Linux-Misc Digest #244, Volume #19 Mon, 1 Mar 99 07:13:26 EST
Contents:
DB2 Beta for Linux - Install problem ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microkernels are an abstraction inversion (Emile van Bergen)
Modem (Julian Smith)
Re: Can't login to linux from anywhere, must reboot? (M. Buchenrieder)
Fax server (Fadi Mujahid)
Re: More bad news for NT (The Ghost In The Machine)
Linux - install on new G3 Macintosh? Q's... (Blake Patterson)
Linux fs reader (writer) for NT ? (**Nick Brown)
WindowMaker & Kernel 2.2.2
Re: Setting resolution to 600x480 (**Nick Brown)
Configuration Conflicts between Dialup Adapter and Ethernet Card ("Vasilios E.
Tourloupis")
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.databases.ibm-db2
Subject: DB2 Beta for Linux - Install problem
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 10:57:23 GMT
Hi folks.
I downloaded DB2 for Linux (beta) from the IBM site 2 weeks ago, but I'm
having *major* hassel installing it. I have a Caldera system running a
2.0.36 kernel, and when I run the 'db2setup' script, I get:
/beta1123/db2setup: /beta1123/db2/install/db2inst: No such file or directory
I checked and the file _does_ exist, the path is okay, and it is a 32-bit ELF
binary. Permissions are set up okay too. When I go into the db2/install
directory and run the file directly, it still says "No such file or
directory" -- but it IS there, honest!! It's driving me crazy!!!
Have I downloaded the wrong binary or something?
Am I missing something (apart from brains) ?
Any help would be MUCH appreciated.
Thanks,
alan
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Emile van Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microkernels are an abstraction inversion
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 10:34:46 +0100
Francois-Rene Rideau wrote:
> Why can't I? Because I have to run intrinsically unreliable software.
> Why is software so unreliable? Because people use shoddy low-level
> languages.
Yes. And this will remain that way for a while. After that while, the
already existing software written in those languages will be there for a
while. So as soon as the world is ideal, we'll talk again ;-)
> Why don't users care? Because they're trained to not see the sources
> anyway, and can't make the difference. Why don't corporate programmers
> don't use higher-level languages? Because high-level languages depend on
> elaborate runtimes and libraries, and corporate hoarders can only use
> whatever lies within their license barriers, which gets worse when they
> need interoperability. Happily, there is free software.
> With free software, users care, and so do programmers.
> With free software, programmers do not hesitate to develop elaborate
> high-level languages: Elisp, Perl, Scheme, ML, Haskell, Mercury.
I'm not discussing free software here, I mostly agree.
> Of *course* when you have to face stupid code written by stupid people
> in stupid languages, you have to use stupid low-level barriers.
Exactly my point.
> But hopefully, that's as seldom the case as possible
> (one day, that'll be only for emulating legacy Win/Lin/* software).
> In particular, that doesn't have to be the case AT ALL
> when developing a free software OS infrastructure!
Still. Even in free software, there may be bugs, as long as some things
are done in that 'portable assembler' you hate.
> > As to the requirement
> > of data to be marshaled and un-marshaled: this has a rather nice
> > side-effect, in that most developers will design the necessary links
> > between modules as clean and stateless as possible. This in itself is
> > beneficial, mainly for re-useability and debugability reasons.
>
> By following your argument to its extreme point
> (which is the one and only test for an argument),
No. Not every statement is limitless in its scope or domain and
will become absurd if used outside the intended domain. The only
argument you put against mine is that you view it outside of its
intended scope (after which it _does_ get absurd), and say 'see?
Your argument is absurd!'. I'd say this is hardly an useful way
to discuss a topic.
> the ideal system would require that between any two functions
> (why stop to functions? let's make it instructions!)
The _ideal_ system is _balanced_. Not an idea with a limited scope
applied outside it. I don't think that you reject all uses of the
theories of Q.E.D. and relativity, just because they have a limited
scope, now do you? If you do, turn off your computer NOW... ;-)
> all data has to be marshalled and un-marshalled,
> which would lead to complete re-usability and debuggability!
> This is utter rubbish.
It is.
> People are free to design clean and stateless things
> even without forced low-level barriers.
