Linux-Misc Digest #713, Volume #19 Fri, 2 Apr 99 23:13:13 EST
Contents:
Re: Adding a new disk ("Cameron Spitzer")
Dual-booting Win95 and Linux (Flyboy105)
Re: Why Linux still isn't my standard boot-up OS, or what are the
Linux-equivalents for these Windoze programs? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Clock and Sleep Mode ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Slow ethernet LAN driving me crazy!! (brian moore)
Re: Proposal: "Linux 2000 Platform" (Alexander Viro)
Proposal: "Linux 2000 Platform" (Kendall Bennett)
Re: ddd and lesstif (Edward Vigmond)
Re: 'Doze 98 vs. UNIX multitasking (NF Stevens)
Re: "playing MPEGs" or "problems with SMP kernel" (Andrew D Lenharth)
Re: RedHat, The Next MS (Ryan Ho)
Re: Lilo, boot record and the like ("Cameron Spitzer")
Re: KDE vs GNOME and what about Enlightenment? (Steve Conover)
Re: Why Linux still isn't my standard boot-up OS, or what are the Linux-equivalents
for these Windoze programs? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Who do you sue FUD (Jim Hill)
Re: C++ Heeeelp!!!! (David M. Cook)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Cameron Spitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Adding a new disk
Date: 3 Apr 1999 02:58:10 GMT
In article <7e3s36$95m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Walter Strong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Paul Davies ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> I guess I need to split the existing /usr directory across the old and the
>> new disk. How do I do this?
Install and test the new drive.
You can just bolt it in and start using it, but it's safer
to do a surface scan first. This will give the drive electronics
a chance to spare out any sectors that went bad in storage and
shipping. It will also warm the drive up to nominal operating
temperature before you write anything important there.
The Linux command to scan the second hard drive for defects is:
dd if=/dev/fdb conv=noerror bs=64k of=/dev/null
Do this before writing a partition table or file systems.
Then do it again.
>Trying to split /usr across multiple drives probably isn't the best advised
>thing to do. In fact, moving entire directories can always lead to problems.
What? Moving directories among partitions is an important
technique for space management and performance optimization.
For example, let's say /usr is getting crowded, and we don't
use LaTeX much any more. We add a second drive and mount
its first partition as /m/hdb1/. (No law requires mount points
to clutter up the root directory.) Then
cd /usr/lib/
cp -av texmf /m/hdb1/ && rm -rf texmf && ln -s /m/hdb1/texmf .
will free up 21 MB in /usr. Consider moving /usr/X11R6
to the second drive, also.
Don't forget to make an entry in /etc/fstab for the
new partition.
That's one of the things that bug me about the
SLS/Slackware/Red hat/SuSE install: they never give you
a chance to create mnemonic physical mount points and useful symlinks.
You can get root, /usr, /tmp, /var, and /home as separate partitions,
but there is no obvious way *during the install*
to make a 40 MB root and a 1.5 GB everything-else.
And I want root and /usr to be as close to read-only as possible,
which means I want everything-else on the third or fourth partition.
It seems especially risky to me to have /tmp on the root
partition. Why do they do that?
Cameron
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Flyboy105)
Subject: Dual-booting Win95 and Linux
Date: 3 Apr 1999 02:58:54 GMT
I installed Linux on my system with 250MB left over for Win95. After I
installed Win95, I no longer get LILO's screen when I start up.
Can someone help me?
Thanks!
====================================================
Kris Knigga
a.k.a The Great JoeBob
http://members.aol.com/Flyboy105
====================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Why Linux still isn't my standard boot-up OS, or what are the
Linux-equivalents for these Windoze programs?
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 17:29:37 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 02 Apr 1999 08:44:18 -0500...
..and Harry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are two kinds of people when it comes to computers:
> > people who are afraid of them and people who aren't. When
> > people who are afraid of computers learn something, they
> > stick with it, and don't move up any higher because,
> > naturally, they are afraid to.
> Higher? You mean there's software more basic than vi? Are
> you still coding in binary? Hardwiring your PC? Sounds to me
> like you're the one who won't move on to something higher.
It will probably surprise you, but vi is very high-level - actually,
it's very much object-oriented in its approach towards text editing,
very consequent; it's considerably more high-level than, say, pico.
mawa
--
Do you want to share my ever-expanding collection of signature
cookies? mawa is your friend: e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] - I'm always happy
to serve!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Clock and Sleep Mode
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 15:51:26 GMT
OK, I did more experimentation and figured some things about the sleep mode,
but don't know why or how to fix it.
