Linux-Misc Digest #639, Volume #19 Sun, 28 Mar 99 16:13:13 EST
Contents:
Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment.... (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0 (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment.... ("Alexander I. Butenko")
Re: Migrated to 2.2.x, but "issues" remain (Bob Tennent)
Re: Kernel panic: VFS (Jeremy)
Re: Help me spend $2,000 on a new Linux-based computer ("Cameron Spitzer")
Re: Newbie: Installing LICQ? (Mykool)
Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0 (Shankar Unni)
Re: Linux 2.2 is very unstable (Brad Corsello)
Re: Linux firewall/workstation in one PC? (Juergen Heinzl)
Re: good linux books? ("wilson")
Re: Calendar Program (Jim Richardson)
Re: can't be excuted by typing its name (Jim Richardson)
Re: Drivers for a Sony Discman CD-ROM drive? (Bob Thibodeau)
Re: Why Linux still isn't my standard boot-up OS, or what are the Linux-equivalents
for these Windoze programs? (NF Stevens)
Re: Different IP in one network (Tomasz Korycki)
Re: Backing up on Iomega ZIP (Jerry Lynn Kreps)
Re: Distributions with 2.2.x kernel (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc,microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,micorosft.public.outlook
Subject: Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment....
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 Mar 1999 15:06:50 -0500
"Alexander I. Butenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ANyway I greatly doubt that Linux will be easier to use than NT
> Server. I'm sure that NT Server will be a ideal use for a small home
> network, becaus eit's very easy to configure comparable to Linux and
> supports most network clients better.
since we're talking a server OS, don't we want to support network
*servers* better and not clients? who cares if netscape looks better
on NT than linux. what we really want to know is who can dole out
webpages better, both faster and more reliably.
and once we are talking service, NT is going to lose hard.
apache runs better on linux than NT. apache blows MS's offering
(what's it called, IIS?) away in speed, price and marketshare. samba
runs better on linux than NT can do it's own filesharing protocol.
NFS is better in linux than on NT. ftp servers (ftpd) are easier and
work better in linux than NT. MTAs like qmail blow the crap out of
exchange. the list just goes on and on.
a final note, what about uptimes? linux is *much* more robust than NT
(unless you consider BSOD to be a debug mode and not downtime).
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
linux.redhat.misc,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 Mar 1999 14:47:07 -0500
Tomasz Korycki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Johan Kullstam wrote:
> >
> > d s f o x @ c o g s c i . u c s d . e d u (David Fox) writes:
> >
> > > "Idea Man" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Does anyone else think this would be a good idea? Keep the i386 tree, and
> > > > add an i686 tree that is optimized for P-II/Celeron/P-III processors.
> > > >
> > > > This might be a pain in the butt for the mirrors (more hard drive space
> > > > used), but for some mirrors this would be just fine. This would also make
> > > > Linux higher performing for all the people with flashy new Pentium-III
> > > > machines...
> > >
> > > How much performance improvement would there be?
> >
> > based on my experience with egcs over the past year, not much.
> >
> > the pentium classic seems to be hypersensitive to scheduling, but the
> > i686 (i have a pentiumpro) seems have roughly the same performance
> > (using time on a few of my programs) for compiles with -march=i386,
> > i486 or pentiumpro. -march=pentium hurt speed by about 10%.
> >
> Actually, if You have FP-heavy code (graphics, raytracing, FEA, CFD,
> Stats, simulation), P6-optimised code can gain You as much as 15-20%,
> compared to i386.
here are some results from a number cruncher (specifically a turbo
code simulation). it uses floating point arithmetic - mostly multiply-
accumulates. while i used C++, i did not use anything out of the
stdc++ library.
using -S and -fverbose-asm, one of my files has this header
.file "wsiso.c"
.version "01.01"
# GNU C++ version egcs-2.91.66 19990314 (egcs-1.1.2 release) (i686-linux) compil
ed by GNU C version egcs-2.91.66 19990314 (egcs-1.1.2 release).
# options passed: -march=pentiumpro -march=XXXX -O3 -Wall
# -fstrict-aliasing -fno-rtti -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-exceptions
# -fverbose-asm
# options enabled: -fdefer-pop -fomit-frame-pointer -fcse-follow-jumps
# -fcse-skip-blocks -fexpensive-optimizations -fthread-jumps
# -fstrength-reduce -fpeephole -fforce-mem -ffunction-cse
# -finline-functions -finline -fkeep-static-consts -fcaller-saves
# -fpcc-struct-return -fgcse -frerun-cse-after-loop -frerun-loop-opt
# -fschedule-insns2 -fcommon -fverbose-asm -fgnu-linker -fregmove
# -foptimize-register-move -fargument-alias -fstrict-aliasing -m80387
# -mhard-float -mno-soft-float -mieee-fp -mfp-ret-in-387
# -mschedule-prologue -mcpu=XXXX -march=XXXX
XXXX is one of i386, i486, pentium and pentiumpro. (i hacked the gcc
spec file to give -march=pentiumpro by default, but it does get
overridden by an explicit -march as far as i can tell.)
here are the outputs from bash's time on a lightly loaded pentiumpro
system.
-march=i386
real 0m54.673s
user 0m53.500s
sys 0m0.050s
-march=i486
real 0m53.713s
user 0m52.910s
sys 0m0.060s
-march=pentium
real 0m52.957s
user 0m52.300s
sys 0m0.050s
-march=pentiumpro
real 0m54.563s
user 0m53.810s
sys 0m0.120s
i can't see *any* significant difference. looks like it's all in the
noise here. do i have problems with the spec default
-march=pentiumpro option? can anyone else post benchmarks?
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: "Alexander I. Butenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment....
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 23:13:52 +0300
Crossposted-To:
microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc,microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,micorosft.public.outlook
Well,, I'd beter think that there is a Server for the client, not
vice-versa. And one more - the question was about the OS for the home. MOst
hom eusers can't even properly configure Win98, so the most correct answer
about the Server was not linux but WIndows NT. Anyway I do not wasn to
continue this flame as most of this group members seem to gain nothing from
it.
--
Please reply to the newsgroup!
Best Regards,
Alexander I. Butenko
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft Developer Network Certified Member
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Alexander I. Butenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ANyway I greatly doubt that Linux will be easier to use than NT
> > Server. I'm sure that NT Server will be a ideal use for a small home
> > network, becaus eit's very easy to configure comparable to Linux and
> > supports most network clients better.
>
> since we're talking a server OS, don't we want to support network
> *servers* better and not clients? who cares if netscape looks better
> on NT than linux. what we really want to know is who can dole out
> webpages better, both faster and more reliably.
>
> and once we are talking service, NT is going to lose hard.
>
> apache runs better on linux than NT. apache blows MS's offering
> (what's it called, IIS?) away in speed, price and marketshare. samba
> runs better on linux than NT can do it's own filesharing protocol.
> NFS is better in linux than on NT. ftp servers (ftpd) are easier and
> work better in linux than NT. MTAs like qmail blow the crap out of
> exchange. the list just goes on and on.
>
> a final note, what about uptimes? linux is *much* more robust than NT
> (unless you consider BSOD to be a debug mode and not downtime).
>
> --
> J o h a n K u l l s t a m
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: r d t@c s.q u e e n s u.c a (Bob Tennent)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Migrated to 2.2.x, but "issues" remain
Date: 28 Mar 1999 19:11:25 GMT
On 28 Mar 1999 17:53:13 GMT, Frampton Steve R wrote:
>
>I've finally made the jump to kernel 2.2.x, using the RPM's available on
>the linux-mandrake site. I seem to be having a few little problems,
>however, and I was hoping someone on this list may have seen and solved
>similar ones when migrating to the latest kernels. They are:
>
>- Upon booting the (custom-built) kernel, the system gets to "Checking
> module dependancies" and then hangs. I tried deleting the module-info
> file that was in the /boot directory, but to no avail. Fortunately, I
> can press ctrl-c here and the boot process continues. *Why* is this
> happening, and is it possible to build a new module-info file?
