From: Digestifier To: Linux-Development@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Development@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Sat, 20 Nov 93 17:13:28 EST Subject: Linux-Development Digest #242 Linux-Development Digest #242, Volume #1 Sat, 20 Nov 93 17:13:28 EST Contents: Re: Don't use Motif for free sw: it now requires runtime royalties! (Ed H. Chi) rfmail (Debi Reid) Re: Don't use Motif for free sw: it now requires runtime royalties! (R. Stewart Ellis) Re: WANTED: COBOL compiler (Charles T Wilson -- Personal Account) Re: Don't use Motif for free sw: it now requires runtime royalties! (Barry A. Warsaw) Re: Don't use Motif for free sw: it now requires runtime royalties! (Larry W. Virden) Re: Andrew File System (Stephen Williams) Mosaic-2.0 patches (Doug McIntyre) Re: corewar (William S. Kaster) Re: How many BogoMips on a Pentium? (William S. Kaster) Re: corewar (William S. Kaster) Re: How many BogoMips on a washing machine? (Lars Wirzenius) TAMU X INSTALL (Patrick J. Volkerding) Re: WANTED: COBOL compiler (Mark A. Horton) Re: Don't use Motif for free sw: it now requires runtime royalties! (Piercarlo Grandi) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crossposted-To: comp.infosystems.www,comp.windows.x,comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sources.d From: ehhchi@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Ed H. Chi) Subject: Re: Don't use Motif for free sw: it now requires runtime royalties! Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 17:32:58 GMT In article , R. Stewart Ellis wrote: >Mosaic is perhaps the single most important >free Internet application and the modal way of acquiring it is to ftp it >from one of these sites, already statically linked. If the statements about >license fees for every distributed copy are true, then those of us who have >been getting Mosaic this way will be cut off. > >This has always been my greatest reservation about OSF and Motif. What I don't understand is: Why didn't they use tk/tcl toolkit? It has the ease of Motif programming, and it is free! I vote tk/tcl to be the toolkit of the choice. If you have never looked at tk/tcl, it is the time NOW. O'Reilly will be coming out with a tc/tkl Book in the early '94 (it is written by a professor at Brekeley whose name has escaped me.) I have seen a draft of the book, and this book is *good*. Is there any chance for Mosiac to be rewritten in tc/tkl?? :) --Ed -- o/ \ / \ / / \o email: ehhchi@epx.cis.umn.edu /# ##o # o## #\ chi@mermaid.micro.umn.edu / \ / \ /o\ / |\ / \ Dumping messy-dos, running Linux! ------------------------------ From: dreid@mailer.fsu.edu (Debi Reid) Subject: rfmail Date: 19 Nov 1993 20:13:36 -0500 I just got rfmail.0.05.01a.tar.z from tsx-11.mit.edu. I run the "Configure" script, answer all the question and all seems to go well. Anyrate, the problem steps in on the compile process. I am missing headers "packer-hash.h" and "key-hash.h". I looked at other rfmail version, and did not find these headers.. Anyrate, a person experieced with rfmail fido mail tosser whom has worked with rfmail is desired. Thanks ------------------------------ From: ellis@nova.gmi.edu (R. Stewart Ellis) Crossposted-To: comp.infosystems.www,comp.windows.x,comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Don't use Motif for free sw: it now requires runtime royalties! Date: 19 Nov 93 17:52:42 GMT pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: >>>> On Thu, 18 Nov 1993 21:56:50 GMT, pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) >>>> said: >pcg> What I understand is that up until 1.1.x the OSF implementation of >pcg> Motif did not require runtime royalties; [ ... ] since 1.2.x a >pcg> royalty is due for each copy of a program containing OSF Motif >pcg> object code; static linking no longer exempts from the royalty. >I have received informal confirmation as to this, from some OSF guy and >from an OSF licensee that has consulted his company's legal/marketing >people. >As of 1.2.x statically or dynamically linked binaries using the >OSF/Motif libraries involve the payment of a royalty to OSF, in all >cases, without exception. >There are two ways to pay such royalty: the end user pays it by >purchasing his/her own copy of the OSF/Motif runtime package, or the >developer distributing the binary pays it for each copy included in the >binaries distributed. >For most commercial OSes the 1.2.x runtime libraries (and royalty) are >bundled in the cost of the OS license, so the developer need not pay the >royalty again; thus a developer need pay a royalty only for every copy >of an OSF/Motif application that is distributed for an OS (like any free >OS) for which an OSF/Motif runtime license is not bundled in, or if they >don't have proof that the user has purchased their own copy of the >OSF/Motif runtime. >If the end user has not paid the runtime royalty either by buying it >bundled with the OS or by buying it separately, the developer may avoid >paying the royalty only by continuing to use the 1.1.x libraries. >Which is what I had written in my original article in a more succinct >form, BTW. We seem to caught in a battle of duelling OSF representatives. In response to my posting about the possible difficulties this might pose for the distribution of Mosaic, I received the following from David Brooks at OSF: In article you write: Mosaic is perhaps the single most important >free Internet application and the modal way of acquiring it is to ftp it >from one of these sites, already statically linked. If the statements about >license fees for every distributed copy are true, then those of us who have >been getting Mosaic this way will be cut off. I forget if I sent you mail about this before, but if I did I have to amend it. First: static bound copies attract no royalty or license fee; what is true in general is that the target system must itself be licensed to run Motif. Second: since NCSA is covered by an academic source license, they are exempted from the requirement that the target system be licensed. Hence, any pre-linked copy of Mosaic can be used anywhere, under the current rules, even with Motif 1.2.x. If you require any more information please call Darrell Crow or Cathy Betz at OSF (crow@osf.org and betz@osf.org, but 617-621-8700 preferred). David Brooks OSF =========end inclusion======= -- R.Stewart(Stew) Ellis, Assoc.Prof., (Off)313-762-9765 ___________________ Humanities & Social Science, GMI Eng.& Mgmt. Inst. / _____ ______ Flint, MI 48504 ellis@nova.gmi.edu / / / / / / Gopher,News and sendmail maintainer, all around hack /________/ / / / / ------------------------------ From: ctwilson@rock.concert.net (Charles T Wilson -- Personal Account) Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help Subject: Re: WANTED: COBOL compiler Date: 20 Nov 1993 04:13:44 GMT In article <1993Nov17.093123.24691@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>, wrote: >Nick Hilliard (nick@quay.ie) wrote: >: If you can get your hands on it, have a look at "Why Pascal is not my >: Favourite Programming language", written by Brian Kernighan (or was it >: Ritchie?) It's a devastating (and justified, IMHO) attack on the >: deficiencies of Pascal, and why it should not be used. > >It may be a ``devastating attack on the deficiencies of *an old standard* >Pascal''. It says nothing about modern Pascal implementations - and he >particularly mentions how his critisism is restricted to unextended Pascal, >a language that almost nobody uses today. The (main) problem with 'modern' Pascal is that it's very nonportable. Also, is the size of an array still part of the declaration, having the effect of enforcing name equivalence? I also have to wonder if it's still in effect a 'one-pass' language, as per the old visibility rules. -- /-----------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Tom Wilson | "I can't complain, but sometimes | | ctwilson@rock.concert.net | I still do." | | | -Joe Walsh | ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x,comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sources.d From: warsaw@nlm.nih.gov (Barry A. Warsaw) Subject: Re: Don't use Motif for free sw: it now requires runtime royalties! Reply-To: warsaw@nlm.nih.gov (Barry A. Warsaw) Date: 19 Nov 1993 18:57:44 GMT >>>>> "WL" == Warner Losh writes: WL> Nope. Something done by the same author, Mark Linton, will be WL> on the X11R6 tape. It is called Fresco, but it doesn't have a WL> look and feel to it. Sounds like writing a C++ MotifLAF layer on top of Fresco would be a very worthy project for someone(s) who support free s/w. Can't wait til 4/15/94! (not to pay my taxes mind you... but to get R6 and Fresco :-) ------------------------------ From: lwv26@cas.org (Larry W. Virden) Crossposted-To: comp.lang.tcl,comp.infosystems.www,comp.windows.x,comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Don't use Motif for free sw: it now requires runtime royalties! Date: 19 Nov 93 20:21:41 GMT Reply-To: lvirden@cas.org In Message-ID: , ehhchi@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Ed H. Chi) says : In article , R. Stewart Ellis wrote: : >Mosaic is perhaps the single most important : >free Internet application and the modal way of acquiring it is to ftp it : >from one of these sites, already statically linked. If the statements about : >license fees for every distributed copy are true, then those of us who have : >been getting Mosaic this way will be cut off. : > : >This has always been my greatest reservation about OSF and Motif. : : : What I don't understand is: : : Why didn't they use tk/tcl toolkit? It has the ease of Motif programming, : and it is free! : : I vote tk/tcl to be the toolkit of the choice. If you have never looked : at tk/tcl, it is the time NOW. : : O'Reilly will be coming out with a tc/tkl Book in the early '94 (it is : written by a professor at Brekeley whose name has escaped me.) I have : seen a draft of the book, and this book is *good*. Hmm - the books I know most about are not from O'Reily but from Addison or Prentice. The father of Tcl/Tk - Dr. John Ousterhout has one of the two books, and he is going through Addison-Wesley. I am not currently at liberty to mention the other books relating to Tcl/Tk in progress - but hey guys, I think my time has freed up and I should be able to spend time during the next week on the Nov edition of the FAQ! : : Is there any chance for Mosiac to be rewritten in tc/tkl?? :) : It probably would not be trivial. The 'gotcha' about Tk, while I love it dearly, is that it has a different programming philosophy than does an Xt based program design. -- :s :s Larry W. Virden INET: lvirden@cas.org :s Personal: 674 Falls Place, Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-1614 ------------------------------ From: sdw@meaddata.com (Stephen Williams) Subject: Re: Andrew File System Date: 19 Nov 1993 20:41:35 GMT Charles T Wilson -- Personal Account (ctwilson@rock.concert.net) wrote: : Okay, okay, so I'm following up my own post %-& : I had some things to add...for those who asked, here's a quote from ... On a related note, does anyone have info on the proposed/being worked on NFS+? I thought it was supposed to add Kerberos, ACL's, better naming service support, etc.? I saw it mentioned about 9 mo. ago by USL or UI or Sun. Might have been tossed in the decision to support DCE. I never saw any reason that NFS couldn't be fixed/extended. sdw -- Stephen D. Williams Local Internet Gateway Co.; SDW Systems 513 496-5223APager LIG dev./sales Internet: sdw@lig.net CIS 76244.210@compuserve.com OO R&D Source Dist. By Horse: 2464 Rosina Dr., Miamisburg, OH 45342-6430 GNU Support ICBM: 39 34N 85 15W I love it when a plan comes together ------------------------------ From: merlyn@jacobs.jacobs.mn.org (Doug McIntyre) Subject: Mosaic-2.0 patches Date: 19 Nov 1993 12:13:57 -0600 Here are the patches I made to Mosaic-2.0 to get it to working under Linux. I think I mentioned this to the person in charge of net2Debugged as well. It patches around Mosaic 2.0 trying to do non-blocking I/O on a connect to a socket. Apparently, it works okay when doing normal blocking I/O on the socket as well.. The patches are tiny. They just #if 0 out two small patches of code. It would be nice to get HDF compiled under Linux to get linked in, but HDF requires DTM, and DTM uses sendmsg(), which Linux doesn't have yet. I wish I was more savvy in network programming to be able to program around sendmsg() but my attempts to fail about 50% of the time :( There was somebody who did Collage for Linux, and I asked for their patches, but all I got was a brush off from them ????? (Collage is a wrapper around HDF mainly). --- HTTCP.c.old Tue Nov 9 11:14:51 1993 +++ HTTCP.c Thu Nov 18 16:06:47 1993 @@ -335,6 +335,7 @@ /* Now, let's get a socket set up from the server for the data: */ *s = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP); +#if 0 /* * Make the socket non-blocking, so the connect can be canceled. * This means that when we issue the connect we should NOT @@ -352,6 +353,8 @@ HTProgress(line); } } +#endif + HTClearActiveIcon(); /* @@ -360,7 +363,6 @@ * status. */ status = connect(*s, (struct sockaddr*)&soc_address, sizeof(soc_address)); - /* * According to the Sun man page for connect: * EINPROGRESS The socket is non-blocking and the con- @@ -465,7 +467,7 @@ } } } - +#if 0 /* * Make the socket blocking again on good connect */ @@ -490,7 +492,7 @@ { close(*s); } - +#endif return status; } -- merlyn@jacobs.mn.org I don't wanna watch TV... I don't wanna listen to the Corporations.. I don't wanna drown in American Society.. -- L7 ------------------------------ From: wsk@mayfield.hp.com (William S. Kaster) Subject: Re: corewar Date: 20 Nov 1993 06:37:23 GMT : How's this: : -... ..- - .. -.. --- -. - -.- -. --- .-- : : .- -. -.-- --- ..-. - .... --- ... . : : ..-. .- -. --. ..- .- --. . ... .-.-.- Spelling flame! He meant ``.-.. .- -. --. ..- .- --. . ...''. ;-) Regards, -Bill -- ------------------------------ From: wsk@mayfield.hp.com (William S. Kaster) Subject: Re: How many BogoMips on a Pentium? Date: 20 Nov 1993 06:42:20 GMT : I expect it to be the same number as a 486 DX2 66 MHz (35.5 or so). No, it is 23 to 24'ish on on P-60Mhz . Remember Bogomips are bogus. Maybe we could start a thread about how long it takes to compile the kernel. That would be a nice waste of bandwith. ``Uh, it takes me 7 minutes to compile the kernel after the make dep....duh....'' -Bill -- ===== William S. Kaster email: wsk@mayfield.hp.com ------------------------------ From: wsk@mayfield.hp.com (William S. Kaster) Subject: Re: corewar Date: 20 Nov 1993 06:31:25 GMT Grotme, Finda luka sep noptor. Win\`iato surcorop flur? Insta, Jamp brana ween sticka wi de English. Regards, -Bill ``Discriminate against me'' Kaster -- ===== William S. Kaster email: wsk@mayfield.hp.com ------------------------------ From: wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) Subject: Re: How many BogoMips on a washing machine? Date: 20 Nov 1993 12:05:13 +0200 I really wish I had a way to record and digitize the evil laughter that Linus emits every time he starts reading comp.os.linux.development (and .misc) and sees that the BogoMips threads still continue. Hey people: get a clue! BogoMips are _not_ a measure of system speed. They are a measure of how quickly a processor does a loop that does nothing. They are used by device drivers when they have to wait for very small periods of time. Reporting your BogoMips is about as useful as telling us that your washing machine makes your clothes wet. -- Lars.Wirzenius@helsinki.fi (finger wirzeniu@klaava.helsinki.fi) Humans are unreliable, computers are non-deterministically reliable. PS. And stop putting Distribution: comp into your headers. ------------------------------ Subject: TAMU X INSTALL From: volkerdi@mhd1.moorhead.msus.edu (Patrick J. Volkerding) Date: 20 Nov 93 05:08:19 -0600 Quite to my surprise, I found myself flamed by some of the XFree people over including this in the Slackware distribution. I've never had any problems with it, and I don't know of anyone who has. I imagine there are some people out there who never did get it to work, but I've used it to great success on a variety of accelerated and non-accelerated cards. So, I'd like to hear if anyone out there has experienced trouble with this package, such as hardware problems during the initial setup, or later while using a mode that seems to work. Reports of success would be good, too. :^) --- Patrick Volkerding volkerdi@mhd1.moorhead.msus.edu ------------------------------ From: mahmha@crl.com (Mark A. Horton) Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help Subject: Re: WANTED: COBOL compiler Date: 20 Nov 1993 04:59:55 -0800 Charles T Wilson -- Personal Account (ctwilson@rock.concert.net) wrote: : In article <1993Nov17.093123.24691@nessie.mcc.ac.uk>, : wrote: : >Nick Hilliard (nick@quay.ie) wrote: : >: If you can get your hands on it, have a look at "Why Pascal is not my : >: Favourite Programming language", written by Brian Kernighan (or was it : >: Ritchie?) It's a devastating (and justified, IMHO) attack on the : >: deficiencies of Pascal, and why it should not be used. : > : >It may be a ``devastating attack on the deficiencies of *an old standard* : >Pascal''. It says nothing about modern Pascal implementations - and he : >particularly mentions how his critisism is restricted to unextended Pascal, : >a language that almost nobody uses today. : The (main) problem with 'modern' Pascal is that it's very nonportable. Also, : is the size of an array still part of the declaration, having the effect : of enforcing name equivalence? I also have to wonder if it's still in : effect a 'one-pass' language, as per the old visibility rules. Fascinating... a thread on COBOL with no mention of COBOL itself! This must be some hitherto unbeknownst to me usage of the term "COBOL!" Perhaps a change of the name of this thread would be in order? Just curious. -- Mark A. Horton ka4ybr mah@ka4ybr.atl.ga.us mah@ka4ybr.com P.O.Box 747 Decatur GA US 30031-0747 ICBM: 33 45 N / 084 16 W +1.404.371.0291 Cruise: 33 45 30 N / 084 16 50 W "We may note that, for the purposes of these experiments, the symbol "=" has the meaning "may be confused with." ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.infosystems.www,comp.windows.x,comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sources.d From: pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) Subject: Re: Don't use Motif for free sw: it now requires runtime royalties! Reply-To: pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1993 14:52:03 GMT >>> On 19 Nov 93 17:52:42 GMT, ellis@nova.gmi.edu (R. Stewart Ellis) >>> said: R> We seem to caught in a battle of duelling OSF representative. They are all saying exactly the same thing, which is what I had written in my first report, that the Motif runtime binary licensing terms have been signficantly tightened recently. R> In response to my posting about the possible difficulties this might R> pose for the distribution of Mosaic, I received the following from R> David Brooks at OSF: I received the same comments: Brooks> First: static bound copies attract no royalty or license fee; Brooks> what is true in general is that the target system must itself be Brooks> licensed to run Motif. This is just disingenuous doubletalk -- it says that you need not pay the royalty _twice_, not that you need not pay the runtime royalty, which is due in every case, whether the binary is statically or dynamically linked. It is also rather hard to avoid paying it twice or more. The runtime royalty has to be paid (unless the binary is distributed by an educational license holder or the version is < 1.2) _always_; the one choice is as to who pays it: the end user by purchasing for every one of their machines, or the developer by paying it on every (first) binary installed. As I explained at length in another article, the distributor of an OSF Motif application must choose to either pay the royalty on each and every copy that is _installed_ (not merely distributed), or ask, each and every time, for documentary evidence that the royalty has already been paid for the intended end user machine. How probable it is that a distributor would bother doing so is left to the reader to guess. Also, in neither case the binary can be put up for anon FTP, because distributors has a legal obligation to keep auditable records that prove that the royalty has been paid, either by them or by the end user, for each machine on which the application binary is _installed_. All this if the binary incorporates a library version > 1.2 and is not distributed by an educational licensee: Brooks> Second: since NCSA is covered by an academic source license, Brooks> they are exempted from the requirement that the target system be Brooks> licensed. Hence, any pre-linked copy of Mosaic can be used Brooks> anywhere, under the current rules, even with Motif 1.2.x. A big problem is that the Mosaic binary for Linux is not distributed by NCSA, but by somebody that has a normal binary license (purchased from MetroLink; but I have fuzzy recollection that perhaps MetroLink have managed, by paying a large sum to OSF, to be allowed to offer the old license terms on the new libraries). There are also a number of other Motif freeware applications whose binaries, if any, are not distributed by entities holding educational licenses; note that the exemption from paying a royalty is given not to educational institutions, but to educational license holders, and a rather small percentage of educational institutions have bothered to get an educational Motif license -- and they should not get one, because as soon as they get one it will be risky for them to develop, if they ever wanted, an OSF Motif clone. All told, I reckon that the OSF move, and Brooks's explanation of it, is amazingly hypocritical. I don't see any good reason to use OSF Motif for free sw; most free sw authors don't want to hire a lawyer to check they are complying with OSF's new restrictive runtime binary royalty policy and an accountant to keep track of how many royalties are due for copies installed on systems for which the runtime binary royalty has not been already paid. ------------------------------ ** 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 ******************************