Linux-Misc Digest #865, Volume #27 Tue, 15 May 01 10:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux server link with NT (Dances With Crows)
Re: Y2.0017115K bug (SpacemanSpiff)
Re: What video resoltuion? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: load average (SammyTheSnake)
Re: chown to another user (give a file away). (SammyTheSnake)
Re: load average (SammyTheSnake)
Re: www.xfree86.org (SammyTheSnake)
Re: Y2.0017115K bug (SammyTheSnake)
Re: installing rh 7.1 ("alik blochin")
Re: Compile GCC 2.95.3 in RedHat 7.0 failed !! ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Can I use FAT32 partitions using linuex? ("KW")
Re: modem ("������ �������")
Re: load average (Dustin Puryear)
Re: Linux server link with NT (Dustin Puryear)
Re: Recommendation for GUI e-mail client?
Re: Y2.0017115K bug ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dances With Crows)
Subject: Re: Linux server link with NT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 15 May 2001 12:31:56 GMT
On Tue, 15 May 2001 09:27:48 +0800, Sysadmin staggered into the Black
Sun and said:
>i have a few questions regarding Linux operating system. I'm beginner for
>Linux actually. my questions are:
>1) Can Linux server transfer data between windows NT 4.0 such as
>replication/synchronize NT user account?
If your Linux box mounts the NT box's filesystems remotely using the SMB
filesystem support built in to the Linux kernel, and the NT box mounts
your Linux box's filesystems once you have Samba running (Samba is
essentially "Windoze File Sharing" for Unix) then you can transfer all
the data you want back and forth. I don't know whether the user
information for NT/2K is stored in nice, normal text files, or whether
there are some weird things in play, but transferring files is no big
deal.
Note that SMB/Samba require the Linux and LoseXX machines to be
physically separate and connected via a network of some kind.
>2) My workstation is Win98 and WinME. can my worktation transfer data from
>their computer to Linux hard disk??? it is very difficult or easy like NT
>which can just map the drive.
See above comments about Samba and SMB. If you have LoseME on the
machine that's running Linux, well, Linux can read and write to FAT32
filesystems without problems. LoseXX does not recognize the existence
of Linux filesystems/partitions, but the "explore2fs" utility provides a
bit of help. Linux can read NTFS partitions, but writing to NTFS
partitions is *very* experimental and should not be done unless you are
willing to lose all data on the NTFS partition in question.
Consult http://www.samba.org/ for more information about Samba, and
consult http://linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/ for lots of general information.
--
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] (SpacemanSpiff)
Subject: Re: Y2.0017115K bug
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:36:20 GMT
you mean like:
rightnow=`date +%s | gawk '{ printf "%9.9s\n",$1 }' `
I guess there are SOME shell enthusiasts, SOMEWHERE, who might have
pulled something like this.
I'm a C biggot, so I don't have to worry... :-)
-Scotty
On Tue, 15 May 2001 01:01:16 GMT, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>cbbrowne writes:
>> time_t is more likely to be stored as a _binary_ number, as computers don't
>> generally have any hardware to represent ten states.
>
>> I just can't fathom anybody using BCD for this; it seems about as
>> sensible as the "September 9, 1999" problem.
>
>The concern is that someone used the decimal representation of time_t as a
>timestamp for a log file or somesuch, and put it in a fixed length 9 digit
>field.
>
>The only way I can see that this would cause a problem is if the
>application needs to sort the timestamped objects by age. Collisions with
>previously used numbers seem pretty unlikely.
>--
>John Hasler
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
>Dancing Horse Hill
>Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
Subject: Re: What video resoltuion?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 08:08
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Professor J Frink) writes:
>>Is there a command that would tell me what video resolution is being
>>used? I know one could look in xwidows log. But I am looking for a
>>command that I could run from the console, with an output like:
>>1024X768, 256 colors, 85 hertz.
>
>xdpyinfo | grep "dimensions"
>
>xquery -rcf
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SammyTheSnake)
Subject: Re: load average
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:26:03 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Hasler wrote:
>I wrote:
>> When I compile a kernel with 'make -j' I usually see loadaverages of 35
>> or more. Desktop performance is not perceptibly slowed.
