Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #150
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:     Sun, 22 May 94 03:15:45 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #150, Volume #2                Sun, 22 May 94 03:15:45 EDT

Contents:
  Re: software communists was Re: BRIEF/vi Compatible GUI Text Editor (Remco Treffkorn)
  Re: software communists was Re: BRIEF/vi C (Michaela Merz)
  Re: Newbie, Install Questions, What, Where, Is this OK (Robert G. Smith)
  Re: FSSTND and hard-disk partitioning (Daniel Quinlan)
  Re: URGENT: Linux Security Fixes (Clint Olsen)
  Re: Kernel panic on install (Stephen Soghoian)
  Re: URGENT: Linux Security Fixes (Robert Ashcroft)
  Re: Streets named after programming languages (David Michael Mcintyre)
  Re: Can I run a DOS app. in Linux? (Rob Janssen)
  Re: Seeking Laser Printer Recommendations (Bruce       Scott          TK)

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

From: remco@emc.rvt.com (Remco Treffkorn)
Subject: Re: software communists was Re: BRIEF/vi Compatible GUI Text Editor
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 05:04:57 GMT
Reply-To: remco@emc.rvt.com

Matt Welsh (mdw@cs.cornell.edu) wrote:
: In article <2rcerk$8ig@finzi.ccinet.ab.ca> kevin@valis.ampr.ab.ca (Kevin B. Fluet) writes:
: >It makes Linux all the better if commercial apps are supported.  

: If your only motive is to run software that works for you, there
: are many commercial UNIX implementations for the PC. Some that aren't
: very expensive, I might add. But there is an ethic behind the development
: of free software which is that software should be free, so that people
: can share it and help each other to improve it. Once you allow a commerical
: software product to satisfy your basic computing needs, you've lost the
: ability to improve it or modify it to suit your needs.

: >If it does the job better than the free software
: >available, why wouldn't I pay a reasonable price for it?  

: Because doing so impedes the necessity for the development of free
: software. When you give in to commercial software, particularly
: operating systems, you aren't aiding the free software world for
: providing anything better. Free software only improves as long as
: its users demand and allow it to do so. 

: If everyone shared your attitude, Linux wouldn't be here at all.
: Linus would have stared at his screen printing "AAA... BBB...",
: realized that SCO worked better, and resorted to that. Instead,
: some of us demand that free software improve, not only by helping
: to develop it, but also by _depending_ on it for everyday use. 

: mdw

(I tried to shorten the text, but could not do so without distorting
 the meaning, sorry)

Matt, I am (still) getting payed for writing software, and not bad, to
be honest. As long as I am willing to take money for my work product
(software), I can not blame whoever came up with the money, if they
turn around and resell it. They made an investment and want to see
a return on it. I do NOT see any difference between software and 
music in this respect. Somebody gets paid for creating it, somebody
else then copies it and sells it en masse. The creator gets paid once,
or gets royalties.

In my own time, I still write software, that I give away. This is my
hobby and it gives me pleasure to help people, if I can. It also tickles
my ego.

With all due respect, I think you live in a bit of a dream world. The next
guy who says "software should be free" will be knee-capped :-)
Who says it should be free? The same people who say booze should be free?
Or healthcare should be free? Or housing?

I think everybody should be rich, didn't help me much! I still have to
work, and sell the holy cow: SOFTWARE.

If this goes against your ethics: tough luck! If I have to choose between
your ethics and mine beeing able to bring bread on the table, then screw
the ethics. This, of course, is only my personal choice. (You are free to
move out of your house and under the bridge, together with the guys who
say "booze should be free" :-)

This beeing the case, it would be hippocritical if I would *expect*
software for free. I am thankfull when I can get it, but I am willing to
pay if I have to.

Having diried myself with sin by having taken money for software, I have
to take a more moderate stance towards free software: I *like* software to
be free (in both senses of the word). Whenever there is a free product
available, I will take it over the not free one. Even if it it slightly
less capable/nice/refined/.... . This gives free software a big competetive
edge over the commercial stuff. I guess this is the way many/most people
look at the issue and it is what keeps free s/w alive.

