HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eeron@techunix.technion.ac.il (Ron Daisy)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.msdos
Subject: How to install Linux
Date: 12 Apr 92 09:00:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: discus.10546
Reply-To: eeron@techunix.technion.ac.il (Ron Daisy)
Organization: Technion, Israel Inst. of Technology

Can some one tell me what is the way to get the bootdisk
and the rootdisk for Linux installing?
From: erc@pogo.Corp.Sun.COM (Ed Carp)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.msdos
Subject: Re: Reading PC/DOS diskettes on Sun 4 workstations
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:21:54 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogo.corp.sun.com

In article <ku4bekINN5gv@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> erc@pogo.Corp.Sun.COM (Ed Carp) writes:

>Try "mtools".  Available from the nearest comp.sources.* archive.  MUCH faster than
>/pc-whatever-it-is...:)

It's either called "mtools" or "sparc-mtools". The sparc version runs on a sun 4/sparc/whatever
out-of-the-box! :)
--
Ed Carp                                      415/336-0797 (work)

++ UNIX  SysAdmin, Systems  Programming  Services,  Utilities ++
++ and Programmer Productivity Tools                          ++
From: bill@Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.msdos
Subject: Re: WIN 3.0 on VP/ix
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:42:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: Celestia.1992Apr13.154242.2912
Organization: Celestial Software, Mercer Island, WA

In <703096158.F00001@asstdc.csource.cec.edu.au> michael.butler@f515.n712.z3.asstdc.csource.cec.edu.au (michael butler) writes:


: > I'm attempting to install MS Windows 3.0 on XENIX 2.3.2 and VP/ix.

:[ .. ]

: > General Protetction Fault, unable to emulate instruction.

: > Does anyone have any hints as to what's happening?

:Windows is attempting, because it 'sees' a sufficiently large amount extended
:memory, to switch into 286-style protected mode. When, under DOS, it starts
:out in real mode, that's legit but from 386 VM mode, it's a no-go.

:There was a patch for this posted on the net but I've long since misplaced it
::-(

:    michael
:    imb@asstdc.csource.cec.edu.au

Well.  Since my mail to the original poster bounced, here's the
original post that I have to fix this.

 From: Ken J. Priddy <hpspkla.spk.hp.com!wwc1!pridke@relay.hp.com>
 Message-Id: <9011220101.AA00103@wwc1.wwc.edu>
 To: sco-list@uunet.uu.net
 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 90 17:00:57 PST
 Subject: win3.0 patch for ODT (probably others)
 
 I have gotten windows 3.0 installed on Open Desktop and it should work
 the on VP/IX also.  Windows uses a combination of stack and flag manipulations
 to determine the CPU type.  The invalid instruction is an operand size prefix.
 What this patch does is forces the checking routine to think it's running
 on an 8086 before it tries to do the operand size prefixes.
 
 The following instructions are how I got windows 3.0 to work for me.
 
 Copy disk 1 so that you can make changes.
 rename kernel.exe to kernel.dat on the copy.
 using debug or some such debuger change es:8b5a from 0B to 31 as follows
     debug kernel.dat
     d es:8b58 l8  /* should display 8B C4 0B C0 FF B1 20 D3 */
     e es:8b5a 31
     w
     q
 
 now rename kernel.dat to kernel.exe
 run setup from this copy it should work.  It does on mine.
 
 -------------
 #include <standard-disclaimer>
 pridke%wwc1@hpspkla.spk.hp.com

Bill
-- 
INTERNET:  bill@Celestial.COM   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   6641 East Mercer Way
             uunet!camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?
From: michael.butler@f515.n712.z3.asstdc.csource.cec.edu.au (michael butler)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.msdos
Subject: WIN 3.0 on VP/ix
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 02:25:00 +1000

 > I'm attempting to install MS Windows 3.0 on XENIX 2.3.2 and VP/ix.

[ .. ]

 > General Protetction Fault, unable to emulate instruction.

 > Does anyone have any hints as to what's happening?

Windows is attempting, because it 'sees' a sufficiently large amount extended
memory, to switch into 286-style protected mode. When, under DOS, it starts
out in real mode, that's legit but from 386 VM mode, it's a no-go.

