Linux-Misc Digest #590, Volume #25 Mon, 28 Aug 00 00:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Operating system file name restrictions? Where? (Andrew)
Re: Operating system file name restrictions? Where? (Andrew)
Re: ALSA !? Angry Latins Stomp Ants??? (David Efflandt)
Re: kernel compiles root device as (3,65); boots for (3,41) (xavian anderson
macpherson)
Re: Xterm problem ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Re: Pro*C (Akira Yamanita)
Getting rid of Acrobat nag? (MH)
Re: Operating system file name restrictions? Where? (Dances With Crows)
Re: Operating system file name restrictions? Where? (Eric Albert)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ("paul snow")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Operating system file name restrictions? Where?
From: Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.programmer.help,comp.sys.mac.programmer.misc,comp.sys.mac.misc,microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:11:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Reed
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The pre-OS X Mac has a 32-character limit, and the
> > forbidden character is ":", again because it's a directory separator.
>
> '.' is also discouraged on the Mac as the first character of filenames,
> primarily (from what I understand) for historic reasons. There may or
> may not still be reasons for this, but it's something to consider.
'.' as the FIRST CHARTACTER in a name.. like .foo is not a great idea..
The ONLY reasone to do this is because in UNIX, files that begin with .
are special files.. Programs ported from unix to the mac might have
problems.. also earlu (really early) version of the mac sometimes had
special files that sarted with a "." like the .sony floppy disk driver.
I've only seen two program in my life that had problems with
.filenames.. one was Zterm, the other I can't recall.. But It was a
really crappy piece of shareware...
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Operating system file name restrictions? Where?
From: Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.programmer.help,comp.sys.mac.programmer.misc,comp.sys.mac.misc,microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:13:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eric
Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's actually a 31-character limit, except on HFS+ volumes under Mac OS
> 9 and later, where you get a 255-character limit if you use new APIs to
> write those files. Java automatically supports those APIs for you if
> you're using MRJ 2.2 or later.
The MacOS Doens't so they need to be in a .jar file... I believe...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Efflandt)
Subject: Re: ALSA !? Angry Latins Stomp Ants???
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:21:18 +0000 (UTC)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Scott Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>argh!
>but the thing is... i dont see the ymfpci listed when i run alsaconf!
>and i dont know what args to pass it with insmod :o(
Hm, I didn't have any alsaconf in 0.5.8b, is that something new?
This is what almost worked for everything except playmidi (the synth
device was not activated for some reason even though opl3 was loaded):
# ALSA portion
alias char-major-116 snd
options snd snd_major=116 snd_cards_limit=1
alias snd-card-0 snd-card-ymfpci
options snd-card-ymfpci snd_fm_port=0x388
# OSS/Free portion
alias char-major-14 soundcore
alias sound-slot-0 snd-card-0
alias sound-service-0-0 snd-mixer-oss
alias sound-service-0-1 snd-seq-oss
alias sound-service-0-3 snd-pcm-oss
alias sound-service-0-8 snd-seq-oss
alias sound-service-0-12 snd-pcm-oss
Or for basic 8-bit sound, the following worked for some sounds with
the standard Linux modules (16-bit .wav files would not play):
alias sound sb
alias midi opl3
options opl3 io=0x388
options sb io=0x220 irq=5 dma=1
--
David Efflandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.de-srv.com/
http://www.autox.chicago.il.us/ http://www.berniesfloral.net/
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~cgi-wiz/ http://cgi-help.virtualave.net/
------------------------------
From: xavian anderson macpherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: kernel compiles root device as (3,65); boots for (3,41)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:29:16 GMT
i didn't make up the fact about suse using a different filesystem location
method. THAT WAS ACTUALLY TOLD TO ME BY A SUSE SUPPORT PERSON, AS BEING
(WHAT I CONSIDERED AN ILLEGITMATE) reason for not allowing you to use yast
for installing rpm's from other ftp sites. the fact is, that it shouldn't
make any difference if your using the same filesystem. so if you don't
like my remarks, speak to suse.
the fact is that they use different case/spellings for packages that
everyone else seems to have agreed on. i have more than once installed a
package which only differed in case or spelling (sometimes abbreviated)
from the existing package on my system. linux-mandrake, redhat, kondura,
etc. all seem to use the same spelling and case for their packages; suse
does not.
