From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 18:13:24 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #30 Linux-Misc Digest #30, Volume #1 Fri, 20 Aug 93 18:13:24 EDT Contents: Weekly Status: A Suggestion (David C. Niemi) Re: NT versus Linux - Alan Parsons Project (Daniel Newcombe) Re: NT versus Linux (Ian McCloghrie) Re: NT versus Linux (Steve Sheldon) Re: Weekly Status: A Suggestion (rodrigo vanegas) Re: Weekly Status: A Suggestion (Michael Elkins) Re: NT versus Linux (Eyvind Bernhardsen) Re: Weekly Status: A Suggestion (Helmut Geyer) Re: Get a grip! (was: NT versus Linux) (Kevin Brown) Re: From your friends at UNIXWorld (Kevin Brown) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: niemidc@oasis.gtefsd.com (David C. Niemi) Subject: Weekly Status: A Suggestion Date: 20 Aug 1993 20:12:48 GMT Reply-To: niemidc@oasis.gtefsd.com I think it would be nice if someone would maintain a status and current version of the major Linux components (Kernel, libc, file systems, gcc, dosemu, etc.) and post it ever week or two. This would be handy for those of us who like to live on the bleeding edge and keep up with the Joneses. Heck, it might even be useful for real maintenance. If such a status list exists and I didn't notice it, sorry for wasting th' bandwidth. --- David C. Niemi: David.Niemi@oasis.gtegsc.com I have seen th' darkness an' th' pain, Griffy... I have frolicked in th' Devil's Themepark...I have lain down with dawgs... ------------------------------ From: ae007@yfn.ysu.edu (Daniel Newcombe) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux - Alan Parsons Project Date: 20 Aug 1993 19:54:07 GMT Reply-To: ae007@yfn.ysu.edu (Daniel Newcombe) Okay, I have no clue how Alan Parsons Project got in my subject line... Oh well, it looks cool. Peoples, can we please drop this topic as it is getting nowher. All it has proved as that people from both sides of the tracks like to type - alot. Have a good (and flameless)_ weekend. -Dan -- -Dan Newcombe Internet Address: STDN@VM.MARIST.EDU Youngstown Freenet: ae007@yfn.ysu.edu GOAL: To put the world on 3.5" diskettes... :) ------------------------------ From: imcclogh@cs.ucsd.edu (Ian McCloghrie) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: 20 Aug 93 20:00:49 GMT brileary@world.std.com (Brian Leary) writes: >A few neutral observations in this subject: neutral? Interesting, this must be a definition of the word I haven't run across before. >The above is mainly due to the strong SHEEP MENTALITY running in the >linux community. Few if any linux users have their own mind, After >all, why bother? It's easier to just echo what a master sheep has >said. This is obvious in their "rebuttals" to the check list that was >posted here. Each one just echoes the other -- all of them asserted Ummm... Most of the echoes are due to the fact that anyone who's used linux for more than an hour (as you, Mr Leary, obviously have not) would know that the a large percentage of the 'limitations' quoted for linux are blatantly out-of-date. As for "sheep" mentality, linux encourages one to do one's own thing with the OS, by virtue of the fact that you _have_ the source to code to it. >our replies that it is coming out "soon" were laughed at. But look at >what they are saying right now: Loadable device drivers... "soon", Loadable device drivers now. >"emulator is coming along nicely", Running Winodws apps... "WABI is emulator exists now. >Linux is inferior to DOS! How's that? Well, DOS has loadable device . linux has a loadable device driver patch. And loadable device drivers is hardly the be-all, end-all of operating systems. Ooops? You mean that program just wrote garbage over the interrupt table? So sorry, you'll have to reboot, your system just crashed hard. >Observation #6: >Linux users have no idea what multimedia support is. Multimedia Do I care what it is? No. I'm an os programmer. >Observation #8: >Q: What does linux do when it runs low on memmory? A: IT FALTERS! The >only os I have seen that locks up when it runs low in memory. Every >linux user must constantly watch for memory useage, if linux needs a >few more kilobytes than are available, it doesn't complain, it just >crawls to a halt before dying a miserable death, taking down the whole >system with it. Yet more proof that Mr. Leary doesn't know what he's talking about. Technically, linux never crashed when running out of memory, it just took as long as days to send a segmentation fault. Now, before you flame this as being 'equivalent' to locking up (and i'd agree with you that, for all practical purposes, it is) try doing it with 0.99.12. It's fixed. >Need I say more? There is still lots to talk about: the flaky file >system, the feeble networking, ..etc. ..etc. filesystem is not flaky. The networking in the kernel is solid, the ports of BSD Net/2 applications is poor. >Linux users, get a clue! Your os is shit. And remember, we didn't Mr. Leary, get a clue. Learn something about what it is you're putting down without a thought. Note here that I have not said a word about NT's capabilities. This is because I've not run NT. Why not? Because I have a 386DX/25 with 10M. This falls far below the minimum system listed as required my NT. Yet it runs linux just wonderfully. -- /~> Ian McCloghrie | Commandant of Secret Police - Cal Animage Beta. < < /~\ |~\ |~> | | <~ | email: ian@ucsd.edu Net/2, USL 0! \_> \_/ |_/ |~\ |__| _> | Card Carrying Member, UCSD Secret Islandia Club ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: sheldon@iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 20:10:47 GMT In <930820201354.23255@world> brileary@world.std.com (Brian Leary) writes: >A few neutral observations in this subject: Why is it when I try to send mail to this guy it bounces? Boy that really chaps my hide. :) >Observation #1: >Making fun and degrading remarks about Windows users is fashionable in >the linux groups. Actually this is common in the entire PC industry. You should read more trade rags. >Observation #2: >The above is mainly due to the strong SHEEP MENTALITY running in the ... >posted here. Each one just echoes the other -- all of them asserted >that linux has QIC-80 support, just because the first one said so, >even though linux HAS NO QIC-80 SUPPORT, nor is likely to have it any >time soon. We use this one later on here... >burried by an article after another of vulgar flames. Even though the >comparison was not posted to their group. This quote is particularly important too. >Of course, there is also the FANATIC MENTALITY, but that one is >obvious. Naw, ignore these people. They're a fall over from the death of the Amiga. We just collect these guys out of amiga.advocacy to help keep the windows users on their toes. :) >Observation #3: >For a long time they kidded us about how NT is vaporware. The general I always assumed Microsoft would release it. After all they spent enough money creating a niche market product, they might as well get a few reviews of it before it dies. :) >Observation #4: >Linux is inferior to DOS! How's that? Well, DOS has loadable device >drivers, linux doesn't. Your printer and modem use the same IRQ? No >problem in Windows, just don't use them at the same time. In linux, Actually I don't think MS-DOS or Windows uses the printer IRQ, so your argument is kind of worthless. Otherwise I don't understand the point. This is a fault in the hardware, Windows NT or SCO Unix or any of them will have similar problems. If two devices use the same IRQ, they'll conflict. Simple as that. >Observation #5: >Not only that linux doesn't support drag an drop, its users have no >concept of what drag and drop is! Most of them think it's just cut and >paste, as can be seen clearly in the "rebuttals". The only way to get >drag and drop in linux is to pay $299 (NT is less expensive, how >ironic) to buy Motif, and virtually no Motif application makes use of >it anyway, and you cannot drag and drop between Motif and Xaw >applications. Wow? Motif has drag and drop? Ok, I'll bite, what is it? I prefer the cut and paste between xterm's. But then that's cause I'm a programmer I guess, which you obviously are not. >Observation #6: >Linux users have no idea what multimedia support is. Multimedia Spare me. Windows users don't have any clue what multimedia is. Leave this to the amiga.advocacy groups please. >Observation #7: >QIC-80 support is not in linux, nor is it ever likey to be. The >general consensus among linux developers is that QIC-80 is simply >unsuitable to multitasking environments, a claim that's obviously >disproved by NT's support for QIC-80. That's because QIC-80 is a crappy standard which is unsuitable for any enviornment where your data is important and worth money. Around here we use optical drives, and QIC-150/QIC-525 or DAT tape drives. Much faster, and 4000 times more reliable. >Observation #8: >Q: What does linux do when it runs low on memmory? A: IT FALTERS! The What does DOS and Windows do? It usually falters. >Need I say more? There is still lots to talk about: the flaky file >system, the feeble networking, ..etc. ..etc. Oh, we were talking about sheep a little while ago. Now I haven't had any problems with the file system. But obviously one of your sheep buddies must have said something which you are repeating. That's why that quote up above is important. >Linux users, get a clue! Your os is shit. And remember, we didn't >start this. You know that's pretty vulgar. This reminds me of that other quote above, where you complain about people being vulgar, and how this all started in the windows.advocacy group. Hmm? I think we have a problem with double standards here... Have fun. I still want to know why I can't send you mail? -- sheldon@iastate.edu Steve Sheldon #insert "standard disclaimer" Iowa State University ------------------------------ From: rv@cs.brown.edu (rodrigo vanegas) Subject: Re: Weekly Status: A Suggestion Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 21:38:15 GMT In article <253b80$jl7@europa.eng.gtefsd.com>, niemidc@oasis.gtefsd.com (David C. Niemi) writes: > I think it would be nice if someone would maintain a status and > current version of the major Linux components (Kernel, libc, file > systems, gcc, dosemu, etc.) and post it ever week or two. The LSM (Linux Software Map) is