From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Fri, 5 Nov 93 04:13:33 EST Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #274 Linux-Misc Digest #274, Volume #1 Fri, 5 Nov 93 04:13:33 EST Contents: Re: Hurd status and call for volunteers (Grant Edwards) Re: linux - alpha port? (M. Mueller) Re: 2MB vs 1MB on 801 S3 ? (Kelly Murray) Re: LinkKit problem in Xfree2.0 for XF86_S3 server (Helmut Geyer) Re: Caverns of Larn, anyone? (Wolfgang Schelongowski) Re: Video Cards Supported? What should I buy! (David E. Wexelblat) UUCP/GETTY_PS? (PERUCCI, PHILIP A.) Re: xfree2.0 <-> xfree1.3 (David E. Wexelblat) Re: xfree2.0 <-> xfree1.3 (David E. Wexelblat) Parity Vs Non-Parity Memory (Daniel V Toft) Re: XFree86 2.0 VGA16, anyone runs it successfully? (Kelly Murray) Re: UUCP/GETTY_PS? (Tomislav Goles) Re: Hurd status and call for volunteers (Kelly Murray) Re: Video Cards Supported? What should I buy! (Kelly Murray) Re: XFree86 2.0 VGA16, anyone runs it successfully? (David E. Wexelblat) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss From: grante@hydro.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) Subject: Re: Hurd status and call for volunteers Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 16:52:17 GMT Marcus Daniels (marcus@ursula.ee.pdx.edu) wrote: : Linux is fast and mostly reliable, but architecturally it is just : another Unix (and yes, I've been using Linux a long time). There are : `innovative' approaches in Linux, like the fast networking, the : /proc filesystem extensions, the expanding body of shared libraries, : etc.. but the overall architecture is pretty much the same. It sounds like you're claiming Hurd is A Good Thing(tm) because it's architecturally different from traditional Unix? VMS is different from traditional Unix, but that doesn't make it something I would want to run on a computer that I had to use. I assume that the architectural differences between Hurd and Unix provide some benifits to the user, or why bother? -- Grant Edwards |Yow! Alright, you!! Imitate Rosemount Inc. |a WOUNDED SEAL pleading for a |PARKING SPACE!! grante@rosemount.com | ------------------------------ From: mm@lunetix.de (M. Mueller) Subject: Re: linux - alpha port? Date: 4 Nov 1993 23:04:23 GMT Steven Yampolsky (ssy1538@draper.com) wrote: : As far as I know, the very first purpose of creating Linux in the first place : was to have a UNIX like operating system for people who cannot afford expensive : machines like DEC alpha's. Personally, a 486-66 is all I can afford for a : while. Linux is the OS for people who can't affor expencive workstations. : If you can afford an alpha workstation, you can afford ULTRIX that comes with : it. No! Using Linux means to have an UNIX-like Operatingsystem WITH SOURCES! Even if I could afford an DEC alpha, I couldn't afford an ULTRIX Source LICENSE! That's why I'd run Linux on an ALPHA! Just my 0.02. Martin -- ============================================================================= Martin Mueller | Kennen Sie schon das LINUX-Anwender- | Email: mm@lunetix.de | Handbuch ? (finger linux@lunetix.de) | Tel.: +49 30 6227300 | Ab Januar in der Version 3.0! | Fax : +49 30 6221075 ============================================================================= ------------------------------ From: kem@prl.ufl.edu (Kelly Murray) Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.i386unix Subject: Re: 2MB vs 1MB on 801 S3 ? Date: 4 Nov 1993 23:00:38 GMT In article <1993Nov4.093323.4902@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, wongda@eecg.toronto.edu (Daniel Y.H. Wong) writes: |> In article <1993Nov4.132035.12676@news.uit.no> chris@stud.cs.uit.no writes: |> >I am currenty running Xfree 2.0 S3-server, on a Actix GraphicsENGINE 32 plus |> >with 1 MB dram (801 at-bus card). |> >I was just wondering if anyone has a clue to how much performanse gain |> >it will be to updrade to 2 MB...? |> > |> >Ofcause the resolution is importante; I'm running 1024x768x256 in about |> >80Hz NI mode. I plan to keen this resolution even if I upgrade. |> > |> >Anyone have some benchmarks on 1MB vs 2MB in 1024x768 mode ? |> > |> >My card is good for 57000 Xstones on my 486-33DX, 16MB. |> >( This test was done on the X386 1.2 S3-server ). Additional memory should not affect the performance of the card. What is important is the speed of the memory, and the type of memory. Faster memory will speed things up, and VRAM boards will be faster than DRAM boards. |> |> I have 2MB but only running at 61.5Hz. |> At 80Hz? Would you send me you Xconfig please? So that I can try |> it out and let you know. |> |> Also anyone notice that there are 'lines' on the screen with you move |> the windows? The problem only occurs when I use 1280x1024 mode. |> |> "1280x1024" 110 1280 1320 1480 1728 1024 1029 1036 1077 |> "1280x1024b" 110 1280 1328 1512 1712 1024 1025 1028 1054 |> |> Am I doing something wrong? |> If these setting are incorrect, would someone post or email me |> the correct ones. The 45ns DRAM cards just can't handle running at 110Mhz at 256 colors. At higher than 80Mhz clock rate, there is not enough memory bandwidth to keep the screen refreshed and also provide memory access to the graphics engine at the same time. The higher resolutions can be used without problems by running interlaced. This is the reason that higher-end cards use dual-ported VRAM instead of DRAM. The VRAM allows access by both screen refresh and graphics engine at once. -Kelly ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.i386unix From: geyer@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Helmut Geyer) Subject: Re: LinkKit problem in Xfree2.0 for XF86_S3 server Date: Thu, 4 Nov 93 22:21:26 GMT Daniel Y.H. Wong (wongda@eecg.toronto.edu) wrote: :>Hi, :> I am trying to add PEX support to my XF86_S3 server, after editing :>site.def, and mkmf, the makefile die: There is a little Bug in the Imakefile in the Server directory. You can bypass this bug by building the Mono server as well. :>Anyone got S3 server compile successfully? Yes, but you have to build the Mono or SVGA server as well (it will need about 1MB more than just the S3 server) Helmut :>Thanks :>-- :>Daniel Y.H. Wong UofT:(416)978-1659 :>wongda@picton.eecg.toronto.edu Electrical Engineering :>-- -- ============================================================================== Helmut Geyer geyer@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de ------------------------------ From: ws@xivic.bo.open.de (Wolfgang Schelongowski) Subject: Re: Caverns of Larn, anyone? Date: Thu, 04 Nov 93 23:21:03 MET steve@thelake.mn.org (Steve Yelvington) writes: > Has anybody ported larn to Linux? Not Larn, but Ularn a.k.a. Ultra Larn (IMHO it's better). I ported it to 0.99pl6. There are still a few changes I'd like to make - _after_ I got pl13 installed completely. I don't know what I did with the signals, and I don't use VT100. -- Wolfgang Schelongowski ws@xivic.bo.open.de Not responsible for advice not taken. (Niven's law #18) -- Larry Niven, Niven's Laws ------------------------------ From: dwex@aib.com (David E. Wexelblat) Subject: Re: Video Cards Supported? What should I buy! Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 23:58:50 GMT In article <2b9v9l$ii@starbug.apana.org.au> mike@starbug.apana.org.au (Mike Battersby) writes: >geyer@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Helmut Geyer) writes: > >[ A lot of stuff about S3 cards ] > >Just exactly what *IS* the difference between the S3 801/5 and 928 ?? > >Mike > 928 uses VRAM, 801/805 uses DRAM. If you use resolutions less than 1024x768 then go with DRAM. Otherwise, get a VRAM based board (i.e. a 928). The only 801/805 boards that give competetive performance at 1024x768 and above are boards with 45ns DRAMs (Actix for one; I don't know if there are others). VRAM doesn't suffer the memory-access degradation due to increasing dot- clocks that DRAM does. -- David Wexelblat (703) 430-9247 Fax: (703) 450-4560 AIB Software, Inc., 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160, Dulles, VA 20166 Formerly Virtual Technologies, Inc. Mail regarding XFree86 should be sent to "Ooh, are you feelin' satisfied? Come on, let us give your mind a ride." -- Boston, "Feelin' Satisfied" ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin From: SSB1PZP@imcvms.med.navy.mil (PERUCCI, PHILIP A.) Subject: UUCP/GETTY_PS? Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1993 23:07:27 GMT In my excitement over SL/IP, I seemed to have missed the obvious... Is UUCP and getty_ps (uugetty) reliable as packaged with recent Slackware releases? I would LOVE to have my pc provide e-mail and USENET support, while still allowing me to call in using a modem when off-site! What I want to do is be able to read my mail/USENET from either home or off-site. =========================================================================== Phil Perucci, Systems Programmer | "I don't speak for any organization ssb1pzp@imcvms.med.navy.mil | and no organization speaks for me" =========================================================================== ------------------------------ From: dwex@aib.com (David E. Wexelblat) Subject: Re: xfree2.0 <-> xfree1.3 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 00:00:57 GMT In article <2bb6q5$8o1@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> fritz@xlnt.zk3.dec.com () writes: > >In article <2bb54k$eo@vishnu.jussieu.fr>, simon@masi.ibp.fr (Julien SIMON) writes: >|>In article <1993Nov4.132424.4408@ifi.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de>, >|>Markus Strasser wrote: >|>>Hello >|>> >|>>can anybody tell me if I have any advantages when upgrading from xfree1.3 to >|>>xfree2.0 (et4000-card) ? >|> >|> >|>From my experience, Xfree 2.0 is speedier than 1.3, even with >|>non-accelerated cards. My Trident 8900C seems faster ... Several people have said this, and I'm damned if I can explain why. We did absolutely no performance work in the dumb-SVGA code at all. >|> >|>Moreover, many bugs have been fixed, so why not upgrade ? Well, this is true. >|> >|>> >|>>Regards >|>> Markus >|> >|> Julien >|> >|> > > Got a Diamond??? (Speedstar). My understanding is there is "NOOOO" >support for them in 2.0. That's OK, there's "NOOOO" support for them in 1.3 either. > > Comments? Suggestion? (Short of buying another Video Cont. > > See Ya, > > Bob. > -- David Wexelblat (703) 430-9247 Fax: (703) 450-4560 AIB Software, Inc., 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160, Dulles, VA 20166 Formerly Virtual Technologies, Inc. Mail regarding XFree86 should be sent to "Ooh, are you feelin' satisfied? Come on, let us give your mind a ride." -- Boston, "Feelin' Satisfied" ------------------------------ From: dwex@aib.com (David E. Wexelblat) Subject: Re: xfree2.0 <-> xfree1.3 Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 00:09:27 GMT In article <2bb6q5$8o1@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> fritz@xlnt.zk3.dec.com () writes: > >In article <2bb54k$eo@vishnu.jussieu.fr>, simon@masi.ibp.fr (Julien SIMON) writes: >|>In article <1993Nov4.132424.4408@ifi.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de>, >|>Markus Strasser wrote: >|>>Hello >|>> >|>>can anybody tell me if I have any advantages when upgrading from xfree1.3 to >|>>xfree2.0 (et4000-card) ? >|> >|> >|>From my experience, Xfree 2.0 is speedier than 1.3, even with >|>non-accelerated cards. My Trident 8900C seems faster ... Several people have said this, and I'm damned if I can explain why. We did absolutely no performance work in the dumb-SVGA code at all. >|> >|>Moreover, many bugs have been fixed, so why not upgrade ? Well, this is true. >|> >|>> >|>>Regards >|>> Markus >|> >|> Julien >|> >|> > > Got a Diamond??? (Speedstar). My understanding is there is "NOOOO" >support for them in 2.0. That's OK, there's "NOOOO" support for them in 1.3 either. > > Comments? Suggestion? (Short of buying another Video Cont. > > See Ya, > > Bob. > -- David Wexelblat (703) 430-9247 Fax: (703) 450-4560 AIB Software, Inc., 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160, Dulles, VA 20166 Formerly Virtual Technologies, Inc. Mail regarding XFree86 should be sent to "Ooh, are you feelin' satisfied? Come on, let us give your mind a ride." -- Boston, "Feelin' Satisfied" ------------------------------ From: dvtoft@iastate.edu (Daniel V Toft) Subject: Parity Vs Non-Parity Memory Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 00:59:22 GMT I have two questions for you Linuxers out there: 1) Does using non-parity memory in any way compromise the stability of a Linux system? Do most users out there have parity memory? I'm trying to convince Gateway 2000 that I need parity memory for the system, since good memory is supposedly (?) more of a necessity for a multitasking environment. I thought I had heard something along those lines reading the c.o.l group a few months ago. 2) Will linux work with a PCI bus system? And specifically, are special video drivers needed to support PCI cards (eg ATI XLR/PCI 2MB) as opposed to the similiar batch of ISA/EISA/VLB group? I currently have a P5-60 on order from Gateway, but I'd like to be certain that I can use it part of the time with Linux. As the ship date has come closer, I've gotten a bit nervous about sitting on "the bleeding edge". Thanks, -=- Dan -- Dan Toft Larch 7302 Hanson Iowa State University ------------------------------ From: kem@prl.ufl.edu (Kelly Murray) Subject: Re: XFree86 2.0 VGA16, anyone runs it successfully? Date: 5 Nov 1993 01:44:58 GMT In article , dwex@aib.com (David E. Wexelblat) writes: |> In article umlin000@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Zhuo Er Lin) writes: |> >I have a cirrus VGA card. When I tried VGA16, it starts up as Mono ! |> >There is no color at all and is slower then the MONO server. |> > |> >I swithced back to MONO server and I found it is faster then the v1.3. |> > |> >-- |> >======================================================================== |> >| Eric Lin Voice: (204) 783-2884 | |> >| Computer Engineering FAX Modem: (204) 783-2884 | |> >| University of Manitoba Internet: Umlin000@cc.Umanitoba.CA | |> |> Well, I don't know why you wouldn't see color, but the VGA16 server is |> basically guarenteed to be slower than the mono server. Think about it. |> There are 4 bit planes in 16 color mode, and only one in mono mode. Worst |> case, the 16-color server will be 1/4 the speed of the mono server. I |> don't think it's quite that bad, though. |> Then the 256 color server should be 8 times as slow? Many VGA cards have their RAM setup as 4 banks, so each bitplane can be accessed in parallel. In fact, these boards are typically designed for 4-plane color, so they should be able to perform well at 16-color. I guess the server code isn't written to use the plane-mode features of VGA very well. I'm not complaining, nor should anyone else! |> There's no way the mono server is any faster than 1.3. There were no |> changes whatsoever to the code. It's your imagination. |> It is easy to imagine after switching from running the slow 16 color server! -Kelly Murray |> -- |> David Wexelblat (703) 430-9247 Fax: (703) 450-4560 |> AIB Software, Inc., 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160, Dulles, VA 20166 |> Formerly Virtual Technologies, Inc. |> |> Mail regarding XFree86 should be sent to |> |> "If you don't expect too much from me, you might not be let down." |> -- Gin Blossoms, "Hey Jealousy" ------------------------------ From: goles@CS.UTK.EDU (Tomislav Goles) Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin Subject: Re: UUCP/GETTY_PS? Date: 05 Nov 1993 01:41:48 GMT In article SSB1PZP@imcvms.med.navy.mil (PERUCCI, PHILIP A.) writes: In my excitement over SL/IP, I seemed to have missed the obvious... Is UUCP and getty_ps (uugetty) reliable as packaged with recent Slackware releases? I would LOVE to have my pc provide e-mail and USENET support, while still allowing me to call in using a modem when off-site! What I want to do is be able to read my mail/USENET from either home or off-site. It works for me (I got it to work with UUPC which is a DOS version of uucp). I did not use getty_ps that came with SLS (don't trust anything that comes with SLS any more - all the UUCP file permissions were wrong). Instead I got getty_ps package from sunsite and compiled it myself. At this point I can remotely login using uugetty, copy files (uucp) to and from my remote Linux box, or send mail to users on my Linux box (all through uugetty from getty_ps package). When you are setting up uucp Systems and Permissions files just make sure you follow O'Reilly's "Managing UUCP" (nutshell series) and you won't have any problems. Tom Goles tgoles@mhfl.sbi.com ------------------------------ From: kem@prl.ufl.edu (Kelly Murray) Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Hurd status and call for volunteers Date: 5 Nov 1993 01:59:02 GMT In article <1993Nov2.194952.14306@super.org>, becker@super.org (Donald J. Becker) writes: |> ... |> I'm big fan of the GNU project, and have worked on and with various pieces of |> GNU software since about 1986. But this this is a little overboard. I've |> been hearing about Hurd for years, and the story has always been that the |> design was pretty much complete, the implementation was nearly debugged, and |> "outside" suggestions and help wasn't welcome. |> |> This seemed to be confirmed when the "official" GNU people weren't interested |> in Linux. I heard statements that Hurd was going to be so much better that it |> wasn't worth working on Linux. |> |> Luckily I only listened for a while. Eventually I thought for myself and |> decided to give up the narrow-minded view that the officially-sanctioned Hurd |> would be _the_ Free OS. Linux is reliable, complete, fast and innovative. |> Yes, you read that: innovative. The innovation might not be obvious at first |> because Linux doesn't start by throwing away traditional interfaces just for |> the sake of doing things differently. Instead it conforms to open, de-facto |> standards wherever it makes sense. |> |> To echo the converse of earlier Hurd vs. Linux conversations: let's put the |> Hurd work over in the corner with the Lisp Machines. |> You were sounding so right, but what the hell is this last comment!!! I take great insult! Don't even THINK of equating Lisp Machines with GNU-Hurd. First off, Lisp Machines are HARDWARE, GNU-Hurd is software. Second, Xerox Lisp Machines were around in the 1970's -- there is NOTHING VAPOROUS about Lisp Machines. DOS is 1960's technology, Unix is 1970's technology, Lisp Machines are 1980's technology. Does anyone have a clue as to what 1990's technology is? -- -- Kelly Murray (kem@prl.ufl.edu) University of Florida Parallel Research Lab :: 96-node KSR1, 64-node nCUBE Send mail to ncx@netcom.com for deals on Actix S3 Video cards: ISA Actix GE32 1mb: $149, GE32+2mb: $199, Ultra+2mbVram: $319 ========================================================================= ------------------------------ From: kem@prl.ufl.edu (Kelly Murray) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.misc Subject: Re: Video Cards Supported? What should I buy! Date: 5 Nov 1993 02:25:33 GMT In article <1993Nov4.210959.6028@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, dcm6986@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes: |> In article , bisley@sd.atl.ga.us (Brad Isley) writes: |> |> [old extracts deleted] |> |> > |> >[ more techno stuff deleted ] |> > |> >Can someone point me towards good technical docs and explanations of all |> >this technical momo-jumbo on all the video boards? I'm looking for the |> >ultimate VLB board for Linux w/X and MS-Windows, but I don't know how |> >to evaluate them. I'll check the AccelCards database, naturally. |> >Brad Isley - Lanier Worldwide +1 (404) 493-2484 emory!slammer!sd!bisley |> |> If you have access to Computer Select CD (a computer journal archive), |> look up recent articles on boards. I know that in the last 3 months |> I've seen a handful of very informative articles on boards in the |> Shopper, PC Magazine, and PC World. I think there was also one in |> BYTE. All of these from reputable sources. |> |> If you looking for a beginners guide article, PC Magazine almost always |> goes super-in-depth but explains everything along the way. So my |> recommendation would be to look for the most recent article from PC |> Magazine. |> |> Obviously, if you don't have access to Computer Select, go to your |> library. Trust me, take the time out to get ALL your answers at once |> AND know that they aren't half-truths. |> |> I'm not discouraging any recommendations from others mind you, just |> pointing you where to get the BEST info. |> |> Dan Mattrazzo Right on target here Dan --- I find BYTE is a good source for more broader topics than PC Mag. The net is good for system-specific info, since you probably won't see an article on XFree2.0 -- though i have noticed that SunWorld has little write-ups on new software released on FTP sites now. Maybe DWex could submit an article to BYTE -- you listening david? -- -- Kelly Murray (kem@prl.ufl.edu) University of Florida Parallel Research Lab :: 96-node KSR1, 64-node nCUBE Send mail to ncx@netcom.com for deals on Actix S3 Video cards: ISA Actix GE32 1mb: $149, GE32+2mb: $199, Ultra+2mbVram: $319 ========================================================================= ------------------------------ From: dwex@aib.com (David E. Wexelblat) Subject: Re: XFree86 2.0 VGA16, anyone runs it successfully? Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1993 02:37:10 GMT In article pim@cti-software.nl (Pim Zandbergen) writes: >dwex@aib.com (David E. Wexelblat) writes: > >>There's no way the mono server is any faster than 1.3. There were no >>changes whatsoever to the code. It's your imagination. > >Well, the 1.3 mono server was compiled with gcc 2.3.3 >and the 2.0 with gcc 2.4.5. > >Couldn't that be responsible for a performance improvement ? >-- >E-mail : Pim Zandbergen >S-mail : Laan Copes van Cattenburch 70, 2585 GD The Hague, The Netherlands >Phone : +31 70 3542302 >Fax : +31 70 3512837 I doubt it highly. There weren't that many changes that would account for a user-visble difference in performance. -- David Wexelblat (703) 430-9247 Fax: (703) 450-4560 AIB Software, Inc., 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160, Dulles, VA 20166 Formerly Virtual Technologies, Inc. Mail regarding XFree86 should be sent to "Ooh, are you feelin' satisfied? Come on, let us give your mind a ride." -- Boston, "Feelin' Satisfied" ------------------------------ ** 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 ******************************