Linux-Development-Sys Digest #108, Volume #7 Wed, 25 Aug 99 20:13:59 EDT
Contents:
Re: why not C++? (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Jesus: the ultimate OS ("Eric Goold")
Re: LinuxThreads (David Wragg)
Re: Jesus: the ultimate OS ("Pizzi")
Re: Strange mount problem (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
Re: PROPOSAL: A secure, simple NIS replacement (Dave Barr)
Re: Cingle User - Kiosk Mode (Tristan Wibberley)
Re: PROPOSAL: A secure, simple NIS replacement (Rob Pope)
Re: Jesus: the ultimate OS - Please Go Away (Eric Hegstrom)
Re: glibc-2.1.1 problems (Allin Cottrell)
Re: why not C++? (Thomas Boggs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: why not C++?
Date: 24 Aug 1999 12:38:59 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randall Parker) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > I've also found it more difficult to debug C++ than C (especially the
> > code of other people,) because (operator) overloading can make otherwise
> > innocent looking code do much more than you had expected.
>
> I have worked on C++ dev projects where everyone agreed not to do
> operator overloading precisely so that the code would stay
> comprehensible.
overloading operators essentially alters the language. it shouldn't
be taken lightly. this doesn't mean it cannot be a big win. things
that work like numbers are usually good targets for heavy
overloading. complex has already been done this way.
> I think the desire to make string classes and then be able to concatenate
> strings together with + is the reason most found the idea appealing.
> However, I think operator overloading is a bad idea for the most
> part.
on the other hand, overloading does make sense at times. for
instance, in reed-solomon codec i found myself needing to do math in
the field GF(256). i wrote up a GF(256) class and overloaded all the
math operators to do GF(256) math as naturally as integers or floats.
similarly, polynomials composed of GF(256) coefficients can be done.
however, i find C++ rather lacking when it comes to manipulating
objects with rapidly varying sizes.
one thing that bothers me in C++ is the lack of additional operations.
for example, in matrix math, you might want two kinds of
multiplication. element-wise or as a matrix. matlab uses .* and *
respectively. C++ doesn't offer any new operators. if C++ had a few
unnassigned operations, you could overload them with perhaps less
confusion than redefining something as basic as addition.
--
johan kullstam
------------------------------
From: "Eric Goold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Jesus: the ultimate OS
Date: 25 Aug 1999 15:11:39 PDT
Tim Kelley wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
(stuff deleted)
>
>Where is it in the bible that jesus had sex? Why didn't he?
>
>--
>Tim Kelley
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I THINK it may have been because he had something better to do?
;)
Eric Goold
------------------------------
From: David Wragg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LinuxThreads
Date: 25 Aug 1999 14:23:51 +0000
Adam Meyerowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Where would one find the documentation (man pages etc) on LinuxThreads.
They should be in /usr/man/man3/
> I'm not that familiar with loading man pages (other than the most
> basic commands like man -K etc). Anyhelp would be appreciated.
"man -k pthread" should list them.
David Wragg
------------------------------
From: "Pizzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Jesus: the ultimate OS
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 18:35:02 -0400
Please don't slander the beliefs of others for no reason. Try to keep in
mind that perhaps there IS something to the religion and perhaps there is
something even you could learn from it. :-)
Frankly, I don't care weather Jesus lived or not. Whether he walked on water
or not. Obviously, noone is born KNOWING this. Many who claim to KNOW all
this stuff may simply be pretending. That's not what I find to be important
about the religion.
What IS important about the religion, is what was taught. Weather you
interpret it to be the teachings of devout religious scholars inventing a
fictional character to demonstrate their beliefs, or the son of God himself,
having walked the Earth, I don't find to be particularly important. Assuming
the first, these are wise old men (I'd like to say women too, but given the
time period, this is probably not the case) that might have something to
tell you. Aristotle said the same think these people said through Jesus, I
might add. Bhuddism and Hinduism say basically the same thing there too.
What Jesus said, or what the authors said through Jesus, is this:
Money, sex, and other "popular" meanings of life don't bring happiness.
