Linux-Misc Digest #136, Volume #27 Sat, 17 Feb 01 18:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: safe rm (Jean-David Beyer)
Re: POP mail client (Steve Connet)
Re: Size of LINUX (Jean-David Beyer)
Re: linux only know first 8 char of password! (Jean-David Beyer)
Re: POP mail client (Michael Heiming)
Re: safe rm (Steve Connet)
Re: Linux Sucks... well not really (Jerry Kreps)
User migrating from windows to linux. Thanks for all the help :) (Kevin C. Redden)
depmod: unresolved symbols in 2.2.17 (Ogi Mini)
Re: Automatic server status watch? ("The Spook")
Re: Size of LINUX (Rolie Baldock)
Re: Size of LINUX (Rolie Baldock)
Re: Bash arrays ("The Spook")
Re: Size of LINUX (Rolie Baldock)
Re: Size of LINUX (Rolie Baldock)
Re: User migrating from windows to linux. Thanks for all the help :) (Mark Bratcher)
Re: Size of LINUX (Mark Bratcher)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jean-David Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: safe rm
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 15:11:53 -0500
Herb Stein wrote:
>
> This is not Windows. When you delete something, it SHOULD be gone.
> Does your garbage collection company save your trash in case you need
> to recover you old bag of trash that your wife dropped her ring into?
> LINUX is a real operating system. I hate the "Are you sure?" prompts
> from windows. I meant it when I typed it. That isn't a bug. That's a
> feature.
Once every few months I delete or overwrite a file I want. I could
reduce the possibility of this by setting some aliases that go:
alias rm='rm -i'
alias cp='cp -i'
alias mv='mv -i'
I did that for root, but I hate it most of the time, so I did not do
it to myself.
Fortunately, as Herb Stein wrote, "LINUX is a real operating
system." Because of that, I have cron do a backup to DDS-2 tape of
almost everything every night when I am asleep. So in those rare
instances where I mess something up, I can restore a copy that is
not over 24 hours old.
>
> S P Arif Sahari Wibowo wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > Do you know a program that replace the ordinary rm with 'safe rm' that
> > move the objects into a 'trash folder' instead of delete it right away?
> >
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey
^^-^^ 3:05pm up 19 days, 23:32, 4 users, load average: 3.73, 3.37,
3.26
------------------------------
Subject: Re: POP mail client
From: Steve Connet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 20:14:07 GMT
"Eric Wertman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyone suggest a good POP client other than Netscape?
> - for Gnome RH7.0
Try emacs/gnus.
--
Steve Connet ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: Jean-David Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Size of LINUX
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 15:19:38 -0500
Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rolie Baldock wrote:
>
> >Back in the days of the DEC PDP-6 we ran a TIME SHARING operating
> >system in 4K words of memory. Now some horrendous amount of bytes are
> >required to run an operating system such as LINUX which does not seem
> >to provide any more intelligence than the old PDP-6 operating system.
>
> Really?
>
> The PDP-6 had demand paged virtual memory? Network support? Combined
> buffer/cache? Support for a dozen different filesystems?
>
> >Doesn't seem to show any degree of cleverness to my way of thinking.
> >In those days all operating systems were written in assembly
> >language!!!!! I rest my case.
>
> Trolling newsgroups doesn't show any degree of cleverness to my way of
> thinking, so go show some cleverness by writing a kernel in assembly
> language.
>
I did write a kernel in assembly language once. Plus a lot of the
other related stuff to make the system useable. That took me 4 years
(although it was useable in about one year) starting in about 1968
or so. It would not really show cleverness, IMAO, but pig-headedness
to do something like that today.
At that time, the OS that came with the machine fitted into 256
(24-bit) words, and included a debugger. Of course, it could not run
the disk drives, nor did it operate the data channels (devices like
DMAs) interrupt-driven in parallel with computation. So my OS
implemented file systems (on disks, tapes, card-readers, paper tape
readers and punches, the console, and all the special-purpose
hardware we were using), and such like. But I did it because we
needed something more than the 256-word OS that came with the
machine. In the old days, there was a rule of thumb that went: the
OS expands to use 25% or the RAM available. The reason for that is
that if it took less, it was difficult to resist the demand for more
features, and if you used more, you got complaints that programs did
not get enough memory. Oh! The bad old days when 4096 bytes of
memory cost $10,000 and it had an access time of between 0.85 to 2.4
microseconds.
