Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #358
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:     Sat, 2 Jul 94 18:13:08 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #358, Volume #2                 Sat, 2 Jul 94 18:13:08 EDT

Contents:
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (Leo L Turetsky)
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (Leo L Turetsky)
  Re: Linux 68K Assembler/Simulator (Orhan Unal)
  Re: Did Xconfig fry my monitor? (Posting for a friend) (Bill McKinney)
  Re: Difficult Linux Instructions... (Beng Teck Here...)
  Re: AIX --> linux ? (John Rodkey)
  INN/nntpsend: script will not post due to sh error (??) (Clay Luther)
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (Leo L Turetsky)
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (R S Rodgers)
  Re: Modem speed vs transfer rate (Jim Graham)
  Re: [term] Boo-hoo! (Michael Edward Chastain)

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

From: Leo L Turetsky <professor+@CMU.EDU>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: Fri,  1 Jul 1994 14:28:25 -0400

Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.linux.misc: 1-Jul-94 Re: Linux better than
OS/2 .. by Lulu t. lotus-eaters@twa 
> Believe it or not, some people don't live in Cleveland.  I don't know if 
> they give accounts to out-of-towners, but then I'd be looking at 
> long-distance charges to download Linux - which could add up to quite a 

This was truly poor. I SAID NETCOM WAS ONLY $20 A MONTH. That was for
the mentally incapable. I don't live in Cleveland either.

> bit for multi-megabytes at 9600 (especially with weekly updates).  The 
> cheapest Linux CD I've seen is around $30, though $20 is conceivable 
> AFAIK.  Still, I got OS/2 (4windoze) for $40.  Sure OS/2 comes out a 
> little more expensive, but it doesn't quite break even *my* budget (as a 
> very poor underemployed grad-student).

I don't care about your budget... because $40 does break mine.
  
> This isn't to say that Linux doesn't have advantages over OS/2.  I've 
> been continually tempted by it.  But since I don't currently have the 
> option of (affordable) TCP/IP access anyway, one major advantage is 
> gone.  Although I don't speak first hand, my guess is that Linux doesn't 
> do as good a job of running all my old familiar DOS apps as OS/2 does, 
> which is a big disadvantage for me perfectly.  I also *really* strongly 
> suspect that Linux would wind up requiring even more work for initial 
> installation than OS/2 did (which was absolutely monstrous!).  Both 
> obviously have some real advantages and disadvantages, rather than simply 
> one being better than the other (however, both are unambiguously better 
> than Winodze :;-)).

Linux is superior, period. Your entire post was about you and OS/2 and
Linux... mu.

-Leo

+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Leo Turetsky          |  1) leo@professor.pc.cc.cmu.edu  |
| Sigma Nu              |  2) professor@cmu.edu            |
| 1055 Morewood Ave.    |  Carnegie-Mellon University      |
| Pittsburgh, PA 15213  |  Sophomore, ECE\CS Double Major  |
| (412) 862-2963        |  Nugget: SPIN BHBHY, YAXY?       |
+----------------------esp---------------------------------+


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

From: Leo L Turetsky <professor+@CMU.EDU>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: Fri,  1 Jul 1994 14:31:31 -0400

Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.linux.misc: 1-Jul-94 Re: Linux better than
OS/2 .. by Robert Sanders@mindsprin 
> How is my operating system going to be faster than my PC?  I can't
> claim to know many NeXTSTEP users -- it's not nearly as popular as
> Linux -- but I know one who switched to Linux because NeXTSTEP was
> much more sluggish than Linux on the same box, and I know another
> NeXTSTEP user who's running Linux on an old 4 MB 386 box to do ftp and
> mail, and to route between his PPP link and his ethernet.  He
> obviously needed to run *something* on a 386, and diehard NeXT fan
> though he was, NeXTSTEP obviously didn't cut it on lower end hardware.
>  
> Linux does.

You are correct. NeXTStep doesn't cut it on low end hardware... as a
matter of fact... it doesn't even run on it. How can an OS make your PC
faster... easy. NeXT does memory management and hd partitioning and ... 
much better than Linux, OS/2, ... do and all of this adds up to more
speed.

-Leo

+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Leo Turetsky          |  1) leo@professor.pc.cc.cmu.edu  |
| Sigma Nu              |  2) professor@cmu.edu            |
| 1055 Morewood Ave.    |  Carnegie-Mellon University      |
| Pittsburgh, PA 15213  |  Sophomore, ECE\CS Double Major  |
| (412) 862-2963        |  Nugget: SPIN BHBHY, YAXY?       |
+----------------------esp---------------------------------+


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

From: unal@paramount.nikhefk.nikhef.nl (Orhan Unal)
Subject: Re: Linux 68K Assembler/Simulator
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 1994 19:33:08 GMT

In article <2v23me$krs@server.st.usm.edu> seyfarth@whale.st.usm.edu writes:
>I am looking for a Motorola 68000 assembler and simulator to run
>under Linux (486 CPU).  We would like to use Linux machines to
>teach 68000 assembly programming.
>
>I read the 68k FAQ and located MS/DOS programs which work fairly
>well, but Linux is preferable.
>
>Thanks
>--
>Ray Seyfarth                   University of Southern Mississippi
>seyfarth@whale.st.usm.edu      (601)266-4859

Today is your lucky day. There is one in dir. "/pub/Linux/apss"
at sunsite.unc.edu.

P.S. Don't forget to fix your mail header!


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

From: mckinney@math.ncsu.edu (Bill McKinney)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.windows.x.i386unix
Subject: Re: Did Xconfig fry my monitor? (Posting for a friend)
Date: 2 Jul 1994 19:33:37 GMT

In article <CsBB1w.By0@rayleigh.aftac.gov> mike@rayleigh.aftac.gov (Mike Black) writes:
>In article <2ut5cn$eip@Tut.MsState.Edu> gnh1@Violin.CC.MsState.Edu (George N. Henderson) writes:
>>
>>Hello.
>>
>>
>>My Gateway 2000 15" monitor also got the problem with a left-right shimmering after I started using Linux, I rather doubt Linux caused it, but anyway. 
>>
>>I took it to a shop, they said it sounded like a capacitor was going out in it, and gave me an expected life on it of 1 week.
>>
>>It actually lasted 15 more minutes, so now I need a new monitor.  0-(
>>
>>Anyone who knows more about this than me want to comment?  The Gateway 2000 CrystalScan 15 is a relabeled Mag LX15.
>>
>
>I had two friends with Gateway 2000's and the Crystal Scan monitors.
>One lost two monitors (which Gateway replaces), the other lost 4!.  They
>both put fans on the monitors and have had no problems since (you
>coulda' cooked an egg on them puppies).
>
>So, I'd gripe at Gateway first (they're a pretty good company) and then
>stay away from Crystal Scans after that.
>-- 
>mike@rayleigh.aftac.gov

Well I have had a Gateway 2000 for about 3.5 years now with NO problems,
Crystal Scan monitor still works as good as it ever did. (Actually much
better now that it runs X-windows rather than MS-Windows :-) .) I know of
three other people who bought a Gateway 2000 system around the time I did
and they have not had any problems either. These are all 'old' systems
with the CS 14 monitor so perhaps the newer/larger CS 15s are a problem.

All monitors get hot, these no more than others. Of course you want to
keep them cool and make sure they get good ventilation. Just some basic
steps to get more life out of your equipment. (I should talk - I had mine
in a small room with no AC, no fan, no air flow for a year, but it still
works great.)

-- 
 Bill McKinney
 mckinney@math.ncsu.edu


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

From: 31khoo@wmich.edu (Beng Teck Here...)
Subject: Re: Difficult Linux Instructions...
Date: 1 Jul 94 14:55:10 EDT

In article <kress.609.000A14BF@kentrox.com>, kress@kentrox.com (Bill Kress) writes:
> In article <1994Jun29.153649.14995@cs.cornell.edu> mdw@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh) writes:
>>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 guess you could say that Unix (not just Linux) is probably a little
> DIFFICULt for the average user.  I'm just getting started myself. I've
> installed networking (PLIP, SLIP, and either), X, NFS, I've rebuilt the
> kernel, had all the fun stuff.  Yet still each one was difficult and took
> much longer than one would expect with previous systems (MS Windows, etc).

Actually, I think i should be more precise... for example, when i was setting
up X, I had to go through README.config, X-HOWTO, REAMDE.WstDig, README.Liunx,
man Xconfig, LDP on installation .... and so on... whew! by the time i was
done, my screen blanker had been on for forever, my prompt was filled with vi
xconfigs and i kind of got confused with what all the documents were saying...
there were just too many of them, and it kind of got mixed up with all the
"refer to such and such... " as each of them refered to another document...

finally, My FVWM popped up and my Openwin came up and i found that the only
documents that i REALLY needed to read was README.config (which gave the step
by step instructions), modeDB.txt for the video modes, and man Xconfig for the
format of the Xconfig file... thankfully, i already dealt with .xinitrcs and
stuff like that, so i didn't have a problem with those things... :)

now if, just *those* documents were presented to me in the very begginning, i
think i might have gotten it set up faster... what do you guys think?

> You should record your experiences.  That's the best way to get started with
> a newbie.howto.  I've noticed that there is lots of stuff that is not
> easy to do "as documented".  ifconfig, route, Xfileman, vi...
> --these are the programs I can think of that are either poorly documented
> (difficult for a beginner to understand), or not documented at all.
> (Where are the docs for VI???  Man just gives command line arguments, or
> was it so long ago last time I looked that I didn't grok the commands??)
> 
> man itself is intimdiating for a dos transfer student.  It took me a month
> or so to figure out how to get man pages that were in two differnt sections,
> and I'm still not very good at it.
> 
>>>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
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, but if Linux/Unix is as good as everyone (and myself) think it is, why not
make it "for everyone"?

>>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.

True, but simpler documentation will help, instead of huge stacks of
overlapping ones... I guess this is the "goal" of the LDP, but liek i said,
Matt's book was great for installation, but he didn't write on setting up X,
modem, mouse, sound... etc... will you do it Matt? treat you to McDonalds! :)

From there, the document can refer to other fine nitty gritty details kind of
doc for those "non-standard" problems... This would make Linux (unix) more
accessible to *EVERYONE* (see above reasoning)

-- 
============================================================================
__          __     __    __          _    _             Khoo, Beng Teck
\#\        /#/    |##\  /##|        |#|  |#|            KBT PSI 1993 <:)
 \#\  __  /#/     |#\#\/#/#|        |#|  |#|            Faith, Hope and Love
  \#\/##\/#/      |#|\##/|#|        |#|__|#|            Fortis Atque Fidelis
   \##/\##/estern |#| ~~ |#|ichigan \######/niversity   "X93KHOO@WMICH.EDU"
    ~~  ~~         ~      ~          ~~~~~~             "31KHOO@WMICH.EDU"
============================================================================

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

From: rodkey@rain.org (John Rodkey)
Subject: Re: AIX --> linux ?
Date: 30 Jun 1994 21:36:36 -0700

simmonr5387@cobra.uni.edu writes:

>One more thing, How much trouble or, what do you have to do to get ibm AIX
>applications to run under linux and is there a directory with a brief synopsis
>of all of the applications out for use with x windows?

If you really mean get ibm AIX apps to run under linux (i.e., run the
binary files from one machine on another), there's no way.  Doesn't work.
Don't even think about it.  

However, if you mean 'How do I get an X application from AIX to be displayed
on my linux computer which is running X', that's easy!  

Log onto the AIX machine, set the environment variable DISPLAY to
mymachine:0  , go back to mymachine, and make sure the AIX machine has
been authorized to display on your X server by using the xhost
command.  Then, just run the applications.

Problems you may run into:  missing fonts, window manager-specific things
may have been built into some X apps.  But mostly, it'll work fine.

Recap:  
On linuxmachine                      On aixmachine
login
startx
xhost +aixmachine
rlogin aixmachine
                                     export DISPLAY=linuxmachine:0
                                     myfavoritexapp &



John
>-- rob o
-- 
============[[[[[[]]]]]]============
John Rodkey  rodkey@westmont.edu
Director of Academic Computing,
Westmont College, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

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

From: clay@monsta.metronet.com (Clay Luther)
Crossposted-To: news.software.nntp
Subject: INN/nntpsend: script will not post due to sh error (??)
Date: 2 Jul 1994 15:59:36 -0500

Well, I've been pouring over the INN docs and faqs trying to figure out
what is wrong, but I can't.

My upstream server is feenix.metronet.com.  I am currently receiving news
ok.  However, posts aren't going out.

What happens:

I start innd.  out.going/feenix.metronet.com is touch.  I post.  The file is
added to out.going/feenix.metronet.com.

Now, I run nntpsend -d:

> [starting xxxx]
> [sh: PPID read-only variable]
> [stopping xxxx]

It looks like my shell (bash 1.13) isn't grokking something (PPID, but I can't
figure out where it's doing this) in the script.

Any pointers?


Thanks.
-- 
Clay Luther                           clay@monsta.metronet.com
Systems Administrator                 clay@gojira.monsta.com
Monsta, Inc.                          (214) 407-0029

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

From: Leo L Turetsky <professor+@CMU.EDU>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: Fri,  1 Jul 1994 14:36:44 -0400

Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.linux.misc: 1-Jul-94 Re: Linux better than
OS/2 .. by Chun Hsu@msu.edu 
> Umm.  Right.  As I noted in a previous post, it took me a week
> to upgrade the majority of my Linux installation.  Why?  Just to
> run Mosaic.  For that single application I upgraded the kernel,
> gcc, XFree, C-libraries, and more.  Upgrading and patching is
> a fact of life with any OS.  Sooner or later, it becomes necessary
> to run new applications.

How old was your linux installation? Your installation sounds ancient.
It's like a completely different version in OS/2 terms. If your
installation was ancient and you had to upgrade... whay are you agruing?
Of course you needed to upgrade.
  
> >   
> > > But I'd hardly say that I'd bet my enterprise on Linux. There's no
> > > "compelling" application to make Linux attractive. In fact, that's the
> > > reason why some of us bet on OS/2 or SCO (I'm in the SCO camp). It
> > > may not be that SCO is perfect [in fact, far from it], but it is known
> > > for some stability and has a volume market. Linux is a hacker's dream.
>  
> > Linux is free. All applications are compelling. It wasn't designed to be
> > used in the office, and yet there are plenty of companied who do so.
> > OS/2 is broken; the only thing you depend on it to do is not be
> > compatible (like Linux) and cost money (not like Linux). SCO is SCO.
>  
> > -Leo
>  
> All applications are compelling?  I am not sure what you mean by
> that.  Please stop driveling about OS/2 being broken.  There are
> satisfied and unsatisfied OS/2 users.  There are satisifed and
> unsatisified Linux users.  Your extreme bias against OS/2 only
> makes your arguments more ineffective.

Anything that is free and comes with source and does even half of what I
want it to do, is compelling to me. There's a russian saying, "there are
many horses in Russia." That is what your paragraph reminds me of. The
fact that you had a moot point to start and continued to elaborate on it
my providing your ancient Linux as an example, makes your argument
ineffective, period.

-Leo

+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Leo Turetsky          |  1) leo@professor.pc.cc.cmu.edu  |
| Sigma Nu              |  2) professor@cmu.edu            |
| 1055 Morewood Ave.    |  Carnegie-Mellon University      |
| Pittsburgh, PA 15213  |  Sophomore, ECE\CS Double Major  |
| (412) 862-2963        |  Nugget: SPIN BHBHY, YAXY?       |
+----------------------esp---------------------------------+


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

From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (R S Rodgers)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 1994 08:16:38 -0500
Reply-To: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu

In article <2v0grh$gvv@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, hsuc@msu.edu (Chun Hsu) wrote:
> Leo L Turetsky (professor+@CMU.EDU) wrote:
> > Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.linux.misc: 30-Jun-94 Re: Linux better
> > than OS/2 .. by Andrew@husc10.harvard.ed 
> > All of three cards? Incorrect. Why don't you find out something about
> > the specs. ftp.next.com (unless they changed it). It has more drivers
> > that work than OS/2 ever will have. Plus NeXT doesn't release broken
> > drivers and OS's and not provide free fixes, not that this has happened
> > yet to my knowledge.

NeXT certainly does release broken drivers.  The SCSI support (what
there is of it) is sub-par and doesn't even support the better SCSI
cards that are out there, and the serial port drivers continue to be a
joke that even Windows 3.1 users can laugh at.  But you're right --
they don't release patchesm at all, for the most part.

> As many others have already pointed out, the fixes are free.

No fixes are free.  You may get the files free, but the costs to
companies for having to install these drivers (compounded by the fact
that IBM's own service pack shipped with BROKEN or semi-BROKEN drivers
in some cases, and for some stupid reason IBM can't write a service
pack that only patches the system and doesn't, for instance, change
your desktop color settings) is not free.  It would be better if there
were no patches necessary at all, but since that will never happen,
IBM could at least spend a little more time doing QA on what they do
ship free.  And you only get the files free if you're lucky enough to
get them via ftp.

> I may be wrong, but it doesn't yet seem to be the norm in the
> software industry to send out free fixes.

It seems to be going that direction.  The step-up from DOS 6.0 to 6.2
and now to 6.21 (which is really not much except the removal of
DoubleSpace and a few bug fixes) were all free or available for $6 on
the shelf at computer stores.  Likewise, the quarterly NT patches have
been made free, as was the patch for Word 6.0 to 6.0a.  [Same
disclaimers about "free" patches applies here].  If MS is doing it,
then others will almost certainly follow.

[...]

> > Because I don't have the room for both and the initial argument here was
> > that OS/2 is broken. OS/2 is not excellent by far.

A NeXTSTEP for Intel user criticising OS/2 is like an MS employee
complaining about IBM's deceitful advertisements.  The criticisms
might be true, but they look pretty silly.  Does >19kbps work for you
yet, or does it crash your system or cause massive character dropouts?

--

Yippee for uqwk!

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin
From: jim@n5ial.mythical.com (Jim Graham)
Subject: Re: Modem speed vs transfer rate
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 1994 13:56:27 GMT

NOTE:  Followups are re-directed to comp.dcom.modems which is, of course,
where this topic obviously belongs.....

In article <2v1ig0$bc8@news.ccit.arizona.edu> ron@argus.lpl.Arizona.EDU
(Ron Watkins) writes:

>Currently, I have a 2400 buad modem which gives me transfer rates of approx
>200 chars per second. I was looking at a 14400 modem which indicated that under
>compression, the data rate was 56Kbaud. When I compute the ratio of 2400 to
>56Kbaud, I find that the rate is 24 times faster than I now experience. This
>factor, when applied to the 200 chars per second rate which I get now, yeilds
>a 4.8 K chars/sec transfer rate. Yet I keep hearing that all you can expect is
>somewhere around 1.1 to 1.6 K chars/sec. Can someone explain why?

We'll get to the rest of this long, long paragraph in a moment....  For
now, let's look at what we've got so far.

First, if you have a 2400 *BAUD* modem, as opposed to a 2400 bps modem, and
assuming it's not some proprietary scheme that does 2400 bps at 2400 baud
(which would be a huge waste) you already have either a 9600 bps or a
14400 bps modem.  V.22bis (i.e., your standard 2400 bps modem) operates at
600 baud.  V.32 (9600/4800 bps) and V.32bis (14400/1200/9600/7200/4800 bps)
both operate at 2400 baud (for all speeds).  Judging by your throughput
rates, can we assume that you really have a 600 baud / 2400 bps modem?

Second, the only compression ratio you can absolutely be sure to get with
V.42bis data compression (which I'm assuming you're talking about) is 1:1,
or no compression.  Beyond that, your results will vary from one second to
the next, depending on your data.  This mythical 4:1 figure quoted for
V.42bis is just that---a myth.  It's a marketing gimic.  V.42bis is capable
of *MUCH* higher compression ratios, given a properly designed test....  It
also doesn't always get as high as 4:1.  It all depends on the data moving
across the link at that given moment.

For example, if you're transferring pre-compressed data, V.42bis will see
that it can't do anything to compress the data, and will switch into its
transparent mode (refer to section 7.8, ``Data compressibility test'', of
ITU-T Recommendation V.42bis), and you'll get a 1:1 compression ratio.  In
other words, for a V.32bis connection (at its full speed of 14400 bps) with
V.42 error control, you'll get around 1679 cps (before any errors, and
before external protocol overhead, i.e., between computers).

On the other hand, if you're transferring data that's *VERY* compressible
(e.g., some types of database files, files from some word processors,
etc.), you might see very high compression ratios (probably still not the
mythical 4:1 ratio, but very good, just the same).

>I have a friend with a NeXT (I think it's a 486 but I don't know) uses the
>same modem on both ends of a SLIP connection and gets just short of
>5 K chars/sec when doing FTP. So what gives? Why can NeXT computers give
>so much faster transfers than the NET-2 Linux computers?

See above.  They may well be transferring a lot of data that's easily
compressed by V.42bis.  With data compression, there are no promises---you
take what you can get and be happy with it.  At least with V.42bis, you
can know that it won't *LOWER* your throughput like MNP5 would, so you
know that you won't get lower than around 1679 cps (again, that's before
any line errors and/or end-to-end protocols, and that also will vary a
bit if you use a different frame size for V.42 than the default size of
128 chars).  MNP5 tries to compress even pre-compressed data, thus
actually expanding it...not good....

Later,
   --jim

--
73 DE N5IAL (/4)                           < Running Linux 1.0.9 >
      jim@n5ial.mythical.com                 ICBM: 30.23N 86.32W
  ||  j.graham@ieee.org          Packet:  N5IAL@W4ZBB (Ft. Walton Beach, FL)
E-mail me for information about KAMterm (host mode for Kantronics TNCs).


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

From: mec@shell.portal.com (Michael Edward Chastain)
Subject: Re: [term] Boo-hoo!
Date: 2 Jul 1994 20:16:37 GMT

In article <2utkh3$fum@crl2.crl.com>, Bill Hogan <bhogan@crl.com> wrote:
> Maybe the real reason behind the prohibition against widespread use of
> things like Gnu 'term' is that some people are taking unfair advantage of
> their internet-access providers systems, by logging-on as internet users
> but then proceeding to run multiple non-internet-related heavy-duty
> processes, in which case I would be just as pleased to see those abusers
> chased off internet-access providers' machines as the providers themselves
> would be. 

Disclaimer: I don't have any inside information on how access providers
work.  This is just my speculation.

I don't think providers are worried about CPU usage, or memory usage,
or even disk space usage.  My provider, portal.com, requests that users
who want to use CPU time while they're not logged in 'nice' their
processes.  A process which is not 'niced' and not connected to a
logged-in user may be killed without warning.  'nice' has been in Unix
for about 15 years and it works really well.

I *do* think that providers are worried about incoming modem usage and
outgoing Internet traffic usage.

A user with 'term' is prone to use a *lot* more Internet traffic than a
user with 'minicom' or some other comm program.  Want to ftp 30
megabytes from sunsite, download it, and read news the whole time?  No
problem!  There is no 'exclusion cost' for the user having to dedicate
the outgoing line to file transfers.

When something is easier (cheaper) to consume, people consume more of
it.

> Maybe the only solution is to have Linux people setting up Linux-based
> internet access sites that fit with everything else that is going on in
> the Linux community. 

I think this is what a 'ToasterNet' is.  You buy your $$$ and you get a
raw IP connection.

I just checked the home page at The Little Garden, 'http://www.tlg.org'.
This is a non-profit do-it-yourself IP provider.  You can connect anything
you want at your end; resell service; and so on.  They do _not_ provide
any sort of shell account at their end.  I don't know if they include an
NNTP feed at these prices.  Here are their prices as of 2 July 1994.  

                                        Install Monthly Hourly
    T1                                  $ 2800  $  800  $ 0
    56K                                 $ 1800  $  325  $ 0
    V.32bis unlimited                   $  400  $   85  $ 0
    V.32bis per hour                    $   25  $    0  $ 1 ($25/month minimum)

For comparison, here are semi-equivalent prices for a 'full-service'
provider.  I received this in e-mail from 'cs@cup.portal.com' of Portal
Communcations.  They charge more if you are attaching a whole network
at your end than for a single host.  They _do_ include an unlimited-use
shell account (worth $20/month retail) and an NNTP feed.

                                        Install Monthly Hourly
    V.32bis unlimited (multi-host)      $  100  $  170  $ 0
    V.32bis per hour  (multi-host)      $  100  $  100  $ 1
    V.32bis per hour  (multi-host)      $  100  $   80  $ 2
    V.32bis unlimited (single-host)     $   50  $  120  $ 0
    V.32bis per hour  (single-host)     $   50  $   50  $ 1
    V.32bis per hour  (single-host)     $   50  $   30  $ 2

---

So you can see, even at The Little Garden's price of $85 per month,
PPP/SLIP service is quite a bit more than the going rate of $15-$25
month for unlimited shell service.  I believe that $85/month rate is
far closer to the true cost of operation for someone using a dedicated
or semi-dedicated connection.  I think that's why service providers are
unhappy at people using 'term' to consume the same bandwidth and pay
only $20 per month.

Michael Chastain
mec@shell.portal.com

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


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