Linux-Misc Digest #83, Volume #21 Mon, 19 Jul 99 14:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Store a date in a variable. (Floyd Davidson)
Re: Marx vs. Nozick (Ashley Penney)
Re: Shortcomings of Linux? (Anthony Ord)
Re: Marx vs. Nozick (Phillip Lord)
VGA programming (Burra)
Re: Connect to ISP when phone rings: is this possible? (Sitaram Chamarty)
Re: Problem with dial-up networking on Linux ("Morris Maynard")
Re: VGA programming (Frank v Waveren)
Re: RH52, cannot make boot floppy (Leonard Evens)
Re: Linux kernel support CPU ? (wine)
Re: mounting problem (Leonard Evens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: Store a date in a variable.
Date: 19 Jul 1999 15:23:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jon Skeet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Bertrand LEFEBVRE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >I'd like to store a formatted date like date +'%d%m%y' in a variable
>> >called NOW to be able to keep trace of some files ex: passwd to keep it
>> >like passwd.290799. Thanks .
>>
>> First let me suggest changing the order to '%y%m%d', because
>> files will then sort easily from the oldest to the newest.
>>
>> To set a variable,
>>
>> NOW=`date +'%y%m%d'`
>>
>> That can be used in a script,
>>
>> cp /etc/passwd ./passwd.${NOW}
>
>However, I think this isn't what the poster wanted, as date is evaluated
It is precisely what the poster asked about.
>when NOW is set, rather than when the command using it is used, as it
>were. Of course, I could be wrong :)
Actually, that probably is what he wants. In a script to
archive various files it is well to run date one time, at the
beginning of the script, and as a result have every file that is
processed uses the same date stamp. If the script takes 2
minutes to run and is started at 1 minute to midnight, the date
stamps are probably best if they are all identical...
>> You can also do,
>>
>> cp /etc/passwd ./passwd.`date +'%y%m%d'`
>
>That sounds more like what the guy wants...
Who are you to say he doesn't know what he wants? I assume that
he asked about what he wanted to know about. I fail to see what
value your comments have added.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ashley Penney)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Marx vs. Nozick
Date: 19 Jul 1999 17:32:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 Jul 1999 16:48:50 +0100, Phillip Lord ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) gabbered:
:>>>>> "Ashley" == Ashley Penney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
:
: Ashley> Well, I'd define fitness for the purpose of this discussion
: Ashley> as "someone without a horrible disease".
:
: Its not a good base-line. Many diseases are a matter of
:opinion, and depend on society. My level of short sightedness would
:equate for instance to partial blindness without glasses, but with
:them is a minor inconvinience.
I wouldn't call short sightedness a horrible disease, I'm talking about
the much more major diseases, and you generally know when you have those. :)
: Ashley> Well, I'm not really the best person to get into a
: Ashley> discussion with on this, because I'd be *happy* to see 95%
: Ashley> of people sterilised at birth.
:
: If you believe this you are the best person to discuss it
:with.
Well, fair enough, I'm not doing anything else at the moment. :)
: Ashley> Especially when you actually go into the real world and see
: Ashley> what most of today's children are like. As a race we appear
: Ashley> to be failing incredibly well. I wouldn't be surprised if
: Ashley> we've managed to breed our way out of existence by 2150 or
: Ashley> so.
:
: This is little short of insane paranoia. The "race" as it
:put it, has been here for 100,000 years. We have had plenty of chance
:to "breed our way out of existence". I spend plenty of time in the
:real world, looking after children. Some of them have deep problems,
:some of them dont. Whats your argument.
We haven't been at the current level of technology, plus ease of living
in those 100,000 years. We have such powerful medicine that most of the
children that would have died years ago live these days.
An average american child uses as much resources as 800 ethopians at the
current rate. We are rapidly becoming over-populated as it is.
Plus, I've worked with mentally disabled people as well, just so you know
I'm not 100% evil.
: Ashley> Hey, killing people is OK in my book. I obviously wouldn't
: Ashley> want to be killed myself, but sometimes that's just the way
: Ashley> the cookie crumbles.
:
: Hmm.
