Linux-Development-Sys Digest #609, Volume #6 Fri, 9 Apr 99 23:14:36 EDT
Contents:
Difficulty with C++ clock() function on Linux ("Robert C. Paulsen, Jr.")
Re: Arrgghh! How MUCH does it cost to set up Apache? ("Clay Reiche")
Re: Arrgghh! How MUCH does it cost to set up Apache? ("Walter B. Burke")
Re: CodeWarror for Linux (was: Re: Programming tools for ...) (Josh Stern)
Re: CodeWarror for Linux (was: Re: Programming tools for ...) (Sam Holden)
Question about gdb (Christopher Swanson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Robert C. Paulsen, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Difficulty with C++ clock() function on Linux
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 09:40:00 -0500
Hello,
I am having trouble getting the clock() function to return what I
expect. Please take a look at the short program below...
============================================================
// test timer.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <time.h>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
clock_t start = clock();
cout << "Wait for a short time and press ENTER: ";
cin.ignore( 99, '\n' );
clock_t stop = clock();
cout << "start: " << start
<< "\nstop: " << stop
<< "\nelapsed: " << double(stop-start) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC <<
endl;
}
============================================================
Typical output:
Wait for a short time and press ENTER:
start: 10000
stop: 10000
elapsed: 0
Start and stop times always show either 0, 10000, or 20000, with no
apparent correlation to how long I actually wait to press enter. Usually
they are the same, but occasionally they are different (but still one of
0, 10000 and 20000).
The above little program gives me the expected output under both Borland
and Microsoft compilers on a Windows system.
I tried both 2.0.36 and 2.2.5 kernels and both GNU and egcs compilers.
I do have real-time clock compiled into the kernel.
cat /proc/rtc shows:
rtc_time : 09:32:04
rtc_date : 1999-04-09
rtc_epoch : 1900
alarm : 00:00:00
DST_enable : no
BCD : yes
24hr : yes
square_wave : no
alarm_IRQ : no
update_IRQ : no
periodic_IRQ : no
periodic_freq : 1024
batt_status : okay
____________________________________________________________________
Robert Paulsen http://paulsen.home.texas.net
If my return address contains "ZAP." please remove it. Sorry for the
inconvenience but the unsolicited email is getting out of control.
------------------------------
From: "Clay Reiche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.admin.isp,alt.comp.linux.isp
Subject: Re: Arrgghh! How MUCH does it cost to set up Apache?
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 14:52:28 GMT
So, what did they do? Just subnet for me? Could I have done that myself?
Wouldn't I need to register the IPs with ARIN?
Andrew Bates wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>maybe so you wouldn't need a router on the network?
>
>"Walter B. Burke" wrote:
>>
>> Why would you need any more than one IP address?
>> Clay Reiche wrote in message ...
>> I've set up an Apache web server in Florida using a 384kbs ADSL. The
>> phone company charged $99 for the installation AND the modem! Not bad!
For
>> ADSL they charge based on the amount of band width you require. 384kbps
>> costs me $55 a month from the phone company. Then there's the ISP
charge...
>> I shopped for a week to find the best rate... $199 a month and they gave
me
>> a block of 64 static IP addresses!(Don't know what I'm gonna do with them
>> all, but I'm sure I'll find something...) They charged $49 for
installation.
>> I found one company that was cheaper, $149 a month, but they only gave me
>> one IP address...(they would charge $5 per additional IP) and the
>> installation was $149! So, my monthly expense is $250 and the
installation
>> expense was $104. I know that you don't live in Florida, but maybe this
can
>> give you an idea...?
>> Clay
>> PS: I didn't even consider T1, prices are outrageous.(and I'm running
>> this out of my apartment.)
>> Wayne Chunn wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I've been poking around for a bit on the relevant
newsgroups,
>> and
>> trying search engines, but can't seem to get any information
at
>> all
>> about how roughly much it would run to start a small web
hosting
>> service,
>> exclusive of the hardware. I mean some idea, *any* idea, of
>> current
>> rates in the Rochester, NY area or thereabouts, for T1, ASDL
>> (yeah, I
>> know -- but it might be okay if there were multiple lines,
>> perhaps
>> cheaper than the same capacity from a single T1 if I
understand
>> the
>> racket the telephone companies are running on T1/T3 etc.), or
>> whatever.
>> The telephone company sites simply refuse to provide this
>> information,
>> and I've been through this sort of wild-goose chase enough
times
>> to know
>> that if the first few conceptually related sites will not
>> provide
>> some piece of information, then they're *all* going to be
hiding
>> that information, or will be wanting to play head games on
you
>> before
>> finally grudgingly admitting to even some vague price or
>> another.
>>
>> Fuck that crap. I'll read the FAQ, if I can ever find one,
or
>> a book.
>> ANYTHING is better than a predatory salesman trying to probe
my
>> mental
>> armour for a chink or flaw he can exploit to screw me for all
he
>> can get.
>>
>> Speaking of which, a FAQ pointer or book recommendation for
>> setting
>> up Apache under Linux, to run a small server network with
>> perhaps
>> four or five 200MHz Pentium class junkers with maybe only 64M
>> each,
>> would be very useful. :)
>>
>> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network
>> ==----------
>> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or
Start
>> Your Own
>>
>> I can't help you much with your primary request (pricing) but for
>> your request in
>> the last paragraph I would suggest the Special Edition of Using
>> Linux Part 7, Chapters
>> 35-37. Also, if you have access to several 200 MHz Pentiums you
may
>> be interested
>> in experimenting with Parallel Processing. Search the web for
info
>> on current PP Linux
>> projects if that interests you, there are quite a few.
>> Later,
>>
>> Wayne
------------------------------
From: "Walter B. Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.admin.isp,alt.comp.linux.isp
Subject: Re: Arrgghh! How MUCH does it cost to set up Apache?
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 09:57:10 -0500
I was just wondering why dNAT wouldn't be an option but not wanting a router
is good enough...I wasn't paying well enough attention to see that it was
just local site hosting and not actually providing dial-in access to the
net. That's one of my major beefs with most IPs for those of us that would
dig the hell out of a dedicated ISDN or ADSL connection utilizing an
aliasing linux firewall/router but not having the option to cut down on the
price due to the need for only one IP.
Andrew Bates wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>maybe so you wouldn't need a router on the network?
>
>"Walter B. Burke" wrote:
>>
>> Why would you need any more than one IP address?
>> Clay Reiche wrote in message ...
>> I've set up an Apache web server in Florida using a 384kbs ADSL. The
>> phone company charged $99 for the installation AND the modem! Not bad!
For
>> ADSL they charge based on the amount of band width you require. 384kbps
>> costs me $55 a month from the phone company. Then there's the ISP
charge...
>> I shopped for a week to find the ...
BLAH snip
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.help,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: CodeWarror for Linux (was: Re: Programming tools for ...)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh Stern)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 01:12:34 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >What I don't understand is why the low level syntax of, say, make hasn't
>> >> >been used as a foundation to build upon in an IDE.
>> >> >[..]
>> >> >Personally, I think UNIX people like things complex for job security or
>> >> >some bull like that.
>> >> I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Let me explain.
>> >> Make is used as a foundation for more powerful tools such as
>> >> autoconf, imake, automake, etc.[..]
>> >>So the premise that nobody builds on top of make
>> >> is for Unix is wrong.
>> >>The hypothesis that people prefer tools that
>> >> are not novice-friendly for job security is also wrong.
>> >> It shouldn't
>> >> be hard to see that there is going to be a big difference in the
>> >> typical style of free software applications that are created or enhanced
>> >> by individuals, to personally help them get their work done vs.
>> >> the style of a commercial application that is developed by a software
>> >> company to sell to the largest number of users.
>> >That's exactly what's hard to see: why the fundamentals of process
>> >improvement haven't been accepted.
>> There isn't any connection between what I wrote and notions
>> of "process improvement". There is a difference in goals
>> and available resources.
>Sure there is, unless one stagnates a the lowest levels of technology.
>OK, substitute "product evolution" and "keeping up with the times" then.
Ah, ok. I see the pattern of your 'argument' now.
Insult*Non-sequitur*Insult. Very convincing...it seems
that "UNIX people" are either selfish or full of bull because
they have ignored the "fundamentals" of "keeping up with the
times" in the well-reasoned opinion of Don.
This 'argument' doesn't require further rebuttal.
>> >How would having a decent IDE hurt??
>> Don't know about "hurt". There is a cost to create
>> it weighed against the benefits it provides.
>> If it has high cost to create and isn't as functional
>> as, say, Emacs, which already exists, then it is a net loss.
>> If it was a lot better in some way then it would be a gain.
>Emacs? How could anything be worse??
Your argument?
>Guaranteed: if the tools were
>better free UNIX would be a lot more accepted.
It's funny that people keep paying money to commercial developers
to port these tools to Windows. MKS? Softway Systems OpenNT?
Hummingbird?
>There's still the problem
>of obsolete monolithic design of the kernel offerings however.
Is this something you picked up in a marketing brochure?
Would you like to tell us how monolithic kernel designs
would affect your work? Or why a kernel like Linux with demand
loadable modules is monolithic? Or explain how Windows NT,
which largely resembles VMS, is an example of an advanced
design? Was it for hardware portability - you know, like porting
from 32 bit Intel to 32 bit Alpha?
>> >> The phenomenon of masses of volunteers creating
>> >> novice-friendly applications for Linux due to altruistic motives or
>> >> a desire to see a free software platform succeed is a relatively recent
>> >> phenomenon, and the efforts of these intentions haven't been fully
>> >> realized yet.
>> >
>> >Probably because the tools suck!
>>
>> Now you are just indulging in non-specific ranting.
>
>No, not really. That's a widely accepted assessment that shows the
>degree of dissatisfaction and one reason for staying away.
"Widely accepted" by who? Unix in general, and Linux in particular
is growing, and is know to be particularly popular with
developers.
>> >> Another issue with Unix software is that graphical
>> >> apps make demands on the availability of X Windows running and
>> >> on bandwidth of a network connection that prohibit work in
>> >> many situations, so people typically refrain from doing something
>> >> that only pays off in eye candy rather than functionality if
>> >> it is going to be useful in fewer circumstances.
>> >
>> >Yeah right, like people develop over a LAN or WAN.
>>
>> Yes, all of the time, and often over modem lines even.
>> I have done this many times, and I imagine most Unix programmers
>> have as well.
>
>Let's be realistic. "99%" of development is done at a workstation and
>just results are transferred back and forth.
You really don't know what you are talking about. Not only are
you making up things as you go along, but if you stop to think
about it for just one second - imagine programming a high-end
server application - you would see that it doesn't even make
any sense as a fabrication...either there would have to be
umpteen video cards plugged in directly to the server bus,
or most programmers would have to have their own copies of
the high end server machine?
>> >Give me a break.
>> >Your child-like resistance is noted in your use of "eye candy" and
>> >dropped your case to ground zero.
>>
>> Where is all of this flaming coming from?
>
>It's not really flaming, just honest categorization. makefiles, emacs
>etc = circa 1979.
The defense rests, your honor.
>> In the first place,
>> I am not resistant to IDEs, in the second place "eye candy" is
>> not a derogatory term. It's just a short hand for saying something
>> that has visual appeal without added functionality.
>And then you've missed the most important aspect of computing that
>brought mass appeal and accessibility. An IDE makes one almost
>immediately a product developer while someone who has to learn the
>cryptics of make and emacs isn't even at level zero.
That must be the same sense in which owning a stethoscope makes
one a doctor and carrying a briefcase makes one a lawyer.
>> >X sucks.
>> X is excellent, for the most part. But there needs to be more
>> equally excellent software libraries layered on top of it to
>> realize its potential.
>We'll agree to disagree then. The design of X is as obsolete as
>monolithic BSD. They're both monstrosities that hold back innovation.
Would you care to advance an argument instead of just derogatory
statements that aren't supported by anything?
>> >> But I
>> >> think there is also a lot of conditioned bias in people
>> >> coming from Windows to think that the more graphical and
>> >> integrated apps are more powerful.
>> >They are. Instant productivity. It's the basis of why Windows took over
>> >the world and why UNIX failed:
>> I think it has been pretty amply documented that the ability to
>> establish a software monopoly on the least expensive commodity
>> hardware platform and use economic leverage to force hardware vendors
>> of that platform to ship your software preinstalled with every
>> machine sold was a primary factor in the success of Microsoft Windows.
>Now you're quilty of propagandizing. You forget that MS wasn't always as
>powerful as it is today. People (dumb users if you wish, but many others
>too) CHOSE the instant accessibility of Windows rather than wading
>through the mud of such things as emacs and makefiles (just examples).
Who chose? Most of your "dumb users" certainly never knew anything
about unix tools before they adopted Microsoft products, and we
began talking about which tools are good for programmers. Many
companies that programmers work for chose to develop applications
for the operating system with the largest market share.
>> >it was the GUI that made the environment
>> >accessible to people who wanted to USE the computer to work rather than
>> >work on the computer itself (configuring it etc).
>>
>> Lots of people used DOS on Intel before Windows, even though it
>> was a poor limited environment in almost every way. Why did they
>> do that?
>
>Because it was the only thing available.
There were more DOS users even when Macs were available.
The PCs were cheaper.
