Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #352
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:     Fri, 1 Jul 94 23:13:07 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #352, Volume #2                 Fri, 1 Jul 94 23:13:07 EDT

Contents:
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (Mike Dahmus)
  Re: TCP/IP: The reason I dumped OS/2 (John Culleton)
  Re: Watching a user on an tty? (Herbert Xu)
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (Jason Van Patten)
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (Leo L Turetsky)
  Re: Actix GE PLUS (Nick Vargish)
  Re: Difficult Linux Instructions... (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
  Re: [term] Boo-hoo! (Wayne Throop)
  Idea for supporting a lot of SCSI and other controllers (Tim Smith)
  Re: OS/2 and Linux discussed (Re: TCP/IP: The reason I dumped OS/2) (Lulu of the lotus-eaters)
  Re: Where can I get the POSIX standard? (Bill Chesnut)
  Re: Youngest linux user (Christopher Dewey)
  ACK! Help me configure XFree86 for ATI Mach32 ! (Wei-Yuen Tan)
  Re: [term] Boo-hoo! (Bill Hogan)
  Re: Watching a user on an tty? (David Wright)
  Re: Screen Capture/Grabber for X? (Raul Silvera)
  Re: Word Perfect (Mike Jagdis)
  Terminal Servers (Jem Day)

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

From: miked@news.gate.net (Mike Dahmus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: 1 Jul 1994 18:01:37 -0400

In article <Qi55o_q00WB8IxF31o@andrew.cmu.edu> Leo L Turetsky <professor+@CMU.EDU> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.linux.misc: 30-Jun-94 Re: Linux better
>than OS/2 .. by Mike Dahmus@news.gate.ne 
>> Provide some supporting evidence, or stop making these wildly nonsensical
>> claims. Only a complete idiot would claim that NextStep currently supports
>> more hardware than does OS/2.
>
>Okay... why don't you ftp to the NeXT site and get the hardware FAQ.

Is NeXT stupid enough to claim this? Or are you just talking out your butt?

>I
>did provide evidence, or where to look for it anyway. Only a complete
>idiot would disagree with the fact that NeXT drivers work when they are
>released as opposed to OS/2 drivers.

Another wild generalization, completely unsupported by fact. Leo, get a grip.
You're going to get a rep as the Brian Sturgill of the NextStep crowd.

 Also because NeXT is so hardware
>intensive it can't use low end hardware, like the Adaptec 1522. Because
>OS/2 supports this card doesn't mean anything... NeXT can't even use it.
>What I am comparing is high end hardware like the new Adpaptec 2742 (?)
>and cards along that end.

Leo's definition of "low-end hardware": Hardware that NextStep doesn't support.
  
>> And what do you call CSD1 and CSD2? Taken together, they provide all of the
>> "fixes" necessary to upgrade OS/2 2.0 to OS/2 2.1 level (without upgrading
>> Win-OS/2 to 3.1, or giving multimedia).
>
>I call this defective, moronic, and poor computing from IBM.

I call you defective, a moron, and a poor example of CMU's educational system.
You asked for free fixes - and I told you IBM *has* given free fixes. What more
do you want?
  
>> Cost of these fixes: $0.00
>
>Yeah, if you have internet access.... 0.00 my foot.

So? How many free fixes has Next shipped for, oh, their serial driver problem?
Or their other sundry bugs?

Or how much did Microsoft charge for the MS-DOS 6.21 "fix" if you didn't have
internet access?
-- 
Mike Dahmus                       Curator, rec.sport.football Hall o' Bait 
miked@gate.net                                     also miked@vnet.ibm.com
Please don't vote me new Kibo!     "Something must be BROKEN here at IBM!" 

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

From: culgrp@clark.net (John Culleton)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCP/IP: The reason I dumped OS/2
Date: 1 Jul 1994 16:29:19 -0400

Getting into the thread a bit late. I use OS/2 at work in preference to 
DOS/Windows. I play with Unixy things at home, such as Coherent and 
Linux. There are just too many things Linux won't do in the work 
environment. For example, to connect to our AS/400 you need IBM's PC 
support. This only runs under DOS or OS/2. I purchased DOS WordPerfect 
some time back. No about to spend the same money all over again for the 
same functionality. There are lots of other software things (Adobe 
Acrobat etc.) which only work in a DOS, windows and/or OS2 environment. 
So Linux is just a toy for me, but a neat toy, and someday I hope to get 
the whole thing up.

By the by, OS/2.0 was a dog. 2.1 (even the beta) much better. Using it now.

