Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #600
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:     Thu, 27 Jan 94 17:44:50 EST

Linux-Misc Digest #600, Volume #1                Thu, 27 Jan 94 17:44:50 EST

Contents:
  Re: CAS for Linux (was Re: Mathematica for Linux) (Allan Adler)
  piggy.o vs. zSystem (Allan Adler)
  images, xtract, etc... (Allan Adler)
  Re: Slackware needs a shadow package! (Jonathan Buzzard)
  Re: IDE > 500MB? (Mark Lord)
  Re: [WANTED] pixmap editor for fvwm icons available? (Thomas Uhl)
  Re: [Q] Pentium or 486DX2.... (Jean-Paul Chia)
  Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite (John F. Haugh II)
  Re: Slackware needs a shadow package! (John F. Haugh II)
  Re: New Linux release (Jonathan Magid)
  Re: Most stable filesystem? (Dhaliwal Bikram Singh)
  Linux as a programming development environement (Matthew Paul Cline)
  Re: Linux as X-Terminal? No! (Mark A. Davis)
  Re: Slackware needs a shadow package! (Douglas Muir)
  Re: Linux as X-Terminal? No! (Amancio Hasty Jr)
  Would mailx+sendmail work over term? (Ismail)
  2-4 port 16550AFN serial cards, recommendations? ("Eric Jeschke")
  ATI GUP r6 crashes xv (r3 not!) (Gregor Hoffleit)

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

From: ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler)
Crossposted-To: sci.math.symbolic
Subject: Re: CAS for Linux (was Re: Mathematica for Linux)
Date: 26 Jan 94 13:45:09



Incidentally,  Macaulay compiles easily under Linux and runs just
fine. For me, this is particularly gratifying, since until now I have
had to depend on ports of Macaulay to MSDOS that did not include
the source code for the port. Now I can use the original source
code and even run it on a UNIX system for free!

On the other hand, some of the individuals who ported Macaulay
to MSDOS added imporovements of their own. It might be desirable to
add these to the general distribution. Here are a couple that I know of in the
case of Wallach's port:

(1) One can specify an amount of swap space that the program will use if it 
    doesn't have enough memory for the computation. Under MSDOS, what happens
    is that the program will allocate a file of that size and just use it
    the way it would use memory when it runs out of memory.
(2) Better control of crashes, in that the state of the computation is
    periodically saved, with a backup copy kept in case the crash occurs
    while the computation is being saved (actually, I don't know whether
    Wallach implemented that after I suggested it to him).
(3) Better communicaiton with the program to find out how and what it is
    doing. Presently it just goes off into hyperspace and doesn't
    communicate until it is good and ready,making it hard to tell whether 
    it has hung the system. (Again this is just a suggestion. I don't
    know if it was implemented.)
(4) Rewrite the program in cweb so that others can study and maintain it.
    (No one wants to do this).


Allan Adler
ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu

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

From: ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler)
Subject: piggy.o vs. zSystem
Date: 26 Jan 94 13:58:34


Maybe this is a dumb question, but here goes...


I am running linux 0.99 pl9-1 in SLS 1.02. I know there are more recent
versions and have done my bit trying to install them. For the moment, I
feel I know when I am well off. Meanwhile, I am trying to read the source
code for the linux kernel.

In the subdirectory zBoot, the makefile seems to build zSystem out of piggy.o
and also seems to build piggy.o out of zSystem. How is this possible?

Allan Adler
ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu



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

From: ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler)
Subject: images, xtract, etc...
Date: 26 Jan 94 14:10:08



Part of the linux source code consists of tools for dealing with
binary images of floppy disks. The simplest example is the
construction of the zdisk, using the dd comand  to actually write
the zdisk from the binary image. In the Makefile, this is something
like

dd -bs=8192 if=zImage of=/dev/fd0

Thus, the file zImage is a binary image of the linux boot floppy.


If we are going to have binary image files  (BIF) which are in some
sense isomorphic to floppy diskettes, then it seems logical to have
tools which operate on this BIFs and simulate the operations that we
are accustomed to performing on floppies. So my naive guess is that
this is what some of the tools in the linux kernel distribution
do. I would guess that the program in zBoot/xtract.c is a program
that reads the BIF as one would read a diskette and print the output
on stout, i.e. it seems like the cat command. Similarly, dbuild
seems like a command to copy some files from one diskette to another,
except that it has to create the other diskette in the process,
along with its boot sector.

I will be the first to admit that I don't know what I am talking about.
On the ohter hand, I don't think that what I am saying is entirely
without foundation.

Can someone who understand these things better explain the true analogy?

Secondly, if these tools do what I say they do, it seems to me that
they are of independent interest. In that case, it might be worthwhile
to document them and package them separately.

Allan Adler
ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu


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

From: phyjab1@phy.hw.ac.uk (Jonathan Buzzard)
Subject: Re: Slackware needs a shadow package!
Reply-To: phyjab1@phy.hw.ac.uk
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 22:09:38 GMT


>2)     More importantly, the shadow package is not under the GNU copyleft. 
>The shadow copyright states that you _cannot_ charge one penny more than the
>cost of duplication for the package.  This means that the package cannot be
>included if a fee is charged for duplication of Slackware if any costs over
>and above what the disks or CD's cost is added, no matter how reasonable.  

 Does it? A Linux distribution contains much more than a shadow password suite.
So for floppy distributions that are being sold for money, just itemise the bill so 
that there is a seperate charge for the floppy containing the shadow password
stuff; at cost. hey presto you have not charged more than media costs for the 
shadow password stuff. If you want to charge for support itemize it seperatly
on the bill and again your problem goes away.

For CD and tape distributions sell the boot floppy at a high price and charge 
strict duplication costs for the tape or CD. The CD/tape is only availiable if
you purchase the boot floppy, and again itemize the bill appropriatly.

Lateral thinking is all that is needed. Of course for FTPing the distribution this
problem does not exist.

JAB.


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

From: mlord@bnr.ca (Mark Lord)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,comp.periphs.scsi
Subject: Re: IDE > 500MB?
Date: 26 Jan 1994 17:08:41 GMT

In article <2i5gda$l00@sun.rhbnc.ac.uk> karsten@lt6.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk writes:
>
>Who told you this nonsense?
>
>I have a Conner 540MB IDE drive on my normal (VLB) IDE-controller and can access
>all of it (1076 tracks) without any problems.
>The problem with this value being bigger than 1024 applies - as far as I know-
>only to old and stupid systems like Messy-Dos. I could not use the part >1024
>under DR-DOS, but it works perfectly under Linux.

The limitation applies to any PC software that uses the standard BIOS 
disk I/O routines.  The parameters passed to those routines do not have 
enough bits for addressing cyls greater than (0..1023).

In addition to MS-DOS, the linux loader LILO is also affected by this limit,
as it boots via the BIOS.  Once booted, LINUX itself takes over and talks 
directly to the bare metal, using 16-bit cylinder numbers for MFM/IDE/RLL drives.
-- 
mlord@bnr.ca    Mark Lord       BNR Ottawa,Canada       613-763-7482

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

From: uhl@sun1.rz.fh-heilbronn.de (Thomas Uhl)
Subject: Re: [WANTED] pixmap editor for fvwm icons available?
Date: 25 Jan 1994 22:35:29 GMT

Look for the xpm-contrib package. It contains some usefull tools for handling xpm. There is also a pixmap editor included. Alternatively you ca use xpaint which can read and write files in XPM format.

Thomas
-- 
===============================================================================
Thomas Uhl                                          uhl@sun1.rz.fh-heilbronn.de
Medizinische Informatik (Heilbronn/Heidelberg)           thomas_uhl@wue.maus.de
===============================================================================

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

From: jean-paul@garion.it.com.au (Jean-Paul Chia)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.windows.x.i386unix
Subject: Re: [Q] Pentium or 486DX2....
Date: 26 Jan 1994 06:31:10 +0800

Chris Bradshaw (chris@jbasp.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: Greetings Netters....
: I am on the (steep) verge of buying my first PC, and am trying to buy the
: best system for use with Linux and Xfree. I was wondering if anyone could
: give me some advice or opinions on the two machines I currently have in mind.
: The first machine I am considering is:
:         Gateway 2000 P5 Pentium (256k cache) system with PCI local bus,
:         15" monitor,
:         424 Mb IDE drive,
:         16Mb RAM,
:         PCI LB ATI Ultra Pro 2Mb accelerated graphics adapter.
:         Price=~#2,300 ex VAT
Well.. If you can afford that.. then :) I won't say it...
No.. You would need more RAM than that.. :)

: The other machine I am considering is:
:         Vale 486DX2 66 Mhz (256k cache) with VESA Local Bus,
:         15" monitor,
:         450 Mb IDE drive with a 2 Mb VLB caching controller,
:         16Mb RAM,
:         VLB Prolink Cirrus Logic 5428 1 Mb acclerated graphics adapter.
:         Price=~#2,000 ex VAT
I like Pentuim much better.. :) Once again more RAM..
The more the batter..