Your unfair remark about there not beeing any linux if Linus would not
think the same you do (yes, that is how it come across): save it, does
not work! Linus was more interested in doing his own little thing by then,
so that you could have given him SCO for free, and we would probably still
have linux. He enjoyed doing it.

In my opinion the reasons why people are writing free s/w are:

1: They like doing it! It's fun!

2: When they start, they only have something that nobody would pay
   for anyway! Too buggy, too incomplete!

3: Isn't it nice when somebody tells you that your s/w is great?
   Is that not a nice reward?

If their stuff has some potential, then other people on the net will
get involved. They debug, they enhance, they add to the product in a
way that it is then not the sole property of the creator any more. By
then it might have progressed to a point, where the s/w could compete
with commercial offerings. But now it is very hard to put the spirit
back in the bottle. ("booze should be free :-)

Much of the free s/w on the net, that is now in a state that would 
be commecially marketable went through this metamorphosis, linux
included. I am happy that this is so, I am happy that there is commercial
s/w also. If that sounds ambiguous, remember, I do not have your ethics
to get in the way.

The next guy suggesting that "software should be free" better be prepared
to offer me a job. 

Somehow, I don't feel much better now, I wonder why that is?

-- 

Remco Treffkorn, DC2XT
remco@emc.rvt.com
(408) 685-1201

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

From: misch@misch@elara.fsag.de (Michaela Merz)
Subject: Re: software communists was Re: BRIEF/vi C
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 17:20:00 GMT
Reply-To: misch@misch@elara.fsag.de

In article 9598@emc.rvt.com, remco@emc.rvt.com (Remco Treffkorn) writes:

>Matt, I am (still) getting payed for writing software, and not bad, to
>be honest. As long as I am willing to take money for my work product
>(software), I can not blame whoever came up with the money, if they
>turn around and resell it. They made an investment and want to see
>a return on it. I do NOT see any difference between software and 
>music in this respect. Somebody gets paid for creating it, somebody
>else then copies it and sells it en masse. The creator gets paid once,
>or gets royalties.

Well - there are a lot of differences between music and software. Did you
ever tape some records? Or videos? Doing the same with software would be
illegal. Software is protected by copyrights _and_ only available in 
machine readable code. That has never been in the mind of the copyright
law founders.
 
>In my own time, I still write software, that I give away. This is my
>hobby and it gives me pleasure to help people, if I can. It also tickles
>my ego.
>
>With all due respect, I think you live in a bit of a dream world. The next
>guy who says "software should be free" will be knee-capped :-)
>Who says it should be free? The same people who say booze should be free?
>Or healthcare should be free? Or housing?

Software should be free! Because there's a _big_ difference between housing,
healthcare and software. Softwareproducers don't have to invest once the
product is in the market. They are able to sell exactly the same product
again and again. No other industry is able to do this with all those
copy restrictions. Nobody prevents you to break your car into parts just
to learn how the engine is working. It is not prohibited to take a look 
into your tv set or to measure the different parts to see what and how 
things are going.

>I think everybody should be rich, didn't help me much! I still have to
>work, and sell the holy cow: SOFTWARE.

Well - go ahead and become rich. 

>If this goes against your ethics: tough luck! If I have to choose between
>your ethics and mine beeing able to bring bread on the table, then screw
>the ethics. This, of course, is only my personal choice. (You are free to
>move out of your house and under the bridge, together with the guys who
>say "booze should be free" :-)

There are _plenty_ of possibilities of making money with free software. Free
software and 'making money' are working perfectly together. Ask Cygnus.

