Linux-Misc Digest #465, Volume #21 Thu, 19 Aug 99 18:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: *nix vs. MS security (evil)
Re: Cracks for Linux? ("Brian")
Re: HELP: IRQ resetting problem..?? (Frederic Pont)
Re: 3rd hdisk and slow boot (Jayan M)
Re: Corel WordPerfect 8 question (Bert)
Netscape & Java ("Scott W. Kinkele")
Re: Troll (was: why not C++?) (Rainer Joswig)
Re: Why did RMS adopt Unix? (and other questions) (Michael Coughlin)
Re: *nix vs. MS security (evil)
LANG and Mutt: garbled characters (Indicatrix)
Re: Problems compiling 2.2.11 kernel (kernel upgrade fro 2.0.36) (Peter Gavin)
Re: Where can I find Xfree86 3.3.4 to download? help, please ("Dr. Rajiv Srinivasa")
vgagl and svgalib question... ("Trevor Holt")
Re: Accessing Linux from NT (Neil Walters)
Re: Small Linux Server Distribution? (Collin W. Hitchcock)
Re: Dose this ng have a faq? (Collin W. Hitchcock)
Re: *nix vs. MS security (David C.)
Re: Can OS/2 users grow up and think like Linux users? (was: Can I switch from OS/2
to Linux and be happy?) (e-frog)
Re: Why did RMS adopt Unix? (and other questions) (Doug DeJulio)
Re: Cracks for Linux? (Bill Pitz)
problems with BSD-style TTYs ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Comparison needed: *BSD vs. Linux (Sasa Babic)
Re: Can I switch from OS/2 to Linux and be happy? (John Hong)
Re: What I think of linux. (WorLord)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (evil)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.security
Subject: Re: *nix vs. MS security
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:54:36 GMT
Reply-To: me
18 Aug 1999 22:55:09 +0200 / Oystein Viggen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Andre Kostur wrote:
>
>> Off-Topic: Ask Microsoft what they're running Hotmail off of.
>
>Heck, ask them what they were running some of their bigger web-servers
>off of before people discovered... :)
Heh.. they TRIED to run Hotmail on NT, but it couldn't handle it...
lol
>
>Oystein
>--
>"But you know what they say - The world wasn't built in a day"
==========
martin
.
evil
------------------------------
From: "Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Cracks for Linux?
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:52:33 -0700
Shouldn't it be luser?
(Linux USER)
;^)
Best regards,
Brian
Lew Pitcher wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
>speling waz nefer mi best subjict
------------------------------
From: Frederic Pont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: HELP: IRQ resetting problem..??
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 18:08:31 GMT
If you have a PCI NIC, configuring IRQ in conf.modules is useless..
Fred
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Avijit Purkayastha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> When my eth0 is being configured, the wrong IRQ address is looked at.
I
> physically set it in /etc/conf.modules
> with the correct IRQ address, but the script is not reading that i.e.
> `modprobe' still looks at the wrong original
> values even though conf.modules has been changed. `modprobe -c' shows
> the correct value. What is over-riding
> the correct values, and what other conf files should be edited to
> correct this problem? I am using kernel
> 2.2.9-19mdk (Mandrake linux). I am setting it in conf.modules as
> "options eth0 irq=3"
>
> Appreciate any suggestions towards this.
> Thanks in advance
> -- Avi
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Jayan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 3rd hdisk and slow boot
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:00:49 GMT
The output certainly does not show the third harddisk as
a slave drive. If it were slave to the cdrom drive, the information
shown as hdc would show up under hdd. Looks like there is
a hardware setting problem for the second IDE channel.
Check the jumper setting for the CDROM and the third
harddisk - Maybe 'Cable Select' is the option and you have
a wrong cable type, so both of them are trying to show up
as master (or slave). Select the jumpers on both drives to
explicitly choose one as the master and other as the slave.
Then the problem should go away..
Jayan
"john w. connolly" wrote:
> I installed a third hard disk on a Dell Optiplex XMT 120 as a slave to
> the cdrom some months ago. The system runs fine but boot time is over 5
> minutes. This has not been a problem until now but I am going to move
> the box to a place where it will be turned on and off regularly. As a
> result of earlier advice I changed the master/slave relationship between
> the 3rd drive and the cd drive but that has had no effect on boot time.
> The output of fdisk -l is:
>
> bash# fdisk -l
>
> Disk /dev/hda: 64 heads, 63 sectors, 525 cylinders
> Units = cylinders of 4032 * 512 bytes
>
> Device Boot Begin Start End Blocks Id System
> /dev/hda1 * 1 1 524 1056352+ 6 DOS 16-bit >=32M
>
> Disk /dev/hdb: 64 heads, 63 sectors, 621 cylinders
> Units = cylinders of 4032 * 512 bytes
>
> Device Boot Begin Start End Blocks Id System
> /dev/hdb1 1 1 51 102784+ 6 DOS 16-bit >=32M
> /dev/hdb2 52 52 604 1114848 83 Linux native
> /dev/hdb3 605 605 613 18144 82 Linux swap
> /dev/hdb4 614 614 621 16128 82 Linux swap
> The number of cylinders for this disk is set to 16383.
> This is larger than 1024, and may cause problems with:
> 1) software that runs at boot time (e.g., LILO)
> 2) booting and partitioning software form other OSs
> (e.g., DOS FDISK, OS/2 FDISK)
>
> Disk /dev/hdc: 16 heads, 63 sectors, 16383 cylinders
> Units = cylinders of 1008 * 512 bytes
>
> Device Boot Begin Start End Blocks Id System
> /dev/hdc1 1 1 2000 1007968+ 83 Linux native
> /dev/hdc2 1024 2001 16383 7249032 83 Linux native
> Warning: invalid flag 0000 of partition table 4 will be corrected by
> w(rite)
>
> Disk /dev/hdd: 16 heads, 63 sectors, 16383 cylinders
> Units = cylinders of 1008 * 512 bytes
>
> Device Boot Begin Start End Blocks Id System
>
> Thanks for your help.
> JWC
------------------------------
From: Bert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel WordPerfect 8 question
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 14:41:37 -0500
Try running the program logged in as "root" Sometimes programs need files
that only root has permisions to create. (Although everyone may have
permission to update.
L Hill wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm using RedHat 6.0 (intel) and Corel Wordperfect 8 but everytime I
> try to do a spellcheck, the spellcheck window briefly appears and then
> closes itself out! Has anyone else experienced this problem or know how
> to fix it? Please help!!
>
> Thanks,
> Luke
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Scott W. Kinkele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Netscape & Java
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 18:19:41 +0000
I am running RH6.0 & Linux 2.2.10-ac5. When using Netscape Communicator
4.61 and accessing a page that uses Java Netcape exits. It doesn't do a
core dump it just exists. Anyone have any idea why this occurs?
Thanks,
Scott
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rainer Joswig)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Troll (was: why not C++?)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:51:07 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stephan Houben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rainer Joswig) writes:
>
>
> > A Lisp users says: I don't care what language the kernel
> > is written in, as long as it is Lisp.
>
> IMHO, a supposedly "general purpose OS" should do more than
> just please the Lisp users. (Any estimates of the precentage
> of the programming community which consider themselves
> Lisp users?)
Sure, you could use Pascal, C, Prolog, Ada and Fortran
on a Lisp Machine. What was your point?
> > The difference between a Lisp machine and a Linux
> > system is huge. The Lisp Machine has an open, incrementally
> > changeable and dynamic OS. The OS is written in a
> > pure OOP style. That means that things like
> > IP-Packets or Processes are objects. And operations
> > on them are implemented as methods.
>
> But all this could be provided by a Lisp library which interfaces
> with the underlying OS.
Unfortunately the underlying OS then is written in a
low-level langauge. You won't get the dynamic behaviour.
You won't get the expressivity of Lisp. You won't
get the object-oriented structuring, ...
> Have the Linux kernel start up a Lisp
> interpreter
Btw., although the Lisp machine had an interpreter, the
interpreter was only used during development. All
the code was/is compiled to native code. Today's
Lisp systems have optimizing native code compilers
to the usual RISC or CISC chips.
> directly after booting and presto: your Lisp OS is
> ready to run. You can then write a GUI or whatever in Lisp and
> have *that* executed on startup.
