From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 00:28:48 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #102 Linux-Misc Digest #102, Volume #1 Tue, 7 Sep 93 00:28:48 EDT Contents: SupplDoes linux have supplementary groups? (JJWISEMAN@DELPHI.COM) Re: NT versus Linux (Kevin Brown) Networking without a network! (Karl Keyte, ESOC Darmstadt) Re: X/Windows3.1? (Andrew Bulhak) Re: NT versus Linux (Phil Anglin) Re: NT versus Linux (Mark A. Davis) Re: NT versus Linux (Kevin Brown) Re: Linux user groups in every city! (John A. Martin) Re: NT versus Linux (Brandon S. Allbery) Re: Low Cost SLS 1.03 on Diskette (Matt Welsh) Re: ideas for FAQs and printed LDP books (Matt Welsh) Re: Linux user groups in every city! (David Lesher) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jjwisema@news.delphi.com (JJWISEMAN@DELPHI.COM) Subject: SupplDoes linux have supplementary groups? Date: 6 Sep 1993 21:12:30 -0400 Does linux implement supplementary groups? (From what I can see, it doesn't, but maybe I just don't get it). Is it a planned addition, if not? ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 00:59:47 GMT In article <1993Sep6.152653.5040@kf8nh.wariat.org> bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: >In article kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes: >>No, it was badly designed even by the standards of the time. Remember that >>the 68000 was out at this point, and it was far and away superior to the >>CPU that IBM decided to use. > >Err, IBM went with the 8088 because Motorola *wasn't* delivering the 68000 >when IBM wanted it. Check your history. Whups. *This* I didn't know (or, rather, didn't remember. Thanks for setting the record straight). Hmm...okay, so what other chips were available at the time? The NS32016 (I think) wasn't out at the time, was it? I would guess not if Motorola wasn't shipping the 68000. What about the Z8000? Argh. My memory for what chips were out when is quite hazy, and I didn't really keep up with anything but the 68000 and 808x families. Even if Motorola wasn't shipping, it somewhat surprises me that someone didn't come along and design a cheap PC around the 68000 and get into the competition. Unfortunately, they would have been hard-pressed to compete against the image that IBM had back then. Yes, you could argue that Apple did just this with the Macintosh, but that was too expensive even at the time to really count as "competition"... -- Kevin Brown kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end > This is your .signature virus on drugs: <> Any questions? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 07:59:19 CET From: Karl Keyte, ESOC Darmstadt Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help Subject: Networking without a network! I'm trying to write some TCP/IP code without a network card. OK, I thought, as long as a stay on the same node. BUT...whatever I do I get 'Network Unreachable'. Does anyone know how I can configure my network setup to function without having to see an external network or even an ethernet card? I just want to be able to give myself an IP address and communicate to and from that single node. Karl ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.i386unix From: ins559n@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Andrew Bulhak) Subject: Re: X/Windows3.1? Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 01:24:16 GMT Darcy Boese (s9329053@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca) wrote: : Here is a halfway between Newbie and knowing-what-I'm-talking-about question: : [I managed to get the early August SLS 1.03 linux release 95% working after : just recompiling the kernel once and the xfree once] : : Is it possible to create most of the Xconfig file if you have a copy of the : Windows 3.1 video driver file? I'm mostly talking setting up the timing : interrupts and so on... Methinks not. A Windows driver is basically a dynamic-link library, and thus there is no one standard way of encoding video parameters in one. +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Andrew Bulhak | | | acb@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | You may now pour water on your Macintosh. | | Monash Uni, Clayton, | | | Victoria, Australia | | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: phil@clarknet.clark.net (Phil Anglin) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: 6 Sep 1993 23:07:46 -0400 In article <1993Sep6.152653.5040@kf8nh.wariat.org> bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: > >Err, IBM went with the 8088 because Motorola *wasn't* delivering the 68000 >when IBM wanted it. Check your history. > When *did* IBM want it? According to some Motorola books I was browsing through, the 68000 was introduced in '79. ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1993 02:20:22 GMT rich@mulvey.com (Rich Mulvey) writes: > Which is perfectly fine for the person who has a networked office and >will be sharing CPU, disk, and printer resources - but this doesn't >apply to the majority of people who use computers. They need a >single-tasking program loader, and that's what they get from DOS. That is not necessarily what they NEED, but what they have. > What makes UNIX inappropriate? > 1) Rotten file-system integrity in harsh environments. Ever try to > run a computer in a factory that contains lots of high startup load > machines without an expensive UPS? It's not fun to have the machine > crash before syncing. And we're not talking about a cheap, $250.00 > in-line UPS - they can't cut it. "Bull hockey". 