Category : UNIX Files
Archive   : LIN_NEWS.ZIP
Filename : DGST109.110

 
Output of file : DGST109.110 contained in archive : LIN_NEWS.ZIP

Linux-Activists Digest #109, Volume #1 Sun, 15 Mar 92 11:15:12 EST

Contents:
Re: Need help creating a boot disk (Muhammad Saggaf)
Getting linux to boot from harddirve (Chung Chan)
Re: Need help creating a boot disk (Drew Eckhardt)
Mtools on root (Erik Green)
Re: Getting linux to boot from harddirve (Drew Eckhardt)
Call me Stupid II (Justin Twiss)
Re: generic mtools, prev. post (Mika Pekka Liljeberg)
Re: Need help creating a boot disk (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Re: UUCP for linux? (Philip Copeland)
Re: generic mtools, prev. post (Jim Winstead Jr.)
Re: mtools on root image (Werner Almesberger)

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

From: [email protected] (Muhammad Saggaf)
Subject: Re: Need help creating a boot disk
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 06:42:33 GMT

In article <[email protected]>
[email protected] (Budi Rahardjo) writes:
>I've decided to try linux am having a problem creating a boot disk.
>- downloaded rawrite.exe and bootimage (0.12 and 0.95)
>- use rawrite to create boot disk, it say disk has 9 sectors
> (I am using 360K disk on my XT to do this)
>- Boot the disk on my 386SX
>- It says "Loading" and displays a whole bunch of :
> 0000
> CX:0006
> DX:0000
> @X:0404
> AX:020A
> .... on and on and on ....
>
>This happened with 0.12 and 0.95. FYI my system is a Gateway 386SX/16,
>no math co, if that matters. Any help appreciated.
>

I did the same. In my case, when I booted up with the bootimage
diskette in my 360K drive a, I got the mesaage: "Loading ..... ". The
dots went on for a while and then nothing happened, I didn't even get
the above CX ... etc. message. I have a 386sx-25 (AMD) with 2MB of
RAM. Any help is greatly appreciated.

-- [email protected]



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

From: [email protected] (Chung Chan)
Subject: Getting linux to boot from harddirve
Date: 15 Mar 92 06:48:52 GMT



Hello linux users,
I'm new at this and my question is definitely not found on the
FAQ. Can someone give some very detailed instructions as to how I can
set up linux so that it'll boot from muy harddrive?

I've tried using shoelace; however, I could not seem to get it
to work. The instructions may be too cryptic for me. Well, specifically,
the instructions in shoelace tells me to copy the file "shoelace" onto the
boot disk, but each time I try to copy the file, it tells me "not owner."
Are there other ways to get linux to boot from the harddrive?

THANKS A MILLION ๐Ÿ™‚
-Chung Chan

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

From: [email protected] (Drew Eckhardt)
Subject: Re: Need help creating a boot disk
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 08:01:48 GMT

In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Muhammad Saggaf) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>
>[email protected] (Budi Rahardjo) writes:
>>I've decided to try linux am having a problem creating a boot disk.
>>- downloaded rawrite.exe and bootimage (0.12 and 0.95)
>>- use rawrite to create boot disk, it say disk has 9 sectors
>> (I am using 360K disk on my XT to do this)
>>- Boot the disk on my 386SX
>>- It says "Loading" and displays a whole bunch of :
>> 0000
>> CX:0006
>> DX:0000
>> @X:0404
>> AX:020A
>> .... on and on and on ....
>>
>>This happened with 0.12 and 0.95. FYI my system is a Gateway 386SX/16,
>>no math co, if that matters. Any help appreciated.
>>

The BIOS routines in most computers
will report the MAXIMUM size supported by a disk - in your case,
15 sectors. The linux boot program says "Hey, this is a 5.25"
high density drive, so I'll read 15 sectors for each track". This is
the mechanism which allows the same immage to be used on 1.2M, 1.44M,
720K, and 360K drives, unlike DOS where the bootrecord has the
information hard coded into at as to what type of disk it is.

But since it really is a low density disk, sectors 10 - 15 are just not
there.

The error codes mean sector 10 not found.

Several things you can do :
1. Write it out to a disk formatted high density (you can
format a 360K disk highdensity - although
you will get a few bad tracks near the end,
the first 800K on most disks is useable, and
we only really need to first 200K

2. Try setting disk type to 360K for the SX A:.


>
>I did the same. In my case, when I booted up with the bootimage
>diskette in my 360K drive a, I got the mesaage: "Loading ..... ". The
>dots went on for a while and then nothing happened, I didn't even get
>the above CX ... etc. message. I have a 386sx-25 (AMD) with 2MB of
>RAM. Any help is greatly appreciated.
>

But that's a REAL 360K drive, and BIOS will report the capacity correctly.




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

Subject: Mtools on root
From: [email protected] (Erik Green)
Date: 15 Mar 92 01:41:16


In article [email protected] (Erik Green) writes:
>>
>>In a previous article, [email protected] (Jim Winstead)
>>says:
>>>I don't see mtools as being necessary, at all.
>>
>>Yes, you can rawrite files from DOS to disk, and then read them with
>>tar. However, this gets _very_ tedious, especially if one doesn't
>>have multiple scratch floppies sitting around. Also, I tried explaining
>>how this process works to a friend of mine, and gave up after the
>>fifth "what? huh?".

