Linux-Development-Sys Digest #207, Volume #6 Sun, 3 Jan 99 21:14:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea (Larry Blanchard)
Use of LDT (Simon Berg)
Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea (Christopher B. Browne)
Re: rewrittable CD (James Youngman)
Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea (Frank Sweetser)
Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea ("Bjorn Wesen")
Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: BogoMips (David Steuber)
2.2.0pre4 dual boot with 2.0.36 question (Mark Jeacocke)
Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
GUI, The Next Generation (Ken Sorensen)
Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea (Tristan Wibberley)
2.2.0.pre4 fs/ntfs/inode.c compilation failure (N1ho)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Larry Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea
Date: 03 Jan 1999 11:18:00 PST
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> This is not 1985, computers are not just used by experts. As far as the linux
> kernel, see above.
>
I missed the first part of this thread, so forgive me if I'm reiterating
something already covered. Your comment above is correct, but "dumbing
down" the user interface isn't the answer (ask anyone involved in hiring
how well it's worked in our schools). The appropriate answer, IMNSHO,
is to provide the tools needed for the non-expert to easily learn how to
do the required modifications to make his system work as desired. Both
Windows and Linux are lacking here.
>
> The problem is Linux is not something just for IT departments. I dont need to
> be a mechanic to operate a car, nor an electrical engineer to use my stereo.
> In the same vein, users should not need to be sysadmins.
>
But your car and your stereo are both essentially single purpose tools.
As was said a long time ago, the computer should have been named "the
all-purpose tool". BTW, do you change oil, plugs, filters, etc. without
either a manual or prior experience?
>
> Computers are too hard to use. People who want to perpetuate reliance on
> experts are the reason why. Lets give people some power.
>
While I don't claim anything is impossible, simplicity and flexibility
are usually mutually exclusive goals.
--
Larry Blanchard - Old roses, old motorcycles, and old trains
Homo Sapiens is a goal, not a description.
------------------------------
From: Simon Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Use of LDT
Date: 03 Jan 1999 18:41:59 +0100
Is it safe to use a private LDT in a device driver ?
Do I need to do some locking or maybe even turn interrupts off ?
Which GDT slot should I use (currently I just picked #1 since it seems
to be unused )?
The reason I ask is that I have written a PnP-BIOS interface
implemented as a device. Since the BIOS is 16-bit I have to set up
a number of segments in a private LDT.
The problem is if I get a context switch while in the BIOS code, will
the scheduler handle this and will I get the same LDT back when the
process gets the CPU back?
So far I haven't noticed any problems, but I want to be sure.
simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea
Date: 3 Jan 1999 19:53:29 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 03 Jan 1999 12:40:46 -0500, Frank Sweetser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne) writes:
>
>> There would be merit to having a highly robust, *CONVENIENT TO USE* library
>> called, oh, say, libconfig.so, that provided, within a small amount of code,
>> some useful configuration functionality.
>
>ftp://tsx-11.mit.edu/pub/linux/BETA/profile/ is the package mentioned a
>couple weeks ago by Ted T'so that is exactly that. i've been working with
>it a bit on packaging it up into a nice standalone library, if Ted likes
>what he sees with it i expect he'll make it publicly availible.
Unfortunately, the fact that the file format and default extension look
remarkably like those used with That Other Platform is likely to raise some
hackles and cause prejudice against it.
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - "What have you contributed to Linux today?..."
------------------------------
From: James Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: rewrittable CD
Date: 02 Jan 1999 23:31:11 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frodo Looijaard) writes:
> Is anybody working on this functionality? I know it is possible, there is
> something like it for Windows. Even though it might be slow, it would be
> very useful!
It exists for Linux 2.1.x/2.2.x. See http://appindex.freshmeat.net/.
--
ACTUALLY reachable as @free-lunch.demon.(whitehouse)co.uk:james+usenet
------------------------------
From: Frank Sweetser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea
Date: 03 Jan 1999 15:38:24 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne) writes:
> On 03 Jan 1999 12:40:46 -0500, Frank Sweetser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne) writes:
> >
> >> There would be merit to having a highly robust, *CONVENIENT TO USE* library
> >> called, oh, say, libconfig.so, that provided, within a small amount of code,
> >> some useful configuration functionality.
> >
> >ftp://tsx-11.mit.edu/pub/linux/BETA/profile/ is the package mentioned a
> >couple weeks ago by Ted T'so that is exactly that. i've been working with
> >it a bit on packaging it up into a nice standalone library, if Ted likes
> >what he sees with it i expect he'll make it publicly availible.
>
> Unfortunately, the fact that the file format and default extension look
> remarkably like those used with That Other Platform is likely to raise some
> hackles and cause prejudice against it.
perhaps. but the syntax is a good deal more powerful than windows .ini
files, and i think the prensence of () and {} pairs should help people get
over the [header] and pair = value stuff <G>. as for the filename, you can
call it anything you want....
--
Frank Sweetser rasmusin at wpi.edu fsweetser at blee.net | PGP key available
paramount.ind.wpi.edu RedHat 5.2 kernel 2.2.0pre3 i586 | at public servers
> This made me wonder, suddenly: can telnet be written in perl?
Of course it can be written in Perl. Now if you'd said nroff,
that would be more challenging... -- Larry Wall
------------------------------
From: "Bjorn Wesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 23:13:11 +0100
Frank Sweetser wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> There would be merit to having a highly robust, *CONVENIENT TO USE*
library
>> called, oh, say, libconfig.so, that provided, within a small amount of
code,
>> some useful configuration functionality.
>
>ftp://tsx-11.mit.edu/pub/linux/BETA/profile/ is the package mentioned a
>couple weeks ago by Ted T'so that is exactly that. i've been working with
>it a bit on packaging it up into a nice standalone library, if Ted likes
>what he sees with it i expect he'll make it publicly availible.
I'm working on a web based configuration tool for small Linux systems, and
if there would be a library that could ease the interface between the cgi
scripts (or whatever) and the 20's of /etc config files that are necessary
to config, yes that would be a Good Thing.
I don't want every config-data in Linux in one big "registry" file (no
matter what format). It can very well be in different files, as long as they
are in /etc and internally they which _can_ have a canonical format, are
parseable in a general way using a general library.
I'm sure RedHat and the other vendors are well aware of this but since one
vendor doesn't control all included programs, it's up to the various
programmers to clean up their config formats of course :)
/Bjorn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 23:04:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 03 Jan 1999 12:40:46 -0500, Frank Sweetser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne) writes:
> >
> >> There would be merit to having a highly robust, *CONVENIENT TO USE* library
> >> called, oh, say, libconfig.so, that provided, within a small amount of code,
> >> some useful configuration functionality.
A library called "libconfig" exists. It is a .ini-file clone. I have looked
around a little and the library I find most promising is "libPropList". It is
distributed together with the window manager "Window Maker", so chance is you
already have it. What I would like to use would be a X Resource Manager clone
that does not require X, but with a few features Xrm lacks.
> Unfortunately, the fact that the file format and default extension look
> remarkably like those used with That Other Platform is likely to raise some
> hackles and cause prejudice against it.
I guess I have to remind you that the library is a part of Kerberos -
a security package that has been used on several thousand Unix sites
for many years now. =)
Besides, it is supposed to be multi-platform.
/ jjoohhaann@@ttiiqq..ccoomm
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BogoMips
Date: 02 Jan 1999 19:56:46 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Bruestle) writes:
-> It measures how fast a CPU can do nothing. There should be somewhere
-> a BogoMIPS FAQ.
It's discussed in the Benchmarking HOWTO.
--
David Steuber
http://www.david-steuber.com
s/trashcan/david/ to reply by mail
"Hackers penetrate and ravage delicate, private, and publicly owned
computer systems, infecting them with viruses and stealing materials
for their own ends. These people, they're, they're terrorists."
-- Secret Service Agent Richard Gill
------------------------------
From: Mark Jeacocke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 2.2.0pre4 dual boot with 2.0.36 question
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 09:47:32 +1000
Hi I'd like to help out a bit test out 2.2.0pre4 on my RedHat 5.2
system.
I've downloaded the src in .tar.gz format and I'm ready to try it out,
however in the past when I've built custom kernels the have all been
from the same kernel version.
For example what do I do with the "/usr/src/linux" symbolic link?
And the "/lib/modules/preferred" symbolic link?
I can edit lilo.conf once I've got the kernel images, but how will the
system
behave if the synbolics links are pointing to the wrong version?
Also, in the past I've used Slackware are there any RPM issues that I
need
to consider?
Thanks
Mark Jeacocke
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 23:40:27 GMT
In article <76mq45$93n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
.
>
> Sure, but that means it will have to be just as complex as the existing
> system and even fewer people will understand it.
I dont know the specifics of how sendmail parses it's config file, but other
than the actual rulesets, most other config options are well defined and
predictable. M lines can only have so many options, D and C and F lines
generally contain a single word, sometimes a list of words that are all the
same type of data. The rulesets are the only tricky part here. Since most
rulesets are beyond the capacity of normal users there's nothing preventing
them form just being blocks of text lines in the database, so sendmail can
retain it's power. If you need to add or modify a rule, add a line of text to
the apropriate ruleset. I dont want to take anyone's power away, What I'm
talking about is organizing all of the text files into a central place or
system. Imagine the sendmail.cf as a tree, with rulesets all being leaves,
macros being a leaf, C-lines as a leaf, etc... My point is, there are better
ways to do things than laying them out in a single flat file. You dont need
to change the way sendmail works to better organize it's information.
>
> You can bring the system up in single user mode to fix things in some
> circumstances. In slightly worse cases you can boot from a floppy
> with a small toolkit and rebuild most things with just a text editor.
> How do you propose to fix a registry based system when its database
> is damaged to a point that it won't run? Is this something you expect
> to fit on an already crowded floppy?
Doesn't it logically follow that if configuration is done through one API or
one system that the boot floppy would not be so crowded?
-Rich
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Sorensen)
Subject: GUI, The Next Generation
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 23:56:38 GMT
I know this will open a lot of critique and such, but I just want to
open an interesting discussion.
First, I've used Linux since ver 0.96 on and off, and think Linux is
absolutely wonderful for doing not what the market wants but what is
"right". By this I mean Linus didn't start Linux because he wanted to
whoop Microsoft's butt. Instead he wanted to build a really good OS.
Today Linux (the Kernel) is awesome, however the when we want to put
a pretty face on it (using X primarily) we mimic Windows/Mac style
GUI's. Linus didn't make Linux a copy of Win32 API, so why does a
GUI have to pretend to be a Windows GUI?
I'm not convinced that these GUI's are the "right" GUI. Think about it:
a 100 years from now, what will human-computer interfaces be like? Would
we look back at today's GUI (GNOME-style, KDE-Style) and say "Gee that
was like bear skins and stone knives."?
What I want to throw onto the table is this. What kind of UI would be the
"right" UI for the Next Generation UI? If we came up with the next
greatest GUI, then Microsoft, et. al. would be the ones playing catch-up.
Questions to Ask:
1. Why do apps need to be in overlapping windows?
2. Why does it have to be flag (not 3D)?
3. Why do we need a Mouse (or keyboard - it may be obvious but think about
it...)?
4. There was talk of "Color-Reactive" interfaces where an application
icon would have some indication of running, sleeping, etc.
Question all of your assuptions, take nothing for granted!
Ken
--
--
Ken Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999 23:52:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Robert Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sure, but would such a database actually be easier to build and use
> than the existing sendmail configuration mechanism (along with
> apropriate automation tools, perhaps)? That's the real question.
>
Easier to build? Maybe maybe not. Easier to maintain is the goal here.
>
> Sure, but they're a lot easier to recover than an opaque registry
> database. They're also modified very infrequently. A global registry
> database that's used by a lot of software (including user
> applications) is much more likely to be vulnerable to accidental
> corruption.
I stopped calling it a registry a few posts back to distance myself from
windows's hideous implementation of good idea. It should not be opaque, nor
should application software be accessing the same database as system config
data (it should be possible for aplictaions to read the system data, or link
to it, but never modify it This is why windows' registry is such a pirce of
junk) The question is where the line is between app and system. Sendmail
certainly could be either, or both. I'm not proposing details. I dont have a
prototype (yet) But I'd love to develop one. Keep telling me I'm wrong It
gives me more to think about :-)
>
> Certainly it is, but it's one more thing that has to be working in
> order just to get started.
I dont see how this is a valid argument. So it's something extra. Why is that
"wrong"? What does this have to do with centralizing the configuration data?
There cant be progress without change.
-Rich
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Tristan Wibberley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 01:14:07 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bjorn Wesen wrote:
>
> I'm working on a web based configuration tool for small Linux systems, and
> if there would be a library that could ease the interface between the cgi
> scripts (or whatever) and the 20's of /etc config files that are necessary
> to config, yes that would be a Good Thing.
There is already one, 'linuxconf'. Maybe you should consider
contributing to it.
--
Tristan Wibberley Linux is a registered trademark
of Linus Torvalds.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (N1ho)
Subject: 2.2.0.pre4 fs/ntfs/inode.c compilation failure
Date: 4 Jan 1999 01:59:38 GMT
inode.c: In function `ntfs_decompress_run':
inode.c:421: `ntfs_s16' undeclared (first use this function)
inode.c:421: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
inode.c:421: for each function it appears in.)
inode.c:423: `ntfs_s32' undeclared (first use this function)
make[3]: *** [inode.o] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.2.0/fs/ntfs'
make[2]: *** [first_rule] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.2.0/fs/ntfs'
make[1]: *** [_subdir_ntfs] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.2.0/fs'
make: *** [_dir_fs] Error 2
Note that this is a manual transcription, but I believe it's all there and
correct.
I took a quick look at the code, and didn't see any obvious syntax errors, so
it looks like some value didn't get picked up somehow, but I don't know where.
BTW, 'make xconfig' was fixed (compared to what I saw in 'pre2') and apparently
the menu has grown like a St. Bernard puppy.
======
If you send me spam (except for Hormel products), be aware that I'll simply
forward
it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and let AOL's legal team handle it as they see fit.
------------------------------
** 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.development.system) 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-Development-System Digest
******************************
