Subject: Linux-Admin Digest #65
From: Digestifier <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 94 23:14:12 EDT

Linux-Admin Digest #65, Volume #2                Wed, 14 Sep 94 23:14:12 EDT

Contents:
  Sound Blaster Is Installed, but I get driver errors. (Jerry Hobby)
  Re: DOMM 4 Linux /X is OUT !!! (Jon Green)
  Re: Partitioning Question (Jay Schlieske)
  Re: Need DL/Time Limiting ideas - Linux BBS (Matthew Francey)
  Re: DOMM 4 Linux /X is OUT !!! (Eric J. Schwertfeger)
  Linux v1.0 SMAIL problem (Sean Williams)
  Lockup on X Logout, S3 #9GXE, HELP! (Mad Viking!!)
  DOSEMU Xdos and the Delete Key, help please (Mad Viking!!)
  Re: F'Domain TMC950 woes (Christopher Delgante)
  Problems with xfig & Linux (Alfred Hovdestad)
  Re: talk problem (Anthony J. Stuckey)
  Re: Modem 14400 and uugetty (Michael Zill)
  Re: DOMM 4 Linux /X is OUT !!! (Daniel Poirot)
  Re: DOMM 4 Linux /X is OUT !!! (Gerry Snyder)

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

From: [email-masked] (Jerry Hobby)
Subject: Sound Blaster Is Installed, but I get driver errors.
Date: 14 Sep 1994 17:19:20 -0500

Okay, I have Linux 1.0.9 and Windows installed on my machine.  The cdrom
and sound card both work under windows.  I recompiled the kernel and added
the cdrom and sound drivers for Linux, and the cdrom began working.  Hurray!
However, the sound card remains quiet.  I did create the device files, but
still nothing.  Also, I haven't noticed any messages during the boot 
process that mention the sound driver initializing.  I don't know if it should
produce messages or not.

Here is the output of 'cat /dev/sndstat':

Sound Driver:2.4 (Wed Sep 14 00:23:04 CDT 1994 [email-masked])
Config options: 1ae2

HW config:
(Type 2: SoundBlaster at 0x220 irq 7 drq 1)
(Type 6: SoundBlaster16 at 0x220 irq 7 drq 6)
(Type 7: SB16 MPU-401 at 0x330 irq 7 drq 0)
(Type 1: AdLib at 0x388 irq 0 drq 0)

PCM devices:

Synth devices:

Midi devices:

No mixers installed

I loaded a few sound applications such as 'aumix'.  The aumix application
produces the following output:

SOUND_MIXER_READ_DEVMASK: No such device or address

I have checked the source code and it is trying to open the correct file,
and it exists with 666 permissions.  The error is actually produced by
an ioctl statement (or something like that).

Any advise?  Thanks, Jerry

-- 
Jerry Hobby - Houston, TX   
=========================    "I am not young enough to know everything." 
jhobby@.NeoSoft.com                       -  J. M. Barrie
[email-masked]  

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

From: [email-masked] (Jon Green)
Subject: Re: DOMM 4 Linux /X is OUT !!!
Date: 13 Sep 94 18:17:19 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Michael E. Mendis) writes:

>You can get it for ***free*** from sunsite.unc.edu (last I saw it was still
>in the Incoming dir)

>mike

Wow, thanks! I never would have found it otherwise!
:)

-- 
* Jon Green           *  Proud to be a member of   * 5646 Friley Hall        *
* [email-masked] * [email-masked] * Ames, Iowa 50012-0001   *
* Jon2@irc            *          *BURP*            * Phone (515) 296-0648    *

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

From: Jay Schlieske <[email-masked]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.liinux.help,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Partitioning Question
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 08:09:54 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: Jay Schlieske <[email-masked]>

On 12 Sep 1994, David J Topper wrote:

> So once I set my partitions (say 250 for Linux and 270 for DOS) using FIPS
> or FDISK - is there a way to resize the Linux partition?  I mean, is there a
> way other than backing up all the data on the Linux partition, deleting that
> partition, then resizing the DOS partition, then remounting the Linux partition,
> then restoring the data on it.

