Linux-Development-Sys Digest #281, Volume #6 Fri, 15 Jan 99 00:14:28 EST
Contents:
Re: virtualizing i386-linux (M Sweger)
Re: Why no core file? (Stephan Goebels)
Re: Anti-Linux FUD (Johan Kullstam)
Anti-aliased fonts (Kaustav Bhattacharya)
Re: Registry - Already easily doable, in part. (Todd Knarr)
Re: Obtaining MAC address from remote computer ("Dave Hearn")
Re: disheartened gnome developer (Christopher B. Browne)
Re: Open Configuration Storage - was Registry for Linux (Phil Howard)
How to send IP packet on a selected interface ? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: disheartened gnome developer ("Duncan Rose")
Re: Anti-Linux FUD (Frank Sweetser)
Re: Registry - Already easily doable, in part. (Frank Sweetser)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (M Sweger)
Subject: Re: virtualizing i386-linux
Date: 14 Jan 1999 12:42:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steven Hand ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Michael Brunnbauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > i'm playing with the idea to virtualize i386-linux (several kernels runnning
: > simultaneously on one machine). this could be useful in environments where
: > security is important, especially firewall-configurations.
: While you may well wish to implement this from scratch, you might like
: to take a look at L4-Linux (http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/L4/LinuxOnL4/)
: This has the linux kernel running as a task on top of a micro-kernel
: (much like MkLinux, but smaller). It might be easy to restrict the set
: of real resources which 'the' linux kernel gets, and instead run
: multiple ones as different tasks.
I believe the way IBM does it for VMS is that the microprocessor has
special priveledged instructions for kernel control and IO so that
there won't be any conflicts. This allows them to run multiple versions
of VMS (production vs. experimental version) and/or Unix side by side.
Which one the user actually uses is controlled by the login process.
I presume you telnet to a host setup as a virtual one on the same machine
so that OS version that has been assigned that virtual host IP address
is the one to respond with the login/password prompts. In addition, one
could add the virtual console capability so that you can switch bewteen
OS' by using the Alt function keys.
But since Intel processors don't contain these special priveleged instructions,
multiple versions of Linux or Linux/Windows combinations is probably
impossible.
Anoter possibility is to write a micro kernel which is based on the
Corba model. Therefore, each object running off the Corba ORB can be
an OS [version] of Linux or, Linux and Windows or anything else
simultaneously. Hence, the virtual networking between the different
OS versions is done already for you by the Corba ORB's Object to
object communications (OS to OS communications) via RPC, IIOP etc.
Another area to look into in terms of different levels of privelege
for the user, Kernel and perhaps a level between kernels is, the
capability based model. This is based on different layers of
priveleges called "rings." I believe that the University of Pennsylvania
already created a "capability based OS" by converting Linux to this
model: or in essence giving Linux this feature. Therefore, some of
the work has already been done for you. It's just a matter of taking
all the desparate pieces and putting them together. I for one would
like to see the capability for Linux to have multiples OS' running
simultaneously.
Another way to look at the problem is that it's already done. What
I mean by this is the hardware platform number one is running Linux
version A and another hardware platform is running Linux version B,
and perhaps hardware platform number three is runn Windows NT.
By using distributed network process s/w like Beowulf that allocates
the computing load amongs't different hardware platforms with
possibility of a frontend server (aplication server) running a Corba
ORB, the objects then talk to the different backend computers that
are running different OS'. In this way, the user is given the
perception that they are running multiple OS'.
--
Mike,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Stephan Goebels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why no core file?
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:47:34 +0100
Hello Maciej Golebiewski,
> > when my app crashes, I don't get a core file.
>
> [deletia]
>
> > is there some env var that I need to set (etc) to allow symbolic debugging; at
> > least at post-mortum level?
Look in /etc/profile there you must set:
=> ulimit -c 200000 # only core-files less than 20 MB are written
if
=> ulimit -c 0 #don't create core files
then there is no core file.
Stephan Goebels
--
,,,,
/'^'\
( o o ) Stephan Goebels
---oOOO--(_)--OOOo-----------------------------------------------------
eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone: +49(0)2461-61/4512,
Big fax : +49 2461 61 3990
www :
Brother
sMail: Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH
is Zentrallabor f�r Elektronik (ZEL)
Messtechnik und Bildverarbeitung
watching Leo-Brandt-Strasze
52425 Juelich
you Germany
======================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux FUD
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 Jan 1999 08:29:07 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry T. Bastard) writes:
> and what does MS run through??
> Why were they sued by SunSoft???
> Because bill gates is a crack headed, stealer of ideas.
> do you kind of wonder where he came up with the look of windows?
> STOLEN!! you should know from apples, and whats with that windows 98
> crash during a Comodex demo???? Cause MS cant do anything correctly,
> and the programmers are to stupid to understand the if statements they
> make.
the whole stealing thing is a joke. everybody builds upon the ideas
of others. for example, in mathematics, i feel no shame in applying
ideas, notation and techniques invented and developed by leonhard
euler. why should computers be different?
for example linux is a rather faithful *copy* of unix. well, not the
guts, linux is a rewriting, but the whole idea of linux was to copy
enough of the unix api to enable unix software to port to it. almost
every idea has roots in the ideas of others. we do not grow up in
solitary confinement.
it's not that microsoft is or isn't innovative, it's that they do such
a kludged together and brain-damaged job of what they do do.
--
Johan Kullstam [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: Kaustav Bhattacharya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Anti-aliased fonts
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:38:33 +0000
Reply-To: k, dot, bhattacharya, at, bbc, dot, co, dot, uk
<slap the man, wish he'd shuddup>
I just installed Red Hat Linux 5.2. It works great. Being a long time
Risc OS (Acorn) user I miss the availability of a system wide/GUI
standard for use of anti-aliased fonts. Is there a way (a WM? or
something) of getting fonts to anti-alias under X or another WM? I
remember reading somewhere that there was a way of doing this?
</slap the man, wish he'd shuddup> ;-)
<on no, here he goes again>
Besides, whilst WindowsNT/98's font smoothing is primitive in comparison
to Acorn's old Risc OS font anti-aliasing system, it would be really
nice to have some form of the most basic font smoothing on my Linux
desktop. i.e all the fonts in my WM's gadgets (i.e. the title bar etc),
the fonts in my applixware WP and SS's, the fonts in my all my console
windows and xterms and basically EVERYTHING!
</on no, here he goes again>
Kozzey
------------------------------
From: Todd Knarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Registry - Already easily doable, in part.
Date: 14 Jan 1999 13:34:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.system Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really? If he is using his word processor on the network you don't
> think he would like it to automatically know about the nearest
> printer?
Know about the nearest printer, maybe. Assuming that the nearest printer
was one he could use, which isn't something the configuration system can
know ( eg. he needs color but the nearest printer is a black-and-white
dot matrix ). Installing the company-standard driver for it and making
it the mandatory default, probably not ( he's already got his drivers,
being able to print on site is probably not worth the risk of destabilizing
his working laptop, and the company policy of "always use the nearest
printer" may not apply to him ). Forcing his word processor to use the
company-mandated standard templates for documents that everyone in the
company is required to use and that the admins have made mandatory, almost
certainly not.
Any configuration system that allows from-the-top enforcement of policy
without allowing the bottom to decide whether to allow it is going to
have problems with this situation, and letting the bottom decide whether
to allow the top to enforce policy sort of defeats the purpose as far
as the top is concerned.
--
Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly. It just happens to be
very selective about who its friends are.
-- Kyle Hearn
------------------------------
From: "Dave Hearn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Obtaining MAC address from remote computer
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:38:40 -0000
Err - your ethernet card will insert the mac stuff for you
Sander Pilon wrote in message <77kljl$aom$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>Maybe I should've mentioned I want to do this in C on a per-packet basis.
>
>A packet arrived on eth0, I'm going to forward it to eth1 and I have to
>insert a new MAC
>address.
>
>Regards,
>
>Sander
>
>
------------------------------
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: 15 Jan 1999 03:05:56 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 21:23:43 +0100, Toon Moene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
posted:
>Christopher B. Browne wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:44:57 +0100, Toon Moene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
>> ><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.
>
>But if that really was so clearly the case, why *did* The Open Group try
>to hoard the sources (supplied by developers all over the world) ?
>
>Apparently _they_ thought they could make some money out of that ... and
>they have been proven wrong.
