Linux-Misc Digest #646, Volume #19 Mon, 29 Mar 99 02:13:09 EST
Contents:
Boot-up Processes - Help (Jason)
Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment.... (jedi)
Re: LPRng problems ("Peter Caffin")
Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment.... (Robert McConnell)
Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
Re: Boot-up Processes - Help ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux still isn't my standard boot-up OS, or what are the Linux-equivalents
for these Windoze programs? (Richard Steiner)
Re: Why Does Mail Break after adding a new Mail user ? (brian moore)
Re: Apache mod_php3 w/ MySQL support.... ANYONE? For the love of God- (Ted Liu)
Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment.... (jedi)
Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Windows opening with their tops off the top of the screen. (Dan Lange)
Re: pascal debugger (Richard Steiner)
Re: Newbie: Installing LICQ? (Ed Young)
Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment.... ("Alexander I. Butenko")
Re: Adduser ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Boot-up Processes - Help
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 22:17:40 -0500
Is anyone familiar with configuring the boot-up processes, i.e. lpd,
kerneld, mouse gpm, etc? I installed hylafax, but it configured itself
to run at boot-up, locking up my modem for its own use. I had to
uninstall it to run my dial-up correctly.
Is this something that has to be edited in the kernel, or is there a
script that can be emac'd? Any info will be appreciated... I'll be busy
checking my books and the HOWTO's in the meantime.
Thanks,
Jason
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jedi)
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....
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 17:48:43 -0800
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 18:26:51 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It was the Sun, 28 Mar 1999 18:22:52 +0300...
>...and 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.
>
>There posts someone who doesn't know what a Cobalt Qube or such can do
>for you - with Linux.
>
>mawa
The guys still gotta have a clue if it's on the net.
Cobalt fucked up on apache configurations for their
cubes and left open a big fat gaping hole that's not
there in the standard distribution (source).
--
"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
------------------------------
From: "Peter Caffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.debian.user
Subject: Re: LPRng problems
Date: 29 Mar 1999 03:31:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> gene wrote:
>> My /etc/printcap entry:
>>
>> lp|lp2|bj200-letter-auto-mono|bj200 auto mono:\
>> :[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\
The important bit.
[...]
>> You must have a printcap file in the spool directory also:
>>
>> lp|lp2|bj200-letter-auto-mono|bj200 auto mono:\
>> :lp=/dev/lp0:\
The other important bit ;).
> Would other printcap file(s) be in /var/spool/lpd or in all /var/spool/* ?
The above entry should be in /var/spool/lpd/printcap. After making the
changes Gene suggested, LPRng worked fine :).
--: _ _ _ _
_oo__ |_|_ |__ _ | _ |_|_o _ pc at it dot net dot a u |
//`'\_ | (/_|(/_| |_(_|| | || | it.net.au/~pc |
/ PO Box 869, Hillarys WA 6923, AUSTRALIA |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert McConnell)
Subject: Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment....
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 01:41:30 GMT
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 18:22:52 +0300, "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.
And you would be absolutely wrong.
It took me about three hours of reading, and four kernel compiles to
put together a complete Linux server with IP forwarding and everything
else needed to connect my home network to Roadrunner. It has been up
without any problems for four months. I can't even keep the NT
workstation at the office up for a week at a time. The IT group has
been fighting with their four NT servers for most of a year, and can't
get any of them to run more than a few days at a time, as opposed to
the 14 Netware servers that have been running reliably for years. NT
is basically a pile of bug ridden garbage that isn't worth the time
nor effort to install it.
Bob McConnell
N2SPP
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 01:29:20 GMT
On 28 Mar 1999 18:35:06 -0500, Frank Sweetser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesus Monroy, Jr.) writes:
>
>> Linux is best for:
>>
>> o..........Meeting People
>> o..........Learning an OS, if you are from the MS-DOS world
>> o..........Finding ported drivers from odd hardware devices
>> o..........Meeting Chicks
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>???? AFAIK, there isn't a single female in our user's group - so what are
>we doing wrong?
>
You're at a university.
