Hi!
> > > Actually, I was planning on doing on putting in a hack to do something
> > > like that: calculate a checksum after every buffer data update and check
> > > it after write completion, to make sure nothing scribbled in the buffer
> > > in the interim. This would also pick up some bad
Hi!
Actually, I was planning on doing on putting in a hack to do something
like that: calculate a checksum after every buffer data update and check
it after write completion, to make sure nothing scribbled in the buffer
in the interim. This would also pick up some bad memory
Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Actually, I was planning on doing on putting in a hack to do something
> > like that: calculate a checksum after every buffer data update and check
> > it after write completion, to make sure nothing scribbled in the buffer
> > in the interim. This would also pick up some
Hi!
> > book, Ext2 throws safety to the wind to achieve speed. This also ties
> > into Linux' convoluted VM system, and is shot in the foot by NFS. We
> > would need minimally a journaled filesystem and a clean VM design,
> > probably with a unified cache (no separate buffer, directory entry and
Hi!
book, Ext2 throws safety to the wind to achieve speed. This also ties
into Linux' convoluted VM system, and is shot in the foot by NFS. We
would need minimally a journaled filesystem and a clean VM design,
probably with a unified cache (no separate buffer, directory entry and
page
Pavel Machek wrote:
Actually, I was planning on doing on putting in a hack to do something
like that: calculate a checksum after every buffer data update and check
it after write completion, to make sure nothing scribbled in the buffer
in the interim. This would also pick up some bad
"Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
>
> Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Actually, I was planning on doing on putting in a hack to do something
> > like that: calculate a checksum after every buffer data update and check
> > it after write completion, to make sure nothing scribbled in
"Eric W. Biederman" wrote:
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, I was planning on doing on putting in a hack to do something
like that: calculate a checksum after every buffer data update and check
it after write completion, to make sure nothing scribbled in the buffer
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> But also scalability: 2TB is a problem for me in some cases, 32bit just don't
> cut it all the time - but I need to circumvent the storage problem even on a
> 32bit system. And adding disks to the system while running is desireable.
Why do you run
Daniel Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, I was planning on doing on putting in a hack to do something
> like that: calculate a checksum after every buffer data update and check
> it after write completion, to make sure nothing scribbled in the buffer
> in the interim. This would
Michael Rothwell wrote:
> 4) A high reliability internal file system.
>
> Ext2 + bdflush + kupdated? Not likely. To quote the Be Filesystems
> book, Ext2 throws safety to the wind to achieve speed. This also ties
> into Linux' convoluted VM system, and is shot in the foot by NFS. We
> would
Daniel Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, I was planning on doing on putting in a hack to do something
like that: calculate a checksum after every buffer data update and check
it after write completion, to make sure nothing scribbled in the buffer
in the interim. This would also
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
But also scalability: 2TB is a problem for me in some cases, 32bit just don't
cut it all the time - but I need to circumvent the storage problem even on a
32bit system. And adding disks to the system while running is desireable.
Why do you run 32bit
Michael Rothwell writes:
> 1) Convenient remote terminal use.
>
> Telnet, ssh, X windows, rsh, vnc, "screen," ethernet,
> serial, etc. I think we have this one.
Nope: /dev/audio, /dev/cdrom, /dev/floppy, fonts, etc.
Also one would want a local window manager for performance,
but this tends to
Er, um, yes. I stand corrected.
-Original Message-
From: Steve VanDevender [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 11:44 AM
To: Marty Fouts
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Michael Rothwell; Linux kernel
Subject: RE: Advanced Linux Kernel/Enterprise Linux Kernel
Marty
On Tuesday 14 November 2000 03:43 pm, Steve VanDevender wrote:
>Marty Fouts writes:
> > Actually, you have the sequence of events slightly out of order.
> > AT, specifically Bell Labs, was one of the participants in the
> > program that would develop Multics. AT opted out of the
> > program,
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
>
> > "Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > > Relating some "nine goals of 'Enterprise Computing'" to Multics is
> > > the bullshit.
> >
> > Funny, I got those off the "Multics FAQ" page.
> >
> > -M
Michael Rothwell wrote:
> 2) Continuous operation analogous to power & telephone services.
