Linux-Development-Sys Digest #275, Volume #6 Wed, 13 Jan 99 20:14:25 EST
Contents:
Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea (Frank Sweetser)
Re: Obtaining MAC address from remote computer (George MacDonald)
Re: disheartened gnome developer (steve mcadams)
Re: disheartened gnome developer (steve mcadams)
Re: disheartened gnome developer (steve mcadams)
Re: disheartened gnome developer (steve mcadams)
Re: Shared memory between PCI device and application. (Greg Johnson)
Re: things I'd pay to have developed for Linux... (bill davidsen)
Re: S3 ViRGE + KDE (Scott Mayberry)
Re: Why I'm dumping Linux, going back to Windblows (Alex)
Re: COFF Magic Numbers? (Mitch Williams)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Sweetser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea
Date: 13 Jan 1999 10:33:09 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Christopher Browne writes:
> > - $HOME/etc/ seems to me to be most sensible, as it agrees with the use
> >of /etc/ for "global" configuration.
>
> I like that also.
>
> One thing that concerns me a bit about this discussion: it sounds as if you
> intend to handle system and application configuration with the same tools.
>
> Please don't.
no. they're two seperate things. this library will 1) define a data
format and 2) an api to access it from a variety of sources (files, RDBMD,
http) w/out the application requesting the data having to know where it's
coming from. using this as a system comfig tool would either require 1)
modifying this to understand all of the various config formats (though i'd
say that linuxconf already has this better covered) or 2) modying the core
system bits to use this format. neither are neccesarily going to happen.
--
Frank Sweetser rasmusin at wpi.edu fsweetser at blee.net | PGP key available
paramount.ind.wpi.edu RedHat 5.2 kernel 2.2.0pre5ac1 i586 | at public servers
Coach: How's life, Norm?
Norm: Not for the squeamish, Coach.
-- Cheers, Friends, Romans, and Accountants
------------------------------
From: George MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Obtaining MAC address from remote computer
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:39:18 GMT
Sander Pilon wrote:
>
> I want to obtain the MAC (Hardware) address of another computer.
>
> I searched through Dejanews and Excite, but none of the I found programs
> work. Most of them failed on the IOCTL() with SIOCGARP call.
>
> I have two ethernet cards. (3Com PCI) on Linux 2.0.34.
>
> Is there anyone out there that has a decent example showing
> how to do get a MAC address from a remote computer?
>
I use "arp -a" for local segments, don't know about getting them from
farther away.
--
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] (steve mcadams)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: disheartened gnome developer
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:49:49 GMT
[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
On 13 Jan 1999 11:22:55 GMT, "Duncan Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I don't think you are right. According to the GPL, under which terms the RH
>software you're talking about is distributed, if the existing (freely
>available)
>source is used to build the new version, the new version must be GPLed
>too (in my understanding -- correct me if I'm wrong).
In general yes, but there is an exception in the case of the authoring
copyright holder, who can do anything s/he/it wants with any new
version of the code, including selling proprietary licenses to the
code or all rights to the code. As long as it doesn't contain any
other GPL code that they have not received a license to distribute in
this way.
>The only way I can see RH releasing a proprietary version is if they
>TOTALLY
>rewrite the app, using NONE of their existing (GPLed) source. They
>certainly
>could not release the existing app under a different license. (Maybe
>technically
>they could, but it would be pointless as already mentioned by the poster).
For the code they originated, if it was not based on GPL code, they
could sell proprietary licenses to the code, which would not be
pointless because it would allow commercial applications to use their
code which they chose to release under the GPL. It would not affect
you or me in any way, unless we decided to buy one of these commercial
applications because it was so swell. -steve
========================================================
Tools for programmers: http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: disheartened gnome developer
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:49:51 GMT
[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
On 13 Jan 1999 02:23:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
Browne) wrote:
>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."
This is not a challenge, but I have read the GPL, the LGPL, and
TrollTech's new license in some detail over the past few weeks,
because I've been pondering the licensing issue, and imho, the
TrollTech license is the most open of the three, the main difference I
see being that they are permitting anyone to use their code including
propietary applications, with the following:
>From version 0.92 of the new Qt license,
=======================================================================================================
"6. You may develop application programs, reusable components and
other software items that link with the original or modified versions
of the Software. These items, when distributed, are subject to the
following requirements:
a. You must ensure that all recipients of machine-executable forms of
these items are also able to receive and use the complete
machine-readable source code to the items without any charge beyond
the costs of data transfer.
b. You must explicitly license all recipients of your items to use and
re-distribute original and modified versions of the items in both
machine-executable and source code forms. The recipients must be able
to do so without any charges whatsoever, and they must be able to
re-distribute to anyone they choose. "
=======================================================================================================
They have not, as far as I can see, been explicit enough about their
use of the term "items". It is only the "other software items" that
must be available in source code for no fee, as opposed to the
"application programs, reusable components" aspects. Maybe they know
this and did it intentionally, maybe it's news to them, maybe it's a
language-translation issue, or whatever. Quite likely I don't
understand their wording, quite possible a judge wouldn't either.
For my money the GPL is the tightest license of the bunch; it's clear
what you have to do with the code and any derivatives, and they've
been sufficiently explicit about what constitutes a derivative.
Obviously ymmv and you are free to consider a fool or whatever you
wish. -steve
========================================================
Tools for programmers: http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: disheartened gnome developer
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:49:45 GMT
[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
On 13 Jan 1999 02:23:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
Browne) wrote:
>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.
Sorry, I wasn't very clear in stating my thoughts. I really didn't
mean -zero- support. What I really meant was no more support than a
GPL author would normally provide via email. Which I think is a whole
lot less support than a company that sells a service contract better
expect, unless it wants to risk winding up in court for not providing
the promised level of service (called "breach of contract"). If they
don't specify a level of service, then they're really just imposing a
"faith tax" on the foolish people who didn't read the contract, and
are imo executing a scam whether they're actually providing good
support or not.
btw, no connection to anything intended, but does Red Hat for example
state a service level in their support contracts? Does anyone? I'm
pretty sure that Microsoft does, not that it's worth much, for
$100/hour or whatever it is that it costs, they can afford to buy some
indentured servants with a few years experience and pay them $15 an
hour until they learn how to do their job, then move them off to
something more critical and bring in a new crop. Off-topic really,
sorry.
>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.
Actually, the software author or "manufacturer" usually gets anywhere
from 55 percent up, usually between 55 - 80% of revenue, if the
product is sold via a direct reseller such as Programmer's Paradise or
many of the web-based companies that provide secure transaction
services. I know this for a fact because 45% is what Programmer's
Shop and Programmer's Paradise wanted when they tried to get me to let
them sell my first product, and my current web-based service ends up
costing me about 28% of whatever "sales" I manage to attract. The
magazines wanted me to sell to them at a 45% discount so they could
undersell my web-site and still make a sizable profit; of course they
didn't want to order an inventory, they wanted me to wait for orders
and then drop-ship them, so their 45% cut was for nothing more than
taking orders and putting a tiny paragraph in the back of their
magazine somewhere. The larger ads, such as the full-page ones for MS
products, cost several thousand dollars to run in a single issue.
With the availability of electronic distribution for most applications
(not operating systems), there is little excuse for this model's
persistence other than that Joe Average Consumer, who Microsoft's
products are targeted for (I draw this conclusion based on the fact
that Windows 98 comes up with a picture of Mickey Mouse in the new
channel-bar) don't yet know enough to buy on the web, how to download
anything, etc. It's going to be interesting in the next few years,
I've been thinking that I should buy stock in UPS since that's the
primary distribution medium web-based stores are using. Anyway, I
look to see more of these physical stores move into other businesses,
or engorge their already high prices to an unbelievable level just in
order to pay their outrageous leases in the strip-mall. In any case I
don't think it represents an open-source paradigm.
>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.
Really. For "all" meaning zero support, well, zero-support companies
go out of business, right? But "substantially all" is how much I
would expect a 1-man or even a 7-man development shop to put into
development, since they can't afford anything less unless they have
miniscule product plans. If they can't be essentially supportless,
provide all the support their customers need, and still crank out new
product, then they are simply doomed under -any- model except one
where they have received a grant of some near-unlimited amount of
money from a patron.
>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.
I didn't say the company wasn't going to charge for the valuable
things it provides - it is, by selling proprietary licenses to
companies who want to use its open-source code in their closed-source
products, instead of by making its GPL-authoring user community pay
for support that they probably don't need anyway.
>Complex software systems *require* support. Period.
Although this is almost always the case, I deny any possibility of its
being a universal truth. Jump for the moon when a dog is at your
heels and you might get lucky and clear the next fence. -steve
========================================================
Tools for programmers: http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: disheartened gnome developer
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:49:53 GMT
[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
On 13 Jan 1999 02:49:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B.
Browne) wrote:
><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>
Are you saying that X11R6 is not GPL? If it is, what does it matter?
If it's not, what is it doing in -every- Linux distribution I've seen?
Thanks. -steve
========================================================
Tools for programmers: http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Johnson)
Subject: Re: Shared memory between PCI device and application.
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 00:23:42 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Luke,
Thanks, but I am not wanting to apply any patches to the kernel since
it will make it that much harder to port the code to newer kernel
version when the need arises. Also, I am not wanting to specify
anything at boot time like reserving a part of memory If I can avoid
it.
Greg.
Luke Scharf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I've never written a divice driver, but I installed a PCI device
>recently that required a patch to the kernel called bigphysarea.
>It seems to me that bigphysarea does what you are looking for, except
>that there is a cap, specified at boot time, on the amount of memory
>that can be used.
>I think that there's a link available on DejaNews.
>-Luke
>Greg Johnson wrote:
>> I am writting a device driver for a PCI card that my company is
>> developing. I need to create, on demand, an area of locked down memory
>> that is accessable by both an application program and the PCI device.
>> The area need not be contiguous in physical memory, so using
>> get_free_page several time would suffice. The PCI device can handle
>> non-contiguous physical memory regions so this is not a problem
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bill davidsen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: things I'd pay to have developed for Linux...
Date: 14 Jan 1999 00:06:14 GMT
In article <9tXm2.920$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Phil Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| A hack I've used is to create a symlink called "MOUNT" in the root
| directory of each partition. My "smart mounter" goes through all the
| partitions, first mounting read/only to take a peek at "MOUNT" and
| then mounts the partition as specified. Thus if the partitions get
| moved around due to SCSI ID to device name relationship shifting, it
| won't affect what data shows up where.
This is a neat idea, and easy to implement! However, isn't there a "last
mount point" field in the filesystem? Isn't that what the "-M" flag sets
in mke2fs? I can't seem to find a utility which reads that back without
mounting it, however, which somewhat defeats the point ;-) Since I use a
fair number of those little removable drives, I think this is a fine
idea, I can automate mounting.
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
"Too soon we grow old, and too late we grow smart" -Arthur Godfrey
------------------------------
From: Scott Mayberry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: S3 ViRGE + KDE
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:38:01 +0000
"Jens Kristian Søgaard" wrote:
>
> Paul Mackinlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > styles to non KDE applications" off and execute "xrdb ~/.Xdefaults".
>
> The xrdb call is not needed really; KDE disregards the normal
> settings.
>
> > didn't bother changing my run level from 5 to 3.... guess what happened? The
>
> If you use LILO ( you probably do ), you can set the default init
> level on the prompt - and thus you did not need the bootdisk.
>
> If you normally enter "linux" to boot up, just enter "linux 3" to
> enter initlevel 3.
>
> > Anyway I am back to using the S3 server which still presents small problems
>
> Please, use the SVGA server. It should be better.
