Re: so correct me if I am wrong
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 11:55:16AM -0500, Thomas David Rivers wrote: My experience has been that cross-compiling is risky, at best. While working to port SAPDB, one of the other people helping was doing cross-compiles, and getting different results than I was. Setting up a cross-compile environment is apparently not easy to do correctly, so I try to avoid it as much as possible. Cross-compiling is risky... but, it can be done. Earlier versions of gcc had problems, but it's getting better (and, of course plugSystems/C/plug gets it right.) The problems are not generally with the compiler/assembler/linker toolchain, but with the packages being built. Most programs have never been cross-compiled, and make assumptions that do not hold true for cross-compilation. For example, that the same compiler used to build executables for the target system can be used to build programs meant to run on the build system (such as utilities used during the build). -- - mdz
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 11:55:16AM -0500, Thomas David Rivers wrote: My experience has been that cross-compiling is risky, at best. While working to port SAPDB, one of the other people helping was doing cross-compiles, and getting different results than I was. Setting up a cross-compile environment is apparently not easy to do correctly, so I try to avoid it as much as possible. Cross-compiling is risky... but, it can be done. Earlier versions of gcc had problems, but it's getting better (and, of course plugSystems/C/plug gets it right.) The problems are not generally with the compiler/assembler/linker toolchain, but with the packages being built. Most programs have never been cross-compiled, and make assumptions that do not hold true for cross-compilation. For example, that the same compiler used to build executables for the target system can be used to build programs meant to run on the build system (such as utilities used during the build). -- - mdz Matt, That is a *very* good point! It certainly diminishes the utility of a cross-compilation environment. - Dave Rivers - -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]Work: (919) 676-0847 Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, John Summerfield wrote: On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Post, Mark K wrote: In this case, staying current=maintenance=support=$ They can make their money selling code also, it's just harder because it is freely redistributable. Is it freely-redistributable? Let's look at the updates to the current distro in both RH and SuSE: Can I download the updates from the internet? Sources as well (srpms, for both RH and suse). This would make my life a lot easier. My experience is Red Hat, IA32. I have no support contract, and I've not tried tracking Rh AS. When RH releases updated packages, it also releases source. I get both, automatically, a a matter of course. The GPL obliges it to do so for those packages covered by it, but RH does for all packages. RH AS 2.1 source is available for download by anyone. This is more than the GPL obliges RH to do, it need do no more than supply source to its clients. I asked about the updates, not about the original distro And suppose I have aquired the right to download updates packages in a support contract from RH/suse: do I get the source? (so I can rebuild the package later and adapt build options) For GPL code the vendor is obliged to supply source, but only on request. under the GPL the vender is obliged to give you the source *only* if you got the binaries. That is, if the binaries of some package are avilable to the customers of RH, those customers should have access to the sources of those modifications. Those customers are then free to modify and redistribute those changes. But is everything there under the GPL? -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, John Summerfield wrote: I tracked down a copy of the licence. The English is a bit confused, and I don't like the licence, but I think I do see a way of distributing a Linux distro using YaST. My interpretation us you can't sell copies YaST, without permission, so if permission is difficult to obtan, so give away your modified version of YaST free of charge. Sell your distro (and support) for what it's worth. Sounds fishy to me. But anyway, there are slackware-based distoros, RH-based distros, debian-based distros, but there are no (3rd-party) SuSE-based distros . And remember linux distros come in every posible shape and size. So I figure people don't trust this as a solid base. -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003, John Summerfield wrote: On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Post, Mark K wrote: In this case, staying current=maintenance=support=$ They can make their money selling code also, it's just harder because i t is freely redistributable. Is it freely-redistributable? Let's look at the updates to the current distro in both RH and SuSE: Can I download the updates from the internet? Sources as well (srpms, for both RH and suse). This would make my life a lot easier. My experience is Red Hat, IA32. I have no support contract, and I've not tr ied tracking Rh AS. When RH releases updated packages, it also releases source. I get both, automatically, a a matter of course. The GPL obliges it to do so for those packages covered by it, but RH does for all packages. RH AS 2.1 source is available for download by anyone. This is more than the GPL obliges RH to do, it need do no more than supply source to its clients. I asked about the updates, not about the original distro In the second para before your response, I was talking about the updates. And suppose I have aquired the right to download updates packages in a support contract from RH/suse: do I get the source? (so I can rebuild th e package later and adapt build options) For GPL code the vendor is obliged to supply source, but only on request. under the GPL the vender is obliged to give you the source *only* if you got the binaries. That is, if the binaries of some package are avilable to the customers of RH, those customers should have access to the sources of those modifications. Those customers are then free to modify and redistribute those changes. That is true. OTOH the source for RHAS 2.1 is publicly accessible, you can download it and build binaries from it. But is everything there under the GPL? No. However, AFAIK RH has always released all the source for all its updated packages, in publicly-accessible servers. Note that, as I've already said, I have not tracked updates for RHAS. If you want the assurance a support contract offers, buy one. -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition. == If you don't like being told you're wrong, be right!
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
I don't know how fast FlexES is or how much it costs. Think in terms of a 2-way 1GHz Intel with one processor enabled for emulation delivering about 18MIPS, tending to improve slightly with succeeding releases of the product. -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.com +44 7785 302 803 +49 173 6242039
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 04:18:56PM +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: Sounds fishy to me. But anyway, there are slackware-based distoros, RH-based distros, debian-based distros, but there are no (3rd-party) SuSE-based distros . And remember linux distros come in every posible shape and size. So I figure people don't trust this as a solid base. I don't think that is a fair conclusion. Some distributions lend themselves better to serving as a base for other, specialized distributions, but this does not necessarily have anything to do with their quality and robustness. -- - mdz
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
I've been debating with myself whether I want to get a package, or download a package. This and other comments lead me to believe I'm better off staying away from SuSE. I had a discussion with my boss a few days ago about the cost of Linux. If you get VM, which I can see a real value in, that's $45K. Then, if you pay 10K or so for support every year, the free Linux isn't so cheap. Granted, that's a lot less than we spend for z/OS and all its related products, but for free software, there is still a substantial cost.. Is it easy to get RedHat support without buying support? Eric Bielefeld Sr. MVS Systems Programmer PH Mining Equipment Milwaukee, WI 414-671-7849 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/20/03 11:03PM Exactly my point -- particuarly in SuSE's case. You can't get their packaged software distribution for the long haul without buying support, which is the only way to stay current if you want to use their tools and their system management discipline. They don't post their patches publically. + This electronic mail transmission contains information from P H Mining Equipment which is confidential, and is intended only for the use of the proper addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately at the return address on this transmission, or by telephone at (414) 671-4400, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Unauthorized use, copying, disclosing, distributing, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. +
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
The question is Is $45K less than what I would have to spend on an alternative architecture? How many Wintel or Sun boxes is that? You get a lot for free with Linux, but it still might not be enough to run production workloads. Bill -Original Message- From: Eric Bielefeld [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong I've been debating with myself whether I want to get a package, or download a package. This and other comments lead me to believe I'm better off staying away from SuSE. I had a discussion with my boss a few days ago about the cost of Linux. If you get VM, which I can see a real value in, that's $45K. Then, if you pay 10K or so for support every year, the free Linux isn't so cheap. Granted, that's a lot less than we spend for z/OS and all its related products, but for free software, there is still a substantial cost.. Is it easy to get RedHat support without buying support? Eric Bielefeld Sr. MVS Systems Programmer PH Mining Equipment Milwaukee, WI 414-671-7849 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
Eric, Are you seriously considering (eventually) putting Linux/390 into production without a support contract in place? I personally would never do that, nor would I ever recommend anyone else do that. If all you want to do is evaluate, test, and perhaps set up a pilot, then you can get a copy of SuSE, direct from SuSE, for that purpose, for 0$. If you want maintenance during the trial, then it's $500 (at last report). You can also download Red Hat, or Debian, or whatever. (I've been working on porting Slackware to S/390, just for grins.) Once you decide to go into production, though, I imagine your management will want to know you've got support lined up, and that's going to cost you money, no matter which distribution you've selected. Even if it's Debian. Sure, the Debian community is very good at supporting the distribution, but is your management going to rely on that for a production installation? There are people/companies that provide commercial support for Debian, and they like to get paid for that. :) English-speaking people often get confused about the term free software, hence the phrase that's sprung up around it: Free as in freedom, not free beer. If you want to keep having Linux and Linux/390 available, the companies that provide it need to stay in business somehow. Pick the one you like best, for what ever reasons you use, and pay them something for their work. Mark Post P.S., I didn't understand the question about getting Red Hat support without buying support. It seemed kind of contradictory. -Original Message- From: Eric Bielefeld [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong I've been debating with myself whether I want to get a package, or download a package. This and other comments lead me to believe I'm better off staying away from SuSE. I had a discussion with my boss a few days ago about the cost of Linux. If you get VM, which I can see a real value in, that's $45K. Then, if you pay 10K or so for support every year, the free Linux isn't so cheap. Granted, that's a lot less than we spend for z/OS and all its related products, but for free software, there is still a substantial cost.. Is it easy to get RedHat support without buying support? Eric Bielefeld Sr. MVS Systems Programmer PH Mining Equipment Milwaukee, WI 414-671-7849 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
