Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #409
From: Digestifier <Linux-Misc-Request@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU
Date:     Sat, 11 Dec 93 01:13:19 EST

Linux-Misc Digest #409, Volume #1                Sat, 11 Dec 93 01:13:19 EST

Contents:
  Re: Yet another benchmark results.. (Dan Pop)
  Re: Linux Consortium (Mark Line)
  Re: Linux Consortium (Kelly Murray)
  Re: LGX List of Problems #5 (Grant Edwards)
  libg.a size (Brett L. Huber)
  Re: Yet another benchmark results.. (Dave Sill)
  Re: Linux Consortium (Matt Welsh)
  FidoNet Nodelist compiler for Linux? (Cletus Lichte)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: danpop@cernapo.cern.ch (Dan Pop)
Subject: Re: Yet another benchmark results..
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 02:14:23 GMT

In <mcdonald.934.2D075A5F@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald) writes:

>In article <CHqIHq.9pw@dscomsa.desy.de> kruse@zow.desy.de (Andres Kruse (NIKHEF)) writes:
>
>
>>   Look at the code first and decide if it makes any sense to do it. 
>>There are several oddities:
>
>>- It is using the time(2) function... check your man pages to 
>>  see what that means...
>
>
>Yes, indeed . This means that it measures the ACTUAL time the program takes.
>This is what ACTUALLY MATTERS to the user.
>
This is nonsense. The actual time depends too much on the system load to
be useful/interesting at all. The silly benchmark should be run via
"time" and the full output of "time" should be reported, along with an
accurate description of the hardware, in order to be able to do any
comparison at all.

Dan
-- 
Dan Pop 
CERN, L3 Experiment
Email: danpop@cernapo.cern.ch
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 21 1-023, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

------------------------------

From: markline@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Mark Line)
Subject: Re: Linux Consortium
Date: 11 Dec 93 02:35:03 GMT

mdw@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh) writes:

>In article <1993Dec10.032515.29938@henson.cc.wwu.edu> markline@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Mark Line) writes:
>>wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) writes:
>>>You completely miss the point.  The problem is not publishing reviews.
>>>The problem is giving pompous, official-looking "Stamps of Approval".
>>
>>Which is more pompous and official-looking, Stamps of Approval, as you
>>call them, or real, live, screen-printed CD-ROMs sold for real money
>>and containing the word 'Linux' on the medium, in the offline docs (if
>>there are any), and in all associated press releases? I'd say it's
>>pretty official-looking for a CD-ROM to have 'Linux' printed right on
>>the disk, wouldn't you? 

>Who cares? Linux isn't a trademark. The so-called "Linux Consortium"
>isn't going to stop anyone from distributing CD-ROM's labelled as
>such.

Sorry, you should check your facts. "Linux" is a trademark in the U.S.
because it is used to refer to a product. You probably wanted to say
that "Linux" is not a *registered* trademark -- you're correct on
that, as far as I know. And my point was not that the LC would stop
anybody from doing anything. My point was that the Linux Consortium is
just as official or unofficial as the distributors who use the
trademark. I suppose we could call it "Linux (tm) Consortium".

>>Are Stamps of Approval pompous and official-looking? 

>Yes. If you disagree, how about this: I'll start the Official Matt
>Welsh Approval Rating. For each Linux distribution, I'll list the
>O.M.W.A.R. in the Distribution-HOWTO, and other documents, for that
>distribution. Would anyone take it seriously? Would you expect to see
>"X-Matt-Welsh-Approval-Rating:" lines in the headers of postings to
>c.o.l.a? 

If you really did so, I *would* expect c.o.l.a. postings. Why not?
Most people in the Linux community figure out eventually who you are
and respect your opinion. Anybody else whose opinion is respected
should be able to do the same, or don't you agree?

>>Pompous? We can apply the same criterion as above. If the Stamps of
>>Approval only *pretend* to represent high-quality information, then
>>they're pompous. It would certainly not be pompous for them to do
>>actually do so.

>Yes, it would, because in defining "high-quality" you're being
>pompous. I don't think that we can get 10 people in the Linux
>development community to agree on what is "high quality" and what is
>not. If you doubt it, take a look at any of the kernel-related mailing
>lists, especially the NET channel. I've got quite a few archived
>flamewars over issues as plainly simple as serial device naming
>conventions. 

