Linux-Misc Digest #773, Volume #21 Sun, 12 Sep 99 09:13:12 EDT
Contents:
Re: Figure Out The MS Source Code Yourself (Robin Becker)
Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie (Anthony Ord)
Re: XF86Config problems (trying to set monitor resolutions) (macooper999)
Shell Script ("Jeff Grossman")
Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie (K. Bjarnason)
Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie (K. Bjarnason)
Re: Telnet as root ("kozmos")
Re: Squid in Mandrake ("abn")
Re: Amiga, QNX, Linux and Revolution ("G. Hazianastasiou")
Re: Telnet as root (Kenny A. Chaffin)
Re: How do you pronounce Linux? (James Knott)
Re: Partitioning for Linux (Leejay Wu)
Re: YALNQ: yet another linux noobee question (Neale Grant)
Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie (William Wueppelmann)
Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie (William Wueppelmann)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robin Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Figure Out The MS Source Code Yourself
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 04:50:19 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Phil Hunt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "David Frantz" writes:
>> You have to be very carefull now a days with recieving RF
>> transmissions. We in the USA are now in the unique position of sharing
>> a law that make the reception of radio signals from Cell Phones a
>> crime. The only other country that we share such a law with is North
>> Korea, really make you wonder!
>>
>> Also the FCC, under pressure from the FBI, CIA, NSA and other goverment
>> organizations, to restrict what you can listen to. The FCC was also
>> just recently forced to change its Cell Phone regulations to require Cell
>> Phone companies to provide tracking capabilities. This is so Big
>> Brother will always know were you are.
>
>In the light of things like this, I find it surprising that anyone
>doubts that the NSA might force Microsoft to put a backdoor in
>Windows.
>
last time I checked the British Home Secretary was allowed to control
communication by means of electromagnetic radiation. No winking now :)
--
Robin Becker
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Ord)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:13:09 GMT
On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 23:26:04 -0700, K. Bjarnason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>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. :)
I would. Having a standardised GUI is fine when you want everyone to go off in
the same direction - but is it the right direction? Well, you don't know.
Unless you're God, you can never know.
For all we mortals know, there might not be a "right" direction.
That's why I prefer competition. If one of them heads off in the wrong
direction then people stop using it, which is a pretty good wake-up call.
Regards
Anthony
--
=========================================
| And when our worlds |
| They fall apart |
| When the walls come tumbling in |
| Though we may deserve it |
| It will be worth it - Depeche Mode |
=========================================
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 10:44:10 +0100
From: macooper999 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: XF86Config problems (trying to set monitor resolutions)
As you are getting the error about kdm having been murdered, and you
have just edited the XF86Config file by hand, the problem lies in
there. You say you have added additional resolutions, but did you also
add mode lines to go with them ?? The easiest way out of this problem
is to login as root and run the program XF86Setup. This program will
step you through the setup of the server.
Hope this helps,
Martin
shanks01 wrote:
>
> I dunno if this will work... I once had the same problem and resorted to a
> re-install to solve it... not very satisfying I can tell you.
>
> Anyway, try running xfs when you log in. I seem to recall someone hinting
> that this problem has to do with the X font server not running, and I think
> the xfs command issued by root gets it going again. Then I would try
> starting up X by using the startx command. If that gets X running again,
> shut down your X session, and try rebooting to see if the problem went away.
>
> Also, from Elric_Red:
> > Sound like the -nodaemon switch is missing
> > Check the /etc/inittab file you should have a entry like this
> > x:5:respawn:/etc/X11/prefdm -nodaemon
>
> The x5 line refers to run level 5, which means you go straight into the GUI
> after boot up. Run level 3 means you stay in command line mode after boot.
> Run level 1 is a single user command line mode used when things screw up and
> you need to get in to repair the system. There are 6 commonly used run
> levels, but these are the only three yoully need to know about at this
> stage.
>
> I sure hope at least some of this helps, and if you do find a fix (short of
> re-installing) please let me know. I don't know how I caused that situation
> on my system, and would like to have a tested solution should it happen
> again!
>
> Phil Shanks
>
> Soltzer wrote in message <7r9fif$h6s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >I'm a new linux user (as of this morning). I'm running Redhat 6.0 on a
> >P2-333 Dell XPS w/ a Dell D1025HTX 17" monitor and a Diamond FireGL 1000
> PRO
> >OEM video card w/ 8 megs of memory (using the permedia chipset)
> >
> >I have both GNOME and KDE installed (both are latest versions)
> >
> >"According to /var/run/gdm.pid, gdm was already running (599) but seems to
> >have been murdered mysteriously" ... sometimes the message would appear w/
> a
> >different # in parentheses.
> >
------------------------------
From: "Jeff Grossman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc,msn.computingcentral.os.linux
Subject: Shell Script
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 01:00:11 -0700
Hello,
I am working on a shell script that will ftp a file, and then tarball the
file that was downloaded. That is the easy part. But, I want to rename the
file with the current date. In the form of "990911.tar.gz". How would I go
about doing this? Is it possible in a bash shell script?
Thanks,
Jeff
--
Jeff Grossman ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: K. Bjarnason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 04:13:34 -0700
[snips]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
>
> >For zip files, you double-click the file and up comes (assuming some
> >nice person has pointed you at it)
>
> Assuming?
Typically, you downloaded them yourself, so you know where they went. :)
> >Once the install is done, WinZip comes back up, cleans up after itself,
> >and you can close it and run your app. Simple, no fancy commands
> >required.
>
> Ooh! That sounds hard!
Somewhat harder than the more conventional approach, yes - which is one
reason why it's a considerably less popular alternative.
> All I have to do is run dselect and hit "+" next to
> stuff I want. It automatically takes lets me know about dependencies, so I can
> see that it requires a 40Mb browser before I even think of downloading it.
Aha. Confusion. I was discussing installs of previously downloaded
applications, or those distributed on CD, etc. Downloading is
irrelevant. :)
>The
> I hit install and it even downloads it for me, It then installs and configures
> and I don't even have to think. Wouldn't it be nice if M$ Windows had
> something as easy to use as that? You would think it would, especially as they
> say "ease of use so often".
Actually, at least of the Win2K installer, they do. It even goes one
step further.
Suppose I want to ship a largish (say 200Mb) application. Of that
200Mb, probably only 20Mb is "required" - i.e. you can't do anything
useful without it, so if you're going to install, you're going to get
this bit.
The other bits can be either installed, or "advertised". An advertised
component _appears_ as if it were installed, but in fact isn't; it gets
installed automatically if and when you use it - or never, if you don't
use it. You can also, of course, select not to install it in any way,
shape or form, as long as it's not a required component.
Oh, if all this sounds complex, it's not - it's a very simple drop-down
list with a very limited set of options, presented to the user - but
only if the user decides to customize the install; if not, he never sees
it, and gets either the default set of components defined by the vendor,
or whatever the admin has preconfigured as typical for his network, if
applicable. If the user doesn't decide to customize his install, he'll
typically only see maybe four wizard boxes; a license agreement, maybe a
readme, something indicating size of install and an "Okay, install
done" box.
So, of that 200Mb application, maybe 20Mb will be installed (if that's
the way you want it) and the rest can either be not installed at all, or
automatically installed as needed. Oh, and the user doesn't have to do
anything fancy, really. If it's a "visible" component, he clicks the
icon to run the component, and the installer takes over from there. If
it's not a visible component, then the core application must decide -
with or without user intervention - what to do about it; either request
that it be installed, or not.
Note that this "install on demand" functionality is new. Existing
installers for Windows, however, have traditionally included size
information, component selection, etc - i.e. the features you mention
above other than the "install from remote".
> I can even install something over and over again as the version number rises
> and not be worried that I have 20 different entries for it, and all but the
> last don't work, and even the last leaves old crap all over my hard disk.
This is an implementation issue, and typically decided by the vendor, in
the Windows world. Many applications do support side-by-side installs
with older versions, many don't.
Take as an example an install I was helped develop. It would examine
your system (through the registry, a nice convenient place to look for
pre-existing things) and see if existing versions were already
installed.
>From there, and from your installation information, it could install as
a side-by-side or as an update, depending on whether you told the
install to go in overtop of the existing location, or into a new
location. In either case, it could import existing configuration
information.
>
> And if I don't want it anymore, instead of giving it the thumbs up with the
> "+" key, I give it the thumbs down with the "-" key and off it goes.
Yup. Deselect the component, away it goes.
> >The single .exe option is very similar, except that typically you do not
> >need to explicitly state "Install"; once you've double-clicked the EXE,
> >it starts the install process automatically, again complete with default
> >installation locations. Click "Next" a few times, it's done, and it has
> >cleaned up the temp dir after itself, too.
>
> And this downloads itself automatically too?
Does the package description file for "AppFoo" magically appear on your
machine, without downloading, installing, or being included on your CD?
No, I didn't think so. Nor does the setup description for a Windows
app.
The only real difference is that - currently - you typically download
(or have on CD, etc) - the entire installable set; it's just a matter of
what you install - versus downloading the description, then picking the
other bits to install, and download if necessary. Which is, in fact, a
winning point for Linux, assuming that this is standard across all
currently supported Linux systems.
Note that I agree, this install-on-demand-and-download-if-needed is a
*good* approach. MS seems to think so, too - Windows is adopting that
strategy, and it will be available on all Windows platforms which are
currently supported - i.e. not NT 3.51 and not Windows 3.x, but the
Windows 9.x, NT4 and future platforms.
------------------------------
From: K. Bjarnason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 04:13:39 -0700
[snips]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> >experience, just get someone else to dictate to you which window manager to
> >use and learn that one whether it's the best for you or not.
> >
> You seem to have forgotten that he has had "Redmond Mind Wash".
>
> In his universe, "Only a single *best* can exist", and it *must* be
> the one *he* uses. Otherwise *he* might not be *the best*.
Since I never said that, nor implied it, nor do I think it, I must
conclude that the sum total extent of your ability to debate is to
simply make up whatever you feel like.
Fine; feel free, as long as you don't put words in my mouth.
------------------------------
From: "kozmos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Telnet as root
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 12:41:43 +0200
Pozdrav.
use su or edit /etc/securetty
Za domovino,
Roman
Joseph White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7rfia8$aqb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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: "abn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Squid in Mandrake
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 15:29:34 +0400
Hi, all!
Gene Zesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yoAC3.309$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Trying to set up squid in Mandrake 6.
> The version on their cd is squid-2.2.STABLE1-2mdk.i586.rpm.
> The rpm doesn't seem to include any of the docs, as when I install it, the
> files are empty. Does anyone know how to start this version?
> I had an older squid-1.1.21 and it doesn't respond to the same commands as
> that.
> I've looked at the Squid page and mandrakes version doesn't respond to the
> commands they give, either.
> Can anyone help here?
> Thanks,
> Gene
>
>
try to _read_ CONFIG file
wbr, abn
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Amiga, QNX, Linux and Revolution
From: "G. Hazianastasiou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.qnx,comp.sys.amiga.misc
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 11:45:39 GMT
K. C. Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
KCL> > Andrew Thomas wrote:
KCL> > Win98 rots. After a period of use, it will eventually become unusable
KCL> > and you will have to re-install the operating system. It is built
KCL> > this way, and Microsoft documents it. If you try to re-install an OEM
KCL> > version of Win98 on a current installation, it will fail. You are
KCL> > obliged to re-format your hard drive.
KCL>
KCL> There was a web site somewhere that tells you how to change one of
KCL> the files in the OEM install disk so that it would behave as an upgrade.
KCL> (ie. not fail on installing over existing Win98) I don't remember how
KCL> to do it any more, but I found that info initially by doing a web
KCL> search.
Not that this subject is on topic, but anyways...
Simply delete or rename the old win.com file so the installation program
won't find it, and it will happily install on top of existing W*nd*ws 9x.
Micro$oft... Need I say more?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kenny A. Chaffin)
Subject: Re: Telnet as root
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 06:00:53 -0600
In article <7rfia8$aqb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> 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
>
>
>
Look out Joe!!! Here they come! <grin>
Seriously though, I had the same need. RH 6.0 checks the /etc/securetty
file which lists the tty's which allow login as root. I was not able to
determine how to modify this to allow root telnet, but by renaming the
file (so login doesn't find it) I'm able to telnet in.
Best Wishes,
KAC
--
KAC Website Design
Custom Programming, Web Design, and Graphics
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.kacweb.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Knott)
Subject: Re: How do you pronounce Linux?
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 19:17:46 -0400
Reply-To: James Knott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lew Pitcher) wrote:
>
>>I pronounce it "Fred", but that's just me ;-)
>
>But is that a long or a short e?
eh? ;-)
--
E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________________
The above opinions are my own and not those of ISM Corp., a subsidiary of
IBM Canada Ltd.
------------------------------
From: Leejay Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Partitioning for Linux
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 08:09:40 -0400
Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.linux.misc: 12-Sep-99 Re: Partitioning for
Linux by "Timothy"@ozemail.com.au
> 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...
If you're the sole user (or everybody else is trusted not to try to fill
your logs, say) and you don't care that much about preserving /home
intact (doing it via a backup instead if you do ever reinstall), sure,
that should work.
