From: Digestifier To: Linux-Development@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Development@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Sun, 19 Sep 93 23:13:21 EDT Subject: Linux-Development Digest #110 Linux-Development Digest #110, Volume #1 Sun, 19 Sep 93 23:13:21 EDT Contents: Re: Mouseless X for Linux notebook (David S. Fox) Re: Please no /config. (Bill Heiser) Re: Mouseless X for Linux notebook (Todd Austin) locking for Linux? (Dan Gill) Re: Status of the NET-2 port (Frank Lofaro) Re: locking for Linux? (Zeyd M. Ben-Halim) UPS compile error: (Zhuo Er Lin) Patchlevel 13 alpha seems to break my "talk" (Billy L. Williams Jr.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: fox@graphics.cs.nyu.edu (David S. Fox) Subject: Re: Mouseless X for Linux notebook Date: 19 Sep 1993 17:41:34 GMT In article <27fk9k$gev@hal.com> howard@hal.com (Howard Gayle) writes: I hacked the XFree86 1.3 monochrome X server to start up and run even if there's no pointing device... The X server hacks are only for Linux. I'll mail diffs to anyone who asks... I got this effect by making /dev/mouse a link to something like /dev/null or /dev/zero. As others have pointed out, you can set up the function keys in twm and other window managers to allow work without mouse. -david -- David S. Fox -- fox@graphics.cs.nyu.edu -- I have spoken. All depart. ------------------------------ From: bill@bhhome.ci.net (Bill Heiser) Subject: Re: Please no /config. Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1993 18:17:51 GMT In article <27b6dn$l99@galaxy.ucr.edu> grif@ucrengr.ucr.edu (Michael Griffith) writes: > >Please don't mess with the standard filesystem layout. It would make >life more difficult for those with experience with other UNIX-like >operating systems. I second this request. Changing the "standard" filesystem layout to something unique to LINUX would mean we could no-longer say that LINUX is "just like a typical Unix" ... and would make it less desireable for many of us. I, for one, want what I run on my home machine to resemble what I use in the real world ... ie. right now, when I use LINUX on my home machine, it's not much different (aside from display resolution and system speed) than the Sun IPX sitting on my desk at work, at least on a basic level.. -- Bill Heiser bill@bhhome.ci.net -or- heiser@world.std.com ------------------------------ From: austin@aura.cs.wisc.edu (Todd Austin) Subject: Re: Mouseless X for Linux notebook Date: 19 Sep 93 20:09:15 GMT In article <1993Sep18.233752.761@kf8nh.wariat.org>, bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: |> In article <27g1uoINNbm4@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> msb@cats.ucsc.edu (Maurice S Barnum) writes: |> >In <27foki$qno@news.u.washington.edu> verzani@bunuel.math.washington.edu (John Verzani) writes: |> >> There is a window manager FWM which says it can be run |> >>under Linux wothout a mouse. There is a combination of |> >>keystrokes which can move you about. |> > |> >olwm/olvwm and probably even the *twm window managers can be |> >configured to run mouseless also. |> |> fvwm was designed for laptop use, if I recall correctly. You can run ol(v)wm, |> certainly, but unless you've 12-16MB RAM in your laptop it'll be really slow. |> If you have only 4MB, fvwm and rxvt (and, preferably, XF86_Mono to really |> reduce the memory requirements) are the only sensible way to go unless you |> want to die of old age while your machine thrashes.... |> Agreed... I run a minimal 99pl12, a stripped XF86_Mono, term 1.07, fvwm, xclock, and about 4 rxvt's very comfortably as long as I do all the "real" work on my workstation at school. I see very few page faults with this setup, but as Brandon notes, this is about as far as 4 meg will go -- I eagerly await lower memory prices so I can upgrade my laptop. Here's what I would do if I had the time -- - reconfigure X to remove all the extensions, reduce the number of statically allocated window records, chop out a few of the lesser used mfb routines (e.g., mfbarc, etc) - find a minimal shell, I currently run tcsh, this thing is huge, and so is bash Regards, -Todd p.s. here's a tool us small memory types could use -- run gprof on an executable, recording the frequency of time spent in each executed procedure for a "typical" usage of the program, then feed this information back into "ld" so it could order procedures in the text in decreasing order of frequency of time executed. This would minimize the internal fragmentation found in allocated pages, thus maximizing the utilization of allocated physical ram pages. I suspect the typical program's working set size would decrease dramatically. -- %% Todd Austin, austin@cs.wisc.edu %% Department of Computer Sciences, University of Wisconsin -- Madison %% 1210 West Dayton, Madison, WI 53706 ------------------------------ From: dgill@clouso.crim.ca (Dan Gill) Subject: locking for Linux? Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1993 21:36:45 GMT Just wondering if anyone out there is working on locking() type functions for Linux. I am trying to port some database code, but with no real file/record locking it is (as you can imagine) quite difficult. ------------------------------ From: ftlofaro@unlv.edu (Frank Lofaro) Subject: Re: Status of the NET-2 port Date: Sun, 19 Sep 93 22:13:23 GMT In article <1993Sep17.204749.8849@super.org> becker@super.org (Donald J. Becker) writes: > >An alternate implementation, keeping a linked list of fragments, is used in >Net-2e. With a linked list you have to keep all of packets around (with a >big overhead for each one), and either painfully insert each one into its >proper place, or sort the list when you think you have them all. Think about >what happens if you have a router that always tends to drop the N'th >fragment since frags are usually back-to-back to the same destination. > >Comments? Suggestions? > Is there any protection from a malicious network user who bombards a machine with fragments that never come to be a full packet? E.g. someone who intentioally fragments a packet and sends all but one of the fragments to the victim machine, and keep doing that until the victim machine runs out of TCP/IP buffer space? That could be a problem. ------------------------------ From: zmbenhal@netcom.com (Zeyd M. Ben-Halim) Subject: Re: locking for Linux? Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1993 23:18:23 GMT In article <1993Sep19.213645.8343@clouso.crim.ca> dgill@clouso.crim.ca (Dan Gill) writes: > Just wondering if anyone out there is working on locking() type >functions for Linux. I am trying to port some database code, but with >no real file/record locking it is (as you can imagine) quite difficult. Linux already has locking functions. see flock(3) and fcntl(2). It doesn't have locking() itself, however. Zeyd > > > -- Zeyd M. Ben-Halim zmbenhal@netcom.com 10479 1/4 Santa Monica Blvd, LA, CA, 90025 (310) 470-0281 ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help From: umlin000@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Zhuo Er Lin) Subject: UPS compile error: Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1993 00:47:25 GMT I download the patch and ups2.45, but the compililation has many errors. The most ones are MAX_PATH not defined. I check it is actually MAXPATHLEN, include donesn't help. Another error is not found. I remember someone mentioned it is compiled ok w/ the patch. Can those people upload the compiled version to a site or mail me a copy? Thanks. PS: my gcc is 2.4.5 from slackware 1.02. I think it shd be the update verison. -- ======================================================================== | Eric Lin Voice: (204) 783-2884 | | Computer Engineering FAX Modem: (204) 783-2884 | | University of Manitoba Internet: Umlin000@cc.Umanitoba.CA | ------------------------------ From: williams@vierzk.bates.scarolina.edu (Billy L. Williams Jr.) Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help Subject: Patchlevel 13 alpha seems to break my "talk" Date: 20 Sep 1993 01:34:01 GMT Hello, Has anybody else gotten their "talk" program to work after upgrading to pl13alpha? talk will lock up after one person types a lot and allows the other to type one or two characters. I have fetched talk from sunsite and recompiled it, yet it behaves the same way as my old binary. I am using pl 13 alpha (the latest one on funet.fi) with: SysV ipc, tcpip, AT1500 net drivers, 16 meg limit (becuase of the net card's driver), math emulation (386-40), and no kernel debugging. Does anybody know if it's a problem with the ipc or tcp/ip code? Thanks for any input. Billy L. Williams, Jr. -- Billy L. Williams, Jr. e-mail: williams@vierzk.bates.scarolina.edu University of South Carolina Master of International Business Candidate Try Linux--it will be the last OS you ever install............Go Cocks! ..................finger me for pgp key and more info.................. ------------------------------ ** 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 ******************************