If I really needed a special purpose OS these days, I would
certainly write it in a higher level language and, since I am most
proficient in C++, I would pick that.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey
^^-^^ 3:10pm up 19 days, 23:37, 4 users, load average: 3.23, 3.24,
3.23
------------------------------
From: Jean-David Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux only know first 8 char of password!
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 15:23:31 -0500
Lee Webb wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:27:50 -0500, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> >Carfield Yim wrote:
> >>
> >> I have set the root password of my machine have more than 8 char for
> >> security reason, but I find that everyone can login as root if he know
> >> the first 8 char of root password. How can I tell linux to know all
> >> password?
> >
> >You need to enable the MD5 password mechanism. I enabled it during
> >the install and do not remember how to do it later.
> >
> >I looked around in my Red Hat control-panel, but could not find it
> >there.
> >
> For Redhat (and variants), edit /etc/pam.d/passwd to include:
>
> password required /lib/security/pam_pwdb.so use_authtok nullok shadow md5
>
How do you tell which file to edit? I looked at /etc/pam.d/passwd
and /etc/pam.d/login. They both seem involved.
I did not mention that because fiddling around in those files is
probably a bad idea for a newbie. I was wondering if there was a
handy-dandy tool that would take care of it.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey
^^-^^ 3:20pm up 19 days, 23:47, 4 users, load average: 3.11, 3.14,
3.18
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 21:20:03 +0100
From: Michael Heiming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: POP mail client
Eric Wertman wrote:
> Anyone suggest a good POP client other than Netscape?
> - for Gnome RH7.0
>
> thanks!
>
> Eric Wertman
Try
xfmail
http://burka.netvision.net.il/xfmail/xfmail.html
There maybe MUAs that look nicer, but it has lots of features...:-)
Michael Heiming
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: safe rm
From: Steve Connet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 20:44:11 GMT
S P Arif Sahari Wibowo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you know a program that replace the ordinary rm with 'safe rm' that
> move the objects into a 'trash folder' instead of delete it right away?
Not to be a smart-ass or anything but how about
mv <file> /trash
??
Just get in the habit of moving it to the trash folder instead of
'rm'ing it. Use rm ONLY in the /trash directory like once a week.
--
Steve Connet ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: Jerry Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks... well not really
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:58:55 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Banner wrote:
> I'm a Linux fan, I even go to my local LUGs on
> occasions (sad I know). It's fair to say that Linux is coming on as a
> desktop OS but at the moment there is nothing to compare with
> Windows 2000 & IE. A bold statement, but I use SuSE with
> Netscape 4.7x, 6, and even Konqueror. I must be downloading
> the wrong version of Mozilla or something because it spends most
> of it's time disk thrashing :)
After two years of daily crashes at work using Win95 and Win98SE I
was allowed to put Win2000 Pro on my work station. Even though
I told it to do a clean install It saw the existing Win98SE and decided
that I meant to do an upgrade, which it did on it's own. When It
asked if I wanted to use NTFS I said yes. It did, and still preserved
my existing files and directories. However, it crashed twice with
very pretty BSOD's and did one stealth phantom reboot, while it
was setting there on teh desktop with no requested tasks running.
That was the end of my first day with Win2000.
The next day I booted a floppy and used FDISK to blow away the
partitions. Then I rebooted with the Win2K install CD and reinstalled
it. Wiell, it didn't like my scanner or CD burner, so off they went.
I'm glad my employer is footing the bill for the new, 'complient'
hardware and the W2K and upgraded software licensiing fees!
It's been 5 working days since the second install. Win2K has not
crashed once. IE5 has, several times, so has several other programs,
but Win2K is solid, so far. On my box at home I've had SuSE running
since Sept of 1997 without a single OS crash! I'm up 24/7 except for
thunderstorms. I have been M$ free for about 15 months and I will
never install WinXX on my home box again. Win2K may be the
stable OS that Gates has claimed WinXX to be for so many years,
but his licensing and install limitations are obnoxious and reeks
with robberbarron greed.
I haven't noticed IE5 to be any faster than Netscape 4.76 on W2K,
but IE5 does NOT reliably download files and NS does!
I've installed Opera 5.0 and find it faster than either IE or NS. And,
on Win2K it is stable. My copy of Opera 5.0 on my Linux box at
home is not stable.
