Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #291
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:     Mon, 20 Jun 94 11:13:20 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #291, Volume #2                Mon, 20 Jun 94 11:13:20 EDT

Contents:
  Re: Minicom problem in an xterm (Jim Michael)
  DLink DE650 driver (Stuart Cornell)
  Re: Wordperfect for X-Windows (Mark A. Davis)
  Re: Need recommendation for SVGA card (Ziniu "Michael" Wei)
  Re: Multiport Bored and Linux (Was: future of Unixware) (Evan Leibovitch)
  Re: Help: Can't partition my harddrive. (Frank Derichsweiler)
  [Q] Where can I buy a BocaBoard BB2016 ? (J.A.vanderMost)
  Re: GNU tar-1.11.2 bugs - patch and new binary available (Ian Jackson)
  Re: HTTP with LINUX PL20 (Erik Troan)
  Re: future of Unixware (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)

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

From: genepool@netcom.com (Jim Michael)
Subject: Re: Minicom problem in an xterm
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 12:56:49 GMT

I am having this same problem with minicom. Also, when I log onto my
internet account the screen writes can be painfully slow--looks like
300 baud. Please post your solution when you find one.

Jim


Dan Wold (danw@panix.com) wrote:
: Minicom used to work fine for me in an xterm. Now it behaves oddly in the
: dialing directory. When I try to use the arrow keys in the dialing-directory
: it immediatly exits back to the main minicom screen.  It seems as if
: xterm isn't configured to work with minicom.

: I'm using  the olvwm that comes with  Slackware1.2.0.

: Does anyone know how  to fix this?

: Thanks,
: Dan
: danw@panix.com


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

From: smc@aivru.shef.ac.uk (Stuart Cornell)
Subject: DLink DE650 driver
Date: 20 Jun 1994 09:20:10 -0400
Reply-To: smc@aivru.shef.ac.uk (Stuart Cornell)


Dear fellow sufferers... 

I have been using a D-Link DE650 ethernet card with a tcic2 controller
in my 486 notebook for some time now. I Now have come to upgrade my linux
kernel and I find that the patches I had for the driver seem to be 
unuseable on the new kernel (1.1.13) due to it's different structure.
Can anybody point me in the direction of a new driver / patch ?
yours pitifully ...


Stuart M Cornell
System Administrator
AI Vision Research Unit
University of Sheffield
England

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

From: mark@taylor.infi.net (Mark A. Davis)
Subject: Re: Wordperfect for X-Windows
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 12:57:00 GMT

bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:

>In article <1994Jun20.033921.21976@taylor.infi.net>, mark@taylor.infi.net (Mark A. Davis) says:
>+---------------
>| >* old software that is no longer sold should be given to the public 
>| >  domain.  Locking old code away or destroying it is STUPID
>| 
>| Agreed.  And it DOES happen. Look at SCO-PRO.
>+------------->8

>Not a fair example; if SCO released it, Lotus would throw a fit.  :-(

OK, that's true.  But SCO-PRO is *soooooo* much better than Lotus 123.
It is infinately smaller, faster, more stable, more bug-free, less expensive,
more multi-user, supports real administration, etc.  Why didn't Lotus somehow
GET the code from SCO and *LEARN*?
-- 
  /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  | Mark A. Davis    | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 |
  | Sys.Administrator|  Computer Services   | mark@taylor.infi.net           |
  \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/

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

Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video
From: ziniuwei@acsu.buffalo.edu (Ziniu "Michael" Wei)
Subject: Re: Need recommendation for SVGA card
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 13:26:35 GMT

Grant Edwards (grante@reddwarf.rosemount.com) wrote:
> Mark van Hoeij (hoeij@sci.kun.nl) wrote:

> Depends on what you're doing.  The extra memory is used by the server
> as a font cache and for pixmaps, cursors, backing store, etc.  Having
> _some_ extra memory is pretty much required, and having a bunch is
> nice.

I don't have much expertise on low lever X.  But I got confused how the
frame buffer can be used as a font cache?  I can't imagine how it can
be used for backing store, either.  'cause XFree 86 use the extra
frame buffer memory for those "extra virtual display area, you know what I'm
talking about".  Can any X guru give me an good explaination?  Thanks a lot!


> Transfers of bitmaps between different regions of video board RAM is
> _way_ faster than going from main memory to the video board.  If there
> is enough RAM on the video board to store all of the pixmaps and fonts
> you are using, there should be a significant performance increase over
> having them all in main memory.

This sounds reasonable as long as the video card let you manipulate
the frame buffer memory this way.

