Filesystems (was My First Computer)
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> I worked at a windows only PC shop for a very short time recently. For
> example some Windows PC hardware techs will not know what you mean if
> you refer to the "filesystem". They know "FAT", "FAT32", and "NTFS" but
> they may not know a filesystem is a general concept that most OS have.
> One guy was talking about Unix (which he probably has only read about
> not used) and refered to the unix filesystem as "Unix NTFS"!!
>
> God help him get a clue! Unix predates NT by about two decades. They
> did not copy NTFS, NTFS copied unix. [NTFS uses the same basic method
> to access files as the standard unix machine does]
I have the impression that the unique thing about NTFS is the
database treatment of the filesystem proper, with 'transactions'
protecting the critical relationships. At least according to what
I read about it six to eight years ago.
This explains, to me, why it is easy to provide r/o access to an
NTFS system, but hard to provide write access.
--
Chuck F (cbfal...@yahoo.com) (cbfal...@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
Glen
CBFalconer wrote:
> Glen wrote:
>
> ... snip ...
>
>>I worked at a windows only PC shop for a very short time recently. For
>>example some Windows PC hardware techs will not know what you mean if
>>you refer to the "filesystem". They know "FAT", "FAT32", and "NTFS" but
>>they may not know a filesystem is a general concept that most OS have.
>>One guy was talking about Unix (which he probably has only read about
>>not used) and refered to the unix filesystem as "Unix NTFS"!!
>>
>>God help him get a clue! Unix predates NT by about two decades. They
>>did not copy NTFS, NTFS copied unix. [NTFS uses the same basic method
>>to access files as the standard unix machine does]
>>
>
> I have the impression that the unique thing about NTFS is the
> database treatment of the filesystem proper, with 'transactions'
> protecting the critical relationships. At least according to what
> I read about it six to eight years ago.
>
> This explains, to me, why it is easy to provide r/o access to an
> NTFS system, but hard to provide write access.
>
>
Nah... I've seen at least an ntfs go bad. Its just a normal filesystem.
They do have a file system with transactions now. They were not the
first to get this either.
Glen
CBFalconer
Not according to Helen Custer in "Inside the Windows NT
Filesystem", 1994, ISBN 1-55615-660-X. I have no direct
experience.
Peter Flass
AIX has had a "journaled file system" (JFS) for years, and I'd have to
assume they weren't the first. It has recently been ported to OS/2.
Glen
Peter Flass wrote:
I know :)
I used to used to admin an AIX server... it did not crash
once. Z-e-r-o times. And this thing was doing some real work too.
IBM hates Microsoft so much that they actually wrote a JFS for linux.
So now you can get a JFS for free.
Glen.
Rupert Pigott
news:3E46CC96...@nycap.rr.com...
[SNIP]
> I used to used to admin an AIX server... it did not crash
>
> once. Z-e-r-o times. And this thing was doing some real work too.
AIX is insanely boring in that regard.
I was a user of a thoroughly hacked up nastiness that could once
have been described as an AIX box... It had been through so many
patches/hacks etc at the hands of a bunch of developer/admins
that it was barely recognisable... Aside from the reboots when
the "admins" couldn't work out how to use "kill -HUP" properly
it never failed... To be honest I was hoping it would so that we
would have a fighting chance of sorting it out properly...
Cheers,
Rupert
nos...@nouce.bellatlantic.net
wrote:
>[not topposted due to user request]
>AIX has had a "journaled file system" (JFS) for years, and I'd have to
>assume they weren't the first. It has recently been ported to OS/2.
Then there is VMS and the internal file systems (yes multiple layers)
RMS and Files-11.
Having worked with serial file systems with catalog, Block oriented
with catalog like OS-8 and NS* dos then something that could allocate
file space dynamically CP/M I've seen a few. Historically only CP/M
style file systems interest me here.
All the stuff for Linux and NT however is majorly off topic for here
unless you plan to describe a version implemtation to replace the file
system used for CP/M.
Allison
lisp
> IBM hates Microsoft so much that they actually wrote a JFS for linux.
> So now you can get a JFS for free.
Yeah, but when you have the choice of XFS instead...
--
(lisp) - http://www.thecommune.org.uk/~lisa - http://www.lisastoys.co.uk
SBS#37(with oak leaf cluster) two#40 DOGMUK
Suzuki GS125ES
My other car's a cdr
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> [not topposted due to user request]
> AIX has had a "journaled file system" (JFS) for years, and I'd have to
> assume they weren't the first. It has recently been ported to OS/2.
i believe it may have been the first unix product filesystem. it was
originally done using the rios (aka power/6000) "database memory"
.... basically segment that had fine-grain modification turned on. the
filesystem metadata was mapped into the segment. at checkpoints
... could go around and find all the areas that had been modified and
log them (note that logs tends to be cyclical and overwrites after
things have been commited, journals tend to be long term archives of
changes).
as part of being able to have it run on other hardware, palo alto did
a more conventional version where explicit calls were made to log as
changed happened. it turned out that the explicit calls were less
overhead than running around afterwards and finding all the modified
data. this was all before the AIXV3 with JFS actually shipped. Note
that palo alto had also done AOS (bsd) for the PC/RT as an alternative
to the AIXV2 (at&t) shipped from austin.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
Internet trivia 20th anv http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htm
Bill Leary
news:3E46CC96...@nycap.rr.com...
> I used to used to admin an AIX server... it did not crash
> once. Z-e-r-o times. And this thing was doing some real work too.
This will probably be a shock to, well, nobody. I use a Sun workstation at
work. Solaris something or other. The only time I've ever crashed the
thing was running (here's the shocker) Internet Explorer for Unix.
- Bill
Cameron Kaiser
>>AIX has had a "journaled file system" (JFS) for years, and I'd have to
>>assume they weren't the first. It has recently been ported to OS/2.
>I know :)
>I used to used to admin an AIX server... it did not crash
>once. Z-e-r-o times. And this thing was doing some real work too.
>IBM hates Microsoft so much that they actually wrote a JFS for linux.
>So now you can get a JFS for free.
Or you can find someone getting rid of an AIX box and enjoy the wonders of
smit for free. I might be inheriting a few POWERservers soon. As an AIX
admin myself for just about six years, I've really gotten to enjoy it, IBM's
perverse little licensing quirks notwithstanding.
--
Cameron Kaiser * cka...@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
personal page: http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/
** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
Bill Leary
news:3e46cd95....@news.bellatlantic.net...
> All the stuff for Linux and NT however is majorly off topic for here
> unless you plan to describe a version implemtation to replace the file
> system used for CP/M.
Now that you mention it, when I was running CP/M 3.0 on a Morrow Micro
Decision with an HD, I seem to recall briefly running something (replacement
BDOS and CCP, or maybe just CCP) which gave a hierarchical file system with
long (well, 32 character) names. It did some kind of file-name magic to
permit standard CP/M programs to open and close those files. Name mangling
similar to what you see when you do a DIR on a Windows system. If you
booted the system into normal CP/M 3, all the files had legal, but
unintelligible, names and there was a file which contained the hierarchical
"file system."
Anyone else remember that? What it was called or how it worked?
- Bill
Christopher Browne
> I know :) I used to used to admin an AIX server... it did not crash
> once. Z-e-r-o times. And this thing was doing some real work too.
Ah, but the merit of journalling filesystems is that they "play well"
even if you have a power outage or other 'forcible crash.'
Journalling provides little value if the system /doesn't/ crash.
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://cbbrowne.com/info/fs.html
"I'd much rather punch my timecards with a punch awl and blood
spattered fist than use the Solomon IV "Timekeeper" module."
-- Peter da Silva
William Hamblen
wrote:
>Now that you mention it, when I was running CP/M 3.0 on a Morrow Micro
>Decision with an HD, I seem to recall briefly running something (replacement
>BDOS and CCP, or maybe just CCP) which gave a hierarchical file system with
>long (well, 32 character) names. It did some kind of file-name magic to
>permit standard CP/M programs to open and close those files. Name mangling
>similar to what you see when you do a DIR on a Windows system. If you
>booted the system into normal CP/M 3, all the files had legal, but
>unintelligible, names and there was a file which contained the hierarchical
>"file system."
>
>Anyone else remember that? What it was called or how it worked?
ZCPR, possibly.
CBFalconer
I seem to remember that ZCPR had some means of translating user
numbers into names. This may be what you remember. I didn't
consider it useful.
Bill Leary
news:3E473BDF...@yahoo.com...
> > Anyone else remember that? What it was called or how it worked?
>
> I seem to remember that ZCPR had some means of translating user
> numbers into names. This may be what you remember. I didn't
> consider it useful.
No, I used ZCPR, and thought the named-user-spaces was cool, but that isn't
what I'm trying to remember.
Another clue, if I'm remembering right, was that it had a "nix' ending name,
in an obvious play on Unix.
- Bill
John Thompson
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> AIX has had a "journaled file system" (JFS) for years, and I'd have to
>> assume they weren't the first. It has recently been ported to OS/2.
> I know :)
>
>
> I used to used to admin an AIX server... it did not crash
>
> once. Z-e-r-o times. And this thing was doing some real work too.
>
>
> IBM hates Microsoft so much that they actually wrote a JFS for linux.
> So now you can get a JFS for free.
But the jfs for OS/2 is not free. :-( Nor is IBM's Java jdk/jre for OS/2
free, although the linux one is. Go figure.
--
-John (John.T...@attglobal.net)
John Thompson
> I worked at a windows only PC shop for a very short time recently. For
> example some Windows PC hardware techs will not know what you mean if
> you refer to the "filesystem". They know "FAT", "FAT32", and "NTFS" but
> they may not know a filesystem is a general concept that most OS have.
> One guy was talking about Unix (which he probably has only read about
> not used) and refered to the unix filesystem as "Unix NTFS"!!
>
> God help him get a clue! Unix predates NT by about two decades. They
> did not copy NTFS, NTFS copied unix. [NTFS uses the same basic method
> to access files as the standard unix machine does]
My experience is that most self-proclaimed Windows "experts" are ignorant
of the idea of partitions, so why should it be a surprise that filesystems
are a difficult concept?
If you ask your typical Windows expert if a HD device containing only a C:
drive is partitioned, chances are they'll say "no."
--
-John (John.T...@attglobal.net)
Rupert Pigott
news:oAF1a.50211$iG3.6750@sccrnsc02...
IE crashed your UNIX box ? Whoa...
Cheers,
Rupert
jmfb...@aol.com
Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>[not topposted due to user request]
Thank you :-). It's much easier to read the material without having
to do an edit.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> Ah, but the merit of journalling filesystems is that they "play well"
> even if you have a power outage or other 'forcible crash.'
>
> Journalling provides little value if the system /doesn't/ crash.
when my wife and i started ha/cmp ... we were dependent on JFS for
fast take-over .... regardless of the failure-mode or outage.
one of the failure-modes was design for 1-800 number system. out the
back of the ss7 to the 1-800 number lookup was two T1s. They had been
going to a fault tolerant system running the database. The 1-800
number system had design point of something like five-nines ... about
5 minutes of outage per year. while the hardware was fault tolerant,
the system had to come down for software maint. .... which was on the
order of 30 mins or more (single maint. operation per year blew a
minimum of six years outage budget).
Now, it turns out that the ss7 was already fault tolerant and was
prepared to redrive the request down the alternate T1 in case it
didn't get an answer back on the initial query. We claimed that the
SS7 fault tolerant management could "mask" all sorts of outages and a
non-fault-tolerant ha/cmp backend was actually superior to the
fault-tolernat implementation ... since either backend could be out
for whatever reason and everything would still work ... aka an ha/cmp
configuration easily met the outage budget relying on the
fault-tolerant redrive logic in the SS7 to mask outages.
Of course it would have been possible to also replicate the
fault-tolerant boxes ... at significantly increased cost ... and then
both the ha/cmp implementation and the fault-tolerant implementation
would have met the outage budget.
random ha/cmp ref:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/95.html#13
lots more ha/cmp refs:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#hacmp
Bill/Carolyn Pechter
Bill Leary <Bill_...@msn.com> wrote:
>No, I used ZCPR, and thought the named-user-spaces was cool, but that isn't
>what I'm trying to remember.
>
>Another clue, if I'm remembering right, was that it had a "nix' ending name,
>in an obvious play on Unix.
>
> - Bill
>
>
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bill and/or Carolyn Pechter | pec...@shell.monmouth.com |
| Bill Gates is a Persian cat and a monocle away from being a villain in |
| a James Bond movie -- Dennis Miller |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Terry Yager
Bill/Carolyn Pechter <pec...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote in message
news:b28ok9$lne$1...@shell.monmouth.com...
Epex?
CBFalconer
> > > Z-e-r-o times. And this thing was doing some real work too.
> >
> > This will probably be a shock to, well, nobody. I use a Sun
> > workstation at work. Solaris something or other. The only time
> > I've ever crashed the thing was running (here's the shocker)
> > Internet Explorer for Unix.
>
> IE crashed your UNIX box ? Whoa...
Proving that anything from Microsoft has unlimited capabilities.
I didn't know such a thing existed, but if it does it is probably
designed to cause as much trouble as possible.
Ross Simpson
alt.folklore.computers
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Geez Chuck this thread will really light up now in the other groups, since
you added alt.folklore.computers! ;-)
Ross.
Rupert Pigott
> Rupert Pigott wrote:
> > "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > > "Glen" <lpep...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > I used to used to admin an AIX server... it did not crash once.
> > > > Z-e-r-o times. And this thing was doing some real work too.
> > >
> > > This will probably be a shock to, well, nobody. I use a Sun
> > > workstation at work. Solaris something or other. The only time
> > > I've ever crashed the thing was running (here's the shocker)
> > > Internet Explorer for Unix.
> >
> > IE crashed your UNIX box ? Whoa...
>
> Proving that anything from Microsoft has unlimited capabilities.
> I didn't know such a thing existed, but if it does it is probably
> designed to cause as much trouble as possible.
My guess is that it managed to find a way to bust up the XServer
so bad that the XServer barfed on some priveledged address-space.
Pretty awesome piece of exploit h4x0ring from MS though. Shame
that they don't have that team destruction testing their own
products so that they might find all the exploits before release.
Cheers,
Rupert
Steve Burton
wrote:
>Rupert Pigott wrote:
>> "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> > "Glen" <lpep...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > > I used to used to admin an AIX server... it did not crash once.
>> > > Z-e-r-o times. And this thing was doing some real work too.
>> >
>> > This will probably be a shock to, well, nobody. I use a Sun
>> > workstation at work. Solaris something or other. The only time
>> > I've ever crashed the thing was running (here's the shocker)
>> > Internet Explorer for Unix.
>>
>> IE crashed your UNIX box ? Whoa...
>
>Proving that anything from Microsoft has unlimited capabilities.
>I didn't know such a thing existed, but if it does it is probably
>designed to cause as much trouble as possible.
According to court testimony, IE is *part of the operating system*,
ergo it can do what it d*mn well pleases.
Steve.
Bill Leary
news:b28ok9$lne$1...@shell.monmouth.com...
name,
> >in an obvious play on Unix.
> >
Might be it. I clearly remember that name, but I'm not sure if that was it.
- Bill
Bill Leary
message news:10449165...@saucer.planet.gong...
> > > IE crashed your UNIX box ? Whoa...
> >
> > Proving that anything from Microsoft has unlimited capabilities.
> > I didn't know such a thing existed, but if it does it is probably
> > designed to cause as much trouble as possible.
>
> My guess is that it managed to find a way to bust up the XServer
> so bad that the XServer barfed on some priveledged address-space.
I suspect you're correct. At my previous job, we managed to do this with an
older version of SUN-OS and the X-Server. But then, we were actually
hacking the X-Server, so we expected some trouble.
In the IE case, the machine froze up entirely. Couldn't even access it
remotely. The only thing that DID work was the L1-A entrance to BIOS for a
reboot.
- Bill
nos...@nouce.bellatlantic.net
wrote:
>
>Now that you mention it, when I was running CP/M 3.0 on a Morrow Micro
>Decision with an HD, I seem to recall briefly running something (replacement
>BDOS and CCP, or maybe just CCP) which gave a hierarchical file system with
>long (well, 32 character) names. It did some kind of file-name magic to
No it didn't. The filsystem was flat. All that was is the ZCPR
naming of the user directories (in the same file structure).
Allison
nos...@nouce.bellatlantic.net
wrote:
>No, I used ZCPR, and thought the named-user-spaces was cool, but that isn't
>what I'm trying to remember.
>
>Another clue, if I'm remembering right, was that it had a "nix' ending name,
>in an obvious play on Unix.
Conix, it used the CP/M file system and put a unix like front end to
get pipes and other useful tools. Actually predates the later and
better Zcpr versions.
Allison
Bill Leary
news:3e486be0....@news.bellatlantic.net...
> >Now that you mention it, when I was running CP/M 3.0 on a Morrow Micro
> >Decision with an HD, I seem to recall briefly running something
(replacement
> >BDOS and CCP, or maybe just CCP) which gave a hierarchical file system
with
> >long (well, 32 character) names. It did some kind of file-name magic to
>
> No it didn't.
Yes, it did. Read on.
> The filsystem was flat.
I know. The CCP and/or CCP & BDOS replacement gave a hierarchial
projection.
> All that was is the ZCPR naming of the user
> directories (in the same file structure).
No, it wasn't ZCPR.
As I said in the remainder of my original paragraph:
---quote---
If you booted the system into normal CP/M 3, all the files had legal,
but unintelligible, names and there was a file which contained the
hierarchical "file system."
---end quote---
All the files, along with this 'file system' file, were in user area 0... or
maybe user area 1. I'm not sure which, but they were all in that one user
area.
If I did a chdir to, say, /alpha/beta/omega and did a dir and saw myfile.txt
and yourfile.dat the actual filenames on the disk might be A39Z2F1B.TXT and
YCJ227XY.DAT. If I typed in a command like WORDSTAR MYFILE.TXT the file
system spoofer thing actually executed WORDSTAR A39Z2F1B.TXT. That "file
system" file kept the directories and the file name translations and handled
all the overhead to make the standard CP/M file system look like a
hierarchical one to it's own CCP and tools.
When I booted normal CP/M 3 on the system, I saw all these weird file name
along with the file where the "file system" for the hierarchical thing was
kept.
- Bill
Bill Leary
news:3e486c69....@news.bellatlantic.net...
OK, then it definitely wasn't Conix because it didn't do pipes.
This software was purely a hierarchical file system thing for CP/M.
- Bill
Charles Shannon Hendrix
It must install as root and modify the kernel or something... like it
does on Windows... :) :) :)
Brian Inglis
I would imagine some idiot probably installed it with root
permission and without stability testing.
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
--
Brian....@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
fake address use address above to reply
ab...@aol.com tos...@aol.com ab...@att.com ab...@earthlink.com
ab...@hotmail.com ab...@mci.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
ab...@yahoo.com ab...@cadvision.com ab...@shaw.ca ab...@telus.com
ab...@ibsystems.com u...@ftc.gov spam traps
Pete Fenelon
Eek. I have IE5 on my Sparcbook 3GX - but I've always been too scared to
even try running it. I don't think I'll try.
pete
--
pe...@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" HMHB
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> As I said in the remainder of my original paragraph:
> ---quote---
> If you booted the system into normal CP/M 3, all the files had legal,
> but unintelligible, names and there was a file which contained the
> hierarchical "file system."
> ---end quote---
It was extremely easy to build the equivalent of a hierachical
file system on CP/M, just use .LBR files. Each contains the
equivalent of a directory, and once the FCB is suitably
initialized to point at the correct location within the .LBR file
all the normal file handling calls work, with the exception of EOF
detection. That requires added care.
Note that a LBR could contain a further LBR, thus handling the
hierarchy business.
Rupert Pigott
news:jsfg4v0e8kaavrpbs...@4ax.com...
[SNIP]
> According to court testimony, IE is *part of the operating system*,
> ergo it can do what it d*mn well pleases.
I knew that case was fucked as soon as they focussed on browser
bundling... That was clearly an extremely tenuous line of attack
at best... I wish I had that kind of money to throw at people to
help my cause, I'd spend it on beer and die middle-aged, drunk &
happy instead of wasting on Lawyers who will most likely do the
same... Cut out the middle man I say.
Cheers,
Rupert
Rupert Pigott
news:eg7h4vkuvpirh3feh...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 04:07:48 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, "Bill
> Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >"Glen" <lpep...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:3E46CC96...@nycap.rr.com...
> >
> >> I used to used to admin an AIX server... it did not crash
> >> once. Z-e-r-o times. And this thing was doing some real work too.
> >
> >This will probably be a shock to, well, nobody. I use a Sun workstation
at
> >work. Solaris something or other. The only time I've ever crashed the
> >thing was running (here's the shocker) Internet Explorer for Unix.
>
> I would imagine some idiot probably installed it with root
> permission and without stability testing.
Nah it wouldn't have to. It's not unknown for XServers to lock
up the entire machine - because most of them have priveledged
access to various bits of hardware & memory by necessity. So
all that an X-app has to do is scramble the XServer enough for
it to toss it's cookies in a machine-trashing type way. Sure,
less likely to happen than when you have a set up like NT, but
it can. :)
Cheers,
Rupert
Bill Leary
news:slrnb4h2qk....@news.widomaker.com...
> > IE crashed your UNIX box ? Whoa...
>
> It must install as root and modify the kernel or something... like it
> does on Windows... :) :) :)
Installed as a user. Actually, it's not "installed" in the sense IE is on
Windows. It's just sitting in a directory and executed from that directory.
Quite an accomplishment to take down UNIX as a user program.
- Bill
Bill Leary
> It was extremely easy to build the equivalent of a hierachical
> Note that a LBR could contain a further LBR, thus handling the
> hierarchy business.
I guess I never noticed that ability of .LBR.
You could execute programs down in the heirarchy too. Extending my previous
example, if you put WORDSTAR in some sub-directory, or gave it a long file
name, you could type:
word_star_wp my_document.doc
and it might become:
DX32JKL1.COM ZP478D29.DOC
Now that you've reminded me, if whatever you named followed the 8.3 naming
convention, and was in root, it's name was left unchanged If the name was
outside 8.3 or wasn't in root, it got modified.
And the command shell DID do search paths as DOS does now.
- Bill
Bill Leary
> > I would imagine some idiot probably installed it with root
> > permission and without stability testing.
>
> Nah it wouldn't have to. It's not unknown for XServers to lock
> up the entire machine - because most of them have priveledged
> access to various bits of hardware & memory by necessity.
This is just un-compressed into a directory and run from there, as a normal
user, so I believe you're correct.
- Bill
jmfb...@aol.com
CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Rupert Pigott wrote:
>> "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> > "Glen" <lpep...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > > I used to used to admin an AIX server... it did not crash once.
>> > > Z-e-r-o times. And this thing was doing some real work too.
>> >
>> > This will probably be a shock to, well, nobody. I use a Sun
>> > workstation at work. Solaris something or other. The only time
>> > I've ever crashed the thing was running (here's the shocker)
>> > Internet Explorer for Unix.
>>
>> IE crashed your UNIX box ? Whoa...
>
>Proving that anything from Microsoft has unlimited capabilities.
>I didn't know such a thing existed, but if it does it is probably
>designed to cause as much trouble as possible.
Anything can crash any OS if it has any write access to
exec mode.
jmfb...@aol.com
jmfb...@aol.com
I knew it was fucked when they didn't go after the monopolistic
practices. Having lawyers and politicians telling anybody
how to code is not a Good Idea. I only know of one lawyer in
this world who might be able to do that work.
Pete Fenelon
>>
>>Eek. I have IE5 on my Sparcbook 3GX - but I've always been too scared to
>>even try running it. I don't think I'll try.
>
> Does Sun know they have a monitor bug?
>
> /BAH
Given the number of times Sun have advertised "Sustaining Engineering"
(read: bugfixing Solaris) positions, oh yes I'm sure they do!
To be fair, I like my Sparc/Solaris boxes better than any "commercial" Unix
apart from Irix.
Matthew Russotto
Glen <lpep...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
>
>I used to used to admin an AIX server... it did not crash
>
>once. Z-e-r-o times. And this thing was doing some real work too.
I admined a few. I got to know the flashing '888' (AIX equivalent of
a kernel panic) very well. Granted, this was back under AIX 3.1.x
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Matthew Russotto
CBFalconer <cbfal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Rupert Pigott wrote:
>> "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> > "Glen" <lpep...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > > I used to used to admin an AIX server... it did not crash once.
>> > > Z-e-r-o times. And this thing was doing some real work too.
>> >
>> > This will probably be a shock to, well, nobody. I use a Sun
>> > workstation at work. Solaris something or other. The only time
>> > I've ever crashed the thing was running (here's the shocker)
>> > Internet Explorer for Unix.
>>
>> IE crashed your UNIX box ? Whoa...
>
>Proving that anything from Microsoft has unlimited capabilities.
>I didn't know such a thing existed, but if it does it is probably
>designed to cause as much trouble as possible.
Crashing Solaris wasn't historically that difficult -- the X-server
was the weak spot, IME.
Rupert Pigott
In this case it's a write access in exec mode via a message
passing protocol... To be totally honest with you I don't
see *why* that should happen, aside from over-aggressive
optimisation... That's another story, and X certainly has
been subject to a huge amount of optimisation work.
Been there and seen it first hand...
Cheers,
Rupert
CBFalconer
> > ((..omitted..))
> > Note that a LBR could contain a further LBR, thus handling the
> > hierarchy business.
>
> I guess I never noticed that ability of .LBR.
>
>
> And the command shell DID do search paths as DOS does now.
CCPXTEND together with CCPLUS in my DOSPLUS package did paths and
automatic searches of several libraries. Available on my site in
download/cpm/.
Dosius
> My experience is that most self-proclaimed Windows "experts" are ignorant
> of the idea of partitions, so why should it be a surprise that filesystems
> are a difficult concept?
>
> If you ask your typical Windows expert if a HD device containing only a C:
> drive is partitioned, chances are they'll say "no."
:E
Then that person is no expert.
-uso.
Charlie Gibbs
st...@dosius.zzn.com (Dosius) writes:
>John Thompson <jo...@starfleet.thompson.us> wrote in message
>news:<slrnb4e2j...@starfleet.thompson.us>...
>
>> If you ask your typical Windows expert if a HD device containing
>> only a C: drive is partitioned, chances are they'll say "no."
>
>Then that person is no expert.
"Windows expert" != "expert"
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
jmfb...@aol.com
In article <10449897...@saucer.planet.gong>,
"Rupert Pigott" <r...@dark-try-removing-this-boong.demon.co.uk> wrote:
><jmfb...@aol.com> wrote in message news:b2avch$lee$2...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>> In article <3E482172...@yahoo.com>,
>> CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Rupert Pigott wrote:
>> >> "Bill Leary" <Bill_...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> >> > "Glen" <lpep...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> > > I used to used to admin an AIX server... it did not crash once.
>> >> > > Z-e-r-o times. And this thing was doing some real work too.
>> >> >
>> >> > This will probably be a shock to, well, nobody. I use a Sun
>> >> > workstation at work. Solaris something or other. The only time
>> >> > I've ever crashed the thing was running (here's the shocker)
>> >> > Internet Explorer for Unix.
>> >>
>> >> IE crashed your UNIX box ? Whoa...
>> >
>> >Proving that anything from Microsoft has unlimited capabilities.
>> >I didn't know such a thing existed, but if it does it is probably
>> >designed to cause as much trouble as possible.
>>
>> Anything can crash any OS if it has any write access to
>> exec mode.
>
>In this case it's a write access in exec mode via a message
>passing protocol... To be totally honest with you I don't
>see *why* that should happen,
Yup. I was very used to having these things explained. :-)
It was a benefit of being on the inside.
> ...aside from over-aggressive
>optimisation... That's another story, and X certainly has
>been subject to a huge amount of optimisation work.
>
>Been there and seen it first hand...
As long as the mystery was explained.
jmfb...@aol.com
In article <v4i2so8...@corp.supernews.com>,
Pete Fenelon <pe...@fenelon.com> wrote:
>In alt.folklore.computers jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>Eek. I have IE5 on my Sparcbook 3GX - but I've always been too scared to
>>>even try running it. I don't think I'll try.
>>
>> Does Sun know they have a monitor bug?
>Given the number of times Sun have advertised "Sustaining Engineering"
>(read: bugfixing Solaris) positions, oh yes I'm sure they do!
There have been cases where people who have experienced a bug didn't
report it because they figured somebody already had. That was
a good side effect of our SPR Dispatch.
>
>To be fair, I like my Sparc/Solaris boxes better than
>any "commercial" Unix apart from Irix.
>
I wasn't trying to be fair or unfair; this (asking an obvious
but oft overlooked question) was a common part of the OS biz.
David Wade
<jmfb...@aol.com> wrote in message news:b2dgqo$1hv$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
I know the current versions of solaris are more tolerent, but having spent
an evening at a friends house removing hundreds of "core" files from a 4.1.3
system to make enough space for the system to run, I would say any badly
managed system can fail.
I would also say that the Windows/2000 laptop has not crashed since I bought
it in September.....
Eric Sosman
>
> I would also say that the Windows/2000 laptop has not crashed since I bought
> it in September.....
When do you intend to turn it on?
(Cheap Shots 'R Us ...)
Dosius
> In article <9307085f.03021...@posting.google.com>
> st...@dosius.zzn.com (Dosius) writes:
>
> >John Thompson <jo...@starfleet.thompson.us> wrote in message
> >news:<slrnb4e2j...@starfleet.thompson.us>...
> >
> >> If you ask your typical Windows expert if a HD device containing
> >> only a C: drive is partitioned, chances are they'll say "no."
> >
> >Then that person is no expert.
>
> "Windows expert" != "expert"
AOL that. But then again, anyone who doesn't know the use of FDISK is
not IMHO a Windows expert. FDISK, or EMM386, or MSD, or every single
gewgaw shipped with Windows. ;)
-uso.
jmfb...@aol.com
Eric Sosman <Eric....@sun.com> wrote:
>David Wade wrote:
>>
>> I would also say that the Windows/2000 laptop has not crashed since I
bought
>> it in September.....
>
> When do you intend to turn it on?
>
> (Cheap Shots 'R Us ...)
>
r...@rmkhome.com
> Eek. I have IE5 on my Sparcbook 3GX - but I've always been too scared to
> even try running it. I don't think I'll try.
Don't. IE on Solaris is actually IE for Windows wrapped in an emulator.
--
r...@rmkhome.com http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmk
r...@rmkhome.com
> I admined a few. I got to know the flashing '888' (AIX equivalent of
> a kernel panic) very well. Granted, this was back under AIX 3.1.x
Actually, "888" is basically unknown error.
--
r...@rmkhome.com http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmk
Pete Fenelon
> In alt.folklore.computers Pete Fenelon <pe...@fenelon.com> wrote:
>
>> Eek. I have IE5 on my Sparcbook 3GX - but I've always been too scared to
>> even try running it. I don't think I'll try.
>
> Don't. IE on Solaris is actually IE for Windows wrapped in an emulator.
It's something that happened to be on the disc when I bought the machine
a couple of years back; I've no intention of ever running it!
jmfb...@aol.com
Pete Fenelon <pe...@fenelon.com> wrote:
>In alt.folklore.computers r...@rmkhome.com wrote:
>> In alt.folklore.computers Pete Fenelon <pe...@fenelon.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Eek. I have IE5 on my Sparcbook 3GX - but I've
>>>always been too scared to
>>> even try running it. I don't think I'll try.
>>
>> Don't. IE on Solaris is actually IE for Windows wrapped in an emulator.
>
>It's something that happened to be on the disc when I bought the machine
>a couple of years back; I've no intention of ever running it!
But is that [leaving it hanging around] safe? Misfot has got me
that paranoid.
Matthew Russotto
>In alt.folklore.computers Matthew Russotto <russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> I admined a few. I got to know the flashing '888' (AIX equivalent of
>> a kernel panic) very well. Granted, this was back under AIX 3.1.x
>
>Actually, "888" is basically unknown error.
IIRC, 888 was almost any error. You'd get other codes along with the 888 if
the system knew what happened.
r...@rmkhome.com
> IIRC, 888 was almost any error. You'd get other codes along with the 888 if
> the system knew what happened.
Right, you can also get 888 from the firmware on an AIX box.
--
r...@rmkhome.com http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmk
Sami S. Sihvonen
Cameron Kaiser <cka...@floodgap.com> wrote:
> Or you can find someone getting rid of an AIX box
IBM is dumping the whole operating system, not just one AIX box...
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-982512.html
Just another commercial Unix(tm) system replaced with GNU/Linux. :)
--
Sami Sihvonen, "Unix gives you just enough rope to
Senior Unix Administrator, hang yourself and then a couple of
Janiika Networks Corporation. more feet, just to be sure."
--Eric Allman
Dosius
> In article <3e4725cf$0$136$45be...@newscene.com>,
> Cameron Kaiser <cka...@floodgap.com> wrote:
>
> > Or you can find someone getting rid of an AIX box
>
> IBM is dumping the whole operating system, not just one AIX box...
>
> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-982512.html
>
> Just another commercial Unix(tm) system replaced with GNU/Linux. :)
I can hear cheering over the death of "AIDX". ;)
-uso.
Jack Peacock
news:3e4725cf$0$136$45be...@newscene.com...
> Or you can find someone getting rid of an AIX box and enjoy the wonders of
> smit for free.
>
I have a 1991 vintage RS/6000 320H box sitting under a table, free to anyone
who comes by the office to pick it up. Has a 400MB drive, 16 or 32 MB RAM
(forgot which), and I think an Artic card. Clean and running when shut down
5 years ago. Lots of AIX distributions too, 3.something and 4.something on
QIC tape. Lots of manuals, maybe a cable or two and miscellaneous AIX
stuff. Might even have an old QIC and CD-ROM drive for it somewhere (no
guarantee).
I'm too lazy to pack it up and ship it but if someone is ever in Las Vegas
(Nevada) they are welcome to it. I think there's a big box of DB/2 for AIX
also.
Jack Peacock
stre...@rohan.sdsu.edu
[snip]
> Just another commercial Unix(tm) system replaced with GNU/Linux. :)
That's Linux/GNU, isn't it?
--
--Stewart Stremler----------------...@rohan.sdsu.edu--
Apparently I am not very good at being tricky. --John Hughes (October 2000)
r...@rmkhome.com
> IBM is dumping the whole operating system, not just one AIX box...
> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-982512.html
> Just another commercial Unix(tm) system replaced with GNU/Linux. :)
Now that's disgusting.
--
r...@rmkhome.com http://www.rmkhome.com/~rmk
Scott Moore
More like: Linux/"Losers who cannot write operating systems to save their lives"
But that was too long, so they shortened it.
Toby Thain
Scott Moore <scott....@attbi.com> wrote:
No need to be so disparaging. The FSF *did* produce gcc, which built my
world (and probably yours too), and a myriad other tools without which
we (and Linux) probably wouldn't be here.
>
> But that was too long, so they shortened it.
I propose a new motto of a.f.c: "Respect where it's due."
T
stre...@rohan.sdsu.edu
[snip]
> No need to be so disparaging. The FSF *did* produce gcc, which built my
> world (and probably yours too), and a myriad other tools without which
> we (and Linux) probably wouldn't be here.
Dunno 'bout that. There was (and perhaps is, for some platforms) a
selection of low-cost C compilers -- but gcc relentlessly crowds 'em
out of a huge chunk of the market. Is this a good thing? Maybe.
We wouldn't be here in exactly the same way as we are now, but we'd be
here, albeit using a slightly different toolset. The FSF helped shape
part of the computing culture -- but they did not create it.
If there's only one lesson the FSF /needs/ to learn, that is it.
>> But that was too long, so they shortened it.
>
> I propose a new motto of a.f.c: "Respect where it's due."
Oh, that'll be a great slogan for flame wars.
--
--str...@rohan.sdsu.edu-----------------------------------Stewart Stremler--
Verbogeny is one of the pleasurettes of a creatific thinkerizer.
-- Peter da Silva (1998)
Dosius
> In article <3E541E43...@attbi.com>,
> Scott Moore <scott....@attbi.com> wrote:
>
> > More like: Linux/"Losers who cannot write operating systems to save their
> > lives"
>
> No need to be so disparaging. The FSF *did* produce gcc, which built my
> world (and probably yours too), and a myriad other tools without which
> we (and Linux) probably wouldn't be here.
>
AOL. Dapple ][ (my Apple ][ emulator, if you're not reading this on
csa2) was built with gcc.
(No flames from the C64 gallery please - I like the C64 *almost* as
much as I like the ][ - just the ][ more so because I've had much more
exposure to it.)
-uso.
Jeff Jonas
>IBM is dumping the whole operating system, not just one AIX box...
>http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-982512.html
I have mixed feelings about all this.
I'm a Linux user and advocate, but moreso I advocate
diversity and choice in technology too.
I never wanted to use VMS or OS/2 or Amiga or Apple ...
but I was happy to know that there were alternatives available.
Malware (virus, worms, trojans, ...) thrives on the monoculture of
operating systems. It was once an ADVANTAGE for a company to have
a speciality, a niche market that it really understood.
I consulted to IBM for an AIX project.
IBM fostered a horrible "not invented here" mentality.
IBM had hired Convergent to make 2 AIX ports:
for the PS/2 and the 3090 mainframe.
They were tightly coupled into clusters and the TCF (totally confusing facility).
No matter how much I wanted to dislike AIX,
I saw many merits and unique features.
I suspect that IBM killed that project (even though they owned it and PAID for it)
since they wanted to re-invent it all with "native" code.
Surprisingly, AIX for the Risc-6000 succeeded since it was written
by the Austin Texas facility and was apparently exempt from the NY politics.
IBM gave up on OS/2 way too early, now they're giving up on their
flagship product just like DEC gave up on VMS?
Is this to say that NOBODY can do decent OS research anymore?
I worked at Concurrent Computer Corporation in 1989 when they
were the best in Real Time Unix, particularly after merging with
Masscomp for their smaller systems and real time expertise
[sadly, the merger destroyed both companies].
They modified the Unix file system for real time requirements
and they were not afraid to design their own hardware and integrate it
to the OS [many things that are now common were leading edge then:
an independent microprocessor "front panel" monitoring the temperature,
voltages, fan tachometers; things now built into PC motherboards!]
There were many opportunities for OS research and enhancements back then.
Now, just try to find a fully supported real time OS from anyone :-(
re: file systems vs O.S.:
I worked at AT&T Information Systems on System V Release 4.0.
That's when AT&T & Sun microsystems kinda merged their
Unix systems with a technology trade.
Before SVR4.0, the disk filesystem was rather hard-coded into the kernel
and utilities, so RFS was kinda bolted-on as an afterthought.
(the "File System Switch" was a first step: it let you add other file systems
so long as they APPEARED like a Unix file system at the software interface).
The VFS (Virtual File System) gave a level playing field for any file system to
link into the system since it was a table of functions for EVERYTHING
(mount, unmount, read, ...). No more "native" vs "foreign" code.
Back then there were a handful of file systems to choose from
(the "traditional" System V, the Berkley Fast File System,
Veritas journaling systems, RFS, NFS, ...).
Virtual file system started to appear too (/proc).
Linux has GREATLY accelerated the state of the art with more
file system types available than you can shake a stick at!
While some are still read only or experimental,
many are fully supported so they can be used for ANY of the file systems,
not just "foreign" data.
It's a joy to keep finding more file system types
and how they just plug in and work right away!
How many years will it take for M$ to "reinvent" this technology too
so they can wean folks away from the FAT filesystems?
--
Jeffrey Jonas
jeffj@panix(dot)com
The original Dr. JCL and Mr .hide
jmfb...@aol.com
In article <b46m3j$m6b$1...@panix5.panix.com>,
je...@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) wrote:
<snip>
>I worked at Concurrent Computer Corporation in 1989 when they
>were the best in Real Time Unix, particularly after merging with
>Masscomp for their smaller systems and real time expertise
>[sadly, the merger destroyed both companies].
>They modified the Unix file system for real time requirements
Why? Unix and real time seem to be diametrically opposed.
I'm going to wording the following question clumsily but here goes...
What was in Unix that would be useful to real time computing?
>and they were not afraid to design their own hardware and integrate it
>to the OS [many things that are now common were leading edge then:
>an independent microprocessor "front panel" monitoring the temperature,
>voltages, fan tachometers; things now built into PC motherboards!]
>There were many opportunities for OS research and enhancements back then.
>Now, just try to find a fully supported real time OS from anyone :-(
Why would you want a general purpose real time OS? The two phrases
don't even belong together. Real time is highly dependent on
installation restrictions. There can't possibly be a general
OS distribution to implement that. The usage is site-specific.
You must have a very different definition of real time than I do.
/BAH
<snip>
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> I consulted to IBM for an AIX project.
> IBM fostered a horrible "not invented here" mentality.
> IBM had hired Convergent to make 2 AIX ports:
> for the PS/2 and the 3090 mainframe.
> They were tightly coupled into clusters and the TCF (totally confusing facility).
> No matter how much I wanted to dislike AIX,
> I saw many merits and unique features.
> I suspect that IBM killed that project (even though they owned it and PAID for it)
> since they wanted to re-invent it all with "native" code.
> Surprisingly, AIX for the Risc-6000 succeeded since it was written
> by the Austin Texas facility and was apparently exempt from the NY politics.
there were several ... totally different unix projects.
there was the tss/370 which modified the tss kernel so that at&t unix
layer sat on top .... I don't know if that ever saw deployment other
than inside of at&t. There was also a lot of effort to do a similar
at&t port on top of VM ... but I don't know if that ever saw any
customer installations.
there was the (at&t) pc/ix port by interactive for the pc. when the
opd romp displaywriter project was killed ... the austin group quickly
retargeted for unix workstation and got interactive to do a port.
however the claimed that it would be faster if interactive ported to
an abstract machine layer (rather than interactive having to learn the
details of the romp hardware) ... and so a lot of the pl.8
displaywriter people were put to work writing the vrm (in pl.8).
This was shipped (combined vrm & interactive) as aix for pc/rt
(reworked displaywriter).
palo alto had been working on bsd port for the 370. with the advent of
the pc/rt ... they retargeted their work to the pc/rt ... which
eventually resulted in something called AOS (bsd for the pc/rt). They
also somewhat disproved the original austin assertion having done a
bsd port to the native pc/rt in possibly 1/10th the time/effort it
took interactive to port to the VRM abstraction (and possibly 1/100th
the time/effort for the combined interactive port plus VRM
development).
AIX for the RS/6000 had AIX for the PC/RT reworked .... eliminating
the pl.8 code and calling it AIX V3.
Palo Alto ... dating back to the early '80s had been doing work with
both Berkeley and BSD as well as UCLA and Locus. In the early '80s
Palo Alto had Locus running on S/1 and some 68000 machines in
distributed Locus environment. This was ported to 370 and PS/2s and
was the officially shipped AIX/370 and AIX/ps2. This palo alto/locus
was totally different "aix" than the austin "aix".
Austin for AIX V3 had developed the journal file system where the
filesystem was slightly re-organized so that all of the metadata was
in area of virtual memory that was sort of designated "database
memory". This was sort of from one of the early 801 design activities
where they wanted to show hardware assit for transactional database
systems. Basically hardware assist to track transaction lines (about
the size of cache lines) got modified ... and then at commit ... the
commit code could run around and find all the modified lines/data and
log it. Then you start the writes ... and if there was a failure
... restart could use the log to consistently roll-forward the
database.
Early in the rs/6000/aix time-frame, Palo Alto had a project to port
AIXv3 to different platforms. One of the inhibitors was the JFS
dependency on the 801 database memory hardware. Palo Alto undertook to
go thru the unix filesystem code and insert "log" calls whenever
metadata was being modified (these "log" calls weren't necessary in
801 since all instances of data modification was magically identified
by the hardware). It did have the downside with their relationship
with austin (which was already strained .... in part because of
showing them up with the bsd/aos port on the pc/rt ... as well as the
locus activity shipping as aix/370/ps2) ... since the "log call"
version was measurably faster than the original version using the 801
hardware. turns out in the hardware version, commit had to scan the
lines in the database region for modified lines ... if the total size
of metadata was significantly larger than the nominal lines modified
per commit, the commit scanning took much longer than the overhead of
the direct log calls.
For OSF there was an attempt at merge of many of these different
threads ... in part for DCE ... bringing together mit, cmu, berkeley,
ucla with various apollo distributed support, cms andrew distributed,
the locus distributed stuff, austin aix distributed filesystem, etc.
aixv2 .... iteractive at&t on top of vrm for pc/rt
aos .... bsd for pc/rt
aixv3 .... aixv2 with vrm eliminated for rs/6000
aix/370 .... ucla locus
aix/ps2 .... ucla locus
there were misc. other bsd & at&t ports along the way for vm/370 and
tss/370.
misc. past "aix" posts
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/96.html#4a John Hartmann's Birthday Party
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#2 IBM S/360
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#36 why is there an "@" key?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#63 System/1 ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#64 Old naked woman ASCII art
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#65 Old naked woman ASCII art
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#66 System/1 ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#129 High Performance PowerPC
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#49 IBM RT PC (was Re: What does AT stand for ?)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#64 distributed locking patents
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#8 IBM Linux
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000d.html#65 "all-out" vs less aggressive designs (was: Re: 36 to 32 bit transition)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000e.html#27 OCF, PC/SC and GOP
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#44 Options for Delivering Mainframe Reports to Outside Organizat ions
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001.html#49 Options for Delivering Mainframe Reports to Outside Organizat ions
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#1 Anybody remember the wonderful PC/IX operating system?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#20 VM-CMS emulator
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001f.html#22 Early AIX including AIX/370
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001i.html#21 3745 and SNI
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001i.html#30 IBM OS Timeline?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001j.html#20 OT - Internet Explorer V6.0
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#5 mainframe question
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#8 mainframe question
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#17 mainframe question
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#19 mainframe question
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#50 What makes a mainframe?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001n.html#23 Alpha vs. Itanic: facts vs. FUD
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002b.html#29 windows XP and HAL: The CP/M way still works in 2002
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002b.html#36 windows XP and HAL: The CP/M way still works in 2002
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002d.html#31 2 questions: diag 68 and calling convention
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#2 Computers in Science Fiction
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002g.html#39 "Soul of a New Machine" Computer?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#19 PowerPC Mainframe?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#65 Bettman Archive in Trouble
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002h.html#79 Al Gore and the Internet
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#54 Unisys A11 worth keeping?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#81 McKinley Cometh
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#36 Difference between Unix and Linux?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002m.html#21 Original K & R C Compilers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#67 Mainframe Spreadsheets - 1980's History
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002o.html#11 Home mainframes
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002o.html#40 I found the Olsen Quote
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002p.html#45 Linux paging
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003c.html#49 Filesystems
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003d.html#8 IBM says AMD dead in 5yrs ... -- Microsoft Monopoly vs. IBM
and then different lineage was gold (aka A-U) shipped as UTS:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#190 Merced Processor Support at it again
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#191 Merced Processor Support at it again
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#8 IBM Linux
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#68 TSS ancient history, was X86 ultimate CISC? designs)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#69 TSS ancient history, was X86 ultimate CISC? designs)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000f.html#70 TSS ancient history, was X86 ultimate CISC? designs)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#19 SIMTICS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001l.html#18 mainframe question
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002e.html#46 What goes into a 3090?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002i.html#63 Hercules and System/390 - do we need it?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#54 SHARE MVT Project anniversary
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002n.html#58 IBM S/370-168, 195, and 3033
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/99.html#2 IBM S/360
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
Internet trivia 20th anv http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/rfcietff.htm
MagerValp
groups. Please don't crosspost it all over the place.
--
___ . . . . . + . . o
_|___|_ + . + . + . Per Olofsson, arkadspelare
o-o . . . o + Mage...@cling.gu.se
- + + . http://www.cling.gu.se/~cl3polof/
Ben Hutchings
<snip>
> There were many opportunities for OS research and enhancements back then.
> Now, just try to find a fully supported real time OS from anyone :-(
What do you mean? There are plenty of real time OSes around, though
they tend not to run on the same hardware as other OSes. Maybe I
don't understand quite what you mean by 'fully supported'. VxWorks
not good enough for you?
<snip>
> How many years will it take for M$ to "reinvent" this technology too
> so they can wean folks away from the FAT filesystems?
NT has always supported this; MS calls it IFS (Installable File
Systems). Windows 9x can also deal with other local file-systems.
Both support installable network file-systems. The catch is that the
IFS kit is more restricted than most MS development kits:
<http://www.microsoft.com/ddk/ifskit/xpsp1license.asp>
The current MS offering for desktop PCs, Windows XP, is based on NT
and normally uses NTFS rather than FAT.
--
Ben Hutchings | personal web site: http://womble.decadentplace.org.uk/
73.46% of all statistics are made up.
Bill/Carolyn Pechter
>>[spit]
>>
>>In article <b46m3j$m6b$1...@panix5.panix.com>,
>> je...@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) wrote:
>>
>>>I worked at Concurrent Computer Corporation in 1989 when they
Jeff, I remember, those were pretty interesting times...
>Why? Unix and real time seem to be diametrically opposed.
>I'm going to wording the following question clumsily but here goes...
>What was in Unix that would be useful to real time computing?
<snip>
Actually, Masscomp was a bunch of ex-DEC IIRC guys who worked on RSX11
stuff and the MINC and they went out and hacked in EMT's from the DEC
OS's into SysIII Unix to get a reasonably real-time Unix for device
control. Berkeley features like TCP/IP and dual libraries (so you could
use either the BSD or AT&T api's.) were added.
The merger with Concurrent (originally Interdata, Perkin-Elmer) killed
both companies... but a lot of the stuff from Masscomp/Concurrent
showed up in lots of other places.
I was told their filesystem ideas were picked up at Lucent and SGI (and
may have been the start of XFS)? Is it true -- who knows.
>
>You must have a very different definition of real time than I do.
Nah... just that you could get an awful lot closer to real time with
a minimal os like Unix than you could with something much larger.
DEC claimed to do real time on VAX/VMS but really, how many real time
tasks need Virtual Memory Paging!
RTU seemed an awful lot like WindRiver's embedded stuff today or Lynx...
Great for Lab automation and stuff.
>/BAH
Bill
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bill and/or Carolyn Pechter | pec...@shell.monmouth.com |
| Bill Gates is a Persian cat and a monocle away from being a villain in |
| a James Bond movie -- Dennis Miller |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Roland Hutchinson
> In article <3e4725cf$0$136$45be...@newscene.com>,
> Cameron Kaiser <cka...@floodgap.com> wrote:
>
>> Or you can find someone getting rid of an AIX box
>
> IBM is dumping the whole operating system, not just one AIX box...
>
> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-982512.html
It's even worse than you think.
The story broke yesterday that SCO is suing IBM for at least a billion
dollars, while threatening to cancel IBM's Unix license in 100 days
from now, thus putting an end to AIX sooner rather than later. SCO is
apparently claiming ownership of broad intellectual property rights in
anything that derives from AT&T Unix, of which they are now the happy
owners.
Here are links that I found at linuxtoday.com to a couple of relevant
news stories:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,920731,00.asp
http://news.com.com/2100-1016-991464.html
And ESR has weighed in from the peanut gallery, thus:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2003-03-07-010-26-OP-CD-LL
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my_sp...@eudoramail.com is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
jmfb...@aol.com
pec...@shell.monmouth.com (Bill/Carolyn Pechter) wrote:
>In article <b47ap3$ahj$2...@bob.news.rcn.net>, <jmfb...@aol.com> wrote:
>>You must have a very different definition of real time than I do.
>
>Nah... just that you could get an awful lot closer to real time with
>a minimal os like Unix than you could with something much larger.
But that was my point. Real time implied that there had to be
dedicated code to dealing with the foobar that required
immediate, instantaneous CPU attention.
>
>DEC claimed to do real time on VAX/VMS but really, how many real time
>tasks need Virtual Memory Paging!
Well, we all knew those guys were smoking. TOPS-10 used to have
a Real Time module. That kind of work was usually put off onto
a mini. Most of the real time apps was capturing data based
on wall clock time. Then the data was shot off to the -10 to
be processed. IIRC, the original design included a real time
clock hung onto the system. It's priority took precedence over
everything. That kinda sucked if you're a user who just blooped
and needed your paniced ^C-ing to be noticed.
>
>RTU seemed an awful lot like WindRiver's embedded stuff today or Lynx...
>Great for Lab automation and stuff.
All that precludes timesharing. If you really need real Real Time,
you don't even want to waste your CPU doing file structure stuff.
You'ld probably just dump data to the disk. So you need a dedicated
controller/disk or tape and the driver to direct them.
Charles Shannon Hendrix
>>DEC claimed to do real time on VAX/VMS but really, how many real time
>>tasks need Virtual Memory Paging!
>
> Well, we all knew those guys were smoking. TOPS-10 used to have
Heh... same thing my boss in 1994 was smoking I suppose.
Task: write real-time communications software for simulations software
to talk to submarine control panels, using TCP/IP.
Trying to tell him TCP/IP wasn't designed for this was useless.
By keeping zero traffic on the segment, and stripping the machines
(SunOS 4.x and VxWorks on opposing ends) I was able to get close
and maintain N/sec "pulses" of data transfer.
No, it wasn't realtime, but it shut him up long enough for him to decide
that it wasn't a good idea on his own.
Charles Shannon Hendrix
> The story broke yesterday that SCO is suing IBM for at least a billion
> dollars, while threatening to cancel IBM's Unix license in 100 days
> from now, thus putting an end to AIX sooner rather than later. SCO is
> apparently claiming ownership of broad intellectual property rights in
> anything that derives from AT&T Unix, of which they are now the happy
> owners.
I don't see how this could be enforced.
Even if it is, I suspect IBM would at this point be willing to say fine,
we'll just drop UNIX and move to Linux.
I just can't see this happening.
IBM could probably also use other licenses, or maybe use a BSD derivative.
I would be surprised if IBM didn't have contingencies.
Well... maybe not.
Dennis Ritchie
"Charles Shannon Hendrix" <sha...@news.widomaker.com>
wrote in message news:slrnb6j3ga....@news.widomaker.com...
> ... Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>
> > The story broke yesterday that SCO is suing IBM for at least a billion
> > dollars, while threatening to cancel IBM's Unix license in 100 days
> I don't see how this could be enforced.
>
> Even if it is, I suspect IBM would at this point be willing to say fine,
> we'll just drop UNIX and move to Linux.
If you read the complaint, what SCO is claiming is that
IBM took stuff from SCO/Caldera/Novell/AT&T and are
incorporating it into their Linux systems. It's independent
of whether IBM subsequently dumps Unix/AIX.
Whether SCO is successful or right or smart are
other questions. I have the records that were made
public at UUNET from the time of the USL vs. BSDI+UCB
suit, and Judge Debevoise wasn't really impressed by USL's
argument.
.
But the facts and circumstances, though apparently eerily similar
to that case, may end up in a different outcome this time
around.
Dennis
Dosius
I thought AIDX was based on 4.2BSD. And then again, what about BSD?
Although it is "pure" now, it *does* derive from AT&T UNIX...and then
there's Solaris...
The *X wars seem to be getting ugly. Probably a good thing I've
avoided everything but Linux and PicoBSD among the *Xen.
-uso.
Christopher Browne
The "contingencies" are considerably more complex than this, and it
looks as though SCO is trying to head to an Intergraph-like business
model. Consider that Intergraph make ~$10M/yr in sales plus (just
recently) ~$400M in court-awarded damages.
The last /big/ money that The Canopy Group (that owns SCO) got was a
several-hundred-million settlement out of Microsoft for naughty things
done surrounding DR-DOS some years ago.
I'd not be surprised if Job #1 here was to try to get some lawsuit
money.
Then there's Job #2: I'm sure The Canopus Group would be willing to
sell the remains of SCO to a buyer, possibly for less than the lawsuit
is for. If they could get a few hundred million from IBM for what
amounts to practically nothing, that's a big win. If they could get
the price bid up by offering to pass the lawsuit on to a competitor
(say Microsoft?), that could, well, bid the price up.
And I'd find it unremarkable for there to be further nuances.
For IBM to suddenly move /everything/ over to Linux and drop AIX would
seem remarkably quick work, particularly when there are surely 3rd
party applications that would break badly. (It's not a flame of
anything: AIX simply isn't identical to Linux.)
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/sap.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #140. "I will instruct my guards when
checking a cell that appears empty to look for the chamber pot. If the
chamber pot is still there, then the prisoner has escaped and they may
enter and search for clues. If the chamber pot is not there, then
either the prisoner is perched above the lintel waiting to strike them
with it or else he decided to take it as a souvenir (in which case he
is obviously deeply disturbed and poses no threat). Either way,
there's no point in entering." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
Charles Shannon Hendrix
> "Charles Shannon Hendrix" <sha...@news.widomaker.com>
> wrote in message news:slrnb6j3ga....@news.widomaker.com...
>> ... Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>>
>> > The story broke yesterday that SCO is suing IBM for at least a billion
>> > dollars, while threatening to cancel IBM's Unix license in 100 days
>> > from now, thus putting an end to AIX sooner rather than later....
>
>> I don't see how this could be enforced.
>>
>> Even if it is, I suspect IBM would at this point be willing to say fine,
>> we'll just drop UNIX and move to Linux.
>
> If you read the complaint, what SCO is claiming is that
> IBM took stuff from SCO/Caldera/Novell/AT&T and are
> incorporating it into their Linux systems. It's independent
> of whether IBM subsequently dumps Unix/AIX.
Hmmm... I'm not so sure.
They are saying that IBM is destroying the value of UNIX in order to
promote their Linux offerings.
The threat to terminate their AIX license seems to target AIX rather
specifically. Why aren't they targeting IBM's Linux offerings too?
It's really an odd attack to make, since SCO itself has reduced the
value of UNIX in much the same way.
Their attourney is David Boies, BTW.
> Whether SCO is successful or right or smart are other questions. I
> have the records that were made public at UUNET from the time of the
> USL vs. BSDI+UCB suit, and Judge Debevoise wasn't really impressed by
> USL's argument.
Hopefully the judge in this case will ask exactly those questions
of course.
> But the facts and circumstances, though apparently eerily similar to
> that case, may end up in a different outcome this time around.
If they come out in favor of SCO, then our legal system has lost its
collective mind.
Charles Richmond
>
> [snip...] [sip...] [snip...]
>
> If they come out in favor of SCO, then our legal system has lost its
> collective mind.
>
the patenting of algorithms and the Millinnium Copyright Act...
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond <rich...@plano.net> |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
John R. Levine
>an abstract machine layer (rather than interactive having to learn the
>details of the romp hardware) ... and so a lot of the pl.8
>displaywriter people were put to work writing the vrm (in pl.8).
>This was shipped (combined vrm & interactive) as aix for pc/rt
>(reworked displaywriter).
I was Interactive's kernel lead. I get the impression that part of
the problem was that some of the Austin guys thought they all were
smarter than we were so we couldn't possibly do all that work. (They
were no dummies, but neither were we.) It also took them a long time
to understand how lean our project team was, and that the managers who
flew down to sit through meetings were the same managers who were
actually running the project.
The other was that there was severe political infighting at IBM about
what the RT would end up being underneath and they thought they could
hide all that in the vrm. Early on there was a vague plan to make the
vrm like VM and support operating systems other than Unix, but that
quickly fell by the wayside.
>eventually resulted in something called AOS (bsd for the pc/rt). They
>also somewhat disproved the original austin assertion having done a
>bsd port to the native pc/rt in possibly 1/10th the time/effort it
>took interactive to port to the VRM abstraction (and possibly 1/100th
>the time/effort for the combined interactive port plus VRM
>development).
The AIX port took, by IBM standards, an extremely small amount of time
and money. The whole project took way too long because it took so
long to decide what the RT would be. For a while they were telling us
that it had to have a prompt that looked just like PC-DOS or the PC
guys wouldn't let it out the door, so we sketched out a Unix shell
with COPY and DEL commands for them, but fortunately never had to
implement it beyond a small demo.
We would have been happy to do AIX on the bare hardware, and it
probably would have taken less time overall, although we'd have had to
wrote or borrow a virtual memory system to splice onto our SVR5 base.
We had copies of 4.x BSD so we could have taken it from there.
--
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
jo...@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl,
Member, Provisional board, Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail
Bill/Carolyn Pechter
> pec...@shell.monmouth.com (Bill/Carolyn Pechter) wrote:
>>In article <b47ap3$ahj$2...@bob.news.rcn.net>, <jmfb...@aol.com> wrote:
><snip>
>
>>>You must have a very different definition of real time than I do.
>>
>>Great for Lab automation and stuff.
>
>All that precludes timesharing. If you really need real Real Time,
>you don't even want to waste your CPU doing file structure stuff.
>You'ld probably just dump data to the disk. So you need a dedicated
>controller/disk or tape and the driver to direct them.
>
Nah... Even the relatively cheap disk drives now have more cache than
the old machines have memory and can transfer at rates that make handling
file structures less of a problem. Wind River still supports the RT11
file system (sequential contiguous block structures with off-line disk
squeeze needed to fill gaps... so if you need the simple quick disk
structure it's supported. A lot of places just use FAT MS-DOS file
systems with Wind River's stuff.
>>DEC claimed to do real time on VAX/VMS but really, how many real time
>>tasks need Virtual Memory Paging!
>
>Well, we all knew those guys were smoking. TOPS-10 used to have
>a Real Time module. That kind of work was usually put off onto
>a mini. Most of the real time apps was capturing data based
>on wall clock time. Then the data was shot off to the -10 to
>be processed. IIRC, the original design included a real time
>clock hung onto the system. It's priority took precedence over
>everything. That kinda sucked if you're a user who just blooped
>and needed your paniced ^C-ing to be noticed.
Well, I once put my process (cpu diags for intermittant 11/780 floating
point) into 5 high priority batch queues and submitted them about 10
times to each batch stream.
The developer's EDT screens froze pretty much taking about 1 keystroke
per minute. Once the batch jobs were done the machine resumed as per
normal.
If you need to run an occasional REAL-TIME process on the same machine
you develop on the VAX/VMS or RTU Unix idea worked -- since you either
developed and debugged or were running the real-time process.
This way you didn't need a target system and a bunch of development
tubes or systems or workstations.
I saw a lot of this at DEC -- where the same machine was used for coding
and running the lab gear and test stuff. The duplication today of
target embedded boxes and developer workstations is interesting -- saw
this at Lucent -- where a target went from X86 to Force boards with
PowerPC v arients... The target CPU can change so quickly depending upon
the supplier of choice at the time.
Eric Smith
>> The story broke yesterday that SCO is suing IBM for at least a billion
>> dollars, while threatening to cancel IBM's Unix license in 100 days
>> from now, thus putting an end to AIX sooner rather than later. SCO is
>> apparently claiming ownership of broad intellectual property rights in
>> anything that derives from AT&T Unix, of which they are now the happy
>> owners.
Charles Shannon Hendrix <sha...@news.widomaker.com> writes:
> I don't see how this could be enforced.
>
> Even if it is, I suspect IBM would at this point be willing to say fine,
> we'll just drop UNIX and move to Linux.
That would deal with SCO cancelling the license, but it wouldn't take
care of SCO's demand for a billion dollars in damages.
SCO has been unable to point to a single line of code in the Linux
kernel as actually infringing their copyrights, so apparently they are
pursuing the same "Mental Contamination" theory which they (as USL)
already failed with in their suit against the UC Regents over BSD Lite
4.4.
This is obviously a desperation play on SCO's part; someone there
thought (probably incorrectly) that they don't have anything to lose at
this point. It won't surprise me if SCO winds up being ordered to pay
IBM's legal fees, which will probably be enormous. That would probably
bankrupt SCO, which would likely result in IBM owning the very
intellectual property that SCO has accused them of misappropriating.
Brian Inglis
Smith <eric-no-s...@brouhaha.com> wrote:
>Roland Hutchinson wrote:
>>> The story broke yesterday that SCO is suing IBM for at least a billion
>>> dollars, while threatening to cancel IBM's Unix license in 100 days
>>> from now, thus putting an end to AIX sooner rather than later. SCO is
>>> apparently claiming ownership of broad intellectual property rights in
>>> anything that derives from AT&T Unix, of which they are now the happy
>>> owners.
>
>Charles Shannon Hendrix <sha...@news.widomaker.com> writes:
>> I don't see how this could be enforced.
>>
>> Even if it is, I suspect IBM would at this point be willing to say fine,
>> we'll just drop UNIX and move to Linux.
>
>That would deal with SCO cancelling the license, but it wouldn't take
>care of SCO's demand for a billion dollars in damages.
>
>SCO has been unable to point to a single line of code in the Linux
>kernel as actually infringing their copyrights, so apparently they are
>pursuing the same "Mental Contamination" theory which they (as USL)
>already failed with in their suit against the UC Regents over BSD Lite
>4.4.
Be very surprised if AT&T and IBM hadn't cross-licensed most of
their IP, and doubt SCO ever added anything to Unix, whereas IBM
has been involved in a lot of Unix-like initiatives which
produced code to which they have acquired a licence.
>This is obviously a desperation play on SCO's part; someone there
>thought (probably incorrectly) that they don't have anything to lose at
>this point. It won't surprise me if SCO winds up being ordered to pay
>IBM's legal fees, which will probably be enormous. That would probably
>bankrupt SCO, which would likely result in IBM owning the very
>intellectual property that SCO has accused them of misappropriating.
Suspect SCO is worth a lot less than a $G now and decreasing, so
my first thought was this was a ploy to get IBM to buy them and
give the owners something > 0 for their diminishing investment.
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
--
Brian....@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
fake address use address above to reply
ab...@aol.com tos...@aol.com ab...@att.com ab...@earthlink.com
ab...@hotmail.com ab...@mci.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
ab...@yahoo.com ab...@cadvision.com ab...@shaw.ca ab...@telus.com
ab...@ibsystems.com u...@ftc.gov spam traps
Charles Shannon Hendrix
> Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>>
>> [snip...] [sip...] [snip...]
>>
>> If they come out in favor of SCO, then our legal system has lost its
>> collective mind.
>>
>>Our legal system lost its collective mind when it passed
> the patenting of algorithms and the Millinnium Copyright Act...
I was just testing my cynicicism suppression tablets...
Charles Shannon Hendrix
> That would deal with SCO cancelling the license, but it wouldn't take
> care of SCO's demand for a billion dollars in damages.
True.
However, I don't think they have a case.
Mind you, that doesn't mean they won't win in our legal system.
> SCO has been unable to point to a single line of code in the Linux
> kernel as actually infringing their copyrights, so apparently they are
> pursuing the same "Mental Contamination" theory which they (as USL)
> already failed with in their suit against the UC Regents over BSD Lite
> 4.4.
Thinking out loud...
The funny this is, what if they did find code? I won't stop using it,
and I seriously doubt many others would.
It might even be hard to stop commercial use, since IBM could just shift
to selling the stuff to sit on top of Linux, and our actions aren't
their responsibility.
Brings up some interesting issues.
> This is obviously a desperation play on SCO's part; someone there
> thought (probably incorrectly) that they don't have anything to lose at
> this point. It won't surprise me if SCO winds up being ordered to pay
> IBM's legal fees, which will probably be enormous. That would probably
> bankrupt SCO, which would likely result in IBM owning the very
> intellectual property that SCO has accused them of misappropriating.
I wish someone would buy UNIX who would quit with the games like being
able to call your OS UNIX(TM) as long as you have enough money.
I have found UNIX(TM) to be less UNIX than !UNIX(TM) many times... :)
Dennis Ritchie
> In article <qhisurx...@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Eric Smith wrote:
>
> > That would deal with SCO cancelling the license, but it wouldn't take
> > care of SCO's demand for a billion dollars in damages.
>
> True.
>
> However, I don't think they have a case.
>
> Mind you, that doesn't mean they won't win in our legal system.
I put up the material I have from the earlier case:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/bsdisuit.htm
Judge Debevoise or his clerks look pretty smart to me.
Dennis
Dennis Ritchie
"Dennis Ritchie" <d...@bell-labs.com> wrote in message
news:b4hfga$1vcrc8$1...@ID-156882.news.dfncis.de...
Sorry, mousing error: add the missing "l" to "htm" :
> I put up the material I have from the earlier case:
> http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/bsdisuit.html
Charles Shannon Hendrix
>
> "Charles Shannon Hendrix" <sha...@news.widomaker.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnb6od00....@news.widomaker.com...
>> In article <qhisurx...@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, Eric Smith wrote:
>>
>> > That would deal with SCO cancelling the license, but it wouldn't take
>> > care of SCO's demand for a billion dollars in damages.
>>
>> True.
>>
>> However, I don't think they have a case.
>>
>> Mind you, that doesn't mean they won't win in our legal system.
> ...
>
> I put up the material I have from the earlier case:
>
> http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/bsdisuit.htm
Thanks.
> Judge Debevoise or his clerks look pretty smart to me.
Is that missing a "Neither" at the beginning, or are you saying you
think they did a good job?
Looking back over cases over the years, I wouldn't want to place bets
on some of them. Too many judgements which were not just wrong but very
damaging have been made to dismiss this new case.
(reads more of the case files)
Wow... stuff in here I'd never heard before. Worthwhile reading.
In the dismissal, you can see that USL's legal counsel really took the
wrong tack against BSDI. I wonder if SCO has read this stuff?
Sami S. Sihvonen
>>> Or you can find someone getting rid of an AIX box
>> IBM is dumping the whole operating system, not just one AIX box...
>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-982512.html
> I have mixed feelings about all this.
> I'm a Linux user and advocate, but
I have no mixed feelings, just pure love for big blue IBM. They are
still one of the major players in computer industry and everybody is
very interested about what they are doing. Now they are putting some
heavy weight on GNU/Linux...
> moreso I advocate diversity and choice in technology too.
GNU/Linux has source code available, there is freedom and diversity.
There is no special "killer apps" that only work with GNU/Linux based
systems, most of the applications can be run with several different
operating systems out-of-the-box.
> IBM gave up on OS/2 way too early,
IBM is still keeping OS/2 on life support, try searching Google with
the magic words "OS/2 Merlin" for more details.
> How many years will it take for M$ to "reinvent" this technology too
> so they can wean folks away from the FAT filesystems?
HPFS, NTFS, Xenix...
--
Sami Sihvonen, Senior Unix Administrator, Janiika Networks Corporation
US-Mail: PO Box 1490, Radio City Station, New York, N.Y. 10019, U.S.A.
EU-Mail: PO Box 42, Kauppalankatu, FIN-45101 Kouvola, Finland, Europe.
Heinz W. Wiggeshoff
"Sami S. Sihvonen" <no...@sunpoint.net> wrote in message
news:6svm6vsrieqpb01hj...@sex.bar...
I'm a Linux user and advocate, but
>
> I have no mixed feelings, just pure love for big blue IBM. They are
> still one of the major players in computer industry and everybody is
> very interested about what they are doing.
Just try to order the APL2 product from IBM. I wasted an afternoon
then morning of my life getting bounced around the brain-dead
sales folks there. They couldn't sell air conditioners in Florida
in
July!
>
> IBM is still keeping OS/2 on life support, try searching Google with
> the magic words "OS/2 Merlin" for more details.
Thanks for the tip. I'm trying to resurrect OS/2 Warp 4 on a
machine that died because the m/b was upgraded from a
486 DX-4 to an AMD K<mumble> which seems to choke
the OS/2 system, but not MS-DOS 6.22/Windows 3.11 .
Maybe dumber is better - the DOS system can still run
TRYAPL2. In fact, I'll bet that my 286 under DOS 5 can
still run it. (OK, that's folklorish enuff.)
J. Clarke
> In article <b46m3j$m6b$1...@panix5.panix.com>,
> je...@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) wrote:
>
>>>> Or you can find someone getting rid of an AIX box
>>> IBM is dumping the whole operating system, not just one AIX box...
>>> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-982512.html
>> I have mixed feelings about all this.
>> I'm a Linux user and advocate, but
>
> I have no mixed feelings, just pure love for big blue IBM. They are
> still one of the major players in computer industry and everybody is
> very interested about what they are doing. Now they are putting some
> heavy weight on GNU/Linux...
>
>> moreso I advocate diversity and choice in technology too.
>
> GNU/Linux has source code available, there is freedom and diversity.
> There is no special "killer apps" that only work with GNU/Linux based
> systems, most of the applications can be run with several different
> operating systems out-of-the-box.
>
>> IBM gave up on OS/2 way too early,
>
> IBM is still keeping OS/2 on life support, try searching Google with
> the magic words "OS/2 Merlin" for more details.
??? I don't see any evidence that Merlin constitutes "keeping OS/2 on
life support". I got my copy of Merlin on the order of 6 years ago.
>> How many years will it take for M$ to "reinvent" this technology too
>> so they can wean folks away from the FAT filesystems?
>
> HPFS, NTFS, Xenix...
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)