Linux-Misc Digest #421, Volume #20 Sun, 30 May 99 16:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Installing KDE - newbie (Eugene Strulyov)
Re: Best Free X Windows Server for Win95/98 Box on Samba/Linux Network? ("Jeff
Grossman")
Re: aol and email (sendmail problem?) (brian moore)
Problems with execvp ("Frederick T. Theobald")
Re: About RealPlayer G2... (David E. Fox)
Re: Performance tuning of FreeBSD and Linux: pointers requested (Chris Hedley)
Re: Kernel upgrade (**Nick Brown)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eugene Strulyov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Installing KDE - newbie
Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 19:12:08 GMT
put the environment variables in /etc/profile
.profile (notice the dot) is located in a user's home directory and its
settings affect only that user.
/etc/profile (no dot) is for the global settings (all users).
hope that helps
Eugene
Judy wrote:
>
> I've spent the week-end installing RedHat 5.2 and getting X it to work with
> my bro's dumb ATI Fury card (yes!!! it works!!) I'm currently trying to
> install KDE, but I can't get through the *required* QT installation step.
> I'm stuck where the INSTALL file says to :
>
> "Set some environment variables in the file .profile (or .login, depending
> on your shell) in your home directory."
>
> Right, so what are these files? which one do I make (.profile or .login)?
> and where do I place them? Should I log on as root, or another user?
>
> Anyway, I tried to get something going, but when I executed
> make linux-g++-shared
>
> It grumbled something strange about $PWD and stopped.
>
> I know, this isn't a lady's world, but anyone care to help a poor damzel in
> distress? Thanx guys :)
>
> JuDe
>
> PS: BTW, does anyone know how to get the [Alt Gr] key to work in Linux,
> using a French keyboard? It acts like the regular [Alt] key which means I
> cannot type characters like '{', '@', '#'. It does, however recognise the
> AZERTY layout.
------------------------------
From: "Jeff Grossman" <[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: Sun, 30 May 1999 11:12:31 -0700
I just downloaded this version. I want to be able to run my X sessions from
my Linux box to my Win98 box. What do I need? Can I just use the built-in
Xfree that is part of Redhat for the Linux side, and use this VNC program
for the Win98 side? And if so, how would I go about setting that up?
Thanks,
Jeff
--
Jeff Grossman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Ursa_M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Subject: Re: aol and email (sendmail problem?)
Date: 30 May 1999 17:54:49 GMT
On Sun, 30 May 1999 14:00:38 -0400,
Stephen LaVelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi,
>
> For some time now we have been unable to trade email with aol.com using
> 2.0.29 and sendmail (8). They do not respond to pings and a traceroute
> to any of their published IPs gets no further than one of their
> (unpublished) routers. ?
That's normal. AOL firewalls their mail servers.
> I called their tech support and the guy told me that he'd have one of
> their mail-techs call me back.. of course no one ever called.
Of course not.
> the pointy-headed guy insists 'aol sux .. it's them not us..'
> unfortunately, this reponse is not very useful when it comes to user
> complaints....any ideas?
What error are you getting?
--
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
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 14:38:01 -0400
From: "Frederick T. Theobald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Problems with execvp
Hello, everyone.
I am not an experienced UNIX programmer, or even an
experienced C programmer, but I have used computers for
nearly thirty years, and I have written many thousands of
lines of Assembly code. I tell you this up front, because I
am about to ask a very stupid question. I want you to know
that, even though my question is stupid, I am not a complete
bozo.
My problem can be summarized in two statements:
1. Whenever I have used execlp, it has worked.
2. Whenever I have used execvp, it has malfunctioned.
I know that this is some problem of my own, but I cannot
escape the suspicion that the execvp system call is
discriminating against me.
Yesterday I was on the Internet, and I used DejaNews to look
up articles on execvp. I found one by Ilario Nardinocchi,
and it contained an example, which example I imitated
EXACTLY. If you want to look at the post, the message-ID is
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. However, you really
need not look at the post unless you want to, because the
important part of it is only two lines of code, which I now
present here:
static char* const argv[]={ "ls", "*", NULL };
execvp(arg[0], argv);
When I saw those lines of code in the post, my eyes lit up.
"Ah-ha!" I thought. "Now at last I have an example of
execvp which will SURELY work, and which I can use for
experimentation."
