641 lines
26 KiB
Plaintext
641 lines
26 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: Fri, 14 Oct 94 05:13:06 EDT
|
|
Subject: Linux-Development Digest #305
|
|
|
|
Linux-Development Digest #305, Volume #2 Fri, 14 Oct 94 05:13:06 EDT
|
|
|
|
Contents:
|
|
Are there GUI libraries? (Andrew C. F. Wong)
|
|
Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ? (Craig Groeschel)
|
|
Re: Linux 1.1.52 (Lies, Damned Lies, and Benchmarks) (Jeff Kuehn)
|
|
Re: What is the Status of the Adaptec 2940W SCSI-3 support? (Drew Eckhardt)
|
|
Re: Kernel 1.1.53 - no BOOM (Steven M. Doyle)
|
|
Re: Linux 1.1.52 (Lies, Damned Lies, and Benchmarks) (Dominik Kubla)
|
|
Re: A badly missed feature in gcc (Thomas Koenig)
|
|
Re: 3Com 509 Driver Problems - Any fixes - Help (Marden H Seavey)
|
|
Re: We a FAQ: Linux vs. *BSD!!! (Brandon S. Allbery)
|
|
PGP for Linux?? (Zack T. Smith)
|
|
Re: Linux NOT logging people out on hangup (Bart Kindt)
|
|
Login program crashes (Bart Kindt)
|
|
Re: weird linux hangs 1.0.9 -> 1.1.51 inclusive... (Dave Perry VA3DP)
|
|
Re: ext2fs vs. Berkeley FFS (Hugh Strong)
|
|
Re: We a FAQ: Linux vs. *BSD!!! (Jordan K. Hubbard)
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: h9311310@hkusub (Andrew C. F. Wong)
|
|
Subject: Are there GUI libraries?
|
|
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 00:06:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Linux-fans,
|
|
|
|
Are there GUI libraries in C/C++ for Linux (non X)?
|
|
|
|
Thanks!!!
|
|
|
|
Andrew
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: craig@metrolink.com (Craig Groeschel)
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.i386unix
|
|
Subject: Re: New Motif lib's for use with XFree 3.1 ?
|
|
Date: 10 Oct 1994 14:34:51 -0400
|
|
|
|
In article <374nup$aap@freya.yggdrasil.com>,
|
|
Adam J. Richter <adam@yggdrasil.com> wrote:
|
|
>We had an X11R6
|
|
>beta release that used a downward compatible version version number for
|
|
>its shared libraries and seemed to work fine with the R5 binaries that
|
|
>we tried.
|
|
|
|
"Seemed to work fine" or "was binary compatible"? Big difference.
|
|
|
|
I don't know if it was decided to standardize on major number 6
|
|
for X11R6, or if the new libraries actually were not binary compatible.
|
|
I am curious to know.
|
|
--
|
|
Craig E. Groeschel <craig@metrolink.com> Not speaking for my employer.
|
|
"Do not play this piece fast. It is never right to play Ragtime fast." Joplin
|
|
GCS/E g+ s+/- au* v+ C+ P->+ L+++ U@ u+++ E---(+) N+ !W Y+ t++ b+ e- n++ h* f
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: kuehn@citadel.scd.ucar.edu (Jeff Kuehn)
|
|
Subject: Re: Linux 1.1.52 (Lies, Damned Lies, and Benchmarks)
|
|
Date: 13 Oct 1994 21:47:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Shaune Beattie (sdgb1@cus.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
|
|
: Hmm, think something might have gone wrong with your benchmarks... (the
|
|
: concurrent shell scripts that is). After reading your post I downloaded
|
|
: the byte benchmarks and ran them myself.
|
|
: 1) Before I get flamed I am *NOT* posting this as a childish 'my machine
|
|
: is faster than yours thing' but rather that I believe something to be
|
|
: wrong with the ones you posted.
|
|
: Ok, the bechmarks were run on a P90-512k cache 16Meg PCI micronics mb
|
|
: conner 540M EIDE hd running kernel version 1.1.53. Both the kernel and
|
|
: the benchmarks were compiled using the pentium gcc with as much
|
|
: optimisation as possible. (nb. if anyone is interested i will post the
|
|
: benchmarks for 486 optimised code to show the gain in using the pentium
|
|
: gcc, in fact surpisingly little).
|
|
: I indexed the results against the results you posted for the 1.1.0 kernel
|
|
: for comparrision.
|
|
|
|
: INDEX VALUES
|
|
: TEST BASELINE RESULT INDEX
|
|
|
|
: Arithmetic Test (type = double) 5069.5 11922.9 2.4
|
|
: Dhrystone 2 without register variables 56103.3 129726.8 2.3
|
|
: Execl Throughput Test 60.8 82.2 1.4
|
|
: File Copy (10 seconds) 1310.0 1974.0 1.5
|
|
: File Copy (30 seconds) 919.0 1865.0 2.0
|
|
: File Read (10 seconds) 117181.0 224933.0 1.9
|
|
: File Read (30 seconds) 117335.0 230322.0 2.0
|
|
: File Write (10 seconds) 13856.0 10039.0 0.7
|
|
: File Write (30 seconds) 13643.0 15055.0 1.1
|
|
: Pipe-based Context Switching Test 8197.6 8683.4 1.1
|
|
: Process Creation Test 112.1 176.8 1.6
|
|
: Shell scripts (1 concurrent) 81.1 160.9 2.0
|
|
: Shell scripts (2 concurrent) 1.0 84.3 84.3
|
|
: Shell scripts (4 concurrent) 1.0 41.0 41.0
|
|
: Shell scripts (8 concurrent) 1.0 20.0 20.0
|
|
: =========
|
|
: SUM of 15 items 165.2
|
|
: AVERAGE 11.0
|
|
|
|
: ok, first off, obviously most of the tests are faster by ~2 times...
|
|
: (would have expected slightly more... but thats benchmarks for you :)
|
|
: the sole reason I'm posting this is to draw your attention to the Shell
|
|
: scripts 2,4,8... a factor of 2 is to be expected... but there is *NO* way
|
|
: my machine is 80 times faster than yours... I really think something
|
|
: might have gone astray there. Just that if you are spending time
|
|
: comparing kernel speeds (a task I don't envy after only running the
|
|
: benchmark 3/4 times) then it might be wise to look into this.
|
|
|
|
David Niemi and I have been sharing a similar discussion. We have yet to
|
|
be able to pin-point just where the problem might be regarding the
|
|
differences we're seeing. I will post as soon as we have some speculation
|
|
about what might be happening to produce such poor results in the cases I've
|
|
run versus those he has run. I've been worried up till now since all of the
|
|
benchmark results I've seen except David's indicate there is a problem.
|
|
But now I have two independent confirmations that the shell results are
|
|
not necessarily correct. (balanced by several results to the contrary as
|
|
well) I intend to keep looking until the disparity can be adequately
|
|
explain/understood. Hopefully my results are incorrect: an easily remedied
|
|
result of a systematic error. The problem is that we haven't been able to
|
|
find the problem yet.
|
|
|
|
Which version of the libraries/compiler/ld.so/shell are you using?
|
|
|
|
Thanks to all the folks who are running the benchmark as well. This is a
|
|
time consuming process and you all deserve a share of the credit!
|
|
|
|
--Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: drew@frisbee.cs.Colorado.EDU (Drew Eckhardt)
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
|
|
Subject: Re: What is the Status of the Adaptec 2940W SCSI-3 support?
|
|
Date: 13 Oct 1994 22:18:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <37jd1h$fbd@holly.csv.warwick.ac.uk>,
|
|
Phil Andrew <esveg@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
|
|
>In article <CxIuCB.Izn@ix.de>,
|
|
> hm@ix.de writes:
|
|
>>In comp.os.linux.development, Wigs (wiegley@phakt.usc.edu) wrote:
|
|
>>
|
|
>>> Could the people in the know please forward any information they have on
|
|
>>> this.
|
|
>>
|
|
>>-> Projects-Map on sunsite.
|
|
>>
|
|
>
|
|
>Well, since Adaptec will not even release details of the lowly 2940, I do
|
|
>not think they will be too pleased about doing so for the 2940w.
|
|
|
|
This is only partially true -
|
|
|
|
1. Adaptec will not release programming details regarding
|
|
the interface to their microcode without a NDA, but
|
|
you _can_ write your own.
|
|
|
|
2. Adaptec will release full programming details on the board
|
|
and chip.
|
|
|
|
3. Adaptec's technical support often lies about the second fact,
|
|
suggesting that a NDA is required and refusing to let you
|
|
speak with the supervisor.
|
|
|
|
>I really do not think that there is a lot of demand for support at the
|
|
>moment.
|
|
|
|
A survey done some time ago suggested that there were 200,000-400,000
|
|
Linux users.
|
|
|
|
>However, if I am wrong on this, and anyone has written a driver for either
|
|
>card, I would be most grateful to know about it,
|
|
|
|
A driver has been written for the 274x and 284x boards, and seems to
|
|
be reasonably stable. Some one is currently modifying it to grok
|
|
the 2940 boards.
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Since our leaders won't respect The Constitution, the highest law of our
|
|
country, you can't expect them to obey lesser laws of any country.
|
|
Boycott the United States until this changes.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: wcreator@kaiwan.com (Steven M. Doyle)
|
|
Subject: Re: Kernel 1.1.53 - no BOOM
|
|
Date: 12 Oct 1994 13:50:30 -0700
|
|
|
|
In <1994Oct11.171749.2385@ka4ybr.com> mah@ka4ybr.com (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR) writes:
|
|
>Console: colour EGA+ 132x44, 24 virtual consoles
|
|
>Serial driver version 4.00 with no serial options enabled
|
|
>tty00 at 0x03f8 (irq = 4) is a 16550A
|
|
>tty01 at 0x02f8 (irq = 3) is a 16550A
|
|
>tty02 at 0x03e8 (irq = 4) is a 16550A
|
|
>tty03 at 0x02e8 (irq = 3) is a 16550A
|
|
|
|
One interesting point is the sharing of IRQ's between tty0/2 and tty1/3. This may
|
|
be causing part of your problem (only thing I can suggest not knowing exactly how
|
|
your link is set up)
|
|
|
|
Good luck.
|
|
--
|
|
| Steven Doyle, AKA World Creator | #include <std_disclaimer> |
|
|
| Sysop, NETDimension (818)592-6279 | For information on Artificial Worlds |
|
|
| wcreator@kaiwan.com | send email to wcreator@kaiwan.com for |
|
|
| wcreator@axposf.pa.dec.com | an information package. |
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: kubla@Uni-Mainz.DE (Dominik Kubla)
|
|
Subject: Re: Linux 1.1.52 (Lies, Damned Lies, and Benchmarks)
|
|
Date: 14 Oct 1994 02:58:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
In article <37k9ss$dha@ncar.ucar.edu> Jeff Kuehn writes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shaune Beattie (sdgb1@cus.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
|
|
|
|
: ok, first off, obviously most of the tests are faster by ~2 times...
|
|
: (would have expected slightly more... but thats benchmarks for you :)
|
|
: the sole reason I'm posting this is to draw your attention to the Shell
|
|
: scripts 2,4,8... a factor of 2 is to be expected... but there is *NO* way
|
|
: my machine is 80 times faster than yours... I really think something
|
|
: might have gone astray there. Just that if you are spending time
|
|
: comparing kernel speeds (a task I don't envy after only running the
|
|
: benchmark 3/4 times) then it might be wise to look into this.
|
|
|
|
[...]
|
|
|
|
Which version of the libraries/compiler/ld.so/shell are you using?
|
|
^^^^^
|
|
That is the point. Usually under linux /bin/sh is linked to /bin/bash.
|
|
But imagine if it was either pdksh,ash or a stripped down bash (that is
|
|
using config.h.mini resulting in a bash w/o history and readline) or
|
|
even a zsh. That will make a lot of difference.
|
|
I think that the library or the compiler are only do little to the
|
|
performance (but i might be wrong). I am not so sure about ld.so ...
|
|
|
|
Thanks to all the folks who are running the benchmark as well. This is a
|
|
time consuming process and you all deserve a share of the credit!
|
|
|
|
What about using the SPEC benchmark ? v1.2 is available on FTP. I will try to
|
|
run the suite over the weekend.
|
|
|
|
Dominik
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
===========================================================================
|
|
eMail: Dominik.Kubla@Uni-Mainz.DE sMail: Dominik Kubla, Lannerstrasse 53
|
|
55270 Ober-Olm, F.R. of Germany
|
|
>>> Save the environment NOW! <<< ****** European Union ******
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig)
|
|
Subject: Re: A badly missed feature in gcc
|
|
Date: 12 Oct 1994 20:34:35 GMT
|
|
Reply-To: Thomas.Koenig@ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de
|
|
|
|
Ian McCloghrie (ianm@qualcomm.com) wrote in comp.os.linux.development,
|
|
article <ianm.781991694@eldritch>:
|
|
|
|
>Even more fun is the difference between NULL. Used to be, in K&R,
|
|
>that NULL was defined as "0". In ANSI, it's defined as "(void *) 0".
|
|
|
|
This turns out not to be the case.
|
|
|
|
I'd suggest reading the comp.lang.c FAQ, which explains it
|
|
quite clearly.
|
|
--
|
|
Thomas Koenig, Thomas.Koenig@ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25@dkauni2.bitnet.
|
|
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double
|
|
logarithmic diagram.
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: mard@max.tiac.net (Marden H Seavey)
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
|
|
Subject: Re: 3Com 509 Driver Problems - Any fixes - Help
|
|
Date: 13 Oct 1994 22:27:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Stanley Owen Jester (jester@cs.utexas.edu) wrote:
|
|
: Will a 3c501 card work with Linux sllackware 2?
|
|
: I know it is old, but it is for home, so I won't need much horsepower.
|
|
The 3c501 is not supposed to work with Linux. See the hardware FAQ.
|
|
|
|
What we have just found, however, is that the 3c503 card Rev C WILL NOT WORK!
|
|
3c503 Rev A DOES work, but 3COM won't supply it anymore, just the Rev C. We
|
|
tried this on SCO UNIX too. Don't get the Rev C of the 3c503 card.
|
|
|
|
Marden Seavey
|
|
mard@max.tiac.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.sys.unix
|
|
From: bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery)
|
|
Subject: Re: We a FAQ: Linux vs. *BSD!!!
|
|
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 21:48:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <tporczykCxMILw.KHD@netcom.com>, tporczyk@netcom.com (Tony Porczyk) says:
|
|
+---------------
|
|
| jmonroy@netcom.com (Jesus Monroy Jr) writes:
|
|
| > Can we get together and write a single FAQ on this?
|
|
| Outstanding idea.
|
|
+------------->
|
|
|
|
My suggestion:
|
|
|
|
Q: Which is better, Linux or FreeBSD?
|
|
|
|
A: Neither is intrinsically "better". The answer is the same as for any
|
|
operating systems X and Y:
|
|
|
|
1. Does it do what you need? If not, don't waste your time on it.
|
|
(This one probably doesn't matter for FreeBSD vs. Linux.)
|
|
|
|
2. Are the programs and/or device drivers you need available?
|
|
|
|
3. Assuming you've found some OSes that pass the above two, try them
|
|
all out. Use them for as long as practicable, preferably for
|
|
several weeks apiece.
|
|
|
|
4. If one of them does what you need more easily (this includes
|
|
administration and usage), prefer it.
|
|
|
|
5. If it's easier to get support for one than the other locally,
|
|
all other things being equal, use it. (That is, if you have no
|
|
local Linux gurus but have a FreeBSD expert around, you are better
|
|
off using FreeBSD, all other things being equal.)
|
|
|
|
6. If they're all about equal, use the one which *you* find easiest
|
|
to work with. Don't pay attention to your friends or the Usenet
|
|
(or IRC, etc.) on this one; the question is which one you
|
|
*personally* find easiest to work with --- after all, who will be
|
|
using your installation, you or them?
|
|
|
|
7. If you still can't decide, try repeating the above with stricter
|
|
guidelines.
|
|
|
|
8. Still can't decide? You're unlikely to get this far without
|
|
deciding on one, but if you do you might as well flip a coin.
|
|
---But if you really haven't got a personal preference at this
|
|
point you're probably a computer yourself :-)
|
|
|
|
(The unstated point being that, insofar as technical merits are concerned,
|
|
they're basically equal.)
|
|
|
|
++Brandon
|
|
--
|
|
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH [44.70.4.88] bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org
|
|
Linux development: iBCS2, JNOS, MH ~\U
|
|
Waiting For Godot^H^H^H^H^HRothenberg
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: zack@netcom.com (Zack T. Smith)
|
|
Subject: PGP for Linux??
|
|
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 18:07:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Hi,
|
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me whether PGP (the encyption utility) been ported Linux?
|
|
I haven't been able to find it in the archives...
|
|
|
|
Thanks,
|
|
|
|
Zack Smith
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin
|
|
From: bart@dunedin.es.co.nz (Bart Kindt)
|
|
Subject: Re: Linux NOT logging people out on hangup
|
|
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 06:02:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <37enbg$m7a@pdq.coe.montana.edu> osyjm@cs.montana.edu (Jaye Mathisen) writes:
|
|
|
|
>In article <36qh56$85t@leary.cosmic.com>,
|
|
>Joe Beiter <swrek@leary.cosmic.com> wrote:
|
|
>>
|
|
>>We have a network of 5 linux systems running .47 and .50 with three
|
|
>>being used as dialup systems (with digiboards).
|
|
>>
|
|
>>Since each has 8 modems on them we are finding this problem to be both
|
|
>>valid and *very* annoying. Our latest suspect is bash but we're pretty
|
|
>>baffled.
|
|
|
|
>I'm having the same problem with bash processes (and lynx) on a BSDI/386
|
|
>box as well. I haven't a clue as to why they're not getting killed.
|
|
|
|
I am running a multi-line SLIP dialin server. For months we have had problems
|
|
that sometimes the "sliplogin" program was not getting killed. We finally
|
|
found that the problem is in the Kernel " close() " function; this function
|
|
does sometimes *not return*. We have fixed the problem with a patch that
|
|
re-kills the program after a 15 second timeout, when it is still 'alive'. The
|
|
problem is definately in the kernel, but we have never found anybody who could
|
|
do something about it. Our dirty patch keeps our system online, but does not
|
|
fix the root of the problem. You problem could very well be the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
====================================================================================
|
|
Bart Kindt (ZL4FOX) System Operator, Efficient Software NZ LTD, Dunedin, New Zealand
|
|
====================================================================================
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: bart@dunedin.es.co.nz (Bart Kindt)
|
|
Subject: Login program crashes
|
|
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 1994 06:12:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Hi. I am running a multi-line SLIP dial-in server.
|
|
|
|
Sometimes when a user dials in, and it goes wrong, the LOGIN program, which is
|
|
executed by Mgetty, crashes. It stays active forever, and the modem stays
|
|
on-line as well. When I Kill the login program, Mgetty gives a heavy error
|
|
on the main virtual terminal (something like: cannot initialise port,
|
|
operation aborted) after which it goes full cycle and starts again, and resets
|
|
the modem. All hunky dory after that.
|
|
When login hangs, and I give a 'ps', I see often: ... login +++ Which is
|
|
a typical modem escape code as the 'login name'. Sometimes I have two lines
|
|
of junk...
|
|
|
|
The login program I am using came with the Slackware 1.2 distribution.
