Death Of Harbour: Welcome to the future
Chris McKillop
I see the writing on the door.....
The Harbour Lab is closing on April 20th, 1998. The last NICE
UNIX lab left in Engineering is being torn down in order to supply
us with another lab of PCs that can idle away while people use
MS Word. <sigh> I personally think that this is unacceptable. If
the average engineering undergrad was taught (or even encouraged to
learn) about the UNIX environment, I think there would be a major
backlash against the closing of this lab. Now we are left with
NO facilities for doing real group computing work. The XTerms
in DC and GAFF are not arranged in such a way to be conducive to
group work, and Polaris is just pointless for doing anything in
a shared, distributed manner.
This term I was taking E&CE 354, a course on Operating System
design. I encouraged (okay, I forced) my group members to work under
a UNIX type environment. Guess what? All but one of them fell in love
with the environment. We had many a late night in the harbour lab and
our productivity would not have been as high in any other lab (that I
am aware of) in Engineering. I really think that it is too bad that
the undergrads in lower terms, and the undergrads that haven't even
arrived here at Waterloo will not have the chance to use the Harbour
lab.
I am sure that this posting will be replied to by the engineering
computing staff stating that the licenses could not be updated. Well,
I am pretty sure that this is no longer true, not since Compaq bought
out Digital anyways. I am not sure what the real reason is anymore,
but I am sure that it is highly political. We are probably trying to
get the % of computers to students up for our ranking next year (if
so, this is just as bad as telling all the senior students that they
can't come into village next year because it is a good selling point
to have rooms for frosh).
There is however, some saving grace for those who want to have a
UNIX environment; although maybe not for course work. Start or get
involved with a student group and get them to use UNIX machines. I
know of at least 2 E&CE student groups (the only two I believe <grin>)
that both have machine(s) setup running some variant of UNIX. Fight
the power!
Chris
PS - Why don't we have FreeBSD (or Linux) labs yet anyways?
--
_________________________________________________
Chris McKillop cdmc...@ece.uwaterloo.ca
Embedded Design Engineer (in training)
Iron Warrior Photo Guy
Bruce Campbell
In article <89272815...@globe.uwaterloo.ca> cdmc...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Chris McKillop) writes:
>From: cdmc...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Chris McKillop)
>Subject: Death Of Harbour: Welcome to the future
>Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:04:27 GMT
>I see the writing on the door.....
> The Harbour Lab is closing on April 20th, 1998. The last NICE
>UNIX lab left in Engineering is being torn down in order to supply
>us with another lab of PCs that can idle away while people use
>MS Word. <sigh> I personally think that this is unacceptable. If
>the average engineering undergrad was taught (or even encouraged to
>learn) about the UNIX environment, I think there would be a major
>backlash against the closing of this lab. Now we are left with
>NO facilities for doing real group computing work. The XTerms
>in DC and GAFF are not arranged in such a way to be conducive to
>group work, and Polaris is just pointless for doing anything in
>a shared, distributed manner.
I don't see your point. You can run telnet or X from Waterloo
Polaris, and login to unix if you want to work in a multi user
operating system. If it is the way the computers are grouped
together you like in Harbour, that is not operating system dependent.
I'm getting the opinion your arguments are based on a personal operating
system bias, and not the best way to deliver computing services to
Engineering users.
> This term I was taking E&CE 354, a course on Operating System
>design. I encouraged (okay, I forced) my group members to work under
>a UNIX type environment. Guess what? All but one of them fell in love
>with the environment. We had many a late night in the harbour lab and
>our productivity would not have been as high in any other lab (that I
>am aware of) in Engineering. I really think that it is too bad that
>the undergrads in lower terms, and the undergrads that haven't even
>arrived here at Waterloo will not have the chance to use the Harbour
>lab.
> I am sure that this posting will be replied to by the engineering
>computing staff stating that the licenses could not be updated. Well,
>I am pretty sure that this is no longer true, not since Compaq bought
>out Digital anyways. I am not sure what the real reason is anymore,
>but I am sure that it is highly political.
The utilization of the room is very low compared to Waterloo Polaris labs,
making it inefficient use of limitted space.
When the Polaris machines are moved from LEVER to the harbour lab, you
will still be able to telnet or X into novice (or any unix host
where you have an account), and do unix programming. No functionality is
being lost, but flexibility is being increased.
The existing LEVER room (CPH-3390A) is very small, and not suitable for
the 12 machines that are in there.
> We are probably trying to
>get the % of computers to students up for our ranking next year (if
>so,
Nope.
> this is just as bad as telling all the senior students that they
>can't come into village next year because it is a good selling point
>to have rooms for frosh).
> There is however, some saving grace for those who want to have a
>UNIX environment; although maybe not for course work. Start or get
>involved with a student group and get them to use UNIX machines. I
>know of at least 2 E&CE student groups (the only two I believe <grin>)
>that both have machine(s) setup running some variant of UNIX. Fight
>the power!
We are all on the same side, incidentally.
> Chris
>PS - Why don't we have FreeBSD (or Linux) labs yet anyways?
That would limit flexibility alot.
>--
>_________________________________________________
>Chris McKillop cdmc...@ece.uwaterloo.ca
>Embedded Design Engineer (in training)
>Iron Warrior Photo Guy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Campbell
Engineering Computing
CPH-2374 University of Waterloo
(519) 885-1211 ext 5889
Erick Engelke
Bruce Campbell <BR...@DEVELOPMENT.watstar.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> cdmc...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Chris McKillop) writes:
>
>> The Harbour Lab is closing on April 20th, 1998. The last NICE
>>UNIX lab left in Engineering is being torn down in order to supply
>>us with another lab of PCs that can idle away while people use
>>MS Word.
Just for fun, I'll throw in some facts :
The Harbour lab is presently populated with 20 old DEC stations running
Ultrix. The operating system is no longer supported by the vendor
(in fact they did not want to renew the licenses which expire in
a few weeks), nor is it on IST's supported list. We cannot get
new versions of applications, and the room is one of the least
used because people prefer faster machines with more modern software.
Those machines will be retired.
The replacement Waterloo Polaris lab will not be new machines. All
12 machines in the present Lever lab (CPH) will be moved down
down, four computers will come from the presently crowded Shim/Wedge lab,
and two more will be machines that were previously intended to go
into Gaff. After doing the math, you might notice that the new
room will have only 18 computers (ie. less crowded than Harbour today).
We will also be adding a WEEF-bought printer, so printing will be
available right in that room.
The rearrangement has several noteworthy benefits.
Users looking for a free station will probably find one faster now that
Lever, Shim/Wedge and Wheel are all packed close together.
Old Lever was cramped, hot, and had bad air circulation. It was also tucked
away and harder for UW Police to monitor and thus more prone to situations
requiring UW Police. All of these problems will be gone.
Old Lever had no printing options. Now there will be a printer in the
room, and other printers very close.
><sigh> I personally think that this is unacceptable. If
>>the average engineering undergrad was taught (or even encouraged to
>>learn) about the UNIX environment, I think there would be a major
>>backlash against the closing of this lab.
We in Engineering Computing do not exactly decide what gets taught. We
simply provide the services to be used as the faculty wants. We also
monitor usage so we can base our service on trends. More on that in
a minute.
I'd also like to point out that we have taken several steps to help give
users more exposure to Unix. BTW, making unix attractive is one way of
encouraging more people to use it. These steps can be grouped into new
services, and improvements on existing servers.
New:
- we will soon be giving you access to a new unix web server, with
newer Perl than the present web server.
- automatic Engmail accounts, you don't get much Unix there, but it
is many people's first exposure to Unix.
Improvements:
Novice:
Most of the improvements on Novice were based on reducing the ambient
load on Novice so that undergraduates will have a faster, more reliable
and more capable computing environment. I'm happy to say that the results
have been excellent. Novice is now a better place to work.
- we have moved the news server off of Novice, greatly reducing the
background news load. This has also freed up some disk space
and I believe quotas will be increased in light of this.
- we have moved grad students off of Novice, thus reducing the
load on Novice (for your benefit again).
- Engmail was added to reduce the Email processing cycles on Novice,
occasionally Email was causing Novice to overload.
Apprentice Lab
The apprentice lab is one of the places undergrad and grad courses can
use unix computing.
- we have doubled the memory in the Apprentice lab workstations,
making them more useful for big computing things
>>Now we are left with
>>NO facilities for doing real group computing work. The XTerms
>>in DC and GAFF are not arranged in such a way to be conducive to
>>group work, and Polaris is just pointless for doing anything in
>>a shared, distributed manner.
>If it is the way the computers are grouped
>together you like in Harbour, that is not operating system dependent.
Okay, time to return to my point about monitorring room usage. Harbour
was mostly empty. When we asked its few users, one of the most popular
things about Harbour was the quietness (emptiness) of the room, and the
larger working space of the desks.
I agree that a large working area is very handy, though the messy desks in
my office might lead you to think otherwise. This will not change. We
are keeping the room organization of Harbour.
What will change is that the room will not be a quiet refuge for the few
who know about its existance. Sorry, but we run computer systems and labs,
not library stalls. We have a way to make this comfortable room useful to
more people, and so we will do that. The new computers will be capable
X stations (which is about all the existing machines had become),
but they will also be capable of running all the PC software too.
>>I really think that it is too bad that
>>the undergrads in lower terms, and the undergrads that haven't even
>>arrived here at Waterloo will not have the chance to use the Harbour
>>lab.
They will, but computing does not stand still, the new lab will essentially
be a superset of the existing functionality, but it will be used more heavily.
>> I am sure that this posting will be replied to by the engineering
>>computing staff stating that the licenses could not be updated. Well,
>>I am pretty sure that this is no longer true, not since Compaq bought
>>out Digital anyways. I am not sure what the real reason is anymore,
>>but I am sure that it is highly political.
>The utilization of the room is very low compared to Waterloo Polaris labs,
>making it inefficient use of limitted space.
>> We are probably trying to
>>get the % of computers to students up for our ranking next year (if
>>so,
>
>Nope.
Redistributing existing machines does not change the ratio.
Erick
--
Erick Engelke Engineering Computing
University of Waterloo
Manager, Networks and Systems Integration er...@uwaterloo.ca
Adam Frank Nevraumont
In article <BRUCE.774...@DEVELOPMENT.watstar.uwaterloo.ca>,
Bruce Campbell <BR...@DEVELOPMENT.watstar.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <89272815...@globe.uwaterloo.ca> cdmc...@ece.uwaterloo.ca
>(Chris McKillop) writes:
[SNIP away excess text]
>>PS - Why don't we have FreeBSD (or Linux) labs yet anyways?
>
>That would limit flexibility alot.
Out of Curiosity, has allowing the Polaris-style workstations to boot into
Linux/FreeBSD/some *nix been looked into?
This would increase flexibility, and give students who wanted to work in
a *nix type environment a source of computational cycles.
I've never used a Polaris box, but from what I understand they reboot for
each user anyhow. . . (well, the OS restarts?)
Just an idea I stole off a related thread elsewhere, and I was curious
asto what difficulties such a system would entail.
--
Adam Frank Nevraumont
Adam.Ne...@zeno10.math.uwaterloo.ca
<URL:http://hermite.math.uwaterloo.ca/%7Eafnevrau/>
#include "http://hermite.math.uwaterloo.ca/%7Eafnevrau/spam-disclaimer.txt"
Chris McKillop
In article <BRUCE.774...@DEVELOPMENT.watstar.uwaterloo.ca>,
Bruce Campbell <BR...@DEVELOPMENT.watstar.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <89272815...@globe.uwaterloo.ca> cdmc...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Chris McKillop) writes:
>>Subject: Death Of Harbour: Welcome to the future
>>Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:04:27 GMT
>
>Polaris, and login to unix if you want to work in a multi user
>together you like in Harbour, that is not operating system dependent.
>system bias, and not the best way to deliver computing services to
>Engineering users.
>
>
If running the XWindows server under Win32 did not crash so much
and did X style cut and paste, it might be usable. Currently, I find
the software far too unreliable (to the point of BSODing Polaris once,
mind you, that did only occur once). So, Eric has presented my idea
of providing a dual-boot system in which a UNIX (BSD/Linux)
environement could be chosen over Polaris at boot time. I know this
can be done using NIS/NIS+ and NFS, could this not also be an option
from engineering computing?
>
>The utilization of the room is very low compared to Waterloo Polaris labs,
>making it inefficient use of limitted space.
>
I would venture this forward. If there had been a notice telling
people that thier novice userid/password was the key to entry, that
lab would have been packed all the time. I have to agree though, that
since people thought it was a restricted lab and since people didn't
realize the method of performing remote logins, it was under utilized
most of the time. This lack of information is the result of people
not being informed of the facilities, not that the facilities where
lacking. However, in the last two weeks before exams, just about every
day that lab was packed. It was packed with people doing productive
GROUP work. Very few of the people where using those machines as any
more than glorified XTerms, but they where still using them.
As for the licencing issue that Erick brought up, I have
heard that the Compaq buyout resolved this issue so that the machines
could continue to be used. I have a use for those machines as
XTerminals in the Aerial Robotics Lab in E2-2366. I would be more
than happy to move several of them off your hands and into a lab
where they could be put to good use! :)
>
>>PS - Why don't we have FreeBSD (or Linux) labs yet anyways?
>
>That would limit flexibility alot.
>
See above.
Chris Redmond
In article <89273941...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>,
Eric Praetzel <prae...@maxwell.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Those of you that know me know I harbor a rabid hatred of the devil
> in Redmond.
Hey, I represent that remark. . . .
CAR
Kenneth Tam
In article <89274096...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>,
Erick Engelke <er...@sail.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Bruce Campbell <BR...@DEVELOPMENT.watstar.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>> cdmc...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Chris McKillop) writes:
>>
>>> The Harbour Lab is closing on April 20th, 1998. The last NICE
>>>UNIX lab left in Engineering is being torn down in order to supply
>>>us with another lab of PCs that can idle away while people use
>>>MS Word.
.. much elided ..
>>>NO facilities for doing real group computing work. The XTerms
>>>in DC and GAFF are not arranged in such a way to be conducive to
>>>group work, and Polaris is just pointless for doing anything in
>>>a shared, distributed manner.
>
>>If it is the way the computers are grouped
>>together you like in Harbour, that is not operating system dependent.
>
>Okay, time to return to my point about monitorring room usage. Harbour
>was mostly empty. When we asked its few users, one of the most popular
>things about Harbour was the quietness (emptiness) of the room, and the
>larger working space of the desks.
>
>I agree that a large working area is very handy, though the messy desks in
>my office might lead you to think otherwise. This will not change. We
>are keeping the room organization of Harbour.
>
>What will change is that the room will not be a quiet refuge for the few
>who know about its existance. Sorry, but we run computer systems and labs,
>not library stalls. We have a way to make this comfortable room useful to
>more people, and so we will do that. The new computers will be capable
>X stations (which is about all the existing machines had become),
>but they will also be capable of running all the PC software too.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The fact that this is not possible is one of the big attractions of
Harbour as it stands today. It was really useful to have a lab where you
could have a reasonable expectation of finding a free machine to do some
_work_, as opposed to fighting the crowd of War-craft players and dedicated
web surfers.
I should also mention the convenience of being able to check email without
waiting minutes for Polaris to come up..
(I'm _not_ saying that people don't use Polaris for "real work" -- I _am_
saying that a lot of Polaris machines get tied up by things _other_ than
"real work", and that this seemed to me to be much less common with straight
x-terms like harbour currently has).
Oh well. I understand the reasoning behind the move; I don't even fully
disagree, but I _am_ a little saddened. Yet another reason I'm glad to be
graduating.. (as if I needed any more!)
Bruce Campbell
In article <89274705...@globe.uwaterloo.ca> cdmc...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Chris McKillop) writes:
>From: cdmc...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Chris McKillop)
>Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 17:19:31 GMT
>In article <BRUCE.774...@DEVELOPMENT.watstar.uwaterloo.ca>,
>Bruce Campbell <BR...@DEVELOPMENT.watstar.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>In article <89272815...@globe.uwaterloo.ca> cdmc...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Chris McKillop) writes:
>>>From: cdmc...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Chris McKillop)
>>>Subject: Death Of Harbour: Welcome to the future
>>>Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:04:27 GMT
>>
>>I don't see your point. You can run telnet or X from Waterloo
>>Polaris, and login to unix if you want to work in a multi user
>>operating system. If it is the way the computers are grouped
>>together you like in Harbour, that is not operating system dependent.
>>I'm getting the opinion your arguments are based on a personal operating
>>system bias, and not the best way to deliver computing services to
>>Engineering users.
>>
>>
> If running the XWindows server under Win32 did not crash so much
>and did X style cut and paste, it might be usable.
So, you are looking for a more reliable and powerful X server for 95
then ? We can look into that (although one of our unix
sysadmins uses X on Waterloo Polaris almost exclusively, without
problems, so it can't be *that* bad).
> Currently, I find
>the software far too unreliable (to the point of BSODing Polaris once,
>mind you, that did only occur once). So, Eric has presented my idea
>of providing a dual-boot system in which a UNIX (BSD/Linux)
>environement could be chosen over Polaris at boot time. I know this
>can be done using NIS/NIS+ and NFS, could this not also be an option
>from engineering computing?
Looking at alternate X servers for 95 would be much easier than
supporting an additional operating system.
We don't need a room full of unix machines for general purpose programming,
a central server works great. That is the beauty of unix.
>>
>>The utilization of the room is very low compared to Waterloo Polaris labs,
>>making it inefficient use of limitted space.
>>
> I would venture this forward. If there had been a notice telling
>people that thier novice userid/password was the key to entry, that
>lab would have been packed all the time. I have to agree though, that
>since people thought it was a restricted lab and since people didn't
>realize the method of performing remote logins, it was under utilized
>most of the time. This lack of information is the result of people
>not being informed of the facilities, not that the facilities where
>lacking. However, in the last two weeks before exams, just about every
>day that lab was packed. It was packed with people doing productive
>GROUP work. Very few of the people where using those machines as any
>more than glorified XTerms, but they where still using them.
The table layout will be the same in harbour after conversion
to Waterloo Polaris. Still suitable for group work, and
X work.
> As for the licencing issue that Erick brought up, I have
>heard that the Compaq buyout resolved this issue so that the machines
>could continue to be used. I have a use for those machines as
>XTerminals in the Aerial Robotics Lab in E2-2366. I would be more
>than happy to move several of them off your hands and into a lab
>where they could be put to good use! :)
>>
>>>PS - Why don't we have FreeBSD (or Linux) labs yet anyways?
>>
>>That would limit flexibility alot.
>>
> See above.
>
In summary, Waterloo Polaris offers X, and that is where we will focus
for providing remote access to central unix facilities.
Bruce Campbell
In article <89275309...@globe.uwaterloo.ca> k2...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Kenneth Tam) writes:
>From: k2...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Kenneth Tam)
>Subject: Re: Death Of Harbour: Welcome to the future
>In article <89274096...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>,
>Erick Engelke <er...@sail.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>Bruce Campbell <BR...@DEVELOPMENT.watstar.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>> cdmc...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Chris McKillop) writes:
>>>
>>>> The Harbour Lab is closing on April 20th, 1998. The last NICE
>>>>UNIX lab left in Engineering is being torn down in order to supply
>>>>us with another lab of PCs that can idle away while people use
>>>>MS Word.
>.. much elided ..
>>>>NO facilities for doing real group computing work. The XTerms
>>>>in DC and GAFF are not arranged in such a way to be conducive to
>>>>group work, and Polaris is just pointless for doing anything in
>>>>a shared, distributed manner.
>>
>>>If it is the way the computers are grouped
>>>together you like in Harbour, that is not operating system dependent.
>>
>>Okay, time to return to my point about monitorring room usage. Harbour
>>was mostly empty. When we asked its few users, one of the most popular
>>things about Harbour was the quietness (emptiness) of the room, and the
>>larger working space of the desks.
>>
>>I agree that a large working area is very handy, though the messy desks in
>>my office might lead you to think otherwise. This will not change. We
>>are keeping the room organization of Harbour.
>>
>>What will change is that the room will not be a quiet refuge for the few
>>who know about its existance. Sorry, but we run computer systems and labs,
>>not library stalls. We have a way to make this comfortable room useful to
>>more people, and so we will do that. The new computers will be capable
>>X stations (which is about all the existing machines had become),
>>but they will also be capable of running all the PC software too.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>The fact that this is not possible is one of the big attractions of
>Harbour as it stands today.
Translation: The fact that the harbour lab is not as useful to
as many people means that the few people who want to use it
can consider their own private study area. Am I homing in
on the real issue ?
> It was really useful to have a lab where you
>could have a reasonable expectation of finding a free machine to do some
>_work_, as opposed to fighting the crowd of War-craft players and dedicated
>web surfers.
>I should also mention the convenience of being able to check email without
>waiting minutes for Polaris to come up..
That will be much improved soon.
>(I'm _not_ saying that people don't use Polaris for "real work" -- I _am_
>saying that a lot of Polaris machines get tied up by things _other_ than
>"real work", and that this seemed to me to be much less common with straight
>x-terms like harbour currently has).
>Oh well. I understand the reasoning behind the move; I don't even fully
>disagree, but I _am_ a little saddened. Yet another reason I'm glad to be
>graduating.. (as if I needed any more!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick Engelke
In article <89275309...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>,
Kenneth Tam <k2...@ece.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <89274096...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>,
>Erick Engelke <er...@sail.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>> cdmc...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Chris McKillop) writes:
>>>
>>>> The Harbour Lab is closing on April 20th, 1998. The last NICE
>>>>UNIX lab left in Engineering is being torn down in order to supply
>>>>us with another lab of PCs that can idle away while people use
>>>>MS Word.
