Linux-Misc Digest #458, Volume #18 Sun, 3 Jan 99 22:13:12 EST
Contents:
Re: TUCOLS? Anything like it? (Frank Sweetser)
Re: Does Linux support plug & play (Marc)
Re: System V standard vs. BSD standard -> where to find? (Victor Wagner)
Re: Best Free Unix? (Victor Wagner)
Re: Any comments about these books? (John)
Re: How to partition a 9GB hard drive in Redhat 5.2? (Ilya)
Re: Best Free Unix? (why Pentium Pro?) (Andrew Comech)
Re: Netscape eats up *all* the swap (William Park)
Re: Printers for OS/2 and Linux ("Dave Nelson")
Re: Best Free Unix? (Matt Dillon)
Printers for OS/2 and Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Infringement of the GPL (Bill Unruh)
Re: Infringement of the GPL (Bill Unruh)
Linux Journal (Ilya)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Sweetser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: TUCOLS? Anything like it?
Date: 03 Jan 1999 19:05:54 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Is there any other repository of Linux software neatly categorized?
http://freshmeat.net/ is an excellent site, with lots of packages listed.
--
Frank Sweetser rasmusin at wpi.edu fsweetser at blee.net | PGP key available
paramount.ind.wpi.edu RedHat 5.2 kernel 2.2.0pre3 i586 | at public servers
> This made me wonder, suddenly: can telnet be written in perl?
Of course it can be written in Perl. Now if you'd said nroff,
that would be more challenging... -- Larry Wall
------------------------------
From: Marc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Does Linux support plug & play
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 01:08:44 GMT
If he has a USR then just jumper it to com2 or what he needs,,probably
easier :)
Rohit Singh wrote:
> Here is what i had to to get pnp modem to work. I have a USR. Since you
> can read this post i guess i am able to dial out.
>
> 0) get isapnp software from http://www.roestock.demon.co.uk
> 1) uncompress, compile, etc.
> 2) type pnpdump --config > pnp.log
> 3) type isapnp pnp.log
> 4) If it works and does not gives you any error you are ok, otherwise go
> and fix the problem in pnp.log. I had a trivial problem, took seconds to
> fox it.
> 5) use this command setserial /dev/modem port 0x3e8 irq 5 autoconfig
> Most if the settings you should know from your windows setting or
> pnp.log file created above
> 6) use minicom or other program to check it out
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
Subject: Re: System V standard vs. BSD standard -> where to find?
Date: 3 Jan 1999 22:02:05 +0300
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thomas Schulze-Velmede ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Hello alltogether :-)
: I would like to know the differnces between the System V.4 "standard"
: and the BSD "standard"
: I know a few things (e.g. different bootup-techniques) but where can I
: find all
: differnences. e.g. where can I read what's to do, to have a System V.4 -
: complaint un*x?
But why?
Really, I think that it is impossible to convert linux into 100% System
V.4 complaint system. At least it have no AT&T originated code in
kernel. It is possible however, and even desirable, to make fully POSIX
complaint system. POSIX standard was mainly SysV based. But don't forget
that there are a lot of useful things which are originated in Berkley.
And Linux tries to get best of both worlds.
: thanx in advance!
: Regards
: Thomas SV
--
========================================================
I have tin news and pine mail...
Victor Wagner @ home = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix?
Date: 3 Jan 1999 15:44:25 +0300
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ilya ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I have played some with commercial Unixes like HP-UX, Sun, Solaris, but
: now I am looking for a Unix machine running non-commericial Unix. I am
: thinking about Linux or FreeBSD.
: I know this was discussed ad infinitum, but which OS is more popular
: or better? Which one is most like HP-UX 10.20 in terms of filestructure?
:
Linux is definitely more popular, deciding from number of installations
and number of applications available, but FreeBSD have some advantages
(and some disadvangages which grow from these advantages)
FreeBSD provides better throughput for highly-loaded servers, but if
you want to work interactively, especially in X, Linux has better
responce time.
Concerning simularity of layout with HP/UX, I don't know.
Is HP/UX System V derivative or BSD derivative? If first, Linux
definitely is closer - Linux is somewhere in between SysV and BSD, and
FreeBSD is BSD. But there are various distributions of Linux with
different layout.