>
>SammyTheSnake writes:
>> OK, it may work, but it's certainly not the most optimal way to do
>> things.
>
>I did it to stress-test the system, not to achieve optimality. I was
>commenting on the effects of a high loadaverage on desktop performance.
>
>> Of course there's a break-even point somewhere between keeping the cache
>> populated and keeping the CPU busy, and that is usually with load average
>> just over the number of CPUs, so on a 1 cpu machine, make -j 2 blah would
>> probably be _faster_ than make -j blah, possibly by a long way.
>
>IIRC with a 2.2 kernel 'make' and 'make -j' (that's what got me the 35
>loadaverage) took about the same time.
really? on my machine it thrashed and did bugger all (load average of >100
when top stopped updating) I left it all night and in the end decided to
kill it, so I spent about half an hour logging in on another VT and doing a
"killall -1 make ; killall -15 make ; killall -9 make" which took another
couple of hours to take effect.
Conclusion? I figure I was lower on memory than you, IIRC I only had 64MB at
the time, Also, this was pre- Rik van Riel's groovy patches which would've
made it all a little friendlier. Another thing is that it wasn't the fastest
of CPUs either, which may have made the situation worse (k6-266 I think)
this is all on kernel 2.2.somethingorother compiling itself from scratch.
>With a 2.4 kernel, on the other hand, 'make -j3' takes about 4.5 minutes vs
>7.75 for 'make -j'. However, 'make -j' bottomed out on vm and pushed the
>loadaverage to 140. That did slow X down more than a bit.
Cheers & God bless
SammyTheSnake
--
Sam.Penny @ Ntlworld.com | Looking for a computer related
Linux, Hardware & Juggling specialist :-) | job, if you can help, e-mail me :)
Wheels: bike, 'ickle bike, and unicycle. | /o \/ Working on 5 ball 1/2 shower
Boxen: K6-266@300, dual Celery500 & Nx486 | \__/\ & some 6 / 7 ball exercises
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SammyTheSnake)
Subject: Re: chown to another user (give a file away).
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:20:54 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Hasler wrote:
>I wrote:
>> There is a race condition in starting up an interpreter. This is a FAQ.
>
>SammyTheSnake writes:
>> not that I can find in any of half a dozen FAQs,...
>
>I said it was a Frequently Asked Question, not a Frequently Answered
>Question. Looks like you found an answer anyway, though.
yeah, sorry if I came over a bit sarky, I often do on NGs and I always try
to spot it an apologise before anyone else spots it and has a go at me ;)
Cheers & God bless
SammyTheSnake
--
Sam.Penny @ Ntlworld.com | Looking for a computer related
Linux, Hardware & Juggling specialist :-) | job, if you can help, e-mail me :)
Wheels: bike, 'ickle bike, and unicycle. | /o \/ Working on 5 ball 1/2 shower
Boxen: K6-266@300, dual Celery500 & Nx486 | \__/\ & some 6 / 7 ball exercises
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SammyTheSnake)
Subject: Re: load average
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:22:05 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Kimoto wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, SammyTheSnake wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Hasler wrote:
>>> When I compile a kernel with 'make -j' I usually see loadaverages of 35 or
>>> more. Desktop performance is not perceptibly slowed.
>
>> OK, it may work, but it's certainly not the most optimal way to do things.
>> By running that many processes at a time, you're using more memory and this
>> is more important than you might think
>
>But it is a well-known, easy-to-run way to test the memory-management
>system.
sure, just don't use it under the false impession that it's quicker ;)
Cheer & God bless
SammyTheSnake
--
Sam.Penny @ Ntlworld.com | Looking for a computer related
Linux, Hardware & Juggling specialist :-) | job, if you can help, e-mail me :)
Wheels: bike, 'ickle bike, and unicycle. | /o \/ Working on 5 ball 1/2 shower
Boxen: K6-266@300, dual Celery500 & Nx486 | \__/\ & some 6 / 7 ball exercises
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SammyTheSnake)
Subject: Re: www.xfree86.org
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:32:34 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ian Northeast wrote:
>"Andr�" wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Does anybody knows if the xfree86 server (www.xfree86.org and
>> ftp.xfree86.org) is down? If yes, is there any alternate server where I
>> can download xfree86 source?
>
>They certainly seem to be. The FTP server says "temporarily
>unavailable". The web server isn't running but its host is up.
>
>Try your local Sunsite. Ours here in .uk (sunsite.org.uk) has it.
in the UK I do believe that mirror.ac.uk is the mirror to use, it's always
faster than my connection to the net (56kmodem, but previously 100Mb/s
ethernet at uni, hmmm, niiice!)
actually, you may find that sunsite.org.uk/pub/ actually resolves to
mirror.ac.uk/sites/sunsite.unc.edu/pub/
Cheers & God bless
SammyTheSnake
--
Sam.Penny @ Ntlworld.com | Looking for a computer related
Linux, Hardware & Juggling specialist :-) | job, if you can help, e-mail me :)
Wheels: bike, 'ickle bike, and unicycle. | /o \/ Working on 5 ball 1/2 shower
Boxen: K6-266@300, dual Celery500 & Nx486 | \__/\ & some 6 / 7 ball exercises
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SammyTheSnake)
Subject: Re: Y2.0017115K bug
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:37:17 +0100
In article <xe_L6.9658$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I just can't fathom anybody using BCD for this; it seems about as
>sensible as the "September 9, 1999" problem.
>That was the one where some illiterate reporter noticed that there
>were a whole lot of "9's" going together.
>Of course, if they had taken the 10 seconds to think that the
>representation is:
> "990909"
>and that there are actually a bunch of zeros to break up the monotony,
>they would have realized how stupid they were.
actually, the 9/9/99 problem is nothing to do with wrapping around, a lot
of (COBOL? ALGOL? can't remember) programmers used 9/9/99 as a marker date
meaning "this record isn't real, it's just the end of the linked list" and
similar things, making the assumption that their code wouldn't be still in
use a couple of decades later when 9/9/99 was a realistic date to actually
start appearing in these records. cue lots of lost data as the rest of the
linked list got consigned to oblivion...
I don't think _many_ people were actually bitten by this one, though...
(OCICBW)
Cheers & God bless
SammyTheSnake
--
Sam.Penny @ Ntlworld.com | Looking for a computer related
Linux, Hardware & Juggling specialist :-) | job, if you can help, e-mail me :)
Wheels: bike, 'ickle bike, and unicycle. | /o \/ Working on 5 ball 1/2 shower
Boxen: K6-266@300, dual Celery500 & Nx486 | \__/\ & some 6 / 7 ball exercises
------------------------------
From: "alik blochin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: installing rh 7.1
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:03:03 +0200
that also has been tryied
the same result...
i am just lost here....
"Christian Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> alik blochin wrote:
> > but the space is ok, i have 15 GB for linux
>
> Not necessarily. It depends on the sizes of the partitions you are
> trying to create!
>
>
> > i tryied to remove all the partitions and make them
> > from scratch (disk druid , fdisk)
> > but nothing helps....
>
> I believe that your / may be too small. In any case, I think you should
> try not making any partitions at all if you have problems with the
> partitioning and a whole 15 GB disk to devote to this Linux
> installation. Just choose "automatic partitioning" and let the installer
> create the partitions (with the proper sizes) for you!
>
>
> Christian
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compile GCC 2.95.3 in RedHat 7.0 failed !!
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 15:30:07 +0200
Christian Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>> >> >Not an answer to your real question, but why would you want to replace
>> >> >gcc 2.96 with 2.95.3?
>> >> GCC 2.96 was an experimental, not-for-production-use version of the GCC
>> >> compiler.
>> > It was not experimental and it was certainly for production use. I think
>> It certainly was experimental.
> How come? It's a tested and reliable compiler.
No it isn't. Your saying it does not make it so! It was not released
by the gcc team. It was not ready for a release when it was hijacked by
RH. When it was put out on their distro by readhat, it plain didn't
work .. its executables did not run on my machines (even when linked
statically, which is a trick I don't quite understand but would
love to replicate - presumably a symbol fixup problem on load) and
vice versa.
>> It was a not-for-publication development version.
> I think we are talking about different things. I'm talking about the
> released gcc 2.96 (or gcc 2.96-rh or whatever you want to call it) and
> you are talking about gcc cvs. Those are different things. Only if you
The difference is minor.
> choose to completely ignore the fact that gcc 2.96 was tested and fixed
It wasn't.
> and made a reliable compiler before being released, those two versions
It wasn't.
> are equal. Please don't ignore such facts (although you do that all the
> time anyway).
Saying they are "facts" does not make them so, especially when they are
not so. Did it pass gcc's own regression tests? Can it YET compile
gcc 2.95? Can it yet compile a kernel reliably? The answer is NO to
both of those.
>> > it would be very stupid otherwise to base a Linux distribution on it.
>>
>> Took the words out of my mouth :-(. But no, they apparently had their
>> reasons. The only technical reason I have heard mentioned is "ia64
>> support".
> Not only IA-64. Basically every non-x86 platform, like Alpha for
Those were perfectly well supported by gcc. You must know the
design of gcc .. it compiles into an architecture independent
language, which then needs minor backend hooks to "port" it
to a new platform. The only platform that was not officially yet
supported by gcc was ia64, and implementing it would only have been a
question of putting in the right definitions into the backend.
> example. And also C++.
>> The commercial reasons are never mentioned but seem more obvious to me.
> What commercial reasons? Releasing a distro with a compiler that is up
> to par with reality, with regards to optimization, non-x86 support and
It was already fine. And optimization is _never_ a good thing to put in
if you like avoiding bugs. Many professionals never compile with
optimization at all, simply to avoid compiler pitfalls. Besides that,
the optimization in 2.95 was very good. I tested it many times.
> C++?
C++ has been fine forever. I am still compiling all my C++ with g++
2.7.3, for compatibility with my existing codebase. All I ever have to
do is tear out the unnecessary use of templates from some author's C++.
I have never yet seen a nontrivial use.
>> >> RedHat jumped the gun by releasing this compiler into their
>> >> distribution (they provide the real 2.95 compiler as 'kgcc' (kernel GCC) IIRC),
>> >> and have received lots of bad press about it.
>>
>> > Umm, no. kgcc is based on egcs 1.1.2, in other words a really old
>>
>> Really old? I am happily compiling everything in sight with 2.7.3. For
>> cheap thrills I use 2.8.1.
> What I was saying was that egcs 1.1.2 is really old! Please read what I
And I was telling you that it is not. Please read what I write.
> wrote.
>> > compiler that kernel 2.2 likes to be compiled with. That is its only
>>
>> Huh! A compiler is a device for producing machine code, nothing more
>> and nothing less. If it works it works. In a kernel, errors are far
>> more important (not to have) than features, so one doesn't use "new" or
>> experimental compilers.
> If the kernel is nit-picky when compiling and depend on old compiler
You seem completely unaware of compilation. No author of software could
make such a statement. Have you ever written anything?
> bugs, then it's broken. But it's still an important piece of software,
> so what do you do? You include a compiler that it likes to be compiled
> with.
> If the problem wasn't broken code in kernel 2.2, why has kernel 2.4 been
> fixed and works without problem then?
It hasn't, and doesn't. Are you ON the kernel list?
>> > purpose. Kernel 2.4 has been fixed to work with modern compilers, so
>>
>> Oh yea?
> Yes. Are you saying it hasn't? Please come with some evidence then,
> because kernel 2.4 compiles just nicely with gcc 2.96, while kernel 2.2
!!! Mistaking "compiles" for "works" is the mistake of a person who has
not written code.
> doesn't.
>> > compiling kernel 2.4 with gcc 2.96 works just fine (I tried 2.4.4 with
>> > it last week).
>>
>> That you can't see the problem doesn't mean that it isn't there! Please
>> place your lifework on that machine, throw away the backups, and start
>> compiling kernels while running bonnie and cpuburn simultaneously.
> This just shows how completely ignorant you are to the actual situation.
> When the actual situation differs from your world view, dismiss it with
> some invented argument, no matter how blatant lie it is. Well, let me
> explain how wrong you are here.
> As you said, the compiler is just a tool. If it works, it works.
> Secondly, my machine has never run a minute without dnetc burning cpu
> cycles, and when I tried compiling the kernel, I was running xmms and
> burning a cd too. I do that all the time and have done it lots of times
Good news. Now compile your kernel with -O6 and do it again. Also throw
in some special extra "optimizations" if you trust it that much!
> since. So your invented argument that I wasn't loading the machine goes
You misunderstand. The idea is to drive the code into corners, not to
load the machine. Yes, more load will also show up race conditions that
the compiler has perhaps invented! Try it on smp!
> nicely out of the window, because that is simply not true.
> Third, most linux distributions are made self-hosted. That means that
> they are compiled from the sources that are shipped with the
> distribution, and compiled with the tools available with the
Which are the same amongst distros, except for RH.
> distribution. Have you ever considered the possibility that the kernel,
> as shipped with RH 7.1, is compiled using the perfectly working gcc 2.96
Nope, because if it were so it would be buggy. Not that has ever
concerned RH, who depend on putting out _new_ stuff for their appeal in
.0 releases.
> compiler? In that case your argument is also blown away, because then
> thousands of people all around the world are already using this
> perfectly working configuration!
Except that they are not. You know that Rh 7 is widely shunned. I have
one down the corridor that I use for target practicw hile laughing at
the way it mishandles suns java.
>> Oh, and what is unwarranted about it? Doing a stupid antisocial thing
>> sounds like it warrants a lambasting to me!
> Please explain what is antisocial about making a working compiler, and
Because it isn't a working compiler. It's an unreleased version
stolen from the creator and hurridly subjected to a lot of work to make
it presentable. Nobody can fathom any technical reason in their
decision.
> making the patches available.
The moral obligatuon is to work WITH the authors, not against them.
>> Presumably the fact that it doesn't produce standard code!
> What is "standard code"? Another newly invented term?
Code that conforms to the norms.
> This may be new to you, but a compiler does not normally produce code,
> it produces machine code. Code should follow standards (as specified by
That's exactly what I am referring to. Except of course, it does not
produce machine code, but object code.
> the rules of the language), the only rules that machine code has to
> follow is that imposed by the target machine platform.
No. You are forgetting that the code produced has to be loaded and has
to be linked. There are other things that have to be done to it too.
You cannot run a standalone windows i386 executable naked under linux!
> Maybe you don't care about standards, but I do. "Standards" as in the
I do care. You don't seem to understand what the word "standard" means.
You have confused "standard object code" with "standards compliant
source code".
Peter
------------------------------
From: "KW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can I use FAT32 partitions using linuex?
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 08:35:55 -0500
You probably don't have R/W/X permissions to the partition. If you have
root access, add the "disk" group to your supplementary groups and you
shouldn't have any other problems with that. This may be a bad security
move if other people have access to this PC.
In article <9dq4ka$j28r2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "nickwang"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've also found a problem about Linux(ext2) and Windows(fat32). For
> example, I can not link a file in fat32 system. And, when I use vmware
> under linux, I cannot write under fat32 system. Anyone knows the detail?
>
> "Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Teke Tu wrote:
>>
>> > Hi, I have just installed RH7.1. I realized that I didn't set enough
>> > space for the linux native partion.. so I am wondering wether if it
>> > is possible that I mount other windows partitions like NT or FAT32 so
>> > I can downloaded files to other partions to save some space? If it is
>> > possible, can you tell me how to mount a hard disk?? coz this I my
>> > first time using LInux.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "������ �������" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: modem
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 17:38:38 +0400
Silviu Minut wrote:
>
> If it's not a winmodem, you can. You need the isapnptools. Boot windows,
About win/lin modem:
http://walbran.org/sean/linux/linmodem-howto-all.html
http://www.linmodems.org
> see the IRQ and the I/O address. Back in linux, do
>
> pnpdump > /etc/isapnp.conf # first see if you already have an
> isapnp.conf file and back it up if you do
> edit isapnp.conf by un-commenting exactly one stanza corresponding to the
> resources you saw under windows.
>
> Then you do
> isapnp /etc/isapnp.conf
>
> Finally, you tell linux about them using setserial, otherwise the kernel
> will try to use some defaults when talking to the modem, which the modem
> "won't hear" cause it's expecting other values. Say your modem will be
> using irq 11. Then
>
> setserial /dev/modem irq 11
>
> Now if you do
>
> setserial -a /dev/modem
>
> you'll see irq 11.
