Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #390
From: Digestifier <Linux-Misc-Request@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU
Date:     Wed, 8 Dec 93 01:13:19 EST

Linux-Misc Digest #390, Volume #1                 Wed, 8 Dec 93 01:13:19 EST

Contents:
  Re: Linux Consortium (Lars Wirzenius)
  Re: Yet another benchmark results.. (Andres Kruse (NIKHEF))
  Re: Yet another benchmark results.. (Andres Kruse (NIKHEF))
  Re: Yet another benchmark results.. (Carl Boernecke)
  Re: Cirrus Logic Cards and LCD Monitors (Jones M Murphy Jr)
  Re: Xwindows <Ctrl-Alt-F1> stuff (Juha Virtanen)
  Re: Yet another benchmark results.. (Anatoly.Lisovsky@kamaz.kazan.su)
  Re: NEEDED: Info on LInux and VLB controllers (Bob Martin)
  Bug in tty cooked read EOF handling (Frank Lofaro)
  Xwindows Terminal (Keith Smith)
  Re: Linux Consortium (Drew Eckhardt)
  Re: Yet another benchmark results.. (Frank J. Wood)
  Re: how fast is linux? (Bill Heiser)
  Re: Security (Bill Heiser)
  SURVEY: Graphics card benchmarks under XFree86 (Farrell McKay)
  Re: Networking Linux (jbm@speedy.login.qc.ca)

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

From: wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius)
Subject: Re: Linux Consortium
Date: 8 Dec 1993 00:26:03 +0200

magnus@skarv.ii.uib.no (Magnus Y Alvestad) writes:
> If magazines start reviewing Linux distributions the need for a Review
> group / consortium will disappear. I agree.

So start doing it.  I'm sure Linux Journal would love to have them.
If the LGX sales figures are true, then I think it's almost the time
that even mainstream PC magazines are going to be interested in mentioning
Linux now and then.  And hey, they pay real money for the reviews!

If nothing else is willing to publish them, comp.os.linux.announce
welcomes them (even though I'm sluggish again :-( ).

The idea of a "Stamp of Approval" sounds good to begin with, but it has
large problems.  First, it's either binary (approved or not approved)
or else very confusing if you introduce different levels of approval.
Second, regardless of what your criteria for approval are, they are
going to exclude things that other people value highly.  This means
that you are going to not approve a distribution that is good, even if
it doesn't quite fill your expectations.  This problem persists even if
you only look at things from a new user's point of view.  Third,
approvals like this do create the impression that there is an authority
with the power to say what things should be like.  You may not mean to
imply such a thing.  You can say so, again and again and again, you can
write long explanations on what you really mean and distribute them
everywhere, but it doesn't matter.  On the whole, people are stupid and
will jump to conclusions and will ignore any attempts to put things
straight.  Remember: the impression will be had by not only people
who are interested in Linux and who therefore may learn the real 
circumstances later, but also by a huge lot of other people as well,
and these people matter too, because they will happily spread rumors.

Publishing reviews does not have any of these problems.  A review is
not just a binary value, and there is room to explain what things are
good and what things are bad about a product, and also why you think
so.  People can then consider themselves whether they agree or not.

--
Lars.Wirzenius@helsinki.fi  (finger wirzeniu@klaava.helsinki.fi)
Humans are unreliable, computers are non-deterministically reliable.

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

From: kruse@zow.desy.de (Andres Kruse (NIKHEF))
Subject: Re: Yet another benchmark results..
Reply-To: A.Kruse@nikhef.nl
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 22:22:02 GMT

In article 16788@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu, viznyuk@mps.ohio-state.edu (Dragon Fly) writes:
> Seeing so many benchmark tests contradicting one another
[some stuff deleted]
 
> - - - - - - - - Cut here - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <math.h>
> #include <time.h>
> main()
> {
> double  x,y[1000000];
> int     i;
> time_t  t;
> 
> time(&t);
> for (i=0;i<1000000;i++)
>         {
>         x=11.0+(33.5*i)*(33.5*i);
>         y[i]=(sin(3.1*i)+cos(5.1*i))*sqrt(x+exp(3.14*log(x+i)));
>         }
> printf("time=%d\n",time(0)-t);
> }
> - - - - - - - - - - - - Cut here - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Serge, you should *not* use 'time' to measure the time used by
the program. You should have a look at 'ftp.nosc.mil' in subdirectory
'pub/aburto' for 'timers_a.c' and 'timers_b.c'. In there you find
code for various computer systems and OSes.
Oh, and yes, in there you find also a nice collection of benchmarking
sources plus results from various (many!) computer systems.
  Also you seem to put a big emphasis on trigonometric functions.
I don't think that they are executed that often relative to simpler
functions. The Intel 486 and 387 are quite good here because they
have these functions in hardware. 

> 
> As everybody with eyes can see, the program calculates some stuff
> in a loop storing it in memory (gotta be ~ 8Mb of RAM taken)
> and gives on output the number of seconds spent. And here are the
> results of calculation:
> 
>      Computer                             Time spent
> 
> 486DX2-66 EISA/VL 16Mb RAM
> running Linux (Slackware 1.1.0).
> gcc compiler.
> Single user                               27 sec.
> 
> SUN Sparc-2 with >= 16 Mb RAM
> running SunOS
> Single user                               69 sec.
> 
> DEC VAX with ALPHA chip
> running VMS
> With quite a few users on                 69 sec.

Yes, that is why this computer is slow... btw: There is no VAX with ALPHA chip!
It's either a VAX or ALPHA. Oh, and if it is ALPHA then it runs OpenVMS
or OSF/1 or Windows/NT... (just for completeness)

> 
> SUN-4
> running SunOS
> Single user                               73 sec.
> 
> DEC VAXstation 3100
> running VMS
> Single user                               405 sec.
> 
> 
> 
> So comments are welcome.

You should also have posted the processors/frequencies/RAM of the
other machines...

> 
> Cordially,
> Serge

Silicon Graphics Iris 4D/45 (R3000 @ 36 MHz), 120MB RAM
running Irix 4.0.5
Single User                                 17 sec.

Silicon Graphics Indigo (R4000 @ 100 MHz), 72MB RAM
running Irix 4.0.5
Single User                                 10 sec.
(kind of disappointing, isn't it ?)


-- Andres

===========================================================================
Andres Kruse      | NIKHEF - National Institute for Nuclear Physics
A.Kruse@nikhef.nl | and High-Energy Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands



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

From: kruse@zow.desy.de (Andres Kruse (NIKHEF))
Subject: Re: Yet another benchmark results..
Reply-To: A.Kruse@nikhef.nl
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 22:25:41 GMT

In article 2e27kuINN110@rpc12.gl.umbc.edu, ian@gl.umbc.edu (Ian Soboroff) writes:
> In article <2e1jrn$k2d@info.epfl.ch>,
> Xavier Llobet EPFL - CRPP 1015 Lausanne CH <llobet@elpp1.epfl.ch> wrote:
> 
> >:     Computer                             Time spent
> 
> and while we're at it... ;-)
> 
>       SGI Iris Indigo (low end)               24 sec.
>       Single user (but with many windows
>       running... IRIX 4.5.1)
> 
> 
>       SGI Iris Crimson
>       with 60 users, load 6.3                 53 sec.

See my previous post. The source code measures the time you have to wait
for the thing to come back. But it does not measure the used CPU time
by this process. Also: Which processor does the Indigo which you were
using, have ?

> 
> 
>               ian
> -- 
> +-----------------+------------------------------------------------+
> ! Ian Soboroff    !       "Great data structures never die,        !
> ! ian@gl.umbc.edu !          they just go out of scope..."         !
> +-----------------+------------------------------------------------+


-- Andres

============================================================================
Andres Kruse      | NIKHEF - National Institute for Nuclear Physics and
A.Kruse@nikhef.nl | High-Energy Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands



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

Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.os.vms,relcom.talk,relcom.fido.su.general
From: carlb@inex.com (Carl Boernecke)
Subject: Re: Yet another benchmark results..
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 23:01:27 GMT

llobet@elpp1.epfl.ch (Xavier Llobet EPFL - CRPP 1015 Lausanne CH) writes:
>In article <1993Dec7.031614.16788@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu>, viznyuk@mps.ohio-state.edu (Dragon Fly) writes:
>:

