From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Mon, 6 Sep 93 05:29:00 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #98 Linux-Misc Digest #98, Volume #1 Mon, 6 Sep 93 05:29:00 EDT Contents: Re: NT versus Linux (Kevin Brown) Re: [Q] Anyone tried porting BSD pc (pascal compiler)? (Kevin Brown) Email Poll: VLB SCSI controllers and Linux (Anthony Woodward) Re: Speed testing different versions of POV (Andre Beck) Linux Mail-Order Services Advertisement (Stephen Balbach) [UPDATE] bootutils-1.0 added to Slackware (Patrick J. Volkerding) unsubscribe (""Fritz.Ganter@fvkmads02.tu-graz.ac.at, Tu-Graz@fvkmads02.tu-graz.ac.at,) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) Subject: Re: NT versus Linux Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 02:18:12 GMT In article <930904.130601.6K0.rusnews.w165w@mulvey.com> rich@mulvey.com (Rich Mulvey) writes: >kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) writes: >> In article <930830.082811.4Z3.rusnews.w165w@mulvey.com> rich@mulvey.com (Rich >> Mulvey) writes: [...] >>> 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. :-) Oh, well, to each his own, I suppose. :-) >> 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*. No, it was badly designed even by the standards of the time. Remember that the 68000 was out at this point, and it was far and away superior to the CPU that IBM decided to use. >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. No, IBM wasn't the *first* to have done this. The Apple II was also usable and cheap. The cheap clone market didn't come until well after the PC had established itself. It came *because* of the popularity of the PC. Recall that even the Apple II had clones, namely the Franklin. >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. Yes, quite so. I'll be the first to admit that it was more capable than the Apple II, at least in hardware terms. But it was *still* a bad design. It was, however, good *enough* to replace what was on the market at the time, which is your point. I have no problem admitting that. However, my point still stands. It's not merely in retrospect that it was a bad design when evaluated from a purely hardware standpoint, or from a programmer's standpoint. >> 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. So? The lessons that were presumably taught by the previous generation of computers had already been learned by many. But not by IBM and not by Microsoft. I knew back before the PC came out that memory limitations should be a result of a limited pocketbook, not a limited design. I had seen the growth in the size of software and extrapolated appropriately. Many others had as well. So why the 640k absolute limit, when the 68000 had a 16 meg limit? >> 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? It's broken enough to make writing useful applications relatively difficult, but not so broken as to make doing so impossible. >> 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. Bull. Look at the size of Microsoft Word, or WordPerfect, or Lotus 1-2-3, or any of the most popular applications. Hell, look at Turbo C++. All these applications require more resources than DOS itself allows, and that's why you have such things as expanded memory standards and dynamically- loadable code segments, all done by the *program*. People have gone to great lengths to overcome the limitations of DOS. People just want to be able to run their applications, NO MATTER WHAT the size. If all people wanted was to run a single application at a time, then Microsoft wouldn't have bothered with multitasking in Windows. They did, people use it, and thus your assertion that most people want merely a single-tasking application loader is proven false. >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. Then you don't concern yourself with a very large segment of the population. :-) >> 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. Oops. Right. I'd forgotten that it is available under Unix. Oh, if WordPerfect is just fine for the majority of people, then why do they continue to add more "features" to it??? >> 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. Like I said, many of us learned our lessons from the first generation of home computers, but the designers of the PC didn't, and *that's* why we've had to go through a second round of inappropriate infrastructures. > As I said in a previous note - people can only victimize themselves. They >deserve what they get. Do the people who end up having to deal with that "deserve what they get"? >>> 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. I'd love to. It would solve a lot of problems. But how do you suggest making this happen? :-) >> 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. :-) Of course. I don't argue that people don't benefit from inferior things. But by definition, they don't benefit as much as they would if they were using something better. It looks to me like we're more or less in agreement on the important things. We both recognize that things are where they are because of the (often stupid or ignorant) choices that people have made, and that they'll continue to make the same kinds of choices in the future. We also agree that the best we can do is make our own choices. I've done so. That's why I run Linux for everything but games. If I were designing hardware, it *wouldn't* be for the broken hardware of the PC. -- 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: kevin@frobozz.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown) Subject: Re: [Q] Anyone tried porting BSD pc (pascal compiler)? Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 02:28:54 GMT In article <1993Sep4.211804.28157@husc14.harvard.edu> eekim@husc11.harvard.edu (Eugene Kim) writes: >Hi, > >I was browsing the BSD sources in ftp.uu.net today, and I discovered >sources for the pc compiler. From what I've followed on the newsgroups >and from what I've seen on the Linux ftp sites, no one has ported a >pascal compiler to Linux yet. > >Has someone tried porting the BSD sources for pc to Linux? If so, is >there a reason why pc cannot be ported to Linux? > >If no one has attempted to port pc, and there's no reason not to (ie. >legal, impossible), I'll go ahead and try to port it. I just want to >make sure it hasn't been tried before. I haven't tried porting it, but I've looked at it. Near as I can tell, it requires a 68000 or a VAX. But they don't make that obvious, so I could be wrong (my opinion is based on perusing the source)... -- 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? ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help From: anthony@hydro.hsa.com.au (Anthony Woodward) Subject: Email Poll: VLB SCSI controllers and Linux Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1993 02:12:49 GMT I have just purchased a Vesa LocalBus motherboard for my 486DX50 PC. I have been running linux, I intend to upgrade to 99p12 soon. I want to buy a VLB SCSI controller, but the one I am eval-testing at the moment is not recogised by SLS 1.03. I would like people to email me details of their VLB motherboards and VLB SCSI controllers which they have successfully got going on Linux. Please include the details of the Motherboard (BIOS, Chipset, RAM, CPU), the SCSI controller (brand, model, etc.), how well it works (e.g. speed...), and what you had to do to make it go (e.g. get a patch from sunsite, etc). I will post a summary if there is a reasonable response. Thanks in advance, -- ======================================================================= Anthony Woodward |+612 925 4207 (w) Hydrographic Sciences Australia |+612 957 4523 (fax) ------------------------------ From: beck@irs.inf.tu-dresden.de (Andre Beck) Crossposted-To: comp.graphics Subject: Re: Speed testing different versions of POV Date: 2 Sep 1993 13:21:34 GMT Reply-To: Andre_Beck@IRS.Inf.TU-Dresden.DE In article <263fob$4cv@panix.com>, traff@panix.com (Andy "Traff" Trafford) writes: |> |>POV version | Render time (320x200) | Chesstones (pixels/sec) |>------------------+-----------------------+------------------------- |>Standard DOS | 337 seconds | 189.91 |> | | |>Fast POV for DOS | 289 seconds | 221.45 |> | | |>POV for Linux | 281 seconds | 227.76 |> Well, a real operating system is better than any strange memory manager. |>The Linux version of POV was compiled with standard cc - would gcc or |>any other compiler produce faster code? Linux's standard cc is in fact gcc. The question is, if certain special optimizations could make it faster. I doubt this, because i486s are CISC architectures and therefore the optimized versions are only slightly better than unoptimized ones (at least if the code generator does at all know what he does...) -- +-o-+--------------------------------------------------------+-o-+ | o | \\\- Brain Inside -/// | o | | o | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | o | | o | Andre' Beck (ABPSoft) Andre_Beck@IRS.Inf.TU-Dresden.de | o | +-o-+--------------------------------------------------------+-o-+ ------------------------------ From: stephen@clarknet.clark.net (Stephen Balbach) Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help Subject: Linux Mail-Order Services Advertisement Date: 6 Sep 1993 02:21:13 -0400 Linux SLS or Slackware Linux is a 32-bit multi-tasking UNIX OS for the PC. o 32-bit multi-user/multi-tasking true Unix OS o TCP/IP Networking o GNU C/C++/Obj-C + other languages o X Windows o Printed Documentation available o All source available Harware Compatibility Sheet * Send mail to linux-compat@clark.net for a Hardware Compatibility Sheet automated reply ---- Linux Mail-Order Software: o SLS Package (Linux version 0.99p12, SLS version 1.03 most recent update) Full Set includes disks: A1-A4,B1-B7,C1-C3,D1-D2,S1,T1-T3,X1-X10 Full set 5.25" 31 disks $45.00 Full set 3.5" 31 disks $60.00 Full set DOS QIC-40 tape $40.00 linux-sls@clark.net for more info on SLS package o Slackware Package (Linux version 0.99p12, Slackware version 1.02) Full set includes disks: A1-A13,X1-X11,E1-E5,F1 Full set 3.5" 31 disks $60.00 (3.5" boot drive) Full set DOS QIC-40 tape $40.00 linux-slack@clark.net for more info on Slackware ===== Linux Mail-Order Books: o "Linux Installation and Getting Started", Matt Welsh 150+ pg. laser printed professionally bound PostScript manual. Excellent new user guide. $15 with a set. $20 For a description of this book send mail to linux-welsh@clark.net for an automatic reply. o "Network Administrators Guide", Olaf Kirch 230+ pg. laser printed PostScript professional binding. How to setup, maintain and run NFS, Telnet, TCP/IP, FTP, news, and more. If you deal with Linux networking, you need this manual. $20 with a set. $25 For a description of this book send mail to linux-kirch@clark.net and an automatic mailer will reply. For a complete description of all packages mentioned above send mail to linux-all@clark.net and an automatic mailer will reply. ---- All releases include up to date FAQ's, META-FAQ, HOWTO's and most documentation covering Linux. All Linux material is freely available on the Internet and on many BBS's. You may FTP Linux and the books from TSX-11.MIT.EDU. WARRANTY: Files or disks damaged during shipment will be replaced. This offer does not include support from me, Slackware or SLS (although SLS will provide support for a fee). TERMS: Check (5-day hold), money-order, cashier check, bank wire. Credit Card orders via voice phone (No e-mail CC#'s please!) Made payable to Stephen Balbach or Clark Internet Services. Postage Paid 2nd-day USPS Priority Mail CONTACT: Stephen Balbach 5437 Enberend Terrace Columbia, MD 21045 (410) 740-1157 stephen@clark.net Clark Internet Services, home of ClarkNet public dial-up Internet services local to Washington D.C./Baltimore/Northen VA. Send mail to all-info@clark.net for more info about ClarkNet. Full FTP, USENET, SLIP, Clarinet and more... -- Stephen Balbach . Clark Internet Services . Washington D.C./Balt. metro area . mail info@clark.net . FAX 410-730-9765 . Corp. accounts . Linux on Disk . 31 disks $45 . stephen@clark.net . voice 410-740-1157 ------------------------------ From: bf703@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Patrick J. Volkerding) Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux Subject: [UPDATE] bootutils-1.0 added to Slackware Date: 6 Sep 1993 07:04:16 GMT Reply-To: bf703@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Patrick J. Volkerding) There have been a few more updates to the Slackware 1.0.2 Linux distribution. Hopefully, things will be stable for a while now. If you're happy with what you have, you don't need to upgrade. Here are the new features: The bootutils-1.0 package is now a standard part of the Slackware distribution. This package does automatic filesystem checking of all unchecked filesystems when you boot, greatly increasing resistance to file corruption. Additionally, gzip and tar were updated to the most current versions. These are 1.2.4 and 1.11.2, respectively. The games series has been changed from 'G' to 'Y' to avoid a conflict with an existing disk series for German users. Also, it now contains the full set of BSD games. Thanks goes to Curtis Olson and Andy Tefft, who put the collection together. These changes are documented in /pub/linux/slackware/ChangeLog on ftp.cdrom.com. -- Patrick Volkerding volkerdi@mhd1.moorhead.msus.edu bf703@cleveland.freenet.edu ------------------------------ From: ""Fritz.Ganter@fvkmads02.tu-graz.ac.at, Tu-Graz@fvkmads02.tu-graz.ac.at, Subject: unsubscribe Date: 6 Sep 1993 05:08:04 -0400 Reply-To: ""Fritz.Ganter@fvkmads02.tu-graz.ac.at, Tu-Graz@fvkmads02.tu-graz.ac.at, remove ganter@fvkmads02.tu-graz.ac.at ------------------------------ ** 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 ******************************