Pages

Search

grub CD hangs on configfile - Forums Linux

grub CD hangs on configfile - Forums Linux

grub CD hangs on configfile

Posted: 22 Aug 2006 09:14 AM PDT

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:37:11 -0700, com wrote:
 
Thanks for running the test.

Is it any different if you issue a "root" command only? Perhaps, booting
my CD:

Test 1:
grub> root (cd)
grub> configfile (hd0,6)/boot/grub/menu.lst

Test 2:
Or if grub is installed at the MBR of the hard disk:

grub> rootnoverify (hd0)
grub> chainloader +1
grub> boot

The above command would be quite useful for loading the menu from any disk
where grub is installed.

I haven't experimented with the configfile directive, but I did some
other tests with grub. See this post for some tests I did with grub:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.setup/msg/86f68934908589ba

In those tests, I couldn't boot partitions which were formatted with the
reiserfs and where the grub bootloader was installed at the partition
only (at least, not with v.0.97).

Check the section of the post for more info, as titled:
2. Tests with chainloader. (And a big word of caution.)

Maybe, there will be a grub v.0.98.

--
Douglas Mayne

New to Linux...Help

Posted: 21 Aug 2006 03:06 PM PDT

John Rodgers wrote: 

OK, putting my 2 cents worth in...

I do the same, because when I first got this machine, Linux didn't
support SATA drives (or, at least, I couldn't find any SATA drivers).
So, I installed a second hard drive (IDE), disabled the SATA, and
installed Linux as if the IDE were the only drive present. I tried
using the boot menu feature in the BIOS, but it won't let me specify the
IDE as the default boot drive, so I mostly leave the SATA disabled.

I suppose I could install dual boot now, but I only boot Windows on an
infrequent basis -- too seldom for entering the BIOS to be much of a
nuisance -- and I've had enough problems with dual boot systems
clobbering MBRs to be wary of them.

--
-- Andy McKellar
Dallas, TX

Blank text in Flash

Posted: 19 Aug 2006 05:00 PM PDT

In comp.os.linux.setup, John Thompson
<os2.dhs.org>
wrote
on Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:05:49 GMT
<os2.dhs.org>: 

An interesting thought, but nope...still nothing.

--
#191, net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.

Fonts in FC5

Posted: 19 Aug 2006 12:02 PM PDT

Mark wrote:
 

Yes, sounds like the same problem.
 

Thanks I will try.

--
Dancin' in the ruins tonight
mail: echo ee.pbz | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
Tayo'y Mga Pinoy

which linux is the easiest to install?

Posted: 18 Aug 2006 02:21 PM PDT

Zenon Panoussis wrote: 

As Zenon said, these problems indicate that there is something slightly
ununsual (not necessarily wrong or broken) with your hardware. If you
know your hardware well (ie, you know the chipset of your IDE
controller etc.), try starting Debian in expert mode (type 'expert' at
the boot prompt) and choose only the modules which drive your hardware.
Or at the very least choose NOT to install all the modules for which
you know you don't have the hardware. The reason for the hang is that
it tries a very wide range of hardware driver modules, and one of them
obviously has a conflict with your actual hardware. So cutting down the
number of modules tried may get you past the hang.

(Do you by any chance have a CD drive on a SATA interface? That's a
well-known problem with Debian stable, so try using a more recent
installer image - try here:
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/)
 

That whole reply (including the stuff I've snipped) was excellent. I
used RedHat for several years (from 3.0.3 to 7.3) until they got too
commercial (spamming me to subscribe to their paid distro), at which
point I switched to Debian. Debian is slow, compared with other distros
(as in slow to update, slow to support new technologies, not slow to
run) but very reliable, very well supported and with a very pure
approach to 'free' (the whole gratis/libre distinction). It all depends
on what you want. I suspect you will find a small proportion of twits
in whichever forum you post, but equally I expect most distros have a
helpful base of respondents.

One distro you might also consider (sorry to make the choice more
complicated) is SuSE, which fulfils both Zenon's criteria: masses of
software and good docs. I've not used it myself, but it is supposed to
be more user-friendly than Debian (which can assume a little too much
technical know-how), while being less commercial than RedHat (though
I'm not really sure if that's true any more).

Best of luck,

CC

rpm build cannot open file?

Posted: 18 Aug 2006 12:24 PM PDT


Thufir wrote:
 

The file does not exist. You are probably tabbing in the wrong place.
Look (space added for clarity):
 

The file is pine-4.64-1.src.rpm and you are trying to build
pine-4.64-1.i386.src.rpm .

Z

Dual boot installation Q

Posted: 18 Aug 2006 08:31 AM PDT

Thanks super, SaGS. I tried the "another way" in that link, but all
that happens is "GRUB" appears on the screen with a flashing cursor.
Any ideas how to debug? Thanks!

SaGS wrote: 

How to ignore packages/programs with apt-get?

Posted: 17 Aug 2006 06:00 PM PDT

> > Does apt-get have a way to ignore packages/programs that I don't want to 
 
 
 

I tried that and got:
# aptitude hold pan
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Reading extended state information
Initializing package states... Done
Writing extended state information... Done
Reading task descriptions... Done
Building tag database... Done
The following packages are unused and will be REMOVED:
aalib1 akode artsbuilder aspell bug-buddy cvs dia-libs edict esound file-roller gcalctool
gconf-editor
gnome-cups-manager gnome-games-data gnome-nettool gnome-system-tools gnome-themes gnome-themes-extras
gnome-utils
gnupg-agent gnupg2 gpdf gpgsm gstreamer0.8-misc gstreamer0.8-plugin-apps gstreamer0.8-tools
gtk2-engines-pixbuf
gtk2-engines-spherecrystal gtkhtml3.2 gucharmap imlib-base imlib11 kanjidic kaudiocreator kcoloredit
kdeaddons-kfile-plugins kdeartwork-misc kdeartwork-style kdeartwork-theme-icon
kdeartwork-theme-window
kdegraphics-kfile-plugins kdemultimedia-kappfinder-data kdemultimedia-kfile-plugins
kdepim-kio-plugins kdvi
kfilereplace kgamma kicker-applets kiconedit kimagemapeditor klettres-data klinkstatus kmid kmix
kmoon kmrml
knewsticker-scripts kolourpaint kommander konq-plugins korn kpdf kpovmodeler krec kruler kscd
kscreensaver
kscreensaver-xsavers ksig ksnapshot ksvg ktnef ktux kuickshow kview kviewshell kxsldbg
libboost-python1.32.0
libconvert-binhex-perl libfinance-quote-perl libgal2.2-1 libgal2.2-common libgda2-3 libgda2-common
libgle3
libgstreamer-gconf0.8-0 libgstreamer-plugins0.8-0 libgstreamer0.8-0 libgtkhtml3.2-11
libgtksourceview-common
libhtml-tableextract-perl libio-stringy-perl libksba8 libmime-perl libnetpbm10
libnews-nntpclient-perl libpth2
libsamplerate0 libtiff-tools netpbm noatun noatun-plugins openoffice.org pinentry-qt synaptic
vim-common vino
xscreensaver-gl zenity
The following packages have been kept back:
pan python python-glade2 python-minimal python-uno transcode
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 109 to remove and 6 not upgraded.
Need to get 0B of archives. After unpacking 250MB will be freed.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?] n
Abort.


# apt-get upgrade
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
The following packages have been kept back:
pan python python-glade2 python-minimal python-uno transcode
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 6 not upgraded.

I can't upgrade the othber packages at the moment, but that's OK. I do want to ignore Pan.

 

How would I revert the request then if I change my mind?

 

Ah, I always used apt-get. Sometimes dpkg.

 

Yeah, but I didn't see anything about ignoring packages unless I searched badly. ;)
--
"In a battle between elephants, the ants get squashed." --Thailand
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phillip (Ant) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Please remove ANT if replying by e-mail.
( )

Testing Patches for Linux Kernel 2.6.15

Posted: 16 Aug 2006 11:31 PM PDT


ne... wrote: 

I could be wrong, but doesn't kernel 2.6.15 currently come with User
Mode Linux (UML) as a subsystem? That is something I heard you could
do. You can recompile the kernel with the UML as a target. Can someone
clarify if this is true and how can it be done?

 

Auto-config of audio card?

Posted: 16 Aug 2006 04:57 PM PDT

com wrote in
news:googlegroups.com:
 

Try looking at the alsa HOW-TO at http://tldp.org - it shows *exactly*
how do set up alsa. Although I think very little of it as then none of
the OSS apps for X will work and have to be reconfigured to say nothing
of the volume "bug".

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )

how to get hold of RedHat 6.0 CDs ?

Posted: 16 Aug 2006 05:48 AM PDT

Hopefully http://www.linuxiso.org/ will be soon back up...

"Bernard" <fr> wrote in message
news:44e31420$0$30364$free.fr... 

cannot beep

Posted: 16 Aug 2006 01:41 AM PDT

Ulrich Lauther wrote: 

Try 'modprobe pcspkr'

Jeff Long

how to pass passcode to a command?

Posted: 15 Aug 2006 05:40 PM PDT


Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: 


Thanks indeed for your help.

linux on a old laptop

Posted: 15 Aug 2006 08:58 AM PDT

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006, Michael Black wrote:
 

Vector has the base system in a single file. You can't choose to install
only part of this file. It comes to just about 1 Gb when installed.

Perhaps you could choose to install only part of the base system, but the
installation doesn't provide for this.

There are additional packages you can choose to install or not, but
there's no option to omit part of the base system.

I have a similar problem: I'm trying to find a Linux distribution that
will work on a laptop with 96 Mb of RAM and 2 Gb of disk space and that
comes with support for a wireless network. I considered Knoppix, Puppy,
Damn Small Linux and Vector; Vector seems to be the best choice. Puppy was
promising, but I had problems with the installation program.

--
Yves Bellefeuille <ca>
Google users: To reply to posts, click "show options" next to the
poster's name, and then click "Reply" in the line that says:
"Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message"

Wireless router question.

Posted: 15 Aug 2006 08:22 AM PDT

Captain Dondo wrote:
 

close, forum.openwrt.org .

poly-p man

Parted

Posted: 14 Aug 2006 03:31 AM PDT

Thorsten Kiefer wrote:
 

My non-authority guess: resize needs to know both ends of the new
partition because some of the filesystems parted handles allow
moving either boundary (e.g., fat32).

Me fella use gparted instead: less thinking needed!

Roby

Debian Install problems (Win xp User)

Posted: 13 Aug 2006 12:39 AM PDT

Simon wrote: 

Well done. I have D2 running under WINE so shout if you have problems -
it should work fine, apart from the inevitable DirectSound errors
flying past in the console.

Cheers,

CC

off subject, format 2nd harddrive???

Posted: 12 Aug 2006 04:20 PM PDT

lorentsonci wrote:
 

Sure

Just run mkfs.ext3 on the partitions.

Your hard drive will most likely be /dev/hdb, /dev/hdc or /dev/hdd depending
upon which IDE controller / master or slave.

for example: mkfs.ext3 /dev/hdb1

for more inforamtion type man mkfs at the command prompt.

--
Dancin' in the ruins tonight
mail: echo ee.pbz | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
Tayo'y Mga Pinoy

sendmail and multiple smart relay servers

Posted: 12 Aug 2006 07:15 AM PDT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
 

Amen. Sendmail configuration has improved vastly over the past 5 years, but
it's still under a huge burden of legacy workarounds and operational models
that have broken down over the last 20 years. I'd go straight to postfix for
any remotely unusual or interesting server setup these days.

Trouble with Suse 10.1 and sound

Posted: 12 Aug 2006 05:49 AM PDT

co.uk wrote:
 

Thanks for the pointer to alsa page. I already thought of taking the old
Aztech card from my old PC to try it. That worked perfectly under Redhat
with alsa.

Will give it a try if no succeed in fix.

Regards,

Noko

--
"Careful with that VAX, Eugene!"

Linux no threat to Microsoft

Posted: 11 Aug 2006 08:43 PM PDT


"Matt Giwer" <REMover.rr.com> wrote in message
news:FGQFg.6429 
soc.history.ancient 
gospels 

Earlier works attributed to Matt Giwer

How we can kill
---------------

We have already seen why we must liquidate all forms of government, now
we shall turn our attention to how we can do so without violating
Libertarian philosophy. To this we can look to the Internet for
examples.

We ask two questions

1. How can we translate the freedom afforded by the Internet to ordinary
life?

2. How can we keep the government from banning encryption, digital cash,
and other systems that will improve our freedom?

A few months ago, I had a truly and quite literally "revolutionary"
idea, and I jokingly called it "Assassination Politics": I speculated on
the question of whether an organization could be set up to _legally_
announce either that it would be awarding a cash prize to somebody who
correctedly "predicted" the death of one of a list of violators of
rights, usually either government employees, officeholders, or
appointees. It could ask for anonymous contributions from the public,
and individuals would be able send those contributions using digital
cash.

I also speculated that using modern methods of public-key encryption and
anonymous "digital cash," it would be possible to make such awards in
such a way so that nobody knows who is getting awarded the money, only
that the award is being given. Even the organization itself would have
no information that could help the authorities find the person
responsible for the prediction, let alone the one who caused the death.

It was not my intention to provide such a "tough nut to crack" by
arguing the general case, claiming that a person who hires a hitman is
not guilty of murder under libertarian principles. Obviously, the
problem with the general case is that the victim may be totally innocent
under libertarian principles, which would make the killing a crime,
leading to the question of whether the person offering the money was
himself guilty.

On the contrary; my speculation assumed that the "victim" is a
government employee, presumably one who is not merely taking a paycheck
of stolen tax dollars, but also is guilty of extra violations of rights
beyond this. (Government agents responsible for the Ruby Ridge incident
and Waco come to mind.) In receiving such money and in his various
acts, he violates the "Non-agression Principle" (NAP) and thus,
presumably, any acts against him are not the initiation of force under
libertarian principles.

The organization set up to manage such a system could, presumably, make
up a list of people who had seriously violated the NAP, but who would
not see justice in our courts due to the fact that their actions were
done at the behest of the government. Associated with each name would
be a dollar figure, the total amount of money the organization has
received as a contribution, which is the amount they would give for
correctly "predicting" the person's death, presumably naming the exact
date. "Guessers" would formulate their "guess" into a file, encrypt it
with the organization's public key, then transmit it to the organiztion,
possibly using methods as untraceable as putting a floppy disk in an
envelope and tossing it into a mailbox, but more likely either a cascade
of encrypted anonymous remailers, or possibly public-access Internet
locations, such as terminals at a local library, etc.

In order to prevent such a system from becoming simply a random unpaid
lottery, in which people can randomly guess a name and date (hoping that
lightning would strike, as it occasionally does), it would be necessary
to deter such random guessing by requiring the "guessers" to include
with their "guess" encrypted and untraceable "digital cash," in an
amount sufficiently high to make random guessing impractical.

For example, if the target was, say, 50 years old and had a life
expectancy of of 30 years, or about 10,000 days, the amount of money
required to register a guess must be at least 1/10,000th of the amount
of the award. In practice, the amount required should be far higher,
perhaps as much as 1/1000 of the amount, since you can assume that
anybody making a guess would feel sufficiently confident of that guess
to risk 1/1000th of his potential reward.

The digital cash would be placed inside the outer "encryption envelope,"
and could be decrypted using the organization's public key. The
prediction itself (including name and date) would be itself in another
encryption envelope inside the first one, but it would be encrypted
using a key that is only known to the predictor himself. In this way,
the organization could decrypt the outer envelope and find the digital
cash, but they would have no idea what is being predicted in the
innermost envelope, either the name or the date.

If, later, the "prediction" came true, the predictor would presumably
send yet another encrypted "envelope" to the organization, containing
the decryption key for the previous "prediction" envelope, plus a public
key (despite its name, to be used only once!) to be used for encryption
of digital cash used as payment for the award. The organization would
apply the decryption key to the prediction envelope, discover that it
works, then notice that the prediction included was fulfilled on the
date stated. The predictor would be, therefore, entitled to the award.
Nevertheless, even then nobody would actually know WHO he is!

It doesn't even know if the predictor had anything to do with the
outcome of the prediction. If it received these files in the mail, in
physical envelopes which had no return address, it would have burned the
envelopes before it studied their contents. The result is that even the
active cooperation of the organization could not possibly help anyone,
including the police, to locate the predictor.)

Also included within this "prediction-fulfilled" encryption envelope
would be unsigned (not-yet-valid) "digital cash," which would then be
blindly signed by the organization's bank and subsequently encrypted
using the public key included. (The public key could also be publicized,
to allow members of the public to securely send their comments and,
possibly, further grateful remuneration to the predictor, securely.)
The resulting encrypted file could be published openly on the Internet,
and it could then be decrypted by only one entity: The person who had
made that original, accurate prediction. The result is that the
recipient would be absolutely untraceable.

The digital cash is then processed by the recipient by "unblinding" it,
a principle which is explained in far greater detail by an article in
the August 1992 issue of Scientific American. The resulting digital
cash is absolutely untraceable to its source.

This overall system achieves a number of goals. First, it totally hides
the identity of the predictor to the organzation, which makes it
unnecessary for any potential predictor to "trust" them to not reveal
his name or location. Secondly, it allows the predictor to make his
prediction without revealing the actual contents of that prediction
until later, when he chooses to, assuring him that his "target" cannot
possibly get early warning of his intent. (and "failed" predictions
need never be revealed). In fact, he needs never reveal his prediction
unless he wants the award. Third, it allows the predictor to anonymously
grant his award to anyone else he chooses, since he may give this
digital cash to anyone without fear that it will be traced.

For the organization, this system also provides a number of advantages.
By hiding the identity of the predictor from even it, the organization
cannot be forced to reveal it, in either civil or criminal court. This
should also shield the organization from liability, since it will not
know the contents of any "prediction" until after it came true. (Even
so, the organization would be deliberately kept "poor" so that it would
be judgment-proof.) Since presumably most of the laws the organization
might be accused of violating would require that the violator have
specific or prior knowledge, keeping itself ignorant of as many facts as
possible, for as long as possible, would presumably make it very
difficult to prosecute.

"At the Village Pizza shop, as they were sitting down to consume a
pepperoni, Dorothy asked Jim, 'So what other inventions are you working
on?" Jim replied, 'I've got a new idea, but it's really revolutionary.
Literally REVOLUTIONARY.' 'Okay, Jim, which government are you
planning to overthrow?,' she asked, playing along.
'All of them,' answered Jim."

Political Implications
Imagine for a moment that as ordinary citizens were watching the
evening news, they see an act by a government employee or officeholder
that they feel violates their rights, abuses the public's trust, or
misuses the powers that they feel should be limited. A person whose
actions are so abusive or improper that the citizenry shouldn't have to
tolerate it.

What if they could go to their computers, type in the miscreant's name,
and select a dollar amount: The amount they, themselves, would be
willing to pay to anyone who "predicts" that officeholder's death. That
donation would be sent, encrypted and anonymously, to a central
registry organization, and be totalled, with the total amount available
within seconds to any interested individual. If only 0.1% of the
population, or one person in a thousand, was willing to pay $1 to see
some government slimeball dead, that would be, in effect, a $250,000
bounty on his head.

Further, imagine that anyone considering collecting that bounty could do
so with the mathematical certainty that he can't possibly be identified,
and could collect the reward without meeting, or even talking to,
anybody who could later identify him. Perfect anonymity, perfect
secrecy, and perfect security. And that, combined with the ease and
security with which these contributions could be collected, would make
being an abusive government employee an extremely risky proposition.
Chances are good that nobody above the level of county commissioner
would even risk staying in office.

Just how would this change politics in America? It would take far less
time to answer, "What would remain the same?" No longer would we be
electing people who will turn around and tax us to death, regulate us
to death, or for that matter sent hired thugs to kill us when we oppose
their wishes.

No military?

One of the attractive potential implications of such a system would be
that we might not even need a military to protect the country. Any
threatening or abusive foreign leader would be subject to the same
contribution/assassination/reward system, and it would operate just as
effectively over borders as it does domestically.

This country has learned, in numerous examples subsequent to many wars,
that once the political disputes between leaders has ceased, we
(ordinary citizens) are able to get along pretty well with the citizens
of other countries. Classic examples are post-WWII Germany, Japan, and
Italy, and post-Soviet Russia, the Eastern bloc, Albania, and many
others.

Contrary examples are those in which the political dispute remains, such
as North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Cuba, Red China, and a few others. In
all of these examples, the opposing leadership was NOT defeated, either
in war or in an internal power struggle. Clearly, it is not the PEOPLE
who maintain the dispute, but the leadership.

Consider how history might have changed if we'd been able to "bump off"
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh,
Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Moammar Khadafi, and various others,
along with all of their replacements if necessary, all for a measly few
million dollars, rather than the billions of dollars and millions of
lives that subsequent wars cost.

But that raises an interesting question, with an even more interesting
answer. "If all this is so easy, why hasn't this been done before?" I
mean, wars are destructive, costly, and dangerous, so why hasn't some
smart politician figured out that instead of fighting the entire
country, we could just 'zero' the few bad guys on the top?

The answer is quite revealing, and strikingly "logical": If we can kill
THEIR leaders, they can kill OUR leaders too. That would avoid the
war, but the leadership on both sides would be dead, and guess who is
making the decisions about what to do? That's right, the LEADERS!

And the leaders (both theirs and ours!) would rather see 30,000,000
ordinary people die in WWII than lose their own lives, if they can get
away with it. Same in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, and numerous other
disputes around the globe. You can see that as long as we continue to
allow leaders, both "ours" and "theirs," to decide who should die, they
will ALWAYS choose the ordinary people of each country.

One reason the leaders have been able to avoid this solution is simple:
While it's comparatively easy to "get away with murder," it's a lot
harder to reward the person who does it, and that person is definitely
taking a serious risk. (Most murders are solved based on some prior
relationship between the murder and victim, or observations of witnesses
who know either the murderer or the victim.)

Historically, it has been essentially impossible to adequately motivate
a assassin, ensuring his safety and anonymity as well, if only because
it has been impossible to PAY him in a form that nobody can trace, and
to ensure the silence of all potential witnesses. Even if a person was
willing to die in the act, he would want to know that the people he
chooses would get the reward, but if they themselves were identified
they'd be targets of revenge.

All that's changed with the advent of public-key encryption and digital
cash. Now, it should be possible to announce a standing offer to all
comers that a large sum of digital cash will be sent to him in an
untraceable fashion should he meet certain "conditions," conditions
which don't even have to include proving (or, for that matter, even
claiming) that he was somehow responsible for a death.


I believe that such a system has tremendous implications for the future
of freedom. Libertarians in particular (and I'm a libertarian) should
pay particular attention to the fact that this system "encourages" if
not an anarchist outcome, at least a minarchist (minimal government)
system, because no large governmental structure could even survive in
its current form.

In fact, I would argue that this system would solve a potential
problem, occasionally postulated, with the adoption of libertarianism in
one country, surrounded by non-libertarian states. It could have
reasonably been suspected that in a gradual shift to a libertarian
political and economic system, remnants of a non-libertarian system such
as a military would have to survive, to protect society against the
threats represented by foreign states. While certainly plausible, it
would have been hard for an average naive person to imagine how the
country would maintain a $250 billion military budget, based on
voluntary contributions.

The easy answer, of course, is that military budgets of that size would
simply not happen in a libertarian society. More problematic is the
question of how a country would defend itself, if it had to raise it
defenses by voluntary contribution. An equally simplistic answer is
that this country could probably be defended just fine on a budget 1/2
to 1/3 of the current budget. True, but that misses the point.

The real answer is even simpler. Large armies are only necessary to
fight the other large armies organized by the leadership of other,
non-libertarian states, presumably against the will of their citizenry.
Once the problem posed by _their_ leadership is solved (as well as ours;
either by their own citizenry by similar anonymous contributions, or by
ours), there will be no large armies to oppose.

From Libertynet - Death to statist pigs!

cron.deny and cron.allow

Posted: 11 Aug 2006 01:09 PM PDT

Unruh wrote: 

I like setting the modes to 644 for files like that (since I don't mind if
users read it!), and putting under RCS source control so that any editing I
do of it gets tracked. 

suse 10

Posted: 11 Aug 2006 05:40 AM PDT

com wrote: 

Read the manual pages on "mount.smb" or "mount.cifs", whichever SuSE is
using. I also believe that the YaST tool supports mounting and unmounting
CIFS directories from a Windows server.

Now, getting a working MP3 player onto SuSE 10 is left as an adventure for
the user.

reiserfs permissions

Posted: 10 Aug 2006 08:14 AM PDT

Bill Marcum wrote:
 
That fixed it. The hair I pulled out will grow back eventually ...
Thank you!
Roby

mirroring drives

Posted: 10 Aug 2006 08:05 AM PDT

HASM wrote: 

Me too.