Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #709
From: Digestifier <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 94 23:13:17 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #709, Volume #2                 Sun, 4 Sep 94 23:13:17 EDT

Contents:
  Re: Nachos anyone? (Jason Wong)
  [q] Talk problem! (Frank J. Potolo)
  Re: **BRAND NEW**Texel CD-ROM Drives ***DIRT CHEAP***!!! (Ken Mcdonald)
  Re: Linux Journal (Tim Bass (Network Systems Engineer))
  NFS and the portmapper... (Stephen Louis Ulmer)
  New DIP-3.3.7-uri released (Uri Blumenthal)
  Re: NFS and the portmapper... (Stephen Vance)
  Send me your xFree86 benchmarks (Derrik Walker II)
  Re: 486dx4 vs Pentium 60 ([email-masked])
  Linux Seminar (Randy Hootman)
  Assembler working with GCC?? (Bernd Lehahn)
  Re: Assembler working with GCC?? (Bernd Lehahn)
  1542 (Dominic Fraser)
  Re: 486dx4 vs Pentium 60 (Peter Hahn)
  Re: Whats the best _CHEAP_ ISA video card for Linux/Xfree? (Bram Smits)
  Re: Does Linux honor the setuid bit on shell scripts? (Matthew Dillon)
  Re: If Linux passes X/Open's Spec 1170, will it become a true Unix? (Chris Bitmead)

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

From: [email-masked] (Jason Wong)
Subject: Re: Nachos anyone?
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 16:12:00 GMT

Robert Wesley Bingler ([email-masked]) wrote:
> Hey,
>       Has anyone ported/compiled nachos operating system code to Linux?
> It is said to compile under FreeBSD etc.  I am working with version 3.2.

> Thanks,
> Rob

Hi, I also want to know the answer. Do I need to install BSDs in order to compile it?

--
  ---------------------------------------------------- 
 | WONG HO YEUNG JASON             | 黄浩洋       |
 | Department of Computer Science  | 电子计算学系 |
 | Chinese University of Hong Kong | 香港中文大学 |
 | email:[email-masked]         |                  |
  ----------------------------------------------------

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
From: [email-masked] (Frank J. Potolo)
Subject: [q] Talk problem!
Reply-To: [email-masked] (Frank J. Potolo)
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 20:18:40 GMT

Hello Linuxers,
        I just can't get "talk" working right!  Everytime I invoke talk,
even with a different account on the same machine, it says:
[Couldn't bind to control socket : Cannot assign requested address (99)]

        My inetd.conf and my etc/services files look fine [to me.]  I would
appreciate if someone can shed a light on how to go about solving this
problem.  FYI, I am running Linux 1.0.9.

- Frank

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

From: [email-masked] (Ken Mcdonald)
Subject: Re: **BRAND NEW**Texel CD-ROM Drives ***DIRT CHEAP***!!!
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 20:42:49 GMT

Yes, this Jaskolski person has been offering a lot of very dubious "bargains"
over the net.  I personally don't want net bandwidth wasted with this kind
of crud.  Could I suggest that further postings from Jaskolski offering
obsolete equipment at inflated prices should be met with the appropriate
flamage in his mailbox?
`
Just a thought . . .

Ken McDonald
[email-masked]

"We don't need the net equivalent of used-car salesmen."  -- me

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

From: [email-masked] (Tim Bass (Network Systems Engineer))
Subject: Re: Linux Journal
Date: 4 Sep 1994 21:47:25 GMT

Linux Journal is the ONLY mail that arrives in my smail box that is
exciting and interesting.  Nothing takes the place of lying back on
the couch and reading sometimes - without looking at a screen! 

Linux Journal is great. and is money well spent.  In the future, the
freatures are bound to get better as the linux movement gains momentum.

Support linux, XFree86, and Linux Journal !

David Reid ([email-masked]) wrote:
: I am thinking of subscribing to the Linux Journal.  Can anyone who is a 
: present subscriber or has seen the magazine, comment on whether it will be 
: money well spent.  I don't really have easy access to any old copies so I am a 
: little wary about spending the money without knowing what I am buying.  Any 
: comments would be appreciated.  Thanks

: David Reid  -  Stratford, Ontario, Canada
: Email - [email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Stephen Louis Ulmer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: NFS and the portmapper...
Date: 4 Sep 1994 22:00:17 GMT

