Linux-Development-Sys Digest #276, Volume #6 Thu, 14 Jan 99 00:14:16 EST
Contents:
Re: A Call To Arms (John Morris)
Re: disheartened gnome developer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: disheartened gnome developer (Christopher Browne)
Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea (Robin Becker)
Re: Why no core file? (Daniel R. Grayson)
Re: Linux Sound Engine (Ross Vandegrift)
2.0.30 -> 2.0.35 upgrade breaks printer device (John Meissen)
Re: ! * Free Long Distance Phone Service * ! (Plex Inphiniti)
Re: Obtaining MAC address from remote computer (BL)
Re: Why no core file? ("J�rgen Exner")
ManimumSecuritycdrom (User470357)
Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Open Configuration Storage - was Registry for Linux (Christopher Browne)
Re: IP / ICMP checksum calculation (Marco Al)
Making reliable profilings under linux !!!! ("Pedro Ribeiro")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Morris)
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 16:34:43 GMT
>I must be a nobody, since I have paid my VariCAD license, and am willing
>to extend it for another year.
How are you liking Varicad??
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 17:09:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (jedi) wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 18:42:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 17:13:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> posted:
> >> >> You'll have to be more specific.
> >> >>
> >> >> All I've found so far in the Redhat control-panel are like thus:
> >> >>
> >> >> Red Hat Linux netcfg 2.18
> >> >> Copyright (C) 1996, 1997 Red Hat Software
> >> >> Redistributable under the terms of the GNU General Public License
> >> >
> >> >Gee, so the control panel is owned by Red Hat, and they could rerelease
them
> >> >tomorrow under a proprietary license. Just like I said they could (and
said
> >> >they wont do it) when you called me a liar.
> >> >
> >> >I suppose you wont apologize, of course.
> >
> >> 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.
> ><Snip reasons why Red Hat wont do it>
> >
> >No, I didn�t miss anything.
> >That is why I said they would not do it. All I said is that they *can*
> >do it. Going back to what I actually said a few posts ago:
>
> Which does nothing to all of the millions of copies floating
> around with the old licence. That licence doesn't suddenly
> become null and void.
Sure. Any other trivialities you want to share?
> WE would still all be able to make whatever
> derivate works we wish from it including printing it out and
> making paper boats out of it.
Jedi, I know that is all you can do with them, but I am sure others have
better ideas and plans.
PS: amazing, how desperately you run off every tangent you can find.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)‰
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To:
gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: disheartened gnome developer
Date: 14 Jan 1999 01:15:04 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 03:21:45 GMT, steve mcadams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
>On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 15:58:41 GMT, Marco Anglesio
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>It would be nice, but any company buying your
>>code will still sign a support contract because they can't see the future.
>
>This my friend, is a rather eye-opening observation to thrust at
>someone as naive as myself. And here I thought one of the main
>benefits of open-source (which I equate with GPL, I better look some
>"open-source" references and see how -that- is defined) was that you
>could fix the code yourself.
There are good reasons, even though it be possible, to consider *not*
fixing the code but to rather pay a third party to do so.
a) If you patch it yourself, and don't release the patches, then you
essentially "fork" an extra source code tree that starts diverging from
the "main" code tree. This makes it increasingly difficult to upgrade
to get new functionality if the "main developers" do an upgrade.
Thus, if you patch GCC to do some special stuff to your binaries, you
can't just do an
# rpm --upgrade egcs-1.2.i386.rpm
You instead have to compare the code trees and integrate the upgrades
into your tree.
In contrast, it could be more economical to pay Cygnus to do the
"patch," with the expectation that it would be included in an upcoming
"official" release.
b) Which is cheaper?
To get someone trained up to know how to fiddle with XFree86 sources so
as to fix some problem, which might well cost you $30,000 (six months of
a programmer being "useless" as (s)he gets familiar with the sources)?
Or to pay someone else who has already been through the "learning curve"
$5,000?
It is likely cheaper for a company to pay $5000 to Cygnus for a
"GCC-Pro" support contract than it is for them to make sure they have
someone in house to support GCC.
In summary, the notion of being able to "fix it yourself" will be
academic to the vast majority of people. I've never extracted the
sources for XFree86, and probably never will touch them. The same is
true for most people. The value in XFree86 being "open source" is that
there is a *diverse enough* community of people that can fiddle with the
sources as to provide useful support. If there are *enough* people who
can provide support, the "good results" happen.
--
'Mounten' wird fuer drei Dinge benutzt: 'Aufsitzen' auf Pferde,
'einklinken' von Festplatten in Dateisysteme, und, nun, 'besteigen'
beim Sex. (Christa Keil in a German posting: "Mounting is used for
three things: climbing on a horse, linking in a hard disk unit in file
systems, and, well, mounting during sex".)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Robin Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 14:08:41 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Frank Sweetser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>George MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Well I'm striving to come up with a paragraph or two that can define
>> the solution. It needs to be clean, clear and easily communicated. It's
>> important to be able to set a vision or framework in someone
>> elses head so you can hang the details on it.
>>
>> Saying it's a distributed hierarchical persistent network
>> based object storage system doesn't quite cut it.
>
>how about this?
>
>opStore is an advanced configuration library consisting of 4 parts.
>
>1) a powerful, flexible internal data representation format capable of
> represting a wide range of data types, including range checking and
> priority tags.
>
>2) a front end api suitable for embedding in applications. it includes
> functions for reading individual and sets of values, writing individual
> and sets of values, flushing out sets of values to permenant storage,
> and verifying values are within the defined bounds.
>
why sets of values? Or are you suggesting a higher level abstraction eg
all the options for a given application.
>3) a back end api for plugging in dynamically loadable modules capable of
> translating the internal data represenatation to a particular format,
> including multiple flat text files, RDBMS, and CORBA formats.
>
>4) a core logic implemented behind the front end api for evaluating the
> values obtained from a wide range of back end modules in a highly
> flexible, user and administrator defined order of precedence, and
> returning only the highest precedence value to the calling application.
>
>how's that sound?
>
--
Robin Becker
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel R. Grayson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why no core file?
Date: 13 Jan 1999 12:10:09 -0600
BL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> when my app crashes, I don't get a core file.
>
> Similarly, when I run the app under gdb (the app was built with "-g" and no
> optimization) and it crashes, I get:
>
> Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> The program no longer exists.
>
> is there some env var that I need to set (etc) to allow symbolic debugging; at
> least at post-mortum level?
Check 'ulimit -c' to make sure your maximum core file size is big enough.
Also, when compiling, turn off optimizations like -fomit-frame-pointer -- I
think that might cause gdb some trouble.
geometry% help ulimit
ulimit: ulimit [-SHacdflmnpstuv] [limit]
Ulimit provides control over the resources available to processes
started by the shell, on systems that allow such control. If an
option is given, it is interpreted as follows:
-S use the `soft' resource limit
-H use the `hard' resource limit
-a all current limits are reported
-c the maximum size of core files created
-d the maximum size of a process's data segment
-f the maximum size of files created by the shell
-l the maximum size a process may lock into memory
-m the maximum resident set size
-n the maximum number of open file descriptors
-p the pipe buffer size
-s the maximum stack size
-t the maximum amount of cpu time in seconds
-u the maximum number of user processes
-v the size of virtual memory
If LIMIT is given, it is the new value of the specified resource.
Otherwise, the current value of the specified resource is printed.
If no option is given, then -f is assumed. Values are in 1024-byte
increments, except for -t, which is in seconds, -p, which is in
increments of 512 bytes, and -u, which is an unscaled number of
processes.
------------------------------
From: Ross Vandegrift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sound Engine
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:57:39 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> It's up to the device.. when the device is opened you get a struct file *
> from the opening process which has a private data field you can alloc and
> attach a state to. You can extract this private field when the process tries
> to read/write later on to figure out how to mix it etc. So it's no
> problemo..
>
> /Bjorn W
Wow, that's certainly excellant news! Let me update my design outline:
/dev/dsp is relinked to /dev/leaf
/dev/dspreal is linked to the former /dev/dsp (usually dsp0)
/dev/leaf is a software interface (emulating /dev/dsp) to a the user
space mixing daemon, LEAF (Linux Enhanced Audio Funnel). Processes that
think they are accessing hardware open /dev/dsp, the symlink to our
interface. They write to it just like they do to the real dsp.
/dev/leaf recieves the data and pipes it to LEAF, which mixes it with
all other incoming audio (by other processes that have opened and
written to /dev/dsp) and writes the output to /dev/dspreal.
The same concept could be easily applied to /dev/audio.
Sound(hehe) reasonable and logical to everyone?
--
Ross Vandegrift | Eric J. Fenderson
alt.binaries.punk: for those of us too
punk to pay money for the music.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Meissen)
Subject: 2.0.30 -> 2.0.35 upgrade breaks printer device
Date: 13 Jan 1999 17:32:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Something changed with the printer device between 2.0.30 and 2.0.35.
After upgrading I can no longer print to the device (it's a postscript
printer, and never completes processing). I tried using a 2.0.34
printer module from SuSE's web site with no luck. (Note that this
has NOTHING to do with filters, spoolers, printcap entries, etc)
Any suggestions would be appreciated. Is it fixed in 2.0.36? I use
my system as a print server, so this is a serious setback.
--
John Meissen Siemens Pyramid Information Systems
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 15400 NW Greenbrier Parkway
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Beaverton, OR 97006
http://www.meissen.org (503) 690-6286
"Linux is very user-friendly, it's just choosy about its friends."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Plex Inphiniti)
Crossposted-To:
alt.cyberpunk,rec.sport.baseball,alt.cyberpunk.cypher,alt.cyberpunk.movement,alt.cyberpunk.tech,alt.kill.spammers,alt.games.duke3d,comp.os.linux.development.apps,rec.skiing.nordic,alt.sex.telephone
Subject: Re: ! * Free Long Distance Phone Service * !
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 18:18:45 GMT
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 04:39:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ICBA) wrote:
>
>INTERNET CONSUMERS BUYERS ASSOCIATION
> 8170 W. SAHARA AVE. SUIT 202
> LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89117
> 1-800-586-9648 TOLL FREE
> 1-702-320-8900 LOCAL
> 1-702-320-8903 FAX
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Welcome to the Internet Consumer Buyers Association
>
> Free Long Distance Phone Service:
> TV and radio are Free because advertisers pay the bill so you can
>watch and listen, but they sure hope you will buy their products.
> Now advertisers want to pay your long distance phone charges just for
> listening to their ads.
>
<snip>
I saw a european version of this, your could talk to whoever you
wanted for free long distance but heard and an about ever minute or
so. I don't know if this is the same company. This is an excellent
idea, as we can choose free long distance and forget AT&T and MCI.
-= Plex Inphiniti =-
Auf dem Vorabend des millenium, f�rchten Sie nicht den Tod der Computer.
F�rchten Sie die Geisteskrankheit der Leute.
------------------------------
From: BL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Obtaining MAC address from remote computer
Date: 14 Jan 1999 03:19:14 GMT
Reply-To: no.spambots.please
use snmpd on the remote cpu to get status.
In comp.os.linux.development.system George MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: 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)
--
AntiSpam: For email, change all 'zeros' to the letter 'o' .
My first name (backwards) is nayrB. No bulk/junk email, please.
WARNING: PLEASE post followups - email replies may bounce to this address...
------------------------------
From: "J�rgen Exner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why no core file?
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 10:35:44 -0800
BL wrote in message <77ik22$a38$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>when my app crashes, I don't get a core file.
>
>Similarly, when I run the app under gdb (the app was built with "-g" and no
>optimization) and it crashes, I get:
>
> Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> The program no longer exists.
>
>is there some env var that I need to set (etc) to allow symbolic debugging;
at
>least at post-mortum level?
Maybe you disabled core dumps in your shell.
How to re-enable them depends on the shell you are using (see "ulimit").
jue
--
J�rgen Exner; microsoft.com, UID: jurgenex
Sorry for this anti-spam inconvenience
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (User470357)
Subject: ManimumSecuritycdrom
Date: 13 Jan 1999 19:27:12 GMT
I bought a book reccently called Manimum Security second edition. It comes with
a cdrom which contain some doc. and programs such as satan and nessus.
I have x up and running and I am able to mount the cdrom. I can see the files
but
I don't how to intsall the programs. Thier are files like autorun.ing
Setup.exe. How do I intall them. I am a beginer and don't know the process or
commands to install the software. I have Redhat 5.1 installed.
can someone please help?
note when I installed linux the the cdrom player could not be mounted because
/etc/fstab had cd player as
/dev/cdrom /mnt/cdrom noauto,ro 0 0
when I changed it to this
it worked fine
/dev/hdc /mnt/cdrom noauto,ro 0 0
please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] thank for any possible help
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Registry for Linux - Bad idea
Date: 13 Jan 1999 22:13:33 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> - $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.
Why not? Do you want the system administrator to have to learn 2 new
and different ways of doing things instead of just one? I was hoping
this would be a way that would encompass both.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Open Configuration Storage - was Registry for Linux
Date: 14 Jan 1999 03:47:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 06:19:24 GMT, George MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yes but you have to custom code for LDAP, what do you do then if
>you want to use ACAP? Recode an application? That's not what end
>users want, they just want to be able to use the services.
Which means that it is attractive, *at least at the reading end,* to
provide an API that allows some of these services to be easily mapped
onto easily used forms.
For instance, it's a pain to code something using API calls to
view/manipulate SNMP configuration.
But a tool that exported this into a form where it *looked* like a
virtual file system (like /proc) would allow one to readily use existing
file management tools to examine system configuration. And possibly
even manipulate it, given the ability to write to the "virtual files."
As far as the user is concerned, this sort of thing is "magic." Using a
VFS would be a little bit "magical" if you want a portable system that
isn't limited to Linux. But once this "magic" is performed, old,
mundane tools can be used to look at, view, and manipulate the results.
If we turned the configuration into a virtual file system, for instance,
there would be no need to write a special tool to view it; the user
could just use one of the existing "file manager" utilities.
We 'win' if we can get a suitable representation that lets us use
existing tools 'for free.'
--
"...and scantily clad females, of course. Who cares if it's below zero
outside" (By Linus Torvalds)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Marco Al <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: IP / ICMP checksum calculation
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 20:22:21 +0100
Sander Pilon wrote:
>
> I'm looking for *C* sourcecode (for Linux) that RE-calculates
> the IP and ICMP packet checksums after modification.
> (NAT)
>
> Anyone?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sander
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You could try libnet, at
http://www.infonexus.com/~daemon9/Projects/Libnet or do a search for it
at http://www.genocide2600.com/~tattooman/index.shtml for instance.
It has both C and x86 optimized versions of TCP&UDP&IP checksums I
think, plus a whole host of other functions to aid in building packets
from the ground up.
Marco
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Ribeiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Making reliable profilings under linux !!!!
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 21:12:22 -0000
I'm trying to profile a program under linux but, because all of my functions
executes in less that 10ms, gprof tell 0.0 to all function avg execution
times ... leaving-me with just a function execution count which isn't much
usefull without the times ...
How can i obtain more precise times ??
Tweaking the kernel ??
include/asm-i386/param.h HZ define ??
Thanks in advance.
--
[]---------------------------------------------------------------[]
Pedro Ribeiro
Online: http://www.isel.pt/~pribeiro/
IRC(PTnet) Nick: PAntMaR
e-Mail: Personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[]---------------------------------------------------------------[]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
