Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #213902 > unrolled thread
| Started by | gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-09-08 12:08 +0100 |
| Last post | 2020-09-08 21:02 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 87 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
SYSTEMD? EGAD! gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-08 12:08 +0100
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-08 11:13 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 07:57 -0400
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-08 13:27 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Douglas Miller <durgadas311@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 06:40 -0700
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-08 16:21 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Douglas Miller <durgadas311@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 09:27 -0700
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-08 14:31 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-08 14:34 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-08 16:14 +0100
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-09-10 11:20 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-10 11:57 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-10 08:23 -0400
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-10 17:37 +0100
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-10 17:37 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-10 08:19 -0400
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Stefan Möding <Sep2020.5.kill-9@spamgourmet.com> - 2020-09-10 14:32 +0200
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-10 09:15 -0400
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-10 13:30 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-10 09:34 -0400
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-10 13:35 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-10 10:00 -0400
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Douglas Miller <durgadas311@gmail.com> - 2020-09-10 07:15 -0700
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-10 14:22 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-10 16:01 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-10 17:18 +0100
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> - 2020-09-10 11:59 -0500
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-10 18:20 +0100
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-10 23:12 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-11 06:35 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-10 23:23 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-11 01:11 +0100
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-09-11 09:11 -0500
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-10 16:24 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-10 17:03 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-09-10 17:55 -0400
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2020-09-11 02:12 -0300
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-09-11 20:41 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-11 21:11 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-12 15:06 +0100
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-12 16:03 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Chris <xxx.syseng.yyy@gfsys.co.uk> - 2020-09-26 16:05 +0100
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-09-25 23:15 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-09-10 23:55 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Stefan Möding <Sep2020.5.kill-9@spamgourmet.com> - 2020-09-11 08:09 +0200
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-09-10 23:54 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Stefan Möding <Sep2020.5.kill-9@spamgourmet.com> - 2020-09-10 15:54 +0200
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-09-10 10:14 -0400
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-09-10 23:57 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-10 15:56 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-10 09:53 -0700
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-09-25 23:03 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-26 08:35 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-26 18:37 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Stefan Möding <Sep2020.5.kill-9@spamgourmet.com> - 2020-09-26 17:41 +0200
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2020-09-10 16:09 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-09-10 12:17 -0400
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-10 09:53 -0700
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-09-11 13:22 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2020-09-11 13:39 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-11 14:11 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2020-09-11 20:24 -0300
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-09-10 17:21 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-10 17:36 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-10 17:34 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-10 17:14 +0100
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-10 09:53 -0700
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-09-10 17:05 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Stefan Möding <Sep2020.5.kill-9@spamgourmet.com> - 2020-09-10 19:13 +0200
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2020-09-10 19:19 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-10 17:39 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-09-10 20:25 +0100
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-10 20:23 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-09-26 05:48 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-26 11:24 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-09-26 16:14 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-26 20:53 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! maus <maus@dmaus.org> - 2020-09-26 12:44 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-26 13:03 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Douglas Miller <durgadas311@gmail.com> - 2020-09-08 06:04 -0700
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-08 16:16 +0100
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-08 16:22 +0100
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-08 15:40 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-08 19:42 +0100
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-08 19:52 +0100
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2020-09-08 19:38 +0000
Re: SYSTEMD? EGAD! gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> - 2020-09-08 21:02 +0100
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-08 12:08 +0100 |
| Subject | SYSTEMD? EGAD! |
| Message-ID | <rj7on8$8pp$1@dont-email.me> |
Not knowing what was the systemd referred to in this NG, I googled for it. EGAD! Have the marketing people responsible for Microsoft's Bloatware taken over LINUX? My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX was little more than a vehicle for launching programs, ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking (multi-programming?) Up till now, LINUX semed to be an improvement over MSDOS in terms of file access control, and the representation of hardware devices as part of the file system. (Pace that I am viewing LINUX as a single user system, not a system with the capability of multiple remote log-ons)
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-08 11:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hrp7b7FkvgcU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #213902 |
On 2020-09-08, gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX
> was little more than a vehicle for launching programs,
> ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking
> (multi-programming?)
