Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #760
From: Digestifier <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 94 23:13:20 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #760, Volume #2                Wed, 14 Sep 94 23:13:20 EDT

Contents:
  Re: OS/2 fan wants to try Linux.. What do I need ?? (todd)
  Re: Partitioning Question (Jay Schlieske)
  Re: OS/2 vs. Unix Which one is better and why???  ([email-masked])
  Re: alt.games.doom.linux (was Re: What about a votr on comp.os.linux.doom) (Matt Welsh)
  Re: Is SCSI CD-ROM worth the money ? (Kumaran Santhanam)
  Re: Is SCSI CD-ROM worth the money ? (Ralph Sims)
  Re: Horrific bug in DOOM! (Shawn L. Baird)
  Linux v1.0 SMAIL problem (Sean Williams)
  Differences between DIP and SLIPLOGIN? (Harald Vergara)
  Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors (Per Abrahamsen)
  Linux vs NeXTSTEP (S. Hosseini)
  Re: VHDL for Linux...? ("Brian E. Gallew")
  Re: Horrific bug in DOOM! (Bill West)
  diskless boot? (Dennis B Meilicke)
  Re: Horrific bug in DOOM! (MS-DOS lives!) (Mark Stockton)
  Re: DOOM, X, Linux, 320x200 video mode ?? (Andrew R. Tefft)
  Re: 486dx4 vs Pentium 60 (Andrew R. Tefft)

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

From: [email-masked] (todd)
Subject: Re: OS/2 fan wants to try Linux.. What do I need ??
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 18:11:31 GMT

I recently added Linux to my OS/2 machine and am quite
happy, so I feel somewhat qualified to answer this post:

Jim Chisholm ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Hi folks..
: I'm a long time advocate of OS/2 and I am curious about Linux..

: 1)will it run on a386DX40 8M ?

Yes, but slowly.

: 2)how much HD is required ?

Give it 100 MB for comfort.

: 3)does it require it's own partition or can it live alongside DOS and OS/2 in 
: the same partition ?

I'd recommend making a dedicated Linux partition.

: 4)can it be booted from DOS or does it require it's own boot manager ?

Boot it from the OS/2 boot manager if you're using that.  That's
what I do.

: 5)what are the files required to get me up and running ?
: 6)where can I get these ?

Order one of the Slackware 2.0 CDROMs from any of a number of
distributors.  I got mine from Morse Telecommunications for
about $50, which includes the installation book (printed, of
course) and three months of tech support.

Todd.
--
Todd Bradley--Supreme Ruler of The Galaxy | Visual Numerics, Boulder
                                          | 303-581-3293
"Welcome to Hell.  Here's your shotgun."  | [email-masked]

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

From: Jay Schlieske <[email-masked]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.liinux.help,comp.os.linux.development
Subject: Re: Partitioning Question
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 08:09:54 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: Jay Schlieske <[email-masked]>

On 12 Sep 1994, David J Topper wrote:

> So once I set my partitions (say 250 for Linux and 270 for DOS) using FIPS
> or FDISK - is there a way to resize the Linux partition?  I mean, is there a
> way other than backing up all the data on the Linux partition, deleting that
> partition, then resizing the DOS partition, then remounting the Linux partition,
> then restoring the data on it.

Hi all !

I would be interested in replies to this question, being that I had to
give up approx 35 MB of my 545 MB drive, due to non standard translations
done by my IDE accellerator, when heads go over 1024. ( I was time
limited when transferring my linux files off of my 345 ) I have since
learned I can work around this with the new kernel I have, (1.1.45) since
it queries the drive directly.

> 
> I've downloaded quite a bit of stuff for installing Linux.  I don't remember
> exactly, but I think it was all the a,ap,x,xd,xv and a few other disks (all the
> gnu stuff too).  All tolled, I think I've got about 40+.  The HOWTO says a
> ROUGH estimate is about 2.5 megs per disk.  I'm just not sure how much to
> allocate for this thing.  250 seems fine but I would love to get away with 200
> so DOS would have more room to breathe.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> DT
> 
>

I had almost everything on a 105 MB partition for a few months, till I
replaced my second drive. I found that when I gave it 200 + 16 swap,
I had lots to spare *but* it's quickly filling up, as I'm adding new
stuff to it. (wine, dosemu, TeX). I think it depends on how you want
to use it. The stuff available for linux seems endless.

Yggdrassil has a plug'n'play cd and slackware has a cd version also,
where I hear you can run some of the less frequently used binaries
from, ( also hear it's slower ).

I'd say you can more than get away with 200 MB (a least for a few
months)

Hope this helps.

  - Jay                      o
         Jay Schlieske     <#<         " Above all.... have fun. " 
  +*+ Credits: smartmail __>^>__  by * Linux-Pine3.90-Smail-Term201-PoP +*+ 

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix Which one is better and why??? 
From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 94 15:04:20 MDT

In article <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]> 
writes:
> In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Jeff Kesselman) 
writes:
> 
> (regarding OS9)
> > The multi-tasking turns OFF every time you enter the 
> > kernel!  Yes, thats right, this so-called multi-tasking system has a 
> > non-re-entrant kernel.
> 
> Sounds like UNIX!  (well, maybe not some of the more forward looking
> variants, but...)
> 
> > >(a multitasking, modular kernel in less than 128k. You gotta be impressed
> > >by that)
> > 
> > Why should I be impressed?  UNIX was orginally developed and run on 64k 
> > LSI-11.  And it did a whole lot more a whole lot better.
> 
> You're simplifying things too much.  The original unix didn't do
> a whole lot.  And it also relied upon swapping, so that 64K wasn't
> as restrictive as it might seem (it swapped whole processes though,
> instead of paging).  The PDP had nicer machines to work with,
> especially memory-management-wise, than most OS9 machines.
> --
OS9 was designed as a stripped down clone of UNIX.  It was written in assembly 
language and ran in 64K RAM with no swap file on a 6809 chip (hence the OS9 
name.)  It has grown in many ways since then.  There is now an Intel version 
(OS9000.)  It has a specific market that it is the leading operating system in: 
embedded controllers in an industrial environment.  It is enough of a real-time 
operating system, with enough flexibility and power to do this task well.  It 
is the operating system for CDI systems.  It was not designed to compete with 
UNIX, so it should not be compared directly with it.

Alex

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

From: [email-masked] (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: alt.games.doom.linux (was Re: What about a votr on comp.os.linux.doom)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 15:38:19 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Hans Peter Verne) writes:
>The problem is that  alt.games.doom is  very crowded and noisy, with tons of
>post about satanism, what is your favorite level or weapon and such...

Wait a minute. comp.os.linux.misc isn't about weapons and Satanism?

mdw [guess I'm in the wrong newsfroup]

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

From: [email-masked] (Kumaran Santhanam)
Subject: Re: Is SCSI CD-ROM worth the money ?
Date: 14 Sep 1994 07:56:33 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked]

Ralph Sims ([email-masked]) wrote:
: [email-masked] (Kevin Esler) writes:

: >I am soon to purchase a system to run Linux. It will have a SCSI hard
: >disk.  It will also have a double speed CD-ROM drive.  Should I shell
: >out the extra $50-$100 to get a SCSI CD-ROM, as distinct from a
: >non-SCSI ?

: Yep.

Definitely get the SCSI!  Linux recognizes it and works with it
perfectly as long as it can tango with your SCSI controller.

Plus, when transferring CD -> Hard Drive, I believe Linux can do a
direct transfer on the SCSI bus.  Someone please correct me if I'm
wrong about this.  All I know is that Linux was _very_ much faster
than OS/2 when transferring from the CD to Hard Drive.

later,
Kumaran
--
Kumaran Santhanam                                  [email-masked]

Goodfader's Law:
  Under any system, a few sharpies will beat the rest of us.

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

From: [email-masked] (Ralph Sims)
Subject: Re: Is SCSI CD-ROM worth the money ?
Date: 13 Sep 1994 05:37:08 GMT

[email-masked] (Kevin Esler) writes:

>I am soon to purchase a system to run Linux. It will have a SCSI hard
>disk.  It will also have a double speed CD-ROM drive.  Should I shell
>out the extra $50-$100 to get a SCSI CD-ROM, as distinct from a
>non-SCSI ?

Yep.

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

From: [email-masked] (Shawn L. Baird)
Subject: Re: Horrific bug in DOOM!
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 17:36:14 GMT

[email-masked] (Mark A. Davis) writes:
>Linux is DOS.   DOS stands only for "Disk Operating System".  Most all
>operating systems are DOSes.  It did not read MS-"DOS", which is a 
>different story all together.....

Hmmm, a case of semantics.  I prefer to consider a "Disk Operating System" to
be an operating system whose primary concern is simply serving as a way to
access physical file storage.  DOS does not, for example, manage tasks to any
great extent, nor does it provide multiuser capabilities, etc.  So, in that
sense, I see the term DOS as being a limit to the capabilities of the OS in
question.

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

From: [email-masked] (Sean Williams)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.prog,dc.org.linux-users
Subject: Linux v1.0 SMAIL problem
Date: 13 Sep 1994 18:23:50 GMT

I have installed Linux v1.0 Slackware release for 24hr SLIP access
into ClarkNet and SMTP for my Novell 3.11 LAN.  Everything works 
great except some mail that is sent out through SMTP causes a 
uucp_neighbors error.  I know there is a missing file called
/usr/lib/smail/routers that will correct this with the right config 
in it.  The error is :

Xdefer: <address> reason: <ERR_127> router uucp_neighbors :
command '/usr/bin/uuname' returned exit status EX_32256

I know calling uuname is a bug in SMAIL and a routers file will fix
this but I don't know wht to put in it.

What do I need to put in /usr/lib/smail/routers to get these messages
delivered?  Thanks for the help.

* Sean Williams (14% CNE)                     | [email-masked] *
* Corporate Information Systems Administrator |                      *
* Communications & Systems Specialists, Inc.  | phone: (410)290-9500 *
* Columbia MD, 21046                          | fax  : (410)290-7012 *

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

From: [email-masked] (Harald Vergara )
Subject: Differences between DIP and SLIPLOGIN?
Date: 14 Sep 94 18:21:36

Hallo,

can someone explain the main differences between DIP and SLIPLOGIN if
it's used as sever software.

Used hardware:
2 AST-fourport-boards

Used Linux-version:
kernel 1.0.9
DIP 3.3.7-uri

I would apreciate if someone can give me a recommendation (please send
me the answer with e-mail as well).

regards, Harald
--
                                                             
========    _____     
           / ____)________________________________________
         _/ /__|            Harald Vergara                |
        // (__ |     Dept. of Information Science         |
       /   |\\\|        University of Konstanz            |
      /    (___|__________________________________________|
     /      ____)            [email-masked]
    /   _,-'                                                
   /   /                                                      

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

From: [email-masked] (Per Abrahamsen)
Subject: Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors
Date: 15 Sep 1994 01:22:31 GMT

I hope that Ian's main point don't get lost:

        DON'T INVENT YOUR OWN COPYRIGHT

please.

Please use a copyright that some real (not net) lawyer have read and
approved, both the GPL and the BSD copyright are quite fine, depending
on what you want.

The typical programmer is approximately as good at writing legal texts
as the typical lawyer is at programming.  Expect your copyright to be
full of legal "bugs" if you write it yourself.

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

From: [email-masked] (S. Hosseini)
Subject: Linux vs NeXTSTEP
Date: 13 Sep 1994 19:46:15 GMT

Hi Linuxers,

I know there are lots of Linuxers with high performance PC's, so
there is a good chance that some of them have thought about 
installing NeXTSTEP, or have had experience with
it and now converted to Linux, or maybe currently working with both 
OS's on the same platorm.
I want to ask the following:

Given the same high performance PC platform, 

1. Which is cheaper to get?
     (Answer is easy) Linux, of course. This is one of
     the main advantages of Linux. Otherwise I wouldn't be using it.

2. Which one is easier to install and has less problem with existing 
   PC hardware?

3. Which one has more choice of application software?

4. Which one is faster (for the same task) ?

5. Which one has a capability that the other doesn't have?

6. Which one has better future? (this is a question for discussion
   and not for a definite answer.)

SH

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

From: "Brian E. Gallew" <[email-masked]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lsi.cad,comp.lang.vhdl
Subject: Re: VHDL for Linux...?
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 20:06:49 -0400

In a similar vein, has anyone seen LogicWorks for *nix?  I can't use
the Mac version, and the DOS version sucks dead goats (dies a *lot*
and won't run under dosemu).  Does anybody know just what command
switches LogicWorks accepts?

=====================================================================
| It's nice to be important, but it's *important* to suck up to the |
| sysadmin  -- Me                                                   |
=====================================================================

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

From: [email-masked] (Bill West)
Subject: Re: Horrific bug in DOOM!
Date: 14 Sep 1994 22:40:18 GMT

olav woelfelschneider ([email-masked]) wrote:

: Hey people... calm down!
: What does DOS stand for in this case? Yes! It is 'Doom Operating System' !

: So, since Linux can run doom, it is indeed a ... Ah, I see, you got me! (: (:

: Olav,
:   *grinning*

This thread started as a joke and now it is a debate over operating
systems:-)
--
******************************************************************************
Bill West
Houston TX
email: [email-masked]
******************************************************************************

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

From: [email-masked] (Dennis B Meilicke)
Subject: diskless boot?
Date: 13 Sep 1994 18:55:17 GMT

Haven't seen this is any of the FAQs (unless I missed it...):

I would like to be able to boot linux from our diskless workstations.
Has anyone done this?  Currently, we use Novell's remote boot feature
to load DOS.  I would then like to run a DOS program that talks tftp
to a UNIX server where the Linux kernel would reside.  This would
boot and NFS mount all the system stuff.

An alternative would be a small boot floppy that NFS mounts the rest
of the system.  I did this once using an old version of the SLS, but I
would rather do without the boot floppy.

So, am I dreaming?  Or can this be done?

Dennis

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

From: [email-masked] (Mark Stockton)
Subject: Re: Horrific bug in DOOM! (MS-DOS lives!)
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 21:27:28 GMT

Shawn L. Baird ([email-masked]) wrote:
: [email-masked] (Mark A. Davis) writes:
: >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 

: Yet come companies have become so definite that their names have become
: the common term for the product.  It's not proper to call a kleenex a
: kleenex, but it certainly is common.  The fact is that regardless of the
: proper name of things, people are going to occasionally use a different
: common term.  DOS is one of these things, so is Windows (or Windoze if
: you prefer).

: >(Now substitute "windows", above in context of MS-Windows, X-Windows,

: Here we talk of proper names and you don't even use the correct ones above.
: X is called simply that, and MIT, I believe it is, has long grumbled about
: people calling it X-Windows.  X Windowing System might be acceptable, I seem
: to recall that their objection is to the X being directly tied to the plural
: form of window.  I've never heard of the Amiga environment being called
: Amiga Windows, either.  I believe the proper name is still Intuition (and
: Workbench which represents sort of an AmigaDOS frontend, but is not really
: the windowing system proper).  Most people don't seem to be getting confused
: as to what is what, so why worry?

You know, I almost jumped in to this again last night and I was actually 
going to use the kleenex and X examples myself.  Well, since I've now jumped
back into it, I'll say some of the things I was going to say.

MS-DOS, PC-DOS, etc... and UNIX are not a DOS!  That's a misnomer.  These
are full fledged operating systems that provide disk services along with
lots of other services (memory management, program loading, console, etc...).
You *may* be able to call the collection of disk services and the disk driver
a DOS within MS DOS, but I don't think that's completely accurate in the case 
of MS DOS.  Further, an application does not "quit to a DOS", it returns to 
an operating system which in this case, happens to be misnamed "DOS".  

This is all pretty silly and a waste of bandwidth.  After all, this started
when someone either didn't understand a joke, or was so sarcastic that his 
humor flew over a lot of our heads.  At the risk of continuing to be the
victim of a possible troll, I've got one last thought.

What's the proper way to refer to the type of computer that most of us are 
running Linux on?  IBM Compatible?  Certainly not.  Compatible with what? 
Amstrad?  How about IBM Compatible Personal Computer?  No, that could refer 
to an AIX box.  IBM Compatible Personal Computer based on Intel architecture?  
No way!  Which Intel architecture using which Intel chip?  We just lost 
"compatible".  I got it.  IBM Compatible Personal Computer based on 
Intel architecture with an EISA/ISA/MCA bus and an Intel x86/x88/Pentium
processor... no.  I wouldn't want to leave out AMD.  

PC (political correctness) is too much trouble for me!  At the risk
of offending Mac users, referring to Apple Computer Corp's Macintosh, 
not the hat, I'll keep using "PC" for what I have on my desk.  And 
I'll use "DOS" to refer to that OS I'm still forced to use so often. 

MarkS
--
[email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Andrew R. Tefft)
Subject: Re: DOOM, X, Linux, 320x200 video mode ??
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 12:17:31 GMT

In article [email-masked], [email-masked] (Jeremy Bettis) writes:
>How can I run doom w/o a window manager though.. I haven't been able to yet.

Depends on what window manager you normally use. olvwm is usually started
as the last thing in the .xinitrc file, which means if you kill it,
your X session exits.  twm on the other hand is usually run in the background,
and an xterm is the last thing in the .xinitrc file, so the x session doesn't
end until that xterm is killed. I am not sure how people normally use fvwm;
I suspect like olwm because of the quit entry in the menu.

You can change your .xinitrc not to start up a window manager (make
sure your initial windows give you some viable typing area!), or change
it so that killing your window manager does not end your session.

---

Andy Tefft               - new, expanded .sig -     [email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Andrew R. Tefft)
Subject: Re: 486dx4 vs Pentium 60
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 12:21:38 GMT

In article [email-masked], [email-masked] (C. Engelmann) writes:
>[email-masked] (Dan Pop) writes:
>
>>You seem to ignore the fact that the performance of a Linux box does not
>>depend exclusively on the cpu speed. The hard disk performance is also
>>essential, and here the 486 box is at a clear advantage. The extra disk
>>space is a bonus, too. 
>
>Harddisk-speed isn't that important in Linux.

This is always heated debate. A more general answer is that if you have enough
ram, disk performance lessens in importance, because memory gets used as a
fast disk cache, and you also reduce the incidence of swapping.

> CPU-speed is definitely more valuable. 

(cpu speed being a generic relative processing speed, not raw clock speed of course)

Again, if you are low on ram, cpu speed is almost meaningless, because
the swapping is the real bottleneck, and no matter how fast your disk
is, it's a lot slower than ram. Now if you have *enough* memory, then 
cpu is, by my last paragraph, probably much more important than disk speed.

---

Andy Tefft               - new, expanded .sig -     [email-masked]

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

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