Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #604
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, 13 Aug 94 15:13:17 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #604, Volume #2                Sat, 13 Aug 94 15:13:17 EDT

Contents:
  Re: starting X automatically on installing linux distribution (Sujat Jamil)
  Re: Coherent & Linux (Was : A Truly Unbiased Opinion) (Harry C Pulley)
  Re: starting X automatically on installing linux distribution (Sujat Jamil)
  SLIP routing problems (Brian Watts)
  Re: ET4000/w32i?  How well supported? (S. Lee)
  HELP! Xconfig for STB Powergraph X24 ISA (Ziniu "Michael" Wei)
  Re: 486DX66 and Linux (Blaise Thauvin)
  Re: Linux vs. AUX (Tim Smith)
  UMSDOS filesystem mount (Bob Kupiec)
  Re: HELP, searching ROGUE ! (Wolfgang Schelongowski)
  Re: CD-ROM vs Tape Distribution (was Re: Coherent & Linux  ...) (Tim Smith)
  Re: starting X automatically on installing linux distribution (Andrew V. Kovalev)

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

From: sujat@shasta.ee.umn.edu (Sujat Jamil)
Subject: Re: starting X automatically on installing linux distribution
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 01:46:54 GMT

In article <32bk1q$88t@solaria.cc.gatech.edu>,
Byron A Jeff <byron@gemini.cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>In article <CuC1G9.C1C@news.cis.umn.edu>,
>Sujat Jamil <sujat@shahada.iman.org> wrote:
>-In article <CuB7y3.Inx@carmen.logica.co.uk>,
>-Charle Kempson <kempsonc@carmen.logica.co.uk> wrote:
>->Sujat Jamil (sujat@shasta.ee.umn.edu) wrote:
>-
>-[My earlier post suggesting automatic launching of X during Linux
>-distribution installation deleted]
>-
>->

>-I disagree.  Compare with Windows or OS/2.  They install straight into
>-the graphical environment.  They use the baseline 640x480 VGA
>-resolution.
>
>Which suck. People end up having to install higher performance drivers to
>get better resolution. And it's not necessarily easy.

I agree, it does suck. But it is a start for beginners.  Doing this at
least guarantees a level playing field viz. Windows or OS/2.

>
>-
>-There's no reason that we can't do the same with a Linux distribution.
> 
>Yes there are.

Well, what are they?

>->configuration options for the X server?  Unless some reliable way can be
>->found to probe the system hardware in Linux installation and install the
>->correct drivers for the hardware and write the correct Xconfig file this
>->would seem not to be feasible.
>
>True. Slackware actually asks you what you have. Also SuperProbe is pretty
>good about gathering info on your video card.


At least until v2.0, I don't recall Slackware configuring X for you.
(I might be wrong, however.)

>
>-
>-Most graphics cards are at the very least backward compatible to VGA.
>-But, I agree that some sort of probe would be helpful.  Plus, think
>-about Unixware or Solaris.  To my knowledge, they both install
>-straight into X.  They are also PC *nixes which have to deal with a
>-plethora of hardware variations.  
>
>They must use a 640x480 VGA baseline. Can anyone comment on how these Unixes
>gather the info necessary to run X?

Yup, such comments would be really insightful.

>->It is very easy to draw unfarourable comparisons with *nixes from the likes
>->of SUN and HP, who IMHO have made a very good job of turning *nix from a 
>->command line OS to a graphically orientated OS.  At work here I have an HP
>->715 running HP-VUE, and it is easy enough for a complete novice to use, yet
>->powerful enough to be completely customizable to my needs (in the best
>->*nix tradition).  
>
>True. But the software knows what the video hardware is going to be.

Yup, but back to Solaris and Unixware for x86 :)

>-Right! And I think the same can be done with Linux/X!
>
>Not really. Not out the box.
>

Why not?  Why not use a baseline of 60x480 for pete's sake!  Isn't it better
to have a crappy starting point that none at all?

>-
>-Mine does too.  And I suspect a huge portion of Linuxers with enough
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^

>-resources to run X do the same on their PC!  So, why not automate the
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>-process on install?  We can always customize to our heart's contents.
>-True to the *nix tradtion, as you say. :)
>
>Your suspicions are unfounded. Many many many people out there lack the
>RAM, disk space, video, monitor, or CPU horsepower to give X justice.
>What percentage of folks have 8M, 1024x768 NI monitor, acclerated graphics
>card on a 486? Probably not 50% of Linux users.


Please look at how I qualified my statement.  In addition, while it's
true that a significant fraction of the *already installed*  Linux
machines may be incapable of or inefficient at running X, if you look
at the number of "new" machines being installed, that surely doesn't
hold!  It's hard to find an ad for a 386 system anymore, and a large fraction
of the new machines actually do come with 8MB ram.  In addition, you
don't need to have an accelerated graphics card or a 1024x768 monitor to run X
satisfactorily.  And referring back to my original post, you can
always have the option of *not* installing X.  Finally, you do have to
agree with me that the trend in systems is more resources (higher
performing CPUs, more memory, faster graphics card, higher-resolution
monitors) for same or less cost.  While I agree with you in that it is
important to retain backward compatibility with those with less
resources, we should design for the future, not the past.

>
>For the longest I've run a 386DX40, 4MB, 256K ET3000 card, and a 14" monitor.
>X is dog slow on it due to swapping and a lack of accelerated video.
>
>However for a non X linux box it's extremely useful.
>

Great.  I am glad to hear it.  So where's our disagreemnt?

>The lack of character based interaction is what I hate the most about both
>the Windows and MacOS interfaces. It's fine for novices but in reality when
>I need to do real work a virtual console or an rxvt is the ticket.
>

I agree!  So, why not have both kinds of UIs?  Depending on your
desires and needs, you get to choose your level of abstraction.  That's
what you can do on commercial Unix workstations, so why not on Linux PCs!

>Because to realize the true power of the underlaying OS one must interfact
>with it. I might be agreeable to a transisitional type interface where the
>user has menus that build command lines for common tasks. But to completely
>isolate the user from the complexity of Unix also isolates them from much
>of the power. The complexity and power go hand in hand.
>


Fine!  What if you don't want to understand the "true power of the
underlaying OS".  Should you be forced to understand it, to be able to
use it?  I.e. should the power of the underlying OS be available only
for those OS elites who have the desire or the acumen to understand
it.   Gosh, if the same were true for microprocessors, a lot fewer
people would be using computers!  I agree, to be able to understand
the beauty of an OS, you need to have an idea about how it works.
While, character based UIs may go someways in giving you that idea,
that's surely not the only or exclusive way!  The problem is that most
of us are too used to a character based UI.  While I agree some things
are probably done a lot more tersely using character based UIs, I do
think that we sometimes have the paradigm shift fear of going to a
GUI.  It seems a little analagous to the assembly vs. high-level
language issue (I hope I not opening another can of worms).  While
assembly programming still has its place today (and you have the
option to program in assembly in most machines that also sport a
C-compiler), many computer professionals were originally skeptical that
most assembly language programs could ever be efficiently replaced by
programs compiled from high level languages.  That too was largely a
paradigm shift fear.  Just as there are still appropriate uses for
assembly language, there will probably always be a place for character
based UIs.  However, this doesn't mean we have to be hostile to GUIs.
Neither does it mean that the "power" of of a sophisticated OS is
restricted for exclusive use through a character based UI.


>True. In fact at one point I hadn't upgraded in almost 6 months. As long
>as there isn't anything you need and your machine is stable, why upgrade.
>

Absolutely.  Couldn't agree more.  As the Linux community grows, we
have to make the distinction between those of us who like to hack, and
those who simply use the OS for exactly that: an OS not for
experimenting, not for tweaking, just for a very high quality
operating environment to do other things, like program development,
writing papers, database managemnt etc. etc. etc.

>Once you get over the "But it's not DOS/Windows!" phobia it realtively painless.

Yup!  Couldn't agree more.  But, that shouldn't keep us from having
just as "friendly" abstraction layer that Windows/OS2 etc has.
Actually windows GUI is probably not exactly a role model.  NeXT Step
is probably a much better model, or some of the newer Sun, SGI, or HP
desktop environments. 
  
>
>Not likely. Most novices have a SEVERE phobia to change. To them because they
>don't see any difference there's no reason to change. In fact there is a 
>reason not to change because then they'd have to learn something new and
>different.

Exactly, so why not make the introduction gentle?  Tell them "you can
do all you could do in dos/windows JUST as easily, but spend some
time, and you can do a WHOLE lot more"  Plus simple things like 
networking, one application program not crashing the whole system,
being able to format a disk and type an essay at the same time (the
classic example :>), should make the move pretty attractive.  The
problem now is that the introduction itsel is NOT gentle.  There's no
comfortable cushion i.e. an abstraction layer.  Right from the start
you are shoved into an environment rather alien and formidable to
someone used to seeing "Are you sure you want to delete this file?".


>Linux doesn't need to become the next Windows/Mac. It serves a bunch of 
>needs in terms of networking, communications, multitasking, etc. in it's
>current form. To cripple it to appease novice users denies the very power
>that Linux brings to the game. Compromise is fine, but to be honest if
>novice users knew what they were using or knew what they needed, they
>wouldn't be novices would they?

>Consider a transistional interface that grows the user without diminishing
>the system.


What exactly do you mean by that?  By allowing abstraction for the
average user, by allowing productivity software to run, you'd be
crippling the system?  I would think not!  If so, most of the major
workstation companies are wasting huge amounts of money to make their
commercial *nix versions to do just that.  I fail to see how adding
friendliness for the novice, or for the user who wants the power, but
doesn't want to get their hands dirty, diminishes the system.
Remember, you always have the option to strip away the abstraction if
you so wish.


I look forward to a powerful *and* friendly Linux based operating envrionment.

Sujat
--
*******************************************************************************
Sujat Jamil                                             Electrical Engineering
Graduate Research Assistant                             University of Minnesota
******************************sujat@shasta.ee.umn.edu**************************

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

From: hpulley@uoguelph.ca (Harry C Pulley)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.coherent
Subject: Re: Coherent & Linux (Was : A Truly Unbiased Opinion)
Date: 10 Aug 1994 22:58:02 GMT

Tim Smith (tzs@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: In article <9408071814.53@rmkhome.com>, Rick Kelly <rmk@rmkhome.com> wrote:
: >: $100.  Buy the CD-Rom Drive.  It won't cost you any more than buying Linux
: >: on tape media would.
: >
: >Linux on tape would cost over $300?

: Where do you get $300 from?  A double speed CD-ROM with controller is easy
: to get for $140.  Single speed is under $90.

Even in Canada this is true!  You can get a single-speed Phillips with cheap
controller for $69!  They don't get expensive until you go up to 3x and 4x
speed nowadays.  I still haven't any real reason to buy one but with them so
cheap I'll probably pick one up soon anyways.

Harry
--
<:-{}   hpulley@uoguelph.ca       |This message released|It takes all kinds,
 \      Harry C. Pulley, IV       |to the PUBLIC DOMAIN.|and to each his own.
==================================+=====================|This thought in mind,
Stay away from the DOS side, Luke!|Un*x don't play that.|I walk alone.

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

From: sujat@shasta.ee.umn.edu (Sujat Jamil)
Subject: Re: starting X automatically on installing linux distribution
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 1994 17:25:18 GMT

In article <CuGv9o.97M@pe1chl.ampr.org>, Rob Janssen <pe1chl@rabo.nl> wrote:
>In <32g5tr$tg@darksite.msk.su> avk@darksite.msk.su (Andrew V. Kovalev) writes:
>
>>Mike Suzio (msuzio@tiamat.umd.umich.edu) wrote:
>>> wouldn't mind comprehensible man pages and a nice system-administration GUI
>>> of some sort (yes, I know some of these are being written).
>
>>That sounds right. But development of user-friendly sysadmin tools is not easy.
>>Have a look at Solaris 2.3. Developers tried to make it unnecessary to modify any
>>configs by hand and to do all the administration via so-called admintool. It is a 
>>real pain do something non-trivial (enable uucp, ppp or any other useful feature)..
>
>>I guess it is possible and wise to make a set of GUI tools to ease routine tasks
>>such as adding users, backing up etc. But I hardly imagine a tool that would change
>>sendmail.cf for me :)
>
>Most important of all, IMHO, is that any GIU admin tool should ONLY use
>and manipulate the EXISTING configuration files on the underlying system.

Exaclty that's exaclty how GUI tools *should* work.  They should
abstract the underlying configuration files, but not introduce or
change the format of existing styles.

>
>Some of them choose to maintain their own view on the system, and
>generate the traditional configuration files from that view when you
>change something.


>This may be convenient for the GIU admin tool programmer, but it is
>really annoying when you want to make some complicated changes "the
>expert way"....

I agree.  Inconsistency does make it difficult for the "power" user.


Hopefully, with increased standardization of configuration file naming
and layout, this will become less of a problem.


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

Sujat

--
*******************************************************************************
Sujat Jamil                                             Electrical Engineering
Graduate Research Assistant                             University of Minnesota
******************************sujat@shasta.ee.umn.edu**************************

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

From: brian@xp.psych.nyu.edu (Brian Watts)
Subject: SLIP routing problems
Date: 10 Aug 1994 16:31:39 GMT


Kernel: 1.1.35 -- dip version: 3.3.7duri

I am having difficulty getting SLIP to work over the network.
Using dip/sliplogin, I can connect to a Linux box from another
Linux box and establish communication between the two systems.
(BTW, neither dip nor sliplogin configures the interface correctly,
this has to be done by hand on both side -- the reason is a mystery
to me.)
The host has a leased line connection to the Internet through
a router: 100.35.249.254.  I can do anything between the two
machines: 199.35.249.1 and 199.35.249.2, BUT I can't connect
to other machines on the network (ping doesn't even work) and
I can't connect to anything via the router.

I also have the same problem when connecting an MSDOS box to the
host using WINSOCK -- i.e. I can communicate directly, but to no other
machines.

SLIP client:

lo        Link encap Local Loopback  
          inet addr 127.0.0.1  Bcast 127.255.255.255  Mask 255.0.0.0
          UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU 2000  Metric 1
          RX packets 0 errors 0 dropped 0 overrun 0
          TX packets 146 errors 0 dropped 0 overrun 0

sl0       Link encap Serial Line IP  
          inet addr 199.35.249.2  P-t-P 199.35.249.20  Mask 255.255.255.0
          UP BROADCAST POINTOPOINT RUNNING  MTU 296  Metric 1
          RX packets 206 errors 0 dropped 0 overrun 0
          TX packets 386 errors 0 dropped 0 overrun 0

Kernel routing table
Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref Use    Iface
199.35.249.20   0.0.0.0         255.255.255.255 UH    0      0        0 sl0
127.0.0.0       0.0.0.0         255.0.0.0       U     0      0      146 lo
0.0.0.0         199.35.249.20   0.0.0.0         UG    0      0       33 sl0


SLIP host:

lo        Link encap Local Loopback  
          inet addr 127.0.0.1  Bcast 127.255.255.255  Mask 255.0.0.0
          UP BROADCAST LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU 2000  Metric 1
          RX packets 0 errors 0 dropped 0 overrun 0
          TX packets 34 errors 0 dropped 0 overrun 0

sl0       Link encap Serial Line IP  
          inet addr 199.35.249.1  P-t-P 199.35.249.20  Mask 255.255.255.0
          UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING  MTU 296  Metric 1
          RX packets 562 errors 0 dropped 0 overrun 23
          TX packets 351 errors 0 dropped 0 overrun 29

eth0      Link encap 10Mbps Ethernet  HWaddr 00:00:21:29:97:06
          inet addr 199.35.249.1  Bcast 199.35.249.255  Mask 255.255.255.0
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING  MTU 1500  Metric 1
          RX packets 52489 errors 0 dropped 0 overrun 0
          TX packets 76775 errors 0 dropped 0 overrun 0


Kernel routing table
Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref Use    Iface
199.35.249.20   0.0.0.0         255.255.255.255 UH    0      0        0 sl0
199.35.249.2    199.35.249.20   255.255.255.255 UGH   0      0       43 sl0
199.35.249.0    0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U     0      0      612 eth0
127.0.0.0       0.0.0.0         255.0.0.0       U     0      0       34 lo
0.0.0.0         199.35.249.254  0.0.0.0         UG    0      0    71896 eth0

If anyone can help, I'd be most grateful.

Thanks.

Brian

======================================================================
brian@xp.psych.nyu.edu

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

From: sl14@crux3.cit.cornell.edu (S. Lee)
Subject: Re: ET4000/w32i?  How well supported?
Date: 11 Aug 1994 02:32:21 GMT

In article <CuBn48.4to@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>,
Craig A. Lemon  VE3XCL <calemon@sunee.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>OK.  It's good to have that comparison info.  I'm not shopping for the
>ultimate...yet :-).  I can't afford the ultimate.  I'm looking for best 
>compatibility because I don't have the money to say "well, if I find something
>that doesn't work, try an S3".  Is the S3 slower or faster than the Mach32?

I'm not sure about the speed, but one thing to keep in mind when
you're considering an S3 is this: last I checked, SVGALIB doesn't have
working S3 support yet.  That means you can't get anything above
640x480 under SVGALIB, but XFree86 works fine (up to 1024x768 on my
NEC 3D, my S3-805 supports 1280x1024 but the monitor doesn't - I think
you knew this).

Stephen "Looking into patching SVGALIB but doesn't have time" Lee

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
From: ziniuwei@cs.Buffalo.EDU (Ziniu "Michael" Wei)
Subject: HELP! Xconfig for STB Powergraph X24 ISA
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 02:26:46 GMT

I've got a STB Powergraph X24 ISA (S3 86C801 chipset).  The manual
doesn't have the dotclock for each video mode and my server can only
probe part of the dotclock.  It can probe to clock for 640x480 and
1024x768, but *not* 800x600.  Can anyone kindly send me the clocks for
that card?

Thanks a million!

--
Ziniu Wei               CEDAR, SUNY at Buffalo       ziniuwei@cs.buffalo.edu
~{@O3LPrT1S@T62;K@#,K{CGV;JGLx5=PB5D5XV7~}
Old programmers never die, they just branch to a new address.

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

From: blaise@ptilo.fdn.org (Blaise Thauvin)
Subject: Re: 486DX66 and Linux
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 1994 22:11:26 GMT

Van Dao Mai (mai@vietgate.apana.org.au) wrote:
:    Can anyone tell me how long it takes to compile the kernel on DX-66
: machines (and higher like DX4-100 or pentium)? It seems that the DX-66
: is about 4 times the speed of a 386DX-40 with a math. co-processor.

Hi,

I am afraid some information is missing. The compile time depend on which
options you need (file systems, sound cards, network...)

On my DX66, 8 meg ram, 12 meg swap, with all useless processes killed (cron,
update, selection...), it takes 18 minutes. Options are SCSI support for
everything (tape ,cd..) and one card (Ultrastor 34F, VLB card, apparently
quite fast, which is good when you have only 8 megs of Ram), several file
systems (all defaults plus iso9660), ppp drivers, sound card. 



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

From: tzs@u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Linux vs. AUX
Date: 13 Aug 1994 18:13:45 GMT

In article <9407301530.18@rmkhome.com>, Rick Kelly <rmk@rmkhome.com> wrote:
>AUX is basically SVR2.  It has very MAC-like windowing and the famous
>Apple one-button mouse.

SVR2 with a bunch of things from BSD and SVR3.  The windowing system is not
just Mac-like.  It *is* the Mac system, running as a Unix process, and
nearly everything that you could run under the Mac OS runs in this
environment (e.g., Word, Excel, Wordperfect, Mathematica, Myst, etc.).
Apple has made a couple of changes to the version of System and Finder
that are used with A/UX, but these are relatively minor (e.g., adding a
"Logout" item to the Special Menu, and adding some support to allow Mac
programs to do Unix system calls).  However, one can take an unmodified
off the shelf release of Mac OS and install it under A/UX, and it will
in fact work.

If one were to sit down at an A/UX system that someone had left logged
in to a Mac session, one would have difficulty realizing that one was
not running the Mac OS directly.  You'd notice that the hard disk is
named "/", but that would probably just indicate that the owner of
the machine like Unix.  If you looked around a bit more, you'd find that
the FILE menu in the Finder is willing to show you Unix file permissions
in addition to Mac file permissions, and that the SPECIAL menu has a
"Logout" item.  You'd also find a "CommandShell" item under the Apple
menu that seems to invoke some sort of terminal emulator connected to
a Unix machine.  A little experimenting would show it's connected to
the same Unix machine that your "/" disk is on.  At this point, if
you'd never heard of A/UX, you'd probably conclude that this Mac is
running some new version of Mac OS that's designed to very smoothly
allow access to a Unix file server over the network.  The truth would
come out if you tried the "Logout" menu item, because instead of just
killing your CommandShell windows and maybe getting rid of that disk
that you thought was a remote disk, instead your Finder would go away,
and you'd find yourself at a login screen.

A/UX is a great example of what Unix could be.  When you are at the login
screen, you've got three choices:

        1. Console session.  Not too useful.  You get to log in with the
        console acting like a single VT100-like terminal.  Only really good
        for emergency use.

        2. X session.  Starts an X server and a few xterms for you.
        (By the way, this works great with Linux.  My Linux system has
        a pretty cheap video system (Trident 9400), and I actually get
        comparable or better performance starting an X session on my
        Mac, and using that over ethernet from my Linux machine.)

        3. Mac session.  This is what I described above.  Apple includes
        MacX, so that when you are running a Mac session, you can still
        be an X server.

When running a Mac session, you get some assistence in using Unix programs.
For example, suppose I'm having trouble remembering some obscure option
to gcc.  I just type "gcc" and hit command-K.  Up pops a dialog box for
constructing a gcc command line.  It contains buttons to bring up subdialogs
for things like preprocessor options and linker options, check boxes for
various options, radio buttons for mutually exclusing options, things to
select files, etc.

A/UX's main problem is that Apple doesn't seem serious about supporting it.
For example, they haven't put in ISO 9660 support for CD-ROM.  The Mac OS
running under A/UX supports this, so to access files from an ISO 9660 disk
from a Unix program, what you have to do is copy the file from Finder over
to the Unix file system, so that Unix programs can see it.  Apple seems to
view A/UX as an OS for their high end servers, not for end users, so they
don't bother with certain things that would be really useful (like ISO 9660
support from Unix).

--Tim Smith

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
From: kupiec@tigger.jvnc.net (Bob Kupiec)
Subject: UMSDOS filesystem mount
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 1994 18:27:46 GMT

Hello.  It was a breeze to install and setup the UMSDOS file system
with Slackware 2.0.  I even was able to use LOADLIN.

Only one problem.  The kernel hangs after mounting UMSDOS!  Here is
where it dies:

Now booting kernel...
[... lots o' stuff ...]
Partition check:
hda: hda1 hda2 < hda5 hda6 >
VFS: Mounted root (msdos filesystem).
{hangs forever here... ;-(  The bootdisk and LOADLIN(X) give same results. }

Linux is on /dev/hda6 in E:\LINUX.

What do I need to do next?

-- 
Bob Kupiec  (HAM: N3MML) Phone: 609-897-7319             JvNC (GES, Inc.)
Network Operations            & 800-35-TIGER x7319      3 Independence Way
Email: kupiec@jvnc.net    Fax : 609-897-7310            Princeton, NJ 08540

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

From: ws@xivic.bo.open.de (Wolfgang Schelongowski)
Subject: Re: HELP, searching ROGUE !
Date: 13 Aug 1994 16:46:38 +0200

In <1994Aug10.194857.11733@desaster.student.uni-tuebingen.de> michaelw@desaster.student.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Will) writes:

>msk@rz.uni-jena.de (Steffen Koehler) writes:

>>is there anyone there gas compiled the rogue-game at a linux-system.

>I prefer nethack, a way better implementation. I had it running in 
>verion 3.1 on linux 0.98 about one year ago.

There is Ularn. I ported it about a year ago and somebody put it on
a ftp server (which I do not remember).
-- 
Wolfgang Schelongowski  ws@xivic.bo.open.de

You are in a maze of twisty newsgroups, all different.

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

From: tzs@u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.coherent
Subject: Re: CD-ROM vs Tape Distribution (was Re: Coherent & Linux  ...)
Date: 13 Aug 1994 18:29:32 GMT

Keith Smith <keith@ksmith.com> wrote:
>can be done fairly easily.  Problem is with say 30 machines on a network
>that all have 1G hard drives, you have to back up 30G a day.  That means

You backup the entire drive every day!?  Why?

--Tim Smith

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

From: avk@darksite.msk.su (Andrew V. Kovalev)
Subject: Re: starting X automatically on installing linux distribution
Date: 12 Aug 1994 15:53:31 GMT

Mike Suzio (msuzio@tiamat.umd.umich.edu) wrote:
> wouldn't mind comprehensible man pages and a nice system-administration GUI
> of some sort (yes, I know some of these are being written).

That sounds right. But development of user-friendly sysadmin tools is not easy.
Have a look at Solaris 2.3. Developers tried to make it unnecessary to modify any
configs by hand and to do all the administration via so-called admintool. It is a 
real pain do something non-trivial (enable uucp, ppp or any other useful feature)..

I guess it is possible and wise to make a set of GUI tools to ease routine tasks
such as adding users, backing up etc. But I hardly imagine a tool that would change
sendmail.cf for me :)

Also the terminology question arises.. 

                        avk

--
Andrew V. Kovalev       avk@darksite.msk.su - home avk@jet.msk.su - office
Opinions expressed are mine. 

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


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