Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #875
From: Digestifier <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 94 05:13:14 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #875, Volume #2                 Tue, 4 Oct 94 05:13:14 EDT

Contents:
  Re: How to pronounce Linux?? (Stryder)
  Re: Hmmm (Cameron Newham)
  Re: Nailed down to 386bsd or linux, now which one? (Jesus Monroy Jr)
  Re: Suggestions for a 486 PCI Motherboard (Lam Dang)
  Re: New Linux Distribution (David Barth)
  Re: How to pronounce Linux?? (David Barth)
  Re: Linux everywhere? (David Barth)
  Re: Lynx under Linux (Sam Oscar Lantinga)
  kermit on Linux CD - violates copyrights (Budi Rahardjo)
  Re: Suggestions for a 486 PCI Motherboard (David Fox)
  Re: where to get the texbook (Michael Rogero Brown (Sys Admin))
  Re: Play Audio CD's on Linux? (Roy Donehower)
  UK is discovering Linux (Andy Pearce)
  Logitech busmouse & X help please! ([email-masked])
  Re: Linux <-> Hurd (was: How Old Is Linus?) (Robert Ashcroft)

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

From: [email-masked] (Stryder)
Subject: Re: How to pronounce Linux??
Date: 3 Oct 1994 13:08:21 -0400

[email-masked] (Richard Park) writes:

>In article <[email-masked]>,
>S. Joel Katz <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>Is there a correct pronunciation?
>>      There is a correct pronunciation and an incorrect pronunciation. 
>>The 'I' is short. Linux almost rhymes with 'shucks'. Or, if you prefer 
>>'Lih-nuhks'.

>This is the topic of a religious war.  If you look at older versions of the
>FAQ, it says the correct pronunciation is the one specified above.  But in
>more recent versions, it seems to have changed so that the "i" is a long vowel.
>I pronounce it the second way, but I don't think I would hate you if you
>pronounced it the first way. 8~)

It SHOULD be pronounced "linooks".  You know.  Unix backwards.

Or maybe I should say Unix is Linux backwards.

_____________________________________________________________________________

                        Imagine there's no heaven.
                        It's easy if you try.
                        No hell below us,
                        And above us only sky.

                                       John Lennon
_____________________________________________________________________________

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

From: [email-masked] (Cameron Newham)
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.linus-torvalds
Subject: Re: Hmmm
Date: 3 Oct 1994 23:33:49 +0800

[email-masked] (Tim Cutts) writes:

>My God.  You make me feel like a newbie!  My first Linux kernel was
>0.98pl5, but I had only just taken delivery of my (then) shiny new
>486-33 with 8Mb RAM, which I thought was the bee's knees at the time.

Don't feel like a newbie!  I joined at 0.99pl12 (i think)
(whatever one was released in May 1993) when I got my 486dx50.

- cameron.

PS: biggest regret in life so far:  having not met Linus in person
because out of all of the weeks this year I had to be sick the week
he came here.  :(

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc
From: [email-masked] (Jesus Monroy Jr)
Subject: Re: Nailed down to 386bsd or linux, now which one?
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 1994 03:29:32 GMT

Po-Han Lin ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Ok, I didn't know QNX costs major money.  So I am considering
: either 386bsd or linux.  One person said I should get linux because
: 386bsd is monolithic (controlled I guess), while linux is non-monolithic.
: Now the question is, which os better?  Better as in...

: 1) least bugs, and stable IMPORTANT!
:
        OK. since you've throw out QNX.
        Least bugs is a relative thing.
        
        If you want to go by reported bugs, then it difficult 
        to give a clear answer.   As is know in the industry,
        what maybe a bug to one person is a bug to another.
        And as "bugs" go, system stability is a far more important
        factor.
        
        To that I would say that if test suites were available,
        (and maybe GNU would do this) then perhaps a go measure
        for persons, like yourself could be achieved.   To this
        question of "stability", at this time I would say - 
        Go with Linux.... else if you can wait for the release
        (mailing) of 386bsd release 1.0.

: 2) more software available that runs on it
:
        By your comment, I guess you would want the broadest
        assorment of software to run on you platform.
        Linux wins hands down.  However, most Linux applications
        fall under *copyleft* legal issues.  So, if you plan
        to make (or use) your code in a commercial manner,
        you may want to investigate that issue with the poeple
        at Linux, as they have the best answers.

: 3) faster
:
        Again, no benchmarks (or stats) are available for
        any of the above.  Numbers generated depend heavily 
        on equipment used and application (program) design.

