NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/unix/question/13896

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-24 | 89.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!news.ans.net!cmcl2!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 22:33:40 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Lines: 2339


 ----Mail status follows----
Have been unable to send your mail to <[e-mail]>,
will keep trying for a total of eight days.
At that time your mail will be returned.

 ----Transcript of message follows----
Date: 22 Nov 92 03:25:00 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: INFO-UNIX Digest  V17#001
To: "DGRAY" <[e-mail]>

Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from SEM.BRL.MIL by milo.starlab.csc.com with SMTP ;
          Sun, 22 Nov 92 03:19:59 EST
Received: by SEM.BRL.MIL id aa26600; 21 Nov 92 9:14 EST
Received: from SEM.BRL.MIL by SEM.BRL.MIL id aa23673; 21 Nov 92 5:49 EST
Received: from sem.brl.mil by SEM.BRL.MIL id aa23580; 21 Nov 92 5:35 EST
Date:       Sat, 21 Nov 92 10:35:37 EST
From:       The Moderator (Mike Muuss) <[e-mail]>
To:         [e-mail]
Reply-To:   [e-mail]
Subject:    INFO-UNIX Digest  V17#001
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

INFO-UNIX Digest          Sat, 21 Nov 1992              V17#001

Today's Topics:
                      Re: rz problems at 9600 baud
                     How to kill xoffed cu process?
                           Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
                            Re: unix for 386
                    Re: Unix System Crashing!! Why?
                           Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
                        Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
                              /dev/kbd IO?
                        Personal to John Brewer
                        Standard AND piped input
                        Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
                  rm Question (was : C-shell Question
                        Re: .profile vs. .kshrc
                      Re: rz problems at 9600 baud
                      UNIX --> DOS remote printing
                       Re: diff in scripts again
                        Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
                           Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
                        Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
                           Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
                        Re: How to cd "a b c d"
                           Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
         Users log off but processes continue  -- HELP HELP !!
                      Re: Standard AND piped input
         Re: How do you cat only the first 50 lines of a file?
                Newsprint on SUN: Driver for Techtronics
          net.views - mainframe programmers in an open systems
                      Help!  Printer won't print!
                           Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
                  Problems with regular expressions...
                         dd and mt sources ...
                        Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
                           Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
 Standard Method of Handling/Detecting Out of Virtual Memory condition
                           Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
                        Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
                                pidentd
                Re: Whence Unix? (was Re: IS UNIX DEAD?)
                           Answering Machine
                       find and executable files
                                Re: AWK
                        ANSI Termcap wanted ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------

From: "John D. Boggs" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: rz problems at 9600 baud
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:39:57 GMT
Sender: "John D. Boggs" <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Michael Faurot):
>> [e-mail] (John D. Boggs) writes:
>>
>> >Has anyone experienced problems using rz/sz at 9600 baud?  I just
>> >bought a 9600 baud modem and am experiencing problems I've never had
>> >before (at 2400).  I give my remote host the sz command, then call rz
>> >using minicom's receive feature, and the computer proceeds to give me
>> >all sorts of error messages one after the other (sometimes getting some
>
> Try switching to using hardware flow control at both the modem end and the
> tty port.  Consult your modem manual for the exact command string required,
> but for Coherent you want to be sure to be using devices like com1fl and
> com1fr.
> --

What are com1fl and com1fr?  I don't seem to have them.  Are they 4.0
critters?  (I still have 3.2.1)

-John D. Boggs     [e-mail]

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

From: "Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to kill xoffed cu process?
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:14:15 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: comp.sys.sun.misc
Nntp-Posting-Host: noel.pd.org
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
To:       [e-mail]

System: Sun ELC runnning SunOs 4.1.1

From Openwin 3.0, I use 'cu' from a shell window to connect to a modem
on ttyb.  This is a 9600 modem and sometimes I connect to sites without
error correction.  Every so often, I'll get some receive errors,
including an xoff character.  Now my port is prevented from sending any
characters.  I can't hang up (the modem is remote, connected via a data
switch), and I cannot even exit cu with ~.  After I close the shell
window, I see that there is an <exiting> process that I cannot kill off,
even as root.  So far the only way I have found to kill this task is to
reboot the machine. While the task exists, I cannot reconnect to the port,
even though no lock file exists anymore.

Any suggestions?

Thanks
--
Seng-Poh Lee    <[e-mail]>

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

From: Drew Eckhardt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:57:19 GMT
Sender: The Daily Planet <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: ladymacb.cs.colorado.edu
To:       [e-mail]

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

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.

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.

>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.

--
Microsoft is responsible for propogating the evils it calls DOS and Windows,
IBM for AIX (appropriately called Aches by those having to administer it), but
marketing's sins don't come close to those of legal departments.
Boycott AT&T for their absurd anti-BSDI lawsuit.

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

From: Bill Vermillion <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: unix for 386
Date: 8 Nov 92 23:10:24 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Busser) writes:
>[e-mail] (Nikola Malenovic) writes:
>
>[about booting Linux]
>>*NOT* if you have microchannel bus.. sigh... :( :(

>Then buy the books about the MCA harddisk controlers and write a driver. <grin>

>Isn't it nice to buy proprietary hardware, even if it's better hardware?

'proprietary hardware' means hardware from one vendor.

Current vendors with MCA product include  IBM, ATT/NCR, Tandy,
ALR, Wang, Wyse - and several others that don't readily spring
to mind.

Specs on the NCR 35xx (?) series are nothing short of awesome
with 80 MegaBYTE/second data transfer rates.

--
Bill Vermillion - [e-mail]  [e-mail]
                - [e-mail]
                - ..!{peora|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill

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

From: "Tami S. Mondy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unix System Crashing!! Why?
Date: 8 Nov 92 23:12:11 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (neal.l.leitner) writes:
>
>I have been having a problem with my Unix machine crashing every once in
>a while.  I was hoping someone could shed some light on the subject.
>
        [ deleted & condensed ]
>
>The messages that are dumped to the console are:
>
>WARNING: pprtmount:      no msg blocks
>
>WARNING: ldterm: (ldterm_outchar)        out of blocks
>
>WARNING: ldterm: (ldtermsrv)        out of blocks
>
>WARNING: ldtermsrv:      out of blocks
>
>
>The only way to get the system back is to reboot the machine.  If anyone
>can help I would appreciate it greatly.
>
>

We had a similiar problem which appears to have been a kernal
memory leak in the asy driver.  This is in Dell's issue 2.1
which is system V R4.

Use "sar -k" to see your kernal memory statistics.
If you don't have sar running, now is a good time to add it:
    At startup in inittab or via an init script:
        su sys -c "/usr/lib/sa/sadc /var/adm/sa/sa`date +%d`"
    In the sys crontab:
        0 * * *    * /usr/lib/sa/sa1 240 15  # every 4 min

All of our problems went away when we replaced the asy driver with
SAS.  (Actually we use both, but the asy driver almost never sees
activity on the DOS port it handles.)

Mike and Tami

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

From: Peter Busser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 7 Nov 92 22:51:12 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Budi Rahardjo) writes:

>>in a similar way. Tell me, how do I do that with UNIX?
>Well just buy a pre-configured Unix machine.

That'll cost extra because it takes a few hours to do that.

>The analogy to the above story is :
>Give Mr Joe User a machine with an unformatted harddrive (even the BIOS is
>not set) and a whole bunch of disks. Well, Mr. Joe User has to know how
>to set the BIOS and format the harddrive.

Good analogy. Well, that isn't really an rare situation, is it? And

>Oh, BTW, have you tried installing Linux (unix clone). You can install it
>by answering some questions.

Guess what I'm using right now. Too bad the partition program doesn't ask me
questions and that I have to start the install scripts by hand. Have you ever
tried to install OS/2 v1.3?

>>Anything that a user has to learn about his system is considered 'difficult'.
>>If a user knows how to use 'dir', then learning how to use 'ls' is difficult.
>Well, how did he learn 'dir' then ?
>So if I know how to use 'ls', learning how to use 'dir' is difficult :-)

You know how people learn using computers. But for some it's 'logical' and
therefore easy and for others it's black magic and difficult. A good system
should support people with all levels of knowledge. The Mac is a bad example,
it only supports 'stupid' users. Most UNIXes only support advanced knowledgable
people (hackers, gurus, etc.). And there is no reason why there can't be a
system that supports both kinds of people at the same time. It only requires
that there are good defaults for everything. Expert types know how to turn off
the defaults if the default is 'stupid' user mode, it's only that 'stupid'
users don't know how to turn them on if the default is expert mode.

>Tell me, if I want to move a directory (and its sub dirs) into another
>directory. How would you do that with DOS (without commercial or other
>packages) ?

We're not talking about DOS, we're talking about usefullness of computer in
general and the usefullness of UNIX in particular. DOS is history, even DOS
advocats (if such an animal exists) know that. Anything is heaven compared to
DOS. Comparing UNIX to DOS only tells you that UNIX isn't the worst system
around, it doesn't tell you that it's the best system. Can't you compare UNIX
to something more challenging than DOS? Or are you afraid that UNIX can't
survive such a comparison (which is what started this whole discussion)???

>>Most DOS editors know the WordStar commands. Furthermore, there is helptext
>>(just hit the F1 if you're lost). And learning another kind of editor
>I guess you haven't seen CRISP, eh ? It's a nice text editor.

No, I've not seen it. It was too much trouble getting it to compile under
NCR System V rel. 4... Besides, I prefer vi, because that's what I'm used to
now.

>What's wrong with :wq  .... It's  Write and Quit, that's what it does.

Because no other program than vi uses :wq. It's just that there are only a few
people who are used to that command. Under DOS I always use editors which know
the WordStar commands. Not that that is the best, but because I know those.
When I can choose between a computer with a QWERTY keyboard and one with a
Dvorak keyboard, I choose the QWERTY keyboard. Even though QWERTY is obviously
a backward standard.

>The problem with F3 approach is that F3 in one package is different with
>other package. F1 may be help in one program, but it's Exit in WordPerfect.

F1 is a de facto standard key under MS-DOS. I've used many programs and 90%
has help (if any) under the F1 key.

>Try CRISP.

I might, if I get it to compile...

>>>You're saying that under DOS, I can send an .EXE to anyone running the
>>>same processor family (i86) / operating system (DOS) combination.  The
>>>same thing holds true under Unix.
>>Yep, but the problem is that even on the same processor it's not always
>>possible to exchange executables. Ever tried to run BSD/386 executables under
>>System V.4?

>Ever run .EXE file compiled for 386 on 8086 ?

You mean that BSD/386 is to System V.4 what the 386 is to the 8086??? Or the
other way around??? It's obvious that a 386 executable does not run on a 8086,
but it really isn't that obvious that BSD/386 executables don't run under
Sys V.4. UNIX is UNIX right? And a 8086 is not a 386 right?

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

From: Peter Busser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 7 Nov 92 23:21:03 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Scott Kaplan) writes:

>Sure, you could put a nice face on it, but why?

WHY *NOT*? Why shouldn't you have a system which you can use for BOTH your day
to day work (with a nice and cozy GUI) AND programming (with all the tools in
reach).

>It could be UNIX underneath, but the average
>user would never know...why waste the power?

Which power? Who cares what power is wasted? I mean, imagine all those PC
beasties, today a lot of them have a 486@25,33 or 50 MHz. More than 90% of
these machines run DOS... How about that for wasted power?

>Leave UNIX to the people who find the need for the power it offers.  Other
>OS's for common computing are getting better all the time and will do the job
>they were designed for.

Yep, that's what BYTE said with their infamous "Is UNIX dead?" article, isn't
it? They get better and better and better and in the end, there is no need to
use UNIX anymore.

>Trying to make UNIX into the universal OS for every-
>thing would be an attempt to make it into something it was never meant to be.

No, the system (it's more than just an OS) is perfectly capable of being nice
to an unknowledgable user. Look at what NeXT did. UNIX doesn't need to be
changed, only the ugliness should be covered. You don't need to know anything
about electronics to operate a video recorder, do you? The ugly electronics
are covered with a nice cover. If you like electronics, remove the cover.
However, it's easier for you to remove the cover than it is for most people to
get a cover.

>And if you do want to use the power of UNIX, dig in a learn...If you have a
>task that requires its power, you really shouldn't be put out by the amount
>you have to learn to get it to work for you.  You should be admiring how much
>it can do and wondering how you can make it do more.

That is, if you already know about UNIX. What if I grew up with, say OS/2 and
I've never seen or used UNIX. Do I change to UNIX? Of course not! Every change
is an obstacle and people don't like obstacles. It's much easier to stay where
you are. And why should people change? I mean, you say yourself that other
operating systems get better and better. Well, NT is said to be largely POSIX
compliant. Many UNIX utilities will be ported, so what advantages has UNIX left
then? Look at OS/2, if you don't believe, many GNU utilities have already been
ported...

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

From: Peter Busser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: 7 Nov 92 23:34:10 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Budi Rahardjo) writes:

>Why is that more intuitive than 'ls' ? I have to learn CAT ,D2 ...

>Why is that important to have DIR. You can setup 'dir' as an alias for 'ls'.
>ls -l is not as difficult as  DIR /W

Not *because* it is ls, but because most people know DIR and don't know ls. It
doesn't matter if it's DIR, LIST, LD, CATALOG or ls, as long as it is what the
user expects. And since DOS, OS/2, AmigaDOS, OS-9 and I guess other systems as
well use DIR and nog ls, that makes DIR a standard. Hey! Even FTP uses DIR! :-)

>I don't understand what you mean by that. X application works with any
>window manager. I mean I switch between olwm, tvtwm, NCDwm, and still
>able to use FrameMaker without a problem.

There is no standard. Just think of Motif as CAT ,D2 and OPEN LOOK as DIR.
And many applications use their own user interface. It has hardly anything
to do with minimizing the learning curve. UNIX has an elegant kernel interface
but not an elegant user interface. :-( And besides that, most programs are
still character oriented.

>>>Coherent is $99.  Minix 1.5 is $169 from Prentice-Hall.  386BSD and
>>>Linux are free.
>>Where is free toll-free
>>phone support for Linux and 386BSD?  And where can I buy them?

>I believe there's somebody who is selling Linux and give phone support
>(somewhere in Europe...).

Not here at least!!! (This is 'somewhere' in Europe ;)

>Also wait for Linux and 386BSD CD-ROMs.

Does that include toll free support? Does that mean that it starts up with a
GUI by default?

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

From: Barry Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: /dev/kbd IO?
Keywords: device driver stream socket whatever
Date: 9 Nov 92 06:02:05 GMT
Sender: Barry Solomon <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]

How can I append characters to the lowest level chaacter buffer as if the
user had actually typed them in from the keyboard.  I do not want to have to
rebuild the kernal.  I want to do this on sunos and hp700 series running ver5
unix?

Barry

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

From: Ravi Narayan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Personal to John Brewer
Date: 9 Nov 92 05:45:12 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu
To:       [e-mail]


personal to john brewer: e-mail to you bounces.


heres what i mailed out:

Hi John A. Brewer@Wbst218LL"[e-mail],
=
= I loaded Linux sls onto my pc and I`m very impressed on how Lunix behaves, I
= just got my X server working. I am going to down load gostscript onto Linux.
= could you ask your friend, about any tips or sugestion in setting up lp device
= to work with the Espon printer?
=

    i'll tell you what i can do... i can give you his e-mail address and
    you can contact him and ask him if he could help you! he is very busy
    these days, but i am sure he wouldnt mind answering a few questions!

    please send me a safe e-mail address so i can reply to you!

    peace,

    - ravi


'''---```---^^^^^^-----#-----~~~~~----'''------~~~~-----````~~~-------------
 .sig (n): a piece of mail with a fool at one  |  Ravi Narayan, CS, WPI
          end and flames at the other. (C).   |  89 SuzukiGS500E Phaedra ;)
__________---------__________---------__________---------__________---------

--
 ----------_________----------__________----------__________----------_______
sig (n): a piece of mail with a fool at one  | Ravi Narayan, CS, WPI
          end and flames at the other. (C).   | 89 SuzukiGS500E - Phaedra ;)
__________---------__________---------__________---------__________---------

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

From: "Jethro H. Greene" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Standard AND piped input
Date: 9 Nov 92 04:21:22 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
To:       [e-mail]

When one pipes to something, the the output of the first becomes the input
of the second.  What would you do if you wanted the output of the first to
be only be the beginning of the input for the second.  For example, lets
say I wanted to put the contents of my current directory and my dogs name into
a file

    $ ls | thing_that_I_am_looking_for > output_file
        bob is my dog
    ^D
    $ cat output_file
        file1
    file2
    bob is my dog
    $

It seems that this might have something to do with `tee`, but I can't figure
out how.

Any help anyone could give me would be greatly apreciated.

Thanks

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

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

From: Chris Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: 9 Nov 92 06:38:14 GMT
Sender: Noter of Newsworthy Events <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: foster.unx.sas.com
To:       [e-mail]

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


>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.

Suppose you don't like it...

--
     ____/     /     /     __  /    _  _/    ____/
    /         /     /     /   /      /     /          Chris Sherman
   /         ___   /        _/      /          /
 _____/   __/   __/   __/ _\    _____/   _____/           [e-mail]

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

From: Bertil Engelholm <[e-mail]>
Subject: rm Question (was : C-shell Question
Date: 9 Nov 92 08:24:04 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: euas39c40.eua.ericsson.se
To:       [e-mail]

Hi, again

Thanks again for all your answers.
Due to my bad english in my two last articles it seems like I mislead most
of you out there, sorry about that :(.

But one answer I got indicates that it seems to be something
wrong with the command 'rm'. So it is not really a C-shell or
rsh problem (or my mistake :) ).

I share this answer with you and asks if someone can answer the question
why the command 'rm' don't work as expected. (is it a bug or a feature :) ? )

/Bertil

From [e-mail] Thu Nov  5 17:44:11 1992
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:43:56 +0100
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Re: C-Shell question
Content-Length: 1355

A few minutes after I replied, I followed my own advice and wrote the following script:

#!/bin/csh

/bin/rm $1

if ( $status != 0 ) then
    echo 'My damned script failed'
    exit 1
endif

echo 'Yeah, I did it'
exit 0

That's really amazing, but when I run it interactively, it works in both cases (file exists or not) and when it's run under 'rsh', the $status after rm is always 0!!! (I can see that because of the message.)
I simply don't understand. I'm working on it (Cc: people can help me, do they?).

