Linux-Misc Digest #14, Volume #27 Sat, 3 Feb 01 23:13:01 EST
Contents:
Re: How to measure system load? ("OpenMind")
Re: problems with GDM at boot. Any help? (Dances With Crows)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (John Hasler)
Re: how to upgrade rpm (Rick)
Re: NFS broken with 2.4.1? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: DHCP question ("Jan Geertsma")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Modem [linmodem] configuration ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: A "Clean" Linux (Jay & Shell)
Re: problems with GDM at boot. Any help? ("kgb")
Re: A "Clean" Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Anyone able to boot UnixWare via LILO? (Mike Hammock)
Re: Converting text files from Microsoft to Linux and Linux to Microsoft (Francois
Labreque)
Re: Convert Word-DOC to PostScript (Esteban Flocco)
Re: kernel compiling error on RH7.0 (Mark Bratcher)
Re: Red Hat 7 (Mark Bratcher)
Re: A "Clean" Linux (John Hasler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "OpenMind" <**Mail Free America**>
Subject: Re: How to measure system load?
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 17:18:57 -0800
Thanks for cross-referencing the issue for me, Paul.
Uptime, then, will clearly do me no good at all. CPU utilization is, I
expect, what I have to be measuring. Anybody know of a command-line utility
(or daemon which can be called) which will give that information to stdio in
parseable form?
___
Paul Kimoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, OpenMind wrote:
> > The simplest I have found is 'uptime,' which advises "system load
averages
> > for 1, 5, and 15 minutes."
> >
> > Does anybody know what the programmer's idea of "load" entails? CPU
> > utilization?
>
> The proc(5) man page says:
>
> : loadavg
> : The load average numbers give the number of jobs in
> : the run queue averaged over 1, 5 and 15 minutes.
> : They are the same as the load average numbers given
> : by uptime(1) and other programs.
>
>
> > Put simplistically, my idea of a 100% loaded system is one on which the
> > launching of new processes or tasks begins to slow down already-running
> > processes. I wonder if uptime's idea of load is a good measure of this.
>
> Not necessarily. A process doing I/O slowly (or blocked for some reason)
> counts as 1 toward load.
>
> --
> Paul Kimoto
> This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text. Any images,
> hyperlinks, or the like shown here have been added without my consent,
> and may be a violation of international copyright law.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dances With Crows)
Subject: Re: problems with GDM at boot. Any help?
Date: 4 Feb 2001 01:17:12 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:50:41 -0600, kgb staggered into the Black Sun and said:
> While running numerous apps in an X session using enlightenment, I
>crashed. Upon re-booting, I encountered a problem. Now, some way or another,
>I inadvertantly selected booting to a GUI within the past few months. I
>neglected changing it but always wanted to get around to it. Now when I
>boot, I briefly seet he login prompt, then the graphical login prompt
>attempts to start. the screen flickers and blinks on and off until stopped..
[snip]
> Would booting into a different runlevel allow me to fix this? How do I
>change runlevels before I ever get to the login prompt? If so, what file do
>I edit to disable redhat's boot to GUI option?
(turn on machine)
LILO: linux 3
(boot)
login: root
Password: XXXXXXXX
root@localhost# edit /etc/inittab
id:5:initdefault:
(change to)
id:3:initdefault:
Oh yes, your /etc/X11/XF86Config may be munged, or possibly your
~/.gnome/somewhere . If gdm works alongside X for your mouse, then you
may wish to look through /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/ and make sure that gdm isn't
getting killed if you don't want it to be killed. HTH,
--
Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin / Workin' in a code mine, hittin' Ctrl-Alt
http://www.brainbench.com / Workin' in a code mine, whoops!
=============================/ I hit a seg fault....
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 00:29:11 GMT
Walt writes:
> The dictionary definition of "atheist" is, "one who denies the existence
> of God."
Make that "_a_ dictionary definition": at best an approximation. I (an
atheist) prefer this definition: "one who denies the existence of your
imaginary friend while not claiming to have one of his own".
> That is definitely an active belief.
"Does not believe" is not "believes not".
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: how to upgrade rpm
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 01:34:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:41:54 -0500, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >I have rpm-3.0.3-43mdk from mandrake 7.0 I often get an error saying
I
> >cant istall a package with version >= 3. How can I upgrade or change
my
> >rpm package so I can install these packages?
> >
> >Any and all help appreciated.
>
> Red Hat has an updated rpm version on it's errata page
> where you can download rpm-3.0.5-9.6x.i386.rpm.
>
> I'm sure Mandrake has a similar upgrade on their site.
> (If not, just use Red Hat's)
>
> --
> Steve Ackman
> http://twovoyagers.com
> Registered Linux User #79430
>
I have the new rpm pakage manager installed. I can access the rpms from
a terminal commandline, but if I try to install using gnorpm or
kpackage, I still get the can install version >3 error. How do I fix
this?
--
Rick
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NFS broken with 2.4.1?
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 02:29:17 +0100
MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>> MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>> And I too assume many things ... but I am certain that I'm not going to
>> be using either RH or nfs v3 in the near future :-). I'm happy shooting
>> down lockd wherever I find it.
> Why? I thought NFS v3 was supposed be much improved over NFS v2,
> particularly as concerns security issues. I've been very happy with RH
Quite possibly, but I have no intention of ever changing to anything just
because it is supposed to be "better". Particularly when it is somebody
elses idea of better.
It has taken about 7 years to get linux nfs v2 perfectly safe and
reliable. So it will take about 7 years to get nfs v3 perfectly safe and
reliable. Then in about 7 years time I might consider it to be as good as
the present variety, and change to it.
Incidently, the advantages in nfs3 are not in security (though spoofing
is harder and there is some kind of authentication level finer than
"machine"). They are in detecting and recovering from network, server
and client outages. The lockd is there to manage locking issues
correctly. The statd is there to tell everyone when its machine died -
it shouts when the machine comes up again - so that they can drop stale
handles or do whatever else is appropriate.
I handle all that by (a) using dot-locking, (b) using autofs with a
timeout of 5s. Every half hour I check all nfs-mounts for liveness and
murder them via IPaliasing for their server if necessary.
> I certainly prefer RH over Caldera or Mandrake, not to mention some of the
> smaller distros. I know Debian has a good rep, but the last time I tried
> it I found installation to be just too much of a pain. I do plan on trying
Installation is something you only do once. It should not be a
consideration.
When I installed debian (the one time), it took me about three days.
That was how long it took to bootstrap up to the point of being able to
read the manpage for dpkg and apt-get. I had to install the base
packages for the old distro first, then reverse engineer the package
format, then replace every single base package from the old distro with
packages from the new distro by unpacking it into tarred components,
installing the tars, then running the post-install scripts. It took me
the three days to find where they'd hidden nroff and other text utils,
without which I couldn't look for where they'd hidden nroff and other
text utils ...
.. I understand its easier now. But then that wasn really difficult.
Just painful. Not that anything could be more painful than actually
reading dselect (except possibly, using rpm). Use apt-get.
Nowadays one gets to upgrade the entire distro with "apt-get upgrade".
I occasionally do that with "-d" (don't) just to see what I am missing.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Jan Geertsma" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: DHCP question
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 21:12:21 GMT
Yeah ofcourse, dhcp works with broadcasting ... learn and forget, learn and
forget, it's an endless loop :)
Jan
"JARRETT GRAHAM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ddZe6.16791$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> type as root at the console or in an xterm
> "route add host 255.255.255.255 eth0" or " route add net 255.255.255.255
> eth0" or whatever interface you are using
>
> windows 9x clients need it to get a response from a true DHCP Server
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 02:42:19 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc Walt, Southern California, USA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> The dictionary definition of "atheist" is, "one who denies the existence
> of God." That is definitely an active belief.
Your confusion is in believing that "not believe" is the same as
"believe not".
Try again. To see that they are different concepts, practice with "not
prove" and "prove not".
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 02:40:28 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: Failure to come to a decision is a decision in itself.
It certainly is not. Consider a machine that tosses a coin to choose
whether to turn a light red or green. If the coin comes down on its
edge, the machine has not decided not to decide.
Decision requires both volition and alternatives in order to happen and it
does not have anything to do with actions. The idea that decision is an
action is already a syntactic problem in the statement quoted.
Decision is ABOUT actions, it is not of them. (More accurately still,
decision is about intention, and intention usually translates into action).
