From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Tue, 7 Sep 93 16:29:08 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #105 Linux-Misc Digest #105, Volume #1 Tue, 7 Sep 93 16:29:08 EDT Contents: Re: ideas for FAQs and printed LDP books (Stephen Balbach) Pico/Pine (Paul Arbogast) New gopher client (Mark Morley) Re: NT versus Linux (Kevin Brown) X8514 'Xmodmap' needed (Karl Keyte, ESOC Darmstadt) Re: Wordprocessor under X (Gary Keim) Re: f2c and entries? (Tor Arntsen) Re: New Sounddriver for PC-Speaker and Digital-Analog-Converter (Alexander Jung) Re: NT versus Linux (Todd Walk) Re: How to kill term 1.07 with carrier loss? (Scott D. Heavner) Re: SupplDoes linux have supplementary groups? (Theodore Ts'o) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: stephen@clarknet.clark.net (Stephen Balbach) Subject: Re: ideas for FAQs and printed LDP books Date: 7 Sep 1993 13:12:37 -0400 >I myself would like to have a printed copy of the I&GS. I honestly don't >have one. If you would like, send me your address I have a copy with a few pages cockeyed that I would be more than happy to give to you (the author). Hey, isn't this supposed to be the other way round :) It is GBC (spiral) bound w/ hard card lime colored cover and looks very nice. Stephen -- Stephen Balbach . Clark Internet Services . Washington D.C./Balt. metro area . mail info@clark.net . FAX 410-730-9765 . Corp. accounts . Linux on Disk . 31 disks $45 . stephen@clark.net . voice 410-740-1157 ------------------------------ From: trl@clarknet.clark.net (Paul Arbogast) Subject: Pico/Pine Date: 7 Sep 1993 13:51:13 -0400 I was wondering where i may find ported copies of Pico and Pine for Linux.. if not ported copies, then just source code (if it's available).. -- ****************************************************************************** Paul Arbogast (trl@clark.net) Clyde's BBS (301) 776-1779 ------------------------------ Subject: New gopher client From: morley@suncad.camosun.bc.ca (Mark Morley) Date: 7 Sep 93 09:55:17 PDT Hi there, A couple weeks back I wrote a new Unix gopher client. The reason I'm telling you all here is that I wrote it simultaneously under SunOS and Linux. So far it seems to work great under both environments. Anyway, here's the readme: BBGopher 1.3 Copyright 1993 by Mark Morley You may use and distribute this code in any way you like. It is free and there are no strings attached. All I ask is that my name stays in the program (source and binaries). FTP Site: suncad.camosun.bc.ca:/pub/morley/bbgopher1.3.tar.Z BBGopher started out a couple of weeks ago when I decided I needed a more secure gopher client for the UNIX BBS software I'm writing. I FTP'd the RFC that describes the gopher protocol and began. I started to look at the sources for other gopher clients, but quickly gave up and decided to do it from scratch. It took about 2 days to get a working client going. The first version didn't have bookmarks and was missing a few minor features as well. A couple more days of squashing bugs, adding features, etc. and voila! Here it is. I wrote it on a SunOS 4.1.2 system. I've also tested it under Linux. No other system has been tested yet. This version of BBGopher supports the following item types: Text files (can me mailed or saved after viewing them) Directories Binary transfers Telnet TN3270 Index searches Support for CSO, GIF, Image, and other types are in the works. Features: - Provides a simple scrolling interface (but still looks good!) that should work on _any_ terminal. - You can lock users into using a specific directory for saving text files. - You can grant or deny access to any item type on a per user basis. - You can define an external pager for viewing files, although there is a simple one built in. - You can define things like which mailer to use, which telnet binary to run, etc. - Easy configuration via an ascii config file. Installation: 1) Uncompress and expand the tar file. 2) Type 'makeit' 3) Move the file bbgopher.conf into the /usr/local/etc directory. If you'd prefer a different file/path name then you must edit the file bbgopher.c and change the #define near the top of the program. 4) Edit the bbgopher.conf file (or whatever you decided to call it) to configure it for your site. Be sure and read the comments in the sample config file carefully. Make sure this file is marked as readable by everyone. 5) Move the file bbgopher.help into the appropriate directory. You must be sure to define the path/filename for the help file in the config file. You can place this file anywhere you like and give it any name you like. A sample file is provided, but you may want to edit it to suit your tastes. Make sure this file is marked as readable by everyone. 6) Move the file bbgopher to a directory on the users' path. I use /usr/local/bin. Anything is fine. 7) That's it! Disclaimer: Please keep in mind that this was mostly a quick (and not _too_ dirty) job that was meant for my own personal use. After reading some of the posts concerning a need for a more flexible/secure client I thought others might be interested in mine. If you find BBGopher useful, great! If it's not, well... I'll offer limited support for the program via email. Bug reports, suggestions, questions, etc. are always welcome. Mark morley@camosun.bc.ca ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 02:49:12 GMT In article <930906.103834.9V2.rusnews.w165w@mulvey.com> rich@mulvey.com (Rich Mulvey) writes: >kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes: >> A "decent" OS does *not* mean a "bug-free" OS. It means that the OS provides >> a reasonably orthogonal and complete set of services that (a) allow the user >> or programmer to run and/or write programs efficiently, (b) protect the >> programs the user runs from the vagaries of other programs which may be >> running, and (c) efficiently use the full capabilities of the hardware. > > 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. I really don't know if this is true or not. *A lot* of companies with a lot of employees are using networked computers. This is why Novell is doing so well. It's why Microsoft came out with "Windows for Workgroups". The number of people doing networking with their computers is very, very significant, and they're trying to do so with DOS which, as you admit yourself, is the wrong answer to the problem. >They need a >single-tasking program loader, and that's what they get from DOS. If that's *all* they needed, they wouldn't be running Windoze, they'd be running only DOS. >I think >that we're arguing at cross-purposes here; I'm in full agreement that DOS >rots for any network, large-app, or multi-process work. But working as >a consultant/programmer for small businesses ( And by small I mean > 10 >people, which constitutes by far the MAJORITY of businesses in the U.S. ) >there typically isn't a need. Right. But you don't have to have a network to benefit substantially from multitasking. As I said, Microsoft wouldn't have bothered with it unless they figured that people would actually *use* it. >( Better watch out - I may start getting >into my other peeve about how companies tend to use computers as >problem generators rather than problem solvers. ;-) They're definitely paper generators. :-) >> It's not??? What makes Unix inappropriate for a small business? It's just >> an operating system. For launching applications, it does a better job than >> DOS because the applications can be larger, more complete, and more capable. >> The networking is already there, as is NFS (and thus file sharing), as is >> print spooling, as is a real filesystem (or, at least, a better filesystem >> than is provided by DOS, if the 14-character filesystem is the only thing >> the particular brand of Unix you're talking about provides). > > 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. You want guaranteed filesystem integrity? Then mount all your filesystems with the sync option turned on and suffer through the loss in performance just like you do with DOS. Unix isn't unsuitable just because the default mode happens to be the one that gets you higher performance... Actually, that's not quite true. It *is* probably one of the reasons. If the default mode were something the user would be most comfortable with, then Unix would be more suitable to the average user. That's part of the problem, but it's something that's easily fixable. Indeed, my opinion is that the defaults *should* be those most suited to the neophyte. Someone who knows what they're doing can change the defaults because they'll know how or at least know how to find out. > 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. 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. This I agree with. See way below for my perspective on cognitive overhead. > 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. Oh, yeah? *I've* seen a complete turnkey OS fresh from the box that is more appropriate for the neophyte: the Mac OS. And guess what? It has fewer limitations than DOS... And guess what? It, *too*, has multitasking. Do you detect a trend here? >>> The reason that the PC was successful was that it was cheap enough >>>for a small business to use. >> >> The Apple II was also cheap enough for a small business to use. It just >> wasn't as powerful as the PC. But lots of businesses already had quite a >> bit invested in the Apple II when the PC came on the market, largely because >> of Visicalc. > > Yup - reminds me of the day when I converted all of my dBase II programs >from an Apple II running CP/M to an IBM PC. It was so much faster and >easier that we literally used the Apples for doorstops after that. :-) I can believe that... >> 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. *What* hardware resources? Unix was running on hardware less capable than what you got with a base IBM PC, which is my point in the above. Minix does the same, *on* a base IBM PC. Running a more powerful OS than DOS on extremely limited hardware isn't hard, and hasn't been for a long time. >In 1981, >who would have known that computers dedicated to *ONE PERSON* would have >been of interest to more than geeks? We all did. The Apple II was being used by a lot of businesses at that time. Like I said, Visicalc... >And so they were designed with that in mind. Yeah, but the *multiuser* capability isn't the primary thing I'm talking about...it's the *multitasking* capability that Unix has that, more than anything else, blows DOS into the