Linux-Misc Digest #449, Volume #20 Tue, 1 Jun 99 15:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is Gnome slow? ("D. Vrabel")
Operating systems (Richard Kulisz)
Re: Communism dosn't even exist, never did... (Stefano Ghirlanda)
Re: About RealPlayer G2... (Lack Mr G M)
Re: Is Gnome slow? (D. J. Birchall)
Re: Diald dials out every 15 minutes (marco tephlant)
Re: How many operating systems can i have on a linux pc? (Robert Washburne)
Re: A Capitalists view of freedom (Ottavio G. Rizzo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "D. Vrabel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Gnome slow?
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 18:34:54 +0100
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999, Cliff Story wrote:
> I've just installed Red Hat 6.0 (on top on 5.2 -- the "upgrade" option
> didn't work, it killed the mouse) which comes with a new X window
> manager (seems to be more than a window manager, though) called
> "Gnome". This looks real good but it runs like MacPaint on a 128K Mac,
> maybe a little slower. My brother suggests increasing my RAM from the
> present 16 MB to 64 MB, and I'm sure that would help, but even with 16
> MB I'd expect a menu response in less than two or three seconds, which
> is what Gnome gives me.
GNOME is *not* a windows manager but a desk top environment
(http://www.gnome.org/ for more details). Which window manager are you
using? enlightenment? Enlightenment can be very large. I'd suggest
perhaps IceWM instead. What processor do you have? How much free memory
do you have once GNOME is loaded? If a fair amount of swap space is used
then in's going to be really slow.
David Vrabel
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kulisz)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Operating systems
Date: 1 Jun 1999 12:37:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 31 May 1999 09:54:19 GMT, Richard Kulisz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Microkernels are obsolete
>>
>>Instead of providing a minimal set of abstractions which other people
>>can use to create even more abstractions, provide a /complete/ set of
>>abstractions (the uber-interface) and make sure they can be adapted
>>to any situation.
>
>Hmm...isn't that what NT does, now? :-)
Not that I've heard. I'd be surprised if it wasn't a standard microkernel.
>The space of IP addresses has some structure; take a look at the
>relevant RFC (the exact number escapes me at the moment);
>class A networks are 24-bit, class B are 16-bit, class C are 8-bit,
>if memory serves. Of course, it gets messy as the class A gets
>subdivided into 256 class B's, and then the class B's get similarly
>subdivided into class C's, and most people don't read RFC's anyway... :-)
That's an old RFC made obsolete by CIDR; Classless Inter-Domain Routing.
Basically, what makes a class A network class A is that the routing tables
contain only a single entry for, say, 124.x.x.x. If you add an entry for
124.101.x.x then you've just punched a hole in the CIDR block and now it's
a bunch of class B networks with most of them having the same entry.
Also, as far as the users/programmers are concerned, the IP space is flat;
the structure is completely hidden from users.
>>Avoid Plan 9's idea of disconnected
>>name spaces at all cost. In fact, the more connected the better.
>
>I'm not quite I understand this. Are you referring to:
>
>(a) soft links -- links specified by a pathname?
>(b) hard links -- links specified by an internal inode number (i.e.,
> two pathnames map to the same object)?
>(c) something totally other?
I'll take c. :-) I've come up with a concept I call 'portals' that is
somewhat like Hurd translators except that portals are bidirectional.
Hurd translators only go from a filesystem to a program contained within
that filesystem, portals go inside and outside. Also, Hurd translators
are meant only as a kludge to help users while portals are a fundamental
part of my design.
Portals are more generic so it's possible to have nested filesystems.
In fact, all filesystems end up nested inside of some other filesystem
except for the RAM FS and exec FS (essentially a process table) which
are both nested inside of themselves. One of the processes the exec FS
is responsible for running is the exec FS itself, and the text of the
RAM FS is obviously contained in RAM.
The nesting of the exec FS inside of itself should make it possible
to have run-time kernel upgrades. Instead of having a loop over all
processes in the table, you iterate over them all and then the last
process in the table is the exec FS itself but with permission to
have an infinite time slice. So it's recursive. And if you want to
upgrade the exec FS, you just add an entry for the new version at
some point in the table before the last entry (with permission for
an infinite time slice of course).
>Given a pathname, one can work to the data wanted by working
>through the Naming() relation, starting at Root().
>
>It turns out Linux already does this, more or less; the namespace and
>the inode space are independent of each other. Of course, every
>object must have at least one name, unless it's temporary.
>
>(I hope you understand my babbling; one way of organizing data is
>through use of a relational database -- not necessarily using SQL --
>and to use relations filled with attributes.)
