Linux-Hardware Digest #810, Volume #10 Wed, 21 Jul 99 11:13:28 EDT
Contents:
Cannon BJC-2000, How to setup at RH6.0 ? (Javier Hernandez Rodriguez)
eth problems (Paul Bryan)
Why Build Box? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Epson stylus color 600 help (Chris Dalby)
Re: Cant get Creative Ensoniq AudioPCI to work (Sinner from the Prairy)
Re: Why Build Box? (John Doe)
Re: Why Build Box? (longish) (John Hagen)
Re: driver for IBM 4019 printer (Willard561)
BT878 video capture based cards... (Pierre Ficheux)
Keyboard problems with X-Login
Re: Why Build Box? (Bryan)
Travan T20X ("AlphaSoft")
Re: hook a normal printer directly up to a network? (David A. Rogers)
Re: Why Build Box? (Bryan)
Re: Keyboard problems with X-Login (Gert Wollny)
Re: Small Linux (x86) needed, similar to NetWinder (erich not devnull)
Re: RAID controler-RAID 5 Performance ("Paul Kotyk")
third hd and slow boot ("john w. connolly")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Javier Hernandez Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Cannon BJC-2000, How to setup at RH6.0 ?
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 11:43:03 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have a cannon bjc-2000 buble jet printer.
It does not appears at the list of supported printers.
I have not being able to find a emulation for this printer.
any suggestion ?
Best regards,
--
Javi, _____ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
\_________(_)_________/
____________!___!___!___________
------------------------------
From: Paul Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: eth problems
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:03:51 -0400
Greetings all,
Currently I'm trying to install a 2nd ethernet card into my computer,
but I'm having problems doing so. Using the kernel configurator I
installed the 2nd card, which is a LinkSys Etherfast. I looked on the
LinkSys webpage, which claims that the card is compatible with RH6 and
uses the TULIP module for installation. This method was used for the
installation of the first ethernet card, a 3com model 3c59x. This first
ethernet card works correctly, but I'm having problems with this second.
Whenever I try and activate the card under the network configurator, I
get the error message "ETH1 DELAYING INITIALIZATION". Both of these
cards are pci.
Next I tried "cat /proc/pci" to check out the configuration of both of
these cards. According to this, my SCSI card has IRQ=9, along with both
of these ethernet cards. I tried to change the LinkSys cards IRQ within
the Kernel Configurator, but when I restarted the kernel I noticed no
changes within /proc/pci. I believe this to be the problem. Hopefully
when I change this 2nd card's IRQ to an available one, it should work.
My questions are:
How can I know what IRQ's are available for me to set the card to?
How can I change the ethernet card to the specified IRQ?
I will also probably need to change some of the settings within the BIOS
as well, but I didn't want to just start changing IRQ settings until I
knew which one to set the card to.
I did a modprobe of eth1 and I got the following message,
/lib/modules/2.2.5-15/net/tulip.o: init_module: Device or resource busy
then I did a dmesg | more and got:
Unknown Tulip-style PCI ethernet chip type 11ad c115 detected: not
configured.
Hope that this helps in the diagnosis.
Any help would be greatly GREATLY appreciated!!!!!
Thanks,
Paul
--
Paul D. Bryan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Computer / Electrical Engineering
N.C. State University
IBM Coop - PEPS (PowerPC Embedded Processing Systems)
Work (919) 543 - 7220
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Why Build Box?
Date: 21 Jul 1999 12:09:59 GMT
I can't figure out why so many people seem to be building a computer
just for linux. If your not using it for a server of some kind; is
there any reason to have a separate box?
Al Teunis
Muskegon, Mi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Chris Dalby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Epson stylus color 600 help
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:18:42 +1000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============7B175EEC64E9513EA3D750D7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I have been trying for over a month to get this bloody printer working
under Linux lpd. I have attached the config files as per the
Ghostscript/Redhat instructions but it prints an error message:
"Error: /undefinedfilename i (-sOutputFiles=-)
Operand stack:
Execution stack:
blah, blah blah, and then
Last OS error: 2"
Strangely it prints plain text OK from the KDE editor.
If I use the command "gs @stc600pl.upp -sOutputfile=/dev/lp0 filename.*
-c quit &" it prints graphics beautifully.
Can anyone find the fault here or send me your config files for this
printer or something, anything to get this thing working.