: As far as I am aware, all of the above hardware is supported by Linux
: and Xfree. The two points I am most concerned about are the disk and
: the display adapter. Are there PCI based local bus disk caching controllers
: on the horizon and if so, will they be supported by Linux? If the answer is
: no to either of these questions, then if I go for the 486, will the 2Mb VLB
: caching controller make a great difference when using Linux & Xfree?
: As regards the display adapters, is either of the above cards considered
: better/faster/more suitable for use with Linux or Xfree? Can Xfree support
: the maximum resolutions of either of these cards? At 1024x768x256, is either
: one of these cards significantly better or faster under Xfree?

: Finally, given that Pentium & PCI are relatively new technologies, in the
: long term it is reasonable to expect that 486's and VLB might/will be
: superceded by these new systems. Would it be worthwhile to get the Pentium,
: and add things like a hard disk caching controller later?

: If I sound confused....its because I am. Apart from the above questions,
: I would really appreciate anyones opinions or thoughts on the pro's and con's
: of going for either one of the above machines. If requested, or it seems
: worthwhile, I will post a summary of my findings. Any and all replies are
: as always greatly appreciated. Thanx a million in advance.

: --

:  Chris Bradshaw......a potential buyer losing his mind.....
:  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
:  JBA Software Products Ltd.,  |   Internet:   chris@jbasp.demon.co.uk
:  Eagle House,                 |
:  Studley,                     |   Voice:      (0527) 854525
:  Warwickshire B80 7EN,        |   FAX:        (0527) 857146
:  England.                     |
:  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
     _  Jean-Paul Chia  ___           _
 _  | |___ __ _ _ _ ___| _ \__ _ _  _| |
| |_| / -_) _` | ' \___|  _/ _` | || | |
 \___/\___\__,_|_||_|  |_| \__,_|\_,_|_| ___ _    _
12 Guinevere Way,        +61-9-447-6261 / __| |_ (_)__ _
Carine, WA 6020     jpchia@DIALix.oz.au| (__| ' \| / _` |
Australia    jean-paul@garion.it.com.au \___|_||_|_\__,_|

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

From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 14:50:25 GMT

In article <1994Jan22.202454.19022@newstand.syr.edu> lruppert@iguana.syr.EDU (Ludwig Van.) writes:
>Clarity on this one would be appreciated.  Theft is a pretty strong
>term.  Exactly what was "stolen", and to whom was it sold?  I have a
>very richly featured Linux distribution and not one single package was
>sold to me. I grabbed the package in its entirety off of the net for
>free, and the package contains programs that all have their sources
>available for free on the net.  Last I checked, taking things that
>were free and redistributing them for free was not considered
>thievery, perhaps my dictionary is out of date.

To the best of my knowledge, Debian Linux is one such example.  They
took Shadow code, and in violation of the copyright, sold that code
to others.  Furthermore, they have been completely unwilling to reach
any terms as to licensing Shadow.

If you copied it for free from the net, you've done nothing wrong.  If
you were given a copy for free, the person giving you the copy did
nothing wrong.  But if someone sold you Shadow without my consent, they
are in violation of US copyright laws.
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
The P.C. Movement killed the 1st Amendment, the Brady Bill the 2nd, the WOsD
got the 4th and 5th, political activism the 9th and 10th.  Not much left, eh?

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

From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Slackware needs a shadow package!
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 14:53:28 GMT

In article <1994Jan25.220938.28071@cee.hw.ac.uk> phyjab1@phy.hw.ac.uk writes:
>For CD and tape distributions sell the boot floppy at a high price and charge 
>strict duplication costs for the tape or CD. The CD/tape is only availiable if
>you purchase the boot floppy, and again itemize the bill appropriatly.

If you try this, you will get a nasty note from me.  If you want to sell
Shadow for $1, but gee, you've got to buy this $100 CD-ROM first, you will
never be allowed to sell Shadow.

But it's a nice try -- others have suggested it first, tho.
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
The P.C. Movement killed the 1st Amendment, the Brady Bill the 2nd, the WOsD
got the 4th and 5th, political activism the 9th and 10th.  Not much left, eh?

