Linux-Misc Digest #136, Volume #21 Fri, 23 Jul 99 14:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: named question (Dustin Puryear)
Re: .bashrc not loading (Patrick M. Geahan)
Re: Chmoding directories for �O�thers: x or rx? (John Winters)
Re: High load average, low cpu usage when /home NFS mounted (Paul Kimoto)
Re: CIA assassinations (Paul Wickre)
Re: Increasing the Swap size after Linux Installation ("Biophage")
HP CD-RW Supported by RH 6.0? (Jack Steen)
Re: Marx vs. Nozick (Matthias Warkus)
Re: I f*cking don't believe it! (was: Marx vs. Nozick) (Matthias Warkus)
Re: CIA assassinations (Deryk Barker)
Re: I f*cking don't believe it! (was: Marx vs. Nozick) (Matthias Warkus)
What I think of linux. ("Groman")
Re: open systems?!? Re: Why does Apple not cooperate with Be? ("William Edward
Woody")
mount cdrom, floppy, and windows as user??? (root)
Re: I =?iso-8859-1?Q?can=B4t?= mount my master disk hda1 (root)
Re: parallel port Iomega Zip problem (toby)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dustin Puryear)
Subject: Re: named question
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:41:06 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999 23:34:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(William Wueppelmann) wrote:
>I'm trying to set up bind on my machine, and I'm hoping someone can tell me
>if what I want to do is even possible. I've read all of the documentation
>on hand, but I really don't know if I've just misconfigured named or if
>named simply can't be configured to do what I want.
William, read the DNS HOW-TO. It will show you, step-by-step, how to
set this up. I would also suggest buying "DNS and BIND", by Albitz and
Liu from O'Reily.
>remaining queries to be passed on to the root servers (I'd be happy to pass
>them on to my ISP's servers instead, it's not critical that I query the
>root servers myself). I'm not sure if this is how DNS works -- does named
"forward first"
---
Dustin Puryear
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Patrick M. Geahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: .bashrc not loading
Date: 23 Jul 1999 16:21:41 GMT
Steffan O'Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: What am I doing wrong? How can I get .bashrc to load automatically
: when I login?
Well - to start out with, are you sure you're using bash?
: --
: -Steffan O'Sullivan |
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | "Seek Grailo, Even Better Than the True Grail"
: Chapel Hill, NC |
: www.io.com/~sos | -James Thurber sums up the 20th Century
--
=======Patrick M [EMAIL PROTECTED]=======ICQ:3784715==========
USENET Quote of the Week: "I'm still pondering whether i should
pre-emptively register 'I can't believe it's not Jesus' as a name for a
low-calorie communion wafer" - Tanuki on alt.sysadmin.recovery
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Winters)
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Chmoding directories for �O�thers: x or rx?
Date: 23 Jul 1999 15:50:33 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gilles Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Winters) �crivait/wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Gilles Pelletier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>It seems my question was too complicated. Take two.
>>>
>>>Is there any security advantage to chmoding a directory rx instead of
>>>only x?
>>
>>It's very difficult to conceive of one. "rx" is a more liberal setting
>>than just "x" so anything which can be done given "x" can also be
>>done given "rx". Some things which can be done given "rx" cannot
>>be done given just "x".
>>
>>I'd be very surprised if anyone can come up with a security advantage
>>of "rx" over "x".
>
>I personnaly can't see any, but I'm far from an expert. If you're
>right, then, Unix for the impatient is wrong saying:
>
> �Unix for the Impatient� (p. 45), on chmoding directories:
>
>�Normallay r is granted whenever x is; you can get some strange
>effects if a directory has x but not r. For instance, if a directory
>has x turned on but not r, you can't list its contents, but if you
>already know its contents, you can delete or copy its files.�
^
and have write access to the directory
It only needs a small insertion to be fully correct.
John
--
John Winters. Wallingford, Oxon, England.
