Linux-Development-Sys Digest #265, Volume #6 Tue, 12 Jan 99 22:14:16 EST
Contents:
Re: Why I'm dumping Linux, going back to Windblows (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: silly question (Theo Honohan)
Re: A Call To Arms (MalkContent)
Re: disheartened gnome developer (Marco Anglesio)
Re: silly question (Steve Carter)
Re: Open Configuration Storage - was Registry for Linux (George MacDonald)
Re: disheartened gnome developer (Christopher B. Browne)
Re: moving linux to different partition (Tristan Wibberley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Why I'm dumping Linux, going back to Windblows
Date: 12 Jan 1999 10:02:00 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jan Andres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Johan Kullstam wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > > the way find seems to have
>> > > been done by someone from a non-unix planet and the way it only does
>> > > 90% of the job leaving you to do things like
>> > >
>> > > find <dir> -type f -name '*~' -print | sed 's!.*~!mv \1 ~/.trash!' | sh
>> >
>> > I agree find is ugly, and the interface could be better.
>
>I think this is the way Unix is meant to be used: You don't have
>multiple programs that partially do the same thing, as this would be
>like reinventing the wheel. Rather, you can solve (almost) every
>problem by a combination of multiple programs.
Exactly. You just have to get used to the idea that every
program automatically includes the functionality of all the
others. The syntax of find may be ugly but if you learn it
once (or know how to peek at the man page when you need it)
you can generate the list of files to drive any other operation
whether the other program's author anticipated the need for
this particular batch selection or not. And, note that any
frequently repeated operation can be made into a shell script
or alias. If you think the above operation should be a one
word command, make it one - it is as easy as typing the line
into a file and 'chmod +x'ing it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Theo Honohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: silly question
Date: 12 Jan 1999 16:12:41 +0000
Steve Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> It got me thinking about a graphical pipe constructor, so you can type in
> your command line at the bottom, and the shell parses it and draws a block
> diagram in another window. This prevents commands being issued when the
> quoting is wrong, for instance. You could also put in a click-and-drag
> interface for connecting pipelines, for beginner users... sorry going off
> into fantasy land now...
Paul Haeberli wrote a system something like this called "Conman". It
was designed with graphics in mind, but the interface was expressive
enough for the kind of things you're talking about.
See "Conman: a visual programming language for interactive graphics" in
the Siggraph '88 proceedings. It's not on the web.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MalkContent)
Subject: Re: A Call To Arms
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.m68k
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 15:58:15 GMT
Hey, of all the wonderful possibilities for Linux, the windoze principle is fine -
help the less thecnical of us along.
However, one still needs to address the issue of exactly how much a pain in the a$$
linux becomes for one changing over to any other OS (not that windows is a real
OS...but thats another argument.)
As one of the converts, i personally mourn the loss of some of my windows games... and
can't really see a mass marketing for a linux game.
Imagine for a moment how many people actually use linux for their home machines.
Relatively few.
Consider for another moment how many people using linux get mildly insulted when one
suggests paying for software (after Linux is free...)
The financial feasibility is extremely limited...after all, why market to a small
subsection of the computer using population when marketing to the windoze portion
spend more?
It'd be nice to be in the days of "available for Dos, windows, or Linux"
but nobody stepped up, and its to the point of either being one OS or the other.
Larry Morley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: John,
:
: I agree with you in principle - first off, I'd wouldn't buy a
: pre-built computer, but I certainly wouldn't pay for software I didn't
: want - but I would hate to see UNIX in general (Linux in particular)
: mass-marketed as the be-all and end-all of computing.
:
: Just remember that not too many years ago, Windows 286 and 386 were
: the "new kids on the block", struggling to get an in into "mainstream"
: computing. A lot of developers embraced them, and look what happened
: as a result...
:
: Think about this - ever have a neighbor who's '95 system bit the
: dust for one reason or another, and had to try and reload it from an
: OEM CD? Remember, "Jane & Joe User" have enough trouble remembering
: to shut their systems down correctly, many still confuse hard disk
: space with RAM, and a lot don't know what a CPU or Video Card is,
: let alone which one they have. I think it's a safe bet they would
: end up pretty disgruntled, and pretty quickly.
:
: Fortunately, I don't see Linux falling through the cracks like OS/2
: pretty much did - that wasn't as much Bill's doing as IBM's failure
: to market it. Rather than trying to force Linux on people, though,
: I'd rather they found it themselves. In the meantime, let
: Microsoft take the heat and deal with the handholding while folks
: get up to speed with computing in general. If we keep developing for,
: porting software to, and otherwise promoting Linux, it'll catch on
: where it should (and it's clearly doing so). Its already possible
: to buy a computer with Linux preloaded (the Qube from Cobalt Networks,
: for example). Hopefully, in the not too distant future, it'll be
: possible to buy a computer with 1) either no OS loaded on it, or
: 2) with one of your choosing, as a rule rather than the exception.
:
: One last thing - I've yet to see one OS that could be all things to
: all people. Linux, NetWare, OS/2 and yes, even Windows each do certain
: things very well. There's others, too, like FreeBSD, BeOS, and
: Solaris. When I'm designing a complex system, I try to capitalize on
: this, and use each where it's best suited. I'd like to see more
: emphasis from *all* on connectivity / interopability. When and if we
: reach the point that an end-user can use the platform they feel most
: comfortable with, be it a Mac, Amiga, Sun Workstation or a PC, without
: creating a nightmare for an IS department or limiting usability, I'll
: personally be quite happy.
:
: Regards,
: Larry Morley
:
: John Garrison wrote:
: >
: > I am writing this because it is about time that we as Linux users made
: > a stand for our right to equal computing...
------------------------------
From: Marco Anglesio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: disheartened gnome developer
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:21:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.system Toon Moene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marco Anglesio wrote:
>> That said, Marx is not *that* difficult or long a read, and is probably as
>> essential as any other work to political consciousness of any flavour.
> Pfff, are you sure ?
Yes, I'm sure :). Compare Marx to TAOCP - Marx is (marginally) ahead,
although TAOCP is probably a tad more practically useful. _Das Kapital_ is
probably one of the more gruelling endurance tests of politics from that
time, though. _The Communist Manifesto_ is much more accessible.
> Those 19th century economists were booooooriiing.
Most 19th century writers were boooooooriiing. Not just the economists:
everyone.
And now, back to your regularly scheduled newsgroup.
marco
--
Marco Anglesio Like Captain Idiot
mpa at the-wire dot com in Astounding Science comics
http://www.the-wire.com/~mpa (The Manchurian Candidate)
------------------------------
From: Steve Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: silly question
Date: 12 Jan 1999 15:50:20 GMT
ebatchelor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Why the convoluted, hard to recall, someone thought it was funny in 1975
: utility names? It seems to me that BASH could be easily recoded to
: include easy to use and remember identifiers without giving up ANY
: functionality.
Heh! This brings up a metaphor I've been thinking on; unix is like a LEGO
set, where bill gates sells you a dolls house, unix gives you a supply of
bricks, then when bill gates sells you a garage to go on your doll house,
and a car to go in it, all you do it make some more out of bricks. OK
they won't _look_ at slick, but they do the job. Anyway, that metaphor's
falling apart a bit now, so moving swiftly on...
It got me thinking about a graphical pipe constructor, so you can type in
your command line at the bottom, and the shell parses it and draws a block
diagram in another window. This prevents commands being issued when the
quoting is wrong, for instance. You could also put in a click-and-drag
interface for connecting pipelines, for beginner users... sorry going off
into fantasy land now...
--
Steve Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] See also http://chocfest.york.ac.uk/
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily
my own, let alone those of the University of York.
------------------------------
From: George MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Open Configuration Storage - was Registry for Linux
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 02:12:42 GMT
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> George MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I think you are missing the point if you are still thinking about
> >> an 'install process' and answering questions per machine. You
> >> could just copy the same image onto hundreds of machines, plug them
> >> into a network and come up running with everything necessary coming
> >> from the DHCP server plus the initial config setup download. If
> >> you move the machine to a different network, it should reconfigure
> >> itself.
> >
> >Well installing images on disks as an install process would make
> >many assumptions. What about machines that have no ethernet cards?
> >Stand alone systems are perfectly viable.
>
> You can detect a network failure pretty quickly and move on
> to the next possibility just like detecting the lack of a file.
> The only slow failure mode is where you make a DNS request but
> you don't actually have a connection to a working server - as
> long as this timeout is logged to the console along with what
> to do about it, I don't see a problem.
>
Your assuming I want to plug into the network, try assuming
I don't.
> >As far as making things reconfigurable from the network, that
> >should be configured. i.e. if that's what you want, then define
> >your image that way, then it should do just as you suggest.
> >But not all systems will fall into that modality.
>
> That's the point of having the alternates, but if you have to
> explicitly configure the configuration utility, why not spend
> your time configuring the application instead?
>
You should only need to configure the config utility when you
are defining new configuration senarios/contexts/profiles.
Once done then if you wish/need configure the apps relative
to the contexts/profiles.
> >Lets say I
> >am a consultant and bring my laptop into a site, perhaps
> >to do a demo. I may not need to reconfigure or may not want to.
>
> If you want an IP address on my network, you have to reconfigure.
> If you don't hook to the network then nothing changes.
That's your network, I'm not talking about your network. I'm
talking about "a" network. Some sites may have "public"
plug points with DHCP already configured so guests can
plug in. Also some networks may be "open", some "closed"
and others somewhere inbetween. These are policy decisions
and have no business being hard coded into whatever solution
we offer.
>
> >Of course the client may not want to let me use there services
> >if I don't, but that's a decision that should not be forced
> >on anybody. The config system should support both models.
>
> Of course you should be able to force any configuration you
> want, assuming you know what you are doing. The idea is to
> come up with something that will plug in and work from the
> default settings.
Forcing config and pre-defining settings are one kind
of modality, there are others. We should define a system
that allows for what you wish, but that does not mandate it.
>
> >Even assuming DHCP is available is a bit risky, no? For
> >small networks it's a lot of hastle to setup and
> >it's not really needed! So why burden a network needlessly?
>
> Like I said, if you want to configure any element yourself
> you should be able to. If you don't you are pretty much
> stuck with DHCP or bootp to get started. This can get you
> an IP number, subnet mask, default router, DNS server,
> and domain name. There isn't much use in reinventing
> DHCP or bootp.
They already exist on Linux/Unix why would I want to?
> The places that need it are already running
> it.
Yes
> What is needed is to make the next steps equally hands-off.
Again I agree that we can help in this task, but my focus
is currently on application configuration.
> Now you pretty much have to NFS mount something and pull config
> files from it to continue.
That is one way, there are others. For example NDS, ACAP, ...
> This is the part that needs
> improvement. We need a set of defaults that can apply to all
> new machines and a way to map specific settings to specific
> machines, all with the ability to be pre-configured on the
> network.
Yes it should be possible to plug in a machine that has
the plug-and-go image, and have it boot, reconfigure
from the network and be ready for a user to login.
>
> >Don't get me wrong, I think plug and go is a great idea,
> >and a dynamic config service would help a great deal. I
> >expect this will become a much bigger topic in the next
> >few years.
>
> If you aren't attempting to solve this problem, what is
> wrong with existing config files? What I want to see is
> some reasonable interface to set up dozens/hundreds of
> network nodes at a time - where reasonable is filling
> out a spreadsheet or table view of their specific
> differences, not individually editting dozens of separate
> files for each node. Thus I want to see a system that
> has base defaults that apply to everything but allows
> specific values to override for specific cases (and only
> those cases need to be individually configured).
You are talking about defining the rules for different
classes/objects and how to set the rules. I am talking about
how to build the mechanism to support that.
So we want the same thing, except I also want application
configuration to be smarter. i.e. I may want to publish
my public address book so that I can access it from any
where on the Internet.
--
We stand on the shoulders of those giants who coded before.
Build a good layer, stand strong, and prepare for the next wave.
Guide those who come after you, give them your shoulder, lend them your code.
Code well and live! - [EMAIL PROTECTED] (7th Coding Battalion)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: disheartened gnome developer
Date: 13 Jan 1999 02:49:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:44:57 +0100, Toon Moene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>Frank Sweetser wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne) writes:
>
>> > You miss the consideration that the third line of that comment shows
>> > a *really big stick* that strongly discourages Red Hat Software from
>> > doing a proprietary release.
>
>> > Were RHS to do so, there would be a *dramatic* reaction within hours.
>
>> perfect case in point: the recent X licensing fiasco. TOG announced that
>> the next version of X they released would be under a much more commercial
>> friendly, and much less open source, license. within days, hundreds of
>> developers, led primarily by the XFree86 people, and with vocal support
>> from such free software leaders, were ready to fork off from X11R6.3, and
>> leave TOG in the dust. realizing they were about to slit their throat, TOG
>> backed off and canceled the license change.
>
>Ah, but the *most* interesting issue in that series of events was that
>no part of said software was covered by the GPL.
>
><speculation mode=heretic>
>It might be that in the (perhaps not even so) long run we do not _need_
>the GPL anymore to protect software from hoarding.
></speculation>
<speculation mode=alternative>
X11R6 is a piece of software that is of value to the free software
world, but of decreasing value to the vendors that have been
supporting it over the last number of years.
At one point, it looked like Xterms might "take over the world."
Unlikely, but not *completely* implausible. At one point, IBM, Sun,
Digital, and HP sold quite a lot of UNIX machines "for the desktop."
Today, they are putting their effort into hawking "mainframe
replacements," UNIX boxes that have enormous amounts of disk and
memory, being deployed as database servers.
Server, servers, servers.
These machines sit in back rooms, and don't need much in the way of
highly interactive graphics.
Having X is nice, but not worth investing millions of dollars in.
</speculation>
--
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: Tristan Wibberley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: moving linux to different partition
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 02:58:10 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
richard hankins wrote:
>
> Is it possible to correctly copy my complete linux installation,
> currently on one small partition, to another partition?
> How do I handle the /dev and /proc directories?
This is really a question for misc/answers. But...
alter /etc/lilo.conf for the new setup (keeping a boot image and root
for the old one as a boot option)
alter /etc/fstab for the new setup
(these are just text files - you should have documentation or a config
tool with your distribution, or you'll have to persuade someone to do it
for you.)
linuxsys:/# ls -a > flist
now edit 'flist' and remove the entries which you don't want to move, eg
the /proc entry, and the one which is the directory where the new
partitions filesystem is mounted (eg /mnt).
then do
linuxsys:/# cp -aR `cat flist` /mnt
where /mnt should be replaced with the directory where the new
filesystem is mounted.
linuxsys:/# mkdir /mnt/proc
linuxsys:/# mkdir /mnt/mnt
linuxsys:/# lilo
linuxsys:/# reboot
remove the lilo entry for the old setup if it all worked well then run
lilo again (okay leave it for a while 'til you're sure it worked fine),
then remove the old filesystem.
===========
There is a way to do it without rebooting and playing with lilo, but
I've never bothered to figure out ramdisks and remounting '/' with a
different filesystem.
===========
Also, you'll ideally want to separate the system out onto more than one
partition - so consider that first. Read the partitioning howto, decide
how big you want your partitions, and you should be able to adapt this
method for the new layout.
--
Tristan Wibberley Linux is a registered trademark
of Linus Torvalds.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
