Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #893
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:     Tue, 29 Mar 94 10:13:23 EST

Linux-Misc Digest #893, Volume #1                Tue, 29 Mar 94 10:13:23 EST

Contents:
  Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring (Byron A Jeff)
  Mosaic audio (Spawn)
  Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring (Byron A Jeff)
  Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring (Byron A Jeff)
  Re: Cheap Linux box (Byron A Jeff)
  Re: atalk: another voice chat program (Mr. Christian Wilson)
  Re: Linux help files by e-mail (Bill Hogan)
  Re: Telnet Authentication Bug! (Alan Cox)
  term and modem on different machines ? (Gregor Hoffleit)

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

Crossposted-To: news.groups
From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 05:31:29 GMT

In article <1994Mar28.065928.3699@terrabit.uucp>,
David Dyer-Bennet <ddb@terrabit.uucp> wrote:
>byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes:
>
>>In article <1994Mar27.051510.538@terrabit.uucp>,
>>David Dyer-Bennet <ddb@terrabit.uucp> wrote:
>>>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?
>
>>The big deal is that the first is from actual human beings whose responses
>>are solicited. In addition the human people respond about the content
>>of the message and not its structure. The auto mail is unsolicited, automatic
>>and gives no info about the content of what I'm posting. So why exactly
>>am I supposed to like this?
>
>Have you been around Usenet long?  

Almost 10 years.

>Responses from humans primarily or
>exclusively about the form, rather than the content, of a post are
>quite common.  I've received some, and sent some, over the years.  And
>the auto mail may well give information relevant to the contents of
>the posting which triggered it; as I understand it it will include
>pointers to the faqs and such.  If the poster doesn't know about them,
>this will help.

We agree here. However it doesn't help us the readers of the group to see
that FAQ yet once again. That's why I'm calling for moderation in a new
group.

>
>>>>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 say it's more heavyhanded than moderation because a) posters to an
>>unmoderated newsgroup certainly do not expect unsolicited auto posts.
>>b) the poster does not get any choice about the form of their posting.
>
>Let me get this straight; A message suggesting you post in a different
>form is *MORE* heavy-handed than rejecting your message outright?  I

Yup. If I'm posting to a moderated group I know beforehand that I'm going
to get yea/nay mail (in fack I expect it) and that I may get rejected.
I submit myself to those terms instead of having them imposed upon me.

>think we're going to have to agree to differ on this one.  At least, I
>can't imagine how I could ever come to share your opinion.  You're
>welcome to a piece of mine if you change your mind in the future.

You're dealing in logic, I'm dealing in perception. Unsolicited (very 
important here) Email no matter how nicely phrased is considered by most
an imposition. It often gets dumped without being read. It doesn't serve
it's intended purpose.

We perceive moderated groups however as having a gate. So the mail we
get back is expected (solicited). So the perception of it changes.

It doesn't make sense in any logical terms. But it's how people often feel.

>
>And since when does the poster get no choice about the form of his
>posting?  My postings, over the last 13 years, have pretty routinely
>come out in the form I put them in.

That may be true. But to me asking for a modification of form in a
unmoderated newsgroup is a non-seqitor. And the unsolicited (there's that
word again) email does exactly that.

>
>>>>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.
>
>>Yes. It was about 4 in the morning and I was clearly tired when I wrote it.
>>My apologies. However I must point out that you're acting just like the
>>autodaemon that Ian's proposing: you commented on the form of my "tantrum"
>>and not it's content.
>
>Yes, I did.  I think I've kept reasonably close to addressing the
>content of your message more than the form in general.  The specific
>paragraph (mostly caps) seemed to me to have rather more form than
>content, and I responded to that portion.  
>
>In some sense this whole debate is about form, not substance.  Many of
>us are suggesting that if the form is set up correctly, we see no need
>for strong controls on substance; the form will allow us to find the
>parts we're interested in and cheaply skip the rest.  

Concise summary. I disagree. I think it's important to address the content
because if the content is clearly misplaced then there's no need for any
of us to see it. In a help group that's primarily limited to FAQ's and the
multiple responses to them. I don't just want to tag them, I want them
eliminated while helping the original user by providing them the information
they need offline.

