Linux-Development-Sys Digest #627, Volume #8 Tue, 10 Apr 01 16:13:11 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor (Dave Martel)
Re: Suppressing Redhat bootup output (Paul Haley)
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor ("Dan Miller")
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor ("Dan Miller")
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor ("Dan Miller")
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor (Skybuck)
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor (Thore B. Karlsen)
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor (Dave Martel)
Re: usleep() is unreliable when sleeping for less then 10000 micro (Pasztor Szilard)
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor (John Hawkins)
Re: usleep() is unreliable when sleeping for less then 10000 micro
Re: Suppressing Redhat bootup output (Paul Haley)
Installing Linux applications.... !! ("Karim A")
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor (Gamma)
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor (Gamma)
Re: Kernel Panic in Network Interface (bill davidsen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:45:48 -0600
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:13:58 GMT, Randall Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 03:41:21 -0600 esteemed Dave Martel did'st hold forth
>thusly:
>> Brief's the best programmer's editor I ever used. Despite
>> compatability claims I've never found another editor that duplicates
>> Brief's intuitiveness. Too bad Borland bought it up and then forgot
>> about it.
>
>Have you tried Visual Slick Edit's Brief emulation? Its excellent.
>
So I've heard, but they're out of their freaking gourds if they think
I'll pay $300 for a linux programmer's editor.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Suppressing Redhat bootup output
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Haley)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:00:05 GMT
Kasper Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>--------------55870E7A2CA7274571662124
>Paul Haley wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm running Redhat 6.2 and would like to suppress the output on
>> bootup, such as "Loading cron..... [OK]", etc. All I want is to have
>> lilo say "loading linux" and then give me a login prompt, though of
>> course I still want all the programs/processes to run, I just don't
>> want them to output to the screen. I checked out the init scripts and
>> nothing jumped out at me.
>>
>> Can somebody help?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Paul
>
I don't want the output because the boss says so :). It's for a unit we are
coming out with and apparently the customers don't want to see the output.
Thanks to everybody who replied!
Paul
>Why don't you want the output?
>
>With output to the screen you can see how
>far the startup has come, and in case
>something goes wrong you will have a chance
>to find the problem.
>
>If you really want to do this change the
>console to null in the file /etc/lilo.conf
>and run /sbin/lilo. Next time you boot you
>will get no output.
>
>See my previous posting for details.
>
------------------------------
From: "Dan Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:58:12 -0700
However, having used both VSE and MultiEdit, I have to say that IMHO VSE has
little to offer over ME that justifies double the price. Both have
excellent Brief emulation (which is why I use them), and intuitive syntax
highlighting.
VSE has a nice function browser and file browser, which ME lacks. The
beautify function is also very well done, and ME lacks that as well. OTOH,
ME handles tags MUCH more easily, and shows bookmarks on the editor screen
(which I *really* like). Outside of these functions, the two are pretty
much equivalent. Trial versions of both are downloadable. But ME is around
$120 street, VSE is around $200.
And, at the risk of getting seriously flamed, *both* programs make XEmacs
look clutzy and arcane... but then, XEmacs is free...
"Randall Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 14:29:14 -0700 esteemed Dan Miller did'st hold forth
thusly:
> > So, you're recommending Brief?? It hasn't been available for awhile...
>
> Visual Slick Edit has excellent Brief emulation. I use that with some
additional
> CUA extensions and with some commands that the VSE people added.
>
> Even for someone who uses VSE with a different key mapping the macros for
> providing the Brief-specific features can be mapped to key combinations
and are
> quite helpful. Column range select and the Brief style of pasting and
cursor
> positioning are just two that come to mind.
------------------------------
From: "Dan Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:01:31 -0700
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2001 14:29:14 -0700, "Dan Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Paul Kinnucan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> I must throw in my vote for XEmacs/Emacs as well (XEmacs is just
> >> prettier); although a programmer's editor is much like a choice of
> >> underware: use what's comfortable for you, and avoid the ones that
> >> rub you the wrong way.
> >>
> >So, you're recommending Brief?? It hasn't been available for awhile...
