Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #873
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:     Sat, 26 Mar 94 07:13:07 EST

Linux-Misc Digest #873, Volume #1                Sat, 26 Mar 94 07:13:07 EST

Contents:
  Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring (Byron A Jeff)
  Re: 3 CD jana offer-- Why would you guys deal w/ that ? (Mario Nascimento)
  Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring (Byron A Jeff)
  Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring (Byron A Jeff)
  Anyone running Linux on AST Power Exec 386SL laptop ? (Henry Y Chung)
  Re: Linux on a portable (Whay S. Lee)
  Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring (Byron A Jeff)
  Re: How big is the Linux community? (Dan Wilder)
  Re: UnZip does not support PKZIP decryption (Dan Wilder)
  Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring (Byron A Jeff)
  Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring (Matt Welsh)
  Re: PCI bus cards (graphics and SCSI) which work? (Terry Lambert)
  hosts.allow doesn't seem to work properly (Clint Olsen)

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

Crossposted-To: news.groups
From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 07:16:20 GMT

In article <2mtag6$48i@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
Thomas Koenig <ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>Rajappa Iyer (rsi@netcom.com) wrote in article <rsiCn6yE0.qq@netcom.com>:
>
>>Let us just step back a little and look at this problem in
>>perspective. c.o.l.* is just one heirarchy in Usenet. And surprising
>>as it may seem to you, people do read and contribute to more than one
>>group. If I have to remember a different set of rules for posting on
>>c.o.l.* as opposed to, say, alt.california, it is entire conceivable
>>that I might forget the keyword requirement.
>
>A quick glance at the newsgroup, every time before you post, will 
>very probably be enough.  You won't have to think for long before
>remembering, I believe ;-)
>
>Don't forget, the keywords should go to the beginning of the Subject
>line, where they are hardest to miss.
>
>>When I make posts to a newsgroup, I do not
>>expect an unsolicited piece of mail because I could not or did not set
>>some of the header fields.
>
>I would agree if the Keywords field was to be used, but everybody
>can set their Subject line without much trouble.

Well I've finally figured out that the pro/con people on this subject are
arguing apples and gorillas:

pro - it's easy! it's helpful! it's simple! Why can't we get along?
con - it's invasive! it's restrictive! it's junk mail! it violates my
      rights! I have no choice! Mess with my newsgroup and I pull out my 
      AK47! 
      

Look, Thomas, Ian, Matt. We all understand that the keyword subject lines
and auto mailing daemon will help. The problem is that by retroactively
imposing it on an existing newsgroup you'll make a lot of enemies very
quickly.

Just for a minute stop dealing with how helpful the idea is and deal with
the actual impact of each and every user that posts into that newsgroup
forevermore. It creates an imposition, it has consequences to posting,
and most importantly it relieves the poster of the right they originally
had: the right to post however they wanted without repercussions. They have
no choice to post like that anymore. YOU CAN'T DO THIS IN A UNMODERATED
NEWSGROUP!

So please please please consider my proposal: one (and for now only one)
new moderated newsgroup with all the restrictions you wish. Now consider
the benefits:

- The naysayers like me are appeased. The original newsgroup is untouched
  and intact. No one's rights are impinged upon.
- The yeasayers like you ( and really me for that matter) now have a place
  where all is quiet and calm with no noise and balmy skies.
- You now have a charter that states clearly what the rules are posting
  are. I can then choose if I wish to subject myself to those rules.
- You have moderation (by program still) that will enforce the rules.
- And most importantly everyone has choice. Everyone can vote with their
  feet. I for one would no longer answer any questions in comp.os.linux.help
  if this new group were created. You can do the same (citing correctly
  that it's too much a hassle.)

Yes there would be quote a few unanswered questions in comp.os.linux.help.
However the answers to most are published anyway and those that aren't
would quickly find their way to the new group. Anyway there are a bunch
of unanswered questions in comp.os.linux.help anyway because of the traffic.

Ian had the right idea initially: moderate the questions. Impose structure.
The only mistake was to impose it on a currently unmoderated group. A new
group will correct that mistake.

