From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 13:21:45 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #45 Linux-Misc Digest #45, Volume #1 Mon, 23 Aug 93 13:21:45 EDT Contents: Re: NT versus Linux (David Kastrup) Re: Which is more efficient on Linux? (David Kastrup) Re: Fortran 77 compiler in Linux (Fachschaft E-Technik TUM) Re: Any point in rebooting. (David Kastrup) Re: Size of NT kernel (was Re: NT vs. Linux) (Dan Hildebrand) Re: A question about the SLS sysinstall script's copyright. (Thomas Dzubin) Re: Emulated vs. Native Applications (was: NT vs. Linux) (Byron A Jeff) Re: Emulated vs. Native Applications (was: NT vs. Linux) (Byron A Jeff) Who has experiences with LINUX on a PC ??? (Andreas Gloege) Who has experiences with LINUX on a PC ??? (Andreas Gloege) Who has experiences with LINUX on a PC ????? (Andreas Gloege) Re: Why would I want LINUX? (Mark Sienkiewicz) Re: Toshiba 3401 CD_R-ROM (Keith Barrett) Re: looking for linux patches to ghostscript 2.6.1 (Hymie!) Why use linux was Re: Why would I want LINUX? (jschief@finbol.toppoint.de) Re: NT versus Linux (jschief@finbol.toppoint.de) Re: Wordprocessor under X (Mark A. Davis) Re: TK/Tcl for Linux (Malcolm Beattie) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: dak@rama.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: 23 Aug 1993 14:32:01 GMT s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes: >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. Oh come on. There is a host of good X-Windows Software, like xfig, xv, several games, now emacs is coming in heavily (version 19.xx), several games, communication packages... >> 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. I know several people who have switched from commercial systems like Interactive Unix and SCO to Linux, because Linux is more POSIX-compliant and offers a host of good (free) software which you have acquire, install, make work with linkers/loaders/compilers/Assmeblers etc etc. >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++ Well, let's admit that g++ is still pretty buggy. Unfortunately, the raw power that an encapsulation of the GNU assembler templates imbedded in inline class methods offers, is not attainable by any other compiler. The assembler templates are transparent to the optimizer, and do not disturb register allocation etc. >development system (no I simply don't *need* an integrated fullscreen >version, emacs is doing this job well)... -- David Kastrup dak@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de Tel: +49-241-72419 Fax: +49-241-79502 Goethestr. 20, D-52064 Aachen ------------------------------ From: dak@rama.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup) Subject: Re: Which is more efficient on Linux? Date: 23 Aug 1993 14:38:36 GMT byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes: >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. ;-) With simultaneous runs, IFF the disk drivers have good position optimization, running things simultaneously will have less I/O waiting times. No guarantee. -- David Kastrup dak@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de Tel: +49-241-72419 Fax: +49-241-79502 Goethestr. 20, D-52064 Aachen ------------------------------ From: fset@guug.de (Fachschaft E-Technik TUM) Subject: Re: Fortran 77 compiler in Linux Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 14:23:33 GMT B7IM writes: >Hi, > I'm new to Linux operation system. My question about this system >is Linux included Fortran 77 compiler ? >Thank you in advance, >withney mallroy No, but there is a script /usr/bin/f77 which copiles fortran pgms using f2c (fortran to c) and gcc. ============================================================================== Clemens Huebner fset@guug.de Giessuebl 4 (crh@guug.de) 8088 Eching a.A Germany Linux -- the free 32-bit OS ++4981431480 ============================================================================== ------------------------------ From: dak@rama.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup) Subject: Re: Any point in rebooting. Date: 23 Aug 1993 14:41:39 GMT s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes: >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... I have heard that some buffer pages are not properly returned to the memory pool on exiting programs. There is a patch around for pl12, but it is not in, say, SLS. Due to that, it MIGHT be prudent with frequent process spawning to reboot when the memory usage gets ugly without apparent reason. -- David Kastrup dak@pool.informatik.rwth-aachen.de Tel: +49-241-72419 Fax: +49-241-79502 Goethestr. 