Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #108
From: Digestifier <Linux-Misc-Request@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU
Date:     Sat, 14 May 94 12:13:11 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #108, Volume #2                Sat, 14 May 94 12:13:11 EDT

Contents:
  Re: Xfree86/mouse/IRQ/config problem (Julian Boot)
  Re: Linux in PC Week again (May 9th issue) (Mark A. Horton)
  Re: Linux in PC Week again (May 9th issue) (Mark A. Horton)
  Re: Linux on Leading Edge? (Ruediger Berlich)
  Re: linux 1.1.12 and gcc 2.4.5? (Craig Sanders)
  Re: Linux/NetBSD/386BSD.... (Craig I. Hagan)
  Re: Connecting Local Network thur. Linux (Craig I. Hagan)
  Re: Linux becomes a real operating system - official recognition (Shyamal Prasad)
  Re: Mosaic for Linux (Paul J. Gans)
  TERMINAL SERVER Software for Linux - Where? (Eric Poole)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: cs307319@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au (Julian Boot)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin,comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.os.linux.development,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions,aus.computers.linux,fr.comp.os.linux,maus.os.linux,de.comp.os.linux,fj.os.linux,no.linux
Subject: Re: Xfree86/mouse/IRQ/config problem
Date: 14 May 1994 23:09:08 +1000

[problems with mouse jumping around deletia]

I had simalar probs with a serial mouse  - you did not post your Xconfig
file.  If there is a baudrate= line in the mouse section, commment it 
out.  It worked for me, but your mileage may vary.

-julian
-- 
   BTW, I did have someone elses opinions, but I lost them :( So these are
   my own!!

------------------------------

From: mahmha@crl.com (Mark A. Horton)
Subject: Re: Linux in PC Week again (May 9th issue)
Date: 14 May 1994 07:01:21 -0700

AAUURRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!

        PC-Leak (er... PC-Week) rides again!  Shocking headlines!  
Daring Exposes [pun intended]!  Film at eleven!)

        I gotta quit talking to interviewers.... :(
        
        A few corrections follow:

Maxim Spivak (maxims@ucsee.EECS.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
: It seems that Linux is beginning to make weekly appearances in PC Week. 
: Here's an article from the System Software section dated May 9th.

: ======================================================================
:           Linux freeware poised to make commercial step

: by Anne Knowles

:   Novell Inc.'s possible use of Linux in a future desktop offering could 
: give the Unixlike oprating system, which has spent the bulk of its 
: existence as freeware on the Internet, the endorsement it needs to make a 
: splash in the commercial world.
:   So say users and distributors of Linux, the POSIX-compliant PC 
: operating system that is available under a GNU Public License. Novell, of 
: Provo, Utah, is reportedly using Linux to develop a graphical, 32-bit 
: desktop operating system that can run DOS, Windows, NetWare, and Unix 
: applications (PC Weeks, April 25, Page 1).
:   The Novell stamp of approval will give marketing clout to an operating 
: system that many users already see as a robust, industrial-strength 
: environment well-suited for commercial applications.
:   "Linux is far superior to any Unix out there," said Mark Horton, of 
: Mark Horton Associates, a system-administration consulting firm in 
: Decatur, Ga.

        WRONG.  I like Linux, but the quote was : "In many ways, Linux is
superior to many of the commercial Unix versions in the features and
compatibilities it offers, particularly POSIX compliance."

:   "The installation is far superior to SCO [Unix] and it is more reliable 
: than Solaris 2.3. It is a full-blown system that comes with development 
: tools, TCP/IP networking, and X Windows," Horton added. "And you get it 
: for nothing."

        WRONG.  "The Slackware distribution of Linux is, in my opinion,
easier than even a SCO installation... an important item for new users."

        RIGHT!  "More reliable than Solaris 2.3."  Anyone got a clue as to
why adding Windows 3.1 like the install says using the WABI tools just
...hangs.... resulting in a dead system and eventual reboot?

        RIGHT!  "It is a full-blown system that comes with development
tools, TCP/IP networking, and X Windows [and uucp and others]."  Anyone
wanna argue here?  

        "And you get it for nothing." 
        BUT!  You have to spend the time dowloading and installing and
researching.  So after an initial install one should probably invest
in one of the CD releases to have the source and libraries.

