Subject: Linux-Activists Digest #28
From: Digestifier <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 02:15:12 EDT

Linux-Activists Digest #28, Volume #2             Mon, 6 Apr 92 02:15:12 EDT

Contents:
  config-95a (david nugent)
  bash question (Alex R.N. Wetmore)
  Re: serial port in linux (The News Guru)
  ?? need advice on linux/486 compatibility (Gary Bjerke)
  Re: Pascal compiler ([email-masked])
  uudecode ([email-masked])
  Re: serial port in linux ([email-masked])
  What must be done to add a system call??? (Joel M. Hoffman)
  wanting to install Linux.  2 Questions. ([email-masked])
  Compilers (Fred)
  Compilers (Fred)
  Re: partitioning problem (Charles Hedrick)
  Re: What must be done to add a system call??? (Drew Eckhardt)
  Re: Compilers (Drew Eckhardt)
  Re: Compilers (Drew Eckhardt)
  Re: Compilers (Ajay Shah)
  Re: Compilers (Ajay Shah)
  Mounted file system policy and partition tables (Richard Alan Brown)
  Re: HD timeout Errors (with .95a) (Paul Nulsen)

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

From: [email-masked] (david nugent)
Subject: config-95a
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 92 21:07:10 +1000
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Did anyone have problems with this?  After applying it and successfully
building the kernel, it apparently broke the serial ports. I get
a general protection interrupt when running kermit, for example.
Everything else seems to work ok though.

I reversed out the diffs for now, but I support the idea of having the
standard device driver interface that the package offers.

david

..............................................................................
david nugent          Public Access Usenet        "Only Nixon can go to China"
[email-masked]     +61-3-792-3507                - ancient Vulcan proverb
3:632/400@fidonet, 58:4100/1@intlnet, 199:4242/5@rainbownet, 33:300/6@admin
PO Box 260, Endeavour Hills, Victoria, Australia, 3802.

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

From: [email-masked] (Alex R.N. Wetmore)
Subject: bash question
Date: 5 Apr 92 22:45:06 GMT

I got bash.Z from funet in the /bin area, and noticed that it was really
buggy.  It seemed to crash with about every 4th command I typed (usaully
resulting in a general protection fault).  Is there another one that has
had better luck being compiled?  Also, has anyone considered porting csh
to linux?

Also, is there a site that carries the 0.95a kernel with the ps
extensions?  I just don't have the time to go through kernel rebuilds
right now.

alex

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

From: [email-masked] (The News Guru)
Subject: Re: serial port in linux
Date: 5 Apr 1992 18:58:31 -0500

[email-masked] (Andy I. Liaw) writes:

>In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Joseph Laval Tremblay) writes:
[...]

>I can set line /dev/ttys1, which is the device name for com1,
>thanks to those reply.  But when I dial there's no reaction
>from the modem.  What's wrong?

I had a similar problem. I booted dos, (yech) ran telix (which worked
fine) and then booted linux and kermit again and it worked. I don'nt
know what the real cause of the problem was but you might give this a
try. 

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

From: [email-masked] (Gary Bjerke)
Subject: ?? need advice on linux/486 compatibility
Date: 5 Apr 92 23:25:21 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked] (Gary Bjerke)

I'm about to buy, or perhaps put together, a 486DX system. I'd like to get
an EISA motherboard and SCSI drives. I'd like to run both DOS and Unix, but
I don't want my hardware choices to be limited by what linux and bsd386 
currently support. I'd appreciate any advice from gurus out there concerning
the following questions:
            
1. Is the EISA problem merely one of driver support for 32-bit buswidth, or
   are there other problems? Is EISA support expected in the near future 
   (say, next 6-9 months)?
2. If the problem is just in drivers, can I work around it by tempoarily using
   a 16-bit ESDI or IDE controller in the EISA bus?
3. Someone mentioned timing problems with support for some 486 motherboards.
   Can anyone elaborate?
4. I plan to buy a 14" or 15" 1024x768 monitor. Will there be problems sup-
   porting such a monitor? I am considering the Orchid Fahrenheit 1280 
   graphics card.
5. Someone posted a SCSI driver for bsd386. I presume it was for an ISA bus.
   At the risk of repeating question 1 - is EISA/SCSI support expected soon,
   or are there major problems?