20, D-52064 Aachen ------------------------------ From: danh@quantum.qnx.com (Dan Hildebrand) Subject: Re: Size of NT kernel (was Re: NT vs. Linux) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 93 11:14:31 GMT In article , Jonathan Harris wrote: >In article <1993Aug19.215149.8898@Mr-Hyde.aoc.nrao.edu>, cflatter@nrao.edu (Chris Flatters) writes: >> >> In article hqe@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu, tabaer@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Troy A. Baer) writes: >> > >> >Is it just me, or was the claim on the "checklist" that NT's kernel is >> >only 50K a little bogus-sounding? I'm sorry, that's almost impossible, >> >especially from MS. (Then again, they're loading drivers dynamically, >> >so that does cut kernel size. Still...) >> >> I think that the 50k refers to the microkernel proper. You need a bunch >> (at least 3) of subsystems loaded on top of that before WNT will do >> anything even remotely interesting (actually: I've never seen WNT do >> anything except display a box with the message "insufficient memory to >> run application"). > >I was under the impression that while the `microkernel' itself is quite >small, the subsystems loaded on top of it have to run in supervisor mode. >Therefore the thing that MS calls the microkernel is just a little bit of >the kernel rather than true microkernel. At last year's USENIX Microkernel and other kernel architectures workshop, Dave Cutler himself clearly stated that NT was not a microkernel OS. So whatever component it is that is 50K in size, clearly, it can't be the "microkernel". :-) -- Dan Hildebrand email: danh@qnx.com QNX Software Systems, Ltd. QUICS: danh (613) 591-0934 (data) (613) 591-0931 x204 (voice) mail: 175 Terence Matthews (613) 591-3579 (fax) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8 ------------------------------ From: dzubint@ccs.ios.bc.ca (Thomas Dzubin) Subject: Re: A question about the SLS sysinstall script's copyright. Date: 23 Aug 1993 10:04:09 -0500 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: A question about the SLS sysinstall script's copyright In article <1993Aug20.064930.21731@cc.gatech.edu>, byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes: > > In article <251q8u$bfl@news.u.washington.edu>, Michael Kenney wrote: > > > >Jeez. These GPL Fundamentalists need to lighten up :-) > > I'm the worst kind, a new convert. > > "KNEEL DOWN BEFORE THE GPL OR DIE, INFIDEL!" ;=) > > BAJ In article <1993Aug20.150445.20482@swan.pyr>, iiitac@swan.pyr (Alan Cox) writes: > [...stuff deleted...] > I've never been impressed with the lack of source code supplied with SLS, > maybe it is about time someone in the FSF sat on SLS. > > Alan > iiitac@pyr.swan.ac.uk I can see it now...Peter MacDonald becoming the Salmon Rushdie of the Internet...Running from site to site, logging in for only minutes at a time before jumping into the trunk of a non-descript car. FSF hit-teams following closely behind. Seriously though...does everyone remember the flurry of messages back in July (August) 1992 when Peter first started selling SLS? Sacrilege! wow Peter is such a controversial guy! btw: don't you just need to make the source code "available somewhere" under the GPL? I don't think you have to distribute it with your package. Thomas ps: flames about comparing Peter to Salmon Rushdie go to /dev/null ============================================================================ dzubint@ccs.ios.bc.ca These opinions are only my own, not my employer's. PDP-11 owner and proud of it! ------------------------------ From: byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) Subject: Re: Emulated vs. Native Applications (was: NT vs. Linux) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 15:04:45 GMT In article <1993Aug23.121750.29454@taylor.uucp>, Mark A. Davis wrote: >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): [ The original thread was the infamous Mr. Brian Leary stating that Linux didn't have pacakges like WordPerfect, Lotus 1 2 3, Procomm, Xtalk and the like. We have moved on to something less inflammatory and more interesting.] >>> >>>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. Now Mark, that's not fair! We both know you get what you pay for (except for Linux itself, in which you get much much more than what you pay for ;-). I do apologize for equating Unix and Linux but since the original message was posted in a linux newsgroup I thought a Linux based response was resonable. WP hasn't ported WP 5.1 (or any other version) to Linux. And the COFF compatibility you've been asking for doesn't exist yet. As for 4.2 I was simply describing the last Unix based version they had at work. I wasn't saying that was all that's available. Surprisingly enough, the folks at work now run u DOS WP 5.1 under the SUN-PC emulator on Sparc-2's. And the fact of the matter is that many of us, as much as we hate to admit it, have dozens of DOS applications on our disks that we find useful. Many are shareware and will never ever have a UNIX equivalent. The emulator gives me an opportunity to give those apps new life without sacrificing the power and flexibility of having Linux at my immediate beck and call. So while the emulator will never be the same as a native app it does have a viable place in the Linux world. My wife and sister occasionally use DOS apps (I very rarely do - most everything I need either runs under Linux natively or I ported myself to linux). It's easier for them to log in under Linux and fire up the emulator to run them instead of having to take the machine down, boot DOS and run them there. And remember these are apps from simtel20 primarily (electronic address book, checking account manager) , that have no Unix equivalent. Since I don't have an unlimited budget I have to balance price and performance. And for my dollar the DOS emulator and my DOS apps are the best bang for the buck. I do agree with you however that if you have the available cash, and you're currently running an OS (like SCO) that has the native apps available, then purchasing them is a good idea if they are vital to your work and used often. But for the occasional use of an DOS application that you already own, the emulator can't be beat. Later, 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: Emulated vs. Native Applications (was: NT vs. Linux) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 15:31:11 GMT >....And remember these are apps from >simtel20 primarily (electronic address book, checking account manager) , that >have no Unix equivalent. This is a hasty overgeneralization. I don't know what native apps are available in this arena. My apologies for overstating my case here. In fact I'd love to see a Xwindows based address book and / or checkbook manager. 