:   Like many Linux users, Horton downloaded Linux from the Internet. 
: Others but it through the four or five distributors in the United States 
: that sell it, primarily on CD ROM, for $15 to $50.
:   According to users and developers, Linux's other benefits include 
: internals that are well-documented and under the GNU Public License, and 
: source code that is always available--unlike Unix.
:   "Everyone talks about Unix being more open but it really isn't," said 
: Joel Goldberger, president of InfoMagic Inc., a Princeton, NJ., 
: distributor of Linux. "Its source code isn't always available at a 
: resonable cost. Linux is more attractive to commercial users who want 
: some sense that people are going to respond to their needs.
:   Horton agreed. "When was the last time you could talk to the person who 
: developed the operationg system at SCO or Sun? I E-mail Linus and he 
: responds."

        Sorta Right!  The quote was "I can email the person(s) who developed
a particular piece of the sytem , even Linus as busy as he is, and get
a response."  I believe I also mentioned something about this not relieving
the user of the responsibility of doing their own problem determination
so as to not bother the developers with trivial questions.

:   Linus is Linus Torvalds, the Finnish programmer who developed the Linux 
: kernel. Over the past two years, Torvalds and dozens of volunteer 
: programmers from around the world have added to Linux over the Internet. 
: Its utilities come from the GNU project at the Free Software Foundation, 
: in Cambridge, Mass., said Bob Young, editor of New Your Unix, a 
: newsletter in New Your and former publisher of The Linux Journal, in 
: Seattle. 
:   Big fixes are also available via the Internet. "I know commercial 
: customers want a vendor they can call," like Novell, said Horton. "I 
: would personally rather post to the [Internet] and get 10 to 12 answers 
: in 10 minutes." [An exaggeration IMO --Max Spivak]

        (I agree, Max... another misquote :(  !)  What I said was that
rather than spending hours on hold with a vendor, it's nice to be able to
search the net for solutions or persons having similar problems and emailing
them for solutions or if you are really stuck, post your question to the net
and you'll probably receive several responses within 20 minutes to a couple
hours, due to the world-wide nature of the net.  All responses may not be
right, however, and it's incumbent upon the individual to determine the
applicability.
        BTW: what is a "Big Fix"??? a new kernel release?  Maybe we need
a glossary... or at least a PC-Week translation table.  :)  I believe I
was referring to programmings' insectoid relations here...


                [ mount -r -t raving.human /dev/keyboard /soapbox ]

        We all complain about the clutter and noise in the Linux groups, and
many are quick to respond to newbie questions with a scorching "RTFM", or
a chilly "It's IN THE FAQ!" or a "Go read the HOWTOs!"  But given the 
(supposedly) "give us your teeming masses" approach of Linux, perhaps we
should temper such outbursts.... Take a look in the other groups (comp.os.???)
help and admin groups and compare the "quality" of questions there... and
these are from "commercial-grade" UNIX systems with shelves of documentation.

                                 [ umount /soapbox ]

:   Linux runs on PCs based on either the ISA or EISA but and 386-or-higher 
: processors. According to The Linux Journal, the average system comprises 
: 8M butes of RAM and 300M bytes to 1G byte of disk storage.
:   Unix applications can be run on it, and an emulator for the running 
: MS-DOS applications is available via a File Transfer Protocol site, as is 
: all Linux software. Volunteer programmers are developing an interface to 
: run Windows applications using the X Window System, which comes bundled 
: with it. Novel's version reportedly runs Windows and NetWare applications 
: as well, sources said.

: ==========================================================================

: Seems like PC Week _really_ likes Linux, esp. since they use it internally.
: Anyways--enjoy.

: Max
: -- 
: **************************************************************************
: Maxim Spivak                            |  #include <GoBears.h>
: University of California, Berkeley      |  #include <StdDisclaimer.h>
: maxims@ucsee.berkeley.edu               |  #include ".signature"



Anyway, that's my attempt to clear up some misquotations here... anyone got
the address of the letters-to-the-editor for this rag?  They stopped my 
subscription when I left the mainframe world 4 years ago to move to the
world of networked Unix systems and won't  restart it since I don't have
enough direct purchasing decision-making power (never mind all the clients I
make recommendation to!)  Go figure... :(

-- Mark
--
"It's 1994!  Do you know how long YOUR Linux has been running?"
--
Mark A. Horton      ka4ybr              mah@ka4ybr.atl.ga.us   mah@ka4ybr.com 
P.O.Box 747 Decatur GA US 30031-0747      ICBM: 33 45 N / 084 17 W
+1.404.371.0291                         Cruise: 33 45 31 N / 084 16 59 W
   "We may note that, for the purposes of these experiments, the symbol 
                "=" has the meaning "may be confused with."  

------------------------------

From: mahmha@crl.com (Mark A. Horton)
Subject: Re: Linux in PC Week again (May 9th issue)
Date: 14 May 1994 07:09:35 -0700

Excuse me, please.


Warner Losh (imp@boulder.parcplace.com) wrote:
: In article <2qqvn0$krr@agate.berkeley.edu>
: maxims@ucsee.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Maxim Spivak) writes: 
: >  Big fixes are also available via the Internet. "I know commercial 
: >customers want a vendor they can call," like Novell, said Horton. "I 
: >would personally rather post to the [Internet] and get 10 to 12 answers 
: >in 10 minutes."

: And people wonder why there is a problem with people posting questions
: that are FAQ's in the newsgroups.

: Sigh.

: Warner

: -- 
: Warner Losh           imp@boulder.parcplace.COM       ParcPlace Boulder
: "... but I can't promote you to "Prima Donna" unless you demonstrate a few
:  more serious personality disorders"


Let's not believe everything that PC-Week puts quotes around as what was
actually said.... for instance, your statement could be quoted as:

        "there is a problem with people posting questions ... in the 
        newsgroups."
                        - or even -

        "And people wonder why there ... are FAQ's [sic] in the 
        newsgroups."

I won't start a debate on "journalistic license" here... just my thoughts.
-- Mark

--
Mark A. Horton      ka4ybr              mah@ka4ybr.atl.ga.us   mah@ka4ybr.com 
P.O.Box 747 Decatur GA US 30031-0747      ICBM: 33 45 N / 084 17 W
+1.404.371.0291                         Cruise: 33 45 31 N / 084 16 59 W
   "We may note that, for the purposes of these experiments, the symbol 
                "=" has the meaning "may be confused with."  

------------------------------

From: ruediger@tau.ep1.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (Ruediger Berlich)
Subject: Re: Linux on Leading Edge?
Date: 14 May 1994 14:33:04 GMT

Frank Lofaro (ftlofaro@unlv.edu) wrote:
: In article <2qvrnb$8f0@lynx.dac.neu.edu> zbrown@lynx.dac.neu.edu (zachary brown) writes:
: >
: >Hi. Has anyone had success with linux on a Leading Edge computer? The
: >one I'm thinking of is a model #2700   486/66 with 4MB ram with no cache
:                                                                  ^^^^^^^^
: >memory. Successes, failures, problems welcome.
: >
: >zbrown@lynx.dac.neu.edu
: >
: >lovitlovitsince0.99pl15
: >Linux, the internet, libraries and fire departments are good.

: DON'T BUY A MACHINE WITH NO CACHE! ESPECIALLY FOR USE WITH LINUX!
: IT WILL KILL YOUR PERFORMANCE!!!!!
Hi,
sorry about that, but I'm running an old 385/25 with NO CACHE
and 8 MB and it works just fine. Much faster than it
has ever been under DOS/MS Windows.
But of course, 4 MB isn't enough for running X at a sufficient speed.
On the other hand 8 MB fit all my needs and are enough to have about
3 applications (one big and two smaller) running at a good speed.
Bye, Ruediger


------------------------------

Crossposted-To: aus.computers.linux,comp.os.linux.help
From: cas@muffin.apana.org.au (Craig Sanders)
Subject: Re: linux 1.1.12 and gcc 2.4.5?
Date: Sat, 14 May 1994 01:22:34 GMT

grahamc@kralizec.zeta.org.au (Graham Chapman) writes:

>In <1994May8.063849.24863@muffin.apana.org.au> cas@muffin.apana.org.au (Craig Sanders) writes:
> > I'm wondering if I've finally come up to a version of Linux which
> > requires a later version of gcc and the libraries.

> Someone else has answered this.

Yep.  The problem was unrelated to my version of gcc.



> If you did want to upgrade, I can tell you my experiences. I tried
> first to install the vanilla gnu gcc 2.5.8, but ran in to lots of
> problems which I couldn't fathom. I can't remember what they are
> now, because I put it into the too-hard basket, and tried H.J. Lu's
> releases instead.

I upgraded 4 or 5 days ago, and it is working smoothly now.

> With HJL I had no problems apart from those caused by my failing to
> read the release notes and follow instructions to the letter. As far
> as I can recall, the only thing I had to figure out was with the libc
> install, where libm.so.x.y was moved from /lib to /usr/lib, but one of
> the makefiles still referred to /lib. Apart from that, no trouble.

Yeah, me too.