1) Any system doing anything important needs a UPS, period. This is regardless of the operating system. 2) Which UNIX'es have YOU seen lately? Ted Unixware 5.4.2 lately???? You can UNPLUG the computer while it is being used with little chance of file system damage. > 2) Expertise needed to set it up and use it effectively. The business > that pays its receptionist $7.50/hr is not likely to want to hire > a $50.00/hour consultant to get lpd working correctly. Then they don't have a SYSTEM, they have a simple tool solution for a very limited problem. > And they're > not going to find out how to do it in any book that is easily > accessible to a computer neophyte. How many questions do you see > flooding the .linux groups daily that are posted by people who > *like* computers and solving problems? What chance does an > overworked, harried office manager have when he has to figure out > what all those funny messages about .LCK files mean and the > company will lose contracts if they can't get a new quote for a > job printed out fast enough to meet a deadline. Been there. > Done that. It sucked. Any complex SYSTEM is going to require a certain amount of EXPERTISE to set up and maintain it properly. It is par for the course. The same can be said for any complex type of system, not just computers. If a business does not want to INVEST in choosing the right system hardware, software, OS, installation, and maintenance, then it WILL hurt them in one way or another. > I have *NEVER* seen a complete, turnkey OS fresh from the box that is more >appropriate for a neophyte/ignorant/scared user than MS-DOS. Sure, when >needs expand, the company should dump DOS as fast as it can. But until then, >it's fine for them. MS-DOS is ****NOT**** a complex system. Sure, it is fine for a single-user, unconnected box with little expecations of synergy or productivity. (Not is ALL situations, of course). >> But Unix was running on the PDP-11 with 64K back in *1973* and was a lot >> more powerful than DOS has ever been. >> > Again, if you have the money. And the hardware resources. In 1981, >who would have known that computers dedicated to *ONE PERSON* would have >been of interest to more than geeks? And so they were designed with that >in mind. ??? Unixware, from IF, about $175..... less resources than NT, about the same ass MS-"DOS"/MS-"Windows. > Well, that's your definition. My definition is that technical excellence >means the lowliest, most computer-phobic person can do useful work without >a BS/CS degree. Remember - programmers, system administrators, and >technicians are facilitators. We exist to allow other people to do work >faster and more efficiently. Often that means that we have to wallow >in the mud with poor tools, but that's irrelevent as long as the USER gets >what he needs. Exactly. The vast, vast, vast, majority of computer end users have no business selecting hardware or OS's or installing such stuff. And the businesses who LOOSE soo much productivity by allowing them to do so deserve what they get! -- /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Mark A. Davis | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 | | Sys.Administrator| Computer Services | mark@taylor.wyvern.com .uucp | \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/ ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 01:59:18 GMT In article <930906.112422.0V6.rusnews.w165w@mulvey.com> rich@mulvey.com (Rich Mulvey) writes: >kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes: >> In article <930904.130601.6K0.rusnews.w165w@mulvey.com> rich@mulvey.com (Rich >> Mulvey) writes: [on the IBM PC] >>> Sure - it's badly designed *IN RETROSPECT*. >> >> No, it was badly designed even by the standards of the time. Remember that >> the 68000 was out at this point, and it was far and away superior to the >> CPU that IBM decided to use. > > Badly designed by the standards of mini-computers. It was an awesome >design by the standards of contemporary microcomputers that sold for >under $7,000.00. Well, no...it was a better *machine* than what was otherwise available, but that a machine is better is not necessarily because the design is better. You can, like IBM, use a worse design around better components than what are being used elsewhere and end up with a better machine. Think of it like running a less efficient ray-tracer on faster hardware. But I certainly agree that, compared with what else was out at the time, the PC was a big win. However, if you recall, it *was* more expensive than the less powerful competition. >> Recall that even the Apple II had clones, namely the Franklin. > > Yup - but I could ( and did ) twice as much useful work on an IBM-XT than >I ever was able to do on an Apple. I literally had callouses on my thumb from >doing the "floppy-shuffle" whenever I maintained my employers databases. Sure, >we could have gotten a Corvus 5MB drive for the Apple. For the same price as >an XT. ...until your employers database grew to twice the size, at which point you were shuffling disks again, weren't you? >>> See above. Hindsight is 20/20. >> >> So? The lessons that were presumably taught by the previous generation of >> computers had already been learned by many. But not by IBM and not by >> Microsoft. I knew back before the PC came out that memory limitations >> should be a result of a limited pocketbook, not a limited design. I had >> seen the growth in the size of software and extrapolated appropriately. >> Many others had as well. So why the 640k absolute limit, when the 68000 >> had a 16 meg limit? > > Because IBM had to be able to produce the system as cheaply as possible. >They were gambling. If you were a design manager, and had the choice of >creating a 'safe' design and keeping your job, or creating a 'risky' design >that flopped and helped you lose your job, which would you choose? Sure, you >could have used a 68000. But it wasn't a proven chip. The 8086/8 came out >four years before the PC was designed and was field-proven. Alas, it turns out that they *couldn't* use the 68000, at least not without delaying things for a (possibly considerable) period of time. So I'm afraid I'm going to have to concede the CPU point. However, there's still the bus, the OS, etc... It is rather a shame that someone didn't come out with a cheap 68000 system to compete with the PC in a timely fashion. Things would be a lot more interesting now. :-) >>> Personally, *I* don't see how "badly broken and inferior" DOS it, and I'v >> e >>>been programming on PC machines for a decade. As a small-applications >>>single-tasking program loader it does just fine. And *that* is what most >>>people want from it. >> >> Bull. Look at the size of Microsoft Word, or WordPerfect, or Lotus 1-2-3, >> or any of the most popular applications. Hell, look at Turbo C++. All >> these applications require more resources than DOS itself allows, and that's >> why you have such things as expanded memory standards and dynamically- >> loadable code segments, all done by the *program*. People have gone to >> great lengths to overcome the limitations of DOS. >> >> People just want to be able to run their applications, NO MATTER WHAT the >> size. >> >> If all people wanted was to run a single application at a time, then >> Microsoft wouldn't have bothered with multitasking in Windows. They >> did, people use it, and thus your assertion that most people want merely >> a single-tasking application loader is proven false. > > I'm in total agreement that kludges are necessary to load large apps in >DOS. But then again, you can work around them. Personally, I tend to use >relatively 'outdated' software because it does everything I need and can >run fast and efficiently on a small machine. They solve my problems, so >I'm happy. Sure. But most people *don't* do this, else applications wouldn't have grown so much. My point still stands. As an application loader, DOS itself *fails* for anything bigger than 640K, and that's why you have all the application- specific code out there to load external modules at runtime. *DOS* isn't doing anything at that point but being a filesystem. More to the point, DOS is no longer any good at being an application loader. That part is basically being taken care of by the application program itself, and DOS is just acting as a bootstrapper. Now all DOS is doing is being a filesystem. DOS doesn't do a very good job of being a filesystem... > As for people wanting multi-tasking, walk into 10 small businesses that >use Windows. Sneak up on the clerks. What are they using multitasking >for? > > Running Solitare when the Boss has his door closed. :-) Well, that's definitely a big use of it, but you have to admit that it's a use. :-) They also use it for running the file manager, email (if in a corporate environment), etc. While I agree that most people don't make *full* use of the multitasking features, Microsoft wouldn't have invested the time in making Windoze multitask unless there was a *significant* demand for it. >>>As a large-application multitasker, it sucks rocks. >>>But anyone who tries to use it for that is deluding myself - and I don't >>>concern myself with deluded people. >> >> Then you don't concern yourself with a very large segment of the population. >> :-) > > Nope, I don't. And it makes me infinitely happier. :-) Hear, hear! :-) >> Oh, if WordPerfect is just fine for the majority of people, then why do they >> continue to add more "features" to it??? > > Why do car manufacturers come out with new lines every year? The vehicles >have *exactly* the same base functionality, but the manufacturers tell us >that we'll be hopelessly behind our neighbors if we don't get the latest and >greatest. Well, no, if this were the case then cars like the Ford Mustang wouldn't be in production in its same basic form for 12 year stretches. Of course, that might be an exception to the rule. Car manufacturers come out with new lines every year because people's tastes change rapidly. Cars aren't unique here. Most consumer products follow the same trend. Features are added to WordPerfect, and to all the other application programs out there, because users want to be able to do things that those applications can't, at the time, do. >And then they manage to sell us absolute trash - take turbochargers, >for example. Quite possibly the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the car- >buying public. "Look at all this cheap power you get!" "Cheap" meaning that your mileage won't suffer as badly as a result of the extra power. >Translation: "We >couldn't figure out how to make the engine any smaller or cheaper, so we're >going to add on this horrendously expensive, unreliable, low-life expentancy >gizmo to your car so that when it cracks and needs $2,000 in repairs, we can >sell you a new one." Yup. But they also sell us things like more ergonomic cockpit designs, sleeker bodies (producing less wind drag), more adaptive engine