NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/unix/question/13888

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-24 | 58.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!lhc!adm!news
From: [e-mail] (SMTP MAILER)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Mail not delivered yet, still trying
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Nov 92 22:18:37 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Lines: 1621


 ----Mail status follows----
Have been unable to send your mail to <[e-mail]>
for one day, will keep trying for another seven days.
At that time your mail will be returned.

 ----Transcript of message follows----
Date: 22 Nov 92 03:26:00 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: INFO-UNIX Digest  V17#004
To: "DGRAY" <[e-mail]>

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from SEM.BRL.MIL by milo.starlab.csc.com with SMTP ;
          Sun, 22 Nov 92 03:19:19 EST
Received: by SEM.BRL.MIL id ab25722; 21 Nov 92 7:42 EST
Received: from SEM.BRL.MIL by SEM.BRL.MIL id aa24178; 21 Nov 92 6:21 EST
Received: from sem.brl.mil by SEM.BRL.MIL id aa24055; 21 Nov 92 6:07 EST
Date:       Sat, 21 Nov 92 11:07:16 EST
From:       The Moderator (Mike Muuss) <[e-mail]>
To:         [e-mail]
Reply-To:   [e-mail]
Subject:    INFO-UNIX Digest  V17#004
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

INFO-UNIX Digest          Sat, 21 Nov 1992              V17#004

Today's Topics:
                     Overflow warnings (SCO SV3.2)
                     Re: Reliable signals in Unix ?
                        Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
                           IS UNIX DEAD? (11)
                           Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
                            rz 3.17 problems
                How does compress adap to the file size?
                              RFCs via FTP
                        Re: IS UNIX DEAD (long)
                           Re: UUENCODE help!
                          root/field/operator
                Re: Whence Unix? (was Re: IS UNIX DEAD?)
         Re: Whence Unix? (was Re: IS UNIX DEAD?) (New Thread?)
                              crypt a file
                      Re: cron not finding script
                    A few more quick C questions...
                  Re: A few more quick C questions...
                           OLVWM Key bindings
                               unix show
                                adjtime
                Re: Help with generating random numbers
           Getting a file's size with the FILE data structure
                    Needle in a hay stack - nslookup
                   Re: 2nd time:How to remove files?
                   Powerful command line (UNIX dead?)
                           BACKGROUND PROCESS
-----------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Overflow warnings (SCO SV3.2)
Date: 11 Nov 92 06:42:26 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

I have just started getting the fallowing two messages on our 486
SCO Unix System V/3.2 box

WARNING: Region table overflow
NOTICE: File table overflow

I suspect the second to be associated with too many file hungry background
tasks running at the same time.

Can anyone tell me briefly what this means and how to get rid of it

do I need to change the size of some system table?

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Munday           | Bitnet   : dmunday@miavx1
Munday Computing, Inc.| INTERNET : [e-mail]
Miami University, Ohio| or       : [e-mail]
                      | USmail   : P.O. Box 9390, Cincinnati, OH 45209-0390
"Renting airplanes is like renting sex:  It's difficult to arrange on short
notice on Saturday, the fun things always cost more, and someone's always
looking at their watch."  - Ron Wanttaja

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

From: Dave Bruton <[e-mail]>
Subject: 'talk' command
Keywords: talk BSD Sun
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:07:10 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
To:       [e-mail]


Dear all,

  I need help with understanding how the 'talk' command works.  Any help
would be greatly appreciated, or references to books or other newsgroups
etc.

My problem is that I cannot use the 'talk' command with anyone on a
non-Sun machine from our network of Suns.  I appreciate that this is a
well known problem.  Everyone I speak to tells me it's a well known
problem, but no-one has been able to explain why.

I have downloaded various talk clients, to look at there source.  Most
if not all of them use the ntalk/udp service.  Suns appear to have only
the talk/udp service (517), but I looked at a non-Sun, and they appear
to have both talk(517) and ntalk(518).  I don't understand why there are
TWO services for talk on these machines, and I certainly don't understand
why it is not possible for a Sun to join in.

I worked at ICL for a short while this summer, and during my stay I
learnt that Suns are notoriously awkward for connecting onto internet
networks anyway, due to the large number of packets they throw backward
and forward at each other that no other machine can understand.  I belive
a filter needs to be put between Suns and other machines to prevent them
from falling over.

Could it be this filter that screws up talk packets?  Some packets do
apparently get through, since talk usually complains [No connection] when
none get through.  'talk' gets past this stage, up to the [invitation]
stage.  That's what makes me even more confused, and certainly
breaks my theory that these filters were a really simple design which
just throws away all UDP packets!

PLEASE HELP.  I need an understanding of this.  Many thanks,
Dave.


--
    Dave Bruton.                 "It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly
[e-mail]             unless one has plenty of work to do."
         4 Beresford St, Moss Side,                               - J K Jerome
         Manchester M14 4SB.   (ENGLAND)   Tel: [phone]

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

From: Ron Feigen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reliable signals in Unix ?
Keywords: signal
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:30:17 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: panther3.panther.mot.com
To:       [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Day) writes:
>OK, time for a question from the brain-dead.
>
>I have two Unix processes: one sends a burst of signals to the
>other.  The receiving process misses several of these signals -
>i.e.  they don't get 'queued up'.
>
>I know I could set up a kluge with a semaphore to act as an up-down
>counter, but I was hoping for a more elegant solution.  This is
>on a Sparcstation 4 running SunOS 4.1.1.
>
>Any suggestions ?
>
>Many thanks,
>
>bd
>
>
>--
>Brian Day                                       [e-mail]
>New Technology, Inc.                            [phone]
>Mission Operations Support Systems              Opinions are my own -
>Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntspatch, AL    May be fatal if swallowed

Signals will not queue up.  Reliable delivery means that they will be delivered
but once delievered the signal maybe ignored, as in the case of _burts_ of the
same type of signal.

What I have done in the past with SIG_CHLD is after servicing a SIG_CHLD (wait3)
I will _loop_ on wait3() assuming there might have been other SIG_CHLDs I missed
while processing the first SIG_CHLD if I get an ECHILD I exit.

