Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!
watmath!undergrad.math.waterloo.edu!mobius08.math.uwaterloo.ca!wgsteven
From: wgste...@mobius08.math.uwaterloo.ca (Warren Stevens)
Subject: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box?
Message-ID: <C4BowL.DK3@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
Sender: n...@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 03:41:08 GMT
Lines: 19
Well, here's a twist on the old "which one's better" question:
I'm thinking of installing Linux and/or 386bsd, and i have some pretty
bizzare tastes in software i will want to run -- definately not your
run-of-the-mill type stuff. Which system will give me the least
hassle when i try and compile the source code? Which one will i spend
the least amount of time porting software?
Most of the software is developed for Suns, usually. Things that are
readily ftp'able from public sites, just stuff that you might not see
every day.
Can anyone give me a hand?
Thanks, Warren
--
"An anthropologist at Tulane has just come back from a field trip to New
Guinea with reports of a tribe so primitive that they have Tide but not new
Tide with lemon-fresh Borax." -- David Letterman
From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box?
Date: 22 Mar 93 21:26:16 GMT
In article <C4BowL.DK3@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
wgsteven@mobius08.math.uwaterloo.ca (Warren Stevens) writes:
>
> I'm thinking of installing Linux and/or 386bsd, and i have some
> pretty bizzare tastes in software i will want to run -- definately
> not your run-of-the-mill type stuff. Which system will give me the
> least hassle when i try and compile the source code?
I've had almost no trouble using over 100 free packages under 386BSD.
Most of them compile with no changes at all; a few require minor
editing; a very few require slightly more work.
Overall, it's very easy to port programs written for BSD or POSIX
systems to 386BSD.
--
\ / Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu
/\ \ PGP public key available on request. MIME, AMS, NextMail accepted.
Scheme White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.questions
From: hlu@eecs.wsu.edu (HJ Lu)
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box?
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 05:26:09 GMT
In article <C4BowL.DK3@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>,
wgsteven@mobius08.math.uwaterloo.ca (Warren Stevens) writes:
|> Well, here's a twist on the old "which one's better" question:
|>
|> I'm thinking of installing Linux and/or 386bsd, and i have some pretty
|> bizzare tastes in software i will want to run -- definately not your
|> run-of-the-mill type stuff. Which system will give me the least
|> hassle when i try and compile the source code? Which one will i spend
|> the least amount of time porting software?
|>
|> Most of the software is developed for Suns, usually. Things that are
|> readily ftp'able from public sites, just stuff that you might not see
|> every day.
|>
We have tried very hard to make porting to Linux easy. The Linux C library
is ANSI/POSIX compliant. Unless the software is developed for 386BSD or
something like that, porting to Linux should be easier. Also the floating
point part of Linux C library should be less buggy. But there are a few
exceptions:
1. signal in Linux is POSIX. You can do everything with POSIX except for
sigvector. Sun also supports POSIX signal.
2. tty in Linux is POSIX. Sun also supports POSIX tty.
3. time functions are POSIX, plus a few BSD and SYSV extensions.
4. setjmp/longjmp functions are POSIX. But you can use -D__FAVOR_BSD
to make it BSD or use sigsigjmp/siglongjmp.
From my experiences, 95% of codes from public sites should be compiled
right out of box, at most with a few warning if those codes are not
ANSI/POSIX ready. You can try to compile one of your favorite packages.
|> Can anyone give me a hand?
|>
|> Thanks, Warren
|> --
|> "An anthropologist at Tulane has just come back from a field trip to New
|> Guinea with reports of a tribe so primitive that they have Tide but not new
|> Tide with lemon-fresh Borax." -- David Letterman
H.J.
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.questions
From: hlu@luke.eecs.wsu.edu (HJ Lu)
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box?
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 08:50:58 GMT
In article <1ome2o$1lu6@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>
>In article < C4BowL.DK3@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
>wgsteven@mobius08.math.uwaterloo.ca (Warren Stevens) writes:
>>
>> I'm thinking of installing Linux and/or 386bsd, and i have some
>> pretty bizzare tastes in software i will want to run -- definately
>> not your run-of-the-mill type stuff. Which system will give me the
>> least hassle when i try and compile the source code?
