HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mceder@ithaca (Mike Cederholm)
Subject: Re: SWAP size for 20MB IIci?
Organization: Novell, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:57:26 GMT

Jim, 

the normal rul o\\\
jim@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jim Jagielski) writes:
: Mike_Peters@vos.stratus.com (Mike Peters) writes:
: 
: >I just upgraded my IIci to 20MB of RAM.  When I originally installed A/UX
: >3.0, I used the default partition size for the SWAP area.  Should I
: >increase it now that I have more memory?  If so, what should it be?  I've
: >also increased NBUF to 2000.
: 
: Now that you have _more_ memory, chances are that you'll need _less_ swap
: space. I'd stay where you are since it's a big pain to repartition
: everything just to decrease the Swap size.
: -- 
:     Jim Jagielski               | "It is not I who am crazy...
:     jim@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov   |  it is I who am MAD!"
:     NASA/GSFC, Code 734.4       |
:     Greenbelt, MD 20771         |            - Ren
Jim, 
The normal rule of thumb for uxix is:
	swap >= 2 x memory

Your reasoning is correct that with more memory you should swap less often, 
but why even hint that a person should reduce swap space afer increasing 
memory in a unix machine?... Being a multi-user, multi-tasking system, with
more memory available for processes, the chance of swapping can be greater
because more processes are actually running.... In a properly tuned system
the addition of more memory can truly require much greater swap spaces.

Now that I climb off my soapbox, Your advice as good even considering what 
I have just pointed out because the mac aux is rarely used in a multi-user
type environment.  I agree... never go through repartitioning if you do not 
have to.... Setting up a secondary swap (many systems allow this, unknown on
aux if it is) is preferable...

--
Mike Cederholm Novell, Inc.
<mike_cederholm@Novell.COM>                            Sandy, UT
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aux
From: jim@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jim Jagielski)
Subject: Re: SWAP size for 20MB IIci?
Reply-To: jim@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov (Jim Jagielski)
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 11:18:22 GMT

tody@noao.edu (Doug Tody) writes:


>Well, of course.  I was referring mainly to differences in how these systems
>handle paging of virtual memory.  UNIX systems use the swap area for paging
>as well as swap; for a virtual memory system swapping and paging are closely
>related.  Most UNIX systems preallocate space in the swap area for paging
>when memory is *allocated* by a process - whether or not the process has any
>writable pages paged out.  On a busy system this guarantees that the space
>will be there when if and when it is needed.  A/UX is unusual in that it
>appears to wait until physical memory is exhausted, i.e., until it actually
>has to page something out, before allocating space in the swap area.  On
>most UNIX systems, as someone said earlier, one typically allocates
>something like 2 times the physical memory for swap, e.g., 40-80 Mb or even
>more on some systems.  A/UX appears to be able to make do with much less
>swap space and swap usage tends to decrease as the physical memory increases.

All these parameters (i.e. how soon or late you want to start paging) can
be adjusted using the vhand-related kconfig variables. So if one feels
kinda uncomfortable having vhand wait until you only have a smidgen of
RAM left, then you can increase it's low-water mark.
-- 
    Jim Jagielski               | "It is not I who am crazy...
    jim@jagubox.gsfc.nasa.gov   |  it is I who am MAD!"
    NASA/GSFC, Code 734.4       |
    Greenbelt, MD 20771         |            - Ren
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aux
From: sdorner@qualcomm.com (Steve Dorner)
Subject: Re: A mailx query
Followup-To: comp.unix.aux
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:05:01 GMT

weinhous@castor.hahnemann.edu (Martin S. Weinhous Ph.D.) wrote:
> I am running a reasonably "stock" A/UX 3.0 (under ksh) and would like
> to use some mail convenience features that I have been unable to
> locate under A/UX.

Depending on your tastes and usage, you might try one of the MacOS mailers.
 There are quite a few running around, including my own (Eudora).

Eudora even uses pretty much the same format for mail as most UNIX mailers,
so you can share mailboxes between environments (with a couple of caveats),
and perhaps even aliases, depending on the UNIX mailer.

Now, of course a MacOS mailer doesn't do you much good if you don't have
MacOS going, but I can't imagine anyone picking A/UX except because they
wanted to use MacOS in addition to UNIX (barring extreme personality
disorders, of course :-)).
--
Steve Dorner, Qualcomm, Inc.
From: jfoster@bt-sys.bt.co.uk (John Foster)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.aux
Subject: Background Printing Problem under A/UX
Date: 6 Jan 93 12:48:18 GMT
Reply-To: jfoster@bt-sys.bt.co.uk
Organization: British Telecom

I have an annoying problem involving printing from Mac applications under
A/UX, and I wonder whether any kind soul can offer suggestions.

I'm running 3.0, and have background printing enabled. Whenever I print
from a Mac application, the job is spooled but the print time is set for
exactly one hour hence. If I go into PrintMonitor I can set the print time
for the job to the current time, and printing then starts OK.

I would like to get my printing done at the time I request it, without
this extra step every time; yet I don't want to lose background printing.

Printing from the command line (eg with lpr) works fine. Also, if I don't
run A/UX, things are fine under the standard System 7 environment. I had
set up the time zone and date/time from A/UX, and all environments report
the same time and date. The time zone is GMT.

I actually run two copies of A/UX: one on my IIci here at work and the
other (duly licensed, Apple please note) on my IIsi at home. I did
both installations myself; first the IIci, and then the IIsi working
from records of the first installation. They should be reasonably
identical, therefore: BUT only the IIci manifests the background
printing problem.

I assume that I've done something wrong, since a bug would have shown up
on both installations. But I've searched the FAQ and the manuals
without finding any clues, and my dealer can't come up with anything
either. I don't mind further reading, but at this point I really would
appreciate some ideas on what to try next.

System is IIci, 20Mb RAM, 80Mb + 400Mb HD, A/UX 3.0, Ethernet (Asante card).
INITS are Disinfectant, MS Mail and QuickTime.

Grateful thanks for any ideas received.

John Foster
From: chet@odin.ins.cwru.edu (Chet Ramey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: Bourne shell functions; what of 'exit'?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 19:00:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: odin.ins.cwru.edu

In article <1993Jan11.165425.7692@oracle.pnl.gov> zt_taylor@pnl.gov writes:
$ Bourne shell functions seem to be inconsistent in the way they handle an 'exit'
$ statement.  For example, the following:
$ 
$ 	func() {
$ 		.
$ 		.
$ 		exit 1
$ 	}
$ 
$ 	func
$ 
$ causes the whole shell script to exit, while this:
$ 
$ 	func() {
$ 		.
$ 		.
$ 		exit 1
$ 	}
$ 
$ 	junk=`func`
$ 	echo $?
$ 
$ doesn't.  At first I thought this meant func was executed in a subshell, but
$ echoing $$ both places gives the same PID.  Is this context-sensitive treatment
$ of 'exit' a feature?  Can it be counted on in portable scripts?

The command substitution is indeed carried out in a subshell (what Posix.2
terms a `subshell environment').  $$ is the same in both shells.  This is
traditional sh behavior and is specified in Posix.2, so I think it can be
counted on for portable shell scripts.

Chet
-- 
``The use of history as therapy means the corruption of history as history.''
	-- Arthur Schlesinger

Chet Ramey, Case Western Reserve University	Internet: chet@po.CWRU.Edu
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
From: mario@wdc.sps.mot.com (Mario Nigrovic)
Subject: Re: Problem with $*.
Organization: Motorola Western MCU Design Center
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:41:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.035540.3383@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Shujaat.Ali@launchpad.unc.edu (Shujaat Ali) writes:
|> 
|> I am having this strange problem while using this line 
|> 
|> echo $* >> cfgargs      #where cfgargs is the filename
|> 
|> the input to the script is
|> 
|> $ cfg '9.1.1.1'
|> 
|> the output should give 9.1.1.1 in the cfgargs file.
|> 
|> The problem is that on execution one of the scripts provides the
|> desired result, whereas the execution of second script places a blank
|> line in the output file. Both the scripts are almost identical, in the
|> past I have also experienced difficulty printing command line parameters
|> like
|> 
|> 	echo $1
|> 
|> The scripts are ran in ksh environment, any help is appreciated.
|> 
|> 					Thanks,
|> 
|> 					Shujaat.
|> 
|>            internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

The question is: What shell are you using?  It is not impossible (rather, it's likely)
that the variables $* have been toyed with by sh programs, which use "set" to help
break up strings.  Also, most shells (all shells?) support "shift" which will discard
command line args.  The best practice is to move the command line arguments into shell
variables if you know you'll need them later on.

-- 

							Mario

Mario Nigrovic <mario@wdc.sps.mot.com>		voice: (602) 821-4264
Motorola Western MCU Design Center		fax:   (602) 821-4058
*  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -*-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  *
I don't have to take this abuse from you -- I've got hundreds of people
waiting to abuse me.
		--Bill Murray, "Ghostbusters"
*  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -*-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  *
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
From: kimcm@login.dkuug.dk (Kim Chr. Madsen)
Subject: Re: Curses like menu in a bourne shell script
Organization: DKnet
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:54:05 GMT

pm0@bale.cis.ufl.edu (Patrick Martin) writes:

>I wish to create a bourne shell menu which will read the cursor
>keys and scroll a highlighted bar across a list of menu items.
>I wish for return on a menu item to select that menu item.

That will be a problem, since the shell does not have general I/O
routines, and what is required is a routine to read
character-by-character, and determine if the "string" sent by the
cursor keys, have been manually entered or entered by the key. This is
best done i a c-program.

However, displaying things is quite another matter, there you can use
the full variety of information stored in the TERMCAP/TERMINFO
database -- it works best if your shell has functions....

#!/bin/sh

gotoxy() {
	tput smcup
	tput cup $2 $1
	tput rmcup
}

standout() { tput smso ; }
nostandout() { tput rmso ; }

printat() {
	gotoxy $1 $2
	shift 2
	echo $*
}

printat 10 5 "This is a test"
standout
printat 10 6 "This is a line in standout"
nostandout
printat 11 7 "The word `tput smul`underlined`tput rmul` is underlined"



						Regards,
						Kim Chr. Madsen


>Sounds alot like curses I know.

>I dont want the solution to be entirely bourne shell (ie: I do
>not wish to write a supporting C routine to perform any subtasks).
>I also do not wish to have to write a termcap.

>Is this possible or is it too much to ask of bourne shell?

>Thanks (I hope) in advance,

>Pat
Xref: sparky comp.unix.shell:5239 comp.unix.programmer:5821
From: richb@stard.Eng.Sun.COM (Rich Burridge)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: A quoting problem.
Date: 4 Jan 1993 20:02:03 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: stard
Keywords: SVR4, Bourne shell, quoting filenames.


I have a quoting problem. Consider that under UNIX it's possible that
valid filenames can include:

file
fi'le
fi"le
fi le
fi`le
fi*le

plus any combination of any ASCII characters not including a slash '/'
or a NULL character.

I need to set an environment variable called FILES to a set of such filenames,
export it, and then run a UNIX command from within a C program. Not handling
the quoting, this would look something like:

char cmd[1024] ;

strcpy(cmd, "FILES='file file1 file2';export FILES;rm $FILES") ;

...

execl("/bin/sh", "sh", "-c", cmd, (char *) 0) ;

...

Now the problem is how to correct quote the "cmd" string to handle all
possible filenames. Can this be done?

Thanks in advance...
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
From: navarra@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Navarra)
Subject: Re: How to make Restrict Shell more safely?
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:10:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.135639.1668@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> wvarga@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Wilson Varga) writes:
>There is a commercial product, CENTRUS UX, that solves all of this by
>keeping end-users within a menu system.

	There's also Cleveland Freenet, now that you mention menu-based
things. In fact, I know of one client that is currently being written
which provides many services (telnet, ftp, gopher, archie, news) all from 
a PC and an account on the local UNIX server. This sounds pretty secure
to me. 
 
-tms
-- 
You can get further with a kind word | You can get further with a kind word
and a gun than a kind word alone.    | and a phaser than a kind word and a gun.
          --al capone                |           -- John Navarra
=======From the Lab of the MaD ScIenTIst....navarra@casbah.acns.nwu.edu========
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
From: ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones)
Subject: Re: stripping cr/lf's
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 23:54:09 GMT

In <fXuiJ5p@quack.sac.ca.us> dfox@quack.sac.ca.us (David Fox) writes:

>In article <1992Dec31.071312.6153@netcom.com> kasajian@netcom.com (Kenneth Kasajian) writes:
>>
>>How do I strip the cr's from a text file?  There must be a standard
>>unix way of doing it!

>There is.  One typically needs to do this when migrating DOS text files (where
>each line ends in a CR and NL (ascii 13/10) to Unix (where each line ends with
>just NL (ascii 10)).

>Use the tr command.

>% tr -d '\015' <in.txt >out.txt

>The '\015' may look strange: tr - and other unix commands - think in OCTAL.
>Octal 015 = 12 decimal.
>--
>David Fox
>dfox@quack.sac.ca.us

One of the nice things about UNIX is there is always more than one way to do
something.  I have a shell script "dos2unix" for handeling this conversion;
The script is a one liner:
	cat $* | sed -e 's///g'



-- 
INTERNET:  ray@Celestial.COM   Ray A. Jones; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!ray   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!ray   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
The probability of one or more spelling errors in this missive approaches
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
From: schwager@mike.cs.uiuc.edu (Mike Schwager)
Subject: Re: Exiting ksh with a running job
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 03:33:30 GMT

schwager@mike.cs.uiuc.edu (Mike Schwager) writes:


>Howdy,
>Quick question:  why won't ksh let me exit if I have a job running thusly:

>     command > /dev/null 2>1 &

>I should say, I can exit but it will kill the job!  Can I get ksh to be
>more kind?
>Thanks
>-Mike

Thanks for the lightning quick responses!  Got my answer:

     nohup command &

or in this case,

     nohup command > /dev/null 2>1 &

-Mike
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
From: guy@mais.hydro.qc.ca (Guy Harel)
Subject: Re-debating the system scripting tools?
Organization: Hydro-Quebec (DSB)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 14:39:54 GMT

This has surely been debated several times in this group, but I still would
enjoy a feedback from experienced users about the virtues of SH, CSH, KSH or
PERL as best scripting tool.

If there is a FAQ file on this, could someone please send me the reference?

If not, well let me briefly describe my experience:

1. Beside having to be able to debug old installation script, I dont see
any point in having to learn the Bourne Shell. The control statements
(if , while) are oldish and the logical operator 'test' ([) plain ugly.

Only the 'case' statement is to my liking.

2. The CSH contains all the control statements you want to get, plus adds
a more power with variable list processing. 

3. The KSH seems the response by AT&T engineer to the success of the CSH,
and is just the SH with CSH like features (list, history, ... )

4. PERL seems to contains all the control structure you want to get, plus
goes a step further than the CSH by adding 'associative' list.

Now, why do I want to learn PERL? 
Will it be standard with System V ?


Guy.


-- 
 Guy Harel
--
 Guy Harel
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: How to make Restrict Shell more safely?
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:40:18 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <1993Jan4.200732.7262@news.acns.nwu.edu>, navarra@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Navarra) writes:

| >  4. Remember that some programs give shell access via escapes, like vi,
| >emacs, etc. Some versions use PATH and are safe, some use /bin/sh and
| >are not at all safe.
| 
| Yeah, here is the BIG problem. If you want to let restricted users have 
| access to vi, mail, and news, you have the shell escape problem. This
| is not a trivial thing to fix -- especially if you don't have the source.

  Well, I have source for rn and Microemacs, so I can give people news
and a good editor. It may not be the editor they like best, but it's
there. I could grab one of the vi clones like vile, stevie or viper and
hack that, too. All you need is to be sure which sh is used.

| >  5. The *really* safe way to have guest users is to run them in a tiny
| >system of their own using chroot. It is very hard to do this without
| >losing a lot of functionality, however, so I don't do that.
| 
| 	Yeah -- try ftp. Really, if this is the kind of atmosphere you want
| your general users to have, why give them UNIX accounts at all? Run some
| server-client which connects to your machine, brings down news, mail, or
| whatever, and let the user fiddle with it on his own machine where he can
| have as much functionality/security he wants.

  The problem is that many users don't have their own machine or are
connected via low bandwidth line. And many people who want to allow
guests don't want to go to a huge effort providing fancy access modes.
The restricted shell is a reasonable compromise.

  BTW: you don't really need source to fix programs giving shell access,
a good binary file editor (I use bpe) will allow you to disable the
feature or restrict it. A bit of work, but not impossible.
-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
From: chris@engineer.mrg.uswest.com (Chris Fedde)
Subject: Re: How to make Restrict Shell more safely?
Organization: USWEST Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: engineer.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 04 Jan 93 18:18:35 GMT

In article <cslee.225.726145569@pds.nchu.edu.tw> cslee@pds.nchu.edu.tw (Lee Chee Siong) writes:
>Hi,
>  I want to creat a few accounts in Restrict Shell enviroment. In this 
>account, only a few command(e.g. vi, ftp, mail, news) can be used. Is
>there any suggestion to creat this environment to make it more security
>in my system?
>  Any comming is appreciate.
>
>
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
><>   CS Lee	(Lee Chee Siong)		<>  If you can give	<>
><>   National Chung Hsing University,		<>	  nothing else, <>
><>   Taichung, Taiwan, Republic of China.	<>  at least give a	<>
><>   Internet Address: cslee@pds.nchu.edu.tw	<>	  cheerful face <>
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>


Two aproaches come to mind
1) use /bin/rsh as login shell for these users. I think that there are
equivalents for csh and ksh.  It should be relatively easy to customize the
environments restrictions.

2) Set up a subdirectory /sub/dir with copies of all the required
binaries and data files.  Be sure to copy /bin/sh to /sub/dir/bin.
Exec /etc/chroot /sub/dir /bin/sh from the users login shell.
 
Chris Fedde, USWEST MRG, chris@mrg.uswest.com, voice +13037842823
From: cyberman@exucom.com (Stephen R. Phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: likely FAQ csh for msdos
Date: 4 Jan 93 00:21:40 GMT
Organization: ExuCom Multimedia Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]


Hello:

I need the source code for a csh compatible shell for MSDOS.
Why source?  I am will HAVE to make modifications to it to implement
something lacking in MSDOS.

Thank you email is prefered but if you feel this is of general intrest
I do read this group.

Cyberman

-- 
This is my sig file!
Read rec.games.programer!
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
From: tucker@bedford.progress.COM (Kyle Tucker)
Subject: read not reading
Reply-To: tucker@bedford.progress.COM
Organization: Progress Software Corp.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:08:39 GMT

Perhaps I'm losing it, but I swear this is what I see happening.

cat file | while read LINE
do
	if [ certain things are true about $LINE ]
	then
		do some stuff based on values in $LINE
	fi
done

Now, if I do "some stuff" , which is a lot of text hacking, etc, but
absolutely no exits,breaks,continues,etc, the read command sees no
more lines in the file. If I don't do "some stuff", then it reads next
line fine. sh -x shows the read is actually occuring, but ending as
if it sees EOF. Has this been seen before? This also occurs if the reads
are done through standard input.
 
Any help/experience with this greatly appreciated!

- Kyle
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kyle Tucker - Email Administrator  | 		Progress Software Corporation
tucker@bedford.progress.com 	   |		14 Oak Park
(617)280-4565			   |		Bedford, Mass. 01730
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
From: ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones)
Subject: Re: ?Determine shell from withing a program?
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA
Distribution: us
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 19:45:39 GMT

In <1993Jan3.052413.22316@netcom.com> gary@netcom.com (Gary Messenbrink) writes:

>Hi again,
>When I asked this question before, I apparently did not give
>enough background information.  I have a program that
>outputs a string that is to be executed by a shell.  It
>currently works only for ksh.  An example follows.
>    eval `program`
>This causes program to execute and produce a string which
>then gets passed to the shell for processing.
>The problem is that I do not know how to determine what shell
>was usedto invoke the eval command.  The program is to be
>distrbuted to other machines on a network where it will not be
>possible for me to enforce what shell is in use.  I do not want 
>to have a difference version of the program for each shell.
[stuff deleted]
>Garyi

You can force a script to be run by a particular shell by including a header
line in the script itself.  In your example:
    eval `program`
the file "program" would need one of the following lines as the first line
#!/bin/ksh		# to force Korn shell
#!/bin/sh		# to force Bourne shell
#!/bin/csh		# to force C-shell

you will have to make sure the the shell of choice is in the same place on
all the machines where it is to run.  If you don't have Korn on all the
machines and can run a Bourne shell script, put 
:
as the first line of the script.  This will force Bourne shell.  And
#
as the first line will force C-shell.  I don't know how to force Korn with
other than #!/bin/ksh.

Hope this helps.
-- 
INTERNET:  ray@Celestial.COM   Ray A. Jones; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!ray   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!ray   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
The probability of one or more spelling errors in this missive approaches