Of course they are. The only thing is that they don't. Remember, if
you have a low-level operating system with low-level barriers there's
_nothing_ that keeps one from using a high-level language to develop
a nice application in a single process space. I don't want anyone's
application written in any language in the address space of the
'kernel'.
> The barriers doesn't BRING *anything*, it only gets in the way,
> for the (common) cases when there HAS to be shared state
> (be it only locks, etc, for transactions).
Without the barrier, you still need a concept of a transaction, because
disk drives are not transaction based. Wheter you use a completely self
contained lisp system or not.
Barriers are _useful_ if you have the freedom wheter or not to apply
them. And you have it. If you don't want them, just write your
application in a single process space using a great language. When did I
say I wouldn't allow you to do that?
> And if writing clean and stateless modules was always the best,
> then the bestest system programming language would be Haskell or Clean!
Again, your argument gets only valid if you sneak that 'always' into
my statements. Please stop doing that.
> > Also, a modularised design with simple links that can be made
> > network-transparent (message passing), will scale better towards large
> > scaling distributed environments, without much re-design.
>
> Mind you, concurrent programming languages like JOCAML not only
> are fully network transparent, they also make re-implementation
> (not just re-design) useless, and their compiler also optimize
> the local case, so you don't pay the price of a low-level "modular"
> design.
No. You just pay the price of re-educating all more or less competent
programmers to write JOCAML. Enforcing this is fa...... no, I won't use
that word again.
> > Formally, you're absolutely right. In the real world, you're
> > absolutely not.
>
> This couple sentence is despicable crap. It's an insult to intelligence.
> Formal thinking is there to describe the world in useful ways.
> It's a one world, and something is formally right if it's informally
> right.
Okay. I meant: if you remove all constraints that exist in the real
world (like in a high-school Physics excercise: imagine that gravity
isn't there, imagine that energy is converted 100% efficiently, etc),
you're right. _With_ those constraints, you're not.
> > Program functions are almost never formally/mathematically
> > 'proven', so I want those protectional barriers so that fail-safety
> > mechanisms are more easily implemented.
>
> Certainly every single program written in LISP, ML, Perl, Modula-3,
> Haskell, Mercury, Prolog, or otherwise high-level language, is formally > proven to
>never ever do an unauthorized memory access, [least you
> explicitly do unsafe operations].
Any peripherial driver would need to do this. Imagine a video driver.
And you can count on it that even if you don't need to do an unsafe
operation, some people _will_.
> This is already much more than stupid low-level memory protection
> will *ever* bring to you.
No. It provides me with a tool that enables me to distrust other peoples
code to a certain extent and still run it. It's a nice tool. It's
useful.
It isn't required, however. You can still write your applications in
those great languages to share one big address space.
> > Apart from that, there will
> > never be clean and uniform inter-module interfaces unless 'forced'
> > upon designers by the barriers (i.e. protocols) you mention.
>
> Why wouldn't there be? Do you think programmers are stupid?
No. They are humans that sometimes tend to be short-sighted if they feel
there's something to gain, and to take shortcuts even if that's not the
smartest thing to do.
> If they are possible (in whatever language, including C), programmers
> will use them whereever useful.
> If they are not possible, mandating them everywhere by force,
> regardless of their utility, won't make them happen.
> That's the typical fascist pig approach!
No, I don't force _anyone_ to modularize his/her _application_ into
difference process spaces! Neither does your average uK. It only forces
you to follow a certain protocol talking to other processes that weren't
written by you. A protocol is necessary, it's an agreement between two
parties to communicate in a particular way. And I want that agreement
(no matter how it looks) to be enforced, yes.
A piece of hardware also requires that you talk to it in a well defined
way that not designed by the driver's programmer. Think of the driver as
the same thing; you'll have to communicate with it from an application
using this constrained method.
> > As long as different components of a system come from different
> > sources that one can never fully trust, i.e. as long as Utopia doesn't
> > exist, I want process separation.
>
> As long as people stupidly take the present state of the computer art
> (an ever-fast evolving technology!) as an eternal truth, they say
> rubbish.
Indeed. It's not an eternal truth, it's a truth _now_ that needs
recognition. That's all I say.
