Linux-Advocacy Digest #955, Volume #30 Mon, 18 Dec 00 09:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is awful ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Conclusion ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Conclusion ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: swithching to linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Help plea from Newbie (Monitor) (Richard Storey)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (mlw)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Linux lacks (nf)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:17:18 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > These are simply APIs that have been developed over years. Arguments
> > > about magnitude do not negate the basic assumptions.
> > >
> > > Any and all of these APIs could have been implemented in DesqView.
> > > Windows requires DOS, pure and simple, thus it is not an operating
> > > system.
> >
> > They could have been implemented in DesqView, but weren't. Thus,
DesqView
> > is not an OS.
>
> The quantity of API does not define an OS.
Then what does? Surely not your simple explanation below.
> > Tell me, would Linux be an OS if it only provided the same services that
> > DesqView did (from a general perspective, not a DOS perspective).
You're
> > only argument is that if the OS depends on DOS, it's not an OS. That's
not
> > an argument.
>
> I disagree completely. Even if Linux did not support the things it does,
> it is an OS because it has the ability to boot on its own and function
> without the aid of software which is not native to its kernel.
Linux doesn't boot on it's own. It needs a bootstrap loader, such as Lilo,
or Loadlin or grub or even the NT bootloader. And as for "native to it's
kernel", whatever that's supposed to mean, is a technicality. Several other
OS's do not boot on their own either. VMS, OS/2, Netware, etc..
> Windows is a dos extender, a BIG dos extender, but it is a DOS extender.
Yes, it is a dos extender, in ADDITION to being an OS. Just like OS/2 is a
dos extender (via the DPMI interface it provides).
> > > > If you're looking at an OS as a kernel only, then what do you
consider
> > > > mkLinux? Which runs linux in a subsystem?
> > >
> > > Yes, mklinux is not the OS in this case.
> >
> > Alright, the Linux running on a S/390 isn't an OS either. Neither is
MacOS
> > X, nor is the GNU HURD. Your definition of an OS is outdated and
certainly
> > not supported by many experts in the field.
>
> Which experts would that be? In which field? Windows guys need to have
> validation so they say Windows is an OS, but most serious experts don't
> think it is.
Well, the Federal Standard, for instance:
http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-025/_3689.htm
And I'm certain that Apple's OS experts would disagree that MacOS X was not
an OS.
> > Indeed, but they didn't have to model the drivers after the DOS driver
> > model. That was because OS/2 was originally supposed to be DOS 5.
>
> Point of fact, OS/2 was originally intended to be DOS 3.x, but it wasn't
> ready, then 4.x, but it wasn't ready, and so on. The 286 DOS box was a
> big, huge, problem. IBM insisted that OS/2 1.x run on a 286 because
> they, as yet, did not have a 386 based system.
Actually, they insisted on a 286 because they had promised their AT
customers that they would support them.
OS/2 was started in 1985, and I believe that DOS 3 already existed then (as
did the 386). Not to mention that IBM shipped 386 systems simulataneously
with OS/2 in 1987.
> > > Under Windows, DPMI is the methodology on which the shell is based. On
> > > OS/2 DPMI is an API provided by the OS for DOS applications. Do you
> > > understand the difference?
> >
> > It's the same with Windows. Only DOS apps can make use of DPMI.
Windows
> > implements it's memory management in a way that is compatible with DPMI,
but
> > to suggest that windows uses DPMI itself is silly, and stupid.
>
> Take a look low down dude. The Windows executive is a DPMI environment
> and Windows run in a virtual DOS machine within it. BTW: Windows runs in
> the same virtual machine as the actual DOS OS because each Windows
> program has to have a DOS PSP.
A "DPMI environment"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Windows do
*NOT* run in a virtual DOS machine, they run in unique 32 bit protected mode
address spaces with certain portions of the system VMM mapped into those
contexts. Windows itself runs in what's called the "System VM" which is a
protected mode 32 bit address space of it's own.
This statement alone proves you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
Not even IBM claimed this in their infamous "OS/2 versus Chicago" document,
which itself was highly misleading by confusing the concepts of pre-emption
with rescheduling. Schulman, who you claim to be a DOS and Windows expert
says quite clearly that you are wrong.