You might try a pipe and use SIGIO.  You can then read from the pipe until it is
empty.


--

>
Ron Feigen
[e-mail]

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

From: Peter Busser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:19:01 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Tim Pierce) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Busser) writes:

>>SCO is much, much more expensive than $300.
>How much is NT projected to cost?

Who said that NT was meeting the requerments of a real OS??? :-) I guess it
can't be much more expensive, it has to compete with OS/2 v2.0, Solaris 2.0,
etc.

>Support and handholding comes free on the net.

The net itself is an expensive 'thing'. Besides, who is going to hold the
stupid user's hand when his newssetup is f*cked up???

>installation, troubleshooting, consulting, and so on.  So you get the
>OS for free and pay a small fee for support.  Competitive, at least.

I agree, however I haven't seen such a service in Europe... yet.

Greetings,
Peter Busser

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

From: Peter Busser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:38:18 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Budi Rahardjo) writes:

>>SHORT? That's hardly the word, miniscule is even too much... :-)
>>[list with *9* apps deleted]
>Have you read any UNIX-related magazine ? You will be amazed by the number
>of ready to use applications. I've seen a list of hundred applications
>available under UNIX.

I've seen those lists. But I have two questions:

  - for which UNIX?
  - how much is the difference between a DOS/Windows app and a comparable
    UNIX app? (Ok, let the flames come in! :)))

>>Wow! ODT uses Motif, NeXT uses NeXTStep, A/UX uses finder and SVR4.2 uses
>>OPEN LOOK, I guess. That makes four different UNIXes with four different
>>user interfaces. With NT or OS/2 you only need to learn only *1* user
>>interface.

>Well, where can I find NT ? Can I buy it now ?

Yep you can. Pull out a few hundred bucks and you can have it now. Besides,
the user interface won't be (much) different from Windows 3.x so for learning
the user interface...

>If you want 1 user interface just pick one of the choices.
>What's so difficult about that ?

Because the application programmer made his choice, which, alas, is probably
not my choice. Have you ever worked with X? If I for instance don't like the
Motif window manager and I switch to the OPEN LOOK window manager. That makes
that makes several things look different on the screen. But everything the
application displays remains exactly the same. In fact, the only things to
change would be the background, the system menus and the window borders. Sure
choice has it's advantages, but it sure also has it's disadvantages.

Greetings,
Peter Busser

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

From: Peter Busser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:39:46 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Chris Sherman) writes:

>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Busser) writes:


>>user interfaces. With NT or OS/2 you only need to learn only *1* user
>>interface.

>Suppose you don't like it...

Then you're stuck with it. But then at least you're stuck consistently... :-)

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

From: Peter Busser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:37:15 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Ade Barkah) writes:

>Uhm, I know it's a small point, but one people seem to forget: Most People
>in the World speak Chinese, so, why don't we insist on writing in English ?

One world standard language wouldn't be a bad thing, even if it were Chinese.

>Or, why is it good to learn some french when you're travelling to France ?

Gee, that's why we learn French at school. But I wonder why all those
foreigners never speak Dutch... Oh wel... <grin>

>My point is, Unix offer many advantages (and some disadvantages) than more
>simpler systems such as DOS and OS/2.

OS/2 ain't a simple system. It's much like DOS from the outside but completely
different from the inside.

>Should users want to use those
>advantages, they should expect to learn and think the way Unix does.

I agree, but you can't expect a traveller to go to, say, China and have a
nice holiday when he doesn't speak Chinese and the Chinese don't speak
English. What I mean that if he says "I want to rent a boat" in Chinese,
but he can't remember the translation of boat, it would be nice if he could
say that word in English and still have the Chinese understand him, right?

>If they find Unix is too complex, and don't want to bother with asking
>someone for help, or paying someone for help, then probably Unix wasn't
>meant for them in the first place.

That's just a matter of viewpoint, IMHO. I think that UNIX was designed to be
flexible. The user interface was left out of the kernel and that means that
we can choose our own UI without changing the system. So why not use that
power so that an unknowledgable user can use the system too?

>The 'dir to ls' comparison is ridiculous. It's like saying since most

The comparison isn't rediculous, you're trying to make it rediculous.

>Today Unix and most of its variants are large and complex operating
>systems, designed for the use of large and serious tasks and systems.

UNIX is a large OS, but so is OS/2 and so will be NT. What's the matter with
that? A car is a complex piece of machinery too. Ever heard complaints by
ordinary drivers about the complexity of their car?

>Moreover, I will also say that Unix today is meant to be run and
>managed by system administrators who know what they're doing.

Sure, for today's UNIX systems you're right. But things change. Ten years
ago, UNIX was meant for large computers, not for micro's. It was not meant
for graphics. Now most UNIX systems run on small micro's and many have
graphics.

>People to forget that most Unix systems are *not* home systems.

I would swear that this Linux system is at home. I know many more people who
run Linux or 386BSD at their home machine. Not all (including me) are wizards
and none are realy the typical end-user.

>But really, most Unix packages today are easy to install.

Not the UNIX packages I had to install!

>Heck, I had fewer problems than installing OS/2 2.0 !

I've never installed OS/2 v2.0. I did install v1.3 and that was as easy as
could be. No technical questions, well chosen defaults and with enough on-line
help.

>Why do people who find Unix too hard want Unix at home anyhow ?

I don't know. And in fact, that has nothing to do with this thread. The point
is, that the home market is THE market for the comming years. In volume that
is. An OS that is successful in large market will get the most support. The
most space in the magazines, the most applications, the most books, the most
companies behind it (third party software/hardware/support/etc.). If NT gets
all, then UNIX will live a small life in the shadow. I.e. it will die.

>Well, I think those people need to wake
>up, smell the coffee, and realize that Unix wasn't meant to be a
>single-user-system without a dedicated sysadmin person.

