Linux-Misc Digest #894, Volume #24 Thu, 22 Jun 00 19:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: files permission default (Robie Basak)
Re: searching MS word... (Robie Basak)
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (zerr)
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (Doc Shipley)
Re: Athlon problems (Sandhitsu R Das)
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (Robie Basak)
Re: The X Server...
Re: searching MS word... (Bob Tennent)
Re: Helix Gnome and esd ("Michael B. Robinson")
Re: GNU/LINUX at city of Boston Public Library departments (David Steuber)
Re: Looking for command line Linux version of Winpopup (Sean Akers)
Re: network card and modem setup (The Darkener)
Re: Losing time (The Darkener)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robie Basak)
Subject: Re: files permission default
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 22 Jun 2000 22:10:18 GMT
On 22 Jun 2000 11:30:36 -0500, Shulan Liu said:
>hi,
>I recently got some odd thing form my file system.
>For any new file I downloads or newly create, the permission
>for group is writable.
>Can anyone tell what does the problem come from?
Set your umask to 022:
umask 022
To make permanent, put in your ~/.bash_profile if using bash or in
~/.cshrc if using csh or tcsh (or even ~/.tcsh :-)
Robie.
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robie Basak)
Subject: Re: searching MS word...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 22 Jun 2000 22:20:49 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 06:22:34 GMT, Natanael said:
>On 21 Jun 2000 21:18:40 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dances
>With Crows) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:42:11 GMT, Natanael
>><<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> shouted forth into the ether:
>>>I'm looking for a program that searches MS word dokuments. This is
>>>supposed to be used on a web server. recommended a linux web-server
>>>for this task. If this cannot be solved there will be no linux web
>>>server in our LAN.... :-(
>>
>>Searches them and does what with the results? If you want to find all the
>>MS-Turd documents that contain the word "carrot", for example, you'd just
>>"grep carrot *.doc" and get answers very quickly. If you wish to turn the
>>text of an MS-Turd document into something any browser can understand,
>>"strings" is your friend.
>>
>>I'm sure you could get a better answer if you described your problem and
>>your requirements in more detail.
>>
>
>I am talking about a web server with a search engine to make it
>possible for the people here to find their word documents. They shall
>just type a search pattern and the search engine shall find the
>documents containing the pattern. A html presentation with some of the
>lines included (like a websearch) for an overview what is in the doc
>and a link to it is preferible. I know about the easy grep but that
>would never be able compete with a MS search engine... i guess...
Can your MS search engine to full regular expressions?
By deciding to use MS Word documents, you've got yourself stuck. No,
there can be no program that can read a proprietary file format better
than the original (not that Microsoft have done a decent job, but
that's besides the point).
Robie.
--
------------------------------
From: zerr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:00:50 GMT
Oliver Baker wrote:
>
> O.K., I know this is probably an impossible question to answer, but what
> the hay.
>
> Would anyone care to compare--either quantitatively or
> qualitatively--the number of mind hours that have gone into developing
> Linux as an OS verus what has gone into developing Windows as an OS?
>
> I'm writing a magazine article for a trade magazine and don't know much
> about this stuff. I've heard people call Linux more reliable than
> Windows. If true, it seems to me that this could be because a) Linux is
> better designed b)it attempts to do less, c) more people have invested
> time in making it work and/or c)smarter people (and, hey, let's say
> better looking while we're at it) have invested time in making it work
> (I guess there's some overlap with "a)" here).
>
> I thought I'd make a meager attempt to evaluate the possibility of
> "c"--although if anybody wants to cast a vote or express a thought as to
> the other options (or to propose alternatives), I'd be interested to
> read. Thanks for any thoughts.
>
> Oliver Baker
>
> .
You sound and even said that you know about nothing about linux. How do
you suspect to write a good article if you know nothing about the
subject matter. If I were you I would read a thick book on linux install
it, play around with it for 3 months then you might be able to write a
well informed article about it. But until you know your subject matter
the article will basically suck.
------------------------------
From: Doc Shipley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:00:28 GMT
Robie Basak wrote:
>
> Also, would someone please tell me where the equivalents of cron and
> at are in NT? Or do I have to upgrade to 2000 as well?
>
There is an "at" function in NT 4.0, that also allows a limited
cron-style scheduling by means of batch files. Look up "at" in the Help
index. To call it equivalent, though, would be a travesty.
--
Doc Shipley
Network Stuff
Austin, Earth
------------------------------
From: Sandhitsu R Das <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Athlon problems
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:26:50 -0400
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Ancipital wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:49:42 -0300, Jim Chisholm
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Don't happen to have a G400 video card do you?
> >Athlon700 + G400 = tempermental (IMHO)
> >
>
> How so? This box (athlon 800 on an asus k7v+Single head 32 meg g400)
> is impeccably behaved..
>
Mine too! Rock solid - even with older drivers - old 6.0 distro.
>
> Ancipital- Inedible Buddhas reality control #1
> http://www.buddhas.org is currently tqt- back soon.
>
> To unmung email addr, get rid of "nospam-" and maybe even "-thanks"
>
> "I'm not crying victim, but I am stating that a lot of spammers
> are genuine scumbags." -Sanford Wallace
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robie Basak)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 22 Jun 2000 22:27:20 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:11:33 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>"but for basic simple administation, you could say NT was easier (an MCSE
> monkey could do it)"
>
>Well, it can be just any monkey :) . Most of the stuff is hidden away in the
>help files!!
Right. This silly NT user has gone and made his/her logon unusable
(say, by messing with resolution settings). Now, an admin can use keys
and fix it blind, but that's not exactly user friendly now, is it? How
else can this problem be fixed?
>Yup : Configuration is through readable text files. Even if all hell breaks
Exactly - so the admin just changes the relevant text file - or, if
he/she doesn't know which one it is, knows to use the 'su' command to
change to the user's permissions and runs the graphical interface.
>loose, if you can boot off an emergency disk, you can run vi ( the unix
>text editor) and change things .Compare that with Windows Registry
>manipulation when the OS does not start.
I've done it in the past (using regedit from DOS, but that only works
for 98), but you have to know exactly which key. Where's the
documentation for the registry?
>> Also, linux installs more easily
>Well, I am not so sure. So far, I've used Redhat's packages, and things are
>quite simple.
>Corel's offering really irritated me because I did not want to edit package
>files . But this is a nitpick on the installer.
>
>> > -Used far and wide.
>> > -Good software and hardware base.
>> > -Eye Candy value(my friend stated that his boss made
>> > them move to win nt a few years back because of the way it
>> > looked not worked.)
>>
>> omigod.
>Well, so long as said person kept backups of critical data on some other
>safe system.
>
>> > NT/2000 CON's
>> > -Not well liked by hackers. (They see this as the man to be
>> > overthrown this is why you have more problems with hackers
>> > virus's and such
>To break into , MS has been great! Guess how long they wait to release a
>patch ?
>
>
>> > -Not as stable as others (linux,beos,free bsd, novel)
>> > -In a year or two you will be facing another expensive upgrade
>> > or be behind in the os war.
>Here , here. W2K Pro takes up 64 MB of ram . I need 128MB just to run the
>monster. And what does it load up ? a lot of fancy crap that I have no easy
>way of disabling ( unless I want to risk trashing the hdd on the next
>reboot )
>In contrast, I could control every service that could be started on Linux.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > Linux PRO's
>> > -Very cheap free to about 1/3 to 1/2 of what nt or novel charge
>> Eh? I don't quite understand. It's free (except for a 1 off charge if
>> you choose to buy instead of download a CD).
>
>> > -Runs well on low end system (486 web server)
>> > -Once set up properly will run well (reports of systems running
>> > uninterupted for 300 + days.
>
>> > -At one point there was a rumor that micro$oft ran its hotmail
>> > servers on linux boxes cause NT couldn't handle the load.
>>
>> It wasn't a rumour. IIRC Hotmail runs on FreeBSD, and the attempt to
>> migrate to NT4 was a failure.
>>
>> > -Gaining momentum constant updates with little or no cost.
>> >
>> > Linux CON's
>> > -Not alot shown improvements on high end systems (from
>> > comparisons between linux and NT)
>> Yes. The SMP isn't so great, but this isn't a con compared to NT because
>> it's no worse.
>
>> > -Takes alot of work to get a system setup properly
>> That I disagree with completely. The install is easier and quicker than
>> NT. It install all the H/W drivers for you and you need to reboot once.
>> Things like samba come working out of the box. The additional setup
>> needed for a desktop system is minimal after it's first installed.
>>
>> -Ed
>>
>>
>> > -Lack of Talented people to admin Linux
>
>
>> > -Cost of Talented people to admin Linux
>>
>> But (as pointed out earlier) 2 BOFH ($90,000/annum) types are cheaper
>> than 6 monkey (30,000/annum) types.
>
>
>> > -Not a real strong hardware and software powerbase for linux.
>Well, RH 6.0's X server handles my G200 card perfectly. In fact, I can get
>higher refresh rates from X server than from Windows .
>It picked up my modem ( all 3 as I cycled through them ) . They are ISA, and
>"plug and pray" is disabled.
>It picked up my sound card ( a vibra 16 ) and is in full duplex mode. I have
>to mute the mike to prevent feedback!
>All I used was "sndconfig" that was installed when I did a full install.
>It plays mp3's and audio off the cdrom while I'm writing something, or doing
>my accounts , or browsing.
>It even contains a X version of winamp.
>The only thing I don't do is play games. The ones I play are rather a
>"niche" thing ( hardcore combat sims), and I don't expect them to be ported
>to other OS'es from win95.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: nf.comp.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: The X Server...
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:39:40 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:18:20 -0230, Hendrix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> When people hear "server", they think "something running on a remote
>> computer." This is often true, but not in this case. The X-server runs
>> on your local computer and handles things like drawing lines, text, and
>> points on your screen. An X client can be running almost anywhere (on a
>> remote computer in Paraguay, on the machine 50 feet down the hall, or on
>> the same machine as the server) as long as it has a connection to the X
>> server and can tell the server to draw things on the screen. The only
>> special software that's required is an X server (Xfree86, AccelX, MiX, and
>> 5 or 6 others), an X client (too many to list), and a fast network
>> connection if those 2 aren't on the same machine.
>>
The shared resource being "served" up is your framebuffer.
>
>Okay... So basically, what I am seeing on the screen when I use KDE or GNOME, is
>just the X server responding to instructions from the X client.... So really, the
>computer running the X server could be a stand-alone computer without an x client
>at all.... And the x client can run from any computer on any given network
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Tennent)
Subject: Re: searching MS word...
Date: 22 Jun 2000 22:45:30 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 22 Jun 2000 22:20:49 GMT, Robie Basak wrote:
>
>By deciding to use MS Word documents, you've got yourself stuck. No,
>there can be no program that can read a proprietary file format better
>than the original (not that Microsoft have done a decent job, but
>that's besides the point).
>
First of all, note that MS have made specs for the Word format available.
Second, there are very good conversion programs available, such as
wv (MsWordView) and WordPerfect.
Third, the poster doesn't need perfect conversion: only to seach
documents. To get at the text in a Word document foo.doc, just do
strings foo.doc.
Bob T.
------------------------------
From: "Michael B. Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Helix Gnome and esd
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:45:00 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chuck Hakari wrote:
> Since no one else had a solution, I will let this newsgroup know what I
> did for now. I went into session management and got rid of the sound
> item. I don't use system sounds, so it doesn't hurt anything for now.
>
> Chuck Hakari wrote:
> >
> > I have just installed Helix Gnome from RPM's over an existing Gnome
> > installation on a Redhat 6.0 system. The problem I am having now is that
> > the session appears to lock up, but when I switch terminals and run top,
> > I find that esd is running with 97% of the cpu. Most of the time I can
> > kill esd and get back to work, but I would like to know if anyone else
> > has had this problem.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Chuck Hakari
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> Chuck Hakari
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chuck,
I just installed Helix and have not had the problem you refer to. Only
running for 24 hours though.
BTW, I am somewhat new to linux and am trying to configure GNOME mimi types
to open files such as .ppt, .doc, .xls with staroffice automatically when I
double-click on them. I entered in the edit mime types dialog box the
following:
application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
entered the appropriate file extensions:
------------------------------
Subject: Re: GNU/LINUX at city of Boston Public Library departments
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:00:00 GMT
"Josh H. Turiel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
' If you suggested StarOffice 5.2 on Linux, or WordPerfect Office, I'd
' have given this whole discussion a lot more credibility. At least
' that's a legitimate option for the "typical user".
