Re: CLANG vs GCC tests of fortran/f2c program
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 05:50:24AM -0400, Thomas Mueller wrote: > Snippet from Wojciech Puchar : > > > > I successfully predicted the fall of linux (in quality point of view) > > years ago, then netbsd - after this and my prediction were good. > > > > Now i predict FreeBSD will fall within 2015 time frame. > > What i mean fall - that it would be better to use older version as long as > > possible because newer are worse. > > > > For now > > > > - FreeBSD 6 was an improvement > > - FreeBSD 7 was an improvement, except first releases but that's normal > > - FreeBSD 8 was a big improvement in performance and quality. > > > > FreeBSD 9 as for now: > > > > - have similar performance at most > > - have some improvement and important functionality like TRIM support. > > - have some useful functionality like softdep journalling, but risky. > > Still - forcing full check reveals some inconsistencies now and then. > > > > FreeBSD 10 will unlikely be better, but for sure slower unless you will > > force gcc build that MAYBE will work. possibly not. > > > My experience with NetBSD suggests you may be right there, but Linux? > > I'll have to build a new Linux installation and see for myself! > > I'm still inclined to say FreeBSD 9.0 is an improvement over 8.2; I never got > to 8.3. I can definitely vouch for his estimate of the quality of Linux-based OSes, at least in the majority of cases. I primarily used Debian for a while, then went through a transitional period where I gradually phased out Debian, until about half a dozen years was spent entirely Linux-free (apart from the Linux kernel on a couple of embedded consumer devices), during which time I used FreeBSD for everything. Over the course of the last -- well, more than a year, less than 1.5 years -- I have been "forced" to use a Linux-based system again to get halfway decent graphics support on a laptop I bought without checking hardware compatibility carefully enough. In the meantime, however, I have provided some support for other people using Linux-based systems. During that time, I had occasion to see a Slackware installer hose an entire system (luckily with backups) that was initially intended to be set up as a multi-boot with FreeBSD and MS Windows; Ubuntu get cursed at great length with words like "If I wanted to deal with this crap, I'd use Windows!"; and similar issues crop up. Even so, installing Debian on my new laptop early last year (and trying to install Arch Linux on it -- which didn't hose anything up, but did fail to detect the free space on the hard drive, and thus failed to install, before I decided it was easier to skip Arch) and using it since then on a regular basis has been an eye-opener. Myriad little stupidities have crept into the system, including such wonders of engineering brilliance as some documentation to the effect that basic system network management tools were no longer guaranteed to work. I have some pretty strong opinions about the way things are getting broken in the Linux world, and some of the reasons this sort of problem is growing, but they're increasingly off-topic for this venue. Suffice to say that I could write a short book about the subject, and still leave a lot of problems unaddressed. Anyway, switching from GCC to Clang has essentially nothing to do with the kinds of problems we increasingly see in the Linux world. In fact, one of the biggest problems in the Linux world is the fact that GNU projects have a tendency to degrade in quality over time and pretty thoroughly undermine the Unix philosophy in egregious ways, which means that the sooner we can divest ourselves of GNU tools (including GCC) the better off we will probably be (though I would still advocate a measured approach to replacing GNU tools, rather than a headlong rush without any forethought). -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Why Clang
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 06:11:46AM -0400, Thomas Mueller wrote: > Snippet from Antonio Olivares : > > > > I have some friends that develop software. They had released it under > > GNU umbrella. Later on, other folks were taking advantage and not > > giving back as the license requires. There was little to no way to > > enforce the license, he decided to move to other license that > > protects his work and let others use it was well with little to no > > strings attached. He know uses the CDDL which is also an Open Source > > License. He can give you many reasons as to why the GPLv3 is the > > wrong way to go. I can ask him for these and other reasons at your > > request. > > Yes, that would be a good idea, not so much for me as for others who > want to better understand the licensing issues of GCC compared to > Clang. > > That would help explain why FreeBSD is switching to Clang. Related (perhaps somewhat indirectly): Advancement Through License Simplicity http://univacc.net/?page=license_simplicity -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Why Clang
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:40:11AM +0200, Michel Talon wrote: > Le 21 juin 2012 à 03:52, kpn...@pobox.com a écrit : > > > > > > All of this may seem stupid to a reasonable person outside of law. I'll > > agree > > that it probably does look stupid. But it is also the reality of the legal > > systems we must live with today. > > I can only praise kpneal for this very well argumented post. However > some remarks. The whole argument revolves around FUD, fear, > uncertainty and doubt. But there will never be any shortage of lawyers > trying to spread FUD on any subject to please their clients, and if > companies "bend over" instead of fighting FUD they will promptly be > paralyzed. It was actually a fairly sober assessment of legal conditions, especially in light of the rather unreasonable expenses often attendant to legal battles. In any case, it pays to play things safe when your options are: * Take the idiots on, head-on, over their copyleft licensing zeal, and see if you get sued. * Play it safe by using a compiler built on a better architecture that provides better development features, more correct output, and other advantages, with a copyfree license instead of a copyleft license. > > Last time a company tried to use such tactic against Linux, it did not > turn out a bright idea. Second, FreeBSD is not a commercial company, > and while this argument may have a merit for commercial sponsors of > FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself. I disagree with the assessment by others that FreeBSD is in some way effectively a subsidiary of its corporate users, but it does have corporate users, as well as non-corporate users. Just as it must reasonably see to the needs of the individuals who use it, so must it also reasonably see to the needs of those corporate users, especially when some of those corporate users' employees are key developers for the base system (to the significant benefit of the rest of us). Thus, saying that a particular set of conditions having an impact on commercial sponsors of FreeBSD has "zero bearing on FreeBSD itself" is just . . . incorrect. > > If FreeBSD appears as a subsidiary of some commercial company (say > Juniper) i am not sure this will be good for its further development. > This being said, i agree with you that the FreeBSD binaries will not > see a big performance degradation through the use of clang, so, as long > as gcc is in the ports to be used with performance critical stuff, it > is no big deal. Anyways as a long time FreeBSD user i have seen clang > presented as an experiment by two or three people, and then suddenly > stuffed without any discussion in the base system, apparently for > political reasons that i don't share (i mean this stupid obsession of > "GPL free" system, which has replaced the previous focus on quality and > performance). How much were you around in the mailing lists and other relevant venues for discussion of changes to the base system? You are presumably aware this list doesn't really count, being a general-questions list that is not exactly the official place to discuss things like base system choices of library and userland development (for instance), or even ports system development. It's possible all you saw of the discussion was the parts that "escaped into the wild", as it were; the more in-depth discussion of the matter surely happened elsewhere. This might give you a mistaken impression that there was not much discussion of the matter. . . . and thanks for calling the concerns of everyone who wants to be able to use FreeBSD as the basis of other projects without having to deal with problematic licensing restrictions as "stupid" and "obsessed". That's not very nice (or accurate). -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Why Clang
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 01:06:12PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself. > >If FreeBSD appears > >as a subsidiary of some commercial company (say Juniper) i am not sure this > >will be good > > I think any project that size is actually a subsidiary and must be. > > I just don't like that it isn't stated openly! It is nothing wrong, > unless one can feed using zero point energy, everyone needs money to > stay alive. > > Wouldn't it be smarter to openly say "Juniper request as to get rid > o GPL as soon as we can because they are fed up with this shit and > law mess." instead of personal attacks, messing with my (and others) > sentences and posting evident lies just to "explain" the decision. > > It is a difference between honest people and fools. > > i already proposed (but not publically) to turn FreeBSD into > commercial system. > > REALLY i would not see a problem to pay say 100$ per server licence. I would see a problem with that -- not because I don't think FreeBSD is worth it. I do, and I think it is worth more than that, in fact. The biggest problem with what you propose, though, is that it would destroy the social factors in development of the FreeBSD system that make it what it is, and thus destroy FreeBSD itself, as far as I am concerned. Eliminating the copyfree licensed, open source development model of FreeBSD would undermine the majority of the technical benefits supported by that development model. I would have thought that even you should be able to understand that without help. > > There is nothing to prevent giving source with system. Non-Free > software doesn't have to be binary only. Read-only source, or even modifiable but non-distributable source, does not provide the social benefits of an open source development model that encourage the kind of participation FreeBSD needs to remain FreeBSD, rather than becoming Oracle Solaris or MS Windows Server 2010: Race Condition Odyssey. > > For paying this i would like FreeBSD to be maintained with quality > and performance being the only reason, not politics. Turning it into a commercial enterprise rather than an open source project would probably turn it into a project that is driven about 60% by corporate politics and 40% by marketing BS, with no room left over for quality except as needed to support the minimum credibility its CEO deems necessary to support those two concerns. > > Every "trendy" or otherwise requested feature could be added > separately or even charged separately, as long as it doesn't have > any effects on base system. ZFS being example. > > Nothing against Juniper (the make truly good working hardware), but > if they enforce decision because of their personal likes then it > must be stopped. You seem to think this is all about Juniper. I wonder where you get that idea. Why didn't you pluck iXsystems out of thin air as your whipping boy, or Yahoo, or some other corporate user? > > GPLv3 based C compiler does not prevent making closed source > software like JunOS for example. In most cases, this may be true, *if* the license exceptions apply as described if/when tested in court. There are some cases where even the optimistic explanation of the license exceptions particular to GCC mentions that the GPLv3 might apply to generated code. > > It is only "i hate GNU" type decision. No, it's not only that. It's *also* that, and with good reason. Good job ignoring a whole lot of information people have tried to bring to your attention, including lengthy messages from me to which you have not substantively responded. Are you unable, or simply unwilling, to have an honest discussion on the matter? Ironically, your possibly dishonest intention in this matter occurs even as you pretend that potentially mistaken statements by one or two people make *everyone* into malevolent liars who deserve your ire and insults. > > I hate too, and in spite of this am against removing gcc and > replacing it with much worse product. "Worse" based on a couple of very narrowly applicable metrics derived from specific, very particular use case conditions, whose measures are of negligible scale for most purposes, ignoring a shit-ton of additional information about why Clang is better based on information that you have not only admitted not knowing about but proclaimed you have no interest in learning. You *refuse* to educate yourself about some of the subject matter that pertains to other benefits, then proclaim everyone else at fault for the fact you cannot see past your nose to note that the whole world does not revolve around some dubious benchmarks. I doubt you're convincing anyone of anythi
Re: Why Clang
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 07:30:23PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >Because there's no reason to do that. It's an asinine suggestion. > > > >Clang is here to stay. Most of us are happy about that decision. GCC > > Because most that are not already stopped and ignored thing. and use GCC. > > Politics won. Development benefits are not "politics". Easier distribution is not "politics". More responsive upstream developers are not "politics". You ignoring all of these points and more that have been brought up, some by me, *is* evidently "politics" -- because you are seeking a political capitulation to your willfully ignorant demands. Politics *lose*, so far, and for that I am grateful. . . . but if it makes you feel better to whisper to yourself that all opposition to your position (even when you ignore it and have not bothered to actually read and understand it) is just "politics", go ahead, as long as it doesn't perpetuate this wholly unnecessary griping on the mailing list. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
backup tools