>How is this less tedious than having to copy files to a spare DOS

I'll assume you meant "more tedious". ๐Ÿ™‚

>floppy, and then using the 'bare-bones' mtools that you proposed to
>read them? That just adds another, unnecessary step... All one
>really needs to do is this:
[stuff deleted]

It's easier to fill DOS floppys with files than to calculate how many
you can tar together and rawrite onto a diskette. Am I missing something,
or are we limited to one file to a diskette? Anyway, you have to format the
disks under DOS anyway to use rawrite - why not leave them useable for
DOS again when you've got Linux running?

IMHO, most people who receive a new copy of linux will get it
in the form of disk images stored as compressed files on MS-DOS floppys,
simply because that's the way they tend to get transferred. If a person
downloads the files from a BBS, they naturally put 'em on a DOS disk.
If the files get downloaded to a hard drive, all that would be necessary
is to boot Linux, and copy the files across partitions.

BTW: Even with all the wierd partition schemes, there are a finite number
of combinations that people can have, so writing a generic mcopy to read
HD's is not impossible, just a little harder. )

What I'm trying to put across is that it makes sense to have more than
one way to get files loaded into Linux. I know there isn't that much
space on the root diskette, but this would seem to be a valuable addition.
This is _one_ thing AST had working right in MINIX - he loaded the root
image into a RAM disk, freeing up a drive to load the /usr programs.

>>My point is that yes, in a perfect world UNIX would have no programs
>>whose sole function is compatibility with DOS. However, most(all)

>In a perfect world, DOS wouldn't exist. ๐Ÿ™‚

Not really. How would you like to be running PRODOS? I don't subscribe
to all the DOS-bashing that seems to be going on these days. I know
DOS is _very_ limiting, and agree that it should be retired, but it
served us well for a number of years and it deserves a little respect.
(Not much, but just a little.)

>>could be rm'd and never used again(if that satisfies your UNIX
>>sensibilities ๐Ÿ™‚ :-)).
>Not really, what happens if they nuke the root partition? I've come

Sorry, I must be one of that extreme minority who've never had many
problems with rm. ๐Ÿ˜‰

[stuff deleted...]
>That would be nice, but that could also be worked around by doing
>something that the GNU Hurd is doing - make tar a filesystem. That
>way mounting a rawritten tarred floppy is the same as mounting any
>other partition (providing it is not compressed, unless the filesystem
>did that as well).

Wouldn't this be _really_ slow on the average '386?
(Sorry for being a bit negative, but two negatives can be positive.)

Phew. I'm getting _really_ longwinded.

-Longshot



--

Erik "Longshot" Green [email protected]
This is a .signature virus scanner. Stop the .sig virus!
Disclaimer: I'm not me.


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

From: [email protected] (Drew Eckhardt)
Subject: Re: Getting linux to boot from harddirve
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 08:14:48 GMT

In article [email protected] (Chung Chan) writes:
>
>
>Hello linux users,
> I'm new at this and my question is definitely not found on the
>FAQ. Can someone give some very detailed instructions as to how I can
>set up linux so that it'll boot from muy harddrive?
>
> I've tried using shoelace; however, I could not seem to get it
>to work. The instructions may be too cryptic for me. Well, specifically,
>the instructions in shoelace tells me to copy the file "shoelace" onto the
>boot disk, but each time I try to copy the file, it tells me "not owner."
>Are there other ways to get linux to boot from the harddrive?

That's because the disk is full. Not owner is a great error message,
isn't it? The same error is printed if you try and remove a directory
somebody is in, etc. I think the gnu fileutilities need some
more inteligence.....

Installing shoelace :
1. Copy the config, and disktab files from the distribution into /etc.
2. Copy bootlace, winiboot, and laceup into /etc
3. Copy shoelace into /shoelace

Now, do a

laceup wini

IE laceup /dev/hd1 wini for /dev/hd1 as root

Then, do a

laceup -w /dev/hd0

Where this is the default partition you want to boot.

IE laceup -w 1 /dev/hd0 for /dev/hd1 as root

This installs winiboot

That's it. before rebooting, make sure you have a bootable kernel
in the correct place. I changed my configuration file to boot
/vmunix. You can also out of the default when
shoelace loads up, and boot anything on the harddisk - great
for kernel hackers.

Note that what you omitted was the "testing" part of the
shoelace installation. It works - just don't screw up and
do anything stupid. laceup /dev/hd0 * with no -w *
will trash your partition table.

Backing up the partition table :

Before you install winiboot, you -might- want to
back up your partition table. This is most easily
accomplished with

dd if=/dev/hd0 bs=512 count=1 of=ptable

And you can put ptable on floppy.

that's it. Works like a charm...


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

From: [email protected] (Justin Twiss)
Subject: Call me Stupid II
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 92 09:23:31 GMT


Call me stupid again, but where are all the header files etc that are required
to compile anything decvent under Gcc 1.40? I've finally installed
it and gotgten some of the ones that come with it (stdio...) running, but
some of the progreamrams I'm trying to port need other files... Any help
would be MAJORly appreciated as I'd like to port some news utils over to
linux, but I can't without having those other header files (bits..)
there.


Justin....
[email protected]


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

From: [email protected] (Mika Pekka Liljeberg)
Subject: Re: generic mtools, prev. post
Date: 15 Mar 92 08:54:10 GMT

In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Jim Winstead Jr.) wrote:

> I don't see mtools as being necessary, at all. If you want to
> transfer files from DOS to Linux, get rawrite.exe and rawrite tar
> files to diskettes, and then read those with tar under Linux. The
> only possible advantage of mtools is that it can access DOS hard drive
> partitions, but I personally wouldn't trust it to do so.