Basically, I don't have any problem with other people being killed, I
don't think it's a terrible inhuman tragic event when 10 people are
killed by an explosion (like in Kosovo).
Sure, I don't want to die, but that doesn't mean I consider everyone
else's death to be tragic. Hell, when you read how some of the people
died they deserved it for their own stupidity. Darwinism works.
: Ashley> I don't believe that humans are anything special, we were
: Ashley> just lucky enough to become the dominant species on Earth.
:
: Human beings are special to me, because I am human myself.
:Its called empathy.
I feel empathy for a few people, I dislike the majority of people.
: Ashley> I can accept that you feel the way you do, and hope you can
: Ashley> do the same.
:
: I understand that that you feel what you are expressing, but
:I can not accept your view point under any circumstances. I find it
:distressing, unpleasant and if implemented evil. I would defend your
:right to hold it, but would consider it an imperitive to change it.
Thank you, it's always nice to be able to get involved in a decent
discussion on usenet without it turning into a mud-slinging match.
I'm curious as to why you find it evil however, I guess I'm curious
as to the motivations of most people. I find that most people feel
that humans are extra special. I tend to agree with the line in the
Matrix, where we are compared to a virus.
--
Ashley Penney - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The dinosaurs died because they didn't have a space program. -- Arthur C Clarke
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Ord)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Shortcomings of Linux?
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:11:48 GMT
On 18 Jul 1999 18:00:18 GMT, Holger Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In comp.sys.amiga.misc Anthony Ord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> It is maintained by hobby programmers,
>
>> No it isn't. It is maintained by Alan Cox who works for Red
>> Hat. It is his *job* to maintain the networking code (along
>> with other things like the Video for Linux project.
>
>I have been in contact with a lot of Linux TCP/IP developers
>in the past, discussing bugs in Linux and general progress.
>None of those people work for RedHat.
Why don't you email Alan Cox and ask him who he works for.
His email address is in the networking source.
>> What does a TCPIP stack specifically have to do with
>> multimedia?
>
>Everything. The seamless integration of video, audio and TCP/IP
You can leave marketing-speak out of this you know.
"Seamless integration" is a nice buzzword, but is usually
meaningless.
Of course if you really do mean "without a seam" that would
mean your multimedia application will be running in
superuser mode. Well, we've been there before and the view
isn't pretty,
>networking is exactly what the AmigaNG is supposed to achieve.
>Video/audio transport across IP is fastest-growing application
>of IP, measured by the number and frequency of standards for it.
No, that's what multimedia has does with a TCPIP stack, but
a TCPIP stack does not do anything with multimedia.
Basically, what you want to do is put data in memory, push
it through the stack and out the wire. There is no TCPIP
stack in the world that can not do this.
Yes, even Trumpet Winsock for Win3.x.
>> In terms of the Internet, or indeed anywhere where they
>> don't have numerical dominance, they usually fall flat on
>> their arse most times.
>
>Trouble is they HAVE numerical dominance on the Internet.
Not on the servers. Let's face it, if all the Win9x machines
disappeared overnight, no one would notice much difference.
If all the Sun machines disappeared, then there would be
large holes in the Internet. And you don't want to think
about all the Cisco stuff going...
>There are more Win-PCs on the Internet than all other computers
>taken together. Just look how MS-CHAP become a "standard"
>almost overnight, against the resistance of IETF-PPPEXT.
It's good that you put standard in quotes. MS-CHAP is a
"standard" in the same way as Frontpage extensions are a
"standard". They came in with NT and are a failing attempt
at embrace and extend.
They have complete dominance on the desktop such that
anything they create is a "standard" by fiat, (remember Pen
for Windows?) but for stuff off the desktop they are
struggling.
>All Microsoft has to do is implement something in both
>Win-NT and -95/98, and other OS and router manufacturers
>are forced to implement the same feature in their software
>because otherwise ISPs will switch platforms (to NT).
No. If Microsoft implement something that prevents their
stuff talking to the servers, then people will stop buying
their OS. That might seem hard to believe, but their
resistance means nothing against the Internet. They have
proved this themselves. How a juggernaut does a hand-brake
turn...
>Happens all the time. It happened with MS-CHAP and later
>again with PPTP.
