Linux-Development-Sys Digest #271, Volume #6 Wed, 13 Jan 99 10:20:36 EST
Contents:
Re: disheartened gnome developer (Christopher Browne)
Re: disheartened gnome developer (Christopher Browne)
Re: disheartened gnome developer (Christopher Browne)
Re: disheartened gnome developer (Christopher Browne)
Re: A Call To Arms (gus)
Re: moving linux to different partition (Daniel R. Grayson)
Re: Base and Extended OS services (Peter Samuelson)
Re: moving linux to different partition (Peter Ross)
Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea (Christopher Browne)
Re: Registry - Already easily doable, in part. (Stefan Monnier)
Re: IPMasquerading / SSH (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher 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 02:23:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 09 Jan 1999 09:27:10 -0500, Hugh Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Most of the things that people do for fun are fairly communistic,
>though the profit-making thing intrudes in the provision of
>services. Consider scholarship, much of science--in a lot of this
>the main motive, aside from the pleasure of doing it, is hope of
>gaining glory.
>
>Add amateur sports, music, raising children, all kinds of hobbies.
>
>In newsgroups you see gurus working hard answering tough questions
>because they enjoy using their knowledge and receiving the thanks of
>those they help.
None of those things represent "communism."
Communism has to do with doing things specifically for "the common
good."
If I *enjoy* playing a sport, playing music, singing, or whatever, my
engaging in such activities is not "communistic." I do these sorts of
things because *I find it beneficial.*
I may do things that benefit others because I somehow feel that is
beneficial to me. People do things for their children, families,
friends, and communities with this end; they feel that seeing good
happen to others is good for them.
For an action to be "purely" communistic, it will need to be done
because of "common good," and *not* because the individual finds it
beneficial.
--
Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars
has to be the HP-48 series of calculators. They'll run almost
anything. And if they can't, while I'll just plug a Linux box into the
serial port and load up the HP-48 VT-100 emulator. (By
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeff Dege)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher 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 02:23:50 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 09 Jan 1999 18:11:07 GMT, steve mcadams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
>On Fri, 08 Jan 1999 23:53:49 -0600, "Robert J. Hansen"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Free software can be just that -- free. He's right in that you can't
>>make money off free (free beer) software. So don't deal in free
>>software. Red Hat doesn't deal in free software: they deal in
>>SUPPORTING free software and DEVELOPING new free software. People will
>>pay money for support, and they'll pay money to have access to better
>>software.
>
>WHERE does this leave companies that want to put all their resources
>into development????
This is troublesome to companies who want to "build towers," and then
not support them.
A company that wants to provide *zero* support to users will be in
trouble in a world where companies get paid primarily for providing
support.
Note that most of the money in the "low support" software represents the
costs of distribution.
When ID Software sells a copy of "Quake 2000" (or whatever) thru CompUSA
for $50, it is highly probable that ID Software actually receives
something more on the order of $5. $45 goes elsewhere, whether to:
- The people that do the duplication of CDs and boxes and docs,
- CompUSA,
- The wholesaler in between,
- The advertising group at Ziff Davis and other such places
and so forth.
The notion that *any* company puts all or substantially all of their
resources into development is nonsense. Even with "supportless"
products, most of the resources go to other than development.
>What if such a company believes that its support should be costless
>because it is a point of HONOR and/or INTEGRITY to keep your software
>working correctly? Do they just get screwed? They all have to go and
>flip burgers for a living because they don't do phones for money like
>the other 900-girls?
A company that doesn't charge for the valuable things that it provides
is shortchanging itself, and leading its customers into disappointment
as they may get convinced that they are receiving a Free Lunch.
Complex software systems *require* support. Period.
And in those cases where the systems are so simple that they need
neither upgrades nor service, it is difficult for the company to stay in
business.
>And worse yet, what if these guys writing the CODE are SO GOOD that
>NOBODY ever NEEDS SUPPORT? Are they supposed to sit there and either
>starve because they've done such a good job, or stop writing code and
>get a job where they can support themselves?
Those cases where we see this in practice tend to be cases where the
company goes out of business even without 'open source' effects because
they saturate their market, and have nobody left to sell to.
>Microsoft changed over to the service model years ago. -steve
Ah.
So wat proportion of the ~$14.45B of their revenues last year was
service-oriented, and which proportion came from software licensing?
You can verify that it was significantly more than 50%, right?
I saw a full page advertisement today in a DFW I/S "rag" where Microsoft
enumerated about half a dozen Texas businesses that have been prosecuted
for illegal copying of MSFT software.
If they were *really* switched over to a "service" model, they wouldn't
care much about software revenues, because, after all, if you use their
software, you'll be needing the "much more profitable" MSFT services.
Right?
--
"Absolutely nothing should be concluded from these figures except that
no conclusion can be drawn from them." (By Joseph L. Brothers,
Linux/PowerPC Project)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher 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 02:23:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 09 Jan 1999 14:48:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Red Hat does own the code they create, just like Troll Tech and Microsoft.
>That you have a copy of it under the GPL doesn't mean they can't later
>re-release it under a proprietary license.
Technically, that's true.
Unfortunately for such a release, they cannot "de-release" the software
already released under the GPL, which means that the software that they
have written will continue to be freely available (barring *bizarre*
events) and could be maintained, moving forward by others.
Troll Tech has a legal arrangement whereby if "disaster strikes," a
scenario similar to the above is invoked. Red Hat has already invoked
the "disaster clause."
--
Personally, I think my choice in the mostest-superlative-computer wars
has to be the HP-48 series of calculators. They'll run almost
anything. And if they can't, while I'll just plug a Linux box into the
serial port and load up the HP-48 VT-100 emulator. (By
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeff Dege)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher 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 02:23:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 08 Jan 1999 23:37:21 -0800, Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Marx tried to interpret human history in terms of the
>development of labor and its impact on societies; whereas conventional
>bourgeois history treats only in terms of the acquisition of money.
Unfortunately, that says very little about any actual increases in
either wealth or other "economic well-being," because money is merely a
placeholder, a subjective surrogate for value.
Having money is only wealth to people that are remarkably blind; money
only provides value when it is used to purchase something.
I rather think that the "bourgeois" are rather "into" getting *things*
that are of value; lands, buildings, and goods.
And those that want to ridicule the "bourgeois" are the ones that fixate
on a "bourgeois fixation on money."
--
if (argc > 1 && strcmp(argv[1], "-advice") == 0) {
printf("Don't Panic!\n");
exit(42);
}
(Arnold Robbins in the LJ of February '95, describing RCS)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: gus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.m68k
Subject: Re: A Call To Arms
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:02:46 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PHIL SMITH wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill Anderson wrote:
> >Why not market to that sector that is *growing* the fastest?
[Much Snipped]
>
> Most Linux users want free software, after all, that's spirit of it to
> begin with, open and free. I just don't think the market is willing
> to spend enough money to lure a lot of commercial developers. Yes, I
> know the list of commercial developers is growing for Linux, but for
> every one, there are probably hundreds for Windows.
>
> Just my humble opinion...
>
> Phil
My humble opinion is that *if* someone like the producers of Quake etc.
is open to producing their product for Linux, and it outperforms the
same game on a Win** platform, then some strategic marketing will do a
wonder for the linux community.
Although I have not really purchased Linux software (I have purchased
SuSE 5.3, but not any other "applications") I believe that the gaming
community who love living at the bleeding edge of technology will adopt
Linux as a real games platform. This will provide an image of Linux as
"The best games platform" and the OS will get a lot of exposure. Perhaps
not a good way of doing it!
The point though, is that commercially avilable applications are better
than no applications. If there is a commercial application, it will not
be long until the free one follows anyway.
Just my $0.01.
gus
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel R. Grayson)
Subject: Re: moving linux to different partition
Date: 12 Jan 1999 20:34:54 -0600
richard hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
> Rich
'tar' can handle the whole thing, including the devices in /dev. Tell tar
not to cross onto other file systems with the -l ( --one-file-system )
option, and it will stay out of /proc. There is no need to copy anything in
/proc since it is all put there by the kernel when the /proc file system is
mounted. When extracting, tar should even make the mount point for /proc for
you, but you can make it yourself with "mkdir /proc".
Also remember to use the -p option when extracting at the other end, to
prevent your umask from interfering.
So, this ought to work:
tar cfl - -C / | tar xfp - -C /newpartition
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: Base and Extended OS services
Date: 12 Jan 1999 19:06:51 -0600
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Brett Hallas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> I've been assigned to write a short paper(600-800 words) on
> "...detailing the manner in which the OS you have chosen(UNIX with
> Apache) deals with the following:
[...]
Dude. There is no way you are going to "detail" anything about the 20
or so topics you mention, in under several thousand words.
There are plenty of books on Unix design and implementation out there.
Just check your nearest library's card catalog. If you want
Linux-specific documentation as well as general references, check the
LDP (http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP/). And the Apache Group
(http://www.apache.org/) has plenty of online documentation for their
server. No one book will talk about all your topics, but you'll hit
800 words in no time flat.
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: Peter Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: moving linux to different partition
Date: 13 Jan 1999 03:08:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel R. Grayson) writes:
>richard hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 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?
>>
>'tar' can handle the whole thing, including the devices in /dev. Tell tar
>not to cross onto other file systems with the -l ( --one-file-system )
>option, and it will stay out of /proc. There is no need to copy anything in
>/proc since it is all put there by the kernel when the /proc file system is
>mounted. When extracting, tar should even make the mount point for /proc for
>you, but you can make it yourself with "mkdir /proc".
>
>Also remember to use the -p option when extracting at the other end, to
>prevent your umask from interfering.
>
>So, this ought to work:
>
> tar cfl - -C / | tar xfp - -C /newpartition
AFAIK you will also need to update the root option in /etc/lilo.conf to
point to the new partition. Then rerun lilo. Don't forget to keep a
bootdisk handy because I imagine that this process could go horribly
wrong.
Cheers,
Pete.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Peter Ross M Sci/Eng Melbourne Uni (change - to . for email) |
| email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~petdr |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea
Date: 13 Jan 1999 02:22:56 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 07 Jan 1999 10:25:28 GMT, George MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Christopher Browne wrote:
>>
>> On 05 Jan 1999 19:59:16 -0500, Frank Sweetser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Tristan Wibberley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> 2) then a couple of libraries for parsing flat text will be most
>> >> appropriate no? Simplest to implement.
>> >
>> >agreed. this would be the first logical module to implement. i actually
>> >have two of them in front of me now (profile code from the kerberos package
>> >courtesy ted t'so, and libconfig from sunsite), one of which will probably
>> >end up getting stuffed into the flat text module.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> Note that there will likely be two pieces:
>> a) Read the config, and
>> b) Write the config.
>>
>> The UNIX "approach" has been for these to be distinctly separated.
>> Which is, for things that are commonly referenced, but seldom changed, a
>> Good Thing.
>
>This model works well for CLI based users who know the unix "model".
>However newer users and GUI based users have a learning curve to be
>able to do the "write" part.
I'm not talking about applications. I'm talking about the way it works
"behind the curtain."
It doesn't matter very much, when designing the low level part, how the
"user side" works.
If the system provides a "pretty, Barneyfied tool," the user will not
ever need to touch the data by hand, which means that the user *doesn't
care* about the data representation.
>From a design perspective, the first thing we need to do is establish a
good data representation. And *then* figure out how to make it "Barney
friendly." Looking at Barney first represents a wonderful opportunity to
misdesign things.
>platform and it would be nice to be able to minimize the required learning
>for users who are task oriented. So one big question is, do you want to
Data representation != Tools to manipulate data.
> support a newer GUI based model for "end users"
> support the CLI model where users work with CLI and file tools
> support both
>
>I think doing both is the best approach.
I agree that having both "powerful" and "Barney-friendly" data
manipulation tools is a good thing. That is orthogonal to data
*representation.*
>> Everyone seems to want to come up with a "sexy" system that will
>> represent the "be-all and end-all."
>>
>> "I'll come up with the perfect configuration system, and it will make
>> me famous!"
>
>Even the best config system would get you a wet rag response! Don't
>count on getting famous out of it, you may help a lot of developers
>and end users, but most likely they won't even give it a passing
>thought. In fact if it's done well, it will be invisible.
Which is to say that from the enduser's perspective, a how data is
represented will be invisible. Which is what I said earlier.
>> Unfortunately, actually implementing such a universal thing requires
>> that a *lot* of programs be modified. Which requires more effort than
>> anyone is likely to be willing to employ. It's *not* as simple as
>> coming up with the "perfect config system."
>
>More wisdom, any good solution will find a way to work with the
>existing mechanism and extend it to be better. Also as you
>say it should not take much effort on the part of a developer
>otherwise they won't bother. I belive they should get something
>out of using a config service and not the other way around.
True.
Which means that a good API will allow a programmer to construct some
common tools that can manipulate multiple data sources.
>> If, in contrast, a scheme is set up that is *useful enough* and
>> *convenient enough* that it convinces *SOME* developers to adopt it,
>> thereby reducing the number of completely independent configuration
>> systems, that's GOOD ENOUGH.
>>
>> We don't need a "Unified Field Theory" of configuration systems; we need
>> something that's Good Enough, and perhaps that's somewhat better than we
>> have now.
>
>I tend to think through a problem to come up with a nice clean conceptual
>solution. This includes describing the *ultimate* desired solution.
But when you talk about an "*ultimate* desired solution," you are
assuming something akin to a "Grand Unified Field Theory," where there
will be a single clean conceptual solution.
I claim that it is not proven that that single solution exists.
There are diverse varieties of configuration, which means that fitting
them all onto one data store may be like the legendary Procrustean Bed,
where Procrustes would modify peoples' sizes so they'd fit. Stretching
those that are too short, and chopping bits off of those that are too
tall.
>> Make sure it is documented clearly how this is to work, so that it is
>> *CLEAR* which files will be evaluated in what order. The problem with
>> (in contrast) X resource information is that the order of evaluation is
>> *not* clear.
