Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!lll-winken!aunro!ersys!dennis
From: den...@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dennis Wong)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Linux
Message-ID: <X99geB2w164w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca>
Date: 13 Jan 92 07:27:44 GMT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Lines: 9
I've ftp both the boot and root image files from tsx-11.mit.edu.
However, I don't have "rawwrite.exe" program to put the image
back on the floppy.
Could anyone tell me where can I find rawrite.exe ?
Thanks
Dennis
Dennis Wong den...@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
Edmonton Remote Systems: Serving Northern Alberta since 1982
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!ieunet!tcdcs!maths.tcd.ie!tim
From: t...@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Linux
Message-ID: <1992Jan13.141829.2257@maths.tcd.ie>
Date: 13 Jan 92 14:18:29 GMT
Sender: n...@maths.tcd.ie
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: salmon
Is any independent person actually running Linux,
and can give an opinion on its merits
vis-a-vis 386-Minix?
While I could be convinced on this,
it seems to me pretty unlikely on the face of it
that anyone could really write a reliable operating system
from scratch in a short time.
After all, it took Tanenbaum years to write Minix,
and he worked night and day without stop,
and had a team working under him too.
One only has to look at the sources
to see the sheer intellectual work involved
in such an enterprise.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: t...@maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!torvalds
From: torva...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Linux
Message-ID: <1992Jan13.160250.25332@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 13 Jan 92 16:02:50 GMT
References: <1992Jan13.141829.2257@maths.tcd.ie>
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 48
Sorry, but this post is too good just to leave hanging around :)
In article <1992Jan13.141829.2...@maths.tcd.ie> t...@maths.tcd.ie
(Timothy Murphy) writes:
>Is any independent person actually running Linux,
>and can give an opinion on its merits
>vis-a-vis 386-Minix?
Ok, somebody else should answer this, I can only say that the latest
count on the activists-list is 196. Some of them are actually using
linux. Many are just interested, and aren't actually going to use it,
but there are quite a few that have started making changes and sending
in patches: About half the new things in 0.12 have been implemented by
others (job control, ptys, select, and virtual consoles are mostly tthe
work of others, although I have hcaked them heavily)
>While I could be convinced on this,
>it seems to me pretty unlikely on the face of it
>that anyone could really write a reliable operating system
>from scratch in a short time.
>
>After all, it took Tanenbaum years to write Minix,
>and he worked night and day without stop,
[ editors note: he probably slept alternate sundays so that he could
start afresh for next fortnights hacking. ast, can you confirm :-? ]
>and had a team working under him too.
>One only has to look at the sources
>to see the sheer intellectual work involved
>in such an enterprise.
Are you writing this seriously? There are a lot of smileys missing. The
reason unix has been so successful is that it's actually a very clean
and simple operating system. I would seriously doubt anybody will
implement VMS in a year (or 5, and even after that I wouldn't want to
actually use it :-)
On the off chance that this was a real post, and not just a joke then:
yes, linux is a viable alternative to minix-386. Minix has a bigger
base, and "the book", which are definitive advantages, but if a person
knows unix a bit, then linux is entirely possible to use. There are
bugs, and "reliable" might be too strong a word for linux still, but
most things are easier to do under linux than under minix. Porting is
much easier (I remember porting bash-1.05 to minix: it wasn't just "make
and go".)
Linus
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!fuug!nntp.hut.fi!cs.hut.fi!arl
From: a...@cs.hut.fi (Ari Lemmke)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Linux
Message-ID: <ARL.92Jan14034611@zen.hut.fi>
Date: 14 Jan 92 02:46:11 GMT
References: <1992Jan13.141829.2257@maths.tcd.ie>
Sender: use...@nntp.hut.fi (Usenet pseudouser id)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Lines: 30
In-Reply-To: tim@maths.tcd.ie's message of 13 Jan 92 14:18:29 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: zen.cs.hut.fi
In article <1992Jan13.141829.2...@maths.tcd.ie> t...@maths.tcd.ie
(Timothy Murphy) writes:
: While I could be convinced on this,
: it seems to me pretty unlikely on the face of it
: that anyone could really write a reliable operating system
: from scratch in a short time.
: After all, it took Tanenbaum years to write Minix,
: and he worked night and day without stop,
: and had a team working under him too.
You must be joking. This article is for fun ????
Teasing us?
: One only has to look at the sources
: to see the sheer intellectual work involved
: in such an enterprise.
I've used Minix for teaching (2 years). Minix is definitely
too big ... too much trouble with diskettes.
The Minix book is quite good, but [no comments].
I don't say 'Linux is perfect' .. there are many things
what I would like to do otherwise, but Minix is not
perfect either. Never tried to create a new FS to Minix ?
