Linux-Misc Digest #332, Volume #19 Sat, 6 Mar 99 12:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: How I want to configure my office (gus)
Re: More bad news for NT (Harry)
Re: user web pages (Bob)
Re: PCMCIA Cardservices & SuSE 6.0 (Geoff Allsup)
imap 4.x compilation issues (Bill Sanchez)
Re: StarOffice anyone?? (Ivan Bilenjkij)
Re: Linux Wannabe: which distribution? (Warrior)
Simple smail config question (Allen Ashley)
Re: Can Linux use 36-bit Xeon addressing? (Robert Krawitz)
Re: MCSE preparation exams (PRice)
Re: Linux Versions (jik-)
Re: Sound Blaster 32 PnP Problems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
UTMP-file? (Armin Wenz)
Re: Is Red Hat 5.2 worth fifty notes? (Pete)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How I want to configure my office
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 14:43:32 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
O'Neill wrote:
>
> On 5 Mar 1999 03:41:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Hahn) wrote:
>
> >On 03 Mar 1999 10:40:52 PST, O'Neill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>I have a small office providing professional services. Currently, we
> >>have five desktop computers linked on an ethernet (bnp) network. [snip]
> >If you have the networking part down, I would think you are the biggest
> >part of the way there.
>
> I agree, and that's what I need help with. the windows machines are
> all networked, but I don't have much functionality with the network
> when I'm in linux. Not only that, but I haven't even begun to figure
> out how to drive my printers. From what I've seen so far, printing is
> just downright baffling, though I'm sure that with 10 or 15 hours of
> work I would understand it, etc. The thing is that the time is hard
> to find.
>
> I also want to set up internal email and other such things. Maybe
> even an intranet? Anyway, I appreciate your response and ideas.
> Frankly, I kinda thought I would get more replies, but I'll try the
> links you suggested.
>
> Thanks again.
What a pity I am not in NY .... ;-)
What you are actually looking for is a person with a couple of months of
Samba experience, and the energy and patience to teach somone in site.
If I was in NY I would happily come in for a few hours up to a weekend
at about 40 dollars per hour for the initial setup. This should really
not take more than a few hours to get to grips with the environment, a
couple of hours to install a PC and recompile the kernels if necessary
then a couple more hours to set up Samba and the usernames and passwords
etc. There is always an inevitable glitch which will add time, but it
should all be doable in a weekend. Then a couple of hours to explain to
yourself what has been done (If you did not sit in while it was
happening), and then an offer of free on-site same night (after hours)
support should anything be wrong for the next week.
Obviously I could "charge" that because I would be happy to, more
commercial support would be more expensive, I imagine.
Anyway, that is the sort of person you need. Someone who has passed the
learning curve, but can help you to cut the time of your learning curve.
You then end up supporting it once the glitches are out.
That is what I would look for. My expectation is that it should all be
doable in a day, but I know computers well enough to give two days at
least.
All in all, I guess it would cost you a day (8 hours) and $320.
Bargain.
gus
------------------------------
From: Harry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More bad news for NT
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 09:13:15 -0500
> 95/98 are clones of the Mac and all the other GUI's that came way
> before Win 3.1/95/98. The Mac, GEM, GeoWorks on the Commodore
> 64/128 first, then the ... blah, blah, blah
How does the potted history of the GUI show that Windows 95 isn't
easy to use?
I just love this type of rant: "Windows isn't easier to use than
Linux, which doesn't have the burden of a built-in GUI, and in any
case it's just a copy of a Mac GUI and GEM was much better than
Windows anyway, blah, blah, blah".
Ever heard of Great Bores of Today?
Harry
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
From: Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: user web pages
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 22:49:04 +0800
try looking for the UserDir option in the srm.conf file
On Thu, 18 Feb 1999, D E G wrote:
> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:53:02 -0500
> From: D E G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.networking, comp.os.linux.misc
> Subject: user web pages
>
> i know this is supposed to be really simple, but i'm having major
> problems seting up user web pages (ie www.../~user =
> /home/user/public_html). i'm running apache on rh5.2
>
> here is an excerpt from my access.conf file:
> <Directory /home/*/public_html>
> Order allow,deny
> Allow from 128.59.
