Linux-Misc Digest #707, Volume #19 Fri, 2 Apr 99 17:13:08 EST
Contents:
libstdc++.2.8.1.1 Compile problem (Austin Gresham)
Re: Proposal: "Linux 2000 Platform" (Emile van bergen)
Re: C++ Heeeelp!!!! (David M. Cook)
Where are the config options for RAID? (Humphrey Zhang)
Re: wvdial problem (zentara)
Re: Don't wanna run 'diald', so what else??? (Jon-o Addleman)
E Equational Theorem Prover 0.31 "Jungpana" released (Stephan Schulz)
Re: Rvplayer 5.0 problems and linux 2.2 (zentara)
Re: libstdc++.so.2.8 needed !! (zentara)
Re: Linux on a non-state-of-the-art PC ? (David M. Cook)
Re: Best Free X Windows Server for Win95/98 Box on Samba/Linux Network? (Timothy
Litwiller)
Re: Proposal: "Linux 2000 Platform" (Jeremy Crabtree)
Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows (David Steuber)
Re: Proposal: "Linux 2000 Platform" (Emile van bergen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Austin Gresham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: libstdc++.2.8.1.1 Compile problem
Date: 2 Apr 1999 20:32:01 GMT
I have been unsuccessfully trying to install the libstdc++ libraries
version 2.8.1.1. I have both gcc 2.7.2.3 and gcc 2.8.1 installed (one is
/usr/bin and the other in /usr/local/bin).
To use each compiler, I set the "CC" and "CXX" environment variables before
running configure.
When I try to compile libstdc++ with gcc 2.8.1, the compile seems to be
successful. The problem comes when I try to compile another program which
relies on libstdc++, I get an error whenever another program tries to
access the library (libstdc++.so). The message is:
libstdc++.so: undefined reference to `exception virtual table'
If I try to compile libstdc++ with gcc 2.7.2.3 I get these messages:
libio/iostream.h:91: parse error before `__extension__'
libio/iostream.h:208: parse error before `__extension__'
The libio directory is inside of the libstdc++ distribution, so I know I'm
not picking it up from one of the other "standard" include directories.
The command I'm using to configure is:
# configure --enable-shared
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks for any help!
-Austin
================== Posted via SearchLinux ==================
http://www.searchlinux.com
------------------------------
From: Emile van bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Proposal: "Linux 2000 Platform"
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 01:48:54 +0200
On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Kendall Bennett wrote:
[SNIPPED Proposal to create a Linux 2000 standard platform]
First of all, I can understand the need one may feel for 'plugging'
linux in the corporate world.
However, I don't think just imitating the naming convention (years) from
a well known company will do any good... I mean, a lot of linux is about
doing it differently, with a fresh view on things, doing it better. This
goes completely against imitating any aspect of the behaviour of either
this well known company itself or its products.
And some other thoughts as well:
>Linux 2000 Workstation
>----------------------
>
>Base components:
> . Standard locations for all configuration files!
Why on earth would you want to do that? As I understand it, this
standardized platform would enable software producers to stop worrying
about installation issues.
But if we'd expect a software installation to change anything about the
underlying layers of operating system itself, we'll all be soon in
DLHELL again... I _don't_ want the installation procedure of product X
fiddling with my configuration files. The only thing I expect it to do
is put all files into the right places, and tell a desktop manager like
KDE or Gnome _nicely_ using a _clean and documented protocol_ that it
would like the desktop manager to show an icon X in place Y.
> . Glibc based
Okay, but libc5 still there for those older apps. Just like RedHat does
this.
> . RPM for package manager
Just like Redhat does this.
> . GNU make, C/C++ compiler and development libraries
Don't all distributions have that already??
> . XFree86 installed to /usr/X11R6/lib (or /usr/X11)
Well, many unices have this wonderful thing called symlinks, you know.
>Optional components:
> . Web browser (Netscape or Mozilla variation?)
Most distro's already do.
> . Need more suggestions here!
An optional bundle with either Applixware, Wp 8 or Staroffice 5 perhaps?
And as soon as KOffice is done, put that in too.
>Linux 2000 Server
>-----------------
>
>Base components:
> . Standard locations for all configuration files!
> . Glibc based
> . RPM for package manager
> . GNU make, C/C++ compiler and development libraries
> . XFree86 installed to /usr/X11R6/lib (or /usr/X11)
> . Ftp, telnet servers
> . Apache web server
> . Web browser (Netscape or Mozilla variation?)
>
>Optional components:
> . Need more suggestions here!
This is all pretty standard stuff right now. I don't know exacly where
you'd like to be headed.
And as it is, we already have this 'corporate backed' distribution that
many commercial developers take as a standard: it's called RedHat. To
expect everyone to convert to some RedHat like system like you propose
is well, optimistic and a bit out of line. And for what? Only for
creating a bigger market?
I actually envision another method to make the big guys' products
support any Linux distro.
Suppose we'd create a great customizeable install tool that reads a
simple file that comes with each distribution which tells the install
tool where to put various kinds of files and where to find your
'configuration' files? Kind of like reinventing the
imakefile/xmkmf-wheel, but hey, this could be really nice if marketed
right ;-)
To end: I really think config tweaking by apps a very bad idea. Many
configuration files are some kind of language, look for example at
Apache's configuration. There are no sensible defaults for everyone. If
one would like this tool (webserver) to work for him/her, one _will_, in
any case, need to learn how to make it do the desired thing. It's sad,
but there is _no_ way around that.
And I remember too well all those hideous DOS applications that wanted
to change something in my Config/Autoexec and always made completely
stupid and arbitrary assumptions as to how it was layed out. As long as
the parser of the installator isn't as complete as that of the
'language' itself, it will never be possible to do it right in all
cases. It stays guesswork, which generally leads to a very bad user
experience if this user doesn't be a good obedient user who never
touches _his_/_her_ system.
It's bad, bad, bad. It's like saying: let's create a violin that one
doesn't have to take lessons for to play it. That will fail.
--
M.vr.gr. / Best regards,
Emile van Bergen (e-mail address: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
This e-mail message is 100% electronically degradeable and produced
on a GNU/Linux system.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Re: C++ Heeeelp!!!!
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 23:16:21 GMT
On Thu, 01 Apr 1999 21:10:46 GMT, Robert Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Probably reasonably decent generic C++ book would do. Probably any
>'Teach Yourself C++' would do, even one geared for MS-Windows or MacOS
Most C++ books are crap unfortunately (especially anything written by Herb
Schildt.) A good place to look for book reviews from people who know what
they are doing is www.accu.org.
Dave Cook
--
No Linux for you!
------------------------------
From: Humphrey Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Where are the config options for RAID?
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 15:55:15 -0500
After installed kernel 2.2.3, I ran "make xconfig" (also config and
menuconfig), no
where raid is appeared, even though I did patch raid0145. I then
compiled the kernel,
it boot up OK, but not RAID support. Please help me.
Jun
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (zentara)
Subject: Re: wvdial problem
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 21:27:21 GMT
Reply-To: ""
On Fri, 2 Apr 1999 15:32:23 +0800, "Anthony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>April 2, 1999
>
>How can I switch into pine or other application programs
>for the Internet after making connection to my isp
>by wvdial in shell mode?
>
Well, if you are in X, start wvdail in a xterm,
then start pine , netscape, or whatever in another
xterm.
If running from the console, do an alt-F1 to start
wvdial in tty1, then alt-F* to another virtual console
and start whatever program you want.
To disconnect, hit alt-F1 then control-C.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon-o Addleman)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.networking,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Don't wanna run 'diald', so what else???
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 21:09:11 GMT
Once upon a Thu, 01 Apr 1999 12:41:49 -0500, Ronan Heffernan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Seach for "connectd" on Freshmeat or some other software index site. It is
>a server that brings a PPP connection up and down in response to remote
>commands from "WConnect" (Win32) or "connect" (linux command-line) or
>XConnect (X11). I use this to coordinate between my 4 computers. One
>great feature is that you do not explicitly control the status of the PPP
>connection. You express/release your interest in the connection. As soon
>as the number of interested users hits zero, connectd closes the
>connection. You do not have to shout over your cubicle wall, "Anybody need
>the link up?"
Gotta love that... I was just about to post some questions about how I
would go about writing a program that did just that. Now my problem is
solved! Thanks...
--
Jon-o Addleman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephan Schulz)
Crossposted-To: gnu.announce,alt.sources.d
Subject: E Equational Theorem Prover 0.31 "Jungpana" released
Date: 1 Apr 1999 23:26:04 GMT
The E equational theorem prover version 0.31 "Jungpana" has been
released.
E is a a purely equational theorem prover for clausal logic with
equality. Thus, you can specify a mathematical problem (e.g. a
mathematical puzzle), a (small) piece of program code or some hardware
elements in clausal logic (using rules of the form "If A and B and C
then D or E or F" in a PROLOG-like syntax), and try to have the system
prove certain properties of the described structure. Be warned that
this can consume inane (in fact, theoretically unlimited) amounts of
CPU time and memory for diffcult problems.
Version 0.31 improves on the previous version in a variety of ways:
- The inference engine is much faster.
- The automatic mode for selecting search heuristics has been
improved.
- When memory is low, the prover will now discard some clauses with
very bad evaluations. This makes it possible to get good results
even with low to medium amounts of memory (32 MB should work fine
even for many hard proof problems).
- The prover can now read and write native TPTP format in addition to
E-LOP.
- Various minor changes.
E is available as a source distribution for UNIX-variants. It installs
cleanly under all UNIX variants I could get my hands on: Various
versions of GNU/Linux for Intel and SPARC, SunOS, Solaris and HPUX.
E is distributed under the GNU General Public License.
You can find the source distribution and additional information at
http://wwwjessen.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/~schulz/WORK/eprover.html
(Our servers are usually rebooted Monday mornings between 3:30 and
4:00 ME(S)Z, and may be unavailable during this time).
Have fun!
Stephan
========================== It can be done! =================================
Please email me as [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephan Schulz)
============================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (zentara)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Rvplayer 5.0 problems and linux 2.2
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 21:27:19 GMT
Reply-To: ""
On 1 Apr 1999 21:56:06 -0600, Michel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Joel Kreager wrote:
>>
>> --
>> I have been trying to get rvplayer5.0 to work on my 2.2 linux system
>> for a couple of weeks now - no success so far. I tried the idea of
>> writing nulls into the realplayer executable -- didn't work for me at
>> all. After searching around on dejanews I found the following
>> program, but I have been unable to compile it successfully.
>>
><snip>
> ==========================================================================
>>
>> Any help getting this to compile would be appreciated. If there is
>> some better solution I would certainly like to hear about it as well.
>> My system is running glibc2.1 if that might be part of the reason for
>> difficulties, though from my meager knowledge of C I should not be
>> allowed to redefine a function like open() appears to be here.
>> ------------------
If you are using RealAudio5 with the newer 2.2.* series kernel, there
is a bug and a patch. I've put a copy of the tech support guide below.
There are a whole bunch of steps in the html docs that you need to
take to get the realplayer setup. There is a symlink to be made in
your plugins directory, and a couple of entries in your "navigator
helper applications" It usually is easier to put an Rvplayer5
directory in your $HOME directory, with all the libs there. That way
you don't get file permission problems.
##################################################
==========================================================
Rebecka, RealNetworks Technical Support wrote:
==========================================================
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to write to us. I have included an
article from our Internal
Knowledge Base which discusses your issue. Please take a moment to
read though it
completely. Please follow any steps or procedures recommended.
Should you encounter any problems, or the article does not resolve the
issue, please feel
free to write again.
Thanks,
Rebecka LeBrun
RealNetworks
Product: RealPlayer 5.0
Problem: Why do I receive Errno error messages with my RealPlayer 5.0
for Linux?
Recommended Solution:
Customers with the RealPlayer 5.0 for Linux on a system with the newer
Linux 2.1 or 2.2
kernels will experience a "General Error. An error occurred: Error 1;
audio write: Errno"
error message. The current Linux 2.1, and 2.2 kernels contain a
modification to the audio
device that crashes the 5.0 Linux player.
Various customers have written in to inform us of a solution to this
problem created by a
5.0 Linux Player user. This customer has sent us the URL where his
solution/patch is
located:
http://www.i2k.com/~jeffd/rpopen/
IMPORTANT NOTE: All customers experiencing this problem are welcome to
visit the site listed
above, upon their own discretion. RealNetworks has done no development
or testing of this
customer's solution. Please consider this note prior to using the fix
available on this
site.
At the current time, RealNetworks is planning for G2 Development for
UNIX. The fix for the
Errno errors will be included in a future version of the UNIX Player.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (zentara)
Subject: Re: libstdc++.so.2.8 needed !!
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 21:27:18 GMT
Reply-To: ""
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 21:15:57 +0100, Len Cuff
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
>>Len Cuff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I am trying to upgrade xosview to work with the 2.2.3 kernel. I have the
>>> rpm but I need this library file to install it. Does anyone know where I
>>
>>libcstdc++-2.8 comes with the main redhat-5.2 dist.
>I've got a copy of that but how would I extract just that library ?
>(I'm running SuSE 6)
>Cheers,
> Len
It comes with Applix, if you use suse,
go to:
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/SuSE-Linux/suse_update/Applix/4.4.1/glibc
and get it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Linux on a non-state-of-the-art PC ?
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 23:20:16 GMT
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999 14:19:43 GMT, T Ojala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>capable of running Netscape on a 486, 8 MB platform. On the other, a
>colleague said that Pentium 133 or better with 64 MB is good (after
If you can expand the memory of the 486 to at least 16MB (32MB recommended)
then Netscape 3 should run OK. Your colleague is probably right if he is
referring to Netscape 4.
Dave Cook
--
No Linux for you!
------------------------------
From: Timothy Litwiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Best Free X Windows Server for Win95/98 Box on Samba/Linux Network?
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 15:23:46 -0600
yes, please send an URL
Eugene VonNiederhausern wrote:
> Cyrus Mehta wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am creating a dual Windows/Linux environment using Samba for file serving
> > on a standard Ethernet network. I was wondering what kind of X server software
> > for the Windows side I could use to run some X windows apps off of the LInux Box.
> >
> > Reliability is the most important factor, windows will crash often enough without
> > the help of the X server.
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> > CKM
>
> Yesterday, I found the best X server/viewer for windows (and linux) that I have
> seen yet and it is free (GNU Public License). It is called VNC from Olivetti and
> Oracle research laboratory. You can connect from linux->windows, windows->linux,
> linux->linux, windows->windows. It is a lot better than any of the other products
> I have seen ot this kind. I don't have the URL (it is at work) you can email me or
> post a reply and I will get it and reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Crabtree)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Proposal: "Linux 2000 Platform"
Date: 2 Apr 1999 21:18:54 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Ross allegedly wrote:
>
>Jeremy Crabtree wrote in message ...
>>Kendall Bennett allegedly wrote:
>>>Hi All,
>>>
>>>Since the announcement of MetroWerks CodeWarrior for the "Red Hat Linux"
>>>platform, a couple of threads have brought up the subject of difference
>>>between Linux distributions. As a developer of commercial products for
>>>the Linux platform, we are all too familiar with the subtle differences
>>>between Linux distributions that cause headaches for vendors wishing to
>>>develop and *support* products for the Linux platform. Hence
>>>software vendors end up developing for and supporting their products on
>>>the most popular Linux distribution, which is currently Red Hat.
>>
>>huh? Unless you do something that is obscenely distribution-specific,
>>it doesn't matter.
>
>...or very careless.
>All these Windows verdors that don't understand Linux/Unix may
>only develop on and test on say Redhat and accidently lock in to that
>vendor.
Like, say, VMWare? They didn't seem to think anyone would be using something
other than RedHat, so thats exactly how they wrote the installer. I had to
point the stupid thing at /tmp when it wanted to install the init scripts,
because they were only for RH. >:(
>Also people are starting to made to believe distros are very different and
>it seems believable.
Sounds like we, as a community, need to dispell this myth, and quick.
>>>I know there is already the Linux LSB project underway to hopefully solve
>>>some of these problems.
>>
>>Then why start yet another project?
>
>Linux LSB has very to be fully accepted by Redhat, the most widely used
>distro now.
>Also LSB isn't yet defined to my knowledge. This needs to be fleshed out.
That is sort of what I was saying...If there is already a project to do this,
why not just help that project instead of starting a new one?
[Minor SNIP]
>>1) PC '99 is evil, 2) Who gets to decide what is 'standard'?
>
>It scared my when Wintel does this alone.
Sacres me too...have you seen some of the things in the PC '99
spec?
