Linux-Advocacy Digest #279, Volume #32 Sun, 18 Feb 01 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Joke of the day - from Microsoft (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American (Brent R)
Re: Joke of the day - from Microsoft (Craig Kelley)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Brent R)
Re: Interesting article (Steve Mading)
Re: It's just too easy (Terry Porter)
Re: Interesting article (Steve Mading)
Re: Interesting article (J Sloan)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (J Sloan)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Steve Mading)
Re: My Win2k Network Nightmare!!!!!! (Terry Porter)
Re: Another Pete Goodwin "Oopsie"! (Steve Mading)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Marten Kemp)
please help - modprobe cannot locate modules ("eissimuf")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Joke of the day - from Microsoft
Date: 17 Feb 2001 23:19:17 -0700
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mig wrote:
> >
> > Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> > > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Craig Kelley wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Unfortunately, GW (idiot son of a bad president) proves that our
> > > > > > entire system is for sale. Fix a few elections, buy a few people,
> > > > > > appoint Ashcroft, it is a sad period in my counties history. I think
> > > > > > we have hit rock bottom, unfortunately, they are looking for
> > > > > > shovels.
> > > > >
> > > > > At least he didn't take multi-million dollar contributions in exchange
> > > > > for a presidential pardon.
> > > >
> > > > I doubt very much Clinton did, but perhaps there should be some
> > > > historical perspective applied by examining the last minute pardons of
> > > > other presidents.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, what are your SAT scores? We can compare them to GW's and
> > > > > see how much of an idiot you are.
> > > >
> > > > I don't wish to share mine, however, I am curious as to what his were. I
> > > > am betting below 1200.
> > >
> > > You're wrong.
> > >
> > > Bush's verbal: 566; Bush's math: 640
>
> Put it this way, two tests, both up too 800. A combined score of 1600 is
> perfect. You get about 200 just for your name.
And Bush scored above the 90th percentile of those that took the
test.
--
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: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 06:20:00 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Flacco wrote:
> > >
> > > I think I see where this is going.
> > >
> > > Does anyone remember the press release by Ximian awhile ago about the
> > > Chinese getting involved with the GNOME project? Enough FUD in there to
> > > feed an army.
> > >
> > > That said - note to Ximian - please provide a distribution that has not
> been
> > > touched by the bloody hands of the CCP, for those of us who still
> remember
> > > Tiananmen.
> >
> > Erm - please remind me: in what way does Ximinan support the
> > the dictatorial policies of China?
>
> Well, it appears in todays society, having anything to do with a human
> rights violator is tantamount to committing the violations yourself. For
> instance, IBM is being sued because they sold tabulation machines to the
> Nazi's for use in their death camps. Surely, if IBM loses, knowingly
> cooperating with human rights violators would be the same.
>
> > What Ximinan _does_ support is making things a whole lot better
> > for Linux users.
>
> At the cost of a few human lives. (if you don't see the connection, look
> harder. If the Chinese government uses Linux for their primary OS, and
> changes are contributed to support the Chinese government, then clearly
> Linux is actively being used to assist human rights violations)
>
> If that doesn't matter to you, no big deal. If it does, you'd be a
> hypocrite to use Linux.
Gawd I've seen some "doozies" in here but that one takes the cake. What
a stretch! ROFL!
--
Happy Trails
-Brent
=============================
http://rotten168.home.att.net
=============================
ICQ# 51265871
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Joke of the day - from Microsoft
Date: 17 Feb 2001 23:21:16 -0700
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Craig Kelley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, GW (idiot son of a bad president) proves that our entire
>system
> > > > > is for sale. Fix a few elections, buy a few people, appoint Ashcroft, it is a
> > > > > sad period in my counties history. I think we have hit rock bottom,
> > > > > unfortunately, they are looking for shovels.
> > > >
> > > > At least he didn't take multi-million dollar contributions in exchange
> > > > for a presidential pardon.
> > >
> > > I doubt very much Clinton did, but perhaps there should be some historical
> > > perspective applied by examining the last minute pardons of other presidents.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, what are your SAT scores? We can compare them to GW's and
> > > > see how much of an idiot you are.
> > >
> > > I don't wish to share mine, however, I am curious as to what his were. I am
> > > betting below 1200.
> >
> > You're wrong.
> >
> > Bush's verbal: 566; Bush's math: 640
> >
> > He also graduated with an MBA from Harvard, which hardly qualifies as
> > a moron. Not that I agree with Bush on every (many?) things, but it's
> > silly to rant about the man until he screws up.
>
> He has already screwed up his whole life, his first day he proved he was just a
> puppet for the religious right (which is neither).
Yes, he is very religious, which isn't a crime. Being a puppet is up
for debate.
> OK, so not "below" 1200, 1206, lol. With SAT scores like that, he had to have
> the help of rich and powerful parents to get into Harvard. (I don't know that
> he did, I am assuming you are correct.) So, if he had influence to get into
> harvard (SAT scores are proof enough.) then it is also reasonable he had help
> getting through harvard.
>
> So, his school is probably like his life, a sure bet for failure without the
> help of his father.
I guess we'll find out then.
--
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: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 06:23:55 GMT
petilon wrote:
>
> After killing innovation in the web browser market by distributing
> IE for free, Microsoft is now calling Linux a "threat to innovation"
> because it is being distributed for free.
<sarcasm>Because God knows how much better browsers would be if we all
had to pay money for them.</sarcasm>.
Your statement is doubly odd because IE is hands-down the best browser
out there (that I know of).
> "There is always something enamoring about thinking you can get
> something for free." says Jim Allchin of Microsoft.
>
> Read the outrageous story at:
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4833927.html?tag=owv
--
Happy Trails
-Brent
=============================
http://rotten168.home.att.net
=============================
ICQ# 51265871
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: 18 Feb 2001 06:27:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 16 Feb
:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
: [...]
:>>SSH isn't a real improvement, it's just making the original crap
:>>more resilient.
:>
:>Try to sniff a password with "crappy old telnet". It's almost trivial;
:>the main problem is reassembling the packets.
:>
:>Now try to sniff a password with "ssh". (No fair enabling a test mode
:>such as "no encryption". :-) )
:>
:>But you're right; the ideal system would have remote *graphical* login.
:>(X does do this, with a little work with xdm; however, I don't know how
:>secure it is at this time. Windows security is built-into such
:>tools as pcAnywhere, a third-party offering; Windows clearly wins here
:>(ssh is also third-party).)
: That's not really very accurate, to say ssh is 'third party', as if to
: say it is similar in that regard to pcAnywhere (or any of the other such
: mechanisms, including Microsoft's own purchased code.) In truth, ssh is
: telnet with encrypted passwords.
Not really. Ssh *does* replace telnet. It's just that telnet wasn't
doing much other than converting socket data to a pseudo tty device,
and visa versa. Telnet didn't know the difference between passwords
and any other kind of data, and neither does ssh. Both of them just
set up the pseudo-tty line, and then run the system's /bin/login
program on it. I've jury-rigged my own server programs in the past
by grabbing the GNU telnetd code and chaning the "/bin/login" string
to some other program of my own making, and then changing the port
number from 23 to something above 1024. It's quick and dirty, but
it works well. (On a machine where I have root, I'd just use inetd
to get a similar effect.) Ssh does the exact same thing telnet did,
but it encrypts the data stream. Ssh doesen't just encrypt passwords.
It encrypts everything. It doesn't even know which data is password
and which isn't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: It's just too easy
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 18 Feb 2001 06:46:47 GMT
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:39:17 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com> wrote:
>Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
><96m9v0$336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>It won't make a difference. You can break any system if you really
>>work at it, which is what Pete does with his linux systems.
>
>I'm not deliberately trying to break Linux. It is broken when I do these
>things.
Peter Goodwin, public nemesis of all 'broken' software!
Keep up the good work Pete. However your offbase with Mandrake7.2, I've been
running it now about 3 months without problems.
Either you're a Wintroll, or you can't breakout of your Windows viewpoint.
Personaly I'd say your the former.
>
>--
>Pete Goodwin
>---
>On that unstable much loved system known as Windows 98 SE.
>Linux Mandrake 7.2 - not recommended - see the topic titled
>"Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone?"
Nope Mandrake doesnt have a 25 digit 'security code':)
>
>
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: 18 Feb 2001 06:45:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Chad Myers wrote:
:>
:> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:> news:96jg3p$9hn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> >
:> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:> > news:MEaj6.27470$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> >
:> > < Perm bits
:> > > are ancient, a poor design, and are really unsecure.
:> >
:> > Describ a way to get over permissions in any *nix that implement perm bits
:> > (all of them).
:>
:> You're not understanding what I'm saying...
:>
:> It's the mentality. Permission bits are extremely limiting, as they
:> only allow one owner, one group, and everyone else.
: And gasoline engine + wheels is extremely limiting as compared
: to say, wings, rocket engines, and a launch pad.
: But as long as you have not the slightest intention of taking
: your wheeled vehicle across the ocean, it is quite sufficient.
: You can have 65535 DISTINCT groups on a Linix system, Chad.
But a file cannot be a member of more than one group at a time.
This *is* a limitation - just not enough of one to matter as
much as Chad FUDs it up to seem. Another limitation of UNIX
groups is that one must be root to make one, which leaves
ordinary users no way to say "I want fred, charlie, bob, and
mary (and only them) to be able to write to this file, but they
haven't been put together into a group by the admin and I hate
to bug him to make a group for just this one file." Unlike
Chad, I don't see the solution as being the use of ACL's, which
can be a bit wasteful to maintain (in both user time and OS
resources). I think the optimal solution would be to implement
one of the following two things:
1 - Make a filesystem structure that handles the idea that
a file can be in multiple groups. This would require a lot
of work percolating up the system, though (many programs
have already been written with the assumption that each
file is a member of exactly one group.) The easiest way
to get it to work without hurting the exisitng programs might
be to internally make 'pseudogroups' whenever a new combination
of groups is made for a file, and put the pseudogroup ID in the
group ID field.
2 - Give users some means of making 'user-level-groups' on their
own, so they can make up their own permissions as they need for
their own files. Perhaps the GID space would be divided into two
parts, all GIDs <= N are root-only created and all GIDs > N would
be for users to make (kind of like how socket port numbers are
partitioned).
Both of these would require a lot of work, of course, but I think
the second is a lot easier to implement than the first, and it
gives all the functionality of ACL's without the ugly extra
data to keep track of at the file-level. (At the file level,
you still just have a GID like normal. The changes would be at
the OS level, in the way it looks up group ID's.)
Oh, and of course, for my idea #2 to work, we'd probably need
some user quota on how many groups a user can make (so some
jerk doesn't try to go and make 65535 groups just to deny the
ability for others.)
: And if that's not enough for you, go hack the code, and make
: it a 32-bit integer, so that you can have 4 BILLION groups.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 06:59:34 GMT
Steve Mading wrote:
> Not really. Ssh *does* replace telnet. It's just that telnet wasn't
> doing much other than converting socket data to a pseudo tty device,
> and visa versa. Telnet didn't know the difference between passwords
> and any other kind of data, and neither does ssh. Both of them just
> set up the pseudo-tty line, and then run the system's /bin/login
> program on it. I've jury-rigged my own server programs in the past
> by grabbing the GNU telnetd code and chaning the "/bin/login" string
> to some other program of my own making, and then changing the port
> number from 23 to something above 1024. It's quick and dirty, but
> it works well. (On a machine where I have root, I'd just use inetd
> to get a similar effect.) Ssh does the exact same thing telnet did,
> but it encrypts the data stream. Ssh doesen't just encrypt passwords.
> It encrypts everything. It doesn't even know which data is password
> and which isn't.
Lest we forget, ssh doesn't only replace telnet -
It also offers an encrypted replacement for the
functionality of all the 'r' commands (rexec/rsh/rcp)
and it can also be used instead of ftp.
In addition, it can also tunnel other services, such
as X, or pop3, etc.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 07:06:20 GMT
Brent R wrote:
> petilon wrote:
> >
> > After killing innovation in the web browser market by distributing
> > IE for free, Microsoft is now calling Linux a "threat to innovation"
> > because it is being distributed for free.
>
> <sarcasm>Because God knows how much better browsers would be if we all
> had to pay money for them.</sarcasm>.
Netscape was a scrappy little company with a handful
of employees and one killer app. They were a pioneer,
truly innovative, and microsoft hated them for that.
So, microsoft put may times more staff to work on ie
than the total number of netscape employees, & gave
ie away for free. Not many were interested, so microsoft
went to the pc vendors and started twisting arms and
playing hardball. They pressured the vendors into
breaking their contracts with netscape and shipping ie
instead, thus "cutting off netscape's air supply", as the
folks at microsoft like to say.
The result was painful to watch.
> Your statement is doubly odd because IE is hands-down the best browser
> out there (that I know of).
At least it's the most common now, thanks mainly to the
destruction of netscape, who really deserved a better
fate than that.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: 18 Feb 2001 07:06:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:> : In article <96i0us$d7o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
:> : Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> :>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> :>
:> :>: Demonizing another organization doesn't really help, I'm afraid. IBM
:> :>: doesn't monopolize consumer OSes.
:> :>
:> :>Well, not recently anyway. Their past monopolizations are
:> :>singlehandedly responsible for EBCDIC and COBOL lasting much
:> :>longer than they had any right to as viable choices.
:> :>
:>
:> : EBCDIC maybe, not COBOL. Computer languages have tremendous
:> : longevity if they meet the needs of even a small fraction of the
:> : populace.
:>
:> : LISP and BASIC are still with us after years of being derided by
:> : Computer Scientists.
:>
:> BASIC might fit that description, but LISP was not derided by Computer
:> Scientists. They loved it. People who wanted to get practical work
:> done hated it because it is a lot of work to think of every algorithm
:> as a case of recursion, although it is in theory possible.
: Lisp, i.e., common lisp, does not require recursion. there is the
: LOOP macro. you are perhaps thinking of the teaching toy, scheme.
No. I was using Lisp. Procedural thinking is possible in Lisp, but
is not the norm, just as recursive thinking is possible in C, but is
not the norm. (In theory you could implement an entire C program as
being nothing more than main() calling one function, that in turn
called other functions, and so on.)
Actually, what I didn't like about Lisp wasn't that I disliked
recursive thinking, but that I didn't like the zillions of nested
parentheses in the syntax. It was hard to follow unless I
kept it dead-simple, and it seemed that no matter which nesting
formatting I chose, it never could quite make things match up
nicely unless I was willing to have like 10 lines in a row
consisting of nothing but a parenthesis on each line.
Also, keep in mind that at the time I was not using 'vi', since
we had no manual on it available and the on-line man pages
didn't tell you how to use it (only told about the commandline
parameters to launch it). The lack of a text editor with a
parenthesis-match function may have been part of the reason
why I got a bad taste for Lisp. Doing it by eyeball was tricky.
Anyway, that wasn't really the point I was trying to make.
I shouldn't have inserted that personal derision of Lisp.
It cluttered my main point, which was simply that Lisp *was*
liked by computer scientists, unlike what the previous poster
had said.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: My Win2k Network Nightmare!!!!!!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 18 Feb 2001 07:12:29 GMT
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:44:53 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:33:53 +0000, pip
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 17:56:32 +0000, pip
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> You don't know how to read.
>>
>>Thanks to the goats, I am at least not blind.
>>
>>> The card was fully recognized by Win2k PNP after I moved it to another
>>> slot.
>>> The IRQ changed of course but the drivers loaded for the card fine and
>>> there were no conflicts in resources.
>>
>>But everything else way buggered up. Yup - that's the driver working all
>>right.
>>
>>> The correct protocols were bound to the card as well.
>>
>>But nothing worked. Yup - that's the driver working all right.
>>
>>> Why should I have to re-load drivers that are already loaded for the
>>> card?
>>
>>You are trying to impose logic where there is none: you are using
>>windows.
>>
>>trust me on this.
>
>So then what you are saying is that Windows 2k lies when it says
>everything is ok but nothing works?
Windows lies, hedges and plain avoids the truth, afterall, MS is trying
to lead customers to believe that Windows is perfect, and easy to use.
Take the Win98 note thats presented with the scan for new hardware, which goes
something like this :-
"if your computer doesn't respond for a long time, please reboot"
Now whats wrong with saying, instead :-
"The hardware scanning is imperfect, and may lock up your computer, so if
the mouse cursor freezes, and nothing works, its locked up and needs rebooting"
Windows pretends to be something its not, so that it may appear to deliver the
promises made by Windows sales droids, to its customers. Namely that Windows
is 'easy' to use, and that any idiot can be an 'expert'.
>
>BTW to make it work I DIDN'T have to re-load the drivers like you
>said. I had to unbind all the protocols and and then bind them again
>to the same card they were already bound to.
Thats a little dasmaging to ones confidence wouldnt you say ?
>Then on the Gateway machine I had to delete the dialup (DUN) and
>create a new one to use ICS. What does that have to do with drivers? I
>didn't even touch that machine and my other machine still dialed
>through it fine.
>
>All this joy just moving a card to another slot.
Sadly Amy, this is quite common throught the post win3.1 variants of the
Windows OS.
>I can't wait to see what happens when I replace the CPU next week :)
Hahahah, "new hardware detected, Safe mode entered, please replace the icons
back neatly on the 1024x1024 screen after you've picked them
off their 10 deep piles, from the 640x480 'safe mode' screen, after you've fixed
it ... sucker"
>
>
>Flatfish
>Why do they call it a flatfish?
No brain ?
Terry
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Pete Goodwin "Oopsie"!
Date: 18 Feb 2001 07:16:33 GMT
Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: : Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: :>
: :>while the solutions are completely intuitive and natural to someone
: :>with Linux experience, they may not be to someone who's unable or
: :>unwilling to learn. If we want Linux to be usable by these people,
: : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: :>then we need to find and smooth out these sorts of rough edges.
: : Personally, I don't want Linux to be usable to people who are unwilling
: : to learn. For that matter, I don't want *anything* to be usable to
: : people who are unwilling to learn. The amount of learning we can discuss
: : about.
: But then we can forget about Linux or other free software becoming
: much more "mainstream" than it is now. And, along with that, the
: cooperation from hardware vendors, etc.
My $0.02: I wouldn't care if Linux remained unpopular outside
the computer geek community if it weren't for the fact that MS is
so dictatorial that the only way for Linux to live is for MS
to lose something. I don't hate MS because they are popular. I
hate them because they want to destroy my favorite toy, so to
speak.
------------------------------
From: Marten Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 07:21:40 GMT
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
<<<snip>>>
>
> Actually, EBCDIC persists for the same reason COBOL does.
>
> The so-called "Dusty-deck" problem.
>
> Nobody wants to rewrite the code to use ASCII.
>
> IBM would be doing their customers a favor by making it easier
> to migrate to ASCII by making dual-mode (EBCDIC & ASCII) printers.
>
> The problem is this...you have code that works on some database.
> It's all written for EBCDIC.
>
> If you convert even ONE program to ASCII, then you have to convert
> EVERYTHING...that program *and* the database *and* EVERY SINGLE OTHER
> PROGRAM THAT INTERACTS WITH THAT DATABASE.
>
> Normally, there is just WAY too much chaos as is, without introducing
> a character-set conversion as well.
>
One of the very few built-in limitations of the original S/360
Principles of Operation was that there weren't any unassigned control
mode bits in the Program Status Word. The EBCDIC/ASCII mode bit was
redefined to provide Extended Control mode for virtual storage
operation. Before that everything was real storage like the original
8088. But I digress. ASCII/EBCDIC isn't too hard a translation. For an
EBCDIC database, compile the program with an EBCDIC-speaking compiler.
To perform queries with an ASCII terminal, translate the keystrokes.
There may even be ASCII mode selection bits in the latest version of the
mainframes for all I know (my detailed knowledge of the POO manuals
stops with the S/370, which are several generations old by now).
-- Marten Kemp
------------------------------
From: "eissimuf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: please help - modprobe cannot locate modules
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 07:31:51 GMT
I recently upgraded the kernel my Slackware installation to 2.4.1 from
2.2.16. However, none of the modules are able to load. For example,
/lib/modules/2.4.1/kernel/drivers/net/tulip/tulip.o exits, when I enter
"modprobe -a /lib/modules/2.4.1/kernel/drivers/net/tulip/tulip.o" I receive
the error message "modprobe: Can't locate module tulip.o". All of the
modules which I selected while configuring the kernel appear in their proper
directories. Despite compiling my kernel by entering "make dep clean
modules modules_install bzImage", my /lib/modules/2.4.1/modules.dep file is
empty (perhaps it should be...?). However, I tried adding the line
"path=/lib/modules/2.4.1/kernel/drivers/" to my /etc/modules.conf file and I
received 100s of error messages during startup involving incorrect paths,
files, etc, but the modules would load.
If anyone could please shed some light on this problem, I would be vastly
appreciative as I have exhausted my small cache of knowledge and what I have
been able to gather from docs and howtos.
Thanks in advance,
David Renie
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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-Advocacy Digest
******************************
