Linux-Misc Digest #230, Volume #27 Sun, 25 Feb 01 21:13:04 EST
Contents:
Which partitions must be read-write? ( for bootable CDROM ) (Thaddeus L Olczyk)
Re: Linux partitioning question (H.Bruijn)
Re: Linux partitioning question (Chris Morgan)
Turtle beach Santa Cruz (Schizo Moses)
Re: Linux as terminal emulator. (Grant Edwards)
Linux partitioning questi (Mike Mcclain)
Re: help: ppp dialin problems (David. E. Goble)
Re: Linux partitioning question (Dances With Crows)
Re: ASP 4 Linux? (Dances With Crows)
crontab q? ("Sudhakar R.")
shutdown priveleges ("Sudhakar R.")
Re: Linux partitioning question (John Thompson)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (John Thompson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thaddeus L Olczyk)
Subject: Which partitions must be read-write? ( for bootable CDROM )
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:03:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm using repairlix to create my own bootable CDROM ( since the
presentrepairlix.iso that you can download doesn't contatin some
usefull needed utilities or a 2.4.1 kernel ). The problem is that the
one that I create mounts the local hard drive. A non-no since I may
not want the local hard drive mounted. So I 'm modfing it to build
a version that uses ramdisk and cdrom as it's filesystem.
The problem is that I don't know what filesystems can be read-only
( can be put on the cdrom---via symbolic link ) and which must be
read-write ( and therefore be put on ramdisk ).
Can anyone help?
TIA
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H.Bruijn)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Linux partitioning question
Date: 26 Feb 2001 00:10:02 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:56:59 GMT, Doug Lutterloh allegedly wrote:
>I have never agreed with the suggested partitioning scheme in most
>install docs for Linux, at least not for the home user. I usually set up
>with 3 partitions on my machine. One for windoze because I dual
>boot, one for Linux swap, and one for Linux. Why confuse the issue?!!?
>Why do I want to guess how much I will need for /home and /usr when
>I can just lump them together in one big partition and use all my
>space as efficiently as possible.
>You might hear some nonsense about the system running faster with
>the ten-gillion partition setup because it checks over the file system at
>bootup and a few other reasons. My experience has been that having
>one big partition doesn't hurt anything. I've also heard that multiple
>partitions make updating easier. I don't know about that for sure. Usually
>when I update I format the whole drive and start over anyway, or get a new
>machine, or whatever. Even so, I'm guessing Linux is smart enough to
>do a proper update when you don't use the traditional partition setup.
>Well, that's my 2 cents. If I weren't dual booting with windoze (and I'm
>starting
>to wonder why I even bother) my machine would only have 2 partitions.
>One for Linux swap and one for Linux.
I agree that more partitions make things slightly more difficult. For me
the reason to have a separate /home is that for a beginning user there
may be times when you made such a mess that you want to do a fresh
install, or times when you would like to try a new or different
distribution. At that point in time a separate partition will allow you
to keep all personal files, which are on the /home partition and even
some usefull system files (fi the /etc/ directory) which are copied to
that partition, while you format the root / partition. I find it rather
tedious to restore my personal files (300 MB) from the back-ups, never
mind losing all my mp3's.
A
The benefit of more partitions is IMHO only relevant for systems in a
more professional setting, not really in a home situation.
--
If a trainstation is the place where trains stop, what is a workstation?
========================================================================
Herman Bruijn mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Netherlands website: http://hermanbruijn.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Linux partitioning question
From: Chris Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:30:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (H.Bruijn) writes:
> The benefit of more partitions is IMHO only relevant for systems in a
> more professional setting, not really in a home situation.
It's true there is tradeoff and the home user may want something
simple above all, but I find I need a minimum of 4 partitions.
/home is its own partition because it remains stable over many many OS
upgraded.
I use a swap partition because that is more efficient than swapfiles.
