Linux vs FreeBSD
Fred
How do Linux and FreeBSD compare?
David Malone
"Fred" <nos...@nospam.com> writes:
>How do Linux and FreeBSD compare?
Very easily as they are both essentially free and run on most
any PC hard ware.
David.
Soren Ragsdale
Most of us have found that FreeBSD and Linux are compared by those who
wish to start long and eventually pointless threads.
John S. Dyson
In article <6lsdph$4...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
I love the analogy:
How do roast puppy or boiled kitten compare?
It is best not to ask partisans, and to ask those friends who
have used both. You will get partisan responses in this
newsgroup.
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
dy...@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid
jdy...@nc.com | and it irritates the pig.
Alexander Viro
In article <6m2afm$8...@enews1.newsguy.com>,
John S. Dyson <ro...@dyson.iquest.net> wrote:
>In article <6lsdph$4...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
> Soren Ragsdale <so...@usr01.primenet.com> writes:
>> Fred <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> How do Linux and FreeBSD compare?
>>
>> Most of us have found that FreeBSD and Linux are compared by those who
>> wish to start long and eventually pointless threads.
>>
>
>I love the analogy:
>
> How do roast puppy or boiled kitten compare?
Thanks, John ;-).
>It is best not to ask partisans, and to ask those friends who
>have used both.
Hmm... It's safer not to ask such questions at all. Especially
dangerous are those who use both systems.
>You will get partisan responses in this newsgroup.
Erm? As in, 'die, provocator'?
--
My theory is that someone's Emacs crashed on a very early version of Linux
while reading alt.flame and the resulting unholy combination of Elisp and
Minix code somehow managed to bootstrap itself and take on an independent
existence. -- James Raynard in c.u.b.f.m on nature of Albert Cahalan
John Bitar
I have used both. And they are both very similar. Hell, linux is a clone
unix system,what do you expect. I found the biggest difference is FreeBsd
is for more serious unix people. Linux comes with a lot of tools to help
you set up things like printers to sound cards in minutes. Where in FreeBSD
you really have to understand how things work. There is no manager doing
everything for you.
For example I set-up my printer last night. It took me 2 hours and still
have to read how to set it up to read postscript. In linux I was printing
images in minutes.
Its a really tough question which is better. My gut tells me Linux is a
hack, and unix isn't. That's why I like FreeBSD more...
john
John S. Dyson wrote:
> In article <6lsdph$4...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
> Soren Ragsdale <so...@usr01.primenet.com> writes:
> > Fred <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> How do Linux and FreeBSD compare?
> >
> > Most of us have found that FreeBSD and Linux are compared by those who
> > wish to start long and eventually pointless threads.
> >
>
> I love the analogy:
>
> How do roast puppy or boiled kitten compare?
>
> It is best not to ask partisans, and to ask those friends who
> have used both. You will get partisan responses in this
> newsgroup.
>
Kelvin
In article <358597E7...@wave.home.com>, John Bitar <jbi...@wave.home.com> writes:
>I have used both. And they are both very similar. Hell, linux is a clone
>unix system,what do you expect. I found the biggest difference is FreeBsd
>is for more serious unix people. Linux comes with a lot of tools to help
>you set up things like printers to sound cards in minutes. Where in FreeBSD
>you really have to understand how things work. There is no manager doing
>everything for you.
>For example I set-up my printer last night. It took me 2 hours and still
>have to read how to set it up to read postscript. In linux I was printing
>images in minutes.
If you'd used the 'apsfilter' port, in /usr/ports/print/apsfilter , it
would have been as easy as printing in minutes... well okay.. since all the
stuff required by apsfilter (ghostscript etc) takes awhile to download
(unless you have the cdrom's) it could take longer than a few minutes...
But Apsfilter has a easy to use menu system, and prints a graphical test
page etc.
=)
>Its a really tough question which is better. My gut tells me Linux is a
>hack, and unix isn't. That's why I like FreeBSD more...
>
>john
>
>John S. Dyson wrote:
>
>> In article <6lsdph$4...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
>> Soren Ragsdale <so...@usr01.primenet.com> writes:
>> > Fred <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >> How do Linux and FreeBSD compare?
>> >
>> > Most of us have found that FreeBSD and Linux are compared by those who
>> > wish to start long and eventually pointless threads.
>> >
>>
>> I love the analogy:
>>
>> How do roast puppy or boiled kitten compare?
>>
>> It is best not to ask partisans, and to ask those friends who
>> have used both. You will get partisan responses in this
>> newsgroup.
>>
>> --
>> John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
>> dy...@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid
>> jdy...@nc.com | and it irritates the pig.
>
>
>
--
| T R E N T Kelvin Farmer
OXXXX|=======================-- kfa...@trentu.ca
| University ICQ: 13421512
Albert D. Cahalan
Ondra Koutek <and...@sh.cvut.cz> writes:
> without ports collection, solving problems with porting apps from one
> distribution to another. I used Slackware before,
^^^^^^^^^ your problem (obsolete)
> because I wanted to complie all apps myself, to optimize them for
> my system. (or to learn something new) On FreeBSD I love ports,
> because I can patch myself application and still the system adds
> this application as an package. There is no such a thing in Linux,
> (if you don't want to make your own package).
Both Red Hat and Debian support source packages. You can unpack
one as source, examine/change it, apply the included patches,
compile it, and install it will full file and dependency tracking.
Albert D. Cahalan
Dom Mitchell <d...@myrddin.demon.co.uk> writes:
> she...@visi.com (Steve Sheldon) writes:
>> Oh, I dumped Linux for FreeBSD because there are too many
>> idiots running Linux these days. :)
>
> It's funny how many have found that a factor in moving...
It's called "snob appeal". FreeBSD has more snob appeal than
Linux because FreeBSD is less polished. That people would seek
an OS or anything else with snob appeal ("I'm better than people
who can't understand this...") exposes one of the many gross
aspects of human nature.
Mats Lofkvist
acah...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu (Albert D. Cahalan) writes:
> FreeBSD has more snob appeal than Linux because FreeBSD is less polished.
Linux sure is more polished on the outside, but when you start looking
under the surface, FreeBSD starts to shine.
Kind of like comparing a lowrider painted with red candy on top of silver
metallic with some blue flake thrown in to a well tuned street racer
dressed in black :-)
_
Mats Lofkvist
m...@algonet.se
Steve Sheldon
acah...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu (Albert D. Cahalan) writes:
Actually my impression of FreeBSD 2.2.6 and the installation process was
that it was far more polished than the RedHat Linux 4.1 I'd used for the
year previous.
I had considered purchasing RedHat 5.0 but everything I heard about it
indicated that the distribution was buggy and unstable. So I thought I
would give FreeBSD a try.
I don't have the time these days to be a Unix snob. I used to work with
DECstations quite a bit about 6 years back and have some stuff I still like
to use Unix for, but for the most part I'm a Windows NT person.
Oh, and I guess my definition of "idiot" has more to do with the Linux
people who seem to pop up everywhere starting advocacy threads. Everywhere
I turn it's "Install Linux it is K-K00l!". It grows tiresome.
I grew out of that phase after owning an Amiga from '87-'91. :(
Rajat Datta
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 13:51:23 GMT, Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
> Actually my impression of FreeBSD 2.2.6 and the installation process was
>that it was far more polished than the RedHat Linux 4.1 I'd used for the
>year previous.
>
> I had considered purchasing RedHat 5.0 but everything I heard about it
>indicated that the distribution was buggy and unstable. So I thought I
>would give FreeBSD a try.
Having just installed RedHat 5.0 about two months ago, and FreeBSD
since Saturday, I must say that getting FreeBSD ppp up and running
has cost me three more days than getting RedHat running (which took
about an hour).
I am not a computer newbie, but find it preferable to leave details
about computer management to others because I need to get other
things done.
rajat
Bill Paul
Daring to challenge the will of the almighty Leviam00se, Juergen Nickelsen
(n...@tellique.de) had the courage to say:
: Chris wrote:
: > Also, why is a linux kernel with roughly the same drivers in it
: > only about 300K, where as the BSD equivilant is 1+ Meg? Any sort
: > of wierd optimization going on here?
: Yes; it is called compression. Linux seems to compress the kernel by
: default (why?),
Unless they've changed something recently, the reason they do this on
the i386 platform is that the Linux boot loader loads the kernel image
into 'conventional' memory, which is only about 640K in size. Loading
the kernel image requires calling the BIOS in order to read blocks from
disks, and the BIOS is real mode code; you can't switch the CPU to
protected mode and still call the BIOS (unless you engage in some
extreme hackery). The FreeBSD boot block runs partly in protected mode
and partly in real mode: it switches to real mode to make BIOS calls
and then switches back to protected mode to copy the data blocks read
from the disk into a region above the first 1MB of RAM where it's
possible to have easily more than 640K of contiguous space.
The Linux approach is a little different: the kernel image has two
parts: a small uncompression module at the beginning followed by a
large clump of compressed data which comprises the actual kernel code.
Once the image is loaded into conventional memory, control is passed
to the uncompression code which is free to switch into protected mode,
uncompress the kernel image into any region of memory it wants, then
jump into the kernel start routine.
: but the uncompressed kernel is usually still in
: /usr/src/linux. This is how it looks on my system:
: -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1063004 Jun 15 14:19 vmlinux
: -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 440992 Jun 15 14:19 vmlinuz
: The latter one is compressed.
The reason both images are usually kept around is so that you can
read the symbol table. Certain programs like to grope around in /dev/kmem
for certain kernel data structures; in order to do this, you have to
know at what addresses the data structures are located, and to learn
that you need the symbol table. You can use nlist() on the kernel image
to read specific symbols. Unfortunately, nlist() doesn't work on
compressed images so you need the original uncompressed image to make
nlist() happy.
Bear in mind that for other platforms that aren't as brain-damaged as
the i386, you don't need to go to all this trouble: usually you can
load the kernel image into any part of RAM that you like. You could
still compress the kernel image if you wanted, but it wouldn't be required
like on the i386.
-Bill
--
=============================================================================
-Bill Paul (212) 854-6020 | System Manager, Master of Unix-Fu
Work: wp...@ctr.columbia.edu | Center for Telecommunications Research
Home: wp...@skynet.ctr.columbia.edu | Columbia University, New York City
=============================================================================
"Mulder, toads just fell from the sky!" "I guess their parachutes didn't open."
=============================================================================
Matt Dillon
:In article <slrn6ofoip...@localhost.my.domain>,
:Rajat Datta <ra...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:>On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 13:51:23 GMT, Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
:..
:>>would give FreeBSD a try.
:>
:>Having just installed RedHat 5.0 about two months ago, and FreeBSD
:>since Saturday, I must say that getting FreeBSD ppp up and running
:>has cost me three more days than getting RedHat running (which took
:>about an hour).
:>
:>I am not a computer newbie, but find it preferable to leave details
:>about computer management to others because I need to get other
:>things done.
:>
:>rajat
I would agree. The RedHat installer in 5.0 and especially now in 5.1
is getting *nice*. It's easy to use and consumer oriented. FreeBSD's
is not as good. On the otherhand, most people use FreeBSD in
server-centric environments and don't fall into the general consumer
category, so it isn't a big deal to me. It might be a bigger deal
to the FreeBSD group which wants to get wider acceptence of FreeBSD.
Linux has the obvious momentum and my personal viewpoint is that it's
too important a goal for the various free UNIX groups to divide themselves
over. In business conversations, I always mention both operating systems,
and always praise RedHat's installer. I emphasize Linux in any
conversation that heads towards the consumer and small business side of
things, and I emphasize FreeBSD in any conversation that heads towards
the server side of things.
Personally, though, I like to think of FreeBSD and Linux as going for
the same goals. Chomp. We are all one happy family in my view! Slurp.
Hey, move that roast Penguin over to this side of table! Mmm.. yummies.
-Matt
--
Matthew Dillon Engineering, BEST Internet Communications, Inc.
<dil...@best.net>, include original article w/ any response.
do not under any circumstances send email to joe...@bigspender.idiom.com
and, for gods sake, don't email buck...@popserver.idiom.com
Merlin
Rajat Datta <ra...@goteborg.netcom.com> wrote:
> Having just installed RedHat 5.0 about two months ago, and FreeBSD
> since Saturday, I must say that getting FreeBSD ppp up and running
> has cost me three more days than getting RedHat running (which took
> about an hour).
Odd.. It took me about an hour to get PPP with -alias working. I
had the box working as a gateway to the net via a dynamic IP dialup
within two hours (including configuring the four office computers.)
Did you read the installation notes on the FreeBSD site?