>Having diried myself with sin by having taken money for software, I have
>to take a more moderate stance towards free software: I *like* software to
>be free (in both senses of the word). Whenever there is a free product
>available, I will take it over the not free one. Even if it it slightly
>less capable/nice/refined/.... . This gives free software a big competetive
>edge over the commercial stuff. I guess this is the way many/most people
>look at the issue and it is what keeps free s/w alive.
>
>Your unfair remark about there not beeing any linux if Linus would not
>think the same you do (yes, that is how it come across): save it, does
>not work! Linus was more interested in doing his own little thing by then,
>so that you could have given him SCO for free, and we would probably still
>have linux. He enjoyed doing it.
>
>In my opinion the reasons why people are writing free s/w are:
>
>1: They like doing it! It's fun!
>
>2: When they start, they only have something that nobody would pay
>   for anyway! Too buggy, too incomplete!
>
>3: Isn't it nice when somebody tells you that your s/w is great?
>   Is that not a nice reward?

Well - there are a lot more possibilities. We're developing and using free 
software because we don't want to be cheated by all those "well known"
companies anymore. And - we make our living by developing, porting and
supporting free software. You should not try to declare free software
devlopers as a kind of unprofessional dreamers.

>If their stuff has some potential, then other people on the net will
>get involved. They debug, they enhance, they add to the product in a
>way that it is then not the sole property of the creator any more. By
>then it might have progressed to a point, where the s/w could compete
>with commercial offerings. But now it is very hard to put the spirit
>back in the bottle. ("booze should be free :-)
>
>Much of the free s/w on the net, that is now in a state that would 
>be commecially marketable went through this metamorphosis, linux
>included. I am happy that this is so, I am happy that there is commercial
>s/w also. If that sounds ambiguous, remember, I do not have your ethics
>to get in the way.

Commercially marketable is a nice phrase for making money out of other
peoples work. We don't have anything against commercial software. If it
is available under fair conditions. If I am able to copy it for private
purposes. If I am able to return it if it doesn't fit my needs. If the 
developers don't abuse the copyright to protect ie. the waste basket 
look&feel.

>The next guy suggesting that "software should be free" better be prepared
>to offer me a job. 

Sorry. You want to become rich. What about a travel to Las Vegas ;-)

 
Michaela


---
The                                           
Free Software                                      (Phone) ++49-69-6312083
Association of Germany, FSAG                             We have a target!



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

From: rob@bip.anatomy.upenn.edu (Robert G. Smith)
Subject: Re: Newbie, Install Questions, What, Where, Is this OK
Date: 22 May 1994 05:57:56 GMT

Patrick J. Chicas (pjc@soldpc.cts.com) wrote:
: Aloha All..

: I would like to install Linux and it's X-windows variant on the following 
: system:

: Generic 486-33dx ISA Bus Machine
: 8 Megabytes of RAM
: 1.44 Floppy Drive (a:) 1.2 Floppy Drive (b:)
: Adaptec 1542 SCSI Controller
: Fujitsu M2623FA Hard Drive
: Paradise VGA (old 512k) VGA Card
: Digiboard PC16e Multi-Asynch Port Card
: Intel Etherexpress 10bas-T LAN Card
: Microsoft Mouse, occupying IRQ-4

: The system will serve a dual purpose as a general Internet server and
: also a modem server connected via NFS to a SUN IPX.

: Disk partitioning to share the system with MS-DOS is not necessary.

: I's greatly appreciate responses that relate to each piece of hardware 
: mentioned.  Also, directions to a good ftp site for the necessary files and 
: documentation.  Please consider that I'll first transfer the files to my 
: MS-DOS laptop via a Windows Socket FTP Client.

You can read about the hardware compatibility in the
Hardware-HOWTO file on sunsite.unc.edu:pub/Linux/docs/HOWTO.
Other docs are there too, try reading the meta-FAQ and the FAQ.

The slackware distribution is a good place to start, available
on
   sunsite.unc.edu:pub/Linux/distributions/slackware
   ftp.cdrom.com:pub/linux/slackware
   ftp.cdrom.com:pub/linux/sunsite/...
   tsx-11.mit.edu:pub/Linux...

Advice: you only need to load 4 disks through MSDOS onto
the hard disk: the 3 "a" (basic linux dist), and the "n1"
disk.  After that, you have a working network-compatible
linux that can be used to download the complete system in
about 90 minutes.  Read the HOWTO docs in the slackware
directory to understand how to install it.  Read
NET-2-HOWTO to understand the net stuff.  Slackware,
though, installs the net stuff virtually perfectly
the first time.

