Linux-Misc Digest #198, Volume #19 Sat, 27 Feb 99 01:13:16 EST
Contents:
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Marco Anglesio)
Re: SCO and Linux console problems (fernando)
Re: Cable Modems with Linux (Jeremy Nickolet)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Pentium III Boycott and survey info (Anthony D. Tribelli)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Marco Anglesio)
Re: Source of info for New Linux Convert? (Frank Sweetser)
sed? 'nuff said. (Harry)
Accessing linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Timothy Murphy)
Re: Adding users and changing passwords (in scripts) ("Janus N. T�ndering")
Re: domain name reg and IP setup (Rick Onanian)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Marco Anglesio)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (William Wueppelmann)
Re: using 'mail' and pop3 ("Tim Kelley")
Re: Pentium III Boycott and survey info (Anthony D. Tribelli)
Kernel 2.2.2 Bug: kernel timer..... (Peter Huetmannsberger)
Win 98 not to loose the docs. but want Dual boot w/ linux (Kishore)
Don't want to loose win '98 docs etc.., & want Linux NOW! (Kishore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Anglesio)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:24:06 GMT
On 24 Feb 1999 17:59:48 GMT, Patrick M. Hausen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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 you *ported* the Linux kernel to run on a palm pilot, you would be
forced to *make source available*. On the other hand, if you rewrote it,
as you say above, you could license it as you wish. Use the Microsoft
EULA if you want.
>If I took the FreeBSD kernel instead, I could sell my PMH-modified
>Palm-Tricorders [tm] as a hardware plus binary combination only
Which you can do under the GPL
>without further restriction.
Which you can't. Which is the point of the GNU General Public License. But
why should you profit from the work, made available to you for free, of
other people? Especially if the change is relatively minor in terms of
code base: it may be a fair bit of work porting, but nothing near the work
of writing your own kernel.
m.
--
,--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> Marco Anglesio | Whenever books are burned <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | men also in the end are burned. <
> http://www.the-wire.com/~mpa | --Heinrich Heine <
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: fernando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.sco.misc
Subject: Re: SCO and Linux console problems
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:46:08 +0500
I work most of the day telneting with xterm to SCO machines.
The only thing is I have my TERM as "ansi" in the SCO boxes.
Peter Caffin wrote:
>
> When I telnet or rlogin from my Linux box to a SCO box, there are
> problems with the screen handling (eg, in vi, a scroll downwards only
> shifts the bottom row; it doesn't shift the rows above) and there
> are also problems the other way around..
>
> Has anybody encountered this problem before? Are there any webpages or
> resources with info on how to fix it? We've experimented a bit with stty
> (which fixed the backspace key for Linux-as-client) and not really been
> able to find much more.. Any help really appreciated :).
>
> --: _ _ _ _
> _oo__ |_|_ |__ _ | _ |_|_o _ pc at it dot net dot a u |
> //`'\_ | (/_|(/_| |_(_|| | || | it.net.au/~pc |
> /
--
============================================
This are my personal opinions
Real email: sanabriaf at yahoo dot com
------------------------------
From: Jeremy Nickolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.linux,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Cable Modems with Linux
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 04:54:37 GMT
I have two computers surfing the net via cable modem, Linux and Win 95. I
pay for only 1 address. This is how I did it.
http://members.home.com/nickoljt/networking.html
Jeremy
teddy j wrote:
> 1) We have a cable modem, and our provider sez that it only works on
> Win95. I've heard that there are ways to get around this so that
> I can use it on linux. Any ideas?
>
> 2) How would I setup 2 systems to share the same cable modem? I'm
> told that there might be a way to setup the first system as a proxy
> server...that wd run Win95, and then connect my linux system thru
> that. In the end, both systems could use the cable modem, and that
> would be great!! Anyone know how to do this?
>
> thanx
> ted
>
> --
> how would you like to get 1/2% of $2 Trillion?
> see http://freedomstarr.com/?JO4554535
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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 23:15:00 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You aren't seeing it from the point of view of the potential user
>> of the value-added work. They have been given the right to use
>> the base code, but it doesn't do what they want. If the base code
>> is GPL'd they won't be able to get a mass-market version of the
>> derived work. Who is it that is keeping them from getting use
>> out of the shared code?
