Linux-Development-Sys Digest #652, Volume #6 Mon, 26 Apr 99 05:14:01 EDT
Contents:
pc-speaker driver ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The UNIX GUI Manifesto (Byron A Jeff)
Re: redhat 6.0? (Christopher B. Browne)
Re: The UNIX GUI Manifesto (Byron A Jeff)
Re: Can't load module ppp lp slip and ps/aux error? (Kumar Vijayaratnam)
Re: Y2K bug in strptime ? (libc5) (Andrew Rothstein)
Re: crypt function on RH 5.2 (Andrew Rothstein)
Re: how to access raw memory? (Jacek Pop�awski)
Re: Kernel Problem (Signal 11) (Mark Tranchant)
Missing select.h ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: pc-speaker driver
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 18:30:33 GMT
Hi,
I would like to use the PC-speaker in lieu of
a sound card, but the major option in this area,
a module called pcsnd, does not want to compile
on my system. (It's asking for linux/pcsnd.h,
which neither 2.0.35 nor 2.2.6 kernels provide.)
This compels me to ask, why is there no PC speaker
driver already in the kernel distribution?
It seems like a fairly useful option and when
used it would take up very few resources.
Thanks for any info.
Z Smith
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: The UNIX GUI Manifesto
Date: 25 Apr 1999 18:34:58 -0400
In article <7fo4ca$10m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jethro Wright III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-
- Don't know if anyone's interested, but I just did a bit of
-compelling reading at: http://www.cybtrans.com/infostrc/unixgui.htm
-
- I DON'T WANT A FLAME WAR, but there are some who might
-actually find this bit an interesting take on Unix and GUIs. It
-certainly has gotten my attention as someone who's new to Unix
-and wants to get into GUI app development in the shortest time
-possible....Jet
This is almost guranteed to start a flamewar. There's a single compelling
overriding theme that goes against the single GUI paradigm: That's there's
no right way to do it that'll satify all users in all environments.
In the case of Windows and Mac users often shoehorn their requirements onto the
available platform because they have no choice in the matter. But in fact
some users could be more productive using another different, yet consistent,
interface.
The solution to the multiple conflicting GUI problem isn't to enforce a single
GUI to the exclusion of all others. The solution lays in the two pronged
approach of having a consistent interface on each single desktop and an
underlaying infrastructure under all GUI's that allow for applications to run
under any GUI, where the application conforms to the environment it's running
under instead of the user having to conform to the application.
So when I run Netscape, instead of getting Motif, I get the look and feel of
whatever's on my desktop. If my wife runs Netscape, it conforms to her look
and feel of her desktop, which may be completely different from mine.
That's the proper path to resoving the GUI conflict, not suppression.
BAJ
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: redhat 6.0?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 23:31:41 GMT
On Sun, 25 Apr 1999 16:05:23 -0500, Bobby D. Bryant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Any word from RedHat when on the official release date for RedHat linux 6.0
>> is going to be?
>
>Slashdot reported on it Tuesday, and IIRC said that it would be announced on
>10-May. You can read the article at
>http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/04/20/2035246.
Note that there's a "Red Hat Road Tour" that starts the first week of
May. (They are to stop in Dallas May 9th, FYI...)
It would be truly remarkable if they didn't bring along a pallet or
three of product to sell at such an opportune occasion for sales.
--
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 free software today?..."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: The UNIX GUI Manifesto
Date: 25 Apr 1999 19:03:31 -0400
In article <7ftn8k$llu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jethro Wright III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-Brady Montz wrote in message ...
->"Jethro Wright III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
->
->> Don't know if anyone's interested, but I just did a bit of
->> compelling reading at: http://www.cybtrans.com/infostrc/unixgui.htm
->>
->> I DON'T WANT A FLAME WAR, but there are some who might
->> actually find this bit an interesting take on Unix and GUIs. It
->> certainly has gotten my attention as someone who's new to Unix
->> and wants to get into GUI app development in the shortest time
->> possible....Jet
->>
->> --
->>
I posted my ideals on this subject in another post. Wanted to respond to
the issues raised here.
->
->An interesting article. I really like Eric Raymond's response (including on
->the page).
->
->Here are my additions:
->
->1. I agree, as probably many do, that a better GUI environment for UNIX
-> would be greatly appreciated. If one arises which is good enough,
-> I'm sure it will quickly take over. KDE and Gnome both seem healthy
-> contenders.
-
- But, which is going dominate and how long will it take to determine
-a "winner" ? I've got a little desktop accessory I want to port to
-Linux from Windows. It's a great vehicle to start becoming a Unix
-hack. But, GNOME and KDE are very different and it will take days
-just to d/l all of the development stuf, to even *start* evaluating the
-options. Certain choices (eg. which word processor, graphics
-program, or language to use) are good. Choose what feels right
-for *YOU* ! By now, the market (ie. the hackers/pioneers) shud've made
-the GUI/desktop decision already ! Particularly since Unix was (and still
-is) the proving ground for most of the exciting GUI/CHI research in
-the '80s and '90s (I used to be an ACM member, subscribing to SIGCHI,
-SIGSOFT, etc.) This is 1999, people, and Hoff's criticisms still ring
-true.
I believe that KDE and Gnome are working on integration so that you can
run apps from one on the other's desktop. This is exactly the type of
integration I'm talking about in my other post. This way there doesn't
have to be a winner, one doesn't have to disappear for the other to thrive,
users are not forced to choose one over the other, and application developers
don't have to choose either.
-
-(BTW: CHI refers to the Computer/Human Interface.)
-
->2. I disagree strongly with the implication that UNIX users and programmers
-> (and I, like many, are in both categories) don't want a nice, coherent
-> graphical environment.
->
-
- If it weren't true, why in 1999, does this thread exist ? He's
-(and I'm) not saying that *every* Unix hack doesn't want a good GUI and
-Hoff definitely doesn't say that. It just hasn't been a priority in
-the Unix community. Just reading these NGs, one can see that there are
-still way too many immature "if you don't like it the way it is, go back
-to watching TV" types, who're not getting the message out. "Not getting
-the message out" can be translated into not making Unix into a consumer
-product, which implies an easy-to-use GUI desktop environment and
-accompanying apps.
That's not really true either. It's a combination of several factors:
1) Most Unix folks are comfortable with CLI interfaces. Since they don't have
a reliance on GUI's simple windowing systems are sufficienct to get the job
done.
2) X + window managers accomplish much of the functionality of the average
user.
3) There's no central authority (M$, Apple) shoving a single choice down the
users throats. So many different types of interfaces appear and have
supporters.
-
->3. I'm not speaking on totally certain ground here, but it seems to me that
-> in the last 25 years or so, the vast majority of people who have put
-> solid effort into developing graphical environments were (a) employed
-> by a company like Apple, Microsoft, Novell, NeXT, Sun (sunstep, or
-> whatever that thing was called - yikes!) or (b) working in UNIX or VMS
-> for free or in exchange for degrees. Compare the number of window
-> manager and graphics toolkit projects in UNIX versus everywhere else.
-> And it's NOT because the offerings from those companies are so awesome
-> or complete so as to preclude competition. Developing overarching
-> graphics environments is hard and requires cooperation from many people
-> and projects. It seems to me that the vast majority of people willing
-> to exert such effort for free are in the UNIX world, so it's unfair to
-> blame any "failure" on any anti-gui mindset.
That's what I was trying to say above....
-
- See comments to #1. UC Berkeley, MIT, CMU, Xerox PARC, et al, did
-much of work. MSOFT and Apple proved the stuf will sell. The pioneers
-in the free Unix world just haven't taken the ball and run w/ it. Having
-ten different window managers/desktop environments is great if you're doing
-CHI research, but if you just want to get work done (as a developer of
-end-user apps or as pure end-user), that's eight or nine too many WMs.
But the fact of the matter is that each desktop will only have one of those
eight or nine WM running on it. As long as an X application can run on each
what's the problem. I'll tell you. The problem is that while the applications
will all run under every WM, each has a different look and feel. Now look and
feel should also be a choice, but once selected, that look and feel should
be consistent across all applications on that desktop. In other words the
application should morph to conform to the L/F the user chooses, whatever L/F
that may be. Maximum flexibility, Maximim choice, Maximum consistency for a
single desktop.