PPTP is different because it is an end-to-end protocol. It
gets moved from source to destination by the magic of RFCs.
Are people still using PPTP? Even after all the holes that
were picked out of it?
>> No it isn't. DHCP was postulated by Ralph Droms of Bucknell
>> University in RFC1531 (superseded by RFC1541)
>
>and RFC2131
>
>> during 1993.
>> Some of the ideas came from Sun's dickless workstations.
>
>Ralph Droms is the author of the RFC. The work group was
>larger than just person. Microsoft has had a leading
>role in pushing DHCP, primarily for use with cable modems
>and ADSL, and also to finally "officially" sanction the
>"magic vendor extensions", turn them into options and
>extend their functionality. Many of these options are
>directly intended for Microsoft stacks, e.g. all of the
>NetBIOS stuff.
I wouldn't doubt that. But DHCP isn't a Microsoft extensions
to BootP like the original assertion said.
>The DHCP state machine was AFAIK not originally Microsoft's
>idea, but many of the other changes from BootP to DHCP
>were pushed by Microsoft.
>
>> What was M$ doing with TCPIP in 1993?
>
>Implementing it.
No, they were paying someone else to implement it. The TCPIP
stack for Win3.x (Wolverine?) came out after that primarily
for LANs (there was no dialler included). The version I have
is dated 1994.
These were the days of "the Internet is a passing fad".
>> And where they screw up, is that if it is popular, they try
>> to keep it a closed standard, (often adding even more
>> proprietary stuff) and if its unpopular they try to make it
>> an open standard. Of course it is unpopular for a reason, so
>> this strategy tends not to work.
>
>But it does work. MS-CHAP was extremely unpopular, broke
>some PPP implementations, has major security flaws (even in
>V2), yet Microsoft pushed it through by implementing it
>in 95/98/NT, and now everybody is using it.
Not everybody - not by a long way.
>Even third parties
>were forced to implement it, or they would have lost market
>share.
>
>> >> Of course this only works if Microsoft actually succeeds
>> >> in making their ideas standards, and recently they have,
>
>> Examples?
>
>"Standards" not necessarily in the sense of IETF standards,
>but in the sense of procedures that are fully documented and
>implemented by many vendors, following Microsoft's lead.
>
>Examples: MS-CHAP, PPTP,
You seem to be reusing these a bit. I take it that "many"
isn't as "many" as I would define it.
>many NetBIOS-related protocols.
Do you mean SMB?
>Also many variations of Plug'n'Play.
>
>> Rubbish. I'm not saying they all use Linux, but I am saying
>> that there are some non-BSD users among them.
>
>Yes, *some* :).
Which blows out the assertion "all".
>> But the results aren't always, simply because of commercial
>> advantage.
>
>The commercial advantage of being beaten by Microsoft ? :-)
The commercial advantage of knowing something others don't.
That is at the fundamental core of commercial advantage.
>Very often results ARE published.
But not *always* which is what I said. Read Jeremy Allison's
posts about why he used GPL for more examples.
>> Linux is starting to drive development in some areas. Look
>> for kvoicecontrol.
>
>kvoicecontrol is a utility, an application, not an Internet
>standard.
Neither are "many NetBIOS-related protocols" and "many
variations of Plug'n'Play". It's why I said *some* areas.
I chose kvoicecontrol as an example because it was around
when Bill Gates was saying those people who use free OSs
would miss out on things like voice control of their OS.
Good old Bill Gates, promises something he doesn't have and
denies the existence of something that's already there.
Business as usual.
I could (of course) have chosen IPv6.
>Of course Linux spawns application development.
>That has nothing to do with Linux TCP/IP though.
IPv6 does.
>> >>Considering how amateurish (not meant in a
>> >> degrading way)
>
>> Yes it is meant in a degrading way.
>
>No, it is not. If you choose to interpret it incorrectly then
>that it is your decision. The point is that different development
>styles are suitable for different things. Distributed development
>under GPL would not be my first choice for convergence platforms
>and vertical markets.
So which particular part is the problem? Distributed
development? Or GPL?
>> When Linux started out, it was a couple of guys in Finland.
>> Now there are thousands of support people out there. If this
>> makes Linux weaker and more susceptible to M$, then that is
>> an inversion of the historical definition of strength.
>
>No, what IMHO will make Linux weaker is the transformation of
>the Internet in the next 3-5 years.
Transformation in what way?
>Of course there is no way
>to prove this yet. I am just predicting it...
Don't do predictions - they always haunt you.
>> Do you think this guy has heard of the Internet? Travelling
>> to communicate? Travelling to use software? Please.
>
>Huh ? Are you intentionally dense here or do you simply have
>no clue how interoperability testing is done ? Have you
>ever heard of IETF workshops, bakeoffs etc. ? Why don't you
>tell me how you want to test interoperability of cable modems,
>ATM routers, scalability of IP protocols under high load,
>PPP interoperability etc. on the Internet ? These things are
>always done at a single location.
Yes I know, but the original FUD (which has been snipped)
was how are amateurs going to afford to travel to meetings
and to go to places to test stuff. This is the age of
communication, you don't need to go anywhere to communicate.
Did you imagine that Linus Torvalds turns up somewhere with
a magnetic tape grasped in hand, saying "Here's the new
version of Linux for you to test."? In the 70s maybe - but
we're a long way from there now.
Just *try* to find a pair of brown corduroy flares.
>> Then why is BSD not growing at the rate Linux is if it has
>> "a much better chance"?
>
>At the moment Linux is growing more quickly because of its
>marketing strategy. As I said, just wait and see...
Linux has a marketing strategy?
>> That's right. It also holds true for *BSD. If you program
>> stuff correctly, you could switch back-and-forth every day.
>
>It depends on what "stuff" is. You would need to restrict
>yourself to a rather small common API subset.
No. It's not small at all. If it was, your original
statement (which I agree with) that it would be easy to
migrate from Linux to *BSD would be untrue.
It's all right to contradict me, but when you contradict
yourself, you end up looking silly.
>> Except at the top of this rant he said "There are three
>> major TCP/IP stack families: BSD, Microsoft and Linux." So
>> he's contradicted himself.
>
>No, not at all. I simply don't give Linux-TCP/IP as much of
>a chance in the next few years as the other implementations.
Why not? Contact Alan Cox before trying the "amateur"
argument again.
>> No. The reason why Linux can not be used in AmigaOS is that
>> you can't proprietise it because of the GPL.
>
>That is not THE reason, that MAY be ONE reason, but it has
>nothing to do with my points.
No. It has everything to do with it. Your "facts" have been
shown to be wrong, and your opinions are only that.
I don't mind people saying "I prefer [X] because I like
[X]", but if they try to do an assassination of [Y] as a
vague sort of justification for liking [X] then they had
better have their facts (assuming they use any) straight.
>As for GPL rules: Read the technology brief Amiga Inc. has
>published and the GPL license and you will see that GPL
>regulations are not as much of a problem in this case as
>you may think.
>
>> Any
>> improvements they make to it for commercial advantage would
>> have to be shared so everyone would benefit.
>
>Not really. It would, e.g., be rather easy to make an
>improvement to Linux that allows external modules and
>callbacks to be installed. In that case only the glue code
>for that would have to be published under GPL. The modules
>with the functional extensions would not have to be. They
>could be considered "independent and separate works" and fall
>under the "aggregation of another work" clause of GPL, and
>would thus not have to be subject to GPL.
>
>> Concentrating on the TCPIP stack (which is a small part of
>> any OS) is just a red-herring.
>
>No. The TCP/IP stack is one of the few areas where Linux has
>fundamental differences to other operating systems.
No, Linux is different in quite a few areas. Memory
management is somewhat different. The almost overwhelming
use of the /proc file system. The VFS layer is different.
Well, I'll stop there. I'm sure you get the idea.
>Plus
>TCP/IP will enormously gain both in complexity and in
>importance over the next few years, in particular for the
>market AmigaNG is aiming it. TCP/IP may very well become the
>key component of a new AmigaOS.
It's a key component of the Unices as well. After all, if
you disable networking, lots of stuff breaks.
