Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #444
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:     Fri, 17 Dec 93 13:13:16 EST

Linux-Misc Digest #444, Volume #1                Fri, 17 Dec 93 13:13:16 EST

Contents:
  Re: Windows emulation  was Re: Microsoft Invented Inferior Personal C (Perry Reed)
  Re: Windows emulation was Re: Microsoft Invented Inferior Personal C (Mike Dahmus)
  Re: Linux in a hospital? (Mark A. Davis)
  Re: Windows emulation was Re: Microsoft Invented Inferior Personal C (Mark A. Davis)
  OSF Motif wanted in Canada (Michael J. Wilson)
  Re: Microsoft Invented Inferior Personal Computing (Kevin Johnson)
  Re: Mail Order Linux Workstations (Larry Doolittle)
  AMD 486/40 - Not among supported hardware? (Dov Grobgeld)
  Slackware Seyon faults with sig 11 (Enrico Scotoni)
  Re: Windows emulation was Re: Microsoft Invented Inferior Personal C (Kjetil Torgrim Homme)
  Unitech Systems - Linux Distributors (Simon McKenna)
  [Q] Is 99p14 really ready ? (Sohail M. Parekh)

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

From: reedp@corp.hp.com (Perry Reed)
Crossposted-To: alt.folklore.computers,alt.religion.kibology,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.fan.mike-dahmus
Subject: Re: Windows emulation  was Re: Microsoft Invented Inferior Personal C
Date: 17 Dec 1993 15:55:49 GMT

In article <2eqq9j$75f@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> tso@cephalo.neusc.bcm.tmc.edu (Dan Ts'o) writes:
>In article <CI5Dwo.2u38@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> miked@vnet.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
>)Yes, but (and I can't believe I'm defending Windows :+) I *often* locked up
>)X-Windows on one system to the point where I had to telnet in from another
>)box and kill it. Windows to X-Windows is at least a more accurate (but still
>)not very accurate) comparison than Windows to UNIX.
>
>       All of X or just a particular X app ? I've never had all of X crash.
>X is just a graphics display server, and, e.g. our X terminals never crash.
>But sure certain buggy X apps have lotsa problems, depending on who wrote them.
>       In any case, the underlying OS, UNIX, never crashes.

Well, I had all of X crash the other day.  It's very rare, but it can happen...

BTW, my PC with Windows, I must reboot every night or it will crash, but my
workstation with HP-UX normally stays up for several weeks or months with no
problems...



--
-.---.          -.---.          .--------------------------------------.
 |---'           |---'        . |              Perry Reed              |
 | .=..-..-.. .  | `. .=..=..-| |      reed@hpcc226.pa.itc.hp.com      |
 ' `- '  '  `-|  '   ``- `- `-` |     "If it works, it's obsolete!"    |
             -'                 '--------------------------------------'


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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mike@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus)
Subject: Re: Windows emulation was Re: Microsoft Invented Inferior Personal C
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 15:46:26 GMT
Reply-To: miked@vnet.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus)

In <1993Dec17.135006.13793@taylor.wyvern.com>, mark@taylor.wyvern.com (Mark A. Davis) writes:
>tso@cephalo.neusc.bcm.tmc.edu (Dan Ts'o) writes:
>
>>In article <CI5Dwo.2u38@hawnews.watson.ibm.com> miked@vnet.ibm.com (Mike Dahmus) writes:
>>)Yes, but (and I can't believe I'm defending Windows :+) I *often* locked up
>>)X-Windows on one system to the point where I had to telnet in from another
>>)box and kill it. Windows to X-Windows is at least a more accurate (but still
>>)not very accurate) comparison than Windows to UNIX.
>
>>      All of X or just a particular X app ? I've never had all of X crash.
>>X is just a graphics display server, and, e.g. our X terminals never crash.
>>But sure certain buggy X apps have lotsa problems, depending on who wrote them.
>>      In any case, the underlying OS, UNIX, never crashes.
>
>I have to agree, I have never seen Xwindows crash here at work on SCO &

Blabbity blabbity blah. How the heck would I know if it was the app or not?
All I know is that it wouldn't accept input of any kind. In OS/2, I could hit
Ctrl+Esc, and would be given a chance to kill the offending app; but X-Windows
is obviously better, because I have to reboot or use another machine :+)

======
Mike Dahmus                                       Internet: miked@vnet.ibm.com
Pen for OS/2 Development, IBM PSP         IBM: mike@schleppo.bocaraton.ibm.com
Disclaimer: Not an official IBM spokesman            IBM Vnet: MDAHMUS at BOCA


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

From: mark@taylor.wyvern.com (Mark A. Davis)
Subject: Re: Linux in a hospital?
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 16:01:35 GMT

wpp@marie.physik.tu-berlin.de (Kai Petzke) writes:

>almost one year ago, I was asked by a doctor, to write a low cost
>database application for her institute.  Because the number of
>tuples will be low (approx. 10000 / year), I voted for Linux as
>operating system and Ingres as database.