> Options Indexes Includes ExecCGI FollowSymLinks
> AllowOverride None
> </Directory>
>
> whenever i try to access the page i get:
> Forbidden
>
> You don't have permission to access /~user/ on this server
>
> (and yes i do have the proper permissions set on the files)
>
> anyone have any ideas?
>
> tia.
>
> D E G
> --
>
> Remove "_nospam_" to reply.
> Sorry for the inconvenience, but desperate times call for desperate
> measures.
>
>
>
>
Bob PHILLIPS
Partner/System Administrator
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | ISP to the nor'west of Western Australia
| http://www.norcom.net.au
Yes, I am on the interthingy | If it aint broke, fix it, then it will be
==========================================================================
Pilbara Systems PO Box 2762 SOUTH HEDLAND WA 6722 AUSTRALIA
==========================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Allsup)
Subject: Re: PCMCIA Cardservices & SuSE 6.0
Date: 5 Mar 1999 14:35:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 03 Mar 1999 16:43:03 -0500, David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have pcmcia-cs-3.0.8 installed on a laptop computer with SuSE 6.0.
>My problem is that the cardservices is installed _after_ networking
>trys to initialize. This causes networking to fail becuase the NIC
>hasn't been turned on yet.
>
>How do I make cardservices load earlier in the boot sequence so that I
>don't have to manually restart networking?
>
not sure how SuSe does its initialization, but somewhere in /etc/rc.d
there should be scripts to start stuff - look there to see where things
happen and move/edit as necessary...
geoff
******************************************************************
Geoff Allsup Upper Ocean Processes Group
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole, MA, USA
******************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bill Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,alt.os.linux.slackware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: imap 4.x compilation issues
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 10:54:58 -0500
ug. So, I wanted to avoid sending my cleartext passwd to my pop
server every time I checked my mail...sniffers being so common these
days. I did some research, and found that the only reasonable, non-
commercial solution is using imap, with md5 authentication
compiled in. So I doenload the latest imap source from wash. univ,
and get busy.
2 days later, I'm still confused. Sadly the source docs are...
let's say, sparse. I'm using libc5 btw...for which there is
explicit support in the source. I can compile a vanilla imapd,
with no modifications to the Makefile. While this binary does
indeed run, it doesn't recognize any of my usernames as an
authorized login. read, re-read docs, did everything the same
3 times, no good.
So, whatever, I figure, I wanted md5 authentication anyway. I
follow the docs to the letter, 6 times, and the code just chokes
on compile. It hits the authentication source and dies a
grisly, noisy death, with complaints about copious redefinitions.
I tried looking under the hood of the code, but any changes
I made to what I thought might be the problem just tends to make
different compilation errors, but errors just the same.
I'm confounded that such a widely used protocol and daemon
is giving me this much of a hard time...does anyone have
imap experience? Or do you have a different mail authentication
system I could use instead?
(PS "use ssl" and similar responses won't help...please let
me know of specific implementations!)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 01:55:06 -0500
From: Ivan Bilenjkij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: StarOffice anyone??
chips wrote:
>
> > Check the file permissions. If it has no executable permissions, it won't be
> > considered as a command.
> >
>
> I changed the permissions, but still no luck.
>
> For a little more background... I copied the so501_01.tar file to a new directory
>(/root/Star)
> before I decompressed it. During the installation I let it install to it's default
>directory
> (/root) where it created a directory called Office50 and a file called StarOffice
>(which I can't
> figure out anything about...can't exec it..can't read it). I'm running Redhat 5.2
>and in the
> README it said that I already had the libraries needed to install StarOffice. Don't
>know if this
> info will help or not...
>
> Craig
The proper way:
0. # $WHERE_YOU_UNTARRED_OFFICE/so_50/bin/setup /net (so that each
family member has its own settings)
0.1 select /usr/local/Office50 as an installation directory
1. # create a new user(named chips for example)
2. $ /usr/local/Office50/bin/setup
or the other way:
$ /root/Office/bin/soffice
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Warrior)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Linux Wannabe: which distribution?
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 08:10:14 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <7bqpqv$9uk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: "Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Linux Wannabe: which distribution?
> Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net
> I spent a couple of hours reading Linux books in Barnes & Noble today. I'm
> sold on trying Linux, but can't seem to figure out whether to go for
> Slackware or Red Hat, both of which had several good books with CDROM's
> included. Or Debian, which my friend has chosen and recommended but Debian
> wasn't specifically dealt with in any of the books I could find.
Well, I don't wanna start another "what's the best distro" flame war here, but I
personally prefer RedHat, I have
heard that S.U.S.E is pretty good too.
> Or should I just start out with the Moron's Guide or the Idiot's Guide to
> Linux?
I'd recommend "Running Linux" book published by O'Reilly.
> Thanks very much. Since my mail server is not reliable, I'd appreciate an
> email copy of your reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Bye, Warrior.
ICQ# 24496762
Tagline for Saturday, March 06, 1999
--- If all goes well, you've overlooked something!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Allen Ashley)
Subject: Simple smail config question
Date: 5 Mar 1999 15:04:46 GMT
I want to be able to send mail with the sender name different
from my login name. smail offers the config statement:
sender_env_variable
that seems to allow me to define an environment variable
and use that as my sender name. I define MAILNAME
and export that. I include
sender_env_variable=MAILNAME
but my mail always originates from root when I am so
logged in. What am I missing?
------------------------------
From: Robert Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Can Linux use 36-bit Xeon addressing?
Date: 05 Mar 1999 10:09:15 -0500
Mark Mokryn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Depending on the architecture of Linux (which I am not familiar with), this
> may or may not be a ton of work. But in any case, from what I've heard in
> this discussion, Linux cannot even utilize more than 1 or 2 GB (depending who
> you ask) of physical memory, on ANY architecture. Why? This will seriously
> hurt Linux in the server arena.
Just to make it clear, this is what I'm advocating -- allowing the
kernel to use the full amount of physical memory -- not to allow
programs to play segmentation games.
As I understand it, the kernel at present maps all of physical memory
into the kernel's virtual address space. The kernel reserves about 1
GB for its own use. By default, it allows 2 GB address space for each
process, which leaves 1 GB of address space for RAM. This can be
tuned by tweaking a header file and recompiling the kernel, but the
upshot is that there's a linear tradeoff between largest process
address space and maximum usable RAM (so a common tradeoff is 1 GB
address space and 2 GB RAM).
2 GB RAM is a satisfactory virtual address space for a single process
for most purposes, but 1 or 2 GB RAM is not a satisfactory upper limit
on RAM today.
(One possibility might be to configure the extra RAM as a RAM disk and
swap to it. This isn't completely satisfactory either, since a
particular job mix might well need more VM total than the amount of
RAM. The right idea here would be to use multi-level paging of some
sort where pages are first kicked out to the RAM disk and only then to
other swap spaces. Then there's the whole issue of how to cache pages
from memory mapped files.)
--
Robert Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.tiac.net/users/rlk/
Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PRice)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: MCSE preparation exams
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 1999 16:22:16 GMT
I agree, but its a minimal investment for potentially a 10-20k payoff
in salary. A semi-experienced NT/Network person doing self-study can
do it in about 6 to 8 months. You're only out the cost of the books
and tests. I think both the CNE and MCSE are over rated, but in my
case, 2 previous employers gave me huge increases in salary and
promotions just because of them.
P
On Sat, 06 Mar 1999 10:39:33 +0100, Raymond Doetjes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I agree Tim.
>
>MCSE is just a commercial stunt to make money. They do learn alot but it
>is just stupid learning work. They don't learn howto troubleshoot a
>problem nor do the really know the background of processes.
>They know where to click but that is that. The don't know why things
>work the way they do so they probably never go out and ask the right
>questions. I think that is the most important thing in the I.T. This way
>you can always ask for the help from a person whoms field it is. Most of
>the MCSE people I know feel like they are god, but in fact they don't
>know ass much as the say they do. ANd instead of asking a question they
>just go out and fiddle on their own since they are to pride to ask since
>they are MCSE certified. Then again I may have given them the answer
>straight away.
>
>Raymond
------------------------------
From: jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Versions
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 07:06:06 -0800
Ralf Heger wrote:
>
> Helmut Nachbauer wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to try linux - yes ! but ...
> >
> > there are different linux versions like S.u.S.E, Debian, RedHat....
> > furthermore with various Version-numbers ...
>
> These are not linux versions. What you are talking about are the various
> distributions of linux.
> You probably think of the linux kernel version. Thats currently 2.0.36
> if
> I'm not mistaken. And that is the one that will be included in all the
> distributions.
Most Linux distributions have version numbers...that is likely what he
is talking about....
BTW, the current linux kernel is 2.2.2 but it is not on distros yet.
My advice, get the latest distro version available for the distro you
choose...distro version numbers do not compare well so don't be thinking
somehting like "RedHat is more advanced then slackware because it is 5.2
and slackware is just 3.6"...the versions have nothing to do with each
other.
>
> >
> > Please help me !
> >
> > With which Linux Product should I start ?
>
> If you want to get started with linux, S.u.S.E. is the distribution
> which
> will give you not too much grief, since it is the one with quite
> streight
> forward configuration tools like yast and sax.
> More experienced users are not to keen on S.u.S.E. for the reason
> that they are to restricted in manipulating configuration files.
Actually, though I liked SuSE as a distro, I did not like the install
procedure very much. It wasn't much better then RedHat's.
>
> > What are the major differences between the miscellaneous products ?
>
> At the end of the day it is a personal decision.
> My recommendation would be S.u.S.E. to get started.
Actually I found that most distributions are generally the same, with a
couple of exeptions, and some minor differences. Some come with Gnome,
some with KDE, some without a desktop environment....many use RedHat's
install, some have come up with thier own. Out of all setups, some are
easy for some people and hard for others....some give you configuration
choices to choose from, some expect you to check off certain
packages....some have a variety of different ways to do it.
Out of all the installs, my experience sais Debian is the hardest and
Slackware the easiest. Actually, Slackware's may not be the "easiest"
because if you pick a configuration, the others can be quite a
breeze....but if you don't, you have to run through a very long list of
packages and programs and it tells you nothing about what they are.
Slackware has an install procedure you can pick that gives a summary of
what each package does,...it takes hours to install that way though, I
use the menu system now (I know what I need already) and it takes me
about 20 minutes total.
Most distros come with a package manager of some sort...actually all of
them do afaik. Some are more powerful then others, but mostly I don't
use them. I only have real experience with RPM and slackwar's tools
which I like better, they are easier to use but do less.
One of the most drastic differences is the init procedure....if SuSE had
used Slackware's init setup I might have kept it, but instead it uses
what most the others use...which I find to be entirely spagetti like,
with various shell scripts taking arguments which I didn't want to get
into....there are config programs for modifying the init and what
program starts when, but I was unable to find one that would add a new
program to the procedure. With slackware doing any of it is a
breeze,...open the file for the runlevel,...add or adjust
programs...save file..nothing to it.
In summary I would say, that with the exeption of some minor
differences, only Debian and Slackware are much different. Debian just
uses a very different setup and a different package manager is
all...Slackware is actually VERY different. Everyone else is pretty
much just variants of RedHat, with minor differences like I said. Most
of them even use the same setup program and have all the same tools.
Stampede may be more like Slack, but it is not stable...its not for a
newbie to try. SuSE has its own setup that works a lot 'like' RedHat's,
and it comes with KDE....its still an rpm based distro and uses the same
init...but it doesn't come with command panel or glint, it has YaST
which reminded me kind of the Slackware pkgtool.
Slackware is a smaller distribution then most the others (any that come
on CD) and is more for the person who wants to work close to the
system. It doesn't have those flashy tools like rpm and command panel.
But it does have its own minimalistic package setup, you CAN install rpm
if you really want, and really you don't need those flashy tools at
all. It does require some time to get the system to have what you want,
it only comes with so many things and you have to get, compile, and
install the rest. I think this leaves you with a system more suited to
your own needs myself.
I haven't boughten any of the "official" distro sets. I have bought a
few CDs from linuxmall and downloaded RH and Slackware several times. I
don't know what comes in a full set of any of them really. I learned on
Slackware and then tried many of the others and never found one quite as
good. Other opinions may,...and do, vary.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Sound Blaster 32 PnP Problems
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 15:12:11 GMT
On Sat, 13 Feb 1999 00:23:13 -0200, Rodrigo Castro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I have a SoundBlaster 32 PnP that always worked on Linux. When I
>upgraded to kernel 2.2.0 it was still working but now I realized that it
>cannot play MP3 anymore. It starts play and stops (with X11amp). I tried
>another program, maplay3, and it still stops but in /var/log/messages I
>have a message of DMA Timeout...IRQ/DRQ Error?. I changed configurations
>several times. Now I put an old sound card (SB16 non-PnP) and it works
>just fine (using same config as previous card). What may be
>happening? I know it's something related to Plug & Play stuff, but I do
>not know what.
>Any idea? ;-)
>
I just went thru a similar problem with Suse6 and the 2.2.1 kernel.
Sound would start and stop and sound choppy.
The problem was a conflict with the printer port.
It seems to me that the 2.2.1 kernel switches the irq around
for /dev/lp1 and /dev/lp0. Under the old system, /dev/lp1
used irq7, but with 2.2.1 /dev/lp0 uses irq7.
So, this is what I did.
1. Go into bios setup, and make sure your parallel port
is set to use irq7. And then when you setup your printer
in linux, tell it your printer is on /dev/lp0.
2. Make sure your /etc/isapnp.conf file sets up the awe32
to use irq5.
3. Put the proper entries in /etc/conf.modules for the
awe32.
======================================================
conf.modules entry:
========================================================
alias char-major-14 sound
alias sound sb
options sb io=0x220 irq=5 dma=1 dma16=5 mpu_io=0x330
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Armin Wenz)
Subject: UTMP-file?
Date: 4 Mar 1999 15:10:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
when starting emacs and doing the first keystroke I get an
errormessage like:
while opening UTMP-File: No such file or directory
Lately I got the same Error when booting from my Boot-Disc
Can anybody tell me, what this UTMP-File is and where it should be -
or better, what does this Error-messi (really) mean?
--
Armin
------------------------------
From: Pete <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Red Hat 5.2 worth fifty notes?
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 15:16:23 +0000
Harry wrote:
>
> Apologies to non-UK readers...
>
> My local bookshop, Mahler's in Newbury, is selling boxed copies of
> Red Hat 5.2 for fifty squid (about eighty dollars). As I'm running
> 5.1 and would like upgrade to 5.2 for it's (I'm told) better PCI
> support etc, I'm considering the investment.
>
> But is it worth it? A quick shake of the celophane-wrapped box
> reaved it to contain printed documentation, CD-ROM(s), and loose
> bits of paper (probably registration) - is extra stuff from what
> you'd get from a download worth the money?
>
> Harry
If you want to save yourself a tenner, try looking at the Linux Emporium
at:
http://WWW.LINUX-EMPORIUM.CO.UK/prices.html
Boxed set for 42 quid. What you get in the box (or at least, what I got
with RH5.1 box) is three CD's, one with the RH distribution, one with
all the source on (haven't really used that one at all) and one with a
pile of the more common apps that aren't on the first CD.
There's no p&p to add on to that price either, and you can also include
an order for some other CD's too, I got myself an image of a ftp site on
three CD's with even more apps.
Pete
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
