Linux-Misc Digest #717, Volume #18 Thu, 21 Jan 99 20:13:10 EST
Contents:
can linux recognize fat32? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Firewall with linux? (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Linux keyboard? (For emacs use) (Erik Naggum)
Re: Newbie: Can't Read CDROM properly (fred smith)
Re: 2.2.0 and PnP (Mircea)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Chris Bergeron)
Re: Is Microsoft a nasty company ? I'm asking you this question. ("Shane Hulbert")
Re: Can I run a DOS Device Driver in an emulator (Andreas Mohr)
Re: VOX file conversions (mike burrell)
LILO that does linux at /dev/hda and BEos at /dev/hdb (Michael Perry)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Chris Bergeron)
Re: get your money back for Windows preinstalled (Arthur)
Re: Playing mp3 files (Chris Eilbeck)
Re: A newbie versus "vi" (w joseph mantle)
Re: compiler for linux (David E. Fox)
Re: HELP! 128MB ram linux only finds 64!!!!!! (Darren Greer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: can linux recognize fat32?
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 22:34:45 GMT
Hi, does linux have support for fat32? I have a fat32 partition and would
like to be able to mount it in linux but id doesn't seem to recognize it (i
have tried fat, vfat, fat32, none of which have worked).
Thank you,
-Gaiko
Gaikokujin Kyofusho
Student Extraordinare & UN*X Guru Wannbe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Firewall with linux?
Date: 21 Jan 1999 16:04:01 -0500
KaSI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> G'day,
> I have recently set up my linux box with the new SuSE 6.0 and KDE. I'm
> dialing up my ISP with kppp...
> Since some days I've wondering if I should put up a firewall, but I
> don't know if it really makes sense. I only have one computer, but I
> would like to have control about the packets send to and from my box.
> Can someone tell me (I'm sure someone can :->) if it makes sense to put
> up a firewall for that reason?
> TIA,
> KaSI
you can use a packet firewalling and perhaps this is even useful. the
firewall won't slow your browsing down significantly so the only cost
is setting it up.
robert ziegler has a *great* site explaning firewalls and gives
example scripts for both ifwadm and ipchains. it's a little bit
mediaone centric, but the stock firewall scripts can be easily
modified to support any isp.
<url:http://rlz.ne.mediaone.net/>
in addition to filtering packets, i am extremely sold on the
junkbuster browser proxy. this is a daemon which relays all your http
calls and filters them for cookies and content. you choose what sites
from/to which you wish to do cookie business with. you can block
banner ads. junkbuster hides your identity and allows you to
masqurade as a different browser. it's all configurable and it's all
free. as the junkbuster people say, `YOU decide what's junk!'
<url:http://www.junkbusters.com/>
ps for those in the united states, check out the anti-telemarketer
script found at junkbusters. the simple question, `do you have a do
not call list?' works wonders on an intrusive telemarkets. even at&c
and mci don't call me anymore.
hope this helps.
--
johan kullstam
------------------------------
From: Erik Naggum <[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: 21 Jan 1999 23:17:43 +0000
* "Mark A. Flacy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Except for certain standard abbreviations such as "Mrs.", "Mr.", and
| "Ms." In these cases, the "." character does not indicate
| end-of-sentence. Shall I also mention enumerated lists?
you're dealing with a different case than I am. you're free to do this,
of course, but if you wish to criticize something I do, could you please
criticize what I _actually_ do? if you had a question, it escaped me.
| Your redundancy isn't.
I think you're confused as to who has the problem you describe above.
| Your lack of capitalization would imply that you're unlearned, but I
| really don't think that you give a flying f**k what I think.
thank you for sparing me the need to tell you. but "unlearned"? really?
the criterion for being "unlearned" is not capitalizing the first word of
sentences and thereby destroying a significant property of that word? I
find it quite fascinating to see what people base their prejudices on.
somehow, this fellow thinks capitalization implies learned/unlearned.
somehow, this fellow thinks he has the right accuse people of things they
don't do and attack them for problems they don't have, but he would have
had in the same situation because he's of limited intellect. presumably,
this is what it's like to be his sort of "learned." one can only assume
that some other innocuous, irrelevant issue is sufficient to judge them,
as well. take skin color, for instance.
| And when it comes to non-programming issues, I really don't give a f**k
| about how clever you think you are for writing in that fashion. So
| perhaps we are in reflexive agreement.
