Re: [techtalk] bind problem...and a sendmail one, too
> Looks like you might have been hacked. I'd also look for other strange > stuff, ie check your logs for strange things and strange omissions, look > for recently changed files that you dont know anything about, look for > anything unusual in ps, netstat, lsof. > > If you really want to be safe, format and reinstall everything. If you > don't want to do that, don't run any services you don't need, set up a > firewall, and keep an eye on things, etc. This is interesting: [root@ghettoBOX cron]# cd /var/spool/cron [root@ghettoBOX cron]# ls -l total 1 -rw--- 1 root root 202 Nov 3 17:34 root [root@ghettoBOX cron]# cat root # DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE - edit the master and reinstall. # (cron installed on Wed Nov 3 17:34:09 1999) # (Cron version -- $Id: crontab.c,v 2.13 1994/01/17 03:20:37 vixie Exp $) * * * * * /tmp/ns [root@ghettoBOX cron]# (i looked in crond's man to find out where the hell it was looking for this crontab job) but /usr/sbin/crond says it was created april 14 *shrug* nothing strange in ps or netstat... no odd things appearing in logs, no connections from those IP addys in any logs I saw. We're actually going to be installing a new hard drive and ditching the one's we're currently on. Since I didn't start this system from the bottom, I have to rely on my hubby to at least tell me the bare bones (what he installed), but he usually says "uhh I don't know" which doesn't really help. Obviously whatever "hack" this was didn't work the way they wished it to. I'll look back into strace.out and see what I missed, if anything. I relocated the /var/spool/cron/root file, the /tmp/cron file, and the /tmp/ns file. They're not gone, just moved. I'll try looking up some more info tomorrow (maybe astalavista or something that'd give me the other side of things). Try finding out who the IPs belong to... -nicole [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] Thanks! and PDF files
>Now I have a new question. (This one's for my own comp :^) Does anyone > know where I can get a tool to (easily) create PDF files in Linux? (Note: > cheaper is better. ;^) > (I'm running RedHat 6.0, Kernel 2.2.12, Gnome 1.0.53 and Enlightenment 0.15.5) A correctly set up Ghostscript can compile PDF from PS, and there are numerous scripts to compile LaTeX/html/ascii/... to PostScript. LaTeX is really really cool!!! HTH miLady -- /"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail[EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
RE: [techtalk] StarOffice and Gnome installation issues
>How much memory do you have? StarOffice is a real memory hog (I call it >bloatware and you may quote me on that), a quick test gave this: >It eats additional 2MB in the X-Server and forks off 6 copies >of itself, >giving 7 instances running. If Linux didn't do such a good job >in memory >management (copy-on-write and stuff), it would consume between >100 and 120 >MB of RAM (and that's with shared memory taken into account). Hmm. I have 128M, but I have not gotten around to setting up any swap partitions. With 128M, the need was not pressing. :-) Perhaps I'm simply running out of memory during the install. I'll have to create a 256M swap partition and try it again. --Cathy [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] resolution
Actually, it should use the first resolution in the list, not necessarily the smallest one. Unfortunately, Xconfigurator doesn't let you chose what order they're written in the config file in. If you use xf86config, you can choose the order in which they're listed - i.e. a larger one first, but smaller resolutions later in the cntrl-alt-+/- cycle if you chose. The *reason* that you only get a portion of the screen at lower resolutions is because the screen is sized for the highest resolution in the list. Therefore, you will always have the same amount of desktop real-estate - but at smaller resolutions, the picture is 'zoomed in', so you get a 'closer' look at a smaller part of the screen. Or at least that's my very non-technical explanation. :) HTH! Mur! On Sat, 13 Nov 1999, Amos Hayes wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Nov 1999, K. Ziel wrote: > > > So...is there an easier way than running through that entire config again? > > also..i've run xsetres on solaris before, but didn't seem to be able to find > > anything similar on my system (redhat) > > Run "Xconfigurator" as root on redhat based systems. Note: If you choose > more than one resolution, it will start in the smallest and set the > "virtual" desktop size to the largest. "CTRL ALT +" will cycle through the > resolutions you've chosen once you start X. > > I find it easiest to only chose one resolution/bitdepth combo. Then I > don't have to fiddle everytime I start X. > > BTW... That's the second time I've replied to a post and asked a question > that was answered in the original post. I must be slipping. Sorry about > that. > > -- > Amos > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] Arpwatch
Thank you for the information. I appreciate the "Point in the right Direction" -> I'm fairly new to this and maybe trying to do more then is neccessary. I shall try the script to look for duplicates and such. Thank you kindly Norma BEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 X-GWTYPE:USER FN:Norma Ford TEL;WORK:206 ORG:;Finance TEL;PREF;FAX:520.421.8602 EMAIL;WORK;PREF;NGW:NFord.Post Office.Casa-Grande N:Ford;Norma TITLE:Programmer/Analyst X-GWUSERID:NFord END:VCARD
[techtalk] Free Purify equivalent?