Well, I use Mtools all the time. I have excellent communication programs
for DOS, which I can't say about Linux. As a result, I do most of my
downloading under DOS. I also keep most of the packed Linux stuff in
a DOS partition, because it's such a pain to fool around with rawrite,
tar and a bunch of floppies. It is MUCH easier to type
'mtype foo_tar.z | tar xz', which unpacks a .tar.Z file straight from
the DOS partition and in no time at all.

> As a result, you won't see mtools on the 0.95a root floppy. It would,
> however, be great if someone took the time to make a mtools.tar.Z that
> came with a good README.linux and a sample devices.c, so those that
> felt a need for mtools could compile it easily. The currently
> available ones are a bit tricky to set up, and require a bit of
> guesswork in devices.c.

I don't see why you have to try and pack everything on the root floppy
in the first place. It is my impression that the root floppy is mostly
useful only for getting a root file system onto the hard disk. Period.
Why not make a third distribution image, which has all the best tools
on it: tar, un/compress, mtools, bash, the works? After you've got
your hd root file system up and running, it's a piece of cake to mount
the tool image and copy the rest of the stuff.

>>Am I completely off-base with this? Am I forgetting/overlooking
>>something?
>
> I wouldn't say you're off base, but I think you're tackling the issue
> from the wrong side. I don't think Linux should be forced to read DOS
> devices - I think DOS should write things that Linux can read.

This is silly. I'm willing to bet that most Linux users are running
a hybrid system, with both DOS and Linux on it. In such a system there
will always be a lot of data shuttling back and forth between the two.
In my opinion, we should go for the most convenient way to do things,
which at the moment is Mtools, without doubt. I don't expect anyone will
write anything compareable for DOS anytime soon...

> Tar is already on the root floppy because it is a 'standard' Unix
> tool. We should make use of that rather than try and jam more onto
> the already-crowded root floppy.

I for one don't want to put up with unnecessary contortions just because
it's 'standard' Unix. I agree that the root floppy shouldn't contain
any unnecessary stuff, though.

> Then again, if someone writes a DOS file system for Linux, this
> discussion would be pointless. I'd rather see a faster file system
> for Linux, first, though, to replace the brain-dead Minix one. I need
> room for more descriptive filenames like bc-1.02.bin.tar.Z and
> bc-1.02.src.tar.Z.

I agree. If someone wants to write DOS file system for Linux, I won't
kick up a fuss, but it really isn't important, not urgent.

Mika
--
Mika Liljeberg Email: [email protected]
Helsinki University [email protected]
Dept. of Computer Science

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

From: [email protected] (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Subject: Re: Need help creating a boot disk
Date: 15 Mar 92 10:40:24 GMT

In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Muhammad Saggaf) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>
>[email protected] (Budi Rahardjo) writes:
>>I've decided to try linux am having a problem creating a boot disk.
>>- downloaded rawrite.exe and bootimage (0.12 and 0.95)
>>- use rawrite to create boot disk, it say disk has 9 sectors
>> (I am using 360K disk on my XT to do this)

The problem here is that the linux boot-sequence asks the BIOS what kind
of drive you are running on, gets the answer "1.2M drive" and tries to
read 15 sectors/track. This obviously won't work. Use a high-denstity
diskette, and live with the fact that the kernel uses only 15% of the
capacity.

>I did the same. In my case, when I booted up with the bootimage
>diskette in my 360K drive a, I got the mesaage: "Loading ..... ". The
>dots went on for a while and then nothing happened, I didn't even get
>the above CX ... etc. message. I have a 386sx-25 (AMD) with 2MB of
>RAM. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Ok: this one is a totally unrelated problem. Now the bios reports the
correct kind of disk, so the system loading goes all right. After that
the bootup sequence tries to determine the root-disk type, and finds out
it's not a gigh-density floppy, and dies. It should really print out an
error-message, but there was no space left in the boot-sector, so it
doesn't, it just goes into a loop waiting for a reboot.

If you have only a 360kB drive, I don't see how to install linux. The
root-disk simply won't fit on 360kB - even 1.2M is a bit tight. If you
have a bigger B: drive, you might swap cables, and use that as A:

Linus

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

From: [email protected] (Philip Copeland)
Subject: Re: UUCP for linux?
Date: 15 Mar 92 13:28:02 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected]

In article , [email protected] (Kent H Lundberg) writes:
|>
|> What kind of mail facilities does linux have? Any?
|>
|> Is anyone working on UUCP for linux? Just mail and perhaps some
|> simple file transfer (i am not looking for news). This would be
|> invaluable to me...
|>
|> Is there such a project? What's its status?

well, i just ported Elm2.3P11 to our 386/ix sysV machine and did a
lot of patch work. I'll see if i can port the modified sources onto
linux on Monday..no Tuesday (i have a maths assignment for mon).
Should be good, BUT I need to know where I could find a source for
sendmail (/usr/lib/sendmail)

Phil
=--=

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

From: [email protected] (Jim Winstead Jr.)
Subject: Re: generic mtools, prev. post
Date: 15 Mar 92 15:58:47 GMT

In article [email protected] (Mika Pekka Liljeberg) writes:
>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Jim Winstead Jr.) wrote:
>
>> I don't see mtools as being necessary, at all.
>
>Well, I use Mtools all the time. I have excellent communication programs
>for DOS, which I can't say about Linux.

