Linux-Misc Digest #200, Volume #20 Fri, 14 May 99 03:13:14 EDT
Contents:
Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?) (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: I am on a quest... (Steve Lamb)
Oracle and Perl DBI/DBD on Linux Problem (Simon Griffiths)
Re: GNU reeks of Communism (Christopher B. Browne)
Re: Ken Thompson on Linux (Rob Fisher)
Re: I am on a quest... (brian moore)
Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Getting PPP to work (Wayne Kovsky)
Re: Getting PPP to work (Bill Unruh)
Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?) (Donn Miller)
Problem with at/batch command ([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: 13 May 1999 22:47:49 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:
>: What I really want is for someone else to assemble a distribution
>: down to within a dozen or so programs of what I actually want
>: installed.
>
> Create your own install.cfg. AFAIK most (all?) Linux distributions
> have very similar systems.
Did you miss the 'someone else' part? RedHat seems to have done a nice
job of assembling a nice set of KDE and GNOME apps that I wouldn't have
had time to select and put together myself.
> You got it. Hit the All button on any release of Linux or *BSD and
> you're done.
Does *bsd have a reasonable set of new apps selected for you in every
release?
>:>: That means I'll blow away the package database anyway
>:>
>:> Why?
>:
>: It's faster and easier
>
> ROTFL!
It is about a 15 minute job to answer the start-up questions for
a RedHat install, letting it wipe out / and /usr. Then you go
for coffee while it copies the files in, then put a few saved
files back in /etc, and you're good for another year.
How much time does it kill if you have a single mistake in an
upgrade procedure that tries to mix and match your old and
new files?
>: and doesn't require installing the update from the same distribution.
>
> What bull.
Well it would take me longer to tweak the files in /etc if they
weren't a close match, but not a lot. Switching to something
that couldn't read my /home and /usr/local filesystems would be
more work, but not an unreasonable amount either since I have
NFS space and tape drives available for tmp copies.
>: There is an ip->ipx gateway that talks to an even stranger program on the
>: ipx side, an ip->serial port program that works sort of like a print
>: spooler, and a few other odds & ends.
>
> Is this a custom, local program you wrote, or a program in standard
> distribution?
They are custom local programs, some mine, some from previous people
at this location. They need to be executable by others on the
machines.
> With *thousands* of programs available, do you really think someone
> has sat down and tested each and every configuration?! You've got
> to be joking (or stoned)!
Actually with Linux, yes I do think that - and within weeks of a
release. People who will try things that paid quality control
workers wouldn't even dream of... And I appreciate the value
of that.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Lamb)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,alt.os.slackware.linux
Subject: Re: I am on a quest...
Date: 11 May 1999 21:38:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11 May 1999 20:50:03 GMT, brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Really? I seem to be able to change to '{mailserver}INBOX', and treat
>it like a local box (within the limitations of IMAP, anyway).
To the point where mutt will tell you of new mail in that box when new
mail arrives. Oh, wait, mutt doesn't do that, you have to hack that in again.
Telling it which mailboxes to consider "inboxes", then constantly check a
certain screen to see if new mail has shown up.
>Again: you haven't tried with Mutt, which does all the above.
I *have* tried it with mutt. I use mutt on nearly a daily basis and find
it an utter chore to do anything complex in it because I need to exit it to
do simple changes, then go back in, see if the change did what I wanted, if
not repeat. There is no consistancy, no way to have any hierarchy of settings
at all.
>Each of my mailboxes is handled differently, with different filters,
>outbox, signatores, coloring schemes, PGP keys, etc.
And how long did it take you to set that all up? Takes me about 20
seconds for most of that.
>I don't believe in canned replies, but it's trivial to set them up so that
>they are seperately handled, though that's not a MUA issue at all (for a clue
>as to why, think about how well 'vacation' would work if it was part of an
>MUA).
Quite well, actually. Most unix lemmings think that mail is the only
thing which needs to be handled by 5-6 different programs. I can create a
vacation filter in my current MTA and it would respond only to people who mail
me direct and would not loop. Take me few seconds to do it.
>It certainly works to change my from depending on what mailbox I'm reading
>from.
And when you add 20 new filters for an account to 20 new mailboxes? Gee,
have to go and set all 20 up all over again. Tedious, boring HACKED together.
>That you find it a 'hack' is interesting, but more telling is that you seem
>to imply that a 'hack' is bad.
It is bad when that is the only way to do it. It is bad when it takes 3-4
tools to do the job of 1. It is bad that you cannot have the program make
assuptions if you want to in a reasonable manner. I like hacking as much as
the next guy. Hell, I'm in an office full of Eudora folk who "redirect"
everything and Eudora makes a non822 From line when it does. My solution:
create a filter to call a perl script to strip out the extra Eudora
information from the From header.
But the utter inability to say, "If it goes here ALL of these settings
apply UNLESS I say otherwise" is a LIMITATION, not an ASSET.
>> to multiple accounts. They assume that an individual wants everything
>> to be lumped together, filtered out from there, and then have to fight
>> the MUA to get the right address.
>But, again, my mail isn't all lumped together.
Yes, it is. It all gets lumped into your incoming mailbox and filtered
from there. That is the EXACT same behavior as Eudora/Outlook/et al except
that instead of the MUA doing the filtering it is procmail doing the
filtering. Follow the path, you're supposedly a sysadmin, figure it out.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ \--barmail
Remove procmail, the filters, and what do you have?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/var/spool/mail/foobar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
Gee, looks like a single collection point to me that, from there, is
FILTERED OUT.
>I don't fight mutt to get the right address: it knows where things are saved
>locally, and that things in one mailbox mean to use a different set of
>features than things in another.... it even knows that things under the
>'Lists/' directory get handled differently still.
Create a new mailbox. Does it have your address on it by default? Nope.
You now have to exit mutt, edit the rc file, go back in, check to see if it
worked. If not, repeat.
>You seem to keep missing this.
No, I grasp it quite well.
>You don't have to have all your mail lumped together, you know.
Yes, you do. Remove procmail/filter/Exim's filters and where does it go?
A single location. Without those filters it all goes into one location. With
the filters it is seperated out. This behavior is identical to Eudora/Outlook
et al. They have filters to move stuff into different folders. NO
difference. NONE.
>Hint: if you want -completely- seperate handling of mail, just have different
>procmailrc's for each mailbox. You do know that you can specify procmail as
>the 'mda' for fetchmail, and even pass it an rcfille to use?
Hint: That's still filtering from a single, common location.
>'account' has nothing to do with mail -- I have mailboxes without accounts,
>and accounts without mailboxes.... and accounts with multiple mailboxes, and
>accounts with one mailbox.
>An 'account' is a billing thing and completely irrelevant.
No. An account is, to you, a "mailbox." Try, please, TRY to get out of
the dark ages you're imposing upon yourself and look around for a change.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
===============================+=============================================
------------------------------
From: Simon Griffiths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.databases.oracle.server,comp.databases.oracle.misc
Subject: Oracle and Perl DBI/DBD on Linux Problem
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 07:30:56 +0100
Hi all !
I've got the pre-production release of Oracle 8.0.5 for Linux, and I'm
trying to compile Perl DBI/DBD-Oracle, However it appears I'm missing
the oci80 directory and subdirectories - I don't think they were
included in this build.
Is there any kind person who could tar, gzip and email it to me, or tell
me where I could get it from !
I'm really trying to avoid the 170Mb download just to get about 100k of
files !
I think that what I realoly need is the *.h files from the include
sub-directory !
Much thanks in advance !
Simon.
------------------------------
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 06:23:15 GMT
On Fri, 14 May 1999 04:31:16 GMT, Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Christopher B. Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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.
>
>Yup! Same money, more wealth.
Arguable.
In 1980, those living in squalor had the ability to watch Hill Street Blues
(give or take a couple years...) on a 15" B+W TV set; the fact that the
equivalent money buys them a 27" set to watch Roseanne reruns does little to
diminish the number of roaches running around on the floor.
The fact that they may get to toss a VCR into the picture and further
"enhance" the lifestyle with some porno flicks represents a pretty dubious
increase in wealth.
The point here is not to denigrate poor folk; it is to suggest that wealth
is not solely in the size of the TV set.
>>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."
>
>Yes. However, it remains the case that a lot of our problem isn't lack of
>resources, it's poor allocation.
That, plus "direct enemy action," tends to be the most common cause of
people actually starving to death. The starvation in Ethiopia last decade
was not simply the result of insufficient food; there were those that
*wanted* a chunk of the population annihilated. Ditto for the Rwandan
situation, Somalia, and, most recently, "former Yugoslavia."
--
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: Rob Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ken Thompson on Linux
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 07:35:39 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > .... I've been offered contracts with _other_ ISPs though who have
> > been moving an awful lot of stuff from Linux to Sun.
>
> It could be that they are growing and need more horsepower. Migrating
> off of PC's gives them greater scaleability. This is an advantage of
> starting with Linux or FreeBSD...you can scale up to non-PC hardware
> much easier.
That's partly the reason, yes, but many potential customers don't yet
see Linux as an entirely viable alternative to, say, Sun.
Rob
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,alt.os.slackware.linux
Subject: Re: I am on a quest...
Date: 12 May 1999 00:03:13 GMT
On 11 May 1999 21:38:03 GMT,
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I don't believe in canned replies, but it's trivial to set them up so that
> >they are seperately handled, though that's not a MUA issue at all (for a clue
> >as to why, think about how well 'vacation' would work if it was part of an
> >MUA).
>
> Quite well, actually. Most unix lemmings think that mail is the only
> thing which needs to be handled by 5-6 different programs. I can create a
> vacation filter in my current MTA and it would respond only to people who mail
> me direct and would not loop. Take me few seconds to do it.
Really? And, um, how does it do that when you're on vacation?
Your MUA isn't running then, remember?
There is, as I said, a valid reason to NOT have that functionality as
part of your MUA -- it, in fact, makes no sense to have it in the MUA as
the nature of a user agent is that it has a user.
> >It certainly works to change my from depending on what mailbox I'm reading
> >from.
>
> And when you add 20 new filters for an account to 20 new mailboxes? Gee,
> have to go and set all 20 up all over again. Tedious, boring HACKED together.
Yes, it's too bad that procmail doesn't allow you to include files. Oh,
wait, it does.
> But the utter inability to say, "If it goes here ALL of these settings
> apply UNLESS I say otherwise" is a LIMITATION, not an ASSET.
What's all the yelling for?
> >> to multiple accounts. They assume that an individual wants everything
> >> to be lumped together, filtered out from there, and then have to fight
> >> the MUA to get the right address.
>
> >But, again, my mail isn't all lumped together.
>
> Yes, it is. It all gets lumped into your incoming mailbox and filtered
> from there. That is the EXACT same behavior as Eudora/Outlook/et al except
> that instead of the MUA doing the filtering it is procmail doing the
> filtering. Follow the path, you're supposedly a sysadmin, figure it out.
No it doesn't.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ \--barmail
>
> Remove procmail, the filters, and what do you have?
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]/var/spool/mail/foobar
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]/
You're a loon: remove the filters from PM98 and all your mail goes into
one box as well. So what?
> Gee, looks like a single collection point to me that, from there, is
> FILTERED OUT.
And if you remove pm98 from your setup you have no mail at all! What
are you trying to prove?
> >I don't fight mutt to get the right address: it knows where things are saved
> >locally, and that things in one mailbox mean to use a different set of
> >features than things in another.... it even knows that things under the
> >'Lists/' directory get handled differently still.
>
> Create a new mailbox. Does it have your address on it by default? Nope.
> You now have to exit mutt, edit the rc file, go back in, check to see if it
> worked. If not, repeat.
Actually, it does.
It even recognizes variations on it. 'set alternates' is your friend.
> >You seem to keep missing this.
>
> No, I grasp it quite well.
Then explain how effective your MUA based vacation program is when
you're on vacation. :)
> >You don't have to have all your mail lumped together, you know.
>
> Yes, you do. Remove procmail/filter/Exim's filters and where does it go?
> A single location. Without those filters it all goes into one location. With
> the filters it is seperated out. This behavior is identical to Eudora/Outlook
> et al. They have filters to move stuff into different folders. NO
> difference. NONE.
Do less caffeine.
> >Hint: if you want -completely- seperate handling of mail, just have different
> >procmailrc's for each mailbox. You do know that you can specify procmail as
> >the 'mda' for fetchmail, and even pass it an rcfille to use?
>
> Hint: That's still filtering from a single, common location.
Yes, all on the same PC. So?
> >'account' has nothing to do with mail -- I have mailboxes without accounts,
> >and accounts without mailboxes.... and accounts with multiple mailboxes, and
> >accounts with one mailbox.
>
> >An 'account' is a billing thing and completely irrelevant.
>
> No. An account is, to you, a "mailbox." Try, please, TRY to get out of
> the dark ages you're imposing upon yourself and look around for a change.
I could say the same for you: you're the one who believes that 'account'
is the same as 'mailbox' -- again, some of us have lots of mailboxes
(personally, I have a couple or three dozen that I actually use, or at
least let fill up with mail). Not all are 'accounts' at all -- why
should all mail to my toy domain be treated equally? Each address there
is deliverable, each with its own mailbox... but there's no "account" at
all associated with them. No entry in the password file, no pop3 or
IMAP 'inbox'.
I can make up addresses on the fly, the mail gets delivered properly and
when I respond to it, my return address is properly set --
automatically.
You seem to be the one stuck in the "dark ages" where all mailboxes were
tied to accounts. Mine aren't. Why are yours?
Feel free to have the last word once you chill out: I'm not wasting
further time explaining to some bigotted fool that his preconceived
notions are wrong.
--
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
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 03:05:55 GMT
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>snip<
: I inherited these boxes from someone else who appeared to know what he was
: doing. Each one was carefully tuned to do a particular job and they have
: been doing it well enough up to the point where the requirements change or
: I've tried to add other things to them, and then they are full of
: surprises. I don't like surprises. Should a binary compiled on the 2.1.5
: box run on 2.2.2?
Yes, it should, unless you or the previous admin explicitly disabled
compatibility.
: I just used the defaults for everything.
How could you have, you just told us you didn't build the boxes
yourself? How do you know this past admin used the defaults?
>snip<
:> Actually pmake (Berkeley make) has no problem what so ever with
:> GNU tar's build.
:
: Really? Then it shouldn't have done this either?
: make
: make all-recursive
: Making all in doc
: Making all in lib
: "Makefile", line 259: Need an operator
: Fatal errors encountered -- cannot continue
: *** Error code 1
: Stop.
: *** Error code 1
: Stop.
:
: But it worked with gmake. More surprises...
Which version of tar? 1.12 builds without a problem, provided of
course you run the included configure program. If you configured on
a system with GNU make and then tried to build someplace else,
that's simply user error.
Never the less, if an app really needs GNU make adding a dependency
for it (as everything does in ports that needs it) is *trivial*.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
My code is filled with comments! It's just that my comments are
written in Perl.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 00:44:04 -0600
From: Wayne Kovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,linux.redhat.install,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Getting PPP to work
Jay wrote:
> Can anyone explain how I can get PPP to work. First I noticed that PPP was
> not installed. So I recompiled using 'make config' and 'make dep'. Then I
> recompiled the modules. However on rebooting I still can't find PPP as
> installed. What am I missing?
>
> -Jay
That "PPP is not installed" message is a red herring, it is produced for
just about any error at all. Just as an example, I get that error
message if I forget to turn on my external modem. Nothing sensible,
like "Your modem is not responding", just "PPP is not installed on this
computer".
Here's a URL that is very helpful in getting PPP working:
http://axion.physics/ubc.ca/ppp-linux.html
--
Wayne Kovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Colorado Software Summit (A Java Programming Conference)
http://www.SoftwareSummit.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,linux.redhat.install,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Getting PPP to work
Date: 14 May 1999 06:49:42 GMT
In <7hg1ig$hn4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Jay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>Can anyone explain how I can get PPP to work. First I noticed that PPP was
>not installed. So I recompiled using 'make config' and 'make dep'. Then I
>recompiled the modules. However on rebooting I still can't find PPP as
>installed. What am I missing?
You did not tell us which verion of Linux you are using, but ALL modern
distributions already include ppp as a loadable module. In general do
not recompile your kernel unless you enjoy doing so.
Anyway, you can go to
axion.physics.uc.ca/ppp-linux for a step by step instruction page to get
ppp going with your ISP.
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Proper use of /usr/local (Re: The Best Linux distribution?)
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 23:18:44 -0400
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> Ah, does anyone remember the days of booting from a tiny drive
> that couldn't hold all of your binaries and libraries so they
> had to be on a separate partition and mounted later? Now,
> what's the smallest drive you can buy - 2 gigs or so? I think
> this contortion can be considered a historical artifact.
My first PC was a 386; got it in 1991. I couldn't even keep my
new machine's swap partition on it. Plus, it made a really loud
whining noise (it was an 80MB Maxtor). The BIOS was only good
for drives < 130 MB.
But these new computers, shipping with 8GB drives... I sometimes
wonder how a new computer user, using Windows 98 only, could
possibly use that much disk space? Of course, those "idiot" type
computer users tend to install all the software on the planet on
their systems... tons of Word Processor, Spreadsheet, Home
Decorator "CAD" programs, MS Encarta, stuff like that on their
computers. *I'm* the one who needs an 8GB HD, not a clueless
computer newbie with one OS installed (because I run 3 OSes, a
"tri-boot" configuration: Windows 98, FreeBSD, Linux). My Linux
partition has been squeezed into less than half of the space my
FreeBSD is using. Again, it's because I'm not really a Linuxer,
and I have to keep the /usr/src tree for FreeBSD. :-)
Sorry about my use of the word "idiot". Here, I'm talking about
someone with not much computer experience, who isn't in a
technical field, and just mainly uses MS Office and a Web browser
on Windows NT at the office. These people don't need an 8GB HD.
But the way Windows keeps growing in size every release, they may
need it! :)
--
Donn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Problem with at/batch command
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 00:26:10 GMT
Hi,
I'm using RedHat 5.2. I have a perl cgi script which should be put into
batch queue by at/batch command and executed. However, although when I
type "atq" I can see the commands in queue, they are never executed or
executed at random time.
I've found out that it seems to have 2 problems:
1. Even the command is in queue, it doesn't get executed, or being
executed at random time.
2. The time scheduled to run the command is incorrect. What I did is
like following:
system("cat $my_perl_script|at now");
or
system("cat $my_perl_script|batch");
and the time it should be executed is off at least 5 hours.
Is at package provided in Red Hat 5.2 has a problem? Anyway I can make
command in the queue to be executed right away??
I also tried to launch % atd -l 2.0 -b 5
to see if things get better, no luck.
Thank you very much,
Poe
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