Greetings,
   I've been using Linux on my home machines for some time now, and
would like to add NFS capability.  I get the following message
whenever I try to mount an NFS volume - be it in fstab or from a prompt:

  mount clntudp_create: RPC: Port mapper failure - RPC: Unable to receive

   I can't even mount a volume that exists on the same physical
machine via NFS.  I DO NOT have this problem with my Linux box at
work, it is happily talking to a slew of OS/2 boxen with no problems.
I've been using all of the other netty stuff without a hitch (SLIP,
telnet, ftp, rlogin, et cetera). My basic configuration is:

Machine #1:
        Homebrew Pentium
        Mylex MPE-60 PCI/EISA motherboard
        40MB RAM
        1.0 GB Fujitsu hard drive
        Orchis Prodesigner IIs SVGA card
        SMC Ultra Combo ethernet NIC
        STB 4COM I/O board (four NS16550A's) sharing IRQ12
        running Slackware Linux 2.0 with the 1.1.19-ncr kernel

Machine #2:
        Homebrew 386-40
        8MB RAM
        125MB and 212MB IDE hard drives - both Maxtor
        same NIC
        some generic SVGA card
        running Slackware Linux 2.0 with the 1.0.9 kernel

The machine at work is a _very_ old Compaq 386-20 Desqpro, this
machine was installed with the same disks as machine #2 above, and the
configurations are very similar. Yes, I have looked in the man pages,
and FAQs, and Yes the kernels are compiled to support NFS.

I'd really appreciate any help!
Thanks,
Stephen

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

From: [email-masked] (Uri Blumenthal)
Subject: New DIP-3.3.7-uri released
Date: 1 Sep 1994 21:22:23 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm happy to announce new release of well-known DIP...
It's "dip337g-uri.tgz" on "sunsite.unc.edu", either
in "pub/Linux/Incoming", or "pub/Linux/system/Network/Serial".

Lots of upgrades, lots of patches... Thanks to Paul Cadach,
Pauline Middelink, Bill Reynolds, who kindly sent their
patches and mods to me.

In short: 
        - it supports proxy arp now (much easier routing);
        - allows SLIP users not to be present in /etc/passwd (of 
          course you don't HAVE to use this feature - I was begged
          to include it in the package, so I did :-);
        - powerful "config" command (again, it can be security hole
          of considerable size, but it's blocked by default - to use
          it you'd have to recompile "command.c";
        - DIP script language now supports variables.

Several other changes, fixes, streamlining, screwing up and such...
Please test it, especially dial-in part - I wasn't able to ensure
it handles line drops smoothly [in this release].

As always, thanks, bug reports (with fixes :-) and compliments are
welcome (:-).
--
Regards,
Uri.            [email-masked]     N2RIU
============
<Disclaimer>

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

From: [email-masked] (Stephen Vance)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: NFS and the portmapper...
Date: 4 Sep 1994 22:23:59 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Stephen Louis Ulmer) writes:
>
>Greetings,
>   I've been using Linux on my home machines for some time now, and
>would like to add NFS capability.  I get the following message
>whenever I try to mount an NFS volume - be it in fstab or from a prompt:
>
>  mount clntudp_create: RPC: Port mapper failure - RPC: Unable to receive
>
I had this same message when all of the correct daemons weren't running on
the intended NFS server.  I couldn't tell you which one as they were all
down :-)

Steve

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

Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.i386unix
From: [email-masked] (Derrik Walker II)
Subject: Send me your xFree86 benchmarks
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 22:32:20 GMT

Since I could not Find a master list of video cards/chip sets, I would 
like everyone who has done so to send me the following infromation:

1. the make of your video card
2. the model of your video card
3. the chip set of your video card.
4. the Bus type of the card.
5. your CPU type and speed (ie 384dx-40, or 486dlc-33)
6. and obviously the xfree86 bench mark.

After I have completed the list I will post it here and send a copy to 
the FAQ.

Thanks

-Derrik
==============================================================================
 Derrik Walker II                                 Student of Computer Sciences
 Cleveland State University                  Automation Assistant, Law Library
 [email-masked]                            [email-masked]
===============================================================================
        http://pclab19.law.csuohio.edu:8099/html/dwalker/home.html

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

From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: 486dx4 vs Pentium 60
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 10:27:39 GMT

Zach ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Hi i'm looking to get a system to run Linux but was wondering if
: someone could advise me on weather [unlikely, given the distance ;-) ]
: I should get a 486dx4/100 or a
: Pentium 60. The 2 systems I am looking at cost almost exactly the same
: but the 486 has a 520 mb SCSI hd while the pentium has a 420 ide.
Disregarding the chipsets, since others will be far better informed than
myself, two things jump to mind.
1) 100 extra Mb
2) SCSI will relieve you of grungy floppy tape drives and enable a more
flexible upgrade path
: Any thoughts? [ not too often :-) ]
---
[email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Randy Hootman)
Subject: Linux Seminar
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 23:52:47 GMT