The statement makes no sense, just as "who shaves the barber who shaves
all men who do not shave themselves" makes no sense.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Modem [linmodem] configuration
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 02:46:22 +0100
Panagiotis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so you mean i should just excecute
> gcc -I/usr/src/linux-2.2.16/include -DMODULE -D__KERNEL__ -O2 -c foo.c
> dont i have to edit anything?
Edit anything you like. I'm not forcing you. But if you want to compile
something, compile it!
Peter
------------------------------
From: Jay & Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A "Clean" Linux
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 02:04:13 GMT
demibee wrote:
> Can someone point me to Linux distribution that has the Least amount
> of proprietary utilities and tools built into it -- something that
> comes as close as possible to BSD Unix, SunOS, etc.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> db
SlackWare.
------------------------------
From: "kgb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: problems with GDM at boot. Any help?
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 20:08:43 -0600
> (turn on machine)
> LILO: linux 3
> (boot)
> login: root
> Password: XXXXXXXX
>
> root@localhost# edit /etc/inittab
> id:5:initdefault:
> (change to)
> id:3:initdefault:
That worked perfectly, thanks. But there's more of a problem it appears.
> Oh yes, your /etc/X11/XF86Config may be munged, or possibly your
> ~/.gnome/somewhere . If gdm works alongside X for your mouse, then you
> may wish to look through /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/ and make sure that gdm isn't
> getting killed if you don't want it to be killed. HTH,
When I go to start X, it will flicker the screen then dump me back to
console. This is the tail end of what appears to be a normal series of
messages from a starting X server. The tail end is where it goes wrong:
:: normal series of messages, etc ::
_FontTransSocketUNIXConnect
Failed to set default font path 'unix/:-1'
Fatal server error:
Could not open default font 'fixed'
And then it dies. Sometimes xinit will hang in the balance
and wait until I kill it before I'm dumped back to a prompt.
Any ideas as to the problem? Or ways to fix it?
all help is appreciated
kgb
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A "Clean" Linux
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 02:09:52 GMT
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> demibee writes:
>> Can someone point me to Linux distribution that has the Least
>> amount of proprietary utilities and tools built into it
>
> I don't know of any distribution tha has any proprietary utilities
> and tools built into it, though some include proprietary
> applications in their boxed sets.
>
> > something that comes as close as possible to BSD Unix,...
>
> Debian includes only free software (close to 5000 packages of it) and is
> put together by volunteers.
Frankly, the "something that comes as close as possible to BSD Unix"
would in fact _be_ some form of BSD. Considering that the
certification work hasn't been done with the BSD variants, and that
they're not paying royalties to [whomever owns the Unix trademark
today], the term "BSD Unix" is presently a misnomer as none of them
are any more "Unix" than Linux is...
It's _possible_ that Slackware is a bit nearer to BSD, though not to
Unix, from the init perspective.
Most of the other Linux distributions prefer to use SysV-style init,
which is thus arguably "more Unix-like."
Slackware has long used a more BSD-like init, thus more like BSD, and
"less Unix-like."
> > ...SunOS, etc.
>
> ?? I thought you said you didn't want proprietary stuff?
I suspect he's using Some Other Meaning Of Proprietary that people
don't commonly use around here.
Around here, we are usually referring to licensing constraints.
In contrast, I think he's referring to the notion of having "custom
stuff that diverges from traditional Unix."
The use of dpkg or RPM instead of the SysV thing which is either
pkgadd or pkginst would be arguably a "proprietary divergence,"
regardless of them being available as free software.
And if that be the case, then _probably_ the only useful Linux
distribution choice would be Slackware, and the gentle reader is
probably better advised, if he wants something "like BSD," to look to
OpenBSD or FreeBSD, as they actually _are_ BSD systems.
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@ntlug.org")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/unix.html
"If you are not willing to pay a meager $10 to support the development
of your operating system, you are too cheap to even own a computer."
-- David J. Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 21:31:22 -0500
From: Mike Hammock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Anyone able to boot UnixWare via LILO?
Have two IDE disks: Installed UnixWare 7.1.1 on first disk (/dev/hba)
and Linux (SuSE 7) on second disk (/dev/hbc). I've got a working LILO
configuration... it boots LINUX fine, and it starts the boot of UnixWare
(specifying /dev/hda4 as the boot target). I get the UnixWare Logo
screen, copyright screen, HBA messages, it panics, takes a dump,
and stops. Only clue is very early in the UnixWare boot (before the
logo screen) there is a quick "invalid partition" message.
