Linux-Development-Sys Digest #817, Volume #7 Tue, 2 May 00 12:13:21 EDT
Contents:
Computer Terms.....(was "Re: MS caught breaking web sites") (David Gillam)
expanding a filesystem ("Ramaprasad K.R.")
Re: 2.3.99-pre6: can't compile bootsect.S (Peter Harke)
Re: Linux Ports ("news.ozemail.com.au")
Re: MS caught breaking web sites ("Frank")
Re: 2.3.99-pre6: can't compile bootsect.S (Robert Schiele)
Re: A need for better insallation programs (Bernd Strieder)
CPU Load <- off by 1.00 (Rao VA)
Ethernet Controller CS8900 supported by linux? (Eko Bono Suprijadi)
Re: expanding a filesystem (Bob Tennent)
route source ("���ؽ�")
Re: CPU Load <- off by 1.00 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Two really easy (I'm sure) questions (Alan Donovan)
Re: DMA in Linux device drivers (Alan Donovan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Gillam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Computer Terms.....(was "Re: MS caught breaking web sites")
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 12:04:51 GMT
Chris Hedley wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My mom still calls the whole case the CPU, I can't convince her that the CPU is
> > just the chip.
>
> The term CPU often refers to the enclosure in which the actual processor
> complex(es) reside; the chip, OTOH, is more properly referred to as a
> microprocessor or logic array (depending on the system involved.) Many
> people think otherwise, however, which is what I believe is referred to
> as "small computer thinking." :)
>
> Chris.
Maybe I'm guilty of "small thinking", but.....
CPU stands for Central Processing Unit, which is the "special" chip in
the computer case that uses all the other chips in the computer case (or
outside it, depending on your setup) to process various computer
algorithms.
While the CPU is a microprocessor, many chips in the computer case are
also microprocessors.
While the CPU generally has an ALU (Arithmetic Logic Unit), most chips
by design are "logic arrays", in that they are built to have NAND, XOR,
etc.. logic gates, which output certain predictable voltage levels
depending on predictable input voltage levels. One therefore can argue
that the entire computer is one "logic array". This does not mean the
entire computer is one CPU, however.
This is the dawning of the day of mass-distributed-computing (seti@home,
beowulf clusters, SANs, etc...). By your definition of CPU, the almost
2 million (I'm not kidding here) computers worldwide that are current
members of the seti@home project are collectively one CPU (for the
purposes of the project, they all are working on the same computer
algorithm, in concert). Again, maybe it's small of me, but I don't
think most people would see it that way. They might view it as one
massive computing device, but not one CPU.
I hear a lot of non-techies refer to the disk drive as "memory" (which
historically is better defined as RAM -- Random Access Memory).
Historically the disk drive is referred to as "Data Storage", or as IBM
would have you say, DASD (Directly Accessible Storage Device). But I
digress. If most people refer to disk as "memory", should we then
change our computer texts? What would we redefine RAM as (considering
the word "memory" is part of the term)? Would we simply call both
"memory"? Try to go to a store, and say, "My memory died, I need more
to replace it." What product will you get? The reason "disk" has
largely replaced the term "DASD" is because it's *more* descriptive of
the actual part, not less.
Let's stick to the terms:
CPU = chip(s)
Computer = collection of input/processing/output/storage devices that
work together to process algorithms. Commonly seen as that box sitting
either on or near your desk, to which the cables from your keyboard and
monitor run. Sometimes "seen" as a collection of these boxes, connected
by some type of network cabling, that work in concert to process
algorithms.
Regards,
-- Dave
"If we were meant to fly, we wouldn't keep losing our luggage."
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ David Gillam
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/ _/ _/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ USA
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/
------------------------------
From: "Ramaprasad K.R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: expanding a filesystem
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 17:28:12 +0530
Hi
Can a ext2 filesystem be expanded ?
If the support is not currently there, can it be done at all ?
