Linux-Misc Digest #180, Volume #19 Thu, 25 Feb 99 21:13:11 EST
Contents:
Re: IBM adds Linux (steve mcadams)
Re: More bad news for NT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Super FTP User Access (brucekey)
Re: Linux Programs ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Reverse IP-Masquerading (David Walsh)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (John S. Dyson)
Backups on Linux - What username to use? (Rich Bowen)
Re: Super FTP User Access (brucekey)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (John S. Dyson)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (John S. Dyson)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Edward Avis)
Re: Serial terminal ("David A. Frantz")
Re: Can Linux use 36-bit Xeon addressing? ("David A. Frantz")
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (John S. Dyson)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (jedi)
Re: Serial terminal ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Plz help problem with booting root disk!!!.... ("NET^^")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Subject: Re: IBM adds Linux
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 21:49:03 GMT
[Posted & mailed, snipped, quoted is ">"]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Brown) wrote:
>On 22 Feb 1999 02:13:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>As I recall there's some instruction or other that the x86 processor
>>>didn't have that is essential for writing a virtual machine system.
>>
>>Intel processors provide a virtual machine mode. DOSEMU makes use of
>>it to emulate a PC for running DOS in. I've never done virtual
>>machine programming, so I can't really fathom what instruction might
>>be missing.
>
>different definitions of "virtual machine".
>
>I believe whatyiu are referring to, is a "protected" instance of an x86 cpu.
>Whereas what the original poster was referring to , was I presume something
>more like do-it-yourself-microcode
The term "virtual machine" as I was using it means a specific thing
and I'm not familiar enough with the x86 architecture to know whether
its "virtual mode" has anything at all to do with implementing a
virtual machine.
What I mean by a "virtual machine" is what IBM has been doing with
their mainframes since when, maybe the early seventies? A virtual
machine is the lowest layer of monitor, and the -only- layer that has
any contact with the actual hardware. Everything else runs above it
and is using virtual hardware, as supplied by the virtual machine
layer. This means your virtual machine has to run on appropriately
memory-mapped hardware so that anytime the upper layer accesses a
non-mapped area you can fetch it off disk and map it. It also means
your virtual machine layer has to intercept -every- attempt to access
any of the hardware, so that it can do the virtual-machine mapping and
management.
A true virtual machine is "complete" when it can run itself without
any special checks or cheating.
What I intended to say is that I heard somewhere that there is
something missing in the Intel architecture that prevents you from
doing this. I don't know what it is yet or if there's really
something missing, it could be an urban legend for all I know at the
moment.
Anyway with a virtual machine you could run unmodified Linux,
unmodified Windows NT, unmodified anything as long as it runs on x86
hardware, and you could run them simultaneously and switch back and
forth with some control-key or other mechanism.
____________________________________________________________________________________
"The meaning of life is of dubious value..." -steve, http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.linux
Subject: Re: More bad news for NT
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 23:07:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Windows will self destruct in the marketplace. People are not going to
> wait and wait for new releases of NT only to get an even buggier and
> more bloated OS with features they neither need nor have time to
> support. Linux is being constantly and incrementally improved with the
> features that the real market wants, not the crap that Microsoft wants
> to sell you in order to make their profits rise every year.
>
> On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:32:28 -0600, "Jon Wiest"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Oh get off your high horse. NT is a "real" OS, and as for "wiping the
> >floor" that's pure exageration. Sure, Linux does some great things, why
> >else would I devote a hard drive to it? But it also does some really stupid
> >things. Each has their merit, and no amount of flag-waving and
> >slogan-chanting will change that.
> >
> >Jon
> >
Stupid things? Really? Name a few, I've been using Linux since '95 and I
haven't found a single stupid thing yet.
Kris
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: brucekey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Super FTP User Access
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:06:06 -0800
T. Garay wrote:
>
> How do I set up a user to have access to the whole system of files
> just like ROOT or a superuser at the console?
>
> I've set everything to YES or whatever in ftpaccess. I gave myself
> all rights. I set my home directory to /root
>
> I can download just about anything but I can't delete anything not in
> my home directory and I can't write any files.
>
> I would really like to do some things remotely.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Tim
Hi Tim,
What you want to do is not a very good idea, but what the heck! I
believe what you want to do is modify/create an /etc/hosts.allow file.
This is a file to (like it says) allow other (trusted) hosts access
your box.
Be careful!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Programs
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:05:29 GMT
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 06:28:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linux Newbie)
wrote:
> Here is a newbie question. When you compile and install a
>Linux program does that program only consist of one file (the
>executable) and maybe a configuration file? You know how a Win98
>program has like dozens of other programs and config files and some
>are dumped into the system dir of windows and some dumped into various
>dirs. Are linux progs the same? Most of the linux progs I've run
>seems to only consists of one executable. And do all of the necessary
>files the programs need in order to run reside in it's own dir, sorta
>like DOS.
usually, depends on the program. Most of the ones I compiled install
only the one file. usually in /usr/local/bin.
>
>If I wanted to uninstall a program in win98, I wouldn't know which
>files to delete from the system dir if the uninstall program didn't
>work. I'm hoping linux is simplier. I remember in DOS, if I wanted
>to get rid of a program I just delete the dir it's in and it's gone
>for good.
some programs have a make uninstall most don't.
since only one file is installed on your computer just remember the
name of the program and delete that one file when you want to get rid
of it. Most (not all) install themselfs (make install) in one of the
following areas
/usr/bin
/usr/local/bin
/usr/X/bin
unless they are system administration programs or deamons then they
are
/usr/local/sbin
/usr/sbin
/sbin
/bin
in special cases they go into their own directories when the program
is complex. ( netscape, KDE, StarOffice, Wordperfect)
then (on my computer) they are in directories like
/usr/local/netscape
/usr/local/wp
/usr/local/KDE
/usr/local/Office## ( I have both 4.0 and 5.0 )
/usr/local/gimp
/usr/local/mysql
libs that are installed by programs like KDE and gimp are in
/usr/local/lib
/usr/local/share
the nice thing about this is all the systems critical libs are in
/lib
and most support libs in
/usr/lib
/usr/X/lib
Makes things easy since they are seperated by purpose unlike windows
where EVERYTHING is in \windows\system
Hope this helps...
tng
>
>--
>"Linux: The best things in life are free"
------------------------------
From: David Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Reverse IP-Masquerading
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:19:12 +1000
Read the Cable Modem HOWTO. It may have a suggestion on how to do it.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have read the HowTo's and the past posts and found nothing on what I want
> to know. I am running RedHat 5.2, but I have a winmodem,(cant afford a new
> one right now) so I cannot get on the net as is. I was wondering if there is
> any way that I can connect to a win98 machine and use the modem from that
> machine?? maybe through a serial connection or something?? A friend of mine
> has a gateway laptop that I want to try and connect to. If this is not
> possible at all, is there a way to connect our machines and me be able to
> access the files from her machine. So like maybe i could download files to
> her harddisk and then connect our machines and get them somehow? how would
> this be done? anyone?
>
> Thanks,
> Mandy
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 25 Feb 1999 23:16:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jason Clifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 25 Feb 1999, void wrote:
>
>> >No, the issue is that *you* seem to feel that you have some God given
>> >right to deny others the right to choose GPL is they wish to.
>>
>> In a previous posting, you said:
>>
>> >Once again, John, you are deliverately mis-representing someone else's
>> >postings.
>> >
>> >That is typical of a TROLL.
>>
>> Physician, heal thyself.
>
> Not one of my postings has stated that one should not be free to choose
> the BSD license or any other license for that matter.
>
Heal thyself, you are misrepresenting me.
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | it makes one look stupid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | and it irritates the pig.
------------------------------
From: Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Backups on Linux - What username to use?
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:47:25 GMT
We are using Arcserve to backup our servers, and we got the Arcserve agent
for Linux. It appears to work OK, except that it wants to log in as root,
which is not something that we're really thrilled about. Of course, Linux, by
default, does not permit remote connections to log in as root - you can only
do that from the console.
So, my questions are:
Is it a really bad idea to put another user in the root group?
What the heck is the operator account?
Can you enable remote connections as root from one IP, rather than just
globally?
Is anyone else out there using Arcserve to back up their Linux machines, and
what are your experiences/recommendations with this.
Changing to another backup software is not ideal, since we have a huge
dedicated box that does nothing but do backups to a huge array of DLT tapes,
and it is running Arcserve for our NT and Novell backups, which works great.
Any suggestions/pointers greatly appreciated.
Rich
--
# Just Another Perl Hacker
##########################
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: brucekey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Super FTP User Access
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:54:19 -0800
T. Garay wrote:
>
> How do I set up a user to have access to the whole system of files
> just like ROOT or a superuser at the console?
>
> I've set everything to YES or whatever in ftpaccess. I gave myself
> all rights. I set my home directory to /root
>
> I can download just about anything but I can't delete anything not in
> my home directory and I can't write any files.
>
> I would really like to do some things remotely.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Tim
Check /etc/hosts.equiv also, again, be FULLY aware of all the side
effects of these actions, they can be dangerous!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 26 Feb 1999 00:02:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Smallshaw) writes:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:46:30 -0500, Joseph Malicki wrote:
>>
>> nothing. BSD is good because it lets other people STEAL your code, while
>> the GPL doesn't. While I won't argue that reference code for standards
>
> How does BSD let people _steal_ your code? The BSD licence says `if you want
> to use my code, that's fine by me.' If you give people permission to use your
> code without many restrictions, how can they be charged with `stealing' when
> they subsequently do?
>
I agree:
Some people believe that a conscious effort of freeing code sets one
up for their code to be stolen. This defies all logic, and it is
surprising that someone who might claim to be a programmer could make
that kind of argument. This makes me suspect (sometimes) that alot of
those who promote GPL, are the marketeers who want to continue to
get the "free fuel". :-). Either that, they might be programmers
who still don't "get it."
It is mostly when using the *default* license of choice (GPL) where
someone might make such a mistake, however it seems that the argument
is always turned around.
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | it makes one look stupid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | and it irritates the pig.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 25 Feb 1999 23:19:46 GMT
In article <7b3f6k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy Murphy) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson) writes:
>
>
>>> BSD is a knock-off of Bell Unix. Do you claim that nothing was
>>> gained by the creation and ongoing life of BSD Unix?
>
>>More accurately, what current SVR4 (whatever that is anymore) was
>>based on the BSD addons.
>
> That isn't "more accurate".
> It is a statement (true or false) about an entirely different matter.
>
> BSD was based on (in your words, "a reinvention of") Bell Labs Unix
> (version 6 or 7 -- long before SVR4 was thought of).
>
There was some truth to that, but it actually used alot of the same
code originally. It didn't REINVENT things, but mostly to DIRECTLY
improve, or to free the code.
Linux is a reinvention to restrict the code with GPL? :-).
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | it makes one look stupid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | and it irritates the pig.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 25 Feb 1999 15:39:31 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus) writes:
>>> How about 10 honest reasons why you think windows98 is better
>>> than linux? That would be interesting to hear from a windows
>>> hater >:)
>>
>>
>> OK. I think there are more and better resons that Linux is better,
>> but here it goes: (This hurts)
[snip]
> > 6. One word: Microkernel
>
> Can mean a performance penalty.
Who on Earth gave Windows 98 a microkernel?!?!?
It uses DOS, the anti-microkernel: An OS that has INTEL INTERRRUPTS as
a standard calling mechanism (and YES, they still use them even in
Windows 98).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Edward Avis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:12:01 +0000
John S. Dyson wrote:
[about the Open Group, and X11R6.4]
>They would
>have to add VERY SIGNIFICANT IP to make $$$ (or ###, or whatever).
What country uses # as a currency? :-(
--
Ed Avis
------------------------------
From: "David A. Frantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Serial terminal
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:36:36 -0500
Matthias Warkus wrote in message ...
>For my new box, perhaps I'd like to have a serial terminal hooked up
>to the free RS232 port. Thus, I've got some questions.
>
>1. Which terminal do you recommend?
Well this depends on what you intend to do. For simple terminal jobs a
unit that can emulate any of the VT series terminals that DEC use to sell
can't be beat. Being able to do VT100 would be the absolute min.
>2. Where do I get one, cheap, preferably in Germany?
If you want cheap get a 386 install Linux and use a virtual terminal,
minicom, Seyon or possibly Xterm. In many oprganizations 386s can befound
in the trash heap. Climb a little higher on the processor scale to 486
or p1 and set up an Xserver this of course is network solution.
>3. Is there a length limit on serial cables?
Yes; 25ft. or so according to one spec. The reality is that there are
limitations that are complex and interelated. For example if you want very
high speed then you could be limited to a couple of meters or less. Very
slow speed can be successfull to a 50 meters or so. In each case several
issues come into play such as noise, cable quality, AC power quality, ground
differentials and such. If you are really going the distance then current
loop or optical converters are the way to go. Current loop is often a
cheap but overlooked solution to async communications.
If you do have long distances to go do consider a networking solution along
with Xservers. Here a PC is easier to get than a terminal and a much more
flexible solution.
Dave
>
>mawa
>--
>Zwei Dinge sind unendlich - Das Universum und die menchliche Dummheit.
> -- Heiko W. Rupp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
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: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:13:33 -0500
Hi Robert;
Robert Krawitz wrote in message ...
>"David A. Frantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
>I think this is a tad unfair. I'm disappointed that Linus doesn't
>want to enable large memory addressing on the x86.
As with any general purpose operateing system there are trade offs, one
outstanding feature of Linux is the freedom to transform it into something
that suits your purposes. The reallity is that there is nothing to be
gained by trying to use a special capability of the XEON just to fillfull
the special needs of a few users. This is especially the case when the
Chip and Chip SETs are not suited for the application. I firmly believe
that if you really need 64 bit addressing to main memory then you need to
look at a 64 bit system.
>
>There's a lot more software available for the x86, even on Linux, than
>on other platforms. Also, x86 boxes are much cheaper than Alphas and
>PowerPC's. The cost of the extra memory somewhat softens the blow,
>but 4 GB of RAM is about $6000 these days, so the economics are very
>different from what they were a few years ago.
I don't disagree here at all, but this is a very new concept (low cost
memory and hardware that can address it) so its no surprise that Linux on
i386 has limits that it may not have on other systems. By the way I'm not
at all sure what Linux capacity is on the other architectures, but the
referenced web sight does explain in detail the limitations of i386 kernels.
Also keep in mind that the hardware you are discussing is very new so it
unlikly to be in use by the majority of Linux Kernel Hackers. What I
would suggest is contacting one of the Alpha vendors that support Linux and
ask what they are capable of offering. All in all I would be surprised if
anybody would want to mess around with 36 bit addressing on the Xeon when
better solutions exist and the life of the Xeon family could be cut short as
new technology rolls out of Intel and other places that will most likely
have a longer life span.
>
>Job mixes that are more memory/IO than computation intensive (which is
>the case for a lot of commercial data processing) would benefit
>greatly from the availability of large memory on commodity hardware.
Why would anyone do commercial data processing in large pools of main
memory? Seems awfully risky. Actually large memory systems and heavy
computation base apps go hand in hand.
Dave
>
>[Disclaimer: that I'm not a disinterested observer: I work for Torrent
>Systems: http://www.torrent.com/. However, this posting is completely
>my own opinion, and does not reflect any official company policy.]
>
>> dave
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <7b0un2$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
>
>--
>Robert Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.tiac.net/users/rlk/
>
>Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
>Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
>--Eric Crampton
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 25 Feb 1999 23:55:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> The only thing that gripes me about FreeBSDers is that they actively
> discourage programmers from protecting their own freely-released code
> from being hijacked and privatized (since such hijacking is possible
> under the BSD).
>
The only thing that gripes me about GPLers is that they encumber
a codebase in perpetuity.
A GPL with a reasonable timeout for it to be free, would be just
fine.
Code that is free, can't be made not-free, without a herculean
effort. GPL just keeps the code not-free forever.
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | it makes one look stupid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | and it irritates the pig.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jedi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:08:08 -0800
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 15:50:17 -0600, John Selph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You guys crack me up. It's just like Amiga and Mac people praising their
>machines. First off, anyone that says "mine is bigger than yours" in this
>business obviously is an IT-baby. I have used oh let me think, TRSDOS, PC
>DOS to that DRDOS 7 thing that was so funky, Novell 3.x, Novell 4.x, Novell
>5.x, VMS 5 6 7, Xenix, Unixware, OpenServer, Windows 286 once (no I don't
>mean 3.0 in real mode), Windows 3.x 95 98 NT 3.x 4 5.0b2, OS/400 a few
>revisions, OS/2 2.x 3.x and Linux from kernel 0.9x to current. I can assure
>you that EVERY one of them had it's strong points and it's problems. I
>mean, OS/2 was only about 100x better than Windows 95 but did anyone buy it?
>Sure Linux is technologically superior to Windows. But the factors that
>make it usable by the average joe aren't there yet. My Lord, how many init
>files do you have to change before you get X Windows like you want it
>anyway? Oh but it's easy cries the Linux advocate. Yeah right then you
NONE.
Redhat 5.0 detects all my hardware.
Running wmaker.inst sets up my favorite WM.
Untaring themes in my WindowMaker directory installs them.
WindowMaker is configurable point & click.
Only theme creation is still a little ugly.
>teach it to my users that can't even attach a file to an email. Linux is
Then I will give them my metasend tcl wrapper. Drop it
on the mail icon and enter the address when queried and
that's all they have to do to 'attach it'.
>faster more stable blah blah, my TRSDOS machine never crashed and it was
>faster than your Linux machine I promise you. Of course, the programs were
>2k and they didn't do a heck of a lot so I guess comparing DIFFERENT SYSTEMS
>isn't an even match now is it.
>
>>11. An application crash doesn't wipe out the entire OS. No BSOD here.
>>(I've heard of rumors of linux panics, but I have never seen one in the
>>three years I've used linux.)
>
>
>They're ugly trust me. After the panic I saw, the contents of the ext2
>system were unrepairable. Look you guys, the truth is your right. Your
>computer and your OS are great. They do exactly what you want and they more
>often than not work great. But take a deep breath and step back, there are
>other systems out there that also work pretty well. Personally, I hate all
>operating systems. They all suck, every last one of them. I want a system
>that does 5 things:
>1. doesn't have to be installed. doesn't have to be configured to work
>better. it does all that.
>2. does any task you want without having to install or load anything new.
>who invented software anyway.
>3. reads any format file.
>4. prints anything to anything. no drivers. no capture, no remote
>printer, no redirection.
>5. uses new hardware without installing anything or loading anything.
>
>
--
Herding Humans ~ Herding Cats
Neither will do a thing unless they really want to, or |||
is coerced to the point where it will scratch your eyes out / | \
as soon as your grip slips.
In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Serial terminal
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:27:05 GMT
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:21:37 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias
Warkus) wrote:
>For my new box, perhaps I'd like to have a serial terminal hooked up
>to the free RS232 port. Thus, I've got some questions.
>
>1. Which terminal do you recommend?
DADs old XT running telix across a null modem.
>2. Where do I get one, cheap, preferably in Germany?
thrift shop??
>3. Is there a length limit on serial cables?
700ft in my experience (3 wire null modem home made from phone cords)
this distance will restrict speed to 19200 though at best.
the longer the cord, the slower the connection has to be for data
integrety.
<50ft (about 20 meters) will go 115200
<150ft will go 57600
<300ft will go 38400
etc.
>
>mawa
>--
>Zwei Dinge sind unendlich - Das Universum und die menchliche Dummheit.
> -- Heiko W. Rupp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "NET^^" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Plz help problem with booting root disk!!!....
Crossposted-To:
alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions,alt.os.linux,alt.linux,alt.linux.slakware,be.comp.os.linux,ahn.tech.linux,alt.os.linux.slackware
Date: 25 Feb 1999 19:24:49 -0600
I am in the process of making a new 2 -3 floppy distro..to be loaded
into....RAMDISK .....I used the BootDisk howto to get me going and I got
the boot disk set up fine but I am having trouble with the root disk...when
I got the rootfs all set up I used dd if=rootfs bs=1k | gzip -v9 >
rootfs.gz and then used dd if=rootfs.gz of=/dev/fd0 bs=1k and got it
transfered to a floppy...I boot with the boot floppy ok but during bootup
when I insert the root floppy...after it says insert root floppy to be
loaded into ramdisk and press ENTER I insert the floppy and then press
enter...it then says RAMDISK compressed image found at block 0...which its
supposed to...but then I get a error.....invalid compression format
<err=2><5>...what is the problem I have tried 5 different floppies
including 1 new...I would really appreciate it if somwone could help
me....I have tried 4 or five different ways of compressing it and using the
dd command to transfer the root.gz file to disk...
Here is what I have tried...
dd if=rootfs bs=1k | gzip -v9 > rootfs.gz
then dd if=rootfs.gz of=/dev/fd0 bs=1k
dd if=rootfs bs=1k | gzip -9 > rootfs.gz
then dd if=rootfs.gz of=/dev/fd0 bs=1k
gzip -c -9 rootfs > rootfs.gz
then dd if=rootfs.gz of=/dev/fd0 bs=1k
dd if=rootfs bs=1k | gzip -v9 > rootfs.gz
then dd if=rootfs.gz of=/dev/fd0
I even tried rawrite under dos...it still didn't work....
plz if someone could help me
Thanx,
NET^^
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
