Linux-Development-Sys Digest #347, Volume #8 Thu, 14 Dec 00 05:13:12 EST
Contents:
getty-less system? ("Marty Ross")
kdevelop and oracle ("����")
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications ("E. Robert
Tisdale")
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Sam Holden)
ati framebuffer in 2.2.18 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What is the command to . . . ? (Herb Stein)
Re: Remapping memory in the kernel space (jvirzi)
Newsgroup Support Issues (jvirzi)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Mike Stump)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Mike Stump)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Mike Stump)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications ("E. Robert
Tisdale")
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Mike Stump)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Mike Stump)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications ("E. Robert
Tisdale")
Count? (Mark R. Holbrook)
Re: synchronise the date ("Steven J. Hathaway")
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (jbs)
RAID1 with 2 Partitons or more to be mirrored ("Ulrich")
Re: Count? (Josef Moellers)
Re: changing BASH's path searching ("Peter T. Breuer")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Marty Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: getty-less system?
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:30:39 +0200
Using RedHat 6.2:
I'm trying to create a standalone system so I'm trying to understand how
"init" works exactly.
If I say, for example, that my "standalone" program runs at "runlevel 4",
and I insert a line
into "inittab" that says:
myprog:4:respawn:/mydir/myscript
where "myscript" sets my environment, loads my daemon processes, and runs my
application, the first daemon process I load gets terminated with "SIGTERM".
Why? By whom? (presumably, by "init"). But I don't understand. There IS
a previous line in the "inittab" that reads:
l4:wait:/etc/rc.d/rc 4
But I assume this happens BEFORE "myscript" is executed, so I don't see the
problem.
I have read many "startup" tutorials, and the "man" page and other tutorials
on "init" and "inittab", and still I can't figure out....
What is a good way to run a "standalone" application (and yes, it would be
nice if it had "normal" control of the console tty)? I don't want to run
"getty" or "login", yet I want some of the "controlling terminal" things
that are done here. Do I need to write a program to open the terminal
device and set it up myself? Boy, that sounds archaic!
Any help appreciated!
------------------------------
From: "����" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: kdevelop and oracle
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:57:58 +0800
How can I debug my C code which produced by Oracle 's Pro*c in kdevelop
------------------------------
From: "E. Robert Tisdale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 02:44:12 +0000
John Hasler wrote:
> E. Robert Tisdale writes:
>
> > The problem is that ANYONE can sue you
> > for not disclosing source code
> > for applications that depend upon GPL'd libraries.
>
> No. Only the owner of the copyright on the libraries can sue.
No. If that were true, then the following provision:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
is meaningless because the FSF cannot afford
to sue every programmer who violates it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam Holden)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: 14 Dec 2000 02:58:26 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 02:44:12 +0000, E. Robert Tisdale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Hasler wrote:
>
>> E. Robert Tisdale writes:
>>
>> > The problem is that ANYONE can sue you
>> > for not disclosing source code
>> > for applications that depend upon GPL'd libraries.
>>
>> No. Only the owner of the copyright on the libraries can sue.
>
>No. If that were true, then the following provision:
>
> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
> years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
> cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
> machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
> distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
> customarily used for software interchange; or,
>
>is meaningless because the FSF cannot afford
>to sue every programmer who violates it.
Just because a license demands something that it is unlikely that the
copyright owneer will enforce does not change the way copyright law works.
I believe the FSF will sue if they situation is dire enough. So far all
they have ever needed to do is inform the violator of the license and the
source code has been released or the product withdrawn.
The law of the land doesn't change just because the FSF doesn't have unlimited
money...
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ati framebuffer in 2.2.18
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 03:03:44 GMT
Is there any documentation for the ati framebuffer support in kernel
2.2.18? I looked in Documentation/fb but there was nothing about ati
there. I used to use the vesa framebuffer, but it would be better to
use a card-specific one. The way it seems to be setup by default is a
very low resolution. I would really appreciate any help or
documentation. I am sorry if this is the wrong place to post.
Thanks,
Pritpaul Mahal
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Herb Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux.mandrake,alt.os.linux.slackware,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: What is the command to . . . ?
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:39:39 -0600
grep "STRING" *
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What is the command to find the occurance of a string in a group of
> files in a directory?
>
> I vaguely remember it being find with a grep pipe I think.
>
> thanks
> charles
------------------------------
From: jvirzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Remapping memory in the kernel space
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:09:01 -0800
Examine the kmalloc() function.
David Zada wrote:
> Hi !
>
> How can i map my memory in the linux, to allocate a region of memory in
> specific address that i decide , that any others process can't overwrite
> this region of memory ? ( i know in the other O.S you just give order to
> the linker to save some region of memory for you in specific
> address , i wonder if there any way in linux to do it ).
> I must to notify that this allocation done in my module , and i want that
> this allocation will be in the kernel space memory
>
> Sincerely,
> David
------------------------------
From: jvirzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Newsgroup Support Issues
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:16:42 -0800
I have noticed a disturbing trend in the linux newsgroups. Someone asks
a question, quite often vague, showing they don't really understand the
topic very well. Which is WHY they are asking questions in the first
place.
Many people have responded to these questions by blasting the
"imprecision" or inaccuracy with their questions, instead of giving
helpful answers. Hell, you can get that kind of support with Microsoft.
It is good to point out the pitfalls or errors in the questions.
Wherever there are two or more ways to interpret the question, and the
answers are relatively short, give the two or more answers - with a
small explanation.
I have received excellent answers from people. I hope that I, too, have
given people some worthwhile answers. It's the beauty of Linux.
That's it.
-Joe
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 04:48:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
E. Robert Tisdale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The problem is that ANYONE can sue you for not disclosing source code
>for applications that depend upon GPL'd libraries.
Let me repeat, anyone can sue anyone at anytime for any reason they
want, so the above is obviously true, but what of it?
Are you also claiming that the law is such that they could ever win?
If so, please provide more detail, as I don't believe that is the
case.
Let say the FSF and I have a private agreement that allows me to do
anything I want, at all with the glibc. Now, this is hypothetical,
but let's say I do. You're telling me that someone besides the FSF
can sue me because I didn't release source, and win? Do I have that
right?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 04:53:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
E. Robert Tisdale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>is meaningless because the FSF cannot afford to sue every programmer
>who violates it.
Prove they cannot. I dare you. My counter claim is that in fact they
are rich enough to sue 100% of the people that they care to.
Anyway, the meaningfulness or not of a clause cannot determine what
the law is. The law exists despite _any_ words in the GPL. You are
confused.
If what you say is true, please provide evidence of a single case that
has been litigated and won, where someone else besides the FSF sued.
I bet you cannot.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 05:02:26 GMT
In article <3a3703b6$0$89524$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>You only ignore one small fact, no court can force the FSF to sue you,
>>if it wishes to not sue you. When the FSF says it won't sue you, we
>>can take them at their word they won't sue you.
>
>Can you? An informal statement that they won't sue and a dollar will
>buy you a bag of chips.
Sure, I can. I never said the statement _had_ to be informal, those
are your words. One can try and make it as formal as they want.
I find the notion that just because you don't know the FSF well enough
or rms well enough to not be able to take their word for it that
others must therefore not take them at their word to be distressing.
We aren't talking about Microsoft here.
If you don't trust the FSF, please go away, and stop using and
supporting the FSF's software.
------------------------------
From: "E. Robert Tisdale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 05:21:40 +0000
Mike Stump wrote:
> E. Robert Tisdale wrote:
>
> > The problem is that ANYONE can sue you
> > for not disclosing source code
> > for applications that depend upon GPL'd libraries.
>
> Let me repeat, anyone can sue anyone at anytime
> for any reason they want, so the above is obviously true,
> but what of it?
>
> Are you also claiming that the law is such that they could ever win?
>
> If so, please provide more detail,
> as I don't believe that is the case.
