Linux-Misc Digest #84, Volume #19 Thu, 18 Feb 99 15:13:13 EST
Contents:
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)
Too many levels of symbolic links - how to correct a botched symlink? ("Jeff
Kowalczyk")
Re: Linux jingle (C. Costello)
Compaq sp700 installation.... (Brian Wainscott)
Please help with unconventional RedHat install.... (Brian Wainscott)
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: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Linus Torvalds)
Re: Can someone tell me how to get LILO to update my boot floppy's kernel map? ("Dan
Maclolm")
Re: Word Perfect 8.0 d/l question (jht)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:28:02 GMT
On 15 Feb 1999 11:48:37 +0000, Paul Flinders
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> chose to bless us all with this bit of
wisdom:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> It's been shown that the trends towards safer workplaces, cars, airlines,
>> etc... already existed before government regulation. In fact, in some cases
>> the trends slowed when regulation appeared. You won't hear that in the news,
>> or course, because that would be a plus for those of us who want less
>> government and more independence.
>
>That would be why Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay accident
>victims compensation than to design a safer car?
>
To what are you referring?
"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: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:27:56 GMT
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 23:22:13 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:
>>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
Oh come now! Even if the limit is 15 feet that is plenty of room for
you to get in front of the SUV. From there you can see the whole
intersection. Even if one is parked in the last spot on the cross
street, it shouldn't block more than a couple of seconds worth of
travel time for oncoming traffic. Just wait a few seconds and go.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die."
- Abdul Alhazred, Necronomicon
------------------------------
From: "Jeff Kowalczyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Too many levels of symbolic links - how to correct a botched symlink?
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 13:48:11 -0500
newbie question: but I was trying to revise the symbolic link "linux" to
point to the new kernel source. LSShort, I botched it with ln, and now I
have a linux->linux situation. Anytime I try to accesss or delete this link,
I get:
"/usr/src/linux: Too many levels of symbolic links"
How can I correct this? I had learned how to manipulate SymLinks two weeks
back, but I took a couple of weeks off learning linux, and this little mess
is teh result. I suppose I'd beetter get with it, so I can configure the
resultant kernel images correctly.
Thanks.
BTW, I just applied the RH updates, to prepare this fresh 5.2 installation
for a kernel 2.2.1 build, if that could be affecting behavior.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C. Costello)
Crossposted-To: aus.computers.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux jingle
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:19:03 GMT
In article <7aiqk6$7ns$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian wrote:
>Hows this
>
>On the first day of Linux my puter said to me
>Piss off you bloody great twit
Wow. Linux was giving you some great advice. *Sigh*, if you only listened
to it once in a while...
--
When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President. Now
I'm beginning to believe it.
-- Clarence Darrow
------------------------------
From: Brian Wainscott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Compaq sp700 installation....
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 16:43:03 -0800
I just got a 2 processor compaq sp700 (for some WinNT development,
yuck!) that I want to install RedHat on. Unfortunately, the SCSI
controller seems to be unsupported -- I tried all the options listed in
the 5.2 install. Looks to be a proprietary controller, at least I can't
find any useful info about it. (The same was true for the Ethernet
controller, but the Intel EtherExpress Pro 100 driver seems to work).
Any suggestions or pointers thereto?
Thanks.
--
Brian Wainscott | No Jesus ---> No Peace
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Know Jesus ---> Know Peace
------------------------------
From: Brian Wainscott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Please help with unconventional RedHat install....
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:27:05 -0800
Is there any way to install RedHat without the supplied boot disk? Or
is there some way to build my own RedHat boot disk?
I've got a machine with an NCR 53c876 SCSI adapter, which is not
currently supported. However, I THINK the 53c875 support would work but
that the driver just doesn't recognize the card. I want to try playing
with that driver. However, I can't install anything because that is the
only disk controller on the machine.
So, I'd like to build a RedHat 5.2 install boot disk with a modified
driver on it.
