Linux-Development-Sys Digest #797, Volume #6 Tue, 8 Jun 99 15:14:45 EDT
Contents:
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Jimen Ching)
Re: Proposal for XML Configuration files (George MacDonald)
Re: the ultimate OS ("Tim Doffing")
Re: Linux development tools - new : download freeware compiler with IDE and
GuiDesigner for Linux & Windows
Re: system call ("Stefan Monnier "
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Larry Blanchard)
Re: Linux development tools - new : download freeware compiler with IDE and
GuiDesigner for Linux & Windows ("Max Reason")
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (David T. Blake)
Linux ACPI/APM support? (Jeffrey Noll)
unresolved symbol poll_wait() in driver ("Tim Hall")
new kernel: LILO "kernel too big" error ("steve davidson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 08:08:47 GMT
Anthony Ord ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Jun 1999 22:29:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jimen
>Ching) wrote:
>>university. They took everything ESR said to heart, without question.
>>And when I raised a question, the audiance was the first to defend the
>>ideas. This is not the type of environment I would expect from academia.
>transmit photons and yet have no mass or anything else. It
>is needed because otherwise we wouldn't exist (remind anyone
>of The Creator?) and despite looking for it, no one can find
>it (remind anyone of The Creator?).
I think you misunderstood me, because you just proved my point. Just as
astronomers and astrologers shouldn't just accept CDM, so shouldn't CS
professors and scientists accept 'open source'. The thoery and benefit
behind 'open source' should be proven with data. I saw no data to back up
the theories in ESR's papers. But the prof's and grad-students that attended
the lecture accepted it without question.
>>i.e. teenage, software developer wanabee. I'll admit there are a few
>>gifted teenagers who can write better software then some of the 40 year
>>olds I know. But these teenagers are rear.
>Or rare even... ;-) Or are you saying they are anal and I've
>misinterpreted it?
Whoops. I think the next evolution of the keyboard should place the
letter 'e' and the letter 'r' as far away from each other as possible.
This was not the first time I made this mistake. :)
>But if I go back to my favourite saying - "A demonstration
>is worth a thousand Usenet messages.". That always should be
Was this derived from 'A picture is worth a thousand words'? You understand
that this only applies if the concept you're trying to discuss has physical
form. How does one demonstrate that a file system based on objects is
superior to one that is not? Does simply having _source code_ prove this
point? It may make it easier to prove, but the source code is not the proof
itself.
>>3. The third problem I saw can be summed up with, "theory without data".
>>This is the same problem ESR had with all his papers. There are no data
>>to support any of the ideas and concepts being discussed. Examples are
>>not data.
>They are if there are enough of them. I can't prove people
>will die, but I have enough examples to put forward a
>statistically significant case...
People die because of cellular deterioration. This can be proven without
using examples. But I understand your point. But in this case, examples
are not enough. ESR theorises that the recognition factor is the _major_
factor that drives the open source community. Yes, you can find examples
of this. But is it the MAJOR factor? Did he do a survey and counted up
all of the votes and saw that egotism is the top reason for the existance
of the free software community?
>You can't expect the guy to do a full analysis of it while
>on stage. You are always going to get quick answers in such
>a situation. Can you think of a reason why it shouldn't be?
I expect him to at least think about it. If he doesn't know the answer,
I expect him to admit it, rather than give me some lame answer. He has
given enough of these lectures to know better.
--jc
--
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: George MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.programmer,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Proposal for XML Configuration files
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 08:18:34 GMT
Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> On 06 Jun 1999 16:49:00 -0400, Keith Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
> >> Get real, config files rule. The more syntaxes the merrier.
> >
> >You lost me there. If there is a reason for another syntax, then
> >go for it, but it's hard for me to believe there are programs so
> >novel that one of the existing syntices won't work.
>
> *Multiple independent implementations* may rule; the more syntaxes is
> most definitely *not* the merrier, as this forces more complexity onto
> anyone that wants to understand the schemes.
>
> I rather like the IETF principle that they will not approve a protocol
> until there are at least two implementations. *That* expresses the
> *true* need, which is to have the ability for multiple programs to
> safely access the same data file.
>
> The way I'd put it is, "The more independent parsers that parse the
> format, the merrier!"
>
> I'd suggest the somewhat different thought that it would be attractive
> to have a small number of syntaxes that provide different degrees of
> flexibility, and well-debugged parsers for each.
>
> Three approaches of varying sophistication would be:
>
> a) A very simple key/value scheme, for those cases where there will be
> very simple configuration information. This is roughly equivalent to
> ".ini" files.
