From: allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard) Subject: Linux vs. the world Date: 4 Aug 92 23:33:20 GMT Reply-To: allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard) I have followed the this newsgroup, like the copyleft concept, and look forward to joining the Linux community. However, I have the following questions. 1. Is there any relationship between Linux and the BSD Unix implementation which was outlined over the past year or two in Dr. Dobb's journal? 2. What, if any, other shareware Unixes exist and how do they compare to Linux. 3. I am eager to help get as many people in the world using a PC platform with X window, networking, and SLIP or PPP capabilities. Is Linux a good candidate for such a platform (e.g., as compared to DV/X)? Dennis Allard allard@isi.edu
From: wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) Subject: Re: Linux vs. the world Date: 5 Aug 92 16:34:40 GMT allard@isi.edu (Dennis Allard) writes: >1. Is there any relationship between Linux and the BSD Unix implementation > which was outlined over the past year or two in Dr. Dobb's journal? Linus read at least some of the articles. That's all the connection. >2. What, if any, other shareware Unixes exist and how do they compare > to Linux. Linux and 386BSD are not shareware. Absolutely not. They are freely distributable, usable and modifyable. I will assume this is what you meant. The answer is: None that I know of. There are Minix, sold by some publishing company, and Coherent, by Mark Williams Company, both are commercial but fairly cheap (around 100 to 150 dollars). For Minix you even get the source code. Neither has all of the sexy features Linux and 386bsd have, IMHO. Minix in the form it is sold has 64 kB segments, I think Coherent lacks the kind of support for virtual memory that Linux has, etc. Neither of them have X, I think. >3. I am eager to help get as many people in the world using a PC platform > with X window, networking, and SLIP or PPP capabilities. Is Linux a > good candidate for such a platform (e.g., as compared to DV/X)? No. Linux currently lacks networking, and in any case it is not stable enough for many people. Basically, unless you know how to apply patches, hack the kernel and otherwise like to do things the hard way, you might want to wait for a more stable kernel. -- Lars.Wirzenius@helsinki.fi
From: kennu@mits.mdata.fi (Kenneth Falck) Subject: Re: Linux vs. the world Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 19:27:48 GMT In article <1992Aug5.163440.27332@klaava.Helsinki.FI> wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) writes: >No. Linux currently lacks networking, and in any case it is not stable >enough for many people. Basically, unless you know how to apply >patches, hack the kernel and otherwise like to do things the hard way, >you might want to wait for a more stable kernel. By the way, have there been any plans about a v1.0 release that would be the "real" Linux for some time? I mean, currently there seem to be several competetive software-collections, and also the kernel gets updated nearly every other day, and an old DOS-user like me gets annoyed when you have to "ps U" etc. and recompile all the time :-) Maybe it's good to have plenty of choice, but what's also annoying is that the ftp-sites contain a lot of old and useless software, and it's hard to tell what is meant to be used with the current kernel... So what I mean is that since everyone always wants to get the latest kernel whenever one is released, and a new kernel always brings some trouble, kernels shouldn't be released too frequently after 1.0. Maybe this is what Linus has planned, I don't know.. Also I hope that if 1.0 becomes the main release for some time, old and useless stuff could be deleted or archived to some special directory on ftp-sites. (Just my two cents worth...) >-- >Lars.Wirzenius@helsinki.fi -- kennu@mits.mdata.fi Old accountants never die, they just lose their balance.
From: chad@src.umd.edu (R Michael McMahon) Subject: Re: Linux vs. the world Date: 5 Aug 92 21:52:32 GMT Reply-To: chad@src.umd.edu (R Michael McMahon) In article <1992Aug5.192748.23519@mits.mdata.fi>, kennu@mits.mdata.fi (Kenneth Falck) writes:` > By the way, have there been any plans about a v1.0 release that > would be the "real" Linux for some time? I mean, currently there > seem to be several competetive software-collections, and also > the kernel gets updated nearly every other day, and an old > DOS-user like me gets annoyed when you have to "ps U" etc. > and recompile all the time :-) > > Maybe it's good to have plenty of choice, but what's also > annoying is that the ftp-sites contain a lot of old and > useless software, and it's hard to tell what is meant to be > used with the current kernel... True. > > So what I mean is that since everyone always wants to get the > latest kernel whenever one is released, and a new kernel always > brings some trouble, kernels shouldn't be released too frequently > after 1.0. Maybe this is what Linus has planned, I don't know.. I couldn't disagree with you more here. I see Linux as an educational tool first and foremost, and as a useful (as in practical) O.S. second (maybe third, just after "infinite time-sink"). While it would be nice to have a stable, solid release availible for many non-programmer types, I believe lots of us demented sickos actually *enjoy* making kernel patches, adding new features, and trying not to break things in the process. The engineer in me says.. "if it ain't broke, fix it anyway, or at least improve it!" I hope Linus shares this view, rather than looking towards potential market value (at least for now: you *are* staying for PhD, right Linus?!) > > Also I hope that if 1.0 becomes the main release for some time, > old and useless stuff could be deleted or archived to some special > directory on ftp-sites. Good point. Make 1.0 easy for the masses, while the rest of us continue the current effort. > > (Just my two cents worth...) > > -- > kennu@mits.mdata.fi > Old accountants never die, they just lose their balance. > R Michael McMahon chad@src.umd.edu