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

From: jem@sunSITE.unc.edu (Jonathan Magid)
Subject: Re: New Linux release
Date: 25 Jan 1994 23:12:42 GMT

In article <2w1ogc1w165w@hudlink.hoboken.nj.us>,
Edward Powers <edp@hudlink.hoboken.nj.us> wrote:
>
>can any-one tell me if and when the new
>Linux release will come out...
>I forgot the name, but every one is talking 
>about it

I assume you are talking about the Debian release.  Ian Murdock is
about to release the last beta version; I assume it will be
available soon after that.  

cheers,
jem.


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

From: a336dhal@cdf.toronto.edu (Dhaliwal Bikram Singh)
Subject: Re: Most stable filesystem?
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 23:08:04 GMT

In article <1994Jan24.230931.1754@pe1chl.ampr.org> pe1chl@rabo.nl writes:
>In <1994Jan24.161536@cs.man.ac.uk> chardi@cs.man.ac.uk (Ian Chard) writes:
>
>>Hi,
>
>>I've been using ext2 for a while now, and I've had two filesystem crashes
>>(which might have been something to do with a fault in my version of shutdown).
>
>I have been using ext2 since it went into the standard kernel, and I still
>have to see my first filesystem crash...   Maybe this has something to do
>with the fact that I always have a recent tape backup at hand?  could this
>influence file system stability?

I have been using the ext2 filesystem everyday on a small partition
for the last year+, and I have never had any problems.  I run 
e2fsck once a week maybe., and I always use eithre shutdown, or reboot,
and if I need to shutdown quick I sync and then flick the switch.

I have also had a few power outages and my system checked out just fine.

keep using ext2,  I don't know enough about xiafs though.
(is it faster??)

-bik
>
>Rob
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| Rob Janssen                | AMPRnet:   rob@pe1chl.ampr.org           |
>| e-mail: pe1chl@rabo.nl     | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8UTR.#UTR.NLD.EU     |
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

From: mpcline@cats.ucsc.edu (Matthew Paul Cline)
Subject: Linux as a programming development environement
Date: 26 Jan 1994 22:01:19 GMT


        I am thinking of intalling Linux on my PC because, in my
limited experience, it is much better for developing software than
MS-DOS is.  But then, my experience is limited, so I'd like to
ask several questions.

1) On UNIX, I use the combination of gcc, gdb, vi/emacs, plus the
   standard UNIX tools.  Is there any MS-DOS programming environment that
   is as godd/better than this?

2) If I install Linux, I'll be using gcc, gdb, vi, and X with just
   a few X apps; I won't be installing any network software.  If I
   put this (plus standard swap) all on a 120 meg drive, how much space
   will I have left?

3) I'd like to do object oriented programming.  How good is the Linux
   distribution of g++?

Thanks in advance.
-- 
Matthew Cline        | Coffe:     The world's most perfect drink
                     | Pizza:     The world's most perfect food
mpcline@cats.ucsc.edu| Chocolate: The worlds most perfect desert

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

Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.i386unix
From: mark@taylor.wyvern.com (Mark A. Davis)
Subject: Re: Linux as X-Terminal? No!
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 17:54:26 GMT

becker@super.org (Donald J. Becker) writes:

>In article <1994Jan22.045853.14352@taylor.wyvern.com>,
>Mark A. Davis <mark@taylor.wyvern.com> wrote:

>>those in.  Network loads are usually less than most workstation setups.
>>Xterminals usually produce a number of small packets.  Computers, on the
>>other hand, are typically transfering much larger files (though more
>>infrequently) which causes more collisions.  This does not always hold,

>False: transferring large packets results in far fewer collisions.

And much less window of opportunity for other packets to get out....

>The ethernet collision window is 512 bits at the start of the packet.  (Small
>packets must be padded to be at least this long, so that the controller
>doesn't miss detecting a collision that has occurred.)  Large packets have
>exactly the same risk of collision during the first 512 bits, but have
>almost no collision risk for the rest of the packet.  Thus using large
>packets will almost certainly result in fewer collisions per unit time, as
>well as more effectively use the network bandwidth.

But I am comparing the minium packet size to those 100's of times larger-
the overall picture should reflect that too.  Maybe it is a wash in the
long run?

>>but many sites have a fairly large amount of NFS mounting on workstations,
>>causing lots of overhead.  But everyone should keep in mind that Xterminals
>>*DO* put load on the hosts; one must examine this carefully.

>The usual result is a set of large, expensive hosts connected to moderately
>priced X terminals.  The total cost is typically greater than workstation
>networks, especially when compared to low-cost Linux workstations.

Not really.  Often they are set up with several smaller hosts rather than
large.  Besides, most all "real" systems will have one or more "server"
class machines anyway.  Comparing a total peer-to-peer solution is not
very realistic for today's businesses.

>The administrative burden is less with X terminals, but it would be even lower
>with character terminals hooked to a slow mainframe.

Indeed.  I don't think anyone would argue that.

>Do your site's users
>demand modern performance levels, or do the system administrators demand the
>simplest possible system to tend?  It a classic money-time-performance
>tradeoff.

Exactly, it is a balancing act.  We address several different types of needs in
differing but converging ways.  Hey, we still have 80 or so text terminals.
One really can get a lot of work done on a modern Wyse160 at high speeds
with extremely low overhead, low cost, and low administration.  But things
change :)  I guess the idea is to get the most out of any type of system.
If $350 ASCII terminals are a part of that picture, I certainly think that could
be just as logical a move for some areas as a $5000 workstation + overhead
in other areas.

>Every time I look at the market, I'm amazed at the high price of X
>terminals.  High end models approach the price of low-end traditional
>workstations, and are far more than a typical Linux/X workstation.  The
>mid-range models are about the same as a typical Linux machine with the same
>display and memory.

I would argue the display issue.  Normally, most Xterminals will have a
superior display than what is typically factored into a clone.  And don't
forget performance issues.

>I would have thought that by avoiding the disk and not
>having to adhere to PC standards (everything on the slow ISA bus, dozens of
>VGA modes, multisync, etc.) X terminals could be made far cheaper and
>faster, 

So would I.  Xterminal prices have been dropping....  it is all in supply/
demand.  There is more competition in the Xterminal market now, and more
demand.  Both will push prices down even further.

>but the mass production of PC components seems to have won.

Hmm, I don't think there is a "win" or a "loose".  Xterminals have been
around for quite awhile.  Xterminal sales are just now going mad because people
understand how to aply them properly.  Both markets are dynamic, not
static.  There is nothing to "win" or "loose".  In the past year, it is
likely that % sales increases of Xterminals is probably higher than % sales
increases of clones.  Same can be said for % price dropping.  It is still
too early to really know what is going to happen in the long run.


What I don't understand why someone doesn't come out with "an Xterminal on a
card", which could be an Xserver in ROM, combined with possibly video or
ethernet on a single 16bit ISA card.  One could then plug it into any
diskless/floppyless/small clone and "poof"- Xterminal.  Granted, the
components would probably be of lower quality and slower than most current
Xterminals, but it could really change the market.  One could capitalize
on typical clone mass production prices for the monitor, keyboard, mouse,
case, and PS.

How about a 14" color, 4MB, 50,000 Xstone, $850 version of the above?  See-
sounds interesting... (I think it can be done).

-- 
  /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  | Mark A. Davis    | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 |
  | Sys.Administrator|  Computer Services   | mark@taylor.wyvern.com   .uucp |
  \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/

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

From: dmuir@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Douglas Muir)
Subject: Re: Slackware needs a shadow package!
Date: 27 Jan 1994 03:33:21 GMT

> >In article <1994Jan25.220938.28071@cee.hw.ac.uk
> phyjab1@phy.hw.ac.uk writes: 
>>For CD and tape distributions sell the boot floppy at a high price and charge
>>strict duplication costs for the tape or CD. The CD/tape is only availiable
>>if you purchase the boot floppy, and again itemize the bill appropriatly.
>
>If you try this, you will get a nasty note from me.  If you want to sell
>Shadow for $1, but gee, you've got to buy this $100 CD-ROM first, you will
>never be allowed to sell Shadow.
>
>But it's a nice try -- others have suggested it first, tho.

Just curious.  What is wrong with doing what this person suggests?  Would the
problem go away if he offered a separate package which was just shadow, and
charged only duplication costs?  I don't understand why he can't bundle
the shadow package with other pieces, and make his profit on those other
pieces, and still charge only duplication costs for shadow.

-Doug Muir






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

Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.i386unix
From: hasty@netcom.com (Amancio Hasty Jr)
Subject: Re: Linux as X-Terminal? No!
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 18:00:47 GMT

In article <1994Jan26.140307.21474@taylor.wyvern.com> mark@taylor.wyvern.com (Mark A. Davis) writes:
>kubla@goofy.zdv.Uni-Mainz.DE (Dominik Kubla) writes:
>
>>Using Linux as X-Terminal might be useful, even if a real X-Terminal might
>>be faster. Consider at site like a University, where lots of PC's are
>>accessible for the user but only a small number of X-Terminals (like here
>>at U-Mainz). What are you going to tell the departments? "Dump your new
>>Nevell/Windows cluster and buy X-Terminals"? That won't make Unix/X11 more
>>popular! If you say instead: "Hell, we got this little exe file which will
>>turn your PC's into unix X-terminals if need is, please install it on your
>>server ..." That will bring a whole new bunch of users to Unix/X11 ...
>
>Extremely correct.  One should always make the best use of whatever
>equipment is available.
>
>>That's the way to think! Using a diskless linux kernel to start a X-server
>>on a PC in a LAN is far cheaper than buying additional color x-terminals,
>
>However, that can be incorrect.  The average cost of a decently configured
>clone to run Linux/X/ether/etc will still be more than most low end color
>Xterminals.  But your diskless/floppyless suggestion does make it really
>hard to match the prices.....

For about $2000 you can get a 17" color monitor and a 486DX33 based system
can you get an Xterminal which will match that?

>Still, there will still be somewhat higher administrative costs with your
>suggestion (research, install).  Although the diskless/boot Linux for Xserver
>idea is actually the first time I have heard that suggestion!!!  It makes a
>lot of sense and is the first realistic suggestion given to turn a clone
>into an Xterminal without the need for the extreme overhead of local
>media (IE: cost, installation, maintenance, backup, viruses, security,
>non approved local software, etc).
>


There has been several bootp versions for the *BSD systems for a long
time now. Have not heard anyone of trying to blast a ROM. Not sure
why. Just post on comp.os.386bsd.questions if you like to find out
more about.

Amancio
-- 
FREE unix, gcc, tcp/ip, X, open-look, interviews, tcl/tk, MIME, midi, sound
at  freebsd.cdrom.com:/pub/FreeBSD
Amancio Hasty,  Consultant |
Home: (415) 495-3046       |  
e-mail hasty@netcom.com    |  ftp-site depository of all my work:    
ahasty@cisco.com           |  sunvis.rtpnc.epa.gov:/pub/386bsd/X

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
From: et@madmax.aa.nps.navy.mil (Ismail)
Subject: Would mailx+sendmail work over term?
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 17:58:00 GMT





I tried using mailx+sendmail with term but I did not
get anywhere.  I got both of the binaries from
sunsite.  mailx seems to work fine, but mails I sent
are stored in the mail queue and stay there forever.
I even could not get sendmail up running as a deamon.
It executes without any error messages but I don't see
it running with ps command.  Do I need to run anything
else to be able to run it as a deamon? I do not have
any network stuff like net-2 or uucp installed.

I just used tredir 25 25 with term as stated in
/etc/services.  My linux is pl10 and I am running on a
486 machine.

I would appreciate a short summary of what and what
not to do's from someone out there who are using this
combination.

tuncer




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

From: "Eric Jeschke" <jeschke@cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: 2-4 port 16550AFN serial cards, recommendations?
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 13:31:48 -0500

I'm stuck with embedded VLSI 8250 on my motherboard so I want
to get a 2-4 port 16550AFN card.  Preferably one in the vicinity
of $100 US or under.  I know the AST fourport is supported 
under Linux.  What is a good price for one of these?  Can anyone
recommend any other cards *that you are using under Linux 
successfully at 56K or above*.

I know this has been discussed before, but humor me.  If anyone
has saved an archive of previous discussion on this topic please
mail me.

-- 
Eric Jeschke                      |          Indiana University
jeschke@cs.indiana.edu            |     Computer Science Department
eric%marmot@moose.cs.indiana.edu  |

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

From: flight@mathi.uni-heidelberg.de (Gregor Hoffleit)
Subject: ATI GUP r6 crashes xv (r3 not!)
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 94 16:37:49 GMT

Has anybody an explanation for this ? A friend of mine has an ATI GUP 
revision 6. Linux crashes when he calls the Visual Schnautzer in xv. It 
just halts the machine. Now I led him my ATI rev.3 and it runs without 
any problems. Back to the rev.6: kazoong!

On my computer everything works fine with both cards.

We have Xfree 2.0, Linux pl14. He has an 486DX2/66 with UMC chipset, I 
have an SIS chipset.

Any hints welcome.

        Gregor

| Gregor Hoffleit     admin MATHInet / contact HeidelNeXT |
| MAIL: Mathematisches Institut   PHONE: (49)6221 56-5771 |
|       INF 288, 69120 Heidelberg / Germany  FAX: 56-3812 |
| EMAIL: flight@mathi.uni-heidelberg.de (NeXTmail)        |

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


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