Linux-Development-Sys Digest #853, Volume #6 Mon, 21 Jun 99 06:14:21 EDT
Contents:
Re: Portal software for Linux (Keith Wright)
Need for a 128-bit (Unix or other) OS? (Paul Hantom)
Re: using C++ for linux device drivers ("John Burton")
Re: X apps in C++ (Carlos Vidal)
Re: htpasswd for Linux (Peter Ross)
Re: mounting ftp/http (Alex Rhomberg)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Mainframes, Filesystems, Databases... Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Stefaan A
Eeckels)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Konstantin Koll)
How to write SMP Driver for race condition ("robert_c")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Portal software for Linux
Date: 21 Jun 1999 01:17:19 -0400
Alessandro Bruciamonti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm searching for "web portal software" under Linux. I need
> informations on every implementation of configurable user
> web interface.
I think you want something called "Apache", which should
be in most an recent Linux distribution.
--
-- Keith Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Programmer in Chief, Free Computer Shop <http://www.free-comp-shop.com>
--- Food, Shelter, Source code. ---
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Hantom)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Need for a 128-bit (Unix or other) OS?
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 06:33:54 GMT
I am looking for any arguments (for and against), links, etc., about the need
for a 128-bit Operating System.
Even though the moves of various OSs from 8-16-32-64 were rather obvious they
generated a lot of lame--especially in retrospect--argument. However, to me, it
isn't that obvious why one would need to address more than 64 bits of memory any
time soon. Am I naive?
128 bit hardware is one thing; a 128 bit OS quite another. And of course one
can have a 128 bit file system with a 64 bit OS. Am I right in assuming that
the main definition of the "bitness" of an OS is the size its address space?
I have heard that SGI is talking about a need for a 128 bit version of IRIX but
have yet to find any information about this.
All comments appreciated. Thanks.
------------------------------
From: "John Burton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: using C++ for linux device drivers
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999 17:04:46 +0100
Frank Sweetser wrote in message ...
>Justin Vallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) writes:
>>
>> > In article <7kdqj9$l1o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > I am working a sound driver for linux (I will probably use OSS).I
>> > >am planning to use C++, instead of C. Has anyone used C++ before for
>> > >kernel/device driver programming for linux. If so what are the
>> > >complications with using C++. I heard that C++ needs some OS support,
>> > >especially for calls like "new", "delete" and stuff like that.
>> >
>> > It will not get it. It's beaten to death many, many times. Oh, and
forget
>> > about try and catch - they are not going to work. Ditto for standard
classes
>> > - runtime environment is not available too.
>>
>> Too bad. All you should need is:
>>
>> void *operator new(size_t s) { return malloc(s); /* kmalloc, etc */ }
>> void operator delete(void *p) { free(p); }
>
>...which is a higher-overhead version of
>
>#define new((x)) malloc((x))
>#define delete((x)) free((x))
No it isn't, it is very different. malloc and free don't construct the
objects
they just alllocate the memory.
------------------------------
From: Carlos Vidal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: X apps in C++
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:02:02 +0200
Chad Zalkin wrote:
> I am very new to c/c++ and Linux as well. I would like to find a few
> web sites about programming X applications with c++.
>
> I have a background in a little c++ in windows, and a lot of JAVA and
> VB.
I don't want to initiate a flame war, but I don't think
C++ is a good starting point to program X-applications
if you are not already a good C++ programmer.
I suggest you to take a look to Tcl/Tk, somehow it is
close to the VB environment you know. Once you have
built 90% of your application with it you can code
the more specific parts of your system in C++.
--
Carlos Vidal
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Peter Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: htpasswd for Linux
Date: 21 Jun 1999 12:43:28 +1000
John Straumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Any idea where I can get this? The versions I found on the web for UNIX
>won't compile...
The version that I have installed on my Debian 2.1 system comes as part
of the apache-common package.
Pete.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Peter Ross M Sci/Eng Melbourne Uni (change - to . for email) |
| email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~petdr |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 10:55:25 +0200
From: Alex Rhomberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: mounting ftp/http
Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> In article <7ke4t8$dqp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Henrik Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I think it would be nice to be able to mount ftp/http servers. Are any
> >work being done in this area? Or is it a bad idea (security holes?)?
>
> Just what you will mount with HTTP? It is *not* a filesystem protocol -
> you have no directories and no random (heck, partial) access to the
> contents of files.
>
> With FTP you can get something resembling a filesystem with podfuk and
> friends - userspace server that looks like Venus for the kernel and
> does mirror-on-demand work talking with the external FTP servers.
I use alex server for anonymous FTP access. I can mount the alex server
via NFS and then access files over FTP with normal shell commands. No
additional tools needed, that's the UNIX way :-)
Unfortunately, a web search turns up that alex server seems unsupported
since 1994 or so. Still works great for me.
- Alex
------------------------------
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: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 08:53:44 GMT
hi TM.. try not to agree with me so much.. I'm a crackpot, remember? hahaha
Terry Murphy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I totally agree on structure/discipline being necessary for projects
: such as these. My main professional experience has been on the hardware
: (chip) design side of the industry, where you only get about two
: chances at a working product. The design process is very methodical,
: and every transistor and wire is planned and validated before it ever
: gets into silicon.
I know what you're talking about-- I worked on mentor graphics doing
a CMOS FFT chip.
The software process is much less methodical;
: anybody with a text editor and a compiler can make a change to a
: software system, and see the results (in the actual product) in a few
: minutes. The whole concept of a quick edit/compile/test has meant
: virtual death to the formal software design and test process. No other
: engineering industry is permitted to make changes with such little
: thought.
I think that's a very interesting line of thinking, I hadn't
considered that idea. yes, Unix clearly epitomizes the
sort of "real men don't design, they just start hacking"
charade you allude to above.
: I actually have very little faith in the software industry. The fact
: that Unix (especially) and Windows are the best that anybody has come
: up with in thirty years speaks volumes for the lack of discipline in
: the industry. I don't say this to discourage you, but rather to warn
: you to not fall into the same pitfalls.
I most agree but beg to differ. I agree that window/unix are somewhat
pathetic given 30 years of software/OS evolution.
but software design is arguably
more fundamentally complex than chip design. (not to start a flamewar
on this subject, hopefully).. I do think much higher-sophistication
OSes are going to materialize in the near future. I agree there
is "lack of discipline in the industry", but mostly because the
goals have a tendency to be more nebulous than those surrounding
logic gates.
actually, the reason I propose a totally object oriented OS is my opinion
that the software industry has still yet to discover the software
equivalent of a "chip cell".. i.e. a standardized building block.
objects fit the bill imho (or some "component" entity
similar to objects), but the software industry has still not
fully realized that .. and the lack of an OS based on objects,
or the hostility directed toward creating one, is further evidence..
what I am saying is that the software industry has to find
a "standard object" or "standard black box" that truly is
used as such at all levels in the design, not just at one
level or another. it has discovered object but is not yet
at the point of unification, at which point the entire
OS will be object oriented.
: You have been criticized for not creating a design document (and not
: having code, but that just empahizes my point above). The formal
: software process states that there is one document before the design
: document, called the requirements document, which is precisely what you
: wrote. My advice to you is to gather the people who are interested in
: the project, and come up with a design document.
yes, that was the goal in posting, believe it or not.. I think it
may even be explicitly stated somewhere in there.. !! starting & feeding
flamewars is just a trivial side-benefit for me, hahaha!!
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"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/
------------------------------
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: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 08:59:19 GMT
Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Not trying to interpret the data results in the ultimate flexibility:
: the system does not impose any ordering on you.
but let us agree that every encompassing
system involves creating higher and higher levels of order ..
so here is my zen Q for people posting to this thread:
if Unix is an answer to the question of what kind of
ordering an OS should impose, what is the answer to
the Q of what kind of ordering should be imposed on the OS?
: And no, it wasn't only UNIX that did things a certain way, it was just
: that UNIX was rather successful at putting it all together into one
: coherent whole.
"coherent whole".. a key phrase I think will become increasingly
debatable in the near future as other alternatives develop.
imho it is valid to suggest that unix is also a grab bag of
diverse utilities pasted together.
p.s. finally!! someone with some actual authority & credentials to
post to this thread, hahaha
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"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/
------------------------------
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: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:05:30 GMT
Konstantin Koll ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Quite simple... DESKWORK was desinged with the user in mind. The user does not
: have to care about disk drives, directory trees and much other stuff... It
: simply
: works. It's also very fast and stable, recognizes a wide range of hardware
: without
: any additional drivers... and so on.
a few of the elements of the original essay.. but let me contest this a
bit. I am not opposing your plug for your OS, but I can't give you
a Nuri seal yet, I regret!!
you say it doesn't care about drives: are you saying it simply
maps all drive space to some massive namespace, and the user
never considers the concept of "drive C: vs drive D:" ...
if so I think that is excellent.
"recognizes a wide range of hardware".. great, but the Tao
essay criticised this concept. it suggests that what is important
is not that the OS recognize a lot of hardware itself, but
that it has a very clear cut device standard and all the
individual companies adhere to this standard. it expressly
criticized the way win95 ended up as a system where MS
tried to create every device driver known to man and release
it into the OS rather than a system of intense collaboration & support
with the companies who create the hardware, so that they write
the drivers to spec.
so what I am suggesting is that you start your own thread to
tout the features of your OS .. but your comparing your OS
to Tao, I regret to inform you I find highly misleading, dear sir!!
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"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/
------------------------------
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: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:21:01 GMT
Christopher B. Browne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: You have programmers that don't understand the way the users think;
: you also have users that aren't capable of framing what they want/need
: in a way that is conceivably implementable. And there are people that
: control purse-strings that are a third group that understand neither
: what is implementable nor what users truly want.
most of above are subject to the evolutionary pressures of extinction.
- programmers who do not understand how users think will go
extinct.
- users that can't frame what they want/need as implementable..
well, I think you are throwing out red herring.. it is not responsibility
of user to implement features, and a common canard of programmers to
complain that *difficult* features are *impossible*-- exactly the
reaction I've received to my original post. but yes, there are plenty
of users who ask for impossible..
but imho it is largely responsibility
of programmer to anticipate what users want without requiring them
to articulate it explicitly. true? the greatest designer gives you
something you didn't even know you wanted!! and you realize, only
upon seeing it, that you can't live without it<g>
- managements that do not understand what is implementable or what
is desirable will gradually die off.
I am not saying this happens instantanously, but every day forces
a new higher standard. Linux is a new standard in perfection-- it
has raised the bar. it is an absolutely first rate OS that is
distributed for free. fantastic!! magnificent!! stellar performance!!
but let's not get stuck. the bar will continually be raised. Linux
is an interim solution, ultimately-- as is every other OS or program
known to man. what are are these new currents? I attempted to
articulate them concisely.
: Combine these three perspectives together and it is remarkable that *any*
: program ever gets released to the general public.
that which you describe is a pretty impoverished level to aim for.
surely much more is attainable. surely it can only be attained
when it is recognized/acknowledged and committed to.
: The "Linux phenomenon" represents the 'fourth situation;' it represents
: software created by programmers for their own use. As such, those
: that write the software *do* know what they want/need, as well as how
: they can implement it.
exactly. "created by prorammers for their own use".
: The notion that this can forcibly scale into a model that will provide
: useful software for "dumb users" is questionable at best.
but I assure you that ultimately Linux will eventually be replaced
by something that does, if it does not adapt. (not very quickly,
however). also-- how much of recent industry hype & excitement
& media coverage is centered on the idea that Linux is becoming more
accessable to the "dumb users"? imho, MOST of it. will the founders
of Linux recognize this and surf with it? or will the linux community
become more insular & disdainful of "dumb users"
as a community of programmers? I'd say its a tossup
right now ..
: The approach of "programmers creating software for programmers" has
: clearly been extremely successful. There are ludicrous quantities of
: language compilers and interpreters, scripting languages, web servers,
: and 'utilities in general.'
yep. I agree. but there is a whole new realm waiting to be explored.
bringing an OS to the unwashed masses. at least you are beginning
to acknowledge that such a priority or goal exists.. and that Linux
does not fulfill it.
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"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/
------------------------------
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: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 09:34:34 GMT
Christopher B. Browne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: See page 200 of Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs,
: 2nd Ed., Abelson and Sussman.
