to measure superiority and inferiority. Linux is the most stable OS
I know of out there, running with the other Unixes that run on other
machines; NT runs second, and Windows 95/98 a poor third -- however,
functionality may tell a slightly different story; in this case,
Windows 95/98 comes in first, Windows NT second, and Linux third -- this
in large part because of the large amount of free/shareware available
for the Win32 platform. Linux admittedly has its own free/shareware, but
it's not quite so easy, even with Unix shareware/freeware behind it.
(Actually, this might be debatable. How does one measure the amount
of software available on a platform?)
If one uses "hacking defense" as a measure of superiority, then
Linux is clearly superior (again, it runs with the Unix pack in that
respect), followed by NT, and bringing up the rear is Win95/98, which
has more holes than Swiss cheese, or so I understand. (Certainly
Back Orifice is an interesting and dangerous hack.)
If one uses "Java speed", either Windows NT or Windows 95/98 (I forget
which) is all-out tops of every platform out there. Even
Solaris!
If one uses "useability", things could get real interesting, as
it more or less depends on the user's training. I would surmise,
though, that a user experienced in Unix would have little trouble
with Linux proper, a user experienced in Windows NT might
have some trouble, and a user experienced in Windows 95/98 will
probably have quite a bit, as Win95/98 doesn't know what a "file owner"
is nor does it have any reasonable multiuser support.
(Note that some of the GUI elements in Windows are -- interesting.
http://www.iarchitect.com/ has a Hall of Shame section, in which
Windows figures prominently -- whose bright idea was it to have
a *horizontally scrolling* list in the file requester, for example?)
If one users "games", Windows 95/98 wins hands down, although a
lot of them are still on DOS. (Linux is hopefully gaining some
notoriety as a rock-solid development platform for games, though.)
If one uses "OLE/COM support", Windows NT and Windows 95/98 tie,
followed by maybe a few Unix boxen running third-party software.
(Linux, as far as I know, is not (yet) among them.)
Similarly for Microsoft Office support. Of course, this one's
slightly biased in favor of Microsoft; I'd only be worried if they
*didn't* win in this category. (Note that there are other office
suits, such as StarOffice; not clear how Linux would fare yet if
one simply stipulated "office product support".)
If one uses "CORBA support", all the Unix boxen finish first.
I don't know if NT or 95/98 are even in the running. (This is
assuming CORBA's been fully implemented somewhere -- I don't know
and haven't checked lately.)
All in all, Linux has a lot of bang for the buck (in fact, it probably
has a higher benefit/price ratio, since one can pay $2 for a disk to
install it!), but it's not clear that it's "vastly superior". But,
for me, it's quite usable (I've been using Unix, or various variants
that were more or less Unix-like, ever since I entered college in 1980).
And it's more reliable. For example, I was running some compiles
of Borlad C++ 4.51 and the resulting executables (their examples,
actually), then close it down and run Unreal (patch 217). Unreal
wasn't happy; it hung and sound-looped. Rebooting "fixed" the problem,
but it does make me wonder what resource was consumed or what memory
fragmentation happened. Linux would simply not have this problem.
(It is still possible to run out of resource, but the other program
would have to be still running.)
And cheapo PC hardware can crash any system; it's not always the case
that it's the software. (Though with Microsoft's and MS vendors'
habit of cramming everything into C:\Windows, or C:\WinNT,
without versioning of any kind (Linux and other Unixen at least try
to use a nomenclature such as 'libc.so.5.44' for dynamically loadable
libraries; Microsoft can do major (e.g., MFC40.DLL), but minor versioning
is on a case-by-case basis), one is surprised it doesn't crash *more* often.)
