Linux-Misc Digest #912, Volume #24 Sat, 24 Jun 00 03:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Why can't I unmount....????? (Hendrix)
help on rcp command ("Iris C. Ting")
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: general question? ("David ..")
Re: Why can't I unmount....????? (Guardian)
Something wrong. Unable to load Xwindows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tin newsreader (Guardian)
xf86config setup (Scott Szymanski)
Re: linux as a client :-( (FyreFiend)
Re: linux as a client :-(
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hendrix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,nf.comp.linux
Subject: Why can't I unmount....?????
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 03:30:27 -0230
Hi guys,
Why is it that unmounting doesn't always work...??? Sometimes I try to
unmount a specific filesystem and the system will return a message
saying that the device is busy, and cannot be unmounted... This message
is persistant even after I use the 'sync' command... The filesystem
doesn't seem to be busy... Sometimes the specifed mount is completely
empty with no files on the filesystem at all...But yet, the busy message
is still sent to the screen...
Anyone...???
Thanks,
--
Trevor Penney,
A+, Network+ Certified
======================
That's alright, I still got my guitar...
------------------------------
From: "Iris C. Ting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: help on rcp command
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:20:33 +0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello there,
I'm having a problem with this rcp command. I was
succesful using rcp command to copy a single file
remotely but when I tried to copy a directory with
subdirectories on it, it says permission denied. I
used the -r option which is what the man pages of the
rcp command instructed when copying a directory. Any
suggestions?
For example, I would like to copy remotely all files
and subdirectories under /var. What should be the
appropriate command for this.
Thanks a lot.
Iris
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 06:04:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> O.K., I know this is probably an impossible
> question to answer, but what the hay.
Actually, it's really not that hard to answer.
> Would anyone care to compare--either quantitatively or
> qualitatively--the number of mind hours that
> have gone into developing
> Linux as an OS verus what has
> gone into developing Windows as an OS?
To really answer this question, you must go back to the beginning.
Microsoft developed MS-DOS as a minimalist operating system designed
to primarily "load the program from disk and execute it". The
application did nearly everything else.
Multitasking was done by the application (TSRs such as Sidekick).
Memory Management was done by applications (Lotus 1-2-3 himem).
Overlays, segmentation, and paging were done by the application
(WordStar, WordPerfect, Dbase).
In some cases, even the hard drive itself was manipulated by the
application (writing "bad blocks" to the hard drive).
The system was used by a single user and when the system failed
everything was fixed by the "three finger salute" <cntl><alt><Delete>.
Backward compatibility wasn't even an issue, but in many cases,
incompatibility was considered a strategic advantage. This meant
that code needed to be redesigned with each generation of MS-DOS
and later Windows.
When Windows 3.0 was released, it crashed as often as once an hour,
but no one cared. It looked like a Mac, it played most of the old
MS-DOS programs, and it ran some of Microsoft's little applets like
notepad and paint.
Keep in mind that from Windows 3.0 to Windows 98, Microsoft was playing
"beat the clock". The competition was percieved as moving faster than
Microsoft's programmers could move. At the time that Windows 3.1
was released, X11R4 was available, stable, and in source code format.
The big question was did you want the pretty Motif buttons (slow but
pretty), the OLIT buttons (fast and pretty, but harder to program),
or the Athena buttons (fast and ugly but very reliable and ran on
small machines).
> I'm writing a magazine article for a trade magazine and don't know
much
> about this stuff. I've heard people call Linux more reliable than
> Windows. If true, it seems to me that this could be because
> a) Linux is better designed
Remember that at it's heart, Linux started out with the goal of
being source code compatible with UNIX. Furthermore, when Linus
published the source code to Linux, the UNIX community was frustrated
by AT&T's insistance on a "floor" price of $700 for the base system
and nearly $3500 for a fully configured system complete with graphical
interface.
Linus quickly gained the support of numerous old UNIX hackers who were
thrilled at the ability to contribute the best and leave the garbage
out. Furthermore, both UI and OSF wanted to make sure that Linux users
could migrate from Linux to their machines and worked very hard to
make sure that they could provide source code compatibility under the
GNU C compiler.
