Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #366
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:     Sun, 3 Jul 94 12:13:08 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #366, Volume #2                 Sun, 3 Jul 94 12:13:08 EDT

Contents:
  AMD 486 66/2, ANy known probems (Matthew Grant)
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (Chun Hsu)
  Re: Watching a user on an tty? (Tim Smith)
  Re: Best OS for a bandwidth intensive on-line service.. (william.c.brown)
  Re: Wordperfect and other Dos questions  (Mark A. Davis)
  Re: VP/ix for Linux? (Mark A. Davis)
  Re: [term] Boo-hoo! (Bill Hogan)
  Re: Lemacs with term support? (Bill C. Riemers)
  Re: ANNOUNCE: Slackware Linux 2.0 (Trevor Pendleton)
  Re: [term] Boo-hoo! (Bill Hogan)
  Re: OS/2 and Linux discussed (Re: TCP/IP: The reason I dumped OS/2) (Chun Hsu)
  Re: Watching a user on an tty? (Tim Smith)
  Re: VP/ix for Linux? (Lutz Molgedey)
  Modem speed vs transfer rate (Ron Watkins)
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (Leo L Turetsky)

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

From: grantma@ritz.equinox.gen.nz (Matthew Grant)
Subject: AMD 486 66/2, ANy known probems
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 22:37:15 GMT

Hi there,

This question should be in the help group, but I would like to see a ggod
discussion on these chips.  I know they are mentioned in the hardware howto,
but I really want to push the chip, and the cost of the equivalent Intel
part is expensive.

I know to steer clear of early AMD 486dx/40s, but is there any problems with
the 486DX 66/2?  I have just heard there is a register set bug with all AMD
chips.  Are there any problems with Bus masters lkie the AHA 1542B?  
 
I have not seen any thing mentioned in the newsgroups about AMD processors,
so I want to make sure that they work 100% with Linux.  My uptimes with my
486DLC have run to 12 days, but it refuses to work with the Adaptec.

Cheers,

Matthew
-- 
    _/  _/   __/   _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/  _/  _/_/  _/  _/     Matthew A. Grant
   _/_/_/  _/  _/   _/     _/   _/_ _/  _/_   _/  _/    1 Domain Tce, Chch. NZ.
  _/  _/  _/_/_/   _/     _/   _/_/_/  _/    _/_/_/   (03) 338-4287
 _/  _/  _/  _/   _/     _/   _/  _/  _/_/  _/  _/  grantma@ritz.equinox.gen.nz      

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

From: hsuc@msu.edu (Chun Hsu)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: 2 Jul 1994 04:09:29 GMT
Reply-To: hsuc@egr.msu.edu

Andy Longton (alongton@clark.net) wrote:
: Chun Hsu (hsuc@msu.edu) wrote:
: : The only time I might expect free patches is if the cost of
: : the patch was negligible compared to how much I spent on 
: : the software itself. 

: Software patches that I've needed (for Windows or OS/2) have always been 
: free or very low cost; free if I download it, low cost if the waranty has 
: expired.  The only exception was a CD ROM driver for OS/2 & DOS that 
: Hitachi was charging for ($30) -- something that I've never encountered 
: before with the exception of some of Adaptec's software.  If I bought the 
: hardware, the drivers were free in all other situations.

: If I had a way to gripe to Hitachi, I would have used it.  Fortunately 
: for them, they provide no way to contact them -- everything is through 
: voice mail and dealers; they don't want to talk to you if you actual own 
: one of thier products.  Grrrrr....

Sorry, I should have been clearer.  This thread started as a 
complaint about IBM not "sending" patches (CSD's) for free.
That includes not charging for media or shipping.  This was
not about being able to obtain patches for free.

--
===========================================================================
 Chun Hsu                                     E-mail: hsuc@egr.msu.edu   
 Masters of Science
 Electrical Engineering                       Michigan State University
===========================================================================

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

From: tzs@u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Re: Watching a user on an tty?
Date: 2 Jul 1994 04:13:06 GMT

Roy Hann <rhh@tachy.uah.ualberta.ca> wrote:
[Someone suggests looking for passwords in kmem.]
>
>Once again, I have to shake my head and marvel at people who casually
>post everything from broad hints to explicit recipes for compromising
>system security.  Please DON'T!  I am begging now.

He's hardly giving away any real information.  It doesn't take both
lobes to figure out that there may be interesting things stored
in the kernel's data on a running system.  If you're allowing
access to kernel memory, you've got a lot more to worry about than
someone picking up cracking tips from the net.

--Tim Smith

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.misc
From: corey@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (william.c.brown)
Subject: Re: Best OS for a bandwidth intensive on-line service..
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 14:57:59 GMT

In article <S_MARIUS.94Jul1160402@iraul1.uka.de>, s_marius@ira.uka.de (Marius Kjeldahl) writes:
> Well, I have some future projects I am looking into, and would like to
> ask the net community what they think about Linux vs. OS/2 on this
> subject. I am not trying to start a flame war.
> 
> I believe an efficient implementation of threads is pretty useful in
> such an environment, and that this is nativly implemented in OS/2. But
> I have also learned that Linux have some add-on software (pthreads)
> that allows similar operation.

        This probably depends on the design of your system. Do you
        really need threads to do an online service??
> 
> What do you think would be the best choice would be for, let's say 16
> users connected through serial ports, trying to maintain a stable
> bitrate (9600++bps). 

        OS/2 is still a single user system. Bulletin boards have been
        around for OS/2 for a long time, but unless you are going to
        offer generic "bulletin board" type services your going to 
        have to write a specific multi-user interface for your new
        product under OS/2. 

        I would try Linux first. Multi-user capability is already there
        (i.e. no need to use threads) and your target code won't have
        to deal with multi-user specifics. Well, there are still things
        to consider, but Linux is going to provide you with true separate
        user accounts as part of the underlying OS and not as part of
        your new product.

> 
> Anyone??
> --
> Marius Kjeldahl, student at The Norwegian Insitute of Technology and
> The University of Karlsruhe - finishing MSc late autumn 1994 
>       e-mail: s_marius@ira.uka.de or mariusk@lise.unit.no
>       www   : http://rzstud1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/~ulh0




/* Corey Brown  (WB0RXQ): 20m, 15m, 2m(146.82) 70cm(443.65)     */
/* AT&T NSD                  |  corey@hustler.att.com           */
/* Alpharetta, Ga 30202      |  attmail!wcbrown                 */
/* (404)750-8071                                                */

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

From: mark@taylor.infi.net (Mark A. Davis)
Subject: Re: Wordperfect and other Dos questions 
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 1994 02:38:55 GMT

rob@pe1chl.ampr.org (Rob Janssen) writes:

>In <1994Jul01.030325.3336@taylor.infi.net> mark@taylor.infi.net (Mark A. Davis) writes:

>>simmonr5387@cobra.uni.edu writes:

>>>I have 2 questions for you all: and forgive me if they are redundant:

>>>1) Everyone is talking about XWordPerfect and using the sco version of the
>>>program on linux boxes so a) what is the cost of this package

>>About $295 for a single SCO license from your favorite Unix vendor. This
>>is the same retail price as all other versions of WordPerfect.

>Actually, the DOS version of WP 6.0 costs only about half of that in
>local currency equivalent...

I said retail price, not street price.  Besides, could you be thinking
of an upgrade?  In any case, street prices will vary depending on volume.

>However, that may be because WP and MS are engaged in a price battle trying 
>to keep/get a share of the market.  MS sells Word+WFW for even less...

>Let's see if they (WP) have lowered the price of UNIX products correspondingly.

As far as quality Unix software, the price is rather low right now
(look at Frame for $1000 for a single fixed license or $2000 for a single
floating).

Of course, I would love to see it go even lower!!

-- 
  /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  | Mark A. Davis    | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 |
  | Sys.Administrator|  Computer Services   | mark@taylor.infi.net           |
  \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/

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

From: mark@taylor.infi.net (Mark A. Davis)
Subject: Re: VP/ix for Linux?
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 1994 02:52:47 GMT

rob@pe1chl.ampr.org (Rob Janssen) writes:

>In <1994Jul01.184536.24576@taylor.infi.net> mark@taylor.infi.net (Mark A. Davis) writes:

>>>  - How hard would it be to add such virtual-386 capabilities to DOSEMU?

>>This is probably a major problem with DOSEMU?  Merge almost literally

>Slashing DOSEMU with the capabilities of MERGE is quite cheap, Mark!

I am not trying to "slash" DOSEMU.

>We all know that MERGE is made by a commercial company and sold for
>big bucks.  DOSEMU is a hobby project done by volunteers.  When you don't
>want to join them, please stop battering them all the time.

It is not my intention to batter DOSEMU.  I greatly appreciate the time
and effort which went/goes into it.  There are those, however, who tend
to believe that it solves the problem of running MS-"DOS" programs for Linux.
Currently, it does not (at least for me).  Of the two machines I have
tried it on, one it will not work on at all.  The other, which is a fast
machine, absolutely craws in DOSEMU (even text mode stuff).  And 75% +
of what I try to run fails.  Granted, this is an older version, I intend
to upgrade to a more recent version soon (when I can get ahold of a new
CD).  The comparison to Merge is not terribly fair; but then, I would
pit Linux as an OS against some commercial Unixes.

DOSEMU is one of the key factors in the ultimate overwheling success of Linux

1) Running almost all MS-"DOS" programs  (future DOSEMU)
2) Running MS-"Windows" binaries under X  (future, future WINE)
3) Running commercial Unix software (almost there with IBCS/COFF project)
4) Very good, updated, indexed, accurate documentation (getting there)
5) Easy install/uninstall management (There: Slackware and others)
6) Unix systems management/admin software system (None so far at all)
7) Some very good PD Linux OA apps (Not many so far, notibly wordprocessing)
-- 
  /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  | Mark A. Davis    | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 |
  | Sys.Administrator|  Computer Services   | mark@taylor.infi.net           |
  \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/

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

From: bhogan@crl.com (Bill Hogan)
Subject: Re: [term] Boo-hoo!
Date: 3 Jul 1994 08:03:35 -0700

Michael Edward Chastain (mec@shell.portal.com) wrote:
: 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
-- 
  Bill Hogan
{echo "Subject: get bhogan@crl.com" | mail pgp-public-keys@pgp.mit.edu}

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

From: bcr@k9.via.term.none (Bill C. Riemers)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Lemacs with term support?
Date: 3 Jul 94 02:25:57 GMT
Reply-To: bcr@physics.purdue.edu


Sure, emacs and lemacs just calls your system's ftp, telnet, ...
binaries. So replace them with ones compiled with term support.
It works for me. :-)

                                  Bill

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

Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 10:21:14 EDT
From: Trevor Pendleton <IO81149@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Slackware Linux 2.0

I noticed that the u2 disk seems to be missing from all sites.  Also, last
time I checked, u1 on tsx-11 was empty.  (In case you haven't guessed, I am
running UMSDOS)

-Trevor
IO81149@maine.maine.edu

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

From: bhogan@crl.com (Bill Hogan)
Subject: Re: [term] Boo-hoo!
Date: 3 Jul 1994 08:10:47 -0700


Michael Edward Chastain (mec@shell.portal.com) wrote:

  [supporting argument omitted -- see original]

: 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
--

  One of the difficulties I have in understanding why my internet-access
vendor won't let me use the GPL 'term' package is that I don't have an
example of *how* my using the GPL 'term' package could possibly impact my
internet-access vendor's system in any radically different way than the
way I am using Kermit does now. 

  $85/month may be far closer to the true cost of operation *for someone
using a dedicated or semi-dedicated connection* but if the GPL 'term'
package and a $20/month dialup line can in fact do the same job as a
dedicated or semi-dedicated connection, I don't see how $85/month could be
called far closer to the true cost of *operation*. 

  True cost of operation is relative to available technology, so if the
GPL 'term' package and a $20/month dialup line can do the same job as an
$85/month dedicated or semi-dedicated connection, all that would seem to
me to show is that the technology currently employed to support a
dedicated or semi-dedicated connection job can be replaced by a simpler
technology that can do the same job at a lower cost -- a trend I believe
to be both salutory and characteristic of this particular industry. 

  Therefore, *IF* the GPL 'term' package and a $20/month dialup line can
do the same job as an $85/month dedicated or semi-dedicated connection, it
would seem to me that far from being an argument in support of the right
of service providers to prohibit their customers from using the GPL 'term'
package and a dialup line to interact with the systems to which the service
providers *sell access*, it would be an argument against the right of sevice
providers to require their customers to use an outmoded technology with a
*now* artificially higher cost attached. 

  Frankly, I find it a little hard to believe that I, with my i486dx33,
14.4 modem, and the GPL 'term' package, could really "consume the same
bandwidth" as someone with a dozen Vax-11's and a dedicated connection,
but if I am mistaken then I think the sooner we see a new crop of
fresh-minded young Linuxers starting up their own BBS's all over the
place, the better. 

  Meanwhile, someone has suggested to me that the limiting resource in my
case might be the global total number of pty's that is *compiled into* the
Unix kernel on my internet-access provider's computer. 

  Bill  

-- 
  Bill Hogan
{echo "Subject: get bhogan@crl.com" | mail pgp-public-keys@pgp.mit.edu}

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

From: hsuc@msu.edu (Chun Hsu)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Linux discussed (Re: TCP/IP: The reason I dumped OS/2)
Date: 2 Jul 1994 04:23:56 GMT
Reply-To: hsuc@egr.msu.edu

Leo L Turetsky (professor+@CMU.EDU) wrote:
: Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.linux.misc: 1-Jul-94 Re: OS/2 and Linux
: discusse.. by Tim Cutts@cus.cam.ac.uk 
: > What do you have left when you remove PM from OS/2?  A hell of a lot!  A
: > command shell, a powerful scripting language (REXX), oodles of text-mode 
: > OS/2 programs, GCC, virtually every GNU package in existence, in fact...
: > I'll tell you one thing, if Linux did not have X, I'd never use it.  I use
: > it mostly for networking and getting multiple text sessions on remote hosts.
: > X is the best way of doing this.

: You have all of this in Linux plus built in networking. You can't claim
: GNU products either. They are not part of the OS distribution. Linux
: packages these things, OS/2 does not.

GNU products are "packaged" with Linux only if you use one of the
standard distributions.  That does not make them any more a part 
of Linux as in OS/2.  GNU products are simply "available" in both
OS'es.  Live with it.

--
===========================================================================
 Chun Hsu                                     E-mail: hsuc@egr.msu.edu   
 Masters of Science
 Electrical Engineering                       Michigan State University
===========================================================================

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

From: tzs@u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Re: Watching a user on an tty?
Date: 2 Jul 1994 04:27:17 GMT

Ludwig Van. <lruppert@iguana.syr.EDU> wrote:
>A would-be cracker would have to be root to exploit the hole.  What is
>the most terrible thing that could happen from the /dev/kmem scenario?
>He could get root.  It's a catch-22.  If the would-be cracker has
>root, he doesn't need to read /dev/kmem, and even if he did, the fact
>that he has root would be a more immediate and serious concern than
>the fact that he could snag your PGP password.

Actually, the worst case scenario is that some program that is suid root
because it needs to access some kernel data has a bug that can be used to
access other data in /dev/kmem that enables you to figure out how to
become root.  The non-root cracker can then exploit this bug.

This illustrates a problem Unix has historically had.  There are usually
not mechanisms to give partial access to something.  If a program needs
to read *some* information from kmem, it has to be given full access to
kmem.  On one system I used, we fixed this.  We changed kmem to return
zeros for reads of kernel data structures that were not in a list of
known safe areas unless the process doing the reading were root.  We
then protected /dev/kmem so that it was group readable, and programs like
ps were made sgid to the appropriate group.  Then, even if someone found
a bug in ps that could get it to read areas it wasn't supposed to, no
harm would be done, because it would just get zeros.

--Tim Smith

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

From: molgedey@theo-physik.uni-kiel.de (Lutz Molgedey)
Subject: Re: VP/ix for Linux?
Date: 3 Jul 1994 15:21:03 +0200

In <2v1j2v$57t@galaxy.ucr.edu> thp@corsa.ucr.edu (tom payne) writes:

>Mike Jagdis (jaggy@purplet.demon.co.uk) wrote:

[deleted]

>It is my impression (from a brief conversation with Locus founder
>Jerry Popek) that Merge provides a virtual 386 in a manner similar to
>the IBM virtual machine monitor, VM/370: user-mode instructions run
>directly on the host machine, but privileged instructions fault and
>are virtualized (faked) by the fault-handler software, e.g., console
>writes are virtualized to an X-window. (A difficulty is that the 386
>architecture has mode-sensitive instructions that are not priviliged,
>i.e., that don't trap in user mode, so Merge uses a special loader
>that tweaks occurrences of those opcodes into illegal opcodes, thus
>forcing them to trap to a handler that untweaks the instruction and
>virtualizes it.)  For background:
>  -  "The Origin of the VM/370 Time-Sharing System," 
>     R.J. Creasy, 
>     IBM J. Res. Develop., Vol 25, No5.  
>  -  "Formal Requirements for Virtualizable Third Generation 
>     Architectures," 
>     Popek and Goldberg, 
>     Communications of the ACM, Volume 17, Number 7.

Uhhh, sounds strange. How the special loader 'tweaks occurrences of those
opcodes into illegal opcodes'. Are they using single step mode (but
this would be slow)?????

>If my impression is correct, one can run DOS/Windows 3.1 (and possibly
>even 4.0, when it comes out) directly on the virtualized 386, with the
>software thinking that it is running on real hardware.  This provides
>the ability to run all well-behaved Windows applications under Unix,
>a major goal of the WINE project. 

>Two questions arise:

>  - What features of System V/386 does Linux lack that prevent it from 
>    running Merge?

>  - How hard would it be to add such virtual-386 capabilities to DOSEMU?

We are working on DPMI support for dosemu. I guess this will in principle
allow us to run all programs that run under OS/2 including a patched
Windows 3.1 (may be we use direktly os2k386.exe).

>Tom Payne (thp@cs.ucr.edu)
>University of Calif., Riverside

greetings,
Lutz.


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

From: ron@argus.lpl.Arizona.EDU (Ron Watkins)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Modem speed vs transfer rate
Date: 1 Jul 1994 17:07:12 GMT

I have a question regarding the transfer speed over the SLIP connection.
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?
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? Can someone
please give me a simple, down-to-earth explination? I don't want to spend
big bucks on a 14400 if im only gonna get a linear improvement in speed up
to about 1.2 K per second.
PS, for those who think that a 14400 doesn't cost big-bucks, consider that it
took me 4 years to build my pc from scraps for only about $500 so far invested.
I just don't have any spare cash, so for me, $150 is big-bucks. That might keep
the car running for another 6 months...
--
Ron Watkins    [ron@argus.lpl.arizona.edu]    /            /~~~~)     /
931 Gould-Simpson                            /            /____/     /
University of Arizona                       /            /          /
Tucson AZ. 85721 -- (602) 621-8606         (____ unar & / lanetary (____ ab.

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

From: Leo L Turetsky <professor+@CMU.EDU>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: Sat,  2 Jul 1994 00:33:10 -0400

Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.linux.misc: 1-Jul-94 Re: Linux better than
OS/2 .. by Mike Dahmus@news.gate.ne 
> >> Provide some supporting evidence, or stop making these wildly nonsensical
> >> claims. Only a complete idiot would claim that NextStep currently supports
> >> more hardware than does OS/2.
> >
> >Okay... why don't you ftp to the NeXT site and get the hardware FAQ.
>  
> Is NeXT stupid enough to claim this? Or are you just talking out your butt?

Just talking out my ass... :)))
  
> >I
> >did provide evidence, or where to look for it anyway. Only a complete
> >idiot would disagree with the fact that NeXT drivers work when they are
> >released as opposed to OS/2 drivers.
>  
> Another wild generalization, completely unsupported by fact. Leo, get a grip.
> You're going to get a rep as the Brian Sturgill of the NextStep crowd.

Should I be more specific? Okay. There is a driver that doesn't work for
NS. Now you be general. All OS/2 drivers have some kind of bug. Your
generality doesn't seem to hold for all cases but on the whole there is
a basis for it. My generality: doens't hold for all cases, but seems to
hold on the whole. That's what generality means. Look it up.
  
>  Also because NeXT is so hardware
> >intensive it can't use low end hardware, like the Adaptec 1522. Because
> >OS/2 supports this card doesn't mean anything... NeXT can't even use it.
> >What I am comparing is high end hardware like the new Adpaptec 2742 (?)
> >and cards along that end.
>  
> Leo's definition of "low-end hardware": Hardware that NextStep doesn't
support.

Is this definition false? Can you call the 1522 high-end scsi? Keep in
mind I own a 1522, and am happy with it, but it is by far the lowest
brand-name scsi I could find when I got my cd-rom.
   
> >> And what do you call CSD1 and CSD2? Taken together, they provide
all of the
> >> "fixes" necessary to upgrade OS/2 2.0 to OS/2 2.1 level (without upgrading
> >> Win-OS/2 to 3.1, or giving multimedia).
> >
> >I call this defective, moronic, and poor computing from IBM.
>  
> I call you defective, a moron, and a poor example of CMU's educational
system.

Wow that was really necessary. Your mother is a hog. That got me far in
my argument, not.

> You asked for free fixes - and I told you IBM *has* given free fixes.
What more
> do you want?

I want fixes that are free to everyone... not to people with FTP access.
If I pay for software I expect it to be supported to me at no cost until
it does what it was rpomised to do.
   
> >> Cost of these fixes: $0.00
> >
> >Yeah, if you have internet access.... 0.00 my foot.
>  
> So? How many free fixes has Next shipped for, oh, their serial driver
problem?
> Or their other sundry bugs?

I don't know. I don't use NeXT. I used NeXT as an example because it is
a superior OS in all respects and that I have investigated getting it
for Intel and thus have read the info at ftp.next.com numerous times.
  
> Or how much did Microsoft charge for the MS-DOS 6.21 "fix" if you didn't have
> internet access?

$6. 6.00 > 0.00... see?

-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---------------------------------+


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


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