Linux-Misc Digest #416, Volume #18 Thu, 31 Dec 98 00:13:13 EST
Contents:
Re: Maximum UID? (William Burrow)
Re: Anti-Linux FUD (Alex Butcher)
Re: Database Recommendation (Mark Forsyth)
Re: compiling question. (Martin Schiller)
Re: Why are mount/umount setuid root? (Timothy J. Lee)
Godzilla or Getright? and Quake2.... (James Ho)
Re: When will kernel 2.2 be released? (Victor Danilchenko)
Re: The goal of Open Source (David Steuber)
Re: The goal of Open Source (David Steuber)
Re: Linux (Red Hat 5.1 and 5.2) Y2K compliance (Stephen E. Halpin)
Re: help: killed win95 partition with lilo ("Wayne Huang")
Console display problems when logged in as root ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: gcc vs egcs (Christopher Browne)
Re: Can grep work recursively? (Jaime Mantel)
Re: Infringement of the GPL (Floyd Davidson)
Re: ln: Musty smell to its man page (Tim Smith)
Re: Linux (Red Hat 5.1 and 5.2) Y2K compliance (Bill Unruh)
Problems printing to HP LJ5 (Jet Direct) ("Shahid Sheikh")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Burrow)
Subject: Re: Maximum UID?
Date: 31 Dec 1998 03:41:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 30 Dec 1998 18:25:25 +0000,
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm setting up a linux box (RH 5.2) in a university environment with
>a massive number of user IDs. We currently have users with UIDs
>in the neighborhood of 80000, but I seem to be running into a
>UID ceiling at 65536 when trying to make accounts for them.
>
>For instance, I create a user with UID 78384 (which is the value
>that ends up in /etc/passwd) but the home directory UID rolls
>over to 12848.
Linux uses a 16-bit UID which restricts the number of users to less than
65536. If you want an OS that can handle more than this now, use Solaris.
I don't know if it is easily fixable or whether a fix will be due soon.
>(html>
>(tt>Hello,(/tt>(tt>(/tt>
Please do NOT post HTML, ever.
--
William Burrow, VE9WIL -- New Brunswick, Canada o
Copyright 1998 William Burrow ~ /\
~ ()>()
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Butcher)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux FUD
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 01:17:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 20:21:24 GMT, Martin Skj�ldebrand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 16:37:33 +0000, Jason Clifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>One of the benefits of using a system like Linux is that you can usually
>>get software is packaged format as well as in a vanilla tarball.
>
>The operative word here is "usually". Some are only distributed as
>tarballs.
If you look hard enough you can usually find an RPM, or, at the least, an old
src.rpm which you can combine with a new tar.gz and some of your own
patches to create a new rpm. I do this 99% of the time now.
>>There is nothing that requires you to use glint. Use rpm at the command
>>prompt instead - or xrpm if you *must* have a GUI.
>
>Of course I could use the command prompt instead. But what if I like
>GUIs and I don't like xrpm either =)?
I believe there are GTK/GNOME package managers out there. There is also
kpackage for KDE.
>And why cant package managers handle tarballs as well as rpms? Eh?
Because tarballs don't contain the necessary imformation to be managed by
RPM. All they contain is a list of files, with no dependency, install or build
information.
If you have a look on www.freshmeat.net you should be able to find a couple
of tools that monitor installations in a manner similar to CleanSweep and
other Windows uninstallers. I haven't tried it myself, however.
>M.
Best Regards,
Alex.
--
Alex Butcher Using Linux since '95 - because windows are too easy to break.
Berkshire, UK URLBLAST:slashdot.org:www.freshmeat.net:www.dejanews.com:
lwn.net:www.tomshardware.com:www.stardiv.de:www.gimp.org:
------------------------------
From: Mark Forsyth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 23:03:43 GMT
Subject: Re: Database Recommendation
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Years ago I changed from Win 3.11 to OS/2 because of MUCH greater=20
stability, running costs and the availability of DB/2. Some time ago I=20
changed from OS/2 to Linux for, firstly Postgresql and secondly=20
greater stability. I've stuck with Postgres but with Oracle and Sybase=20
having their products out there the choices of quality products is=20
quite large. Having said that I'd go with Postgres. It's cheap, fast=20
and effective and IMO of no lesser quality.
Mark F...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 12/31/98, 6:09:04 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Fleming) wrote=20
regarding Database Recommendation:
> I run my pathology lab with a customized database application running
> under Linux. The application was developed using the /rdb database
> package, which at the time I wrote it (a long, long time ago) was the
> only set of database tools available for Linux. The /rdb programs are
> accessed directly from the shell; the shell is essentially regarded by=
> the /rdb developers as a kind of 4GL for this purpose. So the
> application consists mostly of a bunch of shell scripts.
