May 1998 - openSUSE Users - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[S.u.S.E. Linux] Post installation behavior of Yast/Suseconfig
by arunkhan＠xnet.com 25 May '98

25 May '98

I have installed SuSE 5.1 and 5.2 (demo version) in 4 PCs including a a GW2K laptop. I have noticed that Yast starts up automatically for a couple of reboots (after installation) and quits without doing anything (apparently) even though all packages seem to have been installed i.e. packages from CDs 2/3 were not required. During these sessions I have also noticed that Suseconfig is running in the background. As one user posted removing a .configured2 file in /etc/ branch stops this. I couldn't find any explaination in the accompanying handbook and was wondering if there is a definite number of reboots after which the post installation Yast and Suseconfig will not run. -- Arun Khan -- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo(a)suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

2 1

[S.u.S.E. Linux] Help with network setup of 2nd NIC
by arunkhan＠xnet.com 25 May '98

25 May '98

I have setup SuSE 5.1 [node A] on a machine with 2 NICs (eth0=192.168.11.11 and eth1=192.168.11.12). Thru Yast, I have also setup the IP addresses for both NICs. At boot up both cards are recognized and 'ifconfig -a' shows that both interfaces are up (pls. see o/p below). On node A (SuSE machine) ping -c3 192.168.11.11 produces response BUT ping -c3 192.168.11.12 produces NO response.

1 0

[S.u.S.E. Linux] isdn slave device. help needed.
by micheleamerica＠geocities.com 25 May '98

25 May '98

<DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Hello,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Can anyone please tell me how to configure a slave isdn device? </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>I already have the first device working ok as a syncppp device.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Thanks for any help.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>MA</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>

1 0

Re: [S.u.S.E. Linux] S.u.S.E. install does not have my CD-ROM
by ezekielk＠sj.bigger.net 24 May '98

