Re: gcc (g++ v3.2.2) trouble
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 18:06, you wrote: Dear List! I've encountered a rather unpleasant problem. In a nutshell it is like this: when linking code compiled with g++ 3.2.2 with a library that has been compiled with gcc 2.x.x, the linker fails finding references. Now... The problem is that the library in question, if compiled from scratch (it's the libodbc++) with g++ 3.2.2 fails compilation. I've tried looking for some sort of explanation for this phenomena but with no luck so far. Any help would be appreciated! Thank You! GCC 3.X is not binary compatible with GCC 2.X. Actually I wouldn't even try counting on binary compatibiliy between versions of 3.X (3.1 and 3.2 for instance...). Make sure that all libraries, especially C++, are compiled using the EXACT same compiler. If the reason that you are using libs compiled using an old compiler is because you are in some kind of old distribution then use the compiler provided by the distribution or make an outright descision not use any of the libs provided by the distribution. It's your choice. Cheers, Mark = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Name: Mark Veltzer Title: Research and Development, Meta Ltd. Address: Habikaa 17/3, Kiriat-Sharet, city.holon, Gush-Dan, country.israel 58495 Phone: +972-03-5581310 Fax: +972-03-5581310 Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.veltzer.org OpenSource: CPAN, user: VELTZER, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], url: http://search.cpan.org/author/VELTZER/ Public key: http://www.veltzer.org/ascx/public_key.asc, wwwkeys.pgp.net, 0xC71E5D38 To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Configuring GDM to limit user actions
On Sunday 08 February 2004 15:34, you wrote: Hi, I would like to know how to configure Gnome on RH9 for a specific user: * control the menus from the start menu (which item will appear in the menues) * control which application a user can activate (run) * require a root password (or a previledged user password) for certain applications I did not find a suitable answer for that on the web. Maybe anyone has a lead for me to follow? If you think I cannot accomplish that in Gnome environment, please tell me which env and how to do it (or where to look for the answer), because I don't know any other GUI environments. Thanks, David. David! Your entire state of mind is so out of touch with how computers work that I don't even know where my answer should begin. Here is a feeble attempt: 1. The operating system does not, per se, state which applications each user can run. If a user has running capabilities then he can launch any executable file. Even an executable file which was derived from consulting some greek all knowing oracle who can program in binary. 2. The desktop may hide some buttons but this is no guaratee what so ever that the user wont be able to launch an application. You better look at buttons as fast ways of doing things and not as you can/can't separators. This is not windows we are talking about. 3. No set of standard desktop applications has been certified as not allowing in some strage way to launch a shell since launching a shell is absolutely allowed in Linux (and encouraged for that matter). 4. If you take konqueror for example, it will allow you to have a shell running inside it. 5. The number of ways you could manipulate an application to launch a shell for you is so numerous that I can't really think of a large GUI application which I CANT launch a shell from by manipulating it in some way. 6. If this entire concept of yours is some marketing peoples idea for the users not touching our system go back to them and tell them it's a dream. 7. GDM is just the login application and does not control what the user sees or does not see on his desktop. The user can even login from GDM to a KDE environment. Hope this helps in some way. Cheers, Mark BTW: just for the record - the situation in windows is a lot worse since in most windows distributions the user has installation priveleges on the machine so he can actually halt the machine (for instance by running an installation process which removes critical files) or render the machine unbootable. In Linux he could just launch applications and not hurt anyone but himself. Quite an improvement. -- Name: Mark Veltzer Title: Research and Development, Meta Ltd. Address: Habikaa 17/3, Kiriat-Sharet, city.holon, Gush-Dan, country.israel 58495 Phone: +972-03-5581310 Fax: +972-03-5581310 Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.veltzer.org OpenSource: CPAN, user: VELTZER, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], url: http://search.cpan.org/author/VELTZER/ Public key: http://www.veltzer.org/ascx/public_key.asc, wwwkeys.pgp.net, 0xC71E5D38 To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Globes [online] - Open question
On Tuesday 09 December 2003 01:35, you wrote: Dear Sir, In a recent article (http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/DocView.asp?did=747399fid=980 http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/DocView.asp?did=747399fid=980) you conclude: In sum, open-source systems are currently too risky, and are less cost-effective than commercial software products. I find it quite a surprise to hear such a conclusive statement coming from an independent academic Well written reply, but I expect the man is just a small minded economics professor who's whole lifes work depends to analyzing large corporations and the magic they create. How disappointing for him to find out that volunteers could do better!!! Alas - his life was wasted if that is the case... No - his truth must be defended!!! Small minds go into economics... That's why they always pick mathematicians to represent them at the Nobel prize awards...:) Cheers, Mark -- Name: Mark Veltzer Title: Research and Development, Meta Ltd. Address: Habikaa 17/3, Kiriat-Sharet, city.holon, Gush-Dan, country.israel 58495 Phone: +972-03-5581310 Fax: +972-03-5581310 Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.veltzer.org OpenSource: CPAN, user: VELTZER, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], url: http://search.cpan.org/author/VELTZER/ Public key: http://www.veltzer.org/ascx/public_key.asc, wwwkeys.pgp.net, 0xC71E5D38 To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WebSpider/mining software.
