Linux-Misc Digest #628, Volume #19 Sun, 28 Mar 99 01:13:08 EST
Contents:
Gimp and Fonts (Chuck Carlson)
Re: how to compile (Bob Hauck)
Re: Calendar Program
Re: how to compile (Thomas Griffing)
That Cute Little ICM Program (Ewan Dunbar)
executor and SuSE 6.0 (Ramin Sina)
sharing a monitor between two computers (Ramin Sina)
Re: No setup signature found (I can't believe no one knows!) (Bob Martin)
Re: No setup signature found (I can't believe no one knows!) (Bob Martin)
Re: No setup signature found (I can't believe no one knows!) (Bob Martin)
Re: Is there a reference for Bash shell scripts on the web? (Oracle startup script)
(Bob Martin)
Re: Comparable computer LINUX set up instead of iMac (Tommy Willoughby)
Make dvips use "letter" papertype by default on S.u.S.E. 5.3 (Bill Cheng)
Re: GPL vs BSD license agreement (source code reuse) (William Wueppelmann)
Re: Making Programs SUID root (Ewan Dunbar)
Re: Help me spend $2,000 on a new Linux-based computer ("Eugene")
Re: FS: LinuxRules.com ("Benjamin A. Rosenberg")
Re: Sounds in Englightenment (Jeremy Nickolet)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chuck Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Gimp and Fonts
Date: 28 Mar 1999 05:16:42 GMT
Hello,
When I use the text tool in Gimp, no text is drawn. I believe
it's because Gimp cannot find any fonts to use. I have this
same problen in another X draw program so it seems to be an
X config problem. Other apps like Netscape don't have any
problems with fonts.
I'm using latest X-server, Suse 6.0 distro.
Thanks for any suggestions,
Chuck
(remove cutmeout to reply via e-mail)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: how to compile
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 05:05:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (rik) writes:
> i would like to use my c++ complie capablility of my linux ,
> but i just do'nt know how to.. can someone tell me?
g++ somefile.cc -o somefile
--
Bob Hauck, Software Engineer - Will program for food.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Calendar Program
Date: 28 Mar 1999 05:20:12 GMT
On Sat, 27 Mar 1999 11:43:47 -0600, Andrew Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I broke into Unix on Interactive, then used SCO, a little Solaris, and
>finally Linux. The first three had a program called calendar. It was
>usually run from root's cron, and would check each user's $HOME for a
>file named calendar. It would then pull out all lines with today's
>dates as well as tomorrow's, and mail then to each user.
i remember using calendar on BSD!
>I can not find a program like that for Linux. Anyone know of one? It
>was so simple to use and I am now really missing it. I am beginning
>to fear that anything for Linux is going to be an X (or maybe KDE)
>program. Yes, even though am finally finding my way around X, I still
>like the character command line. Most things seem simple, fast, and
>easy to understand there.
plan and the pland daemon? i don't have a current copy installed, but i
believe it has the reminder system built... ical may also work for you, as
well as the rclock client?
>Perhaps I should write this in Perl? Never did really learn the Perl
>regexp well, and calendar-like stuff would be time consumming. But it
>may be out there already.
i find it usually pays to research capabilities first, then add features
to existing apps (unless you like writing device drivers, yes?)...
:-)
>Clues appreciated.
>Andrew Adams
>
------------------------------
From: Thomas Griffing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how to compile
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 05:16:30 GMT
rik wrote:
> i would like to use my c++ complie capablility of my linux , but i
> just do'nt know how to.. can someone tell me?
1. Create a source file (hello.cc):
#include <stream.h>
main()
{
cout << "Hello, world!\n";
}
2. Compile it to "hello":
$ make hello
3. Run it:
$ ./hello
==============================================================================
Thomas L. Griffing mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vistyx Corp http://www.vistyx.com
------------------------------
From: Ewan Dunbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: That Cute Little ICM Program
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 00:28:15 -0500
Recently, a nifty little Win95 program has cropped up that I'm jealous of.
It's called Internet Call Manager (www.internetcallmanager.com). It's
commercial, and I haven't a clue how it works. Normally, those two things
alone (and coupled with the Win95-ness) would be enough to turn me right
off. But this is *so* cool.
Check out the FAQ, then answer me this:
a) How *does* it do it?
b) Do you know if anyone is working on something like this for
Linux?
c) An aside, isn't the Dvorak layout cool? Mind you, until I can
get used to it, it's hunt-and-peck flashback time...
------------------------------
From: Ramin Sina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: executor and SuSE 6.0
Date: 27 Mar 1999 21:32:45 PST
Hi all,
I was told executor does not run well with Suse 6.0. Can someone please
confirm that.
Thank you.
--
========================================================
Ramin Sina [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Ramin Sina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: sharing a monitor between two computers
Date: 27 Mar 1999 21:37:19 PST
Hi everyone,
I would like to use one monitor for two computers, I don't want to take
out and put in cables each time I switch computers, Is there such a
thing as an automatic switch? I am wondering if there can be a box where
two input cables from computers go in and one output cable to the
monitor where the out put is selected with a switch.
Thanks.
--
========================================================
Ramin Sina [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Bob Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No setup signature found (I can't believe no one knows!)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:41:31 -0600
Something must have failed during compilation, 5120 bytes is way to small for a
kenel even with everything possible taken out.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello Julius! My new kernel is only 5120, as opposed to the old, which is
> 454325. I recompiled to remove daemons that I had loaded in with a complete
> install of RedHat 5.2. I ran make menuconfig, make dep, yadda yadda....You
> know the story. Anyway, I took the zImage out of the place where make had
> thrown it, (I'm starting to get the feeling I forgot something) added it
> into lilo.conf, then ran lilo. Am I supposed to uncompress it? I'm reeling.
------------------------------
From: Bob Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No setup signature found (I can't believe no one knows!)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:39:59 -0600
Something must have failed during compilation, 5120 bytes is way to small for a
kenel even with everything possible taken out.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello Julius! My new kernel is only 5120, as opposed to the old, which is
> 454325. I recompiled to remove daemons that I had loaded in with a complete
> install of RedHat 5.2. I ran make menuconfig, make dep, yadda yadda....You
> know the story. Anyway, I took the zImage out of the place where make had
> thrown it, (I'm starting to get the feeling I forgot something) added it
> into lilo.conf, then ran lilo. Am I supposed to uncompress it? I'm reeling.
------------------------------
From: Bob Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No setup signature found (I can't believe no one knows!)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 17:40:41 -0600
Something must have failed during compilation, 5120 bytes is way to small for a
kenel even with everything possible taken out.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello Julius! My new kernel is only 5120, as opposed to the old, which is
> 454325. I recompiled to remove daemons that I had loaded in with a complete
> install of RedHat 5.2. I ran make menuconfig, make dep, yadda yadda....You
> know the story. Anyway, I took the zImage out of the place where make had
> thrown it, (I'm starting to get the feeling I forgot something) added it
> into lilo.conf, then ran lilo. Am I supposed to uncompress it? I'm reeling.
------------------------------
From: Bob Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.databases.oracle.misc,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Is there a reference for Bash shell scripts on the web? (Oracle startup
script)
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 16:47:46 -0600
Docs for some GNU tools can be found here.
http://www.delorie.com/gnu/
Anubis wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm looking for a reference for Bash shell scripts on the web.
> Specifically, I'm trying to debug this script:
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 21:42:13 -0800
From: Tommy Willoughby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparable computer LINUX set up instead of iMac
Don Saklad wrote:
>
> 1. What would be an example of a comparable computer LINUX set up that
> could be configured instead of buying an iMac ?
This is really an apples/oranges comparison. Linux is new - still being
written and improved even as you read this. The iMac is based on a
pretty well established operating system with different roots and
different goals.
If you want power, tinkerability, the *requirement* to learn about your
computer and it's operating system - if you enjoy or have always wanted
to work under the hood - you might enjoy Linux or one of the other
Unixes.