The Linux Emporium - a source for Linux CDs in the UK
See <http://www.polo.demon.co.uk/emporium.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Kimoto)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: High load average, low cpu usage when /home NFS mounted
Date: 23 Jul 1999 11:14:16 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[posted and e-mailed]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ole Jacob Taraldset wrote:
> The
> /home partition is NFS mounted from [an?] SGI. When I take a look at cpu
> usage i kpm/qps most of the cpu is idle (~85%), but load average reports
> around 2. Isn't load average a function of cpu usage (only, mostly)? Can
> it be that some process is running, but not showing in ps/top/kpm? I
> feel that the system response has been reduced quite a bit after
> upgrading to RedHat 6.0.
The proc(5) man page says
loadavg
The load average numbers give the number of jobs in
the run queue averaged over 1, 5 and 15 minutes.
Processes waiting for (slow NFS) disk operations would be in the run
queue, but not necessarily consuming much CPU.
Have you tried tweaking the NFS mount options to try to get better
performance?
--
Paul Kimoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Paul Wickre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: CIA assassinations
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:02:18 GMT
In article <7n7dov$l9o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kulisz) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Those who don't distinguish power of a dollar and power of a whip,
> >will learn the difference on their own backs" -- Ayn Rand.
>
> Do you realize you're quoting someone who denies Aristotelian logic?
>
Obviously you haven't the faintest idea what you're babbling about.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: "Biophage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Increasing the Swap size after Linux Installation
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:17:06 -0700
Use fips. I'm not sure where to download it, so you'll hafta search the net
for it.
Rajesh Radhakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi,
>
> During linux installation, I had set my swap size (39 MB) , a little
> more than the size of my RAM(32 MB). When I run StarOffice or Netscape
> or any other large application, the swap size becomes 0( 'free' command)
> . The concern is that once or twice, my native partition got jacked
> after running these big applications.
> I had to run 'fsck' to clear errors (inode inconsistencies) on my native
> partition.
>
> To be able to run these applications, I was thinking of increasing my
> swap size.
>
> Is there any way of increasing the swap size on my PC without
> reinstallation.
>
> Thanks
> Rajesh
>
------------------------------
From: Jack Steen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: HP CD-RW Supported by RH 6.0?
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 12:22:04 -0500
I have recently upgraded to RedHat Linux 6.0 with the pre-compiled
kernel on both my laptop and a newly constructed Pentium II desktop at
home. The desktop machine has a Hewlett-Packard CD-RW 7200 Plus drive.
The SW recognizes it as a CD drive, but of course I would like to be
able to use the CD-R and perhaps the CD-RW capabilities under Linux. I
have conducted a moderate search of the web, but have not come across
anything saying that someone had done this. Does anyone know of a
reference to HP CD-RW support under Linux?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Marx vs. Nozick
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 15:53:49 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 23 Jul 1999 08:11:39 GMT...
..and Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus) writes:
> > It was the 21 Jul 1999 22:05:47 GMT...
> > ..and Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Couch potatoes apart, we're not plants. But we are, no matter
> >> how much you might dislike it, animals.
> >
> > Biologically.
> I'm glad to see that you've stop claiming that we're not
> animals.
I have said that I could make the point that even biologically, we're
not animals, but I would have a hard time digging enough facts up from
the depths of behaviour biology.
> >> We're not so very special.
> >
> > Yes we are. I have already named four criteria of which only man
> > possesses all:
> > 1) intelligence
> > 2) creativity
> > 3) abstract thought
> > 4) literacy.
> >
> > Especially criterion 4 makes us so very special. IMHO.
> But you know, some other animals have some very extraordinary
> capabilities. Take bats, with their marvellous sonar systems.
> Take migrating birds, who can sense the earth's magnetic field.
> Or elephants, who're more intelligent than some humans I know.
How so?
> What I'm trying to tell you is that considering one's species
> as somehow above all the others
FUCK IT. Holy shit, what are you trying to *imply* again? I do not
consider man *above* animals. But he's different!
