Linux-Development-Sys Digest #902, Volume #7 Wed, 24 May 00 17:13:16 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Alexander Viro)
Re: 970Cxi - HP refuses to help customer (Ronald Cole)
Re: ps does not show all processes (Ronald Cole)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: How do I find the libc library version ? (Daniel R. Grayson)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Praedor Tempus)
coredump files (Gregory Taleck)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Alexander Viro)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (George Russell)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (George Russell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro)
Crossposted-To:
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: 24 May 2000 14:17:58 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Alexander Viro wrote:
>> Kernel _is_ allowed to fork. RTFGPL and for $DEITY sake, get the fuck out
>> of c.o.l.d.system with that off-topic drivel, will you?
>
>No. I am part of this thread to learn and will continue to put forth my
>thoughts, expecting errors to be corrected or encounter mere opinions of
>no more worth than my own, thank you.
You know what Followup-To: is, don't you?
>As for kernel forking...is not linus torvald the ultimate point of
>control
>for what a linux kernel is? A linux kernel is what he ultimately says
>is
>a linux kernel. Others are not linux, by definition. They may be
>compatible
>but they would not be linux.
Again, RTFGPL. And watch the distributions - they routinely patch the tree
they ship. Not to mention RTLinux, etc. As for the code given back to
community - I'ld rather see _no_ Microsoft-produced code, 'cause no matter
what license you put on a pile of crap it remains exactly that - crap.
See NetRape for example - try to read their code and you'll see. Again,
if you put crap under GPL you still get nothing but crap.
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
------------------------------
From: Ronald Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 970Cxi - HP refuses to help customer
Date: 24 May 2000 11:28:47 -0700
Nicolas Eymerich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > in Ghostscript. Last time I looked, support consisted of a driver for
> > either the cdj500 or the cdj550. Pretty ancient stuff!
>
> The graphic output is sadisfactory with these settings. Unfortunately,
> by asking in a HP customer forum the moderator replies that HP does not
> release the codes for 2 sided printing.
>
> Anybody knows if is possible to install a parallel port spy utility to
> extract the control code used?
I thought that 2-sided printed on the 970Cxi was simulated by the
Windows driver (i.e., print all even pages, prompt to remove stack
from output tray, flip, and put back in input tray, then print all
odd pages).
--
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
Ronald Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phone: (760) 499-9142
President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B
------------------------------
From: Ronald Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ps does not show all processes
Date: 24 May 2000 11:30:17 -0700
rtfm. "ps aux" will show all processes.
--
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
Ronald Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phone: (760) 499-9142
President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 24 May 2000 13:53:46 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree about the right to fork, but several free software licenses
>> (the X-Windows, and BSD licenses come to mind) allow people to make
>
>And the right to fork is good because...? Because it is GOOD to
>fragment
>software and libraries so that apps fail to work nicely?
Suppose the original author is hit by a beer truck and his relatives
sell all rights to the code to a video game manufacturer. Or
he just quits supporting it, or takes it a completely different
direction than the rest of the world wants to go.
Or you want it to work on hardware that he can't/won't support.
>So that if you
>want app A to work, built on a forked library, you have to install yet
>another version in addition to the original - or worse, replace the old
>with the new, probably/possibly breaking all your software based on
>the pre-forked libs?
Hey, just libc...
>I can't see the "right to fork" as a good thing. Forking is what killed
>the unix baby early on.
Hardly, it is mostly what kept it alive. However, in that case not
all the forks are what we are discussing since some of the branches
are complete rewrites because the original code did not allow
unlicensed forks.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 24 May 2000 15:19:11 -0400
On Wed, 24 May 2000 11:14:50 -0600, Praedor Tempus wrote:
>And the right to fork is good because...?
Because if the maintainer abandons or neglects a project, someone else
can pick it up. However, while "the right" to fork is a good thing,
that doesn't mean that gratuitous forking is a good thing.
ESR talks about this kind of thing and uses the phrase "promiscuous
theory, puritan practice", I think the essay is "homesteading the noosphere".
Some examples of "good" forks include egcs ( which I believe has been handed
back to the FSF. egcs-c++ is a vast improvement over g++ ) and x-emacs.
> Because it is GOOD to
>fragment
>software and libraries so that apps fail to work nicely? So that if you
Like I said, the fact that the right to fork is a good thing doesn't
mean that forking for the sake of it is a good thing.
>the unix baby early on. It is brought up as a fear of something that
>could possibly kill linux (for general use...but then, there are
The fragmentation that exists within Linux has very little to do with
forking. THe main problem is that there is a lack of standardisation
on versions of the different APIs.
>I would like a nice, clear explanation of why forking should be
>considered >good.
Your confusing "the right to fork" with forking itself. The right to fork
is one that should be exercised judiciously.
>Standards
>make coder's lives easier, make user's lives easier. SOME things should
The main problem at the moment ( at least wrt Linux ) is not about forks,
but it's about failure of the distributors to use the same versions of
core components such as glibc, the compiler, and other shared libs.
As far as the developers are concerned, there is not much difficulty writing
code that will compile on any Linux distribution. Also, KDE and GNOME make
writing for multiple distributions or even UNIX flavours pretty easy.
