Linux-Misc Digest #556, Volume #21 Fri, 27 Aug 99 06:13:14 EDT
Contents:
Re: Installing Netscape 4.61 (Jason Dillon)
Re: Linux Journal or Linux Magazine (Scott Lanning)
Re: The Microsoft/Linux Conspiracy (Peter Hellman)
Help PCMCIA ("IceCold")
Re: Best language for graphical apps? ("Max Reason")
Re: Best language for graphical apps? ("Max Reason")
Re: Best language for graphical apps? ("Max Reason")
Re: Full-screen debugger for Linux? (Klaus Schilling)
Re: Best language for graphical apps? ("Max Reason")
HP Deskjet 895Cxi ("Joachim Johansson")
Re: Linux vs. Unix (James Knott)
parallel zip drive? (erik s fredricks)
Re: VIA Chipset (-ljl-)
Re: why not C++? (Tristan Wibberley)
rh60: getopts (bash) problem (Giulio Orsero)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Installing Netscape 4.61
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:28:31 -0700
Linux makes NT look like Joe versus the Volcano. First off, for ease of
use nobody beats the Mac period. For stability UNIX rules and as far as
bang for your buck Linux beats em all. NT is cool but extremely user
friendly and stable it is not. If you folks want see some real stability
and user-friendly ness not to mention performance check out Mac OS X in
January. Mach kernel wrapped around BSD with an even more friendly mac
interface. If that ever happens I promise you, there are going to be
some real serious re takes on this whole thing now let's see if Apple
pulls it off.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Lanning)
Subject: Re: Linux Journal or Linux Magazine
Date: 27 Aug 1999 07:54:07 GMT
Kenny A. Chaffin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
: > I thought it was an appropriate answer. Neither magazine is
: > objectively better; maybe one is better w.r.t. to another based
: > on certain criteria, but even those are subjective judgments.
: > No one here can read your mind, so how could he decide
: > which was better for you. It's like asking, "Which is better,
: > 'The Matrix' or '2001: A Space Odyssey'?". It's for you to
: > decide. (or do you judge movies based on what the critics say?)
:
: BZZZT. Wrong. I want to hear your _subjective_ opinion. There is no
: unbiased objective point of view. Nothing lives in a vacuum.
Isn't that, like, exactly what I said? <scratches head>
Just go to a bookstore and flip through the pages.
Or do you need to poll everyone's opinion on which bookstore
to go to..? FCOL...
--
Scott Lanning: [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://physics.bu.edu/~slanning
"If lightning is the anger of the gods, the gods are concerned mostly
with trees." --Lao Tse
------------------------------
From: Peter Hellman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Microsoft/Linux Conspiracy
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:31:51 +0200
Hello, reality check
The Ultimate OS Portal wrote:
> http://theultimateos.com/The_Micronux_Conspiracy.htm
------------------------------
From: "IceCold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Help PCMCIA
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:43:17 +0200
Hi all
I'm looking for to use a suse 6.1 over my portable...
I've been able to install linux...all right..
And the system recognize my pcmcia an OLICOM ETH/MODEM 33.6...
The problem is tha both I/O addr and Inerrup are wrong (from the one a see
on win98) and i can't use the eth and my modem...
I've already read many howto (pcmcia, net, etc etc) so i'm here for help....
thx in advance, IceCold
PS: sorry for my english .. it's ugly i know but i'll better it...promise..
------------------------------
From: "Max Reason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Best language for graphical apps?
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:12:40 -0000
Andomar wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> 1. XBasic is fully compiler-based and you can make executables.
>
> VisualBasic can make executables, actually.
> Is XBasic reasonably stable?
> VisualBasic definitely isn't.
I thought VB "executables" were actually some kind of
intermediate language or byte-codes that is interpreted.
Maybe that has changed.
I hestitate to say XBasic is reasonably stable because
it depends on whose definition of "reasonably" you take.
Most feedback-reports are positive to enthusiastic, but
occassionally someone cannot make XBasic work on
their system properly. Some problems are clearly due
to improper installation, but some seem to be caused
by "different" system configurations. XBasic is not on
enough different Linux systems to know in detail what
distribution / configuration particulars cause problems.