weeds. That and a reasonable filename convention. Even Microsoft, technically incompetent as it is, realized this when they designed Windows... >> I was doing more on my 7.14 MHz Amiga with 512K RAM and 2 disk drives than >> I've *ever* been able to do on a 25 MHz 386 PC running DOS with 4 meg and a >> hard disk. I know this because I've owned both. >> >>>Those were the days when you spent $900.00/MB of RAM. Not to mention >>>30MB hard drives selling for $3,000.00. >> >> Yup. But it *still* doesn't justify the hardware being as badly designed >> as it is, or the software being designed as badly as it is. > > It certainly does. Before PC's were commodities, computer components were >expensive as hell. And it was a risk for *any* company to invest significant >resources in their development or production. The Apple II wasn't terribly expensive at the time. Nor was the Atari 800. Nor were many of the 8-bit computer systems floating around at the time, though they *could* get expensive. Remember how Apple started? A couple of guys in their garage playing around with hardware? It certainly didn't require significant resources to design a computer system. Production is another problem, but Wozniak and Jobs managed to do so without huge production budgets. They just grew as the demand grew. Now, if you're a Big Corporation with a Big Corporation Attitude, then yeah, such things require big bucks, but that's only because of the *assumptions* that such corporations make and the infrastructure that such corporations often have. The reality doesn't have to follow those assumptions. There are a number of existence proofs of this. >> Technical excellence doesn't mean bug-free. It means that maximum power is >> made available with minimum resource usage. > > 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. That sounds like the definition of "user-friendly" to me... >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. Yeah, but at the same time we're users, albeit more sophisticated users. We don't write everything we use from scratch. We often use the programs written by others, just as the neophyte user does. Indeed, I would argue that we more often use the programs written by others than the ones we write ourselves. >> What is it that makes you think that Unix and the common consumer are >> *inherently* mutually exclusive (unless, of course, I'm reading you wrong >> here)?? > > You're not reading me wrong. Again, see above. ( I need to define a >macro for that phrase. ;-) Me too. See above. :-) >> Elegance has nothing to do with the acceptance, or lack thereof, of Unix >> by the general user community. If only it did... > >< insert macro here > :-) What good is a macro when its expression is longer than its value? :-) >> I'll be the first to admit that Windoze+DOS is significantly better than DOS >> alone, however. Even so, you have to compare like against like, and that >> combination is not as useful (in my experience) as AmigaDOS was, and is >> certainly not as useful as Unix + X. > > Which is all well and fine for programmers. Users don't care about that - >nor should they, really. They want solutions to problems. We need to >provide them with solutions, no matter what it takes. We have to put up with >rotten goods so they don't have to. How interesting you say this. The rotten goods *they* have to put up with are the rotten goods *we* have to put up with, because *they* select the rotten goods, not we. And users *do* care about usefulness. After all, they use things, don't they? :-) The more work the user will be able to do and the greater the ease with which they can do that work as a result of what you hand them, the happier they'll be. *This* is why users care about usefulness, even if they don't know it. However, what is not really mentioned is the amount of cognitive overhead involved in making something useful. The reason I find X + Unix more useful than the other OS combinations I've dealt with is that I am comfortable with thinking about what I'm doing. Most people aren't like that: they're procedure-oriented and would rather know *what* to do rather than *why* to do it. This is why procedural simplicity is so important in user applications, and *this* is why Unix is usually not palatable to the neophyte user. This is something that can be fixed, but because most everyone who uses Unix falls into the first-principles-oriented category, few have bothered. But NextStep might be a step in the right direction (I'd have to look at it to really know). Unix is just an operating system. There's nothing inherent in its design that requires a power-user to use it, it's just that all the programs have been written for power-users and gurus. That's the result of history, not design. -- 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: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 08:31:26 CET From: Karl Keyte, ESOC Darmstadt Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help Subject: X8514 'Xmodmap' needed I have problems with the key settings using the Xlinux.8514 X-server. PageUp and PageDn seem to Ctrl/Z out of a 'vi' session, suspending the edit. Ctrl/Alt-F1 etc... which should switch virtual terminals just beep at me. The command line indert/edit doesn't look right... Lots of little thinks. I think I need an Xmodmap somewhere - or I'm missing one. I have a standard US keyboard. Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong or point me to the right key map? Karl ------------------------------ From: Gary Keim Subject: Re: Wordprocessor under X Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 15:00:23 -0400 Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.linux.misc: 7-Sep-93 Re: Wordprocessor under X Michael O'Reilly@tartaru (1008) > The ez editor works, help works. In fact, everything except a program > called 'sched' works. I have no idea what 'sched' does. :) Sched is an application that make use of the Zip drawing editor for creating a page that can be used for scheduling a conference room. It's not real useful and has since been moved to our contrib section along with Zip. In the next release there will be an improved drawing editor called Figure. -Gary Keim Andrew Consortium ------------------------------ From: tor@spacetec.no (Tor Arntsen) Subject: Re: f2c and entries? Date: 7 Sep 1993 19:17:26 GMT Reply-To: tor@spacetec.no In article 26hiprINNq68@fstgds15.tu-graz.ac.at, zloebl@piis10.joanneum.ac.at (Klaus ZLOEBL) writes: > > Does f2c support the ENTRY statement? [...] I really hope not!! (sorry, couldn't resist :-) --- +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Tor Arntsen - Spacetec A.S, N-9005 Tromso, Norway +47-83-84500 | | LA1RHA - tor@spacetec.no (1) - tor@tss.no (2) - tarntsen@bbb.no (3)| | Linux user | | #include | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ ------------------------------ From: alex@physik.uni-wuerzburg.de (Alexander Jung) Subject: Re: New Sounddriver for PC-Speaker and Digital-Analog-Converter Date: 7 Sep 1993 19:18:00 GMT Michael Beck (beck@informatik.hu-berlin.de) wrote: : New version of /dev/pcsp released : The new version of /dev/pcsp supports now DACs on any lp-port : and Mark J. Cox famous Stereo-on-One device. A documentation on how : to make simple and cheap DACs and the Stereo-on-One is included. : For users of the PC-Speaker: The new driver is a little bit faster. : the version 0.3 is now at : ftp.informatik.hu-berlin.de : pub/os/linux/hu-sound/pcsndrv-0.3.* This driver works really nice, as soon as you put its initialisation call into the list of character device inits at the end of mem.c (e.g. instead of soundcard_init put pcsp_init ). It seem that this has been forgotten in the patch-file (and took me about 3 kernel compiles to find out...) yours Alexander Jung Grad. physics student at Snail mail: Alexander Jung State University of Bavaria at Wuerzburg Kopernikusstrasse 19 97218 Gerbrunn Email: alex@physik.uni-wuerzburg.de Germany ------------------------------ From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: 7 Sep 1993 19:21:19 GMT bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: >The IBM PC was shipped in '79 as well. But there *is* lead time involved in >designing a computer; they'd have needed 68000s available in '78 at the latest >in order to build (and more importantly, ship) a machine based on it. I thought that it was shipped in '81. Todd Walk walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From: sdh@fishmonger.nouucp (Scott D. Heavner) Subject: Re: How to kill term 1.07 with carrier loss? Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1993 12:01:54 GMT Reply-To: sdh@po.cwru.edu Dave Price (dp@esu.edu) wrote: > From the terminal of Scott D. Heavner (sdh@fishmonger.nouucp) this flowed forth: > & Has anyone patched term, found the correct command > & line options, etc to kill term when the carrier is lost. > & For some reason, my modem always drops it's connection if > & someone calls the house. > Do you have call waiting at home? the call waiting signal > and the modem's hang-up singal are just about the same. No, we used to have call waiting, then dropped it. You can sometimes hear a little click or something when someone says she was trying to call. It's a 14400 modem running at 38400 baud, my roomates 2400 baud doesn't seem to have the same problems. The phone line should have absolutely no options on it. > Now I have a crontab entry that > & checks if term is running and tries to finger me on the > & remote machine, if this fails, it shuts down the connection > & and restarts it. It would be much nicer to have it die > & on it's own. > Can't help you there... > & Scott > & sdh@po.cwru.edu > -- > _________________________Dave Price dp@esu.edu___________________________ > __o `It is alright to disturb me, that is what I came here for' > \<, The Colorblind James Experience ---,--`--{@ > ___()/()_________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ From: tytso@athena.mit.edu (Theodore Ts'o) Subject: Re: SupplDoes linux have supplementary groups? Date: 7 Sep 1993 15:28:38 -0400 Reply-To: tytso@athena.mit.edu (Theodore Ts'o) From: jjwisema@news.delphi.com (JJWISEMAN@DELPHI.COM) 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? Sure it does! From /usr/include/linux/limits.h: #define NGROUPS_MAX 32 /* supplemental group IDs are available */ - Ted ------------------------------ ** 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 ******************************