Linux-Misc Digest #511, Volume #21 Sun, 22 Aug 99 23:13:08 EDT
Contents:
BIOS upgrade needs DOS(??) (Neil Zanella)
Re: Printing from Netscape (Yury Donskoy)
changing hostnames (Anup Rao)
Re: ICQ?? (Mark Post)
Re: help needed: Windows 98 and Linux coexistence (Leonard Evens)
Re: Latest Kernel... WHERE? (Paul Kimoto)
Re: BIOS upgrade needs DOS(??) ("Donald E. Stidwell")
Re: How to customize menus in Gnome or KDE? (Carl Fink)
Re: ICQ?? (Robert McGwier)
Re: Which distribution to use? (Richard Steiner)
Re: Can I switch from OS/2 to Linux and be happy? (Richard Steiner)
postgreSQL (Peter Rodriguez)
Web Page Authoring Tools ("Suddn")
manpath is all screwed up (Craig Stewart)
Re: BIOS upgrade needs DOS(??) (Mircea)
Re: BIOS upgrade needs DOS(??) (Vilmos Soti)
Re: BIOS upgrade needs DOS(??) ("Charles Sullivan")
Re: Alert: AMD K6-2 350 Mhz processor (cedric)
SIS 620 Finally Works In High Resolution, just had to go to their website for the
linux drivers, duh :) ("Allix")
Re: Who describes linux.. (brian moore)
Re: WTF is the difference between Linux and FreeBSD??? (William Burrow)
Re: manpath is all screwed up ("Charles Sullivan")
Re: win95 partition ownership? ("Charles Sullivan")
Re: BIOS upgrade needs DOS(??) (Neil Zanella)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Neil Zanella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: BIOS upgrade needs DOS(??)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:45:28 -0230
Hello,
I am running Linux on /dev/hda1 (the whole hard drive).
I would like to install a larger hard drive but since my BIOS does not
support drives larger than 1GB this requires a BIOS update. The BIOS
update consists of running a DOS application. Can I run such an application
from Linux (perhaps from a DOS emulator of some sort) or do I really need
to install DOS on my hard drive first (when I am just about to remove it??).
Thanks,
Neil Zanella
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 20:02:59 -0400
From: Yury Donskoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Printing from Netscape
Jared Hecker wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have an HPLJ 5P attached to a RH5.2 system. It prints text great, but
> Netscape wants to print in Postscript. Is there a translator utility or
> something I can do to get it to print in PCL?
Jared,
I ran into the exactly the same problem, only with a Canon-4100 inkjet. My
solution was to allow Netscape to print in Postscript to a file, then run
that file through GhostView and print it out. A little cumbersome, perhaps,
but it does get the job done.
Hope this helps.
Yury.
------------------------------
From: Anup Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: changing hostnames
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 20:30:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm runnign redhat..
I'd like to know how I can change the my hostname to something I like.
I can use 'hostname', but the effects don't last past boot time.
Thanks..
_________________________________________________________________________
Anup Rao | Georgia Tech | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
=========================================================================
"Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." -Lily Tomlin |
=========================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Post)
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: ICQ??
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 01:35:49 GMT
Umm, no. What Roger was referring to was the fact that if you put a fully
formed URL in a posting, Netscape will allow you to click on that in the
body of the message, and take you to that URL. You're talking about being
able to type into the 'location' field a URL without the leading http://...
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 01:06:45 GMT, Robert McGwier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Roger:
>Click on Edit->Preferences->Navigator->Smart Browsing and click the radio
>button for SMART
>BROWSING. YOU chose for netscape not to add http://
-snip-
>Roger wrote:
>> James Bradley wrote:
-snip-
>> I just wish everyone would include the http:// because Netscape doesn't
>> identify them as URLs otherwise.
To send me email, replace 'nospam' with 'home'.
------------------------------
From: Leonard Evens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: help needed: Windows 98 and Linux coexistence
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:50:30 -0500
OIT News Server wrote:
>
> Hello...
>
> I have a problem which can be characterized as "Windows recognizing the
> disk-space dedicated to Linux use and attempting to reformat that space...".
