From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Fri, 3 Sep 93 13:13:19 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #88 Linux-Misc Digest #88, Volume #1 Fri, 3 Sep 93 13:13:19 EDT Contents: Re: High speed modems & linux (Arthur Donkers) Productivity Application on Linux (Bill Harris) *** PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING *** (misc-2.03) (Ian Jackson) Re: SLS considered harmful (wasRe: Bashing Peter MacDonald) (Robert Nagy) Re: Ian Jackson (R.D. Morris) [ANNOUNCE] Slackware 1.0.2 (Patrick J. Volkerding) Man pages for tar? (Klaus ZLOEBL) Re: NT versus Linux (jcburt@gats486.larc.nasa.gov) Re: Windows Pop Quiz Re: NT versus Linux (jcburt@gats486.larc.nasa.gov) Phone # Micro-Link and LSL (crazy lion) Re: [ANNOUNCE] Slackware 1.0.2 (Chris Cannon) Re: NT versus Linux (RICHARD HOFFBECK) Re: Stacker-like Compression? (Rob Getter) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: arthur@ptt-iat.uucp (Arthur Donkers) Subject: Re: High speed modems & linux Date: 3 Sep 1993 09:53:28 +0200 In article <1993Sep2.180042.1038@pse.panic.bln.sub.org> root@pse.panic.bln.sub.org (Utz-Uwe Haus) writes: [stuff deleted] > >Well, although my UUCP isn't really reliable with all the hosts I'd like to >connect to (random errors, usually missing the \000 after the Shere=... >handshake-opening sequence - anybody got a clue what's happening ?) I >get an average of 1500cps using Taylor 1.04 (self-compiled), USRobotics >Sportster 14.400 and 19.200 bps serial line speed using the e or f protocol on >mostly compressed newsbatches (c.o.l-hirarchy :))! > >Just my cent's worth of thought... >Utz-Uwe Haus (root%pse@chamber.in-berlin.de, thats the reliable feed > or root@pse.panic.bln.sub.org - might get here some day...) > Get a copy of the uutraffic program listed in Unix World, Aug 93. This displays the contents of the xferstats file in a more readable manner. For me it say's I average 1496 bps for downloading 5 Mb of (C)news batches using the g protocol (extended packages size) to a Waffle site (using 1.65). I have a v32.bis linkup running at 57600 Baud line speed, using v42.bis compression (although this doesn't have much effect on enws batches). You can get this package at ftp.uu.net:/publications/unix-world/grabbag/1993. ^^^^^^^^^^^^ not sure about this ! Arthur -- /* Disclaimer: they hire my skills, not my opinions, they are mine ! */ /* CompuServe : 100120,3703 'Baldrick, you wouldn't recognise a */ /* email : A.Donkers@telecom.ptt.nl cunning plan if it wore purple pyamas */ /* phone : (31)50-855734 saying "cunning plan" all over it' */ ------------------------------ From: xmpcwsh@dp7up.com (Bill Harris) Subject: Productivity Application on Linux Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 20:18:31 GMT I was wondering that besides sc, and xspread, are there any commerical applicatons like a Lotus clone, character-based wp package, and x-based databases available for Linux? I have several SCO Xenix systems that I'd like to switch over to Linux, but have to have the above suite of apps. Any suggestions? Bill ------------------------------ From: ijackson@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ian Jackson) Subject: *** PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING *** (misc-2.03) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1993 10:03:01 GMT Please do not post questions to comp.os.linux.misc - read on for details of which groups you should read and post to. 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!' The FAQ will refer you to the Linux HOWTOs (more detailed descriptions of particular topics) found in the HOWTO directory in the same place. Then you should consider posting to comp.os.linux.help - not comp.os.linux.misc. 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: nagy@turtle.apana.org.au (Robert Nagy) Subject: Re: SLS considered harmful (wasRe: Bashing Peter MacDonald) Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 10:09:15 GMT Lars Wirzenius (wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI) wrote: > pmacdona@sanjuan (Peter MacDonald) writes: > > It is much easier to criticise and tear down, than it is to > > particpate and become the target of criticism. > Hear, hear! I agree too. Rather than have all this MCC is better than Slackware and SLS is worse than MCC and .... Why not have the various releases set up to suit applications people are interested in running initially. SLS is great for people who want to do "efg" with linux Slackware is great for people who want to do "xyz" with linux MCC is great for people that do "abc" with linux Personally I've been using SLS 1.02 on a couple of different machines and it suits me perfectly. I run UUCP, MAIl & NEWS all without a hiccup. I can grab my news feeds and mail when it suits. I use a fast 14.4 modem. I transfer my data at 1440 cps. Why would I bother to bash *any* system when this one suits me? Robert -- ========================================================================== 1993 Harley Davidson Fatboy - The Wind Beneath My Wings nagy@turtle.apana.org.au ------------------------------ From: rdm@eng.cam.ac.uk (R.D. Morris) Subject: Re: Ian Jackson Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 10:55:31 GMT guest@hpacv.com writes: >If this Ian Jackson is such a wonderful and helpful sole, why is then in the >weeks we have carried comp.os.linux.all there has not been ONE post or >helpful response or anything from this guy except his AMAZING dialy >pointer, ie: "Dont bother me ... read these FAQs" As someone who has contacted Ian directly via email, I have found him to be extremely helpful, very willing to advise, and has offered to compile me a special kernel when I finally get a second hd controller sorted out. Please go away and leave us alone if _you_'re not willing to be at all helpful. Ian - please try to ignore this thread. Robin rdm@eng.cam.ac.uk ------------------------------ From: bf703@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Patrick J. Volkerding) Subject: [ANNOUNCE] Slackware 1.0.2 Date: 3 Sep 1993 11:43:22 GMT Reply-To: bf703@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Patrick J. Volkerding) It's the latest, greatest version of the one that started the Linux distribution wars, the one that's "... taking completely the wrong approach ..." ;^) A few features: -- Kernel at .99pl12 (August 13, 1993 version) -- All new improved installation and package maintenence scripts. -- Jove editor -- Emacs 19.19 -- GNU chess and xboard -- Every FAQ related to Linux that you could possibly ask for. -- and, much, much, more. I'll make a more descriptive announcement in in the very near future. Here's MHO on the "OS wars": This isn't like NT vs. OS/2 or something. If you'd rather get MCC and put together the extras yourself, good for you. MCC is a great base package, and you'll probably learn a thing or two setting up the software yourself. I don't see why there can't be several Linux distributions floating around, unless they happen to be totally bug-ridden or something. This one is targeted at people who want to be able to install a full- featured system without having to chase down all the software, or spend 3 days debugging after the installation. It's in /pub/linux/slackware on ftp.cdrom.com. Have fun! -- Patrick Volkerding volkerdi@mhd1.moorhead.msus.edu bf703@cleveland.freenet.edu ------------------------------ From: zloebl@piis10.joanneum.ac.at (Klaus ZLOEBL) Subject: Man pages for tar? Date: 3 Sep 1993 12:07:00 GMT the man pages for tar are messed up. in SLS 1.02 as in SLS 1.03. how can i fix it, or where from do i get new ones? -- Klaus Zloebl | E-Mail: zloebl@piis10.joanneum.ac.at Joanneum Research | PSI : PSI%2631102911::ZLOEBL Steyrergasse 17 | A-8020 Graz | Phone: ++43/316/8020/243 AUSTRIA | ------------------------------ From: jcburt@gats486.larc.nasa.gov Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: 03 Sep 1993 13:13:23 GMT In article <1993Sep2.105616.25683@jet.uk> faj@jet.uk (Frithiof Jensen) writes: In nathans@pacifier.rain.com (Nathan Silva) writes: [...stuff deleted...] >Or Visual Basic -- who needs that? Basically people like me, who have to get the WORK done, rather than trying to navigate/remember the 2000 pages manual! There are *many* other ways to get work done other than using MS-Windows and Visual Basic...(and you don't even have to navigate/remember the 2000 page manual either :-) I used to do simulations and suchlike on a CDC Cyber machine, because that was the only usable system at the time. What a load of Cr*p. The graphical output was a line printer character dump, and *I* had to write a utility to convert the printout into a HPGL files for the plotter using (yueergh) Fortran and Pas- cal in a happy mixture because the graphichs library was written in Fortran! Hmmm...that seems like the level of technology at about the time the PC was introduced seems IBM had quite a big hand in the introduction of the PC, and Microsoft provided the O/S (which hasn't changed significantly since then...) What Microsoft did to the world was to create a market for graphical applicati ons, that most people can use without being an computer expert or spending 90% of the time on the computer to get the plot right. Hmmm...seems like selective memory to me...Microsoft didn't do jack until it was *forced* to play catch-up to Apple's Mac GUI. And even Apple took some of their GUI from other companies/projects...I guess Microsoft "created a market" by following someone else's lead??? (anything like "leading from behind" ?). Also if I remember correctly MIT was working on the X system (or precursors to it) prior to Windows coming out... I think that is a very great achievement!! Nope, just good marketing... John -- John Burton G & A Technical Software, Inc. jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov 28 Research Dr. Hampton, Va. 23666 jcburt@gast486.larc.nasa.gov (804) 865-7491 ------------------------------ From: jcburt@gats486.larc.nasa.gov Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: Windows Pop Quiz Re: NT versus Linux Date: 03 Sep 1993 13:53:35 GMT In <1993Aug31.174959.7570@taylor.uucp> mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) writes: >tzs@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes: >>Mark A. Davis wrote: >>>That presupposes that MS-"Windows" is an operating system, which by all >>>definitions I have known, it is not. Current temperature: 68 degrees? >>What are your definitions? Back each one up with a cite to a major operating >>systems text, please. >I don;t think that is necessary. MS-"Windows" cannot run by itself. >Need I say any more? Sure, if you can. Look, DOS can't run by itself, either. It too needs a bootstrap loader. Ummm difference between "booting" and "running"... Using an inferior OS as part of the bootstrapping sequence is common practice nowadays. My SGI Indigo has a tiny OS in ROM which has more functionality than DOS has - it even can do some networking, and, of course, it can load and run programs. Usually, it's only used for firing up the IRIX kernal and for maintenance purposes. IÄ'm told Okay, now the question is, once loaded, does the IRIX kernel use the ROM bootstrap program, or does it communicate with the hardware directly? i.e. does the IRIX kernel *replace* the functionality of the ROM bootstrap loader when its running, or does it *extend* or *complement* the functionality of the bootstrap loader. If it *replaces the functionality of the bootstrap loader, then the IRIX kernel is said to "run by itself", otherwise, its an extension to the bootstrap loader...Windows is an extension to DOS, it does not "run by itself"... Does this make IRIX, SunOS, DOS or NT not an operating system, just because none can run "by itself", and needs something as a loader (and perhaps as an interface provider) which meets most of the criteria for an OS and *does* run "by itself"? Of course not! If it makes you feel better to call Windows not an OS, just because it has a three-step boot sequence (i.e. BIOS -> Boot record -> DOS -> Windows) instead of the more common two-step one (i.e. BIOS-> Boot record -> [NT/OS2/what have you]), feel free to do so. Ummm...its not because of the 3 step boot sequence...the distinction is NOT the number of steps, but instead a replacement/extension of functionality...Windows NT and OS/2 completely *replace* the functionality of DOS in that they do not use DOS to talk to the "machine" in any way, shape, or form. By the same token Windows 3.x *extends* the functionality of DOS by providing additional features, but still relying on DOS to provide many of its functions. When you start Windows 3.x, DOS is still running underneath to provide some of the services...When running OS/2 or Windows NT, DOS is considered an "application" running under the control of the base O/S (which provides considerable control over the DOS environment). When running Windows 3.x, DOS *is* the base O/S with Windows running as a protected mode application... I prefer the more traditional view that an operating system is a hierarchically constructed or layered set of interacting programs which together manage the basic resources: time, memory, storage, I/O. [...stuff deleted...] The primary view we take in this book is that the operating system is a collection of programs (algorithms) designed to manage the system's resources, namely, memory, processors, devices, and information (program and data). [...]" Okay, as you say, an operating system is a collection of programs designed to manage the systems resources...DOS uses 3 primary programs/files, IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS and COMMAND.COM plus a bunch of utility programs to manage the systems resources. So lets consider the 3 primary files + utilities as "The DOS Operating System". Windows provides many utilities of its own plus a nice GUI, but it still makes use of IO.SYS, MSDOS.SYS and COMMAND.COM to provide many of its services. Looking at it from this point, DOS *is* an operating system. DOS + Windows *is* an operating system. Windows by itself is *not* an operating system John -- John Burton G & A Technical Software, Inc. jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov 28 Research Dr. Hampton, Va. 23666 jcburt@gast486.larc.nasa.gov (804) 865-7491 ------------------------------ From: rlion@access.digex.net (crazy lion) Subject: Phone # Micro-Link and LSL Date: 3 Sep 1993 10:47:59 -0400 can someone post or mail me the phonenumbers of microlink and LSL and anywhere else offering the motif package? rl ------------------------------ From: cannon@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Chris Cannon) Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Slackware 1.0.2 Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 14:47:55 GMT Patrick J. Volkerding (bf703@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote: : It's the latest, greatest version of the one that started the Linux : distribution wars, the one that's "... taking completely the wrong : approach ..." ;^) : A few features: : -- Kernel at .99pl12 (August 13, 1993 version) : -- All new improved installation and package maintenence scripts. : -- Jove editor : -- Emacs 19.19 : -- GNU chess and xboard BTW gnuchessX didn't work in slackware 1.01 : -- Every FAQ related to Linux that you could possibly ask for. Is there a FAQ about how I can update my slackware 1.01 to 1.0.2????? : -- and, much, much, more. I'll make a more descriptive announcement in : in the very near future. -- =================== cannon@lobby.ti.com ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: rwh@cccs.umn.edu (RICHARD HOFFBECK) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Reply-To: rwh@cccs.umn.edu Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 16:52:00 GMT In article , jcburt@gats486.larc.nasa.gov writes: > Hmmm...seems like selective memory to me...Microsoft didn't do jack >until it was *forced* to play catch-up to Apple's Mac GUI. And even >Apple took some of their GUI from other companies/projects...I guess >Microsoft "created a market" by following someone else's lead??? >(anything like "leading from behind" ?). Also if I remember correctly >MIT was working on the X system (or precursors to it) prior to Windows >coming out... In November of '83 I bought a copy of MS Word that was a big deal because it had a very limited WYSIWYG capability and it was mouse enabled. Characterizing MS as reacting to Apple seems a bit selective to me. Of course at the same time I also had a Perq Systems 1 workstation with a nice gui display and a puck-and-pad pointer. So maybe Apple and MS were just reacting to Perq. --rick ------------------------------ From: rxg@cci.com (Rob Getter) Subject: Re: Stacker-like Compression? Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 14:53:39 GMT In article <110808@hydra.gatech.edu>, Howlin' Bob wrote: >bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: > >>Everybody's missing the hardest part: random access. Any program which does >>an open-for-append will also trigger it: how do you cope with seek-to-end- >>then-write? Transparently uncompress into an invisible file at open time and >>then write, then recompress at close? SLOOOOOOOOWWWWWW.... > >I think that you're missing the *point*: a compressed filesystem is really >only optimal for certain types of files, no matter how it's implemented. >Large non-writable files (executables, Info pages, etc.) are excellent >candidates for compression, especially if they're rarely accessed. Random >access read and sequential write are fairly easy to support in the (de)compression >code, and I think that's whtat Stephen Tweedie is aiming for. The >compression will be done in-kernel, but I don't know if he's using the >gzip algorithm or something else. > > >-- >Robert Sanders >Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 >uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt8134b >Internet: gt8134b@prism.gatech.edu I don't think a compressed file system would be all that difficult. Random access can be handled by compressing the file in blocks, and perhaps storing an offset to each block at the beginning of the file or in its own disk block. that way, decompression can be done block by block, still leaving good random access performance and also the possibility for demand paging executables and shared libraries. You lose some compression, but not all that much. (look at V.42bis which compresses small blocks of data but still gets ~50% on uncompressed files) In my opinion, the gzip algorithm would be good since the decompression is very fast, but compression is slow. The compression speed isn't a problem since you can do lazy compression, first writing a file normally, and then compressing it later. You could also have compression scheduled to occur once a day, or have it triggered by a percentage of the disk being used up. that way, performance stays high until the disk gets full and then gradually degrades. You can have the computer track usage and compress files using an LRU strategy so that decompression time affects you as little as possible. Overall, I would expect some performance loss, but not nearly as much as most people seem to think. On a 386sx or a slower dx, it may very well have a significant performance hit. I considered adding some of this to Linux myself, but I have very little time available and I heard that there were people working on it already. I would certainly be willing to try it when it becomes available for testing, and until then, I don't see much point in arguing about how fast it will or won't be, or how complex it make the kernel, or how hard it would be to recover from a damaged file system. Rob Getter ------------------------------ ** 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 ******************************