Linux-Misc Digest #162, Volume #19 Wed, 24 Feb 99 07:13:16 EST
Contents:
trouble ticket system for redhat 5.2? (Jody Whisnant)
Re: Linux Users in Houston TX (Ulf Bohman)
Re: sh for Linux (Chris J/#6)
Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers (Thomas Joynt)
Rack-mount (Dustin Puryear)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Jason Clifford)
Re: New York Times magazine article (Jason Clifford)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Jason Clifford)
Re: More bad news for NT (Jason Clifford)
Re: WARNING !!! Don't order the Linux Central Debian 2.0 r3 CDs !!! (Colin)
Re: enlightenment themes? ("teknokr@t")
Re: Going from Win 98 and Office 97 to Linux and ???? (Andreas Mohr)
Serching for H.323 Gatekeeper Software (Fritz Lorenz Born)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (jik-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jody Whisnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: trouble ticket system for redhat 5.2?
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 16:41:36 -0500
Hi all,
Can anyone suggest a trouble ticket system for RedHat 5.2? I'd like to
keep track of calls and emails I get for help, what the problem was, and
how I fixed it (if I did). Any and all suggestions are greatly
appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
Jody
------------------------------
From: Ulf Bohman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Linux Users in Houston TX
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:07:04 +0100
I thought so. That's why I still like Houston
Mike Cip wrote:
> Ulf Bohman wrote:
>
> > Good point, but I'd use Stevie Ray Vaughan for this comparison. He was
> > quite humble about his abilities. Eddie really need to do some practice
> > :-)
> >
> > BTW I'd really like to go to Houston, but this Feldman guy really makes
> > me doubt.
> > Anyone got any other good offers in TX?
> >
> > /Ulf
>
> BTW, not every Linux user in Houston thinks this way.
>
> -Mike
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris J/#6)
Subject: Re: sh for Linux
Date: 22 Feb 1999 21:04:26 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bash is a real shell, its just not the bourne shell. It's bourne, with
many extensions. sh is the traditional shell of most other UNIX'es, and
is just a bare basic small shell. It's also the de facto standard when it
comes to shell scripting. Bash does not come as standard with most UNIXes,
although the Korn shell, ksh, is starting to be distributed with many
UNIX'es, but even that isn't guranteed. sh and csh are the only shells that
you can virtually gurantee to be on any UNIX system (but I loath csh for
scripting).
Chris...
Villy Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Does this imply that bash is not a real shell? If so, why not.
>
>
>
>Villy
--
@}--- Chris Johnson ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\~~~~~~~~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] \--{@
\ If not for me then do it for yourself \ www.nccnet.co.uk/~sixie/ \
\ If not for me then do it for the world \ pine.shu.ac.uk/~cjohnso0/ \
\ -- Stevie Nicks \ \
------------------------------
From: Thomas Joynt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Consumer Poll Says Microsoft Is Good For Consumers
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 03:29:20 -0800
Christopher B. Browne wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 08:29:25 -0800, John Smith
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> >I think I have found a few easy steps for the government to restore
> >competition:
> >1. ban winmodems/other windows only hardware
> >2. require that all drivers be released as open source code (or if it is
> >windows only..... make ALL specs and source public)
> >3. give a tax cut (major) to companies that port their drivers/software
> >to non-microsoft OS's.
> >4. force m$ to stop threatening the OEM's about increasing the price 3x
> >if they install a non-megalosoft OS.
>
> None of these make particularly good law.
>
> The harder, but more likely to survive legal challenge, step, would be
> to require that government departments implement and use free software
> systems.
>
> That is an answer that is clearly not vindictive against one company,
> and which is *far* more positive for free software.
>
Hrm... I think it could be argued that the fourth and final point (forcing
MS to stop bullying OEMs into exclusive Windows distribution deals) is the
most reasonable and acheivable.
It's also really one of the strongest examples of thier anti-competative
behavior. With all due respect, the others are kinda silly. :-)
Though I really like the idea of having gov't departments use OSS systems.
It would also help cut down on gov't expendatures: the software is free and
the hardware can be cheaper. ::grin::
-- Tom
------------------------------
From: Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Rack-mount
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:15:00 -0600
I realize this message is off-topic, but these groups are the most
relavent to some of what I want to do. :-)
We are running a SCO Unix server (soon to be servers) and the hardware
is becoming a mess. I am looking into going from tower based cases to
rack-mount. This would allow us to better organize the hardware,
increase physical security of the servers, and we would only need one
keyboard/monitor for the entire rack. Is there any problem in moving the
motherboard and other items from a tower to a rack case? Also, is there
anything I need to keep in mind?
Also, I would like to find some good links to rack manufacturers, review
sites, and places to find tips.
Regards, Dustin
--
Dustin Puryear * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * ICQ 6644253
Help Crack Government Encryption: http://www.distributed.net
Diplomacy: The patriotic art of lying for one's country.
------------------------------
From: Jason Clifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:11:13 +0000
On 23 Feb 1999, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > I write free software, but why on earth should I want to spend my time
> > making life easier for people who earn twice as much as me?
>
> Because the corporate programmer often writes complete crap, and then
> ships it.
That is not sufficient. The question is not how to improve the works
produced by corporate teams - whose primary concern is usually getting
something that *looks* functional out within a set timeframe - but rather
whether Joe Bloggs sitting at home having developed application X shoudl
have the right to release it under a license that says that no-one may
derive works from it without releasing them under the same GPL license.
Joe Bloggs owns his work and is the ONLY person with the right to
determine how it is to be licensed to others.
If others want to right a similar application and add feature Y to it then
they can either comply with the license and derive their work from the
original or simply do all of their own work. No rights are taken away from
them whatsoever.
Jason Clifford
Definite Linux Systems
http://definite.ukpost.com/
------------------------------
From: Jason Clifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New York Times magazine article
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:20:23 +0000
On 23 Feb 1999, Michael Powe wrote:
> The figure of `7 million users' was given out by Corel when they
> announced WordPerfect for linux last May, but they did not indicate
> their source for the number.
If you are going to base an arguement on someone's assessment it would be
nice to know how they arrived at it. Red Hat have explained their numbers
and generally others have based their on Red Hat's.
Jason Clifford
Definite Linux Systems
http://definite.ukpost.com/
------------------------------
From: Jason Clifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:30:36 +0000
On 23 Feb 1999, John S. Dyson wrote:
> This is a discussion, and an attempt to shut it down. Remember, the
> guy's business is being fueled by other peoples efforts. You forget
> that.
My business is being fueled by my own efforts as has already beebn
explained to you.
You continue to imply that I am a freeloader making money from exploiting
others maliciously.
Understand this you ignorant fool: I work up to 18 hours a day every day
making Opend Source/Free software available to people in the UK. Much of
that time is spent on pre-sales technical support and all of it is MY
EFFORT.
My efforts are no less valid than anyone else's. If the authors of the
programs that are bundled in with Linux and FreeBSD did not want to make
their work available to be distributed they had the choice to release them
under a more restrictive license - that includes you John.
Jason Clifford
Definite Linux Systems
http://definite.ukpost.com/
------------------------------
From: Jason Clifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: More bad news for NT
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 10:37:53 +0000
Jon Wiest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jason Clifford wrote in message ...
>>On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Jon Wiest wrote:
>>Linux is faster, more stable, scales better, can serve dozens of
>>applications without crashing, etc. That is wiping the floor!
>Then why do I see all these messages about Netscape locking up? Show me
>these "wipe the floor" tests, but first let's define "wipe the floor".
>How about, say, 100% faster, 50% of the crashes, etc? "Wipe the floor"
>does not mean 1 or 2 %
Is Netscape a part of Linux? No it is an application that is available for
both Linux and Windows (and Macintosh and Solaris and others). The
stability (or otherwise) of Netscape is an issue with the *application*
not the OS.
Linux is significantly faster than WinNT on the same hardware and suffers
a far smaller proportion o crashes than 50%. In fact on reliable hardware
I have NEVER had Linux crash while on the same hardware WinNT has crashed.
>I'd say the whole process of getting it going is pretty stupid. Heck
>setting up PPP requires me to read and absorb a 50 page HOWTO. That's
>okay, I like learning, but gawd, doesn't everybody want PPP?
You have not done this recently then. Several years ago getting PPP to
work on Windows was also rather hit and miss and depended upon some
ability from the user.
No, not everyone needs PPP. In fact very few file and print or Intranet
servers need PPP. Very few web servers need it either.
> Like I said elsewhere, I'm sick of seeing self-righteous,
> self-agrandizing
>"I-run-Linux-therefore-if-you-say-anything-nice-about-Windoze-I'm-going-to-shriek"
> messages. Each has it's merit.
I am not denying that there is a place for Windows but I am stating very
clearly that the place is not as a reliable server platform.
I am also more than happy to state that Linux is not the right choice for
the desktop unless you need a UNIX type desktop or you have support
resources who can manage the system.
Jason Clifford
Definite Linux Systems
http://definite.ukpost.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:47:40 -0500
From: Colin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: WARNING !!! Don't order the Linux Central Debian 2.0 r3 CDs !!!
Erwann CORVELLEC wrote:
>
> I order the debian 2.0 r3 CDs as mentionned here:
> http://linuxcentral.com/products/lccd/
>
> And I received the Debian 2.0 ones (which I have already ordered in August 1998) !
>:((((
> I am still waiting for an explanation from Linux Central...
>
> Do anybody has the same problem ???
Ouch! Debian 2.1 is due out on Monday.
--
Reply to "cwv [at] idirect (dot) com"
------------------------------
From: "teknokr@t" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x,comp.linux.x
Subject: Re: enlightenment themes?
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:24:00 +1300
Dan Nguyen wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc teknokr@t <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : In my .xinitrc file i use enlightenment-dir/enlightment -theme
> : theme-dir/theme-name unfortunately i get an error saying theme-name
> : is a directory and x quits.
> Try putting an absolute path.
>
I have been i.e /usr/local/enlightenment/themes/handofgod/
> : how do i use themes under enlightenment?
> Remember that themes for Enlightenment DR0.15 are not compatible with
> Enlightenment 0.14
I have En.15 installed and got the hand of god theme from themes.org
Also the error message simply says that the directory the theme is in is
a
directory!?! Since this is as it should be I can't understand what it
thinks the
problem is.
------------------------------
From: Andreas Mohr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.setup,linux.redhat.install,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Going from Win 98 and Office 97 to Linux and ????
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:59:11 +0100
Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas Mohr wrote:
>>
>> Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > You can forget about the USB, as far as I know the only thing that
>> > supports it at this time is Windoz 98. Even my NT 4 (service pack 4) box
>> > doesn't support it.
>> Please never ever state something you don't know about !
>> I always hate it when people state something on the newsgroups that
obviously
>> is blatantly wrong.
> I wouldn't agree with you more if it wasn't for the fact that I said "AS
> FAR AS I KNOW", I hate people who flunked Evelyn Wood's Speed Reading
> course and then jump in with dumb remarks based on their inability to
> fully comprehend a sentence. If you really know so much about Linux and
> USB then how about sharing your "Holier than thou" info with everyone
> and tell us EXACTLY WHERE this so called "SUPPORTED" software can be
> found.
Hmm, maybe I really should have paid more attention to "AFAIK" in my reply...
That was a bit too bold.
Sorry !
Here it is:
http://wwwhome.cs.utwente.nl/~ia_ric/uusbd-www/uusbd-faq.html
http://www.suse.de/support/sdb/usb.html (german)
http://peloncho.fis.ucm.es/~inaky (main site)
Have fun using it ! :-)
--
Andreas Mohr
------------------------------
From: Fritz Lorenz Born <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Serching for H.323 Gatekeeper Software
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:31:56 +0100
Hello,
I'm searching a H.323 Gatekeeper software running on an Intel based
Linux server. As far as I know, most products on the market are targeted
for Microsoft Windows NT Server platforms.
Since we are using Linux as a alternative OS, we are interested in H.323
Gatekeeper software for it. Does anybody know about free Gatekeeper
software, any projects in this direction or any companies offering
Gatekeeper for Linux? Thanks for any hints or ideas.
regards,
Lorenz
--
Ascom AG Phone: +41 (0)31 999 21 11
Telecom Solutions direct Phone: +41 (0)31 999 23 65
Fritz Lorenz Born, TTAB FAX: +41 (0)31 999 24 18
Solution Architect E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Belpstrasse 37, P.O. Box WWW: http://www.ascom.ch
CH-3000 Berne 14, Switzerland
------------------------------
From: jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:01:18 -0800
My 2c:
I don't know the BSDL really, so I can't say much thier...however, it
would be hard for me to swallow if I wrote code that got taken by some
company, modified a little,...and then sold as proprietery software
without me getting anything....If there is money to make off of my
software, I want a piece of the pie (call me selfish if you will, but I
could make good use of a few bucks, why should it sit in some tycoon's
bank acount and rot?) ... not that this would likely ever happen,...but
who knows right?
Course, people can also make money off of my software if it is
GPLed....they can't keep the changes from everyone else.
I have some issues with GPL/LGPL though:
1) I can't swallow a lot of what the FSF stands for. Some of the
positions it has taken rather dissapointed me, and they/it seems to want
to rule over the free community instead of enhance it (Insisting on it
being called GNU/Linux for example, when there is a lot more to it then
just GNU contributed software). Releasing under the GPL, to me, seems
to validify this in some way. I am all for free software, but the FSF
doesn't seem to hold it in the same regard that I do.
2) When I first read the www.gnu.org site, I read something about how
the GPL works, and from what it said,....ANY future derived works would
have to be GPLed, even the autor's own. The actual statement when
something like "..the author then sacrifices his code, and we copywrite
it for them to assure that noone can make it non-free"...that is not ok
with me, I own all rights to my code, it is my desision when, and when
not to, release it for free.
3) The KDE/Qt war just plain killed all other likelyhood of me releasing
under the GPL. The idea that someone else could say "You can't do that
with your code" plain angers me. It was a bad thing that the sun rose
on that day, almost makes me wish troll tech hadn't changed thier
licence,...but then that WAS a good thing, just that I didn't think they
should be pressured into it (now many companies are likely to think of
this and think twice about free software...you know the phrase "Give em
a little and they expect more"..it fit us all to well)
The FSF took the wrong position in this dispute as far as I am
conserned, and lost a great deal of credibility with me when it did so.
4) LGPL in a way is better, but in other ways is not. You can create
software with it, and release binaries only, but you also have to allow
for a release of object code. It is a nice half way meet though. It
could cause problems though, so I doubt I will use it. Too closely
resembles the GPL, but it does allow for me to make free software under
the licence I choose,...but it does cause problems,...if the object code
part was removed, it would be better....but it won't be.
In my mind, there is just too much risk in using the GPL for anything.
GPL just seems to take too much, and give too little for me. I have no
mind as to weather other people use it though, but it could keep me from
making use of thier code in my free software if I won't GPL, which is
the main problem with the GPL.
One of my main concerns as to Linux and the GPL is proprietery
drivers....I only hope that it won't cause a problem that the Kernel was
GPLed instead of some 'other' licence which would have been less hazy in
this area. Actually seems to me that the GPL might totally be a problem
since drivers ARE linked to the kernel,....some people/groups might have
coniption fits if a company tries this. Besides that though, I have no
opinion....just glad linux is free.
Guess that was more like a dollar fifty, but oh well...had to get it in
there :P
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
