Linux-Advocacy Digest #867, Volume #25 Wed, 29 Mar 00 03:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Jim Richardson)
Re: Weak points (Terry Porter)
Re: Microsoft takes gas on Hotmail ("Chad Myers")
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Chad Myers")
Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude (Christopher Browne)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Andrew)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Jim Richardson)
Re: Weak points (Terry Porter)
Re: Opensource article first chapter draft for criticism (Dave Pearson)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Miles Falworth)
8051 under Linux Was: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 05:14:02 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:06:20 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> With the Unix "admin" account, you *CANNOT* "take ownership" of other
>> >> peoples files. In fact, you cannot delete/modify other peoples files
>> >> unless they give you permission first.
>> >
>> >An admin should be able to to do whatever he wants in a system. He
>> >shouldn't be at the mercy of his users.
>>
>> So while using the created Admin account, if it turns out that your
>> really *do* want to delete those user files, you can then su root and
>> do so. The accidental deletion of user files is thus prevented.
>
>Unless you su root, type rm * -rf and then realize you were in /home rather
>than /home/userx
>
In unix/linux, you have the choice of throwing away the root acct (well,
creating a passwd with random string in it.) After creating an "admin"
account, (I'll leave aside the "why on earth do this?" bit) Thus duplicating
the functionality you say you like in NT, yes?
>> >The argument isn't about security, it's about safety. For instance,
>suppose
>> >you run a program as root that has a bug in it, and it randomly writes to
>> >disk sectors or it accidentally trashes a file it shouldn't be touching.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that if you run a buggy program in NT that it
>> cannot write to disk sectors or trash files it shouldn't be touching?
>
>Yes, if your permissions are set accordingly.
>
man chattr
or for another path, create a user/group with the perms you like, and
use that rather than the root acct.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 05:16:13 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:12:32 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >An admin should be able to to do whatever he wants in a system. He
>> >shouldn't be at the mercy of his users.
>>
>> You can use the root account when you want to do what the admin
>> account won't allow with "su -c".
>
>Completely obliterating the effects of having a non-root account in the
>first place.
>
>> >The argument isn't about security, it's about safety. For instance,
>suppose
>> >you run a program as root that has a bug in it, and it randomly writes to
>>
>> You don't run a program that's this badly written as root. Just like you
>> don't run trash-the-system.exe with the admin account. Seriously, there
>> are very few programs that need to be run as root, and unless you are
>> running well tested code, you should not be running it as root.
>
>As i said. Saying "don't do that" is a bandaid. Not a solution.
so replace the passwd entry in /etc/passwd with a random string of data,
boom, no root login possible...
>
>> >disk sectors or it accidentally trashes a file it shouldn't be touching.
>> >Under Unix, a program run under root can do just about anything it likes.
>> >Now, you can argue that you shouldn't run untrusted or non-thoroughly
>> >debugged applications under root, but that's just a band-aid.
>>
>> You have the same kind of issues on NT -- certain applications will need
>> to run with elevated priveliges. DOn't any processes need to run as
>"system" ?
>> How does your mail server deliver to a user's mailbox ?
>
>Yes, they typically do run as system. Though that's really just laziness.
>They really should run with special rights to allow them to impersonate
>other users for file access.
>
>> >them. Note that i'm not advocating removing absolute power. I'm
>advocating
>> >removing absolute power without safeguards.
>>
>> You can do this by creating an "admin" account. When you want to do
>something
>> that the admin account cannot do, use su -c "command", as opposed to using
>a
>> root shell interactively.
>
>Which completely removes *ALL* safeguards, rather than just the ones you
>need removed.
so lose the root passwd...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Weak points
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 29 Mar 2000 13:35:22 +0800
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:03:09 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 28 Mar 2000 11:37:47 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
>Porter) wrote:
>
>
>>Yeah Yeah Steve, and lemme guess, your sound card has *valves* too ?
>>(valves just sound better man, pass the mull.. )
>
>Nope no tubes on my soundcard, although you can buy several great
>plugins for SoundForge that do a great job of simulating that "tube
>sound".
9/10
>
>Sorry, but they don't run under Linux.