On Saturday 06 September 2003 21:47, you wrote: Hi, I am not sure I am using the correct terminology. I am looking for a tool that can download HTML pages and content given a URL as starting point. On MS I used teleport pro (Got a license) What tool is available on Linux? David! On the cmd line you can use wget. It is probably already installed on your machine. If you are a more sophisticated user and would like stream lined processing of the information then you can use your favorite high level language to fetch it. I use Perl with the LWP library, then convert the HTML to standard XML (HTML is abnoxious when it's not standard) and then use the XQL language to query for information in the page. This setup is terrific for things like getting the release date of a film from it's IMDB page for instance...:) Have fun, Mark To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Applying open source pressure on SCO
Hello all! I wanted to see how to the following ideas will fly with the open source crowd in view of SCO latest outrageous behaviour: 0. Make clean ./configure fail on SCO systems by modifying autoconf. User could still compile but not by default (special flags to ./configure would need to be supplied). 1. Calling out to OS developers to put bugs related to SCO platforms at the end of their bug lists. 2. Removing SCO platform as target for gcc and forcing sco to maintain such a back end on their own. These are ofcourse very extreme measures but SCO seems to be acting so outregeously as to disregard the whole community of OS and FS developers. I think we should let them know that hurting the OS community is much more severe than milking IBM's money. The blatant refusal by SCO to reveal which kernel code is in question is abismal. This goes to the heart of their intentions which is to hurt the entire community and thus raise their value as seen in the eyes of Gates and friends. The damage they are causing can only be assesed in the billions. I, as an open source developers and as a Linux consultant, am directly hurt by this latest SCO scam which reduces my clients wishes to move to Linux. This actually hurts my pocket! I do not see any moral problem with issuing an open call for all companies to drop UnixWare and annoucing an ordered plan for removing support for it accross the entire line of open source project. So, how many are for threatening taking such steps and how many are willing to activly trying to to take such steps ? I want to remind everyone that there is nothing illegal in taking such steps - for instance - there is nothing illegal in forking apache and maintaining a SCOless apache - and if the number of downloads of the SCOless apache will be high enough it may be that the apache group will remove support for SCO also... There is certainly enough anti SCO feelings out there to make SCOless packages in great demand (I would even consider making a SCOless icon for open source projects to use). Cheers, and an early demise to our favourite McBride...:) Mark = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Applying open source pressure on SCO
On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 05:01:41PM +0300, Arik Baratz wrote: But there are other implications to this form of activism. Soon some guy who doesn't like some country will add a clause to the O/S license banning use in that country... Not a good precedent. The owner of a project is entitled to give whatever license he wants. He cannot, however, claim that after prohibiting SCO to use the product the license is GPL compliant. It is not. That is why I did not mention licenses. The GPL is great. We should keep it. And the GPL does not have a built in Black List feature. Which is good. I was talking about the myriad of small details which makes a project like gnome or kde or apache compile well on SCO. If the gnome or kde or apache stop accepting patches to clean the compilation on SCO or even tear out support for SCO compilation from their ./configure.in scripts there is nothing against that in the GPL... The GPL does not oblige the author to support platforms he does not want to and this WITHOUT modifying the license. People who wish, for instance, to create an open source project which specifies that Israelis cannot use it are welcome to it. I have nothing against them except that I would not join any project which has such a black list in it's license and I hope others won't either. In any case I would fight against this kind of project trying to classify itself as free source. A free source should have the same rights for everyone. Even the detested SCO. It does not mean that free source developers should keep on bypassing SCO weirdness using their configure.in scripts and makefiles while the SCO CEO is on the war path with them. Let SCO do that - if they can!!! Cheers, Mark = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [OT] is Linus really a traitor?
On Wednesday 15 January 2003 22:05, you wrote: [Transmeta] claims its approach offers increased security for wireless computing, protects sensitive data, deters intellectual property theft (read Digital Rights Management (DRM) Inside) and delivers tamper-resistant, x86 storage environments. http://212.100.234.54/content/3/28883.html *** ALL *** hardware companies in the US have to move towards DRM since the market in the US is that way. Our saviours in this case would be the far east manufacturors who will give us DRM free machines at lower costs and who will ultimately make a joke of the entire effort. Thank god for the east. As for Linus: I do not consider a person who had the nerve to write an operating system from scratch and license it under the GPL a traitor. A hero hits much closer to home. Did you really think about youre saying ?!? Licensing software under GPL and not charging for it (which are two separate issues) is like giving a gift to the world . I have been using this gift from Linus on my machines for almost a decade. This gift is also one which can not be taken back - this means that Linus has no power over his users except being a bright developer who is the right person to run the Linux kernel project. If only the world had a 100 more traitors like him!!! Cheers, Mark. -- Name: Mark Veltzer Title: Research and Development, Meta Ltd. Address: Habikaa 17/3, Kiriat-Sharet, Holon, Gush-Dan, Israel 58495 Phone: +972-03-5508163 Fax: +972-03-5508163 Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.veltzer.org OpenSource: CPAN, user: VELTZER, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], url: http://search.cpan.org/author/VELTZER/ Public key: http://www.veltzer.org/ascx/public_key.asc, wwwkeys.pgp.net, 0xC71E5D38 To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Photos of RMS dinner
Hello all! Anyone have digital photos of the event and if so where ? If you can email some to me I would appreciate it...:). Any free source advocating website that is willing to carry them ? (I'm willing to put them on my site but 3 visitors per year is not a good idea...:) Cheers, Mark -- Name: Mark Veltzer Title: Research and Development, Meta Ltd. Address: Habikaa 17/3, Kiriat-Sharet, Holon, Gush-Dan, Israel 58495 Phone: +972-03-5508163 Fax: +972-03-5508163 Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.veltzer.org OpenSource: CPAN, user: VELTZER, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], url: http://search.cpan.org/author/VELTZER/ Public key: http://www.veltzer.org/ascx/public_key.asc, wwwkeys.pgp.net, 0xC71E5D38 To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Big Companies' Linux support
Oren! I think we can all safely say that software support is virtually NON EXISTANT where closed source software for the masses is concerned. Did you ever see a commercial company release a a bug fix just for you ? Did you ever manage to get in contact with ANYONE in MS who knows what the ?%$% they are talking about (meaning someone who actually saw the code and knows how it works) ? No. Software support is a myth devised by companies to better sell their string of bits which has 0$ duplication cost. I don't blame them. Software makes for tough sell so they try to sell the support. In the Open Source case software support is a much more viable solution since you can actually DO something about a problem without forcing RedHat to release a full bug fix version because a problem that is bugging you but is a non problem in the eyes of RedHat. This is indeed a viable business and such companies do exist. Sometimes the distributions do it themselves and sometimes it's small Linux consulting companies who know the system better than you and can actually fix the userspace and kernel code for you. About hardware support: did you ever get a visit from NVIDIA, Creative, IBM hard disk devision or other people to check what went wrong with your hardware ?!? Enough said. The hardware market is built on: build it, write a device driver, test test test and ship it out. No support is included unless the thing is totally broken in which case you could probably return it. I don't see why it would be any different on Linux except the device driver code would be open source in most cases. From the hardware perspective the only difference is that releasing a driver for linux is still not a standard (I would still prefer an open source driver when I can get one because they are written better). In any case you can hire a kernel hacker to write a device driver for just about anything these days, or, if you have enough weight, try to convince the hardware manufacturor to write one. Cheers, Mark -- Name: Mark Veltzer Title: Research and Development, Meta Ltd. Address: Habikaa 17/3, Kiriat-Sharet, Holon, Gush-Dan, Israel 58495 Phone: +972-03-5508163 Fax: +972-03-5508163 Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.veltzer.org OpenSource: CPAN, user: VELTZER, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], url: http://search.cpan.org/author/VELTZER/ Public key: http://www.veltzer.org/ascx/public_key.asc, wwwkeys.pgp.net, 0xC71E5D38 To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux vs Windows 2000
