Maybe it's as simple as that sense of "having less in common" with sexuals, and not wanting to let them stand.  It is extremely important to me, as an "ally" of the asexual community (which I suppose is where I stand now) to continue respecting and working to understand why individuals choose to identify that way, and at the same time, I recognize that part of the reason I choose not to is because the dichotomoy of sexuality/ asexuality really bothers me.  For me, self-describing as asexual means buying into that sexy/ asexy binary, and I've never really met a binary I didn't feel the need to dismantle.  That said, I've clung to the term "gray-a" since I first found it; I never thought of asexuality as something strictly separate from sexuality, so I don't know how well that holds as an explanation of my feelings here.  Maybe I just worry that other people will see it asexuality and sexuality as mutually exclusive.  Because as much as I want a term that I'm comfortable with, a term that describes me well, I also don't want to feed into any more social division.  Us-and-them so easily becomes us-versus-them, you know?  That dark side of diversity has crawled under my skin of late, I think.

In other news, wish me luck in convincing the people in my life that really, it is necessary that we attend Pride next weekend.  (My second summer in the San Fran area, and for the second summer, people are flaking.)  Last year, my not going was practically headline news when I returned to the Midwest ("Lesbian Spends Summer in San Francisco and Does Not Attend Pride"), and could easily have led to my impeachment in the GSA over which I preside on-campus.   Ok, in truth, that's a slight exaggeration.  Maybe "I want to go, damnit" is substantial?  I'm leaning hard on people, so cross your fingers for me, if you would.

The aim here is to explore Patricia Collins' use of the concept of "Interlocking of Oppression" via Marx' primary definition of the "division of labor" as found in The German Ideology and in so doing, to open up both Collins' standpoint thinking and Marxist foundations to questions and development. First by considering Collins' appeal to the binaries of oppression, and then by looking to Marxist intellectual origins of bifurcation itself, it is my focus to show that the importance of examining the notion of a "simultaneity of oppression" (Collins S19) lies in the very diversity of production it exposes in the development of all materialist relations. Only by recognizing these multiplicities of domination and production, can novel or still silenced forms of oppression be uncovered and taken into moral account. Further, it is my hope that the ultimate question of the produced-a wider view of what is produced, and how it is produced-may then establish even greater relevance for Black feminist thinking.

When quoting the ambitions of Black feminist Anna Julia Cooper as paradigmatic, there is a sense in which Collins relies upon the very "construct of dichotomous oppositional difference" (S20) that she is otherwise at pains distance herself from. Principally, there is a subtle contradiction. For Cooper in her vision expresses a hidden and perhaps core binary which may lie beneath all other dichotomies, that of nature vs. culture:

We take our stand on the solidarity of humanity, the oneness of life, and the unnaturalness and injustice of all special favoritisms, whether of sex, race, country or condition...not till race, color, sex and condition are seen as accidents, and not the substance of life...is woman's lesson taught and woman's cause won...not the white woman's nor the black woman's, nor the red woman's, but the cause of every man and every woman who has silently writhed under a mighty wrong (S21).

The appreciation of this division, that of the produced class "humanity," as distinct from what is not human-obscured here by the ambiguous terms "life" and "unnaturalness"- may seem like a necessary, and indeed vital distinction for moral positioning. For it is within the context of "humanity" that one sees with greatest clarity the oppressive binaries, "black/white, male/female, reason/emotion, fact/opinion, and subject/object" (S20), which African-American women have found themselves diversely subject to and from which Collins' critical use of "interlocking oppressions" is derived. It should not be lost though that this distinction of the "human" also is an essentializing dichotomy, and as such, may prove foundational to the basic dichotomous ideas that for Collins ground and "crosscut multiple systems of domination" (S20). If so, one's non-oppressive aim might be not a return to the broadest of these dichotomies, but rather new divisions of even greater communicability. There would be no turning back to a primordial simplicity of dichotomy imagined to be more "natural", but only the more intricate and whole systems of relation, formed by giving voice, which recognize the oppressive nature of necessary divisions themselves.

It is significant that Marx starts from this same exact point, the emergence of the human from Nature, as a primary binary-what Collins and Cooper take as a direction, Marx makes as a beginning: "Man can be distinguished from animals by consciousness," he writes, "[humans] begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence" (Marx 150). What I would like to highlight, is that almost immediately Marx draws a distinction that momentarily seems to threaten the standing of women as producers, leaving their biological production of children potentially on the wrong side of the human vs. nature divide. "This mode of production," he states emphatically, "must not be considered simply as being the reproduction of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather it is a definite form of activity, a definite mode of life on their part. As individuals express their life, so they are" (150). But because the biological carrying and birthing of children by women, that reproductive labor, is for Marx human only when it is seen as a "mode of life," we see exactly the kind of line Marx is intellectually forced to draw in order to make a producer to a "producer" (α).

So Patricia Collins' exemplar and Marx seem to be on the same page regarding this fundamental distinction that will universalize what is human. Yet in this primary distinction the bifurcating action of dichotomies has already begun, the human has been broken off from the material, and production from its means. By separating the world into the mentally made and the materially found, the superior and inferior halves of binaries upon which oppressions are formed have been initialized.

But let us dig deeper into the nature of such line-drawing, a nature which will be made clearer in the principle of Marx' ‘division of labor,' the production of a new means of producing a thing to be used through a specialization of the workforce. The "degree to which the division of labor has been carried," says Marx, is shown by each "new productive force." And a "new productive force" is defined as something that is "not merely a quantitative extension of productive forces already known." Such a new force, that which exceeds that which is already known, "causes a further development of the division of labour" (150). When a plow has been invented, a new kind of metal is smelted, a population is enslaved, a production line is put in place, a town agora established, there is a new form of production, division of labor that increases relatedness-that is, a quantitative increase in the complexity of modes across which effects may pass. What is salient to my point here, is that the developmental degree is dependent upon newness itself, and newness is dependent upon what is already known. To return to our illustrative example, just as in the myth of a distinction that supposedly once made woman's reproduction into a "baby," so too new modes of production are framed by the recognition of material possibilities different than those already understood. The way something has been conceived in the past, its history, contributes to the material distinction as to whether there has been a new and productive division of labor. Marx' materially oriented examination of the human world begins with a mental recognition of historic differences.

Now these divisions of labor are readily taken by Marx to be such things as specializations of a workforce along particular tasks or modes of the produced: the slave, farmer, the serf, the blacksmith, the cog-maker, and then the legislator, the priest, the teacher; but there is nothing in this definition that restricts these productions to solely those of the economic sphere (β). In fact, beyond Marx' materialist aims (he seeks to foreclose the ideational as less real and subsidiary), because the very newness of divisions is dependent upon current states of knowledge and conception, one could argue that the economic character of the "division of labor" is solely that of the conceived-that Marx sees the division of labor strictly to be brought about at the moment of a division between mental and material labor (159), does not mitigate the productive dependence on thought in the entire process. Thinking and valuation creates difference. All material distinctions are mentally recognized, and all mental distinctions are materially manifested, if by degrees (γ). Indeed, what for Marx would place the reproduction of children on the right side of the nature/culture divide is in the fact that a birth is seen as an expression, as a mode of life (150). The point I put forth, beyond Marx' intention, is that what is humanly produced in the reproduction of babies-and analogously in all reproductions- is the category of "mothers," of "daughters," "sons," and so many other material instantiations of already-known differences. In this way one is to understand that the things we produce are not limited to instrumental material objects of use and exchange, things to be sold at market, but also to see that we produce ourselves, the material basis for known forces of production, and also that we are the fecund nexus of differences that may found new forces of production, through kinds of recognition, and recombination. There is a technology of selves.

So why is this important to Patricia Collin's argument for the "interlocking of oppression?" She convincingly sets forth the assertion that African-American woman speak from a unique place in history, that,

The oppression experienced by most Black women is shaped by their subordinate status in an array of either/or dualities. Afro-American women have been assigned the inferior half of several dualities, and this placement has been central to their continued domination (S20).

 The painful truth of this resonates throughout the claim of her position. It provides the far-reaching, crosscutting aspect power of her criticism. There are several trajectories of binary domination which have historically converged upon the African-American woman; as such, their voice becomes a voice that cannot be silenced by the privileging of any single binary as the primary complaint to be addressed. Collins asserts that attempts to "prioritize one form of oppression," as in traditional Marxism, and "handle the remaining types of oppression as variables" (S20), proves wholly deficient to a group that has historically experienced oppressive binaries with oscillation: one form of oppression at a particular time takes a dominant role, only to recede as another that takes its place. Taking the historical example of the male black rights movement, and citing feminist Sojourner Truth, Collins makes this point. Black men would eventually gain legal rights as men, but this would only lead to new gendered forms of domination for African-American women, obscured by changes on a particular front (S19). Further, there is a complex circuitry with which ruling parties enforce these dualities, for instance the essentialization of the passionate character of black women by whites justified their sexual abuse, but an alternate structuring of their essences as irrational was accomplished by keeping black women from literacy (S20). This shows a network of as-knownreproductions which extend beyond any simple stratification of class, race or gender. By seeing the pervasive and nexus nature of oppression, Collins calls one's attention to the diversity of what is produced in material instantiations of the new (δ).

Marx compares ideology to a kind of reflected image. Like the camera obscura, which guided the new realisms of Renaissance painters, upside down it actually reflects the material conditions that were thought by Hegel to be its products (154). If Marx made an essentialist mistake, it was not to see the complexity of vectors upon which his original definition of the "division of labor" could and does manifest itself. The newness of productions that depart from the known, are not just the specializations of the marketplace, but also new forms of oppression, new ways of exacting binaries to which peoples can be institutionally "assigned the inferior half" (Collins S20). Because what is "known," is essential to the "newness" that distinguishes the advance of the division of labor itself-a division which founds the very character of our interrelatedness-one must grasp just what it means to produce. There was a time in history when "blackness" was not known, and then a time that it became a new "quantitative extension" of what was known, a new productive force of the difference. It seems a simple, if not obligatory move to imagine that "blackness" only followed the economic "slave," but indeed as produced effects of difference, it is very likely that they developed on parallel but independent tracks. If ideology does indeed reflect the material means of production, as Marx imagined, perhaps it is most advantageous to understand that what is ever being produced in divisions of labor is a material form of newness, itself to be exchanged in circuits of power.

What African-American women have experienced is being the bodily producers of "blackness," of "womanness," of the "worker" to be segmented into organizations of the known (ε). Only more rarely have they been producers of "humanness." Their history of words, expressions, mannerisms and culture, what Patricia Collins sees as "different expressions of common themes" (S18), has become the material basis for those inferior half productions. When Ms. Collins argues for self-definition, and self-valuing (S18), and for and an emphasis on African-American Culture (S20), what she is radically arguing for is the organized reclaiming of that which has been produced. But not only this. She is also calling for a new "quantitative extensions of productive forces already known," a division of labor, though she does not frame her position consistently as such. Her appeal to a universal humanity that does not distinguish via substantive difference already relies upon a culture/nature dichotomy which classifies the human as essentially human against a backdrop of the non-human. This is a fair violation of anti-dichotomous principles for many moralists, for one need only make of all interactions "humanity" the guiding universal, a nice, clear biological, species-specific definition of justice. Yet there is an infinitely grayed, ever-productive boarder of the new that threatens even this class. The line between the humanity of the unborn, and the humanity of the agency of unionized and corporate persons for instance, defies such a clean moral judgment. And this essay suggests that such a move is not strictly possible.

What Patricia Collins' use of interlocking oppression points to is that binaries proliferate and extend themselves on any number of newly produced trajectories. While ‘the human,' may seem like a safe place to stop in our favor, what it ignores is that, as an examination of Marx's definition of ‘the human' shows, the bifurcation of the known into the newly known is a product of conscious development itself, it is the means of a growing interrelatedness. What interlocking oppression tells us is that the "oppressed" occur along any number of vectors, and very often with several such vectors converging on a particular people, a people whose very invisibility and silence may mark their status. What a radicalized version of Marx' division of labor tells us is that the freedom of the oppressed does not occur through a return to an primordial "whole," or an all inclusive depositing of people on the right half of conceptual binaries, but through the political production of new forms of voiced power, the countermanding of the products of one's own image, the seizing of the knowness of one's material existence. As Patricia Collins draws upon the lived experiences of the oppressed, the actual wisdom and analysis of Nancy White for instance (S17), her standpoint theory becomes the material reorganization of what was once historically organized in a different way. In so doing, exactly in accord with Marx' vision, she allows what was once taken as material to speak, and in speaking to bring material change.

(α) The ideological component of this core distinction may not seem immediately evident. But illustrative of the resonant ideological aspect of even this most basic division, nature vs. culture, "reproduced physical existence" vs "distinct mode of life," when reflected back upon something as simple as childbirth, is two-fold: one, women as the physical bearers of children ever threaten to fall materially on the silent, not-yet-human side of production, the side of the speechless "body"; and two, in that the meaning of biological reproduction is human only to the degree that it is culturally framed; the ideas that frame it are substantial in determining the place such reproduction has in social contexts. Its power and place are circumscribed and directed.

(β) The family and its gendered and age divisions as an Ur-type for Marx (156), indeed blurs the economic foundation of such distinctions, for although certainly one can see the significant economic core of recognitions of wife, son and daughter, the original cognizance of those gender and age differences certainly seems to transcend, or at least foreground even economic distinction. The awareness of difference must precede its function.

(γ) When the first homo sapiens looked up into the night sky and recognized the moon as a distinct object, was this material labor, or mental labor? Marx would claim that nothing "material" was produced, but because material relations between persons would be changed, those material relations-gestures, words, rites, amulets-would instantiate that newly conceived production. The newness of a moon is definitionally no different than the newness of a plow, so conceived, in that each produces a material increase of relatedness. And if a plow is insisted to be indistinctly new until it is actually fashioned, then so might also the a moon be thought so until fashionedwith gestures, words and rites. The ideational and the material in terms of the produced are not separable.

(δ) Marx attempts to foreclose these seemingly ideational productions because he does not wish to acknowledge the full ideational character of his original bifurcation...newness of relations conceptually produced. In seeking to drive his analysis away from ‘the conceived' he does not fully recognize the material effects of all conceptions. In seeking to reduce all production to objects of industry, his analysis, and the analysis that is derived from his intent, does not appreciate the industry of distinction alone, that ‘objects' are formed of relations alone, and hence are more plentiful and diverse than he might have allowed. Glances are exchanged as well as crops. His foundational dichotomy human/nature is not in error, simply not fully explored by Marx

(ε) The question of agency is central here, as one comes to grip with conceptions of historical determinism. While "blackness" and "womanness" can be described as historically  produced, the empowering thought behind the critical dialogue between Collins and Marx, is that just as workers in Marx are awakened so to take hold of the means of their production, so too are subjected groups, and individuals themselves awakened to take hold of the means of their social production. In terms of agency, moving from a passive to an active, self-determining state, as a black woman realizes that she is producing the actual"blackness" and "womanness", the material instantiations, the thereness of each, upon whose circulation the economy of the social whole relies, she then is called to lay claim to those productions, just as a worker does of cogs.

Collins, Patricia Hill. (1986) "Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought." Social Problems. 33: S14-S32.

Marx, Karl. (1978 [1846]) "The German Ideology: Part I" (selections). In The Marx-Engels Reader. Ed. Robert C. Tucker, 146-175. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Furthermore, as we have already mentioned, heuristics that govern a formal system designed to play a game (like chess) can be understood to be much more context-independent than rules of the form, "Look up your position in an opening book and make the indicated move." It is important to note, however, that context-dependence is not a binary quality -- but rather a spectrum. Consider a simple game in which two players are competing to acquire the largest number of stones, which are initially residing in a central pile. The rules are that, on your turn, you may 1) take a stone from the central pile, or 2) put a stone back into the central pile. The best strategy in this (rather boring) game should be obvious: "On your turn, take a stone. Never put one back."

Within this simple game, the winning heuristic can be considered context-free. It doesn't matter how many stones are in the central pile, or how many stones your opponent has, or how many previous moves have been played -- you always want to take one stone. This heuristic depends on no other game-related concerns.

In chess, most (if not all) rules are more dependent on context than in the previous example. Some rules are more context-dependent than others because they have their context built into them explicitly: i.e. "If your position looks like this (context), always play this move (transition)." But most of the truly interesting heuristics are more context-independent: like, "Control the center," and "Don't bring your queen out early."

Ironically, the really tricky parts of stupefying a task involve trying to apply such more-or-less context-independent heuristics in their proper context. (We should certainly note that, "more-or-less context-independent heuristics" are a far cry from context-free heuristics.) When is it best to control the center? How early is too early with regard to bringing the queen out? Should one bring out one's queen early if that leads to controlling the center? How does one decide between two context-independent heuristics? How does one decide just how context-independent a particular heuristic is? This will be the subject of the next post.

the anonymous, exist only by their perish trace(s),
any scent of baud and binaries.
the fakenameous, exist using fake identity(ies),
what-so-ever distraction and deception.
the rest, i don`t need to name it anymore.

the third always be the most fragile from identity theft.
(it should be 'identity fraud', since identity can`t be owned)
yet the first would be fragile too since they had involved in
the cyber of no-where world.

the anonymous just like ghost that never exist, just like a myth.
anyone could be an anonymous, as possible as they would be known.

This in itself can be read (at least) two ways, I suppose.  What I mean first is that I haven't read Neuromancer, but I keep reading about it and William Gibson.  This is similar to reading Ciritcal Theory and Science Fiction or Archaeologies of the Future without having read Man in the High Castle.  Guilty.  Perhaps, its the term "cyberpunk" that has dissuaded me from Gibson.  Perhaps.

I am interested by Chun's effort on this text, though, for its focus on *text* - specifically her comment that "high-tech Orientalism also renders Gibson's text something other than mere text" (195).  I am preoccupied with the artifice of the book (and by this I mean, briefly and inconclusively, the relation of non/fiction, narrative, text and experience), so this concept is a frequent destination for my rambling thought process.   I did appreciate the careful argument concerning Orientalism and think it seems to be an important one in regards to Neuromancer and Blade Runner.  And there is fertile ground in discussing hybridity of text and the binaries of Orientalism (and cyborgs, too, of course) as relates to Ghost in the Shell.  But, that won't be happening here and now, as that's far too much for me to wrap my meagre brain around, especially in combination with this whole *text* thingy...

I'm going to inevitably fumble this, because it is a thought in progress, so I openly invite counterpunches and questions, shrugs and blank stares.  Chun follows the above quote by tying this textual multiplicity (of function? effect?) to the representational - Gibson's creation of the text to a soundtrack (punk) and the text as filling a need for a spatial/visual deficit in actual technological methods of representation (cyberspace).  The latter is interesting to me as it seems to be complicit with the genre-ization of SF, as characterized by definitions that incorporate the temporal shifts (SFnal past as real present, SFnal future as real present - a la Jameson, Delany and Gibson ipso).  In other words, the SFnal future of Neuromancer dictates the goals of the current network.  In this sense, text is product and producer - a rough analogy to the aforementioned temporal paradoxes/coincidences.  

More interesting to me is the idea of coded data and real experience.  (Another way of wording this might be disembodies v. bodied.)  It seems, in Neuromancer, there is a (understandable and practical) disconnect between the realities and possibilities of the coded world in comparison to the real world.  Roughly, virtual reality experiences are less *real* than real reality experiences.  In other words, the internal reality of the text's VR/cyberspace/jacking fails to become an effective hyperreal experience and does not destroy the binary of real/virtual.  (I don't know if its fair to characterize this as "failure" or expected, which would depend on your view of the potential of the internet.)  Yet, in another manner, the creation (above) and analysis of the text complicates this binary: Chun is able to point that the East-West binary breaks down in Case's own mistakes and even positions the text (and not-so-subtly here reading of the text) as perhaps a "brilliant critique of Orientalism in general" (192).  

Is this one possibility of the text being more than "mere" text?  

I would argue, in general, that the treatment of text as critical subject blurs the distinction between fiction and real object, as representations are given treatment as realities.  The transmittal of emotion and experience through text is another case of this, to me.

The second major thing we've done lately is introduce a Continuous Integration (CI) server which produces regular builds and monitors for build failures. Right now it is configured to produce a new build after every commit - the result of which will be copied to our new builds repository at http://builds.opensimulator.org/

Enjoy - and thanks to everyone involved who helped get this setup!

Adam

here is a list of things i don't believe in:

binaries, the sole use of phonetics in teaching children, monotheism, monogamy, capitalism, the war on drugs, area 51, tax "relief", alphabetical grades, busywork, bureacratics, war, the difficulty of citizenship exams, the concept of an "illegal" human being,  religion for the purposes of anything other than comfort, hell, heaven, the idea that "everyone has a purpose", art within confines, lobbyists, middle-men in general, the punitive nature of the justice system and the resulting expectations of american citizens, pure communism, any kind of anarchy,  true selflessness, wastefulness, the criminalization of marijuana, the reduction of humans to dollar amounts, concrete thinking, true loves, best friends, great tragedies, prescriptive grammar, unlivable wages, doctors, western medicine in general, conservatism, the FCC, the DEA, the FDA, fur as fashion, the living conditions of livestock, a single truth, an honest retelling of a story, a non-biased history, the two-party system, the distribution of wealth, most mass-produced major label music, the unbearably unaffordable cost of higher education, required courses, the DCMA, the knowing production of unhealthy foods,  the nomenclature used to describe depression (mental disease) and mania (personality disorder),  the DSM,  privatized medicine,  "free trade" and the movement of espresso as an accessory and not an art form.

so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

in other news...

you want my hands, heart and crown?

well, i'm an irish girl, so you damned well better believe i'll deliver.

and if it's not enough,

then maybe i'm not the problem.

Εγκατέστησα από το διαχειριστή πακέτων της διανομής μου, ή κάνοντας compile με ./configure, make και make install μια εφαρμογή. Που πήγε το εκτελέσιμό της; Ποιο είναι και που βρίσκεται το αρχείο που εκτελείται όταν τρέχω την εφαρμογή;

Αν κάποιος δεν σκοπεύει να ασχοληθεί σοβαρά με τη διαχείριση του συστήματος ή δεν ενδιαφέρεται να μάθει σε βάθος το λειτουργικό σύστημα, δεν θα χρειαστεί να ασχοληθεί με αυτή την ερώτηση. Στο 99% των περιπτώσεων κατά την εγκατάσταση μιας εφαρμογής με οποιοδήποτε τρόπο το πρόγραμμα εγκατάστασης αναλαμβάνει να αντιγράψει τα αρχεία της εφαρμογής σε προβλεπόμενες τοποθεσίες και να δημιουργήσει καταχωρήσεις στο μενού του γραφικού περιβάλλοντος, έτσι ώστε η εφαρμογή να είναι προσβάσιμη είτε με κλικ στο αντίστοιχο εικονίδιο στο μενού είτε από κονσόλα με απλή αναφορά στο όνομά της. Αν π.χ. εγκαταστήσαμε το πρόγραμμα xchat, μπορούμε να το εκτελέσουμε είτε εντοπίζοντας την αντίστοιχη καταχώριση στο μενού του gnome ή του kde (ή όποιου άλλου γραφικού περιβάλλοντος χρησιμοποιούμε) ή γράφοντας στο τερματικό απλά "xchat" και πατώντας enter, χωρίς να χρειάζεται να ξέρουμε που ακριβώς βρίσκεται το εκτελέσιμο αρχείο. Το σύστημα στην πρώτη περίπτωση μέσω της καταχώρησης στο μενού και στη δεύτερη συμβουλευόμενο τη μεταβλητή περιβάλλοντος $PATH θα εντοπίσει το εκτελέσιμο και θα το τρέξει.

Η μεταβλητή περιβάλλοντος $PATH περιέχει μια λίστα με τους καταλόγους στους οποίους γίνεται αναζήτηση για εκτελέσιμα αρχεία όταν δοθεί κάποιο όνομα εφαρμογής από την κονσόλα. Για να δείτε τα περιεχόμενα της $PATH αρκεί να δώσετε στο τερματικό την εντολή:

echo $PATH

Στο ubuntu μου η παραπάνω εντολή επιστρέφει:

/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/games

Οι κατάλογοι είναι χωρισμένοι με ":". Από την παραπάνω γραμμή καταλαβαίνουμε ότι το σύστημα ψάχνει για εκτελέσιμα με τη σειρά από αριστερά προς τα δεξιά στις εξής τοποθεσίες: /usr/local/sbin, /usr/local/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/bin, /sbin, /bin και/usr/games.

Γενικά τα εκτελέσιμα των εφαρμογών σε ένα linux σύστημα βρίσκονται συνήθως σε κάποιον από τους παρακάτω καταλόγους:

• Στο /bin αν πρόκειται για βασικές εφαρμογές-εντόλες του συστήματος.
• Στο /sbin αν πρόκειται για βασικές εφαρμογές-εντολές που η χρήση τους σχετίζεται με τη διαχείριση του συστήματος.
• Στο /usr/bin αν πρόκειται για εκτελέσιμα προγραμμάτων που ανήκουν στη διανομή και έχουν εγκατασταθεί μέσω αντίστοιχου πακέτου.
• Στο /usr/sbin αν πρόκειται για εκτελέσιμα μη βασικών προγραμμάτων που ανήκουν στη διανομή και η χρήση τους σχετίζεται με τη διαχείριση του συστήματος.
• Στο /usr/local/bin αν πρόκειται για εφαρμογές που δεν ανήκουν στη διανομή και έχουν εγκατασταθεί πρόσθετα στο σύστημα με μεθόδους που δεν υποστηρίζει ο διαχειριστής πακέτων της διανομής (π.χ. compile από κώδικα, εγκατάσταση binary μορφής προγράμματος που δεν προέρχεται από τη διανομή)
• Στο /opt βάζουν καμιά φορά τα εκτελέσιμα και άλλα αρχεία τους προγράμματα που κατεβάζεις σε binary μορφη και τα εγκαθιστάς με κάποιο ./install εκτελέσιμο.
• Στο ~/bin του κάθε χρήστη μπορεί να υπάρχουν (ανάλογα με τις ρυθμίσεις του συστήματος) εκτελέσιμα εφαρμογών που έχει εγκαταστήσει ο χρήστης μόνο στο λογαριασμό του και όχι system-wide.

Οι παραπάνω κανόνες δεν είναι απόλυτοι και μπορεί να υπάρχουν μικροδαφορές από διανομή σε διανομή ή να έχουν παρακαμφθεί ή αλλοιωθεί από το διαχειριστή του συστήματος (π.χ. τίποτα δεν εμποδίζει κάποιον να κάνει install από κώδικα μια εφαρμογή που δεν διατίθεται από τη διανομή του, και να πει στο install script να αντιγράψει τα εκτελέσιμα στο /usr/bin (ή οπουδήποτε αλλού) και όχι στο /user/local/bin που θα έπρεπε σύμφωνα με τον παραπάνω κανόνα να μπουν).

Πολλές φορές είναι χρήσιμο να μπορέσουμε να εντοπίσουμε το εκτελέσιμο μιας εφαρμογής ξέροντας το όνομα κλήσης της. Αυτό γίνεται με την εντολή "which" (από το τερματικό). πχ:


$ which firefox
/usr/bin/firefox

$ which mount
/bin/mount

$ which fsck
/sbin/fsck

Τέλος, σε αυτή τη σελίδα του ελληνικού linux format μπορείτενα διαβάσετε μια πλήρη περιγραφή και επεξήγηση της δομής του συστήματος αρχείων του linux, ενώ στο παρακάτω σχεδιάγραμμα (κάντε κλικ για μεγέθυνση) φαίνεται σχηματικά η δομή του συστήματος αρχείων.

Ενημέρωση-επέκταση (19/03/2007):

Ακόμη δύο πράγματα που ίσως φανούν χρήσιμα όταν ψάχνουμε το εκτελέσιμο μιας εφαρμογής:

Αν τρέχουμε την εφαρμογή από το μενού του γραφικού περιβάλλοντος και δεν ξέρουμε το ακριβές όνομα κλίσης της από την κονσόλα, τότε μπορούμε να μαντέψουμε. Το όνομα κλίσης των περισσότερων εφαρμογών είναι το όνομα της εφαρμογής. Π.χ. για να τρέξουμε το xchat απλά δίνουμε στην κονσόλα "xchat" (ακολουθούμενο από enter φυσικά). Με την ίδια λογική το εκτελέσιμο του gimp είναι ένα αρχείο με όνομα gimp (και τρέχει γράφοντας "gimp") κλπ.

Στη σπάνια περίπτωση που το όνομα του εκτελέσιμου δεν συμπίπτει με το όνομα της εφαρμογής (ή δεν ξέρουμε ακριβώς το όνομα της εφαρμογής ή αυτό είναι περίπλοκο) μπορούμε να βρούμε το όνομα του εκτελέσιμου ή και την πλήρη διαδρομή του (δηλαδή το που βρίσκεται και ποιο είναι το όνομά του) ανοίγοντας για επεξεργασία το μενού του γραφικού μας περιβάλλοντος. Σε περιβάλλον gnome κάνοντας δεξί κλικ πάνω στο μενού "Εφαρμογές" επιλέγουμε επεξεργασία. Στο παράθυρο που θα εμφανιστεί πλοηγούμαστε από την αριστερή περιοχή μέχρι να εντοπίσουμε την καταχώριση που αναφέρεται στην εφαρμογή που μας ενδιαφέρει και κάνοντας δεξί κλικ πάνω της επιλέγουμε "ιδιότητες". Το πεδίο με ετικέτα "Εντολή" περιέχει αυτό που θέλουμε να μάθουμε. Σε περιβάλλον KDE λογικά θα υπάρχει κάποια ανάλογη διαδικασία.

Επίσης πολύ χρήσιμο σε περιπτώσεις που ξέρουμε ή φανταζόμαστε πως ξεκινά το όνομα κλήσης μιας εφαρμογής, αλλά δεν το πετύχαμε ακριβώς με την πρώτη, είναι το autocompletion του κελύφους του τερματικού. Έστω ότι πχ. ψάχνουμε για το εκτελέσιμο του googleearth και δεν καταφέραμε να το μαντέψουμε με την πρώτη. Γράφοντας στο τερματικό "goog" και πατώντας το πλήκτρο tab, το κέλυφος θα συμπληρώσει αυτόματα αυτό που γράψαμε με τα ονόματα εκτελέσιμων που αρχίζουν από "goog" . Αν αυτά είναι περισσότερα από ένα τότε ένα μπιπ θα μας πληροφορήσει ότι μπορούμε να δούμε μια λίστα με όσα εκτελέσιμα βρίσκονται στο $PATH και αρχίσζουν από "goog" πατώντας άλλη μια φορά το πλήκτρο tab.

Τέλος η εντολή locate που πραγματοποιεί αναζήτηση σε όλα τα αρχεία του υπολογιστή μας μπορεί να φανεί χρήσιμη αν ξέρουμε περίπου τι ψάχνουμε (μην ανησυχείτε, είναι πολύ γρήγορη γιατί διατηρεί σε μια ενημερωμένη βάση τα ονόματα και τις θέσεις όλων των αρχείων μας και δεν ψάχνει τη στιγμή της κλίσης της όλο το δίσκο). Π.χ. κάποιος για να βρει πως ονομάζεται το εκτελέσιμο του google earth θα μπορούσε να τρέξει την εντολή

locate earth

ανάμεσα σε αυτά που θα επιστρέψει η locate στο παράδειγμά μας (που ίσως είναι πάρα πολλά και θα πρέπει να τα φιλτράρετε με διασωλήνωση σε μια εφαρμογή όπως το grep για να βγάλετε άκρη) θα δείτε να αναφέρονται πλήθος αρχείων που η τοποθεσία ή το όνομά τους περιέχει το κείμενο "googleearth". Να μαντέψω; Μάλλον το εκτελέσιμο του google earth θα λέγεται κι αυτό googleearth. Πράγματι:


$ which googleearth


/usr/bin/googleearth


More information about the software is available on the DL page:
KDE APPS - Kompile

ich habe gestern abend noch etwas weiter programmiert und meinem Emulator Small AVR machine einen Stack verpasst. So werden jetzt auch

• PUSH
• POP
• RCALL
• RET

unterstützt. Weiterhin sind auch

• BREQ
• RJMP
• JMP
• NOP

implementiert worden. Achso - wenn einer von euch die Maschinencodes der AVR-Instructions hat - immer her damit. Ich möchte nämlich sehr gerne auch die Ausführung von Binaries auf AVR simulieren können. Danke =)

Achso - und für die die Interesse haben mal zu schauen was so geht: http://rapidshare.com/files/75139589/sam.zip.html is the place to go. Enthalten sind eine Minidoku und das Programm als JAR. Einfach das ganze mittels java -jar sam.jar starten und sich die möglichen Befehle mit h anschauen oder die Minidoku durcharbeiten.

Viel Spaß

In the course "Developing Distributed Services" I modeled and simulated DECS with GPenSIM (a MATLAB Petri net tool), and the report can be found here. I'm thinking if maybe some of that might be interesting to include in the DECS report as well.

I looked into doing some cross compiling with gcc so that all the binaries could be compiled on the same machine. What you have to do is to build binutils, gcc and glibc for each target platform. It's a bit of a stretch so currently I'm sticking with the slightly more cumbersome, but fully working method of just compiling the program on the platforms I need and manually copying the binaries to the BOINC server.

NOTE: This post has been imported from my old it's learning ePortfolio DECS blog.

I've downloaded the BOINC VMWare virtual machine and configured a local BOINC server with the uppercase sample application. I also downloaded the BOINC source code (including sample applications) and successfully compiled the sample applications for the i686-pc-linux-gnu, windows_intelx86 and windows_x86_64 platforms. Then I deployed the newly compiled application versions to the BOINC server and tested the one for windows_intelx86.

I encountered another strange problem with VC++ when I tried to compile the BOINC sample applications. Some "access denied" error kept showing up when VC++ tried to embed some manifest to the executables. It disappeared when I turned off manifest embedding. Later when I had successfully compiled all the sample applications I turned the manifest embedding back on and the problem was nowhere to be seen. Standard Microsoft logic I guess. Not that I care what the manifest thing does anyways.

I've also figured out a way to parallelize the Dancing Links algorithm, so implementing that will be the main focus from now on, along with writing on the report. The end result will be that the matrices being sent to the worker nodes will be smaller than the original matrix. This will require some changes to the file format and also a smart way to merge the results back together. Hopefully I'll have a distributed computing sytem that actually works by the time the deadline rears its ugly head.

NOTE: This post has been imported from my old it's learning ePortfolio DECS blog.

- une connexion qui vous le permet (Free ou un accès payant par exemple avec Giganews)

- pour les autres ... ça marchera pas, oubliez tout de suite

Le software Installer un bon grabbeur de binaries : Pan

$ sudo apt-get install pan

Installer la version non-free de unrar (sinon vous ne pourrez pas concaténer les fichiers rar décodés)

$sudo apt-get install unrar-non-free

Comment gérer le format xtm ?

Une version Linux de xtremsplit existe (il y a un même un GUI)

$ sudo apt-get install tuxtremsplit

... il ne vous reste plus qu'à configurer votre serveur de news, dans les préférences de Pan pour free : news.free.fr

Attention : laisser le nombre de flux à 4 chez ce fournisseur d'accès, si vous mettez plus, vous vous ferez virer.

The good news is that I've received two much needed reference books:

• "The C Programming Language, Second Edition" by Kernighan and Ritchie
• "The C++ Programming Language, Special Edition" by Stroustrup

I admit that I liked Kernighan and Richie's book best because it's about 700 pages shorter than the one by Stroustrup and it's more to the point. I'm thinking about reading the C book from beginning to end because I like K&R's writing style. Even though C++ is a more comprehensive language than C, a significant portion of the content in the C++ book feels superficial. It's a good reference book, but not one that I would read from beginning to end. In that respect I prefer Bruce Eckel's two "Thinking in C++" books.

I finally wrote the missing code for initializing the "boolean matrix circular quad-linked list" (BMCQL) data structure used by the DLX algorithm. That means that the libdlx library is more or less functional. However, not everything went according to plan. I spent about 6 hours to debug some silly mistakes I did in a couple of getters and setters. I was almost certain that I was doing something wrong with some of the pointers, but strangely enough they appeared to work without a hitch. On the bright side at least I gained a much better understanding of how pointers work.

A program using libdlx to solve exact cover problems has also been written. I've simply called it "dance". It has been used to verify that the DLX algorithm has been implemented correctly. I've only tried it on a couple of small matrices I have written by hand, but I'll soon test it on some n-queens problems as well.

By successfully implementing the DLX algorithm the first milestone of the project has been achieved. The completion of the second milestone will be announced as soon as I've been able to verify the correctness of the implementation by running it through some of the n-queens problems.

I've added some pseudo code to the report about the BMCQL data structure initialization and written more about the implementation. The dance program and the DLX library version 0.1 has been released on Google Code. The binaries are only available for Windows, but it shouldn't be too much of a problem to compile it in Linux. A basic makefile will be added shortly.

Update: As you might notice I also figured out how to reorder the posts into reverse chronological order. Unfortunately I've been unable to find my way back to where this functionality is hiding so this post is stuck in the wrong position (at the bottom).

Update: After some research I found the ordering functionality. On the Portfolio page where you have a list of the portfolio elements you have to change the category. Use the drop down list on the right side and change it to "No category" (or whatever category you're trying to sort) instead of "All" in order to access the ordering mechanism. Makes perfect sense, right?

Update: The BOINC homepage appears to be back online.

NOTE: This post has been imported from my old it's learning ePortfolio DECS blog.

Essayez gratuitement l'offre de Giganews

No guarantees that it'll work, but I want to “do my part” and help a little. :D Because I know that the binaries are easier than the sources and that at least a couple of people are after this.

Click here to download the package (20.6MB via Mediafire)

r

Go to alt.binaries.nl and look up Spiderman, for example (a Sony property) - oooo dear

When I first saw Guba, it pleased me to see more innovation for web-based access to newsgroups (still the BEST posting / comment / threading blog/forum type system there ever was).I did my bit to help get alt.binaries.podcasts set up. I have always seen binary newsgroups as a possible (limited timespan) storage method for podcasters. Free global distribution too!

Usenet is RIPE for OPML and RSS connection!

PHP should be able to access newsgroups via IMAP.