From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Sun, 5 Dec 93 12:13:10 EST Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #375 Linux-Misc Digest #375, Volume #1 Sun, 5 Dec 93 12:13:10 EST Contents: Re: Xwindows stuff (Martin Boening) Re: Linux Consortium (Andreas Klemm) Re: SQL for University Ingres (Roy Hann) Re: SQL for University Ingres ("Brian E. Gallew") Re: TeX, SGML, and graphics? (Sunando Sen) Re: Linux IS well documented. (David Alan Black) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: boening.pad@sni.de (Martin Boening) Subject: Re: Xwindows stuff Date: 5 Dec 93 14:00:18 GMT Hi folks, In tem1@Isis.MsState.Edu (Tim Miller) writes: >I have a brief question and I'm not sure if this is in a FAQ anywhere. >I know that while in Xwindows (specifically xdm driven twm stuff) that >using Ctrl-Alt-F1 will return you to the virtual consoles. However, >how does one get back? I tried the same combination but it didn't >work so...? Ummm, pressing Ctrl-Alt-F1 when in X doesn't actually return you to "the virtual consoles", it specifically returns you to virtual console no. 1. Similarly, if you were to press Ctrl-Alt-F2, you'd be back to virtual console 2. To make a long story short, pressing Ctrl-Alt-F switches you to virtual console no. . This may seem confusing, because when you are in a virtual console without X running, pressing Alt-F does the same thing. But since pressing Ctrl-Alt-F in any mode does it too, you could go ahead and just forget the Alt-F. Now, I don't know how it is on your system, but on my system the X Server is also started in a virtual console, namely the first one without a getty, which is no. 7. So to get back to X, I need to press Ctrl-Alt-F7. So, find out, which virtual console your X server runs on and switch to that virtual console. Hope this helps So long, Martin -- Email.....: boening.pad@sni.de Paper Mail: Martin Boening, Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme AG; Dept.: MR OI 4, Riemekestr. 160, 33106 Paderborn, W.-Germany Phone.....: +49 5251 835641 ------------------------------ From: andreas@knobel.knirsch.de (Andreas Klemm) Subject: Re: Linux Consortium Date: 5 Dec 1993 14:36:58 -0000 markline@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Mark Line) writes: >andreas@knobel.knirsch.de (Andreas Klemm) writes: >>Magnus Y Alvestad writes: >>>Linux Consortium Principles v0.2 >>>o Our 'public' are non-experienced users that want to buy Linux. We >>> will judge distributions and whether they are suited for novices. We >>Better they run good at all. Don't know what suited for novices >>should mean ... There is good info material out there, public domain, too. >Anybody who reads your comments below will realize that you haven't a >clue what 'suited for novices' means -- you didn't have to spell it >out. If you're not interested in novices, say so and leave it at that. >Those of us whose livelihood involves catering to novices (yes, they >even qualify as human beings and *everything*) *are* interested, and will >do whatever it takes to keep them out of hot water. For most computer >users, solving a glitch by recompiling the kernel is not an option. No I have nothing against guidance of end users if they really have the occasion to come to an own conclusion what to buy and what not ! I think a consortium makes this process too easy ... You give a product the label "Consortium proofed" or whatever and everybody buy's _blindly_ "Consortium proofed" packages. Although there might be better products in means of functionality. I fear, that a consortium could possibly be not neutral enough. Where are the criterions that everbody can accept for being recommended by a consortium ? I know either this nor the persons, who will judge over user friebdlyness. Financial interests could perhaps manipulate decisions. Why I say this ? Some things said by Magnus sound so strange, Readnig one thing let's me come to the conclusion, that the consortium doesn't want too much intervention from outside. The rules of electing each other in the consortium are so restrictive orientated in a direction, that I fear it has nothing to do with a democratic election process. "The secretary of the consortium chooses members. The members choose the secretary." Another thing is, that the need for a consortium like that with certain rules weren't discussed in the public. Instead of this you present finished and in my eyes questionable concepts, that everybody should accept. Where was the public discussion about that - similar to the democratic process of creating a new newsgroup ?!! Another example that makes me thoughtful is the reply from adam@yggdrasil.com (Adam J. Richter) writes: > As I understand it, the Linux Consortium is not attempting >to restrict distribution of Linux. The Linux Consortium is an >attempt to provide some reasonably unbiased information about >installing Linux. A lot of people who are interested in Linux could >use this information. He is someone from a Linux on CD producer who is for such a consortium ... What I don't understand is, why someone could be interested in such a consortium, when the own product has so many flaws. Read the thread about LGX List of Problems #3 and #4 When a product has many flaws (excuse me to say it so direct) and the consortium wants to proof quality, too, then a normal reaction should be against such a consortium (because not knowing the criterions for a good product and not knowing the people who are taking the decisions). I fear, that such a consortium, that wasn't discussed in a normal democratic way like newsgroups could churn this or that distribution arbitraryly. >>>o What we judge is 'fitness for use by the inexperienced'. This is in >>> principle not dependant on any standard or majority opinion. >>> However, if some difference is introduced from the 'standard' way of >>> doing something, it must be intended to solve some problem or >>> improve some condition. Also, all components in the distribution >>> must be adapted to live with the change (if neccesary). We do not >>> judge the content, we judge the quality. >>How can you judge quality, if you are not experienced ? Or are you >>a spokesman of unexperienced users ? >I suggest you either *read* the quotations you're critizing or >conserve bandwidth. The consortium is to judge quality; the testers >will be experienced, not inexperienced. This experience they will >place at the disposal of the less-experienced, through the LC >mechanism, so that they might have more to go on when they choose a >distribution. These means that distributors will finally have to put >up with the heat or get out of the kitchen. But where are the standards they have as reference, that the product is good or not when the product itself is ALPHA ?! Are they able to keep track with all the new distributions and changes ... ? I doubt ! >Precisely. That's the *source* of the problem that the LC wants to >help solve. By the same token: it's free software, you can judge it >and publish your opinions about it, as you like. Which we shall, my >friend, which we shall. >>If I would do the job, then I would prefer to rely on my own not >>on a consortium I don't know ... With "funny" ideas ... >Ahhhhh, but if you were a *novice*, now, then you *wouldn't*, now >would you? You said yourself above that an inexperienced person can't >judge the quality. So what is a novice supposed to do? Ask *YOU*? Read magazines, ask your neighbores ... Ask the ones from that you heard, that there is a free Unix around .... I started with SLS and switched over to slackware because SLS wasn't reliable enough. My own decision for $0.0. >>>o The consortium does not assume any legal power. If someone claims >>> approval without having obtained it, it will not start any legal >>> action. It will however, inform the community of this immoral act. >>>o The secretary of the consortium chooses members. The members choose >>> the secretary. No member may be involved in an operation seeking to >>> obtain Consortium approval. >>In Germany we call this "Vetternwirtschaft". >Rough translation in English: "Old Boy Network". My comment: hardly. >Every organization not created by law or otherwise by fiat must >somehow bootstrap itself into existence. Since you don't think there >should be a consortium at all, whether with ostensible old boys or >with members chosen by drawing straws out of a hat, you probably don't >have a workable alternative to the bootstrapping process. If you do, >you've kept it to yourself. The questions are - the real need for that - the dangers I see and - the way of bootstrapping. >>My $0.02: Forget about it. Create a mailing list where you people >>can recommend each other this or that distributions ... >Why? What are you afraid of? Any results of the LC can be contested. >You can also go out and tell all novice acquirers of Linux >distributions that *you* know better than than the LC, that they >should take *your* word for what's best for them (although you >yourself have stated above that you don't even know what 'suitable for >novices' means), that *your* opinion is of *much* greater value than >that of any old consortium. In fact, I suggest you *do* do that; while >you're doing that, you can't be posting to this thread... I can reach only people, that ask for help when deciding for this or that. Creating a label "LC proofed" pushes one product and makes another product automatically being "not superior". And that from unknown people and without the possibility to make interventions if needed. >Seriously, we all value your comments. It's just that your priorities >and ours are diametrically opposed. That's fine, we accept that, but >you're going to have to accept it as well. Ok, give democracy a chance and call for Discussion officially. And then Call for Vote if there is a need. Don't overrun thousands of net people. Doing it the way it runs now I come to the assumption, that some people want to put a cron on their heads, sorry ! >>This is a drawback for all those people who produce good quality >>packages .. to be "flamed" afterwards not to be user friendly '-) >Do I understand you correctly that you can consider non-user-friendly >packages as "good quality"? Just