--
I am not a bot.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Boot-up Processes - Help
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 03:40:43 GMT
Jason wrote:
> Is anyone familiar with configuring the boot-up processes, i.e. lpd,
> kerneld, mouse gpm, etc? I installed hylafax, but it configured itself
> to run at boot-up, locking up my modem for its own use. I had to
> uninstall it to run my dial-up correctly.
> Is this something that has to be edited in the kernel, or is there a
> script that can be emac'd? Any info will be appreciated... I'll be busy
> checking my books and the HOWTO's in the meantime.
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This depends on waht distribution you are using. If you are using redhat,
you can run setup from console and you can enable or disable boot up
processes. Another way to do it would be to use a sysv editor (unless
running slack).
The easiest way to do this that applies on all distributions is to add teh
command line to run the program followed by & (make sure you add that or
your system might hang) to /etc/rc.d/rc.local (might be /etc/rc.local). So
to have lpd start at boot add :
/usr/sbin/lpd &
to the end of rc.local
-- Nadeem
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Subject: Re: Why Linux still isn't my standard boot-up OS, or what are the
Linux-equivalents for these Windoze programs?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 19:56:14 -0600
Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Harry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spake unto us, saying:
>> True, which is why I don't recommend Linux <
>
>Here's an idea - suppose the people who write software
>for Linux start to think a little about the ones who are
>going to use it? Just a thought ...
Please try to keep in mind that (until very recently) the only people
who were seen as target users for Linux software were programmers and
technically-aware hobbyists.
On other words, a certain level of knowledge was expected, and I think
rightfully so.
Now we have some folks (like the KDE folks) who are starting to look at
the needs of the less technical end user, and I think that trend will
increase over time. That will make things a little easier for the non-
technical user.
Until then, I guess they have to spend time learning, at least if they
want to use Linux.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris + BeOS +
WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + MacOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
And now for something completely different...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Subject: Re: Why Does Mail Break after adding a new Mail user ?
Date: 29 Mar 1999 04:22:15 GMT
On 26 Mar 1999 08:51:50 +0100,
Villy Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <7dds36$ol0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bill Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Kim Knoblauch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>/var/spool/ mail is mail mail , perm list is drw-rw----
> >
> >The permissions for /var/spool/mail should be drwxrwxrwt
> >The users must have permission to read their own mail and to remove the
> >mail from the spool file after it has been read. The t is there to make
> >sure that only the owner of the file can actually remove it.
> >
> >chmod a+rwxt /var/spool/mail
>
> There are currently several opinions on this matter. Traditionally the
> mail spool directory was
>
> drwxrwxr-x 2 root mail /var/spool/mail
>
> and that works because all programs that needs to create files in that
> directory is sgid mail. Now the pine people has decided that the correct
> permission is 1777, that is, drwxrwxrwt. That is because the pine and
> the ipop3 and imap programs runs as the real user and group the group of
> the real user, and it is necessary for these programs to be able to create
> temporary lock files in the mail spool directory. Thus the 777 permission.
> Also we won't allow other than the owner to remove the mail file, thus
> the sticky bit. The individual mail files are always owned by the real
> user of the the file.
Um, it has nothing to do with PINE: it has to do with BSD vs SysV.
Traditional BSD used the sticky bit as you describe, whilst SysV did it
via sgid-mail.
There are security ramifications both ways. (I prefer the BSD
mechanism, and the denial of service attack that allows is irrelevant if
you use Procmail, since it will rename any mis-owned files out of the
way. Much simpler than ensuring a zillion sgid-mail programs are
secure.)
--
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: Ted Liu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
linux.redhat.misc,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.infosystems.www.servers.unix
Subject: Re: Apache mod_php3 w/ MySQL support.... ANYONE? For the love of God-
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 21:18:10 -0500
Tree wrote:
> Could someone PLEASE (for the love of God!) post a
> /etc/httpd/modules/libphp3.so that has _MySQL_ support in it? [or give a
> FTP/WWW url to download it]
>
> This is the PHP-3 module for Apache. (The one that comes with Redhat only
> has PostGRE SQL database support, I need a module w/ MySQL support.)