BTW I'm not the originator of this idea. There was an article on slashdot
on the subject. It spoke to me...
-Choice bet different toolkits for app development: great; choice of
-desktop environments: not so great (at least not over the long haul.)
Applications shouldn't have to target a single desktop enviroment. There should
be an intermediate layer that the app is written to that is then mapped to the
specific desktop upon invocation...
-
- Let's say I wrote the best word processor in the world, but I wrote it
-for KDE instead of GNOME. I have a problem, esp if GNOME doesn't go away
-quietly. The support hassles would be non-trivial to say the least. I'd
-be getting dozens of e-mails and phone calls about why drag-n-drop doesn't
-work the way it's documented or that screens don't look the way they shud.
-Get a load of this hypothetical tech support call:
-
- Grandma: Mr. Wright, your GlobalGalatic WP pgm isn't working.
- <after some back and forth....>
- Mr. Wright: Well, Grandma, if you just go to www.kde.org and d/l a
-copy of the KDE X.YY, then run the kpackage utility to install it, then
-edit the .xinitrc file in your $HOME directory....
- Grandma: <click !>
Oh My! Massive subject change. This has absolutely nothing to do with
a unified desktop, except tangentially to the fact that if there was only
one desktop, that Grandma wouldn't have to get new packages.
This is how this support call would go:
Grandma: Mr. Wright, ....
Mr. Wright: Let me take a peek on your machine. Oh you need some new stuff
which I'm downloading now. Everything installed. Try it now.
Grandma: It works great!
Mr. Wright: Thanks, now what's your credit card number?
-
- It's not bec Grandma is stupid, senile, or a slacker, she hung
-up on me, bec she doesn't want to know about all of those details.
Exactly. And Grandma will pay to have someone professionally administer her
machine so that she can just be a user. You've fallen into the fallacy that
anyone should be able to administer a computer. Folks in general don't try
to fix cars, appliances, or plumbing. So why are computers special?
- I
-grew up in family where my father has been a professional tech my
-entire life (aircraft/auto mechanic and an electrician.) So, I learned
-early on, that most folks just don't want to know how a cookoo clock
-works, they only want to know it is....
Exactly. Which is why it wouldn't go the way you suggested.
-
-[snip]
-
- I, too, noticed some of the flaws in what Hobbs says, but his
-core points are still unavoidable. He repeats frequently thru-out
-the article that Unix is better and preferrable, but it isn't an option
-for the people who're fueling the marketplace: the end-users. We drive,
-the end-users provide the fuel. If it weren't for those folks,
-microcomputers would still be curiousity items for hobbyists, CP/M and
-TRSDOS would still rule, and there would be no Unix (as we know it today),
-no Internet (as it exists today), no Pentiums, SPARCs, Alphas, laser
-printers, or 15 GB hdrives. Without the end-user marketplace (blindly)
-asking for those developments, we pioneers wouldn't be able to work for
-companies that generate hundreds of billions of dollars to create the
-world we *now* live in. We'd be doing fun stuf, just not *this* fun
-stuf.
But it's development fueled by the industry. Today we have computers with an
order of magnitude more speed and size. Yet in a lot of ways the effectiveness
and productivity hasn't increased by that same order of magnitude. Folks buy
new computers and upgraded software because the industry convinces them that
they need it.
To summarize, the single GUI paradigm is created out of the dictatorship of
a single company driving development of a system. Unix is a democracy in
contrast and thus will never be coerced into the same paradigm. The best we
can do, and the best that can be done IMHO, is to have the competing
factions agree on interoperability standards so that users can choose whichever
desktop they like and be able to seamlessly integrate applications into that
desktop paradigm.
Think about it.
BAJ
------------------------------
From: Kumar Vijayaratnam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can't load module ppp lp slip and ps/aux error?
Date: 26 Apr 1999 03:32:22 GMT
Evan,
Have you re-built the kernel ? and did you enable the PPP option in the
Kernel config ?. Also make sure that you enable the loading of
modules by the kernel.