like that? Why don't you grow up. What is user friendlyness ?! That's my problem with your LC. Everybody has other preferrences ! The installation process of product A could be better than in product B. But the quality of the programs, the handling, the functionality between the packages could possibly be better in B. What gives the user more advantages on the long run ? That all are questions a user should decside dor himself ! >>Nerved >I think you might mean 'aggravated' (genervt). Aggravated is the wrong translation. Ok, some parts are very vehement, but I hope this article is more informative, why I'm really against LC. Best wishes for freedom of distribution Andreas /// -- Andreas Klemm /\/\____ Wiechers & Partner Datentechnik GmbH andreas@knobel.knirsch.de ___/\/\/ andreas@sunny.wup.de (Unix Support) ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.databases,comp.os.linux.development From: rhh@tachy.uah.ualberta.ca (Roy Hann) Subject: Re: SQL for University Ingres Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 16:12:13 GMT RSW105@psuvm.psu.edu (Randy S. Whitney) writes: : In article , zmbenhal@netcom.com (Zeyd M. : Ben-Halim) says: : > : >In article <2dr393$qsp@galileo.polito.it>, : >enrico badella (L.R.) wrote: : >>I'm playing with University Ingres on my Linux box; it's a nice peice : >>of code but what I'm really missing is SQL, I cannot get uesed to QUEL. : > : >I seriously doubt that anyone is going to add SQL to university ingres, : >at least without being paid for it. Most of the people familiar with : >QUEL and SQL think QUEL is better and have no incentive to add SQL. : : As we in the un*x world know, better does not necessarily mean : acceptance, and SQL is considered the standard, these days. : : >>Has anybody every tried adding a SQL engine? Please don't tell me : >>to buy Ingres from Ask 8*) : : This sounds to me like a good PD project...any takers? When Relational Technology (as it then was) first added SQL, I believe they simply translated the SQL to QUEL. The two problems that are instantly apparent are that you would need to add the UNION operator (QUEL's only notable deficiency in my view), and SQL views are virtual tables possibly including duplicates, while QUEL views are re-writes of the WHERE clause. It need not be too hard to tackle either of these problems though. But building a native SQL engine would be a huge job if you wanted to keep the optimizer. Having said all that, you really should try to master QUEL--especially the aggregate functions. It could be a religious experience. QUEL is elegant, concise, subtle and powerful. SQL is none of those things. QUEL is also FAR easier to learn, so if you have already mastered SQL you've got what it takes. C. J. Date's "A Guide to INGRES" has a fairly good QUEL tutorial. See the incomparable INGRES FAQ on comp.databases.ingres for details. $.02 worth. ======================================================================== Roy Hann Senior Analyst, Information Systems rhh@tachy.uah.ualberta.ca University of Alberta Hospitals (MIME-capable mail agent) WMC 2C2.21, 8440-112th Street, Edmonton, Alberta Tel: (403)492-4367 T6G 0N4 FAX: (403)492-3090 Canada ======================================================================== ------------------------------ From: "Brian E. Gallew" Crossposted-To: comp.databases,comp.os.linux.development Subject: Re: SQL for University Ingres Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1993 11:03:48 -0500 zmbenhal@netcom.com (Zeyd M. Ben-Halim) writes: > I seriously doubt that anyone is going to add SQL to university ingres, > at least without being paid for it. Most of the people familiar with > QUEL and SQL think QUEL is better and have no incentive to add SQL. Buzzt! You lose. Ingres is our main production base in my department, and there isn't anyone here who would rather use QUEL than SQL. My guess would be that the choice of whether to use QUEL or SQL would be determined by personal preferences, portability, and availability. (and, yes, we DID buy Ingres (back in the days when you purchased it from Ingres) -Brian ========================================================================= | "Are they dead?" | | "Does it matter?" | | - Pugsley and Wednesday in "The Addams Family." | ========================================================================= ------------------------------ From: sens@FASECON.ECON.NYU.EDU (Sunando Sen) Subject: Re: TeX, SGML, and graphics? Date: 5 Dec 93 16:34:57 GMT In article <1993Dec4.042429.168501@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> dlj0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DAVID L. JOHNSON) writes: >Me again. I just managed to fathom enough of the web2c and all that to >create gftopk with a larger max_rows. I now can use MetaFont to place pictures >of essentially ANY size into ANY TeX document. YOu generate the pictures >using either Xfig and fig2MF, or gnuplot with the mf terminal setting. > >Then, Metafont can create the ``fonts'' with your drawing or graph, and you >run gftopk to get a pk font, and dvips/xdvi shows you what you get. > >I