As everyone knows, Joerg Schilling has a blog, and he often pushes his
pro-Solaris agenda, and flames the LKML about how Linux breaks cdrecord
(instead of just admitting cdrecord is broken) or how much more awesome
Solaris is compared to Linux.
Well, he just fired yet another salvo at the Linux community:
http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/04/value-marketing-and-freedom.html
I commented on his blog entry, but I am afraid of being censored as my views
do not align with his, so I am including the text of my comment here:
////
I suggest people don't read too much into what Schily says. He thinks Solaris
is this almighty perfect operating system that crushes all others: The reason
Solaris is failing is because more and more people are switching to other
operating systems. And yes, Linux just happens to be the one that most are
switching to; BSD and QNX are also other choices.
Most of the people switching to Linux are not doing so because its GPL, not
because its associated with other Free Software, and not because the source
is available. They are switching simply because it is the best product out
there at this time; and as I see it, it will continue to be the best product
because Linux software developers are not sitting around arguing about what
license is better, or what features other operating systems have or don't
have.
Linux developers code, OpenSolaris developers sit around and flame Linux
developers instead of coding. Which operating system would _you_ choose?
////
--
Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || [email protected]
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd
all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to
repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989
As Linus once commented to me, just let this stuff roll off your back
and ignore it.
Patrick, just ignore this smuck. If this is his opinion, people will
evaluate it
as such. Linux speaks for itself, and it's worldwide use speaks for itself.
Jeff
Patrick McFarland wrote:
>As everyone knows, Joerg Schilling has a blog, and he often pushes his
>pro-Solaris agenda, and flames the LKML about how Linux breaks cdrecord
>(instead of just admitting cdrecord is broken) or how much more awesome
>Solaris is compared to Linux.
>
>Well, he just fired yet another salvo at the Linux community:
>http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/04/value-marketing-and-freedom.html
>
>I commented on his blog entry, but I am afraid of being censored as my views
>do not align with his, so I am including the text of my comment here:
>
>////
>I suggest people don't read too much into what Schily says. He thinks Solaris
>is this almighty perfect operating system that crushes all others: The reason
>Solaris is failing is because more and more people are switching to other
>operating systems. And yes, Linux just happens to be the one that most are
>switching to; BSD and QNX are also other choices.
>
>Most of the people switching to Linux are not doing so because its GPL, not
>because its associated with other Free Software, and not because the source
>is available. They are switching simply because it is the best product out
>there at this time; and as I see it, it will continue to be the best product
>because Linux software developers are not sitting around arguing about what
>license is better, or what features other operating systems have or don't
>have.
>
>Linux developers code, OpenSolaris developers sit around and flame Linux
>developers instead of coding. Which operating system would _you_ choose?
>////
>
>
>
Patrick McFarland <[email protected]> writes:
> As everyone knows, Joerg Schilling has a blog, and he often pushes his
> pro-Solaris agenda, and flames the LKML about how Linux breaks
> cdrecord (instead of just admitting cdrecord is broken) or how much
> more awesome Solaris is compared to Linux.
>
> Well, he just fired yet another salvo at the Linux community:
> http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/04/value-marketing-and-freedom.html
>
> I commented on his blog entry, but I am afraid of being censored as my
> views do not align with his, so I am including the text of my comment
> here:
At least here I can see your comment.
regards
Markus
Patrick McFarland wrote:
> As everyone knows, Joerg Schilling has a blog, and he often pushes his
> pro-Solaris agenda, and flames the LKML about how Linux breaks cdrecord
> (instead of just admitting cdrecord is broken) or how much more awesome
> Solaris is compared to Linux.
>
> Well, he just fired yet another salvo at the Linux community:
> http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/04/value-marketing-and-freedom.html
>
> I commented on his blog entry, but I am afraid of being censored as my views
> do not align with his, so I am including the text of my comment here:
>
> ////
> I suggest people don't read too much into what Schily says. He thinks Solaris
> is this almighty perfect operating system that crushes all others: The reason
> Solaris is failing is because more and more people are switching to other
> operating systems. And yes, Linux just happens to be the one that most are
> switching to; BSD and QNX are also other choices.
