Re: [techtalk] Linux - Windows System
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, Hi Liese! > I've been using linux for 1.5 years now and it has completely replaced > my windows desktop.. but.. after 1.5 years i'm really anxious to play > Baldors Gate again (and discworld noir, and heroes of m&m, ...) and > since I'm doing a major upgrade (P200MMX->AMD A-900) anyway I'm > thinking of installing W2K as well.. > > So my question is what's the best tactic ? > > - with dual boot (on a second HD) but i don't like rebooting a lot Dual booting is OK; you don't need a second HD for this, just a partition. It's best to install Win2k first, then add Linux on top: Win2k's installer doesn't play as nicely with Linux as vice versa... > - use vmwarez (wont this be too slow for games?) vmware, not vmwarez, I think :-) I'm not sure about its performance: I suspect this will vary significantly depending on how the game works. Give it a try: if it is usable for you, it's the best option. > - use wine (is that suitable for gaming purposes? or also too slow?) Wine is really aimed at desktop apps, not games, but some games do run properly under it - as fast, or faster, as under Windows in some cases! I'd try VMWare and Wine, and see if the games you want will work under one or the other; failing that, dual boot... > Using a second pc is silly becoz i only need windows for gaming purposes. > > Second question : Has anybody got experience with the Guillemot/Hercules > Cougar Video Edition card? This is a 2D/3D video card which also includes > a s/video IN to watch tv on the pc.. I know that the video part is > supported on linux but i was wondering about the tv input part.. No, video cards aren't my thing :-/ James. ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] Linux - Windows System
At 06:19 PM 2/27/01 -0500, Patrick Ouellet wrote: Let me clarify. 1st I didn't want to lose everything on my SuSE box by having to put Windows on 1st. and 2nd I've had HDs go bad on me before and didn't want to lose BOTH OSs. Call me paranoid, but I've had to reinstall windows a heck of a lot more often than Linux. I've done it both ways (shared vs separate) and I prefer separate. It's also easier to have 2 HDs because of the size of winproducts bloatware. Now, if a person has a 30gig or larger HD, then room is a moot point. And yes, when I had trouble with win98 and no matter how many times I reinstalled it, it never worked correctly, I reformated my HD and started clean. So reinstalling Linux was necessary. Carol >Just a little thing here... >Why do you say you must reinstall Suse when you reinstall windows... >this can be done without re-installing Linux.. > >Corrrect me if Im wrong but all you need is a linux boot disk. >Once you have re-installed windoze, it always without any kind of warning >remplace your boot sector, so you boot with your bootdisk >then issue the lilo command and lilo is re-installed as it was before... ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
[techtalk] killing processes on dead pts/n 's
Greetings, I access my linux box from work with PuTTY, and occasionally I lose my connection. When this happens, I wind up with a process (mutt usually, or vi) that is still running, that I sometimes cannot kill using "kill", or with top. It seems to be because the process no long has a pts associated with it. Is there any other way to reliably kill such a process and free its resources? It's not a huge problem, but after I've accumulated a dozen or so of these, it bugs me. tia, -- Dr. David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net Linux Documentation Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] Collection Editor & Coordinatorhttp://www.linuxdoc.org Finger me for my public key "Violence accomplishes nothing." What a contemptible lie! Raw, naked violence has settled more issues throughout history than any other method ever employed. Perhaps the city fathers of Carthage could debate the issue, with Hitler and Alexander as judges? ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] killing processes on dead pts/n 's
kill -9 or kill -SIGKILL My understanding is that this MUST work because programs cannot block the SIGKILL signal. Eric BTW, some processes automatically spawn child processes, so if you don't kill the parent process then a child process will be created each time you kill another one. This shouldn't apply to mutt nor vi, though. On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, David Merrill wrote: > Greetings, > > I access my linux box from work with PuTTY, and occasionally I lose my > connection. When this happens, I wind up with a process (mutt usually, > or vi) that is still running, that I sometimes cannot kill using > "kill", or with top. It seems to be because the process no long has a > pts associated with it. > > Is there any other way to reliably kill such a process and free its > resources? It's not a huge problem, but after I've accumulated a dozen > or so of these, it bugs me. > > tia, > > -- > Dr. David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net > Linux Documentation Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Collection Editor & Coordinatorhttp://www.linuxdoc.org >Finger me for my public key > > "Violence accomplishes nothing." What a contemptible lie! Raw, naked > violence has settled more issues throughout history than any other method > ever employed. Perhaps the city fathers of Carthage could debate the > issue, with Hitler and Alexander as judges? > > ___ > techtalk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk > -- My public OpenPGP key can be found at http://www.wwu.edu/~turnere/turnere.asc ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] killing processes on dead pts/n 's
Are you using kill -9 to kill it? David Merrill wrote: > > Greetings, > > I access my linux box from work with PuTTY, and occasionally I lose my > connection. When this happens, I wind up with a process (mutt usually, > or vi) that is still running, that I sometimes cannot kill using > "kill", or with top. It seems to be because the process no long has a > pts associated with it. > > Is there any other way to reliably kill such a process and free its > resources? It's not a huge problem, but after I've accumulated a dozen > or so of these, it bugs me. > > tia, > > -- > Dr. David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net > Linux Documentation Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Collection Editor & Coordinatorhttp://www.linuxdoc.org >Finger me for my public key > > "Violence accomplishes nothing." What a contemptible lie! Raw, naked > violence has settled more issues throughout history than any other method > ever employed. Perhaps the city fathers of Carthage could debate the > issue, with Hitler and Alexander as judges? > > ___ > techtalk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] killing processes on dead pts/n 's
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 09:43:10AM -0700, Elaine Poulsen wrote: > Are you using kill -9 to kill it? Yes. > > David Merrill wrote: > > > > Greetings, > > > > I access my linux box from work with PuTTY, and occasionally I lose my > > connection. When this happens, I wind up with a process (mutt usually, > > or vi) that is still running, that I sometimes cannot kill using > > "kill", or with top. It seems to be because the process no long has a > > pts associated with it. > > > > Is there any other way to reliably kill such a process and free its > > resources? It's not a huge problem, but after I've accumulated a dozen > > or so of these, it bugs me. > > > > tia, > > > > -- > > Dr. David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net > > Linux Documentation Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Collection Editor & Coordinatorhttp://www.linuxdoc.org > >Finger me for my public key > > > > "Violence accomplishes nothing." What a contemptible lie! Raw, naked > > violence has settled more issues throughout history than any other method > > ever employed. Perhaps the city fathers of Carthage could debate the > > issue, with Hitler and Alexander as judges? > > > > ___ > > techtalk mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk > > ___ > techtalk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk -- Dr. David C. Merrill http://www.lupercalia.net Linux Documentation Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] Collection Editor & Coordinatorhttp://www.linuxdoc.org Finger me for my public key /* * Hash table gook.. */ 2.4.0-test2 /usr/src/linux/fs/buffer.c ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] killing processes on dead pts/n 's
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, David Merrill wrote: > Greetings, > > I access my linux box from work with PuTTY, and occasionally I lose my > connection. When this happens, I wind up with a process (mutt usually, > or vi) that is still running, that I sometimes cannot kill using > "kill", or with top. You won't be able to kill this process if it's a zombie process. If you see against any process in a `ps ax' listing, then it's a zombie. A process becomes a zombie when it has exited but its parent process hasn't fetched its termination status. A zombie process is "dead", but it hangs around and hogs resources. To get rid of a zombie, you need to kill its parent process. Once the parent process is out of the way, the zombie process will be inherited by init (pid 1) and init will clear it up, thus reclaiming all the resources held by the zombie. To figure out the PPIDs, try `ps xj' or `pstree -p'. HTH bye :) Anmol ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
[techtalk] linux robotic webcam chat thingy
hi, i am testing a linux robotic webcam chat thingy, feel free to poke around http://cam.vidcard.com uses bt878 video capture card, slick little rs-232 controlled camera, apache, php, mysql and some c to talk to the cam cgi. thanks, -anthony http://www.iomojo.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anmol Khirbat Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 9:45 AM To: David Merrill Cc: TechTalk Subject: Re: [techtalk] killing processes on dead pts/n 's On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, David Merrill wrote: > Greetings, > > I access my linux box from work with PuTTY, and occasionally I lose my > connection. When this happens, I wind up with a process (mutt usually, > or vi) that is still running, that I sometimes cannot kill using > "kill", or with top. You won't be able to kill this process if it's a zombie process. If you see against any process in a `ps ax' listing, then it's a zombie. A process becomes a zombie when it has exited but its parent process hasn't fetched its termination status. A zombie process is "dead", but it hangs around and hogs resources. To get rid of a zombie, you need to kill its parent process. Once the parent process is out of the way, the zombie process will be inherited by init (pid 1) and init will clear it up, thus reclaiming all the resources held by the zombie. To figure out the PPIDs, try `ps xj' or `pstree -p'. HTH bye :) Anmol ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
[techtalk] Web-based e-mail for Linux?
I'm finally going to put together a mail server. I'm used to using IMAP4/POP3 and Web-based e-mail from my current provider, so I would like to build a mail server that has the same functionality. Does anyone have suggestions on what software packages I could use to accomplish this, and links to where I can read more about them? Mostly I just want to know what software is available for these purposes -- I don't need a how-to just yet. Thanks! Jen ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
[techtalk] Re: Web-based e-mail for Linux?
Hi, > I'm finally going to put together a mail server. I'm used to using > IMAP4/POP3 and Web-based e-mail from my current provider, so I would like to > build a mail server that has the same functionality. Does anyone have > suggestions on what software packages I could use to accomplish this, and You have a lot of options here. what you need is basically this: 1. smtp server, choose one of the list: http://www.qmail.org http://www.exim.org http://www.postfix.org http://www.sendmail.org 2. imap server, choose between: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus http://www.inter7.com/courierimap/ 3. webmail interface to the imapserver, there are more than these: http://www.horde.org/imp/ http://webmail.omnis.ch/omail.pl?action=about http://www.inter7.com/sqwebmail/ If you will have a lot of users, I strongly recommend LDAP. best, Barbara -- -- Barbara Schelkle / virtual ifu[EMAIL PROTECTED] international women's university (ifu) http://www.vifu.de ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] Web-based e-mail for Linux?
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, jennyw wrote: > I'm finally going to put together a mail server. I'm used to using > IMAP4/POP3 and Web-based e-mail from my current provider, so I would like to > build a mail server that has the same functionality. Does anyone have > suggestions on what software packages I could use to accomplish this, and > links to where I can read more about them? Mostly I just want to know what > software is available for these purposes -- I don't need a how-to just yet. Hiya Jen! There are two different servers you want here: "incoming" mail (SMTP) "outgoing" mail (IMAP/POP) For the incoming stuff, your main options are sendmail, Exim and Qmail. For outgoing, Qmail and the University of Washington servers would work, as would Courier. Qmail would be a nice option for both; Exim (written here!) is quite good too. www.sendmail.org www.exim.org www.qmail.org www.washington.edu - not sure whereabouts, sorry ;-/ Try freshmeat.net for Courier. James. ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] Re: Web-based e-mail for Linux?
Thanks Barbara! And also everyone else who responded! The suggestions are helpful, but I was wondering if there are any programs that people especially like? For example, I now realize realize there are actually hundreds of Web-based e-mail programs out there (about 200 at hotscripts.com alone). Does anyone have any that they particularly like? Ideally, I'd like one that would let users have folders, addressbooks, saving drafts, a sent mail folder, and rules. I'm hoping to setup something as easy to use as Hotmail or Yahoo! Mail. It won't be for a lot of users -- just me and some friends (most of whom are non-technical, hence the desire for easy to use Web e-mail). So far, IMP looks pretty promising because it supports IMAP (including managing folders), contacts, and attachments. Pretty much the only things lacking are rules and drafts and sent mail folders (I suppose all of these could be done manually, but if there's something out there that does these things, that'd be great!). Thanks! Jen - Original Message - From: "Barbara Schelkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 12:27 PM Subject: [techtalk] Re: Web-based e-mail for Linux? > Hi, > > > I'm finally going to put together a mail server. I'm used to using > > IMAP4/POP3 and Web-based e-mail from my current provider, so I would like to > > build a mail server that has the same functionality. Does anyone have > > suggestions on what software packages I could use to accomplish this, and > > You have a lot of options here. > > what you need is basically this: > > 1. smtp server, choose one of the list: > http://www.qmail.org > http://www.exim.org > http://www.postfix.org > http://www.sendmail.org > 2. imap server, choose between: > http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus > http://www.inter7.com/courierimap/ > 3. webmail interface to the imapserver, there are more than these: > http://www.horde.org/imp/ > http://webmail.omnis.ch/omail.pl?action=about > http://www.inter7.com/sqwebmail/ > > If you will have a lot of users, I strongly recommend LDAP. > > best, Barbara > > -- > -- > Barbara Schelkle / virtual ifu[EMAIL PROTECTED] > international women's university (ifu) http://www.vifu.de > > ___ > techtalk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk > ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
Re: [techtalk] Re: Web-based e-mail for Linux?
For Webmail, you HAVE to check out Squirrelmail. Far superior to IMP, and we have used IMP for a couple of years, I think. We just recently switched to SM, and it is fabulous. I believe the address is http://www.squirrelmail.org/ We have over 3000 customers, and very few complaints about this program, although not everyone uses it. Amy | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technical Representative BPS Internet | Marion, IN 765.664.4447 - Original Message - From: "jennyw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Barbara Schelkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 4:28 PM Subject: Re: [techtalk] Re: Web-based e-mail for Linux? > Thanks Barbara! And also everyone else who responded! > > The suggestions are helpful, but I was wondering if there are any programs > that people especially like? For example, I now realize realize there are > actually hundreds of Web-based e-mail programs out there (about 200 at > hotscripts.com alone). Does anyone have any that they particularly like? > > Ideally, I'd like one that would let users have folders, addressbooks, > saving drafts, a sent mail folder, and rules. I'm hoping to setup something > as easy to use as Hotmail or Yahoo! Mail. It won't be for a lot of users -- > just me and some friends (most of whom are non-technical, hence the desire > for easy to use Web e-mail). > > So far, IMP looks pretty promising because it supports IMAP (including > managing folders), contacts, and attachments. Pretty much the only things > lacking are rules and drafts and sent mail folders (I suppose all of these > could be done manually, but if there's something out there that does these > things, that'd be great!). > > Thanks! > > Jen > > > - Original Message - > From: "Barbara Schelkle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2001 12:27 PM > Subject: [techtalk] Re: Web-based e-mail for Linux? > > > > Hi, > > > > > I'm finally going to put together a mail server. I'm used to using > > > IMAP4/POP3 and Web-based e-mail from my current provider, so I would > like to > > > build a mail server that has the same functionality. Does anyone have > > > suggestions on what software packages I could use to accomplish this, > and > > > > You have a lot of options here. > > > > what you need is basically this: > > > > 1. smtp server, choose one of the list: > > http://www.qmail.org > > http://www.exim.org > > http://www.postfix.org > > http://www.sendmail.org > > 2. imap server, choose between: > > http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus > > http://www.inter7.com/courierimap/ > > 3. webmail interface to the imapserver, there are more than these: > > http://www.horde.org/imp/ > > http://webmail.omnis.ch/omail.pl?action=about > > http://www.inter7.com/sqwebmail/ > > > > If you will have a lot of users, I strongly recommend LDAP. > > > > best, Barbara > > > > -- > > -- > > Barbara Schelkle / virtual ifu[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > international women's university (ifu) http://www.vifu.de > > > > ___ > > techtalk mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk > > > > > ___ > techtalk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk > ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
RE: [techtalk] Linux - Windows System
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Patrick Ouellet > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 3:20 PM > To: Linux Chix > Subject: Re: [techtalk] Linux - Windows System > > And for your question Liese: > I diffenetly suggest a dual boot... > Wine and VMWare wont do any good for games. I haven't used wine so I can't comment on it. I have used VMWare, though. It's great if you want to run both Windows and Linux on the same machine... given the caveat that one or the other is going to be a lot slower than normal. > Another thing, I wouldn't suggest win2k... as it is new > and also full of good ol' M$ bugs... That's debatable. Windows 2000 with Service Pack 1 is far more reliable than any other version of Windows (provided you keep all the Norton and McAffee crap off it). I'm quite pleased to say that I reboot my Windows 2000 machine as often as I reboot my Rehat Linux 7.0 machine... that was about two months ago for each when I moved them across the room. It's not about one being better than the other. I like and use both about equally as much and have them installed on separate computers with a switchbox. > Have fun with Baldur's Gates... > ( also one of my favorites ) It's one of my favorites as well. Unfortunately it doesn't like my Matrox G400 video card and I can't live without my dual-head display. It works fine on the 3dfx Voodoo 3000 card, but I put that card in the Linux box. ___ techtalk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
