Linux-Development-Sys Digest #824, Volume #6 Sat, 12 Jun 99 12:14:08 EDT
Contents:
egcs bootstrap (gene)
Re: Linux & Cybercafe (Gary Lawrence Murphy)
Re: Problems with Soundblaster 64 PCI (ES1370) (Graham Beint)
Re: TAOs: Much to do about nothing? (David Fox)
Re: Multiple anonymous mmaps sharing memory --- how? ("Karsten Scholtyssik")
Re: TAOs: Much to do about nothing? (Technolord)
Re: Core dumping and X window problem (Paul Kimoto)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Anthony Ord)
Re: the ultimate OS (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Linux on Palm-PCs (David C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (gene)
Subject: egcs bootstrap
Date: 11 Jun 1999 14:55:16 GMT
I think I deleted something and now get this when I try to compile some
programs:
/tmp/ccPpUPmM.o: In function `main':
/usr/src/gatos/yuvsum.c:64: undefined reference to `lstat'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make: *** [yuvsum] Error 1
and various 'stat' functions
These are defined in /usr/include/sys/stats.h.
I wanted to make a bootstrap compile of egcs-1.1.2 and get the same
errors. In the 'BUILD' document it says:
For a native build issue the command "make bootstrap". This will build
the entire egcs compiler system, which includes the following steps:
* Build host tools necessary to build the compiler such as texinfo,
bison, gperf.
* Build target tools for use by the compiler such as gas, gld, and
binutils if they have been properly unpacked into the egcs source
tree.
I would like to try this but the egcs docs give no instruction about the
proper way to do it.
If someone could tell me how to do it I would appreciate it. Or if someone
could tell me the cause of the original problem I would appreciate that
also.
Thanks,
--
::::: Gene Imes http://www.ozob.net :::::
------------------------------
From: Gary Lawrence Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Linux & Cybercafe
Date: 11 Jun 1999 11:15:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> "A" == Alan Curry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> ?? Maybe this seems to obvious, but couldn't one just take away
>> the user's write permissions on any files they can't change,
>> and viola! safety? The same could be done with execute
>> permissions as well....
A> Who will volunteer to audit the entire netscrape source tree to
A> verify that there is no way to get it to download a file, chmod
A> it to 755, and run it?
A> Maybe you are, maybe you aren't, but with the netscrape
A> executable being 13 megs I bet there's a hell of a lot we're
A> both missing and that's why I wouldn't count on it to provide
A> any kind of restricted access to a guest account.
Just for the record, I did a Linux CyberCafe in an exhibit for the
Ontario Science Center (in 1995) where we had about 1000 visitors per
day in to use these machines completely unsupervised. Anyone who
works in a museum knows the general public is the most hostile
environment in the known universe.
Also, for the record, the Gene Wilburn (Royal Ontario Museum) and I
have embarked (only just barely) on an project to create an opensource
distribution of Linux called the Linux Kiosk --- it's only a little
more than a gleam in our eyes, but we invite anyone interested to join
the mailing list at http://www.egroups.com/group/linux-kiosk
Ok --- here's what I did, and it worked very well:
1) Have a backup tape of the installation and have it automatically
refresh the entire hard disk daily before you open the gates.
2) Netscape is run from inittab so it is the only app that will run;
for fun, I mapped all the text consoles to lynx.
3) This may have changed, but in 1994's netscape, you could adjust the
X-Resources to remove the quit buttons
4) All config files in the guest homedir are owned by root and read
only. It's been a long time, but I think I tried making their
homedir read-only but had to settle for allowing them some ability
to save things and rely on the overnight disk-contents reset
5) I used a stripped down fvwm, disabled the Ctrl-Alt-Del and Bksp &c
The platform was the all-in-one model of Compaq (Presario?) and the real
bonus of these machines was that I could monitor the machines using
standard unix tools and could telnet in during the day to fix them when
things went strange.
Now, the public did find ways to break these machines. Eventually we
put back the reboot keys so the floor staff (who knew squat about
computer in 1995) could restart a stuck machine. We also used a proxy
server so we would have a log of activity: I didn't censor anyone, but
if someone went to 'questionable' places, I'd get an alert and we would
have a record. The alert let me one day shut down some kids who were
going for the playboy site (boy, were they surprised when the machine
rebooted just as the image got to the bippy) and making the log public
stopped the staff after-hours search for hard-core ;)
--
Gary Lawrence Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> TeleDynamics Communications Inc
Business Telecom Services : Internet Consulting : http://www.teledyn.com
Linux/GNU Education Group: http://www.egroups.com/group/linux-education/
"You don't play what you know; you play what you hear." -- (Miles Davis)
------------------------------
From: Graham Beint <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.dev.sound
Subject: Re: Problems with Soundblaster 64 PCI (ES1370)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 16:19:21 +0100
Andres Heinloo wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I just bought a soundcard and spent whole night trying to add sound
> support to Linux. Unfortunately without much success.
...>
> Now I'm completely without any clue.
>
> If someone of you have succeeded to get the above card working under Linux
> or have any idea how to fix the problem, I'd very appreciate your
> suggestions.
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> Andres.
Have you fixed up /etc/conf.modules
1. The free version of OSS does not support PCI sound cards.
2. In SuSE at least sound is by default disabled and needs to be
re-enabled.
3. Part of the ALSA set up involves a script 'snddevices' to create
new /dev/entries.
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
------------------------------
From: d s f o x @ c o g s c i . u c s d . e d u (David Fox)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAOs: Much to do about nothing?
Date: 11 Jun 1999 08:20:14 -0700
I think it is a big mistake adopt Microsoft's definition of operating
system, namely every type of software whose market they want to
dominate. We would be better off if we could restrict our definition
of ``operating system'' to mean the layer of software that hides the
specifics of the machine's hardware and presents an abstraction to the
application software.
--
David Fox http://hci.ucsd.edu/dsf xoF divaD
UCSD HCI Lab baL ICH DSCU
------------------------------
From: "Karsten Scholtyssik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple anonymous mmaps sharing memory --- how?
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 17:30:33 +0200
Reply-To: "Karsten Scholtyssik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
7jtrei$bvo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Here is something I want to do, and really can't figure out how to do
> properly:
>
> I have a program which has to go through 3 steps.
>
> 1) Allocate several chunks of memory using an anonymous mmap().
> This is on an Alpha, so the address space of these chunks is
> >4GB (i.e. the upper 32 bits are non-zero).
>
> 2) Do some arithmetic, calculating addresses in the first 4GB
>
> 3) Map the chunks of memory allocated in (1) at the addresses calculated
> in (2), using MAP_FIXED.
>
[...]
I once had a similar problem (mapping a shared region to different
virtual adresses.) The only solutions I found was to use a real file
(as you currently do) or to use SYSV shared segments which gives you an
identifier you can use to map the same region several times.
Hope that helps.
Karsten
------------------------------
From: Technolord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAOs: Much to do about nothing?
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 17:42:25 +0200
Reply-To: Technolord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 11 Jun 1999, it was written:
> I think it is a big mistake adopt Microsoft's definition of operating
> system, namely every type of software whose market they want to
> dominate. We would be better off if we could restrict our definition
> of ``operating system'' to mean the layer of software that hides the
> specifics of the machine's hardware and presents an abstraction to the
> application software.
I guess I wasn't clear in this point then? If could you please point to
where my essay adopted M$'s OS definition I would be pretty much grateful.
Just let me say I was intending for the OS definition to be just the layer
of sw which hides from the machines' complexity. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Thanx for your coop.
[=-----------------------Technolord-the-Hellraiser----------------------=]
To those who can see the truth to those who can still have feelings
to those who still have the courage to live in this evil world.
.no.regrets.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Kimoto)
Subject: Re: Core dumping and X window problem
Date: 11 Jun 1999 11:52:07 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kevin Miller wrote:
> I have been using Red Hats software to get my boxes up and running. I
> started noticing that im getting these core files in some of the
> directories and I dont understand why.
Well, to start with, on Linux you can run "file core" (or "file
/path/to/core", as appropriate) to find out which program died
the horrible death.
--
Paul Kimoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Anthony Ord)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1999 15:28:48 GMT
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 01:47:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jimen
Ching) wrote:
>Anthony Ord ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>On Tue, 08 Jun 1999 08:08:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jimen
>>Ching) wrote:
>>>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.
>>You said "This is not the type of environment I would expect
>>from academia.". My assertion was this is EXACTLY the
>>environment I would expect from academia.
>
>Let me get this straight; scientists, professors, graduate students, should
>accept new theories at face value?
No. They shouldn't accept theories at face value, but they
do depending on their personal prejudices.
>This is the environment one should
>expect from academia?
This is the environment *I* expect from academia.
>Are you serious?
Yes.
>>No, you create both and test them. You can theorise until
>>the cows come home, but tests are the only way you'll find
>>out. Filesystems are so heavily used, any slight difference
>>will be really magnified.
>
>Tests are the way to verify something, not find out about something. You
>find out by doing calculations. Then you verify the calculations with tests.
>This is the scientific process.
Exactly. Everybody has theorised and calculated and schemed.
Now it's time to do the tests and end most of the arguments.
>>>People die because of cellular deterioration. This can be proven without
>>>using examples.
>>No it can't. You can't even define dead unless you have a
>>dead body (an example) to measure (24hrs without brainstem
>>activity - except people have suddenly sprung back to life
>
>The definition of death is not the main point.
No, but it is a very important one. If you can't even prove
they're dead, how can you say they died.
>The original question was:
>'how can you prove people will die'. People die because their bodies
>fail. The body fails because of cellular deterioration.
But cells deteriorate without bodies failing, and bodies
fail without people dying.
And some people die with virtually perfect bodies.
Like I said before - examples are the key.
>The only thing the above suggests is that the person was not deteriorating.
>If his body was deteriorating, he would have no body to wake up to.
>
>>Even a survey isn't good enough if you want proof. All that
>>97% confidence limits mean, is that 3% of your surveys are
>>absolute crap.
>
>I would like to hear an explanation of why...
Simple theory. You have confidence limits of 97% (approx 3
sd), which means you are 97% certain that your result wasn't
a fluke. Which means that you are 3% certain that your
result *was* a fluke.
>>If you don't like his theory, come up with a different one.
>>Then you can do these seminars, and get invited into catered
>>functions for free...
>
>I thought I was doing this...
>
>>He's in the middle of a talk! What did you expect him to do?
>>Sit down and ponder for three hours? If you want to ask him
>>such a hard question which you believe deserves a lot of
>>thought, then email the guy so he has plenty of time.
>
>Did I say he should ponder it for three hours? Did I say my question
>deserved a LOT of thought? I just said he should think about it before
>answering; "sure, why not".
>
>>If people didn't answer things unless they were absolutely
>>100% sure of the answer, the only questions that would be
>>answered would be the banal ones.
>
>Now you're just being silly.
>
>>These talks are not for
>>him to do the work of deciding whether OS is applicable to a
>>given situation, they are for him to share his knowledge so
>>*YOU* can decide whether OS is applicable to a given
>>situation.
>
>He should give enough details and evidence for *me* to do that. That's
>his responsibility. My responsibility is to make sure he does.
Surely he told you how he analysed his situation *during*
the talk, thereby giving you enough information to go and do
likewise?
>>After all, you will know the whys and wherefores of the
>>situations better than he. All his answer says, is that he
>>does not know of any particular show-stopper that would kill
>>your analysis before it begins.
>
>No, his answer was just lazy. If this was what he meant, he should
>say this instead of, "sure, why not." I don't read minds!
Then email the guy and ask for clarification.
>--jc
Regards
Anthony
--
=========================================
| And when our worlds |
| They fall apart |
| When the walls come tumbling in |
| Though we may deserve it |
| It will be worth it - Depeche Mode |
=========================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: the ultimate OS
Date: 11 Jun 1999 13:27:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vladimir Z. Nuri) writes:
> I think a very good compiler could take a very good object model
> and make it as efficient as say C code.
This is unlikely. C++ goes out of its way to be as efficient
as possible (eg, by forsaking late binding), and still doesn't manage
to be as fast as 'C' (which, in turn, is slower than well-written
assembly language). Other OO languages don't even attempt to be
as fast as 'C' - they consider that the advantages to the developer
outweigh execution speed.
> hence I am implicitly
> demanding much more powerful compilers that are fused into
> the OS. I think this is more possible when the compiler is
> considered part of the optimization functions of the OS, as
Barf. Are you going to reduce your OS to a single language?
> 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.
I really struggle to understand what you mean - changing the
compiled code to adapt to running on the local system or on
a remote system? Replacing a function call by a direct memory
access, because the OS happens to know they are equivalent?
<SNIP>
> the interface is basically the class interface, the procedures
> that are the "face" to the outside world of the object. yes I agree
> data should generally not be accessable directly.. but a very good
> compiler might optimize object configurations such that it can
> avoid the procedural call overhead to changing data.. I believe some
> compilers are doing this. essentially I am envisioning a very sophisticated
> compiler that can handle object configurations and
> for which making everything an object incurs no performance
> penalty.
Now the vision becomes pie-in-the-sky, or TAO will have to be
limited to a stand-alone machine. "Avoid the procedure
call overhead to changing data" - how are you going to
do this over a network (or is this the on-the-fly
optimization you're talking about)?
By the way, how is this compatible with your "sandbox within
a sandbox" idea (see below)?. One moment, you waffle about
micro-optimizations, the next, you're proposing to put
additional code between the OS and a driver.
>: How are interface/links maintained when an object is
>: transferred from one computer to another? For example if a
>: picture file, an object is transferred, are the methods for
>: display and manipulation automatically transferred as well?
>
> this is a key problem that needs to be fleshed out. but basically
> there are objects that exist somewhere else, and exist "virtually"
> in another location. so I could call an object on my computer
> and it may be implemented or running on another computer. the
> system supports this. I don't know whta you mean about "methods
> for display" which only seems to have relevance to the GUI.
You're not answering the question (not that it is particularly
relevant, or well articulated). If you're seeing TAO as a
distributed system, then you'll need to address the problems
that are inherent in such systems. Simply saying "the system
supports this" doesn't cut it.
> the system allows you to open up objects and pull out objects
> inside them & recombine them (the object browser).
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.
> so everything is the user's choice. ultimately
>
>: > * Objects "hook up" to other objects and pass data back and forth.
>: > These links are all carefully recorded and entire object networks
>: > and trees can be traversed.
Which of course means nothing.
>: What is that supposed to mean and how is it supposed to be
>: implemented?
>
> the basic idea is that the OS/system understands the data types
> that objects use, all the way down to granularity of ints or bytes,
> up to the large types such as images, source code projects, etc..
> it allows you to pack or unpack arbitrarily. there is no distinction
> at any layer. an object that accepts an image is the same as
> an object that accepts two INTs and adds them together.
Objects don't accept data - objects contain data. Are you sure
you grok OO?
(To refresh your memory - one of the major advantages of OO is that
the actual representation of the data ceases to be of concern, because
the object contains both the data, and the methods to access the data;
you "tell" an object to do something - knowledge of its internals
is unnecessary.)
> the system/OS understands that they are all different datatypes.
> hence the OS becomes very much like a programming language/compiler,
> and the language becomes like an OS.
>
> I can do things like say, "ok system, give me all the objects that
> accept JPG inputs" and it will show me. it understands. I can hook
> up a huge network of objects and see the dataflow diagrams.
No, you don't grok OO.
>: So what happens if you download a file from a Linux machine?
>: How is the type determined? Does it carry "unspecified" tag
>: or are there some magical methods that automatically assign
>: the correct types to those files?
/etc/magic ;-)
> all objects have a "type". a binary version of an object must
> be created. it is possible to have stand alone files that have
> no type, that can be put together to create objects. the system
> allows you to cut open objects as much as glue them together.
> there may be types that are "unspecified" in some ways. "raw
> binary file" is one type.
You definitely don't grok OO. Not even close.
> [object browser]
>: I think this is very close to what MS is trying to do with
>: explorer.exe. It's not really much more than a file manager/
>: user interface that can make use of plug-ins.
>
> yes, I believe the MS explorer is gradually converging in the
> direction I am writing about. you're sharp for finding it.
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.
>
>: You mean there are ways (filter objects?) through which the
>: system can be taught how to convert different object types.
>: You can't expect an OS is to have total knowledge of how to
>: read and write every single object type in the world.
>
> 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.
Go read a book on OO. Any book.
The intelligence is in the object. You're brandishing the
term OO, but you're discussing a purely procedural setup.
>
>: Ouch this is way too close to my idealism :)
>
> ah, a breath of fresh air.. idealism, a guy after my own heart<g>
>
>: This, if I read correctly, forces open source model on
>: the developers and may not be welcomed at all by developers.
>: I had thought of such idea and felt that there should be a
>: way to let the developers package and hide their object
>: structures. After all there's got to be an informal way to
>: escape this exposure anyways, so why not make it formal
>: through "the powerful security model provided by the OS"?
>
> absolutely, some objects cannot be opened up and poked around
> in because of security constraints. I'm not saying all code is
> open source at all. that would make no sense to me. there must
> be a capability to support closed source when it is preferred.
This whole discussion about "opening objects and poking
around in their innards" is daft. It's about as useful
as having a cross between gdb and truss (strace for
Linuxers) as shell. Now if you'd been talking about
discovering an object's methods, then you'd have made
some sense.
>: How about an Operating System upgrade? I was thinking
>: of a system that actually puts absolute restrictions on
>: every process, where it cannot modify anything beyond
>: its scope (sandbox model). To do anything useful with
>: such a system however, UI must be given some special
>: priviledges, to make it possible for a user to
>: temporarily extend its scope (modifying a document not
>: within its object structure, for example, would be
>: considered out of scope, for any process).
>
> I firmly believe in the concept of "sandboxes within sandboxes"
> and hope to better elaborate on this. briefly, hardware is in
> a sandbox from software (software cannot damage hardware
> or vice versa) and every app runs in its own sandbox to prevent
> viruses, etc.
Behold, another snazzy term, used totally incorrectly.
"hardware is in a sandbox from software" indeed. "software
cannot damage hardware or vice versa..." 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). 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.
>: > 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.
>
>: These are hardware restrictions that you cannot deal
>: with as an OS developer. Unless you consider the message
>: "Unable to use the device" as elegant handling, the
>: above is impossible.
>
> "unable to use device" is far more elegant than one device sabotaging
> another or the system, crashing it. yes I do consider that elegant
> and superior to existing crappy systems. if device runs in sandbox,
> it cannot break system even if driver is written wrong and has
> bugs.
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
define "sandbox" as a layer of software between an application
and the OS, limiting access to the OS based on certain criteria,
you *cannot* run the device in a sandbox *without* this sandbox
becoming the driver. Or if you mean "the driver is running
in a sandbox", how would this stop the driver from returning
bad information (how on earth would the sandbox know if the
information is crappy without intimate knowledge of the device).
>: In other words, Tao is going to be slow than other less
>: elegant systems, but Moore's Law and its flexibility will
>: more than compensate for it. Nothing wrong with that,
>: but let's cut the BS ("cannot be efficiently implemented
>: ... I disagree")
>
> no, again I think a better written compiler with different
> goals/approaches can make the object
> system I am proposing as fast as compiled C for example.
Compiler for what? C++? Java? What goals? Please elaborate.
In any case, trying to compare "compiled 'C'" and an
object oriented OS is inane. Ever heard about comparing
apples and oranges - this is it.
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.
>: Before that, think about how TAO breaks all the existing
>: standards.
>
> it will attempt to allow existing hardware standards as much as possible.
>
>: I like the system a lot, just as I did my Operating System,
>: which seems nearly identical, but I'd wait before I see
>: some implementation or even specific design as to how.
>
> fair enough. I appreciate your well thought out post that
> focused on what I actually wrote.
And allowed you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you
don't know what you're talking about - whenever you try to
go beyond a totally bland enumeration of buzzwords and
pious wishes, you pile mistake upon ignorance.
--
Stefaan
--
PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)
___________________________________________________________________
Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add,
but when there is no longer anything to take away. -- Saint-Exup�ry
------------------------------
From: David C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux on Palm-PCs
Date: 12 Jun 1999 11:49:06 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Ho) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christian Kleitsch wrote:
>>
>> As far as I know, a Linux version for the Palm Pilot and even one for
>> the Atari Portofolio has been already developed. Did anybody start to
>> develop a 'Pocket Linux' for Palm-size PCs? (I mean this devices
>> running now WinCE)
>>
>> If not, I would like to know if there is a way to synchronize
>> (appointments and to-do list would be enough ;) such a device with a
>> Unix-box.
>
> From my understanding, the compiled the kernel and got it to run on a
> Pilot. Unfortunately, there really is no file system on a Pilot so the
> kernel is kind of useless there, as only a memory manager. Unless they
> somehow came up with a RAM disk for the Pilots while I was looking the
> other way...
The only reference to this project I know about is
http://ryeham.ee.ryerson.ca/uClinux/
It looks quite interesting, but it appears that the page hasn't been
updated recently.
If anyone knows of a more recent site, please post it.
Thanks.
-- David
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
