Linux-Misc Digest #239, Volume #19 Mon, 1 Mar 99 00:13:11 EST
Contents:
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Zenin)
Re: Exporting Windows filesystem for Linux... (bklimas)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Zenin)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Frank Crary)
geo_comp_addr: Cylinder number is too big (1139 > 1023) (Brian Lee)
Re: linux install nuked a fat32 partition table (Todd)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?) (Frank Crary)
Re: Has anyone tried Applixware Office Suite 4.4.1? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Need to capture the 'raw' mouse under X ("David Z. Maze")
WINEr in search of fnt2bdf (Bill Mitchell)
rxaudio (Paul Johnson)
Re: Linux/FreeBSD compatability (Was Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)) (brian
moore)
Repeat : Partitions trashed, help !? (David Cook)
monitoring network (AME)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Date: 01 Mar 1999 03:07:45 GMT
brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 27 Feb 99 00:03:16 GMT,
: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
: > Yes, it does, because does not carry the GPL.
: PHP3 certainly does. Mod_perl does by implication of linking to libperl.
By "linking to libperl"? You have no idea what you're talking
about.
Libperl is under the same terms as the rest of perl, which is
explicitly a *choice* of abiding to the GPL *OR* the Artistic
license.
Neither Perl, nore libperl, nore mod_perl, nore anything derived
from any of them must abide by the GPL unless they want to, and most
don't, choosing instead to use the much more reasonable licensing
terms of the Artistic license. Not quite the BSD, but still
lightyears from the GPL.
Get your facts stright please, at least once in this thread.
: > While the AL is far more restrictive then BSD, it's still light
: > years away from the GPL and unlike the GPL it doesn't go out of its
: > way to explicitly lie to its users.
:
: I still don't see a lie in the GPL.
>snip<
The entire preamble of the GPL, and it's BS about "freedom".
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: bklimas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Exporting Windows filesystem for Linux...
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 03:19:26 GMT
Brian Woo wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is there a way to export MS-Windows filesystem and let Linux mount it?
> I have tried the following:
>
> mount -t msdos 123.123.123.2:/public /mnt/public
>
> However, it wasn't successful...
> This reason that I am asking is because I wanted to use WINE to run some
> of the Win95's applications on my Linux... but unsuccessfully... Would
> Samba work? I thought Samba is just like FTP... you can only transfer
> files but not share the same file system.
>
> Thanks in advance...
>
> Brian
Newbie here. You can access dos/win partitions (local or remote) many
different ways.
See my hompage for detailed explanations how:
http://www.magma.ca/~bklimas/FAQ.htm
Hope this helps. Best regards,
b.k.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
From: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Date: 01 Mar 1999 03:13:01 GMT
[posted & mailed]
Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
: >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.
>snip<
To quote the beginning GPL, which can be found at:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
"GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
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."
Damn, I guess the FSF was just joking when they put that "Copyright"
notice there, hey? Woops, I just violated the copyright by not
distributing it verbatim! :-/
: 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 ;-).
And you'd better check your facts before you get nailed for
copyright infringement.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Crary)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 1 Mar 1999 03:21:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Because AT&T didn't attempt to sue Linus Torvalds for copyright
>> violations.
> I disagree. While AT&T's suit probably had a huge affect on BSD for
>a little while, I believe it was short lived. I don't know how long
>_Free_BSD has been available since then, but it's been at least two
>years, which is eternity....
I disagree. At work, I'm one of the people trying to sell our
system administrators on supporting unix for PCs. They don't seem
to care about the issues you mention (marketing, documentation, and
installation software.) The thing which made them more willing to
support linux is the fact that lots of people are using it, and
many companies are beginning to support it. Since linux compatibility
on FreeBSD is extremely good, these are basically non-issues by
any rational standard. But there is a pervasive idea that, if other
people use a given operating system, then it is worth considering,
simply because lots of other people use it. I don't like that
attitude; it is the mentality of sheep, but it does exist and has
a momentum of its own. A few people try something new, others
follow because they know people doing so, the user base grows,
companies start to follow, and things start to take off. That
can happen from nothing but an interesting idea and the herd mentality.
For that, two years is a big deal: Think about where linux
was two years ago. It was a good operating system which was not
widely used and had almost no name recognition among PC users.
Basically, and despite the fact that I really like FreeBSD, that
is where FreeBSD is today. Two years makes a huge difference when
it comes to building up a user base and getting the sort of attention
it takes to get system administrators to consider a new operating system.
> All this, of course, assumes that "popularity" is a good thing. I'm
>starting to think that maybe it's a bad thing, because I'm starting
>to see that different goups tend to resent each other's "popularity."
Popularity can be a bad thing for other reasons. Someone once said
that, if you make something that any idiot can use, only idiots
will use it. Unix on PCs is like that: I avoid Windows because I
need all the CPU time and disk space I can get. I don't want to
waste any resources on easy-to-use GUIs. But easy to use interfaces
are the best way to make an operating system popular. If that is the
price of popularity, I'd rather use an unpopular operating system.
>How much do you think Linuxers and FreeBSDers could learn from each
>other if they quit wasting their time fighting over which is better,
>or which license is better, or who copied who, or "mommy, he's on my
>side of the seat!!!"?
I don't think that is a problem. As far as I can tell, the FreeBSD
people involved in development do pay attention to linux, and either
ignore the ``my operating system is better than yours'' debates
or only get involved as a hobby, rather than at the expense of building
a good operating system.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
------------------------------
From: Brian Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: geo_comp_addr: Cylinder number is too big (1139 > 1023)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 12:36:29 +0900
After compling new kernel 2.2.2, I got a follow message
when I try to re-load lilo.conf by /sbin/lilo
geo_comp_addr: Cylinder number is too big (1139 > 1023)
Thank you.
- Brian,.
------------------------------
From: Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux install nuked a fat32 partition table
Date: 1 Mar 1999 03:31:29 GMT
Many thanks for the help. I'm a little unclear on how to recreate a
partition and assign it a partition name without formatting it. Is that an
option under Fdisk? I don't think Partition Magic can do that. I'm fresh
to linux fdisk and any other tools that might be available.
James Lewis wrote:
> What you can try, and I certaintly don't recommend this unless its your
last
> option.
>
> If you destroy the fat32 parition, and then recreate it using the exact
same
> sector numbers, you can SOMETIMES totally recover the parition. As a
matter
> of fact, I just did this not to long ago (like 3 days ago with a linux
> partition). If you format the 'free space' before re-assigning it a
> partition name, you're screwed.
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Crary)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why FreeBSD?)
Date: 1 Mar 1999 03:44:04 GMT
In article <7b2q48$ig4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
A Shelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Also I'd like to muddy the waters by announcing GAMBIT, a GPL'd
>re-release of the FreeBSD sources (with some additional copyright
>guff).
The details of the additional copyright ``guff'' would be a major
issue. Most of FreeBSD is under the BSD licensing agreement. That
allows you to use and redistribute it, but it does require that
you give credit to the authors. The GPL has no such requirement.
So redistributing FreeBSD under the GPL would be illegal, unless
you added conditions to credit the authors.
>If I'm not allowed to re-release FreeBSD under a modified license
>then it seems that any commercial use of FreeBSD code contaminates the
>ownership of that code, terrible stuff.
Not really. The only problem you would encounter is giving credit to
the authors, and a disclaimer that the original authors can't be sued for
any bugs. From a commercial point of view, having to say "contains
code written by" someone is trivial. In contrast, the GPL requires that
a company provide source code if their product is derived from GPL code.
>From a commercial point of view, that is a very big deal. Both GPL
and BSDL are, to some extent, contaminating. But the contamination
from the BSDL is something that a commercial company can shrug off and
otherwise ignore after adding a few lines of comments or documentation.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Has anyone tried Applixware Office Suite 4.4.1?
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 03:37:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:17:03 +1100, Ahrum Song <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >I am interested in how well Applixware word processing program can
> >handle (especially read/import) MS-Word97 documnents.
>
> (...)
> there is good news, however... StarOffice 5.0 seems to handle Word97
> documents quite well (i'm not so sure about other parts of StarOffice)...
> in this regard, i fear that my latest Applixware *upgrade* (which
> really wasn't, ticked me off, and is another issue) will be my last... it's
> a shame, as i've used Applix to write at least two books...
>
> for now, i'm moving to StarOffice 5.0
Don't hold your breath - I find StarOffice quite disappointing too.
(I posted something about this on alt.os.linux a few days ago).
The compatibility with MS Office 97 is not really good (although
it sounds like Applixware is even worse). StarOffice chokes on
"fast save"'d Word documents, for instance. Bigger documents tend to
generate "unrecoverable error"s, i.e. a crash. Aside from stupidity,
it's also a true piece of bloatware.
If I were to write a book today using Linux, I would use LaTeX.