Basically, you can use "GNOME" or "KDE" as your target platform. If you
use glib data types or QT classes and the KDEsupport stuff, you usually don't
really need to worry about the peculiarities of your target platform.
However, failure to
standardise on lib versions, compilers and package managers makes
releasing binaries for multiple distributions a bit of a pain.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 24 May 2000 14:23:59 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, which does nothing to damage the code that continues to
>> be available.
>[...]
>
>But it leads to PRECISELY the problem that exists on the Windoze side of
>the PC that is generally agreed to be bad.
How does it lead to that?
Please show where Windows has even used any available
and well tested code, or how the existance of such code has
ever led them to do anything. (The Win2k/kerberos business
may be a first).
>M$ produces extensions to
>some standard. Because they are big, powerful and influential AND
>provide tools that MANY use that then utilize these
>alterations/extensions,
>creating software/web pages, etc that incorporate these extensions,
>they lock out alternatives.
Why do you imagine that the alternative of starting from scratch when
writing this cruft intended to lock you in would be better in
any way for any of us?
>There is no reason to assume, magically, that M$ could not and would not
>succeed in doing so (if they wished) with BSD-based/non-GPL software.
>They have the right to extend it and break it and not release the
>alteration.
Just as they have the right to write from scratch an even
worse alternative.
>Many people would use it (a RELATIVELY small core of
>hardcore linux/bsd users are not significant in the big scheme so
>THEIR refusal to go along is irrelevant in the larger market) and
>break intercompatibility...hmmm...just like in the windoze world.
Yes, but, being well tested, it would not cause everyone as
much trouble.
>BSD licenses vs GPL or LGPL, would foster this sort of thing. There
>just isn't (yet) a big boy on the block like M$ taking advantage of
>his weakness in the licensing scheme.g
Beg your pardon? Just about every player in the internet market
started with BSD code. I contend that we are all better off
as a result.
>I ask for someone to defend this ability when it comes to BSD-style
>licenses while at the same time railing AGAINST the practices of
>M$ in a similar manner. They are doing what a BSD license permits.
The kerberos/domain control extension deserves to be railed against
because it give monopolistic control over enterprise authentication
and access control, not because it extends a standard.
>They make a practice of code forking to force users to use THEIR
>solutions rather than a competitors...but in the BSD license world
>this would be a good thing, fully supported by "the community"?
>
>I honestly ask why this is not hypocrisy because I really don't see
>why it isn't?
Before you go too far down this road, ask yourself if you would
be better off if Sun had been unable to use BSD code, or if NFS
would have ever been done if the company had been forced to donate
their work instead of being able to choose which parts to contribute.
Or would X have ever been done if the companies that funded the
work had not been able to incorporate it into their own proprietary
products?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How do I find the libc library version ?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel R. Grayson)
Date: 24 May 2000 14:48:20 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Kimoto) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rajeev B. C. wrote:
> > Could somebody please let me know, how do I find the version of libc library
> > that is loaded
> > on the system ?
>
> $ ls -l /lib/libc.so.*
>
> It is possible that a system may use a libc4, libc5, and libc6.
>
> --
> Paul Kimoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Here is a way that will find the C libraries even if they don't happen to be
sitting in /lib.
% ldconfig -p |grep libc.so
libc.so.6 (libc6) => /lib/libc.so.6
libc.so.5 (libc5) => /usr1/lib/libc.so.5
libc.so.4 (libc4) => /usr0/lib/libc.so.4
libc.so.4 (libc4) => /lib/libc.so.4
------------------------------
From: Praedor Tempus <[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: Wed, 24 May 2000 14:27:14 -0600
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Yes, which does nothing to damage the code that continues to
> >> be available.
> >[...]
> >
> >But it leads to PRECISELY the problem that exists on the Windoze side of
> >the PC that is generally agreed to be bad.
>
> How does it lead to that?
> Please show where Windows has even used any available
> and well tested code, or how the existance of such code has
> ever led them to do anything. (The Win2k/kerberos business
> may be a first).
HTML is another (and yes, Netscape WAS also guilty). For all you
know, much of windows communication protocols are perverted standards
just like their HTML, kerberos, etc.
What I am getting at is NOT that closed source is good (nor will I say
it is bad...certainly not in all cases...not ALL software is really
setup to make money off service or support) and open source is
automatically
good. I am getting at the differences between the GPL/LGPL and BSD
licenses
and what they permit. It appears to me that a BSD license WOULD allow
for
M$ to come along, make use of and pervert some widely used BSD-licensed
protocol or library such that it will only fully and properly work with
their own propriatory apps (locking out competitors UNLESS they cough up
cash to buy access to the perversions, err...extensions).
It seems to me that the GPL/LGPL licenses protect more against a
Microsnot-like move by a big player "embracing, extending, and
extinguishing"
than does the BSD-style license which almost cheers it on.
> >M$ produces extensions to
> >some standard. Because they are big, powerful and influential AND
> >provide tools that MANY use that then utilize these
> >alterations/extensions,
> >creating software/web pages, etc that incorporate these extensions,
> >they lock out alternatives.