Thanks, Chris
==============7B175EEC64E9513EA3D750D7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="postscript.cfg"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="postscript.cfg"
#
# configuration related to postscript printing
# generated automatically by PRINTTOOL
# manual changes to this file may be lost
#
UNIFIEDDRIVER=YES
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PAPERSIZE=a4
EXTRA_GS_OPTIONS=""
REVERSE_ORDER=
PS_SEND_EOF=YES
#
# following is related to printing multiple pages per output page
#
NUP=1
RTLFTMAR=18
TOPBOTMAR=18
==============7B175EEC64E9513EA3D750D7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="ps-to-printer.fpi"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="ps-to-printer.fpi"
#!/bin/sh
#
# convert ps to the format required by the printer on this queue
#
# if the printer is a PostScript printer, just cat it through
# if the printer uses ghostscript, we'll run it now
# if the printer is neither, we die (with good message to someone)
#
#
# read in PostScript configuration settings
#
. ${SPOOLDIR}/postscript.cfg
#
# see if we should reverse order
#
# support will be added for this in the future
# psorder needed and is part of netatalk, which we dont currently ship
#
if [ "$PAPERSIZE" = "letter" ]; then
mpage_paper="Letter"
elif [ "$PAPERSIZE" = "a4" ]; then
mpage_paper="A4"
elif [ "$PAPERSIZE" = "legal" ]; then
mpage_paper="Legal"
else
mpage_paper="Letter"
fi
#
# weird case - some PS doesnt get handled by mpage well
# so we allow nup=1 to just cat PS to printer w/o mpage interferring
#
if [ "$NUP" = "1" ]; then
border="-o"
mpage_cmd="cat -"
else
border=""
mpage_cmd="mpage -b$mpage_paper $border -$NUP -m${RTLFTMAR}lr -m${TOPBOTMAR}tb"
fi
#
# if the driver is "POSTSCRIPT" it means the printer handles Postscript
# natively, no need to run gs.
# if the driver is "TEXT" then it means the printer cannot handle PS input
#
if [ "$GSDEVICE" = "POSTSCRIPT" ]; then
eval $mpage_cmd
elif [ "$GSDEVICE" = "TEXT" ]; then
echo "Error - ps-to-printer.fpi - this printer cannot print postscript"
echo " and ghostscript does not have support"
exit 1
else
# we're using ghostscript
if [ "$UNIFIEDDRIVER" = "YES" ]; then
# were using the unified driver code
eval "$mpage_cmd | gs -q -$UPPDEVICE \
-sOutputFile=- \
-"
else
eval "$mpage_cmd | gs -q -sDEVICE=$GSDEVICE \
-r$RESOLUTION \
-sPAPERSIZE=$PAPERSIZE \
-dNOPAUSE \
-dSAFER \
-sOutputFile=- \
$COLOR \
$EXTRA_GS_OPTIONS \
-"
fi
fi
#
#
# see if we need to send a form feed to eject the page from printer
#
exit 0
==============7B175EEC64E9513EA3D750D7
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Chris Dalby
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Chris Dalby
n: Dalby;Chris
org: CD Products
adr: P.O. Box 45;;;Landsborough;Queensland;4550;Australia
email;internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel;work: 61 7 54370755
tel;fax: 61 7 54370755
tel;home: 07 54948152
note: Web Site: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~cdprod/
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
==============7B175EEC64E9513EA3D750D7==
------------------------------
From: Sinner from the Prairy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Cant get Creative Ensoniq AudioPCI to work
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:29:03 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Larry Ozarow wrote:
> Are you sure the module has been loaded?
when I do lsmod it shows as loaded. But I got no sound :-/
> I'm using an AudioPCI with the es1370 chip. Under kernel 2.2.10 all I
> had to do was compile es1370 support as a module. I pseudo-manually
> load the driver by including the line "/sbin/modprobe es1370" in my
> rc.local file. No configuration necessary.
Should I try switching from 2.2.7 to 2.2.10 ??
> I used to use the ALSA drivers with a 2.0.x kernel, but haven't
> gotten around to trying them with the new kernel.
OK. I'll try also the pseudo-manually load of this module ;)
Thank you Larry,
Sinner
--
...I've already seen STAR WARS I: The Phantom Menace...