Thanks,
Rampi
------------------------------
From: Peter Harke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.3.99-pre6: can't compile bootsect.S
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 12:30:07 GMT
Hi there,
i have exactly the same problem. I'm using binutils 2.9.1.0.25, gcc 2.95.2
und glibc 2.1.3.
I think it's a problem with 'as' but i have no idea how to fix it.
Peter
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
------------------------------
From: "news.ozemail.com.au" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.unisys
Subject: Re: Linux Ports
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 22:50:32 +1000
Its not that bleak.... Linux doesn't care about the bios (at least no after
it has booted)
and vga doesn't exist on any of the other m68k ports... or on the sparc port
or on most of the 'real' :) hardware.
sorry, I don't have any real info - I just thought that someone needed
corret that post :)
cheers
Sven
Tony Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Pat,
> are you SURE its a U5000 ?? wow! i did not think there were any around
> that survived the crusher !
>
> The 2 biggest problems you are going to hit, are :
> 1) the BIOS will be so old, that it will NOT support any half decent disks
> ( not more than 1GB anyway )
> 2) these old boxes ( like the U6000/35 I was asked about the other week )
> , do not have, or support, a VGA console, and I
> understand that the commercial "distributions" you see packaged for
> $20 or so, or given away, will need that to install via
> an "X" like gui. ( even then , they don't support less well known VGA
> chipsets/cards ).
>
> Sorry. Your best bet is to try to get a second-user Pentium PC, with a
> well known VGA card, or chipset on the Mboard.
> With something like that, you can easily upgrade disk/memory/add-in cards,
> as your budget allows.
>
> Regards, Tony davis.
>
> Pat Finnegan wrote:
>
> > I have recently acquired (actually a few months ago now, I guess) a
> > Unisys U5000 minisystem. Running off of a 68020 at 25MHz, it may not
> > be the fastest system out there, but I would still like to put it to
> > some use.
> > Does anyone know of a Linux Port that'll work with it? From what
> > research I've done, it looks bleak, however; I might be willing to
> > take on the task if anyone has good hardware specs (I'd work on
> > porting either uClinux or m68k - the Amiga port, probably, to it) that
> > they could send me or point me towards. I think I'd rather port the
> > 2.0 branch rather than a newer branch, though, so I might actually be
> > able to finish it this year ;) - I am attending college now so my time
> > is kinda limited. If anyone else could lend a hand or offer
> > information, etc. please email me.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -- Pat Finnegan, Hardware revivalist
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 13:17:00 GMT
Chris Hedley <8em8tr$ijn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
^
^ The term CPU often refers to the enclosure in which the actual processor
^ complex(es) reside...
That is a definition that was invented by people who first began using
computers that were of the desktop variety, without first understanding the
technology. It was obvious what they should call the monitor, keyboard, and
printer, but the big box was somewhat of a mystery. They knew it had something
to do with a CPU so that is the term they adopted for it.
; ...the chip, OTOH, is more properly referred to as a
^ microprocessor or logic array (depending on the system involved.)
I think you are going back to when the central processing unit was not a
microprocessor but was a system that was enclosed in a single case. If you
have several devices acting together as a central processing unit, and this
CPU is enclosed separately from the rest of the system, then their enclosure
could be referred to as a "CPU", but with most computer systems a large
variety of components are enclosed in the same housing so the term "CPU" is
very inappropriate.
^ Many people think otherwise, however, which is what I believe is
^ referred to as "small computer thinking." :)
Perhaps we're just losing sight of the history.
Damn! Why so many newsgroups in this thread? Send follow-ups to
<comp.os.linux.development.system>.
Frank
------------------------------
From: Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.3.99-pre6: can't compile bootsect.S
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 15:14:56 +0200
Peter Harke wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> i have exactly the same problem. I'm using binutils 2.9.1.0.25, gcc 2.95.2
> und glibc 2.1.3.
>
> I think it's a problem with 'as' but i have no idea how to fix it.
How about upgrading binutils to 2.9.5.0.x?
Robert
--
Robert Schiele mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel./Fax: +49-621-10059 http://webrum.uni-mannheim.de/math/rschiele/
------------------------------
From: Bernd Strieder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A need for better insallation programs
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 15:23:58 +0200
Hi
Ingvar Langlet wrote:
>
> Stockholm 2000-05-02
>
> Dear Linux community,
>
> A publicity disaster and the need for better installation programs.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
[...]
>
> The conclusion from above must be that Linux badly needs installation
> programs, like Micro$oft's installation and setup programs, who would
> make it easy -- even for the most stupid science journalists -- to
> smoothly set up a Linux system they can run and then smoothly load
> applications to the system. I myself cannot possibly find time to
> learn enough about programming to write these programs. Are there some
> out there who would like to write these badly needed installation pro-
> grams? I am
It would be a completely wrong to say that installing software is easy
under any OS. Even Microsoft has a lot problems with that, who are most
often the same that occur elsewhere, too. Every installation program
cannot work on all hardware, but only that have been considered during
designing it. I have seen Windows Setup failing on boxes with proper
hardware, just because of some oddities. The only way to get it work was
removing some hardware at first, reinserting it later after installing
Windows. A task for a specialist, not for users. Clashing DLLs are a
known nightmare in the Windows community. This needs some expertise to
be resolved, too, that usual users are not capable of. The last thing is
a known matter in the Linux community, too. Precompiled binaries cause
it, but this is what the users want.
There are distributions, that could fit your requirements today,
provided that the hardware is supported. Mainstream hardware is usually
supported, after a little aging. Most distributions are working on
making this easy, this is a key to get into the market of the
technically uninterested users.
It is not a fair test, to select some notebooks and try to get Linux on
it. The result holds for those boxes, and not for other hardware.
Linux setup is usually hard, because it has to be made coexisting with
Windows, without losing data. In contrary, Windows, at least the older
releases, could not be installed on a box with Linux preinstalled, they
just said no, leaving it to the users. On clean boxes there are some
distributions that should throw Linux on it without exposing any
technicalities to the users, given as said before, that the hardware is
automagically recognized. If you must rely on that, you have to chose
the hardware properly. All distributions I have installed, had a user
manual with them giving enough info for every day users to get it
installed, although in every case there was some reading and thinking
necessary on the way. But this is reasonable. I have installed Linux
once where it took less time, than installing Windows on the same
machine, both including the time to get all hardware properly working.
It has to be added, that Linux installation included most of the needed
applications as well.
If users are not prepared for problems occurring during installing some
software they have to head for a specialist afterwards. If something is
damaged, recovery might not be possible. So they better had looked for a
specialist in the first place or perhaps they had better become
"specialist" enough to be able to manage it. This holds for any OS,
which are in fact pieces of software of rather high complexity. Problems
are to be expected.
It is a pity that tests of the type mentioned above pester the linux
community. I hope that someone can tell the oddities of that test at the
place where it is published.
Bernd Strieder
------------------------------
From: Rao VA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: CPU Load <- off by 1.00
Date: 2 May 2000 15:01:22 GMT
A 2.0.38 kernel, which has been running for 65 days shows a load that
never drops below 1.00, even when the system is apparently idle for longer
periods of time.
I've been investigating processes for anamolies, the only suspect is an xntpd
that's constantly in the Run state, however doesn't seem to consume CPU
cycles. I can't kill this process and even though the process is in the Run
state, a 'strace' on the process doesn't show anything.
I don't know if the xntpd has anything to do with the load never dropping
below 1.00. Has anybody possibly had similar experiences?
Vijay
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eko Bono Suprijadi)
Subject: Ethernet Controller CS8900 supported by linux?
Date: 2 May 2000 15:24:12 GMT
Hi all,
I have a PC104 Board with Ethernet Controller CS8900.