[no comments].
: Timothy Murphy
arl // Writing better OSes with less code
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!ieunet!tcdcs!maths.tcd.ie!tim
From: t...@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Linux
Message-ID: <1992Jan15.130403.13480@maths.tcd.ie>
Date: 15 Jan 92 13:04:03 GMT
References: <1992Jan13.141829.2257@maths.tcd.ie>
<ARL.92Jan14034611@zen.hut.fi>
Sender: n...@maths.tcd.ie
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Lines: 20
Nntp-Posting-Host: walton
In <ARL.92Jan14034...@zen.hut.fi> a...@cs.hut.fi (Ari Lemmke) writes
(in reply to a remark of mine):
> You must be joking. This article is for fun ????
> Teasing us?
...
> I've used Minix for teaching (2 years). Minix is definitely
> too big ... too much trouble with diskettes.
I'm baffled by this.
You're comparing Minix with Linux.
So you must have a 386.
Why don't you run 386-Minix?
With shoelace there is no reason to use diskettes at all.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: t...@maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 92 23:35:49 -0500
From: gillham@edmund.cs.andrews.edu (Andrew Gillham)
To: tim@maths.tcd.ie
In-Reply-To: <1992Jan13.141829.2257@maths.tcd.ie>
Cc: linux-activists@joker.cs.hut.fi
In article <1992Jan13.141829.2257@maths.tcd.ie> you write:
>Is any independent person actually running Linux,
>and can give an opinion on its merits
>vis-a-vis 386-Minix?
I've used both, Minix386 about 6months ago, Linux for the last month.
Linux is a lot faster I feel, and ports better according to people on
the mailing list. It is compiled with gcc, and feels pretty stable
and solid. I would suggest you give it a go for a couple of days
and see how you like it.
>While I could be convinced on this,
>it seems to me pretty unlikely on the face of it
>that anyone could really write a reliable operating system
>from scratch in a short time.
>After all, it took Tanenbaum years to write Minix,
>and he worked night and day without stop,
>and had a team working under him too.
>One only has to look at the sources
>to see the sheer intellectual work involved
>in such an enterprise.
Then Linus is a f**king code poet. I don't know how long he's been
working on it, but if it's been "months" I'd be *super* impressed!
Right now I'm just real impressed.. :-)
Seriously though there have been quite a few contributions from other
net.code.poets to Linux so it's not like it was a total one man effort,
though Linus seems to have done most the core operating system stuff.
I'd suggest you send a note to "linux-activists-request@joker.cs.hut.fi"
and ask to be put on the mailing list if you're real interested or that
you just download linux itself and play with it or read some of the release
notes and/or code if you're just mildly intrigued. I don't have a lot
of time to dedicate to development (ok, none really) but I *really* like
the idea of a free, evolving (rapidly) UNIX clone that isn't "owned" by
a big company like Prentice-Hall and has all the hassles (and costs) that
come along with commercialization. It's Linus' system but because it's
free (except for your net connections) I think it has the potential to
become a popular, well supported (ports) system..
(ok, I got carried away..basic thought: I like it!)
>Timothy Murphy
>e-mail: tim@maths.tcd.ie
>tel: +353-1-2842366
>s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
-Andrew
--
=====================================================================
Andrew Gillham ****** Andrews University ****** (gillham@andrews.edu)
I would've added a cool .signature, but I already mailed this letter.
Path: sparky!uunet!ukma!widener!iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!pacbell.com!mips!
think.com!yale.edu!yale!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!
athena.mit.edu!tytso
From: ty...@athena.mit.edu (Theodore Y. Ts'o)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Linux
Summary: Responses to some questions/comments about Linux
Message-ID: <1992Jan16.060442.22199@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 16 Jan 92 06:04:42 GMT
Sender: n...@athena.mit.edu (News system)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 85
Nntp-Posting-Host: tsx-11.mit.edu
First of all, I'm the person who's implemented job control, and BSD
supplementary groups, and a dynamic kernel memory allocator in the
Linux kernel, so I should admit my biases up front. The reason why
decided to work on Linux instead of Minix was the cost; being able to
just FTP the source code and not having to pay $150 was a big win.
Also, at least for me, it seemed much easier to add new features to
Linux than Minix, just looking source code from both systems. Perhaps
I had to modify a few more modules in Linux than in Minix, but (1)
that's what context diffs are for, and (2) Linux was much easier for
me to understand.
>While I could be convinced on this,
>it seems to me pretty unlikely on the face of it
>that anyone could really write a reliable operating system
>from scratch in a short time.