[Minore snip]
>>Well...other than the bare minimum, just about everything should be
>optional.
>
>Absolutely. Maybe do this in layers.
>Base minimum - bootable.
I kind of like the base provided by Slackware, it's just enough to
do simple tasks. Which is to say, it's beyond the 'just bootable'
point, but not by a whole lot.
>More CLI tools.
>X.
>Some X apps.
>KDE/Gnome/etc
>KDE/Gnome/etc apps and other big programs (SO 5.0, WP8, etc).
>And of course a desktop, server, or package install.
Don't forget compilers and such. Some of us just couldn't 'do'
Linux without 'em.
>>>The important thing here is that then software vendors can say that they
>>>support the 'Linux 2000 Platform' as opposed to a particular Linux
>>>distribution. People writing books about Linux can target the 'Linux 2000
>>>Platform' as well, so people wanting to learn about Linux can simply get
>>>any distribution that is Linux 2000 compliant. As long as the
>>>distribution guidelines are set in and the distribution vendors correctly
>>>follow the guidelines, the Linux world will be a better place.
>
>Yes. And one RPM should install on all Linux 2000 systems.
>Not like 5 differenet RPM packages for one thing.
I dunno...I still get caught up at 'RPM'. Sure, it works, but
there are better alternatives.
>>Sounds like a marketing tool.
>
>It is. Also a tech issue.
>Even tech people would benefit.
>Like one RPM on all Linux 2000 distros.
>The benefits outway the limits.
>Maybe Linux 2000 install could be optional.
I dunno, again the 'RPM' part bugs me.
>
>>
>>>Perhaps we need a new mailing list dedicated to defining and regulating
>>>these issues?
>
>NO!
How about a special newsgroup?
>>
>>You would also need the participation and support of several MAJOR
>>players in the Linux community.
>
>Yes. This is to say basic Linux stuff should be the same.
>Like cdrom players, compatibility is most important.
Hardware compatibility is already the same.
>Differentiate on higher level stuff.
>I should never hear "Oracle for Redhat" and
>"Oracle may port to Debian soon"
Even if you do, you can just get the 'RedHat version' and run it,
quite happily, on Debian.
(Even if it's an RPM, there are conversion tools.)
>>>The following are my first two (very bare) suggestions to begin with:
>>>
>>>Linux 2000 Workstation
>>>----------------------
>>>
>>>Base components:
>>> . Standard locations for all configuration files!
>
>Should be in layers due to dependencies. See above.
Sort of...the files that exist would relate to the layers,
but the locations wouldn't really change.
[SNIPlet]
>>> . Glibc based
>>> . RPM for package manager
>
>Not close enough unfortunately.
>There should not need to be multiple RPM versions of KDE.
>This extra packaging in wasted energy.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here...
[SNIP]
>>
>>Summary: It sounds like you want
>>RedHat == Linux 2000
>
>It seems if code is truely free than lets prove it and take the best pieces
>from each distro and put them together to make this standard base for Linux 2000.
In that case, no RPM ;P I agree, but for the most part he was describing
RedHat.
>There should not be vastly different ability and toolset to set up your
>sound card.
True, but there IS a standard way to do it already. If, say, sndconfig
became the standard way that might help. However, in it's current
incarnation sndconfig sucks. They need to make it configure ALL SUPPORTED
CARDS, not just SoundBlasters. I can't begin to tell you how much it bugs
me to hear 'I have an SB-compatible card, but it doesn't work' when the
card they have has NAITIVE-MODE support.
[SNIP]
Still sounds like the goal is RedHat == Linux2000
(That, and I didn't want to dig through the rest of that junk.)
--
"Being myself a remarkably stupid fellow, I have had to unteach myself
the difficulties, and now beg to present to my fellow fools the parts
that are not hard" --Silvanus P. Thompson, from "Calculus Made Easy."
------------------------------
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs. Linux vs. Windows
Date: 30 Mar 1999 18:25:30 -0500
Matthias Buelow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
-> David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
->
-> > When these machines are all networked together, they should be able to
-> > share their cpu power so that jobs that can be parallelized can take
-> > advantage of the computing power available.
->
-> How often is this done with Unix workstations in a larger pool?
-> To accomplish this goal, we'd need some distributed operating system,
-> like Plan9.
