Linux-Advocacy Digest #678, Volume #26 Thu, 25 May 00 05:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Will Linux run MSDOS programs (Donald Bayne)
Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs (Donald Bayne)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (s@-)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Adams
Klaus-Georg)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Mark Wilden)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Adams
Klaus-Georg)
Re: rdram: WIll is speed up a linux box? (Ray)
Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome (Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson))
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson))
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Illya Vaes)
Re: Linux vs. Solaris Intel (Martin)
Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs (Martijn Bruns)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Donald Bayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Will Linux run MSDOS programs
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 07:09:50 GMT
I still have a couple of DOS programs that run under NT, but I have to
switch to the desktop in order to print. Does Linux support DOS
programs? I understand Linux supports some windows programs and that
there is a commercial program, LIN4WIN as I recall, that will likely run
all my windows programs.
P.S. Only :advocates need respond; I am not interested in anything
simon77 has to say on the subject.
------------------------------
From: Donald Bayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 07:11:27 GMT
I see it is Win4LIN not Lin4Win.
Donald Bayne wrote:
> I still have a couple of DOS programs that run under NT, but I have to
> switch to the desktop in order to print. Does Linux support DOS
> programs? I understand Linux supports some windows programs and that
> there is a commercial program, LIN4WIN as I recall, that will likely run
> all my windows programs.
>
> P.S. Only :advocates need respond; I am not interested in anything
> simon77 has to say on the subject.
------------------------------
From: s@-
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 24 May 2000 23:27:02 -0700
What I find the most amazing thing in this, is that we are aactually
arguing if a bug-tracking system is usefull or not.
This by itself just shows how far behind the linux developers
are compared to main stream software engineers when it comes
to modern software processes.
It is really is amazing.
How do we not know that with proper processes in place, that Linux
could have been ahead of where it is today by 5 years? People say
Linux is doing great the way it is. I say, it could be a much much better
system with better software engineering processes in place.
No Regression test suite per subssytem, no bug tracking system, no
proper software design processes, etc... Just becuase it "works"
in the current sloppy ad-hoc fashion, does not mean anything to me.
The fact that we have 500,000 lines of code, being worked on
by hundreds of programmers, and with not a proper way for users
to report bugs against it, is just a pathetic if you ask me.
Imagine Solaris or VMS or OS390 or AIX being build without having
a bug-tracking system. Tell the programmers working on any one of
the above OS's that no bug-tracking system is needed and see
what response you will get.
btw, this is not just against linux, it is against any software
project of large size that behaves the same way. Show me any such
project, and I will say the same thing about it. This is just not a linux
problem, it is a software engineering problem.
/s
------------------------------
From: Adams Klaus-Georg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: 25 May 2000 09:18:34 +0200
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8geggv$1mci$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8geca6$jb8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> > >Holding down the power button for ~5 seconds seems to be the only way to
> > >regain control. Of course, then you must endure the 1-3hour fsck that
> > >is required because of ext2's crappy crash recovery, only to find out
> > >some critical system file was hosed and I have to reinstall from scratch.
> >
> > I had about 75% success telneting in to do a graceful reboot. And if
> > you ever need to fix something by hand you can boot the install
> > CDROM, tell it you want to upgrade, then ctl-alt-f2 while it is scanning
> > for packages. This puts you in a root shell with your partitions
> > mounted under /tmp.
>
> Problem is, this was a laptop and I happened to not have had the NIC plugged
> in, or be near a jack. I didn't feel like walking over near my hub, plugging
> in the NIC, hopping Linux PnP's it (in it's current state), and then telnetting
> into it, etc, etc just to save a porked x session.
RTF/usr/src/linux/Documentation/sysrq.txt
In all cases X went overboard I could avoid a fsck on the next
boot. And the hosing of the filesystems as well of course.
--
MfG, Klaus-Georg Adams
------------------------------
From: Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 08:29:38 +0100
s@- wrote:
>
> A regression test suite is of utomost importance. Can someone
> tell me where is one to test the ethernet driver for linux? I just
> made changes in one and I want to make sure I did not break
> something, how do I know?
Do you mean to say that there is no standard test suite to run Linux
code changes against? That each developer either writes his own, or
trusts to 'many eyes' to do his testing for him?
Good god.
------------------------------
From: Adams Klaus-Georg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: 25 May 2000 09:23:32 +0200
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perry Pip wrote in message ...
>
> >On Sat, 20 May 2000 20:31:18 -0500,
> >Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >>Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> >>> W2K took something like 1.5 to 2 years
> >>> over-run to get out the door.
> >>
> >>Yes, similar to Linux Kernel 2.4's being a year overdue.
> >
> >Could you provide me some documention that 2.4 is a year overdue. That
> >would mean is was due last May.
> >
> >>> Also reported goals were to eliminate the
> >>> problem of blue screening as well as
> >>> maintain performance levels in multitasking.
> >>
> >>No. It's impossible to eliminate such things, just like it's impossible to
> >>eliminate kernel panics from Linux. If you could eliminate them, they
> >>wouldn't need to be there.
> >>
> >>Things like faulty hardware and to some extent background radiation *WILL*
> >>cause glitches on non-military spec systems.
> >
> >This is an evasion, Eric. Yes, faulty hardware and background
> >radiation can crash an OS. However I don't live across the street from
> >Three Mile Island and faulty hardware can always be replaced. There
> >there are other ways an OS can crash.
> >
> >Here is an example where W2K can BSOD by allowing an application to
> >misuse resources:
> >
> >http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q195/8/57.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&F
> >R=0
> >
> >Note in the above URL under resolution it says: "To resolve this
> >problem, the application has to be modified to ..." So MS is clearly
> >blaming the problem on the Application, not the OS . Here is another
> >example:
>
>
> It is an application problem. An application needs to have
> the authority to open and close registry keys. In the case
> above, the system's memory is being used up because of an
> infinite number of requests are being created. The application
> is doing this, and therefore, it is the application that
> is causing the problem. If the application were written to
> properly handle the opening and closing of keys, there would
> be no problems.
>
> It would be similar to an application under Linux opening an
> *.rc configuration file in an infinite number of spawned vi
> processes (if I understand that article correctly). Using up
> every single bit of RAM on _any_ system can render it useless.
Please try to get this into your head:
If an application, however buggy it is, can crash an OS, it is the
OSes fault.
Nowbody contends that the application has a problem. But if the OS
crashes, it is buggy as well.
--
MfG, Klaus-Georg Adams
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray)
Subject: Re: rdram: WIll is speed up a linux box?
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 07:39:10 GMT
On Wed, 24 May 2000 15:05:44 -0500, john <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>If the bus is clocking at a faster speed, where is the latency?
In the memory controller and in the memory modules. Also in the fact that
the bus is much narrower.
> The speed
>at which data is passed from ram to the processor will be faster.
True within a given type of ram (PC600 RDRAM vs PC800 RDRAM) but RDRAM and
SDRAM are completely different animals so you have to consider more than
just the bus frequency.
> I am not
>trying to advocate a position here, but it seems that this faster bus speed
>should increase performance. I am waiting for a persuasive contrary
>argument.
See my earlier posting on this subject or do a deja search in the group
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips to see some lively discussions on RDRAM.
>
>I would think that if one had a choice between a faster processor and a
>faster bus, one should choose the faster bus. Since this is always more of
>a bottleneck in running a program.
Something like 90% of memory requests are satisfied from cache and never
even touch main memory. For those apps. that do access main memory
frequently you might still be better off with 384-512MB of SDRAM than 128MB
of RDRAM for the same price. It all comes down to the apps. that you run.
