Linux-Misc Digest #731, Volume #24 Tue, 6 Jun 00 18:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Help: Logging into Linux from Windows 98 PC ("Sean")
How to change drive structures/partitions? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Corel Office 2000 for Linux (Deluxe) (bforsberg)
Re: LILO in partition rather than MBR (Frank Boehme)
Totalling CPU time per user? ("Steve Wolfe")
Re: Does Linux support Multiprocessors? (Robert Heller)
Re: partition lost ("MAP")
Re: Does Linux support Multiprocessors? (Martin Herrman)
Re: Linux vs. FreeBSD (Martin Herrman)
Re: Linux uses lots of memory? (Robert Heller)
Re: Can a 486 handle PPPoE + ipMASQ for 3 comps ? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: C++ exec problems ("Andy Piper")
Partition Problem (1024 Cylinders) (Paul Eisenberg)
How to convert text files from Mac/Apple format to Unix format? (Sue@nowhere)
Re: DELL's Linux price is HIGHER than Win98 ("Alex Lam.")
Lacie CDRW (Andy Jones)
MS Word in Linux (JCA)
Re: change ctime (Juergen Heinzl)
Re: Serious fragmentation under Linux (brian moore)
Re: MS Word in Linux (Grant Edwards)
Re: MS Word in Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: MS Word in Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Building an install floppy... (Jerry McBride)
Re: PostScript FAX (Uwe Malzahn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Sean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.corel,alt.os.linux.dial-up,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Help: Logging into Linux from Windows 98 PC
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 20:06:34 GMT
Maybe I am misunderstanding this. To clarify, you want to be able to access
the X server on Linux from a win98 PC, correct? Further, you want a
graphical interface as opposed to a character based interface, right?
If yes to both questions, try this http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/.
But be aware it will probably run very slowly on an old PC.
Temp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8h54ar$ksa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Help! I am a thick newbie.
>
> I have installed Suse 6.4 with X-Windows and KDE on an old PC and it works
> fine. It is on a LAN and happily FTPs to other machines on the network. I
> want to be able to log in to applications (such as StarOffice and
> ApplixWare) from a Windows 98 PC, running as a Windows PC (ie not running
> Linux). We currently use NetTerm as a terminal emulator to get from PCs
into
> our main SCO UNIX server and this works fine, however it is character
based.
>
> Assuming I am utterly stupid and need everything explaining in words of
one
> sylable (or less), what do I need to do on Linux to enable log ins from
> Windows PCs (ie, what config files do I have to change on the server, what
> do I have to have running on the PCs?).
>
> Help please!
>
> Regards
>
> Tom Millington
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux
Subject: How to change drive structures/partitions?
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 15:33:03 -0500
Hello,
I've been playing with Linux for a couple months now and have learned
how stupid it is to run everything off one partition. I'd like to break
the info up to seperate partitions (ie. /var, /usr, etc.), but would
rather not just do a reinstall because then I wouldn't learn anything.
What do I need to due to move the directories off of root onto their new
partitions? I know I can use PQ Magic to simply resize & then create a
partition, but then what? How do I name the new partition? After
naming do I just copy everything in the user directory over there to the
new /var partition and & erase the original directory? (Assuming I
remember to edit etc/fstab to mount the new partition). Where do I
tell it to read from there rather than from the old directory? Will it
automatically do that once the partition mounts?
I don't know where to start, so any help is appreciated, even if it's
only to refer me to the appropriate documentation.
Thanks,
Erik
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Corel Office 2000 for Linux (Deluxe)
From: bforsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:33:52 -0700
It looks like you had better luck than I did. I tried to install
it with SUSE 6.2. It won't install. Something about how SUSE
versions glibc. Corel finally came up with a way for SUSE users
to install about a month later. I tried to convert my 401K
spreadsheet to quatropro from StarOffice using dbase and
it does not work. I am using their word processor with some
success. It will generally run about an hour between crashes. I
have posted questions on Corel's newsgroups
with no reponses. When I had trouble installing it I emailed them
and they never responded. I am as disappointed as you are.
Releasing bad quality software on Linux does not help Linux.
Hopefully the open source office packages like Koffice will be
useable soon.
