Linux-Misc Digest #145, Volume #19 Mon, 22 Feb 99 22:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Multilink PPP in Linux with 2 x V90 = 105,333 bps? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: KDE? Gnome? ... confused ("Matt O'Toole")
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (NF Stevens)
Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
Re: hdparm command (Tim Moore)
Netscape communicator Linux/WinNT (Sebastian Bo�ung)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.x,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Multilink PPP in Linux with 2 x V90 = 105,333 bps?
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:51:52 GMT
On Sat, 20 Feb 1999 09:53:31 +0000, Jason Clifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Care to explain how... EQL is NOT ML-PPP and the ML-PPP driver for
>> linux only works in kernel 2.1.36-2.1.48 and was incompleate. do you
>> know something we don't?
>
>Going from the documentation in /usr/src/linux/drivers/net/README.eql that
>is what it is billed as although I note that the documentation is old and
>the utilities it refers to are not present on a standard RH system.
>
>To be honest I have never set up EQL as I have never needed it.
>
>Jason Clifford
>Definite Linux Systems
>http://definite.ukpost.com/
>
I got the utils from metalab. they work from linux to linux. takes
time to learn how to set it up especially if you want to persist
conection. EQL uses a unique way of doing the load balanceing.
everyother ip packet was sent over the other line...one here, one
there and so one.
ML-PPP actually will split an IP packet and send part over one line
and part over the other. You can get eql to work with ml-ppp linux to
nt but that's it.
ML-PPP need to send a request to channel bond before it will work with
an ISP. The ML-PPP driver for linux is still missing this one simple
feature. (as well as updateing it to work with 2.2.x) it does't have
the capability but takes some very cleaver scripts and knowlege of the
system you are connecting to to get it to work right. I have only
been able to bond outgoing channels. but incomming still comes in
through one modem.
tng
------------------------------
From: "Matt O'Toole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,linux.redhat.misc,linux.redhat.rpm
Subject: Re: KDE? Gnome? ... confused
Date: 21 Feb 1999 13:24:32 PST
Jim McCusker wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I think that the point is that if a distro were to include a couple of
>extra user accounts that are *always* set up the same way, then it would
>be very easy to find someone who has not bothered to either delete or
>modify those accounts.
So what? That wouldn't hurt anythhing, except take up a teensy bit of disk
space...
>Of course, the distro could ask the user if they
>want to set up user accounts, and then ask for passwords, etc. or
>randomly generate passwords.
Ooh, now you're thinking. But, is that too much like a Winwizard? How
uncool...
Matt O.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens)
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, 21 Feb 1999 21:24:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens) writes:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson) wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>So, you (by "supporting" software) are leveraging the efforts of those
>>>who have given their work away for free. The kind of "free" determines
>>>how the developer (him|her)self can profit. The GPL excludes amortizing
>>>cost of development from the money pipeline (unless there is some
>>>gross overcharging going on somewhere, like for support fees.) GPLed
>>>code is structured for people like you to make money. There has been
>>>lots of good money made on free and GPLed works.
>>
>> Does the BSD style license seek to prevent the a commercial venture
>> such as Red Hat/SuSE etc etc from making a profit from disributing
>> free software? Even if it did I doubt that such a restriction would be
>> enforceable. I conclude the lack of such a venture for BSD licenced
>> software is not due to some enabling mechanism in the GPL, but to
>> the lack of demand for such a service.
>>
>> Are all the possibilities of making a profit from support services etc
>> available for with software which has a BSD style licence? Does
>> any BSD style license contain a paragraph prohibiting charging for
>> support services?
>>
>The cool thing about the BSD license is that developers can add to
>the free software base and effectively make capital investments
>in it. GPL licensing excludes that.
The only thing that the GPL prevents but which BSD license allows
is for one developer to exploit the work of another developer by
taking code which was given as "free for use" and turning it
into a proprietory product which is no longer free (under any
definition of the word free). The BSD license may be "cool"
for _some_ developers because it allows them to put together
a proprietory product with less work then would otherwise be
the case; but it provides nothing to the original developer.
>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>You are making a sort-of investment in your reputation and marketing
>>>skills -- however, you are also (by using GPLed works) using software
>>>that doesn't directly support the notion that software development
>>>is a capital investment. You are supporting GPLed software
>>>that condemns future works also to be divulged. This discourages
>>>the notion of programming, design, innovation for investment
>>>on the part of the people who originated derived works.