Anyone knows, if this controller is supported by linux?
I just want run this PC104 Board under Real Time Linux.
Thanks for info...
Eko
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Tennent)
Subject: Re: expanding a filesystem
Date: 2 May 2000 15:10:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 02 May 2000 17:28:12 +0530, Ramaprasad K.R. wrote:
>
>Can a ext2 filesystem be expanded ?
Yes. parted and ext2resize are two free programs that support this.
Bob T.
------------------------------
From: "���ؽ�" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: route source
Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 00:38:47 +0900
i'm trying to analysis linux source about routing.
fib_lookup() function is so complicated.
who give comment to me?
Give me url related to routing.
i need comment.....about routing source...
plz.....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CPU Load <- off by 1.00
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 15:48:26 GMT
In article <8emqk2$t3o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Rao VA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A 2.0.38 kernel, which has been running for 65 days shows a load that
> never drops below 1.00, even when the system is apparently idle for
longer
> periods of time.
>
> I've been investigating processes for anamolies, the only suspect is
an xntpd
> that's constantly in the Run state, however doesn't seem to consume
CPU
> cycles. I can't kill this process and even though the process is in
the Run
> state, a 'strace' on the process doesn't show anything.
>
> I don't know if the xntpd has anything to do with the load never
dropping
> below 1.00. Has anybody possibly had similar experiences?
Does anybody know how processes in 'nice' mode can have influence
on this affect?
irgei
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Alan Donovan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Two really easy (I'm sure) questions
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 17:02:29 +0100
Mark Graybill wrote:
> Although I have participated in other OS development projects, I am
> new to Linux and have no experience with command shells.
That explains it then. The Bourne shell (aka UNIX shell) is a complex
beast, but very (very) much more useful than the joke command-line
interpreter that comes with MS-DOS. People who confuse the two tend
think UNIX is a dinosaur, when, as anyone proficient in shell will tell
you, there are few, if any, more expressive languages for both scripting
programs and interactive use.
It is also very important to understand the role of the shell in a UNIX
system if you want to make it as a programmer. Implicit in this is
understanding the difference between system and fork, and how file
redirection, command-line processing, job control, etc all work. Read a
good book or two on the design of UNIX.
> Since the underlying code is a shell, I wouldn't think it would be calling
> system calls for such things.
The underlying code is not a shell. The command you are writing is
interpreted directly by the shell. It is the shell that parses "2>&1",
not gcc or make or anything else. What the shell does when it sees this
is to duplicate the output filedescriptor stdout (using the dup2()
system call) so that writes to stderr in the child program (gcc)
actually go to the same file as stdout. Note that the file can be a real
file (on disk), a pipe, a pseudofile (a device) or a terminal (where
unredirected stdout/err go). Depending on your command line, any of
these may be used.
As Kaz said, 2>&1 is correct. 2<&1 is not, but it just happens to work
because dup'ing an fd for write is the same as dup'ing for read.
HTH
alan
--
========================================================================
Alan Donovan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.imerge.co.uk
Imerge Ltd. +44 1223 875265
------------------------------
From: Alan Donovan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DMA in Linux device drivers
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 17:07:29 +0100
Tomas Whitlock wrote:
>
> Sorry, I see somebody else has posted a message asking much the same
> thing!
>
> Will I really have to patch the kernel to get this functionality?? That
> would open up several enormous cans of worms if the end user's kernel has
> to be patched in order to work with the hardware....
Were you referring to my message on the subject? I guess not, because I
referred that person to Robert Kaiser's patch at
ftp://ftp.sysgo.de/pub/Linux, which he has now modified to work as a
module. There's a rather nasty hack where he uses the map file to get
the address of a non-extern function, but just close your eyes at that
point if it offends you :-)
alan
--
========================================================================
Alan Donovan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.imerge.co.uk
Imerge Ltd. +44 1223 875265
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