Is anyone aware of a freeware equivalent of Purify -- that is, a tool to check for array access out of bounds, memory leaks, and so forth? Are there some gcc/gld options I don't know about to handle this? This is such an obvious software development need that I figure someone must surely have addressed it by now. --Cathy [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
RE: [techtalk] Free Purify equivalent?
Hi, For the NT version, go to http://www.rational.com/products/purify_nt/tryit/index.jtmpl for Unix versions (Solaris, HP-UX, Irix - no Linux version, sadly), go to http://www.rational.com/products/purify_unix/tryit/index.jtmpl Cheers, GC -Original Message- From: Cathy James [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 1:00 PM To: 'Techtalk' Subject:[techtalk] Free Purify equivalent? Is anyone aware of a freeware equivalent of Purify -- that is, a tool to check for array access out of bounds, memory leaks, and so forth? Are there some gcc/gld options I don't know about to handle this? This is such an obvious software development need that I figure someone must surely have addressed it by now. --Cathy [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
RE: [techtalk] Free Purify equivalent?
I think you missed the keyword "free", which was not meant to refer to "free trial version". I meant "free" as in GNU tools. --Cathy >-Original Message- >From: Gregory Conron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 11:21 AM >To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >Subject: RE: [techtalk] Free Purify equivalent? > > >Hi, > >For the NT version, go to >http://www.rational.com/products/purify_nt/tryit/index.jtmpl >for Unix versions (Solaris, HP-UX, Irix - no Linux version, >sadly), go to >http://www.rational.com/products/purify_unix/tryit/index.jtmpl > >Cheers, >GC > >-Original Message- >From: Cathy James [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 1:00 PM >To:'Techtalk' >Subject: [techtalk] Free Purify equivalent? > > > Is anyone aware of a freeware equivalent of >Purify -- that is, a tool to check for array >access out of bounds, memory leaks, and so forth? >Are there some gcc/gld options I don't know >about to handle this? > > This is such an obvious software development >need that I figure someone must surely have >addressed it by now. > > --Cathy > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] Free Purify equivalent?
Cathy James wrote: > Is anyone aware of a freeware equivalent of > Purify -- that is, a tool to check for array > access out of bounds, memory leaks, and so forth? Elecrtic Fence is available at http://perens.com/FreeSoftware/ Debauch is available from http://quorum.tamu.edu/jon/gnu/ Hope these help [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] Free Purify equivalent?
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Cathy James wrote: > > Is anyone aware of a freeware equivalent of > Purify -- that is, a tool to check for array > access out of bounds, memory leaks, and so forth? > Are there some gcc/gld options I don't know > about to handle this? > > This is such an obvious software development > need that I figure someone must surely have > addressed it by now. Try memprof (http://people.redhat.com/~otaylor/memprof/), it just checks for mem leaks (i.e. no array out of bounds etc.). It does this by running your app from memprof and checking which mem areas get allocated and not freed (I think). It's got a nice UI and shows you were memory got allocated which didn't get freed afterwards (along with function names and line numbers, if compiled with debugging symbols). Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Vogelsangstrasse 115 / D-70197 Stuttgart / +49.711.6599405 [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offence. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] Thanks! and PDF files
On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Britta Koch wrote: > LaTeX is really really cool!!! I put my signature below this. It's so coll that a single copy of LaTeX is able too deep-freeze all existing copies of so called text-processors so people in the next millenia could watch them in a curiosity museum :-). Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Vogelsangstrasse 115 / D-70197 Stuttgart / +49.711.6599405 [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offence. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
RE:[techtalk] StarOffice and Gnome installation issues
Hi, Karl-Heinz and others, I take this as an invitation to nitpicking :-) On Sun, 14 Nov 1999, Karl-Heinz Zimmer wrote: > On 11/13/99, 12:37:15 PM, Nils Philippsen erroneously: > > > StarOffice is a real memory hog > > Unfortunately this is true. :-( > We managed it to spend less memory that StarOffice 5.0 but > it still needs quite a lot. Yep, 35MB isn't exactly lightweight... > > > a quick test gave this: > > The filowing (fortunately!) is *not* correct: > > > It eats additional 2MB in the X-Server and forks off ^ | Up to here, it IS correct. + > > 6 copies of itself, giving 7 instances running. >^ > ;-) OK so you use threads (taken your writing below into account). > I am happy to be able to tell you that 'facts' being told > to us above are not right. > > Of course StarOffice doesn't use that amount of memory! I knew that it didn't use 100+MB (as I have 128MB and the machine didn't trash, it was crystal clear). I thought (erroneously) that you forked, instead you cloned, but even with forking it wouldn't use that much (and I never said that it would) because all pages that are not written into, just read, would've been shared between the processes. If I'm not totally wrong, this is even between independently started processes, because the kernel just mmap()s the binary. > The simple reason for the common misunderstanding of that > phenomenon and for lots of trouble is that some people start > writing their ideas and theories down without having ensured > that they are true! This is said easily for a person with access to the source code. Or was it released lately? Up to now IIRC Sun only has announced to open the code to the public (everybody: please don't make a licence war out of this, ok? Not that I would like the SCSL, admitted :-). Ok, if I could read strace output in my sleep, it would be different... > StarOffice doesn't consume that Mem for each 'instances' because > there AREN'T ANY MULTIPLE INSTANCES - even if it looks like that. So could you please explain to me why they have different PIDs? In my understanding, threads of a process have the same PID, or do I err? Without experience with pthreads and the like, I would really be interested in an answer. > Instead of this StarOffice runs multiple THREADS (not instances) > to improve performance and all of these threads of course use > THE SAME MEMORY. > > The stupid fact that 'ps -m' or 'top' don't show this clearly > caused *some* people to call us by phone and complain about that > Mem Vaste they seemed to have found there. :-) Help people fixing ps and top ... Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Vogelsangstrasse 115 / D-70197 Stuttgart / +49.711.6599405 [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offence. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
RE: [techtalk] StarOffice and Gnome installation issues
On 11/15/99, 1:36:10 PM, Cathy wrote: > Hmm. I have 128M, but I have not gotten around > to setting up any swap partitions. With 128M, > the need was not pressing. :-) Perhaps I'm simply > running out of memory during the install. I'll > have to create a 256M swap partition and try it again. My PC here at home has got no more than 104MB RAM and StarOffice runs very fine from under Windowmaker or KDE resp.. I do not believe that the RAM question has much to do with our specific problem here but of course i don't use other RAM Eaters simultaneously. Anyway, I hope we will be able to find out the reason soon... Best greetings, Karl-Heinz -- K.-H. Zimmer * Hamburg * Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] StarOffice and Gnome installation issues
Hi, Karl-Heinz, > > My PC here at home has got no more than 104MB RAM and StarOffice runs > very fine from under Windowmaker or KDE resp.. It runs on my old laptop, a P90 with 40 MB of RAM, with KDE/kwm. It is quite slow loading or starting an app, but otherwise runs fine. > > I do not believe that the RAM question has much to do with our > specific problem here but of course i don't use other RAM Eaters > simultaneously I've used it simultaneously with Netscape in the above environment. It still works. I prefer WordPerfect 8 for a word processor, and it is *much* faster, but I still haven't found a better spreadsheet for Linux. Regards, Cait [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] StarOffice and Gnome installation issues
I seem to recall that Linux cannot use swap over 128MB. Anything over this is a waste. Can someone back me up? Cathy James wrote: > Perhaps I'm simply running out of memory > during the install. I'll have to create a 256M swap partition > and try it again. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] StarOffice and Gnome installation issues
> > My PC here at home has got no more than 104MB RAM and > > StarOffice runs very fine from under Windowmaker or KDE resp.. > It runs on my old laptop, a P90 with 40 MB of RAM, with KDE/kwm. > It is quite slow loading or starting an app, but otherwise runs > fine. Congratulations! I didn't think it's possible to use StarOffice with 40 MB of RAM. > I've used it simultaneously with Netscape in the above > environment. It still works. Astounding! Are you just teasing me or are you really using Netscape and StarOffice on your P90 with 40 MB simultaneously? I will have to tell my colleagues about that, maybe we should contact you officially for asking if you would like to work for us: as Tuning Specialist! ;-) My own little P100 here was sometimes quite overloaded when it had only 72 MB so i never tried to run those two programs at the same time. > I prefer WordPerfect 8 for a word processor, and it is *much* > faster, ( I don't like distri wars nor program wars so let me just say reply that i prefer our Writer because i am used to it and i see many benefits by using the Navigator and the Stylist. It might be that i'ld love Wordperfect if i were used to it. ) > but I still haven't found a better spreadsheet for Linux. :-) Nice to hear *that*! Best greetings, Karl-Heinz -- K.-H. Zimmer * Hamburg * Germany [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] StarOffice and Gnome installation issues
Hi, Karl-Heinz, > > Congratulations! > I didn't think it's possible to use StarOffice with 40 MB of RAM. Everyone at our last installfest that wasn't cancelled, back in August, saw it. As I said, loading the program is painfully slow, but actual operation within the program is tolerable. I should point out that when I tried to do this with Gnome/Enlightenment as my desktop, Gnome crashed hard. KDE seems to take less resources. AfterStep is an even better choice, and I will often use it as my WM with KFM (but not KPanel) on top of it when I know I am going to be stressing the little laptop. > > > I've used it simultaneously with Netscape in the above > > environment. It still works. > > Astounding! Not really. The key is not to leave Netscape up forever, I think. > > Are you just teasing me or are you really using Netscape and > StarOffice on your P90 with 40 MB simultaneously? Really and truly, as in cutting and pasting between them. The machine in question is a Toshiba Portégé 610CT running Red Hat Linux 6.0 and KDE 1.1.1. > I will have to tell my colleagues about that, maybe we should > contact you officially for asking if you would like to work for > us: as Tuning Specialist! ;-) I have no skills in that area, I think. I do try to keep my machines as clean as possible, and fortunately it is much easier to uninstall things cleanly that I really decide I don't like in Linux than it is in Windows. If I treated this box the same way running Windows, I'd have had to rebuild it ten times by now :) > > My own little P100 here was sometimes quite overloaded when it > had only 72 MB so i never tried to run those two programs at the > same time. I think the choice of desktop manager and window manager makes a huge difference. Try it with a lightweight combo and you may be in for a pleasant surprise. Both KDE and Gnome are pretty resource intensive. > > ( I don't like distri wars nor program wars so let me just say > reply that i prefer our Writer because i am used to it and i > see many benefits by using the Navigator and the Stylist. > It might be that i'ld love Wordperfect if i were used to it. ) I don't think this has to be an argument or a war. Every good piece of software has it's strengths and weaknesses. The speed issue is something that is measurable in a quantifiable and undeniable way. So is the limitation where only three language modules can be installed. These are *not* preference issues, are they? OTOH, when it comes to performance, we are comparing apples and oranges. When Corel comes out with an integrated suite like Star Office, then we can compare speed and see who has the most efficient software. All of us may look at Star Office in a different light then. > > > but I still haven't found a better spreadsheet for Linux. > > :-) Nice to hear *that*! Here is something else you will like: I haven't found a better presentation graphics program either, and your PowerPoint filters are surprisingly good. OTOH, I don't do a lot of presentations, and I have never tried that on a 40MB machine :) All the best, Caity [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] StarOffice and Gnome installation issues
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, MGreen wrote: > I seem to recall that Linux cannot use swap over 128MB. Anything over > this is a waste. Can someone back me up? With old kernels (<= 2.0.x), one swap partition couldn't be greater than 128MB, but with newer ones this limitation has vanished (I don't know what the current limit is, if any). Even with old kernels it was possible to use multiple swap partitions. Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Vogelsangstrasse 115 / D-70197 Stuttgart / +49.711.6599405 [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offence. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
[techtalk] undefined reference to __bzero
oops. I think I swam out of my depth here. I compiled up glibc 2.1.1 (because I wanted to, no other reason :) ) and that went fine, but now whenever I try to compile up anything else, I get errors that generally read 'undefined reference to __bzero' -- I was able to get around that with the *kernel* by defining __bzero in build.c, but I can't do that for gcc, xfree86, etc etc...any ideas on what I did wrong (other than deciding I wanted to do things the hard way!) Vinnie (feeling a bit sheepish...baa) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] StarOffice and Gnome installation issues
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Karl-Heinz Zimmer wrote: > I didn't think it's possible to use StarOffice with 40 MB of RAM. I use it on a k5-133 with 32MB -- it's dog slow and swaps something fierce (127 MB swap partition, yes, I believe in over doing it :) ) but it works (or at least did, before I hosed x, but that's another story, and isn't staroffice's fault at all :P ) > Are you just teasing me or are you really using Netscape and > StarOffice on your P90 with 40 MB simultaneously? I do it with 32 :P OTOH, I use xfree with qvwm, which isn't a particularly heavy wm at all... Vinnie [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
[techtalk] a really dumb "make" question
Ok, I've wracked my brain and now I'm just tired. I have compilers out the wazoo, BUT why does "make" (anything) return command not found? Issuing individual gcc commands on *.c files works. (slack 4.0) I can't possibly be this much of a dorkcan I? :) Thanks, Julie /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Julie Melonii2i Interactive (east) Technical Director 703-813-5526 [EMAIL PROTECTED]www.i2ii.com /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] a really dumb "make" question
as in the 'make' command is not found, or it can't find the compilers? for the former, install make ;)(I'm so helpful,, no? :P ) for the latter, check paths? Vinnie On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Julie Meloni wrote: > Ok, I've wracked my brain and now I'm just tired. > > I have compilers out the wazoo, BUT why does "make" (anything) return > command not found? Issuing individual gcc commands on *.c files works. > > (slack 4.0) > > I can't possibly be this much of a dorkcan I? :) > > Thanks, > Julie > > > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > > Julie Meloni i2i Interactive (east) > Technical Director703-813-5526 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.i2ii.com > > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org > -- Reality is a formality, an agreed upon set of lies -- J.D. Catron Obligatory pathetic website at http://george.he.net/~drachen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] StarOffice and Gnome installation issues
Caitlyn Martin wrote: > > Are you just teasing me or are you really using Netscape and > > StarOffice on your P90 with 40 MB simultaneously? > > Really and truly, as in cutting and pasting between them. The machine in > question is a Toshiba Portégé 610CT running Red Hat Linux 6.0 and KDE 1.1.1. 64 MB, with Netscape, Staroffice, Jpilot, tinyfugue and other incidental stuff running. (over Debian/Gnome/Enlightenment) It can be done. I didn't think it was a feat. Jenn V. -- Humans are the only species to feed and house entirely separate species for no reason other than the pleasure of their company. Why? [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jenn Vespermanhttp://www.simegen.com/~jenn/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] a really dumb "make" question
Where is make on your box? in /usr/bin? Is /usr/bin in your path? (echo $PATH or printenv) While it's a topic, ...I just configured, make'd, and make install'd gcc 2.95.2. No errors, once I'd installed the GNU make instead of the one I was using here. But now if I type gcc, I get a 'cannot execute'. I was expecting to find a 'gcc' somewhere, instead there are directories named gcc, and all sorts of gcc related files, but can't locate 'gcc' . hmmm Tamara >>> Julie Meloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/15 4:23 PM >>> Ok, I've wracked my brain and now I'm just tired. I have compilers out the wazoo, BUT why does "make" (anything) return command not found? Issuing individual gcc commands on *.c files works. (slack 4.0) I can't possibly be this much of a dorkcan I? :) Thanks, Julie /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Julie Melonii2i Interactive (east) Technical Director 703-813-5526 [EMAIL PROTECTED]www.i2ii.com /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] a really dumb "make" question
Excerpts from linuxchix: 15-Nov-99 [techtalk] a really dumb "m.. by Julie [EMAIL PROTECTED] > I have compilers out the wazoo, BUT why does "make" (anything) return > command not found? Issuing individual gcc commands on *.c files works. What's the error message? [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] a really dumb "make" question
Vinnie Surmonde wrote: > > as in the 'make' command is not found, or it can't find the compilers? > > for the former, install make ;)(I'm so helpful,, no? :P ) for the latter, > check paths? > Even for the former, check paths. My copy of make is in /usr/bin. Jenn V. -- Humans are the only species to feed and house entirely separate species for no reason other than the pleasure of their company. Why? [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jenn Vespermanhttp://www.simegen.com/~jenn/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] a really dumb "make" question
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Julie Meloni wrote: > Ok, I've wracked my brain and now I'm just tired. > > I have compilers out the wazoo, BUT why does "make" (anything) return > command not found? Issuing individual gcc commands on *.c files works. Did you install make? Sorry but you have to be a bit more specific for intelligent answers :-), so what did you try to do, how did you do it, etc. > (slack 4.0) Sorry, but I can't remember how to check for specific packages with Slackware. Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Vogelsangstrasse 115 / D-70197 Stuttgart / +49.711.6599405 [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offence. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] a really dumb "make" question
GNU make is available at http://www.gnu.org/software/software.html. I thought the installation instructions were pretty good, and it went easily. More easily than installing gcc >>> Vinnie Surmonde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 11/15 4:35 PM >>> as in the 'make' command is not found, or it can't find the compilers? for the former, install make ;)(I'm so helpful,, no? :P ) for the latter, check paths? Vinnie On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Julie Meloni wrote: > Ok, I've wracked my brain and now I'm just tired. > > I have compilers out the wazoo, BUT why does "make" (anything) return > command not found? Issuing individual gcc commands on *.c files works. > > (slack 4.0) > > I can't possibly be this much of a dorkcan I? :) > > Thanks, > Julie > > > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > > Julie Meloni i2i Interactive (east) > Technical Director703-813-5526 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.i2ii.com > > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org > -- Reality is a formality, an agreed upon set of lies -- J.D. Catron Obligatory pathetic website at http://george.he.net/~drachen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] Free Purify equivalent?
Excerpts from linuxchix: 15-Nov-99 Re: [techtalk] Free Purify .. by Nils [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Try memprof (http://people.redhat.com/~otaylor/memprof/), it just checks > for mem leaks (i.e. no array out of bounds etc.). It does this by running And if you want to find the buffer overflow stuff, take a look at electric fence. I don't know exactly where to get it, so search on freshmeat. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] a really dumb "make" question
On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Nils Philippsen wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Julie Meloni wrote: > > > (slack 4.0) > > Sorry, but I can't remember how to check for specific packages with > Slackware. the list of installed packages is in /var/log/packages there's a program called pkgtool that you can use to look at what files are in a package, it's not to friendly to my braille display though > > Nils > -- > Nils Philippsen / Vogelsangstrasse 115 / D-70197 Stuttgart / +49.711.6599405 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] >The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be >regarded as a criminal offence. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] StarOffice and Gnome installation issues
Dakota Surmonde wrote: > I use it on a k5-133 with 32MB -- it's dog slow and swaps something fierce > (127 MB swap partition, yes, I believe in over doing it :) ) but it works 127mb is anything but overdoing it. I have 240mb swap and sometimes it's been getting a bit close for comfort (machine has 64mb RAM, Netscape has bloat problem). :-) -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +64-21-870-425 ICQ: 5632563 or shout loudly [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [techtalk] StarOffice and Gnome installation issues
MGreen wrote: > I seem to recall that Linux cannot use swap over 128MB. Anything over > this is a waste. Can someone back me up? This was true prior to 2.2.x (and even with 2.0.x and older you could have multiple swap files to give more than 128mb swap). Nowadays you can have much larger swap partitions. I've been told recently that swap *files* are still limited to 128mb but I have not verified the accuracy of this. -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +64-21-870-425 ICQ: 5632563 or shout loudly [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
