Linux-Misc Digest #213, Volume #19 Sat, 27 Feb 99 17:13:17 EST
Contents:
Re: winwizards (was: KDE? Gnome? ... confused) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
new kernel boot messages ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Redhat 5.2 is a waste of time.....Win98 for 2000. (Crafty)
Re: Pentium III Boycott and survey info (Grant Leslie)
Re: Downloading at half the speed under Linux vs NT (Mike)
Re: Apache WEB server. (Bob McLaren)
Re: Read/Write on UFS filesystems under 2.2.1 (Rob Fisher)
Re: More bad news for NT (Rob Komar)
Re: Pentium III Boycott and survey info (brian moore)
Re: Looking for a cross-compiler (brian moore)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Pentium III Boycott and survey info (mlw)
Re: Pentium III Boycott and survey info (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux/FreeBSD compatability (Was Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)) (Matthias
Buelow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,linux.redhat.misc,linux.redhat.rpm
Subject: Re: winwizards (was: KDE? Gnome? ... confused)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 21:03:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (jedi) wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 15:34:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I'm still trying to sort through the various window manager documetation to
> >figure out which one I want to use...
>
> FreeWill is a bitch, isn't it?
Sure is! I'm not saying I don't like it though. I wouldn't have bothered
with Linux if I didn't want something different.
>
> >
> >I have nothing against using a command line or getting into the configuration
> >files with vi; I've done it for years. However, if there were an
easier GUI
> >to use, no doubt I'd use it.
>
> NEITHER of those is required for either a basic redhat install
> or installing a new 'ease of use' WindowManager.
Well I'll just say that the Redhat installation guide is severely lacking
then. Try setting up PPP with the directions they give you. I figured it
out myself, but only after modifying syntax errors in some of the scripts
they supplied, getting the setuid permission bits right, and making a couple
of good guesses. The KDE graphical kppp setup on the other hand was very
intuitive and much easier.
Bill
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: new kernel boot messages
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 19:05:10 GMT
I have compiled a new kernel (Redhat 5.0, kernel 2.0.32) to add a couple of
things I wanted to play with and take out all the other stuff I don't need. I
only have a couple of drivers in there as modules. When the kernel boots and
gets to the "checking module dependencies" part, about 100 messages scroll by
of the form "/lib/modules/2.0.32/misc/ipx.o: unresolved symbol(s)". I think I
know what this means but why is it happening? The kernel goes on to boot and
everything seems to be working. Why is it looking to resolve symbols for all
the modules which are not in the kernel configuration? Did I miss a step?
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Crafty)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,linux.redhat.misc,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Redhat 5.2 is a waste of time.....Win98 for 2000.
Date: 27 Feb 1999 21:02:57 GMT
If you download RH5.2 from the ftp site and install from your hard
drive, there's a problem that you should be aware of. I just did this
a couple of days ago myself. The images to make the boot and
supplemental install disks will not work if you are installing from a
hard drive. There are updated disk images available from Red hat's
update site. Make your boot and supp. floppies from the updated
images and they will work fine. The old ones gave me an error that
they couldn't find the install dir tree.
Plan on doing a LOT of reading of the readme's, how-to's, etc. Good
Luck!
Bob Crafton
On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 18:58:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ('Wulff) wrote:
>
> I'm kidding....Sorry for the attention getter tag.
>
> I'm in the mood today to start the process of nuking Winblows 98 on a
> few of my rigs so It's time to seriously look at linux.
> I'm not a newbie to computers but I've done absolutely NO research on
> linux/redhat to date.
> I can get Redhat 5.2 today without a problem but If I can d\l it from
> ftp i'll do that instead(cable modem).
> I realize I can probably find all the info with a crapload of browsing
> but hey,Isn't this what NG's are for? <g>
>
> Any info to get me started would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> 'Wulff
> .......................................................
> Hindsight is nature's way of saying
> "Boy did YOU screw up".
=====================================
Bob Crafton email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ#3667277 Amateur Radio WA3SLE
=====================================
------------------------------
From: Grant Leslie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Pentium III Boycott and survey info
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:11:28 -0400
John Meissen wrote:
>
> A boycot based on this is ridiculous. Whether you use the chip
> or not should depend on the capabilities of the CPU and if you
> feel they meet your needs.