Slackware is most BSD-ish
RedHat is most SysV,
Debian and Suse are somewhere in between.
Mandrake is just like RedHat. Don't know about Stampede and others.
: Which companies offer the entire pre-installed OS? I want to get one
: without any Microsoft products at all, ready to go, and later install
: a different OS if I need to.
:
You are mixing OS and hardware stuff here. If this may be ok in
vendor-os world, where buying Sun is very likely results of buying
Solaris also, things are quite different in PC world, especially with
Linux, which can be run on Sparc station or Alpha box as well as on
Intel-PC.
: I need all SCSI hardware, 3-button mouse, 17" Sony Trinitron Monitor
: with a .25mm dot pitch, 9GB hard drive, CDROM, all the X11 libraries, cool
: X-windows manager like fvwm, tower-case etc.
Now, find out your nearest hardware vendor (prefarable small one, which
is specialized on PC parts, may be one which works via mail-order, I've
heard that it is good way in US and Europe, get Linux hardware
compatibility howto and write list of parts you need:
miditower case with power supply
motherboard
Pentium Pro CPU (much better than anything else, but expensive)
Tecram DC390 SCSI adaptor
9Gb SCSI hard drive
...
and order this parts. Then assemble machine yourself and install Linux
on it
: I think it would be a good experience for me.
Indeed, if you follow my advice.
: Thank you.
--
========================================================
I have tin news and pine mail...
Victor Wagner @ home = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Any comments about these books?
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 20:45:05 -0500
Brian Lavender wrote:
> In this case I believe PhD follows its true meaning "Pile it Higher
> and Deeper"
>
> Slackware Unleashed is about the worst investment I have made towards
> learning Linux. It's thick, so at least it makes a good doorstop.
>
> brian
>
> On Sun, 03 Jan 1999 14:36:42 +0100, "Andrei A. Dergatchev"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Slackware Linux Unleashed, Third Edition; By Timothy Parker, Ph.D., et al.; ISBN:
> >0-672-31012-0
>
> --------
> Brian E. Lavender
> http://www.brie.com/brian/
>
> "For every complex problem, there is
> a solution that is simple, neat, and
> wrong." -- H. L. Mencken
I bought RedHat Linux Unleashed a while back and am equally dissatisfied with it
------------------------------
From: Ilya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to partition a 9GB hard drive in Redhat 5.2?
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.questions
Date: 3 Jan 1999 18:26:06 +0800
In comp.os.linux.misc Jerry Lynn Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ilya wrote:
> >
> > That is, what partition sizes do I pick?
> > I am thinking:
> >
> > /swap 512MB
> Usually, swap is set to twice the RAM in the box. You running 256MB of
> RAM?
I am going to order a machine with 128MB, but I am going to upgrade
directly to 256MB if I need to. I need to plan ahead because once
you partition a machine a certain way, it is hard to change it.
If you have to decrease or increase a partition, you practically
have to rebuild the entire machine.
I am looking at www.aslab.com to order one. They look pretty good.
I need to tell them what partitions I need.
Thanks,
------------------------------
From: Andrew Comech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix? (why Pentium Pro?)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Date: 3 Jan 1999 21:33:51 -0500
Victor Wagner @ home wrote:
> Pentium Pro CPU (much better than anything else ...)
I've got K6-2 333 (running cool at 350=100x3.5 without
the voltage increase) on FIC 2013 (1MB cache), and this
combination was below $200 in November.
Not a single trouble under Debian 2.0.
Linux reports 699.60 Bogo-mips; kernel compiles in 2.5 min.
It is certainly going to be better with upcoming K6-3
(running at 450MHz or something).
In case you do not know: www.pricewatch.com is an
ideal place to shop for parts.
Best,
Andrew
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Park)
Subject: Re: Netscape eats up *all* the swap
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 02:03:36 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I know it's a cliche, but -- does Netscape 4.08 have some kind of
: huge memory leak? As I use it, my swap space gradually fills in a
: monotonic fashion. If I let it go long enough, the system will
: die a thrashing death.
: This is best noticed when ftping large files. There seems to be
: a direct correlation between swap usage and file size (enough swap
: space is used to hold the data downloaded so far) but even when the
: download is complete, the memory is not released.
: No matter how long I wait with no netscape activity, the memory is
: never released, but when I exit netscape it is all released at once.
: I have 16 megs of real RAM and about 30 megs on my swap partition.
: I have netscape's memory cache set to 0 and the memory cache set to
: 3 megs.
: Is anybody else having this problem?
I have the same problem with 4.08 and 4.5, although only X-session
dies not the whole system.
--
------------------------------
From: "Dave Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Printers for OS/2 and Linux
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 20:34:19 -0600
I've used a HP694c on all three of those OS's. The HP dj550c or dj500c
would be the driver used for linux, so if the HP 722 is related to the 694
and talks PCL it will work with linux. If OS/2 has a driver for it there
should be no problem at all. If graphics is your thing you may want to get
a more expensive postscript printer to get the most out of linux. Most
linux apps are postscript oriented and use the Aladdin Ghostscript printer
drivers to print to non-postscript printers. The HP family is one of the
better supported.
Dave Nelson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
<76p6nb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I know we have been around this block several times before...
>And I have read the archives and Deja news...
>
>So I'm hoping somone out there can help me make the
>final cut on this printer selection list.
>
>The situation:
>I will be buying a new computer in the next month or
>two. It will undoubtably come with Win98 preinstalled.
>I plan to repartition the hard drive and add Linux (probably
>Red Hat), and OS/2 (version 3.0). So I will need a printer
>that will be supported by all these OS's. I was going to
>get a Lexmark 5700 untill I found out that it was a Win-
>printer and Linux probably doesn't support it. Next on the
>list is the HP 722. I believe that this is a real printer
>and there have been roumors of a new driver that gives
>better OS/2 graphics printing.
>Last on the list in the Epson Stylus 800 Color inkjet.
>Appearently there is a driver available that gives very
>good OS/2 graphics printing. Price is right, as I can get
>a rebuilt one for about $175.00. What about Linux support ???
>
>That is the short list. The final cut will depend heavily
>on what Linux support is available. And I have been told
>that the 722 may be the way to go on that issue. Any
>comments anyone??
>
>--
>Just my $0.02 worth.
>Hope this helps,
>Gordon
>
>PS:
>To reply: replace 'X.bleeb' with 'greeder'.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Dillon)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Best Free Unix?
Date: 3 Jan 1999 18:31:30 -0800
:In article <76non9$7d0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
:Victor Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Ilya ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
:>
:>Linux is definitely more popular, deciding from number of installations
:>and number of applications available, but FreeBSD have some advantages
:>(and some disadvangages which grow from these advantages)
:>
:>FreeBSD provides better throughput for highly-loaded servers, but if
:>you want to work interactively, especially in X, Linux has better
:>responce time.
I use X under both Linux and FreeBSD and it runs exactly the same.
This isn't surprising since both boxes run the same X server codebase
out of the box (i.e. XFree). Linux has slightly lower syscall overhead
(at least when nothing needs to block), but this is in the realm of
microseconds and irrelevant for someone doing interactive work. There is
no tangible difference in regards to interactive response times for
a machines configured as a typical workstation. My X server comes up
instantly either way, and new windows pop up instantly as well.
The operational differences between the two systems do not creep in until
you start working the boxes harder. Each system has a sweat spot - linux
tends to gear its sweat spot for lightly loaded environments while
FreeBSD takes a small (and I believe unnoticeable) hit in a lightly loaded
environments in order to gear its sweat spot more broadly across more
heavily loaded environments. The main area where this comes into play is
with paging: FreeBSD will start to page earlier then Linux and ramps
up smoothly as the load goes up, and is willing to take a larger page
fault hit rate then linux in order to better model memory activity.
Linux can handle heavier loads in certain situations - it doesn't just
On the otherhand, Linux has been shown to handle heavy loads reasonably
well in a number of situations, at least as long as it doesn't have to
page more then moderately.
This was noticeable 5 years ago because the interrupt/trap overhead was
a much greater percentage of the available cpu back then. Linux still
runs better on older systems which have very little (less then 16MB)
memory. But once you get past the 16MB mark and a pentium-90 you can't
really tell the difference. No matter what, though, if you run X on
a 486 and compare it side-by-side with X running on a cheap P-II, it
doesn't really matter *what* OS you are running on the 486 - it will still
seem extremely slow. Modern expectations play a big roll in satisfaction.
