From: Digestifier To: Linux-Development@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Development@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Tue, 23 Nov 93 04:13:24 EST Subject: Linux-Development Digest #251 Linux-Development Digest #251, Volume #1 Tue, 23 Nov 93 04:13:24 EST Contents: Re: Don't use Motif for free sw: it now requires runtime royalties! (Arne Henrik Juul) Re: Really bad Motif justification revisited (Olaf Titz) Re: Don't use Motif for free sw: it now requires runtime royalties! (Kaleb Keithley) Re: Thought... (Grant Edwards) Re: Really bad Motif justification revisited (Marc Andreessen) IP Forwarding? subnet routing? (Jay Allen) IP Forwarding? subnet routing? (Jay Allen) Re: How many BogoMips on a washing machine? (Ronald van Loon) Simple question, why no fsck for xiafs (David Jeske) Re: Some ideas and reasons for a more modular kernel. (Brandon S. Allbery) Re: 1542B and DSP3160 bad I/O Performance (Arjan de Vet) Re: Don't use Motif for free sw: it now requires runtime royalties! (Keenan Ross) Re: Don't use Motif for free sw: it now requires runtime royalties! (Matt Ranney) Re: TAMU X INSTALL (Bill C. Riemers) Re: Don't use Motif for free sw: it now requires runtime royalties! (Matt Ranney) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: arnej@imf.unit.no (Arne Henrik Juul) 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: 22 Nov 93 22:22:39 In article <1993Nov22.112343.22101@dxcern.cern.ch> hallam@dxal18.cern.ch (HALLAM-BAKER Phillip) writes: > tk/tcl does not provide the same quality of product that Motif does. For > a long time tcl was unusable on VMS systems and was flaky for developers. > I had very serious hassle trying to get tkwww going because it required a > widget that did not work with the new version of tk which we had already > installed. I know that I am going to get flamed for saying this buy the > UNIX hacker community that love software held together by string and hope > but there is a difference between commercial quality software and free > stuff. Usually you have to pay for commercial quality stuff, Mosaic being > a rare exception (exceptions to the getting commercial quality for stuff > you buy rule are far more frequent). If Motif is an example of 'commercial quality', I'll take the non- commercial stuff any day. Motif has lots of bad code and bugs. Since we have a Motif source license, I have been able to actually check and see. "there is a difference between commercial quality software and free stuff" ? How about: "there is a difference between free quality software and commercial stuff" ? That's just as true. I prefer: - fast response to bug-reports. - being able to fix bugs myself if I'm able and need it. - getting my bug fixes back into the master version. The third point is difficult-to-impossible with commercial software. With free software, it's *always* possible, and most often very easy. - Arne H. Juul ------------------------------ From: uknf@rzstud1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Olaf Titz) Crossposted-To: comp.infosystems.www,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Really bad Motif justification revisited Date: 22 Nov 1993 21:23:16 GMT In article <2cr9ft$837@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, Alan S. Mazer wrote: > Not to be flippant since I use free software regularly, but what exactly does > anyone lose by "piss[ing] off those people who are interested in *free* > software"? Free software doesn't provide employment, and maybe that isn't a > problem for you, but there are lots of unemployed people here who have other Grrr... I was talking of people at an *academic* site who don't have to make their money out of software since they are paid anyway... (Unless this is wrong, in which case I haven't understood the US academic system... but I think of TeX and other great things coming out of this...) > don't tell me I'm obligated to give you free software simply because you > don't have the ability to pay for it. Anyone who writes free software is Grrr again... I *never* said this. I was just criticizing NCSA for their decision to base Mosaic on Motif although not forced to do so. Appreciation of free software doesn't exclude the possibility to think of other solutions (i.e. commercial ones - although I won't buy a commercial WWW client, or C compiler, or whatever, I can well think of reasons to do so), but it doesn't exclude the possibility to criticize either. Olaf -- olaf titz o olaf@bigred.ka.sub.org praetorius@irc comp.sc.student _>\ _ s_titz@ira.uka.de LINUX - the choice karlsruhe germany (_)<(_) uknf@dkauni2.bitnet of a GNU generation what good is a photograph of you? everytime i look at it it makes me feel blue ------------------------------ From: kaleb@expo.lcs.mit.edu (Kaleb Keithley) 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: 22 Nov 93 20:53:51 GMT aad@dvorak.amd.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes: >>find the motif look and feel to be "cheesy" sometimes. (twm {does this use the >>Athena widgets?