Linux-Development-Sys Digest #146, Volume #7 Fri, 3 Sep 99 09:15:23 EDT
Contents:
Re: unlink cputime (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: set up c++ development environment (Lew Pitcher)
Re: select() and FD_SETSIZE (Alan Curry)
Statically linked binaries - why so big? (Ron House)
Re: History (Gary Momarison)
Re: select() and FD_SETSIZE (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
Re: Statically linked binaries - why so big? (H. Peter Anvin)
Re: Flamage - Why? (James Andrews)
Re: set up c++ development environment (Kenny A. Chaffin)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Oops-tracer wanted! (Andreas Peetz)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: GGI vs. framebuffer (Juliusz Chroboczek)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS (Peter T. Breuer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: unlink cputime
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 05:11:14 GMT
On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 04:16:33 GMT, Nicholas Dronen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ultimately the speed of an unlink probably depends on whether the inode
>of the file to be unlinked is in the inode cache.
An inode is just one resource associated with a file. There are also its
data blocks. These must be returned to a list of free blocks when
the file is removed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lew Pitcher)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: set up c++ development environment
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 17:56:44 GMT
Yah, and InoculateIT made it to their list of top contributers.
Too bad InoculateIT is a robot, and can't appreciate the "honour". ;-)
On 2 Sep 1999 10:45:13 -0700, Graffiti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>i am learning c++. i want to do c++ program under linux. what packages
>>(rpm) do i need? what environment variable i need to set? and how i
>>compile the source code?
>>
>>------------------ Posted via CNET Linux Help ------------------
>> http://www.searchlinux.com
>
>Hmm... *goes to website*
>
>Okay, this is annoying. A Usenet gateway of some sort. People post
>questions to a web page expecting support. And it shuffles it off to
>the newsgroups, and grabs the replies?
>
>Are there any Usenet-wide policies that prohibit this?
>
>-- DN
Lew Pitcher
System Consultant, Development Services
Toronto Dominion Bank
(Opinions expressed are my own, not my employers')
------------------------------
Subject: Re: select() and FD_SETSIZE
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan Curry)
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 04:43:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bell Labs intellectuals Berkeley dope-smokers
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Bourne shell C shell
> poll select
> write talk, talkd
> memcpy and memmove bcopy
> termios sgtty
>
>Anything else?
ed vi
------------------------------
From: Ron House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Statically linked binaries - why so big?
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 04:42:33 +0000
Statically linked binaries, even if they only do a 'hello world', have
trouble coming in under a Mb. Why? Surely there can't be that much code
in the library that is _needed_ by the app? Does the linker just slap
the entire library in every time?
--
Ron House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The evils of each age always seem self-evidently right at the time.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: History
From: Gary Momarison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 02 Sep 1999 22:33:59 -0700
Julius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The History of Linux from the beginning and how it's working compare with
> other Operating Systems.
Huh? I'll pretend to understand that.
You can find links to histories of Linux, Unix, Computing, etc. at
http://www.aa.net/~swear/pedia/history.html
--
Look for Linux info at http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml and
Gary's Encyclopedia at http://www.aa.net/~swear/pedia/index.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
Subject: Re: select() and FD_SETSIZE
Date: 2 Sep 1999 23:00:38 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I think we can things up neatly with this table:
>
> Bell Labs intellectuals Berkeley dope-smokers
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Bourne shell C shell
> poll select
> write talk, talkd
> memcpy and memmove bcopy
> termios sgtty
>
>Anything else?
Bell Labs intellectuals Berkeley dope-smokers
-------------------------------------------------------------
no network TCP/IP
streams sockets
:)
Mike.
--
... somehow I have a feeling the hurting hasn't even begun yet
-- Bill, "The Terrible Thunderlizards"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin)
Subject: Re: Statically linked binaries - why so big?
Date: 3 Sep 1999 08:08:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H. Peter Anvin)
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author: Ron House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: comp.os.linux.development.system
>
> Statically linked binaries, even if they only do a 'hello world', have
> trouble coming in under a Mb. Why? Surely there can't be that much code
> in the library that is _needed_ by the app? Does the linker just slap
> the entire library in every time?
>
Remember to strip the binary! There are lots of symbols in the library!
-hpa
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
------------------------------
From: James Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Flamage - Why?
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 09:36:46 +0000
I believe the most likely possibility is that I missed an earlier post
to this thread that would explain the situation. It is a common problem
with cross posted threads, though no one seems to mind this particular
thread being cross posted, as many people from many groups are
contributing. Unfortunately, throughout the lifetime of the thread,
many posts are made by sensible people with proper follow ups, and
because of this entire points appear in only one group whereas the other
groups merely get the replies. Its actually quite annoying, though I
still owe an apology, so I apologise, it was rash of me not to consider
the possibilities before jumping straight in.
