Linux-Misc Digest #73, Volume #27 Sat, 10 Feb 01 04:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: WEb Cam for Newbi (Michael Heiming)
Re: WEb Cam for Newbi ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: interpretting /var/log/messages (Michael Heiming)
Re: ReiserFS - ACL's? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: interpretting /var/log/messages (Drew Roedersheimer)
Re: WEb Cam for Newbi (Michael Heiming)
Re: WEB BROWSERS what is available (Jay & Shell)
Re: qt programs compiling ("XT")
Re: lilo.conf and boot up questions (Stearns28)
sendEvent in Qt ("Dr. Volodimir Vinarskyy")
Re: Library Problems? ("green")
Re: WEb Cam for Newbi ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Karel Jansens)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Karel Jansens)
Re: Library Problems? ("green")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 08:23:30 +0100
From: Michael Heiming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WEb Cam for Newbi
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
>
> If you can get it. 229DM is about twice the price of the camera I was
> talking about, but it won't be ccd!
>
> Peter
Hi,
I know that this cam is maybe twice the price of an USB cam, but if you see
the pics it makes and it's able to make realtime video, not those few frames/sec
the USB cams I saw could deliver, you will agree that it's worth it's price. You
can plug
it in a VCR (chinch video input) too, if you want. It's a ccd cam!
My machine has no USB and no free PCI/ISA, everything is full with cards...but I
had
a working bttv card.
At the time I bought this cam, I searched the net and found that this Sony cam
would
be the best you could get for this money.
It's almost hard to get here in Germany, I bought it here:
http://landolt.de/info/afuinfo/sonyccd.htm
(Some technical data on this (german) page, but it says that the cam is not
deliverable at the moment)
The pics on the above URL show an old/outdated model, I have this one too, the
newer one is much smaller, the picture
quality is about the same, the cam has a macro lens which works down to 1 cm
distance.
Michael Heiming
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WEb Cam for Newbi
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 07:45:58 GMT
Michael Heiming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>> If you can get it. 229DM is about twice the price of the camera I was
>> talking about, but it won't be ccd!
> I know that this cam is maybe twice the price of an USB cam, but if you see
> the pics it makes and it's able to make realtime video, not those few frames/sec
> the USB cams I saw could deliver, you will agree that it's worth it's price. You
> can plug
> it in a VCR (chinch video input) too, if you want. It's a ccd cam!
Not being ccd is its _good_ point. But it's moot - I can only buy
cameras in the shops (well .. I can order via internet too, but that
usually ends up as a phone call still over here, plus a two month
wait) and it's not there.
> My machine has no USB and no free PCI/ISA, everything is full with cards...but I
> had a working bttv card.
> It's almost hard to get here in Germany, I bought it here:
> http://landolt.de/info/afuinfo/sonyccd.htm
> (Some technical data on this (german) page, but it says that the cam is not
> deliverable at the moment)
Peter
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 08:39:41 +0100
From: Michael Heiming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: interpretting /var/log/messages
Taylor Sutherland wrote:
> I've started to get an intermittent entry in my /var/log/messages
>
> nivdome modprobe: modprobe: Can't locate module net-pf-10
>
> It's started to, possibly, coincide with my my network stopping for no
> apparent reason. The problem is, I can't seem to find what the heck is
> looking for this net-pf-10 so I can shut it up.
cat /etc/modules.conf |grep net-pf-10
alias net-pf-10 ipv6
# alias net-pf-10 off
cat /lib/modules/2.2.16/modules.dep |grep ipv6
/lib/modules/2.2.16/ipv6/ipv6.o
Looks like it's for IPV6. If you don't need it comment it in modules.conf
and
run depmod -a <kernelversion>
( Or your kernel will complain that modules.conf is more recent than
modules.dep)
Hope this helps...
Michael Heiming
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ReiserFS - ACL's?
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 07:46:02 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> So are there plans in the future for ACL's. I just read something
> about NSA doing security mods which I would guess include ACLs.
> Anyone know?
If we told you, then we'd have to kill you :-).
But seriously, it would certainly not be surprising if that were a
component of the changes.
Mind you, ACLs take so much managing (see the Cfengine paper on this
<http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/1998-6/acls.html>) that the
critical thing seems to be to have user space tools for managing them
en masse...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
http://vip.hyperusa.com/~cbbrowne/advocacy.html
"... Turns out that JPG was in fact using his brain... and I am inclined to
encourage him to continue the practice even if it isn't exactly what I
would have done myself." -- Alan Bawden (way out of context)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Drew Roedersheimer)
Subject: Re: interpretting /var/log/messages
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 07:48:02 GMT
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:21:00 +0500, Taylor Sutherland wrote:
>I've started to get an intermittent entry in my /var/log/messages
>
> nivdome modprobe: modprobe: Can't locate module net-pf-10
>
>It's started to, possibly, coincide with my my network stopping for no
>apparent reason. The problem is, I can't seem to find what the heck is
>looking for this net-pf-10 so I can shut it up.
I'm no expert on this, but I was getting the same type of messages when
I changed my distro. I think this module provides IPv6 services - anyone
correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, my fix was the following addition to
/etc/modules.conf:
alias net-pf-10 off
Of course, this may differ across distributions and/or unices...
HTH
-DR
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 08:57:35 +0100
From: Michael Heiming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WEb Cam for Newbi
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
> Michael Heiming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
> >> If you can get it. 229DM is about twice the price of the camera I was
> >> talking about, but it won't be ccd!
>
> > I know that this cam is maybe twice the price of an USB cam, but if you see
> > the pics it makes and it's able to make realtime video, not those few frames/sec
> > the USB cams I saw could deliver, you will agree that it's worth it's price. You
> > can plug
> > it in a VCR (chinch video input) too, if you want. It's a ccd cam!
>
> Not being ccd is its _good_ point. But it's moot - I can only buy
> cameras in the shops (well .. I can order via internet too, but that
> usually ends up as a phone call still over here, plus a two month
> wait) and it's not there.
Could you explain why being no CCD is a good point?
I have a Sony Picturebook PCG-C1VN (Transmeta Crusoe CPU) with a build in CCD cam:
lspci |grep Multimedia
00:0b.0 Multimedia controller: Kawasaki Steel Corporation: Unknown device ff01 (rev
01)
I regocnized that it needs much light to make good pics, like the other Sony CCD
cams, but have
no clue why being not CCD is a good point?
Best regards
Michael Heiming
------------------------------
From: Jay & Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WEB BROWSERS what is available
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 08:13:27 GMT
When you find one of THESE browsers, let everyone else know too!!! :)
Will Fish wrote:
> I've been looking at web browsers for linux for the first time recently and
> wonder what is available, and what is the best in terms of the following
> criteria:
>
> efficiency
> speed
> compatibility
> expandability
> free & open source
>
> I want a browser that is VERY small (<4-500kb), efficient with memory and
> bandwidth, compatible with as much of th recent developments in
> HTML/java/scripting, runs under X11 but only uses basic Xlibs, AND most
> importantly is expandable would be nice if it could pipe out unrecognised
> markup to other tools for processing (pipe out java script, style sheets,
> tables, frames, swallow other programs within the browser window
> (XReparentWindow), etc.......). I've had a brief look at arena, netscape,
> amaya, chimera. and found them all wrong in some way. I did like the look of
> chimera in terms of it's simplicity, compactness and the fact it worked on a
> standard X11 dist, but it is incompatible with most modern bloated web
> sites. Is anyone still developing this browser(the dist on sunsite is a few
> yrs old), is anyone developing anything similarly small and standard with
> HTML4 compatibility. I had a brief look at the code and wondered whether it
> was worth trying to hack it about but I thought i'd check to see if anyone
> else is developing the sort of thing i'm looking for?
>
> Anyways I hope i'm not just talking dribble to myself and taking up too much
> valuable bandwidth, anyones comments, info, advice welcome
>
> thanx in advance
------------------------------
From: "XT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: qt programs compiling
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 08:21:59 GMT
Sure I did.
"Oliver Wiegand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> XT wrote:
> >
> > I found some sample source files in the trolltech website, so I tried to
> > compile them under linux with, but as I try to do it, the compiler tells
me
> > that it can't find header files such as qapplication.h ... even if qt
and
> > qt-devel packages are correctly installed.
> > Thanks a lot in advance
>
> Did you set 'export QTDIR=/path/to/your/qt_stuff', assuming you are
> using bash ?
