Linux-Setup Digest #290, Volume #19 Mon, 31 Jul 00 22:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: Problem installing RH 6.2 on a 30G drive ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Gateway - Kadoka - Not for Linux - ????? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: FWD: Red Hat's CFO abandoning ship. (blowfish)
Re: Why is Athon 650 slower than P-II/400? (Marcus Lauer)
Re: FWD: Red Hat's CFO abandoning ship. (blowfish)
Re: FWD: Red Hat's CFO abandoning ship. (Christopher Browne)
where are the PCMCIA menus in menuconfig? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red Hat Shadow Man Icons ("David ..")
Re: parport setup failed (David Efflandt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Problem installing RH 6.2 on a 30G drive
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:48:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
William Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't seem to get this configuration to
boot. My one 30G drive is
> partitioned as the following:
>
> First 7G: FAT 32 for my Windows 98 (C:)
> Extended partition from the 7G to the end:
> -> 8G partition for Linux ext2 (/dev/hda5)
> -> ~250 MB Linux swap (/dev/hda6)
> -> 14G FAT 32 (D:)
>
> Machine:
> PIII 800 with 128 Mb RAM (Dell 4100 series)
>
> PROBLEM:
> I used Partition Magic 5.0 to created the
extended and linux
> partitions above. I read somewhere that the
LILO doesn't work quite
> well with the linux partition above the 1024
cylinder border, thus I
> tried to put the beginning of my linux
partition within the first 8G.
> After I've installed Redhat 6.2
(successfully), LILO first just
> shows the "LI" not the "LO", then when I used
the bootdisk created with
> the 6.2 distribution, typing "linux /dev/hda5"
would get me this 0x10
> error. (Somebody tells me what 0x10 error
means!) One thing that I
> haven't tried is to put the /boot within the 8G
border, but this limit
> seems to refer only to the LILO, not the boot
disk in general. I'm just
> wondering where my problem is. Is it PMagic?
Redhat? LILO? or just
> the drive is faulty (not likely)?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> William Lee
>
>
I too have purchased a Dell 4100 (w/45G ATA-100
drive) and when I attempted to partition the disk
(in text mode as RH 6.2 didn't like my Dell M990
19" & ATI Rage 128 Pro), I get partition too big
messages (I think it's Linux fdisk). It will
allow a swap space to be defined, but not
the /boot or root partitions.
I started with Win98 as well on one big 45G
partition. I resized the Win98 FAT32 partition
to 10G and left the other 35G FAT32 for Redhat
6.2. I used FIPS 2.0 to resize the partition.
Tested Win98 still worked, then tried the RH6.2
install with above problem. Then tried deleting
the 35G FAT32 partition and installing RH6.2
again with identical results.
I'm kind of wondering if our problems are related.
Here's the response from Redhat on the subject:
Sorry, but the ATA-100 interface is not yet
supported by us, although I would suggest that
you goto www.dell.com and use linux and support as
your keywords for the search box on their home
page. See if Dell has either drivers or notes and
errata on setting up ATA100 type controllers.
Check out your other devices, too. Closing this
ticket, Ric Moore
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.install,comp.os.linux.redhat,alt.os.linux.
Subject: Re: Gateway - Kadoka - Not for Linux - ?????
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 00:51:54 GMT
I have a Sound Blaster Live Value and it works great. But for starters,
you should have PNP off. But I use Linux Mandrake 7.0 and I don't have
to do a thing to get my sound card working. (Other than run sndconfig
after installing Linux.) Sndconfig detects my sound card as plug and
play. I can't imagine that Gateway would build a computer that is
incompatible with any OS other than 98. I think they are just too lazy
to help you. It is easier to just say use the OS that came with it, but
then again, where's the challenge in that?
As for your PCI modem, I bet since it is PCI, it is probably a Win
Modem. I believe there is a way to get them to work in Linux now, but
I'll bet it will take a long time studying on how to do it, and you will
probably be messing around with it a lot and it will probably not work
that well. I would just go out and get a hardware based modem if I were
you.
David
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Barone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is a response from the Gateway techs about turning off PNP, as a
> possible solution to my sound problems. I have been trying for three
> weeks to get my SB Live! card to work. All the drivers seem to be
> there, and trying to work. I have tried them all, OSS \ Alsa \
> Emu10k1. Maybe this isn't the problem, I don't know. If anyone knows
> something I'm missing, PLEASE - let me know. The system can see my
> Brooktree tuner card, 'sndconfig' see's the right sound card, but
> that's as far as I can get. It doesn't see my PCI modem either, but I
> don't care! My ethernet card works great.
>
> "The Kadoka motherboard that you have there is only compatible with
> Windows 98 and 98 SE. We have it listed as a "can't build" with
> Windows 95 and Windows NT. All versions of the BIOS are set up to
> work with Windows 98 only, and none of them contain the Plug and Play
> OS option (Sorry for the bad information in the first message.
> Gateway doesn't install Linux with any of our systems so we have not
> tested this motherboard with Linux. Judging by the limited operating
> system compatibility of this motherboard, I would say that it's not
> going to work with Linux."
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: blowfish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ..
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: FWD: Red Hat's CFO abandoning ship.
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:32:23 -0700
"Prasanth A. Kumar" wrote:
>
> blowfish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> <snip>
> > As far as I can see. All the distros, including the die-hard Debian. Are
> > out exploiting the GNU-GPL. They're making the profits by repackaging
> > the free stuff put out by volunteers, who have put out their work under
> > GNU-GPL.
> >
> > I don't think that's fair to the developers. And the way the GNU-GPL is
> > written that, you either have to give up everything to your claims, or
> > don't play the Linux game at all. But never mind if somebody repackage
> > your work and make a hugh profit out from your free work, where you no
> > longer has any rights to.
> <snip>
>
> I think most developers GPL their software because they want to rather
> than because they are forced to. The only time they are compelled to
> is if they lift code from another GPL'd program or use a GPL'd
> library. All the other times, the developer choose to make it GPL,
> they were quite aware that others will profit from it.
>
Sure.
But I don't think any body can rule out some might want to make a few
dollars from their work.
My point is: It's not fair for repackagers to make big profits out of
freely contributed work.
Those whose works have been incorporated in a commercial distro (ALL of
the distros are commercial.) should track down the developers, and give
them a share of the profit.
Wouldn't that will encourage the developers to write more good stuff?
> Sure, the GPL restricts the conditions in which you can use the source
> code but then again, when is the last time Microsoft let you take
> chunks of their source code with no strings attached?
>
Hey. I DUMPED M$ a couple years ago completely. :-)
No dual boot machines here. ;-)
PS: My ISP's news server is really shitty, most of the threads are
missing, but their DSL
service is top notch, at 100% or higher than advertised speed 99% of the
time. So. I might missed a few reply here. please accept my apology if
any of you don't get a reply from me within a reasonable time.
Alex / blowfish.
> --
> Prasanth Kumar
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
- If Vi is God's editor. Then, God must have too much free time on his
hands,
lives a very boring and unproductive life; so he needs Vi to waste his
time.
Simplicity rules. That's why I use Easy Edit (ee).
------------------------------
From: Marcus Lauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Why is Athon 650 slower than P-II/400?
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 18:33:15 +0200
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, James Knowles wrote:
>> Uh.... Mebbe I'm smokin crack again, but I don't think it'd be really fair
>> to compare a dual-proceesing P-II-400 to a single Athlon.... First off, the
>> dual processors are going to push all IO faster. That will affect memory
>> access, hard drive access, etc.
>
>I'm not too sure about that. I've had long experience with SMP, longer
>with parallelism in general. In truth an SMP machine is going to have a
>slightly decreased memory access per processor due to bus contention.
>I/O is similarly affected. I/O that can be parallelised will see a
>benefit, but serialised I/O will see no benefit. I've seen a 5-10% drop
>in performance per CPU under Linux. Typically this is about 15-20% under
>WinNT from my experience.
>
>In this specific case disk access is faster due the to fact that I'm
>running RAID on SCSI and not IDE. This is a SCSI/IDE issue, not SMP.
>
I get about 65MB/s with my Super-7 system, compared to his 45. The
Athlon should at least be much faster than this, for various reasons
(double-pumped memory, faster cache, superior chipset in memory performance in
general...)
Marcus
------------------------------
From: blowfish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ..
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: FWD: Red Hat's CFO abandoning ship.
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:42:47 -0700
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Alex writes:
> > ...if you look at anything that are GNU-GPLed, you'll see the line
> > "... not accountable for any damage...blah , blah, blah..."
>
> If you look at just about any other end user license (the BSD license or
> Microsofts's EULA, for example) you will see a similar disclaimer.
>
> > That may be fine with some private end users, but in the real business
> > world, accountability is everything.
>
> In my experience with the business world money is everything.
>
> > They'll pass even if you have the best stuff out, if nobody can be taken
> > account for, if something goes wrong.