I'll explain some of the reasons why I chose to write such a negative
post. Firstly I was pissed off :-P (nothing to do with you, this
thread, or in fact computing in general, but I was), secondly, I do
actually believe many of the things that Vladimir Z. Nuri has suggested
are possible. That is not to say I support his way of going about it,
but myself and five other programmers have been designing an operating
system with many similarities to the "Tao OS" idea for quite a while
now, longer even than the "what is object oriented programming" thread
(I saw it, but I don't think I read it all). I have yet to post, as we
still have very little code (every journey starts with the first few
steps, but I've seen the groups responses to anything that doesnt yet
run quakeIII :-P), but we have been developing the concepts for quite a
few months now, and as I have recently purchased a computer capable of
developing such a system adequately, we are expecting to have the
bootable nano-kernal running very shortly. Our ideas, as I mentioned
before, do seem to overlap on many points with the "Tao OS" ideas
mentioned, although we are all primarily programmers, hence nothing is
developed without a plausible path to implementation.
I was merely annoyed that you seemed to discount ideas that we intend to
implement as "impossible" somewhat unduly. When my father was younger
he read an article in a paper, and ran to tell his parents that he
thought men were going to walk on the moon. They laughed at him, and
not a polite chuckle either, they bellowed till their ribs hurt. About
five years later, the article was proven correct, men walked on the moon
for the first time. If you asked anyone in the world, in 1964 whether
man could ever stand on the moon, they'd almost certainly say "No", and
that it was impossible. Impossible is a definition we use to describe
things that are not *yet* feasible, but as soon as someone realises how
to do it, it becomes possible. The biggest falling block before
knowledge is the ignorance and arrogance of the human race, and I'm as
much to blame as anyone else, but there is a better way,
James
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kenny A. Chaffin)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: set up c++ development environment
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 03:36:00 -0600
In article <P1Dz3.1139$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
> : Are there any Usenet-wide policies that prohibit this?
>
> Maybe we could arrange to have everything cross-posted to comp.lang.c, and
> let them get flamed to death.
>
<grin> Yeah, those guys are _real_ fun....
KAC
--
KAC Website Design
Custom Programming, Web Design, and Graphics
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.kacweb.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: 3 Sep 1999 10:48:28 GMT
In article <7qlbko$eml$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unfortunately, as you approach the less and less technical of users,
> thinking like a human starts to entail introducing ambiguities,
> redundancy, abstraction of a precise paradigm into a vaguer paradigm,
> and other traits which inhibit efficient communication. Meaning that
> I, the power user who is willing to learn to think like a computer,
> will not be able to bypass these inefficiencies, much as I would like
> to. I believe DWIM can never be one-size-fits-all.
DWIM is probably the ideal for human-computer interaction. It only
has two problems. "What do you mean?" and "You mean what?!" (People
are capable of some very subtle thoughts and distinctions, but usually
they seem to prefer imprecision, woolly thinking and stupidity.)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: Andreas Peetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oops-tracer wanted!
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 13:52:48 +0200
Thank you for your comments, Kaz,
I'm pretty sure now that the eepro100-driver has caused the kernel oops.
I replaced the i82557(rev 8) NIC with a rev 5 - board and haven't had
any more kernel oopses since then. I've used this older model in many machines
for a long time and never had such problems.
If you still want to have a look at it: I packed all relevant files together.
You can download it from http://peetz.freeservers.com/linux/. The archive contains:
vmlinuz (the kernel I used)
System.map (corresponding symbol map)
eepro100.c (version 1.08 source code)
eepro100.o (compiled module)
oops.txt (the Oops message)
problem.txt (my original mail describing the problem)
I'm sending a copy of this message to Donald Becker, the author of eepro100.c,
to give him a chance to investigate this problem.
Greetings,
Andreas
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> It's hard for anyone to do this for you because they need the same kernel
> image that you have. One thing you can do is disassemble your vmlinuz image
> and look for the instruction pattern '8b 03 03 43 08 39 ...' that is
> shown on the last line of the oops. That will tell you where you are.
> ...
> If you mailed me a copy of the exact eepro100.o and eepro100.c that you are
> using, along with a courtesy copy of the oops message, I could have a look at
> it to determine the location in the code and the cause of the crash.
> ...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: 3 Sep 1999 11:05:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bill Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 31 Aug 1999, Donal K. Fellows wrote:
>> [* I can't think of any paradoxes that are not self-referential. Anyone? ]
>
> Well, ferinstance, Russell's famous "king of France" paradox from his 1905
> paper "On Denoting".
