Linux-Misc Digest #640, Volume #18 Sat, 16 Jan 99 12:13:12 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Lou)
Re: Cannot talk to /dev/cua1, which is a modem (and NOT a winmodem). (Charles
Reindorf US/EE1 60/1/44 #44278)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Floyd Davidson)
Re: Fetchmail Stops Fetching: Why? (Johan Kullstam)
Re: lilo says /vmlinuz too big. Now what ??? (Bryan Halter)
Re: Try to install Acrobat Reader ... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: format a zipdisk and make it a linux disk (Brian Howe)
Anyone have IDE tape drives (eg, Sony SuperStation) working? (Tom Fawcett)
Re: X-terminal setup for remote clients on Linux? (William Burrow)
Using SB AWE32 card with 2.2.0-pre7 (Stephen Anthony)
Re: Debian 1.3 Includes Stupid "man" ??! (Dan Nguyen)
Re: xdm? graphical login? (Dan Nguyen)
Re: Linux SNMP software package? (Gary Momarison)
securing a linux box (Yan Seiner)
Quicken for Linux (Bob Koss)
how to mount a SCO eafs disk ? ("Philippe Lefevre (France)")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lou)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:51:17 GMT
The ultimate point being missed here is not whether Linux is better
than 95 or Unix better than DOS or which processor could have run what
when....
It's about games.
Let's face it games run the industry. You can do your word processing
on a 286 (or on a 68030 like me) but if yo want to play games you need
a really fast computer.
Don't agree with me that games rule the roost? Explain why anyone
needs a 12mb video card! My Amiga 500 had less hardrive space than
that!
Unix was (is) for serious computer users, an OS made for and by
scientists and engineers who don't have a ton of time to be blasting
space aliens.
Want to play quake and make it look like glass, get a wintel with all
the tricks and have at you! Or wait 6 mos to a year for Linux ports
to be written by benevolent souls who take their spare time and write
this stuff. Don't expect the guys at ID to have a Linux crew hard at
work, they have their hands full trying to get Quake to load with a
640k barrier.
Hardware and OSs mean little without cool apps and great games. If
the boys a Commodore had enough forsight to see their eyebrows we'd
all be talking about Worbench 10.
------------------------------
From: Charles Reindorf US/EE1 60/1/44 #44278 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Cannot talk to /dev/cua1, which is a modem (and NOT a winmodem).
Date: 15 Jan 1999 14:18:34 +0100
Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Christopher> I have <some recent SuSE distribution>, kernel
> Christopher> 2.0.35. Using the Compaq tells me that the modem
> Christopher> (which is internal) is on COM2, with the usual IRQ
> Christopher> and port numbers. Running various Windows diagnostics
> Christopher> show me AT-style commands exchanged so I have no
> Christopher> reason to beleive that it is a Winmodem. Also, the
> Christopher> diagnostics under Win98 tell me that I am talking to
> Christopher> an NS 16550AN.
>
> Windows modem diags will not tell you if it's a Winmodem. If you have
> doubts, you should try to access the modem from DOS (go to the Windows
> startup menu and choose "command prompt only"). If you can't use a
> simple DOS-based comm program to dial out, then you've got a
> Winmodem.
>
> mp
I was there. I am beginning to think the same: Perhaps Win98 is
talking to the Winmodem and then faking an 16550 and an AT command set
on top of that for the benefit of direct-hardware apps running under
it. Win98 is a bit like that.
Regards,
Charles.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: 15 Jan 1999 13:47:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul Flinders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> Paul Flinders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The PC itself was arguably started by Kildall who realised that a single
>"personal" machine was more cost effective for an engineer in many cases than
>access to a time share system and built an 8080 based system and wrote CP/M
>for it. I'm not sure what date that was - 74/75 ish? CP/M needs a few K for
>itself and the BIOS and you'd need a few K more for programs so I assume even
>that machine had 8 or 16k as a minimum.
Kildall wrote the original CP/M while doing contract work for
Intel. He more or less threw it together to give himself something
to use while working on a project using the 8080 microprocessor
(on an MDS-700 series computer that eventually ran something
called ISIS if my memory serves). The code technically belonged
to Intel, but they didn't see any future in it and signed away
the rights to it... Kildall did see a future and did a little
more development before going to market with CP/M as a
commercial product. Who ever heard of ISIS again!!! But the
concept of a portable BDOS coupled with a small configurable BIOS
to match various hardware variations was a superb product with
great value.
