Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #879
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:     Sun, 27 Mar 94 07:13:06 EST

Linux-Misc Digest #879, Volume #1                Sun, 27 Mar 94 07:13:06 EST

Contents:
  Re: c.o.l.x and automatic mod (David Dyer-Bennet)
  Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring (David Dyer-Bennet)
  fax modem compatibility (las@light-house.uucp)
  Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux (Tim Pierce)
  Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring (Jim Graham)
  Accounting in Linux 1.0...* (Gabriel Grigorescu)
  Re: sz/rz for linux wanted (Wolfgang Kalthoff)
  *** PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING *** (misc-2.07) (Ian Jackson)
  LINUX AND COHERENT (Bill Hogan)
  Re: BRACE YOURSELF, was Re: Opinions wanted about SCO-unix (vs AIX/Linux). (Brandon S. Allbery)
  Re: Stupid... Re: NEW PRODUCT : 3 Linux CD's and a T-Shirt for $29. (Marc Fiuczynski)

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

From: ddb@terrabit.uucp (David Dyer-Bennet)
Subject: Re: c.o.l.x and automatic mod
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1994 04:54:24 GMT

rick.emerson@dscmail.com (Rick Emerson) writes:

>I am opposed to the automatic moderation process currently under
>discussion for c.o.l.x groups ; make no mistake about my position.
>Having said that, let me attempt to move the argument away from
>"drive-by debate" and into something a little more reasoned.

Wow!  A message with *content*!  From somebody I seem to disagree
with, but that's a minor matter in comparison. 

>An obvious solution, then, is to take positive steps to somehow reduce
>the noise level; that is, introduce some form of moderation.  This is,
>prima facie, an admirable intent save it ignores the purpose of these
>news groups: to facilitate *free* discussion of some common topic
>(i.e., help with Linux, system administration issues for Linux,
>development issues relating to Linux, and Linux issues not described
>before).

I do not agree with you that that is the purpose of these groups.  I
believe that these groups exist to facilitate the use of Linux.  I
suspect that this turns out to be the inescapable point of difference.
If total "freedom" makes these groups less useful for those trying to
run Linux, then that freedom is interfering with the purpose of these
groups. 

>The proposed automatic moderation scheme has three major flaws over
>and above the basic problem of restricting (through automatic censure)
>posting to c.o.l.x: 1) it generates additional mail over and above the
>present message load, 2) the (false) assumption is made that mail
>delivery is free for all c.o.l.x readers and therefore mailed
>admonishments impose little or no added financial burden on the
>receiver, and 3) the automatic moderation process is assumed to meet
>all readers' needs and priorities.

To 1), I say that it does, if it causes no change to the message load.
I also say that in total cost to the net that additional mail costs
something on the rough order of one one-hundred-thousandth the cost of
the comp.os.linux groups themselves.  (Back-of-the envelope
calculation: 10% of the messages generate an automoderation message,
and that message is transmitted to one system rather than 10,000.)  I
am willing to call this a trivial cost increment.

To 2) I say that that's a personal problem for which I have no
sympathy.  The argument that people may not be taken to task for their
behavior because that message may cost them $.15 (Worst case:
compuserve) seems completely without force to me.  I say this as
somebody who will be getting serious news feed from a commercial
provider soon (I now get only the Linux groups on this box, from a
friend).

Additionally, at least on Compuserve you don't pay for messages you
don't read, and you can see who it's from and what the subejct is
before you decide to read it.  Finally, if somebody is in fact reading
the Linux groups, and he receives one moderation message a week, the
impact on his total messages read or online time is entirely trivial.
I suggested to Ian much earlier in the discussion (probably in
netmail) that he should consider limiting his robot to sending at most
one message a day to a particular address; this also helps limit the
potential impact on, say, an enthusiastic newbie who posts 20 message
the first day before noticing that all the other messages in the group
have keywords on the subject line.

To 3) I say that the automoderation process should only be put into
place if there is substantial agreement on the goals and methods to be
used.  That does not of course guarantee that it will in fact meet
people's needs, but it is at least a necessary pre-condition.  I
personally am satisfied from the results of the straw-poll that the
automoderation process is a reasonable idea in this regard.  Since so
far as I know this is new territory, I view the whole thing as an
experiment.  We cannot *possibly* have really solid knowledge of what
the result will be ahead of time.  I think it will be reasonably clear
if it works well or not after a few months.

>The argument was made, in effect; the messages are "tiny" and don't
>add much.  A note here, a note there, and soon there's a lot of mail
>taking up bandwidth.

On the other hand, I personally am a lot less likely to send
admonishing messages to people if I know there's a tireless,
sleepless, robot on the job to see that it gets done.  To some extent
the automoderator will be replacing messages that already get sent. 

I do a rough calculation of the cost of the moderation messages as a
function of the costs of the group as a whole above.  I'm not worried
about the cost of the moderation messages.

>While, in the "good old days," net access may have been free or a
>perquisite, more and more net users have to pay for connect time and,
>in some cases, volume.  Unsolicited messages of questionable value are
>already an issue; deliberately creating more messages is, to be
>charitable, thoughtless.

And thus keeping groups on-topic, concise, and easy to navigate is of
the first importance.  The net is growing faster than ever before, and
the need to educate the new users about the local culture is stronger
and more urgent than ever before.

>Several posters have already made the point that their requirements or
>expectations from the list cannot be met by any "AI" process.
>Furthermore, the groups' definition of "acceptable mail" will be
>driven by the person or group operating the moderation system and not
>the readership at large.  Those who fail to see the danger in this
>situation are invited to review the history of totalitarian systems.

The first part of this, I think, is one of the more cogent objections.
It's absolutely true that we can't make a useful automoderator that
makes any judgements of message "quality".  I hope that, with the
right choice of keywords, and a high level of use of the keywords, I
can find more of the messages that I have something to say to, and
more of the messages that give me information I want, in less time
than I now spend.  But that can address only certain aspects of the
problem.  It cannot address actions by new users who don't take the
time to read the group and FAQs before posting.  It cannot address the
actions of users determined to be uncooperative.

I think the set of keywords chosen is absolutely vital in controlling
just how useful this will be.  And of course there's the question of
whether they're used *correctly*.  People determined not to cooperate
can attach random keywords to their messages and avoid the
automoderator.  Personally, I plan to put such people in my killfile
very quickly. 

Since we've got nothing but moral suasion available to stop Ian or
anybody from implementing such a scheme, and he in turn can do nothing
worse than send people mail messages, I think bringing "totalitarian
systems" into it is blowing things a bit out of proportion.  An actual
moderator for a group has far, far more power, and yet we have created
a number of moderated groups on usenet which appear to fill the needs
of their users very well.  Mostly.

>The automatic moderation scheme imposes a distinctly elitist feel to
>c.o.l.x; get a message wrong and get a warning from The Moderator.
>There are problems with the current state of the groups but they are
>created by the readership as a whole and it is the readership's
>responsibility to resolve these problems without resorting to
>automatic moderation.  Automatic moderation is antithetical to the
>spirit of Linux and free software.

Hmmm; I thought the spirit of free software was adventurous, curious,
and creative.  Not to mention technical.  So here we have a daring
technical suggestion for a new way to solve a problem that hasn't been
solved very well by any of the old ways.  Personally, I'm curious.

Nor is it clear to me why the readership has a responsility to not
resort to automatic moderation.  I believe you're simply assuming your
desired conclusion as an axiom.


-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, proprietor, The Terraboard            4242 Minnehaha Ave. S.
ddb@network.com, lynxds.mn.org!terrabit                   Minneapolis, MN 55406
Don't waste your time arguing about allocating blame;           +1-612-721-8800
There'll be enough to go around.                            Fax +1-612-724-3314

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

Crossposted-To: news.groups
From: ddb@terrabit.uucp (David Dyer-Bennet)
Subject: Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1994 05:15:10 GMT

byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes:
>Look. It's an unmoderated newsgroup. That means there should be no 
>repercussions to what I post other than folks ignoring it. 