I guess I wasn't being clear, or you misunderstood my intent for other
reasons. My use of 'high-quality' of refers to *information* such as
that that might be provided by the LC or by you or by reviewers in
UnixWorld or elsewhere. I did *not* use 'high-quality' here to refer
to any kind of evaluation of software or documentation -- kernel or
otherwise. So maybe you'd like to back up and start over on this
rejoinder, or do you really believe that there aren't 10 people out
here who can agree on criteria for the quality of information? Nobody
out here with more than a 4th grade education?

>>As I've implied above: As long as people sell distributions with
>>'Linux' written all over them, I think it is only fair to the LC's
>>target audience to have Linux in the organization's name also. 

>Bzzzt. Wrong. "Linux" happens to be the name of the software. When
>stamping the CD-ROM with "Linux" you are identifying it as containing
>the Linux software, which it is. However, in identifying a group of
>people such as the "Linux Consortium", the name "Linux" refers to the
>Linux community. An arbitrary group of people under the name "Linux
>Consortium" certainly does not represent the whole of the Linux
>community. 

I think your linguistics is slightly muddy: In a name like "Linux
Consortium", the term "Linux" obviously refers first to the Consortium
-- that's how noun phrases in English work, dude. Since the use of the
word "Linux" in reference to a software product has priority to its
use in reference to the Consortium, the intended meaning should be
clear to most English native speakers: the LC is a "Consortium"
dealing somehow with "Linux" software -- more is left unspecified.
There is *no* implied reference to a so-called "Linux community" --
how could there be?

>Something more informal such as "Linux Distribution Review Team" would
>make more sense, because it's not attempting to use Linux in reference
>to the Linux community, but rather in reference to the Linux software.

By your own logic, wouldn't "Linux" in *this* proposed name *also*
refer to the Greater Linux Community for whom you (presumably) speak?
Why is this any different/better than "Linux Consortium", other than
the usual (and slowly-but-surely-becoming-purgative) NIH arguments?

My view stands: Call it Linux if it deals with Linux, call it a
Consortium if it's a consortium. It is both, so the name can stand.

>At a side note, I would be offended if someone distributed a CD-ROM
>containing the Linux software and didn't mark it as "Linux".
>Yggdrasil's CD-ROM comes close, but includes "Linux" as the "L" in
>"LGX". If companies were to distribute Linux on a CD-ROM called
>"Throatwarbler Mangrove Labs CD-ROM", without the word "Linux" in the
>title, it would seem that the distributors were claiming the software
>on the CD-ROM to be their own. As long as "Linux" is in the title it
>is obvious that the software on the CD-ROM is indeed "Linux" and is
>therefore copyrighted by the many Linux developers.

I never suggested that the distributors should do so. I merely stated
that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. It is quite
reasonable for both Linux distributors *and* consumer-protection
organizations dedicated to Linux to include Linux in their names and
trademarks.

>>The bottom line of all this: Why should a group of people be able to
>>form an organization to distribute Linux & Co. for money
>>(official-looking and with occasional pomposity when the product is
>>technially garbage), but not be able to form an organization to
>>evaluate such distributions in an equally official-looking manner?

>Because it's NOT official. I don't care how official it looks---"Linux
>Labs" is a joke, and anyone who knows anything about Linux knows that
>it is. You are suggesting that the proper way to counter with falsehood
>is with falsehood, and I don't think that's the right course of action.
>If someone is going to distribute "Linux Labs CD-ROM" in an
>official-looking (yet unoffical) way, that is not mandate for you to
>follow up with an equally unofficial "Linux Consortium" to do the
>reviews. If you do, you're only adding to the facade.

So now you think it is a falsehood for "Linux" to be used in names,
because that looks official but is not. Above, you said you would be
offended if distributors did *not* put the word "Linux" in their
names. Also, you suggested an alternative name for the LC which *also*
contained "Linux". Which of these contradictory suggestions did you
really mean, and which was some sort of falsehood concocted for
greater polemical value?

Since you contended both "Always P" and "Always Not P", you might
actually be wanting to contend that some distributors should be able
to use "Linux" in their names (although you said above you'd be
offended whenever they didn't, regardless), and others shouldn't.
Could be, that'd be your opinion after evaluating the distributors.
You could even publish that opinion. Please do. Others, such as the
LC, could also do so, and presumably will.

P.S. A lot of bandwidth just to state "P and not-P".