If you want to have more fun running applications and like everything in
the computer to work (for example: my computer has usb ports, but
they're not supported under Linux at this time), then you would probably
enjoy the iMac more.
No reason to even ponder it, really. You can buy an iMac and run Linux
on it - giving you the opportunity to have both.
------------------------------
From: Bill Cheng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.text.tex,comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Make dvips use "letter" papertype by default on S.u.S.E. 5.3
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 22:51:55 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
Dvips uses "a4" papertype by default on S.u.S.E. 5.3.
Is there any way to configure it (without recompiling it)
so that it uses "letter" papertype as default? The
version of dvips I have is "dvipsk 5.58f". (And I can't
use "dvips -t letter" when the default is "a4" for
reasons too involved to get into.)
--
Bill Cheng // [EMAIL PROTECTED] <URL:http://bourbon.cs.umd.edu:8001/william/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Wueppelmann)
Subject: Re: GPL vs BSD license agreement (source code reuse)
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 15:52:51 GMT
In our last episode (Fri, 26 Mar 1999 03:39:43 GMT),
the artist formerly known as JR said:
>
>1) Most things in life are not free. Period. Final. Indisputable.
>Then why should software be? Books aren't free. Even if you borrow
>one from the library, taxes are paid to give one that privilege. It
>would be nice if cable TV were free: If we only had to pay for the
>hardware to bring us the content (like regular TV) and not the content
>providers and the cable industry high profits.
But the GPL doesn't try to stipulate that software should be free as in
free beer, it stipulates that the _ideas_ that went into creating the
software should be freely available. By releasing your software under the
GPL, you are in effect saying "You are free to use this software as you see
fit, including as a basis for your own work. But you are _not_ allowed to
take the work that I've done and incorporate it into a body of work that
will then become proprietary: you have to release it as GPL software."
Other licenses, such as FreeBSD's say that you are free to incorporate the
work of the creators into proprietary works, as long as you acknowledge
their copyright. Really, the FreeBSD license is much more of a free lunch
than the GPL -- you can use someone else's work, for free, to create your
own code which you are not obliged to make available to anyone.
>2) Given the constraint in paragraph (1) no end user should complain
>about free software whether it is licensed under GPL or BSD.
>Regardless, it's a freebie! Hence, we CAN live with both. So IMO the
>end user has nothing to do with the decision as to how to license free
>software.
Obvious enough -- it's up to the creator to decide the terms of
distribution (within the confines of the law). But again, the GPL, and I
assume the FreeBSD license to not stipulate anything about software being
made available for free. Indeed, the GPL stipulates that _anyone_ has the
right to distribute GPL'ed software for a fee, if they so choose.
>3) What motivation is there for creating new software? If all
>developers were forced to use GPL, not very much. If that were the
>case, new software would only come from those programmers that compare
>good code to art. Pushing and popping registers, in my opinion is not
>an art, it is a discipline.
Developers are not forced to use GPL, but consider this: some enormously
successful projects of huge scope and high quality (for example, linux,
gcc, GNU emacs) were created and released under the GPL. Why did the
developers bother? There are really four reasons that people would write
software: 1) for the sheer challenge/interest, 2) because they have a need
for a program that does something, so they create such a program, 3)
because others have a need for such a program, and, for one reason or
another (sense of duty, people are willing to pay cash for such a program,
the people in question are the individual's employers, etc.) the programmer
creates software to fit the needs of those people. 4) There is no
particular demand for a piece of software, but the programmer feels that
people would appreciate and/or be willing to pay for such a product once it
was created, so the programmer writes such a program.
None of these preclude writing software without financial compensation,
though (4) is probably most commonly associated with financial reward and
(1) and (2) are the least associated. (4) is, for example, the driving
force behind many commercial shrink-wrap software developers, who spend as
much time and effort marketing their creations to people as they do
creating them. In the case of (1) and (2), it's generally more a case of
the programmer being willing to share his or her creation with anyone who
finds it useful, but not actively seeking users.