On Saturday 14 December 2002 11:56 am, you wrote: thought you might find this interesting : http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html Too much in favour of BSD as compared to Linux...:). Almost all the points are history today and it only goes to show the fast rate of Linux progress... They even twist a few facts (like not giving BSD a poorer grade than Linux in the support section). The BSD people are in a real dilemma as I can see it: They do have a more secure and reviewed system but they fail to understand that the Wild Wild West nature of Linux, while maybe lowering the OS security some, is causing the Linux kernel to advance at a much more rapid pace than BSD. While the BSD people are carefully checking for dog shit with every move they take they see Linus runnig like crazy and he has long left them behind...:) Cheers, Mark To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD vs Linux vs Windows 2000
On Saturday 14 December 2002 01:00 pm, you wrote: Not expressing any constructive opinion, your paragraph here is just saying that BSD guys are more professional. That depends on your definition of professional. If professional is careful up to the point of stagnation then professional is a dirty word. I'm not saying that BSD is stagnating. What I am saying is that there is a never ending conflict in the software business between letting new ideas in and keeping with the old in favour of stability and security. MS could be said, by your definition, to be very professional since they are very careful not to break backward compatibility (it is true that they have broken it several times but in the course of 20 years they have done it much less than others in the expicit aim of keeping their user base.). Is this type of behaviour professional ? I think not. They have hurt their users with this backward compatibility a lot more. When you're designing an OS you need to be able to experiment with different subsystem designs. If you don't experminent you can't understand where you want to go. If you are too careful about security your release rate of new concepts goes down drastically since you never release anything until it is audited. This means that your experimentation rate goes down drastically and so does your understanding of what design you'd rather have in the future. This hurts your users in the long run but keeps them happy in the short. professional is such a murky word...:) cheers, Mark To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
External USB cd writers for Linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello all! Can anybody recommend any that are known to work well under Linux ? BTW: same goes for scanners:) Is the Linux hardware database up to date ? (meaning is the info there any good ?) Cheers, Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE97Qj/xlxDIcceXTgRAggBAKDK0WcM6XiTekIK/T3ajpovgXC1tgCfXKi1 UN7npHBH08lTQi5gQ5gaKhM= =QuoQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PPPoE instead of PPTP on Bezeq ADSL - howto
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 24 November 2002 01:31, you wrote: Comments welcome. Just one comment: Great stuff. Since most distros come with PPPoE and not PPTP it makes installing Bezeq ADSL a little easier for newbie Linux users. Thanks for writing the document. Any chance of someone adding it to the main documents at iglu (at the FAQ section which deals with networking and ADSL) ? Cheers, Mark. Enjoy! Doron -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE94B1oxlxDIcceXTgRAvmBAKCFa1Na38yLbd8N+K4UsfEW9CtJAgCeNKkk 6wJSxhGchu5jHsW8IM5BSsY= =ZWX7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ccache pitfall discovered
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 29 October 2002 11:44, you wrote: On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:11:50AM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: We've had a thread recently about ccache and potential pitfalls. johnm on advogato has discovered one such pitfall. The details: http://www.advogato.org/person/johnm/diary.html?start=23 [Replying to myself. Oy Vey.] Of course you can reproduce them. What he did is change his PATH and thus got a different tool chain. In our earlier thread we explicitly mentions that ANY change to your tool chain (compiler, preprocessor, assember, linker and WHATEVER they use to aid them in their work) requires a clearing the ccache cache. I consider this to be a known issue and not a real pitfall. A good developer SHOULD know when he's upgrading his tool chain (other tools like make will fail to recongnize such changes too which only means that at these times developer interaction is required). Cheers, Mark. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9vsc3xlxDIcceXTgRAmlGAJwOFBrjsvcIt+K45e3xWySpgYuF3QCgmTV/ ETiy091YdcwB9Gc9BVK0YGc= =OUGV -END PGP SIGNATURE- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bezeq ADSL and sending faxes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello all! I have a standard Alcatel modem for Bezeq ADSL and I wanted to know if it can be used to send faxes in any way ? Thanks, Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9uvAixlxDIcceXTgRAoEzAJ9UPohncwl/stK7k45uz5zLtcTTngCdHWk0 ueuWvXH6DfLUTkDZSxbpscs= =ngsV -END PGP SIGNATURE- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bezeq ADSL and sending faxes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello all! I have a standard Alcatel modem for Bezeq ADSL and I wanted to know if it can be used to send faxes in any way ? Thanks, Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9uvAixlxDIcceXTgRAoEzAJ9UPohncwl/stK7k45uz5zLtcTTngCdHWk0 ueuWvXH6DfLUTkDZSxbpscs= =ngsV -END PGP SIGNATURE- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bezeq ADSL and sending faxes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 27 October 2002 01:51, you wrote: yeah, yeah, heard you the first time... Sorry about the double post. Problem with my email client. ofcourse you can use your line for faxes, it's a standard SL (albeint DSL) and still works as POTS (whic his what you need for a G3 fax). just hook any regular modem to the line. This I figured that out for myself...:) if you reprogram your Alcatel to whistle like a fax at low frequencies, we (and the engineers in Alcatel) will be glad to know how you managed it. I was hoping for an answer along the lines of Oh yes. When you have ppp with your modem you can use a standard [...fill some vague protocol which I don't know the name of here...] to send faxes to it and it will put them in the low frequencies... No luck I guess...:( Will get a standard fax-modem to go along with this one then...:) Cheers, Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9uzaWxlxDIcceXTgRAlQhAKCBPuIXo1naP7R68gVHsL3sNeTtXwCfRS0a ERnsoN402q8K1NbfGmy1LeE= =zyK0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RedHat pisses me up!!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 16 October 2002 14:27, you wrote: Sorry for being rude, but ... This is the storry Several weeks ago, I updated RH7.3 to 8.0 version using update all option. Even though I didn't asked the installation program to remove any programs from my disk, I was astounded to discover that KPackage and GnoRpm have gone, and now the only way to have a GUI to package management is some impotent tool that RH have included, which gives me no choices what so ever. I wouldn't judge RH as harshly as you but there is one very important technical comment that I would like to make: NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER trust upgrades And another good hint: NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER custom select which packages you install UNLESS you're starting off from one of the predefined collections. Why ?!? EVER NEVER NEVER NEVER trust upgrades - The upgrade process heavily depends on the fact that dependencies listed in RPMS are: 1. accurare. 