Subject: Linux-Development Digest #147
From: Digestifier <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 94 00:13:08 EDT

Linux-Development Digest #147, Volume #2         Sat, 10 Sep 94 00:13:08 EDT

Contents:
  Re: Alpha Linux (Rob Janssen)
  Re: Homemade Terminal Server cheap (Michael Faurot)
  Re: How to use diff (Kai Petzke)
  mprotect() support in Linux kernel? (Dan Connolly)
  Re: Survey: who wants f77,cc,c++,hpf for linux? (Dan Pop)
  Re: DOOM (Re: 320x200 X resolution?) (Sam Oscar Lantinga)
  Re: UMSDOS and New Linux Kernel (Jacques Gelinas)
  Re: Survey: who wants f77,cc,c++,hpf for linux? (Henry Ware)
  Re: Survey: who wants f77,cc,c++,hpf for linux? (Chris Flatters)
  Re: Multiprocessing Pentium Systems (Steve Wilson)
  Re: Survey: who wants f77,cc,c++,hpf for linux? (Thomas Koenig)
  Re: ATI Mach64... Does it work...? (Pete Deuel)
  Re: ATI Mach64... Does it work...? (Kevin Martin)
  Re: Resolver Expert ? (Mark Swanson)
  Re: ATI Mach64... Does it work...? (Thomas Pfarr)
  Re: Don't use Linux?! (Phil Howard)
  Re: Don't use Linux?! (Jagadeesh Krishnamurthy Venugopal)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Rob Janssen)
Subject: Re: Alpha Linux
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 21:40:40 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Alan Cox) writes:

>Indeed not. Do we get 128 bit long longs in gcc however ?. The other thing

Convenient when doing IPng :-)

Rob
-- 
=========================================================================
| Rob Janssen                | AMPRnet:   [email-masked]           |
| e-mail: [email-masked]     | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8UTR.#UTR.NLD.EU     |
=========================================================================

------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.dcom.servers
From: [email-masked] (Michael Faurot)
Subject: Re: Homemade Terminal Server cheap
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 10:46:59 GMT

William ([email-masked]) wrote:

: 1) MSRP for the 16 port card is over $700 apiece - I don't know where
:    the original poster got $400 for 16 ports.  (MSRP of 8 port cards
:    was over $400.)  Cyclade also sells a full "terminal server", 16 ports
:    for (barely) under $2000...

I just bought an 8-port card directly from Cyclades and it was only $228.

-- 
+--------------------+----------------------------+--------------------------+
|   Michael Faurot   | [email-masked]    |      I don't like        |
|   ------- ------   | ...!netcomsv!phzzzt!mfaurot|      lima beans!!        |
+--------------------+--------------------+-------+--------------------------+

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Kai Petzke)
Subject: Re: How to use diff
Date: 9 Sep 94 12:16:41 GMT

[email-masked] (Tracy R. Reed) writes:

>I saved the old kernel in /usr/src/linux-old and the new 
>kernel is in /usr/src/linux.

        diff -urN /usr/src/linux-old /usr/src/linux >diff_file

or:

        cd /usr/src
        diff -urN linux-old linux >diff_file

Kai
-- 
Kai Petzke                      | How fast can computers get?
Technical University of Berlin  |
Berlin, Germany                 | Sol 9, of course, on Star Trek.
[email-masked]   |

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Dan Connolly)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.modula3
Subject: mprotect() support in Linux kernel?
Date: 09 Sep 1994 22:47:56 GMT

I'm interested in enhancing the Linux port of Modula 3 to use
incremental/generational garbage collection. This requires support for
the mprotect() library routine, or its equivalent.

However, it appears that mprotect() is not supported under Linux:

In linux/mm/mmap.c, I see:
230  asmlinkage int sys_mprotect(unsigned long addr, size_t len, unsigned long prot)
231  {
232          return -EINVAL; /* Not implemented yet */
233  }

mprotect() is in /usr/include/sys/mman.h, but there's no linux man page
(that I can find) for mprotect.

In the Kernel Hackers guide at
http://sunsite.unc.edu/mdw/LDP/khg/section2.7.1.html
I see:

        Minor alterations are needed in some places (tests for process
        memory limits comes to mind) to provide support for programmer
        defined segments.

So I guess for now, I'm out of luck. I'm willing to hack the modula-3
runtime, but it would take me a while to ramp up on the Linux kernel
memory management.

Have I found the most recent info? Is there a more recent version of
the kernel that supports mprotect()? Is anyone working on support for
this? Is there a different library function that would serve my needs?

Thanks.

Dan

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Bill Kalsow) writes:

   From: [email-masked] (Bill Kalsow)
   Newsgroups: comp.lang.modula3
   Date: 9 Sep 1994 18:01:47 GMT
   Organization: DEC Systems Research Center

   In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Dan Connolly) writes:
   >    * the garbage collection isn't synchronized with the virtual
   >      memory system. Same two questions:
   >            -- is this likely to impact performance noticeably?

   Yes.  The star-trek cursor appears during the stop-and-copy collections.
   With the VM synchronization you get incremental and generational
   collections.  The pauses would be invisible.

   >            -- Would someone with experience guestimate the amount
   >               of work to make the appropriate enhancements?

   It's not much work:
     - It must be possible to protect and unprotect data pages,
       and the signal handler for memory access violations must be able
       to determine the offending address and resume from the
       signal.  See runtime/src/{DS3100,SPARC}/RTHeapDep.[im]3.

     - The system calls need wrappers that validate their arguments
       before making the call.  See runtime/src/{DS3100,SPARC}/RTHeapDepC.c.

The source code he refers to is available at:

        http://www.research.digital.com/SRC/m3sources/html/runtime/src/SPARC/RTHeapDep.m3

-- 
Daniel W. Connolly        "We believe in the interconnectedness of all things"
Software Engineer, Hal Software Systems, OLIAS project   (512) 834-9962 x5010
<[email-masked]>                   http://www.hal.com/%7Econnolly/index.html

------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.lang.fortran
From: [email-masked] (Dan Pop)
Subject: Re: Survey: who wants f77,cc,c++,hpf for linux?
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 18:07:04 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Ray Hann) writes:

>benchmarks by 3 fold.  But then again I have found on some of my own
>scientific codes that f2c+gcc produces code that actually executes faster
>than that of the Sun F77 compiler.

Looks like you're comparing apples with oranges here, unless you were
using the Sun F77 compiler on the same PC, of course (Solaris is available
for PC hardware).

Dan
--
Dan Pop 
CERN, CN Division
Email: [email-masked]
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
From: [email-masked] (Sam Oscar Lantinga)
Subject: Re: DOOM (Re: 320x200 X resolution?)
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 22:27:52 GMT

:  LINUX: An X version with 16-bit sound is running.  It'll likely
:  perform like a dog on mortal systems, but it's very smooth on my
:  DX/2 66.  At sunsite.unc.edu:/pub/Linux/Incoming/linxdoom.tgz.
:  May be moved.  Remember: it was just for fun and is not supported.
:  Do not send e-mail to tech support, please.

: Poor sunsite....

        To help take the load off of sunsite, I have it temporarily
on my machine dewdrop.water.ca.gov in /pub/doom/lnxdoom.tgz

Note that pixel doubling/tripling doesn't work, and sound only
works with a 16 bit soundcard.  (Anyone want to sell one cheap? *grin*)

Enjoy!

        -Sam

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Jacques Gelinas)
Subject: Re: UMSDOS and New Linux Kernel
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 94 03:22:37 GMT

[email-masked] (Ian V. Quickmire) writes:

>Yes, I am one of those using UMSDOS with Linux 1.0.0 mainly for test purposes. 
>However, I have it running, have my config done, and have X up and running, 
>and don't really want to have to start over again using another FS.

>My question is:

>To upgrade my kernel from 1.0.0 to the latest stable version, is UMSDOS now an 
>integral part of Linux code, or will I be unable to keep up with patches while 
>using UMSDOS?

>If I want to upgarde, do I need UMSDOS patches as well, and are they keeping 
>up with Linux development?

Umsdos is now an official part of linux since 1.1.35. There is no patch.
The only trick is to select both msdos and umsdos when you build your
kernel.

-- 

========================================================
Jacques Gelinas ([email-masked])
Maintainer of US4BINR [email-masked]

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Henry Ware)
Subject: Re: Survey: who wants f77,cc,c++,hpf for linux?
Date: 9 Sep 1994 19:04:13 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
Ray Hann <[email-masked]> wrote:
>So it looks like the only compiler gap in the free software world is
>FORTRAN.  I heard gf77 was about to enter beta and the only thing
>it was really missing was 'EQUIVALENCE'.

Err, you are discounting the gazillion lines of installed COBOL in the 
US, some of it quite new.  I am unaware of even a COBOL to C translator...

Cheers,
Henry

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Chris Flatters)
Subject: Re: Survey: who wants f77,cc,c++,hpf for linux?
Date: 8 Sep 1994 17:18:22 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In article [email-masked],  [email-masked] (Larry Meadows) writes:
>1. Are people interested in a commercial compiler suite for Linux on
>   Intel Architecture platforms? The suite would include true compilers
>   for extended Fortran 77, ANSI C, Draft-ANSI C++ with extensions, and
>   High Performance Fortran. C, f77, and C++ could support shared memory
>   parallelism (thread-based) if system support is available in Linux.
>   HPF would support socket-based communications on networked systems,
>   and could support custom interconnects.

HPF (implying Fortran 90) and C++ are interesting prospects; although the
latter is only interesting if it includes exception handling and has
reasonable template management (if not, it is only of interest as long as
GNU C++ remains buggy).  ANSI C is pretty well covered by the GNU compiler
unless you require your own compiler as a back-end for a cfront-based C++)
and FORTRAN 77 is subsumed by Fortran 90.

>2. How much would people pay for such a product [ loaded question ]?

Probably $500 to with $300 as a target depending somewhat on whether
you have all 4 languages, as seems to be implied.  I would expect a
pricing structure with the environment and all languages at about $500,
environment plus one language at $200-$300 and additional languages at
$100-$200 each (price depending on language) would be reasonable.

>3. What distribution media would be required?

In decreasing order of usefulness to the Linux community

        floppy
        ftp (if feasible)
        CD Rom
        tape formats

>4. Is there interest in accompanying GUI/non-GUI debuggers and
>   performance analysis tools?

If you mean something along the lines of SunSoft's SPARCworks package
or HP's SoftBench: yes.  If you mean only a windowed interface to
gdb/dbx and/or gprof: no.

---
==============================================================================
Chris Flatters                                          [email-masked]
==============================================================================
Well, our problem stems from the fact that we, basically, allow every planet
and moon-base this side of Alpha Centauri to make their own version of Spam.
                                                        "Mystery Meat"
                                                        Man... or Astroman?

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Steve Wilson)
Subject: Re: Multiprocessing Pentium Systems
Date: 9 Sep 1994 23:13:30 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, "David Williams" <[email-masked]> writes:
|> 
|> I've just seen some new dual processor pentium systems in Computer
|> Shopper.  They look swell for the money, but there isn't a single OS
|> that can take advantage of them.  Anybody have any thoughts about how
|> hard it might be to make Linux one of the first OS's to take advantage
|> of these systems?
|> 
|> David Williams                       Member of League for Programming Freedom
|> [email-masked]    Linux, PGP, the Web: I love this NET!
|> http://www.iucf.indiana.edu  Indiana University Cyclotron Facility 

Not true,  NT will run on an MP platform.

Steve Wilson

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Thomas Koenig)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: Survey: who wants f77,cc,c++,hpf for linux?
Date: 9 Sep 1994 22:59:35 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Larry Meadows ([email-masked]) wrote in article <[email-masked]>:

>1. Are people interested in a commercial compiler suite for Linux on
>   Intel Architecture platforms? The suite would include true compilers
>   for extended Fortran 77, ANSI C, Draft-ANSI C++ with extensions, and
>   High Performance Fortran.

C:   gcc is just fine for Linux.
F77: f2c/gcc works for the kind of things I do with it.  I don't run
     large linear systems on a Linux box, anyway (those go on a large
     HP, or an even larger Fujitsu vector computer), but for sheer
     floating point applications, which operate on little data, a
     486 doesn't do badly compared to a heavily loaded HP.
C++: It would be nice, but not essential.
HPF: If this includes a full F90 implementation, I would earnestly try
     to talk our computer centre people into buying a campus-wide license.

>2. How much would people pay for such a product [ loaded question ]?

Depends on how much I could try and get out of the computer centre :-)

>3. What distribution media would be required?

ftp, or floppy; there should be some provision for copying the compilers
and assorted files into strange places (for example, very likely it
would go on a central NFS server and be mounted from /app).

>4. Is there interest in accompanying GUI/non-GUI debuggers and
>   performance analysis tools?

You'd have to beat Emacs/gdb, which is probably hard, especially if
people are already used to it.

--
Thomas Koenig, [email-masked], [email-masked].
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double
logarithmic diagram.

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Pete Deuel)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.windows.x.i386unix
Subject: Re: ATI Mach64... Does it work...?
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 01:39:57 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Pete Walker) writes:
>From: [email-masked] (Pete Walker)
>Subject: ATI Mach64... Does it work...?
>Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 15:22:43 GMT
>Keywords: Mach64

>Hi Xfreers,

>Notice that Mach64 is listed under 'others' group in Hardware-HOWTO and
>just wanted to know if anyone has the Mach64 card working under
>Xfree and if so what was the proceedure used to get it going.
>I am purchasing one of these cards (VLB) and wants to know if it is a 
>good decision or safe ivest investment. Thanks for your replys.

We have a mach 64 PCI and it works great...  didn't know there was a VLB 
version...

Pete
===================================================
     "Actually, I'm a lab mouse on stilts..."

     E-mail:  [email-masked]
===================================================

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Kevin Martin)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.windows.x.i386unix
Subject: Re: ATI Mach64... Does it work...?
Date: 8 Sep 1994 17:40:30 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (m.s. saed arafat) writes:
|> I have the ATI Graphics Xpression (VLB) which has the Mach64 chipset
|> running with X.  The server is unaccelerated, but performance on my
|> machine still seems decent (486 66 w/ 8 Meg or RAM).  It was simple
|> to set up since my monitor timmings where in the database.  You
|> can get the ALPHA, unaccelerated server at:
|> 
|>      sunsite.unc.edu
|>      /pub/Linux/X11/X-servers/XF_SVGA_Mach64.tar.gz
|> 
|> Don't know if there is anyone working on an accelerated server,
|> maybe someone else can answer that question...

Just to let everyone know, there are people working on the accelerated
Mach64 server...

It will not be included in the next XFree86 release (3.1), but
hopefully it will be included in the release after 3.1.

Kevin
___
Kevin E. Martin               University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
[email-masked]                          Department of Computer Science

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Mark Swanson)
Subject: Re: Resolver Expert ?
Reply-To: [email-masked] (Mark Swanson)
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 12:37:31 GMT

In a previous article, [email-masked] (Andrew Benham) says:

>Is there anyone who's an expert on the resolver in Linux who I
>can discuss my problem with ?
>
>I'm using an external DNS, and when Linux makes a query it insists
>on adding the default domain to any hostname that doesn't have a
>trailing dot.
>So, for example, if I ping "bmdhh130.bnr.co.uk" from g8fsl.ampr.org,
>Linux puts out a DNS request for "bmdhh130.bnr.co.uk.ampr.org", which
>doesn't get resolved and I get a "host not known" error.
>
>Any help would be appreciated - I've tried looking through the source
>code but it isn't commented well enough for me to debug by
>code-reading.
>
In all of the tcpdumps I've seen from my Linux box I've never seen it append
the domain name.  4 lines of a tcpdump displaying your dns queries would be 
sufficient to have a little looksee.
--
Mark Swanson.    [email-masked]
Linux FREE BBS V.Fast 24,000bps.  Ottawa, Canada. (613)-829-1941

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Thomas Pfarr)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.windows.x.i386unix
Subject: Re: ATI Mach64... Does it work...?
Date: 9 Sep 1994 12:41:46 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Pete Deuel) says:
>
>In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Pete Walker) writes:
>>From: [email-masked] (Pete Walker)
>>Subject: ATI Mach64... Does it work...?
Does anyone know if you can override the setting of the max clock in the code at
runtime?

If I don't specify clocks in Xconfig then it will allow the 110Mhz clock needed for
1280x1024 @60HzV.  But I have not found a mode setup which will work at this 
dot clock. (works fine with the 1152x8xx 90Mhz setting in the Xconfig supplied by
the Alpha driver example) 

Does anyone have 110, 1280x1024 settings for the Nanao f760i monitor?

Thanks in advance...

