Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #560
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, 6 Aug 94 10:13:08 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #560, Volume #2                 Sat, 6 Aug 94 10:13:08 EDT

Contents:
  Re: SCO Programs & Linux... (Matthew Cummings)
  Re: WABI vs. SoftWindows? (Torgeir Veimo (Sommer stud))
  Re: Doom on SGI -- wow! (Andres Kruse (NIKHEF,1c/137,2909))
  Re: 486DX66 and Linux (Frank Derichsweiler)
  Re: Installation of DOSEMU (Frank Derichsweiler)
  [ANSWER] Linux fragments easially (Stephen Tweedie)
  Re: Just Computers advertising practices (Shawn Thomas)
  Pthreads (TCM ENTRY VOOR SPMS+)
  Re: SCSI-HD-Drivers for PAS16 ??? (Petri Kekkonen)
  Re: fontserver for Linux? (S.G. de Bruijn)
  Re: NCSA Moaic? (Russell Nelson)
  Question about networking with linux? (Sherman Hsieh)
  Re: Doom on SGI -- wow! (Patrick Schaaf)
  Re: WD Caviar w/Linux (Mark Juric)
  Re: splitting lines to 80chars (Tony Gale)
  Re: Linux on a portable (Ralf Hack)
  Spying (Tim)
  Re: IBSC (Chris Benson)
  Re: WABI vs. SoftWindows? (Dejuan Jackson)

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

From: cummings@stingray.net (Matthew Cummings)
Subject: Re: SCO Programs & Linux...
Date: 5 Aug 1994 17:54:51 -0500

Patrick Brewer (noble@catt.ncsu.edu) wrote:
:       I keep seeing loose references to Linux being able to run 
: SCO binaries, but I haven't seen a definative statement that it will. 
: The fact that the above question was posted to this group makes me think 
: that Wordperfect for SCO will run on Linux.  Will it? 

Yes, Wordperfect will run using the iBCS emulator, and it runs fine.  I have
not had a need to check anything else however, so I can't verify any other
program's operation.
-- 
Internet: cummings@stingray.net

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

From: veimo@wangel.nr.no (Torgeir Veimo (Sommer stud))
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.sun.apps,comp.windows.x,comp.windows.x.apps
Subject: Re: WABI vs. SoftWindows?
Date: 4 Aug 1994 08:47:42 GMT

I haven't been following this argument very closely, but it appearts to me
that people are fighting over empty bottles.

Imagine a computer programming lanugage as a transport vehicle of any sort. 
Imagine that programming would be to get to work in the morning. Imagine that
software reuse was the same as reducing C02 spill into the atmosphere. 

Some day someone starts discussing with you that it would be of great benefit
if all travelled in the same vehicle to work every day. In this way the
environmental spills could be reduced to a minimum, and think about the gas
usage reduction. Then you argue that this wouldn't work for three reasons:

- people aren't going in the same direction
- people aren't going somewhere at the exact same time
- people _want_ to ride their own car

Now look at software development and you have the exact same picture. People
doesn't use the same programming language, doesn't use the same operative
system and doesn't reuse others software because of the above three reasons.

Arguing that MSWin-this is better than X/Unix-that is quite useless. Arguing
that this editor is quite better than that is useless. Arguing that this
nifty programming laguage with whistles and bells is better than that simple,
consistent 'reimple-anything'-programming language is useless.

People have to learn and experience by themselves new things if you want them
to have the power of it.

Why don't you people go back to your programming tasks or whatever you where
doing, an do that properly. If you do that, you could go home a little
earlier and have a nice day doing whatever you would like to do which has
nothing to do with computers.

Just my five cents of opinion though. Don't expect me to read any followups,
I will probably hit the Kill-button anyway, since I have better things to do.

-- 
Torgeir @ http://www.ii.uib.no/~torgeir/

- this summer @ http://www.nr.no/home/veimo/

- speaking on behalf of myself..

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

From: A.Kruse@nikhef.nl (Andres Kruse (NIKHEF),1c/137,2909)
Subject: Re: Doom on SGI -- wow!
Date: 5 Aug 1994 21:17:13 GMT
Reply-To: A.Kruse@nikhef.nl

In article duq@news.tamu.edu, wdevine@pvcea.pvamu.edu (William Devine II) writes:
> Where can i find the Doom binaries for SGI's?
> I got one and i want to play doom on a real machine!

Check directory /pub/msdos/games/id on ftp.uwp.edu.

Have fun...

> 
> thanx!
> william

-- Andres (A.Kruse@nikhef.nl)



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

From: i31ade@applsrv.rz.unibw-muenchen.de (Frank Derichsweiler)
Subject: Re: 486DX66 and Linux
Date: 4 Aug 1994 09:24:57 GMT

mai@vietgate.apana.org.au (Van Dao Mai) writes:

>Folks,
>   I recently upgraded to a 486DX-66 motherboard with 16M RAM (72 pins 
>type). I recompile the kernel of Linux 1.1.35. The speed was impressive.
>It takes 16 minutes in real time to compile the 5M of source codes.
>   Working on the machine feel like working on a sparc 2 station. The 
>only bit that is obviously slower is the hard disk access on the 
>Western Digital 420M IDE.
>   Can anyone tell me how long it takes to compile the kernel on DX-66
>machines (and higher like DX4-100 or pentium)? It seems that the DX-66
>is about 4 times the speed of a 386DX-40 with a math. co-processor.

>Cheers,

>Wollongong Australia

Hi !

I own a Intel 486-66 Overdrive (same as 486 DX 2 - 66) and it takes around
20 minutes to compile the kernel

Frank


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

From: i31ade@applsrv.rz.unibw-muenchen.de (Frank Derichsweiler)
Subject: Re: Installation of DOSEMU
Date: 4 Aug 1994 09:27:43 GMT

foemill@gumby.lerc.nasa.gov (Eric P. Miller) writes:


>  I have a question about the installation of DOS Emu on my Linux box.
>I read in the HOWTO about running FDISK /MBR as a part of the procedure.
>I also read that one way of getting rid if LILO is to do the same.  My
>question is that if I run FDISK /MBR will I lose my partition information
>and have to re-install everything for the sake of having DOS running
>with Linux?  I'd like to get it running, but not if it'll scrap my
>drive first.  BTW.... I'm running 1.0.9 Slackware.  What version of 
>DOSEMU should I install to run with it??  Do I need a 1.1.x version of
>Linux?

>Any info about this would be greatly appreciated.

>--Eric
>-- 
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>| Eric Miller                          |  "All flesh is grass" |
>| E-mail: foemill@gumby.lerc.nasa.gov  |   - Isaiah            |
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Hi !

I think, the easyest way is, to use LILO and enable the possibilty to boot DO*

I personally do it and it works fine with dosemu0.52. If I call dos, 
1) LILO prompts what to boot
2) choose DOS
3) DO* is booted without any problem

My config:

Kernel 1.1.29
DOSEMU0.52 
MS-DO* 6.2

Frank

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

From: sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Stephen Tweedie)
Subject: [ANSWER] Linux fragments easially
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 1994 00:46:56 GMT

"Nick" == Nick Kralevich <nickkral@po.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> writes:

> I can't figure out why I have such a fragmented file system.  I ran
> "frag", and came up with the following results -- slackware 2.0.0,
> 1.1.37 kernel:
> ...

/sbin/frag has a real problem.  When it sees indirect blocks in a
file, it thinks there's a gap in the file and calls it a fragment.
For a better measure of fragmentation, use the "e2dump" program which
is included in defrag-0.6.tar.gz.

From experience, I haven't found that I get a particularly substantial
performance improvement after defragmenting --- ext2fs really does
seem pretty good at maintaining good performance over time.

Cheers,
 Stephen.
---
Stephen Tweedie <sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk>   (JANET: sct@uk.ac.ed.dcs)
Department of Computer Science, Edinburgh University, Scotland.


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

From: smthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Shawn Thomas)
Subject: Re: Just Computers advertising practices
Date: 5 Aug 1994 00:12:46 GMT

Larry Doolittle (doolitt@recycle.cebaf.gov) wrote:

> Time to sit down with emacs, the c-compiler, and maybe perl to come up
> with a smart mail filter that can send junk back to sender. <grin>

>            - Larry Doolittle   doolittle@cebaf.gov

Heh, yeah, but now that I think about it, it wouldn't be so hard to 
filter out junk mail using a simple text search... just look for the $ sign.

<Grin>.

Cheers,

Shawn.

--
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Shawn M. Thomas                   :  Due to an administrative error, 
Student of Computer Science       :  tomorrow will have to be rescheduled
University of British Columbia    :  to the day after. ;)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

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

From: tcmk@hitt.nl (TCM ENTRY VOOR SPMS+)
Subject: Pthreads
Reply-To: hkoster@hitt.nl
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 08:45:15 GMT

Hi,

Does anyone know whether anyone has ported the pthreads library located at ftp-site
ftp.cs.fsu.edu (directory /pub/PART) to Linux? Or is there some other POSIX.4a 
compliant pthreads library available under Linux? 

Thanks in advance!!

=======
Hans Koster
Holland Instutue of Traffic Technology B.V.
Technology Department
email: hkoster@hitt.nl




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

From: kekkonen@cc.oulu.fi (Petri Kekkonen)
Subject: Re: SCSI-HD-Drivers for PAS16 ???
Date: 5 Aug 1994 05:28:55 GMT

Donald Jeff Dionne (jeff@ee.ryerson.ca) wrote:
: What do you mean? The PAS16 has a SCSI port, Linux has a device driver,

 I'm looking for a SCSI-driver for DOS, not Linux, but someone at
 comp.*.*.soundcard.tech told me that I might find some info from here...


 -= Petri Kekkonen -        -= RockFord =-       - kekkonen@cc.oulu.fi =- 
 -= Space Physics Division, Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Oulu, Finland   =-
 -= +358 (9)50 5570955 -  "Yo mama -- core dumped" - Household robot   =-


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

From: debruijn@cs.utwente.nl (S.G. de Bruijn)
Subject: Re: fontserver for Linux?
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 05:12:32 GMT

Thomas KIRCHTAG (tkircht@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE) wrote:

: Hi,

: As we have installed 4 machines running mainly Linux, but on rather limited
: diskkspace, I would like to find a way of saving some space by using a 
: fontserver for the X-fonts.
: Is there some fontserver daemon for Linux out there ?
: Does anybody have experiences with it, especially concerning speed?

: thanks for any hints!

: Thomas

: tkircht@fbch.tuwien.ac.at

Yes, fontserver is in X11 bin dir, named `fs'. It is fast enough
for me, but it crashes a lot without reason. So I installed it
from /etc/inittab with the respawn option to prevent
unaccessability from the font server.  Also, sometimes the kernel
has not closed it's tcp port for fs, so a next request for fs
hangs with an error about invalid font server path. Dunno
precisely what the problem is. However, it is worth trying,
because overall it is fairy stable. fs won't crash if your
connection is open.

Steef
==============
S.G. de Bruijn              E-Mail: debruijn@cs.utwente.nl
Twente University of Technology, Dept. of Computer Science 
Enschede                                   The Netherlands
Phone: Work: +53 894191                   Home: +53 334812
=========================== @@ ===========================
signature: file not found

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

From: nelson@crynwr.crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: NCSA Moaic?
Date: 06 Aug 1994 04:18:21 GMT

In article <1994Aug4.140909.6428@zippy.dct.ac.uk> mcscs1cfsi@zippy.dct.ac.uk (Herbie Akira) writes:

   Is there NCSA Mosaic for Linux available???

I use Chimera, which doesn't require Motif.  It makes me happy.  FTP
it from ftp.cs.unlv.edu.

--
-russ <nelson@crynwr.com>    http://www.crynwr.com/crynwr/nelson.html
Crynwr Software   | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key
11 Grant St.      | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX)  | What is thee doing about it?
Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do.

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

From: hsiehs@access.intelsat.int (Sherman Hsieh)
Subject: Question about networking with linux?
Date: 3 Aug 1994 18:45:37 GMT

Does any one out there know if there are any token ring adapters that works
with linux?(driver and hardware) Thanks

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

From: bof@wg.saar.de (Patrick Schaaf)
Subject: Re: Doom on SGI -- wow!
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 17:15:46 GMT

clay@haapi.mn.org (Clayton Haapala) writes:

>To be clearer -- the client was running on the SGI and displaying its X
>window on the Sparc.  Would that imply that it is using portable calls?

Sure, what else? What network was this running on? Ethernet? Do you know
the frame size and fps? I'd be surprised if you get more than 15fps
out of an Ethernet.

Patrick

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

From: mjuric@fred.cs.depaul.edu (Mark Juric)
Subject: Re: WD Caviar w/Linux
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 16:21:53 GMT

In article <31o5k2$ge1@news.csus.edu> quantum@mercury.sfsu.edu (ORLANDO JOSE VALLE) writes:
>
> Been running 1.0 pl5 for a many month now with no problems. Just upgraded
> to 1.1 pl 36 and pow
> HDD controller error.  after a reboot.

I guess I should have mentioned this, but I'm running pl13!  I would guess it's
just a hardware problem.  It hasn't caused me any grief except for the
inability to reboot remotely.

--
Mark Juric                                             DePaul University
PhD CS student            mjuric@fred.cs.depaul.edu or mjuric@falcon.depaul.edu







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

From: gale@minotaur.dra.hmg.gb (Tony Gale)
Subject: Re: splitting lines to 80chars
Date: 6 Aug 1994 12:48:43 GMT

Jim Balter (jqb@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <31ckip$cub@netnews.upenn.edu>,
: Robert G. Smith <rob@bip.anatomy.upenn.edu> wrote:
: >Thomas Dunbar (tdunbar@vtaix.cc.vt.edu) wrote:
: >: i have a data file where each line is 392chars long and need 
: >: to split the lines into 5 80char lines..is there a standard
: >: util for this sort of conversion?
: >
: >Try "split", a standard Unix tool available in most Linux
: >distributions.

: I gather that you either didn't read his request carefully or have never used
: split or read its man page.  Here's a simple script that splits long lines
: into lines of no more than 80 characters (not including the newline).  I have
: no idea whether this meets Thomas's needs, since 392 is not divisible by 5, or
: 80, or 79, ...

: awk '{
:       for(i = 1;;) {
:               print substr($0, i, 80)
:               if ((i += 80) > length) break
:       }
: }'

: -- 
: <J Q B>

Of course, you could always use the fold command, which defaults to
splitting lines into 80 characters.
--
   
Tony Gale                 |        Stop whinging and start Wine'ing
gale@minotaur.dra.hmg.gb  |  http://daedalus.dra.hmg.gb/gale/wine/wine.html

                  | All opinions expressed are my own |

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

From: hack@uebung4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de (Ralf Hack)
Subject: Re: Linux on a portable
Date: 6 Aug 1994 13:30:06 GMT

In article <31tedb$cnj@trane.uninett.no>,
Harald T. Alvestrand <hta@uninett.no> wrote:
>I run Linux on a laptop because I need to do networking and MH.
>I'm installing X "real soon now", but if you are an Unix addict like me,
>Linux is useful also without X.
>
>(I put off installing X because I forgot to bring the floppy with me on
>vacation; just wanted to mention that it is *still* extremely useful!)
>-- 
>                   Harald Tveit Alvestrand
>                Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
>      G=Harald;I=T;S=Alvestrand;O=uninett;P=uninett;C=no
>                      +47 73 59 70 94
>My son's name is Torbjxrn. The letter between "j" and "r" is o with a slash.

Dear Linux-users,

I am currently writing this on a 386-Laptop with 8MB/120MB via Modemlink to my
university.

The only drawback of using Linux on this computer is the speed and the screen
size whilst using X. Since the emulation takes its time, I only use it
for xfig (never use without FPU), xdvi or ghostview.

hope this helps


Ralf Hack, Dipl.Ing. (FH)
===========================================================================
If Man had stayed put in the Garden of Eden, where the chronostat is jammed
stuck at half past six on a summer afternoon, it wouldn't have mattered.
                                                     -Tom Holt,"Overtime"-
   hack@uebung4.rz.fh-reutlingen.de,  Tel: 07128/2452  Fax: +49 7128/3392


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

Subject: Spying
From: tims@kcbbs.gen.nz (Tim)
Date: 5 Aug 94 02:12:43 GMT


Hello all, is there a util out there to 'spy' on other tty's ie I can press 
a key to see what is happening on tty2 etc?? This is for my home box so if 
someone logs in using modem or telnet etc over slip, I can watch their 
activities.

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

From: chrisb@jesmond.demon.co.uk (Chris Benson)
Subject: Re: IBSC
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 1994 01:14:35 +0000

In article <1994Aug03.194522.3050@ksmith.com> keith@ksmith.com (Keith Smith) writes:
>
>It won't run BBx/4
>It won't run Uniplex.

The current IBCS (with 1.1.37) runs Uniplex 7.01 for Interactive
fine at the office ...  And MicroFocus COBOL/2 v1.3 and Uniface v5.1f.  
(Sorry I've haven't sent these for inclusion in the working list yet.)

>It won't run a MicroEMACS port of mine.
>It won't run LPI-RPGII
>
>The first guy will buy you a re-boot.
>The second just vomits
>The Third hangs the keyboard.
>Lessee, That about covers all the things I need.. :)
>


-- 
Chris Benson
Work: chrisb@stukeley.demon.co.uk
Home: chrisb@jesmond.demon.co.uk


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

Crossposted-To: comp.sys.hp,comp.sys.hp.apps,comp.sys.sun.apps,comp.windows.x,comp.windows.x.apps
From: jackson@seas.smu.edu (Dejuan Jackson)
Subject: Re: WABI vs. SoftWindows?
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 23:22:34 GMT


>Most people in my research group (molecular biologists) find Unix man
>pages about as much help as a poke in the eye.  I have to agree, to a
>certain extent.

>Tim.


I must say Tim gets the award for the best joke.  And I also must say as
standard Joe user I agree.  Man pages can be the most confusing of help-
like items to use I have ever come across. 


Now a little about me.  (If you want to skip this search for DONE.)  I am
Nobody.  I know very little and I'm proud of it.  I am not a seasoned 
veterian UNIX user as most of our posters here probably are (heck I don't
even have a degree even in experience).  I sat down at my xterminal today
and in my procrastinating way decided to read news groups instead of write
my paper.  Well I happened upon this little discussion in it's entirety (sp?
I didn't think a spell checker was worth the trouble for this post).
It took me hours to read all these articles. I saw them wandering away from
the original topic then back then away again.  I must admit I have learned 
a few things here (this tread is huge).  My dicussion may be a little off 
the general point.

DONE-------

I find this argument characteristict of C/C++ some people believe it's god's
gift to programmers others feel it's overkill.  And of course there are those
who are in the middle of that spectrum.  Bear with me here.  You have the
UNIX's (C) with it's counterpart the X Windowing System (C++).  Then you
have Dos's (Basic) with it's counterpart MS-Windows (Quick Basic).  There
is OS/2 (Turbo Pascal maybe) and other OS's and environments.  This little 
analogy is easy for me because I'm a programmer at heart.  I have dabbled 
in X, MS-Windows, Mac (don't know what the OS would be called so), plain Dos, 
plain Unix, and a few other I would be ashamed to mention (but never OS/2 so 
forgive me).

What I believe Tim is trying to say is that DOS+MS-Windows is good enough for
him and for most others.  And I say good for you.  He is also saying that he 
has tried Linux and have looked into buying UnixWare and other software which
shows that he has some desire to switch to a Unix flavor but doesn't find it
practical at this point.  To that I also say good for you, Tim. (Oh and sorry
about your software prices in the UK.) I would have to say to that Tim is 
right that some people willstick to what they are using now.  They will stay
there because they have gotten use to it and don't want to change.  Adapting
to a new OS (or even just a new environment or window manager in X) takes 
some skill refinement and maybe even learning of new skills.  Takie someone
who has programmed in standard Basic all of their lives.  I come to them and
I say here is C++.  They say OUCH.  They look at pointers, structures, 
functions, classes, scoping, pointers to functions, pointers to structures 
of classes with functions and  pointers to functions,... (you get the 
picture).  I tell them C allows you to have a better control flow over you 
programs without the use of those anoying labels.  They say I like my 
labels... and walk out on me.  So next I come to them with Quick Basic.  And 
they look at me suspiciously because of the C incedent and say what's this.  
I say well this is Quick Basic it will alow you to do exactly what you were
doing before with just a few changes (dealing mostly with graphics) and for
you troubles you get this neat'o editor, some added features, a few 
preprogrammed games and if you want to use it it has subs.  But don't worry
about that right now.  They say thanks and I leave them alone.  I return in 
months after they have been using it with turbo pascal 4.0 in hand.  I say
hows it going with quick basic.  They say nicely i love that quick basic you
gave me it gives me so much more control over my programs.  I ported several 
of my old programs in and reduced the code size by half.  Then I say if you 
like that try this.  They look at me suspiciously because they still remember 
the c++ incident.  I say it's turbo pascal 4.0.  It's a further removed from
your basic knowledge than Quick Basic but it will allow you to create 
exicutable stand alone programs (yes, I was refering to the DOS packaged QB 
program).  They say, reluctantly, I'll try it.  I leave them alone for a few 
more months.  I return and answer all the question they have about Borland's
Turbo Pascal.  Then I say here try this version, and I hand them 7.0.  They 
say why.  I say it has a little thing that 4.0 doesn't called OOP.  They say 
OOP? I say yes, OOP. Object Oriented Programming.  I think you might like it.
I return in another couple of months and with Borland's Turbo C++ in hand.  
This time they great me with what ya got for me now (sorry I'm Texan).  As I
dumbfoundedly hand them C++ they say what features over Turbo Pascal 7.0 does 
this have.  I say well it gives you more power and flexibility in coding.
It alows you to do things in two lines that it would take ten for Pascal.
It is better suported in the long run and generally has more potential.  If
you have the time and the drive you can custimize a C++ header to allow you to
program in any style you want from standard Basic to Pascal.  It also has an 
Assembler built in as part of the package (I'm not saying that Borland is the 
best here it's just the one I'm most familiar with).  And most of the commands
are of the same name as Turbo Pascal 7.0.  Enjoy.  As I turn to leave they 
realize that this is what I was giving them all along.  And they say why did 
you do this.  And I reply Because I knew you'd like it.

Another aproach could have been to write the overloading and handling (which 
I haven't tried to do wo it may or may not be completely possible.) in C++ 
for a basic program.  And all but force it on this poor unsupecting person 
and hope that they would get intruiged enough and interested enough to seek 
the information.  (Don't think it would have happened.)

      [  now off my PC trip  ]
If you read this far I hope you have gotten what I am saying.  There are many 
people out there who is just dropped in X with little or no help will 
instantly hate it (If they've used a computer before or not).  But they don't 
realize the power which is being offered them.  They wouldn't even want it yet
even if they did know.  It would scare them to have the added responcibility
that comes along with the power.  Considering that There are versions of Unix
which will run on a PC which are free (with whatever bugs it may have I'll buy
it).  I can use it in combination with another OS on my system (say by using
partitions).  As it gets better I'm goig to grow away from my old OS (unless 
of course my old OS can keep up {not gonna happen}).  Then add X on to that 
which is also free (I'll buy that too is it works with my Unix).  Widgets,
(most of those cost money) I'd rather not bother.  This leaves me with GNU
software and other shareware, wait one minute this stuff is also free isn't
it. COOL.  But there is a problem I have grown use to some of my applications
in my old OS (I like em so much I just can't give em up).  Well on day someone 
tells that I can run my old programs in X.  I imediately ask how much is this 
gonna cost me (I'm really cheap). They say almost nothing. It's already part 
of your X package.  All you need to get is a good (let's say my OS is DOS) 
Dos emulation program.  There may even be some shareware ones out there.  
Everything else you need is there for you.  I think wait a minute what about 
my MS-Windoze (I hadn't ever seen this one bofore this group) stuff.  I am 
quickly asured I can even run Windows apps too.  All I would have to do is 
reinstall Windoze.  
Disclaimer:  I understand that this would be an emulation and therefore 
             would run slower than Windows alone, but hey you can't have 
             everything.  Another point is that it would be impossible to 
             emulate X under Windows with any type of resonable speed,
             price markup, or functionality.

I by no means am saying that Unix and X are the greatest things ever.  I'm just
saying that given the rate that the PC industry is evolving, which is only 
comparable to the rate the shareware market is evolving,  at the time when 
most Pc's are 486/586 or equivilent in Moterola terms (forgive my lack of 
technicalness) a unix based PC world could an most likely would be vastly 
superior to a DOS or OS/2 or Mac (again I have no idea what it's called) OS
that has to adapt to Networking and Permissions and protocols of which Unix 
was made to handle.  In my own opinion Unix is for the future.  Not for the 
preesent in the PC market.  The market isn't quite ready for it.  But soon
it will be (just not today, maybe tomorrow, I'll check again then :).

On that stupid installation point (sorry if this offends anyone... :), but I
really don't see the relevance to OS here.  If the manufacturer of the good
wants the costomer to use it and tell others about it, then tell the costomer
how to start using it is a really good idea.  This is done in many way which
would all seem equally foreign if not encountered before.  

I don't post very often but hey I saw all these post and I just wanted to chime
on in. 

well bottom-line is it's out there it's growing it's getting better you 
notice it it scares you you try to kill it but it's too late.


Well they first came and they took the gays and you didn't speak up because
you aren't gay.  Then they came and took the cripled and again you were silent.
Next they came and took the Jews and you just turned and looked away.  Well
look around and see who's left for them to take.  -I don't know and I admit it.


P.S. comments and criticisms welcomed (including flames... :) because I most 
     likely  won't be reading any newsgroups for a while.

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


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