Bruce Forsberg
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: Frank Boehme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LILO in partition rather than MBR
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 21:10:53 +0100
Christoph Kukulies wrote:
> After installing Linux (had installed the DOS partition and DOS first)
> the Linux installation overwrote my MBR with Lilo, obviously.
Because, you didn't tell otherwise. BTW, a very safe way to
experimentally set up a multi boot box is to have lilo (not the kernel)
on the floppy. This leaves the mbr as well as bootable partitions
untouched. Later on, you can move lilo somewhere else.
> Not knowing very much about the LILO architecture, is it possible to
> install LILO such that it sits only on the Linux partition and not in
> the MBR?
Yes. For example, just set in /etc/lilo.conf
boot=/dev/hda1
this will install lilo at the begin of the first partition of the first
IDE disk rather than in the mbr. The latter would be
boot=/dev/hda
Then run /sbin/lilo.
I don't know how to do this from within RedHat's installation tool
because I don't use RedHat.
Frank
------------------------------
From: "Steve Wolfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Totalling CPU time per user?
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:39:52 -0600
Right now, we're trying to do some benchmarking/profiling on our server to
plan out our hardware upgrades in the very near future. In order to make an
informed decision, we need to get some data on the amount of CPU used by the
CGI applications verses CPU time used by the database. Right now, they're
running on the same machine, but will be seperated very soon. The ratio of
CPU usage by the two will determine the amounts (and types) of hardware that
we throw at it, and probably some decisions about future development.
So... I'd like to get a total amount of CPU time used by two users - in
this case, the user that the CGI apps are owned by, and the user that the
database runs as. However, since the database spawns a new child for each
request, it's not as easy as looking at the total CPU time for the main
process...
Right now, I've been watching a few "tops", viewing only the processes
owned by the two users. It's given me a rough guess, but I'd like something
more concrete. Is there any (reasonable) way of finding this information?
Steve
--
==================================================
Domain for replies is "codon".
==================================================
------------------------------
From: Robert Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux support Multiprocessors?
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 20:48:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Herrman),
In a message on 06 Jun 2000 17:07:34 GMT, wrote :
MH> On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 16:49:56 GMT, jmt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
MH> > I gots me a dual processor motherboard running 2 pentiums II's. Will Linux
MH> > use them? If so, is there anything extra has to be installed to have the
MH> > kernal see them or special bootup cmds?
MH> >
MH> Recompile your kernel. Enable the SMP option at one of the first options in the
MH> configuration screen and have fun.
If one is installing RH 6.x, just select the SMP kernel -- RH 6.x comes
with a pre-build SMP kernel, complete with a matching set of modules.
MH>
MH> Martin
MH>
MH> > Thanks,
MH> >
MH> >
MH> >
MH> >
MH> >
MH>
MH>
MH> --
MH> Linux Gebruikers Handleiding v1.2 : http://2mypage.cjb.net
MH> Linux RedHat 6.1 Kernel 2.2.14 Toshiba P233 MHz, 32 Mb RAM
MH> 7:00pm up 4 days, 23:35, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.05, 0.06
MH> Western Civilization, that would be a good idea!
MH>
--
\/
Robert Heller ||InterNet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/~heller || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.deepsoft.com /\FidoNet: 1:321/153
------------------------------
From: "MAP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: partition lost
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 20:50:50 GMT
> It seems as something is wrong with the BIOS setting. 299043
> cylinders, 1 head and 60 sectors is something that I definitely did
> not see before.
>
> Try this (assuming the disk is an IDE disk):
It's not, is a SCSI disk
attached to a AHA-2940 U2W
>
> Set the disk to none in BIOS. Then boot do DOS and do if the disk is
> primary slave:
>
> findpart ps fp-a.txt
>
> If the disk is not primary slave, then use in stead of ps:
>
> pm for primary master
> sm for secondary master
> ss for secondary slave
>
> Depending on which BIOS settings was used when the partitions were
> created, it might be nessesary with further searches after this.
>
> Note that some ISP's (including my primary) filter messages containing
> attached files. It is better to insert the output files as text.