Yes, this is a pretty major weakness of Linux - Kermit and Pcomm are
nice, but they simply aren't up to the standards of most of the DOS
terminal programs. Of course, I've gone the opposite route as you and
just learned to 'deal with it'. I miss my old term program in a way,
but I've found I can get just as much done using kermit or xc (another
term program that I've been working on porting).

>> As a result, you won't see mtools on the 0.95a root floppy.
>
>I don't see why you have to try and pack everything on the root floppy
>in the first place.

I was responding to people who suggested mtools be on the root floppy,
who apparently think everything needs to be on the root floppy. ๐Ÿ™‚

>It is my impression that the root floppy is mostly
>useful only for getting a root file system onto the hard disk. Period.

That's my goal, too. That means getting something like pfdisk on the
root floppy is more important to me than mtools.

>Why not make a third distribution image, which has all the best tools
>on it: tar, un/compress, mtools, bash, the works? After you've got
>your hd root file system up and running, it's a piece of cake to mount
>the tool image and copy the rest of the stuff.

A third distribution image would be nice, but would go against trying
to keep the distribution small - some people are not going to want to
download 3 megs just to install an experimental operating system.
That's why I'd like to get as much as possible, and as much as
necessary, on one root disk. Tar and compress are important enough
that definitely deserve to be on there....

>This is silly. I'm willing to bet that most Linux users are running
>a hybrid system, with both DOS and Linux on it.

As am I. But, the only reason I still have DOS around is for business
purposes - I still have to do some programming under DOS.

>In such a system there will always be a lot of data shuttling back and
>forth between the two.

Are you sure? The last time I moved anything from DOS -> Linux was
probably the 0.12 kernel, and I'm sure there are also others that are
making the transition away from DOS, just as many people have moved
away from Minix.

>In my opinion, we should go for the most convenient way to do things,
>which at the moment is Mtools, without doubt. I don't expect anyone will
>write anything compareable for DOS anytime soon...

But remember, not even mtools is that easy to configure and set up to
use the hard drive. rawrite and tar work 'out of the box.'

>I for one don't want to put up with unnecessary contortions just because
>it's 'standard' Unix. I agree that the root floppy shouldn't contain
>any unnecessary stuff, though.

I'm glad we're agreed on this. It's too bad some people aren't.

>I agree. If someone wants to write DOS file system for Linux, I won't
>kick up a fuss, but it really isn't important, not urgent.

I wouldn't say it's not important, but it's not urgent. I think it
would be nice to find something more flexible than mtools, which I
think a DOS filesystem would be. Then you aren't limited by the set
of tools that mtools gives you.

Also, keep in mind in all this that I'm not saying mtools shouldn't
even exist for Linux - that'd be silly. I'm just saying that it is
not important enough to be on the root floppy. If people want to use
mtools, they'll only have to use rawrite three times in their life.
(Root floppy, boot floppy, and mtools.tar!)

--
Jim Winstead Jr. (CSci '95) | "Catch a fish!"
Harvey Mudd College | -Geddy Lee,
[email protected] | San Diego Sports Arena
Disclaimer: Mine, not theirs! | January 20, 1992

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

From: [email protected] (Werner Almesberger)
Subject: Re: mtools on root image
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 15:32:59 GMT

In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Jim Winstead Jr.) writes:
> In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Johan W}hlin) writes:
>> The only program of the mtools you actually _need_ is mcopy.
>
> Are you sure about this? I was under the impression that mcopy was
> merely a front-end for mread and mwrite. If that's the case, you've
> got 130k of binaries right there. Leave out mwrite, and you've still
> got about 70k.

70 kB should be enough. If you merge all the mtools parts into a single
executable and link mattrib, mcd, etc. to it, it's only 62 kB (42 kB
compressed, probably less with gcc 2.0).

> How do you distribute a pre-compiled mtools that can handle all the
> different partitions people have?

The devices database could be loaded at run-time. If you stuff everything
into a single binary, this gets even easier (single entry point).

I've just built such a merged mtools and it seems to work. A better way to
handle the devices database is still missing, but that shouldn't be
difficult. It will need a lot of testing and I'll have to discuss this
with the author, so I wouldn't expect this to get released before next
weekend.

> It's easy to start thinking everyone uses kermit under Linux to get
> all their stuff to the computer....

By the way, is there an 'official' Zmodem port yet ? Or is anybody working
on it ?

- Werner
--
_________________________________________________________________________
/ Werner Almesberger, ETH Zuerich, CH [email protected] /
/ IFW A44 Tel. +41 1 254 7213 [email protected] /
/_BITNET:_ALMESBER@CZHETH5A__HEPNET/CHADNET:_[20579::]57414::ALMESBERGER_/

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


** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **

The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:

Internet: [email protected]

You can send mail to the entire list (and alt.os.linux) via:

Internet: [email protected]

Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
nic.funet.fi pub/OS/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
tupac-amaru.informatik.rwth-aachen.de pub/msdos/replace