have packaged up the gftopk.c with the new maxrows, along with just enough >of the TeX distribution to compile it. It should be widely portable. > >For the life of me I can't find any licensing/copyright information on the >stuff I have. Does anyone know? One file, configure, was covered by the GPL, >but the rest has no copyright information. > >If anyone knows whether I can distribute this, let me know and I will. This >is the one obstacle to fully enabling the use of fig2MF, so I think it'd be >useful. I believe you are not supposed to distribute a changed .web file, or at least still call it TeX. Other than that, you are pretty much free to do what you want, there are commercial versions of TeX with no source code. EmTeX, the free DOS and OS/2 implementation of TeX, does not come with source code either. I believe the proper way to distribute a changed gftopk would be to make the change in the .ch file, so that one can get the desired .c files by running web2c. I think TeX is copyrighted by the American Mathematical Society. This is all the impression I get from a cursory look at the source code. Please correct me if I have understood it wrong. Sunando Sen ------------------------------ From: dblack@pilot.njin.net (David Alan Black) Subject: Re: Linux IS well documented. Date: 5 Dec 93 15:56:07 GMT wpp@marie.physik.tu-berlin.de (Kai Petzke) writes: >In <2dqi6t$p08@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> tdunbar@vtaix.cc.vt.edu (Thomas Dunbar) writes: >> An operating system with source code is better documented than any >>os without source code. Certainly, Linux could be better documented, >>but the essential documentation is there. >Yes, and no. Source code is very good documentation to programmers >only. When I develop an application, and I want to be sure, that >a system call does in detail - no problem, locate the sys_whatever >function in the kernel, and examine it. >But did you ever try to read the X sources to find out, how the X >toolkit is working? Certainly not, better read the "X Toolkit >Intrinsics" and "Athena Widget Set" manuals from MIT. I had to >get the original X11R5 distribution for them. >And what, if I was an end user, and I wanted to find out, which key >I must press to delete a line in vi? >Yes, vi/elvis is documented very well. But it is *roff source, and >not included in most distributions of Linux. >In other words: collecting all the available documentation in all >usable formats (Ascii, Postscript, maybe dvi) is something, which >should be done soon. >-- >Kai >wpp@marie.physik.tu-berlin.de >Advertisement by Microsoft in a well-known German magazine: > If you don't like our programmes, than make your own ones. >However, they expect you to use Microsoft products for this -:) There was a thread on more or less this question recently (centered around the question of whether Linux developers "should" include documentation with their products), and as I didn't chime in then I shall do so now. Kai's point that source code provides "documentation" only to programmers is very important. It comes down to a question of where Linux wants to go, and prepares itself to go. The presence of extensive manuals in a number of formats does not guarantee that Linux will spread significantly beyond the programmer/adventurous hacker/would-be sysadmin community, but it is certainly a precondition of such a spread. Necessary, that is, but not sufficient. It's true at the same time (and here I'm addressing in part the earlier thread - sorry for not digging it up and spending 3 hours in vi piecing together quotes from it) that Linux developers are not obliged to do this. The development of documentation should not involve a process of shaming people into doing it, or making pronouncements about their failure to have done their job correctly. It is only important that everyone involved be clear about the trade-offs involved, and about what exactly the groundwork is and is not being laid for. (And I'm speaking abstractly, of course - there are also practical questions of people's time and resources.) I would also like to make a plug for ASCII documentation. No doubt there are them as think I've missed the entire point of *ni|ux by not knowing much about, or having access to facilities for, text processing. (Nor do I have the power to run X.) However primitive it makes me sound, I will say nonetheless that my favorite mode of working through a difficult compile or application is to have the relevant ASCII document (README, FAQ, makefile, whatever) in a text editor in another virtual terminal. Not to mention the infeasibility of printing ghostscript-type things on a 9-pin dot-matrix printer.... (You can cook Thanksgiving dinner waiting for the table of contents.) David Black dblack@pilot.njin.net "Well I'm Mrs. Emma Peel." - Georgie Price-Jones ------------------------------ ** 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-Misc-Request@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via: Internet: Linux-Misc@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-Misc Digest ******************************