Linux-Development-Sys Digest #793, Volume #6 Mon, 7 Jun 99 21:14:14 EDT
Contents:
glibc 2.0 or glibc 2.1 ("Dan")
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Nix)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Re: Running scripts at login/logout (Nix)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Frank Sweetser)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Christopher Browne)
Re: the ultimate OS (Christopher Browne)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: glibc 2.0 or glibc 2.1
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:23:50 +0200
Hi there,
can anyone tell me how I can find out which glibc (2.0 or 2.1) is installed
on a system ?
Thanks a lot
Dan
------------------------------
From: Nix <$}xinix{[email protected]>
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: 07 Jun 1999 00:49:06 +0100
"G. Sumner Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For example, do you understand why there was a boom in object
> databases (like you propose for the filesystem) about 5 years ago
> and why people have become much less interested in the idea today?
I've been wondering about that. What *was* wrong with them?
--
`As promised, here's the patch to do this. Not only is it good (it
compiles), but it is perfect (it boots). Up 9 minutes so far without
problems.' --- Richard Gooch on linux-kernel
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:34:26 GMT
Alexander Viro: I am unaware of your reputation for work
on the linux kernel or whatever, although someone graciously
attempted to educate me in email. call me any names you feel
like for invading your territory without acknowledging
your dominance.
when you actually quote paragraphs of the essay that you
disagree with or you feel reflect my cluelessness, I will
be happy to address them..
otherwise your posts are nothing but long rants that very
effectively smear my hard work.
because it does not contain code, you contend it is worthless.
at least there are less fanatic/obstinate/extremist people
out there, some of whom have thankfully posted to this thread,
even despite your obvious & completely unmasked hostility &
animosity raised from.. I have no idea.
imho it would help if you acknowledged you were upset not about
my essay but my invading your alpha-male territory<g>
but I will save the psychology for another day.
calling the essay a troll seems to me to be the last defense
of a scoundrel.
speaking of rorshach tests, AV,
the essay is a rorschach test.. those with no imagination
will see something containing no imagination.. a waste of
time!!
oh, the sheer pain you must feel posting to this thread. hehehe
you have my permission/blessing at least to go flame some other
victim. someone who is intimidated by your obvious modus
operandii of ad hominem insults. which I must admit, you
really do have an uncanny/brilliant talent for. <g>
Alexander Viro ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Vladimir Z. Nuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >Alexander Viro ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: >: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: >: Vladimir Z. Nuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >: >I've written small amts of c++, what more
: >: >familiarity with objects do you want?
: >
: >: ROFLMAO
: >: Man, that's it. Exactly. Thanks for .sig, BTW.
: >
: >excuse me. how much of linux is written in c++?
: non-fscking-sequitur. Has *no* relevance to your drivel on OOP
: as a technics for writing anything. The level of familiarity stated above
: ("written small amounts of c++") is way insufficient for any meaningful
: work on design.
: >c++ is not my favorite language, so I don't use it.
: If all you know about OO is C++ model, AND you don't use C++ - your claims
: regarding OO design of anything are not based on experience, right?
: Your similarity with one particular kind of vermin I know well enough
: (Soviet philosophers, aka fecies from Marxism-Leninism department, aka
: "Partija byla, est' i budet est'") had pissed me off enough to run a
: little DN search. Impressive. Especially your drivel on sci.physics.
: You mostly feed on the very natural reaction - people tend to assume
: that one they are talking with knows what he's talking about. Fine,
: but to imitate a clue that way one shouldn't overdo on this scum.
: Main rule: *never* *ever* *try* *to* *pull* *the* *trick* *in* *a*
: *place* *where* *you* *already* *did* *it*.
: Let me summarize your, erm, achievements here: you demonstrated that you
: don't know what you are talking about; you tried to play populism in
: extremely clumsy way (come on, all it takes is a couple of hours on DejaNews
: to get some backgound on the newsgroup); you demonstrated an utter lack of
: clue on the culture ("all programmers are talking in buzzwords", yeah,
: right...); you never backed a single claim you've made - buzzwords do *NOT*
: count. The bottom line: you've failed. Miserably. I could argue your case
: better than you did. You failed even to get a hint of background on the
: words you've used - unpardonable sin for a troll. Free advice: if you want
: to look how to do those things right - look for alt.syntax.tactical FAQ.
: Overall: F-. Any fool can get replies. BFD. Sustaining the thread takes more
: than that and it looks like it takes more than your abilities. Piss-poor.
: Trolling for discussion is a pretty subtle art. If you want to do it -
: at least *learn* how to do it.
: Folks, I really recommend you to look at the postings of our wank^Wfriend
: and estimate the general level. You know where to find DN.
: As far as I'm concerned the fun is over. All too obvious and boring.
: Pathetic. Sheesh... Trolls those days...
: --
: "You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
: "Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"in theory, there's no difference [EMAIL PROTECTED]
between theory and practice, mad genius research lab
but in practice there is!" http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:53:08 GMT
David Magda ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: You will have to name it something else. Please see http://www.tao.co.uk.
yeah, I was bummed out about that. saw it a few months ago
but have't done a search/replace on the essay. I heard a voice
in my head that sounded like LaoTzu who told me to keep it<g>
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"in theory, there's no difference [EMAIL PROTECTED]
between theory and practice, mad genius research lab
but in practice there is!" http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:52:08 GMT
David Fox ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I won't address all these points, but the following statements are
: typical of your document. As far as I can tell they are all simply
: statements of vague though laudable goals with no hint as to how to
: begin to achieve them:
: Viruses are impossible to contract on the system based on its
: design.
: Many common failures associated with existing OSes are impossible in
: Tao due to stability features.
: In Tao, the source of problems are always very easy to diagnose even
: by an end user.
: In Tao *everything* is *always* "plug-and-play". All hardware, all
: software, everything. Anything can be connected or disconnected at
: any time with the system handling it elegantly in every situation.
: I must side with your detractors, I can find no useful design insights
: here.
they are design goals that are not usually recognized as
key design goals. when a community of developers agrees these
are the key design goals, other than the ones that are typically
being pursued, which I contrast in the essay, the code will
tend to follow. the essay is challenging philosophical prejudices
of the widespread software community.
the essay cannot create the OS. it requires ppl of similar
vision to help put together the pieces.
let me contrast exactly the items you quote, and show how
I am challenging existing assumptions (btw, thanks for actually
quoting the essay)
: Viruses are impossible to contract on the system based on its
: design.
in win95 for example, because of poor design, viruses are ubiquitous.
the designers did not design the system with the design goal
of preventing viruses. hence it is virus ridden and extremely
vulnerable/fragile. I am proposing that viruses can be prevented
by the designers. java is an example of the direction of development
along this line. I suggest future OSes will be far more virus
proof.
: Many common failures associated with existing OSes are impossible in
: Tao due to stability features.
in win95 again, typically the designers do not care so much about
stability, instead the emphasis has been on constantly adding new
features to the OS to support feature [x] rather than enhancing
stability of the overall OS. the latter is a sort of meta-problem
not related to adding functionality, hence designers tend to
push it aside.
: In Tao, the source of problems are always very easy to diagnose even
: by an end user.
this is not a design goal of win95 or linux. how many zillions of hours are
spent where user calls up tech support in attempt to solve problem?
vague error messages? it is all a large circle of hell we have
all experienced. in linux, there is even more prejudice against
the end user.. mostly everyone who uses it is presumed to be a programmer.
: In Tao *everything* is *always* "plug-and-play". All hardware, all
: software, everything. Anything can be connected or disconnected at
: any time with the system handling it elegantly in every situation.
again, this is not a design goal of win95 or linux, and is not
considered a priority currently, whereas I insist it is a crucial
interest of the end user, which of course win95 is gradually
acknowledging.
you did a good job cutting out the most vague sentences in the
essay devoid of the accompanying context of each that expands
on my point.
the essay, I acknowledge, is challenging basic philosophical assumptions
or dogmas of the OS community. i.e. MEMES more than laying out
lines of code (which hopefully is the ultimate end goal).
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"in theory, there's no difference [EMAIL PROTECTED]
between theory and practice, mad genius research lab
but in practice there is!" http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/
------------------------------
From: Nix <$}xinix{[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Running scripts at login/logout
Date: 07 Jun 1999 00:06:37 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cameron) writes:
> when a user runs the su command is the
> users .logout script run, ...etc...
No, since the user does not log out. `su' runs a subshell as some other
user; exiting from that user takes you back where you were.
eg
nix@shell-1 % pwd
/home/nix
nix@shell-1 % su - foo
Password: xxx
bar@shell-2 % pwd
/home/bar
bar@shell-2 % exit
nix@shell-1 % pwd
/home/nix
You see?
--
`As promised, here's the patch to do this. Not only is it good (it
compiles), but it is perfect (it boots). Up 9 minutes so far without
problems.' --- Richard Gooch on linux-kernel
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:57:12 GMT
Nix ($}xinix{[email protected]) wrote:
.."a wish list is not a design"
I acknowledge this .. but a wish list that people agree on is a
CONSENSUS.. a direction!! a map to the future!!
something that all the "rugged invidividualist"
programmers aound here deride as a sort of evil socialism or
corporatism.
so I have a long wish list.. so what? who has articulated
these wishes as important before? no one has pointed me
to any essays.. I await eagerly.
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"in theory, there's no difference [EMAIL PROTECTED]
between theory and practice, mad genius research lab
but in practice there is!" http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:43:13 GMT
G. Sumner Hayes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: That object model assumes a 1-1 association
: between code and data. That's great for certain things, but really
: bad for UI design. You can use that object model as a low-level
: building block inside a well-designed UI, for sure; using it as the
: sole high-level abstraction is a really poor idea, as any
: introductory HCI text will surely mention. Most useful UIs need to
: be concerned about data presentation and manipulation, which almost
: mandates a decoupling of data and code when you're talking about
: the high-level view.
are you suggesting the high layers shouldn't use objects,
or use "non c++-like" objects? instead of just reactively
arguing against the essay (alas, largely all that this thread consists
of so far, that I can tell), what is your proactive suggestion?
the essay is suggesting that the OS itself should aid in
coupling/decoupling of objects....
: Your paper presents it as the
: sole abstraction -- "everything's an object" -- which is going
: to lead to major heartache. It's a huge step _backward_ from
: "everything's a file", which isn't exactly a perfect abstraction
: itself.
the constant need to have all kinds of different entities
is a tower of babel of software. I do believe future OSes
will have integrated/unified vision similar to what I propose
in the paper. the exact form is not clear to me yet. I was
hoping to flesh it out cooperatively with other ppl. you,
being an authority, would be an excellent candidate.. I suppose
you have better things to do though<g>
: No. In comp.object.* the posters almost always use a Subject: line
: or have something in the body that indicates what sort of object
: system they're dealing with.
I am not dogmatic about the specific model in the essay,
purposely. the point is a uniform model.
I admit that in the essay, perhaps places where I refer to
"objects".. the more well understood term may be "classes"..
will revisit this.
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"in theory, there's no difference [EMAIL PROTECTED]
between theory and practice, mad genius research lab
but in practice there is!" http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:12:29 GMT
Jeremy Crabtree ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Hm...looks like 5 months or so since then...any code yet?
I dunno about code, but there is good evidence the memes have
infected a few more minds than last time and are spreading<g>
I suppose like everything, it depends on what your priorities
are<g>
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"in theory, there's no difference [EMAIL PROTECTED]
between theory and practice, mad genius research lab
but in practice there is!" http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/
------------------------------
From: Frank Sweetser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: 07 Jun 1999 18:34:59 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri) writes:
> trivial semantic hairsplitting. how many angels can dance on the
> head of a pin? is c++ object oriented or not?
C++ is neither object oriented nor not object oriented. C++ happens to
include primitives which allow it to nativly support programming an object
oriented program. you can write horrible, icky, not-even-close-to-object
oriented code in C++, and you can (with difficulty) use "objects" in
assembly.
it is the program which is uses object oriented programing, not the
language.
--
Frank Sweetser rasmusin at wpi.edu fsweetser at blee.net | PGP key available
paramount.ind.wpi.edu RedHat 5.2 kernel 2.2.5 i586 | at public servers
>A good and easy to use offline news-reader like Forte Agent, which is
Need a porn reader? Netscape is not bad for browsing the porn groups.
- David M. Cook
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:10:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[visionaries/entrepreneurs etc]
: Realize that they largely work for themselves perhaps for ownership,
: freedom or some other goal.
some do it for idealism.
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"in theory, there's no difference [EMAIL PROTECTED]
between theory and practice, mad genius research lab
but in practice there is!" http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:24:02 GMT
On Sat, 5 Jun 1999 09:46:59 GMT, Vladimir Z. Nuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Alexander Viro ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>: Vladimir Z. Nuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: >I've written small amts of c++, what more
>: >familiarity with objects do you want?
>
>: ROFLMAO
>: Man, that's it. Exactly. Thanks for .sig, BTW.
>
>excuse me. how much of linux is written in c++?
None.
>c++ is not my favorite language, so I don't use it.
>
>so, I guess you want to measure d***size in terms of
>c++ use, huh? well how long is YOUR d***, AV?