Tom Pfarr
[email-masked]
Computer Sciences Corporation

lessly for a truecolor driver...  anyway,
I have a 21" monitor (Nanao f760i) and the current Alpha driver limits the
dot clock to a maximum of 90MHz if you specify the clocks in Xconfig.  If you
don't the code will set it to the proper 135MHz maximum.

Does anyone know if you can override the setting of the max clock in the code at
runtime?

If I don't specify clocks in Xconfig then it will allow the 110Mhz clock needed for
1280x1024 @60HzV.  But I have not found a mode setup which will work at this 
dot clock. (works fine with the 1152x8xx 90Mhz setting in the Xconfig supplied by
the Alpha driver example) 

Does anyone have 110, 1280x1024 settings for the Nanao f760i monitor?

Thanks in advance...

Tom Pfarr
[email-masked]
Computer Sciences Corporation

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Phil Howard)
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
Date: 9 Sep 1994 22:15:31 -0500

[email-masked] (Michael Schumacher) writes:

>4. The spirit of free software is all around. Free in both meanings:
>   free availability of the sources, and free of charge. Which does
>   not go together with commercial interests very well. Just to give
>   you an example of what I'm talking about: I'm the author of tgdb,
>   a graphical user interface for gdb. I like the idea of free software,
>   and so I asked my employer for permission to make it GPL'd freeware.
>   Guess what, he said "No way!". So I ripped off my bones and used all
>   of my talents to persuade him to make it a shareware product instead
>   of a true commercial package. Well, now that tgdb is available for
>   a couple of weeks, I'm quite sure there are 100's or even more people
>   who use it for their daily debug sessions. Fine. But the bloody truth
>   is that not even a *single* person has paid the nominal shareware
>   fee of US$30!

But do you really know that anyone is using it?  Have you considered that
those people that would want a commercial tool would have a commercial unix
system anyway?

>5. On the other hand, I can tell you how to make lots of money with Linux: 
>   simply download the archives of tsx-11, sunsite, nic.funet.fi,
>   prep.ai.mit.edu and ftp.x.org, put them on a CDROM, call it "Dream Linux"
>   or similar, and sell if for US$35 per copy. It's that easy. Let's say,
>   an average user is looking for "the better OS" and wants to try out
>   Linux. He buys a "Dream Linux" CD - and is lost. Nothing works "out of
>   the box", no reasonable documentation is available, nor hotline support. 
>   What will happen? I'm quite sure that most of these desperated people
>   will close the Linux chapter - forever.

I've generally found the support for Linux to be better than the majority
of commercial packages and systems.  Support for commercial software often
consists of people more trained in dealing with people over the phone than
in the real technical matters that are the reason you call them in the first
place.  And the bigger the company, the closer to the bottom of the barrel
they have to scrape which tends to offset all the big company resources they
usually have to deal with such things.

The real technical people don't want to sit an answer phones all day and
have to deal with people (and these are the people who do buy commercial
software) that don't install it right and never understand what you tell
them to do anyway.

On the other hand, the real technical people -DO- frequent comp.os.linux.*
and the various mailing lists.  Many of them I find to be very helpful in
dealing with problems.  They speak the technical lingo and they know I do
as well (or else I probably would not have chosen to use Linux).

>There are a lot more things which speak against Linux as a platform for
>commercial products. If an operating system is successful or not depends
>on the availability of qualified (commercial) software for end-users. I
>would like to see companies porting their WYSIWIG word processors, graphic
>tools, spreadsheets, compilers, backup software, and whatever to Linux.

Some of those things might be useful.  Some probably won't.  GCC works
great for a C compiler.  I can't imagine the practicality of using COBOL
on Linux.  For fortran, there is "f2c | gcc".

Most of these tools are out there as shareware and freeware already.

>Linux is great, but at present mostly for developers and freaks - *not* for
>average users who need a reliable platform for doing their jobs. Whoever
>asks for a good word processor for Linux, hears something like "word
>processing is out - try TeX", or "you can run xyz under DOSEMU" or "try SCO
>versions of xyz; just recompile the kernel with SYSV support and get the
>iBSC2 package from foo.bar". This can be - at most - a temporary work-around.
>Users don't want to know how to roll a new kernel, they don't want to ftp
>packages, unpack, configure, compile, debug and install them. That's why
>they are willing to spend some bucks in commercial software, and that's why
>Macs and Windoze are so successful. And that's why Linux is not.

Well, word processing -IS- out, or didn't you know?  Try TeX.  There are
limits to what wysiwyg word processing can do, particularly in a continually
updated document.  Just because it forms things correctly right now does not
mean than it will when some new text is added in.  "Post-edit-formatted"
document preparation is a completely different beastie than wysiwyg word
processing.  It has its advantages and disadvantages.

>   Quo vadis, Linux? Do we continue to like Linux "as is", or should we
>change something in order to encourage companies to develop commercial, but
>sophisticated end-user software for this beautiful OS? Do we continue to
>keep Linux a powerful tool for wizards only, or do we want to see Linux 
>being used in offices and other commercial environments? If we *really*
>want Linux to succeed, we *need* the companies and their commercial products!

What would you suggest?  Stopping development?  The commercial unix systems
don't stop development, either.  What about just making fewer releases?
That's what 1.0 is for (and then 1.2 and 1.4 after that).  If you don't
want to stay on the bleeding edge of Linux development, there is no one
forcing you to, and you can always drop back to the last stable version
any time you want, and you can stay there as long as you want.

If 1.0 isn't good enough for a commercial software product, then so be it.
Maybe 1.2 will be.  If all the hacker types are tracking the lastest kernel
version minutes after it is released, maybe they aren't your customers.
Then again, if they are, they can certain test your product on that version
for you and let both the kernel developers and you know about problems.

All the people that don't want to think about the system they are running
will be using MS Windows or a Macintosh.  Those systems are designed for
the mass market and they do that job (with varying levels of opinions).
Those that do want to think about the system they are running on will make
their own decisions (and some will be here with us).

>Thanks,
>mike

Welcome,
phil

>PS: See 4. ;-)

It's not for me.  I've developed the art of debugging without a debugger
from the early days of assembly language programming.
-- 
/**  Phil Howard KA9WGN        How about universal JOBS?                    **\
*    Unix/Internet/Sys Admin   Let's de-Foley-ate congress in 94              *
*    CLR/Fast-Tax              The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms  *
\**  [email-masked]          Just say NO to CIX extortion                 **/

------------------------------

From: [email-masked] (Jagadeesh Krishnamurthy Venugopal)
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
Date: 9 Sep 94 23:18:59

   2. Linux's libc tends to change its version number almost every week
      (sometimes even more often). Even though changes of the minor
      version number should not affect previous applications, they will
      sometimes break them. This means for a company that they have to
      debug the library in order to find a work-around (see 3.).

[Lotsa stuff deleted]
Two points

1) Linux is of the hackers, by the hackers, for the hackers. There is
absolutely no need to make it commercially successful. In the search for
commercial success I am afraid we might lose track of the original ideal-- a
free os which is the hacker's dream. Well if one wants commercially available
releases of UNIX there are plenty-- UnixWare, Solaris, etc. Let us have Linux
just for us. Once the commercial market is aimed at, technical advances get
sacrificed at the altar of compatability (Consider that the largest selling OS
today is the most wretched). It would be a sad day for Linux if it happened.

2) It is true to an extent that cd-rom makers are making money out of Linux.
That is capitalism for you. People will make money where they can make money.
No one in the Linux programmer group has suffered because of the CD guys. When
Linus released his code under the GPL he knew exactly what he was getting
into. Perhaps he enjoys programming for fun, perhaps he gets to go to a lot of
places and speak...

The CD-ROM market is hyped up for now, but I see no harm in CD-Makers who make
20 dollar CD-Sets. I have one, which is just a collection of archives, and I
save a lot of time and money by not doing ftp's all the time. I waste far
fewer hours doing ftp's with a 20 dollar cd. So I do not lose, Linus does not
mind, God is in His heaven and all is well with the world. Where is the
problem? 
--
Jagadeesh K. Venugopal          |           Presently on co-op with
Grad Student, CCS               |         Thomson Financial Services
Northeastern University         |        Systems Administration Group
Boston, Mass.                   |       22 Pittsburgh, Boston, MA 02210

------------------------------

** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **

The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:

    Internet: [email-masked]

You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.development) via:

    Internet: [email-masked]

Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
    nic.funet.fi				pub/OS/Linux
    tsx-11.mit.edu				pub/linux
    sunsite.unc.edu				pub/Linux

End of Linux-Development Digest
******************************