Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #798
From: Digestifier <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 94 06:13:14 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #798, Volume #2                Thu, 22 Sep 94 06:13:14 EDT

Contents:
  Re: SIGFPE with atof() (Bob Kupiec)
  ** autoconf.h? ** (Michael_Nelson)
  Re: Linux & Netware. (Huw Leonard)
  Re: Linux and DOS (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
  Re: NCR PCI SCSI controllers (Stefan Esser)
  Re: OpenStep on GNU or Linux? (Jay Fuchs)
  Re: Is Linux faster than Os/2? Please help. (Tom Wilson)
  Re: Searching infos on ReadyLink ENET16/U Rev. C Card (Donald Becker)
  Re: Is Linux faster than Os/2? Please help. (Tom Wilson)
  DOSEMU formating Tapes??? (Jason Sokolosky)
  Re: How to use a host as a router - READ THIS (Axel Philipp)
  TCP/IP for Linux (Rambabu  Koganti)
  can't get DOSEMU to work. (Ian Upright)
  2 IDE with SCSI? (Ming Y Huang)
  Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors (Jeff Kesselman)

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.help
From: [email-masked] (Bob Kupiec)
Subject: Re: SIGFPE with atof()
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 03:13:27 GMT

In <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] writes:
>I'm running Slackware 2.0, and i'm trying to compile a program
>called xweather.  (You can get the program from ftp.pop.psu.edu,
>files /pub/src/xweather.tar.Z and /pub/src/xweather.patch1)
>
>The code runs fine on a SPARC, under both 4.1.3 and under Solaris.
>Friends of mine have it working on other platforms as well.
>If I compile it under Linux (running either 1.0.9 or 1.1.51), I
>get a SIGFPE at an atof().  The string atof() is reading is a
>valid number.  I'm using gcc 2.5.8, on a 386 with a 387.
>
>The funny thing is that it doesn't seem to depend on which number
>it's trying to convert to a float, it will bomb after a certain
>number of atof()'s are called.

I'm having the same problem with atof()!  I've been going nuts tring
to find the cause!  Is it a library bug, or what?

Linux 1.0.8, libc.so.4.5.24, gcc 2.5.8, 486DX40.

Here's the snippet of code that's causing it.  (This works on SunOS 4.1.3)

double getElement(gstr,gstart,gstop)
int  gstart, gstop;
char gstr[80];
{
    int  k, glength;
    char gestr[80];

    glength = gstop - gstart + 1;

    for (k = 0; k <= glength; k++)
        gestr[k] = gstr[gstart+k-1];

    gestr[glength] = '\0';

    return(atof(gestr));
}
-- 
Bob Kupiec   (N3MML)        Phone: 1-609-897-7319      JvNCnet (GES, Inc.)
Network Operations          -or- : 1-800-35-TIGER      3 Independence Way
Email: [email-masked]       Fax : 1-609-897-7310      Princeton, NJ 08540

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

From: [email-masked] (Michael_Nelson)
Subject: ** autoconf.h? **
Date: 21 Sep 1994 13:40:19 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Recently, when attempting to build some applications (one was yamm), I've
encountered a problem where the application will #include 

        "/usr/src/linux/include/config.h"

config.h isn't a problem, because it's there, and it gets #included without
problem.  But config.h has a line in it that #includes "<linux/autoconf.h>",
and there is no autoconf.h anywhere on my system.

So far I've been able to get around the problem by commenting the #include
of that file out of config.h, and the applications seem to build without
problem... but it makes me uncomfortable when I have to hack system files
like this... 

Is this #include of autoconf.h an error in config.h, or should I really have
an autoconf.h?

BTW, I am currently running 1.51, which started as a complete 1.45 with the
subsequent patches applied in sequence.

--
Michael Nelson                          [email-masked]
San Francisco, CA                           FAX: 1-415-621-2608

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions
From: [email-masked] (Huw Leonard)
Subject: Re: Linux & Netware.
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 19:34:32 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Joao de Souza) writes:
>I ([email-masked]) wrote:
>: Hi all.

>:       I am running on a Novell Netware / IBM Token Ring network, 
>: and I was hoping (sp?) to start running Linux on at least one of
>: our machines as a test.  So the question is:  Does Linux support
>: Netware and Token Rings?

>So far, I got the following answers:

>Netware - 2 yes, 2 no, 1 DOSEMU
>Token Ring - 1 no, 1 no idea, 1 don't think so, 2 in beta stage

I would imagine it depends on what you mean by "support." If you mean, can I 
talk to the Linux machine with Netware, the answer is: if you have TCP/IP 
bound to one of the NICs on your server, yes! I've run IBM's TCP/IP over Token 
Ring with OS/2, but never with Netware.

The Netware support for Unix resources (esp. printers) is pretty good, by many 
accounts. I don't see any reason why Netware should have any problem with 
Linux, if both are configured properly.

============================================================
Huw Leonard - Speaking only for himself

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

From: [email-masked] (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
Subject: Re: Linux and DOS
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 01:56:25 GMT

Rod Maher ([email-masked]) wrote:

                [ flamebait ]

--
"Linux!     Guerrilla UNIX Development     Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus."
============================================================
Mark A. Horton       ka4ybr             [email-masked]
P.O. Box 747 Decatur GA US 30031-0747         [email-masked]
+1.404.371.0291                     33 45 31 N / 084 16 59 W

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

From: [email-masked] (Stefan Esser)
Crossposted-To: comp.periphs.scsi,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
Subject: Re: NCR PCI SCSI controllers
Date: 22 Sep 1994 00:21:57 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Drew Eckhardt) writes:
|> >Will the NCR boards be as fast as the Buslogic ones as soon as your 
|> >drivers get more mature? 
|> 
|> Throughput should be somewhat higher, although CPU usage should be 
|> slightly worse with the NCR boards (More complicated structures 
|> are generated, taking more host CPU cycles).

Well, I really am not trying an BSD vs. Linux argument, just 
want to give you some data points on NCR performance.
(Anybody got BONNIE results for other controllers on a similar
hardware platform (ie. modern 1GB drive and 486/66). ???)

The following are BONNIE results from our NCR 53c810 driver
run on a 486DX2/66 under FreeBSD-1.1. The newer kernels 
improve performance, but we never did another complete set
of tests, and for completeness I'll cite this (3 month old)
data (we get >3MB/s under 1.1.5):

FreeBSD-1.1   -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
              -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
Machine    MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU  /sec %CPU
async.1    10   640 66.2   548  4.2   281  3.7  1235 96.7  2086 22.0  81.4  7.3
fast.1     10   650 59.1   548  4.0   317  4.9  1274 99.0  2234 26.2  82.7  7.8

fast.2     10   900 99.4   912  7.5   519  7.8  1273 99.2  2318 24.0  82.3  7.9
fast.4     10   895 99.3  1359 12.9   514  9.4  1259 99.2  2235 22.0  83.6  8.2
fast.8     10   889 98.3  1747 16.6   526  9.8  1276 99.2  2318 25.4  82.7  7.4
                          ^^^^^^^^^(1)
fast.16    10   902 99.3  1289 12.0   526  8.9  1281 99.4  2054 21.9  83.0  7.9

fast.1    100   591 61.9   583  4.2   342  4.7  1259 97.8  2900 36.3  47.9  4.9
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^(2)
fast.16   100   955 99.3  1402 12.5   583 10.4  1274 98.1  2895 37.2  48.6  4.8

## ASYNC SCSI and FAST SYNC without, with 2, 4, 8 and 16 Tags on 10MB file.  ##
## FAST SYNC without and with 16 Tags on 100MB file.                         ##

(BTW: The drive used was a Seagate ST31200 that was 70% filled, an empty 
drive would give better results due to less fragmentation, this is the 
reason for the 100MB results being better, too).

I've marked the most interesting values: Reading 8KB blocks (what that 
file system release generally does) is 1.7MB/s and takes 17% of the CPU.
Writing is up to 3.0MB/s at 40% of the CPU, since finding free blocks 
takes more cycles than just reading the indirect blocks ...

Using TAGS helps a lot with this drive, which doesn't seem to do any 
read ahead on its own ... More then 8 TAGS reduce throughput, so 4 to 8 
seems to be most reasonable.

These values compare favourably against those obtained on large RISC
file servers.

-- 
 Stefan Esser                           Internet:       <[email-masked]>
 Zentrum fuer Paralleles Rechnen        Tel:            +49 221 4706010
 Universitaet zu Koeln                  FAX:            +49 221 4705160
 Weyertal 80
 50931 Koeln

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

From: [email-masked] (Jay Fuchs)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: OpenStep on GNU or Linux?
Date: 21 Sep 1994 20:58:08 -0400

Don Hurter ([email-masked]) wrote:
:   I realize that NeXT cannot afford to nurture an unruly lot like the
: Linux crowd, but support is not what they really need (they provide their
: own.) However, there could be a few, low-cost bones that NeXT could throw
: in their direction that could pay off big in the future. If OpenStep can
: somehow be wrestled to run on Windows 2000 (truth _can_ be stranger than
: fiction), what would be needed to make LinuxStep a reality?

As far as I know, there is a GNU/Linux version of OpenStep in the works, 
complete with Display Ghostscript. Work is also being done to convert 
Linux to run ontop of Mach 3.0. Other projects include multithreading 
and multiplatform support (Intel, MIPS, PPC, Alpha). Imagine that - 
a FREE Mach 3.0-based, OpenStep-compliant, Multiplatform OS.

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

From: [email-masked] (Tom Wilson)
Subject: Re: Is Linux faster than Os/2? Please help.
Date: 19 Sep 1994 21:02:01 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
Trink Andreas <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Jeff Kesselman ([email-masked]) wrote:
>: In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Trink Andreas) writes:

[chomp!]
>
>I had the same Version, but try that:
>
>OS/2+TCP/IP+NOVELL (because we have a Novellserver, and TCPIP you need for
>internet-services) is NOT (!!!!!) very stable! Under LINUX I have no

My experience also, but I'm told the new edition of TCP/IP is much improved
in general robustness.

[chomp!]
>
>TCPIP from a DOS-box is not possible. I tried to load some driver within a
>DOS-box (additionly to the TCPIP-driver of OS/2, I know, this ins't allowed
>) and everytime OS/2 crashed. Under Linux, you have no problems (and no
>craches)

TCP/IP under DOS *IS* possible, and done where I work.

[chomp!]
-- 
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
|  Tom Wilson                      |  "I can't complain, but sometimes  |
|  [email-masked]       |   I still do."                     |
|                                  |                -Joe Walsh          |

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

From: [email-masked] (Donald Becker)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.development,comp.protocols.nfs,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,convoy.hardware,local.pinboard,paderborn.pinboard,zer.z-netz.fundgrube.suche.elektronik
Subject: Re: Searching infos on ReadyLink ENET16/U Rev. C Card
Date: 21 Sep 1994 16:16:41 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,  <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Frank Westheider         Linux Support Group Paderborn
>I'm looking for infos on the ReadLINK ENET16/U Rev. C Ethernet-Card.
>This card can be jumpered for WD80x3 and NEx000 mode and has a lot of
>jumpers on board :
...
>Whatever setting i choose (WD oder NE), whatever IRQ/IO i choose, the card  
>is recognized but
>
>  - in NE-Mode the card hangs together with HD-Access  CRASH

This is likely a I/O address conflict.  What kind of disk controller are you
using?  What address are the cards jumpered to?  Remember that the NE2000
takes 32 I/O locations.

>  - in WD-Mode, all works fine, but the cards (2 of this kind) don't
>    recognize one another on the NET

Are there any Tx or Rx errors reported in /proc/net/dev?  What about error
messages logged in /usr/adm/messages?

-- 
Donald Becker                                     [email-masked]
USRA-CESDIS, Center of Excellence in Space Data and Information Sciences.
Code 930.5, Goddard Space Flight Center,  Greenbelt, MD.  20771
301-286-0882         http://cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/people/becker/whoiam.html

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

From: [email-masked] (Tom Wilson)
Subject: Re: Is Linux faster than Os/2? Please help.
Date: 19 Sep 1994 21:05:44 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
Tom Wilson <[email-masked]> wrote:
:In article <[email-masked]>,
:Trink Andreas <[email-masked]> wrote:
:>Jeff Kesselman ([email-masked]) wrote:
:>: In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Trink Andreas) writes:
:
:[chomp!]
:>TCPIP from a DOS-box is not possible. I tried to load some driver within a
:>DOS-box (additionly to the TCPIP-driver of OS/2, I know, this ins't allowed
:>) and everytime OS/2 crashed. Under Linux, you have no problems (and no
:>craches)
:
:TCP/IP under DOS *IS* possible, and done where I work.

OOOPS!! I see now! from a DOS _BOX_, not from just DOS.  Yes, yes, you're
right!

-- 
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------\
|  Tom Wilson                      |  "I can't complain, but sometimes  |
|  [email-masked]       |   I still do."                     |
|                                  |                -Joe Walsh          |

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

From: [email-masked] (Jason Sokolosky)
Subject: DOSEMU formating Tapes???
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 06:08:24 GMT

I hate formating tapes, because I have to leave linux for 2 hours/tape.
Is DOSEMU powerful enough to run the tape formating utility???

--
Jason Sokolosky                       
[email-masked]             
[email-masked]            
                                      
-Long Live the INTERNET!!!!           

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

From: [email-masked] (Axel Philipp)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.admin,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: How to use a host as a router - READ THIS
Date: 22 Sep 1994 06:46:20 GMT

David - Morris ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Re. why not 127.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1 -- the destination address must
: be a 'host' address and the host address can't be zero (0).

No, the destination address must not always be a 'host'. If you make a 'nestat -rn'
for example, you will not find as many 'host' routes as 'network' routes.
'host' routes have the 'H' flag set wheras 'network' routes have the 'G' flag set.
Therefore there could conceptually be a network with number 127.0.0.0. But this
number is per definitionem reserved for local connections on your computer.
I.e the kernel can use the same addressing scheme for local connections (remember
the 'localhost' entry in /etc/hosts), as it would use for external connections.

        Axel Philipp

--

===================================================================
 Axel Philipp                          Universitaet-GH Paderborn
 Email : [email-masked]  Rechnerbetreuung KTP P15.13
 Phone : +49 5251 60 3814              Pohlweg
                                 33098 Paderborn, Germany
===================================================================

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

From: [email-masked] (Rambabu  Koganti)
Subject: TCP/IP for Linux
Date: 22 Sep 1994 06:59:34 GMT

I would like to set up Linux TCP/IP and become a internet provider.  
Where I am moving to has little if any conntact with the net.  I do know 
this will cost a lot of money.  Is the a FAQ file on how to do this, and 
how to get a connetion into the net.  I would also like a list of people 
who have done this.
 
Please e-mail your replys
 
Thanks
Koganti

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

From: [email-masked] (Ian Upright)
Subject: can't get DOSEMU to work.
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 94 00:36:17 -0800

I'm even a newbie to unix, but when I start dosemu, it loads the config
file fine, and then gives a 'segmentation fault error'.  If I turn
keyboard emulation off, it just nicely reports an error and exits,
otherwise, if the switch is on, I'd have to reboot.  How do I fix this
or what could be wrong?

Ian.

--
=============================================================================
 Astaria Digital Enterprises                      [email-masked]
=============================================================================

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

From: [email-masked] (Ming Y Huang)
Subject: 2 IDE with SCSI?
Date: 20 Sep 1994 01:43:30 GMT

Hi,

Is it possible to use 2 IDE drives with SCSI drive?  I tried but the
computer will not use the scsi drive, and says that there are already
C: and D: drive installed?

Thanks!

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

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Kesselman)
Subject: Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 19:50:44 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, Alan L. Cassel <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Jeff Kesselman ([email-masked]) wrote:
>: I'm a little confused here, help me out. As an honest-to-goodness, real, 
>: live ex-programmer turned intellectual property attorney you aught ot be 
>: aware that the above is somewhat non-sensical.
>
>: One does not 'write' a copyright. A copyright is the right to copy 
>: automaticly granted at the time a work is created.  One MAY write a 
>: liscense, or some other contract, that grants some rigths to others, but 
>: thsi is a contract, not a copyright.
>
>You are correct to distinguish "copyright" and "license."  But rather 
>than use your definitions, I would prefer to say that a 
>copyright is a form of protection applicable to certain types of subject 
>matter that provides the owner of the copyright of a protected work with 
>certain exclusive rights with respect to that work, subject to certain 
>limitions.  And a license (in the sense applicable here) is a grant of 
>authority from the copyright owner concerning the protected work 
>and authorizing someone else to do something with the protected work that 
>would otherwise be exclusively the right of the copyright owner to do.

Great definitons.  As a mater of fact, they remind me alot of the last 
definitons I read through (in 'The Multi-Media producer's legal survival 
guide, a real good, if expensive, guide to intellectual property rights 
issues for non-lawyers.)  I suppose that is because this is the 'correct' 
legal terminology?

 >
>However, as the smiley in my article indicated, my comment was directed 
>to the remark that programmers should not be trying to draft their own 
>agreements without help.
>
Uhuh. A good peice of advice.  I've written one 'plain-language' 
contract, for a very simple and straightfoward agreement, but I've also 
had alot of exposure to this issue AND not alot of meoney was involved.
You can bet if any REAL money was invovled i woudl have hired a lawyer to 
'debug' it.. ;)

>: There is already too much confusion about this fundamentally basic and 
>: simple concept.  Lets try not to add to it by endorsing incorrect statements.
>
>The fact that my article was in reply to a confused remark about 
>copyright law simply adds to the sense of irony.   :-)

Guess so. 

I guess I have run into SO much confusion on what a copyright 
is, and SO much resulting paranoia by people who don't understand it, 
that these days i take ANY chance I can to clear some of it up.

Thanks for your comments!

Jeff Kesselman

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

** 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.misc) 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-Misc Digest
******************************