Linux-Misc Digest #308, Volume #21 Fri, 6 Aug 99 10:13:13 EDT
Contents:
Re: HPLJ4 Postscript printing resolution 300 vs 600dpi (Jon Bloom)
Re: How to download Linux? (Rod Smith)
Re: CIA assassinations (MK)
Re: Learning the ways of the Penguin (Martin A. Boegelund)
kernel paging problem (Eric Villemonte de la Clergerie)
Non-root access to mounted NTFS (Ciprian Toader)
Re: All to change my hostname!! :-) (John Hasler)
Re: CIA assassinations (MK)
Re: Maximal Number of Concurent Process ("Sascha Bohnenkamp")
Re: CIA assassinations (MK)
Re: brain teaser (coffee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jon Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: HPLJ4 Postscript printing resolution 300 vs 600dpi
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 07:53:53 -0400
Christopher Wong wrote:
>
> I am not too happy with the quality of Postscript output generated by
> Linux apps. I am sending output to a HP LaserJet 4M+, a 600dpi
> Postscript printer. Many apps generate Postscript output: Netscape,
> Applixware, dvips, KDE stuff (kmail, kfm) etc. Unfortunately, the output
> from the printer is underwhelming. It looks like the printer is
> receiving Postscript and printing at 300dpi. The printer's resolution
> enhancement is helping somewhat, but the output is still quite inferior
> to Windows with HP's Postscript drivers.
How is the Postscript being sent to the printer? Some Linux distros
include print filters that can convert Postscript to the native printer
language as needed, and if one of those is installed you may get the
effects you're seeing. For example, if in setting up the system you
specified that the printer was a LaserJet 4 (non-Postscript), any
Postscript sent to the printing system is likely to be converted before
being sent to the printer.
Jon
--
Jon Bloom, KE3Z
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Electronic Publications Manager (Software, CD-ROMs and Web site)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Smith)
Subject: Re: How to download Linux?
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 12:36:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Posted and mailed]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ted R Shoemaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm new at this and have a couple of questions...
>
> 1. Somebody referred me to a website from which I can download linux.
> I checked there, and the download is around 500 megs. That's not
> realistic for me. Please tell me that most of that 500 megs is
> "application", and only 20 megs or so is true "linux OS". If so,
> how/where can I get the 20 megs of "true linux"?
Most Linux distributions include scads of stuff you won't need, but with
most it's difficult to separate out what you do and don't need. Slackware
used to let you do this easily, but I don't know if that's still true.
> 2. Right now I'm running Windows 98. If I download linux onto my
> windows-formatted HDD, how can I then use the linux? Or, in the
> alternative, how can I format a HDD for linux ... *before* I have linux?
That depends on the distribution. Some can install in the same partition
as Windows, but that's not the preferred method. The best way is to
either install Linux on a physically separate hard disk or repartition
your disk so that you've got room for both Linux and Windows. (This
assumes you intend to keep Windows. If you want to ditch Windows
entirely, you can just axe it all from Linux's partitioning tools when you
do the installation.)
I realize I haven't answered this second question. Given your first
question and the basic nature of the second, I am instead going to suggest
you go to a book store and get yourself a basic Linux book. Get one that
has complete installation instructions and a CD that includes Linux. Take
a few minutes to skim through the installation sections of two or three
books, and pick whichever one makes the most sense to you. You won't get
the very latest version of Linux this way, but you'll have instructions
and be able to learn. Once you've learned, you can install something more
recent.
--
Rod Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.channel1.com/users/rodsmith
NOTE: Remove the "uce" word from my address to mail me
Author of _Special Edition Using Corel WordPerfect 8 for Linux_, from Que
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: CIA assassinations
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 12:36:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 04 Aug 1999 16:53:00 +0100, Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
>>>>>> "MK" == MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> MK> The even "rosier" picture wrt healthcare is in UK. You might
> MK> check its status and problems. Or problems that French system
> MK> has. And so on.
>
>
> The problems with the national health service in the UK
>result form the last few governments deliberately screwing it up,
I knew there's conspiracy theory somewhere around here.
> and
>starving it of resources, because it offended their callow beliefs in
>the free market.
Who says that anything gets resources because it just "deserves"
them? That's paying for _needs_, not _effects_. Hint: if you pay for
something, you get more of it. The system worked as long as
there were more people paying for it than people who used it.
