Linux-Advocacy Digest #349, Volume #28 Fri, 11 Aug 00 05:13:11 EDT
Contents:
486-GIO-V Motherboard Manual Wanted ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: LINUX, OF COURSE!! (Pontus Lidman)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (Rex Ballard)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Re: [Q] Too many distribution?
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates (Richard)
Re: Gutenberg
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates (Richard)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates (Richard)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Jacques Guy)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates (Jacques Guy)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Jacques Guy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 486-GIO-V Motherboard Manual Wanted
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 07:42:47 GMT
Hi,
I am looking for a 486-GIO-V Motherboard manual in any form of print. I
am not sure who is the Motherboard manufacturer and there is no FCC ID
number on it. It is a 486 Motherboard with VIA chipset. The PC was
given to me last year without the manual. The previous owner has
misplaced the manual some time back.
The 486 runs on Linux, it was running fine until I decided to upgrade
it. A couple of the jumpers fell off when I flipped Motherboard around.
Thanks.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pontus Lidman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX, OF COURSE!!
Date: 11 Aug 2000 09:57:56 +0200
Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > >> Oh frequently. And I've been called "Moron", "Shithead" etc. It only
> > >> goes to show how naff some people are.
> > >
> > >But this is c.o.l.a.! You're supposed to do that, Buttwipe!
> >
> > Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was the Linux Advocacy group, not the "Come
> > here to hear random insults" group!
>
> That's the same group. If you can't take insults, don't post to
> c.o.l.a.
Now that's a really sad state of affairs. That kind of attitude
deprives lots of people (those who don't enjoy being insulted for no
reason) of one good forum for Linux advocacy.
Pontus
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:01:55 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > What UNIX for the home market was this and what date was it available?
I have here in my lap, a copy of Microcomputing, for April 1982. If that date
doesn't ring a bell,
this was about the time Bill Gates was about to introduce an Operating System
with IBM.
Here are some of the ads of the day:
On page 104:
CROMIX Update special.
CROMIX, Cromemco's version of Bell
Labs UNIX, offers many advantages. A major
one is that it permits every user to have in
excess of 60k of RAM area, it runs most
CDOS and CP/M software (CP/M
emulators are available if needed).
Currently we are making it very economical
to convert to CROMIX. The package below will
provide for a two user operation.
2 - 64k Memory Merchant
Static ram boards List $1590
1 - CROMIX software package $595
1 - TU-UART board $345
1 - Cable -0 $25
2 - Cable 2's $50
Total Retail Value $2605
MiniMicroMart Package Price $1599
To put things in perspective, a 5 megabyte Winchester hard drive cost about
$3000.
A few pages later, we have Morrow Designs.
With:
MOS operating system. UNIX + CM/M=MOS
Our Micronix Operating system will run multiple CP/M
packages or multiple UNIX level 6 packages simultaneously.
It is functionally equivalent to Bell Laboratories UNIX, including
file compatibility. MOS also will run Wordstar, or Microsoft BASIC,
or any standard CP/M applications package. Not one,
not two, but (15) fifteen.
It ran on Decision 1. The Three user version came with 195K RAM,
400 K minifloppy, and 5 meg Winchester. Only $6595 including MOS
Operating system.
There was also OASIS, Xenix, Venix, and OS/9.
There were a number of systems based on the Z8000, M68000, the 6809,
and of course the 8086.
There was also a company called Novell Data Systems. They had workstations
that
ran a combination of CP/M and FORTH. And they had a server that ran a variant
of level 6 UNIX called NetWare. In fact, this was my very first direct
exposure to
UNIX.
Later, they removed the bourne shell interfaces and replaced it with the
NLM manager.
I've always considered this a big mistake, but by that time I'd already gone
into a new
job as a full-time UNIX programmer.
> > By home market, I'm assuming the 8088. That was the first PC when UNIX
> > was already in existance. If no one did UNIX for the 8088,
Again, UNIX for the 8088 was very easy. Level six used a segmentation scheme
very similar to
the 8088 segments and ran quite nicely. There was a problem in that there was
no MMU to
prevent the user from splattering over other programs.
IBM may have thought it was getting Xenix. But Bill didn't want to have to pay
royalties, or risk
a big-time lawsuit from AT&T for being a "sandwich company". Instead, they
purchased rights
to CP/M (actually CP/M 80 but dissassembled and reassembled into 8088 code)
from SCC. SCC
had legally obtained the right to use QDOS for embedded systems like terminals
and Single Board
Computers. Microsoft only paid $100K and DRI settled for an admission of guilt
and a token
settlement. Several years later, the key employees of SCC joined Microsoft
and/or received
payments worth over $900,000.