--
Ziniu Wei               CEDAR, SUNY at Buffalo       ziniuwei@cs.buffalo.edu
Rule # 1:  Network *is* computer

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

Crossposted-To: comp.unix.unixware
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Multiport Bored and Linux (Was: future of Unixware)
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 1994 16:14:27 GMT

In article <WAYNE.94Jun16005205@backbone.uucp> wayne@cse.unl.edu writes:

>In article <CrGLxI.Gux@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:

>> It is a totally useless point that Linux runs this-or-that database vendor,
>> though it may make people feel good. What's important is that the database
>> vendor supports Linux. And so far, of the major database vendors are.

>Most vendors support only SCO, and if you try to run their product on
>any other version of Unix and have problems, well, gee, upgrade to SCO
>is the solution.

As a dealer who faithfully sold Esix for years before picking up
UnixWare, I don't think you really know how that corner of the
marketplace worked.

No, neither Esix nor Dell nor UHC nor Microport nor Interactive(!) nor
AT&T individually had a huge piece of the Intel SVR4 market. However, 
combined their user base was significant enough to evoke commercial
support. The products were similar enough that vendors like WordPerfect,
Lotus and Progress (to name three with which I had first-hand experience)
*did* produce either a specific binary for SVR4, or specific support for
these Unix vendors using a catch-all System V Intel binary.

I would not have installed Esix at customer sites had I not known that
the applications would be both runnable *and* supported on that platform.

Sure, there were a number of products that only supported SCO, including
a number of hardware items. But the point is, that the stuff I
*needed* to run was supported *officially* by the application vendor.
I could say to WordPerfect honestly that I was running Esix and they'd
still support me without passing the buck to the OS immediately.

>Yeah, UW gets some support, but if you choose
>Consensys, IF, Dell, UHC, etc, you are kind of running on the edge
>anyway.

Not as on the edge as you may think. Certainly not enough to matter.

>Linux is certainly not going to be any worse off than say
>Coherent or QNX.

Accurate, but hardly a raging endorsement. Note that QNX has a
non-trivial amount of third-party support.

>> IMO, the reason is that they figure someone who's about to spend >$10K
>> on their database engine and 4GL, isn't going to piss around arguing
>> that the OS cost $1500. When you add training, peripherals, wiring,
>> networking, system design, customization, administration and maintenance,
>> the difference between the cost of installing (unsupported by the DB
>> vendor) Linux or (supported) UnixWare is insignificant.

>Yes, and this exactly the argument that was used to show that Unipress
>would always dominate the emacs market over GNU emacs.

I can't believe you would use this silly and useless an analogy.

1) Every system needs an OS. Not every system needs a spare text editor,
   especially when most commercial sites are getting a commercial word
   processor anyway;

2) Emacs has a high visibility in the techie world but *none* in the
   corporate world; how many organoizations have budgets for training
   on text editors or their administration?

3) GNU emacs' penetration in Unix sites, especially commercial Unix
   sites, is far smaller than you may think. It's probably likely that
   there are more copies of Linux floating around than GNU emacs.

>Heck, this
>argument was also used as to why PCs would never replace mainframes.

Merely because an argument has not worked in a totally different
situation does not invalidate it here. If you can't refute it, please
don't resort to this kind of desperation.

>The flaw in this logic is that once you have brought something in,
>whether it is Linux, OS/2 or UW, you have already made the really huge
>investment in installation, training, etc.  In order to _keep_ this
>investment, you will fight to get support on what you have.

Welcome to the real world. Applications drive the OS, not vice versa.
First you pick the applications/4GLs/necessary hardware and only then
pick the right OS engine, based on the intersection of what's supported
by the applications.

>If a few programmers bring in Linux so that they can use it instead of
>Desview/X, and then start spreading it around, it will eventually work
>its way into more and more critical/important spots.  The database
>might be just a small project that isn't critical at first, but after
>a few years it is grown to the point that you are running dozens of
>users on it.  The two person outfit that started on a shoe string can
>turn into a thriving business that has never had time to replace that
>Linux system with a "real" Unix.

Which is fine as long as they don't have to run "real" applications.

>Yeah, no one is going to sit down today and say "I am going to install
>this $100,000 dollar system that supports 200 users and is critical to
>the business and I am going to run it on Linux to save a few bucks."

And nobody is going to say that about $10,000 5-user systems either.

>It is just after 5 or 10 years, you look back and see that you have done
>just that.  You may have started small, but once you trust it a little
>bit, you start doing more with it.

>The 6.4 billion dollar question is: "How much will Linux creap into
>businesses over the next few years?"  If it starts to make a
>substantial presence (5-10%) then in 5 to 10 years, you can rest
>assured that people _will_ be sinking $100,000 (plus inflation) into
>Linux systems.

