CDE goes Open Source

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

CDE goes Open Source

Ilya Chernykh

Does anybody mean to package it?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Sid Boyce
On 06/08/12 14:39, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
> Does anybody mean to package it?
If it's the CDE (Common Desktop Environment), the Sun cast-off, spend
the effort elsewhere.
It was an ugly appendage on Solaris.
Regards
Sid.

--
Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Licensed Private Pilot
Emeritus IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support
Senior Staff Specialist, Cricket Coach
Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Guido Berhoerster-6
In reply to this post by Ilya Chernykh
* Ilya Chernykh <[hidden email]> [2012-08-06 15:41]:
>
> Does anybody mean to package it?
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]
>

Neat, unfortunately it requires Motif/OpenMotif which are non-free.
--
Guido Berhoerster
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Joerg Schilling-3
In reply to this post by Sid Boyce
Sid Boyce <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 06/08/12 14:39, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
> > Does anybody mean to package it?
> If it's the CDE (Common Desktop Environment), the Sun cast-off, spend
> the effort elsewhere.
> It was an ugly appendage on Solaris.

How about informing yourself before ranting?

CDE is the common UNIX desktop that has been created by AT&T, Sun, Xerox, HP,
IBM, .... and that was omnipresent.

It is still the official POSIX GUI.

Jörg

--
 EMail:[hidden email] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       [hidden email]                (uni)  
       [hidden email] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Erwin Van de Velde
On Monday 06 August 2012 17:45:05 Joerg Schilling wrote:

> Sid Boyce <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 06/08/12 14:39, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
> > > Does anybody mean to package it?
> >
> > If it's the CDE (Common Desktop Environment), the Sun cast-off, spend
> > the effort elsewhere.
> > It was an ugly appendage on Solaris.
>
> How about informing yourself before ranting?
>
> CDE is the common UNIX desktop that has been created by AT&T, Sun, Xerox,
> HP, IBM, .... and that was omnipresent.
>
> It is still the official POSIX GUI.
>

Unfortunately it is butt ugly :-)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Joerg Mayer
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 07:24:34PM +0200, Erwin Van de Velde wrote:
> On Monday 06 August 2012 17:45:05 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Sid Boyce <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On 06/08/12 14:39, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
> > > > Does anybody mean to package it?
> > >
> > > If it's the CDE (Common Desktop Environment), the Sun cast-off, spend
> > > the effort elsewhere.

Seems to be correct.

> > > It was an ugly appendage on Solaris.

The "native" desktop was called OpenWindows, which was later replaced by
CDE, which to many people really felt like an "ugly appendage".

> > How about informing yourself before ranting?

So to me it looks like an informed (albeit opinionated) posting.
You also fail to cite the Motif part.

> > CDE is the common UNIX desktop that has been created by AT&T, Sun, Xerox,
> > HP, IBM, .... and that was omnipresent.
> >
> > It is still the official POSIX GUI.

Sure, and CLNP is still the official OSI datagram protocol.

> Unfortunately it is butt ugly :-)

In my days I had a lot of additional attributes for it, but IMO, CDE isn't
worth insulting any more ;->

Ciao
     Jörg
--
Joerg Mayer                                           <[hidden email]>
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Jan Engelhardt-4
In reply to this post by Joerg Schilling-3
On Monday 2012-08-06 17:45, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>On 06/08/12 14:39, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
>>> Does anybody mean to package it?
>>If it's the CDE (Common Desktop Environment), the Sun cast-off, spend
>>the effort elsewhere. It was an ugly appendage on Solaris.
>
>CDE is the common UNIX desktop that has been created by AT&T, Sun, Xerox, HP,
>IBM, .... and that was omnipresent.
>
>It is still the official POSIX GUI.

Windows is also omnipresent, and the POSIX guys are known to have
strange ideas sometimes. So what?

Ugly? Well, depends on the eye of the beholder. Soon it will enter the
vintage ranks. When it's not common any more, any ugliness is
excusable  :)

But since it depends on motif, I suppose restyling xfce to have a CDE
look might bear more fruit.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Joerg Schilling-3
Jan Engelhardt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Windows is also omnipresent, and the POSIX guys are known to have
> strange ideas sometimes. So what?

You wanted to say that Linux guys are known to have strange ideas sometines?

Please explain me e.g. why on Linux, you don't get the full exit code from a
program with waitid(). Both exit() and waitid() permit a full int, Linux masks
the exit code with 0xFF.... so what is strange, POSIX or Linux?

BTW: We discuss strange ideas from other people and try to find the best
solution.

Jörg

--
 EMail:[hidden email] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       [hidden email]                (uni)  
       [hidden email] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Sid Boyce
In reply to this post by Erwin Van de Velde
On 06/08/12 18:24, Erwin Van de Velde wrote:

> On Monday 06 August 2012 17:45:05 Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> Sid Boyce <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On 06/08/12 14:39, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
>>>> Does anybody mean to package it?
>>> If it's the CDE (Common Desktop Environment), the Sun cast-off, spend
>>> the effort elsewhere.
>>> It was an ugly appendage on Solaris.
>> How about informing yourself before ranting?
>>
>> CDE is the common UNIX desktop that has been created by AT&T, Sun, Xerox,
>> HP, IBM, .... and that was omnipresent.
>>
>> It is still the official POSIX GUI.
>>
> Unfortunately it is butt ugly :-)
You beat me to it Erwin, I was just about to put a qualifier before "ugly".

I guess that was the core reason why Sun chose other desktops for
"open"Solaris.
I had to use it on Solaris only because it was the only thing on offer
after olvwm.

Official may be but officious to many.
Regards
Sid.

--
Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Licensed Private Pilot
Emeritus IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support
Senior Staff Specialist, Cricket Coach
Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Joerg Schilling-3
Sid Boyce <[hidden email]> wrote:

> You beat me to it Erwin, I was just about to put a qualifier before "ugly".
>
> I guess that was the core reason why Sun chose other desktops for
> "open"Solaris.

I am not sure whether this is missing knowlede at your side....

OpenSolaris needs an open desktop but at that time, there have been companies
like HP and IBM that did not like CDE (and other software they control) to be
OSS.

BTW: the fact that you write "open" instead of Open shows that you miss
important facts. A typical Linux distro is e.g. less open than a typical
OpenSolaris distro. If I need to test whether something can be done on pure
OSS, I use Solaris and definitely not Linux.

Let me make an example: On Linux, you can use SCM cardreaders because there are
closed drivers for these mon-standard readers. On Solaris this does not work as
there is no OSS driver for SCM cardreaders. I however have no problems to use a
ReinerSCT cardreader because it is standard compliant.




Jörg

--
 EMail:[hidden email] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       [hidden email]                (uni)  
       [hidden email] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Sid Boyce
In reply to this post by Ilya Chernykh
On 06/08/12 14:39, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
> Does anybody mean to package it?
In case anyone in the article.
http://www.osnews.com/story/26247/CDE_released_as_open_source
Regards
Sid.

--
Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Licensed Private Pilot
Emeritus IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support
Senior Staff Specialist, Cricket Coach
Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Will Stephenson-2
In reply to this post by Sid Boyce
On Monday 06 Aug 2012 15:05:39 Sid Boyce wrote:
> On 06/08/12 14:39, Ilya Chernykh wrote:
> > Does anybody mean to package it?
>
> If it's the CDE (Common Desktop Environment), the Sun cast-off, spend
> the effort elsewhere.
> It was an ugly appendage on Solaris.

This is the point where this thread left the scope of Factory development and
veered off into opinion.

Please continue it on the offtopic list - you are delaying the next release by
wibbling here.

Will
--
Will Stephenson, openSUSE Board, Booster, KDE Developer
SUSE LINUX GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 21284
(AG Nürnberg)
Maxfeldstraße 5                        
90409 Nürnberg
Germany
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Ilya Chernykh
In reply to this post by Sid Boyce
On Monday 06 August 2012 18:05:39 Sid Boyce wrote:

> > Does anybody mean to package it?
> If it's the CDE (Common Desktop Environment), the Sun cast-off, spend
> the effort elsewhere.
> It was an ugly appendage on Solaris.

Well in fact it was used everywhere on UNIX and VMS, not only on Solaris.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Ralf Lang-3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Am 07.08.2012 09:55, schrieb Ilya Chernykh:
> On Monday 06 August 2012 18:05:39 Sid Boyce wrote:
>
>>> Does anybody mean to package it?
>> If it's the CDE (Common Desktop Environment), the Sun cast-off,
>> spend the effort elsewhere. It was an ugly appendage on Solaris.
>
> Well in fact it was used everywhere on UNIX and VMS, not only on
> Solaris.
>

Would be an interesting follow-up on KDE3 ;-)

Anyway, is there some initial work to expand upon?

- --
Ralf Lang
Linux Consultant / Developer
Tel.: +49-170-6381563
Mail: [hidden email]

B1 Systems GmbH
Osterfeldstraße 7 / 85088 Vohburg / http://www.b1-systems.de
GF: Ralph Dehner / Unternehmenssitz: Vohburg / AG: Ingolstadt,HRB 3537
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAlAg5XEACgkQCs1dsHJ/X7DYdQCgyYbWdQhC9Sf7bx589rvh6e/z
jkMAniXthFhj2z7b0CqoML2h5C/pSfa0
=PwAG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Jan Engelhardt-4
In reply to this post by Joerg Schilling-3
On Monday 2012-08-06 22:26, Joerg Schilling wrote:

>Jan Engelhardt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Windows is also omnipresent, and the POSIX guys are known to have
>> strange ideas sometimes. So what?
>
>You wanted to say that Linux guys are known to have strange ideas sometines?

(The GNU people say, and I would not distrust that statement that)
df(1), in POSIX-compliant mode, is to show number of blocks in units of
512 bytes, rather than a more sane default like 1K.


>Please explain me e.g. why on Linux, you don't get the full exit code from a
>program with waitid(). Both exit() and waitid() permit a full int, Linux masks
>the exit code with 0xFF.... so what is strange, POSIX or Linux?

That would be POSIX again, I suppose:

http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/exit.html

"""The value of status may be 0, EXIT_SUCCESS, EXIT_FAILURE, [CX] or any
other value, though only the least significant 8 bits (that is, status &
0377) shall be available to a waiting parent process."""

Linux/glibc merely implement this POSIX-defined behavior.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Joerg Schilling-3
Jan Engelhardt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Monday 2012-08-06 22:26, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> >Jan Engelhardt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Windows is also omnipresent, and the POSIX guys are known to have
> >> strange ideas sometimes. So what?
> >
> >You wanted to say that Linux guys are known to have strange ideas sometines?
>
> (The GNU people say, and I would not distrust that statement that)
> df(1), in POSIX-compliant mode, is to show number of blocks in units of
> 512 bytes, rather than a more sane default like 1K.

And you are the person who decides what is sane?

There is a rule in POSIX not to break existing software. df on UNIX did always
report in multiple of 512 bytes. Later BSD changed this in an incompatible way.
POSIX did not go the incompatible BSD path but rather introduced the -k option.
As POSIX also introduced the alias command, there is no problem to make df -k
the default.


> >Please explain me e.g. why on Linux, you don't get the full exit code from a
> >program with waitid(). Both exit() and waitid() permit a full int, Linux masks
> >the exit code with 0xFF.... so what is strange, POSIX or Linux?
>
> That would be POSIX again, I suppose:
>
> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/exit.html
>
> """The value of status may be 0, EXIT_SUCCESS, EXIT_FAILURE, [CX] or any
> other value, though only the least significant 8 bits (that is, status &
> 0377) shall be available to a waiting parent process."""
>
> Linux/glibc merely implement this POSIX-defined behavior.

No, Linux implements bugs in the descriptive text found in outdated verions.
Your text is not the recent text. The correct text is rather:

    If the parent process of the calling process is executing a wait(),
    waitid(), or waitpid(), [XSI]and has neither set its SA_NOCLDWAIT
    flag nor set SIGCHLD to SIG_IGN,[/XSI] it shall be notified of
    termination of the calling process and the child's status shall be
    made available to it. If the parent is not waiting, the child?s
    status shall be made available to it when the parent subsequently
    executes wait(), waitid(), or waitpid().

and:

    the least significant 8 bits (that is, status & 0377) shall be
    available from wait() and waitpid(); the full value shall
    be available from waitid() and in the siginfo_t passed to a
    signal handler for SIGCHLD.

Note that the description for SIGCHLD and si_status mentiones a full int since
it exists, so Linux was always incorrect.



Jörg

--
 EMail:[hidden email] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       [hidden email]                (uni)  
       [hidden email] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Philipp Thomas-3
I'm sure you're flame baiting, but what the heck.

On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:41:55 +0200,
[hidden email] (Joerg Schilling) wrote:


>No, Linux implements bugs in the descriptive text found in outdated verions.

Linux is *not* glibc, and the other way round isn't true either, stop.
You're obviously mixing things.

>Your text is not the recent text.

It's not, but AFAIK it's the only version of 1003.1 that's available
for free on the net. If there is indeed a newer freely available
version I'd like to know.

>    If the parent process of the calling process is executing a wait(),
>    waitid(), or waitpid(), [XSI]

Might I point you to the description of XSI:

[XSI][Option Start] Extension [Option End]
The functionality described is an XSI extension. Functionality marked
XSI is also an extension to the ISO C standard. Application writers
may confidently make use of an extension on all systems supporting the
X/Open System Interfaces Extension.

Does the glibc documentation state that it supports XSI?

Philipp
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Rajko M.
In reply to this post by Joerg Schilling-3
On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:41:55 +0200
[hidden email] (Joerg Schilling) wrote:

...
> And you are the person who decides what is sane?
>
> There is a rule in POSIX not to break existing software. ...

Interesting concept "not to break existing software".

How much software that was created 20 years ago, when sector was
512 bytes, still works without modifications to accommodate new disk
sizes that are 10^6 larger, or change in a definition of prefixes, K,
M, G etc.

I'm pretty confident to say there is no such software.

POSIX concept is fine, it is just its interpretation that needs
adjustment, and as usually, younger people like Jan have no problems
with that.

--
Regards, Rajko.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Cristian Morales Vega-3
In reply to this post by Philipp Thomas-3
On 10 September 2012 23:57, Philipp Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:41:55 +0200,
> [hidden email] (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
>>Your text is not the recent text.
>
> It's not, but AFAIK it's the only version of 1003.1 that's available
> for free on the net. If there is indeed a newer freely available
> version I'd like to know.

Actually the link was to issue 6, and issue 7 is available. But Joerg
is quoting this: http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=594#c1317

If you look at the dates you will notice that bashing Linux is quite
stupid here. Specially since
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=594#c1320 says: "Based on Note:
0001318, Note: 0001317 has been edited to remove the XSI shading on
the "full exit value" requirements." and
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=594#c1318 starts with "I asked
various Linux kernel hackers".

Nothing to see here...
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: CDE goes Open Source

Joerg Schilling-3
In reply to this post by Philipp Thomas-3
Philipp Thomas <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm sure you're flame baiting, but what the heck.
>
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:41:55 +0200,
> [hidden email] (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
>
>
> >No, Linux implements bugs in the descriptive text found in outdated verions.
>
> Linux is *not* glibc, and the other way round isn't true either, stop.
> You're obviously mixing things.

You are mixing things because you dis not check any Linux code :-(

The Linux kernel strips off information early, so that even struct siginfo from
SIGCHLD cannot report complete information even though the siginfo struct on
Linux correclty reserves an int field in the structure.

> >Your text is not the recent text.
>
> It's not, but AFAIK it's the only version of 1003.1 that's available
> for free on the net. If there is indeed a newer freely available
> version I'd like to know.

Wrong, I was quoting the current version of the text that is available to every
interested person besides us who wrote the text.

Jörg

--
 EMail:[hidden email] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       [hidden email]                (uni)  
       [hidden email] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

12