>
> b) A somewhat more sophisticated key/structure scheme, providing
> somewhat more sophistication, with such things as:
> - Key/value
> - Something corresponding roughly to C "structs"
> - Something corresponding to (IDL "sequences" | Scheme "vectors")
> - Something corresponding to (Python/Objective C/Smalltalk
> "Dictionaries" | Perl "Associative Arrays")
> - Some reasonable form of "typing" system.
>
> This is roughly equivalent to libPropList.
>
> c) Scheme, for cases where it is not sufficient to merely provide static
> configuration data.
>
> This requires embedding a full-scale language into the application.
> Scheme is almost certainly the best choice for this purpose...
>
> A Really Valuable Thing to provide in *all* cases would be some sort of
> "signature" system so that an automated tool may be able to determine
> what applications such config files are supposed to be associated with.
>
> >> >Is there anybody in the web thinking about a standard on this topic,
> >> >maybe based on XML?
> >>
> >> Good luck convincing everyone to use whatever scheme you come up with.
> >
> >As you have (probably accidentally) pointed out, the best solution
> >in many cases will be to use Guile to embed a Scheme interpreter,
> >thus making your config file a real programming language, instead
> >of a random pile of hacks.
> >
> >What does XML, (a document format description language) have to do
> >with it? I want to be able to configure like this:
> >(set! startup-hook
> > (lambda argv (if (null? argv)
> > (display-splash "file"))))
>
Another way to effect the same thing is to make the config file an
executable. When run it outputs a key/value pair or an object/value
type X resource. Then an app can "execute" it's config file, and read
the simplified resulting output. Thus the above could be written any number
of different languages. Bourne shell would be a good choice as it's
the lingua franca on unices. Easy as
fp = popen( config_path, "r" )
load config params from fp ...
pclose(fp)
Saving the config is the hard part, especially multiple concurrent
updates...
> This is nice insofar as it allows combining data and code in a
> configuration file.
>
> This is somewhat "evil" insofar as it means that attempts to analyze the
> configuration file may represent an instance of Turing's Halting
> Problem.
>
> That being said, it may still be an acceptable approach given the
> stipulation that the file must contain only s-expressions. A "reader"
> process should be able to grab and parse the s-expressions. Predicting
> what will happen from the above "startup-hook" may be a bit problematic,
> but so long as there is no expectation to analyze macros, it should be
> OK.
>
> A Neat Thing to do with a Scheme-based methodology would be to have some
> sort of metadata that indicates what application-specific functions
> exist, which would allow *some* searching for particular aspects of
> configuration...
That's the ticket!
b.t.w. After a 4 month side trip on treeps, I will be starting on opStore
again. I'm in the final phase of wrapping up release 1.1.1 after combining
Linux, UnixWare 7 and Solaris 7 updates. I now can't progress any farther
with my program without something like opStore. Since last we were posting
about this I have noticed two projects startup, the GNU Gmagic project
and the KDE Registry. Both of these look like they are some way off, so
I'm going ahead with opStore. I have settled on the technique you describe
above, i.e. a metaData based approach which seems to offer the greatest
amount of flexibility.
--
We stand on the shoulders of those giants who coded before.
Build a good layer, stand strong, and prepare for the next wave.
Guide those who come after you, give them your shoulder, lend them your code.
Code well and live! - [EMAIL PROTECTED] (7th Coding Battalion)
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Tim Doffing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Tim Doffing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: the ultimate OS
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 08:39:40 -0500
Vladimir Z. Nuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tim Doffing ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> in intermediate stages, where people flame a post, I think
> is where the greatest amount of "powerful new memes" are evident.
> so I tend to take flames as a compliment. people to do not
> vehemently challenge that which they do not believe has
> inherent power.
>
> btw, I hope none of my posts have "resorted to personal
> insults or vulgarity" that you mention.. its a fine line
> huh?
I must admit that I haven't read the immense amount of posts on this
subject. I must admint that from what I have read so far that you have a
firm grasp of where the line exists.
--
I welcome and respect all opinions,
I don't however, agree with all of them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux development tools - new : download freeware compiler with IDE and
GuiDesigner for Linux & Windows
Date: 8 Jun 1999 14:49:18 GMT
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:13:55 -0000, Max Reason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
[prev discussion snipped]
this is a decision that only you can make (i assume you wrote XBasic, or
own the source)...
for many open source projects, the program, in source form, along with
pertinent license documents, helpful documentation, and contributions in a
contrib directory, are included in a gzipped tarball...
for licensing, may i suggest a trip to www.fsf.org?
i'd also prepare each separate document of the client's source code to
include the copyleft statements, along with contact information in the
document's header space...
however, after reading about 400K of assembler code in the source...