>
> Most of the people switching to Linux are not doing so because its GPL, not
> because its associated with other Free Software, and not because the source
> is available. They are switching simply because it is the best product out
> there at this time; and as I see it, it will continue to be the best product
> because Linux software developers are not sitting around arguing about what
> license is better, or what features other operating systems have or don't
> have.
>
> Linux developers code, OpenSolaris developers sit around and flame Linux
> developers instead of coding. Which operating system would _you_ choose?
> ////
>
He's maybe a sympathizer of Solaris (remember that the Slab was developed by Sun for Solaris). I don't like Sun, but
anyway he's right.
Matthias-Christian Ott
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 20:34 +0200, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
> He's maybe a sympathizer of Solaris (remember that the Slab was developed by Sun for Solaris). I don't like Sun, but
> anyway he's right.
I also sympathize with that part of his argument (though it does not
make Schily less of a jerk). Solaris has had some very cool features
like priority inheritance and fully preemptible kernel for 10 plus years
that Linux either is just getting, or does not have.
Lee
I agree that Joerg Schilling should be entirely ignored; cdrecord is
hopelessly broken writing DVDs and looking at the code, I am not
surprised, it is designed to make you buy the his PRO-DVD product but
fortunately Open Source healed itself, in the usual way.
Solaris is a hostage to the SUN QA group, which is FAR too powerful,
so they argue "keep it out" so vanilla Solaris just sucks, but, within
SUN there is an OS tool-chain group which builds useful tools
and publishes a DVD and runs a download service, This stuff needs
to be pushed into the mainstream. There is NO evidence that SUN
management, increasingly PHB, even understands the issue.
If I need a Python or Ruby platform do I use sun or Linux on X-arc?
This and the failure to see that they must open source Java just
indicate how clueless SUN senior leadership now is.
The real problem is insecure sys admins, throughout the industry, who
resist what developers are trying to do, cos it isnt on the (Solaris)
distribution CDs
Finally SUN should move from the pkg* abortion, written by idiots
at AT&T, some 25 years ago to RPM.
--
mit freundlichen Gr??en, Brian.
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 01:20:19AM +0200, Brian O'Mahoney wrote:
>...
> Finally SUN should move from the pkg* abortion, written by idiots
> at AT&T, some 25 years ago to RPM.
In my personal experience, the Solaris packages are quite usable.
I don't claim they were perfect, but do you have compelling reasons why
you call the people who developed it "idiots"?
> mit freundlichen Gr??en, Brian.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 09:38 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[...]
> In my personal experience, the Solaris packages are quite usable.
Did you ever see Solaris installations without GNU-tools from
sunfreeware.com installed?
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
Bernd Petrovitsch <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 09:38 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> [...]
>> In my personal experience, the Solaris packages are quite usable.
>
> Did you ever see Solaris installations without GNU-tools from
> sunfreeware.com installed?
That's irrelevant. The question was about the usability of the
Solaris package system, compared to RPM, not about the software inside
the packages.
--
M?ns Rullg?rd
[email protected]
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> Did you ever see Solaris installations without GNU-tools from
> sunfreeware.com installed?
Hnngh! Missing dependencies (do the package format support it at all?),
no splitting (why should I need apache2 for the portability library
libapr?), odd things like needing sunfreeware gzip instead of the
solaris one in some packages (something that you don't notice until its
too late)... its like going way back in time to slackware.
</rant>
--
Cheers,
Andr? Tomt
With his rookie Solaris admin hat on.
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 01:20:19AM +0200, Brian O'Mahoney wrote:
>
>>...
>>Finally SUN should move from the pkg* abortion, written by idiots
>>at AT&T, some 25 years ago to RPM.
>
>
> In my personal experience, the Solaris packages are quite usable.
>
> I don't claim they were perfect, but do you have compelling reasons why
> you call the people who developed it "idiots"?
