HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bdb@becker.GTS.ORG (Bruce Becker)
Subject: Re: Reading 386bsd dist files (bin,src,etc)
Keywords: byte swapping problem
Organization: G. T. S., Toronto, Ontario
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 23:54:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug6.224348.16769@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> tgt@neon.ecn.purdue.edu (Conan the Librarian) writes:
|Attempting to use cpio to extract the files in the various
|386bsd dists, I ran into a byte swapping problem (running on both a Gould
|and a SUN3).  CPIO generates the wonderfully-descript error message "Out of
|phase -- get help" and then exits.  (Someday, I aspire to write code with
|lots of abstruse error messages like this... :-)
|
|Since I really want to look at the srcdist stuff off-line from my PC
|(not enough memory yet!) but couldn't find any flag to massage cpio into
|appropriate behavior on the Gould or the SUN (so much for archive portability)
|I wrote the following program to do the necessary header "fix" (26 shorts in
|each cpio header need to be byte-swapped).  I've tested it on srcdist on my
|SUN3, and it appears to work properly (I am extracting the src files as I
|write this).



	So, why in the world isn't everybody using
	"cpio -oc" (or "cpio -o -Hodc" for SysVr4)
	to create cpio archives? It's specifically
	for this type of problem that it exists...


-- 
  ,u,	 Bruce Becker			Toronto, Ontario
a /i/	 Internet: bdb@becker.gts.org	Uucp: ...!web!becker!bdb
 `\o\-e	 "The word 'AT&T' is made up of letters, which are the
 _< /_	 intellectual property of Vanna White" - A. Coopersmith
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: danson@lgc.com (Doug Anson)
Subject: Re: Motif on X386???
Organization: LandMark Graphics Corporation LGC
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:08:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.015024.8369@fcom.cc.utah.edu>, terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug17.140857.3882@lgc.com> danson@lgc.com (Doug Anson) 
|> .... stuff deleted ....
|> >
|> >Motif 1.2 Really? --- 1.1 is running on my 386BSD quite nicely.  I had no
|> >problems compiling it based on X386 1.2E 1.0.2.  Furthermore I compiled it 
|> >in about 30 Meg space (including install).
|> 
|> I have had problems with 1.1 on X11R5.  These problems went away with 1.2.
|> 
|> Admittedly, some of these problems were related to the Berkeley version of
|> the portable C compiler's well known pop-order bug and libXt, but some were
|> decidedly bad interactions.
|> 
|> Are you direct widget-level programming in Motif, or are you using UIL/an
|> app generator/standard applications?
|> 
|> I also saw problems with menus not coming active unless you let go of the
|> button popping up the menu, then quickly pressed it again (not in the menu
|> ....

No, I did  no programming with Motif --- I just tried compiling it to satisfy
a "what if I try" question. The window manager seemed to work fine. 

I believe that Motif 1.1 is a licensed thing.. I cannot distribute sources
and/or binaries (sorry, but them's the facts..). I only tried this to see if
it could be done.  I believe the 386BSD has *REAL* potential -- a few rough 
edges still, but nonetheless a fairly stable system.

Cheers,
Doug
-- 
-------------------------------------------
Doug Anson					
Internet: danson@lgc.com			
Phone:	  713-579-4739
SNAIL:    Landmark Graphics Corporation LGC	
	  333 Cypress Run			
	  Houston, TX 77094			
-------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: ac999a15@umbc5.umbc.edu (ac999a15)
Subject: Re: X386 for 386BSD
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 19:41:28 GMT

  
  I have a Diamond stealth graphics card which I don't believe is supported
for X386 yet.  Could someone tell me if it would be possible to configure
X386 to run in standard VGA mode, and if it is how?

Thanks.


Steven M. Bakke
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Restrictions on 'free' UNIX / 386BSD (Re: selling 386BSD)
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 14:20:29 GMT

In article <PHR.92Aug15214245@soda.berkeley.edu> phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes:
>    If 386BSD was copylefted, it would be Linux. It's the absence of copyleft
>    that leads to the possibility of more than a bunch of random hackers
>    benefiting from it.

>Please clarify this.  How is anyone else prevented from benefitting
>from it?   Say, for example, the same people who now benefit from GCC?

The people who aren't hackers and don't have net access, who want to walk
down to the store and buy a shrinkwrapped copy of GCC with a technical
support number and related articles in PC-Week.

The people who aren't hackers and want to walk down to the store and buy
a shrinkwrapped copy of "386BSD-Lite" with a technical support number and
a bunch of application programs in shrinkwrap on the shelf next to it.

Mundanes are people too.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
From: cgd@agate.berkeley.edu (Chris G. Demetriou)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Restrictions on 'free' UNIX / 386BSD (Re: selling 386BSD)
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:45:05
Organization: Kernel Hackers 'r' Us
NNTP-Posting-Host: agate.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: merlin@neuro.usc.edu's message of 14 Aug 92 12:13:00 GMT

well, thanks for all the enlightened criticism... too bad i didn't notice it
earlier -- i was dealing with my mail here on agate...

re: the serial driver stuff:

As a matter of fact, I had just reconsidered, and was about to take
the copyright notice *OFF* the file, and lo, and behold, i got hit by N
flames.

Let me set something straight:

I do not do any of the stuff that i've done re: 386bsd (the serial driver,
the fact that i run the distribution site on agate, the filesystem i'm working
on) for *you*, or *anyone* else on the net.  I do what i do because i *want*
to.  I do not want to be a martyr, thank you very much, and you can
argue all you want that i shouldn't put a new copyright notice on something 
that i write, but it sure as hell is my right.

Adding that copyright notice, i realized, would do nothing but create
more hassles for *me*, which i don't want, and so i was
going to remove it.

remember: you have no *rights* to the works of others; anything they
	decide to give to you, be *GLAD* for.

several more things:
	the original copyright protects the UC regents, and contributors
	of code *TO UCB* from lawsuits, etc. because of use of the code.
	It says nothing about other people who hack on it...

	there's a big difference between wanting somebody to pay you for
	your code, and wanting to know who is selling it.  If you think
	that any major royalties could from a serial driver, when it's
	such a small part of the 386bsd package, you've gotta be outta
	your mind!

	I've never claimed that myt  serial driver was in any way official.
	If you consider it so "infectuous," then you certainly don't
	have to use it.  Your loss, not mine.

i'm not going to go on any further...  I've a good tip on further improvements
to the serial driver, and i plan to pursue it...  However, i'd bet
that i'm not going to spend any more nights working til 3AM, to get
stuff out on the net asap.

So, the final word in this round, from me is that *IF* the people who flamed
me on this had displayed much (if any) respect for my rights as an author
that copyright notice would be gone right now.
Since they did not, it's still there, and could very well remain there.

ever read Heinlein?  "TANSTAAFL"

cgd

--
Chris G. Demetriou                                 cgd@agate.berkeley.edu

"Sometimes it is better to have twenty million instructions by
        Friday than twenty million instructions per second." -- Wes Clark
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: dmuntz@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Daniel A Muntz)
Subject: Re: selling 386BSD (was Re: 386BSD on CD-ROM?)
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:09:38 GMT

In article <1557@hcshh.hcs.de> hm@hcshh.hcs.de (Hellmuth Michaelis) writes:
>In <1992Aug12.100430.3467@Urmel.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE> kuku@acds.physik.rwth-aachen.de (Christoph Kukulies) writes:
>>Strangely, Chris Dimetrios (excuse wrong spelling) recently mentioned
>>in a patch he posted that he had put his *own* Copyright note on the patches.
>
>conclusion: in every piece of software, i will put an equivalent copyright
>	    notice in. i spend an enormous amount of time writing an pccons
>	    device driver (watch out for it), and i do not like it, if some-
>	    one else is making money with it.
>
Aaaagggghhhhh!  If everyone starts putting their own copyrights in the code
we might as well all buy BSD386.  When a university wants to start using a
software package, the u lawyers have to evaluate all of the licensing/copyright
garbage associated with it.  If they have to evaluate every file on an 
individual basis, possibly having to contact > 100 people, institutional use
of 386bsd is threatened. 

The copyright notice included by cgd sets a bad precedent, especially if code
containing new restrictions is integrated into the Jolitz' release.  We'll have
to start rewriting 386bsd code to produce an unencumbered 386bsd release :-/

  -Dan

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Restrictions on 'free' UNIX / 386BSD (Re: selling 386BSD)
Organization: Weber State University  (Ogden, UT)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 21:00:36 GMT

In article <63DILTJ@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <PHR.92Aug15151100@soda.berkeley.edu> phr@soda.berkeley.edu (Paul Rubin) writes:
>>Try to think a little more clearly.  It is the ABSENCE of copyleft
>>that leads to the possibility of non-freely-redistributable versions.
>>The copyleft was designed to prevent that from happening.  If 386bsd
>>was copylefted, these flames wouldn't be happening.
>
>If 386BSD was copylefted, it would be Linux. It's the absence of copyleft
>that leads to the possibility of more than a bunch of random hackers
>benefiting from it.

Here, here!  It is difficult to contribute anything to an assembly of
"copyleft" code without violating "copyleft" or incorporating the
restrictions so as to apply to your own code.

	Or, put another way:  It's hard to contribute code to Linux and
Berkeley (or anything else) at the same time.


					Terry Lambert
					terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com
					terry@icarus.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       terry@icarus.weber.edu
 "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: michaelv@iastate.edu (Michael L. VanLoon)
Subject: Re: Ethernet card
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 01:34:12 GMT

In <1992Aug10.143910.359@ctr.columbia.edu> dlb@boole.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave Bartlett) writes:

>Has anyone else had the problem if 386bsd finding the ethernet card at
> irq 9 when it is set for something else. I thought the default irq was 2.

Once again: IRQ 2 is _unavailable_ in an AT.  As you noted IRQ 2 is
mapped to IRQ 9.  This is because the AT has two interrupt
controllers, not one like the XT did.  The second chip chains off the
first and is connected to the first through IRQ 2.  Your card,
intelligently, reassigns IRQ 2 requests to IRQ 9 if it's put into an
AT.

Is this a FAQ yet???

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Michael L. VanLoon                           Project Vincent Systems Staff
  michaelv@iastate.edu              Iowa State University Computation Center
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cflatter@nrao.edu (Chris Flatters)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Restrictions on free UNIX / 386BSD (R
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:57:35 GMT
Reply-To: cflatter@nrao.edu
Organization: NRAO

In article 21@rmkhome.UUCP, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.234401.2087@nrao.edu> cflatter@nrao.edu writes:
>>In article 8526@fcom.cc.utah.edu, terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
>>>Does [the GPL] mean that I can't sell my own program (we'll call it '/usr/bin/true')
>>>for $500.00, and then give away GNU Hurd in order to run it, but don't tell
>>>anyone what the program is (except you all know now ;-)), offer to send source,
>>>like in GPL, but say they can't copy it because they can't distinguish my
>>>part from GNU's part?
>>
>>You don't have to supply source for your own /usr/bin/true because you stuck
>>it in the same packet with the GNU Hurd (unless of course it is a modified
>>version of a GNU /usr/bin/true).  You still have to supply source for the
>>Hurd and you can not restrict the rights of anyone who gets the source from
>>you to make further copies of the Hurd source.
>>
>>>Because Hurd is an OS, does this mean that *any* application that runs on it
>>>is a derivitive work and falls under GNU Public License?
>>
>>No. Even a lawyer would think that that was silly.
>
>
>From what I understand, the Hurd, in and of itself, is not really an OS,
>but a UNIX-like environment that will sit on top of Mach 3.0.  Part of the
>duo will be controlled by CMU licensing specifications, and part by the
>GPL.  Since the Hurd will assuredly use the GNU libc.a, it would seem that
>all binaries would come under the separate GPL library license.  What is the
>difference between the libc.a license and the "normal" GPL?

If a library is distributed under the GPL then a program that is linked
against it is legally regarded as a derivative work.  The GNU Library
Public License (GLPL) makes an explicit distinction between a "work based
on the library" (where you go in and hack the sources to the library) and
a "work that uses the library" (an executable linked with the binary).

You do not need to distribute the source to a work that uses the library
nor make it available.  You do have to make the source for the library
available however and distribute a linkable object file (and any special
tools that may be necessary to build a new executable).  The last clause
is intended to insure that the recipients of the work can link it against
a new and improved version of the GNU library if they so wish.

A library may be placed under the GLPL or under the more restrictive GLPL
at the option of the author (so look carefully at which license is actually
used).

Note that the complete texts of both the GPL and the GLPL are available for
anonymous ftp from prep.ai.mit.edu as COPYING and COPYING-LIB.

	Chris Flatters
	cflatter@nrao.edu
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad)
Subject: Re: 386bsd cross-cpio fix!
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 11:29:31 GMT

I solved it on the Ultirx 4.2 using -C option.
-C uses the old BSD compatibility mode, 4.2BSD?
--
Othman bin Ahmad, School of EEE,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 2263.
Internet Email: eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
Bitnet Email: eoahmad@ntuvax.bitnet

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: randy@chinet.chi.il.us (Randy Suess)
Subject: Re: Restrictions on 'free' UNIX / 386BSD (Re: selling 386BSD)
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:17:39 GMT

In article <DWGI541@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>What sort of idiot applications is he running? Networking or something
>else quite unsuited to DOS?

	Lets not go TOO far here.  My apartment has a thin-net network consist-
	ing of 5 [34]86 dos machines (including a laptop), a sysvr4, BSD and a 
	novell 3.11 server.  All the dos machines have netware drivers, tcp/ip
	drivers, cd-rom drivers, doskey, smartdrv, mouse, etc, etc.
	All have over 600k free after this, and *never* crash unless the wife
	says "what will *this* do??".
	DOS is not a real OS, true, but until someone ports Wing Commander
	to BSD, I can't much do without it.

-- 
	I am created Shiva the Destroyer; Death, the shatterer of worlds!
	Who is this dog meat who stands before me now?
	That's the biz, sweetheart.
Randy Suess					 randy@chinet.chi.il.us
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: cflatter@nrao.edu (Chris Flatters)
Subject: Re: Restrictions on 'free' UNIX / 386BSD (R
Reply-To: cflatter@nrao.edu
Organization: NRAO
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:11:29 GMT

In article 7751@gateway.novell.com, terry@ithaca.Eng.Sandy.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert) writes:
>In article <5146@airs.com> ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) writes:
>>I know this issue gets chased around and around a lot, but, after all,
>>just because the Hurd is covered by the GPL does not mean it can not
>>be sold shrinkwrapped in a store.  The GPL just means that the
>>distributor has to put a piece of paper in the shrinkwrap saying
>>``send $100 for complete source code'' as well as another saying ``you
>>may give this software to your friends.''
>
>I'm a bit confused by this statement -- $100 for GNU Hurd's source code,
>or $100 for ABXZ Computing's modified GNU source code?  Does this require
>that ABXZ Computing run a GNU tape copying site for their users, or can they
>give GNU's address on the card?  Do they *have* to have a card if the software
>is modified?  Do they *have* allow access to their modifications source?  Do
>they have to allow you to give away their software to their friends, or only
>the GNU stuff?

The GPL is very clear on these issues.  If ABXZ modifies any GNU
software then the modified software is a derivative work and falls
under the GPL.  This includes the modifications made by ABXZ.  ABXZ
must make the source (including their modifications) available to third
parties and charge no more than the cost of copying and distribution unless
they include the source with the distributed binaries.  ABXZ must include
a written offer (valid for at least 3 years) to make the source available
with the binaries; referring buyers to the FSF is not sufficient.

	Chris Flatters
	cflatter@nrao.edu
From: deal@hightop.nrl.navy.mil (Richard Deal)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: 386BSD on 6Mhz AT
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:45:51 GMT
Organization: Naval Research Labs (Washington DC)
Originator: deal@hightop

I have access at work to a real monster of an AT.  It was a 6Mhz 286 
with old bios upgraded to 8Mhz mother board with a 386 SnapIn.  It
has 4 meg ram spread across mother board and two ram cards (different
types), ega display, 10 Meg hard disk, and a Microsoft InPort mouse.
It isn't very fast but it did boot tiny BSD without a hitch.  Didn't 
find the mouse though (darn).  It also had a problem with the second 
floppy (360 old).  This is some accomplishment to boot this machine.  
Just whanted to put my plug in.

-- 
#include <std/*>
The Butcher                  
Butch Deal                   deal@hightop.nrl.navy.mil
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ken@eies2.njit.edu (Kenneth  Ng)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --: 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Date: 15 Aug 92 17:41:33 GMT
Organization: NJIT - EIES2

In article <l8hhhkINN695@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM: lm@slovax.Eng.Sun.COM (Larry McVoy) writes:
:I don't mind the copyrights as long as they don't get in my face.  How about
:one of these:
:	1) #include <sys/copyright.h>
:	2) Put the @%$! copyright at the *bottom* of the file instead
:	   of the top.  Surely the lawyers can't tell the difference,
:	   right?

Back on an old IBM VM machine I modified my PROFILE XEDIT script (the
rough equivalent of .exrc) to search out similar notices and then tell
the editor to 'hide' those lines so I did not have to see them.  Its
always handy to have a 'real editor' :-).

-- 
Kenneth Ng
AT&T vs BSDI lawsuit: the dark side of the source
From: mike@sisters.cs.uoregon.edu (Michael John Haertel)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: USL's claims to "intellectual property"
Date: 14 Aug 92 02:00:39 GMT
Organization: /local/lib/rn/organization

In article <1992Aug13.223701.27806@henson.cc.wwu.edu> phil@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Phil Nelson) writes:
>ted@telematics.com (Ted Goldblatt) writes:
>>2.  Net2 contains code directly lifted from (some rev of)
>>    Un*x, or code that had only been cosmetically altered
>>    from actual USL code.
>
>Here is an exercise for people on this point.  Go to your net2
>source code and look at the code for cpio.  (That is usr.bin/cpio/cpio.c).

I believe AT&T explicitly placed their implementation of cpio
in the public domain some years back, in the hopes of getting
people to use cpio format.

They also did the same thing with their implementation of getopt(3).
From: thoma@i40d6.ira.uka.de (Stephan Thoma Betr.Zachmann)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Qic Streamer, need help
Date: 14 Aug 1992 11:39:19 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: i40d6.ira.uka.de

Can anybody give me some hints how to get my
Archive QIC-2 - Floppy Streamer running with 386bsd ?
It is connected using a controller card, which allows
to add more than two floppy drives.

find . -cpio /dev/rwt0   or things like that don't work.

Is it necessary to rebuild the kernel? If - how?
How can I configure /dev/rwt0 ?

Thanx in advance for some basic hints.
From: ianr@muppet.bt.co.uk (Ian Robertson )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Wanted 386BSD on 3.5 floppies
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:51:19 GMT
Reply-To: ianr@muppet.bt.co.uk
Organization: British Telecom


	Is there anyone out there willing/able to get this
for me. ( Preferably in the UK ). 
	I have no ftp access and attempting to get it by email causes problems with the sys admin people on this site.
	I am happy to pay for the medium, postage and your 
time and trouble.

please email
		
------------------------------------------------------------



	weird:- fortune destiny; the fates, the three goddesses of destiny;
		an event destined to happen; an omen; mysterious saying; 
		someone with supernatural skill or knowlege; having the power
		to control the destiny of men; troublesome mystrious harmfull;
		weird strange uncanny; ordain by fate; assign a specific fate or
		fortune to; warn ominously !!!.
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
From: rminnich@super.org (Ronald G Minnich)
Subject: Re: 386bsd mount points
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center (Bowie, MD)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:06:50 GMT

In article <172e41INNpd5@disaster.Germany.EU.net> bs@Germany.EU.net (Bernard Steiner) writes:
>Experiment (repeat-by) : Create a directory mode 000 owner root. Mount
>filesystem on top of that. Give mounted directory permissions 755. Log in
>as ordinary user. Go into that directory. Type 'pwd' or 'ls -la'.
>Watch the programs complain about '..'.

This is a standard gotcha. 
in general if you are going to mount over something go ahead and 
make the mounted-over thing 777.

ron
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
satisfaction: the feeling you get when you        | rminnich@super.org
run newfs on a DOS disk so you can install 386BSD.| (301)-805-7451
Now if only I could do this to AIX on the RS/6k ...|