Linux-Misc Digest #978, Volume #20 Fri, 9 Jul 99 09:13:12 EDT
Contents:
Re: Demand dialing problem (Frank Waarsenburg)
CDR creation date ? (THIERRY BUCCO)
Re: Linux vs. Unix (Chris Raper)
Re: ! (Anita Lewis)
Re: Linux vs. Unix (Chris Raper)
Re: Help for MODEM - Why can't Linux to be built with supprot for Winmodem? (Jon
Skeet)
Re: iBCS in Kernel 2.2.10 (capai)
Re: Help for MODEM - Why can't Linux to be built with supprot for (John Thompson)
Re: embedded Linux and I2O... (mei)
VMWare (Black Tiger's Shadow)
Re: VMWare ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: VMWare (Black Tiger's Shadow)
Addind second SCSI disk on Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Korn SHell basic problems (Richard L. Hamilton)
Re: VMWare ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: VMWare (Black Tiger's Shadow)
Re: kpackage won't install on RH 6.0. Help!! (Thomas Overgaard)
Re: Need opinions- how's S.u.S.E. 6.1 (Philipp Maier)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Waarsenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Demand dialing problem
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 11:21:32 +0200
Awww.. looks like EVERY route points to the Default route (0.0.0.0) which,
in turn, opens the connection (216.17.3.208). Even the local routes. Weird.
Tcpdump shows DNS lookups. That's also a reason for opening a connection Do
you have your lookup specified as order hosts, bind? Are your machines'
names in /etc/hosts, or do you run DNS on the Linux?
I see also some pings. (icmp echo requests). Deliberately? Read something
about a similar problem on a NT machine a couple of days ago: Get Cookie
Pal, and kill those nasty bastards...
Frank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> Here is my route
>
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
> Iface
> 216.17.3.208 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0
> ppp0
> 192.168.2.1 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0
> eth0
> 192.168.2.4 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0
> eth1
> 127.0.0.1 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0
> lo
> 192.168.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0
> eth0
> 192.168.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0
> eth1
> 0.0.0.0 216.17.3.208 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0
> ppp0
> route (END)
>
------------------------------
From: THIERRY BUCCO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: CDR creation date ?
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 10:32:51 +0200
Hi,
Is there a way to know the creation date of the first session about a
CDR ?
Thanks a lot
Thierry - FRANCE
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Raper)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux vs. Unix
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 10:05:32 GMT
On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 04:15:00 +0800, Peter Caffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi Peter
>I think you'd be surprised. A lot of ISPs will supply UNIX gateway type
>machines. They tend to be low spec PCs (old 486s) since all they're
>really doing is managing a small proxy server and the dialup networking
>connection, perhaps even manage email for the company. Linux would handle
>these tasks pretty easily. A current-day SCO on a 486 would not handle
>these tasks well at all.
I have never heard of ISPs using 486s but then again I haven't done
much except set up dial-up accounts on PCs. Sounds like a good use for
one and I guess Linux would be a good choice here. SCO OS5 wouldn't
handle this spec at all well - and you would have to fork out a lot of
money to buy it.
>> In the latter environment you want a machine
>> that installs quickly and is simple to upgrade / administer.
>
>I think that's more a familiarity issue than anything else. I found Linux
>made more sense to me and was more consistent. But then, if SCO was what
>I'd started with, SCO would probably feel more "right" ;).
Sure - familiarity is a big factor. Though I am pretty sure SCO
requires less technical knowledge and would install tighter using
defaults settings. A lot of these 'easy to install' flavours dump so
much software down that you can easily lose 500+Mb if you don't trim
it down.
>> I haven't anything else to compare SCO with. Does Linux out perform an
>> OS like Openserver 5 - given identical, reasonably high-spec hardware?
>It definitely feels slower and more clunky under SCO.
Interesting. I will try it out in the office - if I get time! :-)
>IME, Debian's package management systems really are far superior to SCO's
>upgrading methods. A greater number of upgrade source options (FTP, CDROM,
>etc).
I will see if we can get hold of a copy. To be fair to Caldera (the
flavour I have been using most), its LISA program isn't bad but it
just doesn't hold a candle to 'scoadmin' and 'custom'. Though the way
SCO changed the user interface when they went from 3.2.4.2 -> OS5 is
_really_ annoying and totally un-intuitive (IMHO).
>I think that's the thing: there are companies out there for whom only a
>proprietory OS is a "safe decision". It gives them someone to blame when
>things aren't working so they won't get fired themselves.
Mmm the "It's IBM and Microsoft - it must be good" syndrome.
>It also helps that, in general, the support you get from SCO is.. um..
>really not worth mentioning, if what I've heard about them is true ;).
Never had to use their support - it has always worked :-)
The only time I had a real problem (with Free SCO at home) I used the
SCO newsgroup on Usenet and got everything sorted through that.
>There are some things that I do like about SCO, though. For one, their
>X11 window manager is nice.
Mmm - never use it - I always flip it into character mode. This also
comes as a result of having to administer these boxes over 28k modems.
>There's good integration of their toolboxes
>for adjusting configuration. It's a user-interface thing that they've
>got on their side.
True - but to me that make a lot of difference. When my boss is
looking over my shoulder saying 'can we install this tomorrow' I can
be reasonably sure that there won't be problems. With Linux I just
haven't got that 'good feeling' yet. :-)
>But, overall, it doesn't begin to make up for the other stuff ;).
Maybe I'll be singing the praises of Linux in a year - watch this
space! :-)
Best wishes,
Chris R.
------------------------------
From: Anita Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: !
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 09:48:16 GMT
I tried all of the above and none of them did anything. I have
RedHat5.2 on a Compaq Presario 2200. I ran it as root. The logfile I
generated with these commands is too large to post here. And to top it
off, now I can't seem to run Windows. Is that what the command is
supposed to do? And how do I undo it?
Nawwwwwww. Not really - Anita
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Raper)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Linux vs. Unix
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 10:05:31 GMT
On Fri, 09 Jul 1999 07:39:49 +0000, James Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I used to work at a place that supported their software on four (five?)
>different Unices, including SCO.
Nightmare!
>I strongly suspect that most of the angst towards SCO comes from
>bloodied noses while being force to work on the platform. :-)
True - and the relative familiarity of the user to the OS.
>Then again, I still run into people who innocently claim that they've
>never had *any* trouble whatsoever with NT in production environments
>also. :-)
Now that I do _not_ believe ;-)
Best wishes,
Chris R.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon Skeet)
Subject: Re: Help for MODEM - Why can't Linux to be built with supprot for Winmodem?
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 11:16:44 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The winmodem makers would have
> release the specs for it or someone would have to reverse engineer it. I
> suppose no one has thought it worth the time
I'm quite surprised that no-one *has* done it by now, considering the
amount of hassle it seems to be causing. Is it *much* harder to capture
PCI exchanges than parallel ports ones (which brought us zip drive
support, I believe)?
I have what I suspect is a WinModem (in that it's PCI) and when I
eventually get a new computer I'd be quite happy to investigate it if
people would give me pointers.
Is one of the concerns that all WinModems are likely to be very
different? I don't know how popular my modem is, and it would be a shame
to write a driver that was still useless to 99.9% of people. (That's not
to say I wouldn't do it, of course...)
--
Jon Skeet - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
------------------------------
From: capai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: iBCS in Kernel 2.2.10
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 10:30:54 GMT
i compiled 2.2.10 and trying to install iBCS.
have some 'make' followed by 'make install'
after these commands... i issued a 'depmod -a'
but it returned the following error messages..
modprobe: not an ELF
/lib/modules/2.2.10/misc/iBCS: unresolved symbol(s)
why?? how do i solve this?
thanx..
..c.a.p.a.i.
John G. Sandell wrote:
> If there's a way to automatically re-make the iBCS module when you
> compile a new kernel and modules, I haven't found it, on RedHat 6.0 or
> S.u.S.E. 6.1.
>
> Get the ibcs2 source ono the hard drive with rpm, unzip and untar it,
> copy CONFIG.i386 to CONFIG in the ibcs directory the tar xvf will
> create, edit CONFIG to tell it the path to your source code,
> /usr/lib/linux-2.2.5-15 (probably), then do make and make install. If
> you rebuild the kernel again, do make and make install again. make
> install should put iBCS in /lib/modules/2.2.5-15/misc. Then you can do
> insmod iBCS manually or in a boot-up file such as rc.local.
>
> John Sandell
>
> Tobias Vancura wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am using RH 6.0 and I wanted to install the new 2.2.10
> > kernel (which worked fine, it"s up and running). Though I
> > need the iBCS module, and I don"t know how to include it.
> > There was an iBCS rpm in the RH distribution, and I could
> > load the kernel module (modprobe iBCS) with the kernel that
> > was shipped with the distribution.
> >
> > Is there an iBCS option in the .config file that is
> > generated by "make menuconfig" or "make config", do I have
> > to install some additional package?
> >
> > Thank you very much for the help,
> >
> > yours, Tobias
> >
> > --
> > *********************************************************************
> > Tobias Vancura Email: tvancura at solid.phys.ethz.ch
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: John Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help for MODEM - Why can't Linux to be built with supprot for
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 21:58:41 -0600
Hotdog wrote:
> After seeing all those posts regarding winmodems' disqualification.
> Why can't Linux be built with support for Windmodem.
In principle there's probably no reason why a driver
couldn't be written to allow linux to use Winmodems. In
practice the manufacturers of these devices have been
reticent to provide the specifications necessary to write
such drivers. Without these specifications, developing a
driver would require a considerable amount of
reverse-engineering, which hardly seems worthwhile for a
cheap device like a Winmodem.
--
-John ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: mei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: embedded Linux and I2O...
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 12:32:22 +0200
Reply-To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
William Ryder ha scritto:
>
> Does anyone know of work being done to port Linux as a RTOS in an
> embedded, I2O environment. That is, is there a Linux that will run on
> embedded processors, complete with I2O API wrappers? If so, may I
> request appropriate websites and or e-mail addresses for the developers?
I saw there's some kind of work on I2O in the kernel 1.3.X, but I don't know
more.
Ciao Mei
------------------------------
From: Black Tiger's Shadow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: VMWare
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 12:38:28 +0200
Hi All,
Can anyone send me a non limited licence file
for VMWare.
I think this is a verry good soft but a litle bit too expensive
for me.
Thanks for all
BTS
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VMWare
Date: 9 Jul 1999 11:00:03 GMT
How can you say $79 is too expensive even if it goes up to $99 it's
not much.
Taken from VMWares web site
VMware for Linux v1.0 Non-Commercial Pricing (including academia and
students)
List price: $99.00
Introductory price: $75.00 - available through July 14, 1999
>Hi All,
>
>Can anyone send me a non limited licence file
>for VMWare.
>I think this is a verry good soft but a litle bit too expensive
>for me.
>
>Thanks for all
>
> BTS
>
Please remove the UXLYFM before replying by email.
***** Posted via the UK Online online newsreader *****
Go to http://www.ukonline.co.uk to find out
about other online services we offer our subscribers.
------------------------------
From: Black Tiger's Shadow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VMWare
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 13:17:02 +0200
You are right, it is not so expensive, but:
My probleme is that I live in France, and I am not sure to get
my CD from US even if I pay for it.
So do you know any provider for VMWare in france ?
If so tel me his name, and I will pay him for my one release.
Thanks for all.
BTS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How can you say $79 is too expensive even if it goes up to $99 it's
> not much.
>
> Taken from VMWares web site
>
> VMware for Linux v1.0 Non-Commercial Pricing (including academia and
> students)
>
> List price: $99.00
> Introductory price: $75.00 - available through July 14, 1999
>
> >Hi All,
> >
> >Can anyone send me a non limited licence file
> >for VMWare.
