Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #757
From: Digestifier <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 94 11:14:16 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #757, Volume #2                Wed, 14 Sep 94 11:14:16 EDT

Contents:
  Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support (Dances With Geeks)
  Re: iBCS and WP51 (James Lewis Nance)
  Re: Sunsite is down! Cause: Linuxdoom? (Jeff Kesselman)
  Re: 486/dx2-66 vs P60 vs P66 vs P90 ? (Dan Pop)
  Re: The snatchability factor (was Re: WABI vs (Dan Pop)
  Re: VHDL for Linux...? (Naresh Sharma)
  Re: 486/dx2-66 vs P60 vs P66 vs P90 ? (Peter Hahn)
  Re: Apple Select 360 w/ Linux?? (Sven Goldt)
  Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors (Jeff Kesselman)
  Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors (Jeff Kesselman)
  Re: What about a votr on comp.os.linux.doom (Jeff Kesselman)
  Re: Max size of SCSI HD? (Drew Eckhardt)
  Re: Horrific bug in DOOM! (Kevin Lentin)
  Re: The snatchability factor (was Re: WABI v (Anselm Lingnau)
  Partitioning suggestions? (Srikanth Viswanathan)
  Qlogic Fast!SCSI ISA Support? (Greg Badros)
  HYDRA - serial bidirectional transfer for Linux? (Holger Muenx)
  Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors (Alan Cox)
  Re: 320x200 X resolution? (Alan Cox)
  Registering in general (was Re: Registering Linux Doom) (Darin Johnson)
  Re: Slow curses - is there a better/faster curses? (Jay Ashworth)

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

From: [email-masked] (Dances With Geeks)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Date: 14 Sep 1994 11:55:35 GMT

On Sun, 11 Sep 1994 20:12:08 GMT, Matt Welsh ([email-masked]) wrote:
> In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Dances With Geeks) writes:
> >On Thu, 8 Sep 1994 14:22:06 GMT, Matt Welsh ([email-masked]) wrote:
> >> Sorry, but you're stuck with the "GNU approach" (whatever that means)
> >> because you use software and libraries covered by the GPL. Any "problems"
> >> perceived with GNU software applies equally to Linux.
> >
> >Sorry, but you're wrong.  The Linux kernel, for example, adds additional
> >disclaimers which modify the GNU-format license it is used under.

> Those "disclaimers" don't relieve the fundamental problems that
> people perceive with the GPL, namely, the fact that (a) source
> mustg be provided, and (b) modifications must be copylefted as
> well.

> M. Welsh

Um, perhaps you weren't listening.  Someone may see the problems you listed
as fundamental problems; not all of us do.  Some of us see the "fundamental
problems as being elsewhere, and having been addressed by the additional
disclaimers.... ;)

Oh, BTW, these arguments might go on less interminably if everyone adopted a
less confrontational style. ;)

lilo

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

From: [email-masked] (James Lewis Nance)
Subject: Re: iBCS and WP51
Date: 14 Sep 1994 12:05:14 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked] (James Lewis Nance)

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

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Kesselman)
Subject: Re: Sunsite is down! Cause: Linuxdoom?
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 04:10:22 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Steve DuChene) writes:
>       with the crash? If someone wants a good indication of how many
>       people are using Linux I would guess the ftp logs from sunsite
>       for the past couple of days would be a good indication!

I've seen this idea mentioned before.  Just for the record, some of us 
running Linux actually have no intention of ever FTPing DOOM.
So I think it would give you a good count of people running Linux with 
time  on their hands to play games, perhapse, but not a complete count of 
Linux users.

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

From: [email-masked] (Dan Pop)
Subject: Re: 486/dx2-66 vs P60 vs P66 vs P90 ?
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 12:03:43 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Pete Deuel) writes:

>In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Kevin Esler) writes:
>>From: [email-masked] (Kevin Esler)
>>Subject: 486/dx2-66 vs P60 vs P66 vs P90 ?
>>Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 19:39:10 GMT
>
>>Does anybody have any benchmark figures on the relative raw CPU
>>performance of:
>
>>        486/dx2-66
>>        Pentium 60
>>        Pentium 66
>>        Pentium 90
>
>Yup.  Check the mini-howto on "BogoMips"  P5-90 gateway (for us) is 36.08, 
>which toasts nearly everything else...  Check it out; it's on sunsite...

Since when is BogoMips a benchmark relevant for anything else than
waiting loops?

Dan
--
Dan Pop 
CERN, CN Division
Email: [email-masked]
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

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

Crossposted-To: comp.unix.unixware
From: [email-masked] (Dan Pop)
Subject: Re: The snatchability factor (was Re: WABI vs
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 12:12:02 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Mark A. Davis) writes:

>Why does it have to be native??  Keep in mind that it is utterly futile to
>expect a native version of WP for Linux.... I T   W I L L   N O T   H A P P E N

Trying to predict the future is not a particularly smart thing. Who knows
who will be the next owner of WP and what its policy WRT porting to
Linux (or whatever free OS) might be? Even Novell could change its mind...

Dan
--
Dan Pop 
CERN, CN Division
Email: [email-masked]
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development,comp.lsi.cad,comp.lang.vhdl
From: [email-masked] (Naresh Sharma)
Subject: Re: VHDL for Linux...?
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 09:16:24 GMT

ADA ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Hi all...

: This primarily addresses the circuits community...

: I have been playing (or trying to play) with both magic and ocean.  I
: was wondering if there are any free VHDL simulators available or being
: worked on for Linux.  If so, what about synthesis tools?

: If I'm asking something outrageous, please tell me so...

: While I'm on the subject, and I know this isn't the proper group but I
: know there are a lot of hardware weenies out there like me, is there
: an emacs major mode for VHDL floating around?

: Thanks in advance,

: Mark
: ([email-masked])

Try to send a mail to [email-masked], they claim to have the best VHDL
tools :-)

--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Naresh Sharma [[email-masked]]  Herenpad 28            __|__
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering        2628 AG Delft   \_______(_)_______/
T U Delft               Optimists designed the aeroplane,     !  !  !  
Ph(Work) (+31)15-783992 pessimists designed the parachute!
Ph(Home) (+31)15-569636 Plan:Design Airplanes on Linux the best OS on Earth!
==============================PGP=KEY=AVAILABLE================================

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

From: [email-masked] (Peter Hahn)
Subject: Re: 486/dx2-66 vs P60 vs P66 vs P90 ?
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 10:51:13 GMT

[email-masked] (Kevin Esler) writes:

>Does anybody have any benchmark figures on the relative raw CPU
>performance of:

        486/dx2-66      32 SpecInt      16 SpecFP
        486dx4-100      52    "         24   "
        Pentium 60      58    "         51   "
        Pentium 66      64    "         57   "
        Pentium 90      86    "         77   "

>I am planning to purchase a system and it seems like the price
>difference between the 486/dx2-66 and the P66 is about $300, and about
>another $300 difference to get to the P90.  I'm trying to allocate my
>$ resources in the best way possible.

>I realize that system performance depends on more than just CPU
>performance, by the way.

SpecInt is a measurement of the integer performance, SpecFp does the
same for the foating point dpt.

  The Spec Benchmark are run in an UNIX/Posix environment and include
various real-world applications. So they measure the memory and I/O
performance, too. But as the CPU vendors typically use lots of memory
for good results, the CPU and memory interface seem to determine the
result most.

  I think of the Spec suite as the closest measurment in terms of
applicability to the use under Linux compared to the masses of
DOS/Windows benchmarks with small 16Bit programms run in real mode
(DOS fits into a large 2nd level cache).

Peter
-- 
Peter Hahn                                                         Peterstr. 26
     52062 Aachen                                                Germany
          [email-masked]   [email-masked]
                             Voice: +49 241 37151

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

From: [email-masked] (Sven Goldt)
Subject: Re: Apple Select 360 w/ Linux??
Date: 14 Sep 1994 12:39:56 GMT

Hendrik G. Seliger ([email-masked]) wrote:
: with my Linux system. This thing is totally software-controlled if you
No,it has dip switches.
: use it with DOS/MS-Windows. Does anyone know if I can controll this
: thing from Linux? I guess I'd need some way of receiving the messages
You can set the switches that it acts like a POSTSCRIPT printer.

: BTW, would a HP-Laserjet 4MP be the better choice??
Yes ! Much more compatible.

--
*****************************************************************************
*    # THE MOST IMPORTANT FINANCIAL QUESTION IS:  Where is the money ? #    *
*****************************************************************************

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

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Kesselman)
Subject: Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 04:27:10 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Jim Goddard) writes:
>
>Have to disagree with you on these two Ian.  If the code does not
>contain a copyright notice it is not copyrighted and you can use it at
>will.  

I have to disagree with YOU, sorry.  Thsi is a very dangerous, and untrue 
statement.  (By way of crednetials, my folks have been freelance authors 
all their lives and have been officers, both of them, at various times of 
the American Society of Journalists and Authors.  I practically grew-up 
with the concept of copyright, as that is what kept me fed!)

Under the last copyright law revision, (passed sometiem in the 80s, I 
believe) a work is Copyright to its author as soon as it is created.  
There are only 2 ways in which this copyright can be lost.  It can be 
signed away by the author, or, a special case, the work coudl have been 
done under a "work for hire" arrangement, in which case the author's 
employer owns that work.  (Thsi is why, fellow programmers, your boss 
owns what you do at work.)

What IS true is that without a copyright statement on your work, it is 
difficult to prove that the infringer knew the work was copyrighted.  If 
you cannot prove this fact, you cannot go for punative damages.  fro thsi 
reason it IS true that you should always put a copyright notice on your work.

A side note, of use to programmers is that the following is NOT a valid 
copyright notice.

        (C)1993 FooBarCorp.

This is because the law only recognizes two forms of the copyright mark, 
either the word 'Copyright' or a c in a cricle.  Two braces does NOt 
constitute a circle.  To be safe the form should always be as follows:
        
        Copyright 1993 FooBarCorp

>To copyright the work after releaseing it without a copyright notice
>the author has to notify the recipients.  I.E. if you use it, you can't
>be sued (thats not quite acurate you can be sued for anything) unless
>you are notified that you are in copyright violation and given a chance
>to stop first.

Thats not really true, but has a kind of tangential reality to the poitn 
i brought up above.

>
>I don't claim to be an expert on the subject but I have reistered
>copyrights before 

For the record, registering a copyright is not necessary. Unlike a 
patent, a copyright exists whether the fact is registered with the 
government or not. By the same token, the government acceoting said 
registration says nothing abotu the validity of the copyright. All the 
government is providing in this case is an absolutely unimpeachable 
witness to the fact that thiw rok existed in your hands at the time it 
was registered, not that thsi isnt useful if a question of who copied 
who comes up later.

A totally different issue, but one you may be confusing with the 
acquisition of a copyright, is the question of infringement. A copyright 
is just that, the right to make copies of the work.  In this case, the 
question of whether someone has seen your work (with our without a 
copyright notice) is vital. If they copy your work, then its 
infringment.,  If, on the other hand, the develop the EXACT SAME THING 
without EVER seeing your work, they own a legitimate copyright on their 
version.  This is why clones of software are done in the 'clean-room' 
approach, where the people developing the release code never actually see 
the original. Instead, there is a second team that digs into the original 
and writes a specification.  Thsi is handed 'over the wall' to the celan 
team who code to the spec.  Their result is handed back over the wall to 
the dirty team, who test it, find all the difference from the original, 
and write a new spec to be handed over the wall again.

This is how those comapnies that foirst cloned the IBM BIOS and Apple 
Toolkit were able to do so without infringing the appropriate copyrights.

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

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Kesselman)
Subject: Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 04:30:13 GMT

(Its late and I forgot to include this. Consider it an attachment to my 
previous peice explaining copyright.)

I am not a lawyer, and the proceeding peice shoudl not be construed as 
giving legal advice.  

What i am is particularly well versed on thsi one particular issue, to 
the environment in which I was raised.

(There is a whole different side to the Copyright issue regarding what is 
known as 'fair use', but thats a whole-nother artical.)

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

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Kesselman)
Subject: Re: What about a votr on comp.os.linux.doom
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 04:31:07 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Matthew Grant) writes:
>The New NOISE has started.  We are about to be invaded by " How do you do
>XXX with Doom?".
>
>Lets control the flood and get it out of the road before it starts!
>
>
>-- 
>    _/  _/   __/   _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/  _/  _/_/  _/  _/     Matthew A. Grant
>   _/_/_/  _/  _/   _/     _/   _/_ _/  _/_   _/  _/    1 Domain Tce, Chch. NZ.
>  _/  _/  _/_/_/   _/     _/   _/_/_/  _/    _/_/_/   (03) 338-4287
> _/  _/  _/  _/   _/     _/   _/  _/  _/_/  _/  _/  [email-masked]      

I vote AYE!

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

From: [email-masked] (Drew Eckhardt)
Subject: Re: Max size of SCSI HD?
Date: 13 Sep 1994 05:30:37 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, Rick Kelly <[email-masked]> wrote:
>Drew Eckhardt ([email-masked]) wrote:
>: You can  access terrabyte drives under Linux, using the normal 
>: partitioning scheme.  With Remy's changes to ext2, you can 
>: even have 9 gigabyte partitions if you want.
>
>
>You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the maximum partition
>size for SCSI-1 and SCSI-2 is 2 gigabytes.  

As a few 9G disk users will attest to, you're wrong.  

For your edification, I present a snippet out of the SCSI-II 
specification.  The SCSI-I specification says the 
same thing with the exception of the DPO bit, although it's arranged 
numerically rather than alphabetically, making things harder to find : 

8.2.6. READ(10) Command

                         Table 8-16: READ(10) Command

==============================================================================
  Bit|   7    |   6    |   5    |   4    |   3    |   2    |   1    |   0    |
Byte |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |
==============================================================================
 0   |                           Operation Code (28h)                        |
=====|=======================================================================|
 1   |   Logical Unit Number    |   DPO  |   FUA  |     Reserved    | RelAdr |
=====|=======================================================================|
 2   | (MSB)                                                                 |
- - -|- -                        Logical Block Address                    - -|
 5   |                                                                 (LSB) |
=====|=======================================================================|
 6   |                           Reserved                                    |
=====|=======================================================================|
 7   | (MSB)                                                                 |
=====|===                        Transfer Length                             |
 8   |                                                                 (LSB) |
=====|=======================================================================|
 9   |                           Control                                     |
==============================================================================

Note the 32 bit Logical Block Address field.  2^32 sectors * .5K each = 
2 terrabytes.  Assume that we have a sign problem somewhere in the 
Linux code, and we still have 1 terrabyte of disk space per drive.

Partition it however you like, Remy's ext-2 code will handle it.

>This can obviously be fixed
>with striped disk drivers, etc, but consider that Auspex servers, running
>SunOS 4.1.3, can only do 8 gigabytes per partition even with their volume
>management.

All this demonstrates is that Sun/Auspex screwed up, and ought to 
hire themselves a new development staff.
-- 
Since our leaders won't respect The Constitution, the highest law of our 
country, you can't expect them to obey lesser laws of any country. 
Boycott the United States until this changes.

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

From: [email-masked] (Kevin Lentin)
Subject: Re: Horrific bug in DOOM!
Date: 14 Sep 1994 12:57:58 GMT

Mark A. Davis ([email-masked]) wrote:

> My point, originally, is that the word DOS has nothing to do with
> Microsoft... neither does the word "windows".  The proper names for those
> products always have been, and still are MS-DOS and MS-Windows!  Microsoft
> could not, cannot, and will not be able to register common, generic
> English words to their exclusive use.  That would be like trying to 
> make a new computer called "computer" and registering the name so nobody
> else can use it.  Then end up confusing the market-

Or, more realisticly, trying to register a computer called the 'Alpha' and
failing so changing its name to the 'Alpha AXP', where AXP are 3 random
letters of the alphabet! [This is true!]

-- 
[==================================================================]
[ Kevin Lentin                   |___/~\__/~\___/~~~~\__/~\__/~\_| ]
[ [email-masked]  |___/~\/~\_____/~\______/~\/~\__| ]
[ Macintrash: 'Just say NO!'     |___/~\__/~\___/~~~~\____/~~\___| ]
[==================================================================]

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

From: [email-masked] (Anselm Lingnau)
Subject: Re: The snatchability factor (was Re: WABI v
Date: 14 Sep 1994 11:29:59 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Mark A. Horton KA4YBR <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Since the 
> product is not supported by WP corporation in the target environment, should
> one purchase such a product and then manage to "make it work" through the
> addition of software in no way connected with the original work (i.e. the 
> IBCS/COFF support) could the purchaser then return the purchased product for
> a refund due to "lack of suitability" to the purchaser's environment and yet
> still continue to use the "assisted" product which the vendor choses not
> to support?  Is this piracy?  The product is not running in any "supported"
> or even officially "sanctioned" environment and is thus unusable and 
> ineligible for support which is a factor in the purchase price of the said
> product.

This is ridiculous. Of course this is piracy. By your reasoning I
could buy any Windows software to run under WABI (or Wine, or whatever),
copy it and return the original just because I've suddenly discovered I
don't have Windows on my machine -- just a piece of software that will
`assist' me in running the program after all. The claim of `lack of
suitability' is self-defeating.

Anyway, copyright is not dependent on being able to actually take
advantage of the copied work; if I gave you a copy of my WordPerfect
disk that you were going to ritually burn or use as a boat anchor I
would still be in violation of copyright laws. If I didn't own a
computer at all, but bought a copy of WordPerfect just to prop up my
coffee table, I'd still be eligible for updates, calls to the hotline or
whatever type of support is offered with the package.

Other than that, I take it that somewhere near the start of the
WordPerfect manual you will find a disclaimer to the effect that
Novell/WordPerfect won't in fact guarantee that the bit patterns on the
disk make up a valid program, let alone that that program will be
`suitable' for anything at all. Therefore I'd doubt that you'd get a
refund merely on the grounds of `lack of suitability', anyhow. I suppose
you will also find that returning the package for any reason will
require you to destroy all the backup copies that you have made, and so
on.

Anselm

Disclaimer: I've never seen WordPerfect media nor documentation. Neither
  am I a copyright lawyer. The above should not be construed as legal
  advice -- see a professional for that.
-- 
Anselm Lingnau ......................... [email-masked]
[The] Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for some people it is
a complete substitute for life.                                --- Andrew Brown

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

From: [email-masked] (Srikanth Viswanathan)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Partitioning suggestions?
Date: 12 Sep 1994 23:00 -0800

Hello everyone.  I'm going to be moving into the brave world
of Linux as soon as I get the OS/2 Warp II beta.  Here is
my current partition:

Drive 0:
      40 MB   Primary    FAT   [ DOS 6.22    ]
      40 MB   Extended   HPFS  [ OS/2 Warp I ]
       1 MB   Boot Manager
Drive 1:
      45 MB  Primary     FAT 
      55 MB  Extended    FAT

I tried to install Slackware 2.0 a couple of months back
unsuccessfully on Drive 1 (on both the primary and extended.)

I'm willing to completely restructure both drives and figure
that since I'll be installing the new OS/2 beta soon, now would
be a good time.  Could someone please suggest an appropriate 
partition configuration that would result in the LEAST amount
of trouble for both OS/2 and Linux?  

Thanks!

Sri

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

From: [email-masked] (Greg Badros)
Subject: Qlogic Fast!SCSI ISA Support?
Date: 14 Sep 1994 14:16:56 GMT

Does anyone know the current status of Qlogic host adapter support by Linux?
The SCSI howto says it's under development, but the howto is several
months old.

Has anyone gotten a Qlogic SCSI adaptor to work with Linux?  Please respond
via email to [email-masked]

Thanks.

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

From: [email-masked] (Holger Muenx)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: HYDRA - serial bidirectional transfer for Linux?
Date: 14 Sep 1994 13:11:58 GMT

Guten Tag!

   Did anybody consider porting HYDRA, a serial bidirectional file transfer
program to Linux?

   HYDRA is a file transfer protocol available for MS-DOS and Amiga machines
which allows sending and receiving files from/to serial connections at the
same time. On a 19200 connection it is said to manage >2200cps for sending
or receiving - resulting in >4400cps considering the bidirectional transfer.

   The good thing is that the source code of this program is available.
At least the documentation says so. Unfortunately, I did not find the source
code on the net.

   So: Is any port for Linux available? If not where can I get the source
code so that I can have a try on it myself?

   Any information will be appreciated. Thank you in advance!

Holger Muenx ([email-masked])

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

From: [email-masked] (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 13:50:56 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> Ian Jackson <[email-masked]> writes:
>If you wish to place your work in the public domain, so that anyone
>can do anything with it - including making their own derivations and
>placing their own copyright on them without crediting you - you must
>say so explicitly, for example with "I hereby relinquish my copyright
>and place this work in the public domain".

Before people put anything in the public domain be aware that the public
domain doesn't mean people cannot sue you for writing crap code that
breaks their computer! Therefore its much better to place the program
under a license along the lines of 'Do as you please but I'm not liable
for the results'.

Alan
-- 
  ..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
 // Alan Cox  //  [email-masked]   //  GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU  //
 ``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development
From: [email-masked] (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: 320x200 X resolution?
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 13:56:31 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Christopher Wiles) writes:
>Seriously, IMHO Doom will probably be more useable in the promised 
>pixel-doubling mode than in a straight 320x200.  Easier to make things 
>look innocent when the boss walks in ... "Hey, you're not actually 
>_working_ in 320x200, are you?"

Rumour has it Xfree86 3.1 has 320x200x256 support for DOOM. As to mode
switching you just hit CTRL-ALT-+ and go back 1024x768 when the boss is
around.

Alan

-- 
  ..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
 // Alan Cox  //  [email-masked]   //  GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU  //
 ``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''

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

From: [email-masked] (Darin Johnson)
Subject: Registering in general (was Re: Registering Linux Doom)
Date: 12 Sep 1994 23:13:59 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Robert Ashcroft) writes:

> >The only thing about this that really saddens me is that ddt thinks
> >that the Linux version doesn't generate revenue; I will be getting the
> >registered version next week to use on my Linux system!
> 
> I was thinking about this today.
> 
> Linux Doom users who register should make it clear that they are
> registering because of the Linux version.  This might help open Id's
> eyes to Linux's potential.

Please, do this for ANYTHING you register.  Too often I see
registration forms that have stuff like "1) DOS, 2) Windows, 3) Mac"
and no "4) other" column.

For instance, when I registered for TADS, there was no way to
indicate that you were not using any of the listed systems.
I scribbled stuff on the form, but I suspect that most of the
people that registered for unix or amiga versions did not do
this.  Yet I seem to recall a statement like "the number of
non-msdos users is too small to justify...".
--
Darin Johnson
[email-masked]
  - Grad school - just say no.

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

From: [email-masked] (Jay Ashworth)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.admin
Subject: Re: Slow curses - is there a better/faster curses?
Date: 14 Sep 1994 09:04:44 -0400

[email-masked] (James Deibele) writes:
>Console output under Linux was very quick and I'm sure X performance is
>pretty good.  But curses performance is a little sluggish and adding
>lines near the bottom of the screen is a real killer - curses seems to
>clear the screen with blank lines <then> adds the new text.

That sounds like a termcap entry problem... I don't have it, and I'm using
a different distribution.  The console vt100 emulation -- an attribute of
the _kernel_ -- supports IL and DL directly, even correctly interacting
with the scrolling region.  Check other termcaps, and if you're equipped,
take a look at the console.c in your kernel source tree to see what it
expects.  This is an area that deserves better documentation.  The
authoritative source for the emulation ought not to be the termcap file.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                       Ashworth
Designer                                                          & Associates
ka1fjx/4              High Technology Systems Consulting
[email-masked]                                                +1 813 790 7592

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

** 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: [email-masked]

You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:

    Internet: [email-masked]

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