procfs and ptrace
what are the issues of using procfs in place of ptrace? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
procfs and ptrace
what are the issues of using procfs in place of ptrace? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
need help RE panasonic cf-w7 embedded controller
Anyone with information regarding the programming of the Panasonic CF-W7 embedded laptop controller? Please? Thank You in Advance -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
need help RE panasonic cf-w7 embedded controller
Anyone with information regarding the programming of the Panasonic CF-W7 embedded laptop controller? Please? Thank You in Advance -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
atomic_inc and spin_lock_irq
whats the difference between: atomic_inc(>count); and spin_lock_irq(>lock); ++port->count; spin_unlock_irq(>lock); -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
atomic_inc and spin_lock_irq
whats the difference between: atomic_inc(port-count); and spin_lock_irq(port-lock); ++port-count; spin_unlock_irq(port-lock); -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Fwd: direct firmware load failure with loadable kernel modules and userspace firmware loader user helper fallback turned off
-- Forwarded message -- From: Rogelio M. Serrano Jr. Date: Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:48 AM Subject: direct firmware load failure with loadable kernel modules and userspace firmware loader user helper fallback turned off To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.789031] iwl4965: Intel(R) Wireless WiFi 4965 driver for Linux, in-tree: Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.790767] iwl4965: Copyright(c) 2003-2011 Intel Corporation Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.792484] iwl4965 :03:00.0: can't disable ASPM; OS doesn't have ASPM control Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.794421] iwl4965 :03:00.0: Detected Intel(R) Wireless WiFi Link 4965AGN, REV=0x4 Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.839823] iwl4965 :03:00.0: device EEPROM VER=0x36, CALIB=0x5 Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.841597] iwl4965 :03:00.0: Tunable channels: 11 802.11bg, 13 802.11a channels Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.843495] iwl4965 :03:00.0: irq 31 for MSI/MSI-X Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.843839] iwl4965 :03:00.0: Direct firmware load for iwlwifi-4965-2.ucode failed with error -2 Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.845598] iwl4965 :03:00.0: request for firmware file 'iwlwifi-4965-2.ucode' failed. Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.847392] iwl4965 :03:00.0: no suitable firmware found! turning loadable modules back on works. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Fwd: mysterious udev segfault
-- Forwarded message -- From: Rogelio M. Serrano Jr. Date: Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:53 AM Subject: Re: mysterious udev segfault To: Mathias Krause On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Mathias Krause wrote: > > > Probably not. But I don't think the grsec patch changes anything > related to firmware loading. > Upstream added an option to disable firmware loading via udev > (CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK). Maybe that's related. > Again, logs may help here. > > > Regards, > Mathias both loadable kernel modules and loader user helper fallback are off Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.789031] iwl4965: Intel(R) Wireless WiFi 4965 driver for Linux, in-tree: Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.790767] iwl4965: Copyright(c) 2003-2011 Intel Corporation Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.792484] iwl4965 :03:00.0: can't disable ASPM; OS doesn't have ASPM control Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.794421] iwl4965 :03:00.0: Detected Intel(R) Wireless WiFi Link 4965AGN, REV=0x4 Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.839823] iwl4965 :03:00.0: device EEPROM VER=0x36, CALIB=0x5 Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.841597] iwl4965 :03:00.0: Tunable channels: 11 802.11bg, 13 802.11a channels Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.843495] iwl4965 :03:00.0: irq 31 for MSI/MSI-X Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.843839] iwl4965 :03:00.0: Direct firmware load for iwlwifi-4965-2.ucode failed with error -2 Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.845598] iwl4965 :03:00.0: request for firmware file 'iwlwifi-4965-2.ucode' failed. Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.847392] iwl4965 :03:00.0: no suitable firmware found! turning loadable kernel modules back on works -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Fwd: mysterious udev segfault