> >I think this is a verry good soft but a litle bit too expensive
> >for me.
> >
> >Thanks for all
> >
> > BTS
> >
>
> Please remove the UXLYFM before replying by email.
>
> ***** Posted via the UK Online online newsreader *****
>
> Go to http://www.ukonline.co.uk to find out
> about other online services we offer our subscribers.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Addind second SCSI disk on Linux
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 11:23:39 GMT
Hi all,
I am running RedHat Linux 5.2 with kernel level 2.2.x running on a Intel
Box . I have attached a external SCSI Hard disk with Linux installed on
it and this also the booting disk. Now I want to add a second external
SCSI hard disk and mirror with the first hard disk so that if first boot
disk goes down, I can boot from the second disk .
- How to add second hard disk ?
- what utility is available to mirror with another disk ?
- If Primary hard disk goes down, how can I tell the system to boot from
the second hard disk , which has the identical info as the failed one ?
Should I change lilo boot info ?
Thanks for your suggestions .
ennpee
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard L. Hamilton)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: Korn SHell basic problems
Date: 9 Jul 1999 11:21:54 GMT
Use <ESC>* for filename completion in vi editing mode.
In article <7m4b1q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Jose Morales" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> brain wrote in message ...
>># ksh; set -o vi
>>
>>bryan
>>KrayZ wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>>1) I want to use filename completion I read that I can do it typing for
>>>example:
>>>
>>> ls /etc/pass<ESC><ESC>
>>>
> The <ESC><ESC> sequence only works with set -o emacs do a man ksh there is a
> reference on set -o vi
> filename completion I think there is a <</>> in the key sequence.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Jose Morales
>
>
>
--
ftp> get |fortune
377 I/O error: smart remark generator failed
Bogonics: the primary language inside the Beltway
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VMWare
Date: 9 Jul 1999 11:33:50 GMT
If you go to there web site you can download the files (to get it on
CD costs about $20 more not cheap). The files are about 2mb in size.
Then you can pay for it on there web site and they will email you the
licence key that you need.
I do not think that anyone distributes it, even in the States. As far
as I am aware you can only get it from VMWare. If you want them to
shipit to you on CD then you will increase the cost of it BIG style.
Ken
>You are right, it is not so expensive, but:
>My probleme is that I live in France, and I am not sure to get
>my CD from US even if I pay for it.
>So do you know any provider for VMWare in france ?
>If so tel me his name, and I will pay him for my one release.
>
>Thanks for all.
> BTS
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> How can you say $79 is too expensive even if it goes up to $99
it's
>> not much.
>>
>> Taken from VMWares web site
>>
>> VMware for Linux v1.0 Non-Commercial Pricing (including academia
and
>> students)
>>
>> List price: $99.00
>> Introductory price: $75.00 - available through July 14, 1999
>>
>> >Hi All,
>> >
>> >Can anyone send me a non limited licence file
>> >for VMWare.
>> >I think this is a verry good soft but a litle bit too expensive
>> >for me.
>> >
>> >Thanks for all
>> >
>> > BTS
>> >
>>
>> Please remove the UXLYFM before replying by email.
>>
>> ***** Posted via the UK Online online newsreader *****
>>
>> Go to http://www.ukonline.co.uk to find out
>> about other online services we offer our subscribers.
>
Please remove the LWEGLQ before replying by email.
***** Posted via the UK Online online newsreader *****
Go to http://www.ukonline.co.uk to find out
about other online services we offer our subscribers.
------------------------------
From: Black Tiger's Shadow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VMWare
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 13:43:57 +0200
I did not think this was like this, i thaught it was an other release
for non limited.
As you sad, I am going to download the file, and pay for reciving
the licence file.
Thank you for your explanations, because I am a new user of
all that I am not aware of every things.
Thank you again.
regards
BTS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you go to there web site you can download the files (to get it on
> CD costs about $20 more not cheap). The files are about 2mb in size.
> Then you can pay for it on there web site and they will email you the
> licence key that you need.
>
> I do not think that anyone distributes it, even in the States. As far
> as I am aware you can only get it from VMWare. If you want them to
> shipit to you on CD then you will increase the cost of it BIG style.
>
> Ken
>
> >You are right, it is not so expensive, but:
> >My probleme is that I live in France, and I am not sure to get
> >my CD from US even if I pay for it.
> >So do you know any provider for VMWare in france ?
> >If so tel me his name, and I will pay him for my one release.
> >
> >Thanks for all.
> > BTS
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> How can you say $79 is too expensive even if it goes up to $99
> it's
> >> not much.
> >>
> >> Taken from VMWares web site
> >>
> >> VMware for Linux v1.0 Non-Commercial Pricing (including academia
> and
> >> students)
> >>
> >> List price: $99.00
> >> Introductory price: $75.00 - available through July 14, 1999
> >>
> >> >Hi All,
> >> >
> >> >Can anyone send me a non limited licence file
> >> >for VMWare.
> >> >I think this is a verry good soft but a litle bit too expensive
> >> >for me.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks for all
> >> >
> >> > BTS
> >> >
> >>
> >> Please remove the UXLYFM before replying by email.
> >>
> >> ***** Posted via the UK Online online newsreader *****
> >>
> >> Go to http://www.ukonline.co.uk to find out
> >> about other online services we offer our subscribers.
> >
>
> Please remove the LWEGLQ before replying by email.
>
> ***** Posted via the UK Online online newsreader *****
>
> Go to http://www.ukonline.co.uk to find out
> about other online services we offer our subscribers.
------------------------------
From: Thomas Overgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.windows.x.kde
Subject: Re: kpackage won't install on RH 6.0. Help!!
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:38:20 +0200
"Spotillius Maximus aka \"Spot\"" <*****@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>I did download through win98 and I think I tried the renaming of the files
>and it didn't work. I was very tired when I did it so I may hay screwed up.
>I'll try it tonight when I get some time. I hope that works. Thanks again.
>
I useally do all major download when running a Win3.11 session. Download is
much faster using Win3.11 and then I copy the files from DOS to Linux later.
But the files I copy from DOS has allways the executable flag set. Maybe your
problem is the same. Try go to the directory where the copied files are stored
and use this command: ls -l
If the downloaded files return something like this: -rwxr-xr-x
Then use this command:
chmod -x filename
If we did share the problem you can install the files now.
--
Thomas O.
------------------------------
From: Philipp Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Need opinions- how's S.u.S.E. 6.1
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 14:01:32 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michel Catudal wrote:
>
> naftali wrote:
[snip]
> > BUT
> > Suse was not my first distribution, I came across many and it is the worst of
> > the bunch, THATS what I said.
> > for example, emacs which is a basic package works alot faster on Redhat, and I
> > do mean Alot faster, yes I know its inconcievable, because the kernels are
> > virtually the same, and they probably both got the emacs from GNU but I am
> > stating this as a tested fact.
> >
>
> On your PC perhaps, as for my PC I have not noticed that much
> difference in speed. I have a Cyrix 220Mhz and it flies either
> way. The main difference is that I get regular core dump under
> RedHat 6.0 and almost none on SuSE 6.1. The setup is nice and
> easy on SuSE and sucks on RedHat. I have only 40Meg or RAM and
> 2 swap partitions of 64M. I only installed about 1.5G of the
> stuff available.
Completely agree. I had RH, I had Mandrake, and both were nice. Still, I
prefer the latest SuSE which is really great.
> Basically under SuSE it works right out of the box and you need
> a lot of tweaking to get RedHat to work.
Exactly, that has always been my point...
Still, I wonder, if the choice between different Linux distributions is
already that controversial, how must a discussion between Windows- and
Linux-Lovers proceed? (Somehow I don't want to know, I've always tried
to avoid these discussions...)
PM
--
Information about Sylt and Maerklin mini-club:
www.crosswinds.net/~pmaier
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