This has never been true in the history of usenet.  Your post always
has repercussions.  People read it and respond.  Most of the responses
come via email.  What's the big deal?

>Putting an automatic program that tells act like Miss Manners
>infringes on my ability to post to an unmoderated, unrestricted
>newsgroup.

I certainly hope so.  That's the whole point -- to influence people's
behavior by a mechanism less heavy-handed than moderation.

>I'll keep shouting: CREATE A MODERATED NEWSGROUP WITH ALL THE
>KEYWORD, TAGS WHATEVER RESTRICTIONS YOU WANT IN THE CHARTER! LET
>PEOPLE CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES WHERE AND HOW THEY WANT TO POST! STOP
>TREATING US LIKE 3 YEAR-OLD!

Stop behaving like a three-year old.  You're clearly having a tantrum.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, proprietor, The Terraboard            4242 Minnehaha Ave. S.
ddb@network.com, lynxds.mn.org!terrabit                   Minneapolis, MN 55406
Don't waste your time arguing about allocating blame;           +1-612-721-8800
There'll be enough to go around.                            Fax +1-612-724-3314

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

From: las@light-house.uucp
Subject: fax modem compatibility
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 17:33:41 GMT


Hi,
 
 I've just purchased a 14.4/14.4 fax/data modem. Has anybody
 got this modem to send/receive faxes under Linux?
  
 From the manual, I read that in the fax mode can send/receive faxes
 from CCITT Group 3 fax machine -- is this what's needed to set it
 up with Linux?
  
 If you have this modem, I'd like to hear from you. 
 
 (BTW, the price was rather cool -- 129 dollars Canadian, which is
 $105 US.)
  
NOTE: please reply to las@whome.uucp since e-mail to this address will
bounce.

. 

  
  
  
  

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

From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Impressions: FreeBSD vs Linux
Date: 27 Mar 1994 03:24:17 -0500

In article <2n1l3n$821@clarknet.clark.net>,
Rob Newberry <rob-n@clark.net> wrote:

  >Now, I am definately NOT a Unix guru.
  ...
  >Now, I do realize that many of the *BSD people like it fine.  But I
  >will bet that they have a firmer grasp of Unix sys administration
  >than I do.  I won't say its a bad system...I don't know.  I will say
  >that its packaging and installation process for novices like
  >myself is absolute crap.
  ...
  >IMHO, *BSD has a LONG way to go before its ready for users like me.

I didn't realize it was meant to be.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                /  Crazy isn't so bad.  I could get
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /  used to this.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /    -- Mary Campbell

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

Crossposted-To: news.groups
From: jim@n5ial.mythical.com (Jim Graham)
Subject: Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 16:10:37 GMT

In article <2n08lf$bnl@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> damien@b63519.student.cwru.edu
(Damien Neil) writes:

>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.

*THIS* is a good idea, IMHO.

I resent the idea of being sent junk mail (even though it would be rejected
at this site) if I don't conform to some non-standard (relative to most
other groups) subject line convention.  (I use good subject lines---that's
supposed to be enough....)  I would, therefore, probably continue to simply
use good subject lines (i.e., I'd probably ignore the keywords stuff).  Of
course, I don't normally need to post questions to any of the groups (when
I do have problems, I'm usually able to find the answer myself or get help
via e-mail).

On the other hand, if there were no junk mail, I would probably make a
much more determined effort to use the keywords (i.e., I'd use them on
original posts unless I just forgot, and I'm not sure if I'd mess around
with existing subject lines or not).  I suppose it's because this method
is more, well, polite about it.  :-)

Note that I'm not anti-Ian in any way---he's one of the folks who have
been a great deal of help to myself and others.  I'm just not a fan of his
latest idea.....

>At least let's get some discussion started about what keywords to use!

Yes, isn't it strange that this topic has barely even been mentioned (I've
seen exactly one sentence on that topic)?  I guess everyone is too busy in
the flame-war....

Later,
   --jim

--
73 DE N5IAL (/4)                           < Running Linux *1.00*! >
      jim@n5ial.mythical.com                 ICBM: 30.23N 86.32W
  ||  j.graham@ieee.org          Packet:  N5IAL@W4ZBB (Ft. Walton Beach, FL)
E-mail me for information about KAMterm (host mode for Kantronics TNCs).


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

From: gabe@po.EECS.Berkeley.EDU (Gabriel Grigorescu)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Accounting in Linux 1.0...*
Date: 27 Mar 1994 08:21:40 GMT

I finally installed linux 1.0 (I had .99 before) with most of the 
packages (disk series).  Anyway, I got the acct-alpha-3.tar.gz file
from sunsite.unc.edu and followed the instructions (or at least I tried
because there are two different ones, INSTALL and README-LINUX files).
After simply nulling my kernel, it did not do anything.  It puked
on lastcomm.c.  So, patching the kernel did not work, and neither did
the compilation.

Can anyone please give me a clue as to how to get accounting running?
I'm using Linux primarily for slip and I've got about over 10 users...

Thank you very much.

Grigorescu

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

From: wo@rio70.bln.sni.de (Wolfgang Kalthoff)
Subject: Re: sz/rz for linux wanted
Date: 26 Mar 1994 07:43:41 +0100
Reply-To: kalthoff.bln@sni.de (Wolfgang Kalthoff)

In <1994Mar25.000056.20855@midway.uchicago.edu> robert@cs.uchicago.edu (Robert Szelepcsenyi) writes:



>Hi,

>My father accesses Internet with a modem via a server running linux.
>There is a kermit on the server, but no z-modem. I would like to get
>some source for rz/sz and compile it on the server for my father. I
>just don't have any idea where to look for it.

Hi, you can find the binaries under slackware/a3/comms.
No idea about the source.

Hope this helps
Wolfgang
-- 
Wolfgang Kalthoff    | S iemens             | email: kalthoff.bln@sni.de
Gustav-Meyer-Allee 1 | N ixdorf             | 
D-13355 Berlin       | I nformation Systems | Tel: +49-30-4673-2951 Fax: 2915
=============================================================================

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

From: ijackson@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ian Jackson)
Subject: *** PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING *** (misc-2.07)
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1994 10:03:00 GMT

Please do not post questions to comp.os.linux.misc - read on for details of
which groups you should read and post to.

Please do not crosspost anything between different groups of the comp.os.linux
hierarchy.  See Matt Welsh's introduction to the hierarchy, posted weekly.

If you have a question about Linux you should get and read the Linux Frequently
Asked Questions with Answers list from sunsite.unc.edu, in /pub/Linux/docs, or
from another Linux FTP site.  It is also posted periodically to c.o.l.announce.

In particular, read the question `You still haven't answered my question!'
The FAQ will refer you to the Linux HOWTOs (more detailed descriptions of
particular topics) found in the HOWTO directory in the same place.

Then you should consider posting to comp.os.linux.help - not
comp.os.linux.misc.

Note that X Windows related questions should go to comp.windows.x.i386unix, and
that non-Linux-specific Unix questions should go to comp.unix.questions.
Please read the FAQs for these groups before posting - look on rtfm.mit.edu in
/pub/usenet/news.answers/Intel-Unix-X-faq and .../unix-faq.

Only if you have a posting that is not more appropriate for one of the other
Linux groups - ie it is not a question, not about the future development of
Linux, not an announcement or bug report and not about system administration -
should you post to comp.os.linux.misc.


Comments on this posting are welcomed - please email me !
--
Ian Jackson  <ijackson@nyx.cs.du.edu>  (urgent email: iwj10@phx.cam.ac.uk)
2 Lexington Close, Cambridge, CB4 3LS, England;  phone: +44 223 64238

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

From: bhogan@crl.com (Bill Hogan)
Subject: LINUX AND COHERENT
Date: 27 Mar 1994 02:52:52 -0800

[ Article crossposted from comp.os.coherent ]
[ Author was david.h.dennis@support.com ]
[ Posted on Thu, 24 Mar 94 20:50:29 -0800 ]


I am sorry to say that I have had to switch to Linux from Coherent because the
nice folks at Coherent technical support admitted that they couldn't support my
shiny new $ 1,150 1.7GB Quantum SCSI hard drive.  Apparently it has something
to do with a lack of interest within the Coherent community in such things.  I
think Linux is actually a little easier to install than Coherent, since it
seems to be pretty decent at auto-detecting stuff.  Coherent asked about all
sorts of technical stuff about my hard drive and then crashed.  Linux asked for
nothing, loaded about half of its stuff and then crashed, too. I was finally
able to get Linux up and running fairly well, after three days of hideous
agony.  I really, really don't recommend this experience for someone who
doesn't really know what they are doing!  Now that it's loaded, though, it
looks like a significantly more pleasant development environment.  (Backspace
works in EMACS!  The Meta key works in EMACS!  Developer's paradise!  <grin>) 
But then again, UUCP was relatively easy (read "possible") to configure through
reading the manual under Coherent.  Despite my experience in configuring UUCP
in the Coherent environment, UUCP under my Yggdrasil Linux is very, very tough.
 Files are not where the documents say they are, and now that I have created
the files, the thing still doesn't realize that there is a
host on the planet called 'netcomsv'.

The bottom line here should make a few people at MWC laugh.  The result of all
this is that I am probably going to keep my Coherent system just to hang on to
the manual.  That way, when I get a manual page like:
 
   UNDOCUMENTED(2)                                  UNDOCUMENTED(2)

   NAME
        undocumented, ptrace, ioctl, fcntl, select - currently
        undocumented

   SYNOPSIS
        UNDOCUMENTED

   DESCRIPTION.
        I haven't gotten around to it yet.

   BUGS
        These really should be documented.

I can pick up the Coherent manual and hopefully get an idea of what's up!
(For those who don't believe that manual page could be real, go to a Linux
system and type 'man ioctl'.  That's it.  Verbatim!) 

By the way, if any stray Linuxers want to help me with my UUCP, please
drop me a line.  I am hopelessly confused but a bit intimidated by the
newsgroup.  You know:  Don't discuss news on here.  Don't discuss UUCP
on here.  Don't discuss ANYTHING in here until you have read the 3,000 page
FAQs and manuals!  Conveniently provided in PostScript format for those
of you who happen to own a Postscript printer!  Convenient printing facility
allowing you to print PostScript on your LaserJet 4 only if you can get
X-Windows up and running!  

I think I wandered off topic a little ...

Best
D

-- 
  Bill Hogan
{bhogan@crl.com}

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

Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.aix
From: bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery)
Subject: Re: BRACE YOURSELF, was Re: Opinions wanted about SCO-unix (vs AIX/Linux).
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 17:20:04 GMT

In article <1994Mar23.034952.24963@rpp386>, jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) says:
+---------------
| Do you really like the alternative?  Is "sysadmsh" that much fun for you?
+------------->8

Any "canned" system administration program has "holes" in it --- things which
it can't cope with.  Under SCO I avoid sysadmsh if I can't figure out how to
fix things it botches or can't handle "behind its back" --- and traditional
command line system administration is still mostly usable under SCO.  (And, to
its credit, sysadmsh can generally cope with command line system
administration if one is moderately careful.)  Is this true of AIX?  The
reports say "no"...

++Brandon
-- 
Brandon S. Allbery         kf8nh@kf8nh.ampr.org          bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org
"MSDOS didn't get as bad as it is overnight -- it took over ten years
of careful development."  ---dmeggins@aix1.uottawa.ca

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

From: mef@sekiu.cs.washington.edu (Marc Fiuczynski)
Subject: Re: Stupid... Re: NEW PRODUCT : 3 Linux CD's and a T-Shirt for $29.
Date: 25 Mar 94 09:54:14

I was hoping to get a set of free CDs by sending in a T-shirt
suggestion.  Instead I received two messages with order reference
numbers.  I am not sure how they are going to send it to me, since I
didn't give them my address or anything.

Marc

--
/Marc...
mef@cs.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
******************************