>
>
>>>>NO facilities for doing real group computing work. The XTerms
>>>>in DC and GAFF are not arranged in such a way to be conducive to
>>>>group work, and Polaris is just pointless for doing anything in
>>>>a shared, distributed manner.
>>
>>>If it is the way the computers are grouped
>>>together you like in Harbour, that is not operating system dependent.
>>
>>Okay, time to return to my point about monitorring room usage. Harbour
>>was mostly empty. When we asked its few users, one of the most popular
>>things about Harbour was the quietness (emptiness) of the room, and the
>>larger working space of the desks.
>>
>>I agree that a large working area is very handy, though the messy desks in
>>my office might lead you to think otherwise. This will not change. We
>>are keeping the room organization of Harbour.
>>
>>What will change is that the room will not be a quiet refuge for the few
>>who know about its existance. Sorry, but we run computer systems and labs,
>>not library stalls. We have a way to make this comfortable room useful to
>>more people, and so we will do that. The new computers will be capable
>>X stations (which is about all the existing machines had become),
>>but they will also be capable of running all the PC software too.
>The fact that this is not possible is one of the big attractions of
>could have a reasonable expectation of finding a free machine to do some
>_work_, as opposed to fighting the crowd of War-craft players and dedicated
>web surfers.
>
>I should also mention the convenience of being able to check email without
>waiting minutes for Polaris to come up..
>
>saying that a lot of Polaris machines get tied up by things _other_ than
>"real work", and that this seemed to me to be much less common with straight
>x-terms like harbour currently has).
>
>Oh well. I understand the reasoning behind the move; I don't even fully
>disagree, but I _am_ a little saddened. Yet another reason I'm glad to be
>graduating.. (as if I needed any more!)
>
Kenneth Tam
In article <BRUCE.776...@DEVELOPMENT.watstar.uwaterloo.ca>,
Bruce Campbell <BR...@DEVELOPMENT.watstar.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>In article <89275309...@globe.uwaterloo.ca> k2...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Kenneth Tam) writes:
>>From: k2...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Kenneth Tam)
>>Subject: Re: Death Of Harbour: Welcome to the future
>>Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 19:00:15 GMT
>
>>>> cdmc...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Chris McKillop) writes:
>>>>
>>>who know about its existance. Sorry, but we run computer systems and labs,
>>>not library stalls. We have a way to make this comfortable room useful to
>>>more people, and so we will do that. The new computers will be capable
>>>X stations (which is about all the existing machines had become),
>>>but they will also be capable of running all the PC software too.
>>The fact that this is not possible is one of the big attractions of
>>Harbour as it stands today.
>
>as many people means that the few people who want to use it
>can consider their own private study area. Am I homing in
>on the real issue ?
In part. What you're saying is true, however, this is really a
double-edged sword; the fact is that Polaris both:
1) More useful to more people.
AND
2) More prone to abuse by more people.
You're focusing on 1), whereas I want to point out that 2) is also true.
As I said before:
>> It was really useful to have a lab where you
>>could have a reasonable expectation of finding a free machine to do some
>>_work_, as opposed to fighting the crowd of War-craft players and dedicated
>>web surfers.
I'm glad to hear the "time required to check mail" will be improved soon.
I imagine this has something to do with making Polaris load faster?
David R. Pritchard
>>The utilization of the room is very low compared to Waterloo Polaris labs,
>>making it inefficient use of limitted space.
>>
>
> I would venture this forward. If there had been a notice telling
>people that thier novice userid/password was the key to entry, that
>lab would have been packed all the time. I have to agree though, that
Worse yet - I got in to the room with my novice userid. But I don't get an
account on Harbour, it seems. If it was a more publicly usable lab,
there'd be more public usage.
I'm still shocked by the poor Unix exposure given to UW engineers. The
awful default Novice settings (ugly window manager, no "menu of apps", no
terminal settings for command-line editing or "editmode=emacs") turn off
most users instantly. I've also heard that Novice software isn't
maintained because "it's an experimental server". Having alternatives like
Harbour makes life that much more tolerable - for those with access.
I have set up a page of Novice customizations for my friends - see
http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/Student/drpritch/novice
I agree with Eric's comment about LaTeX - I just discovered it on my work
term, and I've fallen in love. More engineers should learn about these
tools. Eric's done some nice work with a Xilinx compiler on a Unix box
in our 223 labs too, as I recall... :)
As for the windows X server - I'm no fan. I don't get a nice window
manager, virtual desktops (well, I don't get that anyways), or a decent
sized monitor. It's handy when I want to do some Real Programming and
there are no terminals left in GAFF, but it's still no substitute for
real terminals.
David
--
David Pritchard drpr...@uwaterloo.ca
http://chebucto.ns.ca/~ai782 Waterloo CompEng 2B
--
--
David Pritchard University of Waterloo CompEng 2B
drpr...@uwaterloo.ca http://ccn.cs.dal.ca/~ai782
Kenneth Tam
In article <89276060...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>,
David R. Pritchard <drpr...@tyrant.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>>The utilization of the room is very low compared to Waterloo Polaris labs,
>>>making it inefficient use of limitted space.
>>>
>>
>> I would venture this forward. If there had been a notice telling
>>people that thier novice userid/password was the key to entry, that
>>lab would have been packed all the time. I have to agree though, that
>
>Worse yet - I got in to the room with my novice userid. But I don't get an
>account on Harbour, it seems. If it was a more publicly usable lab,
>there'd be more public usage.
It _is_ publicly usable; the machines there are set up to allow you to
directly do a remote login to any *NIX machine you have access to.. at
this point that would probably mean just novice for most of your class,
though it looks like you're doing a URA and have access to the PADS machines,
and you'll get ece access starting next term.
Of course, this is extremely poorly documented, if at all. There _used_
to be notices on the walls describing this remote login thing, but they
seem to have vanished.
>I'm still shocked by the poor Unix exposure given to UW engineers. The
Yep. Granted, a university engineering education is arguably not
directly about learning UNIX (or WinXX or <your favourite OS>), but giving
us an environment that facilitates that kind of learning is surely a Good
Thing.
>I agree with Eric's comment about LaTeX - I just discovered it on my work
>term, and I've fallen in love. More engineers should learn about these
>tools.
;) I prefer not to have to have a reference book with me whenever I want
to cobble together a report. I don't think LaTeX shows its strengths
very well in the kinds of writing that eng. students tend to do
for their coursework; actually, given Eric's complaints about people
spending too much time doing their lab reports, I shudder to think how
much worse it would be if y'all had to learn how to do it in LaTeX..
Gerald Wang
In article <89275309...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>,
Kenneth Tam <k2...@ece.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>I should also mention the convenience of being able to check email without
>waiting minutes for Polaris to come up..
You know, there is a way to set up your Polaris configuration so that
you can login directly into DOS and still have Telnet capabilities. I've
seen it done but I don't know the details. This would be helpful as I
can use DOS and Win 3.11 for the bulk of my work. But someone mentioned
that the Polaris Win95 login process is going to be made faster in the
near future so I'll just wait for this to happen.
A note about the Harbour lab... I had no idea what it was for until
about a month ago when Chris showed me the procedure for accessing the
room. It's pretty nifty, actually. I wish I'd known about this lab
earlier. For some reason I'd always thought that it was some sort of
an upper-year Civil lab. And I don't know of anyone in my class who knew
what it was for either (I'm in 3A, btw).
Anyways, I hope the desk arrangement and lighting (I hate flourescent
lighting) will remain similar to what it was before.
Regards,
Gerald
Bruce Campbell
In article <89276232...@globe.uwaterloo.ca> k2...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Kenneth Tam) writes:
>From: k2...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Kenneth Tam)
>Subject: Re: Death Of Harbour: Welcome to the future
>In article <89276060...@globe.uwaterloo.ca>,
>David R. Pritchard <drpr...@tyrant.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>>>The utilization of the room is very low compared to Waterloo Polaris labs,
>>>>making it inefficient use of limitted space.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would venture this forward. If there had been a notice telling
>>>people that thier novice userid/password was the key to entry, that
>>>lab would have been packed all the time. I have to agree though, that
>>
>>Worse yet - I got in to the room with my novice userid. But I don't get an
>>account on Harbour, it seems. If it was a more publicly usable lab,
>>there'd be more public usage.
>It _is_ publicly usable; the machines there are set up to allow you to
>directly do a remote login to any *NIX machine you have access to.. at
>this point that would probably mean just novice for most of your class,
>though it looks like you're doing a URA and have access to the PADS machines,
>and you'll get ece access starting next term.
>Of course, this is extremely poorly documented, if at all.
The Engineering Computing web page describes the room, and how to get in.
> There _used_
>to be notices on the walls describing this remote login thing, but they
>seem to have vanished.
>>I'm still shocked by the poor Unix exposure given to UW engineers. The
>Yep. Granted, a university engineering education is arguably not
>directly about learning UNIX (or WinXX or <your favourite OS>), but giving
>us an environment that facilitates that kind of learning is surely a Good
>Thing.
>>I agree with Eric's comment about LaTeX - I just discovered it on my work
>>term, and I've fallen in love. More engineers should learn about these
>>tools.
>;) I prefer not to have to have a reference book with me whenever I want
>to cobble together a report. I don't think LaTeX shows its strengths
>very well in the kinds of writing that eng. students tend to do
>for their coursework; actually, given Eric's complaints about people
>spending too much time doing their lab reports, I shudder to think how
>much worse it would be if y'all had to learn how to do it in LaTeX..
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Erick Engelke
Kenneth Tam <k2...@ece.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Bruce Campbell <BR...@DEVELOPMENT.watstar.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>>Erick Engelke <er...@sail.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>>>Bruce Campbell <BR...@DEVELOPMENT.watstar.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>>>> cdmc...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (Chris McKillop) writes:
>>
>>Translation: The fact that the harbour lab is not as useful to
>>as many people means that the few people who want to use it
>>can consider their own private study area. Am I homing in
>>on the real issue ?
>
>In part. What you're saying is true, however, this is really a
>double-edged sword; the fact is that Polaris both:
>
>1) More useful to more people.
>AND
>2) More prone to abuse by more people.
>
>You're focusing on 1), whereas I want to point out that 2) is also true.
>As I said before:
>
>>> It was really useful to have a lab where you
>>>could have a reasonable expectation of finding a free machine to do some
>>>_work_, as opposed to fighting the crowd of War-craft players and dedicated
>>>web surfers.
You are free to remind users that games are not allowed.
You are free to call UW Police from the various free phones (x4911)
and tell them that there is game playing going on (give them the
building and room number) and it is interfering with school work.
It doesn't hurt to mention that signs in the room and a login
say NO GAMES.
You can submit the users name to the consulting office and some action
will be taken the next day. I'll explain how to get the info you
need for this last method:
In a DOS window, run: whoson local @lever
to list everyone logged in at lever, or replace it with another server
name. (It may say private if the user chose to be discreet, in
keeping with UW practices of allowing a student to not have his/her
name published, but the station number is still present and valid).
Remove names you know not to be game players. Later, if you can find
the station number (it is displayed at the login prompt after the people
leave), you know who did it.
We have online logs going back for years, we will verify the user
and the forms of activity at the station. This information will be
forwarded to an abuse co-ordinator for your faculty, and he or she
will deal with the matter directly or pass it to someone in authority to
do so.
>I'm glad to hear the "time required to check mail" will be improved soon.
>I imagine this has something to do with making Polaris load faster?
Yes.
Erick
Erick Engelke
David R. Pritchard <drpr...@tyrant.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>I'm still shocked by the poor Unix exposure given to UW engineers. The
>terminal settings for command-line editing or "editmode=emacs") turn off
>most users instantly. I've also heard that Novice software isn't
>maintained because "it's an experimental server". Having alternatives like
>Harbour makes life that much more tolerable - for those with access.
Real unix users don't need X (Tim Allen styled grunt probably required)
No, novice is not supposed to be an experiment. It is on the xhier
list, and, being a 'currently supported platform' by IST (unlike Ultrix,
see http://www.ist/sy/csi/supported.unix.html), Novice is typically better
supported than Ultrix computers on campus and gets updates to software.
As you continue this thread you might want to remove all newsgroups
except uw.engineering.computing since you seem to be talking only
to the Engineering users.
Erick Engelke
Gerald Wang <gtw...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Kenneth Tam <k2...@ece.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>I should also mention the convenience of being able to check email without
>>waiting minutes for Polaris to come up..
>
>You know, there is a way to set up your Polaris configuration so that
>you can login directly into DOS and still have Telnet capabilities. I've
>seen it done but I don't know the details. This would be helpful as I
>can use DOS and Win 3.11 for the bulk of my work. But someone mentioned
>that the Polaris Win95 login process is going to be made faster in the
>near future so I'll just wait for this to happen.
Good idea.
The new fast logins will kill the unpublished TELNET from DOS option anyways.
For anyone who wants to know, the reason this `feature' will disappear
is because the new logins will occur after Windows has already taken over
the TCP/IP communications of the machine, and the existing DOS TELNET
applications all require they they (the application or some extra TSR)
be in charge of TCP/IP communications.