I think I lost you somewhere. I must assume that you think you're clever
when you "discover" an anomaly like abbreviations and then make a point
out of demonstrating that _you_ have negative willingness to understand
how _I'd_ deal with that, and therefore _I'm_ unlearned. I think it's
the other way around. instead, you _impute_ to me a fault that is
entirely your own, and then you go all huffy and puffy about it. I
prefer the criterion fo learned/unlearned to be the ability to deal with
information that runs counter to one's expectations. unlearned people
tend to focus on irrelevant details. again, skin color comes to mind.
you're right -- I don't care what people think when they can't even be
bothered to ask whether what they think about something is true before
they denounce it and blame somebody else for it. as I said, it's very
useful to be able to detect such people with something as innocuous as
lack of sentence-initial capitalization.
I don't use periods after your abbreviations. I use two spaces after
sentence-ending punctuation. I don't break a line after punctuation
marks that would have terminated a sentence in error had the line been
broken there. thank you for asking.
#:Erik
--
SIGTHTBABW: a signal sent from Unix to its programmers at random
intervals to make them remember that There Has To Be A Better Way.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.slakware,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.setup
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred smith)
Subject: Re: Newbie: Can't Read CDROM properly
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 11:34:30 GMT
Calvin Mitchell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: How do I mount a joliet filesystem?
: I'm currently running linux kernel 1.2.x, but will be upgrading to RH
: 5.(latest) soon.
Unless you've got a kernel with joliet patches in it, you don't. Once
you've got RH 5.2 in place you just mount it and it'll be recognized
as joliet.
Fred
: fred smith wrote in message ...
: >Calvin Mitchell - Pacbell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: >: I wrote some ftp files on a cd-r disc using an HP CD-R 7200.
: >
: >: When I mount the disc on my linux or openstep system, files that are
: beyond
: >: a certain size show up as multiple copies.
: >
: >: Help!!
: >
: >I saw what may be the same problem recently, tring to use a CD with
: >MS's Joliet filesystem on it on my old RH 4.1 system. When viewed under
: >Windoze it looked like normal files. When mounted on 4.1 and viewed there
: >there were three copies of each file, each with identical names, each one
: >third the size of the files that showed up on Windoze. when mounted on
: >RH 5.2 (which supports Joliet, 4.1 didn't) it looks just like it did
: >on Windoze. So apparently Joliet is weird, makes multiple physical
: >files serve the duty of a single combined file, perhaps?
: >
: >And perhaps your CD is a Joliet cd and you didn't mount it as a
: >joliet filesystem.
: >
: >Fred
: >
: >--
: >---- Fred Smith --
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----------------------------
: > "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged
: > sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and
: marrow;
: > it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."
: >---------------------------- Hebrews 4:12
: (niv) ------------------------------
--
---- Fred Smith -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------ ----
Do you not know? Have you not heard?
The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom.
============================= Isaiah 40:28 (niv) =============================
------------------------------
From: Mircea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.2.0 and PnP
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 18:49:14 -0500
Yes, it's there.
MST
Brian T Riley wrote:
>
> I have heard a rumor that the 2.2.0 kernel will have plug and play
> support. Is this true? Has it already been added to any of the pre's
> yet?
>
> Brian Riley
------------------------------
From: !@#@!#@#[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Bergeron)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: 21 Jan 1999 22:56:07 GMT
> Eric> oh... and in the first place DOS was designed to _sell_ not
> Eric> to work. IBM got too impatient and decided to 1. go with the
> Eric> shit 8088 processors that that Intel were selling them for a
> Eric> 'better deal' and 2. go with Billy boy's "QDOS" excuse for
> Eric> an operating system that was stolen from Seattle Computer
> Eric> Products anyway. Then came the whole thing about IBM
>I don't have a jones for Microsoft but I do might irritated at the
>perpetuation of this falsehood. Gates did not steal the OS in any
>way. If you can't make a case without resorting to falsehood, you
>don't have a case to make.
Actually, I believe that DOS code was taken from original CP/M instructions.
I can substantiate this claim after I do more research, I'm sure.
-Chris
------------------------------
From: "Shane Hulbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.x,gnu.misc.discuss,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Is Microsoft a nasty company ? I'm asking you this question.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 20:46:32 +1100
No I guess they do not operate illegally, just immorally.
