From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 10:27:20 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #44 Linux-Misc Digest #44, Volume #1 Mon, 23 Aug 93 10:27:20 EDT Contents: Wordprocessor under X (Edward v/d Jagt) Re: NT versus Linux, the updated and expanded comparison chart, version 2 (Drew Eckhardt) Re: Which is more effecient on Linux? (Drew Eckhardt) *** PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING *** (misc-2.00) (Ian Jackson) Re: NT versus Linux (Olaf Titz) Re: NT versus Linux (Laurent Chavey,,,sol.cis) Re: NT versus Linux, the updated and expanded comparison chart, version 2 (Howlin' Bob) Re: Any point in rebooting. (Olaf Titz) Re: Diamond.FAQ (was: Re: XS3-4.4 for Diamond Stealth 24?) (Arthur Donkers) Re: NT versus Linux (Mark A. Davis) Re: NT versus Linux (Blake Stone) Re: Wordprocessor under X (Byron A Jeff) TK/Tcl for Linux (Eirik Ora) Re: NT versus Linux (Nick Hilliard) Re: Wordprocessor under X (seawoocl@nextwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: cspas152@sus.edu.eur.nl (Edward v/d Jagt) Subject: Wordprocessor under X Date: 19 Aug 1993 15:32:30 +0200 Does anyone have or know about a Wordprocessor for X (under Linux) with capabilities like WordPerfect has (something which has graphical and layout capabilities). I know of the existence of Tex and the like, but I don't think they can be somehow used for wordprocessing since it is more programming. I've already heared about InterViews, but it occupies something like 35 Mb and it says it can't be compiled with g++ 1.39. So I guess it will not work with gcc either. (correct me if I'm wrong). Edward cspas152@sus.edu.eur.nl !!!!!! Beware !!! This account will probably be no longer mine in about 2 !!!!!! weeks ! After that please send any replies to birechtr@sus.edu.eur.nl !!!!!! or birechtr@hathi.cs.few.eur.nl (try @sus first) ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: drew@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux, the updated and expanded comparison chart, version 2 Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 09:13:41 GMT In article kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes: >Based on the comments I've received in the mail and on this forum, here's the >second version of the NT versus Linux comparison chart: > > >For Immediate Release: NT versus Linux, a feature comparison >------------------------------------------------------------ > >Feature NT Linux >------- -- ----- > >IPC support DDE sockets for local > and network IPC, fifos, > pipes Linux also supports SYSV IPC, including shared memory, seamphores, and messages. >max partition size limited, but probably large 64 meg -~2 gig, > (probably 2 gig or more) depending on > filesystem. Most have > ~2 gig. Theoretically, the Linux ext2fs supports terrabyte filesystems although the mkfs for it doesn't. >kernel max addressable mem 2048 Gig 4 Gig >proc max addressable mem 4 Gig (???) 4 Gig Linux uses a page table per process, with the kernel mapped into the same 1G space in every process's page table leaving only 3G for the user process's use. Total virtual memory is total swap + total physical memory, with appropriate tweaking this is probably about 6G. >- I don't think the Linux kernel is set up to address more than 4 gig > internally. You'd have to play with segment registers to access more > than that. Not that it matters at this point. By the time you have > that much memory (core + swap), you're running more than what the > fastest Pentium would be able to comfortably handle in most circumstances, > and you'll probably want a faster bus anyway. A few comments on this : While the original Linux vm used one systemwide page table, with 64M allocated to the kernel and each of 63 processes, current versions use one per process, meaning 3G is available to each process (since 1G is used for the kernel in each page table). Multiply this 3G by the total number of proccesses you've configured in to get the size of all address spaces put together. As far as the amount of virtual memory supported, this would be the total of physical memory and swap sizes. Currently, a maxmum of 127 swap files can be supported (since 7 bits are used to represent swap type, and one value is reserved for SYSV shared memory) by tweaking the MAX_SWAPFILES define. A maximum swap device/file size of 16M is supported, meaning total swap is limited to just shy of 2G, allowing for almost 6G of total virtual memory. >- Linux partition sizes are not limited to the maximum size of a partition in > the partition table. A filesystem may reside on a device