-- Forwarded message -- From: Rogelio M. Serrano Jr. rogelios...@gmail.com Date: Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:53 AM Subject: Re: mysterious udev segfault To: Mathias Krause mini...@googlemail.com On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Mathias Krause mini...@googlemail.com wrote: snipped... Probably not. But I don't think the grsec patch changes anything related to firmware loading. Upstream added an option to disable firmware loading via udev (CONFIG_FW_LOADER_USER_HELPER_FALLBACK). Maybe that's related. Again, logs may help here. Regards, Mathias both loadable kernel modules and loader user helper fallback are off Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.789031] iwl4965: Intel(R) Wireless WiFi 4965 driver for Linux, in-tree: Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.790767] iwl4965: Copyright(c) 2003-2011 Intel Corporation Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.792484] iwl4965 :03:00.0: can't disable ASPM; OS doesn't have ASPM control Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.794421] iwl4965 :03:00.0: Detected Intel(R) Wireless WiFi Link 4965AGN, REV=0x4 Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.839823] iwl4965 :03:00.0: device EEPROM VER=0x36, CALIB=0x5 Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.841597] iwl4965 :03:00.0: Tunable channels: 11 802.11bg, 13 802.11a channels Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.843495] iwl4965 :03:00.0: irq 31 for MSI/MSI-X Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.843839] iwl4965 :03:00.0: Direct firmware load for iwlwifi-4965-2.ucode failed with error -2 Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.845598] iwl4965 :03:00.0: request for firmware file 'iwlwifi-4965-2.ucode' failed. Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.847392] iwl4965 :03:00.0: no suitable firmware found! turning loadable kernel modules back on works -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Fwd: direct firmware load failure with loadable kernel modules and userspace firmware loader user helper fallback turned off
-- Forwarded message -- From: Rogelio M. Serrano Jr. rogelios...@gmail.com Date: Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:48 AM Subject: direct firmware load failure with loadable kernel modules and userspace firmware loader user helper fallback turned off To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.789031] iwl4965: Intel(R) Wireless WiFi 4965 driver for Linux, in-tree: Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.790767] iwl4965: Copyright(c) 2003-2011 Intel Corporation Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.792484] iwl4965 :03:00.0: can't disable ASPM; OS doesn't have ASPM control Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.794421] iwl4965 :03:00.0: Detected Intel(R) Wireless WiFi Link 4965AGN, REV=0x4 Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.839823] iwl4965 :03:00.0: device EEPROM VER=0x36, CALIB=0x5 Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.841597] iwl4965 :03:00.0: Tunable channels: 11 802.11bg, 13 802.11a channels Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.843495] iwl4965 :03:00.0: irq 31 for MSI/MSI-X Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.843839] iwl4965 :03:00.0: Direct firmware load for iwlwifi-4965-2.ucode failed with error -2 Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.845598] iwl4965 :03:00.0: request for firmware file 'iwlwifi-4965-2.ucode' failed. Dec 3 10:18:02 (none) klogd: [1.847392] iwl4965 :03:00.0: no suitable firmware found! turning loadable modules back on works. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: RFC: permit link(2) to work across --bind mounts ?
Mark Lord wrote: > Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points > of the same underlying filesystem ? do we need link(2) at all? bind mounts are supposed to be (hard/soft) link minus the headaches. -- Democracy is about two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner. begin:vcard fn:Rogelio M. Serrano Jr n:M. Serrano Jr;Rogelio org:SMSG Communications Philippines;Technical Department adr:;;Republic of the Philippines email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Programmer tel;work:+6327534145 tel;home:+6329527026 tel;cell:+639209202267 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFC: permit link(2) to work across --bind mounts ?
Mark Lord wrote: Why does link(2) not support hard-linking across bind mount points of the same underlying filesystem ? do we need link(2) at all? bind mounts are supposed to be (hard/soft) link minus the headaches. -- Democracy is about two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner. begin:vcard fn:Rogelio M. Serrano Jr n:M. Serrano Jr;Rogelio org:SMSG Communications Philippines;Technical Department adr:;;Republic of the Philippines email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Programmer tel;work:+6327534145 tel;home:+6329527026 tel;cell:+639209202267 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Kernel Development & Objective-C
Ben Crowhurst wrote: > Loïc Grenié wrote: >> 2007/11/29, Ben Crowhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>> Has Objective-C ever been considered for kernel development? >>> >>> regards, >>> BPC >>> >> I have tried it in a toy kernel. Oskit style. The code reuse is very high specially with string ops and driver interfaces. Its also very easy to do unit testing with. My main problem was the quality of the compiler optimization. Its just not good enough. I think if the compiler can do the right kind of optimizations correctly then a low overhead OO language like objective-c can be used in a kernel. On the other hand its the automated testing part that really matters for me. Imagine adding features to linux week after week without ever getting a serious panic or two. And then getting a big performance boost whenever the compiler does more and more optimizations correctly. >>No, it has not. Any language that looks remotely like an OO language >> has not ever been considered for (Linux) kernel development and for >> most, if not all, other operating systems kernels. >> >> Various problems occur in an object oriented language. One of them >> is garbage collection: it provokes asynchronous delays and, during >> an interrupt or a system call for a real time task, the kernel cannot >> wait. > Objective C 1.0 does not force nor have garbage collection. > True. >> Another is memory overhead: all the magic that OO languages >> provide take space in memory and Linux kernel is used in embedded >> systems with very tight memory requirements. >> > But are embedded systems not rapidly moving on. Turning to stare at > the ADSL X6 modem with MB's of ram. Its all about optimizations. -- Democracy is about two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner. begin:vcard fn:Rogelio M. Serrano Jr n:M. Serrano Jr;Rogelio org:SMSG Communications Philippines;Technical Department adr:;;Republic of the Philippines email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Programmer tel;work:+6327534145 tel;home:+6329527026 tel;cell:+639209202267 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Kernel Development Objective-C
Ben Crowhurst wrote: Loïc Grenié wrote: 2007/11/29, Ben Crowhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Has Objective-C ever been considered for kernel development? regards, BPC I have tried it in a toy kernel. Oskit style. The code reuse is very high specially with string ops and driver interfaces. Its also very easy to do unit testing with. My main problem was the quality of the compiler optimization. Its just not good enough. I think if the compiler can do the right kind of optimizations correctly then a low overhead OO language like objective-c can be used in a kernel. On the other hand its the automated testing part that really matters for me. Imagine adding features to linux week after week without ever getting a serious panic or two. And then getting a big performance boost whenever the compiler does more and more optimizations correctly. No, it has not. Any language that looks remotely like an OO language has not ever been considered for (Linux) kernel development and for most, if not all, other operating systems kernels. Various problems occur in an object oriented language. One of them is garbage collection: it provokes asynchronous delays and, during an interrupt or a system call for a real time task, the kernel cannot wait. Objective C 1.0 does not force nor have garbage collection. True. Another is memory overhead: all the magic that OO languages provide take space in memory and Linux kernel is used in embedded systems with very tight memory requirements. But are embedded systems not rapidly moving on. Turning to stare at the ADSL X6 modem with MB's of ram. Its all about optimizations. -- Democracy is about two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner. begin:vcard fn:Rogelio M. Serrano Jr n:M. Serrano Jr;Rogelio org:SMSG Communications Philippines;Technical Department adr:;;Republic of the Philippines email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Programmer tel;work:+6327534145 tel;home:+6329527026 tel;cell:+639209202267 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?
Adrian Bunk wrote: >> >> The core libc and supporting libraries is the core. and the toolchain >> the core dev. Those can be updated twice or even once a year. The kernel >> can be updated once a month if you like. >> > > A new release of the Linux kernel has more than half a million lines of > code changed. If you do any estimates based on how many lines of changed > code equal one newly introduced bug you see the problem... > > And the difference between an upstream kernel and a distribution kernel > are 3-6 months of testing and bugfixing. > > True. But the libc and toolchain dont need to be as "dynamic". >> I stopped using debian myself and used DIY linux based toolchain and >> libc. Thats the stable core that i have been using for 4 months. If >> debian can reduce the footprint of the "stable core" and do monthly >> releases of package bundles i will use it again. >> > > Geeks like you and me want the latest software > (I'm using Debian unstable/testing). > > But most users want a Linux installation that simply works - and this > includes all software on the system at all times. > Yeah me too. Sidux and mepis does not do megafreezes. I think whats needed is to build and test groups of packages that work closely together and release them frequently as a group. > cu > Adrian > > -- Democracy is about two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner. begin:vcard fn:Rogelio M. Serrano Jr n:M. Serrano Jr;Rogelio org:SMSG Communications Philippines;Technical Department adr:;;Republic of the Philippines email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Programmer tel;work:+6327534145 tel;home:+6329527026 tel;cell:+639209202267 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?
Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > >> But the good thing about open source software is that when you believe >> your ideas are better than what current distributions do you can >> implement your ideas and create your own distribution. >> > > Haha, the typical FOSS advocate's fallacy. Quote: > > “You have the binary, you can crack it.” Does that sound familiar? No? How > about? “It's free software, you can fix or implement what you want.” These > I pretty much do that nowadays. But i dont expect non programmers to do likewise. At least i dont need a couple million bucks to preserve my programming skills. Its actually good for programmers. In the third world where i live its makes a world of difference. The availability of source does not mean that everybody must use source. I think everybody also agrees that its better then binary only distribution. > two statements are fundamentally the same: they expect that you have the > time and skill to modify the software to your needs. That it is easier when > the source is out in the open – and it doesn't even have to be “free” or > I dont understand. You are supposed to go to jail for looking at closed source, right? And licenses are very expensive. I could not afford them when i started out but now i would rather spend the money on other things like FPGA's. > “open source” – is just a detail. Nevertheless, the uncritical free softwaree > to deal with > and open source advocates often resort to this argument when their software > is found flawed. It is true, the herd of the bazaar indeed has the power to > modify software to its liking – to the shoddy least common denominator > product that herd desires are for. It is even possible for the unique one to > really? i work very hard at it. and it seems to get better steadily. > set up a shop within the bazaar, providing minor improvements to a few of > the bazaar's shoddy products. But to build a cathedral providing treatments > to all the ills of the bazaar – that demands more effort than the herd can > appreciate. There is no practical choice but to use the shoddy products of > the bazaar. In the present state of affairs, for those not of the herd, the > only choice – the only practical freedom – in free software, is the choice > not to use it. > > [1]: http://iki.fi/tuomov/b/archives/2006/03/17/T20_15_31/ > > You seem to be saying that Open source will never be good enough. And that the megafreeze problem is a necessary consequence. Thats fine with me. Its not going to make me stop using open source and linux because there is a good solution to the megafreeze problem. You might as well start ignoring Linux and the BSD's since Microsoft is already offering an alternative. At least you dont have to deal with that problem there. -- Democracy is about two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner. begin:vcard fn:Rogelio M. Serrano Jr n:M. Serrano Jr;Rogelio org:SMSG Communications Philippines;Technical Department adr:;;Republic of the Philippines email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Programmer tel;work:+6327534145 tel;home:+6329527026 tel;cell:+639209202267 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?
Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 01:51:25PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > >> On 2007-11-12, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I think a megafreeze development model is sane. Finding a collection >>> of software versions that are all known to work together is very >>> interesting, and useful. Making it so you can deliver something that >>> just works to end users is always interesting. >>> >> The distros only do that for the most important and most popular >> packages, most of which have become rather "generic" and faceless >> behemots in the sense that they do not have definite authors and so >> on, and for which it takes years to respond to bug reports in any case >> (if someone even bothers to enter the bug in registration-required >> Suckzilla, Debian's reportbug becoming much more usable in this case, >> even though it typically takes another year for the package maintainer >> to report things back upstream, if it ever even happens). >> >> Other more marginal software with a face, the distros just throw in >> and expect the author to deal with users having problems with ancient >> development snapshots and even bugs in stable versions that the distros >> simply refuse to fix. They should not distribute that kind of software >> at all. That is, distros should stick to providing stable base systems, >> and fully supported (and renamed if not generic) customised versions of >> other software for their target audience. For the rest, there should >> be better mechanisms for authors to distribute binary or otherwise >> easily and reliably installable packages of their software. >> > > The problem is not what the distributions ship, the problem is simply > that problems with distribution packaged software should be reported > to the distribution, not upstream. > > And for becoming at least marginally on-topic again: > Assuming your "stable base systems" contains the Linux kernel, how would > you prevent users from reporting bugs in their ancient kernels [1] here? > > Isn't the kernel easier to sync with latest and greatest? The core libc and supporting libraries is the core. and the toolchain the core dev. Those can be updated twice or even once a year. The kernel can be updated once a month if you like. I stopped using debian myself and used DIY linux based toolchain and libc. Thats the stable core that i have been using for 4 months. If debian can reduce the footprint of the "stable core" and do monthly releases of package bundles i will use it again. -- Democracy is about two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner. begin:vcard fn:Rogelio M. Serrano Jr n:M. Serrano Jr;Rogelio org:SMSG Communications Philippines;Technical Department adr:;;Republic of the Philippines email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Programmer tel;work:+6327534145 tel;home:+6329527026 tel;cell:+639209202267 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?
Adrian Bunk wrote: On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 01:51:25PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: On 2007-11-12, Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think a megafreeze development model is sane. Finding a collection of software versions that are all known to work together is very interesting, and useful. Making it so you can deliver something that just works to end users is always interesting. The distros only do that for the most important and most popular packages, most of which have become rather generic and faceless behemots in the sense that they do not have definite authors and so on, and for which it takes years to respond to bug reports in any case (if someone even bothers to enter the bug in registration-required Suckzilla, Debian's reportbug becoming much more usable in this case, even though it typically takes another year for the package maintainer to report things back upstream, if it ever even happens). Other more marginal software with a face, the distros just throw in and expect the author to deal with users having problems with ancient development snapshots and even bugs in stable versions that the distros simply refuse to fix. They should not distribute that kind of software at all. That is, distros should stick to providing stable base systems, and fully supported (and renamed if not generic) customised versions of other software for their target audience. For the rest, there should be better mechanisms for authors to distribute binary or otherwise easily and reliably installable packages of their software. The problem is not what the distributions ship, the problem is simply that problems with distribution packaged software should be reported to the distribution, not upstream. And for becoming at least marginally on-topic again: Assuming your stable base systems contains the Linux kernel, how would you prevent users from reporting bugs in their ancient kernels [1] here? Isn't the kernel easier to sync with latest and greatest? The core libc and supporting libraries is the core. and the toolchain the core dev. Those can be updated twice or even once a year. The kernel can be updated once a month if you like. I stopped using debian myself and used DIY linux based toolchain and libc. Thats the stable core that i have been using for 4 months. If debian can reduce the footprint of the stable core and do monthly releases of package bundles i will use it again. -- Democracy is about two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner. begin:vcard fn:Rogelio M. Serrano Jr n:M. Serrano Jr;Rogelio org:SMSG Communications Philippines;Technical Department adr:;;Republic of the Philippines email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Programmer tel;work:+6327534145 tel;home:+6329527026 tel;cell:+639209202267 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?
Tuomo Valkonen wrote: But the good thing about open source software is that when you believe your ideas are better than what current distributions do you can implement your ideas and create your own distribution. Haha, the typical FOSS advocate's fallacy. Quote: “You have the binary, you can crack it.” Does that sound familiar? No? How about? “It's free software, you can fix or implement what you want.” These I pretty much do that nowadays. But i dont expect non programmers to do likewise. At least i dont need a couple million bucks to preserve my programming skills. Its actually good for programmers. In the third world where i live its makes a world of difference. The availability of source does not mean that everybody must use source. I think everybody also agrees that its better then binary only distribution. two statements are fundamentally the same: they expect that you have the time and skill to modify the software to your needs. That it is easier when the source is out in the open – and it doesn't even have to be “free” or I dont understand. You are supposed to go to jail for looking at closed source, right? And licenses are very expensive. I could not afford them when i started out but now i would rather spend the money on other things like FPGA's. “open source” – is just a detail. Nevertheless, the uncritical free softwaree to deal with and open source advocates often resort to this argument when their software is found flawed. It is true, the herd of the bazaar indeed has the power to modify software to its liking – to the shoddy least common denominator product that herd desires are for. It is even possible for the unique one to really? i work very hard at it. and it seems to get better steadily. set up a shop within the bazaar, providing minor improvements to a few of the bazaar's shoddy products. But to build a cathedral providing treatments to all the ills of the bazaar – that demands more effort than the herd can appreciate. There is no practical choice but to use the shoddy products of the bazaar. In the present state of affairs, for those not of the herd, the only choice – the only practical freedom – in free software, is the choice not to use it. [1]: http://iki.fi/tuomov/b/archives/2006/03/17/T20_15_31/ You seem to be saying that Open source will never be good enough. And that the megafreeze problem is a necessary consequence. Thats fine with me. Its not going to make me stop using open source and linux because there is a good solution to the megafreeze problem. You might as well start ignoring Linux and the BSD's since Microsoft is already offering an alternative. At least you dont have to deal with that problem there. -- Democracy is about two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner. begin:vcard fn:Rogelio M. Serrano Jr n:M. Serrano Jr;Rogelio org:SMSG Communications Philippines;Technical Department adr:;;Republic of the Philippines email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Programmer tel;work:+6327534145 tel;home:+6329527026 tel;cell:+639209202267 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?
