Linux-Misc Digest #92, Volume #20 Fri, 7 May 99 01:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Pro-Unix vs anti-WinTel (was: Re: Is Unix a single user operating system?)
(Johan Kullstam)
3D video card ("everett")
Majordomo ("Wm. Josiah Erikson")
Re: RedHat 6.0 or SuSe 6.1? ("Steve D. Perkins")
Re: Is Unix a single user operating system? (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
Linux and Windows 2000 ("William T. Trotter")
Re: Is Unix a single user operating system? (Sam Holden)
Re: Forum Package for Web Site ("Cameron Spitzer")
Re: What is this? (Colin Watson)
Re: Best Free X Windows Server for Win95/98 Box on Samba/Linux Network? ("rob")
Sound Level in RedHat 6.0 ("William T. Trotter")
xconsole ("Steve D. Perkins")
Re: Is Unix a single user operating system? (Bill Unruh)
X, Magic cookie exchange ot working. (Bill Unruh)
Re: rpm error (Christopher Mahmood)
Re: New Pic For Linux!!! Look At It!!! (Christopher Mahmood)
Re: Who's knocking at my door? (Christopher Mahmood)
Re: Majordomo ("Cameron Spitzer")
Re: Is Unix a single user operating system? (Bill Unruh)
SuSe 6.1 Setting up a PPP Connection to SWBELL.NET with wvdial ("Derek S. Smigelski")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Pro-Unix vs anti-WinTel (was: Re: Is Unix a single user operating system?)
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 06 May 1999 21:35:37 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Most of the Linux world seems to be pushing for a better
> Windows/desktop replacement and is driven by a strong anti-WinTel
> motive. Witness KDE developers openly stating that not only are
> they in no way X or Unix programmers, they don't think they should
> have to be. Every day Linux looks more and more like Windows/Mac
> and less and less like Unix, for better or worse.
that's strange. i seem to be able to use twm even with my most modern
of linux boxes. i have no kde or gnome or whatnot. maybe i'm weird.
i do notice that i've got bash, emacs, vi, ls, cp, awk, &c. looks
like unix to me.
> On the flip side *BSD is mostly pushing for a better Unix and could
> really care less about the traditional WinTel/Mac desktop market.
> *BSD isn't anti-WinTel, it's pro-Unix. There is a *big* difference
> between the two both in the motive and the result.
yeah, one's popular -- the other's not. ;->
can't you use kde in freebsd? if not, that'd be a freebsd failing.
> Personally I think what Linux is doing is *great*; The world *needs*
> a *viable* WinTel replacement/alternative. It just isn't what I
> need. I need a better Unix, and so I use FreeBSD.
the differences are marginal. one may have a better virtual memory
scheme than the other, one may schedule better. those are valid
reasons to prefer one to the other. however, the linux kernel or
freebsd kernel present largely the same api as any other flavor of
unix. the shells and command utilities are all about the same.
/etc/fstab looks similar on all unixes. if you want to believe in
some touchy-feely my unix is more berzerkely than thine, you go right
ahead.
> Yah, Emacs is a good OS, but I prefer FreeBSD.
emacs doesn't run on freebsd? looks like i ain't gonna try it any
time soon. ;-)
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: "everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 3D video card
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 10:55:41 +0800
I was thinking of buying new 3dfx card. And i want to use it under linux as
well.. any suggestion??
can linux support AGP??
thanks =)
------------------------------
From: "Wm. Josiah Erikson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: 5col.comp.linux
Subject: Majordomo
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 21:33:15 -0400
Is Majordomo available for Linux? Any pointers if I want to run a small
list server on my Linux box?
Please cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks much,
Josiah
------------------------------
From: "Steve D. Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RedHat 6.0 or SuSe 6.1?
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 23:11:16 -0400
A very excellant post! I wish you had started a new thread of its own
for it, instead of letting it be buried underneath this "duh... which
distribution is best?" nonsense thread.
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Is Unix a single user operating system?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 03:59:29 GMT
On Thu, 06 May 1999 16:18:37 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lack Mr G M)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rolf Marvin B�e Lindgren"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>.....[SNIP]..........
>|> all of this convinced me that an operating system that does not support
>|> an OPERATOR concept is fundamentally single-user. there muse be a user
>|> midway between user and root.
>
> It might be single-administrator, but it is decidely *not* single
>user. I have Unix systems with large numbers of different users doing
>disparate things at the same times and each process has rights based on
>its uid, of which there are many in concurrent use.
>
The point he is making is not relate to wheter "users"
can accomplish tasks, put rather the sub-administration.
Let me give you an example, if I might.
Let's say you have run an ISP. This ISP has 100 machines.
Root access is define and well secure. You firmly beleive
that the machines are secure.
Users have rights and can accomplish the task they need
on any machine they need. In short, all users are very
happy and don't require any hand holding or assitance.
(Boy what a pipe dream I'm building.)
Anyhow, let's say for a moment you assign a task to
a junior (or senior) admin person to do task on some
machines.
Now here's the catch. One day you find that all the
machines have been upgrade to a new buggy version of
the OS which you never authorized. What do you do?
--
If you have to read the docs, it's broken.
I hate making mistakes.
You can check my spelling at: http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster
------------------------------
From: "William T. Trotter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux and Windows 2000
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 02:27:45 GMT
Does the NTFS driver which can be compiled into
a linux kernel work with the new version of NTFS
which is used with Windows 2000?
Tom Trotter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam Holden)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Is Unix a single user operating system?
Date: 7 May 1999 03:58:29 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jesus Monroy, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 May 1999 16:18:37 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lack Mr G M)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rolf Marvin B�e Lindgren"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>.....[SNIP]..........
>>|> all of this convinced me that an operating system that does not support
>>|> an OPERATOR concept is fundamentally single-user. there muse be a user
>>|> midway between user and root.
>>
>> It might be single-administrator, but it is decidely *not* single
>>user. I have Unix systems with large numbers of different users doing
>>disparate things at the same times and each process has rights based on
>>its uid, of which there are many in concurrent use.
>>
> The point he is making is not relate to wheter "users"
> can accomplish tasks, put rather the sub-administration.
>
> Let me give you an example, if I might.
>
> Let's say you have run an ISP. This ISP has 100 machines.
> Root access is define and well secure. You firmly beleive
> that the machines are secure.
>
> Users have rights and can accomplish the task they need
> on any machine they need. In short, all users are very
> happy and don't require any hand holding or assitance.
> (Boy what a pipe dream I'm building.)
>
> Anyhow, let's say for a moment you assign a task to
> a junior (or senior) admin person to do task on some
> machines.
>
> Now here's the catch. One day you find that all the
> machines have been upgrade to a new buggy version of
> the OS which you never authorized. What do you do?
The sub-administrator gets sacked and possibly has legal action
launched against them. However, it would never occur in practice
because you would use sudo in that situation and thus restrict
what the person can do. Anyway the backup tapes would fix the
problem.
--
Sam
Basically, avoid comments. If your code needs a comment to be
understood, it would be better to rewrite it so it's easier to
understand. --Rob Pike
------------------------------
From: "Cameron Spitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Forum Package for Web Site
Date: 7 May 1999 00:20:20 GMT
In article <7gt4i4$okp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am looking for a perl, cgi, or java based package that will allow users to
>post messages and see those messages in a threaded html page.
Go to http://thinkofit.com/webconf/
Conferencing Software for the Web
I like HyperNews. Lots of other people prefer WWWBoard.
Cameron
------------------------------
From: Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: What is this?
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 01:15:11 +0100
On 3 May 1999, brian moore wrote:
> On Mon, 3 May 1999 12:07:16 -0700,
> Robert Annandale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It's not Linux's fault that you hosed your inittab.
> >
> > It happens right off the bat after my install.
> > Before I've 'hosed' anything.
>
> Then you didn't install whatever package it is that has mingetty in it.
>
> Install it or fix inittab.
Assuming Red Hat (hint: this information is good to provide if you
want useful help):
[cjw44@riva ~]$ rpm -qf /sbin/mingetty
mingetty-0.9.4-8
[cjw44@riva ~]$
Install something along those lines.
Colin
--
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for they will say both
'No' and 'Yes' and 'Try another newsgroup'." - Usenet Rule #17
------------------------------
From: "rob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Best Free X Windows Server for Win95/98 Box on Samba/Linux Network?
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 22:37:39 -0600
Good referral - so far VNC is fantastic! I can't believe just last
week I was visiting this site for their open source CORBA
server - who are these guys?
rob
Ursa_M wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>
>
>> Timothy Litwiller wrote:
>>
>> > yes, please send an URL
>> >
>> > Eugene VonNiederhausern wrote:
>> >
>> > > Cyrus Mehta wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > >
>> > > > I am creating a dual Windows/Linux environment using Samba for file
serving
>> > > > on a standard Ethernet network. I was wondering what kind of X
server software
>> > > > for the Windows side I could use to run some X windows apps off of
the LInux Box.
>> > > >
>> > > > Reliability is the most important factor, windows will crash often
enough without
>> > > > the help of the X server.
>> > > >
>> > > > Any ideas?
>> > > >
>> > > > CKM
>> > >
>> > > Yesterday, I found the best X server/viewer for windows (and linux)
that I have
>> > > seen yet and it is free (GNU Public License). It is called VNC from
Olivetti and
>> > > Oracle research laboratory. You can connect from linux->windows,
windows->linux,
>> > > linux->linux, windows->windows. It is a lot better than any of the
other products
>> > > I have seen ot this kind. I don't have the URL (it is at work) you
can email me or
>> > > post a reply and I will get it and reply.
>>
>> The URL is http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/ . Let me know what you
think...
>
>Ursa_M --> I am also using the VNC server and find it to be very reliable
and generally
>excellent. The install was easy. I tend to launch and kill the server
from a hyperterminal
>window via telnet and then sign onto the VNC X windows. VNC is persistent.
Unless you kill
>the session, the next time you login you will be EXACTLY where you were
when you closed the
>window. Server sessions can be conveniently killed from a command line,
telnet or direct,
>to keep that from being a problem. On the other hand, if you had multiple
devices going and
>wanted to keep an X windows session up while you moved from device to
device then this is a
>"feature" you would like. Personally, I haven't had a use for that yet so
just kill the
>session before I shut down my Win98 machine. VNC has never caused a hiccup
on either the
>Win98 or Linux side and is a very thin client on the Win98 side.
>
>Take care,
>
>Ursa_M
>
------------------------------
From: "William T. Trotter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Sound Level in RedHat 6.0
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 04:02:30 GMT
I am running RedHat 6.0 with a Soundblaster PCI 128
soundcard. I just built a new 2.2.7 kernel and I am
pretty sure I did everything correctly. I tried to
play an audio CD and I can barely hear it. Sound is
working since I can increase the level on the speakers
and get a reasonable volume. But the level is
dramatically lower than what I experience when using
Windows 2000 (sorry for mentioning that). Nevertheless,
it would be nice to be able to access some system
volume level and adjust line levels/output levels
to get things approximately the same. As things stand,
if I get reasonable volume in Linux, the boot sequence
in Windows will drive you out of the room. And if
I get a reasonable level in Windows, then you can
hardly hear anything in Linux. Thanks for any pointers.
Tom Trotter
------------------------------
From: "Steve D. Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: xconsole
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 23:49:03 -0400
I think that I asked this and got an answer a LONG time
ago... but have forgotten since then and find myself needing to
do the same thing for a new computer up at the office.
I've got a RedHat 5.2 system running KDE 1.1... that has been
running in runlevel 3. I just switched it over to use runlevel
5... and now whenever you log in the "xconsole" application
starts up. I can't remember if this is an "x-thing" or a
"KDE-thing", or which configuration file starts it up
automatically. Can anyone tell me again how to remove this
application from starting up automatically at login? Thanks!
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Is Unix a single user operating system?
Date: 7 May 1999 04:44:30 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
writes:
] "Yes, I know M$ win95 does not do this (security),
] but a least you can have that an enviromentally
] controlled area. That is to say, you have an area
] in your home or office that is secure from the
] outside world.
] More plainly, your computer (if win95) sits in
] your house. Your house has a lock on it.
] No one can enter you house and play with your
] computer.
Yes, they can. As long as your machine is connected to the net it is
wide wide open.
] With a UNIX box you enter someones computer
] from the outside world via the internet.
Not if it is not connected to the net. It is not necessary to connect a
unix machine tothe net. It is not necessary not to connect a Win95
machine to the net. How about comparing equivalent situations.
] While it is true anyone can walk up to a win95
] machine and simply get on it; this is really a *feature*.
Anyone can walk up to a Unix machine as well and simply get on it. The
xdm can be presented as a screen saver. All windowsusers are used to
entering something to get the screenscaver to go away.
You can furthermore trivially get the system to log on as some user on
bootup if youwant-- and have it run whatever version of an X desktop you
want. This is trivial. I still do not understand your point.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: X, Magic cookie exchange ot working.
Date: 7 May 1999 04:31:31 GMT
I am having trouble geting the MIT Magic cookie exchange to work between
two of my machines.
I do not run xdm. Instead I have the following in startx
mcookie=`mcookie`
xauth add :0 . $mcookie
xauth add `hostname -f`:0 . $mcookie
I then ( via rsh) put the magic cookie into the .Xauthority file of the
second system.
xauth extract - localhost:0|rsh remotehost xauth merge -
But when I try to start up X on teh remote system, I get a
Xlib: connection to "localhost:0.0" refused by server
Xlib: Invalid MIT-MAGIC-COOKIE-1 key
xterm Xt error: Can't open display: localhost:0.0
(where localhost and remotehost are replaced by their full names.)
I did a tcpdump on the connection, and the correct magic cookie does
occur in the stuff sent from the remotehost to the localhost.
Anyone know what could be going on here? Is it possible to debug X
connections? (I certainly cannot read the hex dump of the
tcpdump.)
Thanks
------------------------------
From: Christopher Mahmood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: rpm error
Date: 03 May 1999 04:08:11 -0700
yes, those numbers actually have a meaning.
-ckm
------------------------------
From: Christopher Mahmood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Pic For Linux!!! Look At It!!!
Date: 03 May 1999 04:00:56 -0700
your graphic sucks almost as much as posting binaries in a non-binaries
group...some of us are running leaf-sites man.
-ckm
------------------------------
From: Christopher Mahmood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who's knocking at my door?
Date: 03 May 1999 04:07:30 -0700
something like 'netstat -tc' usually does the trick.
-ckm
------------------------------
From: "Cameron Spitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: 5col.comp.linux
Subject: Re: Majordomo
Date: 7 May 1999 02:47:38 GMT
Majordomo requires Perl and something like Sendmail.
Most Linux distributions include Majordomo, and it works
as shipped.
Qmail is not enough like Sendmail to work with Majordomo as shipped,
but the shims are pretty simple.
( |forward `cat /var/majordom/lists/typical-list`
in a .qmail file will work.)
Cameron
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Wm. Josiah Erikson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is Majordomo available for Linux? Any pointers if I want to run a small
>list server on my Linux box?
> Please cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Thanks much,
> Josiah
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Is Unix a single user operating system?
Date: 7 May 1999 04:52:21 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
writes:
]>
] Not true. Win95 machines are secure even when permenantly
] connect to the Internet. The primary reason is that
] they do not have a login shell. I believe my comparison
] to be valid.
Huh? Do you believe that the login shell is the only way to break into a
machine?
Anytime you have something which listens to the net, you have the
possibility of a breaking. And to use the net, something has tolisten to
the net. sometimes it will be time critical, but...
] No login shell is a *feature* of win95.
Yes, and one which makes it very insecure.
You do know I assume that you can also run Unix with no daemons which
listen to the net? each is an easily configured daemon. For example just
do not run inetd and you have gotten rid of a whole bunch.
Again you compare unlike things. That unix is usually set up so it is
actually useful may or may not be what youwant, but it is up to you how
to set it up.
]>
]>Sorry- why is this necessary??? You can certainly set up Linux that way
]>if you really want! In fact just run an automatic login to some user in
]>the init sequence. But that is silly. Why do parents not want to have
]>their stuff segregated from their kids? Do you really think people habe
]>such a difficult time typing in a name and a password? This is not the
]>issue!
]>
] Yes it is an issue. I definitely is. Losing you pword involves
] administrative involvement.
So don;t put in a password.
] Every extra feature that is added, ie. login with shell and
] privleages, is an encumberance to end-users. You can ignore
] the issue, but that does not relieve the results.
So, if your users find it an encumbrance and they do not want the
security, don;t do it.
Most users I know want "encumbrances" since those arewhat they can use
to accomplish things.
------------------------------
From: "Derek S. Smigelski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: SuSe 6.1 Setting up a PPP Connection to SWBELL.NET with wvdial
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 23:54:31 -0500
I need help with SuSe 6.1 Setting up a PPP Connection to SWBELL.NET with
wvdial. Can anyone help. The modem dials gives the username and password,
then says "PPP not enabled". Then comes up with a message that says
"Starting PPPd and and hoping for the best." Then just goes to a blank line
and gives me nothing. Should it give me a "PPP Connection" confirmation?
Any suggestions.
Derek
Email
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
