Linux-Misc Digest #929, Volume #23 Thu, 23 Mar 00 01:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: unmounting a harddrive ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: LINUX or not? ("David ..")
Re: emachines ("David ..")
Re: staroffice running slowly (Jorge Ravazzola)
Re: staroffice running slowly (Jorge Ravazzola)
Re: staroffice running slowly (Jorge Ravazzola)
Re: staroffice running slowly (Jorge Ravazzola)
Re: staroffice running slowly (Jorge Ravazzola)
Re: staroffice running slowly (Jorge Ravazzola)
Re: staroffice running slowly (Jorge Ravazzola)
Re: /proc/config patch for kernel 2.2.13 (update) ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Can't ping out from RH 6.1 ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Bridge + shaper ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: LINUX or not? (Big Daddy)
Re: Problems logging in at ISP ("S. Park")
Re: Cannot FTP on new RH Install (ground zero)
CDROM automount options - how to change. (James Oliver)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: unmounting a harddrive
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:01:14 GMT
ok, ist mount point is /
i have recieved advice stating that since this drive has the os i
cannot unmount because its in constant use (makes sense).
the reason for doing the umount in the first place is to ensure copied
data from hda3 to hdb2 went correctly and completely...
suggestions for another way to do this so i can delete the old copy on
hda3 but not hdb2?
Gerald Willmann wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > i am attempting to unmount a hard drive (/dev/hda3)
> > when typing "umount /dev/hda3"
> > i get message "umount: /: device is busy"
> > how do i "unbusy" the device so i can umount it??
>
> first of all /dev/hda3 is not a harddrive but rather a partition
thereon.
> secondly, what's on hda3 and what's to mount point (ie /, /usr, ...)?
>
> Gerald
>
> --
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "David .." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX or not?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:08:43 -0600
As you may expect a number of replies, I will make this short. Once
linux is installed Linux is Linux. The flavor you choose is like ice
cream. What flavor do you like??
--
Due to extreme SPAM abuse! Remove z's and x's from above to reply.
Thank the spammer's A..holes that they are. Still can't reach me?
Then your address range is already blocked due to previous spam.
Sorry! I hate spam!!
------------------------------
From: "David .." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: emachines
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:10:32 -0600
What processor does it have?? If it is Intel then you should be able to
install it.
--
Due to extreme SPAM abuse! Remove z's and x's from above to reply.
Thank the spammer's A..holes that they are. Still can't reach me?
Then your address range is already blocked due to previous spam.
Sorry! I hate spam!!
------------------------------
From: Jorge Ravazzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: staroffice running slowly
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:30:09 GMT
Alexis Bilodeau wrote:
>
> Richard Steiner wrote:
> >
> > Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Jorge Ravazzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > spake unto us, saying:
> >
> > >hi , im trying staroffice for linux under red hat 6.0 and it haves a
> > >really poor performance on my pentium 233 with 32 mb ram .Is this a
> > >common problem among staroffice users or it is just me and my machine,
> > >and if it so, could anyone give a clue of where to start loooking for
> > >the problem? thank you very much
> >
> > StarOffice is a huge monolithic program, and 32MB is really pushing the
> > bottom end as far as RAM is concerned (partiuclarly if you're using a
> > relatively heavy desktop environment like KDE).
> >
> > I would suggest buying another 32MB of RAM.
> >
> > --
> > -Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
> > OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
> > + VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
> > I used to have a life... Now I have a computer!
> I have a pIII - 450 with 64 Mb RAM and StarOffice drives me crazy...
> Using another program is the best solution...
> --
> Alexis Bilodeau
> ----
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks for the data Alexis
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
------------------------------
From: Jorge Ravazzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: staroffice running slowly
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:30:09 GMT
Richard Steiner wrote:
>
>
> Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Jorge Ravazzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> spake unto us, saying:
>
> >hi , im trying staroffice for linux under red hat 6.0 and it haves a
> >really poor performance on my pentium 233 with 32 mb ram .Is this a
> >common problem among staroffice users or it is just me and my machine,
> >and if it so, could anyone give a clue of where to start loooking for
> >the problem? thank you very much
>
> StarOffice is a huge monolithic program, and 32MB is really pushing the
> bottom end as far as RAM is concerned (partiuclarly if you're using a
> relatively heavy desktop environment like KDE).
