Linux-Development-Sys Digest #873, Volume #6 Thu, 24 Jun 99 11:14:36 EDT
Contents:
Re: Killer App? How many businesses might get started with Linux (Mads Dydensborg)
Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows (Peter.vanHelden)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Problems reading CD created under Win9x (Miguel A.L. Paraz)
pseudo terminal (Michael Maassen)
Re: Why not C++ (Johan Kullstam)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (void)
Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows (David Fox)
Re: Why not C++ ("Ralph Glebe")
Re: You can now use Winmodems in Linux!!!!!!! (Medical Electronics Lab)
Where is what ??? ("Thomas Scholz")
Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows (Greg de Freitas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mads Dydensborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Killer App? How many businesses might get started with Linux
Date: 24 Jun 1999 13:24:08 +0200
"Rob Darwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would urge that this very simple, clearly limited project would make a
>
> very good first steps for companies to start with Linux.
>
> ? Is there is resource that could get this solution ?
> ? Could Linux do this?
>
You should probably check the Linux High Availability FAQ/Howto.
A good starting point is
http://www.henge.com/~alanr/ha/
To the best of my knowledge, only TurboLinux provide turnkey
solutions. (And they may even not be what you want).
Mads
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Mads Bondo Dydensborg. Student at DIKU, Copenhagen - Denmark. |
| Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.diku.dk/students/madsdyd/ |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter.vanHelden)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Date: 24 Jun 1999 10:46:49 GMT
Michael Gu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[snip sound stuff]
: Anyway, X does look odd in the linux movement. While everything else is
: evolving, X stays the same, and it is really the weak point comparing to MS
: Windows. I don't think Linux will pose a threat to MS in the desktop world
: unless it comes with an innovative, modern GUI that supports both video and
: audio.
Could you point out some specific user problems inherent to X?
Your reasoning seems to be: because X has not evolved (which is false, btw)
it is not adequate for the desktop. This logic is beyond me ("because sharks
have not evolved over the last 200 million years or so, they're bound to be
extinct.")
Any sane SE will say that because X is inadequate (which is questionable) it
needs to evolve. It is up to you to provide some kind of evidence in support
of the premise.
: I have Linux and Windows both available at the same time, yet I find myself more
: likely to browse the web in Windows. Netscape, (not limiting to Netscape) just
: doesn't work good in X, in terms of display. While most times display problem
: can be tolerable, some times it makes it unfunctional( e.g. a button is out of
: the window frame and beyond reach ).
What the heck has this netscape problem got to do with X?
: If it's too hard for X to improve and provide sufficient protocal
: (specification) to be able to make any application looks the same on all X
: servers, I don't see any alternative but to drop it.
Are you referring to the wide range of toolkits being in use. Well? if you're
prepared to scrap X in favour of a window system with a particular look and
feel hardwired into it, why not be prepared to settle on a particular toolkit?
[snip]
Follow ups set.
Peter
------------------------------
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: 24 Jun 1999 10:18:49 GMT
In article <7ks7iu$ju2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Murphy) writes:
> In article <7krkmo$li9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Your portraying of the situation is too polarized. It's
>>impossible to just open vi and start coding --you'd at least
>>need to know what you're going to code.
>
> Perhaps, but I very rarely see design documents or requirements
> documents for anything that comes out of the free software community.
Agreed. What you describe is a typical "commercial" document. I've
been on enough commercial prjects to know that such a document is
hardly ever an accurate description of the final product, and more
often than not it's left to rot (or to be perused by the auditors).
> Not for the GNU stuff, not for the kernel stuff, and certainly not for
> the little three day hacks that they put on freshmeat.net. If there is
> thought beforehand for free stuff, where is it? It needs to be written
> down, and disemminated for discussion and review; I don't see
> this happening (except for TAO, at which point it gets flames)
Much of the free software originates at universities, and is used
as a vehicle to teach students how to tackle a project. I'm quite
sure that they follow a structured development approach. As for
other projects, how do you know they are not designed? Is there
somehow an obligation to troll on Usenet before starting an open
source project? Or should you be asked to comment on each and every
free project?
As far as TAO is concerned, it did not get flames, it was roundly
criticised for being a vague statement of intentions, intentions
which are known to everyone interested in OS development. It did
not offer a shred of new insight, or even a glimpse of a workable
system. When this was pointed out, Mr Nuri lamented that he was
an unrecognized genius, and started to spout inanities.
>>Pray tell me how UNIX would have been any better if pipes and 'C'
>>would have been invented in 1969, or if the original ideas would
>>have been abandoned in 1974 when it was recoded in 'C'?
>>Requiring *all* the concepts to be invented (stumbled upon) before
>>a line of code is written is just plain impossible. Limiting yourself
>>to what you've originally committed to paper is just plain stupid
>>(but it might be a contractual requirement, in which case I refrain
>>from commenting).
>
> If Unix was "carefully designed", as you claim, why did two fundamental
> features not appear until several years after initial development? It
> seems to me that this is evidence that it was not designed, but rather
> merely evolved.
The portability issue is not a fundamental feature. It stems from the fact
that the kernel was re-written in a high-level language.
The pipe was indeed a concept that sprang from the original design.
Again, what's wrong with that? Are only products which didn't
expand their core functionality "designed"?
You forgot sockets. UNIX didn't have sockets until the Berkeley
folks added them. Good lord, a bunch of *students* adding a vital
feature to the OS that powers the Internet. If Thompson had been
a "true engineer", he'd have circulated a requirements document, back
in 1969, and some PHB would have "pointed" out the need for networking,
no doubt.
>>Don't make me laugh. IE5 an original, high quality, innovative product.
>>ROTFLMAO. Really. Ever looked at the credits? The original code base
>>for Netscape *and* IE is Mosaic. Carefully designed indeed. Both
>>browsers are incredible hacks.
>
> Well, I think IE5 is the most revolutionary computer program I ever
> used (and, FYI: I first experienced "the web" in 1993 on my Linux box,
> kernel version 0.99pl12 or so, running Mosaic). I'm not going to argue
> this point, but suffice to say, they must have had some seriously good
> usability testing for this, as the program is unbelievably ergonomic,
> and well constructed. Yes, I know Mosaic and a few other things are
> listed in the credits, but I seriously doubt there is any Mosaic code
> left in this. I'd actually be surprised if there was much IE3 code in
> it.
I can't say much about IE5, I had to uninstall it because it
broke my Visual Studio installation. I don't know why, and I didn't
have the time to find out. In any case, it's just a browser, at best
a re-implementation of old ideas (just as Linux is a re-implementation
of UNIX ;-). I think you mention that such projects
"are simply implementations of well understood systems".
>>And would you kindly name just *one* of these "high quality, commercial
>>applications"?
>>I know *no* commercial application that is not a (more or less
>>successful) evolution of an extremely limited original code base.
>>None of these products respond to carefully written and conscienciously
>>maintained requirements and design documents. I do challenge you to
>>name just *one* commercial application, OS, or just *any* piece of code
>>that conforms to the development method you described.
>
> Well, basically all of my ideas on software engineering came from an
> internal book by DEC about software engineering, so there's one company
> who does it. Their internal software products follow the metholodology
> I am talking about. Also, VMS and its layered products were quite
> obviously designed by committee, so there's one example of a commercial
> product.
Remember the old quip: a camel is a horse designed by a committee ;-)
IMHO, most products that are recognizably "designed by a committee"
are awful.
It's not because DEC wrote a "book" on software engineering that they
follow it :-)
Seriusly, look at OpenVMS --a mad scramble to get POSIX into
VMS. Does that fit your requirements?
> I've never worked for IBM, but I know several people who have, and I
> understand their development metholdogy is even more formal. I don't
> think there's much doubt that their mainframe software products largely
> follow this model.
Yes, that's why the 370 only supported a 16Mbyte address space, and
support for large memory addressing was hacked into both the hardware
and the OS. Careful design, that.
> As for others, from what I've read about Microsoft's development
> practices, they follow a somewhat less rigid development process, but
> still reasonably close to what I'm talking about.
Sure. The Windows design process. GlobalAlloc and LocalAlloc --hacks
to get around a 640k memory limitation without using a memory management
chip. The MSDOS-1 FCB stuff still present in Windows98. And Word of
course never acquired *any* new functionality since its original
release.
> I also STRONGLY
> suspect that software by companies such as Cadence, Oracle, and SAP are
> designed formally, purely judging from the quality of the products.
Oh yeah. The marvellous quality of Designer/2000. By now it doesn't
crash as often as before, but the first releases were an absolute
PITA.
The hacked-in support in Oracle for ANSI-SQL. The incredible problems
Oracle had with distributed databases - did you know they did not even
consider distributed databases when they first designed Oracle, back in
the seventies. It somehow evolved...
The hallmarks of a good design are that it
a) finds uses the original designers never envisaged
b) accepts the inevitable modifications, additions and enhancements
that are applied to it without too many structural cracks.
Whether it had a requirements document, or still matches the original
or revised design spec are not relevant.
Take care, and brace yourself for what you'll discover when you
leave varsity ;-)
--
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] (Miguel A.L. Paraz)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Problems reading CD created under Win9x
Date: 24 Jun 1999 12:22:55 GMT
On 23 Jun 1999 18:47:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Solution is to use a 2.2.x kernel and enable the MS Joiliet extensions
>for the iso9660 filesystem.
or 2.0.36 and above, I think.
---m
--
Miguel "Migs" A.L. Paraz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IPhil Communications Business Development http://www.iphil.net
5/F 116 Herrera St. Legaspi Village Makati City PH +63-2-750-2288
------------------------------
From: Michael Maassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: pseudo terminal
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 13:20:51 +0200
Hi,
does anyone know about a good introduction of how to create a
pseudo terminal on a linux box ??
My problem is:
how do I get the number of the pty after opening the
ptmx device.
Mic
--
Michael Maassen Uni Freiburg
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Fakult. f. Physik
Abt. Prof. Herten
Phone: + 49 - 761 - 203 - 5720 Hermann-Herder-Str. 3
Fax: + 49 - 761 - 203 - 5938 79104 Freiburg
------------------------------
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Why not C++
Date: 24 Jun 1999 08:52:09 -0400
"Ralph Glebe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'v started to do some development on the linux platform. Looking at some of
> the source code around, I noticed that it is all C as opposed to C++.
> Although I've been a C programmer for many years, in the last year most of
> my programming has been in C++, and I've come to appreciate some of its
> benefits. Still, it makes me wonder if I'm headed for trouble trying to
> program in C++ on the linux platform. Are all the programs in C because:
>
> 1) The legacy programs were written in C, and its easier to keep them that
> way.
yes, of course.
> 2) There is something inferior about the code produced with the GNU C++
> compiler.
yes. the C part is very mature. the code produced is solid.
the C++ standard keeps changing. for example, i had to recode a lot
of my applications in my transition from gcc-2.7.2.* to egcs. the
egcs libstdc++ seems highly volatile. i'd rather keep as little
dependent upon it as possible. at least, now, if C++ libs break, i
can at least recompile what i have without the catastrophe of
missing/broken libc.
> 3) It's an extra effort to download the C++ libraries, so if you want to
> distribute the source, C is the way to go if you want to be sure that your
> code is going to compile.
the C++ libraries are in a state of massive flux. i have about 4 of
them on my system right now to support stuff i cannot recompile like
netscape.
> I'd appreciate any insight, before I get to far along producing C++
> code.
nothing stops you from *developing* C++ applications. i do this all
the time. most of my new code is C++ (when it's not common-lisp) and
i hardly do any C any more. however, gratuious conversion of older
things *which work fine* is just silly.
--
johan kullstam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: 24 Jun 1999 13:40:57 GMT
On 23 Jun 1999 00:29:46 GMT, Terry Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>To be fair, Unix was more of an exploratory/reseach project and not
>really intended to be a product, and this sort of engineering is
>necessary. But, of course, projects like these need to be engineered
>into workable products, and not just put out in unfinished form. I
>see open source as more exploratory- than product-oriented, and I'm
>not even sure many would disagree with that.
Given the constantly changing nature of the software/hardware world, and
the nebulous at best requirements for a user-friendly yet flexible
operating system, I'm inclined to say that an exploratory orientation
can be *better* than a product orientation.
It's unix's protean flexibility that's enabled it to be used over three
decades, from small machines to large, on workstations and servers, for
databases and graphics and modelling and file serving and firewalls and
phone switches ... you say that "projects ... need to be engineered into
workable products", but if unix isn't workable, how come so many people
have been working with it for so long?
--
Ben
"The world is conspiring in your favor." -- de la Vega
------------------------------
From: d s f o x @ c o g s c i . u c s d . e d u (David Fox)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Date: 24 Jun 1999 06:04:54 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter.vanHelden) writes:
> : no sound capability, ....
>
> No sound capability? Are you mad? What the heck has a sound system
> to do in a window system? FYI, The X consortium has been working on
> a sound system (it is called nas, if memory serves me) The
> unfinished sourcecode was released to the public at the time the
> OpenGroup took over control of.
What sound has to do with X is that X applications running remotely
should be able to make sounds - some sort of protocol is needed. Of
course, this has nothing to do with whether X is inferior Win32, which
it isn't.
The biggest threat to the open source operating system movement is
this ``kitchen sink'' mentality some people bring to it, which makes
them think that each tool or component should do it all. The GUI is
part of the operating system, X should handle sound, the window
manager should have a built in file manager (and indeed, a whole world
of tools crafted specifically for it), and so forth. This approach is
not only unsound from an engineering standpoint, it makes it more
difficult to become involved in any given project.
Linux must stick to the goal of a will crafted set of small,
independent tools that function together seamlessly, or it will not
survive.
--
David Fox http://hci.ucsd.edu/dsf xoF divaD
UCSD HCI Lab baL ICH DSCU
------------------------------
From: "Ralph Glebe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Why not C++
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 06:24:28 -0700
As far as library incompatibilities go, I've pretty much resigned myself to
recompiling when I move from system to system or at least statically linking
them. I remember one of my first linux projects written in C on a Red Hat
5.2 system. I attempted to demo the program on a Red Hat 4.x system. It
didn't run. Somewhat embarrasing. Fortunately I had the source code with
me for a quick recompile.
Anyway, the egcs. I take it that this is automatically invoked when I enter
g++. Or do I have to do something special to link egcs to the g++ command?
Thanks
Ralph
David M. Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:09:29 -0700, Ralph Glebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >benefits. Still, it makes me wonder if I'm headed for trouble trying to
> >program in C++ on the linux platform.
>
> No, I don't think so. Bruce Eckel (www.eckelobjects.com), who is writing
a
> second edition to his _Thinking in C++_, seems to think highly of egcs,
the
> C++ compiler that comes with newer distributions.
>
> >1) The legacy programs were written in C, and its easier to keep them
that
> >way.
>
> True for a lot of stuff.
>
> >2) There is something inferior about the code produced with the GNU C++
> >compiler.
>
> Up until recently g++ was not up to the standard, but it was probably
> still adequate for a lot of stuff.
>
> >3) It's an extra effort to download the C++ libraries, so if you want to
> >distribute the source, C is the way to go if you want to be sure that
your
> >code is going to compile.
>
> The C++ libraries should come with most distributions.
>
> I think one of the main reasons is that more people feel comfortable with
a
> smaller language like C. It's easier to proceed when you feel you have a
> grasp of most of a language.
>
> Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: Medical Electronics Lab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You can now use Winmodems in Linux!!!!!!!
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:12:30 -0500
Jonathan A. Buzzard wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Medical Electronics Lab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > The winmodem is just a digitizer that does DMA into a buffer. The
> > processor has to convert the audio bits to multiple tone data, and
> > then to data bits. It's straight forward data manipulation. There
> > is no reason we can't write a driver for any winmodem.
> >
>
> What an absolute load of rubbish. The vast majority of winmodems have
> DSP that do all the modulation etc. What they don't provide is a
> standard serial interface and an AT command interprator. Try reading
> some of the literature for winmodem chipsets. The Lucent Mars chipset,
> used in Toshiba and Compaq laptops would be a good place to start.
I've got a PCTel chip. It's just a digitizer. It uses HSP - host
signal processing. *ALL* the dsp work is done by the host. I don't
have to talk to Lucent, I have to talk to PCTel. Now, will they talk
to me?
Take your rubbish to the curb boy!
Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike
------------------------------
From: "Thomas Scholz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Where is what ???
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:39:13 +0200
Hi,
my question might sound a bit strange. Anyway,
here it comes:
Has anybody ever discussed the question how applications
should be integrated into an operating system and further
how they then could be administrated?
"Traditionally" the os handles applications that are running
(process scheduling and stuff like this). However, apps mostly
do not exist of just one file, they have requirements
regarding configuration, dlls, include-files, ....
I consider an os as a platform which has to provide a certain
structure to organize this.
In its function as such a platform, it also has to provide mechanisms
to administrate the functionality (applications) that is on the system.
Adding (installation) and removing (deinstallation) functionality, updating
, configuring, checking dependencies, ....
In Unix/Linux, there is the File System Hierarchy Standard and packet
managers such as RPM. In MS OS's there are some standards as well,
the registry and lots of installation procedures.
However, this is all grown during the development of these operating
systems (under the premise that one can consider this as a part of an os,
see
above).
I'm wondering if someone has ever discussed this topic independant of
Unix, NT, or any other operating system.
Thanks for any tips.
Thomas
------------------------------
From: Greg de Freitas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:07:02 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Fox wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter.vanHelden) writes:
>
> > : no sound capability, ....
> >
> > No sound capability? Are you mad? What the heck has a sound system
> > to do in a window system? FYI, The X consortium has been working on
> > a sound system (it is called nas, if memory serves me) The
> > unfinished sourcecode was released to the public at the time the
> > OpenGroup took over control of.
>
> What sound has to do with X is that X applications running remotely
> should be able to make sounds - some sort of protocol is needed. Of
> course, this has nothing to do with whether X is inferior Win32, which
> it isn't.
>
> The biggest threat to the open source operating system movement is
> this ``kitchen sink'' mentality some people bring to it, which makes
> them think that each tool or component should do it all. The GUI is
> part of the operating system, X should handle sound, the window
> manager should have a built in file manager (and indeed, a whole world
> of tools crafted specifically for it), and so forth. This approach is
> not only unsound from an engineering standpoint, it makes it more
> difficult to become involved in any given project.
>
> Linux must stick to the goal of a will crafted set of small,
> independent tools that function together seamlessly, or it will not
> survive.
> --
> David Fox http://hci.ucsd.edu/dsf xoF divaD
> UCSD HCI Lab baL ICH DSCU
Sorry to OT this, but:
I run Debian/potato w/KDE. not a problem.
I wish to _try_ gnome, what is gnome, where does it 'fit'? will I still have
Xserver? KDE? if so, _WHY_ would I want to squeeze another layer in between ?
When I first heard about gnome, I _thought_ it was a _replacement_ for X.
apparently, it isn't (is it ?).
I've also been struggling with sound:
[GUS MAX _never_ did work fully in Linux,]
SB16 now.
Whether I use ???/OSS/[ultra] esd/rplayd/nas I still don't get pucker sound,
Nutscrape requires HORRENDOUS mailcap/mime/appl tweaks _every_ time I get fed
up, and change audioservers/soundapps.
Even then, after _7_YEARS_ of Linux(0.99pl7 - 1992!) and working in the Unix
field, I still have difficulty in keeping all the <juggler's spherical props> in
the air !
WTF can't 'we'(Linux) try to agree to fix what's broken, so we can all breathe,
and then we'll be able to start thinking about plans to offer TNG something
that's _RELIABLE_, and works for the majority, Always.
Meanwhile, How the F. do I record a small section of a one hour realaudio file
to something I can turn into an .mp3 ??
(More questions withheld, due to the OT nature of this interruption)
--
Ciao 4 now, Greg.
# Email : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] #
# Email : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] #
# To Live, To Love, To Learn, To Leave A Legacy. #
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