--
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | the silly student |
|--------------------------| he writes really bad haiku |
| #include <stddiscl.h> | readers all go mad |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neale Grant)
Crossposted-To: alt.sci.seti
Subject: Re: YALNQ: yet another linux noobee question
Date: 12 Sep 1999 12:23:02 GMT
Breaking the eerie silence on Usenet, John Girash wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc the billionth typing monkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: I'm running RH5.2 on an old 486 just because and am wondering how do I
>: determine which of the three distributions of SETI@Home to run? What is
>: the difference between
>: setiathome-1_3_i386-pc-linux-gnu-gnulibc2_1.tar
>This one requires libc6.1 (aka glibc 2.1) to be installed on your system.
>RH5.2 predates glibc2.1 afaik.
I *think* I'm running the glibc2.1 version on my RH5.2 system. rpm
certainly indicates that I have glibc2.1 available, although I may have
installed it separately.
My advice: The client is less than 100k. Downloading all three would take
less time than getting a single work unit. The client is very easy to
install and remove, because it consists of one executable. Try each one
and see what works.
Neale
--
"When you're a child the world forbears you, allows you your flights of
imagination, your feelings of specialness. But sooner or later the
privileges are withdrawn, and all you're left with is a stunned bitterness
at the realisation that you're just the same as everybody else."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Wueppelmann)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 12:58:14 GMT
In our last episode (Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:50:47 -0600),
the artist formerly known as John Thompson said:
>"K. Bjarnason" wrote:
>
>> > Repeat after me: Linux is not Windows. Linux is not Windows. Linux is not
>> > Windows.
>
>> And the former is...
>>
>> Oh, yeah, *that's* why it's going to take over. Missed that point, did
>> you?
>
>Um, why exactly do you think it is so important that linux
>"take over?" That's not why I use linux, anyway.
This is a perception that the media has largely created. It's unfortunate,
because it runs the risk of drawing people off of working to make Linux a
better system and into competing with Microsoft. As much as I'd like to
see Linux get to the point where any present and future employers I might
have would consider allowing or even mandating its use on employees'
desktops, It would be a shame to sacrifice what it is in order to become
like something else that already exists.
--
It is pitch black.
You are likely to be spammed by a grue.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Wueppelmann)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: General Rant from a Linux Newbie
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 12:58:15 GMT
In our last episode (Sat, 11 Sep 1999 00:02:18 -0700),
the artist formerly known as K. Bjarnason said:
>In article <7rc27j$3rp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>It seems that most of the *nix crowd comes from the "Configurability and
>customizability is paramount; if I have to spend a week reading the docs
>just to run it, so be it." The typical Windows user is more along the
>lines of "Dammit; I don't _want_ to take a course to run a word
>processor; I just want to _run_ it."
The local community college here runs courses like "introduction to Word",
"introduction to Excel", "upgrading from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95" and
"Windows 95 basics" Each costs about half the price of the software itself
and covers essential information like how to create and save files, do
basic formatting/equations/start up and shut down Windows, print, and
perform other very rudimentary operations.
I think that the truth is that M$ applications and Windows itself are *not*
easy to use. They simply *look* easy to use, because people have been
convinced that point-and-grunt interfaces make everything easy. There are
a lot of Word users for whom having the default working directory changed
from My Documents to temp is as disasterous as having all of their .doc
files deleted because they don't know what a directory is much less how to
navigate a filesystem or find lost files. Moreover, Word (to continue with
this particular example, as Word is probably about average in terms of M$
product quality) contains a lot of pseudo-publishing features like style
sheets that most people don't understand and can't use; these features are
largely inadequate for serious publishing work, but at the same time, they
only serve to add clutter and confusion for the average report-writing
office worker. Most Word users write Word documents like Front Page users
write HTML -- they won't even use the default styles Heading 1, Heading
2... for their headings and subheadings, they will manually format each
heading's font and will create horizontal space using multiple newlines,
even using newlines to create page breaks. The reason most of Word's
features aren't used is firstly because nobody bothers to learn about them
and secondly because they aren't as easy or intuitive as a lot of people
linke to claim. Only the most rudimentary features of Word are at all
intuitive or easy to learn.
>Both approaches have their pluses and minuses - but don't expect the big
>market to adopt the former any time soon.
In fact, I'd suggest that the future trend for office type users is much
more focused software that users will be expected to take some time to
learn, but which has a restricted set of capabilities so that users don't
need to learn features that won't be used or how to deal with new
situations because the software has a limited set of functionality that
won't provide too many unusual situations.
(And I bet that some of these systems will have Linux running underneath.
After all, you can't be productive if you keep getting bizarre error
messages, blue screens or system crashes. Of course, the user won't know
Linux is underneath, but they also won't care.)
--
It is pitch black.
You are likely to be spammed by a grue.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
