Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #339
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:     Thu, 30 Jun 94 08:13:07 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #339, Volume #2                Thu, 30 Jun 94 08:13:07 EDT

Contents:
  Re: X resources (was Re: Why cannot xterm use -bg option in .xinitrc ?) (Rogon den Skjebnelause)
  Re: Linux.... On a Sparc? (Warner Losh)
  Interface builder ("M.C. Wai")
  semop hangs. help! (Tony Bringardner)
  Re: Future of Debian Linux (Jim Robinson)
  Re: `ncftp` for Linux?  (Nick Holloway)
  QuickTime-Player (Andreas Zeidler)
  CD Recorder Driver? (Noel S. Gorelick)
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (S. Spencer Sun)
  Re: Advice on which large IDE HD to buy .... (David Mathias)

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

Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.os.linux.help
From: rogon@doom.tromsomh.no (Rogon den Skjebnelause)
Subject: Re: X resources (was Re: Why cannot xterm use -bg option in .xinitrc ?)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 20:56:51 GMT

You might want to test out the program 'editres'.

Try it out, you'll learn a lot just by clicking and testing.

Roggie.

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.help
From: imp@boulder.parcplace.com (Warner Losh)
Subject: Re: Linux.... On a Sparc?
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 19:52:15 GMT

In article <Cs2s8F.1Dn0@ns1.nodak.edu> evers@plains.NoDak.edu (Dwight
M Evers) writes: 
>power as does 4 or 5 guys compiling 5000 lines of C++ code at once.
>( I know because me and some other guys made an attempt to 'benchmark' 
>our Solborne [UNIX] at school...held up preety good!)

I can tell you that a 3 CPU Series 5 with 96M of memory from Solbourne
can support five C++ compiles of the 100,000 line range at one time
w/o visible degredation of the OS.  The sixth compile, or someone else
using large amounts then it tops out at four.

We have tools on these machines that allows us to run multiple makes
at once (ala gnu make -j, w/a bsd make).  pmake -c3 will compile OI in
about 15-20 minutes.  A single cpu make takes about 50 minute or so.
This is still about twice as fast as on my Linux box at home (but with
a different compiler, so the comparison is questionable).

The server machine has large amounts of disk space that is fast IPI
drives.  Those fast drives make all this possible.

Too bad Solbourne is dead as a hardware company :-(

Warner

-- 
Warner Losh             imp@boulder.parcplace.COM       ParcPlace Boulder
"... but I can't promote you to "Prima Donna" unless you demonstrate a few
 more serious personality disorders"

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

From: "M.C. Wai" <R15892@PACCVM.corp.mot.com>
Subject: Interface builder
Date: 30 Jun 1994 04:16:28 -0400
Reply-To: R15892@PACCVM.corp.mot.com

 Do anyone know information about interface or screen builder under
Linux system? Is a product call 'mint' for this purpose?

  Please let me know more about this so that I can write application
more easily under X-windows? If possible, please give me ftp site
address.  Thanks!

Regards,
MC Wai

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
From: tonyb@acec.uucp (Tony Bringardner)
Subject: semop hangs. help!
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 20:09:56 GMT



The following shot program works in HPUX but not in linux.
Under linux the program always hangs in the semop call.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

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

#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/ipc.h>
#include <sys/sem.h>

extern char *getenv(const char *);

int semkey, semid;


semlock( function , action)
int function, action;
{
        struct sembuf psembuf;
        int i;
        char *tmp;

         semkey = 1 /* PRTSEMID */ ;

        /* if it does not exist and can't be created  */
        /* if this process created it the set init values */
        if((semid = semget(semkey,1,0777 ))==-1)
        {
                ushort opts[1];
                union semun su;
                su.array = opts;
                if((semid = semget(semkey,1,0777 | IPC_CREAT))==-1)
                        { fprintf(stderr,"Can't get/create semaphopre %d\n",semkey);
                                                        perror("semget");
                                return(-1); }
                for(i = 0;i<1; i++)
                        opts[i] = 1;
                semctl(semid, 1, SETALL, opts);
        } 
        psembuf.sem_num = function;     /*   opts[0]  */
        psembuf.sem_op  = action;       /*   decrement to lock */
        psembuf.sem_flg  = SEM_UNDO;    /*   set undo flag */
        semop(semid,&psembuf,1);        /*   this should lock it */
        return(0);                      /*   ok  */
}

main()
{
        if(semlock(1,-1) )
                { printf("Can't lock next_num\n");
                        exit(-1); }
        printf("semid = %d is now locked \n",semid); fflush(stdout);
                getchar(); 

        if(semlock(1,1) )
                { printf("Can't ulock next_num\n");
                        exit(-1); }
        printf("semid = %d is now unlocked \n",semid); fflush(stdout);
        exit(0);
}

-- 





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

From: jimr@shorty.cs.wisc.edu (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Future of Debian Linux
Date: 28 Jun 1994 23:44:08 GMT

Note: I don't speak for The Debian Linux Association, these are just
my impressions.

In article <42362e103b76@sirius.herts.ac.uk> cs4ev@herts.ac.uk (Veal) writes:
>I have be using the Beta version of Debian linux for a number of months 
>now (since it was available!) I am quite happy with it but the Slackware
>Distribution seems to be more widely use and is becoming the standard. 
>I have had difficulty getting in touch with the Debian user mailing list 
>so I thought I would post my thoughts here.

(Email me private if you need info on the mailing lists)

Slackware seems to be the standard, and I don't think Debian is trying
to "compete" in any vicous sense at all.  Rather I think that Debian
is trying to get a different type of system out there.  We are working
as a group of people, and have the same problems any group will have.
We have to set standards, and everybody has a different opinion.

Of course we all want to be *proud* of our work and have people use
Debian, and it would be *nice* if it was such a good product that it
became a standard, but there is room for more then one Linux
distribution.  Different people have different tastes. (if it matters,
I work on Debian a bit but I am currently running an MCC base with
Debian X and a few Debian AND Slackware tools).

One reason I don't think Debian has "caught on" yet (and we are not
pushing it as some sort of "Distribution solution"), is because it is
still in BETA.  The code for installing packages was just completly
redone, as was the package format.  They are *still* evolving, and
will continue to do so.  We need input as well, and we need people to
test out the new BETA releases (see end for bit about a hopefully soon
released .93) for bugs.

An important note is that some of us are very concerned that Debian
should allow people to easily interchange packages. I for one want a
package maintainer to be able o get permission to use a MCC or
Slackware package, and simply repackage it to work with Debian
standards, and Debian tools.  Since the FSSTD is going a *long* way
towards making that possible, I hope we will be able to do this with
ease.  I also want anybody to be able to pick up Debian packages and
the dpkg to install it, and not need the Debian base.  I don't know if
this will happen, but I'm trying to convice people it is a Good
Thing(tm).

>With the popularity of Slackware do people think that effort spent on
>developing debian is rather wasted ?

Nope.  The work of Slackware, MCC, and others are all working on a
different slant.  We don't really "compete" we just do volunteer work
cause it is a neat thing to do. 

The unique and good thing about Ian Murdock's brain child is that it
is a group of people who can discuss the technical aspects of how we
feel the distribution should be, and we split the work load (or try to
anyway) amoungst a large number of people. This will hopefully lead to
a product that many people will like, improve upon, and use.

The unique and bad thing about Ian Murdock's brian child is that it is
a group of people who can discuss the technical aspects of how we feel
the distribution should be to the point of flaming each other to
horrid deaths.  Ahh, the bitter-sweet joy of group projects. :)

>N.B. This is not a flame against the Debian developers, I appreciate 
>     the work they have done. 

I'm not going to say we "will" have a new release soon, but I want to
point out that the final call for .93 BETA packages has gone out.
This, from what has been said on our lists, is an interim release,
because a lot of us felt it was very important to show the world that
we were doing real work.  So don't expect anything fancy, but I hope
we DO see some nice improvements.
 
Again, these are just my opinions, NOT The Debian Linux Association's.


Jim Robinson

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

From: Nick.Holloway@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Nick Holloway)
Subject: Re: `ncftp` for Linux? 
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 09:00:20 GMT

In <Cs6yzv.ItC@eskimo.com> mstrock@eskimo.com (Mike Strock) writes:
> Has anybody ported the 'ncftp' program to Linux, or does anyone know if
> it is a straight recompile?

I took ncftp-1.7.7 off the ftp site, read the installation documentation,
chose the options I wanted and compiled.  There is a small problem with
the Linux support, which shows up if you try and compile with CURSES
(I don't think the whole world is a vt100).  This fixes that (and has
been sent to Mike Gleason):

--- /usr/dist/ncftp-1.7.7/sys.h Fri Jun 24 02:27:37 1994
+++ /usr/src/ncftp/sys.h        Tue Jun 28 22:17:19 1994
@@ -120,9 +120,6 @@
 #      ifndef TERMIOS
 #              define TERMIOS 1
 #      endif
-#      ifndef TERMH
-#              define TERMH 1
-#      endif
 #      ifndef SYSV
 #              define SYSV 1
 #      endif

--
Nick Holloway |  `O O'  | Apparently <Nick.Holloway@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>
[aka `Alfie'] | // ^ \\ |   formerly <alfie@dcs.warwick.ac.uk>

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

From: zeidler@ai-lab.fh-furtwangen.de (Andreas Zeidler)
Subject: QuickTime-Player
Date: 30 Jun 1994 11:21:24 +0200

Hi,

does anybody know, whether there's a player for Mac's QuickTime-Movies
available for Unix/X11?

Thanks in advance,


        Andi
-- 
...and if I died today,
I'd be the happy phantom...

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

From: ngorelic@speclab.cr.usgs.gov.cr.usgs.gov (Noel S. Gorelick)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development
Subject: CD Recorder Driver?
Date: 30 Jun 1994 11:15:15 GMT
Reply-To: ngorelic@speclab.cr.usgs.gov


I have heard a rumour that there is a Phillips CD-R (recordable CD) driver
for Linux.  Does anyone know anything about this driver?  Anyone actually
been able to use the CD-R with linux?

Any help appreciated, e-mail please.

Noel (ngorelic@speclab.cr.usgs.gov)
--
"You want it should sing too?"   | /*  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
  ngorelic@speclab.cr.usgs.gov   |       Who watches the watchmen?     */
   "Life is pain... Anyone who says differently is selling something."

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wgsohne@tucson.Princeton.EDU (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 10:55:04 GMT

In article <ajross.772734232@husc10.harvard.edu>,
Andrew <ajross@husc10.harvard.edu> wrote:
>wgsohne@tucson.Princeton.EDU (William Guido Sohne) writes:
>
>>Stop trying to blame OS/2's crashes on hardware. Such propaganda will
>>only make some poor guy believe hardware is the solution. If it crashes on
>>a Dell computer then most likely it will crash Joe User's machine too 
>>when using the same software.
>
>That's not what he was saying.  He made the point that _you_ shouldn't
>blame the crashes on OS/2 exclusively, since the stability record of
>his (and mine, for that matter) system "proves" that OS/2 is (or at
>least can be) quite stable indeed.

What his point was is questionable since only he knows for sure. I reported
that I had experienced less than passable stability using OS/2. I eliminated
HW incompatibilities from the knowledge that my hardware was pretty much as
standard as it gets. OS/2 *was* the cause of the crashes. Lets even assume
for generosity that the apps I was running were responsible. Or even the
device drivers. To me that exposes a design flaw in OS/2. With Linux I am
able to run without crashing(except once).

If OS/2 cannot protect itself from its apps or the device drivers are
substandard that's a major flaw. Any OS has to protect itself from its
apps. If the device drivers crash then how can I use the OS ? Either way,
its a major flaw.

Furthermore, please no one tell me that OS/2 is still alive when a PM app
crashes while processing a message (incidentally, the most likely time for
it to crash) and locks up the console. Ctrl-Esc does not always kill the
offending app. Ever had the terminate app dialog box (system modal no less)
come up time and time again without killing the app ? As long as I can't
use the machine, I consider it crashed.

>
>>BTW, I'll bet Linux demands more of the hardware. It has to since it 
>>performs so much better and quicker than OS/2. By doing more work, it 
>>stresses the system more. OS/2 is a good system. It's not nearly as great 
>>as you think it is though. The HPFS support is a kludge.
>
>Well, first, Linux itself really doesn't perform much (or at least
>measurably) quicker than OS/2.  What you probably mean is that the
>interface performance under X is faster than OS/2's PM/WPS.  This
>really should not be much of a surprise.  The WPS is a large,
>language-independent (i.e. heavily dereference-dependent/partially
>interpreted) object model with a comprehensive (and, IMHO, extremely
>powerful and slick) user interface class hierarchy.  Fvwm (which I
>assume you are using) is a minimal window manager.  The WPS is slower
>because it does so much more.  I, for one, am willing to trade some
>performance for that functionality.  Not that I have anything against
>Linux, of course.

Not even so. OS/2 is severely limited by the lack of speed of HPFS. Disk
I/O is slower under OS/2 to a significant extent. The burden of WPS simply
adds to that.

Fvwm is a simpler window manager. It does many things that the WPS doesn't
and with attention to configuring it to your specifications it can deliver
a way of working that is superior to WPS.

I can have a program open up on a specific desktop and divide the desktop
according to work activity. When I start up a new program, the window
manager fits it neatly into the open space on the desktop. If it can't it
presents me with the window outline to manually place. I hardly have to
hunt around for my windows or click several times to get the window I want.
I can use mouse follows input mode, minimizing clicking. All I do is move
the mouse and type. The programs for OS/2 don't do this properly and some
apps have problems with it.

I can configure my system to have a list of open windows and with a single
click take me to the window, regardles of which desktop it is on or whether
it's iconized or not. The task list is a single click and drag operation
away. I click once and drag the mouse to the window I want. If I want icons
for my favorite programs, they are there as well. I can make my programs
open at my favorite location at at my favorite size.

When doing file management, I find the command line to be mostly more
efficient. In a few special cases it isn't but in general its quicker.
I find using WPS degenerates into a style of working where WPS acts like a
glorified program manager. Using WPS for file management hurts. The drives
object just doesn't cut it for a lot of stuff.

If you want a graphical file manager, check out the GREAT file manager.

>
>IBM:  how about a Linux port of the SOM libraries?  WPS under Linux
>would be heaven.    Ah well, I suppose we can still hope for that new
>X11r6 whatchamacalit CORBA based object model.
>
>Second, I'm a bit perplexed about your terming "HPFS Support" a
>"cludge."  You do realize, of course, that HPFS is OS/2's native
>filesystem and as such the use of the term "support" is kind of a
>misnomer (granted, a semantic problem only).  I've been pretty pleased
>with HPFS in general, and I'd be interested to know exactly how you
>found it a "cludge."
>

HPFS is IBM's native filesystem. The two aspects of it that make it a weak
implementation of a possibly great filesystem are when you move files
around (like when you enable move-into-trash-area-on-delete) it takes much
longer than a good filesystem would. On Linux its almost instantaneous.
The other aspect is the cache size. It does not grow and shrink cache
dynamically and performs suffers. When you have lots of free memory, HPFS
does not take advantage of it. When you are low on memory, it hogs memory.

The implementation of it on OS/2 2.1 is bogus and that why I call it a
kludge. It has to be one if it is written in assembler and is still that
slow.

>>What crash protection ? We all know it's a bad joke. In theory, OS/2 can
>>eliminate lots of crashes. Problem is when a PM app crashes it can bring 
>>down the system.
>
>OK, this flame war is starting to get out of hand.  That statement is
>flatly incorrect.  PM apps, like all OS/2 apps, are insulated from
>other processes using precicely the same mechanism that Linux uses
>(the 80386 page tables).  An application crash is no more able to
>affect the system than a crash in a Linux process.  Flame all you like
>about the OS/2 kernel stability (which I would probably admit is less
>than linux -- having seen no linux kernel crashes and one under OS/2),
>but please make sure your information is correct.
>

Like I said, I don't care if the kernel and other apps are still running if
a PM app locks up the console. Sometimes the app won't die even after
repeated Ctrl-Escapes. At that point, I waste more time waiting for OS/2 to
decide to kill the app or futzing about without succesfully killing the
app. I just reboot.

>>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.
>
>Oh god, are you going to turn this into another Gnu/GPL flame war?  
>Also:  phucked?
>

No, not at all. I simply pointed out that software development would keep
up much better with technologies further down the road if they can be
modified when the user needs to do so rather than when the software
corporation needs to do so. It would virtually eliminate, or at the very
least substantially mitigate the drag on the industry from legacy apps.

Witness the design compromises that Microsoft has to make to keep Chicago
compatible. The apps could be simply recompiled or changed in a minimal way
to make them native. That's not an option because the software companies
would gouge the users for the 'upgrade'. So Microsoft has to assure
compatibility or they'd be in the tubes.

>>The one bug I run into has long since disappeared. Unlike you I don't 
>>have to live with bugs. I just haven't encountered others and I hope it 
>>stays that way. 
>
>>Each release of Linux also gets better and better. Not every year as with 
>>OS/2 but every two weeks or so.
>
>I might dispute "better and better" if you mean by that more features.
>I run a 1.0.8 kernel.  What exactly would I gain by upgrading?  OS/2

You'd get faster 8k NFS. In a little while you'd get IP fragmentation
support. If you had two network cards you could have load balancing across
the cards. You could get better multitasking when using the modem and HD  
since the serial drivers have been made more efficient and the HD driver
supports clustering and multimode. You would get modular ibCS2 support.

A little further down the kernel development line, you'd find yourself
having so much more functionality you'd wonder why you ever stuck with
1.0.9  

>upgrades typically come with much more than bug fixes;  they include
>new functionality as well.  Remember that Linux is still in its
>version 1 release.  We have yet to see if this style of development
>lends itself to large changes/additions to the feature set.

Bullshit. Linux is not in its version 1 release. This is a similiar
statement to saying NT is in its 3.5 release for real. The version numbers
are just references to code snapshots. Its just a number that's all. In
fact releases do not apply to Linux's development model in the same way
they apply to commercial OS's. With a commercial OS a first release is the
first time its available to the general public. Some bugs slip by the beta
program and are only discovered with more extensive testing. Linux bugs
tend to be discovered shortly after they appear and they also tender to
disappear as quickly as they appeared. 

>
>One example (one of my pet peeves with Unix in general):  I want
>threads!  REAL threads, none of this fork-and-use-shared-memory stuff.
>Does POSIX specify any particular thread API? (seriously, I don't
>know, but hope that it does somewhere).  X supports threads now,
>(well, r6 isn't out for Linux yet, but will be) how about Linux?  This
>would be a major change in the OS's feature set.  I hope that the
>distributed development model that has served Linux so well in its
>formative years proves able to carry it into versions 2 and beyond,

The kernel is already moving to a state where threads would be trivial to
implement. Pthreads is available right now for multithreading apps so its
not such a burning issue. I think threads are the next major thing that
will go into the kernel. There is a POSIX thread standard. Linux being
POSIX will probably support it in the near future.

>but I am not sure.  I _do_ know, however, that OS/2 will continue to
>grow and change, even if it only does so over 1-year intervals.
>
>[something about buying MS Word if there was a free clone]
>
>>So if it helps you change MS and Word for Windows to your favorite 
>>package from your favorite company. Nice try at evading the question though.
>
>OK, I'll bite.  Hell yes, I'd use the free clone.  Call me when one
>appears.  Therein lies the real problem with the FSF mentality.  Some
>software is simply to big to be developed free.  Without exception,
>all GPL'ed software out there was developed by a small group of
>people, or piecewise by several small groups.  Look at emacs -- a huge
>package, to be sure, but the made up of jillions of little hacks --
>elisp programs, X extensions, GNUS, etc...  The core program itself
>was written by just one guy (take a guess who).  Now look at Word/Ami
>Pro/Wordperfect -- just as large and complicated, but everything has
>been integrated. The whole has been built from the bottom up, as it
>were.  The spell checkers have to have an interface that looks more or
>less like the file dialogs, the online help has to use the
>same keystrokes as the main editing screen, etc...  Now go back to
>emacs and look at ispell, dired, and info.  See what I mean.  Writing
>a large, well-designed word processor using the same model as emacs
>would take _decades_.
>
>I may be wrong though.  Call me when you get your source to Gnu-Write
>1.0 ;)

You are wrong. Emacs was written for a different age - the age where GUIs
where not as widespread.  Emacs has evolved in a way approriate for its
users. They might not have the same requirements you do. Look what has been
achieved with the Linux kernel itself. I bet a WP developed along those
lines would give Word/Ami Pro/Wordperfect a run for their money.

In any way that was just an example meant to show the poster I was replying
to how stupid a stand against free software for the reason that it is free
really is.

If you really want a WP for Linux go and get Wordperfect SixO for X. At
least you don't have to pay for the OS and you get a better OS in any way.

>
>>Ah, smarting about MS huh ? Be thankful for how far they brought the 
>>lowest common denominator. I think they'll be getting lots of your dimes 
>>in a couple of years. They make the best apps. Oh, I forgot, you don't 
>>mind using inferior products.
>
>Ick, enough about this "inferior" nonsense.  OS/2 is inferior for
>what?  X Development?  Internet connectivity?  Terminal serving?  Yes.
>Mission-critical DOS/Win apps?  Hardly.  They really aren't all that

What, pray, are the mission-critical DOS-Windows apps ? Would anyone really
run mission-critical apps on DOS/Win ? Wasn't OS/2 touted as an OS for
mission-critical apps ? Or do you mean Lotus 123 and Wordperfect ? They
are available for Linux/X too.

I was refering to OS/2 TCP/IP as inferior, in any way. Which it is.
Defending a product which was inferior to what I was using by shifting
emphasis from the product to the OS itself occured as this thread went on.
Hardly my fault. Advocacy has a way of flowing from one thing to another.

So to clear things up, using OS/2 for surfing the internet is inferior to
using Linux for surfing the Internet whether you use TCP/IP, SLIP or PPP.
I have a problem using inferior products. If someone else does not have
such a problem, more power to him. As for me, I'll still point it out.

>comparable, you know.  Like (I assume) many people out there, I use
>both OS/2 and Linux happily.  But seriously, if I had to choose just
>one or the other, I would go with OS/2.  I find the WPS to be a much

So your needs are different. I jumped the other way.

>more productive work environment than the standard X desktop, software
>compatibility is _much_ better under OS/2 (really - name a major
>package from anywhere that runs under Linux and not OS/2.  I honestly

I don't care about comparing OSs based on what packages they run or don't
run. I compare them based on what they can do for me. Even if I need to to
word-processing or spreadsheet work or database work (which most business
activity falls under) Linux can run those apps. I get a better deal that
way and I'm sure a lot of other people do as well. So the new OS/2 word
processors can print when you drag the file from a folder to the printer.

So friggin' what ?O  The software still gets loaded. I just open it up in
my already open copy of Framemaker and print it out. If I'm really anal
about wanting that cool feature, I can write a macro doing that from some
bitmap. Question is would I settle for a system that meets my needs poorly
just to support software bloat? You can bet your momma I won't. 


>can't think of one right now).  Setup and configuration is orders of
>magnitude easier, if more limited.  (Took me several days to get X
>running, once I installed Linux.  Term also refused to run "out of the
>box."  Don't even ask me about getting my printer set up with gs and
>lpd.)

So maybe setup is not the easiest. I still prefer being able to have more
options and shape my OS around me not the other way round. Something like
that is a one time thing. Consider it training wheels. Also, remember that
while Linux could be for everyone, in its current state it is for those who
are skilled in the art of computer usage.

>
>Nevertheless, I use Linux.  I like Linux -- very much.  I hope only
>the best for Linux in the coming years.  I feel largely the same about
>OS/2, and really don't understand why you seem to, well, _hate_ it.
>Don't use it, if you like, but don't flame it unnecesarily.  Save the
>flames for Windows ;)
>

I used OS/2 as well, I used DOS/Windows as well. They all have their string
points. The OS for me is Linux. That is what I prefer. I'm not flaming OS/2
the only thing happening is that I'm getting bogged down in the creeping
featuritis of advocacy. So I don't hate OS/2. I'm just very adamant about
calling a spade a spade and pointing out the weaknesses of OS/2 that drove
me away or kept me from coming back. When all this stuff is fixed, I might
return to OS/2. In the meantime, I won't cling to an OS that doesn't serve
my needs well. Neither will I use kid gloves when pointing out the flaws.

I'm not here to demote OS/2 nor am I here to mindlessly blab that Linux is
king in all respects. I'm here to say why I dumped OS/2 and why Linux is
better than OS/2 for net surfing and most of all, share my experiences with
everyone.

--
Guido
>Andy Ross
>ajross@husc.harvard.edu
>
>



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

From: dmath@bluehen.cs.wustl.edu (David Mathias)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Advice on which large IDE HD to buy ....
Date: 28 Jun 1994 13:33:34 -0500

In article <2up4uf$1046@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>,
Richard W Kaszeta <kaszeta@arctic.uucp> wrote:
>
>I'd recommend _against_ a western digital 420 Meg Hard Drive. Although
>it always worked flawlessly under DOS and OS/2, Linux chokes on it.
>If I partition it with DOS or OS/2, then linux won't recognize the
>existing partitions. If I paritition it with Linux, it only lets me
>format 120 Meg of the drive...
>

My system runs perfectly for DOS and Linux on a WD 420MB.
Unfortunately I can't give you any advice on setting it
up because I bought my system preconfigured (with Linux
included) from SW Technology.  Maybe they could give you
a pointer on getting it to work.  Mail swt@netcom.com.


-- 

David Mathias    Washington University in St Louis   dmath@bluehen.cs.wustl.edu


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


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