2 complete. They are neither. Why ?!? simply because they are mostly deduced from binary .so dependencies and dependencies like this tool runs that tool don't come into play unless someone with intimate knowledge of the software made the RPM which is not the case since usually RH are the ones doing the packaging and not the original author of the application (yes yes yes - it's better if the original auther did the packaging just like any other thing like documentation, bug tracking and security. Things are always better when they are done at the source of the application than by some outsider and they also are more consistant that way). Upgrading a major distribution version is such a leap of faith that you're better off writing the damn thing yourself...:) Regarding selection of individual packages. Lets say that a distribution has 700 packages. This means that you can make 2^700 different selection of what to install. Because of the span the graph algorithm the number of choices is actually a lot smaller but it's still MUCH LARGER THAN THE NUMBER OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE. What does this mean ? That RH did NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, did QA on every conceivable choice of packages. They did, however, do QA on the 10-15 preselected configuration that they did offer. And they found the bugs in them (that came from having incomplete/inaccurate RPM dependencies). If you select whatever you want you may hit a dependency bug. It may be easy to solve (a UI program may complain that it cannot find another program and you'll just install the RPM). But if you are unlucky you'll find yourself with the firewall not running an essential component WITHOUT YOU KNOWING ABOUT IT!!!. I hope I made myself clear...:) Cheers, Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9rWXNxlxDIcceXTgRAjw2AJ9IjMWyoARyblm4RIe2/6nsNfhEXACgyv+4 za679TfMcmui2Mk/jym05lM= =tjMo -END PGP SIGNATURE- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: System Backups
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 14 October 2002 12:37, you wrote: Hi, What would be the way to backup an entire system ? I have a server which I need too backup, a complete backup setups, *-conf, data, everything and then to easily rebuild the entire server back from scratch. Would it be enough to copy the entire file system on to DVDs, Tape etc. and then reinstall Linux and copy the entire file system back in or do I need a tool like Ghost ? You don't ** have ** to have a software like ghost to do it. As long as you keep symbolic links symbolic, device files as device files and the permissions then you can copy the entire system to a new disk and that disk will be able to function as an operating system. A few issues: 0. When trying to revive a system from backup you will have to rerun your lilo (if you are using lilo). If you are using grub then you are better off since if the path to your kernel didn't change you will still be able to boot using the old MBR. When using lilo you will *** HAVE *** to rerun lilo (the lilo MBR contains absolute location (in terms of disk physical attributes) of the kernel which has probably changed). 1. There is no need to backup the system itself over and over. If you define a strict policy of separation between the program/data that you install/collect and the system installed programs/data then you can only backup your data (will save a lot of useless backup space). Also keeping all RPMS/.debs that you upgraded on the side is a good practice. 2. There are many backup packages for linux out there. Pick one. I like amanda because it(she ?!?) sends nice emails...:). Most of these know how to preserve all relevant file system information. If you are using more modern file systems with extra info (like access control lists etc...) then pick a backup software that knows how to handle those. These issues are more tricky and you'll have to check for every feature seperately. I advise you not to use those features unless you really need those since backup software support for those is still in the making in some backup packages. Cheers, Mark Erez __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos More http://faith.yahoo.com = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9qqdGxlxDIcceXTgRAoH3AJ96y8t/D704Ql/Tt6D4wBoep0Jp+QCaA4FL Lrkm/2YTCa6WnpSsLgcNvl4= =J1Wj -END PGP SIGNATURE- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: System Backups
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 14 October 2002 13:08, you wrote: I think that he didn't look for backup tools, but asked what's wrong with a dumb copy, and if a dumb copy can be used instead of tools like Ghost and mindi/mondo. Since this question bothers me too, can anybody summarize the advantages of a dedicated backup software? A dumb copy can be used (if you pass the right flags to copy or to tar). Advantages/disadvantages: 1. a backup software usually registers itself as a cron process. You don't have to actually write the script or register it in cron. 2. a backup software is usually incremental. Meaning you can always have a snapshot of last night and not waste the entire disk space every night. The backup software only backs us all change since level 0 (full last backup). 3. a backup software sends you nice emails that predict when you will run out of space on your backup media so you can change it before hand. A script does not. 4. a backup software requires some learning (not a lot though and some have graphical front ends which are really easy). 5. a backup software keeps dates on files automatically. This means that you can save years of backups and not worry about organizing the files yourself according to dates (the backup software does it for you). This is all I could think of. Cheers, Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9qqx9xlxDIcceXTgRAosfAJ9WQ86yAVoGyEd8QKdwh+mFrFaqIgCeLfKg omAbOb1b5Ee+ZlLQdrZ4lO4= =KMVY -END PGP SIGNATURE- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A disturbing article...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 12 October 2002 21:41, you wrote: Hi List, I tend to concur with Oded, The first problem is that Linux advocates usually do not understand just how unusable and inappropriate Linux is for the average person, which leads to the second problem, that there is no Linux distribution that works out-of-the-box like Windows does. This isn't a problem of dumb users, it's a design flaw in current Linux distributions. I beg to differ. I willing to wager that 90% of windows users NEVER install their operating systems. Either the sys admin at the company they are at does it or the guy who sold them their computer (or some support guy once it gets broken) does it for them. Comparing windows ease of install with Linux is flawed since only professionals install windows (either sellers of computers or sys admins at companies) while we expect the average user to install Linux (since the system came pre installed with windows and there is a very small number of professionals who will do that work for you for pay and people do not usually want to pay for trying the new system out). Actually Linux works much better out of the box than windows *** IF *** you compare two machine which come scratched (nothing on the hard drive). But since machines don't come that way it *** looks *** like windows is easier to install. It's actually a lot harder to install and a lot messier (it takes at *** least *** several hours and a lot of know how to put the basic things on top of windows which comes pretty stipped down while Linux installation is rarely more than an hour or so and comes fully loaded). Please Please do not confuse ease of installation of something which people rarely install on their own (windows) with something that users are *** required *** to install if they want to use (Linux) Cheers, mark. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9qJ+DxlxDIcceXTgRAk4ZAKDPSa4Yr+QsOP9R11tC+D4gbEvO5gCeOWlQ pVmL9AnbPCHHoO2DkNYqL9A= =aPvW -END PGP SIGNATURE- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Mounting few Iso's on the same point
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 08 October 2002 00:13, you wrote:
On Monday 07 October 2002 16:01, Alon Barzilai wrote:
mount -t iso9660 -o ro 1.iso /mnt/disk1
mount -t iso9660 -o ro 2.iso /mnt/disk1
This is called union mount. Linux does not have this feature (I think BSD
has it).
Actually, there were some noises made by Al Viro that were implying that this
is something which is in his tree.
