Linux-Misc Digest #841, Volume #21 Thu, 16 Sep 99 22:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Absurd Linux mentality ! (John Hasler)
Re: MySQL / PostgreSQL / MS SQL Server (Christopher Browne)
Re: COMMERCIAL: Cheap Linux machines / network appliances (Christopher Browne)
Re: PostScript to Word? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Figure Out The MS Source Code Yourself (Joel Hanger)
Re: Amiga, QNX, Linux and Revolution ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: linux dependecies (Paul Kimoto)
Re: fetchmail and postfix (John McKown)
Re: No /etc/resolv.conf file. (L J Bayuk)
Re: Alert: AMD K6-2 350 Mhz processor (Marco Anglesio)
Re: *nix vs. MS security (PST)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.misc
Subject: Re: Absurd Linux mentality !
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 22:36:54 GMT
Johannes writes:
> The least mnemonic is "cat" but guess what does "tac" ?
Splits files, obviously :)
--
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] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: MySQL / PostgreSQL / MS SQL Server
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 01:15:50 GMT
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 10:22:07 -0400, Ralph Allan Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:ZGBD3.1299$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>Potentially.
>>
>>PostgreSQL *does* have the ability to do logging; I'm not sure why you
>>think it doesn't.
>
>There is no documentation on it. I looked on the PostgreSQL site, but there
>is no indication of transaction logging.
How peculiar.
They must have changed the documentation pretty substantially between
yesterday and today if you couldn't find any indication of transaction
logging, as the following "indications" were easy to find on their web
site today:
<http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq-english.html>
Features
PostgreSQL has most features present in large commercial DBMS's,
like transactions, subselects, triggers, views, and sophisticated
locking. We have some features they don't have, like user-defined
types, inheritance, rules, and multi-version concurrency control
to reduce lock contention. We don't have foreign key referential
integrity or outer joins, but are working on them for our next
release.
<http://www.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/mvcc.htm>
Chapter 10. Multi-Version Concurrency Control
Introduction
Unlike most other database systems which use locks for concurrency
control, Postgres maintains data consistency by using a multiversion
model. This means that while querying a database each transaction sees
a snapshot of data (a database version) as it was some time ago,
regardless of the current state of the underlying data. This protects
the transaction from viewing inconsistent data that could be caused by
(other) concurrent transaction updates on the same data rows,
providing transaction isolation for each database session.
The main difference between multiversion and lock models is that in
MVCC locks acquired for querying (reading) data don't conflict with
locks acquired for writing data and so reading never blocks writing
and writing never blocks reading.
<http://www.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/mvcc3342.htm>
Transaction Isolation
The ANSI/ISO SQL standard defines four levels of transaction isolation
in terms of three phenomena that must be prevented between concurrent
transactions.
...
Postgres offers the read committed and serializable isolation levels.
<http://www.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/sql-commit.htm>
COMMIT
Name
COMMIT - Commits the current transaction
COMMIT [ WORK | TRANSACTION ]
--
((LAMBDA (X) (X X)) (LAMBDA (X) (X X)))
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/rdbms.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: COMMERCIAL: Cheap Linux machines / network appliances
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 01:13:50 GMT
On 15 Sep 1999 22:05:01 -0400, Gary Lawrence Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>>>>> "F" == F David Sacerdoti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> F> A new company, Sacerdoti Linux Machines (SLM) is selling cheap
> F> Linux computers using AMD K6-2 chips and generic PC hardware.
>
> F> The machines come complete with 17" monitor and fast ethernet
> F> for $899. The software is a KDE version of RH6.0.
>
> F> See specs and order from website: http://slinuxmachines.com
>
>Better rethink that: The Linux Store is advertising very similar
>machines (with sound as well but perhaps not network cards) for $399.
... And if you add a 17" monitor, video card, and a NIC to the "Linux
Store" system, price rises to about the $700 mark.
It appears that systems sold by The Linux Store are somewhat more
economical than those sold by "slinuxmachines.com"; the difference is
nowhere near this implied factor of 2.25 times as expensive.
