Linux-Misc Digest #34, Volume #20 Mon, 3 May 99 02:13:12 EDT
Contents:
Re: X Broken - Error 111 (Paul Kimoto)
Mindcraft may be partly right about Apache (Dan Kegel)
Win98 and Linux Dual Boot ("Robear")
Gnome-network failure ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Commands needed (NewUser) (OldUncleMe)
MPEG TV (Lian PL)
Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really) (Floyd Davidson)
Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really) (Floyd Davidson)
Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really) (Floyd Davidson)
Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really) (Floyd Davidson)
Re: Downloading RedHat 6.0 w/Win95 ("Kertis A. Henderson")
Re: glibc 2.1 + downgrade + staroffice (Arthur Pedyczak)
Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really) (Chris Costello)
Re: Can linux damage my hardware? (Charles E Taylor IV)
Re: [SURVEY] Who has an internal modem in his linux box ? (William Burrow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Kimoto)
Subject: Re: X Broken - Error 111
Date: 2 May 1999 01:07:23 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <7ggekn$b2c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Benoit Goudreault-Emond wrote:
> Kernel versions 2.0.x (below .36 or .37, I think--not
> sure) don't work when compiled with egcs
This is true of all 2.0.x versions, and (according to 2.0.x
maintainer Alan Cox) will always be true.
> because they rely on a bug in gcc
> 2.7.2. If you want to properly compile such a kernel, use gcc 2.7.2.
> Another alternative is to go to the 2.2.x: those compile cleanly with both C
> compilers.
--
Paul Kimoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mindcraft may be partly right about Apache
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 04:03:13 +0000
I'm a big fan of Linux and Apache, but I'm bothered
by how people are blowing off the Mindcraft benchmark.
Sure, it was biased, but some of the results agree with
other, non-biased benchmarks.
In particular, Apache may have trouble with > 100 simultaneous
clients. If you don't believe me, check out
http://www.kegel.com/mindcraft_redux.html
and see why I say this.
- Dan
------------------------------
From: "Robear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Win98 and Linux Dual Boot
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 15:05:57 +1000
Please bare with me on this. It is not covered in any FAQ or newsgroup that
I have come across.
I have two IDE HD. First hard disk has Win98 32 Bit partition installed on
it. The second HD has Linux.
At present, I use a floppy to boot Linux, and automatically load Windows 98
when I want to use it.
What I would like to do, is have a menu on the first HD to be able to choose
Win98 or Linux...
Ah hah I here you say, use LOADLIN.
I have tried to use LOADLIN with the image from the floppy. It seemed to
work OK, except none of my SCSI information(modules) loaded (they do off the
floppy boot).
I have some questions:
1) What is the best way to dual boot for my situation.
2) What are the correct steps to make an image of the current OS. I know you
need to do make zImage, but this wants to go through the config first. All I
want to do is to create the image of the current Linux OS (the FAQ on this
somewhat left a lot of info out for a relative newbie)
3) Why does the LOADLIN seem not to load the image correctly?
Any help much appreciated.
Thankyou in advance,
Robert
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Gnome-network failure
Date: 28 Apr 1999 16:21:06 GMT
Hi,
I've installed the rpm package of gnome-network-1.0.1-1, but when I try to
run an included utility such as gnome-ppp, I get the following message,
./gnome-ppp-chat: error in loading shared libraries
: undefined symbol: __register_frame_info
I'm using RH 5.2, kernel 2.2.6 (with min required upgrades) and the latest
gnome rpm files for RH 5.2 (Base + Deve). Any suggestions as to a fix
appreciated. Thanks in advance.
cheers,
vj.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (OldUncleMe)
Subject: Commands needed (NewUser)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 15:28:37 GMT
Help, please:
1. I'm trying to set up an alias to show directory sizes starting at any specified
point in
the file system: say all directories under /usr. It needs to show the directory name
and then
the size of it, then optionally list directories underneath it and their sizes, to a
specified
level of depth.... Each sub-subdirectory would be listed following its parent,
(preferably
with indenting based on level below the start point) and show summary stats.
I'm not close to any fancier features, like indenting and choosing level of depth, but
I have
been trying with an alias:
alias didd='ls -lFa | grep /;pwd'
alias dird='ls -lFa | grep / | less'
(These two list directories on one level, starting at the current directory, but not
from a
specified directory.)
alias dz='echo "Now printing the size of the directory specified in -BYTES-:";du -sb'
alias dza='echo "Now printing the directory tree size in -kBYTES-";du -sk'
(These two are supposed to summarize the current directory's size; the second one
works ok,
but I need to find a way to prune /proc from the path by default.)