>> And that boys and girls was an example of how to write FUD
>> to obscure your motivations. I hope you are suitably
>> impressed and have learned from it.
>
>Next time you may want to actually try to understand the
>arguments in the context they were presented.
Next time check your facts. It doesn't take long.
Regards
Anthony
--
=========================================
| And when our worlds |
| They fall apart |
| When the walls come tumbling in |
| Though we may deserve it |
| It will be worth it - Depeche Mode |
=========================================
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Marx vs. Nozick
Date: 19 Jul 1999 18:25:27 +0100
>>>>> "Ashley" == Ashley Penney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ashley> I wouldn't call short sightedness a horrible disease, I'm
Ashley> talking about the much more major diseases, and you
Ashley> generally know when you have those. :)
Diabetes was fatal not that long ago, but it doesnt need to
be these days.
Ashley> We haven't been at the current level of technology, plus
Ashley> ease of living in those 100,000 years. We have such
Ashley> powerful medicine that most of the children that would have
Ashley> died years ago live these days.
Its certainly true that child mortality is at a much
lower rate in the developed world than it was in the past.
Ashley> An average american child uses as much resources as 800
Ashley> ethopians at the current rate. We are rapidly becoming
Ashley> over-populated as it is.
Well this is true. However Im not sure that your solution
is helpful to the problem.
Ashley> Plus, I've worked with mentally disabled people as well,
Ashley> just so you know I'm not 100% evil.
I didnt say that you were evil, I said that some of your
ideas would turn out evil. People hold evil ideas for all sorts of
reasons. Occasionally its because they are themselves evil but I
wouldnt want to generalise.
Ashley> Sure, I don't want to die, but that doesn't mean I consider
Ashley> everyone else's death to be tragic. Hell, when you read how
Ashley> some of the people died they deserved it for their own
Ashley> stupidity. Darwinism works.
Well I agree some people show a breathless degree of
stupidity. On the whole I think education is the best response to
this.
Ashley> I feel empathy for a few people, I dislike the majority of
Ashley> people.
Well I dont know the majority of the people. There are
very few people that I actively dislike, mostly those I can just
ignore.
Ashley> Thank you, it's always nice to be able to get involved in a
Ashley> decent discussion on usenet without it turning into a
Ashley> mud-slinging match.
Ive never been one to sling mud. If I sit here and call you
all sorts of rude words, you aint even going to read what I say. I
dont learn what you think, you dont learn what I think, and we are
none the wiser.
Ashley> I'm curious as to why you find it evil however, I guess I'm
Ashley> curious as to the motivations of most people.
Ive already said that I find your ideas on genetics
uninformed, but aside from that I think that you need a little
historical perspective. The early eugenics debacle consisted of
sterilising people for all sorts of reasons, from straight forward
racism, to petty mindedness.
At the start of the 21st century I think one of the most
worrying political developments is the upsurge of nationalism which is
happening globally. Much of it for good reasons (Eastern Timor would
be a nice example), but it is none the less a worrying sign. If it
carries it I think it will be responsible for a lot of violence in the
next century. Your views I feel can so easily be used to enfore these
ideas.
We have already seen where eugenics ended up in WWII, and
since then in ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, and the Balkans. I have to
be honest Im surprised that you ask why I dislike the ideas behind
it.
Ashley> I find that
Ashley> most people feel that humans are extra special.
As Ive said I do believe that, simply because I am
also human.
Phil
------------------------------
From: Burra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: VGA programming
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 16:31:09 GMT
What type of library/header file do they use to do VGA graphics like
Xconfigurator does?? Anyone know and if so where can I find doncumentation
on it???
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sitaram Chamarty)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Connect to ISP when phone rings: is this possible?
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:55:20 GMT
On 18 Jul 1999 08:36:36 +0200, Robert Clare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hi. I know of two programs on the market that can do this. There are
>probably more... Take a look at ringconnectd and xringd. Both should
>be available at your local sunsite mirror. I have used ringconnectd
>in the past and it worked perfectly.
Dont know about ringconnectd, but xringd is capable of pretty
complex "sequence detection" - like 3 rings, then 30-60 seconds
silence, then 1 ring, then at least 30 seconds silence, etc.