>
> I would suggest buying another 32MB of RAM.
>
> --
> -Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
> OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
> + VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
> I used to have a life... Now I have a computer!
thanks for your time Richard
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
------------------------------
From: Jorge Ravazzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: staroffice running slowly
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:30:11 GMT
Jeff Susanj wrote:
>
>
> Go get a Kaypro II computer (2 Mhz Z80) running CP/M 2.2 and then use
> Wordstar for a while. After waiting for the floppy drives to grind a way
> for a while, Star Office will look like it is flying. All things are
> relative.
>
>
> Jeff S.
> Alexis Bilodeau wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >Richard Steiner wrote:
> >>
> >> Here in comp.os.linux.misc, Jorge Ravazzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> spake unto us, saying:
> >>
> >> >hi , im trying staroffice for linux under red hat 6.0 and it haves a
> >> >really poor performance on my pentium 233 with 32 mb ram .Is this a
> >> >common problem among staroffice users or it is just me and my
machine,
> >> >and if it so, could anyone give a clue of where to start loooking for
> >> >the problem? thank you very much
> >>
> >> StarOffice is a huge monolithic program, and 32MB is really pushing
the
> >> bottom end as far as RAM is concerned (partiuclarly if you're using a
> >> relatively heavy desktop environment like KDE).
> >>
> >> I would suggest buying another 32MB of RAM.
> >>
> >> --
> >> -Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
> >> OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
> >> + VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
> >> I used to have a life... Now I have a computer!
> >I have a pIII - 450 with 64 Mb RAM and StarOffice drives me crazy...
> >Using another program is the best solution...
> >--
> >Alexis Bilodeau
> > ----
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good advice Jeff, i ll keep it on mind , anyway , thank you
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
------------------------------
From: Jorge Ravazzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: staroffice running slowly
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:30:12 GMT
Edward M Grill wrote:
>
>
> its HIGHLY RECOMMENDED to have at minimum of 64Megs of RAM just to run X
> windows. then on top of that you are running a JAVA based app. you are
> asking too much from your system. buy some more RAM and that may help a
lot.
>
> eddie
>
>
> "Jorge Ravazzola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > hi , im trying staroffice for linux under red hat 6.0 and it haves a
> > really poor performance on my pentium 233 with 32 mb ram .Is this a
> > common problem among staroffice users or it is just me and my machine,
and
> > if it so, could anyone give a clue of where to start loooking for the
> > problem? thank you very much
> >
> > --
> > Posted via CNET Help.com
> > http://www.help.com/
>
>
Thanks for the advice Edward
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
------------------------------
From: Jorge Ravazzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: staroffice running slowly
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:30:14 GMT
Brian Moore wrote:
>
>
> In article <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-ySYrOdLUbrvi@localhost>,
> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
> >
> >X will run smoothly in as little as 16 MB RAM or even below. In fact,
> >when properly set up, KDE runs without hickups on 24 MB of RAM
> >(version 1.0). I know, because I've done this (even worse, I've done
> >it on a Pentium 60!).
> >
> >Granted, StarOffice is not modest in its memory requirements, but 48
> >MB should be sufficient to make it workable. And it is by no means a
> >"Java based app"! Sheesh!
> >
>
> I agree. I recently inherited a 133 MHz laptop with 16 MB RAM. I'm
> running Gnome/enlightenment and sometimes StarOffice. X was OK
> at 16 MB, but StarOffice was annoyingly slow. I upgraded to 32 MB
> (I am cash poor ...) and StarOffice is still a bit slow to start but
> really no problem after that.
>
>
> --
>
> Brian G. Moore, School of Science, Penn State Erie--The Behrend College
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] , (814)-898-6334
blessed are the poor (coleague) cause they shall inherit ol`133 pentium.
Thanks for your time
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
------------------------------
From: Jorge Ravazzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: staroffice running slowly
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:30:12 GMT
Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> Edward M Grill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > its HIGHLY RECOMMENDED to have at minimum of 64Megs of RAM just to run
X
> > windows. then on top of that you are running a JAVA based app. you are
> > asking too much from your system. buy some more RAM and that may help
a lot.
> >
> Are you on some kind of drug? Or maybe running Windows?
>
> X will run smoothly in as little as 16 MB RAM or even below. In fact,
> when properly set up, KDE runs without hickups on 24 MB of RAM
> (version 1.0). I know, because I've done this (even worse, I've done
> it on a Pentium 60!).
>
> Granted, StarOffice is not modest in its memory requirements, but 48
> MB should be sufficient to make it workable. And it is by no means a
> "Java based app"! Sheesh!
>
> "Buy more RAM" is the standard advice to anyone running whatever
> flavour of Windows, but thankfully other operating systems give the
> user more (and saner) options...
>
>
> Karel Jansens
> jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
> ========================================================
> "How to make God laugh?"
> "Tell Him your plans."
> (paraphrased from "Foundation's Fear" - Gregory Benford)
> ========================================================
>
>
Thanks for givin� me hope back Karel
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
------------------------------
From: Jorge Ravazzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: staroffice running slowly
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:30:15 GMT
Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>
>
> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
> : Edward M Grill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Are you on some kind of drug? Or maybe running Windows?
>
> Gimme some (of the former).
>
> : X will run smoothly in as little as 16 MB RAM or even below. In fact,
>
> True.
>
> : when properly set up, KDE runs without hickups on 24 MB of RAM
> : (version 1.0). I know, because I've done this (even worse, I've done
> : it on a Pentium 60!).
>
> That's difficult. You'd have to be very careful. I reckon that it
> probably needs about 24MB to itself avoid touching swap. At 64MB ram
> you're singing.
>
> : Granted, StarOffice is not modest in its memory requirements, but 48
> : MB should be sufficient to make it workable. And it is by no means a
>
> Not so. It is converted from NT. It doesn't know too much about
> sharing. On a 1GB ram machine I saw staroffice using 500MB! I am
> feeling more comfortable now I have upgraded my portable 300MHz to
> 128MB, but I still don't like using staroffice on it. Too slow.
> It takes my 450MHz workstation and lots of ram to make it feel anything
> like snappy.
>
> : "Buy more RAM" is the standard advice to anyone running whatever
> : flavour of Windows, but thankfully other operating systems give the
> : user more (and saner) options...
>
> Sure. Don't use staroffice :-). Or buy a faster disk.
>
> Peter
Thanks for sharing your experience with me Peter
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: /proc/config patch for kernel 2.2.13 (update)
Date: 23 Mar 2000 04:36:05 GMT
D. Stussy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Considering that is not the latest kernel that has been released (2.2.14 came
: out in January), is this something that is really needed, or did 2.2.14 fix it?
What has the kernel minor release number got to do with anything?
One of us is going to be puzzled for a while! The patch, as it says,
applies to any 2.2 kernel, and probably to all recent 2.3 kernels
(in its 2.3 version).
It adds a bit of functionality to the kernel that may people find
useful.
Would you mind explaining your question a bit? I really find myself
quite flummoxed by it.
Peter
: On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
:> Listing kernel compile-time configuration via /proc/config
:> ==========================================================
:> /proc/config patch (update) for kernel 2.2.*
:>
:> Proconfig 0.8.2 (2.2.13)
:> Changes
:> 0.8.2 - added on/off switch via echo -n "0" >/proc/config
:> (security and saves about 1K temporarily while off).
:> integrated CONFIG_* search with kernel mkdep.c
:>
:> 0.8.1 - minor cosmetic buglet fixed.
:> replaced shell scripts by C programs.
:> unified 2.3.44 and 2.2.13 config.c code
:> issued initial patch (0.9) for 2.3.44
:>
:> Download: ftp://oboe.it.uc3m.es/pub/Programs/proconfig-0.8.2.tgz
:> Homepage: http://www.it.uc3m.es/~ptb/proconfig/
:>
:> I'll update the 2.3.44 patch shortly: 0.9.2 won't be announced as
:> people here aren't following 2.3.*.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Can't ping out from RH 6.1
Date: 23 Mar 2000 04:30:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Carter Braxton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 22 Mar 2000 20:24:50 GMT, Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>You may not even have a working card. Have you tried listening on the
: The card (SMC Ultra) works under Windows, so I don't think that's the
: problem.
