Linux-Misc Digest #231, Volume #19 Sun, 28 Feb 99 14:13:16 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Brett W. McCoy)
Public license question ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: More bad news for NT ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E Larson))
Re: Redhat 6.0 Release Schedule? (James Youngman)
Re: Clearing the print queue (Jayasuthan)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Craig Kelley)
Re: General unix question: find & replace string in a set of files (Phil Houstoun)
Re: Public license question (brian moore)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Star Office - Registration????? (Rluby)
Re: Should IBM port Visual Age for Java to Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (jik-)
Re: Linux/FreeBSD compatability (Was Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)) (brian
moore)
Where are basic linux commands ("George F. Laun")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brett W. McCoy)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 17:50:14 GMT
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 06:39:08 -0800, jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Well, it may be for you, but this is the kind of tool linux needs. This
>> >is why REAL (I mean non-techies) buy thier computers....to fill some
>> >need. You think writing 500 different text editors/IRC clients is less
>> >of a waste of time???? I mean, thats what most linux development is.
>>
>> You haven't been keeping up with Linux development for the past 5 years
>> then. There's far more than 500 editors and IRC clients. Or is that the
>> only things you have figured out how to use?
>
>The stupidity of the above statement just boggles my mind. Obviously
>you have some emotional difficulties with me thinking Linux needs some
>more real world applications...maybe you should seek help at some clinic
>because that is just irational.
Sorry that come out so snidely... but your viewpoint regarding Linux
development is extremely narrow. The hottest areas of Linux development
are in 'real world' applications, such as database managers, netwrok
management, officeware, graphics development, publishing and multimedia.
If you want a particular application developed, organize a group of
willing programmers who also want to develop the same application and get
going. There's nothing at all stopping you from doing that. This is how
90% of the best software under Linux is being developed.
--
Brett W. McCoy
http://www.lan2wan.com/~bmccoy/
=======================================================================
One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day.
=====BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK=====
Version: 3.12
GAT dpu s:-- a C++++ UL++++$ P+ L+++ E W++ N+ o K- w--- O@ M@ !V PS+++
PE Y+ PGP- t++ 5- X+ R+@ tv b+++ DI+++ D+ G++ e>++ h+(---) r++ y++++
======END GEEK CODE BLOCK======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux
Subject: Public license question
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 17:54:25 GMT
A question on the GPL:
Assuming I wish to sell a special-purpose Linux-based box (e.g. a Linux-based
machine running webserver software I wrote) :
Do I have to release my source code, which for argument's sake includes
user-mode code + kernel drivers?
Thanks,
-Mark
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.linux
From: whistler<blahblah>@twcny.rr.com (Paul E Larson)
Subject: Re: More bad news for NT
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 18:40:53 GMT
In article <7bc0qr$fgs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jon Wiest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>How many of us
>>: started with Linux as our first OS?
>>
>
>
>Oh no! Not another elitist club!!
Heck, that ain't elitist. Their just late arriving for the party.
Paul
Get rid of the blahs to email me :}
------------------------------
From: James Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Redhat 6.0 Release Schedule?
Date: 28 Feb 1999 13:20:28 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Any educated guesses of when a redhat release that is based on the new kernel
> and glibc will appear?
As always -- "When it is ready, no sooner".
--
ACTUALLY reachable as @free-lunch.demon.(whitehouse)co.uk:james+usenet
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 00:44:26 -0800
From: Jayasuthan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Clearing the print queue
You'll some privillage to do that user root olny can do that or those
with lpd group.. depend on setting
NF Stevens wrote:
>
> Len Cuff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I've managed to set up my printer incorrectly and all I get is a load of
> >blank pages and the printer won't stop !
> >I've tried lpc> clean lp etc but it still says there is 1 job on the
> >spool area and prints it. Rebooting has no effect, as soon as the lpd
> >daemon starts the print starts again. I've looked in /var/spool for the
> >file to delete it but it isn't there ! I set the printer up using
> >apsfilter - SETUP.
> >
> >Any clues please ??
>
> lpq displays the print queue.
> lprm removes jobs from the print queue.
>
> Check the man/info pages for these programs for more details.
>
> Norman
--
#include <linux/geek.h>
<----|
I run around LAN for 10 Hours....
Surf WAN for 4 hours and........
play on localhost for 3 hours !
Is this mean I am qualify to become a GEEK !
|---->
"The sky looks blue but it is not"
---> Don't see things and believe <-----
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 Feb 1999 11:36:53 -0500
jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brett W. McCoy wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 02:24:30 -0800, jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Well, it may be for you, but this is the kind of tool linux needs. This
> > >is why REAL (I mean non-techies) buy thier computers....to fill some
> > >need. You think writing 500 different text editors/IRC clients is less
> > >of a waste of time???? I mean, thats what most linux development is.
> >
> > You haven't been keeping up with Linux development for the past 5 years
> > then. There's far more than 500 editors and IRC clients. Or is that the
> > only things you have figured out how to use?
>
> The stupidity of the above statement just boggles my mind. Obviously
> you have some emotional difficulties with me thinking Linux needs some
> more real world applications...maybe you should seek help at some clinic
> because that is just irational.
`real world applications' seems to be a code phrase for `microsoft
office'. notice than other office suites just won't do. notice that
compilers and databases exist for linux.
there are some heavyweight applications like synopsis logic compilers
and SAP accounting software that exist on unix, mainframe and NT boxen
too. the lack of ports for these is a bit annoying.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 Feb 1999 11:52:21 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> Hehehe... If I had a good printer, and a book on TeX, I'd learn it... =)
>
> I've heard that TeX is a markup language, like HTML, but without hyper-
> text... is this correct?
Yep. If you get KDE, you can use klyx which will provide a basic
WYSIWYG frontent to latex. You could then take a look at it and edit
it however you like.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Phil Houstoun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: General unix question: find & replace string in a set of files
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 15:55:52 +0000
Phillip George Geiger wrote:
>
> I have a lot of files that need to be updated in a very similar manner.
>
> Is there a simple (or cryptic) unix command to go through every file
> in a directory, find every occurrence of "12 January" and replace it
> with "26 February"? All of the files are plain old text files.
>
> I'm just dreading the thought of opening every one of them in emacs
> and doing a find and replace....
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> --
> Phil Geiger
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Assuming you have perl, the following one-liner will make the changes to
all *.txt files AND make a backup (.bak) version of them to boot:
perl -p -i.bak -e 's/12 January/26 February/g' *.txt
--
Phil Houstoun Voice: (613) 991-7173
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=======================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Public license question
Date: 28 Feb 1999 18:55:01 GMT
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 17:54:25 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A question on the GPL:
>
> Assuming I wish to sell a special-purpose Linux-based box (e.g. a Linux-based
> machine running webserver software I wrote) :
> Do I have to release my source code, which for argument's sake includes
> user-mode code + kernel drivers?
If you change a GPL'd program, you need to provide source.
A program you write from scratch you can do what you want with.
(Witness Oracle, WordPerfect and a slew of other commercial packages
that don't provide source.)
If you -change- the kernel, you need to provide source to your changes.
If you have a loadable kernel module (say, for the
"ExtraFastFileSystem"), you don't need to provide the source to the
module. (Of course, if it's derived from existing GPL'd code, you
would: so hacking the e2fs code would still need to be GPL'd.)
For ease of support, it would be best if you released source even to
kernel modules: you can deprive the user of being able to change to
newer kernels without your help if you don't provide source.
Figure out exactly what it is you're selling: are you selling the box
itself (like the Cobalt Qubes or the Corel Netwinders) -- for them, the
value is the hardware, and both companies provide source. Or you could
be selling the combination of the software, your preconfiguration and
support, and distribution (like Redhat, which also supplies the source).
Giving out the source doesn't mean you make no money.
--
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
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 Feb 1999 11:50:57 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> >You haven't used Linux in the last couple years, have you. (and UNIX
> >doesn't automatically assume that people are so stupid to *not*
> >understand such "cryptic" commands like cp and mv)
> >
>
> You've got tons of documentation for Linux and UNIX, but what you don't
> have is something that says, "Need help? Click here" or a tip that shows
> up on the screen that says, "Type help for information on how to use UNIX."
