Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #213787 > unrolled thread
| Started by | gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-09-05 20:57 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-07-02 09:29 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 141 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Where did Microsoft go wrong? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-05 20:57 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-05 20:40 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-05 22:44 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-08 21:10 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-09-05 22:50 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 19:35 -0400
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-06 07:12 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-02 09:36 -0700
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-02 19:05 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-02 21:44 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-02 22:16 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2021-07-03 00:57 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2021-07-02 23:05 -0500
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Fred Weigel <fridtjof.martin.weigel@gmail.com> - 2021-07-02 16:03 -0700
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-03 17:35 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-04 08:35 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-02 11:28 -0700
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-02 23:28 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-03 10:21 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-03 22:16 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2021-07-03 21:07 -0400
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-03 18:40 -0700
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-06 04:36 -0700
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2021-07-06 17:42 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-07-06 16:52 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-06 04:34 -0700
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-05 17:59 -0700
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-05 22:07 -0400
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-06 06:30 -0700
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-06 10:02 -0400
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Bud Spencer <bud@campo.verano.it> - 2020-09-06 17:47 +0300
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-09-06 08:12 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Johnatan Duck <pato@thunder.local> - 2020-09-11 08:22 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-06 16:23 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-06 16:19 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-06 22:51 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2020-09-05 17:01 -0600
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-06 08:23 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-06 20:03 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2020-09-06 17:26 -0600
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-06 16:20 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-06 11:14 -0700
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-07 05:27 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-07 08:32 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-07 11:01 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-07 10:28 -0700
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-07 13:50 -0400
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-06 22:48 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-07 10:58 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-07 17:47 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-07 18:02 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-07 20:57 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-07 13:44 -0400
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-08 00:05 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-07 19:40 -0400
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-08 01:33 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-07 22:39 -0400
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-08 11:01 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-08 14:42 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 10:28 -0400
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-08 08:44 -0700
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-08 16:48 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 12:12 -0400
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-08 17:33 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 13:47 -0400
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-08 19:49 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 15:35 -0400
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2020-09-08 20:01 -0300
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 20:16 -0400
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2020-09-09 03:50 -0300
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-09 17:20 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2020-09-10 03:29 -0300
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2020-09-08 09:20 -0600
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-08 15:39 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2020-09-08 12:01 -0600
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2020-09-09 17:59 +0300
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 11:54 -0400
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-08 17:18 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-08 19:44 +0100
Re: ZFS, Where did Microsoft go wrong? John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-09-08 01:27 +0000
Re: ZFS, Where did Microsoft go wrong? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-07 22:54 -0400
Re: ZFS, Where did Microsoft go wrong? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-08 08:44 -0700
Re: ZFS, Where did Microsoft go wrong? Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-08 16:01 +0000
Re: ZFS, Where did Microsoft go wrong? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-08 09:33 -0700
Re: ZFS, Where did Microsoft go wrong? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-08 08:44 -0700
Re: ZFS, Where did Microsoft go wrong? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-08 17:00 +0100
Re: ZFS, Where did Microsoft go wrong? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-08 09:33 -0700
Re: ZFS, -> The Great Rootshow Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 13:41 -0400
Re: ZFS, -> The Great Rootshow Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-08 19:37 +0100
Re: ZFS, -> The Great Rootshow Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 15:31 -0400
Re: ZFS, -> The Great Rootshow Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-08 22:54 +0100
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 18:09 -0400
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-08 23:18 +0100
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 20:10 -0400
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-09 09:41 +0000
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-09 08:34 -0400
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-09 12:43 +0000
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-09 13:29 +0100
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-09 08:44 -0400
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-09 18:31 +0000
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-09 15:49 -0400
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-09 20:41 +0000
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-09 17:32 -0400
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-10 05:17 +0000
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-10 12:15 +0100
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-10 11:51 +0000
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-10 14:40 +0100
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-10 17:39 +0100
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-10 18:03 +0100
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-10 15:45 +0000
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-10 12:02 -0400
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-10 17:35 +0100
