Re: lock a pentium for fun!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: : [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : Ted writes: : Someone wondered (as one does) what might possibly happen if you tried : the unassigned codes. : : It is a bug for a processor to have any unassigned codes. : : In what way is it a bug? If all the codes are assigned, then future : extensions become impossible. Say, rather, that it is a bug for a processor to have any unassigned codes that do not generate an illegal instruction trap. I understand that several codes fit this bill on the Pentium... -- Running at a mere 104 billion instructions per second, the SX4 appears to be the only machine actually capable of running Office '97. -- ChipChat, Australian Personal Computer, September 1997 (paraphrased.) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Help Kernel Oops!
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: : Sorry, there's little to be learned from raw kernel OOPS messages : without seeing the full system and kernel configurations and versions. : (As far as I know.) There's some detail in the kernel documentation about reporting OOPS messages.. I can't remember it all offhand, but some of it (at least) is along the lines of looking up addresses in System.map to find the mapping to functions. Certainly, a raw oops without that information is pretty much useless. -- Running at a mere 104 billion instructions per second, the SX4 appears to be the only machine actually capable of running Office '97. -- ChipChat, Australian Personal Computer, September 1997 (paraphrased.) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Infomagic LDR debian, and, What's Hamm and Bo?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : Why the heck doesn't Debian use the release number (e.g., 1.3, 1.3.x) as : the primary (canonical) name? Then when you seem 1.2 and 1.3, you can : tell which is newer and which is older. That was done one time: whilst 1.0 was being developed, it was stored on the archive as 1.0. InfoMagic saw this, thought Oooh, goody! and put it on their Debian CD. It wasn't complete. It was severely broken. This led to the current system of stable and unstable, with version numbers only being setup when the current version is/was complete. Just FWIW. -- Running at a mere 104 billion instructions per second, the SX4 appears to be the only machine actually capable of running Office '97. -- ChipChat, Australian Personal Computer, September 1997 (paraphrased.) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: is the Creative Labs AWE64 GOLD Soundcard supported?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] : Let me say that the awe driver package works just fine with a SB AWE32. : Don`t know about the 64 yet. Any people tried? I would suspect that it would work fine with the 64 as well. AFAIK, the AWE64 is the same as the 32, except for the extra 32 voices. Oh, and the extra 32 voices are done in software, not hardware, so unless the driver has support coded specifically for those 32 voices (which implies tying up the CPU to do this), you'll find you're stuck with the first 32 anyway. Fscking Windoze hardware.. (generic rant :) -- Running at a mere 104 billion instructions per second, the SX4 appears to be the only machine actually capable of running Office '97. -- ChipChat, Australian Personal Computer, September 1997 (paraphrased.) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: Applixware
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: : On Mon, 25 Aug 1997 06:56:55 -0400, Tom Malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : Is anyone using redhats applixware on debian? How is it? The install : difficult? Is it worth buying? I want to migrate away from msoffice and : use linux exclusively if possible. Thanks : : : Try out StarOffice before you decide which office suit to use together : with Linux. I have found it very nice ... and version 3.1 is free if : you use it in a non-commercial purpose. : : Check it out at: : http://www.stardiv.de/ : : I don't think you'll find any difficulties installing Applixware. If : I'm right there is an non-rpm installation included on the cd. I've had a play around with StarOffice; the main reason I didn't get it is because I don't have a 'Net connection at home, and the prospect of lugging everything back on 1.44MB floppies doesn't really appeal. I've forked out $99AUS for the student edition of Applixware; it's nice. Very nice. My only beef: the non-rpm installation tries to install everything into /opt. Not a good move, especially since my 30MB root partition only had 15MB free I ended up test driving Redhat for a while on my /home partition (don't ask, please); whilst I was dding that, I installed Applixware somewhere in /usr/local. (under Debian, that would have been /home/usr/local/ ... as I said, don't ask :) Tar it up, untar it into the Debian /usr/local heirachy, and everything is happy happy joy joy. (with some script editing, of course.) One of these days, I might get around to doing some work on an installation package. In my Copious Spare Time, naturally. ;) -- -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GCS d-(++) s+:- a-- C++$ UL+++()$ P-(---) L++(+++)+++$ !E--- W+(--)-- N+(++) o+++ K- !w--- !O- !M- !V- PS+ PE Y(+) PGP t 5 !X !R tv-(--)! b++() DI+(+) D++(---) G+ e++ h++ !r+++ y? --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Re: VIM Editor
William Chow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] : Weird, I did an ldd on vim. The only two libs it needs are ncurses and : libc. Are there two different versions of vim in the debian packaging : system, one with and one without X support? There shouldn't be. Which version of vim do you have installed? When I changed the compilation procedure to configure vim with X support, I created two versions - one for 1.2 (which, at the time, was slated to use 3.1.2), and one for unstable (shortly to become 1.3). The reason for this seemingly crazy process is that my video card - a W32p revision A, VESA local bus - didn't work with 3.1.2; I'd long ago given up on it, and was using the betas. As a result, I wasn't certain vim would work properly with 3.1.2 if it were linked with the R6.1 libraries (3.1.2 was X11R6; 3.1.2D and later, R6.1; 3.2A and later are R6.3.) Stuart (onetime vim maintainer, who occasionally skims linux.debian.user :) -- With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. -- RFC1925.
Re: [comp.os.linux.announce] Clarification - Linux-FT, The Road
Bruce Perens wrote: [...] (: NIST decided to make the suite available without charge. The Debian (: Project most heartily applauds this decision. In fact we most heartily (: jump up and down with glee and cheer unabashedly. I'd probably go a bit further than that :-) (: My plan is to package the POSIX.1 test suite so that any user can run it (: and independently verify the POSIX.1 compliance of his/her system. (: For this, we need volunteers. So far, Klee Dienes [EMAIL PROTECTED] has (: said he'd look at it but hasn't made a committment. We need more people (: to look at and work on this. Please volunteer if you can. I'm in pretty much the same situation - I haven't got that much time (one assignment down, four to go) - but if/when I get time, (more likely than not, in December :-( ), if it hasn't already been packaged, I'll do it. Should be interesting. (*note well the caveat about time* - if you've got the time, and I haven't explicitely stated to debian-devel that I've done it, go right ahead.) -- All emails sent from known sites supporting spams will be ditched upon arrival. This includes, but is not limited to, interramp.com, cyberpromo.com, and moneyworld.com. Copies of the .procmailrc used for this are available upon request. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word unsubscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Extended memory?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] bhaskar wrote: : I see that the Debian installation instructions contain the following. : Extended vs. Expanded Memory : If your system provides both extended and expanded memory, set it : so that there is as much extended and as little expanded memory : as possible. Linux requires extended memory and can not use : expanded memory. : : I'm confused, since unices make no such distinctions between memory. : This is under the BIOS settings instructions, so presumably there : were systems where the BIOS somehow configured the memory to behave : like extended memory? Indeed. As an example, at home I have a 486, and two 286 class systems. One of the 286 machines is based around the NEAT chipset, which allows you to do all sorts of neat stuff (pun not intended, but I'll keep it there anyway. :-) It has 4MB of RAM, 2MB of which is earmarked for EMS; the rest is the base/extended. Changing the size of the EMS block is trivial - just modify the CMOS settings, and reboot. Linux switches into 386 enhanced mode, which treats memory as one big continuous block. _However_, this only works if the memory is set up to work as extended memory. EMS was designed to get around the 640KB limit on 8086, 8088, and 80186-based systems. (yes, there _was_ an 80186 chip; it just wasn't widely used in the same way that the 8088, 80286, 80386, and 80486 were.) [yes, I know, it's the i486...sheesh. I was on a roll there. :-) ] Basically, the simple answer is that you can see, and use, extended memory in 386 enhanced mode, which Linux runs under. You cannot see expanded memory, making it useless under Linux. -- Windows is not the answer. Windows is the question. Linux is the answer. http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdw/ for all your PC software requirements.
Re: Netiquette of requesting package updates
Brian C. White wrote: : I spend close : to 50% of my Linux time using two programs, an editor and : a WWW browser, and in both cases the current Debian version : is several months out of date. [...] : I was being purposely vague because I didn't want to single anyone : out, but no, they're both popular text-only programs. One of : them is behind by a minor version, the other by a major + 2 minors. If you're referring to vim in the latter case, I chose not to package vim 4.2 (leaving the current version at 3.0) because it has the restriction that, if it's put on a CD-ROM, you must send the author a copy of the CD. I have contacted the author, and he has indicated that 4.3 will not have this restriction; when it comes out, I'll package it up. Just to let you know that I'm well aware of the situation. :-) If I get enough hate mail, I'll package it up and stick it in non-free, but I don't particularly want to do this. Oh, and in case earlier versions didn't have this restriction - I only recently took over maintaining vim. :-) -- Windows is not the answer. Windows is the question. Linux is the answer. http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdw/ for all your PC software requirements.