>> Since Linux has made Unix affordable on the cheapest
>> hardware it has been growing at an amazing rate - faster than
>> MS-Windows. Linux does have a GUI and it could use more polish.
>> I don't think there is much disagreement about that.
>But sadly, a day late and a dollar short (technologically obsolete, GPL-
>afflicted). The hype will subside. Most Linux users are very young
>techies.
Even the conservative forecasting firm IDC expects Linux to continue
to grow at a faster percentage rate than all other operating platforms
over the next few years. As far as how new users see the new GUIs,
check out this link:
http://www.applelinks.com/warpcore/apr99/wc-8.shtml
>> >> This is partly
>> >> historical accident (generalizing from the transition
>> >> of MS-Dos to MS-Windows), partly socialization (Windows
>> >> users are trained to be application oriented rather
>> >> than tool and data format oriented and trained to learn
>> >> by trial and error rather than by reading documentation),
>> >That's not a particular correct way to state it. The fundamental
>> >principle is that people can relate to pushing buttons and such just like
>> >most can use a stereo system. UNIX, to continue the analogy, is like a
>> >stereo system without the front panel and all the circuits exposed: you
>> >have to solder something just to turn it on!
As others have pointed out, VCRs are notorious examples of things that
most people don't learn how to operate because they don't read
the documentation and they don't see from intution or learn from
trial and error.
>> I don't think that "relate" has much to do with it.
>Well don't go jumping all over semantics when I know you knew exactly
>what I meant and my example should have clued you in (which you
>conveniently ignored so that you could give your following _rant_)
I didn't know what you meant. The use of "relate" seemed to signal
some kind of desire for something psychologically familiar (there
are a lot of nutty people in human factors and I'm sure that
someone, somewhere has argued that the familiar tactile-like
action of pushing a simulated button with a mouse button is
an important factor in user acceptance).
>> Rather it
>> is the case that menus are a very efficient way to get finite
>> choice information from a casual user and GUIs make it particularly
>> easy to navigate menus. Also it is convenient to work on
>> multiple tasks at once, be able to see those tasks, be able
>> to exchange some information between them, and be able to
>> display a high density of information at once on a common
>> display. For just entering new information and commands
>> from a very large set, typing if much more efficient.
>> That's why GUI-based editors don't have users
>> spelling out words by selecting letters from a menu.
>> These are things that are all about functionality and
>> not about 'relating'.
This isn't a rant. It is just polite a disagreement with what
I thought you were getting at. I'm still not sure, but
based on your protestations, I'll guess that maybe you
meant to use something like "intuitive" rather than "relate"
and just picked a really bad example with the VCR. If that
is the case, then I agree that intuitive is good, but
the functional stuff I am talking about above is different
and at least as important.
>>That said, there is also value
>> in having a pleasant environment to look at while staring
>> at the screen all day and I don't denigrate that, your
>> misinterpretation of my earlier remarks not withstanding.
>Again, would you buy a stereo system with no panels, buttons, knobs and
>labels on it? The analogy fits almost perfectly.
Are you claiming that the buttons and knobs are mostly
important to make the stereo look good?? People actually
tend to think the opposite and try to hide them inside
of fold-out panels often, especially in expensive, stylish,
design-oriented systems.
>[...lots more witless crap]
I've wasted enough time already.
- Josh
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam Holden)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.help,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: CodeWarror for Linux (was: Re: Programming tools for ...)
Date: 10 Apr 1999 01:05:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999 19:22:28 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> On Fri, 9 Apr 1999 18:14:25 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <7elpdr$hg0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> >>
>> >
>> >> >> The difference in
>> >> >> motivations and payoffs and intended user community should be
>> >> >> pretty clear.
>> >> >
>> >> > Nope, not at all. How would having a decent IDE hurt??
>> >>
>> >> It probably wouldn't hurt but I don't believe it's a necessity either.
>> >
>> >Except to the thousands or millions who WOULD use them and program for
>> >the OS if they existed.
>>
>> I guess we lose those programmers who can't work out how to use
>> make. Oh well no big loss.
>
>You lose out on those who CAN see the forrest. Programming is a means,
>not an end. It's the lowest level of software development.
Yes it is. And those doing it should have the tools appropriate to the
task. An IDE of the Windows type is not such a tool. The Unix model
of a bunch of single purpose tools is.
>
>>
>> There appears to be just as much quality software out there for these
>> Unix environments then for these MS Windows type environments.
>>
>> Maybe that's because once someone bothers to learn how to use a
>> few simple tools properly they can do everything an IDE does.
>> And those people that can't be bothered learning because they
>> assume that a bunch of old command line character stream based
>> tools are too cryptic and useless to bother with won't be
>> missed anyway.
>>
>> Nothing worse than a programmer who can't be bothered spending
>> some time learning a few tools.
>
>Except for one that is limited by obsolete paradigms.
I don't understand how my paradigm is any different from yours.
I use an IDE,it's just different from yours. It gives me more
flexibility to solve unnexpected problems. It gives me more
power to automate as many things as possible.
>
>> Feel free to use your IDE. Feel free to write an IDE. You could
>> prove me wrong, but it would appear you are just here to argue.
>
>No, perhaps to enlighten. But actually, I wish good tools WERE available
>so then I'd have another deployment choice (probably not anyway since the
>whole design of UNIX doesn't sit well with me).
>
>> If someone creates an IDE that makes me more efficient I will
>> use it. I changed editors a few years ago for that very reason.
>
>If you're a lone coder, who cares. My concerns were for larger scale
>development.
For larger scale development it makes no difference either. Text is
text. Code is code. If 50 programmers use emacs, 50 use vi, and the
remaining 50 use CodeWarrior all on one project, what difference
does it make? They all save and read files in the same format.
People are different, some people like using the mouse a lot. Other
people actually have great difficulty in using a mouse at a
physical level not by choice (I don't know why I would have
great problems not using my mouse).
Why should everyone be forced to use exavtly the same tool.
If the results are the same what difference does it make?
>
>> My experience tells me that Unix is more powerful than an IDE.
>> Software I haven't seen could change my opinion. Your arguments
>> haven't.
>
>Your approach is wasteful of brain power. It deals with the finest grain
>of detail too much and on a daily basis. The only ones who need to know
>the intracies of make (and that's NOT a call to make it intricate!)
>should be the tool makers.
No it doesn't. It deals on a reasonably fine grain when I have to. Maybe
once every six months at the most (and that would usually be when I need
to convert some stupid database export file to some other arcane format
and awk or perl comes to the rescue).
The IDE I use (my editor and shell) lets me define commands based on those
fine grained approaches. So I have a command to search in all the source
files for something (that way I don't have to remember the command line option
to grep to make it print out the line numbers - I checked the man page
once to write the command). I have some other commands that use that
command to do higher level things (finding declarations, etc). I have even
higher level commands that use those.
it's the Unix way. It works by not maiking you have to remember those bits
of detail. The bits I remember are 'man -k' and that abouts covers it.
>
>I have a feeling I'm arguing with those who have only hacked in isolation
>instead of seen or envisioned a world class software product development
>enviroment (it takes more than programmers).
>
>OK you can produce cars built by hand then. I'll choose automated
>assembly.
I still can't see how not using a Windows style IDE means you
aren't automating things. I would have the opposite view. I'm
probably wrong, but I think you are too.
>
>> I have an IDE. I use an IDE. It's called Unix.
>
>That's not the commonly accepted definition of IDE.
It's an Intergrated Development Environment.
It provides a compiler, linker, debugger, editor, source
browser, etc, etc. They all talk to each other so that I am
a mere click away from any one of them.
I use it to Develop. It's my Environment. It's Intergrated.
>
>> Does your IDE let you work on multiple machines at the same time?
>
>How many really NEED that advanced capability? Very few.
Every where I've worked (which isn't many places I admit) I have used
at least 2 machines concurrently when writing software.
>
>> Or are you restricted to compiling on the machine you edit on, which
>> is also the machine you run the produced binary on?
>
>I wasn't comparing, I prodding for an advancement of the sophistication
>of the tools or making a call for non-proprietary, easy to use, higher
>level, more productive tools.
What does a higher level tool do?
>
>> >> > Agreed, X sucks.
>> >>
>> >> No, he said Motif sucks. Big difference!
>> >
>> >If the foundation is weak, why would the higher level abstractions be any
>> >better?
>>
>> Motif _is_ the higher level abstraction (in some strange sense of the word)
>> since it sits on top of X. Motif sucks. That doesn't mean X sucks though.
>
>My premise though WAS that X sucks.
Yes, I see that now, sorry I miss interpreted what you said.
--
Sam
I don't want Perl to be beautiful--I want you to write beautiful
programs in Perl.
--Larry Wall
------------------------------
From: Christopher Swanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Question about gdb
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 18:16:49 -0700
I'm about to do a project which will fork several new processes. I am
curious to know if gdb is able to debug a forked process. If so, might
anyone relay how I may be able to do this? Thanks for any help.
Christopher Swanson
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