>But now, the administration of that hospital brings up lots of
>points against Linux.  Its networking is unreliable, it is written
>by students, it isn't even out in 1.0, and even, if it was version
>1.0, they never would buy a version 1.0, etc., etc.

Some are valid points, such as support, liability, lack of commercial
software, etc  (the version number thing is nothing).

>They say, I should use SCO and Informix instead.

Indeed SCO is an extremely stable system, and you can get quantity discounts,
but you WILL pay for it.

>But I don't want to rewrite my X interface (which currently uses
>the Athena widget set, which some people said, is not included
>into SCO), and I do not want to rewrite my database interface
>from QUEL to SQL, too.

The Athena widget set is not included in SCO, but is easily obtainable from
sosco.sco.com in an installable package.  I just went and grabbed the
sources from the MIT tape and compiled it, personally.  Worked beautifully.

>My question goes: Do you use Linux in a hospital?

No, but I do use it at home.  And I will consider using it here (hospital)
when the documentation is better and WINE and DOSEMU are up and going well.

>If you also use SCO, how often
>does Linux crash relative to SCO?

We have run the whole hospital on a super-MPX Altos/SCO box now for
a year with no crashes, and that is with 100 users pounding on it 24 hours
a day.  I have not had as good luck with Linux, but it is definately
maturing.  It should make a good desktop OS, but still not a good choice
for commercial servers or multi-user boxes (this is just IMHO....)
-- 
  /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  | Mark A. Davis    | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 |
  | Sys.Administrator|  Computer Services   | mark@taylor.wyvern.com   .uucp |
  \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: mark@taylor.wyvern.com (Mark A. Davis)
Subject: Re: Windows emulation was Re: Microsoft Invented Inferior Personal C
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 16:09:05 GMT

sillywiz@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (SillyWiz) writes:

>>      In any case, the underlying OS, UNIX, never crashes.

>Hmm.. We've had an application for VLSI design running on an IPC which
>died and then vmunix while rebooting chucked out a couple of errors
>and died. Took three re-tries before the unix rebooted and the thing
>came back up.

>yesterday I decided to FTP some stuff over and made the mistake of
>using FTPTOOL. Clicked (DISCONNECT) and the thing replied "Broken pipe.."
>I don't think X is all that much stabler than Windoze, at least when
>it dies it dies a bit nicer than Windoze.

There are significant variances in the differing flavors of Unix, please
don't speak for all of them ONLY based on a few experiences on one or a few.
Second, X is not an OS, and Unix will not crash because of a bad X app.
My experiences with MS-"Windows" crashes takes the whole system, MS-"DOS" and
all.  Personnally, I have been using X for many years, and have never seen
it "crash", not once.  We use one Unix box running a whole Hospital, which
has never crashed....
-- 
  /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  | Mark A. Davis    | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 |
  | Sys.Administrator|  Computer Services   | mark@taylor.wyvern.com   .uucp |
  \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/

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

From: aa793@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael J. Wilson)
Subject: OSF Motif wanted in Canada
Reply-To: aa793@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael J. Wilson)
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 16:08:23 GMT



Does anyone know if I can buy or get a version of Motif in Canada instead
of having to go through Florida or Italy?

Thanks

mikejwilson
aa793@freenet.carleton.ca


-- 
   
   
                         
                                                                     

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

From: darkman@hebron.connected.com (Kevin Johnson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Invented Inferior Personal Computing
Date: 17 Dec 1993 08:23:24 -0800

mark@taylor.wyvern.com (Mark A. Davis) writes:

>>My experience isn't at all similar to yours, Craig. I'm a professional
>>Windows programmer, and I also write Windows shareware programs for fun
>>(OK, so call me a masochist :-) ). Sure, my development software
>>often crashes, but I honestly cannot remember the last time that a crash
>>brought the system down. Set up properly, Windows seems a VERY stable
>>environment indeed.

Hmmm, I'm also (unfortunately) a professional Windows programmer.  The place
I'm working has three developers, and we've had our *server* (OS/2 w/ LanMan)
crash because of impolite Windows programs.  Of course, Windows will die
(back to DOS or a complete reboot) rather easily with errant pointer usage.