This isn't sufficient. The reason multiple parents were eliminated
in Unix is because it's a dumb but effective way to eliminate cycles.
If you allow multiple parents then you have to figure out some other
way to prevent cycles. The way to do it is to differentiate between
parent directories and child directories and to check the ancestry
when you create new hard links between directories. That way you can
ensure that a program which only goes in one direction (either down
or up) will never get caught in an infinite loop. Of course, checking
the ancestry is expensive so that might be why Unix didn't do it.
Also, it's much easier to think of it in OO terms where a link is an
object class which implements permission attributes and message passing
(to other links and containers they're bound to). Also, a filesystem is
characterized by its root link, not root directory, so it can be said
that /all/ directories have a parent.
>Interesting idea, that. But what happens if one has to move all one's
>users to another volume? Does that change the users?
>
>(Would volumes even be an issue?)
It isn't an issue as long as you move all the users atomically but
it took quite a bit of thinking to determine why not. You have to
find all the portals going /into/ your filesystem; this is not hard
since they're bidirectional so you can work back from a directory
that contains all portals going /out/ of the filesystem. Then you
just recreate them all in the new filesystem. A script could do it
all; as long as there's a way to dismantle portals (this isn't
something I planned for so thanks!).
The primary portals (those directly connected) must be completely
rebuilt. The secondary portals (those connected through another
portal) only need to be half-rebuilt; the half inside of the new
filesystem needs to be rebuilt.
>>A lot of OSes have optimized for raw performance so don't bother;
>>it's like reinventing the wheel.
>
>And a lot of them have not. For example, Windows NT. :-)
:-) I'm not even sure what it optimized for.
>>You seem to be thinking in terms of features.
>
>Perhaps I am. However, these are features that IMO make sense.
>A computer system has to do something useful, or it won't be saleable.
>Some of the things it needs to do is display information, input information,
>store information, and process information.
I agree completely. I just think they're settled issues.
>Persistence is fine, but what happens if you lose power?
That's why you need a logging hard disk filesystem, so you can restart
easily. Also, my design is orthogonally persistent; processes reside
on the HD (or even CD-ROM) and the RAM just acts like a giant cache.
>Admittedly, I would love to see Linux modified to have a snapshot file,
>which is read in upon startup if the system crashes. There are some
>issues in this (chief of which is how to prevent corruption), but
>Win2000 is promoting "Instant Start", and I strongly suspect that
>a variant of this method will be used in order to get the computer going.
What is "Instant Start"?
>Note that X has some hooks for this -- but it's pretty clear nobody really
>takes much advantage of them. (All X does is store the argument line
>of the invoking program -- and the invoking program has to store it
>itself.)
Huh, that's pretty useless.
>I'm not sure it's important. However, it depends on the usage of
>the system; if the system is 24/7 hot, then run-time kernel upgrades
>(for well-tested kernels, I might add!) would be important; however,
>for the usual consumer, a certain amount of downtime would be
>acceptable.
Practically, it's not an importat feature. But it's one of those
super neat toys you can brag about; "geez, I haven't shut down my
system since '83" or something like that. :-)
>>It shouldn't even be possible for the syadmin to
>>prevent the sharing of data.
>
>It shouldn't be possible for hackers to mess up the system, either.
>
>Impasse, methinks.
Why? Sharing and security shouldn't be incompatible; you just have
to think very, VERY hard to find a design that hampers neither.
>I will note that with cryptography, the critical information can be
>encrypted. Share the encrypted version all you want; won't do much
>good unless you can get at the private key, which IMO should
>be stored in a magnetic card nearby, physically disconnected from
>the machine, or some similar method that's not always "live".
This is also bad. What you're describing is a flat user-space;
you establish a crypto key for some files and share it with the
users who need it one by one. Users are a resource of a system,
much more valuable than most other resources, and in that space
Structure Is Good. It must be possible to group and subgroup
users at will. Further, since users are a resource, the OS must
present an interface to users much the same as to every other
interface in the system. Sharing data with a select user should
be no different than creating a file in the appropriate place.
>>The system shouldn't just protect users from each other, it should
>>allow consenting users to do whatever they want with each other.
>
>It shouldn't protect users from each other at all, then.
>Not unreasonable, as long as the system itself is protected.
You're wrong, that's completely unreasonable. If I have files
somewhere, it should be possible (and easy!!) to share them with
Alice but not Bob.
>Depends on the organization of the system. In my system, for example,
>I have many disks, only one of which is dedicated to the operating system.
>The rest are for data.
If all the disks are pulled out of the computer, it is /not/ possible
to guarantee the data remains private.
>>Not persistent, not OO, not uniform, not comprehensible,
>
>Comprehensible? How is it not comprehensible? You may need to
>do a little code-grokking, to be sure -- is that what you're complaining
>about? -- and I agree some of that code is pretty twisted in there.
Exactly. It should be possible to understand how the entire system works
just by snooping around in it, not coding. An example is the /proc FS;
it goes some way towards making Linux understandable but not enough.
>Lose your power, lose any data. This is a feature of the computer
>system, not the operating system.
What I'm referring to is orthogonal persistence. You shouldn't need
to save your work anymore than you need to do garbage collection;
the OS should do it for you.
>The computer system must implement persistence; the operating system can
>then take advantage of it. A relatively simple way is to put sufficient
>battery power in the computer proper to take care of any outages;
>that way, should main power go out, the memory doesn't get scrambled.
>
>(Modern dynamic RAM, however, has some problems with this concept.)
If research into permanent RAM pans out, it won't be a problem anymore.
>Smalltalk is about as OO as one can get, IMO.
Actually, it's possible to get a bit more OO than Smalltalk if you
turn variables into objects; I heard that SELF does that but I don't
know anything about it. The problem is that since variables are not
objects, assignment is not a message thus you can't assign to any
variables using a perform message. Example:
"5 perform: #+ with: 3" is valid but
"someVariable perform: #:= with: 4" is not valid
Another thing is that objects can be represented by variables but
messages cannot. There's a package for Smalltalk that allows you
to write code that's just a string of variables. :-)
Combining both you could have something like;
Variable new: 'anObject';
new: 'aMessage'.
anObject := 5.
aMessage := '+ 4'.
anObject aMessage
>I can't say I've worked
>with it, but dynamic messaging (and either silent discarding of messages
>or the throwing of an exception on receipt of a bad message -- I don't
>remember which -- is not a bad idea. It simplifies things later on.)
The interpreter sends the message doesNotUnderstand to any object that
fails to understand a message.
>>Instead of giving
>>messages to an object that walks the filesystem (very imperative), you
>>give a message to an object within the filesystem and tell that object
>>to pass the message along to your intended recipient.
>
>You have to *find* the object first. :-)
You, a process executing on some computer somewhere, are given a
pseudo-variable, say 'files', which is bound by the interpreter to
another object in the filesystem. You send messages along the file-
system by sending
files pass: <aMessage>
to: '../network/tcp/richards_supercomputer.org/'
...
>C++, I'll agree with. Not sure what you mean about Java; I will
>merely note that a true hacker can write Fortran in any language. :-)
>
>The only globals in Java's namespace are the classes themselves.
That's not a requirement for an OO language; Smalltalk has globals
for system resources (eg, Transcript, Smalltalk).
>Anything else must refer to an object.
Or an integer or an array or ...
> Obviously, that's not OO,
>only a small part of it -- but it's a start.
Java is not OO because you can access instance variables from outside
of an object. There is absolutely no excuse for this.
>>I am a /complete/ neophyte as far as implementation details go. I
>>finished all the high-level design before I picked up my first book
>>on OSes. I'm learning about implementation now but the project is
>>already slowly heading out of the design phase; just a wee problem
>>in how to best exploit virtual memory.
>
>Virtual memory? One doesn't exploit it; one doesn't even see it.
You do if you're the OS designer. My problem is that the virtual
memory aspect of virtual address spaces is needed in the RAM-LOG
module but that the protection domain aspect of those same virtual
address spaces is needed only two levels higher.
Virtual FS
|
Caching
| |
RAM-LOG HD-LOG
| |
RAM-physical HD-physical
The physical layer module just serves out numbered disk blocks or pages.
The Log layer serves out huge segments (around 20 MB). The caching module
finds segments (tries the RAM then the HD then CD-ROM). Finally, the
virtual layer shows a useable filesystem to users. Processes are going
to reside in the virtual layer almost exclusively, yet I need virtual
memory at the log layer. And I'm not going to collapse all the layers
by hand (even, possibly, not at all).
>>Sorry to disappoint you but my design doesn't deal with anything of
>>the kind. Besides, I don't think AI has to be built into the OS proper.
>
>Well, naturally. It's *your* design. This is *my* set of ideals. :-)
>I was expecting them not to match, anyway.
>
>However, I highly doubt that anyone is going to want to stare at
>pathnames for the rest of their life; judging from my admittedly
>limited experience with the Web and Web development (I know how
>to write HTML :-) ), most users would rather search by content anyway.
