Linux-Misc Digest #405, Volume #18 Wed, 30 Dec 98 09:13:41 EST
Contents:
Re: The goal of Open Source (Christopher Browne)
Re: Red Hat buyers beware! (jedi)
Re: gnome & windows manager (Christopher Browne)
Re: Linux (Red Hat 5.1 and 5.2) Y2K compliance (Christopher Browne)
Re: Infringement of the GPL (Christopher Browne)
SMP Question (Bill)
Re: Infringement of the GPL (Christopher Browne)
Re: Help, resolving IP address with a ppp conection ("Todd A. Wood")
Cross Platform Compiler? (Somsak Limavongphanee)
Re: Memory Problems (Chuan Wee)
Linux Music Software Site (Shareware Music Machine)
Re: redhat rpm (Mike Werner)
Re: SMP Question (Mike Werner)
Re: Switching from Red Hat 5.1 to Debian (Destrius)
Re: Infringement of the GPL (Destrius)
test (Buchberger Mario)
Re: Anti-Linux FUD (Floyd Davidson)
Re: SUID (Johan Kullstam)
Partition trouble (Arthur Dent)
Re: Infringement of the GPL (Christopher B. Browne)
shell script question.. (Sang Yong Lee)
Re: How to create a shell script? (Mike Thoreson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: The goal of Open Source
Date: 30 Dec 1998 04:17:25 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 01:01:16 GMT, steve mcadams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 18:22:53 -0500, Victor Danilchenko
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Yes, you most certainly have created something that is useful -- the
>>point of distinction here is that, once you created it, it costs nothing
>>to create other copies of it. Yes, you should be compensated for writing
>>it -- however, once it is written, insisting upon charging money for
>>something that costs nothing to you (costs nothing now, that you have
>>written it) is not nice either. Remember, what you have created is an
>>IDEA, not a thing -- an idea that the entire society can benefit from.
>
>In other words, there is no mechanism in the FSF paradigm by which I
>can be paid for the work I have done; the best I can look forward to
>is being "qualified" to do more work for which I might be paid.
>Right?
Wrong.
If you find someone who finds having your software written, and paying
you to do so, of more utility than not having your software written,
then you're liable to get paid for it.
This is why such notable companies as Red Hat, Cygnus Support, IBM,
Corel, and others have been paying people to work on GPLed and other
forms of Open Source(tm) software.
>>FSF, in this respect, proposes a very utilitarian thing -- the greatest
>>good for the greatest number, maximisation of overall utility.
>
>Sounds like communism to me, but politics was never something I paid a
>lot of attention to.
Maximization of overall utility is the goal of *all* economic systems,
whether taken in directions of socialism, capitalism, fascism, or any of
the other "isms."
(How one defines the utility function is the million-dollar political
question that has resulted in all too many deaths...)
>> In short, "the right thing" is to have a different compensation model
>>from the current commercial software -- and FSF have one (sell services,
>>not ideas). Whether this ethical point will be taken is a different
>>matter...
>
>It's not clear to me that there's anything wrong with the current
>compensation model, aside from the fact that MS has established a
>monopoly and is overcharging for everything. -steve
--
The real problem with the the year 2000 is that there are too many zero
bits and that adversely affects the global bit density. -- Boyd Roberts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jedi)
Subject: Re: Red Hat buyers beware!
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 03:19:44 -0800
On 29 Dec 1998 04:47:49 GMT, LinuxCyrix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Um.. dude, MacMillan IIIIISSSSSS the "official" RedHat release. If tech
>support even talked to you then yer registration number *must* have checked
>out. RedHat doesn't print these CDs in their own plant. Nobody does. That's
>what "publishers" are for.
No they aren't. They're yet another freebie CD producer.
If they happen to make their own on the side while printing
for Redhat, that's completely irrelevant.
--
Herding Humans ~ Herding Cats
Neither will do a thing unless they really want to, or |||
is coerced to the point where it will scratch your eyes out / | \
as soon as your grip slips.
In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: gnome & windows manager
Date: 30 Dec 1998 04:16:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 09:57:38 -0400, Mat�as Orchard V.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi there:
>
> why does GNome have not incorporated a windows manager?
Because there seem to be a lot of people that like having the ability to
choose their favorite WM rather out of the many already available to
choose from.
And because allowing people to pick means that the GNOME project doesn't
have to take responsibility for adding in every feature to the "GNOME
WM" that everyone might possibly want, thereby ensuring a bloated WM....
> why can't I have folders on my desktop like under KDE?
gmc seems to allow this. So does dfm.
The answer would thus appear to be:
"Because you haven't tried running any of the programs that put folders
on the desktop."
> which windows manager do you recommend to use under gnome?
Whichever one you prefer to use. Feel free to decouple this question
from dependancies on GNOME.
I have happily used AfterStep, WindowMaker, and wmx. I have been mostly
using WindowMaker these days, which is a decision entirely independent
of usage of GNOME.
--
"sic transit discus mundi"
(From the System Administrator's Guide, by Lars Wirzenius)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Linux (Red Hat 5.1 and 5.2) Y2K compliance
Date: 30 Dec 1998 04:17:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 00:08:27 +0000, Matt Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I'm responsible at my job for investigating the Y2K-compliance of all
>our systems. This includes two Red Hat Linux boxes (one is 5.1 and the
>other is 5.2). I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas on Y2K-compliance
>of Linux. Neither box is using much significant 3rd party software, so
>it would mostly be a matter of the OS itself. The two boxes are used
>for gateway, DNS, e-mail, firewall and web servers. I've checked Red
>Hat's web site, and found nothing on Y2K. Anyone have any suggestions?
>I'm assuming that, like most other areas, Linux will be vastly superior
>to it's competition (even Windows 98 is not fully Y2K-compliant, and
>neither is the UnixWare 7.0.0u that I just installed on a Compaq
>Proliant 3000). Thanks.
See the URL below for more details on the issue.
--
The real problem with the the year 2000 is that there are too many zero
bits and that adversely affects the global bit density. -- Boyd Roberts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linuxy2k.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Infringement of the GPL
Date: 30 Dec 1998 04:17:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 01:01:23 GMT, steve mcadams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 28 Dec 1998 23:35:38 +1100, Zoltan Kocsi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>"Writing GPL'd SW works for individuals because it makes them feel good
>>and works for the society because it gains common ownership of the
>>GPL'd SW and thus does not depend on the mercy of an individual or
>>organisation in regards to the named SW."
>
>That's a legitimate way to see it I suppose. Though it doesn't make
>me feel good to work an extra 50 hours a week and then give the
>results away, it may ring some peoples' chimes. -steve
This is, for the most part, how most of the really wonderful works of
art have come about.
Those that *need* to build something truly brilliant are not primarily
working in order to receive the benefit of money. They are working to
receive other benefits, such as that of having a result in which they
can take pride.
It has been quite clearly established in the management science
literature that employees are not encouraged to produce best results
simply by providing monetary benefits.
You may be in a place where people are living with such mercenary views
that you do not see anyone do anything for other than monetary
compensation. Which would be a sad thing; when people can only see
money as their purpose, they miss other values.
- Children can't be sold (at least, most societies try to prevent this),
and therefore the raising of children stands clearly against your
apparent principle.
- Charitable associations cannot function when people are so mercenary
that they are not willing to contribute time and effort without
corresponding return of money.
- People that are as mercenary as you imply are not willing to serve in
military or governmental organizations (that generally don't pay the
highest wages) unless they can corrupt those organizations so as to
bring them monetary returns.
- People don't have hobbies when they are so mercenary.
- People who are so mercenary try to avoid family activities as family
members tend to regard family activities as things that should not
involve monetary compensation.