I might use a 486 to run a couple of servers, but you wouldn't catch me
dead using one for X any more (linux *or* FreeBSD).
Linux has better small-systems and laptop support, e.g. in the realm of
removeable PCMCIA cards and things like that, and having drivers for lots
of old cards (even though on rare occassions someone will have to run
FreeBSD to support an old card, the vast majority of these cases go the
other way). FreeBSD does not pay anywhere near as much attention to older
cards as it pays to newer ones. PCI cards tend to be clean enough that
if someone writes a popular driver for one OS it will get ported to the
other reasonably quickly. Linux's sound support has always been more
consistant but I believe FreeBSD has caught up there.
FreeBSD definitely takes the cake when it comes to supporting high-end
disk I/O. Linux's Ext2fs always seemed faster, but that was mainly
comparing the fully-async EXT2F with a semi-synchronous FFS. People who
run FreeBSD are not usually willing to mount their FFS stuff async, while
people running linux (including me, which I find rather amusing) tend to
mount EXT2F async. The reality, though, is that again FreeBSD is gearing
itself for very heavy load situations where a filesystem crash could
result in serious corruption if it were async mounted. Ext2FS has no
problem with crashes as long as you aren't running a heavily loaded
machine. I don't know about the most recent Ext2FS releases, though, I've
heard that the authors are doing serious work on filesystem integrity
issues.
The whole argument is moot, though, since FFS+softupdates under FreeBSD-3
beats the holy shit out of ext2fs in providing 99% async operation (and
even unwinding pending I/O if it is no longer necessary to do it) while at
the same time guarenteeing on-disk filesystem consistancy under arbitrary
load conditions.
Linux has more mature threading capabilities, stuff that FreeBSD has
only recently implemented. Linux ripped off the NT sendfile() hacks
before FreeBSD did (though FreeBSD has that now and supports a more
generic interface for it), but I believe that Linux is farther along in
the work on async I/O then FreeBSD.
On the otherhand, Linux uses a rather inconsistant filesystem interface
and does not support files larger then 2G on 32 bit systems... you'd have
to go to the alpha for that, and even then it isn't used widely enough
(as far as I can tell) to have the level of testing that BSD's 4.4-based
filesystem interface has, which is consistantly 64 bits throughout (the
few people who insist that 64 bit support on native 32 bit cpus somehow
reduces performance, which is the common argument against this, really
have no clue as to what they are talking about. Take it from a programmer,
supporting 64 bit file offsets on a 32 bit machine is not a big deal).
Commercial application support in linux is better since it is considered
the 'native' platform. FreeBSD will run most linux applications now but
it takes a little more work to install them.
FreeBSD wins on kernel tuning. For example, FreeBSD implements page
coloring on a number of its internal caches and Linux still uses many
more sequential list structures then it should - creating scaleability
problems (again something that you only notice under load or when running
certain types of software). Generally speaking, FreeBSD has a huge
number of such optimizations which is why it has the reputation of being
able to handle huge loads without falling on its face. Linux has a few,
but nowhere near FreeBSD. And there is continuing work in that department.
The FreeBSD paging and VM system is going to get a major facelift after
the 3.0.1 release, removing yet more linear lists and replacing them with
either arbitrarily scaleable radix trees or a hash tables. I think that
the optimizations being made to the paging system after 3.0.1 will wipe out
any advantage Linux has in its VM subsystem when operating under light
loads.
-Matt
--
Matthew Dillon Engineering, HiWay Technologies, Inc. & BEST Internet
Communications
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Please include original email in any response)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Printers for OS/2 and Linux
Date: 03 Jan 1999 17:49:31 PST
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I know we have been around this block several times before...
And I have read the archives and Deja news...
So I'm hoping somone out there can help me make the
final cut on this printer selection list.
The situation:
I will be buying a new computer in the next month or
two. It will undoubtably come with Win98 preinstalled.
I plan to repartition the hard drive and add Linux (probably
Red Hat), and OS/2 (version 3.0). So I will need a printer
that will be supported by all these OS's. I was going to
get a Lexmark 5700 untill I found out that it was a Win-
printer and Linux probably doesn't support it. Next on the
list is the HP 722. I believe that this is a real printer
and there have been roumors of a new driver that gives
better OS/2 graphics printing.
