Linux-Development-Sys Digest #373, Volume #6 Wed, 3 Feb 99 19:14:48 EST
Contents:
Re: Why I'm dumping Linux, going back to Windblows (Horst von Brand)
Re: I'm confused. (Horst von Brand)
gcc-lib in RH4.2 and RH5.1 problem!!! (Phongsak Prasithsangaree)
Re: use theramin as input device (steve mcadams)
Re: use theramin as input device (steve mcadams)
Re: NT mouse frenzy related to mouse type? (was: Modest next goal for Linux) ("Per
Olsson")
Device Driver Module Dependencies, etc. ("Bertrand Lee")
Re: disheartened gnome developer (Christopher B. Browne)
Re: Linux Phase 2: A Consumer Operating System (Jon Taylor)
Re: Can't umount /usr: device busy (Markus Schutz)
Re: Why I'm dumping Linux, going back to Windblows (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux Phase 2: A Consumer Operating System (Ian Smith)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Horst von Brand)
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: 3 Feb 1999 22:05:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher B. Browne wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 21:02:54 -0500, Paul E. Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>>You can get all the Unix utilities and even run a Korn shell in NT by using
>>software such as MKS Toolkit
>>Why put up with the pain of Unix or Linux [...]
>I think this begs the question...
Just another version of the "Whatever you can do in Unix, WinXX can do much
better" tune of Win advocates lately. After the top-ones "Linux crashes all
the time", "Linux is impossible to install", "No support", "Unix doesn't
support most hardware". And possibly next the evergreen "Unix is expensive
to manage".
>If you don't want to "put up with the pain" of UNIX/Linux, then why do
>you think it's sensible to use MKS, when all that does is to replicate
>the "pain of Unix or Linux"?
That's the wrong way around: If you want Unix, why put up with the pain of
WinXX, and a fake Unix environment kludged on top to boot?
--
Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Casilla 9G, Viña del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Horst von Brand)
Subject: Re: I'm confused.
Date: 3 Feb 1999 22:05:22 GMT
In article <796kba$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dr. Unk wrote:
>1. Is egcs-1.1.1 and all it's other addons stable enough for production?
>If not which gcc should I get?
egcs-1.1.1 is the current stable release, it should be aproximately as
stable (or more) than gcc-2.7.2.3 or gcc-2.8.1. But note that there are
packages (most notably linux-2.0.xx) that depend on misfeatures of
gcc-2.7.x, so you should keep that one around.
I've been using egcs weekly snapshots for most of my compiling (including
kernels from the 2.1 and lately 2.2 series) with mostly minor hiccups, but
occasional more severe problems.
>2. I'm not too clear on the 3 glibc versions I've seen, which one is
>stable (2.0.6, 2.0.7pre6, 2.0.112)? What are the differences?
The 2.0.90 and up (IIRC) are snapshots on the way to 2.1. They sport some
incompatible changes, most notably with older libraries that use libio
directly. The common ones are ncurses and libstdc++, you'll need to rebuild
those. RedHat uses a patched 2.0.7pre library. Perhaps you should check
RedHat's or Debian's source packages for their stable releases.
>3. I need a minimal-list of the packages to make a distribution free
>system. I currently have the list for the GNU version 0.2 system. Is there
>a place that I can get samples of all the configuration files, do they come
>with the packages they use?
Most of the packages carry at least sample configuration files. But be
warned that many of them do _not_ comply with the standards for placing
files as set forth in the FHSST (or some such, look at
<ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/linux/docs/> or similar).
It probably is a lot of fun to build your own distribution, but (a) there
are way too many of them as things stand, and (b) perhaps your talents are
better used elsewhere.
Happy hacking!
--
Horst von Brand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Casilla 9G, Viña del Mar, Chile +56 32 672616
------------------------------
From: Phongsak Prasithsangaree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: gcc-lib in RH4.2 and RH5.1 problem!!!
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 15:48:29 -0600
Hi All,
We are developing a program under Linux Redhat 4.2. It can be compiled
very well and we can run the executable.
