From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Sat, 21 Aug 93 13:13:09 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #35 Linux-Misc Digest #35, Volume #1 Sat, 21 Aug 93 13:13:09 EDT Contents: Re: NT versus Linux (A Wizard of Earth C) What a bunch of kids! (Mika Liljeberg) Re: Linux on CD-ROM For Only U$ 19.95 (Kevin Brown) Re: NT versus Linux (Gasparovski / Daniel (ISE)) Re: NT versus Linux (Gasparovski / Daniel (ISE)) Re: NT versus Linux (Tim J.Benham) vt-100 scrolling quirk? (Lloyd Miller) Emacs mail mangling mail headers (Brian McCauley) Re: Why would I want LINUX? (Shawn F. Mckay) rlogind flakey with pl12 (Corey Minyard) Re: NT versus Linux (Alan Cox) Re: NT versus Linux (Alan Cox) Re: NT versus Linux (Zack Evans) Re: gif/jpeg viewer (Janus Zhuang) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Sat, 21 Aug 93 07:56:29 GMT In article <930821002107.23308@world> brileary@world.std.com (Brian Leary) writes: [ ... BLATHER BLATHER BLATHER ... ] >The other free unices? Well, HURD has already stagnated, too late for >it now, and the BSD ones SELF-COMBUSTED. Perhaps this uninformed opinion is why you have not answered my earlier challenge to provide comparison with *BSD, UnixWare, SVR4.2, Solaris, and SunOS as well as just Linux. >>>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 Linux community should feel free to benfit from the *BSD communities research, just as all commercial OS vendors should feel free; I don't know how this is impacted by Linux's licensing choices; however, if they aren't actually adding restrictions above and beyond a Berkeley copyright, the following work (mine, prior to the USL buyout) is available via anonymous FTP from sun-lamp.cs.berkeley.edu as part of NetBSD current: /* * lkm.h * * Header file used by loadable kernel modules and loadable kernel module * utilities. * * 23 Jan 93 Terry Lambert Original * * Copyright (c) 1992 Terrence R. Lambert. * All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software * must display the following acknowledgement: * This product includes software developed by Terrence R. Lambert. * 4. The name Terrence R. Lambert may not be used to endorse or promote * products derived from this software without specific prior written * permission. * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY TERRENCE R. LAMBERT ``AS IS'' AND ANY * EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE TERRENCE R. LAMBERT BE LIABLE * FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL * DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS * OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) * HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT * LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY * OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF * SUCH DAMAGE. */ Full loadable kernel modules for: o System calls o Virtual file systems o Block and character device drivers o Streams modules o Execution classes o Miscellaneous modules Of these, the following bear explanation: Streams modules I have a streams implementation which I have not released. I am not at liberty to release it at this time. Execution classes These are loader types for kern_execve.c. The types I have working on my machine (also not for release at this time) allow me to run most Linux (statically linked), ISC UNIX SVR3 (statically linked), and Xenix 286 and 386 binaries. I am not at liberty to release these execution classes at this time. Miscellaneous modules Any data or function accessed through a data pointer or function pointer can be modified as a loadable module. >Well, it's getting too long. More later if find the time. I once again invite you to compare the operating systems I have mentioned against NT. Terry Lambert terry@icarus.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. ------------------------------ From: liljeber@plootu.Helsinki.FI (Mika Liljeberg) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: What a bunch of kids! Date: 21 Aug 1993 11:05:38 +0300 Will you all PLEASE put mister Leery into your kill files and let him go home and play with his SHEEP! You simply can't argue with someone, whose idea of happines is keeping score of how many flames he has managed to elicit today. Faugh! Mika -- Mika Liljeberg Email: liljeber@hydra.Helsinki.FI Helsinki University Mika.Liljeberg@cs.Helsinki.FI Dept. of Computer Science ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux From: kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) Subject: Re: Linux on CD-ROM For Only U$ 19.95 Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 05:14:22 GMT In article dan@oea.hobby.nl writes: >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. Sending your credit card numbers through the mail is a bad idea, unless you encrypt it with Jay's public DES key (so he can decrypt it with his private key. But I don't know if he has a key, so it's probably a moot point). The reason is that a mail route often involves some uucp store-and-forward portion. While your message is stored, it is potentially accessible by others. Not something you'd want to entrust your credit card number with. >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. It's probably a bad idea to send your credit card number anyway, unless you encrypt it with Jana's public key first (again, they probably don't have one, so the short answer is: don't bother. Use the phone instead). >|< Dan Naas dan@oea.hobby.nl >| >+---------------------------------+ -- 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? ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: u923168@student.canberra.edu.au (Gasparovski / Daniel (ISE)) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Sat, 21 Aug 93 11:13:59 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. OK boys and girls, can you spot the hypocracy? (Hint: "Why are you bitter?", "in a maater of months it'll completely bury the scum you call os that you have") Excuse me... who's bitter? [munch] >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! You've completely missed the point of linux. a) it's for unix enthusiasts, and b) for `hackers'. We (linuxers, and some unixers) don't read every computer rag, drooling over the new release of word for windows. Or eagerly awaiting windows 4.0 because it will be object oriented, not that many people even know what that is. We don't judge our computer-literacy on how much our collection of software costs, or the big number that we get when we add all the version-numbers together. We want something done, we do it ourselves, or ask for someone to do it for us... for free! Linux is a comunity of programmers with the right attitude on what programming knowledge, and programs should be... free! I suggest you read the GNU licence, and read about the GNU philosophy. >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! Again, read the above paragraph. If you want to change the NT kernal, or add to it, or remove portions of the kernal, can you do it? No. If you don't wish to do any of these, than NT is probably for you. >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. All that checklist did, was spread FUD. Pure and simple. Would you like it if I compared OS/2 to NT using windows 3.0 specs? I think not. A general rule: If you don't know what a compiler is, don't bother with linux. If you don't want to know what a compiler is, stick with Microsloath. :) -- Dan ... ( "University of Canberra ... Where only idiots run out of ro" ) ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: u923168@student.canberra.edu.au (Gasparovski / Daniel (ISE)) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Sat, 21 Aug 93 11:35:52 GMT In article <930820201354.23255@world> brileary@world.std.com (Brian Leary) writes: >A few neutral observations in this subject: PLEASE!!!... no jokes here!!! This is *NOT* alt.humor. :) <-- For the Homorously Challenged. [all "neutral observations" (pfffft!) deleted] Once again you miss the point of linux. If you're happy with propriety software, that's fine. If you're happy to accept whatever microsoft churnes out, that's fine. I'm not. Take DOS as an example. What major functions has Microsoft added since it's release (other than the obvios ones like sub-directories) that were Microsoft innovations? Answer: (almost) none. Almost EVERYTHING in DOS now can be done using public domain software. Once Microsoft had a monopoly, it forgot about it, and concentrated on how to make more money. Then Windows came along. Look at the improvements from Windows 1 to windows 3 when it wasn't very successful (to put it mildly)... Microsoft then got a winner, now has almost a monopoly on GUI type OS, and it went on to NT. As long as NT is not very popular Microsoft will improve it, but once it reaches a critical mass... well, I don't like making predictions. :) Linux on the other hand is made by enthusiasts. And as they say, money is the root of all evil... Draw your own conclusions... :) -- Dan ... ( "University of Canberra ... Where only idiots run out of ro" ) ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: benti4@cserve.cs.adfa.oz.au (Tim J.Benham) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 12:27:30 GMT Mail to brileary@world.std.com bounces. Also % finger brileary@world.std.com [world.std.com] world -- The World -- Public Access UNIX -- Solbourne 6E/900 OS/MP 4.1A.3 8:23am up 2 days, 14:40, 23 users, load average: 1.84, 1.17, 1.00 %No matches for brileary What conclusions may be drawn? -- Tim J.Benham Living proof that Genetic Algorithms work... benti4@cserve.cs.adfa.oz.au ------------------------------ From: lloyd@lfmcal.cuc.ab.ca (Lloyd Miller) Subject: vt-100 scrolling quirk? Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 03:36:04 GMT Zhuo Er Lin (umlin000@ccu.umanitoba.ca) wrote: > BTW, when I run minicom to connect to UNIX host (vt100 or vt102), > the text doesn't scroll up when it reaches the bottom of the screen. > It just keep displayed at the bottom line. > I tried stty rows 24; clear. But it doesn't work. I get the same problem with kermit connections sometimes. I think it is due to the fact that a real vt-100 only supported 24 data lines with the 25th line reserved whereas our consoles standardly support 25 lines or even more. Some old vt-100 programs set the "scrolling region" on the screen and when they reset it they use some oddball sequence that is imperfectly emulated. Also if a program aborts abnormally or you kill it so it doesn't have a chance to clean up it can leave the screen in odd states. You can try the following to reset it: #! /bin/bash # reset top and bottom margins and clear screen echo -ne "\033[r\033[J" # reset default ASCII (USA) character set echo -ne "\033(B\017" # reset bold, blink and underscore attributes echo -ne "\033[0m" Note: you must use bash for those echo options to work right. -- Lloyd_Miller@f57.n17.z1.fidonet.org ------------------------------ From: bam@wcl-l.bham.ac.uk (Brian McCauley) Subject: Emacs mail mangling mail headers Date: 21 Aug 1993 14:24:22 GMT Reply-To: B.A.McCauley@bham.ac.uk Since I suspect this is a property of the binary emacs distribution of emacs rather than emacs in general I'll mention it here. As shipped the emacs-19.19A distribution of emacs has the variable sendmail-program set to "fakemail". This has the effect of making the "Subject:" line a part of the message body not part of the header. Channging this variable to point to /usr/bin/smail or /usr/lib/sendmail will cure this. This is a trivial point but I was rather embarrising to me to realise that much of the mail I've sent in the last few weeks had no Subject: lines. -- \\ ( ) No Bullshit! | Email: B.A.McCauley@bham.ac.uk . _\\__[oo from | Voice: +44 21 471 3789 (home) .__/ \\ /\@ /~) /~[ /\/[ | +44 21 627 2171 (work) . l___\\ /~~) /~~[ / [ | Fax: +44 21 627 2175 (work) # ll l\\ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | Snail: 197 Harborne Lane, B29 6SS, UK ###LL LL\\ (Brian McCauley) | ICBM: 52.5N 1.9W ------------------------------ From: shawn@fenchurch.mit.edu (Shawn F. Mckay) Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc,alt.os.bsdi Subject: Re: Why would I want LINUX? Date: 21 Aug 1993 14:34:32 GMT Thats just not true, Linux makes no effort to run on a 286. If I have to have a 386 to run, I'll have little trouble choosing. And IDE drives are CHEAP and plentiful. - Shawn ------------------------------ From: minyard@crchh7b9.rich.bnr.ca (Corey Minyard) Subject: rlogind flakey with pl12 Date: 21 Aug 1993 14:36:05 GMT I have been using linux networking and rlogind for quite some time now without any problems. With the advent of pl12, though, it acts very flakey. It will sometimes log me out as soon as it connects, other times is will act as though I typed things that I didn't during login. Once I am logged in, things work fine. rlogin out of the machine works fine, as well as everything else I have tried. Anyone else have the problem or a solution? Corey minyard@bnr.ca ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: iiitac@swan.pyr (Alan Cox) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 15:27:42 GMT The whole NT v Linux thing is silly. Firstly they are very different products. NT is an expensive corporate system with (I'm told reliably) very good paid for support. Linux is a free system for the masses. I did find the reliability issue funny. On our NT march BETA (now destroyed) setting the terminal program to telnet mode, and typing ^J (control J then return) crashed NT. Granted it's a beta - but so is Linux. I don't like microkernels and after comparing Linux v NT speeds I was even more convinced of this. When the development tools exist that allow you to write and compile a microkernel based system and get the same output assembly code as compiling its macrokernel equivalent, then the microkernel will be a good general idea. ALan ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: iiitac@swan.pyr (Alan Cox) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 15:39:50 GMT In article miked@vnet.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes: ^^^ ^^^ HO HUM ENOUGH SAID >If you want to cripple OS/2 to bring it down to linux's level, do the >following: > >Change the RUNWORKPLACE line in the config.sys to read "cmd.exe". This will >start your system up in an OS/2 window instead of in the Workplace Shell. I do this intentionally when I use OS/2: Thats how much I like workplace shell. > >Why do you have to do this? Linux has no real interface available. X-windows >plus a window manager is not even as functional as OS/2's old desktop manager >interface. Really - I still can't play MPEG movies from one machine to another under the OS/2 window system. It seems well stuck to one computer or something. I won't flame you too much here. There is a lot of nice design in the OS/2 applications. I like openlook and that does me almost as well. If you are a total windows look weenie try Motif (about $100). >Compare an OS/2 system like this to a standalone linux box running X, and the >OS/2 system will blow it away. Period. I speak from experience. Beg to differ: I found it gave better file throughput but poorer overall performance in 8Mb (compared to Linux running OpenLook), and in 4Mb Linux was useable, OS/2 was struggling. > >Wrt applications: Even the "crippled" OS/2 system above can run nearly all DOS >and Windows apps, far better than linux's pathetic DOS emulation can handle. >And, of course, there are native OS/2 applications that linux can't run. And, >of course, I've never seen a polished GUI UNIX app. *Ever*. (Unless you call >NeXTStep UNIX). No argument: I can't afford to pay 500 pounds a toy. I threw the DOS emulator away after discovering all the X stuff I could get for free. Still want a nice WYSIWYG word processor but I got the rest > >Wrong. OS/2 is already beating all the brands of UNIX put together (in sales) >after a year, and we surely don't have 50% of the market. (source: some PC >trade rag, I can't remember which one offhand) Yes but each copy of Unix is probably supporting more than one user. Also it depends which bits of software. Marketroid toys and office widgets yes. I can't find a free copy of Prolog for OS/2, only expensive ones. NFS support that seems to cost losts of money. Things like Khoros dont even appear to exist for OS/2. > >Now if you were to say "about half the computing world that posts and reads >news on the Internet uses UNIX", well, you'd still be wrong, but you'd be a >little bit closer. Yes its over half 8-) > >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. Post-flame-disclamer2: I think people should beware of preachers from commercial companies who clearly have _NO_ idea how much good free software there is (probably even for their own OS). If OS/2 is so great why were a bunch of OS/2 people I know from IBM running around with NT going 'At last something faster than OS/2' ???? Alan ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: zevans@nyx.cs.du.edu (Zack Evans) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Sat, 21 Aug 93 16:21:52 GMT In article <930821002107.23308@world>, Brian Leary wrote: [most cunning analysis of Linux psychology deleted] Well that sounds just like the situation under NT, Windows, OS/2, AmigaDOS, System 7... >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. So instaed of having one Unix box allowing 200 users to work on it, the University is going to buy 200 PCs to run NT on? yeah right. >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. Oh god, more misinformation. There _is_ a version of WABI being developed, called Wine, and there is _also_ WinAPI, which is what you describe and then tell us that we are being told that is WABI. Why does Linux have no hope in a million years of doing this? Seem to me if it's possible to do it on a SPARC processor, it's got to be somewhat easier on an intel. So we will have a choice; if we happen to have the source code available (ha ha) we can compile a Windows app as a native Linux app, or if we just have a Windows binary, we can run that using Wine. >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. Yes this is being developed, you are correct. But Wine is _also_ being developed. Zack -- Zack Evans pyc081@cent1.lancs.ac.uk or zevans@nyx.cs.du.edu (Internet) pyc081@uk.ac.lancs.cent1 (JANET) Watch yer bass bins lads, I'm tellin' yer... ------------------------------ From: jz@jupiter.cs.swin.oz.au (Janus Zhuang) Subject: Re: gif/jpeg viewer Date: 21 Aug 93 15:24:48 GMT swheeler@netcom.com (Sean Wheeler) writes: >Does anyone know of a non-X based gif and/or jpeg viewer for Linux? >I am tired of having to convert jpeg to gif and move the gifs to dos just >to view them. >-- >Sean D. Wheeler swheeler@netcom.com >"alt.tasteless is never having to say your sorry..." Try the xv. It is working on my system. You can get from EXPORT (18.24.0.12) :/contrib/xv-3.00a.tar.Z Good Luck Janus Zhuang jz@jupiter.cs.swin.oz.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 ******************************