Linux-Development-Sys Digest #149, Volume #7 Fri, 3 Sep 99 23:13:47 EDT
Contents:
Re: A novice question to all linux developers (Keith Wright)
Question on ATM on Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: PCI card question (Keith Wright)
Stop the VFS from buffering form by ch dev driver (David Belius)
Re: The optimization debate (was: why not C++?) (Carlos Moreno)
Re: Linux standards compliance (Christopher Browne)
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS ("Vladimir Z. Nuri")
Re: Flamage - Why? ("Vladimir Z. Nuri")
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS ("Vladimir Z. Nuri")
Re: LispOS? (Peter Samuelson)
How can i see the output of printk ? (Kim Jeong-Won)
Re: gdb Reference (Peter Samuelson)
Re: Linux on RS/6000 ("Ross Crawford")
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS ("Vladimir Z. Nuri")
Re: The conceptual sandbox? ("Vladimir Z. Nuri")
Re: TAO: the ultimate OS ("Vladimir Z. Nuri")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A novice question to all linux developers
Date: 03 Sep 1999 19:28:15 -0400
"Tilli Weissenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi there,
>
> I have started using linux a couple of month ago. I find it _very_ hard
> compiling anything
What anything? There is no general procedure for making an
arbitrary program work. What are you trying to compile. I'm
guessing it's a .tar file you downloaded somewhere, not
something you wrote yourself, but even that's just a guess.
> on my RH6 machine because it seems as there is always
> some package with common routines missing.
Did you install the "development" .rpms? Usually they contain stuff
you need in order to compile, even if you didn't really develop anything
yourself.
> On the other hand there is also no statement in the README file which
> packets are needed, where they can be found or at least their name.
Most original software authors do not make .rpm packages, nor expect them.
In any case, anybody can make a file called README. I have dozens of them
laying around on my machine. Some are complete step-by-step instructions
for the totally lost, some just say "This is the new version". Whose
README are you talking about? Think about asking _them_ your questions.
> Sometimes I am able to guess a package by the error messages. Nonetheless
> its pretty frustrating.
To be a farmer, you need to like the smell of manure. To be a programmer
you have to like frustration.
> Mostly there is also NO SORT OF date- or version number included in the
> README files. In addition to that, it seems to be a common practice now to
> not write the version number in the archive filename, instead using long
> numbers resembling a date of some sort (like isdn4k).
Sounds like you have software that is still under very active development.
Version numbers don't work very well if it's a new version every day.
> Is there anyone who can tell a novice like me how to understand which
> packages I should have installed by default, which ones I can get where or
> where there is a common place to find *.o files within packages etc?
No. Not anyone at all. Not without more info on what you are trying to do.
--
-- Keith Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Programmer in Chief, Free Computer Shop <http://www.free-comp-shop.com>
--- Food, Shelter, Source code. ---
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Question on ATM on Linux
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 23:31:26 GMT
Hi,
Some questions, can someone help?
1. Is there any licensing problem if I use "ATM on Linux" architecture
to write the ATM driver? To what extent do I have to open my
source codes to the public? My concern is that my PHY or SAR driver
code cannot be opened to the public under the restriction of
certain license agreement for this project. Is it okay that I
use "ATM on Linux" under this restriction?
2. The current release of "ATM on Linux" is based on 2.3.15. Since
my target platform is RedHat6.0(2.2.5) or above, must I upgrade
the kernel to 2.3.15 or there's workaround like copy certain
files to make "ATM on Linux" works on 2.2.5 or other production
version of Linux?
3. Is there any other common approach in addition to "ATM on Linux" that
ATM industry adopt to develop ATM drivers on Linux ?
Many Thanks,
Wayne
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Keith Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,redhat.general
Subject: Re: PCI card question
Date: 03 Sep 1999 18:54:44 -0400
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> zackary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > hello guys I would like to know why PCI sound card not supported by
> > linux (I'm using linux redhat 6.0). Why only scsi slot sound card
> > widely supported as nowdays its hard to find scsi slot sound card on
> > sales. I ask the shop which sells pre installed linux in their pc
> > about the sound card. And I would like to know are pci slot vga
> > card supported by linux. Pls guide me. I'm quite despair when my PCI
> > sound card undetected by linux. I could hear no sound. Thank
> > you.-azaria-
>
> dude, you posted that in one gigantic line. think about breaking
> lines after 70 or chars.
>
> you seem a bit confused. i don't think there is such a thing as a
> `scsi slot'. nor have i ever heard of a scsi interfaced sound card.
So it's a socket not a slot. I have never heard of a sound board that
runs off SCSI, most of them are ISA or PCI, but it could be done.
> linux hardware support is limited to (a fairly large collection of)
> specific cards.
