Linux-Misc Digest #641, Volume #19 Sun, 28 Mar 99 18:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0 (wizard)
Re: ICQ auf Linux (Josh Miller)
Re: HELP! Question about Oracle 8 on Linux -- how to auto-start?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linuxers play dirty? (Dave Edick)
Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0 (Chris Mauritz)
Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment.... (wizard)
Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment.... (jedi)
Re: Linux and Netscape 4.51 (tar/gz format) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows (Tom Betz)
Newbie: Installing LICQ? (Nanto Himawan)
Re: Gozilla for Linux? (brian moore)
Re: Newbie: Installing LICQ? (Mykool)
Re: Newbie: Installing LICQ? (Nanto Himawan)
Re: Newbie - Netscape plug-ins ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: C/C++ Programming on Linux: Good Books? (Jukka-Pekka Suominen)
Re: Resizing partitions. (John McKown)
Re: ipfwadm and VPN ("John Hardin")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wizard <[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 16:14:22 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shankar Unni wrote:
> 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.
Must not be clear here. We are talking about slipping a CDROM into our
CD player, updating to RedHat 6.0 and getting a i6896 optimized
installation in the process. This would be a very good thing since
except for the kernel there would be no need to recompile.
>
>
> 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.
If you would try it you would see a difference. Going form gcc to EGCS
can make a big difference in performance. The bigger issue is to make
sure you actually have a compiler scheduling for P2. In any event you
are right we are free to rebuild the kernel, which is fine. The big
issue is the time required to rebuild the rest of the installation.
This is the point about haveing a 686 speecific installation, take this
chore away from me as I have better things to do.
>
>
> 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).
If this is so why does pentium optimized code perform poorly on the P2.
The only reason optimized P2 code amy not look that great is that the
compilers are just now support P2 optimization.
>
>
> 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.
Floating Point is a whole different ball game. NO ONE is talking about
that, this thread revolves around haveing a standard Linux System targeted
to i686.
>
>
> > 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..
When the compiler supports it, optimizations do make a difference.
Please do not under estimate this.
>
>
> --
> Shankar Unni [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Josh Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: ICQ auf Linux
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 13:09:07 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not sure what you are asking, but I have a feeling this will help :-)
Do a search on www.freshmeat.net for Licq
Licq is an ICQ client that runs great in linux. There's also a bunch of others there
you can find by
just searching for ICQ. The Java version just sucks, I wouldn't suggest anyone use it.
Best of luck,
Josh I.
Stephan Schoenfeldt wrote:
>
> Hallo Linux Profis,
>
> Ich versuche krampfhaft ICQJava von www.mirabilis.com auf meiner Suse
> Linux 6 Plattform zu installieren.
>
> Daf�r habe ich mir wie auf der Mirabilis seite geschildert JDK1.1.7
> heruntergeladen und installiert.
>
> Die Installation vin ICQJava hat daraufhin auch funktioniert (keine
> Fehlermeldungen)- installation complete !
>
> wenn ich ICQ dann ausf�hren will bekomme ich folgende Fehlermeldung :
>
> bash-2.02# ./ICQ
> SIGSEGV 11* segmentation violation
>
> Full thread dump:
> Monitor Cache Dump:
> Registered Monitor Dump:
> Monitor IO lock: <unowned>
> Child death monitor: <unowned>
> Event monitor: <unowned>
> I/O monitor: <unowned>
> Alarm monitor: <unowned>
> Monitor registry: <unowned>
> Thread Alarm Q:
> ./ICQ: line 2: 1111 Aborted /usr/jdk1.1.7/bin/java
> -classpath
> /root/ICQJava/ICQ.jar:/root/ICQJava:/usr/jdk1.1.7/lib/classes.zip
> Mirabilis.ICQ.NetAware.CNetAwareApp -path /root/ICQJava
> bash-2.02#
>
> Kann mir Irgendjemand sagen was das zu bedeuten hat ?
>
> vielen Dank im Voraus
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.databases.oracle.server,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: HELP! Question about Oracle 8 on Linux -- how to auto-start?
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 20:51:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anubis) wrote:
> jack dectis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Hi Anubis,
> >
> > The answer appears to be that there is only an rc.d directory in /etc.
All
> > of the files in
> > the ls -la output are the directories and files within /etc/rc.d. The ln
> > command in the documentation
> > was wrong because it should have said /etc/rc.d/rc0.d/whatever.
> >
> > You are welcome,
> >
> >
Jack
>
> Thanks Jack.
>
> That made the command work... Oracle still won't auto-start, though.
> Back to the drawing board.
>
[snip]
Hi all,
Unfortunately, the documentation on this is riddled with errors. Besides the
path being wrong (i.e. /etc/rc0.d/K10dbora should have been
/etc/rc.d/rc0.d/K10dbora), the start script link (S99dbora) should be moved to
rc3.d (i.e. /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/).
Good luck!
Ciao,
Michel
LiveNet Information Solutions, Inc.
http://www.liven.com/
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Edick)
Subject: Re: Linuxers play dirty?
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 18:13:43 GMT
Your guess is right. NT is a microkernel under the covers. At least
they started that way. Linus himself talks about NT's microkernel
choice in a recent article in the current issue of LinuxWorld
(www.linuxworld.com).
On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 20:02:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve
mcadams) wrote:
<stuff snipped>
The truely sad thing is that if WINE succeeds completely what will
have been added to Linux is going to work the same lame way it worked
on Windows. And we'll have dragged the NT plague of DLLs along with
it, not that it isn't already a bad enough plague on Linux with all
the libs that are available/required. Makes me long for my days on
IBM mainframes, where everything you were allowed to do was a
supervisor call (interrupt generating) instruction, and they were all
documented in one set of books. We wrote our own libraries only when
we needed them, because all the basic functionality was already
present in what amounts to the "kernel". None of this modern bullshit
about needing a lib for threads, a lib for gui, a lib for this and a
lib for that. I've always thought it wierd that NT has even a kernel
lib; I think it means they're running a microkernel under the covers.
Would love to read the source code for it, but it ain't likely unless
the DOJ finishes the job. Which is the main reason I like Linux.
<more stuff snipped>
--
/Dave Edick/ dedick at home dot com.
or remove the hates.spam part from the header
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
linux.redhat.misc,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.hardware
From: Chris Mauritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Idea: Make a seperate "i686" tree for Redhat Linux 6.0
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 20:59:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Shankar Unni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
Kindly go fuck yourself. It's unfortunate that socially maladjusted
folk like yourself can take a useful resource like this newsgroup
and turn it into an unpleasant/unuseful experience. If you had been
paying attention, you'd know I wasn't talking about the kernel tree,
but the entire distribution.
Now run along.
Chris
------------------------------
From: wizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment....
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 16:43:49 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stuart Fox wrote:
> Think non technical for a change. Linux is a great operating system if you
> are technically minded - which I assume all of us in this NG are ;) - but
> for ordinary small business owners, it is a complete mystery. At least
> Windows NT looks like something they know, and they don't have to learn
> command line syntaxes for doing basic admin tasks.
>
> I have no particular axe to grind with either the NT or Linux side (although
> I am a consultant for MS products), I just think there are a few linux
> zealots out there who although they have technically excellent solutions,
> fail to take into account that non techos are going to be using these
> products.
>
> Also, time for a few facts
>
> 1. NO operating system is bug free
> 2. Both Linux camps and MS spend considerable time locating and fixing bugs
> 3. A properly configured NT box will not Blue Screen, and will be as stable
> as a well configured Linux box.
Hmmm. Not sure this is really the case, NT does Blue screen sometime
without explanation. One thing I do know for sure is that Linux is a hell
of a lot easier to get working again if it fails to boot. Scramble an NT
installation to much and its reinstall time. A key Linux quality is the
ability to recover a system if sometthing goes wrong. This can be very
difficult with NT.
>
>
> Just my two cents worth.
>
> Stu
> Chris Mauritz wrote in message ...
> >In comp.os.linux.misc Alexander I. Butenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> >Nonsense. Redhat is rather painless to setup. A novice could probably
> >have it up and running as a SOHO file server in under an hour since samba
> >comes turned on by default.
> >
> >C
> >--
> >Christopher Mauritz
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jedi)
Crossposted-To:
microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc,microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment....
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 10:14:42 -0800
On 28 Mar 1999 12:44:01 -0500, Byron A Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <#z0FSqTe#[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Robert Moir [MVP] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>-
>-ERiC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>-news:7dlljq$6qg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]....
>-<snip>
>-
>->
>->I run both NT4 Server and Linux at home and anything important (DNS, SOCKS
>->etc) runs on a Linux box as I found it easier to do than with NT. Also
>-price
>->and hardware required favour the Linux route. FYI I have both Linux and
>->Windows clients.
>->
>->I also do not want a war about this though, its just my opinion...
>->
>->ERiC
>-
>-And welcome to your opinion you certainly are.
>-
>-Personally, I am in the NT camp, I find it easier to use than unix or any
>-varient thereof, but they are *both* excellant server platforms IMHO. I
>-would probably reccomend NT to someone who was asking for a box that was
>-easy to use and administer, because in my personal experiance NT has proven
>-to be so.
>-
>-As for stability, well Linux is not the worlds most mature product, and its
>-doing very well considering how new it is, but I would hesitate before
>-betting the farm on it none the less. As for NT - well I see lots of people
>-commenting on how unstable it is, but I can honestly say that they must run
>-their servers in a different way from me because my NT servers are rock
>-solid and I am very confident in them. Considering the amount of people who
>-say NT gives them trouble I wonder what I am doing wrong!
>-
>-But like I say, either choice is good for a home network. Its pretty much
>-down to which one the user prefers getting to grips with.
>-
>
>Actually isn't there at least one more consideration? How much does it cost
>to set up equivalent functionality with NT Server and Linux. Software cost
>only...
Then you must consider configuration effort.
However, if you then assert that the Linux
installation effort will make it more expensive
in the end, one must consider the useful education
potential involved.
Setting up an insecure gateway could be a potentially
disasterous situation. Even NT won't sheild you from
the abstract security knowledge needed to be aware of
the security issue of either platform.
So, for a server exposed to the net it is actually a
plus that a naieve user might need to struggle to get
some clues for him/her self.
Being on the net (with your home LAN) is like moving
your family to the worst, most crime infested
neighborhood on the planet with all the home security
implications that implies.
--
"I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die |||
while you discuss this a invasion in committe." / | \
In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 17:04:10 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,apana.lists.os.linux.redhat,comp.os.linux.setup,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: Linux and Netscape 4.51 (tar/gz format)
Peter DeSimone wrote:
> Has anyone installed this version? What I am supposed to do after I
> untar/ungz it? What directory should I put it ? Any specific commands
> I should use? Thanks... Peter
> --
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Peter DeSimone
> Email Address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Web Address:
> Http://www.bigfoot.com/~desimonp ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have new 451 version running.
ns-instal should work. Please make sure you download glibc version
it is in the unsupported subdirectory. I believe "supported" libc5 won't
work with
redHat 5.2.
If anyone create RPM from this please let know !
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Betz)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows
Date: 28 Mar 1999 13:34:11 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoth Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
|In comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Colin Ling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|: There are TWO multi-user NT products:
|: WinFrame (for NT 3.51) from Citrix and Windows Terminal Server (for NT 4)
|: from Microsoft.
|
| Have you actually used these products?
|
| I haven't used WinFrame (which is basically a 3rd party add on to
| Terminal Server anyway),
No, it isn't. You are thinking of Citrix MetaFrame. WinFrame is MetaFrame's
predecessor, a multi-user OEM version of NT 3.51. Version 1.8 will add many
of MetaFrame's existing features, but will not require Windows Terminal
Server Edition.
I run (among other things ) a Winframe 1.7 server at my office. It serves
20 users (10 of them running heavy database/accounting apps, the other half
Word/Excel) quite adequately over a 10 Mbps LAN on a dual Pentium Pro/200
server with 128MB of RAM -- doubling the RAM would probably let it serve 30
without too much perceived sluggishness, wexcept by the most Type-A users.
Yes, Linux/X could probably serve 50; but Linux/X won't run Foxpro- or Delphi-
developed apps, the constraints I was handed when I specified it in 1996.
In the real world, you use the tool that gets the job done.
| but I have used Windows NT Terminal Server
| Edition. Expensive, scales like mud, slow as mud (hope you have a
| FDDI ring or three to host it on), many (most?) apps don't run under
| it (although you can buy "terminal versions" of (some of) them at
| extra cost), platform dependent in the extreme (Windows-only
| clients), etc...
Largely, its sloth and scaling difficulties are improved by the addition
of Metaframe, which adds the superb ICA protocol and practical clustering
capability, as well as all the administration tools that Microsoft forgot.
However, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the priceyness of the
product. If the pricing were rationalized, this solution would sell
a lot better. Citrix built its WinFrame pricing schedule in 1995, and
hasn't adjusted it to fit the new world of cheap PCs. And Microsoft;
well, its whole licensing approach to NT Server is sheer greedy lunacy,
and it doesn't look like it will get much better any time soon.
| Ok, I'm not being completely fair, as you can use Unix, Mac, etc
| clients with it....If you choose to buy an even more stupidly
| expensive product from another vender, MetaFrame, to run on top of
| it...
MetaFrame is also a Citrix product. And you can use the same Unix, Mac,
etc. clients with WinFrame. This has helped me leverage our existing Mac
investment (including a lot of older 680X0 Macs) for use as terminals.
For future reference, if you are going to criticize something, it really
helps to make sure that you know what you are talking about first.
| "Multi-user" or not, give me X any day...
ICA is largely based on X, and is much more efficient than X; I'd love to
see the ICA protocol implemented on a Linux server, as a replacement for X.
Proprietary as it is, though, I'm not holding my breath.
--
|We have tried ignorance | Tom Betz, Generalist |
|for a very long time, and | Want to send me email? FIRST, READ THIS PAGE: |
|it's time we tried education. | <http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/mailterms.shtml> |
|<http://www.pobox.com/~tbetz> | YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY SPAM-ARMORED! |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nanto Himawan)
Subject: Newbie: Installing LICQ?
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 18:16:06 GMT
I am trying to install LICQ on Redhat 5.2, and I have the following error
message. I looked at the FAQ, but the information about moc there doesn't
help. I tried using gmake, and it gives me similar error. I guess I don't have
/usr/bin/moc. Is there alternative to using moc? Where can I get moc?
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/nanto/licq-0.61/src'
/usr/bin/moc -o moc_icq.cpp icq.h
make[1]: /usr/bin/moc: Command not found
make[1]: *** [moc_icq.cpp] Error 127
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/nanto/licq-0.61/src'
make: *** [all_recursive] Error 2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Subject: Re: Gozilla for Linux?
Date: 28 Mar 1999 18:33:55 GMT
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:29:46 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> Is there any software for linux, that can resume downloading of broken files?
> Like GoZilla for windows.
'wget -c <url>' works great, as does 'snarf <url>'.
Search for either on Freshmeat.
--
Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach
Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain."
Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
------------------------------
From: Mykool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Newbie: Installing LICQ?
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 13:30:07 -0500
Nanto Himawan wrote:
>
> I am trying to install LICQ on Redhat 5.2, and I have the following error
> message. I looked at the FAQ, but the information about moc there doesn't
> help. I tried using gmake, and it gives me similar error. I guess I don't have
> /usr/bin/moc. Is there alternative to using moc? Where can I get moc?
>
> make[1]: Entering directory `/home/nanto/licq-0.61/src'
> /usr/bin/moc -o moc_icq.cpp icq.h
> make[1]: /usr/bin/moc: Command not found
> make[1]: *** [moc_icq.cpp] Error 127
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/nanto/licq-0.61/src'
> make: *** [all_recursive] Error 2
Why don't you install the RPM?
--
Michael Barnhill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gte294f
ICQ 13526262
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nanto Himawan)
Subject: Re: Newbie: Installing LICQ?
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 18:30:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mykool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Nanto Himawan wrote:
>>
>> I am trying to install LICQ on Redhat 5.2, and I have the following error
>> message. I looked at the FAQ, but the information about moc there doesn't
>> help. I tried using gmake, and it gives me similar error. I guess I don't
> have
>> /usr/bin/moc. Is there alternative to using moc? Where can I get moc?
>>
>> make[1]: Entering directory `/home/nanto/licq-0.61/src'
>> /usr/bin/moc -o moc_icq.cpp icq.h
>> make[1]: /usr/bin/moc: Command not found
>> make[1]: *** [moc_icq.cpp] Error 127
>> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/nanto/licq-0.61/src'
>> make: *** [all_recursive] Error 2
>
>Why don't you install the RPM?
>
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Newbie - Netscape plug-ins
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 22:27:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gabor Jacques wrote:
>>
>> Can anyone tell me if the common plugins for netscape are available for
>> Linux. I am looking for things like Quicktime, Real player, Shockwave
>
>Xanim will run most Quicktime stuff. You can get RealPlayer (RealVideo?)
>5.0 for linux from the Realaudio site. Don't know about shockwave.
>
You might want to check out:
http://www.hubbe.net/~hubbe/plugger.html
--
Praeterea censeo Micromolle non esse utendum.
("Moreover, I maintain that Microsoft should not be used." With apologies
to Cato the Elder)
---- Remove "UhUh" and "Spam" to get my real email address -----
------------------------------
From: Jukka-Pekka Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,alt.linux
Subject: Re: C/C++ Programming on Linux: Good Books?
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:03:49 +0200
On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am looking for a good book that describes the use of GNU C/C++ compilers
> (have they both been merged and now called gcc?), various command-line
> switches, GNU Debugger (gdb), etc. Anybody want to recommend a good and
> not-so-verbose book? Thanks.
Well, I just got wrox press "Beginning Linux Programming", and although
it isn't entirely C (and really nothing 'bout C++), I think it's a great
book. It covers many aspects of Linux/Unix programming, and also a lot
about the development tools (gcc, gdb etc...), so if you're not looking
for a C/C++ tutorial, I'd say this is the one to get.
JP
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John McKown)
Subject: Re: Resizing partitions.
Date: 28 Mar 1999 23:06:25 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't know of ANY way to resize an ext2 partition. However, what you can do
is to use FDISK to remove all the other partitions. Then create a new
partition. Create a filesystem on this new partition (mkfs -t ext2 /dev/hdb?)
Then create a directory on root such as /drive2 (mkdir /drive2)
Now mount the new filesystem (mount -t ext2 /dev/hdb? /drive2)
You can now move a subdirectory (such as /usr - it tends to be huge)
by doing "cd /;tar c usr | (cd /drive2;tar x). Verify that everything
in in /drive2! Now rename /usr (for now) by "mv /usr /usr-old".
Unmount /drive2 (umount /drive2). And remount it as /usr.
mount -t ext2 /dev/hdb? /usr
Update /etc/fstab with the new entry
/dev/hdb? /usr ext2 defaults 1 2
I'd reboot at this point to make sure everything is OK.
If everything looks OK, then kill /usr-old
rm -R /usr-old/*
rmdir /usr-old
Another way, that I tend to use, is to connect subdirectories to the new
drive via symbolic links. For example, mount your new drive a /drive2
The fstab entry would be
/dev/hdb? /drive2 ext2 defaults 1 2
Now you can link a subdirectory similiar to:
cd /usr
mkdir /drive2/usr/subdir
ln -s /drive2/usr/subdir subdir
Now, when you reference /usr/subdir, Linux automagically puts you in
/drive2/usr/subdir. Neat! If you want to move something, say /usr/doc
then you do something like:
mkdir /drive2/usr/doc
cd /usr
tar c doc | (cd /drive2/usr; tar x)
cd /usr
mv doc doc-old
ln -s /drive2/usr/doc doc
At some later point, when you're comfortable, then you
rm -R /usr/doc-old/*
Hope this give you some ideas!
John
On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 00:30:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I have a western digital 8.4gb IDE drive that I have partitioned into four
>drives:
>
>/dev/hdb1 4950048 1972501 2721312 42% /files
>/dev/hdb2 2040300 2 2040298 0% /dos
>/dev/hdb3 (the rest, linux can't see it, it's BeOS FS)
>
> I'd like to reclaim the whole drive for /files, without destroying the 2
>GB of data that's already on there. Is it possible to do this? How risky
>is it?
>
> Thanks in advance...
>
> --
>
> Michael Chisari
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: "John Hardin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: ipfwadm and VPN
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 14:32:31 -0800
Jack Valko wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I'm trying to establish a VPN connection from one of my windows boxes to
>my RAS server at my office across the Internet. The connection begins
>just fine but the firewall drops the gre escapulation packets. Can I
>configure ipfwadm to forward these packets? How?
Yes.
Please visit ftp://ftp.rubyriver.com/pub/jhardin/ip_masq_vpn.html
{makes note to see if it's in the Major Search Engines...}
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpk -a finger://gonzo.wolfenet.com/jhardin PGP key ID: 0x41EA94F5
PGP key fingerprint: A3 0C 5B C2 EF 0D 2C E5 E9 BF C8 33 A7 A9 CE 76
=======================================================================
In the Lion
the Mighty Lion
the Zebra sleeps tonight...
Dee de-ee-ee-ee-ee de de de we um umma way!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
