From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 02:13:14 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #24 Linux-Misc Digest #24, Volume #1 Fri, 20 Aug 93 02:13:14 EDT Contents: Re: NT versus Linux (Byron A Jeff) Re: A question about the SLS sysinstall script's copyright (Steve McMahon) Re: NT versus Linux (Steve Sheldon) Re: NT versus Linux (Eyvind Bernhardsen) Re: linux DOS emu and double space (Mark Cosham) Re: Why would I want LINUX? (Maurice S Barnum) Re: NT versus Linux (A Wizard of Earth C) Re: From your friends at UNIXWorld (Jim Graham) Dosemu and serial i/o (Ronald van der Meer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 02:55:47 GMT I know it was going to come to this. Linux vs. NT is a silly debate because we're talking about two different products for two different audiences. I really wish the person who started this thread (who is probably laughing his/her fool head off now) would have just left it alone. The original post is full of inaccuracies about Linux. It seemed to be phrased is such a way to put Linux in a worse light than it actually is and NT in it's best possible light. So please folks if your going to argue (and you're going to argue) at least take a deep breath before you post you scathing counter-attacks. I'd like to point out the inaccuracies about Linux in the post below. In article <930819201354.23155@world>, Brian Leary wrote: >Ok, that does it. Those linux fanatics are even worse than the OS/2 >ones. At least the OS/2 fanatics are not as vulgar. Microsloath, they >say. What a pathetic crowd. Why are you bitter? For months we've been >listening to you embellish about how great your pitiful os is, and we >said nothing. Now our great os is here and we're proud of it. Not only >that, in a maater of months it'll completely bury the scum you call os >that you have. There's no competition here. NT is going to get it's clientele and Linux is going to be used by folks who like it. I run Unix at work, I run Unix at school. Linux gives me an opportunity to run Unux at home on fairly efficient, commodity cost equipment. > >Angry that after all the gloat about how lean and mean linux is, NT's >kernel is less one fifth that size? Tough! Or that your file system >falters more often than it works? (how many times a day does the extfs >get corrupted?) For crying out loud, you even have to recompile the >whole os in order to add the littlest of drivers! You are correct that in the current release that all the device drivers are in the kernel. However there is a loadable kernel driver out and has been put in the latest SLS release. I can only speak from personal experience about the file system. I've had the ext2 file system on 4 different machines for a grand total of about 6 months of system time. I've never had an fs failure. I usually don't check the file system each and every time, but I am careful about explicitly syncing the disk each time before I shut my machines down. > >You know what your problem is? You stare at your os too much! I mean, >let's face it, you have *NO* applcations, and as such all you can do >is gaze at your os, and hence slowly you acquire an unpalatable taste >for it! They have drag and drop they say! Well, name *one* application >where you can actually drag something and drop into another app. You >don't even have a file manager for pete's sake! Exactly how do you use an OS with no applications? I use my Linux boxes to do the same types of activities I perform on SparcStations and Decstations I have at work. - Document preparation using TeX - file transfer and remote login using ftp and telnet. At home I use the wonderful term program to have multiple session over my modem. - I do software development for my single board computers. - I play games under Xwindows - I use xv to view GIFs. - Read mail and News. By the way I'm downloading the Motif file manager to my box here while I respond to your message via term. Of course I'm staring at the OS the whole time. ;-) > >We don't mind the os as much as long as it get the job done. And we >have the tools for that, none of which you have, or ever will. Do you >have Winword? No. > Word perfect? No. I can run it under the DOS emulator. > Lotus 123? No. Again I can run it under the DOS emulator. > *Any* spreadsheet? Yes. > Procomm? No. kermit, minicom, seyon, term. If I'm really desparate I could run it under the DOS emulator. >Xtalk? No. Same as procomm. Of course I can drag out my list but I prefer not. I have on my Linux box the tools that I need to get the job done. I'm sure your DOS/Windows/NT setup does the same. > Go figure. And on top of that we now have the superior os! That's right a superior OS that require more memory to run Win 3.1 apps slower than Win 3.1 runs them now. And just like you're superios OS Linux can run DOS apps in a virtual window and will be able to run Windows 3.1 apps. And unlike your superior OS Linux is and will always be free with source code available. I'll have to remember to send my NT purchase price to Linus one day.... > >As far as I can tell, the chekclist is correct. It wasn't even posted The checklist is far from correct. >to your group for crying out loud! Whay are so offended? so bitter? so I guess comp.os.linux.misc isn't ours. We're not bitter. We simply want our OS represented as it is. Micro$oft probably cringe if we asked the same of NT. As for your assertion that we should get out of your group we finally agree on something. Someone posted the list as flame bait. Someone is doing a good job. If everyone (including myself) would shut up and ignore the thread it would go away. I wouldn't trade Linux for anything else, you feel the same about NT. Let's agree we disagree and let that be the end of it. BAJ --- Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of... Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel! Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: byron@cc.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: steve.mcmahon@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Steve McMahon) Subject: Re: A question about the SLS sysinstall script's copyright Date: 20 Aug 93 03:26:53 GMT In article <1993Aug20.015821.15839@cc.gatech.edu> byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes: >In article <930819205847.23148@lambada>, >Steve McMahon wrote: > >>Peter cannot do that. It's against the GPL. > >Yes he can. He wrote the scripts. They are his. > No he cannot. These scripts were made specifically for the interface and installation of a GPLed product (linux), hence they fall under the GPL. If Peter made them for OS/2 or NT it would be another matter, but not here. It's also against the spirit of the GPL. Take a GPLed software and start imposing restrictions on its distribution. That's *exactly* what the GPL is intended to impede. You cannot have it both ways: make money out of GPL software and then complain when people start making use of the fact that it's under the GPL. -Steve ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: sheldon@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 03:26:51 GMT In <930819201354.23155@world> brileary@world.std.com (Brian Leary) writes: >Ok, that does it. Those linux fanatics are even worse than the OS/2 >ones. At least the OS/2 fanatics are not as vulgar. Microsloath, they >say. What a pathetic crowd. Why are you bitter? For months we've been >listening to you embellish about how great your pitiful os is, and we >said nothing. Now our great os is here and we're proud of it. Not only >that, in a maater of months it'll completely bury the scum you call os >that you have. Bah, your attempt at a flame does not bother me in the least. I have read comp.sys.amiga.advocacy and survived! Can you say the same, coming from your nice safe ms-windows.advocacy group!? >Angry that after all the gloat about how lean and mean linux is, NT's >kernel is less one fifth that size? Tough! Or that your file system >falters more often than it works? (how many times a day does the extfs >get corrupted?) For crying out loud, you even have to recompile the >whole os in order to add the littlest of drivers! I'm not sure why your kernel is less than 200K in size. I also want to know why if it's so small, the entire system requires 12 Meg? I was going to buy it, but in order to spend $300, I'm going to have to spend $600 upgrading my computer. :( I agree, I don't think one should have to recompile the kernel to add drivers. It's disappointing. At least with SCO Unix, you only have to relink everything. >You know what your problem is? You stare at your os too much! I mean, >let's face it, you have *NO* applcations, and as such all you can do >is gaze at your os, and hence slowly you acquire an unpalatable taste >for it! They have drag and drop they say! Well, name *one* application >where you can actually drag something and drop into another app. You >don't even have a file manager for pete's sake! I'm not sure what you mean by drag and drop. I guess since I don't understand what you mean, then it must not be important to me. If you mean cut & paste. Oh, I love doing that every day using xterm's. It makes programming so much easier. But then you probably wouldn't know what it is to do real work, as you're spending half your time getting windows to run. :) I'm not sure what applications you want. I guess for a machine at home I have what I need with Linux. Sure it doesn't have the same apps as our DECstation at work, but at least it's friendly to use. >We don't mind the os as much as long as it get the job done. And we >have the tools for that, none of which you have, or ever will. Do you >have Winword? Word perfect? Lotus 123? *Any* spreadsheet? Procomm? >Xtalk? Go figure. And on top of that we now have the superior os! Actually you still don't have ESRI's Arc/Info. Not that Linux does either, but until you have ESRI's Arc/Info for Windows NT, I'm not going to care too much. That's what I use our DECstation for, and that's what is important. >As far as I can tell, the chekclist is correct. It wasn't even posted >to your group for crying out loud! Whay are so offended? so bitter? so >vulgar? Go play elsewhere with your toy os! Don't bother us in our >group. He does have a good point. I'm not sure why people crossposted this. I'd prefer to keep the advocacy stuff out of the linux groups and in the windows/amiga/os2/mac groups where it belongs. >P.S. I have nothing to do with that checklist. Oh, obviously. I wasn't about to give you that much credit. Steve P.S. Anyone want to start an AmigaDOS vs. Linux flamewar? Then we can crosspost that one to the amiga.advocacy group. I don't think that's been done yet. :-) -- sheldon@iastate.edu Steve Sheldon #insert "standard disclaimer" Iowa State University ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: eyvind@Lise.Unit.NO (Eyvind Bernhardsen) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 04:06:19 GMT In article , sheldon@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) writes: [...] > P.S. Anyone want to start an AmigaDOS vs. Linux flamewar? Then we can > crosspost that one to the amiga.advocacy group. I don't think that's been > done yet. :-) It's a bit early for that yet, don't you think? Wait until Linux is up and running on the Amiga, at least. About five minutes after we have a stable distribution, the c.s.a.a flame machine will start up - mark my words ;) > sheldon@iastate.edu Steve Sheldon -- // Eyvind Bernhardsen | eyvind@lise.unit.no // | \\ // Finger me for my | Disclaimer: MHO! MHO! \X/ public PGP key :) | Save the whalers! ------------------------------ From: inu574f@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (Mark Cosham) Subject: Re: linux DOS emu and double space Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 02:19:40 GMT mgrstk@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Albatross) writes: >Quick question: >Can a doublespace partition be accessed to through the Linux DOS emulator ? Shouldn't be a problem - many people run Stacker/Doublespace through the emulator without problems. >thanks, >steve -- Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ===========> <=======> <=======> <=======> <=======> <=======> <=========== Mark Cosham Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia cosham@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au inu574f@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au ------------------------------ From: msb@cats.ucsc.edu (Maurice S Barnum) Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Why would I want LINUX? Date: 20 Aug 1993 04:43:13 GMT In mike@ichips (Mike Haertel) writes: >In article <24vd7h$frk@horus.mch.sni.de> Martin.Kraemer@mch.sni.de (Martin Kraemer) writes: >>hard disk with a size multiple of what you need for Linux. When I first >>installed Linux (Oct/Nov. 1992), it was so slender that you could get >>all the base utilities including cc, emacs and kernel sources into as >>much as a 32 MB hard disk! hah! I can still do that! well, I think, since I've never even thought about installing emacs... >This has, alas, been fixed in recent versions of Linux, which seems to >have come down with a very serious case of The Bloat. I remember a >time (early 1992) when the Linux kernel was under 25K lines of >code. The 0.99.12 kernel, at 118K lines, is nearly five times >the size. It does not offer five times the functionality. Yes, but how much of the size increase is due to the several filesystems, a bunch of SCSI drivers, the networking code (and the accompanying ethernet drivers), and the 387 emulator that now comes with the kernel? None of that is part of The Bloat, because if you choose not to compile those features in, you don't get them. And if you do configure the world, you deserve a huge kernel. I too have noticed that my compiled kernel sizes have gotten somewhat larger since early '92. Maybe even twice as large (system sizes are now about 430k pre-compression). Of course, I compile in xiafs, ext2, procfs, msdos filesystems and (just the way things have gone) either networking or the 387 emulator. I have not noted the sizes, but I can almost guarantee you that the patched-pl12 kernel I'm running now (or the alpha-10, which was the last one to have 387 code in in) was not 5x bigger than whatever the current kernel was in early '92. >Similarly, things like the full SLS release have really bloated out--I >helped a friend install SLS last fall, and the full installation with >X came in at around 40 Megs. Just recently tried again, and got >upwards of 80 megs. Yeeow. finally, as recently as 3 months ago, I had X (including the linux xview package), a full set of development tools (no emacs), kernel source, and various other goodies installed on a little under 30mb on the /usr partition. I didn't use SLS for most of it, though. -- Maurice S. Barnum --- I consult, therefore I am: Ask me, and I shall answer. Believe me, and I shall laugh. msb@cats.ucsc.edu, mbarnum@eis.calstate.edu, mbarnum@nyx.cs.du.edu ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 04:14:41 GMT In article <930819201354.23155@world> brileary@world.std.com (Brian Leary) writes: >Ok, that does it. Those linux fanatics are even worse than the OS/2 >ones. At least the OS/2 fanatics are not as vulgar. Microsloath, they >say. What a pathetic crowd. Why are you bitter? For months we've been >listening to you embellish about how great your pitiful os is, and we >said nothing. Now our great os is here and we're proud of it. Not only >that, in a maater of months it'll completely bury the scum you call os >that you have. > >Angry that after all the gloat about how lean and mean linux is, NT's >kernel is less one fifth that size? Tough! Or that your file system >falters more often than it works? (how many times a day does the extfs >get corrupted?) For crying out loud, you even have to recompile the >whole os in order to add the littlest of drivers! > >You know what your problem is? You stare at your os too much! I mean, >let's face it, you have *NO* applcations, and as such all you can do >is gaze at your os, and hence slowly you acquire an unpalatable taste >for it! They have drag and drop they say! Well, name *one* application >where you can actually drag something and drop into another app. You >don't even have a file manager for pete's sake! > >We don't mind the os as much as long as it get the job done. And we >have the tools for that, none of which you have, or ever will. Do you >have Winword? Word perfect? Lotus 123? *Any* spreadsheet? Procomm? >Xtalk? Go figure. And on top of that we now have the superior os! > >As far as I can tell, the chekclist is correct. It wasn't even posted >to your group for crying out loud! Whay are so offended? so bitter? so >vulgar? Go play elsewhere with your toy os! Don't bother us in our >group. > >P.S. I have nothing to do with that checklist. I normally do not post to Linux groups (but tend to read everything) except as a result of following up a crossposted article;; However... You say that you have nothing to do with the compare/contrast list, but you defend it. Please contact the originator of the list and ask them to make the same list for: *BSD, VMS, SVR4.2, Solaris, and SunOS. If they need help filling it out (there were enough Linux errors that this is probably the case), I am sure the various developement groups will be happy to help out, if they are allowed to add categories, like "Is trusted to run embedded applications like NMR equipment and blood-gas monitors", "Allowed to connect to the Defense Data Network", or "Licenses source code". Terry Lambert terry@icarus.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. ------------------------------ From: jim@n5ial.mythical.com (Jim Graham) Subject: Re: From your friends at UNIXWorld Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 14:56:17 GMT In article <1993Aug18.005307.19035@kf8nh.wariat.org> bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: >In article <1993Aug17.160203.29910@random.ccs.northeastern.edu> >alansar@ccs.neu.edu (Mohammad Al-Ansari) writes: >>Are you sure it won't crash if it runs out of memory (including any >>swap) *before* it reaches the NR_TASKS/2 limit? > >It doesn't crash. It just gets REEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLL slow.... I don't know about that..... I haven't had this happen since I've upgraded to PL9, but under PL6 and PL8, I definitely saw cases where the system didn't exactly crash, but it did reach a point where *NOBODY* could do anything, and attempting to run any command would cause you to be logged out. This applies to existing root logins, too. Then, when you try to log back on (as root), you are instantly logged back off again. Can't do a shutdown, can't do anything except wait a bit, hope the disks are sync'd, and then use that magic little button on the front of the machine (i.e., reset). I saw this under PL6 once when I was running X, and made the mistake of running GCC while in X (I only have 4 Meg of RAM). I saw this under PL8 while compiling the kernel. Oddly enough, I went back to compiling again after a reboot (this time compiling the PL9 kernel), and it went smoothly all the way. Strange, eh? --jim PS: I haven't seen this, or any SIGSEGV problems, since moving to PL9. :-) -- #include 73 DE N5IAL (/4) ==========================< Running Linux 0.99 PL9 >========================== INTERNET: jim@n5ial.mythical.com | j.graham@ieee.org ICBM: 30.23N 86.32W AMATEUR RADIO: (packet station temporarily offline) AMTOR SELCAL: NIAL ============================================================================== E-mail me for information about KAMterm (host mode for Kantronics TNCs). ------------------------------ From: ronald@meer.hobby.nl (Ronald van der Meer) Subject: Dosemu and serial i/o Date: 19 Aug 93 20:00:15 GMT I would like to know how well dosemu handles serial i/o. I know the mouse is working but how about real high speed transfers? And what happens if uucico is trying to use the same port at the same time? Ronald van der Meer -- Internet: ronald@meer.hobby.nl (home) ronald@dis.nl (work) Fidonet: 2:282/317.22 ------------------------------ ** 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 ******************************