Linux-Setup Digest #470, Volume #19 Thu, 24 Aug 00 22:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: Gateway - Kadoka - Not for Linux - ????? (kidyubyub)
laptop and linux (sami k mossessian)
Re: laptop and linux (Mike Walsted)
LILO and floppy. ("Terramex")
Redhat setup help! ("Peepsta")
Re: Redhat setup help! (philo)
Re: default font not found (Mike Brickey)
Re: veritas backup (E J)
Re: SSSLLLOOOWWW sound? (E J)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: which mail client with multi pop servers? (Edwin Johnson)
Re: Can I use a 486/50 for linux? ("Matthew P. Kelly")
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Christopher Browne)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Christopher Browne)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kidyubyub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gateway - Kadoka - Not for Linux - ?????
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 23:29:20 GMT
Wise man Daito is...
Daito wrote:
>
>
> Turn your speakers on....
>
>
> HTH
>
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 14:37:13 GMT, 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."
>
>
> --
>
> |=WKMR==/
>
> YOU DONT WANT TO KNOW WHO WE ARE!!
> www.wickedsamurai.0rg
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
------------------------------
From: sami k mossessian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: laptop and linux
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 23:29:21 GMT
HI, I want to install linux on a 133MH/32MB with 1.5G hard drive and 56 k
modem laptop but is this ok? will I have any problem?
thanks
sam
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
------------------------------
From: Mike Walsted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: laptop and linux
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 23:50:49 GMT
Hi,
I am running Mandrake 7.0 on an old P120 w/1.0 gig. It has 72MB now. I ran
Mandrake 6.0 and 6.1 with only 16MB, and it was painfully
slow. There was a noticeable improvement when I went to 24, but it was still
slow. So the short answer is Yes, you can run Linux on that computer.
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, sami k mossessian wrote:
>HI, I want to install linux on a 133MH/32MB with 1.5G hard drive and 56 k
>modem laptop but is this ok? will I have any problem?
>
>thanks
>sam
>
>--
>Posted via CNET Help.com
>http://www.help.com/
------------------------------
From: "Terramex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: LILO and floppy.
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 23:53:45 GMT
Hi
How can install lilo on a normal floppy disk ?
I just want lilo on it, because that phukin stuff always destroy my MBR
This is the 4th time.
Tnx for any feedback.
------------------------------
From: "Peepsta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Redhat setup help!
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:10:29 -0700
I've tried desperately to get Redhat linux operating
on my Athlon 650 system. Everytime I get the same
problem. After setup and installing Linux gnome, I
can't login. I enter the correct password at login but
it just says invalid Password. I've installed it 3 times
already and get the same problem.
Can anyone give me some pointers in what I'm doing wrong?
BTW, It's RedHat 6.2
Peepsta
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 19:59:25 -0500
From: philo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Redhat setup help!
linux is case sensitive
if you already know that, at lilo type linux single
then reassign password from there.
the command is passwd at the bash prompt
------------------------------
From: Mike Brickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: default font not found
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:18:07 -0400
ascii_superstar wrote:
>
> dDi I have to copy everything that is in that ocnfig file, or just the font
> paths. I ask this as I have copied the main fontpaths accross but X font
> server still fails to shutdown but fonts that were messed up are now
> working.
>
> thanks
>Hi
> I don't know the cause of this problem but there is a workaround.
> Edit
>your XF86Config-4 file by commenting out(put a '#' in front of the
>line) the line Fontpath "unix/:-1" then add you fonts in
like:Fontpath
>"/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi" you can add all the fonts you have.
> >Then restart X. Same thing happened to me when I upgraded to 4.0.1 from
> >3.3.6
> >
> > It's not a bug. You have your systems setup to use xfs font server from
> > a different version of X. What you are doing is not just a workaround,
> > but the right approach. Move all fontpaths from /etc/X11/fs/config. Or
> > at least try them one at a time. That is where the xfs fontpath is (or
> > was). Turn off xfs while you are at it.
> >
> > --
> > Hal B
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > --
Hi
No just the fontpaths. From the command line use "ntsysv" (or the SysV
init editor in KDE) to tell linux to not start xfs. Try "service xfs
stop" to kill it.
