Linux-Misc Digest #562, Volume #20 Thu, 10 Jun 99 00:13:11 EDT
Contents:
Seagate 4G/8G IDE Atapi Tape Drive (Darren Greer)
Re: ISO image of LinuxPPC?? (Raja Wurttemberg)
Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH for glib-1.2.1.tar.gz (Ted Sikora)
Re: Still insalling RH5.2 after a year. (brian moore)
Re: Is it possible to copy a Red Hat CD on a Windows system? ("Charles Sullivan")
Re: Linux on a 486?
Re: Swap file limit? (Uwe Bonnes)
Unitree HSM on Linux (Trevor Coghlan)
Re: Commercially speaking....? (John Garrison)
Re: strange telnet problem (Rado Faletic)
Re: Commercially speaking....? (John Garrison)
'top' is bottomles - ??? (Jared Hecker)
Re: Sparc: possible to install linux from tape ? (Jim Mellander)
Re: Commercially speaking....? ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Getting "SIOCADDRT: Invalid argument" with 'route add' ...? (Kevin Heath)
Re: finding files with words that may be on different lines (Joe Smith)
Re: Is it possible to copy a Red Hat CD on a Windows system? (Christopher Browne)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Greer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Seagate 4G/8G IDE Atapi Tape Drive
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 16:19:24 GMT
Hello all.
I have recently installed a Seagate 4G/8G IDE ATAPI Tape Drive into my
computer running Debian Gnu/Linux, version 2.1 (slink). I compiled
IDE/Tape support into my kernel (2.2.9), and the drive is recognized
at bootup at device ht0.
The device file /dev/ht0 did not exist, so I did a MAKEDEV ht, and the
device file /dev/ht0 was created.
All seems to be well now, with the device file, however when trying to
do anything with the tape, I get errors. For instance, the command:
mt -f /dev/ht0 rewind
results in a Input/Output error. I have tried several tapes (known
good tapes), and all recieve the same error. Any input would be
great. Thanks,
Darren
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raja Wurttemberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.powerpc,comp.os.linux.setup,linux.help
Subject: Re: ISO image of LinuxPPC??
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 15:45:17 GMT
On Wed, 09 Jun 1999 01:13:56 +0000, Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Kevin,
I looked on the LinuxPC.org ftp site and did not find any ISO images.
I even did an "ls -laR" to a local file on my system and searched that
file for an ISO image... no luck. :( Any other ideas??
-Raja
>Since you dont have an email address listed, I hope you get this..
>
>linuxppc.org has a 600 meg raw ISO file you can download, or you can
>order the CD for $38 including shipping,
>watch out though, these nuts double charged my credit card, once in
>April and another time in May and I only ordered
>1 CD in March..
>
>
>
>Raja Wurttemberg wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know of an ftp site that has an ISO or raw image of the
>> LinuxPPC CD? I've found lots of RedHat 6.0 for i386 ISO images but
>> none for the Mac. Arrghhh! Any information provided would be
>> appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Raja Wurttemberg
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> /* To prevent SPAM my e-mail address been modified.*/
>> /* The spammers have thwarted my best efforts to */
>> /* stop them from sending me SPAM so my address is */
>> /* not available. Sorry.*/
>
Raja Wurttemberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
/* To prevent SPAM my e-mail address been modified.*/
/* The spammers have thwarted my best efforts to */
/* stop them from sending me SPAM so my address is */
/* not available. Sorry.*/
------------------------------
From: Ted Sikora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: redhat.config,comp.os.linux,linux.redhat.misc,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH for glib-1.2.1.tar.gz
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:52:56 GMT
hihihi wrote:
>
> I use Red Hat 5.1, i case that makes a difference..
>
> I need to set the LD_LIBRARY_PATH for glib-1.2.1.tar.gz in
> /etc/profile
>
> Can anyone tell me exactly what that path should be ??
>
> <If you want, you can reply by email >
>
> --
> Een paar praktische LINUX Red Hat 5.1 antwoorden
> http://www.casema.net/~hihihi/linux.htm
There is no need to unless you put it in an odd place.
It should be installed in /usr/lib or /usr/local/lib
both of which should be in your /etc/ld.so.conf
Just do a # ldconfig -v to activate the libraries or
do a reboot.
--
Ted Sikora
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://tsikora.tiac.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Subject: Re: Still insalling RH5.2 after a year.
Date: 9 Jun 1999 16:24:30 GMT
On Wed, 09 Jun 1999 08:12:25 -0400,
Rodney Loisel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the replies. I just logged on to delete my post. I plan
> to get a PC already installed with Linux when I can afford it and if
> necessary use the resorces at Dartmouth College - i.e. see if
> there's a computer science major who wants to make consulting fees
> to get me past the initial startups. (Giving up computing
> altogether is an intersting option after 13 years as well...)