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: gloege@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Andreas Gloege) Subject: Who has experiences with LINUX on a PC ??? Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 15:25:37 GMT I have a 486DX-33 with 8MB RAM and 100MB IDE-Harddisk. I want to have UNIX on this PC with some sort of XWindows... Does anyone has any experiences with it ? Where can I get it, are there any possibilities to use S-VGA (800x600 or higher), what's about using a Streamer (Streamer is connected with the Floppy-Controller) for backup, is 100MB Harddisk enough (how much does it need ?) Just mail me, and tell me your experiences. Thank you... Andreas Gloege ------------------------------ From: gloege@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Andreas Gloege) Subject: Who has experiences with LINUX on a PC ??? Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 15:26:11 GMT I have a 486DX-33 with 8MB RAM and 100MB IDE-Harddisk. I want to have UNIX on this PC with some sort of XWindows... Does anyone has any experiences with it ? Where can I get it, are there any possibilities to use S-VGA (800x600 or higher), what's about using a Streamer (Streamer is connected with the Floppy-Controller) for backup, is 100MB Harddisk enough (how much does it need ?) Just mail me, and tell me your experiences. Thank you... Andreas Gloege ------------------------------ From: gloege@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Andreas Gloege) Subject: Who has experiences with LINUX on a PC ????? Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 15:28:17 GMT I have a 486DX-33 with 8MB RAM and 100MB IDE-Harddisk. I want to have UNIX on this PC with some sort of XWindows... Does anyone has any experiences with it ? Where can I get it, are there any possibilities to use S-VGA (800x600 or higher), what's about using a Streamer (Streamer is connected with the Floppy-Controller) for backup, is 100MB Harddisk enough (how much does it need ?) Just mail me, and tell me your experiences. Thank you... Andreas Gloege ============================================================================= Andreas Gloege smail : Limesstr.28a, Muenchen-Aubing, Germany, 089/870436 email : gloege@informatik.tu-muenchen.de ============================================================================= ------------------------------ From: mark@roissy.umd.edu (Mark Sienkiewicz) Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Why would I want LINUX? Date: 23 Aug 1993 16:11:45 GMT In article <252n71$2d4@fnnews.fnal.gov> dejan@cdfsga.fnal.gov (Dejan Vucinic) writes: > > All this probably holds for Linux as well. It seems that DOS engineers >used some other mathematics in their time calculations. ;> > > Don't trust figures too much. Try and measure. You'll be surprized. When you look at DOS machines, you have to pay close attention to just what the benchmarks measure. Often, you will find the Unix-ish system had to support 32 bit integers and a megabyte of memory, while the DOS system got to get away with 16 bit integers and 64k. Your friend probably did a fair chunk of shuffling things around in large model. It probably also helped that you used GCC as a code generator. You might try running the same fortran through f2c and compiling it for DOS with a good compiler like Turbo C (or whatever they're calling it these days). ------------------------------ From: barrett@pamsrc.enet.dec.com (Keith Barrett) Subject: Re: Toshiba 3401 CD_R-ROM Date: 23 Aug 1993 16:10:42 GMT Reply-To: barrett@pamsrc.enet.dec.com >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?) Not necessary. If plugged into a supported SCSI controller (like an Adaptec) it works as is. Including audio support via Workman. -- Keith Barrett (\___/) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ == \---/ | Comments not represent- | barrett@pamsrc.enet.dec.com | ( ) =(|) | itive of any employer. | Linux: You're not dealing with AT&T | ][ __|__ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /TOM!\ /CROW!\ ------------------------------ From: hymowitz@circle.cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!) Subject: Re: looking for linux patches to ghostscript 2.6.1 Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 16:19:13 GMT and lo, there was much rejoicing among the people, as hymowitz@cs.jhu.edu (Hymie!) screws up again by saying: >i have the gs 2.6.1 source, but i can't find the linux patches on >sunsite or tsx-11. they must exist because sls has a gs binary. i didn't mean patches. i meant the source file for the linux device. the gnu source compiles, as has been pointed out to me, but i can't display on the screen - the vga devices are msdos based (feh). >thanx in advance. if i'm in the wrong >group, let me know - i'm still getting used to this split. this still holds. --hymie hymowitz@cs.jhu.edu =============================================================================== You don't scare me. You might be funny, but you don't scare me. --Andy Breckman =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc From: jschief@finbol.toppoint.de Subject: Why use linux was Re: Why would I want LINUX? Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 12:44:06 GMT j@bonnie.tcd-dresden.de (J Wunsch) writes: >off-the-standard booting scheme (LILO). With *BSD using a normal dozz lilo works for me and most other, and there may come the time that dos boot schemes are obsolent.( boot from first HD smaler 1GB) >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:-) ... and a DOS-like kernel without features, I need IP, SCSI, Ethernet, SLIP, ISO9660-FS, MSDOS-FS, ... BSD is quite good, but you need more knowledge of unix/bsd for many people Linux is easier to install, easier in setup, easier in building new kernels, easier to get drivers for exotic hardware and ... faster in development (this includes : find & produce bugs) and easier to get (SLS, MCC, SLA....) I think Linux-Distributions are better than comercial-ix-versions. Joerg P.S.: If I setup my next unix-system, I install a BSD. -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Joerg Schlaeger jschief@finbol.toppoint.de 24113 Kiel Tel.: ++49 431 682210 (voice) =================================================== ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: jschief@finbol.toppoint.de Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 14:11:46 GMT root@umibox.hanse.de (Bernd Meyer) writes: >>|> >For Immdediate Release: NT versus Linux, a feature comparison >>|> >------------------------------------------------------------- >>|> >>|> >Feature NT Linux >>|> >------- -- ----- >>|> >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? As fas as I know lemmings2 don't run under NT !!!!!!! >>|> >multimedia support yes no Mitsumi-CRom support NO YES works with less than 12 MB NO YES (usefull with 32MB) (usefull with 4MB) can be used diskless NO YES (incl. shared libs, DLL) compile & run of unix-appl NO YES without change works with ET3000 + Hercules Monitor NO YES all these fine appl. like: postgres, ingres, chipmunk, ocean, p2c, spice, 6800asm, pbmplus, ...??? all these fine languages : prolog, C, C++, C&C++ crosscompiler... ??? NO YES Result: I need only the right question to answer YES !!! Joerg -- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Joerg Schlaeger jschief@finbol.toppoint.de 24113 Kiel Tel.: ++49 431 682210 (voice) =================================================== ------------------------------ From: mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) Subject: Re: Wordprocessor under X Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 15:39:35 GMT byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes: >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. The Unix version of WordPerfect 5.1 does indeed support X windows GUI as well as text GUI. If/when Linux fully supports COFF, one will be able to run the real version of WP 5.1. WP also has an extremely decent upgrade policy to Unix for those who own WP for MS-"DOS". For now you are stuck with dosemu. -- /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Mark A. Davis | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 | | Sys.Administrator| Computer Services | mark@taylor.wyvern.com .uucp | \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/ ------------------------------ From: mbeattie@black.ox.ac.uk (Malcolm Beattie) Subject: Re: TK/Tcl for Linux Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1993 16:04:22 GMT In article Eirik.Ora@newcastle.ac.uk (Eirik Ora) writes: > >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? Tcl 7.0b2 builds and installs with no trouble. It installs tcl.h in /usr/local/include and libtcl.a in /usr/local/lib by default which aren't searched by default with my set-up (use -I and -L or just make symlinks in /usr/include and /usr/lib.) I had two mishaps with Tk 3.3b2 (don't forget the tiny patch to cure the XConfigureWindow race condition for toplevels): (1) It wanted the Tcl source tree in a sibling directory and I'd already installed and removed it. I used a flag on GNU make (can't remember which) which made it pretend that its target was up to date. It's probably easier to build Tcl and Tk at the same time. (2) You need to give it a definition of fd_mask. typedef long fd_mask will do the trick. Linux doesn't define fd_mask because it's not strictly necessary and the recommended way of handling select masks doesn't absolutely require it. Tk builds up large bitmap tables to keep track of its ins and outs and the easiest way to get it to work is to tell it fd_mask is 4 bytes. I am extremely impressed with Tcl/Tk and Tk (via wish) runs amazingly fast under Linux/XFree86. --Malcolm -- Malcolm Beattie | I'm not a kernel hacker Oxford University Computing Services | I'm a kernel hacker's mate 13 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 6NN (U.K.) | And I'm only hacking kernels Tel: +44 865 273232 Fax: +44 865 273275 | 'Cos the kernel hacker's late ------------------------------ ** 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 ******************************