The main problems I inititally had were:

1.  I didn't read the release document thoroughly enough, and didn't 
    delete the /usr/lib/libgcc.* files.  Quickly solved about 2 minutes
    after my first make failed reporting an error with libgcc.a - a grep
    of the release notes for libgcc told me what i needed to know.

2.  There were some sym links in /usr/lib which prevented tar from
    extracting /usr/lib/libg.a and a few other important files.  In
    particular, libg.a was a sym link to libc.a - I guess things have
    changed a lot since SLS 1.03 was released.  I don't think that this
    was documented in the release notes...I had to figure it out myself.

> I installed gcc 2.5.8, then libc 4.5.21. Libc required binutils 1.9,
> tools 2.10 or above, and ld.so 1.4.3 or above. Once all that was
> done, I installed libg++ 2.5.3l.2. Of all these, libg++ included the
> binaries and recommended against trying to recompile. All the others
> had to be built.

I installed all of the above except for tools 2.10 - what's in that,
and where do you get it from?  It certainly wasn't in the archive I
ftp-ed GCC 2.5.8 and libc 4.5.21 from because i did an "mget *" to leech
everything.

I didn't have to rebuild anything - I just extracted the binaries and
the include files in the right places, and everything worked.  Then I
rebuilt the kernel with the new libraries - just so everything is up to
date - and it worked fine.

> You will need plenty of time and probably about 50Mb free disk space
> to build everything. Was it you who said something about "time to
> build a coffee plantation"....you'll have it.

I gained about 30MB by removing X from my system - I can't use it at
the moment because what used to be my mouse port is now supporting an
XT-230E vt-220 clone terminal.  Nice terminal, better than a genuine
vt-220 IMO.

I didn't need 50Mb, though, as I didn't have to recompile libc - it
worked as is in binary form.

All up, it took me about half a day - most of that time I was working on
other things while the computer chugged away in the background :-)

I didn't really need to do it as I'll be moving to Slackware 1.2.0 very
soon, but it was a worthwhile experience.  I now know a lot more about
the compiler and how it all ties in together.

Today I'll probably even have time to compile new versions of the GNU
textutils, shellutils, fileutils etc which I snarfed the other day.
Great, the versions I have installed are getting quite dated.


-- 
Craig Sanders                                     cas@muffin.apana.org.au


------------------------------

From: hagan@opine.cs.umass.edu (Craig I. Hagan)
Subject: Re: Linux/NetBSD/386BSD....
Date: 11 May 1994 07:16:22 GMT

duling@niehs.nih.gov (daveduling) wrote:
> Just curious, is there any effort to combine/distill one 
> freeware unix from all the current possiblities ?  And
> what are the relative merits of the alternatives ?

> -dave duling
>  duling@niehs.nih.gov

this is a difficult question to answer -- not because of a
lack of information, but, because of the ease of starting
a OS/X is better than OS/Y flamefest.

in a nutshell:

linux and *bsd aren't compible at a system level -- binary
compatibility is out since they both have differing
sets of system calls that would be non-trivial to
emulate, more importantly, since most software
available can be ported to either os, that isn't really
much of a big deal.

some things that you may wish to consider while 
reading the various documents/faqs/etc  on the
three os's:

note: some of these questions may not have
        immediate relevance to the issue
        of os choice, but, i think are good
        things to keep in mind.

*) are you doing in kernel work that you intend upon
        porting to other BSD style machines?

*) do you need the potential for SCO binary compatibility?

*) are you interested in ease of setup?

*) do you want something that looks like OSF/1 or like sunos?
        (no flaming me on this please, it is a personal
         observation of mine)

*) do you trust binaries on ftp sites, or do you prefer
        compiling your own binaries? (this is nearly
        a non issue)

*) what devices do you have, and what support is there
        in the various pd unixes to control them?

*) what features do you intend to make use of the most
        with your machine?

*) how much disk space will you need?

*) how much memory will you need?

*) how convenient is it for you to get a release/update of
        the os?

most important:

*) which ps unixes do your friends run?


------------------------------

From: hagan@opine.cs.umass.edu (Craig I. Hagan)
Subject: Re: Connecting Local Network thur. Linux
Date: 11 May 1994 07:29:42 GMT

I feel rambunctious, so i will give this a shot:

you are going from pc/tcp to linux? I will assume that
you have installed slackware, as i need *SOME* basis
for my answers (linux varies widely)


> TCP default window (window): 1024       low window (lowwindow): 0

> Host table (hosttable): c:\lan\hosts.txt

copy this file to /etc/hosts

> FTP Software PC/TCP ipconfig Version 2.05 pl4
> Copyright (c) 1986-1992 by FTP Software, Inc.  All rights reserved.
> Host (hostname.domain): mcwai
> Short username (userid): mcwai

edit /etc/rc.d/rc.M and look for /bin/hostname 
make sure that mcwai appears after that, e.g. 