Of course once it was mildly successful Kildall essentially
decided to go fishing for the rest of his life. Compare that
to Bill Gates' need to accumulate money rather than live the
good life, and the rest is history.
...
>Moving on, the BBC had a 68000 add-on card which ran some version of Unix (I
>still have one of the cards somewhere but I never got any software for
>it). That 68000 card was around well before 1990 which brings me back to one
>of the points of yours that I'm trying to show you is wrong - there were
>quite definitely machines which were available in the PC market (even the
>home PC market, such as it was) which could run Unix well before 1990.
There were several. The AT&T UnixPC 7300 was introduced in
December 1985, and the 3B1 version came about a year later. It
was abandoned in 1987 and a machine that originally cost $7-10K
suddenly flooded the market at $1400 a copy. It ran a variation
of SysV R2 on a 68010 cpu, and was advertised as "3/4 of a VAX
780". There was also an AT&T 8300 model that ran UNIX on an
8086, though I don't know much about it.
And even before those, Sequent had a portable UNIX running a BSD
UNIX. I think that was on an NEC 32K chip, but again I have a
very fuzzy memory of it.
Altos was selling Xenix back then too, using Intel chips. And
as someone mentioned, by the late 1980's AT&T was selling UNIX
machines using 80386 cpu's (386WGS model???).
>> Early '80s eh? My DAD had a PC (DEC Rainbow 100, remember those?) in 1983.
>> Christ, I was programming 8085s in 1982. Dunno exactly when they came out,
>> but it was long enough before then for the Purdue labs to have some. You
>> should remember that several years passed between the Altair and the first
>> IBM PC.
>
>'82/83 or so wasn't it vs '74/75
The Zilog Z80 was right after that, then the 8085. By 1980 they
were all very well established. But it was about 1979/80 that
CP/M (with release 2.2, as opposed to 1.3) caught on and various
manufacturers (Osborne, Kaypro, Morrow, etc.) started putting
together low cost ($2000+) ready to run machines. They all more
or less followed from the "Big Board" design for a 8080 CP/M
system. (My apologies for not being able to remember who came
up with it either. Ferguson?? It of course followed the Altair
designs.)
>> Certainly. My point is, Bill has, through software bloat,
>> pushed hardware design to the point that people can now
>> afford a machine that has all the
That doesn't follow from the reality of what has happened.
Typically in the 1980's and early 1990's the hardware was about
two years ahead of software. As each new advance in hardware
came out it would take at least that long before software was
commonly available to take advantage of it. It has only been
in recent times that software was very quickly available for
the latest hardware.
>In 1979, yes I'd have to agree you probably weren't going to run a
>multiuser system on anything you could afford as an individual.
Heh, how about $250,000 each! But by 1982 or so there were
multiuser CP/M machines available that were running at 1/10 that
price (the Vector Graphic, a multiuser S100 bus machine running
a variation of CP/M 3.0 is an example). That was still out of
the range that us common folks would be running, but...
>However even by '82 or so things had changed - there were two
>strong 16 bit microprocessors, the 8086 and the 68000 and both
>had multitasking OSes available. IBM didn't choose CP/M 86 and
>the rest is history :-(
IBM also didn't choose the 68000 or 8086, either of which could
have been used rather than the 8088. What a shame...
>> What I was saying was, there wasn't a machine you could put in your HOUSE
>> that would run anything like Unix, back when DOS was first sold to IBM.
>> Am I wrong there? Show me. Bill was writing BASIC in 1976 or so, so if
>> there were Ataris around at that time that had all that capability, then
>> their dicks are squashed flatter than the guy who passed on selling CP/M to
>> IBM.
>
>I disagree. I had a Z80 which could certainly run "something like Unix",
>(although, OK, mine didn't) in my house in 1980 and a 68000 board which was
>actually built to run Unix a little after the time that the PC came out.
>Friends had Amigas and Ataris which ran multitasking OSes around that time
>as well.
The 8086 was available and could have been used by IBM. If I
remember right the 68000 was a little like CP/M, a few months
late to arrive at the gate.
However there is no question but that IBM purposely chose to
back off from the most advanced technology, and hence the 8088
and an OS that was as similar to CP/M as they could get and hope
to win court.
>> turned out well-designed software. NOOOOOO.). Hence my point. If you
>> disagree, fine. Just don't throw irrelevancies out there. I'll give you
>> that there may have been other platforms that could run some pretty decent
>> OSs, but they weren't there at the start, and they weren't Johnny-on-the-spot
>> like Bill Gates was.
>
>I don't think it's an irrelevance - I was just trying to point out that
>Motorola without the benefit of Bill G's bloated software still felt the need
>to produce faster processors. That means something other than M$ software was
>soaking up cycles and driving for faster CPUs.
True facts. Microsoft wasn't the driving for in *anything* back
then! (Well, maybe assemblers and linkers for CP/M!)
But Gates was in fact Johnny-on-the-spot with *marketing*. And
he continued to be just exactly that at every turn of events
that has happened since, with the single exception that he
somehow totally missed the Internet until it was known to
everyone else (thank goodness!). I am just *exceedingly*
impressed with Bill Gates' ability to market computer technology
and leverage it into profit. I don't care for the technical
results, and personally have never had a machine at home which
boots a Microsoft OS. (Heck, I didn't even like his CP/M
tools, m80 and l80, and used the first replacements that ever
came along.)
>From some steady base CPU manufacturers produce faster CPUs, denser RAMs
>and higher capacity hard disks. There is a natural tendency for them to do
>this as the manufacturing process improves. Often improvements in
>performance are a side effect of reducing manufacturing costs - eg for IC
>production decreasing mask size decreases unit cost but also increases
>speed. There is also a marketing lead tendency to want a performance edge
>over the competition (and everyone wants a faster computer or more disk
>space).
>
>Given the increased performance software writers realise that they can
>either a) produce software faster because they no longer need to pay so
>much attention to optimisation or b) add more and more complex features
>because the extra hardware performance. Sometimes whole application genres
>become feasible because of the increase in performance - e.g speech
>recognition.
I remember distinctly my impression of X windows the first time I
heard about graphics on a bitmapped terminal with more than 1000 pixels
per line: what f* good is that every going to be to *me*, I'll NEVER
be able to afford it! (Hah hah, the jokes on me... :-)
>Owners of hardware from the last cycle realise there's no way they're going
>to be able to run the new software and have to upgrade. Repeat until Intel
>have all your money :-)
Andy Grove may not be Bill Gates II, but he sure comes close!
>Basically I think you're wrong that no PC was powerful enough to run Unix
>prior to 1990. 1990 is only significant because that was the time that Linus
>actually started to think about writing Linux. Naturally as a 90's piece of
>software Linux would have difficulty running on 80's hardware but so would
>most others. Unix started on 16 bit machines (or was the PDP-7 18?), 16 bit
>microprocessors were available in 81/82 or so.
I'm not even sure that 1990 is a significant date in that evolution.
When did RMS decide that UNIX should be free? *THAT* is when it started.
All that happened in 1990 was that a number of people, Linus included,
became aware that what RMS had put together so far had brought the whole
sheebang within one simple step from reality, and that RMS wasn't working
on *that* step yet. So they did. Linus wasn't alone, but he has outshown
the rest of them. (He has mentioned that he became aware that he simply
*is* a better OS programmer than anyone else... :-)
>You're wrong that software bloat alone drives hardware performance - it's
>part of the picture but I don't think that it's the main driver.
I agree with that assessment.
>You're wrong that M$ produces all, or even the majority, of the bloated
>software.
And that one too.
>You're wrong that it's just increases in hardware performance
>which mean I can now effectively run a multitasking OS on a
>computer which has more power than an early 80's multiuser
>system. A big part is the fact that all computer hardware (and
>software) is now vastly cheaper in real terms because it is now
>produced in such large volumes compared with the late 70's or
>early 80's
That is true too, and as much as we might all dislike what IBM
and Microsoft did in some areas, they are greatly responsible
for a major portion of that price reduction. By defining a de
facto standard (even a horrible one), they concentrated hardware
manufacturing into channels that brought about mass production
efficiencies and concentrated R&D too.
>And to tie all these up and say "we have to thank Bill Gates for Linux" is
>actually funny.
Hilarious. It is everything he has worked to *prevent*.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pictures of the North Slope at <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Fetchmail Stops Fetching: Why?
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 Jan 1999 09:07:35 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Well not much help but my current fetchmail has been running for 20
> days straight.
>
> I have noted on occasion that my isp pop box gets a date that is early
> than the real date. This causes fetchmail to think it has collected
> all mail. There is an option -a -K to fetch all mail regardless. I use
> these options now.
yes, this is valuable advice. i just wanted to add that for your
.fetchmailrc file, you can use `fetchall' and `nokeep' to get
commandline option behavior `-a' and `-K' respectively.
--
Johan Kullstam [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:53:58 -0500
From: Bryan Halter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.questions,linux.sources.kernel
Subject: Re: lilo says /vmlinuz too big. Now what ???
Nick instead of using make zImage use make bzImage and after make modules_install
run make bzlilo
Bryan ;-)
Nick Dreyer wrote:
> To any and all who might be able to help:
>
> I installed the source code package for linux 2.0.34 under /usr/src/linux and
> there did:
>
> make config
> make dep
> make clean
> make zImage
> make modules
> make modules_install
>
> copied /usr/src/linux/vmlinux to /vmlinuz
>
> but when I then try to run lilo, it fails with the message "/vmlinuz too big".
>
> My old kernel was 704533 bytes, and this new one is 788135, so it certainly is
> bigger, but I can't believe that is too big.
>
> I only included the bare minimum is configuration options, so changing that
> won't help. Doing "make bzImage" doesn't help either. (The resulting kernel
> is exactly the same size of 788135 bytes.)
>
> What's going on, and how do I get around this? Your help is greatly
> appreciated.
>
> |\|.
--
Bryan P. Halter, Desktop Support Team
Lucent Technologies Inc., 300 Baker Ave. Suite 100, Concord, MA 01742-2168
voice: (978) 287-9000 x9526 fax: (978) 287-9050 internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
============= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ============
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
============= Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ============
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Try to install Acrobat Reader ...
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:23:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:20:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I must admit that I pressed Ctrl-Z to terminate the license agreement. I guess
>that killed the install as well. But how to do it correct ?
Ooops... now I realized it was the VI that presented the text.
:q did the trick ...
=====================================================
Answers please in this newsgroup!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====================================================
------------------------------
From: Brian Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.alpha,comp.os.linux.questions,linux.redhat.misc,nl.comp.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux,redhat.general,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: format a zipdisk and make it a linux disk
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:28:01 -0500
Onion Ok wrote:
>
> Hi (again),
>
> Another question:
>
> How can I format a zipdisk onder linux and make a linux native partition
> on it.
> Cause if there is a msdos fs on the zipdisk I'm not able to copy
> symlinks and I get some other errors.
> I tried with fdisk /dev/sda4 but this didn't work. Can someone tell me
> how I can do this?
>
> Greetings,
> Jurrien
you need to run mkfs ext2 /dev/sda4 <number of bytes>. if you mount the zip
drive and then run df -k you can find out how big the disk is (or the partition
on the disk) in bytes, then insert that number into the brackets in the command
above. alternatively, run the command as mke2fs /dev/...
--
Brian Howe
Unix geek in training.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over
and over and expecting different results."
------------------------------
From: Tom Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Anyone have IDE tape drives (eg, Sony SuperStation) working?
Date: 15 Jan 1999 09:23:21 -0500
I have a Sony Superstation (an IDE tape drive) for making backups. I'm
running 2.2-pre6 with IDE tape support enabled, but I can't make a backup
without errors. Both tar and afio send about 50 files to the drive, it
starts writing, then gets errors. My /var/log/messages shows:
Jan 13 22:29:10 myth kernel: ide-tape: ht0: I/O error, pc = 34, key = 2, asc = 4,
ascq = 1
Jan 13 22:29:10 myth kernel: ide-tape: ht0: I/O error, pc = 1, key = 2, asc = 4,
ascq = 1
Jan 13 22:29:52 myth kernel: ide-tape: ht0: I/O error, pc = 34, key = 2, asc = 4,
ascq = 1
Jan 13 22:29:52 myth kernel: ide-tape: ht0: I/O error, pc = 1, key = 2, asc = 4,
ascq = 1
Jan 13 22:30:25 myth kernel: ide-tape: ht0: I/O error, pc = 34, key = 2, asc = 4,
ascq = 1
Jan 13 22:30:25 myth kernel: ide-tape: ht0: I/O error, pc = 1, key = 2, asc = 4,
ascq = 1
Jan 13 22:32:29 myth kernel: hdc: irq timeout: status=0xd0 { Busy }
Jan 13 22:32:29 myth kernel: hdc: ATAPI reset complete
Jan 13 22:32:30 myth kernel: ide-tape: ht0: I/O error, pc = a, key = 2, asc = 3a,
ascq = 0
Jan 13 22:32:30 myth last message repeated 18 times
I've checked the ide-tape.c source code. There are various user-settable
parameters, but none looks like it would affect these errors. I've played
with BIOS setting but none seems to make a difference.
Before I junk the drive and go back to floppy tapes, has anyone had these
problems and found a fix for them?
Thanks,
-Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Burrow)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: X-terminal setup for remote clients on Linux?
Date: 16 Jan 1999 15:58:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:54:34 GMT,
Steve Emms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>xhost +
>
>as a starting point...
NO!! Use ``man Xsecurity'' as a starting point. Choose xhost if necessary
but xhost + is the silliest thing you can do. Anyone on the network (which
in this case is the Internet) can place a window in your X desktop and
capture keystrokes (eg passwords, etc) and more.
--
William Burrow, VE9WIL -- New Brunswick, Canada o
Copyright 1999 William Burrow ~ /\
~ ()>()
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Anthony)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Using SB AWE32 card with 2.2.0-pre7
Date: 16 Jan 1999 15:33:10 GMT
I having trouble setting getting my SB AWE32 soundcard working under 2.2.0-pre7.
When I compile and insmod the modules, there seem to be no problems. But when I
play a sound, either from the command line or through some game, it seems like the
sounds are 'skipping' or missing certain parts.
I have correctly used isapnp, and the interrupts and DMA are set up correctly. I
know it is not a hardware problem since I can use the ALSA drivers as well as the
demo of OSS/Linux.
The problem with ALSA is that it does not support my MIDI chip, and OSS/Linux only
works for 10 minutes! Other than those limitations, they work fine. Under 2.0.36,
everything worked fine with the kernal-provided OSS/Free drivers. How can I make
them work again (with 2.2.0-pre7)?
Email me or respond in this group.
Thanks,
Steve
------------------------------
From: Dan Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian 1.3 Includes Stupid "man" ??!
Date: 16 Jan 1999 16:52:03 GMT
Tetchman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I have Debian 1.3 installed on i386, and have been wondering why the supplied
: "man" program is so stupid as to refuse to go back one screen using "b" (it
: just beeps at me).
: We have both Slackware (very old version) and Redhat 4.2 installed
: at work, and both of them have a "man" which does what I want.
: Anyway, my Debian "man" says its version is
: "man, version 2.3.10, db 2.3.1, July 12th, 1995 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])"
: so does anyone know whether this is the intended version or not ?
: PS: I can do "man foo >xxx.txt", and then "more xxx.txt", and get
: what I want, so it can't be a problem with my "more" program. And I
: always assumed that "man" just calls "more" ...
: PPS: I know Debian is at V2.0 now (soon to be 2.2 ?); does that fix it ?
I'm not sure what's wrong, but man now uses less. And the next
version of Debian is 2.1 not 2.2, Debian does not follow the same
numbering system that the kernel does.
--
Dan Nguyen | There is only one happiness in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | life, to love and be loved.
http://www.cse.msu.edu/~nguyend7 | -George Sand
------------------------------
From: Dan Nguyen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: xdm? graphical login?
Date: 16 Jan 1999 16:53:56 GMT
Cameron Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: hey,my question is how can i have it so that even when i log out my
: xwindows is still running? so it would be similar to the screensaver
: password screen...
So why are you asking this? Run XDM.
--
Dan Nguyen | There is only one happiness in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | life, to love and be loved.
http://www.cse.msu.edu/~nguyend7 | -George Sand
------------------------------
From: Gary Momarison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux SNMP software package?
Date: 16 Jan 1999 08:56:42 -0800
Bill Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is anyone aware of a Linux based SNMP management software package?
> Your help is appreciated.
Check out the SNMP section of
http://www.aa.net/~swear/pedia/networking.html
--
Look for Linux info at http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml and in
Gary's Encyclopedia at http://www.aa.net/~swear/pedia/index.html
------------------------------
From: Yan Seiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: securing a linux box
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:13:13 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What are some good references for securing a linux server from attacks
via the internet?
I want to block all ports except 22 and 80 on my internet interface, but
want to keep my ability to telnet from the LAN.
TIA,
Yan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Koss)
Subject: Quicken for Linux
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:08:37 GMT
Is there a Linux app that can read/write Quicken files?
------------------------------
From: "Philippe Lefevre (France)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: how to mount a SCO eafs disk ?
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:50:22 +0100
Hi,
Does anybody know how to mount a scsi hard disk drive formated with SCO
3.2.v4 eafs under Linux RedHat 5.1 ?
Clearly, I'd like to either boot on my SCO system disk or my LINUX system
disk (located in a removable reack) and then mount my original SCO data
disk.
The scsi controller is a Tekram 390, both disks are Quantum LPS525 and the
Linux Kernel version is 2.0.34.
Thank you very much for any help,
Philippe.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