>
> Why do you imagine that the alternative of starting from scratch when
> writing this cruft intended to lock you in would be better in
> any way for any of us?
I certainly wouldn't call for someone to start from scratch when it
isn't
necessary. A license that addresses use of a protocol or library that
is
widely used and even depended upon should prevent propriatory extensions
that break interoperability. OpenGL, all internet/network communication
protocols, for instance, should never be permitted to be made
propriatory
by anyone. If you want something added to the standard library or
protocol,
go to the freakin body in control of the standard and request it be
added
or join the body and work it from there. Don't just dick over others
just because you want to try and force people to use ONLY your app or
system. That is why I am none to keen on some of the provisions of the
BSD license, as I understand it, vs GPL/LGPL. With the latter you are
free to add to it to your hearts content. Free to extend it as you
need/
want...but you can't keep the extensions secret and lock out others. If
your software isn't easy/intuitive/properly featured enough to win on
merit,
then it certainly doesn't deserve to win out due to ties to secret
protocols
or libraries forcing one to use it regardless.
> >Many people would use it (a RELATIVELY small core of
> >hardcore linux/bsd users are not significant in the big scheme so
> >THEIR refusal to go along is irrelevant in the larger market) and
> >break intercompatibility...hmmm...just like in the windoze world.
>
> Yes, but, being well tested, it would not cause everyone as
> much trouble.
I'm sorry, but "well tested"? By who? To whom do you refer as the
testers? M$? Hardly, if that is what you meant. If you meant the
general bsd community, then that is not true because the software
taken and extended and kept propriatory is no longer the code you
originally devised and tested. It is perverted and altered by a
company, in this case, that has NEVER demonstrated an ability to
properly test and debug their code.
>
> >BSD licenses vs GPL or LGPL, would foster this sort of thing. There
> >just isn't (yet) a big boy on the block like M$ taking advantage of
> >his weakness in the licensing scheme.g
>
> Beg your pardon? Just about every player in the internet market
> started with BSD code. I contend that we are all better off
> as a result.
I am not ragging on BSD. It has a definite place with definite
strengths.
I am just not overjoyed by the BSD-style license, UNLESS it is used
sparingly, so as to prevent incompatibility due to secret, propriatory
extensions
on many basic libraries or protocols by one bad actor with corporate
power.
[...]
> >
> >I honestly ask why this is not hypocrisy because I really don't see
> >why it isn't?
>
> Before you go too far down this road, ask yourself if you would
> be better off if Sun had been unable to use BSD code, or if NFS
> would have ever been done if the company had been forced to donate
> their work instead of being able to choose which parts to contribute.
> Or would X have ever been done if the companies that funded the
> work had not been able to incorporate it into their own proprietary
> products?
Don't get me wrong here, for I am not, en toto, against the BSD license.
I am not against a company/person making money off their software
either.
I AM against propriatory alterations to standard communication protocols
so that only product X will run well with operating system Y which only
works properly on a network made up of Y systems - locking out
competing products unless the creator coughs up money to gain
access to the minor alterations. I am against alterations to
essentially
standard libraries that serve no purpose other than to lock in
users/lock
out competitors. Each change would have been better if submitted to a
standards body and then incorporated into the general standard -OR-
barring
that (if the body doesn't go for it and you see a compelling need for
the
extension) then go ahead an make the extension but then be required to
release the extension so all can use it as they see fit (if used often
enough it would become the standard in a manor that didn't further force
some monopoly down everyone's throat).
Again, this should apply to certain types of code, not necessarily all
code.
------------------------------
From: Gregory Taleck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: coredump files
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 20:27:58 GMT
Is there a way on linux to place coredumps under different names and
paths? For example, rather than dumping core in the current directory of
the process under the filename 'core', can you specify a path and name
format (e.g '/var/coredump/%s-$d.core')? I know there had been some
interest in doing this on BSD but couldn't find anything on linux.
Thanks,
Greg
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 24 May 2000 16:43:23 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>and what they permit. It appears to me that a BSD license WOULD allow
>for
>M$ to come along, make use of and pervert some widely used BSD-licensed
>protocol or library such that it will only fully and properly work with
Protocol can't be licensed. Get a clue, already.
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Russell)
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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 20:51:59 GMT
On Wed, 24 May 2000 15:27:51 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>around? Or even two? If an application says it uses GTK+ ver x.y,
>
> YES.
>
> It allows for other platforms to be supported.
The QPL in no way forbids porting to BeOS / Mac/ Win 32.
Feel free to do so. Only TT's port to Win 32 is commercial.
George Russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Russell)
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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 20:52:00 GMT
On 23 May 2000 13:07:01 GMT, David T. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The right is non-exlusive. That means everyone can get that right. I
>> think TrollTech is just trying to prevent forking of the Qt library
>> here.
Forking is allowed. Distribution via patches from pristine source - just like
what dpkg and rpm source files can do for you. Is that too fucking hard?
George Russell
(sick of whiners who cannot read an ASCII license file.)
Its called LICENSE.QPL btw.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