See the URL below for a whole lot more options...
--
It isn't that physicists enjoy physics more than they enjoy sex, its that
they enjoy sex more when they are thinking of physics.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linuxvars.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.text.tex
Subject: Re: PostScript to Word?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 01:17:29 GMT
On 15 Sep 1999 22:50:15 GMT, T.P Harte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Don't quite know where to post this one...
>
>Does anyone know if it is possible to convert .ps documents
>created by, say LaTeX and dvips, into MS Word 6.0 .doc files?
You could take that Postscript output, render it into .gif or .jpeg
images, and include those images as part of a MS Word document file.
That's about as good as it gets; the transformation into Postscript is
very nearly one-way.
Postscript is commonly treated as a printer control language, and once
that is stipulated, there's no sense in keeping around "worthless"
information like:
- How characters group into words,
- How words group into lines,
- How lines group into paragraphs,
...
and other such stuff that might matter in a document format, but that
a printer really couldn't care less about.
In effect, the transformation from LaTeX into Postscript (this
actually takes place in the earlier step of transformation from LaTeX
into .dvi) throw away virtually all document structure information.
It is not inconcievable that one could write a program that would
*try* to pull out the text from such a document in Postscript form;
there are no guarantees available that you will get useful information
out of this...
--
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the
Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/printing.html>
------------------------------
From: Joel Hanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Figure Out The MS Source Code Yourself
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 16:45:44 -0700
==============C7E83F1BF5A1890B8B5C82D0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
If Reverse Engineering is breaking the law then they who persecuting you
have broken the law, for how is it that they know that you used their
code without reverse engineering it??? The way I see it is that if you
use someone elses code then how are they going to prosecute you when in
doing so they have just admitted to breaking the law themselves?
just my .02$ worth
Joel
--
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute,
and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty
girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute.
THAT'S relativity."
Albert Einstein
==============C7E83F1BF5A1890B8B5C82D0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
If Reverse Engineering is breaking the law then they who persecuting you
have broken the law, for how is it that they know that you used their code
without reverse engineering it??? The way I see it is that if you use someone
elses code then how are they going to prosecute you when in doing so they
have just admitted to breaking the law themselves?
<P>just my .02$ worth
<BR>Joel
<BR>
<BR>
<PRE>--
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute,
and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty
girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute.
THAT'S relativity."
Albert Einstein</PRE>
</HTML>
==============C7E83F1BF5A1890B8B5C82D0==
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.qnx,comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: Amiga, QNX, Linux and Revolution
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 00:28:04 GMT
In article <7qqkfr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Armin Steinhoff <Armin@Steinhoff_de> wrote:
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> In article <7qp61e$73i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
> >
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Birch <nospam> wrote:
> >>
> >>QNX does a number of things right that Linux does flat wrong (true
> >>_uncrashable_ (almost) micro kernel, real time performance etc)
> >
> >Ehhh..
> >
> >Sure, teh QNX microkernel is pretty uncrashable. But have you ever asked
> >yourself why? Maybe because it doesn't do all that much.
>
> Correct ... but that is a well DESIGNED feature. The QNX micro kernel offers
> only a restricted number of basic functions ... all other necessary functions
> are provided by partner processes which are doing IPC mainly via the extrem fast
> message passing. Important is that all of these partner (or service) processes
> are running in their own protected address space. That means if one processes
> will crash ... you will loose just the related services and not the whole
> system :-). This concept is continued in a advanced manner with QNX/Neutrino.
>
> >Put it in a general-purpose system, do some real work with it, open it
> >up to people who aren't polite, and see what happens.
>
> Since there are conceptual no differences between the service processes of the
> OS and user level tasks (apart of privileges ..) QNX is 'open' in that sense.
>
> >Not many people care that the microkernel hasn't crashed when everything else
> >>has.
>
> Lot of QNX users care about only to loose e.g. the service of a specific driver
> and not the whole system :-)
>
> >>I'm sure you're right, the problem for QNX is that few people know how
> >>good it is because it is so expensive (aimed at a different market).
