From wfh at pacbell.net Mon Mar 4 17:09:09 2002 From: wfh at pacbell.net (wfhoney@pacbell.net) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:09:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [buug] Falling back to gcc 2.95 Message-ID: Hi, I'm building a server for work and in our collective wisdom, we decided to build mysql from source. On www.mysql.com we saw a warning about using gcc 2.96 as follows: "We recommend that MySQL be compiled with gcc 2.95" ...due to stability issues. I installed (forced) the following: gcc-2.95.3-1.i386.rpm gcc-2.95.3-2.i386.rpm glib-1.2.10-5.i386.rpm glibc-2.2.4-13.i386.rpm glibc-common-2.2.4-13.i386.rpm and then typed: # gcc -v ...and got back... gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (release) But when I begin configuring mysql, I slam against the following wall: checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... no configure: error: installation or configuration problem: C compiler cannot create executables. This is one of those places in life when actually knowing what you're doing really would help :-) Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks for sticking with me this far, reading this wannabe stuff. Bill -- _____/| \ o 0 | Bill Honeycutt wfhoney at pacbell.net =(')= 510-593-1195 U Please remove "NO_SPAM_" when replying. From jan at caustic.org Tue Mar 5 14:57:06 2002 From: jan at caustic.org (f.johan.beisser) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 14:57:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [buug] Falling back to gcc 2.95 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020305144821.M52371-100000@localhost> On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, wfhoney at pacbell.net wrote: > Hi, > > I'm building a server for work and in our collective wisdom, we decided to > build mysql from source. > > On www.mysql.com we saw a warning about using gcc 2.96 as follows: > > "We recommend that MySQL be compiled with gcc 2.95" > > ...due to stability issues. 2.96 is not intended for real "production use". it's (this is my understanding) a test piece of software, and wasn't for distrobution. redhat did so anyway, and pretty much screwed many of their customers. > I installed (forced) the following: > > gcc-2.95.3-1.i386.rpm > gcc-2.95.3-2.i386.rpm > glib-1.2.10-5.i386.rpm > glibc-2.2.4-13.i386.rpm > glibc-common-2.2.4-13.i386.rpm > > and then typed: > > # gcc -v > > ...and got back... > > gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (release) did you try to compile a small "hello world" program? there's a few dozen examples out there, i'd suggest digging up a simple test program, and trying to compile it. just because the compiler can execute, doesn't mean it can produce an executable. > But when I begin configuring mysql, I slam against the following wall: > > checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... no > configure: error: installation or configuration problem: > C compiler cannot create executables. > > This is one of those places in life when actually knowing what you're > doing really would help :-) consider this an opertunity to learn :) first thing, what's the build environment like? do you have your libraries all ok? does ldconfig give you useful output? > Thanks for sticking with me this far, reading this wannabe stuff. sure. i hope i can help some. -------/ f. johan beisser /--------------------------------------+ http://caustic.org/~jan jan at caustic.org "John Ashcroft is really just the reanimated corpse of J. Edgar Hoover." -- Tim Triche From jdicioccio at epylon.com Tue Mar 5 14:58:01 2002 From: jdicioccio at epylon.com (Jason DiCioccio) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 14:58:01 -0800 Subject: [buug] Falling back to gcc 2.95 Message-ID: <657B20E93E93D4118F9700D0B73CE3EA02FFF487@goofy.epylon.lan> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Look at config.log, but afaik all it usually tries to do there is compile something.. So write some simple code.. ex: #include int main( void ) { printf( "Hello world\n" ); return( 0 ); } and try and compile it (gcc -o hello hello.c) It shouldn't work. You could also just try "gcc -c hello.c" to see if it can do that and then link it: gcc -o hello hello.o I believe that is the process though if you do the "gcc -o hello hello.c" :) Cheers, - -JD- - -----Original Message----- From: wfhoney at pacbell.net [mailto:wfh at pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 5:09 PM To: buug at weak.org Subject: [buug] Falling back to gcc 2.95 Hi, I'm building a server for work and in our collective wisdom, we decided to build mysql from source. On www.mysql.com we saw a warning about using gcc 2.96 as follows: "We recommend that MySQL be compiled with gcc 2.95" ...due to stability issues. I installed (forced) the following: gcc-2.95.3-1.i386.rpm gcc-2.95.3-2.i386.rpm glib-1.2.10-5.i386.rpm glibc-2.2.4-13.i386.rpm glibc-common-2.2.4-13.i386.rpm and then typed: # gcc -v ...and got back... gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (release) But when I begin configuring mysql, I slam against the following wall: checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... no configure: error: installation or configuration problem: C compiler cannot create executables. This is one of those places in life when actually knowing what you're doing really would help :-) Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks for sticking with me this far, reading this wannabe stuff. Bill - -- _____/| \ o 0 | Bill Honeycutt wfhoney at pacbell.net =(')= 510-593-1195 U Please remove "NO_SPAM_" when replying. _______________________________________________ Buug mailing list Buug at weak.org http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0.4 iQA/AwUBPIVPZb8+wXo6G32BEQJqAgCdHsM5To3T84oBcvayLZ5yzXYu9zgAoMzX EF7/p5iIW6tUajkofulOH8io =lNqV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Bill at 1800radiator.com Wed Mar 6 11:04:48 2002 From: Bill at 1800radiator.com (Honeycutt, Bill) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:04:48 -0800 Subject: [buug] Falling back to gcc 2.95 Message-ID: <40E8BDA5BE88D311847A0008C7332AE9672801@REBMSG01> Thanks to your timely replies, I have seen the error of my ways! When trying to compile "hello world", I realized that my installation was foobar'd beyond hope. Then, I... ) Reinstalled a minimal Redhat server ) Got the "gcc-everything-2.95.3.tar.gz" from somewhere ) Compiled the compiler Now, life is in balance again :-) Jason, Johan...good advice in the proper proportion and at the right time. My thanks!!! Bill -----Original Message----- > From: f.johan.beisser [SMTP:jan at caustic.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 2:57 PM > From: Jason DiCioccio [SMTP:jdicioccio at epylon.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 2:58 PM > From itz at speakeasy.org Wed Mar 6 21:12:19 2002 From: itz at speakeasy.org (Ian Zimmerman) Date: 06 Mar 2002 21:12:19 -0800 Subject: [buug] Falling back to gcc 2.95 Message-ID: <86elix0xn0.fsf@speakeasy.org> Bill> But when I begin configuring mysql, I slam against the following Bill> wall: Bill> checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... no Bill> configure: error: installation or configuration problem: C compiler cannot Bill> create executables. When this happens, the config.log file is your friend. It has all the normal output from the test scripts that configure captured. -- Ian Zimmerman, Oakland, California, U.S.A. GPG: 433BA087 9C0F 194F 203A 63F7 B1B8 6E5A 8CA3 27DB 433B A087 The world has taken on a thickness of vulgarity that raises a spiritual man's contempt to the violence of a passion. Baudelaire From itz at speakeasy.org Wed Mar 6 21:19:43 2002 From: itz at speakeasy.org (Ian Zimmerman) Date: 06 Mar 2002 21:19:43 -0800 Subject: [buug] symbol font in mozilla Message-ID: <86adtl0xao.fsf@speakeasy.org> At the last meeting, I posed the question: how might the following non-compliant HTML be rendered in Mozilla (and its derivates like Netscape 6)? ab A _lot_ of pages out there use this, unfortunately, expecting the browser to display Greek alpha and beta glyphs. The answer (such as it is, "workaround" is a better word) can be found at http://hutchinson.belmont.ma.us/tth/Xfonts.html -- Ian Zimmerman, Oakland, California, U.S.A. GPG: 433BA087 9C0F 194F 203A 63F7 B1B8 6E5A 8CA3 27DB 433B A087 The world has taken on a thickness of vulgarity that raises a spiritual man's contempt to the violence of a passion. Baudelaire From Bill at 1800radiator.com Thu Mar 7 10:44:00 2002 From: Bill at 1800radiator.com (Honeycutt, Bill) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:44:00 -0800 Subject: [buug] Falling back to gcc 2.95 Message-ID: <40E8BDA5BE88D311847A0008C7332AE9672803@REBMSG01> I'm learning :-) > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Zimmerman [SMTP:itz at speakeasy.org] > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 9:12 PM > To: buug at weak.org > Subject: [buug] Falling back to gcc 2.95 > > > Bill> But when I begin configuring mysql, I slam against the following > Bill> wall: > > Bill> checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... no > Bill> configure: error: installation or configuration problem: C compiler > cannot > Bill> create executables. > > When this happens, the config.log file is your friend. It has all the > normal output from the test scripts that configure captured. > > -- > Ian Zimmerman, Oakland, California, U.S.A. > GPG: 433BA087 9C0F 194F 203A 63F7 B1B8 6E5A 8CA3 27DB 433B A087 > The world has taken on a thickness of vulgarity that raises > a spiritual man's contempt to the violence of a passion. Baudelaire > > > _______________________________________________ > Buug mailing list > Buug at weak.org > http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug From vmilanov at hotmail.com Mon Mar 11 09:31:25 2002 From: vmilanov at hotmail.com (Valentin Milanov) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:31:25 +0200 Subject: [buug] IPA configuration! Message-ID: Hi everybody, Here is what I added in my ipa.conf : startup { exec=/sbin/ipfw 100 allow all ip from any to 10.0.0.2 out xmit ed0 exec=/sbin/ipfw 101 allow all ip from 10.0.0.2 to any in recv ed0 } rule PC1 { ipfw=100 101 info=Traffic for PC1 } I did not permitted firewall in rc.conf since IPA is supposed to do so. And I got following error message: .... ipfw rule 100.0 doesn't exist in IPFW kernel table(rule PC1) .... ipfw rule 101.0 doesn't exist in IPFW kernel table(rule PC1) When I permit firewall in rc.conf ( ipfirewall_enable=YES ) then I got only the second error message ! My question is do I have to run firewall to get IPA running or what I have to do to get it running properly! Thanks ! Valentin _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From sobolak at myrealbox.com Mon Mar 11 12:34:03 2002 From: sobolak at myrealbox.com (Brian Sobolak) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:34:03 -0800 Subject: [buug] IPA configuration! Message-ID: <1015878843.434abff8sobolak@myrealbox.com> IPA = Indian Pale Ale? Valentin - I'm not sure what you're asking, so let's start with the basics. 1. Start your email with the question you want to ask or the problem you'd like to solve. Even better, include this in the subject of the message. 2. Be sure to tell us what operating system you're running, including version, etc. 3. Make sure before you've posted that you've checked out the various man pages, online documentation, and mailing list archives before you post to this list. I'm guessing from your message that you're running a BSDish Unix and are having trouble configuring your firewall. Without more detail I can't help you though. Did you check for an answer to your problem on http://www.google.com/linux or http://www.google.com/bsd? brian -- Brian Sobolak http://www.planetshwoop.com/ sobolak at myrealbox.com -----Original Message----- From: "Valentin Milanov" To: buug at weak.org Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:31:25 +0200 Subject: [buug] IPA configuration! Hi everybody, Here is what I added in my ipa.conf : startup { exec=/sbin/ipfw 100 allow all ip from any to 10.0.0.2 out xmit ed0 exec=/sbin/ipfw 101 allow all ip from 10.0.0.2 to any in recv ed0 } rule PC1 { ipfw=100 101 info=Traffic for PC1 } I did not permitted firewall in rc.conf since IPA is supposed to do so. And I got following error message: .... ipfw rule 100.0 doesn't exist in IPFW kernel table(rule PC1) .... ipfw rule 101.0 doesn't exist in IPFW kernel table(rule PC1) When I permit firewall in rc.conf ( ipfirewall_enable=YES ) then I got only the second error message ! My question is do I have to run firewall to get IPA running or what I have to do to get it running properly! Thanks ! Valentin _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx _______________________________________________ Buug mailing list Buug at weak.org http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug From meliorasf at yahoo.com Mon Mar 11 20:39:49 2002 From: meliorasf at yahoo.com (Kip Kramer) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:39:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [buug] Cannot run any applications in Solaris 8... Message-ID: <20020312043949.17199.qmail@web9405.mail.yahoo.com> Hoping someone can help me out here: Just installed a fresh copy of Solaris 8, (Rev A, Jan 01) on an Ultra 5 box: 9G HD, 256 MB RAM. After installation, I log in as root and my desktop (CDE) comes up just fine. If I click the "Applications" tab, and then double-click "Desktop_Apps" and then double click any of the applications icons, I hear the hard disk spin for a second or two, but no new windows open on the screen. No indication that anything has happened. Similarly, I can see all the apps in the apps folder, but cannot get any of them to run. Same symptom: when I double click one, I hear the disk spin for a second or 2, then it stops. Same thing happens when opening an app from any folder (Desktop_Tools, Admin, etc.). Have looked at the 4 default workspaces, and nothing there, either. I have re-booted several times. I even re-formatted the drive and re-installed the OS again, same result. Does anyone know why I cannot bring up any apps windows? (possible clue: the "/home" directory is write protected when I am logged in as root, which doesn't make any sense). Many thanks to any who can prod me in the right direction... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ From vmilanov at hotmail.com Tue Mar 12 09:43:09 2002 From: vmilanov at hotmail.com (Valentin Milanov) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:43:09 +0200 Subject: [buug] I want to set up IPA in BSD 4.4 Message-ID: The problem is following : I want to track the traffic to machine with IP 10.0.0.2 I want to know if the syntaxis of the config file is correct startup { exec=/sbin/ipfw 100 allow all ip from any to 10.0.0.2 out xmit ed0 exec=/sbin/ipfw 101 allow all ip from 10.0.0.2 to any in recv ed0 } rule PC1 { ipfw=100 101 info=Traffic for PC1 } because I got following error message: .... ipfw rule 100.0 doesn't exist in IPFW kernel table(rule PC1) .... ipfw rule 101.0 doesn't exist in IPFW kernel table(rule PC1) Thanx for the cooperation! Valentin _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From jammer at weak.org Tue Mar 19 19:21:05 2002 From: jammer at weak.org (Jon McClintock) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:21:05 -0800 Subject: [buug] [tamara@budgett.com: [Buug-admin] San Rafael Consulting Firm looking For Unix Subcontractor Immediately] Message-ID: <20020319192104.A29488@weak.org> An embedded message was scrubbed... From: tamara at budgett.com Subject: [Buug-admin] San Rafael Consulting Firm looking For Unix Subcontractor Immediately Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:19:52 -0800 Size: 776 URL: From hedges at ucsd.edu Sat Mar 23 16:09:41 2002 From: hedges at ucsd.edu (Mark Hedges) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 19:09:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [buug] mounting big ide fat32 partitions Message-ID: Howdy, Geeks, from Santa Cruz. With grub I run Windows2000 on drive 0 and FreeBSD on drive 1. These are big IDE drives (20G and 60G) with multiple big partitions. When I boot FreeBSD on drive 1, I want to mount at least one of my partitions from drive 0. PROBLEM 1: mount -t msdos or an msdos type entry in /etc/fstab both mount the first partition successfully (drive "C:") using /dev/ad0s1. However, it has problems - not all files and directories appear. PROBLEM 2: I cannot mount the second partition (drive "E:"). I even tried `sh MAKEDEV /dev/ad0s5` to create a device for the extended partition, but it still did not work. Anyone have