Linux-Misc Digest #49, Volume #19 Mon, 15 Feb 99 12:13:11 EST
Contents:
Lynx OS file system ("Haik M. Simon")
Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
Re: Data for NOT using MS-Exchange. ("Ian Payne")
Re: Where did my memory go? (David Pace)
Netscape losing bookmarks -newbie Q (Robert Crosbee)
Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers (Peter Seebach)
Re: Mouse Autoraise in Red Hat (David Pace)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Haik M. Simon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Lynx OS file system
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:33:16 +0100
Dear all,
did anybody ever try to mount a fils sysetm produced with the LynxOS
real time system? Is there maybe a loadable kernel module available ?
To be clear: I'm not talking about any access via network fs but a
generic
mount of a hard disk.
Thanks in advance
Haik Simon
--
Haik Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED] +41 22 767 - 9709
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 8990 FAX
http://axp616.gsi.de:8080/whms/
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small stain.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
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: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:17:30 GMT
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 06:48:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kinkster) chose
to bless us all with this bit of wisdom:
>On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 00:43:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 19:27:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kinkster) chose
>>to bless us all with this bit of wisdom:
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 15:48:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:56:01 -0800, David Masterson
>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> chose to bless us all with this bit of
>>>>wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>>David Kastrup wrote:
>>>>>> While I don't think (as some) that Microsoft should be forced to ship
>>>>>> Netscape as well at the option of Windows customer, they *should* be
>>>>>> forced to make all necessary information for doing that publically
>>>>>> available so that Netscape as well as other browser vendors have a
>>>>>> chance to compete with Internet Explorer on Windows. And this should
>>>>>> be controlled tightly to ensure they don't hide important APIs, making
>>>>>> the task more or less undoable for people not into the secret.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here's an idea. If you grant that Microsoft has a (near-)monopoly in
>>>>>OS, then, as a remedy, why not remove that monopoly in a way that keeps
>>>>>the government out of the computer OS business and maintains open
>>>>>competition. My idea would be to give control of the OS over to 3 (or
>>>>>more) separate companies (one of which may be owned by MS) and have
>>>>>those companies compete with each other. In other words, each would
>>>>>have a complete copy of the OS (and the engineering know-how to support
>>>>>it). To differentiate themselves, they would then have to move their
>>>>>copy of the OS in new and innovative ways. Yet, they would have the
>>>>>engineering knowledge to incorporate innovations from the other
>>>>>companies into their copy of the OS. In so doing, they would open up
>>>>>new opportunities for getting into the MS-Windows universe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And is this going to be done voluntarily? If the government forces
>>>>such a move then guess what? You've still got government intrusion
>>>>into the OS area. It took government about 25 years to get into
>>>>regulating automobiles under ythe guise of safety before they started
>>>>becoming draconian; even to the point of mandating 'safety' devices
>>>>that they knew would kill and injure people.
>>>
>>>Such as radio knobs that prior to govmt regulations protruded enough
>>>so that they'd puncture your skull in an accident
>>
>>I've never seen one of those. It wouldn't surprise me though if there
>>was a government reg on the size of radio knobs.
>
>I believe there probably is, maybe some type of maximum PSI that can
>be suffered during an impact. It keeps people like you able to walk
>away from accidents without putting holes in your skull from a silly
>radio knob.
Now that I think more about it I beleive that my '68 Chryslers had
some pretty huge knobs on their radios as well. They also had a 6 inch
overhang on the dash that you would have hit first. This overhang was
pretty well padded. You'd have to be about 3 feet tall or laying on
the seat to whack your head into the radio during a collision. And
weren't the radios in those old Chevys pretty low on the dash? I've
never heard of this being a major cause of injury.
>
>> After all they do
>>tell you what kind of toilet paper you can wipe your ass with.
>
>I remember noticing them after the government made comments about them
>being a safety hazard. On the car I learned to drive in ( '64 Chevy
>Impala ) they were about 2 inches long and were chrome plated steel,
>great for looks but all the better to puncture your skull with. I've
>also seen pictures of skulls with neat little holes punched in them by
>those same type knobs, nowadays with the broad flat plastic knobs you
>most likely wouldn't even wind up with a headache from the same impact
>that before would have killed you.
If you whack your head into the dash hard enough that a radio knob
would have peirced your skull you're going to at least have a major
headache. Skulls are pretty tough things.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>, steering columns
>>>that didn't collapse but impaled the drivers, doors that flew open in
>>>an accident, and the list of "industry" safety devices goes on
>>
>>Industry safety devices include brakelights and turn signals.
>>Some of the wonderful safety measures brought o us by the government
>>include CAFE standards that mandate smaller cars in which you are more
>>vulnerable to injury and death.
>
>Maybe we should all drive busses ?
That's a bit extreme. But doesn't it give you just a small pause that
on one hand we have a government forcing all of these safety measures
on everybody and then also denying us the one thing that everybody
agrees would make you safer in a car- namely size? Do you at least see
that maybe they're working at cross purposes with no hint of shame?
This is part of the cluster fuck that the government is subjecting the
auto industry to.
>
> We have about 5% of the worlds population but consume about 40% of
>it's energy.
And this is relevant how?
>The CAFE standards were implemented for more than just
>mileage , we also seem to have major problems with huge gas guzzling
>monsters polluting the atmosphere.
There were news stories a while back to the effect that the US (and to
a lesser extent Western Europe) has such stringent pollution controls
that air leaves our airspace cleaner than when it entered it.
> Take a trip to Europe or Asia and
>you'll see they aren't infatuated with driving behemoth land yachts
>like we seem to be here.
Not true. One of the thing a lot of Europeans and Asians want to do
when they get here is drive a monstrous American auto. When my Dad was
entertaining a lot of overseas clients at our home, years ago, almost
all of them got around to asking to drive my New Yorker around the
block.
The reason you don't see large autos worldwide is because a lot of
governments slap a $4-$7/gallon tax on their fuel. With gas prices
artificially raised to that level you look for something that gets
more than 10 mile/gallon.
>
>
>> A one size fits all airbag which has
>>killed many people. The auto companies would have been able to put the
>>adjustable kind in from the beginning but the government wouldn't
>>allow it. While not an actual regulation it was government pressure
>>that has gotten the SUVs lowered and lightened thus lessening the
>>safety of the last really safe class of vehicles left.
>
>Yeah, I _LOVE_ seeing a 90 pound woman driving 5500 Lbs of Lincoln
>Navigator all by herself down to the quick mart for a gallon of milk,
>it makes for real economical/ecological sense.
Its her money. She's free to spend it how she wishes. What's wrong
with that?
> When's the last time
>you actually saw someone have something in the back of 4000 Lbs of
>pickup truck or 5000+ Lbs of SUV hurtling down the expressway ??
>(Besides a Tonneau cover ??)
???
What does that have to do with anything? My Chrysler came from the
factory with a trailer towing package. The heaviest load I pull with
it is a dinky trailer just big enough for my riding mower and push
mower. Is that somehow wrong as well?
>
>
>
>>
>>>........ Maybe the government should get out of safety regulations for
>>>Airlines too ??
>>
>>And where did I say that there should be no regulation? Could you
>>please point that out or admit that you are just a hysterical ninny?
>
>You're the Chicken Little
Canary in a coal mine would be a more accurate description.
> that cries about the government being in
>everything from throttling m$ to the auto industry to handgun control.
You like the Nanny State dictating to you your every move? I find that
appalling.
>Why don't you admit you're a relic from (somehow) the frontier past
Belief in freedom and personal responsibility is now a relic in your
eyes? What have you replaced them with? Or are you waiting for the
State to tell you what to think on this issue?
>
>and can't fathom this modern society we live in ?
The conceit that we are now in the Panglossian modern era and that
somehow none of the old rules apply anymore is one of long standing.
It appears in many very old books. Its been years since I read it so I
could be wrong but I believe such a sentiment is expressed in
Chaucer's Canterbury Tale written in the 1300s. You're still wrong but
you do have some esteemed company.
>
>>We need some regulation. What we don't need is this layer upon layer
>>of nit-picking oversight that allows any agency to regulate any and
>>every thing in the name of 'safety' or 'for the children' or whatever
>>the buzzword at the time is.
>>
>>> You take the first Value Jet minus government
>>>regulation.
>>
>>Again with the 'no regulation' hysteria. Its not an either or kind of
>>deal. We can have something less than the heavy handed over reaching
>>approach that government uses now and still be safe. Have you ever
>>been involved in a heavily regulated industry?
>
>Uhhh care to try the auto industry or isn't that "heavily regulated"
>enough for you ??
In what area?
>
>>Until you have been you
>>have absolutely no idea how this works.
>
>That's why I'm so anti-m$, I've seen first hand the sloppy, fat and
>lazy ways of doing business when one has the market to themselves. The
>equipment and factory buildings I was working with/in , in the mid
>80's dated back to the 1930's and 1940's, that sure as hell changed in
>a hurry when the Japanese (read _competition_) damn near drove the US
>auto industry into bankruptcy.
And if you'll recall one of the US auto industry's first acts was to
run to the government to get relief. This takes us back to Microsoft.
I think we see the situation similarly. One big difference is that I
see Microsoft more as the Japanese. They've come in and beat the crap
out of everyone who they caught napping. Now the industry is fighting
back. There's serious work on putting a freindly face on Linux. I
haven't tried that Easy Linux distro yet but the website makes it look
just as nonthreatening to non geeks as Windows is. KDE is a great
desktop. There's some big names lining up behind Linux. I think its
going to push over the top and break into the mainstream within a year
or two.
Be is a simply wonderful OS. Release 4 screams on my old P-166.
If even half of the hype about Mac OS X is true then even the Maccies
may have an OS worth a damn.
>
>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 ??
I don't need any. I drove them. On one of my cars I found that someone
had suspended a nut on some fishing line in a duct. That little
tapping noise had driven me crazy for months.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I doubt that it would
>>>>take that long before they made a total cluster fuck of the computer
>>>>industry.
>
>They broke up Standard Oil in the early 1900's without making a "total
>cluster fsck" of the gasoline industry.
Gasoline wasn't really Standard's thing at the time. They were more
into heating oil and kerosene. There weren't too many cars around in
1911.
Interestingly, the history of fuel under Standard Oil was one of
falling prices and expanding markets. Exactly the opposite of what one
would expect from a monopoly. At the time it was broken up, there were
eight other major oil companies competing head to head with Standard.
A few of them had the foresight to recognize that the demand for
gasoline was set to greatly expand and were positioning themselves
accordingly.
The complaints against Standard were mostly brought forth by regional
companies who saw their local monopoly disappear once Standard pushed
into their area. They didn't like competing for what they considered
to be 'their" market. They were the Netscapes of their time.
The current issue of Reason has a good article on anti-trust. You may
want to check it out.
>They made Proctor and Gamble
>divest themselves of Clorox Bleach,
For no good reason.
> they made Ford sell off their
>parts division
I'm not familiar with this one.
>and the list goes on, yet I don't see P&G or Ford or
>any other company suffering from "Cluster Fsck" as you put it.
I don't know about P&G but as part of the Auto industry Ford is
certainly subjected to the cluster fuck effect. Contradictory
regulations; excessive regulations; being fined for measures that
government insisted on them taking, etc.
>
>>>>Why not just wait a few years and let the market take care of things?
>>>>It works slower but it works much, much better.
>>
>>I noticed that you didn't address the main point of the post.
>
>Your main point seemed to be bitching about the auto industry , as far
>as m$ goes they are big enough and dirty enough to stifle competition
>for the next 100 years. How long do we wait ?? 5 years ?? 10 ? 20 ??
>100??
MS has absolutely no ability to throttle the competition. Look around.
Even Zif-Davis publications are starting to feature Linux.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die."
- Abdul Alhazred, Necronomicon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
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: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 16:17:59 GMT
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:35:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
chose to bless us all with this bit of wisdom:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Mayor Of R'lyeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>allow it. While not an actual regulation it was government pressure
>>that has gotten the SUVs lowered and lightened thus lessening the
>>safety of the last really safe class of vehicles left.
>
>I don't buy that one. I've seen an Isuzu Trooper go fairly far up on
>two weels at slowish (~50-55?) freeway speeds just trying to center itself
>in a lane suddenly.
>
>And, of course, SUV's are more dangerous *TO OTHER DRIVERS*.
In much the same way that buildings and telephone poles are.
> If you share
>responsibility for injury and death between both cars in an accident, it
>becomes painfully obvious that SUV's are horribly dangerous.
And if you look at it sensibly it becomes apparent that driving a
subcompact is what's horribly dangerous.
> In addition,
>they are a traffic hazard. I've been nearly-hit by SUV's about once a month
>since they started being popular, because the morons who drive them think
>"oh, I'm safe, and if there's anything in my blind spot it's probably too
>short to hurt me", and merge without signalling or looking.
Oh come on! Are you seriously saying that the only bad drivers you see
are behind the wheel of an SUV? I've gotten this treatment from
drivers of every kind of vehicle there is - from Vespas to semi's.
If there's any kind of vehicle that fear the most its one where the
driver is using a cell phone. That's a guaranteed problem driver no
matter what they're in.
> I've had to try
>to guess whether or not there was oncoming traffic because a SUV was in my
>way.
Just like you do with semi's, vans, UPS trucks, delivery trucks and
old muscle cars that some moron has jacked up the ass end of.
>
>No, the solution isn't "everyone drives a SUV" - because if we do, then we
>end up duplicating a lot of the problems we'd have had if everyone were
>driving smaller cars,
Not really. You're still more likely to survive and SUV to SUV
collision than you are a compact to compact collision. Call me crazy
but I consider that a plus.
>and we waste a *LOT* of resources moving around excess
>tonnage of metal no one really cares about.
I'm willing to pay for those resources. Maybe your life doesn't mean
that much to you; but mine does to me!
>Does this mean I favor regulation? No. I favor slapping morons upside the
>head, and I favor making sure that people who drive vehicles which are
>particularly likely to damage or kill other people *are liable for those
>consequences*.
So if you choose to drive a dinky unsafe car and then get in a
collision with me in my SUV you think that I have some extra
responsibilty even if the accident is 100% your fault? What about the
owners of roadside structures? If you run into my house should I have
extra liability? What about phone poles? Those will cause extensive
damage to a small car. What about large trees? Should the owner of the
tree be somehow liable if you hit it? After all he could have always
cut it down and replaced it with a smaller tree that would have caused
less damage.
And why do you get off scot-free? After all the main cause of the
extra likelihood of injury and death was your decision to drive an
econobox. Had you chosen your car with safety in mind your chances
would have been much better. In the end the only reasonable thing is
to hold people liable for damages that they directly cause. If our
accident is my fault then I am liable. If the accident is your fault
then you are liable. Its absurd to try and insert the vehicle type
into a decision of fault.
>
>Anyway, go re-do your research. There are a lot of troubles with SUV's,
>especially when they have to coexist with other cars.
Go redo yours. There will always be troubles on the road. Most of them
are caused by human errors not the vehicle type.
>
>(Disclaimer: I drive an old station wagon that has been in three accidents,
>the net damage to my car being a bit of a scuff on one bumper. It's a nice
>old tank - and everyone can see over it, too.)
And depending on its age, it may be just as capable of dealing the
same brunt force in a collision as an SUV. Perhaps you should get rid
of it and pick up a Yugo.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die."
- Abdul Alhazred, Necronomicon
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
From: "Ian Payne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Data for NOT using MS-Exchange.
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:29:10 GMT
>If I rememebr right, congress got their exchange server swamped and it had
to
>be shut down upon advent of the whole impeachment crap. Check on
slashdot.org
>for info on it.
To be fair, Congress was running an older version that had a limit of 16GB
on the data store. This "bug" was well documented from day one and anyone
who read the manual would have known it was there. The upgrade that
eliminated that limit had been available for over a year and a half.
I think the Admins in this case have to take half the responsibility for the
lock up due to piss poor management of the server.
>Also point out that NT just cannot handle the work load. There is a
comparison
>out there of Apache with linux and NT with IIS and Apache crumples IIS
Errrrr......
How does HTTP server performance relate to e-mail?
------------------------------
From: David Pace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Where did my memory go?
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:35:11 -0500
Pat wrote:
> Can someone point me in the direction of something that will show me
> actual memory usage? By that I mean something that would show me where
> the difference between the total memory used figure and the sum of the
> individual process memory usage. Last night I rebooted just before I
> went to bed and started nothing more than X and an xterm, oh and all the
> usual processes at startup, it's a fairly minimal configuration thopugh.
> I checked the memory usage then, it was 27K. I got up this morning and
> checked again (nothing else had run overnight) and memory usage was up
> to 105K. I assume something is leaking badly but the trouble is tracking
> down what it might be. Can someone point me in the right direction
> please? Oh, BTW it's a reasonably vanilla redhat 5.2 system with the
> 2.2.0 kernel on it.
>
> TIA
>
> Pat.
top (enter)
has a %MEM column which shows this for each application/daemon.
--
David Pace Free Trading software: http://www.daveware.com
------------------------------
From: Robert Crosbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Netscape losing bookmarks -newbie Q
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:40:00 -0500
Ok im runnin rh 5.2 with xwindows and when i go to bookmark a page in
netscape it shows on the bookmark list, but when i end the session of X
and go back into it, the netscape bookmarks that I added are gone.
What am I doing wrong, besides not buying a book on Linux?
------------------------------
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
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:08:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mayor Of R'lyeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> not
>>to mention the damn problem of trying to see around these behemoths at
>>intersections to see if there's any oncoming traffic.
>Basic defensive driving techniques will solve this one. Hang back and
>wait to go through the intersection when you can see. It'll only take
>a couple of seconds and the life you save may be mine! :)
You want me to wait for a *PARKED* car to move before I make a right turn at
a stop sign onto a street where cross traffic doesn't stock.
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Send me money - get cool programs and hardware! No commuting, please.
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
------------------------------
From: David Pace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Mouse Autoraise in Red Hat
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:10:03 -0500
"Vivek Shanmuganathan (95410006-BS)" wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have installed redhat linux 5.1
>
> I have also loaded X Windows (fvwm). But, I have not been able to enable the
> window-autoraise option from the menu items one gets by clicking the right
> mouse button and choosing Preferences/Autoraise.
>
> I have even treid restarting fvwm. But, it does not seem to work.
>
> Pl help.
>
> Vivek...
Check /etc/XF86Config and see if the mouse emulation
is set correctly. There is a setting for two or three button mice
in there somewhere.
--
David Pace Free Trading software: http://www.daveware.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