(I haven't seen too many people charge money for tickets in order to
belly up to the table at Christmas to eat some of that turkey.)
The world involves more forms of utility than those associated with
money.
--
The real problem with the the year 2000 is that there are too many zero
bits and that adversely affects the global bit density. -- Boyd Roberts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill)
Subject: SMP Question
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 03:42:57 GMT
I'm new to Linux and have a small server set up and running using this OS. I
was able to locate all the info I needed for getting Linux to recognize the
128 megs, and setting up the SCSI was a breeze.
My problem lies in SMP, you see, this server has two CPUs and Linux will only
"see" one of them.
It was pointed out in a SMP FAQ that you have to uncomment the SMP=1 line of
the /usr/src/linux/Makefile. That seemed simple enough, except I don't have a
/Makefile in that directory. I haven't found Makefile anywhere yet.
I am using Debian Linux 2.0.33 (I believe) and the CPUs are Intel Pentiums if
that has any bearing. The Linux version I am using was recently purchased via
Cheapbytes on CD.
The installation went fine, but I am lost trying to get Linux to recognize my
system, at least BIOS sees the CPUs so far.
Unfortunately, most of the SMP info I have found so far on the HOWTOs and the
Linux FAQs are all concerned with whether or not you need multiple CPUs and
what they do. For me, there is no question that I'll use a dual CPU machine,
since that's all I have.
How do I enable it when the file they want edited doesn't seem to exist?
If you need more system info, just say so, I'll tell you whatever I can. Hey,
I'll even reinstall Linux if that's what is required :-)
Bill
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Infringement of the GPL
Date: 30 Dec 1998 04:20:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 30 Dec 1998 01:03:19 GMT, steve mcadams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 29 Dec 1998 01:43:58 -0800, Michael Powe
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Steve, I'm thankful there are many programmers that do not agree with
>>your ideas; it is only because of them that I am able to do what I am
>>doing now. Without free software, there would be no WWW such as we
>>know it. It would be the private domain of the well-heeled who could
>>afford to pay for it. There'd be no linux as we know it; there'd be
>>no usenet. It's the repudiation of that pay-and-pay-and-pay mentality
>>that enables us to even have this conversation. When I wanted to
>>study Scheme or SmallTalk, they made it possible for me to do so --
>>since I would not have had the necessary hundreds of dollars to invest
>>in books and software.
>>
>>I humbly suggest that the next time you're feeling lousy about your
>>job, you take a look around and see all the many people who are worse
>>off. At least you have within your power to give back something to
>>the software community that benefits you so much. If only you would
>>do so.
>
>I'd love to spend all my time writing free software. Are you offering
>to support me and my family while I do it, suggesting that I should
>live in a cardboard box, or suggesting that I should be content to
>spend just a few hours a week writing software that I care about while
>wasting the rest of my time making a living?
Each of your conclusions has a degree of merit.
I'd like to see there be an improved set of "support mechanisms" to
provide some economic incentives for those that are writing useful free
software.
See <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html> and particularly
<http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsffairshare.html> for some somewhat
"philosophical" ideas in this regard.
I find "grassroots" approaches that have the potential to start small
and grow particularly interesting; see:
<http://visar.csustan.edu/bazaar/bazaar.html> and
<http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/fssp.html>
for somewhat more concrete ideas on the construction of ways to at
least get closer to allowing "small guys" to get some remuneration.
Flip side of the coin:
Many people work "for food," and do things that they love to do "for
fun."
To different people, such activities as singing, skiing, playing in a
band, racing cars, playing [baseball|football|hockey] can all represent
things that they love to do "for fun."
There are also "professionals" in each of these areas; the same can be
true for computer programming.
If you look up the local communities of enthusiasts in "legacy computer
systems" vendors such as Amiga, Atari 8-bit/ST, Apple ][, TRS-80, TI
99/4, just to name a few, you will find significant numbers of people
who write software with little or no expectation of realistically
gaining their living from the task.
It is silly to assume that all usage of computers *must* be related to
earning a living.
--
"Your job is being a professor and researcher: That's one hell of a good
excuse for some of the brain-damages of minix." -- Linus Torvalds to
Andrew Tanenbaum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:55:21 +0100
From: "Todd A. Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Help, resolving IP address with a ppp conection
Tom Kelly wrote:
>
> Hi can anyone help?
>
> I have been trying to use my account on my ISP, Freeserve.co.uk from Linux
> for the past two weeks. I have managed to get the PPP connection established
> after some initial difficulties. I have read all the HOWTO's that I can get
> my hands on but I am still unable to see beyond the initial connection. I
> assume the problem is related to resolving the IP addresses but I'm not
> sure.
<snip>
> ------------------------------------------
> Content of /etc/resolv.conf
> domain freeserve.co.uk
> search freeserve.co.uk
> 194.152.64.68
> 194.152.64.35
> ------------------------------------------
very close...
add nameserver before your name server addresses in /etc/resolv.conf
i.e.
domain freeserve.co.uk
search freeserve.co.uk
nameserver 194.152.64.68
nameserver 194.152.64.35
Once that works, read up on setting up a caching name server, if one is
not already running. Then add nameserver 127.0.0.1 to the top of the
list.
Enjoy,
Todd.
------------------------------
From: Somsak Limavongphanee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Cross Platform Compiler?
Date: 30 Dec 1998 10:41:42 GMT
--
How to set GCC on linux to compile a binary for many different platforms?
Somsak
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:58:18 +0800
From: Chuan Wee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Memory Problems
Its actually a kernel bug, which has been resolved in the 2.0.36 version.
Be careful about compiling the 2.0.36 kernel as there seems to be some problem
about the compilier.
If you need help on compiling 2.0.36, try this site to get the patch:
http://www.linuxrx.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shareware Music Machine)
Subject: Linux Music Software Site
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:41:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are hundreds of music programs for Linux which you can
download at http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/linux/
________________________________________________________________________
This message is spam resistant, to write back via email remove 'nospam-'
from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mike Werner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: redhat rpm
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 00:12:37 -0500
Sounds like you're trying to do multiple identical installations or Red
Hat, correct? If so, take a look at
http://metalab.unc.edu/pub/Linux/docs/HOWTO/KickStart-HOWTO and save
yourself some trouble. Apparently Red Hat has this built in.
--
Mike Werner KA8YSD | "Where do you want to go today?"
ICQ# 12934898 | "As far from Redmond as possible!"
AIM Screen Name Reznaeous |
'91 GS500E |
Morgantown WV |
=====BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK=====
Version: 3.1
GU d-@ s:+ a- C++>$ UL++ P+ L+++ E W++ N++ !o w--- O- !M V-- PS+ PE+
Y+ R+ !tv b+++(++++) DI+ D--- G e*>++ h! r++ y++++
======END GEEK CODE BLOCK======
------------------------------
From: Mike Werner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SMP Question
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 00:20:03 -0500
If you don't have a Makefile, is it possible you did not install the
kernel source? That would be the simplest explanation. Alternatively,
check one level up - /usr/src - for a linux-x.x.xx directory.
/usr/src/linux is often a symbolic link to /usr/src/linux-x.x.xx where
the x's are the kernel version number. If it turns out that you need to
install the source, then you may as well download the newest stable
(2.0.36) kernel and install that. and I don't think you'll need to
reinstall Linux ... that is *rarely* necessary. ;)
--
Mike Werner KA8YSD | "Where do you want to go today?"
ICQ# 12934898 | "As far from Redmond as possible!"
AIM Screen Name Reznaeous |
'91 GS500E |
Morgantown WV |
=====BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK=====
Version: 3.1
GU d-@ s:+ a- C++>$ UL++ P+ L+++ E W++ N++ !o w--- O- !M V-- PS+ PE+
Y+ R+ !tv b+++(++++) DI+ D--- G e*>++ h! r++ y++++
======END GEEK CODE BLOCK======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Destrius)
Subject: Re: Switching from Red Hat 5.1 to Debian
Date: 30 Dec 1998 13:10:45 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...and it was written on the heavens that on Mon, 28 Dec 1998 13:47:28 -0500,
the entity named Rod Person ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
inscribed the following words in comp.os.linux.misc:
>How can I upgrade a Red Hat system to Debian without deleting the
>working binary apps? I think if I follow the installation procedures and
>not initalize a previous linux partition, it will just write over the
>red hat stuff. Any one know.
-clip-
If you mean the standard programs that came with Red Hat, I'd advise you to
let Debian reformat your partition. If you want to keep those files, you'll
end up with some dependency problems as Debian uses a different package
management system and thus won't know that you already have login or bash
installed, for example. Debian should replace all the programs you have.
If you mean other programs you installed, which do not come with your
standard distribution, then keep the rpms or tarballs somewhere safe (maybe
create a small backup partition and dump stuff there). Use 'alien' to
convert the rpms to debs, and install.
As for the source tarballs, you'll have to recompile them, since there's no
way to know where the files that were installed went to, short of running
'make install' all over again for each file and going through a hideous
backup and restore procedure. Just try to remember the programs and
libraries you had to install to get 'make' to make something, and ensure
they're installed in your new system.
HTH!
--
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Destrius Dragon | -=*[UnSPLUT!]*=- |
| Official Mad Mage | Web: http://destrius.simplenet.com |
| -=*[~UDIC~]*=- | Email: d e s t r i us@ge o c i t i e s . c o m |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| "Am I dreaming of a butterfly, or is the butterfly dreaming of me...?" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Destrius)
Subject: Re: Infringement of the GPL
Date: 30 Dec 1998 13:10:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...and it was written on the heavens that on 29 Dec 1998 01:25:07 GMT,
the entity named Rod Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
inscribed the following words in comp.os.linux.misc:
-clip-
>support rather than the libraries per se. (This approach may actually be
>quite workable for a complex set of libraries, actually -- write a nice
>hefty set of documentation and sell it as a book along with the LGPLed
>code. Of course, somebody could use the code itself as documentation, or
>write another book and sell it, so you wouldn't have the sort of "lock" on
>the marketplace I suspect you want.)
-clip-
Actually, most people would usually rather buy the book written by "the Man
himself" (in this case) rather than some other author.
Do authors of computer guide books make enough money? If they do, then
there really is no reason not to go GPL if your program is popular enough.
Then again, you now have OpenContent... :)
--
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Destrius Dragon | -=*[UnSPLUT!]*=- |
| Official Mad Mage | Web: http://destrius.simplenet.com |
| -=*[~UDIC~]*=- | Email: d e s t r i us@ge o c i t i e s . c o m |
+-------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| "Am I dreaming of a butterfly, or is the butterfly dreaming of me...?" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: Buchberger Mario <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: test
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:47:19 +0100
test
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux FUD
Date: 30 Dec 1998 11:26:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roger Espel Llima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Worse, many (most?) X apps don't provide a way for you to select text without
>>>copying it.
>>
>>what is "worse" about that? X's behaviour doesn't even have the notion
>>of "copying" : you select with a button, and drop with another. it could
>>hardly be easier, simpler or more practical.
>>
>>when, after learning X's way, I first encountered a GUI that made me
>>specifically copy the selected text, I wondered what on earth the point
>>was. and I still do, for that matter.
>
>It's a matter of background, I suppose. I come from a Unix background,
>so find the way X combines two separate function (selecting text and
>copying text) to be ugly. The problem with doing it that was is that
>there are many situations where you want to select text in order to do
>some operation other than copying. E.g., you select text and press the
>delete key to delete it. Why should copying be part of deleting?
Why not?
>The place this is most annoying is when you do a select/copy, then
>switch to the place you want to paste on a different virtual screen, and
>notice you'd like to do some editing before pasting, and you happen to
>select something. Oops...there goes your copy buffer.
So how does that differ from any time you want to do some
editing before pasting, and you happen to also want to copy
something. (Either way, you can't occupy the same space with
two objects... :-)
The X model is clean and it is uniform across all apps and all
systems. It would be very difficult to improve on that by going
in the directions begin suggested.
I agree with the Roger, that every time I encounter the need to
first select and then copy, I am annoyed. In particular I am
annoyed at having to figure out how to do it in *that* particular
instance, since there always seems to be some minor difference
from the last program.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pictures of the North Slope at <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: SUID
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 30 Dec 1998 08:26:39 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Wellens) writes:
> Hello,
>
> I have a question about how SUID works. I THOUGHT that when you set the
> user ID bit that the file would execute with the user ID set to the owner
> of the file. I THOUGHT that if I created a shell script with the SUID bit
> set that any command executed within that script would inherit the user
> ID--this would allow me to write scripts for "normal" users that would
> allow them to execute commands normally reserved for the superuser--INIT
> for example. It's not working. I wrote a shell script which invokes INIT
> and then did a CHMOD 6755 on it. When a SU'd to a "normal" user and called
> the script. I got a message saying that INIT is reserved for the
> superuser. Is what I'm trying to do even possible? I'd sure appreciate
> some help on this one.
suid does not work on shell scripts since it's a monstrously large
security hole if it did. there already is something to do what you
are wanting. check into _sudo_. hth.
--
Johan Kullstam [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: Arthur Dent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Partition trouble
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:35:27 +0100
Ok i�m a totally blind Newbie towards Linux,
but i have serious trouble (don�t laugh) with
deinstalling my old Distribution of Debian from
a Partition in the Extended Dos Partition.
I bought a new Harddrive for Linux and now want to
use the old one for Windows only. But this shitty
Fdisk cannot delete a logical drive that is not in
Dos format. And when i run Linux YAST wont delete
the current partition from where Linux was started.
So what shall i do to get rid of Linux !?
PLEASE HELP !!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne)
Subject: Re: Infringement of the GPL
Date: 30 Dec 1998 05:56:02 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 30 Dec 1998 04:17:46 GMT, Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
posted:
>You may be in a place where people are living with such mercenary views
>that you do not see anyone do anything for other than monetary
>compensation. Which would be a sad thing; when people can only see
>money as their purpose, they miss other values.
Note that in my extensive use of the term "mercenary," this may have been
unjust as a representation even of those individuals that are formally
known as mercenary soldiers. Many regard such folk as being willing to
do anything (e.g. - kill off any purported enemy) "for a buck."
It is entirely more likely that such individuals hold preferences
whereby they prefer to employ force in favor of causes that they favor
for non-compensatory reasons.
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - "What have you contributed to Linux today?..."
------------------------------
From: Sang Yong Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: shell script question..
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 02:03:11 +0900
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I examined 'startx shell script located in /usr/X11R6/bin .
But I don't know what next part means.
/''*|\.*)
in while loop at the bottom of script. It is the part of case statement.
I know \.* is for escaping out . for sh not to think it current directory..
Right? I guess .* is regular expression.. Am I right?
Thanks. Thanks.
--
Sang Yong Lee
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signal Processing Lab., University of Seoul
------------------------------
From: Mike Thoreson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to create a shell script?
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 02:40:23 +0900
Rick Glunt wrote:
> I have attempted to create a shell script using vi but cannot get it to
> execute. If I call the file test, after typeing in test I get an error like
> "bash: test: command not found". What can I do? I've done a chmod +x test
> and that doesn't help.
Try typing ./test
Mike
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