You don't understand ... I said "have". Whether it worked under windows
last time you booted into windows, or whether it will work under
windows (or linux) in the future is not the issue. You haven't shown
us that it IS working.
:>rest of the world means and that your windows boxes are not set up for
:>tcp/ip. So they won't reply. Or you may not have a working card yet.
: Our entire office network runs on TCP/IP, so internal nodes should
That's good. And is your office connected to you directly or reachable
via a gateway?
But please show that the card works first. /sbin/ifconfig (and check
with tcpdump that it hears packets).
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Bridge + shaper
Date: 23 Mar 2000 04:37:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Timothy J. Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Also, shadow.cabi.net, where the bridge and shaper tools are supposed
: to be, does not exist. Where are those tools now?
In any archive site you care to look at. Try any debian archive, under
net/bridge, for example.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Big Daddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX or not?
Date: 23 Mar 2000 04:40:35 GMT
Scribbling furiously, th499 managed to write....
: As a long time user of Windows 98, I'm thinking about ditching the OS for
: Linux. Frankly I don't know which version of Linux I should buy. I'm not
: an expert user on Linux, more of a newbie type. Can you recommend the
: version of Linux I should get? Is Mandrade 7.1 any good? Thank you for
: your answer.
IMHO, RedHat or Mandrake is TYPICALLY a little easier for the newbie,
with it's package management and all that jazz, but still satisfies
the needs of many "power users"; e.g. you can grow with it.
--
Big Daddy
Gotta run. Neighbors just sighted Elvis making crop circles.
------------------------------
From: "S. Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.dial-up
Subject: Re: Problems logging in at ISP
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:02:38 GMT
Dani�l H�rchner wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I am trying to configure a dialup account, but I ran into the
> following problem. After half a minute I get the following messages in
> my
> /var/log/messages:
> Last messages after logging in (?):
> Mar 10 14:45:12 localhost pppd[622]: Serial connection established.
> Mar 10 14:45:12 localhost pppd[622]: Using interface ppp0
> Mar 10 14:45:12 localhost pppd[622]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/modem
>
> After half a minute:
> Mar 10 14:45:43 localhost pppd[622]: LCP: timeout sending
> Config-Requests
> Mar 10 14:45:43 localhost pppd[622]: Connection terminated.
> Mar 10 14:45:43 localhost pppd[622]: Connect time 0.6 minutes.
> Mar 10 14:45:43 localhost pppd[622]: Receive serial link is not 8-bit
> clean:
> Mar 10 14:45:43 localhost pppd[622]: Problem: all had bit 7 set to 0
> Mar 10 14:45:44 localhost pppd[622]: Exit.
>
> What does this mean and how do I solve it?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Daniel Horchner
Different ISPs use different initiating to connect ppp link (after
modems are connected). But basically 2 categories - so-called "stupid"
mode (a term by wvdial) in which just directly starts ppp, and actually
requesting ppp connection. Some of ISP requires login, too. E.g., ATT
Worldnet uses "stupid" mode. Why don't you post your ISP and your Linux
distribution? People using your ISP can help your greatly.
Cheers.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:11:50 -0600
From: ground zero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Cannot FTP on new RH Install
I ran into this after installing RH 6.0.
You need to install the ftp daemon on your system. I used wu-ftpd. You
might want to read this related wu-ftpd security article:
http://www.redhat.com/mailing-lists/linux-security/1999-10/msg00007.html
Buck Turgidson wrote:
> Just installed RH 6.1. I can telnet into, and, of course, ping the linux
> server, but I cannot ftp. At the DOS prompt it says:
>
> Connected to lacalena.mylinux.com
> ..
> then after a minute, it says
>
> Connection closed by remote host.
>
> I ran tcpdchk, and it didn't return any errors. Any ideas on what to try
> next?
------------------------------
From: James Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: CDROM automount options - how to change.
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:47:44 +1100
Does anyone know where the default settings for CDROM mounting options
are stored for MidnightCommander/GNOME?
When placing a CDROM in the drive it automounts but the actual results
vary from one linux (Redhat) box to another as far as mount options go.
Specifically I am looking to turn off the noexec option.
Thanks for any help,
James
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
