Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
From: pnakada@oracle.com (Paul Nakada)
Subject: X386 and lame SVGA cards
Nntp-Posting-Host: pnakada.us.oracle.com
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA
Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 18:39:34 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
at Oracle Corporation. The opinions expressed are those
of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.
Linux Hackers -
I've got a Trident SVGA card which isn't supported under X386.
Shouldn't there be a way to use it as a plain VGA card (640x480)?
Aren't all SVGA cards the same if treated as VGA? Windows doesn't
have any problems with the default VGA driver and my card, it's just
the higher resolutions which need trident specific drivers. So, is
there an Xconfig for plain VGA cards?
Thanks.
- Paul
--
Paul Nakada | Oracle Corporation | pnakada@oracle.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
From: cummings@hammer.Prime.COM (Kevin Cummings)
Subject: Re: X386 and lame SVGA cards
Organization: Prime Computer R&D
Date: Wed, 6 May 1992 19:13:59 GMT
In article < PNAKADA.92May6103934@pnakada.oracle.com>, pnakada@oracle.com
(Paul Nakada) writes:
>
> Linux Hackers -
>
> I've got a Trident SVGA card which isn't supported under X386.
> Shouldn't there be a way to use it as a plain VGA card (640x480)?
> Aren't all SVGA cards the same if treated as VGA? Windows doesn't
> have any problems with the default VGA driver and my card, it's just
> the higher resolutions which need trident specific drivers. So, is
> there an Xconfig for plain VGA cards?
The question, as i read it, is why can't X386 support 640x480x16 mode.
The answer I read earlier today is that they don't think its worth the
effort to do so. They believe that only 256 colors modes are worth
supporting, and 320x200x256 is too small a screen to use X on, even
in a virtual 800x600x256 screen driver (which needs 512K bytes
of video memory to do without swapping to system memory). So what I
heard them say was that if your video card has less than 512K of
video memory, don't expect to be able to use X386.
I don't agree with them, but they have the source, and I don't.
=================================================================
Kevin J. Cummings Prime Computer Inc.
20 Briarwood Road 500 Old Connecticut Path
Framingham, Mass. Framingham, Mass.
Work: cummings@primerd.Prime.COM
Home: cummings@kjc386.framingham.ma.us
Std. Disclaimer: "Mr. McKittrick, after careful consideration,
I've come to the conclusion that your new
defense system SUCKS..." -- War Games
=================================================================
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: X386 and lame SVGA cards
Date: 6 May 92 22:01:43 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
In article <1992May6.151359@hammer.Prime.COM> cummings@hammer.Prime.COM (Kevin
Cummings) and others write:
> > [ no support for some cards, or even standard 640x480x16, as it's
> > not "worth it" ]
>
>I don't agree with them, but they have the source, and I don't.
Well, in fact you /do/ have source: just get the X11r5 distribution and
hack on it. That's how the original X386 was created (well, it wasn't
based on r5, but you get the idea). The linux X-server certainly isn't
based on any proprietary code.
There seem to be several drivers that implement standard VGA modes (just
look at "real" unixes), but sadly, none of them seem to be freely
distributable, and so aren't part of the standard distribution. The
X386 drivers included are written by Roell, and it's not really fair to
criticize him for not writing drivers for all the possible card
combinations. He did them for free, after all (sadly (for us - I doubt
he minds) he seems now to get paid for his effors, so he no longer makes
them available for no chanrge). If you want to lay the blame somewhere,
do it at IBM who didn't come up with a good standard for video cards.
The reason there doesn't seem to exist any 16-colour drivers for free is
simply because nobody seems to have wanted to write them: 16-colour
programming isn't fun, and the results aren't as pleasing as 256 colour
modes. Not surprisingly, 256 colour mode is more popular. Also, not
surprisingly, chipsets that are easier to program (ie et4000) get the
drivers.
What I'm trying to say is that X386 is free, and that nobody got paid
for producing it: don't be surprised if it doesn't support all hardware.
Even as I'm not going to write a PS2 version of linux (unless somebody
gives me a PS2 + docs etc), I assume roell didn't want to write a
version that he felt was "uninteresting".
Linus
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
From: ron_p@aruba.nysaes.cornell.edu (Ron Pool)
Subject: Re: X386 and lame SVGA cards
In-Reply-To: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI's message of 6 May 92 22: 01:43 GMT
Nntp-Filt-2: Fenchurch version 0.3 by Uncle Mikey for Cornell University
Nntp-Posting-Host: aruba.nysaes.cornell.edu
Nntp-Auth: trusted
Organization: Cornell University
Errors-To: Michael_Shappe@cornell.edu
Date: Thu, 7 May 1992 03:12:21 GMT
In article <1992May6.220143.13536@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds) writes:
>In article <1992May6.151359@hammer.Prime.COM> cummings@hammer.Prime.COM (Kevin
>Cummings) and others write:
>> > [ no support for some cards, or even standard 640x480x16, as it's
>> > not "worth it" ]
>>
>>I don't agree with them, but they have the source, and I don't.
>Well, in fact you /do/ have source: just get the X11r5 distribution and
>hack on it. That's how the original X386 was created (well, it wasn't
>based on r5, but you get the idea). The linux X-server certainly isn't
>based on any proprietary code.
>What I'm trying to say is that X386 is free, and that nobody got paid
>for producing it: don't be surprised if it doesn't support all hardware.
>Even as I'm not going to write a PS2 version of linux (unless somebody
>gives me a PS2 + docs etc), I assume roell didn't want to write a
>version that he felt was "uninteresting".
> Linus
It sounds like the source for X386 as ported to Linux may not be made
available. This is certainly fair, but I'd like to know if this is going
to be the case or not, so I can decide whether to use X386 or not. I
very much like the fact that source is available for everything I'm using
in Linux right now, except for possibly X386 and gcc2.1 (as ported to Linux).
I imagine the source for gcc2.1 will be available later (this is actually
required under the GPL, but I've no interest in hacking on gcc itself --
I'm plenty happy hacking with it and find it to work _very_ well for me).
I will want to be able to hack on X386 though.
Does anyone know if the X386 source for the Linux port will be available
at any time? It's no big deal to me if source won't be available as
I have no burning need to use X11 at home yet.
Ron Pool, ron_p@empire.cce.cornell.edu
From: tml@tik.vtt.fi (Tor Lillqvist)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: X386 and lame SVGA cards
Date: 7 May 92 14:06:30 GMT
Organization: Technical Research Centre of Finland, Laboratory for Information
Processing (VTT/TIK)
In-reply-to: ron_p@aruba.nysaes.cornell.edu's message of 7 May 92 03:12:21 GMT
In article < RON_P.92May6221221@aruba.nysaes.cornell.edu>
ron_p@aruba.nysaes.cornell.edu (Ron Pool) writes:
I very much like the fact that source is available for everything
I'm using in Linux right now, except for possibly X386 and gcc2.1
(as ported to Linux).
Excuse me, but am I missing something? Why is there lots of these
announcements "source for this and that for Linux is available"? If
Linux is POSIX compliant, most of the better free software (like GCC)
should be pretty straightforward to compile from the official sources.
Why is there a need for special Linux versions of the source?
Or is it simply the case that most Linux users are not used to compile
and install free software, and thus need a lot of handholding even for
trivial configuration things like do signal handlers need to be
reinstalled each time or not, or strchr vs. index.
--
Tor Lillqvist,
working, but not speaking, for the Technical Research Centre of Finland
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
From: Paul Allen < paula@atc.boeing.com>
Subject: Sources (was: Re: X386 and lame SVGA cards)
Reply-To: paula@atc.boeing.com
Organization: The Internet
Date: Thu, 7 May 1992 20:32:15 GMT
tml@tik.vtt.fi (Tor Lillqvist) wrote:
|In article < RON_P.92May6221221@aruba.nysaes.cornell.edu>
ron_p@aruba.nysaes.cornell.edu (Ron Pool) writes:
|
| I very much like the fact that source is available for everything
| I'm using in Linux right now, except for possibly X386 and gcc2.1
| (as ported to Linux).
|
|Excuse me, but am I missing something? Why is there lots of these
|announcements "source for this and that for Linux is available"? If
|Linux is POSIX compliant, most of the better free software (like GCC)
|should be pretty straightforward to compile from the official sources.
|Why is there a need for special Linux versions of the source?
Linux appears to be considerably better than Minix when it comes to
ease of porting stuff, but there still seems to be some level of "port"
required for some software. I'm asuming that this will get better
as Linux matures and becomes more complete.
|Or is it simply the case that most Linux users are not used to compile
|and install free software, and thus need a lot of handholding even for
|trivial configuration things like do signal handlers need to be
|reinstalled each time or not, or strchr vs. index.
Many people who aren't used to compiling things are installing and
attempting to run Linux because it's available as a complete binary-
only distribution. Some of these folks will need handholding when
they start trying to customise things.
The last time I looked on tsx-11, the binaries to sources space ratio
was about 2:1. In many cases, Linux diffs for a package are included
with the binary rather than being separated out under the sources
hierarchy. (So you have to ftp a half meg of binary in order to get
the 20Kb of diffs!) When I commented on the apparent disregard for
sources (the "Binaries considered harmful" thread of a month ago), I
got a uniformly negative reaction from several of the major players
in the Linux arena. I found this surprising, since Unix software has
historically been distributed almost exclusively in source form.
If I were running things, Linux would be distributed as a minimal
binary bootstrap kit and sources (or diffs) for everything else.
It would be easy to assemble a complete source hierarchy without
having to deal with huge unwanted binaries. New users would need
to ftp the bootstrap kit in order to get started, but sources and
diffs would suffice after that. (Fortunately for me, I'm not running
things. I'd probably have half the net mad at me! :-))
Paul Allen
paul.allen@atc.boeing.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
From: tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Theodore Ts'o)
Subject: Re: Sources (was: Re: X386 and lame SVGA cards)
Reply-To: tytso@athena.mit.edu
Organization: The Internet
Date: Thu, 7 May 1992 23:36:20 GMT
From: Paul Allen < paula@atc.boeing.com>
Reply-To: paula@atc.boeing.com
The last time I looked on tsx-11, the binaries to sources space ratio
was about 2:1. In many cases, Linux diffs for a package are included
with the binary rather than being separated out under the sources
hierarchy. (So you have to ftp a half meg of binary in order to get
the 20Kb of diffs!)
If this is true, then that is a bug. I generally try to break stuff
apart into a source tar file and a binary tar file, although there may
have been a few exceptions. (Hint for potential uploaders --- please
upload the binaries in a separate file from the sources/diffs!)
When I commented on the apparent disregard for
sources (the "Binaries considered harmful" thread of a month ago), I
got a uniformly negative reaction from several of the major players
in the Linux arena. I found this surprising, since Unix software has
historically been distributed almost exclusively in source form.
What I thought I heard as the general consensus (although I may be
biased since that's what *I* believe :-), wasn't that sources was bad
and that you should upload binaries. Rather, the consensus was that
people should upload sources or diffs whenever possible, but making
binaries available shouldn't be considered a bad thing.
I don't think it can be "harmful" to give people the option of either
grabbing sources or grabbing binaries. Even people who are comfortable
compiling distributions may not want to waste the time and disk space to
recompile the world. And if you attempt to force people who don't know
how to compile distributions, they will more likely just give up on
Linux rather than actually sitting down and learning the foibles of
make, learning how to edit appropriate config files, learning what
#ifdef POSIX, #ifdef SVR4. Eventually, this is something which all good
Unix hackers should know how to do. But that doesn't mean that you
start people out with that.
But if you don't like binaries, just pretend that the "bin" or
"binaries" subdirectory on your favorite FTP site doesn't exist. And if
you find yourself needing to grab 1/2 meg of binaries just to get a
diff, you should let your FTP administror know.
- Ted
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc.announce
From: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman)
Subject: Executables and anon ftp
Message-ID: <9205081831.AA03956@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: gnulists@ai.mit.edu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 10:31:22 GMT
Approved: info-gcc@prep.ai.mit.edu
Lines: 27
I've heard that there are ftp sites distributing executables of
versions of GCC, without full sources on line side by side with them.
This isn't allowed under the GPL, and for good reason: ensuring users
have easy access to the source code is one of the main aims of GNU.
This is not a matter of deliberate wrongdoing; the source code for
these versions is free and is circulating. (The people who wrote the
modified versions aren't in control of what ftp sites do.) But it is
still a significant matter because it can cause trouble for users.
Sometimes there are patch files available giving changes from an FSF
release, such as 2.1. But this is not sufficient. For example,
suppose the user copies the binaries and patches now, then tries to
use the patches in a few months when a problem arises. At that time
it will be hard to find a copy of GCC 2.1 sources to patch. Instead,
2.3 or 2.4 will be current--but the patches may not work in those
versions, due to the changes we will have made in GCC.
This is why the GPL says that the complete sources have to be made
available. In the case of distribution by anonymous FTP, users can
choose to copy just the executable, but they must have the option of
copying the source as well. So the source has to be on line alongside
the binary.
If you see an ftp site that has binaries available without complete
sources, please bring this to their attention.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
From: bogstad@blaze.cs.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad)
Subject: Re: Sources (IMPORTANT to managers of LINUX ftp sites)
Organization: Johns Hopkins Computer Science Department, Baltimore, MD
Date: Sat, 9 May 1992 14:38:43 GMT
In article <1992May7.233620.29099@athena.mit.edu> tytso@athena.mit.edu writes:
>...
>What I thought I heard as the general consensus (although I may be
>biased since that's what *I* believe :-), wasn't that sources was bad
>and that you should upload binaries. Rather, the consensus was that
>people should upload sources or diffs whenever possible, but making
>binaries available shouldn't be considered a bad thing.
>...
I've never had any problems with binaries being distributed, but I
have complained in the past about sources for some packages either not being
clearly labeled as such and/or not being distributed at all. Well, a recent
posting in gnu.gcc.announce by Richard Stallman may be relevant to this
discussion. [BTW, I did not bring this to his attention. It isn't my
fault. :-)] To summarize: He considers that FTP sites that provide binaries
of programs covered under the GNU public license (GPL) without providing
FULL source code (not just diff files) "side by side" to be in violation of
the GPL.
I don't know if this is an official statement of policy for the Free
Software Foundation (FSF); but if anyone can make such a statement I would
think that he can. He specifically is commenting on GCC; but it would
appear that his comments would cover anything under the GPL for which he or
the FSF hold the copyright. I'm including the full text of his message
which appeared in gnu.gcc.announce below.
Bill Bogstad
bogstad@cs.jhu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
From: britt@leland.Stanford.EDU (Britt Park)
Subject: Re: Sources (IMPORTANT to managers of LINUX ftp sites)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 9 May 92 16:54:04 GMT
I think that a few comments about the GNU license are necessary. I do
not believe that the portion of the GNU license which states that modifications
to GNU software must fall under the GNU license has any legal basis. The
rights to the modifications to a program invest wholly with the author of those
modifications. As to the requirement that complete sources to a binary on an
archive site must be located on the same archive site; I don't believe this
has any basis either, at least not as the GNU license is currently phrased:
"You may copy and distibute the Program ... in object code or
executable form under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above provided that you
also do one of the following:
... Accompany it with the information you received as to where the
corresponding source code may be obtained."
Certainly I believe it's better for archive sites to make available
complete sources rather than just diffs. This is not, however, always
practicable. It costs a great deal in resources to maintain an archive site,
and GNU software, as we all know, weighs in on the hefty side. I'd prefer to
see archive sites with binaries only rather than archive sites which fold
because they don't have the space to hold all the sources.
Britt Park
britt@cb-iris.stanford.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
From: aclark@netcom.com (Al Clark)
Subject: Re: Sources (IMPORTANT to managers of LINUX ftp sites)
Date: Sat, 09 May 92 18:54:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
In article <1992May9.165404.20041@leland.Stanford.EDU>
britt@leland.Stanford.EDU (Britt Park) writes:
>
> I think that a few comments about the GNU license are necessary. I do
>not believe that the portion of the GNU license which states that modifications
>to GNU software must fall under the GNU license has any legal basis. The
>rights to the modifications to a program invest wholly with the author of those
>modifications. As to the requirement that complete sources to a binary on an
>archive site must be located on the same archive site; I don't believe this
>has any basis either, at least not as the GNU license is currently phrased:
>
> "You may copy and distibute the Program ... in object code or
>executable form under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above provided that you
>also do one of the following:
> ... Accompany it with the information you received as to where the
>corresponding source code may be obtained."
>
>
> Certainly I believe it's better for archive sites to make available
>complete sources rather than just diffs. This is not, however, always
>practicable. It costs a great deal in resources to maintain an archive site,
>and GNU software, as we all know, weighs in on the hefty side. I'd prefer to
>see archive sites with binaries only rather than archive sites which fold
>because they don't have the space to hold all the sources.
>
> Britt Park
> britt@cb-iris.stanford.edu
Not being a lawyer, I have no idea whether or not the above has any validity.
However, I would suggest that people be very careful about following it.
FSF and rms have a lot invested, and I suspect will be militant about
enforcing their copyright (copyleft). I have been told that one of the rights
protected by copyright is the right to modify, thus modifying a copyrighted
file without permission is in itself a copyright violation.
Be careful when you get into this legal stuff.
--
Al - aclark@netcom.com - My opinions are my own.
*** Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty! ***
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
From: lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee)
Subject: Re: Sources (IMPORTANT to managers of LINUX ftp sites)
Nntp-Posting-Host: uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Sun, 10 May 1992 20:29:16 GMT
In article <7!jkhpq.aclark@netcom.com> aclark@netcom.com (Al Clark) writes:
}In article <1992May9.165404.20041@leland.Stanford.EDU>
britt@leland.Stanford.EDU (Britt Park) writes:
}>...
}>modifications. As to the requirement that complete sources to a binary on an
}>archive site must be located on the same archive site; I don't believe this
}>has any basis either, ...
}...
}Not being a lawyer, I have no idea whether or not the above has any validity.
}However, I would suggest that people be very careful about following it.
}...
Since we are so heavily indebted to fsf, it would make sense to think first
about what is courteous and much later about what we could get away with.
--
Greg Lee < lee@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Sources (IMPORTANT to managers of LINUX ftp sites)
Date: 11 May 92 08:33:44 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
In article <1992May10.202916.26781@news.Hawaii.Edu> lee@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu
(Greg Lee) writes:
>
>Since we are so heavily indebted to fsf, it would make sense to think first
>about what is courteous and much later about what we could get away with.
Indeed. I hope people try to follow the /intent/ of the GPL first, and
then start worrying about the legal implications. I don't feel too
strongly about the legalese: it's there just because it's required to
uphold that intent in a court of law, and wouldn't even be needed
otherwise. I'd suggest not reading the GPL searching for loopholes -
but on the other hand not being unnecessarily strict about it either.
Use a bit of common sense in it all (until somebody starts threatening
with legal action: but in that case you have probably not been following
the GPL even in intent).
There are probably quite a few binaries that should be removed from the
linux archives: especially the older ones that needed a bit more porting
than they need now with the better compiler/library, and that might not
have source (I think my original gcc-1.40 and bash-1.05 should probably
be removed: I've had to delete my sources to get X running.. Nobody
uses them any more anyway). It might even result in some general
cleanup of old binaries...
Linus
|