9/10
>
>
>>Steve, apart from being a Wintroll, you're a muso with no grip on reality.
>
>I'm not the one drawing those little lines on schematics all day :)
9/10
>
>
>>Your endless tirades are 99% emotional content, lacking any technical substance
>>. This combined with your endless name changing, makes you a sad joke Steve.
>
>You say that about everyone who disagrees with you, whether it's true
>or not.
Hey good rebuttal, another 9/10
>
>
>>Get a grip. Who do you think you're fooling ?
>
>Not trying to fool anyone. It's pure entertainment for me, just like
>Jerry Springer, only better.
dam another 9/10
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Kind Regards
>>Terry
>
45/50 Steve *plus* 5 points for not responding with a tirade of insults.
So Steve gets a full 100% today, well done Steve.
Is this a new tactic, or have you finally figured out I dont hate Wintrolls ?
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 20 hours 46 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft takes gas on Hotmail
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 05:42:38 GMT
"Cary O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8brmke$bm0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >If they had done that, they would have interrupted a huge margin of users.
>
> (what the heck...)
>
> Why? I personally worked on an upgrade of an on-line financial
> information system from a (get this!) Prime to an HP UX system. Most
> of the users never knew they were switched over. If I can do it, why
> can't those smart guys at Microsoft?
>
> >Microsoft is smart enough to know that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
>
> I thought the saying at microsoft was "Eat your own dog food".
And how many millions of people per day hit this on-line financial system?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:48:23 -0600
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8brr9u$hcb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> IE is a problem in several areas. First, it was used as a cover for
> shipping most of the binaries for Microsoft Office, which would have
> been treated as bundling. Most of the ActiveX controls bundled with
> explorer, including the excel viewer, powerpoint viewer, word viewer,
> and chart viewer, were effectively a thinly veiled attempt to smuggle
> in the OLE and COM objects of Windows and make them memory resident.
Sounds plausible, like many of your statements until reality is checked. IE
does *NOT* ship with viewers for powerpoint, word, or excel. You need to
download those seperately.
> Had Microsoft simply stuck with an enhanced version of Mosaic, and
> complied with the original terms of the original NCSA license
> agreement, I wouldn't have been terribly upset. But Microsoft's
> use of an Open Source project to perpetuate it's own proprietary
> technology without the consent of the thousands of people who
> contributed freely to Mosaic and NCSA/Apache for the express
> purpose of userping public standards with it's own tightly
> controlled standards is unacceptable.
Microsoft bought a liscense to SPYGLASS moasic, not NCSA mosaic. Spyglass
was granted the exclusive right to resell liscenses for NCSA mosaic by the
NCSA.
> For example, the IETF publishes specifications for nearly every
> protocol used on the internet, except for the proprietary stuff
> used by Microsoft. There was a reason for this in 1982 and it's
> just as valid today. It was believed that regardless of how good
> the security system was, if traffic went across the internet that
> couldn't be indentified, traced, and audited, then the entire
> infrastructure was vulnerable to attack.
And which protocols might those be? There aren't many of them. Even many
of the protocols Microsoft developed or co-developed exist as RFC's. PPTP
for instance.
> With the introduction of ActiveX controls, there have been more
> breaches of security, more invasions of personal privacy, and more
> examples of fraud and corruption by supposedly trusted people.
The only security breaches that I'm aware of relating to ActiveX was when
the controls were installed improperly and marked safe for scripting when
they were not. Can you name some?
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 05:48:44 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Besides, there's nothing preventing anyone from making WWW run as another
> >user.
>
> You mean to say that NT can't stop someone from running a given binary,
> and attaching to a particular port? surely that's not what you meant?
Let me rephrase that
"Besides, there's nothing preventing the sysadmin from setting the W3SVC to
run under a different user context than the SYSTEM account".
Apologies for not making it clearer the first time.
I meant to say that a sysadmin could configure the W3SVC to run under a
different user context so that permissions for that user context could
be set appropriately.
But it's not that big of a deal, really, because IIS runs user connections
with different user contexts (usually the anonymous account IUSR_SERVERNAME,
but if they log on using NTLM or SSL/Basic, then they assume that user's
security context, and thusly, that user's permissions and rights.
> >What happens if you lose the root password?
> >
>
> reboot into single user mode and fix it. Reboot required, no reinstall
> required.
And this is a good thing?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 06:18:22 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when R.E.Ballard ( Rex
Ballard ) would say:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>>
>> > AFAIK, the journaling filesystems for Linux
>> > are still under development.
>> > Are reiserfs, Xfs, or Jfs in widespread use yet?
>
>Actually, journaling filesystems are not as much of a priority
>for Linux as they were for NT. It's likely that Windows 2000
>will eventually drop them.
>
>Most of the UNIX and Linux filesystems support i-nodes and manage
>i-nodes much like a double-entry accounting system. Blocks are
>removed from the "free space i-node" and moved to the appropriate
>file i-node. Once the i-nodes have been updated, the block itself
>can be modified.
>
>Assuming that power-fail detection provides enough time to flush
>the i-node table, the file-system integrity is quite managable.
>
>In systems where better journalling is needed, you can sync or flush
>files to force the updated i-nodes to go to the hard drive. In
>addition, you can use other forms of journalling to keep track of the
>file-system.
>
>Windows does not come with complimentary revision control system
>(MKS offers PVCS, and Developer's studio offers version control),
>while Linux includes both RCS and CVS to track updates to any file
>that can be managed with diff (RCS will also archive binaries).
>
>Windows Fat 16 and Fat 32 stores files in large clusters ranging
>from 4k to 32k per cluster. Windows NTFS supports 512 byte blocks
>but still orients storage toward clusters. As a result, it's
>undesirable to have lots of tiny little files. This means that
>the ability to recover a file corrupted by a race condition related
>crash is much more important. Linux and UNIX allocate blocks in
>units of either 512 bytes or 1024 bytes (depending on the original
>formatting). Furthermore, ext2 directories are designed so that
>hundreds of files can be stored in a single directory and each file
>can be quickly located. This makes it more practical to put hundreds
>of small articles (news postings, e-mails, receipts, orders,...) into
>individual files under a single directory.
>
>Additionally, tools like grep, awk, sed, and perl make it easy to
>create summaries of these tiny little documents in very short time.
>The use of pipelines for update systems makes storage of logs via
>the "tee" command very easy. In fact, in modern versions, both the
>storage and the pipelines are usually optimized to minimize latency.
>
>When you really need a large database, the databases have their own
>journalling system.
>
>> > Is there another one besides these that works well?
>
>Journalling is a bit like compression. At one time companies
>like Stack and later Microsoft thought it would be a really neat
>thing to compress everything on the hard drive. They started
>compressing each track, and eventually the entire drive. The
>problem was that much of the content was already compressed (GIF,
>JPEG, and ZIP files for example). Ironically, the zip file is
>actually the decendent of two UNIX commands called ar and compress.
>Eventually, PKWare and the authors of ARC reached a settlement,
>and PKWare improved the compression as well as the indexing.
>
>In Windows, you created problems when you tried to doublespace
>the entire drive. You couldn't upgrade, and if you messed up
>the system too badly, you had to start all over again. A corrupted
>byte in a single sector could corrupt the entire filesystem.
>Most people today preferr to compress the files they want to archive,
>and keep the current files uncompressed. We also use compressed
>formats such as GIF (compressed BMP), JPEG (compressed photographs),
>PDF (compressed simplified postscript), and of course the zip file.
>
>In UNIX I could compress any file, send it across the internet,
>and uncompress it on the receiving end. It's a paridigm shift.
>In the Windows paradigm, compression must be written into a monolithic
>applications which is compiled into the production version. Once
>the function is added, it cannot be altered, replaced, or removed.
>In the UNIX paradigm, compression is a simple command that takes
>whatever comes in the standard input, compresses it, and pours it into
>the standard output. This isn't terribly efficient for things like
>sorting, but it's very good for things like encryption, compression,
>journalling, back-up, recovery, filtering, and summarizations.
>
>Journalling is a similar function of the paradigm shift. Since the
>monolithic Windows applications generally don't support journalling,
>archiving, and revision control, you must make these features a
>function of the operating system. Ideally, you'd make journalling
>an option at the directory level, so that you could store stable
>information into unjournaled locations and store volitile information
>(checks, receipts, registrations,...) into the journalling directory.
Hum.
In other words, the fact that there are four groups putting
substantial efforts into journalling filesystems on Linux [ReiserFS,
ext3, XFS, IBM JFS] is being "spun" into purported irrelevance.
I wonder how your story will change as the "paradigm shift" happens
when ext3 and ReiserFS become part of production kernels (likely some
time in 2.4).
[I think I can predict it already... "Linux's journalled filesystems
provide protection for both metadata and for data within the files, as
compared to the vastly inferior way that NTFS merely journals
metadata..."]
>> > NOTE: I am not baiting... I'm really asking out of curiosity.
>
>It's nice to see some civilized discussions in this group.
>
>> Suse now ships with reiserfs.
>
>Typically, in a Linux system, you might put one of your partitions
>under reiserfs because that's were you wanted to put checks. But
>you wouldn't just casually journal everything you did.
I don't think you're comprehending the *real* importance of having
journalling filesystems on Linux.
The *true* importance of journalling filesystems is in the fact that
disks are getting Rather Big, and thus fscks run Rather Long when a
system unexpectedly reboots due to [common instance:] power problems.
This is of *crucial* importance when you've got a RAID array with 75GB
of disk on it, providing file server services to a group of users.
It is also of importance from a *convenience* perspective when a
system is being used by Naive Folk who really haven't grasped that
they're supposed to shut down their computer cleanly, and who instead
just push the power switch.
ReiserFS lets the reboot process stop for five seconds and say "Oops.
Missing transactions. Updating from journal... Done..." rather than
making them watch the PC stop for ten minutes whilst it runs a full
e2fsck.
--
"Bawden is misinformed. Common Lisp has no philosophy. We are held
together only by a shared disgust for all the alternatives."
-- Scott Fahlman, explaining why Common Lisp is the way it is....
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 02:22:27 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andrew wrote:
>
> However the Terminal Services Package is not part of the standard W2K
> release is it ?
As of W2K, it is, although not installed by default IIRC. You won't find it on
Pro, though, just the various server flavors. :/ MS also allows you to run TS
with an administrative license without needing to purchase TS licenses.
> You see ones you have your software developed you can scale it on Unix by a
> simple re-compile..If I would choose NT I would have to rewrite most
> applications thus wasting money. I'm one of those poeple who doesn't like
> wasting money and thus also energy having to rewrite a whole application
> because for example Intel systems don't perform well on IO. For this I can
> state that a Sun Sparc 2 with 64 MB Ram outperforms a SMP Intel Box on Raw
> IO Performance. Also my alpha & Risc system's perform better then Intel on IO
> based stuff. You see I'm steadely disposing of my Intel based hardware and
> replacing it with Real Hardware. The only system I will be keeping that is
> Intel based is a SCO workstation for the rest I don't want Intel systems
> anymore.
You're saying here that NT cannot run on the hardware you want to run, you have
an already-existing UNIX network architecture and a patent dislike of NT's
native hardware. You're starting to sound like Drestin Black when he runs Linux
in VMware and says it sucks based on that tiny experience plus the already
existing prejudice. You've made up your mind already. You're certainly not
expecting a hell of a lot of the OS and honestly, not giving it much of a chance
to *do* anything, much less exploring what the OS brings to the table.
Andrew
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:28:12 GMT
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000 05:48:44 GMT,
Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >Besides, there's nothing preventing anyone from making WWW run as another
>> >user.
>>
>> You mean to say that NT can't stop someone from running a given binary,
>> and attaching to a particular port? surely that's not what you meant?
>
>Let me rephrase that
>
>"Besides, there's nothing preventing the sysadmin from setting the W3SVC to
>run under a different user context than the SYSTEM account".
>
>Apologies for not making it clearer the first time.
>
>I meant to say that a sysadmin could configure the W3SVC to run under a
>different user context so that permissions for that user context could
>be set appropriately.
that's what I thought was meant, but the way it was phrased threw me,
thanks for the clarification
>
>But it's not that big of a deal, really, because IIS runs user connections
>with different user contexts (usually the anonymous account IUSR_SERVERNAME,
>but if they log on using NTLM or SSL/Basic, then they assume that user's
>security context, and thusly, that user's permissions and rights.
>
hm, I don't see the diff from apache et-al really. (but that may or may
not have been the point, I don't recall :)
>> >What happens if you lose the root password?
>> >
>>
>> reboot into single user mode and fix it. Reboot required, no reinstall
>> required.
>
>And this is a good thing?
>
it is for the casual home user, if it's a big time data center, then
they better start with physical security and work up from there. If
they don't have phys-sec, they do not have a secure system. OS doesn't
even enter into it until after physical security is taken care of.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Weak points
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 29 Mar 2000 15:39:33 +0800
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:04:48 GMT, Gooba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>
>
>PS- Before you guys even start, Steve, I'm NOT supporting you in this, I'm
>telling it as I see it. If it supports your point in any way it is
>coincidental. And Terry, just don't even start, I'm not trolling. If you
>want to accuse somebody of that, look elsewhere.
>
>
Ok Gooba, I believe ya man, its a free world, well mine is anyway,
...(Free Software, and in that area MSWindows, has *zero* experience ;-),
post in peace!
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 23 hours 46 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Pearson)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Opensource article first chapter draft for criticism
Date: 29 Mar 2000 07:37:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:03:15 +0100, Tom Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1) Introduction
>
> [SNIP] Their claim is that the best software costs nothing to produce, is
> free to distribute and free to modify.
Who is really claiming that software costs nothing to produce? I can't
recall ever seeing a serious claim of that nature as part of the writings
regarding free software and OpenSource.
Because of the above I think you've set the stage for the incorrect
understanding of the "free" in "free software". As an example, the rest of
the above sentence reads as if there is no cost in distribution (wrong) and
no cost in modification (also wrong).
--
The Harbour Project: A free software Clipper compatible compiler
Home Page..........: http://www.harbour-project.org/
FAQ................: http://www.hagbard.demon.co.uk/harbour/harbour.html
------------------------------
From: Miles Falworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 07:53:29 GMT
> >>foreach f (*.tif)
> >>tifftopnm $f | cjpeg > {$f:r}.jpg
> >>end
> What does the :r do in the script, btw?
>
> George Russell
In csh/tcsh, the :r strips the suffix off the filename in $f, so that
if $f is foo.tif, then {$f:r}.jpg is foo.jpg.
Cheers,
Miles
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: 8051 under Linux Was: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 29 Mar 2000 16:00:50 +0800
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:03:05 -0700,
John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Terry Porter wrote:
>>
>> What micro-controller John, is it a 8051 variant by any chance ?
>
>Yep.
>
>The current GCC (2.95.2) doesn't have this configuration in the default
>sources, but I've used it a couple of times. This configuration is
>something that was contributed by a third party, and as far as I know,
>is still available.
I haven't heard of it, and it's not listed in the options of
2.7.2 that I have ?
>
>Rumour has it that it isn't part of the standard gcc distro in 2.95.2
>due to some changes in the config file format. I suspect that to use
>GCC for 8051 cross development, one of the 2.7.x GCC's would be your
>best bet.
>
>Why? You doing some 8051 dev?
Yep just starting to now, using SDCC as the C compiler and DDD for the source
level debugging GUI front end.
The SDCC site:-
http://sdcc.sourceforge.net
The old DDD site:-
http://www.cs.tu-bs.de/softech/ddd/ddd.html
I've built a AT89C2051 parallel port, in-circuit burner that runs under Linux
recently, but havent yet started any projects on the 8051 family.
I decided to move to the 8051 family as it seemed to offer the best Free
Software tools as listed above.
I have some pics on my site of DDD running the sdcdb debugger if you're
interested.
http://www.wa.apana.org.au/~tjporter/ddd_sdcc.gif
And a pic of the prototype burner, during development
http://www.wa.apana.org.au/~tjporter/terrys_lab.jpg
(you'll see the odd bit of HP test gear in it ;-)
>
>--
>
>If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
>John Stevens
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 23 hours 46 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
** 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 PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
