--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGV00006 Date: 12/24/95 From: WILL BURROW Time: 11:33am \/To: JOHN POLTORAK (Read 10 times) Subj: Linux John Poltorak, In a message on 19 December, to Lawrence Garvin, wrote : JP> Can you get the X Window System for DOS? DESQview/X. Dunno if Quarterdeck has touched it in the past year or so, though. JP> I wonder if it's possible to run X on OS/2 as a replacement for PM... There is some kind of X thang for OS/2, forget what it is called. Funny thing, here in Canada OS/2 and Linux distributions are both priced about the same, around $49 for OS/2, $39 for the free stuff. :) Will. ... * ATP/Linux 1.42 * there are three things that come next, uh four... --- PCBoard (R) v15.22/5 * Origin: TAD 1:255/101 (1:3615/51) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGV00007 Date: 12/25/95 From: YOUSUF KHAN Time: 12:34pm \/To: JOHN POLTORAK (Read 10 times) Subj: X under DOS JP> Can you get the X Window System for DOS? Yes, there was a fairly good implementation of it called Desqview/X that came out a few years ago, but it came out at a time when Windows already had a stranglehold on users' loyalties, so it went nowhere. It had a feature where you could run Windows under it (with a specially supplied replacement video driver), and the Windows GDI calls would be converted to X Windows calls, and you could remote control Windows apps over the network under X. It was (and still is) the only X server and X client software you could get for DOS or Windows. You do have X server software that can run under Windows, like Xceed, Hummingbird, PC-Xview, etc. but these are all just X servers alone, they cannot be X clients for other X servers. This piece of software, DV/X, didn't get very far because you had to run Windows underneath it, and not the other way around; DV/X could only run Windows in Standard mode, at a time when MS was slowly abandonning Standard mode for an all-Enhanced mode preference. Desqview itself had been around for years prior to that. It was the first preemptive multitasking kernel for DOS applications. It ran over top of regular DOS, and added preemptive multitasking kernel extensions to it, years before Windows. It was created by Quarterdeck the people who make the Qemm386 memory manager for DOS & Windows95. JP> I wonder if it's possible to run X on OS/2 as a replacement for PM... There are also X server software for OS/2, but they run overtop of the Workplace shell, just like Windows X servers work over top of the Windows shell. Yousuf Khan --- Maximus 3.00 * Origin: Ready & Determined (1:163/506) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGV00008 Date: 12/25/95 From: YOUSUF KHAN Time: 12:45pm \/To: LOU ARRUDA (Read 10 times) Subj: Re: Linux -=> Quoting John Poltorak to Lawrence Garvin <=- JP> Can you get the X Window System for DOS? LA> Not for DOS per se, but you can get it for Windows. For DOS, you can get Desqview/X. Yousuf Khan --- Maximus 3.00 * Origin: Ready & Determined (1:163/506) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGV00009 Date: 12/21/95 From: TREV ROYDHOUSE Time: 3:25 am \/To: LAWRENCE GARVIN (Read 10 times) Subj: Re: Sun reliablity > Shucks, you want to talk about failure rates on > hardware, as a Fidonet sysop what the failure rate on > basic PC equipment versus the average home PC. Since I joined FidoNet as a sysop in June 1986, my systems have had the following hardware failures in chronological order: * 1 x 4164 DRAM chip (replaced under warranty - 1987); * 1 x 150w PSU (1987); * 2 x 68mb MFM MicroScience drives (power surge, the MS drives had notoriously sensitive pre-amps, I got sick of getting 'em repaired - 1991); * 1 x Archive 40mb tape drive (1991); * 2 x 105mb SCSI Quantum drives (1 replaced under warranty - 1992); * 1 x Artisoft 2mbps network card (replaced under warranty - 1992); * 1 x 40mb IDE Maxtor drive (1994); * 1 x 80mb IDE Maxtor drive (1995); * 4 x PSU fans in the last 2 years :-) --- QM v1.30 * Origin: Sentry -- Sydney, New South Wales, Australia (3:711/401.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGW00000 Date: 12/24/95 From: JOHN POLTORAK Time: 03:36pm \/To: YOUSUF KHAN (Read 10 times) Subj: Linux Friday December 22 1995, Yousuf Khan writes to John Poltorak: JP>> I'm not getting drawn into a debate about Windows, but JP>> will just say that you won't get very far trying to use JP>> Windows if you delete DOS. And that even goes for Win95. YK> No, but similarly you won't get very far if you try to run Windows YK> programs if you delete Windows. This seems a little obvious. I'm not sure what the point is... JP>> Memory management YK> Much more similar to DOS in the early days. 64K segments were the aximum YK> back in OS/2 1.x days. Plus in DOS compatibility mode, it was exactly like YK> DOS, it even ran in Real mode. You can forget DOS compatibility mode. It is was never a required part of the OS, merely an optional feature for people wishing to use legacy apps. JP>> Multi-tasking YK> Not every operating system that can multitask owes its ideas to Unix. YK> And in fact, OS/2 1.x had a hardware-based multitasking kernel very YK> specific to Intel architecture, Unix has always been software-based. S/2 YK> 1.x made use of the Intel processors' Task Switch Segment. Unixes were all YK> based on a generic software-based task switcher algorithm, because that YK> was portable to all platforms. YK> Linux was the first PC Unix that I know of that started using the Intel YK> hardware-based features. I think since then both Solaris, and Unixware YK> also make full use of the hardware multitasking features. But the Unixes YK> have wrapped it around the old software algorithms for compatibility. JP>> Process management YK> Again, Unix used a software approach (and it still does). OS/2 1.x used YK> the processor's internal segment numbering. OS/2 2.0+ has adopted YK> a software-based process management scheme, but it is generally built YK> to emulate the older OS/2 1.x process management scheme. OK. So OS/2 v2.0 is more like Unix than v1 was... JP>> Long filenames YK> Long filenames didn't come into OS/2 till OS/2 1.2, when the HPFS file YK> system first came into existence. Until then OS/2 was using DOS's FAT. OK. So OS/2 v1.2 was more like Unix than v1.1 was... JP>> Paging YK> Didn't exist in version of OS/2 1.x. This is only possible with 386+ YK> processor, so it first came into effect with OS/2 2.0. OK. So OS/2 v2.0 was more like Unix than v1 was... YK> Paging isn't anything that Unix was the first to do on a PC. At least ne YK> year before any Unix was ported to the 386, you had the 386 DOS memory YK> managers come out, like Qemm. The 386 came out in 1986, and Qemm was out YK> six months later, and the first Unix for the 386 came out between 1987 r YK> 1988. Paging is the basis of all 386 memory managers. So the DOS memory YK> managers were the first to use paging, before Unix, and long before OS/2 YK> which didn't get it till 1993. DOS memory managers are add ons to prop up the OS. DOS does not have them built in. With Unix and OS/2, memory management is part of the OS kernal. YK> Let's also add a few more superficial points to prove my case here: YK> -OS/2 uses drive letters just like DOS. YK> -OS/2 is not case sensitive just like DOS. HPFS allows you to use mixed case. YK> -OS/2 is D1-level security, just like DOS, meaning there are no logins. YK> I personally don't think my above three points mean anything except that YK> OS/2 and DOS are similar in those respects, but I'm just illustrating ow YK> you are trying to find superficial similarities between OS/2 and Unix to YK> prove your point too. I don't think core system functions like multi-tasking and memory and process management are superficial parts of an OS. A graphical user interface is not a core function, just something to simplify interactive use of computers, especially for those who have problems with commands and their syntax. They can improve productivity by providing a point and shoot menuing system, but are absolutely useless for unattended as with some sort of server function, such as an FTP or HTTP daemon, or a LAN server. John ---------------------------------- mailto://jpolt@bradnet.demon.co.uk --- * Origin: (2:250/313) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGW00001 Date: 12/24/95 From: RAJ RIJHWANI Time: 04:29pm \/To: JOHN POLTORAK (Read 10 times) Subj: tar problem Hello John! Tuesday December 19 1995 09:41, John Poltorak wrote to Raj Rijhwani: JP> Everything seemed to go as expected for the first 15-20 mins until the JP> file /dev/fd0/0 was encountered. I checked the tape on another machine JP> and everything was fine up to this file, but there were several JP> hundred occurences of it. Aha! Well another thought springs to mind. What if /dev/fd/0 was *supposed* to be a link to another device node, but somehow had ended up being a circular link? Just a thought, and possibly total and utter gibberish... Raj --- GEcho 1.00 * Origin: Cyberdyne Systems, model CSM-101 (2:254/252) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGW00002 Date: 12/24/95 From: VERDELL HICKS Time: 09:40pm \/To: JOHN POLTORAK (Read 10 times) Subj: Linux > But it is still a graphical shell which sits on top of an > OS of some sort. I mentioned Unix, because I would imagine > that's waht most X Window System users would be running it > on. > > LG> and most definitely can exist without Unix. :) > > Can you get the X Window System for DOS? > > I wonder if it's possible to run X on OS/2 as a replacement > for PM... I didn't catch the whole conversation but their is a X system for dos called Desqview-X, which I have used and is very similar to X-windows bar the dos necessity. It really isn't half bad. Hope that helps. Oh, I believe it is written by the creators of Qemm. --- InterMail 2.29f * Origin: The Foundation's Edge, Groton CT, U.S.A. (1:327/6246) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGW00003 Date: 12/26/95 From: YOUSUF KHAN Time: 08:41am \/To: LAWRENCE GARVIN (Read 10 times) Subj: Linux LG> Yousuf Khan said in a message to Will Burrow: YK> It's better than saying that Windows NT or OS/2 came from YK> Unix ... sheesh, sheesh! ;-) LG> Ironically, most likely, they -both- probably came from LG> exactly those roots! Actually, the grand old DOS itself is heavily influenced by Unix, at least as much as people think DOS is influenced by CP/M. I think most recent users of DOS see more of the Unix side than the CP/M side. They have access to Unix-like piping and redirecting commands. They have file handles like in Unix. There is also a very distinct borrowing of ideas from VMS, the drives and filenames with extensions are very much something that has been a part of VMS for years. LG> OS/2 was developed as a direct upgrade from DOS. LG> Windows was developed as a User Interface -=TO=- MSDOS. LG> Windows95 is an upgrade (remember it was originally LG> called Windows v4.0 -- as in, an upgrade to Windows LG> v3.1) to the same User Interface to MSDOS. LG> WindowsNT is, allegedly, a whole new 32-bit operating LG> system developed exclusively by Microsoft -- and LG> designed by the same team of engineers that had LG> previously had their hands in the likes of Microsoft LG> Xenix and OS/2. There likely were people in there from the Xenix and OS/2 days, but the majority of it was headed up by Dave Cutler, an ex-DEC employee who had designed the VMS operating system for VAXes. It's an all new design probably owing more to VMS than to Unix; but even that's probably stretching it. It's primary design goals was to be portable and microkernelled. It's portable, andit's very close to being microkernelled. But the mission is clear: develop an upgrade path towards fully networked computing for DOS users. LG> Remember that the IBM PC and PCDOS v1.0 were released LG> in 1983. Microsoft already existed as a small startup LG> company at this time, and their primary interest was LG> based on their licensing of Unix from AT&T, and LG> subsequent development of Microsoft Xenix. The PC & PCDOS was out at least by 1981, we celebrated the 10th anniversary of the PC in 1991. By 1983, we had the first hard disks for PCs. LG> Following the introduction of PCDOS, and then the LG> development of Winchester hard disk drive technology LG> for the PC, MSDOS was faced with a developmental crisis LG> in PCDOS v1.0. The end result was the 'borrowing' of LG> the heirarchical directory schemes of Unix/Xenix, and a LG> virtual cloning of all of the extra file and directory LG> utilities from Unix, and including the bastardization LG> of Unix's forward slash directory separator, into the LG> MSDOS backslash directory separator. Yup, CP/M never ran on hard disks (floppies were considered cutting edge back then), so there was not much use for it in PCs either. You could even boot up off of an audio cassette tape drive back then. Yousuf Khan --- Maximus 3.00 * Origin: Ready & Determined (1:163/506) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: CGW00004 Date: 12/26/95 From: YOUSUF KHAN Time: 08:57am \/To: ALLEN WITTENAUER (Read 10 times) Subj: Re: Linux AW> In a message dated 16 Dec 95 09:42:56, Yousuf Khan wrote: 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. YK> X Windows is similar for Unix, and it provides an extension to Unix's YK> API as well. AW> As was stated earlier, the above is *NOT* a good AW> analogy. X=!Windows as DOS=UNIX. Case in point: I've AW> got xv running under X on the Amiga. Granted, the AW> Amiga's a lot closer to UNIX than most other OS's on AW> the planet, but the point being, it isn't UNIX yet I AW> still run X on it natively with my own machine acting AW> as my server and capable of running quite a few X apps AW> after a quick recompile (occassionaly with some AW> cleanup, but who doesn't?) with the Amiga version of AW> gcc. Not at all, X is a very good example. Just because X provides an extension to other operating systems rather than just Unix, does not exclude it from being counted as an operating system extension; it's just a very portable operating system extension. You can have X running on DOS as well; for example there was Desqview/X which provided both X server and X client support under DOS. Yousuf Khan --- Maximus 3.00 * Origin: Ready & Determined (1:163/506)