UNIX had come from a history of a multiuser environment. It wasn't at
all unusual for a single VAX 11/780 running BSD 4.1 to have as many as
200 users using it concurrently from VT-100 compatible terminals and
terminal emulators. Needless to say, when a UNIX system went down,
everybody noticed. A 30 minute outage with 200 users idled could
cost an employer as much as $20,000. Since the average UNIX
administrator of that period only made about $40,000, two outages
were the equivalent of the administrator's salary.
Each administrator knew that there were others in the same boat.
They communicated with each other because they HAD to. They sent
e-mail via UUCP links that were linked in a huge store-and-foreward
network called usenet. In most cases, employers purchased the source
code to BSD because it was their best chance of getting this 200 user
system back up and running in the shortest possible time.
Needless to say, administrators got very effective at identifying
problem applications with memory leaks and other problems and became
very adept at fixing them quickly. Soon they could identify a problem
user or problem process even before the rest of the users noticed.
A key element was the ability to combine very small simple
processes called "filters" together into "pipelines". Since
each process in the pipeline was self-contained and very efficient,
the whole pipeline was more reliable. Since each process was
managed by the kernel (including the communication), it was
easy to create complex applications using simple functions.
Ironically, UNIX didn't have a relational database for several
years because it was easier to use the simple "pipe and filter"
tools available in UNIX.
Because UNIX was designed to run these little programs, it was
very efficient at switching between them. Modern Linux and UNIX
systems can perform as many as 1 million context switches per second.
Because each program runs for a relatively short time, UNIX was
designed to efficiently manage frequently used memory between
processes. In many multi-layer cache systems, the most commonly
used I/O functions are never swapped out of memory. The most
frequently used functions are kept together instead of with
their respective objects which means that even RISC processors
effectively become self-optimizing CISC machines.
Eventually, as Unix moved into more and more commercial uses,
it became very popular for mission critical systems. Eventually,
UNIX was adopted for TCP/IP and the ARPA-Internet. This was a
system designed to survive a nuclear holocaust, to prevent
interception from even the best cryptographers, and to prevent
cracking from even the most persistant hackers. Ironically,
the military tried to prevent the use of DES encryption and
Kerberos authentication in domestic commercial systems because
they were afraid they couldn't crack messages sent by enemy spies.
> b)it attempts to do less,
Linux was smart in it didn't try to reinvent the wheel. Java and BEOS
tried to go all the way back to the basic atoms and then generate a big
enough following to create a huge software base equivalent to the UNIX
software base. Linux simply started with the baseline software that
was already available and used that as the foundation.
Linux achieves a user-friendly look-and-feel by integrating
GUI front-ends written in Python, TCL/TK, or PERL/CGI to the
traditional scripted languages and commands such as ed, awk,
and grep.
The result is that one can generate highly leveraged code. Nearly
any good consulting firm will tell you the importance of their
intellectual capital repository. It lets them create applications
in less time than if they tried to create them from scratch using
standard C or BASIC compilers. Linux provides one of the largest and
most substantial intellectual capital repositories available for the
price of a utility or a game.
I have personally had cases where I had to estimate projects for NT
development. I found that if I could IMPLEMENT then ENTIRE PROJECT
in Linux in 10 days, that the first release of the NT version wouldn't
be stable in less than a year. The "Rapid Application Development"
tools provided by Microsoft made it easy to create forms, but didn't
handle the business rules, or manage the race conditions and deadlocks
involved in managing hundreds of concurrent threads.
With Linux, I could create an UGLY CLI working model in 7 days, spend
3 days editing a CGI form with HotMetal or Communicator, and have
a fully functional system by the end of the 10th day.
> c) more people have invested time in making it work and/or
UNIX has been around since 1968, has been used commercially since
about 1983 (divestature of AT&T), and has been taught to about 3
million people. The earliest UNIX programmers went to school for
5 years in electrical engineering, learning statistics, calculus,
and several programming languages as part of their training. They
worked on problems like missle guidence systems, air traffic control
systems, or other complex "do or die" environments before they were
turned loose on the business world.
Many of the programmers who contributed to the BSD 4.1 and later
releases of UNIX were MSEE and PhD students, not freshmen hackers
who were still trying to figure out pointer constructs. And many
of these students had been given the original AT&T Version 6 source
code, along with a detailed description of every major function.
