Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #954
From: Digestifier <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 94 00:13:35 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #954, Volume #2                Mon, 17 Oct 94 00:13:35 EDT

Contents:
  Host name aliases (William Beckner)
  Re: Word (Text) processors for Linux? (Mark A. Davis)
  Re: Word (Text) processors for Linux? (READ THIS!) (Mark A. Davis)
  Re: Telnet & ftp freeze! - AND UNFREEZE KLUDGE (For me to know.)
  Re: Yggdrasil Fall 1994: buyers be aware (Jeff Kesselman)
  Re: NE2000+ and AHA1542CF problems (Darius Quenum)
  Slackware SCSI detect... (just me)
  A Couple term questions ([email-masked])
  Re: nedit for Linux? (Uwe Daub)
  Re: Word (Text) processors for Linux? (READ THIS!) (Byron A Jeff)
  Re: Word (Text) processors for Linux? (Byron A Jeff)
  Re: Applets; was: Word (Text) processor (Byron A Jeff)
  Re: Applets; was: Word (Text) processor (Byron A Jeff)
  Re: More on word processors...  svgalib? (Byron A Jeff)
  Re: Weakest Linux Box (Erik Corry)
  Re: SPEC run on Linux? (Erik Corry)
  Stable kernel version opinion? (Marc Ewing)

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

From: [email-masked] (William Beckner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Host name aliases
Date: 13 Oct 1994 11:19:41 -0500

Does anybody know where I can get information about how to set up our DNS 
to have a second hostname, but pointing to the same machine?

I'd like to set our info serer up so that if anyone on the 'Net wanted to 
access our gopher, then all they would need to enter is
'gopher gopher.rsa.lib.il.us' instead of 'gopher darkstar.rsa.lib.il.us'.

Please e-mail suggestions or post here.  I'll be watching (lurking).

Thanks! :)

--

=============================================================================
William Beckner - System Manager/SysAdmin     [email-masked]
                                              Ph : (309) 694-5513
                                              FAX: (309) 694-5297

Resource Sharing Alliance of West Central Illinois, Inc.
East Peoria, IL (USA)            "Off of Route 24 on the Information Highway"
=============================================================================

System Administration - 
    It's a dirty job, but somebody said I had to do it.

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

Crossposted-To: comp.unix.questions
From: [email-masked] (Mark A. Davis)
Subject: Re: Word (Text) processors for Linux?
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 17:50:48 GMT

[email-masked] (Byron A Jeff) writes:

>However what's missing is the functionality along the lines of early
>WordPerfect or Word applications. Text based, formatting hidden from the
>user, prints to lots of printers, basic wordprocessing functionality of
>font size and type, text placement, highlights like bold, italics, underline
>etc., and basic table generation.

Actually, the current version of WordPerfect for Unix does ship with
a text based version (as well as the X based WYSIWYG).  There is no compromise;
choose which version you need, or run both.  (Inotherwords, you don't have
to go to an early version of WP to get that functionality).  MS-"Word" is
a different story.

-- 
  /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  | Mark A. Davis     | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk,VA (804)-461-5001x431 |
  | Director/SysAdmin | Information Systems  |    [email-masked]       |
  \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/

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

From: [email-masked] (Mark A. Davis)
Subject: Re: Word (Text) processors for Linux? (READ THIS!)
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 18:01:00 GMT

[email-masked] (Byron A Jeff) writes:

>In article <[email-masked]>,
>Gareth Webber <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>I am sorry but what is wrong with using the iBCS module and running SCO 
>>wordperfect. In fact iBCS currently allows linux to run binaries from
>>lots of other intel unices with work on *BSD being made as we speak.

>Because of the audience. Typical conversation.

>(NU: Newbie User, LE: Linux Enthusiast)
>Senario after a brand new Linux installation on NU machine.