I'd rather say certain sound cards do not support Linux, rather than
vice-versa. In most cases, if it doesn't work it's because the sound
card manufacture is not willing to release specs. If they won't write
a driver, and they won't tell anybody else how, then it isn't done.
So if you are in despair, it may be because you bought a "black box"
with no specs. The fact that these have become so common is one of
the most important reasons to support Linux. Engineers work with
"black boxes" all the time, but black boxes with black input-output
terminals are an abomination.
--
-- Keith Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Programmer in Chief, Free Computer Shop <http://www.free-comp-shop.com>
--- Food, Shelter, Source code. ---
------------------------------
From: David Belius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Stop the VFS from buffering form by ch dev driver
Date: 3 Sep 1999 22:18:20 GMT
I am making a charter device driver where the apps
are supposed to read or write only a couple of bytes
at a time. But if a do a getc() from a user space
app the VFS(i think) starts to buffer upp 4096 bytes
of data. How can i stop this?(preferably from within
the device driver)
- David Belius
------------------------------
From: Carlos Moreno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: The optimization debate (was: why not C++?)
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 00:46:54 GMT
"Paul D. Smith" wrote:
>
> really help the situation or not... or even make it worse.
Actually, I've seen countless situations where one spends hours or
even days optimizing something to get code that runs slower!! It's
really not that rare such situation!
> Remember, slower, working
> code is always better than faster, broken code.
Furthermore, I would even say that I prefer broken but easy-to-read
easy-to-maintain, than correct-super-fast-100%-optimized-impossible-to-
read-and-maintain code... Since in 99.9% of the cases you will have
to change the code in the future anyway (unless it is *really* written
in the future tense -- but in that case, it is obviously not
pre-optimized
code!).
As someone said somewhere (I must have read that in a book, where the
author was quoting someone else ;-):
Software is never written: it is rewritten.
> ...(talking about using pointers vs. array notation)
> I actually do it because I find the
> code simpler to understand that way, but it's probably faster, too.
Dunno. Actually, most compilers produce the *exact* same assembly code
for both approaches.
Carlos
--
My correct e-mail address is moreno at mochima dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Linux standards compliance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 01:57:35 GMT
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 23:03:45 GMT, Syd Barrett
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>How far along is Linux in being compliant with two new standards
>coming into the fore -- CUPS (Common Unix Printing System) and UDI
>(Uniform Driver Interface)? Any kernel gurus have any info?
There is a certain amount of controversy over UDI; it looks as if it
may have been established basically as a way of allowing commercial
UNIX vendors to "harvest" Linux device drivers for their own use.
It's not evident that much actual work has been put into rewriting
Linux device drivers to conform with the UDI API; it's not particularly evident
that *any* OS actually uses UDI.
(This may be not unlike the situation with the adoption of a common
ABI for IA-32 systems; various folks (SCO, Linux, Sun, FreeBSD,
NetBSD, possibly others...) got together about two years ago, said
that it was a neat idea, decided that Linux/GLIBC would be the
"sample" implementation; OpenBSD rejected this; and then nothing else
seems to have happened since...)
On the other hand, CUPS isn't reasonable to be adopted by Linux as-is;
it represents a proprietary trademark owned by Easy Software Products.
A proprietary trademark by a relatively small company can't reasonably
be considered a "standard coming into the fore."
In any case, IPP (the IETF standard that is somewhat related to CUPS,
including RFCs 2565-2569, 2639) requires no more involvement from
kernel folks than did LPD years ago.
It sort of looks like there is not *tremendous* interest in IPP on
Linux, as may be witnessed by the fact that there seems only to be one
implementation running on Linux, and that mostly due to one company's
efforts. The more critical point is that software that generates
printable material hasn't been adopting IPP.
--
"Face it, Bill Gates is a Persian cat and a monocle away from being
a villain in a James Bond movie." --Dennis Miller.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/printing.html>
------------------------------
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: 4 Sep 1999 02:04:41 GMT
In comp.os.misc EdToy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Sounds like your agenda. So pay 'em then.
the agenda is open.. the agenda is to create a new OS.
is linux Torvald's agenda? do you ask him to pay
contributors?
: It seems everyone wants to own developers instead of learnind how to do
: become a productive citizen.
talk is cheap, but I strongly disagree that it is useless.
the regulars who constantly gripe about useless talk should
consider how much of their own time/energy their are wasting
with their own recriminations.