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-09 21:05 +0100
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-09 16:55 -0700
Re: ZFS, -> WARNING back top systemd scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-10 15:48 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-08 15:38 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-09-08 02:29 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-08 17:53 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 17:43 -0400
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-08 23:00 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-02 07:10 -0700
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-02 16:32 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-03 04:10 -0700
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2021-07-08 01:01 -0700
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2021-07-08 11:36 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2021-07-08 16:01 -0400
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-08 15:01 -0700
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-08 22:45 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-08 19:30 -0400
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2021-07-08 21:02 -0500
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2021-07-08 12:09 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-07-08 13:44 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2021-07-08 12:49 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-07-08 13:53 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-07-08 14:17 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-07-08 22:00 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-07-08 13:56 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Daniel Jendinger <hexabit@daniels-mac-mini2.local> - 2021-09-06 18:56 +0000
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2021-09-06 17:27 -0400
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2021-09-06 22:30 +0100
Re: Where did Microsoft go wrong? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2021-07-02 09:29 -0700
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-06 16:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rj2uo3$dn5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213808 |
On 06/09/2020 00:01, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> writes: > >> With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft >> provided products to help you control your computer, but >> with W10 they are trying to control the way you use the >> computer. >> >> W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC >> I buy will be LINUX based. >> >> So, just before my 35th year of being a Microsoft >> customer and user, they have finally succeeded in >> driving me away. > > Grew up on BSD Unix on a VAXen. When I got my first Windows laptop > (running 3.11 on a compaq Concerto) I lasted about a week before I > started looking into how to install Linux. > Grew up on naked PDP11 with no OS at all!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-06 11:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1328843627.621108688.749803.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #213843 |
gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 06/09/2020 00:01, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft >>> provided products to help you control your computer, but >>> with W10 they are trying to control the way you use the >>> computer. >>> >>> W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC >>> I buy will be LINUX based. >>> >>> So, just before my 35th year of being a Microsoft >>> customer and user, they have finally succeeded in >>> driving me away. >> >> Grew up on BSD Unix on a VAXen. When I got my first Windows laptop >> (running 3.11 on a compaq Concerto) I lasted about a week before I >> started looking into how to install Linux. >> > > Grew up on naked PDP11 with no OS at all! > > I’m envious. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-07 05:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rj4gcp$ium$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de> |
| In reply to | #213851 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> schrieb: > gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Grew up on naked PDP11 with no OS at all! > I’m envious. There are / were computers that could still be understood, in both hardware and software, by a single person. The C-64 was such a machine - you had full ROM listings, plus the hardware specs of the different chips were well known. You just had to buy a couple of books and work through them. It is probably safe to say that the VAX under VMS was beyond that, as are modern PCs. IBM/360 probably was incomprehensible from the very beginning :-) What about the PDP-11, where was it on that trajectory?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-07 08:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hrm9glFqul2U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #213864 |
On Mon, 07 Sep 2020 05:27:53 +0000, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> schrieb: >> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> Grew up on naked PDP11 with no OS at all! > >> I’m envious. > > There are / were computers that could still be understood, in both > hardware and software, by a single person. The C-64 was such a machine > - you had full ROM listings, plus the hardware specs of the different > chips were well known. You just had to buy a couple of books and work > through them. > > It is probably safe to say that the VAX under VMS was beyond that, > as are modern PCs. IBM/360 probably was incomprehensible from the very > beginning :-) > > What about the PDP-11, where was it on that trajectory? You could do prertty much everything. DEC's engineering philosophy was that you could find everything. I have just been working on a 'lost' operating system for te PDP-11. I found everything I needed to know, down to the last bit controlling the CPU, instruction set, peripheral programming, the lot. I had to write quite a lot of code (starting with a boot block). Much of it in assembler, or modifying a compiler to generate better code. I haven't had to guess or reverse engineer anything - it was all there. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-07 11:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rj50dk$mi9$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213864 |
On 07/09/2020 06:27, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> schrieb: >> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> Grew up on naked PDP11 with no OS at all! > >> I’m envious. > > There are / were computers that could still be understood, in both > hardware and software, by a single person. The C-64 was such a > machine - you had full ROM listings, plus the hardware specs of > the different chips were well known. You just had to buy a couple > of books and work through them. > > It is probably safe to say that the VAX under VMS was beyond that, > as are modern PCs. IBM/360 probably was incomprehensible from > the very beginning :-) > > What about the PDP-11, where was it on that trajectory? > Dead easy; you had a processor manual giving all the instructions together with I/O interfacing requirements, and, additionally you got countless (about A3 size) books of circuits!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-07 10:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1491425230.621192209.134547.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #213864 |
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote: > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> schrieb: >> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> Grew up on naked PDP11 with no OS at all! > >> I’m envious. > > There are / were computers that could still be understood, in both > hardware and software, by a single person. The C-64 was such a > machine - you had full ROM listings, plus the hardware specs of > the different chips were well known. You just had to buy a couple > of books and work through them. > > It is probably safe to say that the VAX under VMS was beyond that, > as are modern PCs. IBM/360 probably was incomprehensible from > the very beginning :-) The hardware was pretty obvious. MVS is opaque, but CP67 (VM/370) had full listings and was pretty straightforward, from what I’ve seen. > > What about the PDP-11, where was it on that trajectory? > -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-07 13:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rj5rsp$bag$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213864 |
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> writes: > IBM/360 probably was incomprehensible from > the very beginning :-) I was able to read and comprehend POPs but it took an inordinate amount of effort. My intent was to be able to write my own stuff and avoid IBMs lackluster products. After seeing what I was up against I gave up. So, I'm going to say incomprehensible is fair. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-06 22:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hrl7akFqul2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #213843 |
On Sun, 06 Sep 2020 16:20:33 +0100, gareth evans wrote: > On 06/09/2020 00:01, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft provided products >>> to help you control your computer, but with W10 they are trying to >>> control the way you use the computer. >>> >>> W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC I buy will be LINUX >>> based. >>> >>> So, just before my 35th year of being a Microsoft customer and user, >>> they have finally succeeded in driving me away. >> >> Grew up on BSD Unix on a VAXen. When I got my first Windows laptop >> (running 3.11 on a compaq Concerto) I lasted about a week before I >> started looking into how to install Linux. >> >> > Grew up on naked PDP11 with no OS at all! I did that too. Part wrote an OS for PDP-11, and worked on the compiler for it. Currently restoring a non-DEC PDP-11 OS from partial sources. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-07 10:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rj507s$mi9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213860 |
On 06/09/2020 23:48, Bob Eager wrote: > On Sun, 06 Sep 2020 16:20:33 +0100, gareth evans wrote: > >> On 06/09/2020 00:01, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >>> gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft provided products >>>> to help you control your computer, but with W10 they are trying to >>>> control the way you use the computer. >>>> >>>> W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC I buy will be LINUX >>>> based. >>>> >>>> So, just before my 35th year of being a Microsoft customer and user, >>>> they have finally succeeded in driving me away. >>> >>> Grew up on BSD Unix on a VAXen. When I got my first Windows laptop >>> (running 3.11 on a compaq Concerto) I lasted about a week before I >>> started looking into how to install Linux. >>> >>> >> Grew up on naked PDP11 with no OS at all! > > I did that too. Part wrote an OS for PDP-11, and worked on the compiler > for it. > > Currently restoring a non-DEC PDP-11 OS from partial sources. Based upon the simple real-time exec to which I was introduced in 1974, (Automation division of Westinghouse Brake & Signal, paper tape plus teletype console PDP11 to control part of the National Grid at Walpole St Andrew substation), when the world of microprocessors was emerging, in order to understand the order code (instruction set to the Yanks) of each new micro, I hand coded a 256 byte version of that exec. Obviously in that size, a static build, with no provision for loading other tasks on the fly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-07 17:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rj5o7h$vu5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #213787 |
On 09/05/20 20:57, gareth evans wrote: > With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft > provided products to help you control your computer, but > with W10 they are trying to control the way you use the > computer. > > W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC > I buy will be LINUX based. > > So, just before my 35th year of being a Microsoft > customer and user, they have finally succeeded in > driving me away. Have a look at FreeBSD. Less bloated than Linux, no systemd, installs in less than an hour and is rock solid. The only downside is that you have to install the gui of choice, but they are all available as packages, taking 10 mins or so to install. Just about all Linux packages are available as well. Still running 12 on X86 and 11 on Sparc, but 13 is the current version, fwir... Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-07 18:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20200907180248.e5e5399b007f181f096ded1b@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #213872 |
On Mon, 07 Sep 2020 17:47:47 +0100 Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> wrote: > Still running 12 on X86 and 11 on Sparc, but 13 is > the current version, fwir... 12.1 and 11.4 are the current releases, 13 is the up and coming release under development. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-07 20:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hrnl62Fqul2U7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #213875 |
On Mon, 07 Sep 2020 18:02:48 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On Mon, 07 Sep 2020 17:47:47 +0100 Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> > wrote: > >> Still running 12 on X86 and 11 on Sparc, but 13 is the current version, >> fwir... > > 12.1 and 11.4 are the current releases, 13 is the up and coming > release under development. Yup. Currently running the house on 12.1 (as well as the jitsi server on EC2). Testing ports on 13-CURRENT. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-07 13:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rj5ria$bag$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213872 |
Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> writes: > On 09/05/20 20:57, gareth evans wrote: >> With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft >> provided products to help you control your computer, but >> with W10 they are trying to control the way you use the >> computer. >> >> W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC >> I buy will be LINUX based. >> >> So, just before my 35th year of being a Microsoft >> customer and user, they have finally succeeded in >> driving me away. > > Have a look at FreeBSD. Less bloated than Linux, no > systemd, installs in less than an hour and is rock > solid. The only downside is that you have to install > the gui of choice, but they are all available as > packages, taking 10 mins or so to install. Just about > all Linux packages are available as well. > > Still running 12 on X86 and 11 on Sparc, but 13 is > the current version, fwir... Oops, war starting. What does Google say: Is FreeBSD better than Linux? Both are stable and provide an efficient working environment. However, the general consensus is that nearly all applications run faster on Linux than FreeBSD, but FreeBSD's TCP/IP stack has way less latency (faster response time) than Linux.Jun 27, 2018 When someone tells you their OS is better because it doesn't have systemd, well, hate to say this, but they're uninformed. I'll take systemd over SysV init every day. BSDs init looks to me like more of the same. systemd took a total mess and transformed it into a logical well designed structure. Basic system design principles will tell you this. Systemd took a mess of inconsistent start up scripts and a nest of soft links and turned it into a very simple structure where ONE file describes each service to be managed. It did all this and managed to: 1. Reduce boot time dramatically 2. Reduce shut down time the same way 3. Manage running services in case a device is plugged in or has a problem and needs to restart 4. Finally make the relationships between running services clear -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-08 00:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rj6ebt$hoj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #213877 |
On 09/07/20 18:44, Dan Espen wrote: > Chris<xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> writes: > >> On 09/05/20 20:57, gareth evans wrote: >>> With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft >>> provided products to help you control your computer, but >>> with W10 they are trying to control the way you use the >>> computer. >>> >>> W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC >>> I buy will be LINUX based. >>> >>> So, just before my 35th year of being a Microsoft >>> customer and user, they have finally succeeded in >>> driving me away. >> >> Have a look at FreeBSD. Less bloated than Linux, no >> systemd, installs in less than an hour and is rock >> solid. The only downside is that you have to install >> the gui of choice, but they are all available as >> packages, taking 10 mins or so to install. Just about >> all Linux packages are available as well. >> >> Still running 12 on X86 and 11 on Sparc, but 13 is >> the current version, fwir... > > Oops, war starting. > > What does Google say: > > Is FreeBSD better than Linux? > Both are stable and provide an efficient working environment. However, > the general consensus is that nearly all applications run faster on > Linux than FreeBSD, but FreeBSD's TCP/IP stack has way less latency > (faster response time) than Linux.Jun 27, 2018 > > When someone tells you their OS is better because it doesn't have > systemd, well, hate to say this, but they're uninformed. > > I'll take systemd over SysV init every day. > BSDs init looks to me like more of the same. > > systemd took a total mess and transformed it into a logical well > designed structure. Basic system design principles will tell you > this. Systemd took a mess of inconsistent start up scripts and a nest > of soft links and turned it into a very simple structure where ONE > file describes each service to be managed. It did all this and managed > to: > > 1. Reduce boot time dramatically > 2. Reduce shut down time the same way > 3. Manage running services in case a device is plugged in or has a > problem and needs to restart > 4. Finally make the relationships between running services clear > > Won't get involved in wars, as I do use both and both work, though all Linux here is pre systemd, or devuan. However, from a software engineering point of FreeBSD looks far more lean in it's design and has other advantages, such as a native zfs file system and yes, no systemd. If you want an example of how to do a higher level system management, look at Solaris, which kept most of the original log files and locations, but introduced an xml layer above all that, which you can bypass if you need to. How would you do that for log and config files with systemd ?. Might help brain dead sysadmins, but opaque if you need to do serious work under the hood. It's got it's fingers into every part of the system and is totaly against any concept of functional isolation, partioning and layered design. As to the list, 1, 4 ?, who cares if boot and shutdown take a bit longer, it's not a race, 3) Solaris and FreeBSD both both have had service management utilities for years. 4) That's if the sysadmin has the internal knowledge, but that's true for both os's. \rant :-)... Chris I view Linux as a wondoze substitute these day, but ymmv... management utilities .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-07 19:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rj6ge8$jkq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213880 |
Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> writes: > On 09/07/20 18:44, Dan Espen wrote: >> Chris<xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> writes: >> >>> On 09/05/20 20:57, gareth evans wrote: >>>> With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft >>>> provided products to help you control your computer, but >>>> with W10 they are trying to control the way you use the >>>> computer. >>>> >>>> W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC >>>> I buy will be LINUX based. >>>> >>>> So, just before my 35th year of being a Microsoft >>>> customer and user, they have finally succeeded in >>>> driving me away. >>> >>> Have a look at FreeBSD. Less bloated than Linux, no >>> systemd, installs in less than an hour and is rock >>> solid. The only downside is that you have to install >>> the gui of choice, but they are all available as >>> packages, taking 10 mins or so to install. Just about >>> all Linux packages are available as well. >>> >>> Still running 12 on X86 and 11 on Sparc, but 13 is >>> the current version, fwir... >> >> Oops, war starting. >> >> What does Google say: >> >> Is FreeBSD better than Linux? >> Both are stable and provide an efficient working environment. However, >> the general consensus is that nearly all applications run faster on >> Linux than FreeBSD, but FreeBSD's TCP/IP stack has way less latency >> (faster response time) than Linux.Jun 27, 2018 >> >> When someone tells you their OS is better because it doesn't have >> systemd, well, hate to say this, but they're uninformed. >> >> I'll take systemd over SysV init every day. >> BSDs init looks to me like more of the same. >> >> systemd took a total mess and transformed it into a logical well >> designed structure. Basic system design principles will tell you >> this. Systemd took a mess of inconsistent start up scripts and a nest >> of soft links and turned it into a very simple structure where ONE >> file describes each service to be managed. It did all this and managed >> to: >> >> 1. Reduce boot time dramatically >> 2. Reduce shut down time the same way >> 3. Manage running services in case a device is plugged in or has a >> problem and needs to restart >> 4. Finally make the relationships between running services clear >> >> > > Won't get involved in wars, as I do use both and both work, though > all Linux here is pre systemd, or devuan. > However, from a software engineering point of FreeBSD looks far > more lean in it's design and has other advantages, such as a native > zfs file system and yes, no systemd. Not sure why zfs is a big winner: ZFS is a combined file system and logical volume manager designed by Sun Microsystems. ZFS is scalable, and includes extensive protection against data corruption, support for high storage capacities, I was just reading about Fedora's new file system, XFS. I'm not facing any issues with ext4 though. For Fedora, I didn't like or need LVM so I turned it off. I wanted /home on a physically separate volume not a virtual volume. > If you want an example of how to do a higher level system management, > look at Solaris, which kept most of the original log files and > locations, but introduced an xml layer above all that, which you > can bypass if you need to. How would you do that for log and config > files with systemd ?. I must be misunderstanding something, my Fedora system has all the traditional logs in addition to the journal. Of course that is a distinct issue from the init system. At work all of the init stuff on my Solaris systems was read protected by the admins so I couldn't see what it was doing, but I was under the impression it was similar to systemd. Fortunately systemd uses simple flat files instead of xml. > Might help brain dead sysadmins, but opaque > if you need to do serious work under the hood. It's got it's fingers > into every part of the system and is totaly against any concept of > functional isolation, partioning and layered design. I don't know what part of systemd you are talking about. The init system part (which is the real systemd) just replaces all those init scripts and the forest of soft links. It replaces all that with just one .service file for each service. Couldn't be simpler. Here is the .service file for Emacs: home> cat /usr/lib/systemd/user/emacs.service [Unit] Description=Emacs: the extensible, self-documenting text editor [Service] Type=forking ExecStart=/usr/bin/emacs --daemon ExecStop=/usr/bin/emacsclient --eval "(kill-emacs)" Restart=always [Install] WantedBy=default.target Look at the beauty of that simple design. How to start it, how to stop it, what to call it, what to do if it fails. It couldn't be any simpler. > As to the list, 1, 4 ?, who cares if boot and shutdown take a bit > longer, it's not a race, 3) Solaris and FreeBSD both both have had > service management utilities for years. 4) That's if the sysadmin > has the internal knowledge, but that's true for both os's. Well systemd has it's undeniable good points so invariably it's detractors come up with "who cares". I was trouble shooting a problem that needed 5 or 6 reboots just today. I care. > I view Linux as a wondoze substitute these day, but ymmv... There you go. It's just like Windows! Absurd. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-08 01:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rj6jhe$5ac$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #213881 |