>
> Brief's the best programmer's editor I ever used. Despite
> compatability claims I've never found another editor that duplicates
> Brief's intuitiveness. Too bad Borland bought it up and then forgot
> about it.
>
I agree... I used Brief for over a decade, and *loved* it... it's still the
prototype for many of the capabilities that people expect to see in a
Dos/Windows editor. I've always resented Borland's grab; if they didn't
want to use the program, why did they buy it and kill it?? It's not like
they were trying to protect turf for their editor, whatever it was called...
But then, Borland has often been confused about what direction it was
going...
------------------------------
From: "Dan Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 11:09:39 -0700
The vim variant supports syntax hiliting, but it's awkward to configure, and
transferring your configurations (especially custom color pallettes) to
other machines requires much more than just copying .vimrc (unfortunately).
I use the syntax hiliting on my main linux development machine, but on all
the other machines I just use default settings. I know I can just set some
environment variables, but that hasn't worked consistently from machine to
machine.
OTOH, when I do serious development, I telnet the files to my Windows
machine and use a real editor!!
Dan (the Windows drudge) Miller
"Randall Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 06:00:03 GMT esteemed JLI did'st hold forth thusly:
> > For simple editing work vi is properly the best tool on UNIX.
>
> Does it do color syntax coding or language and library sensitive code
expansion?
>
> Its been a long time since I used vi and it was the second editor I
learned to
> use. But I think perhaps I should learn it again to help when
administering
> Linux and Unix boxes.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Skybuck)
Crossposted-To:
24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:04:21 GMT
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:34:07 GMT, Randall Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 22:41:02 GMT esteemed Skybuck did'st hold forth thusly:
>> Let me just say I love textpad 4.
>
>Is this free?
Absolutely :) Well the evaluation version anyway... you can just keep
using it.
>On what operating systems?
>From the site:
"Minimum requirements are Microsoft Windows 95 or NT 3.51, and TextPad
is supported on Windows 98, ME, NT 4 and 2000. "
>Where's it available from?
www.textpad.com
Can you believe it ? :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thore B. Karlsen)
Crossposted-To:
24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:24:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:22:26 GMT, Randall Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sure, Emacs is configurable, but only with a lot of work. And even then it
>> might not be the right editor for you, so it's not the right answer for
>> everyone.
>The reason I've never tried Emacs is that some of the people who have claim that
>it is hard to configure. Then you find people who say it is easy to configure
>but one has no way of knowing how long they've used it and how long it took them
>to get to the point where they'd call it easy.
It _is_ hard to configure, unless you happen to be so insane as to like the
emacs defaults. I don't. I don't dismiss emacs as being useless, but the
emacs defaults are so far off from anything I would consider useful that it
just takes too much work to get it to work _with_ me, instead of _against_
me. Emacs out of the box is just as annoying to me as the Microsoft Office
paper clip. It just tries to do too much. The difference is that the Office
assistant is intelligent enough to understand when it's not wanted, while
emacs isn't.
>I want to install an editor, go to a menu pop-down that is labelled something
>like "Key Mappings" and then get a dialog box that has radio buttons or a combo
>box that lets me select from a half dozen popular key mappings (vi, Brief, CUA,
>etc). If it requires downloading separate Lisp scripts and trying to understand
>the guts of hacked up Lisp macros to get it to work right then I'm really not
>interested.
vim is _very_ easy to configure. You have good help files that are easy to
maneuver, and the customization screens in emacs don't hold a candle to the
ease of use and maneuverability of the corresponding screens in vim.
--
"By the time we've finished with him, he won't know whether
he's Number Six or the cube root of infinity!"
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:14:53 -0600
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:58:12 -0700, "Dan Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>VSE has a nice function browser and file browser, which ME lacks. The
>beautify function is also very well done, and ME lacks that as well. OTOH,
>ME handles tags MUCH more easily, and shows bookmarks on the editor screen
>(which I *really* like). Outside of these functions, the two are pretty
>much equivalent. Trial versions of both are downloadable. But ME is around
>$120 street, VSE is around $200.
I just checked and VSE is still $295 for a single-user linux license
at their website, don't know about the street price. Even $200 seems a
bit stratospheric in the face of so many free alternatives.