: _You're_ the one who is scanning for free labor or some such thing.
it exists.. it is what built linux.. perhaps you could
indicate why you seem to think I am a megalomaniac..?
but it seems rather paradoxical. I presume such sniping
went into the development
of linux from the beginning.. maybe thats why it took something
like 6 years for it to cohere.. do you think the next
OS should be as timeconsuming? or perhaps you consider
linux the pinnacle of software engineering for all time..
that we might as well stop, because no better OS can
be invented? /... "rofl"
again, anyone who agrees with the goal of creating a new
superior OS, please sign up for the list. and please consider
contributing even when I am silent or occupied. not because I am lazy,
but because I am busy too... and I will post when you
are silent. together we can advance, that
is all I am saying.
gosh its starting to sound downright religious. hahaha
bless you edtoy, because the Tao loves you too. hahaha
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
state of the art OS research email http://www.egroups.com/groups/os-edge/
Tao OS / Taos / the transcendental OS http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/tao.html
------------------------------
From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Flamage - Why?
Date: 4 Sep 1999 02:15:15 GMT
In comp.os.misc James Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: 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).
do you have your own mailing list.. ?
the subscribers on my own list would be very interested to
hear of your progrss, if you care to drop a line from time
to time, I think this would be highly relevant to the list
charter.
you say you disagree with my way of going about it.. how so?
I don't claim to be santa claus in my ability to materialize
presents for everyone. hhaha. mainly I think it is a reasonable
goal to build up a mailing list with interested members
BEFORE ANY CODE IS WRITTEN.
indeed, code is a kind of
leverage in getting people to sign up, but not everyone
who has contributed to linux has written code.. and the code
warriors who are constantly suggesting otherwise deserve
a bit of shame for perpetuating this very hostile
stereotype.
code is the holy grail, but I vehemently reject the claims
that nothing useful or progressive can happen without it.
: but we have been developing the concepts for quite a
: few months now,
I am proposing the requirements/design be fleshed out
collectively.. it would be a radical new step that
is clearly leaving linux status-quo zealots
scratching their heads.. I must admit the cacaphony of confusion out
here amuses me..hehe
: although we are all primarily programmers, hence nothing is
: developed without a plausible path to implementation.
I agree such needs to be set out. I'm proposing doing it
collectively. I don't have any code, and guess what..
I DON'T NEED TO APOLOGIZE FOR THAT and neither do you..
perhaps it is a sign of our caution & sincerity
rather than our imbecility. haha
: 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 impossible only takes longer"
"all things are impossible to those with no imagination" hahaha
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,
Tao is The Way!! haha but when the ignorant and the arrogant
hear of the Tao, they laugh & scoff. haha
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
state of the art OS research email http://www.egroups.com/groups/os-edge/
Tao OS / Taos / the transcendental OS http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/tao.html
------------------------------
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: 4 Sep 1999 02:32:26 GMT
In comp.os.misc Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: My comment was that the proof is valid even in the presence of the
: sandboxing concept. The proof goes through when the system is arranged
: in hierarchies. You can't write a program that will reliably detect a
: virus, even if you can execute that virus in a sandbox so it doesn't
: harm you. Any program that detects some viruses must fail to detect
: others (notably the trojan constructed in the proof).
I disagree. the whole concept was that you were writing a program
that called a subroutine, "call virus checker on program Y".
if the virus checker
subroutine cannot be called from within that program (proof hierarchy,
axiomatic system etc) then it does not exist. it is undefined
relative to that scope.
by the way, if anyone wants to look this up, I think the
title of the article was "there are no perfect virus checkers"
in the american mathematical monthly, early 90s..
I wrote a nastygram to the author when it was published.. big hint on my
identity.. hehhee
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
state of the art OS research email http://www.egroups.com/groups/os-edge/
Tao OS / Taos / the transcendental OS http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/tao.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: LispOS?
Date: 3 Sep 1999 21:35:27 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Nix <$}xinix{[email protected]>]
> Shouldn't be too hard to add it though. I'll work up some patches for
> xemacs, I think, just as a gimmick ;)
Don't forget to disable "\C-x\C-c"....
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: Kim Jeong-Won <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: How can i see the output of printk ?
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 10:48:05 +0900
I want to debug the kernel .
So, thinks that the printk function is good.
How can I see the output of printk() in kernel code ?
..
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Samuelson)
Subject: Re: gdb Reference
Date: 3 Sep 1999 21:33:17 -0500
Reply-To: Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[David T. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > > Info format kinda lacks friendly tools to view it with compared
> > > to a hard back book.
[Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> > You don't consider tex, dvips and lpr to be friendly tools?
^^^^^^^
[David T. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> Well, they are all well and good if you have TeX loaded. I do, but
> quite a few people don't load TeX. It is a very large set of programs
> to view documentation.
Not to view documentation -- use an online info reader for that -- but
to print documentation. You were lamenting the hard-back book. I was
pointing out that the .texi file *is* a book, you just have to print it
yourself, or pay someone else to.
> I kinda prefer using man and less, a few much smaller programs.
> Unfortunately, GNU often doesn't give me that option.
AGREED. I don't know why the FSF considers man pages obsolete. Now I
don't particularly care for roff format either (which is why God
invented POD and other stuff which can be converted to man pages), but
the *idea* of man pages -- synopsis of usage, complete reference of
functionality, few if any examples -- makes info files look very clunky
for small programs. Sure, large programs probably need more of a
manual, but `cut' doesn't.
> I'd probably stoop to use something bloated like emacs and info
> first, since it seems to have the best search capabilities of any
> info browser.
As someone who already uses emacs/xemacs for most of my editing work, I
find its info browser natural and convenient. For a vi user, I imagine
it would not be. Either way, I agree with you about preferring the man
page format for most things. Which is why I am glad that Debian -- the
only major distribution to say "GNU/Linux" -- still says in official
policy that not having a man page is a bug.
--
Peter Samuelson
<sampo.creighton.edu!psamuels>
------------------------------
From: "Ross Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.powerpc,comp.unix.aix
Subject: Re: Linux on RS/6000
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 12:37:46 +1000
Dave Weis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I had started doing a little bit with it on a 7011-250 but my company got
> rid of the machine. If you have one like that or another PowerPC machine
> (not POWER2) let me know and we'll talk.
>
The company I work for has one of these, but unfortunately it's still being
used 8?( Maybe if we could work out a way to dual boot......
They also have a PowerServer 7012-320, which has been de-commissioned, and
I'm not sure of the state of the peripherals. I know the ethernet card is
hosed, and it hasn't been touched for probably 4 years. Dunno if we can do
anything with that....
Regards,
ROSCO
------------------------------
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: 4 Sep 1999 02:46:21 GMT
In comp.os.misc Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Not for me. I despise idiot-proof environments. Who said it? "Unix
: does not prevent you from doing stupid things, because that would also
: prevent you from doing clever things." I can get my work done much
: faster due to those clever things that I *could* use to shoot myself in
: the foot.
keep your unix. keep it for 5-10-15-25 years into the future.
whatever makes ya happy man.
btw I should not have said "idiotproof".. perhaps
newbieproof is a better term, with the understanding
that newbies act like idiots, but cannot be blamed
for it.
: I know you will accuse me of having no imagination, but the only way to
: make a computer that thinks like a computer interact smoothly with an
: "idiot" who does not think like a computer is to employ DWIM. That is,
: the computer has to try and think less like a computer and more like a
: human. Which makes the computer "more intuitive" for those who can't
: or won't think like a computer.
the computer is infinitely malleable and flexible. it can put on
any face whatsoever to the user. there is just no justification to the claim
whatsoever that powerful systems are going to be inherently
hard to use/learn.
however, I do agree that perhaps it should be modularly designed
such that the hardcore users can "scrape off" the pieces that
interfere with their free flowing interest, and they don't
take up any hard drive space.
: 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 an OS that is equally pleasing to the novice as well
as the power programmer is inherently possible. I will continually
reject the false dichotomies suggesting otherwise.
to those who agree, plz sign up for the mailing list..
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
state of the art OS research email http://www.egroups.com/groups/os-edge/
Tao OS / Taos / the transcendental OS http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/tao.html
------------------------------
From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.misc,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: The conceptual sandbox?
Date: 4 Sep 1999 02:57:40 GMT
James Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The major weapon on the side of the operating system is that it is
: always guaranteed to be running first, and it should always control the
: environment of the task.
note that there are some things required of lower level hardware
for an effective sandbox. for example, the OS needs the ability
to restrict certain areas of memory as off limits. lacking this,
I cannot see a very effective sandbox.
but notice how early microprocessors lacked the ability to
restrict memory access. later microprocessors, or also to say,
more sophisticated ones, it is considered absolutely mandatory.
I am suggesting this is not an accident: in the evolution
of the microprocessor, the concept of a sandbox arose in
the more mature versions of it. it was not within the
imagination or capabilities of earlier designers. but once
the power was available, it became an inevitable concept.
I am suggesting the OS has not yet matured, and in fact
the OS community is attempting to formulate an effective
concept of a "sandbox" relative to its capabilities. it
is slow going, but I believe an effective, bulletproof
sandbox at the OS level is an inevitability. esp.
when the OS designer community finally realizes how intrinsic
it is to a proper design, and the lights go off on
how to implement it.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
state of the art OS research email http://www.egroups.com/groups/os-edge/
Tao OS / Taos / the transcendental OS http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/tao.html
------------------------------
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: 4 Sep 1999 03:03:35 GMT
In comp.os.misc Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: What's the matter, feeling persecuted? (:
roger charlie, that's an affirmative.
maybe no coincidence half the thread was about Jesus. hahahhaa
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
state of the art OS research email http://www.egroups.com/groups/os-edge/
Tao OS / Taos / the transcendental OS http://www8.pair.com/mnajtiv/tao.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