[MaDuiXa PoWeR] http://www.maduixa.8m.com
__________________
|\ Linux User # 89976
=====Sinner==== >=--[]>- a Mach 2.5!!
__________________|/ Linux Machine # 38068
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Doe)
Subject: Re: Why Build Box?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 21 Jul 1999 09:16:26 -0500
On 21 Jul 1999 12:09:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I can't figure out why so many people seem to be building a computer
>just for linux. If your not using it for a server of some kind; is
>there any reason to have a separate box?
>Al Teunis
>Muskegon, Mi
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am against building your own computer. But there are many
advocating this 'build your own' thing.
1) Manufactures enjoy the economy of scale because they buy
tons of componets at a time. If you build your own you
buy one piece of each and you are paying retail price for
each piece.
2) Every hour you spent doing research and reading manuals
means money unless you are unemployed.
3) Factory workers are clearly better at building computers
than than you who build one computer ocassionally
4) Building computer is not intellectually challenging; it
involves turning screws and reading manauls.
In short if you want to enjoy maximum quality over price ratio
DO NOT BUILD YOUR OWN.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 06:37:44 +0000
From: John Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Build Box? (longish)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I can't figure out why so many people seem to be building a computer
> just for linux. If your not using it for a server of some kind; is
> there any reason to have a separate box?
> Al Teunis
> Muskegon, Mi
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I *reluctantly* built mine and I'm very glad I did. Why?
- I couldn't get the major resellers (Dell, Compaq, etc. to tell me their
detailed hardware configurations so I could verify they'd work well with Linux.
The fact is, they don't really know them, they just have a stream of Win32
compatible parts showing up at their distribution centers. At any given moment,
they could be installing (say) one of 2 similar video cards but they couldn't
tell you which one is going to be in your machine.
- The major resellers offer some OEM versions of components (like the Compaq and
Hp version of the Matrox G200 video card). But these OEM versions sometimes have
less functionality than the "retail" version and this can impact you if you have
to have a critical feature.
- Every single configuration I looked at from a reseller would have needed to
have had a part or two eventually upgraded or changed to get a fully functional
Linux box (except the Linux resellers, see below). Most of the big main channel
vendors build boxes with Winmodems, for example (anathema!). I didn't want to
buy a new box and then start replacing units just to get it to work with Linux.
- I wanted it done right. Every one of my friends who has bought retail and then
got into his box has found non-standard build practices and component choices
that, while not impeding use, has made upgrading a nightmare in some cases.
- I wanted an upgradeable box that was viable for the next several years. I
chose a good SCSI adapter, hard drive and CD-ROM unit. I made the mainboard, CPU
and memory the least expensive part of the whole bundle and sank the money I
saved into increasing my IO performance. And I bought a good case and power
supply. Many of the boxes sold by the major resellers have limited prospects for
longevity and compatibility with future products and I wanted to avoid the
mandatory upgrade cycle.
- I wanted SCSI, something that goes for a premium from the resellers. A SCSI
box will perform better under Linux. It was cheaper to do it myself for the
implementation that I settled on.
- I wanted all the documentation that came with my hardware and I wanted to know
how to perform surgery if I ever had to replace part of the system. I am one of
those people that is comforted by the knowledge that I can do it my self.
- I wanted to achieve a very stable box under Linux and Win32. Specing the parts
myself was less of a chore than trying to find a ready made box that would work.
Yes, I know VAResearch and others are filling that niche in the market, but
their products are overpriced, IMO, for what you get. I built a box in February
that was similar to one VA was offering for $2800. I paid the same price in
parts and got a better SCSI host adapter and hard drive and got 64 Mb more
memory than the VA box.
- Finally, I wanted a very solid box with good reliability. I chose every part
in my list for compatibility, rather than performance. I have enough trouble
with the computers at my job, I didn't want to repeat these experiences at home.
The result has been worth the effort.
- A side effect of this effort has been that I learned a lot about PC's, not a
bad thing.
Good luck,
--
john hagen ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=============================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Willard561)
Subject: Re: driver for IBM 4019 printer
Date: 21 Jul 1999 13:41:39 GMT
>has anyone an idea how to use an IBM 4019 printer
>under linux?
>This printer should be compatible to a Lexmark Intl 4019
>printer.
It depends on the options my 4019 is Laser jet 2 compatible, and I don't have
the Postscript option that is out. A test page will tell you what you have.
