Linux-Development-Sys Digest #621
Linux-Development-Sys Digest #621, Volume #7 Thu, 24 Feb 00 18:13:23 EST
Contents:
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Albert Ulmer)
File systems ("Matthew Baldwin")
Re: Real Time Protocol (Francesco 'Kinkie' Chemolli)
APIC errors in 2.3.45 (bill davidsen)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? ("Mark Langsdorf")
Re: changing glibc (Juergen Heinzl)
Re: Linux CPU stats (bill davidsen)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Adam Ierymenko)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Adam Ierymenko)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Colin Watson)
Re: (Q) Whatever happened to kerneld? (Paul Kimoto)
From: Albert Ulmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:46:02 +
Mario Klebsch wrote:
P.S. We should stop to compare this aspect of Linux to Windows, and
see how great Linux is. We should compare against other UNIX systems,
(e.g. Solaris, HP-UX,...) and then we will see, that great is not that
great. :-(
That must be why all those major Unix vendors are wholeheartedly
embracing Linux and extending it with the best their systems have to
offer...
They are doing it, because almose everyone askes them about, not
because Linux is superior. They would have a much easier job, if Linux
would be a complete OS, not just a kernel.
But Linux *is* only a kernel. If your talking about an operating system,
you should be calling it GNU/Linux, like i.e. Debian does. This is the
correct way of saying: Hey, I'm using the Linux kernel as a foundation
for all the wonderful GNU tools and utilities. Anything else should be
derived from the LSB and FSH, so all distributions are compatible.
All of this would not be a problem if people could finally start keeping
definitions of the concepts they're using in their minds. This may sound
unnecessary in times of PnP and Rio etc., but it sure saves you a few
headaches when serious computing is the topic.
--
From: "Matthew Baldwin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: File systems
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 20:01:50 GMT
I'm developing an FTP File System for Linux kernel 2.2.x and am having a
couple of problems, mainly in the mounting of the 'file system'. The open,
release, read and write functions have been implemented and were based on
the corresponding NFS functions, however when mounting I get a message, in
the /var/log/messages (which I am watching whilst testing), along the lines
of bread failed and the mount command tells me the kernel does not support
the filesystem type. However, I have written the code to register the file
system and block device etc, does anyone know what the bread failure has to
do with?
Also, I have written functions to send FTP commands to the server and they
work fine, however the sock_recvmsg function doesn't seem to read
anything...does anyone have any experience of using kernel sockets that
could give me some pointers here.
Any help would be greatly received, thanks.
Matthew Baldwin
http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~mb8094/ / http://www.tdbsoftware.co.uk/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: Francesco 'Kinkie' Chemolli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Real Time Protocol
Date: 25 Feb 2000 10:53:00 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Stickel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Diego Betancor wrote:
Does anyone know of any RTP (Real Time Protocol) stack out there. I
would like to put the payload (G723) and send it like who send a UDP.
Would be nice to write RTP/RTCP support for the Linux Kernel.
I disagree. RTP is an user-level protocol built on top of UDP. It is better
handled at the user-level IMO.
--
/Kinkie
Se sulla scatola c'e` scritto "Per windows 95 e superiori", dovrebbe
funzionare sotto Linux, vero?
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bill davidsen)
Subject: APIC errors in 2.3.45
Date: 24 Feb 2000 21:17:14 GMT
I have been playing with the 2.3 kernels, and I note an odd thing on
2.3.45, reports of multiple APIC problems.
APIC error interrupt on CPU#1, should never happen.
APIC ESR0: 0008
APIC ESR1: 000a
bit 1: APIC Receive CS Error (hw problem).
bit 3: APIC Receive Accept Error.
APIC error interrupt on CPU#1, should never happen.
APIC ESR0: 0002
APIC ESR1: 0002
bit 1: APIC Receive CS Error (hw problem).
APIC error interrupt on CPU#1, should never happen.
APIC ESR0: 0002
APIC ESR1: 0002
bit 1: APIC Receive CS Error (hw problem).
APIC error interrupt on CPU#1, should never happen.
Linux-Development-Sys Digest #622
Linux-Development-Sys Digest #622, Volume #7 Fri, 25 Feb 00 00:13:13 EST
Contents:
Re: Want to work with OSS for a living? (MA) (YtRabbit)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Linux and DVD ("Shazam")
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Looking for a decent development environment ("Lord Petrosky")
RedHat 6.0 ("Sake")
TCP/IP socket from kernel ("Sake")
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Colin Watson)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Albert Ulmer)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Can a previous handler be saved when requesting an IRQ? (Luis Miguel Pinho)
Re: Looking for a decent development environment (Grant Edwards)
Re: IP adresses not resolved - gethostbyname failed (Thomas F. Drescher)
Re: Does linux support DIRECT I/O? (Hong Shen)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Looking for a decent development environment ("Lord Petrosky")
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Q: How good is Linux when the computer is suddenly loses power ? (Miguel Cruz)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Kaz Kylheku)
From: YtRabbit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Want to work with OSS for a living? (MA)
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:21:53 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am currently working at a net service company. We need "web guys" you
should know some C/C++, but mostly we need UNUX Admin (Freebsd), Apache,
PHP, Perl, and the ability to rip apart poorly written (app generated)
customer HTML, and make it pretty, functional, and problem free.
Reply to my e-mail directly.
Sorry to post this on the discussion groups, but we have been looking
for people for months and the normal channels are not working, and this
is a form of advocacy, right?
The company is in Westborough Massachusetts.
I'd love to, and I have the qualifications, but I live on Long Island, NY, and I just
got back from a 2 year stint in the Twin Cities; besides, the Mrs. is fed up with the
nomadic lifestyle. I'll pass on the word to the few qualified people I know in your
neck of the woods
'nuff said,
YtRabbit.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 00:57:40 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:52:47 +0100, Mario Klebsch wrote:
Craig Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Windows plattforms have at least ABIs in common, like the win32
ABI.
And what on earth is an "ABI" ?
BTW, Windows did the same with supporting the win16 ABI on Win9x.
But in Linux, there is no ABI, and this is the problem.
You gave no idea what you are talking about. The KDE and GNOME projects
are primarily about APIs. There is the QT/KDE API on Linux. This ships
with all distributions, as does GTK/GNOME.
So yes, in short, there are development tools on Linux that do the
same thing for Linux developers that MFC does for Windows developers.
--
Donovan
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 01:03:10 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:42:33 +0100, Mario Klebsch wrote:
Craig Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So if Linux will not be an OS, there sould be at least a way to define
the ABI of the linux versions, and the build process of the individual
libraries should be modified to guarantee, that the specified
interface is implemented by the libarary.
If you're trying to say that the distributors
should standardise on core shared library versions, I agree.
Unfortunately, it's near impossible to get them to agree on *anything*,
and the result is that the attempt to standardise things, LSB, fell flat
on its face.
At this stage, this does not appear to be a major setback. The application
developer can simply require versions (x,y,z) of the appropriate shared
libraries and ship them with the application. No, this is not the most
efficient solution , indeed it's almost as bad as static linking. But
with large applications like office suites, the overhead of loading an extra
libc is kind of small in the big scheme of things.
--
Donovan
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