directly, thus > bypassing the partition mechanism. However, if you wish to partition a > device, you're going to be limited by the DOS partition table mechanism. I > don't know if NT has its own partitioning mechanism. No. Linux ignores the cylinder, head, sector entries in the partition table and instead relies on the relative sectors and total sectors fields of an entry. Since these are expressed as 32 bit unsigned quantities, you can have 4G sectors per partition, or 2 terrabytes. Even if something in the kernel uses a signed int instead, partitions can still be 1TB. -- 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: drew@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) Subject: Re: Which is more effecient on Linux? Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 09:25:21 GMT In article <1993Aug22.224714.4588@excaliber.uucp> joel@rac2.wam.umd.edu (Joel M. Hoffman) writes: >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? You'll do better running one after another (note, this assumes a recent version of Linux, after the fully unified buffer cache was incorporated. Without the fully unified cache, if you don't have enough room in the buffer cache to hold the entire executable, when you go to run it again pages loaded later in execution have pushed pages loaded early in execution out of the cache meaning you have to reload them from disk, pushing later pages out, meaning you end up loading the entire program. With the fully unified cache, pages are considered part of a running program and the cache, meaning when the program terminates you'll have a large set of its pages incore resulting in less disk access. So, without the new buffer cache you may have been better off running multiple copies at once if there would be less data than text since you'd only have to load the text once). If you run them at the same time, there will be more paging because you have more data pages. With more paging, you'll loose ground. With one running, it will have a larger incore set of pages, resulting in less slow paging. -- 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: ijackson@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ian Jackson) Subject: *** PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING *** (misc-2.00) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 11:55:08 GMT Please do not post questions to comp.os.linux.misc. If you have a question about Linux you should get and read the Linux Frequently Asked Questions with Answers list from sunsite.unc.edu, in /pub/Linux/docs, or from another Linux FTP site. In particular, read the question `You still haven't answered my question!' Then - only after checking the FAQ - should you post to comp.os.linux.help. Note that X Windows related questions should go to comp.windows.x.i386unix. The FAQ for this group is available on rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet/news.answers/Intel-Unix-X-faq. Comments on this posting are welcomed - please email me ! -- Ian Jackson (urgent email: iwj10@phx.cam.ac.uk) 35 Molewood Close, Cambridge, CB4 3SR, England; phone: +44 223 327029 ------------------------------ From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: 23 Aug 1993 12:57:15 GMT In article miked@vnet.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes: > of course, I've never seen a polished GUI UNIX app. *Ever*. (Unless you call > NeXTStep UNIX). But there are gazillions of non-GUI Un*x apps. Not all the world needs mice and windows. And nothing prevents software developers from writing decent GUIs for Un*x, of course. > 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. Why not? It is just generic Un*x with the large number of usable apps already available - I just see what I'm using every day: Mail, news (worldwide connected of course); TeX, a very good C and C++ development system (no I simply don't *need* an integrated fullscreen version, emacs is doing this job well)... Olaf -- olaf titz o olaf@bigred.ka.sub.org praetorius@irc comp.sc.student _>\ _ s_titz@ira.uka.de LINUX - the choice karlsruhe germany (_)<(_) uknf@dkauni2.bitnet of a GNU generation what good is a photograph of you? everytime i look at it it makes me feel blue ------------------------------ From: chavey@sol.cis.udel.edu (Laurent Chavey,,,sol.cis) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: 23 Aug 1993 08:58:40 -0400 I just read the article about how linux users are #@##@. I have worked with ms window for now 3 years. I have worked with a guy name Robert Straus, that knows windows upside down, the internals and guts. For my part I am