Linux-Setup Digest #49, Volume #19 Sat, 1 Jul 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
XFree86 4.0 desktop size (Draco Ravenloft)
Re: Stupid me, forgot to run /sbin/lilo... ("David ..")
Re: XFree86 4.0 desktop size (mike burrell)
Re: XFree86 4.0 desktop size (mike burrell)
? Corel install freezes... (Milo Simonic)
Re: 1024 cylinder limit info please? (Homer Jay)
Re: Motherboard Software .... how does it affect Linux ? (Homer Jay)
Linux Resource (Cory Rauch)
Re: XFree86 4.0 desktop size (Homer Jay)
Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs?
("news.teleport.com")
junbuster isn't working ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
junkbuster isn't working ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Running Netscape PR6? ("RP")
in search of a better fdisk ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Font server and XFree 4.0 (Andreas Tretow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Draco Ravenloft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: ahn.tech.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: XFree86 4.0 desktop size
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 13:10:58 -0500
I recently upgraded to XFree 4.0, and after a little help and a bit of
experimentation I've managed to get the bloody thing to start my monitor
in the right resoultion....
but could someone do me a favor and tell me how to change the settings
so that it will stop having a physical res of 1024x768 and a desktop
that's drawn to1280x1024?
My monitor can do that resoultion.
but I prefer 1024x768....... I can see the refresh rate at higher
resolutions and that annoys the hell outta me.
------------------------------
From: "David .." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stupid me, forgot to run /sbin/lilo...
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 12:57:02 -0500
Cliff Pennock wrote:
>
[snip]
> How can I make a boot diskette? I Or can anyone point me to a HowTo or
> other document explaining the steps to take to fix this? I really,
> REALLY, don't want to re-install Linux... I am able to boot from the
> installation CD, but am unable to mount my harddisk after that). PS: I'm
> running Debian/Slink.
Boot from the installation disk and choose rescue.
enter: "linux root=/dev/hdaX" Where X is the correct partition for
root.
Then re-run lilo
Best of luck.
--
Registered with the Linux Counter. http://counter.li.org
ID # 123538
------------------------------
From: mike burrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XFree86 4.0 desktop size
Crossposted-To: ahn.tech.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux.help
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 18:20:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.help Draco Ravenloft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but could someone do me a favor and tell me how to change the settings
> so that it will stop having a physical res of 1024x768 and a desktop
> that's drawn to1280x1024?
the desktop size will be equal to the largest resolution given on the Modes
line in the appropriate Display subsection. find the appropriate Display
subsection and get rid of any reference to 1280x1024. you might also be
able to override it with a Virtual line, though i've not tried it:
Section "Screen"
Driver "accel"
Device "my video card"
Monitor "my monitor"
DefaultColorDepth 16
Subsection "Display"
Depth 16
Modes "1024x768" "640x480" "800x600" "1280x1024"
Virtual 1024 768
ViewPort 0 0
EndSubsection
EndSection
though just getting rid of the "1280x1024" makes a lot more sense to me:
Section "Screen"
Driver "accel"
Device "my video card"
Monitor "my monitor"
DefaultColorDepth 16
Subsection "Display"
Depth 16
Modes "1024x768" "640x480" "800x600"
ViewPort 0 0
EndSubsection
EndSection
--
/"\ m i k e b u r r e l l
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X AGAINST HTML MAIL,
/ \ AND NEWS TOO, dammit
------------------------------
From: mike burrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XFree86 4.0 desktop size
Crossposted-To: ahn.tech.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux.help
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 18:20:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.help mike burrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.help Draco Ravenloft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> but could someone do me a favor and tell me how to change the settings
>> so that it will stop having a physical res of 1024x768 and a desktop
>> that's drawn to1280x1024?
> the desktop size will be equal to the largest resolution given on the Modes
> line in the appropriate Display subsection. find the appropriate Display
> subsection and get rid of any reference to 1280x1024. you might also be
> able to override it with a Virtual line, though i've not tried it:
oops i just realised that you were using 4.0 and not 3.3. take my advice
with a grain of salt.
--
/"\ m i k e b u r r e l l
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X AGAINST HTML MAIL,
/ \ AND NEWS TOO, dammit
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 20:28:29 +0200
From: Milo Simonic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ? Corel install freezes...
Corel Linux: Got the iso image, burnt a cd, started with cd in and it
proceeds only few steps -
installing CL
starting CL
and then nothing.
What's wrong? Why cannot I install it? And all the news I heard was how
easy
was to install Corel Linux...
Milo
------------------------------
From: Homer Jay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 1024 cylinder limit info please?
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 18:29:39 GMT
...
> Can someone explain this Linux 1024 cylinder limit to me? My HD
> has, as far as I can read the number on the installed unit,
> 16989 cylinders. My Amibios 1.00.06.BSO BIOS doesn't seem to
> have an LBA option for IDE HDs. My Maxtor DianondMax V20 91021U2
> drive has 10.2G. The BIOS setup says 16320 Cylinders, 16 heads,
> 63 sectors, 8,033 Mb capacity. MSD (ancient MS DOS Diagnostic)
> says 128 cylinders, 255 heads, 512 bytes/sector, 63
> sectors/track (this adds up to 1G, the size of the only
> formatted partition). Seems like there's some translation going
> on somewhere. That means I have to install the Linux root within
> about 600M of the beginning of the HD? I was going to put a 1G
> DOS partition in there but I guess I'll gave to use Partition
> Magic to reduce it to a couple of hundred M. That also means I
> can't put anothe Linux on the HD as I had planned to do? I
> currently only have a 1G DOS (MS 6.22) partition on the HD and
> it seems to work fine and a DIR gives a C: capacity of 1G. So
> maybe it'll work for Linux and LILO?
>
> Is this 1024 limitation just for LILO or would System Commander
> and/or a floppy boot disk not work either?
You can usually boot from a floppy without worrying about the 1024
restriction. The BIOS is sometimes incapable of booting an OS beyond
the 1024th cylinder, but a floppy circumvents that pretty well.
The 1024 limit works out to 504MB. Put your OS(s), or at least the
boot info, within the first 504MB and you'll have no problem. Some
BIOSs can handle booting beyond that, however. I guess the limit
originated because the original scheme for ATA disks imposed a
504 MB limit. BIOSs got around that with several different "translation"
schemes. (SCSI is a little more intelligible, handling the translation
in the drive electronics.) From the lilo docs:
The most common BIOS restrictions that affect LILO are the limitation to
two hard disks and the inability to access more than 1024 cylinders per
disk. LILO can detect both conditions, but in order to work around the
underlying problems, manual intervention is necessary.
The drive limit does not exist in every BIOS. Some modern motherboards and
disk controllers are equipped with a BIOS that supports more (typically
four) disk drives. When attempting to access the third, fourth, etc. drive,
LILO prints a warning message but continues. Unless the BIOS really
supports more than two drives, the system will _not_ be able to boot in
that case.*
* However, if only "unimportant" parts of the system are located on the
"high" drives, some functionality may be available.
The cylinder limit is a very common problem with IDE disks. There, the
number of cylinders may already exceed 1024 if the drive has a capacity of
more than 504 MB. Many SCSI driver BIOSes present the disk geometry in a
way that makes the limit occur near 1 GB. Modern disk controllers may even
push the limit up to about 8 GB. All cylinders beyond the 1024th are
inaccessible for the BIOS. LILO detects this problem and aborts the
installation (unless the LINEAR option is used, see section "Global
options").
... [From Global options section:]
LINEAR Generate linear sector addresses instead of sector/head/cylinder
addresses. Linear addresses are translated at run time and do not
depend on disk geometry. Note that boot disks may not be portable if
LINEAR is used, because the BIOS service to determine the disk geometry
does not work reliably for floppy disks. When using LINEAR with large
disks, /sbin/lilo may generate references to inaccessible disk areas
(see section "BIOS restrictions"), because 3D sector addresses are not
known before boot time. LINEAR may conflict with COMPACT, see section
"Other problems".
Using Linear sounds like the choice of last resort to me. I recommend
putting a 100-200 MB root partition first, then your DOS partition,
making it as big as you need. Then you can use the rest of the disk
for /usr /var, whatever scheme you want. If "/" (root) is within
the first 500MB then they'll be no problem. (E.g.: I have a 13GB disk
and my BIOS only supports up to 2GB, but it works b/c root is below 504MB.)
