Linux-Misc Digest #362, Volume #21 Wed, 11 Aug 99 09:13:22 EDT
Contents:
Re: CIA assassinations (MK)
Re: Beginner problem, please help (Barbara)
Re: Any Support for PCI Modems? (Nicholas Pappas)
Where do i get linux products? (George Clover)
Re: bash question: changing path within script? (Jon Skeet)
complete freeze with RH6 (Chris Milne)
Re: Where do i get linux products? ("Dark Templar")
where to find a dedicated server with rh-6 ?... (Valter)
Re: Any Support for PCI Modems? (Jon Skeet)
xterm: "no available ptys" (Steve Gage)
Re: ASF Player for videos? (Bradley Kite)
Re: CIA assassinations (MK)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: CIA assassinations
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:27:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 17:06:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Anglesio)
wrote:
>>Is the fact that all such schemes are basically ponzi schemes
>>guraanteed to eventually fail also irrelevant?
>Any mutual insurance scheme is a ponzi scheme given sufficiently
>conservative assumptions. However, those aren't necessarily realistic.
Hardly. Mutual insurance companies _invest_. S.s. _redistributes_.
The previous is about putting money into real property: otherwise
insurance and pension funds would not become the biggest
owners in US. See "How pension fund socialism came to
America" by Peter Drucker (IIRC the title).
>>Maybe you talk about planet Xyzzy, but definitely not about planet
>>Earth! On planet Earth, precisely proliferation of bureaucracy and
>>poor and expensive management of health care is what is hallmark of
>>nationalized healthcare.
>Not really. Substantial gains in life expectancy and quality of life are
>very cheap (mandatory vaccination programs, regular access to a general
>practitioner or nurse practitioner) when compared to big
It's true that basic gains are free, only later the costs are
increasing exponentially with next gains. Nevertheless, we
are past the basic phase, now it is about problem of costs
skyrocketing with sophistication.
>For that matter, I don't see why a corporate or private healthcare
>provider wouldn't evolve the same bureaucracy, except at private sector
>rates.
The low limit of effectiveness. The govt does not have it. The company
does: the bottom line.
Show me governmentally managed businesses that get more
effect per dollar spent than private businesses.
>(While public sector blue collar workers can do better than in the
>private sector, the real bulk of money is paid to white-collar employees
>and these do much better in the private than the public sector).
>>Or rather you are talking nonsense -- what does it mean, to "expect it
>>to work on no money whatsoever"? The regular practice
>>seems to be the best option -- buy health insurance from the insurance
>>company, which then covers the bill. So far there's nothing better
>>than this.
>Perhaps you're not well acquainted with the Blue Cross system in the US,
>which you hve just described, but it happens to be the most expensive of
>all possible alternatives.
Suppose govt monopolizes market of cheap and middle class cars. Then,
the only market niche in which it makes sense to do business is the
niche in which companies like Rolls Royce or Ferrari reside. Aren't
cars made by private industry expensive? Should we nationalize private
auto industry?
>HMOs, which provide managed care (in the same
>way that a nationalized system would, merely privately), are the dominant
>health care provider in the US. Centralized management, which you assert
>can't work, seems to be thriving.
That does not have to mean they are the most effective solution _per
buck spent_.
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: Barbara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Beginner problem, please help
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 06:53:56 -0400
On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Nadeem Riaz wrote:
>CAW Local 100 - Rail Division wrote:
>
>> Gee, I wish I had read this a few days ago. I had a problem where I changed
>> a line in the fontpath and when I re-booted my screen was flicking and
>> wouldn't start my KDE desktop. If I had known that I could type in linux 3
>> at the LILO prompt it would have saved me from doing a complete re-install.
>> (that's the only thing I could think of at 3am to get me up and running
>> again). Boy, do I have a lot to learn!!! Thanks for the tip, Barbara
>>
>
>you never have to 'reinstall' in linux. You can always fix your fuckup :].
>Just ask!
>
>-- Nadeem
I suppose I got my re-install conditioning from my windoze experience where I
would have to re-format my hard drive and re-install windoze every 7-10 days.
