From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Mon, 6 Sep 93 00:13:10 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #97 Linux-Misc Digest #97, Volume #1 Mon, 6 Sep 93 00:13:10 EDT Contents: Re: Windows Pop Quiz Re: NT versus Linux (Nathan Silva) Re: SCCS for Linux (Peter Mutsaers) Re: NT versus Linux (Peter Mutsaers) Re: High speed modems & linux (John Henders) Re: [Q] 3c503: Configured interrupt number 15 is out of range. (Fritz Ganter) thanks (was: TeXcad for linux?) (CARSTEN@AWORLD.aworld.de) SQL database for linux? (CARSTEN@AWORLD.aworld.de) Re: AMD 386 40 problem ? (Stephen Harris) minicom 1.4 problems under 99.12 (David Lesher) X/Windows3.1? (Darcy Boese) Re: NT versus Linux (Kevin Brown) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: nathans@pacifier.rain.com (Nathan Silva) Subject: Re: Windows Pop Quiz Re: NT versus Linux Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1993 16:13:39 GMT In article <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? The ability of a system to run by itself does not make it an operating system. Using this argument, I could claim that NetWare is not an operating system, since a Novell 3.11 server must boot DOS and then run SERVER.EXE. Once SERVER.EXE is loaded, it mostly takes over the system, including control of hardware such as memory and disk. That may not fit a textbook definition of "operating system", but for all intents and purposes, it is an operating system (even though it's not bootable). Windows for DOS is not a bootable operating system. But it does basically take control of the computer once it is loaded (except for the file system). You could argue that it isn't a complete operating system (because it relies on the DOS file system), or that it isn't bootable. But, from an end-user's perspective, it is an OS. I know people running Windows who don't even realize DOS is on their computer. This entire argument about what is/isn't an OS is pointless. What really matters now is *APIs*. Today, API support is what determines which software works on your system. Not which OS you're running. -- Nathan Silva (nathans@pacifier.rain.com) Vancouver, Washington, USA Data is not information is not knowledge is not wisdom. ------------------------------ From: muts@compi.hobby.nl (Peter Mutsaers) Subject: Re: SCCS for Linux Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1993 12:55:57 GMT >> On 3 Sep 93 16:18:13 CDT, tillemaj@cae.wisc.edu (John Edward >> Tillema) said: JET> Is there a version of SCCS for Linux? So far all I've found is JET> rcs. Or is SCCS a Sun product? (That's the only system I've JET> used that has had it) SCCS is not freely available. And is inferior to RCS. Therefore you should never use SCCS. There's no reason for it. RCS is also easier to use. -- _______________________________________________________________ Peter Mutsaers, Bunnik (Ut), the Netherlands. ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: muts@compi.hobby.nl (Peter Mutsaers) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 10:19:12 GMT >> On Sat, 4 Sep 1993 06:07:50 GMT, kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin >> Brown) said: > Just keep saying to yourself "Cheap... easy... supported." KB> Cheap...perhaps, but not as cheap as Linux. Easy? Perhaps, but KB> others will probably say otherwise. Supported? What most KB> people think of as being "support" is a total joke, and KB> Microsoft does a bad job of supplying even *that*. KB> And, of course, people are stupid enough to *pay* for that kind KB> of non- support. I am always annoyed when people in my company put such heavy emphasis on support when they buy a product. They forget that you only need minimal support for a good product, but a lot of support for a broken product. And in those cases that lot of support isn't even enough. I've seen projects utterly fail because of this. -- _______________________________________________________________ Peter Mutsaers, Bunnik (Ut), the Netherlands. ------------------------------ From: jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) Subject: Re: High speed modems & linux Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 12:01:04 GMT root@pse.panic.bln.sub.org (Utz-Uwe Haus) writes: >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 :))! There's a good chance the reliability and random error problems are from using e and f protocols. I've tried using both of them, and even with an error correcting modem connection, they don't seem as reliable as g. -- John Henders GO/MU/E d* -p+ c+++ l++ t- m--- s/++ g+ w+++ -x+ ------------------------------ From: ganter@fvkmapc02.tu-graz.ac.at (Fritz Ganter) Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help Subject: Re: [Q] 3c503: Configured interrupt number 15 is out of range. Date: 5 Sep 1993 18:32:02 GMT Liem Bahneman (roland@cac.washington.edu) wrote: : 3c503: Configured interrupt number 15 is out of range. : As far as I can see there are no jumpers on the card to change this : interrupt. Are 3com cards software configured for interrupts? How would I : change this interupt to somehting like irq5? Simply edit /usr/src/linux/net/inet/CONFIG -- ====== Fritz Ganter, Graz University of Technology, Austria. Email: ganter@fvkmapc02.tu-graz.ac.at, ganter@fvkmads02.tu-graz.ac.at HAM-Radio: OE6FAD@OE6XYG.AUT.EU, OE6FAD@OE6FAD.AMPR.ORG Phone: +43 316 873-7222 (Office), +43 316 663243 (home) ********** Linux... try it, use it, love it. ************ ------------------------------ From: CARSTEN@AWORLD.aworld.de Subject: thanks (was: TeXcad for linux?) Date: Sat, 4 Sep 93 10:25:00 CET hello, i want to thank everybode answering my question about TeXCAD for linux. the reason i didn't know Xtexcad and Xfig is, that i havn't installed X. maybe i will do so now. tschuess carsten ## CrossPoint v2.1 R ## ------------------------------ From: CARSTEN@AWORLD.aworld.de Subject: SQL database for linux? Date: Sat, 4 Sep 93 10:34:00 CET hello, is there any SQL-type database availible for linux? if so, please email me where i can find it. thanks tschuess carsten ## CrossPoint v2.1 R ## ------------------------------ From: harris@teaching.physics.ox.ac.uk (Stephen Harris) Subject: Re: AMD 386 40 problem ? Date: 5 Sep 93 23:16:12 BST Linus Torvalds (torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI) wrote: : What kind of co-processor are you using? There have been problem-reports *NO* co-pro, and THAT's the problem! Somehow the kernel detect sequence decides there is a co-pro using exception 13 reporting (even though the code is meant to ignore these???), so I HAVE to use "no387" from Lilo to avoid this. As I originally posted, I can work around it with no387, but its a pain remembering this one machine (which I may not see again for over 1 year because it is on a supertanker!) needs special treatment. I was just wondering if it was an AMD problem, but since other people are using the same chip happily, I guess it's a motherboard problem :-( Oh well....:-( -- Stephen Harris harris@teaching.physics.ox.ac.uk Opinions are just opinions, and the facts are the facts. But what are what? ------------------------------ From: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) Subject: minicom 1.4 problems under 99.12 Date: 5 Sep 1993 18:42:24 -0400 Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher) I'm looking for other users of minicom under 99.12 to compare notes. Recompiling the kernel solved my ALT-key problem, but I also have the following problems that did _not_ exist under 99.04. 1) It does not generate ^^, i.e. control-carot. I need it to break back to my cisco. 2) The script processor, keyserv, does not seem to function. No error messages, no complaints, just nothing. Anyone else seen, and maybe solved, these bugs? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.....wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu & no one will talk to a host that's close............[301] 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.i386unix From: s9329053@sandcastle.cosc.brocku.ca (Darcy Boese) Subject: X/Windows3.1? Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1993 23:58:03 GMT Here is a halfway between Newbie and knowing-what-I'm-talking-about question: [I managed to get the early August SLS 1.03 linux release 95% working after just recompiling the kernel once and the xfree once] Is it possible to create most of the Xconfig file if you have a copy of the Windows 3.1 video driver file? I'm mostly talking setting up the timing interrupts and so on... ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 01:52:07 GMT In article <930904.132142.0p2.rusnews.w165w@mulvey.com> rich@mulvey.com (Rich Mulvey) writes: >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, Unix, for the operating system. BSDI is a good example of something which is stable. Linux is a good example of something which is reasonably stable (but it depends on the version). A good application? How about "X-Wing"? :-) Seriously, though, I haven't found much in the way of applications that I really like. I learned early on that I'm better off writing what I need rather than trying to buy someone else's idea of a good application. >and I have no doubt that I can come up with a dozen real-life examples of >bugs and problems. A "decent" OS does *not* mean a "bug-free" OS. It means that the OS provides a reasonably orthogonal and complete set of services that (a) allow the user or programmer to run and/or write programs efficiently, (b) protect the programs the user runs from the vagaries of other programs which may be running, and (c) efficiently use the full capabilities of the hardware. DOS is not what I consider to be a "decent" operating system (if it can even be called that) because it fails all three of the above criteria. >> 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. It's not??? What makes Unix inappropriate for a small business? It's just an operating system. For launching applications, it does a better job than DOS because the applications can be larger, more complete, and more capable. The networking is already there, as is NFS (and thus file sharing), as is print spooling, as is a real filesystem (or, at least, a better filesystem than is provided by DOS, if the 14-character filesystem is the only thing the particular brand of Unix you're talking about provides). >Not to mention that Unix has far too many of its own problems. :-) No doubt this is true, but would you care to mention some of these 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. The Apple II was also cheap enough for a small business to use. It just wasn't as powerful as the PC. But lots of businesses already had quite a bit invested in the Apple II when the PC came on the market, largely because of Visicalc. >Can you honestly say that you think *ANY* >machine with the power to run NextStep in 1982 would have been affordable? Probably not, but that's primarily because NextStep is extremely resource- intensive, like almost anything else in use today. But Unix was running on the PDP-11 with 64K back in *1973* and was a lot more powerful than DOS has ever been. I was doing more on my 7.14 MHz Amiga with 512K RAM and 2 disk drives than I've *ever* been able to do on a 25 MHz 386 PC running DOS with 4 meg and a hard disk. I