>5) Therefore, the argument I am making is that if you take GPL to an
>extreme, BSD wins by default. Of course I can chose not to use either
>-- I could roll my own, I could release my code without any license
>agreement or copyright at all, or I could just keep the code myself
>and make others disassemble it. Or I could just keep the binary and
>be the only user ever!!!
If you take any idea to its illogical conclusion, it becomes a bad idea,
and a more moderate idea will almost always be more appealing.
--
It is pitch black.
You are likely to be spammed by a grue.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
From: Ewan Dunbar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Making Programs SUID root
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 00:58:25 -0500
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is the same thing as a program that runs as SUID root,
> but I have a desktop machine that is running linux which only myself and my
> wife use. I'm trying to get away from running as root, and using my own user
> account, but there are programs that I need to run as root and I was
> wondering if there is a way that I can change the permissions so that both
> myself and my wife can run them without running as root.
Yes. You set the permissions to -rwxr-xr-x or whatever. But the directory
also has to be accessible to you. READ ON. This, by the way, is not the
same as a program being setuid root. That means that a *program* has root
access. In any case, 'man chmod'.
> For example I
> installed staroffice on my computer, but I installed it using the root
> account. Now if I want to run staroffice I have to open an xterm, su to root
> and then invoke staroffice on the command line.
My eyebrows just shot up in shock -- a publicassy accessible application
*must*, by definition, be installed in a publically accessible directory.
Ouch. I suggest uninstalling it and reinstalling to somewhere like /opt or
/usr/local.
> I'd rather have it set up so
> that I can use either a kde shortcut or a windowmaker dock to execute the
> application. I realize this is a security risk, but this is a desktop
> machine. I've turned off all of my inbound network services except ssh, so
> I'm not all that concerned about being hacked.
^^^^^^
LOL... I'd be more concerned about being *cracked*.
> Is there any way to do this
Yeah -- don`t install to ~root!
> or do I simply have to suck it up and su each time.
------------------------------
From: "Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Help me spend $2,000 on a new Linux-based computer
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 05:53:54 GMT
Here is my dream machine:
Celeron 366 overclocked to 550
Abit BH6 mobo
128 Mb SDRAM (PC-100) (one piece)
Nvidia TNT2 (when it comes out - should be soon!)
Optiquest V95 (19")
12+ gig HD
etc...
anyone else thinks this is a nice system?
--
"Ein Folk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft's slogan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've gotten the go-ahead from my better half (read: my wife) to spend
> around 2K on a new system. I'd like to hear _specific_ success and/or
> horror stories on systems and peripherals that have worked and not
> worked with Linux. My prequisites:
>
> 400mhz CPU
> 96mb RAM
> 8mb video card
> 19" monitor
> sound card, speakers
> 4GB hard drive
> CD-ROM
>
> Bonuses:
> DVD
> Color printer
> Tape backup
> Dual CPUs
>
> Notes:
> I don't play video games, so 3D video doesn't mean anything to me.
> I'm open to build-my-own or buying from Micron, Gateway, Dell, etc.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Ed
>
> Q: Why do PCs have a reset button on the front?
> A: Because they are expected to run Microsoft operating systems.
------------------------------
From: "Benjamin A. Rosenberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,alt.linux
Subject: Re: FS: LinuxRules.com
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 23:49:33 -0600
Matthew Ross Peterson wrote:
>
> For Sale:
>
> The domain linuxrules.com
>
> For more details, please visit ebay:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=81228851
moron.
--
Ben Rosenberg
================||=====================
"Whatever separates you from the truth,
throw it away, it will vanish anyhow."
================||=====================
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jeremy Nickolet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sounds in Englightenment
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 06:02:16 GMT
Nick Warrington wrote:
>
> I am using Enlightenment wm. To test the dsp on my soundcard, I can cat
> a file to /dev/dsp. However when trying that from Enlightenment the
> device is perpetually busy!!
>
> Does anyone know why, and how I can free up the device. My ultimate aim
> is to get gqmpeg running.
>
> Cheers
>
> Nick
Enlightenment runs it's own sound server "esd" that interfers with other
non-gnome apps. Just kill the esd process, then you should be able to
access that device with your other apps.
Jeremy
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