|
|
|
|
Anybody knows of any later versions of Login may have solved this problem?
|
|
|
|
Can you please reply by E-Mail,
|
|
|
|
Thanks,
|
|
|
|
|
|
====================================================================================
|
|
Bart Kindt (ZL4FOX) System Operator, Efficient Software NZ LTD, Dunedin, New Zealand
|
|
====================================================================================
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: dp@hydra.carleton.ca (Dave Perry VA3DP)
|
|
Subject: Re: weird linux hangs 1.0.9 -> 1.1.51 inclusive...
|
|
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 17:44:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Michael Clarkson (paco@faxil.leeds.ac.uk) wrote:
|
|
|
|
: Looking at the postings relating to this problem, it appears that the
|
|
: connecting piece of hardware is the NE2000 Ethernet Card. In fact we seem
|
|
: to have crudely fixed the problem by , by slowing down the reads/writes
|
|
: performed by the Network Card.
|
|
|
|
What do you mean by this? Did you define REALLY_SLOW_IO? Something else?
|
|
|
|
: If anyone else could suggest a better fix, please let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
FWIW, our system is closing in on 12 days of uptime since replacing the NE2000
|
|
with a 3c509.
|
|
--
|
|
Dave Perry VA3DP | Any opinions expressed here are mine and are not
|
|
dp@hydra.carleton.ca | necessarily those of Carleton University.
|
|
| "Moo-ahhhh" - FZ
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: hstrong@eng1.uconn.edu (Hugh Strong)
|
|
Subject: Re: ext2fs vs. Berkeley FFS
|
|
Date: 10 Oct 1994 19:04:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Peter Mutsaers (plm@atcmp.nl) wrote:
|
|
: >> On 10 Oct 1994 14:50:20 GMT, hstrong@eng1.uconn.edu (Hugh Strong) said:
|
|
|
|
: HS> For instance, to open the main (data) fork of a file, one
|
|
: HS> might write
|
|
|
|
: HS> fd = open("MyDataFile",O_RDONLY);
|
|
|
|
: HS> The icon (for a window manager) for the file could be
|
|
: HS> accessed by the following call.
|
|
|
|
: HS> fd1 = open("MyDataFile:ICON",O_RDONLY);
|
|
|
|
: HS> The state of an editing session on the file could be
|
|
: HS> saved in yet another fork
|
|
|
|
: This will break existing code; there are programs that assume that ':'
|
|
: is part of a filename. The *only* character that cannot be part of a
|
|
: filename is the '/', which is the directory separator.
|
|
|
|
You are suggesting a better notation, in all likelyhood. Still,
|
|
can you tell me what program makes use of this wonderful feature, or
|
|
is it just a problem of how a few users name their files?
|
|
|
|
: So the only way to go is to create a directory with files in it that
|
|
: belong together. It has been that way since the beginning. What is
|
|
: wrong with that.
|
|
|
|
Everything, if you wish to give files attributes.
|
|
UNIX programs read and write *files*, not directories.
|
|
This *would* break existing code, if we were to suddenly start
|
|
using separate directories to store little bits of fluff associated
|
|
with each file. Forks are for storing information that pertains
|
|
to a particular file, not for keeping separate but related
|
|
data sets together in one large file.
|
|
|
|
Really, keeping everything the way it was in My Father's Time for
|
|
the pure simple joy of it is not a good idea.
|
|
|
|
: It is basic in the Unix philosophy that files are untyped and that the
|
|
: kernel does not care what is in the file. Adding such things is
|
|
: completely against the Unix way of thinking.
|
|
|
|
Forks are untyped and unstructured as well. Nothing should prevent
|
|
you from writing any arbitrary chunk of data into a fork, except
|
|
lack of priveledges.
|
|
|
|
: Of course, if you want to mount filesystems that have such 'compound'
|
|
: files, you could map them in the Unix filesystem hierarchy as
|
|
: directories that contain the various components of this file. Then all
|
|
: existing programs (like cp, mv) can work without any change.
|
|
|
|
: HS> I believe that NTFS handles extended attributes in a similar way.
|
|
|
|
: Unix *should not* handle attributes. Giving meaning to the different
|
|
: files is up to the (user space) programs.
|
|
|
|
The ext2fs already does. These are kernel mode extensions, and I
|
|
don't think that they are such Bad Things. But I am talking about
|
|
forks which would be read and written entirely by USER mode code.
|
|
In particular, I gave two examples of things that could be
|
|
done in user mode.
|
|
|
|
I think that forks offer a simple and consistent way
|
|
to associate arbitrary data with files.
|
|
|
|
: --
|
|
: Peter Mutsaers | AT Computing bv, P.O. Box 1428,
|
|
: plm@atcmp.nl | 6501 BK Nijmegen, The Netherlands
|
|
: tel. work: +31 (0)80 527248 |
|
|
: tel. home: +31 (0)3405 71093 | "... En..., doet ie het al?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
-- Hugh Strong
|
|
hstrong@eng1.uconn.edu
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
From: jkh@freefall.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
|
|
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.sys.unix
|
|
Subject: Re: We a FAQ: Linux vs. *BSD!!!
|
|
Date: 13 Oct 1994 11:28:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
In article <jmonroyCxLro2.IF6@netcom.com> jmonroy@netcom.com (Jesus Monroy Jr) writes:
|
|
|
|
This is a weekly question.
|
|
More often than not, we get into a flame war
|
|
on this. Let's stop this silliness!!!
|
|
|
|
The only way we're going to stop this silliness is to simply start
|
|
ignoring the querants. If someone asks "Which is better? Which is
|
|
better?", jumping up and down all the while, and everybody just flat
|
|
out _ignores_ the question and goes about their business as if nothing
|
|
happened, folks will eventually get the point and stop asking.
|
|
|
|
Consider carefully: It's not the questions that start the bloody flame
|
|
wars, it's everyone's pathetic attempts to answer! "Well, xxx is
|
|
better because of yyy.." "No it's not!" "Yes it is, you moron! Just
|
|
look at blah blah blah!" "Well, you're a complete idiot who obviously
|
|
wouldn't know an operating system if it bit you - yyy is _obviously_
|
|
better because bleh bleh bleh!". And so downhill it goes from there.
|
|
|
|
No FAQ will ever satisfy the two sides, and would rapidly become
|
|
obsolete even if it did. Dave Burgess's FAQ _tries_ to answer this
|
|
question about as well as any FAQ could, and people still aren't
|
|
remotely satisfied. One German magazine reviewer who compared FreeBSD
|
|
to Linux ended up making an unfavorable judgement of FreeBSD because
|
|
_it didn't have enough shells_ bundled in by default! He completely
|
|
ignored the other issues, he just wanted his bloody tcsh to be happy.
|
|
This almost perfectly exemplifys the average querant - they don't
|
|
really want to know which is better in general (as if "better in
|
|
general" meant anything anyway), they want to know which is better for
|
|
THEM, and how the hell are we supposed to know that?
|
|
|
|
The distraction is overwhelming and we need a solution.
|
|
|
|
The solution is obvious, and in right front of our faces. Don't even
|
|
bother with such questions. Ignore them. If you're dead-set on
|
|
answering questions, then there are PLENTY of more worthy questions
|
|
posed every single day that could use meaningful answers. Why waste
|
|
time with people who only want to know which brand gives you whiter
|
|
teeth, fresher breath, cures acne or gets out those nasty grass
|
|
stains? Such people are better off watching daytime television talk
|
|
shows or reading "USA Today" anyway ("Today on Sally Jesse Rafael,
|
|
we'll be asking the question "Which is better? Linux or FreeBSD?",
|
|
and we'll also be interviewing 3 truck drivers who like to do long
|
|
cross-country trips with live hamsters in their shorts.")
|
|
|
|
Sheesh!
|
|
|
|
Jordan
|
|
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
** 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
|
|
******************************
|