control systems, etc. And some designs hit the mark so closely that they stick around a while. The Mustang is one such example. The 300ZX might be another (should be interesting to see). The Camaro is certainly an example. If people didn't demand these things, they wouldn't buy these things. Yes, the marketing hype has something to do with it, but because the car market involves significant competition, there has to be real demand for a feature for it to be incorporated. >>> As I said in a previous note - people can only victimize themselves. They >>>deserve what they get. >> >> Do the people who end up having to deal with that "deserve what they get"? > > If you choose to work in this field, yes. Yup. Which is why I refuse to do DOS development work. >> I'd love to. It would solve a lot of problems. But how do you suggest >> making this [people taking responsibility for the purchasing decisions >> they make for their corporation] happen? :-) > > Euthanasia? ;-) No, now you'll get me ranting about how the Welfare State >kills people's sense of responsibility. :-) Oh, but you'll have me agreeing with you and that'll shorten the discussion dramatically. Better not do that. :-) >> It looks to me like we're more or less in agreement on the important things. >> We both recognize that things are where they are because of the (often >> stupid or ignorant) choices that people have made, and that they'll >> continue to make the same kinds of choices in the future. We also agree >> that the best we can do is make our own choices. I've done so. That's >> why I run Linux for everything but games. If I were designing hardware, >> it *wouldn't* be for the broken hardware of the PC. > > Shoot. Does this mean that the argument is over? Damn, now I've got >to play devil's advocate in some other group. :-( Nah. There's plenty left to discuss. :-) > ( As a side note - for those people who have been sending me >congratulatory notes for my obvious love for MS-DOS and Windows, please >review all of my previous posts and tell me exactly where I ever said I >liked them. :-) Well, you *did* say that they weren't bad designs, but I suppose that's not quite the same thing. :-) -- Kevin Brown kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end > This is your .signature virus on drugs: <> Any questions? ------------------------------ From: jmartin@opus.starlab.csc.com (John A. Martin) Subject: Re: Linux user groups in every city! Date: 6 Sep 1993 23:51:59 -0400 Reply-To: jmartin@opus.starlab.csc.com (John A. Martin) writes: | | In your article you wrote: | # If there is interest in forming a Linux User Group in the | # Baltimore-Washington DC area (Md., Va., WVa., ...) it might be | # worthwhile to consider forming it as a Special Interest Group of | # the Capital PC User Group (CPCUG). | | Members of the Wash. Area Unix Users Group have already discussing a | less--formal group. They are considering installing sources on the | WAUUG BBS. That is good news! It seems beter to join an existing group than to start anew, me thinks. In choosing among groups to join up with there would seem to be a number of considerations. There are questions along the lines of what the chosen parent group can do for Linuxers and what the Linuxers can bring to the group. There is also a possibility that an either/or choice is unnecessary, perhaps both is a reasonable choice. | As a previous member of CPCUG, a real advantage (to my mind) of WAUUG | is that you don't get regarded as an alien intruder for mentioning a | non-DOS/WinDoze approach. I once made the mistake of suggesting that | 'rn' would solve many of the problems they had on their existing BBS. I | got my head bit off for suggesting it... Being an APLer I must have perhaps become insensitive to being regarded as an alien intruder by computer folk. In any case the CPCUG has been hospitable to, and provided substantial resources in support of, APLers that in many cases don't know how to turn on a PC much less what DOS/Windows is. I don't know why Linuxers should be received any less well. On the other hand there might be some satisfaction in bringing a bit of enlightenment to a wilderness so to speak. It is a wee bit beyond my ken how constructive a sugestion to use 'rn' would have been owing to the fact that that BBS system has been running for about ten years on the same donated, non-standard, and now obsolete equipment that runs only DOS (no windows!). The CPCUG volunteer tradition that invented RBBS (the software that runs the CPCUG BBS), built it and maintained it over the years, and distributes it free for the copying costs, should be in line with the mainstream Linux culture, I would think. Thank you for your response. I am glad to hear of the doings at WAUUG. Cheers --jam ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 03:44:22 GMT In article kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes: >Hmm...okay, so what other chips were available at the time? The NS32016 (I >think) wasn't out at the time, was it? I would guess not if Motorola wasn't >shipping the 68000. What about the Z8000? 