Linux-Development-Sys Digest #888, Volume #7 Sun, 21 May 00 21:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David Steuber)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David Steuber)
Re: Why no defrag? ("Frank")
Using Sound Card to Record (Jim Kaufman)
stack size (GAUTIER Christopher)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ("Jack Kessler")
Re: serial port RTS control ? (Charles Bryant)
Re: Two really easy (I'm sure) questions (Charles Bryant)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David T. Blake)
Re: Why no defrag? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
linux tools advice ("sllai")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 23:00:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
' I haven't followed the latest License Wars series, but I thought
' the real contentention was between KDE vs. GNOME, with GNOME's
' main reason to exit being that KDE wasn't GPL'd. Did I miss
' a twist in the plot? (Yes, I agree that LGPL is a relatively
' sane license, but sanity rarely has much to do with anything.)
Well, KDE _is_ GPL'd. That is a requirement of using Qt Free
Edition. I'm not sure that using the Lesser GPL is even an option.
That option _does_ exist for GTK+ and GTK--.
For myself, if I am going to produce free software, I want it to be
GPL. I don't want my work to be used in proprietary software unless I
get paid for it. I also don't feel that I can produce code of such
high quality that others should pay to use it a la' Microsoft
shitware. However, I can certainly do good things with the help of
others. I think such help is easier to get if the code is GPL. It
means no one can steal the work of others.
What TrollTech is currently doing with Qt 2.x and higher is a good
thing. People who produce GPL software can use Qt without worrying
about the QPL. Modifying Qt is another story, but I expect that
worthy changes would be incorporated into Qt. It is certainly
possible to use inheritance to extend Qt. Your code is GPL anyway.
TrollTech can't take GPL code and put it under the QPL.
If you don't like Qt, then you can simply use another toolkit.
GTK+/GTK-- is a popular, free toolkit. There is also Tk. Tk has been
ported to more platforms than both Qt and GTK+.
If the above options, including toolkits I haven't mentioned, are not
to your liking, then you can undertake writing your own toolkit. I'm
sure that is more work than writing any single application.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 23:00:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
' In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
' David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
'
' >Granted, when I first started out, SuSE was great. It allowed me to
' >set up my system without knowing much of anything. I still think SuSE
' >or some other good package is the way to go for a beginner. However,
' >I have started to outgrow it.
'
' In what way? I have several things that I maintain locally either
' because they aren't in the distribution or contributed rpms or
' because I need local changes.
Source becomes available before an rpm does. Also, I am not working
with a large set of packages that would make dealing with source
installs unmanageable. With my DSL connection, I don't really need to
bother with waiting for the CD to come out with the latest versions of
the packages I use.
' This is your choice, of course, and having that choice is a
' very good thing. You just have to realize that this is a
' fast-paced business and you are going to be repeating that
' work at least every 6 months just to stay at the point
' where a single distribution 'update' run would put you and
' you have to track all the bugs and improvements yourself.
' I prefer to take advantage of the thousands of programs
' that someone else has bundled in a workable form and spend
' my own time on a few critical ones where I actually need
' more control. However, even with these I would be perfectly
' happy to let a distribution update that worked as well replace
' my older version.
One thing that is tricky to do is stay on the bleeding edge when you
need to if you are using rpms or other package management tools. For
example, I use the anoncvs server to keep my KDE2 up to date. All I
do to build everything is run a single shell script.
If I ever get the time, as you rightly suggest is a scarce commodity,
I would like to put together a shell script that updates the world.
As more and more sources become available via cvs, rsync, cvsup, etc,
that becomes easier to do.
What would be truly ideal, if it is sane, would be to have a single
update command that I could launch that would grab the latest versions
of the packages I use, build them, and then push them out to all the
machines I have on my network, or to nfs shares. Obsolete libs and
such should then be removed from the system to free space.
>From what I hear, debian may be closest to that ideal.
I agree that it is very convinient to have a good package management
system. However, I don't think rpm does the job. It may be that I
just don't understand rpm well enough. After all, I've been shielded
from details by yast. But rpm files do require that the person[s] who
put the package together create a correct spec file for dependencies
and such. Considering that information is available in the make file
or in the binaries themselvies (for ldd visible linkage), it should be
something that is automated.
Ok, I'm beginning to ramble now. My needs are not always going to fit
in a single package scheme.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
From: "Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why no defrag?
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 23:01:36 GMT
William J. Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
^
^ "Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
^ :I suppose anyone can write one:
^ :
^ :int main(void)
^ :{
^ : fprintf(stdout, "Defragmenting drives... ");
^ : sleep(900);
^ : fprintf(stdout, "done\n");
^ : return(0);
^ :}
^
^ (sighs)
^
^ Don't forget:
^
^ #include <stdio.h>
^ #include <unistd.h>
^
I should've compiled and linked it for you too I suppose.
Frank
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Kaufman)
Subject: Using Sound Card to Record
Date: 21 May 2000 22:20:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This may or may not be a kernel issue, but I thought I'd describe the
problem in case it is.
Using a 2.2.14 or 2.2.15 kernel, I can record sound fine from a reel to
reel tape deck (using the line in port of my ESS1859 sound card and a
program called 'gramofile'). I have recorded about five reel to reel
tapes worth of music doing this.
Using a 2.3.99-pre6 kernel, I can record about 1.5 minutes, then I start
getting sound buffer overflow errors. I am posting this to let
developers know in case there has been a kernel or driver change for the
ess family of sound cards that is causing this. I bet most people use
their cards to play music, and that works fine for me, even if the music
is coming in the line in port. Somehow, the system just has a problem
recording.
My system is an AMD K5-233, with 128 Mb RAM. The sound card is an 185x
dound card, based on at 1868 chip (according to the manual). I build
sound using the OSS drivers, and select SB compatible. Actually, if
anyone wants more information, drop me an email and I'l be happy to
reply/post it.
------------------------------
From: GAUTIER Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: stack size
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 01:21:30 +0200
Hello,
I'm using gcc on Linux Mandrake, and I would some info about handling
stack with gcc, ie:
does each program has his stack (like in DOS) ? In this case, how do you
specify the size of the stack ?
or
does the OS provide a common stack for everyone ?
Thanx
------------------------------
From: "Jack Kessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 16:42:48 -0700
Easy. The bottleneck for adoption of linux for home users is that winmodems
won't work with it. More and more modems are winmodems, which rely on the
operating system to do most of the functions that the hardware on the modem
used to do.
The modem manufacturers are in terror of Microsoft if they should release
the code that would be necessary to drive their winmodems under Linux and
"forget" to supply it to the public and Linux developers. Linux users have
to buy full hardware modems which are more expensive, harder to set up and
are becoming harder to find.
Linux companies really don't give a damn because they make their money by
selling to businesses with LANs, not to individuals, and LANs don't use
winmodems.
There is a volunteer project to reverse engineer winmodems, but it is a
difficult undertaking.
Your assignment is to find a way to get the portions of the windows api that
winmodems use, and use it under Linux directly, without reverse engineering
the modems.
Victor Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8g00bv$ufd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> :> I was thinking, maybe not just servers and stuff, but an application
> :> that windows users have but linux doesn't. Something that would give
> :> windows users more of an incentive to move to linux, or help them
> :> migrate to linux.
>
> : The way I see it, Linux needs the following, at minimum, before it can
> : be a legitimate competitor to Windows:
>
> : 1. A streamlined, easy install process;
>
> Disagree. System should be installed by competent techinicans in
> computer shops. Windows is not any more easy to install than say
> Mandrake 7.0, only user do it much more frequently, so get used to it.
>
> : 2. An office suite roughly as functional as Office, and at least as
> : easy to use;
>
> But based on quite diferent ideas - it shouldn't be so bloated and
> should have ability to use its components in scripts, and add own
> components written as simple scripts or C programs to common GUI.
>
> : 3. A GUI package installation mechanism that's as easy to use as
> : InstallShield (trivial if we get a file manager for GNOME or KDE);
and
>
> Whats wrong with capt?
>
> : 4. A GUI interface to the most common configuration files.
>
> Never, never, never let user who doesn't understand things tweak the
> config files. For such users remote sysadmin service via SSH should be
> provided.
>
> : In order to beat Windows, client-side, we need:
>
> : 1. A GUI interface to *all* configuration files;
> I've expressed my opinion above. I'd prefer something like expert system
> - somethig which allows to ask question on natural language, and answer
> with extracts of man and howto. NO GUI - interface just like micq, but
> much more interactivity than stupid office equipment in MS Office
> 2000.
>
> : 2. Integration of all Linux documentation into a centralized,
> : searchable help center;
> Whats wrong with dwww?
> : 3. A DirectX-like platform for hardware-accelerated devices, not
> : necessarily at the kernel level;
> Whats wrong with OpenGL?
> : 4. Abstraction of many protocols and features, ala ODBC (which I hate
> : because it never works, not because it's a bad idea); and
> Whats wrong with
> 1. ODBC?
> 2. DBI/DBD?
>
> : 4. A "killer app." Unfortately, the odds of this being in the office
> : suite are about zero, as MS has far too much of an edge on this
> : front. The GIMP, with a few unique features, may have the
> : potential to get there.
> Given Adobe PhotoShop for Linux coming in half a year?
> No, if apache is not killer app, you'll have to invent totally new way
> of using computers.
>
> But I can give you an idea - some canvas which can be used just is
> people use a piece of page - write text, write formulas (and they will
> be calculated), draw graphs (and they will be aproximated by formula),
> draw arbitrary drawing, and replace hand-drawn objects with exact
> gometry shape if desired.
>
> and all the thing could be converted to well-enough printable form (no
> better quality than Word gives) with few mouse clicks.
>
> Most people would say, hey, this is Word, Excel and MathCad in one
> window, becouse they don't really need neither Word, nor Excel, nor
> MathCad - they need to write simple text, compute simple expressions and
> draw simple graphs. Now MS give them feature-bloated programs, most of
> features of which they never learn, but they consume their hard disk
> space but no professional would use them becouse of poor output quality,
> and OpenSource gives them Lisp and TeX and Emacs, which require
> considerable learning to do anything at all, although if you spend
> enough time learning, you get quality output.
>
>
> : Linux has survived largely because its only real competitor,
> : reliability- and performance-wise, was NT, which few "regular" people
> : liked because it runs about as many Windows programs as Linux. But
> : with Windows 2000 out, suddenly the "mainstream" Windows is comparably
> : stable and feature-laden. I think that, unless Linux starts playing
> : catch-up in a big way, we're going to be relegated to the niche market
> : we've been, until recently, exclusively a part of.
>
> : I suppose that now I'm going to have to get Linux running again so I
> : can put my programming hours where my mouth is. (Reason I'm not using
> : it now? The fucking Aureal Vortex 2 drivers are (a) non-free; and (b)
> : unusably poor.)
>
> : --
> : Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
> : non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
> : - Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
>
> --
> ���� ��������� �� �������� ���������� ������������ �����.
> --- �.�. ���
------------------------------
From: Charles Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: serial port RTS control ?
Date: 21 May 2000 23:30:44 -0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mario Klebsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The sending
>device (no matter wether it is called master or slave) has to disable
>its line diriver within certain contraints in time. If they are not
>met, you risk data corruption. To do this with linux, you need some
>method to syncronize the accesses to RTS with the data being written
>to the output fifo. AFAIK, there currently is no adeqate support for
>this in linux.
The obvious solution is to pad the transmission with the same number
of characters as the device FIFO can hold. When you have loaded the
last pad character the device must have only just finished
transmitting the last message character so you can toggle RTS,
disable the device, or do whatever it is that requires such exact
timing. Of course you'll have to do this in the ISR to ensure there's
no extra delay inserted.
--
Eppur si muove
------------------------------
From: Charles Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Two really easy (I'm sure) questions
Date: 21 May 2000 23:27:26 -0000
In article <brsR4.50603$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mark Graybill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Again - please explain in technical terms WHY 2<&1 (and void main()) is
>incorrect. I'm looking for solid technical reasons - not ethical reasons.
If you're looking for technical reasons, you're asking the wrong
question. The reasons are abstract.
To take 2<&1 first. I assume you know that "<foo" means to take input
from "foo", ">foo" means to send output to "foo", and that you can
specify file descriptors making "5<foo" prepare file descriptor 5
such that it reads from "foo" and "5>foo" do the equivalent for
output. Finally we have the method of referring to an existing file
descriptor with "&6" etc. At this point we can ask what "2<&1" should
mean. Obviously it means that you intend reading from file descriptor
2 and you intend it to receive this input from the same source as file
descriptor 1.
This is rather unusual, since the convention on Unix systems is that
file descriptors 1 and 2 are used for output, not input. However, if
you want to you can use a different convention. However what would be
a silly idea is to get into the habit of saying "2<&1" when you
actually mean "2>&1". Why make this exception to the distinction ">"
is for output and "<" is for input? Why clutter up your brain with a
worthless exception?
One important rule for computing is "say what you mean". It is only a
good idea to say something else which happens to achieve the same effect
when there is a good reason to avoid the proper way. When changes are
being made it is a lot easier if people stick to saying what they
mean as this allows backward compatibility to be preserved while
making more changes than if all arbitrary behaviour must be
preserved.
In the specific case of "2<&1", I could imagine a new shell which
runs on a non-Unix system which must achieve I/O redirection by the
equivalent of re-opening /proc/$$/fd/0 etc and on which the duplicate
of file descriptor 1 is really only opened for reading.
In the case of void main(), if you're using a Unix-like system a
program does return a value, so why would you try to declare it as
if it didn't? Again it's a case of saying what you mean. Even if you
call exit() the program returns a value (and why would you call
exit() directly from main() when you could use 'return'?), so it
makes sense to declare it properly.
--
Eppur si muove
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 21 May 2000 23:54:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What TrollTech is currently doing with Qt 2.x and higher is a
> good thing. People who produce GPL software can use Qt without
> worrying about the QPL.
That is not even close to true. Trolltech has rights to a copy
of everything that even links with QT. They could EASILY take
your QT linked code, and fold it into proprietary software.
>From the QT Free license.
If your program links with QT or is a modification of QT, you
must supply a copy of your program (including source) to
Trolltech.
Think about that for a while. They are granted a copy, with
full rights to the copy. They are not bound in this copy by
any license you use. Fair use would allow them to use large
chunks of it in proprietary closed software.
A license is not free if your modifications of the copyright are
not as free as the original.
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Why no defrag?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 00:43:45 GMT
Followups set to colda.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Evans; mail protected by spamgard{tm}) writes:
[snip (almost) the entire article]
Just so that you're aware, your message was 21 lines of
signature/sub-headers, 10 lines of attribution and quoting, and 4
lines of reply. That makes the signal-to-noise ratio for your article
4:31 (generously, 4:21), which is not very good. The USENET
convention on signature (this includes PGP stuff) length is about four
lines.
> -- It is now safe to turn off your computer.
And also, please change this to just "-- ". This way, smart
newsreaders can automatically remove your .sig from replies. Note the
space after the doubled hyphens - it's supposed to be there.
This is not a flame. But if you make the changes I suggest, it'll
make your articles far more readable to me, and presumably many
others as well.
--
Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
------------------------------
From: "sllai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: linux tools advice
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 08:54:15 +0800
what do I need to develop an GUI application in linux system. Must I develop
it in linux environment or can I do it in the PC environment and then
transfer it into the linux based system.
sllai
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