After you get slackware (1.2.0) installed, you 
can try upgrading to a 1.1.12 kernel, available
from:

  linuxftp.caltech.edu

Rob Smith


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

From: quinlan@spectrum.cs.bucknell.edu (Daniel Quinlan)
Subject: Re: FSSTND and hard-disk partitioning
Date: 20 May 1994 23:31:56 GMT
Reply-To: quinlan@spectrum.cs.bucknell.edu


Scott Barker <barkers@cuug.ab.ca> writes:

> Well, I've just read over version 1.0 of the linux file system
> standard, and noticed that it made somewhat of an implication that
> there be separate partitions for root (/), /usr, and /var (and
> possibly /home).

I'm actually planning on trying to remove much of that implication from
the standard despite the fact that it is generally a good idea to divide
up your disk.  The FSSTND tries to allow such setups (several separate
partitions) to be more beneficial, but does *not* make other ones
impossible.

Some directory structures (SLS's, for instance) limit the benefits of a
small root partition by dumping far too much junk into directories which
are usually on the root partition.

> I've also noticed on many systems that I've used that /var/spool/mail
> and /var/spool/news also each have their own partitions.

This is usually done when those filesystems are exported via NFS to
client machines.  (Some amount of care needs be taken to do this right.)

> [...]

Dan

--
Daniel Quinlan  <quinlan@spectrum.cs.bucknell.edu>

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

From: olsenc@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Clint Olsen)
Subject: Re: URGENT: Linux Security Fixes
Date: 22 May 1994 05:18:45 GMT

In article <Cq69q5.J4q@pe1chl.ampr.org>, Rob Janssen <pe1chl@rabo.nl> wrote:
>In <1994May20.231021.12439@gdsnl.gds.nl> jeroen@gdsnl.gds.nl (Jeroen van Gennip) writes:
>
>Poor solution, the leak still remains.
>(I will leave it as an excercise to find how this program can be
>bypassed.  it is easy.)

What are you, some sort of fucking textbook author?  Share your
knowledge with the rest of the community or be roasted!

I know the answer to the meaning of life, but I'll leave it as an
exercise for you.  It's EASY.

-Clint
--
Clint Olsen
University of Washington
Electrical Engineering
olsenc@maxwell.ee.washington.edu

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

From: Stephens@drjazz.demon.co.uk (Stephen Soghoian)
Subject: Re: Kernel panic on install
Reply-To: Stephens@drjazz.demon.co.uk
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 23:31:00 +0000

In article: <crussellCq31tr.3KJ@netcom.com>  crussell@netcom.com (Chris 
Russell) writes:
> 
> Yesterday, I tried to install Linux (from the SLS distribution 1.05)
> onto my new 486DX2-66 PCI PC, but got a kernel panic just after
> scanning the SCSI chain.
> > task[0] (swapper) killed: unable to recover
> > kernel panic: trying to free up swapper memory space
> > in swapper mode - not syncing
> 
> My PC has a GigaByte PCI motherboard (but no PCI cards yet), 16MB RAM,
> Future Domain SCSI 16xx, Microp 1.7GB HD, Trident SVGA, SMC 16C Ultra
Hello Chris
I got a similar prob using a 386 PC with the FD 1660 SCSI card. It 
gave me the same message and didnt like my seagate SCSI Hard disk.
I was using slackware 1.11 Linux from Trans-Ameritech Vol 2 CD-ROM

I just FTP (using MS-DOS S/W) from Sunsite.unc.edu 
some of the basic Slackware vers 1.20 and that works fine with with
the FD 1660 card. So maybe you should try another Linux (newer)
distribution ?

