Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #884
From: Digestifier <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 94 18:16:10 EDT

Linux-Misc Digest #884, Volume #2                 Wed, 5 Oct 94 18:16:10 EDT

Contents:
  Re: Curious: Why is Linux DOOM so much slower than DOS doom (Harm Hanemaaijer)
  XF86Config for IBM ThinkPad? (Karl Buck)
  Re: ISDN for LINUX (Tobias Erichsen)
  Re: Nailed down to 386bsd or linux, now which one? (Mark Tinguely)
  direct access to window's bitmap (Piet Ruyssinck)
  PPP or SLIP (Michael Tesar)
  Re: Is Linux faster than Os/2? Please help. (Bottom of a Plant)
  Re: Curious: Why is Linux DOOM so much slower than DOS doom (Casey Barton)
  Re: In Defense of SW Technologies !! (S. Keeling)
  Re: Word (Text) processors for Linux? (Joseph W. Vigneau)
  Re: Word (Text) processors for Linux? (Terence S. Murphy)
  XFree86(tm)-3.1 truecolor and older apps (Michael Will)
  Re: Linux on a 386 (Alex Ramos)
  Re: Linux mentioned in PC Week (Mats 'MaDsen' Wikholm)
  Re: New Linux Distribution (Josef Dalcolmo)
  Linux working! (Po-Han Lin)
  Re: Linux marches on (Mats 'MaDsen' Wikholm)
  Document on PCI Information - read me if you are thinking about PCI (Steven M. Henry)
  Re: POLS ON THE NET (Dan Newcombe)

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

From: [email-masked] (Harm Hanemaaijer)
Subject: Re: Curious: Why is Linux DOOM so much slower than DOS doom
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 15:26:08 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Casey Barton) writes:

>In article <[email-masked]>,
>>In article <[email-masked]>,
>>>Sujat Jamil ([email-masked]) wrote:
>>>: I'd really like to know why does Linux DOOM run significantly slower
>>and enough memory that X+Doom is not a burden, and not much else running,
>>the fact that you are using the accel functions of the card as opposed to
>>using it as a dumb frame buffer in DOS will offset the X overhead...
>
>    Linux DOOM doesn't really use the accelerated functions of any video
>cards, does it? Note that running DOOM in an X session that uses accelerated
>drivers will *not* accelerate DOOM itself. It's still working with a virtual
>"dumb frame buffer", no? 

Right. If you run 'ps -u' after running Doom for a while, you'll see
that the amount of time used by the X server (transferring the
framebuffer to the screen, and X overhead) is relatively small on
local bus cards. Linux X Doom is a non-x86 optimized version. Main
memory performance is probably also a factor due to the larger/more
fragmented memory footprint; it is pathetic on most motherboards.

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

From: [email-masked] (Karl Buck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: XF86Config for IBM ThinkPad?
Date: 4 Oct 1994 22:25:10 -0500

I have a model 340 with a greyscale monitor (64 colors). I assume 
I will have to run the 16 color server. I'd appreciate it if some-
one out there would share their config file. Thanks. --Karl
-- 
Karl Buck         
USGMRL                 
913.537.3666 (H)       http://www.ksu.ksu.edu:/~kxb
913.776.2745 (W)       PGP public key available via finger.

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

From: Tobias Erichsen <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: ISDN for LINUX
Date: 5 Oct 1994 08:46:20 GMT

Hi Paul!

Why don't you just take a passive card like from Teles, Berlin or
from Creatix (which is an Teles-OEM-Product).  It's a software-
configurable card (interrupt & adress-space), it uses the 
Siemens/AMD ISAC and HSCX chips and is VERY cheap.  Without VAT
it should be around $120.  There is a broad range of those cards
installed in Germany and other parts of Europe.  If your drivers
would support NI-1 and EDSS-1 I guess you could get an even 
bigger market-share...

if you have questions, just send me a mail...

Tobias Erichsen

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

Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc
From: [email-masked] (Mark Tinguely)
Subject: Re: Nailed down to 386bsd or linux, now which one?
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 14:50:57 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Jeff Kesselman) writes:
<text removed>
>I think he's referring to the 
>fact that Linux is being developed openly by a large group, while FreeBSD 
>is controlled and dvevloped by one fairly closed group.  (I don't know if 
>thsi is true, BTW., I've just heard thsi claim before.)

Technologies are quickly shared between all the OSes. So Linux, and *BSD are
actually have the whole group contributing the features found in the OS. 
So what are the major things to look for when choosing an OS (IMHO)?

1) the basic "flavor" of Unix you like. Besides being Posix compliant, I think
   everyone can agree that Linux is a System V based OS and *BSD is BSD based
   OS. there is a slight philosophy difference.

2) what form of support (releases, question answering, porting, testing,
   attitude), etc.  If you are happy with your support then that OS is where
   you belong.

3) there is a slight culture difference between all of the groups. IMO, Linux
   is more DOS friendly, *BSD are more DOS-phobic. NetBSD is multi-platform,
   FreeBSD more conservative for stability sake. Right now each are very
   stable, growing, have many overly-dedicated workers.

It is difficult to answer "which OS is better?", because the answer would
be, "for me, MINE is better". 

--mark.

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

From: [email-masked] (Piet Ruyssinck)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: direct access to window's bitmap
Date: 5 Oct 1994 14:48:18 GMT

Hello,

I'm looking for information on how to directly access an
X window's bitmap memory.
I think it's possible (at least on a linux machine) because
DOOM for linux apparently does it.

Thanks in advance,
Piet

--
| Piet RUYSSINCK                  [email-masked] |
| Department of Data Analysis               +32 9 264 4733 |
| University of Ghent (RUG)                                |
| Krijgslaan 281, building S9 (ARC), B-9000 Ghent, Belgium |

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

From: [email-masked] (Michael Tesar)
Subject: PPP or SLIP
Date: 5 Oct 1994 13:52:13 GMT

Hello!

I would like to connect my two computers with a null-modem-cable and use
slip or ppp to exchange data. 

Is there anybody who has done the same and could send me his config files,
and so on.

Thx in advance

--Michael
 
=============================================
Michael Tesar   [email-masked]
                [email-masked]

Quote: Linux forever
=============================================

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

From: [email-masked] (Bottom of a Plant)
Subject: Re: Is Linux faster than Os/2? Please help.
Date: 2 Oct 1994 19:21:50 -0500

Bill C. Riemers ([email-masked]) wrote:
: Last I checked "fvwm" uses the least amount of memory.  But software
: changes...  Has anyone done recent tests to findout:

Why are so many people using fvwm?  Is there some distribution of
linux where this is the default?

I've been using twm for several years and I don't believe there's
a faster, more portable window manager available for X11... Considering
it's SUPPOSED to be the default.   If you think the menus are boring,
consider adding gradient colors for the items of a menu.   It's much
easier to deal with a .twmrc file than an .mwmrc file or many of
the other window managers.   This applies to me only.  Your mileage
may vary.

-- nathan

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

From: [email-masked] (Casey Barton)
Subject: Re: Curious: Why is Linux DOOM so much slower than DOS doom
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 06:24:58 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>In article <[email-masked]>,
>>Sujat Jamil ([email-masked]) wrote:
>>: I'd really like to know why does Linux DOOM run significantly slower
>and enough memory that X+Doom is not a burden, and not much else running,
>the fact that you are using the accel functions of the card as opposed to
>using it as a dumb frame buffer in DOS will offset the X overhead...

    Linux DOOM doesn't really use the accelerated functions of any video
cards, does it? Note that running DOOM in an X session that uses accelerated
drivers will *not* accelerate DOOM itself. It's still working with a virtual
"dumb frame buffer", no?  
-- 
|    Casey Barton (a guy)    [email-masked]    (519)746-9832     |
|                    http://calum.uwaterloo.ca/u/cebarton                      |

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

From: [email-masked] (S. Keeling)
Subject: Re: In Defense of SW Technologies !!
Date: 2 Oct 1994 23:14:23 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>,
Tim Bass (Network Systems Engineer) <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>Everyone,
>
>There are only a few people who can be more demanding than me
>and to be honest, I'm a real pain sometimes about support and
>love to complain.  I am not affiliated with Marvin Wu and SWT

        The way I read it, SW is making a *lot* of people satisfied
with their service, products and support.  I estimate it as 20 pro to
1 con.