>LE: See. With Linux you can have multiple users, multiple tasks, all at the
>    same time.
>NU: Ok where is the Wordprocessor?
>LE: Well all I have to do is get the IBSC2 package and install it. It's on
>    tsx-11.mit.edu. Oh Oh we don't have a net connection from here.
>NU: So you mean it doesn't have a wordprocessor?
>LE: No it just has to be installed. WordPerfect runs fine.

That is a packaging problem.  As far as I am concerned, Linux distributions
should have IBCS included and install it as an option.

>NU: Well there's a copy of Windows 6.0 Wordperfect on the DOS disk. Run that.

Nahh.... upgrade it to the Unix version :)

>LE: Well I can't because Linux doesn't run windows applications.

Maybe not MS-"Windows", but certainly windows....

>NU: What about DOS then?
>LE: Sure. The DOS emulator runs all DOS applications. But I'll have to install
>    the emulator. Hmm. That's on sunsite. I can get a floppy with it tomorrow.

Another thing which should be installable from Slackware but is not (at least
in 2.0).  (I know, it's not officially out of Beta, but neither is IBCS and
that seems to run as solid as a rock)

>NU: So your telling me that Linux has no Wordprocessor unless you add something
>    else that you don't have with you. It's too complicated. Take it off my
>    machine.

So MS-DOS comes packaged with a word processor?  What about commercial
Unixes?  OS/2?  I don't think that last line makes much sense.  You have
to "add" something to any OS to get a word processor; even if it is just
the wp software itself.

>>Linux doesn't need a WP of its own when it can be used as a base to run
>>apps from all the other major opearing systems (unices, windows under wine 
>>ans dos under dosemu).

>Yes it does. Linux needs to have its own native apps just like all the other
>systems have their own native apps. It'll run faster, requires much less
>setup, and most improtantly it can be free so that it can be distributed with
>the disk.

Indeed we do need a native WP.  Primarily because of cost (free).  WP for
Unix and everything else I have run under Linux's IBCS seems to run just
as fast as native SCO.  I'm not sure I think it is even appropriate to
called the IBCS code an "emulator" anymore....  But it would round things
out to have a free word processor (like WP) for all Unix platforms.
-- 
  /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  | Mark A. Davis     | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk,VA (804)-461-5001x431 |
  | Director/SysAdmin | Information Systems  |    [email-masked]       |
  \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/

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

From: [email-masked] (For me to know.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Telnet & ftp freeze! - AND UNFREEZE KLUDGE
Date: 16 Oct 1994 04:35:02 -0600

In article <[email-masked]>,
Donald Becker <[email-masked]> wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]>,
>Steve Davies <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>The fix is to kill inetd and start a new one.

Agreed. This does seem to always fix the problem but is a very messy way 
of doing things. This is not a solution when it has to be done five to 
ten times in one day.

>>
>>The cause?  I have found that the problem is caused by people connecting
>>with SLIP and using the *wrong IP address* on their end.  In other words
>>they have configured their IP stack with an address different from that
>>in the diphosts file.

This is the cause on your computer but what about other people. I know 
that many people have the most problems with SLIP but it is definately 
not the only place an error occurs.

>This would explain a lot!
>The problem is unlikely to happen with other connection types.
>Most people that could track this problem down have correctly configured
>connections and never see the problem.

This may be the cause on your machine but it certainly is not the problem 
on mine. As has been found by many other people it is not even a problem 
in the inetd.

/-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------\
| Andrew Radke                  | Western Halls                               |
|   [email-masked]  | James Cook University                       |
|   [email-masked]     | Australia, 4811                             |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| 'Indeed, it is possible that the black hole could emit a television set or  |
| the works of Proust in 10 leather-bound volumes . . .' - Stephen W. Hawking |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/

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

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Kesselman)
Subject: Re: Yggdrasil Fall 1994: buyers be aware
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 1994 03:26:43 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Jim Duncan <[email-masked]> wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]>,
>Lee Crawford <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>In article <[email-masked]>,
>>[email-masked] (Yan Xiao) wrote:
>>
>>> The current yggdrasil CD is our second buy, and I can
>>> see the decline in quality. 
>
>I noticed this also.  The file system rearrangement was sloppy. Some
>scripts don't run without complaints about missing files and
>directories. I was never sure whether there was a problem with the
>CD-ROM install, my machine, or me. The Fall '94 is half-baked.   
>
>I used the Fall '94 for a whole day - Columbus Day, which I had off.
>Then, giving up on this possibly bogus product, I blew up the install
>and went back to Summer '94, which, in my opinion, seems to be a better
>quality package. Next time I go to my favorite UNIX reseller, Promox
>Systems in Sunnyvale, I'm going to bitch about it.  I have two Linux
>machines which were supposed to be Summer and Fall, respectively; at
>this point, they're now both Summer '94.      
>-- 
>K-FOX|      w  ["]                              | WA6MBV      
>94.5 |...   [email-masked]  | Jim Duncan  
>KUFX |          H                               | 408.297.5977   
>********  \_____I_____/  37 3 10N/121 59 10W    ************** 

I'm sorry you guys seem to have had trouble with your discs.  I';ve had 
Fall94 instaleld for a month now of development time (nights and 
weekends) and its behaved flawlessly, but maybe we are using different 
things.  Have you checked the erratta sheet? There were a few known link 
problems, but not very many as I recall....

JK

STD DISCLAIMER: I am not now, nor have I ever been, working for 
yygdrasil.  I'm just a satisfied customer.

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

From: [email-masked] (Darius Quenum)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: NE2000+ and AHA1542CF problems
Date: 16 Oct 1994 01:50:06 GMT

I beleive IRQ 3 is reserved for tty01 under Linux. So you must put your
NE2000 card under IRQ 15 with port 340. I think is one of the best way.
But don't change your Adaptec's configuration because it's a good 
configuration. If you got a problem again then you must read your 
main-card's documentation for fixing the jumpers.

                friendly

darius quenum
email: [email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (just me)
Subject: Slackware SCSI detect...
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 16:24:05 GMT

I'm having problems getting the Slackware SCSI kernel to recognize
a SCSI CDROM.      

It finds the Adaptec controller and a hard drive just fine, but that's it.

Can anyone tell me how the SCSI kernel does it's detect for devices on
the SCSI BUS?

-Alan

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

From: [email-masked]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: A Couple term questions
Date: 16 Oct 94 17:48:24 EDT

I have term running and I was wondering if someone could help me write a 
simple script.  My problem is that I have autologout on my remote system
after 30 minutes of inactivity.  I was wondering if I could have a script
that executes ever 10 minutes or so just sending something over the 
link so that it doesn't show that I am idle.  I would really appreciate.

The other question that I have is if I can somehow fix the remote hostname
My second question is about remote hostname passing over term.  When
ever I use this I get that the remote host is localhost and I would
like to find a way to pass the host name.  Thanks for this help in
advance

Jeffrey Frey [email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Uwe Daub)
Subject: Re: nedit for Linux?
Date: 16 Oct 1994 12:08:20 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Frank
Conway) writes:
|> I have recently dicovered an editor for my Sun called nedit.
|> Source code is available.  I really like this editor, and
|> will be porting it to Linux for home use.
|> 
|> Has anyone already done this?  If so, I won't waste my time.
|> 
|> -----
|> 
|> Frank J. Conway                        Email [email-masked]
|> Continental Healthcare Systems Canada
|> 19th Floor, 155 Carlton Street         Phone (204) 942-2992 Ext. 253
|> Winnipeg, Manitoba                     Fax   (204) 942-3001
|> Canada    R3C 3H8               
|> 
|> 

There isn't anything special about compiling NEdit-3.1.
It compiles out of the box with the following entries in the
'Makefile.linux' in the subdirectories ./sources and .util 
of the NEdit source tree:
        CC=gcc
        AR=ar
        CFLAGS= -m486 -O -Dlinux -DMOTIF12
        LIBS= -lXm -lXt -lX11
        include Makefile.common

You see NEdit is a MOTIF application so you need the MOTIF-libs
to compile it!