>>
>> Your use of the word "condemns" gives you away.
>>
>The word "condemn" has to do with *forcing* code to the
>public (from the programmers standpoint.) That is NOT
>good, because of the bar that it raises at the same
>time as not being interesting as a programming
>investment vehicle. It is great for the marketeers,
>though. They can keep on draining it, depending
>on free labor for enhancement. The labor
>(programming) has little or no opportunity for
>the programming investment that the marketeers
>have with their skills.
And exactly what is it in the BSD style license which
prevents the "marketeers" from doing exactly the same
thing with BSD code? Nothing, except that you don't
notice that their doing it, because the code has
been rewrapped under a proprietory label. OK, it gives
a nod in the direction of Berkeley when it boots but
how are you to know how much is new code and
how much is someone else's work. Quite simply
all your diatribes against non-programmers exploiting
GPL applies to BSD too. Except that the GPL forces
those companies to acknowledge their indebtedness
to the original authors.
>
>The marketeers are dependent on the developers who
>are giving *it* away for free.
Exactly the same as happens with BSD except you
don't notice it because one copyright notice when
the machine boots is all that is required.
>The developers can
>not invest in a code base as a kind of capital (and
>expect a return), unlike the marketeers using their
>skills. Don't confuse "support" companies "officially"
>charging support fees, with normal (and more proper)
>charging for a product.
No one is forcing the developers to work on GPL code.
Red Hat and others are paying developers to extend
the GPL code base.
>
>The funny thing is that with some support companies,
>you technically pay for support, and you dont' get access
>to GPLed works unless you pay for the support. That
>is a mis-definition of support. (This sounds more
>and more like Clinton -- whatever the definition of
>"is" "is.")
I'm sure the FSF would be very interested in this. That
is, assuming you have hard evidence to back up your
claims.
>>
>> The basis
>> of your complaint about the GPL seems to be that it does not
>> allow proprietory works to be derived from it. AFAIAC that
>> is not a problem; in fact it is one of the benefits of the GPL.
>>
>Double speak, the code not being free is a problem, when it really
>isn't. It is not a benefit AT ALL that the add-in (and often add-on,
>per RMS) software cannot be treated as an investment.
As long as you maintain a clear separation between what is
and what is not GPL then you can make all the investment
you want, without any problem. The problem is that you
want to use someone else's work as your code base and
the GPL won't allow you to do that.
>>
>> Once a piece of code is free, it stays free.
>>
>Yep, but it isn't GPL. Correctly restating what you say:
>
>Once a piece of code is GPL and not free, it stays in the
>public and isn't worth spending expensive and creative
>development time on (for programming professionals.)
OK. Once a piece of code is free for use (gratis) then it stays
free for use (gratis). No-one can come along and take that
code and turn it into a proprietory product. AFAIAC that is
a benefit of the GPL.
> They
>(along with others who are just hobbiests) will do it as a hobby,
>hope to get credit, and the marketeers and "support" firms will
>make the $$$. The $$$ seldom flow back to the developers,
>and the marketeers (and pseudo-support firms) will continue
>to LOVE GPL, as free fuel.
>
>>
>> I also have
>> some difficulty with your phrase "who originated derived
>> works". If it is derived then it is not original.
>>
>Newly derived works can include significant amounts of creative
>effort. GPL and you ignore the cost of that. That is okay,
>but it also isn't free, and the programmers need to realize
>that there are strong economic motivations to keep them in
>the GPL fold, if they fall into it.
If you want to make a proprietory product don't base it on
GPL code; write it yourself.
Norman
------------------------------
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: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 21:30:27 GMT
On 21 Feb 1999 00:37:57 -0800, Michael Powe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> chose to bless us all with this bit of
wisdom:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>>>>>> "Mayor" == Mayor Of R'lyeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Mayor> On 18 Feb 1999 22:38:47 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] chose
> Mayor> to bless us all with this bit of wisdom:
>
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mayor Of R'lyeh) writes:
>
> >>> 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?
> >> Presumably to the Ford Pinto, which had a small design defect
> >> that would have cost tens of millions to fix and looked like it
> >> would cost in the neighborhood of zero to one lives if it
> >> weren't fixed. Unfortunately for Ford, the one life didn't end
> >> up ended but merely horrible burnt and very, very litigious.