The point I made was that SUN do support/use the GNU toolchain
internally, and everyone has used GNU on SUN since they started to
charge for the Solaris C compiler in the 80's. They also have RPM
and it is only recently they integrated Perl and I object to this
attitude whether it comes from SUN or MicroSoft
As to pkg* just look at what is missing/deficient -v- any OpenSource
tool, which was desingned by those that were going to _use_ it not
just tick a check box
It is typical of the period in which AT&T had more Marketeers and Lawers
working on Unix that there were developers. These were the guys who
helped to start the Unix wars.
--
mit freundlichen Gr??en, Brian.
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 01:41:37PM +0200, Andr? Tomt wrote:
> Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> >Did you ever see Solaris installations without GNU-tools from
> >sunfreeware.com installed?
>
> Hnngh! Missing dependencies (do the package format support it at all?),
Solaris packages support dependencies.
That's what the "depend" file is for.
> no splitting (why should I need apache2 for the portability library
> libapr?), odd things like needing sunfreeware gzip instead of the
> solaris one in some packages (something that you don't notice until its
> too late)... its like going way back in time to slackware.
Brian complained about the package format and not about specific
packages.
I've also seen horrible rpm or dpkg packages, but that's irrelevant when
talking about package formats.
> </rant>
> Cheers,
> Andr? Tomt
> With his rookie Solaris admin hat on.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 06:39:38PM +0200, Brian O'Mahoney wrote:
>
>
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > In my personal experience, the Solaris packages are quite usable.
> >
> > I don't claim they were perfect, but do you have compelling reasons why
> > you call the people who developed it "idiots"?
>
> The point I made was that SUN do support/use the GNU toolchain
> internally, and everyone has used GNU on SUN since they started to
> charge for the Solaris C compiler in the 80's. They also have RPM
> and it is only recently they integrated Perl and I object to this
> attitude whether it comes from SUN or MicroSoft
>
> As to pkg* just look at what is missing/deficient -v- any OpenSource
> tool, which was desingned by those that were going to _use_ it not
> just tick a check box
It was nice if you would name the points why you think Solaris packages
are that inferior to e.g. RPM or dpkg packages.
E.g. if you know a standard way how to get the same functionality as
request/pkgask in Solaris packages for RPM packages I'd be glad to hear
about.
Not that I'd claim that Solaris packages were perfect.
Some examples:
- Solaris packages don't support upgrades of packages.
- I know in neither RPM nor Solaris packages a mechanism similarly
powerful to the dpkg diversions.
I'd personally say dpkg is the best of this three package formats. But I
have to admit that RPM is the one amongst them I know the least, and you
can correct my statements regarding RPM if you know better.
But altogether, I don't see any of these three package formats being
hopelessly inferior to the other two.
> It is typical of the period in which AT&T had more Marketeers and Lawers
> working on Unix that there were developers. These were the guys who
> helped to start the Unix wars.
You said:
Finally SUN should move from the pkg* abortion, written by idiots
at AT&T, some 25 years ago to RPM.
If you call people "idiots", you should at least be able to give some
hard facts where exactly they should have done something different based
on the knowledge that was available at the time they did it.
And it seems you also missed that the Solaris package format has evolved
over the years.
> mit freundlichen Gr??en, Brian.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 01:41:37PM +0200, Andr? Tomt wrote:
>
>>Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>>
>>>Did you ever see Solaris installations without GNU-tools from
>>>sunfreeware.com installed?
>>
>>Hnngh! Missing dependencies (do the package format support it at all?),
>
>
> Solaris packages support dependencies.
> That's what the "depend" file is for.
Great, now if sunfreeware would just use it ;-)
Disclaimer: I havn't checked the entire archive.
>>no splitting (why should I need apache2 for the portability library
>>libapr?), odd things like needing sunfreeware gzip instead of the
>>solaris one in some packages (something that you don't notice until its
>>too late)... its like going way back in time to slackware.
>
>
> Brian complained about the package format and not about specific
> packages.
>
> I've also seen horrible rpm or dpkg packages, but that's irrelevant when
> talking about package formats.
I was talking about sunfreeware.com packages. Maybe it wasn't clear enough.
--
Cheers,
Andr? Tomt
> ... flames the LKML about how Linux breaks cdrecord
> (instead of just admitting cdrecord is broken)
I've always used cdr-tools on Linux and Windows since it is the
only/best tool for mastering CDs. It takes the installation of Joerg's
library, but after that, it's worked wonderfully. This is even the
tool that is suggested by the HOWTOs that newbies are told to read. It
has always appeared to me that it was the only/best tool.
If it's broken, then surely there's an unbroken drop-in replacement
program that should be used. And surely it works much better than
cdr-tools and is easier to use. However, after a few seconds of Google
searches, I was unable to find it.
So what is the new tool that is suggested to be used? I'd rather not
be using broken software. Thanks.
(This is really only a half-sarcastic reply. I really would like to
know if there's a better tool. However, I'm also trying to point out
that Joerg's software seems to be all that can be used at the moment
and so it's hard for me as a humble end-user to really care if his
software is broken since it works.)
I don't want to pour gasoline on an incipient flame war, but
my two points here are:
1--
SUN uses RPM internally, but continues to insist its Solaris
customers countinue to put up with pkg*, which makes system
administration of solaris a nightmare after a while especially
when mixed in with binary patches and patch dependancies with
major vendors like Oracle, SAP and Veritas and all of this
brings the Solaris admin/developer no benefit at all.
RPM is free software so SUN could just use it, and if they
did the major platform vendors would in a New York minute.
And SUN do this so they can sell the Update Service
2--
There was little wrong with cdrecord until DVDs came out and
H Schilling decided to take DVD PRO private and became petty
about his build system, smake, and others extending a fork
of cdrecord to support DVDs; which was done by both SuSE and
Debian -- but with weird add in Copyright, and you can't change
this, and "Inofficial Version" junk from Schilling.
And then there was the Solaris/Linux flames, and most of us
just got tired of all the hassle, I just wanted to write
DVD-R and DVD-ROM media.
After wasting a lot of time and coasters I note that
dvdrtools from 'http://www.nongnu.org/dvdrtools/'
and
the dvd+rw package from
http://fy.chalmers.se/~appro/linux/DVD+RW/
both work well, and without any hassle, and now use DVD+RW
which, now, writes all formats of DVD
so I _nolonger_care_ about Schilling, smake, cdrecord or
his Linux flames, since the fact that DVD+RW can, reliably
write DVDs and even DVD PRO can't means to me that there is
nothing wrong with Linux and something wrong with cdrecord.
Or am I missing something here?
Andrew Haninger wrote:
>>... flames the LKML about how Linux breaks cdrecord
>>(instead of just admitting cdrecord is broken)
>
>
> I've always used cdr-tools on Linux and Windows since it is the
> only/best tool for mastering CDs. It takes the installation of Joerg's
> library, but after that, it's worked wonderfully. This is even the
> tool that is suggested by the HOWTOs that newbies are told to read. It
> has always appeared to me that it was the only/best tool.
See above
> (This is really only a half-sarcastic reply. I really would like to
> know if there's a better tool. However, I'm also trying to point out
> that Joerg's software seems to be all that can be used at the moment
> and so it's hard for me as a humble end-user to really care if his
> software is broken since it works.)
--
mit freundlichen Gr??en, Brian.
On Saturday 21 May 2005 09:22 pm, Andrew Haninger wrote:
> > ... flames the LKML about how Linux breaks cdrecord
> > (instead of just admitting cdrecord is broken)
>
> I've always used cdr-tools on Linux and Windows since it is the
> only/best tool for mastering CDs. It takes the installation of Joerg's
> library, but after that, it's worked wonderfully. This is even the
> tool that is suggested by the HOWTOs that newbies are told to read. It
> has always appeared to me that it was the only/best tool.
I was refering to the 2.6 permissions bug in cdrecord. It wouldn't work using
a non-root user, even if they had the correct permissions. 2.6 changed (for
the better, mind you), and Joerg refused to fix cdrecord. (I don't know if
its even fixed now). Theres been other cases of cdrecord breaking on Linux
only, but I can't think of them atm.
> If it's broken, then surely there's an unbroken drop-in replacement
> program that should be used. And surely it works much better than
> cdr-tools and is easier to use. However, after a few seconds of Google
> searches, I was unable to find it.
I really wish someone would build a replacement for cdrecord, but Joerg just
hasn't pissed off that potential author enough.
--
Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || [email protected]
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd
all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to
repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Andre Tomt wrote:
> Great, now if sunfreeware would just use it ;-)
Check http://www.blastwave.org/ - they use the depend file and support
Solaris 8 - 10 on x86 and SPARC IIRC. Don't quote me on the versions
though.
--
Matthias Andree
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Brian O'Mahoney wrote:
> 1--
> SUN uses RPM internally, but continues to insist its Solaris
Can this please move to a Sun vs Linux advocacy group or list?
While Solaris' pkg* is certainly inferior to aptitude/dpkg, what the
heck has this got to do with the Linux kernel?
...
> 2--
> There was little wrong with cdrecord until DVDs came out and
> H Schilling decided to take DVD PRO private and became petty
> about his build system, smake, and others extending a fork
> of cdrecord to support DVDs; which was done by both SuSE and
> Debian -- but with weird add in Copyright, and you can't change
> this, and "Inofficial Version" junk from Schilling.
Check GPL clause 2 a - it was Schilling's right to insist that the
modified versions displayed those notices. If we make a fuss about
netfilter GPL compliance, we must grant that application programmers
make the same fuss about GPL compliance if distributors hack the
versions with inofficial patches.
And there has been a time when I've been using the "vanilla" versions
because the SUSE versions didn't work for me, for reasons I wouldn't
investigate, so I have nothing to complain about. ProDVD being
commercial has fostered alternative free DVD writing software that works
with Linux, so just use it and move on. Pragmatism is sometimes the
option of less resistance. :)
It is true Schilling's unrelated rants (like making GNU make sleep for
15 seconds or such) are tiresome and often fought in places where they
are inappropriate, but his complaints about ide-scsi not working
properly and the Kernel inventing SG_IO for ide-cd and the command
filtering behind it and all that fuss were fundamentally right, if a bit
exaggerated in volume. Let's see what becomes of ide-scsi and all that
as libata takes over parallel ATA devices in the future %-)
--
Matthias Andree
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Patrick McFarland wrote:
> On Saturday 21 May 2005 09:22 pm, Andrew Haninger wrote:
> > > ... flames the LKML about how Linux breaks cdrecord
> > > (instead of just admitting cdrecord is broken)
> >
> > I've always used cdr-tools on Linux and Windows since it is the
> > only/best tool for mastering CDs. It takes the installation of Joerg's
> > library, but after that, it's worked wonderfully. This is even the
> > tool that is suggested by the HOWTOs that newbies are told to read. It
> > has always appeared to me that it was the only/best tool.
>
> I was refering to the 2.6 permissions bug in cdrecord. It wouldn't work using
> a non-root user, even if they had the correct permissions. 2.6 changed (for
sudo works for me, and I'd rather use that than rely on someone writing
spaghetti code making this safe to use as suid code...
> I really wish someone would build a replacement for cdrecord, but Joerg just
> hasn't pissed off that potential author enough.
Arrange for funding, find sponsors, and then hire someone.
--
Matthias Andree
On Sunday 22 May 2005 02:22, Andrew Haninger wrote:
> > ... flames the LKML about how Linux breaks cdrecord
> > (instead of just admitting cdrecord is broken)
>
> I've always used cdr-tools on Linux and Windows since it is the
> only/best tool for mastering CDs. It takes the installation of Joerg's
> library, but after that, it's worked wonderfully. This is even the
> tool that is suggested by the HOWTOs that newbies are told to read. It
> has always appeared to me that it was the only/best tool.
>
> If it's broken, then surely there's an unbroken drop-in replacement
> program that should be used. And surely it works much better than
> cdr-tools and is easier to use. However, after a few seconds of Google
> searches, I was unable to find it.
>
> So what is the new tool that is suggested to be used? I'd rather not
> be using broken software. Thanks.
>
cdrdao
http://cdrdao.sourceforge.net/
Does DAO. Can burn subchannel data. Can burn an audio CD.
dvd+-rw-tools
http://fy.chalmers.se/~appro/linux/DVD+RW/
Burns DVD+/-R, though it does use mkisofs (iirc) which is part of cdrtools.
Seems to burn DVD+R which I have mixed success with the Mandrake fork of
cdrtools (no fault of Joerg, necessarily).
Therefore I'd recommend you install an unpatched, Joerg original version of
cdrtools, burn DAOs and audio CDs with cdrdao, and use dvd+-rw-tools
exclusively for burning DVDs. This combination has served me well, and since
mastering it I've had no coaster discs.
Up to date GUI tools like k3b (http://k3b.sourceforge.net/) will make all
these recommendations and set everything up for you. I don't use it myself,
but I when I've seen it working, it looked good.
--
Cheers,
Alistair.
personal: alistair()devzero!co!uk
university: s0348365()sms!ed!ac!uk
student: CS/CSim Undergraduate
contact: 1F2 55 South Clerk Street,
Edinburgh. EH8 9PP.
On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 13:33 +0200, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Bernd Petrovitsch <[email protected]> writes:
> > On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 09:38 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > [...]
> >> In my personal experience, the Solaris packages are quite usable.
> >
> > Did you ever see Solaris installations without GNU-tools from
> > sunfreeware.com installed?
>
> That's irrelevant. The question was about the usability of the
> Solaris package system, compared to RPM, not about the software inside
> the packages.
Sorry, I misunderstand that.
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
On Sunday 22 May 2005 06:50, Patrick McFarland wrote:
> I really wish someone would build a replacement for cdrecord, but Joerg
> just hasn't pissed off that potential author enough.
Actually it has
http://www.freesoftware.fsf.org/dvdrtools/
It's a fork of the last "free" cdrecord (as in, without #ifdef NOT_MY_VERSION
printf("Warning, you're using broken crap") and eliminates quite a few
braindamages, such as the build system, the absence of DVD support, the
anti-Linux and anti-GNU-Make comments and associated delays, but is otherwise
still pretty close to the original (help in fixing the rest of the rest is
welcome!).
LLaP
bero
On 20 May 2005, Patrick McFarland suggested tentatively:
> As everyone knows, Joerg Schilling has a blog, and he often pushes his
> pro-Solaris agenda, and flames the LKML about how Linux breaks cdrecord
> (instead of just admitting cdrecord is broken) or how much more awesome
> Solaris is compared to Linux.
>
> Well, he just fired yet another salvo at the Linux community:
> http://schily.blogspot.com/2005/04/value-marketing-and-freedom.html
His research sucks.
: Later, the LGPL has been created and parts of the GCC (libgcc) has
: been put under LGPL.
Wrong. It is trivial to check gcc/libgcc*c and observe that libgcc is
*not* LGPLed, but licensed under the GPL plus an exception permitting
unrestricted linkage to proprietary software. (Related exceptions are
used for the libstdc++ headers and the Ada runtime.)
Just before that, he said:
: This acceptance has not been present from the beginning. In the
: beginning, the whole GCC has been published under the GPL and thus could
: not be used to compile software that itself has not been published under
: the GPL. For this reason, there has been an excited discussion about the
: usability of GCC.
Note that in Joerg's worldview, a mistake equals conspiracy. This is a
classic kook's mindview. Jeff's right: the best thing we can do is to
just ignore him.
--
`Once again, I must remark on the far-reaching extent of my
ladylike nature.' --- Rosie Taylor
1__
The GPL says nothing about using a GPL, or non-free tool to create
something else, and cannot since it is a copyright based licence.
2__
He has decided what the answer MUST be ... now the reasoning. Here we
have a Solaris shill!
--
mit freundlichen Gr??en, Brian.
On Mon, 23 May 2005, Brian O'Mahoney said:
> 1__
>
> The GPL says nothing about using a GPL, or non-free tool to create
> something else, and cannot since it is a copyright based licence.