S.s., healthcare and other nationalized enteprises basically are a
ponzi scheme. Eventually, it _has_ to fail. We're seeing it now.
>They are now busy doing the same damn thing to the
>education system.
I'd attribute that rather to the fact that it _can't_ work
as expected in the long run.
> This goes beyond a shame, its a national disgrace.
There's nothing to be ashamed about really; if it were just
British, you could say things like that. But this kind of "solution"
fails _everywhere_. It just can't work. Not in UK, nor anywhere
else really.
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: Martin A. Boegelund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Learning the ways of the Penguin
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 12:32:03 GMT
In article <RWUp3.10915$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Scott Fleming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Checked the man pages, and searched on the web, and HOWTO's, but
didn't find
> what I was looking for, so I'm posting my questions here.
[snip]
> 2. Is there a CHMOD 'HOWTO' ? Is there a page/site that someone can
point me
> to that explains more information about the CHMOD and perhaps CHOWN
> commands?
Since you've already tried the man pages, I'll advice you to grab a
good oldfashioned, analog book on UNIX (from the library or whatever?).
They'll probably tell you the basics of chmod, chown and a bunch of
other great UNIX commands (I love "grep"!).
"A practical guide to the UNIX system" has OK explanations (You
shouldn't buy this one, though, since the writer has made "A practical
guide to the Linux system" with essentialy the same info, just for
Linux.
A lot of other Linux/UNIX books might also help.
The reason why I advice you to go for UNIX-books instead of Linux, is
that around here (in DK) every Linux book in the Library is
unavailable, but old UNIX books are easy to get.
--
==================
Mr Sparkle - Aka Martin A. Boegelund
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Eric Villemonte de la Clergerie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: kernel paging problem
Date: 06 Aug 1999 14:42:31 +0200
I keep having 'kernel paging' problems on a laptop under Linux. In
most cases, kswapd becomes zombie and I have to reboot the machine.
The typical /var/log/message is
Aug 4 16:48:08 vagabond kernel: Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual
address d066da15
Aug 4 16:48:08 vagabond kernel: current->tss.cr3 = 00101000, pr3 = 00101000
Aug 4 16:48:08 vagabond kernel: *pde = 00000000
Aug 4 16:48:08 vagabond kernel: Oops: 0000
Aug 4 16:48:08 vagabond kernel: CPU: 0
Aug 4 16:48:08 vagabond kernel: EIP: 0010:[shrink_mmap+116/520]
Aug 4 16:48:08 vagabond kernel: EFLAGS: 00010202
Aug 4 16:48:08 vagabond kernel: eax: 1066da01 ebx: 0027fce0 ecx: 00000005 edx:
1066da01
Aug 4 16:48:08 vagabond kernel: esi: 00000786 edi: 00003f6f ebp: 00007ff0 esp:
00099fa4
Aug 4 16:48:08 vagabond kernel: ds: 0018 es: 0018 fs: 0018 gs: 0018 ss: 0018
Aug 4 16:48:08 vagabond kernel: Process kswapd (pid: 3, process nr: 3,
stackpage=00099000)
Aug 4 16:48:08 vagabond kernel: Stack: 00000005 00000001 00000003 00000000 00000000
1066da01
001205f5 00000005
Aug 4 16:48:08 vagabond kernel: 00000000 00000001 00000004 003ddfdc 00000000
00009000
00120805 00000003
Aug 4 16:48:08 vagabond kernel: 00000000 00000000 00000100 001097d6 00000000
001206c8
001d9dfc
Aug 4 16:48:08 vagabond kernel: Call Trace: [try_to_free_page+81/184]
[kswapd+317/332] [init+70/864]
[kswapd+0/332]
Aug 4 16:48:08 vagabond kernel: Code: f6 42 14 10 74 0e 0f ba 72 14 04 19 c0 0f ba 6b
18 02 19 c0
kswapd is not the only process to suffer this problem. In all cases, I
get the same information about shrink_mmap+116/520,
try_to_free_page+81/184 and Code.
I am running Redhat 5.2 Linux 2.0.36-1 on a Dell CPi 366 XT with 128 Mo of RAM.
Any help or information will be most welcome !
