Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #802
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, 12 Mar 94 17:13:12 EST

Linux-Misc Digest #802, Volume #1                Sat, 12 Mar 94 17:13:12 EST

Contents:
  Re: File System for Both (H.J. Lu)
  Re: BSD vs. Linux (Sakari Jalovaara)
  *** DON'T READ THIS BEFORE POSTING *** (Bill Hogan)
  Re: compiler quality (was "Reverse-engineering") (Elan Feingold)
  Re: MINICOM will not work with my modem 7N1 (Kyle Dawkins)
  Re: "Reverse-engineering" (John F. Haugh II)
  Re: "Reverse-engineering" (John F. Haugh II)
  Re: "Reverse-engineering" (John F. Haugh II)
  Re: xlock source patches for shadow password (John F. Haugh II)
  Re: RFD: comp.os.linux.* moderation by program (Stuart 'TheCube' Herbert)
  linux on cdrom (Phantom)
  Re: soup-reader for linux. (Steve O'Hara-Smith)
  Re: Installing Linux (Matt Welsh)
  Re: Sparc vs. 486/Pentium [WAS:Re: Mail Order Linux Workstation Vendors] (Lee Heins)
  Re: 486SX vs 486DX - difference in performance using Linux (Lee Heins)
  Re: "Reverse-engineering" (Jorge Nunes)
  Re: SoftPC/Linux? (Mark A. Davis)
  Re: DOOM for X (Orest Zborowski)

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

From: hjl@nynexst.com (H.J. Lu)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: File System for Both
Date: 11 Mar 1994 02:50:12 GMT

David J Camp (david@wubios.wustl.edu) wrote:
: Is there a filesystem that works under both Linux and BSD?  I would
: like to develop both on the same system without deleting my code each
: time.  -David-

I think both Linux and xxxxBSD can mount the floppy DOS filesystem. But
I am not sure if the xxxxBSD can mount a DOS partition on a hard drive.
Linux is fine.


H.J.

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

From: sja@snakemail.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: 12 Mar 94 16:24:05 GMT

> Don't forget that a 15 year advantage also means 15 years of
> accumulated cruft.

The very first command ever I tried on Linux looked something like this:

        $ ed .rhosts
        ed: command not found

One man's accumulated cruft is another's set of familiar utilities.

For a non-networked person, "telnet" is cruft.  For another, "sendmail"
and "rn" are useless disk fillers.  Someone might frown at on-line manual
pages.

Judicious use of "rm" can make just about any system less crufty.

With *BSD, getting a small system takes some expertise.  You can remove
useless network daemons but you also need to know how to make the
system not try to start them.  With a small OS you get a small lean
system by default.  With *BSD you get UNIX by default.  With Windows
you get a headache by default.

Configure unnecessary devices out of the kernel.  If the kernel has
system calls you don't think you'll need - well, you'll just have to
tough it out.  It is unlikely that even a couple of hundred kB's
kernel size difference is going to radically change your life.

> NetBSD (and the other 386 BSDs) require more system than Linux does.

Depends on what you mean.  The minimal NetBSD requires two floppy disks
- one for the kernel, the other for "sh", "ls", etc.  That's how it
is installed: you boot one floppy, then mount the other.  After that,
everything that comes is value-added extras.  Or cruft.
                                                                        ++sja

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

From: bhogan@crl.com (Bill Hogan)
Subject: *** DON'T READ THIS BEFORE POSTING ***
Date: 10 Mar 1994 23:32:45 -0800

  If you have a question, just ask it!

  (A great scientist was once asked if he had found the answer. "Answers
are relatively easy", said the Professor, "finding the right question,
that's the hard part.")

 <B



 
-- 
  Bill Hogan
{bhogan@crl.com}

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

From: elan@tasha.cheme.cornell.edu (Elan Feingold)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: compiler quality (was "Reverse-engineering")
Date: 12 Mar 1994 19:39:37 GMT
Reply-To: elan@tasha.cheme.cornell.edu (Elan Feingold)


>I've done better than that.  One of the big financial companies in NYC
>had a problem with a C library module.  ^^^

Exactly.  The single user or small site doesn't get/can't afford that sort
of support.

e

--
===========================================================================
|  Elan Feingold       |                                       |
|  CS/EE Depts.        |                          |
|  Cornell University  |     ( .sig currently under construction )     |
|  Ithaca NY 14850     |                        |
===========================================================================

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

From: dawkins@ems.rz-berlin.mpg.de (Kyle Dawkins)
Subject: Re: MINICOM will not work with my modem 7N1
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 08:01:03 GMT

In article <1994Mar10.133918.7322@manitou.com> free@manitou.com (John Free) writes:
>dawkins@sound.rz-berlin.mpg.de (Kyle Dawkins) writes:
>
>>Hi there. I just got hold of MINICOM 1.6 and I like it.
>>The only problem I have is that I cannot get it to work with my
>>2400 baud GVC (hayes compatible) modem in 7N1 mode: I need to use
>>7N1 to log into school but it won't work because all of the AT commands
>>get send to the modem as 7 bits commands and the modem doesn't recognise
>>them. It works fine in 8 bit mode though.
>>Is there something I have not set properly? Why does Kermit work
>>perfectly in 2400,7N1 mode and not MINICOM?
>
>Minicom 1.6 works fine for me on a ZyXel 1496-e with a dialing
>directory containing both 7N1 and 8N1 setups. You'd best look elsewhere
>for your problem -- if you use the dialing directory, you don't need
>to type AT commands.

        Sorry, I should have been clearer; I *am* using the dialing directory,
        but I assume that *it* sends the AT commands to the modem; these are
        not getting read by the modem if I set MINICOM to 7 bit... nothing
        works because the modem does not understand... incidentally, the same
        thing works with Telix under DOS... but kermit under Linux is fine.

>-- 
>free@Manitou.com (John Free) 40 Manor Rd E., Toronto M4S1P8 tel:416-488-8681
>uunet!uunet.ca!opeongo!free

        Cheers
        Kyle.
        dawkins@music.mcgill.ca

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

From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: "Reverse-engineering"
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 03:08:11 GMT

In article <1994Mar8.170350.1@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu> p1nadeau@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu writes:
>       Nobody is going to be researching advances into IBM compilers in their
>free time. "Lots 'n' lots" of people will be researching Gnuware in their free
>time. The idea is that the free time of us commie programmers far exceeds the
>paid time of those IBM deckslaves.

Which explains precisely why XLC produces better code than GCC.  Really, 
if you want to make assertions about how wonderful life would be with
everyone subscribing to the GNU Manifesto, stop and look at the real-world
outcomes.

>       In "The Mythical Man-Month", Fred P. Brooks puts forth some axioms of
>software engineering he learned after managing the OS/360 project at IBM. As
>you may or may not know, OS/360 was the kind of big-time commercial bone-headed
>blunders that IBM is so famous for and that would NEVER happen with a labor of
>love like Linux.

OS/360 had numerous concepts decades before they were present in Linux.
Many of the lessons which were learned in MVS and VM days STILL haven't
been learned by UNIX developers.

>       The biggest argument in favor of the argument that Free Software is
>Better Software comes from the software life cycle. Boehm's Spiral Model for
>Software Development (loosely) shows that software is made in a series of
>Spec/Design/Code/Test cycles that get smaller and more atomic as the product
>approaches the "Ideal". Statistically, once the initial work on a project
>is done, the fastest progress is made by flying through the spiral as fast as
>manpower allows. The inference is obvious.

No, the inference is completely non-obvious.  Software in the real world
is not "flying" through some spiral because it stimulates the brain.  What
you describe is precious more than mental masturbation.

Go back and read that book again.  The part about heaping more features
onto a pile of growing shit clearly didn't make an impression on you.
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
 There are three documents that run my life: The King James Bible, the United
 States Constitution, and the UNIX System V Release 4 Programmer's Reference.

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

From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: "Reverse-engineering"
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 03:10:31 GMT

In article <1994Mar8.234757.27354@Mr-Hyde.aoc.nrao.edu> cflatter@nrao.edu writes:
>In article 94Mar4102640@lomvi.ii.uib.no, magnus@ii.uib.no () writes:
>>>>>>> "John" == John F Haugh <jfh@rpp386> writes:
>>John> The simple fact that the FSF has to rely so heavily on charity
>>John> proves the point -- there is no profit to be made in "hand
>>
>>Proves what point? It proves that people are willing to pay for
>>software without getting the exclusive rights to it.
>
>If the point was to prove that GPLed software is unprofitable then
>it falls by the example of Cygnus, who make a profit by offering
>support for GNU software.

You again prove the point.  With the "free" software to support, the
company would have no business.  Without the charity of programmers,
Cygnus employees would be out on the street.

Cygnus will find itself in the near future competing to see how little
it can charge when it finds its work being absconded with by others.
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
 There are three documents that run my life: The King James Bible, the United
 States Constitution, and the UNIX System V Release 4 Programmer's Reference.

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

From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: "Reverse-engineering"
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 03:22:32 GMT

In article <2ldskc$2qr@crl.crl.com> bhogan@crl.com (Bill Hogan) writes:
> Excuse me, JH-II, but my initials are "BH".

That's OK.  I wasn't refering to you.

> I do not equate "information" with *knowledge* (see above).
>
> And what I have in mind is no more (and no less) radical than your
>nearest Public Library. 
>
> Which might have you saying something like this:
>
>   The problem with BH's vision of a Global Public Library is...

... that the authors have no way of making a living since everything
they write is taken from them without renumeration.

> I would be interested in seeing how you completed that sentence.
>
> Watch out, though; when you start out with an open mind, you can never be
>sure where you are going to come down. 

The problem with this notion is that you honestly believe software (and
library books) are produced without cost.  Here's a real-world example.

There is an unabridged dictionary which is produced every couple of
years which comprises a dozen or so volumes.  The market for such a
tome is limited to libraries and others with a need for a complete
accounting of the English language.  As such, very few copies are sold
and the price is well over $1,000.  The price must be high because the
publisher and all others involved have pretty substantial costs to
recoup.  By comparision, my last pocket Websters set me back about $6.

Now, imagine the programmers have a very small market.  Imagine they
have a wife, a mortgage, and a college education for the kids to plan
for.  Are they going to have to charge more or less to earn a living?

If you force the programmers to provide support and distribution
services in exchange for money (since they can't restriction "free"
copying of their software), this will diminish the time they have for
things like the wife, kids, and house.

> That can get real scary.

What is it you do for a living?

GNUware survives for exactly one reason -- people with precious little
to do with their time churn out version after version of software.  And
while many of those versions have neato keen features, in many cases
those versions build on the incompatibilities of the versions before
them.  Without market forces to keep the development cycle from
careening wildly out of control, GNUware continues to pump out crud
like EMACS -- the only editor likely to show up in /usr/include/errno.h
as a return code from the OS for "Editor Too Big".
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
 There are three documents that run my life: The King James Bible, the United
 States Constitution, and the UNIX System V Release 4 Programmer's Reference.

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

From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: xlock source patches for shadow password
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 03:41:28 GMT

In article <1994Mar9.153505.21053@oxvax> m91dps@ecs.ox.ac.uk (Disaster prone simpleton) writes:
>P.P.P.P.S. Shadow-3.3.3 source needs fixes
>#include "linux/types.h" to get pwd.h to agree with the GPL version of shadow.h
>gre<something>.c needs changing so all the function are void return and basicly
>follow the SRV4 version.

There is no Shadow 3.3.3 yet, and if I find out that someone I sent an
early version of 3.3.2 to has leaked it, I'm going to be very pissed
off and that person can forget ever getting an early version ...

As regards ``#include "linux/types.h"'', where exactly is this needed
and what is broken with the supposed Shadow 3.3.3 that you've got?
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
 There are three documents that run my life: The King James Bible, the United
 States Constitution, and the UNIX System V Release 4 Programmer's Reference.

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

From: ac3slh@sunc.sheffield.ac.uk (Stuart 'TheCube' Herbert)
Crossposted-To: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.os.linux.* moderation by program
Date: 10 Mar 1994 08:11:56 GMT

Hrm ... I thought that if people wanted private conversations, they could use
email, and public ones went on usenet.  If you just start placing restrictions
on newsgroups (and what gives *you* the right to do that!?!) then some bright
spark will simply knockup alt.linux.* and then you've achieved fragmentation.

This really is a stupid idea.

Stuart

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

From: cmckay@sbu.edu (Phantom)
Subject: linux on cdrom
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 00:20:50 GMT

I would like to know what is a good company that has
the latest version of linux and a reasonable price on
cdrom.
        Thanks,
                Chris
                cmckay@sbu.edu



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

From: steveo@beyond.demon.co.uk (Steve O'Hara-Smith)
Subject: Re: soup-reader for linux.
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 09:56:45 +0000

Everyone seems confused soup is Simple Offline Usenet Protocol - a pakaging
for News and Mail not terribly dissimilar to the sort of thing CNEWS throws
around, but with support for mail and control thrown in.

Now to dissapoint you - I hav only seen it for DOS but the sources can be found
on any simtel-20 mirror - or I can mail them.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith                           When you tell a toy to WIN
(steveo@beyond.demon.co.uk)                  ......... You lose! ......

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

From: mdw@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: Installing Linux
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 17:24:36 GMT

Steve Havelka,,, (shavelk@agora.rain.com) wrote:
> Is it possible to install Linux on a machine with only 2 meg of memory?

Yes and no. You see, most distributions (such as Slackware) load the 
root filesystem into a RAMdisk when you first install the software. 
The problem with this is that it requires about an extra meg of memory
(so you need 4 megs total in order to get anything done). Even if you
have 4 megabytes in this case you need to create a swap partition and
enable it before you can install the software. 

In any case, I don't think that you'd be very happy running Linux on 
only 2 megs, unless you aren't planning to do any compiling or anything
interesting at all. Almost a meg is used for the kernel in some cases, 
which doesn't leave you much to play with.

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

From: leeh@i-link.com (Lee Heins)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit
Subject: Re: Sparc vs. 486/Pentium [WAS:Re: Mail Order Linux Workstation Vendors]
Date: 12 Mar 1994 12:19:19 -0600

In article <JROZES.94Mar11105226@allegro.cs.tufts.edu>,
J Rozes <jrozes@allegro.cs.tufts.edu> wrote:
>
>One thing you should know: Sun is not exactly know for it's I/O performance.
>I use a SparcClassic with 16megs RAM and it feels much slower than a 486/66
>with the same amount of memory in terms of system load. Despite the 16megs,
>the Sparc swaps like mad, even when not running OpenWindows. For the price,
>a 486/66 PCI machine will be your best bet, IMO. Don't forget that Solaris
>exacts a much heavier price on the hardware than Linux. Maybe somebody
>should get some numbers comparing Linux with Solaris x86? I'd be interested
>to see how they compare in practice.

Most of the performance sluggishness you are experiencing is Slowlaris.  We
now routinely recommend to everyone to "downgrade" to SunOS 4.1.3 if they
buy a non-multiprocessor Sparc.  Performance, especially the perceived "feel"
is nothing less than dramatically faster.  From what I've seen, Solarix x86
seems similar in perceived "feel" on a 486/66 VL-bus machine to a Sparc 1
running SunOS 4.1.2.  I didn't do any scientific testing (it was the dept
head's computer, not mine -- I'd have had Linux on the sucker if it was
mine!) or anything...  Just what it appeared to me from farting around with
deskset stuff (mail tool, file manager, etc.).  It would be really interesting
if Sun ported SunOS 4.1.x to x86 instead of just Solaris 2.x...


-- 

                                        Lee Heins, leeh@i-link.com


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

From: leeh@i-link.com (Lee Heins)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: 486SX vs 486DX - difference in performance using Linux
Date: 12 Mar 1994 12:28:08 -0600

In article <2lhv3o$ps@hercules.neu.sgi.com>,
Ove Hansen <ove@groovy.neu.sgi.com> wrote:
>I'm aware of the difference between the various CPUs but what I would 
>like to know is how important the FPU in the DX processor is for the
>performance of a system running Linux (or Unix in general). What will 
>the performance hit be if I choose an SX over a DX processor (assuming 
>both have the same processor speed)? Of course this would depend upon 
>what I do (I assume posting this would take the same amount of time 
>on both :-) but let's assume the system has oodles of memory and would 
>be used for:
>
>- X-windows (using the usual desktop tools, and Tseng ET4000 or Trident 
>  TVGA display adapter)

This will depend on the application.  Some X apps do little or no floating
point, others do extensive floating point.  A good video board (S3 or one
of the other accellerated video boards) will make more of a difference on
average I'd guess than the FPU does.

>- compiling/developing source

Probably no difference here at all, since compiling is strictly an integer
based, and largely dependant on I/O performance for good overall performance.

>- News (INN) and mail server

Almost certainly no improvement with DX in this case, since these things
are not generally a big CPU draw to begin with, and are more I/O bound than
CPU bound in any case.

>how much of a gain is the DX in the different situations? 
>
>-- 
>Ove Hansen - e-mail: ove@groovy.neu.sgi.com


-- 

                                        Lee Heins, leeh@i-link.com


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

Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: jfn@pc-visao-4.inesc (Jorge Nunes)
Subject: Re: "Reverse-engineering"
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 11:14:26 GMT



jhenders@jonh.wimsey.com (John Henders) wrote:
>        There's a great on called xwpe that is a clone of the Borland
>IDE,
>including debugging. Unfortunately, the docs are all in German, though
>all
>the menus are in English.


Please, tell us where it is!


--

===========================================================
Jorge Filipe Franco Nunes
E-mail: jfn@vision.inesc.pt


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

From: mark@taylor.wyvern.com (Mark A. Davis)
Subject: Re: SoftPC/Linux?
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 16:20:31 GMT

david@wubios.wustl.edu (David J Camp) writes:

>In article <1994Mar9.214309.67781@yuma> jmiller@terra.colostate.edu (Jeff Miller) writes:
>>Seeing how SoftPC runs reasonably well on Suns and Macintoshes, how hard
>>would it be for Insignia to make a PC emulator for the PC over Linux? I
>>think a product like this would bring Linux the compatibility it needs,
>>and the following it deserves.
>>
>>I could then format my drive and make one big Linux partition :)

>There is a product called "Locus Merge" that does this quite well.  I
>am not certain if it has been ported to Linux.  -David-

Actually, VERY well.  I would think Merge would be easier to port to Linux
than SoftPC....

-- 
  /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  | Mark A. Davis    | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 |
  | Sys.Administrator|  Computer Services   | mark@taylor.wyvern.com   .uucp |
  \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/

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

From: orestz@eskimo.com (Orest Zborowski)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.apps
Subject: Re: DOOM for X
Date: 11 Mar 94 07:48:10 GMT

Glen Harris (glen@paladine.ece.jcu.edu.au) wrote:
: In <2lm9ih$6s5@godot.cc.duq.edu> mcquill@next.duq.edu (Tod McQuillin) writes:
: >Amancio, what effect, if any, do you think the shared memory extentions of X
: >have on graphics performance?

:   What it means is that a bitmap in memory is mapped directly over the
: screen, so an access to the array is an access to the screen.  After the
: mapping is set up, there's no calls to X for the graphics.  In effect,
: it's exactly as if you were in dos, but there's no 64Kb segment switching
: as the system does this transparently.  *I* don't know how page flipping 
: is done, maybe there's a X call to do this, or a fast memcpy during the
: refresh?  Inquiring minds.......

This isn't exactly correct. The MIT_SHM extension allows the client and
the server to share the memory associated with an XImage or Pixmap. This
means there is no need to communicate the bits between the server and
client. The server will use this Pixmap (the XImage gets turned into
a Pixmap in the server) as a source, as if a normal XImage had been
created. The savings can be enormous, as you can tell from running
mpeg_play with and without shared memory support.

This doesn't mean that server video memory is mapped into the client's
address space. That wouldn't make much sense, as the client would have
to know as much about manipulating the video board as the server does,
and in XFree86 this knowledge is substantial. That's the tradeoff: by
providing a unified API, the client can take advantage of a variety
of hardware, but at a cost of implementing this API by the server.

By cleverly taking advantage of shared memory to reduce net traffic,
and other properties of client/server relationships, the client program
can be more effective than if in control over everything, if only in
terms of complexity. But you can never get the same performance as
with dedicated systems that manipulate video boards directly.

-orest

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


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