Bill Higdon
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Pierre Ficheux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: BT878 video capture based cards...
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:19:33 +0200
Hi
Is there anybody successfully using a *BT878* ('new' version of BT848)
based card ? The LINUX 'bttv' driver should work with this new chip but
I have tested 3 BT878 based cards with no success :-(( The video is
displayed but it's very bad (such as a sync problem...). 2 of these
cards look very simple: a single BT878 chip, 1 quartz + 2 or 4 video
inputs...
The chips seem to be the same for the 3 cards (made by Connexant,
'BT878KHF').
I have tested several versions of the bttv driver: kernel 2.2.9
included version, last version 0.6.4 from the official bttv website
(http://www.thp.uni-koeln.de/~rjkm/linux/bttv.html), and an older
version running on 2.0.36...
I never had problems with similar cards based on the 'old' BT848.
Thanks a lot for your help.
Regards
--
Pierre FICHEUX -/- COM One, Cestas, France -\- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.alienor.fr/~pierre
RHA-LOVELY...
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Keyboard problems with X-Login
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 13:31:09 GMT
I've got a problem with login in the X-window system (SUSE 6.1, kernel
2.2.36). I use different keyboard layouts in X and the prompt environment.
My root password contains ( and ), which are at my keyboard located above
the 9 and the 0. These chars are correctly displayed in the x window
system. I can't login as root now, because I only can login in the X window
system and that keyboard layout is different from the (wrong) prompt
keyboard layout. Does somebody know which chars instead of ( and ) I can
use to login????
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: Bryan <Bryan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Build Box?
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:03:14 GMT
John Doe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 21 Jul 1999 12:09:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >I can't figure out why so many people seem to be building a computer
: >just for linux. If your not using it for a server of some kind; is
: >there any reason to have a separate box?
: >Al Teunis
: >Muskegon, Mi
: >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
: I am against building your own computer. But there are many
: advocating this 'build your own' thing.
: 1) Manufactures enjoy the economy of scale because they buy
: tons of componets at a time. If you build your own you
: buy one piece of each and you are paying retail price for
: each piece.
but you get 'real' components and don't usually need tech support with
standard parts. special one-off runs of video (say) for one vendor
may not work well for linux users. example: I have an e-machine at
work that seems to use some kind of nonstandard mach64 display. I
can't get clean video from it with xfree86 for some reason. had I
built it myself, I would have chosen a matrox card and have been in
known territory.
: 2) Every hour you spent doing research and reading manuals
: means money unless you are unemployed.
NO manuals needed. if you have built before, you know what you are
doing. it takes longer to figure out the vendor-specific hacks than
to use standard parts!
: 3) Factory workers are clearly better at building computers
: than than you who build one computer ocassionally
perhaps. otoh, I an install extra fans and such in my system that
they will never do.
: 4) Building computer is not intellectually challenging; it
: involves turning screws and reading manauls.
there IS an art to it. selection of case, fan layout, wire routing.
apparently you're not a hardware hackey ;-) I -love- the challenge of
doing a job well and building these systems is a joy. did you ever
play with tinker-toys or erector sets (maybe these are US-centric toy
terms <g>) when you were a kid? if you liked building stuff with your
hands, you'll like building a pc system.
: In short if you want to enjoy maximum quality over price ratio
: DO NOT BUILD YOUR OWN.
there's MUCH more to computers than simply 'using' them. if your just
a user, why even care about usenet (for example). just stay within
the lines that others have set for you. use Word like a good little
boy and don't ask about that rogue thing called 'linux'. it didn't
come shipped from the vendor so you don't need it - right? ;-)
--
Bryan, http://www.Grateful.Net - Linux/Web-based Network Management
->->-> to email me, you must hunt the WUMPUS and kill it.
------------------------------
From: "AlphaSoft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Travan T20X
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:41:14 +0200
I'd like to know how can i use my TRAVAN COLORADO T20X under linux 2.0.35 or
2.2.5. Did a driver exist, even in developpement stage !
Thanks 4 all
jef
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David A. Rogers)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: hook a normal printer directly up to a network?
Date: 21 Jul 1999 13:38:35 GMT
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 20:01:28 GMT, Gaiko Kyofusho
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> speaketh saying:
>I was wondering if there was a way that I could hook a normal (hp desk
>jet model ???) directly to my home network (consisting of 1 winnt box
>and 2 linux boxes) without having to hook it directly to one of the
>computers? (I admit that it would be for purposes of convenience
><arranging the network ing the house> not necessity, for those that
>might ask "why")
Netgear's print server and hub combination is $124.09 at CDW. This assumes
you have an ethernet network.
Cheers,
dar
------------------------------
From: Bryan <Bryan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Build Box?
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 13:57:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I can't figure out why so many people seem to be building a computer
: just for linux. If your not using it for a server of some kind; is
: there any reason to have a separate box?
you might not like the selection of parts the cost-reduced vendors
choose. or some might be useless to you (winmodems, or modems, in
general; 2 button mice).
I am very choosey about my system. I have to live with it for at
least 6 months ;-) ;-) I like to choose my own ergo keyboard, mouse
and monitor. I can't do that easily with prebuilt pkg systems.
I also want a motherboard that is STANDARD atx and not some dell weirdo hack.
I do NOT want highly integrated audio video and lan on my mobo. I
want to be able to upgrade by removing parts, as needed.
does that give you any ideas why home-grown is better?
--
Bryan, http://www.Grateful.Net - Linux/Web-based Network Management
->->-> to email me, you must hunt the WUMPUS and kill it.
------------------------------
From: Gert Wollny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Keyboard problems with X-Login
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 15:52:50 +0200
Lew Pitcher wrote:
>
> AFAIK, <shift>9 maps to '(' and <shift>0 maps to ')' even in X.
> Either xdm doesn't like '(' and/or ')', or your xkeyboard mappings
> are strange.
On a german keyboard <shift>8 is '(' and <shift>9 ')' so you could try
this.
Since Suse is a german company, maybe they set german mapping as a
startup-default, and you have to change this.
Hope that helps.
Gert
--
There are three sorts of mathematicians:
The first one is able to count till three, the second one is not.
Max-Planck-Institute of Cognitive NeuroSience http://www.cns.mpg.de
http://gerti.home.pages.de
------------------------------
From: erich not devnull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Small Linux (x86) needed, similar to NetWinder
Date: 21 Jul 1999 13:47:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] verily spake, saying:
+ We are in need of a very small x-86 based system.
+ Something like the NetWinder, but using the x-86
+ architecture.
PenguinComputing has new 1u and 2u rackmount machines...
--
Erich | Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer.
at wreck.org | -- Dilbert's "Condescending UNIX computer user"
------------------------------
From: "Paul Kotyk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.install,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: RAID controler-RAID 5 Performance
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 10:10:18 -0400
Tim,
Could you elaborate on the no of spindles/performance issue?
Regards, Paul
--
Paul Kotyk
Nornet System Integrators
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> snip
RAID 5 performance is not very good until you have at least 4 spindles,
> so a total of 18GB doesn't make much sense. If you use older 2 or 4GB
> drives, performance will not be good [by today's standards] due to
> slower access time.
>
> For small spindle counts, RAID1 or RAID0+1 is a significantly better
> performer than RAID5.
>
> --
> direct replies substitute timothymoore for user name
>
> "Everything is permitted. Nothing is forbidden."
> WS Burroughs.
------------------------------
From: "john w. connolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: third hd and slow boot
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 08:59:17 -0500
I installed a third hard disk some time ago and moved /usr and /home to
it. Everything works ok except that it now takes about 10 minutes for me
to boot linux. The output of /sbin/fdisk -l is:
Device Boot Begin Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hdb1 1 1 51 102784+ 6 DOS 16-bit >=32M
/dev/hdb2 52 52 604 1114848 83 Linux native
/dev/hdb3 605 605 613 18144 82 Linux swap
/dev/hdb4 614 614 621 16128 82 Linux swap
/dev/hdd1 1 1 2000 1007968+ 83 Linux native
/dev/hdd2 1024 2001 16383 7249032 83 Linux native
/dev/hda contains my windows stuff and a small partition on /dev/hdb is
also dedicated to windows./dev/hdd1 and /dev/hdd2 is the third hard
disk. It has a capacity of 8.4 gb.
The boot process slows to a crawl when the third hard disk is being
read. Any ideas?
Thanks, JWC
------------------------------
** 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.hardware) 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-Hardware Digest
******************************
