April 2003 - openSUSE Users - openSUSE Mailing Lists

Rubber Turnip Evolution - AvantGo and Memo conduits?
by Preston Crawford 01 May '03

01 May '03

I know I sound like a broken record, still asking for the AvantGo and Memo conduits for gnome-pilot, but I went to James' site (rubberturnip) and saw that he had new evolution RPMs. I was wondering if someone (maybe james) could comment on whether these missing conduits are in the evolution-pilot rpm. Preston

3 8

SuSE 8.2 / Firewall / DHCPD not giving IP's
by John Birkhead 01 May '03

01 May '03

Hi, I am building a firewall system for my DSL connection at home. I have taken 8.2 and setup SuSE Firewall2 on the system (pretty much blocking everything from the outside and doing masquerading for the internal network. I notice that if I set eth1 to be the internal interface in the firewall IP addresses are not issued to clients. If I reverse this in the firewall all works well. Is there any way to have DHCPD listen on eth1 instead? Thanks, John

2 1

re[2]: [SLE] [OT] SCO after SuSE and Redhat
by Greg Freemyer 01 May '03

01 May '03

SCO Unix is unimportant. You left out Unixware. It is a critical part of the picture. I have forgotten the details, but SCO bought Unixware from somewhere. Unixware was the official UNIX Sys 5 rel 4 release and when SCO bought it, they bought all sorts of IP. >> Unix was certainly developed at AT&T's Bell Labs by Ken Thompson kind of >> as a small Multics. Bill Joy and others developed Berkeley Unix which >> was based on Unix version 6. System V incorporated some BSD tools, such >> as vi and csh. AT&T sued BSDI when they released their versions of BSD >> Unix. I don't recall the details, but effectively BSDI won. The lawsuit >> paved the way for Linux because people believed that Linux had no AT&T >> code. (Had AT&T won, it would have also affected Linux). >> AT&T sold Unix (Unix System Labs) to Novell (If my memory is correct). >> The Unix brand was subsequently transfered to The Open Group ( >> http://www.opengroup.org/), a standards consortium that certifies Unix. >> For a vendor to be able to use the Unix name, it must first receive >> certification from The Open Group. >> I think that Caldera/SCO is digging its own grave. IMHO, SCO was one of >> the worst Unix systems, and I've worked on Solaris, Tru64, Sun OS4, >> HP-UX, IRIX, and a few others. >> -- >> Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org> >> Boston Linux and Unix user group >> http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 >> PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 >> -- NextPart -- >> Attached File: c:\program >> files\goldmine\MailBox\Attach\gaf\FILE6004.pgp-signature

5 6

RE: [SLE] Problem with traceroute
by Peer Stefan 01 May '03

01 May '03

Hi, > From: Michael Satterwhite [mailto:michael@weblore.com] > I'm having a problem with traceroute. When I run it (e.g. traceroute > weblore.com), it pauses for a bit, then prints out a series > of hops with > absolutely no information. After a bit, it repeats this. > Here's a sample > output: > > linux:/home/michael # traceroute weblore.com > traceroute to weblore.com (198.65.246.22), 30 hops max, 40 > byte packets > 1 * * * > 2 * * * > 3 * * * > 4 * * * > 5 * * * > 6 * * * > > Is there something I'm missing? traceroute uses ICMP to determine the route. If you have SuSEFirewall2 installed then set FW_KERNEL_SECURITY and FW_ALLOW_FW_TRACEROUTE to "yes" in /etc/sysconfig/SuSEfirewall2. regards, Stefan

3 4

FTP install over modem?
by Fred Sloniker 01 May '03

01 May '03

I hope I haven't asked this question already; I've been thinking about it for a while, but haven't (I think) gotten around to it. Is it possible to do an FTP install of SuSE over modem? I'm thinking ahead to 8.2, of course, but I presume the method wouldn't change from 8.1. I tried to do this with 8.1, in fact (before buying a copy), but as far as I could determine, the boot disks don't have support for establishing an FTP connection via modem. Yeah, I know it'd be slow as heck, but I don't have the cash to buy a copy of 8.2, I don't care about any of the buy-only programs (heck, I don't even know what they are), and I don't have any helpful broadband friends to burn a copy of the FTP tree for me, so... is it possible at all, or am I just SOL?