Multiedit is $129 but I don't believe they make a linux version. The
version number hasn't been changed for quite some time, leading me to
wonder if they're continuing to improve it.
>And, at the risk of getting seriously flamed, *both* programs make XEmacs
>look clutzy and arcane... but then, XEmacs is free...
Agreed. I'm still trying out the various linux editors and haven't
settled on a particular one yet. So far most seem more than adequate
to the task. It's incomprehensible to me that someone would pay $300
for a single-platform closed-source programmer's editor, when there
are so many good multi-platform open-source editors to be had for
free.
------------------------------
From: Pasztor Szilard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: usleep() is unreliable when sleeping for less then 10000 micro
Date: 10 Apr 2001 19:14:56 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>No matter if it's realtime priority, it won't get the cpu back until the
>>scheduler has provided the deserved jiffy.
>
> You didn't see the part about busy waits?
If i want busy wait i can do it without nanosleep...
---------------------------------------------------
| I have too much blood in my beer circulation. |
---------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
From: John Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 Apr 2001 15:28:21 -0400
Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Agreed. I'm still trying out the various linux editors and haven't
> settled on a particular one yet. So far most seem more than adequate
> to the task. It's incomprehensible to me that someone would pay $300
> for a single-platform closed-source programmer's editor, when there
> are so many good multi-platform open-source editors to be had for
> free.
That's why I never look further than .*emacs and .*vi.* for my editing
needs. I'm frequently tempted to go shell out 300 bucks for slick
edit or whatever, or try out one of the nice, but lesser known, free
editors out there. The problem is I cannot count on those editors
always being there in every sense. Both vi and emacs have a huge user
base, and open code, so I know they are ALWAYS going to be around, and
they are never going to cost me a red cent. If I felt vi or emacs
were lacking in functionality, then the masses be damned, I'd go do
what worked. But they're not. They are useable (though not
necessarily always an HCI researcher's daydream). They do EVERYTHING
under the sun, and if they don't do what you want, you could always
invest a week to fix that in the macro language of the day. And they
are ubiquitous. As Bill Cosby says, "I told you that story so that I
could tell you this one:"
Another point which *I* find important, but never comes up in explicit
discussion, is open support. This works two ways. The obvious point,
which IS occasionally brought out, is that groups exactly like this
one exist. So you can get help if you need it.
But there's another piece to this. I really like the fact that the
more I learn about emacs and vi, the more valuable I am to my friends
and co-workers as a resource. If you happen to be in a lab where
everyone uses, say, multiedit, and you just know multiedit inside-out
and upside-down, well then bully for you. Otherwise, you're 'that
whacko who does his own thing, and seems to get a lot out of his
editor...god knows how.' I place a lot of value on being able to
offer directly relevant advice to other people. A _lot_. If someone
sits down next to me to work, and wants to know how to get a lot of
work done in a hurry using a text editor, I can give them 8 ways to do
any given thing, all of them free, all of them IMMEDIATELY accessible
via the web, and all of them functional on every platform under the
sun. ::blushes at accidental pun:: That's not a 'nice bonus.' On the
contrary, it's part and parcel to my choice of editor. I'd love to
get some of the benefits of the nice proprietary editors like
slickedit at my fingertips, but once I invest myself fully in
something like that, a lot of my advice to the guy sitting next to me
has to start out, "You got fifteen twenties on ya?" I couldn't bear
it.
Just a thought,
-John
PS Every time someone says, "gosh, y'all should try editor X, because
it can tie your shoes AND milk your cow!", I think, "gosh, I wish they
took the time to add shoe-tying and cow-milking to vi/emacs so that
the rest of us could use it...never know when I might need to milk a
cow with vim!" No, I'm not kidding. Using ridiculous examples, yes.
Kidding, no.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: usleep() is unreliable when sleeping for less then 10000 micro
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:32:59 -0000
In article <9avm3g$7lq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pasztor Szilard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>No matter if it's realtime priority, it won't get the cpu back until the
>>>scheduler has provided the deserved jiffy.
>> You didn't see the part about busy waits?
>If i want busy wait i can do it without nanosleep...
How is that relevant?
--
http://www.spinics.net/linux/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Suppressing Redhat bootup output
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Haley)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:41:41 GMT
Kasper Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>--------------55870E7A2CA7274571662124
>Paul Haley wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm running Redhat 6.2 and would like to suppress the output on
>> bootup, such as "Loading cron..... [OK]", etc. All I want is to have
>> lilo say "loading linux" and then give me a login prompt, though of
>> course I still want all the programs/processes to run, I just don't
>> want them to output to the screen. I checked out the init scripts and
>> nothing jumped out at me.
>>
>> Can somebody help?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Paul
>
>Why don't you want the output?
>
>With output to the screen you can see how
>far the startup has come, and in case
>something goes wrong you will have a chance
>to find the problem.
>
>If you really want to do this change the
>console to null in the file /etc/lilo.conf
>and run /sbin/lilo. Next time you boot you
>will get no output.
>
>See my previous posting for details.
Thanks for your followup to my post on this subject. I entered:
append="console=null" at the bottom of the kernel settings in lilo.conf,
however it gets rid of only kernel messages I'm guessing. The PCI probes
and SCSI output are gone, but there is still quite a bit of output such as:
Mounting filesystems
Starting cron daemon [OK]
Starting pcmcia [OK]
etc.
Any way to get rid of that?
Regards,
Paul
------------------------------
From: "Karim A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Installing Linux applications.... !!
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 21:38:50 +0200
Hi all,
I've developped an application for Linux under Gnome env.
Now I'd like to provide users a script to install it.
But I'm not "very" experienced with scripting.
I've always developped under Windwos and I don't know if it exist install
tools for
Linux such like InstallShield.
In fact, I'd like to know how to set permanently env variables in .xxxRC
files.
I alwas get permissions errors etc.
So, does anyone knows where I can find tutorials about writing install
scripts, setting up env variables etc...
Thanks a lot.
Regards,
Karim
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gamma)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 20:03:29 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Phillip Lord wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron R Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Aaron> Which means that as soon as your on a new machine, your stuck
>> Aaron> editing WITHOUT your config file....
>>
>> Aaron> UGH.
>>
>> This is why God invented NFS mounted home spaces.
>>
>> Phil
>
>And if your behind a corporate firewall which doesn't permit
>NFS connections through it....
That's why God invented 3.5" floppies.
And if you're behind a corporate firewall WITH security restrictions
that prohibit bringing in software from the Internet...
That's why God invented other jobs. :-)
[You have a rilly long sig, Aaron...]
[snip]
--
Paul Brinkley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gamma)
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 20:06:43 GMT
Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Randall Parker wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 06:00:03 GMT esteemed JLI did'st hold forth
>>> thusly:
>>> > For simple editing work vi is properly the best tool on UNIX.
>>>
>>> Does it do color syntax coding or language and library sensitive
>>> code expansion?
>>>
>>> Its been a long time since I used vi and it was the second editor I
>>> learned to use. But I think perhaps I should learn it again to help
>>> when administering Linux and Unix boxes.
>>
>> vim does.
>>
>
>And it sucks too! The obvious choice is (and always will be) FSF Emacs!
Holy war off the port bow!!
[launches "Notepad rules!" missiles, which promptly misfire]
--
Paul Brinkley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bill davidsen)
Subject: Re: Kernel Panic in Network Interface
Date: 10 Apr 2001 20:07:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| In article <9airic$4nv8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
| bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| >The 2.4 kernel supports "nosmp" as an option at boot time, but for the
| >old kernel... who knows? I certainly don't remember that option, but I
| >find new old features in linux all the time.
|
| It's a compile time option in 2.2.
You can take out SMP in 2.4, but if you have it you still can only use
one CPU by using the nosmp runtime option. Neat stuff!
You can also use the APIC in uni systems, although it is extremely
unclear to me what actual gain it buys. It looks as if interrupt
handling might be a hair less overhead, but I really can't find it in a
very casual test. I'm using it as an article of faith...
--
bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
At LinuxExpo Sun was showing Linux applications running on Solaris.
They don't get it, the arrow points the other way. There's a reason why
there's no SolarisExpo, Solaris is a tool; Linux is a philosophy, a
religion, a way of life, and only incidentally an operating system.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