Time will tell. But for those looking for a commercially viable system
*now*, the choice is clear.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (905) 452-0504
"We're just not good committee people. Some of us don't have that long to live"

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

From: i31ade@applsrv.rz.unibw-muenchen.de (Frank Derichsweiler)
Subject: Re: Help: Can't partition my harddrive.
Date: 20 Jun 1994 13:33:49 GMT

"Toan Hoang   ~{" <tqhoang@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:


>   The other day I was trying to install my harddrive and I ran into this
>problem, I couldn't be able to get the computer to recognize my harddrive.
>I tried using DOS fdisk, but it failed.  I tried using the OS/2 fdisk, I
>was able to choose to partition the harddrive but when I choose save 
>option and exit, it hangs.  Then I used the linux fdisk, this is what it
>tells me.  Partition 1 does not start on cyclinder boundary.
>phys(0, 0, 2) should be (0, 1, 1).
>So, what is that mean?  and what can I do to fixed it.  Any help would
>be appreciated.

>-Toan-


Hi there !

Perhaps you have to make a low level format of your harddisk. But *CAUTION*
you will loose performance. In severe cases, you probably make your harddisk
useless. So do that the the final try !
An other suggestion is: have you tried to use one of the harddisk- utilities 
(e.g. Norton Disc Doc, PC Tools , ...) to fix it ?

best regards

Frank

i31ade@kommsrv.rz.unibw-muenchen.de
i31ade@applsrv.rz.unibw-muenchen.de
-

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

From: jvdmost@hupnos.wi.leidenuniv.nl (J.A.vanderMost)
Subject: [Q] Where can I buy a BocaBoard BB2016 ?
Date: 20 Jun 1994 13:16:40 GMT

I want to buy a BocaBoard BB2016 for my linux-box but I don't know where I can
buy it. Maybe somebody has ordered a BB2016 before and can give me some info !?
Does anybody know a telephone number or email-address of a shop that sells the 
BB2016 ? And what's it going to cost me ?


Thanx
  Jeroen

-- 
*     Most@stpc.wi.leidenuniv.nl  *                                           *
*  JvdMost@sthp.wi.leidenuniv.nl  *          Sorry, I'm to lazy to make a     *
* Ultimate@hacktic.nl             *             nice looking signature        *
*                                 *                                           *

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

From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
Subject: Re: GNU tar-1.11.2 bugs - patch and new binary available
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 11:06:22 GMT

In article <2tumtp$1om@knobel.knirsch.de>,
Andreas Klemm <andreas@knobel.knirsch.de> wrote:
>Your patch also fixes the bug, that permissions weren't changed when 
>extracting an archive in the case that files and directories are already 
>present ... Permission were only extracted, when creating _new files_.

Err, if you read my patch you'll find nothing along those lines in it.
Perhaps you were experiencing that effect with 1.11.1 ?

>But I think one important security related thing isn't fixed yet. 
>I noticed, that extracted files with unknown user id's get the number 
>as UID only then if you extract them as root.
>
>If you are a normal user, then again the files get the ownership of the
>one who is extracting the files. This is not ok. As normal user you
>shouldn't be allowed to extract files you don't own.
>
>I think standard behaviour is - correct me if I'm wrong - that only
>root is allowed to extract files with UID != your_own_uid.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean above - specifically whether the
UID refers to the user in the archive or on disk.

Perhaps you mean that when tar, run by a normal user, comes across a
file whose uid in the archive doesn't match the user's, it should
change the ownership of the file away from the invoking user to the
ownership in the archive so that the invoking user can't access the
file.

This would be silly, since the user could easily look at the contents
of the tarfile using any other tool.  The permission information in a
tarfile is advisory only.  In fact, such behaviour would be extremely
unhelpful, because it would often result in the user having directory
hierarchies they couldn't access or delete.  It is also impossible to
implement on systems (like Linux) which forbid a normal user from
giving files away.  Remember, tar is not setuid.

Alternatively you may mean that only when run by root should it change
the ownership of an extracted file away from that of the extracting
user.  This is tar's default behaviour, though it shouldn't be
mandatory - on some System V unices users can donate files to other
users, and it's not tar's remit to enforce a policy that says they
shouldn't.

In both cases tar is not implementing and cannot implement a security
policy any more than does `cat'.  The security is provided by the
kernel.

-- 
Ian Jackson, at home    <ijackson@nyx.cs.du.edu> or <iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk>
PGP2 public key available.   Escoerea on IRC.   Urgent: <iwj@cam-orl.co.uk>
2 Lexington Close, Cambridge, CB4 3LS, England;  phone: +44 223 575512

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

From: ewt@merengue.unc.edu (Erik Troan)
Subject: Re: HTTP with LINUX PL20
Date: 20 Jun 1994 14:30:14 GMT

In article <2u2mc6$d0u@news.u.washington.edu>,
Erik Olson <erik@marge.phys.washington.edu> wrote:
>The problem with Mosaic and Lynx under 1.1.20 has to do with
>one of the socket connect() return codes, which was changed.  The effect
>will appear if you are using a slow enough line that the socket does
>not connect very quickly (ie, PPP and SLIP).

According to Alan, this has been fixed in 1.1.21.

Erik


-- 
===========================================================================
"I'm not like that -- except when I am"   ewt@sunsite.unc.edu  = Erik Troan
                                          sasewt@unx.sas.com
    - Nora from "Pump up the Volume"

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

Crossposted-To: comp.unix.unixware
From: mah@ka4ybr.com (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
Subject: Re: future of Unixware
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 09:57:20 GMT

I can't resist any longer!  :)

                mount -t raving.human /dev/keyboard /soapbox

Culgrp (culgrp@access.digex.net) wrote:
: FOUR 'NIXES AND OS TOO.
: 
: Consensys. A kinder gentler version of Unixware. Came with Man
: pages and a thick paper manual introducing the GUI. Diskettes cost
: $80 extra. Loaded & ran on my 386 but X windows dead slow. Both
: Motif and Open Look but no DOS emulator.

        My experience with Consensys was very, very bad.  Even when
        shutting down the system properly (although it liked to 
        crash all by itself at least every other day!), it would
        invariably lose files upon restart.  I attribute this to
        a poor file system and an even poorer fsck.  I threw this
        $1,000.00 beauty in the trash and went with one that was
        far more reliable - Linux.
: 
: Linux. I'm just getting started. Took some hacking around just to
: get lpr working - not a good sign. Installation is elegant. I
: download one diskette per day which means I will probably get to X
: Windows by Thanksgiving. Various FAQ'a and HOWTOS disorganized and
: sometimes misleading. Use my Coherent manual instead.

        This is a rather unfair comparison.  You indicate that you've
        spent some rather hefty dollar amounts on the two "commercial"
        (non-hacker) *nixen, yet are grabbing Linux in bits and pieces
        through the net, installing as you go.  Surely $20.00 is not
        too much to spend for something like the InfoMagic 2 CD Linux
        set that gives you the major distributions of Linux, all the
        documentation (including all 250 pages of Matt Welsh's Linux
        Installation manual in uncompressed ascii text format), all
        the source, the complete sunsite and tsx-11 Linux archives, 
        all the GNU source, and a mountable filesystem for TeX and
        emacs.  If hardcopy documentation is a must, the 800+ page 
        Linux Bible may be purchased for $29.95 from Randy Just at
        "Just Computers!"  Thus for an outlay of $49.95 plus shipping
        you have at least the equivalent of the $1,000.00 Consensys
        "commercial quality" release.

        The methodology of getting printing working as well as many
        other items, including networking, serial line handling, etc.
        is covered in very good detail in the documentation provided
        on both the CD set and in the Linux "Bible."  

        Rather than using your Coherent manual for getting Linux 
        running, you would be better off getting a copy of the O'Reilly
        publication "Essential Systems Administration" by Aeleen Frisch.
        It covers SVR4, BSD, SunOS, Xenix, and even AIX.  Since Linux
        is a wonderful mixture of the best of all *nixen, this manual 
        helps sort everything out!

: 
: If I had to buy a Unix for work, I would probably go SCO like
: everyone else. When it comes to standards, "de facto" beats "de
: jure" every time.

        I must have missed something here... I didn't see a review
        of SCO in your post.  I use SCO for my clients.  It is 
        an all-around generally accepted solution.  However, 
        longevity does not necessarily convey quality.  It remains
        to be seen what the iBCS2 support in Linux will do with
        commercial SCO applications... the results so far are 
        rather impressive.  As far as reliability, I have NEVER
        in almost two years of running Linux, had a crash that
        was attributable to either system or user code.  I wish
        I could say that about my SCO 3.2.4/ODT systems, my SunOS 4.1.3,
        my Solaris-2.3, and my AIX (ok... cheap shot.) systems.  It
        is very comforting to know that even if there is a power 
        failure, that the fsck routines automatically invoked at
        startup will flawlessly recover the filesystems... a point
        recently brought home by a hopelessly trashed SCO root filesystem
        after a power failure... but then one should never get out
        of practice at doing stand-alone boots and restores from tape
        to recover one's systems, I suppose.  :)  

                                umount /soapbox

--
"Linux!     Guerrilla UNIX Development     Venimus, vidimus, concidimus."
============================================================
Mark A. Horton       ka4ybr             mah@ka4ybr.atl.ga.us
P.O. Box 747 Decatur GA US 30031-0747         mah@ka4ybr.com
+1.404.371.0291                     33 45 31 N / 084 16 59 W

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


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