Linux-Advocacy Digest #668, Volume #26 Wed, 24 May 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: An honest attempt (Pete Goodwin)
Re: rdram: WIll is speed up a linux box? (john)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Yannick")
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Praedor Tempus)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save
It?) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Alexander Viro)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (George Russell)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (George Russell)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? ("Peter T. Breuer")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: An honest attempt
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 20:05:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote in <8g1vb6$ahj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>If you are running the desktop as root, you should see a 'drakconf'
>icon which gives you a big push-button menu of 11 configuration
>choices, one of which is linuxconf. Clicking it should give you
>the GUI linxuconf. If you are running as a user and su to root
>in an xterm, you'll have to be sure that you have given yourself
>permission (xhost + if you don't mind being open) to connect
>and make sure that DISPLAY is set right after the su.
I'm running as root. I get an xterm with a text version of linuxconf.
Pete
------------------------------
From: john <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: rdram: WIll is speed up a linux box?
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 15:05:44 -0500
rcanup wrote:
> john wrote:
> > <deleted>
> Airplane vs car analogy. In a car you get in turn the key and put it in
> gear to get it started. In a plane you go through a preflight proceedure
> - warm the engine up - get clearance from the tower - taxi to the runway
> - then go through your take off before you are faster than a car. Thus
> an airplane has a higer latency than a car. Think about how long it
> takes to launch a space shuttle; there is a coundown of several days for
> it. Faster usually contains an element of slower.
If the bus is clocking at a faster speed, where is the latency? The speed
at which data is passed from ram to the processor will be faster. I am not
trying to advocate a position here, but it seems that this faster bus speed
should increase performance. I am waiting for a persuasive contrary
argument.
I would think that if one had a choice between a faster processor and a
faster bus, one should choose the faster bus. Since this is always more of
a bottleneck in running a program.
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 20:18:42 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message : 8gedbl$nqe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <8gd4si$23mc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> In the Unix world yes, there is a difference between a panic and a
> frozen console. BUT, in the MS OS area a frozen console has the same
> result as a PANIC. The system MUST be rebooted to gain access to the
> console.
No :
- depends on what you call "frozen console". If you mean frozen mouse and keyboard,
this is quite rare in Windows, except for a few cases running buggy games with
a beta version of your video drivers. In fact I've experienced such a problem
more often under linux, only it was not only the console that was frozen, but
the entire machine.
- if a frozen console means explorer freezing (start menu+desktop), then all you have
to
do is crash
explorer (using Ctrl-Alt-Suppr task menu on Win9x or the task manager on WinNT).
Either
it will
start again (on Win9x it almost always does), or it does not and under NT you can
launch
it again
(or whatever you like) using the Task Manager.
Yannick
------------------------------
From: Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 14:27:14 -0600
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Yes, which does nothing to damage the code that continues to
> >> be available.
> >[...]
> >
> >But it leads to PRECISELY the problem that exists on the Windoze side of
> >the PC that is generally agreed to be bad.
>
> How does it lead to that?
> Please show where Windows has even used any available
> and well tested code, or how the existance of such code has
> ever led them to do anything. (The Win2k/kerberos business
> may be a first).
HTML is another (and yes, Netscape WAS also guilty). For all you
know, much of windows communication protocols are perverted standards
just like their HTML, kerberos, etc.
What I am getting at is NOT that closed source is good (nor will I say
it is bad...certainly not in all cases...not ALL software is really
setup to make money off service or support) and open source is
automatically
good. I am getting at the differences between the GPL/LGPL and BSD
licenses
and what they permit. It appears to me that a BSD license WOULD allow
for
M$ to come along, make use of and pervert some widely used BSD-licensed
protocol or library such that it will only fully and properly work with
their own propriatory apps (locking out competitors UNLESS they cough up
cash to buy access to the perversions, err...extensions).
It seems to me that the GPL/LGPL licenses protect more against a
Microsnot-like move by a big player "embracing, extending, and
extinguishing"
than does the BSD-style license which almost cheers it on.
> >M$ produces extensions to
> >some standard. Because they are big, powerful and influential AND
> >provide tools that MANY use that then utilize these
> >alterations/extensions,
> >creating software/web pages, etc that incorporate these extensions,
> >they lock out alternatives.
>
> Why do you imagine that the alternative of starting from scratch when
> writing this cruft intended to lock you in would be better in
> any way for any of us?
I certainly wouldn't call for someone to start from scratch when it
isn't
necessary. A license that addresses use of a protocol or library that
is
widely used and even depended upon should prevent propriatory extensions
that break interoperability. OpenGL, all internet/network communication
protocols, for instance, should never be permitted to be made
propriatory
by anyone. If you want something added to the standard library or
protocol,
go to the freakin body in control of the standard and request it be
added
or join the body and work it from there. Don't just dick over others
just because you want to try and force people to use ONLY your app or
system. That is why I am none to keen on some of the provisions of the
BSD license, as I understand it, vs GPL/LGPL. With the latter you are
free to add to it to your hearts content. Free to extend it as you
need/
want...but you can't keep the extensions secret and lock out others. If
your software isn't easy/intuitive/properly featured enough to win on
merit,
then it certainly doesn't deserve to win out due to ties to secret
protocols
or libraries forcing one to use it regardless.
> >Many people would use it (a RELATIVELY small core of
> >hardcore linux/bsd users are not significant in the big scheme so
> >THEIR refusal to go along is irrelevant in the larger market) and
> >break intercompatibility...hmmm...just like in the windoze world.
>
> Yes, but, being well tested, it would not cause everyone as
> much trouble.
I'm sorry, but "well tested"? By who? To whom do you refer as the
testers? M$? Hardly, if that is what you meant. If you meant the
general bsd community, then that is not true because the software
taken and extended and kept propriatory is no longer the code you
originally devised and tested. It is perverted and altered by a
company, in this case, that has NEVER demonstrated an ability to
properly test and debug their code.
>
> >BSD licenses vs GPL or LGPL, would foster this sort of thing. There
> >just isn't (yet) a big boy on the block like M$ taking advantage of
> >his weakness in the licensing scheme.g
>
> Beg your pardon? Just about every player in the internet market
> started with BSD code. I contend that we are all better off
> as a result.
I am not ragging on BSD. It has a definite place with definite
strengths.
I am just not overjoyed by the BSD-style license, UNLESS it is used
sparingly, so as to prevent incompatibility due to secret, propriatory
extensions
on many basic libraries or protocols by one bad actor with corporate
power.
[...]
> >
> >I honestly ask why this is not hypocrisy because I really don't see
> >why it isn't?
>
> Before you go too far down this road, ask yourself if you would
> be better off if Sun had been unable to use BSD code, or if NFS
> would have ever been done if the company had been forced to donate
> their work instead of being able to choose which parts to contribute.
> Or would X have ever been done if the companies that funded the
> work had not been able to incorporate it into their own proprietary
> products?
Don't get me wrong here, for I am not, en toto, against the BSD license.
I am not against a company/person making money off their software
either.
I AM against propriatory alterations to standard communication protocols
so that only product X will run well with operating system Y which only
works properly on a network made up of Y systems - locking out
competing products unless the creator coughs up money to gain
access to the minor alterations. I am against alterations to
essentially
standard libraries that serve no purpose other than to lock in
users/lock
out competitors. Each change would have been better if submitted to a
standards body and then incorporated into the general standard -OR-
barring
that (if the body doesn't go for it and you see a compelling need for
the
extension) then go ahead an make the extension but then be required to
release the extension so all can use it as they see fit (if used often
enough it would become the standard in a manor that didn't further force
some monopoly down everyone's throat).
Again, this should apply to certain types of code, not necessarily all
code.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary
Split Save It?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 20:30:52 GMT
Mayor writes:
>> Christopher Smith writes:
>>>>> We sic Tholen onto you.
>>>> Who is "we"?
>>> We is us.
>> Who is "us"?
> Us is "we", obviously.
Classic circular reasoning.
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 24 May 2000 21:49:10 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Hmm.. interesting. Windows requires a different version of himem.sys
> than
> > > the DOS version. That means you are replacing windows distribution
> files
> > > with OS/2 versions in order to make it work, which is not what was
> claimed
> > > (that retail unmodified Windows 3.1 ran in a VDM).
> >
> > Himem.sys was a part of DOS, not Win3.1. Try again.
>
> Yes, it is. But Windows shipped a different version, and when you install
> Windows, it changes your config.sys to point to the version in the windows
> directory.
>
> Try again.
So how come even this morning I was able to run a shop-bought copy of
Windows 3.1 in an OS/2 (Warp 3) VDM without even knowing at that point
about the himem.sys file that was supposed to have been changed?
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
This operating system/newsreader does not support the
advanced features of VapourSig 1.1.
Please upgrade your operating system/newsreader to the
latest version of RipOffCorp's product.
Have a nice day.
========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 24 May 2000 16:43:23 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>and what they permit. It appears to me that a BSD license WOULD allow
>for
>M$ to come along, make use of and pervert some widely used BSD-licensed
>protocol or library such that it will only fully and properly work with
Protocol can't be licensed. Get a clue, already.
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Russell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 20:51:59 GMT
On Wed, 24 May 2000 15:27:51 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>around? Or even two? If an application says it uses GTK+ ver x.y,
>
> YES.
>
> It allows for other platforms to be supported.
The QPL in no way forbids porting to BeOS / Mac/ Win 32.
Feel free to do so. Only TT's port to Win 32 is commercial.
George Russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Russell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 20:52:00 GMT
On 23 May 2000 13:07:01 GMT, David T. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The right is non-exlusive. That means everyone can get that right. I
>> think TrollTech is just trying to prevent forking of the Qt library
>> here.
Forking is allowed. Distribution via patches from pristine source - just like
what dpkg and rpm source files can do for you. Is that too fucking hard?
George Russell
(sick of whiners who cannot read an ASCII license file.)
Its called LICENSE.QPL btw.
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 24 May 2000 20:53:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <8gh98u$iqj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Lurking on the kernel list, or asking, tends to solve the problem.
:>Happens every day. Well, bugs crop up every two to three days.
:>Discussion about them goes on every day.
: This is fine for the handful of people who are working to solve
: current bugs. It is not so fine for the millions of people who
: are trying to work around what should be well understood bugs
: in released versions.
They wouldn't know a bug if it bit them in the nose and deleted every file
whose name ends in "e". It's the kernel developers and maintainers who
are interested in the bugs ,and they're interested in _getting_ bug
reports, because that's the hard bit.
:>Bugs that are reported more than once begin to become interesting.
:>Even popular!
: This is irrelevant to someone whose system has to work now.
They contact the newsgroup defence line for their distro. Kernel
list lurkers often answer there, if required, but 9999 times out of
ten thousand, they are looking at an application bug or a distro bug
or a configuration bug.
The last bug that hit anybody was when kppp broke becuase somebody
mended the kernel bug it depended on to find out if ppp was available
in the kernel. Millions of people never noticed that kernel bug.
Millions of them noticed at once when mending it broke kppp (and they
still pop up mumbling about the "this kernel was compiled without ppp"
error message). Not one of them has mailed the kernel developers with a
bug report.
:>It is very hard to locate or even describe a kernel bug.
: Again, a correct description is only relevant to a couple of
: people. The rest of the world just needs to know what circumstances
: break what thing, how to avoid it, and when it is fixed so they
: can stop taking those measures to avoid it.
You miss my point. I am saying that a kernel bug is INTRINSICALLY hard
to define. How do you know if the kernel is wrong? What is the standard
against which you are measuring it? It might be a legitimate behaviour,
and it might be the application that is broken. Nobody except a real
real expert can tell, and even then it's only an opinion. Lusers have
not a hope.
:>Waste his time? Doug's glad to respond to questions, as you know. It's
:>his code and he's interested in maintaining it! That's why his names's
:>up there. That's why he's working on it.
: It should never be necessary for a developer to tell someone else
: how to work around bugs. That is the real reason that bug tracking
Sure it should. Do you think they like sitting around in a cubicle all
day? Go 'way. You're no fun.
:>Oh, don't worry about that. Are you being funny here? I can't see any
:>smileys! As you know, the kernel list delivers a thousand or so mails a
:>day. Everyone copes with that. It's a question of grepping the subject
:>and deleting.
: And this is the list that you are suggesting that end users or
: administrators would use to see if a bug is already known?
You are purloining my words and selling them cheaply, while mixing
my aphorisms ... I am telling you that the end users can go dance in
hell, because you have a straw man there. There is no way a luser can
find or recognize a kernel bug that hasn't already been dealt with on
their distros newsgroups. If they're real interested they can sign up to
the list or browse archives on deja. At several hundred mails a day,
they'll be looking till kingdom come! If they're less interested they
can ask on a newsgroup, and let somebody who is filtering the stuff
through his brain answer. And they can check the newsgroup archives
too! Have a look at c.o.l.s. If they're really sure enough of
themselves to think they have detected a bug, they can post the mailing
list or the maintainer concerned. It is usually polite to post the list
first to get general feedback. If the resulting furore gets loud enough
the maintainer will pick it out of the kernel list noise and come
looking for you.
That's peer review.
Some lists are low volume. The eepro100 lists for example generally
spurt at up to about 10 a day, and then are silent for a while. Depends
on whether some interesting new chip/bug has been found. Lot's of
the eepro100 traffic actually turns up on the kernel list, for
"complicated" reasons involving various personalities. One can browse
those lists archives easily. And of course you can just read the driver
source comments and the web pages to see the bug history.
If you volunteer to host a bugtracker, btw, everyone will be happy.
It's no skin off anyone's back. But getting people to actually
use it is a social problem you should solve! The plain fact is that
point bugs are found and solved in hours .. way faster than a
bug tracking system can get in on. And the n-n communication is part of
that. It's Linus' "all bugs are visible to many eyes" line. Put
up a bugtrack system and you reduce the coommunication to n-1. You
isolate the developers from each other. That's no good.
: Les Mikesell
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