> --
> Svend Olaf
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Herrman)
Subject: Re: Does Linux support Multiprocessors?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 06 Jun 2000 20:54:53 GMT
On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 20:48:09 GMT, Robert Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If one is installing RH 6.x, just select the SMP kernel -- RH 6.x comes
> with a pre-build SMP kernel, complete with a matching set of modules.
Hm.. yeah.. you're right :-) But recompiling should be done finally for
better performance (in my opinion)..
Martin
--
Linux Gebruikers Handleiding v1.2 : http://2mypage.cjb.net
Linux RedHat 6.1 Kernel 2.2.14 Toshiba P233 MHz, 32 Mb RAM
10:50pm up 5 days, 3:25, 3 users, load average: 0.04, 0.03, 0.00
Western Civilization, that would be a good idea!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Herrman)
Subject: Re: Linux vs. FreeBSD
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 06 Jun 2000 20:58:01 GMT
On Tue, 06 Jun 2000 19:48:58 GMT, Melvin Toy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[freebsd vs. linux]
Two points:
1. I read a book about operating systems, it says solaris was the best in
network deamons performance because of the (proces) threads (i don't know the
details, have to read again :-)
2. from a frien I heard freebsd is more secure and more stable than linux.
One of the reasons: less developers (just 200 developers for the kernel).
bye,
Martin
--
Linux Gebruikers Handleiding v1.2 : http://2mypage.cjb.net
Linux RedHat 6.1 Kernel 2.2.14 Toshiba P233 MHz, 32 Mb RAM
10:50pm up 5 days, 3:25, 3 users, load average: 0.04, 0.03, 0.00
Western Civilization, that would be a good idea!
------------------------------
From: Robert Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux uses lots of memory?
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 21:00:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Lamb),
In a message on Tue, 06 Jun 2000 19:05:22 GMT, wrote :
SL> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:53:34 GMT, M. Buchenrieder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
SL> >Run, yes. But certainly not with XFree86 running (at least, not in
SL> >a useable state).
SL>
SL> Pshaw. Be realistic, please.
SL>
SL> >Don't run XFree86 with less than 64 MB at all.
SL>
SL> Don't tell my IBM Thinkpad 360csa with a whopping 20Mb of RAM. It ran X
SL> just fine. I found it quite usable.
I ran X11 on a 486DX2-66 with only 16 meg for awhile. Slow, but worked.
This was some time ago -- I upgraded the machine to 40meg and ran that
way up through RH 5.2. I have 32meg on my 486-50 laptop. Runs X11 (RH
5.2) just fine.
Note: I have *never* ran Gnome or KDE or any other 'massive' desktop
system. I run a single desktop using fvwm in Motif mode. No file
manager or desktop manager junk.
SL>
SL> >Once installed, however, the pure Linux system will run on 8MB - 16 MB
SL> >just fine. It depends, of course, on what apps you're running and what
SL> >services you do need.
SL>
SL> I got the same laptop, a Debian machine, to boot in two and was quite
SL> functional. All depends on your definition of "functional", doesn't it?
SL>
SL> --
SL> Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
SL> ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
SL> -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
SL>
--
\/
Robert Heller ||InterNet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/~heller || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.deepsoft.com /\FidoNet: 1:321/153
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Can a 486 handle PPPoE + ipMASQ for 3 comps ?
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 21:00:49 GMT
In article <8hj1i0$d5f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am considering using Sympatico, but the pppoe has me wondering if my
old
> 486 can handle it.
> It's a 486 66mhz with 8MB ram and a 500 MB hdd.
That's more-or-less my setup. I have Sympatico HSE also (which is why I
wrote rp-pppoe) and at maximum throughput (around 900 kb/s), my gateway
registers 57% CPU load. This is way more than a kernel mode PPPoE
implementation, but on the other hand, the CPU isn't doing anything else
anyway, so who cares?
--
David.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Andy Piper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C++ exec problems
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 20:27:37 +0100
"Neurocrat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Try:
> ./hello
>
> or add . to your PATH
Simply adding . to your PATH can be a security risk (particularly for the
root user). Far better to continue to run the binary explicitly using
./hello - which ensures it is always the copy in the current directory you
are executing - or add the current directory to the path:
e.g. export PATH=$PATH:/home/fluffy/devt/hello
NOT
export PATH=$PATH:.
HTH.
Andy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Eisenberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup;
Subject: Partition Problem (1024 Cylinders)
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 21:15:28 GMT
Hey! I know this has been a repetitive question, but the answer to my
question hasn't seem to be explained. I had a 21 gig approx hd with
Win98 and I used FIPS to partition some off for Corel Linux, the
problem was I didn't know about the 1024 Cylinder limit so I ended up
being stuck. So I just did an 8 gig partition and got stuck. Now
that I go back with this new knowledge FIPS will only let me use an 8
gig partition for the second one as a max, when I have approx 15 gigs
free. Because of this I can't get in the 1024 cylinder range and I
don't know what to do. Any help would be great. I was thinking using
a boot disk, if that were the case would I just install Corel Linux
and then boot off the disk? Would I still be able to access Win98?
Any help would be great! Take Care. Paul
------------------------------
From: Sue@nowhere
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.mac.programmer.tools.misc
Subject: How to convert text files from Mac/Apple format to Unix format?
Date: 6 Jun 2000 13:21:24 -0700
hi,
I've got some text files that were created on a mac. When i type them
or look at them in vi/emacs, the text seems to be all on one long
lines. har to read. I think this is becuase Mac text files do not
use LF for terminating lines?
Is there a command I can use on Linux to covert these files to Unix format?
I used to use this command to conver a DOS file to Unix:
cat dos_file.txt | tr -d \\015 > unix_file.txt
(the above command removes the CR)
is there a similar command I can use for the mac files? some kind of
a filter?
thank,
Sue
------------------------------
From: "Alex Lam." <"here,there"@everywhere.com>
Subject: Re: DELL's Linux price is HIGHER than Win98
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 14:51:13 -0700
Leonard Evens wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone answer this one? Why is the price for a Dell running Linux
> > more that the price for a Win98 box. It should be cheaper considering
> > it is a FREE OS!!! I checked the Dell web site and configured a "Dell
> > Dimension XPS T" and for Win98 the price was $1,658 but for RedHat Linux
> > 6.1 (The older Version) $1,737. I have listed the Dell options below:
> >
> > Date: 6/5/00 @ 8:00AM
> > Dell Dimension XPS T PIII Mini Tower: PIII @ 700MHz [220-2135]
> > Memory: 128MB 100MHz SDRAM [311-8410]
> > Keyboard: QuietKey Keyboard [310-7002]
> > Monitor: Dell Ultrascan P780 17" [320-4501]
> > Video Card: 32MB NVIDA geFORCE 4X AGP Graphics Card [320-0131]
> > Hard Drive: 20.4 GB Ultra ATA Hard Drive [340-2409]
> > Operating System: Win98 [310-8921] or Linux [420-2250]
> > Mouse: MS IntelliMouse [310-0050]
> > Network Card: 3COM 3C905C-TXM 10/100 Remote Wake Up [430-3280]
> > Modem: No Modem [313-3607]
> > Optical Drives: 48X Max / 20X Min CDROM [313-3922]
> > Sound Card: SoundBlaster Live! Value Digital [313-7869]
> > Speakers: Harmon/Kardon Speakers [313-3925]
> > Bundled Software: No MS Office [412-1397]
> > Iomega Zip Drives: No Zip Drives [460-8320]
> > Norton Antivirus: NAV 2000 [412-5620] ONLY ON THE MS SYSTEMS FOR FREE!!
> > Service: 1 Yr. Next Business Day On-Site P&L, Yrs 2&3, BSC [900-1590]
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> Another likely theory: Dell may just have compared their prices
> to vendors like Penguin, Indybox, etc., and come up with a price
> that is in line with those vendors. Since they have such an
> advantage in hardware volume, they may be able to boost their
> Linux profit margin thereby.
>
I'm looking for another machine lately. I run Solaris, BSD and
Linux only. I've found that almost all 'Linux specialists'
computer vendors are way over-priced. Especially those who only
preinstall Red Hat.
I believe many just support Linux because Linux is free, that
means more profits for them; and the saving from the free OS is
not passing down to the customers.
Also, Linux now is a trendy thing to have. It's fashionable,
and hot trendy/fashion are very marketable.
