Linux-Setup Digest #304, Volume #19 Wed, 2 Aug 00 16:13:12 EDT
Contents:
locking down GNOME ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
locking down GNOME ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Coppermine SLOW PERFORMANCE... (EKK)
Re: FWD: Red Hat's CFO abandoning ship. (blowfish)
Re: FWD: Red Hat's CFO abandoning ship. (blowfish)
Re: FWD: Red Hat's CFO abandoning ship. (blowfish)
Re: CGI and Apache (Akira Yamanita)
Re: 2 hard drives ("Eric / Chang-Cheng, Chao")
Re: FWD: Red Hat's CFO abandoning ship. (blowfish)
Re: FWD: Red Hat's CFO abandoning ship. (blowfish)
Re: gcc question ("Steven P. Frysinger")
Execute .kshrc? ("Steven P. Frysinger")
Problem witl slow mail (Doug Curtis)
Re: CGI and Apache (David Lewis)
Re: Wierd color behavior
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: locking down GNOME
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:51:33 GMT
I'd like to use GNOME at the company that I work for. The company uses
many workstations, all of which usethe same login via NIS, and mount the
same home directory via NFS. So how do I keep people from mucking with
the home directory? People on a few test workstations have already
moved things around...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: locking down GNOME
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 18:52:05 GMT
I'd like to use GNOME at the company that I work for. The company uses
many workstations, all of which usethe same login via NIS, and mount the
same home directory via NFS. So how do I keep people from mucking with
the home directory? People on a few test workstations have already
moved things around...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: EKK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Coppermine SLOW PERFORMANCE...
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 05:32:08 -0700
OK,
I HAVE SAID THIS BEFORE, BUT DIDN'T GET AS MUCH RESPONSE
AS I THOUGH I WOULD.
HAS ANYONE EXPERIENCED BELOW-EXPECTATIONS PERFORMANCE FROM
COPPERMINE PENTIUM III CHIPS?
MY NEW PIII850, PIII650 PERFORM ONLY MARGINALLY BETTER THAN
MY OLD PII450.
CACHE!!!!
IS THIS OR IS THIS NOT AN ISSUE?
SUPPOSEDLY THE NEW 256KB ON-DIE CACHE IS MORE EFFICIENT, BUT
PERHAPS ONLY FOR MUNDANE WINDOWS TASKS. IF I AM RUNNING A
MEMORY-INTENSIVE LARGE PROBLEM THAT IS MOSTLY FLOATING POINT
OPERATIONS, AM I BETTER OFF WITH THE LARGER CACHE.
IT SEEMS TO BE THE CASE WITH OTHER PROCESSORS, LIKE MIPS OR
ALPHA. FOR EXAMPLE THE ALPHA 667MHZ (DP264) HAS A FAT 4MB
CACHE AND IT IS TWICE AS FAST AS A PIII500(512KB CACHE).
ALSO, THE MIPS PROCESSORS FREQUENCY IS BELOW PENTIUM FREQ.
BUT THE LARGER CACHE USUALLY SEEMS TO MAKE UP IN OVERALL
SPEED.
NOW. I KNOW THE ALPHA IS THE FASTEST OUT THERE AND I AM
VERY HAPPY WITH IT, BUT I THOUGHT THAT A PIII850 WOULD AT
LEAST BE 1.5 TIMES FASTER THAN A PII450.
WHAT IS GOING ON?????
SHOULD I JUST RETURN THESE NEW PROCESSORS AND HUNT FOR AN
EXTINCT PIII600MHZ WITH THE OLD-STYLE 512KB CACHE????????
PERPLEXED,
AG
--
P.S.: PLEASE ALSO REFER TO MESSAGE WITH HEADER:
"slow PIII850MHz performance..."
THANK YOU MUCH.
Alessandro Giachino, Software Engineer
EKK Inc.
2065 West Maple C309 tel. 248-624-9957
Walled Lake MI 48390 fax. 248-624-7158
_____________________________________________
http://www.ekkinc.com
------------------------------
From: blowfish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ..
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: FWD: Red Hat's CFO abandoning ship.
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 12:04:31 -0700
brian moore wrote:
>
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 19:25:49 -0700,
> blowfish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > John Hasler wrote:
> > >
> > > blowfish writes:
> > > > Red Hat, Debian et al are ALL selling the GNU-GPL stuff for money.
> > >
> > > Wrong. Debian sells nothing.
> > >
> >
> >
>http://linuxmall.com/shop/01496?cat=ROOT&sort=2&vid=&search=debian&SID=90de0b724faa8352f505f5269a3dc28b&Start=
> >
> > It shows a $17.95 price tag there. ;-)
>
> And Linuxmall is selling that. Not Debian.
>
> (Hint: note the 'Manufacturer' field.)
>
> > > > 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,
> > >
> > > Then you don't know what free software is. It's free as in free speech,
> > > not as in free beer.
> >
> > No, I *NEVER* care about beer. Free or not free. :-)
> >
> > But Free Speech is what I like, and treasure.
> >
> > But I also want to support those who contribute to the good stuff. ;-)
>
> Then contribute. Buy a $2 CD from cheapbytes (at that price, their
> margin is minimal, the cd's are loss leaders to get you to buy books and
> such) and donate what you think is fair to Software in the Public
> Interest or XFree86 or whoever.
>
I do, and I've been doing it. Even I'd always download it first, then,
buy the cd/dvd; usually the source will be ready for download even
before the iso image is ready. I just compile from source, because I'm
impatient; and I have fat bandwidth for years already.
I always buy the official CD, T-shirts from OpenBSD, FreeBSD,
SuSE-Linux-the stuff that I depends on.
The only *nix book I've bought are the Camel, the Llama, TCP-IP, and
Unix in a Nut Shell.
I never read more than 5 pages of the manual that comes with the
official cd/dvd releases packages.
If I cannot figure it out myself. Then, the system is too complicate for
me to use. I'll just dump it and look for something else. :-)
> --
> Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor.
> Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting
> Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day.
> Netscum, Bane of Elves.
--
- Alex / blowfish.
--
- If Vi is God's editor. Then, God must have too much free time on his
hands,
lives a very dull and unproductive life; so he needs Vi to waste his
time.
But Vi was still too fast. So God created EMACS on the 8th day - which
takes
Eight Months to load, And Counting Still...
KISS rules. That's why I use Easy Edit (ee). Small. Simple and fast.
:-)
- The UN-GEEK CODE:(?What is a
geek?)-#!?+++??++++|$????+++++?????+++!!!!???+++---
geek + vi | ~/emacs
==>ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!.......:P~
newbies + Windoz | C:\LOOKOUT
EXPRESS==>_the_horrors_the_horrrrrrrroOOOOORRRRRRRRRSSSSsssss!!! :-|
- My SAS (Sing-A-Song)Fingerprint -v.i007bond: Doe1(-a deer a female
deer.) RaY2(- a drop of golden sun.)
Me3(- A name, I call myself.) FAr4(- A long, long way to run.) Sew5(-A
needle pulling thread.)
lA6(-A note to follow sew.) TeA7(-A drink with jam and bread.) That
will bring us back to DOe-oh-oh-oh...
------------------------------
From: blowfish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ..
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: FWD: Red Hat's CFO abandoning ship.
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 12:11:03 -0700
John Hasler wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > Wrong. Debian sells nothing.
>
> blowfish writes:
> >
>http://linuxmall.com/shop/01496?cat=ROOT&sort=2&vid=&search=debian&SID=90de0b724faa8352f505f5269a3dc28b&Start=
> > It shows a $17.95 price tag there. ;-)
>
> Linux Mall sells Debian CD's. Cheap Bytes sells Debian CD's. Offer me
> some money and I will sell you Debian CD's. Debian is free software:
> anyone can sell it. Debian, however, sells nothing.
>
> > No, I *NEVER* care about beer. Free or not free. :-)
>
> Ioo bad. You're missing out.
>
Nope. Never like beer. But I do enjoy a glass of California wine every
now and then, with a few slices of blue cheese, when I listen to my jazz
collection. :-)
> > But Free Speech is what I like, and treasure. But I also want to support
> > those who contribute to the good stuff. ;-)
>
> Then contact them and ask them what they need.
Yes, In fact, I'm going to. I'm think about setting up a FTP server to
mirror some of the stuff. I'm putting together a box for that right now.
:-)
> --
> John Hasler
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, Wisconsin
--
- Alex / blowfish.
--
- If Vi is God's editor. Then, God must have too much free time on his
hands,
lives a very dull and unproductive life; so he needs Vi to waste his
time.
But Vi was still too fast. So God created EMACS on the 8th day - which
takes
Eight Months to load, And Counting Still...
KISS rules. That's why I use Easy Edit (ee). Small. Simple and fast.
:-)
- The UN-GEEK CODE:(?What is a
geek?)-#!?+++??++++|$????+++++?????+++!!!!???+++---
geek + vi | ~/emacs
==>ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!.......:P~
newbies + Windoz | C:\LOOKOUT
EXPRESS==>_the_horrors_the_horrrrrrrroOOOOORRRRRRRRRSSSSsssss!!! :-|
- My SAS (Sing-A-Song)Fingerprint -v.i007bond: Doe1(-a deer a female
deer.) RaY2(- a drop of golden sun.)
Me3(- A name, I call myself.) FAr4(- A long, long way to run.) Sew5(-A
needle pulling thread.)
lA6(-A note to follow sew.) TeA7(-A drink with jam and bread.) That
will bring us back to DOe-oh-oh-oh...
------------------------------
From: blowfish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ..
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: FWD: Red Hat's CFO abandoning ship.
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 12:13:18 -0700
John Hasler wrote:
>
> blowfish writes:
> > Sure. *BSD are making money too. But they do allow the developers to keep
> > their codes proprietary; just a tiny bit more option for the
> > contributors- in my fscking opinion.
>
> I retain the right to license my code to any one I choose under any terms I
> choose whether I release it under the GPL or the BSD license or any other
> free software license. The terms of the license do not bind the author.
>
> > I'll re-read the GNU-GPL again.
>
> First go study up a bit on copyright.
I will. I did have many of my work copyrighted (not computer related,
but in arts.)
> --
> John Hasler
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, Wisconsin
--
- Alex / blowfish.
--
- If Vi is God's editor. Then, God must have too much free time on his
hands,
lives a very dull and unproductive life; so he needs Vi to waste his
time.
But Vi was still too fast. So God created EMACS on the 8th day - which
takes
Eight Months to load, And Counting Still...
KISS rules. That's why I use Easy Edit (ee). Small. Simple and fast.
:-)
- The UN-GEEK CODE:(?What is a
geek?)-#!?+++??++++|$????+++++?????+++!!!!???+++---
geek + vi | ~/emacs
==>ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!.......:P~
newbies + Windoz | C:\LOOKOUT
EXPRESS==>_the_horrors_the_horrrrrrrroOOOOORRRRRRRRRSSSSsssss!!! :-|
- My SAS (Sing-A-Song)Fingerprint -v.i007bond: Doe1(-a deer a female
deer.) RaY2(- a drop of golden sun.)
Me3(- A name, I call myself.) FAr4(- A long, long way to run.) Sew5(-A
needle pulling thread.)
lA6(-A note to follow sew.) TeA7(-A drink with jam and bread.) That
will bring us back to DOe-oh-oh-oh...
------------------------------
From: Akira Yamanita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: CGI and Apache
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 19:23:40 GMT
Yidao Cai wrote:
>
> > So I ran linuxconf and spotted the Server Tasks/Apache Web Server/Defaults
> .....
> > Now I get the an error whenever I try to call up a web page from my web
> > server. "Forbidden You don't have permission to access / on this server."
>
> It's the fault of linuxconf. Don't use it to configure Apache. The best
> way to deal with your problem now is to reinstall apache to get back the
> original configuration and then make changes in the configuration files
> directly. They are in /etc/httpd/conf.
>
> cai
That or edit httpd.conf.
Look for: <Files ~ >
Change to: <Files ~ "\.ht">
Restart Apache: killall -USR1 httpd
It might just be <Files>, I'm not sure. I don't use Linuxconf
so I've never seen the problem myself.
It seems to be a problem only with the RedHat packaged version
of Linuxconf since it seems to be an issue only on RedHat systems.
------------------------------
From: "Eric / Chang-Cheng, Chao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2 hard drives
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 19:28:07 GMT
Davide Bianchi wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2000 20:42:56 +0100, "-Devil-" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I mean I would like to put a new hard disk in the machine I
> >have got (PIII 790)
> > and I would like one of the disks to run linux and one
> >windows 98.
> > How would this work? would I have to start it in the setup
> >and change it each time?
>
> Now it's more clear... Well, you have to install your Windows disk as
> primary, since Windows is not able to boot from anything else than a
> primary disk. You can keep your Linux disk as secondary, after you
> have installed Windows on the first disk, you simply install Linux on
> the second disk, then install LILO on the MBR of the first disk and
> add Windows as available OS. That's all. When your machine start,
> you simpli select what you want to start.
>
> Another way is using a boot floppy to start Linux, this only if you
> do not want to use LILO.
>
> Davide
You can also install LILO on the boot sector of the second disk. If you do
that, you need to run fdisk to set the default boot hard drive to be your
secondary hard drive as well as clearing the boot status of the primary hard
drive.
In any case, make a boot disk first before you do anything. If anything goes
wrong, you still have the boot disk to go into your system to correct things.
If you installed the LILO on the secondary hard drive, then you can safely
format your primary hard drive without worrying about erasing the MBR (Master
Boot Record). Unfortunately, I had that happen to me once when I want to
change Windows version.
Eric
------------------------------
From: blowfish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ..
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: FWD: Red Hat's CFO abandoning ship.
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 12:28:20 -0700
Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when blowfish would say:
> >Christopher Browne wrote:
> >> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when John Hasler would say:
> >> >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.
> >
> >I just checked Linuxmall.com. Debian shows up in a box, with a $17.95
> >price tag right next to it.
>
> The question is, who is it that's getting the $17.95.
>
> It is _not_ The Debian Project.
>
> >Sure. *BSD are making money too. But they do allow the developers to
> >keep their codes proprietary; just a tiny bit more option for the
> >contributors- in my fscking opinion. :-)
>
> Since the author retains rights to license his or her own code under
> whatever arrangements they wish, I'm not sure what additional option
> they _actually_ get.
>
> >> >> ...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...
> >>
> >Maybe I've misinterputed the GNU-GPL a little, but life is a non-stop
> >learning process. Right!?
> >
> >I'll re-read the GNU-GPL again. Maybe I'll agree with you later, or
> >maybe not. It all depends on how you interpute the language written in
> >the lisence. Common fools like me read differently than bean-counters,
> >or lawyers... Or GNU-GPL gurus...
>
> Read the GPL looking for clauses that indicate that they are binding
> on the author.
>
> You won't find any, because if you are the _author_, the GPL _doesn't
> bind you._
>
> That is an _essential_ fact that keeps getting missed.
>
Geez! Did I opened up a can of worms!? :P
> For something like the Linux kernel, that has hundreds if not thousands
> of authors, the GPL winds up being pretty binding overall, as people
> give Linus Torvalds code that _they_ have released under the GPL, thus
> binding him to release it under the GPL.
>
Is that why we keep getting the "Kernel de jour?" :-0
> In contrast, if I am the sole author of GnomoVision, the Ever Cool DVD
> Player that runs on Linux, I can simultaneously release it licensed under
> the GPL, and, based on my rights as author, simultaneously release it
> under the Studly License, where in order to use it, you have to send me
> $5000 and a greeting card that says that I'm A Stud, as well as under
> a license whereby Be Software pays me $500,000, and then is allowed to
> include a GnomoVision DVD in their boxed sets of BeOS.
>
I'm no stub or even macho. I'm a whimpy NOBODY. But self-confident and
self-secure by default. :-)
I give up playing music and video on pc already. A stand alone hardware
home player is mutto better
than any pc based player. And it's actually not costing any much more
either. A decent DVD stand alone home player can be had for about
$300-$400US. And can play music CD, CDV, have AC-3, DTS, etc. Not to
mention without the annoying fans noises, HDDs spinning noises etc,
coming out from the pc.
And NO computer based sound reproduction set up can even come remotely
close to the sound quality of my home sound system. (Yes, I'm one of
those *real* audiophile, high-end audio snob.) ;-)
I NEVER pay more than US$100. for a video card, since I NEVER care about
games.
> Some of those options are somewhat silly, but legally viable.
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
> Culus thinks we should go to trade shows and see how many people we
> can kill by throwing debian cds at them
--
- Alex / blowfish.
--
- If Vi is God's editor. Then, God must have too much free time on his
hands,
lives a very dull and unproductive life; so he needs Vi to waste his
time.
But Vi was still too fast. So God created EMACS on the 8th day - which
takes
Eight Months to load, And Counting Still...
KISS rules. That's why I use Easy Edit (ee). Small. Simple and fast.
:-)
- The UN-GEEK CODE:(?What is a
geek?)-#!?+++??++++|$????+++++?????+++!!!!???+++---
geek + vi | ~/emacs
==>ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!.......:P~
newbies + Windoz | C:\LOOKOUT
EXPRESS==>_the_horrors_the_horrrrrrrroOOOOORRRRRRRRRSSSSsssss!!! :-|
- My SAS (Sing-A-Song)Fingerprint -v.i007bond: Doe1(-a deer a female
deer.) RaY2(- a drop of golden sun.)
Me3(- A name, I call myself.) FAr4(- A long, long way to run.) Sew5(-A
needle pulling thread.)
lA6(-A note to follow sew.) TeA7(-A drink with jam and bread.) That
will bring us back to DOe-oh-oh-oh...
------------------------------
From: blowfish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: ..
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: FWD: Red Hat's CFO abandoning ship.
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 12:33:02 -0700
John Hasler wrote:
>
> Christopher Browne writes:
> > ...as well as under a license whereby Be Software pays me $500,000, and
> > then is allowed to include a GnomoVision DVD in their boxed sets of BeOS.
>
> On the other hand, had Christopher released GnomoVision under the BSD
> license, Be would already be allowed to include GnomoVision in their boxed
> sets of BeOS under a proprietary license without paying him a penny or
> revealing the source to their enhancements to him or anyone else.
>
> The fact that the GPL does not permit this seems to be what enrages the BSD
> trolls: they are evidently offended that we are not willing to make them a
> gift of unlimited rights to our code.
> --
> John Hasler
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dancing Horse Hill
> Elmwood, Wisconsin
I think the DVD under Linux issue will soon be a moot point.
I've read from The Register from the U.K. that SiS will have
native/hardware DVD support for Linux in its up-coming video chip set.
--
- Alex / blowfish.
--
- If Vi is God's editor. Then, God must have too much free time on his
hands,
lives a very dull and unproductive life; so he needs Vi to waste his
time.
But Vi was still too fast. So God created EMACS on the 8th day - which
takes
Eight Months to load, And Counting Still...
KISS rules. That's why I use Easy Edit (ee). Small. Simple and fast.
:-)
- The UN-GEEK CODE:(?What is a
geek?)-#!?+++??++++|$????+++++?????+++!!!!???+++---
geek + vi | ~/emacs
==>ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!.......:P~
newbies + Windoz | C:\LOOKOUT
EXPRESS==>_the_horrors_the_horrrrrrrroOOOOORRRRRRRRRSSSSsssss!!! :-|
- My SAS (Sing-A-Song)Fingerprint -v.i007bond: Doe1(-a deer a female
deer.) RaY2(- a drop of golden sun.)
Me3(- A name, I call myself.) FAr4(- A long, long way to run.) Sew5(-A
needle pulling thread.)
lA6(-A note to follow sew.) TeA7(-A drink with jam and bread.) That
will bring us back to DOe-oh-oh-oh...
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:07:56 -0400
From: "Steven P. Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: gcc question
I'm just plucking strings out of argv[] or scanf() and making floats and/or
ints out of them, so I'm relying on stdio.h to handle it right for this
machine, so I don't think it's byte order
(besides, I ported the same tools to Intel/Windows and they ran fine). I have
a hunch I'm
pointing to the wrong flavor of stdio.h, or some such.
Maybe someone could tell me their generic compile string (e.g. gcc -o snot
snot.c -lm)?
And where/which include files are compatible with gcc? Is this different than
for cc?
Thanks!
Steve
Rob McMillin wrote:
> "Steven P. Frysinger" wrote:
>
> > I'm running into a problem with gcc.
> >
> > I'm compiling a set of stats tools I wrote many years ago in C. These
> > were written on a SPARC-station, but have since been ported to many
> > different Unix machines, and a few DOS machines (running MKS Tools ksh).
> >
> > Now on Linux they compile without error, but produce junk. In debugging,
> > it looks like the I/O is scrambled. I'm wondering if I should be using
> > an alternative to stdio.h, or including a different library (I'm using
> > the -lm switch).
>
> My first guess is that you have a byte-order problem. The SPARC
> architecture is big-endian, but Intel's are all little-endian. But we need
> more info than what you provide here to help.
>
> --
> http://www.pricegrabber.com | Dog is my co-pilot.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:11:55 -0400
From: "Steven P. Frysinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Execute .kshrc?
I have my Linux setup to run X automatically, using Gnome. The xterms
that get opened are correctly running ksh (which I have set to my
default shell), but they haven't executed .kshrc. I have . ./.kshrc in
my .profile, but don't know how to do the equivalent for the windows
opened by Gnome. It's annoying to have to execute it by hand in each
window so that I can get to my aliases &c.
Anybody know how to cause xterm to run .kshrc automatically on startup?
Thanks!
Steve
------------------------------
From: Doug Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Problem witl slow mail
Date: 2 Aug 2000 14:43:49 -0500
I am using UW IMAPD and sendmail on a Redhat 6.2 machine. Whenever a
user (except for root) checks mail, it takes 5-10 seconds before the
inbox will come up. I created a dummy acount and tried it with that.
Everything is fine but, when that dumy account received an email
message, it slowed down like everyone else. I went into
/var/spool/mail and deleted the dummy account spool file. It sped
back up again.
Why is it taking so long to read from the spool file?
Doug
------------------------------
From: David Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: CGI and Apache
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 14:57:18 -0500
I was getting that forbidden problem as well. My problem was with the
.htaccess files. The root it's referring to is probably your http root, not
your server's root. Check out the .htaccess file in that directory.
Mark Gallegos wrote:
> I installed Red Hat 6.2 (custom installation) with the Apache web server
> (1.3.12). I got everything to work alright -- I got the 'Test Page', I
> added my own pages and everything was fine and dandy.
>
> As I was testing CGI scripts I found that the server wasn't running them.
> So I ran linuxconf and spotted the Server Tasks/Apache Web Server/Defaults
> window. At the bottom of this window I spotted "May Run CGI" and clicked
> this button to activate this.
>
> Now I get the an error whenever I try to call up a web page from my web
> server. "Forbidden You don't have permission to access / on this server."
> Is it really trying to access the root '/' directory? I changed nothing
> else in linuxconf. The real problem is that this problem persists even when
> I uncheck the "May Run CGI" box and try to return to the original
> configuration. Can anyone help me out with this problem. Many thanks to
> anyone who can offer help.
>
> Thanks, Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Wierd color behavior
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 20:01:59 GMT
On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 16:15:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I played around in (I think) XConfigurator to attempt to get my loogitech
>trackball to have a scroll button. Failed.
>
>Result is that XScreensaver sometimes (always at the password screen
>and randomly elsewhere) can't allocate colors.
never mind. I reconfigured X and the problem went away.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