experience mounting big FAT32 partitions like this? Thanks for any pointers. --mark-- From sobolak at myrealbox.com Sat Mar 23 23:28:44 2002 From: sobolak at myrealbox.com (Brian Sobolak) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:28:44 -0800 Subject: [buug] mounting big ide fat32 partitions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 3/23/02 4:09 PM, "Mark Hedges" wrote: > > Howdy, Geeks, from Santa Cruz. > Umm, Santa Cruz? Ahem. > With grub I run Windows2000 on drive 0 and FreeBSD on drive 1. > These are big IDE drives (20G and 60G) with multiple big > partitions. > > When I boot FreeBSD on drive 1, I want to mount at least one of > my partitions from drive 0. > > PROBLEM 1: > > mount -t msdos or an msdos type entry in /etc/fstab both mount > the first partition successfully (drive "C:") using /dev/ad0s1. > However, it has problems - not all files and directories appear. > > PROBLEM 2: > > I cannot mount the second partition (drive "E:"). I even tried > `sh MAKEDEV /dev/ad0s5` to create a device for the extended > partition, but it still did not work. > > Anyone have experience mounting big FAT32 partitions like this? > > Thanks for any pointers. Mark - Perhaps someone can help you, but you're more likely to get better results if you try questions at freebsd.org - a lot of FreeBSD gurus hang out there. You're certainly going to have better luck than mailing the _Berkeley_ Unix Users Group. Also, you should check out the handbook at http://www.freebsd.org/handbook and see if has any suggestions about mounting big FAT partitions (boy, that has a nice ring to it, no?) Warning: BSD people insist on using the term "slice" for what many other people call a partition. So if you post to questions at freebsd.org, expect that someone is going to give you the "in FreeBSD they're called slices" lecture. You can impress them in advance with your abilities if you mention the word slice in advance. HTH, brian -- What planet are you on? http://www.planetshwoop.com/ This is how I think http://www.planetshwoop.com/blog/ Brian Sobolak sobolak at myrealbox.com From hedges at ucsd.edu Sun Mar 24 14:00:22 2002 From: hedges at ucsd.edu (Mark Hedges) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 17:00:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [buug] mounting big ide fat32 partitions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hey thanks and sorry for the noise. I figured I'd ask the locals. All the options from the handbook seemed exhausted and I couldn't find anything in other list archives or newsgroups. The funny thing is, the last time I rebooted, the msdos C drive mounted fine through /etc/fstab and I could see every single file. Wacky. There isn't much of a user group in Santa Cruz from a preliminary search. Maybe I'll pop in at one of your cafe meetings someday. Happy Geeking. --mark-- On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, Brian Sobolak wrote: > Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:28:44 -0800 > From: Brian Sobolak > To: Mark Hedges , buug at weak.org > Subject: Re: [buug] mounting big ide fat32 partitions > > On 3/23/02 4:09 PM, "Mark Hedges" wrote: > > > > > Howdy, Geeks, from Santa Cruz. > > > > Umm, Santa Cruz? Ahem. > > > > With grub I run Windows2000 on drive 0 and FreeBSD on drive 1. > > These are big IDE drives (20G and 60G) with multiple big > > partitions. > > > > When I boot FreeBSD on drive 1, I want to mount at least one of > > my partitions from drive 0. > > > > PROBLEM 1: > > > > mount -t msdos or an msdos type entry in /etc/fstab both mount > > the first partition successfully (drive "C:") using /dev/ad0s1. > > However, it has problems - not all files and directories appear. > > > > PROBLEM 2: > > > > I cannot mount the second partition (drive "E:"). I even tried > > `sh MAKEDEV /dev/ad0s5` to create a device for the extended > > partition, but it still did not work. > > > > Anyone have experience mounting big FAT32 partitions like this? > > > > Thanks for any pointers. > > Mark - > > Perhaps someone can help you, but you're more likely to get better results > if you try questions at freebsd.org - a lot of FreeBSD gurus hang out there. > You're certainly going to have better luck than mailing the _Berkeley_ Unix > Users Group. > > > Also, you should check out the handbook at http://www.freebsd.org/handbook > and see if has any suggestions about mounting big FAT partitions (boy, that > has a nice ring to it, no?) > > Warning: BSD people insist on using the term "slice" for what many other > people call a partition. So if you post to questions at freebsd.org, expect > that someone is going to give you the "in FreeBSD they're called slices" > lecture. You can impress them in advance with your abilities if you mention > the word slice in advance. > > HTH, > > brian > > > -- > What planet are you on? http://www.planetshwoop.com/ > This is how I think http://www.planetshwoop.com/blog/ > Brian Sobolak sobolak at myrealbox.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Buug mailing list > Buug at weak.org > http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug > From sobolak at myrealbox.com Tue Mar 26 08:56:19 2002 From: sobolak at myrealbox.com (Brian Sobolak) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:56:19 -0800 Subject: [buug] CLI environment on Windows Message-ID: <1017161779.60f85ff8sobolak@myrealbox.com> I was having a conversation at the last BUUG about a good unix-like environment on windows and promised a link: www.cygwin.com It creates a bash environment and gives you access to a lot of the unix tools you're already used to. It also allows you to launch processes from within windows, so I've symlink'ed some tools I have to use (winword, iexplore) to make me feel more at home. Apparently it has the ability to run some XFree86 programs, but I haven't tried that beyond rxvt, a terminal emulator. I find this and a nicely customized copy of XEmacs to be a fine ersatz unix-on-windows. brian ps Email me off-list if you want the hack that enables command-line completion on DOS. It's a lifesaver! From rick at linuxmafia.com Tue Mar 26 10:43:47 2002 From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:43:47 -0800 Subject: [buug] CLI environment on Windows In-Reply-To: <1017161779.60f85ff8sobolak@myrealbox.com> References: <1017161779.60f85ff8sobolak@myrealbox.com> Message-ID: <20020326184347.GF2775@linuxmafia.com> Quoting Brian Sobolak (sobolak at myrealbox.com): > ps Email me off-list if you want the hack that enables command-line > completion on DOS. It's a lifesaver! My preferred way of doing that is to install Unix. ;-> From glatisant at hotmail.com Wed Mar 27 08:42:31 2002 From: glatisant at hotmail.com (Raitis Grinbergs) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:42:31 -0800 Subject: [buug] Linux on an Ultra/5? Message-ID: Hello, one and all! I am a friend of Brian Sobolak, and he referred me here for some advice. I recently acquired a Sun Ultra/5. I am interested in trying out Linux, both as a workstation and eventually as a web server, and thought that this would be a good opportunity to start the process. I notice that many of the Linux flavors have UltraLinux distributions (albeit many of them a release or two behind the non-Ultra version). Is there any information that you can give me on the pros and cons of the various distributions on the Ultra? Based on what I have seen so far, RedHat is probably out, since they are no longer supporting Ultra releases (though I haven't checked out the independently-done port project yet), and Debian is a very likely candidate since it seems to be the most up-to-date on the Ultra releases. Additionally, I am considering trying to dual-boot UltraLinux and Solaris. I see comments in the UltraLinux FAQ about doing this, including the fact that the swap space can be shared and that Solaris needs to own the first few disk sectors, but I did not see any instructions on doing this. Can you point me to any likely places for this sort of information? I have used Unix fairly extensively in the past (NeXTStep and Solaris) as a user, but rarely as an admin, so I am only *mostly* ignorant. ;-) Any information that you could pass on would be most appreciated! Thank you, Raitis Grinbergs From nick at zork.net Thu Mar 28 08:04:02 2002 From: nick at zork.net (Nick Moffitt) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 08:04:02 -0800 Subject: [buug] CLI environment on Windows In-Reply-To: <20020326184347.GF2775@linuxmafia.com> References: <1017161779.60f85ff8sobolak@myrealbox.com> <20020326184347.GF2775@linuxmafia.com> Message-ID: <20020328160401.GU29675@zork.net> begin Rick Moen Lives Three Hours from Nowhere quotation: > Quoting Brian Sobolak (sobolak at myrealbox.com): > > ps Email me off-list if you want the hack that enables command-line > > completion on DOS. It's a lifesaver! > > My preferred way of doing that is to install Unix. ;-> Every windows-using customer site I visit is delighted to learn that such a thing as cygwin exists, however. -- INFORMATION GLADLY GIVEN BUT SAFETY REQUIRES AVOIDING UNNECESSARY CONVERSATION end 01234567 <- The amazing* indent-o-meter! ^ (*: Indent-o-meter may not actually amaze.) From john at jjdev.com Thu Mar 28 08:01:45 2002 From: john at jjdev.com (johnd) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 08:01:45 -0800 Subject: [buug] Linux on an Ultra/5? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20020328160145.GE20500@vette.jjdev.com> On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 08:42:31AM -0800, Raitis Grinbergs wrote: > Hello, one and all! I am a friend of Brian Sobolak, and he referred me here > for some advice. > > I recently acquired a Sun Ultra/5. I am interested in trying out Linux, > both as a workstation and eventually as a web server, and thought that this > would be a good opportunity to start the process. I notice that many of the > Linux flavors have UltraLinux distributions (albeit many of them a release > or two behind the non-Ultra version). Is there any information that you can > give me on the pros and cons of the various distributions on the Ultra? distro: splack pro: like slackware http://sourceforge.net/projects/splack http://www.netunix.co.uk/splack.html From jammer at weak.org Thu Mar 28 08:37:09 2002 From: jammer at weak.org (Jon McClintock) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 08:37:09 -0800 Subject: [buug] Linux on an Ultra/5? In-Reply-To: <20020328160145.GE20500@vette.jjdev.com>; from john@jjdev.com on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 08:01:45AM -0800 References: <20020328160145.GE20500@vette.jjdev.com> Message-ID: <20020328083709.B30324@weak.org> On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 08:01:45AM -0800, johnd wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 08:42:31AM -0800, Raitis Grinbergs wrote: > > I recently acquired a Sun Ultra/5. I am interested in trying out Linux, > > both as a workstation and eventually as a web server, and thought that this > > would be a good opportunity to start the process. I notice that many of the > > Linux flavors have UltraLinux distributions (albeit many of them a release > > or two behind the non-Ultra version). Is there any information that you can > > give me on the pros and cons of the various distributions on the Ultra? > > distro: splack > > pro: like slackware s/pro/con/ :) -Jon From bferrell at baywinds.org Thu Mar 28 09:05:42 2002 From: bferrell at baywinds.org (Bruce Ferrell) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:05:42 -0800 Subject: [buug] Linux on an Ultra/5? References: Message-ID: <3CA34D66.AB6D80F6@baywinds.org> Have a look at the ultralinux web site: http://www.ultralinux.org/ Warnings are in order however; I just did a splackware install on a sparcstation 20. It was not what I've come to expect from a modern linux install. I haven't had so much fun since my first linux install (Slackware) back in '93! :) Raitis Grinbergs wrote: > > Hello, one and all! I am a friend of Brian Sobolak, and he referred me here > for some advice. > > I recently acquired a Sun Ultra/5. I am interested in trying out Linux, > both as a workstation and eventually as a web server, and thought that this > would be a good opportunity to start the process. I notice that many of the > Linux flavors have UltraLinux distributions (albeit many of them a release > or two behind the non-Ultra version). Is there any information that you can > give me on the pros and cons of the various distributions on the Ultra? > > Based on what I have