  [various system results removed... the higest being 405 seconds
   from a DEC Vax, if I remember correctly]

>:
>:So comments are welcome.
>:
>:Cordially,
>:Serge

I don't like your benchmark!  Waaaahhh!  Took a total of 4109
seconds on my 386/33 (without 387) and 8 MB of RAM.  Yes, the
machine was a bit 'loaded' (three dial-in users, myself on
two virtual terminals, one with X running a few color xterms),
and an ftp session or two over my SLIP connection.  Still seems
like a long time, though.

Also, why did you use 'time(&t)' for the first line?  Why not
't=time(NULL)'.  Guess it doesn't really matter, but the pro-
gram didn't want to run without that mod on my other system
(SVR3.2.2).  Weird.

-- Carl Boernecke (carlb@inex.com)
   "Time flies like an arrow... fruit flies like a banana."

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

From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones M Murphy Jr)
Subject: Re: Cirrus Logic Cards and LCD Monitors
Date: 8 Dec 1993 03:23:03 GMT

pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:

>>>> On Tue, 7 Dec 1993 05:13:19 GMT, brenckle@scws0.ctstateu.edu
>>>> (Nicholas Brenckle) said:

>Nicholas>  I have a cirrus logic 5426 w/1 meg and was following the
>Nicholas> discussion on getting it to work at 1024 X 768. Right now,
>Nicholas> when I enter that mode, it looks like its losing the
>Nicholas> sync. Whats the solution? (I'm using a CTX 13" monitor)

>The monitor almost surely cannot handle 1024x768; try interlaced mode,
>and with a low refresh rate. Even then I think it simply cannot cope.

I have a CLGD 6420, with an LCD active matrix screen. I've gotten the 16 color
server to work by telling Xfree I have a 5428. My controller supports up to
1024x768x256 on an external CRT, but I don't know how the clock business works
with an LCD screen.
Help!
Jones
-- 
Jones M Murphy Jr                                
Assistant Vice President, New Products
AIG Financial Products
100 Nyala Farm, Westport, CT06880                      (800) 248-SWAP

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

From: Juha.Virtanen@hut.fi (Juha Virtanen)
Subject: Re: Xwindows <Ctrl-Alt-F1> stuff
Date: 08 Dec 93 04:16:32 GMT
Reply-To: jiivee@hut.fi

>>>>> On Fri, 3 Dec 1993 17:28:16 GMT, swampler@noao.edu (Steve Wampler) said:
:> How about having *multiple* X-window servers running?  My wife and I are
:> getting tired of having to kill each other (well, our X-sessions) when
:> we switch back and forth.  With VCs, we can both stay logged in, but
:> it would be nice to be able to keep our X environments alive as well...

:> Is there a way to do this?  (I guess what I'm saying is that it would
:> be nice to have multiple xdm's running on different VC's...)

Yes, it is possible (as already mentioned here). I once tried to
run to separate X displays under XFree86-1.3 and here it goes
with sample files...

First, you need an xdm config file understanding two displays,
here is mine:

--- xdm-config-twinscreen ----------------------------------------------------
DisplayManager.errorLogFile:    /tmp/xdm-errors
DisplayManager.pidFile:         /tmp/xdm-pid
DisplayManager.keyFile:         /usr/X386/lib/X11/xdm/xdm-keys
DisplayManager.servers:         /usr/X386/lib/X11/xdm/Xservers-twinscreen
DisplayManager.accessFile:      /usr/X386/lib/X11/xdm/Xaccess
DisplayManager._0.authorize:    false
DisplayManager._0.setup:        /usr/X386/lib/X11/xdm/Xsetup_0
DisplayManager._0.startup:      /usr/X386/lib/X11/xdm/GiveConsole_0
DisplayManager._0.reset:        /usr/X386/lib/X11/xdm/TakeConsole_0
DisplayManager._1.authorize:    false
DisplayManager._1.setup:        /usr/X386/lib/X11/xdm/Xsetup_1
DisplayManager._1.startup:      /usr/X386/lib/X11/xdm/GiveConsole_1
DisplayManager._1.reset:        /usr/X386/lib/X11/xdm/TakeConsole_1
DisplayManager*resources:       /usr/X386/lib/X11/xdm/Xresources
DisplayManager*session:         /usr/X386/lib/X11/xdm/Xsession
DisplayManager*authComplain:    false
DisplayManager*terminateServer: false
==============================================================================

Second, you need an Xservers file. Note that I run X with
negative niceness -- for performance reasons. I do also force
displays to certain VCs, otherwise both xservers would first try
to take tty7.