How? I can't even mount the normal boot disk on a different machine.
Alternately, the machine is running WinNT -- is there any way that would
be helpful? Like creating a disk image and using loadln (which I've
never used) to boot off of it? Then how do I build a good disk image?
(Well, I guess if I knew that, I could just put it on a floppy and skip
NT anyway.....)
Thanks for suggestions/pointers!
--
Brian Wainscott | No Jesus ---> No Peace
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Know Jesus ---> Know Peace
------------------------------
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: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:28:00 GMT
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:39:15 -0800, "noway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
chose to bless us all with this bit of wisdom:
>
>>>In much the same way that buildings and telephone poles are.
>>
>>No, in the way that a building which is very likely to be driven by a
>careless
>>moron, and which will drive at unsafe speeds in inclement weather, and
>which
>>doesn't check its mirrors, would be dangerous.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>To you, yes. Not so much to other people.
>
>
>I think his point might be best summed up with hockey.
>
>if your playing unorganized hockey, and no one is wearing
>pads, then you most likely alter your playing style to reflect
>that fact. You play safer. when you are playing hockey with
>all your pads, you alter your style again. You can get away with
>more aggressive playing style, as the pads will protect you.
>
>but lets say we are all playing without pads, but a few people
>are playing with pads. it stands to reason that the people
>with pads will be safe, but the people without pads will be less
>safe then if we all wore pads, or all did not wear pads.
>
>Im sure you can attack my idea based on how simplistic Im
>putting them, but Im just trying to put in my 2 cents. in the
>same vain, if 10 people have sub compacts and 10 people
>have big SUVs then then 10 poeple have become "more" safe
>and 10 people have become "less" safe. in a SUV and sub compact
>crash the SUV will be safer. in a SUV and 18 wheeler crash
>the SUV won't help = )
>
>so the SUV's are making the highways "generally" less safe
>for the benefit of making driving a little safer for the owners
>of SUV's
>
Actually, traffic deaths are going down. The highways are becoming
more safe for everyone.
"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: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:27:42 GMT
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:19:16 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:
>>On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 18:35:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
>>chose to bless us all with this bit of wisdom:
>>>And, of course, SUV's are more dangerous *TO OTHER DRIVERS*.
>
>>In much the same way that buildings and telephone poles are.
>
>No, in the way that a building which is very likely to be driven by a careless
>moron, and which will drive at unsafe speeds in inclement weather, and which
>doesn't check its mirrors, would be dangerous.
The danger to other drivers from both SUVs and large fixed objects is
that they are much larger and sturdier than your average CAFE shrunk
car. The other driver that you are so concerned is just as likely to
be doing the things you claim SUV drivers always do.
>
>>> 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.
>
>To you, yes. Not so much to other people.
To most other people as well, I believe. Most of thevehicles sold in
the US fall into the broadest category of SUV.
>
>It is possible that you have to include the effects of your behavior on the
>world around you when making choices.
I can only control and am only responsible for my own actions. That
others chose to buy a less safe vehicle is not under my control.
Your collectivist approach to responsibilty is incompatible with
freedom. I'd rather be free with all of the risks than have to go to a
central committee to see what kind of vehicle I am to be allowed.
>
>Imagine two worlds; in one, everyone drives SUVs. In the other, they all
>drive subcompacts. I doubt that traffic fatalaties would be lower in the
>all-SUV world. I wouldn't be surprised if they were higher.
Imagine a realistic world where everyone is free to make their own
choices.
>
>On the other hand, if you have both, the people in the SUV's are at lower
>risk, because they're passing that risk on to everyone else.
Everyone else is freely assuming that risk when they chose to buy a
less safe vehicle.
>
>>> 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?
>
>No, but the height makes them much more dangerous, because it's easier for
>them to miss a car behind them.
Again the basics of defensive driving will solve this problem. Have
you ever noticed the sign that some large trucks and trailers have on
them that reads "If you can't see my mirrors then I can't see you!"?
