Free Downloads, Community Forum,
FAQs and Developer Resources


Make /Tools Your Home | Link to us

Today's posts | Posts since last visit | Most Active Topics

All Forums Register Login Search Subscriptions My Profile Inbox
Tool Warehouse FAQs Resources Help Member List Address Book Logout

RE: Several "common" utils gone in 5.2; 3.5 versions unusable

 
Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [SFU / Interix / SUA Technology] >> Windows Server 2003 R2 SUA >> RE: Several "common" utils gone in 5.2; 3.5 versions unusable Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Several "common" utils gone in 5.2; 3.5 v... - Apr. 13, '06, 2:39:37 PM   
jerker_back

 

Posts: 68
Joined: Jul. 7, '05,
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Not knowing that much of unix, I have been very reluctant to replace Interix utilities with GNU equivalents - afraid to mess up my environment with hard to tell incompatibilies. Some apps I really needed to replace was make, m4 and sed - still with that gnaging feeling I now can't be sure of anything. It seems silly that we need to replace apps in a brand new release and mix in more or less handcrafted system utilities - but on the other hand - that's maybe part of the charm with these things. I would very much prefer a more GNU like environment, so I feel encouraged to be more brave.

Related to this which have bothered me, is that we attend the GNU developers mailing lists - asking questions, demanding patches etc - to get support and aknowledgement for interix and interix specific features. How do we contribute back?

(in reply to woehlkmp)
Post #: 61
RE: Several "common" utils gone in 5.2; 3.5 v... - Apr. 13, '06, 3:58:39 PM   
woehlkmp

 

Posts: 102
Status: offline
I don't know about you, but my Interix-related foray into the GNU world so far has been "Please support Interix. To support Interix, you need to do 'X', 'Y', and 'Z'".

I would have submitted a patch if I was any good at patches and had any clue what I was doing with autoconf/automake. Instead I decided to detail what needed to be done and let someone who knew what they were doing worry about actually implementing it (and you may notice that my turn-around time was about 26 hours! If only the KDE folks were as responsive...).

Still, I'd like to think that's above-and-beyond the contribution level they get from 90%+ of people making bug reports.

As for wildly replacing things, my opinion is that if the underlying API is written as well as Microsoft claims it is, then there is no problem. The bulk of GNU code is 100% POSIX compliant, which means there should be very little to break. Of course, that's why actually overlaying the original versions is a terrible idea (and why all of my GNU stuff is in /usr/gnu where it is 100% seperated from anything that was there originally). In fact, this is one reason I prefer building from sources to using anything pre-built from here; that way, I know exactly where it's being installed, and I know that it isn't going to damage anything that was there before.

(in reply to jerker_back)
Post #: 62
RE: Several "common" utils gone in 5.2; 3.5 v... - Apr. 13, '06, 4:27:55 PM   
breiter

 

Posts: 343
Joined: Jun. 14, '04,
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
quote:

In fact, this is one reason I prefer building from sources to using anything pre-built from here; that way, I know exactly where it's being installed, and I know that it isn't going to damage anything that was there before.

I'd just like to point out that there are features of bsd_pkg that are designed to address your concerns. You should check out the man pages for pkg_update, pkg_info, pkg_add and pkg_create, but here are some highlights:

* The bsd_pkg system is non-destructive. It doesn't clobber files, it makes backups instead. You can always use pkg_delete to roll back.
* You can see what a package is going to do (or did) with pkg_info -f or pkg_add -n.
* You can change the base path that a package installs into with pkg_add -P.

The vast majority of packages get installed into /usr/local. For examply, tcsh goes into /usr/local/bin. If you want the /bin/csh symlink to be the Tools /usr/local/bin/tcsh instead of /bin/tcsh, you have to change it yourself after installing.

(in reply to woehlkmp)
Post #: 63
RE: Several "common" utils gone in 5.2; 3.5 v... - Apr. 13, '06, 4:30:46 PM   
Rodney

 

Posts: 3695
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: offline
Most of the packages from /Tools installed under /usr/local.
There are a few that do not for specific reasons.
A brief history should help scope things for you:
I was one of the original developers for Interix (nee OpenNT) before MS got it.
This included subsystem/kernel work as well as the utilities. I didn't go to MS
during the take over, but that turned out to be okay in the long term. It was
a stupid move on MS's part to not hire the two developers responsible for 90% of
the subsystem work (myself and Doug). Some time later MS hired me as a contractor
to help get the release of Interix 3.0 "out the door". After this /Tools started up.
Since MS was not updating utilities I started doing this. This helped PSS (support)
when some bugs have appeared since they point people here. For the 3.5 release MS picked
up a few of the updates from /Tools for shipping. Currently for SUA (R2/Vista) I'm
updating, for MS, all of the libraries and utilities. Much of this is based on
what's available here at /Tools. This works well for 3.5 users because as far as
anyone knows MS isn't doing an update for 3.5 (hotfixes only). It works well for
MS since most of this has already been field tested by the "real world".
So any clobbering done by /Tools packages is just matching what the binary will
be in a future SUA release for functionality (though as Brian notes, nothing is
truely ever clobbered).

(in reply to woehlkmp)
Post #: 64
RE: Several "common" utils gone in 5.2; 3.5 v... - Apr. 14, '06, 11:01:53 AM   
jerker_back

 

Posts: 68
Joined: Jul. 7, '05,
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

my Interix-related foray into the GNU world so far has been "Please support Interix. To support Interix, you need to do 'X', 'Y', and 'Z'"

Yes and the intent is for the good and progress of things and is mostly recieved polite but with very little real interest.
How many times have you met (outspoken or not): "I know nothing of Interix - why don't you use a real OS like A, B or C?". sigh...
I think the problem lies very much in the fact that the code is based on open source but the implementation is closed. Why that is beats me - surely MS have no code base to protect here.
quote:

Currently for SUA (R2/Vista) I'm updating, for MS, all of the libraries and utilities. Much of this is based on what's available here at /Tools.

And the majority of this is based on BSD and GNU, right?
I don't see why you can't do this openly, especially if you are making Interix specific changes. It is not only fair and decent to do so, I believe it is the only way to increase the creditability of Interix. I realize that nothing is for free and publish and maintain an open code base will be costly. Even so, open up these parts of the Interix code base would be an easy and costeffective way for Microsoft to further market Windows and push Interix as an alternative for unix users. I also believe that Interop Systems would be the perfect place for such a thing.

And better: Release Interix as an open source (excluding the Windows code in psxdll parts), where the basic existing Interix parts would be maintained by MS (maybe through Interop Systems) and give the opportunity to extend and improve Interix through a user maintained code base (GNU utilities, new code etc) hosted at Interop Systems.

To give an example, for me there's some things I really miss and feels like drawbacks with interix (all we have for WIN32):
* Application startup source code
* Interix BSD libc source code

Dreams or not?

(in reply to Rodney)
Post #: 65
RE: Several "common" utils gone in 5.2; 3.5 v... - Apr. 14, '06, 1:28:33 PM   
breiter

 

Posts: 343
Joined: Jun. 14, '04,
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
> And the majority of this is based on BSD and GNU, right?

Run this and get your answer:

% strings /bin/* /usr/bin/* /usr/local/bin/* /lib/* /usr/lib/* /usr/local/lib/*| egrep -i bsd

There's a reason that Softway originally called it OpenNT; it's a play on OpenBSD.

Also the symbols for Interix 5.2 are stripped of private data; which makes debugging harder. I agree with you. Why keep the source code hidden? I mean who is going to create a competing product based on this code when it only runs on the NT kernel and is free-of-charge anyway? ReactOS? Give me a break.

I'd like to see the source be more open and the bug database be open. Right now, they have the Neal Stephenson "Why do I pay you to fix your bug" problem:

This is old prose, but the issue still exists, just ask woehlkmp about his Xeon memory corruption problems.
quote:

Neal Stephenson: In the Beginning there was the Command Line [http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html]

As far as I know, Debian is the only Linux distribution that has its own constitution (http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution), but what really sold me on it was its phenomenal bug database (http://www.debian.org/Bugs), which is a sort of interactive Doomsday Book of error, fallibility, and redemption. It is simplicity itself. When had a problem with Debian in early January of 1997, I sent in a message describing the problem to . My problem was promptly assigned a bug report number (#6518) and a severity level (the available choices being critical, grave, important, normal, fixed, and wishlist) and forwarded to mailing lists where Debian people hang out. Within twenty-four hours I had received five e-mails telling me how to fix the problem: two from North America, two from Europe, and one from Australia. All of these e-mails gave me the same suggestion, which worked, and made my problem go away. But at the same time, a transcript of this exchange was posted to Debian's bug database, so that if other users had the same problem later, they would be able to search through and find the solution without having to enter a new, redundant bug report.

Contrast this with the experience that I had when I tried to install Windows NT 4.0 on the very same machine about ten months later, in late 1997. The installation program simply stopped in the middle with no error messages. I went to the Microsoft Support website and tried to perform a search for existing help documents that would address my problem. The search engine was completely nonfunctional; it did nothing at all. It did not even give me a message telling me that it was not working.

Eventually I decided that my motherboard must be at fault; it was of a slightly unusual make and model, and NT did not support as many different motherboards as Linux. I am always looking for excuses, no matter how feeble, to buy new hardware, so I bought a new motherboard that was Windows NT logo-compatible, meaning that the Windows NT logo was printed right on the box. I installed this into my computer and got Linux running right away, then attempted to install Windows NT again. Again, the installation died without any error message or explanation. By this time a couple of weeks had gone by and I thought that perhaps the search engine on the Microsoft Support website might be up and running. I gave that a try but it still didn't work.

So I created a new Microsoft support account, then logged on to submit the incident. I supplied my product ID number when asked, and then began to follow the instructions on a series of help screens. In other words, I was submitting a bug report just as with the Debian bug tracking system. It's just that the interface was slicker--I was typing my complaint into little text-editing boxes on Web forms, doing it all through the GUI, whereas with Debian you send in an e-mail telegram. I knew that when I was finished submitting the bug report, it would become proprietary Microsoft information, and other users wouldn't be able to see it. Many Linux users would refuse to participate in such a scheme on ethical grounds, but I was willing to give it a shot as an experiment. In the end, though I was never able to submit my bug report, because the series of linked web pages that I was filling out eventually led me to a completely blank page: a dead end.

So I went back and clicked on the buttons for "phone support" and eventually was given a Microsoft telephone number. When I dialed this number I got a series of piercing beeps and a recorded message from the phone company saying "We're sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed."

I tried the search page again--it was still completely nonfunctional. Then I tried PPI (Pay Per Incident) again. This led me through another series of Web pages until I dead-ended at one reading: "Notice-there is no Web page matching your request."

I tried it again, and eventually got to a Pay Per Incident screen reading: "OUT OF INCIDENTS. There are no unused incidents left in your account. If you would like to purchase a support incident, click OK-you will then be able to prepay for an incident...." The cost per incident was $95.

The experiment was beginning to seem rather expensive, so I gave up on the PPI approach and decided to have a go at the FAQs posted on Microsoft's website. None of the available FAQs had anything to do with my problem except for one entitled "I am having some problems installing NT" which appeared to have been written by flacks, not engineers.

So I gave up and still, to this day, have never gotten Windows NT installed on that particular machine. For me, the path of least resistance was simply to use Debian Linux.


< Message edited by breiter -- Apr. 14, '06, 1:35:21 PM >

(in reply to jerker_back)
Post #: 66
RE: Several "common" utils gone in 5.2; 3.5 v... - Apr. 14, '06, 1:54:03 PM   
Rodney

 

Posts: 3695
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: offline
> There's a reason that Softway originally called it OpenNT; it's a play on OpenBSD.

Not true.

At the time the Microsoft OS was called "Windows NT".
BSD 4.4 lite was the base use for the utilities for release 1.0 of OpenNT.
The NT came from "Windows NT". The "Open" from being based on the open release of BSD 4.4.
OpenBSD had nothing to do with the name.

OpenNT was changed to Interix because of Northern Telecom's hold on "NT".

(in reply to breiter)
Post #: 67
RE: Several "common" utils gone in 5.2; 3.5 v... - Apr. 14, '06, 1:57:27 PM   
breiter

 

Posts: 343
Joined: Jun. 14, '04,
From: Washington, DC
Status: offline
> OpenBSD had nothing to do with the name.

Wow. Very interesting. I clearly jumped to conclusions. When did all the OpenBSD code get in there? Was it the Interix 2.0 timeframe?

(in reply to Rodney)
Post #: 68
RE: Several "common" utils gone in 5.2; 3.5 v... - Apr. 14, '06, 3:16:54 PM   
Rodney

 

Posts: 3695
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: offline
Yes, it wasn't until OpenNT 2.1 that OpenBSD code started to be used.

The BSD 4.4 Lite code had some bugs that I was aware of. I was already
familiar with the 3 BSD's (Open, Net & Free) and was running OpenBSD
as a home firewall (I still had a BSD/OS running then too). I think
it was OpenBSD 2.2 at the time that was just released. And no, the
version numbering was in no way coordinated. At that time OpenBSD had
already committed itself to being secure and, most importantly, not
contaminating the BSD licenced code with code from other licenced software.
Mark (markfunk) was in charge of the builds along with libc, ksh, etc.
So we talked about utility updates versus other sources. For the record,
we bought the CD's. And I've continued to buy them (it's not much but
I haven't got much). There are other sources used as well; tcsh came
directly from tcsh, for example. Things were updated as required. The
ID tags were left in to keep track of what happened when. But the ID
tags haven't necessarily always been updated even when code was updated
since Interix specific extensions have happened. So the ID numbers have
less meaning than most people would think. So if you run strings
and see version 1.2 and OpenBSD is at version 1.8 this doesn't mean much.

(in reply to breiter)
Post #: 69
RE: Several "common" utils gone in 5.2; 3.5 v... - Apr. 25, '06, 8:42:47 AM   
jerker_back

 

Posts: 68
Joined: Jul. 7, '05,
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

give the opportunity to extend and improve Interix through a user maintained code base (GNU utilities, new code etc) hosted at Interop Systems

I can't keep me from comment on this again
Is this not a good idea?
Surely, the thought must have surfaced many and many times over the years.

(in reply to Rodney)
Post #: 70
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [SFU / Interix / SUA Technology] >> Windows Server 2003 R2 SUA >> RE: Several "common" utils gone in 5.2; 3.5 versions unusable Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Search All Forums -

Advanced search


SPONSORS



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI

0.063