All in all, I hope Linux, while not "vastly superior", at least causes
Microsoft to sit up and take notice. Who knows? We might even get
to see some of the Windows source code and study it, learn from it,
and maybe in some cases laugh at it. :-)
[rest snipped]
----
[EMAIL PROTECTED], hoping Freedows writes replacements for some of the stranger
COMMDLG requesters :-)
------------------------------
From: "Steve Sanyal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: setting up NEC 1260 laser printer with Redhat 5.2
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:25:18 GMT
Hi,
I just installed Redhat 5.2. I have an NEC 1260 laser printer, which of
course is not listed. I read in my printer manual that the printer supports
the HP Laserjet II language, so I have set it up as that. It printed a test
page, but I am wondering about if there are more compatible printer drivers
out there?
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: 14 Jan 1999 14:27:27 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For a while you could get CP/M-86, DR-DOS, Concurrent CP/M,
>>PC-MOS, Xenix and probably other operating systems for 80x86
>>machines
>
>Were these os's superior in a lot of ways over
>msdos??
Xenix - yes. DR/DOS and Concurrent CP/M - similar shit. CP/M-86 - even
worse shit.
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
------------------------------
From: Craig Everhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.programmer,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: GUIDs on UNIX/LINUX?
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:13:23 -0500
Mike Strong wrote:
> Microsoft provided a utility called UUIDGEN that can generate a globally
> unique identifier (GUID). I would like something like that that works on
> UNIX, and, if possible, cross platform. For my purposes, it does not need
> to replicate the algorithm used to generate the GUIDs put out by Microsoft's
> utility. I would simply like something on UNIX that could generate IDs that
> are guaranteed to be unique.
>
This concept originated with DCE. Any DCE client will include the ``uuidgen''
program that should produce just about the same format as the Microsoft version,
even if DCE calls them UUIDs rather than GUIDs (Universal rather than Global).
Well, maybe the concept originated with Apollo's NCA, but it made it to DCE
before it was hired by Microsoft.
It's a 16-byte structure composed of mac address plus high-resolution timestamp
plus some randomness, I think.
Craig
------------------------------
From: "Steve Sanyal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Redhat 5.2 and cable modem configuration
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:28:52 GMT
Hello,
I've been trying to set up my Rogers Wave @home service with Linux 5.2,
which I just installed on my system earlier this week. I am very new to
UNIX and Linux - I'm currently learning UNIX in a course at university.
The HOWTO docs appear to describe the setup for a static IP setup, but I
know that Rogers uses DHCP these days. I suspect that the document is from
an earlier time, but this has left me a bit confused.
I have set up my DHCP client in Linuxconfig and I originally set it up when
I installed Linux. That worked fine. In Windows NT (my other operating
system), all I had to do was say that my DHCP would assign an IP address,
and it took care of the rest. I have a device called eth0, which has set up
my ethernet card, and it is activated (as I can see in the network
configuration parameters in Xfree86).
However, I cannot connect to the net. I've tried setting up the IP address,
the default gateway and subnet mask (which I obtained using the ipconfig
program in Windows NT) manually as well when Netscape didn't work, and it
hasn't made a difference.
I set my hostname value to CRxxxxxx-A which is the same hostname I use in
Windows NT. Netscape simply says that any address I enter does not have a
DNS entry, which I realize means my TCP/IP has not been set up correctly.
I'd really like to get this up and running, as well as my mail account, so I
can start using Linux more regularly. Are there any good sites that would
be a useful guide to a novice such as myself? I also want to make sure that
I don't leave my computer open to hackers!
Thanks
Steve
------------------------------
From: Gustaf Erikson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.laptops
Subject: Re: Dell Latitude CPi300XT + Linux (RedHat 5.2)
Date: 15 Jan 1999 14:15:45 +0100
Rickard Rickardsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> Hi
>
> Has anybbody installed Linux (preferably RedHat 5.2) on
> Dell Latitude CPi 300XT ?????
>
I've installed Debian... no major problems[1]. As far as I know, the
only things different from a 266 are processor speed, hard disk size
etc.
> I've seen a page covering installation on a Dell Latitude CPi266XT
> and that really should be the same ... BUT I want to be sure !!!
