Linux-Misc Digest #283, Volume #20 Fri, 21 May 99 00:13:08 EDT
Contents:
SO51 Installation fails!! HELP!! (Fred Kuipers)
IPFWADM failure to subnets ("Lars Larsen")
Re: IMAP Daemon not executing? (TurboLinux User)
Re: [Q] memory usage puzzle (Bruno Barberi Gnecco)
Re: Registry in Linux ??? ("Selious")
Re: New Linux WebSite ("Steve D. Perkins")
Re: A Capitalists view of freedom (Peter Seebach)
Re: PPP tantrums ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
AAAAAAAAAA shutup already!!!! (jik-)
Re: [Q] memory usage puzzle (Jean-Francois Landry)
WordPerfect gunzip (Jeff Busch)
need help to compile gs (benjamin)
Re: SETI comparisons ("Chester Raffoon")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Fred Kuipers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: SO51 Installation fails!! HELP!!
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 02:53:54 GMT
Greetings, all:
I just downloaded the (huge) so51 tarball. Unfortunately after the
glibc2 compatiblity check message, I get the following messages and
setup quits. What could be the problem. I'm running RH 5.9 (basically
RH 6.0) with kernel 2.2.3:
/tmp/sv001.tmp/startup.sh: /tmp/sv001.tmp/setup.bin: No such file or
directory
Any suggestions as to why I get this message??
FJK
------------------------------
From: "Lars Larsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.linux.isp,alt.os.linux.dial-up,alt.os.linux.slackware,comp.os.linux.networking,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: IPFWADM failure to subnets
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 22:55:52 -0400
Setup:
RH 5.2 box with 2 NIC's acting as our firewall using IPFWADM.
Local ethernet segment with 4 Subnets connected via T1's using Bay ASN and
AN routers.
Problem:
All users on all subnets can generally browse, telnet, ftp etc. without
problems. However, certain web sites are only "browsable" from the ethernet
segment connected to the inside interface of the firewall, but NOT on the
routed subnets!! Needless to say, there are several such hosts that we MUST
be able to reach!!
We are using class A private addresses on the inside network, subnetted as a
class B network:
10.20.0.0 255.255.0.0
10.21.0.0 255.255.0.0
etc. and we don't have routing problems in general.
Example of problem hosts:
www.compaq.com www.nec.com
Details:
These hosts cannot be ping'ed or traceroute'd to - even from a box connected
directly to the internet!!! I guess possibly indicating they are inside some
sort of DMZ behind a firewall (Checkpoint ??)
How do I solve this problem:
1) Is there a cure for my internal routers and/or IPFWADM params that I am
missing?
2) Will a proxy server such as Squid help here?
3) Do I need an application level firewall (TIS's FWTK) ..and if so where
does one find this now that TIS was taken over by Network Associates??
...or ?????
Please, send a reply directly via email in addition to posting.
Lars Larsen
------------------------------
From: TurboLinux User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IMAP Daemon not executing?
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 00:00:57 +1000
magnet wrote:
>
> I cannot seem to get Imap or pop3 to start on bootup, here is
> /etc/services:
>
> [snip]
>
> pop-3 110/tcp pop3
> pop-3 110/udp
>
> imap 143/tcp imap
> imap 143/udp imap
>
> [snip]
>
> here is /etc/inetd.conf:
>
> [snip]
>
> pop3 stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/ipop3d ipop3d
> imap stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/imapd imapd
>
> [snip]
>
> Also, should imap be listed in 'ps -A' if it is running?
inetd listens on all ports listed in inetd.conf. A 'netstat -a' will
confirm
this. When a call arrives to port 143, inetd will fork an imapd process.
Try
'telnet localhost imap' and you will get a message from IMAP.
Use ctrl-] and q to get out of telnet.
Inetd is essentially a way of minimising processes. Rather than having
lots of
daemons each listening on one port, inetd listens on lots of ports, and
kicks of
the appropriate server to handle the request. This can lead to
inefficiency if
requests are frequent, like http or mail, so servers for those types of
services
run all the time, and are started by /etc/rc.d scripts.
Regards, Frank Ranner
------------------------------
From: Bruno Barberi Gnecco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Q] memory usage puzzle
Date: 20 May 1999 09:08:01 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jerome Mrozak wrote:
>
> I have SuSE 6.1 distribution (Linux 2.2.5) installed on a 80MB RAM
> computer. Booting to the CLI, 'free' reports that 55MB is used, 25MB
> unused. I am not running any expensive daemons at this moment (for
> example, not running httpd or crond or lpd or atd, etc.).
> I understand that Linux can run in 16MB, ??MB, etc. Yet it is reporting
> 55MB used.
> * Is Linux simply using the memory to cache, and will release this
> memory overuse as other programs require it?
try ps -sux to see how much memory is being used by each program.
> * I'm thinking that when I run a GUI (Gnome, KDE) that it will want to
> eat memory. Will I start swapping to swap partition simply because my
> "kernel" is chewing my RAM?
The kernel usually chews less than 1mb of RAM...
> * Is my base setup configured wrong to use this much memory?
You maybe are reading "free" in the wrong way...
--
Did you *REALLY* check that interface between the chair and the keyboard?
Bruno Barberi Gnecco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ #1383173 - PGP 5.0i user
[I'm running Linux] -=-=- Electric Engineering at Politechnic School, USP
http://www.geocities.com/RodeoDrive/1980/ * Check for C, 3D graphics, etc
------------------------------
From: "Selious" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Registry in Linux ???
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 16:26:43 +0200
>"Lumping configuration data, security data, kernel tuning parameters,
>etc. into one monstrous fragile binary data structure is really dumb."
But can be the difference between linux and LINUX !!
------------------------------
From: "Steve D. Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Linux WebSite
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 09:56:33 -0400
> Send them an email that looks like it came from some anti-spam
> establishment,...like whoever is in charge of fining spammers.
Shit, if the government ever gets off its ass and CREATES such a thing... I'd
be more than happy to work for them myself!
Steve
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: A Capitalists view of freedom
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 03:01:30 GMT
In article <7i21o8$l90$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <suY03.599$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach) wrote:
>> Part of the problem is that, as the number of armed non-criminals
>goes up,
>> the number of people attacked by criminals goes down, so the number
>of people
>> killed violently may go down...
>This is contrary to the evidence.
No, it isn't. Go read the book.
>Instead, violence is escalated.
>Violent criminals act more violently in anticipation of violent
>responses. American's weirdly distorted perception that the way to
>stop violence is to be even more violent gives us kids shooting up
>their schools and a prison system bursting its seams.
These are essentially unrelated; we have a crowded prison system because
we spent years not trying so hard to discourage crime, then decided to try
to become tough on it suddenly.
>That scheme is a failure, and the jury is in. Unfortunately, the RTKBA
>drones ignore the verdict and instead argue that what we need is more
>killing, not less.
The way you get less killing is you make sure that there is not a huge
imbalance of power in the favor of people who want to kill.
It's like leadership. The worst leaders are people who want to be leaders.
-s
--
Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Will work for interesting hardware. http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: PPP tantrums
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 07:30:30 +0400
Gus,
BTW, I'm assigned a dynamic address from my ISP.
Ferdinand
gus wrote:
> In your ppp options, include the line:
> 212.72.2.80:212.72.1.1
>
> This sets the local:remote IP address.
>
> Check this with a "man pppd"
>
> gus
>
> Ferdinand V. Mendoza wrote:
> >
> > Folks, here's a bugger:
> >
> > A week back, my ppp connection was still perfect until recently
> > when I heard from a friend that my ISP was undergoing some
> > system upgrade and the reason at times I can't make a connection.
> > Just last night when the connection was back and my nightmare
> > started. I tried to dial my ISP as usual via my kppp and everything
> > seems to
> > be okay except that when I check the details of my kppp, the remote
> > IP address (ISP) is okay but the local address set, is my own IP
> > address I assigned for my hostname. This really baffles me. How come?
> >
> > // this is my /etc/hosts file: //
> >
> > 127.0.0.1 localhost
> > 192.168.53.1 wildfire.yibal wildfire
> >
> > // this is the message from my /var/log/messages //
> >
> > May 19 05:55:34 wildfire pppd[863]: local IP address 192.168.53.1
> > May 19 05:55:34 wildfire pppd[863]: remote IP address 212.72.1.2
> > May 19 05:55:42 wildfire pppd[863]: Terminating on signal 15.
> > May 19 05:55:42 wildfire pppd[863]: Connection terminated.
> >
> > As you can see from above 212.72.1.2 is my ISP's IP address.
> > I can't do any Interneting at all with these.
> >
> > Now, I tried to experiment with putting a comment on the line ...
> >
> > # 192.168.53.1 wildfire.yibal wildfire
> >
> > in my /etc/hosts to disable this temporarily.
> >
> > When I reconnected and my log looked like these;
> >
> > May 19 18:46:35 wildfire pppd[1076]: pppd 2.3.5 started by buddy, uid
> > 500
> > May 19 18:46:35 wildfire pppd[1076]: Using interface ppp0
> > May 19 18:46:35 wildfire pppd[1076]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/ttyS1
> > May 19 18:46:44 wildfire pppd[1076]: Remote message:
> > May 19 18:46:45 wildfire kernel: PPP BSD Compression module registered
> > May 19 18:46:45 wildfire kernel: PPP Deflate Compression module
> > registered
> > May 19 18:46:48 wildfire pppd[1076]: local IP address 212.72.2.80
> > May 19 18:46:48 wildfire pppd[1076]: remote IP address 212.72.1.1
> >
> > See! I can be assigned a local IP address from my ISP and my Internet
> > connection is back to normal.
> >
> > My problem now is that my /etc/hosts file is altered and it also
> > cripples my Samba stuff. Is there a remedy for this small problem?
> > Do I have to make changes to my /etc/ppp/options file now that
> > I suspect that it has to do with my ISP's upgrade.
> > So many thanks in advance.
> >
> > Ferdinand
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > See no Microsoft.
> > Hear no Microsoft.
> > Speak no Microsoft.
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 20:11:15 -0700
From: jik- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: aus.computers.linux
Subject: AAAAAAAAAA shutup already!!!!
God I hate this argument,...next person to mention GNU/Linux vs Linux is
going to get their head caved in :P
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jean-Francois Landry)
Subject: Re: [Q] memory usage puzzle
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 03:30:03 GMT
Once upon a time, Jerome Mrozak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bruno Barberi Gnecco wrote:
>>
>> Jerome Mrozak wrote:
>> >
>> > I have SuSE 6.1 distribution (Linux 2.2.5) installed on a 80MB RAM
>> > computer. Booting to the CLI, 'free' reports that 55MB is used, 25MB
>> > unused. I am not running any expensive daemons at this moment (for
>> > example, not running httpd or crond or lpd or atd, etc.).
>> > I understand that Linux can run in 16MB, ??MB, etc. Yet it is reporting
>> > 55MB used.
>From my machine (48MB RAM P100 Debian Linux 2.1 with 2.2.6 kernel)
Output of free:
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 47308 46052 1256 8164 16780 12160
-/+ buffers/cache: 17112 30196
Swap: 64224 1128 63096
Look at the -/+ buffers/cache line: the number under used is the amount of
memory your machine is using if we take out the buffers and cache info, so right
now it's eating up nearly 17MB of mem (I have a couple of processes running).
Note that this doesn't count kernel memory by you can always substract "total"
from the real amount in your machine or run "dmesg|head|grep Memory".
The general idea is that unused memory is wasted memory, so the kernel will
allocate all free memory to cache and buffers (and deallocate it as needed).
Hope this helps,
Jean-Francois Landry
--
"...to raise a signal means to turn the light on; ... Responding to a
signal means turning the light off (and, under System V, hoping the
bulb won't blow when it's next turned on)..."
--- Dan Bernstein
--
------------------------------
From: Jeff Busch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: WordPerfect gunzip
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 02:38:07 GMT
I downloaded Corel WP8 (guilg00.gz) and when I try to gunzip I get the
message "not in gzip format". I clicked on "download now" and
downloaded the file. After the download was complete I saved the file
to a temporary directory for unzipping. This process has worked for
other ".gz / tar.gz" files. I don't understand the problem I'm having
with Corel. If anyone can help I would greatly appreciate it.
Thank You very much in advance,
Jeff
------------------------------
From: benjamin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: need help to compile gs
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 18:26:19 +0200
Hello,
i am trying to compile gs in order to add a drier for my printer.
to build it, i had to install libpng et zlib.
But now, when i do make , i get the error message:
gdevpng.c:255: conflicting types for 'png_push_fill_buffer'
png.h:2021: previous declaration of 'png_push_fill_buffer'
make: *** [gdevpng.o] Error 1
Thank you for helping.
Benjamin
runing Linux Kernel 2.2.4
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Chester Raffoon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SETI comparisons
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 23:00:21 -0400
I've been running setiathome on three different systems:
P2-350/128 MB Win98: ~34 elapsed hours per dataset
P2-350/128MB NT4: ~28 CPU hours per dataset
PPro-200/128MB Linux 2.2/Redhat 6.0: ~17 CPU hours per dataset
The Win98 box is running nothing else, so elapsed about equals CPU time
(which Win98 does not really keep track of on a per process basis).
The NT box is running setiathome at "low" priority in the background. Since
NT keeps track of CPU time, we can still measure actual CPU cycles even
though I'm doing a bunch of other stuff on the box. Response is excellent
with setiathome running at "low" priority, as it happily gobbles up the
"loose" CPU ticks. This really shows how poorly Win95/98 handles
multi-tasking of compute bound tasks - NT does it quite well if you use the
Task Manager to adjust priorities, although the granularity of the
adjustment is poor.
The Linux box is running nothing other than X and Gnome, but otherwise I'm
leaving it alone. It is absolutely smoking the NT and Win98 boxes, even
though it is "only" a 200 Mhz Pentium Pro. Response when I do fiddle around
with other apps is excellent - easily as good as the NT box.
Caveat: The Linux setiathome is version 1.1, the Win32 app is version 1.0.
Maybe there's a major internal difference? I dunno, but the difference in
the throughput here is astounding, so much so that it is suspicious. NT is
not the brainchild of Bill Gates, but rather David Cutler, and you VAX/VMS
fossils out there (me included) know that this guy is no dope when it comes
to OS design ... something about the Win32 setiathome code is just not
right. I've emailed the setiathome folks with my results, no response so
far. No "Microsoft simply sucks, you blind dumbass" flames please.
This is certainly an interesting processor & operating system test. Take my
advice - don't try it on your old Pentium laptop ... it takes over a _week_
to run!
< respond to group - name and email address cloaked to avoid SPAM >
Carl Hilinski wrote in message <37437264$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>For those of you who don't know, you can participate in the Search for
>Extraterrestrial Intelligence (God knows you won't find any of that around
>here) by going to http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu. What you get is a
>107-second chunk of space chatter for your computer to chomp on while it's
>not working for you.
>
>It's quite an eye-opener as related to processors and computing power. My
>350PII with 64mb took 43 hours to work on this running Win98. My Linux box,
>running a Cyrix 233MMX with 64mb, took only 23 hours to do its chunk.
>
>I'm curious if anyone else is running this and what kind of results they
are
>seeing.
>
>ch
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