Thnings were so bad I couldn't even leave my computer on for more than 20 min
before I'd see the blue screen of death. I quickly learned the only way out
was to start all over.
Now that I'm running linux I'm in amazement. If I can only figure out how to
print, I'll be able to finally use my computer. Thanks, Barbara
------------------------------
From: Nicholas Pappas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Any Support for PCI Modems?
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 08:21:49 -0400
Um... I hate to break it to you, but you probably have a WinModem.
PCI is very well supported, as is ISA. They are just two different
interfaces -- if 1 device works, they all work (provided the device is
supported). The type of slot you have it in makes no difference.
If the modem says it requires Windows, it is a good bet you have a
WinModem. I have yet to see a company actually put "WinModem" anywhere on
their box or in their documentation.
The modem probably cost you between 40 and 60 dollars; am I right?
...that means it is a WinModem.
It says it requires Windows, you shouldn't distrust the packaging. A good
modem will not have any markings on it (concerning an OS) what-so-ever.
I am a hard core advocate of external modem (3Com Sportsters, are very
nice). They take up an external Serial, so if you have one this is the
best way to go (in my opinion).
Why? (1) Because you have all the lights to tell you exactly what is
happening in your connection and (2) THEY ARE NOT WINMODEMS! (I don't think
it is possible to make an external WinModem).
Bottom line. You are going to have to pay about $100 for a good 56K
modem. These are the stand-alone HAYS command set modems that will work on
any computer.
Nick
Jeremy wrote:
>
> Hi!
> I Just got a PCI Modem and found out that they are not supported at all
> in Linux. Is there anyone who is looking into that? This is not a
> winmodem (it does not say "winmodem", but it says you need windoze) If
> there is going to be support, I will keep it, if not, I guess I will
> have to get rid of it. If PCI Modems are not supported, what other PCI
> cards are not? controllers, sound, ect.... I was trying to free up a
> ISA slot.
>
> Thanks! Jeremy
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
/*********************************************************************
Nicholas Pappas Hey, life is pretty stupid.
Lucent Technologies With lots of hub-bub to keep you busy,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] But really not amounting to much.
1D-185N - Shakespeare
*********************************************************************/
------------------------------
From: George Clover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,redhat.general
Subject: Where do i get linux products?
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 19:30:41 GMT
Is there a centralized place on the web where i can order Linux related
products (besides LinuxMall.COM)?
I need computers and software that runs on Linux.
================== Posted via CNET Linux Help ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon Skeet)
Subject: Re: bash question: changing path within script?
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 13:07:56 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [comp.os.linux.misc - 3 Aug 1999 07:32:54 GMT] * Gary wrote *
> > One way around this is to source your script, i.e., by preceding its
> > name with a period and a space:
> > . set_path
>
> Note that the POSIX-compatible way is actually:
>
> . ./set_path
Why is there a difference, out of interest? I wouldn't have thought that
the path was involved at all at that stage, so why does the ./ need to be
specified?
--
Jon Skeet - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
------------------------------
From: Chris Milne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: complete freeze with RH6
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1999 17:25:12 -0400
we're running a PII450 (128 MB RAM) as an email & webpage server, as well
as allowing people to use it as an X-terminal (xmgr, mathematica, wp
etc.)
ever since we upgraded to RH6 we've been having very nasty freeze-ups
where the whole machine locks up about once a week. X locks, keyboard &
mouse are ignored, you can't telnet in & other machines that are
nfs-mounting it can no longer access its drives. the only thing that seems
to be common to all the lockups is someone is logged into X when it
happens, what's being run under X always appears different (different
apps, different windowmanagers, same freeze).
the machine has a complete RH6 install (kernel-2.2.5-22) with all the
updates & is running a number of services. its X-server is the Mach64 ATi
server (3.3.3.1-52) running on a Rage Pro (8MB). there appears to be no
common time for the freezes & nothing shows up in /var/log/messages. i'm
at a complete loss as to why the machine keeps crashing & i'm hoping
someone else has seen this behaviour with a similar system & solved it :)
- or at least figured out what the cause is. the only other symptom is
that on reboot the sequence stops at checking the harddrive & makes you
exit & run fsck manually.
any help or suggestions are appreciated, linux crashing is bad and ugly.
chris
University of Toronto, Canada
Office : MP096
Phone : (416) 978-0353
------------------------------
From: "Dark Templar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,redhat.general
Subject: Re: Where do i get linux products?
