Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #413
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 21:13:12 EST

Linux-Misc Digest #413, Volume #1                Sat, 11 Dec 93 21:13:12 EST

Contents:
  Linux finds a nonexistant 387 (Stephen Harris)
  Re: Linux Consortium (Mark Line)
  Re: Linux Foundation (was Re: Linux Consortium) (Mark Line)
  Let's vote (Matthew William Boyd)
  Linux / DOS boot chooser anywhere? (Jonny Farringdon)
  Re: Shareware Linux For PC (M. Knell)
  Re: Security (Fergus Henderson)

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

From: sweh.womble@spuddy.UUCP (Stephen Harris)
Subject: Linux finds a nonexistant 387
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 93 18:26:35 GMT

In article <2e9km4INNvpl@rs18.hrz.th-darmstadt.de> wosch@rbg.informatik.th-darmstadt.de writes:
> I've installed slackware 1.1.0 on a 386DX40 8MB with cyrix cpu and NO 387.
> Strangely, the kernel finds a 387 when booting up, it tells something like:
> 
> Checking fpu.... ok, fpu bound to irq 13 ...   (This is not the exact text,
>                                                  but approx...)

Yes yes yes!

I saw this problem a few months back, installing on a machine with an
AMD386-40.

Because the kernel believes there is a 387, it will pass all FP arithmetic
to a non-existent chip.  With XFree86-1.3 I got 8 clocks all of value 0.00 :-)

The solution is to use the "no387" flag with LILO.  This tells the kernel
to skip the test for the 387 and pretend there isn't one.

If you don't use LILO for booting, then grovel around the sources until you
find where the kernel decodes "no387" (sorry can't remember off hand)
and hack there.

Hope this helps.

                            Stephen Harris
       sweh.womble@spuddy.uucp     ...!uknet!axion!spuddy!sweh.womble

*  Meow! Call Spuddy the Cat for Usenet access in the UK.  Call 0203 364436 *

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

From: markline@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Mark Line)
Subject: Re: Linux Consortium
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 00:20:51 GMT

damien@b63519.student.cwru.edu (Damien Neil) writes:

>This is not necessarily bad, but some of these people have come to
>view Linux as belonging to them in some way. They want to do
>something to help, but are inable of helping with development,
>through lack of technical knowledge.

To whom are you referring here exactly, Magnus, myself, others that
support the LC? I don't know Magnus' background so he'll have to
respond for himself if he chooses. I hope you're not referring to me.
I wouldn't be offended one way or the other if you were, but I might
suggest that you try to get your facts straight before making sweeping
claims such as this. Just as a guess, since you've apparently posted
from a student account, I'd say there's a good possibility that I was
developing software before you were born, that I was permanently
employed as a software developer around the time you entered grade
school, and that I was a Unix developer and consultant by the time you
were in high school. So I hope you didn't mean me.

I had every hope of being able to contribute to Linux -- especially to
Matt Welsh's documentation project, since I currently do most of my
coding in languages other than C and can write well (or so I am told).
If I'm not welcome because I choose to base my views on my own
experience rather than the politically correct view among Linux
developers, then I won't force myself upon you, of course.

>So, they decide to go into
>management, instead. 

What does consumer protection have to to with management, other than
the fact that it has to be organized like everything else? The
development software can proceed with no management quite easily --
that is my experience as a developer and as the project
lead in a multinational corporation (that I no longer work for). The
reason is that technical systems have their own built in feedback
loop: if they work (to specs, if need be), they work; if not, then
something needs to happen and everybody involved knows that more or
less instantly.

>If people change this system, many developers may decide that
>Linux just isn't fun any more.

I assume you mean "if somebody injects *management* into this system".
That is not the intent (see above). The intent is to inject
*information* into the system. You are opposed?

>(I am reminded of the post from
>a few days back where someone said users would ``take things into
>their own hands'' if developers did not do what he wanted them
>to. What an ominous statement!)

