Linux-Misc Digest #119, Volume #21 Thu, 22 Jul 99 04:13:14 EDT
Contents:
Re: Help, I Need A Time Server (Paul Kimoto)
Re: Tracing system calls (M van Oosterhout)
Re: Subject: Why all the symbolic links in linux (Frederic Faure)
Re: SuSE-6.1 KDE (Kbase) Update Broken Link? (Miami Device)
Re: CIA assassinations (Richard Kulisz)
Re: Another embedded linux question ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Relicensing code which was licensed ala BSD or X11. (Bryan S. Doyle)
Re: tape backup device under Linux (Peter Van Loock)
Re: CIA assassinations (Richard Kulisz)
Re: CIA assassinations (Richard Kulisz)
Re: Newbie ? about hosting web page from home (Paul Anderson)
Re: CIA assassinations (Michael Powe)
Re: Did you switch from Windows to Linux? (Graham)
Re: CIA assassinations (Richard Kulisz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Kimoto)
Subject: Re: Help, I Need A Time Server
Date: 22 Jul 1999 01:51:08 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[newsgroups trimmed]
In article <7n68j7$hqp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Does anyone know how I can setup my Linux machine as
> a NTP time server for clients? What do I need so
> that I get clients to sychronize with my Linux machine?
Have you read the (generic) information at
http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~ntp/ ?
You run an NTP program (as is probably found in your
Linux distribution) and use it to synchronize each machine
to a reference time source (e.g., a radio receiver or
another machine on the network).
--
Paul Kimoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:52:27 +1000
From: M van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Tracing system calls
Mitch wrote:
>
> I'm currently working on a BSDi box, and have recently been introduced
> to a program called 'ktrace'. This thing is a great utility. My
> question is whether or not there is something like this for linux? I've
> made a cursory pass through freshmeat, but didn't turn up anything.
BSD has its own special version?? I thought strace was portable to
most architectures.
Anyway, the program is strace. A similar program named ltrace
traces library calls.
Dunno where to get it though.
HTH,
Martijn van Oosterhout
Australia
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frederic Faure)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Subject: Why all the symbolic links in linux
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 18:47:42 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 08:12:45 +0100, gus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So, although there is a "wasted" inode, there is a huge saving on
>executable space, because, for all these programs, there is only one
>executable.
What about using command-line switches instead, eg. newaliases =
sendmail -b? (forgot which switch it is)? What's the advantage of
using "fake filenames" instead?
Puzzled too,
FF.
--
The system required Windows 95 or better, so I installed Linux!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 06:15:46 +0000
From: Miami Device <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SuSE-6.1 KDE (Kbase) Update Broken Link?
Youngert wrote:
>
> I just updated my SuSE-6.1 KDE's base system with the latest update from
> SuSE and found all the icons broken, except the logout icon, i.e. clicking
> or double clicking the konsole icon will not bring up a konsole. FYI, the
> upgrade process went smooth with no problem. What could I have done wrong?
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I upgraded both knet and kbase but then couldn't get kfm or just about
anything
else useful to open off the menu bar. Reverted to the canned kbase from
cd.
Left knet upgraded, now kppp connects on the first try instead of the
3rd or 4th.
--
_________________________
remove 4 from address
=========================
-|- Who, has loved us more? -|-
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kulisz)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: CIA assassinations
Date: 22 Jul 1999 06:57:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 21 Jul 1999 13:56:17 GMT, Arkadiusz Danilecki wrote:
>>rich... I mean my opinion is you make your money yourself - everything is ok,
>>but if you get money only because you born in wealth family sth is unfair.
>
>I think the wealthy parents have the right to spend their wealth on anyone
>including their children.
They sure as bloody hell don't! The wealthy don't even have a right to exist.
Being "wealthy" means having power over another human being and *nobody* has
a right to that!
Arguments about the effect on non-consenting third parties of otherwise
voluntary transfers of wealth would be too subtle for you.
>>they born in poor family and have no chances to change his/her situation.
>
>One would hope that the legislators make laws to ensure that people from
>poor families have opportunities. IMO, access to decent public education
>is important.
And health care, and personal security, and a clean environment, and
food, clothing and shelter, and equal access to information, decent
jobs, and even capital.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Another embedded linux question
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 1999 06:14:04 GMT
Hi Dave,
In article <7ltslj$4be$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Dave Hogg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is the minimum I need to get a linux kernel
running TCP/IP in an
> embedded system?
>
> I currently have the uClinux for the coldfire
processor but am wondering
> just how small I can make it. Previous,
non-linux. embedded systems we have
> used have typically had a maximum FLASH size of
500K. Althouth this may not
> be possible, I don;t think it would be too far
off.
I have generated kernel+file-system images of
uClinux-coldfire that are less than 512k and do
contain TCP/IP. The real problem at this size is
that there is not much room to fit in many real
support applications. But it can be done.
If your platforms have a lot of RAM than you can
look at keeping a compressed image in the FLASH
and expanding the kernal and file-system into
RAM for execution. This is what I do on the
Moreton Bay NETtel platform.
The gunzip loader is all of about 9k, and I run
compressed kernel+file-system images of about
500k. That uncompresses to a total binary of about
1200k. That contains a fully decked out kernel,
with TCP/IP, IP firewalling, ethernet driver,
PPP, SLIP, RAM file system, etc. Quite an
extensive application set in the root file-system
too. Includes things like a sh, init, pppd, diald,
ipfwadm, ifconfig, route, web server, telnet
daemon, ping, PoPToP VPN server, dhcpcd, and a
bunch of other stuff...
Pretty easy to get NFS and SMB in there as well...
Seeya
Greg
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Relicensing code which was licensed ala BSD or X11.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bryan S. Doyle)
Date: 21 Jul 1999 23:41:51 -0700
INTRO --
This is NOT a troll, nor is it advocacy. I have a sincere desire to
understand why people understand BSD- and X11-type licenses so much
differently than I do. I think they very clearly mean one thing (see
below) while almost everybody else seems to think they mean the
opposite. I've read a lot about licenses but have never seen it
explained. (I suspect that a lack of interest in litigation on the part
of licensors years ago allowed a misunderstanding to develop into a
standard industry practice which will not be changed until (or unless) a
few licensees get hauled into court. They can hope the licensors have
misunderstood it too.) Please help by giving some good arguments; I
don't need examples. If my summary of the licenses is insufficient,
please refer to those that come with X11. On my disk they are in
"/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/doc/COPYRIGHT". Yours might be hiding elsewhere.)
I'll refer to BSD/X11-type licenses as "X11" licenses hereafter. I'll
use "IP" for "Intellectual Property". (IP is the new-and-improved term
for the older "Proprietary Information", which doesn't work well among
people who call GPLed IP "non-proprietary". Aren't words fun?)
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LICENSES --
There seems to be an almost universal belief that if a copyright holder
licenses his IP under an X11 license, then the licensee may modify the
IP (thus adding his own IP) and then distribute the IP under any
license. I see nothing in the license which permits that and believe
that the license and the underlying law prohibit it.
I'll give a brief argument for why I say that and then ask for your
view. A fuller argument would require referral to the exact language
of the licenses and more work than I'm willing to do until I learn more.
The important terms of an X11 license are these (paraphrased):
1) You may deal in the software with only the few restrictions
imposed by this license.
2) You must retain the copyright notice and license with the
software. (This is not really important. See below.)
Unimportant terms of the license include these:
3) The precise locations of copies of notices and licenses.
4) Restrictions on the use of names in advertising, etc.
5) Warnings and disclaimers of warranties and liabilities.
Term 2 is not really important because IP retains its copyright whether
or not a notice is given and a license agreement remains in force
regardless of the location of any copies. Term 2 serves mainly to
reinforce the licensee's understanding of the licensors intent. The X11
license's "this permission notice shall be included" seems perfectly
clear in not allowing new restrictions on the stated permissions.
A modified copy of IP still contains the IP of the licensor and it must,
without explicit license language to the contrary, still be used
according to the terms of the original license. There is nothing in an
X11 license that gives one permission to impose one's own license terms
on the IP which one has been licensed to use.
Now this doesn't make the X11 license "viral", in the GPL sense.