Then, we try to compile the source code of this program again under
Linux Redhat 5.1. We got a lot of problems for example, the missing
include files, dependency, and etc.
Can anyone tell us what is the different between compiling gcc and g++
under RH42 and RH51?
Please help!!!
==========================
Phongsak Prasithsangaree
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: use theramin as input device
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 22:56:51 GMT
I did receive one offline followup, haven't checked it out yet, was
probably also posted to group but hasn't arrived yet:
>From: Nelson Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 03 Feb 1999 16:45:28 -0500
>
>Yes, we have a project exactly like that. Look at Josh's work
> http://www.media.mit.edu/~jrs/
>in particular "LazyFish".
[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
On 2 Feb 1999 22:40:39 GMT, Paul English <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>To the original poster -- if you get any replies offline, please post a
>followup summarizing the information (or at very least email it to me!).
========================================================
so what? - http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (steve mcadams)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: use theramin as input device
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 22:56:48 GMT
[Snipped for brevity, quoted material marked with ">"]
On Tue, 02 Feb 1999 13:19:33 -0800, Allen Crider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Do you mean that '50s sci-fi sound machine? Where do you get one of those?
Yep, that's the gizmo. You control it by waving your hands around a
couple of antenna. There are some places you can buy them on the web
but they look solidly into the musical scene. -steve
========================================================
so what? - http://www.codetools.com/showcase
------------------------------
From: "Per Olsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT mouse frenzy related to mouse type? (was: Modest next goal for Linux)
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 23:51:21 +0100
I didn't notice raised CPU load earlier. I must have done the test only with
the mouse pointer inside an application window then. If I do the test with
the mouse pointer on the desktop (background) the CPU load goes to 100% with
the PS/2 mouse also.
/Per Olsson
P.S. Has anyone posted in any microsoft newsgroup about this?
--
If everything else fails, read the instructions. ;)
>> It was the Sun, 31 Jan 1999 20:31:11 +0100...
>> ..and Per Olsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I run Windows NT 4.0 Server. I hold a mouse button down and doesn't
>> > notice raised CPU
>> > load, slower performance on running apps or such.
>> >
>> > P200MMX 192Mb RAM PS/2 Mouse
>>
>> Maybe it depends on the type of mouse?
>>
>> Perhaps the PS/2 mouse handler is somewhat smarter than the serial
>> mouse driver?
------------------------------
From: "Bertrand Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Device Driver Module Dependencies, etc.
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 22:13:49 +0800
Wonder whether any of the kernel gurus out there could help on these
questions:
1. If I write a module (eg. mymodule.o) that is dependent on functions
defined in another module (eg. basemodule.o), how do I tell the kernel
(through depmod) which module I depend on? ie. if I do a "modprobe
mymodule.o", I would want basemodule.o to be loaded automatically since
mymodule.o depends on it.
I looked through the current driver source but can't really figure out how
it has been done.
2. Will using kmalloc() automatically lock the pages in memory? (ie. prevent
them from being swapped to disk). Also, are the code/data segments page
locked by default? If not, is there any way to lock them in?
3. Are float types/operations at all supported in the kernel?
4. What is the default byte-packing size in the kernel? Is there any way to
specify alternative byte-packing sizes?
Will really, really appreciate answers to ANY of these questions. Please
include an email reply if possible ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
TIA.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 14:30:55 GMT
On 02 Feb 1999 23:22:45 -0800, Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>>>>>> "Christopher" == Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>> Thank you - not everything in the world exists because of or
> >>> for the benefit of economics.
> >> May I put this into my soon-to-come .signature rotation?
>
> Christopher> I would suggest that every arrangement *does* exist
> Christopher> because of or for some form of economic benefit.
>
> Christopher> Note that I didn't say *monetary* benefit...
>
> Christopher> People build free software because they think it
> Christopher> provides *some* sort of benefit outweighing the costs
> Christopher> of producing it. That's economic benefit...
>
>`Economic' is an interesting word.
>
>- From the American Heritage Dictionary:
>
>economy:
> 1. a. The careful or thrifty use or management of
> resources, such as income, materials, or labor.
>
>What <is> the `economic' benefit for the developer?
- If the developer finds the software directly highly useful, then
building the software one's self may represent a "careful/thrifty" use
of resources. That is, historically, the way most "free" software
came into being, and indeed most software of any sort before Mr Gates
came along.
- If the developer considers that many will use the software, and that
this makes it "worth doing," this represents a "careful/thrifty" use
of resources.
- If the developer watched "Field of Dreams" too many times, and has
the words "If you build it, they will come..." echoing through his/her
head, the benefits may be of feeling better despite being insane...
--
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] (Jon Taylor)
Subject: Re: Linux Phase 2: A Consumer Operating System
Date: 3 Feb 1999 23:10:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 13:50:24 GMT, Christopher B. Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 3 Feb 1999 09:20:09 GMT, Jon Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>posted:
>>Flux is really interesting. It is based on the concept of
>>polymorphic, recursize virtual machines. A microkernel exports
>>process spaces which spawn new subprocess spaces. Page faults are
>>used for kernel call gates. Another team has taken Flux and merged
>>it with Kaffe and added the concept of a process to Java, and all of
>>the 'sandbox' concerns disappear from Java. It is another cool idea.
>>I think the OSKit is going to generate a wave of OS innovation.
>
>It generates interest only to the degree to which it is usable.
>
>For quite a while, code was promised to be made public, whilst not
>being such.
Flux source has still not been released, and I suspect that this
is because of the extremely high level of security offered by the design.
Flask is a DOD project which will probably be used in classified A-level
certification environments. It doesn't matter *too* much, though, because
the papers the the U of U group have published are comprehensive enough
that anyone could pick up the OSKit and reconstruct the OS pretty
easily.
>It appears that possible "powers that be" wanted to keep FluxOS as a
>proprietary thing so as to be able to encourage people to bring them
>briefcases of money.
They better prepare for disappointment, then. If it is even half
as good as they say it is, lots of people will be motivated to work on a
GPLed remiplementation.
>Unfortunately for them, things don't work very well that way; in a
>world where there's a "rapacious Microsoft" and a bunch of free OSes,
>you get to choose the former approach only if you're Bill Gates or are
>already well entrenched with your product (ala QNX).
>
>Yet again, it is amply displayed that licensing really is an important
>issue...
In some areas (like OSes), yes it is vital.
Jon
---
'Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in
becoming one with God.'
- Scientist G. Richard Seed
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 00:33:35 +0100
From: Markus Schutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Can't umount /usr: device busy
Thanks to you for your help.
I must confess I didn't knew about lsof and fuser. I should be
ashamed not knowing about fuser, since the guy who wrote it
(Werner Almesberger) works at the technical university I made my
studies...
Ok, I tried all, lsof, fuser and some other tricks.
Here are the results:
You won't believe it, but it's the /bin/sh that gives the following
'lsof' ouput:
sh 3759 root rtd DIR 3,10 1024 2 /
sh 3759 root txt REG 3,10 1465189 8034 /bin/sh
sh 3759 root mem REG 3,11 110186 4276 /usr/lib/libnss_db-2.0.7.so
sh 3759 root mem REG 3,11 226617 4268 /usr/lib/libdb-2.0.7.so
sh 3759 root mem REG 3,11 161027 4127 /usr/lib/libnss_files-2.0.7.so
sh 3759 root mem REG 3,11 2399117 4135 /usr/lib/libc-2.0.7.so
sh 3759 root mem REG 3,11 144235 4234 /usr/lib/ld-2.0.7.so
sh 3759 root 0u CHR 3,2 4414 /dev/ttyp2
sh 3759 root 1u CHR 3,2 4414 /dev/ttyp2
sh 3759 root 2u CHR 3,2 4414 /dev/ttyp2
Or the 'fuser -vm /usr' output:
root 3787 ....m sh
Now all will tell I'm realy stupid to link /bin/sh dynamic. But look
at the 'ldd /bin/sh' ouput:
not a dynamic executable
And I revisited (and actually rebuilt) bash with the static enabled.