> >
> >It's good for that market. But think about that _really_ means for a
> >moment. Don't make the mistake of extrapolating goodness in a very
> >specialized market into goodness a more real-life and much less
> >constrained market.
>
> Uhmmm .. I'm tiered to talk about the topic QNX/marketing ...
>
> Armin Steinhoff
>
> http://www.steinhoff.de
>
>
Linux is a great desktop operating system. It seems
to me that it is weak in a few areas where QNX/
Neutrino excels.
- Modularity and scaleability
- Size
- Realtime (subjective)
- Embeddable
Modularity:
===========
QNX/Neutrino provides many services traditionally
supplied with an operating system as plugins. For
instance (only to name a few):
- file system(s)
- TCP/IP stack
- GUI (it's decomposed within itself)
- Processes
- Posix message queues
Size:
=====
At the time I was beta testing Neutrino I was
putting together a kernel image that included
Processes, filesystem (CIFS and QNX), Posix message
queues, TCP/IP, remote debug agent and small servo
control app that was around 100K. Controlling the
final size of a ROM image was pretty easy with the
modularity they had.
Realtime:
=========
This is a pretty subjective area, but my experience
showed that QNX/Neutrino performed well in this
area. Neutrino was executing small application that
drove a servo at 400Hz. When running with the TCP/
IP stack, there was some jitter; however, running
without the TCP/IP stack aleviated the problem.
This alludes to another issue altogether: driver
implementation. A poorly written driver can
dramatically affect the system's realtime
performance. If you want a realtime system, you
need to develop device drivers with this mentality.
I'm not saying QNXs TCP/IP driver was bad... mine
would probably have been a lot worse. How many
Linux driver writers are thinking of realtime as
they write their driver code? At QNX, this is
always on their mind (probably :)).
Embeddable:
===========
There are articles on making Linux embeddable, but
I'm sure it isn't for the faint of heart. QNX
supplies the tools for just this sort of thing. To
be fair, I haven't the experience to comment on
Linux's capabilities in this area. There are a few
related items I can offer commentary on, however.
One of which is the GUI. You aren't going to put X
into an embedded product. It just isn't going to
happen unless you have tons of RAM for execution
and ROM for storing the binaries. QNX's Photon is
designed for this, though. It is a very powerful
ace in their deck of cards. It has the power of X
in a very tiny footprint (and a remote desktop to a
windows machine from the target runs acceptable
over a 14.4Kbps serial link). I don't think that X
will ever handle that as well. Also, QNX supports
flash filesystems for a number of flash chips.
These are hard to write... I've done it and my
filesystem was by no means as complete as the one
supplied by QNX.
Another thing QNX has going for it is that a device
QNX resides on can handle a sudden loss of power
without corrupting a filesystem. I doubt a UNIX
filesystem could handle that!!! Actually, I find
the fact that I have to "shutdown" through a
command or menu completely annoying with today's
desktop operating systems.
My only gripe so far is that QNX doesn't offer a
personal version of its operating system (make that
a reasonably priced, consumer version). The more
people that get a chance to use it and become
accustomed to it, the better chance these same
individuals will recommend it for use in products
where they work. Look at Linux. It's free so many
of us can download and play with it. Because of
that, it is making inroads into the backend server
market where IT professionals can sneak it in
unnoticed.
In summary, Linux is a great **desktop** operating
system. Depending on AI's requirements set, it may
be just as viable. QNX offers some unique
advantages for the embedded end of the product
spectrum, however. Of course there is always price
that gets into the fray as well. Anything that adds
to the cost of the end-product is always
scrutinized (companies hate paying royalties).
Linux definitely cannot be beat in this area. Also,
with the source code available, it is a great
prototyping vehicle.
