Linux-Misc Digest #15, Volume #27 Sun, 4 Feb 01 08:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Saving font size on terminals (Wael)
Re: kernel compiling error on RH7.0 (Lupei Zhu)
glibc 2.2.1 ("Platypus")
Re: kernel compiling error on RH7.0, solved (Lupei Zhu)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: export variables to calling shell in a shell-script ("Eric en Jolanda")
Re: DHCP question (Beggar)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Mail server question (Beggar)
Re: Mail server question (Michael Heiming)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Linux Newbie Help!!!! (Uwe Malzahn)
problems with kernel 2.4.1 (Thomas Weidner)
Re: export variables to calling shell in a shell-script (Craig Macbride)
Re: Migrating ext2 to reiserfs (Christian Schaubschlaeger)
Diap-up to ISP ? (Eric Chow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Saving font size on terminals
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 05:09:01 GMT
I meant in x term (which i'm assuming is the terminal window). Unfortunately,
it doesn't save by itself. And when i tried to "save on exit" thing,...hmmm
when i return back i get a nice red background...yuck. and the terminal window
is open by itself with a prompt that says: "bash#". If I try to open a new
terminal window, the font is small as usual. i remember i modified something
in the configuration 2 years ago to fix a problem like that, but i didn't
document it then.
Jean-David Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wael wrote:
>>
>> How can I save the font in X? I'm using gnome. When i click " settings " ->
>> "preferences" and I choose a large font size, it doesn't get saved !!
>>
>> Where are the configuration files responsible for that?
>>
>> Thx
> I never looked for where, but where do you mean? In an x-term? Or
> "everywhere else"?
> In an x-term, click the Preferences and set it in there and it should
> remain.
> For GNOME/Enlightenment, GNOME->Settings->Theme selector and just set
> it.
> You might want to do GNOME->Settings->Save Current Session, or check the
> Save Current Setup when you log out. I do not recall if that is
> necessary.
> --
> .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
> /V\ Registered Machine 73926.
> /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey
> ^^-^^ 12:50pm up 5 days, 21:19, 5 users, load average: 4.35, 3.11, 2.58
------------------------------
From: Lupei Zhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: kernel compiling error on RH7.0
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 22:00:36 -0800
Mark Bratcher wrote:
> 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.
it's in the source tree /usr/src/linux/configs/, I assume that is the default
configuration.
>
>
> 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
BTW, the compiler is gcc 2.96
------------------------------
From: "Platypus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: glibc 2.2.1
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 00:33:17 -0600
I'm having a problem getting glibc 2.2.1 to work on my system. This version
is apparently necessary for XFree86 4.0.x, the version of emacs I installed,
etc. The problem is, I can't find a Debian package; I looked in the
unstable, testing, and proposed-updates package trees, and I found a package
for 'libglibc2.1' (if i remember correctly). Is there a Debian package for
glibc 2.2.1, and if so, what is it called and where to I get it? Someone on
IRC told me that it was inlcluded in libc6, but that's installed on my
system, and it _doesn't_ contain the necessary version of glibc. I've tried
compiling it myself from the tarball, but I'm relatively inexperienced in
that area, and it's giving me problems. I run the configure script, then
make, and everything works fine, but it returns errors when i run make
install, (I can't remember what it says off the top of my head) and fails to
install the libraries. Is there a specific place I need to place the tarball
in order to install it? I have it under /glibc/glibc-2.2.1/ ; is there
another place it needs to be? If anyone can help me out, I'd greatly
appreciate it.
Thanks a lot.
--
Iraq Methamphetamine Iran Bomb Korea Vietnam Serbia Taliban Hijack Palestine
Drug Poison Ambassador
~For the government's search programs~
------------------------------
From: Lupei Zhu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: kernel compiling error on RH7.0, solved
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 23:51:14 -0800
Mark Bratcher wrote:
> 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
this helps a lot. I did make clean before make xconfig, no luck. I then did "make
mrproper",
then "make xconfig dep clean bzImage", now all the compiling errors are gone!
Lupei
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 02:53:57 -0500
John Hasler wrote:
>
> 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".
Geeze, you're as dogmatic as the people you deride.
> --
> John Hasler
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, WI
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
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 09:27:33 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
>>
>> 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".
> Geeze, you're as dogmatic as the people you deride.
Uh, fella, this is as basic a piece of modal logic as one can get.
You seem to be unaware of the logic of modalities like belief, proof,
necessity, obligation, and so on. Id normally direct you to the
library, but let's try ...
Basically the logical operators "belief" and "not" do not commute, OK?
I gave you a clearer example of how that can happen using Goedels proof
operator ("prove not" != "not prove"), but the same goes for modal
operators like belief, obligation, and so on.
Now you know what the subject area is called - it's an important and
large one - you can look it up.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Eric en Jolanda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: export variables to calling shell in a shell-script
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:51:50 +0100
> Hi!
>
> the (bash) shell-script
>
> -----
> #!/bin/sh
> export blubber=blabber
>
> -----
> should set the variable blubber to the value blabber in the shell, from
> where I call the script...but it DOESN'T...any suggestions?
>
No it should not.
It should set the variable blubber in the shell it is running.
Running a script starts a new shell in which the script is executed.
If the script finishes, the shell it ran in is killed.
If you want it to run in your current shell, you'll need to source it.
Eric
------------------------------
From: Beggar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: DHCP question
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 17:05:57 +0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
why is that need? I have got only one interface in my linux box,
isn't it the message goto 255.255.255.255 will all go to the default
gw (ie ..eth0 ) ?
wondering.....
anyway, I will test it tomorrow when I back to office!
Thanks for your reply.
Hei
Jan Geertsma wrote:
> 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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 04:07:41 -0500
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.misc Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > John Hasler wrote:
> >>
> >> 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".
>
> > Geeze, you're as dogmatic as the people you deride.
>
> Uh, fella, this is as basic a piece of modal logic as one can get.
>
> You seem to be unaware of the logic of modalities like belief, proof,
> necessity, obligation, and so on. Id normally direct you to the
> library, but let's try ...
>
> Basically the logical operators "belief" and "not" do not commute, OK?
> I gave you a clearer example of how that can happen using Goedels proof
> operator ("prove not" != "not prove"), but the same goes for modal
> operators like belief, obligation, and so on.
>
> Now you know what the subject area is called - it's an important and
> large one - you can look it up.
>
> Peter
There are only 3 positions to take on a proposition
1) Belief that the proposition is true.
2) "I don't know"
3) Belief that the proposition is not true.
One cannot claim that one is neither (1) nor (2), and still TOTALLY
without a belief.
Game
Set
Match.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Beggar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Mail server question
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 17:22:38 +0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all,
I have a mail server reside in the datecenter outside,
and I want to setup a mail server in office to relay all my
office mail to the outside mail server.
But I don't want the mail server in office to save the mail
in local harddisk, just being a gateway to send out mail.
And do I need to setup all the "users" in the relay mail
server as server at outside ?
What should I do to configure like that?
thanks!
Hei
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 11:01:25 +0100
From: Michael Heiming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mail server question
Hello,
Beggar wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a mail server reside in the datecenter outside,
> and I want to setup a mail server in office to relay all my
> office mail to the outside mail server.
> But I don't want the mail server in office to save the mail
> in local harddisk, just being a gateway to send out mail.
> And do I need to setup all the "users" in the relay mail
> server as server at outside ?
>
Depends, if you just want to relay those mails set in sendmail.cf
(asuming you are using it, as you don't write?)
# "Smart" relay host (may be null)
Don't forget to reload/restart sendmail if you change something....
You don't need users on the server for this...but if they should
allthough get there mails POP3/IMAP from this
server, you have to create those users...
>
> What should I do to configure like that?
>
> thanks!
>
> Hei
Good luck
Michael Heiming
------------------------------
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 11:22:44 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>> Basically the logical operators "belief" and "not" do not commute, OK?
>> I gave you a clearer example of how that can happen using Goedels proof
>> operator ("prove not" != "not prove"), but the same goes for modal
>> operators like belief, obligation, and so on.
> There are only 3 positions to take on a proposition
On a 1st order logical proposition, you mean. What you say next is not
so.
> 1) Belief that the proposition is true.
> 2) "I don't know"
> 3) Belief that the proposition is not true.
Uh, you can believe that you don't know, or you can believe that you
believe that you believe that if you knew, then you would know, and so
on.
> One cannot claim that one is neither (1) nor (2), and still TOTALLY
> without a belief.
One can claim anything at all. In fact one can back up those claims by
establishing formal rules for well constructed sentences, formal axiom
and rule systems for thinking about it with, formal semantic models
for discussing it with, formal metalogic for discussing equivalences
between the semantics and the proof theory. I urge you to open
page 1 of say, george boolos's "incomputabilty". You'll find it
launches straight into the classical modal logic systems.
> Game
> Set
> Match.
Interesting claim, but given the body of knowledge that says otherwise,
I would have to say, uh, yah boo plonk.
That you "believe" something to be false ("believes not") is
not the same thing as not believing it to be true ("not believes").
For example, a computer may not believe that I can decrypt your password
(there is after all no command to do so). Ask it! Try the man pages!
That is different from it believing that it cannot decrypt your password
(there is no method to do so). Ask it! You'll find that it doesn't
know. In fact, you may not even be able to think of a way to ask it,
but if you do think of a way, it won't answer. If computers could
think of algorithms for themselves (and, in this case, deduce their
existential impossibility), we'd be in trouble.
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Uwe Malzahn)
Subject: Re: Linux Newbie Help!!!!
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 17:11:45 +0100
In article <3a7b958e$0$7169$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Isaac Venn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mandrake has a nice selection of linux's for sparc. Check their iso
So does Debian ;-)
Cheers,
Uwe
------------------------------
From: Thomas Weidner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: problems with kernel 2.4.1
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 12:42:14 +0100
Hi NG,
I updated my Kernel 2.4.0. Then i made make oldconfig and built the
kernel. After this PPP and my ESS Solo1 soundcard don't work any more.
What did i do wrong ? can anybody help me ?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: export variables to calling shell in a shell-script
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Macbride)
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 12:12:03 GMT
Holger Hartmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>should set the variable blubber to the value blabber in the shell, from
>where I call the script...but it DOESN'T...any suggestions?
Firstly, no, it shouldn't (and can't) set anything in a separate calling
process.
Either you want to source the script to be read by the current shell,
or you want to have the script return a value which can be assigned to a
variable by the calling process if it wishes to.
--
Craig Macbride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
=======================http://www.nyx.net/~cmacbrid========================
"It's a sense of humour like mine, Carla, that makes me proud
to be ashamed of myself." - Captain Kremmen
------------------------------
From: Christian Schaubschlaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Migrating ext2 to reiserfs
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:40:34 +0100
> i just downloaded and installed Kernel v2.4.1. Now I�d like to know how
> to change the type of filesystem on my computer.
Read http://www.namesys.com/change_fs.html
Christian
------------------------------
From: Eric Chow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Diap-up to ISP ?
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 12:39:50 GMT
Would you please to teach me how can automatic dial-up to ISP when Linux
startup ?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