Morality brings happiness. Acting kind for no other reason brings happiness.
Instead of answering people who are acting like jerks in a rude or equally
aggressive manner, respond kindly to them even though they didn't do the
same for you. It sounds wierd, but that's because I sound like an idiot when
I try to write about philosophy or theology. :-)
So that's the basics of the religion. The whole Faith thing got added in
later. I don't think it's that important. It reeks of repression.
- Ed Pizzi
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
Subject: Re: Strange mount problem
Date: 26 Aug 1999 00:38:15 +0200
In article <01beef46$01499020$31ea4e0c@nilrem>,
Norm Dresner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The MSDOS partition of the first hard disk is mounted in fstab as
> /dev/hda1 /c msdos user,umode=000,rw
>
>I have no difficulty reading or writing to this disk as root, or when a
>user mounts it. But when I mount it as root, then when a user writes
>(using cp) to /c she gets a diagnostic that says
> cp: {filename}: Operation not permitted
>but the copy operation is successful anyway!
>
>I guess I have the following questions:
> 1. What operation is not permitted on /c when it's mounted with all
>permissions?
The copy succeeds, but the cp program probably does a chmod() or chown()
on the copied file as well, and that fails since such an operation
doesn't make much sense on a DOS file system.
> 2. Since everything seems to work when it's mounted by a user,
> what's the simplest way to have the partition mounted "by a user"
> at boot time?
mount -ouid=666,gid=666
Or, simply mount the partition with the "quiet" option. Read the man
page for mount(8), it's all in there.
Mike.
--
... somehow I have a feeling the hurting hasn't even begun yet
-- Bill, "The Terrible Thunderlizards"
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.security.unix
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: A secure, simple NIS replacement
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Barr)
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 20:06:41 GMT
In article <7q0vdj$sh5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>point. I don't want something that can slice my vegetables, I want a
>distributed /etc/passwd in as small an amount of code as possible.
Smallest amount of code?
Use one of the various passwd changing programs that connect to
a password server to make password changes to a server (call this
your "master"). On the master, use your favorite file sync
methods (rdist, rsync, etc, use ssh underneath if you want) to
push the files to your clients.
Not pretty, not bulletproof (clients get out of sync if they're
down, so need some sort of 'pull' or push-pull system), but
it's cheap and doable with off-the-shell stuff with a minimum of glue.
--Dave
------------------------------
From: Tristan Wibberley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Cingle User - Kiosk Mode
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 23:33:33 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris F Clark wrote:
>
> > You shouldn't use single user mode for a kiosk. You should alter your
> > boot scripts to run
> >
> > su --login kioskuser
> >
> > instead of login after you've added a special user called 'kioskuser'.
>
> The term "kiosk" is unknown to me in this context, but this posting
> sounds like a solution to a problem that I would like fixed.
>
> I would like my home system to be more of a "single user system". In
> particular, when it boots I would like the system to automatically log
> the console in as me (my account) rather than putting up a welcome
> screen and having me select my account and then entering the password.
Sounds like xdm instead of login. This is probably run level five
(useful to known this for when you look through the boot scripts).
> From this posting, I gather that one of the boot files (perhaps an
> /etc/rc.d file) runs "login" for the console and that if I replace
> that with an "su me"--it will log "me" in instead of bringing up the
> welcome screen.
Yes, it should do.
> My account is passworded. Will I have to do something with
> /etc/pam/login (or /etc/pam/su) to prevent it from asking for a
> password on the console when this process runs at boot time?
at this early stage, processes are run as root, which means that no
password is asked for. Your su command line must indicate that it should
behave the same as when logging in (This just makes the system more
predictable if you are not so used to UNIX). You do this with `su -
username`, `su -l username`, or `su --login username` - this latter is
generally prefered as it is more descriptive.
> Will I open a security hole in doing this? Is there a way to make
> this account secure so that I can allow telenets into my machine?
Not other than letting anyone at the console access your account without
a password. This is not difficult anyway if your system box is beside
the console because *that* makes root access simple.