I have used this in the past to make the computer do different
things (one sequence would grab the From: and Subject: of all my
new emails and send it to my pager, another would connect to my
ISP, etc.)
------------------------------
From: "Morris Maynard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Problem with dial-up networking on Linux
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 12:47:47 -0400
I just got this working, and my ISP uses the same 3Com device. I don't
remember the exact config files (and I'm at work where I'm safe from Linux)
but I believe they are these in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/:
pap-secrets
chat-ppp0
ifcfg-ppp0
If you use netcfg from within X-windows, go to the Communications tab and
make sure there are NO Send or Expect strings. Then go to the PAP or CHAP or
CHAT tab (memory again) and enter your username and password there. For
PAP/CHAP authentication to work, the transaction goes on in binary, not as a
text exchange.
Mike Arias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7mu65s$lb6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have gone through all the HOW-TO's and I am still not able to establish
> a ppp connect with my ISP. Here's what the log file looks like:
>
> Serial connection established.
> Using interface ppp0
> Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyS0
> sent [LCP ConfReq id=0x1 <mru 1500> <magic 0xdabccd7b> <pcomp> <accomp>]
> last message repeated 9 times
> LCP: timout sending Config-Requests
> Connection terminated.
> Exit.
>
> I've tried using +pap, +chap, ogin:. Nothing seems to work. I know for a
> fact that they (my ISP) have the 3Com Total Control boxes. I am able
> toconnect from within Win95, and NT.
>
> If anyone can help me I would greatly appreciate it.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> ------------------ Posted via SearchLinux ------------------
> http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank v Waveren)
Subject: Re: VGA programming
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:50:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Burra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What type of library/header file do they use to do VGA graphics like
> Xconfigurator does?? Anyone know and if so where can I find doncumentation
> on it???
Actually, Xconfigurator uses X iirc. You're probably looking for SVGAlib
or GGI.
--
Frank v Waveren
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 10074100
------------------------------
From: Leonard Evens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RH52, cannot make boot floppy
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:53:51 -0500
Brad Ball wrote:
>
> My friend has a problem installing RedHat 5.2 on a system almost identical
> to mine. I had no trouble at all. Basically, when he gets to the point of
> creating a boot disk, he gets a generic message saying "An error occured"
> and the system doesn't even try to access the floppy. He cannot create a
> boot disk.
>
> System specs:
> Abit BH6
> Celeron 400 (no overclocking)
> 128bm PC100 ram
> 13.3G Quantum CR hd
>
> I have seen a couple of other posts where people had this problem but no one
> has posted a solution as of yet. Yes, I can give him a boot floppy from my
> machine but I want to know why it doesn't work on his system. Any help would
> be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
>
> Brad.
We encountered this problem and found it was due to multiple
entries in /etc/conf.modules. Apparently upgrading added
entries that were already there. After removing extra
copies of entries for the ethernet card and scsi adapter
we found that mkbootdisk worked correctly.
--
Leonard Evens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
------------------------------
From: wine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux kernel support CPU ?
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 17:59:04 +0100
wisman wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a question,
>
> Is there any Linux version support HP PA-RISC CPU.
>
> Regards
> Wisman
It is being worked on. No dates seen.
--
Keith Matthews Spam trap - my real account at this
node is keith_m
Frequentous Consultants - Linux Services,
Oracle development & database administration
------------------------------
From: Leonard Evens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mounting problem
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:28:01 -0500
Silviu Minut wrote:
>
> Recompile the kernel with support for scsi devices.
>
> Patrick wrote:
>
> > when i type "mount /dev/sda1 /mnt", it showed me:
> >
> > mount: the kernel does not recognize /dev/sda1 as a block device
> > (maybe 'insmod driver'?)
> >
> > why?
> >
> > --
It seems unlikely that someone has a kernel that does not
support scsi devices although I suppose that is possible.
Certainly all the generic kernels do. I would first check
to see if the device /dev/sda1 exists. It might have got
eliminated at some point or perhaps never created. It
can then be created with the shell script /etc/MAKEDEV
which is pretty well self documented. There is also a man
page.
--
Leonard Evens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