Mike
------------------------------
From: E J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: veritas backup
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 18:16:25 -0700
Veritas has a client only called Netbackup for Linux.
Daniel Pfuhl wrote:
> Hi
>
> is there a softwareproduct from veritas to backup
> Files from SuSE 6.3 to a NT-Server.
>
> thanxs daniel
------------------------------
From: E J <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SSSLLLOOOWWW sound?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 18:38:40 -0700
$ su -
# cp /etc/conf.modules /etc/conf.modules.bak
# vi /etc/conf.modules
# # Edit the conf.modules
alias sound sb
pre-install sound /sbin/insmod sound dmabuf=1
alias midi opl3
options opl3 io=0x388
# add esstype=-1 or try esstype=1869 in the next line
options sb io=0x220 mpu_io=0x330 irq=5 dma=1 esstype=-1
# reboot
Hopefully your sound will be normal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01
> X-Original-Trace: 23 Aug 2000 14:28:30 +1200, proxy-dmz.forestresearch.co.nz
> X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
>
> I set up my machine and everything runs great (I think) except the sound is
> played too slowly (in pitch). However, if I force 'play' to increase the
> rate it works fine.
> play sound.wav -r2000 -----works OK
> play sound.wav -----plays sloooooowly
>
> Is it a setting I need to change somewhere?
>
> CONFIG:
> Pentium II dual boot
> Mandrake Linux 5 with kde WM
> matrox millenium g200agp video / ES1869 audio
>
> PS. CD music is fine.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: 25 Aug 2000 01:38:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: This who XML hysteria worries me. We have people thinking that it is
: something other than a very inefficient text based file format. Example:
A lot of folks haven't quite grasped yet what the XML fuss is all
about. I'd like to try to explain it as best I can, as someone who's
new to the XML world myself, but VERY impressed by its potential.
XML is, at its core, a way of representing structured information (as
opposed to flatfile information) in a way that is very easily read by
both machines and humans, and very easily converted to/from other
formats.
It does for structured information (i.e. most information) what ASCII
did for plain text/character information.
As such, it opens up the possibility for different applications,
written using different languages, platforms, and philosophies,
separated by space *or* time, to communicate easily, in a standardized
way, and without necessarily having any direct knowledge of one
another, in a way that is not otherwise possible.
Virtually any kind of data that has a hierarchical or tree-like
structure (or, with the help of XML schemas, a relational structure)
can be expressed easily in XML. XML expresses not only the data but
the structure or metadata as well.
The possibilities are quite exciting. Sure, there's a lot of hype,
just as there was for Java and then Linux. Not all the hype is
justified. But a lot of it is. XML will be one of the building
blocks for a whole new world of (primarily) business-to-business
applications, the economic and political significance of which
potentially exceeds that of the entire Web as we know it today.
Fans of Linux and other free software should note that not only XML
itself, but nearly all of the related technologies (DOM, CSS, XSLT,
DTDs, SGML, etc.) are published, open, well-documented and carefully
developed standards, with reference implementations that are free and
open-source. Many free software projects are adopting XML-based file
formats.
XML is verbose, as your example shows. Most of the verboseness comes
from the repetition of information inside element tag names. This
does not result in inefficiency, since this kind of repeated
information is easily stripped out by any decent compression
algorithm. As a result, large XML files compress very well.
Because XML is a text format, not binary, it is inherently more
difficult to obfuscate XML-based formats, or to prevent reverse
engineering of them. It is true that Microsoft has been heavily
involved in the development of XML standards and related technology.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether it will follow these
standards. I believe Microsoft embraced XML because it wants to gain
and maintain a foothold in the burgeoning business-to-business
E-commerce world. In addition to M$, much more reputable companies
including IBM and Sun, as well as free software projects such as
Apache, KDE, Gnome, Mozilla, and numerous others, have embraced and/or
contributed to the development and promotion of XML and XML-based
technologies.
All modern programming languages, and even legacy languages such as
COBOL and VB, can create and process XML easily, and native XML
support is being added to many of them. Support for legacy languages
is important because it allows XML support to be added to legacy
applications, which then can communicate far more easily with the
outside world, in both directions.
XML is very cool stuff. I would really encourage you or anyone else
reading this to spend just a little bit of time checking it out.
Joe
(Mark's brief XML example follows - XML at its core really is this
simple!)
: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
: <!DOCTYPE RESULTSET SYSTEM "http://fubar.com/fubar.dtd">
: <RESULTSET>
: <RESULT ID="0" >
: <MATCHES>0</MATCHES>
: <TIME>0.1605</TIME>
: <RATINGS>0</RATINGS>
: <MAXSCORE>2510</MAXSCORE>
: <SCORE>6947</SCORE>
: <SIZE>6536</SIZE>
: <LANGUAGE>_LANG1_</LANGUAGE>
: <DATE>957148708</DATE>
: <FORMAT>0</FORMAT>
: <MODDATE>0</MODDATE>
: </RESULT>
: </RESULTSET>
: That's all that XML is, nothing more. It can not replace programs, it is
: not a new concept in operating systems.
: --
: http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edwin Johnson)
Subject: Re: which mail client with multi pop servers?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25 Aug 2000 01:41:44 GMT
Why not use pine in combination with getpop3 or fetchmail, both of which
will get mail from more than one mail server? (I use getpop3 and it is very
easy to setup.)
...Edwin
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 23:37:12 +0200, Thierry Nkaoua <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>does someone know a mail client as "user friendly" as netscape but with
>multiple pop servers function? (I tried kmail, tkrat and balsa but not
>happy with those)
>thanks
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Edwin Johnson ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~
~ http://www.shreve.net/~elj ~
~ ~
~ "Once you have flown, you will walk the ~
~ earth with your eyes turned skyward, ~
~ for there you have been, there you long ~
~ to return." -- da Vinci ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: "Matthew P. Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can I use a 486/50 for linux?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:47:51 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I'm using my 486/50 with RH6.2 as a Samaba server and it works fine. I
> have 24MB of RAM with an 850MB hard drive though. But remember, that's
> what makes Linux so great, it'll run just fine on even your 4MB box. I
> don't exactly know how much you'll be able to squeeze onto that 235MB
> hard drive, but as far as processor power, the 486/50 is sufficient.
The key here is that Linux will RUN just fine on old hardware, but to
INSTALL RH you will need about 20 MB of memory (not sure about the
HD space needed, but I'd guess you need 300-400 MB). I installed RH6.1
on
a 486-50 (no math co-pro!!!), and had problems until I put in 24 MB
of memory, a common problem with RH and old machines. Then it installed
fine, and works GREAT!!! I use this box as an internet gateway so all
machines on our home LAN (not all Linux, but I'm workin' on it. My wife
is a WinWeenie) can use the 'net at the same time.
I have Linux on an old 386-25. Works fine. But, I had to use SlackWare
because of the memory limitations of RH, and not desire to spend money
on
the 386. But, again, it works fine.
Linux ROCKS!!!!!!!!
Matt
>
> Nelson
>
> In article <8nv5ut$op0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Bruce D. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I have a 486 / 50 with 8 MB ram, and about 235 MB HD space. Anyone
> know off
> > the top of their head I it is worth installing RH62 to this? or will
> it
> > thrash horribly? A pur workstation, non X conifg would be fine,l just
> > soemthign to hack out aek, sed, perl stuff on etc...
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: 25 Aug 2000 01:51:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: It was the 24 Aug 2000 10:43:56 -0600...
: ...and Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Take a look at MacOS X Bundles:
: [schnipp]
:> Linux is halfway there already with RPM and deb; but the ultimate goal
:> is to just get rid of them.
: Uh-oh, I feel another flamewar coming up on NeXTish .app encapsulation
: vs. the classic Unix way of spreading an application out over bin,
: lib, share etc...
Yuck. :(
I can certainly see major pros and cons to each approach. What I
can't see is why we couldn't combine the best features of each.
Example: program Foo contains an install script or makefile target
that can put its code, classes, libraries, and other needed files
either in (a) the traditional Unix places, or (b) a single,
user-designated place such as /opt/Foo or /usr/share/Foo. Optionally,
the script also can make soft or hard links to the other. It keeps a
record of what was done during the install, knows how to find the file
containing this record, and can use it to un-do the install if
necessary.
While this doesn't solve the dependency problem, and thus doesn't
replace the need for packaging systems such as *BSD ports or .debs or
RPMs, it *would* seem to me to make life far easier for sysadmins,
especially amateur sysadmins (which comprise by now the vast majority
of Linux users).
And aside from the very minor issue of a few wasted inodes and the
need to come up with suitable scripts, I can't think of any major
drawbacks.
Am I missing something here?
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 02:03:55 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when paul snow would say:
>Here is a few observations:
>
>Linux on the desktop (and as a server) requires it to beat Windows XXX hands
>down for ease of configuration, security, and management.
>
>Installing software is simply the act of constructing in storage a proper
>representation of the software. In other words, our talking about
>installing software on a computer is like a painter insisting she is
>installing a picture of a duck onto her painting. It doesn't matter how she
>does it, she is rendering the duck, not installing it.
>
>We need to get rid of install programs, on all platforms. There isn't
>another single thing we do on computers that causes more in dollars and time
>(Solitaire *is* a close second, however ;-).
>
>XML can be used to define a program in abstract. A single, separate
>Software Rendering Facility can be used to take a program's abstract form in
>XML and render it to the target computer system.
>
>XML can be used to capture the options required for this rendering.
>
>XML can be used to refer to a group of programs in abstract (XML), and their
>options (XML), in order to define a single definition that can be expressed
>in different ways on different computer systems to construct an operational,
>distributed application. (Unlike today, where we have to install every web
>server, every firewall, every Java JDK, every etc. all from scratch, with
>one mistake preventing any of it from working!)
>
>This discussion about how XML might be used along with Linux to create a new
>concept in Operating Systems is beginning. We have the technology and the
>know how. We just have to take our computer system, set it on its side and
>view it a bit differently. This technology is going to completely change
>the rules of software configuration, management, and security, and you can
>make it happen.
>
> http://www.egroups.com/group/xmlos/
> http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/xmlos/
>
>Paul Snow
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Go design your "XMLOS," and be happy.
If you feel that there is some value in using Linux as the kernel for
your "XMLOS," that's well and good.
Here are a few more observations:
- There is _NO_ requirement that Linux "beats" Windows XXX; if Linux
happens to be a _useful_ OS kernel, and if systems constructed on
that kernel happen to be _useful_, they will get used.
- I suggest that you not talk about "installing ducks;" if you
actually have a point to make about installation, it will be better
made by demonstrating the point, not by making vague analogies.
- You seem to have fallen into the trap of believing all the hype
about XML. Yes, XML can be used to "express anything," but the same
is just as true of ASCII as well as of S-expressions.
If you want to use data-driven programs, I suggest you consider
looking at Open Genera, which is just such a system. If the fact
that it uses Lisp scares you, then that probably means that _real_
data driven programming is far too scary for you to be able to cope
with.
In any case, the discussion certainly belongs elsewhere than
*.linux.*.
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@" "acm.org")
<http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
The people's revolutionary committee has decided that the name "e" is
retrogressive, unmulticious and reactionary, and has been flushed.
Please update your abbrevs.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 02:04:21 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Matthias Warkus would say:
>It was the 24 Aug 2000 10:43:56 -0600...
>...and Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Take a look at MacOS X Bundles:
>[schnipp]
>> Linux is halfway there already with RPM and deb; but the ultimate goal
>> is to just get rid of them.
>
>Uh-oh, I feel another flamewar coming up on NeXTish .app encapsulation
>vs. the classic Unix way of spreading an application out over bin,
>lib, share etc...
I think that makes the mistaken assumption that people _understand_
the NeXT approach.
The flames are not likely to come as a result of people knowing about
.app and "classic Unix," and considering one or the other to be
superior.
The flames will mainly come as a result of people not understanding
_either_, and associating things with some "Star Wars-like" epic
battle between the Rebellion and the Empire...
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@" "hex.net")
<http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #14. "The hero is not entitled to a last
kiss, a last cigarette, or any other form of last request."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