2. I'd like to be able to move a subdirectory and all it's contents to a new location
keeping
symbolic links intact instead of having the cp command fill in the symbolic linked
directories
with the contents of the targets. (I have two small disks, ~ 500MB, on this Linux
system.)
Linux was installed to hdb1. It has 1% space free. To add packages, new libraries,
sources,
etc., I'm selectively moving directories to hdd1 and symbolically linking them back to
their
original locations, choosing directories that don't contain items needed on boot
before the
second file system is mounted:
total 5
drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 1024 May 1 00:20 ./
drwxr-xr-x 8 root root 1024 May 1 15:46 ../
drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 1024 May 1 00:20 TeX/
drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 1024 Apr 30 23:39 java/
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 1024 Apr 30 23:14 m68k-PalmOS-coff/
/hdd1/usr -----------> output of pwd
Putting, say, /usr/java on /hdd1/usr/java, I did: cp -r /usr/java /hdd1/usr/java
then: rm -r /usr/java; first, though, looked carefully for any links and recreated
them in
the new location:
drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 1024 Apr 30 23:39 ./
drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 1024 May 1 00:20 ../
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 Apr 30 23:35 bin -> ./static/bin/
drwxr-xr-x 27 root root 1024 Apr 30 23:30 demo/
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 1024 Apr 30 23:43 include/
drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 1024 Apr 30 23:54 lib/
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 1024 Apr 30 23:30 static/
/hdd1/usr/java -----------> output of pwd
After just copying as in the command above, 'bin' contained the duplicated contents of
the
linked directory ./static/bin; this duplicated all the files there. So deleted 'bin'
and
linked it manually to ./static/bin which created the listing above, and duplicated the
original
setup. Simple enough, but in the case where there are many such links, how to go
about it
automated with the copy command?
tenox @ home dat com
/ts
------------------------------
From: Lian PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: MPEG TV
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 13:19:13 +0800
Has anyone tried out Mpeg Tv on Linux? I was told that this program can
play VCD? How good and stable compared to Win 95 Xing?.enail to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson)
Crossposted-To:
talk.politics.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really)
Date: 3 May 1999 04:57:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <7gj368$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Floyd Davidson wrote:
>> Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As does LGPL. It just doesn't make it quite as easy
>> >> to make minor modifications and then crassly declare
>> >> the result to be your property. This kind of
>> >> shenanigan is what inspired creation of the GPL to
>> >> begin with.
>> >
>> > As seen in the BSD license:
>> >
>> > * Copyright (c) [year] [your name]
>> > * All rights reserved.
>> > *
>> > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>> > * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
>> > * are met:
>> > * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>> > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>> > * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>> > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>> > * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>> >
>> > This prevents the same thing.
>>
>> It doesn't.
>
> Prove it.
I can't "prove" anything if you can't read and comprehend the two
license agreements.
The BSD license does not prevent a totally proprietary, closed,
use of code. GPL does.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
North Slope images: <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson)
Crossposted-To:
talk.politics.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really)
Date: 3 May 1999 02:55:04 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 May 1999 23:59:50 GMT, Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 02 May 1999 22:41:33 GMT, Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 02 May 1999 20:52:34 GMT, Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark S. Bilk wrote:
>> >> >> >> >For each person, it depends on timescale or personal
>> >> >> >> >interest. Some systems elevate a "class" of individuals to take
>> >> >> >> >advantage of others ("practical communism" and GPL),
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Amazing! Exactly what "class of individuals" is enabled
>> >> >> >> to "take advantage of others" by means of the GPL? All of
>> >> >> >> humanity minus Bill Gates?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The GPL is a crock. It forces openness. That's not freedom.
>> >> >> >You like walking outside sometimes, I would bet. Would you like
>> >> >> >being *FORCED* to walk outside all the time? That's the key
>> >> >> >problem with the GPL and many recognize it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's equally extreme as what it was meant to replace.
>> >> >
>> >> > Nonetheless, there are better licenses out there than the GPL,
>> >> >such as the BSD-style license shipped with FreeBSD. I also have
>> >> >nothing against the real BSD license.
>> >>
>> >> Whether or not it is 'better' is quite debateable. It
>> >> certainly makes it far easier for a corporation to
>> >> mooch off of shared intellectual capital.
>> >
>> > It also makes it easier for a company to add its own
>> >proprietary code for its servers to it without worrying about
>> >having to make it free. I fail to see any problems in that.
>>
>> As does LGPL. It just doesn't make it quite as easy
>> to make minor modifications and then crassly declare
>> the result to be your property. This kind of
>> shenanigan is what inspired creation of the GPL to
>> begin with.
>
> As seen in the BSD license:
>
> * Copyright (c) [year] [your name]
> * All rights reserved.
> *
> * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> * are met:
> * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> This prevents the same thing.
It doesn't.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
North Slope images: <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson)
Crossposted-To:
talk.politics.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really)
Date: 3 May 1999 03:06:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, D. Vrabel
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 May 1999, Chris Costello wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mark S. Bilk wrote:
>> > > >For each person, it depends on timescale or personal
>> > > >interest. Some systems elevate a "class" of individuals to take
>> > > >advantage of others ("practical communism" and GPL),
>> > >
>> > > Amazing! Exactly what "class of individuals" is enabled
>> > > to "take advantage of others" by means of the GPL? All of
>> > > humanity minus Bill Gates?
>> >
>> > The GPL is a crock. It forces openness. That's not freedom.
>> > You like walking outside sometimes, I would bet. Would you like
>> > being *FORCED* to walk outside all the time? That's the key
>> > problem with the GPL and many recognize it.
>
>> Alas, your argument is wrong because your not forced to use the GPL or
>> to use GPL software.
>
> I'm completely aware. I don't like developing on software
>that makes me release all of my code. If I want to, say, use an
>IRC server that's GPLed, and add my proprietary extensions to it
>for conferences amongst my coworkers, I can't do that, now, can
>I?
Actually, you can amongst a few coworkers. If "your" code is
owned by that group of coworkers, you can do as you please. Just
don't be giving a binary to your church's Sunday School and
taking a tax write off by calling it a donation!
However, your logic is terribly flawed. You want the right to use
other's code with no restrictions placed on your use, but you insist
that you also be able to put severe restrictions on your code. To
justify that, you construct a dicotomy whereby any reference to "free"
has to mean you are totally free in every sense, or not at all.
The GPL is about as free as it gets. Nothing that actually
works is better. You are free to do anything except use it in a
less free manner than it was provided to you.
Your complaint that it is not as free as your code is unfree is
not rational.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
North Slope images: <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson)
Crossposted-To:
talk.politics.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really)
Date: 3 May 1999 03:14:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Floyd Davidson wrote:
>> Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> The GPL is a crock. It forces openness. That's not freedom.
>> >>>You like walking outside sometimes, I would bet. Would you like
>> >>>being *FORCED* to walk outside all the time? That's the key
>> >>>problem with the GPL and many recognize it.
>> >>
>> >>It's equally extreme as what it was meant to replace.
>> >
>> >Nonetheless, there are better licenses out there than the GPL,
>> >such as the BSD-style license shipped with FreeBSD. I also have
>> >nothing against the real BSD license.
>>
>> I fail to see where BSD is better than GPL. Allowing open software
>> to assist in the development of proprietary closed projects just is
>> not an advantage.
>
> Why isn't it?
The advantage only exists when additions and improvements are
shared with those who have also shared. That is the point of
free software you know...
>> It is also absolutely false that GPL forces openness on anyone.
>> Nobody is *required* to use GPL's code. GPL _permits_ openness,
>> and we have all seen the effect that it has had over the past 15
>> years or so as the GNU project has developed into an exceedingly
>> significant force. Not to mention what Linux has become in the
>> past 6-7 years...
>>
>> When a fellow like Torvalds (as opposed to Stallman) stands up
>> at Comdex and threatens to bury MicroSoft, it's pretty hard to
>> say that open software is a crock, or that the GPL hasn't been a
>> major enabling factor.
>
> Please tell me where I said open software is a crock.
Please see the first line of quoted material in this text, then
read carefully where *I* have shown that the GPL pretty much defines
what "open software" is. Whatever faults RMS has, the GNU project
has, or GPL has, we still have to admit that is the basis of
what we know as open software today.
You of course are free to disagree, but nobody has to pay attention either.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
North Slope images: <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
------------------------------
From: "Kertis A. Henderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Downloading RedHat 6.0 w/Win95
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 01:24:55 -0400
Mogley wrote:
>
> It seems when my win95 ftp client encounters a symbolic link on the host
> server, it downloads the links target and not the actual link. Will this
> cause a problem.
> I'm curious. Just wanna know whats going on.
Windows doesn't have symbolic links.
--
Kertis Henderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Arthur Pedyczak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: nwu.comp.unix.linux
Subject: Re: glibc 2.1 + downgrade + staroffice
Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 12:49:44 GMT
Jeremy Weinberger wrote:
> Does anybody know what is going on with glibc 2.1?
> 1. ftp.gnu.org isn't providing it right now. Here's what's on the ftp
> site:
> glibc-2.1 has been (temporarily) removed, until some
> political issues are worked out.
> 2. My redhat 6.0 installation just upgraded me to 2.1
> 3. I want to reinstall staroffice 5.0 and get it working again, but it
> only runs with 2.0.
>
> Can somebody please provide some advice on the appropriate method for
> downgrading to glibc 2.0? Is it as simple as rebuilding libc-2.0.so and
> relinking libc.so.6 to it? Is there anything that actually requires 2.1
> or runs better using the newer library? Why in the heck isn't it
> completely backwards-compatible? Because I can boot and run all my other
> software, I'm assuming that other things linked against glibc 2.0 were
> not broken. What's different about staroffice that it breaks?
If staroffice is your only problem, there is na easy fix. You have to
install glibc-2.0.7 and related libraries in a separate directory. In
redhat 6.0, all you have to do is install compatibility packages
compat-glibc-5.2-2.0.7.1 and compat-libs-5.2-1. Then you have to modify you
staroffice startup scipt (soffice, locate in bin subdirectory of staroffice
tree).
1. Change lat line of the script from:
exec $sd_inst/bin/$sd_binary "$1" "$2" "$3" "$4" "$5" "$6" "$7" "$8" "$9"
to:
exec /usr/i386-glibc20-linux/lib/ld-2.0.7.so $sd_inst/bin/$sd_binary "$1"
"$2" "$3" "$4" "$5" "$6" "$7" "$8" "$9"
2. Insert the following _BEFORE_ the above line:
export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/i386-glibc20-linux/lib:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH
It worked for me.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Costello)
Crossposted-To:
talk.politics.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: The GNU Fragrance of Sharing vs. the Stench of Greed (was: GNU reeks of
Communism (really)
Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 06:05:57 GMT
In article <7gjac1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Floyd Davidson wrote:
> Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <7gj368$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Floyd Davidson wrote:
> >> Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> As does LGPL. It just doesn't make it quite as easy
> >> >> to make minor modifications and then crassly declare
> >> >> the result to be your property. This kind of
> >> >> shenanigan is what inspired creation of the GPL to
> >> >> begin with.
> >> >
> >> > As seen in the BSD license:
> >> >
> >> > * Copyright (c) [year] [your name]
> >> > * All rights reserved.
> >> > *
> >> > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> >> > * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> >> > * are met:
> >> > * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> >> > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> >> > * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> >> > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> >> > * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> >> >
> >> > This prevents the same thing.
> >>
> >> It doesn't.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> I can't "prove" anything if you can't read and comprehend the two
> license agreements.
>
> The BSD license does not prevent a totally proprietary, closed,
> use of code. GPL does.
That's the down side.
Unfortunately, you missed a vital part. "must reproduce the
above copyright" and the "above copyright" happens to include
"Copyright (c) [year] [your name]"
>
> Floyd
>
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> North Slope images: <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
--
Chris Costello
If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong. - Schryer
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles E Taylor IV)
Subject: Re: Can linux damage my hardware?
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 19:04:51 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Shaun Schembri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[Stories of hardware going bad during normal use]
> Now here is my question. Was it a coincidence that both cards went
> bonkers while using Linux? I believe that I set the drivers correctly
> because I wouldn't have worked for the past 6 months. Finally my PC is
> almost 3 years old and never gave me this kind of problems while using
> Windows.
> If there is any logical answer for this dilemma please tell me as I
> really like Linux but I don't want to buy new cards every few months.
You mentioned earlier (in the part that I snipped) that you used Linux
as your "default" operating system. Could it be that you simply used
Linux more - and your hardware went bad "under Linux" because you
happened to be using Linux when the hardware died?
I've had no troubles with hardware "killed" by Linux. My Soundblaster
16 (circa 1994) is still going strong. :)
--
========================================================
Charles E Taylor IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
========================================================
Visit me on the web!
http://orangesherbert.ces.clemson.edu
========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Burrow)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: [SURVEY] Who has an internal modem in his linux box ?
Date: 3 May 1999 01:50:10 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 02 May 1999 05:18:28 GMT,
mezcal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Is there any trouble or dissadvantage ?
>None. All features of mine work under linux via AT commands.
>Advantage: Internal has less latency or "lag" than externals (great
>for game playing)
Have to call BS on this one. The internals talk to an internal serial
port-like thing, which in turn talks to the ISA bus. Same deal with
externals. Where would this magical ``lag'' come from?
Of course, the two advantages of an external are ease of power cycling
and seeing what the modem is doing at a glance.
--
William Burrow
Copyright 1999 William Burrow
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
