Linux-Misc Digest #648, Volume #18 Sat, 16 Jan 99 23:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Floyd Davidson)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (allacircle)
Re: This is Linux, not Windows, so why not superior flexibility AND idiot-friendly?
(Kevin)
Re: question: learning SQL on Linux (L J Bayuk)
Audio on NEC Versa 4000 family laptops? (Dan Birchall)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Alan Boyd)
Re: WP8 equations<->MSWord? (Rod Smith)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Darin Johnson)
Re: Modem question? (Rob Clark)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Darin Johnson)
Re: This is Linux, not Windows, so why not superior flexibility AND idiot-friendly?
(John Hasler)
Re: Is RH 5.2 good to you? (Rick Walker)
Re: Making reliable profilings under linux !!!! (Nitin Malik)
Linux SNMP software package? (Bill Nash)
Re: Printers for OS/2 and Linux (Dwight Huffman)
Re: Earthlink unfriendly to Linux (brian moore)
Re: This is Linux, not Windows, so why not superior flexibility AND idiot-friendly?
(Alexander Viro)
Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class. (Floyd Davidson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: 16 Jan 1999 01:09:56 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>It seems things have come full circle as far as
>>>going back to "centralized" computing systems.
>>
>>Wellll... no! We don't have a centralized paradigm now, we have
>>a "distributed" system. We put cpu power almost anywhere on the
>>net. We put data storage almost anywhere on the net. And we
>>also put the display almost anywhere on the net. In fact in all
>>three cases we can even split it into many places on the net.
>>And as bandwidth becomes less expensive that will be greatly
>>expanded.
>
>
>OK.... that explains it a little better. Bear
>with me as I am dumb abt all this but have found
>this thread fascinating and informative listening
>to you guys talk. <GG>
If you are so dumb, how come you ask such complicated questions?
:-)
>Now..... what was so bad abt "centralized"
>computing as was used in the "old days"??
Two things, or maybe three, that are big problems. The worst is
centralized control. Next is a single point of failure, and
last is cost increments.
The centralized control means that somebody makes a *big*
decision, and the company buys a *big* computer. Everyone has
to live with it then. And if the one they bought fits some
other department well but not yours, you are shit out of luck!
The same principle applies to how the resource is managed...
In fact that is much the reason that UNIX exists today in the
form it does. Because at Bell Labs a department head could sign
off on a "small" minicomputer that cost less than $250,000 (as
opposed to a mainframe), that happened with regularity. And
that is why just such a computer was available to develop UNIX
on, and why several of them were available to run it once others
saw that it worked.
The single point of failure problem is obvious.
The ability to scale up computer power incrementally is greatly
enhanced with a network distributed system. Each additional
requirment can be met by the addition of resources specifically
tailored to the requirement even if it means a different
manufacturer. With a single central computer that can't be
done, and sometimes it could require a completely new central
computer be installed!
>I mean.... why is it desirable to have cpu power,
>data storage, and display ANYWHERE on the net?
Each distinct resource can be owned/operated/maintained or
whatever by different entities within the organization. And can
specifically match distinct needs. And can be added
incrementally... all of which spells "flexibility".
>When you say "net"... I am assuming you mean a
>network as in an office network or LAN.... and not
>the Internet? Or... is there fundamentally NO
>diff between the two??
Fundamentally, none. For example, the company I work for has a
LAN at my location. But that is connected to other statewide
locations via a WAN. Which is also connected to nationwide
locations via a larger WAN. All of which amounts to larger and
larger Intranet infrastructures. But we still find the Internet
as a whole very useful too, and we tend to interface with our
customers via the Internet in increasingly larger proportions.
We also sell our network facilities to other people requiring
Intranet or Internet connections. (AT&T)
We keep our network and the Internet separate because security
has yet to reach a level of reliability sufficient to allow
mixing the two networks, but we might assume that will change at
some future time.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pictures of the North Slope at <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
------------------------------
From: allacircle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 22:31:41 -0500
that and not to mention the poor graphics and slow time of the Sony system.
now maybe if you had used the N64 as an example i might have to question the
validity of previous ststements. i use my system for programming though.
Richard Steiner wrote:
> Here in comp.os.linux.misc, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee)
> spake unto us, saying:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >
> >>Is there any good guess on the ratio "home computers" / "business
> >>desktops" (assuming the latter won't be equiped with games ?
> >
> >With platforms like the Sony Playstaion, does this even matter anymore?
>
> Since Playstations are notoriously weak when it comes to things like
> multiplayer games, it matters rather a LOT for some of us. :-)
>
> --
> -Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
> OS/2 + Linux (Slackware+RedHat+SuSE) + FreeBSD + Solaris +
> WinNT4 + Win95 + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
> Alimony: The screwing you get for the screwing you got
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:30:48 -0800
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.powerpc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: This is Linux, not Windows, so why not superior flexibility AND
idiot-friendly?
Acutally, I thought he had a point, since most Linux users I've met have
grand dreams of usurping Windows (98 *and* NT) and MacOS....which does beg
the question.
If Linux is *not* being shot at the "typical" home user, than you are
quite right, "hard" is not the issue.
I guess my point is, what is the goal of users of the Linux platform, anyway?
--Kevin
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> MalkContent wrote:
> >
>
> Yada, yada, yada.
>
> Why don't you yap about this on the advocacy newsgroups and level the
> technical discussions groups out of it. We're trying to help and learn
> about Linux, whining about how hard you find it has no place here.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Richard S. Lumpkin, Ph.D. Associate Professor
> Department of Chemistry 256-890-6365
> University of Alabama in Huntsville fax 256-890-6349
> Huntsville, AL 35899 http://chromophore.uah.edu
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Forward Fraudulent Spam to the US Federal Trade Commission: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (L J Bayuk)
Subject: Re: question: learning SQL on Linux
Date: 16 Jan 1999 02:01:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm a C/Unix programmer, and I need to learn SQL. It would also be good
>for me
>to learn the C/C++ interface to SQL. I see Informix will run on Linux,
>but its
>apparently only free for a 30 day trial period. I also see lots of
>software at
>http://www.cs.cuhk.hk/pub/Linux/apps/database/sql. I'm running Redhat
>4.2
>on a laptop (Sony PCG-812, 233 mhz, 4 gig, 64meg ram). I'm a little
>intimidated
>at the thought of being my own database administrator. What would you
>suggest?
You might be interested in "The Linux Database" by Fred Butzen and
Dorothy Forbes, MIS Press. It includes a CD with a Linux release
and several database systems (no, not the biggies); however the
software is rather old. (Slackware '96, etc.) But I liked the fact
that it first talks about databases in general, then about SQL,
then about implementations.
My preference, however, is PostgreSQL at http://www.postgresql.org.
It is completely free, full featured, and not too hard to set
up and use.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Birchall)
Subject: Audio on NEC Versa 4000 family laptops?
Date: 17 Jan 1999 03:39:10 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi folks,
I'm curious as to whether anyone out there has been able to use
the built-in audio of the NEC Versa 4000 family of laptops under
Linux. I read once that VA Research once sold 4000's loaded with
Linux, but I don't know whether they had audio support, and they
never wrote back to e-mail I sent them asking about the family in
general.
My wife has a Versa 4080H, dual-booting Linux (900mb) and GEOS
(New Deal Office '98, 100mb), and she'd probably be overjoyed if
I could find any way at all of making it do sounds other than
beeping (especially if I could find a way without screwing with
her kernel, since things otherwise pretty much work right now. :)
>From what I understand, her system's audio features are shared
with all other 4000-family models. There are stereo speakers at
the top corners of the lid (above and to the side of the display
panel). On the right side of the unit are a volume control, along
with jacks for headphones, microphone, line in and line out. A
teeny built-in microphone is hidden back near the hinge.
The sound board (NEC part G8UNA) apparently uses an ES688S sound IC
from ESS Technology (http://www.esstech.com/). According to their
website, "All AudioDrive audio controller solutions support games and
applications for Sound Blaster[tm] and Sound Blaster Pro..."
There do seem to be some other laptops out there using ESS chips
(though more recent models tend to use the ES1xxx series). The ES688
lacks things like a built-in ESFM synthesizer and DSP port, and only
does half-duplex whatever.
I've read Mike Miller's page about installing Debian 1.2 on a laptop
(http://www.npl.uiuc.edu/~miller/linux/debian-1.2-notes.html) with
an ES1688 chip, using Open Sound System to probe for the IRQ and such.
This makes it sound like the ESS chips are indeed fairly SoundBlaster
compatible, so one would think things might be marginally feasible.
Anybody out there have specific experience with the Versa 4000 family
vis a vis audio? I'm not entirely opposed to reinventing the wheel,
but if I don't have to, things will get done faster. :)
-Dan
--
Dan Birchall, Haddonfield NJ. Linux, NEC Versa 2000C, Cannondale
"Make sure wheel is correctly attached to bicycle before riding!"
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:04:33 -0600
> > > I mean DOS is an OS that has been stripped of
> > > networking, multi-tasking, etc... right??
No, it never had them in the first place. DOS 1 could only read the A:
drive, it didn't even have hard disk support nor did it have
directories. It grew from there but did it slowly. IIRC, DOS 1.1
supported directories and DOS 2 was the first to support the hard
drive. Networking came as an add-on from Novell around DOS 3.
Multi-tasking was never there unless you count MS' version of using a
TSR as multitasking. Hell, even MS-DOS 7 doesn't do multitasking.
Darin Johnson wrote:
>
> OK, first off, DOS was put onto a very very small machine. Most PC's
> back then were 8-bit computers with a max of 64K RAM. You do not put
Sorry, the 8088 and 8086 were both 16-bit. MS-DOS was originally QDOS
and was written to run on the 8086, so it's always been 16-bit. The big
difference was the 8088 had an 8-bit bus and the 8086 had a 16-bit bus.
This meant the 8088 was slower (and cheaper) by design.
[snip]
> Now, given that it was a bit more advanced than micros, it could have
> done something more fancy. However, it wanted to be a lot like CP/M,
> which was a popular OS for 8 and 16 bit micros at the time; thus there
I don't think the 16 bit version of CP/M had been developed yet. I know
the 8086 version had not been created at that time, but I don't recall
any other versions then either.
[snip]
> suitable examples to go off of. Second, DOS could have been improved
> over time in more substantial ways to take advantage of additional
> power in the 286 and 386. Microsoft tried really late in the game
> with OS/2, but that was a complete replacement of DOS, not a fixing of
> it.
No kidding, I kept waiting for the next version of DOS that would
(finally) allow access to that whopping 15MB of ram that the 286 could
address.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Smith)
Subject: Re: WP8 equations<->MSWord?
Date: 16 Jan 1999 01:50:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kryz Caputa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thanks for the clarification about the full version of WP8 for linux.
> The need for exchange of MSWord documents containing MSWord equations
> comes from the fact that papers are being written in cooperation between
> people with macintosh/office98 and X11 workstations. With WP8 for linux
> it is now possible to do wordprocessing on one of our linux hosts while
> sitting at a HP-UX or IRIX workstation, however this equation problem
> efectively prevents us from being able to cooperate in writing
> scientific papers.
Given your subsequent post that WP8 can import MSWord 97 equations, this
may not be so important, but somebody else may find it relevant, and if
you run into further problems you might too, so....
In your situation, two other solutions do spring to mind:
1) Use some program that's common to all three platforms. WordPerfect
itself is one such option, since there is a Mac version of WordPerfect
(though I believe it uses a slightly different file format, so you
might be back at the file conversions problem again). Another is
StarOffice. You might also consider LaTeX, especially if you and your
co-authors are all relatively computer-savvy and aren't scared off by
non-WYSIWYG editing.
2) Use VNC or an X server on the Macs and PCs, and locate the word
processing software physically on Linux or other Unix boxes. This will
result in slower response times when word processing, though, and might
be objectionable if some of you aren't comfortable with X, but it would
simplify file exchange issues considerably. You could use WP for
Linux/Unix, Applix, StarOffice, LyX, or other programs for the word
processing end of it.
> Maybe the Wine project? Anybody out there that managed to outsmart the
> system and make the Office run under Wine on a linux box, displaing its
> window on a multitude of X11 screens thus giving many users access to
> MSWord?
MSWord 95 now runs under WINE, but it's not exactly what I'd call
reliable, at least not for me. Perhaps before too long this will be a
viable solution, but not yet.
--
Rod Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.users.fast.net/~rodsmith
NOTE: Remove the digit and following word from my address to mail me
------------------------------
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: 15 Jan 1999 18:04:02 -0800
Joseph Crowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The original UNIX did not use demand paged VM....that came with one of the
> BSD releases...read Maury Bach's book or Kusick and Leffler (sp very wrong I'm
> sure) for details....
But it did use swapping. Thus you did have virtual memory (ie, the
machine acted like it had more memory than it did). From the start,
UNIX had virtual memory and memory protection, and the 8086 can't
support those well. (not that those are necessary for a good home
computer OS, look at the early 68000 Amiga)
--
Darin Johnson
Luxury! In MY day, we had to make do with 5 bytes of swap...
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Modem question?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Clark)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 03:43:45 GMT
In article <77r7jk$te8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Turgut Durduran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am looking for a DELL system. I know I will immediately get rid of
>windows or atleast go to a dual boot.. Anyways, many of the systems have this
>3Com modems that say "winmodem" or "winmodem for win nt" etc.. Do these
>modems work with linux? (for example red hat? )
No, they don't. Insist that if Dell wants to sell you a 3Com modem, they
send you one that is _not_ a Winmodem.
Rob Clark, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.o2.net/~gromitkc/winmodem.html <--Linux compatibility list
------------------------------
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: 15 Jan 1999 17:59:33 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro) writes:
> box, even by account of -10 folks, but one could build something not too bad
> on 68000. Sun did it several years later.
Sun did virtual memory by using *two* 68000's in each box. A 68000 is
unable to restart after a memory fault, which prevents virtual memory
traps. The second cpu was used to help restart the state of the
primary cpu. Later Sun models used the 68020 which had memory
management capabilities built in. (don't recall if they used a 68010,
which is basically the same as a 68000 except you can restart more
instructions) I actually used one of those Sun-1's. If I had known
it was going to be such a revolutionary idea, I'd have paid more
attention to it :-)
> Yup. You can't fit UNIX with paging VM into 8086, thus no BSD there.
> You can (proof: it had been done) fit there an old-fashioned swapping UNIX.
> PDP-11 (not to mention -7) didn't have nice paging hardware.
The PDP's had lots nicer hardware than the 8086 (and 8088, which the
PC used), even though it could only see 64K at a single time.
> Admitted, x86 has ridiculous small number of registers
> and their code looks like it was designed by a band of seriously potted
> janitors with single-digit total IQ, but there were better
> processors around.
I still wonder what the world would have been like if Motorola had a
68008 ready and available for IBM. There was no barrier between
real and protected mode. The introduction of the 386 was basically
just a faster processor, since the advanced features were difficult to
use for DOS programs. But there was no such barrier to prevent a
68000 based system from taking full advantage of a 68020 or higher.
But then, with all those registers, perhaps there wouldn't have been
such a big push to create fast caches (which are necessary to get good
performance out of fast but register-poor processors).
--
Darin Johnson
Gravity is a harsh mistress -- The Tick
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.powerpc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: This is Linux, not Windows, so why not superior flexibility AND
idiot-friendly?
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 03:29:02 GMT
Alexander Viro writes:
> Damn it, folks, it's getting ridiculuos. *Writing* grep from scratch takes
> less than week.
Write it in perl and it should take less than a day. Two days if you've
never used perl before.
> Even Windows should provide *that* much.
And when you are done try using it on a Word97 document.
--
John Hasler This posting is in the public domain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rick Walker)
Subject: Re: Is RH 5.2 good to you?
Date: 16 Jan 1999 01:08:21 GMT
garv ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Ulf Bohman wrote:
: > Howdy!
: >
: > I was just thinking I'd put a message here first before I upgrade from
: > 5.0 to 5.2.
I had a rough time of it. The upgrade process consistently died just
before starting the actual copying of new data. I think the problem
was due to incompatible rpm index formats. My system has a heritage going
back to 4.0, with upgrades all the way. Everyone of them has been a bear.
The way I recovered was by mounting the upgrade CD, doing a "cd
/mnt/cdrom/RedHat/RPMS" and an "rpm -U *". This upgraded
everything on the fly and resulted in quite a few errors about not being
able to upgrade libs with a running kernel, etc. I think that this got
me a new set of RPM tools, but I'm not really sure. I certainly can't
recommend this practice as safe, but it worked for me.
After that, I did a reboot from the install floppy, and the canned RedHat
upgrade dialog ran to completion without errors. This phase is essential
to make sure that libs get properly upgraded on the new system.
--
Rick Walker
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 21:26:19 -0500
From: Nitin Malik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Making reliable profilings under linux !!!!
I am facing similar problems.... does anyone know how to use the
"readprofile" tool??
nitin
On 15 Jan 1999, James Youngman wrote:
>
>"Pedro Ribeiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> 'm trying to profile a program under linux but, because all of my functions
>> executes in less that 10ms, gprof tell 0.0 to all function avg execution
>> times ... leaving-me with just a function execution count which isn't much
>> usefull without the times ...
>>
>> How can i obtain more precise times ??
>
>Make the program run for longer, perhaps by putting a loop in main().
>
>--
>ACTUALLY reachable as @free-lunch.demon.(whitehouse)co.uk:james+usenet
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 21:26:25 -0500
From: Bill Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linux SNMP software package?
Is anyone aware of a Linux based SNMP management software package?
Your help is appreciated.
Thanks,
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 19:43:09 -0500
From: Dwight Huffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Printers for OS/2 and Linux
One other thought: you could contact Indelible Blue (at
www.indelible-blue.com) with your question. They are in the business of
providing hardware and software for OS/2 and are also now selling
Linux. They do sell printers. I'd think that they would be able to
answer your question if anyone can.
Best, Dwight Huffman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Subject: Re: Earthlink unfriendly to Linux
Date: 17 Jan 1999 02:16:23 GMT
On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 00:28:13 GMT,
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian Moore writes:
> > It is tricky to get around sendmail's loop detection, but it is certainly
> > doable and users seem to figure it out accidentally all the time.
>
> Ok. How does a dialup dynamic-ip user who receives his mail via POP and is
> not allowed a shell account do it?
You're changing the rules. :)
You stated:
> Any ISP that has their system configured so that a dialup user messing
> around with his mail configuration can "affect the rest of the net" is
> being managed by a pack of bungling incompetents.
If you allow your users to forward, or if they can forward from another
account that is well connected (say, from a school account or even
bigfoot), they can cause problems by messing around with their
configuration.
Bigfoot allows (or did allow, they may have changed) for snarfing a POP3
mailbox into your bigfoot mailbox.... and allowing forwards based on
rules. I had a user be naughty with that one, too: setting up bigfoot
to take mail out of his mailbox, and then forward it back.
Again, it does require either great skill or sheer blind stupidity (hard
to distinguish sometimes) to do such things, but people do manage to do
it all from a point'n'click gui without shell access. They can
certainly do it if they have a shell account -elsewhere-.
I've seen probably a dozen of our users manage to figure out new and
creative ways to create mail loops despite not having shell access or
.forwards on my server. Never underestimate their ability to cause
havoc. They will find a way.
I do agree that Earthlink is over-reacting. Despite goofy things like
mail loops from our users, we don't terminate their account for being
goofy. A simple hack to sendmail (gotta love the $#discard mailer :))
and we can bitbucket things until the loop calms down.
--
Brian Moore | "The Zen nature of a spammer resembles
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | a cockroach, except that the cockroach
Usenet Vandal | is higher up on the evolutionary chain."
Netscum, Bane of Elves. Peter Olson, Delphi Postmaster
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Viro)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.powerpc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: This is Linux, not Windows, so why not superior flexibility AND
idiot-friendly?
Date: 16 Jan 1999 22:59:05 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>ok, *you* write the regexp parser then. ;-)
Huh? BFD. Been there, done that. Many times. No, you don't need yacc for that.
It's a trivial precedence grammar, so you don't need anything complex.
Let's see: two binary operations, several unary postfix ones. If you want
to support Perl-style (foo){5,10} stuff - add a { recognition to lexer and
make it eat up the rest of qualifier. Yet another unary operation from the
parser's point of view. Trivial loop over the input tokens, stack for pending
operations. The rest is obvious:
Start:
while next is '('
push '(';
eat next;
if next is not atom
die;
foo:
while next is unary operation
emit unary;
eat next;
if top of stack is '*'
emit CONCATENATE;
pop;
if next is '(' or atom
push '*';
goto Start;
if top of stack is '|'
emit OR;
pop;
if next is '|'
push '|';
eat next;
goto Start;
if top is '(' and next is ')'
eat next;
pop;
goto foo;
if at the end of input and stack is empty - OK.
die;
It does translation to reverse Polish, compute on the fly if you want.
Took seven minutes.
I hope that writing lexer, generating finite automate and feeding the
input through it *may* be left as an exercise (hint: lexer should serve one or
two special cases ([a-zA-z] and {42,127} style), but they are trivially
distinguished by the first character and finding the end is also completely
obvious).
Kiddies those days...
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is not even in Windows 9X's class.
Date: 17 Jan 1999 03:04:55 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Alan Boyd <Spamless> wrote:
>
>everything is ready. Yet another interesting fact: the
>DOS defines standard io streams stdaux and stdprn that refer
>to the serial device (this time it was generally a mouse) and to
>the printer. Which multitasking os, or an os that could
>eventually go multitasking, did such things?
Why would a multitasking OS want to define those? It is
exceedingly easy to do, but has little value and many
disadvantages.
>That's the `Real Mode' technology, originally invented by von
>Neumann. Or was it Charles Babbage? The innovative spirit
>in Microsoft things is so exciting.
Eh?
>Does anyone remember the exact CP/M licencing terms? I have seen
>a CP/M manual where the assembler source of the kernel was printed.
>Sorry, don't remember what happpened to it later, but it would
>even now be interesting to know if one could legally patch it
>and use it.
CP/M definitely did NOT have the "kernel" source code in the
manual! It did have an example BIOS, the interface between the
BDOS and the hardware, for the Intel MDS hardware that it was
originally developed on. Each licencee was expected to develop
a BIOS specifically for the hardware it was to be installed on!
When folks like Adam Osbourne came along and started selling
pre-configured and installed systems that you took home and
immediately plugged in, it was revolutionary.
Floyd
--
Floyd L. Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pictures of the North Slope at <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
------------------------------
** 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.misc) 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-Misc Digest
******************************