Then in the simplest case I will still want two / partitions. The one
that I currently rely on, and the one where I will install the next OS
(or if I just installed, the new one plus the old one as a safety net
in case the new install hits problems). Sometimes I have three /
partitions if I'm doing a lot of experimenting. I feel much freer to
try stuff out in an install if I know for a fact that the old system
is just a reboot away. Of course this means keeping either a bit of
wasted disk space at all times, and/or keeping / down to a reasonable
size. These days I put big stuff that's not terribly vital (MP3s from
my CDs, games I buy, raw scans from my scanners) on separate
partitions too. In an emergency I have spare disk space just a few
simple commands away.
Cheers,
Chris
--
Chris Morgan <cm at mihalis.net> http://www.mihalis.net
Temp sig. - Enquire within
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Schizo Moses)
Subject: Turtle beach Santa Cruz
Date: 26 Feb 2001 01:50:09 +0100
How to set up my Santa Cruz under Linux ?
--
Posted from tomts8.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.52]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Linux as terminal emulator.
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:08:39 GMT
In article <97c0jb$53j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I've never had an operating system where Kermit came bundled with the
>distribution, before or after licensing issues.
Back when I first started using Linux, kermit was bundled with some
distritbutions. Of course that was back in the 0.99.xx pre-Redhat days.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! The SAME WAVE keeps
at coming in and COLLAPSING
visi.com like a rayon MUU-MUU...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Mcclain)
Subject: Linux partitioning questi
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:23:06 GMT
Howdy,
I like to break a drive into 1-2GB chunks just for the
flexibility it gives. It's much easier to do the first time than
to re-partition later.
With the size of new drives and the curiousity implied by
being a Linux user, you may find yourself wanting to check out
another OS.
G'Luck,
MiKe
-=> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote to ALL <=-
BL> I'm reading up on setting up linux, and it states that many will setup
BL> separate partitions for /usr and /home besides ones swap space. I
BL> would like to ask you how you usually setup your partitioning. I was a
BL> little bit confused on it, for you at least need a mounting point of
BL> root. This is how I did it, but I'm not sure if it's how it should be
BL> done. I set one partition for about 3/4 of the drive as '/'. I
BL> thought that would cover my separate partition for /usr as well as the
BL> mount point. My second partition and about 1/4 of the drive (not all,
BL> as the last is for swap) I set as mount point /home. Then of course
BL> the remaining 256 megs I set for swap.
BL> At first I was going to create a 7 meg partition just for mounting
BL> root, then the larger 3/4 approx for /usr, and then the last primary
BL> for /home but I thought it just made more sense to make just a / and
BL> /home partition. Maybe I'm just not thinking about this correctly. Any
BL> suggestions would be appreciated!
BL> I'm running Mandrake 7.2
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.31
------------------------------
From: goble@gtech (David. E. Goble)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.linux
Subject: Re: help: ppp dialin problems
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:25:02 GMT
Reply-To: goble@gtech
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 03:37:37 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David
Efflandt) wrote:
>
############ hosts #########
127.0.0.1 gtech localhost.localdomain localhost
192.168.0.25 rgtech
>
>Where is the name of the dialin client? You need names for both ends of
>the connection, but the server can use its LAN IP with pppd proxyarp
>option for its local IP.
>
Hi David;
Thanks for your help and prompt reply.
Ok, I have changed the hosts to the above.
>
############ options.srv #######
auth
>
>+pap asks the peer (other machine) to authenticate itself and Windows
>doesn't do that. The auth and login options handle the pap authentication
>for the user.
>
Ok, I have removed -chap and +pap.
>
login
asyncmap 0
192.168.0.1:192.168.0.25
debug
modem
crtscts
proxyarp
############### pap-secrets ############
user1 * "" *
user2 * "" *
>
>pap-secrets needs a 4th field (allowed IP) for dialin (can be *).
