Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #590
From: Digestifier <Linux-Misc-Request@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU
Date:     Mon, 24 Jan 94 01:13:13 EST

Linux-Misc Digest #590, Volume #1                Mon, 24 Jan 94 01:13:13 EST

Contents:
  Re: FTP server under Linux anyone. (s345002@emu.insted.unimelb.edu.au)
  Re: Linux vs. NetBSD (Charles Hedrick)
  Help on interpreting GNU license and restriction (MUI-KIM NG)
  Re: Linux as X-Terminal? No! (David Barr)
  Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite (John F. Haugh II)
  Re: Bogomips Information Sheet (al-b@minster.york.ac.uk)
  Re: Linux as X-Terminal? No! (Mark A. Davis)
  Re: uucp 1.04 - looking for tester, _complete_ (better)version (Michael Will)
  Re: tape drives? (Michael Will)
  Re: RFV: Linux International proposal (Jay Lawrence)
  How to handle lzh files? (Peter Berger)
  Re: Linux Pentium workstations $3589 (J Rozes)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: FTP server under Linux anyone.
From: s345002@emu.insted.unimelb.edu.au
Date: 23 Jan 94 23:30:04 EST

In article <94021.0119133JJN3@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, <3JJN3@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
> Any one out there running a FTP server under Linux. I would like
> to set up a anonymous FTP server, I got the HW, but no SW. The internet
> connection will be SLIP using 28.8 K modems. CPU will be 486-66 with
> 4 GB Hard drive.

It comes standard with the "N" set of diskettes - the networking stuff.
Once you have IP connectivity, you'll automatically have anonymous ftp
setup for you.

[these comments valid for slackware 1.1.1 and should be correct for most
distributions of linux]

regards, David

------------------------------

From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Subject: Re: Linux vs. NetBSD
Date: 24 Jan 94 02:30:59 GMT

rv@cs.brown.edu (rodrigo vanegas) writes:

>But BSD source is free isn't it?  Why don't the linux network code
>developers simply copy it out?

I think the real answer is that it's more fun to write a new
implementation.  However there are also a couple of rational
justifications:

  - the BSD code is now fairly old.  Some people have claimed that
        a new implementation could get better performance, particularly
        in a Linux environment.  (There are some differences in 
        the kernels that may affect how one would interface networking
        code to it.)

  - there is still a suit in progress covering the free BSD code.
        While I am reasonably sure that the networking portion
        of the code is not at risk, courts have in the past made
        decisions that I consider irrational.  It's not entirely
        unreasonable (though perhaps it is bordering on paranoia)
        for the community to want an alternative to the BSD code.

Note also that you can't just take the BSD modules and insert them
into the kernel.  Some adaptation would be necessary to make them fit
into the Linux kernel.  Whether that adaptation would be more or less
work than fixing the existing Linux networking code is a matter of
debate.

I personally think that neither of the reasons above is very strong.
Berkeley has put an incredible amount of work into design and
performance, and in order to do better you'd at least have to start by
understanding their work.  (I say this despite the fact that I get
roughly twice the throughput for FTP's involving Linux than netBSD.
However it's hard to believe that this is a basic problem with the BSD
code.  Its basic capabilities are well known from other ports.  In
particular, it can saturate an Ethernet with a single TCP connection
using less processing power than our Linux systems have.)  The
networking portion of BSD had been distributed widely well before the
suit, and as I understand it ATT had agreed that that portion of the
code was OK to distribution.  So I don't think there's any real legal
issue.

The real answer is more practical: no one has done the necessary work.
There was actually a port of the netBSD networking code into Linux.  I
tried it briefly.  I thought it was very promising.  However there
were enough loose ends that the Linux code worked better.  I think the
community would have been better off to clean up that port than do
something new.  However the direction of Linux is determined by what
people are willing to put time into.  If everybody working on the
networking code is more interested in working on something new, it
doesn't matter if that makes sense or not -- 1,000,000 people could
want a BSD port, but if they're not willing to put their coding where
their mouth is, it doesn't make any difference.  I don't know what
Linus would do if different people sent him both a new TCP
implementation and a fully functional port of the BSD code.  He might
be inclined to stick with the GPL'ed code, or he might not.  But he
hasn't been presented with that choice yet.  I believe the current
Linux TCP can be made solid.  Since I don't have time to do my own TCP
for Linux, that's what I working on.  And I have just enough residual
paranoia about the legal system that I'm not sure that's a bad thing.
I can make excellent arguments that no possible outcome of the suit
could interfere with distribution of the BSD network code, but
lawyers just don't think like normal human beings.

------------------------------

Crossposted-To: gnu.g++,gnu.g++.help,gnu.gcc,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.help
From: mng@eos.ncsu.edu (MUI-KIM NG)
Subject: Help on interpreting GNU license and restriction
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 01:15:29 GMT

Hi Lawyers and law students out there (or anyone who understands the GNU
License agreement):

   Could you figure if these actions are legal? I like to use Linux as the
base operating system running my applications since it is a superior Unix
system.  However, since nobody out there offers commerical compilers and tools
for Linux, I have to use GNU tools and compiler to develop my applications.
   Here is my problem: I need money for school. So, I am planning to sell 
my applications to a potential customer.  These applications would use gnu
database and would be compiled gnu g++ and gnu gcc.  Is it still legal to
sell my applications?
   If it is not legal, then why can people sell Motif toolkit, 
which is compiled with GNU gcc?
   Any explanation would be appreciated.  Thanks!


Regards,
Kim

                No Flames please. These are geniune questions.


------------------------------

From: barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr)
Subject: Re: Linux as X-Terminal? No!
Date: 23 Jan 1994 22:07:55 -0500

In article <1994Jan20.053450.490@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>,
Pat Breen <pbreen@newcastle.edu.au> wrote:
>: You can buy color PostScript printers nowadays for under $1000.
>
>You can??  Do you mind telling me where you are sourcing them for
>that price?!??!?!?!?!?

Well, lessee, I don't have an up-to-date one, but grabbing a Computer
Shopper from Sept '93, I see ads for color HP DeskJet 500 and 550's for
$500-$700.   Grated these aren't PostScript, but...  I don't have the
exact price for the HP Color DeskJet we got (level 3 PostScript), but
I know it was under $1000.

--Dave
-- 
"All I know is I'm not a Marxist." - Karl Marx

------------------------------

From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 01:09:25 GMT

In article <2huf37$hpc@pdq.coe.montana.edu> nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu (Nate Williams) writes:
>Please explain in public your problems with the BSD copyright.

I got this by mail and responded, I'll respond more here.

>The BSD copyright says basically:
>1) This is copyrighted
>2) You can do anything you want with this but claim you wrote it.
>
>That's pretty much it.  That means you can't force folks to send you bug
>reports or send you money to distribute it (for profit or for free).

It's actually much more involved than that, but based on the inability
of the Linux distributors to read and obey the terms of my copyright, I
imagine they also can't read and obey the BSD one.  I mean, here is the
copyright notice from faillog.4 in the SLS 1.1 distribution --

        .\" Copyright 1989, 1990, John F. Haugh II
        .\" All rights reserved.
        .\"
        .\" Use, duplication, and disclosure prohibited without
        .\" the express written permission of the author.
        .\"
        .\"     @(#)faillog.4   3.1     09:34:18        21 Nov 1990

And it isn't like they haven't had 3 years to find, read, and understand
that one.  (This has been changed -- it will be the same as most other
files in 3.3.2)

>I see this as WAY less restrictive than your copyright.
>
>(Which to me is basically shareware for Unix.)

My copyright is freeware for UNIX.  It enforces the notion that you
shouldn't be able to charge someone else for something which you didn't
write or which you do not own.  Those Linux distributors who have been
reselling Shadow without my permission have been doing the moral
equivalent of selling you the Brooklyn Bridge.

A shareware copyright statement wouldn't grant you the right to use or
copy the software without paying at all for it.  The Shadow copyright
lets anyone copy the code, use it, paper the birdcage or cat box, so
long as the only fees involved are for transmission.  Admittedly this
dates back to when I could only think of people using FTP or UUCP to
get the code, so the notion of Shadow being put on a CD-ROM wasn't
thought of in '88.

My copyright was written with the same objectives as the GPL -- You can
fold, spindle, and mutilate the code anyway you want.  But I did two
things that I think the FSF =should= have done but didn't.

1). I retain control over the "real" version.  GNUware suffers from
    frequent "improvements" which make the programs too big to run on
    small systems, or alternatingly fixed then broken.
2). I do not allow you to sell it.

I did the first after seeing how huge many GNU programs (like EMACS --
it should bee in <errno.h> as "Editor too big") get to be and how
unreliable they frequently are.  The second was to prevent someone from
deciding it was nice software and they were going to make money off my
work.  After all, I did the work, I have a mortgage, a wife, a kid, an
electric bill, etc.

Anyone at anytime get distribute the code.  All that have to do is not
charge more than the cost of the physical media, or the cost of the
transmission.  That's it.  But if you insist on making money on my hard
work, then I'm just not going to let you copy it.  Life sucks some times.

At any rate, there is going to be an "officially supported" Shadow
package for Linux out sometime later this year.  The 3.3.2 release will
have much better Linux support straight out of the box and I hope to
license it to 3 resellers before too long.  You will still be be able
to give Shadow away if you don't get licensed, but only the licensed
resellers will be permitted to sell the Shadow version of Linux and the
README.Linux file will be explicit on that point.
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
The P.C. Movement killed the 1st Amendment, the Brady Bill the 2nd, the WOsD
got the 4th and 5th, political activism the 9th and 10th.  Not much left, eh?

------------------------------

From: al-b@minster.york.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Bogomips Information Sheet
Date: 23 Jan 1994 20:19:17 GMT

In article <2ht7fi$908@raffles.technet.sg>,
Mathias Koerber <mathias@solomon.technet.sg> wrote:
>In (<2hhgeq$3s1@klaava.Helsinki.FI>) Wim van Dorst (baron@clifton.hobby.nl) wrote:
>| [ Moderator's note: This is LaTeX code, for those who don't recognize it at
>|   sight.  --liw ]
>
>| 486DX2/66 ICL ErgoPRO     & 33.55 & mathias@solomon.technet.sg (Mathias Koerber) \\
>This was under SLS 1.03, the same machine (no changes) prints 33.22 under 
>Slackware 1.1.0. Any idea why this difference?

My 486DX2/66 with 0.99.13 kernel alternately prints 33.22 and 33.55!
The choice seems to be random, though it does seem to prefer the
33.55 (hooray).

Andrew.


------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.i386unix
From: mark@taylor.wyvern.com (Mark A. Davis)
Subject: Re: Linux as X-Terminal? No!
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 01:54:45 GMT

hasty@netcom.com (Amancio Hasty Jr) writes:

>In article <1994Jan22.045853.14352@taylor.wyvern.com> mark@taylor.wyvern.com (Mark A. Davis) writes:
>>doolitt@cebaf4.cebaf.gov (Larry Doolittle) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1994Jan21.021431.7956@taylor.wyvern.com>,
>>>mark@taylor.wyvern.com (Mark A. Davis) writes:
>>>> jasonh@chineham.euro.csg.mot.com (Jason Haar) writes:
>>>> 
>>>> >A Linux system with a minimal OS on HD, using NFS to mount software 
>>>> >(including X11 even) should give better performance than an Xterminal 
>>>> >because there are no bitmaps flying over the network.
>>>> 
>>>> That is incorrect.  Xterminals are highly X optimized, are there are no
>>>> "bitmaps flying over the network".  There ARE fonts, which should be cached.
>>>> To compete with an Xterminal, you would need a very fast video card &
>>>> network adapter.  And even then, it is a LOT more work to get it up and keep
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>Does the "lower long-term costs" include the load on the network and server?
>>
>>Yep.  The reduced maintenance overheads really do pay off, even factoring
>>those in.  Network loads are usually less than most workstation setups.

>It all depends on the hardware configuration, software packages and 
>the sysadm. We have two PCs over here and I seldomnly use NFS but
>if I want to I can use NFS. My minimal network configuration can
>be easily expanded to a large network. As for the maintenance cost
>or overhead it is also minimal over here due to the modularity of the
>system. If one system goes down, I still have another one. I don't
>have a single system which will cause a network failure such as
>the case of the X-terminals and one big system.

But nobody said you have to use just one big system with Xterminals :)
You very well could use several machines in one place, or as a semi-distributed
system if necessary.  In fact, it can be quite a practival solution in
some environments.

>Also, the graphic performance of my systems are mutually exclusive,
>again this is something to consider.

>Last but not least the graphic hardware is rapidly evolving and
>at least in the PC arena we can take advantage of the newer 
>technology much quicker than what any X-Terminal vendor can
>provide. Faster graphic cards for the PCs are due this year
>further widening the performance between X-Terminals and
>PCs. SGCS has claimed 245k stones for Matrox MGA graphic card
>to the best of my knowledge no X-Terminal can claim this.

Not to my knowledge- but rest assured that Xterminal speeds will most likely
increase also (its not an industry in a vacuum).  Personally, I think that
100k xstones is about all that is needed in most circomstances- it is very
much more comfortable than the < 10k xstone performance of typical ET4000
cards (a factor of 10) ; but I'm not sure that a factor of ten more
(1,000,000) would be that much more noticable (perhaps a human perception
thing).
-- 
  /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  | Mark A. Davis    | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 |
  | Sys.Administrator|  Computer Services   | mark@taylor.wyvern.com   .uucp |
  \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/

------------------------------

From: michaelw@desaster.sunflower.sub.org (Michael Will)
Subject: Re: uucp 1.04 - looking for tester, _complete_ (better)version
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 09:18:46 GMT

And still I do very much prefer the Taylor-Config and have i-protocoll
in front of the poor g-protocoll.

In fact when I installed the SLS-System I had to compile my own version
of Taylor-UUCP first to get it to work at all - the example files where
not only poor but utterly misleading and wrong.

Compiling it myself was an easy task because Taylor has made such a good
job with the selfconfiguration.

Taylor-Config is human understandible and well documented while HDB is not.
(Not human understandible at least). 

Just my personal opinion, though.

Cheers, Michael Will
-- 
Michael Will <michaelw@desaster.sunflower.sub.org>   Linux - share and enjoy :-)
Life is not there if you can't share it...        Hazel'O'Connor  Breaking Glass
Happily using Linux 0.99p13 with X11R5, \LaTeX, cnews/nn/uucp/slip and:     PGP!
!!!       new  mailadress:    will@peanuts.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de       !!!

------------------------------

From: michaelw@desaster.sunflower.sub.org (Michael Will)
Subject: Re: tape drives?
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 09:23:09 GMT

jaewan@uful07.phys.ufl.edu (Jaewan Kim) writes:
>What type of tape drive is best for linux?
Scsi-drive. I use the Wangtec-5525ES-SCSI-Drive, which can stream 525MB to
a tape, has QIC-60 read, and QIC-120 to QIC-520 read-write capability.

Cheers, Michael Will
-- 
Michael Will <michaelw@desaster.sunflower.sub.org>   Linux - share and enjoy :-)
Life is not there if you can't share it...        Hazel'O'Connor  Breaking Glass
Happily using Linux 0.99p13 with X11R5, \LaTeX, cnews/nn/uucp/slip and:     PGP!
!!!       new  mailadress:    will@peanuts.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de       !!!

------------------------------

From: jjlawren@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Jay Lawrence)
Subject: Re: RFV: Linux International proposal
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 05:05:01 GMT

In article <759199067snz@magnetic.demon.co.uk>,
Mr Sunil Gupta <comp.os.linux.misc@magnetic.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I would like to register a *No* vote, for the following reasons:
>
>  I feel that the marketing of linux is redundant, the product is already
>  well known. Novell, SCO, Microsoft and NeXT will be very hostile to a 
>  new contendor. 

I think, right off the bat, your opening comment would make my marketing
profs cringe.  I think we should be absolutely clear on what marketing
really means.  Marketing, in the sense that Patrick is meaing to convey,
isthe process of not only promoting a product but also the planning,
distribution, and pricing (in this case may not necessarily be $$$'s all
the time) of products that satisfy organizations' and individuals' needs &
objectives.

>  A commercially successful product isnt primarily determined by the 
>  quality of the product, but by the amount of resources thrown into 
>  the marketing campaign. It is worth remembering that, the clients 
>  will initially be non-technical management.

This is perhaps possible in a more product or sales driven market, butI
honestly feel that the computer industry is becoming much more market
driven.  In this case it will be the product's ability to satisfy the
consumer's needs and not the strength of the sales force.

>|-       promote the Linux operating system as a low-cost implementation of the
>|        Unix operating system.
>
>  I don't agree with a cost being attached to the Linux OS. If there is a cost
>  it should be a client commiting themselves to a support contract only.

When considering cost of a system it is more than the intial price you pay
when you get the system.  Cost also includes personnel time needed to support
the system and the cost of the applications, etc.  But, LI  would certainly
have its work cut out for it....

>
>|-       market and advertise Linux to those market segments that are deemed
>|        will benefit most from the adoption of this operating system
>
>  You will have to come up with some pretty convincing arguments to persuade
>  people to change from UNIXware/SCO/NT/NeXTstep/Solaris.

I don't think that you are making a fair comment here.  In this statement
Patrick is saying that marketing segments are those deemed to benifit from
adoption of Linux.  It is very well possible that the users of mainstream OS's
will not benifit from linux.  (for example, does Linux run on Sparc???)  But
what is being implied here is that there are many segements that could
benifit from Linux - hence they are the focus of marketing.

>|-       seek donations from various third-parties to allow the continued
>|        development of Linux
>  No. 

no....  what?

>|-       encourage third-party software developers in developing software for
>|        Linux in particular and Unix in general
>
>  if you really want to see > $500 commercial products available on linux, you
>  have to convince the 3rd party people that there is a market: market research

In time, give it time.  There will be lag times for the development of
necessary developer's tools, etc....but it will come.  We are beginning
to establish markets for Linux now.  Take for example the typeical Math/CS
university student.  Very good candidate for linux.  As well, the would be
good consumers of software such as Maple, mathematica, etc.  Right?  That
is just one particular example.  There are more I am sure, as well there will
be more appearing over time.

It is a bit of a catch-22, but essentially foundations of the organization
must be in place before things such as market rearch can occur.  Give it time.
I think that you are expecting this initiative to instantly be able to waltz
in and dominate markets...

>
>|non-profit making organsation
>
>No such thing exists (perhaps excepting the FSF).


This, I feel, is a very cynical statement, and holds little credibility.

>|Note that there will be many organisational and policy decisions that will need
>|to be made and it is expected that the general Linux community will not only
>
>people on the net are transient, policy makers would change every few months,

See above.

>
>|-       the setting up of at least three offices - one in the USA, one in
>|        Europe, and one for the Australasia region. Where will they be located?
>
>Offices cost money, charge rent etc.

Hence the seend for aquisition of operating funds, etc.  But these expenses
are not unsurmountable.

>|-       the organisational structure ie who reports to whom and how can
>|        everyone get involved?
>they can't you're talking 10s of thousands of people

I think you misunderstand.  Like many organizations there are many different
levels of participation possible.

>
>|
>|--
>In order for your organisation to succeed, you need to recruit experienced
>professionals in sales/finance. These people demand mega-bucks. A non-profit
>organistional will never have the resources to mount marketing campaigns.

Once again - my marketing prof cringes.  Of course NPOs utilize marketing
strategy and promotional vehicles.  I disagree that you NEED consultants
or socalled sales/finance professionals.  Remember that an NPO is not an
organization that has NO money...its goal is not to accumulate wealth.  For
example, look at a public library.  They have lots of money for buying books
and periodicals, as well they can afford some promotional campeigns, but 
they are also an NPO.
>
>I hope for your sake you get an overall no vote. The scale of the problem
>is much more than you can possibly imagine. Please rethink your aims
>and objectives otherwise you will create an unmanagable infrastructure with
>poorly defined milestones. Another problem you will face is communication 
>between the developers/support people on the net, and your clients.

Once again this is a really cynical point of view.  We will certainly expect
to run into problems if we were to maintain this sort of point of view.
Also you say the scale of the problem?  I don't see a problem, I see a project.

>Problems almost invariably scale up exponentially for the sort of 
>organisation you propose. I suggest you gain experience by trying 
>this project on a small scale.

I think from the tone of your post you imagine a large group of people
haphazardly trying to promote Linux as the right (only) way.  Rather
what LI is really trying to do is from a small group of people that will
attempt to deliver a viable product to a group of consumers.  As time
goes on that these two terms (product and consumer) will both change and
grow.  Of course this project will be focussing on smaller market segements
but that does not stop from the development of a well rounded organizational
plan.

In closing I would encourage readers of the newsgroup to consider
the expansions made here when commenting about the proposal to try and
overlook some of the 'off the cuff' responses that have been made
with respect to this thread.

Jay Lawrence

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 1994 12:27:05 MET
From: pit@p2.lxs.chg.imp.com (Peter Berger)
Subject: How to handle lzh files?

plasket@infi.net (Mark Plasket) wrote:

 >  I picked up the ingres04 files from sunsite, and they have an lzh
 >  extension.  The linux decompression utilities decline to handle
 > it.
 >  Any ideas as to where to file a Linux utility that will unpack
 > these files?  (I already checked elsewhere on sunsite)

How about trying 'lharc' ?

bye,
    Peter


------------------------------

From: jrozes@allegro.cs.tufts.edu (J Rozes)
Subject: Re: Linux Pentium workstations $3589
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 05:18:38 GMT

In article <1994Jan23.235028.23409@cs.ucla.edu> edwin@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Edwin Tisdale) writes:

   A Linux Pentium workstation is just a little faster than (and about one
   third of the list price of) a comparably equipped Super SPARC Model 41.

An ss10/41 for under $10,000...bzzzzt. Maybe without a cpu...

        [system configuration deleted]

This brings up some interesting questions. Suns aren't exactly known to
excel in i/o of any kind (I'm talking about workstations here), but how
do they compare to intel/linux boxes? Also, how does PCI compare to Sbus
in terms of speed, flexibility and robustness? Just curious...

jonathan

------------------------------


** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **

The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:

    Internet: Linux-Misc-Request@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU

You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:

    Internet: Linux-Misc@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU

Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
    nic.funet.fi				pub/OS/Linux
    tsx-11.mit.edu				pub/linux
    sunsite.unc.edu				pub/Linux

End of Linux-Misc Digest
******************************