Not to mention vastly better memory management.
Niklas
--
Microsoft's software "Wizards" show that their marketing department
is envisioning Tolkien but their coders are more into Pratchett.
-- Anthony de Boer, asr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-08 07:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <f5selflp3pv5etk8aqk6u6dmfmfnlpj0ic@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #213903 |
On 8 Sep 2020 11:13:43 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: >On 2020-09-08, gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX >> was little more than a vehicle for launching programs, >> ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking >> (multi-programming?) > >Not to mention vastly better memory management. Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a "crippled Unix". LINUX provided pretty much the full functionality of the UNIX kernel, which had up until that time been the missing piece for an open source UNIX clone. Prior to that time, any UNIX implementation that was full enough to be useful for anything beyond recreational and student use used AT&T licensed code and the license could be quite costly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-08 13:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hrpf6hFngpvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #213905 |
On 2020-09-08, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 Sep 2020 11:13:43 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: > >>On 2020-09-08, gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX >>> was little more than a vehicle for launching programs, >>> ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking >>> (multi-programming?) >> >>Not to mention vastly better memory management. > > Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a > "crippled Unix". I don't disagree. Next to Linux (or any *nix) MS-DOS is a glorified boot loader, and maybe not even a very good one. Niklas -- "Thank you," said Himmler, who found the Windows file management system a diabolical confoundment. 'And they accuse _me_ of crimes against humanity,' he thought as he settled himself in at his desk. 'Wilhelm Gates, you are a beast, and your family will pay.' -- _Final_Impact_, John Birmingham
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Douglas Miller <durgadas311@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-08 06:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2db38d77-5a14-4203-a415-87951f5555f7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213908 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:27:48 AM UTC-5, Niklas Karlsson wrote: >... > > > > Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a > > "crippled Unix". > I don't disagree. Next to Linux (or any *nix) MS-DOS is a glorified boot > loader, and maybe not even a very good one. > > Niklas >... Just using Linux and MS-DOS is the same sentence is nonsensical. It's like comparing Apples to Bauxite.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-08 16:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rj8b2l$f6v$1@newsreader4.netcologne.de> |
| In reply to | #213909 |
Douglas Miller <durgadas311@gmail.com> schrieb: > Just using Linux and MS-DOS is the same sentence is > nonsensical. Not quite. The sentence "You can use DOSBOX to run MS-DOS program under Linux" makes perfect sense. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Douglas Miller <durgadas311@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-08 09:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ababfd6e-2ecc-4326-a5a4-0a3c46081959n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #213938 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 11:21:42 AM UTC-5, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Douglas Miller schrieb: > > Just using Linux and MS-DOS is the same sentence is > > nonsensical. > Not quite. > > The sentence "You can use DOSBOX to run MS-DOS program under Linux" > makes perfect sense. > > :-) Quite. "Absolutely nothing is absolute", "Without exception, there are always exceptions", "If things were different, things would be different".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-08 14:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hrpiu0FlqecU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #213908 |
On Tue, 08 Sep 2020 13:27:45 +0000, Niklas Karlsson wrote: > On 2020-09-08, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8 Sep 2020 11:13:43 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: >> >>>On 2020-09-08, gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX was little more >>>> than a vehicle for launching programs, ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with >>>> provision for multi-tasking (multi-programming?) >>> >>>Not to mention vastly better memory management. >> >> Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a >> "crippled Unix". > > I don't disagree. Next to Linux (or any *nix) MS-DOS is a glorified boot > loader, and maybe not even a very good one. But try to get Linux to run in 64kB of RAM. -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-08 14:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hrpj2sFngpvU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #213912 |