"CyberSpace is infinite. Cut out your own niche! - me"

BAJ
---
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332   Internet: byron@cc.gatech.edu

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

From: mario@seas.smu.edu (Mario Nascimento)
Subject: Re: 3 CD jana offer-- Why would you guys deal w/ that ?
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 03:44:47 GMT

<bobp@missmarple.east.sun.com> wrote:
>...
>This is the response I got when I pressed for an explanation of why they are
>charging $14.95 to ship 3 little cd's.  I still chuckle when I read it.
>...
>==================================================
>From @QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA:3JJN3@QUCDN.QUEENSU.CA Mon Mar 21 23:36 EST 1994
>From: 3JJN3@QUCDN.QueensU.CA
>Subject:      Re: NEW PRODUCT : 3 Linux CD's and a T-Shirt for $29.
>To: bobp@missmarple.East.Sun.COM
>
>A E-Mail to christina@jana.com should solved your question;. Any way
>the reson we charge 14.95 is because we have to ship UPS, plus
>the T-Shirt is free even if you send the CD back. Also there
>is lot of work in handeling the CD. Also one other reson is
>at 29.95 for 3 CD's we do not make much money so we have to make it
>some whare. Oh there is one more reson, about 50% of the people do not
>pay on time too.

I just wonder why after all complains and reports we've seen here about Jay's
behavior, why would anyone deal with them ? I just can't understand 8-/ It is
a good price indeed, but my time and preventing potential head(ache) are worth 
much more.

Besides, he says that shipping is $14.95 because of UPS (not !), and because
the T-shirt is (?!?!) free %-/, and then instead of making deserved money on
the goodie he makes it faking a shipping price, that's is IMHO, dishonest +
unethical for a to-be-respected-someday-perhaps seller. The net will be Jay's 
judge. 

If you're listening Jay, I'm sorry to say that, it is very true I never dealt
with you, and never will while your reputation remains as it is now. Sorry,
very sorry for you. Best wishes of improvement.

Mario.

PS.: Just wondering now, has anybody _ever_ saw someone backing up or support-
ing Jay's products, company, attitudes ? I never did, unfortunately.

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

Crossposted-To: news.groups
From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 07:46:50 GMT

In article <1994Mar26.012706.26098@cs.cornell.edu>,
Matt Welsh <mdw@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <Cn7E4I.5xx@psu.edu> cgschott@psu.edu (Carl Schott) writes:
>>: So far, I haven't seen any arguments about the proposal that aren't
>>: either seated in technical considerations or Ian's "right" to do it. 
>>: I claim that the benefit of the convention far outweighs the technical 
>>: by-products that can result from improper use. I'm also claiming that
>>
>>Then you're missing the crux of the issue--the proposal (1) just isn't 
>>practical and (2) will have very negative "intangible" effects.  
>
>How can we know this without trying it first? I know that there are many
>reasons to believe that this proposal won't work out... in fact, it's
>very likely that it will not. But why not give it a shot? It certainly
>can't make things any worse than they already are.

Absolutely. Just don't do it in an existing group. Don't even give people
an excuse to complain. They will. I gurantee.

>
>>Everyone in favor of this seems to be completely overlooking the
>>intangible effects this campaign has had on the groups.
>
>There was "hostility towards newcomers" long, LONG before Ian ever started 
>posting daily reminders and long before this proposal came forth. In fact,
>in recent times this hostility has subsided considerably---it's at a low
>simmer compared to the earlier days of c.o.l. Whether that has anything to
>do with Ian's postings or not, nobody can say, but you surely can't accuse
>his efforts of increasing the hostility.

But it still doesn't negate the fact that every attempt that's made to
manage the newsgroups is met with vehement hostile resistance. To forge
ahead "with a mandate" when over 40% of the voting populace disagrees
is foolhardy at best.

>
>>Finally, it seems to me that all of this is being done in a futile
>>attempt to delay splitting the newsgroups.  
>
>If anything, splitting the groups resulted in MORE traffic and MORE 
>confusion. I don't see why we'd want to go through that again. Apparently
>it's just too much to expect posters to USENET to adhere to the simplest of
>newsgroup guidelines. 

I agree. I think that admin and development have just turned out to be
extensions of help and misc.

I still think the best idea is to create one moderated group. There's
obviously enough people who want change (me included) to push it though.
We can bring peace by opening new vistas with an iron hand!

"CyberSpace is infinite. Cut out your own niche!"

BAJ
---
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332   Internet: byron@cc.gatech.edu

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

Crossposted-To: news.groups
From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 07:56:10 GMT

In article <1994Mar26.014742.27074@cs.cornell.edu>,
Matt Welsh <mdw@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <2mvgf5$1ue3@hermes.acs.ryerson.ca> jeff@ee.ryerson.ca (Donald Jeff Dionne) writes:
>>Forget it. It's a really bad (discouraging
>>and on the whole, self rightous) idea.
>
>It's anything BUT self-righteous. If it were, people like Ian and myself
>would just let the newsgroups go to Hell in a HandBasket[tm] and not
>care that people weren't getting help. Instead, we're trying to implement
>something that will allow more people to get help from the newsgroups.
>The tradeoff is that it will require users to do a bit more work (including
>a keyword on their subject line; nothing to sweat about) to help the
>system work more smoothly.

But many of the unwashed masses want no restrictions at all even when
it's for their own good. Nothing new here.

>
>Maybe it's time to ditch the whole plan. USENET apparently isn't ready for
>it. What we can do is set up a moderated mailing list for Linux questions
>and automatically route postings in c.o.l.* that follow the subject-line
>convention to it. Then those people that care enough to answer Linux 
>questions but don't have the time to troll through junk can use this system
>instead. Unfortunately, very few people will then know about the mailing
>list and the subject-line convention, or feel pressured to use it. 

Now you're getting warmer Matt! If you'd just go public and make it an
moderated newsgroup (with all the restrictions) then we'd be sympatico.
Charter it with all the restrictions (and in fact I'd like to make it
more restrictive than Ian's current proposal) then advertise the hell out
of it! Use those unmoderated newsgroups to get the word out. Sit in your
new quiet enclave on top the mountain and watch as the questions roll in
(properly formatted).

The idea is good. The idea is real good. But trying to impose it on an
existing group is real bad. So create your commune and then see who flocks
to it.

"CyberSpace is infinite. Cut out your own niche!"

BAJ
---
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332   Internet: byron@cc.gatech.edu

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

From: chungh@shell.portal.com (Henry Y Chung)
Subject: Anyone running Linux on AST Power Exec 386SL laptop ?
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 23:32:42 GMT

I would like to install Linux on an AST Power Exec 386SL-C laptop.  The machine
uses a WD90C26 Video chipset.  I checked the FAQ, but WS90C26 is not listed in
the FAQ.  Anyone using this beast to run Linux ?  


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

From: wslee@ai.mit.edu (Whay S. Lee)
Subject: Re: Linux on a portable
Date: 26 Mar 94 01:48:03


In article <Cn86n4.4tM@scr.siemens.com> 
flake@scr.siemens.com (Gary William Flake) writes:

>   I have a Bondwell 486NC -- which translates to 486 SLC x 33 with 4M
>   of memory and an 80M HD. 

> ...  skipped the listed options:
>
>     A: scsikern, ksh
>    AP: gnu ispell (have international), jove, joe, workbone, quota
>     D: gxx, libgxx, byacc, objc, p2c, pmake, extra_lib, clisp, f2c
>     E: all non compiled elisp -- killed some unused things like pascal-mode.
>     I: gziped all infos, deleted non gziped, removed anything dealing
>        with anything that was removed in the above series.

>   Right now, I have about 12M of HD space free.  This can still be
>   improved on.  IMHO, this leaves me with a very nice non-X working
>   environment.  I have about 99.9% of the non-x applications that I
>   frequently use at work.  If I can get the VGA dvi previewer working
>   (dvgt) and a decent front end to gs I'll have just about everything I
>   need to work on the road.

        I was rather surprised how much I managed to cram into a small
harddisk too .. 

        Packard Bell 386SX/25 (1.10BogoMips, argh)
        6 Meg RAM
        60Meg Harddisk.
        Partition: 31Meg Linux, 4Meg Swap, 25Meg Dos+M$Win 

        I installed A, AP, N, and X series, being very selective
about what I put on the harddisk.  (eg.  no doc/man/lib/src
files).  Now I have most of what I frequently use, and still about
df=12Meg:

        - enough boot/config/system admin utillity stuff
        - SLIP/PLIP ( so I can hook it to my desktop Linux box
          and mount its drive when necessary)
        - regular stuff I use most: tcsh, kermit, 
          jove (I can live with a stripped down emacs) ..
        - XF86_MONO/XF86_VGA16 (I should really decide which to keep)
        - regular X stuff: xterm/rxvt, oclock/xload, fvwm/twm,
          [ ...  and of course xeyes 8-) ... ]

        Basically, the 31Meg partition gives me enough to do
what I use a computer most for (preparing latex files) ...  maybe
I'll blow away the DOS partition someday to put in the latex bin
stuff, for now I just transfer my .tex files back to the
desktop when I get home and latex them there.

whay.