Stephen Soghoian
Yank in London
stephens@drjazz.demon.co.uk


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

From: rna@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Ashcroft)
Subject: Re: URGENT: Linux Security Fixes
Date: 22 May 1994 06:36:31 GMT

In article <Cq69q5.J4q@pe1chl.ampr.org>, Rob Janssen <pe1chl@rabo.nl> wrote:
>Poor solution, the leak still remains.
>(I will leave it as an excercise to find how this program can be
>bypassed.  it is easy.)

Dipshit.

RNA

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

Crossposted-To: alt.folklore.computers,alt.religion.kibology,alt.humor.puns
From: dmcintyr@ruacad.ac.runet.edu (David Michael Mcintyre)
Subject: Re: Streets named after programming languages
Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 06:46:32 GMT

In article <Cq0t6A.DCM@pe1chl.ampr.org> pe1chl@rabo.nl writes:
>In <1994May16.171019.23279@adobe.com> swirsky@adobe.com (Robert Swirsky-Warner) writes:
>
>
>>In San Jose, there's "Bascom" which was the name of at least
>>one BASIC compiler about 15 years ago when these programs
>>were popular.
>
>>(BTW: Does anyone remember Microsoft's compiler for
>>"Applsoft BASIC" that, according to the manual, was
>>written in Applesoft and compiled with itself? It
>>worked well, but took a long time to compile anything.
>
>Yeah, but that wasn't Bascom....  Bascom was for the 8085.
>It was called TASC (The AppleSoft Compiler) and was quite slow indeed.
>You could speed it up by using two diskette drives and a special trick
>to keep the disk drive motor running all the time.  Of course, no-one
>could afford two drives at the time, especially not when you had to
>replace them four times a year because of worn-out motors :-)

And the original, and even the "modern" for that time ones used in the 
IIe series and whatnot used something I always thought was a bit odd.  
The head positioning mechansim in these drives was a plastic disk mounted 
on a motor of some sort.  The disk had a groove in it, and the head had a 
little tab or whatever which rested in the groove.  As the plastic disk 
would roate about 360 degrees or so, it would cause the head to move back 
and forth into the proper position.  The classic braaaaaaaack  
braaaaaaaaaaack sound of these drives is from the plastic tab thing 
bouncing off the stop at the end of the groove in the positioning disk.

Nifty, but prone to failure and very imprecise, it would seem.  When one 
of these stopped working, it was time to take it to the firing range to 
sight in the new rifle...

--Michael-- << dmcintyr@muselab.ac.runet.edu >> <<dmcintyr@vt.edu>>


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

From: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org (Rob Janssen)
Subject: Re: Can I run a DOS app. in Linux?
Reply-To: pe1chl@rabo.nl
Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 22:09:11 GMT

In <2rfavc$1l6@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> "M.C. Wai" <R15892@PACCVM.corp.mot.com> writes:

>  Is it possible to run DOS application under Linux environment? If so,
>is there any limitation of those DOS application? E.g., any GIF, JPEG
>viewer can run? If those Viewer can't, I think Linux will provide
>some applications like DOS provided, right? Please give me some
>advice!

There are limits, but dosemu can run many graphic DOS programs.  I have
an ET4000 card and all viewers for DOS run under dosemu.

Of course, if you have X you better use XV to view pictures...

Rob
-- 
=========================================================================
| Rob Janssen                | AMPRnet:   rob@pe1chl.ampr.org           |
| e-mail: pe1chl@rabo.nl     | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8UTR.#UTR.NLD.EU     |
=========================================================================

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

From: bds@slcbdsipp-garching.mpg.de (Bruce       Scott          TK  )
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc
Subject: Re: Seeking Laser Printer Recommendations
Date: 20 May 1994 15:38:19 GMT

In article <2rh70iINN5d@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, bau1@cornell.edu               (Bogdan Urma) writes:

|>      But the HP 4L is NOT a postscript printer! The HP 4ML is!

This is why so much work has been put into ghostscript, getting it to
print well. One can use cheaper printers. Perhaps the trade-off is
speed.

This comes to you from someone ignorant, though. Printing here is done
remotely, and I haven't owned a printer in several years.

-- 
Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds@ipp-garching.mpg.de                               -- W Gibson

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


** 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
******************************