Thanks,
Eric de la Clergerie
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Projet Atoll - INRIA Rocquencourt
WWW Home Page: http://atoll.inria.fr/~clerger
------------------------------
From: Ciprian Toader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Non-root access to mounted NTFS
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 00:39:30 +1200
Hi,
For some reason I cannot setup the mount point of my ntfs partition to
be readable by non-root users. This is obviously annoying and makes no
sense since all I want is "rx" access for normal users. I tried changing
permissions before mounting but they always revert back to "r-x------".
The owner of the directory will also revert back to root after
mounting. Allowing non-root users to mount this partition will not
change this behaviour. Any ideas?
I compiled ntfs kernel module for read-only access. Is the write-enabled
ntfs module dangerous? Would it fix the above problem.
Thanks
Ciprian
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: All to change my hostname!! :-)
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 03:54:00 GMT
sam writes:
> i solved them by adding an entry for my host to /etc/hosts and to
> /etc/sysconfig/network
/etc/sysconfig/network is unique to Red Hat (fortunately).
> the hostname should only need to be set once in one place as in NT.
Which hostname? A Linux machine can have more than one.
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: CIA assassinations
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 13:17:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 04 Aug 1999 21:09:19 -0700, Michael Powe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MK> <snip>
> >> Finally, the major reason for American companies to move
> >> offshore is not direct profits from sales, it's tax savings.
>
> MK> No, the cost cutting. You can't sell for a price higher than
> MK> the marginal utility set independently by customer is. Thus,
> MK> the only way is to cut costs.
>
>No, you don't know what you're talking about. It's certainly not the
>"only way" to cut costs.
Sigh. Try talking to some economist, if you don't believe me. Don't
take my word for it.
The thing is simple really: you _can't_ sell something the price
of which exceeds marginal utility defined subjectively by
that person. With exception of monopoly, of course.
IOW, if they don't cut costs, they don't sell. If additionally have
very high expenses, and some other company can deliver
competitive service for lower price, the ones not cutting
costs die because of red ink. What's the problem?
> In many cases, for US companies anyway, the
>decision to move overseas is based on two factors: getting tax breaks
>from the US gov't; and getting to use the pension funds once earmarked
>for their now "former" employees.
Weaseling.
>There just was a scandal recently in Britain about corporations giving
>huge pay increases to their top executives -- while the companies
>themselves are either losing money or barely breaking even.
What's the fuss about? Such companies would most likely sink. Unless
they are monopolies, other, leaner and meaner businesses will replace
them. Let them pay as much as they want to anybody who works there. It
does not matter a zilch if they pay it to floor sweepers working
there or CEO. If they do not give comparatively best service to
customer, they sink. What's the problem?
>Business
>as usual in the capitalist world.
You're plain control freak. I'm not. Short of using violence, let
anybody do business any way they want. That's the best option.
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: "Sascha Bohnenkamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: ch.comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,de.comp.os.unix.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Maximal Number of Concurent Process
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 15:28:22 +0200
>> where can I define the maximal number of concurent processes on a linux
>> system?
>
>To my knowledge, this is a kernel compile-time parameter (MAX_PROC or
>MAX_TASK), but I can't tell you where.
/usrs/src/include/linux/tasks.h
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: CIA assassinations
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 13:08:55 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 04 Aug 1999 21:01:08 -0700, Michael Powe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MK> And I don't enjoy listening to whining of govt advocates why
> MK> they "should" get more money from individuals. I claim they
> MK> should not.
>Which has actually not been argued, so you're constructing a straw man
>just to have something to argue against.
Well? So if the money belongs to individual, not the govt, why do you
whine people complain about taxes? They have every right to complain
about that. This is you who takes unreasonable stance.
> MK> Let the govt not spend too much, do with what they have and
> MK> keep their hands off individual. They'll have easy time of it.
>I'm all in favor of the gov't spending within its limits.
That means reducing expenses and taxes accordingly from 50% of GDP
in most countries to 10-15% of GDP.
<snip>
> MK> Stupid non sequitur. I meant precisely the govt making sure
> MK> not being able to use violence. That's the job of
> MK> govt. Nothing more, nothing less.
>Sure. You should check into your history a bit more closely. There
>never has been and never will be a gov't on those grounds. There are
>only two options -- either the gov't protects the people from the
>business or it protects the business from the people.
What a nonsense. Yeah, the government here "protected" us from
making business so well that we are all a lot poorer.
>In the USA, we
>have the latter -- the gov't protects the business.
OK: then I want to get into that "slavery". I will swap with you.
