Linux-Misc Digest #284, Volume #19 Wed, 3 Mar 99 16:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: More bad news for NT (cjt&trefoil)
Re: Public license question (Rick Onanian)
Re: Cable Modems with Linux (Bob Deep)
Re: Public license question (Philip Armstrong)
Re: Windows 98 and System Resources ("Jorge Padron")
Re: Public license question (William C. Cheng)
Re: Overclocking (was: Re: K6-2 and Linux, Are there any Bug?) ("Tuomo O.
Vuolteenaho")
Re: Windows 98 and System Resources (Jason Kircher)
Re: Linux system failures ("Kike")
Re: copy from old_fs to new_fs ("Georges Heinesch")
Re: Can't rsh from NT (Daniel Bruce)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cjt&trefoil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.linux
Subject: Re: More bad news for NT
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 01:24:32 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Powe wrote:
>
<snip>
> Hmm, DESKTOP != DOOM. DESKTOP == real work. Plenty of opportunity
> there for linux. I know a lot of people are hot for "games on linux"
> - -- but really, you timewasters might as well stick with the
> TimeWasters(tm) OS -- Windows.
>
<snip>
Did you have in mind TimeWasters95, TimeWasters98, or TimeWasters2000?
------------------------------
From: Rick Onanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Public license question
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 14:50:53 -0500
"William C. Cheng" wrote:
>
> If you wrote it entirely by yourself, you don't need to put your code
> under GPL (in order to run it under GPL). But if you cut and paste GPL'ed
> code into your software, link to a GPL'ed (but not LGPL'ed) library, etc.,
> then you can't choose not to put your code under GPL.
I believe that this may answer part of the original question. He was
asking if he could link to GPL'ed libraries, at some point.
It may be worth noting that the BSD license (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD)
claims to be less restrictive, and such a hypothetical project could
possibly benefit from using one of those OSes instead of Linux.
--
rick - a guy in search of raw (ISO) cd images of SuSE and Slackware
===============
My opinions don't exist, and as such, are not anyone elses. I do not
represent anyone, not even myself, and especially not my employer.
---
Looking for a 1968 Camaro SS convertible, black interior,
beat-up rustbucket that is in need lots of restoration and TLC.
---
Reply to me at either thc <at sign here> psynet <dot> net or
rick <at sign> mail <dot> artmold <dot> com
------------------------------
From: Bob Deep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.linux,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Cable Modems with Linux
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 19:30:34 +0000
Eugene Strulyov wrote:
>
> they *might* be able to tell it if you use IP aliasing (1 network card
> with 2 IP addresses for both local network and the cable modem), but it's
> impossible if you use 2 network cards (1 for local network, 1 for cable
> modem), or so I think.
They could tell if they really wanted to know and knew how... But
remember, this is the *cable* company we are talking about.
The Masq protocol leaves it's marks on the packets it handles, so I've
been told. They would have to 1. Know about this, 2. Care about this,
and 3. catch someone doing it.
More than likely they will only slap bandwidth limits on a specific IP
anyway....
-= Bob =-
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Armstrong)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Public license question
Date: 3 Mar 1999 20:24:32 GMT
In article <7bjoj9$a42$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mark Mokryn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Since I'm sure Oracle links to *something* GPL'ed, some standard library,
>perhaps #included some GPL'ed header file and use its macros, etc., then I
>would expect anyday now to download Oracle source code... Certainly Microsoft
>would *love* this...
>
furrfu. Do you have *any* evidence for this, or are you just trolling?
what incentive could a company like Oracle have for surrepticiously using
GPL'd code? Their perceived downside would be enormous.
Phil
--
nosig
------------------------------
From: "Jorge Padron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.redhat.misc,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc
Subject: Re: Windows 98 and System Resources
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 15:16:05 -0500
The real issue to me, more that the amount of resources available right
after re-booting Windows 98 which could be improved by not having that many
processes running at system startup (run MSCONFIG from the Start/Run menu),
is the fact that a typical machine running Windows 98 *will* undoubtedly
lose resources with time and will eventually require a "re-boot" to regain
resources.
After working with Windows 3.x, 95, and now 98 in the support role of an MIS
environment for many years, I have experienced this helpdesk-call-generating
"feature" of Microsoft Windows (3.x, 96, and 98) daily -- what happens is
that users sometimes don't turn off their machines at night, so they use
them for days without re-booting them; after a few days of typical office
use, their machines' resources go down to unbelievable low numbers (i.e.
Resources = 29%); at that point, even if they close every running
application and most uneeded tasks, their resources won't go back up to even
65 or 70%. Most of the times their machines simply collapse altogether after
a few days of continuous operations. At the end, there is no other choice
but to re-boot these machines to recover your resources.
Two other observations: [1] The amount of RAM you have really has not much
to do with the percent of available resources -- in other words, Windows 98
machines with only 32MB of RAM will leak resources and will not recover from
those memory leaks just the same as machines tha have 128, 256 or even more
RAM. The real problem is the inability of the Windows 98 operating system to
reclaim all the resources that have been previously assigned to
memory-leaking applications or tasks. [2] In my MIS experience supporting
Windows NT, I've also noticed a depletion of resources on NT machines;
however, this happens over more extended periods of time (i.e. 5 or 6 days
instead of 2 days). What's interesting is that NT 3.x and 4 machines also
have short system-up cycles. On NT, I've noticed this happening more on
havily used workstations -- on NT servers, memory resource levels seem to be
more stable than on NT Workstations.
***** What I'd like to know at this point is whether operating systems such
as UNIX or Linux suffer from this inability to self-recover from
memory-leaking processes, tasks, applications, programs, threads or any
executing process that allocates memory? I have no professional experience
with UNIX or Linux so I'd be very interested to know from UNIX and Linux
professionals how is it that they are able to have the long system-up cycles
(sometimes months at a time without re-booting) they claim to have?
Jorge Padron
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
shaftone wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>How long do we have to go before MS finds out that Win98 has a problem
>handling the resources. I am having the same problem. Resouces run at
>54% at the start. After that it's all but downhill. I can't open too
>many windows anymore even with 64 RAM on a P200Mmx. I used to be able
>to do it before in Win98. It's just at some point this damn OS began
>acting up.
>
>This is a freaking bug and should be top priority for MS in the next
>SP coming up.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William C. Cheng)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Public license question
Date: 3 Mar 1999 09:33:13 -0500
In article <7bj1ch$mdd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mark Mokryn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>For argument's sake, let's say I intend to build a proprietary box (e.g.
>super-duper new video server) running on some OS, possibly Linux. Of course,
>an open-source OS can really help, and I can promise to release any
>modifications to the existing OS platform. I would most certainly not want to
>release the codebase to my project, however. I understand some of you may
>say, "wow, evil dude, does not give back to the community." Well, I would
>contend that I am actually helping the community by basing a serious project
>on Linux, and putting people's good work to use. Think of me as the good
>little guy, who does not want Micros**t, for example, to come around
>demanding my source code, so they can learn from it, and build a similar
>project on NT, thus driving me out of business. The prospect of this may
>cause one to seek another platform (even Windows!), which would not require
>everything to be released.
Unless you are required by law to put your code under GPL, you don't
have to put your code under GPL in order to sell a Linux version of it.
I don't think the people who wrote StarOffice care much if people call
them evil dudes just because StartOffice is not GPL'ed.
If you are required by law to do so (as in the case if you derive from
GPL'ed code), then you have no choice but to comply with GPL (unless
you want to take the chance of a law suit).
>...
>In other words, if I sell my super-duper video server box, I may be forced to
>release the code to the modules I wrote entirely by myself? Is this the
>intent of the GPL, to force the little guy to seek another platform?
If you wrote it entirely by yourself, you don't need to put your code
under GPL (in order to run it under GPL). But if you cut and paste GPL'ed
code into your software, link to a GPL'ed (but not LGPL'ed) library, etc.,
then you can't choose not to put your code under GPL.
If you have to derive from other's work in order to save time and not want
to use GPL, GPL asks you to look elsewhere. That's why the authors of
these GPL'ed code put their code under GPL -- they don't want you to use
their code in this way.
>Look at
>it this way: I don't have the resources to chase after Oracle in the courts
>to get their Oracle for Linux code. But of course they can easily do this to
>me...
If this happens, hopefully, there would be enough little guys like you that
some lawyer will bring a class action suit against, as in your example,
Oracle.
>The problem with the GPL is: how the hell do you define "work based on
>the Program"? If I use the "Program's" macros, etc., is this a work based on
>the program?
If there are legal definitions for these terms, you should look them up
(or have your lawyer look them up) if you want to use GPL. If there are
no legal definitions for them, you probably know what it means to derive
from other's work. If you write some code and someone cut a little piece
of code from your program and changed the variable names, you probably
would say, "hey, this guy copied my code!" Since GPL applies to every
line of the GPL'ed source, cut and paste a program's macro is certainly
``work based on the program''.
If it's macros you want, I'm sure you can find similar code under another
license.
>Why doesn't the FSF provide simple, CLEAR, for god's sake,
>guidelines, so I may know what I am getting into? The ambiguity hurts us, and
>not the big guys.
The NPL/MPL have annotated versions of the licenses. Those do help.
It would be nice if FSF can provide an annotated version of the GPL
written by one of their lawyers because it's hard to get the whole
picture by just reading the GPL a few times.
--
Bill Cheng // [EMAIL PROTECTED] <URL:http://bourbon.cs.umd.edu:8001/william/>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux.slackware,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
From: "Tuomo O. Vuolteenaho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Overclocking (was: Re: K6-2 and Linux, Are there any Bug?)
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:41:44 GMT
I don't get this. Doesn't PIII have a fixed multiplier? Doesn't PIII450
run at 4.5 times the bus speed, and 500 at 5.0 times? How can you get
them to work? (An honest question.)
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, David wrote:
> i've had a dual pIII 500 machine that was actualy a pIII 500 and a PIII 450
> clocked up that ran fine. exactly the same results as a real dual 500.
> didn't notice the 450 getting any hotter either.
>
> David
------------------------------
From: Jason Kircher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.redhat.misc,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion,microsoft.public.win98.performance,microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc
Subject: Re: Windows 98 and System Resources
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 20:59:39 GMT
I believe our current record for uptime was in excess of 90 days, and we
rebooted the system at that point voluntarily for a kernel upgrade. Bragging
rights, anyone?
As far as how long that bug has persisted in Windows, it's been there AT
LEAST since Windows 3.0. Don't expect a fix for it any time soon.
How it's done? I'm not really sure, but I can say that when a process is
KILLed, all resources for said process are freed. If a process generates a
fault (the most common being a Segmentation fault), the process is killed and
resources are freed.
Jorge Padron wrote:
> The real issue to me, more that the amount of resources available right
> after re-booting Windows 98 which could be improved by not having that many
> processes running at system startup (run MSCONFIG from the Start/Run menu),
> is the fact that a typical machine running Windows 98 *will* undoubtedly
> lose resources with time and will eventually require a "re-boot" to regain
> resources.
>
> After working with Windows 3.x, 95, and now 98 in the support role of an MIS
> environment for many years, I have experienced this helpdesk-call-generating
> "feature" of Microsoft Windows (3.x, 96, and 98) daily -- what happens is
> that users sometimes don't turn off their machines at night, so they use
> them for days without re-booting them; after a few days of typical office
> use, their machines' resources go down to unbelievable low numbers (i.e.
> Resources = 29%); at that point, even if they close every running
> application and most uneeded tasks, their resources won't go back up to even
> 65 or 70%. Most of the times their machines simply collapse altogether after
> a few days of continuous operations. At the end, there is no other choice
> but to re-boot these machines to recover your resources.
>
> Two other observations: [1] The amount of RAM you have really has not much
> to do with the percent of available resources -- in other words, Windows 98
> machines with only 32MB of RAM will leak resources and will not recover from
> those memory leaks just the same as machines tha have 128, 256 or even more
> RAM. The real problem is the inability of the Windows 98 operating system to
> reclaim all the resources that have been previously assigned to
> memory-leaking applications or tasks. [2] In my MIS experience supporting
> Windows NT, I've also noticed a depletion of resources on NT machines;
> however, this happens over more extended periods of time (i.e. 5 or 6 days
> instead of 2 days). What's interesting is that NT 3.x and 4 machines also
> have short system-up cycles. On NT, I've noticed this happening more on
> havily used workstations -- on NT servers, memory resource levels seem to be
> more stable than on NT Workstations.
>
> ***** What I'd like to know at this point is whether operating systems such
> as UNIX or Linux suffer from this inability to self-recover from
> memory-leaking processes, tasks, applications, programs, threads or any
> executing process that allocates memory? I have no professional experience
> with UNIX or Linux so I'd be very interested to know from UNIX and Linux
> professionals how is it that they are able to have the long system-up cycles
> (sometimes months at a time without re-booting) they claim to have?
>
> Jorge Padron
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
>
> shaftone wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >How long do we have to go before MS finds out that Win98 has a problem
> >handling the resources. I am having the same problem. Resouces run at
> >54% at the start. After that it's all but downhill. I can't open too
> >many windows anymore even with 64 RAM on a P200Mmx. I used to be able
> >to do it before in Win98. It's just at some point this damn OS began
> >acting up.
> >
> >This is a freaking bug and should be top priority for MS in the next
> >SP coming up.
--
-Jason Kircher
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Kike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux system failures
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 09:57:49 +0200
You'll have to be more specific about the symptoms you mention in order to
make it easier for people to help you.
As a rule, Windows and Linux do co-exist quite peacefully in any system and
nothing you run in Windows can have any effect whatsoever in your Linux
partition.
___________________
Henry Ficher
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cris A. Fugate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have a dual boot system with Windows 95 and Linux (partitions in
>that order). I find that I have to keep reinstalling Linux because of
>various system failures on booting.
>I cannot tell what the problem is because there are different symptoms
>each time.
> I can install the Linux system and everything I want. It boots
>numerous times without
>any problem. However it seems that when I use Windows 95 for a while
>(several boots) that is when the nightmare happens. This has not always
>been the case when
>I did not have anything sophisticated on Windows, but now that I have
>lots of multimedia stuff on Windows I cannot keep Linux for long.
> Is there something malicious about Windows 95 or something running on
>Windows 95
>that could be responsible for this? I hate Windows, but cannot live
>without it at this
>time. If this has something to do with Windows maybe I will have to get
>another
>computer..
>
>Cris A. Fugate
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
------------------------------
Date: 02 Mar 99 15:16:49 +0100
From: "Georges Heinesch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: copy from old_fs to new_fs
Quoting jxfaultl (01-Mar-99 17:17:08):
>> 1. dump and restore doesn't exist on Linux (unlike NetBSD).
> dump and restore do exist, you just don't have them installed
Ok, are they normally in /bin or /sbin ?
>> 2. using tar with a pipe, the new_fs is copied recursively.
>> ... the /mnt/new_fs is copied recursively.
>> Besides this, the /proc "files" are copied, which is not correct
>> either.
> man tar, investigate the exclude options
Are those 2 methods (tar & dump/restore) the only way (or correct way)
to copy one fs to another?
--
Cu Georges Heinesch, Luxembourg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/2480
PGP 2.6.3i / 5.1i public key on request and on public servers
... Reims ACC: "Say heading" - Pilot: "Heading!" ...
------------------------------
From: Daniel Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can't rsh from NT
Date: 3 Mar 1999 07:31:30 GMT
I have recently upgraded my OLD slackware to 3.60. I originally started
with a very old slackware version that has been upgraded over the last
three years. rsh worked fine ( I use NT/WIN95 on my internal lan and rsh as
a root user to the linux box) The new version of in.rshd refuses to allow
any root rsh whatsoever (hosts.allow .rhosts hosts.equiv makes no
difference). Also the
-l option from NT dosen't seem to work at all. I am using NT4SP4 with
simple TCP/IP services added. I have been able to replace the new in.rsh
with my old one for now. I will recompile in.rshd if I can find the current
source. If you are trying to rsh with a root uid you are probably running
in to the same problem.
Good Luck
khusro wrote:
>
> I really need this, but so far have received no replies. Can anyone give
me
> any definite information on whether there is any chance of rsh working
from
> NT to linux or not?
>
> In article <78pi4e$vjc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I need to rsh from NT to linux for remote execution of a shellscript.
> > I get Permission denied error. rsh works from linux to linux. ftp and
ping
> > works to and from NT. I have entered the NT's name and IP address in
the
> > .rhosts file (on separate lines) as well as in the /etc/hosts.allow
file.
> > These files are publicly readable.
> > I am not using Kerberos, and do not have any kerberos authentication
files, as
> > it says in the rsh man page.
> > NT rsh does not provide any -K option, however.
> >
> > Any ideas on what I should check? Does NT rsh work at your site?
> > Kindly email replies.
> > Thanks,
> > Khushro
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> >
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