>
> Let say the FSF and I have a private agreement
> that allows me to do anything I want, at all with the glibc.
> Now, this is hypothetical, but let's say I do.
> You're telling me that someone besides the FSF can sue me
> because I didn't release source,
Yes.
> and win?
Once again.
Only the courts can decide that.
> Do I have that right?
You just said so didn't you?
You would be obliged to sue
to get someone to disclose GPL'd code.
The FSF won't do it for you
nor will the owners of the copyright
if it doesn't benefit them materially.
Look Mike,
Move this discussion over to one of the legal newsgroups
if you want to hone your skills as a lawyer.
You're just off-topic here.
All I can tell you -- all Pete Becker can tell you
is that you need to consult a competent lawyer
before you make any business decisions
that depend upon GPL'd or LGPL'd software.
A good lawyer can advise you on the potential risks
and the probable outcome of any litigation.
But the fact is that nobody will really know
until more cases have been decided in the courts.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 05:20:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
E. Robert Tisdale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The FSF probably is NOT going to sue anybody even if they modify
>GPL'd software and refuse to distribute the modified source code
>along with the binaries.
This and a dollar will get you sued, be my guest, try it, let us all
know the outcome.
>The FSF just can't afford to do that.
Sure they can.
>If you want the modified source code you will probably need to sue
>them yourself.
Ok, you want to go that route, quote the law the permits you to win
such a suit. If you cannot quote it, describe it in detail as best
you can, and we can see if others can help identify it.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 05:14:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Becker wrote:
>It can be highly risky, costly, and frequently bad strategy, from a
>business point of view, to rely on "sound legal advice." Legal
>advice is just one factor to be considered in making a good business
>decision, and usually not a major one.
Agreed.
Also, let me state that relying upon legal advice is shakey to the
exclusion of our advice, is risky. Ponder that for a little while.
This is why, asking and discussing these topics here, is in fact can
be more beneficial than merely talking it over with lawyer types.
------------------------------
From: "E. Robert Tisdale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 05:28:29 +0000
Mike Stump wrote:
> E. Robert Tisdale wrote:
>
> > the FSF cannot afford to sue every programmer who violates it.
>
> Prove they cannot. I dare you. My counter claim is that in fact
> they are rich enough to sue 100% of the people that they care to.
I agree. I don't think that they care to sue anybody.
> Anyway, the meaningfulness or not of a clause
> cannot determine what the law is.
> The law exists despite _any_ words in the GPL.
What law is that?
> If what you say is true, please provide evidence of a single case
> that has been litigated and won, where someone else besides the FSF sued.
Please provide evidence of any case
that has been litigated and LOST
where someone else besides the FSF sued.
------------------------------
From: Mark R. Holbrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Count?
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:59:51 -0800
Back in my Unix/Xenix days there used to be a command called "count".
This was a handy thing to do things like: ps -ef | count to tell you
how many processes were running. Or... who | count would tell you how
many people were logged in.
What ever happened to count?
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 22:29:05 -0800
From: "Steven J. Hathaway" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: synchronise the date
I have used several options for date/time synchronization.
One is ntp (see the XNTP package).
Another is to use the "rdate" program.
For PCs, I use SAMBA and declare it to be a time server, then
clients can have NET TIME \\servername /SET to synchronize
date/time.
Use what works!
Steve
Xavier Houppertz wrote:
> hi there,
>
> I run linux on different sites and would like to synchronise the date and
> time with the master server automatically once a month (i will put the file
> in cron.monthly).
>
> How can i fo that ? By mean of ftp or telnet ???
>
> thanks ,
>
> Xavier
------------------------------
From: jbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 22:53:06 -0800
"E. Robert Tisdale" wrote:
> All I can tell you -- all Pete Becker can tell you
> is that you need to consult a competent lawyer
> before you make any business decisions
> that depend upon GPL'd or LGPL'd software.
No more so than any other software. Possibly less, given that the GPL
licenses, unlike commercial licenses, are standardized and have been
extensively scrutinized and studied.
------------------------------
From: "Ulrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RAID1 with 2 Partitons or more to be mirrored
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:14:38 +0100
Hallo,
I have installed my Redhat Version 7.0 in 5 Partitions and I want to mirror
them all on an identical Harddisk.
How can I do this with RAID 1 and how must look the raidtab.
Can anyone send me show me an Example for this Configuration.
Thank you !!
------------------------------
From: Josef Moellers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Count?
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:35:14 +0100
"Mark R. Holbrook" wrote:
> =
> Back in my Unix/Xenix days there used to be a command called "count".
> =
> This was a handy thing to do things like: ps -ef | count to tell you
> how many processes were running. Or... who | count would tell you how
> many people were logged in.
> =
> What ever happened to count?
Dunno, but take a look at the wc ("word count") command. "wc -l" returns
the number of lines.
-- =
Josef M=F6llers (Pinguinpfleger bei FSC)
If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize (T. Pratchett)
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: changing BASH's path searching
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:39:13 +0100
OK, I'll bite ...
Josef Moellers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex Graf wrote:
>> The advantages are:
>> New packages can be installed simply by unzipping a properly-packaged
>> tarball. No need for apt, RPM & friends. Uninstall a package by simply
>> deleting its directory. No need for apt, RPM & friends.
> There's more to rpm and friends than just injecting files here and there
> into a directory tree, checking dependencies for one and the most
> important thing: documenting what's installed.
I dump a list of the tar file into /var/log/packages.
> Rather than doing a "find / -name command -print" (and going to lunch)
updatedb takes less than 2 mins on my P450.
> to see if a command is installed ("Rats, did I install the help files
> with them?" followed by another "find" and another lunch break),
> searching the rpm database to decide whether the package is installed
> and if it's the right version is a lot easier.
Uh, no. I never have the least difficulty. Why should I not know if I
don't have something that's needed? I wouldn't get a binary by choice,
and if I did I'd read its README notes too and run ldd over its
executables. That tells me all I need to know.
> Also, removing a package is a lot easier: No leftovers (err ... not from
> lunch), no broken dependencies, documented removal.
I move the list into /var/log/removed_packages. Removing the installed
files is of course a matetr of xargs rm -f < /var/log/packages/foo.
>> I'm not an expert, but this scheme seems a lot easier to manage than apt
>> splattering files all over the /usr tree and trying to keep track of who
?? This is the correct way to do it. You are advocating grouping by
directory and grouping by origin. That is ONE of many ways to
distribute files, but its not the best way to have them grouped on a
system. As to finding them all, I have a list. And a directory is ONLY
a list too, don't forget.
>> put what where, and who depends on what. Beats me why everyone insists
> This is exactly what rpm and friends are doing.
No, it's not. They are doing one thing very wrong: keeping the info in
an unreadable format that nobody else can read or manage. At least rpm
does that. Dpkg (and installpkg) does not. Their databases are ascii.
> Besides, replacing the "splattering of files all over the /usr tree"
> (BTW that should have been "/opt tree") by ... what? ... splattering
> files all over the file system, doesn't appeal to me.
Nor me.
>> The bash source looks pretty approachable, findcmd.c seems to implement
>> the path searching. Not sure if I'll have time to work on it, but maybe
>> this idea inspires somebody else?
Well, it's not a bad idea. Bash, like csh, could load binaries into a
hashed database list of its own. And it can get that list from
anywhere. It doesn't have toget it from the path. It could just as well
be a hashed database file on disk!
> No, I'd rather have a few centralized locations where I (and my shell)
> can look for commands. It saves a lot of directory accesses and speeds
Yes, but that's an orthoganal issue. The idea here is that you DON'T
look for files. Instead you get notified about where they are when you
start the shell. Perhaps one only goes looking when they're not in the
starup DB. Yes, that's not a bad idea.
> up command execution considerably. Symbolic links have been mentioned
> already.
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 by posting to the
comp.os.linux.development.system newsgroup.
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
******************************