> Anyway, I would like to replace this system with a new one based on an=
> SQL database engine. If possible, I would like to access the SQL
> programs from the shell, since this would allow me to initially use
> many of my existing scripts. Eventually I would like to build some
> Web clients using Java/JDBC, and to migrate many of the shell scripts
> to perl.
> The problem is that I am having a great deal of difficulty choosing a
> amongst the many database packages now available for Linux, and would
> like some recommendations. I would like something that is stable,
> well-documented, and has Java and perl drivers. If the package had a
> decent 4GL, I might use that as well. The application is unlikely to
> have more than a few concurrent users, so blinding speed and
> efficiency is not a requirement. I would be willing to pay for a
> commercial package, but of course the less money I have to spend, the
> better. It is especially important that the package be well
> documented, and that some form of support is available.
> Thank you for your recommendations,
> Matthew Fleming
>=20
=======================================================================
=======
> Matthew G. Fleming, MD phone : 414.456.4072
> Associate Professor fax : 414.456.6518
> Department of Dermatology s-mail: Dept. of Dermatology
> Medical College of Wisconsin Medical College of=20
Wisconsin
> MFRC Room 4061
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Milwaukee, WI=20
53226-4810
>=20
=======================================================================
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Schiller)
Subject: Re: compiling question.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 20:18:59 -0800
Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's my list:
>
> 1. make config
> 2. make dep
> 3. make modules
> 4. make modules_install
> 5. make zImage
> 6. copy zImage to /boot/vmlinuz-<kernel-number>
> 7. copy System.map /boot/System.map-<kernel-number>
> 8. ln -s vmlinuz-<kernel-number> vmlinuz
> 9. ln -s System.map-<kernel-number> System.map
> 10. run lilo while in /boot
>
> et voila.
My problem has been getting the correct sources into the RedHat source
tree. I was able to follow an earlier post that described installing the
source file. But when I got it installed and tried to run "make config"
in the usr/src/redhat/SOURCES I got a make error about no target file.
There were a couple of kernel-config files in the directory - a
kernel-config.axp and kernel-config.i386. And the RedHat installation
guide talks of installing the kernel-source and the kernel-headers so I
remain confused.
regards, Martin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy J. Lee)
Subject: Re: Why are mount/umount setuid root?
Reply-To: see-signature-for-email-address---junk-not-welcome
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 02:30:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|It was the Wed, 30 Dec 1998 21:39:17 GMT...
|..and Timothy J. Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> On a Red Hat 5.1 Linux installation, why are /bin/mount and
|> /bin/umount setuid root?
|
|They need to. Otherwise regular users couldn't mount or umount file systems.
But if only root does mounting and umounting, would removing the
setuid bit from mount and umount cause anything to fail?
--
========================================================================
Timothy J. Lee timlee@
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Ho)
Subject: Godzilla or Getright? and Quake2....
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 02:39:22 GMT
Hi.
Is there similar software like Godzilla or Getright for linux? (they
are win95 software which allows u to resume downloads for a partly
dl'ed file....and also it looks for faster links from FTPSearch)
Anything like that? I am trying to dump Windoze9x but have to find
similar software to help my migrate comfortably. :)
Oh..also, I have Quake2 on CD, but it is for PC...how can I play Quake
2 in Linux? Do I download the shareware version, and then replace the
.pak files?
Thanks.
James.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:40:02 -0500
From: Victor Danilchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: When will kernel 2.2 be released?
Phil Hunt wrote:
>
> Perhaps someone will decide to put NT inside an aircraft control system.
> (I know, but if they can do it for ships, they can do it for planes).
> Imagine a Lockheed Galaxy flying over Seattle, the BSOD, and the plane
> crashing on the HQ of a well-known company...
Oh, it would be such sweet, SWEET irony!
--
| Victor A. Danilchenko CSCF support |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] A313, 5-4231 |
+--------------------------------------------+
| Quando omni flunkus, moritati. |
------------------------------
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The goal of Open Source
Date: 30 Dec 1998 04:55:16 -0500
Victor Danilchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
-> I hope you are right -- and I am fairly sure that you are. With the
-> economic structure of the society so different from 18th century,
-> OpenSource will probably prevail by natural selection as well -- because
-> people will support it. I wonder about other forms of intellectual
-> property, though...