>
Ok, add an extra *. I got the mac to try connecting again, no luck. It
still says ;
Could not determine local IP address
I would really like to get this working :> so if anyone can shed some
light on any solutions please help, thanks.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dances With Crows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Linux partitioning question
Date: 26 Feb 2001 01:24:30 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 26 Feb 2001 00:10:02 GMT, H.Bruijn staggered into the Black Sun and said:
>On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 21:56:59 GMT, Doug Lutterloh allegedly wrote:
>>I have never agreed with the suggested partitioning scheme in most
[snip]
>>I can just lump them together in one big partition and use all my
>>space as efficiently as possible.
>>You might hear some nonsense about the system running faster with
>>the ten-gillion partition setup because it checks over the file system at
>>bootup and a few other reasons. My experience has been that having
>>one big partition doesn't hurt anything.
Never had a sudden power failure that caused one of your filesystems to
get completely scribbled? (NOTE: The first time I typed this sentence,
about an hour ago, the power went out 15 seconds later and stayed out
for 45 minutes. No data loss; I was lucky.) The main benefit to having
multiple partitions here is that filesystem damage will most likely
affect only one. Let's say you have /usr, /, and /home. If your /usr
is mangled, your data and basic utilities are still there. If /home is
mangled, you still have a working system you can use to restore your
data from backups. If / is mangled, at least you don't have to spend
time recovering your apps and data, just the stuff in /bin /etc /dev
/sbin /var.
Now if you just have /, and it gets toasted, everything's gone. Eggs.
Basket. You know.
>distribution. At that point in time a separate partition will allow you
>to keep all personal files, which are on the /home partition and even
>some usefull system files (fi the /etc/ directory) which are copied to
>that partition, while you format the root / partition. I find it rather
>tedious to restore my personal files (300 MB) from the back-ups, never
>mind losing all my mp3's.
>
>The benefit of more partitions is IMHO only relevant for systems in a
>more professional setting, not really in a home situation.
One partition is more flexible, but less safe. One partition also
limits you in some ways--my system used to run two distros, and each
shared /home and /usr/local, cutting down drastically on disk space
requirements. I would say that if you want maximum flex, the best way
to go is this: One 20M ext2 /boot, one 128M swap, one (large) ReiserFS
/ , regular backups. (You don't want one huge ReiserFS / as you'd have
to mount it with --notail or the bootloader would get confused. Having
tails is one of ReiserFS's advantages...)
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dances With Crows)
Subject: Re: ASP 4 Linux?
Date: 26 Feb 2001 01:24:31 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 23:21:23 GMT, WME staggered into the Black Sun and said:
>Is there such a thing?
>Please post only
Apparently, you can get an implementation of ASP for Linux, but it
requires that the code within the pages be written in something other
than Visual Basick. Search http://freshmeat.net/ for ASP. Or have a
look at asp2php, which converts ASP to PHP, which is IMO a better
solution in the long term. PHP runs everywhere, even under IIS, and the
language itself contains many of the best elements of C and Perl.
--
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: "Sudhakar R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: crontab q?
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:46:58 -0500
Can anyone please tell me the format of the crontab file and someplace
where i can rad more about scheduling jobs on RH 7.0
Thanx in advance
-Sud
------------------------------
From: "Sudhakar R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: shutdown priveleges
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:49:31 -0500
I have a linux box running RH 7.0. Right now any user can shutdown/reboot
the system with the halt/reboot command. How do I set up such that this
privelege exists only for particular users.
Thanx in advance.
-sud
------------------------------
From: John Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Linux partitioning question
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:15:25 -0600
Doug Lutterloh wrote:
> I have never agreed with the suggested partitioning scheme in most
> install docs for Linux, at least not for the home user. I usually set up
> with 3 partitions on my machine. One for windoze because I dual
> boot, one for Linux swap, and one for Linux. Why confuse the issue?!!?
> Why do I want to guess how much I will need for /home and /usr when
> I can just lump them together in one big partition and use all my
> space as efficiently as possible.