just this and more. Check out tsx-11.mit.edu:pub/linux/lsm-* rodrigo vanegas rv@cs.brown.edu ------------------------------ From: elkins@aero.org (Michael Elkins) Subject: Re: Weekly Status: A Suggestion Date: 20 Aug 1993 20:58:33 GMT In article , rodrigo vanegas wrote: >The LSM (Linux Software Map) is just this and more. Check out >tsx-11.mit.edu:pub/linux/lsm-* How often does that get updated? The last time I looked at it (a few weeks ago, admittedly) it was out of date in a lot of its information.... me -- michael elkins elkins@aero.org computer science and technology subdivision aerospace corporation tel: +1 310-336-8040 el segundo, ca fax: +1 310-336-4402 ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: eyvind@Lise.Unit.NO (Eyvind Bernhardsen) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 21:01:07 GMT In article , ojastej@wfh7546.ice.ncr.ca (James Ojaste) writes: [...] > |> 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 > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > That's right. Only about *half* the computing world (if not more) uses Unix... Uh-uh. Sorry, but there are *squillions* more MSWin/MSDOS users out there. Of course, most of these are people who just need a computer in the office for word processing; the people who *count* use Unix ;) [...] > Apart from the obvious deficiencies of Word, WP, Lotus and Procomm... > Yes, word processors *do* exist (Word Perfect, for one), DTP packages > *do* exist (Frame Maker...)... As to spreadsheets, I don't have an > example, but I'm sure they're around. Procomm? Who needs it? Telnet > is *standard*! If you want file transfers, use FTP, or sz/rz. Xtalk? > What about Telnet? It's been around a lot longer... How about remsh? > The whole idea of X is running apps on someone elses computer, and > using it on yours... Yes, I agree... A somewhat ridiculous point. An NT would-be-user-if-it-existed using a comms program as an argument against an OS designed to run over a network. Can you log into a remote system using NT? UUCP vs ZModem *rofl* ;) > /* 0F 90 3E 44 F9 13 E7 CC (jojaste@descartes.uwaterloo.ca) -- // Eyvind Bernhardsen | eyvind@lise.unit.no // | \\ // Finger me for my | Amigoid and Linux advocate. \X/ public PGP key :) | Save the whalers! ------------------------------ From: geyer@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Helmut Geyer) Subject: Re: Weekly Status: A Suggestion Date: Fri, 20 Aug 93 21:02:10 GMT rodrigo vanegas (rv@cs.brown.edu) wrote: :>In article <253b80$jl7@europa.eng.gtefsd.com>, niemidc@oasis.gtefsd.com (David C. Niemi) writes: :>> I think it would be nice if someone would maintain a status and :>> current version of the major Linux components (Kernel, libc, file :>> systems, gcc, dosemu, etc.) and post it ever week or two. :>The LSM (Linux Software Map) is just this and more. Check out :>tsx-11.mit.edu:pub/linux/lsm-* It should and will be, but the latest version I found is from end of june, so not something I would call up-to-date. I think the lsm is reworked in the moment (to a database system). Once this work has been done, it will be a very fine system, but (as far as I know) it is not here yet. Helmut :>rodrigo vanegas :>rv@cs.brown.edu ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) Subject: Re: Get a grip! (was: NT versus Linux) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 17:59:44 GMT In article <252l61$bta@pad-thai.aktis.com> bjaspan@GZA.COM (Barry Jaspan) writes: >Jeez, wake up! > >There is no point in comparing Windows NT to Linux. They are in totally >separate ballparks, practically two different universes. You might as well be >comparing IBM OS/360 and ITS. Basically true, though I think the needs of most CS students would be better filled by Linux than by NT. >NT is a commercially backed project with many >many millions in development, marketing, testing, documentation, and support. But it doesn't show. :-) >It has industry support for every major software vendor. I'm not sure what "industry support" is supposed to mean here. Software vendors are doing development work for it. But we all know that they'd do said work no matter *what* NT looked like, just because it's a Microsloth product. >Linux is a hacker's operating system. Yup. >It has virtually no marketing, Well, there's the net, but in the commercial world, you're *almost* right. But not quite. There are a couple of outfits (Yggdrasil, Softlanding Systems) that are selling Linux for real cheap ($59 or so gets you a CD ROM packed with Linux and assorted goodies). >testing, Now *this* is just plain wrong. Linux probably has more testing under its belt than Windoze NT will have for a long time. Why? Because it's free, and the user community submits bug reports and, oftentimes, bug fixes, many times within a few days of the release of something. Additionally, a large segment of the Linux crowd is technically competent, so bug reports are *meaningful* as opposed to the useless complaints most computer-illiterate users generate. In a way, I feel sorry for companies like Microsloth, that have to wade through countless "My mouse doesn't work" style "bug reports". The biggest