Linux-Misc Digest #760, Volume #18 Mon, 25 Jan 99 20:13:13 EST
Contents:
"Prob's" with LILO or other bootmanager ??? ("(T@t2)Spin" @ping.be>)
Re: Linux keyboard? (For emacs use) (Erik Naggum)
Re: which windowing manager + java ("David Z. Maze")
Re: Advice for Microsoft-haters (Fedorov Greg)
Re: Installing a WinModem under Linux (joh)
Re: Criminally Insane Programmers Are Attracted To Open Source Code (steve mcadams)
Re: Error recompiling redhat 5.2 kernel ("JLS")
Newbie Soundcard Problem ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux on IBM Thinkpad 370C ? ("Scott D. Hernalsteen")
Re: Linux or FreeBSD? (steve mcadams)
Re: Yacc/Lex vs Bison/Flex (Timothy J. Lee)
scsi errors ("steve mcconnell")
How to read /proc/loadavg??? (Ken Williams)
Re: How to capture interactive screen display? (cOOp's)
Re: Antivirus (Seth Van Oort)
Re: Criminally Insane Programmers Are Attracted To Open Source Code (steve mcadams)
Re: Linux keyboard? (For emacs use) (Sven Utcke)
Re: Criminally Insane Programmers Are Attracted To Open Source Code (steve mcadams)
Re: Criminally Insane Programmers Are Attracted To Open Source Code (steve mcadams)
Re: Criminally Insane Programmers Are Attracted To Open Source Code (steve mcadams)
Re: Antivirus (Brian Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "(T@t2)Spin" <Tattoo.Spin<nospam>@ping.be>
Subject: "Prob's" with LILO or other bootmanager ???
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 01:04:04 +0100
After installing RedHat 5.0, we normally should start Linux, but after de
message
" Verifying DMI Pool Data ... " we get the follow ERROR
Default system 0042ec10 not found, hit any key
after hitting a key, we get the normal bootmanager ( Partition Magic )
Our question is what is the exact problem ( and solution ) and how could we
get Linux fixed in the bootmanager ?
These are the partitions we've ment in the bootmanager :
===============
Volume Type Size MB Used MB
FREE MB Status
*: Boot Manager 7,8
7,8 0,0 Active
*: BACKWIN98 Hidden FAT 1066,8 529,9
536,9 Hidden
*: WIN98 FAT 1066,8
521,9 544,9 Bootable
*: Extended 1968,9
1968,9 0,0 None
*: Linux Ext2 1741,4
1741,4 0,0 *None
*: Linux Swap 227,5
227,5 0,0 Bootable
================
Wich "linux" must normally boot ??? The ext2 or swap ???
--
(T@t2)Spin
De eerste Nederlandstalige tatoe�erder / auteur / uitgever op internet ( met
vraagbaak )
Http://www.ping.be/tattoo-spin
------------------------------
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: 25 Jan 1999 23:59:08 +0000
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David E. Fox)
| Interesting. Did it just drop out of use suddenly, or did people get
| tired of capitalizing every noun? Did it have anything to do with the
| advent of the typewriter or other devices?
very little information is available about the reasons it was dropped. I
have tried to research this, but it is sufficiently long ago that not
much has been recorded about such issues. writing styles and such
weren't people's concerns, really. I guess all they did was write and
hope people understood them. (much like English Elizabethan spelling.)
| About the only thing (that I know of, not being German, but only from
| study) that's been lexicographally dropped from common usage within the
| last century or so is "th". It used to be extremely common up to about
| 1900 or so.
yes, fidelity to the Greek etymology required "breathing" letters, and it
probably was contagious, like split infinitives and ending sentences with
prepositions in English is frowned upon because of Latin envy, but this
has been dropped in they pronunciation of many a language.
| I think that formal communication should still use correct grammar and
| style, but electronic communication is decidedly less formal.