--
Shane Hulbert
Melbourne, Australia
==========
In article <777eej$cor$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nunya Dadburn Bidness"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Matthieu Hattab wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>Hello to everyone who reads that post.
>>
>>I recently have a serious discussion with a friend about the Microsoft
>>phenomena.
>>I have been pretty much against Microsoft for years (I'm 26) and doubts
>>begin to show up. Is really Microsoft a bad company. A lot of people
>>tell a lot of thing about Microsoft unfair way of doing business.
>>BUT HAS MICROSOFT EVER BEEN CONVINCTED OF ILLEGAL ACTIONS ?
>>Maybe most of people are jealous because Microsoft is the most
>>successful corporation in the world.
>>I read lot of your posts, but most of them demonstrate a hostility but
>>do not prove that microsoft acts illegally.
>>
>>I look forward to your comments.
>>
>>Matthieu Hattab
>
>
> Does a one legged duck swim in circles?
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas Mohr)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Can I run a DOS Device Driver in an emulator
Date: 21 Jan 1999 02:31:08 GMT
Norm Dresner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I have a special video card that needs to be initialized by a DOS device
> driver. There's nothing else available (unless you count windoze). (For
> the curious, it's a Targa+ overlay card.)
> Once the initialization is done, I could throw DOS away and run CP/M-86
> (only joking).
> I might be able to boot DOS, initialize the board, and then boot Linux, but
> that stinks, especially if I have to modify the settings.
> Is there any way that I can call (perhaps hack up a DOS-style
> load-device-driver-from-the-command-line program) the driver from a DOS
> emulator in Linux to do the job.
Either use DOSEMU with full I/O port access, or use Wine in a few months
when DOS driver will be implemented there.
--
Andreas Mohr
------------------------------
From: mike burrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VOX file conversions
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 22:59:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux Graham Blankenbaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Does anyone out there know of a program that will convert VOX files
| (that are played to a Dialogic D/41D or D/41H board) from a bitrate of
| 6k to 8k?
try sox...i don't have the URL handy, but it'll be at freshmeat
(http://freshmeat.net)...just do a search for "sox"
--
m i k e b u r r e l l
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mikpos.dyndns.org
------------------------------
From: Michael Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: LILO that does linux at /dev/hda and BEos at /dev/hdb
Date: 21 Jan 1999 23:53:40 GMT
I want to get lilo booting a install of be for intel version 4 that I just
did at /dev/hdb1 (do not know be's descriptor, yet...). I have suse 5.3 at
/dev/hda2, with lilo in the mbr. If anyone has a sample lilo.conf that they
use, could you please send me an email with it or post it here? Im using
boot diskettes now to boot be. Its not bad but booting from lilo would be
much nicer.
--
Michael Perry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===================
------------------------------
From: !@#@!#@#[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Bergeron)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: 21 Jan 1999 23:15:02 GMT
If I'm not mistaken, GeOS came out right before Windows 3.11 and when that
version came out, the wave of upgrades killed GeOS. I was rather fond of it.
I avoided Windows for years (I still actually have a copy Windows 2.0), but
eventually _HAD_ to put it on one of my machines just to stay current.
Chris
In article <77pjc0$eed$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>I remember PC/GEOS... running it on an XT could outperform Windows an a
>386.... but there were no third party software developers so it died.......
>The same thing happened to GEM for the PC a couple years before. I'm
>certain Microsoft used their weight to kill those GUI's.
>
>Richard Steiner wrote in message ...
>>Here in comp.os.linux.misc, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Morris)
>>spake unto us, saying:
>>
>>>>Some of them were, yes. Concurrent CP/M, PC-MOS and Xenix were
>>>>all multitasking/multiuser. DR-DOS was very similar to MS-DOS
>>>>but with a lot of usability enhancements
>>>
>>>What's intriguing is what they could do with such
>>>MINIMAL hardware back then!!
>>
>>Look at PC/GEOS as well for some amazing stuff on XT-class hardware.
>>(That's GeoWorks Ensemble 1.x for those that remember)
>>
>>--
>> -Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
>> OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris +
>> WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
>> Fish! Fish! Fish! Fish! Fish! Fish! - Cat, Red Dwarf
>
>
------------------------------
From: Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: get your money back for Windows preinstalled
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 11:23:02 -0800
[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.)
[snip]
> 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.)
(I hope I'm not missing something you said - my newsfeed didn't
provide your response, but someone's response to you)
Similar to what Johan Kullstam also replied, it seems to me
that just the reverse is true - normally when you buy something,
you can do whatever you want to with it. However, the license
agreement puts restrictions on what you can do with the item
you purchased. Normally, if I pay money for something, I own
it, but with software (under an operating license agreement)
I only have the right to use it subject to terms and
conditions. No contract - no conditions.
I think "contract" is a better word in this case then
"license" - it doesn't appear to be quite the same as
a driver's license or MD's license.
You're right that copyright law seems to take a lot of the
fun out of it, unless you could argue that the breach of
contract now makes it a work made for hire, or somehow gives
you ownership rights that supercede the copyright. Seems
quite a stretch though. Still, you probably could do a few
things, like reverse engineer, benchmark, or maybe run
multiple instances over a network.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: Chris Eilbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Playing mp3 files
Date: 22 Jan 1999 00:46:40 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee) writes:
> I've had success, with quality identical to Windows.
>
> The application is called X11Amp. Go to freshmeat.net and do a search
> for it.
>
> It's basically an X11 version of WinAmp.
Freeamp is nice, not quite finished but certainly workable and
visually pleasant.
Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (w joseph mantle)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: A newbie versus "vi"
Date: 21 Jan 1999 01:08:57 GMT
Sandy writes:
>>The best basic xwindow editor that I've found is
>>Nedit. The best basic terminal editor that I've
>>found is Joe.
> However I would like to use "joe" by the sound of it.....
You can get NEdit from ftp.fnal.gov in the directory /pub/nedit.
You can get Joe from sunsite.unc.edu in the directory
/pub/Linux/apps/editors/terminal. I believe that binaries
are provided with both of these. Good luck.
Joe Mantle
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| W. Joseph Mantle email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| Mechanical Engineering office: 217-333-5267 |
| University of Illinois home: 217-367-2918 |
| Urbana, Illinois http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~w-mantle/ |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David E. Fox)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: compiler for linux
Date: 20 Jan 1999 18:44:42 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Dowling wrote:
>charge of the course, but, as long as you can stick to ANSI C, it should
>still compile under Turbo C.
>
>If, on the other hand, you are being requested to write assembley language
>programs, then the question makes more sense. Assembley languages cannot be
>standardised, as they reflect the underlying computer architecture. In this
Well, 386 assembly language is 386 assembly language, whether it is under
Microsoft or under Linux, up to a point. That is, the architecture is
still the same, and whether one writes 'mov eax,2' or 'movl $2, %eax' is
dependent on the syntax of the assembler. The difficulty is how you
interface to the outside world. A 386 assembly language class will almost
universally teach the DOS and BIOS calls, which are radically different than
what you would use on Linux (would you call _printf? or go lower level than
that? maybe at the syscalln level... hmm. you get the point.) Probably
in such a course since you'd be learning the DOS and BIOS calls, you'd have
to use them to pass the course.
> Mike Dowling
--
========================================================================
David E. Fox Tax Thanks for letting me
[EMAIL PROTECTED] the change magnetic patterns
[EMAIL PROTECTED] churches on your hard disk.
=======================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Greer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: HELP! 128MB ram linux only finds 64!!!!!!
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 02:54:38 GMT
Try doing a search on dejanews........This has been answered hundreds
of times.
Heres a hint: append="mem=128"
DrGreer
On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 09:51:44 +0000, "Oo.et.oO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
-->hello-
--> okay this is really mysterious. first Redhat neglected to do anything
-->with my swap space and I was running with out it. so I fixed that and
-->while I was doing that I realized that linux thinks I only have 64MB of
-->RAM!
-->the bios sees all 128 MB
-->how do I figure out what is going on and fix it ASAP?
-->here is my free output:
--> total used free shared buffers
-->cached
-->Mem: 64108 62952 1156 30908 9188
-->27748
-->-/+ buffers/cache: 26016 38092
-->Swap: 88700 0 88700
-->
-->and /proc/meminfo:
-->Mem: 65646592 64475136 1171456 31776768 9408512 28368896
-->Swap: 90828800 0 90828800
-->MemTotal: 64108 kB
-->MemFree: 1144 kB
-->MemShared: 31032 kB
-->Buffers: 9188 kB
-->Cached: 27704 kB
-->SwapTotal: 88700 kB
-->SwapFree: 88700 kB
-->
-->I can't find anything on the web about this.
--> help me pleeeeze-
--> eric
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