Yeah, but the OS is not written in Lisp - this is a big difference.
> Of course, the advantage that this gives you from just running
> a Lisp interpreter from the shell is debatable. At least, you can
> pretend you're not using Linux...
I have that today. But on my Lisp machine I type
Edit Definition process:timer
and I'm editing the source code for timed processes.
I can write subclasses of that with different behaviours,
etc. There is nothing between my classes and the
hardware. The Lisp Machine is basically a huge
object machine.
> Now I think of it, there's also a C++ interpreter floating around
> somewhere. So the same technique could be used to create a "C++ OS",
> thereby answering the question of the original poster.
The point of a Lisp OS is not to have an interpreter. I'm
a Lisp developer and I have never had that much
need to use an interpreter in the last ten years. Instead
all my code is incrementally compiled.
A Lisp system is the ultimate in dynamic changeability
and debuggability. Unless you have **live** debugged stuff
like NFS mounts, you won't hardly understand what
this stuff is about. It is the ultimate hacker's machine.
All code a keypress away, tools tightly integrated,
excellent integrated documentation facilities, not the multitude of
stupid scripting languages, a real graphical and
mousable command interpreter, reusable OS facilities,
on the fly compilation, on the fly updating of change
objects, ...
------------------------------
From: Michael Coughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Why did RMS adopt Unix? (and other questions)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 16:46:54 -0400
Russ Allbery wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss, Michael Coughlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But Unix and C were literary masterpieces. They were to computer
> > programming as Shakespeare was to English.
> Hm. I really don't agree with this either. Unix and C have been as
> successful as they are precisely because they're *not* literary
> masterpieces; they're flexible, low-level, and easy to port, and they
> expose a lot of the hardware to people who need the operating system
> not to hide the details they need to get work done.
> LISP or Smalltalk or the like is a lot closer to a literary
> masterpiece than Unix is. Unix is more like a plumber's helper.
Using the term "literary masterpiece" in connection with
computer languages and system programming is streaching the
meaning of the term a lot. Lets just say I'm using poetic
license. But I'm also thinking of a comparison with what was
used at Bell Labs when Unix was being invented,
circa 1970. This was in the days of punched cards, IBM JCL,
FORTRAN IV,
Snobol, time sharing systems that crashed before you could get
anything done, and Multics that never even was finished. Compare
Unix and C with those things. LISP and Smalltalk were probably
known to a few people at Bell Labs but I didn't hear of them
being used there when Unix was being written.
> > Linus saw all the C code published on the internet with the GNU
> > license, and knew that one key program was missing -- a Unix clone
> > kernal. If he could write that last part, he would have everything
> > needed to have a full industrial strength clone of Unix on his
> > 80386 home computer. Not a simple student Minix, but the real
> > thing. This was a very difficult project for one student to do,
> > so he did it.
> I'd have to go look up the interviews with Linus on this subject
> again, but this doesn't sound like the way I've heard him tell the
> story of the beginnings of Linux. In particular, I've never gotten
> the impression that he set out specifically to write the last
> remaining piece of the GNU system; that part sort of just happened.
Don't think I'm quoting what Linus said. I'm trying to
point out what he did. He might not have intended to write the
last missing part of the GNU operating system. He might not even
have realized he had done it when he did. But after he published
a certain amount of his code, it happened. Before Linus all GNU
code had to be compiled and run on propriatory systems. After
Linus, GNU code could be run on a system using all free
software. There were others who could have done the job, and
others who were trying to do the job, but Linus did it first.
> > But he also discovered something more important. If you publish
> > your source under the GPL, lots of people on the internet can and
> > will help you. Now Andrew Tannenbaum
[ oops, Tanenbaum -- I should get that right; everybody should
read his books and you have to have the right name to find them
in the library]
> > could have done the same thing.
> > After all he is a professor, and the author of the important
> > textbooks that Linus studied. But he didn't see the importance of
> > the GPL. So the student beat the professor, and we have Linux
> > instead of Tannenbaumix.
> To be fair to Tannenbaum, I haven't gotten the impression he's
> interested in doing what Linus did or being what Linus is. He's
> a professor and a researcher and has always, to me, sounded more
> interested in theoretical models of operating system construction
> than in doing the vast amounts of (often very uninteresting
> theoretically) work Linus puts into maintaining and implemented one.
Quite so. This thread started out with somebody asking why
the GNU system uses C instead of Lisp, why it is based on Unix
instead of some other operating system, and so on. The reasons
are varied and complex. A mixture of careful planning and sheer
acident. But the reasons are very interesting. They are also
hard to pin down.
--
Michael Coughlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cambridge, MA USA
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (evil)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.security
Subject: Re: *nix vs. MS security
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:06:39 GMT
Reply-To: me
>Win32 relies on security through single users, ignorant users, and
>frequent reboots. Ask anyone who administers a Win32 system in an
>academic environment. It's a nightmare.
Aha, so that's why Win32 crashes so often. It's part of their
security. ;)
==========
martin
.
evil
------------------------------
From: Indicatrix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: LANG and Mutt: garbled characters
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 19:52:35 GMT
Question about international character representation in Debian
2.1 (Slink):
Slink sets the environment variable LANG=C
In order to change the working language, LANG can
simply be set differently (e.g. LANG=de for German)
However, if LANG is set, then Mutt displays mail messages with garbled
characters in place of characters with umlauts, etc. The interface, on
the other hand, can be set to German (LANG=de) and will display umlauts
correctly there, but not in the body of the message. For
example, look at the following line. Wherever there is an umlaut,
Mutt displays '?'.
>Außergewöhnliche Umstände erfordern außergewöhnliche
If I unset LANG, then Mutt will display these characters properly in the
mail message.
Now, the simple answer for users of the English language is to unset
LANG, but if I want my interface in German, then LANG=de will give a
German interface, but garbled characters in the body of the message.
This is not good.
What is going on? Is the problem with the specific program, Mutt
0.95.6i in this case? I have noticed that RedHat does not set LANG at
all. Does this mean that RedHat will have the same problem if one sets
LANG? (I have not had the opportunity to test this).
thanks in advance
Stephen
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Peter Gavin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Problems compiling 2.2.11 kernel (kernel upgrade fro 2.0.36)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:53:14 -0400
Install the bin86 package. You can find it on metalab.unc.edu (fka
sunsite) somewhere in /pub/Linux. You can also search for it on
filewatcher or freshmeat. This package will provide the as86 and ld86
programs required to build the kernel.
Pete
Rajesh Radhakrishnan wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I followed the instructions given to me some people (on the newsgroups)
> and from redhat's kernel upgrade webpage. The compilation stoppped and I
> get the following error message,
>
> make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-2.2.11/arch/i386/boot'
> gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux/include -E -D__BIG_KERNEL__
> -traditional -DSVGA_MODE=NORMAL_VGA boots\
> ect.S -o bbootsect.s
> as86 -0 -a -o bbootsect.o bbootsect.s
> make[1]: as86: Command not found
> make[1]: *** [bbootsect.o] Error 127
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.2.11/arch/i386/boot'
> make: *** [bzImage] Error 2
>
> I don't have 'as86' on my system (RedHat 5.2) but another assembler
> 'as'. I tried replacing 'as86' with 'as' in the Makefile but 'as' has no
> '-O' option and if I remove '-O' I get more errors.
>
> What should I do.
>
> Thanks
> Rajesh
------------------------------
From: "Dr. Rajiv Srinivasa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where can I find Xfree86 3.3.4 to download? help, please
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 21:13:14 +0100
============
Go to http://www.xfree.org
--
Dr. Rajiv Srinivasa
------------------------------
From: "Trevor Holt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: vgagl and svgalib question...
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:01:01 -0600
I am trying to develop an application using the svgalib library. My
question is how do you display different fonts? Where do you get them or
more precisely how do you convert a font into source like gl_FONT8X8? Any
help would be appreciated.
--
==============================================================
Trevor Holt, P.Eng. Pason Systems Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: Neil Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Accessing Linux from NT
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 21:14:50 +0100
The same computer
Neil Walters.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Collin W. Hitchcock)
Subject: Re: Small Linux Server Distribution?
Date: 19 Aug 1999 15:47:20 -0400
Check out http://www.dragonlinux.nu
Collin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Collin W. Hitchcock)
Subject: Re: Dose this ng have a faq?
Date: 19 Aug 1999 15:34:58 -0400
http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP
Collin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David C.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.security
Subject: Re: *nix vs. MS security
Date: 19 Aug 1999 16:07:50 -0400
Roger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Forgot to mention - there are thousands of NT viruses but, AFAIK, no
> Unix viruses at all. Unix file permissions make it very difficult for
> any unauthorised code to be run, unless some careless sysadmin is
> surfing the Net as root.
Ummmm.... AFAIK, most of the early virusses (like Morris's Internet
Worm) were invented on UNIX and attacked UNIX systems. They just used a
different mechanism from what PC and Mac virusses use.
And virusses that require user intervention (like happy99 and macro
virusses) can spread on any OS.
That having been said, UNIX is probably safer, because:
- It's less popular. Virus writers usually want to hit the biggest
audience they can. No point to attacking a very small audience. This
is also why there are few (if any) OS/2 virusses, and why there are
far fewer Mac virusses running around than there used to be.
- There's no binary standard. While Linux is popular, other UNIX
varieties (Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, OSF-1, etc.) are not binary
compatible. There are different executable file formats, different
sets of system calls and different processor architectures involved.
So binary-executable virusses will tend not to spread as far. (This
doesn't prevent virusses written in script-languages, however.)
- Many of the network-security holes that allowed the early "worm" type
programs to spread have been plugged, thanks to years of experience.
- Any well-managed system will have most of the executable files stored
with permissions that make them non-writable to normal users.
Programs that a user compiles for himself might still be attacked, but
there probably won't be many such files in any individual account.
(You can set up NT this way, but it's not often done. And some
popular programs, like Word, really don't like having their install
directories made read-only.)
-- David
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (e-frog)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.apps,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Can OS/2 users grow up and think like Linux users? (was: Can I switch
from OS/2 to Linux and be happy?)
Date: 19 Aug 1999 20:01:04 GMT
Marko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:38:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zephyr Q)
: made history by saying:
: ->
: -> Or, more importantly, how can I make the switch with as
: -> little grief as possible?
: I tried Linux twice - InfoMagic and then RH5.2. I was happy to wipe
: Linux off and re-install OS/2. No sleight intended to the people
: working on Linux. I think they're doing a great job. As a programming
: geek, I found the UI fun, and I like the open source movement.
: With Linux, configurability is its strength and its weakness. It takes
: time. And the Linux UIs have a long way to go. YMMV.
: IBM hasn't supported OS/2 for the client in a long time. Aren't
: people's tears dry yet? When you need something for Linux, you either
: wait for someone to make it, or you make it yourself. Why don't you
: have the same attitude about OS/2? The tools are available just the
: same.
Not everyone has the skill or the desire to "roll their own".
Some of us just want to be plain users with the option of easy
configuration.
Look at it this way, if you need some part for your car, do you go machine
it yourself? Do you even buy the part and install it yourself?
I bet most people just take it into the shop and let others do it,
It's the same thing here. If I want, say, a 3-D modelling application,
there's NO WAY I'd go do that myself. First of which I don't have the time
or skill to do so.
Open-Source is a great way to develop software. It's just satisfying
knowing that one could do so if needed.
But from a plain user point of view, most people (me included) are just
NEVER gonna touch the code.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug DeJulio)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Why did RMS adopt Unix? (and other questions)
Date: 19 Aug 1999 16:43:45 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Brozefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug DeJulio) writes:
>
>> I'd consider using GUILE for this, but:
>>
>> * I can't find documentation on Ctax, and I don't like Scheme. (I've
>> hunted for it! How do I use GUILE without ever being aware of its
>> Scheme syntax flavor?)
>
>Sorry, you'll have to be lobotomized. Its much more than just Scheme
>syntax that makes you aware that it's running on Scheme. I think that
>the whole translator thing is a pipe-dream. And what good is working
>with Guile if you can't use Scheme hygenic macros and Common Lisp
>style defmacros? Those features are directly tied to the s-expr
>syntax, and are incredibly powerful, I can't imagine working without
>them.
I guess you also feel that all users of Perl, Python, Java, TCL, or
PHP3 need to be lobotomized...
As for why I don't just use Perl, Python, et cetera -- I will for
now. But I'd been hoping to take full advantage of the scripting
capabilities being built into GNOME. It looks like that's at least on
hold for a while.
There are lots of folks who won't use Emacs because they can't
customize it without using Lisp. I thought "the whole translator
thing" was there in the first place to avoid exactly this.
--
Doug DeJulio | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
HKS, Incorporated | http://www.hks.net/~ddj/
------------------------------
From: Bill Pitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Cracks for Linux?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:12:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.networking Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry if I got you all mad. I may be unethical and a newbie to Linux but
> I'm not moron.
Linux users believe in ethics. That is why we created the free, open
source operating system - so people wouldn't have to be unethical and
make copies of it.
If you choose to run the commercial software on Linux, that is your
decision. That's when you decide that you are going to pay for the
software. However, there are FREE clones available for just about
every possible task you could think of. It's like deciding if you
want to use Wordpad in windows forever, or if you are going to invest
the money in a decent office suite.
-Bill
--
Bill Pitz bill at svn.net
Silicon Valley North, Inc. www.svn.net
Internet and World Wide Web Services (707) 781-9999
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: problems with BSD-style TTYs
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 20:35:26 GMT
When using a BSD-style ttypair (ttyXX/ptyXX) linux does not seem to
set the controlling TTY on open, nor can I set it with TIOCSCTTY. In
addition, based on the description of fields in the the proc filesystem,
it appears that there is no support for controlling ttys which are not
in the form of dev/pts/X. Setting controlling TTY works without
incident when using /dev/ptmx and ptsname() and unlockpt() and all,
but unfortunately I need fixed-name ptys, not dynamically allocated.
Oh, secondary unrelated point -- setsid() does not appear to clear
your controlling TTY, even though the documentation says it should.
However, I can handle calling TIOCNOTTY.
If anyone knows of a way around this problem, I'd appreciate knowing
about it. Email please, I don't regularly read this forum.
I'm running redhat 6.0, linux 2.2.5-15 on i686
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sasa Babic)
Subject: Comparison needed: *BSD vs. Linux
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 22:46:45 +0200
I am new in non Micro$oft OS area. As I was learning about Linux, I found
out about *BSD.
I am wondering what are the differences between FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD
and Linux. You know, good sides and bad sides. Anyone with some spare
time?
Thanks,
Sasa
==================
My real email is: sasab AT sezampro DOT yu
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hong)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: Can I switch from OS/2 to Linux and be happy?
Date: 19 Aug 1999 20:08:28 GMT
Mooo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Well, to be fair, the local IBM rep has forwarded me info to the
: effect that support for Warp4 and Warp Server V4 finishes either Jan
: 2000 or Jan 2001 (I cant remember right now).
: Now granted, a very similar thing happened with Warp 3, and the
: fixpacks kept rolling on.
Exactly, Warp 3 support ended back in 1997. Yet, even up to two
years later the fixpacks just kept on coming.
: Its just difficult to see past the haze and try to imagine what IBM is
: actually going to do.
: For instance, does support drop in 200x for Warp4 because by then they
: intend to have a Warp5? Who knows?
: This sort of FUD (in its truest sense - Fear Uncertanty and Doubt) is
: what is scaring the willies out of a lot of current and would-be users
: I think.
OS/2 2.1 fixpacks stopped once Warp 4 was shipping. So I guess
it wasn't too surprising to see Warp 3 fixpacks stop once Warp for
e-Business (Warp 5 in a way) began, also. However, IBM still does
deliever fixpacks for Warp 3.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (WorLord)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.linux.sux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I think of linux.
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 21:02:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoth the Raven called Robin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> David Cummings wrote:
>Mind you the word processor ( Lotus ) on DOS on the 8086 was faster
>that Word on a Pentium. Now remind me why I hate Microsoft.
Okay. To steal from User Friendly:
"Wow. I didn't realize that Word97 actually had a frame-rate."
There are no excuses,
--WorLord
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