Last on the list in the Epson Stylus 800 Color inkjet.
Appearently there is a driver available that gives very
good OS/2 graphics printing. Price is right, as I can get
a rebuilt one for about $175.00. What about Linux support ???
That is the short list. The final cut will depend heavily
on what Linux support is available. And I have been told
that the 722 may be the way to go on that issue. Any
comments anyone??
--
Just my $0.02 worth.
Hope this helps,
Gordon
PS:
To reply: replace 'X.bleeb' with 'greeder'.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: Infringement of the GPL
Date: 4 Jan 1999 02:58:18 GMT
In <76mjbi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson) writes:
>Copying is a use. "Fair use" is a term from copyright law.
Fair use is a term for copying, not for use in general. Fair use means
that under certain conditions you are allowed to copy material ( a
limited amount) without permission of the copyright holder.
>>The second issue is contract law? You can clearly impose much more under
>>a contract. However, the concept of contract is much more stringent, and
>Actually a contract is much less stringent. Two parties can
>contract with each other. Law is not something just any two
>parties can decide anything about.
It is more stringent in determining when the law applies. copyright law
basically applies always, unless certain very specific conditions are
met. Contract laws applies never, unless certain very specific
conditions are met.
>Most lawyers don't seem to agree with you. Note to that
>downloading it for free has nothing to do with it. What does is
>intentionally using the code and then redistributing it in a
>derivative work. You can claim all you like that such isn't a
Again you are confusing contract with copyright law.
>contract, but there is a very good reason nobody wants to take
>it to court and find out! Virtually everyone suspects they
>would lose hands down.
On copyright, not on contract, which does not exist.
>That seems to be clearly false.
It is a condition under copyright law, not a contract under contract
law.
>As has been pointed out several times now, if that were clearly
>true then the GPL would have been into the courts several times
>by now and we would have rulings on it. That hasn't happened
>because nobody who has the money to try it seems to think they
>could win the case.
Sorry-- why would it have been into the courts severel times now? Who do
you know that has contempated taking it to court, and been willing to
spend the 10K-1M persuing the case?
>>Long? The GPL has only existed for about 15 years. That is instantaneous
>>as far as the courts are concerned. The fact that it has not yet been
>>challenged simply means that noone has considered it worth
>>challenging and says nothing about how a court would view such a
>>challenge.
>I think we all know that those assertions are not true. Fifteen
>years is a short time for something to transit the court system.
>It is a very long time for a contractual type of agreement that
>affects hundreds or thousands of businesses to remain untested.
Sorry, which are these hundreds or thousands of businesses?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Subject: Re: Infringement of the GPL
Date: 4 Jan 1999 03:05:34 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens) writes:
>>be argued. However the courts are loath to interpret agreement
>>toowidely, or else my contract with you in which you agreed to only ever
>>enter the bathroom backwards, and to which you gave explicit consent by
>>replying to my message, would be deemed a valid contract.
>There is no contract. You gave nothing of value. Publishing your
>post on the internet where it is freely available for anyone to
>download and read implies that you consider there to be
>value in that post.
My contract was not with you but with the original poster. I offered him
something of value, my post and he clearly considered it of value. The
fact that I give it away to others does not mean that I cannot charge
him for it. He
offered me something of value, his time in replying, and he clearly read
the offer, and the condition that this reply was an acceptance of my
contract. He replied. The contract stands. (At least I assume from the
rest of your post that that is how you would argue.)
>not bind you to anything. If you do not like the program or the
>terms of the license you can delete it from your system without
>any further consequence. Using the software implies that you
>have accepted the offer and a contract is made.
As did his reply to my post. He has accepted my offer and the contract
is made. (again according to your own arguments).
------------------------------
From: Ilya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux Journal
Date: 3 Jan 1999 19:08:06 +0800
Just bought my first copy of _Linux Journal_. It is mega-cool. I wish
I had seen it years ago when I first started working with Unix. Linux
itself is an incredibly cool concept.
I am in the process of purchasing a system myself from www.aslab.com.
Any other publications and books that focus on Linux?
------------------------------
** 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.misc) 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-Misc Digest
******************************
