Linux-Development-Sys Digest #292, Volume #6 Sun, 17 Jan 99 01:14:18 EST
Contents:
Re: Open Configuration Storage - was Registry for Linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Making reliable profilings under linux !!!! (Nitin Malik)
mapping buffers from kernel to user space (Nitin Malik)
Re: - deprecated - why? (Christopher Browne)
Re: disheartened gnome developer (Perry Pip)
Re: Open Configuration Storage - was Registry for Linux (Christopher Browne)
Re: virtualizing i386-linux (Michael Brunnbauer)
Re: IPMasquerading / SSH (Richard Jones)
Re: disheartened gnome developer (Christopher B. Browne)
Re: disheartened gnome developer (Navindra Umanee)
Re: IPMasquerading / SSH (Peter Samuelson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Open Configuration Storage - was Registry for Linux
Date: 11 Jan 1999 22:42:42 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
George MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Also I'm not sure priorities are always required, what
>if there is an implied search order, i.e. try local
>files first, then LDAP, then ACAP. I might be missing
>something but are priorities only needed when there
>is some kind of tie in evaluation order that needs
>to be resolved? Or are you saying just use priorities
>as the way to determine evaluation order?
I guess I'd need a real example of the values you might
want to find. I was thinking of looking up a network
printer or your mail relay where an assortment of choices
might be offered where each might not know much about
the others.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 21:26:19 -0500
From: Nitin Malik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Making reliable profilings under linux !!!!
I am facing similar problems.... does anyone know how to use the
"readprofile" tool??
nitin
On 15 Jan 1999, James Youngman wrote:
>
>"Pedro Ribeiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> '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 ??
>
>Make the program run for longer, perhaps by putting a loop in main().
>
>--
>ACTUALLY reachable as @free-lunch.demon.(whitehouse)co.uk:james+usenet
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 21:36:14 -0500
From: Nitin Malik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Nitin Malik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: mapping buffers from kernel to user space
i need to do the mapping to cut down the s/w overheads in packet
transmission... does any one have any ideas how this can be achieved??
Thanks,
nitin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: - deprecated - why?
Date: 15 Jan 1999 02:45:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:44:10 GMT, Alan Curry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>One question though: did the Linux community, or any of the *BSD people, have
>a vote in deciding which version of ps would be standardized in UNIX98? If
>not, then why should we bloat up procps with a bunch of options no one will
>ever use just so we can claim to follow this lousy standard which we had no
>opportunity to discuss before it was adopted?
No, there was no vote for these communities. Much as these communities
do not have direct representation with X11. And much as there has been
limited representation at IETF. And not too much at W3C.
The Linux community hasn't been "rich enough" to participate, which is
not simply the matter of membership fees (such as the X11 $50K), but
also of the need for willing and qualified representatives to sit on the
relevant committees.
The Open Group gets "bashed" somewhat over the X11 membership fee; I'll
say in defense, that if the free software community *can't* raise that
kind of funding, we can't expect to influence bodies where everyone else
invested substantial money and resources.
I won't deny that there are counterarguments; the free software
community has indeed contributed other things.
However, in the long run, in order to be a "full partner" involved in
setting real standards, there is a need for participation. Which may
even include a need to pay some membership fees.
--
Be warned that typing "killall name" may not have the desired
effect on non-Linux systems, especially when done by a privileged user.
(From the killall manual page)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: disheartened gnome developer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 03:06:34 GMT
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 18:21:37 GMT, steve mcadams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Generally C-language wrappers for C++ objects tend to be a bad idea;
>on the other hand if you start with a C implementation then wrap it in
>C++ you get the best of both worlds. (Unfortunately most people,
>myself included, are probably too lazy to do this if they can just
>write it in C++ to begin with.) -steve
Well, fortunately, not everybody is so lazy. Check out www.gnome.org.
Kudos to the Gnome team!!
Perry
------------------------------
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: 16 Jan 1999 03:16:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 04:03:09 GMT, Phil Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
*Very* good point.
I've been following (due to other interests :-)) the developments
relating to the OMG Working Group that is building a "standard" General
Ledger IDL. (This is relevant, trust me...)
They provide both:
a) Bindings that can retrieve a single accounting transaction, as well
as
b) Bindings that can retrieve a group of transactions based on some
query criteria.
If a process just wants to look at a single "transaction," whether that
be details of corporate operations or what is the IP address
corresponding to a host name, it is reasonable to use the "single
retrieval."
It is equally important to make sure that there's a way of getting data
across the "wire" in bulk, in case we're looking for a whole lot of
information.
This allows us to cope with slow latency.
If it takes a second to get data "across the Great Divide," that is a
pretty bad situation, regardless of how we handle it. If that latency
gets associated with *every key,* then that is *REALLY BAD.*
By having a message queue (ala MSMQ/TIB/OM3/...; I'm assuming *some*
magic here; this corresponds to the "asynchronous resolver") and
queueing requests, we *might* get some parallelism, but if that results
in there being thousands of across-the-wire requests being queued up, I
suspect that this just puts off the problem for a few minutes until the
messaging system crashes because the queue got up to 150,000 queries,
and the memory consumption from the promises made blew out swap space.
Thus asynchronous resolution doesn't *necessarily* solve the problem.
It certainly doesn't if "putting off resolution" consumes some memory,
and we do it tens of thousands of times...
If, instead, we can pre-bundle up 20,000 of those key queries into a
single request, and get 1 second latency plus a couple of seconds of
"variable cost" associated with adding a whole whack of data to the
request (going in both directions), the latency is still kind of ugly,
but it's probably *workable.*
In the above bit, I've assuming having some hi-tech stuff like CORBA and
message queueing; the issues should still hold true if we're talking
about having some processes talking through sockets with less
sophistication involved.
A different example of the same thing:
My ISP has been having some trouble lately with INN due to some recent
patches that make building the news feed more efficient, but
unfortunately makes it hard for users to actually get connections.
Similar sorts of stuff.
The NNTP protocol includes commands to request articles, which generally
is a one-by-one thing. Commands to request information about newsgroups
and articles tend to offer options to pull lots of "keys" at one shot to
allow them to be "batch processed," which is a lot more efficient.
Overall points:
1- Despite some adverse comments above, message queueing at some level is
probably a useful idea.
Microsoft has MSMQ, which definitely qualifies as a "heavyweight
implementation;" Linux has no freely available equivalent.
(See <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/tpmonitor.html> for some commercial
options... As near-coincidence, I talked today with one of the
marketing guys at Level8, vendors of FalconMQ, a UNIX-based system that
interoperates with MSMQ. No Linux version yet...)
It would be nice to have some options of varying weights, between:
- "it's working with local data, so it's basically a simple set of
arrays..." approach that works internally to a process, to
- something that uses sockets to let processes talk on a single host, to
- something heavier weight using CORBA that provides lots of
functionality and is certainly able to cope with multiple hosts...
2 - While there will certainly be differences in performance between
lightweight implementations that sit within local processes, or, at the
far opposite end, processes that marshall arguments to push data
requests using CORBA through IIOP, there *is* a cost to doing single key
requests, which mandates having some way of doing bulk data transfers.
--
"The reality of the software business today is that if you find
something that can make you ridiculously rich, then that's something
that Microsoft is going to take away from you." -- Max Metral
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Michael Brunnbauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: virtualizing i386-linux
Date: 16 Jan 1999 03:55:58 GMT
Marc SCHAEFER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I remember well, the condition for virtualization is that you
> can't see that you are being virtualized.
this is a condition for virtualizing every possible OS on a given CPU (x86).
i am talking about virtualizing i386-linux.
cu,
brunni
------------------------------
From: Richard Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IPMasquerading / SSH
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 16:03:41 +0000
Greg Boehnlein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Hello all,
: I've got this particularly annoying problem when SSHing out
: through my 2.0.36 box w/ IP Masquerading. If I'm sitting behind the box
: and connecting to an outside server, the SSH connection eventually goes
: away. This only happens when I am idle for a period of time.
: I'm running SSH 1.2.26-1us from ftp.replay.com.
: Any suggestions? It's a minor annoyance right now, but enough to piss me
: off every couple of hours.
With a 2.0 kernel, do this (adjust the timeout values,
in seconds, to whatever you require):
# Masquerading timeout values, defined as:
# 1st param = TCP timeout
# 2nd param = TCP timeout after FIN packet seen
# 3rd param = UDP timeout
/sbin/ipfwadm -M -s 3600 60 600
Rich.
--
- Richard Jones. Linux contractor London and SE areas. -
- Very boring homepage at: http://www.annexia.demon.co.uk/ -
- You are currently the 1,991,243,100th visitor to this signature. -
- Original message content Copyright (C) 1998 Richard Jones. -
------------------------------
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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 05:02:06 GMT
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:55:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
posted:
>In article <77h02o$bg6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
>
>Sure. Technically :-)
>Then again, usually when a program with a low "cool factor" like, say,
>a Tk front end to network configuration gets fropped it often just stays
>dropped. Even high profile projects like the GIMP had a rough season
>after the original maintainers dropped it (things a re better now, thankfully)
Indeed. If nobody cares about the software, if some "catastrophe" strikes,
no one will notice.
("What if the government bureaucrats went out on strike, and discovered
that nobody cared???")
Red Hat "dropped" some Python/Tk configuration tools, in favor of
supporting Linuxconf; that happened with barely a whimper, as nobody
really cared very much, or was terribly inconvenienced by the "loss."
I have a hard time caring, myself. There are better things to expend
emotional energy on.
>> 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."
>
>Not exactly, since the result of that "disaster clause" is not the
>release under the GPL of the software in Troll tech's case.
A *precise* parallel? No.
Relatively similar? I'd think so. The GPL and BSDL have different
sorts of restrictiveness; both are commonly regarded as representing
"free" software. Albeit with some noisy dissenters.
--
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: Navindra Umanee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: disheartened gnome developer
Date: 16 Jan 1999 05:11:42 GMT
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7 Jan 1999 05:41:24 GMT, Navindra Umanee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Agreed. I'd add that people should also understand the implications
>>of GPL'ing their work.
>
> And so it is with any software license. But what GPL strives to create
> (perhaps not perfectly) is a "share and share alike" environment. In other
> words, all developers are on the same level, all developers are treated as
> equals and are working together. At least that's what the license strives
> for.
Yep. Take a BSD program, add one line of GPL'ed code and the
resultant derived work must be GPL'ed. Of course, the FSF realised
the problem and compromised by releasing the LGPL. And even the LGPL
has a backdoor in it to make it compatible with the GPL.
> But suppose you fork the code and create your own version called NavQt,
> distributed as patch+original. If your version becomes popular, Troll Tech
> can instantly include your patches in their version, making it part of
> thier *commercial* product, charging people money for the commercial
> version.
This is true and I sympathize with Troll's intentions here. Even RMS
understands why Troll wants to do this. (of course, RMS still wants
Qt to be GPL'ed and his proposal to deal with Troll's particular
problem was a somewhat lame non-legal "solution")
This is exactly where Open Source (TM) comes in more useful than the
GPL. QPL is Open Source (TM) and gives Troll the flexibility it needs
to make a license that more suits it while still being friendly to the
free software folks.
> You are not on the same level with them. You do not have equal
> rights, even to your own work, under the qpl. If you can accept that,
> that's fine for you.
You have all the rights to your own work. Just like you have all the
rights to that BSD program to which you added one line of GPL'ed code.
> Redhat is spending $$$ on gnome development. But nowhere in the copyright
> or license does it say that they exclusivly own or control it. They are
They own and control code they have copyrighted. Simple.
> part owners of the copyright, and if you contribute a worthwhile patch,
> you become a part owner too. Redhat plans to make money selling service
> and support for gnome, which you can do as well.
Noble intentions indeed.
> So there is a key difference in business model here. Redhat dishes out
> free software under GPL/LGPL and hopes to make money on service and
> support. Troll tech is trying to make money via license royalties. In this
> respect Troll Tech's business model has more in common with Microsoft than
> it does with Redhat.
Whatever.
> If your happy with Troll Tech's terms, and want to develop with Qt/KDE, go
> for it. If your happy with Microsofts terms, and want to develop with
> Visual Studio, go for it. I personally find Gnome/GPL/LGPL the least of
> the evils.
Troll's terms doesn't affect free software developers. so yes I'm
happy with it.
-N.
--
"These download files are in Microsoft Word 6.0 format. After unzipping,
these files can be viewed in any text editor, including all versions of
Microsoft Word, WordPad, and Microsoft Word Viewer." [Microsoft website]
< http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~navindra/editors/ >
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: IPMasquerading / SSH
Date: 15 Jan 1999 23:32:54 -0600
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Daniel R. Grayson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> I'm not sure what you mean by "server". Perhaps you mean my
> "internet service provider", but it doesn't participate in or know
> about the masquerading. In any case, the modem stays connected.
He meant the SSH server. (Or telnet server. Or whatever.) In your
example below, host C.
> hosts A and B are connected to each other by ethernet in my house
> host B also has a modem which dials up my ISP using ppp
> host B implements "IP masquerading"
> when host A contacts host C somewhere else in the world, say by
> telnet, the traffic goes through host B.
OK so far.
> on host B, the command "netstat -M" will display each such
> "masqueraded" connection, together with its expiration
> time. I can watch the time till expiration tick down
> from 15 minutes to 0 for the connection from A to C --
> each time some data are exchanged, it gets reset to
> 15 minutes. Eventually the connection is terminated.
The burning question is -- are you absolutely sure it's not host C
which is doing the disconnecting? That's what Mark was getting at.
The way to test is to see if a similar connection (but without masq)
will time out after 15 minutes, or stay connected. Try it and see.
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
