Linux-Development-Sys Digest #904, Volume #6 Mon, 28 Jun 99 19:14:33 EDT
Contents:
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Bill Anderson)
Re: Why not C++ (Greg Comeau)
Re: Why not C++ (Greg Comeau)
Re: Why not C++ (Greg Comeau)
Re: Another Windows developer looking for a good IDE (Mike Hall)
Re: Why not C++ (Greg Comeau)
Re: Filesize larger than 2 GB on Intel machines an Linux 2.0.36 (Patrick Letovsky)
Re: Current kernel configuration (Howard Mann)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS ("Vladimir Z. Nuri")
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (void)
Re: File max size (Patrick Letovsky)
make xconfig errors (RedHat 5.1) ("Jim Fischer")
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS ("Vladimir Z. Nuri")
Re: Why we are still holding on to MS Windows (George MacDonald)
Re: Getting a Soundblaster Live Value to work ("Aaron Thompson")
re: packet modification ("Paxton Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:03:25 -0600
void wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Jun 1999 14:43:47 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Wed, 23 Jun 1999 17:21:57 -0600, Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>An OS should not dictate how a random app stores it's data.
> >
> >Too late; most operating systems do just that. :-)
> >
> >In particular, the file system (usually part of an OS)
> >specifies where such things as file names, data blocks,
> >and other data such as permissions is stored. Coupled
> >with the implementation code deep within the OS for
> >allocation, the OS specifies, in grotesque detail
> >(at least at the software level) [*] exactly where
> >a random app stores its data -- and the random
> >app doesn't care!
>
> That's Mr. Anderson's point, if I'm not mistaken. He doesn't mean that
> the OS shouldn't specify the format on disk, he means that the OS should
> provide a general I/O API and let the programmer choose the *logical*
> formatting of the data. Bill, correct me if I'm wrong.
No need, for you are correct.
I would also point out that the filesystem only decides *where*,not
*how* the data is stored.
--
Bill Anderson Linux Administrator
MCS-Boise (ARC) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My opinions are just that; _my_ opinions.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Comeau)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Why not C++
Date: 28 Jun 1999 17:18:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
>
>> Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Well, the theory is that:
>> > int f(vector<vector<float> > array)
>> >is easier than
>> > int f(float **array)
>> >to handle for a beginner.
>
>(defun f (vec)
> ...)
>
>is about as easy as it gets. put in declares if warrented by
>profiling results.
>
>> No. The theory is that
>>
>> vector<float> vec;
>> vector<vector<float > > array;
>> array.pushback(vec);
>>
>> is easier for a beginner to handle than
>>
>> int nelems;
>> float *vec;
>> float **newarray = realloc(array, ((nelems+1) * M) * sizeof(float));
>> if (!newarray) {
>> abort(); /* ? */
>> } else {
>> memcpy(&newarray[nelems][0], vec, M * sizeof(float));
>> array = newarray;
>> ++nelems;
>> }
>>
>> This theory is correct.
>
>you forgot the freeing step. -- and the debug the memory management
>step when you free the wrong thing or the right thing twice or forget
>to free it at all. -- and the my memory is fragmented into oblivion
>after all these malloc/frees so now my performance is losing hard.
>
>the memory fragmentation problem pretty much precludes seriously using
>C++ for kernel work. look to microsoft for examples of C++ in action.
>
>do you really mean that all this C++ incantation is somehow easier
>than
>
> (let ((vec (make-array nelems :element-type single-float)))
> ...)
>
>and then letting the garbage collector reap the results?
>
>C has the benefit of being rather lightweight and efficient. C++ can
>be efficient when it comes to execution speed, but it is tedious to
>program in resulting in poor development speed and poor
>maintainability.
Are you _really_ concluding this from the examples above?
The C++ vector will go away. It will no in the C case
(it sounds like you may be saying the opposite above, it's not clear).
>after using lisp's macros i don't know whether to laugh or cry when i
>think of C++ templates.
Ok, tell us why.
BTW, you guys are side-stepping the issue of C and C++ by bring in new
aspects (C++ vs Lisp for instance) and then slashing only C++ (and not C)
for it (assuming those aspects were even true of C and C++). This is
misleading and biased. Oddly though, it does show that folks don't want
the comparison between C and Language-X.
- Greg
--
Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418-3214
Producers of Comeau C/C++ 4.2.38 -- New Release! We now do Windows too.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310
*** WEB: http://www.comeaucomputing.com ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Comeau)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Why not C++
Date: 28 Jun 1999 16:34:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>If I'm using a C library, my program might have to say:
C or C++ library
>some_function( &x );
>
>so, when debugging, I know right there that I can't assume x won't be
>altered. The same thing in C++ would be:
>
>some_function( x );
>
>but I don't know whether I'm passing by value or by reference or const
>by reference. I have to go and find the header, then look through it to
>find the prototype for that function. It would be useful if there were a
>syntax difference.
The above is flawed, because in both examples you need to go and find
the header, and in both examples you then need to look through it to find
the prototype for that function, so the above is a misguided argument.
In both examples it would be useful if there were a syntax difference.
Neither (x) nor (&x) is sufficient in either C or C++ from this perspective.
>It's only a development time problem of course, not a serious design
>flaw.
It's more that a development time issue. Anyway, it's doubtful anything
about it is changing, so we'll need to settle on good support tools to help
out with this, and more.
- Greg
--
Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418-3214
Producers of Comeau C/C++ 4.2.38 -- New Release! We now do Windows too.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310
*** WEB: http://www.comeaucomputing.com ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Comeau)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Why not C++
Date: 28 Jun 1999 17:22:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On 26 Jun 1999 11:10:23 -0700, Nathan Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>Classes are not a very powerful feature; you can emulate them pretty
>>well in C. Exceptions are quite powerful, though of limited use.
>
>You can emulate classes and inheritance but doing so requires ugly
>preprocessor hacks that make the code less understandable. If you
>know of another way, then please let me know.
>
>>Far more powerful than either are templates.
>
>I believe that these can also be emulated to a certain extent via the
>preprocessor.
IMO, only the simplest of classes or templates can be hacked via
the preprocessor.
>But in all honesty, weren't C++ templates one of the
>things to avoid when using g++ because of its buggy implementation? I
>realise that egcs may have finally overcome this obstacle, but this
>has only come about recently.
Lots of stuff has continually been wrong in/with g++, not just templates,
and egcs has finally overcome lots of that, only recently. So this is not
a templates specific point you make.
- Greg
--
Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418-3214
Producers of Comeau C/C++ 4.2.38 -- New Release! We now do Windows too.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310
*** WEB: http://www.comeaucomputing.com ***
------------------------------
From: Mike Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Another Windows developer looking for a good IDE
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 18:46:14 +0000
Jonathan Abbey wrote:
> You won't have a visual GUI editor, and you'll need to spend a bit of
> time getting up to speed on Java, Java's portable layout management,
> Java build process, and Swing libraries, but if you do you'll be able
> to deploy your software across several kinds of operating systems.
What ever happened to Visix?
They had a Java IDE (called Vibe) for Linux a few years ago...
--
Mike Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Comeau)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Why not C++
Date: 28 Jun 1999 17:12:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jeffrey L Straszheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>Nathan Myers wrote:
>
>> Tristan Wibberley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >If I'm using a C library, my program might have to say:
>> > some_function( &x );
>> >so, when debugging, I know right there that I can't assume x won't be
>> >altered. The same thing in C++ would be:
>> > some_function( x );
>
>> False. The same thing in C++ would be the same thing, period.
>
>> It is possible to declare non-const reference arguments in C++,
>> but that doesn't mean one finds it unexpectedly, in good code.
>
>Ah, but one doesn't always have the luxury of working with good code.
>This is a wart on C++. Not a major wart, granted, and certainly one
>which is easily avoided by a healthy degree of idiom, but I've seen
>commercial libraries that modified reference variables.
>
>I expect this is a C++ culture issue more so than a technical issue.
>In Eiffel, for instance, one can write functions with side effects;
>however, such is considered well outside of accpeted Eiffel practice.
>And it turns out that I have yet to come accross any moderately serious
>peice of Eiffel code which did not follow the idiom. The idiom is
>presented as a central aspect of the language and the Eiffel community
>has maintained it. C++ has not done so for the case of non-constant
>reference function arguments.
I agree the situation stinks somewhat, but your argument is misguided
in the sense that you have effectively biased your argument against C++
by presenting some Eiffel situation, when the point about was some
(possible) C and C++ difference, and you left C out of it (IOW, maybe
you have a point, but you changed the subject!).
- Greg
--
Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418-3214
Producers of Comeau C/C++ 4.2.38 -- New Release! We now do Windows too.
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310
*** WEB: http://www.comeaucomputing.com ***
------------------------------
From: Patrick Letovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Filesize larger than 2 GB on Intel machines an Linux 2.0.36
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:19:14 -0700
I heard the same thing, but I can't find any information on this patch
to override the limitation.
Parick
"Axel H�lzer" wrote:
>
> Hi,
> is there any solution to work with files larger than 2 GB on
> Intel-processor based machines? I am running RedHat Linux 5.2 with
> kernel 2.0.36. I heard about patch for kernelversions 2.2.x.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> A X E L
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Howard Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Current kernel configuration
Date: 28 Jun 1999 21:31:06 GMT
Doron Rabia wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> How can i tell what is my running kernel configuration if i dont have
> the .config file ?
> Is there a utility that can extract current kernel configuration like
> /usr/lbin/system_prep found in HP-UX systems ?
>
> Thanx ,
>
> Doron Rabia
>
The .config file is created upon kernel re-configuration.
Look for a "defconfig" ( default configuration) file in the
/usr/src/linux or equivalent directory.
Cheers,
Howard Mann.
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: 28 Jun 1999 21:06:18 GMT
In comp.os.misc Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Objection. He is not "starting an open source project", he is dreaming
: and philosophizing about an open source project (actually I can't
: recall offhand whether it was supposed to be open source).
essay very specifically calls for open source.
I guess the
: point of contention is whether dreaming and philosophizing have
: anything to do with actually advancing the state of the art.
the state of the art is always advanced by both theoretical and practical
emphasis/drive. in fact much of the flaming on this list can be
interpreted very much the way applied mathematicians criticise
theoretical ones (and vice versa)
: In the open source world, you will typically never get very far on a
: new project unless you do a significant amount of the initial coding.
if some of the ideas make their way into any OS, I will consider the
essay a success. I already see signs the essay is influencing ppl..
like I say the initial object is to spread memes.
: Deciding that someone else should appear out of the woodwork, as it
: were, to implement your great ideas, doesn't usually work. And many of
: us consider it rather arrogant to *expect* this to work.
I am not asking anyone to sign up to work for me. I pretty much expected
this *not* to work, and the replies on this thread
support that.. I do however think
the ideas are valuable and open for anyone to implement in different
contexts. its very much the way, early on, no one considered the GUI
to be a serious way to run an OS, and much of the transformation
in the field was psychological.
Mr. Nuri has
: so far shown *zero* inclination to do any of his magnum opus himself,
: except the dreaming and philosophizing part. If Nuri's model is what
: professional software houses use, God help professional software
: houses. (I haven't worked in that field yet.)
every post takes time. every keystroke dedicated toward a goal
advances that goal. I do agree that merely posting to Usenet generally
gives a low return or yield.. but of course
I'm sure you've noticed that yourself.. being faced w/same
problem<g> anyway..its a start.
------------------------------
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: 28 Jun 1999 21:17:47 GMT
On 28 Jun 1999 21:06:18 GMT, Vladimir Z. Nuri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>if some of the ideas make their way into any OS, I will consider the
>essay a success. I already see signs the essay is influencing ppl..
>like I say the initial object is to spread memes.
An initial object! I see you're finally willing to start defining a
class hierarchy. ;-)
--
Ben
"The world is conspiring in your favor." -- de la Vega
------------------------------
From: Patrick Letovsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: File max size
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:22:56 -0700
Hi,
What about i386 platform ?
NTFS can create file bigger than 2Gb !
It's an ext2 limitation on i386 platform, is there any patch out there
to create file bigger ?
Thanks
Patrick
Frank Sweetser wrote:
>
> "Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > >>>>> "Sagi" == Sagi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Under the 2.2.5 kernel what is the maximum file system and file size
> > > avaliable
> >
> > The max is at least further than 1TB.
>
> with ext2, filesystem size is 4TB, file size is 2G, on 32 bit platforms
> (such as ia32). signifigantly larger on 64 bit machines (alpha,
> ultrasparc), and SGI's open sourcing XFS sounds like it'll have larger
> numbers.
>
> --
> Frank Sweetser rasmusin at wpi.edu fsweetser at blee.net | PGP key available
> paramount.ind.wpi.edu RedHat 5.2 kernel 2.2.5 i586 | at public servers
> Perhaps they will have to outlaw sending random lists of words. fee fie
> foe foo [sic]
> -- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
=======================The Web Zone, Inc.=======================
Your Internet & Networking Solutions Company
8100 Boone Blvd., suite 110 Tel: (703) 744-8811
Vienna, VA 22182 Fax: (408) 235-8881
http://www.webzoneinc.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Jim Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: make xconfig errors (RedHat 5.1)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 14:52:58 -0700
Reply-To: "Jim Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I get the following output when I execute "make xconfig" from a root command
prompt on a Redhat 5.1 system (with X-Windows running):
[root@R100B1 linux]# make xconfig
rm -f include/asm
( cd include ; ln -sf asm-i386 asm)
make -C scripts kconfig.tk
make -C /usr/local/src/linux-2.0.35-1/linux/drivers/sound mkscript
Compiling Sound Driver v 3.5.5-beta1 for Linux
rm -f configure
gcc -I/usr/local/src/linux-2.0.35-1/linux/include -o configure configure.c
./configure script > Config.in
cat lowlevel/Config.tmpl >> Config.in
./configure fixedlocal > local.h
./configure fixeddefines > .defines
./tkparse < ../arch/i386/config.in > kconfig.tmp
make[1]: *** [kconfig.tk] Error 139
make: *** [xconfig] Error 2
[root@R100B1 linux]#
Any ideas as to what might be causing this error?
Jim Fischer
Computer / Electrical Engineering
Cal Poly, SLO
------------------------------
From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: 28 Jun 1999 21:24:11 GMT
In comp.os.misc Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[reorient toward user]
: A moot point. Such reorientation (referring to your original article for
: now) of course breaks nearly all compatibility channels and introduces
: unacceptable performance penalties at the OS level; no that's not what a
: user wants. The reason why an OS is kept as primitive (um, excuse me) as it
: is that fancy featurism is not welcome on a general purpose system. If I'm
: not going to use a certain feature, why should I pay a performance penalty
: for it? Taking this to an extreme you get exokernel Operating Systems.
moores law as applied to software. the OS is continually getting
more complex, unmistakably. as processor speeds/memory improves, the
domain of the OS will continue to expand into new areas. I articulated
one vision of those key areas. those arguing against a fixed/
circumscribed OS or any other software entity are going to be
passed by, inevitably.
you can see this over and over again, at all the levels of abstraction
in the modern computer. the CPU gets more complex, the devices,
the OS, the apps. even the languages, e.g. Java. the "performance
penalty" your refer to is actually a "performance tradeoff" in which
the balance of power will ultimately always favor more features
& functionality.
basically, those who object to my characterization of a new OS should
consider the possibility that what I am describing is actually a whole
new layer above the OS that is here-to-fore unrecognized, in which
many of the features that software apps share & do not implement
well, I am proposing creating a new layer for above the OS.