--- Xservers-twinscreen ------------------------------------------------------
#
# Xservers file, workstation prototype
#
# This file should contain an entry to start the server on the
# local display; if you have more than one display (not screen),
# you can add entries to the list (one per line).  If you also
# have some X terminals connected which do not support XDMCP,
# you can add them here as well.  Each X terminal line should
# look like:
#       XTerminalName:0 foreign
#
:0 local /bin/nice -n -1 /usr/X386/bin/X :0 -pn vt7
:1 local /bin/nice -n -1 /usr/X386/bin/X :1 -pn vt8
==============================================================================

Third, you need separate GiveConsole scripts for both (all?) displays.
/dev/X0 is just separate console devise.

--- GiveConsole_0 ------------------------------------------------------------
#!/bin/sh
#xconsole -geometry 480x130+0+0 -daemon -notify -verbose -fn fixed -exitOnFail
jiivee@iguana /usr/X386/lib/X11/xdm 5:59:cat GiveConsole_0
#!/bin/sh
# Assign ownership of the console to the invoking user
#
# By convention, both xconsole and xterm -C check that the
# console is owned by the invoking user and is readable before attaching
# the console output.  This way a random user can invoke xterm -C without
# causing serious grief.
#
DISPLAY=:0;export DISPLAY

chown $USER /dev/X0
chgrp terminal /dev/X0
chmod 620 /dev/X0
touch /dev/X0
sessreg -a -w/etc/wtmp -u/etc/utmp -l X0 -h `hostname`$DISPLAY -x/usr/X386/lib/X11/xdm/Xservers-twinscreen $USER
==============================================================================

Fourth you need TakeConsole scripts.

--- TakeConsole_0 ------------------------------------------------------------
#!/bin/sh
# Reassign ownership of the console to root, this should disallow
# assignment of console output to any random users's xterm
#
chmod 622 /dev/X0
chown root /dev/X0
chgrp root /dev/X0
sessreg -d -w/etc/wtmp -u/etc/utmp -l X0 -h `hostname`$DISPLAY -x/usr/X386/lib/X11/xdm/Xservers-twinscreen $USER
==============================================================================

Fifth, you need separate Xsetup scripts, but as they usually only
start xconsole, I'll skip this one.

And last, starting xdm goes like this (for example in rc.local):

/usr/X386/bin/xdm -config /usr/X386/lib/X11/xdm/xdm-config-twinscreen

Finally, kids don't try this at home with only 8MB virtual
memory (= RAM + swap).


Juha
--
THE CHEMIST'S RULE: Never take more than three data points. There will always
           be some kind of graph paper on which they fall in a straight line.

THE CHEMIST'S RULE, FIRST COROLLARY: If you have only one kind of graph paper,
           never take more than two data points.

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

From: Anatoly.Lisovsky@kamaz.kazan.su
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.os.vms,relcom.talk,relcom.fido.su.general
Subject: Re: Yet another benchmark results..
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 93 23:52:30 +0300
Reply-To: Anatoly.Lisovsky@kamaz.kazan.su

In
    comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.vms,relcom.talk,relcom.fido.su.general
    article <1993Dec7.031614.16788@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu> Dragon
    Fly writes:

>Seeing so many benchmark tests contradicting one another
>gotta be confusing for insightful observer. For me perpetrating
>mostly scientific calculations they do not offer much to
>swallow to say nothing about digesting..
>So in deep despair have I decided to run the following
>short and, I hope, comprehensive code on various boxes widely
>spread in academic community.
>
>- - - - - - - - Cut here - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>#include <stdio.h>
>#include <math.h>
>#include <time.h>
>main()
>{
>double  x,y[1000000];
>int     i;
>time_t  t;
>
>time(&t);
>for (i=0;i<1000000;i++)
>        {
>        x=11.0+(33.5*i)*(33.5*i);
>        y[i]=(sin(3.1*i)+cos(5.1*i))*sqrt(x+exp(3.14*log(x+i)));
>        }
>printf("time=%d\n",time(0)-t);
>}
>- - - - - - - - - - - - Cut here - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
>
>As everybody with eyes can see, the program calculates some stuff
>in a loop storing it in memory (gotta be ~ 8Mb of RAM taken)
>and gives on output the number of seconds spent. And here are the
>results of calculation:
>
>     Computer                             Time spent
>
>486DX2-66 EISA/VL 16Mb RAM
>running Linux (Slackware 1.1.0).
>gcc compiler.
>Single user                               27 sec.
>
>SUN Sparc-2 with >= 16 Mb RAM

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

From: bob@rbm01.ci.net (Bob Martin)
Subject: Re: NEEDED: Info on LInux and VLB controllers
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 02:28:38 GMT

amaral@fnala.fnal.gov wrote:
: Hi ,
:       I saw a lot of manufacturers announcing systems with VLB IDE or VLB
: SCSI controllers. Does anyone have Linux working with this sort of controller ?

:       Thanks for any info,

:                               J.Amaral
:                               amaral@fnal.fnal.gov
I just upgraded my IDE to a VLb controller with I/O.
2 IDE drives , 2 Floppies , 2 serial ports (16550a) , parallel and game port.
works fine. Ordered it from Treasure Chest computers, check Computer Shopper.
-- 

bob martin   
bob@rbm01.ci.net 

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

From: ftlofaro@unlv.edu (Frank Lofaro)
Subject: Bug in tty cooked read EOF handling
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 93 04:32:21 GMT

I found what I believe to be a bug in the way tty input is handled in 
cooked (normal) mode.

On most un*x systems, typing EOF when there are unread characters
performs a (useful) push function, the read returns immediately the
characters waiting, but an EOF is not sent. (An EOF is sent if there
are no characters waiting).

However, on Linux, if EOF is typed when characters are waiting, if
after a read call there are zero characters waiting, then a read will
return zero, not block. It essentially acts like other un*xes would
had you pressed EOF twice. It does do the right thing (returns a partial
buffer), if less characters are waiting than asked for.

It seems Linux goes along and tries to satisfy the reads, and blindly
returns zero when that is how many characters are left after the last
read returned, despite the fact there were characters waiting when EOF
was pushed. It seems that the partial read stops a successive read
from occuring.

Perhaps there is an off-by-one error somewhere?

Example:

SunOS: type dd=4, enter 12 characters, press ctrl-d. dd does not quit

Linux: It _does_ quit. (but not if on substituted a non-multiple of 4
for the 12).

Admittedly, ConvexOS and Ultrix do the same thing as Linux.

NeXTmach does something totally ridiculous, if there are characters
waiting, it ignores one EOF, then treat the second like a "push".

Is there a POSIX or other standard which will show what the "right"
thing to do is?


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

From: keith@ksmith.com (Keith Smith)
Subject: Xwindows Terminal
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 93 03:49:06 GMT

In article <755204228snx@egger-uk.demon.co.uk>,
Charles Gillanders <chaz@egger-uk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Erm, whilst on this subject does anyone know if its possible to get X to start 
>WITHOUT a display,  I know this sounds silly but I have a friend who has an 
>X-term and would like to get the X-term to use the linux box as an X server, 
>but he doesn't want the server to be messing around with X actually on screen 
>if you see what I mean....

Ummm,  An X-term should already BE an Xserver ..

>
>So the question is it possible to start up an X server without any client 
>display on the PC and then access that server from an X term.

The Linux X server is for IBM-PC harware running Linux only.  You can't
run a Linux X server on a Brand-X X terminal.

The X-terminal should already _BE_ the X server, ie, the server code
needs to be running on the TERMINAL not the CPU unless you have one of
the less expensive terminals, that require the host CPU to act as the
server.