In and of itself, XBasic itself is "reasonably stable".
XBasic is written entirely in XBasic (plus a little asm).
------------------------------
From: "Max Reason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Best language for graphical apps?
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:20:25 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message ...
>"Max Reason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[snip]
>> 1. XBasic is fully compiler-based and you can make executables.
>> 2. XBasic is available for both Windows and Linux (compatible).
>> 3. XBasic is freeware and you can download via the internet.
>> 4. XBasic function protocol is compatible with C / Linux / Win32.
>>
>> See http://www.maxreason.com/software/xbasic/xbasic.html for
>> more information and downloading if XBasic seems appropriate
>> for your purposes.
>[snip]
>
> XBasic also is not Free Software
> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). you can't modify
> and redistribute it, and I'm not sure source is even available.
>
> if you want to write Free Software, life will be much easier for your
> users if you use tools that are Free Software, such as tcl, perl, tk,
> gtk, fltk, wxWindows, STk, etc.
>
>andru
I am sorry if your understanding of "free" is different than mine.
To me, if I can get something at no cost, it is free. Furthermore,
you can freely distribute the source and executable code for any
application you write in XBasic. If the distinctions you mention
are important to you, that's fine for you and everyone who has
the same priorities. But not everyone shares them with you,
and you cannot expect to redefine words and have everyone
else on earth conform to them.
------------------------------
From: "Max Reason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Best language for graphical apps?
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:32:10 -0000
Christopher Browne wrote in message ...
>On 26 Aug 1999 11:54:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"Max Reason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>[snip]
>>> 1. XBasic is fully compiler-based and you can make executables.
>>> 2. XBasic is available for both Windows and Linux (compatible).
>>> 3. XBasic is freeware and you can download via the internet.
>>> 4. XBasic function protocol is compatible with C / Linux / Win32.
>>>
>>> See http://www.maxreason.com/software/xbasic/xbasic.html for
>>> more information and downloading if XBasic seems appropriate
>>> for your purposes.
>>[snip]
>>
>> XBasic also is not Free Software
>> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). you can't modify and
>> redistribute it, and I'm not sure source is even available.
>
> I seem to recall there being a discussion about this package a while
> back; if this is the same BASIC compiler, the author was somewhat
> favorably inclined to turn it into free software, albeit with some
> concerns that would have to get talked through.
>
> The bigger concern, from my perspective, is that it is not Portable
> Software.
>
> It can only run on IA-32, as it directly generates IA-32 assembly
> language, and would essentially need to be rewritten for any other
> architectures that might come along. That would include IA-64, Alpha,
> and PPC, to name three architectures that are presently "sleepers,"
> with not incredibly high adoption rates, but the potential for
> widespread use.
You are correct that both currently available XBasic implementations
only generate 80486/Pentium code. Just for information purposes,
however, you should know that the first implementation of XBasic
(in 1988) was for the Motorola 88100 RISC CPU running UNIX.
The currently available freeware implementations for Linux and
Windows were ported from the original 88100 implemenations.
Thus XBasic is portable between CPUs in principle and in fact.
The existing Linux and Windows implementations of XBasic
provide evidence XBasic programs are source-code portable
between different operating systems.
I am not sure why you say XBasic "is not portable". Perhaps
I misunderstand your intended meaning, but you seem to say
XBasic design/architecture make XBasic impossible to port.
------------------------------
From: Klaus Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Full-screen debugger for Linux?
Date: 26 Aug 1999 14:57:35 +0200
"Steve Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can anyone recommend a full-screen debugger for Linux that can run in
> a telnet window? I'm looking for something like SoftICE (or, for you
> old-timers, Periscope) , a debugger that will dynamically display
> 80x86 register and memory values as instructions are single-stepped
> though. Preferably, the debugger would also allow me to debug device
> drivers.
The GNU emacs serves as fullscreen debugger also on a textwindow.
Klaus schilling
------------------------------
From: "Max Reason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Best language for graphical apps?
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:32:10 -0000
Christopher Browne wrote in message ...
>On 26 Aug 1999 11:54:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"Max Reason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>[snip]
>>> 1. XBasic is fully compiler-based and you can make executables.
>>> 2. XBasic is available for both Windows and Linux (compatible).
>>> 3. XBasic is freeware and you can download via the internet.
>>> 4. XBasic function protocol is compatible with C / Linux / Win32.
>>>
>>> See http://www.maxreason.com/software/xbasic/xbasic.html for
>>> more information and downloading if XBasic seems appropriate
>>> for your purposes.
>>[snip]
>>
>> XBasic also is not Free Software
>> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). you can't modify and
>> redistribute it, and I'm not sure source is even available.
>
> I seem to recall there being a discussion about this package a while
> back; if this is the same BASIC compiler, the author was somewhat
> favorably inclined to turn it into free software, albeit with some
> concerns that would have to get talked through.
>
> The bigger concern, from my perspective, is that it is not Portable
> Software.
>
> It can only run on IA-32, as it directly generates IA-32 assembly
> language, and would essentially need to be rewritten for any other
> architectures that might come along. That would include IA-64, Alpha,
> and PPC, to name three architectures that are presently "sleepers,"
> with not incredibly high adoption rates, but the potential for
> widespread use.
You are correct that both currently available XBasic implementations
only generate 80486/Pentium code. Just for information purposes,
however, you should know that the first implementation of XBasic
(in 1988) was for the Motorola 88100 RISC CPU running UNIX.
The currently available freeware implementations for Linux and
Windows were ported from the original 88100 implemenations.
Thus XBasic is portable between CPUs in principle and in fact.
The existing Linux and Windows implementations of XBasic
provide evidence XBasic programs are source-code portable
between different operating systems.
I am not sure why you say XBasic "is not portable". Perhaps
I misunderstand your intended meaning, but you seem to say
XBasic design/architecture make XBasic impossible to port.
------------------------------
From: "Joachim Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: HP Deskjet 895Cxi
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:45:42 +0200
How can I get my printer to print colors? It's a HP DeskJet 895Cxi?
/Thanks
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Knott)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Linux vs. Unix
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:06:53 -0400
Reply-To: James Knott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pat zink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Floyd Davidson wrote:
>
>> Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Floyd Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>James Knott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Floyd Davidson) wrote:
>> >>>>Vilmos Soti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>>>Chris wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Is this the same Barrow, Alsaka that's the Northernmost city in
>> >>>>>> America?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>No. Barrow (which is the northermost city in the US) is not the
>> >>>>>one in America. That would go to Alert, Canada, (if we can call
>> >>>>>these cities...) which is way north of the (magnetic) north
>> >>>>>pole.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Alert, Canada??? I've never heard of it!
>> >>>
>> >>>It's a radar base at the most northern tip of Canada, and about as far
>> >>>north as you can get anywhere in the world and still have solid land
>> >>>under your feet. There's only a very small bit of land further north
>> >>>than it anywhere. Take a look at a globe sometime and you'll find it
>> >>>right beside the north end of Greenland, about 500 miles south of the
>> >>>north pole.
>so what kernal internals do you recommend for janes junkies --
>
What has you question got to do with places in the middle of nowhere?
Please keep on topic!!! ;-)
--
E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________________
The above opinions are my own and not those of ISM Corp., a subsidiary of
IBM Canada Ltd.
------------------------------
From: erik s fredricks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: parallel zip drive?
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 05:13:32 -0400
I have an old Zip drivee (100 Mb) that I'd like to hook up under
Mandrake 6. It's the parallel-port version. Anybody know how to do this?
Please reply via e-mail if possible.
many thanks,
ef
------------------------------
From: -ljl- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VIA Chipset
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:46:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
davedude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has anyone out there had problems compiling with the VIA chipset
> found on the FIC VA-503+ board? Seems to have some problem in the pci
> bus. I haven't found anythin regardin this matter. Any help would be
> appreciated =]
I'm running SuSE 6.1 Linux on a VA-503+ with an AMD 350/100; no
problems, compiling or otherwise. Are you overclocking or running
memory out of specs?
