Linux-Misc Digest #707, Volume #18 Wed, 20 Jan 99 22:13:19 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux keyboard? (For emacs use) (Allan Gottlieb)
Re: StarOffice and Microsoft Office (Dave Barr)
Re: iso9660 not supported by kernel? (AK)
Newbie: wants to run Linux (Lock n Load)
Re: mkdir fails: too many links (James E. Quick)
Re: 2038 and Linux (Christopher B. Browne)
Re: A Tale of Two Installations ("Dave Nelson")
Re: How to get rid of LILO? (Ido's)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (jedi)
Re: IP telephony solution (Gary Momarison)
Re: get your money back for Windows preinstalled (Johan Kullstam)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Allan Gottlieb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.misc,comp.emacs,comp.editors
Subject: Re: Linux keyboard? (For emacs use)
Date: 20 Jan 1999 20:45:09 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rick Walker) writes:
> Documentation on carnivorous plants can be found at
> "www.hpl.hp.com/bot/cp_home." This address is useful...
>
> # This is *COMPLETELY* busted. I've noticed that in books on style,
> # even the hard-line grammarians/typographers are starting to acknowledge
> # that periods can optionally be placed outside of quotes for technical
> # writing.
Right! My coauthor and I put up the good fight on this one whe we
wrote "highly parallel computing". Our publisher didn't want it to
seem that they were printing a thousand typos so we added the
following paragraph to the copyright page.
In using quotation marks, we follow the American Chemical Society
Style Guide's recommendation for "logical placement", and place
punction inside quotation marks only if the punctuation is part of
the quotation.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Barr)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.sun.apps
Subject: Re: StarOffice and Microsoft Office
Date: 20 Jan 1999 14:00:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Timothy J. Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>StarOffice looks attractive as an "office" suite that runs on
>Linux, Solaris, and Microsoft OSes, claims to be able to use
>Microsoft Office documents, and is less expensive than Microsoft
>Office. (http://www.stardivision.com)
My problem is that StarOffice is a Pig. We have 4-way 300Mhz Sun E450's
with 256MB of RAM and I can 'feel' when someone starts up StarOffice!
(It probably should have a bit more RAM given the number of uses we
have, but still!)
--Dave
--
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~barr/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (AK)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,linux.redhat,alt.linux
Subject: Re: iso9660 not supported by kernel?
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 02:09:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:51:06 +0000, "Dr.Mistery"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Robert Ennals wrote:
>
>> "Patrick G. Heck" wrote:
>> >
>> > I installed RH 5.1 from CDROM, but now I can't seem to mount the cdrom.
>> > I get an erorr telling me that iso9660 is not supported by the kernel.
>> > If that is not true, then how the heck did it install? This is an
>> > installation from the boxed distribution on an IBM Aptiva E2U (AMD K6-2
>> > 333 Mhz) and I am using loadlin to boot from a win98 config.sys menu.
>>
>> Sounds like when you installed RedHat, you didn't tell it to include
>> iso9660 support in the installed kernel, either as a module or compiled
>> in.
>>
>> If you are lucky, it will have given you the compiled module and you
>> will be able to insmod it. Look for a suitably titled file in
>> /lib/modules/KERNEL_VERSION/.
>>
>> DISCLAIMER: I do not use RedHat. I use a highly customised debian
>> installation, so anything I say may be wrong.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Robert Ennals / Cambridge University / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / ennals.acm.org
>> http://www.thor.cam.ac.uk/~rje33/
>
> It happened the same to me. If you install the boot loader instead of
>booting from a floppy it will work
>
Not necesarily. Just get the kernel out of /boot and run that with
autoboot or your floppy boot disk. It should support your iso9660.
Same thing happened to me with RH 5.2
-AK
------------------------------
From: Lock n Load <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Newbie: wants to run Linux
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:29:26 +0800
Hey.
Im looking to run a dual boot system linux/win95 on my current machine..
I have 2 hard drives c & d, with win 95 on c, so i want to put linux on
D..