On 09/08/20 00:40, Dan Espen wrote: > Chris<xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> writes: > >> On 09/07/20 18:44, Dan Espen wrote: >>> Chris<xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> writes: >>> >>>> On 09/05/20 20:57, gareth evans wrote: >>>>> With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft >>>>> provided products to help you control your computer, but >>>>> with W10 they are trying to control the way you use the >>>>> computer. >>>>> >>>>> W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC >>>>> I buy will be LINUX based. >>>>> >>>>> So, just before my 35th year of being a Microsoft >>>>> customer and user, they have finally succeeded in >>>>> driving me away. >>>> >>>> Have a look at FreeBSD. Less bloated than Linux, no >>>> systemd, installs in less than an hour and is rock >>>> solid. The only downside is that you have to install >>>> the gui of choice, but they are all available as >>>> packages, taking 10 mins or so to install. Just about >>>> all Linux packages are available as well. >>>> >>>> Still running 12 on X86 and 11 on Sparc, but 13 is >>>> the current version, fwir... >>> >>> Oops, war starting. >>> >>> What does Google say: >>> >>> Is FreeBSD better than Linux? >>> Both are stable and provide an efficient working environment. However, >>> the general consensus is that nearly all applications run faster on >>> Linux than FreeBSD, but FreeBSD's TCP/IP stack has way less latency >>> (faster response time) than Linux.Jun 27, 2018 >>> >>> When someone tells you their OS is better because it doesn't have >>> systemd, well, hate to say this, but they're uninformed. >>> >>> I'll take systemd over SysV init every day. >>> BSDs init looks to me like more of the same. >>> >>> systemd took a total mess and transformed it into a logical well >>> designed structure. Basic system design principles will tell you >>> this. Systemd took a mess of inconsistent start up scripts and a nest >>> of soft links and turned it into a very simple structure where ONE >>> file describes each service to be managed. It did all this and managed >>> to: >>> >>> 1. Reduce boot time dramatically >>> 2. Reduce shut down time the same way >>> 3. Manage running services in case a device is plugged in or has a >>> problem and needs to restart >>> 4. Finally make the relationships between running services clear >>> >>> >> >> Won't get involved in wars, as I do use both and both work, though >> all Linux here is pre systemd, or devuan. >> However, from a software engineering point of FreeBSD looks far >> more lean in it's design and has other advantages, such as a native >> zfs file system and yes, no systemd. > > Not sure why zfs is a big winner: > > ZFS is a combined file system and logical volume manager designed by > Sun Microsystems. ZFS is scalable, and includes extensive protection > against data corruption, support for high storage capacities, > > I was just reading about Fedora's new file system, XFS. > I'm not facing any issues with ext4 though. > > For Fedora, I didn't like or need LVM so I turned it off. > I wanted /home on a physically separate volume not a virtual volume. > >> If you want an example of how to do a higher level system management, >> look at Solaris, which kept most of the original log files and >> locations, but introduced an xml layer above all that, which you >> can bypass if you need to. How would you do that for log and config >> files with systemd ?. > > I must be misunderstanding something, my Fedora system has all the > traditional logs in addition to the journal. Of course that is a > distinct issue from the init system. > > At work all of the init stuff on my Solaris systems was read protected > by the admins so I couldn't see what it was doing, but I was under > the impression it was similar to systemd. Fortunately systemd uses > simple flat files instead of xml. > >> Might help brain dead sysadmins, but opaque >> if you need to do serious work under the hood. It's got it's fingers >> into every part of the system and is totaly against any concept of >> functional isolation, partioning and layered design. > > I don't know what part of systemd you are talking about. > The init system part (which is the real systemd) just replaces > all those init scripts and the forest of soft links. It replaces all > that with just one .service file for each service. > > Couldn't be simpler. > > Here is the .service file for Emacs: > > home> cat /usr/lib/systemd/user/emacs.service > [Unit] > Description=Emacs: the extensible, self-documenting text editor > > [Service] > Type=forking > ExecStart=/usr/bin/emacs --daemon > ExecStop=/usr/bin/emacsclient --eval "(kill-emacs)" > Restart=always > > [Install] > WantedBy=default.target > > Look at the beauty of that simple design. > How to start it, how to stop it, what to call it, what to do if it fails. > It couldn't be any simpler. > >> As to the list, 1, 4 ?, who cares if boot and shutdown take a bit >> longer, it's not a race, 3) Solaris and FreeBSD both both have had >> service management utilities for years. 4) That's if the sysadmin >> has the internal knowledge, but that's true for both os's. > > Well systemd has it's undeniable good points so invariably it's > detractors come up with "who cares". > > I was trouble shooting a problem that needed 5 or 6 reboots just today. > I care. > >> I view Linux as a wondoze substitute these day, but ymmv... > > There you go. It's just like Windows! > > Absurd. > I use older versions of Suse, but the last time I had a look at a later version, it had animations, bouncy bouncy and more dross, pages and pages full of running processes, no idea what they all did, Windows wannabe incarnate, but no use to me. The problem with systemd is that it has it's fingers into so many things, Linux is becoming psychotic, not really knowing what is really running the show, the kernel, or systemd. Apparently gnome won't run now without it, and more, so how is that an init replacement only ?. Whatever, but there is just one primary config file for FreeBSD, where services can be enabled, drivers loaded and much more. It really isn't much effort to learn how to do that and there are service management utilites as well. Typically, just a couple of pages of processes running with xfce4, less with no gui. Tight design and engineering efficiency at work. So why do I need systemd ?. Convince me :-)... Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-07 22:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rj6qs9$ohu$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213883 |
Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> writes:
> On 09/08/20 00:40, Dan Espen wrote:
>> Chris<xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On 09/07/20 18:44, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> Chris<xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 09/05/20 20:57, gareth evans wrote:
>>>>>> With MS-DOS and early versions of Windows, Microsoft
>>>>>> provided products to help you control your computer, but
>>>>>> with W10 they are trying to control the way you use the
>>>>>> computer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> W10 is increasingly pissing me off and the next PC
>>>>>> I buy will be LINUX based.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, just before my 35th year of being a Microsoft
>>>>>> customer and user, they have finally succeeded in
>>>>>> driving me away.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have a look at FreeBSD. Less bloated than Linux, no
>>>>> systemd, installs in less than an hour and is rock
>>>>> solid. The only downside is that you have to install
>>>>> the gui of choice, but they are all available as
>>>>> packages, taking 10 mins or so to install. Just about
>>>>> all Linux packages are available as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still running 12 on X86 and 11 on Sparc, but 13 is
>>>>> the current version, fwir...
>>>>
>>>> Oops, war starting.
>>>>
>>>> What does Google say:
>>>>
>>>> Is FreeBSD better than Linux?
>>>> Both are stable and provide an efficient working environment. However,
>>>> the general consensus is that nearly all applications run faster on
>>>> Linux than FreeBSD, but FreeBSD's TCP/IP stack has way less latency
>>>> (faster response time) than Linux.Jun 27, 2018
>>>>
>>>> When someone tells you their OS is better because it doesn't have
>>>> systemd, well, hate to say this, but they're uninformed.
>>>>
>>>> I'll take systemd over SysV init every day.
>>>> BSDs init looks to me like more of the same.
>>>>
>>>> systemd took a total mess and transformed it into a logical well
>>>> designed structure. Basic system design principles will tell you
>>>> this. Systemd took a mess of inconsistent start up scripts and a nest
>>>> of soft links and turned it into a very simple structure where ONE
>>>> file describes each service to be managed. It did all this and managed
>>>> to:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Reduce boot time dramatically
>>>> 2. Reduce shut down time the same way
>>>> 3. Manage running services in case a device is plugged in or has a
>>>> problem and needs to restart
>>>> 4. Finally make the relationships between running services clear
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Won't get involved in wars, as I do use both and both work, though
>>> all Linux here is pre systemd, or devuan.
>>> However, from a software engineering point of FreeBSD looks far
>>> more lean in it's design and has other advantages, such as a native
>>> zfs file system and yes, no systemd.
>>
>> Not sure why zfs is a big winner:
>>
>> ZFS is a combined file system and logical volume manager designed by
>> Sun Microsystems. ZFS is scalable, and includes extensive protection
>> against data corruption, support for high storage capacities,
>>
>> I was just reading about Fedora's new file system, XFS.
>> I'm not facing any issues with ext4 though.
>>
>> For Fedora, I didn't like or need LVM so I turned it off.
>> I wanted /home on a physically separate volume not a virtual volume.
>>
>>> If you want an example of how to do a higher level system management,
>>> look at Solaris, which kept most of the original log files and
>>> locations, but introduced an xml layer above all that, which you
>>> can bypass if you need to. How would you do that for log and config
>>> files with systemd ?.
>>
>> I must be misunderstanding something, my Fedora system has all the
>> traditional logs in addition to the journal. Of course that is a
>> distinct issue from the init system.
>>
>> At work all of the init stuff on my Solaris systems was read protected
>> by the admins so I couldn't see what it was doing, but I was under
>> the impression it was similar to systemd. Fortunately systemd uses
>> simple flat files instead of xml.
>>
>>> Might help brain dead sysadmins, but opaque
>>> if you need to do serious work under the hood. It's got it's fingers
>>> into every part of the system and is totaly against any concept of
>>> functional isolation, partioning and layered design.
>>
>> I don't know what part of systemd you are talking about.
>> The init system part (which is the real systemd) just replaces
>> all those init scripts and the forest of soft links. It replaces all
>> that with just one .service file for each service.
>>
>> Couldn't be simpler.
>>
>> Here is the .service file for Emacs:
>>
>> home> cat /usr/lib/systemd/user/emacs.service
>> [Unit]
>> Description=Emacs: the extensible, self-documenting text editor
>>
>> [Service]
>> Type=forking
>> ExecStart=/usr/bin/emacs --daemon
>> ExecStop=/usr/bin/emacsclient --eval "(kill-emacs)"
>> Restart=always
>>
>> [Install]
>> WantedBy=default.target
>>
>> Look at the beauty of that simple design.
>> How to start it, how to stop it, what to call it, what to do if it fails.
>> It couldn't be any simpler.
>>
>>> As to the list, 1, 4 ?, who cares if boot and shutdown take a bit
>>> longer, it's not a race, 3) Solaris and FreeBSD both both have had
>>> service management utilities for years. 4) That's if the sysadmin
>>> has the internal knowledge, but that's true for both os's.
>>
>> Well systemd has it's undeniable good points so invariably it's
>> detractors come up with "who cares".
>>
>> I was trouble shooting a problem that needed 5 or 6 reboots just today.
>> I care.
>>
>>> I view Linux as a wondoze substitute these day, but ymmv...
>>
>> There you go. It's just like Windows!
>>
>> Absurd.
>>
>
> I use older versions of Suse, but the last time I had a look at a
> later version, it had animations, bouncy bouncy and more dross,
> pages and pages full of running processes, no idea what they all
> did, Windows wannabe incarnate, but no use to me.
To get rid of all that use a window manager. I install new releases
all the time. Nothing visible changes unless I want it to.
> The problem with
> systemd is that it has it's fingers into so many things,
Actually no. The systemd project has spread out into many areas.
That's just a sign of how productive the systemd team is.
I consider that a separate issue from systemd the replacement from init.
And I can't see how it's a problem if one team keeps looking at
Linux thinking what should we improve next. So, to clarify,
it's not systemd that has it's fingers in so many things, it's the
systemd team.
> Linux
> is becoming psychotic, not really knowing what is really running
> the show, the kernel, or systemd.
systemd starts all the services. The kernel still does what it's
supposed to do. I don't see a problem.
> Apparently gnome won't run now
> without it, and more, so how is that an init replacement only ?.
Gnome is full of utilities that start/stop/customize services.
How do you suppose they do that without being dependent on
the .service files?
> Whatever, but there is just one primary config file for FreeBSD, where
> services can be enabled, drivers loaded and much more. It really isn't
> much effort to learn how to do that and there are service management
> utilites as well. Typically, just a couple of pages of processes
> running with xfce4, less with no gui. Tight design and engineering
> efficiency at work. So why do I need systemd ?. Convince me :-)...
One config file for hundreds of possible services?
I don't think so. Like I said, I don't know BSD init but I'm pretty
sure it has a script to start/stop each individual service. That's
hundreds of possible scripts. If they are like SysV init, you can't
tell externally what they do. They have to support stop and start,
do they support restart, reload? Where is the descriptive name of the service?
Take a look at this:
h> systemctl status acpid
acpid.service - ACPI Event Daemon
Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/acpid.service; disabled; vendor preset: disabled)
Active: active (running) since Mon 2020-09-07 12:45:21 EDT; 9h ago
TriggeredBy: acpid.socket
Docs: man:acpid(8)
Main PID: 1023 (acpid)
Tasks: 1 (limit: 2306)
Memory: 248.0K
CPU: 6.613s
CGroup: /system.slice/acpid.service
/usr/sbin/acpid -f
Sep 07 12:45:21 home.home systemd[1]: Started ACPI Event Daemon.
--
Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-08 11:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hrp6jdFlqecU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #213894 |
On Mon, 07 Sep 2020 22:39:05 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > One config file for hundreds of possible services? No, one to say which services are enabled. And options if required. > I don't think so. Like I said, I don't know BSD init but I'm pretty > sure it has a script to start/stop each individual service. That's > hundreds of possible scripts. If they are like SysV init, you can't > tell externally what they do. They have to support stop and start, > do they support restart, reload? Where is the descriptive name of the > service? service <servcename> describe. The scripts are all structured the same, and the commands are documented at the top. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-08 14:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rj81np$l1s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #213894 |
On 09/08/20 03:39, Dan Espen wrote: > Chris<xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> writes: > <snipped) >> >> I use older versions of Suse, but the last time I had a look at a >> later version, it had animations, bouncy bouncy and more dross, >> pages and pages full of running processes, no idea what they all >> did, Windows wannabe incarnate, but no use to me. > > To get rid of all that use a window manager. I install new releases > all the time. Nothing visible changes unless I want it to. I must be missing something, as if you are running a gui,with all the bouncy castle stuff, then you have a window manager running. As for updates, rarely do it. Once a system is the way I want it, it's locked down unless there are good reasons to change it. Constant updates are a windoze "feature", but that just illustrates how bad it really is, with so many bugs as shipped. The update idea is like insurance, selling fear and paranoia. > >> The problem with >> systemd is that it has it's fingers into so many things, > > Actually no. The systemd project has spread out into many areas. > That's just a sign of how productive the systemd team is. You are trolling, right ? :-). I guess you can paint a t**d any colour you like, but it still stinks underneath. > > I consider that a separate issue from systemd the replacement from init. I thought that was the whole point of systemd, an init replacement, but obviously misjudged it. If true, systemd has visions of empire, running the whole show instead of the kernel. Thought from the start that the systemd project was a power grab by Red Hat and all part of the strategy to exert ever more control over the direction of Linux as an open source project. In some ways, that's understandable, since they fund a lot of development, but there's a fine balance between the idealism and creativity of open source and the hard edged businesses which companies like Red Hat are. > > And I can't see how it's a problem if one team keeps looking at > Linux thinking what should we improve next. So, to clarify, > it's not systemd that has it's fingers in so many things, it's the > systemd team. If it ain't broke, dont fix it, though I guess they have to justify their existence and salaries. With that attitude, no wonder mainstream Linux looks more and more like a Camel. Change for change's sake rarely has a good outcome. > >> Linux >> is becoming psychotic, not really knowing what is really running >> the show, the kernel, or systemd. > > systemd starts all the services. The kernel still does what it's > supposed to do. I don't see a problem. > >> Apparently gnome won't run now >> without it, and more, so how is that an init replacement only ?. > > Gnome is full of utilities that start/stop/customize services. > How do you suppose they do that without being dependent on > the .service files?. That doesn't address the the comment. Deflection ?. > >> Whatever, but there is just one primary config file for FreeBSD, where >> services can be enabled, drivers loaded and much more. It really isn't >> much effort to learn how to do that and there are service management >> utilites as well. Typically, just a couple of pages of processes >> running with xfce4, less with no gui. Tight design and engineering >> efficiency at work. So why do I need systemd ?. Convince me :-)... > > One config file for hundreds of possible services? > I don't think so. Like I said, I don't know BSD init but I'm pretty > sure it has a script to start/stop each individual service. That's > hundreds of possible scripts. If they are like SysV init, you can't > tell externally what they do. They have to support stop and start, > do they support restart, reload? Where is the descriptive name of the service? Sure, thee are config scripts for the various services, but for a typical system, rarely any need to even look at them. They can be controlled, start, stop restart etc, from the command line or from elsewhere, such as the rc.conf file. On solaris, there are the svcs and svcadm utilities and on FreeBSD, the service utility. I keep mentioning Solaris, but have used it for decades and FreeBSD is a nod in that direction, with ZFS, light weight virtualisation ideas seemingly borrowed from it. > > Take a look at this: > > h> systemctl status acpid > acpid.service - ACPI Event Daemon > Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/acpid.service; disabled; vendor preset: disabled) > Active: active (running) since Mon 2020-09-07 12:45:21 EDT; 9h ago > TriggeredBy: acpid.socket > Docs: man:acpid(8) > Main PID: 1023 (acpid) > Tasks: 1 (limit: 2306) > Memory: 248.0K > CPU: 6.613s > CGroup: /system.slice/acpid.service > /usr/sbin/acpid -f > Sep 07 12:45:21 home.home systemd[1]: Started ACPI Event Daemon. > > > FreeBSD has equivalent management tools. For example, ps -dx gives a tree structured text listing of the processes on the system and their hierarchy.The service command will list services and information, as well as start stop, restart etc. The top command gives a load of info on running processes, memory usage, priority and current state, but that's on most unix systems. Perhaps systemd will do that and more, but why ?. A quick test here, xfce4 + couple of terminal windows running, around 75 processes loaded. Now try that with linux and gnome 3. Do you want a lean and clean street racer,. or a sclerotic mess ?. Anyway, you have already said you know nothing about it, so why not broaden your horizons and give it a test install ?. Less than an hour of your time, or is a text only install and package config too difficult ?. Plenty of how to tutorials on the web if you get stuck... Chris
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-08 10:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rj84ek$c65$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213910 |
Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> writes: > On 09/08/20 03:39, Dan Espen wrote: >> Chris<xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> writes: > > <snipped) > >>> >>> I use older versions of Suse, but the last time I had a look at a >>> later version, it had animations, bouncy bouncy and more dross, >>> pages and pages full of running processes, no idea what they all >>> did, Windows wannabe incarnate, but no use to me. >> >> To get rid of all that use a window manager. I install new releases >> all the time. Nothing visible changes unless I want it to. > > I must be missing something, as if you are running a gui,with all the > bouncy castle stuff, then you have a window manager running. I guess I wasn't clear. The window managers packaged as a 'desktop' tend to be the ones that change all the time and bounce around. If you pick one of the more traditional window managers nothing will bounce around or change without you wanting it to. My main experience is with Fvwm. Maybe other window managers are different. Another poster mentioned a twm variant. Very stable, no bouncing. > As for updates, rarely do it. Once a system is the way I want it, it's locked > down unless there are good reasons to change it. Constant updates > are a windoze "feature", but that just illustrates how bad it > really is, with so many bugs as shipped. The update idea is like > insurance, selling fear and paranoia. I like to apply updates to get the latest versions of the software I'm using. Stability has it's benefits but it's hard to follow a Gimp tutorial when you're not running the version the tutorial addresses. >>> The problem with >>> systemd is that it has it's fingers into so many things, >> >> Actually no. The systemd project has spread out into many areas. >> That's just a sign of how productive the systemd team is. > > You are trolling, right ? :-). > > I guess you can paint a t**d any colour you like, but it still > stinks underneath. Ridiculous. >> I consider that a separate issue from systemd the replacement from init. > > I thought that was the whole point of systemd, an init replacement, > but obviously misjudged it. If true, systemd has visions of empire, > running the whole show instead of the kernel. Thought from the > start that the systemd project was a power grab by Red Hat and all > part of the strategy to exert ever more control over the direction > of Linux as an open source project. In some ways, that's > understandable, since they fund a lot of development, but there's a > fine balance between the idealism and creativity of open source and > the hard edged businesses which companies like Red Hat are. More ridiculous. The kernel still does what it needs to do. >> And I can't see how it's a problem if one team keeps looking at >> Linux thinking what should we improve next. So, to clarify, >> it's not systemd that has it's fingers in so many things, it's the >> systemd team. > > If it ain't broke, dont fix it, though I guess they have to justify > their existence and salaries. With that attitude, no wonder mainstream > Linux looks more and more like a Camel. Change for change's sake > rarely has a good outcome. I guess your corollary is if it can be improved leave it alone. >>> Linux >>> is becoming psychotic, not really knowing what is really running >>> the show, the kernel, or systemd. >> >> systemd starts all the services. The kernel still does what it's >> supposed to do. I don't see a problem. >> >>> Apparently gnome won't run now >>> without it, and more, so how is that an init replacement only ?. >> >> Gnome is full of utilities that start/stop/customize services. >> How do you suppose they do that without being dependent on >> the .service files?. > > That doesn't address the the comment. Deflection ?. What comment? The kernel vs. systemd comment? The kernel does what it does, systemd hasn't changed that. What "show" are you thinking about? >>> Whatever, but there is just one primary config file for FreeBSD, where >>> services can be enabled, drivers loaded and much more. It really isn't >>> much effort to learn how to do that and there are service management >>> utilites as well. Typically, just a couple of pages of processes >>> running with xfce4, less with no gui. Tight design and engineering >>> efficiency at work. So why do I need systemd ?. Convince me :-)... >> >> One config file for hundreds of possible services? >> I don't think so. Like I said, I don't know BSD init but I'm pretty >> sure it has a script to start/stop each individual service. That's >> hundreds of possible scripts. If they are like SysV init, you can't >> tell externally what they do. They have to support stop and start, >> do they support restart, reload? Where is the descriptive name of the service? > > Sure, thee are config scripts for the various services, but for a > typical system, rarely any need to even look at them. They can be > controlled, start, stop restart etc, from the command line or from > elsewhere, such as the rc.conf file. On solaris, there are the svcs > and svcadm utilities and on FreeBSD, the service utility. I keep > mentioning Solaris, but have used it for decades and FreeBSD is a nod > in that direction, with ZFS, light weight virtualisation ideas > seemingly borrowed from it. Deflection? What does ZFS have to do with systemd? >> Take a look at this: >> >> h> systemctl status acpid >> acpid.service - ACPI Event Daemon >> Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/acpid.service; disabled; vendor preset: disabled) >> Active: active (running) since Mon 2020-09-07 12:45:21 EDT; 9h ago >> TriggeredBy: acpid.socket >> Docs: man:acpid(8) >> Main PID: 1023 (acpid) >> Tasks: 1 (limit: 2306) >> Memory: 248.0K >> CPU: 6.613s >> CGroup: /system.slice/acpid.service >> /usr/sbin/acpid -f >> Sep 07 12:45:21 home.home systemd[1]: Started ACPI Event Daemon. > > FreeBSD has equivalent management tools. For example, ps -dx > gives a tree structured text listing of the processes on the > system and their hierarchy.The service command will > list services and information, as well as start stop, > restart etc. The top command gives a load of info on running > processes, memory usage, priority and current state, but that's > on most unix systems. Perhaps systemd will do that and more, > but why ?. So with systemd you get one integrated display of a services status along with a description of what it does. Linux has all the tools you mention. Why does systemd tell you all it does? Because you asked about the services status. It gives you a complete answer. Is your claim that it's better to have to hunt around for all that information? > A quick test here, xfce4 + couple of terminal windows running, > around 75 processes loaded. Now try that with linux and gnome 3. > Do you want a lean and clean street racer,. or a sclerotic mess ?. I fail to see the significance of your comment about xfce vs. Gnome. Both work fine with systemd. > Anyway, you have already said you know nothing about it, so > why not broaden your horizons and give it a test install ?. > Less than an hour of your time, or is a text only install and > package config too difficult ?. Plenty of how to tutorials on > the web if you get stuck... Is it too difficult? Are you trying to insult me? Right now my system is doing everything I need. So far I haven't seen anything mentioned that would qualify as an improvement. I guess I just don't have the "systemd is evil" disease. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web