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin
From: herbert@greathan.apana.org.au (Herbert Xu)
Subject: Re: Watching a user on an tty?
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 11:49:13 GMT

john taylor (taylor@pollux) wrote:
: cat /dev/kmem > dump
: strings dump | less

: The dump file can get huge quickly, and it is possible not to find the
: password in the file. On the other hand, it is just as possible to find
: passwords that have been typed in 10 to 15 minutes before the dump file
: is made.  I am not a kmem expert, and speculate this method is system 
: dependent.  Also, you would have to know what you were looking for, 
: because the output is hard to comprehend.
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

              So you know what you are saying.  Then why are you
              saying that after all? :)

-- 
A.  B <=> True                  B.  A <=> False
~{              PmV>HI                  ~}
Email:  <herbert@greathan.apana.org.au>
PGP Key:  finger herbert@sleeper.apana.org.au

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

From: vanpatjm@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Jason Van Patten)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: 1 Jul 1994 14:08:09 GMT

Hi -

        Been watching this thread, and decided to waste a little bandwidth of
my own.  This really is a wasted argument.  Who's OS is better than who's.

        I had an argument like this with a professor of mine here at Clarkson.
I was pushing OS/2 and he, being the Unix buff that he is, was pushing Unix.
He said to me "The best operating system in the whole world, is the one that
makes _YOU_ (yeah, you.. look in the mirror, see the reflection?) happy.

        I'm not saying that this is "The Word" but think about it... it makes
sense doesn't it?  Everyone wants something different from an OS.  They need/
want their machine to do certain things, act certain ways, etc.

        I personally put plugs in for _BOTH_ OS/2 and Linux.  I use OS/2 for
it's superb DOS multitasking, and it's Windoze support (I hate Windoze, but
can't live without Ami Pro :) ).  Linux on the other hand, provides me with
all the services of Unix, right on my own PC.  Great for learning and 
exploring.  But, because it can't do decent emulation, I won't devote both
HD's to it yet.

        Feel free to email me if you'd like to disguss anything about OS/2
or Linux.  See ya.

                                                Jason

--
Jason Van Patten                  | If at first you don't succeed, keep |
Clarkson University               | on sucking till you do succeed.     |
vanpatjm@craft.camp.clarkson.edu  |                     - Curly Howard  |
                                  |                 (The Three Stooges) |
            ** Any opinions expressed here are actually
               yours, you just don't know it yet. **
 

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

From: professor+@CMU.EDU (Leo L Turetsky)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: 30 Jun 94 18:55:48 GMT

Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.linux.misc: 30-Jun-94 Re: Linux better
than OS/2 .. by Andrew@husc10.harvard.ed 
> Ah, NeXTStep 486 was released what, a year and a half late and had
> support for all of (I believe) _3_ video cards.  What was that about
> getting it to market on time with support for all known hardware?
> I'll buy the full suite of features part, however.  It's a really nice
> system, if you have $700 to blow.

All of three cards? Incorrect. Why don't you find out something about
the specs. ftp.next.com (unless they changed it). It has more drivers
that work than OS/2 ever will have. Plus NeXT doesn't release broken
drivers and OS's and not provide free fixes, not that this has happened
yet to my knowledge.
  
> Now really, try to calm down.  This Linux - OS/2 ( - NextStep?) fight
> has me a bit perplexed.  I am a happy user of both OS/2 _and_ Linux.

Thanks. Your condecending attitude is noted.

> They are both, IMHO, excelent systems, for almost entirely unrealated
> reasons.  Linux doens't run my Word Processor or my spreadsheet, doesn't
> connect (except through DOS emulation) to the Netware servers at work,
> and takes hours to days to configure properly.  OS/2 doesn't run
> Moasic (yet), doesn't compile Unix sources without some work, has expensive
> TCP/IP and X packages and lacks on-line documentation for its API (I
> don't own C/Set++ or Borland's compiler).  I am not about to drop
> either system right now -- they really aren't all that comparable.
> Why all the fuss?

Because I don't have the room for both and the initial argument here was
that OS/2 is broken. OS/2 is not excellent by far.

-Leo

+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Leo Turetsky          |  1) leo@professor.pc.cc.cmu.edu  |
| Sigma Nu              |  2) professor@cmu.edu            |
| 1055 Morewood Ave.    |  Carnegie-Mellon University      |
| Pittsburgh, PA 15213  |  Sophomore, ECE\CS Double Major  |
| (412) 862-2963        |  Nugget: SPIN BHBHY, YAXY?       |
+----------------------esp---------------------------------+

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

From: Nick Vargish <vargish@sura.net>
Subject: Re: Actix GE PLUS
Date: 1 Jul 94 14:29:03 GMT
Reply-To: vargish@sura.net


(Paul Quinn) wrote:

> Has anyone tried teh Actix GE Plus.  It is an S3 928 chip-based card. 
> Any opinions concerning this card?

I got my Actix GE+ VLB (2 megs) in January, after reading the sidebar
in _Byte_...

I think it's an S3 805i chipset. That's the 805 variant which exploits
heavy interleaving to achieve close-to-VRAM speeds with cheaper
DRAM. The 928 needs VRAM, which is a major reason why 928 based boards
cost *a lot* more.

jes@mbio.med.upenn.edu (Joe Smith) writes:

>Maybe it doesn't matter to you, but the support for anything *except* X is
>pretty poor for the Actix cards.  I was really disappointed to find poor or
>no support for DOS (although GRX does a good job), Windows (the S3 drivers
>cause *printing* problems!), and svgalib (no S3 at all).  I hope the
>situation will improve, but for now it's pretty bad.  Does anyone have any
>recommendations for a card with better support?

This is _not_ my experience at all. I've been very pleased with my
GE+, in both Xfree86 and DOS/Windoze. I don't print at home, though,
so I haven't experienced the driver problems Joe describes. My 3dbench
under DOS is 43.5 or so, which is very respectable for a noname
motherboard (i486DX2/66 chip) and non-tuned components.

I've been recommending the Actix board to people who ask for my
opinion, and I'll continue to do so.

Nick

p.s. The Windoze drivers for the Actix are supposed to be some of the
tightest and fastest, at least, so said _Byte_.

-- 
|                                    +----------------------------------------+
| Forgive him,  Ceasar,  for he is a | Nick Vargish, SURAnet Systems Engineer |
| barbarian, and thinks the rules of | vargish@sura.net   (301) 982-4600 x136 |
| his tribe are the laws of nature.  | http://www.sura.net/~vargish/nick.html |

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

From: mah@ka4ybr.com (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
Subject: Re: Difficult Linux Instructions...
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 01:28:15 GMT

Beng Teck Here... (31khoo@wmich.edu) wrote:

                [snip]

: But this is what i need right now, simpler instructions (unlike some of those
: out there that sometimes assumes the reader knows something they don't) to get
: my X, sounds and modem working... The writers have done well, but we need
: more... 

Hi!
        Sounds like what you need is Matt Welsh's "Installation and Getting Started"
        manual from the LDP... it's available at sunsite.unc.edu or (if you have the
        InfoMagic CDs, on the first disk of the set under the directory "guide" in
        ascii format.  Also, you can invest a very wise $29.95 (?) plus around five
        bucks for shipping for the "Linux Bible" from Randy Just's outfit (Just 
        Computers) -- I forget the address, but it's posted here somewhere.  The
        Linux Bible is around 800+ pages of documentation and well worth it! (basically
        all the LDP documents plus the FAQs and HOWTOs.)



--
"Linux!     Guerrilla UNIX Development     Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus."
============================================================
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

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

From: throopw%sheol@concert.net (Wayne Throop)
Subject: Re: [term] Boo-hoo!
Date: 1 Jul 1994 14:12:38 GMT

: From: leob@netcom.com (Between 408 and 510...)
: [.. list of programs banned from netcom ..]
:    SCREEN, layers, term, and X-Windows

Gee.  I would hardly know what to *do* with a computer without such
multiplexing tools.  Even my poor 'lil 8088 laptop has DESQview.  I
wonder if they also ban cshell users using job control to manage
multiple tasks?

All in all, sounds like an unfriendly virtual-place.
--
Wayne Throop   throopw%sheol@concert.net
               throop@aur.alcatel.com

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

From: tzs@u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Idea for supporting a lot of SCSI and other controllers
Date: 1 Jul 1994 22:54:44 GMT

Here's an idea for how someone could add support in Linux for a lot of
SCSI controllers, disk controllers, tape controllers, and CD-ROM
controllers.  Use drivers from Netware 3.x or 4.x!

Seriously.  The interface in Netware between drivers and the Netware
kernel is very clean and simple.  The environment the drivers run in is
also clean and simple.  (This is for mass storage drivers...I've never
worked on network drivers for Netware, so don't know about those).
It shouldn't be too hard to add support for that interface and environment
in any reasonable Unix-like system.  The hardest part, I think, would be
dealing with getting the driver into the kernel.  Netware uses a dynamic
linking system, and I'm not sure if the format of symbol information
is documented or not.