>
> john-
But should I have to accept an invasion of my privacy, to get those
capabilities? Everyone reading this no doubt is aware, and would know to
disable it. But, the general public is probably completely unaware. An
organized boycot, could bring this to thier attention.
To me it feels kinda like being "tagged". They talk about tracking
browsing and buying habits, etc.. But that is really a rather trivial
use of this. If a web browser can get the ID, why can't your email
client "tag" every e-mail you send. Why can't Word 2000, Excel, etc..
etc.. "tag" every file you make. Why can't your future TCP/IP stack
"tag" every single packet your computer sends. A "virus" could grab it,
and send it to god knows who. An employer could "buy" logs of your ID
usage, on the net.
You'd bitch if the police tried to get a video camera installed in your
house to watch you anytime they wanted, right? Even if you could turn
the thing off. And even better, what if someone could "fake" the signal
from that camera, and "pretend" they are you in your house.
I don't care how innocent Intel's idea was when coming up with this,
but, I personally will NEVER own a pentium III or any other CPU that
does this (PLEASE AMD, listen!!!!!! ), and thats not "wierdo
conspirousy" politics either. Thats a basic desire for freedom. True
perfect freedom can never exist, but i am NOT willing to giving up ANY
of what I do have.
Try to think past the basic computer issues involved here, to a bigger
picture. Enabled/disabled doesn't matter, the basic fact is that it
exists at all. Future versions of certain web sites might not even allow
access with out the ID enabled, some future software might not install
without the ID enabled, forcing people to have it enabled.
Personally I say no thanks. And I want the freedom, to continue to say
no thanks in the future. I don't just not want it on my CPU, I don't
want it AT ALL!!!!!!!
--
"It looks so lovely, and fragile. Imagine how many millions of people
are living on it, and don't even realize how fragile it is."
Alan B. Shepard, 1971, said with a tear in his eye, on the
Apollo 14 mission looking back at earth from the moon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike)
Subject: Re: Downloading at half the speed under Linux vs NT
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 21:15:42 GMT
On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 00:24:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred
smith) wrote:
>snipped...what I wrote<
It is on com2 irq3. Seems like it will start out half decent but then
it drops off pretty rapidly and fiinally stalls, if I wait it'll start
again but usually less than 1k/sec. Could be my ISP connection cause I
sometimes have trouble under NT as well but it seems to happen often
enough that I'm thinking there is something I could tweak to make it
better.
thanks for your reply
mike
>
>What IRQ is the modem using? If it is not 3 or 4 (com 2 or 1) then you
>may need to get irqtune. The modem needs high priority interrupt service,
>and if not on 3 or 4 it won't get it causing lots of lost interrupts and
>resulting in slow throughput.
>
> http://www.best.com/~cae/irqtune/irqtune.tgz
>
>Fred
>--
>---- Fred Smith -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----------------------------
> "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of
> heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
>------------------------------ Matthew 7:21 (niv) -----------------------------
------------------------------
From: Bob McLaren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Apache WEB server.
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 20:59:40 GMT
Are you FTPing your perl scripts to your webserver?
I FINALLY solved this problem on my server by verifying an ASCII FTP
transfer to my web server as opposed to a BINARY transfer.
I believe the CHR(10) and CHR(13) carriage return characters weren't being
translated correctly because I was using binary transfer.
Hope this helps.
"Jesper K. Pedersen" wrote:
> Evening everyone.
>
> After struggling alot with Apache I feel close to giving up.
>
> The webserver runs fine - I can access it locally as well as from a
> remote location.
> When I get to the fun part with cgi-scripts it gets a bit worse.
>
> Basically nomatter what Perl script (ready made from the net) that I try
> out - it terminates with an error message :
>
> something something something "reason: premature end of script headers"
> [somedate].
>
> Can anyone give me a clue of why ?
> Im hinted at by the helpfiles that its the way that Perl handles its
> "prints" to the server - and that i manually have to rework the scripts.
> And ive tried that - but with the same result.
>
> Best regards
> Jesper K. Pedersen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Bob McLaren
Network Administration
Financial Statement Services, Inc.
HTTP://WWW.FSSI-CA.COM
------------------------------
From: Rob Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Read/Write on UFS filesystems under 2.2.1
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 21:19:26 +0000
> >> > Has anyone had any joy mounting UFS filesystems read/write under the
> >> > 2.2.1 kernel?
> Just because you have ufs support in the kernel doesn't mean
> you have ufs read-write support, are you sure you were
> presented with the ufs read-write option when you did
> make config, and answered yes?
Naturally.
> Look at the /usr/src/linux/.config file, after the ufs option you
> should see a read-write option for ufs.
# CONFIG_QNX4FS_FS is not set
# CONFIG_ROMFS_FS is not set
CONFIG_EXT2_FS=y
# CONFIG_SYSV_FS is not set
CONFIG_UFS_FS=y
CONFIG_UFS_FS_WRITE=y
There it is. I can't think of anything I've missed out. As I said, mount
even reports that the fs is mounted rw.
Could it be anything to do with the fact that I can't fsck my UFS
filesystems? Does anyone know where I can get hold of a Linux version of
fsck that can do this?
I've upgraded my kernel to 2.2.2 and I still get the same problem.
Rob
Rob
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Komar)
Subject: Re: More bad news for NT
Date: 27 Feb 1999 18:47:03 GMT
Harry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Written by Gregory Propf
:
: > As for Netscape locking up, you WILL find that happening under
: Linux. The difference is that bad software can't crash the whole
: system under Linux like it does ALL THE DAMN TIME under Windows.
: Don't argue with me on this, I work with this garbage every o
: workday and I know what I'm talking about. <s
:
: NT is perfectly stable. Everyone who uses it says so. Sounds to
: me like you're running some sort of campaign to promote Linux by
: defaming Windows. The fact is that, if people's personal i
: experience of the OS bears no resemblence to what you say, few y
: are going to listen to what you have to say. I also work with NT is
: Windows every day (I'm writing to you from a two-year-old NT
: Workstation that's NEVER crashed, no matter how many times Th system
: poorly-built applications on it fail), but so do most people on
: the Internet. Stories of blood on the keyboard are plainly eon
: ridiculous.t
Wierd. How do those extra words and characters get placed at the
end of all those lines? Does it have something to do with posting
from an NT box? I'm not trying to be insulting here; I'm just
curious.
Cheers,
Rob Komar
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Pentium III Boycott and survey info
Date: 27 Feb 1999 21:43:53 GMT
On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 14:52:29 GMT,
Peter F. Curran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think I can explain the fuss. People don't _want_ to be tracked
> on the Internet. They only wish to provide identification info
> to those sites they want to do business with.
That's true.
> It is the proposed _use_ of the PSN, not the PSN itself which
> is so objectionable.
No, that's what the MEDIA is reporting as the use. It's completely
useless for that.
It is, however, quite useful for "download this version of Word22 for
your system" and ensure that people don't copy it to every system on
their network, or burn a CD with it and move it around that way.
That's why the instruction is there: so software could be tied to a
given CPU.
> Because some sites might require the PSN to be on if you have a
> PIII, (or if you have PSN-aware copy protection on some of your
> software), people will be forced to leave it on because of the
> hassle of needing to reboot 10 extra times a day.
But, again, that's completely useless. How will those sites get that
number? The web browser will have to provide it. So download Mozilla
and hack it to always set 'X-CPU-ID' (or whatever) to 0xDEADBEEF and be
done with it.
Completely useless for that application: again, note that it's the media
claiming this is true. Don't Believe The Media. They have no clue
about what they're saying and spout mindless nonsense.
> I think the only solution is to just vocally oppose the use
> of such a poor security enhancement. As you said, the number
> on the chip is harmless by itself. It is the software, and
> those who actually try to make use of the PSN who are
> dangerous.
And because the software can't be secured, the whole concept (as
reported by the media) is useless. It would have tremendous use for
outfits like Microsoft that have pondered things like annual licenses
and even per-use licenses. [But I think that's good: if it costs a user
$.25 each time they run Word, that's another incentive to dump MS. :)]
There is some neat stuff on the P3 (like the random number generator)
that is much more valuable than the CPU id, and will have much more of
an impact on security and being able to conduct secure transactions on
the 'net.