Meanwhile - If you are into development then you can use use (file
systems in user space) and the attached file (by yours truly) to get you
started. I haven't tested it well and I *** KNOW *** that it has problems and
just didn't have any time to work on it What can you expect out of 25
minutes of coding ?...:)
Have fun
Mark
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE9ohECxlxDIcceXTgRAg/hAJ43vOxo5r9EdcLYVdV4Qi7EBwnTbwCeI8Vu
718vcwQ8HO8QV7aa/IUEsbk=
=Sf5b
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
diff -urN fuse-0.95/example/Makefile.am fuse-0.95-mark/example/Makefile.am
--- fuse-0.95/example/Makefile.am Wed Nov 21 11:52:42 2001
+++ fuse-0.95-mark/example/Makefile.am Thu Jan 10 16:08:26 2002
@@ -1,9 +1,11 @@
## Process this file with automake to produce Makefile.in
-noinst_PROGRAMS = fusexmp null hello
+noinst_PROGRAMS = fusexmp null hello mount union_mount
fusexmp_SOURCES = fusexmp.c
null_SOURCES = null.c
hello_SOURCES = hello.c
+mount_SOURCES = mount.c
+union_mount_SOURCES = union_mount.c
LDADD = ../lib/libfuse.a -lpthread
diff -urN fuse-0.95/example/Makefile.in fuse-0.95-mark/example/Makefile.in
--- fuse-0.95/example/Makefile.in Wed Jan 9 15:51:33 2002
+++ fuse-0.95-mark/example/Makefile.in Thu Jan 10 16:11:27 2002
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
-# Makefile.in generated automatically by automake 1.4-p4 from Makefile.am
+# Makefile.in generated automatically by automake 1.4-p5 from Makefile.am
-# Copyright (C) 1994, 1995-8, 1999 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+# Copyright (C) 1994, 1995-8, 1999, 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
# This Makefile.in is free software; the Free Software Foundation
# gives unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it,
# with or without modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.
@@ -66,11 +66,13 @@
VERSION = @VERSION@
kmoduledir = @kmoduledir@
-noinst_PROGRAMS = fusexmp null hello
+noinst_PROGRAMS = fusexmp null hello mount union_mount
fusexmp_SOURCES = fusexmp.c
null_SOURCES = null.c
hello_SOURCES = hello.c
+mount_SOURCES = mount.c
+union_mount_SOURCES = union_mount.c
LDADD = ../lib/libfuse.a -lpthread
mkinstalldirs = $(SHELL) $(top_srcdir)/mkinstalldirs
@@ -95,6 +97,14 @@
hello_LDADD = $(LDADD)
hello_DEPENDENCIES = ../lib/libfuse.a
hello_LDFLAGS =
+mount_OBJECTS = mount.o
+mount_LDADD = $(LDADD)
+mount_DEPENDENCIES = ../lib/libfuse.a
+mount_LDFLAGS =
+union_mount_OBJECTS = union_mount.o
+union_mount_LDADD = $(LDADD)
+union_mount_DEPENDENCIES = ../lib/libfuse.a
+union_mount_LDFLAGS =
CFLAGS = @CFLAGS@
COMPILE = $(CC) $(DEFS) $(INCLUDES) $(AM_CPPFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) $(AM_CFLAGS) $(CFLAGS)
CCLD = $(CC)
@@ -104,10 +114,10 @@
DISTFILES = $(DIST_COMMON) $(SOURCES) $(HEADERS) $(TEXINFOS) $(EXTRA_DIST)
-TAR = tar
+TAR = gtar
GZIP_ENV = --best
-SOURCES = $(fusexmp_SOURCES) $(null_SOURCES) $(hello_SOURCES)
-OBJECTS = $(fusexmp_OBJECTS) $(null_OBJECTS) $(hello_OBJECTS)
+SOURCES = $(fusexmp_SOURCES) $(null_SOURCES) $(hello_SOURCES) $(mount_SOURCES) $(union_mount_SOURCES)
+OBJECTS = $(fusexmp_OBJECTS) $(null_OBJECTS) $(hello_OBJECTS) $(mount_OBJECTS) $(union_mount_OBJECTS)
all: all-redirect
.SUFFIXES:
@@ -160,6 +170,14 @@
@rm -f hello
$(LINK) $(hello_LDFLAGS) $(hello_OBJECTS) $(hello_LDADD) $(LIBS)
+mount: $(mount_OBJECTS) $(mount_DEPENDENCIES)
+ @rm -f mount
+ $(LINK) $(mount_LDFLAGS) $(mount_OBJECTS) $(mount_LDADD) $(LIBS)
+
+union_mount: $(union_mount_OBJECTS) $(union_mount_DEPENDENCIES)
+ @rm -f union_mount
+ $(LINK) $(union_mount_LDFLAGS) $(union_mount_OBJECTS) $(union_mount_LDADD) $(LIBS)
+
tags: TAGS
ID: $(HEADERS) $(SOURCES) $(LISP)
@@ -204,7 +222,6 @@
|| cp -p $$d/$$file $(distdir)/$$file || :; \
fi; \
done
-
info-am:
info: info-am
dvi-am:
diff -urN fuse-0.95/example/fusexmp.c fuse-0.95-mark/example/fusexmp.c
--- fuse-0.95/example/fusexmp.c Tue Jan 8 11:40:12 2002
+++ fuse-0.95-mark/example/fusexmp.c Thu Jan 10 16:12:06 2002
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
#include dirent.h
#include errno.h
#include sys/statfs.h
+#include string.h
static int xmp_getattr(const char *path, struct stat *stbuf)
{
diff -urN fuse-0.95/example/hello.c fuse-0.95-mark/example/hello.c
--- fuse-0.95/example/hello.c Tue Jan 8 11:40:12 2002
+++ fuse-0.95-mark/example/hello.c Thu Jan 10 14:39:15 2002
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
#include stdio.h
#include errno.h
#include fcntl.h
+#include string.h
static const char *hello_str = Hello World!\n;
static const char *hello_path = /hello;
diff -urN fuse-0.95/example/mount.c
Re: xmms rh8
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 07 October 2002 19:23, you wrote: MPEG-2 --- maybe RealNetwork new open source technology??? who knows? I understood that Ogg is also video ready. It's supposed to be a sort of Meta-Format for binary streamed media so if you wanted to put video in Ogg you could. I also undestood that the video enhancements are already in the making. Anybody who knows better care to comment ? Cheers, Mark. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9odgsxlxDIcceXTgRAofdAJ9MAkEwRMbhwpzPi0xQiHIkBHlGXACg18os 0eQb/BE7hqgsFqQfsK9oq3M= =jdbW -END PGP SIGNATURE- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please disregard my previous message
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Linux-il and Linux-kernel as fairly close on my contacts list...:) Sorry...:( Regards, Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9ng3fxlxDIcceXTgRApk1AKDV2GPyb7KnTwy0Trh1RyLoBQFeIACgkZE8 UM3elDmjXXfan9H0I/ckmhQ= =WcA3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ccache
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 28 September 2002 02:07, you wrote: Basically, it competes with make for dependency tracking. It seems to try to do it in a smart way, but having two tools trying to outsmart each other seeds doubt in my mind. This doubt may have no foundation whatsoever, just unsubstantiated gut feeling. Totally wrong. The basic premise of ccache is the following: IF YOU RUN THE SAME COMPILER ON THE SAME SOURCE YOU SHOULD GET THE SAME OBJECT FILE. If you think that this does not take H files into consideration you are wrong. As Muli rightly states ccache takes the output of gcc -M which means the ENTIRE source that the compiler sees (H files and all AFTER preprocessor). In addition, it also stores the flags used for the compilation in the cache. I would rarely see a situation where you would say that YOU DO want the object recompiled unless you switched compilers (I'm not sure but I think that there are plans for ccache to store the compiler version too so if you switch compilers it will detect it and not use the cache. Muli ?!?). ccache has NOTHING to do with dependency tracking. It is a compiler wrapper. Think of it as adding a cache to gcc. Mark. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9lO6pxlxDIcceXTgRAqUOAKCngdxaQDaidaSJYRvLHwsrTG32kwCgkS0E 9OX2bE5KbzLwBy64rLQUS0Y= =AME7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux 2.4.20-pre?-ac? kernels
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Here are my thoughts on the matter (as if anyone cares what they are...:): 1. No commercial company has EVER produced a portable kernel (a real portable kernel - no branches like solaris or windows on alpha). This is probably due to the patience one has to have by letting fixes in not-so-hot architectures break things (sometimes or even by accident) in architectures which are of importance. For instance - Linus will admit a change which will make architecture dealing more flexible because of requirement from the alpha team thereby forcing the i386 to flex development effort even though the 386 code doesnt need that fine granularity (it works fine without it). NO ADMINISTRATOR in a commercial company will EVER do that (meaning risk breaking the code on the most used platform because of an almost non existant number of users on a almost unknown platform). That is why commercial comapanies never develop portable kernels. Plus the long boot time for such a project (A company will rarely invest money in something it will only see returns on 10 years down the line - maybe). 2. Due to (1) we now conclude that commecial companies COULD HAVE NEVER produced a product similar to Linux in capability. The only products that are equivalent are the BSD kernels which are open source too. 3. Nor do commercial companies able to support it on their own (Just as a fact up till now no commercial company has forked Linux and tried to take it into one of their developers hands - you may claim that this is due to the fact that they think the followers will stay with Linus but when you think of it none of them will dare do that on a TECHNICAL level). 4. Since free source produces better operating systems than commercial companies why should we assume that open source does worse on QA ? I claim that open source does BETTER on QA. You don't see RH doing QA on a lot of other products (if you divide their staff by number of packages you will have to reach a situation where every QA guy is in charge of about 50 packages). They are not. Why ? open source is good enough. The most they do is packaging and sometimes security fixes. Most bugs work themselves out the usual free source way. The QA RH does is overall QA to make sure that the combinations of products they select do not interfere one with the other. If they do QA on a specific product then they 5. Then why has RH decided to specifically QA the kernel ? You may claim, rightly, that the kernel is the most important component. It is also a component which is always running and therefore each bug in the kernel is much more important than in some application. You would also be right. That is probably the reason. Plus the fact that RH has clients with hardware that is not currently supported in the kernel and they want the kernel to support it and therefore they add drivers which sometimes even demand deeper changes. Once you start doing that you risk breaking something REALY important and presto - you HAVE to have your own QA team to make sure you didn't do that. 6. The open source way of QA is totally different. Don't change anything of importance and fix bugs all the time (that is what is being done on the stable branch). I think that the stable branch is quite conservative in what is accepted there (I think much more outrageous patches are accepted by the distributions). The distributions can also have different kernel sources for different architectures (i386,sparc etc...) which open source doesn't do (the whole point is to have 1 source tree). 7. Now lets look at the numbers. Redhat released 2 kernels for my platform (RH7.2). 2.4.7 and 2.4.9. The first was a total disaster. The vanilla 2.4.7 worked much better (although, it too, had it's problems). In this case RH botched up. Even with QA. Not very good track record. 8. A simple system (which should have been in place long ago) where people vote on the stability of kernels or an automatic system where your kernel reports up time to some website (ONLY if you enable that explicitly ofcourse) could be built up. The statistics that we would get should show the best vanilla stable kernel with NO problem what so ever. The oops kernels would stand up like flag poles. This type of system will provide much better kernels than RH QA. All that a distribution would have to do is look at the last N stable kernels and pick the best one. Presto. 9. And here is the real issue: once RH dabbles inside the kernel they are not only making it more stable - they are also risking introducing subtle bugs. If RH QA doesnt find anything wrong with the vanilla kernels we can sack them all since what good are they ? the whole point of QA is to find bugs and fix them. If QA doesn't find any bugs there is no need for them. If RH QA is indeed working then it must find bugs. And if it doesn't fix them it is as useless as no QA. Then it must fix them.
