Linux-Misc Digest #642, Volume #19 Sun, 28 Mar 99 19:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: can't be excuted by typing its name (Rick Runowski)
Re: computer name (stupid q)? (Marcel Kraan)
Q: Terratec Xlerate PCI sound card with linux (Dominik Bodi)
Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment.... ("Ovidiu Popa")
Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
Re: sharing a monitor between two computers ("Jack Beatty")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick Runowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: can't be excuted by typing its name
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 17:05:13 -0600
You need to set your path statement. If you go to /etc/profile and edit
it, there is a PATH statement... (I'm assuming you are in as root) alter
the path statement to inlude the path to your a.out file.
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999, Dennis Ho wrote:
> Please help....
>
> I just set up a linux server, and when I try to excute a C excutable
> file, said, "a.out", by just typing
> a.out at prompt, it failed with a statment like "bash: a.out: commad not
> found". But when I type
> "./a.out", the file is excuted successfully.
> Can someone tell me how to fix that so I can excute that a.out by
> just typing a.out
>
> Thanks a million
>
>
------------------------------
From: Marcel Kraan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: computer name (stupid q)?
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 22:45:28 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
marin wrote:
>
> how can I now computer name on my RH5.2 and how to change it?
> please
> thanks!
or if you need it only till a reboot, type
hostname myserver.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 21:56:39 +0200
From: Dominik Bodi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.hardware,linux.dev.sound,redhat.hardware.arch.intel,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.development.system,alt.os.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.questions,linux.redhat,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Q: Terratec Xlerate PCI sound card with linux
Hi,
I am a linux newbie and have a Terratec Xlerate sound card in my PC. I am
searching for a possibility to get this run with linux.
The Terratec Xlerate is a PCI sound card with an Aureal Chipset and SigmaTel
AC-97 codec.
Equivalent (=using the same chipset) cards are the Aztech PCI338-A3D, Diamond
Sonic Impact S-90, Intresource TeraSound A3D PCI and the Turtle Beach Montego.
These are the names they are sold under in Germany, they may vary abroad.
The card fits nicely into Win98 and can be made 100% SB compatible with a
special DOS-Driver and setting the interrupts etc. to SB-like values. But this
does nothing for Linux.
The kernel (2.2.4) does not have support for it, neither does OSS.
Does someone know how to make this card work with linux?
Thanks in advance
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ovidiu Popa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Using Linux instead of NT Server in home environment....
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 17:01:22 -0600
Crossposted-To:
microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc,microsoft.public.windowsnt.setup,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,micorosft.public.outlook
Johan, allow me to share a recent experience. I met some times ago a
couple of genial (and I mean it) Linux programmers. Ones of the very
few having "access" to Linus, having major contributions to Slack
kernel, etc...
Can you figure out what pissed me off about these guys? They turned
out to be extremely appreciated programmers, one working (say 9 to 6)
for a major software company, the other one being self-employed, both
raising big bucks, as Windows C/S programmers. And they spend
afternoons and nights aggressively bitching and hating NT in the
usenet world, (and also on their web sites). Now, they do this on
their time and dime, but don't ask me to appreciate their moral
profiles. I might look old fashioned, but I can't spit the place which
provides my beers, bread and butter.
I asked them why are they not starting to write a decent GUI, some
more friendly administration tools, reliable GUI development tools,
able to allow the entry on the desktop and SOHO markets (I am not
going to deny the Linux excellent performances, as server). Guess what
answer I got... "Yuk man, it's no fun doing that".
My personal opinion: soon, they will built a better Linux TCP/IP stack
:-) Unfortunately, these genial programmers (and unfortunately Linux)
will stay away from the desktop and SOHO markets, until some major
company will get involved. BUT can a major software company afford to
stay in the open source initiative mainstream, as far as they are
supposed to make profits? Only time will tell...
Ovidiu Popa
MS-MVP (DTS)
Johan Kullstam wrote in message ...
>"Alexander I. Butenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> ANyway I greatly doubt that Linux will be easier to use than NT
>> Server. I'm sure that NT Server will be a ideal use for a small
home
>> network, becaus eit's very easy to configure comparable to Linux
and
>> supports most network clients better.
>
>since we're talking a server OS, don't we want to support network
>*servers* better and not clients? who cares if netscape looks better
>on NT than linux. what we really want to know is who can dole out
>webpages better, both faster and more reliably.
>
>and once we are talking service, NT is going to lose hard.
>
>apache runs better on linux than NT. apache blows MS's offering
>(what's it called, IIS?) away in speed, price and marketshare. samba
>runs better on linux than NT can do it's own filesharing protocol.
>NFS is better in linux than on NT. ftp servers (ftpd) are easier and
>work better in linux than NT. MTAs like qmail blow the crap out of
>exchange. the list just goes on and on.