>
>And the mass market version will do what that want? Excuse me?
Why would people buy it otherwise?
I'm perfectly happy with my routers. Lots of people are happy
to buy xterminals, workstations, print servers, and so on regardless
of they fact that they may contain embedded BSD-based code and
don't come with the source. I don't see why this is even an issue
in the context of buying something where if it doesn't work, you
send it back.
>> Yes and if the base TCP/IP had been GPL'd, every company would have
>> gone with their own incompatible proprietary network protocal. Why
>> would you consider that to be a good thing???
>
>Not true. GPL doesn't cover protocols (and considering the usual FSF
>feelings about patents, I doubt they'd want it to). There are GPL'd
>TCP/IP stacks, ya' know, and the world hasn't come crashing to a halt.
It is irrelevant how many restricted versions of something exist.
It just takes one version with reasonable restrictions, and you
can translate reasonable as either free or cheap.
>> >Unprovable assertion. Where there is demand, product is created.
>>
>> We know what happened, why should anyone have to prove it? Industry
>> loves to produce incompatible, proprietary products. TCP is
>> an extraordinary exception.
>
>Really? Like PostScript, an incompatible and proprietary (and
>exceedingly expensive originally) protocol for printing... But now it's
>effectively a standard.
It doesn't have to be free, it just has to have reasonable
licensing.
>Sorry, as much as I believe that Free Software and "reference
>implementations" are important, there are many proprietary works that
>don't use any of it. There are many works that due to the nature of
>patents on the technology can't have an unencumbered implementation.
>
>Yet they seem to exist as standards in the real world nonetheless.
And this is the real problem with developing any reliance on
GPL-restricted work. If it ever turns out that you need something
where there is no GPL equivalent in a way the the FSF imagines
to be a 'derived work', then you have to abandon it all and start
over, or do everything as custom works that are never distributed.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony D. Tribelli)
Subject: Re: Pentium III Boycott and survey info
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 05:24:28 GMT
Craig Kelley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Meissen) writes:
: > > Pentium III chip with the individual serial number that can
: > >track your web surfing and buying habits can now have the ID number
: > >turned on and off by software.
: >
: > This is untrue. The fact is, the feature can be disabled with software,
: > but it can ONLY be turned back on by a full hardware reset.
:
: You are mistaken:
:
: http://www.heise.de/ct/english/99/05/news1/
The article was very vague. Was the processor covertly reset without
interruption of any currently running software (via deep sleep?), or was
the boot utility altered so that on the next system startup it would tell
the user it had disabled the serial number when in fact it did not
actually do so? The latter sounds more likely since Intel now says a BIOS
setting is the way to go, the former would defeat BIOS too. The latter
would not show the earlier poster to be 'mistaken'. The latter is more
like a virus causing a program do to something other than what it was
intended to do.
Tony
--
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Anglesio)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:11:58 GMT
<Digression>
On 23 Feb 1999 23:57:28 GMT, John S. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>A sufficient infrastructure will often continue. Note Europe, even
>though the war was horrendous, it gave an opportunity to renew. If
>we didn't have sufficient roads today in the US, we would have a much
>better rail system (which would be much nicer in many respects.) For
Note that the interstate highway system was built under Eisenhower, to
facilitate troop movements (I believe that the initial plan was suggested
by Gen. Lucius Floyd (?), the commanding general of the Berlin airlift;
the final plan was pushed through congress by Sen Al Gore, Sr. Now you
know whom to blame car culture on :) ). Railways as a method of passenger
transportation were already in decline by then, slowly throttled by the
automobile.
>If a something (heaven forbid) destroyed our interstate system, then I'd
>expect that a (excellent) train (not just two rail) system would be put
I'd expect that you'd get another interstate system *very* quickly. Nor is
an interstate system that bad when dealing with an economy in constant
flux - trucks and cars can be reallocated to different routes, different
seasons, on a day to day basis. Track can't be, and rolling stock requires
a fair bit of scheduling - it was one of the first topics to which formal
operational research methadology was applied - to prevent deadlocks or
starvation.
