Re: dumb 802.11g question
On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 09:12:38AM -0500, Chris Nandor wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Drieux) wrote: since apple has announced it's new 802.11g initiative with it's 17 laptop - does this mean that they will not be working on any of the 802.11a options of going into the 5Ghz range so as to avoid the 2.4gHz spread spectrum first generation phones Steve Jobs essentially ridiculed 802.11a in his talk, because it is not compatible with 802.11b, so I highly doubt Apple has any plans to do 802.11a. The press I've been reading about Apple's 802.11g announcement makes it sound like *no-one* is going with 802.11a. SPJ isn't the only one ridiculing the technology. :-) Z.
the mystery of the LWP/HTML::Parser make failures
ok, so i'm flailing a bit here in the vast caves of my UNIX ignorance trying to get the LWP bundle to make under perl 5.8.0 and OS X 10.2.3. the net has been little help, though it sounds similar to the problem that Manu was having in a previous post. basically, LWP was working fine under 5.6 and previous versions of the OS (and i may have to revert), but is being all nasty under this new configuration. one possible lead is the failure of HTML::Parser to make... it just gives me the error In file included from Parser.xs:19: /System/Library/Perl/darwin-thread-multi/CORE/perl.h:3927: sys/sem.h: No such file or directory and craps out. a little spelunking into this sem.h file (one of the many items bits-o-UNIX-i-do-not-understand category) says that it is supposed to provide basic semaphore facility, which seems to be a set of values that convey information back and forth between processes. a quick look into the /usr/include/sys/ directory finds that apple has a snazzy semaphore.h file, but no sem.h . sem.h is mysteriously nowhere to be found. so, i says to myself, maybe i can track a darwin-specific version of this sucker down on the net and put a copy where it can find it. found one (v1.6), tried it, and still nothing. likewise i tried redirecting perl to semaphore.h instead of sem.h. no luck, just different errors. sem.h may well be a red herring in my ultimate search to unravel the mystery of the failed LWP make. i'm tempted to do a forced install of LWP, but that seems crude and i also need HTML::Parser facility. has anyone else encountered this problem and feel like sharing their insights? does anyone know what's up with the sem.h file on darwin anyway? did dubya really say that the problem with guns that are hidden is you can't see their smoke? thanks for your patience and your indulgence. /b --- It was from the artists and the poets that the pertinent answers came, and I know that panic would have broken loose had they been able to compare notes. hp lovecraft, the call of cthulhu
Re: the mystery of the LWP/HTML::Parser make failures
well, installing the (dec) devtools did the trick... i had just ruled it out because i installed them alongside of OS 10.2, and couldn't imagine that something that seemed so fundamental (like sem.h) would be missing. but, casting my mind back to the hazy days of last november, i seem to remember Norton (yes i know, i was a bit of an idiot to install it in the first place) kakking out on a file, and sem.h might very well have been it. even if it wasn't, i like blaming Norton for things, so i'm going to say it was Systemwork's fault. better than blaming myself, that's for sure. thanks again. sometimes you just need look at the obvious. /b On 1/11/03 4:18 PM, Wiggins d'Anconia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Kennedy wrote: snip a quick look into the /usr/include/sys/ directory finds that apple has a snazzy semaphore.h file, but no sem.h . sem.h is mysteriously nowhere to be found. This seems weird, but I have a /usr/include/sys/sem.h file , and it is exactly the same as my: /System/Library/Frameworks/Kernel.framework/Versions/A/Headers/sys/sem.h file. I am running 10.2.3, with the Dec. Dev tools. snip If perl is complaining about this I would expect you to be having other problems with running perl scripts than just with installing a module, have you noticed anything else abnormal or have you tried running some other perl scripts?? http://danconia.org
And I thought it was 5.6?
Just installed Mail::Sendmail. Part of its test is to send an email. The test worked fine, but I was surprised by the message: This is a test message sent with Perl version 5.006 from a darwin system. Jeez, I was feeling guilty about not installing Perl 5.8, but I thought my iMac came with Perl 5.6. Be that as it may, the Perl code print $]\n; produces 5.006 on my system. Am I missing something here? On the terminal, % perl -V produces the first line Summary of my perl5 (revision 5.0 version 6 subversion 0) configuration: Doesn't this mean I am using Perl 5.6? Why doesn't $] contain 5.6? Regards, Vic
Re: And I thought it was 5.6?
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Vic Norton wrote: Just installed Mail::Sendmail. Part of its test is to send an email. The test worked fine, but I was surprised by the message: This is a test message sent with Perl version 5.006 from a darwin system. Jeez, I was feeling guilty about not installing Perl 5.8, but I thought my iMac came with Perl 5.6. Be that as it may, the Perl code print $]\n; produces 5.006 on my system. Am I missing something here? Yeah, but don't worry -- it *is* needlessly confusing... :) In a nutshell, after Perl 5 came out, the releases that followed weren't considered to be anything more than patches, so the version number was only incremented slightly. As in: * Perl 5.000 in October 1994 * 5.001 in March 1995 * 5.002 in February 1996 * 5.003 in June 1996 * [not sure about 5.004, but I see a past-tense reference to versions 5.003_07, 5.003_24, and 5.004_66 from a July of 1997 citation] * 5.005 in July 1998 * finally 5.006/5.6 in March 2000 At that point, it had more or less been decided that after six years, new versions deserved to count for more than a thousandth of an upgrade, but for back-compatibility the older notation still shows up here there. So 5.006x is equivalent to 5.6.x, and 5.7.x or 5.8.x are equivalent to 5.007x and 5.008x, respectively. Copious details available at http://history.perl.org/PerlTimeline.html. -- Chris Devers[EMAIL PROTECTED] time slice, n. The occasional CPU cycle begrudgingly conceded by the operating system to the user. Also called the period at risk. Typically, the OS compares the complexity and importance of your programs with those of its own internal problems. It then allocates time slices (and memory, perhaps) accordingly. If you do gain a brief place in the JOB TRICKLE, you can be assured that you really do have a problem. See also RESPONSE TIME. -- from _The Computer Contradictionary_, Stan Kelly-Bootle, 1995