Here, the govt "protects" workers. By taxing everything it can
tax. It's for the good of the people. And for protection against
business. You'd be so happy in Europe (not).
> >> AND, of course, since your ideal gov't will only be accountable
> >> to businesses, and NOT to individuals, any protection we might
> >> have from direct violence will not be tolerated.
>
> MK> Yeah, and the moon is made of green cheese. Where you took
> MK> that "govt will be accountable to businesses idea".
>I studied history and especially, American history. Try it.
> MK> The interest conflict is not "the people vs. businesses". The
> MK> conflict is "people & businesses vs. government".
>
>Businesses are enemies of the people.
ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL
Try the Soviet system -- there was no business whatsoever there.
>The business of the business is
>to take my money and give me as little as possible in return.
Well, no shit.
Wait a minute: doesn't customer try to do precisely the same? They
strike a deal somewhere in between, and they do business?
That's horrible! This can't be allowed!
>That's
>all. That's it. The gov't, in a modern democracy, protects me from
>businesses -- who otherwise function with no decency and no sense of
>honor.
Try North Korea. They _really_ protect people from businesses there.
There are no businesses whatsoever there. Not allowed.
When are you leaving to NK?
>The old joke applies -- `How do you tell if a businessman is
>lying?' `His lips are moving.'
And how do you tell the lips of politician, lawyer, and so on and on.
>Businesses will, if not regulated by gov't, lie to customer &
>employee, cheat them, poison the ground, air and water, and all the
>people who depend on them.
That's why people in North Korea eat grass. So ecologically. You
should eat grass, too!
>Your problem is that you have no
>understanding of what life was like when business was not regulated by
>gov't.
Your problem is that you have no idea about my experiences.
When I lived, then the only business one could do was _precisely_
not regulated by govt. The black market.
>There are many accounts of that life -- when dying on the job
>was considered normal, when shipping spoiled or dangerous products was
>considered acceptable and getting poisoned or killed by them was
>considered just part of life. You should read up on the matter a bit
>more.
Thus, they developed 'friendly societies', insurance companies and
so on, and gradually the safery there improved. But it was not
thanks to govt, as every organization, including but not limited
to govt, minds its own gains and profits first and foremost, but
rather to interest of those people and reparations that business
would have to pay.
>Even recently, there have been articles about how badly employees are
>treated in so-called high-tech businesses.
>Sure, they offer lots of
>money and seeming benefits -- for 100-hour work weeks and sacrificing
>the family.
Nobody puts them under the gun to do that. They are perfectly able
to find a 35hr/week job. That's an option for those who want to take
it. Why not? I don't think anybody is in position to say to another
person "Thou shalt not work 100 hours a week". I don't work
100 hours, but I do work 60-70 hours a week. That's my choice.
>In the USA, contrary to the rest of the western world,
>the work week is increasing.
Which is not strange, given the good shape of US
economy and poor shape of other economies.
> MK> <snip>
> >> >> Right, the old "give businesses a bigger tax break or
> >> they'll >> raise their prices" blackmail.
>
> MK> It's not blackmail, naiviete, it's 5% annual operating profit
> MK> in most of businesses. From their POV the tax is _simply_ a
> MK> cost: money flows out of company. And what do you do with
> MK> costs in company, Sherlock?
>
> >> Well, economic genius, you explain why the tax burden on
> >> business in this country has dropped 50% from its level in the
> >> 1950s -- and the 1950s were a period of major economic growth.
>
> MK> Because after the WWII war expenses customers were starved for
> MK> consumption. Whatever produced, however shoddy, got sold.
> MK> Nowadays, markets are saturated.
>A non sequitur.
How so? Do you deny that during WWII American economy has had
immense military expenses? Do you deny that after years of sacrifices
for war effort customers tend to be hungry? How is that non-sequitur?
>Just for an example, AOL has TENS of BILLIONS of
>dollars to spend on acquiring other companies, but not enough dollars
>to give its employees raises
Jump to fifty years later, as if the context was not imminent post
_WWII_ boom.
> >> Yet, even after this tremendous shift of the tax burden from
> >> business to individual, you're still telling us that business
> >> needs MORE tax relief -- yes, let's just altogether do away
> >> with taxing any kind of business income.
> MK> You just believe naively that businesses do away with that
> MK> income. If they could, they would raise prices to infinity
> MK> with or without taxes. It's the competition that keeps the
> MK> prices down. Lower taxes and redistribution, you'll get
> MK> benefits for CUSTOMER, not for the business.