And will make them look cool and good. So they can say "Hey,
I'm with the cutting/bleeding edge technology." :p
You can build an identical box for at least 30% less.
Alex Lam.
> --
>
> Leonard Evens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 847-491-5537
> Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Jones)
Subject: Lacie CDRW
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 22:38:44 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are Lacie CDRW drives supported by cdrecord?
Does anyone know if they are re-badged drives that are supported?
Andy
--
------------------------------
From: JCA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: MS Word in Linux
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 14:35:11 -0700
I wonder if there is out there a tool that allows me to read, but
not edit, MS Word
documents under Linux. I am looking for something lightweight and free;
i.e.
StarOffice, VMWare (or whatever it is called) and WP for Linux are not
for me.
Yes, people still email me Word documents every so often.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juergen Heinzl)
Subject: Re: change ctime
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 21:54:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Hunter wrote:
>I have some tar archives of files from a MS Win98 system with
>timestamps where the year is 2028. Is there any way I can change the
[...]
M$ - always ahead of its time ;)
>creation time stamps in my linux system after I unpack the archive.
[...]
There is no such thing as the creation time and just see man touch
for the rest.
You can do something like this ...
find . -exec touch [options] {} \;
... to run touch on whole directory tree.
Ta',
Juergen
--
\ Real name : Jürgen Heinzl \ no flames /
\ EMail Private : [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ send money instead /
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Subject: Re: Serious fragmentation under Linux
Date: 6 Jun 2000 21:55:33 GMT
On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 22:28:21 -0700,
MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dances With Crows wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 21:27:59 -0700, MH
> > <<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> shouted forth into the ether:
> > >I've more than a few posts regarding fragmentation under Linux. Most of
> > >the responses have been to the effect that "Linux doesn't have a
> > >fragmentation problem". I beg to differ.
> > >On a recent reboot, I noticed that I had 11.1%, 15.4%, and 19.8%
> > >"non-contiguous" files.
> >
> > As I'm sure N+1 others will point out, this isn't a problem unless you're
> > suffering horrible filesystem performance.
> >
> > Anyway, the "non-contiguous" report can be somewhat misleading. Linux
> > (and Unix in general) manages disk space differently from DOS. Linux
> > tries to keep all the blocks of a file near each other on the disk. When
> > a new file is created, at least 8 blocks are pre-allocated for it, even if
> > the file is only 1 byte in size. If you looked at the raw disk, you'd
> > probably see files spread out pretty evenly across the disk, with some
> > buffer space between files.
> >
> > Of course, files can get split up, but the ext2fs driver tries to keep
> > things relatively sane. So you might have 32K of file1, then 64K of
> > file2, then the next 32K of file1... etc. Files are kept within the same
> > "block group" if at all possible, where a block group is generally 8192
> > contiguous blocks on the disk. A block under Linux is at least 1K and
> > often 4K.
> >
> > In contrast, DOS filesystems use the first available block they find on
> > the disk. So if you have a DOS filesystem like so:
> > FILE1.TXT 8K -- FILE2.TXT 4K -- FILE3.TXT 16K
> > and you delete FILE2 and then create a 32K FILE4, you'd have:
> > FILE1.TXT 8K -- FILE4.TXT 4K -- FILE3.TXT 16K -- FILE4.TXT 28K
> > whereas under Linux, FILE4 would be placed right after FILE3, where
> > there's more free space. That way, FILE4 could be internally contiguous,
> > though there'd be a 4K section of free space between FILE1 and FILE3.
> >
> > I'm sure that people who are more familiar with ext2 internals could
> > explain this better, but the practical upshot is, "Don't worry about
> > non-contiguous files unless performance starts suffering!"
> >
> > --
> > Matt G / Dances With Crows \###| You have me mixed up with more
> > There is no Darkness in Eternity \##| creative ways of being stupid?
> > But only Light too dim for us to see \#| Beer is a vegetable. WinNT
> > (Unless, of course, you're working with NT)\| is the study of cool. --MegaHAL
>
> I'm not sure your explanation makes any sense, unless "non-contiguous"
> means something else in the Linux world than it does in the DOS world,
It does.
> or in the English-speaking world for that matter. I understand
> "non-contiguous" to mean bits of a single file located on blocks
> separated by other empty blocks or blocks containing bits of other
> files.