> First, if you can't trust software, don't run it!
I wonder what system you used to post this message. I take it it's a
single-address space operating system with a contained NNTP client, all
written in prolog by yourself. Oh, it isn't? Is the system written in C,
perhaps? How can you trust it, then?
> Second, if you partially trust software, you can sandbox it!
I don't need to do that if I use this limited tool called separate
address spaces.
> Third, software, security and sandboxes are high-level concepts,
> whereas processes and address spaces are low-level concepts.
> Directly mapping high-level concepts into low-level ones is called
> by definition naive implementation.
Yes. And sometimes it's darn efficient to do just that.
> Requiring people to do naive implementation by hand and then not trust
> each other is as stupid as can get.
Yes. That's why I don't require you to do a naive implementation,
neither do I trust your software fully. To require me to trust you is a
fascist concept ;-)
> Instead, I propose that you open your mind to the concept of a compiler,
> whereby the computer does the work of mapping higher-level programs
> into lower-level instructions, in ways that preserve system invariants.
> And in case you haven't heard about it despite the hype,
> let me introduce you to the concept of compilers that work even for
> stupid low-level code for pseudo-"portable" second-zone language
> bytecodes (meant to lengthen the evil reign of binary compatibility
> with proprietary code): even braindead languages can be reasonably
> efficiently implemented in a way that is intrinsically secure,
> without the need for stupid low-level barriers.
I fail to see your point here.
> > I'm sorry mr. Rideau, but I think you should get both your feet on the
> > ground.
>
> I think you should get both your brain hemispheres up and running for
> once.
> Well, at least either. See? ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM is sooooo easy!
It's not an argument, it's a personal opinion.
> > In the software world as it is
> > now, more problems are caused by the absence of narrow interfaces and
> > component separation than are caused by this 'abstraction inversion'
> > you scream about.
>
> So what? The topic was: "microkernels", I explained why they were evil.
No. You failed to do that.
> Happily, they are mostly no more a problem today, since people,
> even without understanding why, mostly left them for better designs
> (and ANY design is better).
Can you found this statement why any design is intrinsically 'better'?
Define the scope of 'better' for a start.
> If you want to talk about interfaces, well, yes,
> shoddy interfaces are a problem. And again, the problem is: C.
> The C language doesn't allow to specify high-level interfaces
> with rich semantics.
Yes, it does, as long as you implement them yourself.
> No amount of low-level explicitation through marshalling can help.
> The problem is the expressive power of the interface definition
> language.
This is a only a tool.
> Richly typed languages such as ML or Modula-3 (as opposed to one-typed
> LISP) may help quite a bit, here.
Yes.
> Even in C, metaprogramming as demonstrated in Tom Lord's ctool
> can help a lot at maintaining elaborate system invariants throughout C
> code.
This sounds to me as enforcing barriers before run time. What's the
difference with barriers at run time.
> > I'm sorry if I'm not too polite to you, but in the world
> > we live in I see no reason for such hot-tempered statements as those
> > expressed by you.
> I don't give a damn about your pseudo-politeness or lack thereof.
> On USENET, the only relevant politeness is being up to the point,
> and developing non-empty arguments, instead of wasting people's
> bandwidth and time with rubbish and fallacies.
That explains your attitude. But I don't see myself talking rubbish, and
I still try to be polite in the general _human_ sense of the word. I
happen to value this _humanness_ in communications between _humans_,
wheter on usenet or elsewhere.
> FR> Requiring the system programmer to emulate, by hand, in C,
> FR> a strongly typed concurrent agent programming model,
> FR> and shooting him if he makes the slightest mistakes,
> FR> is not only a REAL STUPID design decision, it's also deeply EVIL.
> FR> The solution is, again:
> FR> to achieve a system that follows the above model,
> FR> use a strongly typed concurrent agent programming language! [duh!]
> >
> > This is exactly the 'fascist' (your wording!) approach that you so
> > strongly oppose.
>
> Certainly not.
> If you consider strong typing as a limitation, explain to me how perl is > a
>limitating language (and forget the lack of efficiency of the perl
> compiler; other strongly typed languages have quite good compilers).