------------------------------
From: George MacDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why we are still holding on to MS Windows
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 21:59:24 GMT
Philip Boucherat wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dsfox@c writes
> >Marcus Sundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> > Let's face it. X Windows is a really premitive base for modern GUI,
> >> > terrible font support breaks GUI all the time, no sound capability, ....
> >>
> >> What the hell has sound got to do with GUIs or fonts?
> >
> >I must say that this thread has changed my mind on this point. X
> >handles screen output, but it also handles mouse and keyboard input.
> >Why? Because they are part of the user interface - the "UI" in "GUI",
> >and the events that are generated need to be coordinated with the
> >events that generate the screen output. It is now little funny to
> >hear someone say "What the hell has sound got to do with GUIs..."
> >Sound is a part of the user interface, graphical or otherwise, and
> >sound events also need to be integrated into the stream of events
> >associated with a given application. This is especially important
> >when you are running applications over the network.
> >
> >But I still don't think this is any reason to throw away X.
>
> My piano tuner is blind and he recently showed me his computer which has
> got voice recognition, voice synthesis etc. It reads text (either typed
> in typed or scanned in and OCR'ed), it describes every element of the
> screen current screen and so on. This is more like an AUI than a GUI
> although I suppose the whole aim is for help him to visualise a GUI in
> some way. Anyway sound certainly is a very large part of the GUI here.
Interesting thread! I have used X on a whole bunch of systems(Unix, VMS,
Amiga, Windows 9*/NT, ...), but have yet to use MS Windows on anything
but a MS windows platform. It seems to me that MS Windows is the one lacking
in functionality. I regularly make very good use of the networking aspects
of X based applications, as I daily work with multiple machines. Using
a seperate console/screen/monitor for each system is simply not practical.
I have run X apps from half way arround the world back to my desktop. In
fact this is one of my bigest complaints about MS Windows! The only
solutions to do this on MS platforms cost a lot of money, don't work
that well, and seem to be activley discouraged by MS(i.e citrix WinFrame).
While the design of X does limit some UI possibilities, these are slight
compared to the advantages gained. I wonder why MS has not adopted the
X standard, it would have provided an excellent way to bridge into the
enterprise environment. In fact the MS GUI could have been rewritten to run
on X, as witnessed by KDE/Wine ... Most likely they are following their
standard buisness strategy.
Anyhow, one can debate about any sensory mechanism missing from X, i.e.
vibrations, temp, air flow, humidity, smell, ....
Each of these could be candidates for a good user interface. Heck why
not have a VR engine that you throw objects at? Then one could tune
the VR server to the available devices/performance and/or users preferences.
Clearly sound should not be an integral part of the X protocol, as one often
would want to use it without an X server. However there is a relationship
between GUI events and sound, and as one previous poster suggested some
form of syncronization may be desirable. It seems to me that a sound
server makes more sense, and if need be some kind of communications,
to/from the X server. This could be analogous to the Window Manager
approach.
--
We stand on the shoulders of those giants who coded before.
Build a good layer, stand strong, and prepare for the next wave.
Guide those who come after you, give them your shoulder, lend them your code.
Code well and live! - [EMAIL PROTECTED] (7th Coding Battalion)
------------------------------
From: "Aaron Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Getting a Soundblaster Live Value to work
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 17:22:59 -0500
use the 2.2.5 kernel. it works fine. i don't know why they made it version
specific, but they did.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Has anyone managed to do this at all? I've tried every logical compilation
>option I can think of with my 2.2.7 kernel but I just can't get the damn
thing
>to make a peep. All I ever get is a "No such device" error when trying to
>access /dev/audio or /dev/dsp. I've had no luck with modules either.
>
>Can anyone help?
>
>NJR
------------------------------
From: "Paxton Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: re: packet modification
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 16:57:22 -0500
Hi experts. I'm new to the linux kernel, so I've
got a question for someone who has played with
IP packets. Where do you fiddle with the packet
contents before the data goes up the IP/TCP
stack? I'm at the end of my rope!
Paxton
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