> To make the short-story long: here are the details:
>
> I just installed LINUX [RedHat 6.2]
Do you mean 6.0?
> on a new DELL machine where the original
> OS is MS Windows 98. I have an extra, empty hard-drive [8GB] for LINUX; but
> I have kept a small partition on this extra hard-drive in accessible to
> Windows 98 in MS-DOS FAT36 format. [i.e. the "extra" hard-drive has a
> "Windows" partition which is formatted to use 25% of the hard-drive, whereas
> the rest is left unpartitioned and unformatted for LINUX use]. Before I
> installed LINUX, Windows 98 would not "see" the rest of this hardrive [about
> 6 GB].
>
> Nevertheles, now, that I have installed LINUX [Red-Hat 6.2] on this machine;
> once I give LILO the option of starting DOS; Windows 98 would start
> screaming about being impropertly shut down previously and running SCANDISK
> on the Linux Partion. After completion of the Scandisk - I noticed that the
> LINUX parition had become visible to Windows 98 and the MS OS would come up
> with
> suggestions to reformat this "unsed" space...
>
> I would greatly appreciate any hints as to getting rid of this problem and
> making the LINUX partition invisible to Windows again...
>
> Many thanks in advance!
>
> Kristaps
>
> --
> Kristaps Licis
> Finance PhD Student - Isenberg School of Management
> Research Associate - CISDM
> University of Massachusetts
> Amherst, MA 01003
> tel. (413) 545-3180; fax. (413) 577-1350
I have configured several machines with Win 98 and Linux, including
at least one with two disks and both Windows and Linux partitions
on the second disk. The last machine I configured as a dual
W98/Linux machine (with one disk) was a Dell Inspiron done last
week. I've never seen what you report.
It is possible some new version of Win 98 is doing something
funny, but I suspect it may be something funny about your partitioning.
Though what it is I can't imagine. Can you let me/us know
what
fdisk -l
There was also a report that the latest Win 98 upgrade tries
to reformat Linux partitions, but I've been assured that one
can avoid that. It would be nice to track down exactly what
is going on.
shows?
--
Leonard Evens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Kimoto)
Subject: Re: Latest Kernel... WHERE?
Date: 22 Aug 1999 21:44:02 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sir Esteban Patricio wrote:
> Where do I find the latest STABLE kernel???
ftp.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel
^^ [substitute the appropriate country code]
> Also, what is the latest version number??? I have 2.2.5-15....
2.2.11. You can easily find this out by running
"finger @linux.kernel.org".
--
Paul Kimoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Donald E. Stidwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BIOS upgrade needs DOS(??)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 01:43:55 GMT
Neil Zanella wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am running Linux on /dev/hda1 (the whole hard drive).
>
> I would like to install a larger hard drive but since my BIOS does not
>
> support drives larger than 1GB this requires a BIOS update. The BIOS
>
> update consists of running a DOS application. Can I run such an application
>
> from Linux (perhaps from a DOS emulator of some sort) or do I really need
>
> to install DOS on my hard drive first (when I am just about to remove it??).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Neil Zanella
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Every BIOS flash utility I've ever seen will fit on a bootable DOS
floppy with no problem. Read the instructions that come with the BIOS
file. I'd just about bet it will fit on a floppy and all you have to do
is make a DOS boot disk (any flavour) and put the relevant flash
files/utility on it.
Don
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl Fink)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: How to customize menus in Gnome or KDE?
Date: 23 Aug 1999 00:52:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 12:47:44 -0500 K. Eggleston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Adding, removing, organizing applications in the Windows Start Menu is
>easy. From what I gather, however, Gnome and KDE work nothing like this.
>How does one work with the application menus in these to set them up how
>they want?
Well, in KDE you right-click on the "K" menu and choose "Properties".
--
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy."
-Martin Luther on Copernicus' theory that the Earth orbits the sun
------------------------------
From: Robert McGwier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: ICQ??
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 01:06:45 GMT
Roger:
Click on Edit->Preferences->Navigator->Smart Browsing and click the radio
button for SMART
BROWSING. YOU chose for netscape not to add http://
Bob
Roger wrote:
> James Bradley wrote:
>
> > Check out <A HREF="http://www.portup.com/~gyandl/icq/">the Linux
> > ICQ Page</A> for a comprehensive listing of Linux ICQ clients.