Adrian Bunk wrote: The core libc and supporting libraries is the core. and the toolchain the core dev. Those can be updated twice or even once a year. The kernel can be updated once a month if you like. A new release of the Linux kernel has more than half a million lines of code changed. If you do any estimates based on how many lines of changed code equal one newly introduced bug you see the problem... And the difference between an upstream kernel and a distribution kernel are 3-6 months of testing and bugfixing. True. But the libc and toolchain dont need to be as dynamic. I stopped using debian myself and used DIY linux based toolchain and libc. Thats the stable core that i have been using for 4 months. If debian can reduce the footprint of the stable core and do monthly releases of package bundles i will use it again. Geeks like you and me want the latest software (I'm using Debian unstable/testing). But most users want a Linux installation that simply works - and this includes all software on the system at all times. Yeah me too. Sidux and mepis does not do megafreezes. I think whats needed is to build and test groups of packages that work closely together and release them frequently as a group. cu Adrian -- Democracy is about two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner. begin:vcard fn:Rogelio M. Serrano Jr n:M. Serrano Jr;Rogelio org:SMSG Communications Philippines;Technical Department adr:;;Republic of the Philippines email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Programmer tel;work:+6327534145 tel;home:+6329527026 tel;cell:+639209202267 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: AppArmor Security Goal
Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > Allowing a user to tweak (under constraints) their settings might allow > them to do something like create two mozilla profiles which are isolated > from each other, so that the profile they use for general web surfing > is isolated from the one they use for online banking. > > Doesnt this allow the user to shoot their own foot? The exact thing mandatory access control are supposed to prevent? > Dave > -- Democracy is about two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner. begin:vcard fn:Rogelio M. Serrano Jr n:M. Serrano Jr;Rogelio org:SMSG Communications Philippines;Technical Department adr:;;Republic of the Philippines email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Programmer tel;work:+6327534145 tel;home:+6329527026 tel;cell:+639209202267 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: AppArmor Security Goal
Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: Allowing a user to tweak (under constraints) their settings might allow them to do something like create two mozilla profiles which are isolated from each other, so that the profile they use for general web surfing is isolated from the one they use for online banking. Doesnt this allow the user to shoot their own foot? The exact thing mandatory access control are supposed to prevent? Dave -- Democracy is about two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for dinner. begin:vcard fn:Rogelio M. Serrano Jr n:M. Serrano Jr;Rogelio org:SMSG Communications Philippines;Technical Department adr:;;Republic of the Philippines email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Programmer tel;work:+6327534145 tel;home:+6329527026 tel;cell:+639209202267 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
eevdf
i wrote a simple simulator for eevdf. im not sure if i got it right though.
how does eevdf track the runtime usage of a process?
is it supposed to be like this?
int
tick()
{
v_time += 1.0/sum_weights;
current->runtime += 1.0/current->weight;
//sched();
time++;
return 0;
}
i can forward the source to anyone who is willing to take a look.
Thanks.
begin:vcard
fn:Rogelio M. Serrano Jr
n:M. Serrano Jr;Rogelio
org:SMSG Communications Philippines;Technical Department
adr:;;Republic of the Philippines
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Programmer
tel;work:+6327534145
tel;home:+6329527026
tel;cell:+639209202267
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
eevdf
i wrote a simple simulator for eevdf. im not sure if i got it right though.
how does eevdf track the runtime usage of a process?
is it supposed to be like this?
int
tick()
{
v_time += 1.0/sum_weights;
current->runtime += 1.0/current->weight;
//sched();
time++;
return 0;
}
i can forward the source to anyone who is willing to take a look.
Thanks.
begin:vcard
fn:Rogelio M. Serrano Jr
n:M. Serrano Jr;Rogelio
org:SMSG Communications Philippines;Technical Department
adr:;;Republic of the Philippines
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Programmer
tel;work:+6327534145
tel;home:+6329527026
tel;cell:+639209202267
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard
eevdf
i wrote a simple simulator for eevdf. im not sure if i got it right though.
how does eevdf track the runtime usage of a process?
is it supposed to be like this?
int
tick()
{
v_time += 1.0/sum_weights;
current-runtime += 1.0/current-weight;
//sched();
time++;
return 0;
}
i can forward the source to anyone who is willing to take a look.
Thanks.
begin:vcard
fn:Rogelio M. Serrano Jr
n:M. Serrano Jr;Rogelio
org:SMSG Communications Philippines;Technical Department
adr:;;Republic of the Philippines
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Programmer
tel;work:+6327534145
tel;home:+6329527026
tel;cell:+639209202267
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard
eevdf
i wrote a simple simulator for eevdf. im not sure if i got it right though.
how does eevdf track the runtime usage of a process?
is it supposed to be like this?
int
tick()
{
v_time += 1.0/sum_weights;
current-runtime += 1.0/current-weight;
//sched();
time++;
return 0;
}
i can forward the source to anyone who is willing to take a look.
Thanks.
begin:vcard
fn:Rogelio M. Serrano Jr
n:M. Serrano Jr;Rogelio
org:SMSG Communications Philippines;Technical Department
adr:;;Republic of the Philippines
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Programmer
tel;work:+6327534145
tel;home:+6329527026
tel;cell:+639209202267
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
version:2.1
end:vcard
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
