At 01:34 PM 6/26/01 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>It is common for newspaper staff to be corrupt, same with magazine people.
>Sometimes because people generally believe in a cause and are not impartial
>(which I've seen both pro and anti Linux btw) and sometimes because
>advertising
>revenue is a good
At 02:33 PM 6/26/01 +0200, Alessandro Suardi wrote:
>To top this off with complete crap, after mentioning Gracenote:
>
> "There may be a paradoxical situation: the [Microsoft] appeal judge
> may restore the Microsoft monolith that judge Jackson wanted to
> break in small pieces. And in the
At 02:33 PM 6/26/01 +0200, Alessandro Suardi wrote:
To top this off with complete crap, after mentioning Gracenote:
There may be a paradoxical situation: the [Microsoft] appeal judge
may restore the Microsoft monolith that judge Jackson wanted to
break in small pieces. And in the
At 01:34 PM 6/26/01 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
It is common for newspaper staff to be corrupt, same with magazine people.
Sometimes because people generally believe in a cause and are not impartial
(which I've seen both pro and anti Linux btw) and sometimes because
advertising
revenue is a good
At 03:26 PM 6/24/01 -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Jason McMullan wrote:
>
> > Uhh. That's not what I was ranting about. What I was
> > ranting about is that we have never 'put to paper' the
> > requirements ('motiviations') for a good VM, nor have we
> > looked at said
At 03:26 PM 6/24/01 -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Jason McMullan wrote:
Uhh. That's not what I was ranting about. What I was
ranting about is that we have never 'put to paper' the
requirements ('motiviations') for a good VM, nor have we
looked at said nonexistent
At 08:48 PM 6/20/01 +0200, Martin Devera wrote:
>BTW is not possible to implement threads as subset of process ?
>Like thread list pointed to from task_struct. It'd contain
>thread_structs plus another scheduler's data.
>The thread could be much smaller than process.
>
>Probably there is another
e
described allows the whole thing to be done in userland, where it can be
debugged far more easily.
In summary, writing code to use many processes or threads is NOT lazy
programming in all instances, as the FAQ answer implies.
Stephen Satchell
writing time-critical programs for
to be done in userland, where it can be
debugged far more easily.
In summary, writing code to use many processes or threads is NOT lazy
programming in all instances, as the FAQ answer implies.
Stephen Satchell
writing time-critical programs for only a short time -- 30 years.
-
To unsubscribe
At 08:48 PM 6/20/01 +0200, Martin Devera wrote:
BTW is not possible to implement threads as subset of process ?
Like thread list pointed to from task_struct. It'd contain
thread_structs plus another scheduler's data.
The thread could be much smaller than process.
Probably there is another
At 12:24 AM 6/14/01 -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
>Everything you propose to get rid of are DRIVERS. They
>do NOT complicate the core kernel, do NOT introduce bugs
>in the core kernel and have absolutely NOTHING to do with
>how simple or maintainable the core kernel is.
Not quite. There were two
At 12:24 AM 6/14/01 -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
Everything you propose to get rid of are DRIVERS. They
do NOT complicate the core kernel, do NOT introduce bugs
in the core kernel and have absolutely NOTHING to do with
how simple or maintainable the core kernel is.
Not quite. There were two
At 09:03 PM 4/26/01 +0700, you wrote:
>right now it's the kernel who thinks that root
>is special, and applications work around that because there's a
>division of super-user and plain user. is that a must?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: The division is artificial, but is absolutely
At 09:03 PM 4/26/01 +0700, you wrote:
right now it's the kernel who thinks that root
is special, and applications work around that because there's a
division of super-user and plain user. is that a must?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: The division is artificial, but is absolutely necessary
"Thinking out of the box," you don't need to modify the kernel or the
userland utilities to make Linux automatically launch a dedicated terminal
for embedded applications. All you need to do is look at the file
/etc/inittab and read the man pages for this file. For console access, you
At 05:58 PM 4/23/01 +0200, you wrote:
>>On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 05:26:27PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>>>last entry should not have a trailing comma.
>>Sadly not. This isn't a gcc thing: ANSI says that trailing comma is ok (K
>>Second edition, A8.7 - pg 218 &219 in my copy)
>
>You are right, I
At 05:58 PM 4/23/01 +0200, you wrote:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 05:26:27PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
last entry should not have a trailing comma.
Sadly not. This isn't a gcc thing: ANSI says that trailing comma is ok (KR
Second edition, A8.7 - pg 218 219 in my copy)
You are right, I just
At 09:02 PM 4/7/01 -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
>Not always an option. There are many places in the world in which your
>ISP is a monopoly. And even in your simplistic view of the world, there
>are many places in the United States where you are held captibe by not
>having more than one local
At 09:02 PM 4/7/01 -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
Not always an option. There are many places in the world in which your
ISP is a monopoly. And even in your simplistic view of the world, there
are many places in the United States where you are held captibe by not
having more than one local ISP.
ly fixes the bug. If it does, confirmation of a bug
fix would be included, and that would help Alan & Co. to determine what
patches should go in.
Just a few random thoughts on the whole process -- but I suspect others
have already thought of these things. I'd be interested in working o
e bug. If it does, confirmation of a bug
fix would be included, and that would help Alan Co. to determine what
patches should go in.
Just a few random thoughts on the whole process -- but I suspect others
have already thought of these things. I'd be interested in working on
this, day job willing.
eve that the
Linux definition can be written such that existing AIX-based handlers will
work with minimum modification.
I submit this as a strawman suggestion -- I'm not married to any of the
ideas. Feel free to suggest alternatives that solve the problem.
Stephen Satchell
-
To unsubscrib
n such that existing AIX-based handlers will
work with minimum modification.
I submit this as a strawman suggestion -- I'm not married to any of the
ideas. Feel free to suggest alternatives that solve the problem.
Stephen Satchell
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsub
At 10:24 AM 3/26/01 -0500, you wrote:
>It's sad that people like the one who sent out messages like that can stay
>employed. In the last year there have been several Windows love-bug type
>worms each causing damaged estimated in the billions. One or two Linux worms
>that go after a long fixed
At 10:24 AM 3/26/01 -0500, you wrote:
It's sad that people like the one who sent out messages like that can stay
employed. In the last year there have been several Windows love-bug type
worms each causing damaged estimated in the billions. One or two Linux worms
that go after a long fixed problem
I'm experiencing the same thing with an ASUS P5A-B running a K6-2/266 with
Linux 2.2.17, and Windows 98. Central problem appears to be the KVM
switch I'm using. Save yourself the problem.
I had to reboot all the systems to get regular mouse operation back with
the Logitech.
Satch
At
At 05:30 PM 3/25/01 +0200, you wrote:
> > Ultra reliable systems dont contain memory allocators. There are good
> reasons
> > for this but the design trade offs are rather hard to make in a real world
> > environment
>
>I esp. they run on CPU's without a stack or what?
No dynamic memory
At 05:30 PM 3/25/01 +0200, you wrote:
Ultra reliable systems dont contain memory allocators. There are good
reasons
for this but the design trade offs are rather hard to make in a real world
environment
I esp. they run on CPU's without a stack or what?
No dynamic memory allocation AT
I'm experiencing the same thing with an ASUS P5A-B running a K6-2/266 with
Linux 2.2.17, and Windows 98. Central problem appears to be the KVM
switch I'm using. Save yourself the problem.
I had to reboot all the systems to get regular mouse operation back with
the Logitech.
Satch
At
At 12:41 AM 3/25/01 +0100, you wrote:
>If your box is running for example a mail server, and it appears that
>another process is juste eating the free memory, do you really want to kill
>the mail server, just because it's the main process and consuming more
>memory and CPU than others?
>
>Well,
At 12:41 AM 3/25/01 +0100, you wrote:
If your box is running for example a mail server, and it appears that
another process is juste eating the free memory, do you really want to kill
the mail server, just because it's the main process and consuming more
memory and CPU than others?
Well, fine,
At 04:31 PM 3/23/01 -0800, you wrote:
>This has nothing to do with fastpathing and object code optimization. C
>doesn't have exception handling, so you either have to remember to undo
>allocations etc. in failure cases all through the code, or you stick your
>undo code at the end of the function
At 10:28 AM 3/23/01 +0100, you wrote:
>Ehrm, I would like to re-state that it still would be nice if
>some mechanism got introduced which enables one to set certain
>processes to "cannot be killed".
>For example: I would hate it it the UPS monitoring daemon got
>killed for obvious reasons :o)
At 10:28 AM 3/23/01 +0100, you wrote:
Ehrm, I would like to re-state that it still would be nice if
some mechanism got introduced which enables one to set certain
processes to "cannot be killed".
For example: I would hate it it the UPS monitoring daemon got
killed for obvious reasons :o)
Hey, my
At 04:31 PM 3/23/01 -0800, you wrote:
This has nothing to do with fastpathing and object code optimization. C
doesn't have exception handling, so you either have to remember to undo
allocations etc. in failure cases all through the code, or you stick your
undo code at the end of the function and
At 01:16 PM 3/19/01 -0800, Torrey Hoffman wrote:
>Yes. Some of this is your responsibility. You have several options:
>1. Get a UPS. That would not have helped your particular problem,
>but it's a good idea if you care about data integrity.
