Linux-Development-Sys Digest #363, Volume #8 Tue, 19 Dec 00 23:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Do "Lions' Commentary on UNIX" good for knowing unix kernal? (Pete Zaitcev)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Ronald Cole)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Sam Holden)
Re: is there a linux checkpoint facility? (Eric Taylor)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications ("Jeffrey B.
Siegal")
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Fergus
Henderson)
How to generate kernel crash dumps/ savecores? (Mike Lee)
semaphore problem (Marty)
Buffalo Card Bus ("owl")
cpqimlview: Compaq Health & Wellness Drivers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! (jtnews)
Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications (Isaac)
Re: semaphore problem (Kaz Kylheku)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Zaitcev)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.programmer,comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Do "Lions' Commentary on UNIX" good for knowing unix kernal?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:28:07 GMT
> > From many classic review, the book "Lions' Commentary on UNIX 6th
> > edition : with source code " is the most excellent point of learn unix
> > system. So I borrow it from my library, and then I find out that it is
> > the source code with comment, as it state, but nothing more. Seen to me
> > that it is a bit harder to read because I am a java programmer. Only
> > learn C, ASM and Unix programming at college, with really less
> > experience of these stuff. Do this book still suitable for me? or is
> > there are better choice to learn more about Unix kernal?
>
> Try these:
> _The Design and Implementation of the 4.3BSD UNIX Operating System_ by
> Leffler, McKusick, Karels and Quarterman
> _Operating Systems Design and Implementation_ by Tanenbaum and
> Woodhall
> _The Design of the UNIX Operating System_, Bach
Uresh Valhallia's book with the scavenger on sitting on the BSD
grave is actually good.
The 4.3 book is somewhat interesting but it skims the surface in
many places. I looked at it when I considered doing ufs in Linux,
and it provided not much of a substance :)
Lions is great for historical value. I used to have PDP-11 at
home and it ran the code that desribed by Lions.
There is an attempt to comment Linux in the same way, I saw
it in B&N the other day. Unfortunately for its authors, Linux
is a moving target.
Tannenbaum is the hawk of microkernels as we all know :)
Maurice Bach was great, I owned a 5-th photocopy of it
when it was impossible to find.
--Pete
------------------------------
From: Ronald Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: 19 Dec 2000 15:02:27 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> E. Robert Tisdale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Last time I checked, the President of the United States
> >was elected by the United States Supreme Court.
>
> No, he was elected by electors, based on rulings made by a number of
> courts and lawyers.
Actually, all the rulings were overturned and no remedy issued forth.
The Secretary of State's certification after adding the hand counts by
order of the Florida supreme court (which was reversed after the
certification) is really a difference with no difference: Bush won
either way.
> It's always annoying when a system of laws is actually *used*.
The end result was exactly what the Florida Supreme Court said after
the second remand: the Florida Election Code, as it existed on
election day, did not provide for a remedy. In effect: there were no
laws that could be used to resolve the question of the chad.
--
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
Ronald Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phone: (760) 499-9142
President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam Holden)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: 19 Dec 2000 23:19:45 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 07:56:57 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Isaac wrote:
>> If the machine is
>> spitting out some ballots uncounted, wouldn't it make some
>> sense to look at the uncounted ones if only to determine if the
>> machine were working properly?
>
>Was there any evidence that the machines were not working within their
>design paramters?
I have found the news coverage of this US election very humourous and a
little interesting. Our current government is the Coalition (the Liberal
and National parties - the Liberal party is confusingly enough not the
liberal end of mainstream politics but the conservative end...) so I guess
our media would like annoying them and thus be biased towards the Democrats...
Does the Florida election code (I'm guessing it's a state issue) say what
error rate is acceptable in a vote counting machine? Or could they use the
new Democrat2000 which only counts the votes for democrats and discards all
others...?
The way the recounts that were done progresses were very strange to me. How
can one side be so dominant in the reocunting of the machine rejected ballots?
The recount should have no effect since the chance of a rejection should be
the same no matter who the vote was for. I can only guess that there were more
stupid people who voted democrat, or more weak people who can't punch a hole
in a ballot who voted democrat, or more not working correctly machines in
democrat leaning polling booths. None of those options seem very satisfactory.
Another alternative is that the hand counters are biased towards democrats, but
that also seems unlikely since assumming you use a similar system to us, a
republican and a democrat observor get to check every ballot...
We hand count every vote here - and we use a preferential system that means
counting is much more complicated, luckily we have a tiny population so it
doesn't cost too much... I still can't see the problem with hand counting all
the machine rejected ballots (checking a sample of the counted ones to make
sure the machine is working as well), if there is a statistical difference
between the hand and machine counted ones then you have a problem with the
election hardware somewhere along the line (probably the punchers not the
counters) that really should be found and fixed.
If it takes until January to count them, then wait until January. I'm sure
Clinton won't mind staying on a couple of weeks ;)
The Supreme Court ruling was very strange, but understandable. The courts are
not apolitical after all, if they were stacked the other way the ruling would
probably have been equally strange. Not counting ballots that are valid
according to the appropriate election codes because the clock has run out due
to the courts stopping the counting while they made up their minds at each
step seems a remarkably stupid thing to do.
You Americans are going to have a fun 4 years I guess... Especially when they
unofficially recount those ballots and see who would have won if the
deadline had been a little later (I'm guessing the media will do that as fast
as they can)....
Anyway I've gotten in enough kill files now...
--
------------------------------
From: Eric Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: is there a linux checkpoint facility?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:46:40 GMT
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:07:18 GMT, Eric Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hi:
> >
> >Does anyone know of a checkpointing utility/capability
> >for linux?
>
> There exist some kernel patches for doing process checkpointing.
> You can freeze dry a process and some of its resources like open
> file descriptors, and then restart it later.
Do you know where I can find these?
Eric
------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:17:16 -0800
Sam Holden wrote:
> Does the Florida election code (I'm guessing it's a state issue) say what
> error rate is acceptable in a vote counting machine?
I don't believe so. The error rates which appear legally acceptable are
absolutely atrocious, and precluded ever determining an objectively
accurate winner in such a close race.
> Or could they use the
> new Democrat2000 which only counts the votes for democrats and discards all
> others...?
I suspect that such a machine would violate the Equal Protection clause
of the Constitution which prohibits states from legislating in favor of
any particular group. In general, this is a gray area, which has to be
decided by litigation on a case-by-case basis. Your hypothetical
machine would almost certainly fail, but apparently rules that say the
dominant party gets its candidate at the top of the ballot is
acceptable, at least so far. (FWIW, California arranges its ballots
randomly.)
> How
> can one side be so dominant in the reocunting of the machine rejected ballots?
> The recount should have no effect since the chance of a rejection should be
> the same no matter who the vote was for.
The counties being recounted were those where there was a majority of
Democratic votes. Those were the counties which tended to use the older
and more problem-prone punch-card machines. So even if the chance of a
rejection was the same, more of the votes would tend to be Democratic,
in those counties.
> Another alternative is that the hand counters are biased towards democrats, but
> that also seems unlikely since assumming you use a similar system to us, a
> republican and a democrat observor get to check every ballot...
There is some subtlety here. There was a Republican, and Democrat, and
a representative of the county board of elections. Since these were
Democratic counties, the boards of elections were controlled by
Democrats, so one could argue that the representative was likely to be
Democratic leaning, though this person need not *necessarily* have been
a Democrat.
> Not counting ballots that are valid
> according to the appropriate election codes because the clock has run out due
> to the courts stopping the counting while they made up their minds at each
> step seems a remarkably stupid thing to do.
The Court ruled that the way the votes were being counted was illegal,
so it wouldn't have mattered if they let the counting continue while
they made up their minds, because that count would have been thrown out
anyway.
The only count that could have been legally valid would have been one
that started after the court made its ruling and then a state-wide
counting standard was established. But there wasn't time for that,
according to Florida law, so the vote count had to stay the way it was.
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:21:26 GMT
Kasper Dupont wrote:
>
> jtnews wrote:
> >
> > The Intel Easy PC camera is not supported in Linux!
> > You can't even write a driver for it!
> >
> > I got it as a "free" add-on with my new Dell Dimension
> > L600cx, but now it seems I made the wrong choice!
> >
> > Why does a $40 cheapo camera have to be proprietary for
> > Intel? I thought Intel made all their money because they make
> > huge volumes of flash memory chips over their competitors.
> >
> > I better choose the Lexmark color printer as a free add on next
> > time!
> >
>
> Of course it is posible to write a driver for that
> camera, but you would have to reverse engineer the
> protocols.
>
> Depending on how it is connected you could hook in
> a piece of hardware or software to watch the
> communication.
>
> I don't understand Intel's policy, a Linux driver
> would allow more people to use the camera and then
> they could expect to sell more cameras. But
> perhaps they have some secret agreement with MS.
>
> --
> Kasper Dupont
Probably it is a "Windows only" camera. It uses the PC cpu and memory to
operate the camera rather than electronics in the camera. Windows
continually polls the camera for data. This makes the camera lots
cheaper to build, but uses up computer resources. Works fine on a single
user/ single task OS, but not under a multiuser multitasking OS like
Linux (or Solaris or BSD). So you truly can't write a driver for Linux.
At least not one that would make anyone happy.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fergus Henderson)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: 20 Dec 2000 01:17:45 GMT
"Jeffrey B. Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Isaac wrote:
>> If the machine is
>> spitting out some ballots uncounted, wouldn't it make some
>> sense to look at the uncounted ones if only to determine if the
>> machine were working properly?