> (I
> connect my home machine via ppp to a corporate lan that is connected
> (via a firewall) to the internet, soon I will have a cable modem
> connection directly to the internet. I like to access my work
> machines from home and home machines from work, but I realize that I
> have to protect myself from crackers.)
disable all unnecessary services - The best way is to start your
installation with this in mind. Never use telnet between your home
network and an external one - ssh is better. Get a cheap machine to act
as a firewall.
> Is there a way that I can have the system bring up the normal
> login/welcome screen if I log out? (Sometimes, I might want to allow
> another user (e.g. my wife) to use the console and I want them using
> their own account and have their own window manager etc.)
Yes, enchance the script from plain `su --login username` to
su --login username
telinit 2
This means that when you log out, the script continues on to switch from
runlevel 5 which has the autologin, to runlevel 2 which is the normal
one with the normal sequence. Your bash rcfile will still startup X
after an explicit login.
--
Tristan Wibberley
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:27:36 -0400
From: Rob Pope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.security.unix
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: A secure, simple NIS replacement
One of the problems with SMB though, is that it is unroutable. This can be a
problem for VPNs, which should definitely be accounted for if a new
authentication protocol were created. Mind you, an IP based SMB-type system
(multiple servers, browse lists, etc.) with something along the lines of SSH2
tunneled connections would be nice.
Norm Dresner wrote:
> I think that much of what you propose already exists in SAMBA. Granted
> that it has problems of its own, but it may still be easier to solve them
> than to create a completely new, incompatible protocol. And SAMBA has a
> lot more too.
------------------------------
From: Eric Hegstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Jesus: the ultimate OS - Please Go Away
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:18:52 -0700
Isn't there some sort of alt.religion.whine.whine.whine or some other
such group where this stuff should go to (I hear alt.religion.kilbology
may be fitting).
I guess I should shut up and use my killfile, but I think many regular
readers/posters of this group read these groups because they have
something to do with computers (hence the "comp." prefix).
I would like to make a personal request that you take this intolerant
bickering to some group that cares so we can get back to some real
arguments over things like why did the PCI kernel calls change so much
from 2.0.x to 2.1.x or why can't I write directly to the BIOS in Linux
and other at least remotely computer things.
Sorry to vent (I've been dealing with USWest all afternoon).
Cheers,
Eric
"Christopher R. Thompson" wrote:
>
> Paul E. Lehmann wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm,
> >
> > Ok, Lets see. Jesus was one of many so called "Healers and Messiahs" of his
> > day"
>
> Have YOU NOT seen miracles and healing? Is that his fault, or your own?
>
> > If you believe that such an individual actually existed then it can be said
>
> I do. You hear his name every day many times a day. How can it possibly
> be a figment of so many peoples imaginations. I think your mind is
> playing tricks on you!
>
> > that he was rather fond of the juice of the grape, could quite possibly have
>
> St. MaT 11:18 "The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say,
> Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and
> sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children." Jesus speaks for
> himself. See also Mt 9:10 and Luke 7:34
>
> > been gay, practiced the arts of a magician and had extreme contempt for non
>
> Not possible and totally inaccurate.
> Christians are not allowed to look to magicians, scientists,
> astrologers, soothsayers, etc, for any kind of direction or indirection
> but to GOD only.
>
> > Jews. Are you sure you want to name your OS after JC? Just think of the
> > many many cruelities that were / are commited in "His" name. You may be
>
> A knowlegeable person would know better. Just because someone says "I am
> christian" does not necessarily mean that the ultimate authority "Jesus"
> agrees. But I guess that you would have to ask Jesus to know that,
> wouldn't you. Anyone commiting cruelties "in his name" is EVIL and was
> put there just to give you some demented rationalization for your
> statement. Make the right choice. Read and Learn.
>
> > better off to name your OS after some scientific fact as opposed to
> > witchcraft and superstition.
> >
> > I know that many consider their OS a religion but aren't you going a bit
> > far?
>
> I'll have gone to far when my daemons become angels.
>
> >
> > Christopher R. Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
> > > >
> > > > an HTML version of this article can be found at:
> > > >
> > > > http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/tao.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm going to name my OS "Jesus". It will coded primarily to destroy all
> > > "EVIL" objects os's and computers. Only the objects that "LOVE" Jesus
> > > will survive and communicate with "Jesus".
--
Eric Hegstrom .~.
Senior Software Engineer /V\
Sonoran Scanners, Inc. // \\ L I N U X
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /( )\ >don't fear the penguin<
520-617-0072 x402 ^^-^^
------------------------------
From: Allin Cottrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: glibc-2.1.1 problems
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:10:22 -0400
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Mike> Unfortunately, everything was not all right. The undefined __setfpucw
> Mike> symbol is a darned nuisance!
>
> __setfpucw is an internal symbol of glibc, none of your binaries
> should use it (see FAQ 3.12). Please check which binary/library wants
> __setfpucw -- and why -- and rebuild those first.
To amplify: this suggests to me that your C compiler was messed up when
you compiled the programs that want __setfpucw. I'm on thin ice here,
but I think your system is awry when binaries make direct reference to
symbols whose names start with a double underscore.
--
Allin Cottrell
Department of Economics
Wake Forest University, NC
------------------------------
From: Thomas Boggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: why not C++?
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 19:27:48 -0500
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 08:40:21 -0500, Thomas Boggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> >
> >> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:19:57 +0100, Tristan Wibberley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >A general operator syntax, now that would be nice :)
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > C = A `x B; // cross product
> >> > > C = A `. B; // dot product
> >> >
> >> > Why not just overload, say * for the dot, and % for the cross? There is no
> >> > shortage of operators.
> >>
> >> The asterisk would be reasonable for dot, but I'd prefer it for the
> >> cross. Whether modulo division could be meaningful for vectors and
> >> matrices I'm not sure, but to me, the C modulo division operator is for
> >> modulo divisions.
> >>
> >
> >I'm in agreement here. I had to make that decision for myself a while ago. Using
> >the asterisk for cross products makes equations appear more 'natural'. Also, you
> >probably want to be able to pre and post-multiply vectors by scalars, for which you
> >will probably want to use an asterisk. Rather than redefining another operator for
> >the dot product, I just use a friend function (c = Dot(a,b)) since you can only take
> >the dot product of 2 vectors at a time anyway.
>
> A binary operator takes only two operands at a time, so I don't understand
> your objection. An overloaded operator can't take three or more operands.
>
It's not an objection - it's a preference. The point was that since you don't have
terms of the form A<dot>B<dot>C, using a friend function for the dot product does not
reduce readability of the code.
>
> The result of a dot product is a scalar, that can be used in a multiplicative
> expression like
>
> K * (a * b)
>
>
And the result of a cross product is a vector, that can be used in a multiplicative
expression like
vector u, v, w;
scalar c;
...
w = c*u*v;
> Also, consider that a dot product can work on arbitrary dimensions. Any
> N-vector can be dotted with any other N-vector. The operation commutes.
>
> The same is not true of the cross product: it is a special case that only works
> in 3 space. It also does not commute, so it doesn't satisfy an important
> property that is usually associated with the multiplication operator; on that
> basis, a case can be made for giving precedence to the dot product when
> deciding which gets the * operator.
>
Yet, surprisingly, people have no problem understanding matrix multiplication (A=BxC),
even when using an 'x' to denote multiplication.
>
> That is why I suggested that * be used for dot and % for cross. Also, the glyph
> of % more closely resembles a cross, than * does, and * more closely resembles
> a dot than % does. Oh, and the precedence of % is suitable.
>
I don't think you'll win many votes with the glyph argument.
>
> I find all objections to to be completely irrational, founded on religious
> belief. It's a matter of programmer preference.
>
I searched both the bible and the koran for hours and hours but they didn't provide any
insight on this topic. But I think you're right that it is a matter of preference, and
so it simply remains to see what most programmers prefer.
-thomas
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