Mark, I guess you're right about getting support if Linux goes into production. Like I said in another post today, I'm new to Linux and learning. I may say I will do one thing, and an hour later change my mind. This list is really helping me. My last question was very poorly worded. I meant to ask are current fixes and updates available from the RedHat web site for download, and current versions of Linux. Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/21/03 08:37AM Eric, Are you seriously considering (eventually) putting Linux/390 into production without a support contract in place? I personally would never do that, nor would I ever recommend anyone else do that. If all you want to do is evaluate, test, and perhaps set up a pilot, then you can get a copy of SuSE, direct from SuSE, for that purpose, for 0$. If you want maintenance during the trial, then it's $500 (at last report). You can also download Red Hat, or Debian, or whatever. (I've been working on porting Slackware to S/390, just for grins.) Once you decide to go into production, though, I imagine your management will want to know you've got support lined up, and that's going to cost you money, no matter which distribution you've selected. Even if it's Debian. Sure, the Debian community is very good at supporting the distribution, but is your management going to rely on that for a production installation? There are people/companies that provide commercial support for Debian, and they like to get paid for that. :) English-speaking people often get confused about the term free software, hence the phrase that's sprung up around it: Free as in freedom, not free beer. If you want to keep having Linux and Linux/390 available, the companies that provide it need to stay in business somehow. Pick the one you like best, for what ever reasons you use, and pay them something for their work. Mark Post P.S., I didn't understand the question about getting Red Hat support without buying support. It seemed kind of contradictory. -Original Message- From: Eric Bielefeld [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong I've been debating with myself whether I want to get a package, or download a package. This and other comments lead me to believe I'm better off staying away from SuSE. I had a discussion with my boss a few days ago about the cost of Linux. If you get VM, which I can see a real value in, that's $45K. Then, if you pay 10K or so for support every year, the free Linux isn't so cheap. Granted, that's a lot less than we spend for z/OS and all its related products, but for free software, there is still a substantial cost.. Is it easy to get RedHat support without buying support? Eric Bielefeld Sr. MVS Systems Programmer PH Mining Equipment Milwaukee, WI 414-671-7849 [EMAIL PROTECTED] + This electronic mail transmission contains information from P H Mining Equipment which is confidential, and is intended only for the use of the proper addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately at the return address on this transmission, or by telephone at (414) 671-4400, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Unauthorized use, copying, disclosing, distributing, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. +
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Post, Mark K wrote: In this case, staying current=maintenance=support=$ They can make their money selling code also, it's just harder because it is freely redistributable. Is it freely-redistributable? Let's look at the updates to the current distro in both RH and SuSE: Can I download the updates from the internet? Sources as well (srpms, for both RH and suse). This would make my life a lot easier. And suppose I have aquired the right to download updates packages in a support contract from RH/suse: do I get the source? (so I can rebuild the package later and adapt build options) And am I allowed to redistribute those packages? And am I allowed to make my own modified distro based on any of those distros and sell it? -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
If you have the support contract with SuSE, you can download the updates. You get the source. You can freely redistribute those things that are GPLed, which will be most of them. Since most of these distributions are GPLed, I think you already know the answer to most of your questions. Neither of these companies is trying to destroy the GPL. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Tzafrir Cohen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 10:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Post, Mark K wrote: In this case, staying current=maintenance=support=$ They can make their money selling code also, it's just harder because it is freely redistributable. Is it freely-redistributable? Let's look at the updates to the current distro in both RH and SuSE: Can I download the updates from the internet? Sources as well (srpms, for both RH and suse). This would make my life a lot easier. And suppose I have aquired the right to download updates packages in a support contract from RH/suse: do I get the source? (so I can rebuild the package later and adapt build options) And am I allowed to redistribute those packages? And am I allowed to make my own modified distro based on any of those distros and sell it? -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
They send you email every time a new package becomes available. The email has links to the binary RPM's. Getting the source RPM's is a little harder. We had to ask for the link after I searched in vain on their web site. Either way, you need a code to access the download site. -Original Message- From: Post, Mark K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 10:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] so correct me if I am wrong If you have the support contract with SuSE, you can download the updates. You get the source. You can freely redistribute those things that are GPLed, which will be most of them. Since most of these distributions are GPLed, I think you already know the answer to most of your questions. Neither of these companies is trying to destroy the GPL. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Tzafrir Cohen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 10:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Post, Mark K wrote: In this case, staying current=maintenance=support=$ They can make their money selling code also, it's just harder because it is freely redistributable. Is it freely-redistributable? Let's look at the updates to the current distro in both RH and SuSE: Can I download the updates from the internet? Sources as well (srpms, for both RH and suse). This would make my life a lot easier. And suppose I have aquired the right to download updates packages in a support contract from RH/suse: do I get the source? (so I can rebuild the package later and adapt build options) And am I allowed to redistribute those packages? And am I allowed to make my own modified distro based on any of those distros and sell it? -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
Eric, It depends on how you define current. Red Hat has put some updates out there for their Linux/390 platforms, but not as many has they have for their Intel ones. There was a thread a little while back about the lack of security updates for their Linux/390 platforms. Since they do put out the SRPMs (source RPMs), you can download those and build the binary for installation, but that can be, ummm, a chore, and it certainly chews up CPU time for packages of any size. (I'm currently in the process of re-building glibc 2.2.5, and it's going on 24 hours of wall clock time. Open Office took me about a _month_, on a much bigger machine that this one.) Mark Post -Original Message- From: Eric Bielefeld [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 10:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong Mark, I guess you're right about getting support if Linux goes into production. Like I said in another post today, I'm new to Linux and learning. I may say I will do one thing, and an hour later change my mind. This list is really helping me. My last question was very poorly worded. I meant to ask are current fixes and updates available from the RedHat web site for download, and current versions of Linux. Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/21/03 08:37AM Eric, Are you seriously considering (eventually) putting Linux/390 into production without a support contract in place? I personally would never do that, nor would I ever recommend anyone else do that. If all you want to do is evaluate, test, and perhaps set up a pilot, then you can get a copy of SuSE, direct from SuSE, for that purpose, for 0$. If you want maintenance during the trial, then it's $500 (at last report). You can also download Red Hat, or Debian, or whatever. (I've been working on porting Slackware to S/390, just for grins.) Once you decide to go into production, though, I imagine your management will want to know you've got support lined up, and that's going to cost you money, no matter which distribution you've selected. Even if it's Debian. Sure, the Debian community is very good at supporting the distribution, but is your management going to rely on that for a production installation? There are people/companies that provide commercial support for Debian, and they like to get paid for that. :) English-speaking people often get confused about the term free software, hence the phrase that's sprung up around it: Free as in freedom, not free beer. If you want to keep having Linux and Linux/390 available, the companies that provide it need to stay in business somehow. Pick the one you like best, for what ever reasons you use, and pay them something for their work. Mark Post P.S., I didn't understand the question about getting Red Hat support without buying support. It seemed kind of contradictory. -Original Message- From: Eric Bielefeld [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong I've been debating with myself whether I want to get a package, or download a package. This and other comments lead me to believe I'm better off staying away from SuSE. I had a discussion with my boss a few days ago about the cost of Linux. If you get VM, which I can see a real value in, that's $45K. Then, if you pay 10K or so for support every year, the free Linux isn't so cheap. Granted, that's a lot less than we spend for z/OS and all its related products, but for free software, there is still a substantial cost.. Is it easy to get RedHat support without buying support? Eric Bielefeld Sr. MVS Systems Programmer PH Mining Equipment Milwaukee, WI 414-671-7849 [EMAIL PROTECTED] + This electronic mail transmission contains information from P H Mining Equipment which is confidential, and is intended only for the use of the proper addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately at the return address on this transmission, or by telephone at (414) 671-4400, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Unauthorized use, copying, disclosing, distributing, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. +
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
Just a weird thought from a weird person (me). We've had lots of discussion here about the apparent lack of CPU horsepower on the zSeries compared to fast Intel box. What about having a super-fast Intel box running something like Hercules/390 (or FlexES). Run zLinux on the Intel. Do all the maintenance activities such as SRPM rebuilds and long compiles on that box. Reliability is not as big an issue for this, IMO. This would effectively off-load the heavy CPU zLinux maintenance from the zSeries so that it does not impact the production zLinux workload. And it would not cost all that much either. When completer, then use ftp or NFS to copy the updated files to the production zLinux system. Or am I being too weird for words? grin. Granted, Hercules/390 on even a fast Intel is slow, so this is not good for emergency type work. I don't know how fast FlexES is or how much it costs. -Original Message- From: Post, Mark K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong Eric, It depends on how you define current. Red Hat has put some updates out there for their Linux/390 platforms, but not as many has they have for their Intel ones. There was a thread a little while back about the lack of security updates for their Linux/390 platforms. Since they do put out the SRPMs (source RPMs), you can download those and build the binary for installation, but that can be, ummm, a chore, and it certainly chews up CPU time for packages of any size. (I'm currently in the process of re-building glibc 2.2.5, and it's going on 24 hours of wall clock time. Open Office took me about a _month_, on a much bigger machine that this one.) Mark Post
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
I currently have on order a dual Xeon 2.8GHz system with 2GB of RAM. Guess why. Mark Post -Original Message- From: McKown, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong Just a weird thought from a weird person (me). We've had lots of discussion here about the apparent lack of CPU horsepower on the zSeries compared to fast Intel box. What about having a super-fast Intel box running something like Hercules/390 (or FlexES). Run zLinux on the Intel. Do all the maintenance activities such as SRPM rebuilds and long compiles on that box. Reliability is not as big an issue for this, IMO. This would effectively off-load the heavy CPU zLinux maintenance from the zSeries so that it does not impact the production zLinux workload. And it would not cost all that much either. When completer, then use ftp or NFS to copy the updated files to the production zLinux system. Or am I being too weird for words? grin. Granted, Hercules/390 on even a fast Intel is slow, so this is not good for emergency type work. I don't know how fast FlexES is or how much it costs. -Original Message- From: Post, Mark K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong Eric, It depends on how you define current. Red Hat has put some updates out there for their Linux/390 platforms, but not as many has they have for their Intel ones. There was a thread a little while back about the lack of security updates for their Linux/390 platforms. Since they do put out the SRPMs (source RPMs), you can download those and build the binary for installation, but that can be, ummm, a chore, and it certainly chews up CPU time for packages of any size. (I'm currently in the process of re-building glibc 2.2.5, and it's going on 24 hours of wall clock time. Open Office took me about a _month_, on a much bigger machine that this one.) Mark Post
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 10:55:40AM -0500, Post, Mark K wrote: Eric, It depends on how you define current. Red Hat has put some updates out there for their Linux/390 platforms, but not as many has they have for their Intel ones. There was a thread a little while back about the lack of security updates for their Linux/390 platforms. Since they do put out the SRPMs (source RPMs), you can download those and build the binary for installation, but that can be, ummm, a chore, and it certainly chews up CPU time for packages of any size. (I'm currently in the process of re-building glibc 2.2.5, and it's going on 24 hours of wall clock time. Open Office took me about a _month_, on a much bigger machine that this one.) Hello Mark, OpenOffice is one of the very few rpms within Red Hat Linux that has not yet mainframe patches merged in. If you have patches for the current rpm in rawhide, I'll try to get OO included for rawhide binary rpms. ;-) I think we had OO running internally within RH, but not merged these things into our official development sources AFAIK. Will check on this next week... Next would then be to look at startup times for OO and how much time you can save by using the nice prelinking framework that Jakub Jelinek has put together, including the mainframe arch. greetings, Florian La Roche
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Post, Mark K wrote: Since they do put out the SRPMs (source RPMs), you can download those and build the binary for installation, but that can be, ummm, a chore, and it certainly chews up CPU time for packages of any size. (I'm currently in the process of re-building glibc 2.2.5, and it's going on 24 hours of wall clock time. Open Office took me about a _month_, on a much bigger machine that this one.) Why not put some cheepo intel with a faster CPU to the task? rpms should generally allow cross-platform building. I admit I haven't tried that, But the time it would take you to set that up (in addition to the compilation time of OOo) will still probably be less than a month. (Disclaimer: I have never tried this: nither rpm cross-building, nor building the OOo beast ;-) ) -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
Florian, Gerhard Tonn is the one that actually developed the patches. (I was just spinning my wheels getting nowhere at the time.) They're in the process of being merged into the OO CVS tree. You would probably be better off getting them Gerhard or the Debian servers, since he may have updated them since I got my copy. Mark -Original Message- From: Florian La Roche [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:26 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 10:55:40AM -0500, Post, Mark K wrote: Eric, It depends on how you define current. Red Hat has put some updates out there for their Linux/390 platforms, but not as many has they have for their Intel ones. There was a thread a little while back about the lack of security updates for their Linux/390 platforms. Since they do put out the SRPMs (source RPMs), you can download those and build the binary for installation, but that can be, ummm, a chore, and it certainly chews up CPU time for packages of any size. (I'm currently in the process of re-building glibc 2.2.5, and it's going on 24 hours of wall clock time. Open Office took me about a _month_, on a much bigger machine that this one.) Hello Mark, OpenOffice is one of the very few rpms within Red Hat Linux that has not yet mainframe patches merged in. If you have patches for the current rpm in rawhide, I'll try to get OO included for rawhide binary rpms. ;-) I think we had OO running internally within RH, but not merged these things into our official development sources AFAIK. Will check on this next week... Next would then be to look at startup times for OO and how much time you can save by using the nice prelinking framework that Jakub Jelinek has put together, including the mainframe arch. greetings, Florian La Roche
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
My experience has been that cross-compiling is risky, at best. While working to port SAPDB, one of the other people helping was doing cross-compiles, and getting different results than I was. Setting up a cross-compile environment is apparently not easy to do correctly, so I try to avoid it as much as possible. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Tzafrir Cohen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Post, Mark K wrote: Since they do put out the SRPMs (source RPMs), you can download those and build the binary for installation, but that can be, ummm, a chore, and it certainly chews up CPU time for packages of any size. (I'm currently in the process of re-building glibc 2.2.5, and it's going on 24 hours of wall clock time. Open Office took me about a _month_, on a much bigger machine that this one.) Why not put some cheepo intel with a faster CPU to the task? rpms should generally allow cross-platform building. I admit I haven't tried that, But the time it would take you to set that up (in addition to the compilation time of OOo) will still probably be less than a month. (Disclaimer: I have never tried this: nither rpm cross-building, nor building the OOo beast ;-) ) -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