But I was disappointed. The program did not work, and I
used the perror function to tell me why. The perror
function says -
*: No such file or directory.
So now I have three questions. First, why does execlp work
for me, even though execvp does not? (I mean, surely they
must be similar internally.) Second, why does Mr.
Nardinocchi's example not work? Third, can anyone show me a
*simple* example which uses execvp (not execlp) and which
actually does what it should?
Kindly email your response to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Fred Theobald
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David E. Fox)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: About RealPlayer G2...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 30 May 1999 19:21:54 GMT
In article <Thq23.631$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeffrey S. Kline wrote:
>Actually it just comes back full circle since the guys at Real Audio are
>doing nothin more than following that old addage of "Money talks and bull#%%
>walks". Linux users ain't payin' and so we can go without. Unless there is a
Commercial software does exist for Linux, and Linux users do pay
for at least some of the software they use. This is pretty well
self-evident now.
Real has never offered Linux users a *chance* to pay for a Linux version
of their players. The Linux versions have always been free, and the
tier that costs money (i.e., RealPlayer Plus) is still only offered
for Windows users.
>From a company where it's taken over a *year* now to go from a 5.0
version to a G2 (alpha) version of their free product for Linux, you
probably will never see a Linux Real Player Plus.
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Donn Miller wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>FreeBSD doesn't even have a "RealPlayer" at all -- we're stuck in
>>the RealAudio era, which is to say, 2 years behind the current
>>RealPlayer. Even Linux is stuck with the archaic RealPlayer 5,
Can't you run it in Linux emulation?
>>I've thought about this for a while, but how hard could it be?
>>Microsoft's Media Player 2 is able to read RealPlayer format.
AFAIK, this isn't available for Linux either, but MS did do
up an older version of netshow some time back for Linux, which
no longer works on any of the Netshow sites I've tried it on.
>>In addition, I don't believe they've fixed RealPlayer for use
>>with the newer Linux kernels (2.2.x).
The newer G2 versions work with (or even require) the 2.2.x
kernels. I'm running it with 2.2.0.
--
========================================================================
David E. Fox Tax Thanks for letting me
[EMAIL PROTECTED] the change magnetic patterns
[EMAIL PROTECTED] churches on your hard disk.
=======================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Hedley)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Performance tuning of FreeBSD and Linux: pointers requested
Date: 30 May 1999 16:59:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dinesh Nair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> it has been mentioned here, in another thread, that linux usually mounts
> filesystems async by default while freebsd doesnt. could this be the
> difference you're seeing ?
That's one I'd considered fairly early on, so I mount FBSD discs which
are candidates for fairly heavy random access (eg the news spool, etc)
async. I really need to consider the whole sync/async business for
both systems; although I generally go for performance, and this isn't
a mission-critical system (teabag's my home "workstation" [in other
words an SMP/SCSI Intel box with Unix on it!]) but data integrity is
something worth pursuing. To that end, I'm interested in seeing what's
going on in the logging/journaling filesystem world... (I wonder if the
ODS/2 driver now has read/write support, and how good it is? Something
else I must check out...)
Chris.
------------------------------
From: **Nick Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kernel upgrade
Date: Wed, 19 May 1999 15:10:12 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Sorenson wrote:
>
> Morten wrote:
>
> > Anyway when I try to use "make zdisk" or "make
> > zlilo" I get the information that the size of my system is 553 which is too
> > much.
> >
> > How can I make it smaller?
>
> Use "make bzdisk" instead, it does neat file compression things.
The b in bzdisk is for "big". It handles the case where you would need
more than 640 KB of real-mode memory to load the kernel.
553 KB for a compressed kernel is big. Go back to menuconfig and start
removing stuff. You've probably got loads of SCSI cards or Ethernet
cards compiled in. Also, look at the possibility of using modules for
most of your hardware.
>
> > PS: What is the major differences between version 2.2 and 2.3?
2.3, like 2.1, is the unstable kernel series. A 2.3 kernel is quite
likely to not even boot on your machine. It may well contain
experimental and extremely unstable code for doing really basic stuff.
Don't use it. (In fact, there's no reason for 95% of people to upgrade
from 2.0.36, IMHO).
--
===============================================================
Nick Brown, Strasbourg, France (Nick(dot)Brown(at)coe(dot)int)
Protect yourself against Word 95/97 viruses, free - check out
http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/Vineyard/1446/atlas-t.html
===============================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