Your might try using the BIOS' defaults, the VA-503+ has a lot of
options between its jumpers and BIOS setup: Not all of which are
valid for a particular CPU and memory type. After determining that
it works with the default values, then make adjustments accordingly.
I would recommend that you fetch and run memtest86:
http://www.supercomputer.org/Downloads/index.html
it is free.
Be patient, being thorough, memtest86 takes a long time to complete
a test cycle. Run in when you're not using the machine.
--
Louis-ljl-{ Louis J. LaBash, Jr. }
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
From: Tristan Wibberley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: why not C++?
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 14:43:34 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phil Hunt wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Tristan Wibberley" writes:
> > Johan Kullstam wrote:
> > > one thing that bothers me in C++ is the lack of additional operations.
> > > for example, in matrix math, you might want two kinds of
> > > multiplication. element-wise or as a matrix. matlab uses .* and *
> > > respectively. C++ doesn't offer any new operators. if C++ had a few
> > > unnassigned operations, you could overload them with perhaps less
> > > confusion than redefining something as basic as addition.
> >
> > A general operator syntax, now that would be nice :)
> >
> >
> > C = A `x B; // cross product
> > C = A `. B; // dot product
> >
> > or something like that - What trigraph would you use for that symbol,
> > \\' maybe.
> >
> > C = A \\'x B;
> > C = A \\'. B;
>
> You've got the source to GCC -- perhaps you might like to add it.
:) The problem is the syntax for declaring the operators. Then what
about:
D = A`xBC; is this D = A `x BC; or D = A `xB C;
Perhaps we use the shortest token we can like in the rest of C++, but
does this then create unexpected behaviour (non-obvious bugs - there are
enough causes in C++ already, or would one more not matter :).
A nice OO syntax for declaration and definition would be appropriate for
a feature like this, but C++ is not OO enough to do this nicely (IMHO).
class A {
A &operator`x (A &a, A &b);
A &operator`xb (A &a, A &b);
};
so d = a`xbc; tries to use operator`x with arguments a and bc, whereas d
= a`xb c; uses operator`xb with arguments a and c.
I can think of a more elegent OO way - but this is the C++ way. With
trigraphs it is:
class A {
A &operator??.x (A &a, A &b);
A &operator??.xb (A &a, A &b);
};
d = a??.xbc;
d = a??.xb c;
This all really looks quite nasty, which is why it was humour and not a
serious suggestion.
> BTW, has anyone read Stroustrup's paper where he suggests overloading
> the whitespace operator? It's quite an elegant idea, for example
> mathematicians would be able to write:
>
> v = a x + b y + c z;
>
> instead of the usual:
>
> v = a * x + b * y + c * z;
Aren't we getting close the realms of forth now?
So we are looking at treating everything as operators where they can be
token boundaries, statement boundaries, or functors.
The parsing of this sort of thing will be a computational nightmare :/
--
Tristan Wibberley
------------------------------
From: Giulio Orsero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: rh60: getopts (bash) problem
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:42:05 GMT
GNU bash, version 1.14.7(1)
I have a problem with getopts built-in bash function, when called from
within another script which uses getopts itself.
Here are two shell scripts, a1 and a2, which show the problem.
If you run a2 directly all is ok, if a2 is called by a1 a weird thing
happens:
=== a1 ===
animal=dog
while getopts a par
do
case $par in
a) animal=cat ;;
esac
done
echo $animal
./a2 -b
=========
=== a2 ===
color=white
while getopts b par
do
case $par in
b) color=black ;;
esac
done
echo $color
=========
$ a2
white
$ a2 -b
black
$ a1
dog
black
$ a1 -a
cat
white <== WRONG, should be "black".
I've a Caldera box with "GNU bash, version 1.14.7(2)" which works as
expected.
Any ideas?
Thanks.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
------------------------------
** 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.misc) 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-Misc Digest
******************************
