Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #368
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 18:15:35 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #368, Volume #2                 Sun, 3 Jul 94 18:15:35 EDT

Contents:
  A sample of what's wrong with OS/2 TCP/IP  (Guido Sohne)
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (Guido Sohne)
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (Guido Sohne)
  Re: OS/2 and Linux discussed (Re: TCP/IP: The reason I dumped OS/2) (Guido Sohne)
  Re: Linux Journal wants young artists (Andrew M. Hoerter)
  Re: DOOM For X? (Jean Liddle)
  QIC-02 tape driver for Slackware 1.2 (SYSTEM 0PERATOR)
  Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing (Steven R. Sheldon)
  slip and ethernet setup (Stephen Parkinson)
  [Help!] Routing/forwarding problem (plunket@otago.ac.nz)
  kernel 1.1.23, X-server speed (Steven Whitlatch)
  Re: VP/ix for Linux? (Mike Jagdis)

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wgsohne@tucson.Princeton.EDU (Guido Sohne)
Subject: A sample of what's wrong with OS/2 TCP/IP 
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 14:26:27 GMT

I couldn't have put it better myself. Please read on to find out one of the
aspects of TCP/IP for OS/2 that is severely broken. 

In article <fat.9.2E12617E@cnit.nsk.su>,
Dmitry Irtegov <fat@cnit.nsk.su> wrote:
>OK, people, I have a stupid question:
>
>Linux distribution contains about 30 floppies. TCP/IP, C/C++/ObjC, all with
>sources, also games, LaTeX, SmallTalk and some other things that average 
>user do not need.
>OS/2 2.99beta has 19 floppies itself, 8 floppies TCP/IP, and about
>10 floppies you need for some decent software development system.
>NO SOURCES.
>
>Why OS/2 distributive is THAT big?
>
>     I have had some idea why it is, when I saw IBM TCP/IP PM ping.
>Look, you have simple, small and useful tool, for example pencil.
>Than you think you need to ehance it somehow. And you add to your pencil 
>something... For example, CD-player.
>
>     OK, instead of getting pencil with attached CD, you got CD with 
>attached pencil, which is useless, but you don't care...
>
>     PM ping is something similar. It opens large window with status line and
>dialog box to type in host address to ping. I guess, data and code for all 
>that stuff is order of magnitude bigger than ping program itself.
>
>     Instead of ping with GUI you have GUI with ping, hidden deep inside.
>My example is not good, because CD-player itself is useful thing, even with
>attached useless pencil, but what do you think about GUI without program?
>Or about GUI which is much bigger than a program?
>
>     I have read somevhere on the net a definition of kludge(sp?) as a
>"Ugly and complex artifact doing trivial function". IMHO, this sort of
>ping program is definitely a kludge.
>
>     If you so care about user-friendlyness and fool-robustness, why
>don't you write an internet autoconfigurator? Imagine, your setup
>program broadcasts for RARP/BOOTP; ask you, whenever you want to use
>their addresses or will type in your own; broadcast for DNS/NIS; ask
>you, which one should be primary; ask DNS for name of your address, etc.
>And all with GOOD online help...
>
>     IMHO, in simple LAN's with one DNS/NIS and one router this would
>give you working configuration without any user's mental activity.
>And it will be much more useful than all that PM ikebana...
>
>     I wouldn't write it by myself only because I'm lazy.
>
>If you want to answer, please email to fat@cnit.nsk.su or fat@nw.cnit.nsk.su,
>because my newsreader configuration is broken.
>
>Fat Brother
>

I remember being surprised that IBM TCP/IP took more space than my OS with
full TCP/IP (a superset of TCP/IP for OS/2 functionality). With such
fatware in existence, can anyone imagine what bloat is in the OS itself ?

This is also why TCP/IP for OS/2 is so slow. Its a kludge and is very
definitely an inferior product.

--
Guido

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

From: wgsohne@tucson.Princeton.EDU (Guido Sohne)
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 14:40:15 GMT

In article <1194@zam103.zam.kfa-juelich.de>,
 <mibo@isi026.isi.kfa-juelich.de> wrote:
>In <Yi4QOjK00WB_8CTHYv@andrew.cmu.edu>, professor+@CMU.EDU (Leo L Turetsky) writes:
>>Simple equation:  Linux = $0.00 < OS/2 = $100.00.
>
>Maybe too simple. What does your university pay for Usenet access? To be fair
>one should compare real cost. 
>
>Linux on CD \approx DM 80.00 < OS/2 on CD = DM 99.00. The relation still holds,
>but the difference is smaller.
>

Bullshit and obfuscation of the highest order. Those are what in Economics
are called sunk costs. Do you care what it really costs to use resource X
when the actual cost to you is different ? Do you care what the real cost
of OS/2 is or do you care what the cost is to you ?

For a student with Internet access, Linux is free and Internet usage is
free. Whether or not you use the resources you have still paid for them and
it is a sunk cost. It does not matter.

You are really desperate to show Linux is not free. You must try again
later.

>---
>Michael Bode
>

--
Guido



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

From: wgsohne@tucson.Princeton.EDU (Guido Sohne)
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 14:40:28 GMT

In article <1195@zam103.zam.kfa-juelich.de>,
 <mibo@isi026.isi.kfa-juelich.de> wrote:
>In <Paul_Lahaie.30.00083AA2@achilles.net>, Paul_Lahaie@achilles.net (Paul JY Lahaie) writes:
>>     What does it matter what the University pays for it?  I have 'free' 
>>access to the Internet (56Kbps link), therefore Linux is truly free for me.  
>>And when I'm at work, I have 6x56Kbps to play with (also 'free').  Someone is 
>>footting the bill, but it isn't me.
>
>Okay, and what does that tell us? This OS/2 that I'm using right now is free 
>too. As free as IBM TCP/IP and CSet++ and WinWord and Excel and Xact and 
>Autocad and Linux. My boss paid for it, so it's truly free for me.
>
>So guys, where is the problem? There is sooo much free software around. Just 
>get someone else to pay for you.
>

I see. So now OS/2 is a free operating system ? Just a question.
Stop trying to reduce the price difference between Linux and OS/2. You got
it at no cost to yourself. Good for you. But do you have the source code ?
Is it stable and fast or is it multicrashing ?

--
Guido



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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: wgsohne@tucson.Princeton.EDU (Guido Sohne)
Subject: Re: OS/2 and Linux discussed (Re: TCP/IP: The reason I dumped OS/2)
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 1994 14:52:46 GMT

In article <2utvkv$gv3@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
Tim Cutts <tjrc1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Leo L Turetsky <professor+@CMU.EDU> writes:
>
>>Excerpts from netnews.comp.os.linux.misc: 29-Jun-94 Re: OS/2 and Linux
>>discusse.. by Tim Cutts@cus.cam.ac.uk 
>>> Be fair.  You can get OS/2 on one disk too.  You are comparing the full
>>> distribution of OS/2 with a Linux boot/root disk!  The comparison you should
>>> have done is OS/2 with Linux base + perl (~REXX) + X + sc + emacs + OpenLook
>>> etc etc.  Then you're talking about 20 disks.  Still less than OS/2, I agree,
>>> but you weren't being entirely fair.
>
>>Entirely fair my foot. Show me a disk that can install basic OS/2 on
>>your hard drive without inserting anither disk. Linux base is one disk.
>>X is an addon app. Emacs is entriley unnecessary. OpenLook is unneeded.
>>I don't know much about perl and sc but I've been using Linux for a few
>>months and haven't run into them once,... so...
>
>OK.  But I can probably do it with two disks.  And you're not listening to me.
>I included OpenLook because it is the closest equivalent to Workplace Shell

Who asked for an equivalent to Workplace Shell ? Taking the same tack as
you did, tell me how disks OS/2 would need if you installed it with CSet++,
OS/2 TCP/IP (full kit), an Objective C compiler (if one does not exist for
OS/2 substitute some other compiler), Smalltalk, equivalent to tcl/tk,
a Postscript viewing program, a Pascal to c translator, a fortran to c
translator etc.

I imagine it would come to almost 100 disks. Can you imagine that folks ?
That it takes OS/2 almost 100 disks to achieve the functionality Linux does
in 25 ? Before you say you don't need those features, please let me say
that neither do I need or even want the Workplace Shell. So if you decide
to play that way, you will end have having to install almost 100 disks
before you can say you have an equivalent functionality to Linux.

>that Linux has.  Emacs is there because OS/2 also comes with a configurable
>editor, EPM.  I am just including the Linux equivalents of what comes with the
>full OS/2 distribution.  If you say X is an addon app, I can say Presentation
>Manager and WPS is an addon.  Bingo - instantly down to a couple of disks.
>How many times do I have to say this? Presentation Manager is not OS/2!
>

I am also just including the OS/2 equivalents of what comes with the Linux
distribution. And also please compare apple to apples. You just can't
compare Emacs to EPM. It's like comparing a Ferrari to a Hyundai.
 
>And a one disk installation of Linux can't really do anything, can it?  OK,
>you could feasibly make a boot disk with a few TCP/IP clients on it, but you'd
>have to remove so much stuff that it would be severely crippled.
>

That's where you are wrong. A single Linux disk can be used to transform
*any* networked (Ethernet) PC into a system running a complete GUI and
having full internet access. OS/2 just can't do this.

>Tim.

--
Guido

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

From: hoertera@cyclos.oau.org (Andrew M. Hoerter)
Subject: Re: Linux Journal wants young artists
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 94 09:19:36 EDT

tgm@netcom.com (Thomas G. McWilliams) writes:

> Sounds ok, but I'm still waiting for the Linux Journal "swim suit" issue.

        Ah, have a hankering to see Linus in his skivvies? :-)


--
Andrew

amh@cyclos.oau.org
amh@gate.net

#include <std/disclaimer.h>


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

From: jliddle@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Jean Liddle)
Subject: Re: DOOM For X?
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 18:17:14 GMT

In article <Cs49zq.oM@Newbridge.COM> ehenry@Newbridge.COM (Ethan Henry) writes:
>In article <1994Jun27.205645.258@dali.cti-software.nl>,
>Pim Zandbergen <pim@dali.cti-software.nl> wrote:
>>slouken@cs.ucdavis.edu (Sam Oscar Lantinga) writes:
>>
>>
>>>    When is DOOM for X coming out?  Will it come out
>>>with the advent of DOOM 1.4?
>>
>>There was some speculation of a Linux version of DOOM
>>to be released "Real Soon Now", a couple of months ago.
>>
>>Everyone was very excited, people said they would buy
>>registered copies of the DOS version so they could
>>use the WAD files for the Linux version and then there
>>was nothing but silence.
>>
>>The latest news is that Id Software is cooperating
>>with Microsoft to have a Windows version of DOOM
>>ready for Chicago. Chicago supposedly has a special
>>games API.
>>
Unlikley.  This wouldn't be id's style, to pander to Microsoft;s
Monopolistic practices.  Their organization is quite democratic,
and appears to lean heavilly toward the hacker ethic.  They have
vowed never to do work for a well know Japanese video game giant
because of the way Wolfenstein 3d was mutilated.  I suspect they
have the integrity to tell Microsoft where to go if they were so
foolish as to try and disallow Id to port their own software to the
platforms of their choice.
>
>
>Besides, I'm sure Id could do something to make WAD files
>incompatiable between different platforms... heck,
>they could ask Microsoft, who've been doing that with Word
>for years ;)
>
Again, while easy enough to do I suppose, this doesn't really seem like
Id's style.  I would be very surprised (and disappointed) if they went
this route.

Perhaps someone from Id would care to comment / clarify on all of these
rumours flying around?

Jean.

-- 
Jean Liddle                                 
e-mail:  jliddle@ilstu.edu                  
         jean@interaccess.com
System Administrator, S.G. Warburg

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

From: system@interphase.com (SYSTEM 0PERATOR)
Subject: QIC-02 tape driver for Slackware 1.2
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 94 11:22:52 EST
Reply-To: system@interphase.com (SYSTEM 0PERATOR)

I have recently install Slackware 1.2, and have recompiled the kernel to 
support the QIC-02 tape drive I have.

It accesses the drive but does not work correctly.
The symptom is that the drive runs back and forth when trying to do a tar 
cvP.  It does not stream in one direction like it should.

I also noticed several warning messages regarding incorrect variable 
types, and undeclared functions while recompiling the tpqic02.c file into 
the kernel.

I created a /dev/rmt0 character device file with Major 12, Minor 0.
I also tried using minors of 1-5, with no improvement.
I even tried recompiling it for different types of drives, also with no 
improvement.
I have a Wangtek 5099een24 drive with an Everex, QIC-36 controller.
According the the tpqic02.h file, the Everex controller is supposed to be 
the same as the Wangtek controller, and it does access the drive.

BTW, doing a tar tv to read the tape streams just fine.
It is only when writing to the tape that the problem occurs.

It would appear that the tpqic02.c file may be the problem.
Any ideas or suggestions would be helpful.

        Thank You,
        Dana Sandefur
        danas@interphase.com


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                system@interphase.com   (SYSTEM 0PERATOR)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

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

From: sheldon@iastate.edu (Steven R. Sheldon)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux better than OS/2 for net surfing
Date: 3 Jul 94 06:51:45 GMT

In <CsCEyL.EFo@ecf.toronto.edu> comital@ecf.toronto.edu (COMITALE  LEO) writes:

>In article <Yi5QWWa00YUn8BTZw1@andrew.cmu.edu>,
>Leo L Turetsky  <professor+@CMU.EDU> wrote:
>[deletia]
>>problems because they are entirely your fault for not keeping up. If
>>OS/2 had yearly updates, maybe IBM would have gotten it right by now.
>[etc]
>>Your installation IS ancient. You're a master's student in ECE, why
>>don't you understant that the computer industry changes with the blink
>>of an eye?
>>
>>-Leo

>I think OS/2 users would rather be doing their work rather than
>installing fixes for the OS all the time.   

>Of course if all your interested in is the OS itself, by all means
>go ahead and recompile your kernel every week, I'd rather be running
>programs instead, thank you.

 OS/2 and Linux are totally different markets.  I don't even understand how
this thread got started.

 For us OS/2 users, we don't give a damn on most of the points raised in
this stupid discussion, all we care about is that our software works.  And
in this case, it's DOS and Windows software, and maybe some OS/2 utilities.

 As long as I can run PC-Arc/Info processing in a window, and open up
a full screen session running Atlas*GIS, I am happy, and OS/2 is working for
me.

 Now I can't do that with Linux, as Linux doesn't have very good DOS/Windows
support.  So it's not comparable in any sense.

 I use Linux at home, and it's really nice for a home user who wants to use
their computer for something more than just running applications.

 But for most people, they just want to run applications, and for that
DOS/Windows and OS/2 especially work wonderfully, whereas Linux does not.

 Anyway, like I said, I don't understand how this argument got started.
Somebody would have to be pretty ignorant to suggest I use Linux in place of
OS/2 at work.
-- 
Steve Sheldon           [These are my own opinions]
Iowa State University   ICSS Resource Facility by day
sheldon@iastate.edu     ProMap by night
   BEEF! -- Cause the west wasn't won on salad.

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

From: Stephen@zmemw16.demon.co.uk (Stephen Parkinson)
Subject: slip and ethernet setup
Reply-To: Stephen@zmemw16.demon.co.uk
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 18:33:03 +0000




Systems
1 486sx25 running Linux 1.09 with NE2000 and 14400 Modem on sl0

2 486dx50 running Linux 1.09 with NE2000


When configured as 'address's' 111.112.113.114 & 
111.112.113.115, and using the netmasks,broadcast address 
suggested in the netconfig scripts, I get 260-300kb/s 
depending on direction using ftp between the machines
dx50 has an adaptec 1542c, sx25 is future domain 950

Question - what do i need to do to set up one of the machines
as 158.152.17.122 and the other as an ethernet local connection

I have had the sx25 on the net, for ftp and mail

What I cannot figure is the address for the local connection,
I think it should be logically be 158.152.17.???, but
that is in my slip providers domain :(

Can I just say in the hosts,hosts.allow,hosts.equiv files

sx25
158.152.17.122 zmemw16.demon.co.uk zmemw16
domain is demon.co.uk
192.191.0.1 frances.zmemw16 frances

dx50
192.191.0.1 frances.zmemw16 frances
domain is zmemw16


Any thoughts, recommendations, pointers to good books
would be gratefully received.

Stephen Parkinson

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

From: plunket@otago.ac.nz
Subject: [Help!] Routing/forwarding problem
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 1994 06:32:07 GMT

Hay all,

I have the following urgent problem.
I have set up a multi line SLIP dial-IN server. (Linux ofcourse)
The Server is connected to the Internet via a set of Routers, with a SLIP 
connection in between. This part works fine.
I can connect to the Internet, and can ping my Routers from the Linux box.
Now I dial in, on one of the serial ports, and go SLIP (using SLIPLOGIN).
This works fine, the SLIPLOGIN program sets the Routes for me, and I
can connect to the Linux box just fine. I am using Winsock and Cello
on the remote computer. I have also tried KA9Q's JNOS or NET program.

I CANNOT connect or Ping anything past the Linux box, *including* the Router
which has an IP address in my own class C network. 
If I Ping a station on the Internet, or the Router on the other side,
I can see the packet going out over the Modem, AND see a reply coming
back as well. But the reply never reaches my Remote computer.
It looks like a one-way route. I have tried all manual routes I can
think of, but it does not work. I can't do anything until this problem
is fixed.

IFCONFIG is correct with a pointopoint from Linux to remote (same network),
and a netmask of 255.255.255.0. (Class C network)

Routes exist from remote to Linux and back. The Genmask is 255.255.255.255.
The Route program always has a value of 0 in the Metric field. Must be
a bug. That is, is has a 0 everywhere, including the big route list
which comes over the Internet via GATEd.

The DEFAULT gateway is set to the Router on my side, via Ethernet.
This works all OK. 

So, why is a packet returning from a ping to the Internet not forwarded
back to my remote? It is *definetely* going TO the Internet, I can see
it going over the Modem, and a reply coming back!

I am baffled.

I have the following setup:

(Remote)--SLIP--(Linux)--ETHER--(Router/Router)--SLIP--(Router/Router)--ETHER>

(202.36.94.2)--(202.36.94.1)--(202.36.94.254/223.254.254.1)->next line>
-(223.254.254.2/140.200.232.8)-->>>INTERNET 

Where 202.36.94 is my Class C network;  ( .1 is the Linux box) 
the 223.254.254 is a fake, non-propagated 'network' between Routers, 
and 140.200.232 is the backbone in the local University.

Any help appreciated!

(please reply by E-mail...)

Bart Kindt.


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

From: swhitlat@gray.nmt.edu (Steven Whitlatch)
Subject: kernel 1.1.23, X-server speed
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 18:04:17 GMT


I noticed an unmistakeable speed increase in X when I 
employed kernel 1.1.23.  

Has anyone else noticed this?

I'm using the vga-16 server and i'll supply all the other 
details if anyone is interested.


Steve Whitlatch
swhitlat@prism.nmt.edu




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

From: jaggy@purplet.demon.co.uk (Mike Jagdis)
Subject: Re: VP/ix for Linux?
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 1994 22:09:00 +0000

* In message <2v1j2v$57t@galaxy.ucr.edu>, tom payne said:

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

The AT&T memory management code, LDT manipulation etc. Even if Merge doesn't 
depend on any internal behaviour but only the syscall interface reverse 
engineering even that would not be easy without access to restricted source. 
And as for how we should be handling the fudged instructions - well, this 
would be impossible without knowing things about either Merge or Unix that 
we aren't allowed to know. And that would probably require cooperation from 
more than one company. Merge will likely never run under emulation on Linux. 
It could conceivably be ported to Linux.

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

Uh... DOSEMU already sets up a virtual 86 and has kernel support for LDT 
manipulation, instruction trap and fake etc. It hasn't got enough 386 
emulation to run Windows 3.1 yet though and DPMI is very alpha - but I would 
guess it is closer than a port of Merge :-).

                                Mike  
 

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


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