[ Article crossposted from comp.os.linux.help ]
[ Author was Randy Hootman ]
[ Posted on Sun, 4 Sep 1994 18:54:31 GMT ]

For all you people in the Bay Area. There will be (and has been) a Linux 
seminar each Wednesday from 6 to 10 P.M. at 1330 S. Bascom Ave. Suite F, 
in San Jose, CA. The topics to be covered are (time permitting):

Introduction to Linux
General Info
Linux Resources
Installation
Setting Up XWindows
Obtaining programs and compiling
Simple systems administration
Frequently Asked Questions and Problems

Call (408) 369-9818 for more information.

BTW, I am the lecturer.

d8-)
Randy
-- 

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
     "In recognizing the humanity of our fellow beings,
      we pay ourselves the highest tribute." - Thurgood Marshall
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Randy Hootman                Randysoft Software             (408) 229-0119

-- 

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
     "In recognizing the humanity of our fellow beings,
      we pay ourselves the highest tribute." - Thurgood Marshall
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Randy Hootman                Randysoft Software             (408) 229-0119

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

From: [email-masked] (Bernd Lehahn)
Subject: Assembler working with GCC??
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 1994 17:31:22 +0100
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Hi,

is there a way to use DOS (i.e TASM/MASM) style assembler, or even WatcomC 
inlines (pragmas), together with GCC for LINUX ?
Either a tool to convert object code formats, or an assembler for LINUX able to
generate GCC object codes from MASM style assembler would be af help.

Something else I'm constantly seeking, is an editor for LINUX (shell or X),
which comes close to one of the good amiga editors (Cygnus ED). It should be
able to work on normal, and vertical blocks, have an unlimited undo buffer, 
as well as the ability to record macros fast and efficient. It also should
allow multiple files in one window, and most importantly it has to be _fast_.

Thanks for any tips, or pointers !

=========== Bernd Lehahn, Ebertstr.30, 52134 Herzogenrath, Germany =============
-    Tel:49-2407-59473, Fax:49-2407-8226, ADSP:[email-masked]      -
-    use/internet: [email-masked]          (...speaking just for myself)    -
- Wer selbst nichts erreicht hat, verweist oft auf die Erfolge seines "Volkes" -

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

From: [email-masked] (Bernd Lehahn)
Subject: Re: Assembler working with GCC??
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 1994 17:42:20 +0100
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In article <[email-masked]>, Bernd Lehahn writes:

> Something else I'm constantly seeking, is an editor for LINUX (shell or X),

Before someone starts to explain how Emacs could fulfill all those needs, I 
should add that I already looked at him, but I would prefer an editor rather 
than a lisp interpreter. :)

- Bernd

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

From: [email-masked] (Dominic Fraser)
Subject: 1542
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 23:33:26 GMT

Looking for info on the compatibility of Adaptec 1542c scsi interface cards.
I understand that the 1542b, which is obsolete, was more forgiving than 
the newer 1542c. Is this a problem with the linux drivers? 

Thanks for any help.

-- 
[email-masked]        o                    | bibo, ergo sum       
Dominic Fraser @ 1:134/25      _ <\_   1(403)286-0216 |      -+-     
The Hideaway BBS, and pepper  (+)>(+)  Calgary CANADA |  carpe viam
                             ~~~~
------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Peter Hahn)
Subject: Re: 486dx4 vs Pentium 60
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 08:03:46 GMT

[email-masked] (Zach) writes:

>Hi i'm looking to get a system to run Linux but was wondering if
>someone could advise me on weather I should get a 486dx4/100 or a
>Pentium 60. The 2 systems I am looking at cost almost exactly the same
>but the 486 has a 520 mb SCSI hd while the pentium has a 420 ide.

>Any thoughts?

Two arguments apperare in mind: First, a Pentium-60 benchmarks at 61 SpecInt,
a dx4-100 at 52 -- can't remember floating point exactly, but the difference
is tendencially even bigger. Second the memory interface of the Pentium is
much better than the 486 one. It is 64 Bit wide and knows of write back
cache.

  There are even more reasons, but this two would be sufficient for me.

  The only reason to buy a dx4-100 is IMHO to preserve your board with a
486-socket with 25, 33 or 50 MHz external clock.
 
Peter
-- 
Peter Hahn                                                         Peterstr. 26
     52062 Aachen                                                Germany
          [email-masked]   [email-masked]
                             Voice: +49 241 37151

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

From: [email-masked] (Bram Smits)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Re: Whats the best _CHEAP_ ISA video card for Linux/Xfree?
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 1994 23:40:00 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked]

[email-masked] (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR) writes:

>: monitor so I am looking for an accelerated card that gives me 800x600 and 
>: 1024x768 (but not more, no 2 MB cards needed) and that will be faster than 
>: the 512 kB Oak Oti67 it will replace (this one sucks: TOTAL  3012.000000 
>: xStones  reported by xbench).
>
>It's not an accelerated card, but the little beastie is FAST! - the Trident
>8900CL with 1MB... you can get them for about $60.00 and I've seen them
>run rings around some so-called accelerated cards!  I dunno how they do it,
>but they do!

WD 90C31 based cards are also pretty cheap, and I've seen it run rings 
even around some VLB cards. 

    v__   
  <"___\____     Bram 'mouser' Smits.

Namechange: fangorn.hacktic.nl will become fangorn.xs4all.nl soon. Please use
this new address when replying, it is already operational.

* All views expressed herein are my own, etc, etc. | Fangorn Systems          *
* All disclaimers apply.                           | Heerlen, The Netherlands *
*  Truly songs and tales fall utterly short of reality,                       *
*  O Smaug the Greatest and Chiefest of Calamities  - JRR Tolkien, The Hobbit *

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

From: [email-masked] (Matthew Dillon)
Subject: Re: Does Linux honor the setuid bit on shell scripts?
Date: 2 Sep 1994 00:18:41 -0700

:In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Rick Kelly) writes:
:>Jeff Tranter ([email-masked]) wrote:
:>: In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Kyle Bateman) writes:
:>: >I'm a UNIX newbie (sorry) and I'm trying to get the "set uid on execution"
:>: >bit to work on a shell script.  The FAQs I've read seem to indicate
:>: >that it should work but when I try it, the script still fails with
:>: >a permission error.
:>
:>: From the Linux FAQ:
:>
:>: Question 6.4.  Setuid scripts don't seem to work.
:>:  
:>: That's right.  This feature has been specifically disabled in the Linux
:>: kernel because setuid scripts are almost always a security hole.  If you
:>: want to know why read the FAQ for comp.unix.questions.
:>
:>Obviously, making a script setuid root is extremely stupid.
:>
:>In my approximately 14 years of dealing with UNIX I have seen various
:>instances where a shell script was setuid to some non-root user for
:>purposes of software installation, netnews, etc.
:>
:>It seems to me that this makes Linux less of an "open" system than other
:>UNIX systems.  Traditionally, UNIX has never had barriers that kept people
:>from being stupid.
:>
:>-- 
:>
:>Rick Kelly  [email-masked]  [email-masked]

    Shell scripts are not just used for tcsh, csh, and bash stuff... Frankly,
    there are plenty of interpreted languages out there that benefit greatly
    from a suid capability that I cannot run under linux without creating
    a C wrapper.

    perl comes to mind.

                                                -Matt

-- 

    Matthew Dillon              [email-masked]
    1005 Apollo Way             ham: KC6LVW (no mail drop)
    Incline Village, NV. 89451  Obvious Implementations Corporation
    USA                         Sandel-Avery Engineering
    [always include a portion of the original email in any response!]

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

From: [email-masked] (Chris Bitmead)
Subject: Re: If Linux passes X/Open's Spec 1170, will it become a true Unix?
Date: 5 Sep 94 11:39:10

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Alan Cox) writes:
>>In UniForum's UniNews July 20,1994 issue there's and article on X/Open's 
>>UNIX branding. This got me thinking--if Linux would pass this branding, 
>>would it become a full-fledged _official_ Unix, on par with SunOS or 
>>HP/UX or whatever? 
>
>Correct as I understand it unless there is some requirement for the code
>to be derived from the AT&T code...
>
>>So the question is--how close is Linux to conformance to Spec 1170? Would 
>>it be a Good Thing(tm) for Linux to become a "true" Unix? Would it cost 
>>major money to be branded, and if yes, is it worth raising that kind of 
>>money somehow?
>
>It would cost a lot and include royalties according to the X/open blurb I
>saw.

Brilliant! Now we have the opportunity to pay royalties to X/open instead
of USL. :)

It wouldn't be a bad idea though if someone got hold of the spec and made
Linux compliant, even if official status can't be obtained.

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

** 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.misc) 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-Misc Digest
******************************