Nothing prohibits one (as does the GPL) from imposing one's own license
on the parts of a combined work which one owns, as long as that doesn't
conflict with the other license to which one has agreed. Nothing in the
license defines "modification" to mean what "derivation" means in the
GPL. One is free to modify copies of the licensor's IP under the X11
license and combine it with one's own IP under one's own license. The
combination must be used under the terms of both licenses when that is
possible (and the X11 license is very permissive) or one must either use
the original license or not use the other IP.
It might be argued that a necessary implication of the use of different
licenses is that the portions of the IP under each license must be
segregated or at least labeled, but that is impossible in binary forms,
and is, in any case, of secondary concern in this discussion.
For those overly literal readers that say "as long as I do exactly what
the license says I must do (keep notices and license copy) the license
doesn't explicitly prohibit me from imposing my own terms in a new
license", I say this: If you can, in effect, change the terms of the
license, you can render the license of no effect, since you merely need
to make a modification, relicense it, including a term which permits new
licensees to remove all reference to the original licensors, including
copyright statements. Surely no court would allow that and I believe
no court would allow you to impose any terms which would not permit
licensees to honor the license of any who still owns part of the IP.
A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION --
So -- please explain how one can construe an X11 license to mean that
one must keep the permission notice (the old license), but needn't keep
the permissions (by imposing a new license). I truly want to know.
Post to the newsgroup only; the e-mail address is bogus.
I'm not a lawyer, so nothing above is to be considered legal advice.
P.S. After proofreading the above, I was wondering if the source of the
misunderstanding is a confusion between multiple licensing (such as by
an originator and a modifier) and re-licensing (such as when a modifier
believes he has replaced a license with his own - I'm not aware of any
license which permits this). The implications of multiple copyrights
and multiple licenses ARE quite messy. (E.g., licensees must agree to
both licenses.) It's a reason for sticking with one license and also a
reason for giving your IP (not just licensing it) to the public. Even
M$ licenses its software to the public. (Shall we call it the M$PL?)
P.P.S. Are there more appropriate forums for this topic?
------------------------------
From: Peter Van Loock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Re: tape backup device under Linux
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 19:56:24 +0200
Matthew Hixson wrote:
>
> Can anyone recommend a tape backup device for use under Linux? This is
> to go into a machine with an ASUS P2B-DS motherboard (supports SCSI).
> The machine is currently running kernel 2.2.6, but I can upgrade it if
> necessary.
> Any adivce is welcomed.
> -M@
I've used both QIC (Colorado aka Hewlett Packard) and DDS (Archive
Python) tape-drives under Linux, using tar, cpio and arkeia. They both
work without any problems whatsoever. The DDS 2-drive I used was a lot
faster, but required a scsi-interface. I would say if money is no
problem, go for DDS.
The Travan tape-drives I know of are also quite good, but I have only
experience with them under Windoze.
Peter
--
Composed in a 99% Microsoft-free environment (I do need the mouse)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kulisz)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: CIA assassinations
Date: 22 Jul 1999 06:43:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Richard Kulisz wrote in message <7msas0$qq2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>clothing, and buying a second car. In order to maximize global happiness
>>or Utility, you have to redistribute until everyone has an equal amount
>>of wealth.
>
> Then you would have 0% employment. What is the incentive for labor? Why
For the umpteenth time I repeat myself:
wealth can be put to different purposes but primarily it is to acquire:
1) necessities (food, shelter, clothing)
2) toys (second car, bigger house, faster computer)
3) power over other human beings
redistributing wealth is *absolutely necessary* in order to guarantee
that everyone has #1, on this even the most conservative economists agree.
Redistributing wealth is also necessary in order to *prevent* #3, on this
the conservative economists are in severe denial.
Incentives can run the full spectrum of #2. And this is only financial
incentives. Non-financial incentives are what built Linux so you're in
a very poor place to be saying crap like that nobody would work.
>shouldn't a person have the opportunity to make a better (subjective)
Should a person have the opportunity to buy himself a slave?
>lifestyle? Who says I don't need that extra car or second home on the lake
>or that ski trip or whatever else I choose to buy with what I have?
You *don't* and that's that.
> No, you will never attain 100% employment due to the fact that there are
>those who simply choose not to work but why should they get the same as
Because they're *human beings*, not mindless animals.
>everybody else? The opportunity for advancement drives people to do better
>and be more productive.