>
> Therefore, in the perspective of a new user, it's automatically hard to
> use. Which is very true; for power, you trade ease of learning.
But not on newer systems. Try a machine which boots into xdm and KDE
1.1, or nowadays Gnome works fine with gdm.
They have context-sensitive help. They have a help menu on most
objects. They have GUI interfaces to the man and info pages (which
provide WAY more help than Windows could ever dream of).
> >> Nope-- the DOS 6.22 memory manager worked just fine for all the games
> >> I ever played/setup. MemMaker actually did a quite nice job doing all
> >> of that for me... and MemMaker can be found in the DOS 6.2 HELP program,
> >> which people who use DOS try first... (pretty obvious to try HELP first,
> >> right?).
> >
> >Ever try it in DOS 7 (Win 95)?
>
> Tried. Didn't work. So I made a DOS 6.22 boot disk. (The memory manage-
> ment in Windows 95 for DOS level things is *really* shitty, considering
> the fact that everything is tied down to that 640K barrier).
Actually, you can tweak them by changning the Properties on the icon
you used to launch your shell (or by editing some .dos files for the
'dos mode').
> >> As far as CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT-- that's always been like the
> >> Windows registry is today-- typical users didn't edit those types of
> >> things because PC World and other computer magazines always carried
> >> hefty warnings about editing CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT.
> >
> >And it is so much easier than Linux?
> >
>
> Two files to configure your system as opposed to more. In Linux you have
> start up scripts, you have configuration files in /etc, and more. You'd
> be lying if you said it was just as easy in Linux to configure as it is
> in Windows.
Yes, but only people who understand those files ever need to touch
them. With linuxconf, you get a better tool than SMC to configure
your machine and network. It is a reality that Linux users need not
know anything about the shell or files anymore.
They are all still there, and you *may* have to occasionally use them
(I don't know because I have never tried not using them on purpose),
but the scenario you are described just isn't true.
> >> Sure, I've got my video card working in X, and I've learned about
> >> /etc/fstab and /etc/lilo.conf, and /etc/rc.d/*. But there are tons of
> >> things that I've not learned, some I know of and some I don't. For
> >> example, I know enough about cp, mv, gzip, tar, bzip2, ps, ls, and grep
> >> to use them for what I'd like. But I don't know anything about sed and
> >> awk, other than the fact that they exist. Never learned emacs (although
> >> I use cvim and am pretty happy with it). Still learning *TONS* on Linux.
> >
> >Sed and awk are available for Windows as well.
> >Does this mean you still don't know Windows?
>
> Windows comes with "user-friendly" utilities. Power-hungry users want
> the tools that will give them that power-- sed and awk are those tools.
Do yourself a favor and try out KDE or Gnome. The latest versions of
both are very good. KDE is a bit more advanced at this point:
http://www.gnome.org
http://www.kde.org
> >I love Microsoft advoacte logic:
> >
> >"Windows is easier because it doesn't come with any powerful tools."
> >
>
> Again, I will state: There is a trade-off between power (i.e., control,
> stability, and reliability), and a given state of "easiness" (i.e.,
> user-friendly). And I'm not defending Windows-- I've completely banished
> it from my hard drive. I hate it primarily because it's unstable and
> unreliable, and I hate it most because I don't have control over many
> of the things that happen. Under UNIX/Linux/etc., I can control things
> to a much finer point, and I can do much more-- be more productive--
> becuase it's way more powerful than Windows.
Okay.
But I still disagree with your premise that *having* these tools makes
Linux less friendly. Heck, I don't know how to use awk at all (but
yes, I am guilty of knowing sed) and I seem to function just fine
under Linux.
Try one of the new desktop environments. You will be surprised.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rluby)
Subject: Re: Star Office - Registration?????
Date: 28 Feb 1999 18:56:59 GMT
I did, thanks.
Nice Package - Gives MSOffice a run for the
money- and on an OS that crashes less!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: Should IBM port Visual Age for Java to Linux?
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 14:03:11 -0500
Let's step back from the runtime vs. big upfront price to
get at the root of the problem. It comes down to getting
paid for the value that you have added along the food-chain
to the final user. The problem faced by development systems
is that the developer is not at the end of the food chain.
Forcing the developer to impose runtime fees on his/her
clients, is not likely to fly in all cases. So it seems
that the development systems vendor would be wise to provide
some options.
Now, getting back to the value added aspect, I think the
problem that Smalltalk pricing has is that some Smalltalk
vendors feel that the development system they supply to
developers contains significant value added. The thinking may
be that the developer needs to add just a little code, and
re-use a lot of the components supplied, in order to have
a product to ship to the final user. Competing development
systems (e.g. JAVA, C/C++, BASIC) don't tend toward a runtime
pricing model. So why does Smalltalk? Does Smalltalk supply
enough re-usable components to justify a premium price, or
runtime fees? Have competing dev. systems narrowed the gap?
To build a JAVA-based dev system with equivalent re-usable
components, would I have to buy third-party addons; thus,
pushing up the price toward Smalltalk's price? I don't know
the answers, but I think Smalltalk pricing has to take into
account the competition's pricing models -- Smalltalk does
have competition; Smalltalk is good, but people won't pay
any price for it.
Yanni Jew
Zhao Technology Inc
Marten Feldtmann wrote:
>
> Dennis Smith wrote:
> >
> > If you think removing runtime fees makes things cheaper (as
> > some here seem to), you are being pretty naive. If it costs
>
> It seems for me, that one would like to buy Smalltalk very cheap,
> because the to-be-developed-product is not out yet and if it's
> out the opinion will change and now noone would like have runtime
> fees .. perhaps there's a market to lean software like cars, but
> that will be not much cheaper (in total).
>
> > The only arguments I see against
> > runtime fees are those of administration -- its a nuisance,
> > so that is why I suggest a couple of fee structures.
>
> Well, we're developing end-user applications and I can tell you,
> that we would strongly vote against runtime fees.
>
> Marten
------------------------------
From: jik- <[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: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 06:39:08 -0800
Brett W. McCoy wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 02:24:30 -0800, jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Well, it may be for you, but this is the kind of tool linux needs. This
> >is why REAL (I mean non-techies) buy thier computers....to fill some
> >need. You think writing 500 different text editors/IRC clients is less
> >of a waste of time???? I mean, thats what most linux development is.
>
> You haven't been keeping up with Linux development for the past 5 years
> then. There's far more than 500 editors and IRC clients. Or is that the
> only things you have figured out how to use?
The stupidity of the above statement just boggles my mind. Obviously
you have some emotional difficulties with me thinking Linux needs some
more real world applications...maybe you should seek help at some clinic
because that is just irational.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
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 19:02:50 GMT
On 28 Feb 1999 03:43:48 GMT,
Gregory L. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.
/dev/fd0 on every system I've seen. :)
> 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?
A lot of that is due to the nature of PC hardware. Macs (and Suns) have
smart floppy drives with no easy way for the user to eject a disk when
they are mounted and they nicely generate an interrupt when a new disk
is inserted. (Most CD-ROM drives even on crappy PC hardware do this
correctly: it's just the floppies that are stupid in this way.)
On a Sun, for example. there's a daemon which sees the interrupt from
the drive ("oh, lookie, a disk!") and automatically mounts it. Removing
the disk involves using the 'eject' command which ensures it is
unmounted.
Alas, with PC hardware, though, that's not feasible. I don't know if
the SPARC and Mac versions of Linux do it nicely: they at least don't
have the stupid hardware to fight with.
(I have a baby sun SS1+ that has a neat eject: I can send disks flying
about a foot. Fun to shoot them at people standing near the machine.
:))
--
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
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 08:46:36 -0800
From: "George F. Laun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Where are basic linux commands
I am a beginner at RedHat Linux and don't even know the basic commands
like MD, COPY & etc. Where can I find them?
George Laun
[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
******************************
