--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1U00002 Date: 01/24/96 From: RONNIE GIBSON Time: 06:33am \/To: JOHN POLTORAK (Read 7 times) Subj: OS/2 homomorphic to Unix -=> Quoting John Poltorak to Thomas Mcwilliams <=- JP> Both BASH and KSH are available for OS/2, although I'm not sure if JP> there is a C shell and a Bourne shell. I've never really taken the JP> trouble to see what is available with the two I have. Do you know what it takes to compile those under OS/2. I have the emx files and have JED working but when I tried less or bash even after getting the full gcc compiler I can't figure how to get a Make going. Here's what I have available... Directory of G:\OS2UNIX LESS2912 ZIP 272617 12-18-95 12:59a JED097_6 ZIP 359612 12-16-95 12:48a ISP31B3 ZIP 1868706 12-16-95 1:16a GPPDEV ZIP 1123252 12-17-95 12:54p GOBJCDEV ZIP 553628 12-17-95 1:02p GNUVIEW ZIP 26100 12-18-95 12:50a GNUDEV ZIP 1209211 12-17-95 12:40p EMXVIEW ZIP 285471 12-18-95 12:54a EMXRT ZIP 345758 12-16-95 12:44a EMXDEV ZIP 958140 12-17-95 12:28p ISPELL40 ZIP 540231 12-18-95 4:39p GNUINFO ZIP 202458 12-25-95 4:35a GNUDOC ZIP 984638 12-25-95 4:33a GNUMAKE ZIP 518407 12-25-95 5:12a EXT2_05B ZIP 505681 1-12-96 4:16p BASH_112 ZIP 1369864 1-16-96 1:12p GCC 1-17-96 12:14p Directory of G:\OS2UNIX\GCC GCCSRC1 ZIP 1180667 1-17-96 11:35a GCCSRC2 ZIP 1211697 1-17-96 11:54a GCCSRC3 ZIP 321633 1-17-96 11:58a GPPSRC ZIP 849531 1-17-96 12:12p ... Reality-ometer: [\........] Hmmph! Thought so ___ Blue Wave/OS2 v2.21 --- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10 * Origin: * PC-Help! BBS * Lutz Fl. 813-949-6588 1:377/35 28.8 v.34 (1:377/35) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1U00003 Date: 01/22/96 From: BOB LIESENFELD Time: 09:52pm \/To: ALL (Read 7 times) Subj: Path Hi, I'm trying to add a directory to my PATH variable. When I do "export PATH=$PATH: /home/mybin" and then do "set", I see that /home/mybin has been added to the PATH variable. But....if I then re-boot, do "set", I see that /home/mybin is no longer part of the PATH variable. Do I need to make a new boot disk after updating PATH or what?? --- MsgToss 2.0d(beta) 02/21/93 * Origin: HAM>link< RBBS 612/HAM-0000 Saint Paul, MN [K0TG] (1:282/100) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1U00004 Date: 01/22/96 From: NEETI RAY Time: 03:25pm \/To: YOUSUF KHAN (Read 7 times) Subj: Linux Yousuf on 01/21/96 said to Neeti, YK>NR> But the cost is just that, _cost_, not only in terms of hardware, but YK>NR> software and man-hours. As you might be aware of, YK>NR> there's a big push right now YK>NR> for *cheaper* systems, more accessible to the public YK>NR> and one major solution has YK>NR> been that of multi-user systems, sharing the most YK>NR> sharable resource, the cpu, YK>NR> storage and memory. YK> YK>Somehow the concept of Unix and cheaper systems seems oxymoronic. The Depends on how you look at it. I've seen VAR's try to package a half-dozen Windoze PC's w/ 8megs each and a NT server to run some company's big database. Write that same app on a Unix multi-user box and *much* cheaper terminals and voila, a big cost savings and the whole thing will probably be more crash proof, secure and probably faster too. What really kills me is seeing a Windows box running POS software. Of course, the really stupid approach is like that of IBM w/ it's proprietory terminals (expensive too) and networking on it's mainframes & mini's, I've seen bank's put in PC's w/ adapters instead of terminals just because the PC's are cheaper. Picture a Windoze box w/ a 17" monitor running a terminal emulator in a Dos window. YK>"cheaper" systems that have the most potential for acceptance are really the YK>glorified versions of Nintendo consoles. I've also seen the chairman of Oracle YK>pushing some kind of $500 system which is basically connected to the Internet, YK>and dependent on the Internet for all of its applications, one has to wonder YK>what that's going to do to Internet bandwidth; I've never considered Oracle to YK>be a visionary company, nor can I imagine what a company selling ulti-user YK>RDBMS's costing thousands of dollars by themselves knows about creating a YK>cheaper computer, so I take anything Oracle says with a grain of salt. Every YK>software company chairman now wants to be called the next Bill Gates, so they YK>are one upping each other with stupider and stupider ideas, including Bill YK>Gates himself. Oracle isn't the only company in that plan, Sun is a big proponent of that too, and I'll give Sun a big advantage in the cost per user, large systems arena. Just look at the FreeNets (ignore the bureaucracies tho). Unix machines can really do multi-user, graphical environments better than anyone else. Many universities, research facilities have a/several large server(s) booting diskless X-Terminals running CAD, simulations etc. Once your graphical terminals are in place, the software needs only be on the server where piracy also becomes much less of a problem. Doddling/upgrading the hardware will hopefully happen mostly on the server side, leaving the users/lusers (yes, have to account for those too) alone. As for bandwidth, I think the local cable/telco's will have to be involved. This will possibly keep more of the traffic confined to local neighbourhood net instead of across the country/world. You might remember that one of the cableco's in Ottawa (start's w/ an "N", can't remember the name) tried something like it 10 years ago, w/ diskless PC's running off cable. Unfortunately, the boxes were also gutless (z80 w/ graphics, reminds me of a Coleco Adam) and the apps weren't great, probably due to the fact that the apps were mostly run locally. As you may be aware, Rogers Cable is doing cable net access trials right now with almost ethernet speeds locally but a tiny gateway to the rest of the net. I'm not wild about the whole concept, because I like my freedom, which is why I run Linux. But if the net effect is greater bandwidth to my door, then great. YK>YK>Nobody is accusing Novell of having invented this YK>YK>method, it was just an YK>YK>example of one operating system with a more modern method than Unix. YK>NR> YK>NR> Unix will grow, it has, and will continue adapt in YK>NR> ways that other OS's YK>NR> can't. BTw, I thought about the fs feature that you mentioned, and it's YK>NR> already available in most Unix fs's, since you can be a YK>NR> member of many groups, YK>NR> you can simply create a group that has perm's for that YK>NR> file and put the users YK>NR> you *want* to be able to access the file, in that YK>NR> group. Or vice-versa, you YK>NR> can selectively restrict certain users as well. As YK>NR> someone else mentioned, YK>NR> ACL's are implimented in some Unices for this purpose YK>NR> (same effect but more YK>NR> flexiblity and probably easier to administer) but the YK>NR> net effect of pulling YK>NR> down system resources, is the same under Netware or Unix. YK> YK>How would it negatively affect system resources? It's just a check that he YK>operating systems do, much like checking the path for executables, etc. The more checks you do, the slower things get. When the user list gets large, each person that wants to access that file gets checked up against the list and access is slowed. The more that happens, the slower things get. The Ottawa FreeNet illustrates the problem somewhat due to its extremely large user database (approx 50k users). The login procedures started timing out because it took too long just to go thru the passwd file. While we don't expect such a large user base per server, if each file access requires an extensive security search, then things could get ugly. Of course, most get around that by keeping user lists small, being more reasonable w/ the use of ACL's or disabling it etc. Given that Unix boxes are usually doing more than just serve files, cpu usage can be a problem. YK>NR> But a Netware YK>NR> server suffers less, if its not running any NLM's does YK>NR> not really tax the CPU, YK>NR> I believe Novell quoted less than 30% cpu utilization YK>NR> on a typical server when YK>NR> it's thruput is maxed out (think bus limitations). YK> YK>Oh yeah, Netware servers are hardly ever maxed out. That's why a YK>single-processor 486DX running Netware can usually beat an NT server running YK>on dual-processor Pentium system, despite the symmetric multiprocessing. YK>Netware runs very few processes, plus it never makes use of swap space, it YK>always runs off of RAM. Nope, Netware is not going to be challenged nytime YK>soon as the client/server network operating system of choice for PCs. Now, YK>however if the network paradigm ever shifts from client/server to YK>peer-to-peer, as seems likely, then either Netware is going to have to adapt YK>or it is going to be picked off by either Unix or NT or both. Netware has only YK>got a couple of more years to adapt. Too bad Novell gave up on Unix so YK>quickly; but it was a business decision made by a new chairman at Novell. I see Netware's problem as being _just_ a fileserver. Sure you can use NLM's, but Netware isn't quite the robust OS for app's. Any NLM can bring the server to a grinding halt, that and rising importance of the Net and tcp/ip ($5000- per Netware server I believe) puts it at a *severe* disadvantage. Unix is the most flexible client/server model, not just files, but all resources. NT tries to emulate that, but it's a pig. If it weren't for lousy vendor support, OS/2 would be a very close contender. But then again, IBM has Lotus now, and Notes + OS/2 + LanMAN Server might be a hard combo to beat. Kin Lau (gabe@io.org) --- * UniQWK v3.3a* The Windows Mail Reader --- QScan/PCB v1.17b / 01-0348 * Origin: FidoNet: CRS Online, Toronto, Ontario (1:229/15) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1U00005 Date: 01/23/96 From: NEETI RAY Time: 01:12pm \/To: YOUSUF KHAN (Read 7 times) Subj: Linux Yousuf on 01/21/96 said to Bill, YK>BD> Then why are you defending DOS? DOS had it's uses no doubt. YK>BD> But we've come out of the dark ages. DOS is a dinosaur. Axe it. YK> YK>YK> Unix has a 25 year old legacy to support, and it shows: YK> YK>BD> You mean like DOS' backward compatibility? YK> YK>Exactly. The DOS world has emerged from it's own obsession with backwards YK>compatibility, the Unix world hasn't yet emerged from its own. Like what? YK>The only problem is that nobody is listening. People have been telling us in YK>the Unix world that this operating system is way too complicated and YK>cumbersome to be practical for most purposes, for at least 20 years now. Beauty of the Unix system is, you don't let the user administrate his _own_ system... he doesn't have one. Just a month ago, I get a call from a friend of mine who's cousin's computer stopped working. I talk to the kid and he says "I wanted to clean up the harddrive, so I formatted it... now it won't boot, I can find WordPerfect". I guess "format c:" is real user friendly huh. YK>Everytime someone comes up and says this, they get shouted down by the usual YK>vocal group of Unix disciples who have convinced themselves that there is YK>nothing wrong with Unix and all of the rest of the world is out of their minds YK>for even thinking something is wrong with it. See no evil, hear no evil, speak YK>no evil. YK>Just from everyday life, we know all about the silent majority. Vocal little YK>groups of loudmouths go around pettitioning and shouting and waving and YK>telling people how to conduct their lives. The silent ones politely listen to YK>them, and go do exactly the opposite. This is the case with Unix, a vocal YK>little group keeps this operating system from ever walking away from its past; YK>and the rest of the world walks away from Unix. Strange, I see plenty of people coming back to Unix... and they don't even know it. People using large mission-critical databases on Unix say they're using Dos or Windoze cus' that's the part they're staring at. Many don't have the slightest clue where the real power is. Replace the desktop w/ a X-Term or a dumb term and they still won't know the diff. Ask the average user to tell you the difference btwn WP for Win and WP for SCO w/ them both sitting side by side. I can teach my wife to use fvwm and xfm. That's simple enough. Even better is that I can prevent her from erasing my files, or the program files or the libs. Kin Lau (gabe@io.org) --- * UniQWK v3.3a* The Solution for Multilingual Messages --- QScan/PCB v1.17b / 01-0348 * Origin: FidoNet: CRS Online, Toronto, Ontario (1:229/15) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1U00006 Date: 01/23/96 From: NEETI RAY Time: 01:14pm \/To: YOUSUF KHAN (Read 7 times) Subj: Linux Yousuf on 01/19/96 said to Neeti, YK>.PP> Just a second... If we just take the name OS, it mean YK>.PP> Operating System... This is in my opinion the part YK>.PP> that, if removed, would make *everything* stop working YK>.PP> (operating)... YK>YK> YK>YK>That statement would be true, but it is a vague YK>YK>general characterization. YK>NR> YK>NR> Yes, but your's in even *more* vague, that an "OS" YK>NR> is "anything that runs". YK> YK>No, it's not *anything* that runs, it's anything that can be shared at runtime YK>by other programs. It's a shared common API, in other words. That's *NOT* what you said.... ie Emacs, WP, macros etc. Remember _those_ examples. YK>.PP> program you do... YK>YK> YK>YK>That's another common misconception about an YK>YK>operating system: that it is YK>NR> All your examples don't hold water, they if YK>NR> anything, prove that an OS *is* YK>NR> responsible for interacting w/ the hardware. YK> YK>I don't see how you could possibly come to that conclusion, unless you're not YK>trying to understand. Those examples were there to prove that you don't need YK>an OS to handle hardware; they are disproofs in other words. When verybody YK>thinks that the OS is there to handle the hardware, you have to give negative YK>examples of the OS not handling the hardware. Just because you link the OS layer w/ the app layer doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even more important to note is that you don't know how the program has been structured, just because you cannot see the OS and you cannot access it as a user doesn't mean it's not there. An excellent example here is QNX. With a very small microkernel and realtime features, it's often used in embedded applications, where there may be no user interaction at all. That embedded app might do only one thing, nothing else will ever run on it, the api will not be shared (especially if you customize the QNX kernel) w/ anything else. YK>YK>Example #1, self-booting programs. This doesn't YK>YK>happen anymore, but in the YK>YK>past game manufacturers used to copy-protect their YK>YK>games by not booting from YK>NR> YK>NR> The OS was already included *with* the game, there YK>NR> *is* an OS present, it's YK>NR> just not Dos. YK> YK>If you read the rest of that paragraph, I went on to disprove exactly what you YK>just said. If there is an OS on that game, how do you differentiate it rom YK>the rest of the game? An OS requires at least two or more applications sharing YK>its routines at runtime to be considered an OS, otherwise those functions that YK>in your mind you consider to be its OS are just part of one big application. Who ever said there *has* to be two or more apps? That's a very poor definition. That means that a custom built computer w/ an OS and one-and-one only application would have *no* OS, but write another app and *voila*... it's an OS!!!!! There's a major problem w/ the logic in that reasoning. Kin Lau (gabe@io.org) --- * UniQWK v3.3a* The Solution for Multilingual Messages --- QScan/PCB v1.17b / 01-0348 * Origin: FidoNet: CRS Online, Toronto, Ontario (1:229/15) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1U00007 Date: 01/23/96 From: NEETI RAY Time: 01:19pm \/To: YOUSUF KHAN (Read 7 times) Subj: Linux Yousuf on 01/19/96 said to Neeti, YK>YK>I'm pretty sure in a few years when this system is truly possible, you YK>YK>wouldn't even think of going back to the mainly-text e-mail of today. YK> YK>NR> Text is well refined, and most people can do a much better job of YK>NR> communicating by writing than BY video (which is YK>NR> essentially public speaking). YK> YK>Text e-mail systems are great if you communicate in English, or any of the YK>other European languages that use the latin character set. Not so great or YK>others. However, I'm not proposing we incorporate all of the other character YK>sets in the world, so e-mail can become truly international, there's a simpler YK>solution: natural language. You forget... I'm Chinese, I can communicate in Chinese by email. There are plenty of non-English Usenet groups. All the char sets of the world have already been combined in Unicode. It's been slow to be accepted cus' unicode is big and slow. MIME also works great. In fact, I pretty have to use my Linux box for that since anything in Dos is a kludge and/or slow and ugly. And Chinese Windows costs over $300-. Kin Lau (gabe@io.org) --- * UniQWK v3.3a* The Windows Mail Reader --- QScan/PCB v1.17b / 01-0348 * Origin: FidoNet: CRS Online, Toronto, Ontario (1:229/15) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1U00008 Date: 01/23/96 From: NEETI RAY Time: 01:34pm \/To: YOUSUF KHAN (Read 7 times) Subj: Linux Yousuf on 01/19/96 said to Neeti, YK>.NR> OO has the *terrible* habit of cluttering up what should be simple. YK>YK> YK>YK>On the contrary, it has a great habit of doing exactly the opposite. YK> YK>NR> Give me an example. [deleted] YK>Anyways those were just two examples from a programming point of view of how YK>objects simplified my job. I don't know if it means much to you or anybody YK>else, but those are my examples. Those are good examples, and with those objects available to everyone, it makes things more efficient/simpler. On the programming aspect, it's great that you have access to the beginning and the end. But what if you're not in control. OTOH, OO creates the undesired result of bloat, be that in code, interface, documents or what not. Far too many put out way too much, features, information, representations of data etc. YK>NR> OO has the tendency of making YK>NR> the media more important YK>NR> than the message. YK> YK>Don't know what you mean. Videomail....bloated email. Just take a look at what some Web pages look like now. The media, "oh lets have a video or animation, it'll be cool" rather than the intended message becomes more important. YK>NR> but nothing I've YK>NR> seen so far convinces me that it's simpler. YK> YK>There is nothing that is simple. Object orientation is not simpler to code YK>initially. But if you ever want to extend any system to new levels, then it's YK>a hell of a lot simple if it were object-oriented. That's when the payoff YK>really comes. This applies to object-oriented operating systems too. With YK>object-orientation it's just like as if the OS were begging to be extended and YK>extended and extended. And bloated and bloated. YK>No matter how modular you make a procedural operating system, there comes YK>time eventually when extending it just becomes impractical. YK> YK>NR> There's YK>NR> theory, and then there's YK>NR> _reality_. YK> YK>Yup, and the reality is that object-orientation is coming like it or not. YK>It'll be the salvation of a Unix-like operating system of the future, if the YK>current Unix can ever be broken free from. Still haven't told me what you think current Unix *is*. YK>NR> I do know the great advantages of OO systems, in YK>NR> easy customization, and a YK>NR> more "natural, human" (as opposed to more machine like) YK>NR> way of doing things... YK>NR> but it's all for nothing if it can't be done right (do YK>NR> not underestimate the YK>NR> ability of screwing up), or be accessible. YK> YK>Exactly, and a great deal of the problem is that a lot of people who call YK>themselves object-oriented developers, really know nothing about these YK>methodologies. They simply know how to use an object-oriented programming YK>language (usually C++), but they can't take great advantage of object YK>orientation. And the thing about object orientation is that it is so imple YK>once people finally understand its principles. It's one of those things where YK>it just hits you that this is the way things should have been all along. You missed the last word, accessible. See the current situation w/ OpenDoc and Micro$oft. In a similar vein, OO needs accessibility and agreement for common standards and this is the big killer. I hate it when I see someone posting to Usenet in MS-Word format, everyone will have to pay *something* to M$ to use/access their objects. Kin Lau (gabe@io.org) --- * UniQWK v3.3a* The Windows Mail Reader --- QScan/PCB v1.17b / 01-0348 * Origin: FidoNet: CRS Online, Toronto, Ontario (1:229/15) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1U00009 Date: 01/18/96 From: KIR@GHOST.SRCC.MSU.SU Time: 03:14pm \/To: ALL (Read 7 times) Subj: nfs time mismatch From: kir@ghost.srcc.msu.su Reply-To: kir@ghost.srcc.msu.su From: kir@ghost.srcc.msu.su (Kirill Dremach) Hi, All! ᭠ ஡: 窨: UnixWare 2.0, 㣮 Ultrix, 쥩 OSF/1. C Unixware ᯮ , ᢮ । Ultrix & OSF/1 Ultrix OSF ᮧ 䠩 ஢ UnixWare᪮ ᪥ cat testfile > newfile , ६ ᮧ newfile ⫨砥 ਬ୮ ஭, ᮧ 䠩 14.00 ६ ⠭ 12.05 ६ 窠 ⠭ . 祬 ᫨ ᤥ touch newfile, ६ 浪. All ᪠ 㬠 ⮬ ? -- kir. --- ifmail v.2.8c * Origin: 'Auriga Inc ' (2:5020/118@fidonet) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1U00010 Date: 01/21/96 From: EMANUELE PUCCIARELLI Time: 04:15pm \/To: BOB LIESENFELD (Read 7 times) Subj: Re: Mouse Driver From: root@lighthouse.com (Emanuele Pucciarelli) Bob Liesenfeld (Bob_Liesenfeld@f100.n282.z1.fidonet.org) wrote: > no to all (at least all I can) the programs *except* the one I want? > What about the ones that are "required", will they overwrite the > existing programs or create duplicates? They should overwrite the installed ones. If you don't like that, use the "pkgtool" utility, and you'll be able to install only the desired package (gpm, I think). -- /___ /_ /___manuele (emanuele@lh.quark.it) --- FIDOGATE 3.9.4 * Origin: The LightHouse (2:333/505.1) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 176 UNIX Ref: D1U00011 Date: 01/24/96 From: TIM ROWE Time: 09:03pm \/To: ALL (Read 7 times) Subj: Question?? If a user on a unix system ( not the root user ) was on, can they see who is logged onto the system? Any help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Tim --- Maximus 3.00 * Origin: The Silver City BBS (1:141/705)