The current version of Linux is 0.12, released on Jan 14, 1992

End of Linux-Activists Digest
******************************

Linux-Activists Digest #110, Volume #1 Sun, 15 Mar 92 15:30:10 EST

Contents:
Re: Mtools on root (Jim Winstead Jr.)
How do I lowlevel format my IDE harddisk? (Rogier Wolff)
Re: mtools on root image (Jim Winstead Jr.)
Re: Localtion of init and mount (Werner Almesberger)
request for fixed version of tar (Charles Hedrick)
gdb: "Bad things happen" (Charles Hedrick)
Re: Localtion of init and mount (Jim Winstead Jr.)
Re: Getting linux to boot from harddirve (Charles Hedrick)
Re: Linux-Activists Digest #108 (Michael Campbell)
Re: How do I lowlevel format my IDE harddisk? (Kelly Alexander)
dvips (for TeX) (t dunbar)
lp patches for 0.95 ([email protected])

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

From: [email protected] (Jim Winstead Jr.)
Subject: Re: Mtools on root
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 16:33:03 GMT

>>How is this less tedious than having to copy files to a spare DOS
>
>I'll assume you meant "more tedious". ๐Ÿ™‚

Er, yeah, whatever. Oops. ๐Ÿ™‚

>It's easier to fill DOS floppys with files than to calculate how many
>you can tar together and rawrite onto a diskette.

I think you're overplaying this a bit. It doesn't take much to look
at a few files and decide if they'll fit into 1.2 megs or not.

This also isn't necessarily relevant, because you'd only really need
to do this once - to get mtools over to the hard disk. After that,
you have the flexibility to use whatever you want.

>Am I missing something, or are we limited to one file to a diskette?

Right, just one file, unless I've missed something as well. But
that's also all you need.

>Anyway, you have to format the disks under DOS anyway to use rawrite
>- why not leave them useable for DOS again when you've got Linux running?

Why not use them for Linux?

>IMHO, most people who receive a new copy of linux will get it
>in the form of disk images stored as compressed files on MS-DOS floppys,
>simply because that's the way they tend to get transferred.

That may be the way usual MS-DOS programs get transferred, but why
can't it be different for Linux? I think it's far more useful to give
someone an already-rawritten boot/root disk than to give the
compressed files, and for the same reasons, it would be of more
utility to give them rawritten floppies with the major utilities (like
mtools).

>If a person downloads the files from a BBS, they naturally put 'em
>on a DOS disk.

What if they use Linux to do all their calling out? ๐Ÿ™‚

>If the files get downloaded to a hard drive, all that would be necessary
>is to boot Linux, and copy the files across partitions.

Right, after they have gone through the motions of rawriting a tarred
floppy and untarring it under Linux *once*, to get the mtools binaries
over. Is this too much to ask?

I'm not saying that mtools should not even exist for Linux, I'm saying
that is not vital to have it on the root floppy.

>BTW: Even with all the wierd partition schemes, there are a finite number
>of combinations that people can have, so writing a generic mcopy to read
>HD's is not impossible, just a little harder. )

Finite number doesn't necessarily equal small number. ๐Ÿ™‚ If you have
the 'generic' mtools set up to handle many different partition types,
you have an mtools that is that much harder to use by a DOS/Unix
novice. How many people really now if they have 12 or 16-bit FAT
tables?

>What I'm trying to put across is that it makes sense to have more than
>one way to get files loaded into Linux. I know there isn't that much
>space on the root diskette, but this would seem to be a valuable addition.

I think I could agree here - but if mtools makes it on the 0.95a floppy
(which it might, since someone has volunteered to try and make a
'generic' mtools), and space later becomes cramped (i.e. for 0.96 and
beyond), it will be one of the first to go. It's nice to have, for
some people, but hardly necessary.

>This is _one_ thing AST had working right in MINIX - he loaded the root
>image into a RAM disk, freeing up a drive to load the /usr programs.

Yes, it is a shame that so much of the boot disk is wasted - it would
be nice to be able to load a number of programs from there.

>>In a perfect world, DOS wouldn't exist. ๐Ÿ™‚
>
>Not really. How would you like to be running PRODOS?

Who said the alternative to DOS is ProDOS? You're even talking about
two entirely different architectures... (If we're talking about the
same ProDOS - the Apple II OS.)

I should have said - DOS wouldn't exist *anymore*. It has outlived
it's time, which is why companies like Microsoft are developing
Windows/NT, and IBM is working on OS/2. DOS was a dead-end from the
beginning.

>>Not really, what happens if they nuke the root partition? I've come

> Sorry, I must be one of that extreme minority who've never had many
>problems with rm. ๐Ÿ˜‰

Not necessarily just rm. It is possible some other program will go
hog-wild and wipe out a partition. It is also possible to introduce
deadly bugs in the kernel while you're working on it. Just ask
Linus...

>>[tar as a filesystem]
>
>Wouldn't this be _really_ slow on the average '386?
>(Sorry for being a bit negative, but two negatives can be positive.)

I don't know, about that - you'd have to ask the GNU Hurd people. It
may not be all that fast, but it would be useful.

>Phew. I'm getting _really_ longwinded.

I know the feeling well.

I think we've almost beaten this horse to death... I don't see mtools
as a utility vital enough to _have_ to be on the root disk, and
nothing you've said really changes that. I do, however, appreciate
the usefulness of mtools for those of us that haven't dived completely
into Linux yet. It will be on the root floppy if I get a version that
is generic enough to be of utility to most users, and more
importantly, if it fits. Beyond that, it's hard to make promises.
--
Jim Winstead Jr. (CSci '95) | "Catch a fish!"
Harvey Mudd College | -Geddy Lee,
[email protected] | San Diego Sports Arena
Disclaimer: Mine, not theirs! | January 20, 1992

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

From: [email protected] (Rogier Wolff)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: How do I lowlevel format my IDE harddisk?
Date: 15 Mar 92 14:58:14 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected] (Rogier Wolff)

Hi,

I am starting to get "read" errors while booting my computer (not the MSDOS
partition) This is new. However I have lately been experimenting with
DR-DOS, which has had some nasty effects on some non-dos partitions
(junked). Now I am looking into trying to lowlevel format the
disk again, since using the AMI bios hard disk utility hasn't had any
effect. (I'm posting to hardware groups since this is soooo close to a
hardware issue.... suppose I had bought a new IDE harddisk which needs
to be formatted....)
Any help will be appreciated.

Roger

--
If the opposite of "pro" is "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
(stolen from kadokev@iitvax ==? [email protected])
EMail: [email protected] ** Tel +31-15-783644 or +31-15-142371

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

From: [email protected] (Jim Winstead Jr.)
Subject: Re: mtools on root image
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 16:49:11 GMT

>>> The only program of the mtools you actually _need_ is mcopy.
>>
>> Are you sure about this? I was under the impression that mcopy was
>> merely a front-end for mread and mwrite. If that's the case, you've
>> got 130k of binaries right there. Leave out mwrite, and you've still
>> got about 70k.
>
>70 kB should be enough. If you merge all the mtools parts into a single
>executable and link mattrib, mcd, etc. to it, it's only 62 kB (42 kB
>compressed, probably less with gcc 2.0).

That's pretty impressive. Why the heck is mtools distributed with all
the seperate programs, then? If it could all be sym-linked, it seems
silly not to do this. (That means mtools is wasting almost 200k on my
hard disk! Argh!)

>> How do you distribute a pre-compiled mtools that can handle all the
>> different partitions people have?
>
>The devices database could be loaded at run-time. If you stuff everything
>into a single binary, this gets even easier (single entry point).

Easier to program, but not necessarily easier to use by a novice.

>I've just built such a merged mtools and it seems to work. A better way to
>handle the devices database is still missing, but that shouldn't be
>difficult. It will need a lot of testing and I'll have to discuss this
>with the author, so I wouldn't expect this to get released before next
>weekend.

If you can pull this off, and I can fit it on the root floppy, it will
be there. In any case, a better mtools would be ideal - the current
one obviously has some holes in it.

>By the way, is there an 'official' Zmodem port yet ? Or is anybody working
>on it ?

I don't think so. Several people (myself included) have a compiled
Zmodem, but mine is a bit flaky. I'll try and work on it after 0.95a
is released, but I also have a number of other things to do, first.
--
Jim Winstead Jr. (CSci '95) | "Catch a fish!"
Harvey Mudd College | -Geddy Lee,
[email protected] | San Diego Sports Arena
Disclaimer: Mine, not theirs! | January 20, 1992

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

From: [email protected] (Werner Almesberger)
Subject: Re: Localtion of init and mount
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 16:27:02 GMT

In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Jim Winstead Jr.) writes:
> The idea is that the root floppy should be a 'more complete release'!
> The ABC release, as I understand, is more of a way of organizing and
> distributing the more complete tools. Basically, it's like this:

Hm ... I thought the ABC release would be targetted at those who want an
easier way to install Linux. This surely includes better structuring of
the tools collection, but I think, a kernel and the root disk stuff
should be there as well (plus a clever installation program). Have I
missed the point ?

> If people think differently (especially the people behind the
> ABC-Release!), I'd like to say this makes more sense than having
> 'competing' releases.

They probably won't compete at all. The ABC release will be naturally
much slower to incorporate new features, but will be a comparably stable
base release instead. (How often do you upgrade the OS on your bigger
irons ? Weekly ? ๐Ÿ™‚

If the ABC release includes good installation tools, I see no reason why
the average user would want to use the root disk for system installation.
Therefore, I don't see a need why the root disk should be tied to LDS.

Reading through my posting again, I notice that I'm making quite a few
assumptions about the ABC release. Are they correct ?

- Werner
--
_________________________________________________________________________
/ Werner Almesberger, ETH Zuerich, CH [email protected] /
/ IFW A44 Tel. +41 1 254 7213 [email protected] /
/_BITNET:_ALMESBER@CZHETH5A__HEPNET/CHADNET:_[20579::]57414::ALMESBERGER_/

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

From: [email protected] (Charles Hedrick)
Subject: request for fixed version of tar
Date: 15 Mar 92 17:38:28 GMT

The version of tar I have, which seems to be the current one (there
being no new tar on the .95 root disk), doesn't understand symlinks.
It backs up the thing pointed to. Does anybody have a tar that
does the right thing?

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

From: [email protected] (Charles Hedrick)
Subject: gdb: "Bad things happen"
Date: 15 Mar 92 17:47:55 GMT

I've been trying out gdb, from tsx-11. It's not entirely easy to
install it, as I had to figure out what libg.a is supposed to be,
and I had to remember to use cc1-g from the 1.40 distribution.
But I've got something that mostly works. However when I try
to step through a call to localtime, I get

Bad things happen: nonexistent page error in do_no_page
Segmentation fault

This is the version of localtime from the BSD ctime.c, which is
in the libc I put out on athos.rutgers.edu a couple of weeks ago.

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

From: [email protected] (Jim Winstead Jr.)
Subject: Re: Localtion of init and mount
Date: 15 Mar 92 18:21:16 GMT

In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Werner Almesberger) writes:
>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Jim Winstead Jr.) writes:
>> The idea is that the root floppy should be a 'more complete release'!
>> The ABC release, as I understand, is more of a way of organizing and
>> distributing the more complete tools. Basically, it's like this:
>
>Hm ... I thought the ABC release would be targetted at those who want an
>easier way to install Linux. This surely includes better structuring of
>the tools collection, but I think, a kernel and the root disk stuff
>should be there as well (plus a clever installation program). Have I
>missed the point ?

Here's my point: Why should the 'standard' root disk be a 'harder'
way to install Linux? That is part of the reason why I took over
maintaining the root disk from Linus: He is busy working on making
the kernel as stable as possible. I have the time to make the
distributed root disk as useful as possible.

>> If people think differently (especially the people behind the
>> ABC-Release!), I'd like to say this makes more sense than having
>> 'competing' releases.
>
>They probably won't compete at all. The ABC release will be naturally
>much slower to incorporate new features, but will be a comparably stable
>base release instead. (How often do you upgrade the OS on your bigger
>irons ? Weekly ? ๐Ÿ™‚

Why should the 'standard' release be any less stable? The only reason
things are changing so rapidly now is that Linux is still relatively
new - not even a year old. (By the way, when is Linux's birthday?) I
expect that once we reach Linux v1.0, things will be very stable.

Linux is *very* close to a v1.0 release, which is why we're at 0.95a
now, instead of 0.13a. You'll notice the number of changes between
0.11 and 0.12 were much greater than those between 0.12 and 0.95.

Once we hit v1.0, I would be willing to bet there will be a
significant change in how Linux is distributed, in that there will be
actual beta releases of new kernels before they are distributed for
mass consumption. At least, this is how I'd like to see it. Right
now, all of Linux is considered alpha/beta.

>If the ABC release includes good installation tools, I see no reason why
>the average user would want to use the root disk for system installation.
>Therefore, I don't see a need why the root disk should be tied to LDS.

I see no reason why the average user shouldn't be given a root disk
that has good installation tools for system installation. The root
disk should be tied to LDS because it is important to pick a standard
and support it.

>Reading through my posting again, I notice that I'm making quite a few
>assumptions about the ABC release. Are they correct ?

I don't think so, but my assumptions may be just as incorrect. You
seem to see the ABC release as the 'easy install' release, rather than
providing some organization to how the myriad utilities for Linux are
released, as is how I see it.
--
Jim Winstead Jr. (CSci '95) | "Catch a fish!"
Harvey Mudd College | -Geddy Lee,
[email protected] | San Diego Sports Arena
Disclaimer: Mine, not theirs! | January 20, 1992

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

From: [email protected] (Charles Hedrick)
Subject: Re: Getting linux to boot from harddirve
Date: 15 Mar 92 18:40:34 GMT

Many thanks to [email protected] (Drew Eckhardt). I had looked at
shoelace, and concluded that the installation process was too complex
to bother with. These instructions made it simple.

However neither the installation file nor your posting gives
instructions on what to do once shoelace is installed. From trial and
error:

- When you boot, it will give a prompt. What it's looking
for is a single digit, which is the partition number to
boot from. Thus you can choose DOS, Linux, etc.
- If you specify your Linux partition number, you'll see
lots of junk, and eventually Linux will come up.
- If you want to boot something other than the default file
specified in /etc/config, hit a space while the boot is
happening. There's no prompt -- you just hit the space
after typing the partition number, while it's printing
stuff. If you do that, instead of Linux coming up,
you'll end up in a command processor for shoelace.
- Commands are keywords. "help" will give a list. The most
useful is "load ". This does what you'd
expect "boot" to do. It boots the specified image file.

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

From: [email protected] (Michael Campbell)
Subject: Re: Linux-Activists Digest #108
Reply-To: [email protected] (Michael Campbell)
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 20:15:20 GMT

Please unsubscribe me.



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

From: [email protected] (Kelly Alexander)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.pc.hardware,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: How do I lowlevel format my IDE harddisk?
Date: 15 Mar 92 19:48:30 GMT

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Rogier Wolff) writes:
|> (junked). Now I am looking into trying to lowlevel format the
|> disk again, since using the AMI bios hard disk utility hasn't had any
|> effect. (I'm posting to hardware groups since this is soooo close to a
|> hardware issue.... suppose I had bought a new IDE harddisk which needs
|> to be formatted....)

Technically, you are not supposed to low-level and IDE drive, it should
come that way from the factory.
However, I low-leveled my Maxtor drive with a utility I got off of the
Maxtor tech-support BBS. If you call your drive manufacturer, they will usually
send you or let you dial-up and get the software you need for free... you can't
really pirate a drive, so they'll give you the stuff w/o having to send in a
proof of ownership form or anything.
Hope this helps.