Please seperate the claims made by the media (who not only have no clue
about what they're saying, but also have a vested interest in hyping a
story) and reality.
(There is a reason my TV has been off for the last 2.5 years.)
(Of course, at this moment the P3 isn't worth it anyway, but that's
typical Intel pricing policy.)
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Looking for a cross-compiler
Date: 27 Feb 1999 21:45:43 GMT
On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 15:29:22 +0000,
javierlt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andy Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 12:46:14 +0000, javierlt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >I�m looking for a cross-compiler for C++
> > >Any help will be apreciated.
> > >
> > >Thanks
> > >
> > >--
> > >for answer leave xxx in my email
> >
> > And wich platform would you like to target?
> >
>
> OpenLinux in an intel pc (pentium)
Um, your post says:
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.35 i586)
So why would you need a cross compiler? Why not just a plain old
compiler? (It should have come with your system.)
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: 26 Feb 1999 21:13:59 GMT
On 25 Feb 1999 15:39:31 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[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).
Of course they do; backward compatibility and all that. :-)
>
>--
>The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
>Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
----
[EMAIL PROTECTED], who hopes M$ falls down because it still wants to
support Duke Nukem version 1, written back in the CGA
or EGA days... :-)
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Pentium III Boycott and survey info
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 21:10:59 +0000
John Meissen wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Boycott Swintel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Of potential concern is that after a hard reset the feature =is=
> reenabled, but if you consider the logic of not being able to
> enable via software, this is the only way to provide for re-enabling
> the feature.
>
> Given that the feature exists, and the way it works, obviously
> the best solution is for BIOS manufacturers to provide for
> disabling at power-on. Otherwise it seems to me a trivial matter
> to provide capability under Linux or any other OS to disable it
> at boot time.
>
> A boycot based on this is ridiculous. Whether you use the chip
> or not should depend on the capabilities of the CPU and if you
> feel they meet your needs.
>
> john-
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.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit the Mohawk Software website: www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Pentium III Boycott and survey info
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 26 Feb 1999 14:10:57 -0700
[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 wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux/FreeBSD compatability (Was Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?))
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Buelow)
Date: 26 Feb 99 19:30:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Actually, all the major x86 Unix players (including Sun and SCO) agreed
>a couple years ago to standardize executables. This is part of why
They did? Never heard of that. I thought most were using ELF now
because it's what's the default on SVR4 (since most newer commercial
players are SVR4-based). Others are "still" using COFF (Digital UNIX,
err "Tru64 UNIX(TM)" and SCO) or variants like XCOFF (AIX I think).
ELF isn't universal (yet).
>It's not as "run anywhere" as Java, say, but it is closer than the Unix
>implementations have been in a long time. (And hopefully work on this
I wonder how compatibility can be enhanced with the same binary format;
Fooix ELF programs are very unlikely to run on Blarghix, even if the
latter is also using ELF and even if both systems run on the same
hardware architecture.
The only advantage is that the C compiler toolchain has to deal with
fewer different formats; this is usually not so important with
commercial systems which have their own compiler and stuff as with
the freeish systems, which usually use gcc and (at least some) of the
GNU binutils. I thought the switch from qmagic to ELF on FreeBSD 3
was more induced by the lack of ongoing support for a.out formats
by gcc and the binutils than by some unification concept (there are
a few technical advantages of ELF aswell, when it comes to dynamic
language aspects such as C++ constructors, and some shared library
aspects which are some kind of a kludge on a.out qmagic/zmagic).
>will lead to compatibility on other platforms than x86: with one binary
>covering SPARC/Solaris,NetBSD,OpenBSD and Linux, for example.)
This is unlikely because this binary would have to be build for all
architectures. This starts with different machine code in the code
segment and machine word lengths in data and goes on over system
differences, like different system call numbers and call-down methods,
different memory layout and so on. Such a universal run-everywhere
binary would therefore be much larger (depending on how many
architectures and systems get compiled in) than with the current concept.
I don't think it'll be useful in practice.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