I have a Diamond Stealth 3D 3000 (S3 Virge VX). I tried using the SVGA
server and it was just way too slow. Dragging windows around was slow,
and
when logging out of KDE when it greys out the screen... with KDE this
took
seconds! but with the S3V server it is instantaneous. Any thoughts?
--
Scott Mayberry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 11:35:26 -0500
Russell L. Rader wrote:
> Castelnuovo L. wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > : This business of congratulating yourself on having overcome a steep
> > > : learning curve, just tells many us us that you are waste a lot of time
> > > : (or might be a masocist). Why not just insist on sensible tools that
> > > : do the best work for the job at hand.
> > >
> >
> <snip>
> > the difference is in the attitude to explore new realities.
> > You can take the phone and call your vendor when you have trouble , instead
> > of taking the responsability of your system, you can , we don't!
>
> No, the difference is that some people are users and some people are
> programmers/administrators/hackers. There is nothing wrong with either
> viewpoint: for the user, they just want a tool to make their *real* job
> easier, while for the programmer the tool *is* their job. Why should a
> businessman become a programmer; it's not his job. It's my job; that's
> what I get paid for. :-)
>
> Or to use another poster's analogy: The guy who wants a new kind of
> wrench to work on a car doesn't want to go to the Cincinnati Millacron
> milling machine to make it, he just wants a wrench for crisakes! He's a
> mechanic, not a machinist. He'd only use the milling machine once in a
> blue moon, so why bother to learn it? But the machinist loves his
> milling machine, and wouldn't live without it. He uses it everyday, and
> in the long run learning how to use it makes his life much easier.
>
> So if Linux doesn't make your life easier; fine, don't use it. If
> Windows makes your life harder, don't use it. This thread is like
> arguing over which is better: a hammer or a screwdriver. Gee, it
> depends.
>
> Russ
I am a business owner that used Winblows and switched to Linux because Linux
runs much smootherwithout freezing once or twice a day. I also son't have a
series of processing events that should take 2
minutes to do take 35 minutes, which is what would happen under winblows about 1
to 3 times a day.
I went ahead and purchased SuSE 5.3 WITHOUT any knowledge whatsoever of Linux or
Unix pro-
gramming. To get everything working the way I want it will be about a three
month process, but it is
worth every bit of it. I will admit, it would be nice if there was some list or
site of individuals or businesses
that can consult very small companies over the phone. I happened to find an
individual that was very
helpful, but I've been needing help with creating a couple of macros to work
with my Applixware, but the
only company I know of that does that is lousy in returning email. I've been
waiting now about 4 days for
a response.
If Linux distributions want to become mainstream, than support has got to be
more available via phone
(SuSE is only available 2 days a week for a total of 6 hours and don't support
any of the "extra" programs
on their CD, i.e. HylaFAX and SuSEFAX). I just happen to be stubborn enough and
hate windows enough
to fight through the inconvience, but that was only because I knew that in the
long run I would have a lot
less frustration and inconvience using Linux than continuing with Winblows.
--
E. Alex Bungener BASSET INVESTIGATIONS
Proverbs 3:5&6 www.backgroundinfo.com
"Sniffing out the facts in one's past for firms throughout the US"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mitch Williams)
Subject: Re: COFF Magic Numbers?
Date: 13 Jan 1999 17:31:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you very much, Peter. This is perfect. I really appreciate your help!
-Mitch
In article <77ehd9$ro6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson) wrote:
>
> I suppose you could check the file(1) utility under Unix or Linux. The
> file /etc/magic or /usr/share/misc/magic gives magic numbers for any
> number of file formats, including (in the version distributed with
> Debian Linux, at least) pretty much all known executable file format
> magic numbers on any Unix dating back to before the French Revolution.
> The format of the magic file is not hard to read; read the manual page
> for details. My magic file greps in at 49 lines with "COFF" in them.
>
> --
> Peter Samuelson
> <sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
Mitch Williams - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remove the NOSPAM to reply!
<Insert witty quotation here.>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
