Linux-Development-Sys Digest #796, Volume #6 Tue, 8 Jun 99 07:14:01 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux development tools - new : download freeware compiler with IDE and
GuiDesigner for Linux & Windows (Christopher B. Browne)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Jimen Ching)
Re: Large CD-ROM file errors...? (Mark Tranchant)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Thomas Boroske)
Re: Linux development tools - new : download freeware compiler with IDE and
GuiDesigner for Linux & Windows ("Max Reason")
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Thomas Boroske)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Craig Graham)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Jimen Ching)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher B. Browne)
Subject: Re: Linux development tools - new : download freeware compiler with IDE and
GuiDesigner for Linux & Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 04:49:39 GMT
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:55:57 -0000, Max Reason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>Martin Maney wrote in message <7jhp0a$72$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> At this point it's "freeware"; I gather that you're willing, in principle,
>> to open it up, but I'm not sure if you're willing to open it to the point
>> that most Linux developers would call "free" (unqualified). This
>> would be a real concern if I were seriously considering doing any
>> substantial work with it. I don't know, Max: the language may not
>> be a toy, but it seems as though that's what you're releasing it as.
>> You say it's no longer an active project, so we can't count on
>> support from you, but there's no source, so no one else can do
>> anything. This is really the worst of both worlds
>> (commercial/closed vs open source) for a serious tool.
>
> I must admit I don't understand what you mean by that paragraph.
> What do you mean by "free = unqualified". I really don't know what
> you mean by that, but I thought Linux was free BUT qualified - in the
> sense that certain restrictions apply. Also, I somehow suspect
> Linus has not agreed to answer every question everyone wishes
> to ask - so in the sense you seem to mean, Linux is not supported.
> When I say XBasic is no longer an active project, I mean I am not
> making money off it so I cannot guarantee to spend unlimited time
> "supporting it" - whatever that means. I have answered every
> technical questions I've received, but obviously I cannot guarantee
> to support 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 programmers if for
> some reason freeware XBasic caught on big-time.
If the sources are available, it would be possible for someone to
puzzle through to get answers to problems that are encountered.
That's the case with the Linux kernel, and with various "Open
Source" or "Free Software" systems.
The fact that the source isn't available means that, at this point,
there's no determinable way of getting support. If you don't have
time, or (this is a Python "joke") "Get Hit By A Bus," there's no
way for *anyone* to provide support for XBasic.
> As for the question of "XBasic source code", I am perfectly willing
> to make all the XBasic source code available. In fact, I would love
> to do that precisely for the reasons you imply --- I'd love to have
> dozens of skilled programmers enhancing XBasic. If someone
> competent and diligent wanted to take over management of the
> XBasic source code, that's fine with me. Sure, I'll stay available
> to answer questions, but... Actually, I have not read about how
> the core Linux crew manages Linux, and for that reason I'm quite
> ignorant (meaning "no knowledge from experience") about how
> such management would be organized. That's why I'd prefer
> someone with that knowledge/experience do it right.
The answer is that if people come to care about the code base, then
from that group, some set of would-be maintainers will emerge. If
nobody cares, no maintainers.
The most successful outcome is likely to come from "casting bread
upon the waters," and seeing what comes out of that.
- Some will see XBasic as pointless, and will ignore it.
- Some will find it interesting, but probably not be competent to do
maintenance.
- And there may be a few that both find it interesting and are competent
to help out.
- Perhaps a few will be interested, and may *become* competent after
solving some problems with the source code.
Linux grew out of this very process. Linus had some code, and basically
said: "I have a variant of Minix that uses 80386 code. The sources are
available [here]. It doesn't do much yet, but if you're interested,
take a look..."
And it all grew from there.
There's a "GNU BASIC" project that is essentially trying to build a
"Visual BASIC" clone. Take a look at:
<http://www.multimania.comp/sxpert/gnuvb/">
It could be that what you have is so different from what they want to
do that the efforts are incompatible. Or perhaps XBasic may represent
a code base that functions and which makes a decent starting point for
further efforts.
