Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #592
From: Digestifier <Linux-Misc-Request@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU
Date:     Thu, 11 Aug 94 15:13:18 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #592, Volume #2                Thu, 11 Aug 94 15:13:18 EDT

Contents:
  afs client ?? (Whay S. Lee)
  Cannot keep XON/XOFF flow control (Bruce Parkin)
  Re: starting X automatically on installing linux distribution (Byron A Jeff)
  Re: comp.os.linux.hardware.* (Matt Welsh)
  Re: WABI vs. SoftWindows? (Mike Suzio)
  Re: [BUG] in cp (copy) on DOS fs. (Dennis Heltzel)

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

From: wslee@ai.mit.edu (Whay S. Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: afs client ??
Date: 11 Aug 94 12:39:43



        Does there exist an afs client that runs under
linux ?

        please also cc: your respond by email. thanks.

whay.

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.admin
From: parki005@gold.tc.umn.edu (Bruce Parkin)
Subject: Cannot keep XON/XOFF flow control
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 1994 07:11:44 GMT

I have a Telebit WorldBlazer modem with FAX capability. I've been
trying to get "efax" to work, with little success. From what I can
tell, XON/XOFF flow control will just not work. I have all tried all
the possible register settings, with no success. With a 9600 bps mod. 
rate I am getting thruputs of greater than 12,000 bps; as well as
a warning about extra XON/XOFF characters at the start of transmision.

As the man page states, this seems to indicate that flow control is
not functioning; I can verify this just by watching the lites on the
modem. 

Then I picked up some cheap commercial software (E-FAX) that I installed
and ran on the DOS/Windows partition, and faxes flow just fine. (with
just a plain old &F8 setting - what you would expect). When I switch
back over to Linux, IFF I do not reset the modem, the Linux e-fax 
works just fine, also. But ONCE the modem is reset (for SLIP/UUCP), I
can not get XON/XOFF flow control to kick in again.

All register settings for the modem are identical, before and after
the reset. XON/XOFF just won't work after.

I don't think it is the modem, since on the DOS side it functions
just fine. 

And I the writer of "efax" is on vacation till September sometime.

Any one know what is going on, and how to fix this? Help?

Bruce Parkin

bruce.parkin-1@umn.edu


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

From: byron@gemini.cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: starting X automatically on installing linux distribution
Date: 11 Aug 1994 16:23:57 GMT

In article <CuCKzw.3Bu@news.cis.umn.edu>,
Sujat Jamil <sujat@shasta.ee.umn.edu> wrote:
->-I disagree.  Compare with Windows or OS/2.  They install straight into
->-the graphical environment.  They use the baseline 640x480 VGA
->-resolution.
->
->Which suck. People end up having to install higher performance drivers to
->get better resolution. And it's not necessarily easy.
-
-I agree, it does suck. But it is a start for beginners.  Doing this at
-least guarantees a level playing field viz. Windows or OS/2.

1st impressions are important. The baseline for X will be small and slow on
many many machines (especially ones that can do much better). I'd rather
have an informed user using their system to the best of its potential 
instead of a a bland generic introduction so we can play with Windows and
OS/2

-
->
->-
->-There's no reason that we can't do the same with a Linux distribution.
-> 
->Yes there are.
-
-Well, what are they?

1) It assumes that everyone has sufficient equipment to do the job. The last
   time I checked the average machine has a 14" monitor, a non-accelerated
   video card and 4MB of RAM. Fine for text - dog slow for X.

2) Too much variation between hardware. To solve either the user has to be 
   asked (difficult) or use a baseline of 640x480x16 ( not very appealing).

3) At one point in time XFree86 was released with a sample Xconfig. This
   practice was stopped when it turned out that folks were damaging their
   hardware with it because they didn't understand how it worked.

The bottom line is that text should be the default. Setting up X only takes
a bit of knowhow and about 5 minutes of time (with the caveat that you know
what you're doing - which much the target audience doesn't).

