Linux-Development-Sys Digest #820, Volume #6 Fri, 11 Jun 99 20:14:18 EDT
Contents:
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Re: Any Journaling FS development? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Segmentation fault in file execution (Mike McDonald)
Re: Problems with Soundblaster 64 PCI (ES1370) (Andres Heinloo)
Re: Configuration Manager for Linux (Jonathan Abbey)
Re: the ultimate OS (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Re: How can I use PCI board memory? (Joseph Virzi)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Bruce Stephens)
Drivers for TIPA-P alleid data (tornado) ISDN card needed! (Jef vd Molengraft)
Re: Any Journaling FS development? (Phil Howard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 20:18:38 GMT
Christopher Browne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: If you can't construct a model out of balsa and styrofoam, why should we
: believe that you can build the full-scale version?
ok,ok!! but I must ask again-- please focus on one particular
aspect of what I am proposing, perhaps which you feel is simultaneously
most desirable/infeasible.. and I'll attempt to elaborate!!
I agree, engineering is the next step. the document is only the
vaguest beginning of a lot of hard work.
: There are no specific criticisms that can be meted out on a model that
: is manifestly vague.
there are no specific improvements that can be meted out on criticism
that is manifestly vague.
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"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]
Subject: Re: Any Journaling FS development?
Date: 10 Jun 1999 17:19:38 -0500
Reply-To: "J.L.M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David T. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>According to SGI, it is so that their lawyers can look into
>it and see how 'freely' they will be allowed to license
>XFS
hoo boy. What lawyer wants to be the first to give that
kind of legitimacy to GPL? I'm not holding my breath anymore.
--
James
http://ssdd.conservatory.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike McDonald)
Subject: Re: Segmentation fault in file execution
Date: 11 Jun 1999 21:16:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kong Tae Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> --------------D4490DCDEAEC620A1663AFDC
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=EUC-KR
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> I just installed RedHat 6.0 Korean distribution, and compiled my
> project.
>
> The code that generated segmantation fault and core dump doesn't do that
> anymore.
> At that code my program stops with controlling terminal.
>
> I tried this three line program only for test
> ... main...
> {
> char *name = "";
> printf("test is %s", name[5]);
> }
>
> Above code didn't cause segmentation fault , it just stopped with
> controlling terminal(when executed as a foreground job)
The behavious of this code is undefined. It code dump core or it could print
a lot of random garbage to stdout.
If you want to dump core, call abort().
Mike McDonald
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Andres Heinloo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.dev.sound
Subject: Re: Problems with Soundblaster 64 PCI (ES1370)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 23:57:20 +0300
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Graham Beint wrote:
> Have you fixed up /etc/conf.modules
I think so. Here is the sound-related part of my /etc/conf.modules:
# Standard Linux driver
pre-install sound /sbin/modprobe es1370
# ALSA driver
# # ALSA native device support
# alias char-major-116 snd
# # options snd snd_major=116 snd_cards_limit=1
# alias snd-card-0 snd-ens1370
#
# # OSS/Lite setup
# alias char-major-14 snd
# alias sound-slot-0 snd-card-0
# alias sound-service-0-0 snd-mixer-oss
# alias sound-service-0-3 snd-pcm1-oss
# alias sound-service-0-12 snd-pcm1-oss
> 1. The free version of OSS does not support PCI sound cards.
OSS/Free has now been re-structured by Alan Cox and others, and it also
supports some PCI cards.
> 2. In SuSE at least sound is by default disabled and needs to be
> re-enabled.
That seems not be the case since I got xmixer working and I could listen
CD through soundcard, play xboing with sound and even listen mp3---few
seconds until the kernel crashed.
> 3. Part of the ALSA set up involves a script 'snddevices' to create
> new /dev/entries.
I did that.
> 4. Also by default the sound channels are muted in ALSA. You will need
> to run 'alsactrl' to turn things on.
>
> 5. I have a working ALSA/PCI-128 combination. E-mail me if you would
> like me
> to mail you copies of my config files for SuSE-6.1 + ALSA + GATOS
Yes, please send me the config files. While standard Linux driver for
es1370 obviously has a bug (even if I had a wrong configuration, Linux
shouldn't have crashed), I feel that I did some stupid mistake with ALSA
since it didn't recognize the card and even didn't give any messages (the
modules were loaded, though).
What version of ALSA are you using? What kernel version? ALSA 0.3.1 which
I tried seems quite alpha. For example, the module snd-ak4531-codec.o
missed init_module() and cleanup_module(), and I had to define dummy
versions of these functions in order to get the module loaded under
2.0.36. ALSA library needed a Makefile hackery in order to compile.
Andres.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Abbey)
Subject: Re: Configuration Manager for Linux
Date: 11 Jun 1999 15:56:31 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher B. Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| [...]
|
| It would nonetheless be a sly idea to add in some CORBA hooks,
| perhaps publishing the IDL equivalent to whatever RMI is providing.
| (I must confess unfamiliarity with RMI.)
Agreed. I chose RMI because I wanted guaranteed ubiquity in the Java
space so that we could deploy the Ganymede client on different kinds
of machines (Win32, UNIX, Mac) throughout the lab.
CORBA is finally getting decent wide-spread penetration with good and
free ORBs on Linux and other UNIX systems, but RMI is still a bit
ahead as far as what I need right now, I think.
I absolutely do want to support CORBA, though. Ganymede needs to be
able to support C, C++, Perl, Python, and Tcl code. I think I can
support Python fairly easily by way of JPython, but for everything
else it's got to be CORBA.
One problem with CORBA is that it only supports passing the CORBA
primitive types over the wire, whereas Ganymede currently depends on
serialized object trees for queries and the like in a few places.
Some interface refactoring would be required to support CORBA, but
that will probably be effort well spent.
I am cautious about making the Ganymede server less portable.. right
now the Ganymede server will pretty much run on any system with an
up-to-date JVM, which I like. There are at least a couple of portable
CORBA implementations for Java, though.. I know Sun has one (but
possibly not free?) I have had ObjectSpace's Voyager product
recommended to me as a 'universal ORB', supporting RMI, CORBA, and
DCOM, but I'm not sure about the licensing of that, nor how many
platforms they support. Has anyone had any experience with it, or
comments on its use for free software?
| --
| 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?..."
--
Jonathan Abbey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Applied Research Laboratories The University of Texas at Austin
Ganymede, a free NIS/DNS management system http://www.arlut.utexas.edu/gash2
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Subject: Re: the ultimate OS
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 20:51:24 GMT
SAE rants some more.. well I will try to give benefit
of doubt & weed out the
complaints from the ad hominem attacks..
Stefaan A Eeckels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Barf. Are you going to reduce your OS to a single language?
I am envisioning an object system in which the objects can
be written in any language you want. its true that I am using
the term "object" in a form not commonly understood. but if
I talked about "widgets" no one would have any idea. the objects
I am referring to are roughly similar to existing OO paradigms.
: > inherent to its minute-to-minute operation as disk caching.
: > I submit that code optimization is a form of optimization very
: > similar to caching that needs to be handled by the OS on-the-fly.
: This is utter nonsense. Caching and optimisation have about
: as much in common as Bill Gates and Scott McNeally.
example: consider the concept of shared library. its just the OS recognizing
that the same "bundle" of code is being called by two different
programs simultaneously. the OS needs to handle linking as part of
an overall code optimization system. the OS can notice that two
objects are frequently calling each other and then dynamically
decrease the data interchange overhead by recompiling them
on the fly, so that they just share each other's memory or
whatever. this is the more "radical" part of the essay that is
not going to be very well understood. I can't point to anyone
who is doing this currently. I do believe it will become common
in the future however.
: That's bullshit. "Open up objects" like you open a Word
: document and pull out the Excel spreadsheet inside? You're
: using the word "object" without knowing what it means.
the idea is that an object is composed of subobjects-- those
that it invokes. a compiled program is a large set of objects
that call other objects, all packaged up into one monolithic
piece. when I talk about opening up an
object, I am talking about the idea the OS is aware of what
objects it invokes, and those kinds of invocation references
can be fully traced by the OS.
: Objects don't accept data - objects contain data. Are you sure
: you grok OO?
objects have methods which accept parameters. hence an object
is an entity that has an internal state that is modified based on
data passed into it via method invocations.
: No, you don't grok OO.
in the example I gave, imagine methods that accept a JPG parameter.
(which itself is another object).
: You definitely don't grok OO. Not even close.
I'll have to go back and read my "c++ for dummies" book I guess,
and in the meantime I suppose you can come up with a quiz I have to past
before I am permitted to talk about the subject.
: But the Explorer is most adamantly *not* OO. It's not because
: you use the word "object" that you're producing an OO system.
: And even if the Explorer was OO, it would be a user interface
: on top of a traditional OS.
disagree. explorer is becoming more OO all the time, as the
other poster mentioned.. the way
you right click on file and can send it to a different application,
I'd say that's very polymorphic. ultimately someone is gonna figure
out a file browser is really an object manipulator, pretty soon.
: > that's essentially what I am proposing: that the system at
: > least understands when two objects are different types. it may not
: > know what to do with certain types because it has no other objects
: > that accept those types.
the point is that an object can be treated as data and vice versa.
: This whole discussion about "opening objects and poking
: around in their innards" is daft.
but this is precisely what programmers do, while they are
working. the cut up their project into pieces and then package
it up later. debugging is the process of isolating malfunctioning
pieces within a whole. I 'm talking about the system understanding
what other objects a given object invokes, and being able
to follow that tree even after an object has been "compiled"
so to speak.
: How could software
: *ever* damage hardware (unless you're making reference to
: ill-configured X servers instructing the video cards to
: burn-out sub-spec monitors).
that's exactly one of the cases I had in mind. the problem of
software damaging hardware is actually pretty common. it tends
to happen more at the installation stage, but that's the very
fragile & hell-ridden stage of a computer that vastly needs to be improved,
as I emphasize in the computer.
I am talking about a system in which
misconfigurations will not damage anything.
isn't that, after all, the definition of a sandbox? for example in
java, you cannot write a virus even if you try to. is it true of
most hardware it cannot be damaged by software that even attempts
to?
As to hardware "damaging"
: software? If you're thinking that software can somehow
: overcome the single point of failure the disk drive
: or power supply is when a machine only has one of these
: items - I have some circles that need to be squared urgently.
the point is that win 95 constantly fails to run due to hardware
problems. the whole OS is vulnerable to a single malfunctioning
device in many cases, which can crash the system or interfere with
other devices. doesn't sound like a sandbox to me. and notice you
want to except these cases as "abnormal".. or "malfunctioning"..
but that's the essence of a sandbox to assume that they can happen
and must be isolated. defensive programming. the view that
"the things you talk about are malignant sitations anyway" is the
totally bogus view the essay challenges. "these failures actually
quite common and must be addressed"
:
: Man, come to your senses; define what you mean by a sandbox
: in this context. How on earth can you protect the system from
: a crappy driver or failing hardware? Just saying "the device
: runs in a sandbox" is totally, utterly meaningless.
if you cannot imagine how to do so given it is a design
objective, I think you're the one with no imagination. I can easily
imagine a system in which a buggy driver or hardware does not
interfere with the integrity of the system as a whole (including
interfering with other drivers), and that
the OS may even automatically isolate these kinds of problems.. in
fact, I wrote an entire essay on the subject recently<g> you
see how your above complaint reveals
you fail to comprehend the basic point of the essay?
your view above is exactly what I am challenging directly. and ultimately
such a system I describe will be vastly preferred and even
demanded by consumers, I assure you. (if existing engineers had
a clue, they would realize consumers have been demanding precisely/
exactly what I describe)...
: Yep - picture: Meet TAO, the OOOS that lets you peek
: inside objects, allows you to switch off your machine
: without interrupting your work, *and* runs Office2000
: as fast as Windows98 mark 2.
: ROTFLMAO.
hahahha. you are funny. why else do you think I am
taking time to promote it? hehehe
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"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: Joseph Virzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How can I use PCI board memory?
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 16:11:36 -0700
virt_addr = vremap(pci_memaddr, pci_memsize);
Then, virt_addr is a pointer you can use to reference the pci memory
������ wrote:
> I got memory of PCI board by :
>
> pcibios_read_config_dword(pci_bus, pci_device_fn, PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0,
> &pci_memaddr);
>
> in device driver.
>
> Then, I want to read and write "pci_memaddr". How can I access that
> memory area within
>
> device driver?
------------------------------
From: Bruce Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: 11 Jun 1999 22:07:25 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri) writes:
> ok,ok!! but I must ask again-- please focus on one particular aspect
> of what I am proposing, perhaps which you feel is simultaneously
> most desirable/infeasible.. and I'll attempt to elaborate!!
How can we? Your essay is a wishlist---there's not enough detail to
guess what the difficult bits might be.
"Objects" seem to be central, so one idea might be to flesh out what
an object is supposed to be.
How are objects represented in memory and on disk? How are they
versioned? How might an object A access specific versions of an
object B---and how might a user update the object B sanely? (Allowing
upgrades and rollbacks is nice, but suppose I upgrade elements, but
for wacky reasons I need to keep older versions of them (which are
still used, somewhere)---surely I'm going to end up with a mess of
hundreds of objects (each with a few versions), and a nightmare.
What's the object security model---which objects can access which
others, and how is that enforced? What does it mean to put limits
(whether memory, time or whatever) on actions (presumably on objects)?
(i.e., do these limits apply to objects which my action indirectly
uses? If so, how?)
How is Tao intended to be plug&play? Thinking about the issues early
on is clearly important, but the bulk of the problem is just that
hardware is yucky, not particularly that Windows is.
And what on earth is this supposed to mean: "The security is such that
a virus or vicious application is simply impossible to create on the
system, in the same way that a microprocessor can protect some areas
of code as "read only" without any exception. Nothing that an
application is permitted to do can have a pathological effect on the
system."
What's your definition of a virus, and how are you going to prevent
them entirely?
By "compatibility", I presume you mean compatibility within Tao.
There's a good practical reason that Linux (and the Hurd) looks lots
like Unix: there are lots of interesting Unix programs that people
want to use. How's Emacs going to work in Tao? How about PostgreSQL,
Mozilla?
------------------------------
From: Jef vd Molengraft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Drivers for TIPA-P alleid data (tornado) ISDN card needed!
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 00:27:40 +0200
I've surfed the net everywhere for the appropied driver for my TIPA-P
ISDN card and still no luck. can anybody help me?
Thanks!
Jef vd molengarft
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Any Journaling FS development?
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 23:37:02 GMT
On 10 Jun 1999 13:06:14 -0700 David T. Blake ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
| According to SGI, it is so that their lawyers can look into
| it and see how 'freely' they will be allowed to license
| XFS wrt any existing agreements they might have with copyright
| infringements, patents, ... The management says they want to
| use GPL if possible, or something as compatible as possible,
| but until their lawyers give them the lowdown there will
| be no XFS.
And the lawyers are out on the golf course right now.
--
Phil Howard KA9WGN
[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
******************************