>2. Use a journaling file system. These are much
At 01:16 PM 3/19/01 -0800, Torrey Hoffman wrote:
Yes. Some of this is your responsibility. You have several options:
1. Get a UPS. That would not have helped your particular problem,
but it's a good idea if you care about data integrity.
2. Use a journaling file system. These are much
At 10:47 AM 1/23/01 -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>Code is written by the few.
>Code is read by the many, and having _ in there makes it MUCH easier to
>read. Visual comparison of "SomeFunctionName" and "some_function_name"
>is faster even for a coder where there may be a typo (try dropping a
At 08:28 PM 1/23/01 +0800, Steve Underwood wrote:
>During a period of making a liveing out of
>sorting out severly screwed up projects I made a little comment
>stripper. I found comments so unreliable, and so seldom useful, I was
>better off reading the code without the confusion they might
At 08:28 PM 1/23/01 +0800, Steve Underwood wrote:
During a period of making a liveing out of
sorting out severly screwed up projects I made a little comment
stripper. I found comments so unreliable, and so seldom useful, I was
better off reading the code without the confusion they might cause. I
At 11:56 PM 1/22/01 +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
>At 16:42 22/01/2001, Mark I Manning IV wrote:
>>Stephen Satchell wrote:
>> > I got in the habit of using
>> > structures to minimize the number of symbols I exposed.
At 11:04 AM 1/22/01 -0500, you wrote:
>WRONG!!!
>
>Not documenting your code is not a sign of good coding, but rather shows
>arrogance, laziness and contempt for "those who would dare tamper with your
>code after you've written it". Document and comment your code thoroughly.
>Do it as you go
do with minimizing mistakes,
both now and down the road. If you don't like what I do, then don't do
what I do. Do what minimizes mistakes for you.
And, Linus, I'm not recommending you adopt any of these suggestions -- you
have your way and I have mine. If you like any of these, though, feel free
to
At 11:56 PM 1/22/01 +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
At 16:42 22/01/2001, Mark I Manning IV wrote:
Stephen Satchell wrote:
I got in the habit of using
structures to minimize the number of symbols I exposed. It also
disambiguates local variables
At 04:37 PM 10/23/00 +0200, Marko Kreen wrote:
>* This will _not_ be accepted into standard codebase. Don't you
>understand? Making headers C++ compatible is the first tiny
>step for doing modules in C++. Yes, from driver/module
>programmers perspective "they almost look same, and
At 01:30 PM 10/22/00 +0200, you wrote:
>Yup. And I want to try out my modules coded in Visual Cobol, APL,
>and PL/I. Oh, and I want to rewrite ext2fs to use Befunge.
Would that be PL/I (F) or PL/I (H}? You have different footprint problems
with each of these levels. You will also need to
At 01:30 PM 10/22/00 +0200, you wrote:
Yup. And I want to try out my modules coded in Visual Cobol, APL,
and PL/I. Oh, and I want to rewrite ext2fs to use Befunge.
Would that be PL/I (F) or PL/I (H}? You have different footprint problems
with each of these levels. You will also need to write
At 04:37 PM 10/23/00 +0200, Marko Kreen wrote:
* This will _not_ be accepted into standard codebase. Don't you
understand? Making headers C++ compatible is the first tiny
step for doing modules in C++. Yes, from driver/module
programmers perspective "they almost look same, and I
After some work, I've discovered that the base-64 decode is based on the
following decode table:
char map[66] =
"abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"
"ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ"
"0123456789"
",-\0";
The only change from the previously-published information is the
After some work, I've discovered that the base-64 decode is based on the
following decode table:
char map[66] =
"abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"
"ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ"
"0123456789"
",-\0";
The only change from the previously-published information is the
At 06:40 PM 9/6/00 -0700, J. Dow wrote:
>30 years of experience have proven this to me over and over again from
>watching auto mechanics and ditch diggers through every engineering
>discipline I have ever paused to observe. Only a damnfool eschews good
>tools because of some sense of "pride" that
At 04:15 PM 9/1/00 -0700, you wrote:
>And if got lost. That should tell you something. Perhaps something like
>"*Advanced interface support for USB, FireWire, and AGP!"
>
>Then place any expostulatory text indented under that as complete sentences.
>This treates the bulleted items as
mation.
It would help if there were one widely-recognized place for journalists to
go to find everything. My personal suggestion would be to open a section
on http://www.linuxhq.com/, then publicize the hell out of it.
We now return you to the current kernel religious war, already in progress...
53 matches
Mail list logo