>
Redhat's rc.sysinit script does some funny things. If that's what
you're using, you might be better off using the 2.2.4 kernel RPMs
now available at
ftp://rufus.w3.org/linux/rawhide/1.0/i386/RedHat/RPMS/
I presume you've already upgraded all the packages mentioned in
http://www.redhat.com/support/docs/rhl/kernel-2.2/kernel2.2-upgrade.html
>- The boot process whines about possibly insecure privs on my /dev/hdb4
> swap partition, suggesting I chmod it to a different value. Er...I've
> never chmod'ed a block device before! How is that possible??
>
Just do it (as root): chmod 600 /dev/hdb4
Bob T.
------------------------------
From: Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Kernel panic: VFS
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 14:18:15 -0600
Bruno Barberi Gnecco wrote:
>
> I just got kernel 2.2.4, compiled and booted it. After some normal
> output, the following message showed:
>
> request_module[block-major-3]. Root fs not mounted
> VFS: Cannot open root device 03:03
> Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 03:03
Make sure you have IDE support compiled into the kernel...not as a
module.
Jeremy
------------------------------
From: "Cameron Spitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Help me spend $2,000 on a new Linux-based computer
Date: 28 Mar 1999 17:20:07 GMT
In article <StjL2.8002$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eugene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here is my dream machine:
>
>Celeron 366 overclocked to 550
>128 Mb SDRAM (PC-100) (one piece)
This machine will be unreliable at best. "Overclocking" is for machines
that contain no important data and do no important work,
and where you don't mind installing from scratch all the time.
There is an "Overclocking FAQ" floating around the 'net, with my name
in it. It's a FORGERY. I said approximately the opposite of what
the "FAQ" says, and the FAQ's author reversed the sense of what I said
because he didn't agree with me about the issue.
Then I told him he couldn't use my name, and he ignored that.
I think you can assume the whole thing is a crock, made up by some
crooked PC builder who wanted to blur the issue so he could sell
processors that were slower than he claimed.
In other words, anyone who tries to sell you on "overclocking" is
probably a scammer.
There have been times when semiconductor manufacturers mark parts
as slower than they can be guaranteed to be, to fill orders for the slower
parts, or to protect the price premium on the faster ones.
It's the exception, not the rule. Rumors of a vast conspiracy to
overprice processors and memory by concealing their true reliable
speed are hogwash.
Cameron
------------------------------
From: Mykool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Newbie: Installing LICQ?
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 15:24:17 -0500
Nanto Himawan wrote:
> I am not sure if I understand. This is my first time running linux. I just
> installed it few days ago.
>
> Where can I find the rpm or information about the moc rpm. I bought the
> installation CD-ROMs from Redhat, and I installed everything. So I don't think
> it's somewhere in the CD-ROMs.
Go to the RPM repository (http://rufus.w3.org/linux/RPM/) and download
the licq rpm and install it.
--
Michael Barnhill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte294f
ICQ 13526262
------------------------------
From: Shankar Unni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
linux.redhat.misc,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 12:22:51 -0800
In comp.os.linux.misc Enkidu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Redhat do not develop anything, they "just" package it.
They certainly develop a lot more than you do, you berk..
And then Chris Mauritz chimed in:
> It would be nice if they would "package" a source-based distribution
> similar to what you get with FreeBSD's source.
Tell you what: why don't you actually go look into a RedHat (or any
such) distribution (which has sources packages for everything), unpack
the kernel tree and rebuild it (a simple task, by the way) before
spouting off mindless drivel like this?
Now, about the "separate 686 tree" idea:
1. a separate 686 tree is stupid unless you have *LOTS* of *source*
that's separate between a 686 and a 386. Most of the *necessary*
differences can be accommodated with simple ifdefs.
2. you are free to build your source tree with the compiler of your
choice, giving it whatever code-generation flags you deem appropriate.