I'm setting up a "new" backup server using FreeBSD. It will be used for backing up laptops, which will not be connected to the network by any kind of schedule, so backups will be initiated manually rather than by cron or other scheduled procedures. I'm trying to decide on what tools to use for managing backups. In the past I have used rsync, which has worked reasonably well, but fails one of my desired criteria for the new backup procedures, and is less than ideal for others. My criteria for procedures are: 1. They should minimize the need for additional software beyond the base system as much as reasonably possible. This means not only that I do not want to have to specify the installation of a bunch of stuff, but also that I do not want a bunch of dependencies pulled in with something I choose to install (if anything). Ideally, I should be able to do this with just the base system, though that seems unlikely at this point. 2. They should require only copyfree licensed or public domain tools -- no copyleft licensed tools, no proprietary licensed tools, no noncommercial or nonderivative licensed tools, and no "permissively" licensed tools where the license comes with annoying restrictions such as the Apache License requirements for specific bookkeeping procedures. I might bend on the requirement for non-copyfree "permissive" licenses if I have to, but I'd rather not; bending on any of the others would probably involve just giving up and going back to rsync. 3. They should provide for incremental backups. 4. They should provide for the ability to quickly and easily test backup integrity without restoring the backups anywhere, which most likely means some kind of checksum comparisons akin to what rsync provides. 5. They should allow for transferring data from the system to be backed up to the backup server via SSH. 6. They should use tools as simple as possible, preferably command line tools. 7. There should be documentation somewhere out there for how to set something like this up, someone willing to help me figure out how to get it set up, or an obvious path to setting it up so that I do not spend a week just figuring it all out, if at all possible. 8. They should preferably not require creating a local archive on the laptop before copying to the backup server if it can reasonably be avoided, so that a big chunk of empty HDD space will not need to be maintained for backups to work. Any help figuring out what tools would work for these purposes would be appreciated. I might be able to make exceptions for some parts of this if there are suitable alternative approaches. Thanks in advance for any help I can get in figuring this out. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Why Clang
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 08:28:17AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > > >biggest problem with what you propose, though, is that it would destroy > >the social factors in development of the FreeBSD system that make it what > >it is, and thus destroy FreeBSD itself, as far as I am concerned. > > I am not sure, as long as clients would be treated seriously! I look at large corporate software vendors and see them treating customers seriously maybe 2% of the time at best. In this case, most of the developers and project managers of FreeBSD are also "customers", which changes things significantly. > > > >I would have thought that even you should be able to understand that > >without help. > > another personal attack? I though i talk with adults. 1. It's a comment on your tendency to ignore substantive arguments from other people, including probably half a dozen (so far) lengthy explanations of factors you refuse to consider written by *me*. 2. You're a hypocrite, pretending you're an innocent victim of personal attacks, given the way you go around making personal attacks on everyone else with a broad brush. I've commented on that, too, but -- like much of the rest of what I've said -- you simply ignored it. > > > >Turning it into a commercial enterprise rather than an open source > >project would probably turn it into a project that is driven about 60% by > >corporate politics and 40% by marketing BS, with no room left over for > >quality except as needed to support the minimum credibility its CEO deems > >necessary to support those two concerns. > > It depends solely on development team. I take it you don't know anything at all about how public corporations manage their development teams. That, or you're being disingenuous. It depends on the development team, and the priorities they choose to pursue first, right now. Under the stewardship of a publicly traded corporation, it would depend on the CEO, the board of directors, marketing, PR, and the accounting department, and the priorities *they* choose to pursue first, instead. > > For now - as we see - it's decision are driven by money. > But not all users money but few selected large users. It's not *just* a decision driven by money. Money applies, certainly, but not as much as it would if FreeBSD were a for-profit public corporation rather than a community-driven open source project. When you say this, by the way, you ignore something like 90% of the perfectly reasonable additional motivating factors that have been brought up. I suppose I should not expect any different by now, given the strong track record you've managed to establish just in this one extended discussion. > > > >"Worse" based on a couple of very narrowly applicable metrics derived > > There will be IMHO soon good compiler available. it's highly > probable that pcc would improve a lot, for now it is small, quick > but doesn't produce good code for new CPUs. But it probably will > improve. > > CLANG is already great bloat, and will be worse. Binary size and minuscule benchmark variations are all you see. It is ludicrous to watch you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and shout "lalalalalalalala" so consistently to prevent any other factors involved in compiler choice from entering your mind -- such as good output from a compiler that will be stable and do what you expect. > > No amount of money will fix it, actually too much money will hurt. . . . and yet you want to turn the FreeBSD project over to Microsoft (or the equivalent). You contradict yourself. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Why Clang
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 01:16:09PM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > Chad Perrin wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 01:06:12PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > > i already proposed (but not publically) to turn FreeBSD into > > > commercial system. > > > > > > REALLY i would not see a problem to pay say 100$ per server licence. > > > > I would see a problem with that -- not because I don't think FreeBSD is > > worth it. I do, and I think it is worth more than that, in fact. The > > biggest problem with what you propose, though, is that it would destroy > > Hi Chad etc, > I admire the perserverance, but maybe "Don't feed the troll" ? Yeah. . . . -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Why Clang
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 09:24:57AM -0500, Reid Linnemann wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > > I disagree with the assessment by others that FreeBSD is in some way > > effectively a subsidiary of its corporate users, but it does have > > corporate users, as well as non-corporate users. Just as it must > > reasonably see to the needs of the individuals who use it, so must it > > also reasonably see to the needs of those corporate users, especially > > when some of those corporate users' employees are key developers for the > > base system (to the significant benefit of the rest of us). Thus, saying > > that a particular set of conditions having an impact on commercial > > sponsors of FreeBSD has "zero bearing on FreeBSD itself" is just . . . > > incorrect. > > And I would like to stress on this point that, when I referred to > corporate sponsorship in an earlier post, I was thinking specifically > about the sponsorship of employing developers that keep the system > moving forward, not necessarily monetary donations. The foundation > does need money, but the software is doomed if no one is gainfully > employed to maintain and enhance it. I think there is an altruistic > fiction that many people subscribe to that free software is merely the > result of the generosity of developers producing code of their own > volition and on their own spare time and "giving it away," and from > that viewpoint the act of considering concerns of a sponsoring entity > amounts to "selling out." The reality is much different and much more > complex, as you well know. Indeed. When I contribute to an open source project, as an individual, much the same factors apply. I do not do it to help someone like Michel Talon, or even Reid Linnemann; I do it to help myself, by improving software I like, or to help people who in turn work to improve software I like. I have selfish goals that are served by my support of well- designed copyfree software, whether that support is financial in nature, a contribution of development effort, or something less direct. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: backup tools
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 08:47:40PM +0200, Roland Smith wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:09:03AM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: > > I'm setting up a "new" backup server using FreeBSD. It will be used for > > backing up laptops, which will not be connected to the network by any > > kind of schedule, so backups will be initiated manually rather than by > > cron or other scheduled procedures. > > What are the laptops running? FreeBSD, Debian, and/or Ubuntu. There's at least one of each. I apologize for not mentioning that sooner. I had a feeling I'd overlook something. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: backup tools
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 08:14:34PM -0500, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > I'm setting up a "new" backup server using FreeBSD. It will be used for > > backing up laptops, which will not be connected to the network by any > > kind of schedule, so backups will be initiated manually rather than by > > cron or other scheduled procedures. I'm trying to decide on what tools > > to use for managing backups. In the past I have used rsync, which has > > worked reasonably well, but fails one of my desired criteria for the new > > backup procedures, and is less than ideal for others. > > > > One's I use or have used: > > sysutils/rdiff-backup > sysutils/tarsnap > misc/amanda-server Unfortunately, one of those is GPL, another is subject to proprietary licensing, and the last has a bunch of (otherwise unnecessary on the server) GNU project dependencies. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: backup tools
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 09:46:02AM -0400, Jorge Luis Gonzalez wrote: > Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > > > what exactly deficiences and requirements not met by rsync are you talking > > about? > > Perhaps "deficiencies" was too strong a word. I think the OP required--or > perhaps desired--a WOL function. I'm not aware of any such capability in > rsync > proper. I meant, too, that dirvish, which was the alternative that I > recommended, presents an elegant and easily-comprehended way to manage rsync's > considerable abilities, not that it provides features that can't be managed > directly by rsync. Actually, a Wake-On-LAN feature is not at all necessary for me in this case. It's a simple enough task to just trigger a backup manually at the command line via a script that automates the process. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: backup tools
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:17:36AM +0200, herbert langhans wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 11:10:06AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > >lftp does work incremental. Take a look at Chad's posting again and read > > >what he needs. And of course, ftp via ssh is nothing new ... > > > still - any ftp client will no go faster than ftp protocol allows. > > That's sure. But I think it's an option for the laptops what Chad > mentioned. Such scripts for backup are set up in minutes and it happily > copies the files to the server. If there are already user accounts on > the server, it could be really easy. I think it depends on the scale of > the network. It does appear to meet my needs, at first glance, with any capabilities it does not already have that I might need easily scripted. I'm having a difficult time finding any reference to licensing, though. Matt Dillon's explanation of cpdup suggests it is probably some kind of BSD-licensed, given its inclusion in DragonFly BSD base utilities, but that's not *necessarily* the case. Reference: http://apollo.backplane.com/FreeSrc/ I'm going to try emailing Dillon for clarification, too. In any case, I'll take a closer look at cpdup. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: help about free bsp version netcat to work it on ubuntu
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 07:18:13PM +0800, lei yang wrote: > > Aha,I just want to learn want to know how to build the netcat for > freebsd version on a no-freebsd platform I'm really curious, now: Why? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: how to speed up port make??
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 08:41:15PM -0400, kpn...@pobox.com wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 01:06:33AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:59:56 -0400, Sean Cavanaugh wrote: > > > Got you beat. Compiled world on a 100MHz Pentium with 40 MB of RAM. > > > > I think I can: FreeBSD 4 on a Pentium 1 with 64 MB EDO RAM. > > The make buildworld took 24 hours. The kernel itself, if I > > remember correctly, required 3-5 hours, of course without > > much tweaking. :-) > > Luxury! > > I once compiled a custom kernel of NetBSD/i386 on a 486 with 8MB of RAM. > I was stuck with the GENERIC kernel which took up over 6MB just to boot. > > It took over 40 days to finish. > > To be fair it didn't help that I had to move out of my apartment in the > middle. So it took some time for make to refigure out where had been in > the build. > > Heck, we used to compile gcc and watch movies. It took three movies to > get through a full recursive compile of gcc. Yep, 6 hours. > > And then there was that occasion one night watching a guy logged into an > Ultrix box: Raise your hand if you've ever seen 'ps' report that it had > itself been swapped out. Yep, again. > > Ah, good times. > > I think I still have some memory _chips_ (zip scrams, not dips) around > here somewhere You kids have got it easy. I used to have to compile by hand with a pair of tweezers, bar copper wire, a magnifying glass, and a potato with two pieces of metal stuck in it as a power source. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: how to speed up port make??
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 08:33:36PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: > > You kids have got it easy. I used to have to compile by hand with a pair > of tweezers, bar copper wire, a magnifying glass, and a potato with two > pieces of metal stuck in it as a power source. s/bar/bare/ Now let me tell you how we used to have to do our regexing. . . . -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: how to speed up port make??
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:04:27PM -0700, Ryan Noll wrote: > Hello, > > On Jul 25, 2012 7:34 PM, "Chad Perrin" wrote: > > You kids have got it easy. I used to have to compile by hand with a pair > > of tweezers, bar copper wire, a magnifying glass, and a potato with two > > pieces of metal stuck in it as a power source. > > Ha-ha... Ah those were the days..., but does anyone remember the "old" way > of building the kernel in the 2.2.8 days? I was just getting started doing > the basic system setup/admin things in those days. Back then (1998 or so) I > did not have access to broadband, so I did not even update the sources back > then, but I knew that it was a good idea to remove devices from the GENERIC > kernel that I did not have--thanks to the book by Greg Lehey. (Even though > the version of "The Complete FreeBSD" I bought is so out of date I cannot > bring myself to throw it away--it was my guide back in those days.) > > Does anyone else remember "The Complete FreeBSD"? I have the fourth edition. I imagine that's not as old as yours. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 01:39:21PM +, Traiano Welcome wrote: > > > >even if not it's just matter to add proper licence to right ports in > >port tree and require user to accept it. > > Probably won't even have to do that. People can download, compile and > run whatever they want on a base operating system, but as long as the > base operating system (FreeBSD in our case) remains "legally > un-encumbered" with patented code, nobody really cares. If individual > users decide they want to compile and run copyrighted software on > FreeBSD (or linux) it will be a matter between M$ and the particular > user in question, not the community providing the base OS and user > space tools. > > The SCO-IBM debacle some years ago triggered a huge review of open > source copyrights in the linux (and *bsd) community. SCO failed to get > anything back then, and it's hard to imagine how M$ will get anything > now that there's broader awareness in "the community" around software > patent infringement. Unfortunately, patent law and copyright law are very different environments. The truth is that probably every nontrivial piece of software created infringes several patents, and the only question that remains is whether those patents would hold up in court under close scrutiny. The greater the disparity in legal expertise and funding behind the two parties, the greater the likelihood that the case will be found in favor of the party with the greater resources. This is the reason software patents comprise such a blight on the world of software development. Even a frivolous patent that would not hold up through completion of litigation may serve its purpose by bankrupting a defendant before the case is concluded. It is possible that Microsoft is going the way of SCO -- into its grave, having hung all its hopes on litigation. Along the way, though, it will probably do a lot of damage to a lot of people, projects, and businesses, and I just hope it doesn't get as far as the FreeBSD project or any FreeBSD users before things come crashing down. (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Et cetera.) -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 01:20:08AM +0200, C. P. Ghost wrote: > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:57 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > > It is possible that Microsoft is going the way of SCO -- into its grave, > > having hung all its hopes on litigation. Along the way, though, it will > > probably do a lot of damage to a lot of people, projects, and businesses, > > and I just hope it doesn't get as far as the FreeBSD project or any > > FreeBSD users before things come crashing down. > > Right! > > Let's also hope that most patents that could harm us (should there > be some lurking out there) will have expired by then. Unless Congress > pulls a Mickey Mouse Protection Act-lookalike on patents by extending > them just as they did with Copyright. > > But as usual with Congress, I wouldn't hold my breath: they aren't > exactly known for enacting reasonable and sensible laws. Especially > not when heavily lobbied by mega corps with deep pockets like MSFT, > Oracle, Apple and so on. Yes, things will get really nasty once those > corporations go the way of the SCO. Good luck with that. More new patents are registered every day than the previous, generally speaking. There are patents expiring every day, only to be replaced by more. For every one that falls, two take its place. Microsoft is a special case. It has actually been rattling its saber at open source OSes already, so it's something of an immediate threat. Most software patents are basically just a latent threat that won't ever really arise, as long as you don't make a whole lot of money with a web application or service of some kind. Thus, hope that Microsoft runs out of money before it gets around to suing anything FreeBSD-related, and that its patents don't then pass into the hands of the most egregious patent trolls out there, because this would mean that what is probably the most immediate patent threat to FreeBSD is gone. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 02:32:11PM -0400, Sean Cavanaugh wrote: > > > > Out of curiosity has anyone ever heard of trolls patenting open source > > technologies after the fact? > > The prior art stipulations pretty much kills that off, unless they make a > genuine improvement/change to it to not qualify under that, then they would > be well within patent law to apply for a patent. . . . in theory. In practice, if you don't have the resources to mount a serious defense against a deep-pockets patent holder, prior art isn't going to get you far. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 10:27:50AM -0400, kpn...@pobox.com wrote: > > There are a number of essays on the error of the term "intellectual property" > that are very good despite coming from Richard Stallman. Your phrasing is hilariously accurate. > > If you go back and reread this thread you'll see this mistake underneath > more than one post. For example, being clear on the copyright to all the > source in FreeBSD does _zero_ in terms of protecting FreeBSD from claims > of patent infringement. > > Software patents in practice are both so general and so stupid that there > is zilch that FreeBSD, or any other organization or individual, can do to > avoid accidentally infringing. The conflation of different forms of "intellectual property" in the minds of many is probably largely to blame for the fatuous nonsense of people preferring the Apache License 2.0 over (for instance) the Simplified BSD License (aka FreeBSD License) for its patent clause. People are often so unaware of the differences between copyright law and patent law that they think a patent clause provides the same protections against malicious patent litigation as copyright licensing provides against malicious copyright litigation. The truth of the matter is that a copyright is held by a single entity, while patents differing only in phrasing and patent number, covering the same basic software behavior, could in theory be held by every single member of the human race. As a result, a copyright license provides protection against litigation by the one and only copyright holder, but the patent clause in that license only provides protection against litigation by one potential patent holder out of billions. I believe the main reason that people choose the Apache License 2.0 is simply the lack of a copyfree license that comes with a patent clause (and, for all the talk of the Apache License 2.0 being a "permissive" license, it falls well short of being a copyfree license like the Simplified BSD License). That's why I rolled my own copyfree license with a patent clause, even though I believe that in practice a patent clause provides about as much protection as a "life vest" provides against gunfire. > > "A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of > invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor ... > in the vicinity of the cat, then moving the laser ... in an irregular way > fascinating to cats,..." -- US patent 5443036, "Method of exercising a cat" That's hilarious, and awfully depressing. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > This is the reason software patents comprise such a blight on the world > > of software development. > > Yes, agreed, & not just software. Well, yeah, but I was trying to stay close to being on-topic. > > The european patent office system pressures examiners towards granting > if they can't quickly find prove the application is already known. The same applies in the US. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 08:14:33AM +0700, Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:57:59 -0600 > Chad Perrin wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 01:39:21PM +, Traiano Welcome wrote: > > > > > > Unfortunately, patent law and copyright law are very different > > environments. The truth is that probably every nontrivial piece of > > yes. > > > software created infringes several patents, and the only question that > > remains is whether those patents would hold up in court under close > > The best tool against any patents is prior art. . . . assuming you have enough resources to throw at lawyers to effectively fight your case in court. > > The open source scene misses a very simple platform. Even FreeBSD could > offer an extra list named 'prior-art' on which people can publish their > ideas. The moment the server starts distributing the e-mail, nobody can > claim a patent anywhere in the world for the idea mentioned. That would be nice. > > > scrutiny. The greater the disparity in legal expertise and funding > > behind the two parties, the greater the likelihood that the case will > > be found in favor of the party with the greater resources. > > Not true for cases of prior art. Do lawyers not use the law to their clients' advatage -- often abusing it -- just because they're wrong in the final analysis? That is not what I have seen. What I have seen is that a company like SCO can drag out proceedings for most of a decade (2003 to 2010 before the final nail in the Novell v. SCO matter was pounded in, but SCO is *still* suing IBM) when it not only cannot produce evidence of any infringing code, but doesn't even own the copyrights in question. It would take substantially less than a year for a big corporation to make my little LLC go under, regardless of how good a lawyer I can find. In fact, the better the lawyer, the more quickly I'm likely to run out of money to fight the case, because of the rate I'd have to pay a better lawyer. An accountant would be a better investment, to help me save as much money as possible in the midst of a full-scale legal retreat. Contrary to what you seem to want to imply here, in civil suits the guy with the resources usually wins -- especially in matters like patent infringement, where a bunch of hand-wavy nonsense on a piece of paper can usually be interpreted however the better funded legal team wants it to be interpreted. > > > > This is the reason software patents comprise such a blight on the > > world of software development. Even a frivolous patent that would > > There is no difference for an engineer who works in other fields. That's a fair statement. I wasn't trying to exclude other fields; I was just speaking specifically about software development. > > > not hold up through completion of litigation may serve its purpose by > > bankrupting a defendant before the case is concluded. > > That party must have a real dumb patent attorney then. . . . or very little money relative to the other party. I suppose dollars are equivalent to IQ points in your view. > > > > It is possible that Microsoft is going the way of SCO -- into its > > grave, having hung all its hopes on litigation. Along the way, > > though, it will probably do a lot of damage to a lot of people, > > projects, and businesses, and I just hope it doesn't get as far as > > the FreeBSD project or any FreeBSD users before things come crashing > > down. > > It is all in the people's mind. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. > > > (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. Et > > cetera.) > > This is an example of the real problem. What -- the fact that I understand the law enough to not want to get sued by someone who's dumb enough to take advice from a mailing list on how to handle a patent suit? Are you a patent lawyer? If not, perhaps the real problem in this exchange is *your* lack of understanding of how things work. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: compare zfs xfs and jfs o
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 03:46:53PM -0500, Marco Muskus wrote: > Hi Ashkan, > > I think that XFS & JFS are more mature filesystems than ZFS, but the > feature set of ZFS i ahead in the future. For a NFS server first > I'll go with ZFS because the consistence in disk and speed will > gonna be the differentiator. The idea that ZFS is faster than XFS is certainly a new one for me. Do you have some benchmarks for that? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 12:25:31PM -0400, Robert Huff wrote: > Jerry writes: > > > > I agree up to the point about financial incentive. For myself, I > > like making money. I don't apologize for that. Most engineers, > > software / hardware designers also enjoy receiving a monetary > > reward for their hard work. Simple giving away our hard work, > > sweat and time to some socialist just because they feel they have > > the right to the hard work of others is repulsive. > > Would you call Jeff Bezos (CEO of Amazon) a socialist? > Some years ago, he was giving an interview and was asked "Jeff, > Amazon has applied for a patent for the One-Click system. If Amazon > had > known before it started there was no chance of receiving a patent - > would it have created One-Click anyway?" > [While I'm paraphasing, the essential content is preserved.] > There was a long pause, during which you could tell Bezos > understood _precisely_ what the real question was ... > ... and (to his credit) answered "Yes." > > The programmers got paid. > Amazon gets paid in the form of more expedient processing and > (presumably) more sales due to ease of check-out. > Why, as a society, should we deny other innovators the ability > to use that technology to develop - hopefully - even better stuff? Patents don't encourage innovation. They primarily do three things: 1. They direct innovative effort away from non-patentable things and toward patentable things, even when the patentable things are less actually innovative or useful. 2. They favor large corporations with the resources to pursue patent litigation and build gigantic patent portfolios, thus creating hurdles for smaller business endeavors to become successful. 3. They encourage more time and resources to be spent on patent filing than on actual research and development. 4. They support a specialized lawyer class, which naturally evolves into an entire industry of patent trolling. 5. They make small organizations and individuals afraid to innovate because they fear they might run afoul of patents, and make large organizations waste a bunch of time and money buying other companies just for their patent portfolios so they have more ammunition with which to defend themselves against other patent-holders in a kind of "mutually assured destruction" arms race deterrence scheme. I guess three wasn't enough to list the major negatives of the patent system. I could come up with more, given a little time. Ultimately, the patent system is in many ways the opposite of a free market. In fact, the socialistic "labor theory of value" is a much more effective basis for justifying a patent system than any concepts of economic schools of thought more oriented toward free market capitalism, because patents are designed to "protect" a labor resources investment in the patentable "invention", rather than any kind of actual proprietary investment. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 07:57:34AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >Do lawyers not use the law to their clients' advatage -- often abusing it > >-- just because they're wrong in the final analysis? > seems you never worked long with lawyers, or you are lucky and have > really fair one. If the word "fair" can be used for lawyers at all. > > Most often they just want court cases to have "work". I'm not sure you understood what I said, because what *you* said here seems irrelevant to what I said. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Patent hit - MS goes after Linux - FreeBSD ?
On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 09:33:20AM -0400, Jerry wrote: > On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:48:56 -0400 > Robert Huff articulated: > > > > Patents are - or should be - the means, not the end. The end > > is encourage people to create new stuff; the means of encouragement > > is to give them exclusive rights for a limited time. As long as the > > idea gets out there, we should be indifferent as to whether they > > make money. > > I agree up to the point about financial incentive. For myself, I like > making money. I don't apologize for that. Most engineers, software / > hardware designers also enjoy receiving a monetary reward for their > hard work. Simple giving away our hard work, sweat and time to some > socialist just because they feel they have the right to the hard work of > others is repulsive. I'm okay with that statement. > > If a monetary reward were removed from the equation, we would probably > still be using an abacus in the dark. Cockamamie nonsense -- or, if you prefer, [citation needed]. > > While we certainly should be indifferent to the financial incentive and > monetary reward someone receives; in all too many cases that is just > not so. The socialists still feel they are entitled to something for > nothing. . . . which need not have *anything* at all to do with a discussion of whether a system of patents is a good or bad idea. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Warning - FreeBSD (*BSD) entanglement in Linux ecosystem
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:42:32AM -0500, Mark Felder wrote: > Those in on the core teams here are very well aware. Did you notice > we've survived this long without ALSA? :-) However, this is very > good reading for anyone who hasn't looked at Linux lately, and it's > worth mentioning that this is snowballing quickly. I used to really > like some Linux distros. I've been working closely with FreeBSD for > 3 years now and after watching Linux change in those 3 years from > this distance I'm not sure I want to go back. Everything that > originally excited me about *nix operating systems is gone; it's a > big convoluted mess now. This isn't a good sign and I hope someone > has the sense enough to stand their ground and tell > RedHat/Poettering "NO". > > > TEAR DOWN THIS WALL, MR GORB^H^H^H^HPOETTERING Hallelujah. Poettering and his ilk represent the gravest threat to the Linux ecosystem I've ever seen. I switched from Debian to FreeBSD in late 2005 or early 2006, having not touched FreeBSD much before that. Early the year before last year, I got a laptop and discovered that I should have paid more attention to what I was buying, because at the time FreeBSD didn't support the laptop's graphics. I thought "Well, Debian isn't as nice as FreeBSD, but it was pretty good, so I'll use that." Ever since then, I've spent uncounted hours writing hackish wrapper code to paper over the disaster area that is system management in the Linux world now. I wrote an article for TechRepublic about some of my experiences (and other gripes about the Linux world after five years away from it) titled "NetworkManager, the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalinux". The more we can avoid code written by Poettering and anything remotely like it, the better off we will be, I'm sure. Luckily, he wants to help us; he has stated that he believes writing quality, portable code somehow hinders "innovation", and as such he goes out of his way to avoid portability concerns. Good riddance. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: suggest pdf viewer for pdf version 1.6 with annotations
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 03:45:30PM +0700, Erich Dollansky wrote: > On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 08:50:16 +0100 (BST) > Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > > > > I got sent a pdf file, version 1.6, with annotations. > > xpdf can view the file, but not the annotations. > > Please suggest a pdf viewer from ports that might help. > > evince? Did you try it? I do not have it installed at the moment, so I > am not able to tell you. Zathura might be worth a try, too. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
a metric for number of users
Is there some way I could get the number of unique IPs hitting FreeBSD servers for software updates? I'm curious about the direct comparison of numbers between FreeBSD, Ubuntu, Fedora, and SUSE for this metric. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: 0
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 07:45:12PM +0200, Jerome Herman wrote: > Must resist the urge to post... > > 10 > > (I am weak)... There are 10 types of people in the world. . . . (You're the 10nd type.) -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: a metric for number of users
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:57:49PM +0200, C. P. Ghost wrote: > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > > Is there some way I could get the number of unique IPs hitting FreeBSD > > servers for software updates? I'm curious about the direct comparison of > > numbers between FreeBSD, Ubuntu, Fedora, and SUSE for this metric. > > You could ask for this, but beware of drawing wrong conclusions. Where I'm > currently working, we're fetching sources, ports and distfiles only > once, rebuild, test, and then mirror internally to a couple of 10k > machines. And I'm sure we're not alone doing this: it's certainly not > such an uncommon scenario out there. I'm familiar with the problems of trying to accurately measure users. I just want a kind of ballpark comparison of some metrics between different systems, even if the way the numbers hash out make direct comparisons wildly inaccurate, to satisfy my own curiosity. I'm not sure who I'd ask, by the way. That's part of the problem. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: List all hard drives on system (with capacities)... How?
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 04:23:54PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> if ($bytes >= (1024 * 1024 * 1024 * 1024)) {
You know about the exponentiation operator in Perl -- right?
if ($bytes >= (1024 ** 4)) {
I don't think typing 1024 four times with * between each pair is really a
helpful form of verbosity.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: FreeBSD Release Date Challenge, plus other stuff the project needs
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 01:52:04AM -0500, Anonymous wrote: > We, the users of FreeBSD, *do hereby challenge* the FreeBSD project > to meet its future release dates. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for 9.1-RELEASE to be finalized. I desperately want it as soon as possible for a laptop currently running such a piece of shit OS (Debian -- used to be good, but after half a dozen years away it went significantly downhill) that I'm about ready to pull out my hair. It needs hardware support not available with FreeBSD until now, and I want stable, -RELEASE software on it to suit my needs. That having been said, I don't "challenge" the FreeBSD project to meet future release dates. This isn't Ubuntu; it's FreeBSD. I'd rather they get it *right* than get it out *quickly*. Hell, even before I stopped using Debian, when I thought it was still good, there were signs of its impending slide into crappiness -- and they all happened around the time the Debian project started trying to meet release dates on a faster development schedule. No . . . I don't want to push the FreeBSD core team to sacrifice the things that make FreeBSD valuable just to meet arbitrary release date guesstimates. Screw that. > > Why: Because the FreeBSD project has not met a significant number > of its release dates. It's an apalling state of affairs and makes > you, the project, look silly. Business and personal users plan > elements of their schedules, budgets and capabilities around OS > updates. And the continual failure of FreeBSD to deliver causes us > to have no alternative but to look at our bosses and just shrug. > We've taken to padding it out a week, two weeks, a month, two > months... just to cover the random slippage. Since there seems to > be no public statements about this ongoing situation, we might as > well pad it to a quarter or a half... FreeBSD's already a half > behind on status reports. Here you make a point I'd like to see addressed. I wish we had a simple way to find out what's going on with the wait. That doesn't mean I want anyone prioritizing speed over quality, though. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Help! Firefox + acroread costs me $$$$
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 05:16:12PM -0800, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > This problem has been annoying me for some time now, but until now > it was never really an issue that I could not easily work-around. > > I was just trying to download a PDF document off of the Pacer[tm] > federal courts web site. These are not free. They cost ten cents > per page. I tried to download a 29 page document and it downloaded > into firefox just fine and then was displayed in a new firefox tab > which was apparently using acroread8 to display the document. > > I know from past experience that acroreadN runs like crap on FreeBSD... > often using up enormous amounts of CPU % for no apparently good reason. > But this time it really got my goat. I clicked on the little acroread > icon for printing the current document, a pop-up dialog box for printing > came up, but before I could hit the print button on that, everything > relating to firefox... all open tabs and all open windows... froze up > solid. > > Now, having wasted three bucks for no good reason (and STILL not having > a hardcopy of the document I wanted), I am motivated to finally get this > sorted out. > > So, on FreeBSD, how does one get firefox and/or opera to use, for example, > evince or some other PDF displayer instead of using this goddamn lousey > buggy *&^%$#@ acroread ? The first thing to do should simply be to uninstall acroread. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Fun Scripting Problem
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 03:13:06PM -0600, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
> here's a one-liner:
> rm ` \
> stat -f "%SB %B %N" * \
> | sort -k5nr \
> | cut -c1-7,17-20,32- \
> | awk 'BEGIN {a="";b=0;c=0} $1==a && $2==b && $3=c {print
> $4;}{a=$1;b=$2;c=$3}' \
I'm never comfortable calling something like that a "one-liner". If it
runs over 80 columns of width, that (to me) doesn't really qualify as a
one-liner.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: fetchmail/sendmail: Domain of sender address does not exist
On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 09:40:47AM +, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > I'm running sendmail, and using fetchmail to fetch > my mail from the university IMAP server. > > I sometimes see fetchmail complain: > > fetchmail: SMTP error: 553 5.1.8 ... Domain of sender > address ad...@system.mail does not exist > > And this is doubled in /var/log/maillog: > > sm-mta[14642]: r270BO3L014642: ruleset=check_mail, arg1=, > relay=localhost [127.0. > 0.1], reject=553 5.1.8 ... Domain of sender address > ad...@system.mail does not exist > > How do I set fetchmail and sendmail to fetch > such emails? You might want to try out the mail/fdm port instead of fetchmail. I have found fetchmail to be obtuse and cantankerous; I stopped using it a long time ago. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: day light saving time happened today
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 08:49:45AM -0400, Fbsd8 wrote: > > > Ran this little test. > Last night before turning off my system I used the date command to set > the date to 3/9 with the correct DST. This morning when I turned on my > system the time had advanced by one hour. So this proves that the time > zone setting does have DST in it and every thing worked as expected. > > Even though the system is now on DST the date command still displays > EDT. Does the date command ever show DST? As noted by others, "EDT" is "Eastern Daylight Time", which is what should be showing during DST in the Eastern (US) time zone. When it's not DST, what should be showing in the Eastern time zone is "EST" instead. From what you said, though, it seems you had set it to "EDT" when it was not yet daylight saving time. I wonder if this might be the cause of the actual problem. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: how to parse output of application?
On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 12:58:34PM -0700, Chip Camden wrote: > > > > I not that great in programming so writing a ruby or shell script do do > > this would take me weeks:-( > > Well, I'd use Ruby. Read the whole file into a string and find the > relevant bits with Regexp. I'd say either Perl or Ruby is the way to go in this case, because of regular expression support and the nifty functions/methods you can use with them (e.g. Perl's map and Ruby's collect), depending on which of them best suits your way of thinking. Using shell scripts would, I think, be a bit more of an arcane exercise for someone relatively new to coding, given the assumption that you're going to use regexen as the workhorse. Another nice tool for this sort of thing, in both languages, is the split function/method. Unfortunately, nothing comes immediately to mind that wouldn't involve writing some code -- so if it would take you weeks to write code to do the work for you, I guess you're stuck with taking weeks to do it, unless you want to just do it all by hand. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpWRNlZVVOq3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: copyright for man pages
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 07:16:20AM -0400, r...@mlg3.com wrote: > Hello, > > Sorry of this is the wrong list but what is the copyright situation for > things like man pages? If I want to host a copy of one on the web or > something, is there some additional disclaimer I need to add? As I understand it, most man pages and other FreeBSD documentation is distributed under the terms of the FreeBSD Documentation License: http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-doc-license.html Anything that says "GNU" in it (because it's related to GNU software) is likely to be distributed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html Some man pages are likely to be distributed under the standard BSD License. There may or may not be some stuff distributed under the terms of the BSD Documentation License, which is actually a derivative of the FreeBSD Documentation License. There may be a couple here and there distributed under other licenses as well. I'm not anyone officially associated with the documentation project, though, so don't just take my word for it if you have reason to question what I've said. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpSO91HYJcYO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Good Terminal for X?
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 04:12:47PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Roland Smith wrote: > > > > Try x11/rxvt-unicode. It doesn't require Gnome nor KDE libraries, and it > > does > > handle unicode well. It's a lot lighter than xterm. And it has transparancy > > or > > backgrounds if you like that. > > It's not "a lot lighter" - I made a table recently to investigate. > See > > http://invisible-island.net/xterm/xterm.faq.html#bug_rxvt Thanks for the research. I had no idea rxvt-unicode had gotten so big. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpUJn04XW5k2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Can't remove or move file
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 09:29:23AM -0700, Rem P Roberti wrote: > On 08/20/10 09:06, Mark Tinguely wrote: > > > >For many commands, the "--" stops the argument processing: > > > > rm -- -elDeJaPWGg.flv > > Thank you. Still deep into the FreeBSD learning curve, but loving it. > I should have recognized that the "-" would indicated a switch, but even > if I had, I would not have known the fix. Thanks again. There are a couple more ways to get around this. One requires planning ahead, the other requires less typing (if you hand-typed the filename). If you want to plan ahead, you can use the -o option with youtube-dl: youtube-dl -o output_filename.flv 'url_for_youtube_video' This sets the name of the file that will appear on your computer to "output_filename.flv", so you control what the file is called. If it's too late to plan ahead, as in the case of -elDeJaPWGg.flv, you can just use a filename glob: rm *PWGg.flv Whether this works depends on your shell, though. In tcsh, for instance, it won't work, and you'll have to use the -- option as suggested by Mark Tinguely. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp2oIsaeKsvW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Any awk gurus on the list?
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 05:24:55PM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote: > >>>>> "Paul" == Paul Schmehl writes: > > Paul> Yes, I know I could do this easily in Perl. I'm doing this to try > Paul> and improve my understanding of awk. > > To what end? > > Every modern system that can run awk can also run Perl. Why not > concentrate on Perl? Maybe he wants to understand Awk well enough to translate a bunch of Awk scripts to Perl. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpA2GJHUtJAc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is this bunk.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 01:25:34AM +0100, Garry wrote: > This is a conversation held on a UK group page, can you confirm or deny this > as twaddle. > > > > Mac OS X is basically BSD that's been appleised (serious vendor lock-in), > they do give a little back to BSDs, but have made sure that BSDs can't get > much off of them, but they can get a lot out of BSD. My understanding is that it's a Mach kernel with some FreeBSD userland that has since been worked over with a rake, producing the Darwin OS. Following that, Apple dropped a load of proprietary stuff on top of Darwin to produce MacOS X. > > Also, Windows uses (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking for > instance. This is true. > > So, in supporting/using BDS i would enevatibaly end up writing code for it, > or filing bugs or whatever. > (I have assisted with a few Linux drivers and written kernel patches, as > well as working on things like DirectX 3D 9 for Wine and work on KDE etc...) Good for you. > > Having seen how BDS license software has been used, to create highly tied > in, almost crippled proprietary software, I do not feel that I can support > software developed under such licenses. Why not? Tell me what benefit is gained by not using FreeBSD, or what benefit is lost by discouraging others from using your technology. > > Web-Kit has actually worked quite well as an open system, even though Apple > done a hostile take over of the project from KHTML in KDE. > So, the GPL has worked to produce an open product in Web-kit but the BSD > license has lead to vendor lock-in on the part of Microsoft and most > significantly Apple. WebKit is actually not GPLed. It's a combination (at least primarily) of the LGPL and the BSD License. I guess you should stop using any WebKit based browser if you don't like the BSD License. > > This does not mean to say that I have a problem with the quality of the code > in BSD, I just feel that the license is counter productive. In what way is it counterproductive? What goal do you want to serve that the BSD License hinders? Perhaps you should consider some alternative views of the matter. For instance, there's . . . * Copyfree (an alternative to Copyright and Copyleft): http://copyfree.org * Software Liberation Front (counter-copyleft advocacy): http://softwareliberationfront.org * Choose the Right Licensing Model for Security Software: http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=610 * Copyfree vs. Copyleft: http://www.wikivs.com/wiki/Copyfree_vs_Copyleft * BSD/Copyfree vs. Corporate Copyleft: http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=622 I have found that it's really the GPL, and copyleft licensing in general, that is counterproductive. It has been used to launch attacks on small open source projects, employ anticompetitive and monopolistic business tactics, and keep open source code from being used in other open source projects. In fact, copyleft licenses tend to be mutually incompatible. They prohibit proprietary software projects from using their code, and they also prohibit copyfree software projects (such as the FreeBSD project) from using their code (at least directly) -- but they also prohibit copyleft projects that use a different copyleft license from using their code. I find the hypocrisy rather odious. I suppose your tastes may differ. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpWIl8Gdg3xc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is this bunk.
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:10:19PM -0400, Garance A Drosehn wrote: > At 1:25 AM +0100 8/23/10, Garry wrote: > > > >Also, Windows uses (or used to use) a BSD stack for networking > >for instance. > > This is true. (or at least it definitely used to be true, I > have no idea if Vista and Windows7 are still using the BSD > networking stack). It's true either way, because Garry said "(or used to use)". It is true that MS Windows used to use a BSD licensed network stack. My understanding is that this got replaced in Vista, however, in case you're curious. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpn8eD9CAO2f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is this bunk.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:00:36AM -0500, Joshua Isom wrote: > > As for the GPL itself, I think the biggest problem is who controls it > and who enforces it. Companies get sued over busybox frequently, and > not by the busybox developers. Stallman's views about how computers > should work amounts to near anarchy > <http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/html_node/su-invocation.html>. I do not think "anarchy" is the correct term so much as "chaos". -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpMz1q0f0Sq5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Why is the FreeBSD TCP/IP stack the best?
Perhaps they rely on the opinions of other OSes' developers -- many of whom have borrowed FreeBSD TCP/IP code to bootstrap their own network stacks. Of course, I think a number of factors contribute to this without necessarily proving it is the technical "best": * BSD Unix was first out the gate in the race to TCP/IP. * FreeBSD uses the BSD License, which makes its code easy to reuse. * Developers for the various open source BSD Unix systems tend to have a high regard for "correctness". * I haven't looked at it personally, but have heard that FreeBSD's TCP/IP stack source code is quite clean and readable -- and therefore easily reused. There may be other reasons involved. FreeBSD does tend to rate fairly well in network performance benchmarks, by the way, but those benchmarks are not typically tuned for testing the TCP/IP stack *specifically*, from what I've seen. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpMGrF1g9f6K.pgp Description: PGP signature
printing outside browser cuts off top and bottom of page
I'm using CUPS on FreeBSD 8.0, and any time I try to print from outside Firefox the top and bottom of a PDF gets cut off. I don't have any means installed for printing a PDF from inside Firefox, but Webpages and the CUPS test page print just fine from within the browser. For instance: /usr/local/bin/lpr -P 4050N sheet.pdf (using an HP 4050N printer) This results in the top and bottom edge of the PDF getting cut off. I've tried tweaking settings in GUI tools such as GtkLP to try to force it to print the PDF at a smaller size on the page so it would fit within the cut-off points, and it still prints exactly the same way. I've tried adjusting margins in such GUI tools as well, to no avail. Trying to print from Xpdf produces the same problematic results. If there's a command line solution to this, I haven't encountered it. Where should I start looking to figure out the problem? Unfortunately, it looks like the FreeBSD Handbook only deals with lpd. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpZfQj1rGqwg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: printing outside browser cuts off top and bottom of page
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 02:04:32PM -0700, Chip Camden wrote: > > I'm not seeing that here, but I don't have a PDF that prints data in the > margins. If you have one, can you email it to me? I don't think it prints to the margins, per se. I also know that it's not particular to the printer, since my girlfriend's laptop (running Ubuntu) prints the same PDF just fine. I'll send the specific PDF I've been trying to print lately, off-list. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp7iG4wnA2Ts.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: printing outside browser cuts off top and bottom of page
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 03:49:24PM -0600, Warren Block wrote: > > The LJ4050 is a great printer, but it doesn't print PDFs natively. > > So you need to find what CUPS is using to convert PDFs to PostScript and > adjust that. It may be an A4 to letter conversion, or it's trying to > "intelligently" scale the page to fit your printer. CUPS is a black box to me, filled with black magic. I wave chicken bones over it, and it works, mostly. The documentation has always seemed somewhat opaque and incomplete. I've got both pdf2ps and pdftops on the system. I'm not sure which is being used by CUPS, and I'm not really sure where to check. If I had to guess, I'd say it's pdf2ps, since I think ghostscript fits into this somewhere. Interestingly, if I use either one of these individually to translate from PDF to PS, then print using /usr/local/bin/lpr to print, the same problem occurs -- so it's not specific to either of those tools. I really do seem to be having a problem with CUPS behavior itself. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpPUxpZz3VAn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: printing outside browser cuts off top and bottom of page
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 06:12:40PM -0600, Warren Block wrote: > On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > >CUPS is a black box to me, filled with black magic. > > Me too. That's why I use lpd. I'm considering it, at least for this laptop. Still, it would be nice to know how to fix this problem for cases where CUPS is a better fit. > > Could you send me the PDF? sent off-list > > As Chip Camden noted, it could be a problem with the printable area not > being correct. CUPS should get that information from a PPD file--I > think. Do you have the correct PPD installed...er...wherever it should > be installed? Or maybe that's automatic, and you just need to set CUPS > to the right printer. Support for the 4050 series was available with the default install. I just picked it from a list when setting up CUPS. That's one of the things I like about these well-known network attached HP PostScript laser printers. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpiIekfJc5iO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: printing outside browser cuts off top and bottom of page
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 08:33:34PM -0700, Chip Camden wrote: > Quoth Warren Block on Tuesday, 24 August 2010: > > > > It appears that PPDs are stored in the reasonably-named > > /usr/local/etc/cups/ppd. There's a PPD for the LJ4050 in > > print/foomatic-db... > > > > And it has > > *ImageableArea Letter/Letter: "12.24 12.06 599.76 780.06" > > > > 12-point margins on that printer sound about right. > > Mine had 18 and 36 for the first two (for an OfficeJet 7310). I tried > doubling them but that didn't seem to make a difference. Did I need to > restart something to get that to take effect? I suspect those correspond to the margin settings in GtkLP, but fiddling with those settings has zero observable effect on printing. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp4mslQs3oLB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: printing outside browser cuts off top and bottom of page
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 07:57:29AM -0600, Warren Block wrote: > > For another test, use pdf2ps and feed the PS output directly to the > printer, bypassing CUPS. If the LJ4050N Ethernet is connected (and it > really should be), you can use nc something like this (untested): > > # pdf2ps test.pdf - | nc lj4050hostname 9100 > > If that has cut off margins, it's a setting within the printer. > If it prints fine, it's CUPS. That test worked out beautifully. Apparently, it is a problem with CUPS settings. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpcPPG7sjDYE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: printing outside browser cuts off top and bottom of page
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 11:38:52AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: > > If your printer can do PS, you don't need CUPS; lpd does everything. > > If you just need to convert printing output (which traditionally *is* > PS) to PCL, you might be interested in using apsfilter. It's a lot > more lightweight than CUPS, better documented, faster, easier to > use. I do use it successfully with my HP Laserjet 4000 duplex, which's > PS is slower than its PCL, so I use PCL. I also think that apsfilter > keeps better to the tradidion and principles of UNIX, and it integrates > better with the FreeBSD OS. Is there much I'd need to know about apsfilter to use it with lpd? It seems to just be a filter used to process input and dump output, probably used in combination with lpr via pipes -- am I wrong about that? If that's the case, I'm sure it would be pretty straightforward. I was not entirely sure before today whether the 4050N could handle straight PostScript instead of PCL, but the test I performed using nc to see if it would print properly involved using pdf2ps and no other file format transformations, so it seems PS is fine in this case. I'd still like to understand how to solve the problem I'm having with CUPS, for my own edification, but whether I use the fix on this laptop in the long run or end up switching to lpd (with or without apsfilter) is still under consideration. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpkJFnHlC8t8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: printing outside browser cuts off top and bottom of page
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 02:42:18PM -0600, Warren Block wrote: > On Wed, 25 Aug 2010, Chad Perrin wrote: > > >I was not entirely sure before today whether the 4050N could handle > >straight PostScript instead of PCL, but the test I performed using nc to > >see if it would print properly involved using pdf2ps and no other file > >format transformations, so it seems PS is fine in this case. > > The LJ4050 is a great printer. The PS emulation works well and it's > very smart about paper trays and input. Sort of the Douglas DC3 of > lasers; I know of a couple with page counts over a million. > > For further information on lpd and filters, let me repost the link to my > lpd article, which I really should have posted yesterday but forgot: > > http://www.wonkity.com/~wblock/docs/html/lpdprinting.html Thanks. I'll be looking into lpd as a solution to my CUPS problem, since there still doesn't appear to be an easy fix for CUPS. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpyDD4yAOtEo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: printing outside browser cuts off top and bottom of page
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 01:31:06AM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote: > > What are the chances that that those 'problem' PDFs are designed for a > slightly _different_ paper size, and CUPS is -nto- 'scaling' to fit the > actual paper size? When printing via a method that bypasses CUPS (using netcat), it prints just fine -- and does not fit within the confines of the top and bottom margins that are cutting off the content when printing via CUPS. The PDF does extend outside of what might be considered "reasonable" margins for something like an interoffice memo, but does not run all the way to the edges of the paper; CUPS just doesn't want to print as far "north" and "south" as the PDF's content goes, evidently. > > I don't know diddly-squat about CUPS, but this sounds an awful lot like > what happens when a printer has 'letter' paper loaded, but has been told > that it has size 'A4' paper. CUPS in this case has definitely been told it has US Letter size paper. > > Look for configuration settings in whatever is doing the Postscript/PDF > rendering, with regard to 'substiting' one paper size for another. This has been addressed in other discussion in this thread. It is likely pdf2ps (part of ghostscript) that is doing the translation to PostScript; the other alternative is pdftops. Both of them provide a complete PostScript file, with all content on the page, but when either the PDF or the PS output of either of those tools is printed using CUPS the same problem arises. Using pdf2ps to produce PS output, which is then sent to the printer using netcat, produces a neatly printed page with no problems, however -- other than the minor problem that I'm using netcat to send jobs to my printer rather than a front end for a proper printing queue. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpB9LZu95btm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ports database
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 09:53:46PM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
>
> At least you need one machine with Internet connection to get
> the ports update, e. g. using "portsnap fetch extract" or
> "make update" (using csup). Once done, tar cf ports.tar /usr/ports
> and transfer the file to the server without Internet connection;
> finally extract it there.
Is that supposed to say this?
tar -cf ports.tar /usr/port
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
pgpGMNPDnaSv3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: ports database
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 08:36:18PM +0200, Polytropon wrote: > On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:07:45 -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > > Is that supposed to say this? > > > > tar -cf ports.tar /usr/port > > I think the - infront of the options string isn't neccessary for > tar, but it's optional in this case. So it is. All these years, I've completely overlooked the COMPATIBILITY section of the tar manpage. Thanks for the wake-up call. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpejCC5Ls3av.pgp Description: PGP signature
PDF to HTML translations
What PDF to HTML translators, other than pdftohtml, am I likely to be able to find in ports? I went looking for pdf2html, expecting to find that there, but no luck. Before I spend hours sifting through, still without knowing whether I missed something that should be obvious, I figured I'd ask here whether anyone knows of something off the top of his/her head. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpcfXqERGvTX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PDF to HTML translations
On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 10:31:54AM +0200, Erik Trulsson wrote: > On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 08:57:11AM +0200, Roland Smith wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 04, 2010 at 05:09:20PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > What PDF to HTML translators, other than pdftohtml, am I likely to be > > > able to find in ports? I went looking for pdf2html, expecting to find > > > that there, but no luck. Before I spend hours sifting through, still > > > without knowing whether I missed something that should be obvious, > > > > Yes, you did. :-) Apparently not. See below. > > > > > I > > > figured I'd ask here whether anyone knows of something off the top of > > > his/her head. > > > > Try textproc/pdftohtml > > Uhm, he said "other than pdftohtml" so I suspect he already knew about > that one. This is indeed the case. I appreciate the several suggestions I've received, though I see in retrospect that I haven't been sufficiently specific, since I have not gotten any suitable answers. I have "inherited" a Perl script that wraps pdftohtml. The reason a wrapper is needed is that a substantial amount of cleanup work is needed to produce HTML suitable to our final needs. The output of pdftohtml is sufficiently far from "perfect" that I would like to test the output of a few other possible "back ends" for the script to see if a significant amount of work being done by the script can be eliminated. Toward that end, the simpler the tool the better -- and the tool on the "back end" should not be something that must be contacted across a network, or that cannot be redistributed freely. I wanted to start with things I have in the base system on my FreeBSD laptop (where I'm doing my development) or through ports. OpenOffice.org is quite a bit larger and more unwieldy than we would really want to deal with at this point. Using Google or Adobe tools online is well outside the range of what we need (requiring network access for the tool to work). I've started looking at the Xpdf tools as well as pdftohtml. Other suggestions from within ports would be appreciated. Additional options other than what can be found in ports might also be useful, understanding the needs I sketched out above. The script itself is Perl, in case that matters. To everyone who has replied so far: thank you for your time. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpryAMsVtsNz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: PDF to HTML translations
On Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 12:04:37PM -0700, Chip Camden wrote: > > How about print/p5-PDFLib and print/pecl-pdflib to roll your own? Maybe > that's more work than you wanted. I've looked into the PDFLib and PDF modules for Perl in CPAN, but as far as I've been able to determine they don't offer any support for exporting to other formats. I'd love to find out I'm wrong. I've been meaning to sort out how to use SWISH::Filter::Pdf2HTML as a possibility, but haven't gotten around to it yet. Isn't PECL for PHP, though? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpWE3wCblyLA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: how to tell "ls" output date in digital
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 10:29:08AM -0400, Jerry McAllister wrote: > On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 01:11:39PM +, Pala, Santosh wrote: > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > The ls command with -E switch will give the required output. > > Doesn't for me. > Says -E is an illegal option. It works with AT&T's version of ls, apparently. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work with either BSD ls or GNU ls, though, so I'm not sure how it ended up being mentioned in this discussion. > > Running FreeBSd 8.1 stock ls. > > On the other hand, ls -lD "%F %T %Z" does nicely. . . . and you can easily alias that to lsd for easier use (and a chuckle). Note that this doesn't work with GNU ls, because Stallman and MacKenzie in their infinite wisdom decided GNU ls needed -D to produce output tailored to some Emacs functionality. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpMfUmonUtkw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: how to recursively symlink every file in a dir
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 04:28:59PM -0400, Garance A Drosehn wrote: > > I believe early X11-distributions had a script called "lndir" > would pretty much do exactly what you want here. And then > there was a companion command called "breakln" which would > remove the symlink and make a copy of the original file to > replace it. lndir is in ports: > pkgsearch lndir /usr/ports/devel/lndir I'm not so sure about a "breakln" being anywhere accessible, other than whatever tools you have handy. > > I don't know if X11 still has these commands (I haven't > installed X11 in at least 10 years), but I have my own > versions of them. Let me know if you can't find them, and > I'll send you copies of my scripts. I'd like to see what you have, even if the OP doesn't need them. Are they of your own making, or copied from somewhere? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpO9FBM8t3DL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: how to recursively symlink every file in a dir
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 08:23:09PM -0400, Garance A Drosehn wrote: > > It looks like my 'lndir' script started out as a copy of a > script named 'lndir.sh' that the XConsortium had in Oct 1988. [snip] > > Given that the port is written in C and much more recent, I > suspect it is the right way to go. For large directories it > is much faster than my script. I should check to see how > much work it'd be to add my formatting to the C version. > > The 'breakln' script might be something written here at RPI. > Looks like the last change to it was done in 1993. It is > pretty simple: [snip] Thanks for the information and the breakln script. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpxFz1N5xFMQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: this is probably a little touchy to ask...
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 08:16:51AM -0700, Chip Camden wrote: > > Perhaps someone could provide specific use cases for which Java is the > only good solution? I guess the only answer to that is "running applications someone wrote in Java" -- but I know that's *not* what you meant. > > I don't have Flash installed on my browser, and what I lack from that is > evident. I have yet to miss Java in any way. What problems would it > solve for people that can't be solved using a different approach? I have intentionally avoided installing Java for a long time. This has caused some issues with getting OpenOffice.org running, but the single use I've had for it in the last year (give or take) dried up a couple months or so ago, so that reason to care went away. I sure as heck have never actually *needed* Java in my browser, for any reason. Who still uses Java in the browser without some alternative for those who don't have it, these days? These days, it seems like the only places people *really* think they still need Java are smartphones and "enterprise" systems running on overpriced servers -- neither of which makes a difference for Firefox on the desktop. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgptlaEGLrQCm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GUI Suggested?
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 09:57:46PM -0600, Warren Block wrote: > > You don't have to choose one of those, there are lots of varied window > managers, and advocates for each. There's an overview here on fd.o: > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Desktops. Many of those are in ports. That's a much shorter list than I would have expected to find. This offers an incomplete (but longer) list of window managers, all of which are copyfree licensed: http://copyfree.org/software/#WM What I have been using for a few years is actually first in alphabetical order there -- AHWM. It is quite minimal and fast, with great keyboard shortcut support (a necessity, given that it's intended to be primarily keyboard driven). A much more comprehensive list of window managers is the Comprehensive List of Window Managers for Unix: http://www.gilesorr.com/wm/table.html KDE, GNOME, and XFCE are more than window managers -- they are "desktop environments". Some people like that kind of bloat . . . err, I mean "that kind of feature-richness". Other examples include GNUstep (which uses WindowMaker as its default window manager) and Enlightenment. If I *had* to choose a complete DE, rather than just a window manager, I'd probably go with Enlightenment. Since I don't have to, though, I stick with something *truly* lightweight like AHWM. Your mileage may vary, of course. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp1WjJ6Jjn6v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GUI Suggested?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:24:58PM -0500, Neal Hogan wrote: > > If you like xmonad, check out scrotwm. It's inspired by xmonad, > lightweight, written in C by oBSD dev, actively maintained, and > vim-like (among other things ;-). Why is "written in C" considered such a great benefit by the Scrotwm developer(s)? Earlier today, I read this on the site: "On the other hand xmonad has great defaults, key bindings and xinerama support but is crippled by not being written in C." What's up with that? How does Haskell "cripple" xmonad? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpWhokOr90bo.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GUI Suggested?