Has anyone been able to get this king of config working with LILO??
With any other 'boot manager'?? Appears that UnixWare is a bit
'fussy' somehow...
Thanks,
Mike
------------------------------
From: Francois Labreque <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Converting text files from Microsoft to Linux and Linux to Microsoft
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 22:01:37 -0500
Edwin Johnson wrote:
>
> I have a small dos utility called flip which I've been using for years in
> the dos environment to convert in either direction. In Linux you could
> simply write a simple perl script to do the same thing. I can email you the
> flip program if you so desire.
DOS EDIT also converts unix text files to DOS text files properly. And
it comes with DOS 5.0 and up, no need to hunt for third party utilities.
As numerous others have mentioned, on the *nix side, you can use
"unix2dos" and "dos2unix".
--
Francois Labreque | The surest sign of the existence of extra-
flabreque | terrestrial intelligence is that they never
@ | bothered to come down here and visit us!
videotron.ca - Calvin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esteban Flocco)
Subject: Re: Convert Word-DOC to PostScript
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 17:22:03 -0500
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
I don't have StarOffice and I don't have any intention to download it
since I have a slow connection.
>[snip ridiculous procedure]
Well, I wasn't going to reply to this, but I like the flexibility you can
obtain from doing jobs through scripts. I prefer that to load a
monstruosity like StarOffice only to do a conversion.
--
Saludos,
Esteban Flocco
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Bratcher)
Subject: Re: kernel compiling error on RH7.0
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 03:22:09 GMT
On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 22:59:08 -0800, Lupei Zhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi,
>
> I am having problem compiling kernel 2.2.16 on my dell 4000 running
>RH7.0
>
> here are what I did:
> 1) put the linux source tree on /usr/src from the binary rpm on the
>RH7.0 CD.
> 2) cp kernel-2.2.16-i686.config .config
> 3) make xconfig, but didn't change anything.
> 4) make dep clean, so far so good
> 5) make bzImage, failed with error message attached below.
Two things that come to mind...
1) Where did kernel-2.2.16-i686.config come from? If it's not one that you made
for your machine, I would remake it.
2) I always do the clean _before_ the dep, but I'm not sure that dep creates
anything that clean deletes, so it's probably OK.
HTH
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Bratcher)
Subject: Re: Red Hat 7
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 03:34:17 GMT
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 23:08:51 +0100, Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Arctic Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> there can be resolved with patches and upgrades. RedHat will release the
>> Linux Kernel 2.4 package in a few weeks, and then eventually RedHat 7.1, so
>> having RedHat 7.0 now will make the upgrade smooth.
>
>Except that it won't. It'll have nothing to do with the transition
>being smooth or rough. The only thing you need to update for the new
>kernel is modutils. And if you compile, then also binutils. If you use
>modem dialups, then also pppd. That's it. I am running kernel 2.4.0
>under slackware 3.0 and have not the slightest trouble. I don't even
>use glibc.
>
>Please don't spread FUD.
>
>
>Peter
I have to agree with Peter.
I am running RedHat 6.2 and have recently downloaded kernel 2.4.0 source.
Compiled it without a hitch (after configuring, of course) using the normal gcc
compiler. I only needed to update modutils, binutils, and pppd.
--
Mark Bratcher
To reply, remove _UNSPAM from my email address
=========================================================
Escape from Microsoft's proprietary tentacles: use Linux!
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A "Clean" Linux
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 02:58:35 GMT
cbbrowne writes:
> Most of the other Linux distributions prefer to use SysV-style init,
> which is thus arguably "more Unix-like."
Debian comes with sysvinit standard and file-rc optional, so he could have
it either way.
Besides, you can't get much more Unix-like than System III.
> In contrast, I think he's referring to the notion of having "custom stuff
> that diverges from traditional Unix."
I think he will find plenty of that in any of Sun's current offerings.
> ...the gentle reader is probably better advised, if he wants something
> "like BSD," to look to OpenBSD or FreeBSD, as they actually _are_ BSD
> systems.
True, but he specified Linux.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.misc.
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
******************************
