From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Sat, 21 Aug 93 01:13:22 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #33 Linux-Misc Digest #33, Volume #1 Sat, 21 Aug 93 01:13:22 EDT Contents: Re: Linux on CD-ROM For Only U$ 19.95 (dan@oea.hobby.nl) Re: Why would I want LINUX? (Peter da Silva) Re: NT versus Linux (Chris Waters) Re: NT versus Linux (Drew Eckhardt) Re: NT versus Linux, the updated and expanded co (Chris Flatters) Toshiba 3401 CD_R-ROM (Jim Kaufman) [Q] Help with mount after mke2fs (Devin W. Dean) Re: NT versus Linux (Pete Ikusz) Re: NT versus Linux (Brian Leary) Re: using fdisk with Ultrastor 24F??? (Drew Eckhardt) Eagle NE2000T with Linux? (bennetjd@RoseVC.Rose-Hulman.Edu) Any point in rebooting. (Robert Nagy) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux From: dan@oea.hobby.nl Subject: Re: Linux on CD-ROM For Only U$ 19.95 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 20:42:48 GMT Jay Jana (jay@jana.com) wrote: [stuff about Linux CD-ROM deleted] Why don't you answer your bloody e-mail! I sent you my credit card number and a few mail messages asking for confirmation that you recieved it to no avail. You say you have about 1000 customers, I suspect you can have many more if you can get some business sense and start resonding to your customers (current & potential). My advice is DON'T SEND YOUR CREDIT CARD NUMBER BY E-MAIL to these people until they start answering their e-mail reliably. : windows other Linux related software. Every other month Ted Tso : who looks after TSX-11 sends me a tape with HD back up of the : /pub/linux directory and I put them on a CD-ROM and send it out. At : present we have about 1000 subscribers. Quite frankly, I'm amazed to conclude from the above that you have NO internet access. I now doubt your ability to provide the latest versions of Linux material to us. Besides you should not rely solely on tsx-11.mit.edu, it seems that there is some interesting Linux stuff on sunsite.unc.edu. I got the May/June and while it is a good first start, I expect better from the next edition. i.e. more Linux and less NeXT stuff or better yet a separate Linux CD-ROM. -- |< Dan Naas dan@oea.hobby.nl >| +---------------------------------+ ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Why would I want LINUX? Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 01:13:19 GMT In article <252n71$2d4@fnnews.fnal.gov> dejan@cdfsga.fnal.gov (Dejan Vucinic) writes: > Now, the copmarison. Those were EXACTLY THE SAME MACHINES. Bought from > a same vendor, exactly the same equipment inside, 387 FPU in both of them. > Fortran on DOS was an expensive commercial product, it was dos 5.0 if I > remember well, and under DOS the program ran about a minute and five seconds > on both of them. We ran the program on BSD, fifteen seconds. Well, I know > that in real mode 386 emulates 32bit integer operations, but FOUR TIMES > FASTER!? Get real! Yep, I can easily see that. And UNIX disk I/O is better than ANY DOS I've seen, even with superturbocache installed. CC was about 3 times faster under Xenix-86 than Microsoft C (the same compiler at the time) under PC-DOS... both on an XT. -- Peter da Silva. . `-_-' Hefur thu fadhmadh ulfinn i dag? 'U` "Det er min ledsager, det er ikke drikkepenge." ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 02:13:23 GMT In mike@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes: First a disclaimer. I think that OS/2 and Linux are both great systems. I think Linux is a better system in general, but OS/2 has far better DOS support, and, since DOS support is how I earn my feelthy lucre, I currently use OS/2. >>[referring to linux] >>OS/2 is bigger, slower, and has *less* applications available. Better? NO. OS/2 has X support, and the EMX unix system call emulation library (the latter available for free) and can thus run nearly all the applications that Linux can, as well as DOS, Windoze, and OS/2 applications. As for bigger/slower, if you drop the OO shell, and just keep the window manager, it's not. If you drop the window manager as well, it's *definitely* not (although, unfortunately, you lose most of the multitasking capabilities at that point--a really stupid design on IBM's part IMO). I use gcc, emacs, groff, TeX, less, ghostscript, bash, ckermit, etc., all under OS/2. Many of these compiled (with EMX) from the unmodified sources. And I don't even have the X support package. My biggest complaints about OS/2 are that it's cryptic and labyrinthine, only supports two filesystems (at the moment) and only one is documented (though, to give credit where credit is due, that's not IBM's fault), lacks multiuser facilities, cannot be properly configured without running the whole damn OO shell. In those cases where you can configure it at all. Badly designed by comparison to Linux (although far superior to the ubiquitous and brain-dead Windoze). Linux has more potential; however OS/2 provides what I need right now. OTOH, OS/2's X support is currently pretty limited, although a new (and unfortunately more expensive) update has just been announced. >Post-flame-disclaimer: I think linux is a great hobbyist OS for those that >want to study UNIX. I don't think, however, that users should be misled into >thinking that it is a svelte super-powerful OS with reams of usable >applications. Lets hope that no one makes that erroneous judgement about *either* system! :-) However, I suspect that Linux has just as much, if not more, *potential* to be that "svelte..." &c. system. We'll see when it comes out of beta. :-) -- Chris Waters | "By experimentation, I have found that if I stand still and xtifr@netcom.COM| spin a universe around me, I get dizzy." -- W. Allison ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: drew@romeo.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 02:16:08 GMT In article <1993Aug19.195834.25213@cs.yale.edu> angelos@scws0.ctstateu.edu (Angelos Karageorgiou Greek and Macedon the only combination) writes: >In article virus@orca.micro.umn.edu (Tom Maki) writes: >>In <930818233207.23008@lambada> ed.duomo@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Cousin Ed) writes: >> >>>I saw this on a local BBS, not sure if it's accurate though. >>It's not. >> >>>For Immdediate Release: NT versus Linux, a feature comparison >>>------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>>Feature NT Linux >>>------- -- ----- >> >>>microkernel yes no (monolethic) > Doubt it very much For most people, a microkernel is going to do more harm than good. With a microkernel, filesystems, etc. are split off into separate processes. This is great for multiprocessors, where you have one thread running on each processor, but in a uniprocessor, like most of us have, you pay a performance penalty because of the context switching overhead. >>>kernel size 50k 350k > Doubt it very much The 50K figure doesn't include device drivers, filesystems, etc, while the Linux figure does. Besides, that's binary size (ie, code + initialized data only), and has little relation to the amount of memory used once it's incore. >>>loadable device >>>drivers yes no Wrong. loadable device drivers are available for Linux. >>>max chars in file name unlimited 14 > false$ Recent Linux filesystems (like those on other modern unices) have a limit of 256 characters *per component*. >>>max partition size unlimited 64MB > false The Linux device drivers support partitions that are several terrabytes in size, as does the ext2 filesystem. Unfortunately, limitations in the ext2 mkfs program mean that you can't create a filesystem bigger than 2G. Unless Microsoft used a "bignums" package for all the internal structures (unlikely because of performance concerns), they can't be unlimited, although they may be for "all practical purposes" unlimited as Linux is. >>>memory model flat internally segmented This is somewhat misleading - the keyword is "internally". User processes see a flat 32 bit address space. Segmentation inside an operating system is not a bad thing, as it allows you to address user and kernel spaces separately, without paying the penalty of mapping/copying arguments from one space to the other every time you wish to access them. > No segmentation in NT? wow how do theydo their paging ?$ On the Intel chips, the segmentation handling and MMU are separate. >>>protable yes no (x86 only) > debatable Linux has been ported to the Amiga. >>>runs unix apps yes (source level) yes (source level) No. WindowsNT runs pure POSIX 1003.1 apps only, and makes no attempts to address the unix features used by other applications. Ie, the standard unix programs that are often piped or shelled to, X11, etc. >>>runs DOS apps yes no > false Linux runs *some* DOS applications under the DOS emulator. >>>runs Windows apps yes no > soon >>>max addressable mem 2048 Gig 4 Gig > exaclty what cpu can address 2 terrabyte? Various CPU's, such as the MIPS R4000, support 64 bit addresses. >>>min required mem 12 meg 16 meg (w/ X) > 3megs WITH X, on an SX :-)) I installed Linux on a 2M laptop, and while I wouldn't want to do any real work on it beyond text manipulation and telecommunications, it ran, so you can consider "2M" the technical minimum for Linux. As far as realistic configurations, Linux works well, with X (provided that you've tweaked things properly) and 8M of memory I can do builds without paging. >>>min required disk space 60 meg 120 meg (all series) > 40 megs , you get a compiler too :-)) This is misleading, since the Linux figure and MS figures include different things. If you install the entire SLS distribution, the 90M of disk that it takes includes things that you probably won't use - fortran and pascal to c translators, LISP and BASIC interpreters, etc. The WinNT figure is not artificially inflated by these things. I've run Linux + X11 on 45M of disk, with full development tools including on-line documentation, libaries, 'C' / 'C++' compileers, debuggers, etc. I also ran an earlier versions of Linux in 10M, with compiler. It all depends on what you want, and what you consider a "minimum" system. >>>price $110 (educational) $69 (SLS) >> 1. Linux is available, quite legally, for free if you're willing to copy / download it yourself. 2. SLS is not the only source of SLS disks. I've seen other sources selling disks for as little as $30 for the set. -- Boycott USL/Novell for their absurd anti-BSDI lawsuit. | Condemn Colorado for Amendment Two. | Drew Eckhardt Use Linux, the fast, flexible, and free 386 unix | drew@cs.Colorado.EDU Will administer Unix for food | ------------------------------ From: cflatter@nrao.edu (Chris Flatters) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux, the updated and expanded co Reply-To: cflatter@nrao.edu Date: Sat, 21 Aug 93 02:41:00 GMT In article 6Lp@frobozz.sccsi.com, kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes: >For Immediate Release: NT versus Linux, a feature comparison >------------------------------------------------------------ > >Feature NT Linux >------- -- ----- > [...] > >runs unix apps yes (source level, yes (source level) > limited POSIX subset > only) That is a litle unfair to W/NT as it stands. "limited _to_ POSIX subset only" is fairer (it's POSIX.1 that is limited not W/NT's implementation of it). > > [...] > >minimum CPU 486 386sx Again, I believe this is a little unfair. A 486 is recommended for W/NT but it should run on a 386 or 386sx. Chris Flatters cflatter@nrao.edu ------------------------------ From: jmk@kksys.com (Jim Kaufman) Subject: Toshiba 3401 CD_R-ROM Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 03:10:28 GMT Has a driver been written to use a Toshiba CD-ROM as a CD player. (Kind of along the lines of what's been done for the Mitsumi?) JMK -- James M. Kaufman, Digital Biometrics, Inc. "Electronic Fingerprinting Systems" Better living through electronics jmk@kksys.mn.org ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.help From: ddean@lonestar.utsa.edu (Devin W. Dean) Subject: [Q] Help with mount after mke2fs Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 03:06:42 GMT Forwarded for Ricardo --- From PECANHA@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Fri Aug 20 17:34:28 1993 Received: from fnala.fnal.gov by lonestar.utsa.edu via SMTP (920330.SGI/920502.SGI) for ddean id AA23515; Fri, 20 Aug 93 17:34:28 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 17:34:26 -0500 (CDT) From: PECANHA@FNALV.FNAL.GOV To: ddean Cc: PECANHA@FNALV.FNAL.GOV Message-Id: <930820173426.2280f10f@FNALV.FNAL.GOV> Subject: help on mkfs Status: RO I tried to post to usenet from my hosts and I i figured out i couldn't send messages to usenet. Is there some tip? My doubt is I just installed my linux system and i tryed to mount a linux disk, after the mke2fs command. But when I mounted the disk I get a message: kernel does not support xiafs. How can it be? After doing a mount (no parameters) the system showed xiafs disks mounted! And i can even mount dos disks! Thanks in advance Ricardo Fermilab, Batavia Illinois ------------------------------ From: pete@introl.com (Pete Ikusz) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: 20 Aug 1993 23:10:41 -0500 Hmmm. This reminds me of the good old days of "my computer is better than yours" in comp.sys[atari|amiga].*..... Boy that was great, reading posts from somewhat irrational people on both sizes. (Both with good points of course!-) Here both sides seem to be competing for for users. NT as a migration OS for Win users and Linux for UNIX users. (Linux also seems to be trying to get Win type users with the X and XView apps.) POINT: Eventually each will have its own niche. Neither NT nor Linux will be the end all of OS's. The one that helps you get done what you need is the one you should run. To that end, all facts posted should be accurate, if not politely corrected. (So as not to form another mess) This is getting a bit out of hand..... -Pete Note: OST reported that IBM may be looking at Mach as a microkernel as a base for some of their OS's. (Including OS/2) BTW: GEM should be the windowing environment standard. It has 'drag and drop', rubberbanding, pull down menus, what more do you need? :-) Maybe I should start a *.GEM.advococy... Or maybe I should get a MAC... (No comment! I don't want to start another thread....) ------------------------------ From: brileary@world.std.com (Brian Leary) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Date: 21 Aug 93 04:25:29 GMT In article kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes: > >In article <930820201354.23255@world> brileary@world.std.com (Brian Leary) writes: > >>Observation #2: >>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 >>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. > >This is partially wrong. As someone else posted (and I checked), QIC-80 >support is in alpha testing now. > Ok, so you concur that a strong SHEEP MENTALITY runs among linux users. Good. That's obvious anyway, nobody can deny it. The way I see it, linux users can be classified as follows: 0.1%: A handful of people that do the actual linux development and application writing. Those are descent humen beings, and other than being fanatics (ALL LINUX USERS ARE!), I can say no ill about them. Not very competent, but otherwaise hard working. They rarely post or participate in the linux groups, and are mostly silent. 10%: Regular users. Those also do some occasional reading of the kernel, but most of what they do is use linux to telecommunicate to their university computers to run talk and such. Those are also mostly silent, and rarely post in netnews, they report bugs by email. 1%: Blood suckers. Those use the hard work of the first group to make money, interpreting the linux license one way when it works for them, and another when not. Those are rather noisy, not surprising since they also constitue a large part of the MASTER SHEEP. 88.9%: THE SHEEP. Those rarely use linux beyonfd booting it. They do all their work in DOS/Windows, but love to brag about how inadequate it is, and how linux works for them. They know mostly nothing about linux and whether it wroks or not beyond echoing what the master sheep say, but are HEFs (Highly Effecient Flamers), and they fill the linux group with posts that are mostly noise. Of course HEF + SHEEP MENTALITY = LYNCH MOB! So here is the breakdown: 0.1% developers |-- fanatics 10% users | 1% blood suckers |-- LYNCH MOB | 88.9% SHEEP | | I think that's pretty much an accurate and objective breakdown. > As someone else posted (and I checked), QIC-80 >support is in alpha testing now. > For your information, it has been in alpha for over a year. All that was done is that the MACH code was placed in a linux site, that's all. Some alpha testing! >However, if you have a SCSI QIC-80, then you're already supported. Nuff >said. > There aint no such thing as a SCSI QIC-80. >>But that's not all, there is also the LYNCH MOB MENTALITY. After >>hearing about how dum and gullible we are for two years, as soon as an >>objective comparison that shows that linux is not the ultimate os is >>posted here, > >Objective comparison, eh? When you're using linux-0.12 as the basis of >your comparison??? > I explained the points mentioned in the checklist in that post, and most linux users in the know agreed with them. >>the linux lynch mob mentality takes over, and we're >>burried by an article after another of vulgar flames. Even though the >>comparison was not posted to their group. > >Interesting. This disproves your "sheep mentality" claim. After all, why >would any Linuxer bother reading comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy if they >weren't a free thinker? > The article was reposted by a sheep ... err linuxer to the linux group after it appeared here. >>Of course, there is also the FANATIC MENTALITY, but that one is >>obvious. > >This seems to be true of you as well. > No so. I will say upfront that linux has the best chance among all unices of surviving (mostly as a toy os). All the commercial ones will be extinct in a mmater of a few years, due of course to the new unix: NT. DEC and Silicon Graphics started the trend, and others will follow soon. In a few years, unix will be mentioned only in history books, and X11 will be seen only working as a subsystem under NT. The other free unices? Well, HURD has already stagnated, too late for it now, and the BSD ones SELF-COMBUSTED. Now you see how reasonable a guy I am? >>Observation #3: >>For a long time they kidded us about how NT is vaporware. The general >>consensus among them is that NT will never see the light of day, and >>our replies that it is coming out "soon" were laughed at. > >What do you expect? Windoze NT is *already* behind schedule. It was >supposed to be released several months ago. We can't be responsible for >the bogus claims of others. > What a joke! Linux 1.0 was supposed to be released last summer. In December, SLS 1.0 was announced, under the impression that linux 1.0 would be released by then. Well, we're still waiting. NT was late? Hahaha! >>But look at >>what they are saying right now: Loadable device drivers... "soon", > >No. Loadable device drivers *now*. > Somebody said that and all the sheep kept echoing it! Tell me, can you load the serial driver at boot time? the SCSI driver? the sound driver? the