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 09:07:28PM -0500, Neal Hogan wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Glen Barber wrote: > > On 9/23/10 8:31 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:24:58PM -0500, Neal Hogan wrote: > >>> > >>> If you like xmonad, check out scrotwm. It's inspired by xmonad, > >>> lightweight, written in C by oBSD dev, actively maintained, and > >>> vim-like (among other things ;-). > >> > >> Why is "written in C" considered such a great benefit by the Scrotwm > >> developer(s)? Earlier today, I read this on the site: > >> > >> "On the other hand xmonad has great defaults, key bindings and > >> xinerama support but is crippled by not being written in C." > >> > > hahahahahahaha! > > >> What's up with that? How does Haskell "cripple" xmonad? > >> > > In the end, you need not take yourself so seriously. The thread was > generic enough to allow for some rhetorical flourish. I suggested > something . . . pointed out that is written in C (as did the homepage) > . . . AND you concluded some sort of insult; not my problem. > > Do you need a rim-shot for every joke? 1. Who said I took insult? You assume too much. 2. That was not a very clever joke, anyway. Where's the punchline? 3. That doesn't answer my question about the Scrotwm page. Even *I* am not so socially stunted as to think a comment like that on the Scrotwm site would not raise some eyebrows. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpWwsil6KpeG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Erlang and Java
Does anyone know of a reason that installing lang/erlang would fail if a java/diablo-jdk port failed to install? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Erlang VM really should *not* depend on Java. Right? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp6tfLZs6IEJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Erlang and Java
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 09:50:02AM -0700, Chip Camden wrote: > Quoth Chad Perrin on Friday, 24 September 2010: > > Does anyone know of a reason that installing lang/erlang would fail if a > > java/diablo-jdk port failed to install? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the > > Erlang VM really should *not* depend on Java. Right? > > Looking at the Makefile, it appears that WITHOUT_JAVA needs to be > defined to avoid a dependency. > > Looks likle that option is part of the config. > > make rmconfig > make install clean > > then make sure the first option is unchecked. Hmm. This did not come up in any configuration screens when I used portinstall to try installing it, as far as I recall. Annoying. Thanks. It seems to be working now. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp0geNWyRIOV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Which OS for notebook
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 01:11:30AM -0300, Leandro F Silva wrote: > > Which OS are you using on your notebook, FreeBSD / Linux or MAC ? > Also, can you tell us the hardware, Sony / HP etc.. I'm using FreeBSD on my Lenovo ThinkPad T60. One of the nice things about choosing FreeBSD for my laptop OS of choice is that, unlike MS Windows 7, I do not need to get the latest and greatest hardware to get acceptable performance. Of course, there are downsides to my choice, such as the lack of proper hardware acceleration with an AMD/ATI graphics adapter, but since I have stopped playing World of Warcraft (any computer game bores me after a little while), there is little need for that kind of thing. When deciding what to use, the first thing you need to do is figure out your needs. What kind of hardware do you need to support? How much ACPI support is "enough"? What do you need your software to do? There is no OS that does everything better than any other OS. This applies to Ubuntu, MS Windows, and FreeBSD (and pretty much everything else, too). Because my requirements for hardware are reasonably simple, my requirements for software capabilities take precedent. As such, out of the various OSes with which I am comfortable to some degree, I pretty much get to choose whatever OS I want. Given my requirements for software capabilities, FreeBSD is the obvious choice. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpJlLlJ0RLyU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Which OS for notebook
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 10:12:31PM +, Michel Talon wrote: > > Another thing to consider is the ease of maintaining the software on > the machine. My personal opinion is that Ubuntu (more generally Debian) > is light years ahead of FreeBSD in this domain. How is it "light years ahead" of FreeBSD for "the ease of maintaining the software on the machine"? I'm curious about what you mean. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpxTcjb7PqVu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Which OS for notebook
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 10:41:13PM -0300, Gonzalo Nemmi wrote: > > In my personal experience I have found that creating, maintaining and > handling rpm packages is a lot easier than creating ports or keeping the > software up to date using packages. I find working with the ports system easier, as an end user, than DEB- and RPM-based systems that I've used. I have never built DEB- or RPM-based packages, and the one time I tried creating a port I failed (though frankly I didn't try that hard -- it was just an experiment when I was bored one evening), so I guess I'll have to take your word for it when it comes to creating ports. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpVkyr6iqXcJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
third-party ports/packages sources
Is there some way to set up a third-party online source for ports and/or packages that allows users to do the same kinds of things they can do with the official ports system? I mean, for instance, using portversion to check whether there are new versions available (or an equivalent operation) and possibly even checking for security issues via portaudit. I see, looking at the manpage for portversion, this: PKG_DBDIR Alternative location for the installed package database. The default is ``/var/db/pkg''. PORTSDIR Alternative location for the ports tree and the ports database files. The default is ``/usr/ports''. I also see some stuff in pkgtools.conf comments that might pertain to this sort of thing, but I'm not entirely clear yet on how this might be used to access a third-party repository for ports without breaking normal operation. If there's a tutorial out there that would explain how to do something like this, I have not yet found it. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpEitpNPtUt0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Which OS for notebook
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 10:50:42AM -0700, David Brodbeck wrote: > On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 6:25 AM, Mark Blackman wrote: > > There's also the whole train of thought that says FreeBSD isn't really > > aimed at the desktop/laptop/notebook use model and any benefit in that arena > > is entirely coincidental. > > That tends to be my perspective. Linux tends to be more useful on > laptops and desktops, where up-to-the-minute hardware support is > needed. For servers, where stability is important, I tend to prefer > BSD, all other things being equal. Weird. I guess maybe my excellent experience of using FreeBSD on my ThinkPad is "wrong", and so is my experience of various Linux distributions having more maintenance issues than FreeBSD on similar hardware, and I should stop. > > Besides the mindshare issue that's been mentioned, part of the problem > here is the balkanized nature of open source licenses, too. Linux > driver code is useless to FreeBSD developers because the GPL isn't > compatible with the BSD license. I don't think that's the case. Maybe such drivers cannot be integrated directly with the base system without licensing issues, but it can certainly be distributed and installed when appropriate. It is, in fact, for this reason of compatibility that FreeBSD has had ZFS support where Linux-based systems have not. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpEnjZDz6QYq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Which OS for notebook
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 11:11:23AM +0700, Phan Quoc Hien wrote: > Hello everyone, > Which laptop vendor is best support for FreeBSD ? I've had good luck with ThinkPads. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgppdjrOCJnkm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Which OS for notebook
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 04:42:40PM +, Michel Talon wrote:
>
> I mean that the concept of maintaining a full set of binary packages
> which has been verified by the distribution maintainers and remain
> usable for an extended period of time, combined with an effective
> binary upgrader (apt-get, aptitude), is light years ahead, for ease of
> use and convenience, to a rolling release style "bazar" like FreeBSD
> ports, combined with tools like portupgrade, which sort of work only
> when you spend all your time running them daily, after having sacrificed
> a young virgin to the gods. I concede that the FreeBSD way allows to have
> very up to date ports, and to be in control of compilation options and
> so on. Personnally i don't have much use for these benefits.
I don't have the kinds of problems you imply. Portupgrade works great,
even if I don't touch it for a week or so, at least for me. There are
benefits to a rolling release process, too:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=4150
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
pgp4WYGFexWRM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: third-party ports/packages sources
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 10:18:54PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: [stuff] Thanks! That gives me a lot to look into. I appreciate the information. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpnxxRo3nzZg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Like it or not, Theo has a point... freebsd is shipping export-restricted software in the core
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 05:47:23PM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote: > > Pure and simple, _if_ there is software involved, there *MAY* be export- > control issues. > > *ANYONE* in the business of exporting software _should_ be aware of that > fact, and as a matter of basic 'due diligence' know about _their_ national > laws on the matter, and how/where to find out what kinds of software are > restricted, and on what basis. Anyone who stores software on GitHub, BitBucket, or SourceForge could conceivably be accuse of being "in the software export business" -- but I bet very few people who use those services ever think about that. Of course, practically speaking, the chances of ending up in US court simply for putting some simple home-brewed CMS on BitBucket are probably pretty slim, in my non-lawyer opinion. Still . . . not having a moment where one thinks about the possibility seems like a pretty clear indication that it is rare for a non-lawyer to consider *all* the possible ways to get in legal trouble for "exporting" software. I do not really think that implying someone is stupid for failing to consider all possibilities is productive, especially since if we all had to get legal help every time we started a GitHub project, we would have considerably fewer GitHub projects in the world. > > It is worth noting that since the original software author (Intel) put the > "it is possible an export license may be required under some circumstances" > notice on their software that anyone who takes said notice -off- had better > have (1) a -solid- professionally-rendered legal opinion that no such license > is required under _any_ circumstances, and (2) massive liability insuance > in case they are wrong. They could also just ask Intel, I suppose. There must be *someone* there who has the job of answering questions like this. I am pretty sure that Intel's stable of lawyers isn't as big as IBM's, but it might be close to the size of the US DOJ. Even if Intel said "Sure, go ahead, we don't care," I'd still be inclined to seek further advice more concerned with my own legal safety before removing any legal notices though -- aside from the tags on my matresses and pillows (for instance). -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgphjDhhH1dHJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Too many binary packages are missing
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 02:06:55PM -0400, Pierre-Luc Drouin wrote: > > I think it would be nice if at least one binary package was available with > the most "typical" dependencies. For example, I am not a native English > speaker, but I would not mind using the English version OO if I could > download it as a binary package... Just my $0.02... . . . without Java, given Java's licensing restrictions. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpH8EHUJYUr9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: chromium crashes
The problem I'm having is that I can't get a vi-like keybindings extension to work. I guess it's likely that most extensions haven't been tested for compatibility on FreeBSD, though. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpWKTWQ98yQ3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: chromium crashes
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:30:28AM -0700, Chip Camden wrote: > Quoth Chad Perrin on Monday, 18 October 2010: > > The problem I'm having is that I can't get a vi-like keybindings > > extension to work. I guess it's likely that most extensions haven't been > > tested for compatibility on FreeBSD, though. > > Are you trying vimperator, or some other extension? Oops. I appear to have accidentally replied directly to Chip instead of to the list. Basically, I said: I don't think there's a vimperator for Chrome. I have tried both YakShave and Vimium, however, and neither worked. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpKDRswZ1MTl.pgp Description: PGP signature
rugy-pg and rubygem-pg in ports
Is there any particular reason there are two copies of the PostgreSQL library for the Ruby programming language in FreeBSD ports? Do the ruby-pg and rubygem-pg ports differ in some meaningful way? The pkg-descr files for these ports do not give any really substantial clues to what differences, if any, exist between these two ports aside from the names. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp5ndp9cDtjv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Greybeards (Re: Netbooks & BSD)
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 07:25:14PM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > > And I'm appalled that my phone has more horsepower than a dual-cpu VAX > 11/780 with a floating-point accelerator. That just doesn't seem right. What I find appalling is that most of the extra power on my smartphone is wasted on useless crap that only gets in my way. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpW90OzWAa2s.pgp Description: PGP signature
[OT] writing filters in sh
I know that in sh you can get the contents out of files specified as
command line arguments:
while read data; do
echo $data
done <$@
I know you can also get the contents of files from pipes and redirects:
while read data; do
echo $data
done
In Perl, you can use a single construct to do both and, unlike the first
sh example, it can also take multiple filenames as arguments and
effectively concatenate their contents:
while (<>) {
print $_;
}
I'm not exactly an *expert* in sh, in part because when things start
getting "interesting" while I'm writing shell scripts I tend to just use
a more robust language like Perl. Please let me know if there's some way
to use a simple idiom like the Perl example to get the same results in
sh.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
pgpIHWHNamLxY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: okay, time to ask the wizards.
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 06:04:50PM -0700, Gary Kline wrote:
> I've got a very large file with paragraphs separated only by "\n".
> How do I put a blank line _after_ each newline?
perl -e 'while (<>) { s/$/\n/; print; }'
You could also open the file in vi or Vim and give it this command:
:%s/$/^M/
Note that you don't type in that ^M by using the ^ and M keys on the
keyboard. Instead, you first type ctrl-v then press the Enter key.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
pgpaTw6st1UGV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: okay, time to ask the wizards.
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 06:14:04PM -0700, Nerius Landys wrote: > You mean replace each newline character with two newline characters? > > perl -p -i -e 's/\n/\n\n/g' yourfile.txt The g in that is unnecessary. I'd also be inclined to use $ in the matching part of that regex than \n, and only require one newline character in the substitution part as a result: perl -pie 's/$/\n/' filename.txt Plus . . . I like pie. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpGpP9Q2VWV4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] writing filters in sh
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 08:11:48AM -0700, Chip Camden wrote: > > Here's a way to do what you're wanting to do. Unfortunately, it isn't a > generalized, single construct: > > #!/bin/sh > if [ $# -ge 1 ];then > exec cat $@ | $0 > exit > fi > > while read data; do > echo $data > done > > My lame attempts to generalize the first paragraph into an alias, > function, or shell script have met with disappointment. I was hoping for a generalized, simple idiom for this, rather than needing to implement it myself, for demonstration purposes (and for easy reuse later, of course). Your solution does not exactly fit my preferences for simplicity, but I might include it in an article I'm writing anyway. It's simple and readable enough that it should not clutter up the article much. I tested it for some simple use cases, and it works well. Thanks for saving me a little trouble. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpizZeoyZjA6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Vimium on Chromium on FreeBSD
Last night, I decided to read a little bit about Chromium browser extensions, and peeked at the source for the Vimium extension to see what was wrong with it. Vimium is one of several Chromium extensions that provide some vi-like keybindings, and arguably the one with the best vi-like experience. Unfortunately, it is not quite up to the standards of Vimperator on Firefox, but it is definitely better than nothing. Also unfortunately, it does not install on FreeBSD in its current official form. It only produces an error. I cloned the GitHub repository to my laptop and figured out how to tweak it so that it *would* install, but it's an ugly (if simple) hack and not the "right" way to do things, I think. As such, it is not the sort of thing that is likely to be a good idea to submit upstream to the Vimium maintainer -- at least until I can determine *why* the official Vimium does not install on FreeBSD's Chromium browser port. If you want details about how I got Vimium to install, and on Vimium plus FreeBSD in general, I chronicled the experience in my personal devlog: http://blogstrapping.com/?page=2010.308.12.13.14 -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpGIBuLJr8HV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Vimium on Chromium on FreeBSD
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 02:25:23PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: > > Vimium is one of several Chromium extensions that provide some vi-like > keybindings, and arguably the one with the best vi-like experience. > Unfortunately, it is not quite up to the standards of Vimperator on > Firefox, but it is definitely better than nothing. Also unfortunately, > it does not install on FreeBSD in its current official form. It only > produces an error. I figured out why the version of Chromium in ports does not support the URL scheme wildcard: that was a feature of the matches value that was added in Chromium v6.x. Chromium is up to 7.x now, but the version in FreeBSD ports is still 5.0.x, so my ugly "fix" is necessary to make Vimium installable. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpbpemqKeh6O.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Vimium on Chromium on FreeBSD
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 08:32:11PM -0400, Chris Brennan wrote: > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > > So are there plans to get 7x into ports? I would love to go back to Chrome > as a browser ... I find Firefox so clunky now! :D Well . . . I have no idea what plans there are for updating the port, since I'm not the port maintainer for Chromium. On the other hand, 5.x is still smother and nicer than Firefox in many, many ways. The real limitations for Chromium are the restrictions that apply to extension development. If those restrictions don't really affect you, if for instance you don't care about vi-like keybindings and don't use KB SSL Enforcer on Chromium or HTTPS Everywhere on Firefox (so you don't care about the fact that Chromium's extension system limits KB SSL Enforcer's functionality so that it leaks data that should have been encrypted), then you could start using Chromium on FreeBSD now. Just install it from ports. I'm not *too* worried about getting the most up-to-date version of my browser, as long as the version I'm using doesn't have security vulnerabilities addressed in later versions, unless there is a specific feature I need. In this case, there *are* some specific features I want, features for extension development that should fix some of the flakiness of Vimium. Your mileage may vary, of course. I'm basically going back to using Firefox, after figuring out how to get Vimium installed (but not operating properly), I think. 5.x just doesn't support what I need, and I don't have the time and specific skills needed to submit updates to the port myself. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpoYJTlHDTLm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Vimium on Chromium on FreeBSD
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 12:55:41AM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 08:32:11PM -0400, Chris Brennan wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:21 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
> >
> > So are there plans to get 7x into ports? I would love to go back to Chrome
> > as a browser ... I find Firefox so clunky now! :D
>
> Well . . . I have no idea what plans there are for updating the port,
> since I'm not the port maintainer for Chromium. On the other hand, 5.x
> is still smother and nicer than Firefox in many, many ways. The real
s/smother/smoother/
oops
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
pgp9dFsnfpBgD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: ZFS License and Future
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 03:11:47PM -0400, Alejandro Imass wrote: > > A while back I started the thread "Troubles on SATA drives ZFS". I > decided to bring the zpool down check each disk and re-construct the > pool. Nevertheless, I was revising one of the ZFS error message links > and Oracle made me create a developer id to access the info. This > really pissed me off even more than teh Android suit, so it got me > thinking... > > Maybe I should go back to UFS, CCD, GEOM, etc. instead of continuing > to support f***ing Oracle. ZFS was honestly very easy and seemed very > reliable and fast, but I would like the opinion and position of people > here on ZFS before I continue using it. Frankly, it may be a couple of years before Oracle even decides what it will do with ZFS in the long run. I have not started using it to any substantial degree and, considering the change in ownership, I'm unlikely to start using it if I do not have an immediate, specific use-case that calls for the capabilities of ZFS in particular. . . . on top of which, I don't feel a need to do Oracle any favors. Your mileage may vary, of course. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpQadNFz73Ra.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ZFS License and Future
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 08:25:05PM +0100, Svein Skogen (Listmail account) wrote: > > Well ... CDDL was (iirc) based on the Mozilla Public License. Are you > similarly worried about Thunderbird or Firefox? I think Alejandro's more worried about what will happen with future versions of ZFS based on the company that now owns the copyrights, which is not (in any meaningful way I've been able to determine) at all similar to the Mozilla Foundation. Yes, the current stable version is CDDL. Will the next be purely proprietary, or some new license, or simply discontinued? Will Oracle start using patent suits to try to stop people who aren't paying for ZFS or who are using it on platforms other than Solaris from using it? Whether you think concerns like these will prove reasonable in the long run, they make a lot more sense than assuming that Alejandro just wonders if the CDDL is "dangerous" somehow. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpFUsckKJ3NZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ssmtp - possible anomaly with SSL
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 07:23:39AM -0400, Steven Friedrich wrote: > I recently figured out how to send mail thru my ISP ID using ssmtp. I had > previously only been using KMail, and I had it configured to use port 465 > SSL > LOGIN. > > I can send mail when I don't use port 465: > mailhub=mail.InsightBB.com > > but if I add the port 465 a,d enable SSL with: > UseTLS=YES > > then I use the -v switch and also -auFreeBSD -apPassword > as in smtp -v -auFreeBSD -apPassword free...@insightbb.com > > and the messages all indicate success, but the mail never arrives. It does > when I don't use SSL on port 465. > > KMail does work with SSL on port 465. I'm not entirely clear on what you're using as a mail user agent. Are you still using KMail as your MUA, but using ssmtp to send the emails to your SMTP server, or have you switched MUAs when you started using ssmtp? Chris Brennan suggested you send more information; in addition to answering my question, it might be useful to give us the information Chris requested -- but make sure you obscure any username/password information. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpU2tev6gfP9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ZFS License and Future
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 11:44:28PM -0500, Steven Susbauer wrote: > On 11/5/10 5:19 PM, Alejandro Imass wrote: > >Precisely. This is Larry Ellison's position on Open Source: > > > > > >If an open source product gets good enough, we'll simply take it. > >[...] So the great thing about open source is nobody owns it – a > >company like Oracle is free to take it for nothing, include it in our > >products and charge for support, and that's what we'll do. So it is > >not disruptive at all – you have to find places to add value. Once > >open source gets good enough, competing with it would be insane. [...] > >We don't have to fight open source, we have to exploit open source. > > > >Source: Financial Times interview, 18-Apr-2006 > >http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto041820061306424713 > > It sounds like he's probably a big fan of the BSD license. I do not see > how this is a bad thing, other than he uses potentially inflammatory > words like "exploit." The basics of what he says are exactly what Red > Hat has done from the beginning, and Apple with OS X. Note he says "take > it for nothing," he is not referring to buying companies but the > practice of including/distributing this software and providing support > for the entirety. It *does* seem that way, at first glance. Taken in the context of Oracle's recent behavior, though, a less pleasant picture emerges. Combining Oracle's willingness to violate the spirit of open source software development in the case of the Google/Java lawsuit with its willingness to essentially end an open source project as with Solaris, we end up with a situation where it becomes risky to rely on the open source status of anything Oracle "owns", regardless of the license under which it is distributed. What happens if Oracle decides to close up a previously open project on which your projects rely? Will Oracle lawyers find some patent related to the creation of that software the company "owns" and use that to sue you if you fork the project to ensure the survival of your own development projects? It seems somewhat likely, somehow. As much as I think MySQL and OpenOffice.org are crappy software in many respects, I'm glad they've both been forked following Oracle's acquisition, if only because they can serve as tests of Oracle's readiness to sue people for forking the company's "intellectual property". -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgputUKbiYIvq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ZFS License and Future
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 09:16:05AM +0200, App Deb wrote: > On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Steven Susbauer wrote: > > > Android uses the Java language, but this is not what that suit is about. > > Oracle claims the Dalvik VM infringes on their patents. If Android was using > > the Java VM there would be no lawsuit. Sun was able to successfully sue > > Microsoft for similar reasons in 1997 (incomplete implementation of the Java > > standard). Somehow people continued using Java, despite this. > > Actually they were not. If I remember correctly, the Microsoft Java VM > was abandoned because of this and everyone had to switch to the Sun > one. I think Steven was saying that people are still using Java the language, not that they're still using Microsoft's Java implementation. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpstWNYXBsOL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ZFS License and Future
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 11:25:13PM -0500, Steven Susbauer wrote: > On 11/5/10 4:34 PM, Chad Perrin wrote: > >Will Oracle start using patent suits to try to stop people > >who aren't paying for ZFS or who are using it on platforms other than > >Solaris from using it? > > > >Whether you think concerns like these will prove reasonable in the long > >run, they make a lot more sense than assuming that Alejandro just wonders > >if the CDDL is "dangerous" somehow. > > > > I would be surprised. Oracle (real Oracle, not Sun) is still the primary > developer of btrfs on Linux. They are pretty much going for feature > parity with ZFS and want people to actually use it. If they start suing > over ZFS patents which are certainly applicable to btrfs, it will have > repercussions on that side. Perhaps. On the other hand, Oracle could offer some kind of "patent covenant" protecting btrfs while going after a ZFS fork as a way of "focing" people to migrate from it to btrfs, as a more hostile way of achieving what Microsoft does when it ends support for an older OS to get people to buy the newer Windows release. . . . or maybe Oracle will decide it doesn't need the open source community's help any longer at some future date, and shut down *both* open source filesystem development projects. Oracle is known to be at least intermittently hostile toward open source software, in ways that are sometimes more frightening than Microsoft's hostility. This is scaring people, and I don't blame them. The uncertainty about Oracle's future position on everything it has acquired with Sun is something that will need to be tested and observed to see how it shakes out in the next few years; in the meantime, I do not blame anyone for being cautious about committing to use of open source software under the Oracle umbrella. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpp1MmYMhx2Q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ssmtp - possible anomaly with SSL
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 12:54:39PM -0400, Chris Brennan wrote: > On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Steven Friedrich > wrote: > > > > I still use KMail for my essential email. Okay, thanks for clarifying, Steven. > > > > And the verbose output indicates success. I didn't post it, just stated > > what > > it was. > > > > But when I configure SSL on port 465, it also shows a good exchange, but > > maybe I didn't wait long enough to see it get thru the ISP's system. > > > > So my SSL version of ssmtp.conf is: > > root=free...@insightbb.com > > mailhub=mail.InsightBB.com:465 > > rewriteDomain=InsightBB.com > > hostname=_HOSTNAME_ > > # Use SSL/TLS to send secure messages to server. > > UseTLS=YES > > > > The verbose option indicated success when sending an email from > > root. Let me verify that it wasn't my mistake for not waiting > > longer... . . . and you said that setting it to send email through mail.insightbb.com:465 in KMail config works. Right? In addition to Chris Brennan's article references, there's another that I wrote quite some time ago that I think explains ssmtp config for TLS use pretty well: http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=440 From what you said so far, it seems like ssmtp is configured correctly. It seems likely, then, that the problem is with KMail or with something filtering port 465. Does KDE have something going on with firewall management that might be allowing KMail to send stuff on port 465 while outside of KDE's "help" you cannot? Have you checked to see whether you can send with your TLS settings for ssmtp from outside of KMail? If you are not wedded to ssmtp per se, you could always try msmtp instead: http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=1842 It does much the same sort of stuff as ssmtp, but is a bit more "feature rich", and appears to be more actively maintained than ssmtp. > > /var/log/maillog is where you will see success/fail. Your config looks good > to me, so I would watch maillog while sending mail and see what crops up. It appears that Chris Brennan knows a bit about this subject. Yes, that file may prove useful in troubleshooting this issue. If you are having trouble figuring out whether maillog has anything to offer for hints, you might want to paste its contents into pastebin and give us a link to it there so we can give it a look (after checking to make sure you are not pasting any sensitive data, of course). -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgp4vEGMWEDJJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ZFS License and Future
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 06:52:19PM +, krad wrote: > > the main problem is geom and ufs isnt a like for like replacement yet. Good > as though geom is it just not as easy as zfs from an adminsistration point > of view in my opinion. It may potentinally get a block checksum class but it > will be a long time before its like for like. I have not really spent any quality time with ZFS, so I'm a little sketchy on the details. Is there anything the checksumming capabilities of ZFS do that cannot be duplicated with an external tool -- perhaps something like a filesystem integrity auditing system? > > I've had a play around with btrfs, which is supposed to be an opensource > equivelent to zfs. It is far from ready yet though. It may mature into a > good product in the future, but its a long way off and far from polished > (dam horrible from what ive seen so far). Most of its development was backed > by oracle though from what i have read, so who knows where that will go now. > If oracle want to continue to push linux and it to have a decent fs, it may > well just be easier for them to drop the licensing issues with cddl which > was preventing zfs from making it into linux. Who knows but for anything in > the near to medium future there is nothing to rival zfs on the opensource > market. As far as I'm aware, btrfs has not been ported to any BSD Unix systems, either -- so there's a major downside to btrfs (as compared with ZFS). > > Having said all that it really depends on whether you need the extra > features of zfs. Personally I cant see how anyone with any important data > can do without checksuming. I guess that depends on what you're doing with the data and what kind of external tools you have in place to protect/duplicate it in case of a problem. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpXi4bBsOBXE.pgp Description: PGP signature
