From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 07:13:13 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #26 Linux-Misc Digest #26, Volume #1 Fri, 20 Aug 93 07:13:13 EDT Contents: Re: NT versus Linux (Xyanthilous Harrierstick) Re: SLIP distance contest. How far have you connected? (Ian Kluft) Re: From your friends at UNIXWorld (Kevin Brown) Re: SLIP distance contest. How far have you connected? (Hugh D.R. Evans (ESA/ESTEC/WMA Netherlands)) Re: NT versus Linux (Kevin Brown) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: emf@scf.nmsu.edu (Xyanthilous Harrierstick) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: 20 Aug 1993 08:09:02 GMT In article <930819201354.23155@world> brileary@world.std.com (Brian Leary) writes: >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. > Hahah.. 'kay, sure, whatever. I'll stick to Linux. even WITH the occasional glitch. You get what you pay for, and when i pay for NT all i get is ripped off.. >Angry that after all the gloat about how lean and mean linux is, NT's I'd like to see just how fast NT is on a 386/25 with 8mb ram compared to Linux. Thats all I wanna see. *SOME* of us cannot afford a DEC Alpha AXP to run our 'pathetic' OS. (BTW: When we gonna get Linux Alpha *grin*) >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?) I dunno, I'm too lazy to do backups of my system, so i've got the exact same Minix filesystems (4 of 'em, count 'em. ick. I know, i know) that I had waaaaay back when Linux was in release 0.12 seems stable enough. Lighting storms, cat attacks, thousands of ungraceful three-finger salutes during program development.. my disks havent' complained once.. You're supposed to have to Sync on a Unix box, right? Guess linus fixed it *smile* He is a god. >For crying out loud, you even have to recompile the >whole os in order to add the littlest of drivers! > Okay. Fair enough. Kernel compilation is a bitch. takes me about 15 minutes to compile a full kernel. the kernel is 350k. it boots up compressed. I dont care. It's better than the sun's I use with 2mb kernels and 4 hour compile times. NT, you're outta your league. >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 No applications? i have *ALL* the applications. Everything ever written fo a unix machine anywhere in the world ever is easy enough to port. I have every application I want on my linux pc. I now even have Messy-DOg support, which is nice because occasionally I want to use a term program. Qmodem is nice. We got WINE on the way.. binary compatibility. very nice. I'll be able to run CakeWalk professional *without* needing to load up MS-Windows 3.0 in my DOS emulator first. that makes me smile. Can NT run cakewalk professional? I even have *APPLE II* games cause the apple II emulator compiled clean on my system. go away. You lose. And I suspect the first thing the Amiga Linux people are going to do is mac a mac 'wabi' for their systems considering amigans can already run mac os stuff with an appropriate set of rom images.. >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 What the shit is drag and drop? izzat that horrible creature that makes me have to have icky evil little icons for all my text files all cluttering up my screen at the same time? Naff off, pal, I dont *want* it. (and yes, we do have it. XView 3.0. you lose again, evildo-er.) >don't even have a file manager for pete's sake! Do too.. Xdtm. But i think its horrible. Pardon me, but my keyboard generates letters, its only appropriate that all my windows be filled with them too. You can do what you like tho. We've got it. You lose. > >We don't mind the os as much as long as it get the job done. And we Mine does my jobs better than DOS/Windows ever did. Maybe you're jobs are just too menial for a superior OS like linux. >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! > Didnt i just mention that above. We can already run DOS and Windows apps (by runnign Windows under the dos emulator on another VC). so. Winword - put it up for anonymous ftp and i'll run it on my system once. Word Perfect - I run this under the dos emulator since running the X11 version from my schools campus over a 9600 term connection is kinda slow and horrible and i dont wanna think abotu it when i'm writing a term paper. helllloo dosemu. :) Lotus 123 - I dont need it but it runs. windows version too. ftp it somewhere and i'll prove it to you. "any spreadsheet" - you dont believe my claim for Lotus 123. Fine. You're an OS bigot, i didnt expect you to anyway. we've got 'calc' or whatever it was called. its in the comp.sources.unix archives somewhere. it runs. Procomm, Xtalk - yeah, but qmodem's better anyway. once again, dosemulator. Only difference i see between your apps and our apps is that you're trying to justify having spent $500 on Word Perfect for Windows and flaming on our hand crafted os. Your superior os runs less programs than ours. go figure. >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. No, you sure didnt. at least the guy who wrote that checklist bothered to at least pick up a copy of linux somewhere, possibly. Maybe i'll bother to pick up a copy of NT when its released. Oops, sorry. its not for FTP is it. Your loss of a user then, i guess. I'll spend my $110 on *EATING* not on my OS. > >-Bri -- Erik "Xyanthilous" Fichtner efichtne@dante.nmsu.edu Physics and Astronomy emf@freedom.nmsu.edu, or techs@wyvern.ankle.com "Whattya mean I ain't kind? Just not _YOUR_ kind!" - Megadeth Wasting hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars every time I post. Disclaimer: You expect NMSU to agree with ME? Hahahah.. right.. [GS d--- -p+ c+++ l++ m---/* !g w++ t+/++ r x+] PGP2.2 key on request ------------------------------ From: ikluft@uts.amdahl.com (Ian Kluft) Subject: Re: SLIP distance contest. How far have you connected? Date: 20 Aug 93 08:34:12 GMT grk@grumpy.cc.utexas.edu (Glenn R. Kronschnabl) writes: >What's the distance record for slip connections under Linux. I think >I am doing pretty well, I am running Linux on a TI TravelMate in >Melbourne Australia, dialing my home in Austin, Tx USA. That's got to >be pushing over 8000 Miles. Maybe more! When Ham Radio operators make contacts at that distance (or even across town in some cases :-) they exchange "QSL cards" in the mail afterward. Of course, since you're just calling home, you can send yourself the card. :-) >Can anyone beat that? Not me. Seriously, you've got a lot of us at a disadvantage so I can see why you wanted to make a contest out of it. :-) My maximum hop for SLIP is about 5 miles. Hmmm... kremvax.hq.demos.su is 700ms from Santa Clara to Moscow and back. Sheesh! I can barely beat your 8000 miles if I change the rules! :-) I don't expect many people can get much better than your number because 12,000 miles is the maximum surface distance... and we have a disadvantage from the U.S. since that opposite point on the globe is probably in the middle of the Indian Ocean. (Anyone got a globe? Don't post it - it's off the subject... :-) -- Ian Kluft KD6EUI PP-ASEL Amdahl Corporation, Open Systems Development ikluft@uts.amdahl.com Santa Clara, CA [disclaimer: any opinions expressed are mine only... not those of my employer] ------------------------------ From: kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) Subject: Re: From your friends at UNIXWorld Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 07:03:19 GMT In article <24o0ln$ivc@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes: >In article kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes: >> To some extent, "ease of use" is a valid gripe. As someone else pointed out, >> Linux has gotten to the point where non-computer types want to use it *because* >> it is as capable as it is. These people, unfortunately, don't know Unix or >> their hardware the way they might need to in order to do the installation. >> Furthermore, they might not be able to learn Unix (lack of resources) until >> they've got Linux up and running. Chicken and egg problem. > >But this is the case with any other modern OS too. Configuring Windoze >is no more easy for newbies than with Linux. Okay, it will install in >the first place on almost any machine, but then you wind up with a >largely unoptimal setup. First-installing SLS is just as easy. Right. But you know that most people don't do things that require much of their machines anyway, right? Word processing isn't exactly a CPU- intensive activity... >> >Well, that's a good point, but take a total idiot and tell him to install >> >linux....... >> Which is precisely the problem... > >Again, it's not exclusive to Linux. Try installing Half-OS or some >variants of SysV as a total idiot. :-) You don't expect much of me, do you? :-) >> >One word: SLS >> Some people seem to be having problems even with that. I've never played with >> it myself, so I have no idea how easy it is to deal with. > >The most problems people have with SLS is broken or exotic hardware, >or sometimes slightly-broken new versions of SLS. Wait for a week and >you can read all potential trouble here. :-) Yeah, I've noticed. :-) Broken hardware is actually more of an issue to the Linux community than it is to various software manufacturers. Why? Because if your hardware's broken, most software manufacturers will just say "Tough shit. Get working hardware", whereas we're actually concerned about getting it to run on whatever hardware is out there (thus the effort that goes into the device drivers to support broken hardware). This is a huge plus for Linux in the long run, since the more hardware it'll run on, the more people will use it. Some flavors of Unix support as impressive an array of hardware, but not many support the wide variety that Linux supports. >> >Me too, I haven't been able to crash linux, and I think it would take a few >> >minutes of work even if I TRIED > >> Yup. Some things will just bring any Unix box down, e.g. >> "while ( 1 ) fork();", but that's not something particular to Linux. > >The fork bomb will NOT bring Linux down as long as you don't run it as >root (my experience, I occasionally run stress tests on new Linux >versions...) Right. Someone posted about the memory problem and how Linux gets real slow when something eats all available memory. But I'll bet that most systems will have problems with a program like that. If you want to really be evil, you can do something like: main(void) { char *foo; int size = 1024 * 1024; while ( 1 ) if ( ! ( foo = malloc ( size ) ) ) size /= 2; } >Olaf >-- > olaf titz o olaf@bigred.ka.sub.org praetorius@irc > comp.sc.student _>\ _ s_titz@ira.uka.de LINUX - the choice >karlsruhe germany (_)<(_) uknf@dkauni2.bitnet of a GNU generation >what good is a photograph of you? everytime i look at it it makes me feel blue -- Kevin Brown kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end > This is your .signature virus on drugs: <> Any questions? ------------------------------ From: hevans@estwm0.wm.estec.esa.nl (Hugh D.R. Evans (ESA/ESTEC/WMA Netherlands)) Subject: Re: SLIP distance contest. How far have you connected? Reply-To: hevans@wm.estec.esa.nl Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 11:52:41 GMT In article , ikluft@uts.amdahl.com (Ian Kluft) writes: |> |>grk@grumpy.cc.utexas.edu (Glenn R. Kronschnabl) writes: |>>What's the distance record for slip connections under Linux. I think |>>I am doing pretty well, I am running Linux on a TI TravelMate in |>>Melbourne Australia, dialing my home in Austin, Tx USA. That's got to |>>be pushing over 8000 Miles. Maybe more! |>>Can anyone beat that? |> |> |>I don't expect many people can get much better than your number because |>12,000 miles is the maximum surface distance... and we have a disadvantage |>from the U.S. since that opposite point on the globe is probably in the |>middle of the Indian Ocean. (Anyone got a globe? Don't post it - it's off |>the subject... :-) Bounce the connection off a satellite, or two. That gives you much more than 12,000 miles: more than 71,000 km. You could also try phreaking the connection around the Earth several times. Anybody know if the Voyagers have dial up SLIPS? Hmmm... % TELNET Voyager.nasa.gov -- Hugh Evans European Space Research and Technology Centre - Noorwijk, Netherlands Internet: hevans@wm.estec.esa.nl SPAN: ESTWM2::hevans A man's only as old as the woman he feels. ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 08:05:50 GMT Ah, flame bait. Exactly what Usenet is for. :-) 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. Probably true, but probably not for quality reasons. Besides, we don't *really* care. We can run whatever we damn well please. If it ends up being NT, it's no skin off my back. We'll just write an emulator for it, so that people don't have to buy the real thing. :-) >Angry that after all the gloat about how lean and mean linux is, NT's >kernel is less one fifth that size? Tough! Before or after you add the networking code? Before or after you add the filesystem code? Before or after you add the device drivers? Before or after you add the GUI? I'll bet the kernel size you tout is before you add anything to make the system actually *function*... If your kernel is so small, why do you require 60 meg of hard drive space, MINIMUM, to install it? Why do you require 12 meg of memory, MINIMUM, to run it? I can install a fully functional Linux setup on a system with 2 meg of memory and 20 meg of hard drive space. Been there, done that. I can put X and other such things on a system with 4 meg of memory and 40 meg of hard drive space, WITH ROOM TO SPARE. Try *that* with your "small" operating system... >Or that your file system >falters more often than it works? (how many times a day does the extfs >get corrupted?) Okay, let's see a show of hands. How many people using extfs? How many using ext2fs? How many using xiafs? How many using minixfs? How many using minixfs with 32 character filenames? I've got news for you, pal, xiafs has been *completely stable* for me. ZERO PROBLEMS. Period. Judging from the lack of bug reports I've seen on the net, I'm inclined to think that my experience isn't unique. End of discussion. >For crying out loud, you even have to recompile the >whole os in order to add the littlest of drivers! Wrong. There's a patch to the kernel that lets you load device drivers at runtime. Not many people use it, but it *is* there. And, in any case, we have this nifty little utility called "make", which causes recompilation of only those things that have changed. So you have to re-link your kernel, or compile the whole thing if you've removed all your object files, but during development you only recompile the things you've changed. Nuff said. >You know what your problem is? You stare at your os too much! I mean, >let's face it, you have *NO* applcations, Emacs. Tex. Ghostscript. X. Any application running under X for which source is available. Any Unix utility for which source is available. To my knowledge, there's one, and only one, application that doesn't exist for Linux directly, and that's a word processor. Everything else is there. And oh, by the way, you can run a word processor in the DOS emulator if you really want to. And oh, by the way, just about any language you want is available just for the asking. FOR FREE. That means: basic, fortran, C, C++, lisp, prolog, smalltalk, Ada, etc. >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 think you'll find, like I have, that there are certain cases where it's real useful to have a file manager around and there are others where the command line is a lot faster. Just depends. But a file manager isn't the be all and end all that you seem to think. I agree that X could use a good one, though. However, the Windows 3.1 file manager (haven't seen the NT one) leaves much to be desired. >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? Under dosemu, yes. >Lotus 123? *Any* spreadsheet? Yup. Oleo, from the FSF. Or SC. >Procomm? You're joking, right? There are a number of communication programs floating around for Linux, some of which do more than Procomm. But the big killer that Linux has is: UUCP. I know that MS-LOSS has Waffle, but let's see it do something real. I've set up a nifty remote execution facility through UUCP that keeps me from having to log in in order to do what I need to do. Works like a hose. Try *that* with Waffle... >Xtalk? Not sure what this is. >Go figure. And on top of that we now have the superior os! That remains to be seen. All the reports I've heard say that NT is buggy as hell. >As far as I can tell, the chekclist is correct. Is that so? That says a lot about how much you know about Linux (hint: not much). >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. No idea. I'm not offended, actually. Others might be, but I've learned to take things easy and not let them get to me. But the checklist was *way* wrong. >P.S. I have nothing to do with that checklist. > >-Bri Gee, this was fun. :-) -- Kevin Brown kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com This is your .signature virus: < begin 644 .signature (9V]T8VAA(0K0z end > This is your .signature virus on drugs: <> Any questions? ------------------------------ ** 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 ******************************