7 6

3D--My only 8.2 Glitch
by Bryce Hardy 01 May '03

01 May '03

My only problem in 8.2 is getting 3D accelleration working correctly. By contrast, 8.1 enabled 3D right out of the box, even prompting me during installation whether I wanted it and then working perfectly. Well, I went into YaST2 and did everything there I could, then I ran sax2 and did the same. Finally I went into the SuSE HelpCenter and searched for 3D and found the article "3D and SuSE Linux" and followed it's instructions to run 3Ddiag. Well, as you can see below, there aren't any error messages that I can see. Here's the output: Verifying 3D configuration based on XFree86 4 for 3D board "Intel Corporation 82810 CGC [Chipset Graphics Controller] (8086@7121)": Tests for package "XFree86-GLX": package ... done. package files ... done. Tests for correct OpenGL libraries/GLX extensions: Symbolic Links ... done. /etc/sysconfig/3ddiag (SCRIPT_3D=switch2xf86_glx) ... done. Test for correct XFree86 version ... done. Tests for XFree86 configuration: Config File /etc/X11/XF86Config ... done. Driver ... done. Color Depth ... done. Extensions ... done. Options ... done. ----------------------- NOTE ----------------------------------- If 3D hardware OpenGL configuration is not stable enough, you should switch back to 'Mesa Software Rendering'. You can verify this configuration with the command "3Ddiag --mesasoft". ----------------------- NOTE ----------------------------------- Checking GLU/glut runtime configuration: GLU ... done (package mesaglu) glut ... done (package mesaglut) Just to cover all the bases, I ran the script switch2xf86_glx (as root) and still the 3D doesn't run correctly in games like tuxracer and tuxkart. At this point the play is choppy and very slow, not like a few days ago while running 8.1. If anyone knows what I should do next, I'd be grateful. -- Bryce Hardy (Santa Rosa, CA) brycehdy(a)sonic.net

2 6

Linux on DRM, for those who haven't read this.(OT)
by Fred A. Miller 01 May '03

01 May '03

Ok, there's no way to do this gracefully, so I won't even try. I'm going to just hunker down for some really impressive extended flaming, and my asbestos underwear is firmly in place, and extremely uncomfortable. I want to make it clear that DRM is perfectly ok with Linux! There, I've said it. I'm out of the closet. So bring it on... I've had some private discussions with various people about this already, and I do realize that a lot of people want to use the kernel in some way to just make DRM go away, at least as far as Linux is concerned. Either by some policy decision or by extending the GPL to just not allow it. In some ways the discussion was very similar to some of the software patent related GPL-NG discussions from a year or so ago: "we don't like it, and we should change the license to make it not work somehow". And like the software patent issue, I also don't necessarily like DRM myself, but I still ended up feeling the same: I'm an "Oppenheimer", and I refuse to play politics with Linux, and I think you can use Linux for whatever you want to - which very much includes things I don't necessarily personally approve of. The GPL requires you to give out sources to the kernel, but it doesn't limit what you can _do_ with the kernel. On the whole, this is just another example of why rms calls me "just an engineer" and thinks I have no ideals. [ Personally, I see it as a virtue - trying to make the world a slightly better place _without_ trying to impose your moral values on other people. You do whatever the h*ll rings your bell, I'm just an engineer who wants to make the best OS possible. ] In short, it's perfectly ok to sign a kernel image - I do it myself indirectly every day through the kernel.org, as kernel.org will sign the tar-balls I upload to make sure people can at least verify that they came that way. Doing the same thing on the binary is no different: signing a binary is a perfectly fine way to show the world that you're the one behind it, and that _you_ trust it. And since I can imaging signing binaries myself, I don't feel that I can disallow anybody else doing so. Another part of the DRM discussion is the fact that signing is only the first step: _acting_ on the fact whether a binary is signed or not (by refusing to load it, for example, or by refusing to give it a secret key) is required too. But since the signature is pointless unless you _use_ it for something, and since the decision how to use the signature is clearly outside of the scope of the kernel itself (and thus not a "derived work" or anything like that), I have to convince myself that not only is it clearly ok to act on the knowledge of whather the kernel is signed or not, it's also outside of the scope of what the GPL talks about, and thus irrelevant to the license. That's the short and sweet of it. I wanted to bring this out in the open, because I know there are people who think that signed binaries are an act of "subversion" (or "perversion") of the GPL, and I wanted to make sure that people don't live under mis-apprehension that it can't be done. I think there are many quite valid reasons to sign (and verify) your kernel images, and while some of the uses of signing are odious, I don't see any sane way to distinguish between "good" signers and "bad" signers. Comments? I'd love to get some real discussion about this, but in the end I'm personally convinced that we have to allow it. Btw, one thing that is clearly _not_ allowed by the GPL is hiding private keys in the binary. You can sign the binary that is a result of the build process, but you can _not_ make a binary that is aware of certain keys without making those keys public - because those keys will obviously have been part of the kernel build itself. So don't get these two things confused - one is an external key that is applied _to_ the kernel (ok, and outside the license), and the other one is embedding a key _into_ the kernel (still ok, but the GPL requires that such a key has to be made available as "source" to the kernel). Linus -- "DRM.. Digitally Retarded Media. That's exactly what it is - content that cannot reach its full potential because of artificial restraints." -Paul Rickard

5 4

what is max file size for .mbx files?
by Oskar Teran 01 May '03

01 May '03

hello, What is the max. file size for an .mbx file? The reason is that there are some users who have huge email files. They tell me they need to keep them for various reasons ( legal, in case someone calls back for old drawings [engineers]..etc.) So....what is the max or a safe max file size to let a .mbx file get to? And more importantly, what is the wise or recommended thing to do once it reaches that size? I recall seeing someone post something about dbmail.org. This seems like a good idea....but what do the people with heavy mail server experience have to say? I would think that the best thing for large mail stores is to use a database.....oracle comes to mind with their collaboration suite. I'm not suggesting to use oracle as a database for emails.....dbmail or something like that would probably be a more logical choice. Thanks, Oskar

3 4

Bonnie++ Benchmarks
by jrn＠oregonhanggliding.com 01 May '03

01 May '03

Hell all: I recently was curious about my drive performance so I installed and ran bonnie++. Do the numbers below look pretty decent or no? jrn@falcon:~/bonnie++-1.03a> bonnie++ -s 2016 Writing with putc()...done Writing intelligently...done Rewriting...done Reading with getc()...done Reading intelligently...done start 'em...done...done...done... Create files in sequential order...done. Stat files in sequential order...done. Delete files in sequential order...done. Create files in random order...done. Stat files in random order...done. Delete files in random order...done. Version 1.03 ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP falcon 2016M 14273 93 94205 61 31881 11 15881 90 65077 12 442.4 1 ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP 16 14027 97 +++++ +++ 15264 97 17292 97 +++++ +++ 14140 94 falcon,2016M,14273,93,94205,61,31881,11,15881,90,65077,12,442.4,1,16,14027,97,+++++,+++,15264,97,17292,97,+++++,+++,14140,94 Thanks, Jim

2 1

re: [SLE] anyone know of a free mswindows xwindows server
by Greg Freemyer 01 May '03

01 May '03

Cygwin has included Xfree86 for a year or so. http://www.cygwin.com/xfree/ Seems to work, but I found it very slow and quit using it. (I had a laptop I was trying it on. Acceptable on a better PC??) I believe the above provides both x-server and x-client capabilities. I have only tested it as a pure x-server. I was using SuSE as the x-client. --- Sorry to be pedantic, but ... Definition of X-windows server: A platform for providing display-processing, display, keyboard, and mouse. Definition of X-windows client: A platform for running apps which interface to a x-windows server. Greg -- Greg Freemyer >> I need to port xwindows programs to a mswindows box. And I already know >> about vncserver - that won't work for our setup. >> thanks >> joe baptista >> Joe Baptista - only at www.baptista.god

3 2