Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #807
From: Digestifier <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 94 13:13:41 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #807, Volume #2                Fri, 23 Sep 94 13:13:41 EDT

Contents:
  Re: alt.games.doom.linux : vote for... (Peter Henry Mander)
  Linux/FreeBSD ISDN support (Neal Dalton)
  Re: More Memory = Slow Linux?? (Klaus R. Liedl)
  Re: The snatchability factor (was Re: WABI v (Simon)
  Re: How to use a host as a router - READ THIS (Jay Ashworth)
  Re: Don't use Linux; it's too academic! (Richard L. Goerwitz)
  Re: Reveal Sound FX Card (Hannu Savolainen)
  Re: Don't use Linux or it's to academic! (Hannu Savolainen)
  Re: P5-90 MHz beats SGI R4000-100MHz. (Andres Kruse)
  Re: Administration Shells ------------ 2nd Request!!!! [Answer?] (S. Keeling)

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

From: [email-masked] (Peter Henry Mander)
Subject: Re: alt.games.doom.linux : vote for...
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 15:56:07 GMT

I agree. The subject deserves a group of its own.

Go for it!

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

Crossposted-To: comp.dcom.isdn,mn.general
From: [email-masked] (Neal Dalton)
Subject: Linux/FreeBSD ISDN support
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 14:24:53 GMT

I called Digiboard about there ISDN board and asked if they supported
Linux or FreeBSD.  They told that they didn't support either, so I them
why did not support and they told me they had seen the demand for it.
They where planning on a SCO driver.

So, I think everyone should, on principle, call Digiboard and tell them
that they want this support.

DigiBoard * 6400 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 * (612) 943-9020 or (800) 344-4273 * FAX (612) 943-5398 
* E-Mail: [email-masked] * Faxback Service: 612-943-0573 * WWW: http://www.digibd.com/ 
European Office * DigiBoard GmbH * Domkloster 1, 50667 Koln Germany * +49 (0) 221 92052 0 * FAX: +49 (0) 221 92052 10 
* E-Mail: same as above 
DigiBoard-Asia Pte. Ltd. * Blk 19, Kallang Avenue #07-163, Singapore, 1233 * +65 292 5998 * FAX: +65 292 2701 

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

From: [email-masked] (Klaus R. Liedl)
Subject: Re: More Memory = Slow Linux??
Date: 23 Sep 1994 13:18:55 GMT

Larry Pyeatt ([email-masked]) wrote:
: In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Brad Matthew Garcia) writes:
: |> 
: |> 
: |> I keep seeing posts made by people who have added memory
: |> to their computers and subsequently experienced a drop in
: |> performance under Linux.
: |> 
: |> I want to know if anyone knows *why* this happens.  Please post
: |> any replies to this newsgroup, since I believe others would also
: |> be interested in hearing the answers.  If you cannot post for
: |> whatever reason, e-mail me (I will forward to the newsgroup if
: |> you like).

: OK.  here is the scoop:

: Most PC motherboards have really cheesy cache setups.  The cache works
: fine as long as you don't put too much RAM in.  When you get too much
: RAM, the cache does not work on the upper part, so on a 16 Meg system,
: you may only have caching on the lower 8 Meg.  If your cache RAM is 15ns
: and your DRAM is 70ns, and your cache hit rate is 90% for the lower 8 Meg
: and 0% for the upper 8 Meg, then your AVERAGE time for memory access is:

: lower 8 Meg: .10 * 70 + .9 * 15 = 20.5 ns
: upper 8 Meg: 1.0 * 70 + 0.0* 15 = 70 ns
: overall:                          45.25 ns    

: So, by adding the upper 8 Meg, you have more than doubled the AVERAGE time
: to access memory.  The cache makes a big difference.

: The fix:  upgrade your cache to 256K.  Don't forget to upgrade the
: cache tag RAM as well, or you will still get no benefit from the 
: additional cache.  Some motherboards are so cheesy that it is
: impossible to cache the whole address space, even with the maximum
: cache RAM.

Your calculation is nice, but I do not believe that this is the real problem.
To give you an idea why I do not believe it:

I have here running several different PCs under Linux.
The main observation is: 
One of them has an old 486 board (25MHz) with no cache at all and it is very fast. 
There is no real difference to boards with large amounts of L2-cache.
BTW I do not think that the L2-cache is essential for an OS like Linux.
(I am not talking about DOS or doing number cranching under Linux ...).

The point I want to make clear is simply: 
I guess that the performance problems with caching only a part of you
main memory is more an organisational problem on your board than a problem
with 70 ns ...

Klaus
--
([email-masked])
======================================
LinuX the choice of the GNU-generation

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

From: Simon <[email-masked]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.hp,comp.sys.hp.apps,comp.sys.sun.apps,comp.windows.x,comp.windows.x.apps,comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: The snatchability factor (was Re: WABI v
Date: 23 Sep 1994 14:02:18 +0100

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR) writes:
>Mark A. Davis ([email-masked]) wrote:
>: Again, there is no need for a Linux version of WP.  The SCO version runs
>: fine.... pester them for official support of running the SCO version
>: under Linux IBCS/COFF (which is a possibility); don't bother worrying
>: about a native Linux version because it WILL NOT HAPPEN.

I'd agree with this... I can really see WP saying 'Hey, lets code a version of
WP for Linux rather than use our current code that works' :)

>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"

Well, you have to remember what you are buying when you get a software package.
A *license* to use it. This means that you are essentially buying the right to
use the software package on one or more machines (naturally, this depends on
the license. Normally you will pay more for a multi-user, often paying larger
amounts for larger number of users (although I do like SunSoft licensing of
Solaris, you have a 2 user license, or a multi-user license... multi-user being
as many users has the machine can support at one time. Doesn't cost much either
(*much* cheaper than SCOs license agreements)). So if you *did* return the
product, and asked for a *full* refund, you would be using the software without
a license, which is priacy. I guess you could ask if you could return the
media the package came on, and ask for a refund on that... but somehow I don't
think companies are going to let you do that. It would still be legal though, as
you still have a license to use the product.

As an aside, I know that Microsoft sells a license for their products, so you
can legally use a copy, although I think that they intended it to be used to
allow more people to use a legitimate copy of their software. It *is* cheaper
than buying a completely new package, as you don't have the media and manual
costs to pay.

>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!)
Yep, I *used* to use WP, but when I got to this Unix box, I started to use
LaTex (I also used a package that let me convert WP files to LaTex format as a
stop gap (didn't like program code much at all) until I could learn LaTex
properly). I can now do everything I could do with the windows versions of
WP or Word, and in some cases, more (LaTex is *great* for maths :).

--
Simon

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

From: [email-masked] (Jay Ashworth)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.admin,alt.uu.comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: How to use a host as a router - READ THIS
Date: 23 Sep 1994 09:12:26 -0400

[email-masked] (Frank van Maarseveen) writes:
>> Destination    Gateway          Netmask       Flags   MSS    iface
>> 127.0.0.1      127.0.0.1        255.0.0.0     UH      1536   lo0
>> 199.245.227.0  199.245.227.254  255.255.255.0 U       1436   eth0
>> default        198.147.221.1    255.255.255.0 U       1436   ppp0

>Why has the loopback route a destination 127.0.0.1 instead of 127.0.0.0
>in accordance with the specified netmask?
>The loopback interface could have IP address 127.0.0.1 and connect to
>a loopback network 127.0.0.0 with netmask 255.0.0.0 (conceptually)

And in practice, people who route the loopback _host_, and people who
route the loopback _network_ seem evenly split.  Perversely, Mmy machine
_says_ it's routing the host, but any host on that net is loopback.  Go
figure...

>About assigning the same IP address to multiple interfaces on the same
>host:
>One could argue that this is "correct" as long as the outer world cannot
>see any difference. Consider all interfaces as one big specially designed
>interface with the software (linux) hiding the differences. So, as long
>as the software supports this concept it is correct IMHO.

This depends, as you say, on whether the IP kernel code can make it's
routing decisions based on interface name, rather than interface address.
I gather some can, and I gather it's a new thing.  Older (primarily
4.2/3BSD) code apparently couldn't.  I'm in the middle of rereading
Leffler & McKusick, I should have a better answer than that shortly.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth        High Technology Systems Comsulting             Ashworth
Designer              Linux: The Choice of a GNU Generation       & Associates
ka1fjx/4                                                  
[email-masked]   "Hey! Do any of you guys know how to Madison?"  813 790 7592

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

From: [email-masked] (Richard L. Goerwitz)
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux; it's too academic!
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 17:22:51 GMT

[email-masked] (Matt Welsh) writes:

>>2. There are no programs available that does Word-processing, spreadsheets,
>>   databases, presentation graphics and so on, as we have under MS-DOS
>>   and Windows.
>
>False.

Matt, don't be baited.  The poster is clearly clueless.  It is true that Unix
software tends to be hard to support, hard to find, and more expensive than
Windows or DOS-based counterparts.  But this isn't the decisive factor for a
lot of folks.

>>9. Printed manuals and easy 'Get started' manuals does not exist.
>
>False.

Again, I don't see how the stuff that's available for Linux can be compared
to what there is for Windows or DOS (not that this stuff is much good, ei-
ther - in fact, it's pretty funny how a lot of DOS software comes with manu-
als so incomplete and badly written that you have to go out and buy a book
guide just to figure out what is going on).  Personally, I prefer the Linux
on-line stuff, but that's not for everyone.

>I don't give a damn whether this is "flame-bait" or not; I'm tired
>of seeing this kind of misinformation propagated by people without
>the faintest idea of what they're talking about. Please research your 
>claims in more detail before posting them to USENET.

I'm not sure you can say that Linux multimedia support, or international-
ization, or many other things, are as good as what you'd find on a Mac or
under DOS/Windows.  I'm particularly cognizant of the fact that Linux has
no fully internationalized word processing, like what we find in MLS for
DOS, or NISUS for the Mac, etc.  But what is the point of Linux?  Is it
supposed to be another DOS?  Don't think so.  It's a traditional Unix
kernel for traditional Unix uses - software development, TCP/IP, file
servers, mail routers, etc.

If someone wants to do word processing, then Linux clearly isn't the first
choice.  TeX is an 80s-style typesetter.  Like looking at WordPerfect in
"reveal codes" mode :-).  Sure you can get WordPerfect for Linux, but this
isn't even the lead version (6.0).  Under Windows or on a Mac you just plug
in MS-Word or whatever and go.  And the Andrew editor, well, let's just say
that it is minimal - nothing like the systems you can get for DOS/Win/Mac.

Doesn't mean I'll trash my Linux partition, which has too many other uses.
I just don't know how, for example, anyone could choose DOS or Windows as
their development environment.

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              [email-masked]
   [email-masked]          rutgers!oddjob!ellis!goer

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

From: [email-masked] (Hannu Savolainen)
Subject: Re: Reveal Sound FX Card
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 05:58:54 GMT

[email-masked] (Neil L Cook) writes:

>I have a Reveal SoundFX card, model SC400. It supports Soundblaster
>ProII, and MSS. I have it working just fine with Soundblaster Pro
>support built into the kernel. However, the card supports 16 bit
>sound.
>My question is:
>1) Will the Microsoft Sound System support  in the newest kernel
>support 16 bt sound using the MSS chip on my card?
Yes it will (if you have some luck with IRQ and DMA settings).

>2) Can I use this to play doom with 16bit sound? :-)
Yes you can.

Hannu
-- 
=============================
Hannu Savolainen
[email-masked]
"Don't use Windows since there is a door!"

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

From: [email-masked] (Hannu Savolainen)
Subject: Re: Don't use Linux or it's to academic!
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 06:19:43 GMT

[email-masked] (Ian McCloghrie) writes:

>[email-masked] (Maxim Spivak) writes:

>>In article <[email-masked]>,
>>Svein Erik Brostigen <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>When it comes to TokenRing and MCA based machines, well IBM is the
>>>biggest player in the computer world no matter what you people of the
>>>.edu thinks!

>>Actually, to be fair, Microsoft is the biggest player in the computer 
>>world. IBM is really a has-been and may be will-be but definitely 
>>not-here. Of course this is in the US, not Norway.

>In the home user PC market, yes.  But in business, there's still a lot
>of people using IBM mainframes and IBM PS/2s to connect to them.  Not
>as many as there were, granted, but there's still a lot out there.

Linux and it's hardware support has been written by persons that use Linux
themself. And usually these persons (including me) write the drivers mainly
for fun. It's fun to write support just for hardware that I use
myself and for which there is sufficient documentation available. Writing
drivers for somebody else is not interesting at all as long as nobody pays
for doing that.

PS/2, MCA and Token Ring are technologies which are not used by persons
writing Linux so it's no surprise that they are not supported. The fact that
these technologies are widely used is not alone a sufficient reason to implement
support for them. However Linux is free OS which means than any user of
PS/2 or TokenRing has freedom to write the support (or to hire a ISA/ethernet
hacker to do it).

Hannu
-- 
=============================
Hannu Savolainen
[email-masked]
"Don't use Windows since there is a door!"

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

From: [email-masked] (Andres Kruse)
Subject: Re: P5-90 MHz beats SGI R4000-100MHz.
Date: 23 Sep 94 14:44:30 GMT
Reply-To: [email-masked] (Andres Kruse)

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Valery Petrov) writes:
>Some benchmarks comparison:
>
>                       DELL XPS-90      SGI with R4000 cpu (100MHz):
>Integer:               19.2 sec.               23.3 sec.
>Floating point:                200 sec.                199 sec.
>
>I used gcc-2.5.8 with Linux-1.1.51 on DELL's Pentium and C 3.18 with Irix 5.2 
>on Silicon Graphics machine. Programs were written in plain C using double precision 
>for floating point. Considering the price difference (similarly equipped SGI 
>is ~3 times more expensive) I wonder who whould like to buy those Indigos nowdays. 

Oh yeah? What about SGIs superb graphics ? What about the fact that you 
can put 256MB RAM in them (and it works! (have you ever seen a PC 
with > 64MB?)) ? What about ECC checked memory ? What about a >200MB/sec bus ?
What if you want to develop code which runs then in parallel on SGI Challenges ? 
What if you want to have a *real* FORTRAN compiler ? What if you want to have 
perfect integration of AUDIO/VIDEO ? What if you want to use disk striping to get
transfer rates of > 20MB/sec ?

Remember that the Indigo is the low end of a rather big line of workstations. 
R4000SC is actually a processor which is already 2 years old and obsolete. 
The processor you should be comparing to is R4400@150Mhz which can be up 
to two times as fast depending on your code. And if you were using R8000
your floating point speed would be almost four times as fast (looking
at the SPEC FP92 numbers (Intel 815/100: ~80, PowerChallenge R8000: ~310).

>
>Valery Petrov.
>Nonlinear Dynamics Research Group.
>Department of Chemistry.
>West Virginia University.
-- 
=======================================================================
Andres Kruse      | NIKHEF - National Institute for Nuclear Physics
[email-masked] | and High-Energy Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
=======================================================================

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

From: [email-masked] (S. Keeling)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.unixware
Subject: Re: Administration Shells ------------ 2nd Request!!!! [Answer?]
Date: 21 Sep 1994 11:46:53 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>, Patrick Draper <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>I am interested in knowing what administration shells exist for Linux.
>I've asked this question before, but received nearly no response at all.
>I am interested only in distribution quality shells that exist on FTP
>sites for general use.

        Since you've heard from no-one about this, hopefully my
addition to this thread won't overload your mailbox:

  ---------------------  8<  snip  ----------------------------

                             Linux Projects Map

This is the Linux Projects Map (LPM). Here you'll find some information
concerning popular projects that are currently in the design or coding
stage. The map supersedes the former Linux Projects-FAQ; the name "Map"

[stuff deleted]

The Linux Projects Map will be updated regularly and will be available on
sunsite.unc.edu as /pub/Linux/docs/Projects-Map.gz. The latest and greatest
version is always being kept on ftp.ix.de:/pub/Linux/docs/Projects-Map.gz.
A HTML version will be eventually available on ftp.ix.de.

[stuff deleted]

Field:          Description
===========     ======================================================

Title:          Generic Linux System Admin Tool 
Desc1:          A package of tools, accessed through a user-freindly 
Desc2:          menu system for adminstrating, installing, and 
Desc3:          configuring Linux distributions. Done in cooperation 
Desc4:          with Linux International. 
Desc5:          
Author:         Pat Spinler, Ross Becker, others whom I forget right now :( 
AuthorEmail:    [email-masked] 
InfoSources1:   linux-config channel mailing list 
InfoSources2:   
InfoSources3:   
Assistance:     assistance appreciated 
CurrentStat:    in design 
ETA:            optimal: Sept 94, conservative: Dec 94. 
Remarks1:       Targeted to work with the major Linux distributions 
Remarks2:       and probably any distrib conforming to the FSSTND. 
Remarks3:       Might optionally be extended for different OS's such as 
Remarks4:       Net/Free BSD later. 
Remarks5:       
Entered:        26 Aug 1994

=============================== snip ===============================

Title:          Simple Linux System Manager 
Desc1:          A SMIT like program, that let you manage your Linux system 
Desc2:          without knowing about all those little System Administrator 
Desc3:          tools that make a nightmare your life. 
Desc4:          Good for newbies. 
Desc5:          
Author:         Riccardo Facchetti writing the perl core and the dialog I/O 
AuthorEmail:    [email-masked] 
InfoSources1:   Don't ask but on Usenet News, group comp.os.linux.admin, 
InfoSources2:   don't expect any answer (i have too few time to read news 
InfoSources3:   every day), Don't write by e-mail unless really important. 
Assistance:     not required 
CurrentStat:    first code runs 
ETA:            conservative: end of 1994, maybe. 
Remarks1:       The package is still in development, but the main core of 
Remarks2:       I/O is finished. I've started to add functionality 
Remarks3:       and i'm still open to new ideas (e-mail me if you think you 
Remarks4:       have a good one). 
Remarks5:       
Entered:        26 Aug 1994

=============================== snip ===============================

Title:          ALT - Administrators little tool 
Desc1:          ALT is a Motif-based system administrators tool which 
Desc2:          can be used for dealing with Software-packages, Users, 
Desc3:          configuring Networks, etc. 
Desc4:          
Desc5:          
Author:         Thomas Woerner 
AuthorEmail:    [email-masked] 
InfoSources1:   Email & WWW-page at 
InfoSources2:   WWW: http://134.2.172.13:4711/alt.html/ 
InfoSources3:   Email: [email-masked] 
Assistance:     not required 
CurrentStat:    first code runs 
ETA:            maybe December 1994 until ALPHA (conservative ;-) 
Remarks1:       Co-author: Christian Huettermann 
Remarks2:       ([email-masked]) 
Remarks3:       
Remarks4:       
Remarks5:       
Entered:        26 Aug 1994

  ---------------------  8<  snip  ----------------------------

-- 

 [email-masked]       s. keeling,   aecl - whiteshell labs

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

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