Re: linux 2.4.20-pre?-ac? kernels
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 26 September 2002 21:50, you wrote: On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Mark Veltzer wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Here are my thoughts on the matter (as if anyone cares what they are...:): 1. No commercial company has EVER produced a portable kernel (a real portable kernel - no branches like solaris or windows on alpha). Didn't the late NT/alpha and NT/MIPS share the same codebase as NT/i386? No they didn't. The alpha got forked off quite early. That's why MS dumped the alpha road (it was getting a burden to fix bugs for a minority of users). What about the late BeOS (PowerPC and i386, IIRC)? This one I don't know. My bet: Different source trees. 2. Due to (1) we now conclude that commecial companies COULD HAVE NEVER produced a product similar to Linux in capability. The only products that are equivalent are the BSD kernels which are open source too. 3. Nor do commercial companies able to support it on their own (Just as a fact up till now no commercial company has forked Linux and tried to take it into one of their developers hands - you may claim that this is due to the fact that they think the followers will stay with Linus but when you think of it none of them will dare do that on a TECHNICAL level). Linux is distributed under the terms of the GPL. Everyone is free to fork, but if the forked modifications are distributed, ten so must their sources be. If those changes will have something useful, it will find its way (e.g: through vendor kernels) to the main kernel tree My point was that they DONT fork. Why are they NOT forking when they can ? This is in effect an admittion that open source hackers can do better than they are. . 4. Since free source produces better operating systems than commercial companies why should we assume that open source does worse on QA ? I claim that open source does BETTER on QA. You don't see RH doing QA on a lot of other products (if you divide their staff by number of packages you will have to reach a situation where every QA guy is in charge of about 50 packages). They are not. Why ? open source is good enough. The most they do is packaging and sometimes security fixes. Most bugs work themselves out the usual free source way. The QA RH does is overall QA to make sure that the combinations of products they select do not interfere one with the other. If they do QA on a specific product then they It is a bit difficult to show the QA work. So I'll give a simple example to one side-asspect of it. Below is a link to the archives of redhat's enigma-list, which is the list for public discussions of matters regarding redhat's before-latest beta. Public beta is not exactly internal QA (everything found there is something that was not found in QA) but still it saves many thing from paying costumers. I agree. But as you can see most are integration bugs which is what RH does. Integration. 5. Then why has RH decided to specifically QA the kernel ? You may claim, rightly, that the kernel is the most important component. A kernel is just one of the important component, without which a linux distro can't function I agree. But it does not change my conclusions validity. It is also a component which is always running and therefore each bug in the kernel is much more important than in some application. You would also be right. That is probably the reason. Plus the fact that RH has clients with hardware that is not currently supported in the kernel and they want the kernel to support it and therefore they add drivers which sometimes even demand deeper changes. Once you start doing that you risk breaking something REALY important and presto - you HAVE to have your own QA team to make sure you didn't do that. 6. The open source way of QA is totally different. Don't change anything of importance and fix bugs all the time (that is what is being done on the stable branch). I think that the stable branch is quite conservative in what is accepted there (I think much more outrageous patches are accepted by the distributions). The distributions can also have different kernel sources for different architectures (i386,sparc etc...) which open source doesn't do (the whole point is to have 1 source tree). 7. Now lets look at the numbers. Redhat released 2 kernels for my platform (RH7.2). 2.4.7 and 2.4.9. The first was a total disaster. The vanilla 2.4.7 worked much better (although, it too, had it's problems). In this case RH botched up. Even with QA. Not very good track record. 2.4.9 was labeled as a security fix. It also included some bug fixes, I figure. Recall that at the time of 2.4.x (for a small enough x) people were complaining about problems with vanilla kernels, and not about RH kernels. 2.4.9 was a performance fix. I don't care what it was labeled. It prevented my machine from swapping
Re: [OT] Re: linux 2.4.20-pre?-ac? kernels
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 26 September 2002 22:17, you wrote: NB: marked OT with respect to the actual topic of the thread. Not entirely OT for the list, I suppose. Mark Veltzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... and I will continue feeding trolls who contribute to the kernel ;-) I think you have a very problematic undestanding of what a troll is. I was stating my opinions. If you think 1. No commercial company has EVER produced a portable kernel I would give commercial companies the benefit of the assumption that whatever they produce or distribute is portable at least to all the officially supported platforms. Now, assume RH - the vendor in question - only support x86. They would be perfectly right in favoring things beneficial to x86 even when they are detrimental to other architectures. I see nothing wrong here. 2. Due to (1) we now conclude that commecial companies COULD HAVE NEVER produced a product similar to Linux in capability. I don't see how you arrived at this conclusion. I'd say just the opposite is true: a vendor that focuses on a particular architecture is likely to succeed in producing a *more capable* product for that platform. Wrong. That is probably why MS windows is better on i386 than Linux right ?!? Every evidence shows that open source systems which are portable can certainly compete with the native operating system and sometimes out do them. This will much lower source size and much better in code architecture. The only products that are equivalent are the BSD kernels which are open source too. I have little experience with BSD. Please enlighten me, what other architectures besides x86 are supported? You are kidding me right ? Most BSDs are MORE portable than Linux. These NetBSD supports 39 architectures (and this is architectures supported INSIDE their source tree - I don't know how many more are supported outside). 3. Nor do commercial companies able to support it on their own (Just as a fact up till now no commercial company has forked Linux and tried to take it into one of their developers hands - you may claim that this is due to the fact that they think the followers will stay with Linus but when you think of it none of them will dare do that on a TECHNICAL level). Well, apparently RH did ;-). Another example of a fork by a commercial company is BSD-related - OS X. Both are apparently successful. Redhat didn't fork. They applied patches. Note the difference. So did Apple. They did not continue development of their tree (Are YOU trolling ?!?). 4. Since free source produces better operating systems than commercial companies why should we assume that open source does worse on QA ? I don't understand why you are going down this road. RH are commercial *and* open source - which category do you put them in? You obviously haven't been in the open source scene for long. In these types of discussions WITHIN the Linux community commercial means a distribution which makes money off of Linux compared to the community which doesnt make moeny. Open source here denotes the community. I claim that open source does BETTER on QA. Better than RH? They are open source, and have probably the largest user base. I'd say it is natural to assume they do *at least* as well as non-commercial open source, because in addition to the common open source QA they also pay people to do extra QA for them. Again, see comment above. You don't see RH doing QA on a lot of other products (if you divide their staff by number of packages you will have to reach a situation where every QA guy is in charge of about 50 packages). This point is also flawed. It would make perfect sense to RH to specifically QA what they change. If they put an add-on package foo into the distro and do nothing to it but create an rpm, then they would probably QA the rpm, but not foo itself. I see bugs in various software I use. I don't blame RH for those bugs, and don't send them bug reports. I send reports to developers/maintainers of the software. You say exactly what I did but claim by point is flawed. Are you trolling again ? Plus the fact that RH has clients with hardware that is not currently supported in the kernel and they want the kernel to support it and therefore they add drivers which sometimes even demand deeper changes. Once you start doing that you risk breaking something REALY important and presto - you HAVE to have your own QA team to make sure you didn't do that. True. What's wrong with that? Nothing. Just stating a fact. 7. Now lets look at the numbers. Redhat released 2 kernels for my platform (RH7.2). 2.4.7 and 2.4.9. The first was a total disaster. The vanilla 2.4.7 worked much better (although, it too, had it's problems). In this case RH botched up. Even with QA. Not very good track record. Did vanilla 2.4.7 or 2.4.9 work much better for you? Unless the answer
Re: RH8 Mdk9
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 25 September 2002 12:32, you wrote: the statistical chance that such a case will happen, is almost zero. So when it happens, it's exciting. The statistics become much higher when you realize that: 1. Redhat wants to change the buggy 2.96 compiler (which actually has about 5 versions I am ware of that they refuse to admit or tag as different versions). 2. Mandrake is compatible to RH (meaning Mandrake want you to be able to install Redhat RPMS and therefore have to use the same compiler as RH). Actually - what comes out of all this is that Mandrake HAS to release a major version whenever RH releases one (or shortly after because of development time) if it wants to keep it's objective of staying RH compatible. So it's not such a big surprise to me...:). Suse uses RPM too but is NOT RH compatible and did not follow suit on the 2.96 issue. They are a sane company I guess. On the bright side: gcc 2.96 is going to obscrity where is rightfully belongs. Regards, Mark. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9kYo+xlxDIcceXTgRAhbZAKCN4+20xN6zdvZXwRWtB6YpDmk7RgCguuS5 csoH8442Nx332enQjk2QwC8= =N/X7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RH8 Mdk9
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 25 September 2002 18:01, you wrote: Wrong in both terms: 1. GCC 2.96 to me seems very stable these days - and I have more then enough compile expirience with it (I use 2.96 only up until few days ago). It had few problems when it came out when RH 7.0, 7.1 and with the first version on 7.2, but if you use gcc-2.96-112 then it should be stable. Do you notice anything wrong with the previous statement ?!? gcc-2.96-112. First - prey tell how can you tell the version aparts ? (the first I don't know how many versions didn't have ANY identification). Second - the fact that they got it stable after a year and a half is hardly evidence that the original descision was right. Third - do you notice the number ? 112 ?!? I wouldn't trust ANY product that got 112 revisions in a year and half with my data:). I have worked with RH 2.96 too and guess what ?!? When my co -worker upgraded it by mistake it stopped compiling perfectly legal C++. A fix came out 2 days later. This is a sure sign of incompetency and of the fact that very central parts of the system were unstable and were probably released just by the sheer force of user pressure which introduced more bugs etc etc etc... Redhat played a nice imitation of MS here. 2. Red Hat is definately not compatible with Mandrake any more. Specially with Red Hat 8.0 which will be totally incompatible with anything on the market - be it kernel modules, or just binary applications. RH 8.0 is using glibc 2.3, a kernel which is heavily modified to compile under GCC 3.2 (which is the only compiler that Red Hat 8.0 is installing, although gcc2.96 is still on the CD) - be my guest, try to install any .i386.rpm from Red Hat 8.0 to Mandrake, it's not even compatible with RPM version (4.1.0 now and counting) (any company who thinks to start supporting RedHat 8.0 - make sure you have enough Aspirin in your closet) I didn't say that Redhat tried to be compatible with Mandrake. I said that Mandrake try to be compatible with Redhat (that's why they ate the 2.96 pill and put on a happy face even though the developers there sure made their opinion about it known in various mailing lists). If RedHat is moving to 3.2 then so will mandrake. BTW: if Mandrake do decide to do it (and they have probably decided about this issue a long time ago since they are working on 9.0 for quite some time now) then they are not obliged to use the same kernel as RH since the interface to the kernel is not via the regular language ABI but rather through sysclass which remain the same no matter which compiler version you are using. There are very strong incentives for Mandrake to be compatible with RedHat (and copatibility does not mean that they have the same versions of everything installed). By compatibility I mean ABI compatibility. For instance: If Oracle release their database for RH could it be installed on MDK ? Sure it could if Mandrake used the same ABI compiler as RH. This is the most important requirement to be ABI compatible with RedHat and it brings in a lot of benefits (for instance - every commercial RPM that can be installed on RH can be installed on MDK). Please do not confuse superficial changes (like changes in KDE versions, look and feel, versions of various packages) with very important features like changes in ABI. Actually - what comes out of all this is that Mandrake HAS to release a major version whenever RH releases one (or shortly after because of development time) if it wants to keep it's objective of staying RH compatible. So it's not such a big surprise to me...:). Suse uses RPM too but is NOT RH compatible and did not follow suit on the 2.96 issue. They are a sane company I guess. But it's NOT! Mandrake 9 cannot run ANYTHING from Red Hat 8.0 - unless it's an noarch RPM ;) Did you try it ? Meaning did you install a Mandrake 9 system and tried to install RPMs from Redhat ? If so then it means that Mandrake abandoned RH compatibility (which they had in ALL version prior to this one). If so - then I can only congratulate them - they should have done it the first day they laid their eyes on a compiler version which was not official and ran to the gcc site to download it just like I did just to discover it was a half baked idea... Regards, Mark Thanks, Hetz -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9keR5xlxDIcceXTgRAgsoAKDFSdQ48WwZSZDA6624yz3sowi8xQCfb6xI 9n3mzbVW3cNit5MT6tDp23w= =sQJe -END PGP SIGNATURE- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: kernel 2.4.19 anyone?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 22 September 2002 01:41, you wrote: Hi fellows.. I was wondering if someone could share his/her experience with vanilla kernel 2.4.19 I have used so far (in the last few months at least) RedHat's 2.4.18 kernel, but it seem my board decided that enough is enough and acpi=off parameter doesn't impress it at all (and there is no ACPI off mode in my Intel i845 board's BIOS) - which means - I have to recompile a kernel... So, how's 2.4.19? good enough? put some Marcello's stuff in? any recommendations?? It's better than 2.4.18 redhat but actually you're always better off using vanilla (the ugly driver code that RH puts in which rightly doesn't belong in the kernel isn't something you want even if you have the specific hardware). I wouldn't get an -pre from Marcello. If I would go for non vanilla I would take stuff off the -ac tree (Alan is finding lots of bugs and fixing stuff in the IDE layer lately and I like that...). If you're not a kernel hacker I don't see any reason what so ever to use a non vanilla (you're just wasting your time unless your objective is to experiment with kernels in which case go right ahead and get your kernel from the WOLK project...:). I like 2.4.19 but it isn't a revolution compared to 2.4.18 (meaning - if you don't need the driver fixes you're ok with either). In general I would recommend making a habit out of installing a vanilla kernel every time you install a system. This way you can at least report bugs to LKML. Most people rarely understand how many patches RH applies to their kernel. I heard a last count of 254 patches most of which wouldn't get by the first line of kernel maintainers not to mention Linus. I guess that only goes to show what commercial companies are good for: selling you things that are not yet half baked (and don't get me started about gcc 2.96...). Regards, Mark. Thanks, Hetz To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9jP9pxlxDIcceXTgRAom2AKDcIhFc/hACwBUCKqUWUB0M/ECfiQCfRCf7 SqQLBOILUEYZgXZWRbtTjQY= =+qZ+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