If you find a combination of compiler and flags that gives you an
appreciable difference in kernel performance on anything newer than a
386, let us know.
3. the PII/III (and K6 and M2) processors are very forgiving about
integer code scheduling, and you'll see very little difference between
386-scheduled code and 686-scheduled code on these processors. The only
processors on which fancy optimizations made any difference at all were
the Pentium and the original PPro processors (to a slight extent).
4. Kernels, and 99% of the applications out there, don't have much FP
code (not enough to make a difference - it's not like you're running
Livermore loops or fpppp). So doing fancy FP scheduling (even if GCC
were very good at it) would not get you anything.
> Then, if I wanted 686 optimization, I could replace gcc with egcs,
> use the appropriate cflags, type "make world", go to bed, and wake
> up to a system where every single binary had been recompiled from
> scratch on the running system.
You can do a make clean and rebuild and install everything every night
if you choose. With a minor effort, you can switch the entire build
around each night to a different compiler or flags, and see if it makes
a blazing difference..
--
Shankar Unni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brad Corsello)
Subject: Re: Linux 2.2 is very unstable
Reply-To: bcorsello@usa.#NOSPAM.net
Date: 28 Mar 1999 20:03:02 GMT
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 18:33:54 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Apparently for me Linux 2.2.x is not as stable as everyone says.
>
>The first more minor problem I got, is that of the
>Video-for-Linux-drivers. With some application it works great, but with
>some others the whole system freezes.
Was it xawtv that was causing the lockup? I had the same problem... xawtv
is the first and only program that has ever locked up my Linux box. I
couldn't believe my eyes when it happened, but it was reproducable.
Just use something else. There are a few TV programs out there.
--
Brad Corsello, New York, NY. (Remove #NOSPAM from reply-to address.)
No animals were harmed in the writing of this message.
Check out my cats' home page: http://members.xoom.com/bcorsello/cats.html
*** Powered by Linux 2.2.1.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juergen Heinzl)
Subject: Re: Linux firewall/workstation in one PC?
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 19:39:17 GMT
In article <tn8L2.5654$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Martin R. Soderstrom wrote:
>Is it possible to use a single PC as both a firewall and a useable Linux
>workstation?
>
>Specifically, using IP Masquerading, a Windows 95/98 user surfing the Web
>while the firewall Linux box is being used to run Emacs or equivalent apps.
>If it's possible, what are the resource ramifications?
In general a firewall machine should be stripped down to what is necessary, this
includes get rid of all the man pages 8)
In so far resources are not going to be your problem but security will be and
with gcc on your machine your firewall is not going to be worth much. Sounds
harsh, I do know, but you really should consider whether easy to install
tools like tcpd and xinetd are not going to be enough.
Cheers,
Juergen
--
\ Real name : J�rgen Heinzl \ no flames /
\ EMail Private : [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ send money instead /
\ Phone Private : +44 181-332 0750 \ /
------------------------------
From: "wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: good linux books?
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 15:07:46 -0500
Guess what ? I got my PPP running just by reading the sevaral
HOWTO's available, at the same evenning posted the thread.
Didn't understand your rather personnal feelings regarding
my comments, I was just being realistic, critical towards may be
improvment in future editions of the book. But that is up to the author
that is making the money.
Don't need your help anyways.....Thank you...
...AND BY THE WAY, MAY BE YOU OWN THAT AUTHOR
A BEER FOR DEFENDING HIM WITHOUT ANY SEARCH
FOR THE TRUTH.....or for knowing that there are books and bad books...
Regards:
Wilson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Calendar Program
Date: 28 Mar 1999 19:36:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 11:43:47 -0600,
Andrew Adams, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>I broke into Unix on Interactive, then used SCO, a little Solaris, and
>finally Linux. The first three had a program called calendar. It was
>usually run from root's cron, and would check each user's $HOME for a
>file named calendar. It would then pull out all lines with today's
>dates as well as tomorrow's, and mail then to each user.
>
>I can not find a program like that for Linux. Anyone know of one? It
>was so simple to use and I am now really missing it. I am beginning
>to fear that anything for Linux is going to be an X (or maybe KDE)
>program. Yes, even though am finally finding my way around X, I still
>like the character command line. Most things seem simple, fast, and
>easy to understand there.
>
>Perhaps I should write this in Perl? Never did really learn the Perl
>regexp well, and calendar-like stuff would be time consumming. But it
>may be out there already.
>
>Clues appreciated.
>Andrew Adams
>
There is one, it's called... calendar...
Check out sunsite, or rufus.
--
Jim Richardson
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
All hail Eris
"Linux, because a cpu is a terrible thing to waste."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: can't be excuted by typing its name
Date: 28 Mar 1999 19:36:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 01:47:31 GMT,
Dennis Ho, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Please help....
>
> I just set up a linux server, and when I try to excute a C excutable
>file, said, "a.out", by just typing
>a.out at prompt, it failed with a statment like "bash: a.out: commad not
>found". But when I type
>"./a.out", the file is excuted successfully.
> Can someone tell me how to fix that so I can excute that a.out by
>just typing a.out
>
>Thanks a million
the ./ prefix tells bash to look in the cirrent directory for the command.
You could add . to the PATH variable, but there are security issues with
that, it opens up a alot of holes for abuse.
My recommendation would be to use the ./ prefix for testing the command,
and when you want to install it. Install it somewhere in your PATH.
I added a bin directory to my HOME directory, and added that to the PATH,
any programs I write or install for personal use, go in there.
--
Jim Richardson
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
All hail Eris
"Linux, because a cpu is a terrible thing to waste."
------------------------------
From: tibbs@Vanguard. (Bob Thibodeau)
Subject: Re: Drivers for a Sony Discman CD-ROM drive?
Date: 28 Mar 1999 20:32:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stephen Bradley wrote:
>I have a Toshiba Portege 610CT notebook on which I want to install
>Red Hat Linux 5.1. I have a Sony PRD-150 CD-ROM Discman drive
>with its PCMCIA-2 card (#IC-DM150). When attached, however, the
>Red Hat install "... can't find the device anywhere on the system."
>
>Does anyone know whether or not I can use this cd-rom drive to
>install Linux? If it is possible, where can I find drivers to let me
>use this pcmcia card?
>
>Stephen Bradley
Wow! I didn't know anyone else had one of those. I had the same problem
a couple of years ago when I started with Linux. Red Hat wouldn't do it for
some reason, but Debian installed without a hitch. No offense to the RH
people, that's just how it happened.
Good luck.
Bob
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens)
Subject: Re: Why Linux still isn't my standard boot-up OS, or what are the
Linux-equivalents for these Windoze programs?
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 20:32:40 GMT
Harry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Tell that to the thousands of users who every day endure ...<
>
>Hold on a minute ... don't programs crash on Linux?
Yes, but they don't take the OS down with them.
>Besides which, that's not the point. The point is that
>usability seems to occupy very little of a Linux software
>designer's attention. Does it cost $ to make the command
>to install software "Install"?
Useability for whom? The unix philosophy is that a little
learning up front will pay huge dividends in the medium
and long term. The windows philosophy seems to be that
you will stay a newbie your entire life.
>
>Just a thought.
Norman
------------------------------
From: Tomasz Korycki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,hk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Different IP in one network
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 14:19:18 -0500
Lew Pitcher wrote:
>
> Jack Cheng wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have a network system using RH5.2 and running fine. The IP is 192.168.16.1
> >
> > Because I want ot learn more about linux, so I hooked up one more linux box
> > in my existing lan (of course running as a SERVER and IP is 192.168.18.1),
> > so i can change anything in the new linux box for my testing.
> >
> > I cannot ping the 192.168.16.1 from the new linux box (192.168.18.1), is
> > possible set two different IP in one lan system?
> >
> > Best Regard
> > Jack Cheng
>
> If you have defined your 'subnet mask' to be more than 16bits (i.e.