> You might hear some nonsense about the system running faster with
> the ten-gillion partition setup because it checks over the file system at
> bootup and a few other reasons. My experience has been that having
> one big partition doesn't hurt anything. I've also heard that multiple
> partitions make updating easier. I don't know about that for sure. Usually
> when I update I format the whole drive and start over anyway, or get a new
> machine, or whatever. Even so, I'm guessing Linux is smart enough to
> do a proper update when you don't use the traditional partition setup.
Having /home on a separate partition is handy when you screw
something up in the system and want to restore from a backup
without blowing away any of your user's home directories. If
you're the only person who uses the machine I suppose it isn't
such a big deal, but when several people have to use it and
expect to find things the way they left them they don't
appreciate finding that all their work since the last backup got
blown away because you were screwing around trying to update
glibc or something. If you spool mail for users you may also
want /var on a separate partition for the same reason (Huh?! How
come I don't have any email? I know I emailed myself that Really
Important Document so I could keep working on it here! If it's
that $%#$@-ing [insert name here] farting around with "improving"
things again I'll tear his/her [strike out pronoun that does not
apply] head off and stuff it in the floppy drive...
--
-John ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: John Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:35:56 -0600
"D. Stimits" wrote:
> Brent Pathakis wrote:
> >
> > Leaving out the ms vs linux arguments, MS supporters, explain to me how MS
> > can justify charging licenseing fees and a machines where no products are
> > installed?
> It sounds like the author is merely assuming that a fee is paid to MS,
> regardless of whether Win is installed or not. He is assuming that if
> the retailer has fewer up front costs, that the costs would be passed
> on. The retailer is probably also considering support costs and learning
> curves. In a way though, even if support costs are not considered, there
> is an advantage to the manufacturer (and linux as a whole) if selling
> the same system for higher profit is possible...it means the retailer
> has an added bonus to push Linux over MS. Whether the end user is
> willing to pay the same thing for a pure Linux versus pure MS system is
> a good question...maybe if support is an issue, and the retailer is
> willing to support the product, it is worthwhile. I'd be very interested
> in hearing from retailers like Dell whether such a fee is paid to MS or
> not, when no MS products are involved (I doubt Dell or IBM would be
> willing to pay MS anything for this case).
I don't know if that is the case anymore, but it certainly was
before and up to the point when Win 3.1 was released. At that
time, Windows had not entrenched itself as firmnly as it is
today. In particular, Digital Research's DR-DOS and IBM's OS/2
were both positioning themselves as alternatives to MS-DOS and
both were able to run MS-Windows software.
Part of Microsoft's response to this threat was to lock PC
manufacturers into license bundles. Eg, if a manufacturer wanted
to offer MS-DOS as an option on their PC's they could either buy
a relatively inexpensive exclusive license to install MS-DOS (and
*only* MS-DOS) on their machines, or offer OS/2 or DR-DOS and
have to buy MS-DOS at almost retail price for the customers who
wanted MS-DOS on the machine. Since MS-DOS was a known item, it
was safe to assume that most customers would want it so most PC
manufacturers ended up signing the exclusive license.
And when Windows 3.1 came out Microsoft took it a step further:
the only way a PC manufacturer could offer Win3.1 was if they
bought it bundled with MS-DOS. It didn't matter that it ran fine
in DR-DOS (and DR-DOS had other features to recommend it). If
they wanted to put Windows on a new PC, it had to be with MS-DOS
[we'll pass over the spurious warning messages that MS put into
Windows to scare off potential DR-DOS users). By the time the
Justice Department found this license to be illegal (1995) it was
too late. DR-DOS and OS/2 were left by the wayside, not because
they were inferior in some way (they weren't and aren't) but
simply because they had been locked out of the new PC market.
Even IBM's PC division gave in and only offered Windows on IBM
PC's (even though the IBM software products division had spent
billions on developing OS/2 to compete with Windows). The
Justice Dept's penalty against Microsoft was little more than a
slap on the wrist and MS pretty much ignored it anyway, launching
into their IE-is-really-part-of-Windows campaign to destroy
Netscape.
And it looks like we're in for more of the same with .NET
--
-John ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