The point of libgcc is that it is *linked in* to generated programs, and
thus under the FSF's interpretation might force those programs to be
covered by the GPL. Hence the exception, to make it clear that this is
not the case.
(It is even more necessary for the libstdc++ headers and Ada runtime,
as they are respectively textually included and included in cross-module
inlining...)
> 2__
>
> He has decided what the answer MUST be ... now the reasoning. Here we
> have a Solaris shill!
Nah, it's not that simple: apparently he flames them, too. I think we
can safely say he is no-one's pansy. (Now he might be impossible to
please, but that's a different matter.)
--
`Once again, I must remark on the far-reaching extent of my
ladylike nature.' --- Rosie Taylor
On Thu, 26 May 2005 09:45:01 +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> That list would be device-dependent. See two examples below.
>
> 1) cdrecord uses some Sony proprietary commands instead of standard MMC ones
> if the drive seems to be made by Sony. What is the effect of those Sony
> commands on non-Sony drives?
>
> 2) I have the following DVD-ROM + CD-RW combo drive:
>
> 'PHILIPS ' 'CDD5301 ' 'P1.2'
>
> Originally, I bought it with the 'B1.1' firmware revision. This drive with old
> firmware is a security hole by itself: if one calls cdrecord dev=/dev/hdd
> -dao some-image.iso, the drive will enter some strange mode at the end. In
> particular, it will flash its light randomly, will never give the CD back
> (waited 15 minutes), and will prevent communication with /dev/hdc until I
> power off the computer (pressing Reset is not enough). Burning CDs with -raw
> switch instead of -dao works. With newer firmware, -dao doesn't lock up the
> drive, but still results in damaged CDs.
>
> Also this drive always silently produces CDs with a lot of wrong bits (but a
> useless and broken image can still be read with dd or readcd) when BurnFree
> is off.
>
> So this filter, if it is in the kernel, should forbid commands specific to SAO
> burning for this drive _and_ also return a modified list of capabilities for
> this drive (i.e. say that this drive _cannot_ burn in SAO mode).
>
> Isn't this too much knowledge for the kernel?
Isn't this exactly the knowledge the kernel, not the apps, should
have? What if I wanted to use a different CD burning program? Why
should we have duplicate knowledge about the hardware?
Do you picture every PCI-accessing userland program to have its own
copy of pciids & relative knowledge?
--
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta
"I weep for our generation" -- Charlie Brown
Bodo Eggert wrote:
>So we can
>
>1) give up and let any application with write access destroy the hardware
>
>
That won't be a problem if all apps with write access are running as
root or setuid and thus the list of them is well-controlled by root.
>2) implement a basic filter (common for all deviced) and a device-specific
> filter, which can be set by a userspace application.
>
>
In fact both approaches are used in the kernel.
(1) is used in the usbfs code, and thus SANE and gPhoto2 rely upon it
(BTW it's still possible for a user to install an old version of SANE
into /home/user and damage a scanner). Proper filtering in the kernel
would be probably just too complex in this "usb generic" case.
(2) is used e.g. in DRM code.
What's missing is a clearly stated policy that says which of those two
approaches should be applied in each particular case.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
Bodo Eggert <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2005, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> > Bodo Eggert wrote:
>
> > >So we can
> > >
> > >1) give up and let any application with write access destroy the hardware
>
> > That won't be a problem if all apps with write access are running as
> > root or setuid and thus the list of them is well-controlled by root.
>
> And if all these apps are guaranteed to have no buffer-overflow or other
> exploits.
If you cleanly separate the ability to send SCSI commands from the ability
to write to a UNIX block or raw devive, you only need to check the programs
that explicitly need to send SCSI commands.
In former times, Linux did have this kind of clean separation between
e.g. /dev/sd0 and /dev/sg0. Just go back to the clean old model...
This could easily be done: Remove SG_IO from the list of ioctl functions
supported by drivers like /dev/sd0 and /dev/hda fix the bugs in ide_scsi.
J?rg
--
EMail:[email protected] (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[email protected] (uni)
[email protected] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily