Linux-Misc Digest #575, Volume #25 Sun, 27 Aug 00 01:13:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: Bug in dynamic linker (Kevin Henry)
Re: Advice sought, (new user coming from OS/2) (Carl Fink)
Re: Terminal prog for linux (Carl Fink)
Re: Powered by LINUX (elemental)
Re: pam_wheel.so (Doug O'Leary)
ALSA !? Angry Latins Stomp Ants??? (Scott Morgan)
Re: scsi bus resets with aic7xxx (David M. Cook)
Re: NEWBIE-Shell scripting - When to use script variable vs. create ("Andrew N.
McGuire ")
Re: Advice sought, (new user coming from OS/2) (Bob Hauck)
Re: Reading vi files in windows ("Andrew N. McGuire ")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kevin Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Bug in dynamic linker
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:25:36 -0400
Charles Ju wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I have the following error when I tried to run an executable:
>
> $ magrt -n mag1
> BUG IN DYNAMIC LINKER ld.so: dl-version.c: 210: _dl_check_map_versions:
> Assertion `needed != ((void *)0)' failed!
> $
>
> Can someone tell me how to fix this?
>
> Regards,
I have a similar situation problem, with RH 6.2 on a Sun Ultra 5. What's
your platform?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl Fink)
Subject: Re: Advice sought, (new user coming from OS/2)
Date: 27 Aug 2000 03:01:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:16:14 -0400 Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Note: I've decided to use GNOME as my desktop environment. . .
Tell the truth: is this because IBM has endorsed it, oh former OS/2
user? :-)
Note liberal cutting of quotes throughout:
> a. how much disk space is needed for the base system
> b. what is the most reasonable way to separate applications and data from the
>base OS. For instance,
> would it make sense to put /home and /usr on their own partition as a way to
>acheive that?
Nothing posted here can beat the Partition mini-HOWTO. See
www.linuxdoc.org or one of its mirrors.
>2. Is it feasible to use an HPFS partition for data and/or Linux applications during
>a transition
> period? What sorts of performance and reliability issues would I have to deal
>with?
> Would that complicate backing up?
Yes. I did that, when I converted over from OS/2 a few years ago.
Depending on your distribution you might have to recompile the kernel
to add HPFS support, but that shouldn't be a challenge for you. See
the Filesystems-HOWTO and the Kernel-HOWTO. (Do you see a theme
developing here?)
Oh, and for your backup question, GNU tar worked fine for me backing
up the HPFS partition. I still have those backups on CD-R, in fact.
>6. OS/2 runs fine on an old P90 laptop with 40 MB of ram. I've tried running Linux
>on such a
> machine but Linux (running GNOME) seems to require more horsepower. I won't
>give up GNOME.
> Are there optimizations that would make this machine usable? I also have a
>P166 with 64 MB
> of ram. Even that seems strained by Linux with GNOME. Same question for this
>machine.
GNOME won't be fast on those machines. GNOME is a dog in terms of
speed. That's why I use icewm without either GNOME or KDE. Works
fine for me.
I used icewm on a 486-133 with 40MB of RAM for two years. It wasn't
fast, but it was quite usable.
You ask about stability. I can only say that with Debian GNU/Linux
I've had one X lockup in over two years on this computer. Some
applications are unstable (notably Netscape) but it's *hard* to
freeze Linux. Freezing the X Window System is somewhat easier,
unfortunately.
> I guess I'd like to know 2 things. a) OS/2 has very good multitasking. I've
>heard claims
> to the same effect about Linux, but my personal experience so far doesn't
>confirm them.
> Do I need to take special care to avoid taxing Linux's multitasking abilities?
>Will this
> situation improve with 2.4? (Is anyone here honest enough to address this
>question without
> flames?) b) Where can I get a good summary of techniques for Linux crash
>recovery and
> disaster recovery?
No flames, but I've had no stability problems.
Linux isn't as stable, according to those who use both, as freeBSD or
netBSD, so if stability is your primary goal you might look there.
I find Linux's multitasking to be signficantly better than OS/2 4.0's
was, on my computer with my applications. Again, it isn't likely
that "Linux" (the kernel) was freezing. It's quite possible that a
buggy X server was. If so, a newer point release of X would solve
your whole problem.
