Linux-Misc Digest #563, Volume #20 Thu, 10 Jun 99 02:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux on a 486? (Mark Tranchant)
Re: Can I use RPM in Slackware? (Richard Wright)
Re: linux/ksh (Alan Gauld)
Re: Accounting software (quicken type) for LINUX? ("John D. Maag")
Re: Sparc: possible to install linux from tape ? (C. Newport)
Re: Q. please: I'm looking for GOOD (& free) sound softwares... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How to get System Commander to boot Linux? (Edward J. Smiley Jr.)
Re: cannot mount floppy (Mark Redding)
Re: Commercially speaking....? (John Garrison)
Re: zImage and bzImage ( ��)
HDD partitioning for linux (Tan)
Re: Netscape : How to increase font size (Howard Mann)
Re: Cable Modems (Mick Costa)
Re: Pro-Unix vs anti-WinTel (W Gerald Hicks)
Re: Any Mail Application for commercial use (Johan Kullstam)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Tranchant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux on a 486?
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 16:18:39 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 9 Jun 1999 07:21:19 GMT, Carl Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You have multiple terminal sessions available in Linux without X -- they're
> >called "virtual terminals". When you start up the console shows VT1, and
>
> Yes, in fact I've used that in the past. (I played around with Linux
> a few years ago on my home system.) But I like having multiple
> xterms on the screen at once and being able to copy and paste between
> them.
>
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.
Mark.
------------------------------
From: Richard Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can I use RPM in Slackware?
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:37:34 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Beed
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Hi
>
> I downloaded RPM Software and installed it. everything went
>fine. but, When I tried to installed a software with RPM extension, I
>always got a message saying that there file can't be found? anyone has
>any ideas as to why this is happening? Thank you in advance.
>
>
>Jack
If the file ends in .o then it's probably a library that is
needed your system doesn't have.
If not does it say what file anyway.
--
Richard Wright
------------------------------
From: Alan Gauld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux/ksh
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:49:49 +0100
Mark Redding wrote:
> Two things I can think of :-
>
> 1. Does the script contain
> #!/usr/bin/ksh
> 2. Is . [thats DOT] or the directory that start.ksh resides in, on your
> PATH. If not, either add it or execute using ./start.ksh
And is the start.ksh executable?
$ chmod +x start.ksh
Alan G.
--
=================================================
This post represents the views of the author
and does not necessarily accurately represent
the views of BT.
------------------------------
From: "John D. Maag" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Accounting software (quicken type) for LINUX?
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 03:26:33 GMT
There's a package under the GNU license. Check www.linux.org and look
for Linux projects. I think it's called gnumoney
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C. Newport)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Sparc: possible to install linux from tape ?
Date: 9 Jun 1999 20:33:04 +0100
Frank Mattes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 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).
Possible with a lot of effort, but why not do it the easy way.
Plug both computers into a network, mount the linux CD on the HP box,
and do a network install using ftp or nfs.
You will need to either create a boot floppy or fix up the HP box as
a boot server.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Q. please: I'm looking for GOOD (& free) sound softwares...
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:01:32 GMT
The best audio software site on the net is
http://www.bright.net/~dlphilp/linux_soundapps.html
On Tue, 08 Jun 1999 12:27:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hi here,
>
>Could someone tell me if there are good (I mean REALLY good) &
>free sound softwares available for Linux somewhere in the Web
>world ??
>
>What are the best sites for this ? (in fact I'm a jazz piano
>player, and I'd like to find a program that would help me to
>write down on a musical score the different parts of the .wav
>files I've recorded)
>
>Thanks a lot !
>
>Regards,
>Seb
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Edward J. Smiley Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux.setup,linux.redhat.install
Subject: Re: How to get System Commander to boot Linux?
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 03:02:20 GMT
If you use LILO, what order do you install the operating systems and
where? A description would be helpful!
Thanks!
Ed
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mohamad SALEH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Edward J. Smiley Jr." a �crit :
>
> > I am trying to boot Win98, WinNT, and Linux using System
Commander. I
> > know that you have to point System Commander at you Linux partition
to
> > get it to boot. What partition do I want to point it at and how do
I
> > point it?
> > Also in the future I would like to add Solaris 7. Would I have to
do
> > this the same way? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > --
>
> I use simply LILO from Linux. It is possible to boot all Windows,
Solaris
> and naturally Linux
> with LILO which is a natural solution when you have Linux.
>
>
--
Ed Smiley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:34:21 +0100
From: Mark Redding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: cannot mount floppy
> Have you tried this as root? If that works, you might consider using
> the various 'mtools' rather than becoming root. If it doesn't work as
> root, then as another person suggested, you need to look at /etc/fstab
> (do a man mount and man fstab).
Placing the word "user" in the options part of the /etc/fstab file for
/dev/fd0 will do that, There's also an option to select m$-dog filesystems
by default.
------------------------------
From: John Garrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.msdos.misc,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Commercially speaking....?
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 05:06:16 GMT
Chad Mulligan wrote:
> 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.
>
Windows is started from the DOS program Win.com. If it is started from another
OS then it is not as OS. DOS is in blank hard drive installs. DOS 7.0 is new to
Windows95. If were only in upgrades then Windows95 would use DOS 6.2 like
Windows 3.1 did. MS just hides it because they want you to think Windows is a
standalone OS. This is a FACT, not an arguable point. You are deluding yourself
>
> >
> >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.
>
So what you are saying is that Microsoft is halting the advance of software
technology
because of some FTP programs that the average computer user (aka 90% of Windows
users) has never used?
Sounds Kinda ass-backward to me, but that's Microsoft for you.
>
> >>
> >> -Eugene
> >
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ( ��)
Subject: Re: zImage and bzImage
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 16:35:57 GMT
On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 13:20:43 -0400, "Mike Somerville"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>what is the difference between zImage and bzImage? I am fairly new to linux
>and hve been trying to recompile my kernel (2.2.5) and I make what I think
>is a fairly tight kernel and when I try to compile it it tells me to try
>bzImage insted and I have looked through the news groups. From what the
>newsgroups seem to say the file size is very similar so what's the diff?
zImage a simple kernel
bzImage a ziped kernel . if you make your kernel as "make
zImage ",it said that kernel too big .then make it as "make \bzImage"
plz.
------------------------------
From: #[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tan)
Crossposted-To: comp.programming
Subject: HDD partitioning for linux
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 17:38:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have a new 8.4GB HDD and I want to install Win98, NT, and Linux into
it. How should I allocate my HDD space to each of this? How should I
format the HDD for these?
------------------------------
From: Howard Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Netscape : How to increase font size
Date: 10 Jun 1999 04:25:44 GMT
[Posted and mailed]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Supat Faarungsang Zxc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I notice the menu of netscape under linux has option alt + to increase
> fonts size but it is not work.
> Unlike windows version it has cntl ] that always work.
> If anyone know how to increase font size in this feature please let me
> know. THanks.
>
> supat
>
Hullo,
This item will help you immensely:
http://www.frii.com/~meldroc/Font-Deuglification.html
Cheers,
--
Howard Mann
http://www.newbielinux.com
(a LINUX website for newbies)
Smart Linuxers search at: http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml
------------------------------
From: Mick Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Cable Modems
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 13:20:24 -0400
K Lee wrote:
>
> Mick Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> : Note: My machine is currently dual boot between Win95 and Slackware.
> : For some reason, my NIC is not detected if I do a soft reboot. I
> : actually have to power down and then power back up to get the NIC
> : detected. Other than that, it was pretty straightforward.
>
> Just so I understand, you do have a cable modem to which the NIC connects?
> If so, then, there should be a little tiny switch in the back or on the
> side of the modem which you could press to reset the modem. Then, there'd
> be no need for a hard reboot. Mine's by Motorola, Cybersurfr and the
> switch is in the back.
Yes, the NIC connects directly to the cable modem. The only problem
I've had is getting Linux to initialize the NIC. The NIC is a 3Com
905b-TX (I think) and I guess it's a known problem. There is no problem
with the cable modem seeing the NIC, and I can't even remember the last
time I had to do anything with the cable modem (no reset or power
down). Anyway, what happens to me is that if I am running Win95 and
want to get back to Linux, I have to cold reboot; otherwise Linux has a
problem with the NIC (I think it's in reading the MAC address).
>
------------------------------
From: W Gerald Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Pro-Unix vs anti-WinTel
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 01:11:18 -0400
[steve's dissertation]
Steve Lamb wrote:
>
> The whole concept of it. The fact that it is cobbled together from a
> zillion different sources. There is no central repository which means when
> any one of the things in ports changes, might as well throw away the whole
> tree.
You know very little about which you protest...
> On a production machine? I'm sorry, no.
>
Do it frequently here. From sources. Of course that's FreeBSD
though...
>
> No dependency checking at all.
BZZZT! Wrong, but we do have a nice parting gift for you.
>
> > But you haven't said *why*. Until you do, you're nothing but
> > baseless FUD.
>
> Which is no less than most of the FreeBSD weenies I see running around
> blasting Linux left and right with utter and complete FUD.
>
I know you are but what am I? I suppose we should have expected this
since you *are* the appointed keeper of what is good and true (Linux).
> My *SPECIFIC* problem with ports is no dependency checking at all. There
> is no way to install a program and have the libraries associated with it be
> selected and included. If there is, it sure isn't documented well. The *ONE*
> time I had to fight ports to install tk/tcl for another application was enough
> for me to swear off it for good.
This is wrong, but some of us are happy you aren't using FreeBSD anyway.
>
> Compare that to Debian. I go into deselect, select slrn, for example, it
> automatically selects slang for me if it isn't installed and gives me the
> option of choosing slrn-pull or not. It was real nice installing the GIMP. I
> picked GIMP, all of the require libraries were selected for me, I chose a few
> extra things which were useful and less than a minute later it was installed.
Functionally the same experience I've had for both FreeBSD and Debian.
Both are very good operating systems, although I prefer FreeBSD because
of its ports collection. I would like to get dpkg and dselect running
native on FreeBSD so the ports collection can load debian packages for
use with FreeBSD's Linux ABI. The last time I looked though, it wasn't
exactly code written for portability (understatement).
Fortunately, the ports subsystem is based on ordinary everyday Unix
utilities
and it's easy for _clueful_ users to understand its operation
completely.
It's also very easy to extend for specialized capabilities.
>
> Let's compare ports, eh? make gimp, whoops, need GTK. CD to that
> directory, make that. Whoops, it needs something else. CD to that directory
> make it. OK, done with those. make gimp again. Whoops, needs something
> else. Repeat for about 5-7 libraries. Once those are installed you have the
> base GIMP. But wait, I'm glossing over the fact that we're not installing
> anything, we're downloading and compiling it! Hey, it's great that you can do
> that, and Debian should be able to let people to do that, but I don't think
> that EVERY program installed needs to be compiled locally. There simply is no
> need for a local compile unless you're looking for a specific optimization on
> some application that you need to run for critical use. I've compiled and
> installed slrn/slang by hand many times on many different systems. You know
> what, I see no difference from the precompiles one I get through Debian save
> that it is faster, easier and cheaper.
Total and utterly incorrect bullshit. Dependencies are most certainly
accounted for.
Building from sources has many advantages in an open source software
economy (Duh!)
Also, it seems you are under the mistaken impression that the ports
collection is exclusively for building things from source.
>
> Ports is a throwback to a bygone era. It is good that it is there, it
> SHOULD be there. But it should not be regarded as the end-all, be-all way to
> do things. It should be one OPTION of doing things to make it easy for those
> who need to do it that way, or want to do it that way. But to make it a
> requirement, to say it is the *BEST* is a big, fat JOKE.
>
> --
Thank you for your input although most of it is misinformation.
--
Jerry Hicks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Any Mail Application for commercial use
Date: 09 Jun 1999 13:19:23 -0400
Eddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Besides Zmail and Sendmail, is there any mail application suitable for
> commercial use ? As Sendmail seems too complicated for commercial and
> the user interface is not so user-friendly.
1) what do you mean by `commercial use'?
2) a mail transport agent doesn't have a user interface. it has an
adminstrator configuration interface. it has a mail user agent
interface. your users shouldn't care what MTA is installed.
personally, i like qmail. YMMV.
--
johan kullstam
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
