Kim,
Everything I said in my brief response to this thread was true and you don't really
deny any of it, you're just splitting hairs (badly) because you like to have the last
word.
Read on, then:
Kim C. Callis wrote:
> On 11-Jan-99 Ralph Clark wrote about the following Re: [SuSE Linux]
> Problems with Swap :
> ||
> || Vary interesting but I don't think it is relevant to the current
> || discussion.
>
> Considering that I was the one who originally posted the "Problem with
> Swap" topic, I am sure that is is relevant to the topic (only because I
> say it is!). The commented text that you refer to was a clarification of
> someone erroneous claim that swapping ability of Linux was an enhancement
> by Linus.
Considering that this is a _linux_ list and that the thread was about a _linux_
question, the sweeping generalisation you made about Unix could have been misleading
to many people on the list who don't read the Linux Bible before every night before
bed. My response was _to_ your erroneous posting in _context_ of the whole thread. I
_did_ read the whole thread, and my posting was appropriate because _you_were_wrong_
to post a misleading statement. As for relevance being defined by you alone....is
this the "suse_linux_kim_callis_e" list then? Actually it's not. A posting might
belong to you in some sense even after it's in the public domain; however, a thread
generated by several contributors is most certainly not yours. i.e. we all have as
much right to determine what is relevant.
> || Linux is unusual among Unix kernels in that its implementation owes
> || absolutely
> || _nothing_ to the original AT&T licenced code. That is why it is free.
>
> Actually, that is not unusual... If you take a look at NetBSD, FreeBSD and
> BSD386, these are all free of AT&T code. Although BSD/386 has remnants of
> original AT&T intellectual properties, hence BSD/386 moving on to become
> what is now known as BSD/I. And if you really want to get specific, the
> former two are also free of any BSD code which had AT&T restrictions on it.
OK, so there's Minix, the Linux family of kernels and (some of) the BSD family of
kernels - against all the proprietary kernels. It sure does look like these
non-AT&T-derived kernels are very much in the minority doesn't it? So my statement
about Linux being unusual is correct. I _didn't_ claim that it was unique. You just
misread my posting.
> || Linux was
> || originally based on Andrew Tanenbaum's freeware OS called Minix (which
> || was also
> || developed independently of the AT&T code base), but I doubt if there's
> || much of
> || Minix left in the Linux kernel by now, and it's being tweaked more and
> || more all
>
> The initial Filesystem code as well as character handling code was stolen
> from Minix. The rest of the original kernel was written from the ground
> up.
You are right about that; thank you for the elaboration.
> This is not based on memeory, but on actually playing with the source
> code long before it started to get wide knowledge of its existance.
Now you are just showing off.
> || the time. I doubt if the archaic performance trade-offs present in
> || traditional
> || Unix kernels would be found in modern Linux kernels in any
> || recognisable form.
>
> I am sure that is one takes the time to read an entire thread to make sure
> that a follow-up response is apropos, then comments like the one below
> wouldn't be made.
Now you are just being rude. I did read it and IMHO my comment was apropos for the
reasons stated herein.
> Actually, if you want to go into detail, it wouldn't be
> a question of AT&T code, since the enhancement was made at Berkeley. Until
> the boys and girl at CSEG over at Berkeley made swapping available in a
> BSD release, there was no ability by the Bell Labs version of UNIX to do
> swapping.
Your original comment was about the design of Unix by Ritchie et al in 1969. My
posting was a response to that comment. I believe Ritchie was working for AT&T at
that time, not Berkeley. Hence I refer to AT&T licenced code.
> I normally don't get into a pissing contest on who knows the most arcana
> about Linux, UNIX, or the effects of the Reagan doctrine on the
> prolification of weapons of mass destruction. But I felt compelled to this
> time.
People who start flame wars often make some dumb comment like this. If you don't
normally do it then why make an exception now? My posting wasn't attacking you,
anybody or anything. I was just adding something to a factual statement that might
have been misleading because you had placed it out of context.The fact is that you
rudely tried to slap me down because in some minor way I dared to correct you, and
I guess you are one of those people who just can't ever be wrong.
> The realities are that this mailing list should serve to guide
> people in the idiosyncracies of using S.u.S.E Linux. From time to time, we
> tend to wax on subjects that may not necessarily pertain to S.u.S.E Linux.
Fair enough. But it doesn't serve the users of the list to allow a misleading
statement to pass uncorrected.
> In the case below, I was clarifying someone's misconception of where swap
> originated from.
And I was clarifying your misleading clarification, lest anyone should wrongly think
that implementation choices in the early Unices might have anything to do with
current implementations of Linux. They don't.
> This really wasn't an invitation to dispute what was
> said, nor attempt to explain whether or not the response was germaine to
> the topic.
In a public forum, I don't need an invitation from you to do either of those things.
I just can't believe you're saying that stuff! What arrogance! Regardless of what you
may think of me personally, I really think you ought to apologise to the whole list
for that.
Ralph
>
> ||
> || Kim C. Callis wrote:
> ||
> || > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> || >
> || > On 09-Jan-99 Ec|ipse wrote about the following Re: [SuSE Linux]
> || > Problems
> || > with Swap :
> || > ||
> || > || Kim C. Callis wrote:
> || > || >
> || > || > I have been having a devil of a time with getting any of my swap
> || > || > space
> || > || > addressed. Currently I have 128M of RAM and I had created a 128M
> || > || > swap
> || > || > partition
> || > ||
> || > || The only real purpose of swap space is for a system that
> || > || doesn't
> || > || have
> || > || alot of physical memory available. way back when linux was very
> || > || becoming
> || > || available, someone had asked Linus if there was a way to do this
> || > || since
> || > || he only had about 2mg of mem on his system and couldn't do
> || > || anything
> || > || really exciting with it. So along came swap space which made this
> || > || possible.
> || >
> || > I am sure Dennis Ritchie and others would have something to say about
> || > the
> || > above. In reading Andrew Tannenbaum's "The Design of the UNIX
> || > Operating
> || > System", one would find that UNIX was originally optimized to be I/O
> || > efficient and not CPU or physical RAM efficient. This is because when
> || > UNIX
> || > was created in 1969, it ran on a DEC PDP 11/45. This machine had a 16
> || > bit
> || > addressing CPU (But kind of a hybrid like the 8088 which handled 16
> || > bnits
> || > internally, but 8 bits externally, a whopping 40K of RAM and a whole
> || > 1M of
> || > disk space.
> || >
> || > So the initial design of UNIX was to make extensive use of swap space
> || > (and
> || > at that time it was truly swap space as opposed to the more efficent
> || > paging), the original kernel took up 27k and that left 13k to run
> || > various
> || > utilities like a shell and ed.
> || >
> || > Thank you for tuning into this weeks episode of "30 Years of
> || > Superiority
> || > - -- The History of the UNIX Operating System, with your host Kim
> || > Callis! :?)
> || >
> || > - ---
> || > Kim C. Callis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> || > *********************************
> || > * When it absolutely, *
> || > * Positively has to be *
> || > * Destroyed over night! *
> || > * *
> || > * (800) MARINES *
> || > *********************************
> || >
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ralph Clark, Virgo Solutions Ltd (UK)
__ _
/ / (_)__ __ ____ __ * Powerful * Flexible * Compatible * Reliable *
/ /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / *Well Supported * Thousands of New Users Every Day*
/____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ The Cost Effective Choice - Linux Means Business!
-
To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
archiv at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