[irrelevant stuff about religion]
> > Yet there are far more differences between us and all animals than
> > between any other species and other animals. Of course I am not
> > talking about anatomy. Consider instincts, intelligence, literacy,
> > etc.
> That remains a matter of opinion. It could be, but it's by no means
> a certainty. Chimps are quite capable of abstract thought, make tools,
> communicate extensively, and can learn to talk to humans using
> either sign language, or symbol cardsa.
I know.
> There's no such thing
> as a "stupid animal", IMHO.
Of course not. Animals are perfectly adapted to their niche because
they bring everything they need to fill it in with them.
> >> > No. You misparsed me. BTW, our species not having a lot of instincts
> >> > and collective knowledge (f.ex. all our means of higher communication
> >> > are artificially acquired) is another indicator that we are not
> >> > animals.
> >> Arbitrary. Again, the use of "artificial" as if using our brains
> >> is somehow unnatural (or super-natural, or "outside nature").
> >> We're as much part of nature as anything else living on this
> >> planet.
> >
> > Hm. We haven't got many instincts. Most of our knowledge is acquired.
> > Natural selection hasn't got much effect on us. We're literate. We
> > form states of conscious individuals (don't try to tell me that an ant
> > or a bee is conscious in the same way as a man). We've developed
> > ideals, among which is the ideal that annihilation of the weak by the
> > strong is wrong.
>
> > Of course you could keep on playing little games, but the fact remains
> > that we are very different of the rest of nature. We are still
> > biologically an animal, and we are still part of the food chain and
> > such. But this is not the point.
>
> We don't know if natural selection has no effect on not-so-sapiens
> (it most definitely had on erectus or habilis). It surely had
> even less influence on crocodiles; not-so-sapiens hasn't existed
> for very long.
> Literacy is the only thing you mention that AFAIK is not present
> in other animals. Look, there's no doubt that our brain is one
> of the more complex ones in the animal kingdom, but your idea
> that humankind is fundamentally different from (superior to)
> everything else is just plain wrong.
If you continue to make false claims about what I said or what I not
said, I consider this conversation to be over. I never said anything
about superiority.
mawa
--
Usenet est omnis divisa in partes tres, quarum unam incolunt Trolli,
aliam useri regulari, tertiam, qui ipsorum lingua dei, nostra admini
appellantur.
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: I f*cking don't believe it! (was: Marx vs. Nozick)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:20:40 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 23 Jul 1999 00:43:42 -0700...
..and Noah Roberts (jik-) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus) writes:
> on our intelligent, reasoning side to the exclusion of all else.
> > I've been called religious, I've
> > been more or less called a Trekkie,
>
> Why does that offend you? Neither are what I would consider *bad*
> things...more the opposite actually.
Nevertheless, it's simply not true. I dislike people who imply I'm
something that I'm not.
> > > Or ants. They wage wars for both reasons- extermination *and* enslavement.
> >
> > Intelligently planned wars?
>
> Oh yes. The Army ant (forget were it is from) actually plans and
> executes strategic maneuvers to overcome its enemy. You should watch
> PBS more often.
Tell me a way to get PBS in Germany and I'll do it.
> I am sure others do it as well, thats just the one
> that I remember about....the ones with the big pinchers
>
> Many animals and insects....and other various creatures....have imence
> intilect when it comes to survival. I doubt you will find any doing
> calculus equasions...but you WILL see many very engineous engineers,
> hunters, tricksters...etc...
I know. Nevertheless, most (all?) of this is done by simple
automatism. For example, spiders' webs are not designed and spun
consciously by them. There are simple impulses with which you can make
a spider start spinning its web, however absurd the situation. And it
will always spin exactly the same web, and only evolution will create
other varieties of spiders' webs.
> >
> > > > Why do you all shy away from a frontal assault and keep on arguing
> > > > about stupid little definition problems? Man is in so many various
> > > > ways different from other animals that he's not animal anymore. What's
> > > > the point?