>
> Mayor> Ah the Pinto case. One of the biggest bits of urban
> Mayor> mythology around. What most people don't know about that
> Mayor> case was that the car had no gas cap. The women were
> Mayor> backing up the highway to get to the exit they just
> Mayor> left. They had just realized that they had left their cap
> Mayor> at the station they'd just filled up. Most of the gas that
> Mayor> ignited came up through the filler tube. Also that Pinto
> Mayor> was slammed into by a full sized Chevy van going 70
> Mayor> mph. Ford did many crash tests and showed that even with
> Mayor> the shield or even moving the gas tank to a place between
> Mayor> the axles, the gas tank still ruptured in such a collision.
> Mayor> They did some tests with various full sized autos as
> Mayor> well. Most of them didn't fare much better. There's simply
> Mayor> no way to make a car that is safe for 70 mph collisions.
>
>Indeed, but one has to wonder just who is perpetrating the mythology.
>The "urban legend" was not one case but several. A few facts to spoil
>your sneer:
And what sneer is that? Its a simple fact that driving has its
hazards. One of those is that you may die in an accident. You may
choose not to think about every time you get behind the wheel;
however, that doesn't make it not so.
>
>
>Grush-Saunby Report on Pinto Gas Tanks, Table 3: This report is the
>Ford Motor Company document in which the authors compared the likely
>costs of lawsuits to the known costs of properly retrofitting the cars
>with safety bars. The rather cold-blooded decision was simply that it
>would be more "cost-effective" to pay off the victims than to protect
>their lives.
There can always be 'one more thing' that can be done to make vehicles
safer. As we are seeing with the SUV situation once you do something
to make vehicles safer someone will sue you for making them too safe.
The automakers are in a no-win situation. They are going to be sued
after an accident. Usually because they have much more money than the
person who actually caused it. They have accepted this as a cost of
doing business. What your report is actually an attempt to balance
those costs. So long as people are more interested in turning a buck
from ever traffic accident instead of getting the bad drivers off the
road that's the way it will be.
As far as cold-blooded goes, if you really want to see that in action
then you need look no further than the lawyers and their clients
attempting to profiteer from the deaths and injuries of their freinds
and loved ones.
While every one has their hands out to the auto companies the driver
that caused the accident is usually out driving in his/her piss poor
manner again. But no one cares because they're pockets aren't very
deep.
>
>
> Benefits and Costs Relating to Fuel Leakage
>
> Associated with the Static Rollover Test Portion of FMVSS 208
>
>
> Benefits
>
> Savings - 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2100 burned vehicles
>
> Unit Cost -- $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle
>
> Total Benefit - 180 x ($200,000) + 180 x ($67,000) + 2100 x ($700) = $49.5 million.
>
> Costs
>
> Sales - 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks.
>
> Unit Cost -- $11 per car, $11 per truck
>
> Total Cost - 11,000,000 x ($11) + 1,500,000 x ($11) = $137 million.
>
>
>- From The Southern California Law Center web page:
>
>The landmark case in this area of manufacturer liability was Larsen v.
>General Motors Corp., 391 F.2d 495 (8th Cir. 1968), in which an
>individual was compensated for injuries suffered when his head struck
>a steering wheel in an accident. In another significant case, Grimshaw
>v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal. App. Ct. 3d 757, 174 Cal. Rptr. 348
>(1981), a California jury required Ford Motor Company to pay $125
>million in punitive damages (later lowered to $3.5 million) to a
>teenager who was severely burned in a fire that resulted when his Ford
>Pinto was rear-ended and the fuel tank exploded.
>
>
>mp
>
"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die."
- Abdul Alhazred, Necronomicon
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 13:27:43 -0800
From: Tim Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: hdparm command
> > How about two different drives with the same settings like
> > Western Digital Vs. Seagate etc..
>
> Results will most likely vary slightly.
Results vary significantly even from what appear to be close spec matches.
Here are hdparm -tT three run averages for Maxtor 8.4GB and IBM 6.4GB
running off the same EIDE controller (Asus P2B (Intel PIIX4) PII/333).
Note the IBM's larger cache, faster speed and quicker seek do not give it
an advantage. The Maxtor's inner tracks are faster than the IBM's middle.
outer middle inner RPM cache seek
Maxtor 10.95 10.53 8.45 5200 256KB <10ms
IBM 9.55 7.78 n/a* 5400 472KB 9.5ms
* The IBM drive's last partition runs mid to end of the drive. Since
hdparm only tests the first 32MB in a partition (/dev/hda = /dev/hda1), it
can't get close to the inner tracks as with the Maxtor. I know from
previous partition layouts on this drive that the inner tracks run about
6.5MB/s.
drive info
==========
# hdparm -i /dev/hd{a,b}
/dev/hda:
Model=Maxtor 88400D8, FwRev=NAVX171F, SerialNo=L80EEP7A
Config={ Fixed }
RawCHS=16278/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=20
BuffType=3(DualPortCache), BuffSize=256kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
DblWordIO=no, maxPIO=2(fast), DMA=yes, maxDMA=2(fast)
CurCHS=16278/16/63, CurSects=16408224, LBA=yes, LBAsects=16408224
tDMA={min:120,rec:120}, DMA modes: mword0 mword1 mword2
IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:120,w/IORDY:120}, PIO modes: mode3 mode4
/dev/hdb:
Model=IBM-DHEA-36481, FwRev=HP6OA20C, SerialNo=SG0SG0K2
Config={ HardSect NotMFM HdSw>15uSec Fixed DTR>10Mbs }
RawCHS=12592/16/63, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=28
BuffType=3(DualPortCache), BuffSize=472kB, MaxMultSect=16, MultSect=off
DblWordIO=no, maxPIO=2(fast), DMA=yes, maxDMA=2(fast)
CurCHS=12592/16/63, CurSects=12692736, LBA=yes, LBAsects=12692736
tDMA={min:120,rec:120}, DMA modes: sword0 sword1 sword2 mword0 mword1
mword2
IORDY=on/off, tPIO={min:240,w/IORDY:120}, PIO modes: mode3 mode4
partition layout
================
# fdisk -l /dev/hd{a,b}
Disk /dev/hda: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 1021 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hda1 * 1 62 497983+ 6 DOS 16-bit >=32M
/dev/hda2 63 1021 7703167+ 5 Extended
/dev/hda5 63 68 48163+ 83 Linux native
/dev/hda6 69 170 819283+ 6 DOS 16-bit >=32M
/dev/hda7 171 178 64228+ 6 DOS 16-bit >=32M
/dev/hda8 179 433 2048256 6 DOS 16-bit >=32M
/dev/hda9 434 688 2048256 6 DOS 16-bit >=32M
/dev/hda10 689 693 40131 82 Linux swap
/dev/hda11 694 834 1132551 83 Linux native
/dev/hda12 835 873 313236 83 Linux native
/dev/hda13 874 924 409626 83 Linux native
/dev/hda14 925 1021 779121 83 Linux native
Disk /dev/hdb: 255 heads, 63 sectors, 790 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hdb1 1 261 2096451 6 DOS 16-bit >=32M
/dev/hdb2 262 789 4241160 5 Extended
/dev/hdb5 262 266 40131 82 Linux swap
/dev/hdb6 267 394 1028128+ 83 Linux native
/dev/hdb7 395 789 3172806 83 Linux native
--
[Replies: make the double y a single]
"Everything is permitted. Nothing is forbidden."
WS Burroughs.
------------------------------
From: bossung@{remove_this}gmx.de (Sebastian Bo�ung)
Subject: Netscape communicator Linux/WinNT
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 20:06:54 GMT
Hi,
I want to switch to Linux (from NT). However, I want to take my mail
with me. I have been using Pegasus Mail under NT. Since Pegasus
doesn't exist for Linux I decided to use Netscape 4.5 instead because
there are Linux and Windows versions. I even found a converter from
Pegasus to Netscape. The Mail files converted ok, I can read them in
Netscape Windows.
Now, here comes the problem: I cannot read the files in Netscape
Linux. Netscape Linux can read mail files that were newly with
Communicator for WIndows 4.5 and vice versa. I presume that Netscape
for Linux cannot read older versions mail files (it says it cannot do
so for address books).
Does anybody have an idea how to fix this problem?
Thanks for your help (if you reply by mail please delete the
{remove_this} from my mail address).
Sebastian
_____
Please delete the "{Remove_this} form my e-mail
address to reply by mail! I'm sorry for the
inconvinience but I'm sick of 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
******************************
