Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #767
From: Digestifier <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 94 03:13:25 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #767, Volume #2                Fri, 16 Sep 94 03:13:25 EDT

Contents:
  Re: 486/dx2-66 vs P60 vs P66 vs P90 ? (Pete Deuel)
  Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors (Craig Burley)
  Re: Problem with Linux Sound ([email-masked])
  Is there an ARCNET driver for LINUX ??? (Ramses Moya)
  Re: Word Processor for Linux? (DAVID L. JOHNSON)
  Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors (Jeff Kesselman)
  Re: OS/2 vs. Unix Which one is better and why??? (Jeff Kesselman)
  Anyone have a 3c505 driver? (Forkboy)
  Re: Horrific bug in DOOM! (Greg Hennessy)
  Re: The HP 560C printer (Uwe Bonnes)
  Re: The snatchability factor (was Re: WABI v (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
  Re: Horrific bug in DOOM! (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
  Vision864 Chipset Working Yet? (Mike Armour)

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

From: [email-masked] (Pete Deuel)
Subject: Re: 486/dx2-66 vs P60 vs P66 vs P90 ?
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 05:11:06 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Dan Pop) writes:
>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?

Well the original poster asked for benchmarks...  It's the only one that I 
found covered within the linux doc realm.  I agree; it isn't worth much...

Perhaps the original poster has accumulated enough info to construct a 
Linux-benchmark-HOWTO?  (Ways to meaningfully bench Linux under differing 
hardware, ways to compare Linux boxes to suns, Ibms, SCOs, etc.)
I am not knowledeable enough to write such a HOWTO, but would gladly edit it...

Pete
===================================================
     "Actually, I'm a lab mouse on stilts..."

     E-mail:  [email-masked]
===================================================

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

From: [email-masked] (Craig Burley)
Subject: Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors
Date: 16 Sep 94 04:10:29 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Theodore Y. Ts'o) writes:

   I'm sorry you feel that way.  But your posting was simply inaccurate
   regarding the issue of interface copyright.  It is a fact that Stallman
   stomped on a source distribution of PGP that merely contained #ifdef's
   so that it could be potentially linked with the gmp library, which was
   protected by the GPL.  Sure, Stallman and the FSF couched it in very
   legalistic terms, and then justified the means with the ends ("Free
   Software is Good, so what we did is O.K.").  But that's not any
   different from what Lotus did when they tried to use Copyright to
   protect their user interface.  It was the same sort of legal mumbo-jumbo
   that led to the same sort of result --- a restriction of who can write
   independent programs that implement or use a particular interface,
   whether that be a UI or an API.

   I am very saddened by the FSF's decision to use this very broad
   interpretation of the GPL.  I engaged in several e-mail messages
   debating this issue with Stallman, over a year ago, when the PGP/gmp
   issue came up, and he would not be moved.  He believes he is right, and
   he is entitled to that belief.

   However, my sadness does not extend to trying to ignore the situation
   for what it is.  I will not sweep this situation under the rug.  People
   are entitled to know *all* of the issues of the GPL, both its good side
   and its shadow side.

   [...]

   I believe the cause of free software is best furthered by putting the
   truth --- the whole truth --- on the table, and letting the chips fall
   where they may.

Your "cause" would be more persuasive if you'd post truths such as
these:

-  The FSF has explicitly renounced interfaced copyrights, including
   (specifically) on gmp

-  The existence of #ifdef's in the source distribution of PGP to
   which you refer did _not_ constitute the copying of an interface,
   nor did the FSF ever claim it did

-  It is thus perfectly safe and legal to write a body of code that
   copies the _interface_ of gmp but is not GPL'ed (e.g. is public
   domain, proprietary, or whatever) -- in fact, I believe this has
   been done

-  The gmp case bears almost _no_ legal resemblance to the Lotus 1-2-3
   look-and-feel copyright suit, despite your claims to the contrary --
   the only similarity I can see arises when people like yourself
   call the gmp situation a case of "interface copyright", which it
   is emphatically _not_ -- it is an interesting case of defining
   "distribution" as referred to by the GPL, which has no parallel
   in 1-2-3, which itself was a case of copying the interface but
   not the code, which in turn has no parallel in the gmp situation

-  It has been shown that if the FSF did not take the legal stance
   they did regarding gmp, it would be fairly trivial for anyone
   to write and sell proprietary (source-unavailable) software
   that included GPL'ed code (by having the user do the link),
   thus defeating one of the main purposes of the GPL -- for example,
   GNU Objective-C compilers would almost certainly not be available
   with source code, and it is quite likely that most other versions
   of GNU compilers, EMACS, and so on would be source-unavailable
   (or at least not freely redistributable)

That having been said, although I believe I understand the
situation well enough and agree with the FSF's stance, it is
obvious to me that many people do not understand it or, in
any case, come to a different conclusion.

However, it is deceiving to claim to state "the whole truth"
while the above points are omitted from the discussion.

Rather than engage in further debating of the above points, which
I've done in the past, I'll leave it to people genuinely interested
in the issue to consult the FSF, to read archives, and, best yet,
consult an intellectual-property lawyer (and make sure you give the
the _full_ story, not the loaded "summaries" often used by some people,
or you'll be wasting your $$).

Anyway, Ian Jackson's original post still stands, and as far as I
can recall, it was basically fully accurate.  I for one will be
donating GNU Fortran, the result of about 3 years of full-time
work (over a period of five years or so), to the FSF, which means
I will not own the copyright to it, the FSF will.  Thus they get
to decide how to interpret the GPL for it.  It is not the case that
I believe they will always do so perfectly -- it is simply the fact
that they will do a better job than I will, because unlike most or
all of the "FSF-claims-interface-copyright" claimants, they actually
pay a lawyer to tell them what the deal is -- something I don't
want to bother with.  Lawyers aren't always right, of course, but
I don't want to have to hire any.  (Hmm, I wonder what Linus would
do if companies started releasing proprietary, source-unavailable
versions of Linux using the kind of subterfuge the FSF would
attack in court if used on software to which the FSF holds the
copyright?)

But as his post urges, I urge developers to devote a reasonable
amount of time and effort to research and choose a licensing
method for your software, and make it clear which one you choose.
And just as a good developer shouldn't assume writing all the
code from scratch is the best way, nor should one assume that
creating a license method from scratch is best.  Look around for
various schemes, find out how they have and have not worked for
popular and unpopular software using them, and only then make your
decision.  The GPL is only one choice, there are many others.
There also are many different ideas people have for what the
word "free" means vis-a-vis software, so it would help if you'd
summarize your meaning if different from the GPL meaning, the
PD meaning, or whatever.  (The GPL meaning is described in the
text of the GPL itself.)
--

James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson    [email-masked]

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

Crossposted-To: alt.games.doom
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Problem with Linux Sound
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 03:02:22 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] writes:
>>>>In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] 
>> (Tim Smith) writes:
>>>>>Bill C. Riemers <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>>>>  2. There is significant delay between action and sound.  i.e. I
>>>>>>     can fire my gun and then turn halfway around before the gun
>>>>>>     sound comes through my speakers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Get shorter speaker cables.
>>>>>
>>>>>--Tim Smith
>>>
>>>>I really hope that you are kidding.  I'd hate to think that our fine 
>>>>educational system is producing people so stupid as to think that
>> reducing the 
>>>>length of cable between an amplifier and the speakers would have an 
>> observable 
>>>>effect.  Think about it:  sound travels through the air about 730 miles per 
>>>>hour at sea-level, electronic signals travel through wire at close to the 
>>>>speed of light (roughly 186,000 miles per _second_).  If you were to make 
>>>>_any_ adjustments to the speaker placement, you'd be better off putting on 
>>>>headphones (though the difference would still be virtually unobservable).
>>>
>>>     I really hope that you are kidding. I'd hate to think that our 
>>>fine educational system is producing people so stupid as the think that 
>>>electrons net velocity down a cable is anywhere close to the speed of 
>>>light. With all those electrons refusing to travel straight and bumping 
>>>into each other, you are lucky if you get 1/10 C.
>> 
>>      I really hope that you are kidding. I'd hate to think that our
>> fine educational system is producing people so stupid that they can't
>> recognize HUMOR.  I thought that the "Get shorter cables" comment was
>> actually amusing.
>> 
>>      In any case, I'd have to check my physics book for exact
>> numbers, but I've got a grasp on the general theory.  First, it
>> doesn't really matter how fast the electrons are moving "along the
>> cable."  What matters is the speed of the electic field.  It does move
>> pretty darn close to C.  Second, while the electrons are jittering
>> back and forth and bumping into one another, they do make progress in
>> the direction of the electric field.  The rate, electron drift speed?,
>> is much slower than C - in fact muhc slower than .1 C.
>> 
>> Gee, I hope I'm right.
>> 
> 
>         I really hope that you are kidding! :-) We all know that sound
> travels much slower than electrons in a wire don't we.. The obvious 
> solution to the original problem is to maximise the distance the sound
> has to travel as electrons and minimise the amount it has to travel as 
> sound waves, so you should actually make the cables _LONGER_
> 
> Sheeesh, some people just can't see the obvious can they :-) ???
> 
> Cheers, Neil _Physics_isn't_my_middle_name_ Gardner
> 
>
I really hope that you are kidding!!! 
look, if the electric feild is move at near C, then if the wire is on a
downhill slope, then the e-field is accelerated past light speed, throwing
you into a time-warp into the past, so you here the sound later (in the real
present)
I thought that this basic concept of time-space physics was obvious :-)

later,
Julian

k 

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

From: [email-masked] (Ramses Moya)
Subject: Is there an ARCNET driver for LINUX ???
Date: 14 Sep 1994 20:05:57 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked]

I'm going to install Linux for the very first time... but before I do I would 
like to know if Linux works with Arcnet cards...  I know that it works with 
ethernet... and that is probably better to get them.. but I'm a student so I 
can't really afford them right now !!!

If any one knows where to get an Arcnet driver and some info on how to 
install it  I would really apriciate it a lot !!!

.-----------------.
|      |\^/|      |  Ramses Moya
|   _|\|   |/|_   |  
|   >         <   |  [email-masked]
|    >_./|\._<    |  [email-masked]
| Ottawa | Canada |  [email-masked]
'-----------------'

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

From: [email-masked] (DAVID L. JOHNSON)
Subject: Re: Word Processor for Linux?
Date: 16 Sep 1994 04:48:21 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] writes:
>[email-masked] (Mike Stancliff) writes:
>>Sender: [email-masked]
>>Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
>>References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: deathstar.cris.com
>>In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Adam Wasserman) wrote:
>>....stuff deleted...
>>>
>>> If linux had 1) a good word processor, 2) Quicken, and 3) ran my dos/windows
>>> multi-media toys, I'd wipe dos/windows off my disk completely.  Assistance
>>> appreciated!

fdisk will help you delete your DOS partition.

>Has no one tried ez from the AUIS package (auis63LO-wp.tgz)?  

No these guys, apparently.

I realize
>it's only 1/8th of the whole AUIS system, but Linux Journal even ran an
>article on it.  So I got frustrated with this thread and d/l it from
>sunsite.  It looks like a fancy word processor.  Ghostview ran into
>problems when I tried to preview the sample document -- could this
>be the reason no one talks about ez when the Word Processing/Spreadsheat
>thread comes up?  

Well, it's not completely trivial to set up, but not anything beyond most
people on this thread (I hope).  It offers all that any other word-processor 
does, and is far easier to use AND more flexible.

>One last thought:  doesn't WordPerfect work under dosemu too (as well
>as iBCS2)?
>
Yes to both.  Hard to know what the fuss is about.

David L. Johnson                        [email-masked] or 
Department of Mathematics               [email-masked]
Lehigh University
14 E. Packer Avenue                     (610) 758-3759
Bethlehem, PA 18015-3174                (610) 828-3708

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

From: [email-masked] (Jeff Kesselman)
Subject: Re: Copyright and licensing - a plea to software authors
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 03:23:42 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Alan Cox) writes:
>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  //
> ``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''

I suppose this IS true, although I would think you could put the same 
kind of dsiclaimer on a PD about suitability of purpose as you coudl ona  
liscensed product.

To my mind a BIGGER issue is that, when you PD something, anyone can do 
ANYTHING with your work-- including using it in ways or for purposes you 
did not intend and don't want to see.

If you want to make things freely available, my sugegstion is to GPL 
them.  FSF has put alot of time and effort (and legal fees) into coming 
up with a contract that allows free distribution and use, but lets them 
retain a degree of control.

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [email-masked] (Jeff Kesselman)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs. Unix Which one is better and why???
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 03:28:22 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Darin Johnson) 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.
>--

I won't disagree with you tah the PDP was a fairly ncie machien for its 
time.  I WILL disagree with you, and give away my age, by sayign that I 
worked on some of the early LSI-11 Unices, and they were better thought 
out, and thus mroe intrinsicly pwoerful system then the OS9 version I 
worked with (CD-RTOS).

It also had signifcantly better development tools. (Like a non-broken 
optimizing C compiler...)

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

From: [email-masked] (Forkboy)
Subject: Anyone have a 3c505 driver?
Date: 14 Sep 1994 00:32:28 -0400

Subject says it all. Anyone have one? Know where I could find one? I've
looked on the ftp sites, and haven't found one yet. It isn't terribly
important, but I would like to be able to use my 3c505 under Linux.

==================================================================
|     Lunatic      |  [email-masked]  | Encounters BBS |
|     Magnet       |  [email-masked]     | (906) 482-6248 |
==================================================================
|    My World Wide Web homepage -- http://www.grfn.org/~dust     |
==================================================================

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

From: [email-masked] (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Horrific bug in DOOM!
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 04:40:42 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
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. 

Well, the Washington post claimed this week that Microsoft *was*
granted a trademark on "Windows" on appeal, after first being denied. 

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

From: [email-masked] (Uwe Bonnes)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: The HP 560C printer
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 05:05:26 GMT

SHAKER Kamal ([email-masked]) wrote:
> We're now looking for a new printer, has to be colour for my
> brothers design work, and my mother wants the Hewlett Packard 560C.
> What I'd like to know is whether it is well supported under OS/2 
> and Linux ( my OS's of choice, I assume it has decent drivers for 
> Windows ). So, does it? Or does anyone else know of a similar printer 
> for about the same price.

Ghostscript supports the 550 and so the 560 on Linux, and should do so too
on OS2

-- 
Uwe Bonnes  [email-masked]

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

From: [email-masked] (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
Subject: Re: The snatchability factor (was Re: WABI v
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 22:51:47 GMT

Anselm Lingnau ([email-masked]) wrote:
: 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.

: Anselm

Jeeze!          Don't get your panties in a wad!  I wasn't advocating piracy
        at all... It was just a RHETORICAL question posed in a humourous
        vein!  Perhaps you stroked out before reading the ending of my
        post which stated :
"
Could prove an interesting situation.  I personally don't give a damn...
don't use WP, don't like it, prefer nroff and troff with perhaps a bit
of LaTeX or idoc for some REALLY fancy stuff.  But then I'll freely admit
to being an anachronistic old curmudgeon (before anyone else labels me!)

"Have a nice time storming the castle, boys..."   ;-)   "

        Lighten up!  (The quote, BTW is from the movie "The Princess Bride"
        -- guess I'd better add that before I get sued for plagarism, too,
        huh?)

--
On the Information SuperHighway, I'm the guy with a hat driving 50 in the fast
lane with my blinker on and my seatbelt hanging out the door making sparks.
                (I don't know who came up with this one, but I like it!)
============================================================
Mark A. Horton       ka4ybr             [email-masked]
P.O. Box 747 Decatur GA US 30031-0747         [email-masked]
+1.404.371.0291                     33 45 31 N / 084 16 59 W

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

From: [email-masked] (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
Subject: Re: Horrific bug in DOOM!
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 22:56:15 GMT

Stephen David  Wray ([email-masked]) wrote:

: Bizzarre -- here, QDOS is a brand of underpants...
: Hmm... maybe theres a connection...

        I LOVE IT!   This is the best one ever!  My hat's off to 
        you, sir!  Have a brew on me!

        - Mark
--
"Using TSO is like kicking a dead whale down the beach." -- D. M.
Ritchie
============================================================
Mark A. Horton       ka4ybr             [email-masked]
P.O. Box 747 Decatur GA US 30031-0747         [email-masked]
+1.404.371.0291                     33 45 31 N / 084 16 59 W

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

From: [email-masked] (Mike Armour)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.i386unix
Subject: Vision864 Chipset Working Yet?
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 17:12:51 +1200

Hi (Again) All,

Are there Any patchs for Xfree86 (Am i correct in assumeing that it will work under normal Linux?) to get the Vision864 Chipset to work,even in only SVGA mode ? 

Or more importantly are they going to be supported in the next XFree Release ??

Email replies please,its pretty urgent :)

Cheers
Mike
-- 
Warning Boring .Sig Follows
   [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
******************************