Linux-Misc Digest #13, Volume #20 Sat, 1 May 99 21:13:11 EDT
Contents:
Re: Computer virus threat to Linux? (Cameron Hutchison)
Re: GNU reeks of Communism ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft is the Communist!!! (Prins Olivier)
Re: Windows NT vs. Linux testing by mindcraft (William Burrow)
q3test video problems (root)
Re: limiting background processes ("Michael Schmeing")
Re: GNU reeks of Communism (returning to %252522GNU Communism%252522) ("Martin
Ozolins")
Re: Windows NT vs. Linux testing by mindcraft (Stephen Montgomery-Smith)
Re: GNU reeks of Communism (returning to %252522GNU Communism%252522) ("Martin
Ozolins")
Re: want fvwm back, now it is kde when I type startx (Bob Martin)
lost mixer with 2.2.5 upgrade (Bob van der Poel)
Re: How to find amount of Free Disk Space (Bob Martin)
Re: GNU reeks of Communism (returning to %252522GNU Communism%252522) ("Martin
Ozolins")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Cameron Hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Computer virus threat to Linux?
Date: 2 May 1999 00:06:19 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>In his obvious haste, Matthew B. Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled thusly:
>: Are there any threats to Linux systems from computer virii?
>If there ARE any linux Virii, the only real risk is if they're executed by
>root.
You dont consider it a risk to lose all your data?
--
Cameron Hutchison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | Onward To Mars
GCS d--@ -p+ c++(++++) l++ u+ e+ m+(-) s n- h++ f? !g w+ t r+
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: GNU reeks of Communism
Date: 29 Apr 1999 21:30:24 GMT
In the sacred domain of comp.os.linux.misc didst Pete Barrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> eloquently scribe:
: On 28 Apr 1999 15:23:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:>There's nothing wrong with Communism.
:>The fact that no government on earth has managed to actually abide by
:>Marksist doctrine proves nothing.
:>
: Ask yourself why. Could it be that it's hopelessly impractical?
It's more to do with the people in power getting greedy.
Everyone's equal, but some are more equal than others....
That's why it falls apart.
--
=============================================================================
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
=============================================================================
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------
From: Prins Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Microsoft is the Communist!!!
Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 02:25:06 +0200
"Christopher B. Browne" wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 1999 21:09:10 +0200, Prins Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> >"Christopher B. Browne" wrote:
> >> Fascism (and you at least spelled it right; so many call it "facism")
> >> is the great "demon" of the 20th century; the fact that Godwin's Law
> >> exists establishes that it's a great conversation-stopper.
> >>
> >> It is less clear, difficult to prove, and *impossible* to (due to
> >> things like Godwin's Law) usefully debate whether communism could have
> >> caused FAAAAR worse results than fascism has.
> >>
> >> There probably have been more deaths resulting from actions of
> >> putatively communist states than from the actions of fascist states,
> >> but it's not useful to debate this, because [flodA reltiH] (reverse
> >> it!) tends to quickly come up, and peoples' prejudices and other
> >> immensely strong feelings squelch the communication of ideas.
> >
> >You forget that if you use the word communism for those states, you are very
> >wrong those states ween't even close to communism.
>
> I most certainly did *not* forget the issue which I'd reword as "the
> states that *claimed* to be ``communist'' weren't really following
> Marx's original ideals;" I described such places using the phrase:
> "putatively communist states"
> which indicates (and was *directly intended* to indicate) that they
> were called such, but that whether they were or not is arguable.
>
> >They could, arguably, be in the state of the dictatorship of the
> >working class. Which always turned out to be just an ordinary
> >dictatorship of a few ppl, no matter what other ppl try.
>
> Which represents another reason why "Communism" and "Fascism," as
> expressed in our century, are more similar than anyone seems
> comfortable with.
>
> >The communistic state has never been achieved, a lot of ppl say it
> >isn't possible because it would an utopia, it would be paradise on
> >earth which THEY think is impossible..
>
> That would probably be something to be claimed by those Christians
> that *actually* understand Christian theology; the concept of "Utter
> Depravity," one of the results of "The Fall of Man," is incompatible
> with the construction of a "utopia."
>
> Utter Depravity refers to the notion that human character is
> inherently fatally flawed. It is commonly *misunderstood* to mean
> that "pagans will tend to do the worst possible things," with the
> assumption that Christians, being Holier Than Thou, don't have this
> flaw. What it *actually* means is that even at our very best, our
> characters are sufficiently flawed as to mean *everyone* has ample
> opportunity to mess up.
>
> Which is certainly not helpful when trying to construct a utopia.
>
> The more common view is not that utopia is inherently impossible, but
> rather that implementing the communist variety is impossible because
> the methodology of getting to communism can't work.
>
> We have seen a whole pile of would-be "Communist Revolutions;" they
> all have had varying flaws that have resulted in failure to accomplish
> the "communist utopia."
>
> Personally, I'd go with both views; that utopia is impossible, *and*
> that constructing a communist state that follows the ideals is *also*
> impossible.
>
> --
> Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
> -- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - "What have you contributed to free software today?..."
Well i'm sorry about that mix-up with "putatively communist states", but you see
English isn't my native language so i didn't quite understand, so my bad....
And i too think that there's something wrong with the methdology to get a
communist state, it's very vurnerable to a single dictator, in the so called
dictatorship of the working class...but leaving out the practical implementation
of communism ( of course that is important because the make a system work you've
got to implement it)....i think communism is the system to go for ( of course
most ppl dont agree on what communism really means), maybe Che guevara had good
practical ideas but also they had flaws, mainly about having a strong leader at
first.....
--
Running Windows on a PIII, is like driving a $200,000 Porsche only backwards.....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Burrow)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Windows NT vs. Linux testing by mindcraft
Date: 1 May 1999 22:41:30 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 21:20:10 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Gary Kildall and for the hardware it worked on it was pretty good. I
>>
>> Nice way to flame the hardware...
>>
> I wasn't flaming the hardware. The hardware was limited, but it
>was what was possible for a home user with the technology of the time, and
>so was CP/M.
Ahhh, Intel stuff was always crap. The Zilog chips had more registers
and lots of fun instructions to play with (sone of the corresponding
instructions didn't show up until the 386, ten years after the Z80
had them). Zilog engineers didn't seem to have much of a clue what
hardware features were deemed desirable by the marketing types though.
--
William Burrow
Copyright 1999 William Burrow
------------------------------
From: root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: q3test video problems
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 15:38:34 -0500
Hey all. I'm having some issues getting q3test to even start on my box.
Here are the details:
I'm running a redhat 6.0 install, with the 2.2.5 kernel, GNOME,
eligthenment, working sound, and a voodoo1 (the voodoo graphics card).
I'm using a P1 200mhz, 64 RAM, 10 gig hd, and I have a matrox millenium
II video card for 2d.
I downloaded and rpm-installed the Glide_VG-2.46-1.i386.glibc.rpm first,
then I installed the q3test rpm. I attempted to install the
Device3Dfx-1.1-2.src.rpm as recommended by 3dfx, but got a lot of error
messages (mostly "function not defined: first use"). However, since q3
SHOULD run while I am logged in as root (which I am), i figure this is
probably not the issue.
When I type "./linuxquake3" in /usr/local/games/q3test, I get the
following output:
----- FS_Startup -----
Current search path:
/usr/local/games/q3test/baseq3
----------------------
Running in restricted demo mode.
----- FS_Startup -----
Current search path:
/usr/local/games/q3test/demoq3/pak0.pk3 (639 files)
/usr/local/games/q3test/demoq3
----------------------
execing default.cfg
couldn't exec q3config.cfg
couldn't exec autoexec.cfg
----- GI_Init -----
12 arenas parsed
4 bots parsed
-------------------
----- Client Initialization -----
----- Initializing Renderer ----
-------------------------------
...loading libGL.so: QGL_Init: Can't load libGL.so from
/etc/ld.so.conf or curre
nt dir: /usr/local/games/q3test/libGL.so: cannot open shared object
file: No suc
h file or directory
failed
...loading libMesaVoodooGL.so.3.1: Initializing OpenGL display
...setting mode 3: 640 480
Using XFree86-VidModeExtension Version 0.8
Couldn't get a visual
...WARNING: could not set the given mode (3)
Error: GLimp_Init() - could not load OpenGL subsystem
When I attempt "./linuxquake3 +set r_glDriver libMesaVoodooGL.so.3.1", I
get essentially the same ouptut, just the libMesaVoodooGL error is
first, and the libGL.so error is second.
Any ideas? I'm at my wits end, and I could REALLY use some help....
Thanks.
Steve Carstensen
------------------------------
From: "Michael Schmeing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: limiting background processes
Date: 28 Apr 1999 09:00:20 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Is there a way to limit the CPU utilization of a process when starting
> it or when it is already running?
For both there is no real limiting of CPU utilization, but you can use
the command nice. As Arguments it takes a command-line and starts this
commaond with lower priority so that the new program only gets the CPU
if no program with higher priority needs it.
To start for example a make-job to compile some (large) SW, e.g. a
kernel you would say
nice make zImage
instead of
make zImage
and the make-command and all spawned processes have a lower priority
than processes normaly started.
For running program there is renice which takes the process id of the
program that should get lower priority. Of course you must be the
owner of the program or root to do so to a running process.
In both cases (nice and renice) root can as well increase the priority
of a program.
