Linux-Misc Digest #782, Volume #20 Fri, 25 Jun 99 08:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux balkanization a potential blessing (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: problems Compiling in c++ with slakware 4.0 (Tobias Anderberg)
COL225: Upgrading a 2.2.5 kernel to 2.2.9 (Chris Raper)
Re: The wonderful Linux community (Karel Jansens)
Re: What about USB in Linux? (mei)
Don't encourage them! (Enkidu)
How can I lower X:s footprint ? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: CD player - no sound (Jon Skeet)
Red Hat Trainer Needed ("Michael Shi")
Re: editorial: Stupid Linux Tricks (Keven R. Pittsinger)
Re: Documentation, or the lack thereof (Tom Christiansen)
Re: Documentation issues. (David Kastrup)
Re: Linux balkanization a potential blessing (Tom Christiansen)
Re: Linux balkanization a potential blessing (David Kastrup)
WIN 95 and 2 Linux distributions at the same time (Uwe Brauer)
Re: /etc/shadows (Tanel Kokk)
Documentation, or the lack thereof (Alan Curry)
Re: Fragile file system (Jon Skeet)
Re: Linux balkanization a potential blessing (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Very small font in Netscape (Keith Thigpen)
perl script for URLs? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: mounting floppy read-only problem ("Marat Ruvinov")
partition table overwritten, machine still running. What to do? (Helge Hafting)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux balkanization a potential blessing
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:48:28 GMT
Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [T]here's something broken about the Linux mentality that says that
> undocumented programs are acceptable.
Where did you find this mentality? I've been using Linux since 1992
or so, and I can't say I've come across it. Certainly, where there
has been a certain lack of documentation in the past, it has been
loudly bemoaned, and largely fixed.
On my RH and Debian systems, I have...let me just check this....on my
Debian system, which is the only one I can access right now, I find
6763 manual pages. The /usr/doc directory contains 9650 files,
totalling fifty-nine megabytes of technical descriptions, step-by-step
instruction and general explanation, as well as sample configuration
files and suchlike. Let's not forget /usr/info, with seven megabytes
and 562 files. And the kernel itself, there are 238 files in the
Documentation directory, as well as the various README's scattered
throughout.
I don't know what your Linux experience is, but I am sure you'll take
the time to enlighten me as to where and how Linux software is lacking
in documentation, and of course, who exactly is claiming undocumented
programs are OK.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tobias Anderberg)
Subject: Re: problems Compiling in c++ with slakware 4.0
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 01:28:47 +0200
>I have a little problem with compiling a c++ programm in Slakware 4.0.
>First there was a problem with the 'include file' <String.h> (Ansistring).
#include <string>
/tobias
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Raper)
Subject: COL225: Upgrading a 2.2.5 kernel to 2.2.9
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:55:45 GMT
Hi
I have a Caldera 2.2.5 system and am trying to upgrade the kernel to
2.2.9 - but every time I try I keep hitting problems.
I have tried remaking the kernel in it's 2.2.5 form and it works fine
but if I then unZIP the 2.2.9 kernel over the top of the 2.2.5 (like
it says in th help file) then do:
make mrproper
make menuconfig (just go in and then save default options)
make dep
make clean
make bzImage
it comes up with:
make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-2.2.5/arch/i386/boot'
as86 -0 -a -o bbootsect.o bbootsect.s
make[1]: as86: Command not found
Should I have upgraded to 2.2.6 then 2.2.7 then 2.2.8 first? I just
thought that if you get the whole kernel, rather than doing patches,
you didn't have to take the steps in between.
TIA
Chris R.
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Reply-To: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net
Subject: Re: The wonderful Linux community
Date: 25 Jun 1999 08:12:53 GMT
On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 00:22:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Uri Kerbel) wrote:
> Just a few words to say thanks to all of those who contribute to this
> group.
>
> I've just finished updating my kernel for the first time from 2.0.36
> to 2.2.9 which is not the easiest task around as there were many
> packages/libraries that needed to be updated in the process.
>
> Gratitude is due for all the help received from dedicated
> professionals within the Linux community who devote their time to
> helping others on Usenet.
>
Agreed.
You have to account for the odd RTFM (or even less friendly message),
though.
But overall, the inhabitants of planet Linux seem to be friendly and
helpful.
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_ibm_dot_net
===============================================================
"I wonder what'll happen if I do this," mused Stibbons.
..
DON'T YOU WISH NOW YOU HADN'T DONE THAT ?
(Terry Pratchett - Apprentomancer - the B-space collection)
===============================================================
------------------------------
From: mei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What about USB in Linux?
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 12:05:33 +0200
Reply-To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mauro Goretti ha scritto:
>
> I'm searching any news about the compatibility of USB in RH Linux.
> Can you help me?
USB is under development, but you can find more news on kernel 2.3.X. At the
moment it seems (I didn't tested) to be done the support for mouse, keyboard,
printer and scsi<->usb. I don't know how they are usable.
Ciao Mei
------------------------------
From: Enkidu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Don't encourage them!
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 20:22:51 +1200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In another thread someone was sugesting that Linux was suitable for
4 year olds....
DON'T LET THEM!!
Do you realise what this would mean? We would be raising a generation
that would be AT HOME in Linux! It would hold no terrors for them! It
would seem natural to them. They'd be at home with it, and there would
be no mystique in it for them.
There would be nowhere for us to congregate and discuss our computing
esoterica, because it would be commonplace! As commonplace as
Windows is these days.
We need to maintain the mystery, to cloak things in an inpenetrate
haze of acronyms and esoteric commands. We need to beat back the
HORDES!
Cliff
--
Cliff Pratt, CAP Consulting
Web build, web design. HTML, Javascript, CGI, ASP, Web Consulting
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 025 246 7747
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: How can I lower X:s footprint ?
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 08:22:34 GMT
On my 16MB system, X-window uses 30-35%, and that is too much.
Is there anything I can do to make it smaller, besides lowering screen
res or colour resolution, which is 1024x768x16 and the smallest I can
live with.
How about compiling X myself, will that make it smaller on a i586
(compared to the i386 package from RH)?
Anything else to test ?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon Skeet)
Subject: Re: CD player - no sound
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:32:04 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <7ksftl$pb8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "chnrxn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Also make sure that your CDROM is connected to the sound card with an
> > audio cable.
>
> It is, and I am able to play CDs under Windows.
Okay, next questions:
o Does the CD actually start (ie can you hear it spin/see the light)?
o If you stick headphones into the socket on the CD-Rom, can you hear the
music then?
--
Jon Skeet - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
------------------------------
From: "Michael Shi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Red Hat Trainer Needed
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 20:44:36 -0400
Part-time Red Hat trainers are needed in Atlanta. Please email us your
interest.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keven R. Pittsinger)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: editorial: Stupid Linux Tricks
Date: 19 Jun 1999 01:01:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <_3U93.5341$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wow Mike:
>
> Sounds like you were there.
>
> It's nice to hear from somebody who appears to have his
> facts straight.
>
> I recall the first IBM PC I owned. It featured a massive 64
> kilobytes of memory, text-mode video card with printer port
> built in. It had audio ports for connecting cassette
> recorders that only functioned under Bill's built-in Basic
> interpreter.
>
> Actually, Bill wrote an excellent assembler/emulator for the
> 8080 that was very popular with the S-100 set (my first
> computer was a Processor Technology SOL-10 with an Intel
> 8080, 8 kilobytes memory and dual audio tape storage). He
> visited Pacific Computer (Vancouver's first computer store)
> promoting his 8080 Basic interpreter and an Assembler. It
> was an exciting time.
Back at that time, back in 'the days', MS was a software/languages house.
They could cut you up a version of BASIC within a couple weeks, customised
to the customer's specs. All the RatShack machines used to use it,
including the CoCo 2 & 3 that I owned as a couple of my first home
computers. Fun stuff.
MS's BASICs weren't that bad, when you get down to it...
Keven
--
tc++ tm+ tn t4- to ru++ ge+ 3i c+ jt au st- ls pi+ ta+ he+ so- vi zh sy
==============================================================================
Science-Fiction Adventure
In Reavers' Deep
------------------------------
From: Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Documentation, or the lack thereof
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Christiansen)
Date: 25 Jun 1999 04:47:16 -0700
In gnu.misc.discuss, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Curry) writes:
:You're crossposting to gnu.misc.discuss, where "not Unix" isn't an insult;
:it's part of the name.
:
:It would be nice if GNU documentation and unix documentation were better
:integrated.
And as Peter Salus pointed out in his talk at Usenix a couple
weeks ago, pretty much a bogosity. Sorry, that one doesn't fly.
I smell a rose.
:learn roff anymore, except for writing man pages, whereas they have other
:reasons for learning HTML (to become a webmonkey) and TeX (to write heavy
:math).
eqn. Read the original docs Brian wrote on it to see what amazing results
he could produce with so little.
:With man pages as the only motivation, nobody wants to learn roff.
Writing papers. But you're right, nobody wants to learn anything.
Then again, I have little sympathy for people who don't want to learn.
:In summary, if you don't want man to continue its slow death, here's how you
:start:
: 1. decouple the man utilities from the roff format
: 2. produce a version of man(1) with search options, like "show all pages
: matching *sh in section 1", or "dump the SYNOPSIS section from ytalk(1)."
: When you do this, do not destroy pipeline-friendliness!
We've largely done that. Pod is the first part, and a zillion little
happy CLI tools I've written make up the second.
:At this point the info and SGML people will still be whining about the lack
:of hyperlinks.
They have. They lost. I'd rather write in Latin in a candle-lit
scriptorium than in docbook or similarly heavy SGML-smelling
unpleasantries. Gets in my way.
--tom
--
"If Christianity were to disappear, in time, even the
churches would suffer." --Jonathan Swift
------------------------------
From: David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Documentation issues.
Date: 25 Jun 1999 12:49:58 +0200
Harvey Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter da Silva wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> And no fricking manpages for anything you need to have. The shame!
> >>Well, I presume the info pages are offensive?
> >Texinfo is a really annoying documentation system.
> >[...]
> >If you must use hypertext docs, at least make them HTML
> >
>
> Yes. Yes. Yes!
But then it is not typesettable or printable in any reasonable way.
If you want to have HTML from texinfo pages, use texi2html. Having
HTML as a reading format is ok for me. Replacing compiled info pages
by HTML pages is a reasonable choice some people may make if they
want. But replacing the source TeXinfo format with HTML would be
foolishness.
If you want to replace it, replace it by something than can still be
typeset, like some SGML format (like the Linux doc people do).
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
------------------------------
From: Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux balkanization a potential blessing
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Christiansen)
Date: 25 Jun 1999 04:49:57 -0700
[courtesy cc of this posting mailed to cited author]
In gnu.misc.discuss, Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:> [T]here's something broken about the Linux mentality that says that
:> undocumented programs are acceptable.
:
:Where did you find this mentality? I've been using Linux since 1992
:or so, and I can't say I've come across it. Certainly, where there
:has been a certain lack of documentation in the past, it has been
:loudly bemoaned, and largely fixed.
Gnome. Gimp. Enlightenment.
--tom
--
I believe in the waterbed theory of linguistics.
If you push down here, it pops up there.
-- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux balkanization a potential blessing
Date: 25 Jun 1999 13:14:37 +0200
Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [courtesy cc of this posting mailed to cited author]
>
> In gnu.misc.discuss, Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> :> [T]here's something broken about the Linux mentality that says that
> :> undocumented programs are acceptable.
> :
> :Where did you find this mentality? I've been using Linux since 1992
> :or so, and I can't say I've come across it. Certainly, where there
> :has been a certain lack of documentation in the past, it has been
> :loudly bemoaned, and largely fixed.
>
> Gnome. Gimp. Enlightenment.
All are work in progress. If you manage to find anybody in the
respective developer camps that says that the current stage of
documentation of those things is the final stage and sufficient, come
back. Until then, stop bitching.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
------------------------------
From: Uwe Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: WIN 95 and 2 Linux distributions at the same time
Date: 25 Jun 1999 12:45:36 +0000
Hi
I guess this is a FAQ, but I could not find it, so for short:
is it possible to have in a PC on the same hard disc,
WIN95 and 2 different Linux distributions, like say RedHat and SuSe.
In my lilo configuration (SuSe 5.3) it seems only possible to have
WIN95, Linux and OS2.
Does anybody has experience in this issue.
Thanks in advance
Uwe Brauer
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 12:14:30 +0300
From: Tanel Kokk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: /etc/shadows
Ruiming Chen wrote:
> Currently I installed Redhat 6.0 but it is not used /etc/shadows for the
> user's passwd.
> Because the passwd encryption still in /etc/passwd file.
>
> How do I config Redhat 6.0 to uses /etc/shadow file for user's passwd?
>
> Thank you!
>
> --
> Raymond
>
I don't know about RH 6.0, but RH 5.1 have utility pwconv, which manage
/etc/shadow file.
Tanel.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Documentation, or the lack thereof
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Curry)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:14:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.unix.bsd.misc, Cameron Hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>:If a program is designed to run only in a GUI environment then it is not
>:unreasonable to have the documentation also available for that environment.
>You're telling us that it is *TOLERABLE* that one should have information
>which cannot be searched, which cannot be indexed, which cannot be
>compared, which cannot be printed, and which cannot be integrated with
>the other standard system documentation?
>
>You're right. I claim that that is *not* documentation. It's certainly
>not Unix. It's forgetting the lessons we learned, going back to the
You're crossposting to gnu.misc.discuss, where "not Unix" isn't an insult;
it's part of the name.
It would be nice if GNU documentation and unix documentation were better
integrated. But don't fool yourself. man is not about to emerge as the victor
of the documentation format wars. Sure, someone could theoretically pick a
distribution and invest a lot of time and/or money into getting man pages
written to cover every single command, library function, and config file in
it, and release the result as a fully-manified-freenix. But it would be
constantly out of date with the upstream packages. (What new -m and -f flags
have been added to egcs recently? Will you trust the man page to tell you?)
If you want a system that is up to date _and_ has all its documentation put
together into one coherent whole, then you need to design a format that is
acceptable to all (or nearly all) package authors. No one has done that yet.
man is really good for documenting small tools. Since the original unix tools
were all small and single-purpose, man was the perfect format for documenting
them. But it has failed to scale to the size of current projects. When you
type "man nvi", you get _something_. But is it comprehensive? No, for that
you have to go to the other documentation, which is in some other format
(still nroff-based, but not man, and not accessible via /usr/bin/man itself).
And this is from your camp, the people who believe in man pages. There are
two large man page sets I know of that are fairly decent: zsh and perl. And
neither of them is actually written in man. The man pages are automatically
generated from some other format.
Writing man pages means learning roff. And almost nobody has any reason to
learn roff anymore, except for writing man pages, whereas they have other
reasons for learning HTML (to become a webmonkey) and TeX (to write heavy
math). With man pages as the only motivation, nobody wants to learn roff.
Besides, if you have to actually look at the source of an average man page,
it's just ugly. (Whitespace sensitivity is ungood.)
So why do I still like man better than anything else I've seen? It's not the
format - it's the tools. I can say "man foo" and the explanation of foo is
right there. I can say "man 5 foo" and the file format for foo is right
there. (Except on sysv where they screwed up sections 4/5/7). And man works
in a pipeline, assuming you remember the col -b, which means I don't have to
learn separate flags for printing man pages, mailing man pages, or grepping
man pages. I already know how to print, mail, and grep, and this knowledge
should transfer onto a documentation system without jumping through hoops.
It all starts to fall apart, though, when you want to grep multiple man
pages. For example if I want to grep all of section 2 for "superuser", I have
to parse my own MANPATH to find where to grep, look at the directory listings
to decide whether to zcat, and then I'm not grepping the same thing I would
be looking at if I used man(1) - I'm grepping the roff sources. Clearly
something has gone wrong in our toolbox philosophy.
In summary, if you don't want man to continue its slow death, here's how you
start:
1. decouple the man utilities from the roff format
2. produce a version of man(1) with search options, like "show all pages
matching *sh in section 1", or "dump the SYNOPSIS section from ytalk(1)."
When you do this, do not destroy pipeline-friendliness!
At this point the info and SGML people will still be whining about the lack
of hyperlinks. But that can be answered without getting too ugly. While
designing the next-generation documentation format to replace roff, we can
also write a rigid specification for the SEE ALSO section, so that it may
become machine-readable, and possibly even some link tags. Then we can get
down to replacing .SH, .SS with a real tree structure of nodes like in an
info page, and teaching makewhatis to index the tree of nodes rather than
just the NAME sections. These ideas from the other camps are not bad; it's
only the way they were done that is bad (they abandoned man rather than try
to improve it).
In the end we could have a man system that has indexing and search
capabilities as powerful as the current man and info put together, that can
be read with a graphical browser OPTIONALLY(!), and does not require authors
to learn the hated roff language.
Woohoo, line 100 of the post. I'll stop now.
Oh and yeah it would be nice if RedHat would occasionally produce just a
little bit of documentation, in any format, for the things they write
themselves. (Like newt. And utempter. And how about a comprehensive list of
the headers in an rpm spec file).
[Don't Cc: replies, Tom, I read where I post and so should everyone else
(read where they post that is, not where I post (er...waitaminute...))]
--
Alan Curry |Declaration of | _../\. ./\.._ ____. ____.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]|bigotries (should| [ | | ] / _> / _>
==============+save some time): | \__/ \__/ \___: \___:
Linux,vim,trn,GPL,zsh,qmail,^H | "Screw you guys, I'm going home" -- Cartman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon Skeet)
Subject: Re: Fragile file system
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:50:47 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Not too long ago, my Mandrake 5.3 system (kernel 2.0.36 based on Red Hat
> 5.2) crashed. While an OS crash is not too unusual for me -- having used
> Windows since its 3.0 days -- I am surprised by the apparent fragility
> of the Linux file system. A Dos or OS/2 system would typically dust
> itself and bounce right back up with a simple chkdsk or two. This crash,
> however, wreaked havoc all over my ext2fs partition. Why would a crash
> corrupt files that were not even being written to? Programs like rsh and
> fsck got clobbered. After manually invoking fsck, there was still inode
> corruption: plenty of files had wierd modes or permissions. Any attempt
> to access these files resulted in an "operation not permitted"
> message. I could not even erase them as root.
> Ultimately, I ended up reinstalling Linux from scratch. I still wonder,
> however, if this sort of thing is preventable or necessary. How would
> someone who is not a hard core hacker handle this situation? I realize
> that Linux tries to juggle a lot more things than a Dos/Windows system,
> but is this sort of damage necessary? The damage to files that were not
> being written, especially, seems odd. Most importantly, what can I do to
> prevent this sort of catastrophe from happening to my newly reinstalled
> Linux box (now running the 2.2.9 kernel)?
Do you know what caused the crash? Is there any possibility that it was a
disk hardware crash? That seems the most likely explanation for
widespread corruption. If so, the answer for how to prevent it happening
again may be to get a new disk...
--
Jon Skeet - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux balkanization a potential blessing
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:28:22 GMT
Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [courtesy cc of this posting mailed to cited author]
(I don't know who in their right mind considers mailing annoying
copies of their news postings 'courtesy'.)
>>> [T]here's something broken about the Linux mentality that says that
>>> undocumented programs are acceptable.
>> Where did you find this mentality? I've been using Linux since 1992
>> or so, and I can't say I've come across it. Certainly, where there
>> has been a certain lack of documentation in the past, it has been
>> loudly bemoaned, and largely fixed.
> Gnome. Gimp. Enlightenment.
I am only briefly familiar with the Gimp, and I was sure I had seen
some documentation for it. There most certainly is a man page for it
installed on my system, and a couple of files in /usr/doc/gimp, of
course.
I also took a quick look at http://www.gimp.org, and while I hadn't
time to trawl the whole site for statements supporting your claim that
they consider documentation unnecessary, there is a five-hundred-page
manual, as well as several tutorials.
>From the Gnome developers mailing lists, which I sort of followed for
a while, it appeared that the developers were quite concerned about
documentation. Certainly enough that they have a separate project,
and extensive user guide, and a dozen or two of white papers on their
http://www.gnome.org/
Could you please be a bit more specific about who, exactly is
exhibiting this perceived 'Linux mentality'? It may be just me, but
it looks like you're only trying to wage a pointless flame war based
on your own inaccurate prejudices.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: Keith Thigpen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Very small font in Netscape
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:17:49 -0500
Eric Potter wrote:
>
> [Posted and mailed]
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] enlightened this group thus:
> > I have KDE 1.1 and I use Netscape for web browser. Unfortunately, it
> > shows all web pages in very small font. the Increase Font option in the
> > View menu is not available. I have the same problem with KFM. What can I
> > do?
> >
> > I would appreciate your help.
> >
>
> You need to change your fontpath, which is usually defined in /etc/XF86Config
> or /etc/X11/XF86Config. Put the 100 dpi fonts at the beginning of the fontpath.
> Redhat 6.0 I think puts the fontpath somewhere else, in the /etc/rc.d/ directory.
>
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
> --
> * ^ \ ___@
> *^ / \ \ | \
> / \/ \ \__| \
> / / ^ \ \
> / \ \ Eric Potter
> / ^ ^ \ \
In redhat 6, try /etc/X11/fs/config.
--
=================================================================
Keith Thigpen Lockheed Martin Corporation
Telephone 256.722.4432 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: perl script for URLs?
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.perl.misc
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25 Jun 1999 11:38:25 GMT
I'm looking for a perl script that will take a plain
text list of URLS and turn them in to a clickable
list that works in a browser like Netscape. Does
anyone know of such a beast?
--
Fred
------------------------------
From: "Marat Ruvinov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mounting floppy read-only problem
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 07:38:07 -0400
/etc/fstab entry has:
"/dev/fd0 /mnt/floppy ext2 noauto 0 0"
Scott Lanning wrote in message <7kutab$ldr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Marat Ruvinov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: The disk is not write-protected....I verified it.
>: More precisely, the message is
>: "block device /dev/fd0 is write-protected, mounting read-only"
>:
>: And the permissions for /dev/fd0 are writable. So I'm not sure.....
>
>What does the appropriate entry in /etc/fstab say?
>
>--
>Scott Lanning: [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://physics.bu.edu/~slanning
>"If lightning is the anger of the gods, the gods are concerned mostly
>with trees." --Lao Tse
------------------------------
From: Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: partition table overwritten, machine still running. What to do?
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 13:02:39 +0200
A (dumb) mistake with dd overwrote the partition table on /dev/hda
The machine is still running fine, but shutting down is not
the thing to do right now.
Any tips on how to recreate it? the lilo docs suggested
that lilo keeps a backup, but it was obviously from before
partitioning. (only zeroes)
Looking at /proc/partitions gave me the sizes for the
partitions. But not their starting points on the disk.
Surely the kernel knows as it still uses the filesystems, but
is getting this info possible?
I wanted to just run cfdisk and recreate the three partitions
with correct size. But the first one (NT) had a size that
wasn't a whole number of cylinders. (64 sectors less,
which corresponds to the number of sectors in a single track)
cfdisk won't create that size, it rounds to the nearest
number of cylinders. So this approach is out.
Norton diskedit and a dos boot disk will let me write whatever
I want, but then I need to know the exact starting points - which
I haven't been able to find in the running system.
Helge Hafting
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
