From: Digestifier To: Linux-Admin@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Admin@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 01:13:33 EDT Subject: Linux-Admin Digest #69 Linux-Admin Digest #69, Volume #1 Wed, 22 Sep 93 01:13:33 EDT Contents: PPP support for Linux... (Charles Stephens) Re: Slackware's 3.5" requirements (Vincent Broman) Re: Slackware's 3.5" requirements, was Re: [Not] enough SLS bashing (rich@mulvey.com) Re: [Not] enough SLS bashing (rich@mulvey.com) Re: [Not] enough SLS bashing (Brandon S. Allbery) Re: Memory LEAKING!*=--.._ (Andreas Mengel) Re: [Not] enough SLS bashing (Charles E Meier) Re: Problem with sysinstall (Dieter Armbruster) Re: Memory LEAKING!*=--.._ (Stephen Tweedie) Re: Slackware's 3.5" requirements (rich@mulvey.com) Re: smail and files > 5KB (rejected) (Bill Harris) TeX from SLS (Peter Berger) Re: SHADOW 3.2.2 PASSWD DANGER!!! (Mitchell Craig) 3.5 boot floppies. Not really Re: [Not] enough SLS bashing anymore (John Henders) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cfs@neuro.emory.edu (Charles Stephens) Subject: PPP support for Linux... Date: 21 Sep 1993 14:37:33 GMT Is there support for the now famed Point to Point Protocol (PPP) for Linux. I didn't see anything in the NET-2 distribution, but there must be some hacker out there that is working in the middle of the night on this. Please fill me in. Thanks -- Charles Stephens, | There is a threat to our very Assistant System Administrator, | existance. He's cold, calculating, Department of Neurology, | round, and purple. His name is Barney. Emory University |---------------------------------------- Internet: cfs@next.neuro.emory.edu | Linux, choice of a GNU generation. ------------------------------ From: broman@schroeder.nosc.mil (Vincent Broman) Subject: Re: Slackware's 3.5" requirements Reply-To: broman@nosc.mil Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 21:35:48 GMT rich@mulvey.com wrote: > Well, you could simply do what I did - fit as many of the packages on > each floppy, and install with pkgtool. Is the size of the disks the only issue, or is there something else in the boot process (or the /dev directory) which demands 3.5in boot drives? Vincent Broman, code 572 Bayside Phone: +1 619 553 1641 Naval Command Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, RDT&E Div. San Diego, CA 92152-6147, USA Email: broman@nosc.mil ------------------------------ From: rich@mulvey.com Subject: Re: Slackware's 3.5" requirements, was Re: [Not] enough SLS bashing Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 12:43:14 GMT Kevin Fluet (user1@valis.ampr.ab.ca) wrote: : In <1993Sep16.162004.29975@cc.gatech.edu> byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes: : >In article <930915.201151.2C5.rusnews.w165w@jaiser.rain.com>, : >> : >>Well, I don't know about Slackware, because it requires me to have a 3 1/2 : >>inch diskette to boot and, believe it or not, I don't. : >>So for _some_ of us Slackware is worthless. : >>All of these have their problems. But until the distributor of Slackware : >>decides to support 5 1/4, I'll have to stick with SLS and MCC. : This is exactly why I don't keep Slackware on my BBS rather than SLS (even : though I would very much like to). I don't have disk space for both : distributions, and I have to cater to the lowest common denominator--those : people who don't have 3.5" drives. : >In principle you are correct. However Patrick has provided a couple of features : >that can help. : >1) He has a test version of a 5.25 boot/root pair on : > ftp.cdrom.com:/pub/linux/tst. The README for the 5.25 can be found with : > the rest of the distribution. : This is a good start, but some of the other disk images still don't fit onto : 5.25" disks, so you still need a 3.5 as a second drive to install it. Well, you could simply do what I did - fit as many of the packages on each floppy, and install with pkgtool. Heck, it's better to do it that way - I don't have to spend time downloading stuff like the smalltalk interpreter that I'm not interested in, anyhow. :-) - Rich -- Rich Mulvey Amateur Radio: N2VDS Rochester, NY rich@mulvey.com "Ignorance should be painful." ------------------------------ From: rich@mulvey.com Subject: Re: [Not] enough SLS bashing Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 12:50:38 GMT Kevin Fluet (user1@valis.ampr.ab.ca) wrote: : In <27a9hp$eao@moonshot.west.oic.com> dillon@moonshot.west.oic.com (Matthew Dillon) writes: : >In article <930915.201151.2C5.rusnews.w165w@jaiser.rain.com> : >:Well, I don't know about Slackware, because it requires me to have a 3 1/2 : >:inch diskette to boot and, believe it or not, I don't. : >:So for _some_ of us Slackware is worthless. : >:All of these have their problems. But until the distributor of Slackware : >:decides to support 5 1/4, I'll have to stick with SLS and MCC. : > I suggest that you purchase a 1.44 MB 3.5" drive, then. Not : >necessarily for slackware, but because 3.5" is now the norm. You will find : >yourself closed out of more and more things if all you have are crufty 5.25" : >floppies. : What planet do you live on? It is true that most computers sold now have : 3.5" drives or both sizes installed, but there is a huge installed base of : 386's out there that only have 5.25" drives. When I got my 486 less than a : year ago from Gateway 2000 (the 3rd largest manufacturer of PC's in North : America) it had the 5.25" as the boot drive. I have never seen a software : package that didn't have 5.25" floppies available. You apparently don't buy much software, then. :-) And for that matter, you have always had the option of getting 1.44MB drives in Gateways. : > Most of our machines don't even have 5.25" floppies any more. 3.5" : >inch stuff is a lot easier to deal with. : That's great for YOU, but how about everybody else. Like I said in another : post, Slackware should be in a format usable by EVERYONE. 5.25" disk images : fit onto 3.5" disks, but it doesn't work the other way around. Come on - 10 minutes and 40 bucks will get you a nice new 1.44 drive installed in your machine. It will help not only with Linux, but a lot of commercial software as well. Why should Patrick force those of us with 1.44MB drives to use 5 extra disks, just to satisfy the people who refuse to use a reasonable setup? If you want to be cheap and not get a drive - fine, install the packages seperately. It's easy. And if you notice, there are only a few select people complaining about the disk formats. I'd be interested in seeing how that compares to the number of people who have downloaded Slackware in total. - Rich -- Rich Mulvey Amateur Radio: N2VDS Rochester, NY rich@mulvey.com "Ignorance should be painful." ------------------------------ From: bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery) Subject: Re: [Not] enough SLS bashing Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 15:57:23 GMT In article <748617113snz@cmkrnl.demon.co.uk> Gregh@cmkrnl.demon.co.uk writes: >What planet those thise statement come from ? I have just showed this to a The planet where I can go to any computer store in the area (call it an hour drive every direction but north) and see racks and racks of new 386 and 486 machines wth 5 1/4" boot drives. It's called Earth. Ever heard of it? Okay, so maybe *your* area has switched en masse to 3 1/2". But many existing machines and many new machines still have 5 1/4" boot drives, and heckling because your little local situation is 3 1/2" only doesn't win any points. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery kf8nh@kf8nh.ampr.org bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org "MSDOS didn't get as bad as it is overnight -- it took over ten years of careful development." ---dmeggins@aix1.uottawa.ca ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux From: falcon@hotblack.sh.sub.org (Andreas Mengel) Subject: Re: Memory LEAKING!*=--.._ Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 12:19:55 GMT Hi there! jP@hpacv.com writes: >Hello! > Just installed SLS 0.99.12 and hooked that baby right up to the >net. All went great and life was good UNTIL I did a top or a free. > Here output RIGHT after bootup! HELP! I'm missing 15 meg! > Check this out........... >Here's the free output: > total used free shared buffers >Mem: 14964 13792 1172 1856 10696 >Swap: 0 0 0 >Here's the top output: >Load Averages 0.74 0.33 0.35 >17 processes: 16 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped >CPU states: 6.5% user, 0.0% nice, 12.2% system, 81.3% idle >Mem: 14964K av, 13840K used, 1124K free, 1928K shrd, 10688 buff > ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ >Swap: 0K av, 0K used, 0K free Looks PERFECT to me :-) Let me try to explain the mem-lines from free an top (correct me if I'm wrong): a) 13840K + 1124K = 14964K b) 13840K - 10688K = 3152K c) 3152K - 1928K = 1224K (a) total_mem = used_mem + free_mem : no memory is 'lost' (kernel-space is already subtracted from your physical memory size to give total_mem) (b) used_mem - buffer_mem = memory used by existing processes (process_mem) where buffer_mem is used as a dynamic disk-cache (c) process_mem - shared_mem = private memory for the all processes, i.e. memory that is neither shared-executable-pages (for multiple instances of the same executable, like getty or sh, that share some (read-only) pages) nor shared libraries. [ps output deleted] > Any help at all is GREATLY appreciated! > Thanx, > postmaster@hpacv.com Sigh, I wish people could really READ the output-lines from free, top et al. up to the last character... As long as total_mem=free_mem+used_mem there is really nothing to worry about (buffers count as used memory !!!). Hey, enjoy, the kernel has put your expensive memory in use, no chips wasting your money by not being used at all :-)) (Sorry, couldn't resist...) Maybe this should be in the FAQ (if it isn't already). But who actually reads FAQs ? I usually don't as you can see ;-) I hope this puts an end to this 'help, the kernel has a memory leak' stuff... -- Bye, Falcon +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Real Name: Andreas Mengel | | Internet: Andreas.Mengel@arbi.Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE | | Home: falcon@hotblack.sh.sub.org | Bitnet: 169371@DOLUNI1 | +-------------+-------------------------------------------------+-------------+ |Some say I'm lazy, but others say that's just me.| |Some say I'm crazy, I guess I'll always be! (GnR)| +-------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: cemeier@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Meier) Subject: Re: [Not] enough SLS bashing Date: 21 Sep 1993 21:29:46 GMT In article <1993Sep21.135808.10018@cc.gatech.edu> byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes: >This topic is getting out of hand. >1) Slackware is distributed as a series of DOS disks. >2) These disks are sized to fit 3.5 1.44M floppies. >3) Patrick has a 3.5 boot disk and a 5.25 boot/root combo disk. >4) Slackware has three distribution modes: Floppy, HD, and NFS. > >Now these are the conditions in which Slackware cannot be installed. Note that >all of these must be true. > >A) The machine does not have a 3.5" 1.44M floppy. >B) The machine does not have enough HD space to temporarily store the > distribution while it is being installed. >C) The machine has no NFS access. > [...] > >Lastly here are your options if you have 5.25 only: > >1) Temporarily hook you machine to a network with NFS (This can even be a > larger Linux box.) Use the NFS option. >2) Temporarily store the distribution on a local HD. Use the HD option. >3) Temporarily borrow a 1.44M floppy drive. You only need it for the > installation. >4) Shuffle the distribution yourself. Build a extra set of disks. Move > the install.end and z*fix files to the last disk. > >If folks are unwilling to do any of the above then they are unwilling to >help themselves. Let them complain. > >Later, > >BAJ >--- >Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of... >Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel! >Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: byron@cc.gatech.edu And if you do have a 3.5" but the 5.25" is the boot floppy, then open the box, switch the cables, run the CMOS setup to switch the A and B drives, and you may find that the 3.5" is now your boot disk. Worked on mine, anyway. Standard disclaimers apply to yours. Does anyone have a defragmentation program that I can run on my brain? It is taking too long to locate important data. Charles Meier - Singletasking PhD student (can't walk and chew gum at once) Ohio State - cemeier@osu.edu ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help From: armbr@azu.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de (Dieter Armbruster) Subject: Re: Problem with sysinstall Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1993 00:09:15 GMT In article <27i052$sht@dopey.cc.utexas.edu> veena@dopey.cc.utexas.edu (veena gondhalekar) writes: > > >I need to reinstall my X11 part of the Linux system. I am using >the /dev/fd1 (3.5 floppy) and do > > sysinstall -instdev /dev/fd1 -series x > >I get something like > insert disk x1 in floppy drive or enter q to quit. > >I hit enter and I get the 'same' message again. >The script exits after repeating the above message thrice. > >I have the same problem using the "menu" install software option. > >If anyone has any pointers, please let me know. >Thanks. > >Rajesh > This sounds very much like you did NOT umount your /dev/fd1! Probably due to file buffer caching, any read() on the unmounted /dev/fd gets the old contents, i.e. any disk change is NOT detected. Umount /dev/fd1 - and off you (should) go. Hope that helps, D.Armbuster ++49712142346 ------------------------------ From: sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Stephen Tweedie) Subject: Re: Memory LEAKING!*=--.._ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 19:43:41 GMT Hi, In article <1993Sep19.204800.10264@inca.comlab.ox.ac.uk>, harris@teaching.physics.ox.ac.uk (Stephen Harris) writes: > Linux is a clever system that allocates memory to the disk buffer on > demand. The free output shows that 10Mb of the memory is currently > assigned to this. As your program load increases memory will be dropped > from the buffer and given back to program use, and when the program load > drops the spare memory can be reallocate to the buffer. > There is one downside to this caching system: when memory is needed for > programs, the buffer needs to shrink, and this can lead to a pause as > parts of it are written back to disk. This is one case where a hardware > cache can be beneficial! This slightly misses the mark. Normally, the buffer-cache shrinking does not require any buffers to be written out, since every 30 seconds or so, all dirty buffers are automatically written out anyway. This helps to keep most of the buffer cache clean, so that it may be shrunk quickly. Only if you have very little space left in the buffer cache will you get a lot of writes going on all the time. However, the periodic 30-second filesystem sync() does have its own problems. In particular, inodes and buffers get locked while they are written out. This is the real cause of most of the delays during heavy disk writing. Cheers, Stephen. --- Stephen Tweedie (JANET: sct@uk.ac.ed.dcs) Department of Computer Science, Edinburgh University, Scotland. ------------------------------ From: rich@mulvey.com Subject: Re: Slackware's 3.5" requirements Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 23:48:01 GMT Vincent Broman (broman@schroeder.nosc.mil) wrote: : rich@mulvey.com wrote: : > Well, you could simply do what I did - fit as many of the packages on : > each floppy, and install with pkgtool. : Is the size of the disks the only issue, or is there something else : in the boot process (or the /dev directory) which demands 3.5in boot drives? Once you have the machine booted and a file system mounted, it is absolutely irrelevent where you install the packages from. - Rich -- Rich Mulvey Amateur Radio: N2VDS Rochester, NY rich@mulvey.com "Ignorance should be painful." ------------------------------ From: xmpcwsh@dp7up.com (Bill Harris) Subject: Re: smail and files > 5KB (rejected) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 16:24:01 GMT In article pott@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (Ruediger Pott) writes: >Hi all, >I've the following problem. Using smail and sls 1.01 my configuration >works fine and all mail is forwarded to our mailhost. But when the >mailfile gets larger than approx 5KB the mail stays in the mailqueue >and will never be send. Does someone know a config-parameter to chnge >this behaviour? > >Thanks, Ruediger Try putting something like the following line in your smail config file: max_message_size=1000k Bill ------------------------------ From: pit@gccs.imp.com (Peter Berger) Subject: TeX from SLS Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 09:08:00 +0200 >> I solved this just by NOT-installing the archive texbin during "normal" >> installation of the T-series (btw just grep for pkgtool in the setup script >> to get an idea how to use it). >> I installed this package then manually. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > After running "pkgtool" on the T-series disks on everything > EXCEPT texbin, should texbin then be installed? Well, I'd recommend to do it. IMHO it doesn't make too much sense to install tons of files/makros/fonts and then not installing the binaries to use 'em... bye, Peter E-Mail: pit@gccs.imp.com (hope that's correct now..). ------------------------------ From: hcrms@venus.chvpkh.chevron.com (Mitchell Craig) Subject: Re: SHADOW 3.2.2 PASSWD DANGER!!! Date: 22 Sep 93 04:53:43 GMT In article (John Henders) writes: >(OUTTA HERE!) writes: > >>I just found something very dangerous with the passwd command that >>I compiled from the shadow 3.2.2 package. >>Observe: > >>#root:[51]/> passwd root >^^^^^^^^^^ > I assume this means you're doing this as root. >... >>and now I'm logged in correctly... i.e.: NO PASSWORD!! > >>Surely this is a bug, not a feature. > > As someone's sig file says. Unix allows you to do stupid things in >order to allow you to do clever things. If you try this as an ordinary >user, passwd is a lot stricter on what it will allow. I guess root is >assumed to have a darn good reason to want to use a stupid password. If >the ordinary user restrictions were enforced on root, you couldn't even >create an account with the password guest. > Personally, I like the behaviour the way it is. I had to use the >root account to give my ordinary user account an empty password, but at >least I could do it. If, I couldn't, I would have nuked shadow passwords >completely. > Some of the hackers at mit in the 70's (stallman?) were really irate when the security folks insisted on passwords, and they actively promoted the use of the "empty string" password. They used to regularly break into the password file and reset the passwords of the security people to the empty string :-) I like using the empty string password on my pc at home. mitch - hcrms@chevron.com ------------------------------ From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) Subject: 3.5 boot floppies. Not really Re: [Not] enough SLS bashing anymore Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1993 23:53:26 GMT jcburt@gats486.larc.nasa.gov writes: >And a 1.2MB 5-1/4" floppy is configured as the boot floppy drive on the majority >of 386/486 machines sold today, so why *not* support what is a defacto standard? >And since it *is* supported, why even *suggest* it's not by telling someone to >"buy more hardware..." Not only that, the stock floppy cable in most clones won't reach to allow switching if you have both drives. However, as a constructive (hopefully) suggestion, has anyone considered that if someone has a 5 1/2 boot drive, installing lilo on it could cause linux to load from the 3 1/2 drive? -- John Henders GO/MU/E d* -p+ c+++ l++ t- m--- s/++ g+ w+++ -x+ Segments are for Worms ------------------------------ ** 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-Admin-Request@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.admin) via: Internet: Linux-Admin@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-Admin Digest ******************************