That isn't to say that rails are dead, because they're not. But they're
good at some things, like regular bulk or container transport, and not at
others. Short trains lose money; vacant track loses money.
</Digression>
m.
--
,--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> Marco Anglesio | Listen: we are on Earth to fart around. <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Don't let anyone tell you any different. <
> http://www.the-wire.com/~mpa | --Kurt Vonnegut <
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: Frank Sweetser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Source of info for New Linux Convert?
Date: 26 Feb 1999 11:28:10 -0500
"Scott Wilkinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Folks:
>
> Though I use it all, I can't stand Gates and his evil empire, so I'd really
> like to explore possibilities w/Linux...But like any Linux newbie, I many
> basic questions, like...
>
> Do XWindows and other GUIs run fast on a 486?
X Windows (basically the only GUI used on linux, but it has many, *many*
faces) should be quite useable, providing you've got at least 16M mem or
so. but you can also do quite a bit even without X running, in flat text
mode.
> Can I use my Iomega JAZ and ZIP drives under Linux?
yup.
> Is there a single source for a listing of major commercial apps that have a
> Linux version? Or a listing of Linux apps that rival the popular Wintel
> apps?
why commercial apps? I think you'd be surprised at the amount and quality
of the free apps out there.
metalab.unc.edu/LDP
www.gnome.org
www.redhat.com
www.debian.org
www.cheapbytes.com
www.linux.org
--
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
Woody: Hey, Mr. Peterson, there's a cold one waiting for you.
Norm: I know, and if she calls, I'm not here.
-- Cheers, Bar Wars II: The Woodman Strikes Back
------------------------------
From: Harry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: sed? 'nuff said.
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:42:57 -0500
Out of sheer stubborness I'm trying to write a sed script to filter
my e-mail archive. I could have written the thing by now in C, but
I've started with sed and I'm not giving up.
Can someone explain the use of curly braces in sed? I've tried using
them as you'd use them in C, but keep gettina an "unmatched "{"
error".
Ta much,
Harry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Accessing linux
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 16:49:15 GMT
I have just re-installed Redhat Linux 5.1 after the pc that was running it
died. I now have a problem of acessing it from other PC's on the LAN. If I
try and establish an ftp connection from windows 98 I get the "Connected to
192.168.0.1" but nothing further, no username, no password, etc. same with
telnet. Can anywone give me some assistance.
Linux box
=
Pentium 90Mhz
32 MB RAM
850 MB HD
Redhat 5.1
Cheers,
Derek Boak
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy Murphy)
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 16:58:21 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson) writes:
>> 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.
What is the difference (according to your definitions)
between "reinventing" code and "freeing" code?
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
------------------------------
From: "Janus N. T�ndering" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Adding users and changing passwords (in scripts)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:08:58 +0100
Janus N. T�ndering wrote in message <9HXA2.126$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Hi!
>
>I want to make a script that adds a user to the system - well you
>could just use useradd...right? I have tried that, but the system
>doesn't allow me to login as the newly created user. I checked the
>passwd file - and the user was listed.
>
>I think it's my password - I used the useradd -p [password] option - it
>doesn't seem to work.
>
>Any other solutions?
>
>BTW: The script is running as root...
>
>Thanx....
>Janus N. T�ndering, Denmark
I think I said it wrong: I want to use useradd - but I can't seem how I can
change the password for the user
Janus
------------------------------
From: Rick Onanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: domain name reg and IP setup
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:35:18 -0500
Matt Zagni wrote:
>
> But surely this is a domain hosting service - correct me if I am wrong ?
Internic doesn't host anyone's web page. They do register your domain
name. They control all .com .edu .org .net (and maybe one other, I
forget) domain names. There are various other domain name registrars,
for other top level domains, but if you want one of the previously
listed for your domain, no matter who you pay, you get it from internic.
> The info that I require is to know howto set up my own IP www homepage
> and control it from my own box, I know I need to contact the respecive
> authorities
> Who are they ?
> What hardware do I need - leased line or normal daily used telephone
> line ?
You can host your own web page, no problem. As long as you have an IP
address, it's easy - run a webserver on your computer. For Linux, I
reccommend Apache. Your web page can be accessed thru your IP number,
or, if you registered one, a domain name.