(if suse's packaging were no different than anyone else's, you would see
their recent packages posted right along with everyone else's. they're
not. only the old ones! i often find redhat, linux-mandrake and kondura's
all on the same page.)
this results in software not being easily or properly upgraded when you
want to change from an i386 to i586 package. there is absolutely no
justification for this. if the packages produced by suse were not
proprietary, why else would they make it so difficult to change their
system. so don't talk to me like i don't know what the hell i'm talking
about! i am really tired of this crap. if two things are identical, they
either are or they're not. in suse's case, they're definately not!
i installed some packages last wednesday. i noticed some buggy results.
so i turned off my computer and went to bed. when i got up the next day
and rebooted my system, everything was gobly-gook. i tried getting a man
page for something (rpm) and it looked like it was in korean or taiwanese.
it was some kind of graphical alphabet, not like anything you would expect
to find. when i got into gnome, everything was in russian. only a few of
the deeper menu items were in english. fortunately i had contacted a
packager for linux-mandrake the day before, and we traded phone numbers.
if i had not have done this, i would have never figured out how to fix what
had happened, because i couldn't get my ethernet card to be registered by
the system. this meant that i couldn't get any help from the internet.
this guy spent 4 hours and 47 minutes on the phone with me on friday
night. we finanly got most the system back to where i could work with it.
but many of the things that he thought should be there, weren't. they were
either in different locations, or didn't exist at all. so what were you
saying about my angst with suse?
i recently reinstalled the suse base.rpm, which is the equivalent to the
standard basesystem.rpm. in the process of reinstalling this base.rpm,
yast removed the package grep which i had installed to satisfy the
dependecies of some other non-suse packages. so you or anyone else can
tell me what is intellectually different from MICROSOFTS blatantly
proprietary system, and one that is subvertly so? i'd like to hear you wax
on about the virtues of that kind of thinking!
now the reason why i commented on FreeBSD, is because there is only one
FreeBSD. sure, you can comment about the existance of OpenBSD and
anyothers that might exist. i don't know if the dissimilarities between
those systems are as great as with linux. secondly, FreeBSD will run linux
applications. then there is the issue of price. i recently found FreeBSD
on the web for $49.99. that's the same price i paid for my suse system.
suse came with 6 CD's and a half-assed poorly composed manual that's only
517 pages with the index. the FreeBSD package comes with 10 CD's and an
800 page manual. i made the mistake of buying suse instead of DEBIAN,
simply due to what i (woefully) percieved as a better $ value. i mean i
couldn't understand why i should pay $50 for 1 book and 1 CD, when i could
get what i thought was so much more. man, was i ever wrong! so where the
beef?
even linux experts, including the one who helped me, seem to have nothing
but admiration for FreeBSD. so why should i be any different; especially
when i see the complexities/irregularities of dealing with what i have now?
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Xterm problem
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:30:41 GMT
In article <8o4pgj$b2t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have got a weird problem with xterms under my redhat 6.2/gnome
setup.
> The text i type is not visible wherein it seems to me as if the
> foreground and background color of the text are the same.basically the
> text I type on the screen and the prompt which is supposed to come on
> the xterm is replaced by dark areas.My xsetup is 800/600 at 16 bits.
In
> addition the mouse is accompanied by large dark squares. The menu that
> is accessible by pressing the hot key is itself indecipherable.However
> gnome terminal works fine. Ditto problem with xman.An ytakers please.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
I solved this problem by specifying the exact 50 odd character font
name on the Xdefaults file. However this seems to be a system wide
problem since the system uses the fixed font which is the culprit font.
How do i refer to this system wide fixed font and change it to a font
which is readable.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:18:29 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_6kq5.20208$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:13:31 GMT, paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > >What is the deal here? I write a post or two that claims that we can
> > >manage computer systems directly, on their storage, outside the
> > >abstractions of the Operating Systems and their Services.