>
>How so? I thought it was .Xdefaults, any xrdb'ed values, app-defaults,
>$HOME/AppName, command line, internalized defaults
>
>Well ther is XAPPRES and the localizing, ... Jesh that's at least 8
>levels!!!
That there are on the order of 8 levels, and that people have a hard
time remembering which goes in which order, is very much the point.
>The directory locations should not be fixed, perhaps a default
>list defined in a
>
> /etc/app.conf
>
>and maybe a switch kind of mechanism like that used in /etc/nsswitch.conf,
>perhaps
>
> /etc/appswitch.conf
>
>I'm wondering if apps should be able to have their own switch.conf
>files, or perhaps a line in the config file that specifies the
>evaluation order and the types of sub-service to use.
>
>This would allow setting system wide defaults for applications,
>i.e. get from local files, then CORBA, then ACAP, ...
>
>and then allow individual apps to change from that.
That's pretty fair.
>Well this is one way to seperate the data from the storage
>mechanism. There are also other ways to do this.
>
>> I would suggest documenting something on the order of five sets of
>> places for defaults to come from, for application foo:
>> 1) Site config: /etc/site/foo.conf (/etc/site might be NFS mounted
>> from a central server; feel free to suggest a better location to stick
>> this...)
>> 2) Host-based config: /etc/foo.conf
>> 3) $HOME/.foo.rc
>> 4) $HOME/etc/foo.conf
>> 5) $HOME/GNUStep/Library/Defaults/foo/Defaults
>
>That's a good example of typical complexity, but the number of levels
>should really be arbitrary, no?
Agreed.
>/etc is typically for system related config files, app config files
>are found all over the place /usr/lib/$app /home/$app /opt/$app
>/usr/local/lib/$app ... I think this should be site configurable,
>perhaps in the /etc/app.conf
>
>Also I don't think using a "/etc" in the $HOME will work,
>I commonly have my hown etc directory and I have seen many people
>use the same. So a .something is preferable. I have also seen
>.etc used in $HOME, but don't recall exactly where.
I've got stuff in $HOME/etc; I treat it as an extra place for "config
info."
I don't much care if we're using 'dot files' in $HOME, or files in
$HOME/etc, or $HOME/GNUStep/...; the point is to have *some* sort of
convention so that it is easy to search for configuration information.
>Finally my $HOME already has way to many .$app dirs, too many
>for my tastes, hence one of the reasons for my desire to push
>them down to ".userStore/Applications".
The huge number of .dot .files that collect in $HOME is quite annoying.
It would be nice if they hid under a directory; whether that be
$HOME/.userstore/, or $HOME/etc/, or $HOME/GNUStep/, I do not really
care which is used.
- $HOME/.userstore/ has the non-salutory effect that it is somewhat
"hidden."
- $HOME/GNUStep/ appears to associate things with GNUStep, which is
somewhat silly if applications *aren't* associated with it.
- $HOME/etc/ seems to me to be most sensible, as it agrees with the use
of /etc/ for "global" configuration.
--
if (argc > 1 && strcmp(argv[1], "-advice") == 0) {
printf("Don't Panic!\n");
exit(42);
}
(Arnold Robbins in the LJ of February '95, describing RCS)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Stefan Monnier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Registry - Already easily doable, in part.
Date: 12 Jan 1999 23:14:21 -0500
>>>>> "Todd" == Todd Knarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As for profiles, that's what user-specific configuration files stored
> in or under the user's home directory are for. Storing per-user information
> in the same place as system-wide information isn't the Right Thing.
The system vs user distinction is only one among many others.
Chris Brown already mentioned various other possibilities in a post a few
months back.
My take on it is that you need a CONFPATH setting that would typically look
like CONFPATH=$HOME/etc:/etc:/usr/local/etc.
Of course this only answers a tiny part of the problem. Deciding what hides
what when data appears both in ~/etc and in /etc can be tricky. Also it might
be desirable to allow the admin to enforce some part of the config (for instance
by forcefully prepending /etc/impose to CONFPATH).
Stefan
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IPMasquerading / SSH
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 05:08:56 +0000
Daniel R. Grayson wrote:
>
> I don't know what you mean by "without using masq". With two computers, one
> modem, and an ISP that hands me one IP number when I dial up with ppp, I
> don't know how to get both of them on the network without using IP
> masquerading. And it works fine. Except for the expiration time.
>
> I also don't know what you mean by "I could be the server to ...", sorry --
> it sounds like you're offering to be part of my modem setup, so it must be a
> misprint.
You misunderstood what I meant. Sometimes servers will disconnect with
no activity on their own. You may be tracking down a problem which does
not exist. Do others not going through a masquerading server have this
same problem? Is this piece of informaton known?
It is just when you say you have tried various things, and you still
have a problem, perhaps you don't have one.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit the Mohawk Software website: www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
