Linux-Misc Digest #218, Volume #19 Sat, 27 Feb 99 22:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Stop this bogosity, damnit! Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (John S. Dyson)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (John S. Dyson)
Re: Linux/FreeBSD compatability (Was Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)) (John S.
Dyson)
Re: System Commander Won't Boot Linux (Richard Steiner)
Re: VAX Basic compiler for Linux? ("Kevin Galloway")
Re: Creating PDF files under Linux (J.H.M. Dassen (Ray))
Graphical output with linux. (Jorge Garrido Serrano)
Re: Pentium III and Linux ("Sam Freiberg")
FreeAgent for Linux (Rudy Taraschi)
Re: domain name reg and IP setup (Matt Zagni)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Re: lilo prob (Nic Coe)
Clueless newbie modem question (Jet)
Re: Mounting a MS-DOS partition (Jet)
Ugh... Re: Pentium III Boycott and survey info (Peter F. Curran)
Re: Hard disk duplication?? (boyd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Stop this bogosity, damnit! Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 27 Feb 1999 03:01:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
DrBoom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alexander Viro wrote:
>>
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson) writes:
>>
>> >> wish newsreaders had a feature that reminded where one is posting. It
>> >> would make people (like me) more aware.
>
> From the Knews homepage: (J. Dyson's newsreader)
>
> "Knews is a threaded newsreader with an X Window interface. It may be
> distributed under the terms of the GNU Public License."
>
> Must be that darn amateurish and evilly licensed code coming back to
> bite you.
>
Maybe because I am just a user of the code. I don't get my jollies
tweaking code that has already been invented over and over again.
>
> Even a *nix newbie like me running a dain-bramaged newsreader like
> Netscape knows to which ng's he is posting. The bright blue underlined
> newsgroup names are a subtle hint for the clue-impaired. Give it a try
> -- it's not GPL'd. ;-)
>
I use netscape once in a while.
> Expertise in one area (VM systems, etc.) does not imply expertise in
> others (licensing, philosophy, etc.). Nor does it imply general
> cluefullness -- often it implies the opposite.
>
Actually, I am one of the least clueless regarding I/O subsystems,
VM systems and licensing. I am only an end user of alot of types
of software.
>
> Apologies to all for adding to this thread.
>
> -j
>
> Nice, factual flame follows...
>
Actually flaming wasn't needed. This shows total ignorance of
lucid and kindly behavior. Indeed typical of certain class of
individuals.
>
>> <flame>
>
Yep.
--
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: 27 Feb 1999 03:12:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens) writes:
>>>
>>This tests YOUR interest in fair discussion, right?
>
> No, I just found it amusing that you used those particular
> words.
>>>
>>And ridiculous support fees... Programming costs anyway you go,
>>except I am trying to support truth in advertising.
>
> You don't have to buy support when you use GPL code. There
> is easily enough documentation for those who can RTFM. It is
> possible to get a full version of linux on CD for $2 or even
> download it for no cost other than the cost of the telephone call.
>
Access to GPLed code is sometimes embargoed unless you pay support
fees. There are ways to do it.
>
> The truth, which you seem to find hard to accept is that the
> actual license (BSD or GPL) makes no difference to the
> distributor, as long as the code is freely distributable.
>
The truth, which you seem to find hard to accept is that the
actual license (BSD or GPL) makes a big difference to the
programming profession, with GPL being quite destructive. I
tend to agree that the distributor can effectivly profit from
working with GPLed or BSDed works, but that right is not well
supported by GPL for the programming profession, when doing
programming.
The truth is that my position is to support the innovative
programming profession, and the wonderful inventions of the
past that are being used in the continual re-implementations
of the present GPL world.
--
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: Linux/FreeBSD compatability (Was Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?))
Date: 27 Feb 1999 03:06:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore) writes:
> On 26 Feb 1999 19:28:17 GMT,
> Robert Sexton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm still unsure as to why the Linux camp has made /proc into the
>> lazy programmers kernel interface. I guess its easier to open a file
>> than to look up a system call. Load averages are a case in point.
>
> The goal as I understand it is to make for things like a ps that doesn't
> need to be able to read /dev/kmem and such without being suid-root or
> sgid-kmem or any such thing. Items that are not "confidential"
> shouldn't be protected, so that less programs will need privileges to
> use them.
>
Much of the linux proc functionality is in the pseudo-mib sysctl
on freebsd. Where proc is more appropriate, FreeBSD does use proc.
>
> I haven't been paying attention to how the BSD's have been handling the
> problem of reading kernel memory to get around this problem, but the
> Linux solution seems elegant and consistent with Unix concepts to me.
>
The sysctls are meant to be philosophically compatible with MIB.
--
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] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc,,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: System Commander Won't Boot Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 01:56:48 GMT
Here in comp.os.linux.setup, John K. Culver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spake unto us, saying:
>I've RTFM (SC, RH5.2 Install guide, and "Running Linux"), mucked with my
>lilo.conf, and still can't get System Commander to boot linux. Linux
>shows up on the SC boot menu, but selecting it only brings a warning
>that the partition is not bootable.
Did you install LILO in the boot sector of the root partition during
the Linux installation?
>Here's what my lilo.conf looks like:
>
>boot=/dev/hdb7
>map=/boot/map
>install=/boot/boot.b
>prompt
>timeout=50
>image=/boot/vmlinuz-2.0.36.-0.7
> label=linux
> root=/dev/hdb7
> read-only
>other=/dev/hda1
> label=dos
> table=/dev/hda
You have your Linux root partition located on the third logical drive
inside your extended partition on the second drive?
If so, it might be enough to run lilo as root to reestablish your
current lilo.conf file. I'm just guessing, though.
>Another clue: my motherboard has the option to boot from the D:\ drive.
>If I try this, I get a warning that no system disk can be found, so
>something is messed up on the mbr/root partition of D: (aka, hdb) -- it
>is not bootable, but when I boot from a linux floppy boot disk, the
>system loads fine.
This tells me that you didn't install LILO on your hard drive. LILO
must be present, or you can't redirect the bootstrap to the kernel.
(Note that installing LILO on your root partition's boot sector is not
the same as installing it in your MBR. You probably don't want to do
the latter.)
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris + BeOS +
WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + MacOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then
------------------------------
From: "Kevin Galloway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: VAX Basic compiler for Linux?
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:23:25 -0000
Reply-To: "Kevin Galloway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ron Nicholson wrote in message <7adg7k$4tm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gregory Propf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>I'm really ashamed to admit it but I work at a place where they still
>>use VMS. A lot of the reason for this is the existing body of software
>>written in VAX Basic. Is there a compiler for Linux (free or not) that
>>can re-compile this kind of cruft?
Hi,
I don't wish to introduce feedback of a commercial nature into a newsgroup
discussion, but I would be most interested to gauge the requirement for the
ability to run VAX BASIC code on Linux.
We have a VAX BASIC 'transpiler', that turns VAX BASIC into C as an
intermediate step. Along with this we also have RMS, SYS$ LIB$, DCL etc. The
tools are currently available for most commercial versions of Unix, and
Windows 9x/NT. If there was sufficient demand, I'm sure that we would also
make them available under Linux as well.
You can find out more about them at www.sector7.com.
Kind regards,
Kevin Galloway
Sector7 (U.K.) Ltd.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J.H.M. Dassen (Ray))
Subject: Re: Creating PDF files under Linux
Date: 26 Feb 1999 14:45:30 GMT
Leonard Evens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Current versions of ghostscript have a shell script which will convert a
>postscript file into a pdf file. When we use it, we find that it produces
>a file about ten times larger than the Adobe distiller does. More
>seriously, when viewed by acroread (and I presume using the web by other
>Acrobat readers under other OSs), the output is essentially unreadable. The
>pdf file produced by the Adobe distiller produces easily read output.
>
>I presume this has something to do with the fonts that are being used.
Yes, you need to use vector fonts, not bitmap ones to achieve good quality
PDF. Your address is "@math"; perhaps you're using (La)TeX? There is good
free software to produce PDF in a *TeX environment; see e.g.
http://www.math.uakron.edu/~dpstory/
>As best I can tell, Adobe does not provide a Linux version of its
>distiller, but does provide SunOS, Solaris, and HP Unix versions.
Adobe's management fails to appreciate the size of the free Un*x market.
E.g. there's no FrameMaker or PhotoShop for Linux either. Frame employees
have reported FrameMaker compiles and runs fine under Linux, but management
is not willing to go through the procedure required to release it.
HTH,
Ray
--
LEADERSHIP A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto-
destructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch
it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own.
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
------------------------------
From: Jorge Garrido Serrano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Graphical output with linux.
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:55:51 +0100
Hi everybody,
Ok, I�m trying to develop my work in Linux (Some kind of simulator).
My problem is that instead of showing the data by text lines, I would
like to make it with graphics. The software is being developed in C .
Which way is the better one to achieve what I want. I mean some kind of
graphic way for input/output.
Any help please.
Thanks.
GGG.
--
Jorge Garrido Serrano
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( FernUniversit�t Hagen )
------------------------------
From: "Sam Freiberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pentium III and Linux
Date: 26 Feb 99 15:43:34 GMT
If you've read at all about the PIII then you should know that it would be
a waste of money to buy one. The only advantage of the PIII is a larger
instruction set. It has the same size cache and the clock speeds aren't
that much higher. If you really want lightning speed your money would be
better spent on a dual-processor machine with PII's. BTW - as far as I know
all the added instructions are designed for graphics, primarily internet
graphics at that, so I doubt very much that Linux will ever support them.
--
--- Samuel D. Freiberg ---
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please visit our web: http://www.centurykc.com
CENTURY Computer Consultants, Inc.
9200 Indian Creek Parkway, Suite 400
Overland Park, KS 66210
(913) 451-7997 (800) 278-5757 Ext. #243
Fax (913) 451-7665
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in article <7b6855$47t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Hi all,
>
> Maybe a stupid question but I am a bit worried.
>
> I am going to buy a computer and my plan is to run Linux on it.
> I am looking at some configurations and they do have an intel
> pentium III processor (from 450-500 MHz) and 440BX chipset.
>
> I checked SuSe hardware support and couldn't find the Pentium III
> processor. They had support for many pantiums but the one who got
> closest was the 333 MHz pentium II.
>
> So will for example the 450MHz pentium III based machine work with
> SuSe (as an example) or will it be better to spend my money on a
> lower spec. machine ?
>
> Thankful for information on this.
>
> Regards
> JS
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rudy Taraschi)
Subject: FreeAgent for Linux
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:34:25 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi folks,
I want something that doesn't exist, FreeAgent for Linux. Believe it or
not, it's the only reason I have Windoze95 still installed on my PC.
(I've sent them an email asking for FreeAgent for Linux, if you're
interested, maybe you should do the same and create some demand).
Now here's my question. I still like using 'tin' to read news, but need
to do my reading offline (ie, at home). Is there a 'news sucker' for
Linux that will read in all the headers, allow me to wade through them
and tag what I want, and inhale them onto my computer so I can use tin
(or whatever) to read them later on? Thanks.
rudy
------------------------------
From: Matt Zagni <[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 15:30:17 +0000
But surely this is a domain hosting service - correct me if I am wrong ?
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 ?
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
okdj wrote:
> http://www.internic.net
>
> everything you need to know is in the FAQs at this site
>
> Matt wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > What HOWTODO can help me setup a domain name for my own internet
> > connection and what are the requirements, I know there are sites
> > that you can register under but how can I set up my own.
> >
> > Also are there any sites that can help too.
> >
> > Many thanks
> >
> > Matt
>
> --
> ----------Visit me at http://www.moltenwax.com----------
>
> I think I just downloaded in my pantz.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: 27 Feb 1999 04:18:26 GMT
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:44:23 -0800, Ryan Cumming
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
>> > 1. Better GUI
>>
>> Hmph. Depends on how you define a GUI and what kind of GUI you are
>> using on Linux.
>
>I dont't think any UI in Linux even touches Windows ease of use. Some of the new
>fangled desktop enviroments (Gnome, KDE, etc.) come close, but MS has done a good
>job of allowing the newbie be able to use the OS right away,
And you know what? Years ago, people expected computers to be pretty
damn cryptic... and you had to do something that you don't have to do
with MS operating systems: Put TONS of effort into what you learn!!!
With UNIX/Linux/etc., you have to TRY to learn it, and be WILLING to
try! IMHO, Windows is for those who don't want to put up with effort
and learning. Thus, they have nothing to feel proud of -- yay, you've
figured out what "File --> Save As" does as compared to "File --> Save".
Sheesh.
DOS, UNIX, etc., are for those who want to learn (except DOS only takes
maybe a day to learn...). And those who want performance and reliability
will eventually learn that it isn't easy to put forth the effort to get
that performance and reliability. Sure, you have to read a couple of
thousand of pages-- be it man pages, HTML pages, book pages, whatever.
Windows isn't reliable, and even (smart) Windows users will admit to that.
UNIX is *TONS* more reliable than Windows... and smaller, too. You can
run a router on a computer without a hard disk, for example. I'm sure
you could use UNIX on may machines w/o a hard disk for more purposes,
too. Example: router, email server (obviously, just a small one, for
home/small business use).
Besides, you LEARN more and can DO more with UNIX. 1.44MB give you some
things that Windows won't give you in 250 MB. Wow. =)
And, better yet, you get more speed and capacity per megabyte on UNIX
operating systems than you do with Windows.
Reliability *ALWAYS* comes with a trade-off. I choose stability and
reliability over incessant crashes and problems all of the time.
>
>> > 2. More software
>>
>> Certainly.
>>
More BRANDS of software, yes. But UNIX most certainly has more TYPES
of software-- and 80% of it is FREE! Let's see... WordPerfect 8, Apache,
Pine, Lynx, XFree86, Netscape Communicator, newsreaders, text editors,
and MUCH MORE!
And, it's open source, too, for the most part. That means that you can
make minor changes and customizations to your software if you need to.
You don't have to pay someone else to come up with yet another solution.
And, the software in UNIX is more stable than most other OSs... and if a
security problem is found-- well, you then have it fixed almost as soon
as it's known about. With Microsoft and Apple, you have to wait at least
a week-- more often, a month or more-- before you get security fixes in
most things.
>> > 3. More Hardware support
>>
>> Yes, but oh so crappy drivers...
>
>I rather have a Winmodem with crappy drivers than a useless card in Linux
>
Sure, it's got more hardware support- but the Windows-only printers and
modems take a LOT more processing power from the CPU. In Linux, you don't
have that type of thing happening-- which is very good. That frees your
CPU to work for more useful things.
And I hope you're not playing Quake over that Winmodem... unless you have
a OC'd Celeron or something.
>>
>>
>> > 4. Better gaming platform
>> > (shudder)
>>
>> Not for long anymore <snicker GGI snicker PenguinPlay snicker lots of
>> ports laugh laugh snicker>
>>
Yep. Quake, Doom, and more for Linux. But, I don't play games, so I
only know of the "big" stuff.
>> > 5. More consistency (see my previous post)
>>
>> Hmph.
Sure.... you show me where there more consistancy. If there's more
consistancy in anything, it's UNIX/Linux/etc., because many standards
have been published, and since you've got POSIX now, it's really working
to be pretty good.
All of the UNIX commands are consistant with each other, for the most
part, as well. Sure, you have a similar windowing INTERFACE for the
programs, but that does NOT gaurentee consistancy-- even in appearance!
>>
>> > 6. One word: Microkernel
>>
>> Can mean a performance penalty.
>
>Waiting 15 minute for my kernel to compile for a new driver is a performace
>penilty
Compile it as a module.
That takes maybe what-- a couple of minutes? Some modules, you don't even
have to compile!
>
>> > 7. No mounting
>>
>> This is a disadvantage as it easily can mess up removable media and it
>> means a huge file system throughput penalty.
>
Certainly. How do you know that the buffer has been dumped to the disk?
Well, that's an easy answer... you don't. With UNIX, you can be sure that
the buffer has been emptied... and be sure that your data is a-ok.
>> > 8. Better file locking
>>
>> I don't know jack about this one.
>
>For the ill-educated, Unix's file locking has being crappily added on since its
>original design (like multithreading). Therefor, instead of getting an app to lock
>its files using one mechinism, it may break portablity to half of the Unixes. So
>many apps don't bother. I've upgraded X while it was running (stupid dea, BTW) and
>do to crappy file locking it went down in flaming glory instead of warning me.
>
>> > 9. More multithreaded apps
>>
>> Yes, perhaps, but Linux applications are increasingly based on
>> multithreaded support libraries, too.
>>
>> > 10. Better user support
>>
>> No.
>
>I agree. I was just desperate for a 10th reason. MS has fucked around with me on
>support lines.
>i
I've gotten TONS more support with my Linux than I *EVER* have with Microsoft's
shit. TONS! I called up Microsoft and waited for an hour and a half. I
post something somewhere in a Microsoft support group online and all I get
back is tons of shit. In the Linux/UNIX forums, you get tons more support,
and your support is of a better quality. Typically, you get replies within
an hour of your post. That's wonderful.
Many of my posts have been replied to within a matter of minutes, even. =)
- Mike
>>
>>
>> mawa
>> --
>> "Life: it's been hit or miss since I lost the manual."
>> -- Michael Bonnell
>
--
=====================================================================
Michael B. Trausch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
V: (419) 838-8104 F: (815) 846-9374
"Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that
curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly."
- Arnold Edinborough
If you do not have my public PGP key, you are encouraged to obtain it
from my website at http://www.wcnet.org/~mtrausch/mykey.zip. You need
to have PGP 5.0i or newer to use the key.
=====================================================================
------------------------------
From: Nic Coe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: lilo prob
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 15:22:40 +1100
Hi Nick
i think that dos based OS' (95,98,NT) have to at least have their boot files on
the primary master otherwise they won't boot....also they must be on a partition
that begins before the 2Gb mark....
with a little disk juggling, possibly making the linux disk the secondary master
you should be alright
hope this is of some help
Nic
Nick Warrington wrote:
> I have in the past configured lilo to boot off different partitions on the
> same hd. However I recently installed a new hard disk and formatted the disk
> for a linux installation. I thought I had configured lilo to list two
> bootable partitions on different disks. The primary master for linux and the
> second master for win98 (dont laugh, I need it right now), with a cdrom as a
> primary slave. However lilo fails to jump to the second disk to boot Win98.
> It appears in the menu to select, but simply will not even begin to boot
> from it.
>
> Any thoughts anyone??
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Nick
------------------------------
From: Jet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Clueless newbie modem question
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 20:28:51 -0800
I have a BTC 56K modem with a PCtel PCT388P chipset. I'm using RH 5.2.
I used modemtool to configure the port. When I start minicom, it shows
the initializing modem message, then the terminal screen. When I try to
dial, the timer starts up, but nothing happens. No sound, no dial tone,
no error messages.
Any idea what might be going on? Thanks. Be gentle, I'm a newbie.
J
--
The human brain is the most incredible structure in the universe.
Yeah, but look what came to that conclusion.
email me at jetgal at earthlink dot net
------------------------------
From: Jet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mounting a MS-DOS partition
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 20:36:54 -0800
Nicolassal wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to apologize for my ignorance, however, I am having trouble
> mounting a MS-DOS partition. My hard drive is mounted under /dev/hda,
> however, I've tried to mount the MS-DOS partition as follows:
>
> mount /dev/hda6 /temp -t msdos
>
> I've also tried
>
> mount /dev/hda6 /temp -t umsdos
>
> Oh... By the way, I am using windows 98, with my MS-DOS all FAT32. Is
> there something I can do to mount the partition? Any help would be
> greatly appreciated.
I'm just a newbie, so take that into consideration:
I mount my Win98 partition like this:
mount -t vfat /dev/hda1 /win98
J
--
The human brain is the most incredible structure in the universe.
Yeah, but look what came to that conclusion.
email me at jetgal at earthlink dot net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter F. Curran)
Subject: Ugh... Re: Pentium III Boycott and survey info
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 04:31:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[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/
>
No, he is right that it requires a full hardware
reset to turn the feature back on. What people
have discovered is that it is easy to trick the
_control_ software into leaving it ON after the
next reboot, rather than disabling it as the user
intended. Basically, the control program has to
store the user's preference in a file somewhere.
If another program changes that file's contents,
the PSN will be available on the next reboot. A
bad program could then make a copy of the PSN,
and have it available whenever it needed it in
the future.
Moving the PSN disable process to the BIOS helps,
because each BIOS is different. However, it would
still be possible for a program to over-ride the
users preference by changing the settings in the
non-volatile system memory. It would be more
difficult to write this kind of program.
None of this addresses the problem of having a
bad program grab the PSN when it is on, and storing
it despite the user's preference that it not be
available at specific times.
--
Peter F Curran
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
dough knot male: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Use address in Organization line, finger
for PGP key. Antispaam test in progress.
------------------------------
From: boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.help,linux.redhat.install,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Hard disk duplication??
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 23:16:59 -0500
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Dan Mack wrote:
> Bruce Kline wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think the use of dd should work here as an image
> > copier to a partition that is the exact same size.
> > I have never done it.
> ...
> For a 500M drive it took us about 20 minutes per disk. It worked great
> but I would only do this if you know that all your hardware is
> identical. It is also a good idea to fsck the drive's partitions after
> you dd it:
>
> # fsck /dev/hdb1
> # fsck /dev/hdb2
>
> <etc..>
>
> Becuase we found that the new partitions were dirty. We actually
> mounted the new partitons up on the clone machine and changed system
> files and such before putting the disk back in the destination machine.
I've used dd to clone an entire disk as well. Note that the partions are
'dirty' only because they are copies of a file system that was in use at
the time of the copy. That just means that they didn't have the 'fastboot'
file written as the result of being unmounted. They are not really dirty,
but fsck will be run on 'em in the normal course of bringing up the cloned
disk.
Mark <[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
******************************
