--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1Q00000 Date: 01/12/96 From: WILL BURROW Time: 03:23pm \/To: JOHN POLTORAK (Read 7 times) Subj: Linux John Poltorak, In a message on 9 January, you wrote to me : JP> WB> There is the venerable screens program that does this. JP> JP> Does it have a name? And can I get it for Solaris x86? Sick archie on ``screen.'' Will. ... * ATP/Linux 1.42 * I'll backup my Hard Drive tomor*(&^)*98&^^... --- PCBoard (R) v15.22/5 * Origin: TAD 1:255/101 (1:3615/51) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1Q00001 Date: 01/15/96 From: WILL BURROW Time: 12:52pm \/To: LAWRENCE GARVIN (Read 7 times) Subj: Weekly Traffic Report Lawrence Garvin, In a message on 11 January, you wrote to me : LG> Will -- -- PC exports -all- of their echomail to a pseudonode 3615/51 LG> that it can be 'broadcast' over the satellite. The first satellite downli LG> tosses that mail with an AKA of 3615/51, but should configure their syste LG> that origin lines, etc., use their actual nodelisted address. OK, didn't know that. LG> My understanding of the PCBoard setups will make this very difficult, if LG> impossible. You're going to need to get together with a PCBoard sysop who LG> if, and how, to configure the system properly. Arghh, probably won't happen, its not me y'know. LG> I'm afraid that I will be unable to allow you to continue posting in this LG> conference with an address of 1:3615/51. Aren't I sorry for bringing up. Please don't notify the moderators of other conferences. ;) LG> Will, the system causing this problem is 1:255/101. If your system is not LG> Fidonet node 1:255/101, then -you- can correct this problem by configurin LG> system to ADD the ORIGIN line to your messages. Neither 255/100 nor 255/101 are my system. The dual node setup is a hangover from an Amiga board and a PC setup the operator was running. LG> If, for whatever reason, your system is failing to add the origin line, t LG> your uplink (1:255/101??) is adding the origin line -- and INCORRECTLY I LG> add, as whosever system is the immediate PC downlink should not be showin LG> address 1:3615/51 at all. This didn't happen with the Amiga setup, don't know why it should be happening now. Oh yeah, this is the final post I'll make here, though I can't see you doing much worse that you already have. ;) Will. ... * ATP/Linux 1.42 * I have seen the future and it is now the past. --- PCBoard (R) v15.22/5 * Origin: TAD 1:255/101 (1:3615/51) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1Q00002 Date: 01/20/96 From: BILL YOUREE Time: 08:16am \/To: MICHAEL FAIRCHILD (Read 7 times) Subj: CD-ROM driver Well, I already tryed that one. Still can't read the CD. Thanks for the tip though. I am presently digging around on the Internet trying to find a reference to the CR-572. I think I'm going to be out of luck. Bill --- FMail 0.92 * Origin: Doug's Bar And Grill Tulsa, OK USA (918) 749-1332 (1:170/264) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1Q00003 Date: 01/20/96 From: NICKOLAY G. GRYGORYEV Time: 02:42am \/To: BILL YOUREE (Read 7 times) Subj: Re: CD-ROM driver From: root@nickhome.stud.pu.ru (Nickolay G. Grygoryev) Hello, Bill ! > I am looking for a driver for my CD-ROM. You don't need any "driver". > I am presently running linux (slakware). > The CD-ROM is a Matsushita CR-572, I'm using such CD-ROM too. Very good model. > if anyone > can point me in the right direction I would > be grateful for the help :) Just recompile a kernel. Enable iso9660 filesystem support and IDE/ATAPI CD-ROM drivers support. If you have an old kernel, you'll need also run MAKEDEV.ide1 script to fix the bug (of course, if your CD-ROM is connected to secondary IDE interface). -- Nickolay G. Grygoryev root@nickhome.stud.pu.ru St.Petersburg, Russia AKAs: 2:5030/219.26@fidonet SPbSAAI 2:5030/383.29@fidonet --- ifmail v.2.8c * Origin: State Academy of Aerospace Instrumentation (2:5030/383.29@fidonet) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1Q00004 Date: 01/18/96 From: JOHN POLTORAK Time: 06:31pm \/To: THOMAS MCWILLIAMS (Read 7 times) Subj: OS/2 homomorphic to Unix Monday January 15 1996, Thomas Mcwilliams writes to John Poltorak: >> I'm not too familiar with the Korn shell, although I understand that >> many people rate it highly. Do you know of any references to Korn and >> how to get up to speed with it? TM> The Korn shell is an enhanced version of the Bourne shell, the standard TM> Unix shell. The Korn shell offers niceties such as command history, and Is this feature similar to DOSKEY under DOS or OS/2? I've been looking for something to do this under Unix for several months - I make a lot of keying mistakes