: 4) more compliance to POSIX (I think standards are good, or am I wrong)
:
        POSIX is an arguement in itself.
        POSIX is a good start for internationalization, but
        many commercial vendors have found their own twist 
        on this issue.   For the "free" UNIX people POSIX is
        a nice buzz word, but NO ONE can even remotely (IMHO)
        suggest compliance with POSIX.

: 5) more people using it.
:
        No valid numbers are available, but if the "newsgroups"
        are any indicator I would say LINUX.

: 6) more support for third-party hardware (VLB, EISA, modems, etc) IMPORTANT!
:
        LINUX, definitely!... they certainly have more screwy 
        peripherials in operation than any of the other UNIX variants.(sp?)

        However, I must, at this time say, this IS NOT a good thing.
        IBM PC machines have a real problem with off-shore vendors
        doing screwy things.  Ask any software house about this
        boxes and you'll get to answers 

        1) get money.
        2) too many variations on a single topic (i.e. CD-ROM)

: 7) platform for programming.
:
        Linux, at this time, has the serious lead in documentation.
        By my book, even the best tricks are just that, if you
        dont' know how to use them.

: that the other OS is better.  Has anyone actually used both systems?
:
        I'm running the FreeBSD and 386BSD versions in house.
        I run both, because I'm still waiting for 386bsd release 1.0
        Since I need to do X-windows development and TCP/IP  testing
        at this time FreeBSD is of choice.

        Is one system better than the other?

        FreeBSD is better only in terms of getting the latest
        versions of applications to run on it.  In other words,
        if I want the latest version of Mosaic to run in house,
        I am forced to used FreeBSD because the latest version
        of X-windows no longer supports 386bsd release 0.1.

-- 
Jesus Monroy Jr                                          [email-masked]
Zebra Research
/386BSD/device-drivers /fd /qic /clock /documentation
___________________________________________________________________________

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

From: [email-masked] (Lam Dang)
Subject: Re: Suggestions for a 486 PCI Motherboard
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 1994 19:29:29 GMT

Steven M. Henry ([email-masked]) wrote:
: I am in the market to upgrade my computer and want to purchase a 486 PCI 
: motherboard that will give me good performance and will be compatible with 
: Linux. Please email me or post any replies.

I'm very pleased with my ASUS SP3G 1.6 ($259) with an onboard NCR 53c810
SCSI controller.  I chose an Intel DX2-66 ($264), 32Mb of 70-nsec memory 
($34 per meg), an extra 53c810 card ($80), and a #9GXE64 ($249).  With 
lilo, I can boot Linux 1.1.51, Windows NT 3.5 RC1, or DOS (for games).
Only WNT can use both 53c810 controllers at the same time, but I don't 
really need the second one.

If you decide on the ASUS board, insist on Version 1.7 or later, And  you 
should get a lower price on the DX2-66 by this time.
-- 
Lam Dang
[email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (David Barth)
Subject: Re: New Linux Distribution
Date: 1 Oct 1994 15:58:04 +0100

Juana Moreno ([email-masked]) wrote:
: I have been thinking of putting up a new Linux distribution especially
: oriented to DOS-Win dummies. I have taken a nontraditional approach and
...

:       - NO NETWORKING, except for maybe a terminal program (minicom) and
:               a mostly configured SLIP (client side only). In that case,
:               maybe Mosaic should be also included.

IMHO Linux is great when networking... There was an article in LJ about
Linux becoming a standard terminal on the Info Highways : Mosaic & news
readers are the killer apps that can make people trash their MS* partition
and jump in the Linux train. So, I think you should reconsider omiting the
networking part in your distribution.

What about a first disk set dedicated to the installation part : basic system,
X-Window, tunings. Then your DOS-Win dummy could choose to load a pack of
X apps and/or a complete programming environnement (emacs or ez & gcc + all
related utilities), and/or an Internet config with PPP, Mosaic, mail & news
readers. All should be preconfigured for a single system.

To impress your DOS-Win dummy, X with a few toy applications won't be enough.
It would be better to insist on the weak side of MS-* thus presenting net
apps (add some cool WWW pages, a few messages in the /spool/news directory)
or showing the compiler working while your editing part of a program (that is
true multitasking without MS-Crashes(tm)).