=============================================================================
Kelly Scott Alexander Internet: [email protected]
Oregon State - Computer Science [email protected]
=============================================================================

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

From: t dunbar
Subject: dvips (for TeX)
Reply-To: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1992 20:26:54 GMT

in trying to compile dvips for linux, i'm stymied by the lack of libm.a
What should i do?
output from gcc follows (hopefully not too mangled by the IBM system
i'm on)

gcc version 1.40
cpp -v -DTPIC -DFONTLIB -DTFMPATH="/usr/lib/tex/fonts/tfm" -DPKPATH="/usr/lib/t
GNU CPP version 1.40
cc1 /tmp/cc000086.cpp -quiet -dumpbase repack.c -O -Wall -version -o /tmp/cc000
GNU C version 1.40 (80386, BSD syntax) compiled by GNU C version 1.40.
default target switches:
as -o repack.o /tmp/cc000086.s
gcc version 1.40
ld -o dvips -s /usr/lib/crt0.o dospecial.o dviinput.o fontdef.o loadfont.o dvip
dospecial.o: Undefined symbol ___mulsf3 referenced from text segment
dospecial.o: Undefined symbol ___divsf3 referenced from text segment
dospecial.o: Undefined symbol ___cmpsf2 referenced from text segment
dospecial.o: Undefined symbol ___subsf3 referenced from text segment
dospecial.o: Undefined symbol ___subsf3 referenced from text segment
fontdef.o: Undefined symbol ___mulsf3 referenced from text segment
fontdef.o: Undefined symbol ___mulsf3 referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol ___mulsf3 referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol ___mulsf3 referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol ___mulsf3 referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol ___mulsf3 referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol ___cmpsf2 referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol ___addsf3 referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol ___addsf3 referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol ___subsf3 referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol ___divsf3 referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol ___divsf3 referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol ___subsf3 referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol _fabs referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol ___divsf3 referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol ___subsf3 referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol _fabs referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol ___divsf3 referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol ___subsf3 referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol ___mulsf3 referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: Undefined symbol ___mulsf3 referenced from text segment
drawPS.o: More undefined symbol ___mulsf3 refs follow
makefont.o: Undefined symbol ___divsf3 referenced from text segment
make: *** [dvips] Error 1

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

From: [email protected]
Subject: lp patches for 0.95
Date: 15 Mar 92 14:18:19 -0600

Does anyone know where to FTP the lp patches for 0.96???


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


** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **

The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:

Internet: [email protected]

You can send mail to the entire list (and alt.os.linux) via:

Internet: [email protected]

Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
nic.funet.fi pub/OS/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
tupac-amaru.informatik.rwth-aachen.de pub/msdos/replace

The current version of Linux is 0.12, released on Jan 14, 1992

End of Linux-Activists Digest
******************************

& q
Held 2 messages in /usr/spool/mail/tree
midget.towson.edu> a mail
Mail version 2.18 5/19/83. Type ? for help.
"/usr/spool/mail/tree": 2 messages 1 unread
>U 1 [email protected] Sun Mar 15 11:30 628/24842 "Linux-Activists Digest #109"
2 [email protected] Sun Mar 15 15:48 532/22929 "Linux-Activists Digest #110"
& d1
& d2
& q
midget.towson.edu> mail
No mail for tree
midget.towson.edu> ls -la
total 390
drwxr-x--x 3 tree 512 Mar 15 15:41 .
drwxr-xr-x145 root 2560 Mar 14 10:03 ..
-rwxr-x--x 1 tree 442 Feb 26 19:34 .cshrc
-rwxr-x--x 1 tree 259 Mar 15 15:04 .login
-rwxr-x--x 1 tree 191 Mar 15 15:02 .profile
drwxr-x--x 2 tree 512 Feb 26 19:34 bin
-rw------- 1 tree 10369 Mar 15 15:41 digest87.Z
-rw------- 1 tree 11339 Mar 15 15:41 digest88.Z
-rw------- 1 tree 11523 Mar 15 15:40 digest89.Z
-rw------- 1 tree 9859 Mar 15 15:40 digest90.Z
-rw------- 1 tree 10915 Mar 15 15:39 digest91.Z
-rw------- 1 tree 12080 Mar 15 15:39 digest92.Z
-rw------- 1 tree 11339 Mar 15 15:39 digest93.Z
-rw------- 1 tree 11226 Mar 15 15:38 digest95.Z
-rw------- 1 tree 25864 Mar 15 15:33 fgrep.tar.Z
-rw------- 1 tree 68625 Mar 15 15:35 gawk.Z
-rw------- 1 tree 72785 Mar 15 15:36 grep-1.5.bin.tar.Z
-rw------- 1 tree 87613 Mar 15 09:55 kermit.Z
-rw------- 1 tree 39813 Mar 15 15:32 sed.Z
midget.towson.edu> rm digest  *.Z
midget.towson.edu> ls
bin gawk.Z kermit.Z
fgrep.tar.Z grep-1.5.bin.tar.Z sed.Z
midget.towson.edu> by  ^D
There are stopped jobs.
midget.towson.edu> ^Dlogout
& /usr/spool/mail/tree: No such file or directory


Xyplex -011- Session 1 disconnected from MIDGET

Local> quit

Xyplex -020- Logged out port 15 on server TOE034 at 15 Mar 1992 16:00:56

NO CARRIER


  3 Responses to “Category : UNIX Files
Archive   : LIN_NEWS.ZIP
Filename : DGST109.110

  1. Very nice! Thank you for this wonderful archive. I wonder why I found it only now. Long live the BBS file archives!

  2. This is so awesome! ๐Ÿ˜€ I’d be cool if you could download an entire archive of this at once, though.

  3. But one thing that puzzles me is the “mtswslnkmcjklsdlsbdmMICROSOFT” string. There is an article about it here. It is definitely worth a read: http://www.os2museum.com/wp/mtswslnk/