Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!swrinde!gatech!
usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!eg554
From: eg...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Matthew Feldt)
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent
Subject: A Truly Unbiased Opinion
Date: 27 May 1994 01:21:08 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <2s3hu4$4bl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kanga.ins.cwru.edu


For 1 1/2 years I enjoyed using the COHERENT operating system, 
its manual, both Harry and Udo's gratious willingness to help, 
the COHERENT support staff, etc...

But now I'm using Linux, for reasons that are my own.  If this 
were comp.os.linux I would tell you why (or if you want to e-mail
me at mat...@redbird.umsl.edu).  But its NOT.

I read this newsgroup because I have an interest in the develop-
ment of the COHERENT operating system and I would like to help
others as others helped me. NOT because I care about your personal 
opinions.

Everyone seems upset that somebody posted a messgae about Skinny
Dip or something, but that seems far less a internet noise crime 
than whats been going on here...

Matthew Feldt

From: Byron.C...@Microserve.com (Byron Chandler)
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!
swrinde!news.dell.com!tadpole.com!uunet!news.sprintlink.net!
ugly.microserve.net!microsrv!byron.chandler
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent
Subject: Re: A Truly Unbiased Opinion
Message-ID: <2294072129984@microserve.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 08:19:43 EST
Reply-To: Byron.C...@Microserve.com (Byron Chandler)
Organization: MicroServe Information Systems
Distribution: world
Lines: 24

I am mailing in response to your "unbiased opinion" posting on comp.os.linux.
I would like to know why you have decided to switch to Linux.  I am having a
tough time deciding which one to install.  It seems that between the two,
almost evrything you want in an OS is there.  But Linux seems to be slightly
more standard and capable, whereas Coherent seems better documented and more
stable.  At a $150, I don't think price really igures into it -- I mean, I will
invest so much more than that in the system when its all said and done.

I will surely appreciate any light you can shed on this subject.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 GIGS of files   Microserve Information Systems  ALL THE USENET GROUPS
FULL INTERNET ACCESS                                     INTERNET PROVIDER
16 Dedicated Lines            Join Today            Dialup,56K, T1 Lines
National Access (AdpNet)    Data: (717)779-3640     Residential and Commercial
SLIP/PPP/UUCP Accounts    Business:(717)779-4430       Call for more Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: nntp.gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!boulder!
csnews!kinglear.cs.colorado.edu!drew
From: dr...@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt)
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Coherent & Linux (Was : A Truly Unbiased Opinion)
Date: 23 Jul 1994 04:41:31 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 350
Message-ID: <30q71r$4h@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU>
References: <2294072129984@microserve.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kinglear.cs.colorado.edu
Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.os.coherent:14437 comp.os.linux.misc:22502

In article <229407...@microserve.com>,
Byron Chandler <Byron.C...@Microserve.com> wrote:
>I am mailing in response to your "unbiased opinion" posting on comp.os.linux.
>I would like to know why you have decided to switch to Linux.  I am having a
>tough time deciding which one to install.  It seems that between the two,
>almost evrything you want in an OS is there.  

>But Linux seems to be slightly
>more standard and capable, whereas Coherent seems better documented and more
>stable.  At a $150, I don't think price really igures into it -- I mean, I will
>invest so much more than that in the system when its all said and done.
>
>I will surely appreciate any light you can shed on this subject.

I currently maintain the CET BASIC compiler and various utilities, which run
on a variety of platforms, including Coherent.  Consequently, I've done 
a fairly thorough job exercising Coherent, and have had the opportunity
to deal with Mark Williams' support staff.  (Consider this 
background as to my experience running Coherent, not as an
indication that these opinions represent CET Software's and not
my own).

In my spare time and in various consulting capacities, I've worked on 
the Linux kernel since almost the beggining (.10 or .11 if you count
the first kernel I tried to boot, or the first one which worked), writing 
between 15 and 20K lines of kernel code in that time and porting 
various applications.  I also evangelize Linux to my friends, coworkers, 
and even strangers.  Ie, I'm familiar with it's internals, performance, 
compatability, and even the pitfalls which await new Linux users.

In summary, I like to think that I have a fair amount of relevant
experience with both Linux and Coherent.  That said, I'll try to 
draw a few unbiased comparisons between the two systems.

1.  Documentation : The Coherent manual is among the best I've seen
        for any unix, being complete, thorough, and not overly bulky.

	With the Linux documentation, you won't find it in a single 
	place.  Various topics are covered in excruciating detail,
	where as others get a passing mention at best.

	New unix users may find the Linux documentation intimidating
	and the Coherent documentation comforting.

2.  Support : It's been my experience that Mark Williams technical
	support is generally helpful and knowledgeable, and they 
	are extremely supportive of developers.

	Conversly, the level of support within the Linux community
	is highly variable.  Some companies sell you a CD-ROM 
	and then forget about you.  Others offer traditional technical
	support.  Corporate users can buy guaranteed fixes for $500 a
	bug.

	Many users choose to rely on Usenet instead, although
	if they fail to follow 'propper' bug reportting 
	procedures or ask a FAQ a few too many times, they
	may be ignored.

	Users who want the consistient level of support offered 
	by Mark Williams should weight this if considering the
	choice between Linux and Coherent.

3.  Corporate Image : Mark Williams has been arround for a 
	long time, with my first memories of them going back
	to when Circuit Cellar was still a BYTE section and
	I still had a genuine IBM PC/XT.  Presumably, this 
	long history will continue.

	There are probably no Linux companies that old,
	and for that matter there isn't a single company
	behind Linux.  Most of the Linux companies are 
	startups that happened in the last year and a 
	half or so, and given the vast disparity between
	their corporate policies, pricing, and support
	I won't be surprised when many disappear in the 
	next year.

	If you have a product which you want to sell with
	a low cost unix-like system, your investors, distributors,
	and other business people may be a lot happier with
	the Coherent model than the Linux model.

	Conversly, if you are willing to take a few more 
	percieved risks, support the operating system yourself,
	or contract out for support, you may find that Linux
	allows you to offer your product and the platform it 
	runs on for a lower cost.

4.  Ease of installation : Depending on what you install, and 
	which Linux distribution you use, you may find that 
	either Linux or Coherent is easier to install.

	If you are a unix "power user", who will be installing
	Xfree86, EMACS-19, the full set of GNU utilities, 
	Interviews, TeX, and other standard unix toys,
	you'll be a lot happier popping in a Linux
	floppy and CDROM, answering a few questions, and
	then leaving for donuts.

	If you just want a minimal (for some definition of minmal)
	installation, you will find it easier to install the four
	'base' Coherent diskettes than to try to whittle down
	some vendors' Linux distributions to just what you 
	want.

	There's also the special case of DOS users wishing to 
	try out a system for the first time : to my knowledge, there
	is no Coherent equivalent of the Linux UMSDOS package under
	Coherent, which allows users to map a unix filesystem, with
	long filenames, symolic links, etc. on top of their 
	existing MSDOS filesystem, with no need to repartition.

5.  Cost : Unquestionably, Linux is cheaper, since free is 
	less than inexpensive.

	Some people will argue that Linux isn't free, since you
	must consider the cost of downloading it.

	However, they neglect to mention that complete Linux
	distributions, with X11, GCC, Emacs, etc. can be 
	found for $30, and that once some one has downloaded it/bought
	a CD, you're legally allowed to copy it.

6.  Size : The stock Coherent distribution comes on four floppy
	diskettes.  Most Linux distributions come on a 650 megabyte
	CD-ROM, 150 megabyte QIC tape, or a stack of floppies.

	In practice, I've run useful Coherent installations on
	40M partitions (for some time, my Coherent development
	box had a forty megabyte volzhstor drive in it), and 
	I've run useful Linux installations on 40M partitions
	( One on a laptop ).

	Getting down to the stock Coherent size is difficult with
	some of the Linux distributions, easy with others which 
	allow fine grained control over what is installed, and 
	you can do one better with some which allow a CD-dependant
	installation, where under five megabytes of your hard disk
	is used.

	Ie, in practice, with the Linux right distribution, the 
	apparant smaller size of Coherent is a non-issue.  However,
	if you have a small system, and don't care to find 
	'the right' Linux distribution, you may be happier installing
	Coherent.

	For larger installations, especially where X applications are 
	concerned (Some of the X programms in my current process
	listing show 800K of library routines used) Linux's use of shared 
	libraries will have a significant impact on disk space usage.

	Memory usage can go either way, depending on the application
	mix you run.  With Linux, you get the GNU utilities, which 
	are somewhat larger than Coherent's utilities.  You also get 
	shared libraries, a kernel which dynamically allocates structures,
	and a unified user memory pool and buffer cache.

	Of course, with Linux memory usage is not as critical, since 
	if you get tight, you can allways page to disk.

7.  Performance
	To most users, how the system responds and feels is 
	going to be their most important performance criteria,
	so I'll comment on the somewhat intangible "feel"
	performance first.

	On slower hardware (ie, a 386-25, low performance IDE
	drive like the Seagate ST-1144A), I found Coherent's 
	responsiveness (ie, time needed to start new commands,
	login, for an editor to respond, etc) nearly unbearable compared 
	with Linux's if I had any running processes in the background.

	On more reasonable hardware, such as a 486-66SLC 
	board or my i486-66 PCI system, I didn't notice 
	much of a difference in interactive 'feel'.

	If you look at it more quantitatively, as you should if 
	you plan on running data base applications, doing large
	builds, etc, Linux comes out on top of most PC unices.

	Ie, with a busmastering SCSI controller, reasonable SCSI
	drive (ie, has a track buffer), kernel new enough to 
	have the 'cluster patches' in it (clustered read/writes
	plus a SYSV-like bdflush kernel daemon),  and ext-2 
	filesystem (the standard Linux filesystem, very similar
	to the BSD FFS), Linux will sustain close to 100% of head
	rate on writes through the filesystem, and about 70% on
	reads.

	Special considerations have been made to enhance 
	the interactive response as well.  Ie, read requests
	are considered more important than write requests.  Processes
	which awake from I/O are started immediately rather than being
	placed at the tail of a run queue.

	TCP/IP performance is good too - I get 920K/sec between
	my box and an RS/6000.

	Linux does have it's performance flaws - specifically,
	in the client side NFS code which lacks caching without
	some alpha patches and didn't do 8K blocks until 
	recently, and in the scheduler when large numbers of 
	processes are running (where running is defined as 
	"would be in the run queue if there were one", and 
	doesn't include processes in disk wait as is the case
	with the load average), but Coherent is no better
	in these areas.

7.  Features : 
	Coherent has one feature that I'd like to see under Linux,
	that I don't expect to see any time soon : System V STREAMS.

	Other people may like Coherent's vsh, and I'm sure there
	are a few other features Coherent has that Linux lacks.

	Both share many common features, with the biggest in 
	my mind being

	- Availability of the GNU utilities, particularly the
	    GNU development environment with GDB, GCC, etc.

	- X11R5, rather than many vendor's X11R4 systems

	- Availability of support for ibcs-2 binaries

	    At the Heidelberg conference, Eric Youngdale,
	    who maintains the Linux IBCS-2 package suggested
	    that compatability was at about 75%, with most 
	    major packages (Lotus 1-2-3, Word Perfect, etc).

	    Perhaps someone at Mark Williams has a similar
	    notion of what works under Coherent.

	- UUCP mail handling

	- Loadable keyboard maps for international support

	- Virtual consoles

 	Like other GPL'd software, though, Linux has a plethora
	of features, ranging from extremely useful to nifty.

	- Linux pages to disk.  Rather than running out of memory,
	    things just get slower.  

	- Linux has shared libraries. Note that ELF and IBCS-2
	    shared libraries work as well, although to run SCO
	    applications with shared libraries you need the SCO
	    shared libraries.

	    Obviously, this reduces memory and disk space 
	    requirements.

	- In theory, Linux supports up to 1G of memory, versus
	    Coherent's 16M (In practice, the largest Linux
	    installation I saw had only 96M of RAM)

	- Linux has filesystems which support > 64K inodes, quite
	    significant if you have a News feed.

	- Linux has a VFS layer, which supports iso9660/rockridge,
	    ext-2 (BSDFFS like), minix, msdos, nfs, SYSV/386,
	    Xenix, Coherent, and plan-9 like /proc filesystems.

	- Linux has integrated networking support, which
	    I'd go as far as to call "excellent" with the 
	    latest code from Swansea university.

	- Linux offers exceptional hardware support for odd 
	    hardware.  This is significant if you are purchasing
	    new hardware (try finding a $70 busmastering SCSI
	    controller which is supported under Coherent), or
	    have 'odd' existing hardware.

	- Linux has a useable DOS emulator, which runs Word Perfect,
	    will let you run Novell networking in the emulator,
	    Windows in real mode, Wolfenstein 3-D on the console,
	    and many other applications.

	- Linux has a toy Windows emulator, which runs Solataire
	    and a few other toy applications.

	- Reasonable sound drivers, compatabile with Sun
	    sparcs, and enhanced for Linux-DOOM support
	    (although Linux-DOOM is not out yet).

	- Full sourcce code is available for Linux, where as with
	    Coherent you can only get source for the device drivers and 
	    GNU utilities.


8.  Stability

	Some Linux critics will contend that Linux is unstable
	because the version number changes frequently. 

	This is simply a side effect of the Linux development
	being open, and the developers allowing anyone who
	wants a copy of the development source tree a copy
	of it.

	Arbitrarily call Linux 1.0.9 1.0, and 
	whatever results from the next code freeze and 
	bug fixes 2.0, and by that definition, Linux is very
	stable.

	I don't like that definition of stability, since in 
	my mind stability is a system which doesn't crash,
	and lacks bugs.

	In most cases, Linux (especially non-development kernels,
	or development kernels after a 'cooling off period', similar
	to the Coherent 4.xx beta releases) and Coherent don't crash,
	and won't crash with mis-behaved user level programs or 
	due to kernel bugs.

	If you can resist the temptation to upgrade, Linux 
	can stay up for a long time.  One site had their 
	box up for over 120 days, until a backhoe operator
	took out a power transformer.

	Coherent is definately harder to crash with a 
	user level program than Microsoft Windows, and if you
	aren't running any perverse applications you should be
	fine.

	However, I've accidentally locked the Coherent kernel up solid with a 
	normal user level program several times, but have yet to do so 
	under Linux, even when running crashme (Crashme executes random code,
	attempting to issue a system call with illegal parameters, or 
	otherwise slip by the kernel's defenses).

	In terms of outstanding bugs, it's a hard call to make.  I
	know of several bugs in what is regarded as the distribution
	Linux kernel (1.0.x), such as failure of pseudo-DMA mode 
	on the PAS-16 SCSI driver on many systems, although
	I know of those because of my involvement in Linux kernel
	development rather than personally running into them
	or knowing someone who did.  Under Coherent, I've 
	seen fewer bugs, but I have nothing to do with it's 
	development so I'll come across fewer. 

These lists are not comprehensive by any means, but could be a 
starting point for your comparisons.  Weigh the various points, 
decide what's important to you, and go from there.  
-- 
Drew Eckhardt dr...@Colorado.EDU
1970 Landcruiser FJ40 w/350 Chevy power
1982 Yamaha XV920J Virago

Path: nntp.gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!news.sprintlink.net!
sundog.tiac.net!bhhome.ci.net!bill
From: bi...@bhhome.ci.net (Bill Heiser)
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Coherent & Linux (Was : A Truly Unbiased Opinion)
Date: 23 Jul 1994 12:33:08 GMT
Organization: The Internet Access Company
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <30r2m4$30p@sundog.tiac.net>
References: <2294072129984@microserve.com> <30q71r$4h@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bhhome.ci.net
Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.os.coherent:14439 comp.os.linux.misc:22520

dr...@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) writes:

>	If you have a product which you want to sell with
>	a low cost unix-like system, your investors, distributors,
>	and other business people may be a lot happier with
>	the Coherent model than the Linux model.

