Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #411
From: Digestifier <Linux-Misc-Request@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU
Date:     Sat, 11 Dec 93 12:13:10 EST

Linux-Misc Digest #411, Volume #1                Sat, 11 Dec 93 12:13:10 EST

Contents:
  Re: Where can I get vt100/vt220/vt320/ANSI specs? (Faried Nawaz)
  Re: Who is the typical Linux user? (Shun-Chang Tsai)
  *** PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING *** (misc-2.07) (Ian Jackson)
  Re: Xfree386 2.0: why is my Trident card so fast? (Michael Will)
  Re: _Real_ hackers ... (Harald Milz)
  Re: Motif for Linux (Steven Buytaert)
  Where to find CxPatch 0.2 ? (Bjvrn Smith)
  using Trakker tape backup system under linux (Henry M.K. Yeung)
  Re: Why is comp.os.linux still around? (andrewh@earlham.edu)
  Re: Linux Consortium (andrewh@earlham.edu)
  Re: SCO market share (Brandon S. Allbery)
  Re: Who is the typical Linux user? (David Sibley)
  Linux Foundation (was Re: Linux Consortium) (Matt Welsh)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: nawaz921@uidaho.edu (Faried Nawaz)
Crossposted-To: comp.protocols.misc,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Where can I get vt100/vt220/vt320/ANSI specs?
Date: 11 Dec 93 08:47:12 GMT
Reply-To: nawaz921@uidaho.edu

In article <1993Dec8.011429.6423@unlv.edu> ftlofaro@unlv.edu (Frank Lofaro) writes:
   Does anyone know where (preferably via ftp) I can get specs for vt100/vt220/
   vt320/ANSI terminal emulations? I want to improve the vt100 emulation for linux, 
   and am in need of specs which tell what the various escape sequences are 
   supposed to do.

   Any help is greatly appreciated.

ftp to 
cs.utk.edu, and check the /pub/shuford/terminal directory
--
Faried Nawaz                     nawaz921@uidaho.edu fried@idui1.BITNET
Box 3582, Moscow, ID 83843-1914         ["Looking for an apartment..."]
+1-208-883-8642                   [Grab my pgp .sig off any key server]
                                           [traders/musafir everywhere]

------------------------------

Subject: Re: Who is the typical Linux user?
From: stsai@scws3.harvard.edu (Shun-Chang Tsai)
Date: 11 Dec 93 08:21:25 GMT

doolitt@cebaf4.cebaf.gov (Larry Doolittle) writes:

>In article <CFLATTER.93Dec9162110@laphroaig.aoc.nrao.edu>,
>cflatter@nrao.edu (Chris Flatters) writes:

>There is a glitch in what you are saying.  You assume that non-technical
>people can run DOS/Windows without help from the technical people.  My
>experience is that such people *always* need help, no matter how simple
>the computer (same folks whose VCR is flashing 12:00 all the time).
>This is in
>the sense that some guy down the hall can stop by for a minute to tell
>you why your spreadsheet won't print.  Maybe the paper jammed, or maybe
>the permissions on /etc/printcap got messed up.  How is a MicroShaft
>support engineer on the other end of a 900 number going to figure *that*
>one out?

Do you mean that if a DOS app goes wrong and the person doesn't know
what to do? Ask the same guy down the hall. ;)

>I predict that the long term future for Linux derived and influenced
>software is rosy.  Heck, we might even *call* it Linux, just like the
>name Fortran stuck around for many generations and rebirths of of the 
>language.

Yeah, into Ada 2.... Well, maybe Linus will start his own software
firm or something; maybe he'll go for a Ph.D ;).

>> There will be a few commercial users (I have heard of an outfit
>> using Linux boxes to offer a commercial Internet service) but
>> probably not that many.

>This number will take off as soon as Linux deserves and gets the
>repuation for having rock-solid networking and DOS emulation.
>I hope that is only another month or two.

Also, won't you need commericial apps developer's support as well?
The biz people can be fairly skeptical when it comes to getting this
new cool operating system called Linux for free: "Why are they giving
it away when it's so good? Windows is good and they're not giving it
away!" They'll want shrink-wrapped packages that are easy to use and
do not require training.  (Need to convince them that their
secretaries won't have a hard doing TeX to write a simple memo.)
They'll want tech support (provided by some people, to a certain
degree, I heard.)  All these are best provided by commericial
developers: I don't think that the people writing, say, dosemu will be
too thrilled about writing a quicken clone (but then again I might be
wrong about this).