>After all, it took Tanenbaum years to write Minix,
>and he worked night and day without stop,
There are a couple of responses to this. First of all, it's much
easier to write a new operating system when you have an old OS to
use as a bootstrap. For example, there was quite a while when Linux
did not yet have a fsck program, but since it was (and still) uses a
Minix filesystem, people who owned Minix could use Minix's fsck.
Also, Linus didn't need to write the utility programs. Almost all of
the utility programs and compilers and such used the GNU Free Software
Foundation programs. This certainly cut a lot of time away from the
development of Linux. This also had the advantage that when Linus had
the choice of modifying the GNU utility program's source code or
modifying the operating system/include files to make it compile, he
chose to modify the kernel. As a result, POSIX is very nearly
completely POSIX compliant. So most of the GNU programs and other
public domain Unix programs compile with almost no modifications.
Finally, up to a limit, a non-message passing kernel is simply easier
to write and modify and understand. As Linux gets bigger, if we
don't become *very* careful with the abstraction boundaries inside the
kernel, it could become a big mess, like (say) the BSD kernel. But at
the moment, it's small and compact, and relatively clean --- and its
current size, the fact that Linux "monolithic" is an advantage over
Minix's "modular, message passing" approach.
The true test, though, will be after we add BSD networking and
sockets. (And yes, there are people within the Linux community who
are interested in doing this.) If we can keep Linux to be
(relatively) compact and clean and easy to understand even after we've
added all of these new features, I think we will have succeeded, and
we will be able to justify saying that "yes, you can write a Real
Operating System without using message passing."
>I remember reading a(may be several) posting that mentions that
>curently available version of Linux (is it .11) does not have
>init/login. Then am I correct in presuming that I will always be root
>in Linux. Does this mean that I cannot change my uid and change my
>previlege level (or is it just that you don't have login/su to do
>it.). As you can see, I am confused by the real meaning of the phrase
>"init/login not available".
Actually, someone just made a bare-bones version of init/login to the
Linux FTP servers. What that comment meant was that while the
setuid() and getuid() and setreuid() calls were implemented in the
Linux kernel, there weren't any application programs that actually
used them. When you booted Linux, it dumped you into a root shell on
the console (essentially, "single-user mode"). But people who wrote
quick hacks like "main(){setuid(15806);execl("/bin/sh","/bin/sh",0);}"
would be able to run at a different (non-root) privilege level.
As far as privelege levels are concerned, Linux is probably more
advanced than Minix, since Linux 0.12 has BSD/POSIX supplementary
group sets, which allow a user operate in several different groups at
the same time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
>I have just got a copy of Linux-0.11 and I have a couple of questions....
Questions about Linux should go to the Linux-Activi...@niksula.hut.fi
mailing list. Send mail to Linux-Activists-Requ...@niksula.hut.fi to
be placed on the mailing list.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Theodore Ts'o bloom-beacon!mit-athena!tytso
3 Ames St., Cambridge, MA 02139 ty...@athena.mit.edu
Everybody's playing the game, but nobody's rules are the same!
Path: sparky!uunet!ukma!wupost!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!
math.fu-berlin.de!
uniol!unido!mcsun!fuug!nntp.hut.fi!cs.hut.fi!arl
From: a...@cs.hut.fi (Ari Lemmke)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Linux
Message-ID: <ARL.92Jan16073718@zen.hut.fi>
Date: 16 Jan 92 06:37:18 GMT
References: <1992Jan13.141829.2257@maths.tcd.ie>
<ARL.92Jan14034611@zen.hut.fi>
<1992Jan15.130403.13480@maths.tcd.ie>
Sender: use...@nntp.hut.fi (Usenet pseudouser id)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Lines: 32
In-Reply-To: tim@maths.tcd.ie's message of 15 Jan 92 13:04:03 GMT
Nntp-Posting-Host: zen.cs.hut.fi
In article <1992Jan15.130403.13...@maths.tcd.ie> t...@maths.tcd.ie
(Timothy Murphy) writes:
In <ARL.92Jan14034...@zen.hut.fi> a...@cs.hut.fi (Ari Lemmke) writes
(in reply to a remark of mine):
> I've used Minix for teaching (2 years). Minix is definitely
> too big ... too much trouble with diskettes.
> I'm baffled by this.
> You're comparing Minix with Linux.
No, I try to avoid compairing.
> So you must have a 386.
Couple, and some 286s and 88s too
> Why don't you run 386-Minix?
Sometimes. Not actually much.
> With shoelace there is no reason to use diskettes at all.
You don't get it .. I was taking about teaching that
means you have to copy those disks (1.3d it was 10
diskettes in our kit) to your students, so they could
make the project at home. Our Comp Sci Lab and PCs?
No, we have only work stations (local joke) ;-) ...
> Timothy Murphy
arl
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 92 12:27:46 +0200
From: wirzeniu@cs.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius)
To: tim@maths.tcd.ie, gillham@edmund.cs.andrews.edu
Cc: linux-activists@joker.cs.hut.fi
> Then Linus is a f**king code poet. I don't know how long he's been
> working on it, but if it's been "months" I'd be *super* impressed!
> Right now I'm just real impressed.. :-)
I think he's been at it since about April, 1991. Can't be much longer
than that, since he didn't get a 386 until spring 1991.
Path: sparky!uunet!ukma!wupost!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!lynx!
nmsu.edu!opus!kduling
From: kdu...@nmsu.edu (Kevin J. Duling)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Linux
Message-ID: <KDULING.92Jan16093807@dante.nmsu.edu>
Date: 16 Jan 92 16:38:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: dante.KDULING.92Jan16093807
References: <1992Jan16.060442.22199@athena.mit.edu>
Sender: use...@nmsu.edu
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Lines: 14
In-Reply-To: tytso@athena.mit.edu's message of Thu, 16 Jan 1992 06:04:42 GMT
I really don't wish to flame, but it's starting to annoy me that 50%
of the articles I read in this newsgroup are about Linux. I don't
have Linux and I don't want it -- it won't run on my machine, so I
have no interest in it. I thought that this was a Minix newsgroup.
Why don't you make the effort and create comp.os.linux?
That sounds quite a bit more harsh than I inteneded, but that's my
suggestion, anyway.
--
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
Kevin J. Duling UNIX kdu...@nmsu.edu
New Mexico State University VM/CMS opr...@nmsuvm1.nmsu.edu
Computer Center/Small Systems VMS CC4...@helen.nmsu.edu
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!satishc
From: sat...@microsoft.com (Satish CHITTAMURU)
Subject: Re: Linux
Message-ID: <1992Jan20.221928.8788@microsoft.com>
Date: 20 Jan 92 22:19:28 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
References: <1992Jan16.060442.22199@athena.mit.edu>
<KDULING.92Jan16093807@dante.nmsu.edu>
Sender: sat...@microsoft.com
Followup-To: comp.os.minix
Lines: 17
In article < KDULING.92...@dante.nmsu.edu> kdu...@nmsu.edu (Kevin J. Duling)
writes:
> I really don't wish to flame, but it's starting to annoy me that 50%
> of the articles I read in this newsgroup are about Linux. I don't
> have Linux and I don't want it -- it won't run on my machine, so I
> have no interest in it. I thought that this was a Minix newsgroup.
> Why don't you make the effort and create comp.os.linux?
I agree, but for the opposite reason. I am only interested in Linux (I was
interested in Minix, but since Linux came along I have lost interest). So
I suggest that comp.os.linux be formed (Yeah! I know. Yet another!). Since
I am not quite familiar with proposals and voting etc. could someone make
the proposal and the CFD for this (that is, if other too feel it is
worthwhile to start a new group). The volume of messages seem to justify
it.
--
Satish K. Chittamuru sat...@microsoft.com
Microsoft Corporation Redmond, WA
=====
Veni! Vidi! Visa! (I came! I saw! I purchased!). -- Julius, Sieze Her!
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!wupost!think.com!mips!pacbell.com!
iggy.GW.Vitalink.COM!widener!widener!brendan
From: bre...@cs.widener.edu (Brendan Kehoe)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Linux newsgroup
Message-ID: <BRENDAN.92Jan20185024@betty.cs.widener.edu>
Date: 21 Jan 92 02:50:24 GMT
References: <1992Jan16.060442.22199@athena.mit.edu>
<KDULING.92Jan16093807@dante.nmsu.edu> <1992Jan20.221928.8788@microsoft.com>
Reply-To: bre...@cs.widener.edu
Followup-To: comp.os.minix
Organization: Widener University Computer Science Dept, Chester PA
Lines: 18
NNTP-Posting-Host: betty.cs.widener.edu
In-reply-to: satishc@microsoft.com's message of 20 Jan 92 22:19:28 GMT
In article < 1992Jan20....@microsoft.com> sat...@microsoft.com
(Satish CHITTAMURU) writes:
So I suggest that comp.os.linux be formed (Yeah! I know. Yet
another!). Since I am not quite familiar with proposals and voting
etc. could someone make the proposal and the CFD for this (that is,
if other too feel it is worthwhile to start a new group). The
volume of messages seem to justify it.
alt.os.linux has been created; the traffic probably can't be used as a
gauge on the potential traffic in a comp.os.linux group until the
initial "Burst" of popularity dies down. In a couple of months,
maybe.
--
Brendan Kehoe, Sun Network Manager bre...@cs.widener.edu
Widener University Chester, PA
``Ya know Quaker Oats make you feel good twice?'' Hmm.