From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Sat, 4 Sep 93 15:13:10 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #94 Linux-Misc Digest #94, Volume #1 Sat, 4 Sep 93 15:13:10 EDT Contents: Re: NT versus Linux (Kevin Brown) Re: Is NT really a threat? (Olaf Titz) Linux/386BSD/GNU distribution by 4mm DAT Re: Is NT really a threat? (Brandon S. Allbery) AMD 386 40 problem ? (Stephen Harris) Problem with gopher and whois (Jan Richert) Re: TeXcad for linux? (Roland Rosenfeld) Re: NT versus Linux (Peter Mutsaers) Re: Man pages for tar? (Peter Mutsaers) Re: NT versus Linux (Rich Mulvey) Re: NT versus Linux (Rich Mulvey) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1993 07:30:49 GMT In article <3SEP199311523443@cccs.umn.edu> rwh@cccs.umn.edu writes: >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. Hmm...well, the Apple Lisa was out about then, and it was basically the precursor to the Mac. >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. Nope. Apple was "reacting" to Xerox, which did the basic research. How long after the Mac first appeared did Microsloth come out with Windoze? 5 years? More? Yes, Windoze is *definitely* in response to the Mac, which until that point was killing the PC in the ease-of-use category, text-based WYSIWYG word processors being rather minor players in that game. >--rick -- 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? ------------------------------ From: uknf@rzstud1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Olaf Titz) Subject: Re: Is NT really a threat? Date: 4 Sep 1993 12:50:41 GMT In article <2650ie$97p@europa.eng.gtefsd.com>, David C. Niemi wrote: > I know UN*X is inherently much more complex to configure than Winders, but I still need to be convinced that this really is true. Configuring Windoze is a hell of a task for ppl with little computer knowledge - just look in the manual for the sections on memory "management". Oh, if it's just about the nice point-and-shoot WIMP installer, writing such a thing for Un*x is no big deal either. Olaf -- olaf titz o olaf@bigred.ka.sub.org praetorius@irc comp.sc.student _>\ _ s_titz@ira.uka.de LINUX - the choice karlsruhe germany (_)<(_) uknf@dkauni2.bitnet of a GNU generation what good is a photograph of you? everytime i look at it it makes me feel blue ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc From: fields@minerva.cis.yale.edu () Subject: Linux/386BSD/GNU distribution by 4mm DAT Reply-To: fields@minerva.cis.yale.edu () Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1993 14:37:20 GMT Hello, Net users. If there is enough interest, I would be happy to make available (for a fee to cover costs) a DAT 4mm distribution of Linux, 386BSD/NetBSD, and GNU software. I have pulled all software directly off of tsx-11.mit.edu, agate.berkeley.edu, and prep-ai.mit.edu. The DAT drive which I will use for the recording is the Tecmar DataVault. I have pulled all files as of at least August 26th, 1993, and am pulling more as are updated. I can store the files in PC-Tools for Windows backup format or Unix TAR format, using the no-rewind device. Please leave me email if you are interested; if there is enough interest I will repost (and mail each respondent) details. Thanks, Doug ------------------------------ From: bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery) Subject: Re: Is NT really a threat? Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1993 14:34:22 GMT In article <26a2v1$cbv@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> uknf@rzstud1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Olaf Titz) writes: >Oh, if it's just about the nice point-and-shoot WIMP installer, >writing such a thing for Un*x is no big deal either. That depends. A minimal MS-Windows --- just enough to run the installer --- is relatively small because the minimal non-GUI core functionality (which is to say, DOS*) is already in place. A Un*x/X installer must load a minimal Un*x as well as a minimal X, so the initial (pre-WIMP, if you will) bootstrap takes longer. Look at the OS/2 2.x install for an example; it has the same problem, it must preload the OS/2 "core" functionality as well as the PM "core" before bringing up the GUI installer. ++Brandon ===== *Insults aside, I mean that the minimum required functionality is available --- not necessarily that it's *all* that's available. -- Brandon S. Allbery kf8nh@kf8nh.ampr.org bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org "MSDOS didn't get as bad as it is overnight -- it took over ten years of careful development." ---dmeggins@aix1.uottawa.ca ------------------------------ From: harris@teaching.physics.ox.ac.uk (Stephen Harris) Subject: AMD 386 40 problem ? Date: 4 Sep 93 15:44:57 BST Have I got a bad machine, or is there a known problem with the AMD386-40 ? Linux is convinced I have a co-pro using exception 13 reporting, and so a lot of maths gets confused. Using LILO with the "no387" flag gets around the problem, but this is a pain to remember this machine is special when admining a potential 30 machines over 7 sites. Any feed back would be welcome. Thanks. -- Stephen Harris harris@teaching.physics.ox.ac.uk