That applies to other vehicles as well. Simply put -Don't tailgate.
> Bad drivers are likely to pick a SUV, because it's macho, just like them.
Now its becoming obvious that your beef with SUVs is more personal
than logical. Please explain to me how all of these women I see
driving SUVs are 'macho'.
Its been my experience that bad drivers are just as likely to be in
any kind of vehicle as another.
> And, of course, the risk to me if I'm hit by a SUV is much higher.
Semi tractors without trailers are involved in four times as many
fatal accidents as SUVs. Your risk from one of them is much, much
greater. If safety is your actual concern then you should be pressing
for laws that require semi tractors to pull a trailer at all times.
>
>>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.
>
>This is entirely true, and I personally do not answer the phone on a freeway.
>
>>> 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.
>
>The old muscle cars aren't so much of a problem.
Not any more. If you're over 30 then I'm sure you can remember when
they were a major pain to be behind.
> There's a big difference -
>all of the other vehicles you name *HAVE A REASON TO BE LIKE THAT*.
So do SUVs.
> They are better able to accomplish real tasks.
So now you what to be the one to decide what a worthy purpose to own
certain vehicles is? What arrogance!
>
>>>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.
>
>Maybe it is... But it's awfully suspicious that the number of fatalities
>involving SUV's is so much higher than the (weighted by population density,
>obviously) number of fatalities not involving them.
That depends on what we call an SUV now doesn't it? Looking through
the literature, I noticed that mini pickups, mini vans and full sized
vans seem to become SUVs in some statistics and they lose that status
in others. We have a name for this kind of fact fudging in Indiana; we
call it lying.
>
>>>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!
>
>Are you willing to state with absolute certainty that the cost of those
>resources, to the *ENTIRE WORLD*, iterated over billions of people, might
>not be higher than the cost of the lives?
Are you talking about just me driving an SUV (Which I don't, BTW. My
1977 New Yorker gives me my sense of security.) or are you imagining
some kind of collectivist fantasy in which my decision somehow forces
everyone to drive an SUV? Either way I see it as a plus. If everyone
drove one, think of the economic activity that would stimulate.
>
>Maybe the additional pollution in Chicago or LA will kill a number of children
>who would have been viable in a cleaner atmosphere.
Oh Keerist! Not another 'For the children! fingerwaver! FWIW I happen
to think that adult's lives have value too. In fact I think they tend
to have more. Adults are what make the world go 'round. Children are
just little bundles of potential with no proven value until they grow
up and start doing.
To counter your children with some of my own, I would say think of how
many children wouldn't have been killed in accidents if their parent's
had loved them enough to put them in a nice, safe SUV.
>
>You can't just look at the set of numbers that supports your case; you have
>to look at the whole picture.
>
>>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?
>
>Nope. But if you're in an accident that would otherwise be roughly equal
>fault, yes, I think you're liable.
So you do think that I should somehow be liable for your auto
purchasing decision! If I had some kind of a veto power over your
decisions I would agree with you. Since you are free to spend without
my approval, I don't see how any of your purchases can logically come
back to haunt me; you I can see.
>
>If you drove a car that had a "crumple zone" but had big sharpened spikes
>in it that wouldn't crumple, so someone hitting your car was likely to be
>impaled, it'd be a clear case of negligence.
Now you're getting stupid. A rigid frame is not the equivalent to
sharpened stakes in any way, shape or manner.
>
>The entire SUV is, in terms of its interaction with other cars, negligent.
The tiny undersized, CAFE shrunk cars is where the negligence lies. We
can lay that squarely at the EPA's doorstep.
>
>>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.
>
>Nope. The main factor was someone's decision to drive a vehicle which, as
>a side effect of careless design specs, is much more likely to kill people.
That's right. That's a good description of the CAFE mandated auto.