} is nicer than mwm, as far a I'm concerned). >twm is Xt-based: ><=>lovecraft<=>ldd `which twm` > -lXmu.4 => /usr/local/lib/x11r5/lib/libXmu.so.4.10 > -lXt.4 => /usr/local/lib/x11r5/lib/libXt.so.4.10 > -lXext.4 => /usr/local/lib/x11r5/lib/libXext.so.4.10 > -lX11.4 => /usr/local/lib/x11r5/lib/libX11.so.4.10 > -lc.1 => /usr/lib/libc.so.1.8 > -ldl.1 => /usr/lib/libdl.so.1.0 Actually twm is just Xlib based. Twm does make use of some functions in the Xmu library. Some functions in Xmu in turn have some dependencies on Xt, but SunOS style shared libraries can't discriminate at the level of granularity necessary to avoid pulling in Xt unnecessarily. Observe that with SVR4 style shared libraries that Xt is not pulled in: Sun Microsystems Inc. SunOS 5.3 Generic September 1993 % ldd `which twm` libXmu.so.5.0 => /X11/lib/libXmu.so.5.0 libXext.so.5.0 => /X11/lib/libXext.so.5.0 libX11.so.5.0 => /X11/lib/libX11.so.5.0 libsocket.so.1 => /usr/lib/libsocket.so.1 libnsl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libnsl.so.1 libc.so.1 => /usr/lib/libc.so.1 libthread.so.1 => /usr/lib/libthread.so.1 libdl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libdl.so.1 libintl.so.1 => /usr/lib/libintl.so.1 libw.so.1 => /usr/lib/libw.so.1 -- Kaleb Keithley X Consortium ------------------------------ From: grante@hydro.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) Subject: Re: Thought... Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 20:05:26 GMT Paul Hatchman (pdhatchm@socs.uts.EDU.AU) wrote: : You will no doubt find that full-duplex using this method will be : unworkable.. The one second delay will be fed back into the : microphone, sent to the other machine, fed back into the microphone : etc etc etc.. until you get some very annoying sounds. I did try: $ cat /dev/audio >/dev/audio And if the volume is turned up loud enough you get a feedback loop as expected. But since the loop delay is about 1 second, it's more of a rumbling sound than the howl you typically think of getting with audio feedback. : I think radio really is your best option. It would be if I actually wanted to talk to somebody. ;) -- Grant Edwards |Yow! As President I have to Rosemount Inc. |go vacuum my coin |collection! grante@rosemount.com | ------------------------------ From: marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen) Crossposted-To: comp.infosystems.www,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Really bad Motif justification revisited Date: 22 Nov 93 15:39:31 In article <2cr854$a5t@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> uknf@rzstud1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Olaf Titz) writes: > Linux is a part (Intel 386/486/Pentium), we're developing Mosaic > for Windows. Not a perfect solution, but it does give us broader I read this as "We [academic institution without profit intention behind - or correct me if I'm wrong] are mainly interested in support for the broadest user base of *commercial* systems." Surprise... Let me spell it out. We have a certain amount of resources and we want to provide free software to the largest number of users in the most stable and reliable way possible. The logical thing to do, given those constraints, is to base the software on what the *vast majority* of users have on the machines sitting on their desks as supplied by their vendors -- if it's an X-based Unix workstation, that's Motif, and if it's an Intel 386/486/Pentium, that's Windows. Please note: I have nothing but respect for people who prefer wholly free solutions -- GNU, Linux, tk/tcl, etc. I have nothing but respect for those products themselves, and I benefit from a number of them every day (most notably, GNU Emacs and GCC), for which I am grateful. However, that still doesn't change the reasoning in the previous paragraph. But what really makes the reader sad and angry is the following "and those people who don't want to buy Motif are, anyway, better off with DOS and Windows." I never wrote, or said, that. NCSA is making excellent products and your [sic], but don't tell me that if I'm just a poor student with an old 386 and no extra $$$ to spend on software the right thing for me is MSWindoze. I'm not telling you that. We can't provide for every conceivable configuration of system with the resources we have available and still meet our requirements for broad-based stability and reliability. We provide free software as best we can in such a way that a very large number of installed systems can run it, and we hope it makes some people happy -- that's all. Marc -- Marc Andreessen Software Development Group National Center for Supercomputing Applications marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (MIME welcomed here) ------------------------------ From: hgja@acacia.cs.pdx.edu (Jay Allen) Subject: IP Forwarding? subnet routing? Date: 22 Nov 1993 21:42:28 GMT My perenial search for people experianced in the area of subnet to subnet routing for a linux box pl 13, with two NE200 ethercards in it. System now operates with out self destructing, but does not forward IPs from one card to another, inspite of a careful routing scheme.. Anyone else using Linux for routing? please respond to this group or hgja@odin.cc.pdx.edu Thanks in advance, Jay Allen ------------------------------ From: hgja@acacia.cs.pdx.edu (Jay Allen) Subject: IP Forwarding? subnet routing? Date: 22 Nov 1993 21:49:34 GMT I have a Linux pl13 machine that has two ethercards in it. One is connected to the campus backbone, and the other is connected to my local LAN (14 MACs, 6 Windows, 2 netprinters). They are seperate subnets (campus side is .72.0 and the LAN side is .155.0. So either side can login to the linux host but neither side can tunnel through the host to the other side (ip forwarding). Any suggestions? Please reply to this group, or hgja@odin.cc.pdx.edu Many thanks... in advance. ------------------------------ From: rvloon@cv.ruu.nl (Ronald van Loon) Subject: Re: How many BogoMips on a washing machine? Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 21:57:40 GMT In a09878@giant.rsoft.bc.ca (Curt Sampson) writes: |"rabe@akela.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Ralf G. R. Bergs) writes: |" |">wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) writes: |" |">[...] |">> Reporting your BogoMips is about as useful |">>as telling us that your washing machine makes your clothes wet. |" |">My washing machine doesn not only make the clothes wet, it even CLEANS |">it!!! :-) |" |"Yes, but comparisons like this are useless, becuase, though washing |"machines do run at different speeds, how fast your washing machine |"cleans the clothes varies depending on the load and what kind of |"clothes you want cleaned. The MIPS (Million Insoluble Particles per |"Second) removal rate is different between dark and light loads, hot |"and cold wash, hard and soft water, etc. So let's not get silly , ok? :-) Mine gets 15.32, LL HW HW Bogomips. (light load, hot wash, hot water). -- Ronald van Loon / More computing sins are committed in the name Maintainer of Motif++ / of efficiciency (without necessarily achieving it) than Job offers welcome / for any other single reason - including blind stupidity. (rvloon@cv.ruu.nl) / -- attributed to W.A. Wulf ------------------------------ From: jeske@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (David Jeske) Subject: Simple question, why no fsck for xiafs Date: 22 Nov 1993 22:33:03 GMT I do not want to start a "ext2"/"xiafs" fight. I'm just wondering, is there a specific reason that there is no fsck for xiafs? Or has everyone just decided that it's unnecessary because of ext2? What about Frank Xia, did he plan to do a fsck and then quit? I'm not looking for someone to convince me to run ext2 (I *DO* run ext2) Also, if for some reason I'm extremely misinformed and there is a fsck for xiafs, please point me in the right direction. -- David Jeske(N9LCA)/CompEng Student at Univ of Ill at Cham-Urbana/NeXT Programmer CoCreator of the GTalk Chat Software System - online at (708)998-0008 Mail: jeske@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu NeXTMail: jeske@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu jeske@atlantis.eid.anl.gov Talk: jeske@armageddon.slip.uiuc.edu ------------------------------ From: bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery) Subject: Re: Some ideas and reasons for a more modular kernel. Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 16:56:49 GMT In article <1993Nov22.085300.1153@kth.se> md85-epi@hemul.nada.kth.se (Urban Koistinen) writes: >Another use would be encryption. >Encrypted swap anyone? Gack. Paging is slow enough without adding encryption overhead... ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery kf8nh@kf8nh.ampr.org bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org "MSDOS didn't get as bad as it is overnight -- it took over ten years of careful development." ---dmeggins@aix1.uottawa.ca ------------------------------ From: devet@adv.win.tue.nl (Arjan de Vet) Subject: Re: 1542B and DSP3160 bad I/O Performance Date: 22 Nov 1993 23:35:12 +0100 In article <81264.32.753961163@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de>, RAINER SCHIELE INFORMATIK <81264@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de> wrote: >I have a 1.6 GB DEC Harddisk and the Adaptec 1542B and i have only 800kb >read performance(the disk have normal over 4MB disk I/O). Is this the result >of using the Adaptec in asynchronus Mode. Give it a way to switch to >synchron mode in the kernel. Give it a way to switch to higher DMA Speeds on >the Adaptec(Sotfware). Is the 1542b driver going to use the synchron mode in >the Future I use a 2.0 Gb DEC SCSI-2 harddisk with an Adaptec 1542C on a 486DX33 and I get only 600-700 kB/sec (using iozone). I don't know whether this is `normal' and what kind of settings could improve this performance. The performance as it is now is not faster than my IDE disks. I remember some discussions on the SCSI/KERNEL channel about improving SCSI performance in Linux. I don't know what the current status is. Arjan -- Arjan de Vet (home) Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands (work) ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.infosystems.www,comp.windows.x,comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sources.d From: keenan@beretta.inmet.com (Keenan Ross) Subject: Re: Don't use Motif for free sw: it now requires runtime royalties! Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 23:30:50 GMT I just wanted to emphasize this last sentence in Marc Andreessen's post. This technique seems applicable to all Motif programs and is a good reason to keep up your academic contacts. In article , marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen) writes: |> distant future; remember, all it really takes is someone with an |> academic site license for Motif and a Linux box to make a binary |> everyone can use, or donate us a development system and we'll do |> it. -- --Keenan Ross keenan@inmet.com Intermetrics, Inc. uunet!inmet!keenan 733 Concord Ave. PHONE: (617) 661-1840 Cambridge, MA 02138 FAX: (617) 868-2843 ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x,comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sources.d From: mjr@syl.dl.nec.com (Matt Ranney) Subject: Re: Don't use Motif for free sw: it now requires runtime royalties! Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 22:34:25 GMT mkl@rob.cs.tu-bs.de (Mario Klebsch DG1AM) writes: >But please don't forget that these staticaly linked executables do >not only need more space on disk, but also need more virtual memory >when executiing. And this means a lot more swapping, if the user does Do they really? How much more? I thought that the only difference in memory usage between using shared and static libs was roughly the size of the .sa file. Is this incorrect? [...consistent graphic library...] Yes, that's wonderful. I agree that a consistent LAF is a very Good Thing. However, having a shared library to facilitate this might not always be the best way. Consider applications for which you do not have source. What if for some reason you get your new version of this super cool shared graphic library and it breaks those old apps? -- Matt Ranney - mjr@syl.dl.nec.com "You know, I don't think theres a man, woman, or child alive today who doesn't enjoy a lovely beverage." -DL ------------------------------ From: bcr@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Bill C. Riemers) Subject: Re: TAMU X INSTALL Date: 22 Nov 93 22:42:02 GMT In article <2cot5a$50m@knobel.knirsch.de> andreas@knobel.knirsch.de (Andreas Klemm) writes: >philp@universe.digex.net (Phil Perucci) writes: >>I remember reading related posts some time back. It seems the danger >>is for people without multisync monitors. Multisync monitors are reported >>to be safe in that they can not be driven beyond safe operating limits. >>Non-multisync monitor CAN be driven outside safe limits. This can >>quickly result in blown fly-back transformers! Bummer! >I read in a german newsgroup from Dirk Hohndel, that even >multisync monitors could be affected, because not all models >check the frequency first. That is correct. I've had personal experience with this. My first monitor was blown by playing with random mode lines. The mode I found seemed to work, but shortly destroyed the monitor. Even multisync monitors have a frequency range they designed to operate in. The difference is that normally the frequency range is much wider, and the damage is not as major if you do blow them. Also manufactures are more likely to replace them if you do blow them while they are still under warrentee. At least Gateway replaced mine with no questions asked. Bill ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.infosystems.www,comp.windows.x,comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.windows.x.motif,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sources.d From: mjr@syl.dl.nec.com (Matt Ranney) Subject: Re: Don't use Motif for free sw: it now requires runtime royalties! Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 22:21:18 GMT aad@dvorak.amd.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes: >>(a) Our academic site license lets us distribute free, >> statically-linked binaries >Read my lips: binaries -- especially statically-linked ones -- don't cut it. Have you told that to your commercial vendors? They certainly seem to think they "cut it". My copy of FrameMaker is a tidy 4.6 megs, dynamically linked with only libc and libdl. Budtool is a trim 3.7 megs, and it's statically linked. These apps "cut it" every day for us, and I'm sure they cut it for Frame and Delta's other customers too. In case you care... nebraska:~$ ll /usr/local/frame4/bin/sunxm.os.sparc/maker4X.exe -rwxr-xr-x 1 mjr install 4661248 Aug 18 14:44 /usr/local/frame4/bin/sunxm.os.sparc/maker4X.exe nebraska:~$ ldd /usr/local/frame4/bin/sunxm.os.sparc/maker4X.exe -ldl.1 => /usr/lib/libdl.so.1.0 -lc.1 => /usr/lib/libc.so.1.8.2 maryland:~$ ll /usr/budtool/bin/sun4/xbt_mo -rwsr-xr-x 1 root wheel 3768320 Sep 4 17:27 /usr/budtool/bin/sun4/xbt_mo maryland:~$ ldd /usr/budtool/bin/sun4/xbt_mo /usr/budtool/bin/sun4/xbt_mo: statically linked -- Matt Ranney - mjr@syl.dl.nec.com "You know, I don't think theres a man, woman, or child alive today who doesn't enjoy a lovely beverage." -DL ------------------------------ ** 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 ******************************