Linux-Misc Digest #785, Volume #18 Wed, 27 Jan 99 16:13:16 EST
Contents:
Linux on PC's not ready for Enterprise (Mark Ramos)
Re: Kernel too big (Solved) ("al")
realaudio heavy CPU loading (Kelvin Leung)
Re: Linux on PC's not ready for Enterprise (Peter F. Curran)
Re: 'as' fails with Sig 11 on PS/2 (Sam E. Trenholme)
Re: Criminally Insane Programmers Are Attracted To Open Source Code (Niel Markwick)
RedHat FTP problem (Rick G)
Please help for STB nVidia ZX 8MB 3D 2xAGP video card (Jun Zhuang)
Re: Booting Linux from a Zip Drive!?!!?!! (Sam E. Trenholme)
Re: Merger (Sam E. Trenholme)
Re: A newbie versus "vi" (Edward John Barr)
Re: ftape - difficulties with floppy controller (Grand Poobah of PRAM)
Re: (Symbolic) Links (Alexander Viro)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Richard Steiner)
rate monotonic sheduler (Eric Price)
Re: Linux or FreeBSD? (Ken)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (David Taylor)
Re: Is Microsoft a nasty company ? I'm asking you this question. (David Taylor)
Re: Linux on PC's not ready for Enterprise (Marco Anglesio)
Re: Root Password Not Working - Pls Help (Marco Anglesio)
Re: Booting Linux off the primary hdd, win95 off the secondary using LILO (Steve
Limkemann)
Won't Boot ("Nathan Heagy")
Re: fax permission problems (Charles Stroom)
SB AudioPCI 64V and Redhat 5.1 ("Tom Gilbert")
AMC: Compiler (Mark Grosberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Ramos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Linux on PC's not ready for Enterprise
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:15:07 -0800
After receiving emails and seeing the threads on RAM limitations I realize
that this is yet another hardware limitation based on the PC architecture.
So I see Linux trying to gain acceptance in the high end market but there
are so many limitations. To list a few:
1. Memory bandwith limitation (just found that out) due to the 32bit
addressing of Intel cpu's.
2. 1024 cylinder boundry in which the kernel can't sit on your disk after
the 1024th cylinder or after the 3rd disk (I believe).
3. You can't boot without a video card (under most bioses).
4. You can't initialize the system from the serial port. I am running
systems now from console (thanks to Linux) but it starts at the lilo
prompt. I can't go into CMOS or see the memory count at boot up, etc. like
it can be done on Sparc architecture, SGI, HP..... Supposedly it can be
done with an add on board that is used in Compaq servers but c'mon this is
a joke!
You may think I am just complaining but if your environment is nearly all
Sparc architectures and you want to put a PC in because it costs so much
less and you are trying to convince your IT manager that Linux on a PC can
compete with the "other guys" then how do I explain that the Intel boxes
are crippled? Yeah you can say put Linux on the Sparc's but when we
already have Solaris why convert to Linux on those? Just because it's
"Linux"? I don't think so. Motherboard and cpu manufacturers need to get
their ass moving and stop waiting for Merced and fix these compatability
issues with the current hardware.
Mark
------------------------------
From: "al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.slackware
Subject: Re: Kernel too big (Solved)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:19:39 +1100
sounds like it must have been trying to add the new kernal on to the end of
the existing(old) one
Wael Sedky wrote in message ...
>By the way the new kernel is surprisingly 450k. I don't understand why? I
>did the same steps with the addition of deleteing the old kernel and "make
>zlilo"
>
>
------------------------------
From: Kelvin Leung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: realaudio heavy CPU loading
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 05:09:39 GMT
Hello,
I got my RH 5.2 running with Ensoniq PCI sound card. I have the alsa
sound driver works fine. Both X11amp and Realaudio can produce sound
out. But the RealAudio heavily load my CPU (K6-166 overclocked to 200).
The audio is interrupted everytime I change to another window , or
browsing within Netscape. I got the CPU load monitor fire up and it
seems the CPU is fully occupied! I don't think it's the CPU problem 'cos
I don't have problem with X11amp, also the Realaudio (not G2) in Windows
in the same machine. Is that a fact or just my system doing weird!?
Kelvin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter F. Curran)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux on PC's not ready for Enterprise
Date: 27 Jan 1999 19:07:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mark Ramos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>After receiving emails and seeing the threads on RAM limitations I realize
>that this is yet another hardware limitation based on the PC architecture.
>So I see Linux trying to gain acceptance in the high end market but there
>are so many limitations. To list a few:
>
>1. Memory bandwith limitation (just found that out) due to the 32bit
>addressing of Intel cpu's.
This is not a bandwidth limitation. It sets the maximum physical
addressable space. 2^32 = something like 4 Gigabytes of physical
RAM. That is not an unreasonable limit.
The _data_ bandwith is another issue, but getting 128bits using
a 100MHz bus seems close to par with the current non-intel single
CPU machines.
>2. 1024 cylinder boundry in which the kernel can't sit on your disk after
>the 1024th cylinder or after the 3rd disk (I believe).
This 1024th cylinder barrier problem is almost always addressed
by LBA, which reports translated disk geometry. It effectively
moves the boundary several gigs into a HD. All modern BIOS
support it.
Even without this, you just need a single partition to hold
the kernel, which can be as small as 2 megs, below the 1024
boundary.
Lastly, there are alternate boot methods that don't have this
limitiation.
>3. You can't boot without a video card (under most bioses).
I've got mono cards. BIOS will still boot, and I don't need
a monitor. Even so, svga cards can be had for less than
$20.
>4. You can't initialize the system from the serial port. I am running
>systems now from console (thanks to Linux) but it starts at the lilo
>prompt. I can't go into CMOS or see the memory count at boot up, etc. like
>it can be done on Sparc architecture, SGI, HP..... Supposedly it can be
>done with an add on board that is used in Compaq servers but c'mon this is
>a joke!
Yes, that IS a limitation. The BIOS people would need to add
serial support, and that may never happen, considering the number
of people who would use it.
>You may think I am just complaining but if your environment is nearly all
>Sparc architectures and you want to put a PC in because it costs so much
>less and you are trying to convince your IT manager that Linux on a PC can
>compete with the "other guys" then how do I explain that the Intel boxes
>are crippled? Yeah you can say put Linux on the Sparc's but when we
>already have Solaris why convert to Linux on those? Just because it's
>"Linux"? I don't think so. Motherboard and cpu manufacturers need to get
>their ass moving and stop waiting for Merced and fix these compatability
>issues with the current hardware.
>
I agree. Even if you tried to run x86 Solaris on your Intel box, you'd
run into the same problems.
Unfortunately, the PC world is kludgy compared to the closed hardware
systems. Different standards have arisen from competition, and it
is this competition which keeps prices down. It may be a necessary
evil.
--
Peter F Curran
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
"If you paid for your operating system, you probably
paid too much for your operating system."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam E. Trenholme)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,gnu.gcc.help
Subject: Re: 'as' fails with Sig 11 on PS/2
Date: 27 Jan 1999 11:13:31 -0800
>We've been trying to get gcc working on an old PS/2 model 55, 386, Linux
>2.0. TheGCC version is 2.7.2p.
There is a known problem with the ULSI math co-processor that made it
impossible to compile the kernel on the first Linux machine I had, an AMD
386/40.
I *once* had a similar compile problem on my laptop. By doing a 'strace
gcc foo.c', the problem went away and has not popped up again.
Quite frankly, your hardware probably has a subtle bug when it runs in
protected mode (those old DOS machines almost never ran in protected mode,
so that part of the hardware did not get good SQA) that makes complicated
tasks like compiling programs difficult.
The solution is to give Linux better hardware, like the 486 sitting around
collecting dust. Around Silicon Valley, 486s are what people get when
they ask around for a free computer.
- Sam
--
Email address here: http://www.samiam.org/ssi/mailme.shtml
Music I write here: http://www.mp3.com/sam http://www.samiam.org/mp3
Mp3 reviews here: http://www.samiam.org/music
------------------------------
From: Niel Markwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:17:27 +0100
Jim Frost wrote:
>
> Lastly, remember that we're talking about a problem that won't bite us for
> another 40 years even if we don't change anything.
Ah yes... that old 'it's not going to affect me in my lifetime'
argument...
That depends of course, on what you are doing... If your pension
calculation
program uses time_t (or the associated Unix time/date functions) then
you
will be in trouble a lot sooner... Fortunately I will retire before 2038
:)
Jim Frost also wrote in an earlier posting:
> [2038 problem]
> Yea but we've worked through that on other UNIXen by expanding time_t to a
> 64-bit int. Problem solved for a couple gazillion years.
Incidentally, which Unixen are they? (and who is 'we'?!)
I know of at least one Unix (DEC's) which has a 64 bit int, but a 32 bit
time_t - they are waiting for a standard solution to be decided upon,
which IMHO is a sensible decision...
(see also news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] '2038 and
Linux')
Niel.
--
Niel Markwick
------------------------------
Subject: RedHat FTP problem
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rick G)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 18:00:46 GMT
I have recently installed RH5.2 and configured it with Apache and PHP. All
things considered, for a newbie I thought I did alright. Currently when I
try to ftp to my system I get "connection refused", maybe this is because I
didn't install something, I don't know. I have read that using wu-ftpd is a
great solution but I have been unable to find a recent tarball of this. Does
anyone know if installing wuftpd will fix the ftp problem and if so, where
could I download it.
TIA,
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jun Zhuang)
Subject: Please help for STB nVidia ZX 8MB 3D 2xAGP video card
Date: 27 Jan 1999 17:55:44 GMT
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam E. Trenholme)
Subject: Re: Booting Linux from a Zip Drive!?!!?!!
Date: 27 Jan 1999 11:20:02 -0800
[I assume you have a paralell port Zip drive]
>Is it possible to install LILO on the MBR and select boot from Zip Drive
>as am option or something like that?
Yes. Compile a kernel with the ppa zip support in the kernel proper, make
said kernel the kernel that comes up when LILO pops up, and make the root
filesystem /dev/sda4 in LILO
>Will there be a significant loss in speed if I run a program from a Zip
>drive, compared to running it on a hard drive?
Yes. You will be, to coin an American idiom, "hating life".
>How does access to the Zip Drive compare to access to the floppy drive?
It is much faster than a floppy drive in terms of time per byte accessed.
That is not saying much, however.
>How many back ups does it take on average for a zip disk to stop
>functioning correctly?
Too many to count. I have been using the same zip disks over and over as
backups, some of which are over three years old. I have yet to have a zip
disk go bad on me.
Zip disks do not have the reliability problems that floppys have.
- Sam
--
Email address here: http://www.samiam.org/ssi/mailme.shtml
Music I write here: http://www.mp3.com/sam http://www.samiam.org/mp3
Mp3 reviews here: http://www.samiam.org/music
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam E. Trenholme)
Subject: Re: Merger
Date: 27 Jan 1999 11:22:37 -0800
>Database giant Oracle plans to purchase Linux vendor Debian.
3 points for cute, but it's not April 1st yet.
- Sam
--
Email address here: http://www.samiam.org/ssi/mailme.shtml
Music I write here: http://www.mp3.com/sam http://www.samiam.org/mp3
Mp3 reviews here: http://www.samiam.org/music
------------------------------
From: Edward John Barr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: A newbie versus "vi"
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 18:59:01 +0000
In article <78dbgf$sam$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Otto Bruggeman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
There is a sort of more user friendly version of Vi shipped with the
Watcon C/C++ compiler with menus and help.
It is slow snd you loose a couple of lines on the screen.
Stanard Vi has only 2 snags. First you have to learn it. Second, and you
are stuck with this one, it is not windowing and so editing multiple
files is a pain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Edward J Barr
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grand Poobah of PRAM)
Subject: Re: ftape - difficulties with floppy controller
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:17:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dr Paul Kinsler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dr. Dirk Melcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have difficulties with ftape and my floppy streamer. When I try to use
>> the ftape device I get the following lines in /var/log messages:
>
>Yeah -- the floppy-drive and the tape drive interfere with
>each other, and cant be used simultaneously. Before using
>the tape driver, unload the floppy-module from your kernel[1].
>This (most of the time) works for me. This is in the
>Ftape-HOWTO, section 4.4
>
>[1] You might need to recompile your kernel, with floppy
> support as a module.
>
>#Paul.
>--
>------------------------------+------------------------------
>Dr. Paul Kinsler
>Institute of Microwaves and Photonics
>University of Leeds (ph) +44-113-2332089
>Leeds LS2 9JT (fax)+44-113-2332032
>United Kingdom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>WEB: http://www.ee.leeds.ac.uk/staff/pk/P.Kinsler.html
Where is this Howto? I didn't see it at the LDP.
--
"President Clinton has perfected the art of the disarmingly tedious
speech to the point where the only thing we have to look forward to is the
inevitable Republican rebuttal, just to see what trickery the party of
Lincoln employs to appear more inept than the president."-the Sucksters
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro)
Subject: Re: (Symbolic) Links
Date: 26 Jan 1999 22:43:33 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>common operations create more directory hardlinks. consider mkdir, it
>makes lots of hardlinks.
In some sense. RTFSource.
>ln has some safety mechanisms since directory hardlinks can be bad
link(2), not ln(1).
>news if not done right. you can create filesystem loops and spin off
>unreachable file system enclaves.
>from the ln man page options section i see this
>
> -d, -F, --directory
> Allow the super-user to make hard links to directo-
> ries.
>
>ln tries to save you from yourself, but is happy to comply if you insist.
Yes, but kernel will not comply. ln -d will try to call link(2)
with appropriate arguments but kernel will refuse (-EISDIR). Read the
fscking source. Or simply try to call ln -d /dev /foo and look at the
results.
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:36:15 -0600
Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spake unto us, saying:
>Richard Steiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Here in comp.os.linux.misc, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason O'Rourke)
>: spake unto us, saying:
> >snip<
>: >A linux machine that doesn't get patched as needed is an open doorway
>: >for intruders.
>:
>: Not if the servers aren't exposed. Trusted employees breaking into
>: servers on one's intranet are threats regardless of the OSes used.
>
> Most major companies don't trust there sysadmins, let alone there
> lower level employees.
Really? Wow. I only have two firsthand datapoints, but based on those
experiences that isn't my impression at all.
I've worked as a mainframe programmer for a major computer hardware and
software company, and also now as a programmer for a major US airline,
and I see a fairly high level of trust there.
Sounds to me like some major companies apparently trust their employees
to have a certain level of professionalism, and some apparently don't.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris +
WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
You hold 'em off, I'll go for help. (heh-heh-heh!)
------------------------------
From: Eric Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: rate monotonic sheduler
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:48:49 -0700
Greetings:
I read some where that there is a rate monotonic sheduler for linux.
has it been ported to the power pc architecture ?
if so whre is it available at
Many Thnks,
Eric Price.
--
There are no simple solutions,
only intelligent choices.
Alexander Graham Bell.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:15:31 -0800
From: Ken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux or FreeBSD?
Steve Lamb wrote:
-- snip --
> >installed when I was a newbie there. I can set up NT on a green
> >system in about 45 minutes simply because I've had a whole lot of
> >practice at doing it.
>
> I'd be lucky if I can get it up in 4.5 hours. Why? Because NT
> insists on copying all of the files to a FAT partition.
--snip--
> Why it didn't just install from the CD is beyond me completely.
>
On a "green system" a FAT partition might not even be available.
What version of NT are you installing? I just installed 4.0 to
an NTFS partition that the NT install program set up for me. It
is the only partition on that hard drive... Then it installed it-
self fine from the CDROM. I dislike NT and Microsoft for various
reasons, but if you need NT (I need it for a class, I didn't just
go out and decide to get it), it doesn't seem difficult to set up.
Of course, installing Visuall C++ 6.0 for same class sucked... 4
required reboots, etc...
Ken
------------------------------
From: David Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:01:58 +0000
Anatoly Podgoretsky wrote:
>
> > As far as demand goes, demand comes from people being as stupid as you
> > are. If every one was as smart as I am (IQ == 153) they'd be using
> > Linux.
>
> If you are such clever why you are such poor
>
> --
> Sincerelly yours
> Anatoly Podgoretsky
Cause the world doesn't work on Wages = IQ.
If it did, Bill Gates would be lucky to be in credit.
--
David Taylor
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: 268004
[Remove .spam from e-mail to reply]
------------------------------
From: David Taylor <[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: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 18:34:51 +0000
Ken Witherow wrote:
>
> John Doe wrote:
> >
> > I think that the OEMs should rebel and refuse to pay the high prices and
> > start bundling BeOS and Linux as the default OS's for a year or 2 and
> > make people have to install Windows as a second OS from off the shelf.
> > Let's see how many people flock to it because it is the "superior"
> > choice. Only idiots like scott nudds would. People like him would get a
> > second morgage so that they could try to increase microsoft's
> > marketshare again after it would plumit
>
> This brings up an interesting question to me. We hear many "people"
> complain that the average user couldn't install linux. It's also my
> experience that the average person can't install windows. I think if
That, is perhaps the best example of how much utter crap the FUD that
microsoft put out actually is. They inform people that it's hard to
install these O/S's like Linux, but in my experience, RH 5.2 is just as
easy as windows, as long as you understand the partitioning part.
Windows installation is just as complex, and is more likely to crash,
and
gives you less choice. Linux lets you decide on everything you
install..
Windows allows you to 'chose' some things.. Pah...
> people were given a pre-installed Linux system relatively tuned to their
> system (no need to do the tiny fine-tuning that only a "power-user"
> would need) and a basic manual describing beginner commands (things like
> ls, mount, cd, etc) most people would be able to get by as well as they
> do in windoze.
I agree. If someone put time into developing a linux distribution
designed
for OEMs to tune to specific hardware setups, and then was preinstalled
on
a computer, it would be just the same as windows. Sure you would have
to
tweak things to get them perfect, just like in windows - except in Linux
*everything* has documentation. You can change the way ANYTHING works.
No
more strange undocumented, unsupported, warranty voiding (perhaps not)
registry
hacks, just simple configuration.... Ah...
All that users need is a printed manual supplied with it (there are
already
100's published..)
--
David Taylor
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: 268004
[Remove .spam from e-mail to reply]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Anglesio)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux on PC's not ready for Enterprise
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:02:08 GMT
On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:15:07 -0800, Mark Ramos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1. Memory bandwith limitation (just found that out) due to the 32bit
>addressing of Intel cpu's.
That's true: the memory bus on the intel architecture is slow compared to,
say, Alpha. However, the newer motherboards will run at 100MHz, which is
decent if not amazing. (I don't think that it has anything to do with
32-bit addressing, though).
>2. 1024 cylinder boundry in which the kernel can't sit on your disk after
>the 1024th cylinder or after the 3rd disk (I believe).
Um, the partition on which your kernel is placed cannot start below the
1024th, IIRC. It doesn't present a problem unless you're dual booting, and
you most likely won't be dual booting a server.
>3. You can't boot without a video card (under most bioses).
True. 8-bit VGA video cards run about 10 dollars. And you will probably
want a console for your machine at one point. A problem, but not a major
one.
>4. You can't initialize the system from the serial port. I am running
>systems now from console (thanks to Linux) but it starts at the lilo
True, although the memory count is perhaps less valuable to you than the
memory that the kernel sees (for which you would use top, or merely read
it out of /proc).
>You may think I am just complaining but if your environment is nearly all
>Sparc architectures and you want to put a PC in because it costs so much
>less and you are trying to convince your IT manager that Linux on a PC can
>compete with the "other guys" then how do I explain that the Intel boxes
>are crippled? Yeah you can say put Linux on the Sparc's but when we
If you already have a Solaris shop, what would make you convert to Linux?
Firstly, software that isn't available on Solaris, which is on Linux. Not
many of those, if any, and since most Linux software is OSS, you can port
and recompile.
Secondly, price-performance. Intel boxes offer excellent price-performance
at the low to medium end, especially when compared to traditional Unix
vendors such as HP, SGI, IBM, or Sun.
High end enterprise servers? I would say no, both because clustering
technology for linux is immature, multiprocessing is barely mature
(although kernel 2.2 provides for a great improvement, or so I hear), and
reliability is restricted by the PC architecture and hardware - not the
best in the world.
Thirdly, security. Linux is typically the first OS to produce patches for
any given exploit. Linux vendors are typically fully open as to the
security status of their software. In the modern world, where one assumes
that the attacker knows as much about your system as you do, these are
good things.
Do these three reasons offer a compelling reason to switch to Linux?
Depends on your situation. You may already have such a vested interest in
Sun hardware and Solaris software that a conversion is moot. However, if
you're looking at aging hardware and aging software and no demand for
high-end or enterprise solutions, Linux presents a viable alternative. Not
a *perfect* alternative, but a viable one.
Linux being Linux should never be a reason to switch. Linux being good for
the job should be an excellent reason to switch.
marco
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Anglesio)
Subject: Re: Root Password Not Working - Pls Help
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:10:40 GMT
On 27 Jan 99 19:37:44 GMT, Don R. Herron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That's all it takes to change a root password? That doesn't seem very
>secure. <<Sarcasm>>
Well, you do need physical access to the machine to do so. Any machine to
which you have physical access can be compromised, if not by sophisticated
means (changing the root password) then by crude ones (ripping off the
hard drive(s)). Any text on elementary security will emphasize the
necessity of restricting physical access to the machine. Any machine which
is presumed to be secure will be physically secure as a prerequisite.
In other words, good try, wiseass.
marco
------------------------------
From: Steve Limkemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Booting Linux off the primary hdd, win95 off the secondary using LILO
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 06:25:23 GMT
Tom Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd now like to boot Win95 or Linux but unfortunately I can't convince
> lilo to let me.
> Linux is in /dev/hda1, Win95 in /dev/hdc1
See http://www.wwnet.com/~stevelim/booting.html for help in getting
LILO to work for you. Assuming that you don't have a /dev/hdb disk
(or that it is a CD-ROM drive), you will need to use the map-drive
directive to swap 0x80 and 0x81.
--
Steve Limkemann :: A microsecond here and a microsecond there, and
Westland, Michigan :: before you know it, you're talking real-time.
USA, North America ::
Earth, Solar System :: Bonus Addresses: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Milky Way :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MGX467 271 48185 :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Nathan Heagy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Won't Boot
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:32:54 -0600
Linux won't boot. I have both the 2.2 and 2.0.36 kernels set up in LILO, but
both crash after the Setting up Swap space message. What can I do?
--
Nathan Heagy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Stroom)
Subject: Re: fax permission problems
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 06:31:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:37:03 GMT, Rob Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Charles Stroom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>-rw-rw---- 1 bin lp 107 Dec 30 22:45 cfA031Aa02984
>>
>>faxlpr does not have the appropriate permission, fails to open the file,
>>hence the fax submission fails.
>
>What are the permissions on /var/spool/fax? (Should be a+rwx)
>
Yes, it is:
drwxrwxrwx 4 root lp 2048 Jan 11 04:16 /var/spool/fax
--
Charles Stroom
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
url: http://www.stroom-schreurs.demon.nl/
------------------------------
From: "Tom Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: SB AudioPCI 64V and Redhat 5.1
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 20:23:07 -0000
(Kernel v. 2.0.36)
Anyone succeeded in setting this up? Or maybe a PCI soundcard in general.
I've tried everything, including everything mentioned in the Sound-HOWTO.
pretty soon I'll just have to buy a crappy soundcard, just 'cos I know i
could get it to work...
Tom.
------------------------------
From: Mark Grosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: AMC: Compiler
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 06:50:22 GMT
Hey guys,
I have been writing a pre-processor for C that should interest people who
like hacking languages (as the syntax is configurable). It comes with
source code and works under Linux (it also should work under other POSIX
variants).
You can get it at http://amc.din.net (Goto V3).
Enjoy!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