>
> Also, /dev/modem must be a link to /dev/ttyS? as follows:
> com1 <---> ttyS0
> com2 <---> ttyS1
> etc.
>
> Ozus wrote:
>
> > is there any way to get my creative modem blaster (ISA) work with linux
> > ???
> > i'm using RHL 7.0
> >
> > thx in advance
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dustin Puryear)
Subject: Re: load average
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 08:26:17 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 14 May 2001 23:46:23 +0200, Michael Heiming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I can't say I've had a server hit 50 before. Are we both talking about the
>> load reported by uptime?
>Yes, we are, run a mail server with some traffic, install amavis and
>plenty virus scanner that will do the real scanning and you'll see what
>I mean, don't forget
>to check/raise the load limit of your mail server...:-)
>I.e. sendmail: "grep --after-context 1 load /etc/sendmail.cf"
Ok, ok. I still have to say however that having a load of 50 is rather high.
And I do mean *rather high*. I've run a "mail server with some traffic"
before, with quite a bit of traffic, and never hit anything near that. At
some point I either scale up or scale out.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on what load is acceptable. :)
Regards, Dustin
--
Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://members.telocity.com/~dpuryear
Integrate Linux Solutions into Your Windows Network
- http://www.prima-tech.com/integrate-linux
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dustin Puryear)
Subject: Re: Linux server link with NT
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 08:22:15 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 15 May 2001 09:27:48 +0800, Sysadmin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>i have a few questions regarding Linux operating system. I'm beginner for
>Linux actually. my questions are:
>1) Can Linux server transfer data between windows NT 4.0 such as
>replication/synchronize NT user account?
You cannot replicate the SAM to a Linux/Samba box. You can physically copy
the SAM and everything else however, although it's not as nice.
>2) My workstation is Win98 and WinME. can my worktation transfer data from
>their computer to Linux hard disk??? it is very difficult or easy like NT
>which can just map the drive.
http://www.samba.org
Regards, Dustin
--
Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://members.telocity.com/~dpuryear
Integrate Linux Solutions into Your Windows Network
- http://www.prima-tech.com/integrate-linux
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Recommendation for GUI e-mail client?
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:47:49 +0000 (UTC)
You might also take a look at Mahogany (GNOME compliant).
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Y2.0017115K bug
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:51:50 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SammyTheSnake) writes:
> In article <xe_L6.9658$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I just can't fathom anybody using BCD for this; it seems about as
> >sensible as the "September 9, 1999" problem.
> >That was the one where some illiterate reporter noticed that there
> >were a whole lot of "9's" going together.
> >Of course, if they had taken the 10 seconds to think that the
> >representation is:
> > "990909"
> >and that there are actually a bunch of zeros to break up the monotony,
> >they would have realized how stupid they were.
> actually, the 9/9/99 problem is nothing to do with wrapping around,
> a lot of (COBOL? ALGOL? can't remember) programmers used 9/9/99 as a
> marker date meaning "this record isn't real, it's just the end of
> the linked list" and similar things, making the assumption that
> their code wouldn't be still in use a couple of decades later when
> 9/9/99 was a realistic date to actually start appearing in these
> records. cue lots of lost data as the rest of the linked list got
> consigned to oblivion...
There was one course I took "way back when" where this sort of thing
was proposed as a way to have a "sentinel record;" stick 9's
everywhere, and treat "all 9's" as the end of the file.
What I think you _still_ failed to see was that the value used had to
fit with the _exact_ format being used to represent the dates.
COBOL programmers _don't_ have dates looking like "9/9/99"; data is
NOT placed into variable sized fields. The date fields instead look
like "09/09/99".
If you force _all_ the 9's of the "sentinel record" into place, you
get "99/99/99", which is a tremendously invalid date.
There was some sort of brokerage, in China, on some sort of AS/400
platform, if memory serves, that got affected by a problem on
September 9, 1999, but there were _not_ widespread problems from this
issue.
--
(concatenate 'string "aa454" "@freenet.carleton.ca")
http://vip.hex.net/~cbbrowne/resume.html
A Plateau is the highest form of flattery.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