A preinstalled machine is a wonderful thing. (I bought my latest home
machine from the ASL folks at aslab.com and it's fantastic. I'm
considering another even though it's been nowhere near the proper time
for my existing hardware to depreciate, but I'm craving another
box...)
There are a number of Linux vendors now going after the $500-$999
market, so you can get a reasonable system for a reasonable price.. and
preinstalled is a wonderful thing. (I spent more time unboxing my
latest machine, putting the little feet on the bottom of the case,
etc, than I did actually setting it up.)
Certainly there are annoyances and gotchas in the Linux install process,
but I've found them to be less annoying that the Windows ones. (Ever
done the Windows install from a CD, then had it say it needed to reboot
to finish the install.... and then it comes back up unable to find the
CD drive it just installed from?) Getting a preinstalled machine is why
people tolerate the Windows install: they never see it.
> My point was not that I am not unfamiliar with Linux. I have used
> unix before and the Amiga OS is very similar to unix as well in it's
> shell mode. My point was that Redhat bounced back my posts without
> explanation and that the installation and setup for Linux leaves a
> lot to be desired. (for example: I read the Loadlin how-to and
> halfway thru it says if you have Win 95 something 'b' than skip all
> this and got ot seciton <x>. In section <x> it has totally
> different instructions- then go back to the first part where you're
> left without any clue as to what to do next.).
Well, I think that the question of 'commercial support' is highly
overrated.
Try here, friends, local Linux groups, #LinuxHelp on
irc.openprojects.net, etc.
The community provides much better support than any commercial vendor
will ever be able to do. As long as you treat the community right (ie,
not starting off a request for help with "THIS IS SHIT YOU ALL SUCK!
BITE ME!!"), you can usually get an answer to things within a matter of
minutes.
The "We Have Support!" is mainly designed to appease the PHB's who
insist that nothing can be good unless it has a commercial support cost.
--
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: "Charles Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is it possible to copy a Red Hat CD on a Windows system?
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 12:25:07 -0400
Fascinating! This entire thread because a guy doesn't want to spend $2.
Steve Hiner wrote in message ...
>I bought a CheapBytes Red Hat 6.0 CD and I have a friend that wants me to
>copy it for him (saves him a little money since he already has the blank
>CDs). My problem is that the only CD burner I have is at work and it is on
>a Windows NT machine. I am using Easy CD Creator Deluxe. I have searched
>quite a bit about creating Linux CDs on Windows machines and everything I
>find is really talking about creating one from scratch using downloaded
>files (most say it is not possible without using Linux).
>
>The thing I am interested in finding out is if I can copy an existing CD.
I
>don't know a whole lot about how CD burners work with respect to ISO images
>but it seems to me like I should be able to make an ISO image of the
>original CD and burn a new one using the image. If I were using Linux I
>would trust that but in my experience Windows programs like to "help" you
>out without telling you so I was wondering if it would try to convert the
>file system to Joliet or if an ISO image is a bit-for-bit image of the CD.
>
>If it were my disc I would just burn one and find out if it works but since
>it is my friends CD I don't want to ruin one if I can avoid it.
>
>Thanks for the help,
>Steve Hiner
>developer AT isiaz DOT com
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux on a 486?
Date: 9 Jun 1999 16:33:53 GMT
On Wed, 09 Jun 1999 16:18:39 +0100, Mark Tranchant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's certainly an improvement, but gpm allows you to copy and paste
>between VTs if you really can't or don't want to use X.
I'd forgotten about that, I'll keep it in mind if X turns out to run
too poorly.
--
Roger Blake
(remove second "g" from address for email)
------------------------------
From: Uwe Bonnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Swap file limit?
Date: 9 Jun 1999 16:23:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: The limit to a Linux swap is 128mb, if you need any more you need to
: create more than one swap partition
The swap limit _was_ 128mb up to kernel 2.2...
Bye
--
Uwe Bonnes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt
========= Tel. 06151 162516 ======== Fax. 06151 164321 ==========
------------------------------
From: Trevor Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Unitree HSM on Linux
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:39:55 GMT
Is there a Unitree HSM like product available for Linux ?
Or for that matter, any HSM product ?
A replication or mirroring utility would also be helpful. Something
like SureSync, or the Network Integrity NT & Netware products.
Trevor
------------------------------
From: John Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.help,linux.news.groups,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Commercially speaking....?
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 03:16:51 GMT
Erik Olson wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy David Damerell wrote:
> > Erik Olson wrote:
> >>Now this has confused me, making system calls to the Linux kernel by non
> >>open source commercial programs should be illegal, or at least my
> >>interpretation of the GPL makes me think so. But apparently it is not.