know this because I've owned both. >Those were the days when you spent $900.00/MB of RAM. Not to mention >30MB hard drives selling for $3,000.00. Yup. But it *still* doesn't justify the hardware being as badly designed as it is, or the software being designed as badly as it is. >>>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 ) Technical excellence doesn't mean bug-free. It means that maximum power is made available with minimum resource usage. >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. What is it that makes you think that Unix and the common consumer are *inherently* mutually exclusive (unless, of course, I'm reading you wrong here)?? And just what definition of elegance are you using here? I'll be the first to admit that Unix isn't the most elegant thing around, but even *you* must admit that it's a lot more elegant than DOS, and that X is a lot more elegant than Windoze. Elegance has nothing to do with the acceptance, or lack thereof, of Unix by the general user community. If only it did... >> 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. So? Almost *any* operating system allows you to do that. Indeed, many definitions of "operating system" involve the things you mention. The question is: which OS allows you to do that with minimum hassle and minimum limitations? None of the Microsoft "operating system"s qualify (with the possible exception of NT, but I have my doubts) because they have broken APIs. I've *never* heard any praise from people who program under DOS or Windows for the OS they program for, particularly after they've had a chance to program under Unix. The reason people program for those operating systems is that users run those operating systems, and the reason users run those operating systems is that they have bought the marketing hype of Microsoft. I've done programming under DOS before, and have done some of that work while in the Windows environment. I was not impressed. Even the Amiga was easier to deal with, and *that* doesn't even have any kind of process protection. There are certain arbitrary limitations of DOS that prevent you from doing even the most basic things. For instance, you can't run a shell that will expand wildcards, even though DOS is command-line oriented. Why? Because DOS has a 128 character command line limit, which means that EVERY PROGRAM that you want to hand multiple files specified with wildcards has to be explicitly coded to deal with it. This problem doesn't go away even under Windoze. It doesn't make sense to base your entire OS around the command line and then cripple the command line, but Microsloth did that anyway (what a surprise). You want to put your compilation (or *anything*) in the background? Tough. You want a reasonable (i.e., non-CP/M) filename convention? Tough. Can't combine the text-based tools you have because you don't have enough disk space for the temporary file you'll need to use? Tough. There's more to an operating system than just being able to run programs, and people who don't think so quickly learn otherwise. Why else do you think Consumer Reports rated the Mac GUI above Windoze? Why else do you think they even *bothered* to put multitasking (such as it is) in Windoze? Why else do you hear *normal users* complaining about the broken filename limitations in DOS? As for not having to know the intricacies of a particular hardware manufacturer, that isn't at all true of DOS. If you want to do anything with, e.g., the serial ports, you have to know about the hardware. Same with networking. Same with graphics (particularly higher resolutions). Same with tape devices. Yes, there are libraries that have some of these capabilities, but the point is that the *operating system* doesn't provide these capabilities. DOS doesn't stand on its own merits. It can't, because it's too crippled to do so. It is as popular as it is *solely* because it is the operating system that came (and still comes) with all PCs. But taken by itself, DOS is almost useless in comparison with any other operating system. It is *no more* useful than AppleDOS was back on the Apple II. I'll be the first to admit that Windoze+DOS is significantly better than DOS alone, however. Even so, you have to compare like against like, and that combination is not as useful (in my experience) as AmigaDOS was, and is certainly not as useful as Unix + X. >>>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. It's not free, but it's cheap *regardless* of whether or not you have a net connection. There are a number of Linux distributions being sold, most of which are priced at less than $100 and many of which are priced at less than $50. Of course, if you happen to have the "support" of which you speak below, you can often get it for free. Only *one* person in your group needs to have a net connection, which means that the price can be arbitrarily small. >> 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. So? These same sources of support provide support for pretty much any flavor of Unix as well, or most any operating system, or most applications that run under those operating systems. But the decision of whether or not to buy a Microsoft product is based in part on the (mostly mistaken) notion that *Microsoft* will provide good support for their products. >And >who is the notable exception? Wordperfect, who you recently castigated for >providing an inferior product. An inferior product does not imply inferior support. >- Rich -- 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? ------------------------------ ** 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 ******************************