24 May '98

At 12:45 PM 5/23/98 +0200, you wrote: >Since you seem to have a problem with people maybe denying what they >wrote to you, this mail will carry my digital signature. I have no problem with any of them...I have dealt with idiots before. I am, however, highly amused at the hysteria you, and several others, are emoting for whatever absurd reason. I have read all your diatribe, all of which is way off base, and irrelevant. If anyone had any reasonable attitude, they would request our one "satan" to back off...it is not decent netiquette. I am not interested in perpetrating arguments with tiresome and petty attitudes, which you, and several others, insist on maintaining as your agenda. Suffice it to say that all your time-wasting explanations below, are nothing more than that: time-wasting. They are also highly manipulative. It would behoove you, and anyone else, to cease dumping private email on me...as the only excuse you have is to scapegoat. As I stated clearly, in an earlier message, I will not continue this thread, as long as people stop posting me in private. Don't blame me for what is a group responsibility...you want to have your cake and eat it, too...well, I'm sorry, but I don't operate that way. Anyone who continues posting to me--either in the thread, or in private, is pushing the issue...then blames me for any reply! You can say anything you want to me, on the public thread...and you won't get my reply. You insist on sending me private mail, yet get upset when I respond publicly. So I said: Okay, I will not respond to any public comments in this thread, only I will reply to anyone who persists in private mail...and you already know this. So this is what you want: an excuse to bump me out...therefore, you perpetrate private mail, I respond, and voila! you have your scapegoat. But that doesn't change the truth one whit. Your attitude is not only hysterical, but mean-spirited. I have not heard a peep from anyone, criticizing your friend "satan"'s behavior, that put me in a position to speak out. Then for you and several others to condemn me, as if I were the antagonist, is ridiculous. Excuse me for disrupting your adoration of your wonderful Satan. I have never seen a more appropriate handle for the likes of him...he is on a power trip, and you suck up to it. Mea culpa, mea culpa! You should go to confession Saturday, and get your exorcise! Isn't there a little too much head-spinning and spewing on your part, and some others here? Yuck! What is all this nasty green gunk! Well, here's your witless message to me, for all to read, if they want (I will not defend myself against your immature remarks; it's not worth my time): >Trying to kill the keyboard, ezekielk(a)sj.bigger.net produced: >> >> At 04:51 PM 5/22/98 +0200, you wrote: >> > >> >Please stop posting flames like this to the mailing list... there's people >> >there who do not care about any of the issue, and we pay for downloading >> >mail (no free local calls in Germany).. >> >> The person who is trashing me, is the one you need to talk to. This is: > >Actually, if someone, anyone, sends you personal mail and you post it >(which you did, in a way) in a public forum, you have stepped over the >borders of .netiquette. Some people warn that they may do so in their >signature, you don't. And I guess you didn't say so on your web page >(which I won't look at, I don't feel like paying 50 cents just for the >phone costs to surf your pages. Loading them on block in the middle of >the night costs less, though). > >Now, I realize you may not understand .netiquette. You really should, >it's like learning your local laws. But apart from breaking these >unwritten laws, *you*, *Ezekiel J. Krahlin* carried the flames from >personal email into a well visited group. Nothing against a well >written flame every other month, but once it is taken from (or even >better, not started in) a public forum, it should _stay_ out. > >So please understand that pointing fingers is childish and if you need >audience (he didn't, he made it private), you are the loosing part. It >would have been enough to say on the list: "He flamed me, bugger, I >guess he goes to /dev/null now", it would have brought the point >across. > >Also please understand that on the net, may it be usenet or email >lists, you tend to get flames every now and then. You get bloody noses. >That's part of life. If you don't like it, keep out. > >Oh, did you know that SuSE is a German company and thus you'd probably >find more German readers on this list than US ones? > >> I said nothing offensive to anyone, that could justify his remarks. > >I think you seemed to him as either very self-righteous or unwilling to >read&explore a bit on your own or flaming SuSE for being different or >whining ... all of which I would understand. After all, it isn't >exactly rocket science to load a module --- and the modularized way is >the right one. > >And remember, on the list people are not paid for helping people. They >do so out of their good heart and on the chance they may want and get >help one day, too. If someone *seems* to behave extraordinarily stupid >I would recomend them to return to whatever they came from and not >bother or smarten up and learn (or pay for help/a competent >administrator) --- but live with their choice. > >> He had >> no right to send me personal email filled with insults. > >Well, you wrote to the list, i.e. solicited answers. Some of them come >in email, because they are off topic. He did not mailbomb you, either, >nor tried to hack your system or anything. He did not place advrtising >costs on you. I guess it's called free speech (and you are free to send >it to /dev/null, too). You can try to sue him for his words, if that >makes you feel any better, but that would be even more childish. > >> So I replied to him >> in the list, in order for others to see what one of their regular >> participants has done. > >So you broke the .netiquette in order to score a minor point --- are >you a masochist and want to draw fire? > >If you have *personal* problems with one of the list, use *personal* >email. Don't draw me into it. > >> He is on my twit filter. Here is how I have the filter set up: any private >> message to me that now comes from one "satan(a)nfinity.com", will >> automatically be sent to my trash bin, as well as forwarded to >> "suse-linux-e(a)suse.com". That way, all will see his mail to me--if any more >> does arrive--without being bothered about it myself. > >And if you do so, I will have to write to your ISP that you are >maliciously spamming a mailing list. You have been warned, right here, >right now. And I can assure you --- no provider is willing to put up >with this. > >Actually, you will also have all your mails to the list moved to >/dev/null and will be removed from the list by the SuSE people if it >becomes a problem (like a mail loop). If I were them, I'd let you pay >for the work, per hour, minimum three hours, because you acted >maliciously and even admitted it. > >Think hard ... do you want that? > >You are putting yourself into the role of a perpetrator with this act. >(And I find it a bit hard to belive that someone able to put up a >mailfilter that way is unable to try a bit to insert a module.) > >> (This is a very short message, as was my public reply to "satan"...I doubt >> this impinges on the expenses of your online connections.) > >It's not just one message, it is that a couple of hundred people get >them ... > >Also, please try not to put too much into "satan" --- that does show >how weak your case is. Overt religious touch might come over as >selfrighteous (and of that you have enough already). > >> Nevertheless, do have a talk with your "satan" participant, as he is the >> offender, not me. I know it's a fast solution to blame the victim, but it's >> not the truthful manner. > >hah. > >You perpetrated the flames (back) to the list. You try to make ME (and >a few hundred others) miserable if your opponent mails you. Why does >this remind me of terrorist/hostage situations? You know, "If you >do/don't XXX, we'll kill the victim and *you* are to blame!". > >You are holding me, no, me and the entire list, hostage just because >you feel treated badly by one of the list ("us" -- even though I/"we" >don't know him). "Sippenhaft" is what it was called in Germany in a >dark age not too long ago. It's what totalitarian states do to their >dissidents and critics and to simple people trying to escape. > >Are you really sure you want to do this, "victim"? > > >Victim, indeed you are a victim ... >but not of Michael Lankton. > >YOU, Ezekiel are a victim of yourself and your seemingly very small >horizon when it comes to dealing with flames. If you'd just plonked >him, OK, but what you do is evil, vile and neither "an eye for an eye" >nor showing the other cheek as well ... > >Think about it. >Think very hard about it. >Do you really want to do what you do? > > >-Wolfgang > >PS: next time someone with a knife runs up to you you plant a nuclear > bomb in his hometown, too? > >-- > PGP 2 welcome: Mail me, subject "send PGP-key". > If you've nothing at all to hide, you must be boring. > Unsolicited Bulk E-Mails: *You* pay for ads you never wanted. > Is our economy _so_ weak we have to tolerate SPAMMERS? I guess not. > >Attachment Converted: "E:\#DOWN\Attach\Re [S.u.S.E. Linux] S.u.S.E. i" > --- My web site kicks (but never licks) butt! <A HREF="http://ezekielk.simplenet.com/"><A HREF="http://ezekielk.simplenet.com/</A">http://ezekielk.simplenet.com/</A</A>> -- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo(a)suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