> >>I don't understand. Can you explain why?
>
> > Because Linus says you can. No, really.
>
> Now Linus is a person I trust, so I don't have problem with that.
>
> But what scares me is that the GPL says something about not being allowed
> to modify any of its licensing terms. Now I respect RMS's uncanny ability
> to publicly give Bill the finger, but trust RMS I do not. It is my
> belief that his agenda calls for the death and destruction of the closed
> source commercial software market as we know it today. RMS's view is an
> extreme view. So it is my fear that it is only a matter of time before
> RMS with the power of the FSF legal team crack down on all closed source
> commercial software for the GPL'd Linux OS. Their logic will be that any
> program that runs on Linux must somehow call the kernel inorder to even
> run, a kernel call is a library, and the GPL forbids closed source
> programs from doing this. If sucessful such a legal precedent would
> render all closed source Linux software illegal.
>
Ummm, let's see. If we block off all closed source software from linux, then
we would
lose what we are trying to obtain, no Quake3, no Civiliztion: A Call to
Power, no Ultima
Online. That would hurt and probably destroy linux. Linux is great, I love
it, I will never
use Windows again, but If I couldn't play the same games my friends are
playing the I would
loose a valuable aspect of computers.
The GPL is to help linux, not to hurt it. Nobody would take it there.
Besides, Linux STILL
owns Linux, what he says goes. So that can't happen without him.
>
> Will this ugly scenario ever happen? I hope not, but from what I
> understand of RMS's agenda, this does seem a logical step once Linux
> achieves critical mass.
>
No
>
> Now why didn't Linus use the LGPL instead of the GPL?
>
LIBRARY GPL. The Linux KERNEL. LIBRARY != KERNEL.
Why would you put the library GPL on a Kernel?
Also the LGPL hadn't been written yet I don't think.
>
> erik olson
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 12:45:24 +1000
From: Rado Faletic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.help,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: strange telnet problem
I think that sometimes the library of different types of terminals (is
it termcap?) does not have a complete listing of all terminals. If it
doesn't contain one you are connecting to (say you are connecting from
your Linux box to a SunOS machine via telnet), it will probably default
to a "minimal" terminal, which means minimal functions, which may not be
compatible with terminal you are connecting to. Or, your termcap library
could have the required entires, but they could be old/corrupt causing
strange things to happen.
Anyway, do as Marc suggests and it should be more useful.
------------------------------
From: John Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Commercially speaking....?
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 03:24:28 GMT
Eugene O'Neil wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Anthony Ord) wrote:
> >On Mon, 24 May 1999 12:14:35 +0000, Jamie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Iain Georgeson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Iain, forced to use DOS every working day.
> >>
> >>It is amazing the number of people that do not realise that Win 95 is
> >>running on top of DOS just like 3.x did. They just put a (not so)
> >>pretty picture up at the begining to hide the DOS stuff at boot time.
> >
> >Some people deny it point-blank when you clue them in. They
> >come up with all sort of funny explanations...
>
> What really amuses me is when they counter with "oh yeah? well, X windows runs
> on top of UNIX just like Windows runs on DOS!" That may be true, but it misses
> the point. The fact that Windows runs on top of an operating system isn't the
> problem. The problem is that operating system it runs on is *DOS*.
>
Exactly X11 is JUST like Windows. But X11 isn't an OS. We don't claim it to be an
OS.
So what does that make Windows? An extension, a shell, a windowing system.
Whatever
it is it is not an OS.
What confuses me more is why, in thier attempt to hide DOS, did MS give Windows95
long filename support but not DOS 7. I can only assume it would be just as
easy/easier
to do this at a lower level than a higher one. And it would make the product much
easier
to use. Nothing annoys me more than them stupid "~1" 's.
>
> -Eugene
------------------------------
From: Jared Hecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 'top' is bottomles - ???
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 02:27:51 GMT
Hello -
I fired up 'top' on my RH5.2 system this evening, and it showed no
processes in the bottom half of the screen. There were plenty there, too.
Is this a bug?
TIA -
Reards,
jh
--
Jared Hecker | HWA Inc. - Oracle architecture and Administration
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | ** serving NYC and New Jersey **
------------------------------
From: Jim Mellander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Sparc: possible to install linux from tape ?
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 13:54:28 -0700
Frank Mattes wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I never had contact with linux, but thinking to install
> linux on my sun sparc classic.
> The machine has at the moment no access to the internet,
> but I'm wondering if its possible to install either redhat or
> debian from a dat tape.
>
> Is it possible to write the tape with a other machine (hp-ux)
> which than can be used to load linux (booting).
>
> Frank
Well, I haven't tried installing from tape, but you can most definately
do a network install, so you could setup the hpux machine as a TFTP
server to netboot the sparc, then install via FTP or NFS - I've done it
w/Redhat, don't know about Debian
------------------------------
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.msdos.misc,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Commercially speaking....?
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 20:37:13 -0700
John Garrison wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Eugene O'Neil wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> (Anthony Ord) wrote:
>> >On Mon, 24 May 1999 12:14:35 +0000, Jamie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>Iain Georgeson wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Iain, forced to use DOS every working day.
>> >>
>> >>It is amazing the number of people that do not realise that Win 95 is
>> >>running on top of DOS just like 3.x did. They just put a (not so)
>> >>pretty picture up at the begining to hide the DOS stuff at boot time.
>> >
>> >Some people deny it point-blank when you clue them in. They
>> >come up with all sort of funny explanations...
>>
>> What really amuses me is when they counter with "oh yeah? well, X windows
runs
>> on top of UNIX just like Windows runs on DOS!" That may be true, but it
misses
>> the point. The fact that Windows runs on top of an operating system isn't
the
>> problem. The problem is that operating system it runs on is *DOS*.
>>
CLARIFICATION: Windows95/98 !=DOS, Reversion to DOS is possible if DOS is
installed prior to Windows95/98. DOS is _NOT_ Required.
>
>Exactly X11 is JUST like Windows. But X11 isn't an OS. We don't claim it to
be an
>OS.
>So what does that make Windows? An extension, a shell, a windowing system.
>Whatever
>it is it is not an OS.
>What confuses me more is why, in thier attempt to hide DOS, did MS give
Windows95
This is only true, in upgrade type installations. installing on a blank
hard drive you will not have DOS, you won't even have the option to boot to
DOS. Just because the FS used was FAT doesn't make it DOS.
>
>long filename support but not DOS 7. I can only assume it would be just as
>easy/easier
>to do this at a lower level than a higher one. And it would make the
product much
>easier
>to use. Nothing annoys me more than them stupid "~1" 's.
>
Which are a legacy from early ftp program greeking of long filenames, and
example of MS attempting to present something familiar for the users.
>>
>> -Eugene
>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Getting "SIOCADDRT: Invalid argument" with 'route add' ...?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Heath)
Date: 9 Jun 1999 23:13:44 -0500
In article <0hdnm5yjrm44-pn2-d5NySSwcXY96@ifurita>,
Alex Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm running a somewhat-upgraded version of Debian 2.1 with
>kernel 2.2.6, and I've noticed this worrying message in my
>startup sequence.
>
>After some investigation, I've discovered it's occurring
>during /etc/init.d/network, specifically, the "route"
>command.
>
>This is my /etc/init.d/network file:
>
> #! /bin/sh
> ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1
> route add -net 127.0.0.0
> ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.2
> route add -net 192.168.1.0 dev eth0
>
>..and each (yes, I get it twice) of the "route add" lines
>produces:
>
> SIOCADDRT: Invalid argument
I get the same error on my Debian box, though I never bothered trying to
isolate what was causing it. Thanks for doing my work for me. :)
Starting with the 2.2.x kernels, linux automatically sets up routes for
devices brought up with "ifconfig", so you no longer need the "route"
invocations in your startup files unless you're doing something unusual
(in which case you'll want to use "route del ..." to get rid of the
default routes, or perhaps there's a switch for ifconfig...).
In any case, try commenting out the "route" lines by preceding them
with a "#", and see if that gets rid of the error messages.
-Kevin
------------------------------
From: Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: finding files with words that may be on different lines
Date: 09 Jun 1999 23:20:30 -0400
Hard to do with grep in one pass.
If you can stand one pass per keyword, this will work:
grep -q 'p1' file1 &&
grep -q 'p2' file1 &&
grep -q 'p3' file1 && echo 'file1 matched p1 and p2 and p3'
<Joe
--
Joe Smith
University of Pennsylvania
School of Medicine, Cardiology Division
Philadelphia, PA 19104
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Is it possible to copy a Red Hat CD on a Windows system?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 03:36:53 GMT
On Wed, 9 Jun 1999 12:25:07 -0400, Charles Sullivan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Fascinating! This entire thread because a guy doesn't want to spend $2.
Funny enough, to be sure.
Although I thoroughly approve of the idea of there being widespread
understanding of how to build/master 'em.
After all, this means that if any of the vendors turn into Bad Guys,
there is the ability for thousands of Little Guys to work around the
problem. Furthermore, it's better for understanding to be widespread
rather than collected up in a few "centres of expertise."
--
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
-- Michael A. Petonic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.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
******************************