This was my 2 cents advice.
-- 
D.Barth ([email-masked])         "Linux, the choice of a GNU generation"

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

From: [email-masked] (David Barth)
Subject: Re: How to pronounce Linux??
Date: 1 Oct 1994 16:03:34 +0100

[email-masked] wrote:
: [email-masked] (David Ransier) writes:
: >Distribution: world
: >Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
: >NNTP-Posting-Host: davidr.wv
: >I've heard two pronunciations of Linux, both are variations of the "i" sound.
: >My natural tendancy is to pronounce the "i" like "hi".  The other common
: >pronunciation has the "i" sound like "in".
: >Is there a correct pronunciation?

There are to files 'english.au' and 'swedish.au' to hear the exact 
pronouncation by Saint Linus himself.

I found them on the Infomagic 2CD set, but they must be on sunsite or tsx.

-- 
D.Barth ([email-masked])         "Linux, the choice of a GNU generation"

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

From: [email-masked] (David Barth)
Subject: Re: Linux everywhere?
Date: 1 Oct 1994 16:11:58 +0100

Thomas Gschwind ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Today night I were dreaming, that I am waking up and all the world's 
: PCs run Linux? Imagine that feeling (No WinDogs around :))!
: But then I woke up and :(((((((

1. Find a pretty virus and infect all MessyWindoze boxes around.
2. Erase and reformat hard disks ('Sorry, there's no way else...')
3. Install Linux and on all those clean boxes.
4. Smile !

Hope this helps -)
-- 
D.Barth ([email-masked])         "Linux, the choice of a GNU generation"

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

From: [email-masked] (Sam Oscar Lantinga)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Lynx under Linux
Date: 3 Oct 1994 20:35:56 GMT

Mubashir Cheema ([email-masked]) wrote:

: I have noticed that when I run Lynx under Linux all available
: options get highlighted instead of the ones I move my 
: cursor to. 

        It's a problem with the version of ncurses that lynx
is compiled with.  I haven't figured out exactly what to do, because
ncurses 1.8.5 breaks one curses application while ncurses 1.8.1 breaks
another.

        But.. there is a version of lynx statically compiled to
work properly available from dewdrop.water.ca.gov in /pub/Linux/Network

        We desperately need the termcap, terminfo, and ncurses
coordinated to be completely functional for all programs!

Ignorantly,

        -Sam Lantinga           ([email-masked])

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

From: [email-masked] (Budi Rahardjo)
Subject: kermit on Linux CD - violates copyrights
Date: 3 Oct 1994 12:31:48 GMT

To CD-ROM vendors, ftp maintainers, etc., there is a "discussion" in
comp.protocols.kermit.misc that if you provide kermit on your CD
or ftp-site, you have to contact Columbia University to get a
permission to distribute it.
Otherwise, you are violating their policy.

-- budi
-- 
Budi Rahardjo <[email-masked]>
#include <std-disclaimer.h>
Unix Support - Computer Services - University of Manitoba

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

From: [email-masked] (David Fox)
Subject: Re: Suggestions for a 486 PCI Motherboard
Date: 02 Oct 1994 02:52:04 GMT

There seems to be quite a bit of talk about the ASUS motherboards.
One dealer in biz.comp.hardware has it for $275 with SCSI, IDE, etc.
The only drawback for me is that it has no 30 pin memory sockets, and
I have a bunch of 30 pin SIMMs.  The other factoid I've seen is that
PCI and VLB don't mix well.  Read comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,
there is quite a bit of Linux motherboard discussion there.
--
David Fox                                               xoF divaD
NYU Media Research Lab                     baL hcraeseR aideM UYN

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

Crossposted-To: comp.text.tex
From: [email-masked] (Michael Rogero Brown (Sys Admin))
Subject: Re: where to get the texbook
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 23:02:19 GMT

Jim Graham ([email-masked]) wrote:
: NOTE:  followups to comp.text.tex (for obvious reasons).

: In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked]
: (Hans Petter Fasteng) writes:

: >  thank you all for your help, strange that it is not anny doc with tex
: >latex or texinfo distributions since all other GNU software is so well
: >documented.  I will look around and see what I find.

: Several points....  First, I know I'm being picky here, but if you are
: in an environment where you can't spell TeX with the lowered 'E', DEK
: specifically says it's spelled ``TeX''.  See chapter 1 in ``The TeXbook''.

: Second, TeX is not GNU software.  It may be redistributed with other GNU
: software, but that's as far as the relationship goes.

: Finally, TeX is very, very well-documented.  You've just been looking in
: the wrong places.  If you're interested in plain TeX, try the following:

:    *) ``First Grade TeX''
:    *) ``The TeXbook'' by DEK himself
:    *) ``TeX by Topic'' by Victor Eijkhout
:    *) check with the TeX User's Group (TUG) for the rest---there's a lot
:       more!

: ``First Grade TeX'' is a very nice beginner's book, but you'll out-grow
: it rather quickly.  Fortunately, at least when I bought it (a long, long
: time ago), it isn't very expensive.

: ``The TeXbook'' is, of course, a must.

: ``TeX by Topic'' is a great book, once you've advanced your TeXnical
: skills.

: Again, check with TUG (e-mail:  [email-masked]) for more details.

: Also check the FAQ and FAQ Supplement on comp.text.tex.

: If you're looking for docs on LaTeX, check with TUG.  I use plain TeX, so
: my answers are obviously geared in that direction.  :-)

Well, if you want to use LaTeX I recommend the following:

"LaTeX: A Document Preparation System" by Leslie Lamport (creator of LaTeX)
[make sure to get the recent 2nd ed which covers the current LaTeX2e version]

"The LaTeX Companion" by Goosens, Mittlebach, and Samarin.

both are published by Addison-Wesley and are available from bookstores or
TUG.

--
==========All Opinions Expressed are MINE, not IBM's==============
Michael Rogero Brown       (*IX System Administrator)  
IBM (uK Development)         TEL/TIE   (407) 443-6400   
Boca Raton, FL               Internet:  [email-masked]

If you think I speak for IBM, then I've got some swamp land^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
real estate to sell you.

GCM/CS   d-- h-- s g+ p1 au a w+ v C++$ UA++++$ US+ UH+ P+>++ L>++ 3 N(+++) K 
    W--- M-- V>-- -p+ Y+ t 5++ j(++) r !G v+ b+++ !D b--- e+++ u+ h+ f !r n x?

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

From: [email-masked] (Roy Donehower)
Subject: Re: Play Audio CD's on Linux?
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 17:38:25 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (William Bushing) writes:

>OK, call me blind or stupid... flame me to your heart's content.
>I love Linux, but I haven't yet found out how to play audio CD's
>while operating under Linux. I grep'ed through all the documenta-
>tion I could see for anything on audio/CD, but could find nothing.
>I'd hate to return to DOS or, shudder, Windose just to be able to
>play music while I work. I know Linux can do it... my world would
>be complete with multiple windows multitasking PLUS music! Thanks
>in advance for any pointers.

Use the Linux/X-Windows program workman.  I use it all the time
and it works great.  Of course, you must have CD-ROM support 
compiled into the Linux kernel.

Roy Donehower

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

From: [email-masked] (Andy Pearce)
Subject: UK is discovering Linux
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 1994 17:42:13 GMT

Further to the CD-ROM with Slackware stuck on the front of 
the UK version of PC Plus, I read an article in Sept 29 
"The Guardian" a reasonably popular paper (traditionally left 
of centre), entitled "Freedom Fighter" with a big photo of 
Linus Torvalds.  A generally positive, and reasonably accurate 
appraisal -- but I suspect the free and permanent aspect of the 
software may appeal to a cooperative political spirit.  Plenty 
of mention/credit also given to FSF in the article.

Linux, is I think, making its mark in the UK as something rather 
unique and interesting and I hope we'll see more articles like 
this in the press.

BTW, no DOS slagging here (which is a relief), in fact the 
author (Godfrey Nolan) admits linux/X not as easy to set up as 
MSDOS/Windows.  I thought it was a good article, really.  

--ajp
Andy Pearce       [email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked]
Subject: Logitech busmouse & X help please!
Date: 2 Oct 94 22:35:23 -0500

I'm having trouble getting my slackware pro 2.0 release of LINUX/X to recognize
my Logitech P7-3F busmouse.  I've tried configuring two new kernels of Linux:
one with Logitech and one with Microsoft bus mice and the former does get me
into X without error but the pointer doesn't move with mouse movement.  I did
change the symbolic link of /dev/mouse to /dev/busmouselogitec with the first
kernel and have tried both that one and /dev/busmousems with the Microsoft
kernel.  Anything with "busmousems" fails to find the mouse at all.

Is there a quick way of determining that my mouse is configured properly for
linux without going into X?

TIA,

Barry ([email-masked])

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

From: [email-masked] (Robert Ashcroft)
Subject: Re: Linux <-> Hurd (was: How Old Is Linus?)
Date: 3 Oct 1994 17:38:15 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In article <[email-masked]>,
Louis-D. Dubeau <[email-masked]> wrote:

>So the Hurd does not spell doom for Linux.

Yep:  Doom for Linux is an entirely different sort of program ;-)

RNA

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

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