BTW I think that freeform expression is necessary. So have several unmoderated
groups without any restrictions where people can post freely.

>
>Didn't this start as a proposal to avoid the "draconian" step of
>moderation?  I'm somewhat amused at the number of people saying that
>this is wrong, but real moderation would be right.  

See Ian's moderation proposal was going to make the moderated group the
only game in town, taking away peoples' perceived rights in the process.
I see you're getting what I'm talking about: a parallel moderated group.

>
>I'd be perfectly happy with the parallel moderated group, except
>perhaps for the delay in setting it up.  I'm inclined to continue the
>argument, since I still fail to comprehend the other side.  While I
>can't always come to *agreement* with people, I really do like to at
>least come to understand their position before giving up.  We could,
>of course, continue arguing the principles while setting up either
>group. 

Actually I'm with you. We need the keywords. We also need to limit the
types of posts. The delay is a bummer but if we get the ball rolling we
can have it by summer. [Hey! That rhymes! I'm the rapper with the clapper.
Oh yuck!]

My summary:

Any restrictions in a currently unmoderated group will be perceived as
limiting the rights of the posters. Legalities and logic are irrealvent.

A moderated group implies exactly the types of restrictions that we're
trying to implement. Because they are expected and perceived as OK
folks will usually go along with them. Strange isn't it?

Having both groups will give folks choice. Which is really all they wanted
to begin with.

>
>A couple of us seem to be trying to start a discussion of what
>keywords would be useful.  This seems relevant both to Ian's proposal
>and to a new moderated group.  Also, the points raised in that
>discussion seem likely to be relevant in shaping people's opinions of
>how well this idea would really work for filtering the news flow.  I
>hope that discussion proceeds productively.

Yup. We also need to start looking at offline mechanisms for providing
relavent information to folks who need it. That will cut down traffic.

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: saw@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Spawn)
Subject: Mosaic audio
Date: 29 Mar 1994 05:21:28 GMT


Hi.  Can somebody tell me which program they use to play Mosaic audio,
and where to find it?  Thanks.

/------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Stuart Wexler              |  ****  SNAPPY ONE-LINER HERE  ****  |
| CETS Trainee Consultant    |  ****  INTRIGUING QUOTE HERE  ****  | 
| saw@eniac.seas.upenn.edu   |  ****  WHATEVER IS CUTE HERE  ****  |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Seminars, n.:                                                    |
|       From "semi" and "arse", hence, any half-assed discussion   |
\------------------------------------------------------------------/

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

Crossposted-To: news.groups
From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: STRAW POLL RESULT: Linux groups automonitoring
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 05:48:15 GMT

In article <2n48tp$kni@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Anthony J. Stuckey <stuckey@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes:
>>But the difference is that the first is solicited mail by a human being.
>>It usually has a response that helps my solve the problem that I originally
>>posted.  The second is junk mail that is automatically generated that will
>>most likely not solve my problem. Two different things.
>
>       I don't see this.
>       I voted against the proposal for other reasons, but a well-written note
>should solve your problems.  Not directly, by telling you to type "df", but
>indirectly by pointing to FAQ lists and other such things.  While the FAQ
>lists don't include things they should, I have never seen one that was
>complete.

No. a well written note won't solve my problem. A well written note will only
give me advise on how to propoerly format my post. It will also give me
pointers to FAQ which I've already read. So it's just junk mail. Noise.

>
>       For those BBS users who don't have access to the FAQs or whatever, I
>don't see a problem.  1) their original note is still posted.  They can
>delete the email and wait for replies.  2) a polite disclaimer could
>mention that their situation is recognized, but it might be more
>effective to follow advice next time.  3) If this robot is stupid enough
>to send the note to posted replies, Ian should be publicly whipped.

I'd like to respond to your first comment: Each and every user of Linux should
have access to the FAQ's, HOWTO's, man pages, and LDP documents. If folks
can post and get email, there should be some way for them to request these
invaluable documents. Documents that if read more often would cut down
a great deal of traffic on the newsgroups.

Tell me: who has the ability to post without getting any information back
at all (no mail, no finger, no WWW, no nothing). We need to find a way
to address the problems of those folks (if any exist). If they are on a BBS
carrying linux then the documentation should be available on that BBS.


>
>       It is possible to make this rather unobtrusive, yet still helpful.

But it won't solve the real problems. It's a band-aid.

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: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 05:59:06 GMT

In article <CnD5Et.1Hs@unix.portal.com>,
Pierre Uszynski <pierre@shell.portal.com> wrote:
>In <DHOLLAND.94Mar25011108@husc7.harvard.edu> dholland@husc7.harvard.edu (David Holland) writes:
>
>>Why not just propose an additional group, comp.os.linux.help.moderated, 
>>with either a live moderator (if anybody will volunteer) or even a
>>program as described. Anyone who is afraid of the moderator censoring
>>their posts can post to the unmoderated group. 
>
>was discussed earlier. That's still an option if this fails. But
>would you recommend to any of your friends the moderation of such a
>volume of random questions? Not by me, thank you. This moderator would
>end up being a program, relying on keywords, or a group of humans
>on a less reliable system such as Majordomo group moderation. Lots
>of people didn't like the idea of moderation, and it's true that it's
>not as reliable as the basic newsgroup. Moderation also delays posts.
>The proposed system keeps it as easy and fast as usual for newbies to
>ask questions.

The problem I see is the volunteer nature of it. What will happen is that
we'll see posts with no keywords, followed up by posts saying to use the
keywords, followed up by posts telling the people who posted to say use
the keywords to tell them to use mail and so forth and so on.

It's a real effective system when at 100 percent usage. However getting
there is a tough battle. And I say again the unsolicited email no matter
how nicely phrased will cause resentment.


>
>>Another thing that might be helpful is a gopher or WWW site containing
>>the answers to common questions and solutions to common problems. It's
>>much easier to get help from a well-indexed gopher than by posting to
>>netnews, or even searching a FAQ.

This is an excellent idea. Can reduce traffic. Especially if it becomes
a requirement for posting.
>
>But "well-indexing" such a database would currently require human
>indexing... A daunting task... On the other hand as soon as these
>keywords get used, they can be used as the basis for machine
>indexing... and voila, you'll get what you want. Somebody already
>posted he couldn't wait to try and do that.

Another excellent point. Pierre I'm not against keywords. I just think
they need to be mandatory and in a moderated group. Let's start using
them voluntarily but not stop there.

>
>Besides, most "common" questions are in the FAQs and such. It's just
>that there are a lot of "uncommon" questions one can think of. If you
>look at col.help, it's thousands of uncommon questions... Some of
>them repeated every few days :-) And it's not because the answer is in
>the FAQ that it's easy to find it.

That's a technical problem that must be solved. The problem is not that
the answer isn't there but the question doesn't know how to find it.

Question: how difficult would it be to build a linux based tool for finding
such answers. Something like a much better version of VMS help. If we
distributed it with the system (and maybe even under DOS/Windows so that folks
who have installations problems can see it) maybe we can cut down on traffic.

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: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: Cheap Linux box
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 06:18:34 GMT

In article <mclement.764837201@access1>,
hackrat <mclement@access1.digex.net> wrote:
>byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes:
>
>>IBM486SLC2/66 - $300
>>NE2000 Enet   - $ 40
>>8 Meg memory  - $300
>>Mono VGA      - $115
>>VGA card      - $ 45
>>---------------------
>>Total           $800
>
>There are certainly better systems you can buy for $800, especially consideri
>the fact that the original poster did not desire a networked system.  My 
>recommendation would be to contact Dee One Systems - they sell quality systems
>at LOW LOW prices, and I've had great experiences with them.  Also, I'd avoid
>the 486SLC chips like the plague - they're still running on a 16-bit data 
>path, and do not support 486 burst mode.  
>
>Dee One is currently selling a 486-40DLC w/mathco, SVGA, 250MB HD, 4MB ram for
>$876 -- that would be a MUCH better use of the money.  RAM can always be
>upgraded later, using SWAP until one can afford the upgrade.

Well I might agree with you if you describe the video system. A 14 inch monitor
with .39 dot pitch that can barely do 800x600 much less 1024x768 (interlaced)
is not necessarily a better deal. I'm used to high bandwidth, high resolution
crisp monitors. On the low end the monochromes do it better because they
don't have a mask to deal with and only one gun. So they look better than
low end color monitors (and if Dee One is selling that package for $876
then it's a low end monitor).

I know that the 486SLC has 16 bit data paths. In fact I count on it. That
way I can get 4 MB SIMM for my memory with the option of upgrading it later
instead of buying 8 1M SIMM to get 8 Meg and having to sell/give away/throw
away 1/2 of it when I upgrade memory. And what's the performance numbers
on the 486DLC40? Here's one set on the 66's:

======================== Begin included text ===================
Norton Desktop gives me a 108.2 a DX250 runs about 107..  a dx33 runs abt
90, a 386dx33 runs 34.7..
======================== End included text ===================

And that's for a $225 SLC2/66 with no external cache. About $150 less than
a DX2/50.

Despite all it's limitiations, the 16K cache and the 66 Mhz clock rate
makes the SLC2 one of the top price/performance contenders.

And you didn't read the rest of my post: it's a sattelite station. Ultra
high performance isn't the primary concern. That's why the main server
will probably end up being a DX4.

Like I said: I did my research. I looked at all the issues. I stand by
my original design.

Now if Dee One it had a good 15" SVGA monitor, 8 Meg (taking back 4 in
trade when I upped to 20M), no disk, for the same ballpark, I'd be interested.

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: cjwil2@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr. Christian Wilson)
Subject: Re: atalk: another voice chat program
Date: 28 Mar 1994 22:16:14 GMT

Hiya,

boutell@netcom.com (Thomas Boutell) writes:

>atalk is available by anonymous ftp from:
>ftp.netcom.com
>as pub/boutell/atalk-0.1.tar.gz .

:(

Firstly I think that the filename is atalk0.1.tar.gz, and secondly
(and also most importantly) :

-rw-------  1 8626     50           7529 Mar 28 19:30 atalk0.1.tar.gz
^^^^^^^^^^

[I.e. there's no way how anyone can get it :(]

Christian.
-- 
=============================================================================
   Whats the point of having a .signature if there is nothing to sign???
 Mail me: wally@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au _OR_ PO Box 767 Eltham Vic 3095 Aust

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

From: bhogan@crl.com (Bill Hogan)
Subject: Re: Linux help files by e-mail
Date: 28 Mar 1994 23:12:20 -0800

Bill C. Riemers (bcr@physics.purdue.edu) wrote:
: Linux mail handler!

: Info on linux kits, and list Xconfig files.  How  does it work?
: You send a message to:

:        bcr@physics.purdue.edu
:   -or- bcr@hpl3.cern.ch (experimental European service)

: Your subject line will determine what information you are sent.  The
: following subject lines are recognized.  My mail handler attempts
: to correct common errors, if the subject still isn't recognized
: your message is forwarded to me as e-mail. ...

  Bravo!

  Beautiful!

  Brilliant!

  Excellent!

  Thank you!
-- 
  Bill Hogan
{bhogan@crl.com}

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.admin
From: iiitac@uk.ac.swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Telnet Authentication Bug!
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 14:07:53 GMT

In article <Cn89Fz.LDv@news.cis.umn.edu> smit0176@gold.tc.umn.edu (Brian H Smith-1) writes:
>       I have noticed the same thing, and I think it is a bug in login
>rather than in telnet. In addition to not letting users with ids ovr 
>eight characters login remotely, if you make a mistake typing in your
The maximum permitted length of a user name in the Unix, POSIX and thus
Linux environment is 8 letters. End of story 8-)


ALan


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

From: flight@mathi.uni-heidelberg.de (Gregor Hoffleit)
Subject: term and modem on different machines ?
Date: 28 Mar 1994 19:35:27 GMT

Please excuse me, if this is a) a bit off-topic and b) a really stupid 
question (as I expect ;-). 

I'm able to connect me via modem to a Sun. This Sun is installed just as 
entry-point, i.e. I'm forced by a menu to login directly to another 
machine, which a have an account on. That means I'm logged into another 
machine than the modem is connected to. Is it now possible to run term on 
this remote machine ?? I expect not, since it seems to need direct access 
to the modem, or am I wrong ?

If it's impossible, is there any other solution to run multiple sessions 
on one modem line that would work in my case ?

Thank you for any answer!

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