> > >
> > > I do not and have not denied that man is different from other animals.
> > > I've even described some of the ways myself. However, a platypus is
> > > different from other animals, while still clearly being an animal.
> >
> > You will however not find an animal which is as different from all the
> > other animals as man is different from them.
>
> True true....me myself think humans can be more barbaric and cruel
> then even the most pitiless carnivorous animal. We are also 1000x
> more destructive then any other force on the planet. We are more
> animalistic then any animal in other words. But thats more or less as
> a mass force. Individually we amount to much more I think, and
> certainly have the potential to be very great.
Sadly, the barbarism, cruelty and destruction of humanity as a whole
is a direct result of humans not being animals with respect to
behaviour biology (instincts, ITMs[0] and such).
> I don't think most, if any, animals have a true taste in art. Sure
> they can create beutifull things, but this is just a part of the
> survival instinct....not true artistic expression.
Exactly my point.
> Actually though, I have heard that whales have a larger capacity for
> higher thought (god, morals, universal truth) then humans do. This is
> based on were in the brain these thought processes appear to occur,
> and that it is much larger comparably then in the human brain. I don't
> know that this is true, but it certainly brings our elevated status to
> question doesn't it.
If we ever discover the criteria I mentioned (I'm not going to
enumerate them again since I probably bore you) in, say, whales or
dolphins, I would accept them as human in a blink.
mawa
[0] Inherited Trigger Mechanism
--
I am willing to love all mankind, except an American.
-- Sam Johnson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Deryk Barker)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: CIA assassinations
Date: 23 Jul 1999 17:29:58 GMT
Richard Kulisz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[...]
: On another issue, it's totally irrevant whether Lenin was a brutal dictator
: or a Marxist since it doesn't change the nature of the October Revolution,
: which consists primarily of who participated (ie, which classes of Russian
: society) and why. Maximillian Robespierre was one of the leaders of the
: French Revolution and he turned out to be an extremely bloody tyrant. Are
: you now going to use that as a basis to condemn the ideals behind the French
: Revolution? Or better yet, are you going to deny there ever was a revolution?
Why not? The West dealt with the USSR for over 70 years on this
basis. I mean we all know how much better off the average Russian was
under the Tsar, don't we?
--
|Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept. | Music does not have to be understood|
|Camosun College, Victoria, BC, Canada| It has to be listened to. |
|email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |
|phone: +1 250 370 4452 | Hermann Scherchen. |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: I f*cking don't believe it! (was: Marx vs. Nozick)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:16:25 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 23 Jul 1999 04:08:48 +0600...
..and Paymaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthias Warkus wrote:
> > I've been called religious, I've
> > been more or less called a Trekkie, and one has implied that I am not
> > doing my duty at preventing fascism from happening again in my
> > country.
> Aha. Down with you then. You must be a bad man. Btw, it may turn out
> that whatever there still is in us of animal will finally save us. Dont'
> be so haughty about animals.
Actually, I like animals. The lack of a complete set of instincts like
animals have got is both the greatest strength and the greatest
weakness of man... I have worked both this week and last week in a
research laboratory for children, where I spent all day with animals.
Spiders, collembola, pseudoscorpions, snails, the works. I've got no
problem with animals.
mawa
--
Now don't tell me that, when you've seen _Woyzeck_ and read _1984_,
_One_Flew_Over_The_Cuckoo's_Nest_ and _Wilt_, all in one week, you can
still write a story about a sane world!
-- mawa
------------------------------
From: "Groman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.linux.sux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: What I think of linux.
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 09:59:25 -0700
I've just subcribed to several linux newsgroups and read a couple of posts,
and I decided
to write this small comment on how "I" feel about linux, I know nobody
cares, but anyway...
Linux is a great operating system, it is powerful, fast, relatively easy to
use(to other UNICES and to Windoze etc.) I am saying it is easier to use
compared to Windoze, because to do the same things you can do in Linux
in Windoze you'll have to turn mountains upside down.(install freebie
software that will crash your comp).
Second reason, windoze costs about a $100, and doesn't come with anything
useful. Linux on the other hand is free and comes with a trillions of
zillions programs with it. and a lot more to download. no scary binaries!
almost no viruses!(there are like 10 unix-based viruses on the record
compared to 25000 of dos/windoze based, correct me if I am wrong).
what is wrong with linux and why I use windoze to do routine things, like
news posting and e-mail, though mostly I use linux for learning programming
and well other stuff... well here it is:
I like the whole idea of operating system by people for people, BUT
There isn't a some kind of comitee, company, person, aritficial
intellegence, that does the following:
Organise the basic system so it will be same style output, output
readable by everybody,
compile the tons of documentation available in an avarage sized User
Guide with readable
english and easy to use reference tables. HOW-TOs and FAQs are
not-organized, or
organized in a form I don't understand(each unique individual, on any
given point in time
has his own limit of understanding something, you'll just have to accept
that).
Also, there should be a several modes of IO for the system itself, for
example if
IO Techie Level is 0, then during the boot it will display something
like :
Loading Linux Kernel.
Loading Drivers.
Starting services etc.
but if IO Techie Level is like 10 it will output even more than it
outputs now.
When I first installed Red Hat 5.2, it installed really well, I was
really surprised that it was faster and
easier than install of Windoze 95. Then I booted and logged in, I liked
it until I had to figure out something
how to do something, I spent 3 days configuring my ppp(that's because I
started with that without knowing
anything about linux) ppp how-to was understandable but it didn't cover
my problems, IRC chat rooms just
sent me to hell, and newsgroups, well that's why it was 3 days :-)
If there would've been a help program that contained the basics of Linux
set-up(X,ppp,servers, etc.)
in a easy-to-use interface, Linux is great only when you know how to use
it. so to make Linux great for everybody you have to make learning
how to use it easier. I have UNIX Unleashed book for 1500 pages, I
don't have nor time nor patience to read that, but when I looked through the
contents, it contained most things
you need to use any Unix system. If the basics of that under Linux would
fit on 300 pages, it would be great.
wow, that's a long post. sorry to bother you with my useless and boring
thoughts.
groman. I spent 10 minutes writing this message, which I could've spent
learning some assembly.
bye, thanx for patience.
------------------------------
From: "William Edward Woody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.programmer.misc,comp.sys.be.misc,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: open systems?!? Re: Why does Apple not cooperate with Be?
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 10:27:46 -0700
Eric Iverson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > Killing CHRP and clones makes sense because at this stage
> > > > of the game Apple makes it's money selling hardware. There
> > > > just wasn't a viable business model to allowing other
> > > > hardware manufacturers to eat Apple's lunch without
> > > > expanding the market.
>
> Letting CHRP live would've taken the R&D expense off of
> Apple's shoulders. ...
You'd think this--it's only common sense. However, with the way
Apple was going, it's not clear if this would have actually been
true. Further, as I recall there was quite a bit of fighting
going on between IBM, Apple and others over what was to go into
the CHRP standard. (I believe Apple wanted a bunch of additional
stuff that IBM and others didn't--Apple is too used to having
some sort of differentiation between Apple hardware and non-
Apple hardware, and they wanted to have their CHRP designs to
be "different" yet "standard". Go figure.)
> ... Apple also raised the cloner's liscensing
> costs considerably, because they wanted make more money (I can't
> think of a simpler way to put it).
This is sort of awkward, but, ah, well, that's what a
business is <<supposed>> to do: make money! If Apple
doesn't make money, Apple goes bye bye. And if Apple
goes bye bye, do you expect the market will remain at 10%
of desktop sales? Or do you think the clone manufacturers
who ait Apple's lunch will turn their attention to the
larger PC market and ignore a dwindling marginal market?
> So why is Apple making money now? Because of their low prices?
> Their high prices? Their Mac hardware monopoly? Because of the iMac?