------------------------------

From: ijackson@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ian Jackson)
Subject: *** PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE POSTING *** (misc-2.07)
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 11:03:01 GMT

Please do not post questions to comp.os.linux.misc - read on for details of
which groups you should read and post to.

Please do not crosspost anything between different groups of the comp.os.linux
hierarchy.  See Matt Welsh's introduction to the hierarchy, posted weekly.

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.  It is also posted periodically to c.o.l.announce.

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, and
that non-Linux-specific Unix questions should go to comp.unix.questions.
Please read the FAQs for these groups before posting - look on rtfm.mit.edu in
/pub/usenet/news.answers/Intel-Unix-X-faq and .../unix-faq.

Only if you have a posting that is not more appropriate for one of the other
Linux groups - ie it is not a question, not about the future development of
Linux, not an announcement or bug report and not about system administration -
should you post to comp.os.linux.misc.


Comments on this posting are welcomed - please email me !
--
Ian Jackson  <ijackson@nyx.cs.du.edu>  (urgent email: iwj10@phx.cam.ac.uk)
2 Lexington Close, Cambridge, CB4 3LS, England;  phone: +44 223 64238

------------------------------

From: zxmgv07@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Will)
Subject: Re: Xfree386 2.0: why is my Trident card so fast?
Date: 8 Dec 93 23:27:14 GMT

>: Hello, I have an ET4000 card running with Xfree 1.3 do you think I should
>: expect some performance improvement if I upgrade to Xfree 2.0 ?

>Don't expect any speedup for dump SVGA cards. There is no new speedup code
>for Trident/ET4000 and others.

Instead buy your system some RAM :-) this will improve performance a lot!

Cheers, Michael Will


------------------------------

From: hm@seneca.ix.de (Harald Milz)
Subject: Re: _Real_ hackers ...
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 00:27:48 GMT
Reply-To: hm@seneca.ix.de

Brett L. Huber (blhuber@mtu.edu) wrote:
: > Brandon S. Allbery (bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org) wrote:
: > > If you're really, *really* good, you use cat.  Both to read *and* to write.
: > Look, as was said a long time ago, in a newsgroup far, far away,
: > Real hackers spin the disk with their feet and touch bare wires to it to 
: > flip the bits.  

*Real* hackers don't even use disks, they use flintstones.


-- 
Harald Milz (hm@seneca.ix.de)

------------------------------

From: buytaert@imec.be (Steven Buytaert)
Subject: Re: Motif for Linux
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 12:40:03 GMT

M.Arifi Koseoglu (arifi@dmi.stevens-tech.edu) wrote:
: Could someone please send me the place from where I
: can get Motif for Linux from ?

 Hi,

 Motif costs bucks. I recently bought Motif 1.2 from
 Metrolink and I like it.

 Get info from sales@metrolink.com

--
Steven Buytaert 
Interuniversity Micro Electronics Centre - Invomec Division
Kapeldreef 75, 3001 Heverlee, BELGIUM

phone   : +32 16 281 271
fax     : +32 16 281 584
e-mail  : buytaert@imec.be
                In case of danger, BREAK glass

------------------------------

From: smith@compound.se (Bjvrn Smith)
Subject: Where to find CxPatch 0.2 ?
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 13:21:31 GMT

Could someone please point out where one could find the CxPatch ?

Many thanks in advance !
-- 
Bj|rn Smith     Compound Systems, phone +46 8 7923689
UUCP:           {uunet,mcsun}!seunet!comsys!smith
Domain Address: smith@compound.se

------------------------------

From: hyeung@barracuda.micro.umn.edu (Henry M.K. Yeung)
Subject: using Trakker tape backup system under linux
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 13:46:57 GMT


Is there anyone using trakker in a Linux box? I've the
drive but I have no idea on how to use it to backup
a linux partition...

--
--Henry Yeung (KB0HWV)                  Address: 1725 Elm St. S.E. #106
<hyeung@mermaid.micro.umn.edu>                   Minneapolis, MN55414
                                        Phone  : (612)-623-7675

------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Why is comp.os.linux still around?
From: andrewh@earlham.edu
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 93 21:36:55 -500

From hwrvo@usho42.hou281.chevron.com (W.R.Volz)
>It won't go away. If you don't want to read it, don't subscribe this
>this group.

You know how that one guy was going to start e-mailing people
who posted in the wrong comp.os.linux.* group? How about if
some nice person volunteers to send _every_ comp.os.linux
poster mail that explains they've posted to a "wrong" group?

__
Andrew W. Hagen            andrewh@earlham.edu

   To Stand within The Pleasure Dome / Decreed by Kubla Khan      --rush

------------------------------

Subject: Re: Linux Consortium
From: andrewh@earlham.edu
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 93 23:11:18 -500

wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) writes:
>There's no problem in having a group of people do reviews together.  In
>fact, it's a good idea --- you get much more experience into the review.
>The latest name suggestion I've seen, "Linux Review Group", still sounds
>too official to me; I'd prefer if the word Linux didn't apprear in the name
>at all.  In fact, I don't think a name is needed in the first place,
>because the group would probably work better as just a group and not an
>organization.

I think Linux needs a marketing strategy if it's going to survive and
continue to prosper.

A good way to help commercial distributors sell Linux distributions
would be to absolve the necessity of saying what it is that they're
selling.

With a organization called the "Linux Consortium" a logo could be put
together by some kind artist. It would say LINUX in large, bold
letters. Then in a much smaller pitch directly beneath it would say
"Consortium." It might be encased in a box. It should have a modern
look. It should be recognizable both with and without color. And it
should be legible even if made small enough for the small ads
appearing in the back of computer magazines by Yggdrasil and others.

The purpose of this organization would be soley to market Linux. It
would do the following:

1) test the binaries provided by any distributor desiring to use the
Linux Consortium logo and make a decision as to whether an easily met
standard has been met. This standard should consist of: good, solid
installation and de-installation procedures and instructions provided;
binaries that all work reasonably well together; and a kernel actually
from one of the patch levels that Linus Torvalds has copylefted. If
it's not from  Linus, it's not Linux. If the distribution meets the
standards, they may use the logo. Kind of like "Yes, it works with
NetWare," or "Intel Inside."

2) provide a group of people to whom magazines, organizations,
businesses, and individuals can address various Linux questions.

3) actively advocate the benefits and virtues of the the Linux
operating system, and simultaneously advocate the GNU Way.

The organization should not consist of Linus or anyone else heavily
involved with actually putting out kernel code. It should be a legal
incorporated non-profit international Non-Governmental Organzation
that will copyright the Linux Consortium logo and actively protect
that copyright. Copyrighting the logo is necessary so that some
low-ball outfit doesn't come along, sell broken binaries and kernels
not even originating from Linus Torvalds, call what it is selling
"Linux," rip people off, and use the Linux Consortium logo to
capitalize on all the P.R. done by the LC.

What this entails is that not just anyone can "join" the Linux
Consortium. If someone wants to be one of the testers and decide
whether a particular distribution meets the watermark then he or she
must apply. But to get started, the LC needs someone to start it.

As to the internals of the LC, such as how they would go about testing
each distribution (just one tester per distribution, or more than one)
I have no opinion.

I think the many fears and objections that have been raised over the
LC are pretty fair. But let's remember, no one involved with the LC
would have any official say on what Linux actually is. That's still
up to Linus Torvalds and company.

And if the LC turns out to be a bunch of numbskulls or incompetents,
then we'll just quit listenting to them. And if necessary, a group of
more competent types could form a new organization ("The Linux
Group"), with a new logo. When Good, Strong, Pure Linux from Wonderful
Systems receives the mark of distinction from both the new
organization and the old one, but GSPL from WS *and* Buggy, Ugly,
False Linux from Smelly Systems gets the mark of distinction from
just the LC, then people will start to wonder just what the LC stands
for. And they can compare the LC to the LG.

If all this were set up, J. Random User (a man) who's been clued out
and is unaware of Linux could be informed in the following way. He
could read up about Linux in a computer magazine and say "Hey, this
sounds pretty useful." Wondering where he can buy it, he calls
Egghead. No, they don't have it. Then he sees Yggdrasil's ad.
Initially not knowing what Yggdrasil is, he sees the Linux Consortium
logo. Immediately he knows just what it is that Yggdrasil is selling.
If he is wondering if they include X and full sources, or whatever
he can read the ad more closely.

Well, I hope I've been convincing. As a final note, let me state quite
strongly that I have absolutely no intention of starting or
participating in such a Linux Consortium right now or in the near
future.

__
Andrew W. Hagen           andrewh@earlham.edu

   To Stand within The Pleasure Dome / Decreed by Kubla Khan      --rush

------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.bsd,biz.sco.general
From: bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery)
Subject: Re: SCO market share
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 14:56:10 GMT

[I replaced comp.windows.x.i386unix with comp.os.linux.misc.  I'm sure the X
folks are rather tired of this non-X topic...  ++bsa]

In article <2ec989$knu@vanbc.wimsey.com>, sl@vanbc.wimsey.com (Stuart Lynne) says:
+---------------
| In article <1993Dec11.012449.99@kf8nh.wariat.org>,
| Brandon S. Allbery <bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org> wrote:
| }In article <hastyCHsyEG.Mun@netcom.com>, hasty@netcom.com (Amancio Hasty Jr) says:
| }+---------------
| }| In article <CHs6H8.39C@Celestial.COM> ray@Celestial.COM (Ray Jones) writes:
| }| Well, I work in Silicon Valley, and most invididuals that I have spoken to
| }| which want Unix at home are either running *bsd or Linux. Granted is not
| }| an official survey by any means of the imagination.
| }+---------------
| }
| }Most home users have better uses for the money it would take to buy SCO,
| }Interactive/SunSoft, Esix, etc.  Like paying bills....
| 
| This is a fact that is *not* lost on application software vendors. People
| who don't like to pay money for the OS also don't usually like to spend
+---------------

I'm not complaining about it.  I'm sure if SCO, SunSoft, Esix, etc. thought
there was a market for home commercial *ix there would be affordable versions.

And I'm not necessarily talking about the hacker-types.  There are valid
reasons to want to run *ix in a home environment even if you're not a hacker;
just not enough people to whom those reasons apply, at present.  Many home
users don't even use the cooperative multitasking of MS-Windows (except to the
extent that MS-Windows itself uses it "behind the user's back" to get things
done); they just treat it as a fancier version of DOS Shell.

+---------------
| *bsd and Linux make a great hobby. If that's what you want to do at night
| it's probably just as interesting as ham radio or model trains :-) 
+---------------

Well, two out of three ain't bad :-) (I left the model trains for my father to
play with...)

+---------------
| But I think that it has about the same effect on the rest of the industry as
| ham radio or model train enthusiats. Well maybe a little more. 
+---------------

I should mention here that cellular phone technology has origins in ham radio,
and we've been doing radio networking for several years at least.

As for Linux commercial applications (and, no doubt, *BSD as well, although I
don't hang out in those newsgroups:  the Linux hierarchy strains the available
bandwidth quite enough, thank you!):  there are a bunch of people who would
KILL for WordPerfect for Linux as a commercial product.  And many others who
want to see other packages (Lotus 1-2-3, Island Write/Draw/Graph, etc.).  I'm
not talking about free clones or pirated copies here, I'm talking about the
real thing.  ---But the volume almost certainly doesn't justify it as yet.
Which is why iBSC2 compatibility is one of the major development areas in
Linux at the moment (want WordPerfect?  Buy the SCO version and run it) and
why we're planning to switch the standard executable format to ELF when GNU
support for it settles down.

++Brandon
-- 
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
Do not taunt Happy Fun Coder.   (seen on the Net...)

------------------------------

From: sibley@math.psu.edu (David Sibley)
Subject: Re: Who is the typical Linux user?
Date: 11 Dec 93 16:09:23 GMT

I don't know who the Linux users are, but I know who they aren't.  Me.
I'm one of those technical people who use a UNIX box at work and would
like to have the same environment available on my PC at home.  (Right
now I make do with the MKS Toolkit.)  I want to have a DOS partition,
too, though.  And I want to be able to back up my entire DOS setup on
tape before I install Linux.  Right now I don't even have a tape drive,
so it would seem to make sense to buy one that will work reliably under
both DOS and Linux.  Yet there doesn't seem to be such a thing, as far
as I can tell from recent threads here.

I can't even make any sense of most of the questions in the Linux
newsgroups, nevermind the answers, so I'm very reluctant to install
Linux without being able to back out easily.


David Sibley        | "Accurate reckoning.  The entrance into knowledge
Amateur radio NT3O  |  of all existing things and all obscure secrets."
sibley@math.psu.edu |      -- The Rhind Papyrus

------------------------------

From: mdw@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Linux Foundation (was Re: Linux Consortium)
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 16:45:19 GMT

In article <1993Dec10.231123.230@earlham.edu> andrewh@earlham.edu writes:
>wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) writes:
>With a organization called the "Linux Consortium" a logo could be put
>together by some kind artist. It would say LINUX in large, bold
>letters. Then in a much smaller pitch directly beneath it would say
>"Consortium." It might be encased in a box. It should have a modern
>look. It should be recognizable both with and without color. And it
>should be legible even if made small enough for the small ads
>appearing in the back of computer magazines by Yggdrasil and others.
>
>The purpose of this organization would be soley to market Linux. 

Very, very bad idea. Instead of attempting to create some falsely
official organization with a slick look and no content, why don't you
concentrate on an organization that will actually DO something useful
for Linux, slick look or not? The existence of such an "official" LC
is misleading in that it attempts to represent some kind of central
organization which is "responsible" for Linux. No such organization
exists, and you can't create an artificial one to serve the purpose.
Either the Linux developers themselves create such an organization, or
nobody does.

Your in-depth description of the LC's logo suggest that you're
primarily concerned with the appearance of this organization. 

The best solution would be to move Linux towards a stronger, more
centralized development process. (I'm not suggesting that we should do
this, but it would be able to implement your stated goals for the
so-called LC.) Something along the lines of the "Linux Foundation"
should be formed, spearheaded by the Linux developers themselves. LF
would be a very close analogue to the Free Software Foundation. It
would provide Linux with a centralized legal entity to promote and
take responsibility for the software. All Linux software could be
copyrighted by the Linux Foundation instead of just by individual
authors. (However, it should still be possible for individuals to
copyright software; the FSF permits this.) Low-cost memberships could
be sold, which would help to support Linux and the LF. Major Linux
developers would draw from the LF funds... e.g., giving money to the
LF would be equivalent to donating money to the developers, although
it would be clearly defined who would get what money and how much
(instead of in the form of monthly "awards" as previously proposed).
The LF would be nothing more than the "official" LInux development and
support organization. Developers, documentors, and distributors would
work with the LF to produce Linux. 

With all of this organization, still, the actual development and
distribution process for Linux would not need to change. It would
still be an open-development over the Net, as it is now. In fact,
technically, not much would change. All LF would provide is an
official entity to take responsibility for Linux. It would also
provide a channel for people to donate funds to support the Linux
development effort. 

It differs in the proposed "LC" in a number of major ways. First of
all, the LF *would* be an "official" organization, composed of the
Linux developers themselves, not some arbitrary third party trying to
claim responsibility for Linux. All of the "duties" of the proposed LC
would be handled by people "within" the LF. The LF would provide a
certain degree of logistics to legal and monetary matters. As far as
actual development of Linux goes, however, things would remain the
same. The FSF/GNU people still essentially use an open development
cycle (for most projects). The primary function of the FSF (as an
organization alone) is to promote free software, financially, and to 
provide a legal entity for dealing with such matters. Of course, the
FSF does much, much, more than this, but you don't need an
organization to do those other things (namely, develop and distribute
free software), as we have proved with Linux.

I'm not saying that we should do this. However, if people want there
to be some kind of "official" Linux organization, this would be the
most general and open-ended solution. It would provide a great deal of
structure to all of these metaissues such as where donations go, who
has the right to "speak" for the Linux development community, and so
on. The LF would be modeled on the FSF, in certain ways, and would
hopefully bring together all of these loose ends under one roof.

What do people think?

mdw
-- 
"Do you want to be Finnish? Sure, we all do!"

------------------------------


** 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
******************************