Yeah, I understand. My wallet is aching a bit, though. If you want to help share the cost, I'd set up an account for you on the box. ;) Mark Post -Original Message- From: McKown, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong LUST -Original Message- From: Post, Mark K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 10:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong I currently have on order a dual Xeon 2.8GHz system with 2GB of RAM. Guess why. Mark Post
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
My experience has been that cross-compiling is risky, at best. While working to port SAPDB, one of the other people helping was doing cross-compiles, and getting different results than I was. Setting up a cross-compile environment is apparently not easy to do correctly, so I try to avoid it as much as possible. Cross-compiling is risky... but, it can be done. Earlier versions of gcc had problems, but it's getting better (and, of course plugSystems/C/plug gets it right.) We'd be happy to discuss this with anyone who's interested; feel free to contact me off-line. - Dave Rivers - -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]Work: (919) 676-0847 Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com Mark Post -Original Message- From: Tzafrir Cohen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:30 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Post, Mark K wrote: Since they do put out the SRPMs (source RPMs), you can download those and build the binary for installation, but that can be, ummm, a chore, and it certainly chews up CPU time for packages of any size. (I'm currently in the process of re-building glibc 2.2.5, and it's going on 24 hours of wall clock time. Open Office took me about a _month_, on a much bigger machine that this one.) Why not put some cheepo intel with a faster CPU to the task? rpms should generally allow cross-platform building. I admit I haven't tried that, But the time it would take you to set that up (in addition to the compilation time of OOo) will still probably be less than a month. (Disclaimer: I have never tried this: nither rpm cross-building, nor building the OOo beast ;-) ) -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
Actually, I may try to get my management at work to get me a hot rod for this type of thing. Probably won't go for it, though. -Original Message- From: Post, Mark K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 10:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong Yeah, I understand. My wallet is aching a bit, though. If you want to help share the cost, I'd set up an account for you on the box. ;) Mark Post -Original Message- From: McKown, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong LUST -Original Message- From: Post, Mark K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 10:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong I currently have on order a dual Xeon 2.8GHz system with 2GB of RAM. Guess why. Mark Post
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
It would be worth it. I'm running dual 2.8 P4s (w/HT), 1GB ram, and a couple of Cheetah X15.3s. It's unreal how fast Hercules is compared to my previous dual 1Ghz P3s. I don't know about MIPs or anything, but it's definitely fast enough for real work. (I wanted quad clawhammers, but got tired of waiting. ;-)) Leland -Original Message- From: McKown, John To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2/21/03 10:46 AM Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong Actually, I may try to get my management at work to get me a hot rod for this type of thing. Probably won't go for it, though. -Original Message- From: Post, Mark K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 10:41 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong Yeah, I understand. My wallet is aching a bit, though. If you want to help share the cost, I'd set up an account for you on the box. ;) Mark Post -Original Message- From: McKown, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong LUST -Original Message- From: Post, Mark K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 10:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong I currently have on order a dual Xeon 2.8GHz system with 2GB of RAM. Guess why. Mark Post
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
Florian La Roche wrote: Next would then be to look at startup times for OO and how much time you can save by using the nice prelinking framework that Jakub Jelinek has put together, including the mainframe arch. I've tried prelinking OpenOffice on my Intel (AMD, actually) PC: The startup time went down from 20 seconds to 16 seconds - or 5 seconds vs. 4 seconds if OO has been started before. Regards, Stefan Gybas
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
Just a weird thought from a weird person (me). We've had lots of discussion here about the apparent lack of CPU horsepower on the zSeries compared to fast Intel box. What about having a super-fast Intel box running something like Hercules/390 (or FlexES). Run zLinux on the Intel. Do all the maintenance activities such as SRPM rebuilds and long compiles on that box. Reliability is not as big an issue for this, IMO. That's the sort of thing I had in mind when I muttered something about Openmosix. The samba folk have a couple of interesting tools too. Note that if you put Linux on all your developers PCs, they can do most of their work right there, and only use (real or simulated) Zeds when it matters. Boxes such as Holywood's using for render farms should make a fairly decent Hercules farm. I happen to have here a linux Journal with, on P1, and ad for a quad AMD MP2100+ in a 1U Case? Shelf? A box of those would be nice;-) Years ago, I'm sure Adelaide Uni had a CDC 6400. You can get one now, with quad Itaniums or Xeons. -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition. == If you don't like being told you're wrong, be right!
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Post, Mark K wrote: In this case, staying current=maintenance=support=$ They can make their money selling code also, it's just harder because it is freely redistributable. Is it freely-redistributable? Let's look at the updates to the current distro in both RH and SuSE: Can I download the updates from the internet? Sources as well (srpms, for both RH and suse). This would make my life a lot easier. My experience is Red Hat, IA32. I have no support contract, and I've not tried tracking Rh AS. When RH releases updated packages, it also releases source. I get both, automatically, a a matter of course. The GPL obliges it to do so for those packages covered by it, but RH does for all packages. RH AS 2.1 source is available for download by anyone. This is more than the GPL obliges RH to do, it need do no more than supply source to its clients. And suppose I have aquired the right to download updates packages in a support contract from RH/suse: do I get the source? (so I can rebuild the package later and adapt build options) For GPL code the vendor is obliged to supply source, but only on request. And am I allowed to redistribute those packages? GPL- yes. Others, read the licence And am I allowed to make my own modified distro based on any of those distros and sell it? You can do that with RHL, but watch the trademark issue which I've already mentioned in the past few hours. Also, watch the licence for redhat-logos. I think YAST prevents you from doing so with SuSE, but I'm only going on hearsay. SuSE users are better-placed to suggest, but read the licence. IANAL -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition. == If you don't like being told you're wrong, be right!
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
McKown, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave, Can Systems/C be used for kernel development? Or does Linux still have a number of gcc dependancies as I've read in the past? Or course, few of us actually cross compile the kernel itself. About the only syntax issue Systems/C doesn't support now is the gcc-style of inline assembly source. Most (all?) of the other gcc extensions are now supported by Systems/C. So - for kernel development; which likely does some significant gcc-style inline assembly... Systems/C may not yet be the thing to use. But - for applications development, we think it's just fine. - Dave R. - p.s. We'll be a SHARE next week, if anyone else is going - drop by our booth! -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]Work: (919) 676-0847 Get your mainframe programming tools at http://www.dignus.com
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
P.S., I didn't understand the question about getting Red Hat support without buying support. It seemed kind of contradictory. I suppose it depends on the definition of support. For my needs, timely release of updates where I can get them is enough, and RH provides that kind of support FOC to all. It also has RHN which is free for one's first computer (possibly other limitations apply too). -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition. == If you don't like being told you're wrong, be right!
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 11:19:03AM -0500, Post, Mark K wrote: I currently have on order a dual Xeon 2.8GHz system with 2GB of RAM. Guess why. You want to play Unreal Tournament with a *REALLY* good frame rate? Adam
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
Ralph, Not quite. Red Hat does put their current GA code on their FTP server. They haven't been kept as up to date as their x86 RPMs, though. You can upgrade a SuSE distribution by using the SRPMs they put out for their other platforms to build the binary RPMs for Linux/390. It's a lot of work, but it can be done. Bottom line is, if you want someone else to do the work for you, it will cost you something with Red Hat or SuSE. I'm not sure what you mean by do it all yourself with Debian. The Debian maintainers build the Linux/390 packages on the same schedule as all other architectures they support. Which means, they're pretty current. apt-get figures out for you what you need to update. So, you can stay current, for free, with a relatively small amount of effort. Plus, you can make choices as to whether you want to get _really_ current on certain packages or not, depending on your requirements. If you wait for the next stable upgrade release of Debian, that will take quite a while, since they have so many packages, and put a lot of effort into making sure things work well. If, as you stated previously, you want someone to call when you need help, that will cost money, of course, but per-incident fees will probably run you a lot less than an annual agreement. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Noll, Ralph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 5:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: so correct me if I am wrong so correct me if i am wrong if you want to stay current with Linux (either Suse or RedHat) you are going to have to pay. if you want to go totally free and do it all yourself you can go Debian yes?? no??? thanks Ralph
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
Yes to the first. No to the second. You can get Linux from other FTP sites. -Original Message- From: Noll, Ralph [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 2:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: so correct me if I am wrong so correct me if i am wrong if you want to stay current with Linux (either Suse or RedHat) you are going to have to pay. if you want to go totally free and do it all yourself you can go Debian yes?? no??? thanks Ralph
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 22:33, Noll, Ralph wrote: so correct me if i am wrong if you want to stay current with Linux (either Suse or RedHat) you are going to have to pay. if you want to go totally free and do it all yourself you can go Debian You can pay someone to do it for you, or you can pay to do it in time. Its worth looking at all the options, depending on your needs. While Debian builds everything for 390 remember that testing isnt quite so controlled. Equally while Red Hat test everything its nothing like as up to date. Alan (@redhat but not speaking for them) -- There is an idiot missing from a texas village -- Sign from the UK peace march