seen so far, RedHat is probably out, since they are no > longer supporting Ultra releases (though I haven't checked out the > independently-done port project yet), and Debian is a very likely candidate > since it seems to be the most up-to-date on the Ultra releases. > > Additionally, I am considering trying to dual-boot UltraLinux and Solaris. > I see comments in the UltraLinux FAQ about doing this, including the fact > that the swap space can be shared and that Solaris needs to own the first > few disk sectors, but I did not see any instructions on doing this. Can you > point me to any likely places for this sort of information? > > I have used Unix fairly extensively in the past (NeXTStep and Solaris) as a > user, but rarely as an admin, so I am only *mostly* ignorant. ;-) > > Any information that you could pass on would be most appreciated! > > Thank you, > Raitis Grinbergs > > _______________________________________________ > Buug mailing list > Buug at weak.org > http://www.weak.org/mailman/listinfo/buug From john at jjdev.com Thu Mar 28 09:13:47 2002 From: john at jjdev.com (johnd) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:13:47 -0800 Subject: [buug] Linux on an Ultra/5? In-Reply-To: <3CA34D66.AB6D80F6@baywinds.org> References: <3CA34D66.AB6D80F6@baywinds.org> Message-ID: <20020328171347.GA20795@vette.jjdev.com> On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:05:42AM -0800, Bruce Ferrell wrote: > > Warnings are in order however; I just did a splackware install on a > sparcstation 20. It was not what I've come to expect from a modern > linux install. I haven't had so much fun since my first linux install > (Slackware) back in '93! :) if what you mean by this is that it doesn't have a pretty GUI, then your right... some people, like myself, see that as a big plus. From bferrell at baywinds.org Thu Mar 28 09:27:21 2002 From: bferrell at baywinds.org (Bruce Ferrell) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:27:21 -0800 Subject: [buug] Linux on an Ultra/5? References: <3CA34D66.AB6D80F6@baywinds.org> <20020328171347.GA20795@vette.jjdev.com> Message-ID: <3CA35279.2EBF1C5D@baywinds.org> No, what I mean is that I had to do a partial install before I could create a swap partition and activate it... Amongst other things. the last stage(s) of the install I had to complete manually netconfig, silo installation, setup looks for slackware when the actual directory is splak. If I'd wasn't reasonably expert in slackware, I would not have been able to install it. As it was it took the better part of a day to do. I'm just saying it's far from a clean install. I did in fact have fun doing it, but it's definately NOT up to Pats standards. Bruce Ferrell johnd wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:05:42AM -0800, Bruce Ferrell wrote: > > > > Warnings are in order however; I just did a splackware install on a > > sparcstation 20. It was not what I've come to expect from a modern > > linux install. I haven't had so much fun since my first linux install > > (Slackware) back in '93! :) > > if what you mean by this is that it doesn't have a pretty GUI, then > your right... > > some people, like myself, see that as a big plus. From hedges at ucsd.edu Thu Mar 28 09:49:37 2002 From: hedges at ucsd.edu (Mark Hedges) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:49:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [buug] state of CFS In-Reply-To: <3CA35279.2EBF1C5D@baywinds.org> Message-ID: Anyone know where to find a recent release of CFS (crypto file system)? The latest one I could find is 1.4.0b2. The notes say 1997. It would be nice to hear from someone who uses CFS that it's stable enough to use. Thanks. --mark-- From jammer at weak.org Thu Mar 28 18:54:46 2002 From: jammer at weak.org (Jon McClintock) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:54:46 -0800 Subject: [buug] [malaniz@apexsystemsinc.com: [Buug-admin] Linux Network Engineer Job Opp.] Message-ID: <20020328185446.A8298@weak.org> An embedded message was scrubbed... From: unknown sender Subject: [Buug-admin] Linux Network Engineer Job Opp. Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:12:49 -0800 Size: 1685 URL: