Linux-Development-Sys Digest #313, Volume #6 Thu, 21 Jan 99 02:13:57 EST
Contents:
Re: libc5 and glibc (Dick Repasky)
Passive Creatix ISDN LPT BOX Driver (PAUL ZUBER)
Re: What does this traceroute output mean? (Martin Kahlert)
Re: Resuming a program execution after SIGSEGV excep. (Bjorn Reese)
Re: disheartened gnome developer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: - deprecated - why? (Andrew Josey)
Re: Why I'm dumping Linux, going back to Windblows (Gordon Scott)
Re: - deprecated - why? (Andrew Josey)
Re: 2038 and Linux (Christopher B. Browne)
aic7xxx Vers. 5.x didn't work with AHA-3940U (Bernd Melchers)
Re: disheartened gnome developer (Nico Kadel-Garcia)
Re: Why I'm dumping Linux, going back to Windblows (Jeremy Crabtree)
Re: disheartened gnome developer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 2.2.0pre7 dowsnt load modules ("Nallakkandi Rajeevan, Ph.D.")
Re: disheartened gnome developer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dick Repasky)
Subject: Re: libc5 and glibc
Date: 20 Jan 1999 12:11:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:11:19 +0800, Thomas Chai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi, I recently trying to download a new binary version of xfree86 server and
>I
>notice they have a version for libc5 and a version for glibc......which one
>should I used?
>
>
Enter the command: ldd /sbin/init
to find out which version is used by your system. Use the version indicated.
--
Remove the underscore from my e-mail address to reply by mail.
------------------------------
From: PAUL ZUBER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Passive Creatix ISDN LPT BOX Driver
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 14:36:59 +0100
Hi everyone,
1)my goal is to write a linux driver for the box mentioned in the
subject. (if there isnt already one). It contains the HiSax chipset and
is connected to the Parallel Printer Port. For all of these hardware
components there does exist source code, but if anyone had an idea, how
this all fits together or if iam trying to do something impossible or
redundant (because already existing) please let me know.
2) Unfort. i lost the case which covers the electronics inside. I am
interested in
following specs usually printed on it: -Voltage -Polarity or AC (German
version - might be others do vary).
Any body else owning an ISDN LPT BOX ? Please let me know which of my
four million adapters lying around
was the right one.
#############
Thanks...
....Paul
#############
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Kahlert)
Subject: Re: What does this traceroute output mean?
Date: 20 Jan 1999 13:39:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <782r6q$fvc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
BL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm guessing its a duplex or auto-negotiate issue.
>
> whenever I see 'it works, but very slowly', I think 10/100 half/full stuff
> being flakey.
>
> can you manually -force- both to be 100/fullDuplex?
> and if you can squeak any pkts thru at all, your physical
> connect is probably ok. and for a rolled
> cable, there is little to go wrong ;-)
>
> so disable auto-neg and nail the speed at 100/full on both.
This tip was great.
I couldn't set the speed to 100/full on both: Alpha would do it,
but the Realtek 8139 driver won't (Is there a better driver to
sqeeze out 100/full from a Realtek 8139?).
The link now runs with 850 K/s in both directions. But i had to boot
under Dos and run the DOS setup program for the card to set 10 half.
(This tool writes the info into an card eprom)
Then i get these good result.
I thought, things like that should be done the linux driver...
Thanks for your reply,
Martin.
--
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
to take effect. Reboot now?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bjorn Reese)
Subject: Re: Resuming a program execution after SIGSEGV excep.
Date: 20 Jan 1999 12:44:52 GMT
Richard Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> This is one of the best kept secrets of
> signal handlers. There are in fact extra
> arguments passed to the signal handler,
> but you don't normally see these. The
This is true.
> full prototype of a signal handler (Linux
> and Solaris, at least) is:
>
> #include <signal.h>
> #include <sigcontext.h>
>
> void sighandler (int sig, struct sigcontext *scp);
This is an incorrect answer (it may be true for Linux, but it
is certainly not true for Solaris, nor for the POSIX and UNIX98
standards.)
The correct answer will be to use sa_sigaction instead of
sa_handler, and to set the SA_SIGINFO flags before installing
the signal handler with sigaction() (the man page should also
tell you this). This will give you a signal handler of the
type
void sighandler(int sig, siginfo_t *siginfo, void *context);
The last parameter is defined as 'void *' but should be cast
into 'ucontext_t *' which is defined in <sys/ucontext.h>
For further information see the UNIX98 standard, which can be
found through
http://www.unix-systems.org/online.html
------------------------------
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, 20 Jan 1999 13:41:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (jedi) wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 15:17:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Someone else had said:
> >
> >> And until that much-sought-for "QPL" license arrangement gets finalized, it
> >> is *not* true that "Troll Tech can't get any worse."
> >
> >It *is* true, because for Troll Tech to change their license they need my
> >vote, or Matthias Hoelzer's, and they ain't getting them if the new license
> >is going to be worse.
>
> It's still their property. They can do anything they like with it.
> That's been the catch from day one...
They can do anything they like, except changing the license of the free
edition. Ok, technically, they can change it, but it means we can re-release
it under the BSDL, so practically they can only change it to BSDL.
> >Of course you need not believe me, but I know my intentions, and I can make
> >a very educated guess on Matthias' so I can say that with a straight face :-)
>
> Whereas anything that Redhat has coded so far can and will
> be ours now and for perpetuity.
Not ours, it is theirs. You do have a right to change it, though, granted to
you by their license. And, just like you said of Troll Tech, they can do
anything they like with it. Except on this case it *is* correct.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Andrew Josey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: - deprecated - why?
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 02:06:48 GMT
Frank T. Lofaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Please tell me the Unix98 standard for ps options is not the same as
: System V! Please!
The UNIX 98 ps definition is in fact the POSIX.2 definition.
: What the heck is Unix98, anyway?
It defines the latest industry definition of what a UNIX (R) system
is. You can read the spec on line at
http://www.unix-systems.org/single_unix_specification_v2
: How is it diffrent than POSIX, X/OPEN, FIPS, etc?
In general its a superset of them.
--
Andrew Josey, #include <disclaimer.h>
For UnixWare freeware binaries, sources , and FAQs - http://www.freebird.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gordon Scott)
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: 20 Jan 1999 11:17:05 GMT
Reply-To: Gordon Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Arturo Garcia Ares ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Stuart Harris wrote:
: >
: > man pages are MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more usefull than window .hlp files
: > type man bash for instance
: > bet windows help doesent tell you so much about command.com!
: >
: Yes, but that's just better content; Windows help system IS MUCH
: better than man: not only better looking, but also better indexed and
: organized. If the bash man page were implemented as winhelp, we all
: would learn a lot more about bash.
Should there be a smiley on that?
Yes Windows help is prettier and maybe better indexed (moot), but it
rarely actually tells you the _answer_ to anything. IMHO, Windows help
is normally a complete waste of time and space. (Woaah -- theoretical
physics now :-)
G.
--
Gordon Scott Opinions expressed are my own.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (official) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (backdoor)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) http://www.apis.demon.co.uk
Linux ............... Because I like to _get_ there today.
------------------------------
From: Andrew Josey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: - deprecated - why?
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 02:12:15 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?
The definition of ps comes from POSIX 1003.2, so the community that
ballotted this was the IEEE TCOS committees. Traditionally folks
such as Usenix and the BSD folks have participated. There's a project
underway to revise the core POSIX specifications (see
http://www.opengroup.org/austin) - lets hope that folks from
the Linux community get involved.
--
Andrew Josey, #include <disclaimer.h>
For UnixWare freeware binaries, sources , and FAQs - http://www.freebird.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.software.year-2000
Subject: Re: 2038 and Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 14:11:01 GMT
On 20 Jan 1999 07:06:45 GMT, Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>Making C recognise 64 bit integers is the best solution. Making C do this
>means just a compile. No wierd hacks like the backdate hack. The only hack
>needed is in the compiler's code.
It is still necessary to make source code changes to cope with this. It's
obviously necessary to specify the new form of time_t.
Furthermore, it will be necessary either to add to ext2fs some sort of
"date signature" so that the date format may be detected, so we can correctly
determine if a particular filesystem uses 32 or 64 bit dates, or perhaps to
define the "2038-compliant" version as ext3fs. After all, the day that
the kernel that "does dates right" is released, there will still be a lot of
"legacy" filesystems that have the present functionality.
There is thus still some effort involved.
--
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] (Bernd Melchers)
Subject: aic7xxx Vers. 5.x didn't work with AHA-3940U
Date: 20 Jan 1999 14:37:33 GMT
Not one of the newer kernels in the 2.0.x series work
together with my Adaptec 3940U, BIOS 1.24. It seems,
the aic7xxx driver with versions 5.x didn't work for me.
Each access to the second disk, the CD-Rom or Streamer,...
kills the system (still the mouse pointer doesn't move).
Any hints?
My configuration:
AHA 3940 BIOS 1.24
Channel A:
#2 HP Scanjet 4c Scanner (extern)
#4 DAT Streamer HP 1599 (4/8 GB) (intern)
#5 CD-Brenner Yamaha 400T (intern)
#7 SCSI-Controller, Termination disabled
Channel B: (all devices intern)
#0 IBM DCHS 9GB SCSI disk
#1 different disks ( Seagate Barracuda, Quantum Atlas, IBM DDRS), gehen immer
recht schnell kaputt(!)
#6 CD-ROM Plextor 12Plex
#7 SCSI-Controller, Termination enabled
Asus 430HX AT-Board (P55T2P4) BIOS 2.05, Pentium 200 MMX, Matrox Millenium
network adapter 3COM 905B-TX
sound card AWE 64
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nico Kadel-Garcia)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: disheartened gnome developer
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 14:05:06 GMT
[ Politics, politcs, politcs, and more quotes of politcs ]
[[ Politics, politcs, politcs, and more quotes of politcs ]]
[[[ Politics, politcs, politcs, and more quotes of politcs ]]]
[[[[ Politics, politcs, politcs, and more quotes of politcs ]]]]
[[[[ Politics, politcs, politcs, and more quotes of politcs ]]]]
People, you are talking so much, you're not writing code anymore.
Various linux sites have this problem. Please restrain yourselves on
the politics and go back to writing code: the rest is primiarily
taking up our time and the bandwidth.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Crabtree)
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: 20 Jan 1999 14:57:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Derek Bem allegedly wrote:
>Emile van Bergen wrote:
>...
>> Oh. So reading the man page as it is prevented you from learning
>> something which you could have learned if it were written in the same
>> latin characters, but with color and indexes. I see.
>>
>> (Or did I just fall for a quite funny ironic remark? ;-)
>
>Oh. So form does not matter, how the material is presented is not
>relevant.
I don't recall anyone saying that...he was responding your argument,
which amounted to "so what if Windows help has no content? It /LOOKS/
much better than man"
[Inane rambling clipped]
>Is it a new or unusual concept to admit that BOTH aspects are important?
Both are important, but not equally so. Content is infinitely more
important than presentation; presentation is nothing when you don't have
anything to present.
--
"Being myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself
the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts
that are not hard" --Silvanus P. Thompson, from "Calculus Made Easy."
------------------------------
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, 20 Jan 1999 15:11:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > > [...] I've always thought that Troll Tech wants to be the good guy
> > > and that it is unfortunate that they caught so much heat from the
> > > people they wanted to be nice to. But from a larger perspective,
> > > it was a good thing. You need to go all the way.
> >
> > I find it a bit disturbing that for some people on the "linux
> > community" good will is not good enough, and only total submission
> > is (I'm not talking about you here)
>
> (You are, but that's ok)
I thought I wasn't!
Anyway, from here on I use a generic "you" meaning "you members of this
free software community thing", feel included if the shoe fits :-)
> First, I do have some problems with throwing
> the word "community" around so much, like I did in my previous post
> and I'm going to do now. But when taking away the social implications
> and emotions and the whole buddy stuff from the word, it is really my
> opinion that good will is by far not enough to be considered part of
> that community. I try to not be angry and rude to people that are
> `outside', but there is no use to make them believe they are part of
> the club, only not to hurt their `feelings' (which they shouldn't have
> because the community I'm thinking about is not a community of people
> but of principles).
Ok, so Troll Tech is outside of the "community". You may want to say KDE
is outside of "the community" too. Big deal.
Do you attack those who are not on your community? Are you a member of some
sort of expansionist group?
If someone is inside or outside or sideways it makes no difference to me,
as long as there is good will and respect, he's ok with me.
Troll Tech getting heat for not being "part of the community" whatever that
nonsense may mean was wrong, plain and simple, and those who did the flaming
are not OK in my book, at least in that matter.
> There are strong egos abound in the free software zoo and they are
> important. But in the end, for the faceless generations that come, it
> only matters what has been done in a way that has potential to last,
> modulo all personal affections. The open source cult is not the only
> community to be part of and I do not see it as an advantage to enlarge
> it by blurring the focus. We need to remain sharp and determined.
> There is no use becoming fashionable, getting addicted to fame and
> then dying exhausted.
Cool, but where does that mean that Trol Tech should "go all the way"?
Telling everyone else that happens to be nearby that his only choice is to
go all the way and be absorved, that's mean spirited, that's agressive, and
certainly is a feature of a community I want to have nothing to do with.
So, if those are the traits of the "free software community", dammit, I am not
a member of it. Maybe I am a member of the "people who like free software but
don't want to shove it down people's throats" tribe :-)
Does that make me a BSDite? ;-)
> I think it is a tell-tale sign when people get upset and start argue
> on a personal level (I'm guilty of that too). They are caring about
> the wrong things. In my view, the thing is not to build a community
> of religious truth-hoods to wield power and `win'. The thing is to
> build a sustainable way of making the promises of the computer age
> happening. This is the most important seed rms has planted, in my
> view. He has watered it with some gallons of truly great hacks, but
> the idea of free software in the strict even restricted sense is still
> the roots, stem and spines.
> Such serious words. Honestly, the most important thing of that rose
> are the blossoms: FUN!
On that I can agree. Then again, I have a very hard time having fun when I am
also supposed to be getting religious, which is why I try not to (get
religious)
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: "Nallakkandi Rajeevan, Ph.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.2.0pre7 dowsnt load modules
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:17:53 -0800
Hi Frank:
I am trying to get 2.2.0-pre7 up. I am having problems in loading modules.
I read that you had success in this case. So can you others help me.
I have installed sysklogd.1_3_28.1, modutil-2.1.121, util-linux.2.9g
when I try mkinitrd as:
> /sbin/mkinitrd /boot/initrd-2.2.0pre7.img 2.2.0pre7
>
it says:
mount: the kernel doesn't recognize /dev/loop0 as a block device
(may be 'insmod driver'?)
can't get loopback device.
Since I installed util-linux.2.9g, mount is supposed to be the latest and
mkinitrd should
work. Can anybody suggest what I should do next?
Thanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: disheartened gnome developer
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 06:17:24 GMT
In article <houben.916757638@magpie>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (USEnet Subsystem) wrote:
> <77tkbh$5i9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Houben S.H.M.J.)
>
> In <77tkbh$5i9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Gnome
> >just happens to be the easiest path to a toolkit binding for their language.
>
> Gnome is the desktop environment, the toolkit is GTK.
> (This might seem a nitpick, but it is essential, because Gnome is
> beta, whereas GTK isn't.)
You are correct on both points. Gnome is the desktop environment, the toolkit
is GTK. Gnome does not have a stable release and GTK does.
However, some binding developers want to also bind to the Gnome widgets, so
the the binding apps developed will be Gnome aware. Now the stable version
(1.0.6) of GTK of has some code incompatilities with the later 1.1.x
versions and Gnome depends on the latest 1.1.x version, so if you want your
binding to be Gnome aware you have to use the unstable version of GTK.
And if you just want to bind to GTK 1.0.x only, you're bindings are gonna be
broken and somewhat behind the latest features when GTK 1.2.0 comes out.
> >And that's exactly what the Gnome developers wanted. But since Gnome is not
> >complete, it follows that the bindings are even less complete.
>
> Gnome is not complete. But GTK (the toolkit) has a stable 1.0 release.
See above.
> >I have seen some GTK apps in Perl, Python, and C++. But even those binding
> >are incomplete at this time, so it's only natural the majority of GTK apps at
> >this time are in C.
>
> While this may be true, it is not caused by the incompleteness of GTK itself.
> Moreover, if the process of creating the bindings is pretty straightforward,
> the incompleteness of the bindings is less of an issue, since the programmer
> can easily wrap up that little extra functionality (s)he needs.
Of course not, it's because developing the bindings themselves takes time,
> > But I don't think we will see less apps in C,
>
> Well, no, unless some apps get lost due to bad back-up media ;-)
> (OK, you mean *new* apps...)
>
> OK, here is my 0.05 Euro. ;-)
>
> One of the cool things of GTK is that it is rather easy to make a
> language wrapper. This is *partially* due to the fact that GTK is
> written in C. If you take your random obscure programming language,
> you will note that it probably has some interface with C, but not
> directly with C++. Of course, C++ is kind of a superset of C, but if
> the library in question (the toolkit) contains lots of C++-specific
> things, you will have to wrap this stuff up in the C subset of the
> language.
Exactly.
> Moreover, and I think that this is an even more important reason
> why the author of the language wrapper would prefer GTK over QT,
> a C compiler is a pretty standard part of any *nix distribution,
> while a C++ compiler is something that, in general, only C++
> programmers have installed. So if I want to enrich the language
> foobar with a toolkit, I would prefer a C toolkit (foobar
> programmers probably already have a C compiler, and anyway, they
> need one because it forms the back end of foobar's compilation
> process) over a C++ toolkit (which requires a big C++ compiler
> they don't need for anything else). Since neither C or C++ will be
> used to do the bulk of the programming (most will be done in
> foobar), the possibly clearer syntax of the C++ toolkit is
> hardly an issue.
Actually, I think egcs may be on it's way to becoming standard, at least on
Linux.
> So what was the point of all this? Well, basically why someone
> would prefer a C library over a C++ library with equivalent
> functionality, and more specifically, why someone might prefer
> GTK over QT. Mind you, there are some people in the world who
> think that both C and C++ stink^H^H^H^H^H are suboptimal for
> application-programming tasks, and would prefer foobar for
> that kind of job.
>
And thus one of the reasons the Gnome team choose GTK for their toolkit i.e to
be more extensible.
Perry
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