        I'd say they must be doing an overall decent job.
-- 

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

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

From: [email-masked] (Joseph W. Vigneau)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Word (Text) processors for Linux?
Date: 5 Oct 1994 20:46:30 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Terence S. Murphy <[email-masked]> wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]>, J.J. Paijmans <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>Does editing with emacs offer additional features for the LaTeX user that
>aren't present in vi?  I'm curious about what they are, since I really love
>vi/LaTeX, and don't have problems with it; of course, I haven't done anything
>very complicated vith LaTeX.  (This is a question, not a flame :)

You can get LaTeX modes for emacs to make life a little easier... It remaps
keys so you can close \begin blocks automatically, another one lets you run
LaTeX on the curent buffer, and stuff like that... If you're willing to
sacrifice some speed and memory, emacs is the way to go...
-- 
[email-masked], [email-masked]          WPI Computer Science     Linux!
    <a href="http://www.wpi.edu:8080/~joev"> Click Here! </a>

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

From: [email-masked] (Terence S. Murphy)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Word (Text) processors for Linux?
Date: 5 Oct 1994 10:25:30 -0500

In article <[email-masked]>, J.J. Paijmans <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Mind that emacs IS the other thing you are looking for.
>The combination of LaTeX and emacs can't be beaten.

Does editing with emacs offer additional features for the LaTeX user that
aren't present in vi?  I'm curious about what they are, since I really love
vi/LaTeX, and don't have problems with it; of course, I haven't done anything
very complicated vith LaTeX.  (This is a question, not a flame :)
-- 
Terry Murphy | UIUC Frosh/CS Major  | "The whole world has been made again" -
Marillion | There ought to be an alt.fan.linus-torvalds! |  "The S.A.T is not
geared for the lower class so why waste time even trying to pass?"-Gang Starr
"I never found a companion that was so companionable as solitude"-H.D.Thoreau

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

From: [email-masked] (Michael Will)
Subject: XFree86(tm)-3.1 truecolor and older apps
Date: 3 Oct 94 21:04:39 GMT

Now that I configured the new XFree86 right, I still have problems 
with some nice apps like linuxxdoom, xv's visual schnautzer and 
mpeg_play to cope with the new situation... 

is ast least xv going to be fixed? It is so much more cool to have 
the visual schnautzer without a private colormap as it was in the old 8bit 
XFree86, if only the colors would be correct in the new 16bit version :-)

Cheers, Michael Will

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

From: [email-masked] (Alex Ramos)
Subject: Re: Linux on a 386
Date: 30 Sep 1994 15:38:51 GMT

Jeff Kesselman ([email-masked]), quoted out of context, wrote:
> In article <[email-masked]>,
> Jim Sun <[email-masked]> wrote:
> >[email-masked] (Jeff Kesselman) wrote:
> >
> >>Note however that NOT all 486's are equal.  The IBM 
> >>blue-lightening 486 for instance, is really a 386 with improved caching.  
> >>it does NOt have the improved micrcode and runs somewhere btw a 386 and 486
> >>in performance....
> >
> >The first sentence is correct; the remainder are misinformation at best.
> >IBM's SLC and DLC processors are indeed merely improved 386s;

What about Cyrix's DLC? Is it also just an improved 386?

--
Alex Ramos ([email-masked]) * http://info.latech.edu/~ramos/
Louisiana Tech University, BSEE/Sr * These opinions are probably mine

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

From: [email-masked] (Mats 'MaDsen' Wikholm)
Subject: Re: Linux mentioned in PC Week
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 21:05:36 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR) writes:
>       (My dog's still saving up for a special keyboard :) ... )

        Yeah, well,  my  cat is  still more   into drinking  milk than
hacking away with me, but occasinally she reeboots the machine :)

>       hitherto fragmented market.   And wasn't Lotus 123 stolen ..errr..
>       "borrowed as in look-and-feel" from Visicalc?  I can't remember
>       exactly... old-timer's disease, you know... :)

        I  guess   they   borrowed   the same    way   as from   Stack
Electronics. And when that went sour they bought into Stac. Although I
have to say that MS is not one of those that buys out the competition,
they  just   buy   out  the    companies   before   they become    the
competition.  Also  if someone announces a   new promising  product MS
comes out with the same thing a month later and bangs  the big drum so
that the other one goes bankrupt...

>: I personally think that there's place in the computing world both for 
>: various Unices and MS-Windows-type OS's. They are generally used by 
>: different audiences, with only a little overlap.
>       Actually, I agree with you here... I've given up trying to 
>       convert the world to Linux.  If they're happy with DOS and
>       Windows (and the wonderful stability they have <g>), leave them
>       be.  Use something like samba and connect to a Linux server
>       for file sharing and such, but leave them happy and in the
>       same state of mastery/confusion as they've come to love.

        Yes, there's room for   more  than Linux, the   taste  differs
fortunately. There probably is no use to try to get everyone to switch
over to Linux, that will come in time, because  people that you try to
force  inte  switching will never  like it.  We just  have  to keep on
telling them how good Linux (and ^z) is so  that everyone gets jealous
of us. :)

-- 
 . . . .  [email-masked]   /   frantzgatan 3 E 25
  . . .  @358.(9)21.377.363    /   20380 �bo  finland
   . .  Linux, the way to get rid of boot viruses  
    .  <a href="http://at8.abo.fi/~mwikholm">my homepage</a> 

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

From: [email-masked] (Josef Dalcolmo)
Subject: Re: New Linux Distribution
Date: 5 Oct 1994 18:32:30 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
Charles Blair <[email-masked]> wrote:
>   I suspect a lot of novice users never use sed and awk, and that many
>more use vi.

I doubt vi appeals to a windows user. Sed and awk may be replaced by a more
general and better readable scripting language: python.

- Josef

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

From: [email-masked] (Po-Han Lin)
Subject: Linux working!
Date: 3 Oct 1994 07:50:14 -0700

I actually have linux running off of my secondary 810Meg harddrive!!!!
Wow!  Its fast too!  But I only have version 1.0.9 now.  Is there
someone who can answer this question?

I have a Diamond Stealth VLB.  Does the XFree386 allow me to use Xwindows?
Is that file all I need (the 2.1.1)  Is this the latest version?
Someone mentioned 3.1 (but is this a typo)

I partitioned 350 megs for Linux and 16 meg for the swap file.
But when I do a df, its not there.  what command do i use to see it?

I get warnings about physical and logical cylinders not matching when
I run fdisk, etc.  (I made the CMOS type 47, with >1024 cylinders)
Should I change it back to 1024?  But if i do, Linux doesn't recognize
I have more than 1024 because linux takes its info off of the CMOS
right?  So is it ok the way I did it?  with those occassional warnings
about some software might not work with it?

Can someone tell me, what is the correct procedure for patching a kernel?
I cant recall, but you are supposed to give an option when updating,
or making the files. and you are supposed to do things in certain directories.
anyways if you dont give the options, it misses out something.  What was it?
can someone tell me?

Additional email response requested if you post a reply.  thanks!

-- 
۲����۲����۲����۲����۲����۲����۲����۲����۲����۲����۲����۲����۲�����
��������������������������������������������۲���������������������������������
��������������������������������������������۲���������������������������������
���۲����۲����۲����۲����۲����۲����۲����۲����۲����۲����۲����۲����۲��

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

From: [email-masked] (Mats 'MaDsen' Wikholm)
Subject: Re: Linux marches on
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 21:19:35 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:
>My dad's department (a physical science department at a large Ivy League
>university) is about to buy 10 Pentiums running Linux.  ;-)

        My  brother just sold 25  Pentiums to an Technical Engineering
school in Vasa (Finland)  and they are all going  to be running Linux!

-- 
 . . . .  [email-masked]   /   frantzgatan 3 E 25
  . . .  @358.(9)21.377.363    /   20380 �bo  finland
   . .  Linux, the way to get rid of boot viruses  
    .  <a href="http://at8.abo.fi/~mwikholm">my homepage</a> 

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

From: [email-masked] (Steven M. Henry)
Subject: Document on PCI Information - read me if you are thinking about PCI
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 17:18:57

PCI or not to PCI?
==================
Well about two weeks ago I asked for some information on PCI motherboards 
and the amount of information was overwhelming.  But I promised I would put 
the information together in a document and post it to the comp.os.linux.misc 
conference.  I will also have a copy of this available by 
ftp://succeed.ee.vt.edu/pub/pci/pci.txt.  If you have any corrections to this 
information feel free to email me at [email-masked].  Please let me know if 
this is helpful at all or if there is other information you would like 
included.

Its time to upgrade...
======================
Well you may be in the position I was and decide to upgrade your computer. 
And of course you want to maintain your Linux compatibility as well as improve 
your Linux performance, so what should I do? Well at first I was going to 
upgrade to a 486DX2/66 or 486DX2/80, and I was trying to decide to whether or 
not to go the VLB or PCI route.  From information I have read, PCI is nice and 
will make the transition to a Pentium motherboard easier since you do not have 
to upgrade your video and hard disk controller.  However as far as performance 
is concerned, you will not see that drastic of an improvement over VLB (it is 
debatable if VLB is slightly faster than PCI on a 486 system).  So if you plan 
on upgrading your motherboard at a later date with a Pentium motherboard, it 
would probably be prudent to go with PCI.  But if you are trying to save a 
buck and plan on replacing your motherboard, graphics card, and controller 
card, then VLB is the way to go.

What exactly is PCI?
============================
PCI is a bus standard.  It was developed to increase the performance between 
the processor and periphals (graphics cards, controller cards, network cards). 
PCI is a better standard than VLB and will most likely outlive VLB.   PCI 
devices are generally easier to develop than their VLB counterparts.  
Currently the PCI bus is 32 bit and the speed of the bus is tied to the speed 
of the processor.  There are extensions for the PCI bus to go 64 bit but there 
are no widely available 64 bit cards (the 64 bit graphics cards are 
misleading, they only have a 32 bit bus).  Generally with a Pentium-60, the 
bus will operate at 30 MHz, and with a Pentium-66 the bus operates at 33MHz (I 
do not know what the bus operates at for a Pentium-90).  It is my 
understanding that the current PCI spec does not support any speeds over 33 
MHz.  Devices on a PCI bus look different than devices on a VLB/ISA 
motherboard.  PCI uses level-triggered slot-specific interrupts, whereas VLB 
uses edge triggered ISA bus interrupts. 

For exact PCI specifications contact:

PCI Special Interest Group
M/S JF2-51
5200 N.E. Elam Young Parkway
Hillsboro, Oregon 97124-6497
(503)696-6111

Non-members of the PCI SIG may request a PCI Local Bus Specification for
$25 + shipping costs by calling:
1-800-433-5177

Well I want a PCI motherboard. Which one should I get?
======================================================
Well there are many PCI motherboards available, the performance and features vary.
The most recommended PCI motherboard was the ASUS PCI motherboards (they use 
the SIS chipset).  It is supported by Linux and offers a good price and good 
features/performance.  One thing to be aware of is that the ASUS 486 PCI 
boards do not support the AMD 486DX/40 or the AMD486DX2/80.  I have been 
told to avoid the ASUS SP3 (without the G, the ASUS SP3G is the one you will 
generally find advertised on the 'net) also to avoid revisions older than rev 
1.7.  If you would like to contact ASUS directly, you can call them at 
408-956-9077.

Some general info about the ASUS SP3G:
The motherboard comes with 2 serial (both 16550 UARTs) and 1 parallel ports.  It 
also has an onboard NCR 53c810 SCSI controller (this is supported by Linux 
with a kernal patch). It has only 4 slots for 72-pin SIMMs, but a SIMM can be 
4, 8, 16, or 32 megs (for a max of 128 megs).  So get the densest ones you can 
afford.

Some other brands of 486 PCI motherboards that were recommended for Linux 
were A.I.R. 486 VP and Gateway 2000 486 PCI systems. 

Recommendations for Pentium PCI motherboards were ASUS, Intel, Gateway 
2000 Pentium PCI Systems, and Dell Pentium PCI Systems.

I would recommend buying through a dealer that will take back the motherboard 
if you are not entirely satisfied with it.  From the posts I received 
performance can vary greatly.  This can be a function of BIOS settings, 
however, some PCI motherboards do not perform as well as they should.  And you 
should definitely avoid any PCI motherboard that uses the OPTI chip set, its 
PCI bus is VERY slow.

Who is the author of this document?
===================================
I am Steve Henry. I am a senior in Electrical Engineering at Virginia Tech and 
I have been using Linux since 1992.  I am definitely not an expert on PCI, but 
I hope the information presented in this document can help others who are 
considering upgrades.  I have a lot of information on PCI graphics cards as 
well if the general public is interested on a document on that as well.  Feel 
free to email with comments/suggestions/corrections/additions at 
[email-masked].
Thanks, Steve
============================================================================
[email-masked]                   KE4IMK                        Virginia Tech
Steven M. Henry                 Go Hokies!                      BSEE May '95
============================================================================

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

From: [email-masked] (Dan Newcombe)
Subject: Re: POLS ON THE NET
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 16:45:35 UNDEFINED

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:

>Message # 20170 has been read

Good...I was beginning to get worried about it :)

--
Dan Newcombe                    [email-masked]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"And the man in the mirror has sad eyes."       -Marillion

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

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