Linux-Misc Digest #772, Volume #21 Sun, 12 Sep 99 05:13:11 EDT
Contents:
Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie (K. Bjarnason)
Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie (K. Bjarnason)
Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie (K. Bjarnason)
Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie (K. Bjarnason)
running 2 linux programs side by side (tommy henderson)
Telnet as root ("Joseph White")
Re: Bogus ppp device after kernel upgrade? (Bill Unruh)
Re: Should I use Linux or Windows? (Richard Steiner)
Re: Which soundcard is best for Linux? (Albert Ulmer)
Re: Partitioning for Linux (Paul Colquhoun)
serious X problem ("Zipora David")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: K. Bjarnason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 23:26:04 -0700
[snips]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> They are convenient but are limitted in that when one way doesn't
> work, you are SOL. Personally, I prefer command line options for the
> command itself and then a GUI wrapper for those who want it. Thus all
> needs are satisfied. Each tool does ONE thing well. The command line
> does the work well. The user interface talks to humans well. The
> best of both worlds is achieved.
Aside from questions of efficiency, that's not a bad approach; that is,
the GUI is actually nothing more than a dumping ground for things which,
when activated, actually spew command-line functions, while conveniently
hiding the fact from the users. There are some limits and risks to it,
but it would be a compromise the CLI geeks could live with, I suspect.
Then again, as long as the CLI is *available*, I don't see why they
would care in the slightest if someone actually standardized the GUI. :)
------------------------------
From: K. Bjarnason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 23:25:35 -0700
[snips]
Other comments... :)
In article <7rc27j$3rp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Yeah, right, to *us* in the latter part of the Twentieth Century,
> perhaps, but I wouldn't be making such Universal Claims about the
> earlier part of the century, or the end of the previous one . . .
>
> People back then were *used* to horses, and understood them. People were
> a little tense about these newfangled horseless carriages, and those
> contraptions were *not* user-friendly by any stretch of the imagination.
> Stand in front of the Iron Beast and turn a crank to get it started?
> ExcUSE me??! Maximum speed of what, ten miles per hour? My horse can
> TROT faster . . . never mind the clanking and other noise, and the
> smoke.
>
> No, cars took over because they were better technology, even though they
> were *not* as user-friendly, at least not according to the standards of
> the day.
According to your reasoning, the reason cars took over was better
technology. Therefore, by your reasoning, Windows - being the dominant
end-user platform, at least in the PC world - is therefore the superior
technology, while Linux is an outdated, outmoded, obsolete tool chewing
hay at the roadside while the world passes it by.
You're actually a Windows advocate, aren't you?
------------------------------
From: K. Bjarnason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 23:26:03 -0700
[snips]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> You're doing a great job, but the audience doesn't get it.
> They drive cars and know nothing about mechanics or engines.
> They use a mobile phone and is just like a phone without the cord !
> They have a VCR - but how many of them know how to use the timer to
> record that 4am Monday show ? There you have it !
Bingo - as developers, our market is primarily (except for some
specialized apps such as servers) end users who can't program VCRs.
There's no way in hell we're going to get them to learn the ins and outs
of system management. If we're smart, we capitalize on that - we write
better installs, we write simpler - but more powerful - apps, all of
which strive to make the machine useable by those same users. And we
get paid for it. :)
> To be honest: I like Linux and I like Windows NT.
> To be honest: I hate Linux and I hate Windows NT.
I can't say I like or hate Linux. My last experience with it was a
*horrible* one, but I've been subsequently told that the particular
version of the particular distro I was using was a total buttmunch. I'm
going to try it again, soon as I get around to reinstalling my CD-Rom.
:)
> There is certainly a future for servers.
> But is there a future for desktop computers ?
Absolutely.
> I am now a network manager. I am still searching for a job where everything
> (something ?)
> seems well designed and well thought, without crashes, patches, upgrades. Oh
> lucky users !!