>
> Just as with proprietary software users who need extensive support and
> "accountability" can negotiate a contract with the author. Unlike the case
> with proprietary software, such users have the alternative of negotiating
> such a contract with a third party: he has the source, the lack of which is
> the only thing that sets vendor support apart from third party support in
> the proprietary world.
>
> > As far as I can see. All the distros, including the die-hard Debian. Are
> > out exploiting the GNU-GPL.
>
> How could Debian "exploit" the GPL (or anything else)? Do you understand
> what Debian is?
>
> > They're making the profits by repackaging the free stuff put out by
> > volunteers, who have put out their work under GNU-GPL.
>
> Some of those "volunteers" are paid (not by Debian) to work full time on
> Debian. In any case, we do not mind at all that people make money from
> Debian. The right to do so is a requirement of the DFSG.
>
> Last year I made $25,000 as a direct consequence of my free software
> efforts. There is no way I would have made a penny from my software had
> I not released it under the GPL and put it in Debian.
>
> > I don't think that's fair to the developers.
>
> I think that the developers are quite competent to decide what is fair to
> them.
>
> > And the way the GNU-GPL is written that, you either have to give up
> > everything to your claims,...
>
> Wrong.
>
> > But never mind if somebody repackage your work and make a hugh profit out
> > from your free work,...
>
> A "huge" profit selling software that anyone can sell? ROFL.
>
Red Hat, Debian et al are ALL selling the GNU-GPL stuff for money.
Sure, you can download them, but in casess like Red Hat, they have extra
stuff that you can only buy from, not available for free download.
> > ...where you no longer has any rights to.
>
> Wrong. I still own the copyrights on my stuff and only I can distribute
> the software under any license other than the GPL.
>
> > I don't either. But I'm just interested in this opensource movement.
>
> Then you should learn a bit more about it. You don't understand free
> software at all well.
I know exactly what free software are. But my reason of using "free
software" is not because they're free, I always BUY the "official
CDs/DVD releases," because I WANT TO SUPPORT the good stuff, and hope
the pipe line will not be broken. Sure, I also download the stuff, but
because I'm impatient, I want to try them out asap, and usually the
official CDs/DVD releases won't be available after the release is on
line, sometimes, even before the ISO image is ready. (A good example is
the FreeBSD 4.1-RELEASE. The ISO will be out on August 1. But I've
downloaded all the source and compiled them, and have the whole thing
functioning already by last Friday late afternoon. And I'm going to send
in my order for the official CD release tomorrow.)
Alex / blowfish.
> --
> John Hasler
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, Wisconsin
--
- If Vi is God's editor. Then, God must have too much free time on his
hands,
lives a very boring and unproductive life; so he needs Vi to waste his
time.
Simplicity rules. That's why I use Easy Edit (ee).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: FWD: Red Hat's CFO abandoning ship.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 01:48:32 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when John Hasler would say:
>Alex writes:
>> That may be fine with some private end users, but in the real business
>> world, accountability is everything.
>
>In my experience with the business world money is everything.
In my experience, there are so many variations in what motivates action,
it's insane to try to generalize any single answer of what motivates whom.
For instance, it is pretty common for consultants from "big 6"
consulting firms to find _their_ prime motivations coming from:
a) Needing to progress up the career ladder posthaste in order to
get any "corporate rewards;"
b) Needing to bill as much as possible to clients in order to maximize
revenues, which means that it makes perfect sense to try to
"spend like a drunken sailor;"
c) Receiving any bonuses on the basis of conformance with project
plans, with the result that Project Plans are #1.
Several of those things have to do with money in an _indirect_
manner, but, by and large, actions are somewhat separated from
"money," so long as enough is rolling in.
All the sorts of motivations that exist may be readily found in business,
including greed for money, greed for sex, greed for power, greed for
prestige, just to name a few of the "deadly sins."
>> They'll pass even if you have the best stuff out, if nobody can be taken
>> account for, if something goes wrong.
>
>Just as with proprietary software users who need extensive support and
>"accountability" can negotiate a contract with the author. Unlike the case
>with proprietary software, such users have the alternative of negotiating
>such a contract with a third party: he has the source, the lack of which is
>the only thing that sets vendor support apart from third party support in
>the proprietary world.
>
>> As far as I can see. All the distros, including the die-hard Debian. Are
>> out exploiting the GNU-GPL.
>
>How could Debian "exploit" the GPL (or anything else)? Do you understand
>what Debian is?
Indeed. I'd find it interesting just what systems are supposedly not
"exploiting" anything. It's pretty common for comments like this to come
from "BSD trolls;" the fact that BSDI bought out Walnut Creek, and
IBM bought WhistleJet demonstrate that the "BSD world" is not immune
to commercial attempts to "exploit" BSD code either.
>> They're making the profits by repackaging the free stuff put out by
>> volunteers, who have put out their work under GNU-GPL.
>
>Some of those "volunteers" are paid (not by Debian) to work full time on
>Debian. In any case, we do not mind at all that people make money from
>Debian. The right to do so is a requirement of the DFSG.
>
>Last year I made $25,000 as a direct consequence of my free software
>efforts. There is no way I would have made a penny from my software had
>I not released it under the GPL and put it in Debian.
>
>> I don't think that's fair to the developers.
>
>I think that the developers are quite competent to decide what is fair to
>them.
Indeed.
>> And the way the GNU-GPL is written that, you either have to give up
>> everything to your claims,...
>
>Wrong.
The sentence doesn't make sense; this seems to represent some meaning of
"claims" that has been made up on the spot.
>> But never mind if somebody repackage your work and make a hugh profit out
>> from your free work,...
>
>A "huge" profit selling software that anyone can sell? ROFL.
Indeed. With CheapBytes and LSL and LinuxCentral around repackaging
things at eminently low markups, it _has_ to be that if someone is
paying $40 for Red Hat 7.0, they're not paying for the software, but
rather for something else...
>> ...where you no longer has any rights to.
>
>Wrong. I still own the copyrights on my stuff and only I can distribute
>the software under any license other than the GPL.
... Which is the _fascinating_ thing about the GPL, and also the
most-misunderstood...
>> I don't either. But I'm just interested in this opensource movement.
>
>Then you should learn a bit more about it. You don't understand free
>software at all well.
Indeed.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #63. "Bulk trash will be disposed of in
incinerators, not compactors. And they will be kept hot, with none of
that nonsense about flames going through accessible tunnels at
predictable intervals." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: where are the PCMCIA menus in menuconfig?
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2000 01:35:32 GMT
I am losing my mind or something...
I cannot find the PCMCIA support options in menuconfig for 2.2.16.
I could have sworn they were there before.
where are they?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "David .." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Red Hat Shadow Man Icons
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:49:56 -0500
rubrsoul wrote:
>
> I am setting up a test lab of a dozen workstations on my lan, and need some
> information. I have built a couple of workstations for some more advanced
> winblows users and they are quite excited by what they have seen Linux do for
> them. I now want to roll out a larger test, so I am working with our training
> department to convert our training lab for current empoyees to Linux
> workstations (when I took over in this position I had to first start a
> migration to a managed desktop, now that the hardware is straightened out I
> need to get WInblows off of the desktop). I have built a very clean desktop
> for the standard users and want to create a link to an intrannet page I have
> put together that will reflect some very basic commands they will use everyday.
> I want to use the Red Hat Shadow Man icons for this link but I can't seem to
> find them in the usual icon folders. I know that they can be got at because I
> have seen then used in a number of KDE themes, but where are they? A simple
> question, but I hope someone can help?
Look in the "/usr/share/pixmaps/redhat" directory.
--
Confucius say: He who play in root, eventually kill tree.
Registered with the Linux Counter. http://counter.li.org
ID # 123538
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Efflandt)
Subject: Re: parport setup failed
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 02:02:45 +0000 (UTC)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 31 Jul 2000 14:21:50 +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I set up parport module to print out for parallel port printer.
>
>I linked parport module statically with printer support on menu config.
>So I could get /proc/parport/0/hardware output like this.
>
>base: 0x378
>irq: none
>dma: none
>modes: SPP,PS2
Not familiar with what you did above or which Linux you have, but for
RedHat 6.1 I had to add the following to /etc/conf.modules before anything
could find the parallel port or printer:
alias parport_lowlevel parport_pc
>After then I typed "/usr/sbin/tunelp /dev/lp -s" and I got message
>
> /dev/lp0: No such device
>
>As you guess,/usr/sbin/printtool command could not find any parallel port
>interface.
>I alse tried to give some lilo.conf option parameter when kernel boot.
>
>parport=auto
>
>But it didn't work.
>
>
>Any idea ?
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Go Hosohara
>Tokyo Japan
>email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
David Efflandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.de-srv.com/
http://www.autox.chicago.il.us/ http://www.berniesfloral.net/
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~cgi-wiz/ http://cgi-help.virtualave.net/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
