566 lines
23 KiB
Plaintext
566 lines
23 KiB
Plaintext
From: Digestifier <Linux-Development-Request@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>
|
|
To: Linux-Development@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu
|
|
Reply-To: Linux-Development@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu
|
|
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 94 18:13:14 EDT
|
|
Subject: Linux-Development Digest #151
|
|
|
|
Linux-Development Digest #151, Volume #2 Sat, 10 Sep 94 18:13:14 EDT
|
|
|
|
Contents:
|
|
Re: Future of linux -- the sequel (Anthony J. Stuckey)
|
|
Re: Don't use Linux?! (Stephen Harris)
|
|
Re: Survey: who wants f77,cc,c++,hpf for linux? (Steve Allen)
|
|
Re: Survey: who wants f77,cc,c++,hpf for linux? (Bill McKinney)
|
|
Re: Linux for DEC Alpha platform?
|
|
Re: 320x200 X resolution? (CLAYTON MICHAEL O'NEILL)
|
|
Re: News Spool File System - new filesystem type?? (Arthur Tateishi)
|
|
Re: 320x200 X resolution? (Christopher Wiles)
|
|
Re: Linux Kernel's and ATDISK-Patches (Delman Lee)
|
|
Re: Don't use Linux?! (Bogdan Urma)
|
|
Developing Distributed Filesystems for Linux? (Lincoln Myers)
|
|
Re: Survey: who wants f77,cc,c++,hpf for linux? (Hiroshi)
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: stuckey@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Anthony J. Stuckey)
|
|
Subject: Re: Future of linux -- the sequel
|
|
Date: 8 Sep 1994 21:27:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
shendrix@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix) writes:
|
|
>My little ISA bus 486 has little trouble besting low-end workstations
|
|
>in anything (Sun 4/110's and Sparcstation 1's). It will do some integer
|
|
>ops faster than a Sun 2. The Sun 2's FPU will eat mine alive but for
|
|
>$10000 it should beat it on *ALL* counts. It doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Ahem. Correct terminology is probably necessary here. A Sun 2 is a
|
|
68010-based box, as I recall, which won't eat any 486 alive, even a lowly
|
|
SX. This is particularly odd, because you do refer to the Sun 4
|
|
correctly.
|
|
A SparcStation 2, on the other hand, is a fairly nice machine.
|
|
|
|
>I'd love to have a workstation but given that by the time I can afford
|
|
>one there will be little or no difference between a PC and a workstation
|
|
>(as if there really is one now) so who cares? Workstations are generally
|
|
>overpriced still. Software for them is even worse.
|
|
|
|
I'm going to stay out of this side of the argument. I'm unconvinced
|
|
that workstation hardware is overpriced, given that you frequently do get
|
|
better capabilities than PC-stuff will give you, particularly on I/O. I am
|
|
also not convinced that many people or companies take multi-user-ness into
|
|
account when pricing their software. Researched, cogent arguments for any
|
|
of the sides would be welcome. Flamers should be shot.
|
|
--
|
|
Anthony J. Stuckey stuckey@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
|
|
"And if you frisbee-throw a universe where does it go?" -- Steve Blunt.
|
|
GCS/S -d+@ p c(++) l u+ e+(-) m+(*) s+++/-- !n h(*) f+ g+ w+ t+@ r y?
|
|
KiboNumber == 1
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: hsw1@papa.attmail.com (Stephen Harris)
|
|
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
|
|
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 12:07:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Michael Schumacher (hightec@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de) wrote:
|
|
|
|
: 1. Commercial software products are typically binary-only (i.e., no
|
|
|
|
You admitted this is not a problem because of shared libraries, and then...
|
|
|
|
: 2. Linux's libc tends to change its version number almost every week
|
|
: (sometimes even more often). Even though changes of the minor
|
|
|
|
Really? Honest? The *ALPHA* versions change rapidly, yes. Public releases
|
|
that most people are using?
|
|
Well, 4.5.26 was released Apr 4.
|
|
That means it has been stable for over 5 months. Not quite every week :-)
|
|
|
|
More people are using the stable versions of libc than the alpha versions.
|
|
|
|
: 3. The kernel versions change faster than the speed of light. If you
|
|
: ask for a "stable" version, you'll be teached that there are two
|
|
: versions: 1.0 (production) and 1.1 (hacker's paradise). Wanna have a
|
|
: stable one? Get 1.0! Okay, but if I want to offer a commercial
|
|
: product, it doesn't matter what kernel version *I* am using, but
|
|
: what version is used by my potential *customers*! There's a reason
|
|
|
|
The majority of applications built to run under 1.0.9 with libc 4.5.26 will
|
|
continue to work. Hell, 99% of my system was compiled with kernel 0.99pl12A
|
|
with libc 4.4.2. And they STILL work.
|
|
(talking of 0.99pl12A, I've had that running on 5 client sites now for a year,
|
|
and the biggest problem we have had is HARDWARE failure! One day I'll have
|
|
to upgrade them :-) )
|
|
|
|
: 4. The spirit of free software is all around. Free in both meanings:
|
|
: free availability of the sources, and free of charge. Which does
|
|
|
|
[ writing shareware and not gettting any registrations ]
|
|
|
|
On the other hand it could be that no-one thought your software was worth
|
|
while. If common commercial software ran seamlessly under Linux then it
|
|
would actually boost linux in the workspace. I bet that if Lotus 123,
|
|
WordPerfect and a few other common apps ran under Linux then Linux would be
|
|
in the running as a transition from DOS kludged networking to Unix.
|
|
|
|
: 5. On the other hand, I can tell you how to make lots of money with Linux:
|
|
|
|
[ making CD copy of FTP archives and selling it ]
|
|
|
|
: Linux. He buys a "Dream Linux" CD - and is lost. Nothing works "out of
|
|
: the box", no reasonable documentation is available, nor hotline support.
|
|
: What will happen? I'm quite sure that most of these desperated people
|
|
: will close the Linux chapter - forever.
|
|
|
|
The majority of Linux users either heard of it from this group, and so ask
|
|
'whats a good distribution', or heard of it from a friend who... or a friend
|
|
of a friend of a friend... In all cases these people wouldn't just go out and
|
|
buy any old CD distribution. People are smarter than that!
|
|
|
|
: processing is out - try TeX", or "you can run xyz under DOSEMU" or "try SCO
|
|
: versions of xyz; just recompile the kernel with SYSV support and get the
|
|
: iBSC2 package from foo.bar". This can be - at most - a temporary work-around.
|
|
: Users don't want to know how to roll a new kernel, they don't want to ftp
|
|
|
|
Sigh. Currently the DOSemu and IBCS stuff is still in development. The IBCS
|
|
can be loaded as a module. When it becomes stable (it's already looking good!)
|
|
then the typical user won't need to do anything!
|
|
|
|
DOSemu is great to run DOS apps, but it's not seamless, and so is really just
|
|
a stop-gap IMHO, but a vital one.
|
|
|
|
: being used in offices and other commercial environments? If we *really*
|
|
: want Linux to succeed, we *need* the companies and their commercial products!
|
|
|
|
As I posted two weeks - QUIT MOANING AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
|
|
--
|
|
|
|
rgds
|
|
Stephen
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: sla@umbra.UCSC.EDU (Steve Allen)
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.fortran
|
|
Subject: Re: Survey: who wants f77,cc,c++,hpf for linux?
|
|
Date: 10 Sep 1994 19:00:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <34ssa9$fav@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>,
|
|
Bill McKinney <mckinney@math.ncsu.edu> wrote:
|
|
>f2c/gcc works about 2/3 of the time for me. When it does work, I
|
|
>am not really sure about how efficient the code is, but it runs.
|
|
|
|
>The problem is that my original code might not compile under f2c/gcc.
|
|
>I don't want to spend time "fixing" codes (that have already been working
|
|
>and optimized) so they'll run under f2c/gcc and allow me to do development
|
|
>on Linux.
|
|
|
|
I must admit to being a bit confused by Bill McKinney's remarks here,
|
|
because I find that f2c does just fine with any Fortran code that
|
|
conforms to the ANSI standard.
|
|
|
|
When f2c does produce results which differ from commercial compilers,
|
|
it has always been the case that there is some non-standard assumption
|
|
being made by the code (many of these problems being due to the
|
|
extensions added by DEC in its early compilers: assuming unintialized
|
|
variables will be zeroed, assuming the linker will pad all common block
|
|
references to the same length, assuming all variables are SAVEd, liberal
|
|
use of the long-illegal Hollerith to store characters, incorrect ordering
|
|
of statements and the other familiar Fortran porting problems).
|
|
|
|
I know of several respected astrophysicists who do all their Fortran code
|
|
development on their Linux laptops, and when it is working they move it
|
|
onto their commercial workhorse systems to get results fast.
|
|
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
|
|
Steve Allen UCO/Lick Observatory Santa Cruz, CA 95064
|
|
sla@lick.ucsc.edu Voice: +1 408 459 3046 FAX: +1 408 454 9863
|
|
<a href=ftp://lick.ucsc.edu/pub/www/sla/sms.html>Seabright Morris & Sword</a>
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: mckinney@math.ncsu.edu (Bill McKinney)
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.fortran
|
|
Subject: Re: Survey: who wants f77,cc,c++,hpf for linux?
|
|
Date: 10 Sep 1994 18:01:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Thomas.Koenig@ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de writes:
|
|
>Larry Meadows (lfm@pgroup.com) wrote in article <34m769$bju@indy.pgroup.com>:
|
|
>
|
|
>>1. Are people interested in a commercial compiler suite for Linux on
|
|
>> Intel Architecture platforms? The suite would include true compilers
|
|
>> for extended Fortran 77, ANSI C, Draft-ANSI C++ with extensions, and
|
|
>> High Performance Fortran.
|
|
>
|
|
>C: gcc is just fine for Linux.
|
|
Ditto.
|
|
|
|
>F77: f2c/gcc works for the kind of things I do with it. I don't run
|
|
> large linear systems on a Linux box, anyway (those go on a large
|
|
> HP, or an even larger Fujitsu vector computer), but for sheer
|
|
> floating point applications, which operate on little data, a
|
|
> 486 doesn't do badly compared to a heavily loaded HP.
|
|
|
|
f2c/gcc works about 2/3 of the time for me. When it does work, I
|
|
am not really sure about how efficient the code is, but it runs.
|
|
|
|
While I don't intend to use my Linux box for large computationally
|
|
intensive programs, it would be nice to have f77 (or HPF :) )
|
|
available for development. For example, I have several programs
|
|
with thousands of lines of code. If I were to modify them, I would
|
|
like to do so in Linux: modify some routines, do any debugging,
|
|
do some limited testing for small data sets, etc. Once this is
|
|
done, I can put the code on a workhorse somewhere else and do
|
|
production runs on a large data set there.
|
|
|
|
The problem is that my original code might not compile under f2c/gcc.
|
|
I don't want to spend time "fixing" codes (that have already been working
|
|
and optimized) so they'll run under f2c/gcc and allow me to do development
|
|
on Linux.
|
|
|
|
I love Linux and want to use it as much as possible. It has everything
|
|
I want, EXCEPT for a true fortran compiler.
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Bill McKinney
|
|
mckinney@math.ncsu.edu
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: jsmith@red-branch.MIT.EDU ()
|
|
Subject: Re: Linux for DEC Alpha platform?
|
|
Date: 10 Sep 1994 19:40:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Peter Hahn (Peter@tequila.oche.de) wrote:
|
|
: becker@cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov (Donald Becker) writes:
|
|
|
|
: >In article <33u1fh$9ej@bmerha64.bnr.ca>,
|
|
: >Hamish Macdonald <Hamish.Macdonald@bnr.ca> wrote:
|
|
: >>>>>>> On 29 Aug 1994 08:14:02 EST,
|
|
: >>>>>>> In message <33smuq$mkq@scotty.waldorf-gmbh.de>,
|
|
: >>>>>>> ralf@resi.waldorf-gmbh.de (Ralf Baechle) wrote:
|
|
: >>
|
|
: >>Ralf> Expect Linux to be available for all major CPU families in the
|
|
: >>Ralf> near future.
|
|
: >>
|
|
: >>Ralf, you and I both know that the big work in a Linux port is not so
|
|
: >>much the CPU specific stuff, but the device drivers.
|
|
: >>
|
|
: >>As such, only expect Linux to work on PC clones (powered by various
|
|
: >>ALPHA, x86, MIPS chips) in the *near* future.
|
|
|
|
: >Both the PowerPC/PREP and the Alpha are promoted as using the PCI bus.
|
|
: >Picking the three major devices I consider necessary for a system: disk,
|
|
: >network, and video controllers, I see that x86 Linux is close to supporting
|
|
: >PCI bus versions of all three. I'm only intimately familiar with network
|
|
: >device driver, but I don't think it would take very long to convert it to a
|
|
: >different processor once I know I knew a few details, such as the I/O space
|
|
: >mapping. Perhaps most of the changes will be just converting the ASM
|
|
: >in*()/out*() functions to memory operations, and checking for byte-sex
|
|
: >problems.
|
|
|
|
: >The remaining essential device drivers to be written are for the
|
|
: >keyboard/mouse port, PCI bus bridge/controller, and perhaps a PCMCIA bus
|
|
: >bridge. None are trivial, but getting close to having something working is
|
|
: >highly motivating...
|
|
|
|
: As I understand the PCI specification you can build a bare motherboard with
|
|
: a SCSI interface chip, a PCI to isa bridge, some timers/clocks and four PCI
|
|
: connectors. Slow I/O devices as mouse, keyboard, serial and Ethernet are
|
|
: linked via the additional isa bus slots as usual. Now we plug in a PCI
|
|
: graphics card and a CPU module and our system runs. We even have two slots
|
|
: left.
|
|
|
|
: This would be the ideal board to give the CPU manufactures good
|
|
: competition. And porting is as easy as possible, as you only have to port
|
|
: the parts dependig on the CPU module. I don't want to mention the
|
|
: upgradability this solution provides.
|
|
|
|
: I don't know, if someone offers such a board, though :(
|
|
|
|
Well I'm getting very close to having workign hardware on the board I'd
|
|
mentioned on here before..
|
|
|
|
Some Rough spec/outline:
|
|
|
|
|
|
MotherBoard Specification (Subject to Change)
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 - 21066 @ 166Mhz cpu
|
|
512k - 2Megabyte L2 Cache
|
|
8 72-Pin Simm Sockets for Main Memory and ECC
|
|
1(2*) NCR53C810 PCI Scsi-II/Fast controller
|
|
68EN360 (25/33Mhz) Serial Communications Controller
|
|
512K Local SRAM
|
|
512K Flash ROM
|
|
lotsa stuff to put here about this..
|
|
0,1, or 2 ethernet ports
|
|
ISDN (optional)
|
|
2 RS-232C Serial Ports
|
|
Audio Codecs: 2 pairs in, 3 pairs out (right&left channels). Can
|
|
playback on one channel pair while sampling from another channel pair,
|
|
16 bit at up to 50Khz.
|
|
High Speed Centronics Bi-directional Parallel Port.
|
|
PCI Super Combo
|
|
32-bit addressable DMA controller
|
|
Interrupt controller edge or level sensitive, programmable
|
|
Real Time Clock with 128-byte configuration ram
|
|
Timer/counters
|
|
IDE hard disk drive interface capable of fast IDE (11M bytes/s)
|
|
Floppy disk drive interface
|
|
2 16550 serial ports
|
|
Parallel port (Bi-directional)
|
|
External system bus for add-ons
|
|
21140 {21040} PCI Ethernet LAN Controller
|
|
100Mbs or 10Mbs {10Mbs only} onchip selectable Ethernet
|
|
Twisted Pair, Co-axial, Fiber ports
|
|
21030 PCI 2D/3D Graphics Accelerator (optional)
|
|
Frame buffer sizes from 2meg to 16meg Vram
|
|
Hardware Z-buffer
|
|
PCI to ISA bridge chip (4 or 6 ISA slots)
|
|
With a PCI to PCI bridge chip this also includes
|
|
4 PCI sockets for general I/O and an additional one for gfx.
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Peter
|
|
: --
|
|
: Peter Hahn Peterstr. 26
|
|
: 52062 Aachen Germany
|
|
: Peter@tequila.oche.de pch@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de
|
|
: Voice: +49 241 37151
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Smith
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: cs339014@bit.com (CLAYTON MICHAEL O'NEILL)
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
|
|
Subject: Re: 320x200 X resolution?
|
|
Date: 10 Sep 1994 16:22:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Christopher Wiles (a0017097@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu) wrote:
|
|
|
|
: Seriously, IMHO Doom will probably be more useable in the promised
|
|
: pixel-doubling mode than in a straight 320x200. Easier to make things
|
|
: look innocent when the boss walks in ... "Hey, you're not actually
|
|
: _working_ in 320x200, are you?"