68000 was the first oen announced but shipped late. 8086/8088 and Z8000 came out at about the same time, and the NS chip shipped after that. As far as the Z8000 was concerned: it was, in effect, an 8086 with even *more* brain damage (hard as it is to believe). >Even if Motorola wasn't shipping, it somewhat surprises me that someone >didn't come along and design a cheap PC around the 68000 and get into the >competition. Unfortunately, they would have been hard-pressed to compete >against the image that IBM had back then. A cheap 68000-based PC would have had one *big* problem compared to the original IBM PC: Intel made it very easy to convert existing 8080 assembly language to the 8088, and MS-DOS 1.x was "API compatible" with CP/M 2.2. Existing CP/M-80 business applications could be moved to the IBM PC very easily; doing this for a 68000 would have been much more difficult even with CP/M-68000 (which shipped too late to be helpful anyway). ++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 ------------------------------ From: mdw@sunSITE.unc.edu (Matt Welsh) Subject: Re: Low Cost SLS 1.03 on Diskette Date: 7 Sep 1993 04:04:18 GMT In article <268sjc$qjg@clarknet.clark.net>, Stephen Balbach wrote: >If I was the .announce moderator, a moderated newsgroup that can be >controlled, I would require mail-order adds to be in a catalog form. And >if no catalog exists it would be the vendors responsibility to create one. >And when a new vendor tries to post refer them to the catalog maintainer. >All adds would be listed alphabetically or some other fair way (not by >order of arrival). How about this: revise and expand the current Linux "mail order list" into a Mail Order HOWTO. This would essentially be a list of Linux distributors who distribute via mail (or means other than the Net). It would be a simple matter to poll for the requested information. If anyone wants to do this, please get in touch with me. All I want to do is review it (as I'm the HOWTO coordinator guy). In this way, no preference is given to any particular release; every release would be batched into a single posting. I would keep advertising hype out of it. I see that some distributors (such as JANA) don't announce on c.o.l.announce. A sad thing, too, because I'm sure that a lot of folks are missing out on these distributions because of it. mdw -- Send submissions for comp.os.linux.announce to: linux-announce@tc.cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: mdw@sunSITE.unc.edu (Matt Welsh) Subject: Re: ideas for FAQs and printed LDP books Date: 7 Sep 1993 04:14:28 GMT In article <1993Aug31.005801.12876@hellgate.utah.edu>, Greg Alt wrote: >First, a suggestion about the FAQs... I installed Linux a couple weeks ago, >and the most confusing thing about all of the FAQs was trying to find out if >I had the most current one. It would be nice if every faq/infosheet/metafaq >had a last-revision date at the very top. Also, it would be nice if the one >main meta-faq had a list of all of the faqs with the most current dates for >each. This should be distributed in such a way that it is obvious that it >should be read first (e.g. on the ftp sites, give it a title like >"read_first_meta_faq" or something like that. Very difficult to do. Just about everything says "Read me first!" We try to point people first to Ian's new FAQ, and then to the Installation HOWTO. Once "everything" is moved over to the HOWTO format, it is a simple matter to have INFO-SHEET, META-FAQ, etc. to say "for more information about Linux, see the FAQ, and then check out the HOWTO documents on sunsite..." All of the HOWTOs have last-revised dates. As more things are moved over to HOWTO format the problem should (mostly) go away. >Second... since it is so expensive to get copying done at kinkos for LDP books, >has anyone looked into going to a real publisher? We're looking at it, yes. (Michael, I assume you're reading this? Nudge nudge.) Let it suffice to say that "something is in the works." >Also, if you do get the >copies done at kinkos, it should be possible to shrink each page to half-size >and have 4 pages per sheet of paper, then have it cut and bound (or even >stapled). I was considering releasing the books on Microfische, which, say 150 pages could fit on about half a spool, cutting cost down to about $.50 per book. Of course, then you need a Microfische reader, or very thick glasses.. >I bet a lot of people would like to have a cheaper, more temporary copy until >things settle down a bit and don't change so much so quickly. I myself would like to have a printed copy of the I&GS. I honestly don't have one. >And lastly, I'd like to say that everyone should get a copy of "Linux >Installation and Getting Started" if they are new to Linux. It was the most >helpful guide for me for installing Linux. Thanks... I hope that in the future it will be more admissible to MS-DOS types (several MS-DOS users have had trouble getting gzip to work.) I know there are some things in the I&GS which are incorrect and possibly outdated (ahem, SLS), and I hope that before long I'll have a new release. However, people's comments on the book have been very positive, and not very much needs to change from what I can tell. Cheers, mdw -- Send submissions for comp.os.linux.announce to: linux-announce@tc.cornell.edu ------------------------------ From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Linux user groups in every city! Date: 7 Sep 1993 04:24:28 GMT Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher) Please note that I addressed the author in email. He chose to post my reply without the courtesy of asking me first. -- A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu & no one will talk to a host that's close............(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 ------------------------------ ** 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 ******************************