No. That's normal and acceptable for Unix. Unix just tries to keep the
pieces of a file close to each other. They don't have to be
consecutive and on the same track/head -- they should just be within a
couple of tracks.
Since files (blocks) are read sequentially, "non-contiguous"
> necessarily implies a degradation in performance since more blocks have
> to be traversed to read (or write) a given file.
Only on a single tasking machine where all of its time was reading
sequential data. In the real world, having your data like that would be
painfully slow. Ie, interleaving access between two files will give
you the same effect as "fragmentation".
The Linux (and other modern Unix-like systems since the days of the
Berkeley Fast File System) file system is designed for the more common
case of multiple files accessed at the same time.
--
Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor.
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting
Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day.
Netscum, Bane of Elves.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: MS Word in Linux
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 21:56:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JCA wrote:
>
> I wonder if there is out there a tool that allows me to read,
> but not edit, MS Word documents under Linux. I am looking for
> something lightweight and free; i.e. StarOffice, VMWare (or
> whatever it is called) and WP for Linux are not for me.
>
> Yes, people still email me Word documents every so often.
I've been useing mswordview with decent success. Try
http://www.gnu.org/~caolan/docs/MSWordView.html
http://skynet.csn.ul.ie/~caolan/docs/MSWordView.html
Some people are getting better and mailing RTF files that I can
look at with Ted, but even those don't seem to be very
"standard" between platforms.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! But they went to MARS
at around 1953!!
visi.com
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Word in Linux
Date: 6 Jun 2000 21:54:12 GMT
JCA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I wonder if there is out there a tool that allows me to read, but
: not edit, MS Word
: documents under Linux. I am looking for something lightweight and free;
catdoc.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Word in Linux
Date: 6 Jun 2000 21:55:15 GMT
Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: JCA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: : I wonder if there is out there a tool that allows me to read, but
: : not edit, MS Word
: : documents under Linux. I am looking for something lightweight and free;
: catdoc.
I should have mentioned ... "strings" works acceptably for me!
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry McBride)
Subject: Building an install floppy...
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 16:05:05 -0400
I've got a flaky situation here, where I have to re-enable support for a
"legacy" scsi adapter and so far, building my own install floppy has failed me.
What I'm doing is, modifying an existing Caldera Open Linux eDesktop 2.40
install floppy to enable it to recognize an Adaptec aha1522b scsi adapter.
Now, this is the LIZARD installer, not LISA. LISA works just fine as usual, but
all the neat bells and whistles of LIZARD are missing...
So far, Caldera has told me that to create a GUI install process (LIZARD), it
was neccessary to delete support for some "legacy" hardware... namely the
aha152x.o driver. As best as I can tell and as luck would have it, this was
the ONLY driver whos support was removed from the LIZARD installer. :')
I've read and tinkered enough to get all the required components on install
a floppy. I've made the neccessary alterations to initrc and checked file
permissions, etc... Basically, it "looks" just like an unmodified install
disk... but instead of having the advansys driver on it, it has my aha152x.o
driver. And it still doesn't work. During the probe process when LIZARD goes
about probing for installed SCSI cards, aha152x.o gets probed just like I
intended, but the probe fails... no errors, no burps... just fail... It's as
if the card is not in the box... I've tried various boot parameters,
er=cautious, aha152x=0x140,11,7,1, etc... no luck.
So... anyone else here gone through this building process before? If so, I
sure could use a tip or two right about now. :')
TIA,
Jerry
--
*******************************************************************************
> Turn your 486 into an XT--just add Windows! <
*******************************************************************************
> 3:51pm up 0 days, 0:05:44, load: 18 processes, 73 threads. <
*******************************************************************************
* NetRexx - The onramp to the Internet - http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx *
*******************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Uwe Malzahn)
Subject: Re: PostScript FAX
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 23:18:07 +0200
In article <8hh0ij$hv7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Does anyone know of a PostScript FAx package that would work kind of
> like this:
>
> cat file.ps > /dev/fax/555-2100
>
Would a 'fax send 555-2100 file.ps' be sufficient?
Then try 'efax'.
Cheers
Uwe
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