If we look at DVD and its evil prodgeny, DIVX, we will see the biggest
threat to free exchange of information. DVD is a technicly excelent
medium for storing movies for viewing on current generation television
sets. But becuase the movie industry is so afraid of 'piracy', they
forced all sorts of copy protection schemes into the standard. On top
of that, there is a huge entry fee to be paid to develop computer
software that can play back a DVD movie. $5000 gets you the
specification. To get the rest of what you need costs a heck of a lot
more, I am told. Notice that Linux does not have DVD playback
software yet. It may not get it, ever.
If that isn't evil enough, check out the Church Of Scientology, or, as
I prefer to call it, the cult of scatology. That is a truly evil
organization that loves to trash peoples lives in the name of
protecting 'intellectual property'.
My basic feelings regarding software are easy to sum up concisely:
1) Software patents are evil. Software is a discription of a process,
not a machine. It should not be eligable for patent protection.
2) Source should be freely available. The advancement of the art is
more important than a few individuals making a buck. This is
especially true considering you can make money writting free
software. The unnecessary duplication of effort that results from
'proprietary' solutions is evil.
Writing code from scratch is often more difficult than modifying
something that is close to what you want. Open source allows you to
modify software that does something close to what you want. Closes
source leaves you high and dry.
I program for a living. Free software has made my job much easier. I
am also being paid for writing software that won't be sold. I think I
could also make money by writting GPL software as part of my own
bussiness as an ISV if ever I get to do it. While I couldn't make as
much money selling it, I can have the users debug the code for me,
reducing my own investment. It works out for everyone.
Corperations will take longer to change their mindset. If I have
difficulty grasping the concept that money can be made from free
software, imagine what an MBA must thing. All those years of being
trained in a different model of the universe. They will have to move
the sun into the center of the solar system and then put the solar
system in the arm of a particularly ordinary gallaxy. I think it will
take them a while. Maybe when the major distributers start to go
public in the various stock markets, they will start to think differently.
--
David Steuber
http://www.david-steuber.com
s/trashcan/david/ to reply by mail
"Hackers penetrate and ravage delicate, private, and publicly owned
computer systems, infecting them with viruses and stealing materials
for their own ends. These people, they're, they're terrorists."
-- Secret Service Agent Richard Gill
------------------------------
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The goal of Open Source
Date: 30 Dec 1998 05:08:02 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams) writes:
-> On 29 Dec 1998 06:17:45 -0500, David Steuber
-> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
->
-> > I personaly doubt that I can.
->
-> Don't doubt it; doubting it tends to be a self-fulfilling prophesy.
-> If it's what you live for, you have to take your best shot; it it's
-> not what you live for, you'll find a reason not to do it because it's
-> harder than being a technoserf. I have little choice since I am
-> constitutionally unsuited to the life of a technoserf. -steve
You are probably right. Nothing gets done if you don't do it. I am
in the position of having a job that I enjoy going to, working with
people that I like, and getting good benifits. I have something of a
security blanket that would be impossible to give up.
Sure, I'd like to be my own boss and work on just what I like. But
the cold hard reality, for me anyway, is that it is a heck of a lot
more work than simply working for someone else. I am also still a
learner. While I can write some pretty good code for simple problems,
I am more or less lost when it comes to designing large systems. This
doesn't hurt me at my job, but it would kill me if I tried to make it
on my own.
When I gain more experience, the situation may change. In any case, I
have walking money. If I didn't like my job, I can simply call a head
hunter and say get me something else. At some point, I hope that I
can go it alone.
My instinct tells me that open source will become the standard model
in one form or another. GPL is the most aggressive player in the
field because of its virus like nature. Any thing I do will take this
strong belief into consideration.
Good luck with your project.
--
David Steuber
http://www.david-steuber.com
s/trashcan/david/ to reply by mail
"Hackers penetrate and ravage delicate, private, and publicly owned
computer systems, infecting them with viruses and stealing materials
for their own ends. These people, they're, they're terrorists."
-- Secret Service Agent Richard Gill
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen E. Halpin)
Subject: Re: Linux (Red Hat 5.1 and 5.2) Y2K compliance
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 02:37:00 GMT
On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 17:35:57 -0800, Mark Bashaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matt,
>If you check the RedHat website you'll find a Y2K statement basically
>saying that the Linux (and it's derivatives) are not subject to Y2K
>problems. Unix and unix-like systems use a different date system than DOS
>and Windows based systems do.