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

Crossposted-To: news.groups
From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 08:18:02 GMT

In article <2n08lf$bnl@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
Damien Neil <damien@b63519.student.cwru.edu> wrote:
>In article <1994Mar26.014742.27074@cs.cornell.edu>,
>Matt Welsh <mdw@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>>Maybe it's time to ditch the whole plan. USENET apparently isn't ready for
>>it. What we can do is set up a moderated mailing list for Linux questions
>>and automatically route postings in c.o.l.* that follow the subject-line
>>convention to it. Then those people that care enough to answer Linux 
>>questions but don't have the time to troll through junk can use this system
>>instead. Unfortunately, very few people will then know about the mailing
>>list and the subject-line convention, or feel pressured to use it. 
>
>What about a trial of a slightly less radical system than Ian's before the
>Ian begins auto-sending email? Let's try using a voluntary subject line
>convention. Work up a list of keywords, make a post on .announce, stick
>advice in the daily posting, and just see if people will be willing to
>use such a convention or not.
>
>I suspect that a fair number of people will, especially ones with a high
>level of clue. It's worth a shot, at least.
>
>At least let's get some discussion started about what keywords to use! I'm
>sick and tired of all this bickering. If it wern't for the fact that the
>outcome of this debate will affect the nature of these groups in times
>to come I'd have killfiled this whole thread long ago.

I still think you'll create a whole lot more bitching than anything else.
Without nearly 100% compliance it's not going to be real effective.

We've been discussing this in a vacuum. rec.arts.tv.soaps have had keyword
subjects forever. They're truly excellent and almost 100% compliance.

However instead of fighting the tide just create a new newsgroup. Moderated,
restricted, clearly chartered. It'll work because the ideas are good.

Learn the lesson folks: you'll always get a fight when you try to take
away something from someone, no matter how trivial it may seem to you.
It's instinct. Applies to both theoretical and philosophical items. The
way to evoke change is to show the better idea alongside the current system
and allow for choice. People will then be happy to change because THEY
CHOOSE TO and not because someone else shoved it upon them.

"CyberSpace is infinite. Cut out your own niche!"

BAJ
---
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332   Internet: byron@cc.gatech.edu

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

From: danw@hebron.connected.com (Dan Wilder)
Subject: Re: How big is the Linux community?
Date: 25 Mar 1994 08:19:10 -0800

wgsteven@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Warren Stevens) writes:

[ various good folks wrote: ]

>>: file transfers with that address. Why not just count each e-mail address
>>: once if it has downloaded the linux A series? If the various mirrors got

>>There are far to much mirror sites to make this practical. Almost every
>>university has a linux ftp mirror.

>There's also the problem is bbs's: I have heard that most linux
>users are now not connected to the net, and get distributions
>from bbs's.

Add to that the CDROM distributions from at least a half-dozen venders,
Walnut Creek ftp.cdrom.com not least among them (thanks, Walnut Creek, for 
hosting Slackware) and all the volunteers who copy it onto floppies for 
people who do not have CDROM drives.  

Pretty hard to count.

---
Dan Wilder      (no relation to Walnut Creek, just happy Slackware user)

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

From: danw@hebron.connected.com (Dan Wilder)
Subject: Re: UnZip does not support PKZIP decryption
Date: 25 Mar 1994 08:28:24 -0800

michela@sci.kun.nl (Michel Anders) writes:


>In my binary of Unzip 5.0p1 decryption via the -s switch of a PKZIP file is
>not supported (Export restrictions?).
>[ where? ]

Look in ftp.uu.net, under /pub/archiving/zip.  Export restrictions
apply.  For outside the US, seems like I've seen the zcrypt stuff
on nic.funet.fi or someplace ... aren't laws fun?  Especially our
idiotic US export restrictions on encryption?

---
Dan Wilder

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

Crossposted-To: news.groups
From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 08:32:09 GMT

In article <1994Mar23.062159.28638@cs.cornell.edu>,
Matt Welsh <mdw@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>In article <2mofje$ptu@hermes.acs.ryerson.ca> jeff@ee.ryerson.ca (Donald Jeff Dionne) writes:
>>Who gives him the right to discourage others?  It's one thing to ignore
>>the people who refuse to read the FAQ's, but there are those that are
>>in the know that will ask stupid questions from time to time.  
>
>Ian's proposal isn't going to stop ANYONE from posting ANYTHING. Please
>re-read the proposal.
>
>>Bad news.  Perhaps I would re-think the thing if I were him.  Linus 
>>intended this to be for everyone, and this is very contrary to that.
>
>But you see, right now, the newsgroups aren't helping ANYONE. 
>
>Let's put it this way. Say that Linus, for some reason, were to include
>each and every patch into the kernel, regardless of whether it worked, 
>whether it did anything useful, whether it broke other code, or whatever. 
>You mailed him a kernel patch, and he included it, and that was that. 
>Then, the Linux kernel really would be for everyone, wouldn't it? That
>would be great, right?
>
>Wrong. It would be seriously and hideously broken. Nobody would be able to
>use the system at all. Instead, Linus does filter out these things, and 
>tries to ensure that not only will new features work, but that also they'll 
>be useful to enough people to warrant inclusion in the kernel. And, much
>of the time, people don't get their patches in the standard kernel. 
>Maybe it's not entirely "fair", but it works.

AHA! My opening! The chase is afoot!

So you're saying that the best way to do it is to have limited access
with someone or something controlling access. Why that sounds like
a moderated newsgroup! Why that's what I've been proposing for the last
month! Why that's what I've seen other people proposing too! Why that
might even be a good idea!

>
>This is a lot like the problem at hand, the problem with the newsgroups.
>While you folks are getting all huffed about Ian's "right" to make this
>proposal, a lot of people are getting seriously frustrated because of the
>lack of effectiveness of the c.o.l.* hierarchy. I don't think that a 
>week passes without someone proposing some kind of newsgroup split or
>other means to fix this broken system. 

Yes it needs to be fixed. But if you need a bigger better highway you
don't close the old one down why you build the new one alongside. The
existing one serves a purpose and needs to be left along. Once you have
the old dull highway and the shiny new one folks can choose the best
one: FOR THEIR NEEDS. NOT YOURS! Most will choose the shiny new one 
especially when it's get's them there faster.

>
>The point of the poll was to see if the bulk of the c.o.l.* readership
>considered his proposal to be favourable. The bulk of the readership
>did (and if you didn't vote, you have nobody to blame but yourself). It
>was made quite clear that this proposal would go through if this vote
>gave a favourable response, and it did. 

Nope. I disagree. 2 of 4 has less than the 100 overage and all had over
40% negative votes. Not a democracy here. There needs to be overwhelming
support for change. I don't think it happened here.

>
>I would stop worrying about Ian's "right" to monitor the group, and start
>worrying about how ineffective the newsgroups are, and how to fix it.
>Most people seem to agree that Ian's proposal is a good one, and it
>doesn't "moderate" the group (as everyone seems to think it will). In the
>end, it should make the groups much more useful to those who need the help
>the most. I don't see why you're opposed to that. Is it really too much
>to ask that people include an approved keyword in the subject line?

Yes but has anyone ever considered that Ian's idea might not be the best one?
I've been saying all along that there needs to be moderation. The difference
in mine and Ian's original proposal is that I want moderation and unmoderation
side by side, while Ian seems to want to control all the pipes (by either
changing the unmoderated to moderated, or by imposing restrictions on
the unmoderated group.) In both of his senarios the unmoderated group
changes, in mine it stays the same, admittedly broken, but the same.

I think that the unmoderated group will fall into disuse (or light use)
as all the heavyweights lumber over to the new group. Just like that old
highway that served us well - for awhile.

"CyberSpace is infinite. Cut out your niche! -= me"

BAJ
---
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332   Internet: byron@cc.gatech.edu

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

Crossposted-To: news.groups
From: mdw@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 08:31:42 GMT

In article <1994Mar26.071620.7022@cc.gatech.edu> byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes:
>Well I've finally figured out that the pro/con people on this subject are
>arguing apples and gorillas:
>
>pro - it's easy! it's helpful! it's simple! Why can't we get along?
>con - it's invasive! it's restrictive! it's junk mail! it violates my
>      rights! I have no choice! Mess with my newsgroup and I pull out my 
>      AK47! 