>
>Was there any evidence that the machines were not working within their
>design paramters?
Why do you ask?
If you're implying that the uncounted ballots should not be looked at
unless there is some evidence that the machines were not working
within their design parameters, that sounds like a catch-22
requirement, since the most obvious way of obtaining such evidence
would be precisely by looking at the ballots.
--
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "I have always known that the pursuit
| of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
------------------------------
From: Mike Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: How to generate kernel crash dumps/ savecores?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:23:57 -0800
Hello:
I would like to setup a few RH6.2 boxes to save any crash information. In
Solaris one can enable crash dumps (to /var/crash) and/or use the savecore
command to dump it to a file. After which you can anaylze the dumps with
adb/kdb and other tools to determine the system's instructions leading up to the
crash.
I cannot seem to find any similar command or configuration in linux. I have
searched and read many documents, but have not found an answer. The closest I
have come was to find a crash dump analysis kit at:
http:://www.missioncriticallinux.com/technology/crash/
This requires recompiling the kernel with a core dump patch.
I am looking for a way to generate crash dumps without patching and recompiling
the kernel.. If anyone knows how to do this, could you please post/email me
instructions or point me to some documentation describing the procedure.
Thanks in advance,
Mike Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems Admin Homegain.com
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: semaphore problem
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:00:10 +0800
I am concurrently using semaphore in C for doing synchronization.
Though it is non-blocking, I found that my call to sem_post sometimes
costs several tens to hundred of milliseconds to return.
That lot of time will be very critical to my program.
Can anyone explain to me what 's happening ??? and how can make it
return immediately ?
------------------------------
From: "owl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Buffalo Card Bus
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:45:52 +0800
I has just bought a Buffalo SCSI-III PCMICA Card (Card Bus) and it is about
the half price of Adaptect-1480.
Do anybody know if there is Linux driver for it ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: cpqimlview: Compaq Health & Wellness Drivers
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 02:43:58 GMT
Guys,
I'm wondering if anyone out there has the Compaq Health and Wellness
Drivers for Linux working on a Slackware box...
I've installed Slackware on a Compaq ML530 and would like to use their
wellness drivers, but am having a problem with one of the executables
that they provide. Specifically, it's /sbin/imlbe. I get a seg fault
when running this.
Does anyone know if I can obtain the source and compile it myself for
Slackware?
If anyone has had any luck with this, please let me know.
Thanks.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:51:38 -0500
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
If I reverse engineer the camera protocol through the USB interface,
develop a Linux driver, distribute the driver under the GPL
over the Internet, can I be sued by Intel for violating their
intellectual property?
Kasper Dupont wrote:
>
> jtnews wrote:
> >
> > The Intel Easy PC camera is not supported in Linux!
> > You can't even write a driver for it!
> >
> > I got it as a "free" add-on with my new Dell Dimension
> > L600cx, but now it seems I made the wrong choice!
> >
> > Why does a $40 cheapo camera have to be proprietary for
> > Intel? I thought Intel made all their money because they make
> > huge volumes of flash memory chips over their competitors.
> >
> > I better choose the Lexmark color printer as a free add on next
> > time!
> >
>
> Of course it is posible to write a driver for that
> camera, but you would have to reverse engineer the
> protocols.
>
> Depending on how it is connected you could hook in
> a piece of hardware or software to watch the
> communication.
>
> I don't understand Intel's policy, a Linux driver
> would allow more people to use the camera and then
> they could expect to sell more cameras. But
> perhaps they have some secret agreement with MS.
>
> --
> Kasper Dupont
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c++,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 02:21:40 GMT
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 07:56:57 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Isaac wrote:
>> If the machine is
>> spitting out some ballots uncounted, wouldn't it make some
>> sense to look at the uncounted ones if only to determine if the
>> machine were working properly?
>
>Was there any evidence that the machines were not working within their
>design paramters?
Please forgive me for ducking the issue, but I'm quite exhausted on the
topic. I responded to the last poster in a moment of weakness.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: semaphore problem
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:43:06 GMT
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:00:10 +0800, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am concurrently using semaphore in C for doing synchronization.
>Though it is non-blocking, I found that my call to sem_post sometimes
>costs several tens to hundred of milliseconds to return.
>That lot of time will be very critical to my program.
>Can anyone explain to me what 's happening ??? and how can make it
>return immediately ?
This observation is consistent with the clock tick period on 80x86 Linux, which
is ten milliseconds. What happened is that your thread got descheduled to run
some other thread, like perhaps one which is woken up by the sem_post.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to the
comp.os.linux.development.system newsgroup.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Development-System Digest
******************************
