Linux-Misc Digest #406, Volume #20 Sat, 29 May 99 18:13:14 EDT
Contents:
Re: How to install files with RPM extension??????? (Colin Smith)
Re: word processing, what to use? (David Frye)
Re: SETI comparisons (Michael Varney)
XWindows Server ("Jeff Grossman")
Re: Corrupt Superblock (Olivier Eymere)
UMAX UDS-IS-11 SCSI card information... ("test")
Printing problems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Large CD-ROM file errors...? (James Youngman)
Re: Caldera OpenLinux 2.2 freely distributable? (Paul Anderson)
Re: Offline newsreader for Linux (Matthew Bafford)
Re: SuSE vs Red Hat? (David C)
Performance tuning of FreeBSD and Linux: pointers requested (Chris Hedley)
Reboot command fails, post setup reboot fails ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: gdbm: What is it!? (Jason Nickerson)
Re: Help with Masquerading. (Rage-DCA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Smith)
Subject: Re: How to install files with RPM extension???????
Date: 29 May 1999 19:26:04 GMT
On Sat, 29 May 1999 19:20:17 GMT, Beed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Please Advice me. Thank you very much!!!!
rpm -i FILENAME.rpm
--
|Colin Smith: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Windows 2000: |
|Linux: Delivers on the promises Microsoft make. | The Zeppelin of |
| http://www.linux.org/ | operating systems.|
------------------------------
From: David Frye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: word processing, what to use?
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 19:42:32 GMT
William Wueppelmann wrote:
> In our last episode (Thu, 27 May 1999 10:03:51 +0200),
> the artist formerly known as David Goldstein said:
> >Michel wrote:
> >>
> >> David Steuber wrote:
> >> D. Vrabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Since when was vi a word processor? vi is only a text editor.
> ^^^^
>
> The word "only" doesn't belong here, since it tends to imply that a text
> editor is somehow a less useful or sophisticated tool than a word
> processor, which simply isn't the case.
>
> >>
> >> Wrong! vi is also a piece of shit.
> >
> >
> > Wrong! vi is a very nice, quick way to edit text files. Perhaps
> >compared to real word processors, vi is lacking, but I use it quite
> >often.
>
> As a word processor, vi is very much lacking. Then again, as a text
> editor, Word Perfect is equally lacking (and MS Word is getting worse at
> both jobs with each successive version...)
>
> --
> It is pitch black.
> You are likely to be spammed by a grue.
vi and emacs are both excellent _word processors_. WordPerfect, MS Word,
etc are not word processors, but desktop publishing tools(and very weak at
that).
A word processor processes _words_. Words are _text_.
A Desktop Publishing program processess words, graphics, fonts, and
provides layout capabilities often found in advanced Page Layout programs.
If you prefer a Desktop Publishing program, go with StarOffice, or
WordPerfect.
If you prefer something in between, go with Lyx or Klyx.
If you prefere a _word processor_, go with either vi or emacs.
All of the above programs have their own strenghts and weaknesses. Choose
the one that best suits _your_ needs.
------------------------------
From: Michael Varney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SETI comparisons
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 14:28:32 -0600
kryliss wrote:
> I'm not a big Mac fan...(he he he you said big Mac) but anyways, I have
> noticed that Macs do tend to preform quite well when the MacOS is replaced
> by Linux. Now there's something to think about.
> Richard Petty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <7i52u6$ho7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >D. Vrabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in comp.os.linux.misc:
> > >DV>On 21 May 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Take a look at http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/oss.html. It
> > shows that Win95 users
> > >>> are getting an average of 42 hours compared to 30 for NT, 23 for Mac
> > and 14 for linux.
> > >>> Presumably the same compiler was used for 95 and NT (its the same
> > download link). It would
> > >>> seem to indicate that Win95 cooperative multitasking generally falls
> > far short in performance
> > >DV>Windows 95 does do preemptive multitasking for Win32 programs.
> >
> > >Well, it doesn't do it very well. Its being outperformend by *MACs*
> >
> >
> > The SETI@home project fascinates me endlessly, both from a technical and a
> > cultural standpoint.
> >
> > I would make two comments about this:
> >
> > 1. The MacOS wrecklessly throws almost all of it's CPU resources to the
> > frontmost application. When the SETI@home client kicks in -- even as a
> > "screensaver" -- it becomes the frontmost app.
> >
> > 2. Speaking strictly about performance (I'm not gonna get into
> > architecture), the current MacOS lags other operating systems mainly in
> > it's file system. SETI@home has very, very little of that going on. The
> > MacOS's file system performance stinks, but when you ask its RISC CPU to
> > do a lot of fast fourier transforms, it takes a back seat to nobody. Mac
> > hardware has always been very, very good.
> >
> > 3. Probably the biggest thing accounting for the relative performance
> > differences you see in these stats (all of which are changing quickly) is
> > CULTURAL. A lot of Wintel users seem clueless that their seven year old
> > Packard Bell is on the wrong side of the performance curve.
> > I believe that the Windows users cooperating in the SETI@home project
> > represent a more even distribution of the general population. Mac users to
> > to fall into two distinct Groups: 1. Those who use their system but don't
> > want to know anything about how it works, and 2. The geeky ones who love
> > their Macs and would marry them if it were legal.
> > Group 2, suffering from a perpetual Mac persecution complex, also tends
> > to take an interest in the sort of thing SETI is trying to accomplish.
> > Vendicate your system preference and find aliens. This is pure Group 2
> stuff.
> > Group 2 users tend to have nice hardware.
> >
> >
> > For the record, I have three Macs doing SETI@home work:
> >
> > PowerCenter 120, 120-MHz 604, 112-Meg RAM, 70-hours.
> > PowerMac 7500, 200-MHz 604e, 64-Meg RAM, 30-hours.
> > Macintosh 300-MHz G3 server, 256-Meg RAM, 15-hours.
> >
> > The G3 server is my regular desktop machine. It's fast Ethernet and RAID
> > disks have no impact whatsoever on SETI@home.
> >
> > -- Richard, Group 2
> >
> > --
> > Spam deterent: Remove the "bogus" part for a correct address.
With my PII 400 368 Meg ram running winbloze, it takes 38 cpu hrs.
With RH 6 linux it takes 8.3 cpu hrs.
A couple of reasons for this is that the winbloze version has all the "pretty"
graphics. Also task priority is set lower in winbloze.
Final reason, linux is better anyway!
:-)
Mike Varney
Department of Physics
Colorado State University
------------------------------
From: "Jeff Grossman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.redhat,linux.redhat.misc,msn.computingcentral.os.linux
Subject: XWindows Server
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 13:18:12 -0700
Hello,
I want to run Xwindows from a telnet session under Windows98. What is a
good Xwindows Server? And how do I make it work? I am running Redhat 6.0.
Thanks,
Jeff
--
Jeff Grossman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Olivier Eymere)
Subject: Re: Corrupt Superblock
Date: Sat, 29 May 99 19:44:59 GMT
My apologies for the strange header ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). I did not have a
newsreader installed in Win95 so I quickly installed one and posted the
message.
I was able to get Linux running again using:
# fsck -b 16385 /dev/hda2
The system is functional now but unfortunately I have a large lost+found/
directory which I will have to sort through. I am paying the price of my own
laziness. I made three mistakes which turned out to be fatal:
1. I moved Linux onto a disk which it shared with Win95. I knew that there
was a problem in that Win95 thought it still owned the whole disk but DOS
fdisk read the partition table properly.
2. Since the move was only temporary I put everything on one partition under
'/'. I did not make separate partitions for /home, /usr or /var/
3. Knowing that there was a problem I did not back up everything as I should
have.
I could have predicted that this would happen. I know better than to be so
sloppy, at work I am quite careful about such things. I will have to take my
own advice better. Thanks again for all of the help.
Olivier
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>A couple of days ago I tried to boot linux and to my dismay I got a kernel
>panic. After some poking around I realized that I have a corrupt superblock.
>Reinstalling is not a problem (been planning on getting SuSE since 6.1 came
>out anyway) as most of my important data is backed up but there is some data
>that I did not back up. So I am hoping that someone has a great trick to be
>able to access the drive so that I can get my data off before formatting the
>disk. If anyone has any ideas please send them on to me.
>
>Olivier
------------------------------
From: "test" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: UMAX UDS-IS-11 SCSI card information...
Crossposted-To: comp.periphs.scsi,comp.periphs.scanners,comp.os.linux.hardware
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 19:18:55 GMT
http://support.umax.co.uk/technotes/f096B.htm has information on using this
card that comes with your Astra SCSI scanner with NT 4.0 and Win9x...
http://x35.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=468097680 has more information on getting
this card to work in Linux...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Printing problems
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 19:08:37 GMT
I am experiencing some trouble printing to a linux machine (running
RedHat 5.2) from a Solaris 2.6 server running CADDS5. I just get an
error message from lpd, it doesn't even seem to run the filter:
May 29 20:46:55 seveps02 lpd[5038]: cc-film: job could not be printed
(cfA024seveap05)
Problem is, I'm not even sure what this message means, and where I can
look for a solution. Any advice would be appreciated.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: James Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Large CD-ROM file errors...?
Date: 28 May 1999 19:13:35 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson) writes:
> Bzzzt ... he burned a single 70MB tarfile, not a whole directory tree.
> (Read the original post.) The issue is that Linux shows a truncated
> (16MB) file instead of the whole thing.
Sounds like the iso9660 "cruft" option.
--
ACTUALLY reachable as @free-lunch.demon.(whitehouse)co.uk:james+usenet
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Anderson)
Subject: Re: Caldera OpenLinux 2.2 freely distributable?
Date: 29 May 1999 02:36:29 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian Lavender) writes:
>I was looking at Caldera's Open Linux 2.2 and I am wondering if it is
>freely distributable?
>
Why wouldn't it be?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Bafford)
Subject: Re: Offline newsreader for Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 20:35:30 GMT
On Sat, 29 May 1999 13:50:59 +0200, Gero H. Marten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
held some poor sysadmin at gun point while typing in the following:
: Under Linux you don't need an offline reader
: (infact they don't exist). You set up your own newsserver with INN
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: or leafnode.
Gosh, just as you wrote it, slrnpull and slrn disappeared off of my
machine.
HTH,
--Matthew
------------------------------
From: David C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.portable
Subject: Re: SuSE vs Red Hat?
Date: 29 May 1999 16:56:15 -0400
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> As far as included packages, they are apples and oranges. RH includes
> one CD with a few commercial packages - perhaps ViaVoice, etc, but no
> listing of what is actually on there. SUSE includes five CD's total,
> and I'd be hard pressed to name a GPL package that isn't there.
Actually, RH has several different packages with different amounts of
extras.
Their core system is 2 CDs - one with the OS and one with the sources.
The boxed versions also include a manual and a CD of third-party
commercial stuff (like the ApplixWare demo.) They also make a boxed
version (for sale in the US only, AFAIK) that includes servers that
support 128-bit encryption. They also have an "extra" package that is
the boxed version plus two more CDs - the CPAN archive and RedHat's
PowerTools.
I bought the Extra package (I prefer having stuff on CDs so I don't have
to use modem bandwidth to download it) for $100 at my local computer
store. They sold the basic boxed set for $60 and the CD-only set for
$20.
The printed manuals (if you get a distribution that includes them)
includes a fairly comprehensive guide to the setup program and some
basic administration tasks, plus a list packages and brief descriptions
of them. They provide 90-day tech support for installation if you buy a
boxed set. The bulk of support is in the form of lots of files in
/usr/doc (including the HOWTO library).
I had no serious problems with it, although I did have to consult Usenet
for one or two things. But I have prior experience with SunOS and
Solaris, which certainly helps.
-- David
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Hedley)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Performance tuning of FreeBSD and Linux: pointers requested
Date: 29 May 1999 19:54:04 GMT
NOTE TO ADVOCATES/FLAMERS/TROLLS: this post is intended to gather
information which can be used to get the most out of these two fine
operating systems. I'm not interested in one versus the other, I use
both and will continue to do so. Please refrain from getting either
smug or defensive; I'd like to see real solutions from any folks who're
kind enough to give their advice. Thanks.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paul Gregg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally, I would prefer a NT vs Linux vs FreeBSD... then we'd see
> who really wins (Hint: It wouldn't be NT or Linux)
This intrigues me. I run both FreeBSD and Linux, and Linux definitely
gets first prize when it comes to performance. This isn't a "my OS vs
your OS" post, before any of the "advocates" of either side start to
cause damage: I like and respect both OS' and use them regularly; what
I'd like to do is figure out why FreeBSD isn't keeping up, especially
in light of the number of comments I've seen which state it's faster.
To this end, I'd like hints or pointers (I don't expect to be hand-
held through the entire process) of performance tuning FreeBSD so it
at least rivals Linux. My main problems are in two areas: first, FBSD's
disc access is s..l..o..w; it shouldn't be, I have a 7895 controller
with UW discs connected to both channels, and I suspect that Linux isn't
even taking advantage of the bandwidth, so I've no idea what FBSD's
doing to slow things down so much. I've tried things like mounting the
UFS filesystems in async mode, which has made some improvement, but it's
still noticably slower than Linux, and I'm sure it's probably just a
minor configuration issue (I'm not prepared to specify "noatime" to
speed things up, though, as I don't like sacrificing basically fundamental
functionality) As an example, I run my own local news server on this
system, and FreeBSD and Linux have identical (to all intents and purposes)
spools under their respective preferred FS'; both run the same version of
INN; both run the same client, Knews; both have knackered overview dbs, so
that's out of the equation: Linux reads a large group of ~7000 article
files at slightly over twice the speed of FreeBSD. Why? [For those with
suggestions, it may be of use to know that I tend to use "bleeding-edge"
kernels, so this is on Linux 2.3.x and FreeBSD-4.0-CURRENT. The FS' in
question are EXT2 and UFS respectively. The programs are compiled native
for their system and don't depend on emulation environments]
The other difference is with response times when the run-queue starts
to build up (ie is consistently larger than the number of CPUs available
to process requests): Linux seems to manage noticably better response
time to FBSD, although the gap has gradually narrowed since the days of
FBSD 2.2 vs Linux 1.3.x.
Again, I must stress that this *isn't* an attempt to start a flamewar or
an advocacy tirade (they're a real turn-off most of the time) I like
using FBSD otherwise, and prefer it in some fairly major areas to Linux
(overall code-control and lack of bloat as compared with RH6.0 are the
most obvious areas) What I really want to know is either why Linux
performs so well on my hardware[1] or why FBSD performs comparatively badly?
Any pointers, tips, suggestions, comments or whatever else comes to mind
would be greatly appreciated.
Chris.
[1] The "hardware" in question is a Tyan Thunder 100 Dual: 2 x PII 350s
(both kernels compiled for SMP) with onboard Adaptec UW 7895 controller,
with 4 UW discs (and other odds'n'sods) spread across both channels; it
has 128MB core, and both systems have 256MB swap (although Linux only
uses ~128MB; pants) Both OS' have their filesystems spread across
all discs in an attempt to attain maximum parallelism.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Reboot command fails, post setup reboot fails
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 20:49:24 GMT
Hi there.
I am having a problem with a number of machines that my company has
bought. After installing RedHat and Linux attempts to reboot itself,
the reboot fails. It unmounts the system and gets to the line right
before the reboot should occur, but then it freezes and the reboot
never occurs.
Rebooting manually results in a perfectly valid Linux installation.
However, issuing the "reboot" or "shutdown" commands result in the same
failure ...
It is pretty important that I find a solution this because we will need
the capability to reboot the machine remotely.
As a test, I booted from a DOS disk and ran a "reboot" command that I
downloaded from the old Simtel archives... It worked fine.
As an additional test, I tried booting the computer using Slackware
boot disks and issuing its "reboot" command... This failed just like
RedHat, so it is definitely something about Linux.
The systems have dual Pentium II 450Mhz, 256 MB RAM, AMI BIOS, Adaptec
SCSI cards. Also, the CPUs are on cards, not on the "main" board.
Thanks for any help,
-Will Hatcher
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Jason Nickerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: gdbm: What is it!?
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 15:43:26 -0600
Shimpei Yamashita wrote:
> Jason Nickerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >What the heck is this utility used for anyway (am not familiar with
> >"dbm"). Have read as much information on the web as I could find to no
> >avail... Not even mentioned in my 2 (greater than) 1000 page Linux
> >books...
>
> It is GNU's version of dbm, a simple database library (little more
> than a hash table, actually). Most people seem to use Berkeley's
> implementation these days over GNU's.
>
> It is not something you need to worry about unless you are a developer
> who needs such a data structure, or you have some odd program that
> requires gdbm.
>
> --
> Shimpei Yamashita <http://www.submm.caltech.edu/%7Eshimpei/>
Could you direct me to Berkeley's version or give me more information... I
believe this (gdbm) is what I need for my development, but the documention is
so sparse...
------------------------------
From: Rage-DCA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Help with Masquerading.
Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 21:15:08 GMT
jimlynn wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a linux box setup to run IP Masquerading for my home network. I
> find that some applications no longer work with this in place. Does anyone
> know how to make certain applications like live updates for software (e.g.
> Norton's live-update feature) work correctly? Any help is greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Brian
here are a few ideas for you.
first off, make sure you have the masquerading stuff compiled into the kernel
and that you have the kernel modules initialized when you boot either with
kerneld, modprobe, or insmod.
second, check out my firewall script. it might help you a lot with this
problem.
http://rage.chroot.net/files/firewall
--
Jason Osborne (Rage-DCA)
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://rage.dynip.com
- LinuxInside - I run it, do you?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