>
> You don't need to put tags around URLs in e-mail, but the thought was
> nice :-)
>
> I just wish everyone would include the http:// because Netscape doesn't
> identify them as URLs otherwise.
> --
> Roger
>
> Web: http://freespace.virgin.net/roger.cantwell
> ICQ: 40038278
> *** Please remove "removethis." from the reply address ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.setup,linux.dev.newbie
Subject: Re: Which distribution to use?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 20:44:17 -0500
Here in comp.os.linux.misc, "Johnny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spake unto us, saying:
>If Linux is to survive as an OS and as an alternative - then EASE of
>use is a MUST.
Why? Linux's survival isn't dependent on being a commercial success.
I agree that some ease of use is a good thing, and that it would be nice
if Linux were to become easier to use (and that is happening), but there
is absolutely no reason that such a change "must" happen.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + Linux + BeOS + FreeBSD + Solaris + WinNT4 + Win95 + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landings there.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.apps,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Can I switch from OS/2 to Linux and be happy?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 20:27:58 -0500
Here in comp.os.os2.misc, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mathew A. Hennessy)
spake unto us, saying:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Richard Steiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The WPS beats them both, of course.
>
> Mebbe, but I like to use software written in the last 3 years.. ;)
Typical Microsoft-influenced mindset. :-(
The functionality of a piece of s/w is not always related to its age,
and yet so many people seem to have this driving need to use "new"
software rather than "good" software.
It boggles my mind.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + Linux + BeOS + FreeBSD + Solaris + WinNT4 + Win95 + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
Are you thinking politically-correct things?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:49:46 +1200
From: Peter Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: postgreSQL
How do I get postmaster to start?
When I enter "nohup postmaster >logfile 2>&1 &" as suggested in the man
page, I get "[1] 703" before returning to the prompt.
Then, when I enter a command such as "psql" I get the following error
message:-
"Connection to database 'xxxx' failed.
connectDB() failed: Is the postmaster running and accepting connections
at
'UNIX' Socket' on port 5432?
[1]+ Exit2 nohup >logfile 2>&1"
The doc pages for postgreSQL are not much help. All it says is that if
you get
that sort of message, it may mean that postmaster is not running. It
doesn't
tell you how to GET it running.
Any help gratefully received
--
Peter Rodriguez
136, Kolmar Road, Papatoetoe LINUX RULES
Auckland, NEW ZEALAND
------------------------------
From: "Suddn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Web Page Authoring Tools
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 01:57:44 GMT
What is a good, easy to use web authoring tool for Linux?
Thanks
------------------------------
From: Craig Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: manpath is all screwed up
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 20:44:39 -0500
I recently installed the qt-2.0.1 rpm, only to find that I cannot use my
man pages any more...needless to say, for a newbie like myself, this is
quite a problem. At least, I think that's why I can't use them. I've
run the command manpath that I just stumbled on looking for access to
man pages, and it says "/usr/local/qt/man", which I'm pretty sure is the
reason this is a problem...anyone else have this problem? Does anyone
know how to solve it...This is one case where I definitely wish I could
RTFM. Please help.
Thanks in advance,
Craig
------------------------------
From: Mircea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BIOS upgrade needs DOS(??)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:00:41 -0400
Neil Zanella wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am running Linux on /dev/hda1 (the whole hard drive).
>
> I would like to install a larger hard drive but since my BIOS does not
>
> support drives larger than 1GB this requires a BIOS update. The BIOS
>
> update consists of running a DOS application. Can I run such an application
>
> from Linux (perhaps from a DOS emulator of some sort) or do I really need
>
> to install DOS on my hard drive first (when I am just about to remove it??).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Neil Zanella
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So far, I haven't seen one single motherboard manufacturer that release
a bios flashing tool for any other operating system than plain DOS. I
think there's a requirement for a real-mode single-user OS, as opposed
to protected-mode, multitasking. You can do it from a DOS boot floppy,
however, there's no requirement for a hard disk partition with DOS. At
least one motherboard manufacturer (Abit) recommends the floppy method
over the HD one.
MST
------------------------------
From: Vilmos Soti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BIOS upgrade needs DOS(??)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 02:07:38 GMT
Neil Zanella wrote:
>
> I am running Linux on /dev/hda1 (the whole hard drive).
> I would like to install a larger hard drive but since my BIOS does not
> support drives larger than 1GB this requires a BIOS update. The BIOS
> update consists of running a DOS application. Can I run such an application
> from Linux (perhaps from a DOS emulator of some sort) or do I really need
> to install DOS on my hard drive first (when I am just about to remove it??).
Hi,
If you are running only Linux then I am not sure if you have to mess
with your BIOS. I have a P133 with a '95 BIOS and for a long while I had
only the boot disk defined in BIOS. The other disk was found by the
kernel when it booted. This is a 13 GB disk. In BIOS, now I defined it
only for 8 GB but Linux of course can see the full disk. Give it a try.
YMMV.
Vilmos
--
Looking for a job in British Columbia.
http://members.home.net/vilmossoti/resume.html
------------------------------
From: "Charles Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BIOS upgrade needs DOS(??)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:01:16 -0400
Does it require any more than just booting up DOS
from a floppy? If not, what's the big deal, since you
say you already own a copy of DOS.
Neil Zanella wrote in message ...
>
>Hello,
>
>I am running Linux on /dev/hda1 (the whole hard drive).
>
>I would like to install a larger hard drive but since my BIOS does not
>
>support drives larger than 1GB this requires a BIOS update. The BIOS
>
>update consists of running a DOS application. Can I run such an application
>
>from Linux (perhaps from a DOS emulator of some sort) or do I really need
>
>to install DOS on my hard drive first (when I am just about to remove
it??).
>
>Thanks,
>
>Neil Zanella
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: cedric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alert: AMD K6-2 350 Mhz processor
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:14:34 -0700
Crossposted-To: redhat.general,comp.os.linux.x,redhat.x.general
On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, Rob Mason wrote:
>Has anyone else experienced a system freeze with this processor on RH6.0
>???
For what it's worth:
AMD has a patch for their chips running over 300 MHz with W95.
It is available at www.amd.com Go to support then patches.
This sends you to MS to download AMDK6UP.exe or something close to that.
I recently upgraded to a PFI motherboard, 128 megs ram and AMD K6 2/450.
W95 used to crash often enough at 200 MHz when I had several files open at the
same time. Now, It crashes even more. Even more proof that MS sucks. I did not
need this as I have to use W95 for Auto Cad and MS Office 95 for reports.
Red Hat Linux 6.0 loves the new system.
cedric
------------------------------
From: "Allix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.x,comp.windows.x,linux.redhat.ppp
Subject: SIS 620 Finally Works In High Resolution, just had to go to their website for
the linux drivers, duh :)
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:34:06 -0400
Well I'm still kicking myself , for not going to their website in the first
place, for all you SIS people out there , head straight to www.sis.com.tw
I can finally get 16 , 24 and 32 bit modes in linux, and boy does it ever
look good
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
I get 20 bucks a month just for surfing the web , don't
believe me ? Check out these for yourself :
http://www.desktophorizon.com/index.html?referrer=jago
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=DWW595
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Subject: Re: Who describes linux..
Date: 23 Aug 1999 02:40:30 GMT
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 19:32:07 -0700,
Jill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux - jealous of her older sister UNIX, and always wears her clothes and
> lipstick, and tries to act like her. She is slowly succeeding in stealing
> her boyfriends.
Oh, I dunno... Linux has better clothes and lipstick than UNIX(tm).
Look at how ugly Motif and MWM are, for example, while even the old
standby of fvwm2 is sleek and sexy in comparison (and things like E are
a bit trampy for my tastes, but, supposedly some men like the
too-much-makeup look...)
And UNIX may be a nice reliable date, but, um, she's not very fun.
Linux laughs and jokes and likes playing games and generally having a
good time once you get to know her. (She's a bit stand-offish until
then, though, but she's still nicer to look at than her all-business
sister.)
Linux is slightly less reliable a date than Unix, but that's mainly
because her sister gets the good hardware and Linux often has to drive
around in a Pinto while her sister gets the XJ-12.... when Linux gets
the beemer, she's as punctual and reliable as her sister, though she
may not know all the nuances of the hardware as well and can be a bit
pokey (relatively speaking) in shifting gears.
> SkAtAn wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >Who describes the linux women :-)?
> >
> >
> >OS Women
> >Imagine if women behaved like Windows
> >
> >By: Ben Hanks
> >
> >If OS's were women:
> >
> >UNIX:
> >She's very objective, logical, and intelligent. She's ugly but she looks
> >ok with lots of makeup. She's very tidy and a keeps a clean house. She
> >only speaks ancient Greek and only listens to you if you use perfect
> >grammar. She's very emotionally stable and refuses to argue. People
> >consult her on really important things because they know they can depend
> >on her.
> >
> >Mac OS:
> >She's even tempered and only blows up if you do something really stupid
> >or if there's something seriously wrong with her system. She's beautiful
> >and improves with age. She's very stylish and sets trends. She never
> >lies. She is easy to talk to and you can generally get her to do what
> >you want without much of a fuss. She's a good communicator and likes to
> >talk to friends. She's flexible and likes change. She's always nice to
> >people when they come to visit. People love her when they get to know
> >her and she has devoted friends everywhere. She smiles at you when you
> >turn her on.
> >
> > Windows:
> >She has a nasty temper and often blows up at you for no reason. You have
> >to fight with her to get her to do anything and she insists that you do
> >things the hard way.
> > She's extremely jealous and has been known to slip poison into the
> >drinks of other women who come to visit. She even fights with her
> >friends and it can take hours to get them to listen to each other. Even
> >then, they only recognize each
> > other when they feel like it. She has many psychological problems which
> >carried over from her DOS childhood, although she claims to be over it.
> >Her house is immaculate until you look in the closets and storage spaces
> >where she hides all
> > the crap she doesn't want people to see. Her house is full of nifty
> >appliances and home electronics but you're lucky if you can get anything
> >to work. Nothing in her house is where you would expect it to be; the
> >kitchen is on the roof and
> > the bathroom is through a trap door under a rug. She throws a tantrum
> >if you rearrange the furniture. If she gets really mad she makes you go
> >outside, ring the doorbell and wait for her to calm down and let you
> >back in. She deteriorates with
> > age and gets even more ornery the older she gets.
>
>
--
Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor.
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting
Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day.
Netscum, Bane of Elves.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Burrow)
Subject: Re: WTF is the difference between Linux and FreeBSD???
Date: 23 Aug 1999 02:17:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 15:21:51 -0600,
Jordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I did a little bit of an overkill on this post, but I saved it so I can post
>it to other Newbies wanting to know this info. If you just want to read
>about Linux/FreeBSD skim the last few paragraphs but a quick history might
>help you understand everything a little bit better.
Just a few minor corrections.
>Here is a bit of quick history of UNIX/Operating Systems
>
>It started back in about 1969 when the huge company AT&T (Bell Labs) wanted
>to make an Operating System. Remember, UNIX is really the first OS, not
AT&T was not interested in making an operating system, specifically.
The founders of Unix had to fight to get the equipment and funding for
their OS. For the history of Unix, see:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/hist.html
Also, Unix is not the first OS by any imagination. What this statement
means is not clear, but for sure System 360 existed before Unix, GECOS
existed before Unix, Multics existed before Unix, etc.
>popular OS :) For a little bit of Windows history, IBM, who was a computer
>giant, was going to buy Microsoft and Windows to be their OS. But the
>business savvy Bill Gates refused to sell the OS, only letting IBM put it on
>their computer, allowing Gates to have the Windows OS put on any type of
>computer because he owned the rites for it. IBM then decided to make OS/2
>and meanwhile Gates becomes the richest man in the world and the computer
>giant IBM has gone downhill along with Apple.
IBM never wanted Windows. IBM bought copies of MS-DOS for the IBM PC.
After a few years, sometime after the 286 was released, IBM decided that
a nice GUI OS would be nice, and started development of OS/2 with
Microsoft. Bill kept developing Windows on the side, though, and around
1990 released Windows 3.0, dumping the OS/2 project in IBM's lap.
>Another small UNIX OS called Minix was being developed at a university or
>somewhere. It was cheaper than those other UNIX versions and was used at
Andrew Tanenbaum had developed it for teaching purposes. I believe
there is also something called Xinu that was at one time popular for
teaching. It doesn't seem to factor into the Linux history, though.
>Universities a lot. Then Linus Torvalds decided he wanted to make a UNIX
>(Minix) of his own that would be even better. He started coding along with
Initially, all he wanted to do was learn how to use 386 protected mode.
>Both FreeBSD and Linux work on PC-compatible (Intel mainly) computers like
>Windows does. Some other types of UNIX will work on many different computer
>architectures.
Linux has been ported to many other architectures. This is happening to
FreeBSD, too.
>To get an application to work on a specific type of computer with a specific
>type of OS it has to be ported (re-coded) to work with it. So not all
>programs that run under Linux will run under FreeBSD. You would need to get
>the FreeBSD ported version of the application. To get Windows programs to
>work on either Linux or FreeBSD you would need an emulator like Wine.
FreeBSD (not to mention NetBSD and OpenBSD) come with Linux emulators.
You can run Linux binaries under FreeBSD if you wish, often with
success.
--
William Burrow -- New Brunswick, Canada o
Copyright 1999 William Burrow ~ /\
~ ()>()
------------------------------
From: "Charles Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: manpath is all screwed up
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:30:31 -0400
Did this thing put in a MANPATH environment variable?
If present, this variable overrides the default man path -
you have to explicitly include the old defaults in the
variable.
Craig Stewart wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I recently installed the qt-2.0.1 rpm, only to find that I cannot use my
>man pages any more...needless to say, for a newbie like myself, this is
>quite a problem. At least, I think that's why I can't use them. I've
>run the command manpath that I just stumbled on looking for access to
>man pages, and it says "/usr/local/qt/man", which I'm pretty sure is the
>reason this is a problem...anyone else have this problem? Does anyone
>know how to solve it...This is one case where I definitely wish I could
>RTFM. Please help.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Craig
>
------------------------------
From: "Charles Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: win95 partition ownership?
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:18:32 -0400
Modify the following line with your own partition
number and mount point, and add it to your /etc/fstab
file. All users will have r/w permission.
/dev/hda1 /dosc vfat rw,umask=000,noexec,quiet 0 0
You can specify ownership by adding UID and/or GID:
/dev/hda1 /dosc vfat rw,umask=000,UID=nnn,GID=mmm,noexec,quiet 0 0
Leave out the noexec if you need to execute any program from
the partition.
Doug O'Leary wrote in message ...
>Hey;
>
>I've got a limited amount of space on my Linux partition and about 800
>megs on one of my win95 partitions. What I'd like to do is install
>Oracle for Linux via Linux on the win95 partition; however, I can't seem
>to change the ownership of a directory - says something like "Operation
>not supported". I've also tried chmod 777 dir; however, that doesn't
>work either.
>
>Is there a way to allow a non root user access to a directory on a win95
>partition? Or, failing that, is there a way to mount the partition with
>permissions for someone other than root?
>
>Any tips will be greatly appreciated.
>
>Doug
>--
>==============
>Douglas K. O'Leary
>Senior System Admin
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>==============
------------------------------
From: Neil Zanella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BIOS upgrade needs DOS(??)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 00:17:28 -0230
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999, Vilmos Soti wrote:
Thanks for your suggestion but I intend to replace the hard drive
completely as my laptop has no room for two hard drives. Do I need the
upgrade in this case?
Thanks,
Neil
> Hi,
>
> If you are running only Linux then I am not sure if you have to mess
> with your BIOS. I have a P133 with a '95 BIOS and for a long while I had
> only the boot disk defined in BIOS. The other disk was found by the
> kernel when it booted. This is a 13 GB disk. In BIOS, now I defined it
> only for 8 GB but Linux of course can see the full disk. Give it a try.
> YMMV.
>
> Vilmos
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