It takes some time to learn and to do the fine-tuning of the formatting
towards the end, but you WILL get professional results (plus it runs
fast even on a slow 486). If you need to do SERIOUS work with MS documents,
I'm afraid your only really acceptable choice today is to use
Office under Windows. Sigh.
My .02+.02
Ole Hansen
Jefferson Lab
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: "David Z. Maze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Need to capture the 'raw' mouse under X
Date: 28 Feb 1999 22:57:45 -0500
G Georgiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
G> I need to read the raw mouse data from /dev/ttyS0 while under X
G> for a signature-capture purposes. Is it possible to tell the X server to
G> give me the mouse or to pass me the raw mouse data?
What do you mean by "give me the mouse"? If you mean "don't give any
other application mouse data", the answer is "yes, it's called a
'grab' in X". If you mean "get the bytes the mouse is sending the
machine" the answer is "no, that's why X is there". There's no
guarantee that the mouse data will be in any particular format, or
even on the particular machine your application is running on.
G> I need to be able as well to send some strings to the mouse - to
G> change the speed for example.
No, you don't. That's for the user to configure, via a utility like
xset(1x).
G> If X is not running everything is O.K., but I need to display the
G> signature in an X application simultaneously.
You can probably do what you want by looking at a series of
MotionNotify events. Looking at hardware-specific data is just The
Wrong Thing To Do (TM) under X.
--
David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://donut.mit.edu/dmaze/
"Hey, Doug, do you mind if I push the Emergency Booth Self-Destruct Button?"
"Oh, sure, Dave, whatever...you _do_ know what that does, right?"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 03:52:08 +0000
From: Bill Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: WINEr in search of fnt2bdf
Just installed the latest, greatest WINE in rpm form. I'm trying to get
Agent and Pagemaker going here but need the bitmap fonts they use.
According to the documentation, I can convert the fon files in two steps
with fnt2bdf followed by bdftopcf. The docs say fnt2bdf is in the WINE
distro, but it's nowhere on my box. bdftopcf I have.
Anyone out there that can send the binary of fnt2bdf, and the man page,
via email? Thanks.
Bill Mitchell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:15:40 +1030
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Johnson)
Subject: rxaudio
hi
can someone explain how to set up a two way pipe to talk to rxaudio. A C
code snippet would be great.
thanks
Paul
--
remove nospamforme from address
------------------------------
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: 1 Mar 1999 04:13:55 GMT
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 23:34:37 GMT,
Bill Vermillion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's really a design issue and not a floppy issue. This used to
> be a great problems a few years ago as many of the cheapest PC's
> didn't recognize the change disk line. You would write something
> to a disk, remove it, and write something to the new disk. It wrote
> the directory of the old disk on the new disk. It made you day
> quite counter-productive.
I remember those days all too well (and rebuilt directories to recover
the data).
It's not a software issue at all on PC hardware, though. That's why Sun
and Apple use the floppy drives they do.
> >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.
>
> What if you didn't want to mount it? What if it was a tar or cpio
> format, or something else that didn't require mounting such as a
> disk image you were going to dd into the system?
It would still eject it. I didn't say "it will unmount it", I said "it
ensures it is unmounted". You can even eject a music CD so that you can
change discs.
> >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.
>
> As I said it's only some of the hardware. Problem is that the OS
> designers need to get away from the MS way of thinking.
It's most if not virtually all of the hardware: which PC has a floppy
drive without the big "eject me" button? Which Sun has a floppy drive
WITH such a button?
Show me how to eject a floppy under program control, and how to lock the
drive against the user ejecting a mounted floppy like Linux does with
the CD-ROM since 1.3 kernels.
(Hint: the code is there -- look at CD handling. The hardware isn't.)
--
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] (David Cook)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Repeat : Partitions trashed, help !?
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:50:34 GMT
I'm reposting this because I've had no responses at all so
far. Can anyone help me ? I'm worried that the last 5 months
or so of e-mail, news, programs, etc has been lost.
================ original article ================
Summary : Something is very confused, either in my partition tables
or BIOS or elsewhere. Also, I seem to have hard disk problems.
The details : I have two IDE hard disks - one 2.5 Gb, one 6.4 Gb.
The 2.5 G is the original disk in the machine, and has 520Mb DOS/W95
partition, the rest for Linux (5 partitions - swap, /, /var, /usr and
/home). The 6.4 is a relatively recent addition, and contains swap,
/, /var, /usr and /home partitions (much larger ones than the ones on
the 2.5 G).
I am running RedHat 4.0, I have a Cyrix 6x86 P133, 96M RAM,
IDE CD-ROM, sound card, Matrox Millenium, modem.