-- 
===============================================================================
Dipl.-Math. Uwe Daub                                Mathematisches Institut der 
Tel.:  +49 211 311-3713 / 3190          Heinrich-Heine-Universitaet Duesseldorf
Fax:   +49 211 311-3117                               Abteilung fuer Informatik
E-mail: [email-masked]                           Universitaetstr. 1
E-mail: [email-masked]                         D-40225 Duesseldorf

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

From: [email-masked] (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: Word (Text) processors for Linux? (READ THIS!)
Date: 16 Oct 1994 21:53:35 GMT

Let me state that Mark and I are in the same camp. So no arguments here. BAJ

In article <[email-masked]>,
Mark A. Davis <[email-masked]> wrote:
[email-masked] (Byron A Jeff) writes:
-
->In article <[email-masked]>,
->Gareth Webber <[email-masked]> wrote:
->>I am sorry but what is wrong with using the iBCS module and running SCO 
->>wordperfect. In fact iBCS currently allows linux to run binaries from
->>lots of other intel unices with work on *BSD being made as we speak.
-
->Because of the audience. Typical conversation.
-
->(NU: Newbie User, LE: Linux Enthusiast)
->Senario after a brand new Linux installation on NU machine.
-
->LE: See. With Linux you can have multiple users, multiple tasks, all at the
->    same time.
->NU: Ok where is the Wordprocessor?
->LE: Well all I have to do is get the IBSC2 package and install it. It's on
->    tsx-11.mit.edu. Oh Oh we don't have a net connection from here.
->NU: So you mean it doesn't have a wordprocessor?
->LE: No it just has to be installed. WordPerfect runs fine.
-
-That is a packaging problem.  As far as I am concerned, Linux distributions
-should have IBCS included and install it as an option.

It's a three-fold problem of packaging, emulation, and purchase. I agree that
all the emulators should be bundled.

I also agree that emulated programs work well under Linux.

But sine Wordprocessing in so fundamental I think there is a real need for
a simple and native Wordprocessor for Linux. It can easily solve the
packaging, emulation (none), and purchase(no cost) issues.
 
-
->NU: Well there's a copy of Windows 6.0 Wordperfect on the DOS disk. Run that.
-
-Nahh.... upgrade it to the Unix version :)
-
->LE: Well I can't because Linux doesn't run windows applications.
-
-Maybe not MS-"Windows", but certainly windows....

MS-Windows is the only kind of Windows for most novice users. And more 
importantly a WordProcessor is the type of application that a novice user
must have.

-
->NU: What about DOS then?
->LE: Sure. The DOS emulator runs all DOS applications. But I'll have to install
->    the emulator. Hmm. That's on sunsite. I can get a floppy with it tomorrow.
-
-Another thing which should be installable from Slackware but is not (at least
-in 2.0).  (I know, it's not officially out of Beta, but neither is IBCS and
-that seems to run as solid as a rock)

Agreed. We need the emulators. But a native wordprocessor will somewhat obviate
the need initially.

-
->NU: So your telling me that Linux has no Wordprocessor unless you add something
->    else that you don't have with you. It's too complicated. Take it off my
->    machine.
-
-So MS-DOS comes packaged with a word processor? 

No however most PC's nowadays come with a DOS/Windows/Office package bundle.
It's become so commonplace that it seems that DOS/Windows does come with
a Wordprocessor attached.

- What about commercial
-Unixes?  OS/2?  I don't think that last line makes much sense.  You have
-to "add" something to any OS to get a word processor; even if it is just
-the wp software itself.

I agree that it doesn't make sense. I was trying two say that this is the
kind of argument I get when I discuss Linux with naive new users.