> I have set up PPP and DNS this works fine for my IPS but what if I would
> like to host my own server.
>
> Reasons my current home page is used to much and the IPS is withdrawing
> its use.
>
> Many thanks
>
> Matt
It's really easy. Just run apache. Get yourself a domain name, it's
easier to get people to go to and easier to remember than
132.212.12.64 (fictional IP I just made up).
rick - a guy in search of raw (ISO) cd images of SuSE and Slackware
===============
My opinions don't exist, and as such, are not anyone elses. I do not
represent
anyone, not even myself, and especially not my employer. Cows go moo.
---
Looking for a 1968 Camaro SS convertible, black interior, beat-up
rustbucket
that is in need of a lot of restoration and TLC. Must be cheap...I'm
broke.
---
Reply to me at either thc <at sign here> psynet <dot> net or
rick <at sign> mail <dot> artmold <dot> com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Anglesio)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:29:54 GMT
On 24 Feb 1999 21:34:48 GMT, Matthias Buelow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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 has nothing to do with technical licensing matters, and everything to
do with MS's sale agreement with SCO over Xenix. MS agreed to not get into
the Unix market ever again without SCO's permission; MS asked for, and
received, permission from SCO in order to integrate a TCP/IP stack in
Windows, since MS's lawyers deemed it sufficiently close to the letter of
the agreement.
You have to wonder where apocrypha like this get started.
marco
--
,--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> | The further I get <
> Marco Anglesio | from the things I care about <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | The less I care <
> http://www.the-wire.com/~mpa | how much further away I get <
> | --Robert Smith <
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Wueppelmann)
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 20:18:19 GMT
In our last episode (Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:25:55 -0800),
the artist formerly known as iratheous said:
>I'm glad to see honesty, even when dealing with something you dont like :)
>Oh btw, I don;t liek counter arguments of 'it's debatable' without actually
>presenting a debate! It's a cop-out. "It isn't as good", "Why" , "Because
>it isn't!"
I'll give it a try:
>>>1. Better GUI
>> This is debatable.
When I do use a GUI, I prefer a window manager like WindowMaker which
supports workspaces (or paging or virtual desktops in other WMs), which
allows me to use a GUI without a rodent, and which is customizable to my
needs as well as my colour scheme preferences. The Windows GUI is hardly
best of class in terms of interface and power, and even the aesthetics,
while nice, aren't the best I've ever seen.
>>
>>>2. More software
>>>3. More Hardware support
This isn't about the quality of the OS, though, is it? Besides, there's a
difference between `more software' and `more useful software.'
>>>4. Better gaming platform
>>>(shudder)
>>
>> This is redundant, part of 3 & 4.
It also depends on what kind of games you play.
>>>5. More consistency (see my previous post)
>> The value of this is debateable.
What consistency? Not only does Windows behave in a highly idiosyncratic
manner, but each version of Windows presents a substantially different
interface and mode of operation. I have a feeling that when people talk
about consistency in Windows, they are referring to the windowing toolkit
used to build frames, buttons, slider bars, etc. and not to the more
important aspects of consistency, such as what actually happens when you
use those items and what kind of input and output is taken and produced by
the system and its applications, and where different menu items, files and
the like are located from one version to the next.
>>>6. One word: Microkernel
>> The value of this is VERY debateable.
(I won't pretend I know very much about the workings of kernels.)
>>>7. No mounting
>>
>> This is also the case in Linux depending
>> on the shell in question.
And mounting allows for a more flexible system anyway. In Linux, mounting
can be made transparent, or at least almost so, but in Windows, the
benefits of mountable filesystems cannot be simulated. Moving
c:\Program Files to d:\Program Files would probably require an uninstall
and reinstall of most of your software, if not the entire OS. Moving /usr
from /dev/hda1 to /dev/hdb4 is a fairly simple procedure which can be done
transparently to everything else on the system, except /etc/fstab.
>>>8. Better file locking
>>>9. More multithreaded apps
>>
>> The value of this is debateable.
>> This more a fix for NT's problems
>> with multiple processes.
The Unix file locking system seems to work pretty well, but I guess I won't
comment on these things given my overall level of knowledge regarding them.
>>>10. Better user support
>>
>> From whom? Consumer software support is
>> in general laughable, M$ included.
Indeed. User support is almost nonexistent, unless you have deep pockets.
--
William
It is pitch black. You are likely to be spammed by a grue.
------------------------------
From: "Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: using 'mail' and pop3
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:19:18 -0600
Steve Gage wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I would sometimes like to quickly react to my mail on the command line
>with the 'mail' command. I get mail from my pop box using fetchmail, and
>can read it in 'mail'. However, when I send mail, the from: address is
>my local [EMAIL PROTECTED] name, which is a problem because I want
>people to reply to my pop email address, and some mail servers won't
>even accept mail from hosts that don't appear in their DNS tables. So,
>is there something I can put into .mailrc to make the from: address
>appear as my pop address? I have gone through all the mail and sendmail
>docs at my disposal, and can't see anything.
I have not tried, but you can set an environment variable REPLY-TO in your
.bash_profile and I *think* mail will use it. Easy enough to check but I
don't have a linux box handy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony D. Tribelli)
Subject: Re: Pentium III Boycott and survey info
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 05:38:42 GMT
mlw ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: As far as I can recall, there is at least one instruction that acts like
: a reset, but, does not restart at the standard location. It was all so
: long ago with OS/2, 1.x. Intel had an undocumented instruction that
: allowed the 80286 to restart the computer but wake up at 40H. If that
: instruction is still around, it should be possible from kernel space to
: setup the system to halt/restart at that location and probably have that
: information available. All the while having the operating system know
: nothing about it. As far as it is concerned, it lost a number
: milliseconds.
:
: The 80286, once flipped into protected mode, was not able to return to
: realmode without a reset, this instruction, nicknamed hyperspace, was
: used to allow OS/2 1.x to implement a DOS box. I don't see how they
: could have removed it without breaking a all of the 16 bit protectd mode
: stuff.
I don't think there was a reset instruction, documented or otherwise. I
believe the keyboard microcontroller was asked to reset the main CPU, and
BIOS could recongnize a cold or warm boot and possibly jump to a location
specified in RAM (to resume where things left off rather than FFFF:FFF0).
To expand on your brief mention of 'kernel space', a protected mode OS
(WinNT and Linux, maybe Win9x) can prevent user programs from doing this
sort of thing.
Tony
--
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Peter Huetmannsberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Kernel 2.2.2 Bug: kernel timer.....
Date: 25 Feb 99 20:25:37 GMT
hello everyone!
I am not saying I have discovered a bug. However on booting I get the message:
Bug: kernel timer added twice at c01def40
and then the system hangs.
this occurs right after the SCSI detection, so I (being a non kernel-hacker)
was wondering if it had anything to do with SCSI.
If anyone knows how to fix it, I would appreciate help. My SCSI controller
is Adaptec AHA-2940A Ultra SCSI, main board Asus P2L97 , Pentium II 333Mhz,
64 RAM, Ne2000 Pci
Hope that is enough info.
Thanks for all the help
Peter
------------------------------
From: Kishore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Win 98 not to loose the docs. but want Dual boot w/ linux
Date: 27 Feb 1999 04:31:28 GMT
Hi Folks,
I have 6.4gb HD w/ win'98 loaded completely on it. I want to have Win'98 &
Linux(dual boot w/ 3.4 win'98 & 3gb to Linux ) .
The main problem is I don't want to loose any of the docs and programs on
disc by formatting it. Is there any way that I can partition my HD and load
linux on 3gb of my HD and still have all the previous files on Win'98.
If so please give me the complete details of the procedure .
Thanks for the input.
-Kishore
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: Kishore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Don't want to loose win '98 docs etc.., & want Linux NOW!
Date: 27 Feb 1999 04:32:05 GMT
Hi Folks,
I have a Cyrix MII ,128 mb, 6.4 gb HD PC.
Win'98 is loaded throughout this disk.
I have lot of stuff(docs, prgs etc..,) on my PC. I don't want to loose
them.
Is there any way that I can load Linux to share this and make my PC dual
bootable. I want to allot 3gb to Linux and 3.4 gb should remain for MS.
Please give a detailed input if pos'
Thanx for the inputs.
Kishore
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