> 255.255.0.0),
> you'll have to stick a router between the two Linux boxes. You see, they
> look to
> be on different subnets, and would ignore each other if they were.
>
> Rather than add more hardware to your lan, either
> a) change the IP address on the new Linux box to a 192.168.16.x address
> (like your first Linux box has), or
> b) change the subnet masks on *both* Linux boxes to be 255.255.0.0
> (in order to put both machines on the same subnet).
>
Well, seeing he runs as A.B.16.x and A.B.18.x, a netmask of /20 should
have them both on the same subnet. For both of them, the network they're
on should be 192.168.16.0, netmask 255.255.240.0 or 0xFFFFF000. One
_could_ make it more flexible by going with /19, for network
192.168.0.0, netmask 192.168.224.0 or 0xFFFFE000
> Of course, option (b) above may have detrimental effects on your
> existing LAN.
>
> --
>
> Lew Pitcher | If everyone has an angle, why
> JOAT-in-training | are most of them so obtuse?
------------------------------
From: Jerry Lynn Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Backing up on Iomega ZIP
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 14:10:52 -0600
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============0EF0A0F9733105035E2ADD06
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Anthony Campbell wrote:
>
> I'm looking for the best and least expensive way to backup a laptop.
> Nothing fancy; just one user. I think that an Iomega ZIP drive would be
> the best way to go, having read the HOWTO. Anyone got any experience or
> other suggestions?
>
> Anthoby
>
> --
> Anthony Campbell - running Linux Debian 2.1
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.achc.demon.co.uk
>
> "The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
> Moves on..." - Edward Fitzgerald (Rubaiat of Omar Khayyam)
==============0EF0A0F9733105035E2ADD06
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii;
name="load_zip_mod"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="load_zip_mod"
#!/bin/bash
# this script must be run as root or su. Keeping the su term open
# allows you to jump back and forth to mount and unmount zip drives.
# You can unmount as a user but you cannot mount as a user. I need
# to put this module loading command in a boot-time script some
# place.
#
# the lilo.conf has the following line: append="ppa=0x278,0" prior
# to any device stanzas, and /bin/sbin/lilo has been run to update
# the loader.
#
# formatting or reformatting a zipdrive:
# first, be sure a previously formatted disk is in the drive before running
# the modprobe command below. This allows the modprobe to get the correct
# size from the hardware. After the modeprobe is run then either the
# mount command is executed to mount the disk that is in the drive, or that
# disk is replaced with an unformated disk and the following command is run:
# mkfs -t ext2 /dev/sda4 98288
# or
# mke2fs /dev/sda4
#
# the value 98288 was reported by the fsck program. The following was reported
# by the modprobe program:
# Cylinders: 96
# Sectors: 196608 [96 MB]
# Bytes/Sector: 512
#
# I computed 96 * 512 * 2048 = 100,663,296 bytes per disk, or 98304 blocks.
# When I used that value in the mkfs command it seemed to work, and still
# does, but when I checked with fsck it reported an error and gave the
# "should be" value of 98288 given above, which is 100,646,912 bytes per disk.
#
# mounting a formatted drive:
#mount -t ext2 /dev/sda4 /mnt/zipdrv
#
/sbin/modprobe /lib/modules/2.0.35/scsi/ppa.o 0x278,0
==============0EF0A0F9733105035E2ADD06==
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Distributions with 2.2.x kernel
Date: 28 Mar 1999 19:36:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 21:52:24 -0800,
jik-, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Andreas Jonsson wrote:
>>
>> Right now there is only one distribution with 2.2.x kernel, ant that is
>> RedHat Starbuck -- BETA build of RedHat 6.0, so there may be some problem.
>> I haven't seen any yet and I've used it since monday.
>
>Slackware 4.0 BETA is 2.2.3 afaik..haven't bother to try it, I am
>waiting for the real release.
Stampede Linux
(I think Mandrake is available for 2.2.x)
--
Jim Richardson
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
All hail Eris
"Linux, because a cpu is a terrible thing to waste."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