Yes, that was me alright. Why is that a problem? Part of our business
involves support of and value-adding to a large, public-domain
geographic information system (GIS) that runs on Linux, making a
486+Linux platform the least expensive entry platform that users of
this (incidentally highly portable) GIS can choose. We are very warily
beginning to propagate the advantages of Linux & XFree & GhostScript
(especially, but there are other components involved in this) for the
users of this GIS. The target group is those people/organizations who
would like to use the GIS but who would have had to by a Sparc10 or
SGI Indy or something to run it on, and couldn't afford it. With
Linux, they can afford it. I am very grateful to the developers of
Linux, XFree, GhostScript and various GNU products (especially Emacs)
for contributing so much of their time so that those less financially
endowed (students, small town governments, and various people and
organizations in the so-called LDCs). My response to having possibly
offended these people is posted elsewhere. 

The users I support are typically (a) professionals, (b) computer
novices and (c) Unix newbies: note I said 'and', not 'or' -- certainly
not the kind of people who would willingly patch a source tree and
reinstall a kernel, just as an example.

This was the preface to my response to the ominosity of users' (such
as myself and those GIS users whom I wish to support) taking certain
things into their own hands, as I put it. I'm very sorry if my actions
offend certain people, that's a trade-off I'll have to accept, because
I enjoy great support and even some popularity from the users I help.
Should we decide to become less wary and to begin to commit a major
investment of time and money into this line of business, then I'm sure
you understand my predicament. If I have an investment and goodwill to
protect, then my priorities might be different from those of the Linux
developers. That's fine (though it costs me, of course), but that also
means that we'll have to do some things ourselves. If we find that the
available documentation is not appropriate to our needs, we'll make
our own -- that's part of what we do for a living, after all -- and
publish it as a copyrighted work. Is that a problem for you? I doubt
that we'll get into the Linux distribution game ourselves, so I need
to know what to suggest that my GIS users acquire as their platform.
In order to do that, I either need to gather all the information about
all the available distributions myself, or support a proposed
organization such as the LC which provides me with that information
from at least one perspective. I'll still be suggesting the one (or
two?) distributions to my users and discouraging them from purchasing
the others, based on any information I can get.

If I'm the only person worldwide who needs this kind of information,
then Magnus should just drop it, of course. I don't really think I am,
though, so he probably shouldn't.

>Remember what happened to Ross
>Biro. He became tired of the flames and the complaints...and he
>left. He stopped working on Linux. He didn't quit a job -- he
>stopped volunteering. There was nothing anyone could do about
>it, and all the flamers were left with *nothing*.

He was before my time with Linux, no doubt. But I don't understand why
you think anybody was left with *nothing*. What is this system I'm
using right now? Toaster firmware? I think you might be guilty here of
a quiet burst of ominosity ...

>Linux developers have given us a wonderful thing. I am very,
>very grateful to them for it. And I hope like hell that they
>won't become so discouraged with the people who aren't that
>they follow Ross and leave. Because that, not lack of popularity,
>is what would kill Linux.

I don't think anybody said they weren't grateful to the Linux
developers -- I *am* grateful, and to the the developers of XFree,
GhostScript, Emacs and many other GPL etc. products I use every day.
This was never the point. Just because there's disagreement doesn't
mean those that disagree with the developers are not grateful. If it
did, that would have to be called blackmail -- and I'm sure that's not
what you're trying to imply here.

-- 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: markline@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Mark Line)
Subject: Re: Linux Foundation (was Re: Linux Consortium)
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 01:06:33 GMT

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

>Very, very bad idea. Instead of attempting to create some falsely
>official organization with a slick look and no content, why don't you
>concentrate on an organization that will actually DO something useful
>for Linux, slick look or not? The existence of such an "official" LC
>is misleading in that it attempts to represent some kind of central
>organization which is "responsible" for Linux. No such organization
>exists, and you can't create an artificial one to serve the purpose.

>Either the Linux developers themselves create such an organization, or
>nobody does.

That's the comment I've been fishing for the whole time. You've missed
the entire and complete purpose behind the proposed LC, obviously, in
two completely unrelated ways. First, what do the Linux developers
have to do with the Linux *distributions* which the LC proposes to
evaluate? Second, even if they *were* involved, don't you think that a
consumer protection organization such as the LC might need to formed
*outside* the organizations selling the products? In reality, that
means that the LC should be formed independently of the organizations
producing and selling the distributions. These distributions contain
some form of Linux (hopefully), but generally also things like XFree
and lots of GNU and other GPL and PD stuff. Why should, of *all*
people concerned, the Linux developers have absolute priority? Why not
Richard Stallman and his associates? Because the kernel is
technologically prior to utilities and apps? No, because it has been
proposed that the LC have "Linux" in its name. That's because Linux is
the most obvious common denominator of all the distributions the LC
wants to consider. 

>The best solution would be to move Linux towards a stronger, more
>centralized development process. (I'm not suggesting that we should do
>this, but it would be able to implement your stated goals for the
>so-called LC.) Something along the lines of the "Linux Foundation"
>should be formed, spearheaded by the Linux developers themselves. LF
>would be a very close analogue to the Free Software Foundation.

That would be great. I'd give it all the support I possibly could,
though I kind of doubt I'd be welcome now. I'd still support the
creation of the proposed LC and its work, though, for the reasons a
stated above. The LC wants to evaluate Linux distributions for novices
and newbies. Even if your LF did that also, why would that detract
from Magnus' proposed LC? It wouldn't. The aims are different, the
people are different, and their opinions are probably different. So
prospective purchasers of Linux distributions will have access to even
more information about what's good and bad, and can make their
decisions accordingly.

Please let me know if there's anything we can do to support your LF,
should it materialize.

>support organization. Developers, documentors, and distributors would
>work with the LF to produce Linux. 

I note here that contributions from mere users will not be tolerated.
That's why there has to be an LC, even if you have your LF.

>All LF would provide is an
>official entity to take responsibility for Linux. It would also
>provide a channel for people to donate funds to support the Linux
>development effort. 

That'd be great. That's really something that's been missing so far. I
know that donations could be sent someplace before now, but I didn't
get the impression that I would really know what it's being used for.
This way, the pecuniary side of things is more out in the open. Also,
maybe there'll be money left over as an incentive for people to do
less-loved activities such as making installation/de-installation
proceduers newbie-proof, providing lots more hardware-specific
configurations for XFree, ... Oh, I forgot again: the LF is only
Linux, not XFree and the other stuff. And maybe even the installation
stuff is more in the distributors' ball park, rather in the developers'.
Well, I guess the money is just to keep the developers happily doing
what they're already doing now irrespective of the massive onslaught
of ungratefulness on the part of users who wish to contribute their
feedback. 

>It differs in the proposed "LC" in a number of major ways. First of
>all, the LF *would* be an "official" organization, composed of the
>Linux developers themselves, not some arbitrary third party trying to
>claim responsibility for Linux.

No supporter of the LC has ever made this claim. Retract or be sued ;) ...

>All of the "duties" of the proposed LC
>would be handled by people "within" the LF.

Meaning that members of the LF would evaluate Linux distributions
vis-a-vis their use by novices and publish their findings in a manner
accessible to same? Fine by me, but what will the XFree, GNU and other
GPL development communities think about the Linux developers claiming
priority in evaluating *their* software? Don't you think they might be
offended? Or is that only a one-way street, with non-developers
at the anal end?

>I'm not saying that we should do this. However, if people want there
>to be some kind of "official" Linux organization, this would be the
>most general and open-ended solution.

No, it wouldn't. The most general and open-ended solution would also
include "mere" users and their contributions. You have taken pains to
exclude both.

>It would provide a great deal of
>structure to all of these metaissues such as where donations go, who
>has the right to "speak" for the Linux development community, and so
>on.

Correct. Please note the word "development" in your statement. I'm all
for it, it puts things in an organized, transparent framework to the
great advantage of all concerned.

>The LF would be modeled on the FSF, in certain ways, and would
>hopefully bring together all of these loose ends under one roof.

And the remaining loose ends would be brought together by the LC and
by any others interested in consumer protection as it relates to the Linux
*user* community.

>What do people think?

