Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #335
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:     Wed, 29 Jun 94 12:13:12 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #335, Volume #2                Wed, 29 Jun 94 12:13:12 EDT

Contents:
  Re: slipstuff.tgz -- Scripts for SLIPping up (Christian Holtje)
  Re: Word Perfect (Romano Giannetti)
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (David Charlap)
  Re: SCO and Linux (Howard P. Henson)
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (Todd Walk)
  Re: Does a Panasonic CR-563-B CD-ROM drive act like a CR-562? (A.J. Haverkamp)
  Linux Sony CDU33A support (Hans Michael Pronk)
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (David Charlap)
  S: P9000 driver (Orchid) for Linux (XWindows) ??? (Bert Hartmann)
  Re: XDM from inittab (J. M. O'Donnell)
  [HELP] Minicom just hanging... (WORLD CUP '94)
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (Tim Cutts)
  Re: Difficult Linux Instructions... (Matt Welsh)
  Re: Only 7000 Linux boxes, Re: Multiport Bored ... (Greg Shaw)
  Re: Only 7000 Linux boxes, Re: Multiport Bored ... (Greg Shaw)
  Re: Future of Debian Linux (Steven Buytaert)

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

From: choltje@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Christian Holtje)
Subject: Re: slipstuff.tgz -- Scripts for SLIPping up
Date: 27 Jun 1994 23:01:16 GMT

choltje@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Christian Holtje) writes:

Gee!! My brain must have fallen out SUnday. Somehow I managed to
forget to put the main script into the package.

So I reloaded it as slipstuff-1.0.1.tgz  in the same place as my
previous attempt (sunsite.unc.edu /pub/Linux/Incoming for now)

Thanks to all those who sent me mail!

        -Doc
-- 
    ---     ---     ---   -      -  -  -   ---  -----  docwhat@uiuc.edu
   +   -  +    -  +      +      +  -  +  -   +   -    CS major at Illinois
  *   +  *    +  *      *  +   *  +*+*  +*+*+   *    --- finger me at ---
 ****     ***     ***   **  **   *  *  *   *   *    choltje@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu

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

From: romano@pimac2.iet.unipi.it (Romano Giannetti)
Subject: Re: Word Perfect
Date: 29 Jun 1994 10:57:27 GMT

In comp.os.linux.misc, Mark A. Davis (mark@taylor.infi.net) wrote:
> cmiller@golden.ncw.net (Craig A. Miller) writes:

> >How much RAM does WordPerfect require to run on a Linux box currently?

> I do not know about Linux, but under SCO, WordPerfect recommends 8MB of
> RAM for the first user (in graphics/X mode) or 4MB of RAM for the first
> user (in text/ASCII mode). 

Here is ps output for the XWordPerfect demo under Linux:

USER       PID %CPU %MEM SIZE  RSS TTY STAT START   TIME COMMAND
romano   23035 13.5 23.0 6592 3520 pp5 S    12:50   0:23 /usr/localhome/romano/sco/wpbin/xwp -bg White -fg Black -language us -m /

...quite a big one, eh?
Bye,
        Romano

--
*******************************************************************************
Romano Giannetti        * DII-EIT, University of Pisa(E stands for Electronics)
romano@iet.unipi.it     * Dpto Electr. y Electronica, Facultad de Fisica
                        * Universidad Complutense de Madrid
*******************************************************************************

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: david@visix.com (David Charlap)
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 00:28:48 GMT

William Guido Sohne <wgsohne@tucson.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
>
>Well, price is always something people consider when choosing a software
>package. When someone finds excellent software at the lowest of prices -
>$0.00, wouldn't he/she find that amazing and pleasing?

I don't think anyone's knocking free software, but it isn't the OSs
fault if third parties haven't gotten around to making all the
freeware you'd like for it.  Stop blaming IBM for not giving away the
store.  MS isn't releasing any free software - they've just had a few
years head start for third parties to release freeware.

>Yes. Or is a Dell computer not 'compatible' enough ? OS/2 was
>obviously the problem here.

Care to be a bit more specific?  Here, at Visix, we have four
different Dell 486 boxes, all with S3 video, all on the network, all
running OS/2 2.1 and TCP/IP 2.0 with no problems.

Maybe you have an older box (I don't think Dell has OS/2 certification
for all their older boxes), or maybe you have a configuration problem.

>>If IBM's TCP/IP is so inferior, then why are so many people in this newsgroup
>>talking about how nice it is?  And as for free software... You get what you pay
>
>Maybe they don't know better ? Maybe because they have political reasons ?
>Maybe the sky will fall on our heads ? The fact is that based on my usage 
>of both systems I find IBM TCP/IP to be inferior to Linux TCP/IP.

Ah yes.  Accuse everyone who disagrees of having a political agenda.
Has it ever occurred to you that some people really do run OS/2
without problems?

>>Thats in your opinion. I paid $86 for OS/2 2.0. I later paid $88 for OS/2 2.1.
>>Then I received OS/2 for Windows free from IBM. I have not had to upgrade any
>>hardware in my system in order to have OS/2 work like it does, so to date, my
>>total investment in OS/2 in well under $200.
>
>Well, if I could get prices like yours and free software from IBM too, I 
>would still stay with Linux. It works faster and does more of what I want.

Everyone had those prices, and can still get them.  IBM always has
promotional pricing during the first few months of a new product.
OS/2 2.1 had a $30 rebate for OS/2 2.0 users - making the cost about
$40-$50 for people purchasing the CD-ROM edition from discount stores.
Even today, the full OS/2 2.1 package can be gotten for under $100,
and OS/2 for Windows can be gotten for $50.

>That's the OS/2 anachronism. Buy a new improved OS to run apps that depend
>on an old phucked OS. Run DOS under OS/2. Never will you be free of it.
>If the software were free in the first place and with source, it would
>have been native by now.

There's a non-sequitor if I ever heard one.  "who needs DOS
compatibility when you can download sources and recompile all your
freeware natively".  I hate to break it to you, but most people can't
get by exclusively on free software.

=====================+========================================================
David Charlap        | The contents of this message are not the opinions of
david@visix.com      | Visix Software, or of anyone besides myself.
Visix Software, Inc. +--------------------------------------------------------
Member of Team-OS/2  | Memory parity error detected.  Abort, Retry, Ignore?
=====================+

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

From: hhenson@inyanga.cs.wits.ac.za (Howard P. Henson)
Subject: Re: SCO and Linux
Date: 29 Jun 1994 14:51:18 GMT

J.J. Paijmans (paai@kub.nl) wrote:
: Every once in a while I hear references to the fact that SCO binaries
: and/or the SCO filesystem can be read/executed under Linux, but
: I can't find no clues in FAQ's or HOWTO's.
: As I have a complete SCO sitting somewhere on a pile of disks, my
: interest is not purely academic.
: Anybody any idea?

        This is probly still most unhelpful but my friend said that the 
SCO binary format is still under alpha stages of development and that it 
was available via ftp but from where I havn't a clue. Maybe when I see 
him again I could find out.

        Howard

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~                   Rotating the object by                                 ~
~          Howard Henson <hhenson@inyanga.cs.wits.ac.za>                   ~
~           mans quest for object orientaion ends here!                    ~
~                                                                          ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


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

From: walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: 27 Jun 1994 23:14:32 GMT

hkennedy@mercury.ncat.edu writes:

>In article <2unehg$q3d@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Walk) writes:
>>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (R S Rodgers) writes:
>>>I agree, but the issue isn't massive bugs (e.g., IBM's 1522 SCSI drivers
>>>which do not work _at all_ in the latest release, even with name-brand
>>>Adaptec hardware) of that sort, but rather technical support issues that
>>
>>I've heard this several times now and I'm wondering if I'm the
>>only person running the 1522 drivers with 2.11 sucessfully.
>>
>>Maybe it's because I'm using a 1520 instead of a 1522 (same, but
>>w/o floppy controller).  Maybe it's because I'm running it as a
>>secondary controller w/o hard drives on it.  Maybe it's FUD.
>>I really don't know and I'd kind of like to know if I'm the only one...
>>
>>--
>>                                      Todd Walk
>>                                      walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
>>


>Hi,

>This is news. No go at all with 1522 and OS/2 2.11. Did you use the ftp
>service pack or the cdrom service pack?


I used the SP from the Dev. Con. 3 CD.

--
                                        Todd Walk
                                        walk@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu


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

From: e9032@mimas.hts.hsa.nl (A.J. Haverkamp)
Subject: Re: Does a Panasonic CR-563-B CD-ROM drive act like a CR-562?
Date: 29 Jun 1994 12:58:15 +0200

In <2uqkr1$1bf7@ilx049.iil.intel.com> dbraun@iil.intel.com (Doug Braun) writes:

>I can't get the Fall '93 Yggdrasil Linux CD-ROM to boot up
>on my PC.  I have a 586 box with a Panasonic CR-563-B drive
>connected to a sound-less interface card ("Golden" brand).
>The drive works find under DOS, but Linux does not seem to be
>aware of its existance.  I have the interrupt disconnected
>(the jumper on the card completely removed), but as far as I
>know, the Linux driver doesn't use the interrupt.  The base address
>is 310H.

Try using address 300h, this should solve the problem. My Summer '94 version
also refuses to boot on address 310h, switching to address 300h worked for me.

>Should this setup work?  Is the 563 drive really different than the 562?
>Can I get a updated boot disk or something what will work with this drive?

CU AJH

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

From: H.M.Pronk@fac.fbk.eur.nl (Hans Michael Pronk)
Subject: Linux Sony CDU33A support
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 13:51:25 UNDEFINED

Hi, I am trying to install Linux using the CD-ROM path, but the boot-images i 
happen to have /do not support/will not work with/  the Sony CDU33A CD-ROM 
player. Is there support for this device and if how/where to get it. 

Thanks a lot in advance.


HMP


BTW: the CD-rom player works ok with "dos" and even using "windows" 


HMP

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: david@visix.com (David Charlap)
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 00:35:54 GMT

Colin Dunn <dunnc@ucsub.Colorado.EDU> wrote:
>
>OS/2 is the problem, more than people would like to believe. Even reputable
>brand-name hardware can be "incompatible." Really, it seems IBM does not
>even test their device drivers. I had similar problems (tight lock-ups)
>using the Tseng ET4000 drivers for OS/2 2.10 as well.

This would only make sense if IBM had written the drivers.  IBM only
develops the drivers for their own hardware.  For video, this means
CGA, EGA, VGA, 8514/a, XGA, XGA-2 and S3.  Everything else is
developed by the card/chipset manufacturers, and IBM merely bundles
the third party code in the box.

>I think device drivers should have to be beta-tested like anything else.
>If IBM feels otherwise, it's time to drop OS/2.

They are tested.  Whenever ATI, Trident, Diamond, or any other company
works on new drivers, you find beta releases of them on various ftp
sites.  If you think IBM should be a single distribution point for
every hardware vendor's software, you're crazy.

>I wish someone would write a good, small, fast, stable multitasking OS
>with broad-based device driver support. This kind of OS would destroy
>OS/2, Windows 3.1, Chicago, NT, etc.

Dream on.  No company has the resources to throw in a full suite of
features, add driver support for all known hardware, and get it to
market before it becomes obsolete.  I'm afraid you're going to have to
settle for two out of three.

>I have always wondered why the new OSs for PCs are so bloated, slow,
>and crash-prone. Maybe the best solution is not to try to support old
>applications in some emulation mode (such as the OS/2 DOS box or
>Windows 3.1 DOS sessions) and simply provide a mechanism for users to
>boot whichever OS they need to use their applications. 

You could always do this.  OS/2 1.3 was an incredibly stable platform
if you removed the DOS support from it.  And all the modern OSs (OS/2,
NT, Linux, etc) all have facilities to pick your OS at boot time.  If
you want it, use it.

=====================+========================================================
David Charlap        | The contents of this message are not the opinions of
david@visix.com      | Visix Software, or of anyone besides myself.
Visix Software, Inc. +--------------------------------------------------------
Member of Team-OS/2  | Memory parity error detected.  Abort, Retry, Ignore?
=====================+

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

From: hartmabt@track.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de (Bert Hartmann)
Subject: S: P9000 driver (Orchid) for Linux (XWindows) ???
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 12:08:02 GMT

Hi,

are there any driver for an Orchid P9000 VLB card for linux ?


Thanks
        Bert

-- 
 ============================================================================

 Bert Hartmann

 email     hartmabt@track.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de

           bert@studbox.uni-stuttgart.de      (x500)

 ============================================================================

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

From: odonnell@mpx1.lampf.lanl.gov (J. M. O'Donnell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Re: XDM from inittab
Date: 29 Jun 1994 08:27 MST

In article <2urtdp$qda@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>, tjrc1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Tim Cutts) writes...
>Neither!  All the Linux distributions I have seen have an /etc/inittab
>which runs xdm when the runlevel is set to 6, so that's all you should

In the recent release of the SysVinit package (version 2.5 I think), xdm is run
from level 5.

Some other people don;t even mention it in inittab, but have it in an rc file.

John.

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

Subject: [HELP] Minicom just hanging...
From: phuynh@eeyore.stcloud.msus.edu (WORLD CUP '94)
Date: 28 Jun 94 00:32:53 -0500

Hi, wizards,

I am currently running Linux 1.0.8 and Minicom (with the package
Linux, I am not sure the version of it).

I just wonder why minicom just hung me waiting when I trying to dial
up to my school modem (DEC/ULTRIX).

My modem is from Practiacal Peripheral PM14400FXMT.  

Could you give me some hint to setup or configure the proper way
for Minicom?  

(I am now trying to install  Pcomm v. 2.04.  I get it worked once
and that is it.  I couldn't get Pcomm worked second time.  I am fairly
new to Linux, thus I don't know which files I should set up or ...)

Thank you so much for your time and help!

-Phi 

E_mail: phuynh@eeyore.stcloud.msus.edu

=-=-=-==-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

From: tjrc1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Tim Cutts)
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: 29 Jun 1994 15:24:57 GMT

jimr@shorty.cs.wisc.edu (Jim Robinson) writes:

>Have you all seen an example of something as powerfull as grep or as
>useful as xargs in a GUI?  I haven't.  I don't know how you could go
>about implementing it in any sort of fast manner either (so people
>won't think "It takes to long to fill in the fields").

That's the rub:  In my experience, ease of use is always inversely
proprtional to power.  That's why in power Linux > OS/2 > Windows >
System 7 (my opinion only, no flames please), and the ease of use is
exactly the reverse:  Mac > Windows > OS/2 > Linux

You want a 32-bit operating system?  Good.  Do you want relative ease
of use at the expense of raw power, or do you want to run Windows
applications?  Then get OS/2 or NT.  Otherwise get a Unix. (and
please, no-one tell me to use a Windows emulator under Unix.  I've
tried WABI, which was awful, and I'm not sure Wine is going to be much
better).

Tim.



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

From: mdw@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: Difficult Linux Instructions...
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 15:36:49 GMT

In article <1994Jun28.163828.19147@wmichgw> 31khoo@wmich.edu (Beng Teck Here...) writes:
>I am a new Linux user and one thing is for sure... it is DIFFICULt and HARD to
>get Linux up and running on my PC... there is too much documentation and
>stuff to read for the average user. 

Now THIS is a first.

>I have just managed to get it installed and set up a print queue, but i have 3
>more obstacle to cover, X, sounds and modem communications... These in itself
>are diffcult and the documentation is "all over the place". 

Not really. There's a one-stop shop for Linux documentation; sunsite.unc.edu,
in pub/Linux/docs.

>But there must be a better and easier way to
>get Linux up and running. I propose a Linux-HOWTO, or a Linux For Dummies kind
>of doc that goes through everything, from Distribution to X. I wouldn't mind
>writing such a document, but as you can see, i am not even a 2 month old Linux
>baby yet!!! :)

I believe that _Linux_Installation_and_Getting_Started_ covers everything
that you need. Very soon I hope to expand the XFree86 information given
there, but nearly all you need to know can be found in the XFree86 docs
in /usr/lib/X11/etc on your system.

>I don't know, maybe i'm just frustrated at the amount of information that is
>required of me to get Linux running... I just wish there is an easier way...

Welcome to Linux. It certainly isn't for everybody, and it's going to take
a lot of reading and hacking to things right. This is NOT a problem that
can be fixed by documentation alone. There are many quirks and fine details
about the system that users must know about; the system doesn't run itself.

This is inherent to Linux, and the only solution is to write enough 
documentation to cover it all. That's why there are so many docs out there.
Linux is too powerful and complex to boil down into simple "here's how to 
install the system" instructions. There are no cookbook answers. Unless you 
have a very run-of-the-mill hardware configuration, there are always special
cases.

M. Welsh

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

From: shaw@manwe.fmsoft.com (Greg Shaw)
Subject: Re: Only 7000 Linux boxes, Re: Multiport Bored ...
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 01:08:17 GMT

randy hyde (rhyde@cuda.ucr.EDU) wrote:

[ snip ]

:       To specifically address the issue of 7,000 registered Linux sites,
: let's perform a quickie potential cost/benefit analysis exercise right here.
:       Installed base:                         = 7,000 systems
:       Potential market (of base)      5%      = 350 systems.
:       Board retail                            = $300.00
:       Estimated total revenue (5 % of Market) = $105,000.00
:       Estimated cost of goods sold    50%     = $52,500.00 
:               (if you can't sustain this, get out of the business!)
:       Breakeven point expenditure for R&D     = $52,500.00
: So, we have $52,500.00 available for developing the Linux-specific software
: drivers.  Anyone in net-land willing to spend a month or two (I know this
: is a high estimate of the time involved, bear with me!) of their time
: for $52,500.00?
: <<<<<

: Linux users have a very myopic view of the world.
: Okay, I'm sorry, the few who are posting messages like the above have the
: myopic view.  Not to mention, there is very little marketing sense here.


: As an example, let's liberally assume there are 50,000 Linux boxes out there.
: Quite honestly, the installed base is of no interest to most card manufacturers.
: Indeed, the "exponential growth" (easy when there is a small installed base, btw)
: is of no interest.  The numbers above suggest that the card manufacturer has
: a potential market of 5% of the installed base.  This is crazy.  Now I've long
: forgotten whether this thread was complaining about support for ethernet cards
: or for multiport serial cards, but the end result is approximately the same,
: there is insufficient market to get excited about it.  Why?  Consider my
: revised numbers:

: Installed base:               50,000 systems (not *users*, which could be higher).

If your numbers were correct, you might be correct.  However, I don't
believe your numbers have any contact with reality.

: Potential market:  tiny, tiny fraction of installed base.  Why?  Because 99%
: of the Linux market is single-user non-networked.  Of the remaining 1%, not
: everyone will buy the card from the manufacturer.  Let's say they get 20%,
: or 0.2% of the installed base (a number I feel is *very* high).  That gives
: us 100 cards.  But 100 vs. 350 cards is not the issue.  We're talking about
: the *installed* base here.  Quite honestly, most of the installed base already
: has all the hardware it's going to get.  Existing users have already purchased
: a solution they're happy with, or they've given up and have gone to another
: system.  I can't imagine there are a large number of people sitting around
: saying "Gee, I'll put together this system and *wait* for some nice company
: to write a driver for me."  I'm sure there are *some* people out there doing
: this, but not very many.

99% of the market is *NOT* single-user non-networked.  You're confusing DOS
with Linux.  Unix gives you the freedom to do networking transparently.  I
have friends that have 4 linux boxes networked within their house.  I
personally run two linux machines connected via ether in my house.  I plan
on expanding the network with the purchase of an 8-port hub.

: No, traditionally sales of things like multiport cards are made at the same time
: the user purchases an entire system.  Most people are not hackers.  They do not
: run an operating system because it's "cool".  They do so because it solves a
: problem for them.  If Linux does not currently solve that problem, they will not
: purchase a Linux machine and wait for a solution to invent itself.  Therefore,
: the board manufacturer has to consider future sales which could use their
: particular device and the amount of competition they face in the marketplace.

I agree with you.  People buy systems because they solve a problem.
However, you're missing the problems that people are solving with Linux.
Many people have very little budget, but need to buy a multiuser server.
Many need to get a comm server or an internet gateway.  They only have a
couple thousand to spend.  Linux (or BSD) is the only answer that gives
them the freedom to do what they need to do.

I purchased a 4 port AST FOURPORT clone because I couldn't get a smart
serial card.  I will probably buy another in the next year.

: Your $52,500 figure doesn't include some mundane things like advertising,
: overhead, maintenance, and *God help us*, PROFIT.   Quite frankly, if I was
: a company selling boards in the DOS/Windows/UNIX market, and additional 350
: boards would be meaningless to me in the long run.  Perhaps the good will
: achieved by throwing money away on such devices ("Gee, if they wrote a driver
: for Linux they're probabaly willing to spend $$$ on any future OS I'm interested
: in; this is a good sign.") would be worth it, I don't know.

If you're the first card vendor to have a product available for Linux, you
have exactly the same role as Lotus did when they released 1-2-3.  You're
first.  You have the goods.  They *HAVE* to come to you.

Very little advertising is required in that case.  

[ snip ]

: Finally, you, like so many people, seem to think that the customer is king.
: Forget it.  This is a marketing slogan, nothing else.  The company is king.
: And if it is public, the shareholders are king.  The only reason the
: customer gets any consideration at all is because this is often good for the
: company.  However, they cannot keep everyone happy, so they have to choose
: the largest segment of the market.  Alas, Linux is not that group.

Ah, the IBM marketing mentality.  <sigh>

A company that bends over backwards for the customer succeeds.  If they do
not, they go out of business (provided they do not have a monopoly -- like
the phone company).  

Some examples:

poor response:  sperry-burroughs, IBM, miniscribe, GM, Hayes

Good response:  Hewlett-packard, Sun, Microsoft, Lotus, Toyota, Honda, ZyXEL


Those companies that make the user feel satisfied succeed.  Those with the
'company is first' mentality end up with alienated users and only legacy
business.

Greg.

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

From: shaw@manwe.fmsoft.com (Greg Shaw)
Subject: Re: Only 7000 Linux boxes, Re: Multiport Bored ...
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 01:14:19 GMT

Tim Smith (tzs@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: Wayne Schlitt <wayne@cse.unl.edu> wrote:
: >While I agree with large parts of your posting, I think that this
: >number is too low.  My bet is that you are off by a factor of 5-20+,
: >that is, there are at least 250,000 Linux systems out there, possibly
: >a million or more.

: Someone should take a poll.  Pick something whose numbers we can find
: out, and then ask people if they have a Linux system, and if they have
: that other thing.  From the relative number of hits, we can estimate
: the number of Linux systems.

: I suggest using magazines for the comparison.  By picking several different
: magazines that appeal to different segments of the population, we can
: account for biases in the sampling.

: If there are a million Linux systems, then you should get about the same
: number of yes answers on the "do you have a Linux system?" question as
: you do for the "do you buy this magazine?" question for the following
: magazines:

:       Rolling Stone           (about 1.2 million)
:       Car and Driver          (about a million)
:       Jet                     (about 950k)
:       Popular Photography     (about 900k)
:       Business Week           (about 900k)
:       Consumer Digest         (about 870k)
:       Omni                    (about 830k)
:       Weekly World News       (about 800k)

: --Tim Smith


A better estimation would be to look at UnixWorld, Open Systems Today, and
other Unix magazines.  I don't know of many who get the magazine but do not
have some sort of Unix box at home.  

Most of those that I know who have Unix boxes (sun) at home are looking at
going to Linux because it is cheaper for faster hardware.

Greg.

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

From: buytaert@imec.be (Steven Buytaert)
Subject: Re: Future of Debian Linux
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 13:08:14 GMT

Joe Pannon (danubius@coho.halcyon.com) wrote:
[...]
: just where is that name "Debian" coming from?

  I could be wrong here, but 'distribution by Ian' comes
  to mind.

: Next time I'll ask about the name "Yggdrasil".  Now that's a name to
: exercise your tongue with! ;-)

  I'll beat you to it... Yggdrasil is the three that connects
  heaven and earth in the Sagas of Northern Europe (Norway).
  If that name breaks your tongue, try the other names from
  there, like 'Mjoilnjir' (ph), the Hamer that Thor uses. If you
  like fancy stuff, the sagas are a great resource :-)

  Anyway, someone correct me if I'm wrong...

  Stef

--
Steven Buytaert 

WORK buytaert@imec.be
HOME buytaert@innet.be

        'Imagination is more important than knowledge.'
                        (A. Einstein)

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


** 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
******************************