While Linux may be Y2K ready, the internal "seconds since..." date
format of *NIX does not mean that any *NIX will handle dates past
December 31, 1999 correctly. One example is NeXTstep 3.3, which
does not perform the YMD:HMS->secondsSince conversion correctly,
preventing you from correctly setting the date with either the
command line 'date' utility or the preferences GUI for dates after
December 31, 1999. Mail in 2000 will appear to be delivered in the
year 100. Just because its *NIX doesnt mean youre safe - consult
manufacturers, and run your own tests.
-Steve
>The URL for the legal statement is :
>
>http://www.redhat.com/legal_statement.phtml
>
>The Y2K portion is about halfway down.
>
>Mark Bashaw
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Matt Harrell 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.
>>
>> --
>> Matt Harrell
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://my.voyager.net/mharrell
>
------------------------------
From: "Wayne Huang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: help: killed win95 partition with lilo
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 23:30:42 -0500
Let me give a try for this.
Two things to do:
1. Restore Win95 to bootup correctly.
2. Reconfigure and reinstall LILO to /dev/hda.
Step 1:
- Assuming the orignal MBR is not over written. If it does,
use FDISK /MBR to reset MBR so it boots to C:\ as usual.
FDISK is the DOS or Win95 utility.
- Boot from a Win95 bootable floppy which contains SYS.COM.
You can copy SYS.COM from a working machine or from
C:\WINDOWS\COMMAND directory (you should be able to
see it when you boot from floppy. If you can't, you are in big
trouble).
- At A:> prompt, run: SYS C:
This would allow you to boot to C:>.
The following steps allow you to bring Win95 GUI up. (These
instructions are copied from www.v-com.com web site. Note:
V Communications is the maker of Partition Magic).
- From the C:> prompt, do:
ATTRIB C:\MSDOS.SYS -R -H -S
- Edit MSDOS.SYS file, it should appear as follows, if not you
have to retype it:
[paths]
WinDir=C:\Windows
WinBootDir=C:\Windows
HostWinBootDrv=c
[options]
BootMulti=1
BootGUI=1
Save and exit the editor.
- Rehide the file: ATTRIB C:\MSDOS.SYS +R +H +S
- Reboot and Win95 should come up.
Step 2: (You should refer to LILO-HOWTO for
- Boot from the Linux rescue disk.
- Modify /etc/lilo.conf, so it says
boot=/dev/hda
instead of boot=/dev/hda1
- Reinstall Lilo: /sbin/lilo
- Reboot.
Please give it a try.
And goodluck!
Wayne Huang
Rocheter, NY
armin kratt wrote in message <76bsvq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>hi,
>
>i hope someone can help me out of this ...
>
>i tried to install linux on a friends machine, and killed his beloved win95
>installation. and that was quite easy:
>
>for some reason the first line of lilo.conf was
>
>boot = /dev/hda1 instead of boot = /dev/hda
>
>after running lilo all that appears at bootup is LI
>
>hda1 was the only (primary) partition on hda and hda1 _WAS_ the win95
>partition. i am able to start up linux (which is on the second disk) via
rescue disk,
>but fdisk shows not much usefull information for hda. dos fdisk crashes at
>startup. obviously i've killed some important bytes.
>
>is there anything i can do to restore the partition? or how can i at least
>restore some data.
>
>any help appreciated.
>
>tia, armin
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> - email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Console display problems when logged in as root
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 03:26:52 GMT
A serious problem with ncurses programs has recently developed on my Linux
box.
Whenever I use a program that uses ncurses when I'm logged in as root on a
VT, many characters, such as the horizontal and vertical bars, are
incorrectly displayed and the screen is as a result badly corrupted, nearly
to the point where it is unreadable. I stress that this only happens when I
am logged in as root and only when I am on a VT, not in an xterm. Does
anyone have any ideas as to what may be causing this and what may be done to
fix it? Any help would be greatly appreciated. I am running Red Hat 5.1 on
a Dell PPro 200.
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: gcc vs egcs
Date: 31 Dec 1998 02:55:10 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 30 Dec 1998 12:55:44 -0800, Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Probably because Cygnus is now doing the development work on gcc.
>Egcs is their development package of gcc.
The CVS tree is based at Cygnus, and many Cygnus developers are involved
with EGCS development, which certainly suggests some heavy involvement
on their part.
The presence of non-Cygnus folk on the EGCS "core team" and the fact
that changes are still being assigned to the FSF goes to suggest that
it's not exclusively a Cygnus "thing."
Calling it "their development package" implies more than is true,
particularly as many of the things that have been integrated into EGCS
were not developed by Cygnus. (IBM Haifa is, for instance, a
substantial contributor of code...)
>(Linux 2.2.0-pre1) [/home/michael]
>58 $ --> gcc --version
>egcs-2.90.29 980515 (egcs-1.0.3 release)
>
>This apparently is being done with RMS's blessing, since I note that
>the newest manual for gdb (April '98) is written by "Richard
>M. Stallman and Cygnus Solutions."
At the October "ALS" (Atlanta Linux Showcase) conference, I spoke
specifically with RMS asking what was up with EGCS vs. GCC with the view
of whether or not EGCS would *be* GCC. He indicated that the intent was
for EGCS to essentially become GCC, that is, to be the ongoing "branch
of development."
There may be things that should happen before EGCS "formally" becomes
the "new GCC," but the idea in general seems to have the "RMS blessing."
--
"On the Internet, no one knows you're using Windows NT"
-- Ramiro Estrugo, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Jaime Mantel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can grep work recursively?
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 18:42:29 -0800
mlw wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I was wondering if it was possible to make grep work recursively in folders.
> > Is this possible?
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
> This might be the long way:
>
> find . -name *.cpp -exec grep expression {} \;
>
>
Here is how we do it in the big city.
find ./ -type f| xargs grep <whatever>
where ./ is the directory you want to start from and
<whatever> is what you are looking for.
Sit back and listen to your drive thrash.
Jaime
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: Infringement of the GPL
Date: 31 Dec 1998 03:00:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
steve mcadams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Let me try and set the record straight. I despise money; however, the
>only way that I can get it out of my face is to have enough of it to
>live on.
You sure fooled me.
And now that you mention it, I guess maybe I'm still a little skeptical.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pictures of the North Slope at <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.questions,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: ln: Musty smell to its man page
Date: 30 Dec 1998 20:24:23 -0800
Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Presumably, if the file was setuid, this would be turned off when this
>automatic ownership change occurred. Is that the "much worse hole" you
>were thinking of? The only other hole that's been mentioned is quota
>checking, and it doesn't seem much worse to start charging the quota to the
>user who still has a link to the file.
If the file's mode is 511, any change of ownership to someone other than
root is going to give someone read access to a file they should not have
read access to.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: Linux (Red Hat 5.1 and 5.2) Y2K compliance
Date: 31 Dec 1998 02:57:52 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mark Bashaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Matt,
>If you check the RedHat website you'll find a Y2K statement basically
>saying that the Linux (and it's derivatives) are not subject to Y2K
>problems. Unix and unix-like systems use a different date system than DOS
>and Windows based systems do.
This mayt be true of the operating system (the time function returns the
number of seconds since Jan1 1970 I believe) but it is not necessarily
true of programs. Many programs use and manipulate standard dates,
rather than seconds in epoch, and they are as liable to be affected by
Y2K as anything else. Note that the time_t variable is defined
differently on various systems. On some it is a signed four byte
integer, which is 2^31approx 2 10^9 sec = 68 years =2038AD at which time
severe problems would occur (why in the world would one use signed
integer???) On the other hand by then one o
hopes that most systems might use a longer definition of time_t. Of
course some programers might have been lazy and used long int as
equivalent to time_t, or might have used some other bastardisation. So
Linux uses can look forward to fun then.
>The URL for the legal statement is :
>http://www.redhat.com/legal_statement.phtml
>The Y2K portion is about halfway down.
>Mark Bashaw
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Matt Harrell 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.
>>
>> --
>> Matt Harrell
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://my.voyager.net/mharrell
------------------------------
From: "Shahid Sheikh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Problems printing to HP LJ5 (Jet Direct)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 23:40:24 -0500
Hi all,
I just spent several hours trying to resolve a printing problem without any
avail. Just upgraded to Red Hat 5.2 (actually had to do a fresh install) and
now I can't get the printer to work.
I'm trying to print to a HP 5M that has a Jet Direct card in it (to which I
was printing fine before I re-installed my system.) I can configure the
printer thru the control panel just fine but when I try to print something
to it, the print queue simply hangs. During this period, the printer stops
responding completely except to pings. I cant telnet to it and it wont
respond to lpq queries. Seems like it takes about 5 minutes to time out and
then daemon on the linux machine stops and the printer starts working again
(i.e. you can print to from other systems and it responds to lpq and
telnet.)
I had the exact same problem when I first installed Red Hat 5.1 but the
problem went away mysteriously in a couple of days.
Anyone know what I'm doing wrong here?
Also, I noticed that with Red Hat 5.2 installation, only root has read/write
access to /dev/null which I thought was odd. Had to change it to get Acrobat
working properly.
Shahid
P.S. please include my e-mail address in the response. Thanx.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