This would greatly increase the number of devices that could work with
Linux.  For example, if one could use NCR's SCSI Netware driver, one
would at one stroke get support for their host adaptors that use the
53C400, the 53C96, the 53C700,710,720, and the 53C8x0.  In fact, you'd
get much more than just basic support--NCR's Netware drivers
provide a fairly complete implementation of CAM, so you'd also get
support for tagged queueing.

If anyone wants to try this, I'm willing to help with Netware questions.
It's been a couple of years since I last worked on Netware drivers, but
I may be able to recall useful information.  (I can't help on the Linux
end because I don't have Linux, because the 486 I've got here doesn't
have a SCSI controller Linux supports.)

--Tim Smith

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

From: quilty@twain.ucs.umass.edu (Lulu of the lotus-eaters)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Linux discussed (Re: TCP/IP: The reason I dumped OS/2)
Date: 1 Jul 1994 22:35:33 GMT

Leo L Turetsky (professor+@CMU.EDU) wrote:
: Show me one OS/2 system that runs without PM; I mean never loads it at all.

OK... come on over next time you visit Northampton, MA.  I'll give you 
instructions how to get here by email. :-).  There's no terrible mystery 
to how to do this.  

Yours, Lulu...

--
      _/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
     _/_/    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[quilty@philos.umass.edu]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
    _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...   _/_/ 
   _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/ 

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

From: bchesnut@clark.net (Bill Chesnut)
Subject: Re: Where can I get the POSIX standard?
Date: 30 Jun 1994 01:22:09 GMT

Henry Ware (hware@bronze.coil.com) wrote:
: Are the POSIX 1003.x standards available for ftp or are they proprietary?  

: Do we have a free and open system conforming to a proprietary standard?  
: Or did I just not look hard enough?

: Thanks in advance,
: Henry


: -- 
: That does it!  I'm putting me back in my kill file!


you could try info@osf.org osf (open software foundation) is responsible 
for posix.

Bill

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

From: kestrel@vampyre.acc.uri.edu (Christopher Dewey)
Subject: Re: Youngest linux user
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 02:33:30 GMT

hmmm, has anybody tried connecting stdin to the womb?

chris

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

From: a5g192@rick.cs.ubc.ca (Wei-Yuen Tan)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: ACK! Help me configure XFree86 for ATI Mach32 !
Date: 30 Jun 1994 05:18:45 GMT


--
         Wei-Yuen Tan * a5g192@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca  * wtan@unixg.ubc.ca
>>>>>>> UBC AMS Paintball Club : paintball-club-request@unixg.ubc.ca <<<<<<<<<<
    Ligneous and petrous projectiles can potentially fracture my osseous
    structure, but pejorative appellations will forever remain innocuous.

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

From: bhogan@crl.com (Bill Hogan)
Subject: Re: [term] Boo-hoo!
Date: 29 Jun 1994 22:17:23 -0700

Between 408 and 510... (leob@netcom.com) wrote:
:       The following is a compilation from Netcom FAQ (I couldn't
: do cut-n-paste because of (c) Netcom - do not duplicate or copy. :-)

:       They don't support the use of 
:         SCREEN, layers, term, and X-Windows.  They don't
:         prohibit these programs, but if there's not enough resources
:         "users of such programs will be killed off without warning."

:       NB: Not the programs, but the users of such programs!

:       Leo

  I will definitely keep that in mind. :)

  It is my understanding that, although there is some initial increased 
load associated with using a multi-way serial hookup such as Gnu 'term', 
that increased load soon migrates back down to the calling system.

  Unfortunately, because I am not being allowed to use Gnu 'term', I 
can't be sure what I might have done with it, but I am sure that one of 
the first things I would have tried to do would have been to see if I 
could "see" Lynx graphics output on my video under X-windows, and it is not 
obvious to me how that kind of application would "unbalance the load".

  Maybe a distinction needs to me made between people who, like myself,
only use their internet-access providers' facilities to "log into the
internet" -- i.e., almost exclusively to access usenet, mail, ftp, and the
like -- and people who try to use those same facilities to do heavy-duty
data processing. 

  Maybe the real reason behind the prohibition against widespread use of
things like Gnu 'term' is that some people are taking unfair advantage of
their internet-access providers systems, by logging-on as internet users
but then proceeding to run multiple non-internet-related heavy-duty
processes, in which case I would be just as pleased to see those abusers
chased off internet-access providers' machines as the providers themselves
would be. 

  Maybe the only solution is to have Linux people setting up Linux-based
internet access sites that fit with everything else that is going on in
the Linux community. 

  Bill
  
-- 
  Bill Hogan
{echo "Subject: get bhogan@crl.com" | mail pgp-public-keys@pgp.mit.edu}

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin
From: dmw@prism1.prism1.com (David Wright)
Subject: Re: Watching a user on an tty?
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 12:42:33 GMT

=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====

>>>>> "RH" == Roy Hann <rhh@tachy.uah.ualberta.ca> writes:

  RH> for system penetration.  I am reasonably sure my systems are properly
  RH> secured, but I know that a great number of systems have been delivered
  RH> to me with breaches built-in and that a great many such systems are
  RH> operated by relatively naive sysadmins.  I would have a lot more

        Then the problem is that "relatively naive" SysAdmins are doing a job
they are not qualified for. Not to put them down, but that really is the source
of the problem. On a site that is not connected directly to an outside network,
the posting of these "tips" does not really affect their systems and whether
they are naive or not does not really come into play. Now of course it is
possible for a "bad" user to be aware of some method of breaking into the
system when the SysAdmin is not, but that again indicates that the SysAdmin is
not as aware of their system as they should be.
        If the site IS on the internet, a SysAdmin who is not already aware
of such simple and well-know things as /dev/kmem has NO business filling that
job.

  RH> operated by relatively naive sysadmins.  I would have a lot more
  RH> sympathy for postings that outline penetration strategies if they also
  RH> include detailed instructions on countermeasures.  But I still think it

        Except that there are no countermeasures needed re: /dev/kmem. It
should not be readable by normal users, and if it is I would hope that anyone
trying to be a SA would know about the "chmod" command.

  RH> is wisest and most public spirited to be VERY vague about the
  RH> penetration technique and very precise about the counter measure.

        Only if you believe in StO, which IS what you are advocating.

  RH> I don't need to know how to pick a lock to know it's smart to buy a good 
  RH> one.  I don't need to know that the old lady down the block keeps her 
  RH> money under the bed to know that a bank is a good idea.  I don't need to 
  RH> know how to use it to understand that it is a good idea to secure /dev/kmem.
  RH> In short, telling the details gets you nothing, and risks harming the 
  RH> community.

        Except this is NOT what they are doing. What they are doing is saying
that "Stanley lock model 12345" has a defect that allows it to be bypassed
thusly. Once made aware of the situation a comptetant SysAdmin should be
able to come up with a fix or workaround on their own. If it is complicated,
then I agree that steps to fix it should be given (if they are known, if not,
it is STILL better to publish the flaw, so that perhaps someone with more
knowledge can fix it). But when the fix is as patently obvious as a "chmod"
or similar, it seems kind of pointless to do so.

  RH> That may be your intuition, but it is totally unsupported.  Since it appears
  RH> to be the bedrock of your position I would like to challenge you to produce
  RH> facts to support that.

        As is yours. Neither position can be proved to the satisfaction of the
other, as this very debate has been going on for like 20 years.

  RH> about it once they see it.  If you could assure me of these things I would be
  RH> quite a bit happier, but I don't think you can.

        Of course I can't assure that. But what I CAN assure you is that
people with SERIOUSLY evil intentions already have a big bag of tricks, and
are likely to have been aware of the problem before it was made public.
After all, they have a vested interest in the problem continuing to exist.

  RH> : The "bad" people ALREADY know about it
  RH> : (this is the only sane position to take), and in relatity they honestly DO
  RH> : spread this information around amongst themselves extremely rapidly.

  RH> So you see no harm in helping them spread it more quickly and thoroughly?

        No, my point is that they already know it and that by this kind of
information hitting "public" channels it speeds up how quickly the hole is
plugged. When a cracker finds a hole, do you think she posts it to the net?
No. She would keep it to herself (and possibly spread it through the grapevine
in trade for other info) so maximize the amount of use she got out of it.
  
  RH> :         I suggest that the people YOU have come across are the exception,
  RH> : not the rule. 

  RH> Maybe my experience is unusual, I don't know, but it _is_ my experience.  
  RH> It is not clear to me that you are recounting personal experiences, or just 
  RH> things you've heard about.  

        I am recounting personal experience to you as a "phreak" since the
70's, a hardware hacker since the '70-80's, a "true" hacker since the '80s,
and a full-time SysAdmin since '89 or so. I know both sides of the fence, and
when I say it makes more sense to be paranoid and assume that the "bad guys"
already know about a hole you can weigh that with my background. Personally
I would be more worried about the fact that many Linux distributions were
shipped with bad "/etc/passwd" entries, and no "shadow" password suite
(which should be required equipment for anything that allows shell access).
Then there is the problem of passing passwords around the net during telnet
sessions...

  RH> : Kind of like the losers who watched "War Games" and got into
  RH> : being "hackers" for a week or two. These are NOT the people you need to
  RH> : worry about, as the "serious" hackers & crackers only throw them tidbits long
  RH>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  RH> : after most sites have fixed the loophole(s).
  RH>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  RH> Where in the world do you get this from?!  What a breathtakingly bald
  RH> assertion!  Facts please--if you can.

        Have you done NO research in this area and are only going based on
"common sense"? There have been several books published by ex-hackers on the
techniques & lifestyle they led during their younger days. Let me just say that
in this day and age of relatively fast computers at home you are at FAR more
risk of your system being compromised if you are not using a shaddow password
suite to hide the encrypted passwords than you are from files with incorrectly
set permission flags. Did you happen to catch the thread on why SUID shell
scripts are bad in c.s.u.admin? This should have already been common
knowledge for anyone trying to be a SA.

                                                Dave

=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 2.6

iQCVAgUBLhQPE2++A+T9du0zAQH+KAP+O01PzgYXndMgiRD2xhlWCfo1jjdjaMif
iKOYMWPdTawTPr3lXWuV4G3iUdkDGcMnbXa/0VGowE5/0trHoMU0sD46HJTEetBj
rrg4pZ2AA5+M3f4upuQ+2ETEQkKhNNPwNqQSTBU+4I7GAFUpCFFTHlPa2zNOkECq
FlxDKFS4KB4=
=MV/I
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
--
  ____________________________________________________________________________
 |        /\ /          | Prism Computer Applications        |  David Wright  |
 |      -/--\--         | 14650 Detroit Ave, Suite LL40      | dmw@Prism1.COM |
 |      /____\          | Lakewood, OH 44107  USA            |  216-228-1400  |

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

From: rauls@shaddam.usb.ve (Raul Silvera)
Subject: Re: Screen Capture/Grabber for X?
Date: 30 Jun 94 19:16:29 GMT

Tim Smith (tcsmith@csi.nb.ca) wrote:
: Hello All,

: Does anyone know where I could find a Screen Capture program for X?

: -Tim Smith 

You can copy the content of a window by using xwd and xpr (from the
standard X distribution). xwd writes the content of the window to a file in
a private format, and xpr exports it to many file formats, including 
PostScript. 

However, I don't know if they can be used to capture the *whole* screen.

____________________________________________________________________
Raul Silvera Mu~oz.                 e-mail address: rauls@usb.ve
                                           Silvera.CHI@xerox.com
Estudiante de Ing. de Computacion.    Address: c/La Guayanita. 
Universidad Simon Bolivar.                  Res.Torre Blanca. Apto 44.
Caracas - Venezuela.                        Bella Vista, Caracas, Vzla.

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

From: jaggy@purplet.demon.co.uk (Mike Jagdis)
Subject: Re: Word Perfect
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 23:14:00 +0000

* In message <2usvgf$ff6@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, David La Croix said:

DC> Well, the demo version doesn't have ANY bdf fonts...  how
DC> can I run this?

DC> Can  I use my /usr/X386/lib/fonts/75dpi fonts?

No. There's a reason why WP supplies some fonts.

You have two choices:

  1. Ask WP nicely if it would be possible for them to put up the bdf files 
on their ftp machine since your X server has a problem with snf.

  2. Go to your nearest X archive site and look in the contrib directory for 
the snftobdf program.

                                Mike  
 

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

From: jemday@sbil.co.uk (Jem Day)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Terminal Servers
Date: 1 Jul 1994 14:51:00 GMT
Reply-To: jemday@sbil.co.uk

Hi,

Question (Probably a Stupid One):

        Do applicable drivers exist to support a terminal server
        connected via a LAN.

I've searched the HOWTO sections on WWW and can't see any mention
of this application.

Replies via EMail would be appreciated.

Thanks

Jem......


---
================================================================
Jem Day                 Salomon Brothers International Limited
<Jeremy.Day@sbil.co.uk> ----------------------------------------------------
Business Technology Organisation                   Tel: (+44) (0)71-721-2012


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


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