All advice and suggestions will be greatly appreciated. 

-- Gary Bjerke

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

From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Pascal compiler
Date: 6 Apr 92 00:21:18 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked]

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked]  
(Drew Eckhardt) wrote about GNU's Pascal compiler.

I had compiled p2c and had it working back with 0.12 with no problems that  
I remember.

(p2c is a free pascal to C translator.  I believe that it is covered by  
the GNU copyright.)

I only have 20 MB drive, so I can't keep things like that around very  
long.

--
Joseph T. Batt - deranged CS undergrad...
=====================================================
\ [email-masked] = &(Joseph T. Batt); \
 \                                                    \
  \    Real programmers start counting with zero.      \
   ------------------------------------------------------

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

From: [email-masked]
Subject: uudecode
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 00:50:12 GMT

I was unable to decode digest18 and digest22 linux-0.95c patches using
linux's uudecode.  I still have a Minix partition and uud which appears
to work.  The trimmed digest18 had sum 12035 43 with 700 lines and
digest22 had sum 41985 34 and 559 lines not counting the blank line
following the end line.  torvalds didn't think there was any problem
with the postings, the uudecode I was using was a binary gotten off of
tsx-11 circa 0.12 --- probably compiled circa 0.10

I guess it is time to recompile everything I have source for.  Minix did
have a several month long discussion of the advantages to uud over
uudecode.  Don't know whether this is relevant or if fact uudecode was
compiled so long ago.

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

From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: serial port in linux
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 00:25:41 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Andy I. Liaw)  
writes:
> In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Joseph Laval  
Tremblay) writes:
..other claims....
> I can set line /dev/ttys1, which is the device name for com1,
> thanks to those reply.  But when I dial there's no reaction
> from the modem.  What's wrong?
> 
> Andy

me too...  I havent' been able to use my modem.  Mine configured to com3.   
I have used lines 1 and 2 for links to a NeXT and a terminal, but I can't  
get my modem to work.

--
Joseph T. Batt - deranged CS undergrad...
=====================================================
\ [email-masked] = &(Joseph T. Batt); \
 \                                                    \
  \    Real programmers start counting with zero.      \
   ------------------------------------------------------

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

From: [email-masked] (Joel M. Hoffman)
Subject: What must be done to add a system call???
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 01:10:32 GMT

I have another silly question:  What do I have to do to add a system
call to Linux.  I've written the code, and compiled it into the
kernel, but how do I tell the compiler that outside programs can use
it??

I notice, e.g., that the code for getuid() is in a block headed by
sys_getuid(), and that getuid() appears in unistd.h.  A reference to
sys_setuid() appears in sys.h.  Then user programs can use setuid().
How do I work similar magic for my own kernel functions??

-Joel
([email-masked])

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

From: [email-masked]
Subject: wanting to install Linux.  2 Questions.
Date: 6 Apr 92 01:36:18 GMT

   I'd like to ask a couple of questoins:
      1.  Is Linux 0.95a currently compatible w/ an
          MFM hard disc?
      2.  What is the minimum amount of space I need to install Linux,
          untilize a c compiler and keep about 5 megs storage space?

   Any help would, of course, be greatl appreciated!
                                        Corey

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

From:  (Fred)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Compilers
Date: 6 Apr 92 01:56:43 GMT

What is going to happen with compilers under Linux? We have gcc1.40 with
problems in the libraries. Then we have gcc2.x that is broken as well. 

The other thing that people out there may be forgetting is that there are
some of us that only have 2M ram, and cant afford to spring for more ram, and
the move to 2.x will leave us in the cold.

just some thoughts....

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

From:  (Fred)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Compilers
Date: 6 Apr 92 01:56:43 GMT

What is going to happen with compilers under Linux? We have gcc1.40 with
problems in the libraries. Then we have gcc2.x that is broken as well. 

The other thing that people out there may be forgetting is that there are
some of us that only have 2M ram, and cant afford to spring for more ram, and
the move to 2.x will leave us in the cold.

just some thoughts....

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

From: [email-masked] (Charles Hedrick)
Subject: Re: partitioning problem
Date: 6 Apr 92 02:05:57 GMT

[email-masked] (Andy I. Liaw) writes:

>How do I restrict access to the linux partition from DOS?