>
>I've had almost no trouble using over 100 free packages under 386BSD.
>Most of them compile with no changes at all; a few require minor
>editing; a very few require slightly more work.
>
I don't know if you count gcc 2.3.3 or not. strtod () in the 386bsd
C library is very broken. It is not very easy to compile gcc 2.3.3
or any floating pointer numbers without a working strtod (). I learned
it the hard way when I first ported gcc 1.9x to Linux. FYI, I was using
a strtod () similar to the one in 386bsd at that time. If you want to
do any serious FP work, I suggest you get a better strtod () like
the one in the Linux C library. Also the Linux math lib is fine tuned
for 387.
>Overall, it's very easy to port programs written for BSD or POSIX
>systems to 386BSD.
>
Linux can do POSIX, SYSV and most of BSD.
H.J.
From: cgd@erewhon.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box?
Date: 23 Mar 93 03:08:21
In article <1993Mar23.085058.13670@serval.net.wsu.edu>
hlu@luke.eecs.wsu.edu (HJ Lu) writes:
>Linux can do POSIX, SYSV and most of BSD.
however, consider this:
for a while, the slogan went: "all the world's a vax (running BSD)".
then, it more or less became: "all the world's a sun (running a
BSD-derivative, if SunOS < 5.0)."
so 386bsd will do most of posix, and basically all of BSD stuff.
and i think that, at this stage of the game, except for GNU software
(which tends to be fine-tuned per platform), you'll end up
being able to compile things just as, if not more easily
under 386bsd...
and i'm not sure the problems you had w/386bsd's strtod, but they
might be fixed now... (but i'm not a libc hacker, so... 8-)
chris
--
Chris G. Demetriou cgd@cs.berkeley.edu
MENTALLY CONTAMINATED and proud of it!
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!ira.uka.de!smurf.sub.org!
flatlin!pilhuhn!snert.ka.sub.org!hwr
From: h...@snert.ka.sub.org (Heiko W.Rupp)
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box?
References: <C4BowL.DK3@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
<1ome2o$1lu6@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <1993Mar23.085058.13670@serval.net.wsu.edu>
<CGD.93Mar23030821@erewhon.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 12:39:36 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: snert.ka.sub.org
Reply-To: h...@pilhuhn.ka.sub.org
Organization: The Home of the Pilhuhn
Sender: n...@pilhuhn.ka.sub.org (Das Newssystem auf pilhuhn)
Message-ID: <hwr.732890376@snert.ka.sub.org>
Lines: 23
c...@erewhon.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou) writes:
>In article <1993Mar23.085058.13...@serval.net.wsu.edu> h...@luke.eecs.wsu.edu
(HJ Lu) writes:
>>Linux can do POSIX, SYSV and most of BSD.
>(which tends to be fine-tuned per platform), you'll end up
>being able to compile things just as, if not more easily
>under 386bsd...
Hm, that's partly right. Taylor-UUCP and nn just compiles fine and easy.
Elm on the contrary is real work to get it running well.
There is another thing to consider:
386bsd has a stable BSD-FFS and stable networking, while there are bugs in
the Linux efs and in their networking.
While most peoble only use Unix Domain IPC and no Internet Domain IPC, the
later is not grave, but the former leads to data loss.
--
Heiko W.Rupp Gerwigstr.5 7500 Kh'e 1 h...@pilhuhn.ka.sub.org +49 721 693642
"I had to censor everything my sons watched ... even on the Mary Tyler
Moore show I heard the word 'damn'!"
-- Mary Lou Bax
From: sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Stephen Tweedie)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box?
Date: 23 Mar 93 22:44:52 GMT
hwr@snert.ka.sub.org (Heiko W.Rupp) writes:
> There is another thing to consider: 386bsd has a stable BSD-FFS and
> stable networking, while there are bugs in the Linux efs and in their
> networking.
Whoah there!!!!
To the very best of my knowledge - and filesystems is What I Do on Linux
- there are no known bugs in the efs, minix or xiafs file systems.
There is a bug in the triple indirection handling of e2fs - fixes to be
released soon - but only files >64MB are affected. There are also a
couple of enhancements due in the e2fsprogs, too.
It is fairly safe to say that efs and minix-fs are bug free now. They
have been around a long time (relative to Linux - they are all
obviously younger than the BSD ffs). It is too early to say
absolutely, definitely, that xiafs and ext2fs are now bug free, but
all the signs are that they are stable. For what it is worth, I have
been using ext2fs extensively since its first release without any
trouble.
The networking point is well taken, though. More and more people seem
to be reporting that they are now running Linux networking successfully,
but there are still a few problems to be ironed out. Although I can't
speak from experience on this one, Linux networking seems now to be
quite useable. A think that few would argue, however, that BSD probably
has the edge on stable multi-user networking - for now.
As with all sweeping generalisations about Linux, though, remember that
things are changing for the better - *fast*.
Cheers,
Stephen Tweedie.
---
Stephen Tweedie <sct@uk.ac.ed.dcs> (Internet: < sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk>)
Department of Computer Science, Edinburgh University, Scotland.
From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box?
Date: 23 Mar 1993 21:15:52 -0500
In article < SCT.93Mar23224452@belnahua.dcs.ed.ac.uk> sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk
(Stephen Tweedie) writes:
>
> It is fairly safe to say that efs and minix-fs are bug free now.
Not a chance in Hell. efs is not stable.
--
\ / Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu
/\ \ PGP public key available on request. MIME, AMS, NextMail accepted.
Scheme White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.questions
From: eric@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale)
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box?
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993 19:29:11 GMT
In article <1oog8o$og4@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>
>In article < SCT.93Mar23224452@belnahua.dcs.ed.ac.uk> sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk
>(Stephen Tweedie) writes:
>>
>> It is fairly safe to say that efs and minix-fs are bug free now.
>
>Not a chance in Hell. efs is not stable.
Oh, brother. While it is true that the efs in the 0.98 kernels had
bugs in it, the efs that is in the 0.99 kernels has tended to be quite stable.
-Eric
--
"When Grigor Samsa woke up one morning from unsettling dreams, he
found himself changed in his bed into a monstrous vermin."
-F. Kafka
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!curtis
From: cur...@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box?
Date: 24 Mar 1993 21:56:53 GMT
Organization: CS Dept. Snakepit - Do Not Feed.
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <1oqlf5$i8b@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <CGD.93Mar23030821@erewhon.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
<hwr.732890376@snert.ka.sub.org>
<SCT.93Mar23224452@belnahua.dcs.ed.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cobra.cs.berkeley.edu
In article <SCT.93Mar23224...@belnahua.dcs.ed.ac.uk> s...@dcs.ed.ac.uk
(Stephen Tweedie) writes:
>h...@snert.ka.sub.org (Heiko W.Rupp) writes:
>
>> There is another thing to consider: 386bsd has a stable BSD-FFS and
>> stable networking, while there are bugs in the Linux efs and in their
>> networking.
>
>Whoah there!!!!
>
>To the very best of my knowledge - and filesystems is What I Do on Linux
>- there are no known bugs in the efs, minix or xiafs file systems.
Bollocks.
I've had huge problems with the minix filesystem in a number of
recent releases, and I've seen reports of similar-looking efs
snafus. This isn't a SCSI problem; I have IDE.
My guess, in fact, is that the bug is in fsck (and efsck, which is
based on fsck). The "standard" SLS system doesn't run fsck on boot,
so it's not surprising that there have been few such bug reports;
I think we might see a lot more if Peter got round to putting a decent
shutdown/rc package in SLS.
I don't mean to be complaining about free software, but I've lost
a lot of valuable data from the minix fs on a lot of occasions, and
it rather disturbs me when people claim that it's bug-free. Fsck
is a necessary part of the filesystem; if you can't recover all
written data after an arbitrary crash, then your filesystem is
broken. Period.
c
Path: sparky!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!uniol!hb.maus.de!
p100.f2003.n241.z2.fidonet.org!Alan_Cox
From: Alan_...@p100.f2003.n241.z2.fidonet.org (Alan Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: 386bsd, linux: which runs mo..
Message-ID: <9438d13b%fido.de@p100.f2003.n241.z2.fidonet.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 16:36:00 GMT
Organization: FastInfo, Oldenburg (49)
Lines: 48
X-Gateway: MausGate/News 1.15D/hb
AREA:COMP.OS.LINUX
From: iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Organization: Swansea University College
In article <1oqlf5$...@agate.berkeley.edu> cur...@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis
Yarvin) writes:
>In article <SCT.93Mar23224...@belnahua.dcs.ed.ac.uk> s...@dcs.ed.ac.uk
(Stephen
Tweedie) writes:
>
>Bollocks.
>
>I've had huge problems with the minix filesystem in a number of
>recent releases, and I've seen reports of similar-looking efs
>snafus. This isn't a SCSI problem; I have IDE.
>
>My guess, in fact, is that the bug is in fsck (and efsck, which is
>based on fsck). The "standard" SLS system doesn't run fsck on boot,
>so it's not surprising that there have been few such bug reports;
>I think we might see a lot more if Peter got round to putting a decent
>shutdown/rc package in SLS.
>
>I don't mean to be complaining about free software, but I've lost
>a lot of valuable data from the minix fs on a lot of occasions, and
>it rather disturbs me when people claim that it's bug-free. Fsck
>is a necessary part of the filesystem; if you can't recover all
>written data after an arbitrary crash, then your filesystem is
>broken. Period.
>
What an attitude. Well I'm running 4 Linux systems, all with Minix FS,
all being hammered very hard. Apart from a few early (0.98 and earlier)
releases which could cause minor recoverable hiccups I've never had a problem
with the file system. I'd strongly suggest you check out your hard disk
controller and drive. These aren't machines just sitting around thinking
either,
one is handling 4-6 users some under X, two are being used full time for X
development one NFS serving for the other, and re-serving a novell filestore
off SOSS, the last is doing mixed development work, including kernel work
like adding acct(), at the same time as being an amateur radio node and
router.
I tried 386BSD and after discovering it stayed up for under 2 hours average
out of the box and that the serial ports only did 2400 I gave it up. Having
said that I still want some poor fool^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbrave volunteer to
port the BSD FFS to Linux, because on a big filesystems and fast disks it
visibly outperformed the Linux file system.
Alan
From: jrs@world.std.com (Rick Sladkey)
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box?
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 02:02:17 GMT
On 6 Feb 93 10:24:47 GMT:
Charles> Linux is very new. It has networking and NFS, but they are
Charles> rushed, incomplete implementations. I find them barely
Charles> usable.
On 27 Feb 93 04:45:06 GMT:
Charles> Linux shared libraries are far inferior; trying to deny that
Charles> is absurd.
On 23 Mar 1993 21:15:52 -0500:
Charles> Not a chance in Hell. efs is not stable.
Lighten up a little, Charles. Got anything constructive to say?
From: Charles_Hannum@p100.f2003.n241.z2.fidonet.org (Charles Hannum)
Subject: 386bsd, linux: which runs mo..
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 93 10:27:00 GMT
AREA:COMP.OS.LINUX
From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Organization: dis
In article < 1993Mar25.173656.19166@swan.pyr> iiitac@swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
writes:
>
> I tried 386BSD and after discovering it stayed up for under 2 hours
> average out of the box and that the serial ports only did 2400 I gave
> it up.
Well, since we seem to be in the `If it works on my machine, it must
work for *everyone*!' mood:
6:25am up 7 days, 8:20, 1 user, load average: 0.18, 0.06, 0.02
I only rebooted it then to change my kernel configuration.
As for the serial ports, I use them at 9600 baud frequently.
--
\ / Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu
/\ \ PGP public key available on request. MIME, AMS, NextMail accepted.
Scheme White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!
From: paul@isl.cf.ac.uk (Paul)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box?
Date: 26 Mar 93 16:39:36 GMT
In article <1oupbd$qfs@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>
>In article <1993Mar25.173656.19166@swan.pyr> iiitac@swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
>writes:
>>
>> I tried 386BSD and after discovering it stayed up for under 2 hours
>> average out of the box and that the serial ports only did 2400 I gave
>> it up.
This has got to be an old version of 386BSD i.e. no patchkit or possibly
even the 0.0 -- when was it you tried 386BSD.
>
>Well, since we seem to be in the `If it works on my machine, it must
>work for *everyone*!' mood:
>
> 6:25am up 7 days, 8:20, 1 user, load average: 0.18, 0.06, 0.02
>
>I only rebooted it then to change my kernel configuration.
>
>As for the serial ports, I use them at 9600 baud frequently.
As Charles says above, I reboot due to kernel changes more often than the
system crashes. I haven't had a crash for weeks and the machine
regularly stays up for days before I reboot it manually for some reason.
As for the serial ports -- they've been worked on substantially and are
now capable of much higher speeds.
--
Paul Richards, University of Wales, College Cardiff
Internet: paul@isl.cf.ac.uk
From: blymn@awadi.com.au (Brett Lymn)
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box
Date: 27 Mar 93 16:43:20
>>>>> On 24 Mar 1993 11:00:37 GMT, malik@dfki.uni-kl.de (Thomas Malik) said:
T> NNTP-Posting-Host: ws-409.dfki.uni-kl.de
T> hwr@snert.ka.sub.org (Heiko W.Rupp) writes:
T> : cgd@erewhon.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou) writes:
T> : >In article < 1993Mar23.085058.13670@serval.net.wsu.edu>
T> : hlu@luke.eecs.wsu.edu (HJ Lu) writes:
T> : >>Linux can do POSIX, SYSV and most of BSD.
T> :
T> : >(which tends to be fine-tuned per platform), you'll end up
T> : >being able to compile things just as, if not more easily
T> : >under 386bsd...
T> :
T> : There is another thing to consider:
T> : 386bsd has a stable BSD-FFS and stable networking, while there are bugs in
T> : the Linux efs and in their networking.
T> : While most peoble only use Unix Domain IPC and no Internet Domain IPC, the
T> : later is not grave, but the former leads to data loss.
Before I start, there is a big key on the right hand side of your
keyboard, normally labelled enter or return. Using it occaisionally
would be a good idea.
T> 386bsd ? STABLE BSD-FFS ? Hah hah hah ... i used 386bsd for 3/4 a
T> year; and i had to repair my filesystem almost EACH time my system
T> crashed down (and that was fairly often! ).
What is wrong with having to repair a file system after a crash? If
you cache your writes in memory you are always going to be in danger
of having an inconsistent file system on disk after a crash. This is
not just an attribute of the BSD FFS. 386BSD *is* stable, I have used
it for weeks on end without a crash, I expect that linux is the same.
T> I didn't see real bugs in linux efs ( which i use for 4-5 months ).
Lucky you. I have not seen any bugs in the BSD FFS either but
considering number of sites using the code that is not unexpected (I
am NOT just talking 386bsd here). BTW whats the fragmentation like on
your disk?
T> So for me, it's no question which OS to prefer ( but the most
T> important reason why i moved
T> to linux were the missing shared libs in 386BSD, giving me such
T> file sizes as 1/2 MB for xterm , over 120 KB only for this simple -
T> minded xlogo (compared to about 9 KB under linux). My very minimal
T> /usr/X386/bin was over 18 MB big (compared to about 5.5 MB now,
T> including idraw , doc & xv, which are partly statically linked))
*sigh* It seems like this argument comes up all the time. For a
start, 386bsd *can* have shared libs, the patches were posted some
time ago. Personally I would much prefer shared libs that worked
something like Sun's rather than a fixed jump table that forces you to
recompile everything when you make a change to the library. If you
are /really/ cramped for disk space, why not buy another disk?
Considering what it would cost to buy the sort of software that
linuxers and 386bsders are getting for "free" you can get a pretty big
hard disk. IMHO dumping on 386bsd just because of it's size is silly.
--
Brett Lymn
From: news@cck.coventry.ac.uk (news user)
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box?
Date: 28 Mar 93 17:16:17 GMT
In article <JRS.93Mar25210217@lepton.world.std.com>
jrs@world.std.com (Rick Sladkey) writes:
>On 6 Feb 93 10:24:47 GMT:
>
>Charles> Linux is very new. It has networking and NFS, but they are
>Charles> rushed, incomplete implementations. I find them barely
>Charles> usable.
>
>On 27 Feb 93 04:45:06 GMT:
>
>Charles> Linux shared libraries are far inferior; trying to deny that
>Charles> is absurd.
>
>On 23 Mar 1993 21:15:52 -0500:
>
>Charles> Not a chance in Hell. efs is not stable.
>
>Lighten up a little, Charles. Got anything constructive to say?
Saddly saying something doesn't work is constructive because it
allows others to avoid wasting time trying to get something working
which, for whatever reason, doesn't.
What is NOT constructive is people on this group trying to bully
others into keeping quiet about things which don't work. Oddly
enough this was exactly what happened on the NeXT news groups -
anyone who dared to suggest that there was anything wrong with
NeXT or the hardware/software was shouted down. Look at NeXT now.
Colin Bruce (ccx004@coventry.ac.uk)
Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry, UK
From: pmacdona@sanjuan (Peter MacDonald)
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box?
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 93 18:07:48 GMT
In article <C4Lzz6.6Bz@cck.coventry.ac.uk>
news@cck.coventry.ac.uk (news user) writes:
>In article <JRS.93Mar25210217@lepton.world.std.com>
jrs@world.std.com (Rick Sladkey) writes:
>>On 6 Feb 93 10:24:47 GMT:
>>
>>Charles> Linux is very new. It has networking and NFS, but they are
>>Charles> rushed, incomplete implementations. I find them barely
>>Charles> usable.
>>
>>On 27 Feb 93 04:45:06 GMT:
>>
>>Charles> Linux shared libraries are far inferior; trying to deny that
>>Charles> is absurd.
>>
>>On 23 Mar 1993 21:15:52 -0500:
>>
>>Charles> Not a chance in Hell. efs is not stable.
>>
>>Lighten up a little, Charles. Got anything constructive to say?
>
>Saddly saying something doesn't work is constructive because it
>allows others to avoid wasting time trying to get something working
>which, for whatever reason, doesn't.
>
>What is NOT constructive is people on this group trying to bully
>others into keeping quiet about things which don't work. Oddly
>enough this was exactly what happened on the NeXT news groups -
>anyone who dared to suggest that there was anything wrong with
>NeXT or the hardware/software was shouted down. Look at NeXT now.
Ricks message is just the opposite. He is not trying to bully
you into "keeping quite" but rather to open up about why
you think something is broken. These systems (networking and file
systems) are big and complex. Saying "it is broken" is like
saying "it is over there" without gesturing when someone asks
you where something is. Let me spell it out:
PHRASE TRANSLATION CATAGORY
======================================================================
"It is broken" Your work is sh*t Criticism
"It is broken because ..." Your work is good, but here's Constructive-
how it could be better Criticism
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.questions
From: erick@demorgan.uwaterloo.ca (Erick Engelke)
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box?
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1993 19:29:32 GMT
How would people feel if companies offerred linux versions
of their commercial software? I will use linux because
it is free, net supported, etc., but I would prefer to
use my favourite tools too. And maybe some vendors
might be interested in this as a lower cost option
than NT, OS/2 or Univel.
Erick
--
Networking is the concept of having data, finding it somewhere else and
thinking that it's a good thing. A distributed environment just means
you are less picky about where it ends up before calling the whole
process a success. Plumbers call it a leak.
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.questions
From: hlu@luke.eecs.wsu.edu (HJ Lu)
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box?
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 93 04:11:26 GMT
In article <C4o0t9.DG3@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
erick@demorgan.uwaterloo.ca (Erick Engelke) writes:
>How would people feel if companies offerred linux versions
>of their commercial software? I will use linux because
>it is free, net supported, etc., but I would prefer to
>use my favourite tools too. And maybe some vendors
>might be interested in this as a lower cost option
>than NT, OS/2 or Univel.
>
If they are linked against the shared library, I welcome
the commercial softwares. I like to see Motif and other
general/scientific/engineering softwares.
H.J.
From: pdhatchm@socs.uts.EDU.AU (Paul Hatchman)
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs mo..
Date: 30 Mar 1993 11:09:59 +1000
Paul@p100.f2003.n241.z2.fidonet.org (Paul) writes:
>As Charles says above, I reboot due to kernel changes more often than the
>system crashes. I haven't had a crash for weeks and the machine
>regularly stays up for days before I reboot it manually for some reason.
People claiming that BSD is "more reliable" should read the above statement.
Most Linux users that I have talked to have never had a Linux crash. Those
that have usually have had fixes to the problem with a week.
Some people have reported crashes due to SCSI and networking, but from what I
have seen *most* of these are cleared up now.
have fun,
================================================================================
Paul Hatchman | <this line intentionally left blank>
Systems Programmer, | pdhatchm@socs.uts.edu.au (prefered)
Sydney Futures Exchange, Australia | paulh@uts.edu.au
================================================================================
From: sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Stephen Tweedie)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box?
Date: 30 Mar 93 19:33:48 GMT
In article <C4o0t9.DG3@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>,
erick@demorgan.uwaterloo.ca (Erick Engelke) writes:
> How would people feel if companies offerred linux versions of their
> commercial software? I will use linux because it is free, net
> supported, etc., but I would prefer to use my favourite tools too.
> And maybe some vendors might be interested in this as a lower cost
> option than NT, OS/2 or Univel.
Definitely a Good Thing. The more software Linux can run the better.
If users have the choice of running commercial software on Linux
rather than having to fork out for a commercial OS to run their
favourite apps, then that sounds good to me.
Cheers,
Stephen Tweedie.
---
Stephen Tweedie <sct@uk.ac.ed.dcs> (Internet: <sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk>)
Department of Computer Science, Edinburgh University, Scotland.
From: sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Stephen Tweedie)
Subject: Re: BSD ffs, linux shared libraries
Date: 31 Mar 93 16:23:09 GMT
In article <BLYMN.93Mar27164320@mallee.awadi.com.au>,
blymn@awadi.com.au (Brett Lymn) writes:
> Lucky you. I have not seen any bugs in the BSD FFS either but
> considering number of sites using the code that is not unexpected (I
> am NOT just talking 386bsd here). BTW whats the fragmentation like
> on your disk?
Well, it's pretty insignificant actually. Remy has just released my
new ext2fs block allocation code, and it so far seems good at
maintaining low fragmentation.
By the way, the new code borrows quite a lot of ideas from the BSD ffs
itself. This is the kind of cross-pollenation which can only improve
both 386BSD _and_ Linux.
> *sigh* It seems like this argument comes up all the time. For a
> start, 386bsd *can* have shared libs, the patches were posted some
> time ago. Personally I would much prefer shared libs that worked
> something like Sun's rather than a fixed jump table that forces you to
> recompile everything when you make a change to the library.
*sigh* This comes up all the time. :-)
For quite some time, Linux libraries have been upgradeable in-place,
without requiring binary recompilation. The only restriction is that
the library should have the same major version number, and at least as
high a minor version number, as the application - just like on a Sun.
It is really hard to fault Linux for missing features - because you
run the constant danger of being proved wrong tomorrow. :-) I'm sure
that the same applies to 386BSD. In fact, the continuous appearance
of new features is one of the few features relatively constant
features of Linux...
Cheers,
Stephen Tweedie.
---
Stephen Tweedie < sct@uk.ac.ed.dcs> (Internet: < sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk>)
Department of Computer Science, Edinburgh University, Scotland.
From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs mo..
Date: 4 Apr 1993 14:26:40 -0400
In article <1p86l7$gb@yak.socs.uts.EDU.AU> pdhatchm@socs.uts.EDU.AU
(Paul Hatchman) writes:
>
> Most Linux users that I have talked to have never had a Linux crash.
> Those that have usually have had fixes to the problem with a week.
It sure as Hell crashed more than that when I used it.
> Some people have reported crashes due to SCSI and networking, but
> from what I have seen *most* of these are cleared up now.
The SCSI and networking code I use under 386BSD is very reliable. It's
the main reason I decided to try 386BSD while I was already running
Linux.
Even if I hadn't had problems with Linux's networking code, it doesn't
have several of the features I use under 386BSD.
--
\ / Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu
/\ \ PGP public key available on request. MIME, AMS, NextMail accepted.
Scheme White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!
From: sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Stephen Tweedie)
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs mo..
Date: 5 Apr 93 17:36:43 GMT
In article <1pn990$sn1@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu
(Charles Hannum) writes:
> In article <1p86l7$gb@yak.socs.uts.EDU.AU> pdhatchm@socs.uts.EDU.AU
> (Paul Hatchman) writes:
>> Most Linux users that I have talked to have never had a Linux crash.
>> Those that have usually have had fixes to the problem with a week.
> It sure as Hell crashed more than that when I used it.
... and you seem determined to ram this down our throats every week.
You seem to be saying that you gave up on Linux ages ago because it
was ridden with bugs. You seem unable to make any allowance that
Linux may in fact have improved since you left it, yet you get
terribly upset when anybody makes any out-of-date criticisms of
386BSD.
This might be reasonable if you were _ever_ prepared to be positive in
your criticism. However, unjustified hit-and-run attacks on Linux are
not going to help anybody. If you have a problem, let us know what it
is - that way you might even find some public spirited developer
willing to fix your problem for you. Just standing up and shouting
very loudly that Linux is rubbish is hardly constructive.
For the record, Linux doesn't crash on me. Period.
Give us a break, Charles, huh? Please?
Stephen Tweedie.
---
Stephen Tweedie <sct@uk.ac.ed.dcs> (Internet: <sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk>)
Department of Computer Science, Edinburgh University, Scotland.
From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs mo..
Date: 5 Apr 1993 18:23:39 -0400
In article <SCT.93Apr5173643@damsay.dcs.ed.ac.uk> sct@dcs.ed.ac.uk
(Stephen Tweedie) writes:
>
> You seem to be saying that you gave up on Linux ages ago because it
> was ridden with bugs. You seem unable to make any allowance that
> Linux may in fact have improved since you left it, [...]
I feel justified in this, because people were screaming about how
wonderful and reliable Linux was back when I started using it, right up
through when I quit (0.99.3), and it never worked reliably for me.
Everybody seemed content to simply say `must be your hardware'. Well,
my hardware works just fine to run 386BSD.
I make no attempt to say that 386BSD works for everyone; some people
want shared libraries, and the standard release doesn't include them.
It doesn't work on some hardware that Linux now works on (and, BTW,
vice versa). Overall, though, it has more of the features which I
want, and its native file system and networking code appear very
stable.
Admittedly, if I wanted to debug yet another system, I could make Linux
work, but that's not the point and I don't care. My only point is that
people need to understand that their hardware is not the only platform
in the entire world, and what works for them does not necessarily work
for everyone else.
--
\ / Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu
/\ \ PGP public key available on request. MIME, AMS, NextMail accepted.
Scheme White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!