Linux-Misc Digest #118, Volume #27 Thu, 15 Feb 01 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Solved - slow xinetd service connection (Tim Haynes)
bttv and S3 (Andrew Rounds)
Re: Help Needed Compiling linux 2.4.1... (Aaron Dhiman)
Linux or Windows (NOT A HOLY WAR!) ("Scott Brady Drummonds")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: keep connection alive (Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner)
Re: Linux Error: 23: Too many open files in system (Vilmos Soti)
bandwidht limiting in wuftpd... ("Petter Egnell")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Johan Kullstam)
Re: How to forward external requests to internal machine? (Andre van Dijk)
Re: How to get Users to create files with another group as owner?? (Dan Smith)
mike with SB Live! (wroot)
How can I get rid of "bash"? ("Doney")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Solved - slow xinetd service connection
Date: 15 Feb 2001 17:05:11 +0000
Reply-To: Tim Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Archimage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> AACK!! I brain cramped! The correct syntax for iptables is:
>
> iptables -A OUTPUT -p tcp --destination-port 113 -d 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 -j
> REJECT
What about `--reject-with tcp-reset' as well? Might be fun...
~Tim
--
All I see, All I know |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is touching the sacred earth |http://spodzone.org.uk/
And warming the hallowed ground |
------------------------------
From: Andrew Rounds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: bttv and S3
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:23:32 +0000
I've been trying to get my MIRO PCTV card working with kernels 2.4.0 and
2.4.1 (xfree 4.0), with no success. I've looked at the BTTV instructions in
/usr/src/linux/Documentation, which tells me that my S3 card (VIRGE DX) may
be the culprit. I used to have the card working on an old 2.2 kernel (using
the older version of Xfree86 - 3.xx ?). Has anyone with a similar
configuration got their card to work? Maybe a new video card is in
order......
Thanks
------------------------------
From: Aaron Dhiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed Compiling linux 2.4.1...
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:20:39 -0500
"Richard M. Denney" wrote:
> Aaron Dhiman wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm new to Linux and am trying to compile 2.4.1, but keep getting the
> > message:
> >
> > "In file included from /usr/local/linux/include/linux/raid/md.h:51,
> > from init/main.c:25:
> > /usr/local/linux/include/linux/raid/md_k.h: In function `pers_to_level':
> >
> > /usr/local/linux/include/linux/raid/md_k.h:39: warning: control reaches
> > end of non-void function make: *** [init/main.o] Error 1"
> >
> > and the compile keeps crashing. If I comment out the body of the
> > function 'pers_to_level', compile goes a little longer, but then crashes
> > on another warning. Shouldn't the compile complete, regardless of
> > "warnings"? Any suggestions?
> >
> > I'm on an Athlon/K7 system, running Red Hat 7.0.
> >
> > Thanks for any help!
>
> Are you using the kgcc compiler (rather than gcc) as suggested by Red Hat
> for version 7? You do this by editing the Makefile in the top level
> directory of the linux source (/usr/src/linux, probably), changing the
> reference to gcc to kgcc. Then recompile (make clean dep modules
> modules_install install). You may find that the errors go away...
>
> My "Makefile" reads (after changing gcc to kgcc):
>
> CC = $(CROSS_COMPILE)kgcc -D_KERNEL_ -I$(HPATH)
>
> Rick
Hi Rick,
Thanks for the suggestion. Using kgcc, the compile is successful _if_ I
disable
the Athlon/K7 option (i.e., config processor as PIII). There appears to be
some bugs in the code for the Athlon option.
Aaron
------------------------------
From: "Scott Brady Drummonds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux or Windows (NOT A HOLY WAR!)
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:17:12 -0800
Hi, guys,
A class I'm taking has asked us to have a round table-type discussion about
ancient holy war of "Windows versus Linux". Basically, they've asked us to
consider the differences between these OSes on every front.
I quickly realized that, as usual with these debates, we're long on opinions
and short on facts. I've done some quick searching of the USENET and the
web and haven't been able to find any specific benchmarks comparing Linux
and Windows reliability, speed, efficiency, etc. I'm sure that a little bit
of this info would be monumentally valuable to our discussion.
Does anyone know where I can find such resources on the web? I know some of
these may be difficult to obtain (especially since each OS runs different
applications) but any kernel of fact would be a great fuel for the fire.
Again, if possible, I'm talking about specific measurements observed by
impartial bodies.
Also, being a USENET veteran, I beg you not to post your opinions here.
Just post, e-mail, or quote references. We all know how protracted this
conversation will become if everyone throws in their two cents. ;)
Thanks!
Scott
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:18:59 -0500
Dave Martel wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:46:29 +0100, "Peter T. Breuer"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >In comp.os.linux.misc Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 04:36:06 GMT, "Peter T. Breuer"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>>Agreed. It is after all, very difficult to program a computer using
> >>>religious beliefs as a basis for your programming. I tend to view that
> >>>as evidence that scientific belief is qualitatively different, since
> >>>believing in scientific principles like observation, no-interpretation,
> >>>experiment, hypothesiis formation and refutation, does help you program
> >>>a computer.
> >
> >> Computers were designed using science so it's not surprising you need
> >> science to program them. Try using science to make sense of something
> >
> >I don't really think you disagree. Your point is also that the domains in
> >which these thinkings take place are different. (not that I agree that
> >your argument has any bearing :-)
>
> Yep. Just a matter of using the right programming language for the
> job. <g>
>
> >
> >> created using religion or philosophy. Say, the Book of Tao? :-)
> >
> > ... or that talking AI program that imitates a psychologist by taking
> >the words out of whatever sentences you said last, remodelling and
> >repeating them back to you in the form of a question?
> >
> >Peter
>
> A long long time ago I found a "tech support" website that claimed
> there were real people online waiting to help you with your technical
> problems totally for free. It sounded too good to be true so I knew
> something was up. It still took about about five minutes of never
> quite getting anywhere to figure out I was talking a modified version
> of Eliza rather than a real human.
Tooooooo funny.
>
> Unfortunately the site disappeared one day. Too bad, I used to send
> all my friends there. Heh heh!
--
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: Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: keep connection alive
Date: 15 Feb 2001 17:58:28 GMT
Doug Forbush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If all you need is ANY network activity, then set up a cron job to ping
> some arbitrary host every 5 min's..
Cron is kind of overkill for this purpose. Just do
nohup ping -i 600 2>&1 >/dev/null &
Alternately, you could put that in your PPP startup script and have something
like
killall ping
in your PPP shutdown script.
JDW
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Linux Error: 23: Too many open files in system
From: Vilmos Soti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:08:50 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Tue Feb 13 22:15:16 2001
> Errors in file
> /home/oracle/product/8.1.6/admin/v2qa1/bdump/lgwr_14175.trc:
> ORA-00313: open failed for members of log group 2 of thread 1
> ORA-00312: online log 2 thread 1: '/db03/v2qa1/system/log/redo02.log'
> ORA-27041: unable to open file
> Linux Error: 23: Too many open files in system
> Additional information: 2
> LGWR: terminating instance due to error 313
> Instance terminated by LGWR, pid = 14175
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Is the number of open files adjustable? How?
Read /usr/src/linux/Documentation/proc.txt and look for the /proc/fs
stuff. This is part of the kernel source.
Vilmos
------------------------------
From: "Petter Egnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: bandwidht limiting in wuftpd...
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:33:28 GMT
two questions;
1. Are there any possibility to limit the total bandwidth used? say a limit
of 100kb/s would give two users downloading 50kb/s each and 5 users 20kb/s
each`.
2. Are there any possibility to limit per group basis? like all in guest
have a limit and the real users don't or something like that?
I'm thankful for any shard of information that's useful..
/Petter Egnell
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:30:58 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter T. Breuer writes:
>> Well, there are issues of sanity involved here. Doubting the evidence of
>> your own senses leaves you in a difficult position.
> Not quite what I took him to mean, but I _do_ doubt the evidence of my own
> senses in that I doubt single observations and try to rely on a
> preponderance of evidence. Experience has taught me that my senses are
> easily fooled and my memory unreliable. It has also taught me that this
> is true of other people, though most deny it.
Yes, this is a sensible approach. One learns to avoid interpretation,
though .. that's what I referred to in my list of scientific attitudes
as "no-interpretation". Some people are better than others at avoiding
automatic filtering of data and become known as good observers because
of that.
Observing well is fundamental to thinking well. But religious attitudes
seem to me to invert that priority.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 15 Feb 2001 13:46:27 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer) writes:
> Their is certainly a strong element of faith in science. We
> accept the existence of that we have no direct knowledge (muons,
> for instance) based upon the assurances of people we have no
> direct knowledge. Is it really that far a stretch to believe
> Christ existed based on the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
> than to believe black holes exist.
science is based upon *repeatability*. that which cannot be repeated
is not science.
> Just as the religious rely on the collective experiences of those
> who have gone before, so does science. You certainly do not
> perform experiments to prove every article of science you encounter,
> you rely on faith that your predecessors performed their experiments
> correctly.
science is a method. you give a hypothesis. you do an experiment to
show that the hypothesis holds. you give people enough information to
reconstruct the experiment. if others can reproduce it, you begin to
accept the hypothesis may be true. if enough other experiments based
on extrapolation of the hypothesis prove to work, then you start to
trust it more and more.
> Following the cold fusion debate, you can witness the
> uproar tha ensues when experiments appear to challenge the preheld
> beliefs. The reaction of physicists is to deny and attack the new
> evidence just as fundamentalists attack evolution.
they also tried to repeat the cold fusion experiment and could not get
the same results. if they had been able to duplicate the results,
then the physicists would have accepted it and gone on to revise their
textbooks.
> If cold fusion yet proves out and is not the likely result of poorly
> conducted experimentation, the howls from physicists will equal the
> howls of those who originally shouted down the germ theory of
> Pasteur or the works of Charles Darwin.
somehow i doubt this. if cold fusion is shown to work (by a
repeatable experiment), it would merely *reinforce* the value of the
scientific method. if you destroyed the scientific method, then yes,
maybe there would be consternation. but your example doesn't do
that.
plus, it'd be great fodder for the pubilications -- tenure for the
professors, theses for the graduate students. what's not to like?
einstein fixed newtons theory and the scientific world did not
collapse. quantum theory is certainly weird and the scientific world
did not collapse. of course there were always a few resistors, but
their protests only make the theory stronger should it survive.
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In comp.os.linux.misc John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Robert Surenko writes:
> >>> It also takes faith to believe the Universe is as appears to the 5
> >>> senses.
> >
> >> I don't.
>
> But the universe isn't as our senses report it. For instance,
> you and I and a European bee may look at flower and think it is black.
> The European bee, in fact, will ignore it. But an African or Africanized
> bee sees a wider spectrum than either humans or their European
> counterparts. So the African bee will visit that flower.
>
> There are those who can "hear" radio waves - they hear the Northern
> Lights as waves booming onto the shore - which may explain the
> large number of people who began having problems hearing a background
> noise after the ELF arrays began their work. Their are additional
> senses we do not have (the electric field sense shared by electric eels
> and some sharks, echolocation) and some (orientation) which may be
> shared by only a percentage of humans (in experiments in which people
> were blindfolded and soundproofed, then driven around in circles
> to deliberately disorient them. They were then asked to poin to their
> point of origin. Most pointed in random directions. But s significant
> minority were able to point in the correct direction better than 80%
> of the time).
>
> >
> > Well, there are issues of sanity involved here. Doubting the evidence of
> > your own senses leaves you in a difficult position.
>
> Then, to your mind the blind should not believe in light, nor the
> deaf ins sound?
>
> Insanity is a
> > probable outcome (although that is a sane response to the predicament).
> >
> >>> Because of this it also takes great faith to not believe ( or believe
> >>> not) in God.
> >
> >> Nonsense.
> >
> >>> Science and logic are a religion.
> >
> >> More nonsense.
> >
> > Agreed. It is after all, very difficult to program a computer using
> > religious beliefs as a basis for your programming.
>
> Faith is essential in programming a computer. Unless you are actually
> programming the microcode of the CPU, you rely upon the belief that
> what you write will do what you want, a belief that is all to often
> shaken. Eveen the assemby writer must interact with other people's
> work if only the BIOS, and must have faith that the work they did
> was correct. Quite simply, we cannot confirm every postulate
> we use in life. We cannot even confirm that ever postulate is ultimately
> confirmable.
>
> I tend to view that
> > as evidence that scientific belief is qualitatively different, since
> > believing in scientific principles like observation, no-interpretation,
> > experiment, hypothesiis formation and refutation, does help you program
> > a computer.
> >
> > On the other hand, so does alcohol and coffee.
> >
> > Peter
>
> --
> Dan Mercer
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
>
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
sysengr
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andre van Dijk)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: How to forward external requests to internal machine?
Date: 14 Feb 2001 21:04:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Op Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:52:40 -0800 schreef Warren Bell:
>I'm running Mandrake 7.2 with ipchains as a firewall. I want to forward
>any requests to a certain port to an internal machine on the local
>network allowing it through. I've been looking around but can't find
>how to do this. The only thing I've found is that you can't do it with
>ipchains. What program can I use to do this?
You can use ipmasqadm or rinetd for this, IIRC.
--
Andre van Dijk
,----------------------------------+-------------+-----------------------.
| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | icq:4249631 | fax:(+31)(0)208833917 |
`----------------------------------+-------------+-----------------------'
Kyle: Good point man.
------------------------------
From: Dan Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to get Users to create files with another group as owner??
Date: 15 Feb 2001 13:37:58 -0500
OK... I appreciate the help. The man page doesn't really explain anything about what
is going on, but I found a unix book that has a little bit of info about what is going
on.
Thanks! (you really helped me out here :)
------------------------------
From: wroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,linux.redhat
Subject: mike with SB Live!
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:04:32 -0500
Jeez,
I just found out that several months' worth of my trying to get SB Live! to
work under Linux were unsuccessful only because the speakers were plugged
into the wrong sound output!!!
Anyways, I got a question for people using SB Live! :
Can I do sound input with it (via microphone)? Do I need to specifically
buy some Linux-compatible microphone? And is there software that will
encode sound input directly into mp3's or do I need to construct my own
command using pipes, etc.?
Thanks a lot!
Wroot
------------------------------
From: "Doney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: How can I get rid of "bash"?
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:06:30 GMT
Hello, Please help
I am new to Linux, I run TURBO LINUX.
I got into "bash" and now it will not go away even if I reboot the machine.
I just want to go back to the default when I installed the OS.
Thanks to all.
Doney
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