... and not even close to deserving the kind of time and attention that
"final copy" receives for print publication. (I pity those who think of
USENET as their primary venue for publishing, yet some people behave as
if it is -- as a USENET user since 1987, I haven't quite gotten used to
the idea that USENET is taken so seriously as to demand coverage in
national newspapers. I tend to regret it whenever I accept interviews,
although my ever-present companion cat looks good in the pictures, but I
digress.)
| I'd opt for the second sentence, but it takes longer to write, and
| shorter sentences are better generally anyway -- which has us using
| one axiom of style as a justification for breaking another. Oh well.
:) life's tough, eh? writing short sentences takes me too long. but I
guess that's really obvious by now, anyway.
#: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.
------------------------------
From: "David Z. Maze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: which windowing manager + java
Date: 25 Jan 1999 19:25:15 -0500
Dawid Michalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DM> 1.what is the most stable X windowing manager for Linux(I use
DM> Intel RH5.1)
The most stable window manager would be, without a doubt, twm. I've
never heard of anybody's twm crashing, and twm doesn't suffer from the
feeping creaturism that surrounds most of the window managers under
active development.
DM> 2.Is there support for java syntax highlighting in Xemacs?
Yes. Unless you've done strange things in your .emacs file, it should
Just Work (TM).
--
_____________________________
/ \ "Dad was reading a book called
| David Maze | _Schroedinger's Kittens_. Asexual
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | reproduction? Only one cat is in the box."
| http://donut.mit.edu/dmaze/ | -- Abra Mitchell
\_____________________________/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:17:24 -0500
From: Fedorov Greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Advice for Microsoft-haters
pdohert wrote:
> Michael Powe wrote:
> > Hard to see where you got the idea that "the US has pretty much
> > initiated the whole thing." The modern "computer revolution" started
> > in Britain. Americans are too self-congratulatory for my taste. They
> > seem to forget a few major technological facts, like they got hosed in
> > automotive technology and manufacturing technologies and had to play
> > catchup in electronic technologies. Isn't anybody here old enough to
> > remember that American businessmen thought transistors would be of no
> > serious commercial value? American businessmen are noted around the
> > world for their inability to see beyond next quarter's earnings
> > chart.
>
> What does the vision (or lack thereof) of businessmen in forecasting the
> usefulness or competetive edge of new technology have to do with the
> point that the technology was *created* here?
>
> Makes it pretty easy to see where the "US has pretty much initiated the
> whole thing" comes from... :-)
>
> --
>
> Paul Doherty
> Systems Analyst/Programmer
> http://www.dfw.net/~pdoherty
> Home of PC DiskMaster
Yes, it was created here, but *Americans* didn't envent anything, all the
scientist and programmers (or the great majority of them) are either
immigrants (i.e. are NOT americans, or are not of "american" nationality
(if there is such a thing)) or simly are working for big buck american
companies here but do not consider themselves as americans.
------------------------------
From: joh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Installing a WinModem under Linux
Date: 25 Jan 1999 11:39:58 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh) writes:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Martin Gillett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ... A Winmodem removes at least 100MHZ from the speed of your
> processor.
Hmm. What is the source of this figure? How come mine works (in
Windows) with my Pentium 100 without noticeably slowing things down?
(Granted, I don't usually do intensive tasks while I'm online, but I
do run three or four apps-- typically bloated Windows apps-- at a time.)
--
o ! [EMAIL PROTECTED]
j h [nix the x to reply]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Criminally Insane Programmers Are Attracted To Open Source Code
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:23:09 GMT
[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 21:30:29 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David H.
McCoy) wrote:
>I don't think it is an issue of pro or anti-MS, but of common sense.
>Anyone who's bother to do any trivial amount of reading would know that
>mainframes command the lion's share of Y2K.
The real problem isn't so much the hosting systems as the old and
badly-written apps. I know that IBM's new systems have been Y2K
compliant for years. There's just a helluva lot of old apps and even
old iron out there.
>Hell, if MS is so powerful, why fight? The are clearly about the take
>command of the Earth.
Did you hear that the Bill's are having an affair? <g> -steve
========================================================
so what? - http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: "JLS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Error recompiling redhat 5.2 kernel
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:17:07 -0500
Crossposted-To: redhat.general
I assume you are in /usr/src/linux when you do this.
Jeff Sofferin
Philip Hart wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Hi -
>
>we are trying to recompile the latest Redhat 5.2 Kernel (i.e.2.0.36-3).
>We do:
>
>- make mrproper
>- make menuconfig
>- make dep
>- make clean
>- make boot
>
>We get the following error:
>
>make[3]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-2.0.36/drivers/pci'
>gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux/include -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -O2
>-fomit-f
>rame-pointer -fno-strength-reduce -pipe -m386 -DCPU=386 -c -o pci.o
>pci.c
>pci.c:265: `PCI_DEVICE_ID_PLX_SPCOM200' undeclared here (not in a
>function)
>pci.c:265: initializer element for `dev_info[218].device' is not
>constant
>pci.c:266: `PCI_DEVICE_ID_PLX_9050' undeclared here (not in a function)
>pci.c:266: initializer element for `dev_info[219].device' is not
>constant
>pci.c:407: `PCI_DEVICE_ID_SPECIALIX_IO8' undeclared here (not in a
>function)
>pci.c:407: initializer element for `dev_info[360].device' is not
>constant
>pci.c:439: `PCI_VENDOR_ID_ASIX' undeclared here (not in a function)
>pci.c:439: initializer element for `dev_info[392].vendor' is not
>constant
>pci.c:439: `PCI_DEVICE_ID_ASIX_88140' undeclared here (not in a
>function)
>pci.c:439: initializer element for `dev_info[392].device' is not
>constant
>pci.c:520: `PCI_DEVICE_ID_ADAPTEC_1480A' undeclared here (not in a
>function)
>pci.c:520: initializer element for `dev_info[473].device' is not
>constant
>pci.c:538: `PCI_DEVICE_ID_ADAPTEC2_3950U2D' undeclared here (not in a
>function)
>pci.c:538: initializer element for `dev_info[491].device' is not
>constant
>pci.c: In function `pci_strvendor':
>pci.c:844: `PCI_VENDOR_ID_ASIX' undeclared (first use this function)
>pci.c:844: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
>pci.c:844: for each function it appears in.)
>make[3]: *** [pci.o] Error 1
>make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.0.36/drivers/pci'
>make[2]: *** [first_rule] Error 2
>make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.0.36/drivers/pci'
>make[1]: *** [sub_dirs] Error 2
>make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.0.36/drivers'
>make: *** [linuxsubdirs] Error 2
>
>Any idea as to what is wrong ?
>
>Phillip
>
>PS we also tried "make zImage" instead of "make boot", same results.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Newbie Soundcard Problem
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:14:17 GMT
I have a Sound Blaster Vibra16X and this was recognized by Redhat 5.2
beautifully. Now, the card is then registered as having a bad or missing DMA
channel. Also, the bootup screen shows the soundcard is busy of is in use. The
other hardware is a 3com 3c509b network card, an ISA modem (plain, old), and a
Creative Labs 3D Exxtreme graphics card. Please can, anyone help.
I see that there is a patch to the Linux Kernel 2.0.36 that regards the
Soundblaster Vibra 16X does request a DMA of 0. Is this what I need?
Linux Man!@!
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: "Scott D. Hernalsteen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux on IBM Thinkpad 370C ?
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:22:03 -0500
Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> I have been offered an IBM Thinkpad 370C at a rather attractive price.
> The machine has a 520 MB drive and 12 MB of RAM (I don't know yet if this
> can be expanded). No CD-ROM though (only via parallel port, but I reckon I
> can always install via NFS).
>
> Does anybody have experience with installing Linux on such a machine (and
> would be willing to share that experience, of course)?
>
> I seem to remember that the Thinkpads have a peculiar floppy interface.
>
> Karel Jansens
> jansens_at_ibm_dot_net
>
> =======================================================
> If we could have our cake and eat it,
> people would start whining about seconds.
> =======================================================
I've installed on a TP350C with 8meg of RAM and a 250meg drive. I only
installed development tools/libraries, emacs and network support(read:
no X), but RH5.0 went into 121meg. I did an NFS install using a 3Com
3C589B(?) PCMCIA NIC. Everything went pretty smooth once I figured out
the floppy heads were out of alignment. Other than that, I now have a
nice little system for a very low $ investment.
--Scott
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux or FreeBSD?
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:22:58 GMT
[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 02:06:41 -0700, "Douglas Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I have installed WinNT Server 3 times in the past 2 weeks, all on the same
>computer. I thought it was quite silly that even though the install CD was
>dated November 98, it still only had Service Pak 1 and Internet Explorer
>2.0.
They get the best price if they burn lots and lots of CD's <g>
> That makes for a lot of extra work to download the Service Pak 4 (80MB
>full version).
This is your problem not Microsoft's... they know that having gotten
control of your money and given you an obsolete CD, and given that the
only way to make it right is to download a service-pack, you'll have
little choice but to do so at your own expense. Cute, huh?
Personally I wouldn't install SP4 on a bet, there are too many reports
of hinkiness in that version. But then I won't install lots of their
other new stuff too, because NT has passed its prime (NT4SP3 imo).
> Then you install some of the drivers, reboot, install more
>drivers, reboot, install some more drivers, reboot, install the new IIS,
>reinstall Service Pak 4, etc. Each install took about 10 hours, since we
>had to put the tools on, and the first two buggered out--the first I don't
>know why (my supervisor started the install, and he really wasn't qualified,
>but I thought it was an MS product, should have had a fairly reasonable
>installation), the second because I clicked Reboot after I installed
>something (the dialog didn't have a Reboot Later option), when I was
>supposed to leave the dialog box open while I installed Service Pak 4 again
>BEFORE REBOOT. The system never recovered, and we had to do a third
>install. Even now, something unknown is wrong with RPC, but I don't think a
>reinstall would fix it.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. Anything with Explorer 4.00 or
later is the kiss of death. Visual C++ 6.0 is worse then 5.0.
Windows 98 sucks bigtime... "Oooh, look at me waste your processor
animating this cute menu!"
>We run some normal apps, but every once in a while it hangs.
Probably a SP4 artifact; I know that doesn't help though.
> I suppose if I left NT server serving, and did my apps
>on an NT workstation we could have better results.
Not so. You'd just have a broken server. There's very little
difference between NT Server and NT Workstation, the main one being
able to act as a PDC.
> I haven't run NT
>Workstation since 3.51, and it was admittedly very stable, even with the
>Beta Compilers we were using.
NT4 SP3 is better than 3.51 was in this department imho.
> But the FreeBSD server runs apps great, and
>has only panicked 2 times ever (both times I did something really wrong).
Yes, and you will never have to call Microsoft and pay through the
nose for the information you need to keep it running, or find out the
source code is only available if you give them a zillion dollars and
sign away your firstborn... pretty cool. <G> -steve
========================================================
so what? - http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy J. Lee)
Subject: Re: Yacc/Lex vs Bison/Flex
Reply-To: see-signature-for-email-address---junk-not-welcome
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:17:45 GMT
"Frank T. Sronce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|Well, I've been trying to port some oceanography SW over to a Linux box,
|and I'm having trouble. The supplier's best guess is that it's caused
|by incompatibilities between the "bison/flex" combo used on Linux, and
|the "yacc/lex" combo they designed it to use while installing. In
|particularly, it looks as though it's the flex/lex that's causing the
|problem, although it's hard to say.
|
|I'm a relative newbie at Linux, so I have to ask- does anyone have any
|experience with this problem? Is there anything I can do to get flex to
|interpret files the same way that lex does?
Try "flex -l".
