From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Mon, 6 Sep 93 12:13:17 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #99 Linux-Misc Digest #99, Volume #1 Mon, 6 Sep 93 12:13:17 EDT Contents: Re: Ian Jackson (Ian Jackson) Re: unsubscribe (Fritz Ganter) *** PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING *** (misc-2.03) (Ian Jackson) PCI bus for Linux? (Martin J Bligh) Easy install (Re: Is NT really a threat?) (Olaf Titz) Re: Seyon thinks I'm permanently online (Remco Treffkorn) Re: Ian Jackson (Remco Treffkorn) Re: Want To BUY Motif1.2 for Linux!!!!!!!!! (Ul[r]i[ch] Wendl) [HELP] AHA 1540B + TEAC CD-50 (Teng-Wen Chang) [Patch] term 1.0.7 improvements, patch2 (Olaf Titz) Re: NT versus Linux (Rich Mulvey) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) Subject: Re: Ian Jackson Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 00:26:07 GMT In article <1993Sep2.124415.1275@hpacv.com> guest@hpacv.com writes: >If this Ian Jackson is such a wonderful and helpful sole, why is then in the >weeks we have carried comp.os.linux.all there has not been ONE post or >helpful response or anything from this guy except his AMAZING dialy >pointer, ie: "Dont bother me ... read these FAQs" I don't answer questions in the newsgroup unless (a) I think a the problem is likely to be a common, and (b) I am confident that I have an authoritative answer. This isn't often the case. However I do quite often try to send helpful comments by email. A look in my mail directory shows that since April there were somewhere in the region of 80-100 people to whom I've sent what I hoped was an answer or a useful suggestion. Of course I have to see an article to be able to reply to it or follow up. There have probably been quite a few people whose questions I might have answered if they'd used a better subject line. Also, you obviously you haven't been reading the groups carefully enough to be able to make such a comment. A look in my news archive shows that I've made about 10 postings to comp.os.linux.* since the split. If you have some disagreement with what I'm posting I'm perfectly happy to discuss it with you; howeve I don't think that this kind of public flaming is going to do anyone any good. You'll find that if you send me email I'm actually quite approachable and will try to take your comments on board, or answer them if I feel I can't do so. In fact, I even invite comments at the bottom of the dailies ... Finally, if anyone has a question (even a FAQ) that they send to me by email I will endeavour to answer it. The point of the dailies is not to fend of email but to try to reduce the amount of crap that gets posted. -- Ian Jackson (at home) or Urgent email: iwj10@phx.cam.ac.uk PGP2 public key available on server 2 Lexington Close, Cambridge, CB4 3LS, England; phone: +44 223 64238 ------------------------------ From: ganter@fvkmapc02.tu-graz.ac.at (Fritz Ganter) Subject: Re: unsubscribe Date: 6 Sep 1993 10:08:52 GMT Fritz.Ganter@fvkmads02.tu-graz.ac.at wrote: : remove ganter@fvkmads02.tu-graz.ac.at Can anyone tell me why I can't remove me from the digest? I tried unsubscribe to Linux-Misc-Request@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU but nothing happens. Fritz -- Fritz Ganter Graz University of Technology, Austria Email: ganter@fvkmapc02.tu-graz.ac.at, ganter@fvkmads02.tu-graz.ac.at HAM-Radio: OE6FAD@OE6XYG.AUT.EU, OE6FAD@OE6FAD.AMPR.ORG Phone: +43 316 873-7222 (Office), +43 316 663243 (home) ********** Linux... try it, use it, love it. ************ ------------------------------ From: ijackson@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ian Jackson) Subject: *** PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING *** (misc-2.03) Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1993 10:03:02 GMT Please do not post questions to comp.os.linux.misc - read on for details of which groups you should read and post to. If you have a question about Linux you should get and read the Linux Frequently Asked Questions with Answers list from sunsite.unc.edu, in /pub/Linux/docs, or from another Linux FTP site. In particular, read the question `You still haven't answered my question!' The FAQ will refer you to the Linux HOWTOs (more detailed descriptions of particular topics) found in the HOWTO directory in the same place. Then you should consider posting to comp.os.linux.help - not comp.os.linux.misc. Note that X Windows related questions should go to comp.windows.x.i386unix. The FAQ for this group is available on rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet/news.answers/Intel-Unix-X-faq. Comments on this posting are welcomed - please email me ! -- Ian Jackson (urgent email: iwj10@phx.cam.ac.uk) 35 Molewood Close, Cambridge, CB4 3SR, England; phone: +44 223 327029 ------------------------------ From: wa95003@black.ox.ac.uk (Martin J Bligh) Subject: PCI bus for Linux? Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 11:37:55 GMT I don't know if this question has been asked yet, but I haven't seen it. Will PCI bus machines run linux? Is is see-thru like VESA local bus? I suspect not. If it's not going to run as is, are there any immediate plans to support it?? Fletch ------------------------------ From: uknf@rzstud1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Olaf Titz) Subject: Easy install (Re: Is NT really a threat?) Date: 6 Sep 1993 12:52:39 GMT In article <1993Sep4.143422.3088@kf8nh.wariat.org>, Brandon S. Allbery wrote: > In article <26a2v1$cbv@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> uknf@rzstud1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Olaf Titz) writes: > >Oh, if it's just about the nice point-and-shoot WIMP installer, > >writing such a thing for Un*x is no big deal either. > That depends. A minimal MS-Windows --- just enough to run the installer --- > is relatively small because the minimal non-GUI core functionality (which is > to say, DOS*) is already in place. A Un*x/X installer must load a minimal > Un*x as well as a minimal X, so the initial (pre-WIMP, if you will) bootstrap > takes longer. Look at the OS/2 2.x install for an example; it has the same On the other hand, look at the SLS installer. Though not really a GUI, it is very easy to handle - I can't imagine how its user-friendlyness could significantly be improved further (perhaps the output format needs a bit of streamlining, one could imagine an SAA-like format, but that's details. It definitely needs no graphics). You can boot a "minimum" system (which currently is more of a maximum :-), follow the instructions and then just sit there and swap the disks. What could be improved, is the adaption of the system to local needs. This is IMHO the big advantage of the Windoze installer - you can select every piece of hardware from lists. Installing X on Linux needs careful editing of a config file and much RTFMing... But a point-and-shoot style selector could be written for Un*x too, no doubt. (And I always hear people praise the ease of the SLS installation process vs. other Un*x variants - they have to edit tons of config files anyway...) Olaf -- olaf titz o olaf@bigred.ka.sub.org praetorius@irc comp.sc.student _>\ _ s_titz@ira.uka.de LINUX - the choice karlsruhe germany (_)<(_) uknf@dkauni2.bitnet of a GNU generation what good is a photograph of you? everytime i look at it it makes me feel blue ------------------------------ From: root@hip-hop.suvl.ca.us (Remco Treffkorn) Subject: Re: Seyon thinks I'm permanently online Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 00:40:18 GMT bcmaxwel@infonode.ingr.com (Brad Maxwell) writes: : Hey there, : : I'm using Seyon on my Gateway 4DX-33 with a Supra 9600 baud fax modem. : Seyon seems to compile and run fine, but I can't use it to dial cause : it thinks I'm online already and aborts the dial. All the control panel : lights are on (except for ring, of course) all the time the modem's on. : : Just thought somebody might've seen it before. : : Thanks, : Brad The problem here is most likely the modem setup. Your modem comes up with parameters that were most likely to work in 1981. Well, times have changed but compatability with the stoneage is a good thing, isn't it? So, tell your modem to raise thee CD (Carrier Detect) line only if there is a connection. That is easyly done with the command "AT&C1". You can do that every time you start Seyon by editing the appropriate thing. Sorry, but I forgot what it was. Read the Seyon doc. If that has been a problem for you, be advised that there are some more difficulties in store for you. There is that bit about fixing the DTE speed to something like 19200 baud (or higher). Do you want compression with MNP4? And on and on and on. This is NOT a Linux question. There are better newsgroups for that kind of thing. I am using Seyon from the beginning, It is *flawless*. Most likely any problems you will encounter are modem questions. Those suckers are not easy to setup right, even pros do sometimes fail. Try to get local help. The guy does not even need to know Linux/Unix to be able to help you out. Hope you can dial now ;-) Remco ------------------------------ From: root@hip-hop.suvl.ca.us (Remco Treffkorn) Subject: Re: Ian Jackson Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 00:51:34 GMT dan@oea.hobby.nl writes: : guest@hpacv.com wrote: : : If this Ian Jackson is such a wonderful and helpful sole, why is then in the : : weeks we have carried comp.os.linux.all there has not been ONE post or : : helpful response or anything from this guy except his AMAZING dialy : : pointer, ie: "Dont bother me ... read these FAQs" : : : annoyed. : : He is too busy flaming Peter MacDonald and SLS. : : -- : |< Dan Naas dan@oea.hobby.nl >| : +---------------------------------+ Gee, I have not seen anything good from you yet. Have I missed all the great packages you released or are you just having a good time having some fun on other peoples expense? I do *not* have Lars's patience with idiotic post like this. Some tenthousand people read your post and *will* remember your name. Nice image you built for yourself. The other poster had at least the intelligence to post anonymously. Maybe you just forgot the smiley, then just disregard my outburst ;-) Remco remco@hip-hop.suvl.ca.us <<-- the *REAL* reply address! p.s.: Yes, I do feel a little better now! ------------------------------ From: uli@decum.enet.dec.com (Ul[r]i[ch] Wendl) Subject: Re: Want To BUY Motif1.2 for Linux!!!!!!!!! Reply-To: uw@decum.enet.dec.com Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 13:43:38 GMT I've good experiences with the Motif 1.2.2 (four floppies, one book, $199 ) of Metro Link Inc. VOICE: (305) 970-7353 FAX: (305) 970-7351 EMAIL: sales@metrolink.com Requirements: Linux 0.99pl4 or greater (currently 0.99pl10 O.K.) XFree86 1.2 or greater (1.3 O.K.) libc 4.3.3 or greater (libc 4.4 is O.K.) included: Runtime: 1) Motif Window Manager (mwm) 2) Shared motif library (libXm.so.1.2.2) 3) Motif demos both from OSF and from the net Development: 1) Shared+Static Motif library 2) Static Mrm and Uil libraries 3) UIL compiler 4) Motif header files 5) Manual pages for Motif function calls 6) Imakefile support 7) Source to OSF/Motif demos Uli -- =================================== \|/ watch out for MouseShit on your PC! (o o) ==================================================oOO==(_)==OOo================ ------------------------------ From: Teng-Wen Chang Subject: [HELP] AHA 1540B + TEAC CD-50 Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 10:49:39 -0400 Do anyone have the successful case with this configuration, in Linux/Dos? I setup the SCSI id to be 2, and the terminator is installed at both end (one is Adaptec 1540B, another is Teac CD-50 CDROM-driver, and it's the only SCSI driver I have now) Both dos and linux can recognize the CDROM driver at properly ID and CUN(0), but I just can't find the data of the CD-ROM. I use the ASP4DOS.sys from adaptec and Corel SCSI driver on the DOS part, and it works fine before I tried to use it. I even can't reject the disc by using the reject buttom. Since I am new to both sides: SCSI card and CDROM, I wonder is it the problem of driver(CDROM), or the problem of Adaptec 1540B? Any help is appreciated tengwen ------------------------------ From: uknf@rzstud1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Olaf Titz) Crossposted-To: alt.sources,de.comp.os.linux,uka.linux Subject: [Patch] term 1.0.7 improvements, patch2 Date: 6 Sep 1993 15:43:13 GMT Archive-name: term107-p-ot2 Submitted-by: Olaf Titz This is a small fix for my recently posted term enhancements. It corrects an error with termftp displaying an incorrect number of clients in tmon. Olaf --- term107p1/link.c Mon Sep 6 16:59:39 1993 +++ term.new/link.c Mon Sep 6 16:46:16 1993 @@ -663,3 +663,3 @@ add_to_buffer(&cl->in_buff, 0); - if (cl->in_buff.size) + if (cl->in_buff.size == k+1) ++clients_waiting; --- term107p1/main.c Mon Sep 6 16:59:40 1993 +++ term.new/main.c Mon Sep 6 16:46:17 1993 @@ -740,3 +740,3 @@ add_to_buffer(&clients[i].in_buff, 0); - if (clients[i].in_buff.size) + if (clients[i].in_buff.size == k+1) ++clients_waiting; -- olaf titz o olaf@bigred.ka.sub.org praetorius@irc comp.sc.student _>\ _ s_titz@ira.uka.de LINUX - the choice karlsruhe germany (_)<(_) uknf@dkauni2.bitnet of a GNU generation what good is a photograph of you? everytime i look at it it makes me feel blue ------------------------------ From: rich@mulvey.com (Rich Mulvey) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 10:38:34 EDT kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes: > In article <930904.132142.0p2.rusnews.w165w@mulvey.com> rich@mulvey.com (Rich > Mulvey) writes: >>kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes: >>Rich Mulvey writes: >>( Much deleted ) >> >>>>Businessman who wants software to run on his computer without having to le > arn >>>>a lot. He does not want, nor can he afford, NextStep, Unix, or anything >>>>of the same ilk. MS-DOS is just about *perfect* for those needs. And Win > dows >>>>adds to the value of the system he is getting without adding appreciably t > o >>>>what he has to learn. Remember that people on the net tend to look at >>>>computers as interesting unto themselves - the vast majority of computers > users, >>>>however, look at them as necessary evils. >>> >>> Quite so. However, *someone* has to design and write the software to run >>> under these broken operating systems. If the operating systems in questio > n >>> were *decent*, the software authors would have a much easier time of it, >>> which means quicker time to market, higher quality, and greater capability > . >> >> Tell me what you, personally, consider to be a good OS and application, > > Unix, for the operating system. BSDI is a good example of something which is > stable. Linux is a good example of something which is reasonably stable (but > it depends on the version). > > A good application? How about "X-Wing"? :-) Seriously, though, I haven't > found much in the way of applications that I really like. I learned early > on that I'm better off writing what I need rather than trying to buy > someone else's idea of a good application. > >>and I have no doubt that I can come up with a dozen real-life examples of >>bugs and problems. > > 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. They need a single-tasking program loader, and that's what they get from 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. ( 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. ;-) > > DOS is not what I consider to be a "decent" operating system (if it can even > be called that) because it fails all three of the above criteria. > >>> The reason people generally can't afford Unix is that Unix is expensive. > Why >>> is it expensive? Because until recently, AT&T had a *monopoly* on it, and >>> dictated the price of it through their licensing structure. Now BSDI has >>> entered into the picture, but they're pricing their product more or less t > he >>> same because that particular market is willing to bear the cost, and it's >>> too late to make significant penetration into the general computing world, >>> thanks to Microsoft. >> >> Yes, but the average businessperson doesn't care whether Unix is >>expensive, because it's not an appropriate OS for a small business. > > 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. 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. 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. > >>Not to mention that Unix has far too many of its own problems. :-) > > No doubt this is true, but would you care to mention some of these problems? > See above. >>> People aren't interested in NextStep because it is too resource-intensive >>> and is *way* too late hitting the market. Something like that should have >>> hit the market a few months after the PC hit the market. Of course, that >>> wouldn't have been possible, because at that point the hardware was *even >>> more* broken than it is now. >> >> 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. :-) >>Can you honestly say that you think *ANY* >>machine with the power to run NextStep in 1982 would have been affordable? > > Probably not, but that's primarily because NextStep is extremely resource- > intensive, like almost anything else in use today. Definitely not for under $100,000.00 in 1982. > > 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. > 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. >>>>Technical excellence in software or hardware has *never* been a reason for >>>>the consumer to go with a particular product. People buy Microsoft produc > ts >>>>because they are relatively cheap, easy to use, and available. >>> Yup. But technical excellence and low cost are not mutually exclusive! >>> Just look at Linux if you want an example. Or look at the Amiga. >> >> Linux is *NOT* low cost. See below for my reasoning. As for technical >>excellence... let's see... we get new kernel releases every few weeks. Bugs >>galore are reported every day on the Linux groups ( And I'm not referring to >>problems people have with Unix in general ) > > 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. 