This script has the correct behaviour if I replace 'rm' by another command (like 'mv'). Therefore, I suspect a problem with 'rm' which apparently doesn't set $status if not run from a tty.

Stephane Bortzmeyer           Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers
[e-mail]       Laboratoire d'Informatique
                              292, rue Saint-Martin
tel: [phone]      75141 Paris Cedex 03
fax: [phone]      France

"C'est la nuit qu'il est beau de croire a la lumiere." E. Rostand

=================================================================

From [e-mail] Fri Nov  6 09:04:51 1992
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
        [e-mail]
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Distribution: world
From: [e-mail] (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Organization: cnam
Subject: Re: C-Shell question
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 09:04:43 +0100
Sender: [e-mail]
X-Mts: smtp
Content-Length: 1365

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Bertil Engelholm) writes:
[problem with 'rm' under 'rsh']
> All the answers is saying that the exit-code stored in $status is the result
> code of rsh. But how can that happen ? How can the result code of rsh be stored
> in the $status variable before rsh has executed all of the script ?

There is something funny with 'rm'. If I write the following script:

#!/bin/csh
/bin/mv $1 trash
if ( $status != 0 ) then
    echo 'My damned script failed'
    exit 1
endif
echo 'Yeah, I did it'
exit 0

and execute it when the file given as $1 doesn't exist, everything is
fine. I get the
message 'My damned script failed' when I launch it interactively or threw 'rsh'.

If I replace 'mv' with 'rm', I ALWAYS GOT THE MESSAGE 'Yeah, I did it'
wether $1 exists
or not, as soon as the script is used by 'rsh'!

Other commands behave as 'mv'. Now, there's clearly something wrong
with 'rm'. Is it
possible it doesn't set $status when run without a tty???

Stephane Bortzmeyer           Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers
[e-mail]       Laboratoire d'Informatique
                              292, rue Saint-Martin
tel: [phone]      75141 Paris Cedex 03
fax: [phone]      France

"C'est la nuit qu'il est beau de croire a la lumiere." E. Rostand

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

From: Bill Campbell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: .profile vs. .kshrc
Date: 9 Nov 92 07:19:24 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Barry Margolin) writes:

 .....
:It's not as good as the C shell's .login and .cshrc facility.

:The main problem with this Korn Shell feature is that it doesn't provide
:any way to customize the shell environment in a shell that isn't descended
:from a login shell.  These include the shell in which cron, at, and batch
:jobs run, and commands executed with rsh/remsh.  The C shell always
:executes the user's .cshrc (unless the "-f" option is specified), so you
:always get your custom environment.

And you always get a long delay starting csh scripts as it deals
with the .cshrc file if you have all your custom environment in it.

Anything you run from cron requires you to set up your environment
from scratch anyway, so what's so hard about having a standard
file included using the '.' command under ksh?  I could set certain
environment variables in /etc/profile and $HOME/.profile that
allow a program to determine whether proper initialization has
been done.  i.e.
[ -z "$ETC_PROFILE" ] && . /etc/profile        # sets HOME environment
[ -z "$HOME_PROFILE" ] && . $HOME/.profile

/etc/profile will set ETC_PROFILE and $HOME/.profile sets $HOME_PROFILE

Bill
--
INTERNET:  [e-mail]   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; [phone]
SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?

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

From: Louis Giliberto <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: rz problems at 9600 baud
Date: 9 Nov 92 11:41:23 GMT
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
To:       [e-mail]

John D. Boggs ([e-mail]) wrote:
:      Garbage count exceeded
:      Got ERROR
:      Bad data subpacket
:      Bad escape sequence
:
: With Bad CRC as the most prevalent.  Any help anyone can give is greatly
: appreciated.  I paid 300 bucks for this modem and I want to be able to
: use it!
:
: Modem is a Practical Peripherals 9600SA.

This is a problem when the modem is pumping stuff in too fast for
the computer to handle.

1) Make sure your port is interrupt driven, and not polled.
2) Make sure your port is using RTS/CTS flow control.

How do you know this?

I'm using com2 with these features:
com2fr
    ^^
    ||
    | ------- r = remote (modem)
    -------------- f = flow controlled

If it had a "p" as well it would be polled.  You don't want this (you could
do it, but not recommended with high speed modems).

Also make sure the port is set to the highest baud rate for your chips.
If you are using 16450's, you should be set at 9600 max in general.  If
you are using 16550NFA's or the equivalent, you can crank up to 19200 or
better.

To see what type of chip you are using, watch at bootup.  It reports
what it's set up for.

If you don't have 16550NFA's you should get them.  They only cost like $20
or so.  You can replace the 16450's on the card with them, or buy a new
card with the 16550NFA's already in place.  I have a v.32/v.42bis modem,
but I have to run it locked at 9600bps since my computer just has 16450's,
and I lose too much data at higher rates.

The difference in case you're curious is basically that the 16550's are
faster, and the 16550NFA's contain internal buffers.  They are designed
to accept a faster load.

I hope that helps...
-Louis
--
 ---------------------------------------------------------
 Louis J. Giliberto, Jr.   ! [e-mail]
   -sysadmin drktowr       ! [e-mail]
  Chicago, IL  USA         !
 ---------------------------------------------------------

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

From: Esa Karell <[e-mail]>
Subject: UNIX --> DOS remote printing
Date: 9 Nov 92 09:42:39 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

Hi,

Is anyone aware of packages (PD or commercial) that
allow UNIX boxes to send print requests to a DOS box
on a lan?

Esa
--

Esa Karell [e-mail]
Tel. [phone] /home

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

From: "Ryan A. Whelan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: diff in scripts again
Date: 9 Nov 92 10:24:09 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

In article <ssuhook.720712389@reading> [e-mail] (Roger Neil Hook) writes:
>Why on earth have we got an article from this place in cs.general????

what IS cs.general ANYWAY!?!?!?!?!


--
Ryan A. Whelan                      "Repetition does not establish validity."
[e-mail]                                         - Souder's Law

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

From: Paul Prescod <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:01:20 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

>How much is NT projected to cost?

NT will be priced to SELL.  It depends on the competition at the time.  Right
now Bill Gates is sweating about OS/2, so it will probably be in the$200-$300
range.

>>No support, no handholding.
>
>Support and handholding comes free on the net.  I'm seeing a number of
>places in trade magazines that offer support for Linux and BSD:
>installation, troubleshooting, consulting, and so on.  So you get the
>OS for free and pay a small fee for support.  Competitive, at least.

Huh?  What net?  I've never heard of the net?  I just want to get a computer
to run my carpentry business on, and this guy tells  me to get a modem
and a TCP/IP connection?  Huh?  Whadda ya mean?

And where am I supposed to GET this free OS with no access to the net in
the first place?  And how much is this "small fee" for support?  $300?
$400? $500?  and how long is it for?

Users get a "nice warm feeling" from BUYING things in a store.

I dont' know how many times I've told people, "Yes, Telix/Telemate/4dos/pkzip
is shareware, but it's actually GOOD." and they look at me with an "Who are
you kidding" look.  If nobody makes a profit from it, nobody has to improve
it.  Worse, if nobody's survival depends on it, it never has to be upgraded.

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

From: Paul Prescod <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:08:11 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

>>Sorry, my Unix editor mangled your message.  The case where case
>>sensitivity is useful are SO RARE, and even where it is used, it
>>usually shouldn't be.
>
>Oh, in our gopher server we use uppercase/lowercase/space as
>part of filenames. Looks better. Why shouldn't I use it.

Exactly...that's why OS/2/system 7/AmigaDOS/ every other OS except
DOS and Windows allow you to have names like "Meeting Summary", but
for all intents and purposes it is "meeting summary."  You can only
have ONE "meeting summary""MEETING SUMMAY""MeEtInG SuMmArY" in a
directory, but it's confusing to have more then one anyways.  When
you do a "dir" you will see the case of the last one you saved, i.e.
Meeting Summary".
>
>>My question is when is there going
>>to be a version for the PC that comes out of the box graphical, user friendly,
>>and with good support when you get stuck.
>I thought SCO has done a very good job.

Sorry, I don't have $1000.00 and 12MB of RAM to test it out!

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

From: Paul Prescod <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:19:11 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James F. Cameron) writes:
>>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Busser <[e-mail]> writes:
>Well, some of can't stand to have to buy a floppy drive to install an
>OS.  *8-) Seriously, that is not a good reason.  The drives are fairly
>cheap, can be used for MANY, MANY different applications, and can even
>play some tunes for you.  (* grin *)

You are right.  100% right.  Everyone SHOULD go out and buy a CD-ROM.

BUT THEY HAVEN'T.  SO WHO CARES!  Sure the world would be a better place
if everyone had CD-ROMs.  But if they *DON'T* then selling an OS only
on CD-ROM is sorta silly, isn't it!

I think everybody should have DSPs on their motherboard.  But I'm not about
to write an OS that REQUIRES a DSP.  Because even though it's a good idea,
it's just not out there!

It's just an example, no flames about the relative merits of DSPs, please!

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

From: Ade Barkah <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:07:54 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Peter Busser) writes:
: [e-mail] (Budi Rahardjo) writes:
:
: >Why is that more intuitive than 'ls' ? I have to learn CAT ,D2 ...
:
: >Why is that important to have DIR. You can setup 'dir' as an alias for 'ls'.
: >ls -l is not as difficult as  DIR /W
:
: Not *because* it is ls, but because most people know DIR and don't know ls. It
: doesn't matter if it's DIR, LIST, LD, CATALOG or ls, as long as it is what the
: user expects. And since DOS, OS/2, AmigaDOS, OS-9 and I guess other systems as
: well use DIR and nog ls, that makes DIR a standard. Hey! Even FTP uses DIR!

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 ?

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

My point is, Unix offer many advantages (and some disadvantages) than more
simpler systems such as DOS and OS/2. Should users want to use those
advantages, they should expect to learn and think the way Unix does.
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.

The 'dir to ls' comparison is ridiculous. It's like saying since most
people know Basic, 'C' should be packaged with macros which will accept
PRINT as an alias to 'printf()'. And LISP shouldn't have all those
parenthesis, because they are foreign to Fortran users trying to
switch to LISP.

Today Unix and most of its variants are large and complex operating
systems, designed for the use of large and serious tasks and systems.
Moreover, I will also say that Unix today is meant to be run and
managed by system administrators who know what they're doing.

That does *not* say that Unix _users_ should be wizards. It's part
of the sysadmin's job to make the system (Unix or otherwise) as easy
to use as possible.

People to forget that most Unix systems are *not* home systems. High
end dedicated workstations to powerful Cray machines use Unix. I doubt
people running these machines are those who can't figure out how to
manage Unix.

Now, there is a growing trend for Unix to enter the home market, thanks
for SCO (but remember that the total users and sales is tiny compared
to the rest of the Unix market.) But really, most Unix packages today
are easy to install. When I installed a Microport svr4 on my machine
recently, I just pop in the first disk, answer some questions, and
that was that. I just waited for the beep prompting me to insert the
next disk. Heck, I had fewer problems than installing OS/2 2.0 !

Why do people who find Unix too hard want Unix at home anyhow ? If
they want it to learn Unix, and were willing to pay $1000+ for it,
then they'd probably learn 'real Unix' anyhow. If they need if for
their job, then they don't have a choice but to learn Unix anyhow.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: most people who flame Unix
complain that as a single-user-system without a dedicated sysadmin
person, Unix is too hard. 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's like asking why a nuclear-powered Aircraft Carrier is too complicated
for a single-tuna-fisherman.

Regards,

-Ade.
--
Internet  : [e-mail]    (NeXT Mailable)
CompuServe: 74160,3404

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

From: Paul Prescod <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:34:27 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

>>>    difference between Unix and the command shell.
>>
>>You tell Joe User that UNIX is a kernel and not a shell.
>
>Okay.  "The part of Unix that reads your commands from the keyboard
>and interprets them is called a `shell.'  There are a number of
>different `shells' available for Unix, and each one of them works a
>little differently."  What else?

And whose going to tell them if there is no sysadmin?  And where are they
supposed to get these easy "shells?"  And who cares if "other shells" are
easy, if THIS one is a pain in the rear.
>He says this has nothing to do with Unix because there's nothing about
>Unix that requires you to use vi.  There are plenty of editors
>available for free that are not difficult to use.  Oh, "the net" means
>nothing to these people, sorry.  They can order an Emacs tape from the
>FSF for, what? $150?

Ok, so now I have to have $150.00 and a $200.00 tape drive.  Or I can get
Windows on disk.  Have you ever seen the word processor that comes free
with Windows?  It has *EVERYTHING* except spell checking.  I could print
something out of it with pictures, fonts, and it would look JUST LIKE
framemaker or island write or something.  And it's *FREE*.  Now what
incentive does Joe User have to go to Unix and use "VI."  While I'm on
this topic:  can anyone explain to me why VI couldn't put the arrow keys
on jkl;, the universal right hand keys?  Why do I have to shift and shift
back?  Didn't the programmers know how to type?

>Plug in the SLS disks for Linux and answer the pretty questions.
>Next?

And where did I get these disks?  From what store?  And what manuals came
with them?  And what about X?  And where do I buy applications?  And how
do I install them?

>>*IF* you have a sysadmin. What if it's your machine at home?
>
>Then, by default, you're your own system manager.  Can't hack it?  Get
>a different operating system.

aaah, then you are prepared to give up 95% of the home market to Windows
and OS/2?
>>
>>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 live in a dream world Tim.  The functionality that Windows/OS/2/Mac
provides out of the box takes MONTHS to simulate through an editor here,
a new command shell there, recompile X over here etc. etc.

Unix has to provide that functionality ITSELF, complete, and CHEAP!

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

From: Paul Prescod <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:40:46 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

>>[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 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.

First thing: You are responding to the wrong person.

Second thing: I said that an improved Unix needs a powerful command line
              to go with a powerful GUI.

I was trying to assuage the fears of those that believe that easy-to-use ==
inflexible GUI.

And you definately get the award for the rudest person I've seen on Usenet.

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

From: Paul Prescod <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:48:23 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

>[I didn't bother to crrect the format of this next part]

Beleive it or not, every other message I enter, I enter from home through
a 2400 baud modem.  The one that got screwed up was on a local Xterm.

I honestly avoid using the Xterms if I can use a character interface.  I
don't know if it's our implementation or X in general, but it's HORRIBLE.

>    The first good point you've made yet. It _would_ be nice to have all
>that in one OS. Since I doubt Next or Solaris are going to be free anytime
>soon, let's try to make a better GUI shell for Linux...
>
>    I never ever said Unix was perfect. I never even said it was good or
>bad. I just chimed in to correct you on a bunch of incorrect points. You're
>lumping me with everyone you're arguing with because I disagreed with a few
>things you said (and admittedly, flamed you for it).
>
Well, it seems every time a mention a Unix flaw, someone chimes in with
a unix that is different.  Hell, I could do that for DOS, if I wanted, and
"prove" that DOS can do anything that Unix can.  The point is, are MOSt
users going to want to have to get half an OS.  Either it's good, or it's
cheap, or it's easy to get your hands on, or it's graphical, but never all
of these at once!

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

From: Paul Prescod <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:57:43 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

>
>Haven't you ever heard of 80 character line lengths?  Let alone 72?
>Or are you using one of your snazzy GUIs that lets you have 132
>characters per line?


Actually, the GUI I was in was an NCD X-Term.  I won't make that mistake
again.  My "snazzy" Gui at home does VT-100 emulation MUCH BETTER.
>
>>>>3.It should install from floppy as well as CD.
>>>
>>>    Ah, you _are_ an idiot.
>>>    (Take a look at Linux.)
>>
>>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.

As I recall, I was discussing a BUNCH of things a "real" operating system
has to have.  Linux has a few, SCO has a few, Nexstep has a few.  None of
them qualify as a "real" operating system (from a new users point of view)
because none of them have ALL of them.  Translation: 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?

It is you that are living in a dream world!  Maybe 1 in 20 computers gets
sold with a modem standard!  The other 19 don't know what one is, or how
to use it!  Does Prodigy even carry Linux?
>
>You unzip it with PKUNZIP, Phil Katz's well-known dearchive program.
>Lots of people use it.  It's very popular among PC users.  But I
>understand the biggest complaint they have with it is that it doesn't
>have toll-free phone support.

And where do I get this?  Without a modem?  And how much does it cost?
And who is going to teach me how to use it?  How come OS/2 and Windows
uncompress themselves?

>Um, no ... you just install X from the SLS disks, I believe.

Where does one get these disks?  After months on the Internet, I've never
heard of them (plus reading Unixworld and Unix Review).  Where is Joe/Jane
user suppoed to have heard of them?  And where are they supposed to get them?

>Mm.  I know, not having a graphic interface for `ls' or `mkfs' is just
>*such* a hardship.  It is to weep.

How about VI?  OS/2 comes with a full fledged programmers editor, and
Windows with a wordprocessor that is easy to use and makes EXCELLENT
graphical/font/picture output.  (I was amazed!)

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

From: Paul Prescod <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:59:14 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

>
>comp.os.linux
>you won't get an answer in 20 min. but you will get your answer

I'm a new user!  I don't know what a net is!  I don't have TCP/IP.  I
probably don't even have a modem!  NOW WHAT?

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

From: TP Monks <tpm@ecs>
Subject: Re: How to cd "a b c d"
Keywords: help
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:50:23 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: elstar
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Howard Chien) writes:


>Hi! I have a simple question: How can you cd a directory with a name such as

>a b c d (1 directory)?

>Thanks for the help.

>howard,


ooooohhhhh! you're going to get flamed for that...

try:

cd 'a b c d'


--
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Monks                                Vision, Speech and Signal Processing
[e-mail]                                    Southampton University
Tel: [phone]                                   Fax: [phone]

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

From: Tim Pierce <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:32:39 GMT
Followup-To: alt.stupidity
To:       [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Prescod) writes:

>>>*IF* you have a sysadmin. What if it's your machine at home?
>>
>>Then, by default, you're your own system manager.  Can't hack it?  Get
>>a different operating system.
>
>aaah, then you are prepared to give up 95% of the home market to Windows
>and OS/2?

That's
what
I
said
in
the
goddamned
first
place.

--
____ Tim Pierce                /
\  / [e-mail] / I use antlers in all of my decorating.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) /

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

From: Daniel S Evans <[e-mail]>
Subject: Users log off but processes continue  -- HELP HELP !!
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:13:22 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
To:       [e-mail]

We're running a DEC 5000 Ultrix system.  Users are logging in under
tcsh.  They are then running a menu system written in ksh. In addition,
their .login files have a tout command (time out program) that's supposed
to kill them if inactive for 30 minutes.

With all of this, we still get logged of users having left over processes
runninig for days !!!!  How do I get around this one ?

Any suggestions would be helpful.

DSE
--
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

From: Robert Earl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Standard AND piped input
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:46:35 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Jethro H. Greene) writes:

| Followup-To: [e-mail]

This is a nasty followup header; "Followup-To" should either be a
newsgroup name or the word "poster" for mail replies.  My news
software wanted to post this to a newsgroup called
"[e-mail]"...

| When one pipes to something, the the output of the first becomes the input
| of the second.  What would you do if you wanted the output of the first to
| be only be the beginning of the input for the second.

|     $ ls | thing_that_I_am_looking_for > output_file
|         bob is my dog
|     ^D
|     $ cat output_file
|         file1
|     file2
|     bob is my dog
|     $

Try this:

$ (ls; cat) > output_file

In other words, start a subshell that runs *both* "ls" and "cat", and
redirect the whole shebang to "output_file".

--
robert earl          |
[e-mail]       | "I got a bottle of tequila, baby, who needs friends?"
[e-mail] |   --Johnette Napolitano, Concrete Blonde

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

From: Allen Douglas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How do you cat only the first 50 lines of a file?
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:36:42 GMT
Sender: News System <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]

>
> Since comp.unix.* includes comp.unix.internals and comp.unix.wizards,
> I would say that the entire hierarchy is most definitely *not* there
> `for newbies to learn.'  As far as comp.unix.questions goes, though,
> you're entirely correct, although the poster would have been far
> better served by calling user support at UChi.

You assume that the folks at the U of C have user support that knows UNIX well enough
to be called... They don't, which is why I post here occaisionally. (I'm not the origional
poster,though)
Allen

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

From: "Peter E. Gomez" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Newsprint on SUN: Driver for Techtronics
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:48:06 GMT
Sender: Usenet News Admin <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: yfn.ysu.edu
To:       [e-mail]


Does anyone have or has written a driver for the earlier

tectronix printers for Newsprint.???  Or does anyone have

a driver that will suffice on such a printer, and treat it

like a generic printer.??



    Any help would be appreciated??

   -pg

--
 ___   ___   ___     _       __    __         ___   ___   ___
   /  /  /  /  /    |_)     |_    | _  ,      \  \  \  \  \
  /__/  /__/  /     |  EDRO |__ . |__; OMEZ    \  \__\  \__\

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

From: John Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: net.views - mainframe programmers in an open systems
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:39:07 GMT
To:       [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

 [... stuff deleted ...]

 > all that does is demonstrate your ignorance of the real world).  A COBOL
 > programmer is a COBOL programmer.  The platform makes little difference.
 >
True, but a problem I have noticed is when a COBOL (or non-relational DBMS)
trained person moves to programming in a relational database environment.

The mindset seems to get in the way, and the transition is difficult, if not
impossible for the person to make.

+========================================================================+
| John Wright                    |   Standard   | Voice : [phone] |
| Computer Sciences of Australia |  Disclaimer  | Fax   : [phone] |
| [e-mail]         |    Notice    | Locn  : Canberra       |
| [e-mail]      |   Applies    |         Australia      |
+========================================================================+

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

From: "David K. Codelli" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help!  Printer won't print!
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:28:32 GMT
Sender: News Service <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: cyclone.mitre.org
To:       [e-mail]

We have two Suns in our office which are connected by ethernet, called route66 and i495.  route66 is a SPARC 1+ that has a SPARCprinter attached to it.  i495 is a SPARCserver 470.  We used to be able to just say

  setenv PRINTER sparc

and

  lpr <filename>

on i495 in order to print the printer attached to route66, but for some reason that has stopped working, and I get the error:

  route66: /usr/lib/lpd: Your host does not have line printer access

All of the directories listed in the following printcap entries exist.  Anybody have any idea what's going on?


Printcap entry for local printer on route66:

 -------------------------------------------------------
# entry for a local Sun SPARCprinter NeWSprint printer
lp|sparc|lw|Sun SPARCprinter NeWSprint printer:\
    :mx#0:sf:sb:\
    :lp=/dev/lpvi0:\
    :sd=/var/spool/sparc:\
    :lf=/var/spool/sparc/log:\
    :af=/var/spool/sparc/acct:\
    :if=/usr/newsprint/lpd/if:\
    :gf=/usr/newsprint/lpd/gf:\
    :nf=/usr/newsprint/lpd/nf:\
    :tf=/usr/newsprint/lpd/tf:\
    :rf=/usr/newsprint/lpd/rf:\
    :vf=/usr/newsprint/lpd/vf:\
    :cf=/usr/newsprint/lpd/cf:\
    :df=/usr/newsprint/lpd/df:\
    :of=/usr/newsprint/lpd/of:
 -------------------------------------------------------
Printcap entry on remote machine (i495):

 -------------------------------------------------------
sparc:\
    :lp=:rm=route66:rp=lp:mx#0:sd=/var/spool/sparc:\
    lf=/var/spool/sparc/log:



Thanks in advance,

David

--
David K. Codelli            The opinions stated here are mine
The MITRE Corporation       only, and not necesssarily those
[e-mail]        of my employer.

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

From: Ade Barkah <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:18:10 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Paul Prescod) writes:
: [discussion about people should have CD-ROMs deleted]

: BUT THEY HAVEN'T.  SO WHO CARES!  Sure the world would be a better place
: if everyone had CD-ROMs.  But if they *DON'T* then selling an OS only
: on CD-ROM is sorta silly, isn't it!

No, not really. The Grolier Electronic Encyclopaedia is available only
in CD-ROM, but would you expect them to ship in 500 floppies ? With
your argument, it's silly for any company to sell their programs in
CD-ROM, because not everyone has CD-ROMs.

Well, that's a weak argument. Just as you wouldn't expect the Grolier
Encyclopaedia to ship on floppies, one shouldn't expect that all versions
of Unix are available on floppies. It may not be practical. To give
you an example, (if I remember correctly) the complete info-explorer
manual pages for the IBM RS/6000 & the AIX operating system _alone_ is
over 200 megabytes, and is shipped on CD-ROMs. And we haven't touched the
operating system code. Who wants *that* on floppies ?

Another argument is that you point out that not everyone has CD-ROMs.
Well, obviously one could see that the operating system was NOT MEANT
for every Joe-User. It's meant to be run on high-powered systems,
and those with enough beaucoup-money support to buy CD-ROM drives
(which, for companies, big organizations, are pretty cheap nowadays.)

Regards,

-Ade.
--
Internet  : [e-mail]    (NeXT Mailable)
CompuServe: 74160,3404

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Problems with regular expressions...
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:17:45 GMT
Sender: UNT USENet Adminstrator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]

I stumped comp.sys.hp with this one. Maybe someone here knows what is
happening.

HP9000/425; HPUX 8.0.

I'm using the routines regcomp() and regexec(). I believe that are part of
POSIX 2. I'm trying to either match line in a file containing a keyword
or a keyword and its argument. I'm trying to skip whitespace. I'm trying
to match only full lines that match. I'm getting no matches.

Here's a code snippet...

regex_t r1, r2;

init ()
{
    r1 = regcomp (&r1, "^ *#keyword *$", REG_EXTENDED);
    r2 = regcomp (&r2, "^ *#keyword +([^ ]+) *$", REG_EXTENDED);
}

match ()
{
    char str [256];
    regmatch_t rm [2];

/* Open file, read lines into _str_ until EOF */
 ..
    if (!regexec (&r1, str, r1.re_nsub, rm, NULL))
        printf ("Matched first expression.\n
    else if (!regexec (&r2, str, r2.re_nsub, rm, NULL))
        printf ("Matched second expression.\n");
    else
        printf ("No match.\n");
}

main ()
{
    init();
    match ();
}

I hope all that code above is typo-free: I can't go back to edit it....
When the code runs, I get no matches. Either I'm missing something
glaringly obvious (I hope not), I'm getting bit by some strange subtlety,
or HPs routines are goofed. I've read the man pages (regexec, regcomp,
and regexp(5)) carefully, but I still can't figure out the problem.

Any ideas?
---
Chris Pearce, [e-mail]

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

From: "Lee A. Jorgensen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: dd and mt sources ...
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:37:11 GMT
Sender: News login <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: plains.nodak.edu
To:       [e-mail]

Could someone please point me in the direction of these sources?
It's for a program that I'm writing, and I would like to have these
two functions in the program itself.

Thanks ...

-Lee.

--
Lee Jorgensen             Internet: [e-mail]
 -------------------------------------------------------------
  This .signature is now fixed according to FCC standards,
 internet rules and regulations, and my personal preference.

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

From: Paul Prescod <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:06:26 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
To:       [e-mail]

In article <sherman.721291094@foster> [e-mail] (Chris Sherman) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Busser) writes:
>
>
>>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.
>
>Suppose you don't like it...

You get another one...like Norton Desktop, NewWave, PM (for OS/2).  Or you
could write your own...just like in Unix.  In OS/2, the interface is just
a program that runs on top of the Presentation Manager.  In Windows, I
don't know how you change it, but there is a way, because hundreds of
thousands of Windows users use Newwave and NDW.

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

From: Paul Prescod <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:25:28 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
To:       [e-mail]

Why is it, in VI if I try to save a file without a name it doesn't prompt
me for a name?  Instead it kicks me back to vi.  Or if I try to quit without
saving.  Why doesn't it ask me "Save y/n."  There is no reason VI couldn't
have an "expert" mode that got rid of messages for those that don't want
them.

Why is it, in VI that there is no way (I know of) to get help, or exit,
without knowing the exit key?  What doesn't "h" in command mode present
ANY kind of help?

Why is it, in RN that when I hit 'h' to ask about how to find a command,
it doesn't give me a menu "message read commands","post commands" "misc
commands."  Instead it makes me read two pages of (mostly useless) commands.

Why don't Unix "tools" have a convention about help and exit keys AT THE
VERY LEAST.

Where am I supposd to get help about VI?  The man pages tell me nothing
except how to load it.

Why do I have 12 function keys on my keyboard that seem to do absolutely
nothing?

Why doesn't VI use the jkl; keys for cursor movement, since your fingers
are already on them.  Or why not use keys somewhere far from them.  A
person can easily get confused.

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

Why doesn't help do anything in VI?

Why does VI default to beeping at you when you try to type as opposed to
editing?

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).

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

Inquiring minds want to know.

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

From: Scott Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:21:16 GMT
Sender: No News is Good News <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: amhux3.amherst.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
To:       [e-mail]

Okay, I am going to have to agree that we're all getting a little off track
from the subject many of us seem to vehiment about.  We're comparing DOS (some-
thing few of us really want to defend) to UNIX, and that's not really the
point.  The big question is, will UNIX going bye-bye because it isn't marketed
well (or at all)?  Or is UNIX not a part of the race that OS/2, Windows NT, and
the Mac OS (for examples) are in?

Peter Busser seems insistant in his response that UNIX has the ability to be
all things to all people, if only programmers would make it as such.  Then all
the UNIX world has to do is make it commercially feasible.

Now, I think that could be done, but I also think it wouldn't be the best idea
for either group (the groups being the average users and the programmer/hackers
in the world)...and I'll tell you why as best I can.

I said last time that it would be a waste of UNIX to make it look nice and
easy to use and keep track of your grocery list for Joe User.  There are other
OS's that are designed for that kind of use (most notably the Mac OS) and
those OS's are getting better all the time.  Now, Peter, I think correctly,
projected that eventually then, those OS's would just be better than UNIX
because the UNIX people have chosen to ignore such avenues.  I will be more
clear this time and hopefully provide a good answer to that.  I'm not saying
that UNIX is perfect as-is and shouldn't be touched.  UNIX *should* advance,
and it will as long as programmers keep using it as they do right now.  The
difference is, it will become more powerful and more flexible, but the goal
does not need to be ease of use.  The crowd that uses UNIX now will continue
to do so, because they will make it more powerful and push its flexibility.
That crowd is not especially concerned with ease of use.  The other OS will
get stronger, but they will continue to lack the flexibility and power to the
programmer that UNIX provides.  So both types of OS's will continue to grow
in different directions.  There's little wrong with that.

The reason UNIX is as old as it is, but is still used on the most powerful and
advanced machines around, is because it is so given to change.  Making a change
with the GUI's and easy-to-use OS's becomes a major task, because the end user
that gets these changes don't want *anything* changed.  They want their machine
to do its task, no hassles.  Pushing such an OS into the future is tough.  If
you stretch UNIX into that kind of market, the programmers and UNIX-fiddlers
will find it very difficult to keep changing what used to be their very-
maliable (sp?) OS.  If you make UNIX something that programmers don't want to
use, THEN it will die, because nobody else will want to push it forward.

A lot of people here seem to hold some disdain for the user that wants to "just
get his task done".  I think that's a mistake...It's not that knowing about
computers is bad, but the less they *need* to know, the more useful a tool it
becomes to them.  Computers are becoming very diverse, and now that the
consumer market has made it clear that they want to do their job and not worry
about what's under the hood, there will be plenty of effort put into nice,
easily utilized GUIs and such.  Don't try to take something that was meant
for mostly fiddling under the hood and try to turn it into a Joe Average
product, because that will turn programmers off...they'll go to something
else (or make it if they have to) if they no longer have such a powerful
environment, and UNIX will be up a creek.

I don't like the car analogy that much, but I think it'll make a good point.
Way back, someone said that driving cars was tough long ago (double clutches,
manual everything, etc), and so the resposive auto-industry created automatic
transmission.  Excellent.  For Joe Average getting from here to there, he's got
what he needs.  But, because automatic works so well for Joe Average, should
we put it into professional race cars?  I bet the driving pro's would be very
upset.

Oh, and as much fun as we all like to make of MS-DOS, Mac OS, Windows...I do
some tasks, some of them very simple, some of them moderately demanding, on
such machines.  They're capable of some tough tasks...So let's not make them
sound like their for simpletons only.  I would just cringe to think, though,
what kind of mess my Mac interface would be if it contained the power of UNIX.
Pull down menus that go on forever both down and accross, and some terrible
way of mixing mouse selections to simulate what the UNIX command line does with
pipes and such.  Bleah.

Both kinds of OS can be better, and maybe something better will be developed...
but strictly speaking, UNIX as the EveryThingOS doesn't seem such a wonderful
idea.

Scott Kaplan
Amherst College
[e-mail]

P.S. C'mon, let's all be civil here.  No need for insults and mud slinging.  It
only inteferes in getting your point accross.

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

From: MONK <[e-mail]>
Subject: .PLAN File
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:31:36 GMT
To:       [e-mail]


hi folks

Can some one email me some decorative program to be executed as a .plan
file, so that if some one fingers u it comes up.
Or can me give some hints to write one.

Thanks.
athi
--
_________________________________________________________________________
athi
_________________________________________________________________________

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

From: Nigel Dsouza <[e-mail]>
Subject: Standard Method of Handling/Detecting Out of Virtual Memory condition
Keywords: virtual memory, stack growth
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:46:48 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com
To:       [e-mail]


System: SunOS 4.x

Is there a system call to report on the amount of free Virtual memory?

Is there a method to reserve a specific amount of virtual memory for a
particular process? i.e. guarantee that a process can use a certain amount of
memory without having to worry about running into an out of virtual memory
problem.

I am not worried about dynamic memory (i.e. memory from malloc et all) because
I can allocate that in advance to guarantee that memory; it is the memory
needed for the automatic growth of the stack that is a problem.  Specifically,
the condition I would like to avoid is that the my process needs to grow its
stack, but cannot because it cannot get another page because the system is out of virtual memory.  I would like to be able to set the "soft" limit, using
setrlimit to (X - EmergencyStackSpace), where X is the amount of stack space
I would like to be guaranteed.

I would appreciate any pointers to methods of handling out of virtual memory
conditions.

Nigel D'Souza

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

From: Philippe Goujard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD?
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:17:23 GMT
To:       [e-mail]


So far the comparaison dos/unix seemed pretty stupid to me, there is nothing
common between dos and unix, except maybe the shell which is similar but
different enough to make people angry when then switch from one environment
to the other.

I think in the all thread detractors of Unix forget one thing : Unix is a
multi-task AND  multi-user operating system. This is why comparing unix to
dos is silly. Compare unix to vms, vme, mvs if you want but not to a single
task single user o.s. Or if you insist in doing so remember that there are
really 2 different position : the user point of view and the administrator
point of view. On dos there are no such things : there is nothing to
administer.

[e-mail] (Peter Busser) writes:

>[e-mail] (Drew Eckhardt) writes:

>Suppose I am Mr. Joe User. I want to buy a computer to use at home. And of
>course I hear lots of good news from UNIX, so I decide that I want UNIX. Now,
>how do I get the 'whizzy GUI front end' or a 'menu driven interface'? I can
>install DOS with a few floppies by just inserting the first floppy, turning on
>the machine and answering a few questions. Often, applications are installed
>in a similar way. Tell me, how do I do that with UNIX?

Firstly since the quantity of information you are installing is more
important than on dos machines most unix machines come with a streamer and
you install your package from the tape as you do for dos : answer few
questions, stick the tape in and wait. Now I don't think this is a job for Mr
Joe User. This is a job for Mr Joe Administrator (which can be the same
person but not always the case).
I hope you will at least agree that on a multi-user machine not every user
needs/wants to install the system.

>>So?  ls is different from dir.  "ls" is a mnemonic for "list",
>>where as "dir" is a menmonic for directory.  Different does not
>>mean more difficult.

>Anything that a user has to learn about his system is considered 'difficult'.
>If a user knows how to use 'dir', then learning how to use 'ls' is difficult.

Yes, but if you have new users who migrate from dos to unix you can help
them by providing them with a 'dir' and by putting the path into the prompt
for them (the equivalent of prompt $p$g that many dos-users like). Now if you
have many users who come from a vms environment you may want to provide them
a shell with command completion etc...
Now we could argue endlessly on what should be the default, however is so
easy to set up those values that I think they should be set-up by the
administrator when creating the account.

>Yep, but that's a definition of "minimal fuzz" for programmers, not for users.
>Users want the system to do as much as it can for them. Every detail they have
>to remember is considered difficult.

Agreed, but I would say that you can do pretty much the same thing with unix
that you used to do with dos without too much difference.
One car argue why there are differences in the basic commands between dos and
unix, why for example "type" on dos displays the content of a file and "type"
under unix tells me where that executable is.
Well there are differences like tere are differences between Unix and VMS, it
was created by different people at different times which had different needs.
It is ennoying that there is no standard amongst shell interface but if there
is something such as the standard the unix shells seem to be the closest.

>>other shell scripts with the same syntax.  As you can see, with it's
>>orthagonality, Unix run from the command could well be easier than DOS
>>from the command line.

>Nice, but what does that help Joe and Jane User? A Boeing 747 may have a very
>orthogonal set of push buttons in the cockpit. I couldn't care less since I
>only want to fly from A to B without being bothered about the technicalities
>that are involved with flying. The user doesn't want to know how to get the
>computer to do his work, he wants the machine just to do it.

Wait a minute, we are talking on the differences between unix and dos shell
aren't we? So if you want to go from point A to point B with both shells I
certainly prefer the Unix one : You arrive to B faster and with pressing less
buttons.

You can argue that "Yes but in my dos airplaine I have less buttons so it is
easier to remember which one does what". I return you your own argument :
what Joe User wants is to be a passenger, not the pilot. Yes there are more
buttons on my UNIX plane but as a passenger you don't even see them, however
on your dos plane you have to be at the same time the pilot, the passenger
and the steward.


>>As a moded editor, vi is different from modeless fullscreen editors,
>>like emacs, and DOS wordprocessors.  However, this does not make it
>>inherently more difficult, merely different.

>Yep, but as I said, different means learning yet another thing unrelated to the
>user's need. Users don't like that.

Don't get me started on editors :-)
Editors are a religious subject, people think their editor is the best
whatever you try to convince them that not at all you editor is the best.

>Most DOS editors know the WordStar commands. Furthermore, there is helptext
>(just hit the F1 if you're lost). And learning another kind of editor

Yes, I've written my bbs so it is easy to use from people who come from dos
bbs. I've discovered that there is no real standard for editor however the
wordstar convention seems to be supported by most major editors (although,
users don't really use Ctrl K B and Ctrl K K now, they mark a bloc with the
mouse). So i've created a very simple editor for those people, an editor that
implements wordstar commands has also good cursor key movement.

The only thing that you have to be aware of is that the "F1=help" convention
is not really supported under unix. You have to remember that under unix you
can connect with loads of different terminals, and most of them don't support
function keys. Another thing about function keys : try to press f1 or even
PgUp or PgDn on your favourite comm software : yes on most of them the
function key is handled locally, and PgUp and PgDn bring you the Download &
Upload menus.

>>Under a shell like tcsh or bash, I can set up the command line editor
>>to use vi or emacs key bindings, depending on what I use.  Irregardless
>>of where I am, dw deletes a word, h and l or arrow l/r are forward
>>and backwards.

>Oh yes, it *CAN* be done. But how?

What I am missing from dos is the simplicity of command line editing (well
with dos extensions). Under unix you can do it far better than you do it
under dos, the only problem is that you are bound to vi or emacs commands
like : impossible to go back with cursor keys and edit the line with cursor
left cursor right and insert text simply. This is a drawback with unix : if
you don't know how to use vi or emacs you cant edit your command line.

>Most DOS editors have a help key, they often show which commands are availlable
>on the screen, have mouse support, pull-down menus or WordStar commands.

Mouse support is certainly tricky under unix if you are connected with a
vt100 and a modem :-)

>And emacs is easier to learn than vi? <grin> Besides that, the programs you
>mention are editors. A typical programmer's tool. What about a decent word
>processor? (Oh please, inform me about the 'user friendliness' of troff and
>(La)TeX... :)

I don't see your point here. Wordperfect and Microsoft word exist under unix,
amongst other. And as far as TeX is concerned, it IS old and it IS
un-friendly but so far it is the only standard for representing mathematic
notations.

>>Yes, Unix uses a different paradigm than do DOS and VMS.  This doesn't
>>make it any more difficult, only different.

>Difference = difficult.

I beg to disagree here, it is just different, it is if you prefer another way
of thinking, the difficulty reside in understanding that it is another way of
thinking but once you realised that, it may be easier to use.
I take an example in the dos world : for many time people have programmed
using sequential programmers. Now that windows arrives and we are told that
we have to think in terms of events and objects. Is it more difficult?
No, not really, it is another approach of programming.
Now I understand that it takes time to switch from one langage or one frame
of mind to another, this is what training is for. You don't learn another
langage in a night but if you understand the concepts you go faster than
trying to repeat your way of doing things with the previous langage.

>>Whatever you're used to seems easy to you.  Just because Unix isn't
>>DOS doesn't make it more difficult.

>Now you're talking. Let's face it, most users know DOS and not UNIX.

I wonder what you understand by the word "know". I agree that there are more
people who use programs on ms/dos machines that there are people who use
programs on  unix machines. But I wouldnt say that they have a knowledge of
ms/dos.

>Plus that you need to know that 'ls -l' shows you which files are executable.
>And you have to remember to set your $EDITOR environment variable to your
>favourit 'EaseyButPowerfullEditor(tm)'. Oh yeah, don't forget that that
>variable should be exported too!

"set -a" works fine for me.

Personally I don't think you have more hassle modifying your .profile than
modifying your AUTOEXEC.BAT. And for me CONFIG.SYS has always been very
confusing (what kind of memory do I use? Do I need smartdriv? What can I put
in high memory ? etc...).
And remember : when you set your AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS you are on your
own (well with a couple of manuals) under Unix, the system administrator
creates your account and if he isn't totally rude he will ask you what kind
of editor you like and help you set your profile.

>>I've compiled, and have run out-of-the-box several hundred megabytes of source
>>code under HP-9000/300 and 400 series machines running BSD, HP snakes
>>running HPUX, DECs running Ultrix, SGI's running IRIX, VAXen running
>>both Ultrix and BSD4.3-Reno, my PC running Linux, RS6000's running
>>Ultrix, etc.

>Without changing Makefiles??? Gee!

Major unixes have an option in many makefiles (there is always a make sco or
make sysv or make bsd). However I agree that executables could be made more
available, specially for people who don't have acompiler. But it is going in
the right direction, Sco for example has loads of binaries on its bbs and I
think dell is shipping puplic domains with it's unix as well.

>>You're saying that under DOS, I can send an .EXE to anyone running the
>>same processor family (i86) / operating system (DOS) combination.  The
>>same thing holds true under Unix.

>Yep, but the problem is that even on the same processor it's not always
>possible to exchange executables. Ever tried to run BSD/386 executables under
>System V.4?

Ever tried to run a windows programm under dos?

>>>don't need a system manager or need to be a system manager to
>>>get the thing to run.

>>What do you call CONFIG.SYS and TSR order mangling under DOS?
>>This looks suspiciously like system administration.

>You don't need to have a CONFIG.SYS or TSR's to run DOS applications.

Speaking of the administrator role, it is definitely an important role under
unix, and although products like Unix SVR4.2 try to make it easier it is
still complicated because you have to administer very different areas.
All those areas don't exist under dos (no uucp, no mail, to tcp/ip, no
terminals, no multi-user no security, no system load, no accounting
and even sometimes no backups). I think we go back to your airplane example :
under dos there is less to administer but the user is in charge of the whole
machine, under unix the user doesnt have the hassle to administrate and can
enjoy his programs fully.

--
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philippe GOUJARD                              Email : [e-mail]

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

From: Gideon Glass <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IS UNIX DEAD? (long)
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:19:15 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
To:       [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Paul Prescod) writes:

>Why is it, in VI if I try to save a file without a name it doesn't prompt
>me for a name?  Instead it kicks me back to vi.  Or if I try to quit without
>saving.  Why doesn't it ask me "Save y/n."  There is no reason VI couldn't
>have an "expert" mode that got rid of messages for those that don't want
>them.

[Lots more deleted]

Listen, if you don't like VI, don't use it.  Can't you get the point?
Those of us who like UNIX use it.  Those of you who don't can find
yourselves another operating system.  I'm tired of hearing your
marketing-inspired bullshit hype about how no one's going to use UNIX
after Window NT (or whatever) comes out.  Plenty of people like UNIX
fine without your stupid hypothetical novice-friendly user interface
strapped on.




--
Gideon Glass              </-=({[||]})=-\>          [e-mail]
  "The experiments of Skinner and other operant researchers did far
         more than teach us how to pull habits out of a rat."

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

From: Tony Poole <[e-mail]>
Subject: pidentd
Keywords: DEC,5000,Ultrix
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:39:59 GMT
Followup-To: comp.unix.questions
To:       [e-mail]



[e-mail] (Tony Poole) writes:

>Is there any way to link an outgoing IP address connection obtained by
>netstat to a particular user?
>For instance:
>Active Internet connections
>
>Proto Recv-Q Send-Q  Local Address          Foreign Address        (state)
>tcp        0      0  141.211.206.17.1711    128.2.10.105.25        SYN_SENT
>tcp        0      1  141.211.206.17.1710    128.59.40.130.3641  ESTABLISHED
>tcp        0      0  141.211.206.17.1707    141.212.2.73.119    ESTABLISHED
>tcp        0      0  141.211.206.17.1701    35.8.8.108.1887     ESTABLISHED
>tcp        0      0  141.211.206.17.23      35.8.2.54.14853     ESTABLISHED
>tcp        0      0  141.211.206.17.1021    141.211.206.16.513  ESTABLISHED
>tcp        0      0  141.211.206.17.1687    137.208.91.6.4000   ESTABLISHED
>Would it be possible to tell which user is connecting to port 4000
>of 137.208.91.6 in the last line, particularly if you know the user is
>connecting via telnet?

In response to this request, I recieved a couple pointers to "pidentd".
This looks like exactly what we're looking for - BUT....

We're unable to get it running properly on a DEC 5000.  Our sysadmin reports
that it runs fine on his Sun 3/50.....not that that does much good.

What we get now is an error message stating it can't open the port, either
port.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone that's gotten succesful results on a
DEC 5000.   (I'd be interested in any helpful hints at all, for that
matter).

Thanks,

Tony


--

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Poole                       [e-mail] * [e-mail]
Traverse City, MI USA          [e-mail] * [e-mail]

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

From: Roelof van Suilichem <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Whence Unix? (was Re: IS UNIX DEAD?)
Date: 10 Nov 92 09:02:19 GMT
Sender: Usenet Owner <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]

Ok, maybe time to repost this bit of humour:

: This is a shar archive.  Extract with sh, not csh.
: This archive ends with exit, so do not worry about trailing junk.
: --------------------------- cut here --------------------------
PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/ucb
echo Extracting 'Hoax'
sed 's/^X//' > 'Hoax' << '+ END-OF-FILE ''Hoax'
X
X
X
X                   T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e
X
XVNS TECHNOLOGY WATCH:                           [Mike Taylor, VNS Correspondent]
X=====================                           [Littleton, MA, USA            ]
X
XCOMPUTERWORLD 1 April
X
X                     CREATORS ADMIT UNIX, C HOAX
X
X    In an announcement that has stunned the computer industry, Ken Thompson,
X    Dennis Ritchie and Brian Kernighan admitted that the Unix operating
X    system and C programming language created by them is an elaborate April
X    Fools prank kept alive for over 20 years.  Speaking at the recent
X    UnixWorld Software Development Forum, Thompson revealed the following:
X
X    "In 1969, AT&T had just terminated their work with the GE/Honeywell/AT&T
X    Multics project. Brian and I had just started working with an early
X    release of Pascal from Professor Nichlaus Wirth's ETH labs in
X    Switzerland and we were impressed with its elegant simplicity and
X    power. Dennis had just finished reading 'Bored of the Rings', a
X    hilarious National Lampoon parody of the great Tolkien 'Lord of the
X    Rings' trilogy. As a lark, we decided to do parodies of the Multics
X    environment and Pascal. Dennis and I were responsible for the operating
X    environment. We looked at Multics and designed the new system to be as
X    complex and cryptic as possible to maximize casual users' frustration
X    levels, calling it Unix as a parody of Multics, as well as other more
X    risque allusions. Then Dennis and Brian worked on a truly warped
X    version of Pascal, called 'A'. When we found others were actually
X    trying to create real programs with A, we quickly added additional
X    cryptic features and evolved into B, BCPL and finally C. We stopped
X    when we got a clean compile on the following syntax:
X
X    for(;P("\n"),R-;P("|"))for(e=C;e-;P("_"+(*u++/8)%2))P("| "+(*u/4)%2);
X
X    To think that modern programmers would try to use a language that
X    allowed such a statement was beyond our comprehension!  We actually
X    thought of selling this to the Soviets to set their computer science
X    progress back 20 or more years. Imagine our surprise when AT&T and
X    other US corporations actually began trying to use Unix and C!  It has
X    taken them 20 years to develop enough expertise to generate even
X    marginally useful applications using this 1960's technological parody,
X    but we are impressed with the tenacity (if not common sense) of the
X    general Unix and C programmer.  In any event, Brian, Dennis and I have
X    been working exclusively in Pascal on the Apple Macintosh for the past
X    few years and feel really guilty about the chaos, confusion and truly
X    bad programming that have resulted from our silly prank so long ago."
X
X    Major Unix and C vendors and customers, including AT&T, Microsoft,
X    Hewlett-Packard, GTE, NCR, and DEC have refused comment at this time.
X    Borland International, a leading vendor of Pascal and C tools,
X    including the popular Turbo Pascal, Turbo C and Turbo C++, stated they
X    had suspected this for a number of years and would continue to enhance
X    their Pascal products and halt further efforts to develop C.  An IBM
X    spokesman broke into uncontrolled laughter and had to postpone a
X    hastily convened news conference concerning the fate of the RS-6000,
X    merely stating 'VM will be available Real Soon Now'.  In a cryptic
X    statement, Professor Wirth of the ETH institute and father of the
X    Pascal, Modula 2 and Oberon structured languages, merely stated that P.
X    T. Barnum was correct.
X
X    In a related late-breaking story, usually reliable sources are stating
X    that a similar confession may be forthcoming from William Gates
X    concerning the MS-DOS and Windows operating environments.  And IBM
X    spokesman have begun denying that the Virtual Machine (VM) product is
X    an internal prank gone awry.
X    {COMPUTERWORLD 1 April}
X    {contributed by Bernard L. Hayes}
X
X<><><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 2336     Tuesday  4-Jun-1991   <><><><><><><><>
X
X
X
+ END-OF-FILE Hoax
chmod 'u=rw,g=r,o=r' 'Hoax'
set `wc -c 'Hoax'`
count=$1
case $count in
4059)  :;;
*)     echo 'Bad character count in ''Hoax' >&2
               echo 'Count should be 4059' >&2
esac
exit 0
: --------------------------- cut here ---------------------


+-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
| Roelof J. van Suilichem | Phone [phone]  |  Fax [phone] |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|
| Email: [e-mail]  | "Only a child sees things with perfect clarity, |
| Snail: P. O. Box 75026  | because it hasn't developed all those filters   |
|        Lynnwood Ridge   | which prevent us from seeing things that we     |
|        South Africa     | don't expect to see." - Dirk Gently (DGHDA)     |
+-------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+

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

From: "Jethro H. Greene" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answering Machine
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:30:31 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: poster
Originator: [e-mail]
To:       [e-mail]

Is there a way to make an answering machine program?

For example, talk [e-mail]
 .
 .
 .
 .
[e-mail] is not currently logged on.  However, please leave
a message at the beep.

I am root, although it would be nice if that wasn't a requirement.


Thanks in advance,
Jethro H. Greene
 ------ -- ------

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

From: Beaker <[e-mail]>
Subject: find and executable files
Keywords: find question
Date: 2 Nov 92 20:20:14 GMT
Sender: Usenet <[e-mail]>
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
To:       [e-mail]

Is there any easy way to use find to find all exectuable files?

--
Beaker aka Matt Donadio| When you've seen beyond yourself--then you may find
 -----------------------| peace of mind, is waiting there--And the time will
[e-mail]   | come when you see we're all one, and life flows on
[e-mail] | within you and without you.  --George Harrison

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

From: Balakrishna Raghunath <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AWK
Date: 9 Nov 92 21:36:59 GMT
To:       [e-mail]

Try MKS awk. MKS (mortis kern systems?) have a whole bunch of unix
utilities for DOS. Can't say i have used the DOS awk version
extensively.

Do not have their address. They advertise a lot in PC programmer
mags/catalogs of programmer's shop and that sort...

rags

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

From: Doug McLaren <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANSI Termcap wanted ...
Date: 10 Nov 92 04:15:07 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Originator: [e-mail]
To:       [e-mail]

The Subject: line pretty much states it ... basically, I like vt100 emulation,
but I don't like how it limits me to certain terminal programs.

I'm wondering if I can go ahead and use ANSI mode on my terminal program, and
have a termcap entry for it.  That way, I can set underlined text to one
color, inverse to another, bold to another etc ... If I use vtxxx, I'm
basically held hostage by the program's emulation -- many programs don't
show underlining in a different color, etc.

Of course, I'm not quite sure how to implement this termcap entry either (just
use a setenv TERMCAP ..., right?) so some quick instructions on how to do that
would also be appreciated.

Thanks ...
   Doug



--
 ----------------------- \  Confucius might have once said:
Doug McLaren,            \  Law of Probable Dispersal: Whatever it is that hits
DemoN on IRC              \  the fan will not be evenly distributed.
[e-mail]  \
 -------------------------- /

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


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