It's impossible to tell what will transpire before the fact.
Hopefully people have thick enough skins that y'all won't run away
before *trying* to cooperate a little...
--
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]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 02:56:06 -0500
In article <7j894j$hc7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri) writes:
> > systems cannot be implemented coherently without a coherent
> > vision grounding them. does linux repesent a coherent vision? NO.
> Insofar as Linux is UNIX, it presents a pretty coherent vision
> (essentially, everyting is a file, small, cooperative programs
> around a text pipeline, etc). It's a tribute to the coherence
> of the UNIX vision that it is still relevant 30 years after it
> was conceived.
Like antique car clubs right? Love those Model T's! :)
> > does it need to, to advance further? YES. does the linux
> > community have a blind spot about this need? YES. does it
> > have to be my vision? NO.
> Why the obsession with Linux advancing further? It does what
> it does quite nicely. Those who want to use it, use it. Those
> who need new features, add them (or squeal).
>
> Chris is right - the only way to kickstart a new, better OS
> is to write code. If it's good, then the history of Linux
> suggests that there will be lots of competent people who'll
> adopt it, and turn it into a fully fledged system.
Or a monstrosity. (Cathedral vs. bazaar etc.).
Ed
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jimen Ching)
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 08:26:39 GMT
Craig Kelley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jimen Ching) writes:
>> During the talk ESR gave, I asked him if "_open source_ should be
>> applied to embedded software?" His answer was, "sure, why not."
>I assume that your position is that open source should _never_ be used
>wrt embedded software?
Define embedded? ;-) No, seriously. I would make this statement:
Free software does not cater well to deeply embedded software.
By 'deeply embedded software', I mean software that is tightly coupled
with hardware. An embedded software engineer would know what I'm talking
about.
>Why? We did it. In fact, many 'embedded' machines out there are
>simply x86 boxes with some form of flash RAM; given the amount of open
>source code that already runs on them...
That's not what the magazine articles are saying. I read in the May
issue of ESD, the i386 only make up %1 of the embedded processors. Of
course, 1% is a lot. So maybe you're partially right. But if you need
to run GNOME on your embedded system, then I need to find a new definition
of embedded systems. ;-)
The problem with free software, or open source for that matter, is that
it treats all software the same. Some software are called firmware for
a reason. People just can't seem to understand that the benefits of
open source might not reach everywhere. This is(was) my point.
--jc
--
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mark Tranchant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Large CD-ROM file errors...?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 07:44:54 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks to an earlier poster, it looks like the "cruft" mount option is
the problem / cure. As I have worked around my problem, I'm not bothered
any more - until the next time!
Mark.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I got a friend to burn the StarOffice 5.1
> download onto a CD-R for me
> >
> > On getting home, I booted up Linux (2.2.9, with
> full CD support
> > including Joliet compiled in) and tried to copy
> the 70.6MB file.
> > However, Linux could only see the first 16MB or
> thereabouts.
>
> I've got the same problem with CD-R's written
> under Win95. If you look at /var/log/messages
> you'll see some errors like this:
>
> kernel: isofs_read_level3_size: More than 100 file
> sections ?!?, aborting...
>
> I got around this by patching fs/isofs/inode.c,
> just above this error message, and another similar
> one, to use 10000 retries insted of 100. It looks
> like some CD-R's will get written with many
> fragments.
>
> Can anyone confirm this is the fix?
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Thomas Boroske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: 08 Jun 1999 11:18:39 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri) writes:
> 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.
[...]
> : 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.
Errm - are you suggesting plug&play in windows doesn�t always work,
simply because Microsoft didn�t recognize it as a "key design goal" ?
Get real.
> 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.
The problem is that there is absolutely no vision in the whole of your
essay. Most of the goals are totally generic that no-one can
understand why you insist on mentioning them, since you don�t tell us
anything on how you�re going to achieve them (this is probably what
caused people to call your "design document" a wishlist or even
marketing blurb). .
Others aren�t really goals, despite what you say, they�re design
decisions - and you consistently fail to communicate why these design
decisions are taken.
Just one simple question: Why should the OS be based on "objects" ?
Yes, why ?
Except when your goal is to write an OS based on objects there is no
self-evident advantage in doing so.
Please, tell us why you think this is a good idea - your essay
doesn�t.
> : Viruses are impossible to contract on the system based on its
> : design.
[ answer snipped ]
> : Many common failures associated with existing OSes are impossible in
> : Tao due to stability features.
[ answer snipped ]
> : In Tao, the source of problems are always very easy to diagnose even
> : by an end user.
<fx: Bangs head on wall>
I wonder how people manage to remain so controlled and good-mannered
when adressing your posts.
If you think just the three points above are actually feasible by
declaring them "key design goals" then you�re an idiot.
Your "design document" is absolutely worthless unless you include some
info on how to achieve them.
> 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.
Sure, it�s all prejudice. Has nothing to do with just not being
possible in the time frame, with "make it work correctly first" or
anything.
Thank you, Vladimir, that you have shown us the error of our ways. I�m
sure now that you have shown us the light, things will get better
quickly.
Really, man, you wasted 44K on saying, in a complicated way "You
know, guys, current OSs are brainded, complex to configure and all
that. Why don�t we make the perfect OS ?" plus prejudicing a number of
design decisions without even explaining why they are benificial to the
stated goals.
Kind regards,
--
Thomas Boroske
------------------------------
From: "Max Reason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux development tools - new : download freeware compiler with IDE and
GuiDesigner for Linux & Windows
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:13:55 -0000
Christopher B. Browne wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 17:55:57 -0000, Max Reason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>>Martin Maney wrote in message <7jhp0a$72$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>> At this point it's "freeware"; I gather that you're willing, in principle,
>>> to open it up, but I'm not sure if you're willing to open it to the point
>>> that most Linux developers would call "free" (unqualified). This
>>> would be a real concern if I were seriously considering doing any
>>> substantial work with it. I don't know, Max: the language may not
>>> be a toy, but it seems as though that's what you're releasing it as.
>>> You say it's no longer an active project, so we can't count on
>>> support from you, but there's no source, so no one else can do
>>> anything. This is really the worst of both worlds
>>> (commercial/closed vs open source) for a serious tool.
>>
>> I must admit I don't understand what you mean by that paragraph.
>> What do you mean by "free = unqualified". I really don't know what
>> you mean by that, but I thought Linux was free BUT qualified - in the
>> sense that certain restrictions apply. Also, I somehow suspect
>> Linus has not agreed to answer every question everyone wishes
>> to ask - so in the sense you seem to mean, Linux is not supported.
>> When I say XBasic is no longer an active project, I mean I am not
>> making money off it so I cannot guarantee to spend unlimited time
>> "supporting it" - whatever that means. I have answered every
>> technical questions I've received, but obviously I cannot guarantee
>> to support 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 programmers if for
>> some reason freeware XBasic caught on big-time.
>
> If the sources are available, it would be possible for someone to
> puzzle through to get answers to problems that are encountered.
> That's the case with the Linux kernel, and with various "Open
> Source" or "Free Software" systems.
>
> The fact that the source isn't available means that, at this point,
> there's no determinable way of getting support. If you don't have
> time, or (this is a Python "joke") "Get Hit By A Bus," there's no
> way for *anyone* to provide support for XBasic.
Like I say below, I'm willing to make the XBasic source code
available, but I'm ignorant of the mechanisms that work best.
I mean look, I created the XBasic information and download
pages and got jumped on for not "doing it right". When it comes
to releasing the source code I'd like to "do it right" - but I don't
know what that means. I hope to get opinions from a few more
active Linux fans to guide me.
>> As for the question of "XBasic source code", I am perfectly willing
>> to make all the XBasic source code available. In fact, I would love
>> to do that precisely for the reasons you imply --- I'd love to have
>> dozens of skilled programmers enhancing XBasic. If someone
>> competent and diligent wanted to take over management of the
>> XBasic source code, that's fine with me. Sure, I'll stay available
>> to answer questions, but... Actually, I have not read about how
>> the core Linux crew manages Linux, and for that reason I'm quite
>> ignorant (meaning "no knowledge from experience") about how
>> such management would be organized. That's why I'd prefer
>> someone with that knowledge/experience do it right.
>
> The answer is that if people come to care about the code base,
> then from that group, some set of would-be maintainers will emerge.
> If nobody cares, no maintainers.
>
> The most successful outcome is likely to come from "casting bread
> upon the waters," and seeing what comes out of that.
>
> - Some will see XBasic as pointless, and will ignore it.
> - Some will find it interesting, but probably not be competent to do
> maintenance.
> - And there may be a few that both find it interesting and
> are competent to help out.
> - Perhaps a few will be interested, and may *become* competent
> after solving some problems with the source code.
>
> Linux grew out of this very process. Linus had some code,
> and basically said: "I have a variant of Minix that uses 80386 code.
> The sources are available [here]. It doesn't do much yet, but if
> you're interested, take a look...".
>
> And it all grew from there.
And Linux is great. I far prefer working in Linux than Windows!
But somehow I get the sense you make the process seem "too easy"
and "too painless". I'd love to hear opinions from others who have
experience in open source efforts other than Linux itself. So many
more people are nasty than cooperative these days.
> There's a "GNU BASIC" project that is essentially trying to build
> a "Visual Basic" clone. Take a look at:
><http://www.multimania.com/sxpert/gnuvb/>
>
> It could be that what you have is so different from what they
> want to do that the efforts are incompatible. Or perhaps XBasic
> may represent a code base that functions and which makes
> a decent starting point for further efforts.
Great idea! I hadn't heard of that group before (not surprising).
I just sent them an email note, we'll see what they say.
Thanks for the idea & information.
> It's impossible to tell what will transpire before the fact.
True. But good idea nonetheless.
> Hopefully people have thick enough skins that y'all won't
> run away before *trying* to cooperate a little...
True, from a practical standpoint it makes lots of sense.
But people often have "requirements" and are inflexible.
On the positive side, the state of their web-page led me
to infer they're just starting their project. On the negative
side they could have any number of "requirements" based
on their own interests. We'll see. Thanks for the idea.
Max
------------------------------
From: Thomas Boroske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: 08 Jun 1999 11:37:03 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri) writes:
> *everything* starts with memes, not code. anyone who says otherwise
> is .. er.. arguing against the obvious imho.
Agreed (assuming I understood what you mean with "memes").
[...]
> what I think you are saying, is that you don't want to contribute
> until you see MOMENTUM. for you, code is momentum. mere ideas
> are not momentum. but to me, even mere ideas have momentum.
To say it bluntly: It�s not ideas in general that can�t have
momentum, it�s just your ideas that are shit.
(Well, "unoriginal" regarding the goals, "clueless" regarding
implementation would be more to the point than "shit").
> there are some people who are forward looking enough that they
> will begin to contribute even when there is only an IDEA.
Multiple times in your posts to this thread you have expressed an
opinion that people only want code, and nothing else.
I dispute that view - I think a good design document would probably be
applauded and valued by "the community", whatever that is.
> let's just all agree we have different momentum threshholds,
> ok? but arguing for one threshhold over another (i.e.
> "ignore people with a low momentum threshhold, they do nothing
> but yack without writing code") is unproductive imho.
Hmmm. I think the attitude you describe there is quite understandable,
simply because the world is full of wannabees (sp?) ready to
communicate their pipedream of an OS/application to others while
there�re actually very few people who could go and actually build it.
This sucks, especially if the proponent also shows an attitude where
he accuses the clued-ones of being arrogant and "not wanting anything
better" while infact the real issues revolve around *how* to achieve
a set of valuable goals and how to best trade-off certain goals against
others.
Kind regards,
--
Thomas Boroske
------------------------------
From: Craig Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 11:08:04 +0000
Jimen Ching wrote:
>
> Craig Kelley ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jimen Ching) writes:
> >> During the talk ESR gave, I asked him if "_open source_ should be
> >> applied to embedded software?" His answer was, "sure, why not."