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
so correct me if i am wrong if you want to stay current with Linux (either Suse or RedHat) you are going to have to pay. I can't speak WRT RedHat, but with Suse you have a problem - they don't put the latest distro on their public ftp, you are reliant on 3rd parties if you want to download the lastest Suse distro. Suse will only sell you CDs, at a price. Anyone correct me if I am wrong? On a point of order, who *does* have SLES8 (or whatever the latest Suse is) available for download? Mike _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 04:33:54PM -0600, Noll, Ralph wrote: so correct me if i am wrong if you want to stay current with Linux (either Suse or RedHat) you are going to have to pay. if you want to go totally free and do it all yourself you can go Debian yes?? no??? You seem to imply either that Debian does not allow you to stay current, or that it is not Linux. Neither of these is true; why would you think so? -- - mdz
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
no.. best i can figure out is if you want to stay current with suse or redhat you are going to have to pay if you want to go the $0.. use Debian all on Debian is free ralph -Original Message- From: Matt Zimmerman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 7:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 04:33:54PM -0600, Noll, Ralph wrote: so correct me if i am wrong if you want to stay current with Linux (either Suse or RedHat) you are going to have to pay. if you want to go totally free and do it all yourself you can go Debian yes?? no??? You seem to imply either that Debian does not allow you to stay current, or that it is not Linux. Neither of these is true; why would you think so? -- - mdz
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
- Original Message - From: Noll, Ralph [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 5:33 PM Subject: so correct me if I am wrong so correct me if i am wrong if you want to stay current with Linux (either Suse or RedHat) you are going to have to pay. Yes. That's how they pay their bills. if you want to go totally free and do it all yourself you can go Debian You don't have to do it all yourself. You can contract your Debian support to any of a number of organizations at a more favorable price point, and change that organization based on who gives you the best price. Linux is about having choices. This is one of them. You have to decide what's worth more to you. -- db
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
In this case, staying current=maintenance=support=$ They can make their money selling code also, it's just harder because it is freely redistributable. Mark Post -Original Message- From: Mike Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: so correct me if I am wrong so correct me if i am wrong if you want to stay current with Linux (either Suse or RedHat) you are going to have to pay. Yes. That's how they pay their bills. I was under the impression that they pay their bills primarily from the revenue stream they get for *support* - the GPL means they can't rely on revenue from selling *code* which can be freely redistributed? Mike _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
so correct me if i am wrong if you want to stay current with Linux (either Suse or RedHat) you are going to have to pay. Yes. That's how they pay their bills. I was under the impression that they pay their bills primarily from the revenue stream they get for *support* - the GPL means they can't rely on revenue from selling *code* which can be freely redistributed? Exactly my point -- particuarly in SuSE's case. You can't get their packaged software distribution for the long haul without buying support, which is the only way to stay current if you want to use their tools and their system management discipline. They don't post their patches publically. I don't think this is necessarily bad -- after all, they have to eat and pay Alan and Florian and others so they can eat and pay for power too. I think RH and SuSE's pricing is a little on the high side for their support, but the basic concept is not a bad thing per se.
Re: so correct me if I am wrong
so correct me if i am wrong if you want to stay current with Linux (either Suse or RedHat) you are going to have to pay. Yes. That's how they pay their bills. I was under the impression that they pay their bills primarily from the revenue stream they get for *support* - the GPL means they can't rely on revenue from selling *code* which can be freely redistributed? You've just awoken the bees. As best I can figure it, I can download RHL and burn it to CDs, lable the CD as containing RHL, and install it on all my machines, free of charge. I can tell you I'm running Red Hat Linux. I can take those CDs along to the local LUG and sell them off, and tell everyone they're getting Red Hat Linux. If you miss out and come to my office, I think I can sell them to you for a small charge. I'm pretty sure I can _give_ them to you. I cannot burn _different_ CDs, say created by applying upgrades, and sell those as Red Hat Linux. I cannot sell a set of RHL CDs plus one of my own and tell you what you're getting. That's a misuse of Red Hat's trademarks. I cannot create, say, Dingo Linux, based on selected RHL packages, and with some others (mine or yours), and describe Dingo Linux as based on Red Hat Linux. To some extent these problems can be overcome by selling you boxed sets (in which case you pay Red Hat for support _I_ would want to offer). Possibly, possibly, I can get a licence from Red Hat to use its trademarks. I think Debian has a bright future. Ah, the bees are settling now. -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition. == If you don't like being told you're wrong, be right!
