Linux-Misc Digest #166, Volume #19 Wed, 24 Feb 99 19:13:11 EST
Contents:
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Matthias Buelow)
Re: Space Station uses 95/NT, disaster imminent (no joke) (Robert B. Love)
Where can I get some decent fonts? (Joan Higginz)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Matthias Warkus)
Runtime error - HELP! ("Kertis A. Henderson")
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (brian moore)
Re: Where can I get some decent fonts? ("David Z. Maze")
Re: Going from Win 98 and Office 97 to Linux and ???? ("Louis Hopcraft")
(no subject) (Seth Van Oort)
Re: Cannot get to LILO boot: anymore ("beni")
Re: Can Linux use 36-bit Xeon addressing? ("David A. Frantz")
Re: ROOT FTP Access ("Karsten M. Self")
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Frank Sweetser)
Re: Can Linux use 36-bit Xeon addressing? (Frank Sweetser)
Re: More bad news for NT ("Jon Wiest")
Re: (No) PPP (at all) using Zyxel external ISDN TA (Fernando Raimundo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Buelow)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 24 Feb 1999 21:34:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Another example are TCP/IP-"stacks". I bet, the Internet wouldn't be
>> as popular as today and IP in every reasonable OS, if Net/2 wasn't
>> freely available. And by "freely" I don't mean GPL'ed ;-)
>> Think about that for a minute.
>
>Unprovable assertion. Where there is demand, product is created.
>
>Not every stack is based on BSD's. (With the general crappy performance
>of the MS stack, I tend to believe there is little BSD code in there at
>all.)
I would bet that Microsoft would not have adopted TCP/IP over its
beloved NetBEUI (sp?) crap if it hadn't been not only one but _the_
standard already (you still remember when the only IP for windoze was
trumpet winsock, right? That was only a few years back).
Without decently licensed, highly available and integrateble network
technology we would very likely be using an insane mix of decnet, bitnet,
ip, uucp, novell and a lot of other incompatible protocols and
implementations today, if at all. Something must be available for
reasonable conditions in order to make it standard; no company will
adopt fakefree technology and implement it on their own because the
license is inacceptable, unless the technology is not widespread.
They could as easily roll their own, incompatible one, and declare
this as standard.
--
- mkb
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert B. Love )
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Station uses 95/NT, disaster imminent (no joke)
Date: 23 Feb 1999 04:39:43 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Charles H. Chapman wrote:
> >
> >Sport, I work with flight software at JSC. I do have my facts
> >correct about station operations.
>
> Hmmm...first you say you "don't know what OS they run but I'm pretty
> sure it ain't NT" and now you work with flight software at JSC? How
could
> you work with flight software at JSC AND not be -positive- about what
> they're using for an OS?
At the time I didn't know if it was AIX or Solaris, ie. which flavor
of UNIX. I build the flight simulators used for crew and controller
training. We have real flight software running on MDMs and PCSs
included in our system. To command my models of Station ORU's
I have to use the PCS to issue commands that go over a 1553 bus to
the MDMs running the flight software. The MDM will then command
my devices over a different 1553 bus and I respond putting out telemetry
on the same bus going back to the MDM. I am _not_ an expert on the
flight software, I just know certain aspects, such as the commands,
and expected responses for several station ORUs. Very few people
know the entire 3 tier hierarchy of UNIX based PCs that control the
station. Wanna question me on the difference between a CPUI and
and SPIU?
BTW, I got my Linux Journal today. The cover indicates an article on
Linux and the Space Station. Even I don't know about that and will
read it tommorrow.
--
================================================================
Bob Love MIME & NeXT Mail OK
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
================================================================
------------------------------
From: Joan Higginz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Where can I get some decent fonts?
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 22:14:22 -0800
All,
Where can I get some decent anti-aliased/TrueType fonts for Linux?
I'm currently running RedHat 5.2 with AFterStep.
Netscape Communicator and just about everything else look atrocious due
to the lack of decent fonts.
Any help appreciated.
Cheers!
E
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:18:11 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:53:31 -0500...
..and Chris Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about LucasArts games? Why do they need sooooo much power to run?
> Why does Rebellion need more PC than Quake? It's graphics aren't
> better. It isn't a 3d live action game. Who knows? Even back in the
> day, you had to have a special boot disk to free up enough memory to
> play X-Wing or TieFighter (back before they were a single game).
>
> I wouldn't care if the games LOOKED like they used the power they
> require.
The problem is that most commercial games are written in a hurry. Two
years maximum development. At the beginning of this period, you need
to figure how powerful the hardware will be when the game comes out.
Write for this hardware.
If the game isn't state-of-the-art or ahead of the state of the art at
release, you're seriously fscked. Look at Enemy Nations - the game was
written from 1994 till 1996 [something like that]. They predicted when
it would come out, a normal computer would have got 64 MB of RAM. They
missed by two years.
A good example for a game that took a long time to write, runs on
pretty much lower-end hardware and looks good nevertheless (not to
mention it's complex and intelligent, too), is I-War.
mawa
--
Every woman and every man should at least try to keep in mind through
their whole life just how incredibly bad one is able to feel during
puberty.
-- mawa
------------------------------
From: "Kertis A. Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Runtime error - HELP!
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:16:17 -0500
I get this error when I run programs linked with certain libraries,
notably Mesa and SVGAlib.
./program: error in loading shares libraries
: undefined symbol: __register_frame_info
I am running kernel 2.2.1. Does anybody know what could be causing
this? Thanks in advance. Please reply by e-mail, too.
--
Kertis Henderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 24 Feb 1999 20:57:43 GMT
On 24 Feb 1999 19:14:44 GMT,
Patrick M. Hausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 24 Feb 1999 17:59:48 GMT,
> > Patrick M. Hausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I still don't see how Walnut Creek helps the programmers any more than
> >> > Red Hat does.
> >>
> >> They don't. But with the BSD license the developers are on the same
> >> competetive edge as Walnut Creek, while with GPL they can't compete
> >> wit Red Hat.
>
> > But I don't want to be a CD distributor and spend days on the phone
> > trying to convince IngramMicro to carry my products, or worry about
> > the balance between a big-and-impressive-looking-box versus a cheaper
> > and easier to stock small box and other marketing bullshit.
>
> > THAT is what Red Hat does, and they do it quite well. That is also what
> > Walnut Creek does, and they, too, do it quite well.
>
> > Why in God's name would a programmer want to do that?
>
> I don't want to do that. I want to sell my Palm-Tricorder [tm] in any
> way I desire - remember my example?
So you're arguing that you should be able to get rich quick based upon
the work of others without sharing back with them.
Your mother didn't raise you right: "share and share alike" is one of
the basic lessons you seem to have slept through.
> With GPL I have to hand my work - built upon others' work, no doubt -
> over to Red Hat and the like to redistribute them on CD along with
> instructions how to turn your standard Palm pilot into a Palm-Tricorder.
> Thus, I can't start a business selling these things. Or Whistle Interjets
> [tm] - or GNAT-boxes - or X-Terminals - or ...
Again, "I want to be able to use other people's code, but won't extend
the courtesy back of letting them use mine."
Note the problems The Open Group had with X last year: enough people
were using their code without returning anything (not code, not money,
not even a "thank you") that they changed the license to forbid that so
that they could survive. Fortunately enough of a ruckus was raised, and
presumably enough support promised back (TOG didn't change their mind
out of the goodness of their hearts) that they reversed that.
If you don't want to share your code with others, don't expect them to
be thrilled with sharing their code with you.
> With the BSD license I don't have to do that. I can keep selling
> whichever embedded product I created based upon *insert BSD copyrighted
> software* as a binary only or even a "hardware-only" distribution.
And you can get rich selling the works of others.
Nifty, though it reeks of immoral to me.
> Would all the dedicated printer boxes in the world support the lpd
> protocol with a GPL'ed lpd? Would Windows NT and MacOS support lpd
> if lpd were GPL'ed? Of course not. And the world _is_ a better place
> even though they keep "their" lpds binary only, because now we can
> network all these OSes and printers together, thus enhancing the
> "state of the art".
I wouldn't say they wouldn't.
NT supports HTTP, but there's no reason to assume that they're using any
of the common implementations such as Apache or NCSA. Printers support
HTTP servers these days (ick), though I doubt they're using either
Apache or NCSA code.
Necessity is the mother of invention, and if the demand is there, the
products will be created -- quite often using proprietary code.
Things like PostScript started out as highly commercial and proprietary
(with a whole slew of licensing costs and problems), yet managed to
dominate the industry anyway.
> Side note: yes, I do know that many printer boxes still feature awful bugs
> that were present in early lpds and which the manufacturers haven't fixed
> yet - so much about "enhancing state of the art" ;-) Still, with GPL, we
> would have no interoperating print servers at all.
And some support evil Windows printing nonsense, even without using
Microsoft's proprietary code. They wrote their own.
> Another example are TCP/IP-"stacks". I bet, the Internet wouldn't be
> as popular as today and IP in every reasonable OS, if Net/2 wasn't
> freely available. And by "freely" I don't mean GPL'ed ;-)
> Think about that for a minute.
Unprovable assertion. Where there is demand, product is created.
Not every stack is based on BSD's. (With the general crappy performance
of the MS stack, I tend to believe there is little BSD code in there at
all.)
--
Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach
Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain."
Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
------------------------------
From: "David Z. Maze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where can I get some decent fonts?
Date: 24 Feb 1999 17:48:11 -0500
Joan Higginz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JH> Where can I get some decent anti-aliased/TrueType fonts for Linux?
Do you have an antialiasing font renderer? I don't believe X does this.
JH> Netscape Communicator and just about everything else look
JH> atrocious due to the lack of decent fonts.
Define "look atrocious" and "decent fonts". Are you trying to use
scaled bitmap fonts? This *will* look atrocious. You can use
'xlsfonts' to get an idea of what fonts you have on your system, and
which sizes look decent and which don't.
--
David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://donut.mit.edu/dmaze/
"Hey, Doug, do you mind if I push the Emergency Booth Self-Destruct Button?"
"Oh, sure, Dave, whatever...you _do_ know what that does, right?"
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Louis Hopcraft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Louis Hopcraft" <[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 22:49:59 -0800
Try downloading Star Office from www.stardivison.de I use this at work to
communicate with all of my users on Nt 4.0/Office 97.
Louis
Sniper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>Ok, heres the deal, got a Toshiba 310 CDT, currently running Windows
>98, office 97, agent, Outlook 98 etc etc.
>
>I'm seriously thinking about going over to Linux, but, every document
>I produce, must be portable over to office.
>
>1. Is red had 5.2 a good choice for a Toshoba laptop, or will I have
>problems with drivers, Infra red USB etc.
>
>2. What can I use application wise that's not going to involve a huge
>leap from Office ? and provide backwards compatibility with Word and
>Excel 97 ?
>
>Thanks in Advance for all you help suggestions.
>
>Ian
>Email me
>scorp 888 at hotmail dot com
>Now your clever, so you can work it out, cant you ?
>
>for the spam trap
>
>root@localhost
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Seth Van Oort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: (no subject)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:18:44 +0000
Header in the New York Times technology section for today
***
By JOHN MARKOFF
Intel demonstrated a version of its new
Pentium III
microprocessor that computes more than
one billion
operations a second, the so-called
one-gigahertz mark.
***
That's a creative definition.
Seth
------------------------------
From: "beni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.software,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux,cino,is,ns-windows.nt
Subject: Re: Cannot get to LILO boot: anymore
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:56:21 +0200
boot with your rescue disk and than run lilo again. Chk your
\etc\lilo.config
beni
Michelle Xu Zhao wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Hi, I installed a scanner software/drivers and rebooted
>and found that the computer hang at printing the 'LILO boot:'
>prompt. It will print 'LI' then hang forever.
>
>I used to have winnt on partition 1 and linux on partition 4
>and run them selectively via the 'LILO boot:' manager.
>
>Now the boot manager seemed damaged by the scanner installation.
>
>And I cannot boot either of the two OS since I cannot get to
>the prompt.
>
>The question is: How do I go fixing the boot manager and get
>back the prompt? (get over the hang)
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Michelle
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "David A. Frantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Can Linux use 36-bit Xeon addressing?
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:32:03 -0500
Mark;
Try this site http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/Linux-MM/more_than_1GB.html to gets a
little info on the current I386 capability. Nothing specific on XEON
there, well at least I didn't find anything. Sounds like your trying to
apply a low end (Yes I mean the XEON) PC chip to a project that requires a
64 bit CPU. You may want to consider an Alpha, or a POWERPC box from IBM.
dave
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <7b0un2$i3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Intel Xeon processor + NX chipset can support up to 8GB DRAM. Is there any
>Linux support for this? If not, does anyone know if it's in the works?
>
>I'm looking for an OS platform which will handle these large memories.
>NT addresses the >4GB range as a sort of "cache buffer" accessible only
from
>user more. Normal NT kernel code will be able to access the lower 4GB only.
>This solution is a poor one for my application - I would like to be able to
>access the entire address space from kernel mode as well, e.g. DMA, etc.
>Will Linux do something better than this?
>
>Thanks,
>-Mark
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: "Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ROOT FTP Access
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 15:18:54 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andy Hering wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We are trying to figure out a way to allow the root user access to
> FTP. Is there anyway to configure this? If so how?
>
> This works fine on UNIX, but this seems to be a limitation on LINUX.
It's probably a security hole to allow a root login via ftp. Are you
trying to get or put files as root?
--
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
3:11pm up 13 days, 2:39, 8 users, load average: 0.69, 0.31, 0.25
------------------------------
From: Frank Sweetser <[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: 24 Feb 1999 15:12:37 -0500
Patrick M. Hausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But there is indeed ...
>
> If I rewrote the Linux kernel to run on a Palm Pilot and this
> software would turn this PDA into a tricorder or whatever,
> think something truly innovative here ;-), _then_ I was _forced_
> by the GPL to give redistribute my software under the GPL, too.
>
> If I took the FreeBSD kernel instead, I could sell my PMH-modified
> Palm-Tricorders [tm] as a hardware plus binary combination only
> without further restriction. I could still decide to release
> the source eventually, but that is _my_ decision.
>
> And that's _all_, this whole anti-GPL argument is about.
right. or, the way i look at it - should you be able to take somebody
else's open (ie, *guaranteed* freely available/redistributable source)
work, and base a closed work off of it without their permission?
--
Frank Sweetser rasmusin at wpi.edu fsweetser at blee.net | PGP key available
paramount.ind.wpi.edu RedHat 5.2 kernel 2.2.1 i586 | at public servers
You want it in one line? Does it have to fit in 80 columns? :-)
-- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Frank Sweetser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Can Linux use 36-bit Xeon addressing?
Date: 24 Feb 1999 15:33:34 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Brown) writes:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 15:57:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >In comp.os.linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >| Intel Xeon processor + NX chipset can support up to 8GB DRAM. Is there any
> >| Linux support for this? If not, does anyone know if it's in the works?
> >
> >AFAIK, Linux has a 4GB virtual RAM limitation at the moment. Sorry.
>
> even on alpha? orjust intel?
only on intel. it does use 64 bits of VM on 64 bit machines, ie, alpha and
ultrasparc.
--
Frank Sweetser rasmusin at wpi.edu fsweetser at blee.net | PGP key available
paramount.ind.wpi.edu RedHat 5.2 kernel 2.2.1 i586 | at public servers
You want it in one line? Does it have to fit in 80 columns? :-)
-- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Jon Wiest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.linux
Subject: Re: More bad news for NT
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:41:39 -0600
jedi wrote in message ...
>Microsoft refugees.
O lord, you are so oppressed. Here you are doing what you want, imagining
you are a refugee and complaining.
Jon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fernando Raimundo)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: (No) PPP (at all) using Zyxel external ISDN TA
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:29:25 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nick Coleman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
>Fernando Raimundo wrote:
>> And then, just to be sure that I'm not grossly misinterpreting something,
>> may I ask if there's any reasoning at all, behind that?
>
>Fernando, the reason is that there is a school of thought that says
>mucking up your return address throws the burden onto the person who is
>giving their free time and effort to help you. That school says that
>you should bear the burden and at least make it easy for people to email
>you.
>
>There are many other, equally effective, ways of avoiding spam without
>causing extra effort to others, such as using a decent mail reader with
>good filters, using two email addresses, one private and one public (you
>can be pretty sure that unsolicited mail (the subject not starting with
>"re:") to your public address is spam) and other things.
>
>You may think that editing the address is a small thing. It's not if
>you reply to 30 or 40 posts a day -- you simply can't be bothered, you
>post and you move on to the next one. And, it's not just 3 or 4
>keystrokes, it's also the break in your thought process where you have
>to analyse the address, figure out how to fix it and then go and edit
>it.
Ok. So there IS a reason, and a well defined one. And sincerely, I do
respect it.
Still, sorry, I can't quite agree with it. I could even follow your rules.
But that would be much in the same way that I'd take off my shoes to go
inside of an hindu temple: a sign of respect for the people who inhabit
there and for their traditions, although meaningless and even a bit silly in
my own referential.
Unfortunately, that comes at the cost of making one feel quite far from
home.
'nuff said.
No hard feelings, at all.
Fernando Raimundo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[P.f. remova as MAIUSCULAS] [Please remove CAPITALS]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
