which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

		I was thinking of getting another machine to just run linux on. I was
thinking to go either valinux or dell. I don't really know if there's much
else to choose from. I could just get another custom built with windows
Millenium on it, do the famous format operation and put whatever linux
distro I may choose, probably redhat or something (a distro I've not tried
out yet) on it. The problem I see is the computer place I got this desktop
from doesn't seem to sell open architect motherboards in systems now.
They're more integrated, and have less slots now, and usb instead of serial
ports is bad news. They basically had this open architect board because the
on board sound on that other one started giving noise I didn't want, and
switching to sblive wouldn't work any other way.
If there's no easy way to get speakup to load on plugging the synthesizer
in without rebooting, or for that matter replacing the kernel of one of
these already set up systems, I could just get ethernet going and use
telnet or ssh to it to do whatever I need from my windows/linux dual boot
system.  

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Jason Custer]

I have a gateway which runs redhat like a dreem!
----- Original Message -----
From: Brent Harding <bharding@ufw2.com>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 8:25 PM
Subject: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?


> I was thinking of getting another machine to just run linux on. I was
> thinking to go either valinux or dell. I don't really know if there's much
> else to choose from. I could just get another custom built with windows
> Millenium on it, do the famous format operation and put whatever linux
> distro I may choose, probably redhat or something (a distro I've not tried
> out yet) on it. The problem I see is the computer place I got this desktop
> from doesn't seem to sell open architect motherboards in systems now.
> They're more integrated, and have less slots now, and usb instead of
serial
> ports is bad news. They basically had this open architect board because
the
> on board sound on that other one started giving noise I didn't want, and
> switching to sblive wouldn't work any other way.
> If there's no easy way to get speakup to load on plugging the synthesizer
> in without rebooting, or for that matter replacing the kernel of one of
> these already set up systems, I could just get ethernet going and use
> telnet or ssh to it to do whatever I need from my windows/linux dual boot
> system.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

Cool, does gateway put it on automatically? I don't know what they say is
so bad with the new redhat 7.0, but I know my isp uses redhat, and this guy
says he can probably help me get some things going that I've had troubles
in in the past. 
I went without swap on my machine, but don't find it to be a problem with
256 mb of ram, probably more than I need for now (figured ram would solve
my windows lockup troubles, but it didn't, especially with trying to record
a lot of stuff at once like sound recorder or whatever.)
At 08:34 PM 10/17/00 -0700, you wrote:
>I have a gateway which runs redhat like a dreem!
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Brent Harding <bharding@ufw2.com>
>To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 8:25 PM
>Subject: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?
>
>
>> I was thinking of getting another machine to just run linux on. I was
>> thinking to go either valinux or dell. I don't really know if there's much
>> else to choose from. I could just get another custom built with windows
>> Millenium on it, do the famous format operation and put whatever linux
>> distro I may choose, probably redhat or something (a distro I've not tried
>> out yet) on it. The problem I see is the computer place I got this desktop
>> from doesn't seem to sell open architect motherboards in systems now.
>> They're more integrated, and have less slots now, and usb instead of
>serial
>> ports is bad news. They basically had this open architect board because
>the
>> on board sound on that other one started giving noise I didn't want, and
>> switching to sblive wouldn't work any other way.
>> If there's no easy way to get speakup to load on plugging the synthesizer
>> in without rebooting, or for that matter replacing the kernel of one of
>> these already set up systems, I could just get ethernet going and use
>> telnet or ssh to it to do whatever I need from my windows/linux dual boot
>> system.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Jacob Schmude]

Hi
     Well I've not installed it yet but one problem jumps out at me just by looking at the rpm files provided. They're using 2.2.16 kernels, but using kernel 2.4 headers? They're mixing versions. If you think your sources are messed up, don't install this! Mixing versions of kernels is going to give trouble, trouble you'll have a hard time getting out of. I'd like to see someone compile a module with that. Either it wouldn't compile at all, or it would be for the wrong kernel version. It makes me wonder if they know what the heck they're doing, or if they're simply obsessed with the latest and greatest! If they use 2.2.16 kernels, use those headers. They sure aren't using 2.4 kernels, yet they use 2.4 headers? What's wrong with this picture?
     I had problems in general with RH 6. However, if you want rh, go with rh6, but definitely not 7!

Brent Harding writes:
 > Cool, does gateway put it on automatically? I don't know what they say is
 > so bad with the new redhat 7.0

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

Oh, 7.0 is out now? What if I just dump the 2.4 headers and put in 2.2.16
headers, if they're even around? Oh, I can probably move them in from
zipspeak, because zipspeak uses kernel 2.2.16.
At 07:49 PM 10/18/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi
>     Well I've not installed it yet but one problem jumps out at me just
by looking at the rpm files provided. They're using 2.2.16 kernels, but
using kernel 2.4 headers? They're mixing versions. If you think your
sources are messed up, don't install this! Mixing versions of kernels is
going to give trouble, trouble you'll have a hard time getting out of. I'd
like to see someone compile a module with that. Either it wouldn't compile
at all, or it would be for the wrong kernel version. It makes me wonder if
they know what the heck they're doing, or if they're simply obsessed with
the latest and greatest! If they use 2.2.16 kernels, use those headers.
They sure aren't using 2.4 kernels, yet they use 2.4 headers? What's wrong
with this picture?
>     I had problems in general with RH 6. However, if you want rh, go with
rh6, but definitely not 7!
>
>Brent Harding writes:
> > Cool, does gateway put it on automatically? I don't know what they say is
> > so bad with the new redhat 7.0
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Jacob Schmude]

Hi
     Ah, there's the problem. RH won't let you remove the 2.4 headers. They're required by another RPM, glibc-devel, required to compile anything. If you manage to dump those headers in, make sure you don't put them in the directory where 2.4 headers are kept, or you'll wind up in a mess, as some of the filenames are the same between versions. Then you'd really be missmatched.


Brent Harding writes:
 > Oh, 7.0 is out now? What if I just dump the 2.4 headers and put in 2.2.16
 > headers, if they're even around? Oh, I can probably move them in from
 > zipspeak, because zipspeak uses kernel 2.2.16.
 > At 07:49 PM 10/18/00 -0400, you wrote:
 > >Hi
 > >     Well I've not installed it yet but one problem jumps out at me just
 > by looking at the rpm files provided. They're using 2.2.16 kernels, but
 > using kernel 2.4 headers? They're mixing versions. If you think your
 > sources are messed up, don't install this! Mixing versions of kernels is
 > going to give trouble, trouble you'll have a hard time getting out of. I'd
 > like to see someone compile a module with that. Either it wouldn't compile
 > at all, or it would be for the wrong kernel version. It makes me wonder if
 > they know what the heck they're doing, or if they're simply obsessed with
 > the latest and greatest! If they use 2.2.16 kernels, use those headers.
 > They sure aren't using 2.4 kernels, yet they use 2.4 headers? What's wrong
 > with this picture?
 > >     I had problems in general with RH 6. However, if you want rh, go with
 > rh6, but definitely not 7!
 > >
 > >Brent Harding writes:
 > > > Cool, does gateway put it on automatically? I don't know what they say is
 > > > so bad with the new redhat 7.0
 > >
 > >_______________________________________________
 > >Speakup mailing list
 > >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
 > >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > 
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Speakup mailing list
 > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
 > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Kirk Wood]

Brent,

Lets make this easy for you:
Debian = great
RedHat 6.2 = good
RedHat 7 = very bad and don't come crying if you ignore this
sparc = we don't even want to hear from you


=======
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net

RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Steve Dawes]

This type of opinion is personal, and I think that it is uncalled for on the
list.  Everyone has their favorate.  What works for some, is not always what
works for others.

Prior to getting in to the linux environment, I didn't know which way to go.
I finally took the plunge, and started off with a version of RedHat.  It was
5.2 I think.  Since then I have install RH6.2 and RH7.  In addition to the
RH installs, I have also installed Debian.  I have noticed little difference
in the performance of the machine regardless of the distribution.  What I
have noticed, is that each distribution has some nice features that I wish
the other had.  How, I think that the best distribution, would be the one,
that took all of the features of all distributions, merged them into one
great big distribution, and just for fun called it Jack of all trades.

Anyways, my recommendation to Brent, would be to take the distribution that
he is comfortable with, and go for it.  If he is not sure which way to go,
drop in on to the reflector, and talk to everyone.  The folks on the
reflector have Debian, Slackware, RedHat, and I don't know what else
successfully running.

Oh yeah, the speakup reflector is located at:
lwl.braille.uwo.ca:4074
and you need speak freely to access it.
if you don't have speak freely, get it at:
www.speakfreely.com
it has both a linux and windows version.

Steve, VE6AYT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: speakup-admin@braille.uwo.ca
> [mailto:speakup-admin@braille.uwo.ca]On Behalf Of Kirk Wood
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 12:49 AM
> To: speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> Subject: Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?
>
>
> Brent,
>
> Lets make this easy for you:
> Debian = great
> RedHat 6.2 = good
> RedHat 7 = very bad and don't come crying if you ignore this
> sparc = we don't even want to hear from you
>
>
> =======
> Kirk Wood
> Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Kerry Hoath]

http://www.speakfreely.org/
On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 04:08:31PM -0600, Steve Dawes wrote:
> This type of opinion is personal, and I think that it is uncalled for on the
> list.  Everyone has their favorate.  What works for some, is not always what
> works for others.
> 
> Prior to getting in to the linux environment, I didn't know which way to go.
> I finally took the plunge, and started off with a version of RedHat.  It was
> 5.2 I think.  Since then I have install RH6.2 and RH7.  In addition to the
> RH installs, I have also installed Debian.  I have noticed little difference
> in the performance of the machine regardless of the distribution.  What I
> have noticed, is that each distribution has some nice features that I wish
> the other had.  How, I think that the best distribution, would be the one,
> that took all of the features of all distributions, merged them into one
> great big distribution, and just for fun called it Jack of all trades.
> 
> Anyways, my recommendation to Brent, would be to take the distribution that
> he is comfortable with, and go for it.  If he is not sure which way to go,
> drop in on to the reflector, and talk to everyone.  The folks on the
> reflector have Debian, Slackware, RedHat, and I don't know what else
> successfully running.
> 
> Oh yeah, the speakup reflector is located at:
> lwl.braille.uwo.ca:4074
> and you need speak freely to access it.
> if you don't have speak freely, get it at:
> www.speakfreely.com
> it has both a linux and windows version.
> 
> Steve, VE6AYT
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: speakup-admin@braille.uwo.ca
> > [mailto:speakup-admin@braille.uwo.ca]On Behalf Of Kirk Wood
> > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 12:49 AM
> > To: speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > Subject: Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?
> >
> >
> > Brent,
> >
> > Lets make this easy for you:
> > Debian = great
> > RedHat 6.2 = good
> > RedHat 7 = very bad and don't come crying if you ignore this
> > sparc = we don't even want to hear from you
> >
> >
> > =======
> > Kirk Wood
> > Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
--
Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
ICQ UIN: 62823451

RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

Speakfreely is good. I do go on on occation. I learn quite a bit from the
stuff on main menu about zipspeak. How can rh 5.2 work with speech with the
2.0 series kernels? The reason I might go redhat in the future is because
companies I might consider working for use it, and a guy who's part owner
lives a short distance from me, thus the possible future opportunities that
may come up. I found out by the redhat telnet login prompt, as I was
curious which version they run, so I telnetted, listened to the login
prompt, and disconnected, and found it said it was redhat 5.2 with kernel
2.0.36. I don't know why he chose to put that version on the machines they
run, but upgrading may be difficult, as the machines would have to be taken
down, so it'd probably have to be done fairly late at night. How can it
really be possible to have more than 1 root user? I don't even know how to
add more root users to a system, that's where I'm not familiar with. I know
sudo is often used, but he claims that at such a time as I'd be given
access, I'd be able to edit system files, and whatever else root can do,
and my friend could too, with a different user and password.
Is redhat server really that capable of that versus the redhat bought from
cheapbytes or whatever?
At 04:08 PM 10/19/00 -0600, you wrote:
>This type of opinion is personal, and I think that it is uncalled for on the
>list.  Everyone has their favorate.  What works for some, is not always what
>works for others.
>
>Prior to getting in to the linux environment, I didn't know which way to go.
>I finally took the plunge, and started off with a version of RedHat.  It was
>5.2 I think.  Since then I have install RH6.2 and RH7.  In addition to the
>RH installs, I have also installed Debian.  I have noticed little difference
>in the performance of the machine regardless of the distribution.  What I
>have noticed, is that each distribution has some nice features that I wish
>the other had.  How, I think that the best distribution, would be the one,
>that took all of the features of all distributions, merged them into one
>great big distribution, and just for fun called it Jack of all trades.
>
>Anyways, my recommendation to Brent, would be to take the distribution that
>he is comfortable with, and go for it.  If he is not sure which way to go,
>drop in on to the reflector, and talk to everyone.  The folks on the
>reflector have Debian, Slackware, RedHat, and I don't know what else
>successfully running.
>
>Oh yeah, the speakup reflector is located at:
>lwl.braille.uwo.ca:4074
>and you need speak freely to access it.
>if you don't have speak freely, get it at:
>www.speakfreely.com
>it has both a linux and windows version.
>
>Steve, VE6AYT
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: speakup-admin@braille.uwo.ca
>> [mailto:speakup-admin@braille.uwo.ca]On Behalf Of Kirk Wood
>> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 12:49 AM
>> To: speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> Subject: Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?
>>
>>
>> Brent,
>>
>> Lets make this easy for you:
>> Debian = great
>> RedHat 6.2 = good
>> RedHat 7 = very bad and don't come crying if you ignore this
>> sparc = we don't even want to hear from you
>>
>>
>> =======
>> Kirk Wood
>> Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Jacob Schmude]

Brent
     Speakup will not work with any kernel lower than 2.2.7. 2.0 is out of the question.


Brent Harding writes:
 >  How can rh 5.2 work with speech with the
 > 2.0 series kernels? 

RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

Did it ever? I don't understand why these old kernels are still being put
on new systems. Maybe the guy got an rh CD from long ago, and just installs
it when he needs linux on another machine.
At 10:28 PM 10/20/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Brent
>     Speakup will not work with any kernel lower than 2.2.7. 2.0 is out of
the question.
>
>
>Brent Harding writes:
> >  How can rh 5.2 work with speech with the
> > 2.0 series kernels? 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Jacob Schmude]

Hi
     Not to my knowledge, did speakup ever work with the 2.0 kernels.


Brent Harding writes:
 > Did it ever? I don't understand why these old kernels are still being put
 > on new systems. Maybe the guy got an rh CD from long ago, and just installs
 > it when he needs linux on another machine.
 > At 10:28 PM 10/20/00 -0400, you wrote:
 > >Brent
 > >     Speakup will not work with any kernel lower than 2.2.7. 2.0 is out of
 > the question.

RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Geoff Shang]

Hi Brent:

Sometimes people run old versions of linux because it works.  I know an ISP
who were running kernel 1.2 or 1.3 (can't remember which) and only upgraded
a few months ago.  But hey, if you set it up and it works, why change it?

Geoff.


-- 
Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
ICQ number 43634701

RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

I don't know, but if I ever work there, I'm likely to need speakup on
something, as windows telnet stinks at editing files. I wonder if they put
dectalk express speakup on their systems, would I be able to plug in the
dectalk any time I wanted and just use it, whether or not the dectalk was
present at the last reboot? This might be fairly important, as I don't
necessarily want the extremely late night shift when everyohne else is in
bed (nobody's there 24/7 that I know of anyways).
At 07:24 PM 10/22/00 +1100, you wrote:
>Hi Brent:
>
>Sometimes people run old versions of linux because it works.  I know an ISP
>who were running kernel 1.2 or 1.3 (can't remember which) and only upgraded
>a few months ago.  But hey, if you set it up and it works, why change it?
>
>Geoff.
>
>
>-- 
>Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
>ICQ number 43634701
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Geoff Shang]

Hi:

Brent, rather than have speakup loaded on multiple machines that you may
have to touch from time to time, wouldn't it be easier to have one machine
running linux and speakup and telnet or SSH to the various boxes as
necessary in order to administer them?  You'd have to do this anyway if
they were'nt running linux.

Geoff.


-- 
Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
ICQ number 43634701

RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Kirk Wood]

I think Geoff has pointed out the way you will access any machines you
need to. It is quite rare for console access to a server that is cranking
away. In fact my business relies on two AIX (Unix varient) machines. There
are only two operations done at console. 

The first is tape backup. But really it is more a matter of checking that
files really did backup and putting in the next day's tapes. The other is
that if building power goes out, someone goes to the server room to ensure
all shuts down orderly. Otherwise things are done remotely. In fact, there
are some who consider doing anything locally on a server that could be
done safely remotely to be a security transgression. Also, there are many
servers out there with no keyboard or monitor connected. (And a few with
no video to connect a monitor.) The only operation done at the console is
hitting the power switch.

If one is trying to prepare for a job they hope for, I would recomend
learning all one can about administering a box. I would spend almost no
time wondering about console access. It is just not really needed in the
business world. Console access is something to worry about when you are
competing for the boss' job. Not on the first level admin job.

=======
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net

RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

Yes, but installing linux on them I'd have to use speakup, and once I do,
the speakup kernel is the one that remains on the system, so it'd never
boot without the synth. Where I was considering to work a system where as
you'd need to flip a switch to control which system your keyboard, mouse,
and monitor are hooked to. Why they might do it like this I'm not sure, but
if there were suppose 5 machines controlled this way, and they reboot
automatically at night, how would each machine's kernel see the synth to
detect it, so it's capable of being used in this way? If at all possible, I
would rather use something that's powered by the computer in this
situation, but having an extra isa card a/b switch, where the synth is in a
slot on this device, and two or more isa cards went in to the different
systems, where you could switch which one has the synthesizer.
At 04:55 PM 10/23/00 +1100, you wrote:
>Hi:
>
>Brent, rather than have speakup loaded on multiple machines that you may
>have to touch from time to time, wouldn't it be easier to have one machine
>running linux and speakup and telnet or SSH to the various boxes as
>necessary in order to administer them?  You'd have to do this anyway if
>they were'nt running linux.
>
>Geoff.
>
>
>-- 
>Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
>ICQ number 43634701
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Tommy Moore]

Are you in an environment where the boxes are rebooted every night? If so, why are they. Just about everything accept a kernel upgrade can be done with out a reboot.

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

I'm not real sure, I know they use some NT on other boxes as well, and
figuring they reboot the NT ones, they might reboot the linux ones too. I
know one of my old isps when I used to have a shell account rebooted
sometimes, sometimes it'd vary from when they did it, but when I'd use "w"
to see what time it was, I'd notice now and then that the uptime reset.
I'm thinking they probably reboot when they upgrade or install new programs
just to make certain that it will start automatically.
At 10:03 PM 10/23/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Are you in an environment where the boxes are rebooted every night? If so,
why are they. Just about everything accept a kernel upgrade can be done
with out a reboot.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Tommy Moore]

Well, I use to do this practice installing programs and just to see if they'd work reboot, but knowing linux a bit better than I did I now don't reboot unless poer goes out or when I need to redo the kernel for some reason.
Ltely on the server at school the machine's been getting bumped and it's power switch has a little short in it, but other than accidentalthings like this it stays up 24/7.

This is probably the case for any unix actually since the kernel has vary good process management and controll.

On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 09:12:52PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
> I'm not real sure, I know they use some NT on other boxes as well, and
> figuring they reboot the NT ones, they might reboot the linux ones too. I
> know one of my old isps when I used to have a shell account rebooted
> sometimes, sometimes it'd vary from when they did it, but when I'd use "w"
> to see what time it was, I'd notice now and then that the uptime reset.
> I'm thinking they probably reboot when they upgrade or install new programs
> just to make certain that it will start automatically.
> At 10:03 PM 10/23/00 -0400, you wrote:
> >Are you in an environment where the boxes are rebooted every night? If so,
> why are they. Just about everything accept a kernel upgrade can be done
> with out a reboot.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Speakup mailing list
> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[brian Moore]

greetings.  well, I am using a linux box as a server since rogers at home
can't run a proper mail server.  btw.  need to change my subscription
address on this list.  anyway, once I installed the o/s, have removed the
keyboard monitor and all and stuck it in a corner.  can do almost anything
via telnet from another linux box or my windows boxes and have never had to
reboot

other than changing the kernel which i am probably not going to do for a
while since it is doing what I want perfectly now other than the proftpd
server I can see no need to reboot.
Brian

e-mail: admin@bmoore.yi.org

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Geoff Shang]

Hi:

I actually keep my box up all the time.  Only time it goes down is kernel
recompile (happened today for the first time in 10 months), system crash
(has happened about 3 or 4 times in the past 18 months) or the most common
cause, power outage.  Oh and the odd time I want to take the box
somewhere.  I can't seem to crack the magic 30 day mark but I'll keep on
trying.

Geoff.


-- 
Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
ICQ number 43634701

Keeping a machine up (was Re: which prebuilt...)

[Kirk Wood]

I take my machine down for three reasons typically. The first is that
lightning storms roll through and the machine doesn't care for those
surges. The next is that ocasionally the power just drops. The third is
cause I just want to mess with it and/or, I don't know what I am doing
while I mess with it.

Notice, I freely admit that sometimes I reboot out of sheer ignorance. I
know that something can be accomplished without the reboot,but reboot
because I am not sure how to accomplish my goal otherwise. but this last
thing is dropping lower and lower on the list. (Oh I did of course reboot
when I changed distributions recently and am sure there was no way arround
that.)

=======
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net

Re: Keeping a machine up (was Re: which prebuilt...)

[Charles Hallenbeck]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Kirk Wood wrote:

> Oh I did of course reboot
> when I changed distributions recently and am sure there was no way arround
> that..
> 
You did? You really did? Well I guess all beginners do that when they
first get started!!! <g>

Chuck
My web site is http://www.mhonline.net/~chuckh 
Love at first sight is one of the greatest labor-saving devices the
world has ever seen.

Re: Keeping a machine up (was Re: which prebuilt...)

[Geoff Shang]

Hi:

Oh yeah, the storms.  New there was another one.

Geoff.


-- 
Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
ICQ number 43634701

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

The deal probably is more apparent on dialup, how can one run a mail server
on dialup when you're scheduled to time out every 20 minutes? Where could
the mail go when that happens, and you realize it and reconnect?
At 05:19 PM 10/24/00 +1100, you wrote:
>Hi:
>
>I actually keep my box up all the time.  Only time it goes down is kernel
>recompile (happened today for the first time in 10 months), system crash
>(has happened about 3 or 4 times in the past 18 months) or the most common
>cause, power outage.  Oh and the odd time I want to take the box
>somewhere.  I can't seem to crack the magic 30 day mark but I'll keep on
>trying.
>
>Geoff.
>
>
>-- 
>Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
>ICQ number 43634701
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Kirk Wood]

Once again Brent, to run a mail server you need dedicated access, or
someone with dedicated access to buffer your mail. We have covered this
more then once already. There are ways to keep a computer from being timed
out every 20 minutes, but I am not going to tell you.

=======
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Kerry Hoath]

That is what a backup mail exchanger is for. You can also use etrn.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:48:36PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
> The deal probably is more apparent on dialup, how can one run a mail server
> on dialup when you're scheduled to time out every 20 minutes? Where could
> the mail go when that happens, and you realize it and reconnect?
> At 05:19 PM 10/24/00 +1100, you wrote:
> >Hi:
> >
> >I actually keep my box up all the time.  Only time it goes down is kernel
> >recompile (happened today for the first time in 10 months), system crash
> >(has happened about 3 or 4 times in the past 18 months) or the most common
> >cause, power outage.  Oh and the odd time I want to take the box
> >somewhere.  I can't seem to crack the magic 30 day mark but I'll keep on
> >trying.
> >
> >Geoff.
> >
> >
> >-- 
> >Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
> >ICQ number 43634701
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Speakup mailing list
> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
--
Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
ICQ UIN: 62823451

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

Is there backup mail exchanger services out there, or etrn services?
At 06:54 PM 10/25/00 +1100, you wrote:
>That is what a backup mail exchanger is for. You can also use etrn.
>On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:48:36PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
>> The deal probably is more apparent on dialup, how can one run a mail server
>> on dialup when you're scheduled to time out every 20 minutes? Where could
>> the mail go when that happens, and you realize it and reconnect?
>> At 05:19 PM 10/24/00 +1100, you wrote:
>> >Hi:
>> >
>> >I actually keep my box up all the time.  Only time it goes down is kernel
>> >recompile (happened today for the first time in 10 months), system crash
>> >(has happened about 3 or 4 times in the past 18 months) or the most common
>> >cause, power outage.  Oh and the odd time I want to take the box
>> >somewhere.  I can't seem to crack the magic 30 day mark but I'll keep on
>> >trying.
>> >
>> >Geoff.
>> >
>> >
>> >-- 
>> >Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
>> >ICQ number 43634701
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Speakup mailing list
>> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>-- 
>--
>Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
>Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
>ICQ UIN: 62823451
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: Keeping a machine up (was Re: which prebuilt...)

[Brent Harding]

If one were to go down during storms, or whatever how does one deal with
lost email if that's a service you run on the machine? I've not yet found a
backup mail service that keeps retrying your system until it comes back. I
know the free dns providers let you set mx, but set it to which machine,
never found a list of them online to choose from to send my mail through.
At 07:46 AM 10/24/00 -0500, you wrote:
>I take my machine down for three reasons typically. The first is that
>lightning storms roll through and the machine doesn't care for those
>surges. The next is that ocasionally the power just drops. The third is
>cause I just want to mess with it and/or, I don't know what I am doing
>while I mess with it.
>
>Notice, I freely admit that sometimes I reboot out of sheer ignorance. I
>know that something can be accomplished without the reboot,but reboot
>because I am not sure how to accomplish my goal otherwise. but this last
>thing is dropping lower and lower on the list. (Oh I did of course reboot
>when I changed distributions recently and am sure there was no way arround
>that.)
>
>=======
>Kirk Wood
>Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: Keeping a machine up (was Re: which prebuilt...)

[Kirk Wood]

I don't run a domain's mail server on my home machine. But if I did, I
would arrange to have someone else as a secondary MX record, or expect
that anyone sending mail to my domain would get error messages when my
machine is down.

=======
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net

Re: Keeping a machine up (was Re: which prebuilt...)

[Kerry Hoath]

You need to see if your service provider can provice backup mx service. Of
course this isn't free you need to pay. There is also etrn service
available on http://www.ddns.org/ but it is $25us a year or something rather cheap
if you ask me
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 03:56:34PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
> If one were to go down during storms, or whatever how does one deal with
> lost email if that's a service you run on the machine? I've not yet found a
> backup mail service that keeps retrying your system until it comes back. I
> know the free dns providers let you set mx, but set it to which machine,
> never found a list of them online to choose from to send my mail through.
> At 07:46 AM 10/24/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >I take my machine down for three reasons typically. The first is that
> >lightning storms roll through and the machine doesn't care for those
> >surges. The next is that ocasionally the power just drops. The third is
> >cause I just want to mess with it and/or, I don't know what I am doing
> >while I mess with it.
> >
> >Notice, I freely admit that sometimes I reboot out of sheer ignorance. I
> >know that something can be accomplished without the reboot,but reboot
> >because I am not sure how to accomplish my goal otherwise. but this last
> >thing is dropping lower and lower on the list. (Oh I did of course reboot
> >when I changed distributions recently and am sure there was no way arround
> >that.)
> >
> >=======
> >Kirk Wood
> >Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Speakup mailing list
> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
--
Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
ICQ UIN: 62823451

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Kerry Hoath]

I think the highest my firewall has hit is 106 days.
If I recall I wanted to put more ram in it and couldn't do that whilst it
was powered up. Hurry up hotplug pci and acpi :-)
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 05:19:10PM +1100, Geoff Shang wrote:
> Hi:
> 
> I actually keep my box up all the time.  Only time it goes down is kernel
> recompile (happened today for the first time in 10 months), system crash
> (has happened about 3 or 4 times in the past 18 months) or the most common
> cause, power outage.  Oh and the odd time I want to take the box
> somewhere.  I can't seem to crack the magic 30 day mark but I'll keep on
> trying.
> 
> Geoff.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
> ICQ number 43634701
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
--
Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
ICQ UIN: 62823451

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Kirk Wood]

I would not work for any group that regularly reboots their servers. It is
a sign of incompetancy. I don't care if they are NT servers or
Linux. Rebooting daily or even weekly is a sign of trouble. It is a band
aid to last until the problem is resolved. It is not a fix. There have
been production NT servers running for long periods of time as well.

While you are sweating running the Linux servers from the console, perhaps
you should worry about how you will run the NT servers. Got news - the
cost of a screen reader is quite high. And unlike Unix varients, there are
things you must use the console to do. (Though even these are not routine
items.)

=======
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Geoff Shang]

Hi:

I believe NT is rated to only be able to run successfully for a given
number of days, so a daily reboot wouldn't surprise me.  Then again, why
anyone uses NT is beyond me.

Geoff.


-- 
Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
ICQ number 43634701

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Kerry Hoath]

Sadly NT has mail and office interoperability that Linux does not have 
currently. A correctly configured exchange server can do amazing such as
scheduling and the like; ldap lookups, if you send a message to multiple ppl
under exchange 2000 it creates 1 copy on the server and clones it when the users
read it a great space saver. I want that functionality for Linux and a decent
mailer that understands x.400 and ldap :-)
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 05:29:13PM +1100, Geoff Shang wrote:
> Hi:
> 
> I believe NT is rated to only be able to run successfully for a given
> number of days, so a daily reboot wouldn't surprise me.  Then again, why
> anyone uses NT is beyond me.
> 
> Geoff.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
> ICQ number 43634701
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
--
Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
ICQ UIN: 62823451

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Kirk Wood]

> Sadly NT has mail and office interoperability that Linux does not have 
> currently. A correctly configured exchange server can do amazing such as
> scheduling and the like; ldap lookups, if you send a message to multiple ppl
> under exchange 2000 it creates 1 copy on the server and clones it when the users
> read it a great space saver. I want that functionality for Linux and a decent
> mailer that understands x.400 and ldap :-)

The product is available though not for free. HP Open Mail will run on
either NT, Linux and a couple other Unix varients. It is a nearly
identical equivelant of Exchange. You can obtain a lisense for home use,
or charitable organizations for $0.00. The limitation is that it will only
handle up to 50 people on that lisense. Further lisense additions run $50
per user in 50 user blocks. That is what our organization is paying for
Exchange lisenses and we are a large organization. Uopshot is though not
free, I think it would be cheaper the Exchange.

=======
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

I think in their case, it's sendmail for NT, whatever program that is, and
something with the ppp partially interfaces to NT somewhere.
At 06:28 PM 10/25/00 +1100, you wrote:
>Sadly NT has mail and office interoperability that Linux does not have 
>currently. A correctly configured exchange server can do amazing such as
>scheduling and the like; ldap lookups, if you send a message to multiple ppl
>under exchange 2000 it creates 1 copy on the server and clones it when the
users
>read it a great space saver. I want that functionality for Linux and a decent
>mailer that understands x.400 and ldap :-)
>On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 05:29:13PM +1100, Geoff Shang wrote:
>> Hi:
>> 
>> I believe NT is rated to only be able to run successfully for a given
>> number of days, so a daily reboot wouldn't surprise me.  Then again, why
>> anyone uses NT is beyond me.
>> 
>> Geoff.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
>> ICQ number 43634701
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>-- 
>--
>Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
>Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
>ICQ UIN: 62823451
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

I've worried more about that than what might happen with linux, because
then we have the issue of how accessible the remote means of access is,
probably from another machine running windows, I've heard there are so many
remote admin programs out there, that finding accessible ones will be
harder than finding a way in to a linux system. What I found, as a test on
editing files on a friend's machine is that the slow update can throw one
off as compared to at the console, but he's on cable and I use a modem, so
that could be it too.
At 09:55 PM 10/23/00 -0500, you wrote:
>I would not work for any group that regularly reboots their servers. It is
>a sign of incompetancy. I don't care if they are NT servers or
>Linux. Rebooting daily or even weekly is a sign of trouble. It is a band
>aid to last until the problem is resolved. It is not a fix. There have
>been production NT servers running for long periods of time as well.
>
>While you are sweating running the Linux servers from the console, perhaps
>you should worry about how you will run the NT servers. Got news - the
>cost of a screen reader is quite high. And unlike Unix varients, there are
>things you must use the console to do. (Though even these are not routine
>items.)
>
>=======
>Kirk Wood
>Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Kirk Wood]

First, if you are working you will be on an ethernet to the server. But
aside from that. You may have to pause to wait for a screen to update. But
if your telnet program is accessible then you can adminster remotely with
Linux.

But moving beyond this, fretting about how to do a possible job you don't
have is like fretting about how much rain is going to fall in the yard
next year. You have no control and don't/can't know. I can tell you some
general things to bank on.

1.  You will not be responsible for a damn thing on day one. (If you are
you don't want that job.) While they want you to have some knowledge, no
person in his right mind would expect that a person with no work
experiance is ready to handle their established network solo. Just doesn't
happen.

2.  The only way you can know about their tools is to get access to
them. That won't happen until it is a do or die situation.

3.  You will screw something up if you work there long enough.

=======
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net

RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Kirk Wood]

Brent,

Several things here. First it is unrealistic to think they are going to
have you install Linux on five servers. Second a machine boots fine
without the synth present (at least my roommate's does) it just wont speak
until the next go round. If you had to boot them all so that the synth was
there for speach you would be forced to either use five synths, or a
switch for the ports and boot them succesively.

But back to reality. Reality is that you will probably never ever need to
work on the console. Reality is that they will not take a production
server down for no reason. They don't reboot their servers unless they are
having serious problems or upgrading the kernel. Again reality is they
won't do that unless there is a reason.

If you are working on an established server you will telnet there. That is
just the way life is. There are administrators who spend years never going
to the console. They don't reboot the servers either. Think about it, if
you reboot regularly how would you have a server up for five years? In
fact, each of those long time machines without a reboot represents an
outdated kernel. But if the machine works and there is not a security
threat why take it down?

=======
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net

RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Geoff Shang]

Hi:

Linux with speakup should boot without the synth, but speakup will be
inoperable for tha session.  In addition to this, it's extremely trivial to
install a non-speakup kernel under speakup, in fact, redhat seems to do
this by default according to what I've read.

Geoff.


-- 
Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
ICQ number 43634701

RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

Oh, redhat is what I'd be using on such machines where I once thought the
console was the most secure and best way to use it, and that speakup
wouldn't work without reboot without the synth, making the trouble of
unnecessary reboot to use the system.
At 05:22 PM 10/24/00 +1100, you wrote:
>Hi:
>
>Linux with speakup should boot without the synth, but speakup will be
>inoperable for tha session.  In addition to this, it's extremely trivial to
>install a non-speakup kernel under speakup, in fact, redhat seems to do
>this by default according to what I've read.
>
>Geoff.
>
>
>-- 
>Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
>ICQ number 43634701
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

Oh, why then, do they claim to use A/b switches to decide which machine
they're controlling? I'm not fond of that idea either, but if I have to
deal with it, because their firewall secures access to that level, which
I'm not sure it would, it'd be inefficient to do things that way. If
there's no capability of connecting screens or keyboards, what would be
used to set it up initially, or reinstall if something goes wrong? Do these
machines usually have a program that you run across the network that works
no matter what?
I suppose if I can do most stuff remotely, I could just set up one speakup
enabled linux box to control all others with.
At 07:53 AM 10/23/00 -0500, you wrote:
>I think Geoff has pointed out the way you will access any machines you
>need to. It is quite rare for console access to a server that is cranking
>away. In fact my business relies on two AIX (Unix varient) machines. There
>are only two operations done at console. 
>
>The first is tape backup. But really it is more a matter of checking that
>files really did backup and putting in the next day's tapes. The other is
>that if building power goes out, someone goes to the server room to ensure
>all shuts down orderly. Otherwise things are done remotely. In fact, there
>are some who consider doing anything locally on a server that could be
>done safely remotely to be a security transgression. Also, there are many
>servers out there with no keyboard or monitor connected. (And a few with
>no video to connect a monitor.) The only operation done at the console is
>hitting the power switch.
>
>If one is trying to prepare for a job they hope for, I would recomend
>learning all one can about administering a box. I would spend almost no
>time wondering about console access. It is just not really needed in the
>business world. Console access is something to worry about when you are
>competing for the boss' job. Not on the first level admin job.
>
>=======
>Kirk Wood
>Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Kirk Wood]

It is possible they use a KVM switch to allow one keyboard, monitor, and
mouse combination to work several machines. While you may not be fond of
the idea, it works very well. I have been working two machines for more
then a year. I can't give you any drawbacks. I can say it saves space. It
also makes it so I only have to buy one monitor. It makes it easy to
control more then one machine.

All the same, it is unrealistic to think they will re-install the OS of a
production server for you. If that happens please send me a set of six
numbers between 1 and 54 so I can win the lottery. I just don't think that
will happen.

=======
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net

RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

Oh, if everything is doable by telnet or something, why are kvm switches
needed? The synthesizer would be needed in it as well, some how.
At 09:52 PM 10/23/00 -0500, you wrote:
>It is possible they use a KVM switch to allow one keyboard, monitor, and
>mouse combination to work several machines. While you may not be fond of
>the idea, it works very well. I have been working two machines for more
>then a year. I can't give you any drawbacks. I can say it saves space. It
>also makes it so I only have to buy one monitor. It makes it easy to
>control more then one machine.
>
>All the same, it is unrealistic to think they will re-install the OS of a
>production server for you. If that happens please send me a set of six
>numbers between 1 and 54 so I can win the lottery. I just don't think that
>will happen.
>
>=======
>Kirk Wood
>Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Kirk Wood]

KVM switches are not really needed. Many places don't use them. Also, some
people are incompetent. There it is out. Some network admins don't know
their stuff. They think you have to be on the console. (Actually there are
some functions on certain crappy OSes that you must visit the console.)

If you figure out why some feel a KVM is a needed item then you will also
understand why X is a dependancy for so many packages that have an
***optional*** X interface. Soem dip weeds think just because it can be
done it should *or even has* to be don.

=======
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Kerry Hoath]

My hp9000 model 816 has _no_ monitor it has a serial port. It also has the
ability for a remote dialin port where you can connect a modem. No keyboard or
screen there; I have an hp terminal that comes with it to control it or a pc.
Now to find a copy of hp/ux for a model 816 :-) Once linux boots we'll try
speakup on the hpux :-)
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 09:00:47PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
> Oh, why then, do they claim to use A/b switches to decide which machine
> they're controlling? I'm not fond of that idea either, but if I have to
> deal with it, because their firewall secures access to that level, which
> I'm not sure it would, it'd be inefficient to do things that way. If
> there's no capability of connecting screens or keyboards, what would be
> used to set it up initially, or reinstall if something goes wrong? Do these
> machines usually have a program that you run across the network that works
> no matter what?
> I suppose if I can do most stuff remotely, I could just set up one speakup
> enabled linux box to control all others with.
> At 07:53 AM 10/23/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >I think Geoff has pointed out the way you will access any machines you
> >need to. It is quite rare for console access to a server that is cranking
> >away. In fact my business relies on two AIX (Unix varient) machines. There
> >are only two operations done at console. 
> >
> >The first is tape backup. But really it is more a matter of checking that
> >files really did backup and putting in the next day's tapes. The other is
> >that if building power goes out, someone goes to the server room to ensure
> >all shuts down orderly. Otherwise things are done remotely. In fact, there
> >are some who consider doing anything locally on a server that could be
> >done safely remotely to be a security transgression. Also, there are many
> >servers out there with no keyboard or monitor connected. (And a few with
> >no video to connect a monitor.) The only operation done at the console is
> >hitting the power switch.
> >
> >If one is trying to prepare for a job they hope for, I would recomend
> >learning all one can about administering a box. I would spend almost no
> >time wondering about console access. It is just not really needed in the
> >business world. Console access is something to worry about when you are
> >competing for the boss' job. Not on the first level admin job.
> >
> >=======
> >Kirk Wood
> >Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Speakup mailing list
> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
--
Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
ICQ UIN: 62823451

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

In what way would one install linux on a box like this, serial console is
probably quite usefull, (if I could use it with a parallel to serial
converter with a dectalk express connected to my laptop's real serial
port). Would one just put in the hp supplied CD and do the install by
serial or dialin?
At 06:07 PM 10/25/00 +1100, you wrote:
>My hp9000 model 816 has _no_ monitor it has a serial port. It also has the
>ability for a remote dialin port where you can connect a modem. No
keyboard or
>screen there; I have an hp terminal that comes with it to control it or a pc.
>Now to find a copy of hp/ux for a model 816 :-) Once linux boots we'll try
>speakup on the hpux :-)
>On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 09:00:47PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
>> Oh, why then, do they claim to use A/b switches to decide which machine
>> they're controlling? I'm not fond of that idea either, but if I have to
>> deal with it, because their firewall secures access to that level, which
>> I'm not sure it would, it'd be inefficient to do things that way. If
>> there's no capability of connecting screens or keyboards, what would be
>> used to set it up initially, or reinstall if something goes wrong? Do these
>> machines usually have a program that you run across the network that works
>> no matter what?
>> I suppose if I can do most stuff remotely, I could just set up one speakup
>> enabled linux box to control all others with.
>> At 07:53 AM 10/23/00 -0500, you wrote:
>> >I think Geoff has pointed out the way you will access any machines you
>> >need to. It is quite rare for console access to a server that is cranking
>> >away. In fact my business relies on two AIX (Unix varient) machines. There
>> >are only two operations done at console. 
>> >
>> >The first is tape backup. But really it is more a matter of checking that
>> >files really did backup and putting in the next day's tapes. The other is
>> >that if building power goes out, someone goes to the server room to ensure
>> >all shuts down orderly. Otherwise things are done remotely. In fact, there
>> >are some who consider doing anything locally on a server that could be
>> >done safely remotely to be a security transgression. Also, there are many
>> >servers out there with no keyboard or monitor connected. (And a few with
>> >no video to connect a monitor.) The only operation done at the console is
>> >hitting the power switch.
>> >
>> >If one is trying to prepare for a job they hope for, I would recomend
>> >learning all one can about administering a box. I would spend almost no
>> >time wondering about console access. It is just not really needed in the
>> >business world. Console access is something to worry about when you are
>> >competing for the boss' job. Not on the first level admin job.
>> >
>> >=======
>> >Kirk Wood
>> >Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Speakup mailing list
>> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>-- 
>--
>Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
>Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
>ICQ UIN: 62823451
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Kerry Hoath]

Brent an hp9000 is *not* a pc and does not yet run Linux.
It runms hp/ux and it is a mini computer.
They set you back at least 10k so forget that one
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 08:03:08PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
> In what way would one install linux on a box like this, serial console is
> probably quite usefull, (if I could use it with a parallel to serial
> converter with a dectalk express connected to my laptop's real serial
> port). Would one just put in the hp supplied CD and do the install by
> serial or dialin?
> At 06:07 PM 10/25/00 +1100, you wrote:
> >My hp9000 model 816 has _no_ monitor it has a serial port. It also has the
> >ability for a remote dialin port where you can connect a modem. No
> keyboard or
> >screen there; I have an hp terminal that comes with it to control it or a pc.
> >Now to find a copy of hp/ux for a model 816 :-) Once linux boots we'll try
> >speakup on the hpux :-)
> >On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 09:00:47PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
> >> Oh, why then, do they claim to use A/b switches to decide which machine
> >> they're controlling? I'm not fond of that idea either, but if I have to
> >> deal with it, because their firewall secures access to that level, which
> >> I'm not sure it would, it'd be inefficient to do things that way. If
> >> there's no capability of connecting screens or keyboards, what would be
> >> used to set it up initially, or reinstall if something goes wrong? Do these
> >> machines usually have a program that you run across the network that works
> >> no matter what?
> >> I suppose if I can do most stuff remotely, I could just set up one speakup
> >> enabled linux box to control all others with.
> >> At 07:53 AM 10/23/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >> >I think Geoff has pointed out the way you will access any machines you
> >> >need to. It is quite rare for console access to a server that is cranking
> >> >away. In fact my business relies on two AIX (Unix varient) machines. There
> >> >are only two operations done at console. 
> >> >
> >> >The first is tape backup. But really it is more a matter of checking that
> >> >files really did backup and putting in the next day's tapes. The other is
> >> >that if building power goes out, someone goes to the server room to ensure
> >> >all shuts down orderly. Otherwise things are done remotely. In fact, there
> >> >are some who consider doing anything locally on a server that could be
> >> >done safely remotely to be a security transgression. Also, there are many
> >> >servers out there with no keyboard or monitor connected. (And a few with
> >> >no video to connect a monitor.) The only operation done at the console is
> >> >hitting the power switch.
> >> >
> >> >If one is trying to prepare for a job they hope for, I would recomend
> >> >learning all one can about administering a box. I would spend almost no
> >> >time wondering about console access. It is just not really needed in the
> >> >business world. Console access is something to worry about when you are
> >> >competing for the boss' job. Not on the first level admin job.
> >> >
> >> >=======
> >> >Kirk Wood
> >> >Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >Speakup mailing list
> >> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Speakup mailing list
> >> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >-- 
> >--
> >Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
> >Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
> >ICQ UIN: 62823451
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Speakup mailing list
> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
--
Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
ICQ UIN: 62823451

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

Oh, probably won't have to worry about using one, none around where I know
of in most situations.
At 12:56 PM 10/26/00 +1100, you wrote:
>Brent an hp9000 is *not* a pc and does not yet run Linux.
>It runms hp/ux and it is a mini computer.
>They set you back at least 10k so forget that one
>On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 08:03:08PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
>> In what way would one install linux on a box like this, serial console is
>> probably quite usefull, (if I could use it with a parallel to serial
>> converter with a dectalk express connected to my laptop's real serial
>> port). Would one just put in the hp supplied CD and do the install by
>> serial or dialin?
>> At 06:07 PM 10/25/00 +1100, you wrote:
>> >My hp9000 model 816 has _no_ monitor it has a serial port. It also has the
>> >ability for a remote dialin port where you can connect a modem. No
>> keyboard or
>> >screen there; I have an hp terminal that comes with it to control it or
a pc.
>> >Now to find a copy of hp/ux for a model 816 :-) Once linux boots we'll try
>> >speakup on the hpux :-)
>> >On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 09:00:47PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
>> >> Oh, why then, do they claim to use A/b switches to decide which machine
>> >> they're controlling? I'm not fond of that idea either, but if I have to
>> >> deal with it, because their firewall secures access to that level, which
>> >> I'm not sure it would, it'd be inefficient to do things that way. If
>> >> there's no capability of connecting screens or keyboards, what would be
>> >> used to set it up initially, or reinstall if something goes wrong? Do
these
>> >> machines usually have a program that you run across the network that
works
>> >> no matter what?
>> >> I suppose if I can do most stuff remotely, I could just set up one
speakup
>> >> enabled linux box to control all others with.
>> >> At 07:53 AM 10/23/00 -0500, you wrote:
>> >> >I think Geoff has pointed out the way you will access any machines you
>> >> >need to. It is quite rare for console access to a server that is
cranking
>> >> >away. In fact my business relies on two AIX (Unix varient) machines.
There
>> >> >are only two operations done at console. 
>> >> >
>> >> >The first is tape backup. But really it is more a matter of checking
that
>> >> >files really did backup and putting in the next day's tapes. The
other is
>> >> >that if building power goes out, someone goes to the server room to
ensure
>> >> >all shuts down orderly. Otherwise things are done remotely. In fact,
there
>> >> >are some who consider doing anything locally on a server that could be
>> >> >done safely remotely to be a security transgression. Also, there are
many
>> >> >servers out there with no keyboard or monitor connected. (And a few
with
>> >> >no video to connect a monitor.) The only operation done at the
console is
>> >> >hitting the power switch.
>> >> >
>> >> >If one is trying to prepare for a job they hope for, I would recomend
>> >> >learning all one can about administering a box. I would spend almost no
>> >> >time wondering about console access. It is just not really needed in
the
>> >> >business world. Console access is something to worry about when you are
>> >> >competing for the boss' job. Not on the first level admin job.
>> >> >
>> >> >=======
>> >> >Kirk Wood
>> >> >Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >_______________________________________________
>> >> >Speakup mailing list
>> >> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> >> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Speakup mailing list
>> >> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> >> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> >
>> >-- 
>> >--
>> >Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
>> >Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or
khoath@lis.net.au
>> >ICQ UIN: 62823451
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Speakup mailing list
>> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>-- 
>--
>Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
>Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
>ICQ UIN: 62823451
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Kirk Wood]

Brent,

You have one serial port. Forget it. You won't get arround that fact. Best
you can hope for is a network so you can use a PCMCIA card.

=======
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

Are pcmcia extra serial ports worth it? Do parallel to serial converters
work as they would using a braille 'n speak to print to a parallel ink
printer, do that quite a bit. The serial end goes in to the braille 'n
speak, and the parallel goes in to the printer.
At 08:59 PM 10/25/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Brent,
>
>You have one serial port. Forget it. You won't get arround that fact. Best
>you can hope for is a network so you can use a PCMCIA card.
>
>=======
>Kirk Wood
>Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Kirk Wood]

> Are pcmcia extra serial ports worth it? 
Find one and decide if it is worth your money. Good luck, I haven't seen
any and didn't looking at CDW web site.

> Do parallel to serial converters
> work as they would using a braille 'n speak to print to a parallel ink
> printer, do that quite a bit. The serial end goes in to the braille 'n
> speak, and the parallel goes in to the printer.

The short answer is no. You would have to have another driver written to
get this done. This driver would have a different interface to deal
with. If you hold your breath waiting you will surely pass out. So the
long answer here is also no. Like I said, forget it. You can't get there
from here.

=======
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net

Root access (was RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?)

[Geoff Shang]

Hi Brent:

There can only be one root user.  Having said that, you can either use sudo
or su to gain access as root.  If I were a sysadmin, I'd probably implement
sudo rather than allow access to su.  Why?  Because su is used for people
to become root.  It's just the same as logging in as root except it gets
around the /etc/securetty permissions.  In other words, anyone from any
location can become super user using su if they first login as their user
account.  Su expects root's password in order to become super user, which
means that a sysadmin has to give out root's password to anyone they want
to use su.  Sudo however authenticates with the user's password, and the
sysadmin controls who has access to it.  If someone is abusing it, they can
take away their access and there's nothing the user can do about it.  In my
opinion, this is much safer.  Which means I really should go learn how to
administer it. <grin>

Geoff.


-- 
Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
ICQ number 43634701

Re: Root access (was RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?)

[Kirk Wood]

My understanding is that another advantage of sudo is that what root
priveldges are granted is controlled on a user basis. Thus you could give
someone with need the ability to change passwords, but not to create or
delete accounts. Or you may need to give special access for backing up.


=======
Kirk Wood
Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net

Re: Root access (was RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?)

[Brent Harding]

It would be neat if there was a howto on it that was easy to understand.
How does sudo deal with system files the user can edit? I wonder if this
guy I was hearing it from really did develop his own way to make more users
root than just one without the password. My impression of sudo is that the
root commands a user can use need to be specified somewhere, but if I need
to edit a config file, to set up virtual hosts, and have permission to edit
what I need to, I'm not sure how this gets implemented. Changing all the
permissions will mess up as programs sometimes check, and adding an extra 7
and changing group owner to admins for say might not work.
At 04:31 PM 10/21/00 +1100, you wrote:
>Hi Brent:
>
>There can only be one root user.  Having said that, you can either use sudo
>or su to gain access as root.  If I were a sysadmin, I'd probably implement
>sudo rather than allow access to su.  Why?  Because su is used for people
>to become root.  It's just the same as logging in as root except it gets
>around the /etc/securetty permissions.  In other words, anyone from any
>location can become super user using su if they first login as their user
>account.  Su expects root's password in order to become super user, which
>means that a sysadmin has to give out root's password to anyone they want
>to use su.  Sudo however authenticates with the user's password, and the
>sysadmin controls who has access to it.  If someone is abusing it, they can
>take away their access and there's nothing the user can do about it.  In my
>opinion, this is much safer.  Which means I really should go learn how to
>administer it. <grin>
>
>Geoff.
>
>
>-- 
>Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
>ICQ number 43634701
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: Root access (was RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?)

[Geoff Shang]

Hi:

Firstly, root is root and is above all others. You could make everything
world writable and root would still have more access than anyone
else.  Secondly, if you were working to help administer a system, the head
sysadmin would define what you had access to do, using whichever device
they chose for doing this.  Obviously, if you had to do something that you
couldn't do, you'd ask for the required access.  Thirdly, I've never heard
of anything other than fetchmail being too worried about file permissions,
and I've never heard of anything changing them.  But even if changing the
groups of the files were going to be a problem, the sysadmin could more
easily put you in the root group, or whatever group you needed to be in
(you can be in as many groups as there are groups if needed).

Geoff.


-- 
Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
ICQ number 43634701

Re: Root access (was RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?)

[Brent Harding]

What access does the root group give? Setting up virtual hosts, or whatever
involves a lot of access, depending which virtual service one is using,
unless there were a script out that I could be given access to to get all
of it done that'd run as root.
Wouldn't it take the luck of the draw, for say the admin gives the access
to /dev/pts/0 and someone else is logged in to that, so my connection could
be pts/4 or 5 depending who's on? I'd some how have to move them to another
device so I could get my privileges.
At 07:22 PM 10/22/00 +1100, you wrote:
>Hi:
>
>Firstly, root is root and is above all others. You could make everything
>world writable and root would still have more access than anyone
>else.  Secondly, if you were working to help administer a system, the head
>sysadmin would define what you had access to do, using whichever device
>they chose for doing this.  Obviously, if you had to do something that you
>couldn't do, you'd ask for the required access.  Thirdly, I've never heard
>of anything other than fetchmail being too worried about file permissions,
>and I've never heard of anything changing them.  But even if changing the
>groups of the files were going to be a problem, the sysadmin could more
>easily put you in the root group, or whatever group you needed to be in
>(you can be in as many groups as there are groups if needed).
>
>Geoff.
>
>
>-- 
>Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
>ICQ number 43634701
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: Root access (was RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?)

[Geoff Shang]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Brent Harding wrote:

> What access does the root group give? Setting up virtual hosts, or whatever
> involves a lot of access, depending which virtual service one is using,

This would vary from system to system, depending on what files belong to
the root group and the permissions on those files.

> unless there were a script out that I could be given access to to get all
> of it done that'd run as root.

You could do this, but it'd be up to the sysadmin to do this.

> Wouldn't it take the luck of the draw, for say the admin gives the access
> to /dev/pts/0 and someone else is logged in to that, so my connection could
> be pts/4 or 5 depending who's on? I'd some how have to move them to another
> device so I could get my privileges.

Yes, which is why you wouldn't ever put a pts device in
/etc/securetty.  And the sysadmin would still have to give out the root
account's password to you.  In fact, if I were a sysadmin, I'd consider
clearing out /etc/securetty altogether so no one could login directly as
root, meaning that everyone would either have to know both a user name and
password and the root password, or have access to sudo as a user.  Sounds
much more secure.

Geoff.




-- 
Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
ICQ number 43634701

Re: Root access (was RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?)

[Brent Harding]

There's no securetty that'd work remotely, I'm sure because it doesn't
allow you to use an ip address. I'm sure eth0 doesn't count, as it's not
really considered a device file in /dev. I'm not fond of the idea of
multiple root privileged users, especially if it's not really needed.
At 05:08 PM 10/23/00 +1100, you wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Brent Harding wrote:
>
>> What access does the root group give? Setting up virtual hosts, or whatever
>> involves a lot of access, depending which virtual service one is using,
>
>This would vary from system to system, depending on what files belong to
>the root group and the permissions on those files.
>
>> unless there were a script out that I could be given access to to get all
>> of it done that'd run as root.
>
>You could do this, but it'd be up to the sysadmin to do this.
>
>> Wouldn't it take the luck of the draw, for say the admin gives the access
>> to /dev/pts/0 and someone else is logged in to that, so my connection could
>> be pts/4 or 5 depending who's on? I'd some how have to move them to another
>> device so I could get my privileges.
>
>Yes, which is why you wouldn't ever put a pts device in
>/etc/securetty.  And the sysadmin would still have to give out the root
>account's password to you.  In fact, if I were a sysadmin, I'd consider
>clearing out /etc/securetty altogether so no one could login directly as
>root, meaning that everyone would either have to know both a user name and
>password and the root password, or have access to sudo as a user.  Sounds
>much more secure.
>
>Geoff.
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
>ICQ number 43634701
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: Root access (was RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?)

[Geoff Shang]

Hi:

/etc/securetty has nothing to do with IP addresses or ETH0, it's merely
concerned with TTY devices (either /dev/ttyXX or /dev/pts/xx).  If you want
to restrict access to various IP addresses then use host.allow and
host.deny, but this only works for blanket access to services like SSH ,
FTP, telnet, etc, and is not used to accept or reject particular users.

Geoff.


-- 
Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
ICQ number 43634701

Re: Root access (was RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?)

[Kerry Hoath]

If you are running ident it can reject specific users but since ident
is trivial to forge and windows ident can send anything you like
along with some Unix ones; the protection isn't really worth it
On Tue, Oct 24, 2000 at 05:27:33PM +1100, Geoff Shang wrote:
> Hi:
> 
> /etc/securetty has nothing to do with IP addresses or ETH0, it's merely
> concerned with TTY devices (either /dev/ttyXX or /dev/pts/xx).  If you want
> to restrict access to various IP addresses then use host.allow and
> host.deny, but this only works for blanket access to services like SSH ,
> FTP, telnet, etc, and is not used to accept or reject particular users.
> 
> Geoff.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
> ICQ number 43634701
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
--
Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
ICQ UIN: 62823451

Re: Root access (was RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?)

[Kerry Hoath]

How about this: use ssh and permit root logins with it. That way
if you do have to come in as root remotely you can do it encrypted.
You can use options in /etc/ssh/config to allow only validated hosts in i.e.
certain ips with keys that are known to the server or certain hosts keys.
you can't telnet in as root normall unless you add all pseudo ttys to 
/etc/securetty. What's wrong with telnetting in as a normal user and
runnin su?
Regards, Kerry.
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 08:55:11PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
> There's no securetty that'd work remotely, I'm sure because it doesn't
> allow you to use an ip address. I'm sure eth0 doesn't count, as it's not
> really considered a device file in /dev. I'm not fond of the idea of
> multiple root privileged users, especially if it's not really needed.
> At 05:08 PM 10/23/00 +1100, you wrote:
> >On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Brent Harding wrote:
> >
> >> What access does the root group give? Setting up virtual hosts, or whatever
> >> involves a lot of access, depending which virtual service one is using,
> >
> >This would vary from system to system, depending on what files belong to
> >the root group and the permissions on those files.
> >
> >> unless there were a script out that I could be given access to to get all
> >> of it done that'd run as root.
> >
> >You could do this, but it'd be up to the sysadmin to do this.
> >
> >> Wouldn't it take the luck of the draw, for say the admin gives the access
> >> to /dev/pts/0 and someone else is logged in to that, so my connection could
> >> be pts/4 or 5 depending who's on? I'd some how have to move them to another
> >> device so I could get my privileges.
> >
> >Yes, which is why you wouldn't ever put a pts device in
> >/etc/securetty.  And the sysadmin would still have to give out the root
> >account's password to you.  In fact, if I were a sysadmin, I'd consider
> >clearing out /etc/securetty altogether so no one could login directly as
> >root, meaning that everyone would either have to know both a user name and
> >password and the root password, or have access to sudo as a user.  Sounds
> >much more secure.
> >
> >Geoff.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-- 
> >Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
> >ICQ number 43634701
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Speakup mailing list
> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
--
Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
ICQ UIN: 62823451

Re: Root access (was RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?)

[Brent Harding]

I suppose nothing is wrong with telnet and getting in as su, but the fact
that the sysadmin would have to share the root password with all the
admins, but I'd think ssh could solve that, he'd just give each one a
different key on a disk or something, and everyone would be in as root who
had one of the valid keys.
At 06:03 PM 10/25/00 +1100, you wrote:
>How about this: use ssh and permit root logins with it. That way
>if you do have to come in as root remotely you can do it encrypted.
>You can use options in /etc/ssh/config to allow only validated hosts in i.e.
>certain ips with keys that are known to the server or certain hosts keys.
>you can't telnet in as root normall unless you add all pseudo ttys to 
>/etc/securetty. What's wrong with telnetting in as a normal user and
>runnin su?
>Regards, Kerry.
>On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 08:55:11PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
>> There's no securetty that'd work remotely, I'm sure because it doesn't
>> allow you to use an ip address. I'm sure eth0 doesn't count, as it's not
>> really considered a device file in /dev. I'm not fond of the idea of
>> multiple root privileged users, especially if it's not really needed.
>> At 05:08 PM 10/23/00 +1100, you wrote:
>> >On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Brent Harding wrote:
>> >
>> >> What access does the root group give? Setting up virtual hosts, or
whatever
>> >> involves a lot of access, depending which virtual service one is using,
>> >
>> >This would vary from system to system, depending on what files belong to
>> >the root group and the permissions on those files.
>> >
>> >> unless there were a script out that I could be given access to to get
all
>> >> of it done that'd run as root.
>> >
>> >You could do this, but it'd be up to the sysadmin to do this.
>> >
>> >> Wouldn't it take the luck of the draw, for say the admin gives the
access
>> >> to /dev/pts/0 and someone else is logged in to that, so my connection
could
>> >> be pts/4 or 5 depending who's on? I'd some how have to move them to
another
>> >> device so I could get my privileges.
>> >
>> >Yes, which is why you wouldn't ever put a pts device in
>> >/etc/securetty.  And the sysadmin would still have to give out the root
>> >account's password to you.  In fact, if I were a sysadmin, I'd consider
>> >clearing out /etc/securetty altogether so no one could login directly as
>> >root, meaning that everyone would either have to know both a user name and
>> >password and the root password, or have access to sudo as a user.  Sounds
>> >much more secure.
>> >
>> >Geoff.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >-- 
>> >Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
>> >ICQ number 43634701
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Speakup mailing list
>> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>-- 
>--
>Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
>Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
>ICQ UIN: 62823451
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: Root access (was RE: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?)

[Kerry Hoath]

You probably won't be given the root password on the box you don't need root
for virtual hosting and until you learn Linux
no sys admin is going to give you the root password and probably not in the first
3 months at least.
On Wed, Oct 25, 2000 at 08:05:27PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
> I suppose nothing is wrong with telnet and getting in as su, but the fact
> that the sysadmin would have to share the root password with all the
> admins, but I'd think ssh could solve that, he'd just give each one a
> different key on a disk or something, and everyone would be in as root who
> had one of the valid keys.
> At 06:03 PM 10/25/00 +1100, you wrote:
> >How about this: use ssh and permit root logins with it. That way
> >if you do have to come in as root remotely you can do it encrypted.
> >You can use options in /etc/ssh/config to allow only validated hosts in i.e.
> >certain ips with keys that are known to the server or certain hosts keys.
> >you can't telnet in as root normall unless you add all pseudo ttys to 
> >/etc/securetty. What's wrong with telnetting in as a normal user and
> >runnin su?
> >Regards, Kerry.
> >On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 08:55:11PM -0500, Brent Harding wrote:
> >> There's no securetty that'd work remotely, I'm sure because it doesn't
> >> allow you to use an ip address. I'm sure eth0 doesn't count, as it's not
> >> really considered a device file in /dev. I'm not fond of the idea of
> >> multiple root privileged users, especially if it's not really needed.
> >> At 05:08 PM 10/23/00 +1100, you wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Brent Harding wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> What access does the root group give? Setting up virtual hosts, or
> whatever
> >> >> involves a lot of access, depending which virtual service one is using,
> >> >
> >> >This would vary from system to system, depending on what files belong to
> >> >the root group and the permissions on those files.
> >> >
> >> >> unless there were a script out that I could be given access to to get
> all
> >> >> of it done that'd run as root.
> >> >
> >> >You could do this, but it'd be up to the sysadmin to do this.
> >> >
> >> >> Wouldn't it take the luck of the draw, for say the admin gives the
> access
> >> >> to /dev/pts/0 and someone else is logged in to that, so my connection
> could
> >> >> be pts/4 or 5 depending who's on? I'd some how have to move them to
> another
> >> >> device so I could get my privileges.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, which is why you wouldn't ever put a pts device in
> >> >/etc/securetty.  And the sysadmin would still have to give out the root
> >> >account's password to you.  In fact, if I were a sysadmin, I'd consider
> >> >clearing out /etc/securetty altogether so no one could login directly as
> >> >root, meaning that everyone would either have to know both a user name and
> >> >password and the root password, or have access to sudo as a user.  Sounds
> >> >much more secure.
> >> >
> >> >Geoff.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >-- 
> >> >Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
> >> >ICQ number 43634701
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >Speakup mailing list
> >> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Speakup mailing list
> >> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >-- 
> >--
> >Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
> >Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
> >ICQ UIN: 62823451
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Speakup mailing list
> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

-- 
--
Kerry Hoath: kerry@gotss.eu.org
Alternates: kerry@emusys.com.au kerry@gotss.spice.net.au or khoath@lis.net.au
ICQ UIN: 62823451

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

What if I get glibc-devel from the 6.2 distro?
If a program needs kernel headers to compile with, how would I deal with
them in a new location? It's what I hated about debian on my main machine,
so I renamed /usr/src/kernel-source-2.2.15 to /usr/src/linux, and things
work fine.
At 10:54 PM 10/18/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi
>     Ah, there's the problem. RH won't let you remove the 2.4 headers.
They're required by another RPM, glibc-devel, required to compile anything.
If you manage to dump those headers in, make sure you don't put them in the
directory where 2.4 headers are kept, or you'll wind up in a mess, as some
of the filenames are the same between versions. Then you'd really be
missmatched.
>
>
>Brent Harding writes:
> > Oh, 7.0 is out now? What if I just dump the 2.4 headers and put in 2.2.16
> > headers, if they're even around? Oh, I can probably move them in from
> > zipspeak, because zipspeak uses kernel 2.2.16.
> > At 07:49 PM 10/18/00 -0400, you wrote:
> > >Hi
> > >     Well I've not installed it yet but one problem jumps out at me just
> > by looking at the rpm files provided. They're using 2.2.16 kernels, but
> > using kernel 2.4 headers? They're mixing versions. If you think your
> > sources are messed up, don't install this! Mixing versions of kernels is
> > going to give trouble, trouble you'll have a hard time getting out of. I'd
> > like to see someone compile a module with that. Either it wouldn't compile
> > at all, or it would be for the wrong kernel version. It makes me wonder if
> > they know what the heck they're doing, or if they're simply obsessed with
> > the latest and greatest! If they use 2.2.16 kernels, use those headers.
> > They sure aren't using 2.4 kernels, yet they use 2.4 headers? What's wrong
> > with this picture?
> > >     I had problems in general with RH 6. However, if you want rh, go
with
> > rh6, but definitely not 7!
> > >
> > >Brent Harding writes:
> > > > Cool, does gateway put it on automatically? I don't know what they
say is
> > > > so bad with the new redhat 7.0
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >Speakup mailing list
> > >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Jacob Schmude]

Brent
     No, you should not do this. Then, not only would you mismatch your kernel headers, but also your C library. Then, you're basicly SCREWED! And I mean it! You may not even be able to rerun RPM to undo the damage. As other listers have said, just stay away from it, and hopefully RH will get their act together soon, or they may go down the tubes.


Brent Harding writes:
 > What if I get glibc-devel from the 6.2 distro?
 > If a program needs kernel headers to compile with, how would I deal with
 > them in a new location? It's what I hated about debian on my main machine,
 > so I renamed /usr/src/kernel-source-2.2.15 to /usr/src/linux, and things
 > work fine.
 > At 10:54 PM 10/18/00 -0400, you wrote:
 > >Hi
 > >     Ah, there's the problem. RH won't let you remove the 2.4 headers.
 > They're required by another RPM, glibc-devel, required to compile anything.
 > If you manage to dump those headers in, make sure you don't put them in the
 > directory where 2.4 headers are kept, or you'll wind up in a mess, as some
 > of the filenames are the same between versions. Then you'd really be
 > missmatched.
 > >
 > >
 > >Brent Harding writes:
 > > > Oh, 7.0 is out now? What if I just dump the 2.4 headers and put in 2.2.16
 > > > headers, if they're even around? Oh, I can probably move them in from
 > > > zipspeak, because zipspeak uses kernel 2.2.16.
 > > > At 07:49 PM 10/18/00 -0400, you wrote:
 > > > >Hi
 > > > >     Well I've not installed it yet but one problem jumps out at me just
 > > > by looking at the rpm files provided. They're using 2.2.16 kernels, but
 > > > using kernel 2.4 headers? They're mixing versions. If you think your
 > > > sources are messed up, don't install this! Mixing versions of kernels is
 > > > going to give trouble, trouble you'll have a hard time getting out of. I'd
 > > > like to see someone compile a module with that. Either it wouldn't compile
 > > > at all, or it would be for the wrong kernel version. It makes me wonder if
 > > > they know what the heck they're doing, or if they're simply obsessed with
 > > > the latest and greatest! If they use 2.2.16 kernels, use those headers.
 > > > They sure aren't using 2.4 kernels, yet they use 2.4 headers? What's wrong
 > > > with this picture?
 > > > >     I had problems in general with RH 6. However, if you want rh, go
 > with
 > > > rh6, but definitely not 7!
 > > > >
 > > > >Brent Harding writes:
 > > > > > Cool, does gateway put it on automatically? I don't know what they
 > say is
 > > > > > so bad with the new redhat 7.0
 > > > >
 > > > >_______________________________________________
 > > > >Speakup mailing list
 > > > >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
 > > > >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
 > > > >
 > > > >
 > > > >
 > > > 
 > > > 
 > > > _______________________________________________
 > > > Speakup mailing list
 > > > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
 > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
 > >
 > >_______________________________________________
 > >Speakup mailing list
 > >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
 > >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > 
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Speakup mailing list
 > Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
 > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

Oh, I was definitely thinking not 7.0 of rh yet, it's too new.
Does places like cheapbytes still sell rh 6.2? Once I go through the linux
for dumbies, and whatever else I can get from rfb on it, I'd want to work
for places that use linux, most to my knowledge use rh, so I'd have to get
used to it some time before they ask what types of things I'd know about,
or need to know abou.
At 01:49 AM 10/19/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Brent,
>
>Lets make this easy for you:
>Debian = great
>RedHat 6.2 = good
>RedHat 7 = very bad and don't come crying if you ignore this
>sparc = we don't even want to hear from you
>
>
>=======
>Kirk Wood
>Cpt.Kirk@1tree.net
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

IT employment (was Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?)

[Geoff Shang]

Hi:

It's interesting you should say this.  I've been looking at job ads lately
since I was told that I'd be more than capable of a junior unix admin job,
and I've only actually seen one linux job advertised.  Most seem to use
solaris, hp-ux and aix.  So are there really lots of redhat jobs over
there?  If so, it probably indicates a greater take-up of linux there than
here.  If only it were so over here.  Still, I'm told solaris isn't too
difficult to pick up, which is just as well seeing there's so many of those
jobs being advertised.

Geoff.



-- 
Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
ICQ number 43634701

Re: IT employment (was Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?)

[Brent Harding]

I never heard of anyone around here using solaris. I think most of the isps
I've been on before use linux, this one claims to use redhat and NT. I
guess the web and games servers run redhat, and the authentication, mail,
and machines associated in getting people logged on run NT, but I don't
know jaws inside and out enough to switch from wineyes to it. It's hard to
get a reference in the program to a hotkey without looking at the scripts,
and especially if the program has no scripts, and is mostly custom controls.
At 04:44 PM 10/21/00 +1100, you wrote:
>Hi:
>
>It's interesting you should say this.  I've been looking at job ads lately
>since I was told that I'd be more than capable of a junior unix admin job,
>and I've only actually seen one linux job advertised.  Most seem to use
>solaris, hp-ux and aix.  So are there really lots of redhat jobs over
>there?  If so, it probably indicates a greater take-up of linux there than
>here.  If only it were so over here.  Still, I'm told solaris isn't too
>difficult to pick up, which is just as well seeing there's so many of those
>jobs being advertised.
>
>Geoff.
>
>
>
>-- 
>Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
>ICQ number 43634701
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>

Re: IT employment (was Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?)

[Victor Tsaran]

Geoff, you are correct. Many enterprises use Solaris, I believe, the reason
for this is because this is commercial product. If something goes wrong, you
have someone to sue. The same argument applies to the usage of NT. Not many
business, especially big ones, want to switch to Linux because they wouldn't
have anyone to blame if something goes wrong.
I tried installing Sollaris8, Intel edition, at home and yes, it is possible
to pick it up. Of course, one would have to install with sighted people
around because there is no way to do it over serial port or Speakup. Another
thing about SOllaris is there are a lot of conceptual differences between
Linux and Sollaris. For instance, the disk is alyed out differently. One of
the problems I see with Solaris is that they use a lot of graphical
configuration tools. But, hopefully, after the Gnome/Sun project was
launched, perhaps we will be able to access GNOME as well.
Solaris doesn't ship a lot of GNU tools by default, but they have a web site
where one can download precompiled binaries for their SUN system. For
instance, if you decided to install Emacspeak, you'd have a bit of trouble
finding and installing necessary componenets such as TCL, GCC and Make. I
know, T.V. Raman was working on Solaris for quite a bit of time, so it is
not impossible for a blind person.

Best,
Vic

******* ******* *******
have you thought of visiting Cybertsar's Internet Kingdom? It is still
alive!
Here is the URL:
http://nimbus.ocis.temple.edu/~vtsaran/
******* ******* *******
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brent Harding" <bharding@ufw2.com>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: IT employment (was Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work
best?)


> I never heard of anyone around here using solaris. I think most of the
isps
> I've been on before use linux, this one claims to use redhat and NT. I
> guess the web and games servers run redhat, and the authentication, mail,
> and machines associated in getting people logged on run NT, but I don't
> know jaws inside and out enough to switch from wineyes to it. It's hard to
> get a reference in the program to a hotkey without looking at the scripts,
> and especially if the program has no scripts, and is mostly custom
controls.
> At 04:44 PM 10/21/00 +1100, you wrote:
> >Hi:
> >
> >It's interesting you should say this.  I've been looking at job ads
lately
> >since I was told that I'd be more than capable of a junior unix admin
job,
> >and I've only actually seen one linux job advertised.  Most seem to use
> >solaris, hp-ux and aix.  So are there really lots of redhat jobs over
> >there?  If so, it probably indicates a greater take-up of linux there
than
> >here.  If only it were so over here.  Still, I'm told solaris isn't too
> >difficult to pick up, which is just as well seeing there's so many of
those
> >jobs being advertised.
> >
> >Geoff.
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Geoff Shang <gshang10@scu.edu.au>
> >ICQ number 43634701
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Speakup mailing list
> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Jason Custer]

No, I put it on mine, but I think they are putting it on now. You may want
to call and ask...1800gateway (18004283929). I love my gateway and never
lock up because of hardware. I use a dtlk synth on the only isa port on my
board. If you get a gateway, I obviously have experience, so let me know.
Jason
----- Original Message -----
From: Brent Harding <bharding@ufw2.com>
To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?


> Cool, does gateway put it on automatically? I don't know what they say is
> so bad with the new redhat 7.0, but I know my isp uses redhat, and this
guy
> says he can probably help me get some things going that I've had troubles
> in in the past.
> I went without swap on my machine, but don't find it to be a problem with
> 256 mb of ram, probably more than I need for now (figured ram would solve
> my windows lockup troubles, but it didn't, especially with trying to
record
> a lot of stuff at once like sound recorder or whatever.)
> At 08:34 PM 10/17/00 -0700, you wrote:
> >I have a gateway which runs redhat like a dreem!
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Brent Harding <bharding@ufw2.com>
> >To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
> >Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 8:25 PM
> >Subject: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?
> >
> >
> >> I was thinking of getting another machine to just run linux on. I was
> >> thinking to go either valinux or dell. I don't really know if there's
much
> >> else to choose from. I could just get another custom built with windows
> >> Millenium on it, do the famous format operation and put whatever linux
> >> distro I may choose, probably redhat or something (a distro I've not
tried
> >> out yet) on it. The problem I see is the computer place I got this
desktop
> >> from doesn't seem to sell open architect motherboards in systems now.
> >> They're more integrated, and have less slots now, and usb instead of
> >serial
> >> ports is bad news. They basically had this open architect board because
> >the
> >> on board sound on that other one started giving noise I didn't want,
and
> >> switching to sblive wouldn't work any other way.
> >> If there's no easy way to get speakup to load on plugging the
synthesizer
> >> in without rebooting, or for that matter replacing the kernel of one of
> >> these already set up systems, I could just get ethernet going and use
> >> telnet or ssh to it to do whatever I need from my windows/linux dual
boot
> >> system.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Speakup mailing list
> >> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Speakup mailing list
> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup

Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?

[Brent Harding]

Do they come with nonwin modems?
At 06:25 PM 10/18/00 -0700, you wrote:
>No, I put it on mine, but I think they are putting it on now. You may want
>to call and ask...1800gateway (18004283929). I love my gateway and never
>lock up because of hardware. I use a dtlk synth on the only isa port on my
>board. If you get a gateway, I obviously have experience, so let me know.
>Jason
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Brent Harding <bharding@ufw2.com>
>To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 3:59 PM
>Subject: Re: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?
>
>
>> Cool, does gateway put it on automatically? I don't know what they say is
>> so bad with the new redhat 7.0, but I know my isp uses redhat, and this
>guy
>> says he can probably help me get some things going that I've had troubles
>> in in the past.
>> I went without swap on my machine, but don't find it to be a problem with
>> 256 mb of ram, probably more than I need for now (figured ram would solve
>> my windows lockup troubles, but it didn't, especially with trying to
>record
>> a lot of stuff at once like sound recorder or whatever.)
>> At 08:34 PM 10/17/00 -0700, you wrote:
>> >I have a gateway which runs redhat like a dreem!
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: Brent Harding <bharding@ufw2.com>
>> >To: <speakup@braille.uwo.ca>
>> >Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 8:25 PM
>> >Subject: which prebuilt linux boxes seem to work best?
>> >
>> >
>> >> I was thinking of getting another machine to just run linux on. I was
>> >> thinking to go either valinux or dell. I don't really know if there's
>much
>> >> else to choose from. I could just get another custom built with windows
>> >> Millenium on it, do the famous format operation and put whatever linux
>> >> distro I may choose, probably redhat or something (a distro I've not
>tried
>> >> out yet) on it. The problem I see is the computer place I got this
>desktop
>> >> from doesn't seem to sell open architect motherboards in systems now.
>> >> They're more integrated, and have less slots now, and usb instead of
>> >serial
>> >> ports is bad news. They basically had this open architect board because
>> >the
>> >> on board sound on that other one started giving noise I didn't want,
>and
>> >> switching to sblive wouldn't work any other way.
>> >> If there's no easy way to get speakup to load on plugging the
>synthesizer
>> >> in without rebooting, or for that matter replacing the kernel of one of
>> >> these already set up systems, I could just get ethernet going and use
>> >> telnet or ssh to it to do whatever I need from my windows/linux dual
>boot
>> >> system.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Speakup mailing list
>> >> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> >> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >Speakup mailing list
>> >Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> >http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Speakup mailing list
>> Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Speakup mailing list
>Speakup@braille.uwo.ca
>http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>
>
>