Linux-Misc Digest #212, Volume #21 Thu, 29 Jul 99 16:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Should IBM port Visual Age for Java to Linux? (Reality is a point of view)
accessing physical memory ("Hung P. Tran")
Re: Should IBM port Visual Age for Java to Linux? (Dennis Smith)
Re: Should IBM port Visual Age for Java to Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Should IBM port Visual Age for Java to Linux? ("news.spacelab.net")
Re: Should IBM port Visual Age for Java to Linux? (Dennis Smith)
Re: helping the Third World ("Noah Roberts (jik-)")
Re: CD-RW - can't read them under Windows95, 3.1, etc... ("Noah Roberts (jik-)")
Re: CIA assassinations (Arthur)
Re: IBM Netfinity 5500 and Caldera 2.2 Problems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How do you add pseudo tty's (Jarek)
IRC server for Linux ("Gregor Gregori�")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.lang.smalltalk
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reality is a point of view)
Subject: Re: Should IBM port Visual Age for Java to Linux?
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:52:17 GMT
+---- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:36:50 GMT):
| ObjectShare did a presentation at the January North Texas Linux Users
| Group meeting, and left us with a few Zip disks with copies of the
| "freely deployable" portions.
+----
As there seems to be some confusion let me quote from
ObjectShare's recent announcement (on commercial VW, not VWNC).
From: Brenda Friederich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Announcing VisualWorks 3.0 on Linux
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:21:23 -0800
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
OBJECTSHARE ANNOUNCES VISUALWORKS 3.0 FOR LINUX
First Complete Enterprise Development Environment For Red Hat Linux
[...]
powerful. VisualWorks has been available as a non-commercial product on
the Linux platform since September of 1998.
[...]
Pricing and Availability
VisualWorks 3.0 for Linux will be available in a commercial edition in
the first quarter of 1999, supporting Red Hat Linux 5.x on the Intel
processors. Special introductory pricing of $495 will be offered for a
limited time for development licenses on Linux. Deployment licenses for
the Linux version will also be available from ObjectShare.
[...]
Note the use of "deployment licenses". It is my understanding
that this is an issue under debate within ObjectShare, and
dropping deployment licensing may occur. Hopefully a decision
will be reached before a certain convention in early March . . .
As there have also been rumblings about IBM announcements
pertaining to GNU/Linux it seems possible that they too may
have announcements of interest, even for VA Smalltalk. While
quality development tools, even at MIS prices, are welcome it
is likely that deployment licenses would not be well received.
--
Gary Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Privacy on the net is still illegal.
------------------------------
From: "Hung P. Tran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: accessing physical memory
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:05:02 GMT
Hi all,
I have a need to access physical memory (just a memory card)
from my application program. Is there anyway to access the memory
without writing a device driver ? If not, is there any simple driver
available just to allow application to access physical memory
(source code would be more helpful) ?
Is there anyway I can tell how much TOTAL physical memory
linux actually see ? I tried "top" and "free" command, but they only
show memory available after kernel usage. Does linux find out
how much memory available by probing, or does it rely on BIOS
function and parameters ???
Thank you in advance,
hung
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.lang.smalltalk
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dennis Smith)
Subject: Re: Should IBM port Visual Age for Java to Linux?
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:52:47 GMT
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 02:47:02 +0000, Peter Hatch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Reality is a point of view wrote:
>>
>> [note: crosspost added c.l.s, Cc'd tmurphy for kicks]
>>
>> +---- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:18:54 -0600):
[deleted lots]
>> will drop them, though encouragement couldn't hurt).
>>
>
>Most likely there will be several licenses. Some folks would much
>rather have runtimes, while others just want the product for a one-time
>fee. Still others want lots of support, and some want no support at
>all. Then there's the large shops (200 heads) and the Little Guy (2
>guys doing independent consulting). All of these people have their own
>needs, but only about 1% of them speak up. The happy people are always
>the quietest unfortunately. The purpose of stating the press release
>the way it was stated was to gauge public opinion about the option of
>re-introducing runtimes for certain customers (also to see if the 90%
>price reduction could justify runtimes or a deployment license). We
Let me state my agreement with the above. We are a small shop
that deploys to much larger groups, but deployment comes later.