>
>a final note, what about uptimes? linux is *much* more robust than
NT
>(unless you consider BSOD to be a debug mode and not downtime).
>
>--
> J o h a n K u l l s t a m
> [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesus Monroy, Jr.)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 23:27:54 GMT
ARGHHH, I hate this topix.
Here it is, Windoze sucks.
The Linux kernel is a mess (no disrespect to Linus intented).
FreeBSD works the best out of the three for:
o..........Multi-user enviroment administration
o..........Internet performance
o..........Network Server
o..........Development Platform
Windows is best for:
o..........Dummys
o..........Corporations that hire too many MBAs
o..........The Big Six
o..........Creating Hardware standards
Linux is best for:
o..........Meeting People
o..........Learning an OS, if you are from the MS-DOS world
o..........Finding ported drivers from odd hardware devices
o..........Meeting Chicks
On 28 Mar 1999 13:34:11 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Betz) wrote:
>Quoth Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>|In comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Colin Ling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>|: There are TWO multi-user NT products:
>|: WinFrame (for NT 3.51) from Citrix and Windows Terminal Server (for NT 4)
>|: from Microsoft.
>|
>| Have you actually used these products?
>|
>| I haven't used WinFrame (which is basically a 3rd party add on to
>| Terminal Server anyway),
>
>No, it isn't. You are thinking of Citrix MetaFrame. WinFrame is MetaFrame's
>predecessor, a multi-user OEM version of NT 3.51. Version 1.8 will add many
>of MetaFrame's existing features, but will not require Windows Terminal
>Server Edition.
>
>I run (among other things ) a Winframe 1.7 server at my office. It serves
>20 users (10 of them running heavy database/accounting apps, the other half
>Word/Excel) quite adequately over a 10 Mbps LAN on a dual Pentium Pro/200
>server with 128MB of RAM -- doubling the RAM would probably let it serve 30
>without too much perceived sluggishness, wexcept by the most Type-A users.
>Yes, Linux/X could probably serve 50; but Linux/X won't run Foxpro- or Delphi-
>developed apps, the constraints I was handed when I specified it in 1996.
>
>In the real world, you use the tool that gets the job done.
>
>| but I have used Windows NT Terminal Server
>| Edition. Expensive, scales like mud, slow as mud (hope you have a
>| FDDI ring or three to host it on), many (most?) apps don't run under
>| it (although you can buy "terminal versions" of (some of) them at
>| extra cost), platform dependent in the extreme (Windows-only
>| clients), etc...
>
>Largely, its sloth and scaling difficulties are improved by the addition
>of Metaframe, which adds the superb ICA protocol and practical clustering
>capability, as well as all the administration tools that Microsoft forgot.
>
>However, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the priceyness of the
>product. If the pricing were rationalized, this solution would sell
>a lot better. Citrix built its WinFrame pricing schedule in 1995, and
>hasn't adjusted it to fit the new world of cheap PCs. And Microsoft;
>well, its whole licensing approach to NT Server is sheer greedy lunacy,
>and it doesn't look like it will get much better any time soon.
>
>| Ok, I'm not being completely fair, as you can use Unix, Mac, etc
>| clients with it....If you choose to buy an even more stupidly
>| expensive product from another vender, MetaFrame, to run on top of
>| it...
>
>MetaFrame is also a Citrix product. And you can use the same Unix, Mac,
>etc. clients with WinFrame. This has helped me leverage our existing Mac
>investment (including a lot of older 680X0 Macs) for use as terminals.
>
>For future reference, if you are going to criticize something, it really
>helps to make sure that you know what you are talking about first.
>
>| "Multi-user" or not, give me X any day...
>
>ICA is largely based on X, and is much more efficient than X; I'd love to
>see the ICA protocol implemented on a Linux server, as a replacement for X.
>
>Proprietary as it is, though, I'm not holding my breath.
>
>--
>|We have tried ignorance | Tom Betz, Generalist |
>|for a very long time, and | Want to send me email? FIRST, READ THIS PAGE: |
>|it's time we tried education. | <http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/mailterms.shtml> |
>|<http://www.pobox.com/~tbetz> | YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY SPAM-ARMORED! |
--
I am not a bot.
------------------------------
From: "Jack Beatty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: sharing a monitor between two computers
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 16:12:20 -0500
Ramin Sina wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>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]
>
I have two systems at , I use linux and the wife and kids use windoze. The
box I have is called a data transfer switch. Its a manual device and as I
remember cost about $25. I have both the monitor and the keyboard hooked so
that both machines share them. I wouldn't recommend placing a mouse on the
box, linux doesn't seem to like it when the mouse is switched.
Jack
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