On 2020-09-08, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote: > On Tue, 08 Sep 2020 13:27:45 +0000, Niklas Karlsson wrote: >> >> I don't disagree. Next to Linux (or any *nix) MS-DOS is a glorified boot >> loader, and maybe not even a very good one. > > But try to get Linux to run in 64kB of RAM. True, for that you need LUnix. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LUnix Niklas -- One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-08 16:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rj874d$2m5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #213905 |
On 08/09/2020 12:57, J. Clarke wrote: > On 8 Sep 2020 11:13:43 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: > >> On 2020-09-08, gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX >>> was little more than a vehicle for launching programs, >>> ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking >>> (multi-programming?) >> >> Not to mention vastly better memory management. > > Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a > "crippled Unix". > > LINUX provided pretty much the full functionality of the UNIX kernel, > which had up until that time been the missing piece for an open source > UNIX clone. Prior to that time, any UNIX implementation that was full > enough to be useful for anything beyond recreational and student use > used AT&T licensed code and the license could be quite costly. > The kernel of UNIX would be largely indistinguishable from the kernel of other OSs, launching and rescheduling programs, hence my comment regarding multi tasking / programming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-10 11:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rjd254$ss$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #213905 |
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2020 11:13:43 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote:
>
> >On 2020-09-08, gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX
> >> was little more than a vehicle for launching programs,
> >> ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking
> >> (multi-programming?)
> >
> >Not to mention vastly better memory management.
>
> Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a
> "crippled Unix".
>
> LINUX provided pretty much the full functionality of the UNIX kernel,
> which had up until that time been the missing piece for an open source
> UNIX clone. Prior to that time, any UNIX implementation that was full
> enough to be useful for anything beyond recreational and student use
> used AT&T licensed code and the license could be quite costly.
Before Linux were Minix, Coherent and 386BSD. Your claim
probably is about Minux, but even in this case you exagerate.
I used 386BSD and it was quite buggy, but had all what is
needed to run wide variety of useful programs. I never used
Coherent, but given descriptions it is pretty clear that
that Coherent had much more functionality than Linux-0.01.
The difference was that Linux and 386BSD had free licence and
consequently potential to grow. One can speculate why Linux
developed faster than 386BSD (and successors like Free BSD):
- creator of 386BSD after free realease wanted to switch
to proprietary licence
- famus ATT versus Berkely process
- GPL
but without Linux we would probably live in FreeBSD world.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-10 11:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hruilaFn25sU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #214051 |
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:20:04 +0000, antispam wrote: > J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8 Sep 2020 11:13:43 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: >> >On 2020-09-08, gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX was little more >> >> than a vehicle for launching programs, ie, an uppity MSDOS, but >> >> with provision for multi-tasking (multi-programming?) >> > >> >Not to mention vastly better memory management. >> >> Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a >> "crippled Unix". >> >> LINUX provided pretty much the full functionality of the UNIX kernel, >> which had up until that time been the missing piece for an open >> source UNIX clone. Prior to that time, any UNIX implementation that >> was full enough to be useful for anything beyond recreational and >> student use used AT&T licensed code and the license could be quite >> costly. > Before Linux were Minix, Coherent and 386BSD. Your claim probably is > about Minux, but even in this case you exagerate. > I used 386BSD and it was quite buggy, but had all what is needed to > run wide variety of useful programs. I never used Coherent, but given > descriptions it is pretty clear that that Coherent had much more > functionality than Linux-0.01. You beat me to it! I used Minix for a while, and even rebuilt it on a PC Portable. It was a bit painful. 386BSD was indeed buggy, but it worked. It was clear, from reading the source code, that they never really understood how to program the 8259 interrupt controller. I did some fixes, I think. Things changed at work (major new job) and it was a couple of years before I returned to 386BSD, by which time I decided to use FreeBSD (1.1 I think). I hadn't stopped using UNIX systems, though; that was what I'd used at work since 1975. And still using FreeBSD! -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-10 08:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2j6klfpia65s3jh0unre3ci3sbem991g2e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #214053 |
On 10 Sep 2020 11:57:30 GMT, Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> wrote: >On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:20:04 +0000, antispam wrote: > >> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 8 Sep 2020 11:13:43 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: >>> >On 2020-09-08, gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX was little more >>> >> than a vehicle for launching programs, ie, an uppity MSDOS, but >>> >> with provision for multi-tasking (multi-programming?) >>> > >>> >Not to mention vastly better memory management. >>> >>> Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a >>> "crippled Unix". >>> >>> LINUX provided pretty much the full functionality of the UNIX kernel, >>> which had up until that time been the missing piece for an open >>> source UNIX clone. Prior to that time, any UNIX implementation that >>> was full enough to be useful for anything beyond recreational and >>> student use used AT&T licensed code and the license could be quite >>> costly. > >> Before Linux were Minix, Coherent and 386BSD. Your claim probably is >> about Minux, but even in this case you exagerate. >> I used 386BSD and it was quite buggy, but had all what is needed to >> run wide variety of useful programs. I never used Coherent, but given >> descriptions it is pretty clear that that Coherent had much more >> functionality than Linux-0.01. > >You beat me to it! I used Minix for a while, and even rebuilt it on a >PC Portable. It was a bit painful. > >386BSD was indeed buggy, but it worked. It was clear, from reading the >source code, that they never really understood how to program the 8259 >interrupt controller. I did some fixes, I think. > >Things changed at work (major new job) and it was a couple of years >before I returned to 386BSD, by which time I decided to use FreeBSD >(1.1 I think). I hadn't stopped using UNIX systems, though; that was >what I'd used at work since 1975. > >And still using FreeBSD! Which wasn't sanitized of AT&T code until Linux had been out for several years. Stealing AT&T licensed code is still using AT&T licensed code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-10 17:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rjdkoc$3ur$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #214053 |
On 10/09/2020 12:57, Bob Eager wrote: > ... they never really understood how to program the 8259 > interrupt controller. Fought against that in 1981 on a PABX development, Herald / KBX100 at Pye TMC in Malmesbury. Did not behave as expected. IIRC, not edge triggered but level triggered with edge lockout. A very strange design decision by Intel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-10 17:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hrv6ijFrpevU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #214083 |
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 17:37:22 +0100, gareth evans wrote: > On 10/09/2020 12:57, Bob Eager wrote: >> ... they never really understood how to program the 8259 interrupt >> controller. > > Fought against that in 1981 on a PABX development, > > Herald / KBX100 at Pye TMC in Malmesbury. > > Did not behave as expected. > > IIRC, not edge triggered but level triggered with edge lockout. A very > strange design decision by Intel. Yes, although the issues the Jolitzes had were more to do with basic concepts! -- Using UNIX since v6 (1975)... Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-10 08:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4q5klfdvm2el94lk6kqripj0ffv4i6t8ef@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #214051 |
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 11:20:04 +0000 (UTC), antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: >J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8 Sep 2020 11:13:43 GMT, Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> wrote: >> >> >On 2020-09-08, gareth evans <headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> My impression, clearly quite wrong, was that LINUX >> >> was little more than a vehicle for launching programs, >> >> ie, an uppity MSDOS, but with provision for multi-tasking >> >> (multi-programming?) >> > >> >Not to mention vastly better memory management. >> >> Calling LINUX "an uppity MSDOS", is kind of like calling MSDOS a >> "crippled Unix". >> >> LINUX provided pretty much the full functionality of the UNIX kernel, >> which had up until that time been the missing piece for an open source >> UNIX clone. Prior to that time, any UNIX implementation that was full >> enough to be useful for anything beyond recreational and student use >> used AT&T licensed code and the license could be quite costly. > >Before Linux were Minix, Linux started out as a rewrite of Minix to address its shortcomings. > Coherent Was a proprietary commercial product. It did not become open source until 2015, long, long after Linux became well established. >and 386BSD. I was not aware that 386BSD was unencumbered. >Your claim >probably is about Minux, but even in this case you exagerate. So would you have tried to run Amazon on Minix? >I used 386BSD and it was quite buggy, but had all what is >needed to run wide variety of useful programs. I never used >Coherent, but given descriptions it is pretty clear that >that Coherent had much more functionality than Linux-0.01. >The difference was that Linux and 386BSD had free licence and >consequently potential to grow. What part of "open source" are you having trouble with? >One can speculate why Linux >developed faster than 386BSD (and successors like Free BSD): >- creator of 386BSD after free realease wanted to switch > to proprietary licence >- famus ATT versus Berkely process >- GPL >but without Linux we would probably live in FreeBSD world. Or the Unix world would have continued to be fragmented.