Thanks Linus for a great learning tool for us
kernel writer wannabees or those of us that want to
understand UNIX internals better. :)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Kimoto)
Subject: Re: linux dependecies
Date: 16 Sep 1999 20:32:01 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[posted and e-mailed]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, C. S. Jennings wrote:
> I am looking for the following:
> id.so.1 and libXm.so.1
"id.so.1" looks like some shared library, except that it doesn't start
with "lib".
"libXm.so.*" is Motif, which you may have to purchase. Many Motif
programs, however, work with lesstif, so you may want to try using
that first.
> If anyone knows where I can find them and where they should reside on my
> linux setup
This depends on your distribution.
> I would appreciate a note via e-mail. I am attempting to load
> Amaya, a new browser, and it does not find these files.
> My e-mail is [EMAIL PROTECTED] I need this information ASAP.
You should not count on e-mail responses. If you take the trouble to
post on Usenet, you can take the trouble to read on Usenet.
--
Paul Kimoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John McKown)
Subject: Re: fetchmail and postfix
Date: 17 Sep 1999 00:36:38 GMT
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 13:26:01 -0400, Sparrow
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Alex Flinsch wrote:
>
>Sep 16 13:06:06 localhost postfix/qmgr[1436]: AEF28495C:
>to=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, relay=none, delay=55236,
>status=deferred (Name service error for domain localdomain: Host not found,
>try again)
>
Try update /etc/hosts. Mine is:
127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.localdomain
127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.localhost.localdomain
127.0.0.1 linux1 linux1.johnmckown.net
192.168.150.3 linux2 linux2.johnmckown.net
The last two entries are there because I anticipate networking my two
machines together. I just haven't had time to put the NIC in the second
machine. Work is driving me crazy (OK - it's a short drive!).
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (L J Bayuk)
Subject: Re: No /etc/resolv.conf file.
Date: 17 Sep 1999 01:38:41 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hello:
>
>When my kppp app boots I get a message that says no /etc/resolv.conf
>file found. Subsequently the dialer connects to my ISP but Communicator
>wont fetch any web pages. Do I need a resolv.conf file? If so where to
>I get it and what do I need to add to it to get it to work?
This is where you name your ISP's DNS servers (needed to resolve
host names). Just create it with any text editor. It looks like this:
search ispdomain.com
nameserver w.x.y.z
Where ispdomain.com is your ISP's domain, and w.x.y.z is their DNS
name server IP address. (The nameserver line can be repeated).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Anglesio)
Subject: Re: Alert: AMD K6-2 350 Mhz processor
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 15:21:32 GMT
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 14:30:56 GMT, Herve Fache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have to say that I use a CPU cooler program that sends a 'halt' command
when it has >nothing to do, because it is not include in Win9x (it is in
NT). I dunno if linux >includes such SW coolers though.
Linux does that as a matter of course; if you wanted to disable the hlt on
idle, you'd have to do some kernel hacking to get rid of it.
marco
--
,--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> Marco Anglesio | You're a doctor, Juliet. You <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | kill people all the time. <
> http://www.the-wire.com/~mpa | (Shallow Grave) <
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: PST <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.security
Subject: Re: *nix vs. MS security
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 03:59:55 +0300
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Ilya wrote:
>>> I'm taking a class on operating systems. During the last class, the
>>> instructor mentioned that *nices are less reliable and less secure than
>>> Microsoft OS's. His reasoning is that because *nices (espeically linux) is
>>> free and everyone has access to it, it's less secure. Random people can
>>> hack into a *nix system easier because they can figure out the interrupts
>>> and stuff, since it's a free OS.
>
>> Your instructor is totally bullshitting you. The type of "security"
>> that he seems to prefer is known as "Security through obscurity". It
>> means that the programmers figure that nobody will ever be able to
>> reverse engineer their code, so it doesn't really have to be that
>> secure.
>
>> Open source programs have to implement real security meaning that even
>> though one has access to the code, one cannot use that to circumvent
>> the system, because the security is made that way. (I'm no expert
>> either... :)
>
>....
plus...cause linux is MADE by the people ur instructor fears...now why would
they want 2 program sth. thats not secure...and since they know all the
tricks...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