>
> Thanks in advance to anyone who can help! =)
>
> p.s. - I have tried EVERYthing, and am about ready to punch in my monitor.
> I know someone out there in USENET land has an Apache PHP3 module with
> MySQL support. BTW, I am using Redhat Linux 5.9 (Starbuck), in case you
> need to know.
Have you ever thought to look for information at PHP3?! Everyrhing you need
to know is there (section 3.3).
http://www.php3.net/FAQ.php3
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jedi)
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 17:47:11 -0800
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 09:10:30 +1200, Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
...and will be no less complicated to the 'novice user' to
deal with. That's the big problem here. When going from
userland to servers an inch might as well be a lightyear.
>
>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]
>
>
--
"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
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:20:06 +1200
>o..........Meeting People
>o..........Learning an OS, if you are from the MS-DOS world
>o..........Finding ported drivers from odd hardware devices
>o..........Meeting Chicks
>
I can't think of a single OS that's good for meeting chicks ;)
Stu
------------------------------
From: Dan Lange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows opening with their tops off the top of the screen.
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 20:51:07 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You could try just grabbing a border to move it around. Grabbing a
corner is for resizing, a side will move the window. Try it. :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Subject: Re: pascal debugger
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 19:28:55 -0600
Here in comp.os.linux.misc, "Feldari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spake unto us, saying:
>Is there a pascal debugger for linux ??
I think DDD (a nice graphical front-end for gdb) will do pascal:
http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/softech/ddd/
The gdb debugger is the "standard" Linux debugger.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris + BeOS +
WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + MacOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
ine. This is a moebius tagline. This is a moebius tagl
------------------------------
From: Ed Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Newbie: Installing LICQ?
Date: 29 Mar 1999 02:39:14 GMT
Nanto Himawan wrote:
>
> 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.
check out:
http://rufus.w3.org/linux/RPM/contrib/libc6/i386/licq-0.61-2.i386.html
This archive hosts 35107 RPMs representing 49036 MBytes of data,
you can usually find what you are looking for at rufus in rpm format.
------------------------------
From: "Alexander I. Butenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment....
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 08:27:40 +0300
Crossposted-To:
microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc,microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,micorosft.public.outlook
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Alexander I. Butenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Well,, I'd beter think that there is a Server for the client, not
> > vice-versa.
>
> *boggle* what exactly are you trying to say? this sentence doesn't
> make any sense to me.
I mean that we can't say that we should cnsider the Server the main thing in
the net, the main thing is the client and its needs. If our Server fulfills
our client needs - it's good, if not - no.
>
> > 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.
>
> but if you can't do win98, wtf are you doing with nt server? windows
> nt is kind of like windows 98. they are different enought that once
> you get under the skin lot of stuff is different so that a competent
> win98 user may get lost. they are alike enough that someone who can't
> do win98 won't be able do windows nt.
I meanthat most home users are like this. And it'll be anyway easier for
them to configure NT than Linux.
>
> so they can't configure win98 properly. i readily admit, *i* can't
> configure win98 (more truthfully, i can't abide by it but i digress).
> i, however, *can* do linux!
>
> > Anyway I do not wasn to continue this flame as most of this group
> > members seem to gain nothing from it.
>
> perhaps that is because they cannot/will not change their minds no
> matter what.
Yes, I doubt anybody will change its mind.
>
> --
> J o h a n K u l l s t a m
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Don't Fear the Penguin!
--
Please reply only to the newsgroup!
Best Regards,
Alexander I. Butenko
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft Developer Network Certified Member
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Adduser
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 05:34:26 GMT
In article <7dev7g$s10$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ed Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lian PL wrote:
> >
> > I have just setup Linux in my Acer laptop. I logged in as root then tried
> > to adduser.It would not allow me . The message is . command not known in
> > the bash shell. Any advce from fellow Linuxes?
> > plse email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> try: useradd
> Being a newbie you may need a little more guidance than useradd.
If you want to add the user George type useradd George. After that you'll
wnat a password for the new user George. To add a password type passwd Burns.
Myself being a newbie found the book Using Linux a very helpful way to start
learning the OS
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
