Linux-Development-Sys Digest #876, Volume #6 Thu, 24 Jun 99 19:14:23 EDT
Contents:
Re: compiling for a Hitachi SH-3 CPU with gcc ("Peter Gutmann")
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: Why not C++ (David L. Bilbey)
Re: compiling for a Hitachi SH-3 CPU with gcc (John BEPPU)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (void)
Re: Need a.out compiler (Frank v Waveren)
Re: Need help porting DOS app that uses parallel port (Part II) (Jan Panteltje)
Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows (Scott Lanning)
Re: WinModems and Linux (Jonathan A. Buzzard)
Re: X-Shell Development Environment (Uwe Schneider)
Re: Why not C++ (Johan Kullstam)
Re: USR OEM Alana DFV PCI V.90 modem (Frederic Faure)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Peter Gutmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: compiling for a Hitachi SH-3 CPU with gcc
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 21:58:56 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <7km9v6$h2j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>Peter Gutmann? ([EMAIL PROTECTED]?) wrote (Mon, 21 Jun 1999 22:15:43 +0200):
>>never found something concrete. Do you have a disassembler for SH3 code?
>
>You want to write this in assembly? This is what SH3 looks like. Probably
>simple to an old hack (looks a bit like 68k?) but to work in this has got
>to be a bad idea.
>
[etc.]
I surely don't want to write *this* (a linux port) in assembler, I just want
to take a look at it.
Anyway, at first I'd like to create some ordinary Windows CE programs to
become familiar with this system.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 21:06:15 GMT
Peter Samuelson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[windows registry]
: Summary, from my POV: There are many reasons not to. One of the most
: compelling is that you create one more wonderful single point of
: failure for your entire system. And what a point of failure it is.
: Ever try to recover a Windoze system whose registry had gotten hosed?
if you combine a registry with a good fault-tolerant system, with
versions of the registry & all other software.. that could be pretty
streamlined. what you are saying to me above is that halfway implementations
of powerful ideas often leave the user worse off. I agree!! but the
failure of a new idea is often due to poor implentation. as on of my
design friends once told me, ppl have a very difficult time telling
the dif between failure of new idea and failure in a particular
implementation of that idea..
: If you don't just give up and `format c:' you're a lot sicker than I
: am.
exactly.. how often is this used as a solution to win95 problems?
ouch. there are insane amts of trouble spent by end users trying
to keep crappily-designed/fragile OSes taped together.
: There are many other reasons. Editing things with standard tools (not
: just editors; all the standard Unix line-oriented tools) is a *huge*
: win.
I assure you the OS of the future is not going to have text based
configuration files .. at least at the core. I think there is always
a need to export any "entity" into unambiguous ASCII files however.
that would be one of the operations I would build into the OS.
any object whatsoever can be exported/imported as a binary or
ASCII file..
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"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: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 21:11:50 GMT
Eugene O'Neil ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[support end user]
: New? That priority is as old as Capitalism. People were blathering that "the
: customer is always right" long before computers were invented. We might call
: our customers "users", but the basic idea is still exactly the same.
: Consider the powerful macro language in Microsoft Word that let documents do
: all sorts of "neat" things when you open them. You say a macro virus erased
: your hard drive when you opened a Word document? Sorry, they can't fix it,
: because it isn't a bug. It's a user-requested FEATURE. Be careful of what you
: wish for, you may get it.
I can't think of a better example of a poorly implemented feature.
I see what is going on here.. when programmers want to be lazy
they blame the user for burdensome demands.. and when programmers
botch it and create something that blows up, they blame the users..!!
but the whole virus thing requires a radical rethinking of the OS
and the way that applications interact in it.. its a problem that
really pervades the current OS paradigm.. a huge blind spot!! I may
focus on a new essay, "how to make an OS virus proof"..
: I am not saying that Linux can or should remain user-hostile as a goal in
: itself.
hahha. freudian slip.
There is a perfectly respectable role for end-users to play in Linux,
: but it is not the priviledged position of supreme importance they have grown
: so accustomed to in Windows. Users must learn that Priviledge can only be
: earned in Linux, purely on the basis of merit. If the customer is so damned
: right, he can PROVE it by writing better code! Otherwise, he should not get in
: the way of the programmers who are actually getting things done. Give us the
: time to do things properly, and we will do more than just make our programs a
: little easier: we will make them fundamentally BETTER.
quite a bit of hubris, speaking of hubris. the customer never writes code.
to even suggest that he should I find very arrogant.
: That is the new "priority" that is taking over the world. You might as well
: get used to it.
nope, Linux (god love it, I do) is an interim solution (even Linus
hints that). the next one, evolving & taking shape right now, will not
embody the programmer arrogance your post epitomizes.
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"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: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 21:37:20 GMT
Lou Grinzo, a writer for various magazines & author of
several books has expressed some interest in the Tao
document. he's sent me some great & thoughtful
analysis in email.. recently he tipped
me off to this neat research
project on "eros", extremely reliable operating system:
www.eros-os.org
here's some introductory essays.. that give
some of the basic ideas
http://www.eros-os.org/essays/00Essays.html
definitely some of it is "tao-like".. not to be
tao-centric..!! I like the emphasis on fault tolerance..
also it seems to have a very good security model
I find highly superior to unix.. although not necessarily
the one I would choose. there is a lot of emphasis
on object orientation too.
so I would say of anything I have heard of, this comes
the closest to some of the design/requirements I hashed
out in the essay.
which btw for latecomers is available at
http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/tao.html
thanks for the great tip, Lou..!!
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"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: David L. Bilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Why not C++
Date: 24 Jun 1999 21:33:31 GMT
+-----On 24 Jun 1999 17:02:09 -0400, Stefan Monnier spoke unto us:----------
| >>>>> "Ralph" == Ralph Glebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > [...]
| Wring question. The question should be:
| Why C++ ?
- Objects
- Inheritance
- Polymorphism
- Overloaded functions/operators
- Streaming I/O
(just to name a few)
David Bilbey
--
"Police Detective Riley was a no-nonsense kind of guy. Before, he really
loved nonsense, and would use it a lot in his murder investigations. But
he found that most people didn't appreciate it, especially the family of
the victim." --Jack Handey
------------------------------
From: John BEPPU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: compiling for a Hitachi SH-3 CPU with gcc
Date: 24 Jun 1999 21:45:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps William Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At one time you could get a compiler from Hitachi, I believe a version of
> gcc ported by Cygnus. Don't know if it's still available. Look at
> http://www.svn.net/jimhorn/wincehw.htm for more information and links.
for people interested in liberating wince devices by
porting linux to them, check
http://www.waste.org/~zanshin/
------------------------------
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: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 21:31:51 GMT
Stefaan A Eeckels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: 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?
I vehemently detest the "troll" label. none of my posts fit into
this category. I am being labelled that merely because I am not
backing down from defending the article.
: 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.
no, it was flamed for a wide variety of reasons, that was only
one. many others claimed that many of my goals are impossible to
achieve. hence merely asserting they are achievable is a major
step.
moreover, I asked for the exist Linux requirements/design document.
there is none. are you opposed to requirements/design documents?
if so, then what is the one you favor most toward creating the
next OS after linux? or are you totally satisfied with linux,
feeling that it represents the pinnacle of software development
in the OS? (snicker)
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.
I began to insinuate that the reason I was being flamed was that
the whole concept of design/requirements was totally foreign
to ppl who hang out here.. moreover the whole idea that the OS
be user-centric (where the users are not programmers) has
run into intense hostility/resistance. the whole thread backs this
up.
I began to take my respondents less seriously as they refused
to give me benefit of doubt and wage ad-hominem warefare including
smearing me as a troller/crackpot etc<g>
I enjoy all phases/aspects of
a debate on usenet.. and will engage in them when first
introduced by others..!!
but I assure you, and my posts back up,
I would far rather seriously discuss the issues.. every once and
awhile someone accidentally posts something in this vein, and I
try to focus on those<g>
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^
"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] (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 22:25:00 GMT
On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 21:31:51 GMT, Vladimir Z. Nuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I vehemently detest the "troll" label. none of my posts fit into
>this category. I am being labelled that merely because I am not
>backing down from defending the article.
I haven't called you a troll, but I definitely perceive some of your
statements as trollish. Not when you defend your article, but when you
make sweeping statements about the way things will be in the future.
Also when you disparage unix -- not because I can't stand to hear unix
criticized, but because you pick on its development model, which is IMHO
exactly what has made it so good.
--
Ben
"The world is conspiring in your favor." -- de la Vega
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank v Waveren)
Subject: Re: Need a.out compiler
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 23:07:17 GMT
In article <7ku2sa$q7v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I need help compiling a.out binaries. I have an a.out assembler and linker,
> i just don't have the compiler. If anyone has the neccessary files
> "/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linuxaout/*", please let me know. You can email them
> to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can use gcc with the paramater "-b i386-linuxaout". You have to have the
correct libs though.
--
Frank v Waveren
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ# 10074100
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Panteltje)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Need help porting DOS app that uses parallel port (Part II)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 99 20:28:57 GMT
maybe this is of use to you:
/* rs232lib.c */
#include "rs232lib.h"
#define num_entries(x) (sizeof(x) / sizeof(x[0]) )
static int speed_tbl[] = {
11, 15, 30, 60, 120, 240, 480, 960, 1920, 3840
};
rtsoff(int port)/*sets RTS to off*/
{
int a;
int address;
int offset;
offset = 4;/*position of register holding RTS*/
address = 0;
if(port == 1)
{
address = COM1BASE + offset;
}
if(port == 2)
{
address = COM2BASE + offset;
}
if(port == 3)
{
address = COM3BASE + offset;
}
if(port == 4)
{
address = COM4BASE + offset;
}
if(address)/*was legal port (existing)*/
{
a = inb(address);
a = a & (255 - 2);/*reset bit 1 (RTS)*/
outb(a, address);
return(1);
}
return(0);/*illegal port*/
}
rs232_rxstatus(int channel)
{
int rxstat;
if(channel == 0)rxstat = inb(COM1BASE + 5);
if(channel == 1)rxstat = inb(COM2BASE + 5);
if(channel == 2)rxstat = inb(COM3BASE + 5);
if(channel == 3)rxstat = inb(COM4BASE + 5);
rxstat &= 1;
return(rxstat);/*1= character availeble, else 0*/
}
rs232_txstatus(int channel)
{
int txstat;
if(channel == 0)txstat = inb(COM1BASE + 5);
if(channel == 1)txstat = inb(COM2BASE + 5);
if(channel == 2)txstat = inb(COM3BASE + 5);
if(channel == 3)txstat = inb(COM4BASE + 5);
if(txstat == 6)return(0);/*shift register empty*/
return(1);/*1 = transmit buffer empty (ready)*/
}
rs232_send(int channel, int txchar)
{
int a;
int txstat;
while(1)
{
if(rs232_txstatus(channel))
{
rs232_putc(channel,txchar);
return(1);
}
}
}
rs232_receive(int channel)
{
int a;
int rxchar;
if(rs232_rxstatus(channel))/*character availeble*/
{
return( rs232_getc(channel) );
}
return( -1 );/*rx not availeble*/
}
rs232_flush(int channel)
{
int i;
for(i = 0; i < 20; i++)/*not more in FIFO*/
{
if(rs232_receive(channel) == -1)return(1);/*no rx availeble*/
}
fprintf(stdout,"\nCannot flush input buffer\n");
return(0);
}
int rs232_init(int chan, long baudrate, char parity, int stopbit, int wordlen)
{
/*union REGS r;*/
int flag;
long speed;
int sti;/*speed table index*/
/*r.h.al = (char) ((stopbit > 1 ? 4 : 0 ) + (wordlen == 8 ? 3 : 2));*/
/*if ((parity = ztolower(parity)) == 'e')r.h.al += 0x18;
/*else if (parity == 'o')r.h.al += 0x08;
*/
speed = baudrate / 10;
flag=0;
for (sti = 0; sti < num_entries(speed_tbl); sti++)
{
if ((int) speed == speed_tbl[sti] )/* found in table */
flag = 1;
break;
}
if(! flag)
{
printf("\nIllegal baudrate %ld, cannot initialize port %d\n",\
baudrate,chan + 1);
return(0);
}
/*r.h.al += (char) (sti << 5);*/
/*r.h.ah = INIT_232;*/
/*r.x.dx = chan;*/
/*int86(0x14, &r, &r);*/
if (sti > 8)
{
/* r.h.ah = SETSPEED_232;*/
/* r.x.cx = sti;*/
/* int86(0x14, &r, &r);*/
}
rs232_setbaudrate(chan, baudrate);
return(1);
}
int rs232_putc(int chan, int c)
{
unsigned char u;
u = c;
if(chan == 0)outb(u, COM1BASE);
if(chan == 1)outb(u, COM2BASE);
if(chan == 2)outb(u, COM3BASE);
if(chan == 3)outb(u, COM4BASE);
return(1);
}
int rs232_getc(chan)
{
if(chan == 0)return(inb(COM1BASE));
if(chan == 1)return(inb(COM2BASE));
if(chan == 2)return(inb(COM3BASE));
if(chan == 3)return(inb(COM4BASE));
}
/*Set channel protocol. Enables XON/XOFF processing for either input or
/*output.
*/
void rs232_prot(int chan, int prot)
{
/*union REGS r;
/*r.h.ah = SETPROT_232;
/*r.h.al = (char) prot;
/*r.x.dx = chan;
/*int86(0x14, &r, &r);
*/
}
int rs232_setbaudrate(int channel, long baudrate)
{
int combase;
int a;
int dividerhigh, dividerlow;
long fquarts;
int divide;
int divisor;
fquarts = 1843200;
divisor = fquarts / 16;/*115200 = fquarts / 16*/
if(channel == 0)combase = COM1BASE;/*com 3*/
if(channel == 1)combase = COM2BASE;/*com 3*/
if(channel == 2)combase = COM3BASE;/*com 3*/
if(channel == 3)combase = COM4BASE;/*com 4*/
/*first enable write to baudrate dividers*/
a = inb(combase + 3);/*get value at port*/
a= a | 128;/*set bit 7*/
outb(a, combase + 3);/*write back to port*/
/*calculate value of dividers for 1.8432 MHz quartz*/
(int)divide=divisor / baudrate;
dividerlow=divide % 256;
dividerhigh=divide / 256;
/*fprintf(stdout,"\nrs232_setbaudrate():Baud=%lu, div=%d divlow=%d divhigh=%d\n",\
/*baudrate,divide,dividerlow,dividerhigh);
/*fprintf(stdout,"\nreal baudrate now: %5.2f\n",\
/*(float)divisor / (dividerlow + (256.0 * dividerhigh)) );*/
/*write value to divisor addresses*/
outb(dividerlow, combase + 0);
outb(dividerhigh, combase + 1);
/*set 8250 / 16450 registers to normal (data use)*/
a= a & 127;/*reset bit 7*/
outb(a, combase + 3);
return(1);
}
This is how you could use it:
comloop(int comport, long baudrate)
/*communication loop with home control system*/
{
int a,b;
int rxchar;
int keyval;
int channel;
channel=comport - 1;
rs232_init(channel, baudrate, 'n', 1, 8);
rs232_prot(channel, PROT_NONE);
/*if(! rs232_flush(channel) )return(0);/*flush input fifo*/
while(1)
{
if(kbhit())/*con status*/
{
keyval = getkey();/*read con*/
if(keyval == 26)return(0);/*control z exits*/
if(rs232_txstatus(channel))/*not busy*/
{
a = rs232_putc(channel, keyval);
}
}
if(rs232_rxstatus(channel))/*character available at serial port*/
{
rxchar = rs232_getc(channel);
fprintf(stdout, "%c", rxchar);
}
}
}
This is rs232lib.h
/* rs232lib.h */
#ifndef _RS232LIB_H
#define _RS232LIB_H
/* Line status codes - rs232_getc() or rs232_stat(). */
#define LSR_RDA 0x0100 /* receive data available */
#define LSR_OR 0x0200 /* overrun error */
#define LSR_PE 0x0400 /* parity error */
#define LSR_FE 0x0800 /* framing error */
#define LSR_BI 0x1000 /* break interupt */
#define LSR_TBA 0x2000 /* transmit holding buffer available */
#define LSR_TSRE 0x4000 /* transmit shift buffer empty */
#define LSR_TO 0x8000 /* no data available (time out) */
/* Modem status returned only from rs232_stat() */
#define MSR_DCTS 0x00001 /* delta clear to send */
#define MSR_DDSR 0x00002 /* delta data set ready */
#define MSR_TERI 0x00004 /* trailing edge ring indicator */
#define MSR_DCD 0x00008 /* carrier detect */
#define MSR_CTS 0x00010 /* clear to send */
#define MSR_DSR 0x00020 /* data set ready */
#define MSR_RI 0x00040 /* ring indicator */
#define MSR_CD 0x00080 /* carrier detect */
/* io addresses */
#define COM1BASE 0x3f8
#define COM2BASE 0x2f8
#define COM3BASE 0x3e8
#define COM4BASE 0x2e8
#define PROT_NONE 0
#define PROT_XIN 1
#define PROT_XOUT 2
#define INIT_232 0
#define PUTC_232 1
#define GETC_232 2
#define STAT_232 3
#define WRITE_232 4
#define READ_232 5
#define ICNT_232 6
#define OCNT_232 7
#define SETPROT_232 8
#define SETSPEED_232 9
#endif
I think I ported this from dos, it uses polling only.
For simple purposes it works OK.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Lanning)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why we are still holding on to X Windows
Date: 24 Jun 1999 21:22:29 GMT
Michael Gu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: After all, you may argue that Linux/X is designed for computer
: professionals only, then I will have nothing more to say.
I argue that Linux/X is designed for computer professionals only.
--
Scott Lanning: [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://physics.bu.edu/~slanning
"Windows was designed to keep the idiots away from Unix so we could
hack in peace. Let's not break that." --Tom Christiansen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan A. Buzzard)
Subject: Re: WinModems and Linux
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 00:05:15 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Robert Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There are a few different kinds of winmodems -- HSP (host signal
>> processing), which only have a D-A and rely on the host to do the DSP,
>> and HCF (controller-free), which have a data pump and rely on the host
>> for modem control. So both kinds of modems exist.
> That's interesting - I've actually got a Rockwell WinModem which comes
> up as an HCF. I'd probably be able to knock a driver together if I can
> verify the that the 56K's follow the pattern of the rest of the rockwell
> modem IC's and keep a broadly compatible register map (I've done
> direct drivers for the lower end rockwell IC's before, and I've still got
> the data book for the slower chips).
> Are the Lucent chipset's the HSP based ones? If so, lucky lucky lucky.
> I'll call my man at Telecoms Design Consultancy and see if they'll give
> me a databook for the 56K's (they gave me the ones for direct programming
> the slower chips a couple of years ago).
> Craig.
My guess is that the Lucent designs are HCF Winmodems, as their web
site talks extensively about a DSP doing all the signal processing.
I would guess that there is only about half a dozen modem chipsets
in existance, with Rockwell Lucent and 3Com taking the lions share
of the market.
JAB.
--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44(0)1661-832195
------------------------------
From: Uwe Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: linux.dev.x11,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: X-Shell Development Environment
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 20:49:59 +0000
Hello Bob,
Bob Bryla wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm going to do some rapid application development for X-Servers, and don't
> have the time (nor the skills) to do a lot of low level C++ calls to
> X-Libraries.
>
> I'm looking for a "shell" or "scripting language" of some type, that runs as
> an X-Windows app, that will allow me to do things like: (1) do a browse of a
> file system, and allow multiple select of filenames; (2) submit cron jobs
> via running a c-shell, tcl or perl script; (3) receive e-mail or send e-mail
> based on a simple evaluation of a text file contents; (4) create menu
> systems for selecting other simple forms; and so on. Kind of like a high
> level toolset for X. I can settle for one that can be called from a very
> simple C++ program, but would be better with some kind of easy scripting
> language, or from perl, or whatever.
>
> I'm going to develop on Linux, and will eventually end up on a DEC Unix box,
> for a while anyway, so source code for this stuff would be highly desirable
> also. I can handle changing make files or looking for libraries or whatever.
>
> So, any freeware or shareware, or cheapware out there that has at least some
> of these things??? My searches have been fruitless up to this point...
>
> For those of you who are familiar with WinBatch for Windoze, that's pretty
> close to what I'm looking for in an X-Environment.
>
> Bob Bryla
you should combine a RAD scripting language with a high level GUI
toolkit.
Although there are a lot of combinations which meet your requirements, I
would suggest you using Perl/TK. The reaons are:
- Perl is an extremely powerful, extendible and extended (e.g.
MIME::Lite for sending mail) scipting language (much better than Tcl in
my opinion).
- TK provides for a high quality user interface. It was born on X/Motif
but was ported to other GUIs.
- If TK isn't enough, take TIX (TK extended)!!!
The combination is very portable and provides for an excellent
functionality/lines_of_code ratio.
A very good starting point for the whole thing is "Advanced Perl
Programming" (O'Reilly), which is a must for every script programmer
anyway.
Best Regards,
--
Uwe Schneider | Telefon +49 7251 / 82587
Karlsdorfer Str. 31 | Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DE-76646 Bruchsal |
Linux - OS al dente!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Why not C++
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Jun 1999 17:56:45 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Ralph Glebe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [&<]
> >
> > 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.
>
> The C++ standard is no longer changing, period. The compilers and
> library implementations are changing because they are still catching up,
> but the standard has been finished for over a year.
the standard may be out, but the libraries and implementations are
still catching up and they will be doing so for a good while longer.
even conforming implementations may well have conflicting binaries.
in effect, it's almost as annoying as a moving standard. despite a
standard, i still have 4 incompatible versions of libstdc++.
> Please be careful not to fud.
standards are always being revised. fortran has had how many
revisions? there are at least iv, 66, 77 and 90. C has had K&R, ANSI
and is getting a new revision called C9X although X seems to be likely
to exceed 9. there will be a new C++ along in a few years. just you
wait.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frederic Faure)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,redhat.hardware.arch.intel
Subject: Re: USR OEM Alana DFV PCI V.90 modem
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 19:34:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 23 Jun 1999 04:30:53 GMT, cookies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Attention: I returned that 'Win modem' the second day. So I don't have any
>driver at hand. Now I am using M56VI-ST1 V90/X2 from Powercom. It works
>fine at Linux, however, I always get trouble from Win98 and WinNT4.0.
>what a mazing!
>cookies wrote:
>> Hi, all!
>> I got a USR OEM Alana DFV PCI V.90 modem, I didn't find it in the list
>of
>> Winmodem. But I am not sure it will work under Linux 5.2. is there
>anyone
>> who can help me?
USR does have a PCI softmodem. Not sure if it's sold only through OEM,
or also available through Retail. Return it if you can, and pay a bit
more to buy a real, controller-based modem. The assle of using win- or
soft-modems is just not worth it.
FF.
--
The system required Windows 95 or better, so I installed Linux!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