I liked this book as a freshman.. (standard MIT undergraduate
computing textbook for many years..) btw, any idea what page
that was on in 1st ed?<g>
: "Dealing with large numbers of interrelated types while still preserving
: modularity in the design of large systems is very difficult, and is an
: area of much current research."
hmmmm.. not really understanding their point (will look harder
if you name the section) I propose that a good system might not actually
solve this "problem" but allow any solution that designers choose,
or simultaneously allow multiple solutions.
one possibility of the essay that directly addresses this "problem":
I propose allowing unlimited numbers of different interfaces to
the same object hierarchies. the OS is responsible for optimizing
the end use of the objects no matter how called or arrange.
(code optimizer belongs in OS idea). the reference to
different versions of interfaces in the essay hints at this
approach.
: "This statement, which also appears in the first edition of this book,
: is just as true now as it was when we wrote it twelve years ago.
: Developing a useful, general framework for expressing the relations
: among different types of entities (what philosophers call "ontology")
: seems intractably difficult. The main difference between the confusion
: that existed ten years ago and the confusion that exists now is that
: now a variety of inadequate ontological theories have been embodied in
: a pletora of correspondingly inadequate programming languages."
exactly: I suspect the term "ontology" is something that is more troubling
to philosophers. that's why I asked you to elaborate on the
term. the Abelson&Sussman book is brilliant, but quite
abstract & philosophical. how many programmers can dance on the head of a
pin?
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"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] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: 21 Jun 1999 07:04:00 GMT
In article <NVfb3.583$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tor Arntsen) writes:
> In article <7kjpqb$u61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels) writes:
>>Linux: a port of an existing code base.
>
> As far as userland is concerned, you're basically right. However:
> Linux kernel: Written from scratch. Old (and proven) concepts though.
But as far as Merced is concerned (and that was what I was
referring to), the kernel is an existing code base.
(Just nitpicking ;-)
--
Stefaan
--
PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)
___________________________________________________________________
Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add,
but when there is no longer anything to take away. -- Saint-Exup�ry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mainframes, Filesystems, Databases... Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: 21 Jun 1999 07:06:45 GMT
In article <7kk0an$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Hmm, are you sure? It seems to me that a lot of NFS' problems stem from
>>its minimal design. Unix file semantics are complicated; NFS simply
>>ignores a lot of them. Or are you suggesting that it does so in order
>>to work well with DOS and friends?
>
> At least RFC1094 suggests exactly that. Dumb clients as design goal and
> DOS as stated example of such client. Now, Sun had one more target -
> their own dickless orkstations, but that gave independent increase of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's too funny to be a typo ;-) and it reminds me
of a flyer I got back in 1982 when I was working
for Ticketron in Hackensack, NJ. The electronics
surplus store that sent it definitely made a typo
when they advertised power supplies for floppy dicks :-)
--
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: Konstantin Koll <[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, 21 Jun 1999 11:43:34 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
> you say it doesn't care about drives: are you saying it simply
> maps all drive space to some massive namespace, and the user
> never considers the concept of "drive C: vs drive D:" ...
> if so I think that is excellent.
Not quite. When installing an account, it is placed on the drive DESKWORK
is on; a later version might include a choice, so all home DIRs might
be on a network server. Once this is done, you don't HAVE to care about drives
too much (of course, a CD player will only play CDs, and copying stuff to a disk
to carry it to some other computer will need a disk drive). But apart from these
things that are obvious, you don't have to care for drives.
> "recognizes a wide range of hardware".. great, but the Tao
> essay criticised this concept. it suggests that what is important
> is not that the OS recognize a lot of hardware itself, but
> that it has a very clear cut device standard and all the
> individual companies adhere to this standard. it expressly
> criticized the way win95 ended up as a system where MS
> tried to create every device driver known to man and release
> it into the OS rather than a system of intense collaboration & support
> with the companies who create the hardware, so that they write
> the drivers to spec.
That would be cool, but I don't think major companies will program drivers for
a software that has only some hundred users.
> so what I am suggesting is that you start your own thread to
> tout the features of your OS .. but your comparing your OS
> to Tao, I regret to inform you I find highly misleading, dear sir!!
Sorry.
------------------------------
From: "robert_c" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: How to write SMP Driver for race condition
Date: 21 Jun 1999 09:52:08 GMT
Could someone tell me how to write SMP safe driver? Which kernel supportted
functions can be used to do that and what is the algorithm? Or does some Web
site explain that?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