It's not a limitation, it's a tool to prevent you from shooting yourself
in the foot. Address space separation in a tool to provent you from
being shot in the foot by _someone else_. To enforce the use of one tool
and forbid the use of the other tool is what I call the fascist
approach.
> > What is the formal difference in discipline enforced by
> > the language and discipline enforced by the run-time environment?? I
> > prefer the latter, personally, I like the freedom of C.
>
> You FOOL! You should learn about the notion of a compiler,
> and more generally, think about the fact that computers are there to
> relieve man from automatable tasks.
I agree completely on the last statement. By the way, please take the
effort to explain your need to call me a fool in the future.
> A language that provides constructs for concurrent agent system
> doesn't ENFORCE, it ENABLES; it relieves you from the details of
> execution. Its runtime system is IMPLICIT. The programmer doesn't have
> to WORRY about it.
Great! But what has it to say against another tool?
> A design with a language that does not provide constructs instead
> FORCES the details upon you without ENABLEing you;
> it forces you to manually respect stringent consistency rules,
> that is the invariants required by the runtime;
> instead of relieving the programmer, it puts a new burden on him.
> And that, regardless of whether he needs it.
Right. If you write a driver that communicates with a piece of hardware,
the hardware forces you to manually respect stringent consistency rules
as well. Think of your CPU as a piece of hardware again. Everything used
to relieve you from the task of manually respecting those rules is just
a tool. I don't see why you'd need to force this tool down peoples
throats and forbid the use of other tools.
> As a side-effect, a high-level language can do compile-time
> optimizations that are completely inaccessible to someone explicitly
> hand-emulating things.
> Such optimizations are implicit, orthogonal and maintainable;
> explicit hand-optimization would be expensive and very unstable
> by its dependence on code evolution.
I completely agree. Now tell me where this doesn't hold true for C
compilers.
> I suggest that you learn a few high-level programming languages first
> (assuming you're not hopelessly closed-minded and/or stupid),
> before you even try to continue this discussion.
...
> I suggest LISP or Haskell as both very providing excellent insight,
> and as a complete change from your deeply entrenched computing
> prejudices.
...
> > To quote an old
> > C reference manual: "With C, you've got enough rope to swing with, and
> > enough rope to hang yourself with."
>
> So what? The quote was as compared to Pascal,
> a notoriously fascist language with roughly the same abstraction power.
> The problem of C is its lack of abstraction power
Yes, it makes it a tool with _limited_ useability. Please aquire some
insight in the fact that any tool known to mankind has this _limited_
scope of useability, before you 'even try to continue this discussion'.
> (for better and worse, it's a clumsy restricted portable assembler),
> that makes it unsuitable to specify high-level interfaces,
> as needed between components of a concurrent agent system.
> The fascism here is forcing people to use an unsuitable language
> for their task at hand.
Yes. This fascism isn't expressed by me. I don't require people to use C
if it isn't the best tool for the job. Hey, I even let people decide for
themselves whether or not it's the best tool for the job. Your fascist
approach is that you'd like to force people to use a specific language,
wheter its suitable for their task at hand or not.
> You wouldn't imagine requiring of any project that has been
> written in LISP, Perl, Erlang, etc, that it had been written in C, would
> you?
You wouldn't imagine requiring of any project that has been written in C
that it had been written in Prolog or Lisp, would you?
> C is just unsuited to high-level data manipulations.
> Well, with the �K design in particular, and other all-C design,
> that's precisely what you do.
Yes. A uK depends on the fact that you handle the high level stuff
yourself using your tool of choice. I guess it won't be C. Well, fine by
me!
--
M.vr.gr. / Best regards,
Emile van Bergen (e-mail address: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
This e-mail message is 100% electronically degradeable and produced
on a GNU/Linux system.
------------------------------
From: Julian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Modem
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 22:21:17 +1100
Hi,
Is it possible to have a modem attached to a linux box, and have other
machines dial out through it. ie modem sharing?
thanx
--
======================================
| Julian Smith @ [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
======================================
| |
| As Seinfeld once advised: Cleavage |
| is like the sun - you can take one |
| quick glance but then you have to |
| look away. |
======================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M. Buchenrieder)
Subject: Re: Can't login to linux from anywhere, must reboot?
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:04:25 GMT
"JACK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Michael Mulvaney wrote:
>>> > This happened twice over the weekend. Both times the computer worked
>>> > fine for several hours, but after 12+ hours it would not allow me to
>>> > login.
>>>
>and if you think thats weird
> every so often i boot my machine and it comes up with xdm, but will not
>let me login, and my kbd is forzen so i can't crtl-alt-delete, but if i
>telnet into the machine and change the runlevel eg init 1 ; init 3 all is
>fine
[...]
If you are running out of memory, then you won't be able to login
anymore unless other processes have been killed first. This often
happens if you do run e.g. a webserver with a lot of concurrent
sessions . Either adjust your swapspace/RAM mixture accordingly,
or use "ulimit" .
Michael
--
Michael Buchenrieder * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.muc.de/~mibu
Lumber Cartel Unit #456 (TINLC) & Official Netscum
Note: If you want me to send you email, don't mungle your address.
------------------------------
From: Fadi Mujahid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Fax server
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 11:07:09 GMT
I am looking for a fax server for Linux, any help?
Thank you
Fadi Mujahid
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.linux
Subject: Re: More bad news for NT
Date: 1 Mar 1999 11:36:56 GMT
On Sat, 27 Feb 1999 08:01:15 GMT, Gregory Propf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jon Wiest wrote:
>>
>> Jason Clifford wrote in message ...
>> >
>
>> Oh get off your high horse. NT is a "real" OS, and as for "wiping the
>> floor" that's pure exageration. Sure, Linux does some great things, why
>> else would I devote a hard drive to it? But it also does some really stupid
>> things. Each has their merit, and no amount of flag-waving and
>> slogan-chanting will change that.
>>
>> Jon
>
>Sorry Jon, but I've used both. Linux does indeed "wipe the floor" with
>NT and NT is NOT a "real operating system". If I were bound for Mars on
>a ship that I found was controlled by NT I would not go. I would trust
>Linux provided they weren't using a development kernel. Granted NT is
>better than 95,98 or 3.1 but only in the sense that a bowl of cold gruel
>is better than a bowl of dog shit.
Yum.
Of course, at some point, there should be a clear definition of the
term "operating system". At least with Linux I have a fighting chance
of identifying the major system components:
- hardware
- Linux kernel
- various accessory programs that most Unix and Unix-like operating
systems provide (cp, rm, ls, ifconfig, /bin/bash, X, ...)
- mid-level stuff such as widget libraries (Athena (it looks like
slop, but it's useful), Motif, gtk++, various image
manipulation libraries and utilities, etc.
- high-level apps (Netscape, Gimp, TeX, G++ and make, etc.)
Now, on Windows NT, um, erm, well, there's this nifty neato
thing called Office '97 and these control applets... :-)
Now part of it might simply be my familiarity with Linux in
particular and Unix in general (I've used variants since college).
But it's hard to figure out which bits are which when the
browser installs itself as the graphical shell and masquerades
itself as an essential component for the "Active Desktop".
(Maybe they should let Netscape do that, too. Just to confuse
things even more!)
(Side point: Windows 3.1 wasn't all that bad, within its limitations.
It only got messed up when Windows 95 came out, IMO. See
http://www.iarchitect.com/mshame.htm for some of the dubious
design decisions that went into Win95.)
>
>
>--
>
>"I wanted plutonium, not Beanie Babies..."
> - Sadaam Hussein, in a letter to Santa Claus.
----
[EMAIL PROTECTED], who isn't sure he needs an active desktop, just a
usable one
------------------------------
From: Blake Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux,news.groups.os.linux.hardware,comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc,comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Linux - install on new G3 Macintosh? Q's...
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 06:38:24 -0500
I have a new 400MHz, blue&white G3 Mac. I want to install Linux as a
2nd OS. Can I do this, even though the HD is one big Mac partition
(6GB) - is there a way to safely section off a bit for Linux, without
having to reformat and loose all? Thanks.
bp
------------------------------
From: **Nick Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux fs reader (writer) for NT ?
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 12:38:31 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have to share my PC between Windoze NT and Linux... is there a driver
for NT which will allow me to mount Linux partitions ?
