Linux-Development-Sys Digest #713, Volume #6 Fri, 14 May 99 22:14:15 EDT
Contents:
Re: Translation of linux to minor languages (Johan Kullstam)
Re: FireWire IEEE 1394b drivers? (Greg Roelofs)
Re: Hostile Takeover of Linux ("Tom Emerson")
Re: 2.2.8 - Evil behavior (bryan)
NCR53875, SMP, 2.2.x: comiles, does not boot (Bill Anderson)
Re: Linux installation on Generic box (Scott)
pthreads at kernel level? (luis malheiro)
Re: Hilfe wie kriege ich meine Matrox-G100 AGP einegebunden ? (Matthias Luhn)
Re: linux and swap on nfs (Andi Kleen)
Re: USB Support (Christopher Browne)
Re: Hostile Takeover of Linux (Christopher Browne)
Re: 2.2.8 - Evil behavior (Brent Corbin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Translation of linux to minor languages
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 May 1999 17:56:33 -0400
"Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>>> "Johan" == Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > both ways of skinning the cat are valid, it's just that one way has
> > proven itself to be better in practice.
>
> From the programming side, that might be true (it seems to depend on how
> complex your regexps can be), but there is also the performance issue (I
> usually measure performance in MB rather than in seconds and converting
> UTF-8 files to UCS-2 or UCS-4 before running the regexp engine seems costly
> (prevents the use of memory mapping, for instance)).
well, my basic premise is that UTF-8 *itself* effectively prevents
memory mapping since you never know how many bytes it will take to
represent a particular glyph. you are obligated to start from the
front and count ahead. although some chars like linefeed (unix's
newline) are distinct and can be used as sign posts, it's not all that
great.
regexp parsing is complex and hence slow in itself. running regexp on
UTF-8 would entail conversion or at least knowlegdge of byte length
encodings no matter how you slice it. you can put the complication
external to the regexp or internal to it. i think external is best
since modular aka divide and conquor is usually effective (see eg unix
in general).
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: Greg Roelofs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: FireWire IEEE 1394b drivers?
Date: 14 May 1999 22:21:09 GMT
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Soeren Juelsgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I have been looking for a firewire driver, but couldn't find any,
>>and before I run off and write one myself, I would like to know if
>>anyone is already working on a firewire driver, and if I can be of
>>any help?
>I'd not be shocked to hear that someone has already started work on a
>kernel driver; I'm sure that assistance in testing, debugging, and
>even specifying would be welcome.
They have; see http://www.edu.uni-klu.ac.at/~epirker/ieee1394/ . Help
would be most appreciated, judging by the comments on the web page.
--
Greg Roelofs n_e_w_t_(at)_p_o_b_o_x_(period)_c_o_m
Newtware, PNG Group, Info-ZIP, Philips Research, ...
------------------------------
From: "Tom Emerson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hostile Takeover of Linux
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 15:09:11 -0700
Marco Anglesio wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 14 May 1999 12:19:31 -0700, Tom Emerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> -- "pointy-haired" types like to see "certificates", so they'll hire
>>someone who has passed a sylvan test over someone with "years of field
>>experience".
>
>You're implying that Sylvan creates the tests; it doesn't. What it does is
>distribute the test. They do quite a bit of that; it's their business.
>What you're describing are weaknesses of multiple-choice tests that have a
>fixed question pool - the program takes N questions from every area, so
>that each test is reasonably different from the others but still of
>roughly equal difficulty.
As I said -- I'm in kind of a weird mood today [and that was BEFORE lunch...
:)]
To be honest, I don't know if folks from Sylvan proper "create" the tests or
not, but I have heard [and I'll admit this is merely "rumor", but it fits
well] that the tests are created by people with little or no actual/working
knowledge of the material being tested -- they simply take "the text" used
in the study course and look for what _appear_ to be "testable" points and
that's what ends up on the exam.
(besides, I never said that I WASN'T describing such a weakness of multiple
choice tests from question "pools"; what I'm ascribing to "the problem" is
that people in the decision-making position about who gets hired or not tend
to favor a "certificate" over "field experience" -- I'm not saying this is
universal, but I think that was the original poster's point-of-view)
>The hard but largely irrelevant questions are actually a good thing in
>test design; they differentiate test-takers at the far end end of the
>testing scale. This forestalls compression effects, which is important
>especially for exams which require a high score to pass.