> Greetings Oli
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stearns28)
Date: 10 Feb 2001 08:24:25 GMT
Subject: Re: lilo.conf and boot up questions
Thanks for the tips and suggestions.
I finally figured out what caused the boot process to stop -- /sbin/init was
not executed because it was not in root filesystem at all.
I inherited this server and didn't know about its maintenance history. After
carefully looking at root, I noticed that /sbin was just a symbolic link to a
directory in another filesystem which was not mounted.
So, I remounted / in read-write mode, moved /sbin back to root and then I
was able to reboot (with the 3-finger salute) into runlevel 3 . "df" should
all the filesystems listed in /etc/fstab mounted as they should be.
Now things look good. All subystems started except that network subsystem
(/etc/rc.d/init.d/network) couldn't initialize eth0 because, for some reason,
device eth0 was not found !!!
"/sbin/ifconfig -a" did not show eth0 at all. Look like I need to work on the
network device from scratch again. What next?
Thanks everyone who helped me out in this matter.
English is not my first language. If you don't understand what I am trying to
say, all I want to say is "Thanks for your help!"
-stearns
------------------------------
From: "Dr. Volodimir Vinarskyy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: sendEvent in Qt
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:43:30 +0100
Hi,
I have a problem,
there is a possibility under Qt to send synthetic events to another
widgets from the same programm,
for example mouse event or key event and so on ( via sendEvent() ).
But I need a mouse event to send to an other programm(!) How can I do
that?
I would be thankfull for your tips.
Thanks
Volodimir
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Library Problems?
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:55:51 +1000
thanks unfortunatly im not in a position to recompile. (space restrictions).
what librarys has this got to do with? tcl / tk
I have a fear theres more to installing them than the slackware tool.
i have tk 8.0
tcl 8.0
installed in /usr/lib/tcl8.0 and /usr/lib/tcl8.0
i set enviroment variables to both for tkdesk. no change.
do I need debug libraries? if so what ones.
"Oliver Wiegand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> green wrote:
> >
> > I installed tiny linux (cut down slack 4.0 as far I can tell as it uses
4's
> > setup util.) but tkdesk and fvwm2 don't run.
> >
> > they complain "fvwm2: can't resolve symbol '__register_frame_info' "
> > and " :undefined symbol: __register_frame_info"
> >
> > what do I need to do to resolve this?
> >
> > I have only xfree 4.0.2 not 3.... could this be the problem?
> > I got both binaries of slackware's 4.0 section. I didn't compile them.
> >
> > any help would be appreciated
> >
> > thanks in advance
> > Michael.
>
> Maybe recompilation of them with "-fomit-frame-pointer set" as gcc
> option.
> This solved some of my problems of same kind.
> Frame register pointer is just used for debugging purposes,I think,so
> you don't really need it if you don't want to debug the programs.Or try
> to install newer versions of tkdesk and fvwm from slack7.x, but this can
> introduce new problems.
>
> Greetings, Oli
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WEb Cam for Newbi
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:35:32 +0100
Michael Heiming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could you explain why being no CCD is a good point?
latency - at least on the cheap ones. And, indirectly, frame rate.
> I have a Sony Picturebook PCG-C1VN (Transmeta Crusoe CPU) with a build in CCD cam:
> lspci |grep Multimedia
> 00:0b.0 Multimedia controller: Kawasaki Steel Corporation: Unknown device ff01 (rev
> 01)
> I regocnized that it needs much light to make good pics, like the other Sony CCD
> cams, but have
> no clue why being not CCD is a good point?
Peter
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:44:38 +0100
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.misc Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ian Davey wrote:
> > But if I ask you: "Where does the universe come from?", what, pray,
> > will be your reply?
>
> Well, current theories say that it is a quantum happening that
> underwent a period of rapid inflation that managed to disentangle
> the major forces before it could pop back out of existence again.
> Roughly. Estimates are that we're about 10 years off the next theory
> of everything.
>
Amazing as it may seem, I usually manage to grasp the beginnings of an
understanding of about 5 to 10% of what is written in an article or
book about cosmology. I usually end up with the question: "Why?" (*)
There seem to be only two valid answers to this question:
1. Everything possible also happens, or the axiom of parallel
universes. If there really is an infinite number of them, the entire
question Why? becomes meaningless and the existence of God indeed
unnecessary (but see below).
2. There is a purpose to it all.
Against 1.: Serious cosmologists do not like parallel anythings at
all. They apparently muck up things to no degree. Besides, the basic
premises for the existence of parallel universes seem to preclude any
positive knowledge about them, so we're back to square one anyway. And
finally, a truly infinte number of parallel universes would
necessarily bring God back into play. Think about it.
2. Against 2.: It is not good science.
I like 2.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================
"Go go gadget linux." Zoomm!
==============================
(*) Why everything, obviously.
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:56:31 +0100
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Steve Mading wrote:
> :>
> :> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>
> :> : A religeous person does not need to explain the origin of God (and he
> :> : will freely admit that he can't).
> :>
> :> This whole line of arguing was originally coined ages ago NOT as its
> :> own proof that atheism is correct, but merely as a counterproof to
> :> the theists' proof that God is necessary as a first cause of the
> :> universe. The point is that adding God to the picture doesn't really
> :> explain anything at all as to why there exists a universe. And if
> :> you would say that God+Universe is a better explanation than just
> :> Universe by itself, then why not posit a metagod that created God?
> :> Why not a Metametagod that created that one, and so on? Wouldn't
> :> the Metametagod explaination, by the same reasoning, be better
> :> than just the God explanation? In summary: You don't solve
> :> the first cause problem by introducing an infinite recursion of
> :> causes. That's why the proof that God must exist because the
> :> Universe needs a cause is bogus. This argument, by itself, does
> :> not prove that god doesn't exist, its purpose is merely to shoot
> :> down to the theists's first cause argument, and show how that
> :> isn't a good enough reason by itself to convince anyone.
> :>
>
> : "God" is, by definition, "the First Cause".
>
> False. If, for example, the Big Bang were proven to be the
> first cause, I doubt that would count as "God" in anyone's
> mind.
Before I reply to the rest of your argument, I would like you to
explain to me how one goes about *proving* a first cause.
> "first cause" is NOT the definition of God - there is
> quite a bit more to it that that. For one thing, "god" implies
> some type of sentience. "God" is a much more narrow term than
> just the vague "whatever it is that happens to be the cause of
> the universe, we'll call that God." If you want to make "first
> cause" be the sole definition of the word God, then you have to
> stick with that consistently or else you engage in a false
> equivocation fallacy the moment you talk of God being a thinking
> entity.
>
> I think it should be pretty clear, just to clarify a bit, that
> the type of god that atheists don't believe in is the sentient
> thinking creator type. The word "God" has been applied to so
> many different things in the past that it has become a very
> sloppy, almost useless term for logical debates.
>
It is indeed very difficult to debate logically about God, what with
the transcendency and unknowable business and such, but that doesn't
mean we cannot deduce certain aspects. The problem is that whatever
definition is given, it can only (I would say "by definition")
describe an aspect of God, never all of Him. So God is indeed the
first cause, but not _only_ the first cause.
> : The term "Meta-God" is a
> : contradictio in terminis.
>
> Heh - not to a polytheist. Consider the greek pantheon, where
> some gods were offspring of others.
>
Even contemporary Greeks considered their Gods part of a mythology,
rather than a religeous system. Keep in mind the intellectual problems
the Greeks had with their gods, once they got a taste of philosophy.
The evolution towards monotheism became quite apparent (Plato's
Creator e.g.).
> : For a religeous person, the universe has a
> : transcendent cause, which he calls God. It would be ridiculous to go
> : any further, just as a cosmologist wouldn't try to go investigating
> : before the Big Bang).
>
> : Besides, I didn't claim that the existence of the universe proves the
> : existence of God; I merely claimed that if you pose the universe
> : itself as the Prime Cause, you're in a state of belief yourself.
>
> Not about God, like you claimed (again, I'm speaking of the meaning
> of "god" as a sentient thinking entity here). Keep it mind that
> atheists DO NOT claim to lack *all* beliefs - just the singular
> belief that any god exists. There may be many other beliefs an atheist
> has, but they will all be *his* beliefs and not associated with
> atheism. Some Buddhists are atheists (see the Buddha as just a smart
> human, not as a god). Some atheists are Communists. Some are
> Libertarians. Some are into that weird new-age crystal stuff, others
> are much more skeptical. There really isn't a whole lot in
> common between atheists - it's just a convienient label that exists
> only because so much of the world is theist. If everyone was an
> atheist, the label wouldn't even exist, and it would have no
> real signifigance.
>
God does not necessarily have to be a "sentient thinking entity". We
like to portray Him as such, but that could be an anthropomorphism:
It's easier to believe in God if He has at least *something* in common
with you.
But I was under the impression that one essential aspect of atheism
was the WYSIWYG-principle: What You See (of the universe) Is What You
Get; everything is knowable to man.
> : (On a personal note: I feel no need to try to prove the existence of
> : God. If God is indeed who He claims He is <G>, such endeavours are
> : quite futile. And if not, why bother?)
>
> Being European, you probably don't see much of this sort of thing,
> but over here in the States there are a LOT of religious mental
> midgets who keep trying to force their beliefs down other people's
> throats by trying to mandate them in the legistlature. (Case in
> point, the Kansas school board's decision that its okay to teach
> Creationism disguised as science, despite the fact that it is
> disproven by science.)
>
> If I lived in a place without any rabidly stupid theists, I wouldn't
> really spend any time thinking about the issue.
>
I am _not_ a Creationist, nor a religeous fundamentalist. The first is
stupid and short-sighted, the second... well, evil.
I think you have a problem with accepting that religeous, even
Christian individuals might be able to reconciliate their belief with
science and tolerance.
Might I also remind you that the idea of the Big Bang, easily one of
the cornerstones of modern cosmology, came from Georges Lema�tre, a
catholic priest (and Belgian too!)?
> :
> :> I have no idea why the Universe exists. The only difference
> :> between myself and theists in that regard is that I have the
> :> guts to admit it to myself.
> :>
> : A religeous person has no idea why the U/universe exists either, and
> : he bloody well has the guts to admit that too.
>
> Hardly. He claims it exists because his God made it.
>
And an atheist claims it exists because...?
> : Bottom line: At a certain level we all have to accept a number of
> : axioms. Yours may differ from those of a Hindu.
>
> Yes. But by Occam's Razor, the less needlessly multiplied
> axioms, the better.
>
I usually get along fine with Occam, but his razor is a rule of
experience, not a proven theorem. Furthermore, as it is a deductive
rule, it cannot be called upon as a foundation to itself ("Why does
everything exist?" - "Because everything has to be simple".)
> :
> :> : replacing the term "God" with "Universe" (I noticed you even write it
> :> : with a capital) which, more than anything else, would typecast you as
> :> : a religeous person.
> :>
> :> Not necessarily. Since your domain is .au, I assume English is your
> :> first langauge? In English, as you should know, capital letters
> :> are often used to indicate that you are talking about something
> :> famous and unique. For example, "The White House" has a very
> :> different connotation than "the white house". The first is most
> :> likely referring to the famous US Presidential mansion, while the
> :> second might be referring to some generic house that is white. In
> :> this regard, "Universe" refers to the one-and-only well known
> :> famous universe in which we live, while "universe" could refer to
> :> an imaginary universe depicted in a series of novels, or perhaps
> :> one universe of many in a theory of many alternate universes.
> :>
> :> Capital letters do not have to imply that the writer thinks the
> :> object is worthy of worship or to be deified.
>
> : Where did you get the .au (did my ISP f**k up again)? I'm from
> : Belgium, and Dutch is my first language, but I get the point.
>
> Sorry about that. I had you confused with a different person
> I had just finished composing a reply to.
>
> : The
> : remark was meant as a smile-inducing side-note, hence why I put it
> : between brackets. It was by no means material to my argument. If it
> : offended you, please accept my apologies.
>
> It didn't "offend", so much as it seemed like a false statement was
> being implied that needed to be countered.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================
"Go go gadget linux." Zoomm!
==============================
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Library Problems?
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:01:33 +1000
A releated problem on the system
when I ldd libc.so.5 I get can't execute libc.s0.5 (no such file or
directory) error message.
now before any one starts telling me I need to replace it all of my cp, ln,
mv etc are linked to it (I know I removed it to replace it and it took a
while to restore it thank you tomst).
is this error because ldd might depend on it?
all my sys tools seem to work fine.
thanks in advance Michael
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
