Linux-Misc Digest #196, Volume #20 Thu, 13 May 99 23:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Gnome Help ! (Related Question) (Antaine)
Re: RedHat price... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: installation with win95 n linux (dan)
Re: GNU reeks of Communism (returning to %252522GNU Communism%252522) (Peter Seebach)
Re: GNU reeks of Communism (returning to %252522GNU Communism%252522) (Peter Seebach)
Re: creating redhat 6.0 cd (Mr. Fabulous)
Re: GNU reeks of Communism (Christopher B. Browne)
Re: WordStar (or equiv.) on LINUX? (Des Small)
Re: Strange password problem (jason)
Re: ../bin vs. ../sbin (Mark McCoy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Antaine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x,linux.redhat,linux.redhat.install,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Gnome Help ! (Related Question)
Date: 11 May 1999 19:35:07 GMT
David Tabachnikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Antaine wrote:
>> > #!/bin/bash
>> > gnome-session
>>
>> I have that in my .xinitrc in the root directory and when
>> I "startx" as root it cranks up two sessions. The first
>> screen comes up, it sits there a second, then the screen
>> I use comes up. I've tried everything from altering the
>> Xclients file to leaving the Xclients file and commenting
>> out "gnome-session" in .xinitrc. When I do the later GNOME
>> won't start at all. Any help is greatly appreciated.
> I think the first screen is Enlightenment starting up...
> the only thing to do is, change a window manager.
Thanks. That's a distinct possibility. I'll look into it.
> --
> -------------------------------------------------
> David Tabachnikov
> Second Horizon
> http://gulfan.bc.ca/shorizon/index.htm
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> UIN 3600179
> -------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RedHat price...
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 19:39:53 -0700
Tech support? yeah right. It's been 120 days and I've still
never received any replies to my emails for tech support for my
official redhat liscenced product... Cheapbytes for me.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> According to Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I just checked out the price on the newest version of RedHat (6.0),
> > and I see that the basic boxed set is going to sell for between
> > $75-$80, to which I say, "ARE THEY OUT OF THEIR EVER-LOVING MINDS?!"
> > Is there really that much new in 6.0 to justify such an extreme price
> > hike?
>
> Remember, what you are paying for is *not* the software -- the bulk of
> that cost is for the 30 days on installation and technical support. A
> small portion of it is production, packaging, manuals, shipping, and
> profit for the retailer. To be honest, really, I can't see how they
> can make any money at all at that price unless *very* few people
> actually call in with technical support problems.
>
> If you don't need support, just download it off the net or buy the CD
> from cheapbytes for two bucks.
>
> -p.
------------------------------
From: dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: installation with win95 n linux
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 21:41:04 +0000
Jemas wrote:
> I'm new to linux, i just got rh5.2 and i want to install it onto my current
> Win95 OS harddisk. When ever i run the set up straight from the rh5.2 CD,
> i'm alway stuck somewhere in the partition of my harddisk. How can i mount
> the drive, How can i partition with Disk Druid and how do partition the
> necessary drive and how to set a root drive.
>
> Thank a lot for the help.
As far as redhat tells me they don't support umsdos so thats not an option for
you.
You will have to repartition somehow first. With partition magic or something
similar.
After you create a partition if your lucky enough not to wipe out your
windows,
the setup of disk druid will let you install to that new partition.
If you don't want to repartion. You might try a distribution like slackware or
Caldera
which supports UMSDOS. Mind you the performance of running on a fat partition
is a
little slower but it has some really neet advantages like sharing the
partition space
with windows and allowing you quick access to the windows partition.
Good deal if your just learning because you can just boot windows and delete
the linux
directory and start again if you screw things up a bit and you will until you
get the hang of it.
Everybody does.
Hope it helps
------------------------------
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)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 15:03:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Marco Anglesio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'll dispense with repeating that you and I both work in a situation where
>the worker holds all the power due to a labour shortage. However, the
>weakness of that statement follows along the same lines. With two
>employers - even with an arbitrary, high number of employers, upwards wage
>pressure is hardly a problem so long as there are plenty of prospective
>employees.
True.
However, over time, unless the birth rate is really high, the trend seems
to be to run out of employees.
>For example, there are plenty of farms, but I can hardly see upwards
>pressure on wages in the farm labour market. If anything, it is at the
>very, very rock bottom for subsistence and that alone.
Yes. This is because "more efficient" economic models are fighting with
people to whom farming isn't a career, but a "way of life" - meaning, they
may not do the most efficient thing, but they don't feel they have the option
of going into another industry.
This may eventually be offset by consumer interest in "organic food grown
by real people", which commands premium prices at co-ops.
>Let me draw a second illustration: growth of real mean family income in
>the US and in Canada have been flat or in decline since 1974 (the US
>started to inch upwards in fiscal 1996; Canada is unfortunately still
>flat).
Interesting; I've seen claims that it's gone up or down over the same time,
too. :) I'd love to see *real* statistics. One of the problems I've seen
is that some statistics decide not to include certain classes of work in
their analysis of income.
>I get about the same, but it's broken down as EI, CPP (government pension
>plan, mandatory deduction but also capped), and Federal Tax (of which 1/3
>is actually provincial tax). I doubt that you pay as much in EI, for the
>simple reason that the EI plan in Canada is probably much more generous
>than that in the US.
True - but how much is your employer paying in the same taxes? At least in
the areas I am, they tell you "it costs you nothing because your employer pays
it". So, I can't get good figures. I know that my company has to pay a
*LOT* of money to the feds, though, on fairly small wages; we may be forced
to increase our cut of consulting rates, because we're ending up with no money
after we pay all the taxes.
You heard it here first: When the "employer" pays, he does it with the
employee's salary, because that's where the money is going.
>>3% of that paycheck would nearly *DOUBLE* the amount she comes out ahead.
>That's assuming that she saves it, and all of it.
It's just saying she comes out with about twice as much money "over expenses".
After you pay for rent, car insurance, etcetera, you have a bit of money.
Doubling it *doubles* the amount you can save, even if it's just a little
percentage of "income".
>However, the question remains: would the extra money change her life
>substantially. I don't know how much your friend makes, but I still think
>that it wouldn't. Let's say I save an extra 10 dollars a week from not
>paying EI; 10 bucks, even if I saved it, would not change anything.
Once again, it's hard for me to say. Let's say I were given 2% of my annual
salary for my working career.
I could buy a new car with cash, I suspect.
Look at someone who's been working more than two or three years. You get
to the point where that 2% could be enough to allow you to pay off your car
loan (I'm told most people in the U.S. don't actually own their cars), and
that would be a couple hundred dollars a month you wouldn't be paying.
Remember, it's not just the money. It's the indirect effects. It's not
paying 10 to 20 percent credit card interest rates on the debt you paid
off sooner. It's not getting a $15 "overdraft" fee for a $2.50 check.
At one point, I had a string of months where I ended up with overdraft
fees, and where these fees caused me to have overdrafts the next month.
Mostly this was just bad bookkeeping, frankly. However:
I bought some paint in August of '92. If I hadn't bought that paint until
May '93 when I actually finally got the walls in question scraped to paint
them, I would have saved about $800.
Giving people their money helps them a *LOT*.
>Joe Average who doesn't ever collect? Certainly. However, that's why they
>call it *insurance*. Likewise, you pay a few dollars for medical every
>week, or your company does. If you stay healthy, you're fine, all is well
>and dandy. If you have to have a heart transplant which is going to lay
>back your insurer 100k, more than you'll ever contribute to the insurance
> plan, well, you collect from all the other people who pay in but don't
>get
>out. It's the nature of insurance.
True. But, with EI, the people who end up walking away with enough money to
matter are the THOUSANDS of full-time desk clerks paid to administer the
system.
I have a *really* hard time believing that the system pays the "recipients" as
much money as it pays the administrative staff.
>>Of course, part of this is just that, historically, our welfare system
>>was exceptionally stupid; if you were entitled to, say, $20k/year (annualized)
>>during your period of unemployment, the only way you could get any benefit
>Isn't this welfare, and not EI?
Same happened with EI. I was qualified for $N per week. I only got paid
any amount in excess of what I earned, up to $N. So, if I earned $50 in a
week, I got $(N-50) from the EI plan.
In other words, unless I could earn *MORE* than the EI money, it was stupid
for me to even try to work.
I've known people whose response was to fill out two job applications a week
they weren't qualified for, for their entire six months, because that was the
way to get the best response from the system.
>EI schemes tend to be term-limited (you
>work a certain amount of time to qualify; EI gives you a certain amount of
>time to find work). You continue to consume during this period - the money
>goes directly back into the local economy.
After a lot of inefficiency, yes. It's very poorly invested.
>Is the declining returns with increasing earnings a bug or a feature? I'd
>rather think it's a bug. At least it is here: they want you to find a job
>which pays you better than a small fraction of what your old job did
>(which is what EI pays you: a fraction of your prior earnings). It may not
>be "incentive to get your feet on the ground", as you put it, but a job
>which pays you the same as or less than your EI does is not going to get
>your feet on the ground; it'll just put you in a cycle of intermittent and
>abject poverty, working minimum wage (or less) with no means to get out of
>a minimum-wage existence.
Except, of course, that often, a job like that will, after a while, turn into
a better deal. Maybe it'll let you get qualifications in another industry.
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Will work for interesting hardware. http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
------------------------------
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)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 15:08:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter> The fact is, I know very few people who have been
> Peter> substantially helped by that system, and I know a lot who
> Peter> would be a lot more free to leave their current employment
> Peter> if they hadn't had a substantial chunk of their paychecks
> Peter> taken away from them for "reemployment insurance" for their
> Peter> entire working lives.
>Really. Then, I suspect you know very few people who actually work
>for a living.
How can you conclude this? If the people I knew weren't employed, they
wouldn't be losing anything to EI.
I know only one person not actively employed, and he's doing part-time
consulting while looking for better work.
>Yeah, the idea behind "welfare reform" was to force people to do
>without at at minimum-wage job instead of doing without on a gov't
>check.
In the hopes that, once they had *actual work experience*, they might get
real jobs.
It works. I know someone who used to be unemployable; now she makes a
lot more money than she ever has before, because she got enough work
experience to start qualifying for real jobs.
>I'm sure you're tickled by the thought of even more kids left to fend
>for themselves because their mothers <have> to work and childcare only
>goes to those with the money to pay. Is it safe to say you've never
>actually known anyone who was on welfare? Probably.
No, not at all. I know a lot of people who have been on welfare, for
varying lengths of time. I know only one person measurably helped by EI.
I know a few who were helped by the "welfare" system in general, but it
didn't help very well. I hear it's gotten better; by now, most of these
people have given up on it and gotten jobs.
I do, however, actively pre-select for clue.
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Will work for interesting hardware. http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mr. Fabulous)
Subject: Re: creating redhat 6.0 cd
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 02:05:40 GMT
During a restless day hobnobbing in comp.os.linux.misc, "Bob Cunius"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quacked like a little penguin as (s)he typed
on the keyboard like so:
> hi,
> i recently downloaded redhat 6.0 from ftp.redhat.com in hopes of burning
> the files onto a cd. Right now I have windows 98 on my only computer
> capable of burning a cd. I've tried to burn the files 3 times. Each time I
> try and boot the redhat install and search for the cd on my local cdrom it
> says that the cd-rom does not contain a redhat linux disk. I burnt it with
> the following options: bootable iso9660
"Please be sure to use the Joliet CD format, **NOT** the ISO9660
format. Using the ISO9660 format will result in a complete waste of a
CD, due to it using MS-DOS 8.3-style filenames," the preceding is from
the Mandrake site, http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/howtoisoen.html .
Perhaps that is the culprit. I know that somewhere on the CD itself
there, or in one of the mirror sites, I'll look into it, there's
direction on CD burning.
--
Mr. Fabulous
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GNU reeks of Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 03:07:56 GMT
On Fri, 14 May 1999 00:21:01 GMT, Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>As you note, productivity is high. Wealth is high, too; our standard of
>"poverty" is a moving target, but last I heard, an awful lot of the people
>living "in poverty" had color televisions.
With the *dramatic* decreases in price of television sets, it is no
longer a challenge to pay for one nicer than anything that was
available 10 years ago.
People can have "color TV" and nonetheless live in frightful squalor,
which is one of the things that makes it remarkably difficult to draw
conclusions about changes in peoples' "economic well-offness."
--
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?..."
------------------------------
From: Des Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WordStar (or equiv.) on LINUX?
Date: 13 May 1999 16:05:37 +0100
Joe Dubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I know someone who would like to switch to LINUX. Because he can type
> > 100 WPM and knows WordStar for DOS better than his phone number, he
> > would like to know if a version of WordStar, with control diamond
> > (Ctrl+S, Ctrl+E, Ctrl+X, and Ctrl+D) functionality, exists for LINUX.
>
> Your friend could do what I had done on HPUX for the past 10 years and
> now do on Linux. I use 'emacs' with custom WordStar key bindings in my
> '~/.emacs' file. And 'emacs -nw' runs nicely in an existing terminal
> window. E-mail me if you'd like a copy of my '.emacs' file.
Or he could use the text editor "joe" which is supplied with most
linux distributions. When invoked as "jstar" it does wordstar
emulation reasonably well, by all accounts. It's also _much_ smaller
(and faster to start) than emacs.
Never having used wordstar myself I use emacs with standard bindings.
HTH
Des.
------------------------------
From: jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Strange password problem
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 11:24:42 -0400
Robert Thomas wrote:
...
> You are right. My root password is 'pegasus' which is 7 characters. When I
> add the eight character it will not accept it. My user password is 'corvette'
> which just happens to be 8 characters so naturally any other chars are
> ignored.
>
Hmm... you've changed your root password, now that you've told the whole world
what it is, right? :-)
-jason
(to reply via email, make the appropriate substitution in my email address)
------------------------------
From: Mark McCoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ../bin vs. ../sbin
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 10:23:56 -0500
Robert Heller wrote:
>
> Tor Slettnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> In a message on 07 May 1999 17:28:19 -0700, wrote :
>
> TS> Now, the difference between ../bin and ../sbin is a little more
> TS> unclear. It used to be that static binaries went into sbin, and
> TS> binaries linked against a library in ../lib went into ../bin.
> TS> Nowadays, however, more and more people seem to have the idea that
> TS> 'sbin' is for system administration utilities.
>
> It is not uncommon for the system administration utilities to be
> statically linked -- some need to be fired up independently of ld.so
> being run. Also, the stuff in /sbin (and /usr/sbin) are things 'normal'
> users have no business running. The normal default (user) path does not
> include /sbin and /usr/sbin. On some *older* boxes some of what is in
> /sbin lives in /etc (of all places -- check out an old SunOS or Ultrix
> box).
::snip::
Or just check out a ***brand*new*** SCO Openserver 5.0.5 box
( but only if you can hold your nose with one hand and still type with
the other, SCO is pretty stinky )
--
Mark McCoy -- Proud to run Linux since February 1996
Systems Administrator - Cajun Brothers Technology, llc
The views in this message do not necessarily reflect the views of my
employer
This message posted from snowdog, a 100% MS-free machine.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