<speculation mode="bad blood"> I heard rumor that there was a fair bit
of bad blood between TOG and some of the XFree86 folk. Were that the
case, the action taken would be consistent with "nyah, nyah, we don't
like you either!" </speculation>
<speculation mode="corporate member ignorance"> Or someone at IBM
(chosen because they're *so* big that there's sure to be *someone* with
this attitude somewhere) or some such place looked at the money that
they were paying TOG to maintain X, and said, "We're paying thousands
of dollars to TOG, and these free software people are growing their
software at our expense. Stop it." </speculation>
<speculation mode="cambridge rent is expensive"> There are a number
of sorts of resources needed to keep a standards organization like
TOG running, and with diminishing corporate interest in X what with
companies jumping off the cliff at the Windows hegemony, if the free
software community wants TOG to continue to do *any* X support, they'll
have to pay some of the bills. </speculation>
Each of these theories has flaws, and none can be readily proven to be
*the* cause. There were enough entertaining comments at the time of
the "new license" that I'd speculate that there's *some* story like
unto the above whose details may never be made public that was the
root of the license change.
Note that when they changed back to a "more liberal" license, there
was *no* public comment from TOG; all we have ever seen has been the
obscure insertion of a web page with the new, revised license.
The *lack* of comment seems rather significant, saying that they
wanted to "back down" or otherwise "change it back" without making
any public statement.
>Of course (even though I didn't state it in my previous post) I *do*
>have an idea why this move by TOG failed: They didn't have any model of
>cooperation that would keep the developers interested in contributing
>code.
Agreed.
My suspicion is that the world might be a better place if the "free
software community," whether represented by:
a) The XFree86 Project,
b) The FSF,
c) Red Hat|SuSE
(Note their participation in XFree86 via sponsoring the development
of X servers...)
or, particularly if Red Hat or SuSE *are* included, multiple of the above
on the X11 committees at TOG.
If this required the on the order of $50K fee, it does not seem
unreasonable to me for a community of millions of users to raise
what amounts to a piddling little sum.
>To me that was not new - it was exactly the reason why the EGCS project
>succeeded against dwindling interest in contributing to GCC: For the
>developers, it was far easier to contribute to EGCS than to GCC.
Again, I suspect some degree of behind-the-scenes wrangling was involved
there. No doubt you have a better feel for this.
>So it's those who manage to interest developers who will "control" what
>happens with an (initially) open source project, not those who will come
>up with the most clever licensing scheme.
>
>[ Note that this view holds *now*, at the end of the nineties - of
> course the GPL was a necessity in the first ten/fifteen years of the
> GNU project; just think of Objective C as an example where NeXT
> almost got away with 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Open Configuration Storage - was Registry for Linux
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 04:03:09 GMT
On 09 Jan 1999 00:52:29 -0500 Frank Sweetser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
| > And will you be able to copy among the config sets as easily
| > as you can with files to duplicate an existing setup before
| > starting to make changes?
|
| no reason why not to.
With the usual tools, like cp, tar, or whatever, just like you do now
with files?
| you're thinking a bit too specifically here. the idea is to have the
| configuration values returned dependant upon some external value - whether
| it's the hostname, ip, username, domain, etc.
Such as in a way like X resources?
| > There is something to be said for making read() the only system
| > call needed to get values, but using /proc will make the concept
| > OS-specific. Has anyone considered the Netscape style of picking
| > up a global configuration file via http? Everyone with an ethernet
| > has a web server somewhere these days.
|
| the application itself won't directly grab the information. it'll just
| call the opstore_get_config (or whatever) function, which in turn consults
| the metadata information, and from there gets the information from a flat
| text file, http, /proc, RDBMS, or whatever other module has been defined.
| the app won't even know where the data is coming from, let alone have to
| really care.
Will it be able to obtain that information asyncronously or in bulk so
that network delays won't result in length configuration acquisition?
Imagine 1 second turnaround for 1000 configuration variables obtained
one at a time. I've seen programs get bogged down just on account of
delays in DNS when a lot of names have to be looked up. And that's
even with DNS being quite fast. Of course /etc/hosts would help to
speed things up, but so would an asyncronous resolver.
If you conceptually tree structure the information, would it be possible
to simply ask for the information at some higher level and get a data
object (perhaps as a stream) that represents everything at that pruned
point in the tree?
--
-- *-----------------------------* Phil Howard KA9WGN * --
-- | Inturnet, Inc. | Director of Internet Services | --
-- | Business Internet Solutions | eng at intur.net | --
-- *-----------------------------* philh at intur.net * --
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: How to send IP packet on a selected interface ?
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:53:20 GMT
Hi !
I define with IP-aliasing 10 ip address on the SAME subnet for one ethernet
adatper:
eth0 eth0:1 .... eth0:9
10.0.0.1 10.0.0.2 .... 10.0.0.10
I want to send IP packets from these different Logical IP interface to a host
on the network 10.0.0.100. The problem is How can I select the source IP
address ?
The goal is to be able to open 10 telnet sessions from all the logical ip
interface to the same server. I can thus simulate 10 different users
(different IP) with only one linux box.
Please help as fast as possible ! and Reply also by email
Thank you
==============
Thomas Parvais
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: "Duncan Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: disheartened gnome developer
Date: 14 Jan 1999 10:25:52 GMT
Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in article
<77jtkd$876$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 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).
>
> You are wrong. The owner of the copyright on something can distribute it
> under as many incompatible licenses as they wish.
>
> >If they do anything else they're in violation of the GPL, which, let's
face
> >it, is
> >not likely to be a barrier if they wanted to do such a thing (as far as
I
> >know the
> >GPL has never been tested in court, so we still don't know where
developers
> >would stand if they broke the sentiment/letter of the GPL).
>
> It's not possible for the author of the code to violate the GPL on that
code,
> since it is not possible for one to make a contract with himself. Think
about
> it for a moment--the author is going to look pretty silly trying to sue
> himself to make himself stop violating GPL!
OK, I guess my misunderstanding is that if a piece of code is distributed
under GPL then even the author is bound by the terms of the GPL, which
you say is not so.
However, I'm not sure that you are quite correct in your second paragraph.
If
I created a neat app and had a contract (which is what a software license
is,
in effect) with MS (just for an example!) that they got access to the
source
but nobody else did, then I couldn't take their money and then distribute a
GPLed version. They would sue, and I guess they would win. In the case of
this example, I would be bound by the agreement -- it would be a contract
between MS and myself, not between myself and myself, if you understand
me.
In the case of RH and in the context of this thread, I'm wondering if RH,
by
distributing packages under GPL, has a contract with the rest of the
Linux (or any other) community... in which case, there might be a case to
answer if they changed their licensing policy.
So, a more general query: if I write (and hold the copyright on) a piece of
software and distribute it under GPL, am _I_ bound by the GPL, or does it
just apply to everybody else? This is, I guess, particularly important when
thinking about derivative works as described in the GPL.
If you need to refer back to the GPL, it can be found at
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
I guess it's the definitive version as well, but I'm not sure.
BTW, these points can be considered to be hypothetical if you like, but I
would like to improve _my_ understanding of GPL. I guess it affects all of
us who want to develop/release stuff under it's terms :)
-Duncan
>
> --Tim Smith
>
------------------------------
From: Frank Sweetser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux FUD
Date: 14 Jan 1999 09:14:50 -0500
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the whole stealing thing is a joke. everybody builds upon the ideas
> of others. for example, in mathematics, i feel no shame in applying
> ideas, notation and techniques invented and developed by leonhard
> euler. why should computers be different?
>
> for example linux is a rather faithful *copy* of unix. well, not the
> guts, linux is a rewriting, but the whole idea of linux was to copy
> enough of the unix api to enable unix software to port to it. almost
> every idea has roots in the ideas of others. we do not grow up in
> solitary confinement.
>
> it's not that microsoft is or isn't innovative, it's that they do such
> a kludged together and brain-damaged job of what they do do.
that, and the fact that it's not so much stealing ideas as it is plagarism.
just try to get MS to admit that many of their core ideas were being
implemented and used long before they had them...
--
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
Linux! Guerrilla UNIX Development Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus.
(By [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
------------------------------
From: Frank Sweetser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Registry - Already easily doable, in part.
Date: 14 Jan 1999 09:13:27 -0500
Todd Knarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any configuration system that allows from-the-top enforcement of policy
> without allowing the bottom to decide whether to allow it is going to
> have problems with this situation, and letting the bottom decide whether
> to allow the top to enforce policy sort of defeats the purpose as far
> as the top is concerned.
really? so people working on a corporate environment should be able to do
things like setting their NT PDC to whatever machine they like, or screwing
around with the mail relay?
if the admins decided to hardcode the printer, then the admin did something
pretty stupid. just because values from the top of the tree *can* be
forced doesn't mean they're *always* forced.
--
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
Linux! Guerrilla UNIX Development Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus.
(By [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