--
Ray
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson))
Subject: Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome
Date: 25 May 2000 07:53:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (win4win) writes:
> Sorry Unix/Linux geeks.. but Windows Wins.. I just installed Red Splat
> Linux and really had to brush the dust off the Unix memories to get it
> running. I'm so sure that your average user can wade through a Linux
> install and deal with all those Unix-ie messages! Not. Windows has
> NOTHING to fear until Linux can overcome its Unix-ness.
>
> Phtttt.
>
>
?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson))
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 25 May 2000 08:02:02 GMT
In article <8gfnc4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
s@- writes:
> In article <8gfhoj$3dt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Peter says...
>
>>
>>In comp.os.linux.misc John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>: How much sooner might those bugs have been fixed given a decent bug
>>: tracking system?
>
>>
>>None for the interesting bugs. Report an interesting bug,
>
> report? report?? How ?? That is the whole point of a bug tracking
> system you moron, it is to HELP people know how to report bugs.
>
> Not only that, there should be a defined way of what information
> to report to help the developer. The bug tracking system
> can ask for the correct information that might help the developer,
> instead of sending email saying 'hello, kernel just hanged, why??'
>
>>Boring bugs indeed will be forgotten.
>
> The will be forgetten becuase there is no bug tracking system.
> and no bug is boring. a bug is a bug. and how is to judge a
> bug is 'boring' ?
>
>>
>>: I'm running 2.3.99 on dual PIII's with an Adaptec 7896 and having trouble
>>: with sound: sending anything to /dev/dsp hangs the SCSI driver. If there
>
>>
>>I believe that's known.
>
> If there is a bug tracking system you do not have to guess. A user
> can simply check, and find out right away.
>
>>I've seen several threads go past on the scsi
>>problem in 2.3.99 and above. Doug's working on it. Ask him!
>
> who is Doug?? why would I care as user who is working on what? I simply
> found a problem in Linux and I want to report it.
>
>>
>>EH? Why don't you mail the maintainer? That's debian practice too!
>>
>
> A bug tracking system will automatically do that for you. send automated
> email to the developer(s) working on that part of the kernel.
>
> >
>>As you know, you might get Alan's interest on that one too. But 2.3.99
>>has hundreds of bugs like that
>
> Where is the list? without an official bug tracking system, this is
> a very sloppy way of developing software.
>
>> so it's not high priority yet. Make sure at least Doug knows about it.
>
> Doug who?
>
> /s
>
>
------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 10:14:36 +0200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>>It is if you mean to defend MS by making blanket statements about their
>>>>having every right to shield off "internal data" from 3d party programs.
>>>>If some programs _do_ have some business in that data, then your whole
>>>>reasoning of shielding off and "private internal data" goes out the
>>>>Window.
>>>DOS and Windows are OS's. They're not applications.
>>>Windows cannot run without DOS, thus Windows and DOS are joined.
>>(Then) Windows is not an OS. An OS runs without the help of another OS.
>Gee, I guess DOS/VSE under VM isn't an OS then. I guess NeXT and MacOS X
>aren't an OS then, since they rely on mach to function (actually there is
>more than a passing similarity between the way mach and it's client OS's
>run and the way DOS and Windows run.)
*You* gave the criterion "X cannot run without Y, thus X and Y are joined".
Another strawman ofcourse...
>>DOS is an OS, and DOS+Windows is an OS. Windows without DOS is not, it
>>doesn't run (Windows NT excluded ofcourse).
>And Darwin doesn't run without Mach either. mklinux doesn't run without
>mach.
And anything that uses Mach, if you want to look at it that way, just uses the
public API of Mach, not some internal data structures.
>>Windows is as much an application as Borland C++ 3, Doom, GEOS, Dark
>>Forces, ... All are "DOS Extenders" (which I don't have to explain to
>>you).
>>Windows just has a pretty complete (but not always consistent) API that
>>"happens" to be used a lot (which is where their monopoly comes in).
>Doom and Dark Forces arent dos extenders either,
>they used DOS/4GW which was a DOS extender.
And Schulman showed that Windows "used a DOS extender" too. The nature of
these DOS extenders is such that they're included in the product ("binding")
such that they themselves have become the DOS extender if they expose an API
to applications.
>But, even so. There is a large difference between a DOS extender and what
>Windows does. DOS extenders merely call DOS from protected mode. Windows
>(while it provided an externder in the form of a DPMI server) actually
>replaced many of the DOS services with protected mode versions.
And providing a protected mode version of 'malloc' isn't "replacing DOS
services with protected mode versions"?
You are downplaying DOS extenders. Like their name implies they (can) *extend*
DOS; you're not extending anything (yet) by merely 'calling DOS from protected
mode' (whatever that may be).
>>>An application can run on any system which provides the right API's (such
>>>as WINE), the OS cannot.
>>Oh? So VMware makes several OS's not an OS.
>VMWare does a whole lot more than provide an API. It has to completely
>emulate non-virtualizeable portions of the CPU.
Providing an API has nothing whatsoever to do with the complexity needed to
accomplish that fact.
They provide an API 'equal' to the API a real PC box provides; if they've done
it successfully, the OS running on it sees no difference.
>>It's all just a question of which API you're providing (and how well).
>>Anyway, OS/2 provides the right API's via its VDM (Virtual DOS Machine)
>>with its virtual device drivers and runs Windows. Hmmm... according to
>>"Erik" Windows must not be an OS...
>This also was a lot more than just providing an API. The VDM actually
>acted as a complete 8086 PC capable of running any non-protected mode OS,
>much like VMWare, but a great deal more primitive when it came to
>virtualizing non-virtualizeable parts of the CPU.
It's also irrelevant, it provided DOS applications with the same API as DOS
did and (to a large extent anyway) with the same API the PC did/does.
>>>Windows replaces many of the DOS API's with
>>>protected mode callbacks. That's not the same thing as "every DOS
>>>extender", which merely makes a real-mode DOS call from protected mode.
>>That's *exactly* what a DOS extender does. Read "Unauthorized Windows 95"
>>by Schulman. Any DOS extender *replaces* the memory allocation API of DOS
>>with a 'protected mode callback'.
>>You're in 'pedantic definition mode' again BTW.
>I said "many of the DOS API's", to which you replied "That's *exactly* what
>a DOS extender does" but only gave one API. A DOS extender manages memory
>and provides real mode translation of DOS calls (such as disk access,
>etc..). Windows, however, provides it's own disk management functions.
So you want to argue that something becomes "more than a DOS extender" because
it happens to extend more of DOS than other DOS extenders that happened to
also have been _marketed_ as such?
I'd suggest a careful reread of Schulman's book.
There is *no* _qualitative_ difference between Windows (excl. NT) and a
general "DOS extender", only quantitative.
If you want to argue something stops being a DOS extender when it "replaces"
more than xx% of DOS services in its own implementation, then fine, name the
number and come up with the number for Windows and other DOS extenders.
Note, I'm not denying your tack of "Windows is an OS", but by the same logic
any DOS extender is an OS as well. If the latter isn't true according to you,
then Windows isn't an OS either. Pick one.
>>>Untrue. MS is a large company that many of it's clients expect certain
>>Just keep beating that strawman!
>>Next you'll tell us that MS has to guarantee AutoCAD to run on Windows.
>Then why do they get blasted everytime an upgrade breaks someones software?
Because it's (usually) needless / on purpose and/or the broken software used
the API as documented???
>And why is that called an example of their Monopolistic behavior?
Because it always happens to be competitor's products if there still is
competition in that app area or their own product if they've already
practically established a monopoly in the area of the app being broken??
>>>>The discussion is about their (alledged) right to *prevent* other DOS's
>>>>to run Windows (or feign incompatibility).
>>>So, MS should just blindly run on whatever junk pretends it's MS-DOS and
>>>let the buyer beware?
>>Yes.
>What you fail to realize is that MS is the one that will be blamed for
>problems caused by the other code.
Get real. Applications get blamed for faults with Windows than the other way
around.
I'm sure the knee-jerk reaction of MS weenies to my NT machine freezing
completely on a very regular basis is along the lines of "ah, but you
shouldn't run Netscape but IE!". So much for a stable and robust OS...
>>If you think not, please tell us why you expected DOS apps to run on "OS"
>>Windows and Windows NT (apps that just use the public DOS API)? Should
>>they refuse to run on "whatever junk pretends it's MS-DOS"???
>That's their right. In fact, many apps DO refuse to run in a Windows dos
>box.
(So much for your esteemed "MS backward compatibility")
There's a difference between not running because you don't get enough base
memory or are denied direct access to resources under control of the OS and
refusing to run because this isn't MS-DOS 6.21 but MS-DOS 6.22, DR-DOS instead
of MS-DOS or because you didn't find some signature in some internal data of
DOS.
But I guess that's too subtle a distinction for you...
>>>You don't think MS has a responsibility to take a few
>>>precautions against obvious stability issues?
>>Certainly not when they're baloney or even counterfeit.
>Novell admitted to a serious bug in DR-DOS that prevented it from running
>under Standard mode Windows. Incompatibilities were not baloney or
>counterfeit. They were real.
MS seeking out DR-DOS / non-MS-DOS in order to give some bogus warning message
(and if they'd got away with it later no doubt refusing to run) doesn't mean
there are / can be no _real_ compatibility problems.
So there was a real bug. It had nothing to do with the bogus message.
>>It's not a question of 'run into a problem and mentioning it in a README';
>>it's about going out and identifying something as 'not compatible' without
>>even running into a problem. That's called pretending or lying, clearly
>>FUD.
>Many of the pre-windows 2000 aware games would not run on Windows 2000
>because they checked for the existance of NT and refused to install or run
>if it was NT. They didn't bother to check if the API's they needed were
>there, they just found it easier to assume NT was incompatible.
>Are you suggesting that those people are part of a conspiracy as well?
And if they used a public API for such boneheaded things to query the version,
then the API provider could give the user a way to specify for each
application what version should be given to that app in order to workaround
the stupidity of the programmers of it (didn't W2K have something like this?).
That's altogether different than poking in internal data structures for one
reason only: forcing people to run it only on your own API provider.
And I'd guess "most" of those game companies didn't have a competing OS...
>>>As an example, car companies frequenly provide circumstances in which
>>>their
>>>warranty will be voided if they do things which can cause the product to
>>>malfunction. Example, putting in unapproved motor oil. Since GM can't
>>>modify their engines to prevent unapproved motor oil from being added to
>>>their cars, their only choice is to void the warranty.
>>Does GM sell (inferior) motor oil?
>How does that relate to the DOS/Window example?
Hey, you gave the example...
>>Do they have a monopoly product that they can use to leverage anybody to
>>use their motor oil?
>I believe that most of the major car manufacturers are heavily invested in
>oil companies, which is why they usually reccommend a particular brand.
Oh, now it's recommend?
Whatever, it's still not the same as providing both products yourself.
>>It's more like someone selling a car radio using a certain pin-out (API)
>>that nevertheless automatically worsens its performance when it's put into
>>a pin-compatible bay not belonging to a car made by the same manufacturer,
>>while the car-radio is a monopoly product and the car is inferior ('by
>>several measured criteria' to use a good-old-days-of-Mike-Timbol quote).
>No. Again, Windows and DOS are both OS's that work together. A radio is
>not a vehicle. It doesn't even provide vehicle-like services (which if you
>take the stand that Windows isn't an OS, you have to at least admit that it
>provides OS-like services).
This is about APIs, not providing OS services. The car radio uses the BAPI
(Bay API) and the car provides it. If the car manufacturer also provides car
radios and the car gives bogus warnings about other than their own car radio
even though they use the same API and you need a dependent car radio, then you
get near the case at hand.
>>>MS could probably have refused technical support if your an DR-DOS, but
>>>why make a customer angry?
>>Screwing the customer out of money that needn't be spent (for 'upgrading'
>>from DR-DOS to MS-DOS), *lying* to him and denying him to make that choice
>>for himself isn't going to make him angry????
>There were legitimate and Novell acknowledge incompatibilities.
And they had nothing to do with the bogus message. That would still have come
after Novell had fixed that.
>Well, if that was it's intention, YOU should seriously consider your use of
>the language.
I guess you still deny any possibility of you putting things "wrong".
Too bad, your problem.
>I doubt anyone else saw the phrase your way.
I doubt that. We'll let the reader decide, which is just what I mean:
regardless of how *you* say something was meant, the reader decides how it
comes across.
>>You tried to throw Joseph on a dead trail by starting about the marketing
>>of Win3.0/1, while the discussion uptil then had been about (the right of)
>>MS putting in tests in Windows specifically meant to single out
>>non-approved DOS versions (that could otherwise be perfectly compatible
>>products).
>How a product is marketed is very much apropos to the intended purpose of
>the product, which was to run on MS-DOS and PC-DOS.
Rubbish.
You market something that is ready, and if market conditions change (yeah
right, in a monopoly) you can/must change it quickly.
How MS markets Windows only shows how they *want* you to look at things, it
has no direct connection to reality. They *wanted* you to think there would be
incompatiblities, regardless of any factual incompatibilities.
If you want to make 'marketing' leading in a discussion, you give liars a
permit to say whatever they want.
Hmm... yeah, I guess you *do* want to do that, since you've consistently
defended everything MS did (even though you usually lag their 'position' a few
months)...
>If MS marketed the product as an add-on to DR-DOS and then caused
>deliberate failures, that would be one thing. But it wasn't marketed for
>that, thus the buyers use of an unauthorized co-package is not MS's fault.
A "co-package"?? What a load of crap!!!
You sure you're not a lawyer for MS (puke)???
>>Which has nothing to do with the public face they happened to have put on
>>at the same time. If you were to do that, would you say "we're singling
>>out our competitor's product with this" or try to side-step it by
>>lyin...eh... marketing?
>MS's handling of the situation was poor in many ways.
You mean they got caught (yet) again?
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin )
Subject: Re: Linux vs. Solaris Intel
Date: Thu, 25 May 00 08:23:24 GMT
In article <cwZW4.52170$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam Trenholme) wrote:
>>Can anyone comment on linux vs. solaris intel?
>
>My impressions:
>
>Solaris is a much more bare-bones environment by default. Basically,
>after installing Solaris on x86, one needs to go to http://sunfreeware.com
>to get the software to give it a more "Linux" feel. For example, Solaris
>does not come with a compiler, but there are Solaris binaries of GCC over
>at sunfreeware.
The current delivery of Solaris 8 comes with GNU versions of all the important
tools in the CD pack, so there is no need to go to the web for them. You can
build a fully functional development system using only the disks supplied.
>
>Solaris handles things like entries in /dev and making new filesystems
>differently. Quick Linux - Solaris translator:
>
>Linux Term Solaris translation
>------------- ---------------------
>man 6 foo man -s 6 foo
>strace truss
>ps aux ps -ef
>mke2fs newfs
>df df -k
>
>- Sam
>
Martin
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 10:44:18 +0200
Donald Bayne schreef:
>
> I still have a couple of DOS programs that run under NT, but I have to
> switch to the desktop in order to print. Does Linux support DOS
> programs? I understand Linux supports some windows programs and that
> there is a commercial program, LIN4WIN as I recall, that will likely run
> all my windows programs.
>
> P.S. Only :advocates need respond; I am not interested in anything
> simon77 has to say on the subject.
I've seen DOSEMU. It seems to have a stable version number now.
There's a good chance your DOS-programs will run nicely under it.
Don't ask me how to set up DOSEMU, though. I've only taken a look
at it once.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