Can i put linux directly on to d:, or do i have to format it and set
stacks of stuff up to install to a seperate drive..
Im really just looking for a tutorial to set up linux on a system with 2
drives and multiple o/s's..
Cya.
-LnL
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James E. Quick)
Subject: Re: mkdir fails: too many links
Date: 20 Jan 1999 08:30:04 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian Rankin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I have a system (2.0.33) which doesn't permit me to create more than
>32,000 directories under a given directory. I can create trees of as
>many directories as I want, but no more than 32,000 at a given level.
>Attempting to create additional directories produces a "too many links"
>error.
>
>This isn't an inode limit as I have about 40% still available. Here's
>an ls -l of such a directory:
>
>drwxrwxr-x 32000 root root 24576 Jan 8 17:38 new2
>
>Is 32,000 a hard limit of the number of directories that can exist -- at
>one level -- under a directory? Is there a parameter I can change to
>increase this number?
Please take a step back and rethink your question, thus your problem.
Since directories which directly contain very large numbers of links
are less efficient, why are you trying to do it in the first place?
You are banging your head aginst the wall trying to do something
that is gauranteed to be an inefficient solution to your problem
(no matter what your problem is).
Perhaps it would be best to post an explaination of what you
are trying to design from a functional standpoint. You will
either think of a better way as you are trying to explain it
to others, or get more useful feedback from others for a better
design.
It's been my experience that most things are quite simple to
implement. If they are not, the flaw usually lies in the design
or the definition of the problem. I intend no disrespect
when I say "What is difficult is usually wrong".
--
___ ___ | James E. Quick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/ / / | Quick & Associates NeXTMail O.K.
\_/ (_\/ | If only the HMO would cover my allergy to gravity.
) |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.software.year-2000,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: 2038 and Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 14:11:01 GMT
On 20 Jan 1999 07:06:45 GMT, Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>Making C recognise 64 bit integers is the best solution. Making C do this
>means just a compile. No wierd hacks like the backdate hack. The only hack
>needed is in the compiler's code.
It is still necessary to make source code changes to cope with this. It's
obviously necessary to specify the new form of time_t.
Furthermore, it will be necessary either to add to ext2fs some sort of
"date signature" so that the date format may be detected, so we can correctly
determine if a particular filesystem uses 32 or 64 bit dates, or perhaps to
define the "2038-compliant" version as ext3fs. After all, the day that
the kernel that "does dates right" is released, there will still be a lot of
"legacy" filesystems that have the present functionality.
There is thus still some effort involved.
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - "What have you contributed to Linux today?..."
------------------------------
From: "Dave Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Tale of Two Installations
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:11:12 -0600
Hallelujah, brother!!
So good to see that not everyone in linux-land is self-delusional. Linux is
fun to tinker with and makes for a great hobby, but is too much like an
erector set at this time. It has a ways to go to become mainstream.
Dave Nelson
Giftzwerg wrote in message ...
>
>This afternoon - becoming desirous of listening to some web-radio on my
>system here at work - I wandered on over to the RealAudio site and
>grabbed their free audio player.
>
>Actually, I grabbed it twice; one version for Linux, and one for Win98,
>since this machine runs both OS's.
>
>Care to hear how long it took me to install RealPlayer in Win98?
>
>Two minutes (I got a coffee while it was installing...).
>
>Care to hear how difficult it was?
>
>I placed my mouse pointer over the setup.exe icon, and depressed the left
>button (note that since I have "view as web-page" active, I don't need to
>double-click and thus only did half as much work as I used to...).
>
>Care to hear how long it took me to install RealPlayer in Linux?
>
>I have no idea how long - since it *still* isn't working.
>
>Care to hear how difficult it was?
>
>Oh, it involved the usual brain-damaged Linux hoop-jumping;
>LD_LIBRARY_PATH, *.so, links, RA*, ldconfig, grepping for permission
>issues, trips to DejaNews to find messages in bottles from other poor
>souls who had the same problem, trips to AltaVista to seek out websites
>devoted to poor souls dumb enough to think that a web browser plugin
>should install easily...
>
>...the usual suspects that everyone silly enough to like Linux has to
>deal with every fscking time we want to install something new...
>
><sigh>
>
>Maybe it's just me. I've only had 15 years experience with *NIX.
>
></sigh>
>
>The Moral Of The Story:
>
>Linux is not going anywhere as a mainstream OS until the pain of
>installing new software is *always* commensurate with the benefit derived
>from that software once installed. A web-browser plugin is worth exactly
>one command and two minutes...
>
>...just like it is in Windows.
>
>--
>Giftzwerg
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>************************************
>ladies and gentlemen, please welcome reagan and haig,
>mr. begin and friend mrs. thatcher and paisley
>mr. brezhnev and party
>the ghost of mccarthy
>and the memories of nixon
>and now adding colour a group of anonymous latin
>american meat packing glitterati
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ido's )
Subject: Re: How to get rid of LILO?
Reply-To: Haisam Ido <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:59:10 GMT
Frantisek Fuksa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
All you needed to do is fdisk /mbr in windows
: Newbie problem.
:
: I innstalled RED Hat Linux 5.1 on second HD to Linux partitions.
:
: Originally I installed LILO to floppy and Then I was able to boot to WIN98
: (without floppy).
:
: Then I re-installed Linux (I did not know how to de-activate Afterstep), I
: probably installed LILO to my primary HD C:
:
: Now I cannot get to WIN98. I tried to re-install WIN98, but during restart
: (no floppy inserted) I see LI on the screen and the computer is stuck.
:
: If I boot from floppy(win98, I can get to DOS, but cannot start win98. It
: says that there is reg. database missing an I am again stuck.
:
: IF anybody knows how to get rid of LILO, I would appreciate it very very
: much. (I hope it is not FDISK)
:
: Frantisek.
:
:
--
+-------------------------------------------------+
Haisam K. Ido <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+-------------------------------------------------+
* ___
__ ___ ___ * * __ \
|__| \ \ | __|___\ \ \ / \|
___/ ___/\___/\___|___ | |__/ \___/\___/\__\__//
* * | * *
+-------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jedi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 09:02:05 -0800
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 14:51:15 +0200, Allen Versfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So pedantic!!! Something only counts as a standard if it is produced by
>a standards organisation? Bit weak to try and use someones phrasing to
>tear apart their argument ;-)
A standard can easily replicated without fear of legal action
taken against the replicator. Anything else is just private
property that's become predominant.
>
>
>Has anyone noticed how many arguments (ar'gyoo'ment. n. embryonic
>stage of a flamewar) on the net seem to be based on subtle differences
>of opinion as to the true meaning of technical (or not so technical)
>terms?
Some people miss the distinction between law and convention.
>
>
>Matthias Warkus wrote:
>>
>> It was the Sun, 17 Jan 1999 22:58:12 GMT...
>> ..and Bitbucket <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 19:14:26 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias
>> > Warkus) wrote:
>> >
>> > >It was the Sun, 17 Jan 1999 14:25:40 GMT...
>> > >..and Bitbucket <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >> Companies need standardization and support contracts. Even if it is
>> > >> somewhat of a ripoff. Linux right now has neither, and as long as the
>> > >> desktops, community colleges and training centers educate on MS
>> > >> offerings this is not going to change real soon.
>> > >
>> > >Now come on, don't make yourself look ridiculous by claiming that Windows is
>> > >in some way "standardised" or even "a standard".
>> >
>> > Well, I suppose to some that may seem ridiculous. But MS does offer a
>> > solution. Flawed, yes. But a comprehensive solution none the less.
>> > When a college or small to medium business shops around or goes to a
>> > consultant for a solution, he sells them on MS because of the name,
>> > level of integration between services and apps, ease of use and yes,
>> > standardization that this solution provides. Too much money? Of
>> > course. dubious quality? of course. But it is an attempt to offer a
>> > full solution to a need , and they are starting to meet it. And
>> > getting better at it. Windows in and of itself is indeed a standard.
>>
>> So, what is the ISO or ANSI number of it?
>>
>> > By sheer numbers alone it's fits this criteria. It's not a hurdle for
>> > a company to hire PC operators when 90% of home users have a windows
>> > OS on their desktop. If the business uses custom apps that are written
>> > to a windows interface guidelines then the training time is minimal.
>> > And it's getting worse. I see jobs for Unix admins in the paper, I
>> > see 30 windows related jobs to every one of the Unix offerings though.
>> > I'm sure this will change, and change for the better if Linux
>> > continues to grow and improve as it has. But the laws of diminishing
>> > returns effect ALL product models, whether it be a bizarre, or a
>> > cathedral.
>> > The Volkswagen (people's car) was once a standard in Germany.
>>
>> What was its DIN standard number?
>>
>> > Was is the best car? No, but it filled a utilitarian need. Windows has
>> > become an appliance for the people. People are leery of anything
>> > free. Didn't we all grow up thinking you couldn't get something for
>> > nothing? I don't believe that since I installed Linux, but I wouldn't
>> > waste my breath trying to convince my sister, or my mother or my
>> > friends who use windows, or my uncle, or my.......
>>
>> At the moment, you are really making yourself look ridiculous, since you are
>> trying to claim that if lots of people use something, that makes it a
>> standard.
>>
>> 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...
>
>--
>
>Allen Versfeld
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Wandata
>
>"I hate quotations" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
--
Herding Humans ~ Herding Cats
Neither will do a thing unless they really want to, or |||
is coerced to the point where it will scratch your eyes out / | \
as soon as your grip slips.
In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
------------------------------
From: Gary Momarison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IP telephony solution
Date: 20 Jan 1999 17:07:00 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hi everyone!
>
> I am looking for a good IP telephony product to install on a Linux 2.2 machine
> (Pentium-based). I know very little about the internet telephony, hence any
> suggestions, comments, recommendations, etc. are much welcome.
See http://www.aa.net/~swear/pedia/communications.html#telephony
I don't know about "good".
--
Look for Linux info at http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml and in
Gary's Encyclopedia at http://www.aa.net/~swear/pedia/index.html
------------------------------
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: get your money back for Windows preinstalled
Date: 19 Jan 1999 11:12:12 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore) writes:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999 16:52:27 -0800,
> Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One thing intrigues me ... If you read the link, Toshiba refused
> > to issue a refund according to terms of the EULA. It's seems to
> > me (although of course IANAL), that refusing to follow the
> > terms of the agreement (on Toshiba's part) would be breach of
> > contract (between the buyer and Toshiba). Since I'm sure
> > the EULA includes lots of things like forbidding reverse
> > engineering and copying, if they breach the agreement, are
> > you then free to do all of those nasty things?
>
> Yes and no.
>
> Consider the case of Microsoft providing no license agreement. You
> would have no right to make a copy (at all, not even for backup
> purposes). You could, though, reverse engineer it all you wanted.
> (Since that is not normally forbidden by copyright law, though that
> seems to be changing thanks to idiots in Congress.)
ianal. the license agreement does not enable you to do things with
the software, it *restricts* your rights (by threatening to use
government force against you).
this is much like `90 day warranties' which *reduce* the warranty you
would have had.
1) default warranty is one year in most states.
2) minimun warranty allowed by law is 90 days.
thus the `90 day warranties' is actually a `-275 day warranty'. the
company hypes the 90 day warranty as if it were a good thing since
1) explicitly denying a warranty wouldn't be a strong selling point.
2) they are on the hook for providing 90 days in any event.
therefore, offering a 90 day warranty might seem magnanimous, but it
is merely putting the best possible face on giving you the least
possible.
incidentally, making backups is a legal right established by the
courts. license or no, backups are ok.
> A 'License' lists what you may do that is normally forbidden without a
> license. (True for a drivers license as well as a software license:
> think of the meaning of 'permission' for license.)
not true. the word license seems to imply that it gives you
permissions and rights but in reality it can take away rights that you
would normally have enjoyed.
--
johan kullstam
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