Use something like edpart and set the partition to a code other than
DOS.  Linux doesn't care what you claim the partition is.  It treats
everything other than extended partitions the same.  However DOS
apparently only look at partitions that claim to be DOS.  So call it a
Minix partition or System V release 3 or whatever.

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

From: [email-masked] (Drew Eckhardt)
Subject: Re: What must be done to add a system call???
Date: 6 Apr 92 02:19:31 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Joel M. Hoffman) writes:
>I have another silly question:  What do I have to do to add a system
>call to Linux.  I've written the code, and compiled it into the
>kernel, but how do I tell the compiler that outside programs can use
>it??
>
>I notice, e.g., that the code for getuid() is in a block headed by
>sys_getuid(), and that getuid() appears in unistd.h.  A reference to
>sys_setuid() appears in sys.h.  Then user programs can use setuid().
>How do I work similar magic for my own kernel functions??
>

1.  The system call goes into the kernel code someplace.  
        Mostly, this is linux/kernel/sys.c, and is 
        traditionally named with something begining 
        sys_.

2.  An entry is made in 
        fn_ptr sys_call_table[] in sys.h.

3.  For consitency, it is declared extrn() in sys.h.

4.  A __NR_name entry is #define'd in unistd.h.  THIS IS 
        IMPORTANT.  The syscall[numberofparameter] 
        macros defined in unistd.h macros 
        append a name to __NR_ to get the syscall number
        to use.  

5.  An object code module calling this, a function is
        made to call this syscall generally using 
        the syscall macros. The
        'C' source for this should #define
        __LIBRARY__ before including unistd.h.  

6.  The object code module is added to libc.a with 
        ar -r libc.a [name]

        `

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

Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
From: [email-masked] (Drew Eckhardt)
Subject: Re: Compilers
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 02:25:53 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> (Fred) writes:
>What is going to happen with compilers under Linux? We have gcc1.40 with
>problems in the libraries. Then we have gcc2.x that is broken as well. 

There is nothing stopping you from using the gcc2.1 libraries, shared,
or static. 

>The other thing that people out there may be forgetting is that there are
>some of us that only have 2M ram, and cant afford to spring for more ram, and
>the move to 2.x will leave us in the cold.
>
>just some thoughts....

gcc2.1 will work in 2M of ram, the same way that previous versions ran 
in 2M of ram : with some swapping.  People have verified this, and
it's slower, but it still works. 

GCC2.1 will become the "standard" Linux compiler.  The prebeta release
appears more stable than any of the previous versions of gcc, and 
has the additional advantages of compiling c++, and doing shared 
libraries.  

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

Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
From: [email-masked] (Drew Eckhardt)
Subject: Re: Compilers
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 02:25:53 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> (Fred) writes:
>What is going to happen with compilers under Linux? We have gcc1.40 with
>problems in the libraries. Then we have gcc2.x that is broken as well. 

There is nothing stopping you from using the gcc2.1 libraries, shared,
or static. 

>The other thing that people out there may be forgetting is that there are
>some of us that only have 2M ram, and cant afford to spring for more ram, and
>the move to 2.x will leave us in the cold.
>
>just some thoughts....

gcc2.1 will work in 2M of ram, the same way that previous versions ran 
in 2M of ram : with some swapping.  People have verified this, and
it's slower, but it still works. 

GCC2.1 will become the "standard" Linux compiler.  The prebeta release
appears more stable than any of the previous versions of gcc, and 
has the additional advantages of compiling c++, and doing shared 
libraries.  

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

From: [email-masked] (Ajay Shah)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Compilers
Date: 5 Apr 1992 20:57:29 -0700

>The other thing that people out there may be forgetting is that there are
>some of us that only have 2M ram, and cant afford to spring for more ram, and
>the move to 2.x will leave us in the cold.

Come on... it's $130 for a 4 Meg SIMM.

        -ans.

-- 

Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, [email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Ajay Shah)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Compilers
Date: 5 Apr 1992 20:57:29 -0700

>The other thing that people out there may be forgetting is that there are
>some of us that only have 2M ram, and cant afford to spring for more ram, and
>the move to 2.x will leave us in the cold.

Come on... it's $130 for a 4 Meg SIMM.

        -ans.

-- 

Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, [email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Richard Alan Brown)
Subject: Mounted file system policy and partition tables
Date: 6 Apr 92 04:02:54 GMT

Regarding hard disk partitioning:

1. It seems that the preferred Linux partitioning is this:
        /       /usr    /home   swap    DOS...
   i.e. at least 5 partitions! Now, I do see the need for mounting
   parts of the file system in large multi-user systems, but I expect
   most of us Linuxers will be using relatively small disks (<=100MB)
   with one or two users, and would like to have as much free space as
   possible available to us in in one partition.
   
   It makes sense to me to have the swap space as a partition rather
   than just as a file (maybe be this is just a wee bit safer in the
   event of a catastrophe?), but otherwise I don't really see the point
   in subdividing the disk in such a small system. In fact, for only
   one or two users, maybe ye olde Unix structure of having user areas
   in /usr should be used ?

   I believe that having more than 4 partitions on a hard disk requires
   'extended partitions'. There seems to be some doubt whether Linux will
   work properly with them. Being a conservative kind of guy (I *hate*
   restoring from floppies!), I'd quite like to avoid doing this. I'm
   wondering if the recommended filesystem breakdown should be changed,
   or am I missing something?

2. I've seen mentioned somewhere here that after editing the partition table,
   I will need to edit the boot record or something so that DOS will
   not try to write into the Linux partition. Is this correct or does
   DOS get all of its information from the partition table at boot time ?
   What do I need to edit ?  (No mention in the install notes).

3. From INSTALL NOTES FOR LINUX v0.95a :

   > Jim Winstead Jr. - March 17, 1992
   >
   > 4)  Make sure you have a free (preferably primary) partition on your
   >     hard drive.

   Why does it matter if the partition is primary or not ? Will DOS be
   upset by this ?

4. While I'm here: Linus, will the patched 0.95a kernel binary be available
   for FTP ?

rab
========================================================================
Richard Brown                     | E-mail: [email-masked]
School of Physics                 | Phone : +61 3 344 5081
University of Melbourne           | Fax   : +61 3 347 4783
Parkville Victoria AUSTRALIA 3052 | Telex : AA35185

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

From: [email-masked] (Paul Nulsen)
Subject: Re: HD timeout Errors (with .95a)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 05:43:04 GMT

[email-masked] (Linus Benedict Torvalds) writes:

>In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Stewart Baker) writes:
>>Is there anyone else having problems with their disk in .95a?
>> [ description deleted ]

>I'm afraid there are people still having problems with the 0.95a
>harddisk drivers: the problems show up in "unexpected HD interrupt" and
>"HD timeout" messages.  These messages sometimes result in read-errors,
>it seems: general protection errors and sometimes even bad filesystems. 

I am one of these people. My system boots smoothly off the 0.95a images, but
after I have installed the binaries onto my hard disk most of them refuse to
function. There are a few corrupt sectors on the disk, but I don't think
there are enough to account for this problem (I have tried installing into
different partitions with the same results).

I might add, fsck detects no problems, and I can cat the files (though they
may be corrupt). The timeouts only occur when I try to run a binary.

My questions:

1. Are these problems basically due to bad hardware? In other words, should
I be demanding that the supplier fix the machine under warranty? I have had
some problems with the disk under DOS, but put them down to a few marginal
sectors.

2. How does linux deal with bad sectors? I am no Unix guru, but I don't see
any attempt to check for bad sectors during the installation.

>I'll make a new alpha-patch available tomorrow, which has some
>corrections to the harddisk driver: they aren't guaranteed to help you,
>but I hope the few persons experiencing these errors will try them out
>and report to me what happened.

While I am about it, can I join the appeal for these patches to be put into
a new set of images. Until I can get a functional system I have no hope of
really looking into the cause of my problems.

Thanks
Paul Nulsen
[email-masked]

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

** 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: [email-masked]

You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux) via:

    Internet: [email-masked]

Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
    nic.funet.fi				pub/OS/Linux
    tsx-11.mit.edu				pub/linux
    tupac-amaru.informatik.rwth-aachen.de	pub/msdos/replace

The current version of Linux is 0.95a released on March 17, 1992

End of Linux-Activists Digest
******************************