It doesn't matter for who it was meant. The question is: *CAN* it be a suitable
single user system? The answer is YES! Remember, it's a flexible system.
Flexible in contrast to static. You think UNIX is a static system: it's multi
user and complex and it's going to stay that way. That's shortsighted. UNIX
has never been a static system. It has evolved from day 1 and it hasn't stopped
and never will. If there is money in an easy to install, easy to adminster and
easy to use UNIX system, then someone will jump in that market. And since most
people don't care whether they run system X or system Y, as long as they can
do their job at a minimal effort, then that automatically means that they are
potential UNIX users. It's just that the effort is too high at this moment.

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

From: Peter Busser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:47:24 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Paul Prescod) writes:

>Why doesn't help do anything in SH (and others).

It does something usefull in bash.

>Why is it that if I want to WordProcess in VI I have to remember to hit return at the end of the line otherwise bizarre things happen.  Why not just wrap, beep, or slide over (i.e. let the line go long).

:se wm=5

>Is there a wordwrap mode in VI?  And if so, why doesn't it kick in when I
>use VI from RN?

vi ~/ex.rc
Oset wm=5<ESC>:wq

Issue a :map command in your vi. You can use function keys. It's just damn
hard to learn how to use them. (Mind, you *I* don't mind, I'm a masochist, ;-)
I just don't expect everybody to be one... ;-)

Vi is not designed to do this. Fortunately there are more editors for UNIX.
However, these are found rarely on UNIX distribution tapes (except emacs, but
that one is as terrible as vi...).

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

From: Peter Busser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:59:57 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Felix S. Gallo) writes:

>Hey, I'm getting into the rhythm of this.  Let me try:

>Why is it that people who have no idea how to use Unix and who think
>that it should operate at the lowest common denominator keep asking
>stupid questions?

Because there are people who like UNIX and who want to use it in the future
too.

Again, why can't a (suposedly) flexible and powerful system support a novice
user and an expert user at the same time?

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

From: [e-mail] (David Weisberger)
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:11:56 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (No News is Good News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: amhux3.amherst.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
To:       [e-mail]

Paul Prescod ([e-mail]) wrote:
: >Again, vi is not a drop-in replacement for Microsoft Write.  It's
: >an extremely powerful editor of text files.  If you want to whine,
: >consider asking Microsoft why they don't have a command line in
: >their editors.
:
: Microsoft has a  *PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE* built into word.  I can't
: imagine why someone would prefer a command line to keystrokes
: and requester windows.

Try: power.  With a command line, you can do exactly what you want to
do (assuming the requisite knowledge) without being limited and slowed
by predefined options and nice windows.

: >Your lack of attentiveness is simply not our problem.  The bottom of
: >every man page I've seen about 'vi' contains a pointer to the actual
: >vi manual.
:
: Would you like me to mail you our man pages or will you take my word for it
: that it says nothing about other man pages.
:
Neither did the previous poster.  "Manual" = offline book.

: If you launch an editor from VI, that editor should be a wordprocessor.  If
: it is vi, vi should be in wordprocess mode.  If it doesn't, that is a flaw.
:
Not to split hairs, but ha ir we go: there is a difference between an
editor and a wordprocessor.  vi is an editor.  Hey, I even found DOS's
edlin rapid and effective for making specific, small-scale changes.
vi and other editors have that advantage, among others.

: If help does nothing at the command prompt.  That is a flaw.
:
This is true.

You might find yourself better served by reading up on vi or other UNIX
monsters which baffle you instead of using whatever wordprocessor you
use to pound out your replies to this thread.

--
-Davebo                         "A Freudian slip is when you say one thing
                                 when you're really thinking about a mother."
 [e-mail]               -Cliff the Postman

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

From: Nicholas Kramer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: 12 Nov 92 07:53:55 GMT
To:       [e-mail]


 One quick question: What is the most widely used operating system
around? DOS. No Windows, just DOS. While nearly everything is now
growing faster than DOS-only machines, there is still a quite
substantial base of DOS only machines. Most of these aren't power users.
Most are average Joe's who learned Word Perfect for DOS and don't really
feel like learning anything new. Many people in fact were not overly
thrilled when they were forced into Windows, away from their familiar
Word Perfect for DOS. (Some got WP for Win, some didn't)

 My point is that most average users have to be dragged to the next
operating system anyhow. And the people who do the dragging aren't other
average Joes, and they aren't the computer experts. Its the people who
purchase the machines at work. Why did IBM PCs become such big sellers
in the home? Because they were big sellers in the office. Whatever the
management is sold on for operating systems is what the next mass
operating system will become. And for better or worse, managers still go
for perceived power as much as they go for user friendliness.


                        Nick

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

From: Budi Rahardjo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:58:41 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: antares.cc.umanitoba.ca
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Paul Prescod) writes:

 ...
>Microsoft has a  *PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE* built into word.  I can't
>imagine why someone would prefer a command line to keystrokes
>and requester windows.

For people with disabilities and for people without a mouse.
Suppose I have to add "," at the end of every line in a file with 1000 lines.
How do yo do that with that "PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE" ?
It's really simple with vi.

 ...
>>>Why do I have 12 function keys on my keyboard that seem to do absolutely
>>>nothing?
>>
>>dumb question is this?  Are you blaming your keyboard manufacturer's
>>ills on Unix, or are you incoherently expecting that Unix assign some
>>sort of meaning to every key assignable?

>No it's not a dumb question.  There is no standard for help in the Unix
>world.  The f keys are seldom used in unix programs.  Most terminals
>have f keys.  It would seem this would be a good time to start convincing
>people to use F1 for help, n'est ce pas?

How about terminals without F keys ? How about different keyboards send
different key sequence for F1 ? We still have many terminals without F keys.

 ...
>>>Is there a wordwrap mode in VI?  And if so, why doesn't it kick in when I
>>>use VI from RN?
>>
>>a) yes.  b) because your .exrc file is not set up correctly.

>How often does someone want to edit news without word wrap?  Wouldn't that
>make it logical to put word wrap in the standard .exrc file?

vi is programmer's editor. For composing short text try other text
editors (like pico, ce, and joe).

 ...
>Because they are not stupid questions.  They are good questions.  Obviously
>VI has flaws.  Obviously unix has flaws.  Everything has flaws.  It is
>frightening the way many Unix users refuse to admit that Unix has flaws.

To you it looks like a flaw, to me it's a feature. Have you ever tried
deleting 400 lines in a 4000-line file ? Try that with GUI, with vi
it's as simple as 400dd. I mean with GUI I have to hold the mouse
and scroll several pages ...

>If you launch an editor from VI, that editor should be a wordprocessor.  If
>it is vi, vi should be in wordprocess mode.  If it doesn't, that is a flaw.

Why should it be a wordprocessor ? If you want to edit a 10 lines text file
would you start Microsoft Word for Windows ?

>If help does nothing at the command prompt.  That is a flaw.

Not on my machine.

>If the cursor keys are illogical that is a flaw.

Don't understand what you mean there ...

>Anything can be improved if we discuss the flaws and discuss ways to improve
>them.  If we treat those that notice flaws as blasphemers, we all end up
>using 1970s text editors in 1992, and unix dies.

What kind of improvement do you want ? We (at least in our network) have
it all.  UNIX will eventually die, but not this decade pal.


-- budi
--
Budi Rahardjo <[e-mail]>
Unix Support - Computer Services - University of Manitoba

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

From: Budi Rahardjo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:06:13 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: antares.cc.umanitoba.ca
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Paul Prescod) writes:
 ...
>Many, many people don't know there are opearting systems
>other then DOS.  Those that do, usually crinkle their noses if you tell
>them about Unix.  "I heard that has a brutal learning curve."

It's because of people like you who only complain but do not fix the
problem. Hey, I have to deal with hundreds of DOS/Mac/beginner users
to use our UNIX machines every day.
Most of the problem I face is not using the UNIX computer, usually it's
network-related or performance problems/questions. (ie the concept of
networked-machines).


-- budi
--
Budi Rahardjo <[e-mail]>
Unix Support - Computer Services - University of Manitoba

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

From: Ioi Kim Lam <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:07:37 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: pixmap.seas.upenn.edu
To:       [e-mail]


> Try: power.  With a command line, you can do exactly what you want to
> do (assuming the requisite knowledge) without being limited and slowed
> by predefined options and nice windows.


Let's look at the future, not the past. Command line was and still is a
nice interface element. However, try to move a window using command line.
Tell the MS Word user to use key-strokes to do the cut-and-paste.

Command line has its advantage, and so does GUI and any other kind of user
interface. These different types of user interfaces are complementary to
each other, and we still need a hell lot of development in order to
render the power of the computer to all the users. Don't think that by
insisting on using the command line ONLY you are defending the future of Unix.


 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   " Before the computer scientist was executed, he still
     insisted that Unix was equal to VI, CSH and EMACS. "

--


========================================      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
IOI LAM ( footnote : the Binary Man )  |      |  ( . )    ( . )   |

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

From: Harley Hahn <[e-mail]>
Subject: IS UNIX DEAD? (11)
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:31:53 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
To:       [e-mail]

This is number 11 in a series of 22 responses to the question:

What do you think about the Byte magazine cover that asked:
IS UNIX DEAD?

(moderated by Harley Hahn)

 ----------
From: [e-mail] (Dean M. Phillips)

The Byte magazine article was primarily about how Microsoft
Windows NT was going to be the biggest challenge that Unix-like
systems had faced because it offered most of the advantages of
Unix with the support and ease of use and setup that windows is
famous for.

I think Windows NT will replace Unix on the systems of the
computer illiterate.  It certainly is not going to replace 386BSD
on my 486-33. For one thing, I have no desire to invest $400 in a
CD ROM drive so that I can read the distribution.  For another, I
like being able to fix bugs and compatibility problems when
required.  With a commercial package you are at the mercy of the
developer.

==========


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

From: Peter Busser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:17:08 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Tim Pierce) writes:

>>Ok. Pretend that I'm Joe User and I go to a shop. I leave the shop with a UNIX
>>tape. Now how do I install this tape without expertise? (s/tape/cd/g if you
>>want). Installing UNIX is simple? Forget it!
>Plug in the SLS disks for Linux and answer the pretty questions.

I did. Have you ever taught a novice how to partition a harddisk??? How to
make a file system then?

>Next?

>>>    Unix is time tested. Newcomers like NT and OS/2 are still too
>>>    buggy to be really useful for the general audience. It'll take
>>>    some years to sort it out.
>>
>>Probably, but does that stop people?

>Not to begin with.  When it becomes apparent, though, that there is an
>alternative to their buggy, problematic platforms, they might begin to
>choose otherwise.

You don't mean to imply that UNIX is a real alternative at this moment, do you?

Greetings,
Peter "Have you tried to teach your sister vi? I did... :-(" Busser

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

From: Peter Busser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:37:03 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Peter F. Couvares) writes:

>[e-mail] writes:
>>[e-mail] (Peter F. Couvares) writes:
>>
>>>    Before you try to convince people of unix's flaws, I suggest you
>>>first make sure you have a clue what you're talking about.
>>
>>Where can I get toll-free support for Linux?

>    You can't. You can't get it for anything Microsoft sells either.

But wouldn't it be great to have anyway?

>But that's not even the point. You listed a dozen or so things Unix "needs",
>about half of which were complete and total bullshit. "Unix needs a more
>powerful command-line" is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on
>Usenet.

Please don't put words I've never said in my mouth! Getting personal in a
discussion isn't exactly polite either. If you don't have arguments to convince
your 'oponents' of their wrong, then it's better to shut up.

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

From: Peter Busser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:39:07 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Devin McQuaid) writes:

>>Where can I get toll-free support for Linux?
>comp.os.linux
>you won't get an answer in 20 min. but you will get your answer

USENET costs $$$ too. And administration.