Opinions are just opinions, and the facts are the facts. But what are what? ------------------------------ From: jrichert@krefcom.GUN.de (Jan Richert) Subject: Problem with gopher and whois Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1993 17:40:33 GMT Hi.. I'm searching for gopher and whois binaries or sources working with Linux 99pl12 and the NET-2 package. I have a gopher source which does not compile due to the following error: aethostbyname: undeclared function I have a whois source which compiles but always says: Connect: invalid argument How do I fix those problems? Please REPLY BY MAIL I'll summarize. Jan -- Jan Richert (NIC-ID: JR482) | Internet: jrichert@krefcom.GUN.de Krefeld, FRG | Datex-J: 02151399843-0001 Voice: +49 2151 313124 | IRC-Nick: jrichert FAX: +49 2151 396479 | Data: +49 2151 396479 (12-20h MEDT) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 03 Sep 93 14:12:28 +0200 From: roland@p13.flokiste.fido.de (Roland Rosenfeld) Subject: Re: TeXcad for linux? Hi Carsten! Carsten (CARSTEN@AWORLD.aworld.de) wrote: > does anybody now if there exist a simple graphic interface for > LaTeX-style graphics (picture-environment)? > i mean an equivalent for the TeXcad program of the emTeX package for > DOS, where a LaTeX output file is created while you are drawing CAD > like. What about Xtexcad, which comes with SLS 1.03 on Disk X4? It seems to be as nice as the TeXcad from emTeX. On the other side You can use xfig to crate pictures and transfer them to a LaTeX-picture-environment oder to PiCTeX via fig2dev. I don't know whether it is ported to Linux, but I think so... Ciao Roland -- * Roland_Rosenfeld@p13.flokiste.fido.de * Fido-Classic: 2:242/503.13 * ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: muts@compi.hobby.nl (Peter Mutsaers) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1993 22:49:59 GMT >> On Thu, 2 Sep 1993 01:17:49 EDT, rich@mulvey.com (Rich Mulvey) >> said: RM> Technical excellence in software or hardware has *never* been RM> a reason for the consumer to go with a particular product. RM> People buy Microsoft products because they are relatively cheap, RM> easy to use, and available. Not to mention that the knowledge My point was that this is the only argument that speaks for Microsoft. So there is no inherent reason to use it. If enough people start using something else (better) it will get a bigger acceptance and be able to oust Microsoft. RM> You seem to be trying to justify your arguments on the RM> grounds that they're what the world should be. The problem is, RM> people are perverse - they do many, many things that are self RM> defeating, destructive, and generally stupid. You can make a RM> very easy choice - stick with the elegant systems and starve, or RM> do what it takes to put bread on your table. I am not as pessimistic as you are. If enough people stick with elegant systems, these will become the major system(s) and everyone will be better off. -- _______________________________________________________________ Peter Mutsaers, Bunnik (Ut), the Netherlands. ------------------------------ From: muts@compi.hobby.nl (Peter Mutsaers) Subject: Re: Man pages for tar? Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1993 08:05:23 GMT >> On 3 Sep 1993 12:07:00 GMT, zloebl@piis10.joanneum.ac.at (Klaus >> ZLOEBL) said: KZ> the man pages for tar are messed up. in SLS 1.02 as in SLS KZ> 1.03. how can i fix it, or where from do i get new ones? Messed up? Has there ever been a man page for gnu tar? I've never seen one. The only documentation is 'tar --help'. -- _______________________________________________________________ Peter Mutsaers, Bunnik (Ut), the Netherlands. ------------------------------ From: rich@mulvey.com (Rich Mulvey) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1993 13:06:01 EDT kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes: > In article <930830.082811.4Z3.rusnews.w165w@mulvey.com> rich@mulvey.com (Rich > Mulvey) writes: >>muts@compi.hobby.nl (Peter Mutsaers) writes: >> >>>>> On Thu, 26 Aug 1993 02:27:00 EDT, rich@mulvey.com (Rich Mulvey) >>>>> said: >>> >>> RM> folks? It's a for-profit company. They exist solely to make >>> RM> money. What's the best way to make money? Kill your >>> RM> competition, *especially* if they have a better product. Even >>> RM> if they don't. What exactly does morality have to do with this? >>> RM> Saying that they are 'evil' is basically saying that people >>> RM> shouldn't strive to be successful. Gee, maybe we all should >>> RM> spend the rest of our lives flipping burgers for each other. >>> RM> But make sure that we avoid trying to provide a decent standard >>> RM> of living for our families. >>> >>> RM> That would be moral by your logic, right? >>> >>> Yes, but they go too far. In the end it will damage themselves, like >>> IBM was damaged too by the almost-monopoly they got in the 70s. First >>> they get big profits, but the losses will be even bigger. >> >> If they damage themselves, that's *their* problem. New companies >>will spring up to fill the void - just as it has always happened. And >>*those* companies will probably be lean and mean at first, until *they* >>kill themselves with bloat. That's the way that capitalism works. > > Which is true of the dynamics of companies within capitalism. But we're not > really concerned about the companies so much as we are about the *products*. Personally, *I* am more interested in the company, than the products. :-) > > Let's take a look at two cases where the company in question was large, had > an inferior product, and managed to have that product get real popular > anyway due to the stupidity of the public. > > Case 1 is, of course, IBM. They came out with the PC. When it first came > out, there wasn't much that was widely available that competed with it. > Because it was an IBM product, *everyone* bought it. The PC gained most of > its ground because people naturally thought IBM was good stuff. Little did > they know that the product was actually quite badly designed, making use of > a badly-designed CPU and a badly-designed bus (and a badly-designed DMA > scheme, etc). Sure - it's badly designed *IN RETROSPECT*. But just look at any of the contemporary magazines and books when the PC came out. It was an absolute godsend. IBM came up with a useable small computer that didn't cost a heck of a lot for anyone to manufacture - thus fostering the cheap clone market. Sure, it looks like a horrible kludge today, but look at what it replaced. Personally, I would much rather use an IBM-PC than a Northstar or an Apple II. > > Now look where we are today. What's the most popular type of computer? A > PC clone. What kind of hardware is it? It's running a relatively broken > CPU like the 486, something that has an instruction set and register set that > leaves quite a bit to be desired, and running the *same* broken bus > architecture that is responsible for the low performance of most of the > hardware available for it. But because clones are so cheap, they're popular, > and as a result people spend a great deal of time developing software for > this broken hardware. Linux is a *perfect* example. I'm glad it happened, > but I wish it had happened to better hardware. See above. Hindsight is 20/20. > > > Case 2 is, of course, Microsoft. They came out with DOS for the IBM PC. > Because people initially bought lots of IBM PC's, DOS became popular. Not > on its technical merits (DOS has none), but on the IBM name. Because of > this, people wrote programs for this broken "operating system", which caused > it to become more popular, etc... First it's broken, and then it allows people to write thousands of useful applications? How broken can it be, then? > > Now look at where we are today. What's the most popular "operating system" > available today? DOS, of course. Guess what needs it to run? Windows. > We all know how badly broken and inferior DOS is. Yet, because it's so > popular (due to the stupidity of the public), there are a lot of things > that won't run under anything *but* DOS. Personally, *I* don't see how "badly broken and inferior" DOS it, and I've been programming on PC machines for a decade. As a small-applications single-tasking program loader it does just fine. And *that* is what most people want from it. As a large-application multitasker, it sucks rocks. But anyone who tries to use it for that is deluding myself - and I don't concern myself with deluded people. > > Because people often do things that only one or two applications can provide > the functionality for, they are often *forced* to run DOS, ugly as it is. > Word processing is a perfect example. Lots of people have Wordperfect for > DOS. Despite *its* brokenness, it's also one of the most popular things > around. But to run it, you have to run DOS. Again - WordPerfect is just fine for the majority of people. They simply don't use it for anything that, say, PC-Write couldn't handle. And no - you can run WordPerfect on a variety of platforms. > > Even if Microsoft were to go bankrupt *now*, DOS will be with us for a long, > long time because it takes a long, long time to unwind the recursive > dependency cycle which is behind the popularity of DOS. It's the same with nearly any other consumer technology. Automobiles could produce far fewer combustion products if we switched to a fuel-cell or alcohol mixture. But we have a huge infrastructure of gas stations and oil companies. There are much more efficient ways of lighting our homes - or designing light bulbs for that matter - but everyone has screw-base lamps. Personally, I'm more concerned with the smog I breathe when I go to LA than what OS I'm running. > > > There are more examples, e.g. System Vr4, but I trust my point is clear: it > doesn't matter *how* well a company may be doing in the future, the problems > that they've left us with will cost us dearly, *exactly* as is happening > now. > Just as in any other technology that was wonderful when it was first introduced, but has left us with a legacy of inappropriate infrastructures. > An outside observer who wasn't really on the inside of all this might easily > conclude that people in general *prefer* inferiority. This, of course, isn't > really true. The biggest problem is that most people aren't bright enough > or well-trained enough to recognize an inferior product when they see it, so > they base their decision on things like how much it will cost or how much > "support" they'll get (when, of course, few people realize that the promise > of "support" for a product usually simply means that there will be someone > on the other end of the telephone telling them that the bug they're reporting > doesn't exist, hasn't been heard of before, and is being fixed even as they > speak). As I said in a previous note - people can only victimize themselves. They deserve what they get. > >>> Every company must fight its competitors, I agree; but they must also >>> learn self-control. If you kill everyone you get an unhealthy >>> situation, bad for everyone. >> >> But you just said that they are going to kill themselves as well, so >>what's the problem if they will eliminate themselves as players in the >>game? > > They'll leave us all with a legacy of inferiority. As above... > >>> The former eastern-block was a >>> monopolized economy, the results are clear. Microsoft is evil in a >>> way, but more so, the buyers are stupid. They fall in a trap with >>> opened eyes. Blinded by the lies and marketing stories of Microsoft, >>> and too incompetent to judge the different choices on their technical >>> merits. There are too many incompetent people on decision-making positions >>> in companies, especially in automation departments. >> >> I have no sympathy for stupid/ignorant people. If they make decisions >>about software and hardware without doing the proper research, they >>deserve what they get. It is their responsibility. If a person is so >>clueless that they think a salesman's sole interest isn't in padding his and >>his company's pockets, and actually *believe* what the salesman tells them, >>they shouldn't be making purchasing decisions. > > Yeah, but they usually *are* making purchasing decisions. > And that's their problem. Make them responsible for their actions. >>And if, as often happens, >>the company fails because of poor decision-making, then we're only seeing >>natural selection in action. Which, in the end, is a *good* thing. > > Agreed with respect to companies. But see above for why the process itself > yields suboptimal results compared to making the correct choices to begin > with. > > Additionally, you know what will happen, right? When Microsoft (or whoever) > goes down, their product will eventually be replaced with another inferior > product. > Yup - and thousands of people will still benefit from the new inferior product. Just look at how many benefit from the brain-damaged, inferior MS-DOS Operating System. :-) - Rich -- Rich Mulvey Amateur Radio: N2VDS 787 Elmwood Terrace rich@mulvey.com Rochester, NY 14620 ------------------------------ From: rich@mulvey.com (Rich Mulvey) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1993 13:21:42 EDT kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes: Rich Mulvey writes: ( Much deleted ) >>Businessman who wants software to run on his computer without having to learn >>a lot. He does not want, nor can he afford, NextStep, Unix, or anything >>of the same ilk. MS-DOS is just about *perfect* for those needs. And Windows >>adds to the value of the system he is getting without adding appreciably to >>what he has to learn. Remember that people on the net tend to look at >>computers as interesting unto themselves - the vast majority of computers users, >>however, look at them as necessary evils. > > Quite so. However, *someone* has to design and write the software to run > under these broken operating systems. If the operating systems in question > were *decent*, the software authors would have a much easier time of it, > which means quicker time to market, higher quality, and greater capability. > Tell me what you, personally, consider to be a good OS and application, and I have no doubt that I can come up with a dozen real-life examples of bugs and problems. > The reason people generally can't afford Unix is that Unix is expensive. Why > is it expensive? Because until recently, AT&T had a *monopoly* on it, and > dictated the price of it through their licensing structure. Now BSDI has > entered into the picture, but they're pricing their product more or less the > same because that particular market is willing to bear the cost, and it's > too late to make significant penetration into the general computing world, > thanks to Microsoft. Yes, but the average businessperson doesn't care whether Unix is expensive, because it's not an appropriate OS for a small business. Not to mention that Unix has far too many of its own problems. :-) > People aren't interested in NextStep because it is too resource-intensive > and is *way* too late hitting the market. Something like that should have > hit the market a few months after the PC hit the market. Of course, that > wouldn't have been possible, because at that point the hardware was *even > more* broken than it is now. The reason that the PC was successful was that it was cheap enough for a small business to use. Can you honestly say that you think *ANY* machine