content to just be able to program some. My unix experience is the same. I am not a god in anything, or else what am I doing here. I whish some people would show some humility and realise that Linux is a non commercial product that allows people like me toplay arround with an os, without having to spend 1000 of dollars. On the other side ms window is a commercial product, with which many people make a daily leaving and for that reason, it is a product that responds to customer demands. For the pc to have come so far, in such a short time, must mean that the pc manufacturers are not totally stupid. Even so window is a take out of the box system, it was the intent of the designers, and it works. Nt is a new technology, money is needed to develop it, and what gates does so well is marketing. unix is old, and has had a tendency to refrain itself from the easy to install package. unlike ms window, unix was intended for computer profesional, and that it does well. but do not forget that NT is for joe blow users, not people that have such a low self esteem that they like to think of themselves as gods. Now linux is also a great piece, if not a giant piece of software. I love it, and I have both window and linux on my machine. I work with both every day, and both provide me with services than one alone could not. . ------------------------------ From: gt8134b@prism.gatech.EDU (Howlin' Bob) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: NT versus Linux, the updated and expanded comparison chart, version 2 Date: 23 Aug 93 13:01:45 GMT drew@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) writes: >>kernel max addressable mem 2048 Gig 4 Gig >>proc max addressable mem 4 Gig (???) 4 Gig >Linux uses a page table per process, with the kernel mapped into >the same 1G space in every process's page table leaving only 3G for >the user process's use. >Total virtual memory is total swap + total physical memory, with >appropriate tweaking this is probably about 6G. Shouldn't you consider mmap()'d memory, too? Executables/shlibs are loaded this way, but aren't paged to swap, and as soon as MAP_SHARED is done, it'll be writable store as well. >As far as the amount of virtual memory supported, this would be >the total of physical memory and swap sizes. Currently, a maxmum of >127 swap files can be supported (since 7 bits are used to represent >swap type, and one value is reserved for SYSV shared memory) by tweaking >the MAX_SWAPFILES define. A maximum swap device/file size of 16M is >supported, meaning total swap is limited to just shy of 2G, allowing >for almost 6G of total virtual memory. Also note that we have some bits left over in out swap entry. Also, max swapfile size could easily be made bigger, but since 16MB gives an acceptably-sized (1 page) usage map, it was settled on. A 32 MB swap file would use 2 pages for usage, and is the next logical size. If we needed to, we could support a new magic for "large swap" and support swapfiles up to XX MB. -- Robert Sanders Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt8134b Internet: gt8134b@prism.gatech.edu ------------------------------ From: s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) Subject: Re: Any point in rebooting. Date: 23 Aug 1993 13:07:04 GMT In article <1993Aug21.015823.28702@turtle.apana.org.au> nagy@turtle.apana.org.au (Robert Nagy) writes: > Is there any point in getting Linux to reboot itself every day or so? No. My machine usually runs without shutdown or reboot for several weeks. The only case you need frequent rebooting is using certain buggy kernel code (TCP/IP) under high load... Olaf -- olaf titz o olaf@bigred.ka.sub.org praetorius@irc comp.sc.student _>\ _ s_titz@ira.uka.de LINUX - the choice karlsruhe germany (_)<(_) uknf@dkauni2.bitnet of a GNU generation what good is a photograph of you? everytime i look at it it makes me feel blue ------------------------------ From: arthur@ptt-iat.uucp (Arthur Donkers) Subject: Re: Diamond.FAQ (was: Re: XS3-4.4 for Diamond Stealth 24?) Date: 23 Aug 1993 14:05:35 +0200 In article <258qvb$qus@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> akingdom@vtaix.cc.vt.edu (Sandy Knapp) writes: >Joe Brown (joe@apache.dtcc.edu) wrote: [stuff deleted] Xfree 1.3 is claimed to be working with the 5426 Cirrus chipset !! The only problem with Diamond (at least on the Speedstar that is) is that they use a not supported clock chip. However some very intelligent and creative person reversed engineered this chip. Look for a file diamond.tgz (or diamond.tar.z) on sunsite.unc.edu:/pub/Linux/X11/X-servers. This contains a