> >I assume that your position is that open source should _never_ be used
> >wrt embedded software?
>
> Define embedded? ;-) No, seriously. I would make this statement:
>
> Free software does not cater well to deeply embedded software.
>
> By 'deeply embedded software', I mean software that is tightly coupled
> with hardware. An embedded software engineer would know what I'm talking
> about.
Amen to that. Although, I've worked with a couple of open source
projects for embedded systems on the 8051 CPU, and they worked out
reasonably well - although, being's as you tend to require a boatload
of assembler experience to get anywhere with a lot of it, it sort of
pencils out most of the Windows/Linux fraternity. Not all, just most.
> >Why? We did it. In fact, many 'embedded' machines out there are
> >simply x86 boxes with some form of flash RAM; given the amount of open
> >source code that already runs on them...
>
> That's not what the magazine articles are saying. I read in the May
> issue of ESD, the i386 only make up %1 of the embedded processors. Of
Most embedded CPU's only have like, 128bytes of RAM on board. Or less...
(eg. PIC, 8031/51, etc). Embedding any Intel chip makes your system
a lot more expensive (compared to using pretty much anything else).
I suppose you'd have to split embedded systems into to fields as well
- the tiny "video recorder control" type application, and the more meaty
digital TV decoder set top box type application. In the second area
you could possibly make a fair use of Open Source, as the CPU's are more
capable - but the first area, no real use for open source beyond the
manufacturer's examples code (the CPU's are to low-spec to use anything
generic).
> course, 1% is a lot. So maybe you're partially right. But if you need
> to run GNOME on your embedded system, then I need to find a new definition
> of embedded systems. ;-)
Heh heh heh.
> The problem with free software, or open source for that matter, is that
> it treats all software the same. Some software are called firmware for
And it's no doubt a fidly bugger, and although it can be modified,
updated
and worked on. But generally you're looking at a huge expense to get the
kit to do it (hardware mod's to create a debug build of the system, ROM
emulators, special debug ROM's with a monitor embedded, maybe even an
ICE).
None of which is cheap (always a driving force for the Open Source
folks).
> a reason. People just can't seem to understand that the benefits of
> open source might not reach everywhere. This is(was) my point.
Very deep.
> Jimen Ching (WH6BRR) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Craig Graham.
Senior Embedded Systems Engineer,
Intelligent Research Ltd.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jimen Ching)
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 07:27:52 GMT
Vladimir Z. Nuri ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Jimen Ching ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: an indication of the type of audience you need to expect. Any well trained
>: software engineer would see through that document after the first few
>: paragraphs.
>the former being the cathedral, the latter being the bazaar..
>and much of the hostility to my essay is perhaps because
>people are perceiving it as "cathedral like" .. I respect
I think you misunderstood me. When I say a 'trained software engineer would
_see through_ the document', I mean they would find faults with the contents.
Finding faults with the contents of a paper, does not imply anything about
the author, and it shouldn't.
There are lots of theory in that paper. Almost all of them lack concrete
data to support it. This is what software engineers will see, more than
anything else.
>its the whole picture, man. that's the point. the end user is the
>point. linux developers currently refuse to recognize this. they
I get it. My point was that you are misusing words. A better word for
what you're doing is more like 'ultimate desktop interface', not 'ultimate
OS'. I understand that you want the _OS_ to handle the user interface, from
the point of view of the user and the design. But speaking technically, you
have to seperate them. Talking about the OS and talking about the user
interface are two different things, from the point of view of a software
engineer.
The file system was just an example. Instead of focusing on the details
of the implementation, you should focus more on the abstractions instead.
>: What are the alternatives? Did
>: you do a study of file system and concluded that an object design is
>: better?
>I contrast it to the existing system in which everything is
>basically disconnected and organized only at the flimsiest
>level-- free form files and directories.
Where's the data? All I have is your description of the problem, and
a brief description of what you think will fix it. It still lacks proof.
--jc
--
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