> d)smarter people (and, hey, let's say
> better looking while we're at it) have
> invested time in making it work
> (I guess there's some overlap with "a)" here).
In a world of "freeze dried instant microwavable success", the Linux
supporter stands out as something extraordinary. The average Linux
user receives as little as 20 hours of direct support from an outside
source (friend, co-worker, business associate), spends as much as 130
hours just learning the basics of the Linux user interface and GUI
applications. Many Linux "gurus" spend over 1000 hours per year
learning new applications and technologies (20 hours a week for a year
less a 2 week vacation). Many UNIX professionals spend 2000 to 3000
hours a week on "original thought" - solving problems that have never
been solved before, as opposed to repetitive routine activities.
> I thought I'd make a meager attempt to
> evaluate the possibility of "c"
C is to the UNIX programmer what Machine code is to the Windows
programmer. You CAN go into debug and try to decode the instructions,
but you probably don't want to.
I would suggest an "introduction" exercise of writing a PERL script
that would be called by Apache using the Web browser as the user
interface. Start with a utility from the CPAN library and see
what you can add. From there, you can try Python, TCL, or Java.
You can use the GTK tools from most of these languages.
There are three primary construction pattern most frequently used
in Linux/UNIX programming.
The Procedural - which you are familiar with from VBScript, JavaScript,
Visual Basic or Visual C.
Object Oriented - which you are familiar with from Visual C++, Java,
and ActiveX.
Parser - This is where PERL comes in. You can also use YACC, and
the SAX XML parser. These look for particular patterns and execute
when matches or events occurr. This is a pure "Rules Engine" in which
patterns or tokens can be used to generate a valid set of rules.
There are a few good books on PERL, but I'd reccommend the O'Reilly
"Camel Book" as the best "first cut". It should take about a week
or two to learn (about 30 hours).
It's also a good idea to learn at least one "shell" language. This
is the easiest way to create simple pipelines. The underlying code
is fast, efficient C code, but the application itself is held together
by "glue" from the shell.
> --although if anybody wants to cast a vote
> or express a thought as to
Well, I've expressed several thoughts tonight. This is one of my
longer epistles. you seem like a genuinely interested person and
I felt you deserved the attention.
> the other options (or to propose alternatives),
I'd be interested to
> read. Thanks for any thoughts.
>
> Oliver Baker
>
> .
>
> .
>
> .
>
> .
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "David .." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: general question?
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 00:56:30 -0500
Keith wrote:
>
> Hey I'm thinking of installing CorelLinux on my system. I currently know
> [nothing] about linux and I'm wondering if it has a GUI like windows. I know
> that the installation program has a gui, but does the actual OS have it too,
> like windows. Is it easy to use or very difficult? I heard that some people
> actually get the GUI seperately from the kernel--is this what I'll have to
> do? Any help would be appreciated.
Yes there are several GUI's (window managers) for Linux.
The GUI isn't a part of the OS.
All distributions come with several GUI's included. Which one you use is
your choice.
The kernel is the OS. It tells programs how to communicate with
hardware.
The GUI runs on top of the OS.
There is a learning curve to linux as there is with anything else that's
new.
Try it! It can be downloaded for free.
If you don't like it you haven't wasted any money.
--
Registered with the Linux Counter. http://counter.li.org
ID # 123538
------------------------------
From: Guardian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Why can't I unmount....?????
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 02:16:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 03:30:27 -0230, Hendrix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi guys,
>
>Why is it that unmounting doesn't always work...??? Sometimes I try to
>unmount a specific filesystem and the system will return a message
>saying that the device is busy, and cannot be unmounted... This message
>is persistant even after I use the 'sync' command... The filesystem
>doesn't seem to be busy... Sometimes the specifed mount is completely
>empty with no files on the filesystem at all...But yet, the busy message
>is still sent to the screen...
>
>Anyone...???
>
>Thanks,
Don't crosspost.
Sometime you may be in the directory that is mounted. For example, if
I mount a cdrom and then cd /cdrom. Then I can't umount it while I'm
in it cause it 's in use. All you do, cd to go back to ~/ and then
umount /cdrom.