> >
> > You've got it exactly backwards. Raw storage is just numbered blocks
> > on the disk. Filesystems are an abstraction created by the OS. There
> > is no "structured storage" without the OS. Without the OS, the highest
> > leve of abstraction is about at the level of instructing the SCSI
> > controller to fetch block 123456 from device 0 on buss 0. Managing
> > storage is one of the most important tasks of the OS, why re-create it
> > inside your installation tool? What does that have to do with making
> > installation and system management easier?
>
> No, you have it backwards. Where is the OS when your computer is off?
You
> got no processor, you got no memory, you got no I/O... All you have is
> storage (your system's eproms and its the disk).
>
> You turn your computer on. Where does the OS come from? Magic? Or the
> storage in your computer system? This isn't a chicken and the egg
problem.
> The OS in its initial install constructs most of the file system. But one
> don't *have* to use the OS to contstruct the file system. It can be
> constructed from other platforms, disk images, network downloads, etc.
>
> In fact, given the same file system (no matter how it was constructed),
you
> get the same behavior once the computer is turned on.
>
> That is because your file system is nothing more than a persistent data
> structure. Nothing more. No magic.
>
> But your file system is also the data structure that defines your OS and
its
> applications. All the abstractions come into existence only after your
> software is loaded into memory from these data structures, and your
software
> begins to run.
>
> If you can't see this, there is no point in discussing what one can do by
> managing a computer system by managing its storage as structured data.
You
> have to let go of this magical idea that a file system doesn't exist
without
> the operating system that it defines.
>
> Then we can talk about how we can better manage this data structure that
is
> the storage in a computer system.
You do realize that is software that gives any meaning to the data on the
storage device beyond just a collection of bytes or bits arranged as fixed
sized records in th case of DASD devices. It is the processor that gives
any meaning to the contents of ROMs, without interpretation the data is just
a random collection of whatever method is used to record the data. Just
like writing is just a random collection of marking for someone who can not
read it.
What do you mean by "other platforms"? It seems that you are not using the
same meaning that is attached to it by the reset of us.
------------------------------
From: Akira Yamanita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pro*C
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:51:07 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> HI
>
> I was wondering if anyone could tell me if there is a Pro*C or
> equivalent pre-compiler available for Linux.
>
> Thanks, in advance,
>
> Carson
I think you might get better results in a development newsgroup of
some sort but have you looked at cpp? I have no idea whether or
not it is in any way comparable to Pro*C.
------------------------------
From: MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Getting rid of Acrobat nag?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:51:43 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have Acrobat reader installed on my Linux box, and am getting very
annoyed at having to close the licensing agreement nag that pops up
everytime I use the damn thing. Anyone know how to get rid of this nag?
--
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."
--Aristotle
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dances With Crows)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.programmer.help,comp.sys.mac.programmer.misc,comp.sys.mac.misc,microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc
Subject: Re: Operating system file name restrictions? Where?
Date: 28 Aug 2000 03:55:56 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:11:56 GMT, Andrew wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Reed
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > The pre-OS X Mac has a 32-character limit, and the
>> > forbidden character is ":", again because it's a directory separator.
>>
>> '.' is also discouraged on the Mac as the first character of filenames,
>> primarily (from what I understand) for historic reasons. There may or
>> may not still be reasons for this, but it's something to consider.
>
>'.' as the FIRST CHARTACTER in a name.. like .foo is not a great idea..
>The ONLY reasone to do this is because in UNIX, files that begin with .
>are special files.. Programs ported from unix to the mac might have
>problems.. also earlu (really early) version of the mac sometimes had
>special files that sarted with a "." like the .sony floppy disk driver.
>I've only seen two program in my life that had problems with
>.filenames.. one was Zterm, the other I can't recall.. But It was a
>really crappy piece of shareware...
Add "MS-DOS, and Win9x/NT" to that list of programs that have problems
with filenames that start with a ".". At least if you mount a Unix home
directory via Samba, all the files that begin with . will show up in
directory listings, but attempting to open them in Notepad/Wordpad/
whatever coughs up an error. Haven't tried this under 2K.
--
Matt G|There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
Brainbench MVP for Linux Admin / Those who do not understand Unix are
http://www.brainbench.com / condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
=============================/ ==Henry Spencer
------------------------------
From: Eric Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.programmer.help,comp.sys.mac.programmer.misc,comp.sys.mac.misc,microsoft.public.windowsnt.misc
Subject: Re: Operating system file name restrictions? Where?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:53:19 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eric
> Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It's actually a 31-character limit, except on HFS+ volumes under Mac OS
> > 9 and later, where you get a 255-character limit if you use new APIs to
> > write those files. Java automatically supports those APIs for you if
> > you're using MRJ 2.2 or later.
> The MacOS Doens't so they need to be in a .jar file... I believe..
Not quite. As I said, on HFS+-formatted volumes, on Mac OS 9 and later,
you can create and access files using 255-character names *if* you use a
new API. See
<http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macos8/pdf/FileManger.pdf> for
details.
Java applications run under MRJ 2.2 or later automatically use the new
API. Few other applications have adopted the new API to date, the most
noticeable one which hasn't being the Finder.
-Eric
--
Eric Albert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.stanford.edu/~ejalbert/
------------------------------
From: "paul snow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 04:06:33 GMT
> My response is in the other part of the thread. I'm not going to
> repeat it here. Basically, it sounds like you want some sort of
> meta-language to define installation procedures. This meta-language
> would generate install programs for each supported platform, or perhaps
> a database of some kind that could be used by the universal installer
> to actually do the install.
>
> You are aware that this is sort of how Installshield and RPM work,
> right? The developer creates scripts that describe his installation
> and the tool makes some assumptions, and everything usually works. You
> just want to make these scripts more abstract so that they'll work on
> different platforms, and make them editable so you can pre-configure
> your local setup.
>
> Is that about right?
Yes, I am quite aware that this is how Installshield and RPM work. That is
why I claim that all the information needed to re-factor the problem is
right there in our hands already.
Just stop for a moment and focus on the problem. Forget the execution
environment. Just picture installation and configuration as the process of
constructing and managing a large, but really rather simple data structure.
This data structure has internal references and pointers to other parts.
Some structures require particular versions of other structures in other
parts of the data structure.
If you can quit worrying for a moment about what the structures do, and just
focus on what they are and should be, it does indeed simplify the problem.
>From a data structure point of view, who really cares if one file is a font
file, one is executable, another is an initial database, a library, a
graphics file, a PDF, some html, or what ever. Or even that one file is
part of a service, another a driver, another part of the OS. It doesn't
matter what the files are, but it does matter that the files are in their
proper directories, with the proper configuration settings pointing to them.
And what cares (the OS, application, a driver, etc.) An application can be
just as dead from a missing configuration file as from a missing library
file. Or font. A graphic. whatever. And if an application is having
problems, it would be nice to know what structures I should check first.
So of course I don't want to generate install programs. Why would I? Why
even bother? The approach I am talking about simply provides structural
information about the computer system, its OS, applications, and
configuration. XML after all is in many ways a text form of a database.
Take the XML descriptions of what structures are required for each software
component. Take any set of options that are givens for this configuration.
Evaluate what should then be done to construct each software component into
this data structure that happens to be a file system. Then just render the
proper structures into storage, and keep track of what structures are being
modified, and why.
Check now and again that the structures within a computer system align with
the requirements for each software component as detailed in their XML
description. And sure, all of this information is likely to be managed
within a database.
If this is being done outside the OS (logically or even literally) then
there is really no reason the same facility can't manage different platforms
(like Solaris, Windows, Palm pilots, Linux, etc.).
Do I get some advantages? You bet. I can manage an OS even if the OS isn't
functional. If a set of applications have XML definitions that detail their
rendering, I can upgrade machines by simply rendering them as a block to the
new machine. If all the applications have renderings on two different
platforms (like Linux and Windows), I could even move a complicated
configuration from one OS to another rather simply.
I can detect if structures that should be locked down have been changed. If
this is a separate facility, I can detect hacked web sites, and fix them up,
even if the hacking got through the execution environment's security.
If I involve the various Operating Systems in this process, and all the
abstractions they define, then I complicate the process. I can't handle key
OS components the same way I handle other structures, if for no other reason
than the fact that these structures are being used. The facility itself is
exposed to anything that might happen within the execution environment.
If you were going to build a literally separate facility, doing so on Linux
makes the most sense.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