In article <7e1mes$mfi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 2) Round at about the same time, I notice that when I set the machine to sleep
> mode, the monitor remains the same instead of blanking off. It used to blanked
> off automatically after it goes into sleep mode, or when I didn't touch the
> machine for a while. Now, the machine may slow down, but the monitor continues
> to shine brightly. On the other hand, it still behaves correctly under
> Windows98. Is there a problem with my video or Xfree86 setting?
Recently, I switched from LILO to loadlin, because the LILO was installed by
RH5.2 onto the MBR, and Windows98 doesn't like it, such that it complains
(even when disabling virus check), sets all drives to msdos mode, etc. Things
crawled under windows and crash very often. SO, I removed LILO from the MBR
and used loadlin instead and the problems disappeared. (I haven't been
successful with using LILO in a bootable partition yet... will keep trying).
But the sleep problem started when I switched to loadlin. I can loadlin from
diskette when it boots up, and things ran ok. In fact, it sleeps when it is
supposed to. But when I move the loadlin to the msdos partition, and call it
from msdos after I quit from windos98, two things crop up: loadlin sees only
16M of RAM and the sleep problem I mentioned earlier. So, I physically added
mem= parameter to loadlin, it boots up and see the full amount of RAM I have,
but the sleep problem persist. Two questions:
1) Why does loadlin see only 16M if it was inside the msdos from windows, but
is ok when I clean boot from a diskette? Is that a limitation of msdos? Why
doesn't this problem appear when I boot from diskette? Does it mean that the
msdos on the drive and the diskette are not the same (but I created them
diskette from the same system using plain old format under Windows98)?
2) What is causing the sleep problem? Is it related to (1)?
Any ideas?
Thanks a great deal.
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Slow ethernet LAN driving me crazy!!
Date: 1 Apr 1999 22:19:14 GMT
On 1 Apr 1999 15:11:15 GMT,
Markus Wandel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brian moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >(And, yes, you can see assymetric failures with bad twisted pair cables,
> >since one pair is Tx and one is Rx, the system with the icky Rx pair
> >will have problems receiving, though less problems sending.)
>
> Permit me to add that in my experience, many if not most 10baseT cables
> are bad. The pairing of pins on an RJ45 connector is
>
> 1,2
> 3,6
> 4,5
> 7,8
>
> of which 10/100baseT use 1,2 and 3,6. A lot of cables, though are wired with
> the twisted pairs hooked up to 1,2 / 3,4 / 5,6 / 7,8. This happens to work
> for some fairly nontrivial lengths and 10baseT but it is WRONG and can cause
> problems, and of course they will be asymmetrical ones because one direction
> is in fact on a twisted pair.
Indeed. We had such a pair here (NEVER let your phone guy wire your
LANS). Actually, his was a bit worse: he'd paired them as 1/6 and 2/3.
(He's a phone guy so he thinks cables have at most 4 wires.) This made
it check out just fine and dandy on a cheap ethernet tester, but when it
was in service it would get really slow sometimes and one additional
machine added to that segment pretty well killed it.
Actually, the phone guy did it more than once. (Every single cable he's
run he's had to come out and fix. If it didn't all have to go through
his unlabelled-punchdown-block-Hell we'd do it ourselves, but he's got
Job Security.)
> It's hard to check if your cable is one of the "bad ones" unless you can see
> enough of the wires though the connector. A twisted pair is usually a solid
> colour and white wire with stripes of the solid colour.
>
> I've seen 20-30ft runs of "bad" cable work fine for 10baseT but you never know.
Icky. I wouldn't even try 2ft.
--
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: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Proposal: "Linux 2000 Platform"
Date: 2 Apr 1999 11:36:22 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher B. Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 1 Apr 1999 21:34:22 -0500, Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>posted:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>I suggest dpkg instead, it's a bit more, shall we say, 'advanced'.
>>
>>Seconded, with possible ports integration.
>
>Unfortunately, the flaming of Red Hat by those of the Slackware
>Religion acts as an anodyne, distracting people from the possibility
>that there might be ideas out there that are better than either
>system's approach.
>
>The fixation on RPM, with occasional vague mention of dpkg, betrays a
>generally vast ignorance of the various packaging methods that in use.
>Almost certainly Ports and the Debian tools represent something closer
>to the "state of the art" than does RPM.
>
>Anyone for stow? Depot? NSBD?
>
>Note that RPM would be a whole lot more usable if there was something
>functionally equivalent to Debian's APT and dselect tools...
You know, it looks like a case of common UTD (UI Transmitted Disease) -
functionality gets ignored, UI becomes the only thing that is considered.
Instead of looking at the existing tasks and properties that can be provided
by such tools it becomes a matter of "foo has a pretty button in the top
left corner of the window!" - "So?" - "It's cool!" - "<shudder>".
Slackware folks have a point, BTW - there are situations when no tool
is more reliable than tool which may leave the system in hard-to-recover state.
Example: databases are generally faster than long sectioned text files. So
keeping mailboxes in a database may be nice. Except that M Sexchange is prone
to breakage and recovering the database in question is *not* a nice exercise.
From the tools I've seen dpkg and friends are the best system
for dealing with binary packages. Ports lose here, but win for source
packages. Probably the best combination would be something a-la ports
able to generate .deb or equivalent. Notice that it's *not* only matter
of clever packaging scheme. You need (at least): (a) source
dependencies for each source package; (b) binary dependencies for each
binary package (one source package may generate several binary ones);
(c) well-defined set of virtual packages (e.g. ability to say that
package foo depends on web-browser) + common methods to interact with
packages providing given virtual package (e.g. register a new MIME
type) + alternatives mechanism; (d) well-defined core sets (for binary
and for source work), so that all packages can assume that binary core
is present and for source builds - that packages from source core are
present. All that stuff is the work for distribution-maker (and accurate
dependency calculation - for maintainer of each package). Clever tools
may work if that information is present. They can't *replace* it.
How it was? "Do it right, *then* make it pretty"... Not the other
way round.
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer" - Dilbert.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kendall Bennett)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Proposal: "Linux 2000 Platform"
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 11:31:43 -0800
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.
I know there is already the Linux LSB project underway to hopefully solve
some of these problems. However I think we need something more
definitative than this. What we need to do is put together something
similar to the the Microsoft PC '99 guidelines, but for Linux
distributions. I am proposing that we start a new project to define the
'Linux 2000 Platform'.
Since there will be differences between the different uses for Linux, we
should define multiple variations of the Linux 2000 platform. The
contents of what make up the variations Linux 2000 platform should be
debated and eventually voted on to come up with the final guidelines.
Some people may not agree with the final vote, but the important thing is
that compromises need to be made for this to be successful. We may also
want to define what are 'base components' that must be installed on every
system, and components that are optional and may or may not be installed
by the user.
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.
Perhaps we need a new mailing list dedicated to defining and regulating
these issues?
The following are my first two (very bare) suggestions to begin with:
Linux 2000 Workstation
======================
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)
Optional components:
. Web browser (Netscape or Mozilla variation?)
. Need more suggestions here!
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!
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| SciTech Software - Building Truly Plug'n'Play Software! |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kendall Bennett | To reply via email, remove nospam from |
| Director of Engineering | the reply to email address. Do NOT send |
| SciTech Software, Inc. | unsolicited commercial email! |
| 505 Wall Street | ftp : ftp.scitechsoft.com |
| Chico, CA 95928, USA | www : http://www.scitechsoft.com |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: Edward Vigmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ddd and lesstif
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 16:42:57 GMT
Juergen Heinzl wrote:
>
> In article <7e0qov$69p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Lee wrote:
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I've ddd 3.1.3 and lesstif 0.88 compiled in to be compliant with Motif
> >1.2 on a RH 5.2 machine. Every time I try to edit
Lesstif is far from 100% complete.
> >preferences, the following message appears :
> > Warning:
> > Name: menubar
> > Class: XmRowColumn
> > RowColumn.c(3547) - Restoring focus to NULL widget!
> > Must have missed a focus save somewhere.
> >
> >And then if I try to change anything in the popup, the border of the
> >the small popup window blinks continuously and ddd hangs.
> >
> >I'm wondering if this problem is ddd's or lesstif's?
>
> Might be lesstif. I've got ddd here compiled against Motif 2.0, nothing
> like that shows or ever showed up with either the libc5 or now the libc6
> versions
It is definitely lesstif. I tried compiling ddd with lesstif 0.88.0 and
found it unusable. While lesstif generally gets better, something always
breaks with a new release. The ddd web page says you need ddd 3.1.4
which is a lesstif 0.88.0 specific patch.
I gave up and ended up downloading the statically linked binary which
works fine.
--
Ed Vigmond
Institut de Genie Biomedical, Universite de Montreal
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NF Stevens)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: 'Doze 98 vs. UNIX multitasking
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 20:05:39 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonas Otter) wrote:
[snip]
>The time 55 msec is something which has been ever since DOS 1.0; why
>55 msec? no idea.
One hour == 65536 ticks.
Norman
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.development.system
From: Andrew D Lenharth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "playing MPEGs" or "problems with SMP kernel"
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 00:10:34 GMT
I have a dual PII-350, And video is smooth as can be. This using a #9
rev3D and a Matrox G200. Maybe you're out of ram and things are getting
paged (like the video player)?
Andrew LEnharth
On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Peter Kharchenko wrote:
> Hi,
> I've ran into a weird problem when I put a second processor into my
> system: When the kernel is running in SMP mode with two processors,
> video players don't seem to work. All of them (mpeg_play, MpegTV, xanim)
> are showing the same exact problem: they spit out a bunch of frames,
> then freeze, then spit out some more and so on.
> If I turn off the SMP option and recompile that same kernel, all works
> fine. If I run an SMP kernel having just one processor in the system, it
> all runs fine too. I have not noticed any other problems running the
> system in SMP mode with two processors. I imagine this has something to
> do with timings (and yes, I've tried to turn Enhanced Real Time Clock
> option, it doesn't help).
>
> I was wondering if anyone else was having a similar problem or has any
> suggestions on how to fix this.
>
> (my system is a dual PII-450, and I tried the following kernels: 2.2.5,
> 2.2.4 and 2.1.132 ... all giving the same results :( )
>
>
> Thanks in advance for any suggestions,
>
> -peter.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Ryan Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RedHat, The Next MS
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 22:56:14 +0800
> > >I got the feeling RedHat will be the next MS in term of owning the
> > >share market of PC softwares and building junky stuffs, but getting
> > >good at marketing. They are rushing like guys&girls at MS Corp,
> > >releasing premature, buggy softwares.
Let's face it, we're talking about open-source software here, not
proprietary software. The only way RedHat will become a monopoly is when
they consistently prove themselves to be better than others.
------------------------------
From: "Cameron Spitzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lilo, boot record and the like
Date: 3 Apr 1999 01:43:24 GMT
In article <7e3i1b$8o4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is lilo required in order to launch linux?
No. You can copy a Linux bootimage to a raw floppy device,
and BIOS can launch that all by itself.
> After reading some documentation
>on that, I'm quite confused on that. I think I've read, Lilo must be installed
>in the boot record/sector,
The BIOS transfers control to the first sector of the first
device it finds that contains a magic number that says
"I'm bootable!" The LILO boot sector is one thing that
satisfies BIOS. But there are many other lumps of software
designed to accept control from BIOS, and some of them
(e.g., System Commander, OS/2 Boot Manager, EZ Drive)
can be convinced to run LILO after a while.
> and then, I believe, I've also read that the
>kernel itself can be placed in the boot record/sector.
I've always wanted to try that. Make a 1 cylinder partition
at the beginning of the drive, and just copy the Linux bootimage
(/usr/src/linux/arch/i386/boot/zImage) there.
I'll bet it would boot really fast. There would be no way to
pass it boot time arguments, though.
>
>I'm also confused about the terms boot record and boot sector. Do
>they denote the same thing?
Approximately. To split hairs, the boot record might
be LILO itself, also known as /boot/boot.b, and the boot
sector might be the first sector of the drive,
or a partition. That is, the place you'd copy LILO to.
>
>Where acutally does the boot record/sector reside on the hard disk?
>Cylinder 0, sector 0, head 0? or at the very beginning of each
>partition?
Ther very first sector on a PC-partitioned hard drive is
called Master Boot Record in DOS parlance. The first
sector of a partition is that partition's boot record.
>
>If there are three partions on the first (and only) harddisk, is
>the following true:
>
>/dev/hda == /dev/hda1 + /dev/hda2 + /dev/hda3
The README file in the Lilo source documentation explains this
in some detail. If you don't want to unpack that tarball,
you can read it at http://judi.greens.org/about/lilo/lilo-21/
>/dev/hda + boot record == /dev/hda1 + /dev/hda2 + /dev/hda3
>
>or
>
>/dev/hda == /dev/hda1 + boot record of partition 1 +
> /dev/hda2 + boot record of partition 2 +
> /dev/hda3 + boot record of partition 3
All of those interpretations are correct to some extent.
They are different ways of looking at the same thing.
Cameron
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Conover)
Subject: Re: KDE vs GNOME and what about Enlightenment?
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 00:31:02 GMT
>By the way, do Corel and StarDivision remind anyone but me of those
>drug pushers that hang around school yards giving their wares away
>for free until they thinked that they have them hooked, and then
>start charging outrages fees for the crap?
You are catching on to the business model in environments with high degrees of
network externalities. People think that there are no barriers-to-entry in
the new world of the internet: bullshit. You gotta give your stuff away or
charge a very low price to get lock-in, and then raise your price. See
windows, IE5 (or what will happen w/ IE5), what NS is doing in a more
indirect manner with Mozilla...in fact a lot of big companies are giving away
their base-model software for free and only charging for the "professional"
model (IBM's VisualAge for Java comes to mind).
This is *not* a bad thing. It's what we dictate to corporations by voting
with our dollars every day. I like markets, it means people get what they
want and development happens in the areas where people want stuff.
-Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.help,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Why Linux still isn't my standard boot-up OS, or what are the
Linux-equivalents for these Windoze programs?
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 1999 01:17:34 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 2 Apr 1999 15:24:18 -0500...
..and Tom Betz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoth "George Georgakis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
><01be7653$3a3ea620$0101a8c0@george>:
> |Much as I hate to say it, for ease of use and for those of the "just
> |install and use it" crowd, I must agree that Win9* is currently ahead of
> |all flavours of Linux.
>
> Sad, but true.
>
> Little things annoy. For example, there is no common buffer for
> cutting and pasting between apps.
Sure there is.
> You can't do something as simple
> as paste text copied from an xterm session into, say, Netscape.
Netscape is a screwed-up app, that's why it works with almost
everything but Netscape.
mawa
--
My guess is Absoft did things right. Now if we could just get
Microsoft on the bandwagon.
-- Bill Seymour
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Hill)
Subject: Re: Who do you sue FUD
Date: 3 Apr 1999 01:27:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Lew Pitcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't know of any company that warantees against misuse of a product,
>and I doubt that a legal argument of "the manufacturer is culpable for
>failures due to misuse or malicious tampering" would succeed.
You're probably right, but name an industry other than software sales
where the manufacturer gets to dust his hands together three times and
announce to the customer "You're on your own, pal."
>If I understand things correctly, the argument is that Linux doesn't
>have a single point of legal responsibility (someone to sue) if features
>or facilities of Linux don't work as 'advertised'.
Neither does Microsoft, Sun, or any other OS vendor. They expressly
warrant that the software may not work as advertised and the most they
are responsible for is replacement of the media if _that_ is defective.
>That is to say, the manufacture is culpable for failures due to failure
>to implement facilities advertised as being implemented.
But they aren't, which is the point of this rant.
Jim
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.swcp.com/~jimhill/
"Visualize world peace...good.
Now wake up and smell the coffee."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Re: C++ Heeeelp!!!!
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 16:56:38 GMT
On 01 Apr 1999 22:24:55 -0800, Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I didn't buy it because it was cloned from Oualline's also excellent
><Practical C Programming>. And I do mean `cloned,' whole sections of
>the book are identical to PCP with the exception of having `C++'
>substituted for `C.' That kind of annoyed me.
It's not a good book for learning modern C++ IMO. I'd want a book that went
deeper into OO concepts and covered the STL. PC++P is pretty much a
C++-as-a-better-C type book. Not one of O'Reilly's winners IMO.
You can find another review at
http://www.accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/p/p001010.htm
I got _C++ for Professional Programmers with PC and UNIX applications_ by
Blaha for a C++ course (the unix stuff is a chapter on IPC). It's a pretty
good, easy to read introduction, and it's coverage is fairly modern (has a
chapter on STL.) ACCU has a review:
http://www.accu.org/bookreviews/public/reviews/cp/cp000376.htm
Dave Cook
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
