Linux-Advocacy Digest #610, Volume #26 Sat, 20 May 00 07:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Closed-mindedness and zeal... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!) ("Christopher
Smith")
Re: Top 10 Reasons to Use Windows NT (Matthias Warkus)
Re: a great job (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Ray)
Re: Need to make UNIX autoresponder (Rejo Zenger)
Re: a few questions please (Giuliano Colla)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 05:22:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I have been programming for a long time, over 25 years,
> > almost 20 years professionally.
>
> I'm about the same. I was programming when Bill Gates was
> scolding dealers for copying his $500/copy punched paper tape
> version of MITS BASIC. It didn't matter that the competitors
> were only charging about $25/copy.
Nor that MS's BASIC was a blatant rip-off of DEC's BASIC sold for
PDP-11's.
Or, isn't it a coincidence that these are the ONLY TWO languages that
use CTRL-Z as "end of file"?
>
> > The brief fad we call micro computers,
> > i.e. CPUs that, today, would not
> > even be used in many embedded applications.
> > The Z-80, 8080, 8086(88)
> > were all so underpowered that so
> > many short cuts had to be made.
>
> > The single tasking paradigms, etc.
> > They have all affected how we develop
> > programs today.
>
> Very true. both Bill Gates and Gary Kildall had programmed
> on RT-11 and tried to emulate that user interface.
And outright stole the BASIC interpreter for it....(and then
complained about dealers stealing MS-BASIC....the hypocrisy).
>
> CP/M-80 didn't even have hierarchal file systems. Ironically,
> Cromemco ZDOS was quite UNIX-like, as was OS-9, but without
> good memory management, it had the same problems that
> Microsoft Windows had with multithreading. Race conditions,
> deadlocks, and pointer corruption created some big problems
> for both ZDOS and OS-9/6809.
>
> > Look at Windows. This is a prime example
> > of an environment where micro
> > computer paradigms that have survived,
> > not because they are better, but
> > it is what people have gotten used to.
>
> Actually, part of the problem is that Microsoft
> didn't get multitasking right until Windows 2000,
> and even then it's a kludge between threads and
> processes which has been nicknamed "fabrics".
OH god..... I don't think I even want to know...
>
> What this ultimately means is that it is still
> far too expensive to create an application based
> on stand-alone components, each in their own
> process (IE DCOM). Once this happens, we
> may see a whole new breed of VBScript based
> applications that call DCOM server components
> and deliver them to standard DCOM client/gui
> interfaces. Unfortunately, even VB programs
> must be compiled and linked - meaning no
> source code and no huge body of source
> based application tools.
>
> Microsoft considers it's "components" to
> be library calls (COM objects) that can be
> Linked together by corporations (Primarily
> Microsoft) to create huge monolithic
> applications. For load balancing,
> these calls can be fed to remote systems
> by calling DCOM instead of COM. Essentially,
> your calling a DLL which makes RPC calls
> to the remote library. The application
> programmer is barely aware of the change,
> but the administrators become very aware.
>
> The fundamental distinction of Microsoft
> platforms is that applications must perform
> a huge portion of the "Operating System"
> functions, either through library calls
> (static, DLL, or DCOM) or through application
> functions. MSMQ is a half-step in the right
> direction, but falls far short of System V
> Interprocess communications, local-domain
> sockets, and pipelines, including named pipes.
> Even simple sockets through localhost tend
> to increase the overhead substantially.
>
> UNIX is a comprimize between the traditional
> MS-DOS style monoliths, and the Smalltalk-80
> system in which each instance of each object
> was supposed to be self-contained and passed
> messages to each other as independent entities.
>
> UNIX provides a rich library of libarary
> calls and GUI toolkits, but it also provides
> a rich library of self-contained processes
> which recieve input in their standard input
> and send output to their standard output. This
> allows the ability to chain together multiple objects,
> and to wire the "request" stream of a GUI to the
> standard input, and the standard output of the stream
> application to the "reply" stream of the GUI.
>
> Also, the availability of a number of scripting
> languages and incremental compilers or configured
> interpreters can provide very high performance
> with ease of customization.
>
> > Just to name one: drive letters.
> > Why does one need drive letters?
