--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGM00009 Date: 12/15/95 From: WALTER VAUGHAN Time: 10:30pm \/To: DAVE RATCLIFFE (Read 9 times) Subj: Re: HotJava followup Timeout Dave... I have found the Netscap 2.0beta3 to be extremely stable. Even much more than the the appletviewer. You may want to subscribe to Digital Esspresso. It's a godsend if you are learing Java. They have each weeks issue on-line with links to sample code and finished apps (solitare to word processors). For overt commerical use of Java check out what I have done at http://www.steelerubber.com/ecd.htm What had the chance to get out of hand was Microsoft with there own .html tags like . Thank goodness they are licensing Java. --- Maximus/2 2.02 * Origin: The Programmer's Assistant - Charlotte, N.C. - OS/2 (1:379/4) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGM00010 Date: 12/15/95 From: WALTER VAUGHAN Time: 10:39pm \/To: JERKO GOLUBOVIC (Read 9 times) Subj: Keystroke Capture WV> and capture there. There are probably a thousand software selections WV> that will capture keystrokes. JG> There is a possibility to monitor and capture sockets, so this may help JG> also. With few redirections it's also possible to trap the bash (or ther JG> shell) input/output (and write this into file). Why to involve DOS machine JG> when you can do this on UNIX one? 'Cause we were never informed as to what the host was running. Could be Xenix, could be AT&T 3B2. Could be Ultrix. A foolproof way is to use an old 286.. cheap, dependable. Hardware and software ~$300 max. Free if they have any lying around. Setup time 5 to 6 minutes. Shoot me.. but I use the best easist avaiable tool. It may run on Unix or Dos or Windows. Heck I'd even use OS/2 if it did something I *really* needed it for. The original poster seemed to think there was a very cheap solution. I gave him one. --- Maximus/2 2.02 * Origin: The Programmer's Assistant - Charlotte, N.C. - OS/2 (1:379/4) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGM00011 Date: 12/15/95 From: WALTER VAUGHAN Time: 10:52pm \/To: JOHN POLTORAK (Read 9 times) Subj: Linux YK> (2) OS/2, JP> OS/2 has very little in common with DOS as far as the JP> OS is concerned, even though it may use the same JP> commands. It is very much more like Unix than DOS and JP> has similar sophisticated multi-tasking and memory JP> management features. The essential difference between JP> Unix and OS/2 is that Unix is intrinsically multi-user LG will want us to kill this thread or take it to alt.folklore.os, but AFAIR (and that's getting harder now that I'm on the short side of halfway to 70) the original OS/2 that MS worked on was Xenix (which they own) assembler code with the multi-user stuff removed. Of course it wasn't that simple, but that's basically the template they used in kernal and o.s. development. --- Maximus/2 2.02 * Origin: The Programmer's Assistant - Charlotte, N.C. - OS/2 (1:379/4) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGM00012 Date: 12/15/95 From: WALTER VAUGHAN Time: 11:05pm \/To: ALL (Read 9 times) Subj: More folklore Just got to thinkin... Does anyone remember where Microsoft got Xenix from. Did they buy an AT&T license? I say that because today any new Intel based Unix is expected to run a 8086 binary from 1983 until the cows come home. Everyone bitches and moans about MS, but over ten years ago we had Xenix running stable on 68000 machines (Tandy 16B & 6000), proprietary 8086 architectures (Altos), and the now retired IBM PC-AT motherboard. And who knows what other incarnations were around. Point is Xenix put alot of *nix in small businesses across the planet. Another wierd thing. If I remember correctly, MS owns about 15% of SCO. Now with the stock swap with Novell for Unixware, two of the larger owners of the keeper of the PC Unix flame are Microsoft and Novell. That must make for some really interesting NDA's. --- Maximus/2 2.02 * Origin: The Programmer's Assistant - Charlotte, N.C. - OS/2 (1:379/4) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGM00013 Date: 12/15/95 From: WALTER VAUGHAN Time: 11:26pm \/To: ALL (Read 9 times) Subj: Sun reliablity In the past two years I have seen more hardware failures with my internet providers than can believe. They are having equipment fail like I did nearly ten years ago on our Tandy 6000. Hard-drives, memory chips, power supplies (alot of these lately) amoung other problems. This is with two different companies on Sun equipment. I have had only one hardware related problem in 2 years since moving to Pentium based Unix servers, and that was last week for a DIGIBOARD terminal concentrator. My point is, is it marketing hype (how I earn the salary that feeds my computer habit), or are Sun's not that more reliable with equal load or useage compared with say a Compaq ProServer (whatever it's called). My current IP has 10 sun boxes a 1 SCO unix box (a news-server), and several times a week a machine or two is down a day for something broken.. so there may be no mail or no ftp or no DNS or no telnetting. Any Sun mavens want to comment? --- Maximus/2 2.02 * Origin: The Programmer's Assistant - Charlotte, N.C. - OS/2 (1:379/4) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGM00014 Date: 12/17/95 From: ROLAND SCHMIDT Time: 01:44pm \/To: NATIVIDAD TREVINO (Read 9 times) Subj: communications Hello Natividad! Natividad Trevino konnte seiner Finger nicht still halten und meinte in einer Nachricht zu All: NT> When there is a connection with another system at 19200 & NT> 38400, the screens only view sometimes at half screen. Are these some ANSI-Pictures? Maybe there are some linefeeds in the screen, and the BBS asks you to show the next page. (after 24 LFs) NT> Then, I have to press a key to complete the screen. This NT> happens frequently. It happens in this communication with NT> this BBS. Is the communications script incorrect or is NT> If there is anyone out there who knows a solution, please NT> let me know. Try to switch the "Ask for next page" off in the BBS or use more lines per page. If it works contact the sysop to strip the linefeeds from the ANSIs. NT> Thank you. NT> ___ Maximus/2 3.00 NT> - Origin: Ye Olde Inn III (1:106/9788) Die besten Gruesse aus Thueringen, Roland (with the bad english) --- * Origin: I'm too sexy for this origin (2:249/4060.99) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGM00015 Date: 12/13/95 From: WOLFRAM LEWE Time: 09:57pm \/To: ALLE (Read 9 times) Subj: Text-Editor for AIX Hallo everybody, does anybody know an easy to handle texteditor for example like the DOS- Edit, which I could use instead of the "VI" under AIX 3.2.5 ? All replies are welcome, Wolfram Lewe --- CrossPoint v3.02 * Origin: Pilots do it in the air :-)) (2:243/6301.216) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGM00016 Date: 12/16/95 From: WILL BURROW Time: 06:32pm \/To: DAVE RATCLIFFE (Read 9 times) Subj: Re: HotJava followup Dave Ratcliffe, In a message on 12 December, to Lawrence Garvin, wrote : DR> Actually Suns own HotJava it the other browser with Java support (makes DR> sense since they invented it). The only problem I've found with it is DR> that it's bloated beyond belief and needs a little horsepower behind it. Hmm, HotJava is written in Java, so if this is going to be typical of Java apps, then :(. DR> Now I wonder how long we'll have to wait for Java support for Unix... Visit http://www.borland.com/Product/java/java.html and fill out their survey. Unix (and that unmentionable L-word) are both there. Borland promises to come out with a complete development system for Java some time in the future. Will. ... * ATP/Linux 1.42 * Linux, the choice of a GNU generation. --- PCBoard (R) v15.22/5 * Origin: TAD 1:255/101 (1:3615/51) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGM00017 Date: 12/16/95 From: YOUSUF KHAN Time: 09:42am \/To: JOHN POLTORAK (Read 9 times) Subj: Linux JP> Saturday December 09 1995, Yousuf Khan writes to Lawrence Garvin: YK> Unix has been updated continually since it first YK> appeared, but so has DOS, YK> and in fact DOS has spawned off three separate lines of very modern YK> operating systems which really are the modern descendants of DOS: YK> (1) Windows 3.x & Windows 95, JP> Windows relates to DOS in a similar way that the X JP> Window System ( :-)) depends on Unix. You can't have JP> one without the other. But there is no denying that there are programs that cannot run just under DOS, unless Windows is also running. Windows provides an extension to the DOS API, which forms a brand new operating system different yet downwardly related to DOS. X Windows is similar for Unix, and it provides an extension to Unix's API as well. YK> (2) OS/2, JP> OS/2 has very little in common with DOS as far as the JP> OS is concerned, even though it may use the same JP> commands. It is very much more like Unix than DOS and JP> has similar sophisticated multi-tasking and memory JP> management features. The essential difference between JP> Unix and OS/2 is that Unix is intrinsically multi-user JP> and OS/2 is single-user. OS/2 was created in 1987 to replace DOS. It was always designed to run DOS apps, and everything about it was to provide a stepup from DOS. It is a descendent of DOS, it owes nothing to Unix, unless you consider every multitasking operating system to owe something to Unix, in which case every operating system that came after Unix owes something to it, including VAX-VMS. Anyways, if you want to attribute some Unix influence on the DOS family tree, then that influence was exercised right near the beginning. DOS as we all know is a descendent of CP/M; but the CP/M influence stopped after DOS 1.x. When DOS 2.x came out all sorts of influences from other contemporary operating systems came in, including VMS and Unix. Unix's influence can be felt in DOS's file handle-based file i/o system, which was head and shoulders above the CP/M file control block-based (FCB) file i/o system. After the Unix-like file handles appeared nobody used CP/M-like FCBs anymore. Handles allowed DOS to gain subdirectory trees, which it never could do with FCBs. OS/2 was the first attempt at replacing DOS, and it initially wasn't a very good attempt, so OS/2 languished until version OS/2 2.0 came out. OS/2 only became very successful after it became even more DOS compatible, because Windows had already proved that this is what is needed. YK> and (3) Windows NT. JP> AFAIK NT started out as the portable version of OS/2, JP> although I have never used it. I don't think it has JP> much in common with DOS. Windows NT started out as a portable version of Windows, but that's nitpicking. Windows is a descendent of DOS, therefore Windows NT is a descendant of DOS as well. The DOS family tree has extended far past its root, and I realize that it may be hard to recognize that all the new family members have some relationship to their old man, but none of these operating systems would exist without DOS; they were all designed to replace it in some way, therefore they needed to be somewhat compatible with it. Yousuf Khan --- Maximus 3.00 * Origin: BitByters BBS, Rockland ON, Can. (613)446-7773 v34, (1:163/215) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGM00018 Date: 12/13/95 From: RAJ RIJHWANI Time: 11:00pm \/To: JOHN POLTORAK (Read 9 times) Subj: tar problem Hello John! Tuesday December 05 1995 19:43, John Poltorak wrote to All: JP> @PID: GED/2 B0116 16UK3 JP> @MSGID: 2:250/313 30c4a391 JP> I have just attempted my first backup of my Solaris partition to a JP> locally attached HP 2GB SCSI DAT drive using the command:- JP> tar cv . JP> from the root directory when logged in as root. All seemed to go fine JP> for the first 15-20 mins, but then I got the line JP> a ./dev/fd/0 0 tape blocks It's never a good idea to include device nodes in a tar or cpio. Looks to me like there was a conflict between the floppy device and your tape device. Was the thing writing sucessfully to the DAT up 'til that point? (Did you perform a "tar -tv"?) And of course, there's always the question of what *is* your default tar device? Not being Solaris wise myself, I can only guess... Raj --- GEcho 1.00 * Origin: Cyberdyne Systems, model CSM-101 (2:254/252)