No, we are inferring the quality of your understanding of OO based on
what you say about OO.
You said that you had written a little C++, and that this was all that
was necessary to establish that you had a clear understanding of OO.
*Bjarne Stroustrup* indicates that C++ is not forcibly an OO language.
But apparently you think you are wiser than he.
--
"Be humble. A lot happened before you were born." - Life's Little
Instruction Book
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/langc.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: the ultimate OS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 00:24:06 GMT
On 7 Jun 1999 13:45:14 GMT, Sid Cammeresi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Jun 1999 00:58:45 GMT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 6 Jun 1999 22:04:11 GMT, Sid Cammeresi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>On Sun, 6 Jun 1999 13:36:35 -0700, FM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>I'd like to see a file system that
>>>>lets a file have subfiles
>>>
>>>BFS is what you want, although the subfiles (attributes in BFS parlance)
>>>are not files qua files. BFS also has indexing, querying, and other goodies.
>>
>>Can you give a URL or two that would elaborate on this?
>
>BFS goodies are in the Storage Kit section of the Be Book:
>
>http://www-classic.be.com/documentation/be_book/The%20Storage%20Kit/index.html
>
>under Attribute Functions, Index Functions, and Query Functions. In a
>nutshell, you call fs_open_attr_dir and get a (DIR *) back which represents
>the attribute directory. You can the read individual attributes using
>fs_read_attr. Attributes are referenced by name; they are not opened
>separately and do not get their own file descriptors, as that would have
>complicated the vnode layer quite a bit more (can't close a file until
>all attributes are closed, etc.).
>
>I don't know of anything else online, but then, I haven't looked either.
>If you are into dead trees, Dominic Giampaolo, the chap who designed the
>filesystem, wrote a book on it that came out a few months ago called
>*Practical Filesystem Design With the Be File System*. Although it is
>not a technical specification, it is a very good book if you are interested
>in learning a bit on filesystems.
It appears that there's <"http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA008030/bfs/">
an implementation of the BFS filesystem for Linux. At this point,
read-only, with some intent to be able to write.
>>This sounds a whole lot like:
>>a) Tom Lord's "Berkeley DB" (which isn't the same thing as db-lib), and
>
>Haven't heard of that.
<ftp://emf.net/users/lord/src/bdb-1.0.tar.gz>
"A BDB database is an ordinary unix file whose binary contents are a
complete UNIX file system. By using the VU file system interface, a BDB
database can be cleanly integrated with the file system view of a
particular process."
>>b) Stuff the Reiserfs folk are considering...
>
>I would find that surprising given this entire concept is fairly
>non-POSIX.
See: <http://devlinux.com/namesys/>
It may be non-POSIX, but there's nothing wrong with adding libraries to
do non-POSIX things.
Reiserfs seems to be looking at three things:
a) Providing B-tree-based directory structures, so that Highly Populated
Directories may be efficiently accessed.
b) Providing space-efficient representation of Very Small Files.
These two factors add up to encourage systems to represent keys as
filenames and their values as files.
c) Allow the filesystem to nest. This would involve using a library,
perhaps "libReiserFS," to "mount" a file as a ReiserFS "filesystem" for
the purpose of access by a process.
This would allow an application to establish a "virtual filesystem."
The practical use of this would be that an application would create a
"document" that would actually be a filesystem, and which would thereby
provide an entirely natural way of associating arbitrary attributes with
the document.
Typically, modifying a document that is simply a file requires making a
copy, and "rewriting" it.
With one of the above approaches, one might do (perhaps suitably hidden
behind libraries) the equivalent to the following:
% mount -t reiserfs /home/cbbrowne/Documents/mydocument.doc /mnt/mydoc
% cp ~/CoolIcons/fave.icon /mnt/mydoc/Icon.icon
% rm /mnt/mydoc/Chapters/ch9.tex
% umount /mnt/mydoc
This would remove Chapter 9, and add an icon.
An application using libReiserFS wouldn't actually attach the file to
the mount point, but rather have some virtualized filesystem scheme.
But it would be *real* slick if a process could do a traditional "mount"
to make it easy to write scripts to manipulate documents without needing
to have the original application involved.
The "ugly" bit is that there would be a need to allow the FS to resize
itself dynamically, for instance when that icon gets added to the
document. It would be quite natural, after the "umount," to run some
equivalent to fsck that would remove unused "blocks."
--
"Be humble. A lot happened before you were born." - Life's Little
Instruction Book
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linuxkernel.html>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