Ahhh, I see you worship the Machine. Is it your view that humans *should*
be enslaved to The System?
I like to think that people who choose not to work want to *BE* better
instead of "do" better.
Note that the Machine is owned by certain elements of society so whenever
you advocate that people should be whipped and starved in order to force
them to work harder for the Machine, you're saying that those who own the
Machine deserve harder working slaves.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kulisz)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: CIA assassinations
Date: 22 Jul 1999 06:46:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Redistribution helps prevent "winner takes all" scenarios, and accounts for
>the fact that "losers" in the capitalism game in the USA
>are better off than some of the "winners" elsewhere.
I think you haven't taken a look at the stats since the US government takes
from the poor and gives to the rich; it redistributes *upwards* and this
accounts for the fact that losers in the USA are worse off than losers in
some Third-World countries.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Anderson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Newbie ? about hosting web page from home
Date: 22 Jul 1999 01:24:21 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesse Grayson) writes:
>Would that be enough for two low traffic
>pages, one being an all text version of my page as well as a neeto
>super-duper graphical page that will be using flash and other
>interactive menus and such?
>
Deffinitely, I'm running about 10 domains on a Pentium 75 with 16Megs RAM.
(I've never got around to upgrading it, thing works so well I hate to take it
down to do an upgrade:)
> I'm also wondering which os I should run.
>
Run either Linux and Apache, or FreeBSD and apache. My server had an uptime
of about 70 days, until it was taken down by a power outage that outlasted my
UPS.
>P.S. will I need to setup a firewall? This is something I know little
>about but I have this itchy feeling that it's necessary. Thanks
>again.
>
Will the other machine have an externally contactable address? Basically,
you're webserver is the firewall, tighten security up on it. I'd recommend
putting the other machine on an IP under either the 10 or 192.168 networks,
then doing IP masquerade under Linux.
------------------------------
From: Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: CIA assassinations
Date: 21 Jul 1999 22:23:25 -0700
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "ATZ" == A T Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ATZ> I think I don't understand this. What has it to do with Linux
ATZ> or NT?? Is Linux for the poor and NT for the rich, if so, why
ATZ> does Mercedes use Linux. Is Mercedes poor??
ATZ> The government already takes money from the rich and give it
ATZ> to the poor, but thats not the solution. I know some people
ATZ> who are always complaining they don't have money. They are so
ATZ> busy complaining that they don't have time to work and make a
ATZ> decent living.
No, the ones doing most of the complaining make $60K a year, spend
$75K a year and whine about the `gummint' taking their money. At
least in the US, the rate of increase for consumer indebtedness is far
higher than the rate of increase for gov't debt. The same people who
criticize the `gummint' for mismanaging funds are themselves
incompetent in the same matter.
mp
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Powe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Portland, Oregon USA http://www.trollope.org
- --
Amount of all stock owned by the least wealthy 90% of America: 18%
Amount of all stock owned by the most wealthy 1% of America: 41%
[Economic Policy Institute]
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v0.9.8 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Encrypted with Mailcrypt 3.5.3 and GNU Privacy Guard
iD8DBQE3lqq/755rgEMD+T8RAmXgAJkBUwn6flxxTHz3EA3NcmgszeI7tACgs/zA
/XsK5rd27/X06jLijUB+8Ws=
=WFOw
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Did you switch from Windows to Linux?
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 09:39:18 +0100
"H.G. Hettinger" wrote:
>
>
> Ok. Any idea how I can learn how to create a good off-line threaded
> news reader to use under Linux? Any books that don't assume to much
> prior knowledge of Unix or linux?
>
Leafnode
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kulisz)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: CIA assassinations
Date: 22 Jul 1999 06:51:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'd agree that not having the chance to change one's own circumstances is
>bad. The solution is not to change their circumstances for them, however,
>but rather to give them the opportunity to change their own circumstances.
>Anything else is simple theft.
Oh, yeah, that's right. And what does "give them the opportunity" mean if
not to *allow* people to prostitute themselves, to *allow* people to grovel
and beg to survive, to *allow* people to sell off their own body parts.
Because "anything else is simple theft".
Hey meathead; property only exists because gummint says so and the moment
it says that you do *not* own something, it ain't fuckin' yours!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