-- Mark

====================================================================
Mark P. Line                       Phone: +1-206-733-6040
Open Pathways                        Fax: +1-206-733-6040
P.O. Box F                         Email: markline@henson.cc.wwu.edu
Bellingham, WA 98227-0296
====================================================================

------------------------------

From: kem@prl.ufl.edu (Kelly Murray)
Subject: Re: Linux Consortium
Date: 11 Dec 1993 03:09:36 GMT

In article <1993Dec10.032515.29938@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, markline@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Mark Line) writes:
|> [...]
|> The bottom line of all this: Why should a group of people be able to
|> form an organization to distribute Linux & Co. for money
|> (official-looking and with occasional pomposity when the product is
|> technially garbage), but not be able to form an organization to
|> evaluate such distributions in an equally official-looking manner?
|> -- Mark

No one is PREVENTING you from doing whatever you or anyone else wants with Linux 
(within the GPL that is.)  Some people just think it's a bad idea and that 
the efforts toward LC could be put to more productive use.

You are hereby officially (and pomposly) free to completely ignore the advice :-)

-- 
-- Kelly Murray  (kem@prl.ufl.edu) 
University of Florida Parallel Research Lab  :: 96-node KSR1, 64-node nCUBE
Send mail to ncx@netcom.com for deals on Actix S3 Video cards:
ISA Actix GE32 1mb: $129, GE32+2mb: $179, Ultra+2mbVram: $299
=========================================================================

------------------------------

From: grante@hydro.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: LGX List of Problems #5
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 00:08:38 GMT

Adam J. Richter (adam@adam.yggdrasil.com) wrote:

: > The LGX linux header files are different (and incompatible) with the
: > pl13 kernel sources on sunsite.unc.edu.
: [TOO VAGUE TO VERIFY.]

If you like, I can send you a list of header files that are not the
same as the those in the pl13 sunsite kernel sources.  I don't know
that it matters -- the LGX headers are compatible with the LGX
sources.  I assume there are differences because LGX contains an older
version of pl13.

: > The rc.local file plays some music. If there is no sound board installed
: > then the PC's speaker is used. This has caused at least one machine to
: > lock up. 
:
: [FIXED WINTER 1994.  Turns out that the PC speaker driver can hang on
: machines slower than 386DX40.]

That explains why my machine at home hung, but everybody else's worked
fine.  I must have the last 386DX25 on the planet.

Is the Winter CDROM going to have an "upgrade installation" option that
won't blow away all of my carefully configured stuff in /etc?  I suppose
a prudent person would back up all that stuff before upgrading anyway.

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  the HIGHWAY is made out
Rosemount Inc.                                |of LIME JELLO and my HONDA is
                                              |a barbequeued OYSTER!  Yum!
grante@rosemount.com                          |

------------------------------

From: blhuber@mtu.edu (Brett L. Huber)
Subject: libg.a size
Date: 11 Dec 1993 03:36:54 GMT

I got one for the library people:  Why is libg.a so spectacularly huge?

Brett Huber

--
... Our continuing mission: To seek out knowledge of C, to explore
strange UNIX commands, and to boldly code where no one has man page 4.



------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
From: de5@sws1.ctd.ornl.gov (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Yet another benchmark results..
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 03:50:10 GMT

Dan Pop (danpop@cernapo.cern.ch) wrote:
: >
: >Yes, indeed . This means that it measures the ACTUAL time the program takes.
: >This is what ACTUALLY MATTERS to the user.
: >
: This is nonsense.

No, it's not nonsense.  You may not care about measuring response time,
but that doesn't mean that others can't have valid reasons for doing so.

: The actual time depends too much on the system load to
: be useful/interesting at all.

What if you're trying to measure that load?  Or, what if the loads on the
systems in question are fairly constant?

: The silly benchmark should be run via
: "time" and the full output of "time" should be reported, along with an
: accurate description of the hardware, in order to be able to do any
: comparison at all.

I'll agree with the "silly" part, and the recommendation to use "time",
but there are still valid uses of the test in it's original form.

--
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)             Computers should work the way beginners
Martin Marietta Energy Systems       expect them to, and one day they will.
Workstation Support                                            -- Ted Nelson
URL http://gatekeeper.dec.com/archive/pub/DEC/DECinfo/html/dsill.html

------------------------------

From: mdw@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: Linux Consortium
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 04:12:31 GMT

In article <1993Dec11.023503.4507@henson.cc.wwu.edu> markline@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Mark Line) writes:
>mdw@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh) writes:
>>Who cares? Linux isn't a trademark. The so-called "Linux Consortium"
>>isn't going to stop anyone from distributing CD-ROM's labelled as
>>such.
>
>Sorry, you should check your facts. "Linux" is a trademark in the U.S.
>because it is used to refer to a product. You probably wanted to say
>that "Linux" is not a *registered* trademark 

No kidding. 