There was a patch for this posted on the net but I've long since misplaced it
:-(

    michael
    imb@asstdc.csource.cec.edu.au


Newsgroups: comp.unix.msdos,comp.unix.admin,comp.os.misc
From: peter@ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Question for net.views column in UNIX Today!
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:20:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr4.005058.27949@afterlife.ncsc.mil> pjangli@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Philip Anglin) writes:
> My opinion about this: If DOS attempted to provide all the
> functionality of UNIX, it would be equally difficult to
> administer.

That doesn't necessarily follow... there's a wide range in UNIX systems where
administration is concerned. System V.3.2 is pretty good (though they don't
use their best tools all the places they could), where most BSD systems really
ingest fecal matter. There are a lot of ways that UNIX systems could be
simplified, but aren't... from simple stuff like moving ALL log files to a
common part of the tree and making all commands call perror instead of
printing "can't open file" up to replacing older programs that have accumulated
a lot of warts with new redesigned tools.

But even granting this, you can *certainly* provide a large subset of
UNIX's functionality without having anything like the complexity. The
Amiga has demonstrated that for the past 6 years. Not that it doesn't
have its own selection of unfixable design flaws, but there's a LOT of
room between DOS and full UNIX for Unix Lite to grow in.
-- 
/F { dup /Courier findfont exch scalefont setfont } def /S { show } def /L { 12
mul 36 add 36 exch moveto } def 24 F 2 L (Have you hugged your wolf today?) S
12 F 1 L (Peter da Silva, Ferranti International Controls Corporation) S
0 L (Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012;  +1 713 274 5180) S
From: green@rwja.umdnj.edu (Cliff Green)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.msdos
Subject: Re: tcp/ip software for dos
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:41:31 GMT
Organization: Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway NJ

oklein@smallo.bo.open.de (Olaf Klein) writes:

>Hello,

>I'M looking for tcp/ip software for Dos. The software must have:
>1) vt220 (or similar, I need german "umlaute". I would like to have the
>complete IBM character set, but this isn't necessary)

I haven't done this first hand and can't verify it, but MSKermit 3.11 is
supposed to allow tcp/ip connections via packet drivers, and it will
emulate vt320's - that ought to give you the vt220 capability....

>2) an lpd - I have to connect a printer to a PC with access from a
>Unix-station (sparc-2) 

This seems to be the current grail many of us are searching for -- see 
the lpd materials in the CUTCP and/or NCSA Telnet collections.

>3) I need it fast...

Is anonymous ftp fast enough?

>4) It has to be cheaper than SUN-PCNFS, (together with a workstation,
>I get almost an X-Terminal for the price - 1200 german marks or $750)

Is free cheap enough?


--
Cliff Green
green@umdnj.edu
Academic Computing Services
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
From: msp2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Post)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.msdos
Subject: pkzip/unzip from UNIX
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:30:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Apr7.183056.17227
Reply-To: msp2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations


Are there pkzip/pkunzip programs which I can run under UNIX?
It would be nice to know if the zip files are corrupted BEFORE I download!!
Thanks.

P.S.  Just naming an FTP site would be sufficient if someone knows of one.
      Or access to C source code, etc....
From: sumargoh@serss0.fiu.edu (H. Sumargo)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.msdos
Subject: A Device Driver that Maps any LPT# Port to Network Port
Keywords: Network
Date: 15 Apr 92 01:04:04 GMT
Organization: Florida International Univ.


I appologize if this is not the right place to post the above question.  But, who knows if I get the response.

I have a 386-20 Zenith currently attached to the network with ethernet card.  What I would like to do is to be able to print from any DOS application to the network printer either directly or through a redirection.  For this, I am looking for a device driver that allows me to map any LPT# port to the network port such that if I print to that port, it will be redirected to any of the designated network printer.  Please send you response to sumargoh@serss0.fiu.edu

Thank you.
From: rab@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (Richard Alan Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.msdos
Subject: would the real MKS tools stand up....
Keywords: ver 3.1 ver 3.2?
Date: 7 Apr 92 05:09:24 GMT
Organization: School of Physics, University of Melbourne


We have finally received our MKS tookit package (after a *long* wait),
and I have a question....
We ordered MKS ver 3.2 as advertised, but we got MKS ver 3.1c
Dum, de Dum Dum......
Now.... is the latest version MKSv3.2? or is it v3.1c?
It took AGES for this stuff to arrive and the 
prospect of another 'n' month wait would not be a pleasant
one.

Any ideas...


Thanks AListair Scott

afs@tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au
From: erc@pogo.Corp.Sun.COM (Ed Carp)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.msdos
Subject: Re: pkzip/unzip from UNIX
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:20:13 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogo.corp.sun.com

In article <1992Apr7.183056.17227@midway.uchicago.edu> msp2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Are there pkzip/pkunzip programs which I can run under UNIX?
>It would be nice to know if the zip files are corrupted BEFORE I download!!
>Thanks.

unzip 4.2 was recently posted.  zip and unzip should be in /usenet/comp.sources.* on
uunet.

Or, if you want, I can mail them to you.
--
Ed Carp                                      415/336-0797 (work)

++ UNIX  SysAdmin, Systems  Programming  Services,  Utilities ++
++ and Programmer Productivity Tools                          ++
From: wmue@chamber.in-berlin.de (Wolfgang Mueller)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.msdos
Subject: Re: would the real MKS tools stand up....
Keywords: ver 3.1 ver 3.2?
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:46:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: chamber.1992Apr08.014625.6977
Organization: Zombie's Burial Chamber, Berlin, West Germany.

rab@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (Richard Alan Brown) writes:


>We have finally received our MKS tookit package (after a *long* wait),
>and I have a question....
>We ordered MKS ver 3.2 as advertised, but we got MKS ver 3.1c
>Dum, de Dum Dum......
>Now.... is the latest version MKSv3.2? or is it v3.1c?
                               ^^^^^^^^ today I installed 3.2, but I
			       got it several weeks ago :-)

>It took AGES for this stuff to arrive and the 
>prospect of another 'n' month wait would not be a pleasant
>one.

>Any ideas...

 I think there are two possibilities:
 1) choose another dealer
 2) notice: the pacific seems to be a bit larger then the atlantic
 :-)

>Thanks AListair Scott

>afs@tauon.ph.unimelb.edu.au
Tschuess
	Wolfgang
--
wmue@chamber.in-berlin.de
Newsgroups: comp.unix.msdos
From: justin@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Justin Ridge)
Subject: Help for a beginner :-)
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:27:07 GMT

Hi... this is one of those fairly general questions but I would REALLY
appreciate any advice.
We have a 486 PC in our user support office which I am going to be using.  My
line is networking, and the PC networks *abysmally* -- PC POP-Mail is utterly
disgusting.  What I would like to do is run Unix on the PC (I'm more at home
with Unix).
The problem is this:  most of our user-support questions deal with Windows and
Windows applications.  Therefore I will not be getting tracts of money to buy a
Unix OS, and must still be able to run Windows applications without reinstalling
the OS or something.

Therefore, can someone tell me if it is possible to get a PD Unix OS for the PC,
or at least a cheap one, and what the options are for running things like
X-windows, and also how accessible my MS-DOS based apps will be.

The 486 is 33 MHz with a 105 Mb HD, but I can easily switch this for a 300 Mb.

Many thanks,
Justin R.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Ridge,             |    Phone:  +61 02 202811
Computing Centre          |    Fax  :  +61 02 231772
University of Tasmania    |    Email:  Justin.Ridge@cc.utas.edu.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Xref: sparky comp.unix.msdos:626 comp.unix.xenix.sco:1905
From: pf@artcom0.north.de (Peter Funk)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.msdos,comp.unix.xenix.sco
Subject: Re: WIN 3.0 on VP/ix (SCO XENIX)
Summary: It works somehow. Not really useful.
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:36:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: artcom0.3387
Followup-To: comp.unix.xenix.sco
Organization: ArtCom GmbH, Atelier f. Computergrafik, Bremen(FRG)

In <703096158.F00001@asstdc.csource.cec.edu.au> 
	michael.butler@f515.n712.z3.asstdc.csource.cec.edu.au (michael butler) 
writes:
>  > I'm attempting to install MS Windows 3.0 on XENIX 2.3.2 and VP/ix.

> [ .. ]

>  > General Protetction Fault, unable to emulate instruction.

>  > Does anyone have any hints as to what's happening?

> Windows is attempting, because it 'sees' a sufficiently large amount extended
> memory, to switch into 286-style protected mode. When, under DOS, it starts
> out in real mode, that's legit but from 386 VM mode, it's a no-go.

> There was a patch for this posted on the net but I've long since misplaced it
> :-(

I've obtained SLS 'xnx296' from sosco.  After installing this 
Operating system upgrade, Windows 3.0 installs and runs under
VP/ix without any further patching required. 

Unfortenately, there is not enough memory for serious applications
(e.g. Corel Draw) and the performance is so incredible slow .... 
so slow ....  You cann't perform any real work with windows 3.0 
under VP/ix.  

My setup :
OS:   SCO XENIX 2.3.2 GT upgraded to nominal rel. 2.3.3 with UFN
      (xnx296 is an alias for UFN) and VP/ix 1.2.0.
Host: AMI 80386, 25 MHz, 8 MB
VGA:  Tseng labs ET-4000 "Turbo Mega Eva/1024" with hicolor DAC.  
      Only 640 x 480 x 16 mode does work under VP/ix.

Regards, Peter
P.S.: usual "english is not my native language" disclaimer applies.
-=-=-
Peter Funk \\ ArtCom GmbH, Schwachhauser Heerstr. 78, D-2800 Bremen 1
Work at home: Oldenburger Str.86, D-2875 Ganderkesee 1/phone : top secret
From: root@cpp.uucp (Rich Bauer)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.msdos
Subject: Dos Under Xenix
Keywords: Dos, Xenix
Date: 16 Apr 92 02:38:45 GMT
Organization: Critical Path Project

I am using a 25 mhz 386 with Xenix to support a BBS and 3 2400
baud modems and one 9600 baud wyse term.  I want to be able to run
MSDOS programs, and essentially have an MSDOS machine for work while
the BBS and C-news execute in the back ground.

VP/ix has been suggested.  Talking to SCO has been an exercise in
futility.  I would like to hear from some experienced VP/ix users what
the limitations of VP/ix would be running under my configuration.

What kind of performance will I get?  What kinds of hardware and
software incompatibilities exist?  If I crash "DOS" does the rest
of Xenix remain unaffected and continue to run?
 
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Rich Bauer - Critical Path Project Inc.                 |
| UUCP...!dsinc!jabber!phlpa!cpp!rich  or rich@cpp.UUCP   |
----------------------------------------------------------- 
Newsgroups: comp.unix.msdos
From: rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris)
Subject: Re: Telnet server for PC?
Organization: RF Engineering, Del Mar, California
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 00:50:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.112910.9979@leland.Stanford.EDU> shgoh@leland.stanford.edu (Seow-Hiong Goh) writes:

> Is there a telnet server available for PCs?  Ie., I would
> like to be able to remote logon from my workstation to my
> PC over the network into the DOS environment.  I am in
> particular looking for one that works with FTP software's
> PC/TCP network package.

DESQview/X (which is *finally* shipping) is the only product
I know of that meets all your criteria.

--
Rick Farris  RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014  voice (619) 259-6793
rfarris@rfengr.com     ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris      serenity bbs 259-7757
From: jkreyka@cs.vu.nl (Kreijkamp J)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: sockets
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:50:48 GMT

Hello, I'm trying to make a communication channel with sockets,
but it isn't going very well at the moment...
Can anyone PLEAAAASEE tell me how to connect two sockets?
(Let's say two sockets:
  s1 = socket(PF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
  s2 = socket(PF_UNIX, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
)
If possible also code how to unconnect, and more important how to 'unbind'
names if 'bind' is used.

Tanx in advance,

        Jaap Kreykamp
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
From: hcg6805@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Heien-Kun  Chiang)
Subject: Mr. Rochkind's "Advan. Unix Programming" source listing?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:07:30 GMT


    I looked throught the archives ('88-'91) of our site, and couldn't
find the infor., hopefully this is not a FAQ.

    Is the source listing of Mr. Rochkind's book "Advanced Unix Programming"
ftpable.  If not, then I will have to go ahead and type all the examples.

    Thanks in advance.


    H.K.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
From: jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Subject: Re: send()
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:54:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.191046.21349@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mulcihy@mimas.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (David Mulcihy 283-4279) writes:

   I have two computers talking to each other using tcp. I then add another 
   computer talking to the first computer. While using send() I get the 
   error EFAULT while trying to send data to the first computer. The unix
   function perror translates this error as Bad address. Has someone else
   encountered this error? Is this an error on the sending machine or the
   receiving machine?

From send(2):

ERRORS
     ...

     [EFAULT]            An invalid user space address was speci-
                         fied for a parameter.

Since the only address passed into send() is the message pointer,
presumably you are either (a) passing in an invalid address for that
pointer, or (b) passing in a length that is too large and that causes
the kernel to fall off the end of your valid address space while
reading the message.

-- 
Jonathan Kamens						jik@MIT.Edu
MIT Information Systems/Athena		    Moderator, news.answers
    (Send correspondence related to the news.answers newsgroup
	{and ONLY correspondence related to the newsgroup}
		 to news-answers-request@MIT.Edu.)
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: Effective user ID's
Date: 13 Apr 1992 20:34:53 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1992Apr13.075024.26582@descartes.waterloo.edu> dcborean@descartes.waterloo.edu (David Borean) writes:
>I've come
>accross commands for setting effective user ID's and effective user Group ID's
>and was wondering exactly how you do that.  How can you set an Effective
>User ID? and then set UID to EUID?

I don't know about "commands" (things you invoke from the shell) for doing
it, but there are system calls that do it.

These are used by set-uid and set-gid programs, so that they can revert the
process to the original ID (the real user/group ID) of the caller.  They
can't be used by non-set-[ug]id programs (except in the trivial way, to set
the ID to itself).

>Any help on this would be appreciated.. also, the applications of such a
>procedure would also be appreciated.. obviously setting your effective
>ID to root isn't going to give ou Root's access.. So any applications to these
>commands would be appreciated.. 

Your effective ID is the one that is used for access checks, so if it were
set to 0 then you *would* have superuser acccess.  This isn't a problem,
because ordinary processes can't set their effective ID to 0.  When you run
a setuid program, your effective ID is the one that is affected.

Typically, a set-[ug]id program only needs to be run as the alternate
user/group temporarily, usually to open a special file.  After that, it
reverts to the real user/group ID so that it only has the caller's usual
access to the rest of the system.  This is especially important when the
program is setuid to the superuser.

A good example would be the "crontab" command.  It is setuid root so that
it can write into /usr/spool/cron/crontabs.  But when it is used with a
filename argument, you want it to complain if the user doesn't have access
to the specified file.  If it were running with effective UID of 0 then the
user would be able to specify any file (unless the program goes to extra
effort to check access, and this has timing problems).  So it only sets its
effective UID to 0 while it's opening the spool file, and sets it back to
the real UID while it's opening the argument file.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
From: l1ngo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Swift)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: ethics of logging telnet destinations (was Re: logging outgoing...)
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:20:17 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado at Denver

In article <1992Apr13.234624.3733@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> spm2d@topaz.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven P. Miale) writes:
>In article <2794@copper.Denver.Colorado.EDU> l1ngo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Swift) writes:
>>Let me clarify this. I only intended to log which hosts a user connects to.
>
>I don't believe that is any of your business. Where someone telnets to,
>who they send mail to, etc., should not be logged. Your plan sounds
>an awful lot like "Big Brother" to me.
>
>>The consensus of the responses seems to be to go ahead and modify telnet
>
>Hahahaha... "Most hacker's won't bother to recompile telnet?" Well, I
>*WOULD*. Of course, you seem to believe hackers are bad evil creatures.
>You are VERY wrong. You've probably been helped by hackers quite a
>bit in your quest - real hackers, that is.

I would consider myself a hacker in the original sense of the word, so no,
I don't think hackers are evil creatures.  The hackers I'm referring to are
the media-hyped system penetrators. Hackers have created an atmosphere
of paranoia in the once open computing environment--much like drug gangs
might prompt everyone in a small town to lock and bar their once open doors
and windows in fear. I suppose we should thank the gang members for pointing
out blatant security holes like unlocked doors and windows too.

>I believe it CAN hurt you. Let me see - "Tell me, where have you
>telnetted to? After all, if you have nothing to hide..." Sounds
>like the Gestapo to me. 
>
>>As for the privacy issue a poster brought up, it really doesn't apply in
>
>I believe the privacy issue does matter in your case. Logging where
>people telnet to is the same as the government keeping tabs on where
>you are at all times, or keeping track of who you correspond with.
>In other words, you are presuming guilt, and that is not a very
>American idea.

The telephone company logs all your long distance call destinations.
Are you suggesting that they are presuming guilt or are un-American?

As other posters have pointed out, a computer account is a privilege,
not a right. System administrators have an obligation to ensure the
safety of users' data. Computer logs are usually used to diagnose
a problem with the system.

Lin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
l1ngo@copper.denver.colorado.edu  -- Computational Math Network Sysadmin
          University of Colorado at Denver:  "Searchless AI!"
     "First, assume a spherical camel..." -- Robots on Your Doorstep