For further information the manual-pages of nice and renice give some
information (man nice or man renice).
Hope I could help,
Michael
PS: For the Linux-experts: I know that a higher value for the priority
means lower priority (so a process with priority 5 has lower priority
than one with priority 0), but it is easier to explain the way I did.
--
Michael Schmeing, Artillerieweg 46, D-26129 Oldenburg
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www: http://www.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE/~michae2
------------------------------
From: "Martin Ozolins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GNU reeks of Communism (returning to %252522GNU Communism%252522)
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 17:52:09 -0700
Phil McRevis wrote in message <7gdpus$llg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Dowell) spake the secret code
><7gdg34$7mb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> thusly:
>
>>[...] Junior can run his encyclopedia programs and
>>do his homework on it. Uncle Ralph can download porno with it. Mom can
>>print flyers for the local housewives' club. Dad can send faxes for the
>>NRA. Sissy can fill her address book and schedules with imaginary dates
>>with imaginary suitors. [...]
>
>Hey man, this is the 90s (still). Uncle Ralph is printing flyers for
>the local poker game, Mom is downloading porno for Sissy and Junior is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Didn't you mean uploading porno of Sissy :-)
>showing Dad how to send the fax to the NRA.
>--
>http://www.xmission.com/~legalize Legalize Adulthood!
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>``Ain't it funny that they all fire the pistol, <URL: http://
> at the wrong end of the race?''--PDBT www.eden.com/~thewho>
------------------------------
From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Windows NT vs. Linux testing by mindcraft
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 19:49:06 -0500
I remember the time when the 16 bit processors were coming out. (In
those days I knew how to do assembler language). There was the 8086,
Z8000, and the 68000.
In those days, the 8 bit processors that seemed to be in vogue were
the 8080, the Z80 and the 6800. The 6800, made by Motorola, seemed
a model of elegence and beauty. The 8080 seemed a mess, an intruction
set thrown together. The Z80 took the 8080, and added more instructions,
and that seemed to be what was favorable then.
Looking at the projected instruction sets they were coming out with,
the 8086 seemed to inherit the mess of the 8080, the Z8000 seemed a lot
cleaner than the Z80, and the 68000 was the same beautiful elegence of
its predecessor.
As I recall, it was the 8086 that actually came out first, and I always
thought that was why IBM chose that processor, because it was actually
there rather than on the way. Generally, the IBM PC that came out seemed
to combine the worst OS, with the worst 16 bit processor of that time,
with the best marketing.
By the way - I always liked CPM - it didn't do much, but then it was
designed for a small computer. For what it did, it seemed rather elegent,
and as I recall, somewhat bug free.
William Burrow wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 21:20:10 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>Gary Kildall and for the hardware it worked on it was pretty good. I
> >>
> >> Nice way to flame the hardware...
> >>
> > I wasn't flaming the hardware. The hardware was limited, but it
> >was what was possible for a home user with the technology of the time, and
> >so was CP/M.
>
> Ahhh, Intel stuff was always crap. The Zilog chips had more registers
> and lots of fun instructions to play with (sone of the corresponding
> instructions didn't show up until the 386, ten years after the Z80
> had them). Zilog engineers didn't seem to have much of a clue what
> hardware features were deemed desirable by the marketing types though.
>
> --
> William Burrow
> Copyright 1999 William Burrow
--
Stephen Montgomery-Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
307 Math Science Building [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Mathematics [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, MO 65211
USA
Phone (573) 882 4540
Fax (573) 882 1869
http://math.missouri.edu/~stephen
------------------------------
From: "Martin Ozolins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GNU reeks of Communism (returning to %252522GNU Communism%252522)
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 17:56:14 -0700
brian moore wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 01 May 1999 22:04:26 GMT,
> Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 01 May 1999 18:13:47 GMT,
>> > Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Windows is still *relatively* inexpensive, as in, it's not very much
of the
>> >> cost of the computer.
>>
>> >Oh?
>>
>> >It's a pretty good chunk of the price of a sub-1000 dollar system.
>>
>> I'm not sure; from what e-machines did when they did a rebate ($26), it
sounds
>> like it could be relatively cheap. Keep in mind, vendors don't pay as
much
>> as you or I would.
>>
>> Assume it's $50 on a $500 system. 10% isn't "very much", in my book.
>
>It's higher than the sales tax in most (all?) states in the US.
>Something that costs less than 50c to make is higher than the margin
>the manufacturer gets? I'd say that's high.
>
>> That said, there *is* free software that runs on Windows. Just not a
whole
>> lot.
>
>And most is crappy.
>
>> However, his argument was about *cost* of software, not freedom.
>
>But the mere existence of some shoddy zero-cost software doesn't make a
>system useful.
>
>> I'd like to point out that I by no means consider Windows a good system.
I
>> just disapprove of making untrue claims about it - because we don't
*need*
>> to. The truth is damning enough.
>
>But claiming there is a wealth of free software for Windows is bogus:
>there is a lot of zero-cost software for truly stupid things that
>MS did wrong or left out (like a working telnet client), but even the
>vast majority of little toys are sharware and not free in any sense of
>the word.
>
>There isn't a zero-cost word processor for Windows (unless you count
>"NotePad") -- but Linux has many, including WP8 if your not in a
>commercial setting, or LyX and AbiWord if you're at work. Add in
>StarOffice and Applixware that are included with some distributions and
>you've got a healthy choice of software that comes with the OS.
>
Not exactly, Write was included since Win 3.1 and Word pad is included since
Win95's outset. Both will make letters and memo's etc fairly effiecently
and save them in RTF. WordPad will open Word Doc's too.
>
>
>None of my statements were untrue: you may differ on whether 10% is a
>significant portion of the cost, but consider it in comparison to the
>manufacturer's margin on the machine and it is significant. Don't you
>find it ironic that whilst Compaq, Dell, and others are complaining of
>lower earnings due to the current hardware price wars, that MS is
>proclaiming the PC industry is alive and well because they have record
>profits?
>
>Microsoft has a higher per-unit profit on sub-$1000 machines than the
>manufacturers, and they have far less risk and capital on the line.
>
>Pretty neat trick, eh?
>
>--
>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: Sat, 01 May 1999 19:52:09 -0500
From: Bob Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: want fvwm back, now it is kde when I type startx
If you are running RH ( don't know about the others ) there is a file in
your home directory, .wm_style that controls which manager is started by
startx, have a look at that and see what is in it. if the KDE install
actually modified startx you may have do something else.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I have installed KDE. Now when I type startx, KDE is launched. I don't
> want that. I want to use fvwm. Typing startx fvwm doesn't help. How do I
> get fvwm back?
> Please reply to my email address.
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 11:46:48 -0600
From: Bob van der Poel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: lost mixer with 2.2.5 upgrade
I posted this a few days ago on comp.os.linux.hardware, but no responses...
I just upgraded from a 2.0.36 to 2.2.5 kernel. All appears to be okay,
but my sound card isn't what it used to be. I can play midi files either
using the sound card, or an external synth. Audio CDs also play. I just
tried a .wav file, and no output at all.
The midi output does not sound very good.
I think the big problem is that the mixer is no longer working! I'm
using 'sounddesk', a tcl/tk program for mixing. Worked fine with
2.0.36...does nothing at all with 2.2.5. Well, it works, but the sound
volumes don't change (this applies to CDs and to midi).
I have checked my /dev/sndstat and it appears to be the same as the
2.0.36 output.
I have a gravis ultrasound.
Any suggestions as to where to start looking?
Thanks.
--
__
/ ) / Bob van der Poel
/--< ____/__ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/___/_(_) /_) http://www.kootenay.com/~bvdpoel
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 19:57:44 -0500
From: Bob Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to find amount of Free Disk Space
OK , bash on...
This really a unix question, not specific to linux, if you are new to
linux ( unix ) get yourself a book on using unix, probably 99% of it
will apply to linux.
Now the command you want is df, to see the disk usage. see the man page
for df for details.
Bryan Gaetjens wrote:
>
> OK, bash me for being stupid if you like, but I'm at a loss.
>
> How do you determine the amount of free space left on a disk under
> Linux???????
>
> Bryan
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Remove 'NOSPAM' to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Martin Ozolins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GNU reeks of Communism (returning to %252522GNU Communism%252522)
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 18:09:44 -0700
Don Bashford wrote in message ...
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (jedi) writes:
>
>> Intellectual Property released into the public's domain once the
>> initial granted monopoly has expired is also capital that can be
>> exploited in the persuit of profit (selling other things). That
>> afterall is what IP is specifically stated to be for (US Const.).
>
>No it isn't. The Constitution says, in Article 1, Section 8:
>
> The Congress shall have power ...
>
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
> limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
> respective writings and discoveries;
>
>The purpose is to promote useful works, not to provide a means of
>private profit. Note that Congress is merely empowered to create IP,
>not required to. If congress finds that IP fails to promote progress,
>in can abolish it.
>
No it can't. The key word is promote, they are allowed to fund foundations
to create this environment, but they can only control those feeding at the
public trough. Look at the problems that the National Endowment of the Arts
has, and how much difficulty congress experienced when they attempted to
abolish it.
Promote means, to me anyway, encourage and assist the developers of useful
intellectual property until it can stand on its own.
As an advocate of open source, isn't it a reach for you to want the
government's fingers in your business. Let them stick to their cottage
industry of selling election commercials and we should stick to ours.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