/bin/hostname mcwai

ditto the line with /sbin/hostname_notcp


> Long username (fullname): (not set)
> Office (office): (not set)
> Phone (phone): (not set)
> Timezone name (tzname): , offset 0

> Default gateway (gw): 221.7.115.254

edit /etc/rc.d/rc.inet1

figure out your host ip (grep mcwai /etc/hosts)

change the numbers after IPADDR, NETMASK, NETWORK,
and BROADCAST.

I belive that your netmask is a class C, so it can
remain at 255.255.255.0

your broadcast should be (talk with your net admin)
221.7.115.255 (it could be 221.7.115.255 but that is unlikely)

your NETWORK should be 221.7.115.0 

look for "GATEWAY=" and change the IP # after that
to be 221.7.115.254

lastly, uncomment the /sbin/route line that has the
keywords, "default gw" in it.

ideally, you will want to find out two more things (talk with
your netadmin, or look on a local unix box -- this stuff
doesn't usually change)

you need to configure your nameserving (BIND).

this configuration is in /etc/resolv.conf

it usually looks something like this:

mydomain.place.com
nameserver xxx.yyy.zzz.qqq
nameserver aaa.bbb.ccc.ddd
nameserver eee.fff.ggg.hhh

there need not be three nameservers for a domain.

-- craig

------------------------------

From: shyamal@seas.smu.edu (Shyamal Prasad)
Subject: Re: Linux becomes a real operating system - official recognition
Date: Sat, 14 May 1994 14:46:18 GMT

In article <Cpr7DB.E34@specialix.com>, Jon Brawn <jonb@specialix.com> wrote:
>       [deleted]
>business'', ``My Job Function'', and the interesting one ``Operating
>Systems Used''. Number twelve on the list? LINUX (all capital letters!)
>
>So, there you have it, official recognition from Uniforum (now, don't
>we all feel *much* better for that?).

Hah! Now I can go tell my advisor. In my research group people treat
Linux like "a good place to start". No one takes me very seriously
when I say its as stable and a good deal better in some ways than many
(most?)  commercial systems.

Really bugs me....

Thanks,
Shyamal
-- 
Shyamal Prasad, Department of Computer Science
Southern Methodist University, Dallas TX 75275, USA

------------------------------

From: gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans)
Subject: Re: Mosaic for Linux
Date: 11 May 1994 22:55:30 GMT
Reply-To: gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu

rah@bwco.com wrote:

: Can anyone point me to an FTP site for either the source or
: binaries for Mosaic that will run with Linux?

: rah@bwco.com

It is at sunsite.unc.edu in pub/Linux/system/Network/info-systems. 
The binary works out of the box.

     ----- Paul J. Gans   [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
 

------------------------------

From: epoole@leotech.mv.com (Eric Poole)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: TERMINAL SERVER Software for Linux - Where?
Date: Sat, 14 May 94 14:46:07 GMT
Reply-To: epoole@leotech.mv.com

Can anyone direct me to some software that will allow a Linux box to
make like a terminal server?

Specifically, what I need is hardware/software so that Internoids can
telnet into here and access our Wildcat BBS ... they would telnet in
over TCP/IP (well, SLIP), then go out one of the Linux box's serial
ports to a user port on the BBS.

I plan to use a 386/33 or 386/40 for this, with 8 serial connections
to the BBS.

I know of at least one site (bbs.meu.edu) that is doing this using a
"real" terminal server, but I can't afford the $2000+ pricetag for one
of those little boxes.

Would greatly appreciate any help anyone can offer ... please respond
either here or by mail to epoole@leotech.mv.com, and I'll summarize
any e-mail replies.

When you reply, please keep in mind that I am still quite a Unix
novice ... thanks for your consideration <smile> ...

Thanks to all ...

 . . . . . ep


------------------------------


** 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: Linux-Misc-Request@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU

You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:

    Internet: Linux-Misc@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU

Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
    nic.funet.fi				pub/OS/Linux
    tsx-11.mit.edu				pub/linux
    sunsite.unc.edu				pub/Linux

End of Linux-Misc Digest
******************************