HD driver? the Mitsumi driver? *ANY* driver? Of course some sheep would say you can enable that by recompiling the kernel. That's loadable alright! Heh. The current loadable modules project doesn't have the blessings of the linux developers, it'll never be integrated into the kernel. Larix tried and failed. >>Drag and drop... "R6 is out any day now", > >Again, depends on the application. I'm not one to hold my breath for X11R6, >though. > Not a single applicaion running under linux uses drag and drop, unless of course you count the demo included with Motif! >>Running ODS apps... >>"emulator is coming along nicely", Running Winodws apps... "WABI is >>almost here", ..etc. ..etc. What a joke! > >WABI was started in *June*, ferchrissake!! What do you expect in a couple >of months? And yet, the reports say that it already runs a respectable >subset (though not enough to run a major Windows application). > WABI is the BIGGEST LIE PERPETRATED ON LINUX USERS!, mostly as a gimmick to push the declining sales of SLS, which were hurt by clones. Of course someone said WABI! and all the sheep started repeating WABI! WABI!! WAAABI!!, and soon they believed it. First of all, WABI is a Sun *binary* interface. It runs (supposedly) ordinary commercial Windows apps that were compiled under DOS/Widnows. Linux has no hope in a million years to have something like this. All that is under linux is an attempt to make applications written for Windows use an alternate API library by compiling them under linux and linking them with that lib. Of course if you ever looked at it, you would soon find that it's no more than a feable remapping of a few Windows functions using XView, and will never amount to anything but running a demo. [...] Well, it's getting too long. More later if find the time. -Bri ------------------------------ From: drew@romeo.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) Subject: Re: using fdisk with Ultrastor 24F??? Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 04:19:50 GMT In article <1993Aug20.190334.6807@spcvxb.spc.edu> mauritz_c@spcvxb.spc.edu writes: >I'm trying to help a friend install linux on his machine. He has an >almost identical setup as my system, but I cannot seem to get fdisk >to recognize his SCSI disk. The setup is: > >486/66 >16mb RAM >500mb Seagate ST3600N >Ultrastor 24F EISA SCSI controller ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This board is not supported in the stock .99.12 kernel. >The SLS boot disk comes up just fine, but when I login as root >and type "fdisk /dev/sda" I get "unable to open /dev/sda". > >I didn't get that error on my machine and I don't see any >mention of it in the FAQ or Getting Started book. From the FAQ : QUESTION: What hardware is supported? ANSWER: The Adaptec 154x, Adaptec 174x, Adaptec 1540 compatable boards like the Bustek, DTC3290 and DTC3292, Future Domain 850, 885, 950, and probably other boards in that series but NOT the 880 board unless you make the appropriate patch, 16x0, Seagate ST0x, Ultrastor 14F (Some of the new ALPHA code makes attempts to deal with the 34F) and Western Digital 7000 are supported (revision 5 only, revision 3 boards don't work). Various Adaptec clones from Bustek and Future Domain are known to work, in both ISA and EISA flavors. There is an alpha driver for the Ultrastor 24F, that also works for the 14F and 34F : tsx-11.mit.edu:/pub/ALPHA/scsi/u24f-driver.tar.z A bootable image is in the same directory, Image.UltraStor -- Boycott USL/Novell for their absurd anti-BSDI lawsuit. | Condemn Colorado for Amendment Two. | Drew Eckhardt Use Linux, the fast, flexible, and free 386 unix | drew@cs.Colorado.EDU Will administer Unix for food | ------------------------------ From: bennetjd@RoseVC.Rose-Hulman.Edu Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help Subject: Eagle NE2000T with Linux? Date: 21 Aug 1993 04:24:23 GMT Reply-To: bennetjd@RoseVC.Rose-Hulman.Edu I'm looking for a twisted-pair ethernet card to use with linux on my 486. The NE2000 card suggested by our computing center here is the Eagle Anthem NE2000T, 10 Base-T, 16-bit. Has anyone tried this card with linux? Any help is greatly appreciated. Jonathan Bennett bennetjd@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu ------------------------------ From: nagy@turtle.apana.org.au (Robert Nagy) Subject: Any point in rebooting. Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 01:58:23 GMT Hi Folks, Is there any point in getting Linux to reboot itself every day or so? What are the pro's and cons of doing this. Robert -- ========================================================================== 1993 Harley Davidson Fatboy - The Wind Beneath My Wings nagy@turtle.apana.org.au ------------------------------ ** 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 ******************************