Linux-Misc Digest #163, Volume #20 Wed, 12 May 99 03:13:18 EDT
Contents:
Re: MS Exchange and Linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?) (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: job for sendmail? (Christopher Mahmood)
Re: advice learning (Christopher Mahmood)
Re: man anything gives a blank screen and END (Christopher Mahmood)
Re: Web email system Re: MS Exchange and Linux (Christopher Mahmood)
Re: Nothing to do with Nothing (Christopher Mahmood)
Re: LILO Problems (Christopher Mahmood)
Re: sticky shift keys in linux (Christopher Mahmood)
Re: syslogd is filling my /var/log/messages with data received from the net (through
ppp) ??? (Christopher Mahmood)
Re: making linux go away (kdtc)
Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?) (david parsons)
Re: kernel too large, what now? (David Murray)
Terminal Emulator on Linux (Kan Yuenyong)
Re: Win98 and Linux Dual Boot (Charles Ritchie)
Printing problem (Edouard Oyer)
rpm and Data Typ 9 ("Folkert Meeuw")
Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?) (Leslie Mikesell)
Redhat Sparc wants 150M Smaller needed! (Bill Unruh)
Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Star office on glibc 2.1? (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Patte)
Re: Ken Thompson on Linux (Rob Fisher)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: MS Exchange and Linux
Date: 11 May 1999 23:20:34 -0500
In article <373149cf@nap-ns1>, Tim Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>BTW: Anyone know a good Web based email system using Apache and Qmail?
If you can get qmail to deliver in a format that an IMAP server
understands you can use imp (http://www.horde.org/imp/) as the
web interface. You'll also need php3 added to the apache server:
http://www.php3.org.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?)
Date: 11 May 1999 22:19:29 -0500
In article <7haktd$7f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <7hadqc$j43$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>That makes some sense, but it seems like a bad way of covering up the
>fact that Linux distributors *caused* the problem in the first place by
>including too much "stuff" in the base install.
Philosophically I almost agree, but practically I just drop in another
hard drive and have a chuckle about how they cost 10 times as much
a few years ago.
>When I install the
>system, I should only be installing the *system* -- not the system plus
>samba plus apache plus netscape plus netatalk plus everything else on
>earth.
I use most of those things on most of my machines, and am willing to
waste a couple of dollars of disk space to have them for experimentation
and reading the manual on the machines that don't really need them.
Apache is as much a part of a modern system as sendmail - at least
my systems.
>If Linux distributions used a more sane model and simply
>provided all of those things as options rather than defaults, they
>wouldn't have to worry about possibly overwriting non-distribution
>releases of local applications.
Installing them is optional. That's not the point. You should be
able to have your own modified copy and it shouldn't have to live
in the same place as the distribution version.
>FreeBSD doesn't install any non-system components by itself [that is
>left up to the user], so there is no risk of clobbering anything local
>during an upgrade. There is never any chance of different minor
>versions of an application living in both /usr and /usr/local, and so
>upgrading is as easy as replacing all system files in /usr [/usr/local
>will essentially be left alone].
But I *want* the apps upgraded along with the system, unless
there is some reason I have my own version besides needing
a fix before it makes it into the distribution. Isn't it
counterproductive to have to think about whether someone else
considered something a part of the base system or not and whether
or not you installed a modified version that you want to keep?
>It's not a matter of controlled versus uncontrolled upgrade paths, it's
>a matter of what's included in the distribution during install or
>upgrade. FreeBSD makes effective use of the "traditional" method
>because it doesn't install any non-system software during upgrades.
I don't understand your arbitrary distinction between system
and non-system, or how it relates at all to local modifications.
>If Linux didn't include all of those non-system components during
>install, it wouldn't have had to break with the "traditional" model.
>The decision was purely one of marketing, not design. Most veteran
>Linux admins I know end up relocating or linking things into /usr/local,
>simply for compatibility reasons. For them, at least, the default
>install procedures are far from convenient.
Symlinks are quick and easy. Perl is just about the only thing that
really needs to appear in /usr/local/bin because the path is
regretably hard coded in too many places. It also needs to appear
in /usr/bin on Linux for the same reason.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Christopher Mahmood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: job for sendmail?
Date: 11 May 1999 04:52:00 -0700
if i understand what you're saying, you are describing Leif Erlingsson
sendmail-envelope hack (http://www.lege.com and the Mail-Queue
Howto).
-ckm
------------------------------
From: Christopher Mahmood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: advice learning
Date: 11 May 1999 05:00:45 -0700
I think the books that have been most help to me have been
_Essential System Administration_, by Aileen Frisch, and _X
Windows System Admin. Guide, Vol 8_, both published by
O'Reily. Note that neither are specifically "Linux" books,
although Frisch's has a lot of Linux stuff with comparisons to
the Unices.
I got an ad. in the mail a few days ago (damn Linux Journal) for a
book called, _Learn Linux in 10 minutes_ ....
-ckm
------------------------------
From: Christopher Mahmood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: man anything gives a blank screen and END
Date: 11 May 1999 05:20:59 -0700
is this in an xterm? type 'eval $(resize)' and see if that helps.
-ckm
------------------------------
From: Christopher Mahmood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Web email system Re: MS Exchange and Linux
Date: 11 May 1999 05:39:00 -0700
there was an article in LJ this month on a simple web-based pop
client--kind of cool.
-ckm
------------------------------
From: Christopher Mahmood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nothing to do with Nothing
Date: 11 May 1999 05:26:43 -0700
do we need inane troll-bait comments here? I've got a fortune data file
made up of quotes i've collected from the infamous "Borris", king of
NT trolls. Behold:
"I treat Scott McNeally and other anti-MS advocates like cockroaches."
"Shut your ass up (hint: your ass and mouth are the same thing)."
and my personal favorite,
"I'm looking for some nice person to suck my gcc, eat my gdb, and enjoy my linux."
-ckm
------------------------------
From: Christopher Mahmood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LILO Problems
Date: 11 May 1999 05:47:07 -0700
this is more of a windows question and is not really a lilo problem.
at the dos prompt (god, i haven't typed that in years) type 'win' and
it should start. If you always want this, edit '\msdos.sys' and change
the line 'BootGUI=0' to 'BootGUI=1'.
-ckm
------------------------------
From: Christopher Mahmood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: sticky shift keys in linux
Date: 11 May 1999 04:54:05 -0700
it's probably been done in emacs, but it seems a general solution
would have to be at a much lower level.
-ckm
------------------------------
From: Christopher Mahmood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: syslogd is filling my /var/log/messages with data received from the net
(through ppp) ???
Date: 11 May 1999 05:51:50 -0700
you have kernel-level debugging enabled on pppd. check your options file
and ppp script.
-ckm
------------------------------
From: kdtc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: making linux go away
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 13:37:56 +0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> install another Windows95/Dos system make work, because once I install
> both windows95 and Linux, and then I reinstall Windows95, then LILO
> didn't work any more until I reinstall Linux again.
>
Not necessarily. I believe all you need to do is use the Boot
disk and then at the boot prompt, mount your linux root on your
HD, then re-run lilo. Install the Win95 and Linux bootable partitions,
then install lilo in the mbr. so when you boot, it'll go to
the boot prompt for you to select either Win95 or Linux.
You don't need to reinstall Linux just because Win95 screwed up
the Linux boot.
--
email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s (david parsons)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?)
Date: 11 May 1999 20:54:16 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >snip<
>:> I'm still not sure of what you mean. Are you saying that if the
>:> distribution can install the FooBar package, it should go in /usr
>:> but if you install it yourself later it should go in /usr/local?
>:
>: Yes, that's the way the Linux distributions work.
>
> Hmm, lame.
Why?
If the software is under package management, it should go into one
of the system directories (he says, blithely ignoring the teeny
detail that Mastodon writes games into /usr/games and TeX into
/usr/teTeX); if the software isn't under package management, it's
a really good idea to put it in a place where the next update won't
blow it away.
____
david parsons \bi/ Oh, didn't we tell you? /home is now under
\/ package management, so all your user directories
were blown away with the upgrade to fooUnix 0.07 :-)
Hey, what are you doing with that Windows disk?
------------------------------
From: David Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: kernel too large, what now?
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 22:34:15 GMT
hellraiser wrote:
> did you re-run /sbin/lilo after you compiled your second kernel
> (bzImage)?
My original message specifically says that "Lilo" is the program telling
me it is too large. Obviously, yes, I ran it..
--DavidM
------------------------------
From: Kan Yuenyong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Terminal Emulator on Linux
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 06:01:47 +0000
I have problem on using Terminal emulator from Win95 -> Linux.
There is problem when I press Ctrl-C , it's echo strange character.
My application is running on Informix 4GL and have problem
when get the character.
There is no such problem when using telnet program from WIN95/98,
but have such problem when using another terminal emulator, such as
easyterm.
Anybody help me?
Sincerely,
Kan Yuenyong
------------------------------
From: Charles Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win98 and Linux Dual Boot
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 22:14:29 -0700
Sasa Ostrouska wrote:
> Robear wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> No Use LILO !
>
> >
>
> Install LILO and configure it should be the best thing for you.
> Bye Sasa
I have the same configuration as yours: two IDE drives with Win98 on the first
one and Linux on the 2nd. I set up my system so it presents a simple text menu
and waits for a response at boot time. No floppy is needed.
My /etc/lilo.conf file looks like this:
boot=/dev/hda
map=/boot/map
message=/etc/lilomsg
install=/boot/boot.b
prompt
image=/boot/vmlinuz-2.0.36-0.7
label=linux
root=/dev/hdb1
read-only
other=/dev/hda1
label=win98
table=/dev/hda
With this configuration (note that the "timeout" parameter is omitted), the
system will display the text contained in the file /etc/lilomsg and then wait
indefinitely for a response.
On my system, the text in /etc/lilomsg contains:
Enter "win98" to start Windows or "linux" to start Redhat Linux
If you add the timeout parameter, the system will wait the amount of time
specified (in tenths of a second), then boot the default (linux).
Note that the "image" parameter will probably need to be changed to reflect the
kernal installed on your system. Look in your /boot directory for the file name
starting with vmlinuz. Also, note that after setting up your lilo.conf file (and
the optional message file), you will need to run the lilo command to install the
boot loader.
For more information on the many LILO configuration options, see the MAN page for
lilo.conf, found in Section 5 (File Formats).
Chuck Ritchie
------------------------------
From: Edouard Oyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Printing problem
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 22:38:34 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Guys,
I really need your help on that one. I am in despair of doing anything.
I already went through the printing HOWTO and things are not the way
they should be.
I am able to print when I am logged as root. I can't otherwise. The
message I get is
"lpr: connect: permission denied.
Jobs queued, but cannot start daemon."
The printing HOWTO says it is generally due to a bad network
configuration. In that case how can I be able to print when being root?
I am loosing my last hair.
Thanks for your help,
Edouard
--
------------------------------
From: "Folkert Meeuw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: rpm and Data Typ 9
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 08:00:54 +0200
Hi Dear Friendly Readers,
what is Data Typ 9 and why is it not supported by rpm ?
MfG Folkert Meeuw
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?)
Date: 11 May 1999 18:17:32 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: If you don't want the distribution versions, don't install them. You can
>: put your version under /usr/local if that is where you want to store and
>: (forever) maintain it.
>
> I'm still not sure of what you mean. Are you saying that if the
> distribution can install the FooBar package, it should go in /usr
> but if you install it yourself later it should go in /usr/local?
Yes, that's the way the Linux distributions work. I didn't like it
at first either but it has kind of grown on me.
> -This is all assuming that FooBar *isn't* a "system" component, just
> an extra package the "distribution" thinks is "cool" enough to let
> you install at system install time.
The point is that it is being maintained by the distribution provider.
The function of the program is not so relevant as the fact that
you are out of sync with the distribution.
> And what do you mean by "maintain" it? FreeBSD ports and package
> installs that go into /usr/local are fully registered in the package
> database, ditto for Solaris packages and pretty much every other
> Unix system I've worked with. Are you saying Linux systems in
> general don't register packages if they are installed in /usr/local?
> That doesn't sound correct at all.
Linux systems don't put anything in /usr/local. That is your space.
>: It isn't a source vs. binary distinction. If you build from source RPMs
>: from the distribution the installation goes to the system directories just
>: like the binary version. It is a distribution vs. your own copy
>: distinction.
>
> Do you define "distribution" as being the base system (kernel + OS
> system components and utilities) or do you define it as the base
> system + all the random toys that nearly every single Linux and *BSD
> system installer will offer to install for you durring base system
> install?
If it comes with the distribution it doesn't go in /usr/local regardless
of anyone's concept of whether it is part of the base system or not.
(My take on this is that any program that knows how to call system()
or popen() includes all the others...).
>: It is annoying at times but in these days of new full distributions every
>: 6 months it is nice to only have to separately maintain the things that
>: are not included.
>
> *everything* is "included" (or at least damn close to it) in nearly
> all Linux and *BSD "distributions". The distinction should be
> system components vs non-system components. No sane system defines
> it as anything else.
No one can ever decide that. The real distinction is whether you want
to keep your local modified copy after a complete system re-install.
Thus nothing in a system re-install should ever overwrite anything
in /usr/local. The things that live there can either be programs
that aren't in a distribution, your own original work, or modified
versions of system programs that you may or may not want to be the
first (or only) version in $PATH.
>: If you have /usr/local as a separate partition or a symlink to a directory
>: in another partition you can safely wipe out your system partition(s) and
>: reinstall the latest of everything
>
> Define "everything". The system or the system + extra toys such as
> Gimp that the "distribution" may include?
Everything on the CD/ftp site - the things you expect to overwrite with
updated versions when you do a complete reinstall.
>: without losing any of the other software you have installed there. If a
>: system update clobbers anything in 'your' directories you might have to
>: wade through a backup to sort things out.
>
> "System", that's the key word here, *system update*. Not system
> plus all the neat little toys that every "distribution" allows one
> to install at "system" install/update time.
Why do you want to have to sort these things out from your own additions
and modifications when it is time for an update? With the Linux
layout you can keep /home and /usr/local on different partitions and
simply clobber / and /usr with the new stuff, then put any config
files worth keeping back in /etc. If you stick to a strictly
controlled upgrade path (like only one *bsd flavor) you may not
care about this sort of thing, but if you want the option of
switching to a completely different distribution with a minimum
of trouble it works out nicely.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Redhat Sparc wants 150M Smaller needed!
Date: 11 May 1999 23:17:38 GMT
I just tried to install Redhat 6 on a Sparc machine and it told it it
wants 150M of disk space > This is huge! I have a 100M disk on it. How
do I get it down to say 60M (with X) Will be using a sparc II as an
Xterminal mainly.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 06:19:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>snip<
: perl4 isn't changing, so it's safe to stick it in /usr/bin [as FreeBSD
: does]. perl5 is likely to undergo a minor version increment between CD
: releases, so it goes in
: /usr/local/bin [and it's up to the user to decide between the version
: included on the disk or to grab the latest from CPAN].
Incorrect.
As of FreeBSD version 3.x perl5 is now shipped as the system perl,
in /usr. The perl lib site directory however is pointed to
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.005 so that locally installed
modules won't be affected by system upgrades.
The continued use of perl4 previous to 3.x had nothing to do with
how stable its code base is.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
My code is filled with comments! It's just that my comments are
written in Perl.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 06:26:44 GMT
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
:>That makes some sense, but it seems like a bad way of covering up the
:>fact that Linux distributors *caused* the problem in the first place by
:>including too much "stuff" in the base install.
:
: Philosophically I almost agree, but practically I just drop in another
: hard drive and have a chuckle about how they cost 10 times as much
: a few years ago.
It's not simply a matter of disk space.
>snip<
: I use most of those things on most of my machines, and am willing to waste
: a couple of dollars of disk space to have them for experimentation and
: reading the manual on the machines that don't really need them. Apache is
: as much a part of a modern system as sendmail - at least my systems.
The default Apache is fine for static HTML and a few CGI scripts.
Anyone doing anything really interesting however, will likely
want or need to build there own.
>snip<
: I don't understand your arbitrary distinction between system
: and non-system, or how it relates at all to local modifications.
Sorry, but Gimp and Doom aren't system components. The distinction
is far from arbitrary.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
My code is filled with comments! It's just that my comments are
written in Perl.
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Patte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Star office on glibc 2.1?
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 12:10:23 +0200
Rene Bauer wrote:
> Ken Williams wrote:
> >
> > So what does one have to do to actually use Star Office on 2.1? If its not
> > possible, is there a mini-howto that explains in detail how to downgrade to
> > 2.0.7? Can I run both? Why is this so difficult?
>
> I think most of the newest distributions like OpenLinux 2.2, RedHat 6.0
> and SuSE 6.1 use glibc 2.1 and distribute StarOffice. So there must be a
> way. But I haven't had a look at one of them yet.
>
>
There is a solution to have staroffice with glibc2.1: have a look at the news
group:
fr.comp.os.linux.moderated
see articles: StarOffice et glibc 2.1: solution
StarOffice et glibc 2.1:fichier /usr/bin/soffice
I have a problem too with g++ compiler since I have installed the glibc2.1
library, I can't compile some program, here is the message:
/usr/bin/ld: cannot open -lstdc++: Aucun fichier ou r�pertoire de ce type
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
Is there a solution?
Thank you.
-- Fran�ois Patte. UFR de math�matiques et informatique.
45 rue des St P�res. 75270 Paris Cedex 06
Tel: 01 44 55 35 59 -- Fax: 01 44 55 35 35
http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
------------------------------
From: Rob Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ken Thompson on Linux
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 07:51:55 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > But my point was that you /can't/ compare your single user home computer
> > to the heavily loaded, heavily network-dependent machines you probably
> > have at work. That's like saying your car never breaks down when you
> > only ever go to the end of the road in it. Do 40,000 miles a year in it
> > without breakdowns and then I'll believe it's reliable.
>
> I believe Linux is used by many UK ISPs for web serving and possibly
> other tasks. (I know the ISP my web-site is on uses Linux.)
I've a fair bit of experience with ISPs, (I'm currently working at
Planet Online, who host Freeserve, Britain's most heavily subscribed
ISP) and the general concensus seems to be moving away from Linux. It's
still good for things like mail of course. Freeserve's mail (1.5 million
users?) runs on Linux.
> Possibly most
> of these boxes aren't heavily loaded compared with some major corporate
> web-sites, but I think it shows that Linux can at least cope with a step
> up from the "single user home computer" that you seem to imply Linux is
> solely used for.
Largely used for.
> Must go - got to check the Linux mailserver I'm testing with 250
> concurrent users...
Am I supposed to be impressed by that? (Sorry, that sounded horrid - it
wasn't meant to!). Microsoft Exchange can handle 250 users no problem.
Rob
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
