Subject: Linux-Development Digest #175
From: Digestifier <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 94 00:13:17 EDT

Linux-Development Digest #175, Volume #2         Thu, 15 Sep 94 00:13:17 EDT

Contents:
  Re: Alpha Linux (Eelco H. Essenberg)
  Re: [Q] on Linux/MIPS port (Andreas Busse)
  Re: Don't use Linux?! (James Lewis Nance)
  Re: Don't use Linux?! (Corey Brenner)
  Re: Partitioning Question (Jay Schlieske)
  Re: Developing Distributed Filesystems for Linux? (Daniel Tauber)
  Re: Survey: who wants f77,cc,c++,hpf for linux? (Alexandra Griffin)
  Re: Multiprocessing Pentium Systems (Don Waugaman)
  Linux v1.0 SMAIL problem (Sean Williams)
  Re: Alpha Linux (Shannon Hendrix)
  Re: Alpha Linux (Larry Pyeatt)
  Re: A thought to improve security (Pete Chown)
  ingres compiling under AIX ("Neil S. Russell")

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

From: [email-masked] (Eelco H. Essenberg)
Subject: Re: Alpha Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 19:54:04 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Chris Bitmead <[email-masked]> wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (David Holland) writes:
>
>>[email-masked]'s message of 06 Sep 1994 16:38:15 GMT said:
>>
[type representations in C deleted]
>
>None of these is the best solution. The best solution is to say exactly
>what you mean. E.g. If you want to store numbers between -500 and +1000
>you should declare this and let the compiler work out how many bits to
>use. e.g. int{-500,1000} foo; int{0,65535} bar;

I don't want to start any language feuds here, but of course there is a
language that already allows you to do exactly this: it's called ADA.
The notation is a little different, but basically you can tell it what
range (and what precision!) you want for a certain type, and it will figure
out how to handle that according to your platform. Of course if you specify
something your platform is unable to handle the compiler will spit at you :-)

>Naturally you could use typedef's for common ranges. This has the added
>benefit of not assuming that the computer is binary, assuming one day
>someone invents a non-binary computer.
>In any case stating what you *really* want to do and letting the compiler
>decide on the optimum number of bits has to be the best.
>
Exactly what Ada's predefined types are. As a sideline: ternary computers
have been tried if my memory is correct, but it seems they weren't too hot
or very practical...

Regards,

Eelco.

-- 
==========================< Eelco Essenberg >===============================
[email-masked]                            [email-masked]
                      FTP Manager: ftp.twi.tudelft.nl
   <a href=http://www.twi.tudelft.nl/People/E.Essenberg.html>Click me!</a>

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

From: [email-masked] (Andreas Busse)
Subject: Re: [Q] on Linux/MIPS port
Date: 14 Sep 1994 08:05:42 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, "Christopher M. Hanson" <[email-masked]> writes:
|> In talking about Linux on MIPS...
|> 
|> Why not look into porting Linux-on-Mach...  After all, CMU has a freely-
|> available port of Mach to the DECstations.  Just look on ftp.cs.cmu.edu
|> in project/mach or some such.
|> 
|> TTFN,
|> Chris
|> 
|> Chris Hanson, KSC      *    ^^         *  ^  The Apple engineer "unknown"
|> <[email-masked]> * I |  | TOXIC  * /!\ has unexpectedly quit.
|> <[email-masked]>       *    \/  WASTE  * --- [Who cares] [[Do nothing]]
|> 

Sure, why not. Who's willing to work on Linux/MIPS for DECs ?
Just mail me -- perhaps you all can do it together !

Andy

===============================================================================
        Waldorf Electronics GmbH        | Phone:  +49 (0)2636-80294
              R&D Department            | Fax:    +49 (0)2636-80188
Neustrasse 9-12, 53498 Waldorf, Germany | email:  [email-masked]
===============================================================================

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

From: [email-masked] (James Lewis Nance)
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
Date: 13 Sep 1994 22:10:58 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked] (James Lewis Nance)

> persuaded that there is a shareware market for Linux machines. 
> Personally, I'd love to have "As Easy As 1-2-3" ported to Linux. Anybody 
> know any shareware spreadsheet developers ?
> 

I have an X11 spread sheet that will read 1-2-3 files.  The author gave it to me
to release under Linux, but I never finished it.  It is quite capable, but
it does not do plots, and it is only black and white.  It is quite fast
though.  I was in the process of interfacing it with gnuplot when I ran out
of time.  If anyone want the source code to develop it, send me some mail.
Please note that I have to get permission from the original author before
I do this, so unless you are serious about working on it, I would rather
not bother him.

Jim

[email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Corey Brenner)
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 17:28:27 GMT

Michael Dillon ([email-masked]) wrote:
: > >: Okay. Before you start sending me endless flames, I want to make sure
: > >: that you know that I *love* Linux. It's probably the best PC Un*x you
: > >
: > >    That's pretty funny, since Maple V Release 3 has just been ported to Linux.
: > He is _perfectly_ right! There a thousands of programs. Maple is _just_
: > one of them ...

: Maple is a good example because it is not THE top selling product in
: it's field. The Flagship dBase clone is another good example. Companies
: like Lotus and Wordperfect are too tied to DOS/Windows to be interested
: in porting their products to Linux.

: But there are OTHER commercial spreadsheets and word processors out
: there, some of them already ported to other UNIX's, that might
: have less of an investment in DOS/Windows that they would be
: willing to take a chance on a Linux port.

: Can you imagine somebody selling a 486 with preinstalled Linux, X Windows,
: spreadsheet, word processor, etc... just like they do now with
: AST and Dell systems.

: cruisin' down the information highway, lookin' for a blast
: breakin' all the speed limits as I come zoomin' past!
: --
: Michael Dillon                 Internet: [email-masked]
: C-4 Powerhouse                  Fidonet: 1:353/350
: RR #2 Armstrong, BC  V0E 1B0      Voice: +1-604-546-8022
: Canada                              BBS: +1-604-546-2705

There was a GREAT OO spreadsheet developed originally for NeXT that was then
taken over by Lotus (I think) that would be a great product for Linux/X.

I forget the name of the product, though...  (Intuit?  Something like that?).

If we could get that particular product for linux, the spreadsheet problem
would be done for... :)

Corey Brenner

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

From: Jay Schlieske <[email-masked]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.liinux.help,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Partitioning Question
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 08:09:54 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: Jay Schlieske <[email-masked]>

On 12 Sep 1994, David J Topper wrote:

> So once I set my partitions (say 250 for Linux and 270 for DOS) using FIPS
> or FDISK - is there a way to resize the Linux partition?  I mean, is there a
> way other than backing up all the data on the Linux partition, deleting that
> partition, then resizing the DOS partition, then remounting the Linux partition,
> then restoring the data on it.

Hi all !

I would be interested in replies to this question, being that I had to
give up approx 35 MB of my 545 MB drive, due to non standard translations
done by my IDE accellerator, when heads go over 1024. ( I was time
limited when transferring my linux files off of my 345 ) I have since
learned I can work around this with the new kernel I have, (1.1.45) since
it queries the drive directly.

> 
> I've downloaded quite a bit of stuff for installing Linux.  I don't remember
> exactly, but I think it was all the a,ap,x,xd,xv and a few other disks (all the
> gnu stuff too).  All tolled, I think I've got about 40+.  The HOWTO says a
> ROUGH estimate is about 2.5 megs per disk.  I'm just not sure how much to
> allocate for this thing.  250 seems fine but I would love to get away with 200
> so DOS would have more room to breathe.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> DT
> 
>

I had almost everything on a 105 MB partition for a few months, till I
replaced my second drive. I found that when I gave it 200 + 16 swap,
I had lots to spare *but* it's quickly filling up, as I'm adding new
stuff to it. (wine, dosemu, TeX). I think it depends on how you want
to use it. The stuff available for linux seems endless.

Yggdrassil has a plug'n'play cd and slackware has a cd version also,
where I hear you can run some of the less frequently used binaries
from, ( also hear it's slower ).

I'd say you can more than get away with 200 MB (a least for a few
months)

Hope this helps.

  - Jay                      o
         Jay Schlieske     <#<         " Above all.... have fun. " 
  +*+ Credits: smartmail __>^>__  by * Linux-Pine3.90-Smail-Term201-PoP +*+ 

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

From: [email-masked] (Daniel Tauber)
Subject: Re: Developing Distributed Filesystems for Linux?
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 17:26:31 GMT

I'd like to see a ftp based file system for Linux. What I have in mind will
allow you to mount devices like

mount -t ftpfs myaccount:[email-masked]/path mnt

and the directory specified by path on the remote machine will appear at the
mount point. I know it will not be the fastest distributed file system, but
it will work with existing machines.

I've heard that someone wrote a similar file system for NextStep. Anyone
have any comments?

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

From: [email-masked] (Alexandra Griffin)
Subject: Re: Survey: who wants f77,cc,c++,hpf for linux?
Date: 14 Sep 1994 23:08:09 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Thomas G. McWilliams <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>It should be noted that GCC 1.42 is still maintained. GCC 1.42 
>produces smaller executables and compiles code faster than GCC 2.x.
>The last version of GCC 1.x which I used under Linux was 1.39.
>It might be interesting to compare GCC 1.42 with GCC 2.5.8 under
>Linux.  

Interesting... what exactly was added to gcc in the 1.x.x to 2.x.x
transistion that caused so much performance loss?  What types of
programs will *NOT* compile under gcc 1?  And is it that (at least in
my experience) gcc 1 is so rarely mentioned or used?

Curious,
-- alex

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

From: [email-masked] (Don Waugaman)
Subject: Re: Multiprocessing Pentium Systems
Date: 13 Sep 1994 18:08:50 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Hugh Emberson) writes:
|> >>>>> "Scott" == Scott Lawrence Lynn <[email-masked]> writes:
|> 
|> Scott> In article <[email-masked]>,
|> Scott> Hugh Emberson <[email-masked]> wrote:
|> 
|> Scott> I've never looked at the SunOS 4.x.x kernel, but I can't
|> Scott> imagine that it was done this way.  Spinlocks have timeouts on
|> Scott> them, and you could easily have a CPU wait for much too long
|> Scott> due to the inherent possibility of starvation that comes with a
|> Scott> spinlock.
|> 
|> I hesitate to disagree with someone from Pyramid on something like
|> this ... but I just spoke with our local SunOS expert and he says that
|> there is a single mutex around the entire kernel in 4.1.3. 

A mutex is not necessarily the same thing as a spinlock.  Spinlocks typically
involve busywaiting - tying up the CPU that is spinning on the lock for an
(often prolonged) period of time.  This is why spinlocks are typically used
for situations where the lock will be held for a short period of time.

A mutex, on the other hand, guarantees mutual exclusion by placing threads
waiting on the lock on a queue, then starting another thread that is ready
to run.  Thus, useful work can be done rather than having the thread waiting
on the lock taking up useless CPU (and bus) cycles by spinning.

I would guess that Sun used a mutex (as you said) and not a spinlock (as
Scott said).
-- 
    - Don Waugaman ([email-masked])                        _|_  Will pun
In the Sonoran Desert, home of the phrase "It's a dry heat..."  |   for food
I hereby claim the standard disclaimer.                         |     <><
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

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

From: [email-masked] (Sean Williams)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.prog,dc.org.linux-users
Subject: Linux v1.0 SMAIL problem
Date: 13 Sep 1994 18:23:50 GMT

I have installed Linux v1.0 Slackware release for 24hr SLIP access
into ClarkNet and SMTP for my Novell 3.11 LAN.  Everything works 
great except some mail that is sent out through SMTP causes a 
uucp_neighbors error.  I know there is a missing file called
/usr/lib/smail/routers that will correct this with the right config 
in it.  The error is :

Xdefer: <address> reason: <ERR_127> router uucp_neighbors :
command '/usr/bin/uuname' returned exit status EX_32256

I know calling uuname is a bug in SMAIL and a routers file will fix
this but I don't know wht to put in it.

What do I need to put in /usr/lib/smail/routers to get these messages
delivered?  Thanks for the help.

* Sean Williams (14% CNE)                     | [email-masked] *
* Corporate Information Systems Administrator |                      *
* Communications & Systems Specialists, Inc.  | phone: (410)290-9500 *
* Columbia MD, 21046                          | fax  : (410)290-7012 *

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

From: [email-masked] (Shannon Hendrix)
Subject: Re: Alpha Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 02:34:08 GMT

[email-masked] (N J Plant) writes:

>On the 68000 the external address bus is 20 bits and the external data bus

The 68000 has a 24-bit address bus.  20 bits is only 1mb RAM.  24-bits is
16mb RAM which is the 68000's limit I think.  I know the Atari ST's
could put more than 20 bits on the address lines.

Also, the external data bus was 16-bits.

What I do a lot in my C code to avoid bit size problems is define
variables as int8, int16, int32, and int64.  These are typedef's in
a machine dependent header file.

Of course, I only do this when I absolutely have to.  I try to write
code where the range doesn't matter or will fit within 32-bits (I
don't worry about supporting 16-bit OS's much).

It may be flawed but it has saved me a lot of headache in some projects.

>Nick
>-- 
>N J Plant
-- 
csh
===========================================================================
[email-masked]      | Linux and BSD

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

From: [email-masked] (Larry Pyeatt)
Subject: Re: Alpha Linux
Date: 14 Sep 1994 15:57:59 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Dan Pop) writes:
|> In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Eelco H. Essenberg) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <[email-masked]>,
|> >Chris Bitmead <[email-masked]> wrote:
|> >>
|> >>None of these is the best solution. The best solution is to say exactly
|> >>what you mean. E.g. If you want to store numbers between -500 and +1000
|> >>you should declare this and let the compiler work out how many bits to
|> >>use. e.g. int{-500,1000} foo; int{0,65535} bar;
|> >
|> >I don't want to start any language feuds here, but of course there is a
|> >language that already allows you to do exactly this: it's called ADA.
|> >The notation is a little different, but basically you can tell it what
|> >range (and what precision!) you want for a certain type, and it will figure
|> >out how to handle that according to your platform. Of course if you specify
|> >something your platform is unable to handle the compiler will spit at you :-)
|> 
|> Another language that can do exactly the same thing is Fortran (in its
|> latest incarnation: F90).

Has everyone forgotten about PL/1?  It also allowed specification
in that manner.  One of the only really nice features of PL/1.

-- 
Larry D. Pyeatt                   All standard disclaimers apply.
[email-masked]           Void where prohibited.

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

From: [email-masked] (Pete Chown)
Subject: Re: A thought to improve security
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 17:58:15 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Craig Woodward) writes:

> In article <[email-masked]>, J.A.vanderMost <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > Some programs in a Unix system have to be SUID root to do the things they
> > do.  Like /bin/passwd /bin/login /usr/bin/lp /user/bin/at etc. are all
> > SUID root.
> >
> > [ Stuff about more restricted forms of root removed ]
>
>       Agreed, thats why most run SGID on my system.  I give then GROUP
> access to things.  lp runs as group lpdev, mtools runs as user/group disk.
> The big thing with Unix (and Linux) is that you CAN give things partial
> permissions, or ALL of them if you want.

Yes, by thinking about what something is suid or sgid to, you can get
round this particular problem.  But having said that, the Unix
security mechanisms in general are probably the worst of any major OS.
We need to think about how we can do better.  I was looking forward to
the debate, and I was rather disappointed when people just flamed the
original poster without making any other suggestion.

Here are a couple of my thoughts:

* Having a single user root is unhelpful.  Suppose you have three
sysadmins; the logs will not distinguish between them if they all log
on as the same thing in order to maintain the system.  What if you
have someone who is basically an ordinary user, but has a daemon that
needs to listen on a port below 1024?

The solution to this is to assign privileges to particular users, in
the way that VMS does.  So one privilege would allow listening on
ports below 1024, while others would allow file protection to be
overriden.  This scheme could be integrated into the Unix scheme of
things by making membership of particular groups confer special
rights.

* The granularity of access control is too coarse.  Controlling access
on a group level is often inconvenient (and is insufficient for C2
approval under the orange book).  Access control lists have been
implemented for many Unixes - I wrote the 386BSD implementation.  I
would be happy to do the same for Linux, if we can arrive at a
consensus on what the API ought to be.
--

==========================================================================
[email-masked]          "The Pen is mightier than the Quill"
                                      -- anonymous

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

From: [email-masked] ("Neil S. Russell")
Subject: ingres compiling under AIX
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 14:57:37 +0000

Probly the wrong place to ask but i will, mainly cause i cant think of where
else to ask. Has anyone compiled the ingres package found with the slackware
disks under AIX ( on an RS6000, here ). Im tried but i keep getting core dumps.
I've been using linux for about 6 months and have got it linked with two
RS6000's running aix. I'd like to run ingres directly on the RS rather than
over telnet sessions. Any pointers as to where to go looking if this is not
the place ask ??

|\|eil..

-- 
Neil S. Russell

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

** 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
******************************