>
> Max
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: system call
Date: 08 Jun 1999 11:44:10 -0400
>>>>> "NTVO910" == NTVO910 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> thanks so much for your response, Stefi
The pleasure was all mine,
Stefan
------------------------------
From: Larry Blanchard <[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 08:51:07 PDT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nix wrote:
>
> Oh, was *that* what he meant by a vision?
>
> Unix does have one, then (discounting blemishes like SysVIPC).
>
Smile when you say that, stranger :-).
I have yet to see a better replacement for a message queue that allows
multiple writers, multiple readers, and multiple message types all in
one bidirectional queue with both wait and quick-return modes. A task
can even send a message to itself.
--
Larry Blanchard - Old roses, old motorcycles, and old trains
Homo Sapiens is a goal, not a description.
------------------------------
From: "Max Reason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux development tools - new : download freeware compiler with IDE and
GuiDesigner for Linux & Windows
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 06:52:16 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 22:13:55 -0000, Max Reason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> [prev discussion snipped]
>
> this is a decision that only you can make (i assume you wrote
> XBasic, or own the source)...
Hey, there's a great idea - I could admit I own the source but
not admit I wrote it. Then maybe I can escape criticism for
the older and less-well-written sections! Great idea - thanks!
> for many open source projects, the program, in source form,
> along with pertinent license documents, helpful documentation,
> and contributions in a contrib directory, are included in a
> gzipped tarball...
Do you think there should be two versions available, one for
the majority who don't need source and prefer not to waste
several megabytes of disk space - and another for the few
who would "support" XBasic in the sense people are saying.
> for licensing, may i suggest a trip to www.fsf.org?
I'll check that link out later tonight.
> i'd also prepare each separate document of the client's
> source code to include the copyleft statements, along with
> contact information in the document's header space...
>
> however, after reading about 400K of assembler code
> in the source...
Don't be too scared! That is 400K of assembly language
source text. Most of that is comments - it's very heavily
commented. I just looked at the xlib.o file made from it,
and it's 74KB, which means the actual executable binary
is probably only - what? 32KB to 64KB maybe. If people
dislike assembly in an open source project on principal,
all of it could be converted to XBasic - about 1/3 - 1/2
of the assembly are core routines where speed matters
(like super-fast malloc(), calloc(), free() routines) and the
rest for historical reasons [translation: stupid decision].
------------------------------
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: Mon, 07 Jun 1999 21:57:14 -0700
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/07/99
at 10:40 PM, "G. Sumner Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
:You must have some odd definition of "address them"...
He probably means "address them" in the same context as a golfer
"addresses" the golf ball.
Best,
-- Chuck Crayne
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
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 06:27:49 -0700
Stop feeding the troll.
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Noll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Linux ACPI/APM support?
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 09:14:41 -0400
I'm wondering if Linux currently supports ACPI power management. I
know about
apmd, but I'm not sure if that will bring me down to as low a power
level as I'd like.
What i'm looking to get down to is the S3 state for the mb/cpu. Can I do
this with
apmd? This is for a car system to I would prefer to be able to turn off
basically
everythign except ram/interrupt to wake it up/cpu context. Any help
appreciated,
Jeff
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jeffrey Noll System Administrator
(860)654-6378 Space Systems International
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hamilton Standard
------------------------------
From: "Tim Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: unresolved symbol poll_wait() in driver
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:57:39 -0400
Hi,
I am trying to build a device driver and I now get a unresolved symbol
poll_wait when I try to insert the module. Everything compiles OKAY.. RedHat
6.0 Kernel 2.2.5
Any ideas would be appreciated
Thanks
------------------------------
From: "steve davidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: new kernel: LILO "kernel too big" error
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:52:56 -0700
I'm confused.
re-built my RH 6 2.2.5 kernel last night, stripped out all of the junk that
I don't need, added a couple of things in ( my selections are ok, I've been
researching this for a while). Compiled OK, no error messages. Followed
this procedure:
make xconfig (configure...)
make dep
make clean
make zImage
make succeeds, I end up with a 426KB kernel.
Ran Linuxconf, selected the 'install kernel I have compiled' option under
LILO section, upon 'save config' selection I receive a 'kernel too big'
error.
OK, so I think that maybe linuxconf is screwy, so I manually edit the
/etc/linux.conf file, adding the section
image=/boot/newkernelz
label=new
between the existing image.. section and the other.. section ( I previously
copied the new zImage to /boot/newkernelz ).
Saved lilo.conf, ran lilo -v: Still get the error "kernel /boot/newkernelz
is too big".
I don't get it. The kernel which ships with RH 6 (vmlinuz-2.2.5-15) is
617,288 bytes, while my new kernel is 475,696 bytes. What gives?
Any suggestions here?
Thanks!
Steve Davidson
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