But a native WordProcessor that installed with the rest of the system would
be a big win.

-
->>Linux doesn't need a WP of its own when it can be used as a base to run
->>apps from all the other major opearing systems (unices, windows under wine 
->>ans dos under dosemu).
-
->Yes it does. Linux needs to have its own native apps just like all the other
->systems have their own native apps. It'll run faster, requires much less
->setup, and most improtantly it can be free so that it can be distributed with
->the disk.
-
-Indeed we do need a native WP.  Primarily because of cost (free).  WP for
-Unix and everything else I have run under Linux's IBCS seems to run just
-as fast as native SCO.  I'm not sure I think it is even appropriate to
-called the IBCS code an "emulator" anymore....  But it would round things
-out to have a free word processor (like WP) for all Unix platforms.

See I told you we were in the same camp. I like the emulation. I like being
about to run a wide variety of applications on my Linux box. But a
wordprocessor is something that the Linux environment needs to claim for
itself.

Thanks for the comments Mark.

Later,

BAJ
-- 
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332   Internet: [email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Byron A Jeff)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Word (Text) processors for Linux?
Date: 16 Oct 1994 22:10:55 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Mark A. Davis <[email-masked]> wrote:
[email-masked] (Byron A Jeff) writes:
-
->However what's missing is the functionality along the lines of early
->WordPerfect or Word applications. Text based, formatting hidden from the
->user, prints to lots of printers, basic wordprocessing functionality of
->font size and type, text placement, highlights like bold, italics, underline
->etc., and basic table generation.
-
-Actually, the current version of WordPerfect for Unix does ship with
-a text based version (as well as the X based WYSIWYG).  There is no compromise;
-choose which version you need, or run both.  (Inotherwords, you don't have
-to go to an early version of WP to get that functionality).  MS-"Word" is
-a different story.

I knew that Mark. In fact I have a copy of SCO WordPerfect 5.1 sitting
on my desk waiting for kernel upgrade and the IBSC2 installation necessary
to install it.

But as you pointed out in another post I'm cheap. After getting used to
free OS's, editors, compilers, and the like why should I pay for a
WordProcessor? Even if it's the same price as the DOS product (which I 
personally don't use anyway.)

BAJ
-- 
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332   Internet: [email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: Applets; was: Word (Text) processor
Date: 16 Oct 1994 22:15:15 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Ted Harding <[email-masked]> wrote:
-I don't think this is a primary goal - as such - of many people who
-would like to see Linux working better as a workbench. To be frank,
-one of the reasons many people stay with DOS is that the applications
-are varied, in many cases excellent, and easy and quick to use - you
-can get your work done efficiently using them. This is not yet the
-case with more than a few applications on Linux. The work-horse areas
-are 
-text-processing, 

Big hole. EZ or doc for X windows. TeX or groff for formatting. No real
easy to use console/terminal based Wordprocessor.

-spreadsheets, 

sc, xspread

-databases, 

ingres, postgress, FlagShip, metalbase, and others.

-graphics and (for some)

Xpaint, Xfig

-maths/stats/computation.

octave and others for math/computation. Not sure about stats.

The point is that a lot of the tools exist for much of this work.

BAJ
-- 
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332   Internet: [email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: Applets; was: Word (Text) processor
Date: 16 Oct 1994 22:07:48 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
 <[email-masked]> wrote:
-Subject: Re: Applets; was: Word (Text) processors for Linux?
-
-Mat Ballard ([email-masked]) wrote:
-
-: more seriously, i'd like to suggest that what is needed, particularly
-: to appeal to the average dos/win user, is a series of useful and capable
-: applets, in roughly this order of need:
-
-I'm not trying to discourage anybody from developing a nice X11
-spreadsheet, word processor, drawing program, or whatever.  

Actually all three already exist (xpread, EZ, xfig/xpaint).

-
-What I don't understand is the wish to make Linux applications appeal
-to the "average dos/win" user.  When developing an application for
-Linux, shouldn't the concern be to make it appeal to the Linux user?

Yes. However in almost every situation where computers are involved 
people that I know look to me for guidance. Since I really can't stand
DOS/Windows I have a selfish motivation to encourage folks to use Linux.
However to do that a basic suite of applications that are available for
DOS/Windows needs to be available for Linux too.

-
-[...]
-
-: after a while, this, i think, would get your average dos/win user
-: happily chugging away on linux.
-
-There seems to be an assumed goal of "converting" dos/win users to
-Linux -- and I don't understand why this is a worthy goal.

Like I said selfishness. If you'd driven the best car you'd ever driven
or tasted the best grilled chicken sandwich ever made wouldn't you tell
your family and friends about it and encourage them to try it? Linux is
the same way.

-  I'm a bit
-of a relativist so I have my doubts that there is a "one true faith"
-(especially regarding OS/language/editor preferences).

There is no one true way. However my preference is not to deal with
DOS/Windows unless it's absolutely necessary. In fact for folks where it's
clear they don't need anything more I endorse using DOS/Windows. However I
oftentimes (and sometimes honestly ;-) play dumb to the "how do you do this
and how do you do that?" questions that invariably come up.

-
-Do we really care about "market share" like Bill Gates?

Not like Bill Gates (9.8 billion bucks. Wow!).
-
-Do we want Linux to be a mass-market product?

Hell yes! I'd love to put Mr. Gates out of business.

BAJ
-- 
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332   Internet: [email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: More on word processors...  svgalib?
Date: 16 Oct 1994 22:21:43 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Guess who? <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Just as a general question to all, how hard would it be to write a wysiwyg
>word processor to use the svgalib instead of x?  And can apps that use
>svgalib be run remotely?

Well SVGA raises some possibilities. However as a few of us keep pointing
out that there are a lot of old terminals and 8088/80286/EGA/CGA machines
in use out there.

The real fact is that a mojority of setups that can run SVGALIB can run X
too. So what exactly is the real win of choosing one over the other?

Someone show me a free functional WordProcessor that runs properly on a
vt-320 terminal and I'll promise to shut up about wordprocessors. And while
HWP is a step in the right direction, it's not all there yet.

Later,

BAJ
-- 
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332   Internet: [email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Erik Corry)
Subject: Re: Weakest Linux Box
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 21:54:06 GMT

Steven Pritchard ([email-masked]) wrote:

: Well, I didn't actually *use* it, but I booted SLS on my 386SX/16 when it 
: only had 2 meg.  I waited for 2 more meg before installing it.

That's nothing - I even switched off the turbo :-) And loved it!

Erik "Yorkshireman" Corry.

-- 
Erik Corry, Freiburg, Germany, +49 761 406637 [email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Erik Corry)
Subject: Re: SPEC run on Linux?
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 21:57:29 GMT

Sujat Jamil ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Does anyone know if anyone has run SPEC on Linux boxes?  If so, what
: were the numbers like?

: It'd be very interesting to compare SPEC numbers on high-end x86
: machines running Linux with that of lower end workstations.

It would also be interesting to compare the SPEC numbers with those
obtained by Intel. Does a Pentium really produce twice the integer
performance per MHz compared with a 486? With gcc?

-- 
Erik Corry, Freiburg, Germany, +49 761 406637 [email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Marc Ewing)
Subject: Stable kernel version opinion?
Date: 14 Oct 1994 02:12:57 -0400

We are putting the finishing touches on our CD-ROM distribution
and I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the stability
of some of the more recent kernels.

Our install procedure allows you to use multiple kernel versions,
and right now we have 1.0.9 and 1.1.18.  Version 1.1.53 has been
a little bit troublesome and may not make the cut.  What version
do you think is the latest, most stable release?

Thanks for your opinions,
Marc

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

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