xiaoyan@ecf.toronto.edu (Yan Xiao) (01/01/91)
Does anybody know a site where I can ftp executable GNU Emacs? I tried to compile source on our 4D but so far no luck. Thanks. xiao
jeremy@cs.adelaide.edu.au (Jeremy Webber) (01/02/91)
In article <1991Jan1.012638.29700@ecf.utoronto.ca> xiaoyan@ecf.toronto.edu (Yan Xiao) writes:
Does anybody know a site where I can ftp executable GNU Emacs? I tried
to compile source on our 4D but so far no luck.
You don't say which version of Gnu Emacs you tried to compile. I compiled
version 18.55 on our Personal Iris without any trouble. There is no window
manager support (HAVE_X_WINDOWS was commented out), but apart from that it runs
well.
Irises are documented in etc/MACHINES. You need to use s-iris3-6.h and
m-iris4d.h.
We run Irix version 3.2.
-jeremy
--
--
Jeremy Webber ACSnet: jeremy@chook.ua.oz
Digital Arts Film and Television, Internet: jeremy@chook.ua.oz.au
3 Milner St, Hindmarsh, SA 5007, Voicenet: +61 8 346 4534
Australia Papernet: +61 8 346 4537 (FAX)scotth@corp.sgi.com (Scott Henry) (01/02/91)
In article <JEREMY.91Jan2091136@chook.ua.oz.au> jeremy@cs.adelaide.edu.au (Jeremy Webber) writes: j> Path: odin!shinobu!sgi!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au!sirius!jeremy j> In article <1991Jan1.012638.29700@ecf.utoronto.ca> xiaoyan@ecf.toronto.edu (Yan Xiao) writes: j> Does anybody know a site where I can ftp executable GNU Emacs? I tried j> to compile source on our 4D but so far no luck. j> You don't say which version of Gnu Emacs you tried to compile. I compiled j> version 18.55 on our Personal Iris without any trouble. There is no window j> manager support (HAVE_X_WINDOWS was commented out), but apart from that it runs j> well. j> Irises are documented in etc/MACHINES. You need to use s-iris3-6.h and j> m-iris4d.h. j> We run Irix version 3.2. If you are running version 3.3.1 or 3.3.2, you also need to add the following lines to src/config.h: /* Irix 3.3 defines this. I think it's neccessary for Epoch, too */ #define HAVE_GETWD If you are running version 3.3, you should upgrade to 3.3.1 or 3.3.2 (an incompatibility was introduced in 3.3 that was "corrected" in 3.3.1). \\scott -- Scott Henry <scotth@sgi.com> / Traveller on Dragon Wings Information Services, / Help! My disclaimer is missing! Silicon Graphics, Inc / Politicians no baka!
arritt@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (01/03/91)
In article <SCOTTH.91Jan2082025@harlie.corp.sgi.com>, scotth@corp.sgi.com (Scott Henry) writes: > In article <JEREMY.91Jan2091136@chook.ua.oz.au> jeremy@cs.adelaide.edu.au (Jeremy Webber) writes: .. and MANY other posters to comp.sys.sgi, have had discussions along the lines of: > > j> Does anybody know a site where I can ftp executable GNU Emacs? I tried > j> to compile source on our 4D but so far no luck. > > j> You don't say which version of Gnu Emacs you tried to compile... [and so forth...] For as long as I've been following this group, troubles installing GNU EMACS have been a recurring problem. So many people have had problems with this (including myself) that availability of the executables would save a significant amount of person-months throughout Netland. Any volunteers? (My own installation doesn't work right...) Could SGI do this without running afoul of GNU's copyright / license policy? ________________________________________________________________________ Raymond W. Arritt | Assistant Professor | Dept. of Physics and Astronomy | "everyone knew that as time went Univ. of Kansas | by they'd get a little bit older Lawrence, KS 66045 | and a little bit slower..." arritt@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | arritt@ukanvax.bitnet |
mg@ (Mike Gigante) (01/03/91)
arritt@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >For as long as I've been following this group, troubles installing >GNU EMACS have been a recurring problem. So many people have had problems >with this (including myself) that availability of the executables would >save a significant amount of person-months throughout Netland. >Any volunteers? (My own installation doesn't work right...) Could SGI >do this without running afoul of GNU's copyright / license policy? It is on godzilla.cgl.rmit.oz.au (131.170.14.2) Mike Gigante, RMIT ACGC | | | | | |
woo@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Alex Woo RAC) (01/05/91)
In article <27671.2781e39b@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> arritt@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >.. and MANY other posters to comp.sys.sgi, have had discussions along the > lines of: > >> >> j> Does anybody know a site where I can ftp executable GNU Emacs? I tried >> j> to compile source on our 4D but so far no luck. >> >> j> You don't say which version of Gnu Emacs you tried to compile... > >[and so forth...] > >For as long as I've been following this group, troubles installing >GNU EMACS have been a recurring problem. So many people have had problems >with this (including myself) that availability of the executables would >save a significant amount of person-months throughout Netland. > >Any volunteers? (My own installation doesn't work right...) Could SGI >do this without running afoul of GNU's copyright / license policy? There is an executable version of TeX (although not up-to-date) on vgr.brl.mil. How about such a distribution of GNU EMACS, gdb, gcc, kcl, and g++? Such executable distributions are very common for VMS systems. It would be nice if SGI would put these executables in sgi.com:~ftp/pub. Alex Woo woo@ames.arc.nasa.gov P.S. Does anyone have a ftp'able executable of the UNIX TeX 3.x distribution? Even with a lot of network hints, I have not been able to get the labrea version to pass the trip tests. ====================================================================== Alex Woo, MS 227-6 | woo@ames.arc.nasa.gov NASA Ames Research Center | NASAMAIL ACWOO Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000| {seismo,topaz,lll-crg,ucbvax}! Phone: (415) 604-6010 | ames!pioneer!woo ====================================================================== {hplabs,hao,att,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!pioneer!woo ======================================================================
vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) (01/05/91)
> Any volunteers? (My own installation doesn't work right...) Could SGI > do this [distribute GNU objects] without running afoul of GNU's > copyright / license policy? Not as I understand copylefting. We'd also have to provide the source. There are also nontrivial concerns about liabilities. If you get a copy of the GNU nuclear reactor control system binary from sgi.com, and you have a meltdown that kills half a million citizens, who is going to get sued? If SGI distributes something, we have to make at least a half-hearted effort to make it work, and to keep it working on various releases. For example, measurable effort is spent on Kermit. (Yes, I know we have bugs. I know that fact orders of magnitude more than almost any customer can conceive.) There are problems with who would keep an official SGI-GNU archive up to date, instead of doing the work purchased by SGI and indirectly all customers. Finally, only bone fide "research and academic institutions" and organizations doing direct support for official U.S.Gov. contracts can legally FTP copies of anything to or from sgi.com. This is because SGI is one of those nasty, scum bag commercial organizations. This is not an official statement from Silicon Graphics. It is only a note from a slightly informed engineer, with some effect on what is put on sgi.com. Please continue looking for neutral ground to hold the GNU IRIX binaries. Vernon Schryver, vjs@sgi.com.
BRUC@DINO.SQUIBB.COM ("Bob Bruccoleri 683-6165", 609) (01/05/91)
Dear Vernon, I honestly doubt whether the Free Software Foundation would object to SGI providing a repository for its binaries as long as SGI made its patches to the GNU sources available as well. I think that the FSF cares much more about the spirit of their license rather than its letter, and they ask people to contact them if there is any question or if alternative arrangements can be made. I think SGI is making an error by not assisting the GNU effort more. Above all, most GNU software is very high quality. Having it available on Iris's increases their value to customers. The cost of one or two SGI engineers working to maintain GNU software is much less than the value provided to all SGI customers. In addition, the good will generated by helping such an altruistic cause will also be helpful to company sales. I understand that SGI is worried about GNU software cutting into sales of its own products, but I think there is limited overlap between the "markets" for free, unsupported software and for paid, supported software. I don't see how the liability issue for GNU software is any different than 4Dgifts. In fact, the flight demo is more dangerous than any GNU software. Its flight simulation is sufficiently incorrect that a person who learns to use it will have a harder time learning how to fly a real airplane afterwards, and will be more likely to crash. Thankfully, the Iris user community and individuals at SGI are working to make the GNU programs work on our workstations. But it would be better if corporate SGI got more involved with the GNU project. Sincerely yours, Robert E. Bruccoleri +-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+ | Robert E. Bruccoleri, Ph.D. | Macromolecular Modeling | | Hat 1: Research Leader | Bristol-Myers Squibb | | Hat 2: Interim Internet Network Manager | Pharmaceutical Research | | Hat 3: Whatever is Necessary | Institute | | bruc@dino.squibb.com | P.O. Box 4000 | | (609) 683-6165 | Princeton, NJ 08543 USA | +-----------------------------------------+----------------------------+
mike@BRL.MIL (Mike Muuss) (01/05/91)
Vernon - I appreciate your concerns. BRL (a U.S. Goverment lab) is willing to provide anonymous FTP access for any software for SGIs (and any other machine that we own one of, which does not exclude many vendors) that people would care to distribute. Of course, we don't have anybody who can keep it up to date, but if the problem is just finding a place to put stuff, look no further. FTP.BRL.MIL is the place. People interested in contributing software should contact Chuck Kennedy <kermit@brl.mil> (a person, not a program!) to coordinate any arrangements. Best, -Mike
vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver) (01/07/91)
In article <DC923761BB3F00167B@dino.squibb.com>, BRUC@DINO.SQUIBB.COM ("Bob Bruccoleri 683-6165", 609) writes: > Dear Vernon, > I honestly doubt whether the Free Software Foundation would > object to SGI providing a repository for its binaries as long as SGI > made its patches to the GNU sources available as well. I think that the > FSF cares much more about the spirit of their license rather than its > letter, and they ask people to contact them if there is any question or > if alternative arrangements can be made. So who has the time to negotiate with Mr. Stallman? I don't mean that in any mean spirited way. It's just that no one's time here is free. People with free time at night here are more inclined to work on new versions of flight or gadgets like gdiff. > I think SGI is making an error by not assisting the GNU effort more. > ... If SGI were over-staffed like some companies appear to be (e.g. those with layoffs), or so much smaller so that we could not afford to maintain our own compilers, etc., then I would agree that the GNU stuff would be a Good Thing to ship, if a suitable copyleft arrangement could be achieved. > .... I understand > that SGI is worried about GNU software cutting into sales of its own > products, but I think there is limited overlap between the "markets" > for free, unsupported software and for paid, supported software. Nobody would tell me about such concerns, but I still doubt any exist. The only thing that might "overlap" is emacs, and that was never really a Silicon Graphics issue. (Yes, I still use Unipress on my machine.) As for finding "1 or 2" people to maintain SGI-GNU stuff--you have an odd idea about how things are staffed out here. There are some groups with lots of people. Most "groups" are different. Your suggestion amounts to devoting as many people to "free" GNU stuff as now develop, maintain, and enhance other, central and much more vital parts of the system. > I don't see how the liability issue for GNU software is > any different than 4Dgifts. In fact, the flight demo is more dangerous > than any GNU software. Its flight simulation is sufficiently incorrect > that a person who learns to use it will have a harder time learning > how to fly a real airplane afterwards, and will be more likely to crash. Ha! Nice joke. Seriously, people who get things from SGI have this funny idea that they should work, no matter what they paid. We'd get far more complaints about GNU bugs than we not get for not having GNU stuff. > Thankfully, the Iris user community and individuals at SGI are > working to make the GNU programs work on our workstations. But it would > be better if corporate SGI got more involved with the GNU project. Why would it be better? How would that keep "corporate SGI" from getting in trouble with "stockholder SGI." We stockholders want those salaries spent for things that will increase revenue and profit. A new window manager or FDDI seems like a better investment of my money than fixing GNU bugs or hassling rms. What's the difference to you if you FTP GNU binaries from BRL.MIL or sgi.com? Look at it this way, as long as the binaries are on BRL.MIL (thanks, Mike), you can be sure GNU contributions from people at SGI will be available, and that no evil commercial considerations have caused anything to be misteriously deleted or broken. The long standing arrangement with BRL seems much closer to the spirit behind the FSF than getting "corporate SGI" involved. Vernon Schryver, vjs@sgi.com P.S. I delayed writing anything on this subject many months because I expected many people would complain. I probably made a mistake in responding to the recent crescendo.
shenkin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Peter S. Shenkin) (01/07/91)
In a previous posting, Bob Bruccoleri suggests that SGI should distrubute GNU software as part of 4Dgifts. Elsewhere Vernon Schreyer suggests reasons SGI might not like to do this. Actually, SGI personnel have been extremely helpful to those attempting to port GNU software to Iris workstations, by means of their participation in this Newsgroup, and for me, getting source and/or binaries from brl is good enough. But there's also another alternative: namely, the IRIS software exchange. If anyone wanted to distribute sources plus binaries for any combination of the gnu packages using this mechanism, it would be within the letter and spirit of the gnu copyright. I don't know the mechanism for getting it onto Monica's release tape, but perhaps Monica or someone else at SGI could comment on this. The "Prologue" to the Iris Software Exchange Catalog states that "... Software... are [sic] considered to be copyrighted by the auther... No commitments as to functionality or support can be made... The authors and SGI cooperate to ensure that each program... contains Source code, makefile, man page, README." Some of the software is distributed directly from author to clients, and some is distributed by SGI at a cost of $100 per cartridge. The advantage of this form of distribution is that a user would be fairly certain of receiving code patched to work on Irises. Of course, the question still remains, who's going to do the patching, or the gathering of patches, and a testing to make sure things work. -P. ************************f*u*cn*rd*ths*u*cn*gt*a*gd*jb************************** Peter S. Shenkin, Department of Chemistry, Barnard College, New York, NY 10027 (212)854-1418 shenkin@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu(Internet) shenkin@cunixf(Bitnet) ***"In scenic New York... where the third world is only a subway ride away."***
philip@pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (01/12/91)
I now need GNU Emacs for an SGI. Some of this thread has scrolled off my local server. Is the GNU stuff available ready to run off an ftp site yet? -- Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu