Linux-Misc Digest #285, Volume #21 Wed, 4 Aug 99 11:13:15 EDT
Contents:
Re: helping the Third World (MK)
Re: can't find module st, also 9Gig SCSI disks? OK? (Bob Surenko)
Re: Is Linux A Memory Hogging OS? (Ian Smith)
Have I been hacked? ("Dan Loomis")
Can't read files ("Olivier Pidoux")
Writing PCI Device Drivers (Imran Shakeel)
Re: CIA assassinations ("Mark Christensen")
Re: Adding an Ethernet adapter (Jan van den Brink)
Re: ftp/ncftp hang or timeout on large files (David A. Rogers)
Re: helping the Third World ("Mark Christensen")
Re: helping the Third World (MK)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: helping the Third World
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 12:31:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999 12:05:29 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Kenneth P. Turvey) wrote:
>>
>>>It would be quite reasonable to argue that this
>>>redistribution of wealth is necessary for the maintenance of stability
>>>in society.
>>
>>Mabye, but definitely not on planet Earth.
>
>What real economy that you would like to live under does not
>redistribute wealth?
The one that uses it for securing negative rights of citizens only.
>>>In our country (USA) we do this through transfer payments and a
>>>progressive tax system. There are other methods that might be better
>>>(but I don't really want to get into all that).
>>
>>Yeah, you're doing good job. You've already ruined US education.
>Do you really believe that education in the US was better when it
>operated under the free market system?
It was. Consult Nobel winning economist, Milton Friedman.
Education in US was much better and cost effective when it was run
locally or by states.
>You may complain that the
>quality of the US education system is not what it should be, but to
>argue that it operated better previously is using colored hindsight.
>>>>The rich and successful work as hard as they do TO BECOME RICH.
>>>>If the opportunity to become rich is taken away, which redistribution would
>>>>do, there would no longer be any reason for the successful to strive to
>>>>achieve the wealth that they do. Thus a total monetary collapse, just like
>>>>you see in Russia, Cuba and so on.
>>>
>>>Without some redistribution of wealth eventually there will only be a
>>>handful of very rich people and a multitude of virtual slaves.
>>
>>And that multitude would all voluntarily work for exclusive benefit of
>>those few very rich because.... because.. I don't know why.
>Because they need to if they wish to have heat in the winter, a roof
>over their heads, food to eat, medical care for their children...
Thus, it looks like they are able to operate for their own interest,
after all. And if so, it looks like they will enter only deals that
benefit them, short of facing monopoly. And the other side
will do the same thing, too.
You might check Adam Smith. He discovered the thing
long time ago.
>>You write a simplified version of idiotic concentration of wealth
>>theory by Marx. If it ever could happen, it would already happen
>>on the beginning of 20th century, don't you think?
>It has happened. Redistribution of wealth and unionization have
>prevented the `revolution of the proletariat' envisioned by Marx.
Oh please...
There was no freaking revolution. There was not even the potential.
All of that were fairy tales of leftists. Nice, attractive propaganda
picture. Nothing more.
>Marx
>saw the problem but was wrong about the solution. I think he deserves
>some credit.
Marx deserves no credit whatsoever. He created belief system
consistent and closed philosophically. Aka religion.
Marcin Krol
==================================================
Reality is something that does not disappear after
you cease believing in it - VALIS, Philip K. Dick
==================================================
Delete _spamspamlovelyspam_ from address to email me
------------------------------
From: Bob Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: can't find module st, also 9Gig SCSI disks? OK?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 13:09:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.hardware Lyndon F. Bartels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Hello,
: I have the following hardware/software setup.
: Intel P-II 350 CPU.
: 192 Meg Ram.
: S3 Virge video card
: 3C509 ethernet card
: Adaptec 2940UW controller.
: 2 4.5G hard drives.
: Adaptec 2910 SCSI controller
: SCSI CD-ROM
: Exabyte 8200 tape drive.
: RedHat 6.0 Linux. As yet, with no updates.
: 2.2-5-15 kernel.
: When I boot the system, I get the following error message.
: Enabling Swap Space [OK]
: can't locate module st
: INIT: Entering run level 3 yadda yadda yadda.
: I'm assuming this has something to do with the tape drive? Any obviously
: simple answers?
: Also, I'm planning on adding 2 9G drives to this system for data storage.
: I have the OS and httpd server setup on the existing 4.5s. I'm merely adding
: the 9Giggers. I read somewhere that either Adaptec doesn't like drives larger
: that 8Gig, or that Linux doesn't. What's the skinny? Am I doomed?
: Thanks in advance,
: Lyndon
I've been having a similar problem. It seems Red Hat ships with SCSI Tape
support already in the kernel, but right at the end of /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit
it has a if statment and attempts to load the SCSI tape Module!
Anyway, Does your tape drive work? If so, just comment that stuff out in
rc.sysinit.
I haven't fully tested this out yet because I think my tape drive is bad.
(Didn't work in Win98 either)
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/ finger for PGP key
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Linux A Memory Hogging OS?
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 08:51:30 +0000
Robin Smith wrote:
>
> If the chip technology is CMOS then there is only a significant
> current drawn when the gates switch. The more CPU activity the higher
> the average current will be drawn and hence more heat. Most modern
> CPUs are CMOS.
>
> Robin
To put some figures to this (my MB has a CPU temp readout):
After I have finished with Linux I always reboot straight into the BIOS,
and the CPU temperature is reported as about 95F. Last night I went to
make a cuppa and forgot to switch off. On returning about 5 minutes
later the temperature was 105F.
--
========================================================
Ian Smith Linux Help: alt.os.linux
uk.comp.os.linux
========================================================
------------------------------
From: "Dan Loomis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Have I been hacked?
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:17:46 -0400
Here's a strange one...
I have a RH6 linux box at home running IP Masq and a pegged PPP connection
to my local ISP. Every now and again the link permanently goes down. After
looking at /var/log/messages, it shows that a shutdown and subsequent reboot
has been initiated. This is the second time this has happened.
Three questions:
1. Is it possible that my machine can spontaneously start a shutdown/reboot
all by itself?
1. How do I find out the cause?
2. Is it possible that I'm getting hacked by bored engineers at my ISP?
--
Dan Loomis
------------------------------
From: "Olivier Pidoux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Can't read files
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 09:27:09 -0400
Hi,
I downloaded a files for Linux with my NT computer, but my Linux system
can't read the file. What can I do?? My Linux does't have acces to the
internet
Thanks
Olivier
------------------------------
From: Imran Shakeel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,redhat.general
Subject: Writing PCI Device Drivers
Date: 4 Aug 1999 13:30:35 GMT
Hello!
I need help on writing device drivers for PCI cards. Basic information as
staying in user space or going to kernel space is also required.
Thanks in advance.
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Mark Christensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Mark Christensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: CIA assassinations
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 14:04:32 GMT
===== Original Message =====
From: MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: CIA assassinations
> The failure of "third way" approaches. This is a non-option. You
> can't introduce socialism in some places and redistribute, and
> set up capitalism in other place and let them have their money.
> You'll end up with capitalism evading giving away their money
> and non-working socialism which would basically be receiving
> money from ever more evasive capitalism. Pointless.
This seems to me patently untrue. Every economy I am aware of is in
some ways "mixed." The US government provides tax incentives to build
in downtown Detroit, provides an occupational health and safety
regulatory agency, provides credits to non-polluting power plants.
The US also provides nationalized health care for the elderly. Canada
has a larger federal government, which provides health care, creates
tourist incentive zones, and otherwise try's to take a very hands on
approach to their economy. China, is on the other end of the spectrum,
with new "capitalist" innovations coming into an entirely state run
country.
There is a broad spectrum. And as far as I can tell, the advantages
and disadvantages of various kinds of government involvement in each
particular case deserve the be weighed on their own merits. And this
cannot be done if everyone relies on false dichotomies and prior
ideological assumptions to make their decisions.
Mark Christensen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
People understand me so little that they do not even understand me
when I complain of being misunderstood.
--Kierkegaard
------------------------------
From: Jan van den Brink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Adding an Ethernet adapter
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 15:25:47 +0200
The Dude wrote:
> Hey guys...
> I have a Linux 6.0 RedHat indtalled on my machine.
> I got a new 3Com Ehernet card and wanted to install it.
> What do I do? How do I make my linux recognize it?
> How do I configure the card?
>
> --
> Regards
> The Dude
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
#activate Ethernet interface
/sbin/ifconfig eth0 $IPADDRESS broadcast $BROADCAST \
netmask $NETMASK
#set routes
/sbin/route add -net $NETWORK netmask $METMASK
#default route via gateway
/sbin/route add default gw $GATEWAY metric 1
for further info look for:
http://www.linux.com/howto/Ethernet-HOWTO.html and
NET-3-HOWTO.html
Good luck!
Jan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David A. Rogers)
Subject: Re: ftp/ncftp hang or timeout on large files
Date: 4 Aug 1999 13:46:23 GMT
On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 11:41:19 +0200, Mats Pettersson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> speaketh saying:
>David A. Rogers wrote:
>>
>> I'm running Redhat 5.2. Large (153 meg) downloads consistently hang or
>> timeout at the very beginning. Zero bytes are downloaded. Anyone see this
>> before?
>
>Just a thought, are you shure you have enough free diskspace?
>
>Mats
Loads. Also this doesn't go for a while then hang. It never goes at all.
Regards,
dar
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Mark Christensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Mark Christensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: helping the Third World
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 14:03:26 GMT
===== Original Message =====
From: MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: helping the Third World
> It was. Consult Nobel winning economist, Milton Friedman.
> Education in US was much better and cost effective when it was run
> locally or by states.
Not quite what you want to say is it? Are you advocating
decentralization or the removal of wealth redistrobution? It seems to
me that you are interested in the latter, which is not supported by
the (true) claim that most local school boards do a better job running
their schools than the relivant state and federal legislative bodies.
The universal right to an education (which is one of the principles
put into play by the founding fathers) and it exists in order to level
the playing field, so that everyone had oportunities. It is a form of
redistrobution of wealth that I am quite comfortable with, though I do
think the US school system needs to be reformeed because it
serves our students poorly, and forces the men and women who teach them to
make unnessisary compromises in order to survive.
--
Mark Christensen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
People understand me so little that they do not even understand me when I
complain of being misunderstood.
--Kierkegaard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: helping the Third World
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 14:33:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 04 Aug 1999 14:00:30 +0100, Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>>>>> "MK" == MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> MK> It was. Consult Nobel winning economist, Milton Friedman.
> MK> Education in US was much better and cost effective when it was
> MK> run locally or by states.
>
> MK> You might check Adam Smith. He discovered the thing long time
> MK> ago.
>
> MK> Marx deserves no credit whatsoever. He created belief system
> MK> consistent and closed philosophically. Aka religion.
>
>
> I think that I would like to make a general comment here
>about the tenor of your argument. You are very happy to continually
>throw out left right and centre references to Adam Smith, and Milton
>Friedman. There are two major points here. One this kind of reference
>does very little to enhance your argument. Friedman got a nobel prize
>so therefore he must be right? Well no.
Of course not. He just presents very good arguments. I can't
retype his books here, obviously.
>If you want to use Adam Smiths
>arguments go ahead, but present them, dont just refer to them as holy
>script. Also it is clear that Adam Smith, Friedman (and Marx for that
>matter) were placing their own spin on things, that what their
>writings are, are an interpretation of what they see, from their moral
>viewpoint which hey constructed for themselves.
Wrt moral viewpoint: I think everyone sets some for themselves.
However, when it comes to conclusions and dogmatism, then you're doing
pot and kettle. Marx obfuscated whatever he touched. For example,
"profit == exploitation". Nonsense for anybody who bothers to check
and think. Or "classless society". Nice vision of paradise. Or labor
theory of value, i.e. that the labor value is the price minus the
gross profit. By the LTV, the more expensive product contains more
value, so it should be preferred. Yet, customers go for precisely the
opposite thing, maximum utility for minimum of price (thus, they
would logically go for products with _less_ of value). And so on.
> The second point is that you have written a lot about what
>Marx said, and I am starting to think from your constant
>misrepresentation of his works that you have in fact never read any
>Marx.
I've read enough and major points.
>You may disagree with everything that he says, but to say that
>he "created belief system consistent and closed philospically" is
>really such an abrogation of what Marx wrote.
What Marx created is consistent. The more and more impoverished
masses, the more and more concentration of wealth, class warfare, the
inevitable revolution, classless society.
This is consistent, and does not reflect reality out there. There is
more competition within the group than outside it. The doctor competes
with doctor, not with a writer. Class warfare -- moot. The more and
more impoverished masses are ridiculous thing, as never before in
history so many people consumed so much as in capitalism (some charge
it with causing nonsensical consumerism, so it is rather question of
too much, not too little) -- moot. More than 96% of workers works
for small and medium companies (500 workers or less) giving
more than 70% of GDP. Concentration of ownership -- moot. In Russia
1917, there was no revolution but vulgar military putch. Inevitable
revolution -- moot. Most of people whine about egalitarianism,
but when it comes to action, they build hierarchies allright. The
"Princess Di" mania, the penchant for gossips from life of Hollywood,
and so on. The "pecking order" phenomenon is there in every known
human group. Classless society -- moot. On the free market, this is
saleability that counts, not ability to produce. Fixation on means of
production -- moot. Banks are willing to lend money to anybody who has
saleability. Closing capital in few hands -- moot.
Every marxist axiom is moot. Which does not prevent contemporary
marxists cite economic theories from thirties and talk about
inevitable revolution and talk how means of production are
so important, even though evidence out there contradicts
them on every point. Yet, they still _believe_ into it. They
can't allow any axiom fall. For example, if they let 'concentration
of capital' go, they would lose inevitable revolution. If they
let mania on means of production go, it would mean that
this is consumption side that is good for society, and this
one is fulfilled best by capitalism. And so on. Accepting _any_
evidence makes marxism fall. Which is why it is system closed
philosophically -- it does not allow entering any new experience
without falling apart. It can only become rigid, and believed
into.
Thus, it is religion.
> >It has happened. Redistribution of wealth and unionization have
> >prevented the `revolution of the proletariat' envisioned by Marx.
>
> MK> Oh please...
>
> MK> There was no freaking revolution. There was not even the
> MK> potential.
> Which again makes the point. There have been a number of
>revolutions in this and the previous century, although you may argue
>over their character if you wish. If you think there was not even the
>potential then you need to study the history of the luddites,
I don't deny it. I just claim that revolutions inevitably fall.
"Every revolution evaporates and leaves only a slime of new
bureaucracy" -- Franz Kafka.
<snip>
> What Kenneth says (hope Im attributed this to the correct
>person. If not sorry) about unionisation and redestribution, or in a
>nutshell reformism is I think very true.
It is completely false.
Unionisation is a form of cartel. It forces artificially high price of
labor, and restricts ability of business to innovate and adapt to
market conditions. Thus, customers buy at companies that are more
flexible, have no unions, and produce cheaper. Can you spell "shipyard
industry" & "Europe".
>Im not sure on which side I
>fall yet in deciding whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but
>none the less it has managed to temper many of the socially
>disasterous affects that occured during the industrial
>revolution.
By no means!
It is in the _interest_ of union for economy to be FUBR. It has the
power then. The union is no different from the business cartel. The
business cartel likes forcing prices it can on customers (like unions
do on theirs), and those who bankrupt (unemployed wrt unions), are
harmless to them because they can do nothing (unemployed can't
occupy the mine or shipyard).
>From a software point of view (wow relevance to the
>group!) GNU and linux are interesting, in that most people who support
>the idea can be split into either the revolutionairy or reformist
>camps. It seems to me to be a fascinating microcosm of the social
>processes that we have seem in earlier history. Which way will it turn
>out? I dont know.
The regular way. Nihil novi. It will commercialize, customer
will be paid more attention to, "romantics" will protest (like
in 19th century luddites or proponents of rural life protested),
and so on.
Marcin Krol
==================================================
Reality is something that does not disappear after
you cease believing in it - VALIS, Philip K. Dick
==================================================
Delete _spamspamlovelyspam_ from address to email me
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