>Anybody else whose opinion is respected
>should be able to do the same, or don't you agree?

That's not really the point. It should be accepted only as my opinion,
not as some official policy statement about the fitness of a
particular Linux distribution. "Linux Consortium" is too strong of a
term for a shared arbitrary personal opinion.

>So maybe you'd like to back up and start over on this
>rejoinder, or do you really believe that there aren't 10 people out
>here who can agree on criteria for the quality of information? 

That's right.

>Nobody
>out here with more than a 4th grade education?

I think that has been established firmly by now. 

>I think your linguistics is slightly muddy: In a name like "Linux
>Consortium", the term "Linux" obviously refers first to the Consortium
>-- that's how noun phrases in English work, dude.

Thanks for correcting me.

>Since the use of the
>word "Linux" in reference to a software product has priority to its
>use in reference to the Consortium, the intended meaning should be
>clear to most English native speakers: 

Most Linux users aren't native English speakers.

>>Something more informal such as "Linux Distribution Review Team" would
>>make more sense, because it's not attempting to use Linux in reference
>>to the Linux community, but rather in reference to the Linux software.
>
>By your own logic, wouldn't "Linux" in *this* proposed name *also*
>refer to the Greater Linux Community for whom you (presumably) speak?

I don't claim to speak for the Linux community. It's obvious in the
term "Linux Distribution Review Team" that the phrase "Linux
Distribution" by itself has meaning, and if you group the words as so:
"(Linux Distribution) (Review Team)" you're referring to Linux
distributions. There is no such grouping in something as ambiguous as
"Linux Consortium". 

>My view stands: Call it Linux if it deals with Linux, call it a
>Consortium if it's a consortium. It is both, so the name can stand.

Thanks for making that decision for the rest of us.

>I never suggested that the distributors should do so. I merely stated
>that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

Which is not always true, especially in this case.

>>Because it's NOT official. I don't care how official it looks---"Linux
>>Labs" is a joke, and anyone who knows anything about Linux knows that
>>it is. You are suggesting that the proper way to counter with falsehood
>>is with falsehood, and I don't think that's the right course of action.
>>If someone is going to distribute "Linux Labs CD-ROM" in an
>>official-looking (yet unoffical) way, that is not mandate for you to
>>follow up with an equally unofficial "Linux Consortium" to do the
>>reviews. If you do, you're only adding to the facade.
>
>So now you think it is a falsehood for "Linux" to be used in names,
>because that looks official but is not. Above, you said you would be
>offended if distributors did *not* put the word "Linux" in their
>names. 

Using "Linux" in the name alone does not make it "official". What
makes it "official" is a (for lack of a better word) pompous title
like "Linux Consortium". So far, all of the people who have opposed
the name "Linux Consortium" have been old-time Linux activists and
developers, and those who are supporting it are mostly newcomers. Does
this tell you something?

Again, "Linux Distribution Review Team" sounds better, less formal,
less pompous, and it relays the same informaion in a less intimidating
way. But, still, you argue for "Linux Consortium", probably so you can
have something cute to include in your .signature when you're a
member. Why? What do you gain by using the name "Linux Consortium",
other than the scorn of Linux developers who know that it's bogus? 

>Also, you suggested an alternative name for the LC which *also*
>contained "Linux".

See my explanation above.

>Since you contended both "Always P" and "Always Not P", 

>P.S. A lot of bandwidth just to state "P and not-P".

Yawn. You continue to misunderstand my point, and the point of others,
entirely by taking this pedantic attitude. Step back for a minute and
consider: Why is the name "Linux Consortium" so important? Several
people have immediately pointed out problems with the name, but I
can't see any benefits to that title which outweigh the objections. If
"Linux Distribution Review Team" relays the same information and
doesn't offend the developers, why not use that instead?

mdw
-- 
"Do you want to be Finnish? Sure, we all do!"

------------------------------

From: lichte@tyrell.net (Cletus Lichte)
Subject: FidoNet Nodelist compiler for Linux?
Date: 30 Nov 93 12:55:47 GMT


I've found BinkleyTerm, and Rfmail for Linux.  All I need now is a nodelist
compiler.  Does anyone know of a version for Linux and from where I can
FTP it?

------------------------------


** 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
******************************