From: kennu@mits.mdata.fi (Kenneth Falck) Subject: Re: Linux vs. the world Date: 5 Aug 92 23:33:23 GMT In article <1992Aug5.215232.12697@src.umd.edu> chad@src.umd.edu (R Michael McMahon) writes: >While it would be nice to have a stable, solid release availible for >many non-programmer types, I believe lots of us demented sickos >actually *enjoy* making kernel patches, adding new features, and >trying not to break things in the process. The engineer in me says.. >"if it ain't broke, fix it anyway, or at least improve it!" I hope >Linus shares this view, rather than looking towards potential market >value (at least for now: you *are* staying for PhD, right Linus?!) I see only one problem there; if all the hackish kind of programmers that actually port the largest and most difficult programs use new "hackers'" kernels, won't the ports easily become incompatible with the old kernels and everyone has to update his/her kernel anyway? This depends, of course, on how big the kernel changes are... Personally, I just would like to be able to use Linux in peace without upgrading all the time, and also knowing that nobody else is running a better kernel than I am :-) (I hope nobody understands my comments wrongly, I don't mean to demand anything only for my personal welfare, just trying to be intellectually productive...) >R Michael McMahon chad@src.umd.edu -- kennu@mits.mdata.fi Pretend to spank me - I'm a pseudo-masochist.
From: drew@hamlet.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) Subject: Re: Linux vs. the world Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1992 03:52:26 GMT In article <1992Aug5.233323.27200@mits.mdata.fi> kennu@mits.mdata.fi (Kenneth Falck) writes: >In article <1992Aug5.215232.12697@src.umd.edu> >chad@src.umd.edu (R Michael McMahon) writes: >>While it would be nice to have a stable, solid release availible for >>many non-programmer types, I believe lots of us demented sickos >>actually *enjoy* making kernel patches, adding new features, and >>trying not to break things in the process. The engineer in me says.. >>"if it ain't broke, fix it anyway, or at least improve it!" I hope >>Linus shares this view, rather than looking towards potential market >>value (at least for now: you *are* staying for PhD, right Linus?!) > >I see only one problem there; if all the hackish kind of programmers >that actually port the largest and most difficult programs use >new "hackers'" kernels, won't the ports easily become incompatible >with the old kernels and everyone has to update his/her kernel anyway? Probably not. Most well behaved programs (This does not include windowing systems, that need some hackish way of accessing the hardware directly) use a standard interface to the syscalls. While the underlying code for the sys calls may change in newer kernels, the interface remains the same and user level software will be portable across the different systems. Of course, there are exceptions to this, such as the MGR and X11 ports which needed the IO permissions bitmap, mmap(), and unix domain sockets, and the new mount(2) call that works with different types of file systems.
From: kennu@mits.mdata.fi (Kenneth Falck) Subject: Re: Linux vs. the world Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1992 18:34:37 GMT In article <1992Aug8.035226.29102@colorado.edu> drew@hamlet.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) writes: >>I see only one problem there; if all the hackish kind of programmers >>that actually port the largest and most difficult programs use >>new "hackers'" kernels, won't the ports easily become incompatible >>with the old kernels and everyone has to update his/her kernel anyway? > >Probably not. Most well behaved programs (This does not include >windowing systems, that need some hackish way of accessing the hardware >directly) use a standard interface to the syscalls. While the >underlying code for the sys calls may change in newer kernels, >the interface remains the same and user level software will be portable >across the different systems. > >Of course, there are exceptions to this, such as the MGR and X11 ports >which needed the IO permissions bitmap, mmap(), and unix domain sockets, >and the new mount(2) call that works with different types of file >systems. Hmm.. I wonder if releases of this "really big" software like X-windows (and maybe also MGR) could be synchronized with the major Linux releases; so that for some time we would have "Linux 1.0", "X for Linux 1.0", "MGR for Linux 1.0", "GCC for Linux 1.0", and then after some time "Linux 1.1", "X for Linux 1.1", etc... Of course, nothing would prevent releasing something like "GCC 1.1 for Linux 1.0", but it'd be cool if you could always always tell just what version of Linux the software is meant to be run on just by checking the program's version. As far as I can tell, this far you've usually had to check comp.os.linux all the time or try by yourself to see whether some big piece of software works with some kernel. (Of course, usually everything works with the latest kernel...) I don't know then, would this work nicely if everyone recompiles his/her kernels and makes big changes to them. I hope the kernel becomes more externally configurable in the future, though I suppose most of the changes people make themselves are just little bug patches or keyboard configuration. I wonder if there should be (or is there?) some "Linux committee" that would coordinate everything, as I'm sure Linus can't do everything by himself. (I don't think this newsgroup acts as any kind of authority, but I haven't introduced myself to the mailing lists yet though.) -- kennu@mits.mdata.fi <here's where the dumb quote is supposed to be> -- kennu@mits.mdata.fi