>
>There's no need to be lazy in design; if you can't make a car safe to be in
>without making it dramatically more dangerous to other cars, you shouldn't be
>in the car-building industry.
Its not that they can't. Its that the government won't let them.
>
>>>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.
>
>Vehicles are apparently a contributing factor. A significant one.
No vehicle; no vehicular collision. You're right!
You are aware that SUV-car collisions are less than 4% of the
vehicular accidents in this country aren't you. You're being
hysterical over a non-issue.
>
>>>(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.
>
>The design is still much safer to the hypothetical other parties in an
>accident than the SUV designs tend to be.
I'm sure that 3,000 lb station wagon hits much softer than a Jimmy.
I'm equally sure the driver that dies in either case will appriciate
that fact.
> It's not a coincidence that there
>are any number of designs which are relatively safe for both parties in an
>accident.
And you can find them down at the fairgrounds under the sign that
says' Bumper Cars".
>
>-s
"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die."
- Abdul Alhazred, Necronomicon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 18 Feb 1999 19:38:18 GMT
In article <7ag2p3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John S. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Honest statement about my position:
>
>I understand that you wrote the code, and incorrectly and
>call your software free, and I'm still going to
>complain about the errsatz-free copyright -- only because
>it isn't free. I'll answer the question honestly when
>discussion comes up.
So then you must be happy that we changed the "free" to "open source",
right?
Go away, John, your arguments just do not make sense, and I still don't
see why you _continue_ to just be an anti-GPL bigot in public.
Bigotry is ugly, John.
Let's just kill this thread again.
Linus
------------------------------
From: "Dan Maclolm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can someone tell me how to get LILO to update my boot floppy's kernel map?
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 13:19:05 -0600
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Try a to refresh the floppy lilo by running liloconfig using lilo.conf from
your floppy's /etc directory. liloconfig will install the new lilo.conf
configuration.
Dan
Jeff Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:XuXy2.1883$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>(Sorry for the reposts, this is the third day and I can't find the relevant
>help in the HOWTO's)
>
>I have a new kernel, but I have to use a boot disk at the moment, due to a
>bios limitation on this 486. This is RH5.2, and I'm trying to get the boot
>disk to load the 2.2.1 kernel I just built.
>
>I have the 2.2.1 image copied over there, and I updated the lilo.conf on
the
>floppy's /etc dir, how do I run lilo to update the kernel map on the
floppy,
>not the hard drive??
>
>In the floppy root, (/mnt/floppy) I have:
>
>vmlinuz-2.0.36-0.7 vmlinuz-2.2.1
>/boot
> boot.0200 boot.b map message
> (what exactly is the map file?)
>/dev
> fd0 hda6
>/etc
> lilo.conf
>
>lilo.conf reads:
>-----------------------------------------------
>boot=/dev/fd0
>timeout=100
>prompt
>image=/vmlinuz-2.2.1
> label=linux
> append="mem=20M"
> root=/dev/hda6
>image=/vmlinuz-2.0.36-0.7
> label=linux-old
> append="mem=20M"
> root=/dev/hda6
>image=/vmlinuz-2.0.36-0.7
> label=rescue
> append="load_ramdisk=2 prompr_ramdisk=1"
> root=/dev/fd0
>
>However, the only choices at boot time are linux and rescue, which means
>myexperiments with the various lilo switches have been unsuccssful. Help?
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jht)
Subject: Re: Word Perfect 8.0 d/l question
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 01:37:26 GMT
try downloading the BIG file (GUIL00.gz). that's what i did and use
tar -xvf GUIL00.gz instead of gunzip (which doesn't work for some
reason). i recently installed it and everything went fine.
On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:29:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Where can I download WP8 that works? I've tried umpteen times, both the
>single file, the small files, from both cdrom.com and download.com, and they
>all come saying that they are a *.gz file, but aren't, and if you do a tar
>-xvf on them, they all quite after awhile saying that they aren't complete,
>etc.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