Pretty good summary, yes. Anybody who can boil such a lenghty thread 
down to under 50 words deserves some credit. :)

>Just for a minute stop dealing with how helpful the idea is and deal with
>the actual impact of each and every user that posts into that newsgroup
>forevermore. 

I have been thinking about it, and I just don't see how difficult it
is to add a keyword to the subject line. It's much more difficult to
figure out how to post to USENET in the first place. 

>It creates an imposition, it has consequences to posting,
>and most importantly it relieves the poster of the right they originally
>had: the right to post however they wanted without repercussions. 

Do they have that right? What if someone were to post recipes for
spinach soufflee? Besides adding it to their cookbooks, a number of 
users might ("rightfully") flame the pants off of them for doing so.
So, my question is this: How far do a poster's "rights" (if the word
is applicable) extend? 

I don't want to take away anyone's "right" to post anything. Under Ian's
proposal, someone is just as "free" to post recipes for spinach soufflee
provided that they mask it with an appropriate keyword. 

So, I don't think that this is what you're getting at. What you're
getting at has nothing to do with your right to post what you want, 
(unless you really consider a subject-line convention a breach of
freedom) but it has to do with your right not to get mail from Ian if you 
do it "incorrectly". That's the only valid argument I can see here. Unless 
you *really* consider freedom of subject lines to be a cause worth battling
to the death, I think that what most everyone is really complaining about
is the potential of getting mail from Ian. If mail from Ian weren't 
involved here I doubt anyone would bother complaining about this. Right?

>So please please please consider my proposal: one (and for now only one)
>new moderated newsgroup with all the restrictions you wish. 

I say start with a mailing list and see if it works (on an acceptible
scale; of course a mailing list would be utilized much less than a
newsgroup that appeared next to c.o.l.h.) The problem with a newsgroup
is permanance. If it doesn't work out, it's harder to get rid of. People
are still posting in comp.os.linux (alt.os.linux, even). 

At any rate, with such a system I could set up software to automatically
digest questions and replies by keyword, and post a weekly "response
summary" of some kind, which could be archived and WAIS-searchable. I get
excited just thinking about it.

>Ian had the right idea initially: moderate the questions. Impose structure.
>The only mistake was to impose it on a currently unmoderated group. 

True, but I think that whether or not Ian's proposal is a breach of
dismoderation is still in question. If you say so, all right. I don't know
either way.


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

From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.sys.next.software,comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: PCI bus cards (graphics and SCSI) which work?
Date: 26 Mar 1994 08:36:47 GMT

In article <michaelv.764537928@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> michaelv@iastate.edu (Michael L. VanLoon) writes:
]Do NOT buy ANY Diamond products!  They are not and will never be
]supported by XFree86 (although a few adventerous souls have gotten
]them to limp along at times).  Diamond will not allow their drivers to
]be public and doesn't care at all that this may cost them a sale
]because you run a free "unix".  They are quite indifferent to the
]pleas of free "unix" users.

There is a *reason* for this, however lame you and I think it is.  They
want to be able to "upgrade" their card hardware with a PAL and a BIOS
change.  With BIOS based drivers, this is peachy.  With hard coded drivers
whose changes don't match those in the new BIOS, you can smoke your card
and your monitor (and if you are lucky and smoking the card pulls an
electrical no-no by melting don to a direct short OR you have an older
non-optoisolated monitor and the collapsing magnetic field from the
flyback as the sync oscillator burns out causes a voltage backwash, you
can also smoke your power supply and/or your motherboard.  AND your
other cards.  AND your modem.  AND your phone line.  ...JOY!).

The reason for keeping it "secret" is both so they don't get stuck
with backward compatability issues with software they don't control
and because all a competitor has to do is build the same card and be
cleverer in programming their PALs.

Aren't you glad you brought this up again.  8-(.


                                        Terry Lambert
                                        terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.

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

From: olsenc@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Clint Olsen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: hosts.allow doesn't seem to work properly
Date: 26 Mar 1994 09:10:15 GMT

I'm using Slackware 1.2.0 with the new net-32b utilities and
I cannot seem to get EXCEPT to work correctly.  I have been
able to get things working with hosts.deny, but I want a mostly
closed system.

Any luck?

Thanks,

-Clint
--
Clint Olsen
University of Washington
Electrical Engineering
olsenc@maxwell.ee.washington.edu

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


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