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. >>If technical excellence means that >>the Linux groups are among the *highest* volume on Usenet, you have a >>warped sense of what constitutes excellence. I like Linux - enough so that >>I've dedicated one of my machines to it. But it is NOT elegant ( Which is >>my definition of excellent ) because it is rooted in Unix, and is therefore >>not accessible to the common consumer. > > 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. ;-) > And just what definition of elegance are you using here? I'll be the first > to admit that Unix isn't the most elegant thing around, but even *you* must > admit that it's a lot more elegant than DOS, and that X is a lot more > elegant than Windoze. > > 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 > :-) >>> This is very easy because alone for >>> techincal reasons there is no reason at all to use a Microsoft 'operating >>> system' >> >> Sure there is - it allows me to write applications on a PC platform >>without having to invent my own disk format, re-invent a standard keyboard >>interface, or merely put a character on a screen without knowing the >>intricacies of a particular hardware manufacturers machine. > > So? Almost *any* operating system allows you to do that. Indeed, many > definitions of "operating system" involve the things you mention. The > question is: which OS allows you to do that with minimum hassle and minimum > limitations? None of the Microsoft "operating system"s qualify (with the > possible exception of NT, but I have my doubts) because they have broken > APIs. I've *never* heard any praise from people who program under DOS or > Windows for the OS they program for, particularly after they've had a > chance to program under Unix. The reason people program for those operating > systems is that users run those operating systems, and the reason users > run those operating systems is that they have bought the marketing hype of > Microsoft. > > I've done programming under DOS before, and have done some of that work > while in the Windows environment. I was not impressed. Even the Amiga > was easier to deal with, and *that* doesn't even have any kind of process > protection. There are certain arbitrary limitations of DOS that prevent > you from doing even the most basic things. For instance, you can't run a > shell that will expand wildcards, even though DOS is command-line oriented. > Why? Because DOS has a 128 character command line limit, which means that > EVERY PROGRAM that you want to hand multiple files specified with wildcards > has to be explicitly coded to deal with it. This problem doesn't go away > even under Windoze. It doesn't make sense to base your entire OS around the > command line and then cripple the command line, but Microsloth did that > anyway (what a surprise). You want to put your compilation (or *anything*) > in the background? Tough. You want a reasonable (i.e., non-CP/M) filename > convention? Tough. Can't combine the text-based tools you have because > you don't have enough disk space for the temporary file you'll need to use? > Tough. > > There's more to an operating system than just being able to run programs, > and people who don't think so quickly learn otherwise. Why else do you > think Consumer Reports rated the Mac GUI above Windoze? Why else do you > think they even *bothered* to put multitasking (such as it is) in Windoze? > Why else do you hear *normal users* complaining about the broken filename > limitations in DOS? > > As for not having to know the intricacies of a particular hardware > manufacturer, that isn't at all true of DOS. If you want to do anything > with, e.g., the serial ports, you have to know about the hardware. Same > with networking. Same with graphics (particularly higher resolutions). > Same with tape devices. > > Yes, there are libraries that have some of these capabilities, but the point > is that the *operating system* doesn't provide these capabilities. > > DOS doesn't stand on its own merits. It can't, because it's too crippled to > do so. It is as popular as it is *solely* because it is the operating system > that came (and still comes) with all PCs. But taken by itself, DOS is almost > useless in comparison with any other operating system. It is *no more* usefu > l > than AppleDOS was back on the Apple II. > > 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. ( More deleted, until I get more time to respond. :-) - Rich -- Rich Mulvey Amateur Radio: N2VDS 787 Elmwood Terrace rich@mulvey.com Rochester, NY 14620 ------------------------------ ** 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 ******************************