PPC or x86 & OS X mounting firewire drive

[Derick Centeno]

--__--__--

Message: 10
From: "Dan Kahmann" <dkah197@earthlink.net>
To: "yellow dog general list"
<yellowdog-general@lists.terrasoftsolutions.com>
Subject: PPC or i386 ?
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 07:31:53 -0600
Reply-To: yellowdog-general@lists.terrasoftsolutions.com

------=_NextPart_84815C5ABAF209EF376268C8
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

I know this is probably a really dumb think to ask (I should know better
!?) 
but here it is -
When building from source ( any app ) with YDL , must you use a source
that is specifically for PPC , or can you use any source (linux) ?

If you must use PPC sources, then might there be a tool to help convert 
the i386 to PPC , or does it require a complete re-write of the source ?

As this is my first experience with apple/mac , I just don't know that
much about them, 
except that there is alot of differences btween the Motorolla PPC's and
any Intel based
processors...

T/c 
Dan



Dan Kahmann
dkah197@earthlink.net

Hi Dan:
I can see from other responses to your question that you have received
the equivalent of a short crash course in computer science. I will add
to this discussion but from my own usually different twist.  How you
phrased the question shows that it is not the term itself which is
confusing but its actual usage or implementation.  I will attempt to
provide not a definition but rather a working analogy for you whereby
your mind will "lock on" to the correct associations from this time
forward.

Whenever you come across the word "code" or "source" or the term "source
code" understand that the same thing is referred to and consider
associating them with the image of steel.  The kind of steel
forming the skeletons of buildings, bridges and many physical
structures.  Imagine further that whichever term refering to "source"
refers to a cogent logical contruct or structure just as steel itself in
its final form is a precisely shaped physical structure.  Both share
unique properties in that they are intentionally designed to do work.
One does work in processing data in a specific manner; the other does
work in distributing, and managing units of force. 

Now for the really interesting part.  For both "source" and steel, it
matters not at all the nature of its origin.  Source, like steel,
depends upon the nature of the logic and science of its design.  If that
criteria is met then source can be in any "high-level" or other language
(which merely arranges the logic into a certain standard format, this is
very similar to how professional musicians rearrange their version of
music onto written musical notation.  If it helps you can think of
programmers similar to arrangers of logic as musicians are arrangers of
music as bad music like bad logic is always identifiable) and steel can
be constructed from any competent manufacturer on the planet.  

This is also why some texts and some programming "shops" discussing
details about computer programs use "pseudo-code" or "flowcharts", that
emphasize the logic of the program, as more important as opposed to the
nuances of the language itself.  

It is extremely interesting, and to the point, that for all the
development and experience now gained regarding computation the most
direct method of logical expression remains "psuedo-code" (which any
human can utilize for their own purposes as long as universal logical
constructs and rules are maintained) which to the despair of
mathematicians and computer scientists, has more to do with Philosophy 
utilizing logical principles and constructs known even to Pythagoras (or
even Socrates, certainly Diogenes), than any other discipline.  Given
that Philosophy is the analysis of structures of logic, which all
normal thought subsumes to then one can say that what seems to be
happening regarding technology is that more people actually think about
utilizing it for their own needs.  A funny and sad point regarding this
is the infamous story of someone who confused the function of a
microwave as being similar to a hair-dryer or blower, and put their cat
into it after a bath.  

This also indicates another difficulty regarding information and
technology.  No design can defeat the obstinate refusal of a consumer or
user to read the manual (including READMEs, HOWTOs, man, info etc.), and
instead cling to whatever a salesperson or ad has described a technology
as. There may always be the fellow who just comprehends enough to push
the button just as the salesperson did.  Such people rush out and buy
dells, who provide them will nearly unlimited technical support based in
India.  They get what they deserve; the refusal to think has painful and
untold consequences in this universe.  At least one former friend called
me, yelling,crying and cursing me for recommending a dell after the 5th
time of being shunted to India.  I reminded her that I recommended a
dell only after her insistence and refusal to get a Mac.

OK.  We are now at the level of a Graduate Student.  We understand that
the important thing is logic and that the syntax of computer language is
something that is relatively an issue of what logical concept we want
the computer to implement. This is exactly the type and kind of problem
where some computers are useful and others not, and the same can be said
for computer languages.  These nuances and topics are reserved for
advanced studies in Computer Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and so on.

For the purposes of this list and the questions you raised this is a
reasonably decent description.  Regarding distinctions between the Mac
and PC, those distinctions matter in the kind of work your thoughts lead
you.  For example: writing a program to add any 2 numbers is an
interesting exercise identifying their strengths and weaknesses across
different models.  Let's skip the simple stuff and trust both Mac's and
PC's can handle the likes of 2 + 2 = 4 and other things any modern
calculator can handle.  Where they differ exactly, varies but can be
tested and measured in how they handle error and precision.  Two
conflicting concepts - for a computer.

The problem of error is the same problem discussed in any basic good
physics and statistics course.  The problem of precision is a matter of
considering just how precise my numbers to be.  Do I want just integers
or do I want each and every number precise to two, six or higher decimal
place?  What if I want each number to be huge numbers on the various
orders of powers of 10? Say adding 2.4356*10^45 + 4.546*10^32 or
(-3.454*10^-34) + (-12.2432*10^-12). By the way, choosing the right
computer language to implement this kind of test is a factor affecting
both the answer you get and the interpretation you can derive.  This
gives you another clue why so many scientific and even business studies
(white papers) have to be examined very carefully and sometimes thrown
out, dumped and done over again completely from scratch.

The facts are that all computers are limited in what they can conceive
as integers, and very small and very large numbers.  Their memory
registers can only track so many variations that at the very beginning
before any calculation even begins the error of every calculation
introduced by the computer itself (called "machine epsilon" by Nakamura)
must be included into any equation so that the "real" and most likely
reasoned "ball-park" (the concept being that the computer selects an
answer in the ball-park in the same way a baseball player hits the ball
"in" the ball-park.  But what if the correct answer is out of the park?
That very interesting question is a matter of statistical analysis.)
figure is correctly determined.  

This is why scientific and statistical programming is such a fiendishly
demanding art; this is also why business programming or programming for
the business market is a lot less demanding.  Maybe I should say was...
still calculating a stock price within 10 decimals is nothing compared
to current scientific requirements in analyzing the molecular structure
of the Ebola virus.  The usual argument that pcs are "better" is based
upon the confusion of accuracy,processing power, and design.  The
argument goes similar to this: There are more games for the pc.  Games
require intense computing power.  PCs are better computers because there
are more games for it.

Programming games is a challenging job, but remember it remains a game,
an exercise in fantasy.  The components designed for it are specifically
for that activity.  I have not heard of a graphics board optimized for
games useful in the same way as other boards designed to work on
real-world issues/problems - molecular design/analysis or atomic
design/analysis.  Also the programming talent capable of optimizing such
systems are a finite and very different group of personalities.  The
programmer who wrote the programming controlling and processing an MRI
scan sent to a Mac is not the same fellow working and testing games in
Japan at an international games conference.  This becomes really an
issue of what you want to do with your time and life, and remember with
every breath there is less and less of both.  And consider this - in
developing games or engaging in gaming - no game has matched the wonder
of a great live performance in theatre, music or opera; nor has it even
matched the wonder that takes place when a child expresses awe and joy
at watching a butterfly.  Life, is OUT THERE; and contrary to the Xfiles
view, Truth is within.

The Mac and PC communities could not be more different.  Mac persons
consistently focus on taking the best technology and applying it to
needed and useful human work.  The Mac gets less "in the way" of a
development of an idea,concept or design than do other systems.  The
other big area where very huge or very miniscule numbers are important
are in the arts and music. This is another exclusively human activity
where the Mac explodes as a partner. Any photographer, designer or
artist I have ever heard of surviving in the big time uses Macs.

In brief, where the "wheel meets the road", computers with processors
such as existed even in the first Mac have orders of accuracy outdoing
every subsequent generation of the pc; ie. the engineering which Apple
engaged upon and still uses minimizes the machine epsilon effect in
calculations.  Most people know the Mac is better but not why.  The
explanation here helps you better understand why until you reach the
skills necessary to test these out for yourself.

--__--__--

Message: 11
From: "Dan Kahmann" <dkah197@earthlink.net>
To: yellowdog-general@lists.terrasoftsolutions.com
Subject: Re: OT: OSX mounting external firewire drive
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 07:33:47 -0600
Reply-To: yellowdog-general@lists.terrasoftsolutions.com

Don't forget to make sure you have created that mount point in your
/mnt/... dir , that pesky little detail get's me all the time ( can be
really 
aggravating !)

:)


> [Original Message]
> From: Joe Villari <joev_nylxs@pipeline.com>
> To: <yellowdog-general@lists.terrasoftsolutions.com>
> Cc: <clint.macdonald@sbcglobal.net>
> Date: 3/10/2004 7:01:59 AM
> Subject: Re: OT: OSX mounting external firewire drive
>
> > Don't you have to specify the mount point? Such as:
>
> I always get confused about that when you; I'll try.
>
> > 
> > [root]# mount -t hfs /dev/disk1s3 /Volumes/newdisk
> > 
> > Otherwise, can you see the disk using Apple's Disk Utility?
>
> I'm trying to mount a drive that is not mounting any longer by either 
> OSX or 9.2. This a last resort to help someone recover their data.
>
> Thanks Clint.
>
> Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> yellowdog-general mailing list
> yellowdog-general@lists.terrasoftsolutions.com
> http://lists.terrasoftsolutions.com/mailman/listinfo/yellowdog-general
> HINT: to Google archives, try  '<keywords>
site:terrasoftsolutions.com'

As this is a Linux list, I'll provide a Linux solution.  Use pdisk just
to look at your drive.  Do pdisk -l, it can see the firewire port under
the sda tree.  The mount point of the drive, if the drive has one, will
be identified by pdisk as the drive's name. Note the number; Linux will
see that number as sdaxx. Also it will identify other Apple created
portions of the drive.IF there is anything on it pdisk will identify how
much of the drive is used.

A rescue method from my "down and dirty" tricks black book is to create
a directory using mkdir within /mnt.  Eg. You are already within /mnt.
Then do:
mkdir saveme

In your home directory say the name is dan
cd /home/dan
mkdir tempsave
Afterwards do
mount -t hfs /dev/sdaxx /mnt/saveme

cd /mnt/saveme
ls 
and see what is there if anything you care to save.
then 
cp ./filename /home/dan/tempsave

Then you can continue to do whatever you are going to do with that
drive.  Recover and get the data off it first.

Should all this Linux stuff be a bit too creepy for you.  That's ok. 

Get tools like TechTools Pro, run its tests which are deeper than
Norton and more extensive and your drive whatever is wrong with it could
have a real nice chance of being restored.

One caveat, my recommendations regarding the drive works best if there
are two seperate drives.  One for Linux, the other for the Mac OS.
pdisk can destroy everything even if you do know what you are doing so
pay very detailed attention.  The only help you get from pdisk is a list
of its commands and that's it.  pdisk -l, is pdisk -l for list not 1 (as
in the number one).

Tech Tools Pro however just operates on the Mac, even if your drive is
partitioned to use Linux and MacOS on the same drive.  Tech Tools Pro
just "sees" the Mac.  IF you read this far you have learned at least one
thing - read the manual.  Especially read the manual of Tech Tools Pro. 
There are a developing core of disgruntled people who don't want to
think, they just want to push buttons (and somehow that should work -
that came from students who were studying to be teachers in the public
schools).  As usual, the power of the Force is yours ...
Have Fun... Remember Learning is a Lifelong process...if you are a Thinker.




-- 
Cherokee: Mitakuye Oyasin
English Translation: We are all related.

Better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees.
-- Dolores Ibarruri, 1936

Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political
freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free
market are corollaries.
-- Ayn Rand, "For the New Intellectual"

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form
of tyranny over the mind of man.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1800, as inscribed in the Jefferson Memorial

Be Well...