I upgraded my RH 5.2 to kernel 2.2.6. I re-built the new kernel and
enabled the PPP options. PPP loads, however I have a problem with PPP 2.3.7
and KDE 1.1. After establishing a connection (i.e. the dynamic remote and
local addresses are allocated correctly) to my ISP I can not access the
internet as the connection just hangs. Things like netstat -r just hang. I
have upgraded to the recommended net-tools package and also the latest
version of the kppp package as well.
The only thing I have not done is to upgrade to the latest version of the
bin-util package.
Regards
Kumar
Ev-Man wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I updated my linux like 2.0.32 ta 2.2.6 and uped all the stuff for the
> kernel to work but when I boot I get an error
> can't load module ppp
> can't load module lp
> can't load module slip
> can't load module ps/aux
> Can't find mouse or somethin like that
>
> what did I forget to install when I updated to this kernel?? please
respond
> via email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as I'd love to find out what I forgot to
do.
>
>
> TIA
> Evan
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Rothstein)
Subject: Re: Y2K bug in strptime ? (libc5)
Date: 26 Apr 1999 00:10:20 GMT
: Which I think is correct since the epoc for UNIX is 01 Jan 1900. I am running
I always thought the UNIX epoch was Jan 01, 1970.
Andrew
--
Andrew Rothstein - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Words of Wisdom :
"Whatever you do, just take care of your shoes." --phish
"He who laughs last, thinks slowest." --sign in jersey
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Rothstein)
Subject: Re: crypt function on RH 5.2
Date: 26 Apr 1999 00:16:13 GMT
I think there are some export control issues whereby the cryptographic
functionality of the libc/glibc is being distributed separately. I'm
sure of this for glibc2.1.
Andrew
Mister Frost ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I tried to compile a simple program under a RedHat 5.2 system.
: i added the define and include lines as mentioned in the crypt man page
: but ld don't find
: the code.
: Is there a specific library for crypt function ?
: Thanks for your help.
--
Andrew Rothstein - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Words of Wisdom :
"Whatever you do, just take care of your shoes." --phish
"He who laughs last, thinks slowest." --sign in jersey
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jacek Pop�awski)
Subject: Re: how to access raw memory?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25 Apr 1999 21:20:32 GMT
Konrad Mieredorff wrote:
>Linux Device Drivers by Allessandro Rubini (O'Reilly)
but what is it - a book?
if it is avaiable online - please give me URL
I live in Poland and have no big chance to buy book from west countries
(it's no problem with transport, but with money)
------------------------------
From: Mark Tranchant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kernel Problem (Signal 11)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:36:04 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is this repeatable - do you get the sig11 on the same file if you try
again? If not, it's a hardware problem. Check your RAM, slow down your
BIOS timing, etc. etc. If you do, it's a compilation problem. Please
post compiler version and machine spec.
Mark.
Koh wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> This is what I got when I do "make boot" command
>
> gcc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux-2.0.32/include -Wall
> -Wstrict-prototypes
> -02 -fomit-frame-pointer -fno-strength-reduce -pipe -m486 -malign-loop=2
>
> -malign-jumps=2 -malign-functions=2 -DCPU=586 -c -o exec_domain.o
> exec_domain.c
> gcc: Internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11
> make[2]: *** [exec_domain.o] Error1
> make[2]: leaving directory '/usr/src/linux-2.0.32/kernel'
> make[1]: *** [first_rule] Error 2
> make[1]: Leaving directory '/usr/src/linux-2.0.32/kernel'
> make *** [linuxsubdirs] Error 2
>
> Anybody with any hints, please help... THANKS...
>
> P/S: May I know where I can get a list of error messages on compiling
> Linux kernel?
>
> KOH.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Missing select.h
Date: 26 Apr 1999 08:18:53 GMT
Howdy all,,
I have installed a Slackware 3.6 opting for egcs as my C compiler.
A few programs that i have triied to compile are complaing about a missing
header file, viz :-
sys/select.h
Where do i get this from?
Thanx
--
=====================================================================
Robin Hood was a terrorist.
Nic Tjirkalli - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://duffus.iafrica.com/~nic
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