Debian lags behind Red Hat in some things, but i was able to install
the NeoMagic X server without trouble. It's a nice Linux-machine :-)
>
> I don't want to buy commercial stuffs like the xserver etc !!!
>
Who does?
[1] small problems are 3-button emulation, APM and PCMCIA...
--
Gustaf Erikson <---*---> 59*19'N 18*05'E
<http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~f92-ger/>
------------------------------
From: "Linux I&A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Call for Papers
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 19:09:19 -0700
Call for Papers:
My company is publishing a new Linux technical journal focusing on
Integration and Administration. We invite members of the Linux community to
submit papers worthy of publication. If your submission is accepted for
publication, it will be edited for length, content, and format. The author
will be paid for any paper that is published, either on our web-site or in
journal form.
Please send papers electronically to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or, if you wish,
mail submissions to
Linux Integration and Administration
799 W 1150 S
Payson, Utah, USA
84561
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Dos/Win(vfat) file to Linux file (ext2) conversion utility
From: Jim Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 13 Jan 1999 23:34:13 +0000
"Scott Shields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a video driver on a Dos disk. How can I convert the Dos file to the
> Linux file structure so that I can use "cp" or "mv" to place the file in the
> /tmp directory from a mounted floppy.
If you have _mounted_ the floppy then just cp or mv the file, eg.
cp /mnt/floppy/file /tmp
>
> I understand that mtools can take a file from Linux to Dos file structure,
> how about for the reverse process?
mcopy a:filename /tmp
You obviously haven't read the mtools man pages.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Scott
>
>
--
I am Dyslexic of Borg. Prepare to have your arse laminated.
------------------------------
From: Jesper Nee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: HELP! Printer doesn't work with PS,SAMBA and OS/2 from Linux
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:37:41 +0000
Hi gurus,
I hope this is the correct newsgroup for this question.
I have a problem.....
I am new to Linux, Gostscript and Samba. I get garbage when I print
using Samba
from a RedHAt 5.1 with GS 5.5 to an OS/2 Warp 4 with an IBM 4019 E
Laserprinte
r.
I have tried to use HP Laserjet and Laserjet II as filters on the Linux
side. A
SCII printing works fine but when I try to print a Postscript testpage
or print
s from WP8 it simply doesn't work. :-(
The Warp computer has an IBM 4019 printerdriver and does not use IRQ
printing(i
f that matters).
I am desperate!! Is there anybody out there that has some input it would
be gre
atly appreciated.
Please email me directly at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards
Jesper Nee
------------------------------
From: [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: 14 Jan 1999 22:14:54 GMT
On 12 Jan 1999 13:58:18 +0100,
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Crabtree) writes:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote:
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> >man, these Linux geeks have to get out more and learn about the real world
>> >to find what people use computers for!
>>
>> YOU mean to tell ME that /I/ am the /ONLY/ one who bought for heating
>> purposes?!?! <G>
>
>Linux sucks for heating purposes as it puts the processor into "HALT"
>state whenever it has nothing to do.
>
>For heating purposes, Windows 95 is the much more useful platform (as
>opposed to NT which also HALTs the processor). Does anybody know
>whether a system crash can accidetally put Windows 95 into HALT mode,
>or does it heat reliably also in that situation?
I dunno about system crashes, but holding down a mouse button does
seem to keep Win95 and WinNT busy, according to the performance monitors.
Go figure. Is Windows *that* brain dead that it has to expend all
of the Pentium's processing power on a simple mouse press?
>
>--
>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
----
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- but the Apollo DN660 still made a darned good toe heater
------------------------------
From: Neil Zanella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Red Hat 5.0 : usernet utility bug?
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:54:47 -0330
Hello,
I was able to set up a PPP connection that uses PAP using
Red Hat 5.0 's control-panel utility.
I allowed users to activate the interface in the control-panel's options.
I can thus activate an interface with the usernet utility by pressing
the ppp"x" button. However, once connected I am unable to disactivate the
interface by pressing the button again. Is this a bug in the usernet utility?
Thanks,
Neil
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