As for being careful not to tax Linux's multitasking: this box is
running a web server, mail server, news server, browser, bitmap
editor (in a Windows API emulator), seti@home client, five xterms,
and top right now. Response is faster than my work PC's. Admittedly
that box runs Windows 98 -- but it's a much faster computer.
--
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Manager, Dueling Modems Computer Forum
<http://dm.net>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl Fink)
Subject: Re: Terminal prog for linux
Date: 27 Aug 2000 03:03:25 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 00:01:34 +0000 Slip Gun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi,
>Back in the days of Win 3.1, there was a program called terminal.exe
>which allowed you to talk to your modem and dial into bbs's. Could
>someone give me the name of a good 'terminal' program for linux? Any
>help appreciated.
Minicom.
--
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I-Con's Science and Technology Programming
<http://www.iconsf.org/>
------------------------------
From: elemental <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Powered by LINUX
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:59:26 -0700
So this MerefBast character tells us...
#
# I am putting together a comparison list of which major
# businesses and organizations use which operating systems for
# their web servers (at
# <http://www.OperatingSystems.net/system/internet/internet.htm>.
I think Netcraft already did this.
<http://www.netcraft.com/survey/>
elemental
From the ashes of liars grow the flowers of hope...
<http://www.synaesthetic.net/~elemental/>
elemental(at)synaesthetic(dot)net
ICQ # 2629119 goth.code available if you ask really nicely.
/* Note: Replace .gov with .net in the From: address to e-mail */
------------------------------
From: Doug O'Leary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: pam_wheel.so
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 23:06:11 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> Eh? What's wrong with:
> chown root.wheel `which su`
> chmod 4750 `which su`
Hey;
Yea; I was aware of that possibility. The point of the exercise, which I
didn't mention, was to get familiar with pam. On my little linux box, su
seemed like the only thing that I was willing to play with.
Thanks for the response.
Doug
--
===================
Douglas K. O'Leary
Senior System Admin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Morgan)
Subject: ALSA !? Angry Latins Stomp Ants???
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 04:05:40 GMT
alsa's confusin me!
it says my sound card is supported, but it dont have the module for
it! ... im totally confoosticated...
any help ?
AOpen AW724, yamaha ds3 driver under windoze...
io1 is 220-22f, io2 is 330-331, irq 11, mem e4800000-e4807fff
anyone know a module that will work, or how i should compile one of my
own?
read the sound howto, and the alsa mini-howto... hmph...
oh wellz
thanks a ton!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: scsi bus resets with aic7xxx
Date: 27 Aug 2000 04:26:30 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 15:17:54 +0100, vlado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've run up on a "cute" problem with receiving scsi bus resets under
You could try putting the "no_reset" option in your conf.modules. You might
also try upgrading your driver. See
http://people.redhat.com/dledford/aic7xxx.html
Dave Cook
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.aix,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.shell
From: "Andrew N. McGuire " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NEWBIE-Shell scripting - When to use script variable vs. create
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 23:33:14 -0500
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] quoth:
~~ Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:21:09 GMT
~~ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
~~ Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc, comp.unix.aix, comp.unix.misc,
~~ comp.unix.shell
~~ Subject: Re: NEWBIE-Shell scripting - When to use script variable vs.
~~ create tmp file???
~~
[ snip reply ]
~~ In article <8o3pe3$fcg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
~~ "Ken Abrahamsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
~~ > When doing shell scripting and needing to manipulate (sed, grep, etc)
~~ file
~~ > contents, what are generally accepted good shell programming practices
~~ > determining when to assign the contents of a file to a shell variable
~~ versus
~~ > creating a tmp file and using the tmp to do all the work in?
~~ >
~~ > Avoiding tmp files means avoiding duplicate tmp file naming problems,
~~ and
~~ > the cleanup of these tmp files but what type of problems would be
~~ created by
~~ > using shell variables, especially if the contents of these shell
~~ variables
~~ > were loaded from a 'large' file. If there are size thresholds (i.e.,
~~ it's a
~~ > bad idea to use a shell variable if the data is over xxxx kilobytes,
~~ but OK
~~ > if under this), what do people find these thresholds to be? Any other
~~ > pointers / recommendations would be appreciated.
~~ >
~~ > I'm trying to do better scripting, but find no information on these
~~ type of
~~ > 'style' guidelines.
~~
Please forgive me for following up in this manner, but my news server
no longer carries the OP. I generally use Perl ( or Python for larger
tasks ) to do 'scripting'. I have found that there is hardly ever
reason for me to use the shell (/bin/sh) to script things, however
there is a time when using the shell is approriate, system init scripts
are one good example.
Generally, I will use a temp file if:
1. There needs to be data maintained that must be easily accessible
to other programs (such as a PID file).
2. The design of the program I am writing dictates a spooling system
of some sort, as in sendmail.
3. Program state data needs to be maintained between consecutive runs
of the program (this is less common), but vim is an example, look
at .viminfo, .history files are another example.
4. I feel that based on detailed testing of the program, that it uses
to much memory, as in slurping big files in Perl. If I know that
this program is going to be operating on huge amounts of data, then
in the shell you may look towards a temp file. Perl has a much more
elegant solution, by means of the tie() function.
If you are looking towards writing temp files in shell scripts, I would
suggest looking towards a scripting language, as it may have a more
elegant and efficient solution. For example, here is a Perl program
that backs up a file passed as an argument, renaming the copy with
a '.bak' extension, then changes all occurences of 'bad' to 'good' in
a sed like manner:
#!/usr/bin/perl -wpi.bak
use strict;
s~bad~good~g;
__END__
HTH && HAND,
anm
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Andrew N. McGuire ~
~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~
~ "Plan to throw one away; you will, anyhow." - Frederick P. Brooks, Jr. ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Advice sought, (new user coming from OS/2)
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 04:43:53 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:16:14 -0400, Robert Morelli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1. I currently have a 300 mb partition devoted exclusively to the OS/2
> system (together with the Java JDK). I keep all my applications and
> data on a separate partition.
>> a. how much disk space is needed for the base system
Depends on distribution and what you install. Figure 125 MB for a
"minimum" install, 250 MB for a "workstation" install with a good
selection of gadets, 1GB or more for a "full" with StarOffice and all
the development tools and enough geegaws and gadgets that you'll still
be finding them in a year.
Linux distributions tend to include a lot of things that are add-ons on
other systems.
> b. what is the most reasonable way to separate applications and
> data from the base OS. For instance, would it make sense to put /home
> and /usr on their own partition as a way to acheive that?
Yes. I put /usr/local on a separate partition and keep stuff that
didn't come with my distro there. I also make /home a separate
partition. The advantage of this scheme is that upgrades don't disturb
your data and locally-managed apps.
If you put /usr on it's own partition rather than /usr/local, then your
root partition doesn't need to be more than probably 40 MB. There's no
compelling reason to do it this way though, as upgrades are going to
overwrite /usr (but not /usr/local) anyway.
A typical layout on a small machine would look like:
Filesystem 1k-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1 2179839 1417093 650056 69% /
/dev/sda2 991124 51005 888919 5% /usr/local
/dev/sda3 991124 254030 685894 27% /home
This is a "full" install of Caldera 2.4. I haven't put Star Office 5.2
on this machine yet, that'll eat 200 MB or so in /usr/local. And don't
forget your swap partition.
>2. Is it feasible to use an HPFS partition for data
Yes, but I don't think the HPFS driver understands the concept of
users. This makes it less-than-ideal for use in Linux, although there
are workarounds. Backups should work fine though.
>3. Is there a transparent way of dealing with the text file
> end-of-line difference between OS/2 (which is like Windows)
> and Linux (which is like UNIX)? I will probably be using XEmacs
> as my text editor.
XEmacs will handle DOS-style files. It will offer to "decode" them
when saving, which converts them to Unix-style. There are also some
simple utilties to convert EOL (unix2dos/dos2unix).
>4. Is there a Linux equivalent to extended attributes.
Nope. Maybe it would be a good idea to have them, but there are issues
with how they would fit in with existing practice. So where and how to
add them is unresolved.