Guardian
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Something wrong. Unable to load Xwindows
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 06:11:25 GMT
I am unable to load Xwindows I get the following messages:
"_FontTransSocketUNIXConnect: Can't connect: errno=111 failed to set default
font path unix/:-1 Fatal Server error : Could not open default font 'fixed'
_X11TransSocketUNIXConnect: Can't connect: errno=111 giving up. xinit:
Connection refused(errno111): unable to connect to xserver xinit:no such
process(errno3): Server error" And then I get " According to
/var/run/gdm.pid, gdm was already running(768), but seems to have been
murdered mysteriously INIT:Id "x" respawning too fast: disabled for 5 mins. "
Pl. give me soln. to this problem, cause I can't access the net thru Linux
without Xin.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Guardian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tin newsreader
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 02:25:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 24 Jun 2000 11:18:47 +1200, Bryan Hoyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hi! I want to figure out how to use tin properly eventually, but at the
>moment, can someone please just tell me a quick way to download, say, the
>last 50 messages from a newsgroup (rec.music.classical) on to a specific file on my
>hard
>drive, and do that only. I've tried various things, but they all seem to
>take forever, and never get finished, or at least take far longer than it
>seems it should.
>
>If you can tell me how to do the same thing with another console-based
>newsreader, say emacs or trn, I would be just as happy.
>
>Thanks.
I haven't used tin a long time, but I think I used tin -Qr -G 50
which limited the number of articles to 50 and used Quick start mode.
You can edit a file, I think it's in ~/.tin/tinrc or .tinrc to limit
articles also.
Guardian
------------------------------
From: Scott Szymanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: xf86config setup
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 06:30:06 GMT
Hello
I have been triing forever to get the right configuration for my computer
with no success. I am using mandrake 6.0 and have a SiS6326 AGP 8mb video
card. I have a Digital Autoscan monitor that supports horizontal
frequencys from 30-70KHz and vertical frequencies from 50-120KHz, and it
has a maximum resolution of 1280 x 1024. I have tried almost every setting
in Xconfigurator and it always fails the test it runs at the end and then
when i use startx, only certain things show up. I have also tried
xf86config with the same results. I would greatly appreciate if someone
could offer some help with this annoying problem.
Thanks for the help
Scott
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
------------------------------
From: FyreFiend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux as a client :-(
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 01:41:56 -0400
That is what I say to those people that want Linux to replace Windows
as the big desktop OS. I like Linux because it's fun to learn and
stable but it will never replace Windows or MacOS for Joe computer
user for just those reasons. I'd love it if some one could make Linux
easier to use and set up (X can be a real pain) but I'm not holding my
breath.
(Before anyone flames me please notice that I said I like Linux)
-Lloyd
On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 04:30:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>I like linux as a server operating system,
>but it still lacks as a client, compared to Windows.
>
>I have the following problems with using linux as a client:
>
>1. Are there any plans for making software just as easy to install
> as in Windows? RPM and DEB packages are a start, but these seem
> to be distribution specific. I long for the day when all software
> and drivers will be as simple as double-clicking on setup.exe
>
>2. Fonts are still a problem. I installed Mandrake 7.1, with
> XFree86 4.0, and Netscape fonts still can't compete with Internet
> Explorer on Windows. Is there some linux distribution that has
> solved this annoying problem.
>
>-Adnan Khan
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: linux as a client :-(
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 07:01:48 GMT
On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 04:30:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>I like linux as a server operating system,
>but it still lacks as a client, compared to Windows.
>
>I have the following problems with using linux as a client:
>
>1. Are there any plans for making software just as easy to install
> as in Windows? RPM and DEB packages are a start, but these seem
All you need is a script language. That is all installshield,
the typical source of WinDOS 'ease of install'. There are
plenty for Linux, even ones that include eye candy.
> to be distribution specific. I long for the day when all software
> and drivers will be as simple as double-clicking on setup.exe
What's so horribly complex about a 'wizard' like gnorpm.
>
>2. Fonts are still a problem. I installed Mandrake 7.1, with
> XFree86 4.0, and Netscape fonts still can't compete with Internet
> Explorer on Windows. Is there some linux distribution that has
Stop trying to use the fonts that Windows-centric sites want
to force on you and this problem disappears.
[deletia]
Windows users should be able to hunt and peck in a property list...
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