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 08:25:42 -0700
www.cheapbytes.com and www.lsl.com (linux systems online) offer all flavors
of lnx for $5 to $10 per cdr.
George Clover wrote in message ...
>Is there a centralized place on the web where i can order Linux related
>products (besides LinuxMall.COM)?
>I need computers and software that runs on Linux.
>
>------------------ Posted via CNET Linux Help ------------------
> http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: Valter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: where to find a dedicated server with rh-6 ?...
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:30:45 GMT
we need a sililar machine: PIII 500, 256Mb, 4.5 SCSI,Tape,
2Gb/Month with good price (less than 450$/month) , best if lease to buy
Thank you for your answers!
relpy to [EMAIL PROTECTED] also please!
================== Posted via CNET Linux Help ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon Skeet)
Subject: Re: Any Support for PCI Modems?
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 13:53:41 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi!
> I Just got a PCI Modem and found out that they are not supported at all
> in Linux. Is there anyone who is looking into that? This is not a
> winmodem (it does not say "winmodem", but it says you need windoze) If
> there is going to be support, I will keep it, if not, I guess I will
> have to get rid of it.
Winmodem isn't an official term - it's not the kind of thing you'll see
on a box. Suffice to say, the chances are very high that it *is* a
winmodem.
> If PCI Modems are not supported, what other PCI cards are not?
> controllers, sound, ect....
Plenty of PCI cards are supported, especially video cards and disk
controllers I believe. The reason winmodems aren't supported is nothing
to do with them being PCI, it's to do with what they actually *do*. In
fact, they don't do an awful lot - I believe they pretty much just squirt
sound down a phone line and receive it for you. The DSP stuff is done in
software, which is a bad thing in two ways: it takes up CPU time when
it's working in Windows, and it means it won't work under Linux because
the manufacturers don't release specs to interact with it.
--
Jon Skeet - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet/
------------------------------
From: Steve Gage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: xterm: "no available ptys"
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:05:13 GMT
Hello gang,
I finally cleanly installed RH 6.0 after getting tired of trying to
morph 5.1 any further :-) Alas, in X I can't get an xterm. Upon leaving
X, I can see the message:
"xterm: no available ptys"
Anyone know how to fix this?
TIA,
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 13:22:19 +0100
From: Bradley Kite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: ASF Player for videos?
Any chance you can let me know if you manage to find one? I've been passivley
looking for one for a while.
Thanks
--
Brad
Stewart Honsberger wrote:
>
> I'm looking for an ASF player for Linux, BSD, or OS/2. Open Source or atleast
> freeware preferred - but I'll take non-crippled Shareware (and pay for it
> if it works).
>
> Currently, the only player that works is the Microsoft Media Player, but
> even on a P233 with 64 megs of RAM it's shaky at best - and won't play some
> videos at all.
>
> I've found a couple that will play the audio of these ASF files, but not
> video.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> --
> Stewart Honsberger (AKA Blackdeath) @ http://sprk.com/blackdeath/
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Remove 'thirteen' to reply privately)
> Humming along under SuSE Linux 6.0 / OS/2 Warp 4
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: CIA assassinations
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 12:42:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10 Aug 1999 18:00:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Willett
LADS LDN X7563) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK) writes:
>>On 10 Aug 1999 13:49:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kulisz)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The advantage of a nationalized health care system is the elimination
>>>of bureaucracy, elimination of competition and redundancy, elimination
>>>of much profiteering by corporations, doctors and hospitals.