In the case that the X-terminal _is_ the server but must upload terminal
specific software (binaries) over the ethernet, you have to have the boot
binary for the specific terminal in question on some net machine that
will accept/transfer the boot request ( just like some network printers ).

In the case of a dumb X terminal the server software will be SPECIFIC to
that terminal and will come with a binary specific to the platform it is
running on, Like the WYSE X5 driver for SCO or the WYSE X5 for SUN or
whatever.

Once the X-term is running you just run the CLIENTS over the net which
may reside on ANY machine on the network.

One of the Cheapest X-terminals you can buy is a 486/33 with a VLB
Graphics accellerator card 8MB of RAM, and ethernet card, KB, mouse and
nice monitor, running Linux <G>!
-- 
Keith Smith          keith@ksmith.com              5719 Archer Rd.
Digital Designs      BBS 1-919-423-4216            Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201
Somewhere in the Styx of North Carolina ...

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

From: drew@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt)
Subject: Re: Linux Consortium
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 04:38:57 GMT

In article <2e1qn2$dlj@due.uninett.no>,
Magnus Y Alvestad <magnus@skarv.ii.uib.no> wrote:
>In article <2e0b62$on9@snoopy.cis.ufl.edu> kem@prl.ufl.edu (Kelly Murray) writes:
>
>   The best thing to do is put pressure on computer magazines
>   to generate these reviews. Of course, they will only do it
>
>If magazines start reviewing Linux distributions the need for a Review
>group / consortium will disappear. I agree.
>

Wrong.  If magazines provided unbiased, accurate reviews of Linux 
distributions, negative when necessary, there would be no problem.

I've read {car,computer,hunting,etc} magazines that were never negative 
about the products they reviewed, brushing off bugs, poor quality, etc.
when they mentioned them at all 

"Well, the system crashes every day, but other than that the quality 
is fine and I give it a two thumbs up"


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

Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,comp.os.vms,relcom.talk,relcom.fido.su.general
From: fjw105@measurex.com (Frank J. Wood)
Subject: Re: Yet another benchmark results..
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1993 22:56:14 GMT


:     Computer                             Time spent
:
:486DX2-66 EISA/VL 16Mb RAM
:running Linux (Slackware 1.1.0).
:gcc compiler.
:Single user                               27 sec.
:
:SUN Sparc-2 with >= 16 Mb RAM
:running SunOS
:Single user                               69 sec.
:
:DEC VAX with ALPHA chip
:running VMS
:With quite a few users on                 69 sec.
Single user (DEC 3000 Model 400)            9 sec

:SUN-4
:running SunOS
:Single user                               73 sec.
:
:DEC VAXstation 3100
:running VMS
:Single user                               405 sec.
:

HP Apollo
running HP-UX 9.0                           16 sec.
(4 users)

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

From: bill@bhhome.ci.net (Bill Heiser)
Subject: Re: how fast is linux?
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 19:05:46 GMT

miguel@pinon.ccu.uniovi.es (Miguel Alvarez Blanco) writes:

>   Have you heard about dosemu? You definitely don't need to reboot for
>a lot of DOS programs. True, dosemu is still ALPHA, but I've found that
>the only thing I use that doesn't work is CIVILIZATION, a game 8-).

Yup, I've heard of DOSEMU ... but does it run Windows 3.1?  The things
I want (need) to run in DOS are windows-based for the most part.

-- 
Bill Heiser   bill@bhhome.ci.net       heiser@world.std.com

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

From: bill@bhhome.ci.net (Bill Heiser)
Subject: Re: Security
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 19:07:23 GMT

mathias@solomon.technet.sg (Mathias Koerber) writes:

>I am a bit concerned about someone making a Linux Bootdisk (from the
>bootdisk images on ftp.cdrom.com or tsx-11 or so) and then booting from
>there to prnetrate my system. Ok, my PC here can disable floppy boot or 
>even set password in the BIOS, but what about
>other PC's.

No matter what you do - if your MACHINE is not in a Secure Room,
the system is NOT secure.

-- 
Bill Heiser   bill@bhhome.ci.net       heiser@world.std.com

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

Crossposted-To: aus.computers.linux,comp.os.linux.help,comp.windows.x.i386unix
From: fbm@newt.phys.unsw.edu.au (Farrell McKay)
Subject: SURVEY: Graphics card benchmarks under XFree86
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 04:29:54 GMT

These newsgroups carry lots of postings from people asking what graphics
cards to buy as part of a 486 system.  I too have been seeking The Answer.

It would be a big help if there was a complete, comprehensive set of
benchmark results, obtained from running "xbench" on all the main
graphics cards.  Unless I am mistaken, nobody has yet collected such
a database.

I hereby volunteer to collect and collate these figures.

For this to work, I need all you XFree86 users out there to run xbench
on your systems (if you haven't already) and mail the results back to me.
I will summarize and post the results as they become available.
I have included an example form that should cover all the relevant
statistics, i.e. your hardware, your software and the xbench results.
The xbench *summary* results are probably enough for this exercise.
If you consider any other data to be relevant, feel free to include it too.

XBench is available by ftp from hundreds of archive sites around the world,
e.g.
        sunsite.unc.edu:/pub/Linux/X11/X-servers/s3/xbench.tar.gz
        ftp.physics.su.oz.au:/xbench/xbench.tar.gz
        lth.se:/pub/netnews/sources.x/volume3/xbench/...

and many more (check out archie for your nearest site).
It includes instructions about compiling and running the program,
and some example results.  To run the benchmark, read the README file,
edit the script.run file, then type:
        xset s off                      (turn off the screen saver)
        xbench -ask < script.run > results/YOURFILE     (go get a coffee)
        awk -f scripts/xstones.awk < results/YOURFILE

Lets see who has the fastest, hottest XFree86 system around.

Farrell.
--
Farrell McKay.     Email: fbm@newt.phys.unsw.edu.au      Phone: +61 2 339-3683
================================================================================
CPU (386/486 SX/DX)     :
CPU Clock Speed         :
Motherboard Memory      :

Card Vendor             :
Card Model              : 
Card Bus (ISA/EISA/VLB) : 
Chipset                 : 
Video Memory            : 
Memory Type (DRAM/VRAM) : 
Memory Speed            : 
Clock Chip              : 
RAMDAC                  : 

Operating system        :
OS version              :
XFree86 release/version :
XFree86 server used     :

XBench lines            :
XBench fills            :
XBench blits            :
XBench arcs             :
XBench texts            :
XBench complex          :
XBench xstones          :
Time to run xbench      :
================================================================================

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

From: jbm@speedy.login.qc.ca
Subject: Re: Networking Linux
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1993 03:15:50 GMT

garrett@netcom.com (Garrett D'Amore) writes:

>Terry Dawson (terryd@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU) wrote:
>:> eremenko@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Paul Eremenko) writes:


>:> >Does anyone know whether Linux supports a 
>:> >3Com Ethernet II or III network card?
>:> >Also, is it possible for it to directly
>:> >interface with Novell Netware? Thanks.


>You can interface Linux with Netware, but you must use the NFS services
>that Netware supports.  I believe there is a hefty extra charge for
>the NFS services software, btw.  Contact Novell to be certain.  I know
>that I had a large Novell network with Linux workstations as some of the
>clients.  (As well as MS-DOG, Macinsloth, and Ultrucks boxes. :^)  There
>is a shareware (?) product out called "charon" and "pegasus" that allows
>Netware to act as a mail/print server, but it doesn't help Netware
>provide file services.  I haven't actually used it, so I can't give you
>any more details than that.  Sorry.

ah, this struck a bell.  There is a _free_ way to access the novell file
server, but the penalty is that you need a spare PC.  take the spare PC,
install an ethernet card and DOS.  Install a packet driver from the clarkson
archives, and then the Novell drivers.  Log the PC into the Novell server.
Next, install and run "soss" (also available from clarkson) and export all
the Novell volumes that you wish via NFS.  The novell file systems can then
be mounted on your Linux box(es).  This works because the clarkson packet
drivers allow for a dual protocol stack on the dos PC, which will translate
from IPX to TCP/IP via netware and soss.  not very fast or efficient, but
*it works*.  

John McCluskey


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


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