Linux-Development-Sys Digest #832, Volume #6 Tue, 15 Jun 99 10:13:50 EDT
Contents:
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Bill Anderson)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Bill Anderson)
Re: I need clarification about malloc and brk (Dupont Nicolas)
distribution, compilation and downloading from the net ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: new kernel: LILO "kernel too big" error ("Robert Ascio")
Re: Help with 2.2.\* compile (Usseglio Gaudi Francesco)
Re: Help with 2.2.\* compile (Daniel Bruce Lynes)
Re: Linux on Palm-PCs (Roger Gammans)
Ports adresses (Christophe Basset)
Re: the ultimate OS (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: I need clarification about malloc and brk (Wolfram Gloger)
SEARCH FOR: driver for SCSI Adapter under Linux RedHat (Dorin-Ioan Marinca)
Re: TAOs: Much to do about nothing? (Sam Holden)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Anderson <[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, 15 Jun 1999 02:06:54 -0600
"Vladimir Z. Nuri" wrote:
>
> Crispin Cowan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : You then go on in discussion with various parties to demonstrate that
> : you have no idea what you are talking about, making your "expert
> : opinion" on such design issues seriously suspect. MANY people have
> : wish lists, and most of those people know far more about what they're
> : talking about than you do. So we cannot just take your word for it.
> : You must either substantiate your design with scholarly justifications
> : or with an implementation and experiments before anyone can take you
> : seriously.
>
> "write it all yourself and give it to me, and then I will stop calling you
> a bozo.. otherwise you have nothing and are wasting my time..
> and please shut up meantime while you are working on it"
"Better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are
[stupid|foolish|ignorant] than to open your mouth and prove it."
------------------------------
From: Bill Anderson <[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, 15 Jun 1999 01:55:41 -0600
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? This is the environment one should
> expect from academia? Are you serious?
Pardon me, but you are making an error here. You have no evidence that
the profs and grad students in that lecture hall did not already
question it, and determine that they agreed with it. Your conclusion
lacks the evidence to back it up.
I would expect that they did research on it prior to attending, or found
that they agreed with it, based upon *their* data or experience.
>
> >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.
No, no, no no. this is incorrect, on both acocunts.
Scientific process is having an idea/question, gathering data,
determining what the cause *may* be, and then formulating a hypothesis.,
which *may* turn into a theory.
You find out by gathering data *and* verifying that it confirms or
denies the hypothesis or theory being questioned.
Much beyond that, and you get into epistimology.
>
> >>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. The original question was:
> 'how can you prove people will die'. People die because their bodies
> fail. The body fails because of cellular deterioration.
Death is at the heart of the question, so you *must* have a definition
of it.
>
> 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.
Can you prove that? define deteriorating. is it a net effect, or the
simple process of cellular failure? if the latter, your statement is
false. Children would be an example of the later.
> >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...
>
> >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".
Do you pre-suppose or assume he had not prior?
> >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.
Impossible Circumstances. Unless you are specifically paying him to
answer that question for your given project, the responsibility is not
on his shoulders.
>
> >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 perhaps you should take it as a challenge to determine 'why not'.
if you don't feel you can make an argument *for* open sourcing a
project, try to make an argument against it and then counter said
argument.
------------------------------
From: Dupont Nicolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: I need clarification about malloc and brk
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 08:50:43 +0200
Martin Kahlert wrote:
>
> Hi!
> I have to port a large Fortran prog, which up to now runs under
> HPPA, IRIX, SUN4, SOLARIS, Linux x86 and WinNT to Linux Alpha.
>
> The Problem is the memory management and the age of the prog:
> We use C malloc and do Fortran 77 dynamic memory allocation with
> this (via offsets from a common block array).
> Unfortunately, the offsets are 32 Bit integers
> (changing that would be a major rewrite!).
> But up to now on Irix (64 Bit) this works fine whithout changes,
> since all pointers from malloc are 'near enough' to the common block
> array. This is not the case in Linux Alpha.
>
> I thought, malloc provides memory by using the brk(2) system call,
> which enlarges the data area of the executable. Thus i thought
> all pointers from malloc should be in the range from 0(or a bit more)
> to the result of brk(0).
>
> What i see on Linux Alpha, is that for the first allocated 8 MB block
> (smaller ones are just fine) i am more than 4 GB away
> from the common block's data area.
> If i run this prog through strace (Linux's equivalent to progs like
> truss, trace...) i only see brk results, which are very low
> (within the first 4GB).
>
> How can that be?
> Where the heck does malloc get its memory from, then?
> If anybody please could explain this to me, i would be very glad.
>
> If possible, please add a reply via mail to your post, too,
> since i don't want to miss any of them.
> Thanks in advance,
> Martin.
>
> --
> esa$ gcc -Wall -o ariane5 ariane5.c
> ariane5.c: 666: warning: long float implicitly truncated to unsigned type
> esa$ ariane5
malloc allocate your object in a buffer,
When it can, malloc creates this buffer with the fonction mmap(). That"s
why your adress are
so far, because the map is not in the data area of the executable.
Nicolas Dupont.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: distribution, compilation and downloading from the net
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:11:12 GMT
Hi. Is it possible to have Linux kernel
compiled on the net and then downloaded?
Why not? I guess this makes intallation
much easier. Pick the components and
then have it generated for downloading.
It also eliminates the problem of
different distributions. -YKY
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: "Robert Ascio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: new kernel: LILO "kernel too big" error
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 01:51:06 -0500
instead of typing:
make zImage
type instead:
make bzImage
Usseglio Gaudi Francesco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> steve davidson wrote:
> >
> > 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
> I got the very same problem... I resolved it with make bzImage instead of
make
> zImage
> Bye.
> ==+==
> ...era un mondo adulto...
> ...si sbagliava da professionisti.
> Paolo Conte
------------------------------
From: Usseglio Gaudi Francesco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with 2.2.\* compile
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 10:46:21 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> We have run into a problem while trying to compile new kernels from
> the 2.2.* series (we have tried 2.2.9 and 2.2.10). Briefly, we create
> a bzImage type binary, update lilo, and reboot. The kernel seems to be
> booting with the new kernel for a while but then comes to a stop with
> the following message:
>
> VFS: Cannot open root device 08:01
> Kernel Panic: VFS :Unable to mount root fs on 08:01
>
<snip>
Have you compiled the scsi drivers and the ext2 filesystem in the kernel or as
modules?
You have to compile them in the kernel or your kernel would be able to mount
the root partition. Another possibility is the correct configuration of the
AIC-7895 SCSI adaptor: read the documentation in /usr/src/Documentation and in
/usr/src/linux/driver/scsi.
Hope this help.
Bye
==+==
...era un mondo adulto...
...si sbagliava da professionisti.
Paolo Conte
------------------------------
From: Daniel Bruce Lynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with 2.2.\* compile
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 07:31:39 GMT
On 14 Jun 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> We have run into a problem while trying to compile new kernels from
> the 2.2.* series (we have tried 2.2.9 and 2.2.10). Briefly, we create
> a bzImage type binary, update lilo, and reboot. The kernel seems to be
> booting with the new kernel for a while but then comes to a stop with
> the following message:
>
> VFS: Cannot open root device 08:01
> Kernel Panic: VFS :Unable to mount root fs on 08:01
>
> We read the kernel recompile README and the kernel HOWTO but could not
> find any useful info. We seem to be doing the right thing but, well...
> BTW, the RedHat distribution kernel has an initrd file as well (used
> with the initrd option in lilo.conf). There is no mention of this in
> the kernel build README. After recompiling the kernel, we did not find
> any initrd*.img file anywhere under /usr/src/linux. What is the
> purpose of this file and how do we create it?
>
> We are also including our exact steps to provide further details. Any
> help would be greatly appreciated.
This is just a guess, but have you tried the following?:
make config ; make zlilo ; make modules ; make modules_install
Or, are you instead trying the following?:
make config ; make bzImage/zImage ; make modules ; make modules_install ; cp vmlinux
/vmlinuz ; liloconfig
If so, try the former, as the latter did not work for me, either. However, the former
has worked since at least linux 1.0.2x.
------------------------------
From: Roger Gammans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux on Palm-PCs
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 20:02:22 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes
>[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)
>> 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
There is also the linux7K project, which is building linux on the Psion5
and geofox-one.
It is possible that support for the latest ericsson device and the new
psion5x could be added.
All these devices have a CF or PCMCIA slot so Flash memory devices can
be/are used to build a filesystem.
>The only reference to this project I know about is
>
> http://ryeham.ee.ryerson.ca/uClinux/
>
You could look at (IIRC) http://www.calcaria.net/linux7k, for the Psion
stuff.
TTFN
--
Roger Gammans
"If I have trouble installing Linux, something is wrong. Very wrong."
-- Linus Torvalds
------------------------------
From: Christophe Basset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Ports adresses
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 09:17:48 +0000
I'm tryin gto read the parallel ports (lp0, lp1 and lp2) off the BIOS'
assignment at the adresses 0x408, 0x40A and 0x40C with the following
program (adapted from an old code for DOS...).
So far, I only get:
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Any idea why or how to do this?
Thanks,
Christophe
=====================================================================
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
void main(void)
{
unsigned int *ptraddr;
unsigned int address;
int a;
iopl(3);
ptraddr=(unsigned int *) 0x408;
for (a = 0; a < 3; a++)
{
address = *ptraddr;
if (address == 0)
printf("No port found for LPT%d \n",a+1);
else
printf("Address assigned to LPT%d is %Xh\n",a+1,
address);
*ptraddr++;
}
}
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: the ultimate OS
Date: 15 Jun 1999 10:10:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Vladimir Z. Nuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Sweetser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> <sigh...>
>> "perform a study determining which color database has the most memory"
>
> purple, definitely.. hahaha
Don't be ridiculous. "Beige. You can't go wrong with beige."
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: Wolfram Gloger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: I need clarification about malloc and brk
Date: 15 Jun 1999 12:10:20 +0200
Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[excellent explanation snipped]
> In the glibc manual he find the explanation for these. You probably
> want to set M_MMAP_MAX to zero.
All I can add to this is that you can achieve this without changing a
single line of source code by setting
MALLOC_MMAP_MAX_=0
in the environment of your process.
Regards,
Wolfram.
------------------------------
From: Dorin-Ioan Marinca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,linux.redhat,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: SEARCH FOR: driver for SCSI Adapter under Linux RedHat
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:54:36 +0200
> La carte RAID SCSI produite par Adaptec a pour reference: AAA-131U2
Hi!
I'm interested if exists a driver for the above card (RAID SCSI card
AAA-131U2 produced by Adaptec) for (RedHat) Linux. If exists, is this
driver included in distribution kernel or I need to download its
sources?
Thanks,
--
Dorin-Ioan MARINCA
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel: 00 33 - (0)4 72 15 56 81
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam Holden)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAOs: Much to do about nothing?
Date: 15 Jun 1999 10:58:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 15 Jun 1999 10:33:09 GMT, Gordon Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Technolord ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: He just requires to know what can and cannot
>: be done (placing a bed in a 1.5mx1.5m room isn't possible) and then
>
>Off topic I guess, but that is possible if you think a little laterally,
>The diagonal in that room is 2.1m and there's still (just!) room for a
>door, window and clothes locker. It'll be a little cozy.
>
>I'm ignoring children's rooms. (Too easy ;-)
And the fact that beds are not 1 dimensional objects...
--
Sam
You are bordering on ridiculous if you think you need to support your
premises. Such an argument is an infinite regression.
--George Reese in <wv0O1.1521$[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
******************************