>
> Consider the statement "The present King of France is bald." If I
> examine the set of all bald things in the universe, the present king of
> France is not among them. Therefore the statement is false. By the Law
> of the Excluded Middle, the statement "The present king of France is not
> bald" must be true. But if I examine the set of all hirsute things in
> the universe, the present king of France is not there, either. Ergo the
> second statement is false, and so the present king of France must be
> bald, so the first statement must be true... (Russell added that
> Hegelians, who always love a synthesis, would conclude that the present
> king of France must wear a wig.)
>
> I don't see the "self-reference" there.
The problem comes because of the lack of an instance of the set
"present kings of France" (or pkF for short[*].) Examining the
statements, you find that you have a problem in that the intersections
of pkF with hirsuteObjects and baldObjects are both empty.
This should serve as a warning about the Law of the Excluded Middle
and boolean logic in general...
(IMHO, the statement "The present king of France is bald." is of
undetermined truth value, mainly because of definitional trouble
caused by the use of English instead of logic. This sort of thing
gives semantics a bad name...)
> Of course, these types of paradox that arise from denotational failure
> can be resolved. It can be shown that, under certain semantic models,
> denotational failure is just a special case of sortal incorrectness (or
> "category mistake"), and so both statements are meaningless and have no
> truth value.
I wish I knew more about intuitionistic and constructive logic.
Donal.
[* Strictly, we could construct this set from the intersection of the
set of kings of France who have not abdicated and the set of living
individuals. ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: Juliusz Chroboczek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GGI vs. framebuffer
Date: 03 Sep 1999 13:46:21 +0100
J�rgen Hermanrud Fjeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
JF> In order for Linux to be a games platform, hardware acceleration
JF> in relation to graphics is necessary.
Not only for games.
JF> Having read a little about GGI
Beware of anything written about GGI. For some reason, people get
very emotional about graphic drivers issues, and there don't seem to
be any moderate opinions about GGI.
JF> it seems this architecture will support hardware acceleration for
JF> graphics adapters, whereas the fb architecture apparently won't.
It is not clear at all how much graphics-card-dependent stuff you want
to have in the kernel. While it probably is a good idea to have mode
switching stuff in the kernel (so that the system can reset your
console to a reasonable state when you switch VCs, or when a game
crashes), I'm not so sure about acceleration.
It is important to understand that an application does not need kernel
support to make use of acceleration; it just needs to be allowed to
mmap(2) the graphics hardware, which on a single-user machine is a
reasonable thing to allow. This is what X does, and, as far as I can
tell, it works pretty well.
Perhaps more importantly, if you put the acceleration in the kernel,
you pay the overhead of a system call on every graphic operation,
which is not negligible in a game (anyone have figures handy?).
J.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter T. Breuer)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: TAO: the ultimate OS
Date: 3 Sep 1999 12:09:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Donal K. Fellows ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: > Consider the statement "The present King of France is bald." If I
: > examine the set of all bald things in the universe, the present king of
: > France is not among them. Therefore the statement is false. By the Law
: > of the Excluded Middle, the statement "The present king of France is not
: > bald" must be true. But if I examine the set of all hirsute things in
: > the universe, the present king of France is not there, either. Ergo the
: > second statement is false, and so the present king of France must be
: > bald, so the first statement must be true... (Russell added that
: > Hegelians, who always love a synthesis, would conclude that the present
: > king of France must wear a wig.)
: The problem comes because of the lack of an instance of the set
: "present kings of France" (or pkF for short[*].) Examining the
: statements, you find that you have a problem in that the intersections
: of pkF with hirsuteObjects and baldObjects are both empty.
The present king of france does not exist. "The present king of france
is a bald object", therefore is false, because "is" implies existence.
I'm not sure about "is bald". It seems to me to be a qualifier.
: This should serve as a warning about the Law of the Excluded Middle
: and boolean logic in general...
Yes.
: (IMHO, the statement "The present king of France is bald." is of
: undetermined truth value, mainly because of definitional trouble
: caused by the use of English instead of logic. This sort of thing
: gives semantics a bad name...)
Maybe!
: I wish I knew more about intuitionistic and constructive logic.
Intuitionist logic allows you to discuss the above sensibly. The "extent"
of an object (the value of a=a, or whether it exists) has to be taken into
account. All operations on or between objects, such as "is a" should
not return something that has greater extent than the operands. I.e.,
because the present king of france has no extent, you should not expect
the present king of france is bald to have any greater truth value than the
extent of its operand, which is zilch, false.
The excluded middle does come into russel's argument slightly, but it is
not necessary to include or avoid it. He argues that because the present king
of france is bald, the present king of france is hirsute must be true.
But that depends on two things .. the excluded middle, and the idea that
the excluded middle applies to nonsensical objects. It does not.
I.e. even assuming excluded middle, the value of the present king of
france is hirsute would be E x & x \nin bald = Ex & x \in hirsute, and
since E x = false (he don't exist, man), still false.
Peter
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