program to set the pixel clock. Because I'm waiting for my new Jana CD with Xfree 1.3 I have had no opportunity to really test this. Anybode some hands-on experience with Speedstar's (or other 5426 chipsets) under Xfree 1.3 ?? Arthur -- /* Disclaimer: they hire my skills, not my opinions, they are mine ! */ /* CompuServe : 100120,3703 'Baldrick, you wouldn't recognise a */ /* email : arthur%ptt-iat@nluug.nl cunning plan if it wore purple pyamas */ /* phone : (31)50-855734 saying "cunning plan" all over it' */ ------------------------------ From: mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 12:17:50 GMT byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes: >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): >> >>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. That is not a very good answer. If you already OWN the MS-"DOS" version, then that is true. If you do not, it is feasible to buy it. The Unix version of WordPerfect 5.1 supports text modes, pseudo graphics terminals, and true Xwindows. In addition, WordPerfect Corp has an extremely fair upgrade policy. If you already own an MS-"DOS" version of WP, you can upgrade for a low price. Any "DOS" emulation of WP will never be as fast, flexible, reliable, secure, or efficient as the native Unix version. It is my hope that full COFF for Linux will come out so I and others can take advantage of such commercial software. Scores of other popular MS-"DOS" software packages are also available for Unix. -- /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Mark A. Davis | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 | | Sys.Administrator| Computer Services | mark@taylor.wyvern.com .uucp | \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/ ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: bstone@acs.ucalgary.ca (Blake Stone) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 13:23:37 GMT > > of course, I've never seen a polished GUI UNIX app. *Ever*. > > (Unless you call NeXTStep UNIX). > But there are gazillions of non-GUI Un*x apps. Not all the > world needs mice and windows. However the mainstream market has certainly indicated that mice 'n windows is definitely where it wants to be. The technical and scientific communities are a separate issue, although even those would prefer a graphical interface all other things being equal (which they most certainly are not). > And nothing prevents software developers from writing decent > GUIs for Un*x, of course. Then why don't they? Nothing prevents you from walking on the moon either. Something, does indeed discourage either from occuring: Lack of support. Neither X nor Motif nor OpenLook provide a complete enough set of tools to make writing polished apps a profitable exercise. True, polished GUI apps exist under Windows, Windows NT, OS/2, the Mac OS and NeXTSTEP. -- Blake W. Stone | DKW Systems Corporation Chief Technical Officer | A N[EXTSTEP,eXT[STEP,step,Step]] VAR bstone@acs.ucalgary.ca | | ... couldn't have been ME ------------------------------ From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) Subject: Re: Wordprocessor under X Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 13:45:14 GMT In article <24vvde$e0g@sus.edu.eur.nl>, Edward v/d Jagt wrote: >Does anyone have or know about a Wordprocessor for X (under Linux) with >capabilities like WordPerfect has (something which has graphical and layout >capabilities). > >I know of the existence of Tex and the like, but I don't think they can be >somehow used for wordprocessing since it is more programming. > >I've already heared about InterViews, but it occupies something like 35 Mb >and it says it can't be compiled with g++ 1.39. So I guess it will not work >with gcc either. (correct me if I'm wrong). Better solution. Run the DOS emulator DOSEMU and run WP under it. In console mode it looks like the real thing. Plus if your machine is no the network you can print on any network printer. It's been tested with 5.0. Don't know about 5.1. 