And it builds with:
gcc ... -static -rdynamic ...
-rdynamic isn't even documented, but the -static is clear: static
linkage.
So I pushed the sysinit script into a shell, just to see what happens
before anything is mounted. Instead of the links to /usr/lib/lib*,
I got a link to /etc/ld.so.cache. But as soon as /usr gets mounted,
the links against the /usr/lib/lib* come again, before a 'ldconfig'
was started.
Does bash know about /etc/ld.so.cache? and is it able to open it and
make the links himself?
The fact is that a statically linked bash makes links against some
dynamic stuff, and this blocks the /usr file system. I suspect this
can also lock the root file system. Maybe someone out there has the
same problem, but with the root fs.
Since I'm close to magic dances, and believing in elfs hoping around
in my PC, I'm going to ask a bash guru (developer) about that. Maybe
there is a switch that can help. Or I'll look for some other shell
to boot/halt the system (I don't need all the bash power to run the
couple of lines).
Ok, thanks again for your valuable help,
Markus
--
A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is
nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
=================================================================
Markus SCHÜTZ
8, Ch. des Aubépines Phone: ++41 21 646 9362
CH-1004 Lausanne mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Switzerland
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Foothills/9297
=================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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: 3 Feb 1999 22:40:36 GMT
In article <z%st2.374$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Paul E. Lehmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can get all the Unix utilities and even run a Korn shell
> in NT by using software such as MKS Toolkit
I have Interix for NT and while it technically does have "all
your favorite Unix utilities", for some reason I find it a bit
cumbersome compared to the real deal. I think the problem boils
down to the fact that Win32 and Interix don't know that each
other exists, and in the cases where they do try to interoperate
it gets kludgy because the two environments have such different
semantics.
FWIW, CygWin32 has much the same problem, even though it is not
technically a separate subsystem as Interix is. Given that there
are more Unix apps ported to CygWin32 than Interix, I have to
wonder what the advantage is of spending lots of money (I got my
Interix on a promotional deal at a steep discount).
> Why put up with the pain of Unix or Linux when you can have all
> the so-called advantages and a hell of a lot friendlier user
> environment and a hell of a lot more versatile environment.
Interesting. I would have thought that most of us in _Linux_
newsgroups don't find Linux "painful" or we wouldn't be here.
And as I explained above, the integration between the so-called
"user-friendly NT environment" and the pretend-Unix tools like
Interix leaves a lot to be desired IMO, negating much of the
supposed advantage of doing this in the first place.
I find that it is actually more comfortable to simply run an X
server or VNC under NT to display my Linux desktop than to fool
around with "integration" ala Interix or CygWin32 (and presumaly
MKS as well). Use Samba to share files and it is at least as
"integrated" as the other way and much more comfortable to use.
And using this method there is no porting involved. For example,
XEmacs works fine under Linux while the Interix folks had a $1000
bounty for anyone who could get it working in their environment
the last time I checked their web site (maybe two months ago).
> Pearl, sed, awk, grep, vi - piping, redirection - they are all
> there without the Nerdy Unix environment.
Um, those _are_ the "Nerdy Unix environment", at least in part.
--
15:15:00 up 2 days, 40 min, 0 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
------------------------------
From: Ian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Linux Phase 2: A Consumer Operating System
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 13:38:13 +0000
Christopher Browne wrote:
> >In that case please explain how rpm could put deb out of business [g].
>
> And this misses the rather important point that RPM and dselect are not
> of comparable utility.
. . . but the file formats are.
> dselect doesn't do what RPM does; it represents a "package *list*
> manager," and requires a "helper" called dpkg which actually manages
> the packages.
>
> RPM doesn't do what dselect does; it corresponds reasonably closely to
> dpkg. And while there have been some efforts to build 'package list
> managers' for use with RPM, none are as usable as of yet as dselect.
Agreed!
Ian.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