I'd suggest either having an expert help with the X installation or have
the user understand what's going on instead of just autoconfiguring.

Note that Windows takes option 2 (640x480x16 default).

-
->->configuration options for the X server?  Unless some reliable way can be
->->found to probe the system hardware in Linux installation and install the
->->correct drivers for the hardware and write the correct Xconfig file this
->->would seem not to be feasible.
->
->True. Slackware actually asks you what you have. Also SuperProbe is pretty
->good about gathering info on your video card.
-
-
-At least until v2.0, I don't recall Slackware configuring X for you.
-(I might be wrong, however.)

No you're not. What I meant was that Slackware asks you about other hardware
(modem, mouse, CDROM) during the configuration. It could possible ask about X.
However the average user doesn't understand about video chipsets and bandwidth 
and other information needed to configure X. All I'm saying is that 
autoconfiguring the X server isn't easy.

->->It is very easy to draw unfarourable comparisons with *nixes from the likes
->->of SUN and HP, who IMHO have made a very good job of turning *nix from a 
->->command line OS to a graphically orientated OS.  At work here I have an HP
->->715 running HP-VUE, and it is easy enough for a complete novice to use, yet
->->powerful enough to be completely customizable to my needs (in the best
->->*nix tradition).  
->
->True. But the software knows what the video hardware is going to be.
-
-Yup, but back to Solaris and Unixware for x86 :)

They probably take the 640x480x16 route. Not very appetizing at all.

-
->-Right! And I think the same can be done with Linux/X!
->
->Not really. Not out the box.
->
-
-Why not?  Why not use a baseline of 60x480 for pete's sake!  Isn't it better
-to have a crappy starting point that none at all?

No it's not because it gives new user the impression that all that's available
and honestly 640x480x16 isn't real useful for X. Couple that with 4MB of RAM
(which is still the standard config in most machines) that really slows things
down you get a unusable interface which would tend to drive novices off.

-
->-
->-Mine does too.  And I suspect a huge portion of Linuxers with enough
-                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
-
->-resources to run X do the same on their PC!  So, why not automate the
-  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-
->-process on install?  We can always customize to our heart's contents.
->-True to the *nix tradtion, as you say. :)
->
->Your suspicions are unfounded. Many many many people out there lack the
->RAM, disk space, video, monitor, or CPU horsepower to give X justice.
->What percentage of folks have 8M, 1024x768 NI monitor, acclerated graphics
->card on a 486? Probably not 50% of Linux users.
-
-
-Please look at how I qualified my statement.  In addition, while it's
-true that a significant fraction of the *already installed*  Linux
-machines may be incapable of or inefficient at running X, if you look
-at the number of "new" machines being installed, that surely doesn't
-hold!  It's hard to find an ad for a 386 system anymore, and a large fraction
-of the new machines actually do come with 8MB ram.  In addition, you
-don't need to have an accelerated graphics card or a 1024x768 monitor to run X
-satisfactorily.  

I'm working with an ET3000 right now. The scrolling sucks. You really need
an acclerated card to efficiently use X.

-And referring back to my original post, you can
-always have the option of *not* installing X.  Finally, you do have to
-agree with me that the trend in systems is more resources (higher
-performing CPUs, more memory, faster graphics card, higher-resolution
-monitors) for same or less cost.  While I agree with you in that it is
-important to retain backward compatibility with those with less
-resources, we should design for the future, not the past.

Even the current and near future machine won't really be up to the task because
of memory. For example I was doing an installation on a brand spanking new
Dell tower with a 486DX2/66 in it. Came with 4 MB of RAM. I had problems
completing the install due to lack of memory. Even when I finished and ran
X with a S3 accelerated card it was slow.

Things should stay the way they are: No X with the option of installing after-
ward. Maybe add a Xconfig auto option (which I believe already exist) to
somewhat simplify the process. Maybe.

-

->
->For the longest I've run a 386DX40, 4MB, 256K ET3000 card, and a 14" monitor.
->X is dog slow on it due to swapping and a lack of accelerated video.
->
->However for a non X linux box it's extremely useful.
->
-
-Great.  I am glad to hear it.  So where's our disagreemnt?

That with your suggestion that X would be automatically installed which
renders my machine useless. And if I'm a novice user expecting great
performance from my machine after installing Linux, I'd be sadly disappointed.
Starting with text and virtual consoles, my machine is quick and usable. So
when I install X and it runs dog slow I won't attribute it to Linux but to X
and start upgrading.

-
->The lack of character based interaction is what I hate the most about both
->the Windows and MacOS interfaces. It's fine for novices but in reality when
->I need to do real work a virtual console or an rxvt is the ticket.
->
-
-I agree!  So, why not have both kinds of UIs?  Depending on your
-desires and needs, you get to choose your level of abstraction.  That's
-what you can do on commercial Unix workstations, so why not on Linux PCs!

That's fine. All I'm saying is to start with the baseline of character based
UI's which don't stress the machines resources with the option of upgrading
to the X interface. Or even just checking the memory resources in /proc and
using SuperProbe to check the video card and advising the user that they
have marginal resources for running X. The video and memory resources for
workstations are specifically designed to support X, the video and memory
resources of PC are not.

-
->Because to realize the true power of the underlaying OS one must interfact
->with it. I might be agreeable to a transisitional type interface where the
->user has menus that build command lines for common tasks. But to completely
->isolate the user from the complexity of Unix also isolates them from much
->of the power. The complexity and power go hand in hand.
->
-
-
-Fine!  What if you don't want to understand the "true power of the
-underlaying OS".  Should you be forced to understand it, to be able to
-use it?  I.e. should the power of the underlying OS be available only
-for those OS elites who have the desire or the acumen to understand
-it.   Gosh, if the same were true for microprocessors, a lot fewer
-people would be using computers!  I agree, to be able to understand
-the beauty of an OS, you need to have an idea about how it works.

Unix is quite unforgiving of novice users. The DOS/Windows/Mac user 
paradigm is that novices to the OS basically remain novices to the OS forever.
And since the OS is quite limited anyway very little power is given away.
However under Unix having an understand of what's going on "under the hood"
can give of a multi-fold productivity increase. Also with a less complex OS
mistakes are less damaging than in Unix. 

Ever done a "rm -rf /usr" as root? I have.

-[ Summary: character -> GUI is to assembly -> High Level Language ]

I have no fear of the paradigm shift. I use X wherever I have sufficient
resources for it to operate efficiently. I still maintain that the average
PC (486,4 MB RAM, non accelerated video, 14 in monitor) doesn't provide the
necessary tools to run X efficiently and that making a mandate that X
be the baseline in that environment is a mistake.

-
->Once you get over the "But it's not DOS/Windows!" phobia it realtively painless.
-
-Yup!  Couldn't agree more.  But, that shouldn't keep us from having
-just as "friendly" abstraction layer that Windows/OS2 etc has.
-Actually windows GUI is probably not exactly a role model.  NeXT Step
-is probably a much better model, or some of the newer Sun, SGI, or HP
-desktop environments. 

If you have the hardware to do it justice.

-  
->
->Not likely. Most novices have a SEVERE phobia to change. To them because they
->don't see any difference there's no reason to change. In fact there is a 
->reason not to change because then they'd have to learn something new and
->different.
-
-Exactly, so why not make the introduction gentle?  Tell them "you can
-do all you could do in dos/windows JUST as easily, but spend some
-time, and you can do a WHOLE lot more"  Plus simple things like 
-networking, one application program not crashing the whole system,
-being able to format a disk and type an essay at the same time (the
-classic example :>), should make the move pretty attractive.  The
-problem now is that the introduction itsel is NOT gentle.  There's no
-comfortable cushion i.e. an abstraction layer.  Right from the start
-you are shoved into an environment rather alien and formidable to
-someone used to seeing "Are you sure you want to delete this file?".

Hmm. Alien? The is the setup for the user I described:
1) login: (ok this is alien to DOS/Windows users)
2) Type DOS at the prompt (prompt is analogous to C:\>)
3) Type WP at the A:\> prompt

Now except for 1) what's so alien about this? Even with the explanation that
switching to another VC one could do mail at the same time (VC switching is
analogous to ALT-Enter in Windows) this was information overload. That user
switched back to DOS.

When I said adversion to any change, I really meant any change.

-
-
->Linux doesn't need to become the next Windows/Mac. It serves a bunch of 
->needs in terms of networking, communications, multitasking, etc. in it's
->current form. To cripple it to appease novice users denies the very power
->that Linux brings to the game. Compromise is fine, but to be honest if
->novice users knew what they were using or knew what they needed, they
->wouldn't be novices would they?
-
->Consider a transistional interface that grows the user without diminishing
->the system.
-
-
-What exactly do you mean by that?  By allowing abstraction for the
-average user, by allowing productivity software to run, you'd be
-crippling the system?  

No what I mean is that by hiding what's going from the user you cripple
much of the gains between the user and the system. Users could do more
and be more productive if they are exposed to certain aspects of Unix
that you're trying to hide. So by transitional you give them the abstraction
layer and the real goings on underneath the abstraction at the same time with
the ability to choose/alternate between the two. Much like the file browsers
that let you pick files: you can use the mouse/menu interface to choose, you
can type it in, you can alternate between the two, and in all cases the real
filename is being built/displayed in the dialog box. I'm opposed to the
mouse/menu only method which many GUI's opt for.

-I would think not!  If so, most of the major
-workstation companies are wasting huge amounts of money to make their
-commercial *nix versions to do just that.  I fail to see how adding
-friendliness for the novice, or for the user who wants the power, but
-doesn't want to get their hands dirty, diminishes the system.

It doesn't dimish the system, it dimishes many of the interactions that the
user can have with the system. It reduces the complexity of the interface at
the cost of reducing the power of the interface. The system doesn't change but
the way that the user interfaces to the system does, at the user's detriment.

It's exactly the same with VCR's. Most folks don't care how to program them
or even set the clock. So VCR+ and others build interfaces that limit the
interaction between the user and VCR. The cost of the limitation is that
many features of the VCR are unavilable to the user because of the limited
interface. Someone who interacts with the VCR interface directly has many
more options as to how to use the VCR, at the cost of added complexity to
the interface.

I will continue to propose the compromise: Give the limited interface but
don't hide the details of what's going on from the user. Even the most novice
user will learn a shortcut, or some new way of interacting with the system
to said user's benefit if a transisional interface is instituted.

- Start the user off with a limited interface.
- Show the user what's actually going on when they interact with the interface.
- Show the user how to expand the interface to fit their needs. 
- Give the user the ability to interact with the system without the interface.

In the end you'll have a user that not only has the simple interface but 
the knowledge and the power to maximize its effectiveness. They'll have the 
tools and the knowledge necessary to pick the right level to complete the
task at hand. They'll no longer be novices but highly effective power users.

-Remember, you always have the option to strip away the abstraction if
-you so wish.

No they won't because they won't understand what's going on behind the
curtain. The abstraction is a novice user's entire world unless you show
them "the man behind the curtain".

Also I must press the point that sufficient hardware to support the abstraction
must be available or that the point that the users hardware is insufficient
for the task is clearly explained to them.

-
-
-I look forward to a powerful *and* friendly Linux based operating envrionment.

I look forward to powerful *and* friendly Linux based users! ;-)

Later,

BAJ
-- 
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332   Internet: byron@cc.gatech.edu

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

From: mdw@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: comp.os.linux.hardware.*
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 16:49:15 GMT

In article <32dd3j$3t7@stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV> de5@de5.CTD.ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>I've found it pretty hard to find answers to the kind of questions I have,
>which are mostly about hardware compatibility.  Do they belong in
>comp.os.linux.help?  How about comp.os.linux.misc?  For that matter,
>exactly what is appropriate for these two groups?

comp.os.linux.help is the place for this. It seems as though the majority
of postings to that group are about hardware-related issues---e.g.,
how to get a certain device to work with a certain piece of software,
that kind of thing. 

>    comp.os.linux.hardware.systems
>       Which PC's do/don't run Linux.  What tweaks are required.  Will
>       also cover other architectures if/when Linux is ported to
>       them.
>    comp.os.linux.hardware.video
>       Which boards do/don't work.  How to configure them for XFree86.
>    comp.os.linux.hardware.sound       (*)
>       More of the same, for PC sound cards mostly.
>    comp.os.linux.hardware.cd-rom
>       You get the idea.
>    comp.os.linux.hardware.misc
>       Other peripherals like printers, mice, tape drives, etc.

All of this can really be solved through a comprehensive hardware
survey of the Linux community. Not long ago one was attempted, but
I never heard the results.

If anyone would like to volunteer to conduct a survey, please get 
in touch with me. You'll need the ability to receive and automatically
process large amounts of e-mail. 

M. Welsh

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

From: msuzio@tiamat.umd.umich.edu (Mike Suzio)
Subject: Re: WABI vs. SoftWindows?
Date: 11 Aug 1994 12:46:59 -0400

hamish@actrix.gen.nz (Hamish MacEwan) writes:
>In article <1994Aug8.200120.8941@kf8nh.wariat.org>,
>Brandon S. Allbery <bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org> wrote:
>>Fine, so come up with something now if it's needed.  But don't try to kill
>>someone else's development effort because it won't help *you* *now*.  Unless
>>acting the spoiled brat is a selling point, of course.
>If it were Brandon, you'd be the most popular person on the planet.
>Ditto if reality-free fanaticism were a selling point.

>I like linux, I don't like this bickering.

I agree that I don't like bickering.  I especially don't like it when one
of the parties to the bickering is a complete idiot (hint: it's not
Brandon).

Far from being spoiled, Brandon posts accurate, reasonable points.  This
other dweeboid can't seem to see the point if you stick him in the ass with
it.

Let me sum it up one more time before I give up on this thread:

Linux is not a toy.  Plenty of people are using it for real applications.
It falls far short of offering Windows compatibility, and still suffers in
several other areas.  If one of these areas is of vital interest to a
client, don't try to make them use Linux.  Don't even hold the carrot out
in front of them.  But if you're smart, you'll keep an eye on the product
and consider it for future use, because it *is* a real alternative.  It's
got a lot of development power behind it, and I wouldn't count it out
just yet.  For now, if you need Windows compat., use something else, of
course!  But don't be an asshole and slam Linux because it hasn't ponied up
and given you WINE yet!

I'm out of here, this is too much of a stupid recurring thread.  Where is
the AI newsreader that will detect these flame wars and junk them?

-- 
|+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|
| Michael J. Suzio            msuzio@tiamat.umd.umich.edu   |
|  Marketing Director - Friday Knight Games                 | 
|  aka "That F*K*G company!"                                | 
|+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++|

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

From: dheltzel@crl.com (Dennis Heltzel)
Subject: Re: [BUG] in cp (copy) on DOS fs.
Date: 11 Aug 1994 08:54:44 -0700

Andrew R. Tefft (teffta@erie.ge.com) wrote:
: This explains why you can say 'tar cvf test.tar *' and not include
: test.tar in itself. 

Good point, but this concept doesn't work as well with redirection & pipes.
Ex.
        fgrep search_text * > found_file

This has bitten me a couple of times, even though I know what it does, it 
still seems rather inocuous. Fortunately, I usually realize my mistake 
and kill the fgrep before the file system fills up.

BTW, for those who don't understand what's wrong with the above, the 
shell creates the file "found_file" prior to expanding the *. The output 
file is then included as an input file -- result: infinite loop. Well, 
not really infinite, just until it runs out of disk space and dies ;).

Dennis


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


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