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: Eirik.Ora@newcastle.ac.uk (Eirik Ora) Subject: TK/Tcl for Linux Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 13:12:13 GMT I installed SLS 1.03 the other day because it contains TK/Tcl (An interpreted language for making graphical X-applications). However, it only contains one of the older versions that I cannot use :-( Has anybody managed to install a new version of TK/Tcl ? Any problems? Eirik =============================================================================== Email:Eirik.Ora@newcastle.ac.uk Post:Eirik Ora, CSSD group, Department of Computing Science, The University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 7RU, UK Telephone : +44 91 222 6000 ext 8008 (lab) / +44 91 261 1539 (home) ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: nick@quay.ie (Nick Hilliard) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 12:25:27 GMT Mike Dahmus (mike@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com) wrote: : Oh god, not this again. Yep. Back in all its glory! : If you want to cripple OS/2 to bring it down to linux's level, do the : following: Oh, Boy! I just can't resist this flame bait. unix% flame -max on : 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. You aren't seriously trying to suggest that the OS/2 command shell is even in the same league as the most brain-dead Unix command line shells? Get a life! : 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. Awwww jeez! Give us a break. I'm cursed with having to use OS/2's (v2.1) damned window manager every day. Any believe me, it's painful. It's also looks crap and needs zigabytes of memory to get to work at any sort of speed. And beside X, it feels really cheap-and-nasty (even at 1024x768x256). : 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. [Awwww jeez! Give us a break]^2 (note the simple mouse operated cut & paste -- sadly lacking in non X systems) Really? How so? Is it perhaps the window manager which jams up regularly when "nice commercial applications" load up. (See Lotus Notes - in fact, anything large). Is it maybe the "functionally challenged" command shell? Oh - and I forgot all the millions of ftp sites where you can download almost anything you want. NOT. And while I'm in the mood, who-in-the-name-of-god is responsible for that "PM Terminal" load-of-crud-excuse of a comms program. It's just so appalling that I can't find words to describe how pathetically useless it is. It just epitomises the worst aspects of this goddamn Object Oriented interface that OS/2 is so full of. I fart in its general direction. And how exactly do you use remote displays on OS/2 machines? Oh - sorry, I forgot you couldn't. Although if you use IBM's pathetic excuse of an X windows server (PMX), you can get some form of crippled functionality (provided it doesn't crash, or fail to give you proper colors, or just not work.) And what about NFS under OS/2 - that last time I tried using that (a week ago), it caused complete system halts and file system corruption. Repeatedly. And how many people can you log on to an OS/2 machine at any one time? And how secure is OS/2? Need I go on? unix% flame off :[...] : 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. On a more serious note -- Ok. If you want commercial apps, and complete Windows 3.1 compatibility, then OS/2 will give it to you, and Linux won't (at the moment). However, OS/2 isn't a "svelte super-powerful OS", as you might like to think it is, and Linux *does* have reams of usable applications. All opinions are, of course, my own, and bear no relation whatsoever to those of the company I work for. Nick -- | Nick Hilliard | e-mail: nick@quay.ie | | Quay Financial Software, | Phone: [+353] 1 6612377 | | Ferry House, Lower Mount St, | Fax: [+353] 1 6607592 | | Dublin 2, Ireland. | Opinions: I think; therefore I disclaim. | ------------------------------ From: seawoocl@nextwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu Subject: Re: Wordprocessor under X Date: 23 Aug 1993 14:11:21 GMT Reply-To: seawoocl@nextwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu In article <1993Aug23.134514.5151@cc.gatech.edu> byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes: [original post deleted] > Better solution. Run the DOS emulator DOSEMU and run WP under it. In console > mode it looks like the real thing. Plus if your machine is no the network > you can print on any network printer. > > It's been tested with 5.0. Don't know about 5.1. > > BAJ How'd you get WP to run under dosemu? I tried it but it just sat there. I'm on a 486dx33/VLB w/ 8 mb ram. I tried it while running dosemu in raw keyboard mode, the console and graphics options, 8 mb expanded, and 1 meg extended memory. Btw, I'm using WP 5.1, so that might be the problem. Anyone else tried WP 5.1? Christopher Seawood seawoocl@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu -- U said that U'd love me like a river A river, U say, will never run dry I'd rather hear U say 4 ever Instead of a smile, I'd rather see U cry --Prince, 1992 ------------------------------ ** 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 ******************************