>
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:19:44 -0600
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Adam Schuetze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > You know, the one thing I think is missing from this
> > > installation procedure (and probably others, I haven't used many
> > > others), is the capability to save a record of the list of
> > > packages you selected. There is SO much stuff no that cd.
> > > Would be nice to be able to keep a record on floppy or
> > > something. That way, if you want to install again later (or on
> > > multiple machines) you can use this record from floppy to
> > > simplify the installation across multiple machines.
> >
> > Actually, I think Linux would do much better if they just created a
simple
> > base install that got the system up and working with base services, then
> > allowed you to have a nice utility to install supplementary packages
later.
> > Sure you can do this by hand, and some distro's even give you some crude
> > tools, but it's not the way that they expect you to install it.
Everytime
> > i've seen a distro that offered a utility to install packages after the
> > install, it was basically a hacked in version of the original install,
> > rather than an extended utility which gives more information.
>
> You might want to try RPMs, then.
That's what I call "doing it by hand".
> Also need to define "base services".
the bare minimum necessary to get the system running and useable to
customize it.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:21:04 -0600
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You are not paying attention, if Netcraft gets stopped by the firewall,
and
> that firewall is Unix (or NT for that matter) then that is what gets
reported
> in the uptime. Netcraft does not report the wrong OS, it reports the
firewall
> instead of the webserver. So if your firewall is Unix, but your webserver
is
> NT, then Unix gets reported, with the unix boxes uptime. Simple really.
you
> should read more carefully methinks.
Not true. My firewall is neither Unix or Windows, and it prevents Netcraft
from obtaining uptime values, yet Netcraft still reports my OS as Linux and
my web server as apache.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:23:46 -0600
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91kq6o$4oh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If I understand the way Netcraft works, it determains server & OS by HTTP
> header, and uptime by tcp/ip data.
> Therefor, there is nothing to prevent it from reading NT system and
getting
> unix uptime.
No, only the server string is retrieved through the HTTP header. They
determine OS by packet characteristics.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: swithching to linux
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:32:01 GMT
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 05:45:46 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I'm running Debian 2.2 {Potato} on a 486 Toshiba with 5 meg of ram
>> and a 500 MB hard drive. I'm currently installing it and went
>> over to another console to telnet into my other machine and read
>> the mail. I've got apt-get installing 214 packages right now
>> and in the other console I have 2.4 test 11 compiling me a new
>> kernel for this box. Console #3 is where I'm telneting.
>>
>> You could never do this using windows anything.
>>
>> Just go into your closet and grab that old 486 laptop you thought
>> was so worthless and install Debian Potato on the thing.
>>
>> I'm getting very good performance on this system even though it
>> has almost no resources to use. Linux makes things work!
>
>Quite frankly, I don't believe you.
>
Oh, oh. A dis-believer.
>Of course that depends on what you mean by "good performance", but the act
>of compiling the kernel alone will use up way more memory than you have free
>causing swapping to beat all hell, and on a 486 laptop (laptop drives are
>much slower than workstation drives due to low power consumption) this would
>be painful to do anything in any other console due to the fact that swapping
>will be a nightmare.
>
Um humm.
>Hell, I have a P100 with 72 meg of memory that I used to compile the world
>on FreeBSD and THAT was painful to use while it was doing that.
>
Um humm.
>You won't help your cause by lying.
>
Um humm.
>BTW, what 214 packages might those be? I'd suspect that 214 packages would
>use up a lot more free disk space than you have, especially with the kernel
>compiling and creating all those intermediate files. More exageration?
>
My compile finished, my telnet session never stopped, my apt-get of
215 packages is finished.
And yes, it had outstanding performance for a 486 with 5megs of ram.
You bet. There isn't another operating system out there which can
do what Linux can. Not FreeBSD, not Windows, not Mac OSX.
None of them can compare to the raw linux performance under the widest
possible conditions linux can operate under.
Linux! The operating system people will actually ACCUSE YOU OF LYING
ABOUT!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Richard Storey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help plea from Newbie (Monitor)
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:23:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I finally decided to find out what all the Linux fuss was about. I
> spent the weekend hunched over an old Compaq P75 and an even older
> monitor. Boy, was it worth it! Linux has blown my mind. I was about to
> throw the PC out - it's been in the cupboard for a couple of years ever
> since I bought a Mac when I finally had it with Micro$oft. Now I
> realise I needn't have bought anything!
>
> I have one small problem. My monitor (Tatung 14SBS) is not listed in
> the Redhat 6.0 install program. I got it working using Custom and got
> all the specs from the Tatung website. But Linux won't run it at 800 x
> 600, only 640 x 480.Can I change this without reinstalling and if I
> change monitors how do I set the new monitor up? Also is it possible to
> get Linux and my Mac to share a monitor (Viewsonic 17"?)?
>
> Thnaks in advance and sorry if this isn't the best forum for this
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Yes, you can reconfigure w/o reinstalling. I don't know what RH 6.0 has in
it, I use Mandrake 7.2, you'll find a utility to reconfigure your monitor.
Read the manual, it will tell you (it's also online). It is very important
that you find out the technical parameters of your monitor to get the
settings precise, e.g. H. scan rates at what resolutions, exact video chip
set, etc., before you start.
You might also use the installation program to update your system and
you'll probably get a chance to reconfigure your video at the end of that.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 08:39:26 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > These are simply APIs that have been developed over years. Arguments
> > > > about magnitude do not negate the basic assumptions.
> > > >
> > > > Any and all of these APIs could have been implemented in DesqView.
> > > > Windows requires DOS, pure and simple, thus it is not an operating
> > > > system.
> > >
> > > They could have been implemented in DesqView, but weren't. Thus,
> DesqView
> > > is not an OS.
> >
> > The quantity of API does not define an OS.
>
> Then what does? Surely not your simple explanation below.
A small embedded ROM system can be an OS. The X window system, though
vastly more complicated, and in some ways similar to an OS, is not an
OS. The same goes for MS Windows.
>
> > > Tell me, would Linux be an OS if it only provided the same services that
> > > DesqView did (from a general perspective, not a DOS perspective).
> You're
> > > only argument is that if the OS depends on DOS, it's not an OS. That's
> not
> > > an argument.
> >
> > I disagree completely. Even if Linux did not support the things it does,
> > it is an OS because it has the ability to boot on its own and function
> > without the aid of software which is not native to its kernel.
>
> Linux doesn't boot on it's own. It needs a bootstrap loader, such as Lilo,
> or Loadlin or grub or even the NT bootloader.
Actually that is not completely true. The Lilo loader is a convenience.
It is trickiy to get a system to boot without a loader, but linux does
not absolutely need lilo. Try using something like dd to copy the linux
kernel to a floppy. It will boot off that floppy with no loader.
Besides, a loader is ephemeral, it goes away. DOS does not go away under
Windows.
> And as for "native to it's
> kernel", whatever that's supposed to mean, is a technicality. Several other
> OS's do not boot on their own either. VMS, OS/2, Netware, etc..
Note above, difference between loader and part of the OS. BTW, early on
Netware used to run on DOS.
>
> > Windows is a dos extender, a BIG dos extender, but it is a DOS extender.
>
> Yes, it is a dos extender, in ADDITION to being an OS. Just like OS/2 is a
> dos extender (via the DPMI interface it provides).
Windows is a DOS extender because the windows 386 executive is a DOS
extender which provides a DPMI interface. It is through this interface
Windows operates.
OS/2 on the other hand is not based on DPMI, it is has its own APIs, but
it provides DPMI for DOS applications. It has no core DOS to extend.
>
> > > > > If you're looking at an OS as a kernel only, then what do you
> consider
> > > > > mkLinux? Which runs linux in a subsystem?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, mklinux is not the OS in this case.
> > >
> > > Alright, the Linux running on a S/390 isn't an OS either. Neither is
> MacOS
> > > X, nor is the GNU HURD. Your definition of an OS is outdated and
> certainly
> > > not supported by many experts in the field.
> >
> > Which experts would that be? In which field? Windows guys need to have
> > validation so they say Windows is an OS, but most serious experts don't
> > think it is.
>
> Well, the Federal Standard, for instance:
>
> http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-025/_3689.htm
>
> And I'm certain that Apple's OS experts would disagree that MacOS X was not
> an OS.
This is very vague and simplistic. By this definition emacs is an OS.
Surely we can find a more precise definition. If we can officially call
emacs an OS, I think Windows is almost as capable.
>
> > > Indeed, but they didn't have to model the drivers after the DOS driver
> > > model. That was because OS/2 was originally supposed to be DOS 5.
> >
> > Point of fact, OS/2 was originally intended to be DOS 3.x, but it wasn't
> > ready, then 4.x, but it wasn't ready, and so on. The 286 DOS box was a
> > big, huge, problem. IBM insisted that OS/2 1.x run on a 286 because
> > they, as yet, did not have a 386 based system.
>
> Actually, they insisted on a 286 because they had promised their AT
> customers that they would support them.
>
> OS/2 was started in 1985, and I believe that DOS 3 already existed then (as
> did the 386). Not to mention that IBM shipped 386 systems simulataneously
> with OS/2 in 1987.
Yes, the OS/2 history is complicated and likely the reason why MS and
IBM had the falling out. There are many "truths" depending on where you
stood. I worked at Sytron at the time, and we working closely with
Microsoft to get OS/2 filesystem support for tape drives. It was my job
to get an installable file system working on the OS. I had to fly to
Redmond and work there a few days. What I know, I know from talking with
people at Microsoft.
My recollection is not provable, and I tossed my OS/2 books long ago, so
there is no point in arguing motives from memory.
>
> > > > Under Windows, DPMI is the methodology on which the shell is based. On
> > > > OS/2 DPMI is an API provided by the OS for DOS applications. Do you
> > > > understand the difference?
> > >
> > > It's the same with Windows. Only DOS apps can make use of DPMI.
> Windows
> > > implements it's memory management in a way that is compatible with DPMI,
> but
> > > to suggest that windows uses DPMI itself is silly, and stupid.
> >
> > Take a look low down dude. The Windows executive is a DPMI environment
> > and Windows run in a virtual DOS machine within it. BTW: Windows runs in
> > the same virtual machine as the actual DOS OS because each Windows
> > program has to have a DOS PSP.
>
> A "DPMI environment"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Windows do
> *NOT* run in a virtual DOS machine, they run in unique 32 bit protected mode
> address spaces with certain portions of the system VMM mapped into those
> contexts. Windows itself runs in what's called the "System VM" which is a
> protected mode 32 bit address space of it's own.
In DOS Windows, there is a system VM in which ALL windows programs run.
Take a look at the DDK. Separate DOS programs run in thier own VM, but
all Windows programs run in the same VM. They isolate programs' private
data by manipulating the page table, not but creating virtual machines.
This behavior is well documented, supported by Microsoft's own diagrams.
If you take the time to read about how to make DOS calls from a VxD, in
the DDK you will see you must make sure you are in the system VM before
you can make a DOS call.
Also, take a look at Andrew Schulman's book "Unauthorized Windows" which
tells of how DOS is in the system VM, and its extensive dependency on
DPMI.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:30:39 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux doesn't boot on it's own. It needs a bootstrap loader, such as Lilo,
No it doesn't. If you don't believe me, copy the kernel and NOTHING ELSE
to a floppy.
Peter
------------------------------
From: nf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 08:22:36 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> Access is the biggest joke next to Microsoft, I absolute refuse to use
> such as piece of shyte. I prefer (on a Wintel Machine) using either
> Lotus Approach 9.5 or Filemaker 5 (used on both Mac and Wintel).
>
> kiwiunixman
>
> <snype>
>
Yes ... Filemaker is a great application. However Access isn't all
that bad. It broke new ground when it was released. A database which
allowed fully relational tables that could be normalized properly for
$99 ??? (That was 1.0!) The newest version comes with an optional SQL
Server 7 engine that can be installed which makes it far easier to scale
up to SQL Server later.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