> Because of Steve Jobs presence? Because of Microsoft's presence?
That's an interesting question.
Apple seems to be making money as far as I can tell because
of the iMac, and because of their Mac hardware "monopoly."
Apple's a funny company; they're the only company in the
world who can have a two-billion dollar cash reserve and a
stock price which gives a valuation less than the value of
their hard assets, and still have stock watchers claim their
stocks prices must go down because Apple didn't make enough
of one model Mac to satisfy demand in a particular quarter.
If Dell were to drop to 24-32 days to deliver a particular
model, "Dell's superior price and product strategy clearly
shows the success of it's management's decisions." Apple?
"Apple's management has clearly demonstrated again it's
inability to manage it's production process."
Compare Apple's bad press with Compaq. Frankly, right now
Compaq is in serious trouble. Their management is meandering
even worse than Apple's under Spindler. And Compaq's
acquisition of Digitial has thrown Compaq into a tailspin.
Yet where's the "Compaq Death Watch?" Where is the constant
bagging on Compaq's failed management policies? Where is
the editorials discussing Compaq's failure to adjust it's
processes to match market expectations?
See, I think one reason why Apple couldn't survive with the
cloners is because even now, with Apple's stocks headed to
$75/share and it's market share headed ever upwards--even
now, when Apple hasn't looked better in *years*--there is
*still* an "Apple Death Watch." Even now editorials are
still published asking when Apple's management will get
control over it's hardware production. Even now some stock
watchers claim Apple's stock prices are "overvalued" and
predict that Apple's stock will hit $10/share before the
end of the year.
If Apple were to open itself to allowing cloners into the
Macintosh market, even a 1% drop in Apple's total market
share will cause all of those naysayers to claim Apple is
in a "death spiral" which will only end in "bankrupcy."
And these sorts of predictions, when followed up by hard
numbers, tend to make themselves come true.
So no, I don't believe at this point in the game is there
a viable business model for Apple to open it's systems up
to cloning. Maybe back in 1985 Apple could have opened up
it's systems. Maybe in 5 years if Apple's total market share
reaches 25%. But not today.
- Bill Woody
------------------------------
From: root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: mount cdrom, floppy, and windows as user???
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:42:24 +0000
Hi,
I'm having trouble mounting floppy, cdrom and a windows partition as
regular user. I used linuxconf to set them user-mountable, but it
doesn't work. Any ideas guys?
------------------------------
From: root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I =?iso-8859-1?Q?can=B4t?= mount my master disk hda1
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 16:44:15 +0000
"Juan I. Onetto" wrote:
> "Juan I. Onetto" wrote:
> >
> > Hello people!!
> > I�m writing from Argentina so, sorry for my english :)
> >
> > I installed Linux one month before. It�s Suse 5.1 with 2.0.33 kernel,
> > I bought a Western Digital 8,3 GB, wich is my primary master. There I
> > installed all win stuff. Then I have my second master and his cdrom
> > slave.
> >
> > So i have hda1 and hdc1 (with some things of windows) hdc2 where I have
> > my
> > root partition, hdc3 (swap) hdc4 (temp partition)
> >
> > So the problem appears when I try to mount hda:
> >
> > I write mount -t vfat (I tried with vfat32, and a message saying that
> > the
> > fs vfat32 isn�t supported, i also tried msdos) /dev/hda1 (and tried
> > without that one) /mnt/win (with the /mnt/win directory created)
> >
> > Linux always says "that the fs doesn�t exist, bad superblock or to many
> > filesystems mounted"
> >
> > Please, if someone can help I would be pleased
> > John
you need kernel 2.0.34 or greater to have vfat support. Get a knew kernel
from www.kernel.org
------------------------------
From: toby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: parallel port Iomega Zip problem
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 13:05:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
insmod parport.o
insmod ppa.o
parport must be installed for ppa to work as ppa is dependent on it,
T.
>
>
> insmod ppa
>
>
> Koya
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