The "Unix style" is to create multitudes of directories to organize
your files. You can use symlinks for files or directory subtress that
logically belong in more than one place. So, while you may need to
adapt to a new style of organizing your work, I think you can probably
come up with a scheme that will work for you.
>5. The FM/2 file manager I use under OS/2...
Sorry, I'm a command-line geek. X allows me to have lots of command
windows on-screen at the same time. I don't do file managers.
>6. OS/2 runs fine on an old P90 laptop with 40 MB of ram.
> I've tried running Linux on such a machine but Linux
> (running GNOME) seems to require more horsepower.
That's Gnome for you. And KDE to a somewhat lesser extent. There are
a few things you can try.
Avoid high-color displays and don't use bitmapped backgrounds. That
seems to reduce memory consumption quite a bit. Switch to a lighter
window manager if you're using Enlightenment. Be sure you have
sufficient swap space and that it is enabled. Also, make sure that you
are using the right X server for your card and not the generic SVGA or
framebuffer drivers.
I use KDE on a P5-120 with 64 MB and it is acceptable (Matrox M-II
card). The P5-133 with 96 MB does better (same video). The only thing
that really bugs me on these machines is the time it takes to initially
log in. I have not tried Gnome on these machines, but depending on the
window manager you use with it, you may find that it uses more
resources than KDE with kwm.
Also, If you're willing to have less eye-candy and forego the "Desktop
with icons" metaphor, you might consider lightweight window managers
like Blackbox or IceWM. These perform much better on smaller machines.
>7. I've been running a mail client called PMMail.
It's been a long time since I used OS/2, but IIRC, PMMail actually used
the Unix "mbox" format. If that's still true, then most Linux mailers
should be able to deal with your archives.
>8. At this time I reluctantly plan to use XEmacs as my text editor.
I'm happy with XEmacs. It is fully customizable if you don't mind
Lisp. I don't think it is any _harder_ to customize than EPM, but it
is different.
There are other editors that people like. Nedit seems to be popular
with the GUI crowd. There are also commercial offerings like Crisp
that may be more to your liking.
>9. To my surprise, I've had severe stability problems in the past
> running Linux-Mandrake 6.0 and 6.1.
Don't know anything specific, but Mandrake is much more "bleeding edge"
than Caldera. I've used COL for years and am generally happy with it.
>10. I've also had application level stability problems. For instance,
> if I inadvertently simultaneously open too many applications. Linux
> tends to freeze up.
Sounds like something isn't right with your system. I don't have this
problem. Might be related to your troubles with X (i.e. maybe the X
server is getting wedged somehow). Also, some versions of Caldera
sometimes forgot to enable swap after installation, causing the machine
to perform poorly.
I do find though, that setting up limits on memory and processes keeps
my kids from bogging the machine down with dead copies of Netscape and
the like.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Andrew N. McGuire " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Reading vi files in windows
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 00:00:43 -0500
On 26 Aug 2000, Dances With Crows quoth:
~~ Date: 26 Aug 2000 04:29:43 GMT
~~ From: Dances With Crows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~ Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
~~ Subject: Re: Reading vi files in windows
~~
~~ On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 02:02:49 GMT, Tanner McCarron wrote:
~~ >Anyone know how to read files written in vi editor in Linux in Windows OS?
~~ >The hard breaks are the problem.
~~
~~ ITYM "text conventions differing between DOS and Unix." vi (and vim,
~~ and emacs, and joe, and nedit...) use '\n' as the line-ending character
~~ within text files. DOS uses '\n\r' as the line-ending sequence. MacOS
~~ uses '\r'. You can convert among the formats in Unix by using the
~~ widely available "dos2unix" and "unix2dos" commands, or by writing a
~~ short C hack, or by using tr....
Or Perl, sorry I have to plug my favorite language for such things:
UNIX to DOS:
perl -wpi.bak -e 's~\n~\n\r~' text.txt
DOS to UNIX:
perl -wpi.bak -e 'tr~\r~~d' text.txt
And since Perl runs on both UNIX and Windows, those methods should
be portable. Vim also runs on both platforms.
anm
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Andrew N. McGuire ~
~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~
~ "Plan to throw one away; you will, anyhow." - Frederick P. Brooks, Jr. ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