You make some very good points which I have snipped to save space.
Any decent newsreader will show the previouse article in a thread.
Some counter points.
Linux is simply a platform that applications run on, just as Windows
is. Linux just happens to be more stable, and the applications are
more independent. For office use, all you need to ask is, "are there
suitable tools for office work?" Depending on that work, the answer
is yes.
You say Word is easy to automate. That may be your experience, but it
is not mine. You have to know VBA and the internals of Word quite
well to automate it. Or perhaps you use the word ``automate'' in a
different way than I am used to.
A vi clone called VIM is available on Windows and maybe even the Mac.
You can't blame Linux for VI. You must blame AT&T ;-). As for TeX
and LaTeX, the systems have been ported to both the Windows and Mac
platforms.
You said it your self about hammers and nails. The fact is, there are
even more Office solutions than the commercial ones you mentioned
above. The KDE project has KOffice which is getting good reviews.
The GNOME project is working on there office suit. That adds two
different open source, GPL competitors to the mix.
You are right that the content of a document is more important than
how well it is typeset. But good typesetting is critically important
for certain applications. Books is the primary example. TeX was
designed to produce beautiful books. TeX allows you to use any editor
you please. I prefer XEmacs over vi for obvious reasons. XEmacs if
fully automatable, with the same caveats as Word. TeX is also not
just a markup language. It can do computation. This is a very useful
feature for creating a Table of Contents and an Index. TeX and LaTeX
style sheets abound for particular uses such as academic journals,
books, etc. An adept TeXnician can create a style sheet to suit any
purpose. This is more powerful than the template facility in Word.
Also there exists at least one WYSIWYG editor for TeX documents. If
you truly believe that WYSIWYG is useful when composing a document,
then look up Klyx.
Automation under Linux is far, far easier than under Windows. It is
only recently that Windows has introduced scripting as part of the
distribution. Linux has had that from day one. You want to generate
weekly reports from a database? An appropriate script in a cron job
will do that for you with no manual intervention. This includes
mailing the final report to the appropriate recipients. This comes
built in with the typical Linux distribution. No third party
applications are required as they are when Windows is the shakey
platform your business sits on.
Why does the sound like a *.advocacy thread?
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
From: Sean Akers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Looking for command line Linux version of Winpopup
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:02:24 +0100
In article <8itp3n$b11$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> If you have Samba installed, you can use "smbclient -M <user>". From a
> script, you may want to pipe the contents of a file to it like this:
> cat somefile.txt | smbclient -M someuser
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> -Bill
>
>
Cheers Bill. Much appreciated.
Sean.
------------------------------
From: The Darkener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: network card and modem setup
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:03:06 GMT
Try netconf.
TAJ wrote:
> Hey guys. I just came over from the other side (MS-Windows world), and I've
> been trying to figure out how to set up my modem and ethernet card under Red
> Hat Linux 6.1. It doesn't seem to be any type of generic driver setup like
> under Windows. If somebody could help me, or point me to a FAQ that can
> help, I'd appreciate it.
>
> TAJ
------------------------------
From: The Darkener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Losing time
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:06:35 GMT
That was happening to me as well.... I don't remember what fixed it, if I
fixed it or it just went away when I stopped using GNome and started using
BlackBox... ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Greetings
>
> I am running Red Hat 5.2 on a pentium machine, however in recent weeks I
> have been getting a wierd problem. The machine loses time!
>
> for example, this morning at 8am I reset the clock to the correct time,
> an hour ago it read a 9:55 am, it in aproximately 12 hours the clock (as
> reported by date) had only elapsed 2 hours.
>
> I rebooted the machine and checked the date in the BIOS - this is
> correct.
>
> During this period it hasn't been connected to the net or anything else
> to synchronise time to.
>
> It's turned on 24x7, it runs Seti@Home (and has done for about a year)
> and never used to lose time any suggestions?
>
> Your help would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bryan
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