|
|
|
|
The only problem is that the pixel doubling mode (at least in 256 colors)
|
|
looks really horrible. However, I'm _extremely_ impressed by the speed of
|
|
the thing. Just two real complaints.
|
|
|
|
1) I wish 8 bit sound sounded decent. He makes a comment that if you
|
|
don't have 16-bit sound, you'll wish you did. I don't and I do.
|
|
|
|
2) I have an annoying problem w/ the shift keys getting stuck down, so
|
|
I get in a situation where I'm always strafing or running fast. You get
|
|
the idea.
|
|
|
|
Clayton O'Neill
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Crossposted-To: news.software.b
|
|
From: ruhtra@turing.toronto.edu (Arthur Tateishi)
|
|
Subject: Re: News Spool File System - new filesystem type??
|
|
Date: 10 Sep 94 19:45:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <m7FSkapDlzU6071yn@halcyon.com>,
|
|
Michael Dillon <mpdillon@halcyon.com> wrote:
|
|
>> 1) eliminate/minimize directory traversal for article access
|
|
>> (opens?).
|
|
>
|
|
>If a program issues an open for comp/os/linux/development/22334 the file
|
|
>system is free to use an implementation that does not involve the
|
|
>normal UNIX directory tree traversal.
|
|
|
|
As a friend of mine wisely noted recently, log file systems are almost
|
|
ideally designed for usenet news. Coincidentally, I recently came
|
|
across an old paper while cleaning out my office. Someone else may
|
|
have more contemporary references to share.
|
|
|
|
"Beating the I/O Bottleneck: A Case for Log-Structured File Systems"
|
|
John Ousterhout and Fred Douglis
|
|
Tech Report No. UCB/CSD 88/467
|
|
October 1988
|
|
Computer Science Division (EECS)
|
|
University of California
|
|
Berkeley, CA 94720
|
|
|
|
Undoubtedly, they probably have an FTP or WWW server for tech reports
|
|
by now. Track down the CS Tech Report FAQ for the location.
|
|
|
|
Enjoy
|
|
arthur
|
|
--
|
|
Choices don't scare me. However, a lack of choices does.
|
|
Arthur Tateishi ruhtra@turing.utoronto.ca
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
|
|
From: a0017097@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (Christopher Wiles)
|
|
Subject: Re: 320x200 X resolution?
|
|
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 17:09:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
slouken@cs.ucdavis.edu (Sam Oscar Lantinga) writes:
|
|
|
|
: I suppose you speak in ignorance. :) It's out, and
|
|
: available from sunsite.unc.edu in /pub/Linux/Incoming and at
|
|
: dewdrop.water.ca.gov in /pub/doom as the file lnxdoom.tgz
|
|
|
|
I posted the night before DOOM showed up at sunsite. Nice timing.
|
|
|
|
: Well, a couple of things... I've tried it in pixel doubling
|
|
: mode, and not only is it slower, but the display is broken. It looks
|
|
: like you are looking through one of those windows with glass ribs.
|
|
: Also... if you should happen to be one of those that actually play
|
|
: games at work, you might want to know that Ctrl-Alt-+ and Ctrl-Alt--
|
|
: change X11 resolutions on the fly at the Linux console. :)
|
|
|
|
The pixel-increase modes _are_ broken. Dammit. And, yeah, res swapping
|
|
has so far enabled me to keep my job ;)
|
|
|
|
-- Chris
|
|
|
|
a0017097@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu wileyc@halcyon.com wileyc@quark.chs.wa.com
|
|
"... but I want to use all eight comm ports SIMULTANEOUSLY!"
|
|
PGP 2.6 public key available by finger for the clinically paranoid.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: delman@mipg.upenn.edu (Delman Lee)
|
|
Subject: Re: Linux Kernel's and ATDISK-Patches
|
|
Date: 10 Sep 94 13:25:26
|
|
|
|
In article <Cvr24L.49@cove.han.de> knick@cove.han.de (Michael Knigge) writes:
|
|
|
|
Will the atdisk-Patch (up to four IDE-Drives) be "standard" in the next
|
|
Linux-Releases? I hope so because I need them and the Patch works without
|
|
any Problems.....
|
|
|
|
Probably not. The old atdisk2 patch is not a very clean solution. The
|
|
new atdisk2 patch, which is a cleaner solution, is under testing. If
|
|
you feel adventurous, you could try the alpha test code at
|
|
|
|
mipgsun.mipg.upenn.edu:pub/delman/atdisk2-1.0alpha?.tgz
|
|
|
|
Delman.
|
|
--
|
|
______________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Delman Lee Tel.: +1-215-662-6780
|
|
Medical Image Processing Group, Fax.: +1-215-898-9145
|
|
University of Pennsylvania,
|
|
4/F Blockley Hall, 423 Guardian Drive,
|
|
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6021,
|
|
U.S.A.. Internet: delman@mipg.upenn.edu
|
|
______________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: bau1@cornell.edu (Bogdan Urma)
|
|
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux?!
|
|
Date: 10 Sep 1994 17:46:54 GMT
|
|
Reply-To: bau1@cornell.edu
|
|
|
|
Michael Schumacher (hightec@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de) wrote:
|
|
|
|
: Hello Linuxers!
|
|
|
|
: Okay. Before you start sending me endless flames, I want to make sure
|
|
: that you know that I *love* Linux. It's probably the best PC Un*x you
|
|
: can find between here and the sun. Linux has some nice features, e.g.
|
|
: the /proc filesystem, it is fast, it supports lots of hardware, it
|
|
: follows the POSIX standard (which makes porting of existing software
|
|
: much easier), plus: it's free. Nobody knows the exact number of Linux
|
|
: installations, but it's likely to be in the 100000's. One could think
|
|
: that companies are willing to consider Linux a reasonable and serious
|
|
: platform, and that they would port and offer their products to the
|
|
: Linux community. However, they are far away from doing so, actually.
|
|
: Here's why:
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's pretty funny, since Maple V Release 3 has just been ported to Linux.
|
|
|
|
Bogdan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: lim@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (Lincoln Myers)
|
|
Crossposted-To: alt.filesystems.afs
|
|
Subject: Developing Distributed Filesystems for Linux?
|
|
Date: 9 Sep 1994 06:07:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
I've been reading the AFS FAQ and other reports (available from
|
|
grand.central.org:/pub/*) about AFS (formerly the Andrew File System) and
|
|
DFS (the DEcorum File System, part of DCE) both of which are commercially
|
|
available filesystems which are generally faster, more secure, and easier to
|
|
manage than NFS, especially over large networks.
|
|
|
|
Is anyone working on a filesystem for Linux or another freely available UN*X
|
|
which will offer the advantages that these do?
|
|
|
|
AFS was a project at CMU before it became a commercial product supported by
|
|
Transarc. Would it be feasable to port an earlier version (pre-3.0?) to
|
|
Linux? (Is it freely available? Would it be compatible with current AFS?
|
|
Would one want to use it?)
|
|
|
|
If not, would it be possible to make a freely available implementation of
|
|
AFS or DFS for Linux, without infringing on their current owner's
|
|
(Transarc's) rights? Is there enough information out there?
|
|
|
|
I would be willing to help develop something like this if there is any
|
|
demand.
|
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: hiroshi@cgate.hipecs.hokudai.ac.jp (Hiroshi)
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.fortran
|
|
Subject: Re: Survey: who wants f77,cc,c++,hpf for linux?
|
|
Date: 9 Sep 1994 03:43:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <34m769$bju@indy.pgroup.com>, Larry Meadows <lfm@pgroup.com> wrote:
|
|
>Given the interest in Linux, I thought I'd post a short survey:
|
|
>
|
|
>1. Are people interested in a commercial compiler suite for Linux on
|
|
> Intel Architecture platforms? The suite would include true compilers
|
|
|
|
I thought the LINUX has a feature of its AT&T 386 unix binary compatible.
|
|
If that is true, I think there are some FORTRAN or C or C++ compiler
|
|
for intel386 AT&T unix that is commercially available which will run
|
|
on linux. Am I wrong? Has anyone running those commercial compilers
|
|
on linux?
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
** 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: Linux-Development-Request@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU
|
|
|
|
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.development) via:
|
|
|
|
Internet: Linux-Development@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU
|
|
|
|
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
|
|
nic.funet.fi pub/OS/Linux
|
|
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
|
|
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
|
|
|
|
End of Linux-Development Digest
|
|
******************************
|