Linux-Misc Digest #220, Volume #19 Sat, 27 Feb 99 23:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: More bad news for NT (Gregory Propf)
Re: Encryption of passwords for AuthUserFile on Apache server? (John W. Baxter)
Re: interested in linux... (brian moore)
Linux/FreeBSD compatability (Richard Steiner)
Re: More bad news for NT ("David Hawthorne")
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Richard Steiner)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Ken Pizzini)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. ("The Infernal One")
Re: Mysterious CPU load. (Daniel Sladic)
Re: Bunch of pretentious Wankers (Yves Dufour)
Re: sed? 'nuff said. (Michael Powe)
Re: A few small questions from a novice (Michael Powe)
Re: iso9660 filesystem not supported? (Michael Fleming)
Video card settings (Sravanthi Cheruku)
Re: Linux/FreeBSD compatability (Richard Steiner)
Re: Linux/FreeBSD compatability (Was Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)) (Gregory L.
Hansen)
Re: Installing software with rpm (Daniel Beer)
Comic Strip Mailing List (Jean-Sebastien Morisset)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gregory Propf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.linux
Subject: Re: More bad news for NT
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 08:36:21 GMT
Jon Wiest wrote:
>
> Jason Clifford wrote in message ...
> >On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Jon Wiest wrote:
> >Linux is faster, more stable, scales better, can serve dozens of
> >applications without crashing, etc. That is wiping the floor!
>
> Then why do I see all these messages about Netscape locking up? Show me
> these "wipe the floor" tests, but first let's define "wipe the floor". How
> about, say, 100% faster, 50% of the crashes, etc? "Wipe the floor" does not
> mean 1 or 2 %
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 workday and I know what I'm
talking about.
You demanded numbers. I don't have them but you can find them on the
web. They will demonstrate that Linux runs the same tests faster on the
same hardware as compared with any version of Windows. From personal
and business experience with both systems I can say "Linux does indeed
wipe the proverbial floor with any version of windows."
> >No flag waving or slogan chanting - simply telling the truth.
>
> No truth. I've only seen assertions. Your first assertion started this:
> "wipe the floor". If you can clarify that I'm all ears.
>
> >
> >Perhaps you would like to be a little more specific with regard to the
> >"really stupid" things you think Linux does. If they are bugs the Linux
> >developer community will be more than happy to squash them - you could
> >even do so yourself if you have the skill.
>
> I'd say the whole process of getting it going is pretty stupid. Heck
> setting up PPP requires me to read and absorb a 50 page HOWTO. That's okay,
> I like learning, but gawd, doesn't everybody want PPP?
The difference, of course, is that between an OS that assumes that you
are a moron (Windows) and one that assumes you can absorb some technical
details (Linux). Linux is far more configurable than windows in the PPP
area as a result. Granted, it requires more learning. So what?
>
> Like I said elsewhere, I'm sick of seeing self-righteous, self-agrandizing
> "I-run-Linux-therefore-if-you-say-anything-nice-about-Windoze-I'm-going-to-s
> hriek" messages. Each has it's merit.
Well, no, actually Windows doesn't have any merit apart from its ability
to subvert the industry's attempt to develop standard protocols and
APIs. Without it the whole software industry would have fewer menial
jobs today ("Oh , please Mr. Technician help me reboot my computer for
the 10,000th time today) and far more that actually contributed to the
real progress of computer science and technology. Microsoft is a giant
anchor tied to the throats of everyone in the computer industry today.
The only progress will come from the rejection of their proprietary
"solutions". As someone saddled with the task of supporting MS's
worthless products I resent the implication that they have done anything
worthwhile.
>
> Jon
--
"I wanted plutonium, not Beanie Babies..."
- Sadaam Hussein, in a letter to Santa Claus.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 23:42:03 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John W. Baxter)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Encryption of passwords for AuthUserFile on Apache server?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I seem to be lost. The documentation on the Apache web site has all the
> info (if you have tome to read it all) except the method used to create
> the user/password file for the AuthUserFile directive. How, exactly
> does one encrypt these passwords into a file other than /etc/passwd? I
> really don't want to have to write my own tool for this, I have too many
> other rods in the fire already.
> Thanks for all help.
> Lou
>
> To respond via e-mail remove .nospam from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The
htpasswd
program for managing a flat password file, and the
ddmmanage
program for managing a database password file should have come with Apache
(On my MkLinux system (RedHat-like in some ways), they are
/usr/sbin/htpasswd and
/usr/sbin/dbmmanage
htpasswd [-c] passwordfile username
(it prompts for the password) -c creates the file (don't do this every
time ;-))
dbmmanage dbmfile adduser username password group
group can be as many groups as you like (including none) (, separated,
no whitespace)
the groups are Apache things, just as the username/password pairs are
dbmmanage dbmfile add key "This is some value...you might track changes
here or..."
adds arbitrary key/value pairs
dbmmanage dbmfile delete key
dbmmanage dbmfile view
(These are handy for other dbm files, not just the Apache password files.)
--John
--
If nothing is pressing, putter about with this or that.
(Fortune cookie)
John W. Baxter Port Ludlow, WA USA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Subject: Re: interested in linux...
Date: 27 Feb 1999 08:41:36 GMT
On 27 Feb 1999 07:22:45 GMT,
Paul Erdos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i first heard of linux about a year ago, and it sounded interesting so i
> decided to give it a try. i bought the "linux for dummies" book (since i didn't
> know anything about linux, i figured that was the right book for me), which
Despite the name, I've heard good things about the book.
> included a cd in the back with redhat 5.0. i got it installed on my computer
> no problem, as a dual-boot between linux and win95. this is probably due to my
> lack of knowledge about linux, but it is not clear to me why linux is
> preferable to windows.
Depends on what you're doing. :)
> as a high school senior whose primary use of the
> computer is: writing papers (ms word),
I write all my stuff in vi. But, then, I'm a geek. Try LyX: it's not
really a word processor in the traditional sense: it will make you think
more about what exactly it is you're writing and relationships between
each section and the rest. (Which is actually a good thing. :))
> programming (ms visual c++), and going
You do know that Linux comes with a slew of of languages? C, C++, Perl,
Fortran, Tcl, Python.... I find it much easier to debug programs
under Unix than any other environment. When programs die, they leave
behind a file called 'core' that is a snapshot of the program at its
demise. You can use these to track down silly bugs in your programs.
> online (aol), i didn't know how to do these same things in linux. is linux
> right for me, or is windows preferable for doing those limited tasks?
Well, AOL doesn't support anything but Windows and Mac. So you can't
use AOL with Linux. But a "plain old ISP" (including those run by the
likes of AT&T and MCI as well as the locals) will work fine with Linux.
You'll probably get better service from the locals as well. :)
> please don't misunderstand the intent of this message. it comes from a genuine
> interest in linux, and how it might be useful in my use of the computer.
> because i am completely ignorant of what linux can and cannot do, i am asking
> all of you out there.
There's plenty to do with Linux: if you like programming, it is the
ideal environment for you with piles of tools for free, and source code
to most of your applications: you can take them apart as a learning
exercise, find and fix bugs in them, and tweak them to suit your needs
better.
Heck, you even get source to the kernel itself, which is fascinating
reading. (It's very well commented, and actually pretty small: most of
the bulk is for things like device drivers.)
Unix is really a great programmer's playground.
> if you could email me at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, that would be appreciated since i
> do not check this newsgroup on a regular basis.
Okay, since you asked nice, I cc'd this.
--
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] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Linux/FreeBSD compatability
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 02:46:25 -0600
[Superseded to correct the URL -- sorry!]
Here in comp.os.linux.misc, [EMAIL PROTECTED]<M.com
(Mike Willett LADS LDN X7563) spake unto us, saying:
>Is it possible to have both a FreeBSD kernel and a Linux kernel on
>the same system ?
Yes, normally in a multi-boot setup where each OS is resident in its
own partition.
The product from VMWare (http://www.vmware.com) may be able to juggle
FreeBSD as a client OS within a virtual machine under Linux, also.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris + BeOS +
WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + MacOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
If the bathtub leaks, will the bathroom sink?
------------------------------
From: "David Hawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.linux
Subject: Re: More bad news for NT
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 08:51:07 -0000
Now this sort of attitude is exactly what pisses me off about Linux
newsgroups - 'Microsoft is worthless crap full stop'. Well, no, actually,
it's not. It has brought computing to the masses by providing an operating
system which does not require deep understanding on the part of the user.
Your attitude appears to be that it's necessary to understand nuclear
processing before you can switch on the electric light powered by the
reactor down the road - sorry, you are simply WRONG on this one.
And before the flaming starts (and I hope that the Linux community - I'd
like to think I'm one of them - is more polite and tolerant than to flame
prople for opinions contrary to their own), I carry no torch for Microsoft,
which I believe to be a typical business protecting its own interests in the
way that many businesses do. This is not to my liking, but that doesn't mean
that I can't appreciate what they've done for me in allowing me to get some
knowledge of PC computing usage - that, after all, is most likely the way
that most of us first got into computing and therefore Linux. How many of us
started with Linux as our first OS?
Oh, dear, was that a flame? I don't intend it to be. It's simply an
expression of a contrary opinion.
David.
Gregory Propf wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>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 workday and I know what I'm
>talking about.
>
>The difference, of course, is that between an OS that assumes that you
>are a moron (Windows) and one that assumes you can absorb some technical
>details (Linux). Linux is far more configurable than windows in the PPP
>area as a result. Granted, it requires more learning. So what?
>
>Well, no, actually Windows doesn't have any merit apart from its ability
>to subvert the industry's attempt to develop standard protocols and
>APIs. Without it the whole software industry would have fewer menial
>jobs today ("Oh , please Mr. Technician help me reboot my computer for
>the 10,000th time today) and far more that actually contributed to the
>real progress of computer science and technology. Microsoft is a giant
>anchor tied to the throats of everyone in the computer industry today.
>The only progress will come from the rejection of their proprietary
>"solutions". As someone saddled with the task of supporting MS's
>worthless products I resent the implication that they have done anything
>worthwhile.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 02:01:53 -0600
Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spake unto us, saying:
>Like ...........SHUT UP!
Heh. Is your wetware newsfilter broken? Most good newsreaders have
crutches for that. :-)
I agree that most parts of this thread are boring, but some elements
are somewhat interesting, at least to me. Though I hope it dies down
in a few days or so before too much (more) repetition sets in.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris + BeOS +
WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + MacOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
G=Guns, PG=Plenty of Guns, PG-13=More than 12 guns...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Pizzini)
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 08:48:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 26 Feb 1999 21:05:42 -0500, Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Just remove those 7 paragraphs of total and completely bull shit in the
>>preamble about "freedom" so that you'll quit bull shitting to the world and
>>your users.
>>
>>Oh, wait, I forgot, YOU CAN'T!. The GPL *explicitly* forbids you to change
>>or omit any part of it, EVEN IF YOU USE IT FOR YOUR OWN CODE!
>
>Bullshit. GPL is *not* copyrighted. You can't change it on the code of somebody
>else (heck, you'ld better keep *any* copyright intact). If you are starting
>your own work - edit the thing to your heart content. You'ld better drop
>mentioning of FSF as source of standard text, but that's kinda obvious ;-).
Huh? The very first block of text (following the title and version
number) is:
* Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
* 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
* Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
* of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
On the other hand, if one wants a "almost GPL" then
THEY CAN WRITE THEIR OWN. The only magic thing about
GPL and BSDL is that someone else (the FSF for one,
the Reagents of the Univerty of California for the other)
have had their lawyers pick over the text. If neither
suits your needs, then write your own license terms.
Sheesh. This is the thread from hell. Anyone with half
a brain should have killfiled it by now. (Oops -- I guess
that applies to me...)
--Ken Pizzini
------------------------------
From: "The Infernal One" <[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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 23:45:35 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>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".
Windows is fairly cryptic and certainly not much less so than
Linux. It's just that some people believe Linux is hard because
they couldn't use it after learning how to use computer, when
all they learned is how to use Windows.
For those who simply try to use a computer that others' are
maintaining (corporate/school environment) neither Linux nor
Windows poses much trouble. When it comes to maintainance,
Windows is often harder because of its instability, registry,
among other things.
>DOS, UNIX, etc., are for those who want to learn (except DOS only takes
>maybe a day to learn...).
Windows takes months to learn for a complete newbie. DOS
takes a day to learn? Have you ever had to play with memory
managers because your favorite game wouldn't run due to its
outrageous conventional memory requirement? Do you expect
newbies to handle config.sys/autoexec.bat?
>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.
Linux and Windows both require about the same amount of
knowledge or efforts, to reach the same level of expertise.
Most people are more knowledgeable about Windows, and that
makes a huge difference.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Sladic)
Subject: Re: Mysterious CPU load.
Date: 27 Feb 1999 08:58:20 GMT
In article <7b83r7$3cq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dan Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Daniel Sladic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: I recently upgraded my system to a K6-2 350 based board and
>: noticed the following very strange problem. If I leave my system
>: alone, the CPU load will jump to 30%. Over the next 5 to 10 minutes
>: it will slowly drop to near 0% and then jump back to 30%. Using
>: top the two processes that are doing this are the X server (Mach64)
>: and Windowmaker.