9 14

[S.u.S.E. Linux] [S.u.S.E Linux] Introduction
by auximini＠hotmail.com 24 May '98

24 May '98

hello i have just subscribed to this mailing list being a new SuSE user. my name is Joe and i am currently a high school student in pennsylvaina. i hope that i will be able to help out in any way along with asking a couple of questions. thank you for you time joe auximini(a)hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at <A HREF="http://www.hotmail.com"><A HREF="http://www.hotmail.com</A">http://www.hotmail.com</A</A>> -- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo(a)suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

2 1

[S.u.S.E. Linux] Printer won't work in Star office
by lsayre＠integrityonline13.com 24 May '98

24 May '98

I can't print via Star Office 4.0 (the latest revision 3). It says "default postscript printer=lpr" (from memory here). My printer is an HP DeskJet 855C, and I installed it in SuSE 5.2 as a CDJ550. This has worked perfectly for all other applications. Ghostscript is installed. Any ideas? Lawrence Sayre <lsayre(a)integrityonline13.com> -- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo(a)suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

2 1

[S.u.S.E. Linux] Further to Printing Problem in 5.2
by hlarons＠ComCAT.COM 24 May '98

24 May '98

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear the first time. The behavior when using "lpr filename" or "lpr -Pqueuename filename" is the error described below. When I try to print either ASCII or PS via the installed APSfilter, I get the message "getport: Unknown host 'BeagleDog' " BeagleDog is my machine name in /etc/HOSTNAME. Using a new and simplified printcap without the APSfilter gives the same results. I included the info on stairstepping just to show that the printer is connected to /dev/lp1 and is functioning. What I can't understand is how a "hostname" gets involved in the lpr or lpd processes. There's no remote printer physically, nor is one defined in printcap. -- Howard Arons -- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo(a)suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

9 12

RE: [S.u.S.E. Linux] S.u.S.E. install does not have my CD-ROM
by fmc＠redestb.es 24 May '98

24 May '98

Hello Linux Users Reason is not devoted to solve the problems that we have with SuSE Linux and to leave us of polemic absurd Thanks. -----Mensaje original----- De: Ezekiel J. Krahlin <ezekielk(a)sj.bigger.net> Para: Wolfgang Weisselberg <weissel(a)jupiter.ph-cip.uni-koeln.de> CC: suse-linux-e(a)suse.com <suse-linux-e(a)suse.com> Fecha: domingo 24 de mayo de 1998 05:23 a.m. Asunto: Re: [S.u.S.E. Linux] S.u.S.E. install does not have my CD-ROM > >At 12:45 PM 5/23/98 +0200, you wrote: >>Since you seem to have a problem with people maybe denying what they >>wrote to you, this mail will carry my digital signature. > >I have no problem with any of them...I have dealt with idiots before. I am, >however, highly amused at the hysteria you, and several others, are emoting >for whatever absurd reason. I have read all your diatribe, all of which is >way off base, and irrelevant. If anyone had any reasonable attitude, they >would request our one "satan" to back off...it is not decent netiquette. > >I am not interested in perpetrating arguments with tiresome and petty >attitudes, which you, and several others, insist on maintaining as your >agenda. Suffice it to say that all your time-wasting explanations below, >are nothing more than that: time-wasting. They are also highly >manipulative. It would behoove you, and anyone else, to cease dumping >private email on me...as the only excuse you have is to scapegoat. As I >stated clearly, in an earlier message, I will not continue this thread, as >long as people stop posting me in private. Don't blame me for what is a >group responsibility...you want to have your cake and eat it, too...well, >I'm sorry, but I don't operate that way. Anyone who continues posting to >me--either in the thread, or in private, is pushing the issue...then blames >me for any reply! > >You can say anything you want to me, on the public thread...and you won't >get my reply. You insist on sending me private mail, yet get upset when I >respond publicly. So I said: Okay, I will not respond to any public >comments in this thread, only I will reply to anyone who persists in >private mail...and you already know this. So this is what you want: an >excuse to bump me out...therefore, you perpetrate private mail, I respond, >and voila! you have your scapegoat. But that doesn't change the truth one >whit. > >Your attitude is not only hysterical, but mean-spirited. I have not heard a >peep from anyone, criticizing your friend "satan"'s behavior, that put me >in a position to speak out. Then for you and several others to condemn me, >as if I were the antagonist, is ridiculous. Excuse me for disrupting your >adoration of your wonderful Satan. I have never seen a more appropriate >handle for the likes of him...he is on a power trip, and you suck up to it. >Mea culpa, mea culpa! You should go to confession Saturday, and get your >exorcise! Isn't there a little too much head-spinning and spewing on your >part, and some others here? Yuck! What is all this nasty green gunk! Well, >here's your witless message to me, for all to read, if they want (I will >not defend myself against your immature remarks; it's not worth my time): > > > >>Trying to kill the keyboard, ezekielk(a)sj.bigger.net produced: >>> >>> At 04:51 PM 5/22/98 +0200, you wrote: >>> > >>> >Please stop posting flames like this to the mailing list... there's people >>> >there who do not care about any of the issue, and we pay for downloading >>> >mail (no free local calls in Germany).. >>> >>> The person who is trashing me, is the one you need to talk to. This is: >> >>Actually, if someone, anyone, sends you personal mail and you post it >>(which you did, in a way) in a public forum, you have stepped over the >>borders of .netiquette. Some people warn that they may do so in their >>signature, you don't. And I guess you didn't say so on your web page >>(which I won't look at, I don't feel like paying 50 cents just for the >>phone costs to surf your pages. Loading them on block in the middle of >>the night costs less, though). >> >>Now, I realize you may not understand .netiquette. You really should, >>it's like learning your local laws. But apart from breaking these >>unwritten laws, *you*, *Ezekiel J. Krahlin* carried the flames from >>personal email into a well visited group. Nothing against a well >>written flame every other month, but once it is taken from (or even >>better, not started in) a public forum, it should _stay_ out. >> >>So please understand that pointing fingers is childish and if you need >>audience (he didn't, he made it private), you are the loosing part. It >>would have been enough to say on the list: "He flamed me, bugger, I >>guess he goes to /dev/null now", it would have brought the point >>across. >> >>Also please understand that on the net, may it be usenet or email >>lists, you tend to get flames every now and then. You get bloody noses. >>That's part of life. If you don't like it, keep out. >> >>Oh, did you know that SuSE is a German company and thus you'd probably >>find more German readers on this list than US ones? >> >>> I said nothing offensive to anyone, that could justify his remarks. >> >>I think you seemed to him as either very self-righteous or unwilling to >>read&explore a bit on your own or flaming SuSE for being different or >>whining ... all of which I would understand. After all, it isn't >>exactly rocket science to load a module --- and the modularized way is >>the right one. >> >>And remember, on the list people are not paid for helping people. They >>do so out of their good heart and on the chance they may want and get >>help one day, too. If someone *seems* to behave extraordinarily stupid >>I would recomend them to return to whatever they came from and not >>bother or smarten up and learn (or pay for help/a competent >>administrator) --- but live with their choice. >> >>> He had >>> no right to send me personal email filled with insults. >> >>Well, you wrote to the list, i.e. solicited answers. Some of them come >>in email, because they are off topic. He did not mailbomb you, either, >>nor tried to hack your system or anything. He did not place advrtising >>costs on you. I guess it's called free speech (and you are free to send >>it to /dev/null, too). You can try to sue him for his words, if that >>makes you feel any better, but that would be even more childish. >> >>> So I replied to him >>> in the list, in order for others to see what one of their regular >>> participants has done. >> >>So you broke the .netiquette in order to score a minor point --- are >>you a masochist and want to draw fire? >> >>If you have *personal* problems with one of the list, use *personal* >>email. Don't draw me into it. >> >>> He is on my twit filter. Here is how I have the filter set up: any private >>> message to me that now comes from one "satan(a)nfinity.com", will >>> automatically be sent to my trash bin, as well as forwarded to >>> "suse-linux-e(a)suse.com". That way, all will see his mail to me--if any more >>> does arrive--without being bothered about it myself. >> >>And if you do so, I will have to write to your ISP that you are >>maliciously spamming a mailing list. You have been warned, right here, >>right now. And I can assure you --- no provider is willing to put up >>with this. >> >>Actually, you will also have all your mails to the list moved to >>/dev/null and will be removed from the list by the SuSE people if it >>becomes a problem (like a mail loop). If I were them, I'd let you pay >>for the work, per hour, minimum three hours, because you acted >>maliciously and even admitted it. >> >>Think hard ... do you want that? >> >>You are putting yourself into the role of a perpetrator with this act. >>(And I find it a bit hard to belive that someone able to put up a >>mailfilter that way is unable to try a bit to insert a module.) >> >>> (This is a very short message, as was my public reply to "satan"...I doubt >>> this impinges on the expenses of your online connections.) >> >>It's not just one message, it is that a couple of hundred people get >>them ... >> >>Also, please try not to put too much into "satan" --- that does show >>how weak your case is. Overt religious touch might come over as >>selfrighteous (and of that you have enough already). >> >>> Nevertheless, do have a talk with your "satan" participant, as he is the >>> offender, not me. I know it's a fast solution to blame the victim, but it's >>> not the truthful manner. >> >>hah. >> >>You perpetrated the flames (back) to the list. You try to make ME (and >>a few hundred others) miserable if your opponent mails you. Why does >>this remind me of terrorist/hostage situations? You know, "If you >>do/don't XXX, we'll kill the victim and *you* are to blame!". >> >>You are holding me, no, me and the entire list, hostage just because >>you feel treated badly by one of the list ("us" -- even though I/"we" >>don't know him). "Sippenhaft" is what it was called in Germany in a >>dark age not too long ago. It's what totalitarian states do to their >>dissidents and critics and to simple people trying to escape. >> >>Are you really sure you want to do this, "victim"? >> >> >>Victim, indeed you are a victim ... >>but not of Michael Lankton. >> >>YOU, Ezekiel are a victim of yourself and your seemingly very small >>horizon when it comes to dealing with flames. If you'd just plonked >>him, OK, but what you do is evil, vile and neither "an eye for an eye" >>nor showing the other cheek as well ... >> >>Think about it. >>Think very hard about it. >>Do you really want to do what you do? >> >> >>-Wolfgang >> >>PS: next time someone with a knife runs up to you you plant a nuclear >> bomb in his hometown, too? >> >>-- >> PGP 2 welcome: Mail me, subject "send PGP-key". >> If you've nothing at all to hide, you must be boring. >> Unsolicited Bulk E-Mails: *You* pay for ads you never wanted. >> Is our economy _so_ weak we have to tolerate SPAMMERS? I guess not. >> >>Attachment Converted: "E:\#DOWN\Attach\Re [S.u.S.E. Linux] S.u.S.E. i" >> > >--- >My web site kicks (but never licks) butt! ><A HREF="http://ezekielk.simplenet.com/"><A HREF="http://ezekielk.simplenet.com/</A">http://ezekielk.simplenet.com/</A</A>> >-- >To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo(a)suse.com with >this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e -- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo(a)suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

1 0

Re: [S.u.S.E. Linux] Doc: The Linux Kernel
by vhearn＠wenet.net 24 May '98

24 May '98

Sorry to bug ya'll again, but i was finally able to connect to sunsite after several tries on the links provided in the replies to this thread. I think it was the link supplied by Santiago Rodriguez try this one: <A HREF="ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/linux/mirrors/sunsite/docs/LDP/linux-kernel/tlk-0.8-1.html"><A HREF="ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/linux/mirrors/sunsite/docs/LDP/linux-kernel/tlk-0.8-1.html</A">ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/linux/mirrors/sunsite/docs/LDP/linux-kernel/tlk-0.8-1.html</A</A>> a very good (and very, very fast) mirror (also a SuSE mirror, by the way ;-) ) >>> <A HREF="http://sunsite.unc.edu/LDP/LDP/tlk/tlk.html"><A HREF="http://sunsite.unc.edu/LDP/LDP/tlk/tlk.html</A">http://sunsite.unc.edu/LDP/LDP/tlk/tlk.html</A</A>> >>> >>> Am I the only one that can't get these URL's to connect? >>> #vic# -- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo(a)suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e -- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo(a)suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

1 0

RE: [S.u.S.E. Linux] executor and atapi zip disks
by homega＠correo.com 24 May '98

24 May '98

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Hi everyone, I was wondering if anyone one the list has experience using >mac formated zip disks (atapi drive) with executor 2.0? I am running Suse >5.2 and can mount ext2 disks with no problem. Executor, though, does not >see my zip disk ( which, I know, should be inserted in the drive before >launching executor). It does see my CDs though. Any advice? > Sorry if I take advantage on this post (actually, I haven't been following this thread at all) to ask the following question: is there any way at all to being able to read a cd-rom with mac data in it? I have been given one at work, and I have no idea what extensions it has (well, so far I just tried with win95). All I know is it has some logos and commercial forms in it (anyway I can convert them, whatever they are?). Saludos. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 5.5.5 Comment: Key IDs: DH/DSS 0x614DB9FA RSA 0x160B1B5B iQA/AwUBNWdv/nR1WuG6Ow0hEQJi8gCgi0ZSCdwTH4CGdPkNpQ7NXyMSAhEAnRHN zRzv+LH8JbVhfYjfAVNEjGli =p94Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To get out of this list, please send email to majordomo(a)suse.com with this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e

1 0