Hi all !

I would be interested in replies to this question, being that I had to
give up approx 35 MB of my 545 MB drive, due to non standard translations
done by my IDE accellerator, when heads go over 1024. ( I was time
limited when transferring my linux files off of my 345 ) I have since
learned I can work around this with the new kernel I have, (1.1.45) since
it queries the drive directly.

> 
> I've downloaded quite a bit of stuff for installing Linux.  I don't remember
> exactly, but I think it was all the a,ap,x,xd,xv and a few other disks (all the
> gnu stuff too).  All tolled, I think I've got about 40+.  The HOWTO says a
> ROUGH estimate is about 2.5 megs per disk.  I'm just not sure how much to
> allocate for this thing.  250 seems fine but I would love to get away with 200
> so DOS would have more room to breathe.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> DT
> 
>

I had almost everything on a 105 MB partition for a few months, till I
replaced my second drive. I found that when I gave it 200 + 16 swap,
I had lots to spare *but* it's quickly filling up, as I'm adding new
stuff to it. (wine, dosemu, TeX). I think it depends on how you want
to use it. The stuff available for linux seems endless.

Yggdrassil has a plug'n'play cd and slackware has a cd version also,
where I hear you can run some of the less frequently used binaries
from, ( also hear it's slower ).

I'd say you can more than get away with 200 MB (a least for a few
months)

Hope this helps.

  - Jay                      o
         Jay Schlieske     <#<         " Above all.... have fun. " 
  +*+ Credits: smartmail __>^>__  by * Linux-Pine3.90-Smail-Term201-PoP +*+ 

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

Crossposted-To: alt.bbs,alt.bbs.unixbbs
From: [email-masked] (Matthew Francey)
Subject: Re: Need DL/Time Limiting ideas - Linux BBS
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 14:41:43 GMT

[email-masked] (Greg Corteville) writes:
>I'm currently in the process of setting up a BBS under Linux.  All of the 
>BBS software I've seen for Linux already is cryptic, difficult to use for 
>callers used to MS-DOS boards, and not very configurable.

basically, you need no "BBS Software" for a Linux machine.  just setup
the users like yourself, turn on the modem and away you go.

well, er, there are a few other things (of course), but thats about it.

>modify it to eliminate shell escapes and other security hazards.

instead of worrying about the prospect of those irritating users
getting access to the shell, why not just up and *give* it to them
and concern yourself with other aspects of security.

there are benefits to this approach.

a) it is *much* easier.
b) the users will appreciate it (eventually ... there will be whiners)
c) you can concentrate instead on writing documentation and instruction
   files for your users.
d) it throws the security problem into the area of general unix security,
   and there are piles of books on this to educate you.  *** THIS IS VITAL
   EVEN IF YOU DECIDE TO RESTRICT SHELL ACCESS ***
e) system administration becomes identical to that on a standard unix
   machine ... again, there are many books to help you here as well.
f) it is completely consistent with the flavour and operating style of a
   UNIX machine.  as the Borg say:  resistance is futile.

virtually all commercial internet providers will give you a shell if
you ask.  they are not terribly concerned about "security", beyond what
steps they have taken at a lower level (see (d), above).

Heck, the one I use even lets me (shock! dismay!) *compile code*.

>I'll use the gopher system (which is already set-up and merely needs to 
>be called from the BBS) as a means to access this information.  I need 
>the BBS software that will provide message and file areas as well as 
>E-mail.  It would also be nice to have FIDO (internal or external, 
>doesn't matter) support and Usenet support. 

why re-invent the wheel?

a) use the "gopher" program directly for gopher
b) use a standard news reader for reading news
c) use a standard mail reader for reading mail

documentation exists for all these programs. and all of them are
actually easier to use and *much* more flexible than their MS-DOS
counterparts.

>login time

yes, this is a stickler for most Linux machines as they come out of the
box.  however, it is very easy to write a C program to punt idle
users, and over-limit sessions, off the line.  mine is 155 lines long.

you will probably need a disk-space quota thing as well ... but most Linux
machines come with such.  you will have to learn how to enable it.

>                                              The system should be easy to 
>use because a majority of my users will be used to MS-DOS type boards 
>like Renegade and Tag.

what i've heard, is that the average BBS user has a brain.  and he/she can
usually read as well.  rather than writing bizarre shell scripts filled with
"ACCESS DENIED", "INTRUDER ALERT", "GUARDS! GUARDS!" and "ARREST THAT USER!"
messages (:-/), why not just sit down and document and point the new users
to places where they can learn?

there is *big* interest in things UNIX by alot of MS-DOS users out there.
i suspect your users will rise to the "challenge", except for the chronic
and terminal whiners (but you know who they are by now).  for those, run
the old MSDOS BBS program inside a DOSemu session.  they deserve it. :)

>UUCP.  [detroit area]

there is probably a "detroit.general" newsgroup (or something similar).
just post a message there asking for a UUCP link ... it's a start.
UUCP links are fairly easy to negotiate.  for mine, I asked a guy "Can I
have a UUCP feed?" and he said "Ok".

>I have a lot of questions and if you've read up to the end of this 
>message I appreciate it already.

well, considering my tone, you probably don't appreciate it.  ["miserable
running-dog Linux elitist scum!" you are probably muttering :-]  alot of the
above looks like I am sneering at *you* in particular, but thats not the
case.  i am laughing at the idea of a "BBS Program" for Linux, and am somewhat
concerned at the prospect of an MSDOS front end (and all that it implies)
on a Linux machine.  for Linux offers you and your users a real escape from
the basic limitations of the MS-DOS remote-access model.
-- 
Matthew Francey                     [email-masked]            [email-masked]
"live before you die"               GPS(NAD27): N43o34.210' W079o34.563' +0093m

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

From: [email-masked] (Eric J. Schwertfeger)
Subject: Re: DOMM 4 Linux /X is OUT !!!
Date: 13 Sep 1994 01:50:09 GMT

Jason Aaron Fager ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Vianney Govers <[email-masked]> wrote:
: >Sebastian W. Bunka ([email-masked]) wrote:

: >: X-DOOM for Linux is OUT !!!!!!!!!

: Anybody got feedback on how much memory is required for "decent" play?
: (I.E., as fast as running it on DOS?)

On my machine (8 Meg Ram, 128K cache, 486DX2-66, with a LocalBus S3 805
video card, I don't notice the difference, except that I can get it to
coredump.  In fact, the linux version doesn't exhibit a bug the dos 1.6 beta
version does under Very Happy Ammo mode (check the DOOM FAQ if you don't
know what that is).  Now, this isn't saying that it is as fast under linux,
just that any slowdown isn't readily perceptible to me, and doesn't detract
from the game.

I lost the last two days to DOOM, now I see what all the fuss is about
(though frankly, I've just about played it out).

Does anyone have an Xconfig for 320x200 mode? :-)

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

From: [email-masked] (Sean Williams)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.prog,dc.org.linux-users
Subject: Linux v1.0 SMAIL problem
Date: 13 Sep 1994 18:23:50 GMT

I have installed Linux v1.0 Slackware release for 24hr SLIP access
into ClarkNet and SMTP for my Novell 3.11 LAN.  Everything works 
great except some mail that is sent out through SMTP causes a 
uucp_neighbors error.  I know there is a missing file called
/usr/lib/smail/routers that will correct this with the right config 
in it.  The error is :

Xdefer: <address> reason: <ERR_127> router uucp_neighbors :
command '/usr/bin/uuname' returned exit status EX_32256

I know calling uuname is a bug in SMAIL and a routers file will fix
this but I don't know wht to put in it.

What do I need to put in /usr/lib/smail/routers to get these messages
delivered?  Thanks for the help.

* Sean Williams (14% CNE)                     | [email-masked] *
* Corporate Information Systems Administrator |                      *
* Communications & Systems Specialists, Inc.  | phone: (410)290-9500 *
* Columbia MD, 21046                          | fax  : (410)290-7012 *

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

From: [email-masked] (Mad Viking!!)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Lockup on X Logout, S3 #9GXE, HELP!
Date: 14 Sep 1994 14:19:13 GMT

Hi,

Every 4th or 5th logout from an X session, the video
card seems to lock up my entire system.