Caldera alluded to the settlement with SCC in their lawsuit with Microsoft in
1998. Unfortunately,
those records are now sealed as part of Caldera's secret settlement with
Microsoft.
In his book on Operating System Fundamentals, Tannenbaum introduced
UNIX concepts
by providing fully annotated source to MINIX within the book. In it's initial
form, MINIX
only consumed about 4000 lines of C code and you could easily download it from
unix hosts
using Kermit or xmodem. Some folks even got a loader that would let you start
MINIX from
MS-DOS. Ironically, Minux was actually more reliable than MS-DOS, but
unfortunately,
there were practical limits such as a 64k per process address space, which was
plenty for
pipes and filters, but wasn't near enough for X11. We needed a better memory
management
scheme.
> then when
> > for the '286?
Gary Kildall had planned a unix-like version of CP/M-86, but it depended on
memory
management features that were broken on the early 286 masks.. Eventually the
masks
were corrected and two UNIX ports were successfully completed (SCO, and Xenix).
Appearantly SCO ran very well on the AMD chips, but not on the early Intel
chips.
> > If not the '286, then when for the '386? And this was from who?
The 80386 was a UNIX hot-bed. Intel actually designed the 80386 with
UNIX in mind. They feared that Motorola's 68020, then being used in
the Mac, and considered for use in the Atari and Commodore, would
cripple the Intel market.
Intel put out a version of UNIX (BSD 4.1 I think), and other vendors including
SCO, Interactive, and Kodak created UNIX versions for the 80386. Furthermore,
DRDOS and Quarterdeck were offering UNIX-like features with GUI interfaces.
Most of the media attention was focused on Microsoft and IBM, who were
trying to get OS/2 out in time for the first 80386 release. Both companies
spent a small fortune on advertizing, essentially using their purse-strings
to keep UNIX out of the headlines.
OS/2 1.0 did eventuall come out, but without the PM graphical interface. OS/2
1.1 came
out with PM, but was still a bit "dicey". OS/2 1.2 was very solid. Many say
that this was
because IBM imposed production control techniques on Microsoft.
IBM even had a version of AIX that included X11 and OpenDesktop (an integrated
application
suite that preceeded Microsoft Office by almost 2 years).
> Xenix, for one it came from Microsoft at the time. It was available for the
> Z-80 maybe the 8080 as well this all predated the IBM PC be several years.
> Xenix was then ported to the 8086 and 8088 before the existance of the IBM
> PC.
Microsoft actually created versions of Xenix for all of the above, but was best
known
for creating one of the first workable versions for the TRS-80 68000 based
computer.
This computer put UNIX into a lot of offices. Unfortunately, Microsoft decided
to
drop UNIX when it looked like AT&T might get back into the market.
> There were other unix or unix like OS for the 8080/Z-80, 6800, and 6502.
> Even today we still have Minux that can run on an 8086/8088.
I'm not sure what version of UNIX ran on the 6502. OS/9 ran quite nicely
on the 6809. The most famous OS/9 machine was the TRS/80 Color Computer.
OS/9 introduced a number of interesting concepts, including the dynamic linked
library or shared library (OS/9 was actually more like Microsoft's DLL). They
also introduced the Incrimental Compiler, similar to the one used by
Microsoft's IDE.
They also introduced compile-and-go prorgrams similar to PERL and TCL that made
the program look like an interpreter, but run like compiled code.
> The problem was that those unix and unix like OS's were very costly. The
> typical cost of a unix for a 8-bit microcomputers adjusted to present day
> dollars was about $3,000-$7,000.
AT&T considered their primary market to be the multi-user minicomputer market,
especially in the
early 1980s. To protect this market from the rapidly evolving microcomputers
such as the PC,
the Atari, Commodore, and Mac, AT&T imposed a "floor" for certain key
components of their
system V release.
The kernel was minimum $700 for the kernel, basic libraries, and shell
commonds.
The manuaal pages cost an extra $300. But in most office environments, you
could share the
man pages with other users.
The nroff/troff documentation packages added another $400 to the bill.
TCP/IP was another $300
NFS added another $300
X11 added another $500
and OpenDesktop $700
Furthermore, this predated CD-ROMS, and there were no universal standards for
tape drives,
so the whole thing came in crate of about 200 disks packed in about 7 very
thick books.
If you wanted printed manuals, that would run an extra $500.
The whole package came to about $3700 - and that was the FLOOR for a two-user
system.
To put things in perspective. A "first edition" IBM-PC, IBM-PC/XT, and
IBM-PC/AT typically
cost over $5000.
In 1991, Linux, who had done the Tannenbaum book, and knew something about
Minix, decided
to try to create his own kernel which would use principles of Minux, plus
principles from the
recently released BSD 4.4 source code, to create his own memory managed version
of Linux
for the 80386. Ironically, he published Linux about the same time Microsoft
started shipping
Windows 3.1, but Linux posted his code on the FSF and TSX-11 MIT web-site,
under GPL.
Red Hat included all 10,000 lines of code on their last Annual report.
Richard Stallman had been trying to organize a group of kernel hackers to
create a new kernel.
Linux delivered the kernel while Richard was still trying to negotiate the
ground rules. Linux
provided enough of a base-line that most of the patent issues had already been
resolved.
This freed many of the original BSD contributors to contribute to the new Linux
kernel.
It took less than 6 months for Linux to evolve from a tiny little kernel that
ran in less than 2 megabytes
of RAM, to a full blown graphical operating environment, complete with the best
features of the
HP_UX, AIX, and SunOS/Solaris, as well as BSD. Sun contributed their OpenLook
Virtual Window
manager, HP contributed their 3D widgets, and IBM provided some of the
communications and
National language support. While many of these were contenders that just
didn't have the marketing
clout of their competitors (Motif), they still provided a very powerful
environment.
What was particularly remarkable was the way Linux so carefully managed the
code. The
code was very well debugged, and even if Xfree wasn't always up to scratch, the
system
almost never failed due to a kernel failure.
Today, over 17,000 developers have supported and enhanced the kernel. many more
have enhanced
compilers, libraries, Xfree, and thousands of applications, toolkits, and user
interfaces.
Rex Ballard
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:55:46 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> The nice thing is that there will *hopefully* always be a choice in
> distros, and the controllable Linuxes are going to die right away
> (Debian is a testament to this fact). As long as the base system isn't
> warped, I'll be happy. I just want to be sure that I make plenty of
> noise about it so that if it is warped nobody can say, "Well you should
> have said something earlier".
That is why, create the user interfaces/environments that various people
want. Just don't make their enviroment of choice impact on any other. The
more the better, just not ruin what we have for what might be.
That is just the kinds of tunnel vision attitudes that I have been
encountering more and more as of late. A while back there was a thread
calling for the full GUI intergration of Linux even to the point of merging
the kernel with the GUI. Then there was that other thread calling for
changes the seasoned Linux users would have to accept, if Linux is to to
attract more users. There have been threads demanding coding standards like
those of Windows for all "Linux software". Now we have a new thread that
was started on the premis that we have too many different distributions and
that all the distributions should be eliminated or made fit a standard to
the point that the difference between them is lost. The attitude of the
motive force of that thread is, choice is a bad thing.
I have recently seen one of those threads quoted in one of those free
computer rags that you find at the newspaper stands. The rag was in favour
of the merging the kernel with the GUI and having all the Linux software
"run like Windows software".
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Q] Too many distribution?
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 00:22:39 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<peer@service> wrote in message news:8mvvm5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8mvpg9$n2q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> Having too many distributions also is a bad thing for standarizations
> and for develpers. Now I have to test my Linux application on 20
> distributions instead for one.
>
> Choice can be good, and it can be bad at the same time.
For the sake of argument, lets say you are right. How would you propose to
force out of existance all the Linux distributions except for those that you
would bless as being standard enough. How would you propose the prevent new
distributions from be started to serve needs of the users that violate your
criteria of how things should be?
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:08:14 GMT
Jacques Guy wrote:
>When MSFT dropped from
> $119 to $70 or so, you had people on misc.invest.stocks shrieking
> for the US government to intervene, close the DOJ, impeach
> Greenspan (!), and so on.
ROTFL. It's funny how much you can learn on COLA.
> I suspect this--MSFT share ownership--
> might be the case for most trolls here. One exception, though:
> Tim. Tim just does not compute as a troll. I think he is an
> extraordinary leprechaun. But back to Wintrolls. Microsoft does
What's a leprechaun?
> 1. Their influence is nil: how many people read COLA and the
> few other NGs to which they cross-post? Deux pelés et trois
> tondus, as we say in my lingo. There just isn't an audience.
<confused> Skinheads? Des moutons! Oui? :-)
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:03:48 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Matthias Warkus wrote:
> My goodness, there sure are a lot of twits in this newsgroup. By "Book"
> I do not mean "literary work", I mean "literary work put in the modern
> format of a book!" invented by Aldus Minutius (phonetic) 50 years after
> Gutenberg was wasting his invention on useless bibles and indulgences!
> Gutenberg made a lot of money doing a lot of useless stuff and making
> it *possible* for someone to invent the book, something that was cheap
> (Gutenberg's bibles were often Illuminated themselves and so were hardly
> cheap) and portable. In fact, something specifically tailored to people's
> saddlebags so that they could CARRY their books!
Books already existed in the modern format for at least a milliena before
Aldus. But they were not cheap because they were hand copied and it could
take years to make one copy.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:17:35 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> It appears you are projecting. You (just by readin this post I can
> tell, but your others are just as telling) 'hate' Linux and use that as
> your motivation for pushing MS. So you assume that hate is the driving
> force in everyone else's life. Sad really. Is there anything you
> actually like, just because you feel it is good. Or is it purely a
> matter of, "I use what I use because I hate the alternatives."
OR he actually hates MS but is suppressing it and thinks that people
who don't properly love MS are ungrateful bastards. This is a lot more
likely since what possible basis (personal experience) would he have
for hating Linux? Has he ever even used it? Most likely, he hates Linux
because he perceives it as a threat to his emotional balance.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:19:17 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> It appears you are projecting. You (just by readin this post I can
> tell, but your others are just as telling) 'hate' Linux and use that as
> your motivation for pushing MS. So you assume that hate is the driving
> force in everyone else's life. Sad really. Is there anything you
> actually like, just because you feel it is good. Or is it purely a
> matter of, "I use what I use because I hate the alternatives."
OR he actually hates MS but is suppressing it and thinks that people
who don't properly love MS are ungrateful bastards. This is a lot more
likely since what possible basis (personal experience) would he have
for hating Linux? Has he ever even used it? Most likely, he hates Linux
because he perceives it as a threat to his emotional balance.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 01:09:52 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:JQIk5.230497$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when John Sanders would say:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> By the way, the contentions of Xenix availability for Z-80 do not
> agree with my recollections; the machines with Z-80s on which Xenix
> got heavily deployed were the TRS-80 Model 16's and Tandy 6000's,
> which used the Z-80 to control the "terminal," but then used a 68000
> to run Xenix.
TRS-80 Model II
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:45:29 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have recently seen one of those threads quoted in one of those free
> computer rags that you find at the newspaper stands. The rag was in favour
> of the merging the kernel with the GUI and having all the Linux software
> "run like Windows software".
That is advocating reverting to "spaghetti code". I had never
realized
until now that MS-Windows was like that. I thought -- it seemed the
only sensible way of going about it -- that the graphics interface was
functionally separate from the underlying operating system, i.e. I
thought
it was on built on DOS, and the rest, the GUI, was "tinsel on the
Christmas
tree", to borrow a German expression. I still find it difficult to
believe that the Windows GUI is not completely independent. It does
not
make sense. No wonder the thing is full of bugs, then. No, it really
does
not make sense. It is like going back to global variables only, GOSUBs
and
GOTOs -- and I don't think I am overstating the analogy at all.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:54:29 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates
Richard wrote:
> What's a leprechaun?
It's a word I introduced here a wee while ago, to mean
someone masquerading as a troll to take the mickey out
of readers. A false troll, in other words. I do think
that Tim Palmer is a leprechaun.
[me:]
> > 1. Their influence is nil: how many people read COLA and the
> > few other NGs to which they cross-post? Deux pelés et trois
> > tondus, as we say in my lingo.
> <confused> Skinheads? Des moutons! Oui? :-)
No, it's a much older expression, "two mangy types and three
with shaved heads (because they had lice)". "Two beggars
and three hoboes" would approximate it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:03:19 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Andres Soolo wrote:
> Overall, Russian spelling is much closer to the pronounciation than of
> most European languages
But still less than Dutch, German, Italian, Spanish. Why, you write
khorosho and you pronounce kharasho; you write khoroshii and you
pronounce kharoshii. So, unless you know Russian, you cannot tell
how to pronounce it. On the other hand, I can read out Hungarian,
and Hungarians understand me, even though I have no idea what I
am saying. Ditto with Finnish, except that I get tongue-tied with
all those long vowels.
> Of course, Finnish
> and Estonian writing systems are even more phonetical but I can't brag
> much about them since there aren't many people in c.o.l.a who could
> understand them :-)
True, we all believe you speak Basque or something like that in
Finland
and in Estonia!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