>
>Probably have a cron job doing something, or some other sleeping
>process wakes to do something.
>
As I mentioned, top shows the CPU load coming from the X server and
the windowmanager. Besides, the load is very regular in the way it slows
down. The graphical load display shows a right-angled triangle, which
is the same every 5 minutes or so.
It worked fine on my old system. The only change was the motherboard/CPU
and SCSI card. Very strange.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yves Dufour)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bunch of pretentious Wankers
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 09:14:44 +0100
Sniper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 09:08:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >Need I remind everyone that there are currently 115 people
> in the USA that
> >> >are serving prison time for doing exactly what
>> Bill Clinton did. Lying in a
> >> >civil case regarding sex. > >> >
snip
lots of american BS
> > And this has exactly what to do with linux ? > .
It seems that this guy is still making confusion between .sex and .nux
his message should have been posted to linesex... and not linux !
------------------------------
From: Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: sed? 'nuff said.
Date: 26 Feb 1999 23:53:50 -0800
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
[posted and mailed]
>>>>> "Harry" == Harry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harry> Out of sheer stubborness I'm trying to write a sed script
Harry> to filter my e-mail archive. I could have written the thing
Harry> by now in C, but I've started with sed and I'm not giving
Harry> up.
Harry> Can someone explain the use of curly braces in sed? I've
Harry> tried using them as you'd use them in C, but keep gettina
Harry> an "unmatched "{" error".
It doesn't work quite that way. Curly braces can be used to enclose a
set of commands, but they are also used in escaped form (\{...\}) for
regular expressions. According to my handbook, {} are used to "nest
one address inside another or to apply multiple commands at the same
address." I always put mine on the left margin in scripts but I don't
know if that's a rule or no.
If you're really dedicated, you may want to sign up for Al Aab's
seders mailing list. It's not high traffic and consists mostly of his
rooting various sedisms and potential sedisms from usenet. Send him
e-mail at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and tell him you want to be
signed up for seders.
The Seder's Grab-Bag http://seders.icheme.org
This is somewhat out of date, in that it has not been updated to
include GNU sed 3.02; but it has lots of resources & some pretty nifty
scripts. Yes, you <can> do that with SED! ;-)
mp
- --
Michael Powe Portland, Oregon USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.trollope.org
"Three hours a day will produce as much as a man ought to write."
-- Anthony Trollope
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v0.9.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Encrypted with Mailcrypt 3.5.1 and GNU Privacy Guard
iD8DBQE216R9755rgEMD+T8RAkIVAJ9tqPUvCslqT6msxgNHB/KGv2ZnvgCfT3lb
TwdXI2dUS1reb1jipFb8UQ0=
=arS1
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A few small questions from a novice
Date: 26 Feb 1999 23:25:12 -0800
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bill> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bill> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> Secondly I am having a small PPP problem. The connection is
>> working fine, but I don't know how to terminate the connection.
>> The only way that works for me is to su, then kill the process.
>> In the only books I have, a ppp-off script is mentioned, but
>> such a script doesn't exist on my system, nor do I have a
>> sample listing. What do I do to hang up the phone. (Dialed
>> using pppd and chat)
Bill> Actually the ppp-off script is relatively useless. It does
Bill> not allwo the user to kill the script, mainly because the
Bill> lock file (whic ppp-off uses to find the number of the
Bill> process to kill) is readable only by root, even if pppd was
Dang, I've been using that script for a year and a half and never knew
it didn't work. I wonder what has been causing my modem to hang up
every time I invoked it. Must be that dead chicken I whirl over my
head each time. If I log in as root, does that mean I can get rid of
the chicken?
mp
- --
Michael Powe Portland, Oregon USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.trollope.org
"Three hours a day will produce as much as a man ought to write."
-- Anthony Trollope
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v0.9.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Encrypted with Mailcrypt 3.5.1 and GNU Privacy Guard
iD8DBQE21521755rgEMD+T8RApqAAJ92mz02H36DqMvnZP/HH3sFLUbGPgCfQjRf
kQvdVg4PYru605ZWD+Gma1s=
=lkzh
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Fleming)
Subject: Re: iso9660 filesystem not supported?
Date: 28 Feb 1999 03:22:23 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 18:15:28 +0100, Frank Schadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
scribed into the Great Tome of Farnarkling:
> Since a few days my linux (Red Hat 5.1) doesn't support the iso9660
> filesystem (CD-Rom driver). What can I do that he does?
Have you recompiled the kernel in the last couple of days? Chances are
that you've forgotten to add iso9660 support in the filesystems section
of make (x|menu)config (either in the kernel or as a module)
IIRC, the stock RH kernel RPM for 5.1 had it built in. What version
(kernel) are you using?
Michael Fleming
(who made the same error with 2.2.2-ac5..)
- --
Michael Fleming -=(UDIC)=- Despam the Planet
WWW: http://www.powerup.com.au/~mfleming/ | PGP: OEF8E582
Bill Gates isn't the Devil - Satan made sure Hell worked
before he opened it to the damned...
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNti2YX66PsYO+OWCEQLcGACfWhimSvNazBP6KDBYNH44raP4ugMAn1D0
PGaCuN4ajnJLRaHIIqKRCbQu
=6sFm
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: Sravanthi Cheruku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Video card settings
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 02:38:13 -0600
Hi:
Could anyone tell me how I can set my video card settings. I am trying
to install RedHat 5.1 on my compaq presario 2266. I think I have an SiS
64-bit PCI graphics card with Direct 3D. I don't have any other info. I
ran Xconfigurator and tried to set different cards and monitor types (my
monitor is IBM) but I still cannot run X windows. Please help. I am new
to this so please feel free to give me as much info as possible. Thanks.
Cheruku
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Linux/FreeBSD compatability
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 02:05:46 -0600
Here in comp.os.linux.misc, [EMAIL PROTECTED]<M.com
(Mike Willett LADS LDN X7563) spake unto us, saying:
>Is it possible to have both a FreeBSD kernel and a Linux kernel on
>the same system ?
Yes, normally in a multi-boot setup where each OS is resident in its
own partition.
The product from VMWare (http://www.vmware) may be able to juggle
FreeBSD as a client OS within a virtual machine under Linux, also.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris + BeOS +
WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + MacOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
If the bathtub leaks, will the bathroom sink?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen)
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: 28 Feb 1999 03:43:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 27 Feb 1999 12:10:33 -0800,
> david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> It's easier to get to the information that it is if that information
>> is only in a system call. If all the kernel information is locked
>> up behind a system call, it's somewhat difficult to get at it from
>> a shellscript.
>
>Indeed, and especially with the One True Editor, 'cat'. :)
>
>> Of course, Linux also DOESN'T have a devfs in the mainline kernel
>> because the core team thinks that having the kernel accurately
>> report devices is icky.
>
>You mean like Solaris's /devices directories? Icky is too nice for that
>mess.
This is something I've wondered about. I've mounted floppies under
Linux, and I had to tell the OS what the device is called (but first I had
to ask the guy who set up the computer, because I didn't know) and I had
to tell it what the file system was.
When I'm doing that sort of thing on my Mac, I run a disk utility and it
TELLS me what devices I have on my computer, the file formats on all the
partitions, and if they're writeable (e.g. the CD-ROM is not). When I
stick a floppy in the drive it will automatically mount, and the icon will
have a "PC" on it if it's DOS formatted.
I have to assume Linux is capable of things like that. Is there some
handy utility that I don't know about?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Beer)
Subject: Re: Installing software with rpm
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 04:46:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 18:47:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard W. Edwards)
wrote:
>Want to install to a different directory instead of the default, how
>can I do this?
RPM files don't neccessarily install all in to one directory. The whole
idea of an RPM file is to organize the files in a package and avoid big
dependency screwups (as in Winblows). As far as I know, you can't change
where the files go.
------------------------------
From: Jean-Sebastien Morisset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.solaris,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Comic Strip Mailing List
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 09:41:10 -0500
In case anyone reads the Dilbert, UserFriendly and GPF comics <grin> you
can get 'em every morning by e-mail if you like. Send a message to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" with "subscribe comics" in the BODY of
you message.
This is a completely SPAM FREE mailing list. It's also in HTML with
uuencoded attachments (if anyone knows a good base64 encoder for UNIX,
please let me know).
LateR!
js.
--
Jean-Sebastien Morisset, Sr. UNIX Admin <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Personal Homepage <http://www.axess.com/users/jsm-mv/jsmoriss/>
This is Linux Country. On a quiet night you can hear Windows NT reboot!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