I get a black screen with vertical color lines.

The video is a #9 GXE 1MB (level 11 then?) connected
to a 15" NEC 4fge multisync. I run at 1024*768.

I tried:
        new X
        new Xconfig
        new Xview
        dumping Xview, going to FVWM
        using xdm, still switches hardware modes (???), need
                dosemu on console (xdos problem, next post!)

The stability of this system is important since it controls my
LAN and is NFSed to to other machines. Currently we're
using a policy of "IF YOU LOGOUT FROM X, inform others", which
is a terrible waste of an otherwise great video card.

Any suggestions welcome,
Todd Stiers
[email-masked]   (use this address!!!)
[email-masked]
Jager on IRC #linux

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

From: [email-masked] (Mad Viking!!)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: DOSEMU Xdos and the Delete Key, help please
Date: 14 Sep 1994 14:23:46 GMT

Hi,

I have DOSEMU/Xdos and the VGA font working well,
however a program I'm trying to run requires
the DELETE key, and does not seem to work
under XDOS or ANSI-XTERM.
It DOES work under console.

Im using pre53_17.

Maybe its in my keyboard/video config for dosemu?

Thanks,
Todd Stiers
[email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Christopher Delgante)
Subject: Re: F'Domain TMC950 woes
Date: 13 Sep 1994 20:18:35 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Same problem with me.  It only occurs when i have a CDROM in the drive tho'
---
*************************************************************************
* Written By Christopher John DelGigante       [email-masked] *                                                                     *                                        [email-masked] *
*                Located at Virginia Tech,Blacksburg,VA                 *       
*               "Where we are but playthings of Nature..."              *               *                                                                       *                                                                                                                                                                                    *\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\*
*************************************************************************

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

From: [email-masked] (Alfred Hovdestad)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Problems with xfig & Linux
Date: 13 Sep 1994 18:29:13 GMT

I have tried three different versions of xfig (the version distributed
with slackware 1.0.9, version 2.1.7pa and 2.1.8 and all three exhibit
the same problem.

After I start xfig, it starts to devour memory.  After about three
minutes everything locks up.  I can usually kill the process, but it
takes about a minute to type in 'kill -9 444'.

I can compile the same versions of xfig under Ultrix and everything
works fine.   BTW, I have seen this problem of two diferent machines.
I know other people are running xfig under Linux, so what am I doing
wrong?

--
Alfred Hovdestad                        |e-mail: [email-masked]
Systems Programmer                      |    or: [email-masked]
Department of Computing Services        | Voice: (306) 966-4819
University of Saskatchewan              |   FAX: (306) 966-4938

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

From: [email-masked] (Anthony J. Stuckey)
Subject: Re: talk problem
Date: 13 Sep 1994 18:42:36 GMT

[email-masked] (Cord Hockemeyer) writes:
>Quite simple: His host refuses to answer your finger request. :)
>A lot of systems don't serve finger requests because this was a
>security hole (with bad consequences) some time ago.

        The security problems with fingerd are a bit removed from immediacy.
It's still a problem.  Some of the bugs may have been removed, but you can
still do stalker-like things on any system running fingerd.  Your
implication -- that the protective attitude employed by many system
administrators is archaic -- doesn't do justice to the actual, continuing
problem.
        The performance problems that finger creates and/or allows are just
another good reason to waste the little pain in the neck.
--
Anthony J. Stuckey              [email-masked]
"And if you frisbee-throw a universe where does it go?" -- Steve Blunt.
GCS/S -d+@ p c(++) l u+ e+(-) m+(*) s+++/-- !n h(*) f+ g+ w+ t+@ r y?
KiboNumber == 1

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

From: [email-masked] (Michael Zill)
Subject: Re: Modem 14400 and uugetty
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 13:44:37 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (S.G. de Bruijn) writes:
|> Hi,
|> 
|> I have dial-in enabled on my box with uugetty. It works perfectly with an acient 2400
|> Bd modem (the caller).  When the caller has an 14400Bd modem too, the connection is
|> made, but uugetty dies with a segmentation fault.
|> 
|> I think it has to do with the missing 14400 speed line in /etc/gettydefs. Is it safe
|> to add it bluntly? or is there any other alternative (locked on 38400, for instance,
|> instead of auto-select through circulating speed lines in /etc/gettydefs)
|> 
|> Any hints welcome, i want them to call!!
|> 
First of all you should configure your modem that it returns
the DTE speed not the DCE speed in the CONNECT <speed> string.