at a command prompt and really need DOSKEY. Several people have mentioned that ksh provides this, but I've never got it to work. TM> automatic command completion, plus some more powerful programming TM> features. Most folks used to the standard Bourne shell will pick up the TM> Korn shell easily. GNU bash is very similar to the Korn shell. OS/2 or TM> DOS users might compare it to 4OS2 or 4DOS. Both BASH and KSH are available for OS/2, although I'm not sure if there is a C shell and a Bourne shell. I've never really taken the trouble to see what is available with the two I have. TM> There are ports of other Unix shells to OS/2 but as far as I know, the TM> pd Korn shell is the only one that is not a "port" per se. The OS/2 TM> version is maintained and developed as part of the main Unix source tree TM> by the primary development team. There goal is to provide a 100 per TM> cent POSIX compatible shell. You can find the pd Korn shell in the TM> ftp-os2.nmsu.edu unix section. I think it is named something close to TM> "pdksh513.zip". >> You mention TSHELL, which is an excellent program, and I would like >> to find something similar for Unix. TM> If you are looking for the OS/2 TSHELL ability to hot-key between TM> virtual consoles, you will find it already in many current versions of TM> unix for PC hardware. Linux and SCO offer this feature standard. I use Solaris x86, but the machine with it installed is not functioning currently, so I can't try it out for myself. Should I look for a man page on screens? TM> For TM> example, under Linux you would hit , , etc., TM> which TM> will hot-key you between screens. I can't remember how to do it under TM> SCO. It the unix you are using doesn't offer this, you can use a utility TM> like "screen" (available from prep.ai.mit.edu:/pub/gnu) which will give TM> you something of this functionality. For some reason I have never had any success running makefiles under Solaris. I have installed gcc and can compile trivial 'hello world' type programs, but anything more serious tends to fall over. It's unlikely that I would be able to pick up a version already compiled for Solaris... John ---------------------------------- mailto://jpolt@bradnet.demon.co.uk --- * Origin: (2:250/313) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1Q00005 Date: 01/20/96 From: CLIFF BLACKWELL Time: 08:25pm \/To: BOB LIESENFELD (Read 7 times) Subj: AIX Bob Liesenfeld's words sprang off the keyboard over to Cliff Blackwell about Joe editor. not camel BL> Hi again Cliff, BL> Here's one fro you. What is "AIX"? BL> Bob AIX is big blues grand remake of a UNIX flavor of some sort. Can anybody else tell me what unix flavor AIX is based on/most closly resembles? Later Y'all Cliff ... Off by CRASHING COMPUTER. Time Logged: ߔܵ ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 --- T.A.G. 2.7c Standard * Origin: ****THE REMOTE CONTROL**** *713*324-3931* (1:106/3931) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1R00000 Date: 01/19/96 From: YOUSUF KHAN Time: 07:45pm \/To: BILL DUFF (Read 7 times) Subj: Linux BD> Then why are you defending DOS? DOS had it's uses no doubt. BD> But we've come out of the dark ages. DOS is a dinosaur. Axe it. YK> Unix has a 25 year old legacy to support, and it shows: BD> You mean like DOS' backward compatibility? Exactly. The DOS world has emerged from it's own obsession with backwards compatibility, the Unix world hasn't yet emerged from its own. YK> 1980's technology will get us towards the next phase, the YK> object-oriented operating system; having to support 60's and YK> 70's technology will make it extremely difficult to go YK> towards OO. BD> BD> I in no way shape or form suggested that UNIX was perfect or BD> that there would be no problems associated with making UNIX OO. BD> I merely stated and stand by my statement that UNIX is light BD> years ahead of gatesware and that anyone who willingly puts up BD> with DOS is computationaly impaired. Using DOS on a modern PC is BD> like driving an Indy racer in a driveway. Why would you do it? Fine, DOS users were a brain-dead bunch, fools for ever using their highly successful operating system. We here in the high and mighty Unix world had always known better, now it's time for the world to finally discover the true superiority of our operating system, Unix. The only problem is that nobody is listening. People have been telling us in the Unix world that this operating system is way too complicated and cumbersome to be practical for most purposes, for at least 20 years now. Everytime someone comes up and says this, they get shouted down by the usual vocal group of Unix disciples who have convinced themselves that there is nothing wrong with Unix and all of the rest of the world is out of their minds for even thinking something is wrong with it. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Just from everyday life, we know all about the silent majority. Vocal little groups of loudmouths go around pettitioning and shouting and waving and telling people how to conduct their lives. The silent ones politely listen to them, and go do exactly the opposite. This is the case with Unix, a vocal little group keeps this operating system from ever walking away from its past; and the rest of the world walks away from Unix. Yousuf Khan --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Ready & Determined (1:163/506) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1R00001 Date: 01/20/96 From: YOUSUF KHAN Time: 04:16pm \/To: NEETI RAY (Read 7 times) Subj: Linux NR> But the cost is just that, _cost_, not only in terms of hardware, but NR> software and man-hours. As you might be aware of, NR> there's a big push right now NR> for *cheaper* systems, more accessible to the public NR> and one major solution has NR> been that of multi-user systems, sharing the most NR> sharable resource, the cpu, NR> storage and memory. Somehow the concept of Unix and cheaper systems seems oxymoronic. The "cheaper" systems that have the most potential for acceptance are really the glorified versions of Nintendo consoles. I've also seen the chairman of Oracle pushing some kind of $500 system which is basically connected to the Internet, and dependent on the Internet for all of its applications, one has to wonder what that's going to do to Internet bandwidth; I've never considered Oracle to be a visionary company, nor can I imagine what a company selling multi-user RDBMS's costing thousands of dollars by themselves knows about creating a cheaper computer, so I take anything Oracle says with a grain of salt. Every software company chairman now wants to be called the next Bill Gates, so they are one upping each other with stupider and stupider ideas, including Bill Gates himself. YK>Nobody is accusing Novell of having invented this YK>method, it was just an YK>example of one operating system with a more modern method than Unix. NR> NR> Unix will grow, it has, and will continue adapt in NR> ways that other OS's NR> can't. BTw, I thought about the fs feature that you mentioned, and it's NR> already available in most Unix fs's, since you can be a NR> member of many groups, NR> you can simply create a group that has perm's for that NR> file and put the users NR> you *want* to be able to access the file, in that NR> group. Or vice-versa, you NR> can selectively restrict certain users as well. As NR> someone else mentioned, NR> ACL's are implimented in some Unices for this purpose NR> (same effect but more NR> flexiblity and probably easier to administer) but the NR> net effect of pulling NR> down system resources, is the same under Netware or Unix. How would it negatively affect system resources? It's just a check that the operating systems do, much like checking the path for executables, etc. NR> But a Netware NR> server suffers less, if its not running any NLM's does NR> not really tax the CPU, NR> I believe Novell quoted less than 30% cpu utilization NR> on a typical server when NR> it's thruput is maxed out (think bus limitations). Oh yeah, Netware servers are hardly ever maxed out. That's why a single-processor 486DX running Netware can usually beat an NT server running on dual-processor Pentium system, despite the symmetric multiprocessing. Netware runs very few processes, plus it never makes use of swap space, it always runs off of RAM. Nope, Netware is not going to be challenged anytime soon as the client/server network operating system of choice for PCs. Now, however if the network paradigm ever shifts from client/server to peer-to-peer, as seems likely, then either Netware is going to have to adapt or it is going to be picked off by either Unix or NT or both. Netware has only got a couple of more years to adapt. Too bad Novell gave up on Unix so quickly; but it was a business decision made by a new chairman at Novell. Yousuf Khan --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: BitByters BBS, Rockland ON, Can. (613)446-7773 v34, (1:163/215) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1R00002 Date: 01/20/96 From: BILL YOUREE Time: 10:05pm \/To: NICKOLAY G. GRYGORYEV (Read 7 times) Subj: CD-ROM driver Hi Nickolay- Hey thanks for the tip, I'll give it a whirl tonight! Will let you know how it turns out :) Bill --- FMail 0.92 * Origin: Doug's Bar And Grill Tulsa, OK USA (918) 749-1332 (1:170/264)