>See above. Since businesses are having such a hard time, how is it
>they're able to give their millionaire executive officers huge pay
>rises while cutting benefits and pay packets for the employees at the
>bottom of the pile?
First, I'd have to see some solid data on it. Second, if you like
"alternative" economy approaches, why don't you check results? Like:
<http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/country.html>
United States $30,200
Norway $27,400
Japan $24,500
Switzerland $23,800
Denmark $23,200
Netherlands $22,000
Canada $21,700
Germany $20,800
Finland $20,000
Sweden $19,700
>And that same business is meanwhile spending
>billions buying other companies.
While the typical gross profit is about 5% in most of businesses.
Which means that if company produces 105 cars, it can
keep as much money as the price of 5 cars is for itself. Hardly
a ripoff. Vast majority of benefit gets passed on customer.
IOW, from every dollar a person earns and spends, the
companies have about 5 cents. Meanwhile, given the ~50%
GDP redistribution rate, the govt takes about fifty cents
from a dollar earned by anybody? Who's making the ripoff?!
<snip>
> >> while you obsess on how money is the most important thing in
> >> life.
> MK> Nope. This is in capitalism where _purchasing power_ of hour
> MK> of work is greater, so people do not have to work so much in
> MK> order to get the same thing. This is in socialism where you
> MK> have to work and work and work only just to make ends meet.
>You're living in the past because it doesn't impinge on your present.
>You don't have to live in this "wonderful world" where you pay
>all your health benefits,
ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL
Then who's paying it?! The Santa Claus?!
Of course I do pay it! I pay through my nose, 47.5% of my take
home pay before taxes! I can only pay _more_ through govt
or less through insurance company! I'd _love_ to pay through
insurance company, but guess what -- the govt does not
allow me to take that 47.5% of my wage for that purpose and
piss on governmental 'service'! The company can't put me
under gun and force to buy their insurance, the govt can
force me to "buy" govt's insurance and it does!
>where there's no unemployment benefit unless
>you make enough money to buy your own, and where people who can't pay
>simply die; and where businesses can do anything they want because you
>have a confused idea that somehow regulation of business is wrong.
If regulation of business is what you think what is "right", then why
don't you try living in Europe? You'd see what I mean!
>I say, NO. Businessmen had their chances for more than 150 years --
>and proved that they were incapable of behaving with decency and
>respect for either their workers or the customers. "The business of
>business is business" as the saying goes. Therefore, it's up to the
>people to look out for their own welfare by empowering the gov't to
>act on their behalf.
That's one of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard.
You mean -- the people are sheep. They can't possibly be free
and live without govt looking after them. Because that
individual is plain stupid and incapable. The wisest thing
an individual can do is to vote for govt which will do the
"right thing".
You make me puke.
>A part of that empowerment includes levying taxes.
OK: why don't you empower yourself by paying 100% of your
wage to IRS? You'll be _so_ empowered!
>The main reason
>taxes are such a hot issue in the US is precisely because so much of
>the money collected by the gov't goes right back out to huge
>multi-billion dollar corporations.
If you mean 'corporate welfare', than this is just as wrong as any
other intervention into market. It is stupid move to make. Waste.
Let businesses do or die on their own. If they serve _customer_
>Who obviously don't need tax
>breaks, despite your claims to the contrary.
No! Despite your max lame misunderstanding that if you
tax the company, they will plain pass it on the customer
in most of cases!
>In the USA, businesses
>buy and sell the gov't like stocks on Wall Street.
Or rather the debt that govt creates.
>That's the real
>problem -- we have no way to restrict the access of the well-heeled
>businessmen from the halls of power. As a result, they own them.
If businessmen wanted power, they'd become politicians. Your
claim is basically a mysthical one.
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: coffee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: brain teaser
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 20:48:25 -0400
Jeff Trisoliere wrote:
>
> What is the most commonly used MS-DOS command? Hint it's still used in
> Windows NT and does not work at the Netware server console. Hint 2: This
> command is also available in Linux, the command does a different
> function in NT as it does in DOS or Linux and this command can be
> disabled in Linux.
cd?
Hummm........
--
Newbie Problems? Visit www.indy.net/~coffee for help
coffee at indy dot net * ICQ 1614986
Kokomo, Indiana, USA
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