When I bought the 6.4 G drive, I was intending to install a newer
version of Linux onto it (rather than risk "breaking" my system with
glibc/libc issues [1] ), copy over all my old files, backup all the
DOS files I wanted to keep, then give DOS more of the 2.5 G drive
(perhaps all, if I was feeling generous :-).
What actually happened : I copied over the contents of the 2.5 G
drive, then did nothing about if for a few months (because what I
really want to do is back up eveyrthing, but I don't have a tape
drive, but if I do get one I really would prefer a SCSI one, but then
I should upgrade my hard disks to SCSI, but then I'll have wasted lots
of money on the new IDE one ... etc etc - I'm a champion ditherer ;-)
So, just over a week ago, my computer froze (it does this from time to
time, I suspect intense video activity is some sort of factor, but
this sort of random freeze is hard to track down, and it occurs rarely
enough that it hasn't seemed worth the effort).
Upon coming back up, when trying to mount the partitions from the 2.5
Gb, I saw the following :
hda : read_intr : status = 0x59 (DriveReady SeekComplete
DataRequestError }
hda : read_intr : error=0x40 { Uncorrectable Error },
LBAsect=1154583, sector=33687
end_request : I/O error, dev 03:03, sector 33687
... and then nothing more (had to be powered down).
Next, I installed RH 5.1 on a spare 500Mb on my girlfriend's computer
(to access man pages, HOWTOs, etc, in case there was something useful
on there). I wrote boot and rescue disks, booted up ok, and even
managed to mount the partitions from the 2.5 Gb and 6.4 Gb drives.
Unfortunately, instead of doing the sensible thing at this point and
copying the files from 2.5 to 6.4 drive, I decided to try to get the
2.5 G drive working properly. I ran lilo again (by mounting the
partitions on that drive, running a "chroot" to the root of it, then
running lilo with the original config on that drive). That didn't
help. I tried restoring the boot sector that I originally wrote when
installing RH 4.0, but that just took out LILO and left that drive
booting W95.
At this point, I think, the partition table on the drive also went
bad. When I boot into rescue mode and run fdisk, it shows that the
first partition /dev/hda1 occupies cylinders 1 to 520 (as it did
before), but each cylinder is now 8064*512 bytes, which means
/dev/hda1 (DOS partition) takes up most of the drive, and some 800,000
sectors are left unallocated. I think it used to be cylinders 1 to
520, but 1024 (or a number close to that) * 512 bytes.
Now I am at a loss. It is possible (maybe) that I can dig through the
last two years worth of pieces of paper that I have accumulated to
find the original partition settings for that drive (yes, I did write
them down, but I've moved since then and they could be anywhere among
thousands of other pieces of paper) - but will that even do me any
good ? I am reasonably sure that nothing has been written to the
drive since the partition table was lost - can I recreate the old one
and access all the old information ? Is there something else I can do
to get at the Linux partitions on that drive ? (... and then
immediately copy everything across to the good (and now bootable)
drive). Or, should I accept that I've lost 3 months worth of
news/mail/files/changes/programs (or maybe pay lots of money to a data
recovery service ? ) ?
Also: the read_intr messages I was getting from the 2.5 Gb drive - do
they mean that the drive has "gone bad" ? (a DejaNews posting I read
suggested that that meant the drive had more bad sectors than the
BIOS/drive/something-or-other could cope with - is that the case ?).
So, to summarise again : I have two problems. A hard drive that may
be going bad or gone bad, but I could (for a while) still read the
data from. Partition tables that have gone bad. I need to at least
recover from the partition tables - if I can do that and copy the old
stuff over, I can reformat (low level format ?) the 2.5 Gb drive and
install things afresh on there.
If you can help, contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED], or post
here (but I don't guarantee being able to catch replies here, due to
lack of time and having to deal with a stolen bicycle too :-( )
[1] I don't know that there neccessarily would be any - but I'm not
convinced enough that there wouldn't be, either. Besides, it was
about time to do a clean install, and then keep better track of any
changes I make to the system configuration.
Thanks in advance,
David.
(david.cook at pobox.com)
(in Melbourne, Australia)
David.
(david.cook at pobox.com)
(in Melbourne, Australia)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (AME)
Subject: monitoring network
Date: 1 Mar 1999 04:33:02 GMT
Hi all,
I have a server and a client both running on a cobalt box running Linux.
How can I monitor the activity taking place between the two? Is there a
program for that?
Thanks
Ayman Elsaedi
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