I have taken their tests -- even passed the CNA test and have such a
"certificate", but I was not thrilled with the "process" for a variety of
reasons. The case I presented [which run-time switch is used to load the
driver into xxx type memory] is one example why -- you cite it as a good
thing, I happen to disagree. I also "just missed" passing one test by one
question -- when I asked which question I missed, they refused to answer.
I'm sorry, but that's not the way I operate -- obviously, the answers I gave
were what I thought to be correct since I was "flying" through the test and
was absolutely dumbfounded to be tripped up by a "you didn't pass" result.
In other words, if I don't KNOW I'm making a mistake, I'll continue to make
those mistakes.
Another beef I have with not knowing which "wrong" answer I gave is that I
have no way of verifying that THEY actually have the correct answer -- they
could have a "wrong answer" based on a misprint in the book, a typo in
transcribing to the test, or simply outdated information [quick -- how many
characters are in the ASCII character set? You may find your answer will be
based on when you started in the computer field, because I have a book right
here that shows 256 characters in the characterset, but 256 is the WRONG
answer. If your answer was 128 (or 127), then you may be a bit older than
me and probably grew up in an era where there were only 128 of the
characters defined (well, maybe 127) because you're thinking 7-bit ascii not
8-bit ascii. The question just said "ascii" and didn't differentiate 7-bit
or 8-bit; I grew up in an environment were 8-bit was the norm and 7-bit was
considered obsolete]
>By compression effects, I mean inaccuracy caused by attempting to rank
>multiple scores at the tip of a bell curve - on a standard test, the
>difference in score between someone at the 95th and the 99th percentile is
>almost trivial and very unreliable (the testees will have much more
>inter-test variation between their own and their respective scores),
>whereas the difference in score between 50th and 55th is much less so and
>much more reliable.
I think you've muddled the point in your last statement -- don't you mean
that the difference in score between someone in the 50th vs. the 55th will
be GREATER and therefore more reliable? (in other words, I think you have a
doubly-negating phrase there with "is much less so")
>Many modern testing schemes modify or abandon the multiple-choice model.
>Microsoft uses case-study methods in some exams; newer exams use an
>adaptive model. The computer-based GRE (produced by the College Board) is
>adaptive. Don't judge the test as a failure until you've actually seen and
>evaluated it..
When it comes to computers and knowledge about them, the entire field is
very subjective since there is often more than one method that will produce
sufficient results. I'd say that a "proof positive" test would be to sit
someone in front of a computer, hand them a disk and a set of "requirments",
and see if the testee can produce a system that meets the requirements.
Unfortunately, this is a relatively impractical method of testing...
I'll admit I haven't seen the MSCE or other microsoft tests, but case-study
and essay type questions are what I'd expect to be suitable for this field.
Even "adaptive" testing can be fooled and/or inaccurate. (I believe the
novell tests, even at the time I took them, were considered "adaptive")
------------------------------
From: bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.2.8 - Evil behavior
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 23:12:37 GMT
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Kevin Turnquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > I upgraded from 2.2.7 to 2.2.8, and removed the reference to update in
: > the rc.S file as directed from a couple sources.
: >
: > Within 12 hours, all the servers that received this OS were dead from
: > "Divide Error (addresses) - Kernel Panic"
: >
: > One machine I can see, but this hit 6 computers. Fortunately, I just
: > booted back into 2.2.7.
: >
: > Has anyone else seen this behavior? I've never had this problem until
: > 2.2.8, and I compiled it exactly as I did 2.2.7 and previous.
: there seems to be a 2.2.9 out now (since 13 may). i saw on the kernel
: list a patch to fix some of the update stuff by the guy who made the
: update elimination fix in the first place. i have no idea what the
: 2.2.9 patch entails since it seems like no one does release blurbs
: with new kernels anymore.
: in short, linux-2.2.8 seems to be a loser. i'd either go back to
: 2.2.7 as you did and wait it out or go for 2.2.9 and hope for the
2.2.7 is a loser on my system. the ps2 mouse is goofed up - when I
startx, the video hangs and even gpm causes some kind of hang.
drove me NUTS until I went back to 2.2.5 or so and the problem went away.
yes I built both kernels in the same way, and by me.
--
Bryan
------------------------------
From: Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: revue.linux-kernel
Subject: NCR53875, SMP, 2.2.x: comiles, does not boot
Date: 15 May 1999 01:19:25 +0200
Ok, IIRC I posted a similiar post a while ago, but now I have further
info.
I have two of the above mentioned cards, running just fine under any
2.2.x when run in UP mode. When I switch to SMP, it compiles, but fails
to boot. It now gets all the way up to where it should either laod the
noduels (when compiled as modules), or run the card. At this point I get
a root panic; unabel to mount yadda-yadda. This is due to it not
'loading the drivers' in either case. Any ideas? It is sooo annoying to
not be able to use both of the cpus ...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
------------------------------
From: Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.development.apps,redhat.hardware.arch.intel,alt.os.linux,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions,linux.redhat,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.networking,alt.linux,aus.computers.linux,comp.os.linux.advocacy,linux.redhat.install,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.prog,comp.os.linux.m68k
Subject: Re: Linux installation on Generic box
Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 18:12:40 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Alex Balboa (HPTi|crimmins) " wrote:
>
>
> I am currently trying to install Redhat 5.2 Linux on the following
> system configuration:
> System board brand: Tyan ATX S16820 Tahoe 2 ATX (Pentium II PCI ATX)
> CPU: Pentium II 266 MHZ (dual) with 512 K of cache)
> Memory: 512 MB EDO (GENERIC)
> Floppy 3.5" 1.44MB FDD
> Hard drive: Seagate Barracuda ST19171W (SCSI:1 drive at 4 GB and 6
> additional ones at 9.1 GB)
> CDROM: Toshiba XM-5701TA (12-Speed Fast SCSI2)
> Tape Drive: HP C5133A
> Network Card: Intel EtherExpress Pro (32Bit PCI 10/100 BT)
> Video Card: Matrox Millenium (8MB)
> Sound Card: Creative Lab SB AWE 64 Gold (ISA 20 Bit 4 MB)
> SCSI Adapter: Adaptec (2 of them) model AHA 2940 U/UW
> Zip drive: IOmega 100MB SCSI
> JAZ drive: IOmega 1GB SCSI
> PCMCIA card reader: ANTEC DESCARTES 761345-64113
>
> I was wondering if some one has installed Redhat 5.2 Linux on such a
> system and, if so,
> please advise on any special procedures or drivers for any of the
> above components that I would need.
> Thank you in advance (please forward your replies to the newsgroup and
> my email)
> Sincerely,
> Alex Balboa
>
First off, don't post to so many newsgroups at once (things like
comp.os.linux.m68k just don't work for this problem).
Second, you would probably want RedHat Linux 6.0, as it uses kernel
2.2.x which has much better SMP support than the 2.0.x kernels (used by
RedHat Linux 5.2 and earlier).
--
Proudly sent with linux.
------------------------------
From: luis malheiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: pthreads at kernel level?
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 19:32:22 +0100
Does Linux have a pthreads implementation at kernel level and able to
use SMP (threads in different processors)?
Cheers,
Luis
--
Luis Malheiro
ALCATEL TELECOM
British Telecom Labs, Ipswich, England
Room: B49. Phone: (01473) 647092.
------------------------------
From: Matthias Luhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hilfe wie kriege ich meine Matrox-G100 AGP einegebunden ?
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 00:06:47 +0200
"Jörg Großer" wrote:
>
> Ich habe ein Problem, ich besitze Red Hat 5.2 Linux und möchte meine
> Grafikkarte MGA-100G einbinden leider habe ich kein Linuxtreiber
> gefunden ich hoffe auf HILFE.
>
> besten dank schon mal
Hi, Joerg,
Du kannst den XServer fuer Matrox-Karten bei folgender Adresse oder
einem der SuSe-Mirrors (z.B. ftp.uni-bremen.de/pub/linux/dist/suse)
per ftp bekommen:
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse_update/XSuSE/xmatrox
Diese Info ist etwas aelter - vielleicht hat sich die Verzeichnis-
struktur geaendert. Dieser spezielle Matrox-Server ist in neuen
Versionen von XFree bereits enthalten. Du koenntest also auch
Dein X auf den neuesten Stand bringen, indem Du ein Update direkt
von RedHat ziehst. Leider ist XFree nicht gerade klein ...
Matthias :-).
============================================================================
Matthias Luhn phone: +49 228 465155 work: +49 228 97199-0
Agnesstrasse 46 fax: +49 228 474924 wfax: +49 228 9719999
D-53225 Bonn email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] rank: student (cs)
============================================================================
Micro$oft Windows 98, n. - a belated upgrade to a 32 bit hack of a
16-bit shell for an 8-bit operating system designed for a 4-bit
processor by a 2-bit company that's not worth one bit of attention.
============================================================================
------------------------------
Subject: Re: linux and swap on nfs
From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 09 May 1999 19:00:54 +0200
"Stefan Monnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>>> "Andi" == Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It has the same basic problem: You run out of memory, thus you start
> > swapping, the swapper calls the network stack, the network stack allocates a
> > packet, you have no memory -> deadlock.
>
> That might be the basic problem, but the way you present it, it's easy to
> solve: start swapping before you run out of memory (how much memory do you need
> to swap one page ?)
> That's the standard pre-allocation technique to deadlock avoidance, so I'm sure
> people have already thought about it: why doesn't this simple solution work ?
That does not work, because a swap action can take near unbounded time
(several minutes at least for standard NFS) in which time the system could
allocate gigabytes of memory. Stalling the system is not an option.
-Andi
--
This is like TV. I don't like TV.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: redhat.general,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: USB Support
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 01:33:54 GMT
On 14 May 1999 17:16:55 GMT, Mark Hahn
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "It can access the USB hub, and tell you what's on the hub. Actually
>> making use of the devices that are found may require drivers that
>> aren't There Yet..."
>
>that's a bit pessimistic.
A bit, yes.
>linux-usb people report that mice and kbds
>work fine enough to be depended on. there are sporadic reports of,
>for instance, working usb video cameras, and at least active development
>of storage devices.
I see in the 2.8 kernel drivers for keyboards, that claims to be
workable, and a driver that *looks* like it's some sort of "multiport
serial thing." I didn't see mice, but may have misread something.
At any rate, it *is* fair to say that what's there now is:
a) Somewhat beta-quality code for low level support; when the code's
so new it's rather early to call it "mature."
b) *Some* device drivers.
USB speakers are coming Real Soon Now; support for additional devices
will come on a device-by-device basis, and it is too early to predict
how quickly that will be.
USB-ZIP drives are a neat option; who knows when?
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a real computer" - Dilbert.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Hostile Takeover of Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 01:34:03 GMT
On Fri, 14 May 1999 12:19:31 -0700, Tom Emerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Joe Pfeiffer wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Too bad guy's it was all for nothing.
>>> Sylvan has tagged us all as idiots if we
>>> don't get their Linux certification.
>>
>>I know I'm going to be sorry I asked this, but... what in the *hell*
>>are you talking about?
>
>I must be in a weird mood, but I *think* I understand where he's coming
>from:
>
> -- Basically, Sylvan is a piss-poor "certification" testing center, but
>they have a virtual monopoly on the market.
As far as Linux folk are concerned, so long as a competent
organization (which Sylvan isn't likely to be, for the purpose)
creates the test, and so long as Sylvan is competent at preventing
egregarious cheating, it's fine.
What Sylvan *has* is a huge number of locations.
They receive test material *from other organizations.*
If the test material was incompetently generated, then the test *will
be worthless.* Note that this has nothing to do with Sylvan's
involvement.
> -- "pointy-haired" types like to see "certificates", so they'll hire
>someone who has passed a sylvan test over someone with "years of field
>experience".
True.
Which means that a "Linux person" that is actually competent should
trivially pass a competent test written by a competent organization.
I repeat it again, Sylvan doesn't write the test...
>-- groups of "test cheaters" go into these certification center and
>do one thing: memorize 5 of the 20 questions given and the answers
>provided; these questions/answers are researched, and the group goes
>back secure in the knowledge of the exact answer sylvan is looking
>for.
Again, Sylvan doesn't write the test.
If you go to the Sylvan Prometric centre to take the OCP:DBA exam, and
memorize the answers, you have memorized the answers that *ORACLE* was
looking for.
Ditto if you do the Informix DBA test. Or whatever other test out of
the scores of tests that Sylvan *adminsters on behalf of the
certifiers.*
> -- the questions themselves are rarely relevant -- one in particular I
>remember "missing" on a netware questionaire had to do with how to load a
>certain driver in a SPECIFIC type of memory [i.e., the "extended" vs.
>"expanded" memory]. The reason this is an irrelevant question is because if
>you type "/?" as the parameter, you're TOLD by the program which switch
>setting is for which type of memory. However, 90% of the "techs" out there
>probably don't know which "kind" of above-640k-memory scheme the computer is
>using, nor do they care...
If you have suggestions for good *and bad* questions, it is quite
likely that your input would be welcomed by the project that is
working on establishing a half-decent test.
It's tough to get a *perfect* test.
A *GOOD* certification test for Linux would probably require an onsite
supervisor who watches you as you install Linux on a box, and then
tests your knowledge by breaking some things and getting you to fix
them.
Unfortunately, the cost of administering *that* test would be on the
order of $1000 per person per day.
Using Sylvan to administer a multiple-guess exam for $100 that
provides people with a low grade, but nonetheless recognizable,
certification will be good for those that have "pointy-haired bosses."
>Taken together, you get a group of people who know the exact answers
>to test questions that never come up "in the field", so when something
>"happens", they'll resort to "well, let's reboot the machine and see
>if it happens again". When a large enough group of people are
>resorting to reboot-instead-of-research responses, the "word on the
>streets" will be that linux is no better than windows "because you
>have to keep rebooting it to make it work"...
Ah, yes.
Compare things with Microsoft so that the reader will obstinately shut
off his brain and agree that whatever you are opposing is *obviously*
a "Bill Gates-wannabe."
Things that are easy to agree on:
- The value of having a certification is limited.
- It is difficult to create standardized tests of any sort.
- A multiple guess test has a somewhat difficult time measuring actual
reasoning.
But if the linux-cert folks, *who have a public mailing list,* and
have indeed had to discuss all of the criticisms that have been
mentioned, and some that the knee-jerk "That's Obviously Microsoft"
reaction here prevents people from even getting around to thinking
about.
At the one end of the spectrum, there is Linus Torvalds, where it has
been joked that he could walk into any UNIX vendor and say:
"Good morning. My name is Linus Torvalds, and I would like to work
for your company. Could you please show me where my desk is?"
[When ABC News interviewed him recently, he alluded to this sort of
effect, indicating something more like: "I don't think I have to worry
too much about having a job..."]
Linus, Alan Cox, and many others, don't need to care about
"certification." Linus can obviously put on his resume the line:
"Creator of the Linux operating system, used by millions of people."
But in the world of pointy-haired bosses, having a "certification
program," however questionable, may provide some of use with something
to:
a) Put as a resume line.
b) Set as a "career goal" (which means that the HR department doesn't
suggest that I do "MCSE certification" or some such rot).
A certification that costs $100 to get can't be worth all that much,
but it might just be worth $100...
--
Where do you *not* want to go today? "Confutatis maledictis, flammis
acribus addictis" (<http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/msprobs.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brent Corbin)
Subject: Re: 2.2.8 - Evil behavior
Date: 15 May 1999 00:53:08 GMT
Strange... the ps2 mouse and startx both work fine on my 2.2.7 system...
On Fri, 14 May 1999 23:12:37 GMT, bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>2.2.7 is a loser on my system. the ps2 mouse is goofed up - when I
>startx, the video hangs and even gpm causes some kind of hang.
>
>drove me NUTS until I went back to 2.2.5 or so and the problem went away.
>
>yes I built both kernels in the same way, and by me.
>
>--
>Bryan
------------------------------
** 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.development.system) 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-Development-System Digest
******************************