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

From: Peter Busser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:45:40 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Tim Pierce) writes:

>>NO, YOU are an idiot, if you see linux as the hope for the future.
>What are you talking about?  You said that a "real" operating system
>should install from floppy.  Linux installs from floppy.  Conclusion:
>you lose.

But it doesn't meet the other requirements listed... You lose.

>Um, no ... I think most people say, "Cool!  What's the number?  What
>baud rate?"  What world are *you* living in?  One where Prodigy hasn't
>yet been introduced?

What's Prodigy?

>>If you want a nice graphical interface
>>like Windows or Os/2, you have to ftp and make that too.
>Um, no ... you just install X from the SLS disks, I believe.

Yep. But then, how do I know to type in 'startx' on the command line?

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

From: Peter Busser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:48:34 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Budi Rahardjo) writes:

>Where can I get NT, now ?

Ask MS. I believe it is sold right now. Probably to developers. Not that I
care.

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

From: Peter Busser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:50:25 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Budi Rahardjo) writes:

>Why do you insist to install it yourself anyway ?

Because that often saves (a lot of) money.

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

From: Peter Busser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:55:27 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Drew Eckhardt) writes:

>>>want). Installing UNIX is simple? Forget it!

>The last commercial Unix I installed from scratch, I stuck the CDROM in
>the drive,booted it, answered a few questions about what licenses I had
>and what products I wanted installed, and it told me to come back in X minutes.

Nice! I've always installed either from floppy or from tape. The last being
NCR System V.4. Almost every package installed needs manual intervention. And
endless recompilation of the kernel is a real pain in the *ss too.

>Under Linux, you boot one of the "easy to install" disk sets, answer a few
>questions regarding where you want it and what you want installed (ie, X,
>etc) and it just happens.

I know, it's easy after partitioning the harddisk...

>>Just buy a machine with pre-installed UNIX. Or ask the shop to install it
>>for you. Is that difficult ?
>Most workstation vendors will ship with the OS already installed, just as
>most PC vendors ship with DOS / Windows installed.

That's nice! Except when your vendor ships the wrong operating system. That is,
DOS...

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

From: Craig Andrew Humphrey <[e-mail]>
Subject: rz 3.17 problems
Keywords: rz modem unix pc problem help
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:51:45 GMT
Sender: News Admin <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: halswell.comp.vuw.ac.nz
To:       [e-mail]


In the past I`ve used rzsz 3.02 on HP9000/340's and Sun 3/80's, to my PC at home,
with no probs at 2400 baud (though throughput is less than to local bbs).
But just the other day I compiled rzsz 3.17 and now it doesn't work!
With rz, any command line options just cause the help to be displayed and if I
type rz on it's own, it locks up and jumps to the modem server (at the unix end)
when I abort from my end (GSZ 5/3/92).

Does any one have any ideas why this is happening?

Also I have tried repeatedly to compile rzsz 3.02 on an SGI IRIS running sysv but
just get heaps of compile errors.  I'll try 3.17 and see what happens.

Craig

--
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Craig Humphrey.  [e-mail]      | The above opinions in no way |
|               [e-mail]  | represent those of any sane, |
|Victoria University Wellington,  New Zealand. | normal person, I hope!       |

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

From: Liming Ren <[e-mail]>
Subject: How does compress adap to the file size?
Date: 12 Nov 92 02:36:30 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: function.mps.ohio-state.edu
To:       [e-mail]

The  man page of (UNIX) compress says

     compress reduces the size of the named files using  adaptive
     Lempel-Ziv coding.  Whenever possible, each file is replaced

Does anybody know how the adaptive coding is acheived?  I assume there is a
formula which computes the NUMBER OF BITS per code from the file size.
What is this formula?


Thanks advance!

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

From: "Steven J. Sobol" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RFCs via FTP
Date: 12 Nov 92 04:20:12 GMT
To:       [e-mail]


I know how to receive the text of Internet RFC's via e-mail, but is there
an FTP site which holds them?

regards,
    Steve

--
Steve Sobol - SWM ISO a life               [e-mail], [e-mail]
President, The Tiny Software Co.  (IRC: RockNRoll)  [e-mail]
Coordinator, Unix SIG, Greater Cleve. PC User Group        23707 Glenhill Drive
Founder, Midwest Regional COHERENT User Group        Cleveland, OH 44122    USA

INTERNET ACCESS IS COMING TO CLEVELAND VERY SOON. Stay tunded for details.

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

From: Nicholas Kramer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD (long)
Date: 12 Nov 92 04:29:54 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

Excerpts from netnews.comp.unix.questions: 11-Nov-92 Re: IS UNIX DEAD
(long) by Paul [e-mail]
>>Geez, I can't count how often I saved a version of a file by typing
>>       mv Driver.o Driver.O
>>       mv source.c source.C

 I gotta agree. Even though I'm a Unix person, I kinda like the idea of
OS/2's case preservation but non-case sensitive. Personally, I hate
using the shift key any more than absolutely necessary, and I gotta
admit I haven't found a whole lot of instances of case sensitivity being
useful in file names. (C programming is another story..)

Excerpts from netnews.comp.unix.questions: 9-Nov-92 Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
(long) by Paul [e-mail]
>You get another one...like Norton Desktop, NewWave, PM (for OS/2).

 Unless I'm missing something, that's the "Program manager", not the
window manager. A window manager is something that draws the nifty
little boarders around windows and controls the size of the window. A
program manager is a regular application that launches, you guessed it,
programs. You can change the program launcher, but as best I know, you
can't change the window manager. Norton Desktop for Windows does nothing
to change the way the little buttons and all look, and I don't believe
it can be done.

Excerpts from mail: 11-Nov-92 Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long) by Dave
[e-mail]
>>  This is about as trivial as it gets: Complaining because there are two
>> GUIs and not one: Open Look and Motif.
>
>No, this is a very significant problem for applications, though it isn't
>much of a problem for end-users.  It basically doubles the amount of work
>and cost it takes to develop and maintain an application's user interface.

 That's a good point, I guess. But the same thing holds: there are very
few differences between Open Look and Motif applications, and while it
may not look quite as pretty, I don't think the users will care a whole
lot if some of their programs are Motif and some are Open Look.

 Two other things... The ease of use of OS/2 and Windows NT isn't that
obvious to me. Today at a computer fair I asked an IBM rep how to open
multiple OS/2 command lines. After showing me what looked to be a fairly
complex process, he told me (in kinder terms) that I should have gone
through the tutorial. Now, personally, I thought one of the appeals of
OS/2 was that you didn't HAVE to read the manual.

 NT looks to me like it suffers from all that plague Windows, PLUS it
has the much feared login prompt. The much complained about Program
manager/file manager dichotomy seems to still be there. I dunno, if
"average users" are truly the driving force, NT doesn't seem to offer
the "average user" much of anything over Windows, and so no one will
move to NT.


                        Nick

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

From: "Robert B. McCullough" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD (long)
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:33:52 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

>>UNIX doesn't have these "user friendlyness" of DOS, because it isn't DOS
>>that's user friendly, it's the applications that were written for it.
>>One OS is no more "user friendly" than the other.
>>
>True, the problem is there are people, in this very newsgroup, who see
>no reason to try to make user friendly applications for unix.  To them,
>if you can't use VI right off the bat, or enjoy learning obscure,
>nonsensical, illogical keystrokes, you should go back to the mac.
>THIS will kill Unix.
 Total B.S.!!    I'd love to have a user friendly application and VI
is it for me. It grips me to hear DOS users say "VI it's to hard to
learn". Come on thats why UNIX has got power, DOS doesn't. I'm not gonna
sit here and haggle about well DOS does this ,oh yea well UNIX does this
and etc. MY opinion like or not--DOS BLOWS!! Girlie OS.

Flame me, cry, whine I don't care.

Wasn't the Byte article talking about NT anyways?

--
Robert B. McCullough-Computer Operations Tech.
Registrar Data Systems
Georgia Institute of Technology
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: Joe Eddy Demers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: UUENCODE help!
Date: 12 Nov 92 12:39:50 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

Hi...

To get uuencode to work right, do the following:

Say you want to uuencode the binary file blah.mid into the text file blah.uu:
    At the unix prompt, type:
        uuencode blah.mid blah.mid > blau.uu

I know that sounds weird, but it works.  I'm not sure why you have to
put the source filename as both the desired file AND the remote file,
but that's the only way I've been able to get it to work, and it works
just fine that way.


                                            -Jeff Kunins
                                             jk75@andrew


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

From: "Jethro H. Greene" <[e-mail]>
Subject: root/field/operator
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:50:54 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: poster
Originator: [e-mail]
To:       [e-mail]

Would someone please explain the logins in the subject.

Thanks in advance.

 --------------------------- |\_/| --------------------------------------------
| Jethro H. Greene (Jed) | \`0.0'/ | Massively Parallel Comp. Research Lab., |
| [e-mail]  | =(_-_)= | Sandia National Lab., Albuquerque, NM   |
 ---------------------------   U   --------------------------------------------

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

From: Jim Frost <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Whence Unix? (was Re: IS UNIX DEAD?)
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:45:44 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.202
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] writes:
>  The way I heard it was that the Bell Labs had a wide variety of machines
>which had accumulated, and UNIX was developed so that all the different
>machines would have the same "front end", thereby making it easier for
>users to move from machine to machine.

By now you've probably figured out that this is totally untrue.

The only bit I can add to this discussion (I can't remember if I heard
this from Ritchie or someone else) was that when they got the PDP-11
for the text processing system they spent almost all of the time
building the portable version of UNIX and built troff et al on top of
it at the last minute.  I can't help but believe this given the
comparative quality of the two sets of tools :-).

jim frost
[e-mail]

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

From: Steve VanDevender <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Whence Unix? (was Re: IS UNIX DEAD?) (New Thread?)
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:07:27 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
To:       [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John 'Fritz' Lowrey) writes:

       Folks,
       Since it is now fairly clear that text processing and/or game
   playing became important uses for Unix early on.  I also seem to recall
   that curses(3) was developed in part so that HACK could be made terminal
   independent.

curses(3) was developed for rogue(6).  hack, and then NetHack,
came much later.  But this isn't your biggest historical goof.

       So, a new thread perhaps: what other now-major (or was-major)
   tools, operating systems, or hardware were developed for use in a
   sub-mission critical or downright frivilous application, and later
   became standards far removed from the initial intent?

       My seed:
       Microsoft DOS    ->    Intended as a stepping stone while DR
                   wrapped up CP/M-86, and now the program
                   loader of choice for countless millions.

You really need to study up on your computing history.  You seem
to imply that Microsoft got MS-DOS from Digital Research.
Microsoft got MS-DOS from a small firm called Seattle Computer,
which had written a quick-and-dirty CP/M clone called SC-DOS.
Then Microsoft hacked it up and marketed the hell out of it.

I don't have any examples for this thread, but if you are going
to contribute, at least get your facts right.
--
Steve VanDevender     [e-mail]
"Bipedalism--an unrecognized disease affecting over 99% of the population.
Symptoms include lack of traffic sense, slow rate of travel, and the
classic, easily recognized behavior known as walking."

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

From: es bo <[e-mail]>
Subject: crypt a file
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:22:53 GMT
Sender: netnews admin account <[e-mail]>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
To:       [e-mail]


hi, there,
In our machine, we have not the crypt program, and if I want to
do some cryptage of my file, how can I do it? how I read it after?
I have not normal access to this group, so your reply to me is
prefered. Thankx.

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

From: Thom Anthony McCarty <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: cron not finding script
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:44:45 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

The cron/script mystery has been solved; it was the single quote marks
surrounding the cron command.

Thanks to Doug Sewell and Andreas Karrer.

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

From: Alan Edmonds <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: cron not finding script
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:04:24 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> Thom Anthony McCarty <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>I am executing a Bourne shell script, newsrunning, from within cron.
>I have given the absolute filename (including the path) but cron says
>it cannot find the script:
>
>
>helpdesk% crontab -l
>5,10,20,25,35,40,50,55 * 1-31 * 1-6 '/usr/lib/newsbin/input/newsrun'
>30 8    1-31 *  1-5     '/usr/lib/newsbin/input/newsrunning off'
>00 17   1-31 *  1-5     '/usr/lib/newsbin/input/newsrunning on'
>#40 *    1-31 *  0-6     '/usr/lib/newsbin/batch/sendbatches'
>59 0    1-31 *  0-6     '/usr/lib/newsbin/expire/doexpire'
>10 8    1-31 *  0-6     '/usr/lib/newsbin/maint/newsdaily'
>00 5,13,21      1-31 *  1-5     '/usr/lib/newsbin/maint/newswatch
>| mail page'
>1,31 *   1-31 *  1-5     '/usr/lib/newsbin/utils/create-desc'
>

Get rid of the apostrophes.  You are turning a script with an argument
into a script ( with an embeded space in the name) with no arguments.

>Subject: Output from "cron" command
>
>Your "cron" job
>
>    '/usr/lib/newsbin/input/newsrunning off'
>
>produced the following output:
>
>sh: /usr/lib/newsbin/input/newsrunning off: not found

Notice it says 'newsrunning off' is the name of the script.

--
Alan Edmonds                                     Texas Instruments, Inc.
I don't speak for TI; TI doesn't speak for me    M/S 8515
Work phone: [phone]                        6620 Chase Oaks Blvd.
Email: [e-mail]                      Plano, Texas  75023

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

From: Ron Cecchini <[e-mail]>
Subject: A few more quick C questions...
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:29:39 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: hornsby.cs.rpi.edu
To:       [e-mail]

Hi again -

 Thanx to everyone who responded to my read/write question of a few days ago.

 I just have a couple of *quick* C questions:

1) Is there a command to see if a file exists?
   [Can't just use fopen() - it returns NULL for more than one reason...]

2) Is there a command to determine a file's size?
   [I think the data structure pointed to by a FILE contains a ->_cnt feild
    that can be used - I'll try it in a minute...]

3) Is there a command to determine if a user is logged in?
   [I don't want to bother with a system("who | grep user > temp"), etc.]

4) Is there a command to determine if a user is running a certain process?

Thanx again,
Ron

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

From: Ramez Naam <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A few more quick C questions...
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:13:44 GMT
Sender: "Net.Noise owner" <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Ron Cecchini) writes:

>2) Is there a command to determine a file's size?
>   [I think the data structure pointed to by a FILE contains a ->_cnt feild
>    that can be used - I'll try it in a minute...]

# include <io.h>
long filelength(int handle);

or, if your library doesn't have filelength:

error = fseek(*file,2);  /* Sets file pointer to end of file */
            /* returns 0 on success */
size = ftell(*file); /* Returns offset of file pointer (long int) in bytes. */
            /* returns -1L on fail */

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

From: Mike Krus <[e-mail]>
Subject: OLVWM Key bindings
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:37:10 GMT
Sender: USENET News System <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: chi.cs.concordia.ca
To:       [e-mail]

Using the OLVWM on SPARC IPC running SunOS 4.1.1 I have a problem with
keybings :

The L8 key is by default binded to the past function but I need that key for
an application for which I can't change the key binding.

I tried inserting the following line in the .olvwmrc file but that fails :
    L8 { }

Anybody knows what I should do?

Thanks,


--
Michael Krus.                     Email : [e-mail]
Concordia University                Universite d'Orsay - Paris XI
Montreal, Canada                            Paris, France
This .sig intentionally left blank.

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

From: Tony Reeves <[e-mail]>
Subject: unix show
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:38:47 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

I'm trying to find information about a unix show that is suppose to be in the
first half of 1993. I think its called usenix or something like that.

does anyone know of a big unix show or trade seminar in Calif in 1993 (1Q)??


--
Why did the Roman Empire Collapse? What is latin for Office Automation?
---- The opitions expressed here are mine and have nothing to do with Hughes
Aircraft Co. -- So there! [e-mail]

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

From: Martin McCormick <[e-mail]>
Subject: adjtime
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:06:18 GMT
Sender: USENET News System <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: datacomm.ucc.okstate.edu
To:       [e-mail]


I have determined that our Sun sparc's real-time clock gains about a minute
every three months.  Is the adjtime call appropriate to use to slow down
the system clock to compensate for this error?  When reading the manual
entry on it, I was a little confused as to whether this was meant for only
synchronizing other system's clocks to a master time server or if it did that
in addition to introducing a correction factor to the host system clock.
I would like to hear from anybody who has actually used it.
    There are various hardware solutions to synchronizing clocks, but
I feel that our system would be pretty accurate, for our needs, if a correction
factor could constantly be in effect to nudge the system in to counting time
a little more slowly.  Any help such as whether or not this does what I think
it does, or examples of what the C code to call it looks like would be
appreciated.

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

From: Gaumond Pierre <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help with generating random numbers
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:10:23 GMT
Sender: Administration de Cnews <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>I need help with generating random numbers. If I use the normail C routines
>on UNIX for generating random numbers (random, rand, etc.) everytime the
>program is executed, the sequence of random numers remains the same.
>
>How can I fix this so that each time I execute that program, the initial (and
>thus the following sequence of) random numbers is different? On Turbo C the
>subroutine randomize() takes care of this. Is there such a routine available on
>UNIX/ULTRIX?
>
>Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot.

    Usually rand function has an initializer function (srand
    on my system).

    use time(2) as the seed for srand (strip most significant
    bits).

    For example:
        time(&seed);
        seed = seed % 100000;
        srand(seed);

    If you have a time function giving millisecond or mocro seconds. It
    will be better. Usually, my code is suppicient.

>Nitin Seth
>[e-mail]
>


--
Pierre Gaumond.        [e-mail]
Services Informatiques, Universite de Montreal.
C.P. 6128, Succursale "A", Montreal,
Quebec, Canada.   H3C 3J7

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

From: Gaumond Pierre <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help with generating random numbers
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:20:09 GMT
Sender: Administration de Cnews <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gaumond Pierre) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>I need help with generating random numbers. If I use the normail C routines
>>on UNIX for generating random numbers (random, rand, etc.) everytime the
>>program is executed, the sequence of random numers remains the same.
>>
>>How can I fix this so that each time I execute that program, the initial (and
>>thus the following sequence of) random numbers is different? On Turbo C the
>>subroutine randomize() takes care of this. Is there such a routine available on
>>UNIX/ULTRIX?
>>
>>Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot.
>
>    Usually rand function has an initializer function (srand
>    on my system).
>
>    use time(2) as the seed for srand (strip most significant
>    bits).
>
>    For example:
>        time(&seed);
>        seed = seed % 100000;
>        srand(seed);
>
>    If you have a time function giving millisecond or mocro seconds. It
>    will be better. Usually, my code is suppicient.
>
>>Nitin Seth
>>[e-mail]
>>
>
>
>--
>Pierre Gaumond.        [e-mail]
>Services Informatiques, Universite de Montreal.
>C.P. 6128, Succursale "A", Montreal,
>Quebec, Canada.   H3C 3J7


--
Pierre Gaumond.        [e-mail]
Services Informatiques, Universite de Montreal.
C.P. 6128, Succursale "A", Montreal,
Quebec, Canada.   H3C 3J7

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

From: Ron Cecchini <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting a file's size with the FILE data structure
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:14:35 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: hornsby.cs.rpi.edu
To:       [e-mail]

Hi again,

 I found that you can use the FILE ds to get a file's size.  However,
there seems to be a glitch with it.  For one, the data structure is
NOT initialized after the fopen().  So, thats no good.  And you can't try
to fseek() to the beginning and look at ->_cnt.  What I found you have to do
is: fgets() a line from the file and *THEN* fseek() back to the beginning
of the file.  *NOW* ->_cnt contains the size of the file.

Ron

p.s. I have received info on using the stat() command to also get the info.

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

From: Mike Sidler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Needle in a hay stack - nslookup
Keywords: nslookup, domains
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:58:16 GMT
Sender: Mike Sidler <sidler@smurf>
Nntp-Posting-Host: smurf.ssc.gov
To:       [e-mail]

Given just a hostname, I'm trying to find its Internet address. I know that
I could do this manually by getting a list of all the domainnames in North America
and one by one grep nslookup for the hostname. (Haven't been able to get a list
of domainnames yet).  However, I'm hoping there is a much easier way of doing this.
I'm trying to get the Internet address so I can email this person. But I don't have
his phone number or address, only the name of his machine!

Any help would be appreciated!!
--
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Sidler
Superconducting Super Collider
2550 Beckleymeade Ave. MS 4004
Dallas, TX  75237-3946

[e-mail]
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

From: Budi Rahardjo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 2nd time:How to remove files?
Keywords: remove, unix, corefiles
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:40:29 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: antares.cc.umanitoba.ca
To:       [e-mail]


[e-mail] (michael) writes:


>I keep getting files added to my working directory such as 'xerrors'
>and '.nfs***'. If I put a line in my .login that says 'rm xerrors', a
>'xerrors:no such file' message appears every time I log in. If I leave
>the 'rm xerrors' line out of my .login, the 'xerrors' file starts to
>show up in my root directory.  The '.nfs***' files appear whenever I
>am working in the text editor, emacs in this case. I have uncommented
>the line 'limit coredumpsize 0' in my .login.  Any suggestions? If it is
>more convenient to email, that's fine.

You have to ask your sysadm why "xerrors" file showed up in the first
place. Now, about removing the file.

The error msg "xerrors:no such file" is due to the fact that there is
no "xerrors" file. You might want to use :

rm -f xerrors


-- budi
--
Budi Rahardjo <[e-mail]>
Unix Support - Computer Services - University of Manitoba

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

From: Clint Olsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Powerful command line (UNIX dead?)
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:06:26 GMT
Sender: USENET News System <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]


I remember reading about someone saying what UNIX needs to survive in
the next decade.

The one about a "more powerful command-line" was probably an unqualified
statement.

First, what is meant by it?  What's powerful?  I particularly find the UNIX
prompt an excellent place to get my work done.  In fact, one of the
biggest complaints about UNIX is that the command-line is TOO powerful.

A user can mistakenly wipe out their entire directory in one line!  A
user can clobber their files if they misuse shell metacharacters like
"*" when using an "mv" command.

For commands which are extremely long, command-line editing provided by
"ksh" or "bash" makes substitutions and corrections a snap.

With UNIX, I can move entire filesystems with a command line.  I can have
mountable file systems and I can access files over the network.  All of these
features I find extremely powerful and easy to use.  Furthermore, they
don't require 40 disk installations of Novell!  Networking is built in!

Software development is great.  I have access to great compilers and debuggers
from the Free Software Foundation.  I don't know about you, but I'd
prefer NOT to reboot my machine everytime I accessed guarded memory.  With
UNIX, you get a core dump and you can step through a debugger to see what
happened.  Isn't a protected system great?

Obviously, there are problems with UNIX.  For one, the hardware requirements
are pretty high.  Furthermore, it's not easy to learn.  Commands are
abbreviated because when it was invented, people were typing on mechanical
terminals that required 5lbs. of pressure for key presses (exaggeration)!

Without turing this into a flame-fest, before you get on the net and flame
UNIX, why don't you do your homework first.

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clint Olsen
[e-mail]
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

From: MONK <[e-mail]>
Subject: BACKGROUND PROCESS
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:46:22 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

hi folks

Could someone clear me this doubt.

man anything > testfile &
repeat the following statement no of times
man anything >> testfile &


The output file testfile does not seem to contain the output of the man page
required no of times, some of them seem to get lost.


email responses to [e-mail]
thanks
--
_________________________________________________________________________
athi
_________________________________________________________________________

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


End of INFO-UNIX Digest
***********************