You'll _never_ see a system without patches and upgrades. Windows is at
least making that simpler, at least for MS apps - and potentially for
all apps - with their "Update Windows" mechanism and the new MSI
technology. Also, with MSI, they remove the whole "DLL Hell" thing I
keep hearing about but not experiencing, and a few other happy bells and
whistles - system file protection for example - thrown in.
> As always, GUI is better for some things, cmdline for others.
> GUI is good for user taks and interfacing, cmdline for admin tasks - batches,
> scripts
> that run at 3am, and the like.
Yeah, there _are_ uses for a command line. I use them regularly. My
dear old Aunt, however, goes into conniption fits at the mere sight of
one. :)
> I believe you got it wrong here. What Steve meant was that the user thought
> Linux had crashed
> when in fact the app (or even X) had crashed, and he could have solved it
> without turning the power off.
> Open another console, Log in as root, run ps ax | grep netscape, .... oops here
> we go again :-)))
Perhaps - but that's asking more of a typical end user than is
reasonably expected. Remember, he can't program a VCR. You expect him
to realize - and cope properly with - the notion that "Oh, my interface
to the machine is frozen, but it's not really the machine, I can open
another console and..."?
That VCR-programming-school-dropout is going to look at the machine, see
it's not responding, and hit the reset switch. You know it, I know it,
they know it - but apparently we're supposed to simply ignore such
users, no matter how large a segment of our potential sales base they
are. :)
------------------------------
From: K. Bjarnason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 23:26:01 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> "K. Bjarnason" wrote:
>
> > Why did Windows win out from DOS? Back when Windows started becoming
> > popular, most folks didn't have the system resources to do anything
> > significant in terms of multi-tasking, so that wasn't it. Better
> > interface, easier installation and configuration of devices, these were
> > the key features - that is to say, ease-of-use.
>
> Silly me. Here I thought it was because of the OEM bundling
> licenses that Microsoft forced on manufacturers that
> required them to include Windows and Windows apps with their
> DOS licenses...
Umm... not last time I checked.
As I recall, the problem with Windows in the terms you describe was
_not_ that it was required with DOS installs, but rather than vendors
were offered a two-tiered pricing sheme, the lower price being
contingent upon their not installing competitors' OSen.
However, ask yourself this: why would a vendor _care_? Here he is,
happily shipping DOS-based machines, OS/2 machines, whatever, and
knowing that other competing OSen are coming down the pipe. What could
_possibly_ motivate him to save a little money up front at the expense
of potentially major losses down the line, by agreeing to those terms?
Simple: the demand for Windows-based systems _already_ existed. Windows
had _already_ been shipping, _already_ had an installed base, was
_already_ becoming wildly popular. That a vendor could sell it to the
user for a lower price was to his advantage, and since the other guys
didn't seem to have a viable alternative - or a popular one, at least -
it didn't matter to him.
But... that all requires that Windows be popular in the first place, or
why would a vendor agree to the scheme at all?
If the only issue had been that it was required to be installed with MS-
DOS systems, vendors would have offered the Windows box and the PC-DOS
box, with the Windows box being $150 more - the price of Windows - for
the same configuration, and Windows wouldn't have taken off nearly so
rapidly, if at all, would it?
No, the driving factor was _not_ that it was required with the DOS
boxes, but that it was required to be the _only_ offering available from
the vendor.
Sleazy business practice? Absolutely - check your corner store with the
Pepsi machine to see if you can find any Coke products. And vice versa.
But that practice would have been totally pointless if the demand hadn't
already existed - which means there was another feature of Windows that
made it popular. Guess what, there was.
------------------------------
From: tommy henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: running 2 linux programs side by side
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 06:31:14 GMT
i have a dell 166 with a master and slave hard drive. the master hd has
boot majic installed with win95 (fat16). the slave hd has linux red hat
5.2. i can go to linux or win95 upon boot.
i recently got a copy of caldera 2.2 with a very readable teach yourself
linux manual and would like to install the caldera somewhere and use it
without uninstalling/deleting the red hat 5.2.
is this possible? should the caldera go to the master or can i place it on
the slave hd? lilo is installed to the linux portion on the slave drive.
the master drive has plenty of space; the slave is totally formatted for
linux (done with partition majic)
================== Posted via CNET Linux Help ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: "Joseph White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Telnet as root
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:44:36 -0600
Hi All,
I have a small Ethernet network setup in my house (three machines) and I
would like to be able to telnet as ROOT from my workstation (dual boot Linux
/ Win95) to my Samba server (Redhat 5.2) or Slackware machine. I can telnet
just fine as regular user, what is stopping me from doing so as root. I know
I have read some thing about this before, it is a security concern and is
not allowed by default.
Thanks
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Bogus ppp device after kernel upgrade?
Date: 12 Sep 1999 07:03:04 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "G. Georgiev"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
] When I dial from one comp. to another the serial link is
]established OK, the ppp device appears in /proc/net/dev, but ifconfig does
]not show it and it can not be accessed or included in the routing table.
]pppd leaves a message 'ioctl(SIOCADDRT) device route: Network is down' in
]the syslog and that's all. The result is the same on both machines I want
]to connect. One is still with kernel 2.0.30, other is with 2.2.11, the
]pppd is version 2.2.0, I do use slackware on both of them.
] So, if the kernel opens the device why ifconfig does not recognize
]it and why it may not function?
] Thanks, George.
] /var/log/messages:
]Sep 12 01:47:17 gate pppd[651]: pppd 2.2.0 started by solex, uid 517
]Sep 12 01:47:17 gate pppd[651]: Using interface ppp0
]Sep 12 01:47:17 gate pppd[651]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyS3
]Sep 12 01:47:21 gate pppd[651]: local IP address 10.0.0.1
]Sep 12 01:47:21 gate pppd[651]: remote IP address 10.1.1.31
]Sep 12 01:47:21 gate pppd[651]: IPCP terminated at peer's request
Your ppp connection is NOT made. Note this last error message. To
find out what is happening, you need to switch on debugging.
debug
in /etc/ppp/options and turned on in /etc/syslog.conf.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Subject: Re: Should I use Linux or Windows?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 01:05:41 -0500
Here in comp.os.linux.misc, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(William Wueppelmann) spake unto us, saying:
>In our last episode (Fri, 10 Sep 1999 02:01:38 -0500),
>the artist formerly known as Richard Steiner said:
>>Here in comp.os.linux.misc, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>(William Wueppelmann) spake unto us, saying:
>>
>>>How many of us learned about Linux and came to appreciate it because we
>>>installed it and played around with it?
>>
>>Point acknowledged. :-)
>>
>>Possible counterpoint: how many of us were (1) technically literate and
>>(2) possessed of at least a rough idea about what we were getting into
>>with a Unix-like operating system before we did so?
>
>Point acknowledged. :-)
Hehe. It's a pleasure conversing with you, sir! :-)
>OTOH, what I *thought* I knew about Unix and what I found out I knew
>about Unix once I had Slackware up and running for a few hours were a
>world apart.
Part of it might be the fact (guessing here) that using a Unix system
is a lot easier than administering one.
You don't need to know as much as a user. :-)
>When I finally reached the point where I understood a lot, but I also
>realized how much more I didn't understand and how much there would
>always be that I didn't know, I think I became truly technically literate.
>But it took a lot of programming and OS experience--especially with Unix
>systems--to arrive at that understanding.
I don't understand a lot about Linux (or any Unix) yet, and I consider
myself an advanced end user at best in a Linux context (meaning I can
install/admin a simple box, use applications constructively, and write
scripts and simple C programs).
However, I deal with other relatively complex systems (mainframe-based)
professionally, and over the past 11 years since college I've learned
that no matter how much I think I know, there is always at least one
more trick out there lodged in the brain of a coworker that I've never
heard of before. :-) You never stop learning...
>I wouldn't recommend Linux to a home user who wasn't interested in a lot
>of learning and a fair bit of frustration, but I wouldn't let a lack of
>previous experience deter them.
Hmmm. I can't argue with that, I guess. I learned most of this myself
by doing, mainly, since I had no role-model for some of this stuff. So
people with similar interests and determination should be given the same
chances to learn for themselves. Okay.
There are so many people now trying Linux and not having a clue about
what they're in for, tho. They were told it is some sort of glorified
"Windows alternative", and they make the understandable assumption that
Linux must therefore be like Windows.
I'm uncertain that having them try Linux and hit a brick wall is a good
thing for either them or the Linux community. But maybe it is. You've
admittedly made me rethink this somewhat. Hmmm again. :-)
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + Linux + BeOS + FreeBSD + Solaris + WinNT4 + Win95 + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
And as in uffish thought he stood...
------------------------------
From: Albert Ulmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Which soundcard is best for Linux?
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 08:20:07 GMT
I like to use SB-PCI128 cards for my Linux machines. All you have to=20
do is compile ES1370-support into the kernel and you're set. No=20
plug-and-pray or other esoteric stuff necessary.
> Mine was even easier to set up than that. I don't know what=20
distrubutions
> include this, but redhat installed something called "sndconfig" which =
made
> the whole thing a breeze. I popped in my SB16, an ran sndconfig. It
> autodetected the card, and updated /etc/conf.modules. After that sound=
> just worked.
> If you have a well-known card I would try to use sndconfig before=20
spending
> a lot of time manually messing with that stuff. Especially if you are =
a
> newbie, in which case the sound problem is no doubt one of only 1000
> things that are confusing the hell out of you. I know they did me ;-)
> Nick Urban
> <snip>
> >Getting most soundcards to work is a matter of installing the correct=
=20
driver
> >as a module, running pnpdump, editing the output file to set the IRQ =
/ DMA and
> >then running isapnp at each boot (oh, and update conf.modules to=20
reflect the
> >new settings).
> >
> >To be honest, it is not half as bad as it seemed a year ago when I=20
started on
> >Linux.
> <snip>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Subject: Re: Partitioning for Linux
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 07:45:03 GMT
On Sun, 12 Sep 1999 12:39:33 +1000, Timothy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Using this advice, if I take a large hard disk (let's say 10 GB) and make 3
|partitions:
|1) 80 MB for the linux swap
|2) 20 MB for the /boot
|3) 9 GB for the /
|
|everything will work out ok? Or is there a better way to partition a large
|hard disk? Thanks...
<previous question & advice snipped>
I have found that having seperate partitions for /home and
/usr/local makes upgrading much easier.
When upgrading to a new version, you can reformat and reinstall
without losing all your local customisations. Just don't reformat
/home & /usr/local and all your directories will remain untouched.
Put any software you downlaod into /usr/local/src and install it
into /usr/local/bin & /usr/local/lib.
Bufore upgrading, copy any essential config files to /usr/local/<whatever>
so you can refer back to them later ( I usually copy the entire /etc
directory, just to be safe ).
It may be necessary to go into the source directory of each
custom program and recompile & reinstall under the new OS
version, just to be sure, and to take advantage of any upgraded
system libraries ( although shared libraries should update
automatically ).
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: "Zipora David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: serious X problem
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 02:52:02 -0500
While I was in root user I played around with the templates. I tried out
one of the templates and my computer froze.
I can now log in as a regular user with no problems, but when I try and log
in as root, when I try to open a window, it never shows up on the screen and
the compter freezes.
In other words I can't select another template because I can never open the
window.
Can anyone tell me if there is a file that I can edit or delete to return to
the original template?
I have a couple of other little problems which are less urgent but I would
like to understand.
First the CTRL ALT + or - key combination doesn't work for me. How can I
use this?
Second, when X windows loads I see a white screen for about 10 seconds until
I finally see the desktop. Is there anyway of getting rid of this?
Third, how can I install the sound card?
Thanks,
Ariel
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
