Linux-Misc Digest #56, Volume #19 Mon, 15 Feb 99 20:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: WANTED: Quality Control Info. ("Karsten M. Self")
Problems upgrading to 2.2.1 (Eric Turner)
Mount joliet CD-rom as Rock Ridge ("Paul G. Milo")
Re: Problems upgrading to 2.2.1 (NF Stevens)
Re: dos 8.3 filenames only seen from linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Bunch of pretentious Wankers (Rick Onanian)
Re: Bunch of pretentious Wankers (Bitbucket)
Re: one thing that sux about Linux.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS Explorer 4.0 for Unix (steve mcadams)
good UPS? (Thomas Frese)
Re: Burning MP3s to CD, long file names? (posterkid)
Re: Advice for Microsoft-haters (Gerd Roethig)
Re: Ensoniq soundcard problem (Sam Vere)
Re: Data for NOT using MS-Exchange. ("Scot E. Wilcoxon")
Re: floating point accuracy on Linux? (Rob Komar)
Re: kernel 2.2.x upgrade (Mark Bratcher)
Re: Small version of Linux (Andy Johnson)
Re: MS Explorer 4.0 for Unix (NF Stevens)
Re: Why Does Linux Thrash So Bad? (NF Stevens)
Re: one thing that sux about Linux.... (Karel Jansens)
Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers (Peter Seebach)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WANTED: Quality Control Info.
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:55:16 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jerry Lynn Kreps wrote:
>
> "Karsten M. Self" wrote:
> > I'd tend to agree that OSS QC is more concerned with results (working
> > code, function, correctness) than with process (CMM, ISO 9000).
>
> I wouldn't agree. Do you folks think that the ledgendary stability,
> compactness and speed of Linux just happens by accident? Since humans
> are not perfect and are not capable of creating bugfree code, bugs are
> bound to happen. When they do the OSS model squashes them quickly. One
> reason for that is the development method. Either of you two use CVS in
> code development? Have you applied patches. Do you even know what a
> patch is or why it is used?
I think there's a misunderstanding here.
First, I believe the quality of OSS software is immutably bound to the
process which produces it.
_However_, the process which produces the software is concerned with
producing quality software -- or more immediately, to satisfying a
current need. It is _not_ concerned with satisfying pro forma quality
documentation and methodolgy. This is the distinction I was trying to
make. If you'll read my comments, you may note that I reflect that OSS
_is_ the de facto (if not de jure) distillation of 30 years of software
QC practices.
A quality standard (CMM, ISO 9000, etc.) breaks down when the standard
or protocol can be adhered to but quality product does not result. OSS
is more organic. I see it as Darwinian evolution applied to software.
Not only does OSS select for the best software, it selects for the best
software development practices.
No, quality doesn't just happen. But quality doesn't just happen by
proclaiming a process to be a "quality" process. Quality happens by
aiming for a known objective, finding bugs, stamping them out, and
identifying the next objective(s) to attain.
Personally, I use RCS (small scale projects). Yes, I've applied
patches. Yes, I know what they're for. I think I'd disagree slightly
with Gary's original characterization of QC WRT OSS -- it's not a
seperate obsession, it's the same obsession.
--
Karsten M. Self ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Welchen Teil von "Gestalt" verstehen Sie nicht?
web: http://www.netcom.com/~kmself
SAS/Linux: http://www.netcom.com/~kmself/SAS/SAS4Linux.html
3:41pm up 4 days, 3:09, 3 users, load average: 0.39, 0.37, 0.27
------------------------------
From: Eric Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Problems upgrading to 2.2.1
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 11:55:30 -0800
I recently upgraded to kernel 2.2.1 from 2.0.34 and am having problems.
1. I'm using IP Masquerading to give other PC's on my home network
access to the Net. With kernel 2.0.34 it works great, but when I'm
configuring kernel 2.2.1 (using make xconfig) the IP Forwarding option
isn't there and I can't seem to get it working. What options do I need
to include?
2. My ppp isn't working now (I'm using pppd 2.2.0). When I connect to my
ISP it appears to go through the handshake, but then hangs up.
a. When I boot I'm getting some error messages for things that
were
working fine under 2.0.34:
can't locate module lp
can't locate module slip
can't locate module ppp
can't locate module psaux
No PS/2 mouse device found on this machine
insmod: iBCS: no module by that name found
ipfwadm: setsockoptfailed: invalid argument
ipfwadm: setsockoptfailed: no such file or directory
b. Output from /var/log/messages
Feb 15 08:07:43 sol chat[129]: To telnet to a host, enter its
name. All local hosts are available.^M
Feb 15 08:07:43 sol chat[129]: For a partial list of local
hosts, type 'menu'.^M
Feb 15 08:07:43 sol chat[129]: To end your session, type
'quit'.^M
Feb 15 08:07:43 sol chat[129]: ^M
Feb 15 08:07:43 sol chat[129]: ascend01-WWU: -- got it
Feb 15 08:07:43 sol chat[129]: send (ppp^M)
Feb 15 08:07:43 sol pppd[128]: Serial connection established.
Feb 15 08:07:44 sol pppd[128]: Using interface ppp0
Feb 15 08:07:44 sol pppd[128]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyS0
Feb 15 08:07:47 sol pppd[128]: local IP address 204.201.210.33
Feb 15 08:07:47 sol pppd[128]: remote IP address 204.201.210.253
Feb 15 08:07:48 sol pppd[128]: Hangup (SIGHUP)
Feb 15 08:07:48 sol pppd[128]: Modem hangup
Feb 15 08:07:48 sol pppd[128]: Connection terminated.
Feb 15 08:07:48 sol pppd[128]: Exit.
c. Output from /var/log/syslog
Feb 15 08:02:03 sol syslogd: exiting on signal 15
Feb 15 08:02:44 sol kernel: Symbol table has incorrect version
number.
Feb 15 08:05:33 sol syslogd: exiting on signal 15
Feb 15 08:06:15 sol kernel: Symbol table has incorrect version
number.
Feb 15 08:07:47 sol pppd[128]: ioctl(SIOCADDRT) device route:
Network is down
Feb 15 08:11:25 sol syslogd: exiting on signal 15
When I switch back to the 2.0.34 kernel everything works fine. Any
ideas? BTW, I'm running Slackware.
Thanks,
Eric Turner
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You can send something to me securely by encrypting it using PGP.
My public PGP key is available from hkp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Free PGP software is available from http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pgp-form.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
------------------------------
From: "Paul G. Milo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mount joliet CD-rom as Rock Ridge
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:12:45 +0100
Is it possible to mount an (windows 95 created) cd-rom as an IS9660, with
the rock ridge extension instead of the joliet extension ?
The CD contains a 00_TRANS.TBL file in every directorie.
If not, is there an script with wich a can rename all the files (in all the
subdirectories) to their original filenames (longer thand 8.3) ?
Thanx,
Paul.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens)
Subject: Re: Problems upgrading to 2.2.1
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:03:02 GMT
Eric Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I recently upgraded to kernel 2.2.1 from 2.0.34 and am having problems.
[snip]
>2. My ppp isn't working now (I'm using pppd 2.2.0). When I connect to my
>ISP it appears to go through the handshake, but then hangs up.
[snip]
Check the file /usr/src/linux/Documentation/Changes for minimum
requirements for kernel 2.2.1. e.g. minimum version for ppp is
2.3.5.
Norman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: dos 8.3 filenames only seen from linux?
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:19:29 GMT
In article <01be5868$bf6c2010$0f02000a@hugues>,
"Hugues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all, i ma a newby on Linux. I mounted a fat16 partition to be seen by
> Linux. Does anyone know how to make Linux know that 8.3 filenames are not
> used anymore and that long filenames exist? Because when i copy files on
> my Linux drive, i have to rename them all because of the xxxxxx~1.xxx
> limitation. thank you very much.
Linux FAT32 Support at the following URL:
http://bmrc.berkeley.edu/people/chaffee/fat32.html
--
Louis-ljl-{ Louis J. LaBash, Jr. }
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Rick Onanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bunch of pretentious Wankers
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:10:21 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> How about you follow newsgroup etiquette you tossers.
>
> This is (alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.misc) NOT
> alt.lets.argue.about.whether.Bill.should.go.
>
> I am getting really pissed with having to troll through political bullshit
> when looking for answers to linux related questions. I am sure that other
> international linux users will feel the same, and will also be intelligent
> enough to find the corresponding newgroups to read 'worthwhile' opinions
> about Bill and his cigars, should they wish to do so. I for one don't give a
> toss.
International? Listen, enough of us here in the U.S. are tired of this
crap...We can't even see a decent news story, let alone read some tips
on using Linux, without dealing with this crud. I think we've determined
that our politicians really blow the monkey's ass, every single one of
them. Now can we get on with some linux stuff, here?
rick
Q. What are politicans good for?
A. Target practice.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bitbucket)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bunch of pretentious Wankers
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:11:28 GMT
On 15 Feb 1999 20:02:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 14:31:29 GMT, Bitbucket <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 09:08:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Clinton is their boss. And he's
>>>above the same punishment. It's an American travisty and a pathetic display
>>>that Democrates dispite addmiting that what he did was undefenseable,
>>>Defended him. Shows just how "above" the left seems to think they are while
>>>accusing the right of being so. Just my .02 Keith
>>
>>You miss the point entirely. Sexual misconduct is by virtue, an
>>extremely common human...frailty.
>
>No you miss the point. Which was lying under oath (a felony) and obstruction
>of justice (another felony). It has nothing to do with sexual misconduct.
>This is the problem with most Americans today, especially democrats, they
>are too blinded by the free handouts to see the truth or care about whether
>the president is a criminal or not. Thier creedo has become: to hell with
>the law and honesty as long as the handouts continue. Those who defend the
>president in this matter are the lowest form of slime because they are
>instrumental in destroying the character of this country. They have also
>given the rest of the country an excuse to lie in a court of law and the
>expectation of getting away with it.
>
>Anyone who thinks this is about sex is dishonest with themselves as well as
>with those they try to convince. Clinton commited a felony and the democrats
>and his other supporters have become accessories to his crimes.
Wow, you must be one of those MSNBC folks. First, none of the charges
would have stood up in a court of law. You think 99% of legal scholars
who opined in this way were bought and paid for by Clinton? Another
O.J. I suppose..they were all in on it...haha...
The house managers were a laughing stock. They were just plain inept
at playing lawyer. It became painfully obvious as to why they were on
the house floor. No law house would have hired them. It didn't help
that they didn't have anything close to a case. No reasonably
competent prosecutor would have brought it in the first place.
I guess you have Ken Starr posters in your room...I yi yi...
Slime? Gee..that hurts..The fact that GOP would push to spend 6 years
and over 50 million dollars to persecute a man and then bring charges
to bear that...guess what .. WERE ALL ABOUT SEX is more of a crime
than anything Clinton could have done with Monica dangling from his
crotch. It's about Lying about SEX, pure and simple. Everyone who
cheats lies about sex. It's human nature. What the GOP backed by those
nut bags in the moral majority did was well beyond any semblance of
human nature. It was plain evil.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: one thing that sux about Linux....
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:19:29 GMT
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:58:49 -0500, "Southam"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Granted, applications may be very similar between Windows and Linux, but
>unless they are exact, some user who doesn't have the inclination or savvy
>to try to figure out what's going on will lose on the deal. " Where's the C:
>drive???" would ring in my ears constantly.
granted but a gui word processor is a gui wordprocessor. they may not
look the same and unless you are a geek and do you awn macros and
such, it doesn;t matter if your using MS-Word or WordPerfect or
staroffice. they all work about the same. spell check and thasaurous
is alway under tools, copy, cut, paste is always under edit,
justification is almost always on the tool bar with similar looking
icons, etc.
as far as where is the C: drive...well, when I moved to Linux from
dos, I likes getting rid of a: b: c: d: e: f: g: in favor of a single
directory tree with logical names like /cdrom /home /usr/games
/floppy, etc.
>
>>More people use computers today than ever before, but the percentage of
>>computer users who are functionally computer-illiterate is probably higher
>>than ever before. With the level of knowledge that most people have of
>their
>>computers, and with the level of sophistication with which most people use
>>their machines, I suspect that most people can be migrated from one system
>to
>>another with only a couple of hours of training. And if two or three hours
>of
>>training under Linux is the price for almost zero downtime, that's probably
>a
>>worthwhile investment for most executives.
>>
>
>I agree that user sophistication is increasing, but it is increasing with
>Windows, not with a real OS. Worse, there are lots of people who are still
>stuck in the DOS world. I know a few high end users who were willing to put
>up with a DOS PC instead of switching to a UNIX workstation. Why? They knew
>DOS, knew how to get what they needed, and were not willing to give up the
>toolset they had built. This will be true of most users - in order to make
>real inroads, the ways and means of a new OS have to be built on the
>knowledge base that's there. And remember, though an OS may be running, that
>does not guarantee that it is being productive.
>
simple enough, somebody should write a program the will convert dos
batch files to Linux/unix equivalant. to to dificult. every dos
command has a unix equivilant. after all DOS was QDOS (quick and dirty
operating system) written to be a single user system based on the UNIX
shell (sh)
>>Remember, we're not talking about being able to install the system or new
>>hardware or to write shell scripts or anything like that. We're talking
>about
>>using email, a word processor and a spreadsheet on a system that's been set
>up
>>and preconfigured, just as is currently done using Windows.
>>
yep. My wife wouldn't get use linux. I got it set up with kde and
wordperfect, gimp, netscape, aim, ICQ all set up, now she doesn't use
windows as much..(still needs if for games and printshop delux III )
>
>So, Joe CEO gets a new PC Card for his birthday, plugs it in to his Linux
>laptop and blows up the kernel. Just before the big business trip to
>Jakarta. Great. Most people who get a machine at work consider it thier
>personal property - executive types especially. They will not listen to
>"Don't add new stuff to your laptop without speaking to me first". Total
>meltdown doesn't happen with Windows (most of the time). Besides, why should
>anybody have to be a computer guru just to add a new bit of hardware to
>Linux?
>( CEO: Re-complie the OS? What the hell are you talking about? Me:
><<Whimper...>>)
don't blame linux for this...blame pc-card manufactures for not
reliecing linux drivers. even a generic bin only module that can be
loaded with a simple install program. if any vendor would like, I
would be happy to write the install scripts for their drivers.
>>Personally, I think most people would do best with something less
>complicated
>>than a Mac. A general-purpose computer with a powerful operating system
>just
>>isn't necessary for people who use a computer as an appliance and for only
>a
>>few limited tasks. A stable system and software that doesn't need to be
>>upgraded every year just to be able to keep doing the same things,
>howerver,
>>would be a tremendous advantage.
>>
>
>You, my friend, have hit the nail dead center. What we need are Linux Basic,
>Linux Lite, Linux For Windows Users, Linux Professional and Linux for
>Computer Gods ;-). All of these would be built on the same base, but
>functions would be added ( or in the case of Linux For Windows taken away as
>quickly as possible ) from the same CD with just a simple command. And don't
>go to RPM - the language in there is fine for me, but would scare the
>average Joe to death.
>
I think that is what GLINT is for (corect me if I'm wrong)
>To sum all of this up, I truly believe that in order to have any chance of
>hurting M$, anyone associated with Open Software will have to stop being
>full of themselves ( Can't complie the kernel? You are a mere mortal! Stand
>aside and let SUuuper Geek at the keyboard!!!) and start to speak in
>language that other people, the unwashed masses, understand. At least M$ has
>stated that thier corporate goal is (or used to be) "Information at your
>fingertips", and so far have come along way towards that goal.
>
simple...add a build option to make xconfig. I know RedHat has in
their control panel to configure a new kernel. if the kernel config
included a build button, the build button need only do a
make bzimage; make modules; make modules_install;
cp /bzImage /bzImage.old
cp /usr/src/linux/arch/i386/boot/bzImage /
lilo
where lilo has bzImage and bzImage.old already defined.
then give an option to restart the machine with the new kernel.
tng
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Subject: Re: MS Explorer 4.0 for Unix
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:18:54 GMT
[Posted & mailed, snipped, quoted is ">"]
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 10:27:36 -0600, Jerry Lynn Kreps
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>rof,llllllll
rof? what is this "rof"?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
"If you wouldn't pay to do it, why would you do it for pay?" -steve,
http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: Thomas Frese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: good UPS?
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:26:31 -0500
Has anybody any recommendations for a reasonably
cheap and good UPS that works well with Linux,
i.e. unattended shutdown, voltage correction and
command to shut down the UPS once the machine halted?
Also, what is the Linux software to control these UPS's?
I was looking at APC Back-UPS Pro 650 for example....
Any suggestions are appreciated
Thanks
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (posterkid)
Subject: Re: Burning MP3s to CD, long file names?
Date: 15 Feb 1999 19:47:14 GMT
David R. Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Stef wrote:
>>: mkisofs -o music.raw -R -T /data/musicdir
>>
>>I also add the option -J for Joliet extensions, so I also have the
>>long Filenames under MS Windows.
>>You need a recent version of mkisofs for this.
>
>Uh, I thought Rock Ridge extensions were for long filenames, and
>Joliet was for unicode, or multiple code pages, or some kind of
>foreign character thing.
IIRC, Joliet was MS' attempt to 'embrace and extend' <spit>
Rock Ridge -- it's long filenames + Unicode.
--
<http://www.psnw.com/~posterkid/keys/> for DSA/ElG-E/RSA keys
DSA 0x0A641AA5:0B1E 37B7 ECCB FC96 B6C6 7242 0A59 F8D5 EFA9 4F81
RSA 0x4E65C321: 42 57 B3 D2 39 8E 74 C3 5E 4D AC 43 25 D2 26 D4
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerd Roethig)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Advice for Microsoft-haters
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:11:17 GMT
Hello,
Am 15 Feb 1999 16:08:07 GMT schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
>In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.misc didst Michael Powe
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> eloquently scribe:
>: look> Can anyone tell the difference between a cog and a vacuum
>: look> tube? (Valve). The 1941 bombe was a MECHANICAL
>: look> device. Colossus came later. --
>: So what? Colossus replaced the Bombes because the Bombes were no
>: longer useful. I can't figure why everybody seems to be obsessing on
>: the Bombes. They were not the major codebreaking activity associated
>: with the Enigma.
>I wasn't obsessing about anything. I was just pointing out that someone got
>the years wrong for colossus. i.e. NOT 1941.
And what has this to do with Linux?
Just wondering
Gerd
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam Vere)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Ensoniq soundcard problem
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 00:19:50 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 16:53:11 -0800, Eric Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I'm running Slackware and have had the same problem. There are
>commercial drivers for the Ensonic Audio PCI (available from OSS). I
>tried the demo driver and it work great, but I'd rather not pay for a
>friggin DRIVER! A while back I heard there was supposed to be support in
>the 2.2.x kernels, but I haven't had the time to check into it since the
>new release...
I've just compiled a 2.2.1 kernel with AudioPCI support.
Works just fine.
(Note that there are *two* drivers - one for before & one for after
the Creative takeover.
If you don't know which you've got, use the tool lspci with the -n
option - it's all explained in the kernel documentation.)
<-------------------REMOVE SPAMTO TO DIRECT REPLY------------------->
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | THERE IS NO TERIYAKI, ONLY ZUUL!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | - Akane's cooking,
| The Varaiyah Cycle
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:28:23 -0600
From: "Scot E. Wilcoxon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Data for NOT using MS-Exchange.
Hmm. All weekend and no URLs in the discussion yet.
How about this as a starting point:
http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/
and the NT Files:
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/nt/bugs.shtml
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Komar)
Subject: Re: floating point accuracy on Linux?
Date: 16 Feb 1999 00:45:45 GMT
Georg Schwarz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
:
: What's the deeper reason behind that discripancy? Is Linux's input or
: output assumming it more accurate than it actually is?
With gdb, I printed out a, b and c with lots of decimal places and got:
(gdb) printf "%20.19e\n", a
1.0000000000000000000e+00
(gdb) printf "%20.19e\n", b
2.0000000000000001110e-01
(gdb) printf "%20.19e\n", c
5.0000000000000000000e+00
I checked on an Alpha, and got the same initializations when
compiling with gcc (here's some of the output assembly code
from the Alpha):
$C32:
.t_floating 1.00000000000000000000e0
.align 3
$C33:
.t_floating 2.00000000000000011102e-1
.align 3
$C34:
.t_floating 5.00000000000000000000e0
On an x86, floating point math is done by default with 80-bit
registers rather than the 64-bit registers on most workstations.
So the garbage bits on the end of `b' proved to be significant
in this calculation on the x86 machine. As a test, I reset the
FPU to work in 64-bit mode by default on the x86 machine, and
got the same results as on the Alpha (and that you saw on the
MIPS machine).
I think it's unfair to entirely blame the x86 architecture
for this. It did accurately calculate the results given the
initialization of the variables.
Cheers,
Rob Komar
------------------------------
From: Mark Bratcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: kernel 2.2.x upgrade
Date: 15 Feb 1999 20:51:03 GMT
Robert,
Start at http://www.linuxhq.com.
But, ask yourself "Why should I upgrade to 2.2.x?". It may not be worth
the effort unless there is a specific feature you are requiring (like
support for specific hardware or for NTFS access). Just MHO...
Mark
Robert Crosbee wrote:
>
> Im currently running rh5.2 kernel 2.0.36 and im looking to update the
> kernel to the newest 2.2.x(i forgot). Is there a RPM for this and if so
> which ones do i need and where can I get them. Im a little confused
> since the ftp sites that ive been at have only had the kernel-2.0.36.rpm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 19:48:16 -0500
From: Andy Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Small version of Linux
Jim Richardson wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 19:06:38 -0500,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >> > I have an old PC with only a 3.5in floppy drive which i would like to install
> >> > linux on, Is there a small version of linux that i'll fit on just a few disks?
> >> > max 20? If so, where can i find it?
> >>
Trinux (http://www.trinux.org) fits on 2-3 disks, but I think is primarily geared
toward
network management...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens)
Subject: Re: MS Explorer 4.0 for Unix
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:55:47 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams) wrote:
[snip]
>Internet Explorer 3.02 wasn't bad. Any Internet Explorer version that
>starts with the number "4" is the kiss of death imo. IE 4.x is for
>the Win98 crowd that wants to see MickeyMouse on the ChannelBar. Of
>course I'm not sure what I'm advocating here, since any Netscape that
>starts with the number "4" is also the kiss of death imo. <sigh>
>Opera was nice but didn't support secure pages last time I tried it.
Remember DOS v4.0.
Personally I think it's a bug in the number 4.
Norman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens)
Subject: Re: Why Does Linux Thrash So Bad?
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:55:48 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh) wrote:
>In <7a825m$mb0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ed Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I've got a 300 MHz Pentium II with 128 MB of RAM and 512 MB of swap. But
>
>
>How do you have 512M of swap? A swap partition is limited to 128M.
You can have more than 1 swap partitiion.
Norman
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Reply-To: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: one thing that sux about Linux....
Date: 16 Feb 1999 00:05:07 GMT
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:27:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rowan Volvo) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gregory Propf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Rowan Volvo wrote:
> >>
> >> so... how stable would x-windows be when the CEO demands root priviledges?
> >
> >You missed the earlier poster's point - the CEO doesn't do system admin
> >stuff himself and that's the only reason he would need root privilege.
> >
> I don't really think my point is contentious with the earlier poster's point.
> I merely bring up another point to consider. The CEO might not want to
> learn anything new, but he might want to read others' Email, or he might
> just like the term 'superuser'. Unfortunately most people , in
> management or otherwise are not strictly rational in regards to what they ask
> for -- especially when it has to do with their limitations.
>
So set up a user called 'God' or 'supreme ruler of users' or summink and
give that to the CEO to play with. They're usually too dumb to find out
that they're not root and those who are smart enough will also have the
brains to leave sysadmin to the specialists.
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_ibm_dot_net
=======================================================
"Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day,
but set fire to him and he's warm
for the rest of his life."
(Terry Pratchett - Jingo!)
=======================================================
------------------------------
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 23:22:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mayor Of R'lyeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You may want to make your town's government aware of this situation.
>Most places don't allow anybody to park within 15-20 feet of an
>intersection. That should be plenty of room to check for traffic no
>matter what is parked in the last spot. Either your town doesn't have
>this common sense rule or its being ignored.
It's not plenty of room to check for traffic when you're in a short car and
the behemoth parked in that last spot is a big SUV right at the legal limit
for how far out it can be from the curb; you don't have enough visibility to
be sure about the cross-street.
-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!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
