From: laakkone@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tero Laakkonen) Subject: tlQ x 5 Date: 21 Sep 1992 16:25:36 GMT
hi,
here are 5 questions that have been bugging me lately. they are from unrelated
topics. if you post a reply to this posting, can you make the subject line
appear something like this (if you've addressed Q's 1 and 2):
> tlQ x 5 [1,2]
so people will know what's been addressed and what hasn't....
thanks in advance,
-tero.
============================================================================
1. when doing startx as non-root, why do i get the following error message:
============================================================================
X386 Version 1.2 / X Windows System [linux v1.1]
(protocol Version 11, revision 0, vendor release 5000)
Fatal server error:
Can't open /dev/tty0
giving up.
xinit: Invalid argument (errno 22): unable to connect to X server
xinit: No such process (errno 3): Server error.
[[[it hasn't always been like this. before, startx worked perfectly,
but then i got ghostscript and accidentally forgot to startx before
saying gs... i think it changed some permissions or something for some
weird reason... i've had a similar problem with kermit and /dev/ttys2;
that time i was able to see what the problem was, now i can't.]]]
============================================================================
2. what do people think of making a cweb version of linux?
============================================================================
Linus is known (among other things) for his dislike of writing
documentation for linux. this is understandable. in sw in general,
docs are totally separated from the program and *especially*
from the source code.
cweb would provide a method of writing linux concurrently with the docs.
naturally, you need to know the source code so you can produce a cweb version
(i don't know the source code...). however, if some docs have already
been written in TeX, they could maybe be combined with the linux src code to
get the stuff into cweb format.
the newest version of cweb is in anonymous@princeton.edu.
============================================================================
3. dvips doesn't work. why not?
============================================================================
when i type "dvips /usr/local/emacs/etc/vipcard.dvi":
This is dvips 5.47 Copyright 1986-91 Radical Eye Software
' TeX output 1992.07.29:2039' -> vipcard.ps
- MakeTeXPK cmbx10 518 300 magstep\(3.0\)
mf \mode:=imagen; mag:=magstep(3.0); scrollmode; input cmbx10 \</dev/null
This is METAFONT, C Version 2.7
it proceeds to make each letter.
Output written on cmbx10.4496gf (128 characters, 373396 bytes).
Transcript written on cmbx10.log.
good!
Metafont failed for some reason on cmbx10.518gf
why?
dvips: Font cmbx10.518pk not found, characters will be left blank.
dvips: Font cmr10.300pk not found, characters will be left blank.
dvips: Font cmbx10.432pk not found, characters will be left blank.
dvips: Font cmtt10.300pk not found, characters will be left blank.
dvips: Font cmti10.300pk not found, characters will be left blank.
dvips: Font cmbx10.300pk not found, characters will be left blank.
dvips: Font cmr7.300pk not found, characters will be left blank.
dvips: Font cmsy7.300pk not found, characters will be left blank.
dvips: Font cmsl10.300pk not found, characters will be left blank.
dvips: Font cmbx10.360pk not found, characters will be left blank.
<tex.pro>. [1
and then it dumps core. why?
============================================================================
4. is updating the kernel easy?
============================================================================
i'm running Linux 0.96c on my system at the moment. can i just get the
newest version of the boot image and boot with that? or are there problems
with this? i know that there is a problem with stuff like ps, but is this all?
if there's nastier stuff, what is it? in general, is Linux written so
that one can just get the newest boot image without major problems?
============================================================================
5. why the 6,135,616 bytes of ram report for 8 meg configuration?
============================================================================
i just installed some more ram on my machine. before i had 4 megs, now i
have 8 megs. after i'd installed it, the mem count went up to 8192k, but the
bios only recognized 7168 + 640! nevertheless, i booted linux, which reported
that i had 6,135,616 bytes of ram. i know some ram is used up by the disk
cache, but is this report approximately correct for 8 megs? i think it is, but
i just wanna be sure. i think the 7168 + 640 is a bug in the bios... when i
had 4 megs of ram, the bios only reported 3072 + 640! well, i couldn't find
any place to change this in the CMOS SETUP, so i must assume it's just a bug.
my bios is AMI from 90.04.09.
============================================================================