>>
>>ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL
>>
>>Maybe you talk about planet Xyzzy, but definitely not about planet
>>Earth! On planet Earth, precisely proliferation of bureaucracy and
>>poor and expensive management of health care is what is hallmark of
>>nationalized healthcare.
>
>I think I must reply to this. I know a fair bit about the UK health
>system and whilst it has problems (who's doesn't). It does NOT
>suffer from the beaurocracy that occurs in countries that have
>a private health system, especially the US.
Because it suffers of freaking financial problems (I've been in
one UK hospital to escort some guy with serious health problem, the
hospital was charging for the parking because otherwise
it would bankrupt). Well, yes, starve it from money, bureaucracy will
be reduced somewhat.
>The amount the tax payer spends on health in the Uk is about a quarter
>of that spent in the US. Whilst it is true that the US pay for a higher
>level of health that the UK they do not get four times the level
>than in the UK.
The problem is, costs in healthcare grow exponentially with
sophistication. In 19th century, hospital staff consisted of
doctor and a few nurses per 100 patients. Nowadays, due to numbers
of various specialists and even more sophisticated and expensive
treatments, the number of staff per 100 patients exceeds a hundred
(source: "Managing in chaotic times", Peter Drucker). Not to
mention ultraexpensive drugs and machines, etc. I am not
sure if US can be compared to healthcare in other countries -- US
seems to be one big lab for developing new, initially horribly
expensive treatments and drugs.
It's kind of like in Formula One racing -- it's horribly expensive,
because the solutions are always behind the most popular state of art.
With time, solutions migrate to popular use, but the frontier is
disproportionately more expensive anyway.
>It appears that you have got hooked on your own belief of everything
>run by a govt must be bureauocratic this isn't always the case.
It's not belief, it's conclusion. I am skeptic and as such I try to
avoid beliefs.
>There
>are other problems which you would do better highlight if you considered
>your arguments for carefully.
Here you are right: sometimes I form my arguments not very well
because of relative lack of time to spend too much on Usenet.
>>>This is
>>>why a nationalized scheme *MUST* be cheaper.
>>
>>Your "must be" is basically because you say so. The problem is,
>>it plain is not that way. Try UK, France, most of Europe, basically
>>any country with nationalized healthcare. Same problem.
>
>Whilst a nationalised scheme isn't always cheaper it is in the UK.
>(However, the figures are hard to analyse).
>
>>>And that's why it is.
>>
>>It is not.
>
>>
>>>And where the hell is "everywhere"? The UK, US, Canada, Australia
>>>and New Zealand? All the fucked up right-wing anglo-american nations!!
>>
>>And whole Europe. And Russia. And CE. Basically, the whole civilized
>>world. There are problems with it all the time. It just can't work.
>>Centralized management is passe. It plain does not work.
>
>Now you raise a completely different pointi. Most right-wingers
>equate nationalisation with centralised management. This is plain
>wrong! (Most companies including sucessful ones are centralised).
>Curiously this is where I might have an agreement with you coz I
>also think that nationalisation and centralisation leads problems.
Run _anything_ but on nationalisation and centralisation. In 19th
century, "friendly societies" were developed to insure workers
against accidents at workplace. This was probably the most
efficient, giving most bang-per-buck system ever devised. Great.
I am not telling everything has to be run by Big Corp. I am
only telling that anything run by Big Govt has to be worse in in long
run.
>However, solutions might be found by de-centralising.
>Think about a de-centralised, nationalised system.
Funded exactly how? If it is funded off taxes, there is no low limit
of effectiveness in it. Sure, you can find a few good examples here
and there: but they are most likely result of exceptionally good will.
I don't know about you, but I would not like my healh be dependent on
whether exceptionally good will is there; I'd prefer doctors and
system being motivated by enlightened self interest.
>Or think of a franchiased health system.
>
>Or think of a mutualised health system.
>
>Life isn't black and white!!
Sure there is multitude of solutions. The problem is,
people according to don Morgan's rule, politically
tend to behave reasonably after they exhausted all
other alternatives.
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
******************************