I think the whole point of these posts is that X is more stable than  
MS-Windows, which should be pretty easy to understand (Unix runs processes
seperately, and keeps them that way, while MS-Windows runs everything in
one big lump).  Because of this, there is no way that 16-bit MS-Windows
will ever be as stable as X.

--Kevin
-- 
darkman@hebron.connected.com            Jafos demand loads
Mountain biking, it's more than just a ride, it's a way of life...

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

From: doolitt@cebaf4.cebaf.gov (Larry Doolittle)
Subject: Re: Mail Order Linux Workstations
Reply-To: doolitt@cebaf4.cebaf.gov (Larry Doolittle)
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 14:31:24 GMT

In article <2eqhie$l82@tivoli.tivoli.com>, steveb@newsouthwales.uucp
(Steve Benz) writes:
> In article <CI4vuD.Fy1@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
doolitt@cebaf4.cebaf.gov (Larry Doolittle) writes:
> >In article <1993Dec16.053951.10645@cs.ucla.edu>, edwin@maui.cs.ucla.edu
> >(Edwin Tisdale) writes:
> >> *  32 bit 2 MB 1280x1024 Super VGA graphics accelerator (VLB)
> >                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >This is a can of worms.  Lots of these boards don't have good support
> >under XFree86-2.0.  For useful performance *now*, you *must* specify
> >a supported chipset.  To get 1280x1024x8 with a system like this, what
> >you want is an S3-928 based board, or maybe one of the ATI cards...
> 
> Huh?  What about the Cirrus Logic 5428's?  The HOWTO says they're
> supported `Accelerated' cards...  Granted there's support and then
> there's support, but fact is, them S3-928's aren't at all cheap.
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
True enough.  The lowest price I have seen is an Actix board for US$300.

> So is there some reason to think that the Cirrus stuff wont' work?
> I'm sure the Cirrus chips aren't as good as the 928's, but hell, all
> I want out of life is for my friggin' Xterm's to scroll in real time.

XFree currently only supports 8-bit pixels (not counting the
monochrome server or the "compatiblity" VGA server which is
limited to 256K memory).  Remember that the original poster
was putting together a high end system with a 17" monitor.
Trying to refresh 1280x1024x8 out of DRAM (all Cirrus parts
use DRAM), if you can do it at all, will leave no bandwidth
for drawing operations.  So the Cirrus parts wouldn't be
suited for that person's needs.

For most people, who don't have 17" monitors, the Cirrus parts
would be fine running at 1024x768; there have been several posts
from satisfied users on the comp.windows.x.i386unix newsgroup.
I feel compelled to add that a better choice (IMHO) in that price
range is the S3-801/S3-805 based boards, currently available for
less than US$150, which xbench about twice as fast as Cirrus.
I have one (STB PowerGraph VL-24) and "my friggin' Xterm's" *do*
scroll in real time - even oversize ones.

             - Larry Doolittle   doolittle@cebaf.gov



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

Subject: AMD 486/40 - Not among supported hardware?
From: dov@menora.weizmann.ac.il (Dov Grobgeld)
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 07:39:29 GMT

I just had a look at the HOWTO-Hardware list, and was surprised not
to find the AMD 486/40 MHz chip on the list of supported CPU? Are
there any indications that this chip does *not* work with Linux?
I'd rather get this chip than the Intel 486, since it gives me
more cream for the same price.

--
                                                        ___   ___
                                                      /  o  \   o \
Dov Grobgeld                                         ( o  o  ) o   |
The Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel             \  o  /o  o /
"Where the tree of wisdom carries oranges"              | |   | |

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

Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 08:18:00 MET
From: scoti@p46.keru.chg.imp.com (Enrico Scotoni)
Subject: Slackware Seyon faults with sig 11

[ stuff deleted ]

 > : For some reason, compiling with optimization doesn't work with Seyon under
 > : libc.4.4.4. If you don't use -O or -O2, it will work.

 > : I've uploaded a fixed Seyon package to ftp.cdrom.com.

 > It has something to do with the functions that parse commented files.
 > The same thing happens when I edit the setup file.  If you remove
 > the blank lines from these commented files, Seyon does not crash (although
 > I admit that compiling without optimization is a much better fix
 > :^)

So if I look at this: There are two solutions (fighting the symptom not the
reason):

a) compile without optimization
b) remove all blank lines

As the hole problem was introduced with libc-4.4.4 this REALLY looks that
either:

1) There is something very ugly in Seyon regarding the file parser
2) There is something really wrong with libc-4.4.4
3) There is something really wrong with the optimizer

I tried to investigate on the seyon source a bit and find the problem, but I
didn't get far. I would love to know the reason for the problem especially if
it is a problem of the libc or the optimizer. If some other C-wizards would
also try to find it I would greatly appreciate. I mean: If it's just a silly
bug in seyon I wouldn't care much, but imagine it's a bug in libc or the
optimizer (don't we all compile our kernel with optimization set to on ?), it
could cause big problems.

regards

Enrico.

---

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

From: kjetilho@ifi.uio.no (Kjetil Torgrim Homme)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows emulation was Re: Microsoft Invented Inferior Personal C
Date: 17 Dec 1993 18:29:45 +0100

+--- Mike Dahmus:
| In OS/2, I could hit Ctrl+Esc, and would be given a chance to kill
| the offending app; but X-Windows is obviously better, because I have
| to reboot or use another machine :+)
+-------

In Linux, you just hit Ctrl-Alt-F1 to go to one of the text consoles.
The X Window System runs on top of an OS, and it isn't sensible for it
to provide such features itself.


Kjetil T.

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

From: sjm@fiveg.icl.co.uk (Simon McKenna)
Subject: Unitech Systems - Linux Distributors
Reply-To: sjm@fiveg.icl.co.uk
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 17:02:20 GMT

A friend of mine  with no Net access recently got hold of this advert from a 
colleauge. I havent got a scanner but I'll give you a section of this.

Unitech Systems
Forncett End
Norwich 
Norfolk
England
NR16 1HT
Tel 0953 788028

        Announcing Linux

 Linux Environment + 90 days tech Support 9-1230 - 1330-17:30 Mon-Fri
                     then #90 PA

 Linux Only Kit -17 disks Installation Instructions, MicroEmacs + Bash manual
 cost  #150 !!

 X windows Kit  13 Disks INstallation INstructions X programmers guide
 cost #85.00

 The GNU Package 9 Disks + manuals for As Gawk Bison Cpp Emacs Gcc Gdb
                                        G++ Make RCS Tar 
 cost #200 !!!

 complete package #408.00 ... seems to me a little steep!! the above prices 
 EXCLUDE VAT (@17.5%) and Carriage !!! Thats over #710 !! 

 NO MENTION OF THE GPL IS MADE  plus they say they are releasing INGRES at 
 low cost... full RDBMS using QUEL (similar to SQL) #70 + manual - sounds
 like postgres to me, I'm sure ASK Ingres Corp would be very interested 
 in this port - especially since they include the source code!

 The leaflet goes on to mention Tex Dosemu & Xv all at a cost!

 I've tried ringing them to confirm their prices but havent had an answer I'm 
 wondering if this is strictly above board as the advert makes out they are 
 selling Linux rather than the service of distributing Linux/X/Gnu stuff
 If anybody is down near Norwich (UK) and has heard of these guys I'd like
 to hear about them because this friend of mine was all ready to send off
 for the lot. I'm wondering if other people are getting caught as well.

 If it turns out that they are above board I'm sorry but I'd rather make 
 people aware of them who are in a better place to check them out than I.

  Simon.

        
  #define DISCLAIMER    My opinions are mine alone and do not represent  \
                        those of my Employer (ICL).

  + ------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
  | E-Mail:        sjm@fss.icl.co.uk    | Snail:   Simon Mckenna,          |
  |                                     |          FSS-SSPG(TB10),         |
  | Telephone      061-223-1301 x4535   |          ICL West Gorton,        |
  +-------------------------------------+          Wenlock Way,            |
  | Just imagine - If I could think of  |          Manchester              |
  | a witty comment it would go here.   |          England M12 5DR         |
  +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
            


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

From: sohail@trixie (Sohail M. Parekh)
Subject: [Q] Is 99p14 really ready ?
Reply-To: sohail@rhonda.jsc.nasa.gov
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1993 17:30:35 GMT


I am using 99p13 and very happy with it! However, to apply the latest SCSI
patches (cluster.0.5.tar.gz or something like that!) I need to upgrade to
99p14 first. I know a week ago (or so) I had seen alot of disaster notes
about 99p14 so yes I am little scared. I have the following hardware/soft
ware.

HardWare: 486DX2/66 VESA - 32Mb Ram, UltraStor-34F SCSI disk controller,
          Orchid Fahernhiet VA/VLB (S3-805 Based).

Software: 99p13, libc 4.4.4, GCC 2.4.5

a) Do I need to upgrade my libc 4.4.4. ???
b) Do I need to upgrade my GCC ???
c) Do I need to upgrade anything else ?


Sincerely,

Sohail





--
     Sohail M. Parekh                Grumman  Data Systems
     sohail@rhonda.jsc.nasa.gov      12000 Aerospace Ave. 
     (713) 483-5912                  Houston, TX 77034

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


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