But if you add an AI then what will the AI stare at? I rather think
it will stare at pathnames. I know that I don't want to stare at icons.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefano Ghirlanda)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Communism dosn't even exist, never did...
Date: 1 Jun 1999 13:55:20 GMT
On Tue, 01 Jun 1999 08:36:39 -0500, Randy Olinger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Taxes already produce free software. Or do you think the
>FSF (Free Software Foundation) was supported in full by
>private donations?
I suppose you mean that people writing free software are mostly university
employees paid by governments, i.e. funded by taxes. This is fine as far
as I am concerned.
--
Stefano Ghirlanda, Zoologiska Institutionen, Stockholms Universitet
Office: D554, Arrheniusv. 14, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: +46 8 164055, Fax: +46 8 167715, Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Support Free Science, look at: http://rerumnatura.zool.su.se
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lack Mr G M)
Subject: Re: About RealPlayer G2...
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 18:55:43 BST
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andy Piper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|>
|> I can't get any sound at all out of the RealPlayer G2 alpha.
|> It loads OK (I had to spoof the registration though as it
|> kept complaining of errors in the regional data when I said
|> I was in the UK), but I can't get any sound. Ideas?
FWIW: I couldn't get the registration to work at all (and still can't).
However, the player runs fine, including sound. This is in RH5.2
running 2.2.9 kernel.
--
=========== Gordon Lack ================= [EMAIL PROTECTED] ============
The contents of this message *may* reflect my personal opinion. They are
*not* intended to reflect those of my employer, or anyone else.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. J. Birchall)
Subject: Re: Is Gnome slow?
Date: 1 Jun 1999 14:42:50 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cliff Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've just installed Red Hat 6.0 (on top on 5.2 -- the "upgrade" option
> didn't work, it killed the mouse) which comes with a new X window
> manager (seems to be more than a window manager, though) called
> "Gnome". This looks real good but it runs like MacPaint on a 128K Mac,
> maybe a little slower. My brother suggests increasing my RAM from the
> present 16 MB to 64 MB, and I'm sure that would help, but even with 16
> MB I'd expect a menu response in less than two or three seconds, which
> is what Gnome gives me.
16 megs? Eep. I guess you aren't running, say, a recent version of
Netscape either... first off I'd strongly recommend listening to your
brother at least to some extent, and taking it to at least 32 megs.
Not for GNOME, but for the sake of being able to run major apps without
thrashing your hard drive.
As far as GNOME... no, it's not a window manager, it's a desktop
environment. You're probably using it with a window manager, like
Enlightenment, Window Maker, Blackbox, FVWM2, or one of the others.
You didn't say which, so we don't know, but the window manager can
take up some serious RAM too (especially if it's Enlightenment).
That said, GNOME, and most window managers, offer various configuration
options. The options you choose will have an impact on how fast things
are. (Sort of like the more saddlebags and whatnot you hang on a bike,
the more it weighs and the slower it goes.)
Take a look at the settings for GNOME (and, if you're using Enlightenment,
for that too). They both have a concept of "themes" which change the
graphical look and feel of things. If you select a theme that requires
either of them to frequently load images (pixmaps) or animations, it'll
slow things down quite nicely. A theme that doesn't do that, but
requires rendering of gradients, will probably slow them down a little
less. And themes with names like "clean" and "default" that are nice
and simple will probably run fastest.
(I run GNOME and Enlightenment on my '486 laptop with 40 megs of RAM,
using the "Default" GNOME theme and the "Clean" Enlightenment theme,
and it does pretty well. If I have a lot of programs running, it does
get slow, but generally nowhere near as bad as what you reported.)
Hope this helps a little,
-Dan
--
>From the Linux laptop of Dan Birchall, V.P. of Technology
Digital Facilities Management, Haddonfield, New Jersey
Internet/Extranets/E-Commerce - http://www.digitalfm.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (marco tephlant)
Subject: Re: Diald dials out every 15 minutes
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 19:32:07 +0100
In article <01bea846$90de08c0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> I had this problem (although it was about a year ago so my memory might be
> a bit off!) and it turned out to be one of the Win95 machines on my home
> network was doing a netbios lookup every 15 minutes. I changed dialdconf
> to ignore these packets and VOILA!
I've tried to figure out how to do this but with no success, what do you
put in diald.conf to filter them out?
(I've seen Erhards post, but I wasnt running samba at the time so I don't
think it applies)
Cheers
--
Marco
------------------------------
From: Robert Washburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many operating systems can i have on a linux pc?