Than you should enable hardware flow control for the modem and
the serial line. 

Than you can lock the modem at 38400. So the modem is using
the handshake lines to prevent overruns.

Michael
-- 
*******************************************************************
* Michael Zill             * Phone : +49 6171 72175               *
* Feldbergstr.90           * Email : [email-masked]        *
* 61449 Steinbach/ Germany *                                      *
******************************************************************* 

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

From: [email-masked] (Daniel Poirot)
Subject: Re: DOMM 4 Linux /X is OUT !!!
Date: 14 Sep 1994 22:26:50 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,  <[email-masked]> wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Forkboy) writes:
>|> 
>|> On my 486DX/33MHz, 8MB RAM, Genoa 8500VLbus 1Mb card, no sound, I got 10.4
>|> fps. Anyone else get this high an fps reading?

486DX2/66MHz, 20MB, Cirrus Logic 5428, no sound, 17.2 fps
   (Linux 1.1.50, XFree 2.1)
-- 
Daniel Poirot           [email-masked]
NASA JSC                "The mind is a terrible thing."
ER3                     tel: (713)483-8793
Houston, TX 77058       fax: (713)483-3204

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

From: [email-masked] (Gerry Snyder)
Subject: Re: DOMM 4 Linux /X is OUT !!!
Date: 13 Sep 1994 14:33:03 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Mark A. Davis) says:
>
>[email-masked] (Pat St. Jean) writes:
>
>>Mark A. Davis <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>[previous n+1 levels of quoted material deleted for brevity] :)
>>>OK- I have both MS-"DOS" and Linux DOOM.  My machine is a 486 33 DX with
>>>16 MB of 0 wait X 32 RAM.  Adaptec 16 bit SCSI controller, Orchid
>>>Pro Designer II ET-4000 16bit SVGA card, Sound Blaster Original, etc.
>>>
>>>The game absolutely flies under MS-"DOS", I can't even tell how many
>>>frames per second, but at least 6.
>>>
>>>The game is completely unplayable under Linux, with a frame rate of 0.5
>>>per second (the is the fastest in 640x480 X, in 1024x768 it is slower).
>>>
>>>So, the "requirement" for local bus/accelerated video is no joke.....
>
>>I'm not to sure about that...I've got a dx2-66 w/ 20 meg of ram and an
>>ISA tvga 8900 chipset and it runs plenty fine.  No slowness problems at
>>all...with sound even.  PAS-16.  An AHA-1540b ISA scsi card.  330 meg
>>seagate (doom is on that one).  Like I said...no problems...
>
>Perhaps the ET-4000 is just a slow poke?  At the time I bought it, I thought
>it would be the most compatible and best performing for the price range.
>(I replaced a very annoying and incompatible ATI VGA Wonder).
>
>I will continue to fiddle with things.  I don't expect much better performance
>than 1 FPS even if I use all the tricks I have left to try :(
>(Before anyone can ask- I am not swapping, X seems to work fine, not running
>any sound drivers at all).
>-- 
>  /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
>  | Mark A. Davis     | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk,VA (804)-461-5001x431 |
>  | Director/SysAdmin | Information Systems  |    [email-masked]       |
>  \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/

I don't understand. I have an old 1Mb ISA Orchid et4000 on a 
33MHz 486dx, and without pixel doubling I get several frames
per second.  It is very playable. At 640x480 the image looks
almost good, but I think I'll try to set up X to run at a lower
resolution anyway.

The sound does come out late on my SBP16, though.

Gerry--Happiness is lotsa new stuff on c.o.l.announce.

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

** 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: [email-masked]

You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.admin) via:

    Internet: [email-masked]

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