MAC/PC: AND THE WINNER ISŠ MAC, FAR AWAY: READ THIS
John Goerzen
[deletion]
: In article <4g7d27$1...@complete.org>,
: John Goerzen <jgoe...@complete.org> wrote:
: >Loren Petrich (pet...@netcom.com) wrote:
: And.... We are supposed to be impressed? I can do some of these
: things on Unix systems as well, but who cares?
: I've seen a lot of your posts trying to play that stupid
: configurability card on Macs with things that just don't matter at all to
: whether you use a computer or not.
: Personally, I feel sorry for the people who try to argue the
: strong points of Mac OS with you. You just don't get it. There is
: something you are honestly missing, but for some reason (no matter how
: many times you post) you just can't realize it.
And this thing that I'm missing is ??
: Stay with FreeBSD! There is nothing wrong with that OS! All I
: would ask is that the next time you come across a Mac, don't treat it
: with so much disdain. It was produced by people who really do care about
: making a great product as well as paying for their food (along with a few
: luxury items... Did that ever make anybody bad?).
I never said for a minute that the creators of the Mac don't care about
making a quality product. For that matter, the designers of Win95 probably
cared about making a quality product. The point is -- the product falls
short of the aspirations.
: Those things you are complaining about mostly don't matter one
: bit to a computer user. If they did, they would have hacked the system to
: pieces by now (like they have to Unix). I mean honestly, having used Unix
: so much, don't you think that a computer guru could hack into Mac OS and
: change it to something else if they really wanted to?
No source code means it is many times more difficult to make an improvement
to the OS.
: Some did want to and they did change it. Mac OS programmers
: didn't create a monolith. If you know how, you can make any computer do
: tricks (whether you are basterdizing the OS or not... And trust me, a lot
: of the stuff that makes Unix so wonderful are basterdizations... but then
: it doesn't really matter because Unix is basically public domain in many
: ways).
If the MacOS programmers really cared about users adding on to it and
improving it, they would have included the source code.
: When I read your posts, I'm not going: "My God! You can't change
: shell environments on a Mac! Mac OS is so inferior!"
The point is that Macs give you no choice. It's ``You take what I'm giving
you or else!'' On Unix, you have a choice. Text or GUI. Bash or tcsh.
fvwm or twm.
: I doubt anybody else is. You know what? I think I'm right in my
: assesment.
Oh, so you say that choice, speed, performance, value, reliability,
compatbility, and stability are all issues that don't matter?
--
John Goerzen, programmer and owner | Freedom..liberty..justice..democracy|
Communications Centre, Goessel, KS | ..limits on free spech on the Net...|
Main e-mail: jgoe...@complete.org | Which one doesn't belong? |
ALE
> : bit to a computer user. If they did, they would have hacked the system to
> : pieces by now (like they have to Unix). I mean honestly, having used Unix
> : so much, don't you think that a computer guru could hack into Mac OS and
> : change it to something else if they really wanted to?
>
> No source code means it is many times more difficult to make an improvement
> to the OS.
No way to be sure that a change would be for the better.
> : Some did want to and they did change it. Mac OS programmers
> : didn't create a monolith. If you know how, you can make any computer do
> : tricks (whether you are basterdizing the OS or not... And trust me, a lot
> : of the stuff that makes Unix so wonderful are basterdizations... but then
> : it doesn't really matter because Unix is basically public domain in many
> : ways).
>
> If the MacOS programmers really cared about users adding on to it and
> improving it, they would have included the source code.
In case you forgot, this is Apples program. They do have the right to
keep a hold on what theirs. Given the source code, people could change a
few things, call it a new product, and start selling. I think thats
wrong. If your going to use this argument against Apple, at least compare
it to an OS thats for sale, not a free item like Unix.
> : When I read your posts, I'm not going: "My God! You can't change
> : shell environments on a Mac! Mac OS is so inferior!"
>
> The point is that Macs give you no choice. It's ``You take what I'm giving
> you or else!'' On Unix, you have a choice. Text or GUI. Bash or tcsh.
> fvwm or twm.
I'll remember that I have no choise when I load up Unix on my Mac. Let
say your right, that I have no choise. Why should I care about "take what
we give you!" if thats all I want anyway? Almost all Mac users are
compleately happy with Mac OS, so who cares if that the only choise?
> : I doubt anybody else is. You know what? I think I'm right in my
> : assesment.
>
> Oh, so you say that choice, speed, performance, value, reliability,
> compatbility, and stability are all issues that don't matter?
I don't see where he said that, but... lets go through your list.
Choice: Mac or PC, I want a Mac. My choice.
Speed: BYTE said "The PPC 604 is 78% faster than the leading PC CPU, the P133".
Performance: same as speed.
Value: MS had in which Mac required less upkeep than PCs.
Reliability: Of all the OS in the Mac OS range (Win31, DOS, Win95) Mac OS
the leader.
Compatbility: Mac is number one in this area.
ALE
mrkite
> > If the MacOS programmers really cared about users adding on to it and
> > improving it, they would have included the source code.
>
> In case you forgot, this is Apples program. They do have the right to
> keep a hold on what theirs. Given the source code, people could change a
> few things, call it a new product, and start selling. I think thats
> wrong. If your going to use this argument against Apple, at least compare
> it to an OS thats for sale, not a free item like Unix.
are you completely clueless? There are THOUSANDS of products with
source code out, and very little have been duplicated and ZERO have been
sold. Copyright laws still apply even though sourcecode has been
released...
maybe you should read through the GNU license for once, instead of
blindly deleting it and changing the sourcecode to say *your* name
instead of the author's.
Joshua T. McKee
: I never said for a minute that the creators of the Mac don't care about
: making a quality product. For that matter, the designers of Win95 probably
: cared about making a quality product. The point is -- the product falls
: short of the aspirations.
Whos aspirations...yours???
: No source code means it is many times more difficult to make an improvement
: to the OS.
Who should be responsible for the improvements to the os? Should the end
user? What about the company that wrote the os? Most people have no
"aspirations" to make improvements to the os...they only want to use the
computer as a tool. This seems to be the hardest concept for a lot of
PC/Unix users to grasp. Most mac users don't want to spend time doing
things like this. They want to turn it on, do their work and then turn it
off. The mac is by no means perfect, but it delivers on this philosophy
better than any other computer, and isn't that what computers were
designed for?
: If the MacOS programmers really cared about users adding on to it and
: improving it, they would have included the source code.
John...you actually own a business? You don't seem to have much business
sense. Just about every software developer does not include source code.
The only major company that I know that gives away its source code is
Borland. And only for the library functions in its compilers.
: The point is that Macs give you no choice. It's ``You take what I'm giving
: you or else!'' On Unix, you have a choice. Text or GUI. Bash or tcsh.
: fvwm or twm.
Why is this another difficult point to grasp...people buy the macintosh
for the mac os. If you wanted something else, you bought the wrong
computer.
Josh
ALE
<mrk...@coro24.rescomp.arizona.edu> wrote:
> ALE wrote:
> > > If the MacOS programmers really cared about users adding on to it and
> > > improving it, they would have included the source code.
> >
> > In case you forgot, this is Apples program. They do have the right to
> > keep a hold on what theirs. Given the source code, people could change a
> > few things, call it a new product, and start selling. I think thats
> > wrong. If your going to use this argument against Apple, at least compare
> > it to an OS thats for sale, not a free item like Unix.
>
> There are THOUSANDS of products with
> source code out, and very little have been duplicated and ZERO have been
> sold.
And your proof of this is...
ALE
mrkite
> > There are THOUSANDS of products with
> > source code out, and very little have been duplicated and ZERO have been
> > sold.
>
> And your proof of this is...
proof? take a look at the licenses included in the source codes, it's
*illegal* to sell a GNU product. It's illegal to modify the product and
remarket it.
People who rip code are known as LAMERS... it's not socially accepted.
-mrk
John Goerzen
: No way to be sure that a change would be for the better.
If you are using it on your own computer, I see no reason for it to be
worse!
: > If the MacOS programmers really cared about users adding on to it and
: > improving it, they would have included the source code.
: In case you forgot, this is Apples program. They do have the right to
: keep a hold on what theirs. Given the source code, people could change a
: few things, call it a new product, and start selling. I think thats
: wrong. If your going to use this argument against Apple, at least compare
: it to an OS thats for sale, not a free item like Unix.
BSDi, a *commercial* Unix, comes with the source code (I believe they charge
you extra for it, though)
: > : When I read your posts, I'm not going: "My God! You can't change
: > : shell environments on a Mac! Mac OS is so inferior!"
: >
: > The point is that Macs give you no choice. It's ``You take what I'm giving
: > you or else!'' On Unix, you have a choice. Text or GUI. Bash or tcsh.
: > fvwm or twm.
: I'll remember that I have no choise when I load up Unix on my Mac. Let
: say your right, that I have no choise. Why should I care about "take what
: we give you!" if thats all I want anyway? Almost all Mac users are
: compleately happy with Mac OS, so who cares if that the only choise?
I was referring to MacOS. The same situation is true of Windows on a PC.
But compared to Unix, MacOS and Windows both are very poor in terms of
choice.
: > : I doubt anybody else is. You know what? I think I'm right in my
: > : assesment.
: >
: > Oh, so you say that choice, speed, performance, value, reliability,
: > compatbility, and stability are all issues that don't matter?
: I don't see where he said that, but... lets go through your list.
: Choice: Mac or PC, I want a Mac. My choice.
On MacOS, you do not have choice. You are stuck with the interface they
provide. You cannot even modify that one.
: Speed: BYTE said "The PPC 604 is 78% faster than the leading PC CPU, the P133".
: Performance: same as speed.
MacOS has poor performance.
: Value: MS had in which Mac required less upkeep than PCs.
My Unix is totally free and can do more than your expensive MacOS can.
That's value! And once it's originally configured, it does not require
constant configuration.
: Reliability: Of all the OS in the Mac OS range (Win31, DOS, Win95) Mac OS
: the leader.
You are neglecting to include OS/2, FreeBSD, Linux, and some others. All of
which are better than MacOS.
: Compatbility: Mac is number one in this area.
Ha ha! On my FreeBSD box, I can run software written for FreeBSD, Linux,
SunOS, DEC, AIX, etc.
: ALE
John Goerzen
: : I never said for a minute that the creators of the Mac don't care about
: : making a quality product. For that matter, the designers of Win95 probably
: : cared about making a quality product. The point is -- the product falls
: : short of the aspirations.
: Whos aspirations...yours???
Anybody's. Anybody that wants a quality OS.
: : No source code means it is many times more difficult to make an improvement
: : to the OS.
: Who should be responsible for the improvements to the os? Should the end
: user? What about the company that wrote the os? Most people have no
The company that wrote the OS should be responsible for upgrades, yes.
However, the end user should also have the _ability_ to do that if he needs
to.
: "aspirations" to make improvements to the os...they only want to use the
: computer as a tool. This seems to be the hardest concept for a lot of
: PC/Unix users to grasp. Most mac users don't want to spend time doing
: things like this. They want to turn it on, do their work and then turn it
: off. The mac is by no means perfect, but it delivers on this philosophy
: better than any other computer, and isn't that what computers were
: designed for?
It is by no means required that you modify a Unix OS! If you want, you can
use it in just the way that you describe above.
: : If the MacOS programmers really cared about users adding on to it and
: : improving it, they would have included the source code.
: John...you actually own a business? You don't seem to have much business
: sense. Just about every software developer does not include source code.
: The only major company that I know that gives away its source code is
: Borland. And only for the library functions in its compilers.
Gee, I guess BSDi must not exist then. (Commercial Unix, they sell the
full source to it too.) Why can't we have free and open OSs? Why must
Apple place their own selfish interests above the customers? If they'd make
the OS open, they could have all sorts of end users sending in upgrade
suggestions and it could repay many times over. Witness Linux or FreeBSD.
Open OSs. Many of their features come from users that had a need for
something, wrote the code, and sent it in to the developers for inclusion in
the OS.
: : The point is that Macs give you no choice. It's ``You take what I'm giving
: : you or else!'' On Unix, you have a choice. Text or GUI. Bash or tcsh.
: : fvwm or twm.
: Why is this another difficult point to grasp...people buy the macintosh
: for the mac os. If you wanted something else, you bought the wrong
: computer.
The point is that MacOS is not very versatile at all.
: Josh
John Goerzen
: In article <4ginuh$g...@college.antioch.edu>, mic...@tychonic.antioch.edu (Michael Smith) writes:
: |>
: |> In article <4ganpp$q...@meaddata.lexis-nexis.com>, chr...@meaddata.com
: |> (Christopher C. Wood) writes:
: |> >df reports blocks, not bytes or K. On solaris, its a challenge to get
: |> >df to report for only the volume containing the current directory.
: |> 'df -k' will report K.
: |> 'df .' will report for the volume containing the current directory.
: Not on HP-UX.
Read your manpage then.
: "df ." produces the message "df: a block device is required when the
: -f option is not specified"
: "df -k" produces the message "df: illegal arg -k".
: Any other suggestions, Unix fans? I am sitting at the unix prompt,
: and I want to know how big a file I can create in the current
: directory. In bytes, K, or M. How do I do it? If you want me to
: test your solution, I'll be using ksh on Solaris 2.3 and HPUX 9.
: Unix. So easy to use, you can't even find out how much disk space you
: have left.
Set your environment variable BLOCKSIZE to 1024 and then run df.
Please read your manpage. If FreeBSD can do it, I'm sure HP-UX can.
: Chris
: --
: Speaking only for myself, of course.
: Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com Chris...@eworld.com
John Goerzen
:
: > : >If I don't like the standard limits on something, like say password length,
: > : >I just go into the source, modify it, and recompile.
: >
: > : I suppose for ultimate configuring and tinkering and things, you really
: > : do need the source, huh?
: >
: > Yup. It's the same feeling of power you get when you drive a 350 V8 :-)
: Are you talking about a "ResEdit" deal?
No, actually editing the source code for the program itself.
: > : >I can change the time and frequency of my UUCP transferrs.
: UUCP? Give me a clue.
UUCP = Unix to Unix Copy Program (or is it Protocol?)
Anyway, with UUCP, you can do these things...
* Transfer files
* Print information
* Transfer mail
* Transfer news
* Trnasfer data for pipe into any command, thus almost anything can be
done
With UUCP, all those jobs are combined into a single UUCP batch. Then, when
two systems connect, the information is exchanged and the data is
interpreted. It is possible to set up UUCP routing as well, making it a
very inexpensive and powerful capability (though not used much anymore in
the wake of the popularity of the 'Net, which allows most of those things
live)
: > : >I can do automatic reboots at a certain time every day.
: Mac has that.
: > : >I can configure what functions the different mouse buttons perform in X.
: Mac does that.
I said "buttons". Mac has "button". Singular.
: > : >I can set what items are on the system menu in X and what each item does.
: Apple script does that (a little more, nothing big though).
Oh, I can also set colors, typestyle, etc. :-)
: > : >I can place other various items on the X background -- not only
: graphics but buttons, clocks, etc.
: Mac can do that as well.
: > : >I can pick from two different X clocks :-) Or have them both running
: at the
: > : >same time.
: I don't get it. Why would you want to clocks? Pick it for what? and why
: would you want a clock to stop running? >:-(
So I know what time it was when it stopped running :-)
: > : I don't have to do anything to run programs directly off the CD, except
: > : insert the disk and ca-click on the icon.
: >
: > I'm talking here about actually running the operating system off the CD-ROM.
: > (Only a skeleton OS has to be installed on the HD actually). FreeBSD is an
: > OS where a full installation takes about 200 megs I believe. My
: > installation took less than 50 I believe (its the source to the OS that
: > takes up those huge chunks of space.)
: HOLY COW!! It really takes 50 MB of HD space? Right now, my system take
That is only because I am running a development system with kernel source
and lots of networking. I believe a minimal installation is less than 30
megs. I think Linux will even run in 10.
: up 15 MB, The basic system takes less than 2 MB. Full installation take
: 200 MB? WOW! Now I know why Macs tend to come with slightly smaller HDs.
The reason a full installation is so large is that it comes with full source
code to all components of the operating system (except a small part of the X
server). This full source allows modification to any part of the OS.
It comes with a C and C++ compiler, Tcl/TK, Perl, GNU debugger, assembler,
and full source code for all of those.
: > You can call up another Mac with PPP and run programs on that Mac and have
: > their output appear on your local screen? With a PPP connection?
: Hmm... Interesting. You mean as in having your monitor actuly becoming a
: remote monitor for the computer you called up? Like having your computer
: become a basic dumy terminal for that other computer? Sounds neat! I
: don't think Macs have this ability. However, I'm not really sure why you
: would want to do this when loading the program onto your own computer,
: from the remote computer, has been proven to run faster. Keep in mind
: that Mac OS was not made as a network OS.
Yes. That works with graphical stuff too.
It's very useful when the computer you're calling is much faster than yours
:-) BTW, it can also do the latter via a PPP connection.
: > : >I can decompress, compress, convert, encode, or decode (as appropriate)
: > : >files in ZIP, ARC, ARJ, LZH, gzip, Unix compress, uuencode, xxencode, PGP,
: > : >MIME, Rot16, tar, raw disk image, FAX, G3, PostScript, PCL, bmp, X bitmap,
: > : >TIFF, JPEG, GIF, HTML, ASCII, etc.
: > : This is more of a utility than a tinker. I can do the same, but I don't
: > : think my utility has as many formats.
: The only two I have yet to see are uuencode and xxencode, never wanted
: them either.
uuencode is similar to binhex (oops...I forgot to mention that one...) but
is more popular on the 'net and I believe is part of the MIME specification.
You'd be well to get it.
Heck, if you've got a C compiler, I can mail you the source code for the
Unix version :-)
Christopher C. Wood
can't do on unix. The answer was report the amount of free space for
the current working directory, in bytes, K, or M.
In article <4grda7$7...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen) writes:
|> Christopher C. Wood (chr...@meaddata.com) wrote:
|> : In article <4ginuh$g...@college.antioch.edu>, mic...@tychonic.antioch.edu (Michael Smith) writes:
|> : |> 'df -k' will report K.
|> : |> 'df .' will report for the volume containing the current directory.
|> : Not on HP-UX.
|> Read your manpage then.
Doesn't mention BLOCKSIZE. Is there a way to map from a path name to
the mounted directory name?
|> : "df ." produces the message "df: a block device is required when the
|> : -f option is not specified"
|> : "df -k" produces the message "df: illegal arg -k".
|> : Any other suggestions, Unix fans? I am sitting at the unix prompt,
|> : and I want to know how big a file I can create in the current
|> : directory. In bytes, K, or M. How do I do it? If you want me to
|> : test your solution, I'll be using ksh on Solaris 2.3 and HPUX 9.
|> : Unix. So easy to use, you can't even find out how much disk space you
|> : have left.
|> Set your environment variable BLOCKSIZE to 1024 and then run df.
OK.
8@ df /home/foo
/home/foo (bar:(pid181) ): 334988 blocks -1 i-nodes
9@ BLOCKSIZE=1024
10@ df /home/foo
/home/foo (bar:(pid181) ): 334988 blocks -1 i-nodes
Didn't work.
|> Please read your manpage. If FreeBSD can do it, I'm sure HP-UX can.
Doesn't say how. Don't confuse the utilities that are shipped with
your unix system with unix itself.
Jon A. Maxwell
] The challenge was to name something you could do on MacOS that
] you can't do on unix. The answer was report the amount of free
] space for the current working directory, in bytes, K, or M.
Like I said in other thread, this is foolish: How do I get the
size reported always in bytes in a MacOS window? We'll answer
your question though, anyway!
] In article <4grda7$7...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen) writes:
] |> : |> 'df -k' will report K.
] |> : |> 'df .' will report for the volume containing the current directory.
] |> : Not on HP-UX.
] |> Read your manpage then.
] |> : Unix. So easy to use, you can't even find out how much
] |> : disk space you have left.
] |> Set your environment variable BLOCKSIZE to 1024 and then run
] |> df.
] 8@ df /home/foo
] /home/foo (bar:(pid181) ): 334988 blocks -1 i-nodes
] 9@ BLOCKSIZE=1024
] 10@ df /home/foo
] /home/foo (bar:(pid181) ): 334988 blocks -1 i-nodes
]
] Didn't work.
how about export BLOCKSIZE?? If you don't even know unix well
enough to use the shell properly, you don't know what you are
criticising!
--
thur Mail Address: LordA...@vt.edu or jmax...@vt.edu
n r
a JAMax "A good style should show no sign of effort. What
h o w is written should seem a happy accident."
tan lle --Somerset Maugham
Christopher C. Wood
|> ] 8@ df /home/foo
|> ] /home/foo (bar:(pid181) ): 334988 blocks -1 i-nodes
|> ] 9@ BLOCKSIZE=1024
|> ] 10@ df /home/foo
|> ] /home/foo (bar:(pid181) ): 334988 blocks -1 i-nodes
|> ] Didn't work.
|> how about export BLOCKSIZE??
[christw@bar@ttyp2] 1@ df /home/foo
/home/foo (bar:(pid181) ): 339652 blocks -1 i-nodes
[christw@bar@ttyp2] 2@ export BLOCKSIZE=1024
[christw@bar@ttyp2] 3@ df /home/foo
/home/foo (bar:(pid181) ): 339652 blocks -1 i-nodes
[christw@bar@ttyp2] 4@
Doesn't work either. Continue making a fool of yourself.
|> If you don't even know unix well enough to use the shell properly,
|> you don't know what you are criticising!
Thank you for your reasoned expertise. Now, how does one find out the
remaining disk space in bytes (or K, or M) for the current directory
on HPUX, Mr. Know-it-all?
Chuck Buckley
Jon A. Maxwell <jmax...@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> wrote:
>Christopher C. Wood wrote:
>] The challenge was to name something you could do on MacOS that
>] you can't do on unix. The answer was report the amount of free
>] space for the current working directory, in bytes, K, or M.
>
>Like I said in other thread, this is foolish: How do I get the
>size reported always in bytes in a MacOS window? We'll answer
>your question though, anyway!
>
>] In article <4grda7$7...@complete.org>, jgoe...@complete.org (John Goerzen) writes:
>] |> : |> 'df -k' will report K.
>] |> : |> 'df .' will report for the volume containing the current directory.
>
>] |> : Not on HP-UX.
>
>] |> Read your manpage then.
>
>] |> : Unix. So easy to use, you can't even find out how much
>] |> : disk space you have left.
>
>] |> Set your environment variable BLOCKSIZE to 1024 and then run
>] |> df.
>
>] /home/foo (bar:(pid181) ): 334988 blocks -1 i-nodes
>] 9@ BLOCKSIZE=1024
>] 10@ df /home/foo
>] /home/foo (bar:(pid181) ): 334988 blocks -1 i-nodes
>]
>] Didn't work.
>
>enough to use the shell properly, you don't know what you are
>criticising!
>
HP-UX has two separate df programs. df reports blocks. bdf (for Bezerkely
df) is the program that you would want to use.
Charles Buckley
Coyote
intelligent, flame-free cross-platform argument!!! You guys really
deserve a round of applause(or beers). I am truly impressed.
-Coyote
John Goerzen
: /home/foo (bar:(pid181) ): 334988 blocks -1 i-nodes
: 9@ BLOCKSIZE=1024
: 10@ df /home/foo
: /home/foo (bar:(pid181) ): 334988 blocks -1 i-nodes
: Didn't work.
I suggest you read the manpage for your shell. You have made a big and very
obvious error.
: |> Please read your manpage. If FreeBSD can do it, I'm sure HP-UX can.
: Doesn't say how. Don't confuse the utilities that are shipped with
: your unix system with unix itself.
: Chris
: --
: Speaking only for myself, of course.
: Chris Wood chr...@lexis-nexis.com Chris...@eworld.com
John Goerzen
: Thank you for your reasoned expertise. Now, how does one find out the
: remaining disk space in bytes (or K, or M) for the current directory
: on HPUX, Mr. Know-it-all?
Gee, it seems that somebody [you!] have ignored an obvious solution yet
again. Ask tech support!
Or read up on your manpages.
Chuck Buckley
Christopher C. Wood <chr...@meaddata.com> wrote:
>In article <4gtbt9$r...@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>, jmax...@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Jon A. Maxwell) writes:
>
>|> ] /home/foo (bar:(pid181) ): 334988 blocks -1 i-nodes
>|> ] 9@ BLOCKSIZE=1024
>|> ] 10@ df /home/foo
>|> ] /home/foo (bar:(pid181) ): 334988 blocks -1 i-nodes
>
>|> ] Didn't work.
>
>
>[christw@bar@ttyp2] 1@ df /home/foo
>/home/foo (bar:(pid181) ): 339652 blocks -1 i-nodes
>[christw@bar@ttyp2] 2@ export BLOCKSIZE=1024
>[christw@bar@ttyp2] 3@ df /home/foo
>/home/foo (bar:(pid181) ): 339652 blocks -1 i-nodes
>[christw@bar@ttyp2] 4@
>
>Doesn't work either. Continue making a fool of yourself.
>
>|> you don't know what you are criticising!
>
>remaining disk space in bytes (or K, or M) for the current directory
>on HPUX, Mr. Know-it-all?
>
$ bdf .
Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on
/dev/dsk/6s0 339066 279680 25479 92% /
Now, would you two please stop this idiotic thread?
Charles Buckley
(Don't speak for HP, but I have some rather informal opinions about
a bunch of idiots trying to discuss computers without bothering to
research the issue)
PS. Neither one of you has the frontal lobes of a penguin inflicted with
Downe's syndrome and should devote your time to weaving belly lint into
sweators for the homeless.
PPS. It was *real* bright of you to cross-post this to alt.flame
Christopher C. Wood
|> In article <4gtgn7$j...@meaddata.lexis-nexis.com>,
|> Christopher C. Wood <chr...@meaddata.com> wrote:
|> >Now, how does one find out the remaining disk space in bytes (or
|> >K, or M) for the current directory on HPUX, Mr. Know-it-all?
|> $ bdf .
|> Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on
|> /dev/dsk/6s0 339066 279680 25479 92% /
Thank you. That works.
Michael Smith
: can't do on unix. The answer was report the amount of free space for
: the current working directory, in bytes, K, or M.
[snip]
: |> : Any other suggestions, Unix fans? I am sitting at the unix prompt,
: |> : and I want to know how big a file I can create in the current
: |> : directory. In bytes, K, or M. How do I do it? If you want me to
: |> : test your solution, I'll be using ksh on Solaris 2.3 and HPUX 9.
OK, here you go:
college% uname -a
SunOS college 5.3 Generic_101318-59 sun4m sparc
college% df .
Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on
/dev/dsk/c0t2d0s0 1444246 601624 698202 46% /home/student
college% df -k
Filesystem kbytes used avail capacity Mounted on
/dev/dsk/c0t3d0s0 57567 23478 28339 45% /
/dev/dsk/c0t3d0s6 363127 64724 262093 20% /usr
/proc 0 0 0 0% /proc
fd 0 0 0 0% /dev/fd
/dev/dsk/c0t1d0s7 482831 144418 290133 33% /var
swap 172676 532 172144 0% /tmp
/dev/dsk/c0t2d0s3 507583 177851 278982 39% /var/mail
/dev/dsk/c0t1d0s6 480815 127854 304881 30% /usr/local
/dev/dsk/c0t5d0s6 977598 376081 503767 43% /home
/dev/dsk/c0t2d0s0 1444246 601624 698202 46% /home/student
/dev/dsk/c0t5d0s0 985608 504796 382252 57% /news
/dev/dsk/c0t3d0s5 480815 196662 236073 45% /opt
Jeffrey L. Powell
: Christopher C. Wood (chr...@meaddata.com) wrote:
: : In article <4ginuh$g...@college.antioch.edu>, mic...@tychonic.antioch.edu (Michael Smith) writes:
: : |>
: : |> (Christopher C. Wood) writes:
: : |> >df reports blocks, not bytes or K. On solaris, its a challenge to get
: : |> >df to report for only the volume containing the current directory.
: : |> 'df -k' will report K.
: : |> 'df .' will report for the volume containing the current directory.
: : Not on HP-UX.
: Read your manpage then.
: : "df ." produces the message "df: a block device is required when the
: : -f option is not specified"
: : "df -k" produces the message "df: illegal arg -k".
: : Any other suggestions, Unix fans? I am sitting at the unix prompt,
: : and I want to know how big a file I can create in the current
: : directory. In bytes, K, or M. How do I do it? If you want me to
: : test your solution, I'll be using ksh on Solaris 2.3 and HPUX 9.
: : Unix. So easy to use, you can't even find out how much disk space you
: : have left.
: Set your environment variable BLOCKSIZE to 1024 and then run df.
: Please read your manpage. If FreeBSD can do it, I'm sure HP-UX can.
It is different on HP-UX.
Use "bdf ." instead of "df ."
--
How do I sign up for one of those 3 hour tours?