It cots a lot to have 4 or 5 full VW licences (close to $4500 CDN
each). Would be better for US to go with lower cost up front
and onging runtimes. This can, in some cases, be better for
ObjectShare too -- depending on the number of final deployed
images. My preference would be to see two basic pricing
strategies:
1. as is now, pay up front
2. lower up front with a contract for some
minimum runtimes later
#2 is a bit of a question. Company has to protect themselves
against someone doing massive development an little if any
deployment and getting the dev images cheap.
However, with two policies, one can then negotiate different
cases.
>shall see...
>
>
>> --
>> Gary Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Privacy on the net is still illegal.
=================================================================
Dennis Smith, MaSc -- Cherniak Software Development Corporation
400-10 Commerce Valley Dr E, Thornhill ON Canada L3T 7N7
Phone: 905.771.7011 FAX: 905.771.6288
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cherniak.on.ca
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.lang.smalltalk
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Should IBM port Visual Age for Java to Linux?
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:53:46 GMT
Let's step back from the runtime vs. big upfront price to
get at the root of the problem. It comes down to getting
paid for the value that you have added along the food-chain
to the final user. The problem faced by development systems
is that the developer is not at the end of the food chain.
Forcing the developer to impose runtime fees on his/her
clients, is not likely to fly in all cases. So it seems
that the development systems vendor would be wise to provide
some options.
Now, getting back to the value added aspect, I think the
problem that Smalltalk pricing has is that some Smalltalk
vendors feel that the development system they supply to
developers contains significant value added. The thinking may
be that the developer needs to add just a little code, and
re-use a lot of the components supplied, in order to have
a product to ship to the final user. Competing development
systems (e.g. JAVA, C/C++, BASIC) don't tend toward a runtime
pricing model. So why does Smalltalk? Does Smalltalk supply
enough re-usable components to justify a premium price, or
runtime fees? Have competing dev. systems narrowed the gap?
To build a JAVA-based dev system with equivalent re-usable
components, would I have to buy third-party addons; thus,
pushing up the price toward Smalltalk's price? I don't know
the answers, but I think Smalltalk pricing has to take into
account the competition's pricing models -- Smalltalk does
have competition; Smalltalk is good, but people won't pay
any price for it.
Yanni Jew
Zhao Technology Inc
Marten Feldtmann wrote:
>
> Dennis Smith wrote:
> >
> > If you think removing runtime fees makes things cheaper (as
> > some here seem to), you are being pretty naive. If it costs
>
> It seems for me, that one would like to buy Smalltalk very cheap,
> because the to-be-developed-product is not out yet and if it's
> out the opinion will change and now noone would like have runtime
> fees .. perhaps there's a market to lean software like cars, but
> that will be not much cheaper (in total).
>
> > The only arguments I see against
> > runtime fees are those of administration -- its a nuisance,
> > so that is why I suggest a couple of fee structures.
>
> Well, we're developing end-user applications and I can tell you,
> that we would strongly vote against runtime fees.
>
> Marten
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.lang.smalltalk
From: "news.spacelab.net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Should IBM port Visual Age for Java to Linux?
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:53:28 GMT
Just to update this. Objectshare has released there linux
version and you can get if for free ( the nc version) or pay
just under $500 a copy for a copy.
Reality is a point of view wrote in message <7av260$eoa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>[note: crosspost added c.l.s, Cc'd tmurphy for kicks]
>
> +---- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (Tue, 23 Feb 1999
10:18:54 -0600):
> | Well..in order for IBM to port VisualAge Java to Linux they would have
> | to port VisualAge Smalltalk to Linux because VA-Java is just a
> | VA-Smalltalk application. I would be heavily in favor of them porting
> | VA-Smalltalk to Linux because VA-Smalltalk is a much better development
> | tool than VA-Java anyway.
> |
> | They could probably do it fairly easily because they already have
> | VA-Smalltalk running on Windows, OS/2, AIX, Solaris, HP/UX, MVS, etc...
> +----
>
>Pressure from that other proprietary Smalltalk, ObjectShare's
>VW Smalltalk, will probably speed the port of VA Smalltalk.
>
>For those that aren't aware, VW Smalltalk for Linux has been
>announced, or possibly just preannounced. A lot of MIS style
>Smalltalkers like it. If I'm not mistaken ObjectShare intends
>to make a splash at a certain upcoming conference. If they do
>keep an eye out of 'deployment licensing' (see their
>preannoucement, posted to USENET, for previous plans to seek
>deployment fees), it hasn't been determined if they will retain
>that sort of silliness (but rumblings seem to indicate they
>will drop them, though encouragement couldn't hurt).