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Möding <Sep2020.5.kill-9@spamgourmet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-10 14:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m28sdholrf.fsf@athena.moeding.net> |
| In reply to | #214054 |
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > Or the Unix world would have continued to be fragmented. I consider Linux today almost as fragmented as Unix was 20-30 years ago. Running mostly on one or two CPU architectures seems to make it better now. But if you look at the differences in setting up network interfaces for example: - legacy config files - systemd network config - netplan - NetworkManager - ...? Linux could have done better. -- Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-10 09:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rjd8u0$bls$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #214056 |
Stefan Möding <Sep2020.5.kill-9@spamgourmet.com> writes: > J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> writes: > >> Or the Unix world would have continued to be fragmented. > > I consider Linux today almost as fragmented as Unix was 20-30 years ago. > Running mostly on one or two CPU architectures seems to make it better now. > But if you look at the differences in setting up network interfaces for > example: > > - legacy config files > - systemd network config > - netplan > - NetworkManager > - ...? > Huh? You just install it and your network works. What is this "setting up network interfaces" you speak of? I managed to go through most of those evolutions of network support you mention without touching a thing. I'm noticing Fedora (Redhat) has gotten better and better at supporting release upgrades. Way back around FC 10 I had one upgrade go so bad that I had to download and reinstall. Since then I've come all the way to FC 32 without having any problems doing release upgrades. > Linux could have done better. Apparently 'systemd network config" is an example of Linux doing better. Excuse me I need to put on my asbestos suit now. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-10 13:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <hruo39Fq50vU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #214057 |
On 2020-09-10, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: > Stefan Möding <Sep2020.5.kill-9@spamgourmet.com> writes: >> I consider Linux today almost as fragmented as Unix was 20-30 years ago. >> Running mostly on one or two CPU architectures seems to make it better now. >> But if you look at the differences in setting up network interfaces for >> example: [various solutions] > > Huh? > > You just install it and your network works. > What is this "setting up network interfaces" > you speak of? That's fine for a workstation with DHCP available on the network. For servers, yes, you can use DHCP (likely with a particular address/MAC pair configured on the DHCP server), but so far as I've seen, the most common solution by far is to simply configure a static IP locally on your server. That requires digging rather deeper into whatever network configuration solution your distro is using at the moment. Niklas -- "... although point and click pretty much means you have run out of ammo, which is not the point at all." -- David Jacoby
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-09-10 09:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rjda1v$bls$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #214058 |
Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> writes: > On 2020-09-10, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote: >> Stefan Möding <Sep2020.5.kill-9@spamgourmet.com> writes: >>> I consider Linux today almost as fragmented as Unix was 20-30 years ago. >>> Running mostly on one or two CPU architectures seems to make it better now. >>> But if you look at the differences in setting up network interfaces for >>> example: > [various solutions] >> >> Huh? >> >> You just install it and your network works. >> What is this "setting up network interfaces" >> you speak of? > > That's fine for a workstation with DHCP available on the network. For > servers, yes, you can use DHCP (likely with a particular address/MAC > pair configured on the DHCP server), but so far as I've seen, the most > common solution by far is to simply configure a static IP locally on > your server. > > That requires digging rather deeper into whatever network configuration > solution your distro is using at the moment. Are you sure there isn't some GUI to go into and just click on static IP? That would seem rather elementary for any distro. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web