Linux-Misc Digest #36, Volume #19 Sun, 14 Feb 99 21:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Nicolas Blais)
Re: Linux suxxxx (Michael Benedict)
Re: From RedHat to Slackware (brian moore)
Re: symbolic link permissions (brian moore)
Really slow tar (Daren Scot Wilson)
Re: Why Does Linux Thrash So Bad? ("Douglas C. Holland")
Re: restoring ext2 partition (Juergen Heinzl)
Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers (Chris Johnson)
Re: !Re: Help: One way Cable Modems (brian moore)
Re: How do I know which window manager I am using? (Matthias Warkus)
(no) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: LILO exceeding 1024 cylinders... (Bill Unruh)
Re: Really slow tar ("David A. Frantz")
Re: Why is X video setup for i386 so complicated? (Markus Schutz)
POP3 on RH5.2
Re: LILO exceeding 1024 cylinders... ("Charles Sullivan")
Re: HELP!! (Tim Lines)
Reseting an internal modem? (Egg LeFume)
ftp server for linux similar to serve-u for win? ("Hal")
Re: Linux & overclocked CPU ("David A. Frantz")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nicolas Blais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 19:33:38 -0500
I think that there is no _real_ best free unix. I use FreeBSD because it serves my
purpose. Some people would rather have Linux. In a way, Linux and FreeBSD are two
different things, just as is Win98 and WinNT. (Ok, Ok bad analogy, plz no flame.)
Nicolas Blais.
John Fieber wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Shaun Rowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Goerzen) writes:
> >
> >> Just how is FreeBSD easier to use?
> >
> > For me it is easier to use because it seems more logical. Notice that this is
> > a matter of opinion. IMO FreeBSD is easier to use because:
> >
> > 1. FreeBSD handbook and website. I have my handbook that contains most of the
> > information I need, along with the FAQ. For me it is more centralized and
> > up to date than LDP, ect.
>
> On this point, there is a popular conception that Linux is extremely
> well document and FreeBSD isn't. Having recently begun an evaluation
> of options for some new servers, I must say that Linux community does
> better in the tutorial style documents (HOWTOs), but the on-line
> reference (man pages) are, on the whole, pathetic in each
> distribution I've looked at. Example: I want to set up a
> concatenated disk and the manual pages simply say "see the source
> code". Ya, right. There probably aren't even comments in the code.
> Compare that to the detailed vinum reference pages in FreeBSD, for
> just one of hundreds of examples.
>
> I'm not bothered by an occasional substandard manual page, but in the
> distributions I've got installed, so many are substandard if they
> exist at all. I only got a concatenated disk configured because the
> Debian people had tucked away a little readme in /usr/doc...but if you
> can write the damn documentation, why not put it in the man page!!!
>
> Also, so many commands in Linux distributions differ from their
> counterparts in commercial systems, I can't rely on documentation on
> other (properly documented) systems or standard sysadmin books...you
> have to get a Linux book. Contrast that with BSD systems which come
> from a well established code base that is well document both in the
> on-line reference and in numerous sysadmin books that nicely cover a
> variety of Unix systems. Linux occupies such huge amount of
> shelfspace in the local bookstore because it is quirky enough that
> you need that much Linux-specific documentation.
>
> For someone learning to use a Unix system, the HOWTOs are great, but
> for a more seasoned user who needs a good reference manual, I have to
> say that the BSD systems are a clear winner. With Linux, I fish
> around for a non-existant manual page, hunt in /usr/doc for awhile,
> check gnu info pages, fire up Netscape and check the HOWTOs before I
> can find out what I need to know. It doesn't take very long for that
> to get very tedious. With BSD, nine times out of ten I find the
> answer I need at the first documentation stop, the on-line reference
> manual.
>
> -john
------------------------------
From: Michael Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux suxxxx
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 21:38:09 -0500
> Just one thing I would like to know: What is the aim of your posting? I
> mean, why do you feel the urge to tell us that you can't make the thing
> work? It is not like you are asking any questions about how you may get
> "unstuck" in your installation attempts.
NB: I am trying to speak for him, and I am only guessing at his intentions
As Linux is making a push to be more end-user friendly (which you may or may not
agree with) it is important to realize that it is a big transition from a non
*nix OS. We (as Linux users) do tend to be smug and try to change people to be
linux users (and even geeks) when our efforts should be to make make Linux work
better (and I am not accusing you of this, but I have noticed linux users of that
are of this attitude). If people are going to come to Linux, simple things
should be made very easy. (ex. I can't connect to the internet, how do I post
to newsgroups to get answers and / or search the online how-tos). Personally, as
someone who has converted to Linux in the past couple months, I feel that the
documentation is 'out there' but sometimes I have to ask my friend where at. To
be honest, I didn't even have a clue how to use newsgroups 4 months ago. Linux
does require some research and a lot more effort than Windows. If you use
Windows, you must be very familiar with automatically hitting 'next' all the way
through a wizard and only changing one thing the whole way: View the readme to
no. Now I can't imagine compiling something without 'less Install'. In summary,
it takes a level of investigation and reading that is a lot more extensive than
for Windows / Mac (Ok, he said he also used Novell, but I honestly have NO
experience with Novell, so I can't relate). Thus, installing and using Linux is
a bit of a project, and a lot of people don't realize that this is so. There
needs to be a definitive resource that will direct people to all the other
resources, and the importance of this resource needs to be 'screamed' to the user
during first bootup, install, or some necessary step.
> Sorry about being smug. Nobody is perfect, but I do have the ability to
> install new programs on my Linux box. Had you only asked how to go about
> it, I would gladly have helped, free of charge.
I hope you don't take this as a flame, but as a serious answer to your question.
Your attidute is definetly helpful and is why linux users have such a great
reputation for helping there own. I think it is just a matter of making it easy
to find help and resources that needs addresed.
Michael Benedict
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: From RedHat to Slackware
Date: 15 Feb 1999 00:41:29 GMT
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:12:09 -0500,
Nick Pratt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hiya
>
> Ive been away from the linux scene for a while, and now Im looking to get it
> re-installed. Are Slackware and RedHat the only two 'real' contenders? If so,
> whats the main differences - Im guessing from the posts in this thread that
> RedHat is more easily setup - but what has Slack got that RedHat hasnt (just
> general diffs)
There is also SuSE (http://www.suse.com/), Debian
(http://www.debian.org) and a few others like Pacific HiTech (mainly in
Asia at the moment, but pushing towards North America...), Mandrake
(sorta like Red Hat + KDE), etc.
Main difference is, of course, the installer. (They all use the same
kernel, the same GNU tools, etc.) After that is pretty much a choice of
SYSV-like init structure (everyone but Slack, I think) or the old BSD
type init (Slack :)).
At the moment things are a bit in flux, with some of the distributions
moving into glibc2 as the default, and some installing it, but still
using glibc1 for most of their stuff. (Sorta like the a.out -> ELF
change a few years ago, it will take time to fully convert, though it
will be done by everyone in the next few months.)
> Finally, Ive currently got Win98/NT 4 dual booting on a single drive
> - how easy is it going to be to get Linux installed, or should I be
> using a separate disk?
You can do it. See the HowTo's.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Subject: Re: symbolic link permissions
Date: 14 Feb 1999 03:49:24 GMT
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 02:09:23 +0000,
Eric Goforth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Permissions look like:
>
<wrapping fixed>
> [eric@localhost eric]$ ls -l pho*
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 eric root 30 Feb 13 10:17 phonenos ->
>/dosc/windows/desktop/phonenos
>
> The man page for symlink had the following on permissions and symbolic
> links:
>
> The permissions of a symbolic link are irrelevant; the ownership is
> ignored when following the link, but is checked when removal or
> renam- ing of the link is requested and the link is in a directory
> with the sticky bit set.
>
> I can't find anything about permissions and symbolic links in the man
> page for ln. Is there anyway that I can write to this file while
> non-root?
Try fixing the permissions of /desc/windows/desktop/phonenos
The symlink permissions follow what is being pointed at, not the
permissions of the link itself. (Why? Because anyone can create a
symlink to /etc/passwd and /bin/sh -- so you can't trust the
permissions of the link, and have to rely on the permissions of the
target.)
--
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: Daren Scot Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Really slow tar
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 22:49:43 +0000
tar runs very slowly on my machine. This started about a month ago, after
reloading linux (RH5.0) and upgrading the kernel, compilers, etc. Everything
else runs normal. There are no symptoms other than that tar runs slow. It's
not unzipping - I can run gunzip in a few seconds, then tar -xzvf takes
forever. The -v option shows one to maybe six files flying by, then many
seconds paused, then one to a few files, the another pause, etc.
How slow? A tarball several meg in size used to untar in just a minute or two
or three, depending on CPU load. Now i have time to eat lunch, see a movie,
see another movie... Linux kernel 2.2.1 took all hours overnight to untar.
Once the stuff is untarred, it's good. I'm running a 2.2.1 kernel, 2.1 glibc,
and the latest xterm, bash, netscape all having been slowly untarred.
Tar, and nearly everything else, was compiled with gcc 2.8.1, using glibc 2.0.6
and since today, glibc 2.1.
Computer is a PII-400, 96RAM, 6G HD nowhere near full, 100M swap. Plenty of
raw material - nothing else runs anomalously slow.
Any good diagnostics suggestions? Fixes?
--
Daren Scot Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.newcolor.com
----
"A ship in a harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for"
-- William Shedd
------------------------------
From: "Douglas C. Holland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Does Linux Thrash So Bad?
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 20:52:01 -0700
"Aaron M. Renn" wrote:
>
> I've got a 300 MHz Pentium II with 128 MB of RAM and 512 MB of swap. But
> Linux goes into thrash mode all the time on me. If I've got X, two xterms,
> and two netscape instances up, it sometimes starts thrashing and never
> recovers. This is clearly ridiculous, espically since my netscape
> configuration allows only 20MB of memory cache. I've even had X crash with
> out of memory errors. My disk space is getting low on my normal
> filesystems, which seems to be associate with the problem for some reason.
> Any ideas? I'm running 2.0.36 BTW. Please respond via email. I'll
> summarize replies if warranted.
>
> --
> Aaron M. Renn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/
You might want to try running ps aux or top when your system starts
swapping - that will bring up a list of all processes, with stats like
CPU and memory usage. You should be able to find & kill the offending
process (hint, look for the one that's eating enormous amounts of
memory.) If the memory hog is something like X or netscape, doublecheck
to see that you're running the current version (XFree86 3.3.2 or 3.3.2,
Netscape 4.08 or 4.5.) - old versions may have bad memory leaks.
--
Doug Holland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juergen Heinzl)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.development.system,alt.os.linux,alt.linux
Subject: Re: restoring ext2 partition
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 03:51:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Renato Lukac wrote:
>hi,
>
>Is it possible to restore an ext2 partition?
>I accidently did an mke2fs on the *wrong* partition. /dev/hdd (only
>hdd1).
I dare say forget it, as sad or terrible it is. You initialised all
the information necessary to know which data blocks belong to which
file and so on and so on.
You data is still there, so if there is some *very* important text
file or such you can use something like bpe or some other hex
editor to get it back, but else and with no backup ...
Very sorry,
Juergen
--
\ Real name : J�rgen Heinzl \ no flames /
\ EMail Private : [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ send money instead /
\ Phone Private : +44 181-332 0750 \ /
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Johnson)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 20:30:42 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kinkster)
wrote:
>Want some _true_ horror stories of the existing conditions of some of
>the vehicles we sent to the dealers prior to some strict government
>regulation ??
Yes. Sounds like it would be good to hear about how monopoly and lack
of regulation corrupted another major industry. Do please tell.
Chris Johnson
@airwindows.com
chrisj
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: !Re: Help: One way Cable Modems
Date: 15 Feb 1999 01:02:21 GMT
On 14 Feb 1999 15:17:05 -0600,
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pavel Greenfield wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Jim!
> >
> > But does Linux in principle support a connection to the internet via a
> > combination of ethernet and modem?
> >
>
> It does here! SurfBoard 1200 external, accessed thru a Windows 2000
> proxy server.
>
> Linux doesn't know (or need to know) that's it's a "combination"
> connection. It's just sending data out thru eth0 and getting it back
> the same way.
And drivers for a similar device (the Scientific Atlanta Data
Accelerator) can be had from
http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~mcumings/cablemodem/.
We have several people using them with Linux, including an employee. :)
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: How do I know which window manager I am using?
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:21:03 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:42:14 GMT...
..and Jeremy Mathers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Benyang Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Thanks for all the help. I used ps to figure out that I am using fvwm2.
> >> The file /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc isn't that simple. It has lots of if-fi,
> >> calls other files and is 2 pages long; I hardly know what it is doing.
> >
> >I don't think it is a good decision for RedHat to bundle fvwm2 as the
> >default window manager. It is really hard to configure. For one thing, I
> >spent a long time trying to make that little pager go away. I looked up all
> >the how-to, man pages, 2 thick books, etc, and have not succeeded yet. The
> >pager always stays on top, forcing my other windows to squeeze to avoid it.
>
> I think that is the whole point of Red Hat and FVWMxyz - to be like
> Micro$ and make the thing opaque and unchangeable - so that things are
> standardized. Note: I know this sounds sarcastic and bitter, but it
> really isn't. RH wants to make Linux a standard - so that one Linux
> screen looks like another, just as all Windows screens look like each
> other (not identical, of course, but essentially the same). This is a
> Good Thing.
>
> Also, you really do have to some major tunnelling to turn that stupid
> FVWMxyz thing off. Doing so is proof that you are worthy of being
> free of it.
Just what kind of *bullshit* are you blabbering there?
FVWMx configuration is arcane. Full stop. This is not Red Hat's fault
- it's not a fault at all, it's just that the author wanted to make
the thing flexible. As to "getting away" from one window manager and
using a second one - the necessary procedure is the same on all Linux
distros: either you do startx my-fave-wm or you change the exec line
in your .xinitrc.
And BTW: Red Hat will be pushing Gnome if anything, if you haven't
realised yet. Go away.
X-Post & Flup2 c.o.l.a
ma"and I thought I already had a bad day"wa
--
Check out the Frequently Rehashed Topics on comp.os.linux.advocacy!
<URL: http://home.att.net/~nishk/frt-html/frt.html>
<URL: http://members.tripod.com/~Nishk/frt.html>
Report dead links to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: (no)
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 04:16:36 GMT
My windowmanager doesn't want to start. It just says
Error loading XKB keymap
and
Falling back to pre-XKB keymap
but I only get the grey X-server, not any wm.
Ideas?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: LILO exceeding 1024 cylinders...
Date: 14 Feb 1999 04:11:56 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Steve D. Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am a little confused about the Linux restriction that LILO cannot
>work with a system that exceeds 1024 cylinders. Does this mean that the
>hard drive used to boot from cannot exceed 1024 cylinders, or just that
>LILO cannot exist on a partition that exceeds 1024 cylinders?
> If the latter is that case (and I have a hunch that it is)... what
>is a good size to set your "/boot" partition to... to allow for growth
>in the size of the Linux kernel in the future?
On many older systems, the bios cannot see anything bigger than 1024
cyl. Thus, LILO which uses the bios to load the boot program, needs to
have that boot program be somewhere at less than 1024 cyl. However I
believe that this is not aproblem for many newer Bioses.
------------------------------
From: "David A. Frantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Really slow tar
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 00:40:58 -0500
Daren;
You might want to search DejaNus as I've seen this problem listed before.
Never had it myself but I think you need to upgrade tar.
dave
Daren Scot Wilson wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>tar runs very slowly on my machine. This started about a month ago, after
>reloading linux (RH5.0) and upgrading the kernel, compilers, etc.
Everything
>else runs normal. There are no symptoms other than that tar runs slow.
It's
>not unzipping - I can run gunzip in a few seconds, then tar -xzvf takes
>forever. The -v option shows one to maybe six files flying by, then many
>seconds paused, then one to a few files, the another pause, etc.
>
>How slow? A tarball several meg in size used to untar in just a minute or
two
>or three, depending on CPU load. Now i have time to eat lunch, see a
movie,
>see another movie... Linux kernel 2.2.1 took all hours overnight to
untar.
>
>Once the stuff is untarred, it's good. I'm running a 2.2.1 kernel, 2.1
glibc,
>and the latest xterm, bash, netscape all having been slowly untarred.
>
>Tar, and nearly everything else, was compiled with gcc 2.8.1, using glibc
2.0.6
>and since today, glibc 2.1.
>
>Computer is a PII-400, 96RAM, 6G HD nowhere near full, 100M swap. Plenty
of
>raw material - nothing else runs anomalously slow.
>
>Any good diagnostics suggestions? Fixes?
>
>
>--
>Daren Scot Wilson
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>www.newcolor.com
>----
>"A ship in a harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for"
> -- William Shedd
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 02:16:12 +0100
From: Markus Schutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Why is X video setup for i386 so complicated?
Just to inform you that the timings can be asked. I did that with
different monitor manufacturers (no names, I'm not an advertiser). I
simply sent them an e-mail asking for the monitor's syncs/timings for
all the supported resolutions. All sent me their specs either on paper
or in PDF. One even sent me the complete VESA definition.
So my advice to you: Ask your monitor manufacturer. Be polite, and
explain them in a few words why you are needing those specs in a
readable format.
Maybe if there are enough requests they will either put the specs in the
box, or send them to XFree in the future.
Markus
--
A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is
nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exup�ry
=================================================================
Markus SCH�TZ
8, Ch. des Aub�pines Phone: ++41 21 646 9362
CH-1004 Lausanne mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Switzerland
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/9297
=================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: POP3 on RH5.2
Date: 14 Feb 1999 06:17:59 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
When I try to use the pop3 server on a RH5.2 box, I get the error below:
Feb 13 22:09:53 lennon ipop3d[28395]: connect from 127.0.0.1
Feb 13 22:09:53 lennon ipop3d[28395]: error: cannot execute /usr/sbin/ipop3d: No such
file or directory
And sure enough, ipop3d does not exist anywhere on my system or the cdroms.
How does one get pop running on a Redhat box?
--
Danny Aldham Postino Dotcom E-mail for Business
www.postino.com Virtual Servers, Mail Lists, Web Databases, SQL & Perl
------------------------------
From: "Charles Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LILO exceeding 1024 cylinders...
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 00:48:03 -0500
Bill Unruh wrote in message <7a5iec$fvn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Steve D. Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>
>> I am a little confused about the Linux restriction that LILO cannot
>>work with a system that exceeds 1024 cylinders. Does this mean that the
>>hard drive used to boot from cannot exceed 1024 cylinders, or just that
>>LILO cannot exist on a partition that exceeds 1024 cylinders?
>
>> If the latter is that case (and I have a hunch that it is)... what
>>is a good size to set your "/boot" partition to... to allow for growth
>>in the size of the Linux kernel in the future?
>
>
>On many older systems, the bios cannot see anything bigger than 1024
>cyl. Thus, LILO which uses the bios to load the boot program, needs to
>have that boot program be somewhere at less than 1024 cyl. However I
>believe that this is not aproblem for many newer Bioses.
I don't believe LILO uses the BIOS at all but reads the drive directly via
the IDE interface. The problem is that the field in the partition table
defined by DOS for the number of cylinders is just 10 bits long, for a
maximum of 1024 cylinders. So even the newer BIOS would be of no
use for Linux.
Of course if somebody takes the time to look through the LILO source code
and finds that it does in fact use the BIOS (INT 13h), then I'm wrong. :-)
------------------------------
From: Tim Lines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: HELP!!
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 01:16:59 +0000
In addition there are a number of very good books available. Visit your
local Barnes and Noble or do a search at www.pricescan.com.
Although I buy things from amazon.com ocassionally, there's something
about that place that seems too damn slick by a longshot. They too
would have Linux books.
iBoy wrote:
> Hello all ppl of this Linux newsgroup!!!!!I need some of your HELP!u
> see, i'm interested about LINUX and want to get it and use itcan
> anyone help me?????????? please reply A.S.A.P.Thanks! PS: I'm using
> Windoze 98 with Pentium II Andre==email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 17558107webpage: www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Meadows/8379
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Reseting an internal modem?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Egg LeFume)
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 05:59:38 GMT
Hi.
I seem to be having trouble with my internal modem (Newcom 33.6).
Half of the time after I turn my machine on, the modem doesn't work at
all; init strings don't work, ATZ doesn't work, dialing certainly doesn't
work, and minicom (or Telix if I'm using DOS) freezes while quitting (I
don't even get a prompt back). The only way to get the modem working is
to give the machine a "hard" reboot, hitting either the reset or power
button (after ctrl-alt-del, of course). The three-finger salute does
nothing for the modem.
I think I read somewhere (a mailing list? usenet? Not sure.)
about some program/utility that can reset an internal modem as if the
machine had been reset. Does anybody know of this, or have any other
ideas of how I can reset my modem without rebooting? (Besides "get an
external modem;" I plan to, but I have other more important things to get
first.) Please post any replies, or email to eggie at sunlink.net .
Thanks.
Jamie Kufrovich
--
Egg, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FMS3amr A- C- H+ M+ P+++ R+ T Z+ Sp#
RL->CT a cu++ e++ f h+ iw+ j p- sm#
------------------------------
From: "Hal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ftp server for linux similar to serve-u for win?
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 16:32:33 -0500
Hi,
I'd like to run a ftp sever from my Linux machine and haven't been able to
find any documentation for wu-ftpd concerning changing port settings,
ratios, etc...
Does anyone know of a ftp daemon that supports these functions similar to
serv-u for windows. Or where I can find the documentation to change
settings in wu-ftpd.
thanks
------------------------------
From: "David A. Frantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Linux & overclocked CPU
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 20:33:31 -0500
A. G.
Your over clocking the chip and you don't have enough sense to make sure you
have fast enough RAM, so what do you think the problem is. Is it really
that difficult to unplug the slow ram and see what happens?????
dave
A.G. wrote in message ...
>Hi all:
>
>Problem:
>- ABIT BX6 MB + Celeron300A CPU. Overclocked to 450.
>- Linux 2.0.36 won't boot up after overclocking. It goes through all
>initialization stuff at startup, and then, just when it's supposed to
>display "login" prompt, it would reboot the 'puter. If I take the speed
back
>to 300Mhz, everything works. NT and w98 work perfectly on overclocked
>computer..
>
>I suspect it's the memory. I have 96M, 32 of which is non-100Mhz. Could
this
>be the thing? Maybe I should adjust smth in BIOS setup?
>
>Any input greately appreciated. If you can, please cc by email.
>
>Arcady
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