-ck
Peter Mutsaers
>> On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 21:55:33 GMT, John Bitar <jbi...@wave.home.com>
>> said:
JB> doing everything for you. For example I set-up my printer
JB> last night. It took me 2 hours and still have to read how to
JB> set it up to read postscript. In linux I was printing images
JB> in minutes. Its a really tough question which is better. My
JB> gut tells me Linux is a hack, and unix isn't. That's why I
JB> like FreeBSD more...
I feel the same, but indeed, Linux has better support for various
hardware and is easier to set up. I especially like the packaging of
the whole system, including the base system. Without too many
resources dedicated (such as for /usr/src and /usr/obj) I can track
and gradually upgrade a Redhat system.
Also, I tried to install FreeBSD on my laptop first, but:
- the pcmcia modem/ethernet card wasn't supported
- when exiting from Xfree, the textmode was garbled
I was very impressed to see when I installed Redhat, that the 3com
modem/ethernet card was recognized automatically when I inserted it:
there was an extra eth0 interface (even dynamically loaded as a
module) and a serial port. This is even easier to set up as under
Win95.
I would have preferred FreeBSD (for its more orderly directory layout,
the BSD init, more robustT) but things like drivers forced me to use
Linux.
It is just a pity that so many people are writing software and drivers
for Linux instead of for FreeBSD. With new developments coming up
(such as USB and other new hardware standards) I feel this is going to
be more and more a problem for FreeBSD.
Richard June
Matt Dillon wrote:
>
> :In article <slrn6ofoip...@localhost.my.domain>,
> :Rajat Datta <ra...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> :>On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 13:51:23 GMT, Steve Sheldon <she...@visi.com> wrote:
> :..
> :>>would give FreeBSD a try.
> :>
> :>since Saturday, I must say that getting FreeBSD ppp up and running
> :>has cost me three more days than getting RedHat running (which took
> :>about an hour).
> :>I am not a computer newbie, but find it preferable to leave details
> :>about computer management to others because I need to get other
> :>things done.
> :>
> :>rajat
>
> I would agree. The RedHat installer in 5.0 and especially now in 5.1
> is getting *nice*. It's easy to use and consumer oriented. FreeBSD's
> is not as good. On the otherhand, most people use FreeBSD in
> server-centric environments and don't fall into the general consumer
> category, so it isn't a big deal to me. It might be a bigger deal
> to the FreeBSD group which wants to get wider acceptence of FreeBSD.
install properly on my machine, works fine on a similarly configured
machine of a friend, but not mine. I have also found FreeBSD to be a bit
more straight-foward about setting things up than Linux. I Re-built my
FreeBSD kernel in about 20 min. still haven't done it successfully w/
Linux.
> Linux has the obvious momentum and my personal viewpoint is that it's
> too important a goal for the various free UNIX groups to divide themselves
> over. In business conversations, I always mention both operating systems,
> and always praise RedHat's installer. I emphasize Linux in any
> conversation that heads towards the consumer and small business side of
> things, and I emphasize FreeBSD in any conversation that heads towards
> the server side of things.
It does seem like that is the way development is going doesn't it?
RedHat Linux is moving more towards the people that can't function w/out
a GUI, and FreeBSD is getting to be a better server.
--
"I love it when the point and click commandos attempt to portray
themselves as real computer experts. Using a mouse only makes you a
computer user, not a computer expert"
Someone in comp.unix.advocacy
Zenin
[posted & mailed]
Albert D. Cahalan <acah...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu> wrote:
: Both Red Hat and Debian support source packages. You can unpack
: one as source, examine/change it, apply the included patches,
: compile it, and install it will full file and dependency tracking.
If the package finds a dependency that it needs, can Red Hat
and/or Debian download the dependency (from one of possibly
many mirror sites know by the package already so the user need
not look everywhere for it), build, test, and install it all
automatically without needing (but still allowing if requested)
user intervention? Will it do this for all sub dependences
recursively?
Real world example. If a person wants to install Image Magick,
what is the process under Red Hat or Debian?
Remember that Image Magick has separate lib dependences for jpeg,
mpeg, tiff34, png, jbig, and tff, and executable dependences of
fig2dev, pictoppm, and gs. Is the user required to hunt down the
locations of the packages for all these dependences AND
build/install them manually, or will the Red Hat and/or Depian
systems handle this all automatically? FreeBSD ports will do
this all in two commands:
cd /usr/ports/graphics/ImageMagick
make install
And note, nowhere in those two commands am I required to know
where to find any of the given packages, even ImageMagick.
Lets not even get into the auto patching, configuring, etc features
or auto updates of the ports list via cvsup in a cron tab...
--
-Zenin
ze...@archive.rhps.org
Rajat Datta
On 17 Jun 1998 19:43:43 GMT, Merlin <ckn...@shell3.ba.best.com> wrote:
>Rajat Datta <ra...@goteborg.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Having just installed RedHat 5.0 about two months ago, and FreeBSD
>> since Saturday, I must say that getting FreeBSD ppp up and running
>> has cost me three more days than getting RedHat running (which took
>> about an hour).
>
>had the box working as a gateway to the net via a dynamic IP dialup
>within two hours (including configuring the four office computers.)
>
>Did you read the installation notes on the FreeBSD site?
>
Oh yes! And the Complete FreeBSD book (which I bought). And
searched Dejanews (which gave me some posts from Mark Hodges
which helped a lot).
But, I'm just noticing that ppp continues to hang on me after
some unpredictable period of time. I have no clue what to do
now. The only symptom I see is that the logfile logs a 'sent'
LCP EchoReq with a particular id with no matching 'rcvd' entry.
The 'sent' entry keeps repeating.
I guess now I get to learn about LCP EchoReq. This is more
about ppp than I ever wanted to learn.
rajat
Rajat Datta
On 17 Jun 1998 11:10:38 -0700, Matt Dillon <dil...@best.net> wrote:
> I would agree. The RedHat installer in 5.0 and especially now in 5.1
> is getting *nice*. It's easy to use and consumer oriented. FreeBSD's
> is not as good. On the otherhand, most people use FreeBSD in
> server-centric environments and don't fall into the general consumer
> category, so it isn't a big deal to me. It might be a bigger deal
> to the FreeBSD group which wants to get wider acceptence of FreeBSD.
I don't have a problem with this. But, when I find people claiming how
FreeBSD is easier to set up than Linux, I'm surprised. There's nothing
wrong with choosing to stay with a certain level of complexity and so
demand a certain level of expertise. In fact, I think some of the
Linux advocates are going to find out how incredibly irritating it
can be to deal with the kind of users Microsoft deals with if Linux
really catches on (not because those users are at fault, but they
deserve a certain bit of catering to since they aren't supposed to
become computer-experts).
rajat
Zenin
: It's called "snob appeal". FreeBSD has more snob appeal than
: Linux because FreeBSD is less polished.
...Less? Linux is arguably "less polished" then Windows 95.
At least on most Windoze boxes you're somewhat likely to
have the same base system as another box claiming to be
"Windows"...
: That people would seek
: an OS or anything else with snob appeal ("I'm better than people
: who can't understand this...") exposes one of the many gross
: aspects of human nature.
Funny, I switched to FreeBSD because the system was more coherent
and therefor *more* understandable then the *Linux systems.
--
-Zenin
ze...@archive.rhps.org
Chris
Don't know about redhat, but in debian ( which I still keep around
on a secondary drive ), you go into dselect, find ImageMagick, and tag
it for install. If you don't have the required dependencies, it
will ask if you want to download them, then boom, you are done.
Zenin <ze...@bawdycaste.org> spewed
: Real world example. If a person wants to install Image Magick,
: what is the process under Red Hat or Debian?
: Remember that Image Magick has separate lib dependences for jpeg,
: mpeg, tiff34, png, jbig, and tff, and executable dependences of
: fig2dev, pictoppm, and gs. Is the user required to hunt down the
: locations of the packages for all these dependences AND
: build/install them manually, or will the Red Hat and/or Depian
: systems handle this all automatically? FreeBSD ports will do
: this all in two commands:
: cd /usr/ports/graphics/ImageMagick
: make install
: And note, nowhere in those two commands am I required to know
: where to find any of the given packages, even ImageMagick.
: Lets not even get into the auto patching, configuring, etc features
: or auto updates of the ports list via cvsup in a cron tab...
:--
:-Zenin
: ze...@archive.rhps.org
Chris
--
With two thousand years of examples behind us we have no excuse, when
fighting, for not fighting well.
T.E. Lawrence
Matt Dillon
:In article <35887242...@advsoftech.com>,
:Richard June <ri...@advsoftech.com> wrote:
:>Matt Dillon wrote:
:>>
:>> :In article <slrn6ofoip...@localhost.my.domain>,
:>> category, so it isn't a big deal to me. It might be a bigger deal
:>> to the FreeBSD group which wants to get wider acceptence of FreeBSD.
:>install properly on my machine, works fine on a similarly configured
:>machine of a friend, but not mine. I have also found FreeBSD to be a bit
:>more straight-foward about setting things up than Linux. I Re-built my
:>FreeBSD kernel in about 20 min. still haven't done it successfully w/
:>Linux.
Oh definitely... lots of FreeBSD kernel builds off the CVS tree for me
too. Linux is way behind in the source-management department. I was
refering mainly to mass-consumer-level installations in my previous
posting.
:>> conversation that heads towards the consumer and small business side of
:>> things, and I emphasize FreeBSD in any conversation that heads towards
:>> the server side of things.
:>It does seem like that is the way development is going doesn't it?
:>RedHat Linux is moving more towards the people that can't function w/out
:>a GUI, and FreeBSD is getting to be a better server.
It should also be kept in mind that FreeBSD has linux emulation... I feel
*very* comfortable pushing linux at the software makers and PC OEMs.
I don't think they are clueful enough to understand FreeBSD. If we
push both at them we will only fragment the market. The key is to get
linux in the door first. The compatibility code will do the rest and
pull FreeBSD in along with it better then if we tried to push FreeBSD
to the exclusion of Linux.
The time is ripe for this now that Mickysoft's anti-competitive
and blatently illegal tactics have come to light and forced them into
a slow retreat. I don't usually root for the DOJ, but I am this time.
I am getting sick and tired of MS telling everyone that they are doing
"what is best for the consumer", or that the "economy will collapse"
if windows 98 is delayed or if the DOJ wins. Unbelievable!
-Matt
>--
>"I love it when the point and click commandos attempt to portray
>themselves as real computer experts. Using a mouse only makes you a
>computer user, not a computer expert"
> Someone in comp.unix.advocacy
--
Matt Dillon
Careful. Keep in mind that RedHat is designed almost exclusively for a
CD install. FreeBSD's ports are much more sophisticated. RedHat's
installer and FreeBSD's ports are designed for two very different types
of users. It really isn't fair to compare them.
-Matt
Dinesh Nair
this should really belong in one of them advocacy groups before it gives
rise to a periodic religious war. ;)
Zenin wrote:
> Is the user required to hunt down the
> locations of the packages for all these dependences AND
> build/install them manually, or will the Red Hat and/or Depian
> systems handle this all automatically? FreeBSD ports will do
> this all in two commands:
that's the _main_ reason why i prefer to recommend freebsd to my
clients. just to day, i got a client to install astrolog by the above
method over the phone. he was mighty impressed with it and it took me a
while to convince him that the procedure was developed by the good folks
at core development and not me. ;)
--
Regards, /\_/\ "All dogs go to heaven."
din...@alphaque.com (0 0)
+=======================----oOO--(_)--OOo----=========================+
|for a in past present future; do |
| for b in clients employers associates relatives neighbours pets; do |
| echo "The opinions here in no way reflect the opinions of my $a $b."|
|done; done |
+=====================================================================+
http://pgp.ai.mit.edu/htbin/pks-extract-key.pl?op=get&search=0x230096E9
Brian Somers
In article <slrn6ogpeo...@localhost.my.domain>,
ra...@goteborg.netcom.com (Rajat Datta) writes:
[.....]
: But, I'm just noticing that ppp continues to hang on me after
: some unpredictable period of time. I have no clue what to do
: now. The only symptom I see is that the logfile logs a 'sent'
: LCP EchoReq with a particular id with no matching 'rcvd' entry.
: The 'sent' entry keeps repeating.
:
: I guess now I get to learn about LCP EchoReq. This is more
: about ppp than I ever wanted to learn.
Assuming you're using ppp (aka user-ppp):
An ``LCP EchoReq'' is like a ping but at the link level. If no
replies are coming back, then either the peer is dead or it's
pretending to be.
If the peer is still exchanging data then you should complain to
whoever administers it.... and while they're fixing their LQR bug
(*snicker*) you can remove the ``enable lqr'' from your ppp.conf.
: rajat
WRT finding it difficult to get up and running, the latest sources
(which will probably never make the 2.2 branch) make things alot
easier - the only change to the pmdemand entry in ppp.conf.sample
that's required is that the ``set login'' and ``set dial'' commands
are tuned according to your ISP.
The latest sources from -current can be installed from the archive
at http://www.Awfulhak.org/ppp/.
--
Brian <br...@Awfulhak.org> <br...@FreeBSD.org> <br...@OpenBSD.org>
<http://www.Awfulhak.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !
Jordan K. Hubbard
acah...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu (Albert D. Cahalan) writes:
> It's called "snob appeal". FreeBSD has more snob appeal than
> Linux because FreeBSD is less polished. That people would seek
Albert! How nice to see you back here again - we haven't had
anywhere near enough gibberish in this newsgroup lately.
In any case, it seems like your latest gibberish lacks even a
reasonable attempt at self-consistency. I don't know what kind of
snobs you're familiar with, but most of the ones I've met tend to
prefer things polished rather than unpolished, especially if one is
talking about gemstones or Mercedes automobiles. So in order for us
to have more snob appeal, we'd have to be more polished than the
alternatives. If we weren't, we wouldn't.
Please show more care and attention with your gibberish in the future;
your previous postings have somewhat spoiled us and we've grown to
expect only the finest gibberish from Albert D. Cahalan.
--
- Jordan Hubbard
Co-founder/Release Manager, The FreeBSD Project
Walnut Creek CDROM
Gregory LeBaron
John S. Dyson wrote:
>
>
> How do roast puppy or boiled kitten compare?
Well, I've had quite a bit of experience with both puppy and kitten. Both
are quite tasty but I tend to prefer the crispy skin of the puppy. Basically
it's a matter of personal preference.
Mike
In article <8981330...@thrush.omix.com>, Zenin wrote:
>Albert D. Cahalan <acah...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu> wrote:
> >snip<
>: Linux because FreeBSD is less polished.
>
> At least on most Windoze boxes you're somewhat likely to
> have the same base system as another box claiming to be
> "Windows"...
>
>: That people would seek
>: an OS or anything else with snob appeal ("I'm better than people
>: who can't understand this...") exposes one of the many gross
>: aspects of human nature.
>
> Funny, I switched to FreeBSD because the system was more coherent
> and therefor *more* understandable then the *Linux systems.
>
>--
>-Zenin
> ze...@archive.rhps.org
Would have to agree. Right now I'm running FreeBSD -current, but a
couple of minutes ago I was running Slackware 3.4. I *really* wish
Linux had a ports collection. Other than that, I haven't used
Linux enough yet to comment on it as far as performance, etc. But I
definitely miss FreeBSD when I'm running Linux.
Mike
Albert D. Cahalan
j...@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) writes:
> acah...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu (Albert D. Cahalan) writes:
>
> In any case, it seems like your latest gibberish lacks even a
> reasonable attempt at self-consistency. I don't know what kind of
> snobs you're familiar with, but most of the ones I've met tend to
> prefer things polished rather than unpolished, especially if one is
> talking about gemstones or Mercedes automobiles. So in order for us
> to have more snob appeal, we'd have to be more polished than the
> alternatives. If we weren't, we wouldn't.
Snob appeal varies. In this case, it is intellectual snob appeal.
You may be more familiar with the financial kind. The main issue
is use of a product or service that is in some way exclusive.
People who wish to display economic power can display that by
using goods and services that are costly, even when the additional
cost does not procure a better product. People who wish to display
intellectual power choose products that other people would be unable
to use, and may even forfeit useful features to use those products.
(and FYI, I can use BSD just fine even though it sucks)
Albert D. Cahalan
Peter Mutsaers <p...@xs4all.nl> writes:
> I would have preferred FreeBSD (for its more orderly directory layout,
It is orderly and standardized, but may have a SysV influence that
you are not yet comfortable with. One of the goals is read-only
mounted root and /usr filesystems, perhaps on ROM for security.
Detailed justification of the standard: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
Tom Keats
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> It's called "snob appeal". FreeBSD has more snob appeal than
> Linux because FreeBSD is less polished.
<snipped>If i were a Snob, i'd see about doing something like running
Ultrix orHP/UX on an Alpha-fitted MicroVAX. Then i'd shove it in
peoples'
faces until they get sick & tired of me. Now, _That's_ Snobbery.
As it is, i'm just plain "used" to *BSD. I like the economy, stability,
available resources, opportunities to learn, and the warm-fuzzy
familiarity of *BSD, and especially FreeBSD, running on a humble
Intel. I don't give a rat's ass what other folks think about my FreeBSD
sys --- *I* like it, *I* use it, and *I* maintain it. And I migrated
to it
from BSDi (which might have even more "snob appeal" than any "free"
OS),because it suited me to do so.
"snob apeal" ......... pffffffffffffff
Relating "snob appeal" to free OS's is so blatantly oxymoronic.
It's not about snobbery; it's about having the choice to adopt the
OS to suit the individual's/organizations' needs. It's about
preference and suitabilty.
Have a nice cup of tea, and count your blessings. I'll do the same.
cheers,
Tom Keats
Matt Dillon
:In article <35889D28...@cam.org>,
:Gregory LeBaron <leb...@cam.org> wrote:
:>
:>
<<Shudder>>; how sickening. I tend for more conventional fare myself.
Roast PENGUIN, now *there* is a delight worth waiting for! It brings
new meaning to the phrase "Crispy Critters" :-)
Nigel Gorry
In article <slrn6ogpeo...@localhost.my.domain>, ra...@ix.netcom.com
wrote:
>On 17 Jun 1998 19:43:43 GMT, Merlin <ckn...@shell3.ba.best.com> wrote:
>>Rajat Datta <ra...@goteborg.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>Odd.. It took me about an hour to get PPP with -alias working. I
>>had the box working as a gateway to the net via a dynamic IP dialup
>>within two hours (including configuring the four office computers.)
>>
>>Did you read the installation notes on the FreeBSD site?
>
>Oh yes! And the Complete FreeBSD book (which I bought). And
>searched Dejanews (which gave me some posts from Mark Hodges
>which helped a lot).
I recall reading in the handbook about this prob and the solution (which Brian
has explained yet again in another post).
Maybe FreeBSD is only for people that can read.
Nigel Gorry
Systems Administrator http://www.tropinet.com
Radio 4KZ, Kool-FM and Zed.Net ISP http://www.znet.net.au
Rajat Datta
On Sat, 20 Jun 1998 01:32:43 GMT, Nigel Gorry <ni...@koolfm.com.au> wrote:
>In article <slrn6ogpeo...@localhost.my.domain>, ra...@ix.netcom.com
>wrote:
>>On 17 Jun 1998 19:43:43 GMT, Merlin <ckn...@shell3.ba.best.com> wrote:
>>>Rajat Datta <ra...@goteborg.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Odd.. It took me about an hour to get PPP with -alias working. I
>>>had the box working as a gateway to the net via a dynamic IP dialup
>>>within two hours (including configuring the four office computers.)
>>>
>>>Did you read the installation notes on the FreeBSD site?
>>
>>Oh yes! And the Complete FreeBSD book (which I bought). And
>>searched Dejanews (which gave me some posts from Mark Hodges
>>which helped a lot).
>
>I recall reading in the handbook about this prob and the solution (which Brian
>has explained yet again in another post).
>
>Maybe FreeBSD is only for people that can read.
I note that with a lot of help from somewhat more friendly FreeBSD
folks, the problem persists.
Brian's solution did not help. I had already done what he had suggested
(that is, deny and disable lqr). The problem persists. I have downloaded
the latest ppp from www.awfulhak.org and the problem persists. I have
sent Brian my configuration and the log files I've been able to gather.
I hope he can help.
Thanks for your kind words.
rajat
Louis Epstein
Tom Keats (tom_...@bc.sympatico.ca) wrote:
: Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
:
: > It's called "snob appeal". FreeBSD has more snob appeal than
: > Linux because FreeBSD is less polished.
:
: <snipped>If i were a Snob, i'd see about doing something like running
: Ultrix orHP/UX on an Alpha-fitted MicroVAX. Then i'd shove it in
: peoples'
: faces until they get sick & tired of me. Now, _That's_ Snobbery.
You wimp,you're not prepared to port Multics to a Radio Shack Color
Computer?
Rajat Datta
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 10:51:07 +0100,
Brian Somers <br...@shift.lan.awfulhak.org> wrote:
>Assuming you're using ppp (aka user-ppp):
>
>An ``LCP EchoReq'' is like a ping but at the link level. If no
>replies are coming back, then either the peer is dead or it's
>pretending to be.
>
>If the peer is still exchanging data then you should complain to
>whoever administers it.... and while they're fixing their LQR bug
>(*snicker*) you can remove the ``enable lqr'' from your ppp.conf.
>
I don't believe LQR is the problem, after studying and reflection.
For whatever reason, packets from the ISP is not getting through,
or they have ceased sending them. I think the latter is unlikely,
since, on this same system, same ISP, same login id, but with Linux
or Windows'95, the ISP has never ceased sending me packets or
pretend to be dead.
Since my ISP and I are no longer exchanging data, I don't think
they are experiencing an LQR bug.
I don't yet understand why this problem is occurring, but it is
happening with both userland ppp and pppd. Userland ppp, I
understand, disables LQR by default and my conf file is denying
LQR.
What makes this really difficult to debug is that I haven't found
any way to make it happen on command. Packets simply stop getting
through after an indeterminate period of time. Sigh!
rajat
Rajat Datta
>(which will probably never make the 2.2 branch) make things alot
>easier - the only change to the pmdemand entry in ppp.conf.sample
>that's required is that the ``set login'' and ``set dial'' commands
>are tuned according to your ISP.
>
>The latest sources from -current can be installed from the archive
>at http://www.Awfulhak.org/ppp/.
Also, regarding difficulty of getting ppp up and running, one kind
soul, Mike <mu...@ida.net> (I don't know his last name), pointed me
at his ppp-setup script at http://www.ida.net/users/muck/. This
worked wonderfully, and, in my opinion, would be very useful for
newbies. Thanks Mike.
rajat
Dana Booth
On Sat, 20 Jun 1998 03:24:40 GMT, Louis Epstein <l...@put.com> wrote:
>You wimp,you're not prepared to port Multics to a Radio Shack Color
>Computer?
I knew a guy once, who ran a bbs on a CoCo. Had a cool 300 baud modem, too.
:) Used to post messages from my Kaypro!
--
------------------------
Dana Booth <da...@oz.net>
------------------------
Steve Sheldon
da...@dana.oz.net (Dana Booth) writes:
>On Sat, 20 Jun 1998 03:24:40 GMT, Louis Epstein <l...@put.com> wrote:
>>You wimp,you're not prepared to port Multics to a Radio Shack Color
>>Computer?
>I knew a guy once, who ran a bbs on a CoCo. Had a cool 300 baud modem, too.
>:) Used to post messages from my Kaypro!
ahh, the good old days when computers were completely understandable,
because the entire OS could be dissasembled, printed, and carried in your
briefcase. :)
Ted Mittelstaedt
Jordan K. Hubbard <j...@time.cdrom.com> wrote in article
<yfg1zsl...@time.cdrom.com>...
> acah...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu (Albert D. Cahalan) writes:
>
> > It's called "snob appeal". FreeBSD has more snob appeal than
> > Linux because FreeBSD is less polished. That people would seek
>
> Albert! How nice to see you back here again - we haven't had
> anywhere near enough gibberish in this newsgroup lately.
>
> In any case, it seems like your latest gibberish lacks even a
> reasonable attempt at self-consistency. I don't know what kind of
> snobs you're familiar with, but most of the ones I've met tend to
> prefer things polished rather than unpolished, especially if one is
> talking about gemstones or Mercedes automobiles. So in order for us
> to have more snob appeal, we'd have to be more polished than the
> alternatives. If we weren't, we wouldn't.
>
> Please show more care and attention with your gibberish in the future;
> your previous postings have somewhat spoiled us and we've grown to
> expect only the finest gibberish from Albert D. Cahalan.
>
Aww Man! Jordan, I'm crushed that you didn't crosspost that to
rec.humor or alt.flame.albert.die.die.die at least!!! Simply crushed!
You'd better be careful Jordan, if you say too much he might get wind of
that secret army of FreeBSD fanatics we have stashed away ready to raid
Finland, and carry Linus off to be chained to a PC running nothing but pure
FreeBSD for a month, until he shrieks in repentance!
Now, with Albert's logic, I propose the following chart:
Linux: High polish, no snob appeal.
FreeBSD no polish, more snob appeal
so far, so good.
Emacs: High polish, no snob appeal
Vi: less polish, more snob appeal
Hmmm. Alright.
Pine: High polish, no snob appeal
Elm: No polish, more snob appeal
Interesting, that.
Steak: High polish, no snob appeal
Meatloaf: no polish, high snob appeal
Fancy house: high polish, no snob appeal
run-down apartment: no polish, high snob appeal
Nice neighborhood: High polish, no snob appeal
High crime neighborhood: no polish, high snob appeal
My wife's new car: High polish, no snob appeal
My rusted beater car: no polish, more snob appeal
So, I guess from this we can conclude the following:
Those nonSnob Linux-runners program in Emacs, read mail with Pine, eat
Steak, live in Fancy Houses in Nice Neighborhoods, and drive around in New
Cars.
Us FreeBSD-running Snobs, program with Vi, read mail with Elm, eat
Meatloaf, live in run-down apartments in crack neighborhoods, and drive
beater cars.
Guys, I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm beginning to think we all
picked the wrong operating system!!!!!
Ted
Richard June
Warning, this is completly off the threads topic
Do you know how to mount a Linux filesystem remote and have the Linux
box execute all the commands?(besides the obvious)
Also, just what is needed to get the damn floppy to boot off of the
floppy?( I can handle NFS, but would like to make a stripped down copy
on the disk too.
Tom Keats
Louis Epstein wrote:
> Tom Keats (tom_...@bc.sympatico.ca) wrote:
> : Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> :
> : > It's called "snob appeal". FreeBSD has more snob appeal than
> : > Linux because FreeBSD is less polished.
> :
> : <snipped>If i were a Snob, i'd see about doing something like running
> : Ultrix orHP/UX on an Alpha-fitted MicroVAX. Then i'd shove it in
> : peoples'
> : faces until they get sick & tired of me. Now, _That's_ Snobbery.
>
> You wimp,you're not prepared to port Multics to a Radio Shack Color
> Computer?
Yes, i'm a wimp because i'm not prepared to port Multics to a Radio
Shack computers. I'm a wimp --- but not a snob :)
But I'm happy w/ what i've got (FBSD) and i hope you're happy
w/ whatever you've got (Plan9 distributed over a gajjilion pocket
calculators <friendly leg-pulling> )?
I gtuess that's enough wasted bandwidth.
cheers,
tom keats
Dom Mitchell
Actually, I found that when I put BSD on my computer, the fan blew,
just as it always had.
Nice try. You can't confuse this old duckling.
--
"Remember the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules" -- WoID
Phillip Musumeci
I wonder if your link is just doing an automatic timeout and dropping off.
A /etc/ppp/ppp.linkup file like the following would ensure a ping every 3
minutes in case there is some timeout system to "free up" the dialup lines.
MYADDR:
delete ALL
add 0 0 HISADDR
!bg /sbin/ping -q -i 180 HISADDR
Cheers,
phillip
UNIX _IS_ user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.
--unknown
Louis Epstein
Tom Keats (tom_...@bc.sympatico.ca) wrote:
I run FBSD actually...there's problems getting enough Babbage Difference
Engines to run my hack of MTS...
: I gtuess that's enough wasted bandwidth.
no,now....
John Bitar
Snob appeal, wimps, this is getting weird. wasted bandwidth, guess where all
running 14.4 modems.
The old "who is better then who"... and yes its old and stale. I use FreeBSD,
my choice, I use Win 95, point and click. I am a user. I am an expert. Point
is who really cares .... I guess I do, enough to give my 2 cents worth :-)
Cheers!!! to a world with billions of people and not one alike.
=====
John Bitar a FreeBSD "USER"(point and click(with a 3 button mouse)) who is
best known for questions he posts, that often get ansewered by
experts(hackers(people with no life(people who live in dark basements(people
like me *(FreeBSD))))
Rajat Datta
On 20 Jun 1998 19:22:27 +1000,
Phillip Musumeci <phi...@mirriwinni.cse.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>
>I wonder if your link is just doing an automatic timeout and dropping off.
>
>A /etc/ppp/ppp.linkup file like the following would ensure a ping every 3
>minutes in case there is some timeout system to "free up" the dialup lines.
>
>MYADDR:
> delete ALL
> add 0 0 HISADDR
> !bg /sbin/ping -q -i 180 HISADDR
>
Nope. Solved the problem by switching to 2.2-STABLE. Exact same
ppp setup but different kernel and the session stays active.
rajat
go
Rajat Datta wrote in message <6mfacn$d...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
...
>>What makes this really difficult to debug is that I haven't found
>any way to make it happen on command. Packets simply stop getting
>through after an indeterminate period of time. Sigh!
>
>rajat
I use FreeBSD to connect to ISP(RAS ,Windows NT -:) ) and didn't have any
problems. I was trying RH 5.0 too. Of course , thanks RH setup, it took me
less time to setting everything. But I have singnificantly slower transfers
(FTP).All modem settings was the same.
Jordan K. Hubbard
acah...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu (Albert D. Cahalan) writes:
> cost does not procure a better product. People who wish to display
> intellectual power choose products that other people would be unable
> to use, and may even forfeit useful features to use those products.
> (and FYI, I can use BSD just fine even though it sucks)
Yes! Encore, encore! He's got his mojo workin', folks, and he's gotta
shake it for us! :-)
charlie root
Matt Dillon wrote:
> It should also be kept in mind that FreeBSD has linux emulation... I feel
> *very* comfortable pushing linux at the software makers and PC OEMs.
> I don't think they are clueful enough to understand FreeBSD. If we
> push both at them we will only fragment the market. The key is to get
> linux in the door first. The compatibility code will do the rest and
> pull FreeBSD in along with it better then if we tried to push FreeBSD
> to the exclusion of Linux.
IBM tried this with OS/2 and Win-OS/2. It was less than a success.
Developers say, "I don't need to port to your platform because it has
emulation of one I already support." And then users start saying, "Maybe
I should just switch to the OS with all the apps and avoid this
emulation thing entirely."
charlie root
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> (and FYI, I can use BSD just fine even though it sucks)
There was absolutely no reason to make a statement like that.
You're not a linux advocate, you're a linux asshole. And I wish you'd go
find some other OS to champion.
I use linux daily and recommend it to others. But I find it hard to see
how FreeBSD "sucks."
Alexander Viro
>There was absolutely no reason to make a statement like that.
>You're not a linux advocate, you're a linux asshole.
You miss the point. Badly. First of all, advocate==asshole. By definition.
Then, what do you want? It's Albert... Looks like he stuck with procps
again and looks for a portion of flames for inspiration. Sigh... It's not
the first time and not the last. At least he was reasonable in c.o.l.*
lately. (No, Albert, no! It's not an invitation!)
>And I wish you'd go find some other OS to champion.
<aol> Me too </aol> ;-(
BTW, Albert, if you are just looking for an abstract flames, why don't you
switch to StarDreck vs. SpadeWar?
>I use linux daily and recommend it to others. But I find it hard to see
>how FreeBSD "sucks."
Shrug... Every piece of software sucks in its own way, just that some suck
harder than other. LI of both Linux and FreeBSD is pretty low, anyway.
ObSuckitude: /usr/src/linux/drivers/{block/floppy.c,char/ftape/*}. What a
mess! We'ld better have a pseudo-device a-la SunOS for fdc and build both
floppy and ftape over it. floppy.c was there waay before ftape and now
it's an ancient maze of twisty little functions, all alike ;-( I'm
trying to extract fdc-related stuff, but it hurts... 5 panics this
morning + one nasty lockup. Arrgh!
--
Luser, n.:
Human-like creature that doesn't dare to use elevator, because of
its belief that only horrible geeks can master arcane and obscure art of
using control panel.
John S. Dyson
In article <358D2685...@krivis.com>,
that there is sometimes an improvement in performance when using FreeBSD
under emulation rather than native Linux. OTMH, one example was when
using Matlab, in some cases a significant speed improvement was noted.
However, as always, YMMV.
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
dy...@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid
jdy...@nc.com | and it irritates the pig.
Matt Dillon
I don't think IBM's handling of windows emulation in OS/2 is really in the
same category as the Linux emulation in FreeBSD. A comparison would not
be meaningful. Amoung other things: OS/2's success depends on direct
commercial success, FreeBSD's success is based more on direct freeware
success and success through indirect commercial use. Also, emulating
windows without buying microsoft software is virtually impossible, mainly
because microsoft makes it so on purpose. Emulating linux is a different
beast alltogether.
-Matt
:In article <6mjcsg$b...@enews1.newsguy.com>,
:John S. Dyson <ro...@dyson.iquest.net> wrote:
:>In article <358D2685...@krivis.com>,
:> charlie root <c...@krivis.com> writes:
:...
:>>> It should also be kept in mind that FreeBSD has linux emulation... I feel
:>>> *very* comfortable pushing linux at the software makers and PC OEMs.
:>>> I don't think they are clueful enough to understand FreeBSD. If we
:..
:>>
:>> IBM tried this with OS/2 and Win-OS/2. It was less than a success.
:>> Developers say, "I don't need to port to your platform because it has
:...
:>>
:>To a limited extent that is true, but there is evidence from users
:>that there is sometimes an improvement in performance when using FreeBSD
:..
Tobias Ernst
Hello John!
>> IBM tried this with OS/2 and Win-OS/2. It was less than a success.
>> Developers say, "I don't need to port to your platform because it has
>> emulation of one I already support." And then users start saying,
>> "Maybe I should just switch to the OS with all the apps and avoid this
>> emulation thing entirely."
JSD> To a limited extent that is true, but there is evidence from users
JSD> that there is sometimes an improvement in performance when using
JSD> FreeBSD under emulation rather than native Linux.
WinOS/2 also runs faster than native Windows 3.1, and it did not help even at
the times when the WinOS/2 emulation was able to run all existing Windows
applications (it isn't any more nowadays). If OS/2 got new users, they either
invested in native OS/2 applications and used WinOS/2 only occasionally (but
not for their key applications), or they switched back to native Windows soon,
for whatever reason there might have been. The case is remarkingly similar to
the Linux<->FreeBSD thing. I can't even say what we could do better than IBM
did.
On the other hand, the differences between OS/2 and Windows are greater than
those between Linux and Freebsd Running Windows applications on WinOS/2 has
more drawbacks (bad impact on multitasking and things like that) than running
Linux applications on FreeBSD. (Next week I'll have to install Microstation 95
for Linux on my FreeBSD machine - I hope that this proves my theory <g>).
I agree with the pre-posters that it would be a bad thing to split the market.
Linux is currently receving press recognition as an end user operating system,
so that's going to be the way (and perhaps the only chance) to push Unix into
the end user market against the Redmond crap (even though I personally think
that FreeBSD would be better for the end user because of the simplicity of the
ports concept and other things). We should not make the error to consume our
power in Linux contra FreeBSD wars. Currently, I can support a Linux end user
and write Linux applications even though I am running FreeBSD only, so where is
the problem.
Regards,
Tobias
Tom Keats
John Bitar wrote:
> Snob appeal, wimps, this is getting weird. wasted bandwidth, guess where all
> running 14.4 modems.
> The old "who is better then who"... and yes its old and stale. I use FreeBSD,
> my choice, I use Win 95, point and click. I am a user. I am an expert. Point
> is who really cares .... I guess I do, enough to give my 2 cents worth :-)
> Cheers!!! to a world with billions of people and not one alike.
>
> =====
> John Bitar a FreeBSD "USER"(point and click(with a 3 button mouse)) who is
> best known for questions he posts, that often get ansewered by
> experts(hackers(people with no life(people who live in dark basements(people
> like me *(FreeBSD))))
>
> Louis Epstein wrote:
>
> > Tom Keats (tom_...@bc.sympatico.ca) wrote:
> > : Louis Epstein wrote:
> > :
> > : > Tom Keats (tom_...@bc.sympatico.ca) wrote:
> > : > : Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> > : > :
> > : > : > It's called "snob appeal". FreeBSD has more snob appeal than
> > : > : > Linux because FreeBSD is less polished.
> > : > :
> > : > : <snipped>If i were a Snob, i'd see about doing something like running
> > : > : Ultrix orHP/UX on an Alpha-fitted MicroVAX. Then i'd shove it in
> > : > : peoples'
> > : > : faces until they get sick & tired of me. Now, _That's_ Snobbery.
> > : >
> > : > You wimp,you're not prepared to port Multics to a Radio Shack Color
> > : > Computer?
> > :
> > : Yes, i'm a wimp because i'm not prepared to port Multics to a Radio
> > : Shack computers. I'm a wimp --- but not a snob :)
> > :
> > : But I'm happy w/ what i've got (FBSD) and i hope you're happy
> > : w/ whatever you've got (Plan9 distributed over a gajjilion pocket
> > : calculators <friendly leg-pulling> )?
> >
> > I run FBSD actually...there's problems getting enough Babbage Difference
> > Engines to run my hack of MTS...
> >
> > : I gtuess that's enough wasted bandwidth.
> >
> > no,now....
Originally, i saw this posted, where Abert D. Cahalan accuses FreeBSD users of
snobbery:
{
Dom Mitchell <d...@myrddin.demon.co.uk> writes:
> she...@visi.com (Steve Sheldon) writes:
>> Oh, I dumped Linux for FreeBSD because there are too many
>> idiots running Linux these days. :)
>
> It's funny how many have found that a factor in moving...
It's called "snob appeal". FreeBSD has more snob appeal than
Linux because FreeBSD is less polished. That people would seek
an OS or anything else with snob appeal ("I'm better than people
who can't understand this...") exposes one of the many gross
aspects of human nature.
}
I responded thus:
{
Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> It's called "snob appeal". FreeBSD has more snob appeal than
> Linux because FreeBSD is less polished.
<snipped>If i were a Snob, i'd see about doing something like running
Ultrix orHP/UX on an Alpha-fitted MicroVAX. Then i'd shove it in
peoples'
faces until they get sick & tired of me. Now, _That's_ Snobbery.
As it is, i'm just plain "used" to *BSD. I like the economy, stability,
available resources, opportunities to learn, and the warm-fuzzy
familiarity of *BSD, and especially FreeBSD, running on a humble
Intel. I don't give a rat's ass what other folks think about my FreeBSD
sys --- *I* like it, *I* use it, and *I* maintain it. And I migrated
to it
from BSDi (which might have even more "snob appeal" than any "free"
OS),because it suited me to do so.
"snob apeal" ......... pffffffffffffff
Relating "snob appeal" to free OS's is so blatantly oxymoronic.
It's not about snobbery; it's about having the choice to adopt the
OS to suit the individual's/organizations' needs. It's about
preference and suitabilty.
Have a nice cup of tea, and count your blessings. I'll do the same.
cheers,
Tom Keats
}
Louis Epstein, mischieviously and teasingly submitted:
{
Tom Keats (tom_...@bc.sympatico.ca) wrote:
: Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
:
: > It's called "snob appeal". FreeBSD has more snob appeal than
: > Linux because FreeBSD is less polished.
:
: <snipped>If i were a Snob, i'd see about doing something like running
: Ultrix orHP/UX on an Alpha-fitted MicroVAX. Then i'd shove it in
: peoples'
:faces until they get sick & tired of me. Now, _That's_ Snobbery.
You wimp,you're not prepared to port Multics to a Radio Shack Color
Computer?
}
to which I rejoindered:
{
Yes, i'm a wimp because i'm not prepared to port Multics to a Radio
Shack computers. I'm a wimp --- but not a snob :)
But I'm happy w/ what i've got (FBSD) and i hope you're happy
w/ whatever you've got (Plan9 distributed over a gajjilion pocket
calculators <friendly leg-pulling> )?
I gtuess that's enough wasted bandwidth.
cheers,
tom keats
}
Your point, viz:
" The old "who is better then who"... and yes its old and stale. I use
FreeBSD,
my choice, I use Win 95, point and click. I am a user. I am an expert.
Point
is who really cares .... I guess I do, enough to give my 2 cents worth :- )
Cheers!!! to a world with billions of people and not one alike." ---"
--- is both Louis Eptstein's and mine - we were merely satirizing the
erroneous assumptions of Albertt D. Cahalan's original post (that being,
those who adopt FreeBSD are "snobs" over those who adopt Linux).
My main point was that people will eventually gravitate to the OS that
suits them best, snobbery or no. Mr (Dr.?) Cahalan is IMHO wrong in
that snob appeal is the primum motive in folks adopting FBSD over Linux.
I also pointed-out that snobbery is simply antithetical where free OS's
are concerned.
Louis Epstein satirically reminded me that there are knowledge-based-snobs
as well as material-snobs; something i keep forgetting ... that is the root
of our kidding-around about "difficult" porting of software to hardware.
: Snob appeal, wimps, this is getting weird. wasted bandwidth, guess where
all
: running 14.4 modems.
So, there's what addresses snob appeal, and wimps. I hope it's not "weird for
you any more. As for wasted bandwidth, this whole Albert D. Cahalan - inspired
thread is self-documenting and recursively-deprecating. Let's get on with
life.
cheers,
tom keats
Mark VandeWettering
In article <vc7u35k...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu>,
Albert D. Cahalan <acah...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu> wrote:
>Dom Mitchell <d...@myrddin.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> she...@visi.com (Steve Sheldon) writes:
>
>>> Oh, I dumped Linux for FreeBSD because there are too many
>>> idiots running Linux these days. :)
>>
>> It's funny how many have found that a factor in moving...
>
>It's called "snob appeal". FreeBSD has more snob appeal than
>Linux because FreeBSD is less polished. That people would seek
>an OS or anything else with snob appeal ("I'm better than people
>who can't understand this...") exposes one of the many gross
>aspects of human nature.
FreeBSD is certainly not "less polished" than Linux. Linux (Red Hat in
particular) seems to be under the impression that if you make an interactive
X tool to do a particular job, that somehow that is a good thing, and
eliminates the need for a novice to understand what is really going on.
FreeBSD doesn't force you to install a bunch of tools that are unrelated to
what you really want to do, yet makes it very easy to install precisely
those packages that you desire. I think both are capable systems, but I
definitely prefer FreeBSD. For those of us who think that "color_ls" should
not be the default, or that Tcl installation should not be required to
recompile the kernel, FreeBSD is a great choice.
Mark
--
Mark T. VandeWettering Telescope Information (and more)
Email: <ma...@pixar.com> http://www.idle.com/~markv/
No Code International Member #1173
Charlie Root
Rajat Datta wrote:
> I note that with a lot of help from somewhat more friendly FreeBSD
> folks, the problem persists.
>
> Brian's solution did not help. I had already done what he had suggested
> (that is, deny and disable lqr). The problem persists. I have downloaded
> the latest ppp from www.awfulhak.org and the problem persists. I have
> sent Brian my configuration and the log files I've been able to gather.
> I hope he can help.
I found that getting the ppp source from Brian did the trick for me. It
was actually the first time I ever got ppp working in FreeBSD over the
course of at least a year and a half. (2.1.5, then 2.2.2, and now 2.2.6
- none of these worked for me.)
Now I just wish that there were vfat support (although I saw that it is
on the way and does work.)
Alan B. Stone
> : > Linux because FreeBSD is less polished.
I don't know how many times I've heard this. There's no such thing as
"snob appeal." I think there are some of us who actually read the man
pages, the books, and spend time learning how to configure systems.
Then new users come along...ask alot of questions, but never listen to
the answers because they're looking for "quick fixes" and sometimes
there aren't any. In almost every case where someone came to me and
asked "how can I do this or that," I've offered advice, publications,
etc. hoping that they truly wanted to learn how to do it themselves.
What I found out was they really just wanted me to configure it for
them. Some operating systems aren't meant for everyone.
I used Linux for over three years (several different distributions), and
for several months now I've been running FreeBSD. I've found it easier
to configure, much more stable, and configuring the kernel is a snap.
That said. I am not one of the people that will flame you for using
Linux. I think Unix users need to get together in order for progress to
continue all around. The latest Open Source Meetings between several
key individuals in both the development of FreeBSD, Linux, Netscape, and
others brought out this fact.
--
Alan B. Stone
Senior Technical Representative
Communications Technology Research Activity
Email: sto...@zam0.attnet.or.jp
Juergen Nickelsen
Bill Paul <wp...@ctr.columbia.edu> wrote:
> Bear in mind that for other platforms that aren't as brain-damaged as
> the i386, you don't need to go to all this trouble: usually you can
> load the kernel image into any part of RAM that you like.
That reminds me of something I have always wanted to know: Do other
architectures have similarly different operating modes like the i386
(and later) with "real" and "protected" mode?
My understanding is that real mode on the i386 is something like
"(built-in) MMU not initialized and inactive", whereas protected mode is
"MMU intialized and active". I know a little bit of the 68000; IIRC it
has lines to signal an access mode on memory access, which can be "user
data", "user code", "supervisor data", and "supervisor code" (I may have
forgotten one or more). AFAIK the PDP-11 CPU has similar signals.
With these codes, the MMU can read the type of access that the CPU tries
to make and behave appropriately, allowing or denying the access. If
there is no MMU, this is trivial -- the CPU always gets access (provided
there is memory or an I/O port at the requested address), so the CPU is
always in "real mode" -- there is no virtual memory and no access
control.
But if there is an MMU (or a builtin MMU as with the 68030 and later),
are there also two modes like "real" and "protected"?
--
Juergen Nickelsen
Merlin
Mark VandeWettering <ma...@pixar.com> wrote:
> FreeBSD is certainly not "less polished" than Linux. Linux (Red Hat in
> particular) seems to be under the impression that if you make an interactive
> X tool to do a particular job, that somehow that is a good thing, and
> eliminates the need for a novice to understand what is really going on.
They can't do that!!!! That style of OS/application development is one
of Microsoft's trademarked techniques!!! I think they call it the
'Ignorance is Bliss' approach.
<Time to duck out the back door...>
-ck
Peter N. M. Hansteen
ma...@pixar.com (Mark VandeWettering) writes:
> For those of us who think that "color_ls" should
> not be the default,
Minor nit: that was slackware, not redhat.
--
Peter N. M. Hansteen pe...@datadok.no http://www.datadok.no
Datadokumentasjon A/S, Bredsgaarden 2, N-5003 Bergen, Norway
Tel: +47 55 32 08 02 Fax: +47 55 32 14 95
Alexander Viro
In article <wklnqki...@datadok.no>,
Peter N. M. Hansteen <pe...@datadok.no> wrote:
>ma...@pixar.com (Mark VandeWettering) writes:
>
>> For those of us who think that "color_ls" should
>> not be the default,
>
>Minor nit: that was slackware, not redhat.
And _major_ mistake: Tcl is _not_ required for configuring, not to mention
compile. There is an option of using xconfig, but if you are sane you can
always say make config (requires only shell) or make menuconfig (shell +
[n]curses) or vi .config (vi ;-). ThankYouVeryMuch, I hate Tcl with
passion and it doesn't exist on any of my boxen, including Linux one.
Never had any problems configuring the kernel. I don't like RH, but I
don't believe that they are _that_ crazy. I kinda prefer curses-based
variant to direct vi .config (after all, vi uses curses too), but mostly
because of convenient way to get help on an item (when you see a new
option... well, it makes sense to look at the pointers to RTFM).
Georg Wagner
>
>
> Having just installed RedHat 5.0 about two months ago, and FreeBSD
> since Saturday, I must say that getting FreeBSD ppp up and running
> has cost me three more days than getting RedHat running (which took
> about an hour).
Hi,
I had it up and running in about 15 minutes. And after that I was invited by
a friend
running Linux "Hey you got the connection to your ISP up and running, mine
does not work can you
fix it?" I did, he even did not know in which files he had to look (And he
was using what is
called kernel ppp in FreeBSD parlance). Though the Linux way seems to produce
unknowlegeable
end users like the users of windows.
Regards
Georg
--
Georg Wagner
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITMF-WGR FS117 Tel. 6 69 92 / +41 (0)1 236 69 92
Union Bank of Switzerland, Zurich
Steve Sheldon
Merlin <ckn...@shell3.ba.best.com> writes:
>Mark VandeWettering <ma...@pixar.com> wrote:
If God had wanted us to do things the hard way all the time he would have
never invented shell scripts!
noi...@godzilla.localhost
I started with Linux Slackware and I love it. Then I built a box with FreeBSD.
I really don't notice the difference and I now love FreeBSD.
The big difference is that BSD has the ports and packages install that work very
well. But once you start building and installing from source code it doesn't
matter who has the better package management. It's all in your hands from there.
Tom Keats
Georg Wagner wrote:
> >
> <a little minor snippage>
> called kernel ppp in FreeBSD parlance). Though the Linux way seems to produce
> unknowlegeable
> end users like the users of windows.
>
> Regards
>
> Georg
>
It wasn't always that way. Back in '93 SoftLanding Software was distributing
the
contemporary version of Linux (on about 50+ floppies, if I remember correctly).
I glanced at it and opted for BSDi's BSD/386 v.1.0 instead, which was a bargain
at that time.
That was when Linux was a hackers' playground rather than a MS-haters' option.
I kinda / hope Linux's new-found publicity exposure is helping people understand
the capabilities (and limitations) of PC's.
Let's not yet jump to the conclusion that :
"[the] Linux way seems to produce unknowlegeable end users like the users
of windows." even tho' publicity may attract folks who want machines to do
their thinking for them.
I optimistically hope that exposure to all kinds of optional OS's will
ultimately
educate the public.
cheers,
tom keats
Curtis D. Levin
> >> IBM tried this with OS/2 and Win-OS/2. It was less than a success.
> >> Developers say, "I don't need to port to your platform because it has
> >> emulation of one I already support." And then users start saying,
> >> "Maybe I should just switch to the OS with all the apps and avoid this
> >> emulation thing entirely."
Emulating windows under Os/2 was a pain, and the windows bugs didn't
go away just because it was Os/2.
>
>I agree with the pre-posters that it would be a bad thing to split the market.
>Linux is currently receving press recognition as an end user operating system,
>so that's going to be the way (and perhaps the only chance) to push Unix into
>the end user market against the Redmond crap (even though I personally think
>that FreeBSD would be better for the end user because of the simplicity of the
>ports concept and other things). We should not make the error to consume our
>power in Linux contra FreeBSD wars. Currently, I can support a Linux end user
>and write Linux applications even though I am running FreeBSD only, so where is
>the problem.
Noone wants to split the market more than MS. The plain truth is that MS
stuff is easier to use. Redhat Linux makes great use of this by using
the GUI to some extent to ease the burden. I actually first tried BSD when
Linux 1.1.59 was out, but never got it to FTP the software right. Once,
I got it onto the system, to find out that I couldn't reboot into it
again. Once I rebooted, I couldn't find the docs that explained ppp, so
I couldn't connect, etc. It took awhile. And I consider myself to be at
least marginal.
Put that into perspective when dealing with all types of unixes. Then
understand the end user who wants everything to work. Understand the
secretary who is on the phone to the IT dpt every time the system does
something strange. Then you should have a better perspective on why there
is so much MS.
The solution is simple.
1) Menuing systems for the beginning users. A menu selection with a
link to a unix tutorial is a great help. Shell scripting for doing
other commands, like grep, and find, etc, are a big help as well.
How much more powerful is unix ? Well, when shell scripting is utilized
to make unix a push button system, then the shell becomes alot less
intimidating, and the same holds true for X and the apps there. Think of
the end user as being clueless, and do everything for him. That will make
the system a success. The reason for DOS rampant success, in a word, is
Direct Access. That is the one thing that made the computer usable by
everyone. It's still in heavy usage today. And if it breaks for some
reason, the help cries can be heard across the nation.
2) Advertise. On web pages, on yahoo, etc. Market unix like MS does win
products. Make it attractive. Concentrate on the market, and where it is
heading. These days, things are GUI. Utilize X to it's fullest potential.
3) Better auto detection of hardware on installation. Make installation
easier. More people will install it.
4) Develop, develop, develop. And charge charge charge for your efforts.
Write a suite that matches notes, etc, and market it for Unix. Undercut
the competition, and do more. Think. VTD. MMedia. system sounds. Things
that get attention, and make it fun. That will make unix the logical
successor. Simply because, technologically speaking, it can just do more.
5) Smile.
Curtis - kd4zkw
Ondra Koutek
I have the feeling, that microsoft just try the politics: Do it youself, it is so
easy.
FreeBSD and Unixes suppope, that there is someone who cares about your computer.
In my opinion if there is the person, who helps you to keep your system, end user
does not need much to do.
Customer's support together with Hotline would solve most of problems.
Andilek
--
Ondra Koutek and...@sh.cvut.cz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is the end...
Zenin
Curtis D. Levin <cdl...@dania.dialisdn.com> wrote:
>snip<
: The solution is simple.
: link to a unix tutorial is a great help. Shell scripting for doing
: other commands, like grep, and find, etc, are a big help as well.
Isn't there a "menu shell" somewhere? I can't find it
/usr/ports/shells, but it probably is there somewhere. Anyway,
Midnight Commander (mc) is a pretty darn good Norton Commander
clone that does much of this.
>snip<
: Think of
: the end user as being clueless, and do everything for him. That will make
: the system a success.
No, never. Unix is a system built by good computer users for good
computer users. Give sendmail a complete point and click
configuration tool, I dare you. Even if you manage to build such
a beast, it will be so complex to use that hand editing the config
file would still be easier.
: 2) Advertise. On web pages, on yahoo, etc. Market unix like MS does win
: products. Make it attractive. Concentrate on the market, and where it is
: heading. These days, things are GUI. Utilize X to it's fullest potential.
Have you seen the Linux groups as of late? Unix isn't for everyone.
There are people that should stay with there Mac, and there is
nothing wrong with them. As soon as you market like that people
will expect the same things Win/Mac et al have; A ton of hand
holding at every corner. One of the reasons I like FreeBSD is
a lack of inane FAQ chatter from lazy users all over the group.
Linux (IMHO) made a mistake by the marketing system it uses. They
bill it as a direct Win/DOS replacement ("Linux: Friends don't let
friends run Windows", etc). It's not. It (thank god) won't be
anytime soon either.
: 3) Better auto detection of hardware on installation. Make installation
: easier. More people will install it.
This I agree with.
: 4) Develop, develop, develop.
Yes, yes, yes!
: And charge charge charge for your efforts.
No, no, no!
: Write a suite that matches notes,
Ack, ack, ack! :-)
--
-Zenin
ze...@archive.rhps.org
Alexander Viro
In article <89941409...@thrush.omix.com>,
Zenin <ze...@bawdycaste.org> wrote:
>Curtis D. Levin <cdl...@dania.dialisdn.com> wrote:
>: Think of
>: the end user as being clueless, and do everything for him. That will make
>: the system a success.
expect a meaningful bug report, you can't expect help in development...
Where's the gain in such situation? They are free to use the system as is,
all nice and dandy, but WTH tweak the system for them? Think of it that
way: commercial OS depends on money from customers. Free one depends on
developers + bug reports + patches. What's the reason to go against the
core interests?
> No, never. Unix is a system built by good computer users for good
> computer users. Give sendmail a complete point and click
> configuration tool, I dare you. Even if you manage to build such
> a beast, it will be so complex to use that hand editing the config
> file would still be easier.
Oh, dear! What a twisted imagination you have! Thank you, sir, you just
guaranteed me nightmares for this weekend.
>: 2) Advertise. On web pages, on yahoo, etc. Market unix like MS does win
>: products. Make it attractive. Concentrate on the market, and where it is
>: heading. These days, things are GUI. Utilize X to it's fullest potential.
> Have you seen the Linux groups as of late? Unix isn't for everyone.
> There are people that should stay with there Mac, and there is
> nothing wrong with them. As soon as you market like that people
> will expect the same things Win/Mac et al have; A ton of hand
> holding at every corner. One of the reasons I like FreeBSD is
> a lack of inane FAQ chatter from lazy users all over the group.
> Linux (IMHO) made a mistake by the marketing system it uses. They
> bill it as a direct Win/DOS replacement ("Linux: Friends don't let
> friends run Windows", etc). It's not. It (thank god) won't be
> anytime soon either.
Who 'they'? I beg to differ. There's a lot of Sucks95/SuckOS
refugees who want to point and drool and don't believe that somebody can
use UNIX 'cause it's simply more convenient. They have a political agenda,
lot of hot air inside and no brains at all. Naturally, when SuckOS luser
installs RH he remains luser. Many of us are sick and tired of them,
believe me. Or just look at DejaNews.
Tor Slettnes
>>>>> "Curtis" == Curtis D Levin <cdl...@dania.dialisdn.com> writes:
Curtis> Noone wants to split the market more than MS. The plain
Curtis> truth is that MS stuff is easier to use.
Initially. There is nothing as goodlooking as a fresh Windows install,
with as much "fun" built into GUI components like the control panel.
With the insane amount of processor power available nowadays, it also
starts up relatively quickly.
The registry gets a little out of whack, but what the heck, it is also
"fun" reinstalling Windows. A few BSOD's occur - initially they are a
novelty ("hey cool!"), and soon you learn how to avoid most of them
anyway. You install a few fonts and applicatons, and the machine gets
a little slower, but you don't notice because it is a gradual process.
No, sir, easier to use it is not. Even the average John knows that
the Macintosh has that "advantage" over Windows. Then again, that
alone is not what counts.
People also want power. Microsoft has people believe that Windows NT
is as powerful as UNIX, but with an "intuitive" interface. A couple
of quotes from <http://www.microsoft.com/ie/unix/devs.htm>:
...crossing the industry equivalent of the Atlantic Ocean from the
Old World command-line traditions of UNIX to the GUI New World of
Windows, confronted by a host of strange new priorities:
intuitiveness, discoverability, usability
"It's amazing to me how far UNIX has to go today to catch up to
NT," says Dawson. "Take, just for one example, threading support.
UNIX still has benefits, but NT is just a lot more full-featured."
I kindof want to puke.
X-Windows was there way before MS Windows 3 (Windows 2 was hardly a
GUI, running in text mode), with features like remote windows (MS
Windows still lacks it), multiple displays, replacable Window Manager
(Windows actually has that too, but not very many people know it - and
there is not really any alternatives to Microsoft's anymore). Etc.
Threads are something Windows needed because of other deficiencies,
such as very inefficient task spawning, lack of a select() call on
input streams, lack of IPCs such as shared memory, semaphores, message
queues. Nevertheless, there are POSIX threads which almost all UNIXen
support by now.
And UNIX is rock solid, despite rapid development by thousands of
people. Windows is simply alpha quality software marketed way beyond
its capability. It deserves its inevitable fate - when the current
Linux-aware corporate techies gets "promoted" into manager positions
they will remember still having to deal with Windows (due to current
policies in many companies), and turn away with a vengeance.
Curtis> Redhat Linux makes great use of this by using the GUI to
Curtis> some extent to ease the burden.
Also RedHat Linux is doing well among an increasing number of morons.
You know - those people who are brought into this world to complain
that everything is not served on a plate and fed with a spoon,
forgetting that this is free software and that they are (a) not forced
to use it, and (b) lucky to have it.
FreeBSD has more "snob appeal", as Alan Calawhatever so eloquently
said it. (Debian just has more technical appeal, and I am a bigot :-)
To put it this way, Linux "support" groups are seing an increasing
number of AFAQ (annoyingly frequently asked questions) such as "How do
I get the RedHat CD out of my box and into my drive?" or "I have a
400Mhz PII-MMX CPU, what IRQ is that?" Failure to respond to the
most obscure and illegible questions usually results in a "you guys
suck, Linux is doomed to failure" post.
Yes, RedHat is making money. Whether the Linux community as a whole
is well served by too sudden of an influx is another matter. Though
it should be noted that a larger market means higher availability of
commercial software.
Curtis> Put that into perspective when dealing with all types of
Curtis> unixes. Then understand the end user who wants everything
Curtis> to work. Understand the secretary who is on the phone to
Curtis> the IT dpt every time the system does something strange.
Curtis> Then you should have a better perspective on why there is
Curtis> so much MS.
Unfortunately, there is also here a very large discrepancy between
marketing and reality. By definition, if a server does "something
strange" (including BSOD) chances are it is running Windows NT.
Curtis> 2) Advertise. On web pages, on yahoo, etc. Market unix
Curtis> like MS does win products.
No!
First of all, free UNIXen are not supported by the amount of money
available in Microsoft's advertising budget.
More importantly, the success of free software has to do with its
"grassroot appeal" and "paradigm shift" - not that same trite old
marketing. Commercial advertisements are by definition targeted
towards the "lowest common IQ"; free software appeals to an audience
that appreciates sophistication. That also means they want to
discover the truth for themselves, and are rather unimpressed by
something that aims at insulting their intelligence like marketing
usually does.
I will also tell you this: The first one of FreeBSD and Debian to
extensively engage in stupid advertisements is the first OS off my
machine. (I currently keep both on to keep some software of mine
portable - I also use my Sun station at work for that).
Curtis> 3) Better auto detection of hardware on installation. Make
Curtis> installation easier. More people will install it.
That is very true. Score.
Curtis> 4) Develop, develop, develop.
Yes.
Curtis> And charge charge charge for your efforts.
No. Then we are back to same old, same old. The appeal of free
software, and Linux in particular, is the openness and sharing that
takes place. No worries about licenses, violations, copy bans.
At the very least - charge for something like manuals, support
etc. instead. Just don't hinder redistribution of software. That
would make our Great New World of Freedom become like that Crummy Old
Windows World with "I Agree To Become Bill's Towel-boy by opening this
package" software and Lawyer Gestapos.
Curtis> 5) Smile.
Yeah! Second score!
What RMS tried for fourteen or so years Linus Torvalds did in one or
two. The difference? He smiles.. :-)
-tor
Rajat Datta
On 03 Jul 1998 00:35:08 -0700, Tor Slettnes <t...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Yes, RedHat is making money. Whether the Linux community as a whole
>is well served by too sudden of an influx is another matter. Though
>it should be noted that a larger market means higher availability of
>commercial software.
Also, more non-commercial software. There is a tremendous amount of
development going on in the free software world that has been fueled
by Linux and Linux-folk. A lot of experimentation with X is going on
and I think that's going to be for the good. A lot of the projects
are clearly bogus, but I use tools everyday that was developed
primarily on Linux, and the FreeBSD distribution carries them. Some
of the tools, like GIMP, show enormous promise.
So what if there are a lot of less savvy people getting interested
in Linux (and maybe other Unix clones)? There will be some who are
genuinely interested in projects that cater to them, and you might
get something like KDE (it's not to my taste, but I can appreciate
what they've accomplished). It doesn't detract from those who are
more at home with CLI and find it more powerful (like myself). But
maybe, catering to those computer "users" brings about more tools
like the GIMP, like LyX, etc.
As far as Linux vs. FreeBSD, what's good for Linux will be good for
FreeBSD. Unless, of course, most FreeBSD-ers really do want to see
FreeBSD "take over the world". There do seem to be quite a few
people in Linux-land who really have that as a mission, and good
hunting to them. What they bring about in terms of more open
information about hardware for device drivers, more commercial
software, etc. will benefit all the free OSes.
rajat
Chris Gray
Tor Slettnes <t...@netcom.com> writes:
> What RMS tried for fourteen or so years Linus Torvalds did in one or
> two. The difference? He smiles.. :-)
Oh, just what we needed: RMS vs. Linus flame wars. Not.
BTW Linus can also swear: I caught him using the F-word during a discussion
on gcc global optimisation back in 1993. And no, he wasn't swearing at
RMS. :)
Ref: <1993Apr30.0...@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
--
Chris Gray
Christopher B. Browne
On 3 Jul 1998 08:29:25 GMT, Rajat Datta <ra...@goteborg.netcom.com> posted:
>>is well served by too sudden of an influx is another matter. Though
>>it should be noted that a larger market means higher availability of
>>commercial software.
>
>development going on in the free software world that has been fueled
>by Linux and Linux-folk. A lot of experimentation with X is going on
>and I think that's going to be for the good. A lot of the projects
>are clearly bogus, but I use tools everyday that was developed
>primarily on Linux, and the FreeBSD distribution carries them. Some
>of the tools, like GIMP, show enormous promise.
>
>So what if there are a lot of less savvy people getting interested
>in Linux (and maybe other Unix clones)? There will be some who are
>genuinely interested in projects that cater to them, and you might
>get something like KDE (it's not to my taste, but I can appreciate
>what they've accomplished). It doesn't detract from those who are
>more at home with CLI and find it more powerful (like myself). But
>maybe, catering to those computer "users" brings about more tools
>like the GIMP, like LyX, etc.
More "non-hackers" has three results:
a) It doesn't directly result in any code being written.
Unfortunately, those people that most want things like "Word for Linux"
tend to also be a group made up of people that are likely to be the
*least* capable to actually create it.
b) If non-coders send money in the direction of coders, this may
result in the creation of new code that the non-coders are interested
in seeing.
Of course, at $10 per person, it takes a whole *PILE* of of non-coders
to add up into anything that could cover the costs of supporting a
coder.
c) Representation by population.
Those incapable of coding nonetheless make up an increasing proportion
of the community. And therefore have an increasing expectation of
influencing the direction of the community.
If they are at least contributing *somehow,* perhaps financially,
perhaps by working on documentation, or testing, or something of the
sort, it may be reasonable to have an expectation of having influence.
If they aren't, then that isn't particularly reasonable.
The point at which things fracture is when non-developers start figuring
that they can tell developers what to do, whilst developers figure that
since they write the code, it is their right to call the shots.
I strongly suspect that *this* is what will eventually result in Linux
developers moving on to other systems, and will be the impetus for the
next such system. For instance, kernel hackers might get sick of the
"I want another GDI driver" pleas, and move to working on Hurd instead.
>As far as Linux vs. FreeBSD, what's good for Linux will be good for
>FreeBSD. Unless, of course, most FreeBSD-ers really do want to see
>FreeBSD "take over the world". There do seem to be quite a few
>people in Linux-land who really have that as a mission, and good
>hunting to them. What they bring about in terms of more open
>information about hardware for device drivers, more commercial
>software, etc. will benefit all the free OSes.
To the extent to which Linux efforts result in:
a) Code that is at least *somewhat* portable,
b) The release of specifications,
c) An increase of interest in UNIX-like systems,
Linux activities are "good" for FreeBSD. (And for NetBSD. And OpenBSD.
And Hurd. And perhaps whatever the new OS is that John Dyson is
working on. And the list can probably go on...)
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
cbbr...@hex.net - "What have you contributed to Linux today?..."
jedi
On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 06:17:31 GMT, BR <ben...@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> wrote:
>Bloody Viking wrote:
><small snippage>
>
>> The "insane" computing power of modern PCs means that anyone with a credit
>> card can buy a computer with the power of the earliest Cray
>> supercomputers. This is what I find exciting. Yep, even postal workers can
>> have a cray! Crays use UNIX too.
>
>Just a small interjection here. If it wasn't for the duo poly known as
>MS and Intel. The consumer probably wouldn't have as much power as they
>have in such a short time frame.
Before M$ and Intel brought us the blight that was the
PC, it's competitors were more than capapble of delivering
systems (even then in 1981) of similar capacity of those today.
The i86's were just playing catch up to the 68k's for a
considerable amount of time.
--
Hardly. Microsoft has brought the microcomputer OS to
the point where it is more bloated than even OSes from |||
what was previously larger classes of machines altogether. / | \
This is perhaps Bill's single greatest accomplishment.
fl...@interport.net
On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 06:06:07 GMT, Kevin Huber <khu...@yuck.net> wrote:
>someone wrote:
>>> A lot of experimentation with X is
>>> going on and I think that's going to be for the good.
>
>precautions.
It helps if you drink enough water, especially if you're dancing. Don't
go home with strangers if it's your first time. Etc.
--
Ben
root@localhost (hi spammers!)
jedi
>
>I'm not arguing your above points. My point was,for good or bad.
>Feature-itus and bloat,put us on the upgrade path. Do you think that we
>would have pentiums if it wasn't for the above? Now all a person has to
Yup. We had Pentium class microprocessors and their equivalents
through multiprocessing a considerable time before Pentiums were
available. Bloatware is more a justification than a cause. A
pentium-requiring wordprocessor is a perfect excuse to get
consumers to buy pentiums and certainly help unimaginitive
software vendors.
>do is run more efficient software on that pentium,viola instant cray. :)
--
Hardly. Microsoft has brought the microcomputer OS to
the point where it is more bloated than even OSes from |||
what was previously larger classes of machines altogether. / | \
This is perhaps Bill's single greatest accomplishment.
Michele Marie Dalene
I started out with a Commodore 64 as well. I also used a PDP-11 minicomputer
, Ti 99/4a, Commodore Pets, Commodore Vic-20 (not good fur much) and my
very first computer was a Timex Sinclair 1000 with a measly 2k of ram
I too leared how to use the Command line exclusively. Being that
I have a visual disability, I cannot manage a GUI very well. Thus a
Commodore Amiga, Macintosh or Windows (any flavor) is trying for me.
I also btw type Unix commands in dr-dos 7.02. Too bad one
cannot alias dos commands to unix names like you can in bash.
for example cp=copy.
I went for a short time back to dos to run a bbs. People loved
the bbs but I did not like dos. within two months I returned back to
a full linux only system. Now I have terminals hooked up to this thing
(a Wyse 50, an Old XT, and a DEC 100 Rainbow. My system is old, its only
a 486DX2/66mhz box with 16mb, originally it had only CGA. but being I
only used text. it never mattered much.. Tried Xwindows. but on this thing
the constant SWAPPING in/out was too much to bear. plus I had a hard time
using the mouse anyway. Linux/Unix allows you to choose. either CLI or GUI.
Plus I prefer VI to Microsofts editor or even Caldera's DR-dos 7.02
editors. I learned VI on my Tandy Color computer 2 running Os9 Level 1.
Linux works well on my system. even with only 600mb spread over
two 380MB and one 40mb SCSI drives. and occassionally I bring my Xts
Bernoulli box over to do a major file copy session. Sometimes I even fool
my adaptec SCSI card to boot the dos bernoulli cartridge to do installs
for the XT as it only has 360K floppies and this sucker has a 1.44 3 1/2".
Linux is great for me, as I often get lots of old equipment. I
now have TWO tape drives on this. a Iomega 800 Ditto and a WAngtek 5150es
(scsi) drive. Does anyone have any DC6120 or DC6250 cartridges for it?
As you are aware. Linux does not need me to fuss with EMM386 or
himem.sys. it just works all on its own to manage its ram. I like also
the fact that I have mine set up for 3 text virtual consoles. I took
the other 3 that slackware gave me out as 3 was enough for most uses.
In article <6nmjmc$n6f$1...@hirame.wwa.com>, Bloody Viking wrote:
>started computering in the Commodore 64 days, I got used to the idea of a
>CLI. The "OS" was a kernel with a BASIC interpreter for a shell. When I
>first bought a PC in 1993, it took about 2 weeks to find out how to get to
>DOS, and QBASIC, in which case, I felt at home again. I always thought of
>a CLI as "real" computering, as that was what I first saw. With Linux,
>it's a CLI unless you light off X.
>
>The "insane" computing power of modern PCs means that anyone with a credit
>card can buy a computer with the power of the earliest Cray
>supercomputers. This is what I find exciting. Yep, even postal workers can
>have a cray! Crays use UNIX too. The fun question of Linux being UNIX
>
>This Joe Average is quite happy with Linux. That's why I use it, though at
>the beginning, I used it becuse of software costs. I've gotten used to it.
>When I'm at a DOS prompt, I end up typing in UNIX commands, only to get
>the error that DOS can't understand UNIX commands. Linux is fun! Linux,
>like beer, is one of those acquired taste things. Is Linux ready for the
>Joe Average? Maybe, maybe not, but this Joe Average is happy with it!
--
B'ichela
When a Klingon goes to Linux. It means one must respect the Klingons
pride and honorable decision to work their computers to their fulllet
potential.
Linux is Proudly displayed to all my friends. and I help get
others going on this powerful alternative to the watered down mush
served by Microslop.
Steinar Haug
[jedi]
| >Just a small interjection here. If it wasn't for the duo poly known as
| >MS and Intel. The consumer probably wouldn't have as much power as they
| >have in such a short time frame.
|
| Before M$ and Intel brought us the blight that was the
| PC, it's competitors were more than capapble of delivering
| systems (even then in 1981) of similar capacity of those today.
Bull. I used 68k based Sun systems in the middle of the 80s. There's
no way they could compete with a well equipped PC of today (assuming
the PC runs a decent operating system).
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
BR
jedi wrote:
>
> On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 06:17:31 GMT, BR <ben...@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> wrote:
> >Bloody Viking wrote:
> ><small snippage>
> >
> >> card can buy a computer with the power of the earliest Cray
> >> supercomputers. This is what I find exciting. Yep, even postal workers can
> >> have a cray! Crays use UNIX too.
> >
> >MS and Intel. The consumer probably wouldn't have as much power as they
> >have in such a short time frame.
>
> Before M$ and Intel brought us the blight that was the
> PC, it's competitors were more than capapble of delivering
> systems (even then in 1981) of similar capacity of those today.
>
> considerable amount of time.
>
> --
> Hardly. Microsoft has brought the microcomputer OS to
> the point where it is more bloated than even OSes from |||
> what was previously larger classes of machines altogether. / | \
> This is perhaps Bill's single greatest accomplishment.
I'm not arguing your above points. My point was,for good or bad.
Feature-itus and bloat,put us on the upgrade path. Do you think that we
would have pentiums if it wasn't for the above? Now all a person has to
do is run more efficient software on that pentium,viola instant cray. :)
--
************************
* Enjoy the pane-Run NT*
************************
Ted Mittelstaedt
BR <ben...@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net> wrote in article
<359F19BA...@mailhost.ind.ameritech.net>...
> Bloody Viking wrote:
> <small snippage>
>
> > The "insane" computing power of modern PCs means that anyone with a
credit
> > card can buy a computer with the power of the earliest Cray
> > supercomputers. This is what I find exciting. Yep, even postal workers
can
> > have a cray! Crays use UNIX too.
>
> Just a small interjection here. If it wasn't for the duo poly known as
> MS and Intel. The consumer probably wouldn't have as much power as they
> have in such a short time frame.
>
Intel, yes. MS- no. In the history of the PC, Microsoft improvements in
software have always come _AFTER_ complimentary improvements in the
hardware.
The real users driving the Intel chips have been the gamers running under
straight DOS. (and the server people, to a far lesser extent) These people
always buy the fastest, most powerful chips despite the expense.
Ted
Alexander Viro
In article <slrn6q0am0....@pinkrose.snet.net>,
Michele Marie Dalene <mda...@snet.net> wrote:
[snip]
> I went for a short time back to dos to run a bbs. People loved
>the bbs but I did not like dos. within two months I returned back to
>a full linux only system.
FreeBSD. Why bother with DOS?
[snip]
>--
> B'ichela
>When a Klingon goes to Linux. It means one must respect the Klingons
>pride and honorable decision to work their computers to their fulllet
>potential.
> Linux is Proudly displayed to all my friends. and I help get
>others going on this powerful alternative to the watered down mush
>served by Microslop.
Lady, it's all nice and dandy, but you'ld better watch the
newsgroups list ;-) I'm reading it c.u.b.freebsd.misc (albeit from my
Linux box; FreeBSD one is in the middle of _big_ compile).
Cheers,
Al
Followups set.
--
"You're one of those condescending Unix computer users!"
"Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a real computer" - Dilbert.
jedi
On 05 Jul 1998 21:45:59 GMT, Steinar Haug <sth...@nethelp.no> wrote:
>[jedi]
>
>| >Just a small interjection here. If it wasn't for the duo poly known as
>| >MS and Intel. The consumer probably wouldn't have as much power as they
>| >have in such a short time frame.
>|
>| PC, it's competitors were more than capapble of delivering
>| systems (even then in 1981) of similar capacity of those today.
>
>no way they could compete with a well equipped PC of today (assuming
>the PC runs a decent operating system).
Unless you're D2, it really shouldn't matter.
That's the whole point. Except for better games,
the bloat parade really hasn't devlivered anything
that's really better. We just now have Wordprocessors
that need ungodly system resources just to run...
--
Hardly. Microsoft has brought the microcomputer OS to
the point where it is more bloated than even OSes from |||
what was previously larger classes of machines altogether. / | \
This is perhaps Bill's single greatest accomplishment.
Steinar Haug
[jedi]
| >Bull. I used 68k based Sun systems in the middle of the 80s. There's
| >no way they could compete with a well equipped PC of today (assuming
| >the PC runs a decent operating system).
|
| Unless you're D2, it really shouldn't matter.
|
| That's the whole point. Except for better games,
| the bloat parade really hasn't devlivered anything
| that's really better. We just now have Wordprocessors
| that need ungodly system resources just to run...
You're entitled to your point of view, of course. I can even symphatize,
once in a while. But most of the time I'm *much* happier running emacs
on a P-166 than a 16 MHz Sun-3/50 - and I'm also quite certain that I
am more productive today than I was with a Sun-3/50. Not ten times as
productive, though...
Toon Moene
vi...@steklov.math.psu.edu (Alexander Viro) wrote:
> Lady, it's all nice and dandy, but you'ld better watch the
> newsgroups list ;-) I'm reading it c.u.b.freebsd.misc (albeit from my
> Linux box; FreeBSD one is in the middle of _big_ compile).
Hey, you don't want to claim that FreeBSD is a single tasking OS, don't you ?
[ I never understand these young wippersnappers - have 20 times as much
compute power as I do and *still* can't run more than one task on one
computer ]
... while typing this in foreground having our Numerical Weather Prediction
system running in the background ...
--
Toon Moene (mailto:to...@moene.indiv.nluug.nl)
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 346 214290; Fax: +31 346 214286
g77 Support: mailto:for...@gnu.org; NWP: http://www.knmi.nl/hirlam
Alexander Viro
In article <6nratq$843$3...@sucker.nl.uu.net>,
Toon Moene <to...@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> wrote:
>vi...@steklov.math.psu.edu (Alexander Viro) wrote:
>
>> Lady, it's all nice and dandy, but you'ld better watch the
>> newsgroups list ;-) I'm reading it c.u.b.freebsd.misc (albeit from my
>> Linux box; FreeBSD one is in the middle of _big_ compile).
>
>Hey, you don't want to claim that FreeBSD is a single tasking OS, don't you ?
Sure it isn't. Ever heard of -j option of make? ;-) But to be serious:
rebuilding gcc and X server isn't a nice experience on a box with 12M RAM.
And if I have another box sitting near - what's the problem with moving my
ass two feets left?
>[ I never understand these young wippersnappers - have 20 times as much
> compute power as I do and *still* can't run more than one task on one
> computer ]
Oh, yeah... PDP-11 with 32K, 8 users and sucking OS (RSX). 3 TKBs
in parallel and everybody are deep in space ;-)
Cheers,
Al
jedi
[IOW: I need the cpu cycles to run my legacy bloatware.]
You've got to be kidding? Emacs is one of the bloatware KINGS.
Although, unlike it's little cousin (MS-Word) it doesn't
vendor-lock more austere solutions out of the marketplace.
Jed users can use a 16Mhz machine and not worry about being
locked out of the world inhabited by Emacs users...
--
Hardly. Microsoft has brought the microcomputer OS to
the point where it is more bloated than even OSes from |||
what was previously larger classes of machines altogether. / | \
This is perhaps Bill's single greatest accomplishment.
John Fieber
In article <slrn6q2f4...@dementia.mishnet>,
je...@dementia.mishnet (jedi) writes:
> You've got to be kidding? Emacs is one of the bloatware KINGS.
Was. I'm afraid it has dropped quite far down the list if you
include Windows applications. With competition like Netscape
Communicator or any of the office suites, emacs doesn't stand a
chance in the bloatware competition, although XEmacs is still in the
running.
-john
jedi
--
Hardly. Microsoft has brought the microcomputer OS to
the point where it is more bloated than even OSes from |||
what was previously larger classes of machines altogether. / | \
This is perhaps Bill's single greatest accomplishment.
Ben Sandler
Rajat Datta wrote:
>
> As far as Linux vs. FreeBSD, what's good for Linux will be good for
> FreeBSD. Unless, of course, most FreeBSD-ers really do want to see
> FreeBSD "take over the world". There do seem to be quite a few
> people in Linux-land who really have that as a mission, and good
> hunting to them. What they bring about in terms of more open
> information about hardware for device drivers, more commercial
> software, etc. will benefit all the free OSes.
I have no experience with *BSD whatsoever (I got a BSDi account at work
two weeks ago, but I don't really use it). Is there binary
compatibility in between Linux and *BSD? If so, that certainly argues
your point.
- Ben
>
> rajat
--
Ben Sandler
email me: sandler at ymail dot yu dot edu
"Windows is an operating system, not a religion."
- Ted Waitt, chairman of Gateway
Steve Sheldon
jfi...@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu (John Fieber) writes:
>In article <slrn6q2f4...@dementia.mishnet>,
> je...@dementia.mishnet (jedi) writes:
>> You've got to be kidding? Emacs is one of the bloatware KINGS.
>Was. I'm afraid it has dropped quite far down the list if you
>include Windows applications. With competition like Netscape
>Communicator or any of the office suites, emacs doesn't stand a
>chance in the bloatware competition, although XEmacs is still in the
>running.
Hmm, I used to work with an app called Arc/Info. On our DECstations, it
took up around 500-600 Meg of harddrive space. It was a bit better on the
DEC Alphastation's with shared libraries, only 250-300 Meg.
Of course the Alpha binaries consumed more memory once run. A base machine
needed 64 Megs, and really needed 128 Megs to work semi comfortably. That
was in 1994 when 128 Megs of RAM cost a lot of money, as did 1 Gig drives.
But it definately utilized the FPU of that Alpha!
I haven't worked with very many applications since quite so large. But
then I also am no longer working with GIS software. :)
Ondra Koutek
Ben Sandler wrote:
>
> I have no experience with *BSD whatsoever (I got a BSDi account at work
> two weeks ago, but I don't really use it). Is there binary
> compatibility in between Linux and *BSD? If so, that certainly argues
> your point.
Richard Lyon
>>once in a while. But most of the time I'm *much* happier running emacs
>>on a P-166 than a 16 MHz Sun-3/50 - and I'm also quite certain that I
>>am more productive today than I was with a Sun-3/50. Not ten times as
>>productive, though...
>
>[IOW: I need the cpu cycles to run my legacy bloatware.]
>
>
Err ... Like using an old 68K Apollo to compile code for an embedded
project. A full
compile and link use to take 6 hours. On a 200MHz Pentium it takes maybe
15 minutes irrespective of whether the host OS is FBSD or WINNT. I seem to
remember
SPARC 10 was pretty slow also.
Give me a 200MHz MMX, 64 MEG RAM and FBSD any day.
jedi
>>>You're entitled to your point of view, of course. I can even symphatize,
>>>once in a while. But most of the time I'm *much* happier running emacs
>>>on a P-166 than a 16 MHz Sun-3/50 - and I'm also quite certain that I
>>>am more productive today than I was with a Sun-3/50. Not ten times as
>>>productive, though...
>>
>>[IOW: I need the cpu cycles to run my legacy bloatware.]
>>
>> You've got to be kidding? Emacs is one of the bloatware KINGS.
>>
>
>
>Err ... Like using an old 68K Apollo to compile code for an embedded
>project. A full
>compile and link use to take 6 hours. On a 200MHz Pentium it takes maybe
>15 minutes irrespective of whether the host OS is FBSD or WINNT. I seem to
...and this is just how relevant to John Doe?
Besides, this is the sort of thing that is what
nice and batch queues were made for if you're
not running in a production enviroment.
>remember
>SPARC 10 was pretty slow also.
>
>Give me a 200MHz MMX, 64 MEG RAM and FBSD any day.
>
>
--
Hardly. Microsoft has brought the microcomputer OS to
the point where it is more bloated than even OSes from |||
what was previously larger classes of machines altogether. / | \
This is perhaps Bill's single greatest accomplishment.
Richard Tobin
>> You've got to be kidding? Emacs is one of the bloatware KINGS.
>Was. I'm afraid it has dropped quite far down the list
Indeed. "Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping" doesn't have the ring
to it that it did ten years ago.
-- Richard
--
Because of all the junk e-mail I receive, all e-mail from .com sites is
automatically sent to a file which I only rarely check. If you want to mail
me from a .com site, please ensure my surname appears in the headers.
User Rdkeys Robert D. Keys
> I have no experience with *BSD whatsoever (I got a BSDi account at work
> two weeks ago, but I don't really use it). Is there binary
> compatibility in between Linux and *BSD? If so, that certainly argues
> your point.
BSDI is not exactly like Linux or FreeBSD but more like SCO.
They are not exactly binary compatible, but they are source portable
compatible, and you can run some binaries between them.
FreeBSD and Linux are somewhat like apples and oranges. The BSD is
more of the ``real'' unix (whatever that is anymore), and Linux is
more of the clone unix (whatever that is anymore). To the end user,
they are very much similar until you get down deep in the nooks and
crannies. In my hands, over the past 5 years, FreeBSD has always
been a bit more stable (subjectively and in practice) than Linux.
(I can't comment on BSDI, since I have never run that variant.)
Linux always has a few more bells and whistles. Things port back
and forth between the two rather easily. Most of what one has is
on the other. I look at it this way --- if stability counts, then
I use FreeBSD (or one of the other BSD's if on other platforms), else,
I use either that has what I need to work with. Me, I like the
structure of FreeBSD over all the others. Also, it builds up and
adds to with a nicer degree of consistency than all the rest.
I would rate FreeBSD at the 99th percentile, and Linux at the 95th
percentile, with the other BSD's at the 90th percentile, and the
rest below. That is my feelings on the matter.
> - Ben
Ben.... all are better than that other OS that always nukes my wife's
machine..... such is the joy of unix.....(:+}}....
RDK
User Rdkeys Robert D. Keys
>> The "insane" computing power of modern PCs means that anyone with a credit
>> card can buy a computer with the power of the earliest Cray
>> supercomputers.
> Just a small interjection here. If it wasn't for the duo poly known as
> MS and Intel. The consumer probably wouldn't have as much power as they
> have in such a short time frame.
Yes and no. Instead of intel toys we would have 68000 based toys and
all be running unix with X instead of the ms clone with toy windoz.
Maybe the Z8000 series would have been competitive, instead. The end
result would have been much the same. By now comsumers would have had
some sort of powerbox-cpu with a different OS base (probably unix based).
GUI's would still have happened. Would CP/M 98 have taken over?
Interesting twist of fate.....RIP Gary....
RDK
User Rdkeys Robert D. Keys
> You're entitled to your point of view, of course. I can even symphatize,
> once in a while. But most of the time I'm *much* happier running emacs
> on a P-166 than a 16 MHz Sun-3/50 - and I'm also quite certain that I
> am more productive today than I was with a Sun-3/50. Not ten times as
> productive, though...
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Yes, but rather than a 16mhz Sun box, it would probably be a 500mhz
Sun box, and the difference then would be minimal. Still, even a
16mhz Sun box or dos box has less bloat than a 100mhz Intel box
loaded for bear on NT. A lot depends upon the software bloat overhead.
Emacs is nice but a bloater, for sure, compared to a zippy little vi.
Vi on the 166 flat flies.
RDK