--
===============================================================
|\ | o _ |/ Life's like a jigsaw
| \| | |_ |\ You get the straight bits
But there's something missing in the middle
Nick Brown, Strasbourg, France (Nick(dot)Brown(at)coe(dot)fr)
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: WindowMaker & Kernel 2.2.2
Date: 1 Mar 1999 10:43:05 GMT
Hello,
I've been using Linux for several years, but only tty. For the few
times I've needed a graphical interface, I've briefly booted
Windows.
Recently, I thought I'd try out the graphical environments
available to Linux. On a clean HD, I installed kernel 2.2.2, and
downloaded the latest xfree86 drivers for my system. The setup
provided by Red Hat worked well, but when I attempted to install
WindowMaker 0.51, I encountered the following problem starting X:
System: `/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/xkb/xkbcomp -w
1-R/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/xkb -xkm -m us -em1 "The XKEYBOARD
keymap compiler (xkbcomp) reports:" -emp "> " -eml "Errors
from xkbcomp are not fatal to the X server" keymap/xfree86
compiled/xfree86.xkm'
Now, not even X will work. I followed the WindowMaker instructions. carefully,
and have repeated this process three times with a clean install. The same result
obtains.
It's not too important that I fix this; I still have Windows as
a backup. I'm curious if others with more experience in Linux and X
(particularly WindowMaker) have any insight.
------------------------------
From: **Nick Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Setting resolution to 600x480
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 12:40:41 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sounds like the monitor settings... you probably just need to tweak the
knobs/switches on the monitor.
Sravanthi Cheruku wrote:
>
> I am unable to get my X windows to cover the whole screen. It appears
> in the middle of the screen. I have tried changing the resolution the
> config file but still can't get it. I have RedHat 5.1 loaded and
> XF86_SVGA version 3.3.3 dowloaded.
>
> Please help.
>
> Cheruku
--
===============================================================
|\ | o _ |/ Life's like a jigsaw
| \| | |_ |\ You get the straight bits
But there's something missing in the middle
Nick Brown, Strasbourg, France (Nick(dot)Brown(at)coe(dot)fr)
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: "Vasilios E. Tourloupis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: aus.computers.linux,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Configuration Conflicts between Dialup Adapter and Ethernet Card
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 22:41:46 +1100
Dear Linux Users,
I know this is the wrong newsgroup to post this question, however, there may
be some people
who have experienced or are experiencing the same problem as myself. The
following message
is the one I sent to the Windows 95 newsgroups:
Does anybody know how to resolve a configuration conflict that I am
currently experiencing with my dial-up adapter and my ethernet card.
In particular, I am experiencing a clash between the DNS Configuration
for the dial-up adapter and the Ethernet card. Because I am on a LAN,
I want to use my ISP's DNS for my dial-up adapter, and the my LAN's
DNS for my ethernet card. At the moment, I am getting the same
configuration for both - i.e. if I modify the configuration for one
device,
Windows 95 is happy to modify the configuration for the other device.
As you've probably guessed by now, the LAN that I am refering to is none
other than my
Linux box acting as the DNS server. I suppose I should describe the
symptoms of the problem
before jumping to any conclusion: basically, I am getting a VERY slow
response time from my
ISP when I dial up under Windows 95 - so slow that some of the time I get
disconnected!
Am I correct to assume that the above mentioned problem is the cause of
this?
Thanks in advance,
Regards,
Bill Tourloupis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: 1 Mar 1999 11:04:41 GMT
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 07:08:51 -0800, Ryan Cumming wrote:
>"D. Vrabel" wrote:
>
>> You can have automounting in linux. So this one doesn't count
>
>Niffty. How do you do this? --
install the autofs package. Configure it to start at boot time.
If you have Redhat, you can do this using tksysv (graphical tool).
take a look at /etc/auto.misc.
mine has these entries ...
cd -fstype=iso9660,ro :/dev/cdrom
zip -fstype=ext2 :/dev/sda4
doszip -fstype=vfat :/dev/sda4
floppy -fstype=ext2 :/dev/fd0
once you start it,
then you are ready to go ... no more mounting required.
cd /misc/cd
...
cd /misc/floppy
...
cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
http://www.independence.seul.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