with the power to run NextStep in 1982 would have been affordable? Those were the days when you spent $900.00/MB of RAM. Not to mention 30MB hard drives selling for $3,000.00. >>Technical excellence in software or hardware has *never* been a reason for >>the consumer to go with a particular product. People buy Microsoft products >>because they are relatively cheap, easy to use, and available. > Yup. But technical excellence and low cost are not mutually exclusive! > Just look at Linux if you want an example. Or look at the Amiga. Linux is *NOT* low cost. See below for my reasoning. As for technical excellence... let's see... we get new kernel releases every few weeks. Bugs galore are reported every day on the Linux groups ( And I'm not referring to problems people have with Unix in general ) If technical excellence means that the Linux groups are among the *highest* volume on Usenet, you have a warped sense of what constitutes excellence. I like Linux - enough so that I've dedicated one of my machines to it. But it is NOT elegant ( Which is my definition of excellent ) because it is rooted in Unix, and is therefore not accessible to the common consumer. > Indeed. I hope for that. The sooner the better. That's my whole point. Of > course they kill themselves only if people, as a result of their stupidnes > refuse to be dictated by Microsoft, and make NT flop. >> You seem to be trying to justify your arguments on the grounds that they're >>what the world should be. The problem is, people are perverse - they do >>many, many things that are self defeating, destructive, and generally >>stupid. You can make a very easy choice - stick with the elegant systems >>and starve, or do what it takes to put bread on your table. > This sums it up nicely. Yup, the *reason* things are the way they are is > that people are generally stupid. Well, they get what they deserve, but > unfortunately (because of that last thing you noted) they take the rest > of us down with them!! And that's the cost of living. It comes in every aspect of life and we're not going to control it, so we just have to live with it. > We all know the truth of this, and most of us think it's totally wrong. > Thus the intense hatred towards Microsoft. > I don't necessarily hate Microsoft. I think they're a bunch of incompetent > fools who are only good at one thing: taking maximum advantage of a stupid > and gullible public. > Car companies take advantage of a stupid and gullible public. Supermarkets take advantage of a stupid and gullible public. But it's the fault of the public if they allow themselves to be taken advantage of. Sure - it's going to affect the people who actually *have* a clue. But there are things that we do that affect other people in adverse ways, as well. It's a classic Paredo situation - nothing is free. > This is very easy because alone for > techincal reasons there is no reason at all to use a Microsoft 'operating > system' Sure there is - it allows me to write applications on a PC platform without having to invent my own disk format, re-invent a standard keyboard interface, or merely put a character on a screen without knowing the intricacies of a particular hardware manufacturers machine. >>Just keep saying to yourself "Cheap... easy... supported." > Cheap...perhaps, but not as cheap as Linux. Easy? Perhaps, but others will > probably say otherwise. Cheap? Not at all. How are people getting Linux? Generally, via FTP on the Internet. How much does a connection cost? How much does a student pay to a University for the privilege of having access to the net? How much less is your employer paying you so that they can afford access? How much is *your* time worth? How much do the O'Reilly books cost? It is NOT free. > Supported? What most people think of as being > "support" is a total joke, and Microsoft does a bad job of supplying even > *that*. > And, of course, people are stupid enough to *pay* for that kind of non- > support. > You're assuming that Microsoft is the primary support provider. Sorry, but that's not the case. Consultants, bookstores, and the kid next door provide far more support than just about any company in the business. And who is the notable exception? Wordperfect, who you recently castigated for providing an inferior product. >>Technical reasons are irrelevent to the average person. Once you learn >>that, you'll be fine. :-) > Already know it. Already know that people are so incredibly stupid that > *they* will probably be the cause of my death (want proof? Try driving > on the freeway and observing the "accidents", which are just the result > of incredible stupidity in action, that happen). Yup - but they may also be the same people who save your life after you slip in the shower and put a dent in your skull. Again, the whole point that I'm trying to make is that you have to deal with both the good and the bad. Complaining about the problem is all well and fine, but it's not going to solve the problems that need to be solved. Work with what you have. - Rich ------------------------------ ** 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 ******************************