See "man flex" for details on what the -l option for flex does,
and what incompatibilities there are between lex and flex.
For yacc, you may want byacc as well as bison, though yacc / byacc /
bison compatibility seems to be less of a problem than lex / flex
compatibility.
--
========================================================================
Timothy J. Lee timlee@
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
------------------------------
From: "steve mcconnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: scsi errors
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 22:03:19 GMT
We are running slackware 2.0.36 on an Intel P2 400 system with a Buslogic
BT-958 card and a couple of IBM drives. we are getting the following error
occaisionally on the big (18G) data drive.
SCSI disk error : host 0 channel 0 id 1 lun 0 return code = 28000002
extra data not valid Current error sd08:11: sns = 70 4
ASC=44 ASCQ= 0
Raw sense data:0x70 0x00 0x04 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x18 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00
0x44 0x00 0x01 0x00
scsidisk I/O error: dev 08:11, sector 2, absolute sector 65
Anyone got any ideas as to how to fix these? We replaced the drive with
another of the same make and model, but are getting the same errors. could
this be a firmware problem?
More info:
from /proc/scsi/Buslogic:
***** BusLogic SCSI Driver Version 2.0.15 of 17 August 1998 *****
Copyright 1995-1998 by Leonard N. Zubkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Configuring BusLogic Model BT-958 PCI Wide Ultra SCSI Host Adapter
Firmware Version: 5.07B, I/O Address: 0xB800, IRQ Channel: 11/Level
PCI Bus: 0, Device: 12, Address: 0xE0800000, Host Adapter SCSI ID: 7
Parity Checking: Enabled, Extended Translation: Enabled
Synchronous Negotiation: Fast, Wide Negotiation: Enabled
Disconnect/Reconnect: Enabled, Tagged Queuing: Enabled
Scatter/Gather Limit: 128 of 8192 segments, Mailboxes: 211
Driver Queue Depth: 211, Host Adapter Queue Depth: 192
Tagged Queue Depth: Automatic, Untagged Queue Depth: 3
Error Recovery Strategy: Default, SCSI Bus Reset: Enabled
SCSI Bus Termination: High Enabled, SCAM: Disabled
*** BusLogic BT-958 Initialized Successfully ***
from /proc/scsi
Attached devices:
Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00
Vendor: IBM Model: DDRS-39130W Rev: S92A
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 01 Lun: 00
Vendor: IBM Model: DGHS Rev: 0350
Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 02 Lun: 00
Vendor: TOSHIBA Model: CD-ROM XM-6201TA Rev: 1030
Type: CD-ROM ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Thanks
steve
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Williams)
Subject: How to read /proc/loadavg???
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:23:30 GMT
My output (cat /proc/loadavg) says:
2.60 22.79 56.30 5/160 16075
How do I read this? Whats each number mean? Thats what it is when my server
is working hard, when its not, loadavg reads:
0.04 0.04 0.01 2/37 18235
Is that a huge difference?
Where can I see information about how much swap space is being used?
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: cOOp's <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to capture interactive screen display?
Date: 25 Jan 1999 15:08:49 GMT
Charles Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: How can one capture the console screen output from an interactive program
: under Linux? My recollection of working on a Unix platform years ago was
: that the 'tee' command was used for this, i.e.,
: myprog | tee output.sav
what you want is 'command > file' this will redirect the stdout of command
to the file. Alternativly you can use 'command < file' to redirect the
command to take stdin from the file.
Then depending on your shell you should be able to use something like
'command >> file' or 'command &> file' to append output to the file rather
than write it afresh ..
hope that helps
cOOp's
------------------------------
From: Seth Van Oort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Antivirus
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 21:30:12 +0000
Of couse it could. That's what the Internet Worm of 88(?) was like.
Really, I don't know why we haven't seen more of them. It sure isn't
from great security.
>Linux, unlike
>Windows for example, is a real operating system. Silly little programs can't
>just decide to write to all executables. They get told "Oh no you don't!" by
>the operating system.
We're assuming the virus is able to bypass this.
Brian Moore wrote:
>
> I have a question about viruses. We all know that Linux (UNIX in general)
> in a network environment is susceptible to crackers. Is there some
> way a crackers could automate his cracking strategy, in such a way
> that it would spawn the same process on the cracked machine? I
> don't have the UNIX experience to understand if this is a reasonable
> thing to imagine or not. From what I know, I don't see why one could
> not do this.
>
> Now, If this were to be possible, in what way would this be
> different from a virus?
>
> --
>
> Brian G. Moore, School of Science, Penn State Erie--The Behrend College
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] , (814)-898-6334
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Criminally Insane Programmers Are Attracted To Open Source Code
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:23:10 GMT
[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:27:28 +0000, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It doesn't matter. Almost every internet key word search ends up at
>either at "hot teens" or a lesbian chatroom anyway, who is going to look
>a news group posting.
Yeah, it bites, doesn't it. A year ago you could actually find
something on AltaVista. Now you just find a billion or two references
to unrelated stuff that happens to match your search keys. Time for
some new-tech methinks. -steve
========================================================
so what? - http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: Sven Utcke <[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: 25 Jan 1999 22:50:46 +0100
Erik Naggum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Sven Utcke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | But you yourself said it could easily be automated. Why is goint from
> |
> | the words. The extra => the words. the extra
> |
> | any more difficult than vice-versa?
>
> * Erik Naggum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | it appears that you posted with a different color than I can display.
> | could you try again?
>
> * Sven Utcke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | I did? Now that was quite clever of me --- I didn't even know one could
> | do such a thing...
>
> no, you can't. I'm sorry the sarcasm didn't work.
Hey, that was my line.
[explanation deleted]
> does that explain the process? I can't quite fathom that you actually
> _needed_ to have this explained, though.
Oh yes, you can. And you know it, too.
Sven
--
_ _ Lehrstuhl fuer Mustererkennung und Bildverarbeitung
| |_ __ | |__ Sven Utcke
| | ' \| '_ \ phone: +49 761 203 8274 Am Flughafen 17
|_|_|_|_|_.__/ fax : +49 761 203 8262 79110 Freiburg i. Brsg.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~utcke
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Criminally Insane Programmers Are Attracted To Open Source Code
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:23:03 GMT
[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 12:35:18 -0500, "Netnerd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Maybe this would be a good way to find enough programmers to fix the Y2K
>problems in Linux.
I don't know, man. With a msn.com email address? Whew... -steve
========================================================
so what? - http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Criminally Insane Programmers Are Attracted To Open Source Code
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:23:05 GMT
[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
On 24 Jan 1999 23:22:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh) wrote:
>Just because there is a way for programmers not to do something stupid
>does not mean that they will use that way.
Indeed, if there is a way to do something stupid, we will nearly
always do so! Evidence this thread...<g> -steve
========================================================
so what? - http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Criminally Insane Programmers Are Attracted To Open Source Code
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 00:23:08 GMT
[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
On Sun, 24 Jan 1999 18:35:12 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David H.
McCoy) wrote:
>Right. The entire world is working to fix mainframes because of MS. Why
>not blame MS for all the ills that have plagued the world since the birth
>of mankind?
That wouldn't be fair, they're only guilty of the ills for the last 10
years or so <g> -steve
========================================================
so what? - http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Moore)
Subject: Re: Antivirus
Date: 25 Jan 1999 15:39:31 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have a question about viruses. We all know that Linux (UNIX in general)
in a network environment is susceptible to crackers. Is there some
way a crackers could automate his cracking strategy, in such a way
that it would spawn the same process on the cracked machine? I
don't have the UNIX experience to understand if this is a reasonable
thing to imagine or not. From what I know, I don't see why one could
not do this.
Now, If this were to be possible, in what way would this be
different from a virus?
--
Brian G. Moore, School of Science, Penn State Erie--The Behrend College
[EMAIL PROTECTED] , (814)-898-6334
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