Sorry for the super late reply. I moved and needed a new ISDN line.
In my limited experience, web servers and their back end servers are
typicaly distributed over a number of machines. This is particularly
true of CORBA services. You don't need a distributed OS. You just
need software that supports network interoprability. A Java back end
using RMI and a good JIT could do the job regardless of the OS.
In a development environment, compiles can be spread accross machines
easily enough. It just requires some devious make files and the
appropriate entries in the hosts.equiv file.
I see no reason not to take advantage of all the CPU power available
to an organization.
--
David Steuber
http://www.david-steuber.com
s/trashcan/david/ to reply by mail
If you don't, I won't see it.
"I'm prepared for all emergencies but totally unprepared for everyday
life."
------------------------------
From: Emile van bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Proposal: "Linux 2000 Platform"
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 02:24:03 +0200
Hmm... following up on myself, but this may be worthwile nonetheless.
On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, I wrote:
[SNIP]
>I _don't_ want the installation procedure of product X
>fiddling with my configuration files. The only thing I expect it to do
>is put all files into the right places, and tell a desktop manager like
>KDE or Gnome _nicely_ using a _clean and documented protocol_ that it
>would like the desktop manager to show an icon X in place Y.
And:
>To end: I really think config tweaking by apps a very bad idea. Many
>configuration files are some kind of language, look for example at
>Apache's configuration. There are no sensible defaults for everyone. If
>one would like this tool (webserver) to work for him/her, one _will_, in
>any case, need to learn how to make it do the desired thing. It's sad,
>but there is _no_ way around that.
I now understand the (instinctive, at first) problem I have with it a
bit better.
You see, Application/Server/'OS' "A"'s configuration files are "A"'s
'property'. They belong to "A". "A" knows how they are layed out, and as
"A" is updated, the syntax and/or semantics of its configuration files
may change.
This is all about Application/module "B" changing "A"'s property. Most
of the time like an elephant in a porcelain cupboard, like the Dutch
say. It's not the way to go.
So let's look again at exacly _what_ we're trying to accomplish here.
Let's say we have some entity "A" installed, and we'd like to install
entity "B" and "register" it with or make it known to entity "A". So
it's about two different entities actually that actually need to
_communicate_. Well, what's needed then? Simple, as for all
communications between _different_ partners: a _protocol_.
Now, one could think of many different ways to accomplish such a thing.
1. You could go for a registering scheme, in that component "A" knows
that it may expect registrations from other parties. It should be
possible then for a component X/Y/Z to call "A"'s registration
interface with some parameters (this is the actual protocol) telling "A"
about that particular component. "A" then saves everything "A" needs to
know about component X/Y/Z _itself_, in its _own_ configuration files,
in its own very special way.
Or, if "A"'s knowledge base on components that may interface with "A"
is simple and the layout for the file this knowledge is in is so simple
and standardizeable that it can be carved in stone for years to come,
along with the algorithms to add records to it, you _may_ actually allow
a situation in which the component may alter this file all by itself. In
that case, the protocol is the file layout along with the algorithms
mentioned.
I guess it all comes down to something very simple.
If one creates an application that can be extended, i.e. a desktop
environment that can be "extended" to show another icon for another
installed application, it really should also support a well documented
protocol that enables the "extension", i.e. the application to request
for doing that.
Now, if you continue along this line, if all desktop environments and
application installers could implement (a subset of) this protocol,
you'd be in business, still allowing for all kinds of different and new
destkop environments.
It's simple computer theory. There are two situations possible if one
tries to interface A, B and/or C with X, Y and/or Z.
The first is that each of A, B, and C knows all about X, Y _and_ Z. This
leads to 3 * 3 = 9 interfaces, and a lot of burden into each of A, B and
C (the applications from the previous example, which would need to know
every peculiarity of every desktop).
The second is that each of A, B, and C knows all about P, and X, Y and Z
also know all about P (a protocol). This only leads to 3 _plus_ 3 = 6
interfaces. The only drawback is the common P which must be agreed upon.
It is that area which holds the real challenge.
I hope that this adds something of value to the discussion.
--
M.vr.gr. / Best regards,
Emile van Bergen (e-mail address: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
This e-mail message is 100% electronically degradeable and produced
on a GNU/Linux 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 (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
******************************