>
> Both Gary Kildall, the author of CP/M, and Bill Gates,
> and Paul Allen were programming on RT-11 before they
> started working on microcomputers. RT-11 had drive
> letters.
>
> Keep in mind that CP/M had drive letters and these
> could be extended by adding a "users". QDOS, based
> on an earlier version of CP/M and licensed for
> embedded systems, didn't have the user extension.
>
> Microsoft has been aware of the pressure from
> UNIX since MS-DOS 1.1, and having been a UNIX
> vendor themselves (Xenix) were aware of the
> threat. For almost 18 years, Microsoft
> has tried to feed the minimum possible features
> from UNIX. Some of this may have been because
> initially, IBM didn't want a multi-user multi-tasking
> operating system that would threaten it's Series 1
> (a minicomputer that was killed by CP/M networking)
> System 36 (eventually implemented as a card on the PC/XT),
> or even MVS.
>
> IBM was threatened by MP/M, UNIX, and VMS, all of which
> made it possible for multiple users to share a single machine,
> and each of which could be connected to other CP/M PCs using
> trivial networks. Even though the networking standards hadn't
> been established, it was clear that the combination might
> threaten the Mainframe market. In 1990, IBM overplayed OS/2,
> and in 1991, IBM bet nearly all of their 4th quarter revenue
> on MVS 4.0, charging as much as $6 million to upgrade machines
> costing $5 million and depreciated to $2 million or more. There
> were hardware upgrades and software upgrades, but when IT managers
> were confronted with $30 million "upgrade" proposals, UNIX SMP
> systems costing $50k to $250k seemed trivial. It literally created
> a market for Oracle, Sybase, and Informix.
>
> Today, IBM even provides a UNIX style interface for OS/390, and
> they are embracing Linux. They are "riding the horse in the
> direction it's going". For many years IBM tried to tell the
> customer what they were going to buy. When Lou Gerstner arrived,
> the focus shifted to finding out what the customer wants, providing
> this as cost-effectively as possible, and delivering it with the
> same level of quality and service as it gave to it's Mainframe
> systems.
Microsoft will have to be hit a few times with the same sort
of clue-sledgehammer before they figure it out as well....
>
> Microsoft became the new "IBM", trying to tell IT managers
> that "We have the monopoly, therefore we are the standard".
> IT managers went along because they trusted Microsoft. However,
> the combination of the DOJ disclosures in the antitrust case,
> a number of security leaks that were supposedly plugged and weren't,
> and outbreaks of Melissa, ExploreZip, BubbleBoy, and LoveBug,
> have been shifted that trust. Suddenly, with an estimated
> $10 billion in damages caused by a trivial upgrade to the
> Melissa virus, a hole that was supposedly plugged, and the
> discovery that the originator also had the capability to
> collect passwords from every computer infected by the virus,
> suddenly changed IT Managers' perception of Microsoft.
>
> > The only reason they exist is because
> > DOS did not have a hierarchical file
> > system until version 2.0. 2.0!!!
> > do you believe it?
>
> They promised Multitasking in 4.0 (because DR-DOS had
> REAL multitasking by that time). They have minimally
> delivered functional multitasking in Windows 2000.
>
> > There are so many more of these '70's
> > quick and dirty hacks, why do we
> > continue to use them?
>
> Because there are 500 million Microsoft based Personal
> Computers and Microsoft still provides minimal backward
> compatibility. The application that ran on Windows 3.1
> has been recompiled and enhanced to run on NT, but still
> opens "C:\a\b\c.d". The installation scripts still require
> specific drives, and the few applications that are "well behaved"
> enough to run under the NT version of MS-DOS emulator still
> require drive names.
>
> Windows 95/fat 32 still doesn't support real long-names. The
> implementation of long-names is based on an alias file which is
> used to translate long-names to 8.3 filenames. I think NTFS has
> real long-names.
>
> > Think about it. I'm sure you can come up with a few yourself.
>
> > If you ask me, UNIX is a more logical "modern" way of
> > designing programs.
>
> Actually, Linux is the more "modern" paradigm. Linux has been
> evolving much more rapidly and has resisted the balkanization
> that plagued the UNIX community. While OpenGroup tries to exclude
> Linux, more and more UNIX vendors are striving to be Linux compatible.
>
> Linux combines the best features of UNIX (streams, processes, fast
> context switching, and X11) with some of the best features of Windows
> (friendly GUI interfaces for applications and administration, helps,
> wizards, and hints). Linux also agreessively went after the
> configurability of the PC in terms of hardware and software. There
> are some peripherals that aren't supported, but more and more
> OEMs and After-market vendors are discovering that Linux support
> sells hardware. Even if users don't use Linux full-time, they
> are insisting on the ability to run Linux at least some of the time.
>
Absolutely.
I love the performance of Canon printers, but I will NOT purchase
a Canon to replace my 3-year old BJC-620 because it appears that
Canon will not reveal the necessary info for 720x720 DPI or higher
resolution.
On the other hand, if I buy an Epson, I know that I will get the
full resolution performance with Linux.
> > --
> > Mohawk Software
> > Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> > Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
> > "We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered
> the
> > lobster"
> >
>
> --
> Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
> I/T Architect, MIS Director
> http://www.open4success.com
> Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
> and growing at over 1%/week!
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Closed-mindedness and zeal... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!)
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 19:51:19 +1000
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8g0veo$cnl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:8fvddj$phq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : >
> : > Half true. The kernel is also partially based on the Carnegie Mellon
MACH
> : > microkernel, as well as being based partially on FreeBSD v3.2.
>
> : No, the kernel is a straight Mach derivative. I believe it is even
referred
> : to as Mach 3.0.
>
> : The BSD part comes in above that - I believe the Mach people refer to
them
> : as "personalities" - like the Win32, POSIX and OS/2 layers on top of the
NT
> : kernel.
>
> Hmmm... a document on Darwin at Apple's web site states that the core OS
> is based on both MACH and FreeBSD v3.2. I just now tried to get at it,
> but the link is reporting a network error. I'll try again later on today.
What Apple is calling the "core OS" is likely to be a lot more than just the
kernel.
Mach is just a kernel, nothing more.
> : > The WindowsNT kernel is similar, in that it too is partially derived
from
> : > the MACH microkernel.
>
> : I don't think it's "derived" in any way except the conceptual design.
Any
> : documentation to the contrary would be welcome.
>
> When I say "derived", I don't mean to suggest that actual code is derived.
> I'm talking about design principles here. But I can see how my words
> would be interpreted that way. :-)
I wouldn't call using similar design principles "derived". It's just not a
term that makes sense for that sort of thing (to me).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons to Use Windows NT
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 02:30:01 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 18 May 2000 23:42:51 +0100...
...and 1$worth <@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote:
>
>
> Raul Valero wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > Well, Microsoft press has some good books (not to many, I admit).
>
> My favorite is the one entitled "Writing Solid Code". The first time I
> saw this I thought it may be a joke, yet no! It even has a few useful
> tips. Same their programmers don't read their own library. :-)
Does it suggest Hungarian notation?
mawa
--
Books matter intensely in utopias...
-- Crawford Kilian
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: a great job
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 02:11:49 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 18 May 2000 23:24:25 -0500...
...and Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8g1u9h$8cn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >They, together with Intel, brought computing to the masses.
> >
> > No, that was Apple, and Tandy/Radio Shack who put them in
> > stores on every corner. Then IBM who later gave them a respectable
> > name.
>
> Neither Apple or Tandy could be considered suppliers to "the masses".
> Apples market share has always been very low, as has Tandy's. In the early
> days, only hobbyists owned tandy computers.
>
> One could say that Apple and Tandy brought computers to the layman, but not
> "the masses". Since that would indicate a ubiquitiousness that neither
> Apple or Tandy was able to pull off.
Apple ][e computers and cheap Apple clones had already trickled down
into pretty much every corner of our country before anyone here even
*knew* what an IBM PC was. That's my experience.
mawa
--
Tja, nun bin ich selber Kanzler - und welches andere Subventionsbonbon
sollte ich meinen Wählern geben als meine Wähler's Original?
Wähler's Original. Damit auch du jemand ganz Besonderen wählst - mich.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 10:42:18 GMT
On 19 May 2000 21:27:13 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> I want a tool that, after you put together your concept of the perfect
>>>machine, would upload a packaging description that would allow anyone else
>>>to duplicate that exact software selection so they only have to deal with
>>>the specific local configuration (IP address, users, etc.).
>>
>>On Debian that would be:
>>
>>"dpkg --get-selections > packages.dpkg" on master machine
>>"dpkg --set-selections < packages.dpkg" on new machine
>
>How graceful is it about hardware differences?
The above shouldn't change your hardware config. at all. In Debian hardware
configuration is pretty much a manual affair anyway.
> And is there
>a way to do a subsequent update (including adding/removing as
>well as updating packages) on the master so the copies can
>track along?
I imagine you could repeate the above any time you wanted to sync the client
machines' packages but I can't say I've ever tried it. Most people just use
"apt-get update" "apt-get upgrade" to keep their packages up to date. If
you have several machines that you really want to stay identical then you
might be better nfs mounting the / dir from the server or maybe using rsync.
> What if source changes are done and things
>recompiled? Can the package be rebuilt and loaded from
>an alternate location on the copies?
You can have lines in your /etc/apt/sources.list like:
deb ftp://USER:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/my_custom_debs/local
and then put any custom built packages on your ftp server.
--
Ray
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rejo Zenger)
Crossposted-To: tw.bbs.comp.unix,alt.2600,comp.mail.sendmail
Subject: Re: Need to make UNIX autoresponder
Date: 20 May 2000 10:01:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Followup-To: comp.mail.sendmail]
++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sergei Laskavy:
>In article <8feha9$3h1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I would like to make an autoresponder in Perl on a UNIX server. Any
>> ideas tips about doing that? I look forward to hearing from you. Thank
>> you.
>
>vacation(1) why Perl?
Or procmail.
-Rejo.
--
= Rejo Zenger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
= http://mediaport.org/~sister (and my_urls.html) PGP: see headers
================================================================================
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: a few questions please
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 12:58:25 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> AJ wrote:
>
> > Hi.. I am an experience Novell tech (CNE) but new to linux and want to get
> > windows out of my life as soon as possible... I Would like someone to answer
> > a few questions for me.. First i want to install linux on the following
> > system,,, P II 400 , 64 ram , 4.8 G hd , SB pci sound , 4meg ATI Rage
> > video, and US Robotics pci 56k, and 3com pci net card( 3c509). I know this
> > more than meets the requirements. My questions are the following
> > 1) I use a high speed isp ( called : vibe) not a cable modem but adsl. it
> > used a newbridge networks MainStreet in my home and i use a 3com net card.
> > Is there any known problem settting lunix up on this?
> >
>
> Nope, I to use ADSL and a 3 com net card, Linux will Dectect the 3com card
>
> > 2) I just got Storm linux does anyone have instructions how to install it in
> > a partition without it destroying the other one's? Please Help
> >
>
> Try the advanced install
>
See below about distro:
>
> > 3) this storm linux? is it ok? any things i should know or be warned? what
> > to use instead? you opinion is appreciated..
> >
>
> If it is your first Linux try Corel or Mandrake
Given your requirements I'd forget both and start with
Caldera, which in my
opinion is even better for newcomers (current is 2.4, brand
new, I tested 2.3).
It comes with Power Quest Partition Magic and Boot Magic,
and will solve your
partition problems and dual boot with no fuss. It has the
easiest installation
also and you'll be running in no time. After you've been
playing for a while then
you'll choose whatever best suits your needs. What's nice
with Linux is that
you're not forced to follow a distro for your life. I'm
currently running Red
Hat, but I've fetched a number of Caldera and other
distribution utilities which
suit me better. Suse users speak very well of it also.
I'm afraid that John LCP is an experienced user, and has
forgotten some of the
problems a Linux novice can meet. Or maybe the easier things
were not available
when he started so he had to follow the harder path.
I just started looking at Linux october last year, so I
still remember quite
clearly what happens when you just start.
What's amazing is that after six months I feel much more at
ease with Linux (not
only using applications, writing applications),
understanding in detail what's
happening, than I can say about Windows which I've been
using and writing
applications for in the last 5 years.
>
>
> John LCP
>
> > Please Email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] thank
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
Bologna (Zona Industriale Roveri)
Tel. 051 53.46.92 - 0335 610.43.35
Fax 051 53.49.89
------------------------------
** 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 PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