>
>--
>Gary Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Privacy on the net is still illegal.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.lang.smalltalk
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dennis Smith)
Subject: Re: Should IBM port Visual Age for Java to Linux?
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 18:53:44 GMT
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:08:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay
O'Connor) wrote:
>On 24 Feb 1999 03:11:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reality is a
>point of view) wrote:
>
>> +---- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (Wed, 24 Feb 1999 01:36:50 GMT):
>> | ObjectShare did a presentation at the January North Texas Linux Users
>> | Group meeting, and left us with a few Zip disks with copies of the
>> | "freely deployable" portions.
>> +----
>>
>>As there seems to be some confusion let me quote from
>>ObjectShare's recent announcement (on commercial VW, not VWNC).
>>
>> From: Brenda Friederich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
>> Subject: Announcing VisualWorks 3.0 on Linux
>> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 09:21:23 -0800
>> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>[...]
>> OBJECTSHARE ANNOUNCES VISUALWORKS 3.0 FOR LINUX
>> First Complete Enterprise Development Environment For Red Hat Linux
>>[...]
>> powerful. VisualWorks has been available as a non-commercial product on
>> the Linux platform since September of 1998.
>>[...]
>> Pricing and Availability
>> VisualWorks 3.0 for Linux will be available in a commercial edition in
>> the first quarter of 1999, supporting Red Hat Linux 5.x on the Intel
>> processors. Special introductory pricing of $495 will be offered for a
>> limited time for development licenses on Linux. Deployment licenses for
>> the Linux version will also be available from ObjectShare.
>>[...]
>>
>>Note the use of "deployment licenses". It is my understanding
>>that this is an issue under debate within ObjectShare, and
>>dropping deployment licensing may occur. Hopefully a decision
>>will be reached before a certain convention in early March . . .
>
>
>
>
>>
>>As there have also been rumblings about IBM announcements
>>pertaining to GNU/Linux it seems possible that they too may
>>have announcements of interest, even for VA Smalltalk. While
>>quality development tools, even at MIS prices, are welcome it
>>is likely that deployment licenses would not be well received.
>
>It depends on what they mean by 'development' versus 'deployment'
>
>For example, look at Dolphin Smalltalk's structure. YOu can have a
>back version for free. A personal use up to date version for a
>nominal fee or you can pay more and get the packaging tools needed to
>deploy the application
>
>In other words, the development license may apply to internal work or
>maybe 'open source' work (althought I think the NC version would cover
>that) and the deployment license may apply if you want to shrink-wrap
>and sell the application.
>
>I don't think ObjectShare would try to apply runtime licenses,
>ParcPlace seemed to get burned on that already.
Personally I would prefer runtime licences. Please don't stop
reading now, here is why:
We are a small custom business application / consulting company.
Paying $3000 US for each developer is not easy since we may be
a year before client install. I would prefer to pay say $500 US up
front, and then when I install let MY client pay per deployed seat.
Although "I" can make him pay, I have to wait a year to recover
my up front costs. The other advantage is to the supplier. If set up
correctly, the average take from low up-front and lower per-seat is
probably a bit higher.
Actually I would like to see a couple of pricing structures. I think
the $500 + runtime would have to be a contract that required
runtime or one would get in-house work done at $500 per instead
of $3000 per. It should not be too hard to set up a couple of
structures -- gemstone has multiple pricing policies. This would keep
everyone happy. It might also be extended to one-man shops
creating tools addons. Pay $500 up front and a percentage of
each sale.
>
>As far as IBM and VA-Smalltalk though, if they do releease it I hope
>they use there VA-Java pricing structure
>
>>--
>>Gary Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Privacy on the net is still illegal.
>
>Take care,
>
>Jay O'Connor
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.roadrunner.com/~joconnor
>http://www.ezboard.com
>
>"God himself plays on the bass strings first, when he tunes the soul"
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: helping the Third World
From: "Noah Roberts (jik-)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 29 Jul 1999 11:33:53 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kulisz) writes:
> Those "well, why don't you change the world yourself" responses are
> sure signs of a witless cretin.
You do your part....noone can expect any more or less.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: CD-RW - can't read them under Windows95, 3.1, etc...
From: "Noah Roberts (jik-)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 29 Jul 1999 11:39:42 -0700
de Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After reading the mkisofs and cdrecord documentation
> i've started to write to one CD-RW medium to see if it
> works. I was able to mount and read it fine under the
> Linux box where i've burned it, also under Windows NT4.0.
> However, under 98, 95 and older OS's it doesn't work
> at all (The OS says : Drive D: not ready).
Is it a CD-RW drive or at least a MultiRead CD-ROM?
> I also wasn't able to read it on another Linux box with
> a 4 speed CD device !
Of course not. Its a CDRW media and older CDROMS are incapable of
reading them.
The problem is hardware. Its old hardware that cannot read the disk,
not the older OS. If you took the drive that won't read the disk and
put it in the computer that will it would not work.
It sucks yes, but the old CD-ROMS can't read CDRW disks, the media is
too dark and the lazer is not reflected enough for them.
------------------------------
From: Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: CIA assassinations
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:50:51 -0700
David Turley wrote:
> Gee, I thought this was linux group. Can't you people read?
On the road to world domination, many things must be
considered.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: IBM Netfinity 5500 and Caldera 2.2 Problems
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:00:18 GMT
In article <7no0bo$lqk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Robert C Flisik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have Netfinity 5500's and would like to move from NT to Linux. We
> purchased the 2.2 distribution of Caldera. Each time we try to load in
the
> install, the system will hang at the load kernel message. Afterwords a
hard
> reboot is required.
> We have tried the shipped install floppy, and well as LISA - both with
> similar results - a lock up at the LILO message.
> We would like to use the Caldera distribution, but I have read that
RedHat
> does support the ServeRaid II controller in the Netfinity series. Can
> anyone help?
>
> Details:
> 450 PII, 128MB, (2) 9GB drives.
>
> Thanks in Advance,
> Bob Flisik
Bob
I am currently running two 5500's with the beta driver using Red Hat
Linux 6.0 in my office. It seems pretty stable, but there are several
issues I am dealing with:
1) The SeveRAID controller does NOT like SCSI tape drives. IBM
suggests that you get a seperate controller for them.
2) The Linux driver will NOT recognize an Iomega SCSI Zip 100.
I have purchased the IBM SCSI controller (part # 76H3579 {which is an
Adaptec 2940UW packaged with IBM cables}) and the tape and Zip both seem
to be fine.
All other hardware on the server comes up fine under Red Hat 6.0.
If my testing continues as well as it has gone so far, I will probably
deliver these systems to clients during the second week of August even
though the drivers are betas. My conversations with IBM software
engineers indicate that they are very close to releasing the driver.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Jarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How do you add pseudo tty's
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 21:16:19 +0200
Bill Cripe wrote:
>
> My machine currently has ttyp1 - ttyp47 in /dev. I'd like to have at
> least 100 pseudo tty's for some software that I'm testing. I've found
> various information about pseudo tty's, but I can't quite get the idea
> of what's the usual way of creating a bunch more of them. I suspect
> that there's an easy way to do this, but I just can't seem to discover
> it. Thanks in advance for the help.
crw-rw-rw- 1 root root 3, 3 Jun 25 15:47 /dev/ttyp3
crw-rw-rw- 1 root tty 3, 4 May 5 18:07 /dev/ttyp4
crw-rw-rw- 1 root tty 3, 5 Mar 3 18:20 /dev/ttyp5
crw-rw-rw- 1 root tty 3, 6 Mar 3 18:20 /dev/ttyp6
crw-rw-rw- 1 root tty 3, 7 Mar 3 18:20 /dev/ttyp7
crw-rw-rw- 1 root tty 3, 8 Mar 3 18:20 /dev/ttyp8
^ ^
major number minor number
just look at major and minor numbers... Got it? ;)
And now use
mknod /dev/ttyXX c 3 YY
where XX is your name and YY is the number your tty device
Jarek
--
Raz, dwa, trzy, proba sygnatury...
------------------------------
From: "Gregor Gregori�" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IRC server for Linux
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 21:43:18 +0200
Where can I get a good IRC server for Linux (RedHat 6.0).
Thx
Greg
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