> > Tried konqueror?
Konqueror is my prefered browser. Most sites display fine, but there
are a few that I occasionally vist that use propriatary extensions to
the W3W protocal, and so Konqueror doesn't do well on them, but
that is M$ fault for not staying with standards, not Konqueror's.
Those kind of sites, many written by brain dead mouse clickers, use
FrontPage or other M$ tools which automatically configure sites
HTML code to M$ propriatary standards. Part of Bill's embrace,
extend and extinguish game plan. If he can capture the website
protocol market then he can control the browser market and from
there control the desktop market. Monoply in its most ugly form.
>
> Konqueror is nice and small, but I have problems with Java (too
> lazy to try and set it up right). And some web pages don't fully
> render.
>
> I think somebody in the thread mentions that an OS shouldn't try
> and be everything. He does games/multi-media and web under
> Win and programming under Linux. Both of these are standard
> desktop PC tasks, this isn't quite a server/client situation.
>Ok he does go on to mention that he uses Linux
> for web servers etc. I don't see why Linux can't be a
> desktop environment any less so that 2000. The OS is what
> the OS is, it's the applications developed by teams that really
> determine how the OS is used, at least in this case.
Win2000 **may** be the first desktop OS that is stable enough
to compete with Linux, but it doesn't compete well on the
server side with either Linux or on the heavy iron, besides being
way too expensive.
>
> For myself Linux has grown with version to version from a work based
> server to a desktop environment at home. Why? Because of KDE2,
> Netscape 6, Star Office, Loki's games. It's a shame that non of
> them can quite match the speed and/or reliability of their Windows
> counterparts. KDE lacks the full integration with applications that
> Windows X has, Netscape 6 I can't comment on, Star Office takes
> up too much memory (100MB RAM footprint for a word processor
> what the hell is that about?), and Loki use the Mesa libraries
> which arn't quite as well optimised as Windows equivalent
> (understandably given the situation).
Surely you are kidding! Either that or your memory is suffering.
Star Office is about the equal of Office in many areas and better in
some. If you had used SO for any period of time you would have
noticed the COMPLETE and seamless integration between services.
That 100MB 'footprint' Including swap space are we? Then include
Windows swap file in Office's memory total as well. One thing I've
noticed about WordXX is that older versions can't read docs of
the newer versions. Bill's arbitrary 'adjustments' of the data format
to force users into sensless and costly upgrades.
KDE has been much more stable and reliable than any verion
of WinXX, except W2K. It is just as fast, if not faster, too.
>
> If I couldn't lay my hands on most Microsoft software then Linux for
�40 all
> inc would still do the job well enough. I use Linux because I enjoy
the
> challenge, but when I really need to get something done quick and
easy, and
> share with others then I revert back to Windows 9x/00 where life is
so much
> simpler. However here at work we use several Linux servers all of
which run
> well giving me extra time to check out the latest Userfriendly and
Dilbert
> strips.
>
> I never complain about any Linux software because all is free,
written by
> dedicated teams and individuals infinitely more talented than myself.
It's
> understandable that it'll never run quite as fast with an easy to use
GUI or
> even as reliable (applications) as software written by teams hundred
if not
> thousand strong teams of highly paid professional programmers. I
think all
> credit has to be given for Linux and it's apps getting this far.
>
> I don't think you should try to convert Windows users to Linux. They
should
> be left to just fall in when they are ready, that way they'll have the
> enthusiasm and knowledge to read the HOWTO's and spend hours if not
days
> trying to do what Windows can in a few minutes :)
>
> TB
All in all, I think you are just an M$ troll
JLK
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin C. Redden)
Subject: User migrating from windows to linux. Thanks for all the help :)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 21:05:57 GMT
Just a quick thanks to everyone who helped in my migration to linux.
I'll be checking out everything you folks wrote. Hopefully soon, I'll
be out form under Billy boy's thumb :)
Kevin (long time sufferer of Windows)
Kevin C. Redden
=================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
REmove the 'x' from 'icqmailx.com' to respond to me. Spam control.
------------------------------
From: Ogi Mini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: depmod: unresolved symbols in 2.2.17
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 21:17:02 GMT
When upgrading from kernel 2.2.16-22 to 2.2.17-14 in Red Hat 7.0
there are plenty modprobe "can't open dependencies" errors due
to a bug or situation where the search and execute attribute of
/lib/modules/2.2.17-14/modules.dep is not set and /etc/lilo.conf
is not updated remaining the 2.2.16-22 reference.
Just go to /lib/modules/2.2.17-14 and make a
chmod u+x *
edit /etc/lilo.conf changing 2.2.16-22 to 2.2.17-14 and run
lilo
the next reboot all will be well again.
FO
NOTES
================
This post is a sequence of this one:
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>Subject: depmod: unresolved symbols in 2.2.17 [view thread]
>Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
>Date: 2000-11-02 16:40:12 PST
with a related problem, so this solution may came up in usenet searches.
Had to post it this way cause deja.com now is Google and "Google does
not currently support web-based posting to newsgroups" as verified and
stated at http://groups.google.com/googlegroups/help.html#posting
------------------------------
From: "The Spook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Automatic server status watch?
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:41:57 +0100
Jari Huovila wrote ...
>Hi everyone!
>
>Is there a program available for Linux to automatically watch status
>of remote server(s) and send an e-mail alert when a server goes down?
>Watching could mean just pinging the remote server, or preferably
>whether or not specific TCP/UDP services are responding.
>
>Thanks!
>
>- Jari
Try Bog Brother (http://bb4.com/) -- it does monitoring (services and ping)
and E-mailing, that's it.
/TRY
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rolie Baldock)
Subject: Re: Size of LINUX
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:26:47 GMT
Hello Harlan,
We usesd a KSR33 teletype to input our commands to the PDP-6 and we
did a lot of very fancy computing which you would find difficult to do
on a WINDOZE machine today. Try inputting data to a PC in REAL TIME
and see how you go. We had a diffractometer and a mass spectrometer
and peripheral computers all inputting data into the PDP-6 in real
time CONCURRENTLY. Moreover we had HARDWARE relocation and protection
so security was ASSURED.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 01:40:43 GMT, "Harlan Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Rolie Baldock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>Back in the days of the DEC PDP-6 we ran a TIME SHARING operating
>>system in 4K words of memory. Now some horrendous amount of bytes are
>>required to run an operating system such as LINUX which does not seem
>>to provide any more intelligence than the old PDP-6 operating system.
>>Doesn't seem to show any degree of cleverness to my way of thinking.
>>In those days all operating systems were written in assembly
>>language!!!!! I rest my case.
>
>I know this is a troll, but . . .
>
>1. Same could be said for Windows, OS/2, BeOS, MacOS, various unix, yada
>yada yada.
>
>2. How was the interactive graphical interface on that old PDP-6? Was your
>input device a punch card reader? The cli on a VDT is a huge improvement.
>
>3. And this PDP-6 OS was so popular it's still in wide-spread use on a
>number of different platforms because assembly language is so easy to port
>from one architecture to another?
>
>You may still be able to get a used copy of CP/M for IBM machines through an
>auction site. It'd be 6 to 10 times larger than the PDP-6 OS you still love
>so much, but I don't doubt you'll enjoy every bit as much raw functionality
>and as broad a selection of modern software. Have fun!
>
>
--Rolie Baldock. email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subtract one thousand and nine for direct email
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rolie Baldock)
Subject: Re: Size of LINUX
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:28:27 GMT
OH I forgot, why would you want to port your programs to another
architecture when you have the BEST!!!!
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 01:40:43 GMT, "Harlan Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Rolie Baldock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>Back in the days of the DEC PDP-6 we ran a TIME SHARING operating
>>system in 4K words of memory. Now some horrendous amount of bytes are
>>required to run an operating system such as LINUX which does not seem
>>to provide any more intelligence than the old PDP-6 operating system.
>>Doesn't seem to show any degree of cleverness to my way of thinking.
>>In those days all operating systems were written in assembly
>>language!!!!! I rest my case.
>
>I know this is a troll, but . . .
>
>1. Same could be said for Windows, OS/2, BeOS, MacOS, various unix, yada
>yada yada.
>
>2. How was the interactive graphical interface on that old PDP-6? Was your
>input device a punch card reader? The cli on a VDT is a huge improvement.
>
>3. And this PDP-6 OS was so popular it's still in wide-spread use on a
>number of different platforms because assembly language is so easy to port
>from one architecture to another?
>
>You may still be able to get a used copy of CP/M for IBM machines through an
>auction site. It'd be 6 to 10 times larger than the PDP-6 OS you still love
>so much, but I don't doubt you'll enjoy every bit as much raw functionality
>and as broad a selection of modern software. Have fun!
>
>
--Rolie Baldock. email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subtract one thousand and nine for direct email
------------------------------
From: "The Spook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.bash
Subject: Re: Bash arrays
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 23:39:38 +0100
Chris West wrote ...
>I'm trying to create an array from a string using bash.
>I've tried to do the following:
>
>$ cat array_test
>#!/bin/bash
>
>declare -a myarr
>
>echo "hello world" | read -a myarr
>
>echo "myarr[0]=${myarr[0]}"
>echo "myarr[1]=${myarr[1]}"
>
>$ ./array_test
>myarr[0]=
>myarr[1]=
>
>Any ideas how I can split the string into an array of words with bash?
>I'd like to use space or tab as field separators.
You probably won't like this (it's ugly, but it works ... I think):
---- Begin: Cut here ----
#! /bin/bash
# This is the data we want to split
X='a b c d e f
g h i j k l
$m \\n
Hello World'
# Array index
I=0
# Split input and set MyArr_$I to each element
eval `echo $X |
tr " " "\n" |
sed -e 's/\\\\/\\\\\\\\\\\/g;s/\\$/\\\\\\\\\$/g' |
(while read Line
do
echo MyArr_$I="$Line"
I=$[I + 1]
done
echo I=$I)`
# Do something with the elements
J=0
while [ "$J" -lt "$I" ]
do
eval echo "MyArr_$J = \$MyArr_$J"
J=$[J + 1]
done
---- End: Cut here ----
I hope I won't have to explain this -- suffice to say: eval is a potent
weapon in bash and needs a good many backslashes in the right places (I
surely hope I got the number of backslashes just right).
Is there a good reason that you cannot do this job with perl? I mean perl do
have arrays, much more structure -- and is available on systems coming from
Redmond, WA, too.
For your sake, I hope somebody else out there have a better solution.
/TRY
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rolie Baldock)
Subject: Re: Size of LINUX
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:38:17 GMT
Hello Mark,
You have hit the nail on the head. Code is just TOO SLOPPY. The true
use of computers has been lost to the idiots who like to play the
fool. They put their trust in MU-S and other so called GURUS who are
in the game for the BUCK and that's the reason for the sloppy code.
Mind you it is not entirely their fault as the bean counters are
breathing down their necks to get it out, no matter if it's crawling
with bugs and takes up mega bytes. They are only interested in
megabucks. We engineers should have kept computers for the exclusive
use of engineers. Engineers used to have a code of excellence in my
days in the profession. The PDP-6 operating system reflected this
excellence.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 01:40:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark
Bratcher) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rolie Baldock wrote:
>>Back in the days of the DEC PDP-6 we ran a TIME SHARING operating
>>system in 4K words of memory. Now some horrendous amount of bytes are
>>required to run an operating system such as LINUX which does not seem
>>to provide any more intelligence than the old PDP-6 operating system.
>>Doesn't seem to show any degree of cleverness to my way of thinking.
>>In those days all operating systems were written in assembly
>>language!!!!! I rest my case.
>>
>
>I agree that things have gotten bloated. There are a number of reasons
>for this:
>
>1) A lot of the stuff now is GUI stuff which didn't exist on the old machines.
>
>2) We didn't demand as much as fast out of the older machines.
>
>3) There are a lot more apps and utilities now then there were then.
>
>4) Because disk space and memory are a lot cheaper, programmers get away
>with writing much sloppier code.
>
>5) The drive for developing code faster these days leads to use of large
>libraries of pre-designed modules and components and objects, which leads
>to bloat. In other words, if you were to take just about any given
>application and rewrite it from scratch in, say, in well-written assembler
>or even in well-written C with a good optimizing compiler, it would
>probably take much less space.
>
>There are probably other good reasons I can't think of off hand.
>
>So what have we gained in all this? I think it's a compromise. I think
>we now see app and OS changes more rapidly (with the possible exception
>of MicroSoft stuff hehe), but also code is written a lot less efficiently.
>
>--
>Mark Bratcher
>To reply, remove both underscores (_) from my email name
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>Escape from Microsoft's proprietary tentacles: use Linux!
--Rolie Baldock. email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subtract one thousand and nine for direct email
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rolie Baldock)
Subject: Re: Size of LINUX
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:42:38 GMT
Hello Stanislaw,
You are right of course. One took away one's printout and studied
what was on it. Many was the time I found this valuable. Especially
when debugging with DDT. That is not available with a VGA monitor.
Regards,
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 12:42:52 +1100, Stanislaw Flatto
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You also forgot the convenience of teletype as terminal, especially when
>correcting few thousand lines of source code.
>"Those were the days, my friend!"
>
>Stanislaw.
>Slack user from Ulladulla.
>
>Rolie Baldock wrote:
>
>> Back in the days of the DEC PDP-6 we ran a TIME SHARING operating
>> system in 4K words of memory. Now some horrendous amount of bytes are
>> required to run an operating system such as LINUX which does not seem
>> to provide any more intelligence than the old PDP-6 operating system.
>> Doesn't seem to show any degree of cleverness to my way of thinking.
>> In those days all operating systems were written in assembly
>> language!!!!! I rest my case.
>>
>> --Rolie Baldock. email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
--Rolie Baldock. email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subtract one thousand and nine for direct email
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Bratcher)
Subject: Re: User migrating from windows to linux. Thanks for all the help :)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:37:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kevin C. Redden wrote:
>Just a quick thanks to everyone who helped in my migration to linux.
>I'll be checking out everything you folks wrote. Hopefully soon, I'll
>be out form under Billy boy's thumb :)
>
>Kevin (long time sufferer of Windows)
>Kevin C. Redden
>-----------------
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin,
You have a happy "road ahead" to look forward to! :-)
--
Mark Bratcher
To reply, remove both underscores (_) from my email name
===========================================================
Escape from Microsoft's proprietary tentacles: use Linux!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Bratcher)
Subject: Re: Size of LINUX
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 22:40:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rolie Baldock wrote:
>Hello Harlan,
>
>We usesd a KSR33 teletype to input our commands to the PDP-6 and we
>did a lot of very fancy computing which you would find difficult to do
>on a WINDOZE machine today. Try inputting data to a PC in REAL TIME
>and see how you go. We had a diffractometer and a mass spectrometer
>and peripheral computers all inputting data into the PDP-6 in real
>time CONCURRENTLY. Moreover we had HARDWARE relocation and protection
>so security was ASSURED.
>
>On Sat, 17 Feb 2001 01:40:43 GMT, "Harlan Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Rolie Baldock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>Back in the days of the DEC PDP-6 we ran a TIME SHARING operating
>>>system in 4K words of memory. Now some horrendous amount of bytes are
>>>required to run an operating system such as LINUX which does not seem
>>>to provide any more intelligence than the old PDP-6 operating system.
>>>Doesn't seem to show any degree of cleverness to my way of thinking.
>>>In those days all operating systems were written in assembly
>>>language!!!!! I rest my case.
>>
>>I know this is a troll, but . . .
>>
>>1. Same could be said for Windows, OS/2, BeOS, MacOS, various unix, yada
>>yada yada.
>>
>>2. How was the interactive graphical interface on that old PDP-6? Was your
>>input device a punch card reader? The cli on a VDT is a huge improvement.
>>
>>3. And this PDP-6 OS was so popular it's still in wide-spread use on a
>>number of different platforms because assembly language is so easy to port
>>from one architecture to another?
>>
>>You may still be able to get a used copy of CP/M for IBM machines through an
>>auction site. It'd be 6 to 10 times larger than the PDP-6 OS you still love
>>so much, but I don't doubt you'll enjoy every bit as much raw functionality
>>and as broad a selection of modern software. Have fun!
>>
>>
>
>--Rolie Baldock. email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Subtract one thousand and nine for direct email
Certainly DEC did a great job architecting and designing the PDP
family of computers. They even published a book discussing that family
and, I think, part of the VAX family. The PDPs were workhorses when
it came to relatively inexpensive (I say _relatively_ for the time)
data aquisition and other real time computing work. The machines were
simply designed that way along with their expansion card capability.
PCs certainly were not initially designed for this type of work, but
are now fast enough along with fast enough busses and I/O cards to
handle these sorts of tasks.
--
Mark Bratcher
To reply, remove both underscores (_) from my email name
===========================================================
Escape from Microsoft's proprietary tentacles: use Linux!
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.misc.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Misc Digest
******************************