Go for it. I would support a moral obligation for distributors to
contribute part of their proceeds to the LF. If that means the
distributions would become a bit more expensive, I would support that,
too. I would also make whatever financial contributions to the LF that
I was able to.

-- 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: mattwb@cs.utexas.edu (Matthew William Boyd)
Subject: Let's vote
Date: 11 Dec 1993 19:06:27 -0600

I don't like like it.  Anyone else?

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

From: ucjtrjf@ucl.ac.uk (Jonny Farringdon)
Subject: Linux / DOS boot chooser anywhere?
Date: 11 Dec 1993 19:14:32 -0600
Reply-To: ucjtrjf@ucl.ac.uk

Is there an application out there which allows you to choose at boot time which disk partition you boot from - effectively a Linux / DOS boot chooser.

The manual boot chooser (dos boot floppy inserted or not) is fine, but a bit low tech. ;-)  J.
--
Dept of Psychology, UCL, London. UK. WC1E 6BT
Tel: (+44) 71 387 7050 x5418
     (+44) 71 380 7777 direct tone-dial 5418
Fax: (+44) 71 436 4276
j.farringdon@psychol.ucl.ac.uk
ucjtrjf@ucl.ac.uk



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

From: eeyimkn@unicorn.nott.ac.uk (M. Knell)
Crossposted-To: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.wanted
Subject: Re: Shareware Linux For PC
Date: 12 Dec 1993 01:18:07 -0000

In article <CHw7r1.1862@ns1.nodak.edu> person@plains.NoDak.edu (Brett Person) writes:
>In article <CHMMCK.1u3@spudge.lonestar.org> johnm@spudge.lonestar.org (John Munsch) writes:
>>In article <CH69sB.CGM@Colorado.EDU> drew@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) writes:
>>
>>Before anyone takes this advice let me point out that there are such things
>>as compilation copyrights (which I can get for taking your Linux and adding
>>a whole bunch of things to it), copyrights for printed materials that may 
>>come with the disc, etc.
>
>I don't think this is right.  I think this is a Peterism.  None of Linux
>would be pssible without RMS. Period.  

Right. A lot of Linux is covered by the GPL - the kernel is, EMACS is, 
gcc is, basically, 90% of the software you get with your average Linux
distribution is covered by the GPL, which is largely the work of RMS.
So, if some asshole decides to compile it up and try to copyright it, it
may be legally done, but you'll suddenly find yourself incredibly unpopular
with the rest of the net, and there are probably bits in the GPL that are
there to prevent it happening.
  I don't see how you can morally take a Linux source tree and run it through
gcc (which is itself a free compiler) and then believe yourself to have some
sole rights over the resulting code. If you do, then you're a bloodsucker. 
Stealing other people's code as your own is WRONG. This is part of the whole
GNU philosophy (as far as I see it).



-- 
+- Mike Knell, University of Nottingham, UK -=- M.Knell@unicorn.nott.ac.uk --+
|  --THIS SPACE TEMPORARILY BLANK--   | AMPR: g7gpa@hobbes.g7gpa.ampr.org    |
| (until I can think of a decent joke)| AX25: g7gpa@g7gpa.gb7bad.#23.gbr.eu  |
|UNDER the overpass! OVER the underpass! Around the future and BEYOND REPAIR!|

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

From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: Security
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1993 01:48:31 GMT

ig25@fg30.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig) writes:

>rda@eng.cam.ac.uk (R.D. Auchterlounie) writes:
>
>Next question: how are you going to make sure that nobody exchanges
>the BIOS for another one, if they have physical access to the machine?

Hire armed guards to patrol the machines, making sure that no-one
touches anything except the keyboards ;-).

Seriously, security is not a binary yes-or-no quantity.
If crackers need a BIOS chip, a screwdriver, and privacy
(unscrewing the case in a crowded computer lab is sure to attract
unwanted attention ;-), then most of them won't bother.
Sure, the system is still not 100% secure, but if you cut
down the number of crackers by an order of magnitude or so,
then that is probably good enough.

-- 
Fergus Henderson                     fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU

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


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