Just for the pedantic:
The restriction to 500 MB resulted from the original BIOS disk
interface, INT13 (originally designed for floppies of all things),
using 10 bits to represent the cylinder number (2^10=1024) and 6
bits for the number of sectors/track (2^6=64). Heads, real heads,
are limited to 16 to avoid incompatiblities with a disk controller
from the original AT from 1984! Bytes/sector is 0.5K by convention.
0.5KB * 16 * 63 * 1024 = 504MB (63 because sectors always number from 1)
This would be a hard limit but new BIOSs use phantom heads, etc. to
make the max disk size larger. Many allow larger cylinder number, etc.
This makes me wonder, if the _BIOS_ supports access to cylinders
beyone 1024, why can't lilo, which depends upon the BIOS? Or, is that
what the LINEAR option is for? Anyone know?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Homer Jay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Motherboard Software .... how does it affect Linux ?
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 18:33:02 GMT
> My Aopen AX63 M/B has software for hardware components on the M/B, written
> for Windows of course ..... So how is this going to affect things ??? When u
> r using linux??
I guess an example of that might be a video chip embedded into the
mainboard. Software would allow you to change io addresses, etc.
Check your motherboard, there may be jumpers as well.
If this information gets stored when power is cut (and it almost
certainly does), then that information will be presented to linux
at the next boot. Fiddle with io port addresses and such and you
must be prepared to deal with the changes in linux. Depends on
what you change how it will affect your setup.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Cory Rauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux Resource
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 15:09:43 -0400
OSFAQ.com is a new Operating System and Programming Technical site
looking to expand. Please check it out and add a link.
http://www.osfaq.com
------------------------------
From: Homer Jay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: ahn.tech.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: XFree86 4.0 desktop size
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 18:56:47 GMT
> I recently upgraded to XFree 4.0, and after a little help and a bit of
> experimentation I've managed to get the bloody thing to start my monitor
> in the right resoultion....
>
> but could someone do me a favor and tell me how to change the settings
> so that it will stop having a physical res of 1024x768 and a desktop
> that's drawn to1280x1024?
>
> My monitor can do that resoultion.
>
> but I prefer 1024x768....... I can see the refresh rate at higher
> resolutions and that annoys the hell outta me.
XFree86 is attempting to use all of your video ram. It has used most
to get you 1024x768 at a certain horizontal and vertical refresh rate
and the rest to expand your virutal desktop (beyond the physical
screen). However, it sounds like your refresh is a little low. If
you've already run XF86Setup, then you have the automatically
generated XF86Config file. This is usually the best you can do, at
least with my experience. Try switching resolution/refresh with
<ALT>-<CTL>-<kpad +/->. If you find one you like, no worries. However,
it sounds like this will not do what you want.
First, to remove the virtual desktop thing, I _think_ all you have to
do is comment out the Virtual line(s) in your Screen section.
Unfortunately, this will not increase your refresh rate. If the
automatically generated XF86Config does not provide an adequate
refresh at 1024x768 you are stuck with attempting to hack your own
video timings. I did this myself a while ago, and because MAG
refused to send me the information I needed about the monitor I
found that I simply could not get all my RAM to help drive a higher
refresh instead of a larger virtual desktop. I didn't break my
hardware, but it just wouldn't go. If you are brave, however, try
starting with the XFree86-Video-Timings-HOWTO and the man page
for XF86Config. Best of luck to you.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "news.teleport.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs?
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2000 12:15:08 -0700
Yep. . . Use fvwm and Netscape. There's a howto on LDP that explains
setting up fvwm so that it is locked down well. You gain quite a bit of
resources back by using fvwm over say gnome or kde so the lower ended cpu's
can be used. I won't vouch for a '486 though. . . Sure It could be done,
and if that's all you have for hardware, then by all means, go for it! But
if you're like me, my mom, and my grandma, you better find a Pentium. What
I'm saying is that a lower memory 486 with 36mb RAM will work - I've got one
of those and have tried it (with SCSI to help out) - but jumping up to my
p90 makes enough difference to make the system really useable.
happy surfing. . .
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) writes:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:01:03 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > >It was the 19 Jun 2000 06:02:43 -0500...
> > >...and Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >- Simple web browser with low memory requirements; must be easy to
use for
> > >> >people familiar with IE and Netscape.
> > >>
> > >> You can iether use Netscape, which requiars more RAM and a faster
CPU, or you can use AREENA,
> > >> which isnt' finnished and probably never will be.
> > >
> > >Arena is obsolete anyway, it has been replaced by Amaya, but when I
> > >need a lightweight browser, I use w3m anyway.
> >
> > Also keep in mind that all a kiosk web browser on Linux would
> > need run is the browser itself and X. You don't need to load
> > a window manager or the rest of the desktop that would necesarily
> > be running under Windows or MacOS.
>
> Until the user selects File->New Window
>
> [snip]
>
> It would probably be best to run fvwm95, or another EXPLORE.EXE clone
> (theme), so as not to confuse the users.
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: junbuster isn't working
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 19:22:42 GMT
Greetings!
I installed junkbuster for Linux but it isn't working. The program is
installed in my local $HOME/bin directory along with the .ini files. My
browser is properly configured to talk to the proxy over port 8000.
This is the same configuration I have in my Windoze machine. junkbuster
starts correctly from .bash_profile. Yet, even though the browser has
the manual proxy configured, no interceptions are handled by junkbuster
(the test page reports 'Warning: No proxy intervened').
My configuration: Linux 2.0.35/Netscape 4.5/junkbuster 2.0.2
Does anyone have any idea why this isn't working? Please advise.
Thanks in advance!
G.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: junkbuster isn't working
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 19:29:07 GMT
Greetings!
I installed junkbuster for Linux but it isn't working. The program is
installed in my local
$HOME/bin directory along with the .ini files. My browser is properly
configured to talk to the
proxy over port 8000. This is the same configuration I have in my
Windoze machine. junkbuster
starts correctly from .bash_profile. Yet, even though the browser has
the manual proxy
configured, no interceptions are handled by junkbuster (the test page
reports 'Warning: No
proxy intervened').
My configuration: Linux 2.0.35/Netscape 4.5/junkbuster 2.0.2
Does anyone have any idea why this isn't working? Please advise.
Thanks in advance!
G.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "RP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.suse
Subject: Running Netscape PR6?
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 19:52:30 GMT
I have downloaded the Latest Netscape Navigator Preview Release 6 but I am
not sure how to get it running ???????
Clicking the Netscape Icon does not seem to do anything.
What else do I need to do - there does not seem to be any setup instructions
anywhere ?
Thanks
Russ
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: in search of a better fdisk
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 19:55:48 GMT
What I need to be able to do is make partition 4 be allocated the remainder
of the disk space. I need to do this from within a script. The script
will not know anything about the disk other than what it can get from the
various fdisk programs. But the ones out there don't seem to be designed
to do this very well for scripts.
For example: sfdisk
The sfdisk program can allocate the whole drive all at one, but imposes on
the script to parse the output it gives to describe the existing partitions.
That output is not in a consistent format (sometimes big sizes show up in
different columns).
The sfdisk program can allocate one partition at a time with the -N option,
but then the size no longer defaults to the end of the disk, but instead,
defaults to what it had before. That means the script still has to get all
the info, so it can know where the starting point is (maybe an existing
partition 4, or maybe where another partition ends) and calculate the size
to specify.
It seems sfdisk is useful to a script if the script has precalculated all
the partitions, but not very useful if the script needs to make a partition
tweak that affects part of it. Does anyone have any alternative fdisk
program?
--
| Phil Howard - KA9WGN | My current websites: linuxhomepage.com, ham.org
| phil (at) ipal.net +----------------------------------------------------
| Dallas - Texas - USA | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Andreas Tretow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Font server and XFree 4.0
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 21:57:44 +0200
It looks like this font is not installed. Check your fontpaths in
/etc/X11/XF86Config and check if you have installed the fonts correctly.
BTW, xfs, the X font server is only necessary when your machine is
serving fonts to other machines on the network. If this is not the case,
you don't need it.
I hope this helps
--
Andreas Tretow
tretow(spamalamadingdong)@snafu.de
(to reply, just remove everything that doen't seem right from the
address)
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.setup) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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-Setup Digest
******************************