>
> No way. Multics could have a whole bank of memory fail and keep running.
[...]
Considering that it's very cheap nowadays to have redundancy at the
box level, designs attempting to achieve robustness
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
>
> > "Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
> > > Multics??? [..] way too many persons on this list who know the history of
> > > Unix to try this BS.
> >
> > So, you're saying their nine goals were
Marty Fouts writes:
> Actually, you have the sequence of events slightly out of order. AT,
> specifically Bell Labs, was one of the participants in the program that
> would develop Multics. AT opted out of the program, for various reasons,
> but it continued apace. The PDP-8 of fame was one
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Mark Hahn wrote:
> Linux is a good Unix. if adding "enterpriseness" means violating its
> Unixness, then yes, the goals are bullshit. in particular, the kind
> of extensive, kernel-based auditing and accounting some people talk about,
> as well as the complete
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
>
> > One historically significant "Enterprise" OS is Multics. It had nine
> > major goals. Perhaps we should think about how Linux measures up to
> > these 1965 goals for "Enterprise Computing."
> >
>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> 2) Continuous operation analogous to power & telephone services.
> No way. Multics could have a whole bank of memory fail and keep running.
> You could add CPUs, memory and IO devices while it was running without
> interrupting users' work. Of course,
if you look at the kstat structure under solaris, there's a lot of info
there that'd be good to be able to pull out of the linux kernel. that
would slow down the kernel a little, lead to some 'bloat' that linus
abhors and such, but its good to have that information for monitoring and
debugging
, and
could well be expanded given what has been learned in the 35 years since.
Marty
-Original Message-
From: Buddha Buck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 9:52 AM
To: Michael Rothwell; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Linux kernel
Subject: Re: Advanced Linux Kernel/Enterprise Linux
Dick Johnson wrote:
> The original DEC was "given" to W. M. Ritchie and his staff in
> "Department 58213". He wanted to use it for games. To do so, required
> him to write some sort of OS, which became Unix.
A typo, I assume. That's D(ennis) Ritchie.
> As I said, when Multics was designed,
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
>
> > One historically significant "Enterprise" OS is Multics. It had nine
> > major goals. Perhaps we should think about how Linux measures up to
> > these 1965 goals for "Enterprise Computing."
> >
>
, happened to be available and unused.
-Original Message-
From: Richard B. Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 10:01 AM
To: Michael Rothwell
Cc: Linux kernel
Subject: Re: Advanced Linux Kernel/Enterprise Linux Kernel
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote
mever owns the copyright these
days, to reprint the "Unix" issue of the Bell Systems Journal.
Marty
-Original Message-
From: Richard B. Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 8:26 AM
To: Michael Rothwell
Cc: Linux kernel
Subject: Re: Advanced Linux Ker
e computer business altogether.
I would suggest Organick's book, if I could recall the title.
Marty
-Original Message-
From: Richard B. Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 8:42 AM
To: Michael Rothwell
Cc: Linux kernel
Subject: Re: Advanced Linux Kernel/Enterp
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
> "Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
>
> > Relating some "nine goals of 'Enterprise Computing'" to Multics is
> > the bullshit.
>
> Funny, I got those off the "Multics FAQ" page.
>
> -M
>
History is being rewritten. When Multics was being developed by
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 11:41:33AM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > > "Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
> > > > Multics??? [..] way too many persons on this list who know the history of
> > > >
Michael Rothwell writes:
> 4) A high reliability internal file system.
>
> Ext2 + bdflush + kupdated? Not likely. To quote the Be Filesystems
> book, Ext2 throws safety to the wind to achieve speed. This also ties
> into Linux' convoluted VM system, and is shot in the foot by NFS. We
> would
At 01:10 PM 11/14/00 -0500, Michael Rothwell wrote:
>"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
>
> > Relating some "nine goals of 'Enterprise Computing'" to Multics is
> > the bullshit.
>
>Funny, I got those off the "Multics FAQ" page.
It may be reasonable to question them as "goals of 'Enterprise
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 08:59:49AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>I (meaning me) would like the ability to audit every system call. (yes,
>this is horrendous, if everything is logged, but I want to be able to
>choose how much is logged at the source of the data, rather than at
>the
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
> Relating some "nine goals of 'Enterprise Computing'" to Multics is
> the bullshit.
Funny, I got those off the "Multics FAQ" page.
-M
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 12:14:57PM -0500, Michael Rothwell wrote:
> Ext2 + bdflush + kupdated? Not likely. To quote the Be Filesystems
> book, Ext2 throws safety to the wind to achieve speed. This also ties
What safety problems bdflush/kupdated have? (if something they lacks in
performance
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 11:41:33AM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
>
> > "Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
> > > Multics??? [..] way too many persons on this list who know the history of
> > > Unix to try this BS.
> >
> > So, you're saying their nine
At 11:41 AM 11/14/00, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
>
> > "Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
> > > Multics??? [..] way too many persons on this list who know the
> history of
> > > Unix to try this BS.
> >
> > So, you're saying their nine goals were bullshit?
At 11:20 AM 11/14/00, Mike Dresser wrote:
>Michael Rothwell wrote:
>
> > Just some thoughts from 35 years ago. Please add your $0.02.
>
>What's that $0.02 worth after 35 years of inflation?
>
>=)
I'd say inflation has been easily 12x since then. So $0.02 is now worth
$0.25, i.e. the 2 cents of
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
> "Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
> > Multics??? [..] way too many persons on this list who know the history of
> > Unix to try this BS.
>
> So, you're saying their nine goals were bullshit? Multics had a lot of
> problems. But it did a lot of
> > Multics??? [..] way too many persons on this list who know the history of
> > Unix to try this BS.
>
> So, you're saying their nine goals were bullshit? Multics had a lot of
> problems. But it did a lot of ground-breaking. Perhaps you should reply
> to the nine goals, or the general topic
Michael Rothwell wrote:
>
> Mike Dresser wrote:
>
> > What's that $0.02 worth after 35 years of inflation?
>
> About $6
Sorry.. six times a much... not six dollars. Which means $0.02 circa
1965 is 'worth' $0.12 today, given an average annual devaluation of the
currency of 5.2% since 1965.
-M
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
> Multics??? [..] way too many persons on this list who know the history of
> Unix to try this BS.
So, you're saying their nine goals were bullshit? Multics had a lot of
problems. But it did a lot of ground-breaking. Perhaps you should reply
to the nine goals, or the
Mike Dresser wrote:
> What's that $0.02 worth after 35 years of inflation?
About $6
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
> One historically significant "Enterprise" OS is Multics. It had nine
> major goals. Perhaps we should think about how Linux measures up to
> these 1965 goals for "Enterprise Computing."
>
Multics??? No way. It was abandoned as unusable and part of
Michael Rothwell wrote:
> Just some thoughts from 35 years ago. Please add your $0.02.
What's that $0.02 worth after 35 years of inflation?
=)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at
One historically significant "Enterprise" OS is Multics. It had nine
major goals. Perhaps we should think about how Linux measures up to
these 1965 goals for "Enterprise Computing."
1) Convenient remote terminal use.
Telnet, ssh, X windows, rsh, vnc, "screen," ethernet, serial, etc. I
think we
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 08:59:49AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
[snip]
> 4. Unauthorized access to, modification to, or damage to the
>effectiveness of the system should be possible (the ideal...).
>All security related events should be audited and logged.
Uhmmm, there should be some kind
Josue Emmanuel Amaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This subject came up in the Generalized Kernel Hooks Interface thread, since it
> is an area of interest to me I wanted to continue that conversation.
>
> While I do not think it would be productive to enter a discussion whether there
> is a need to
On 2000-11-13T13:56:16,
Josue Emmanuel Amaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Good morning Josue,
I hope your certification matrix hasn't driven you mad yet ;-)
> While I do not think it would be productive to enter a discussion whether
> there is a need to fork the kernel to add features that
On 2000-11-13T13:56:16,
Josue Emmanuel Amaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Good morning Josue,
I hope your certification matrix hasn't driven you mad yet ;-)
While I do not think it would be productive to enter a discussion whether
there is a need to fork the kernel to add features that would
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 08:59:49AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
[snip]
4. Unauthorized access to, modification to, or damage to the
effectiveness of the system should be possible (the ideal...).
All security related events should be audited and logged.
Uhmmm, there should be some kind of
One historically significant "Enterprise" OS is Multics. It had nine
major goals. Perhaps we should think about how Linux measures up to
these 1965 goals for "Enterprise Computing."
1) Convenient remote terminal use.
Telnet, ssh, X windows, rsh, vnc, "screen," ethernet, serial, etc. I
think we
Michael Rothwell wrote:
Just some thoughts from 35 years ago. Please add your $0.02.
What's that $0.02 worth after 35 years of inflation?
=)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
One historically significant "Enterprise" OS is Multics. It had nine
major goals. Perhaps we should think about how Linux measures up to
these 1965 goals for "Enterprise Computing."
Multics??? No way. It was abandoned as unusable and part of the
Mike Dresser wrote:
What's that $0.02 worth after 35 years of inflation?
About $6
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
Multics??? [..] way too many persons on this list who know the history of
Unix to try this BS.
So, you're saying their nine goals were bullshit? Multics had a lot of
problems. But it did a lot of ground-breaking. Perhaps you should reply
to the nine goals, or the
Michael Rothwell wrote:
Mike Dresser wrote:
What's that $0.02 worth after 35 years of inflation?
About $6
Sorry.. six times a much... not six dollars. Which means $0.02 circa
1965 is 'worth' $0.12 today, given an average annual devaluation of the
currency of 5.2% since 1965.
-M
-
To
Multics??? [..] way too many persons on this list who know the history of
Unix to try this BS.
So, you're saying their nine goals were bullshit? Multics had a lot of
problems. But it did a lot of ground-breaking. Perhaps you should reply
to the nine goals, or the general topic of
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
Multics??? [..] way too many persons on this list who know the history of
Unix to try this BS.
So, you're saying their nine goals were bullshit? Multics had a lot of
problems. But it did a lot of ground-breaking.
At 11:20 AM 11/14/00, Mike Dresser wrote:
Michael Rothwell wrote:
Just some thoughts from 35 years ago. Please add your $0.02.
What's that $0.02 worth after 35 years of inflation?
=)
I'd say inflation has been easily 12x since then. So $0.02 is now worth
$0.25, i.e. the 2 cents of
At 11:41 AM 11/14/00, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
Multics??? [..] way too many persons on this list who know the
history of
Unix to try this BS.
So, you're saying their nine goals were bullshit? Multics had a
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 11:41:33AM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
Multics??? [..] way too many persons on this list who know the history of
Unix to try this BS.
So, you're saying their nine goals were
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 12:14:57PM -0500, Michael Rothwell wrote:
Ext2 + bdflush + kupdated? Not likely. To quote the Be Filesystems
book, Ext2 throws safety to the wind to achieve speed. This also ties
What safety problems bdflush/kupdated have? (if something they lacks in
performance since
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
Relating some "nine goals of 'Enterprise Computing'" to Multics is
the bullshit.
Funny, I got those off the "Multics FAQ" page.
-M
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 08:59:49AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
I (meaning me) would like the ability to audit every system call. (yes,
this is horrendous, if everything is logged, but I want to be able to
choose how much is logged at the source of the data, rather than at
the
At 01:10 PM 11/14/00 -0500, Michael Rothwell wrote:
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
Relating some "nine goals of 'Enterprise Computing'" to Multics is
the bullshit.
Funny, I got those off the "Multics FAQ" page.
It may be reasonable to question them as "goals of 'Enterprise Computing'".
I
Michael Rothwell writes:
4) A high reliability internal file system.
Ext2 + bdflush + kupdated? Not likely. To quote the Be Filesystems
book, Ext2 throws safety to the wind to achieve speed. This also ties
into Linux' convoluted VM system, and is shot in the foot by NFS. We
would need
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Meissner wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 11:41:33AM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
Multics??? [..] way too many persons on this list who know the history of
Unix to try this
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
Relating some "nine goals of 'Enterprise Computing'" to Multics is
the bullshit.
Funny, I got those off the "Multics FAQ" page.
-M
History is being rewritten. When Multics was being developed by ATT,
it
e computer business altogether.
I would suggest Organick's book, if I could recall the title.
Marty
-Original Message-
From: Richard B. Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 8:42 AM
To: Michael Rothwell
Cc: Linux kernel
Subject: Re: Advanced Linux Kernel/Enterp
mever owns the copyright these
days, to reprint the "Unix" issue of the Bell Systems Journal.
Marty
-Original Message-
From: Richard B. Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 8:26 AM
To: Michael Rothwell
Cc: Linux kernel
Subject: Re: Advanced Linux Ker
, happened to be available and unused.
-Original Message-
From: Richard B. Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 10:01 AM
To: Michael Rothwell
Cc: Linux kernel
Subject: Re: Advanced Linux Kernel/Enterprise Linux Kernel
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
One historically significant "Enterprise" OS is Multics. It had nine
major goals. Perhaps we should think about how Linux measures up to
these 1965 goals for "Enterprise Computing."
Dick Johnson wrote:
The original DEC was "given" to W. M. Ritchie and his staff in
"Department 58213". He wanted to use it for games. To do so, required
him to write some sort of OS, which became Unix.
A typo, I assume. That's D(ennis) Ritchie.
As I said, when Multics was designed, the
, and
could well be expanded given what has been learned in the 35 years since.
Marty
-Original Message-
From: Buddha Buck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 9:52 AM
To: Michael Rothwell; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Linux kernel
Subject: Re: Advanced Linux Kernel/Enterprise Linux
if you look at the kstat structure under solaris, there's a lot of info
there that'd be good to be able to pull out of the linux kernel. that
would slow down the kernel a little, lead to some 'bloat' that linus
abhors and such, but its good to have that information for monitoring and
debugging
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
2) Continuous operation analogous to power telephone services.
No way. Multics could have a whole bank of memory fail and keep running.
You could add CPUs, memory and IO devices while it was running without
interrupting users' work. Of course, a lot
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
One historically significant "Enterprise" OS is Multics. It had nine
major goals. Perhaps we should think about how Linux measures up to
these 1965 goals for "Enterprise Computing."
2
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Mark Hahn wrote:
Linux is a good Unix. if adding "enterpriseness" means violating its
Unixness, then yes, the goals are bullshit. in particular, the kind
of extensive, kernel-based auditing and accounting some people talk about,
as well as the complete evisceration
Marty Fouts writes:
Actually, you have the sequence of events slightly out of order. ATT,
specifically Bell Labs, was one of the participants in the program that
would develop Multics. ATT opted out of the program, for various reasons,
but it continued apace. The PDP-8 of fame was one
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
Multics??? [..] way too many persons on this list who know the history of
Unix to try this BS.
So, you're saying their nine goals were bullshit? Multics had
Michael Rothwell wrote:
2) Continuous operation analogous to power telephone services.
No way. Multics could have a whole bank of memory fail and keep running.
[...]
Considering that it's very cheap nowadays to have redundancy at the
box level, designs attempting to achieve robustness at
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
"Richard B. Johnson" wrote:
Relating some "nine goals of 'Enterprise Computing'" to Multics is
the bullshit.
Funny, I got those off the "Multics FAQ" page.
-M
History is
On Tuesday 14 November 2000 03:43 pm, Steve VanDevender wrote:
Marty Fouts writes:
Actually, you have the sequence of events slightly out of order.
ATT, specifically Bell Labs, was one of the participants in the
program that would develop Multics. ATT opted out of the
program, for
Er, um, yes. I stand corrected.
-Original Message-
From: Steve VanDevender [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 11:44 AM
To: Marty Fouts
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; Michael Rothwell; Linux kernel
Subject: RE: Advanced Linux Kernel/Enterprise Linux Kernel
Marty
Michael Rothwell writes:
1) Convenient remote terminal use.
Telnet, ssh, X windows, rsh, vnc, "screen," ethernet,
serial, etc. I think we have this one.
Nope: /dev/audio, /dev/cdrom, /dev/floppy, fonts, etc.
Also one would want a local window manager for performance,
but this tends to
88 matches
Mail list logo
