Ubuntu Georgia LoCo InstallFest

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale@...
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

Re: I'm starting to hate ATT

On Wed April 30 2008, James Sumners wrote:
> Solution = http://www.atnex.net/

I'll 2nd that motion :)

--

-- 
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu User #12459

ATT offers "free" WIFI access

 http://www.att.com/Common/indc/popup/compareWIFI_popup.html

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale@...
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

Re: ATT offers "free" WIFI access

On Wed April 30 2008, bugy@... wrote:
> http://www.att.com/Common/indc/popup/compareWIFI_popup.html

so you still have to pay for Boingo at airports, unless you pay $9.99 .

--

-- 
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu User #12459

Re: Battling Distros and unwrapped '#include's

Geoffrey -

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Geoffrey wrote:

> Dare I suggest that you formalize your specs so that you develop on the
> one target distro?  I suspect this won't be the last problem you run
> into regarding different distros.

You have a point, but I think there's a counterpoint as well. I am more 
comfortable with diverse development environments so we solve problems 
like this one at a time. Otherwise we can coast along until we are forced 
to change work settings, then be blind-sided with a lot of problems to fix 
at once.

> Unless, of course, the application is designed to run on multiple distros..

These products have their own run-time environments (eCos or embedded 
Linux) that we try to hold fixed. We also try to share code between them - 
sometimes easy, sometimes not. It's a matter of preferences and secondary 
factors among the developers. But as I say, I see some [secondary] value 
in the process.

Other products run in full PC GNU/Linux environment. For those, we do 
standardize the Linux environment to the extent of delivering a full 
installation CD with OS, libs and apps. Here we have been through some 
extensive rework when the Linux kernel changed. No magic bullet: you just 
choose when to jump and hope the alligators are drowsy!

Thanks for the comments.

  - Mills

Re: ATT offers "free" WIFI access

Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Wed April 30 2008, bugy@... wrote:
>   
>> http://www.att.com/Common/indc/popup/compareWIFI_popup.html
>>     
>
> so you still have to pay for Boingo at airports, unless you pay $9.99 .
>   
    I'm not sure... I think it may depend on the airport... I know when 
I flew from Hartsfield to Dulles I had trouble getting connected at 
Hartsfield using my AT&T DSL login, but I had no problems at the Westin 
Tyson Corners hotel I was staying at. Had to login through the "partner" 
login for Waypoint but it worked without a problem and I only have the 
basic. I believe Hartsfield is Waypoint partnered as well but I'm not 
sure why I had a problem, it could have been the interface I had to use 
to authenticate as it was different from the one at the Westin.

    Check out* *http://tinyurl.com/5qkk27 for locations just here in 
Georgia.

    Jeremy

Relieved: Battling Distros and unwrapped '#include's

ALErs -

Thanks for all the input.

I think we have short- and long-term solutions now.

In the short term, we juggled the inclusions and removed the build 
problem, but this doesn't solve the basic problems in our source tree.

It turns out that several 'include' files use the '#ifndef/#define/#endif' 
construction to define data types as macros. These should be defined with 
'typedef' instead. Changing only one instance of the redundant definitions 
broke the build. There are suitable types defined across all our targets 
in system files that we can use: 'unit8_t' instead of '__u8' for example.

The long-term solution is updating code to those higher-level definitions, 
use properly-wrapped 'include' files, and 'typedef' instead or '#define' 
to create data types.

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Michael H. Warfield wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 13:23 -0400, John Mills wrote:

>> ALErs -

>> In particular, one of our own product's files attempts to conditionally
>> define basic integer types as follows:
>
>> ************<common.h>********************
>> /* Types */
>>
>> #ifndef __u8
>> #define __u8 unsigned char
>> #endif
  ...

> 	This should not be necessary.  If you chose the correct headers in the
> first place, those definitions should be in place and they will be
> defined correctly as typedefs and not define macros.

> 	Does including <linux/types.h> solve the problem without the defines
> above?  If not, what are you missing?
  ...
> 	Should be able to include <linux/types.h> without conflict.
  ...
> 	Well, if you have to resort to those definitions above, I would say
> you've got a problem.  Scrap those defines and go find where they are
> suppose to be included from.  Sounds like Ubuntu should be a wash and F8
> should work without them as well.  So, what's the problem with Suse?
> Sounds like including <linux/types.h> should resolve the Suse problem
> from the statement under #1.

It would have been OK, except I hadn't seen multiple cases defining the 
same tokens from different files

> 	In general, it can be a bit tricky tracking down the correct header to
> include.  You find a define in a header file and it's often tempting to
> include THAT header when what you really want is an include file that
> ultimately calls the one your after.  You've got a lot of defines
> beginning with "__".  Those are generally deeper system defines.  If you
> really need them, you probably should include them properly for it to be
> portable.

I'm sure the guy who sorted it out would agree!

  - Mills

Re: Intelligent Power (was global warming) [OT]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Thompson Freeman
<tfreeman@...> wrote:
>
> On 03/10/2008 05:13:52 PM, Greg Freemyer wrote:
>  > On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Greg Freemyer
>  > <greg.freemyer@...> wrote:
>  > >  Per: http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/anything-oil
>  > >
>  > >  In the long term, they can make Electrical generating
>  > quality crude
>  > >  oil for about $75 / barrel from biowaste. (iirc).
>  > >
>  > >  I have not followed the above oil production plant
>  > beyond reading that
>  > >  article, but it is describing an actual plant in full
>  > production and
>  > >  selling oil to the local electric company to generate
>  > electricity, not
>  > >  some totally pie-in-the-sky project that may be
>  > possible with a couple
>  > >  $B in investment.
>  > >
>  > >  The article I sited above is 2 years old.  If anyone
>  > has seen a more
>  > >  recent article, I would love to read it.
>  >
>  > Decided to see if I could find anything newer.
>  >
>  > Looks like the plant is now at full production.  200 tons
>  > of turkey
>  > guts / waste a day turned into biodiesel.  Not sure how
>  > efficient they
>  > are, but if all of the weight were turned into oil that
>  > would be about
>  > 50,000 gallons a day, or 1,000 barrels a day, or 350,000
>  > barrels a
>  > year.  Not huge, but not really an experiment either.
>  >
>  > Oklahoma is even sending them some really ugly fish guts
>  > to get rid of.
>  >
>  > The biggest problem is complaints about the odor.  Not
>  > sure how they
>  > know it is the oil producing plant and not the turkey
>  > processing plant
>  > next door.
>  >
>  > Next time they build one, maybe they will be smart enough
>  > to build it
>  > somewhere other than in the middle of town.
>  >
>  > Greg
>
>
>  I have seen, and do not recall a link to, a listing of the
>  conversion rates of various materiel using the thermal
>  depolimerization process. I think I may have tracked it
>  down from Wikipedia, but don't hold me to that. You may be
>  Googling for a while.
>
>  That said, I think I read somewhere that there is a Georgia
>  project using the same technology against vegetation waste
>  (wood chips and such). Could be my imagination.

I'm still very intrigued about the idea of making oil from renewable
sources.  No idea how this affects greenhouse gases, but it could
definitely help with the long term energy issue.

Per this blurb that I just saw, that plant is making about 500 barrels
a day out of 250 tons of oval, so it is about 40% efficient.  Not bad
at all considering they are just starting with turkey guts, feathers,
etc.

So at current prices that is over $50K / day of oil they are
producing.  That is $10 or $20 million / year.  If the earlier
articles were accurate then they are currently profitable.  Hopefully
they build some more plants around the country.

==
Changing World Technologies Inc. in West Hempstead, New York, has been
given the Most Innovative Patent Award in the Environment & Energy
category by the Long Island Technology Hall of Fame. Brian Appel,
chief executive officer of CWT, accepted the award at the hall of
fame's 2008 awards ceremony March 6. CWT's thermal conversion process
is a commercially viable method of reforming organic waste that
converts approximately 250 tons of turkey offal and fats per day into
approximately 500 barrels of renewable diesel.
==

Greg
--

-- 
Greg Freemyer
Litigation Triage Solutions Specialist
http://www.linkedin.com/in/gregfreemyer
First 99 Days Litigation White Paper -
http://www.norcrossgroup.com/forms/whitepapers/99%20Days%20whitepaper.pdf

The Norcross Group
The Intersection of Evidence & Technology
http://www.norcrossgroup.com

Re: Intelligent Power (was global warming) [OT]

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale@...
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

Re: Intelligent Power (was global warming) [OT]

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale@...
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale