From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Sun, 22 Aug 93 23:13:15 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #42 Linux-Misc Digest #42, Volume #1 Sun, 22 Aug 93 23:13:15 EDT Contents: Which is more effecient on Linux? (Joel M. Hoffman) Re: NT versus Linux (Byron A Jeff) Re: Which is more effecient on Linux? (Byron A Jeff) I'm back. Did I miss anything important? (Barzilai Spinak) The choice of... (Mathias Koerber) Re: Why would I want LINUX? (J Wunsch) Re: Why would I want LINUX? (J Wunsch) Re: NT versus Linux (Kevin Brown) Re: NT versus Linux (Bernd Meyer) Re: NT versus Linux (Peter Mutsaers) Linux Ftp site..... (Daniel - Shsu) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: joel@rac2.wam.umd.edu (Joel M. Hoffman) Subject: Which is more effecient on Linux? Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1993 22:47:14 GMT Which is likely to be more efficient: Running several copies of a large program one after the other, or all at once. For example, suppose I have 10 files to print w/ Ghostscript, on my '386 with 10M. Am I better of running 10 copies of GS all at once, or running them one after the other? Suppose for argument's sake that there will be some swapping, but not a lot. -Joel (joel@wam.umd.edu) -- ============================================================================= |_|~~ Germany, Europe. 1943. "The diameter of the bomb was 30 centimeters, __|~| 16 Million DEAD. and the diameter of its destruction, about 7 meters, and in it four killed and 11 wounded. cnc Bosnia, Europe. 1993. And around these, in a larger circle of pain cnc HOW MANY MORE? and time, are scattered two hospitals and one cemetery. But the young woman who was buried in the place from where she came, at a distance of more than than 100 kilometers, enlarges the circle considerably. And the lonely man who is mourning her death in a distant country incorporates into the circle the whole world. And I won't speak of the cry of the orphans that reaches God's chair and from there makes the circle endless and godless." ============================================================================= Tell Clinton to stop the genocide: president@whitehouse.gov ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1993 23:32:45 GMT In article <258tc1INNjcl@uwm.edu>, Craig T Manske wrote: >From article <1993Aug20.025547.16769@cc.gatech.edu>, by byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff): ><< ><<<< No. ><< Word perfect? >< No. I can run it under the DOS emulator. ><< Lotus 123? >< No. Again I can run it under the DOS emulator. ><< *Any* spreadsheet? >< Yes. ><< Procomm? >< No. kermit, minicom, seyon, term. If I'm really desparate I could run it >< under the DOS emulator. ><< No. Same as procomm. > >Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't some of these software packages >available for unix? I friend of mine told me I could get Word Perfect 5.1 >for Unix for like $800. And if so, doesn't that mean that Word Perfect is >available for Unix? Sure enough. At work they had a 4.2 version running natively on the Sun 3 series machines. However I'm not going to pay $800 for the priviledge when I can run the DOS version under the emulator for no additional cost. BAJ --- Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of... Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel! Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: byron@cc.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) Subject: Re: Which is more effecient on Linux? Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1993 23:45:00 GMT In article <1993Aug22.224714.4588@excaliber.uucp>, Joel M. Hoffman wrote: >Which is likely to be more efficient: Running several copies of a >large program one after the other, or all at once. For example, >suppose I have 10 files to print w/ Ghostscript, on my '386 with 10M. >Am I better of running 10 copies of GS all at once, or running them >one after the other? > >Suppose for argument's sake that there will be some swapping, but not >a lot. As I'm sure it's been pointed out before that 2 or more processes running the same program can share clean and text pages. In addition the disk buffer cache is also aware of pages of already running programs. So if you run 10 copies of GS simulteanously not only will they share but the text and clean pages will only be loaded the first time. On the other hand the buffer cache doesn't usually let pages go unless memory gets tight. So even if you run one after the other it's most likely that the pages will still be hanging around. So either way you win. That's what I like about Linux. ;-) BAJ --- Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of... Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel! Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: byron@cc.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: barspi@wam.umd.edu (Barzilai Spinak) Subject: I'm back. Did I miss anything important? Date: 23 Aug 1993 01:28:17 GMT Excuse me if this is not the right place, but I've been "out of this world" for a couple of months and returned today. During this time Linux changed from a budding patchlevel 10 to pl12, the c.o.l. hierarchy was reorganized, and a lot of things must have happened. I also remember people talking about WABI; what happened to it? I deleted all the messages in the Linux groups and I have a pile of magazines to read, but I would be glad if someone puts me up to date on the Linux subject. (Just a short e-mail, nothing else) Thank you very much. ------------------------------ From: mathias@solomon.technet.sg (Mathias Koerber) Subject: The choice of... Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 01:56:11 GMT Has anyone made T-shirts with the "The choice of a GNU generation" slogan? If so, where to order? Thx alot mathias -- Mathias Koerber | Tel: +65 / 7780066 ext 29 SW International Systems Pte Ltd | Fax: +65 / 7779401 14 Science Park Drive #04-01 | The Maxwell, Singapore Science Park | email: mathias@solomon.technet.sg Singapore 0511 | swispl@solomon.technet.sg =============================================================================== * Eifersucht ist eine Leidenschaft die mit Eifer sucht was Leiden schafft * ------------------------------ From: j@bonnie.tcd-dresden.de (J Wunsch) Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Why would I want LINUX? Date: 22 Aug 1993 21:20:38 +0200 In <24vd7h$frk@horus.mch.sni.de> Martin.Kraemer@mch.sni.de (Martin Kraemer) writes: [for Linux] >Plus there is much more support for "cheap" hardware and for two-or- >more-OS's-on-one-harddisk. Yep, the Linux support for two-or-more-OS's ain't the best. Not that i hate Linux, but i'm still curious why they decided to have this silly off-the-standard booting scheme (LILO). With *BSD using a normal dozz boot scheme (load MBR, and then load the active partition's boot sector), along with one of the fancy boot managers (i'm using os-bs), it works like a charm. You could also boot those silly unices requiring their own partition being marked active. (Another problem of Linux is, they occupy a full dozz partition for swap instead of sub-partitioning their primary one.) Btw., i've been working with my old cheep PC from older dozz times. A 386SX/16 w/ 6 MB of RAM and a bloody old Trident VGA, i even compiled the whole XFree86 under 386BSD (approx. time: 24 hours:-). The really disadvantage of BSD is it's lack of shared libs, thus consu- ming much more disk space. But the original shared libs from Linux didn't convince me either: i saw it at a friend, he quickly felt that his Linux got binary-incompatible to itself. (Since the binaries had to match exactly the shared libs.) Last not least: take out all the `unnecessary' things from the BSD kernel (IP, various file systems, SCSI, Ethernet, SLIP etc. etc.), you'll get a (IMHO much useless) very tiny kernel:-) -- in real life: J"org Wunsch | ) o o | primary: joerg_wunsch@tcd-dresden.de above 1.8 MHz: DL 8 DTL | ) | | private: joerg_wunsch@uriah.sax.de | . * ) == | ``An elephant is a mouse with an operating system.'' ------------------------------ From: j@bonnie.tcd-dresden.de (J Wunsch) Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Why would I want LINUX? Date: 22 Aug 1993 21:27:42 +0200 In <24vd7h$frk@horus.mch.sni.de> Martin.Kraemer@mch.sni.de (Martin Kraemer) writes: [for Linux] >Plus there is much more support for "cheap" hardware and for two-or- >more-OS's-on-one-harddisk. Yep, the Linux support for two-or-more-OS's ain't the best. Not that i hate Linux, but i'm still curious why they decided to have this silly off-the-standard booting scheme (LILO). With *BSD using a normal dozz boot scheme (load MBR, and then load the active partition's boot sector), along with one of the fancy boot managers (i'm using os-bs), it works like a charm. You could also boot those silly unices requiring their own partition being marked active. (Another problem of Linux is, they occupy a full dozz partition for swap instead of sub-partitioning their primary one.) Btw., i've been working with my old cheep PC from older dozz times. A 386SX/16 w/ 6 MB of RAM and a bloody old Trident VGA, i even compiled the whole XFree86 under 386BSD (approx. time: 24 hours:-). The really disadvantage of BSD is it's lack of shared libs, thus consu- ming much more disk space. But the original shared libs from Linux didn't convince me either: i saw it at a friend, he quickly felt that his Linux got binary-incompatible to itself. (Since the binaries had to match exactly the shared libs.) Last not least: take out all the `unnecessary' things from the BSD kernel (IP, various file systems, SCSI, Ethernet, SLIP etc. etc.), you'll get a (IMHO much useless) very tiny kernel:-) -- in real life: J"org Wunsch | ) o o | primary: joerg_wunsch@tcd-dresden.de above 1.8 MHz: DL 8 DTL | ) | | private: joerg_wunsch@uriah.sax.de | . * ) == | ``An elephant is a mouse with an operating system.'' ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1993 16:06:43 GMT In article <1993Aug21.013647.21842@colorado.edu> drew@romeo.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) writes: >In article <1993Aug20.184709.15303@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> zevans@nyx.cs.du.edu (Zack Evans) writes: >>Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny] no, but I am going to >>anyway :) >> >>In article <930820201354.23255@world>, >>Brian Leary wrote: >> >>>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. > >This is a false statement. From looking at the code, it was true of pl10. Here's the relevant code: int sys_brk(unsigned long newbrk) { unsigned long rlim; unsigned long oldbrk; oldbrk = current->brk; rlim = current->rlim[RLIMIT_DATA].rlim_cur; if (rlim >= RLIM_INFINITY) rlim = 0xffffffff; if (newbrk >= current->end_code && newbrk - current->end_code <= rlim && newbrk < current->start_stack - 16384) { current->brk = newbrk; newbrk += 0x00000fff; newbrk &= 0xfffff000; oldbrk += 0x00000fff; oldbrk &= 0xfffff000; if (newbrk < oldbrk) unmap_page_range(newbrk, oldbrk-newbrk); else zeromap_page_range(oldbrk, newbrk-oldbrk, PAGE_COPY); } return current->brk; } Sbrk() is a library call. It may do some kind of additional checking, but after perusing the code, I don't see any happening in libc-4.4.1. So what you see in sys_brk() is what you get. Check it out in your kernel sources to see what it's doing in the version you're running. >>I have fond memories of Windows 3.1 doing this... and FYI it doesn't do this >>quite so badly at patchlevel 11 and higher. > >Of course, recent Linux kernels have fixed this behavior. Must be pl11 or above... >If you consider your operating system Microsoft Windows, technically, >it's only a shell. > >If you consider it DOS, technically it's only a program loader. Yup. NT is a real OS, though, in that there's actually a kernel which does memory management, a filesystem, etc. It's just that I haven't heard many good things about it that Linux doesn't have... >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 | -- 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: root@umibox.hanse.de (Bernd Meyer) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1993 18:42:38 GMT >|> >For Immdediate Release: NT versus Linux, a feature comparison >|> >------------------------------------------------------------- >|> >|> >Feature NT Linux >|> >------- -- ----- >|> >|> >loadable device >|> >drivers yes no This is yes for linux >|> >true dynamic link >|> >libraries (DLL) yes no This is yes for linux! >|> >per-application DLLs yes no As long as the executable isn't suid, you can always set an environment variable and have YOUR libs used instead of the systems. >|> >max chars in file name unlimited 14 255 with many filesystems. ext, ext2, xia. The minix fs is up to 34 or such, also. >|> >max partition size unlimited 64MB Well - I believe the newer filesystems have limits about 2TB. And "unlimited" is ridiculous (your PC is a finite state machine, still :-). >|> >memory model flat internally segmented This is ridiculous. The memory model is as flat as the earth once was believed to be. >|> >runs unix apps yes (source level) yes (source level) But "yes" and "yes" are something different, right?!? >|> >runs DOS apps yes no linux runs a lot of stuff. Even lemmings2 ran, though it was no fun due to simulated timers. But show me this under NT. Can I actually START windows3.0 under NT? >|> >runs Windows apps yes no linux in combination with dosemu runs everything that is supported with windows3.0 in real mode >|> >multimedia support yes no What is multimedia support? CD-ROM? Soundcards? Supported just fine! >|> >QIC-80 support yes no ftape0.93 seems to work quite well... >|> >min required mem 12 meg 16 meg (w/ X) Excuse me - I have run an (unoptimized) X on top of an (unoptimized) linux installation WITH FULL TCP/IP and all (it was just a copy of my "real" installation) on a 2MB 386SX, and though it wasn't actually fast :-), it worked. I have really used it on a 4MB 386SX. I have done virtually every memory-intensive thing that comes to mind with 8MB, and only once ran into trouble (having ImageMagic make a single PS page from 9 GIFS, each of them about 1MB. This bloated IM to ~20MB). >|> >min required disk space 60 meg 120 meg (all series) Make this about 100 for linux. And last time I heard, the latest MS-C compiler alone was 53MB..... Be fair and compare something that has TeX, emacs, gcc, gdb, fortran, p2c, several comm progs, including SLIP and pseudo-slip as well as uucp, several mail and news readers, cnews, perl, ghostscript, rcs, common lisp, smalltalk, several x development libs as well as an object oriented drawing program with something that is just a nice looking screen :-) >|> >networking stable unstable make that "working, but evolving" >|> >price $110 (educational) $69 (SLS) either you have to pay a lot more for NT, or you may as well FTP linux. Bernie -- We both know that the earth is round | Bernd Meyer, EE-student So we can't see the way before us to its end | "Nobody is a failure who has We walk on this way, hand in hand, | friends" (from: isn't it a And I hope you are still with me behind the horizon| wonderful life?" ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: muts@compi.hobby.nl (Peter Mutsaers) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1993 09:25:08 GMT >> On 20 Aug 93 01:38:59 GMT, brileary@world.std.com (Brian Leary) said: BL> Ok, that does it. Those linux fanatics are even worse than the BL> OS/2 ones. At least the OS/2 fanatics are not as BL> vulgar. Microsloath, they say. What a pathetic crowd. Why are BL> you bitter? For months we've been listening to you embellish I think you misinterpret some thing wrong. 'We' (at least I) are not bitter. But we think Microsoft is an enemy. Microsoft wants to monopolize the whole software market. With especially superior marketing they want to sweep other systems, which are superior from a technical point of view, away. All users will in the end loose a lot because of this, if only you wouldn't be so short sighted. I admit that in some circumstances there can be advantages to use MS-windows or NT, but in the end, by giving Microsoft a kind of monopoly as IBM used to have, will threaten us all. The only things that speak for Microsoft products now are the fact that it is 'compatible', i.e. no intrinsic technical merit, but only market-reasons. If only many users will think and do not fall in that trap, another system, which is technically better, will become standard, and everyone will benefit from the competition between suppliers if this system is not owned by one company that is out to destroy all competitors. So, apart from the technical reasons, this explains why so many seem to be bitter against Microsoft. We think this creates a situation in the software market as used to be in the hardware market when IBM was ruling. It took 20 years of too high prices and dictates to get out, and now some allow the same thing to happen again in the software market. This is especially concerning since Microsoft products have proven to be not the most advanced or reliable, in the past. For some reason many fall in their marketing-hype traps and believe in an almost religious way that NT will be different from this past even before it is properly on the market. Why put people put their trust in such a company, why can people be hypnotized so easily? BL> about how great your pitiful os is, and we said nothing. Now our BL> great os is here and we're proud of it. Not only that, in a BL> maater of months it'll completely bury the scum you call os that BL> you have. You are proud on NT? With what reason, did you make a part of it? How could you ever be proud on something that isn't your own merit? Also the quality of it does not justify pride; OK I admit it is *at the moment* more suitable for a big market than Linux because that is still under development, but compare it to other systems that are out there for a while already, like NextStep, Mach, Chorus. These only lack marketing again, but technically and theoretically they are more advanced. BL> Angry that after all the gloat about how lean and mean linux is, NT's BL> kernel is less one fifth that size? Tough! Or that your file system BL> falters more often than it works? (how many times a day does the extfs BL> get corrupted?) For crying out loud, you even have to recompile the BL> whole os in order to add the littlest of drivers! Yes the kernel may be smaller. But the operating system for sure is not! Because it is a micro kernel, many parts of the operating system reside outside of the kernel. But that does not mean that it is lean. Not at all! About filesystem corruption: I have not had it once even. In months of quite heave Cnews use. But do not forget that many newbies are playing with it like a toy; they don't know what they're doing, turn off their system while processes are running etc. Any multitasking operating system will get damaged filesystems with such users. BL> We don't mind the os as much as long as it get the job done. And we BL> have the tools for that, none of which you have, or ever will. Do you BL> have Winword? Word perfect? Lotus 123? *Any* spreadsheet? Procomm? BL> Xtalk? Go figure. And on top of that we now have the superior os! Yes, this attitude is part of the short sightedness I mentioned above. I am not saying that everyone who needs such applications should switch to Linux right now. That's impossible because these applications simply don't exist, and not everyone is expert enough to use public domain tools or make their own when they need them. But there are other alternatives, like many commercial Unix version which do have such programs. You may have some advantage for many apps now when you use MS-windows, but when Microsoft really succeeds in 'windows everywhere' as they proclaim, i.e. get a strangling monopoly on the market, you will regret it. BL> As far as I can tell, the chekclist is correct. It wasn't even posted BL> to your group for crying out loud! Whay are so offended? so bitter? so BL> vulgar? Go play elsewhere with your toy os! Don't bother us in our BL> group. I don't react to this checklist. It is too stupid to seriously react to. I is so blatenly wrong for allmost every point, and so clearly intended to plug NT, that it doesn't deserve any attention. Only people who have been converted to the Microsoft-faith will believe it, and they are probably too far hypnotized to see the truth anyway. -- _______________________________________________________________ Peter Mutsaers, Bunnik (Ut), the Netherlands. Disclaimer: This reflects the official opinions of my employer. ------------------------------ From: shampoo@shell.portal.com (Daniel - Shsu) Subject: Linux Ftp site..... Date: 23 Aug 93 01:44:41 GMT Hi all you linux users... I want to install a sort of x-windows on my pc. I was wondering where can I get a demo copy of linux. I want to see how is it. If there is a ftp site where I can get this demo. Thank You very much... Dan ------------------------------ ** 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 ******************************