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 10:51:39 -0400
Jseppe wrote:
>
> I currently use lilo to dual boot between Windows 98 and Linux. Is
> it possible to make it a quad boot PC? Ultimately, I would like to
> run linux, NT, Netware, and some flavor of Windows (95, 98, or NT
> workstation). Thanks -Joe
My system can boot
-) DOS/Win3.11
-) Win95 (separate partitions)
-) Linux
-) OS/2 Warp 4, Or at least did until I upgraded my video card and IBM
hasn't written the driver yet :-(
-) Same for Solaris x86 7.
I use System Commander because of its ability to hide partitions from
the predatory practices of M$ OS's.
BTW, I also run Atari 2600, Commodore 64 and Amiga 500 all as emulators
under Linux. If you can't have a dozen OS's running on one computer,
then why even buy one?
--
Bob Washburne
610-939-3551 (office) 610-939-6058 (fax)
800-759-8888 1636840# (pager)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ottavio G. Rizzo)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: A Capitalists view of freedom
Date: 01 Jun 1999 14:35:00 +0200
I suppose we are getting, more or less, back on topics...
Ed Avis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >In the US a student has the right to access every document about his
> >results: when I applied to grad school, I just had to waive my right
> >to read the recommandation letters. But it was my choice, it applied
> >only to those letters, I knew were they were, and the system still
> >works.
>
> That sounds like a very good system. I was worried that the right to
> look at documents was inalienable, so that you could promise to waive
> your right to see them, then once the letters are written, you can
> change your mind and threaten legal action if you don't get a look.
> But if you are allowed to voluntarially give up that right for certain
> documents, then there isn't a problem with references and so on.
I suppose we are talking about the "Directive 95/46/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the
free movement of such data." I managed to dig it out at:
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/lif/dat/1995/en_395L0046.html
Notice that in particular it says:
===========================================================
Article 3
Scope
1. This Directive shall apply to the processing of personal data
wholly or partly by automatic means, and to the processing
otherwise than by automatic means of personal data which form part
of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system.
2. This Directive shall not apply to the processing of personal data:
- [law enforcement, secret services, etc.],
- by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household
activity.
Article 6
1. Member States shall provide that personal data must be:
(a) processed fairly and lawfully;
(b) collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and not
further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes. Further
processing of data for historical, statistical or scientific purposes
shall not be considered as incompatible provided that Member States
provide appropriate safeguards;
(c) adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes
for which they are collected and/or further processed;
(d) accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable
step must be taken to ensure that data which are inaccurate or
incomplete, having regard to the purposes for which they were
collected or for which they are further processed, are erased or
rectified;
(e) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for
no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were
collected or for which they are further processed. Member States shall
lay down appropriate safeguards for personal data stored for longer
periods for historical, statistical or scientific use.
Article 7
Member States shall provide that personal data may be processed only if:
(a) the data subject has unambiguously given his consent; or
(b)..(f) [the data must be collected because of a legal requirement,
to protect vital interests, etc...]
Article 12
Right of access
Member States shall guarantee every data subject the right to obtain
from the controller:
(a) without constraint at reasonable intervals and without excessive
delay or expense:
- confirmation as to whether or not data relating to him are being
processed and information at least as to the purposes of the
processing, the categories of data concerned, and the recipients or
categories of recipients to whom the data are disclosed,
- communication to him in an intelligible form of the data undergoing
processing and of any available information as to their source,
- knowledge of the logic involved in any automatic processing of data
concerning him at least in the case of the automated decisions
referred to in Article 15 (1);
===========================================================
In other words, I don't have the right to access those data, but the
company has the duty to make sure they are right. In particular, there
should be a way for me to make sure that a credit rating company
doesn't have false information (either by letting me take a look at
those data, or having an independent watchbody doing that: I guess
it's up to national implementation), and I don't have any right to see
confidential reports about myself.
I really like item 7.a, even if it means that now I have to add an
extra signature to almost every form.
All things considered, now that I had a chance to read it, I have to
say it's a good law (also for what regards spamming).
> >>Also, I think it's an infringement of my privacy that I have to
> >>inform the government if I'm collecting a list of names.
So we have found out that the directive doesn't apply to you...
> >And I suppose you believe that a national ID infringes your privacy, too.
>
> Not privacy - the govt. has records of who I am anyway - but it would
> really piss me off to have to carry an ID card with me.
This is the most reasonable statement that I have ever heard from a
Briton on the subject of IDs: I might even agree with it :)
Ciao,
Ottavio
--
Ottavio Rizzo IRMAR, Campus de Beaulieu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Universit� de Rennes 1
T�l +33 (0)2 99 28 67 92 35042 RENNES cedex
Fax +33 (0)2 99 28 67 90 FRANCE
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