difference is that you get source with Linux if you want it. This is a *huge* win in terms of generating meaningful bug reports. Not only can you say "my mouse doesn't seem to work", but you can also say "check out line 126 of mouse.c. Notice that dx and dy are declared unsigned?". And if you don't understand what's going on, you can look at the source to figure it out. I've done that when doing things like porting screen to Linux (had trouble with the weird Posix controlling terminal stuff). Not to mention that if you report a problem with Linux, someone will usually take it seriously. I've heard countless stories of people calling Microsloth's "tech support" with real problems, only to have them say "We haven't heard of that one. You must be doing something wrong". I need "support" like that the same way that I need a lobotomy. >or documentation. This is about the most glaring fault of Linux. You get man pages for lots of things, but there is more rudimentary documentation that needs doing. However, there's the Linux Documentation Project which is well underway and is addressing this very problem. Linux may be underdocumented, but it won't be that way for too much longer. >The likelihood of the big-name commercial vendors supporting their products it >is virtually zero. This is probably true, but then there's no accounting for the stupidity of commercial vendors. :-) Seriously, though, commercial vendors that do *Unix* development will probably take Linux very seriously sooner than you think, *because* Linux is such a popular operating system. The biggest problem they'll have is competing against all the free software that's already out there. They'll have to offer something that is unique and new. >The technical details of filename limits, memory usage, etc., are just >irrelevant. This depends. If you don't have enough computer to run NT, guess what happens? Right. You don't run NT. Filename limits are important to people doing development work and, to a certain degree, to everyone. It's damned annoying to be restricted to 8+3 when you really want to call your file "letter_to_john". Generally speaking, technical details matter *a lot* if they affect the application you have. And when it comes to running on cheap hardware with relatively small amounts of memory and disk space, NT just loses. >The fundamental differences between NT and Linux far outweight >any just trivial technicalities. This is far too general. *Obviously*, whether or not the fundemental differences outweigh the "trivial technicalities" depends on what you're trying to do. There are some cases (e.g., running Unix software) where the "technicalities" are of paramount importance. If what you need can be met by running Linux, then running Linux is most definitely the way to go, if only because it's free. If you *have* to run something that runs under NT but not under Linux, then NT is the thing to get at least for that one application. But who says you can't run both? The only problem doing that is that NT is a memory and disk space hog in a *big* way, and I have little doubt that unless someone isn't doing much with it, it'll be using the majority of the available disk space. >I think Microsoft is just as scummy and NT just as much a scam as the next >rational person, but I do not for an instant think Linux will ever make a dent >in it. Agreed. At least, until someone comes out with an emulator for it under Linux. :-) >OS/2 might, and I sure hope it does, but I also don't think Linux will >ever make a dent in OS/2. Anyone who thinks it will is living in a dream >world. > >In short, this is a stupid thread. Yeah, but it's a fun one. :-) >Barry Jaspan, bjaspan@gza.com >Geer Zolot Associates -- 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: kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) Subject: Re: From your friends at UNIXWorld Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 18:26:25 GMT In article <1993Aug20.142109.26375@mksol.dseg.ti.com> cannon@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Chris Cannon) writes: >In article kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes: >>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. > > Most lusers get sweaty palms when you mention fdisk. > >>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... > > You've obviously never used a WYSIWYG word processor (i.e. WFW) That's CPU intensive because (a) it was written by Microsoft, and if it's anything like their other products, it's larger than it needs to be and much less efficient than it could be, and (b) it's running under Windoze, which has the same characteristics. Ever try using the terminal program supplied with Windoze on a 1024x768x256 screen? Interesting how slooooowwwww it scrolls when you compare it with X under Linux doing the same thing with the same resolution and font size on the same hardware, *without* jump scroll turned on, isn't it? Having played with other Windoze applications, I can easily say that the above experience is not an anomaly. >cannon@lobby.ti.com -- 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 ******************************