Yes.  I run LINUX on my home machine and on a machine at work that I basically
use as my "workstation".  However I wouldn't dream of suggesting that LINUX
be used in a product to be delivered to a Customer.  Not really because there
is anything "wrong" with LINUX .. but how would we sell it?  "oh, the OS
kernel we ship you is maintained by a college student and the OS tools are
maintained by volunteers all over the world"?    While this is GREAT for
people who want to use LINUX, it doesn't make for a "deliverable" product.


-- 
Bill Heiser:    bi...@bhhome.ci.net

Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!boulder!csnews!
kinglear.cs.colorado.edu!drew
From: dr...@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt)
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Coherent & Linux (Was : A Truly Unbiased Opinion)
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc
Date: 23 Jul 1994 13:32:00 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <30r64g$9vg@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU>
References: <2294072129984@microserve.com> <30q71r$4h@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU> 
<30r2m4$30p@sundog.tiac.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kinglear.cs.colorado.edu
Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.os.coherent:14440 comp.os.linux.misc:22521

Although Coherent versus Linux was valid for comp.os.coherent, 
I suspect that this is going to degenerate into evangelism for
both Linux and free software, so followups have been redirected
accordingly.

In article <30r2m4$3...@sundog.tiac.net>,
Bill Heiser <bi...@bhhome.ci.net> wrote:
>dr...@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) writes:
>
>>	If you have a product which you want to sell with
>>	a low cost unix-like system, your investors, distributors,
>>	and other business people may be a lot happier with
>>	the Coherent model than the Linux model.
>
>Yes.  I run LINUX on my home machine and on a machine at work that I basically
>use as my "workstation".  However I wouldn't dream of suggesting that LINUX
>be used in a product to be delivered to a Customer.  

You tell your customer what it will cost to do it under various
alternatives, what the performance trade offs will be, support 
issues involved, and let them agree with your choice of operating 
systems or suffer with additional costs and decreased performance.

It's been done a number of times - 

Various VARs have built systems arround Linux, including image storage 
and retrieval (gigabytes of data on MO juke boxes with a SCSI media 
robot), non-real time data aquisition, and other applications.

In one case, one division of a large company has resold Linux 
to other divisions for internal development work.

Novell demonstrated Corsair, a Linux based platform for running
Unixware, Windows, and DOS applications.  

>Not really because there
>is anything "wrong" with LINUX .. but how would we sell it?  

>"oh, the OS kernel we ship you is maintained by a college student and 
>the OS tools are maintained by volunteers all over the world"?    

This isn't entirely accurate.  Various commercial entities 
have an interest in how Linux fares, and have contributed 
back to the Linux/Free Software development efforts in terms of 
manpower, financial, and hardware contributions.

If software originating in Academia is a problem, how did 
BSD 4.2 get to be the basis of Ultrix, SunOS, HPUX, and others
I've neglected to mention?

If "OS tools maintained by volunteers all over the world" are
a problem, how did GNU compression and archive tools find
their way into every Coherent distribution, sendmail become the 
standard Unix mail system, GCC the 'C' compiler used by a number
of embeded systems developers, X11 the Unix windowing system,
etc?

While I wouldn't call software from Acadamia or free software 
common place, they are definately well used within certain
markets.  I don't see why Linux should be any different.

>While this is GREAT for
>people who want to use LINUX, it doesn't make for a "deliverable" product.

If Linux doesn't make for a deliverable product, then no PC unices
are suitable for a deliverable product.  After all, the rest have 
worse problems, no guaranteed bug fix programs, are generally slower, 
and you usually don't get source code if you need to do something 
perverse.

-- 
Drew Eckhardt dr...@Colorado.EDU
1970 Landcruiser FJ40 w/350 Chevy power
1982 Yamaha XV920J Virago

Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!
gatekeeper.us.oracle.com!barrnet.net!nntp.crl.com!ka4ybr!mah
From: m...@ka4ybr.com (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR)
Subject: Re: Coherent & Linux (Was : A Truly Unbiased Opinion)
Message-ID: <1994Jul24.114614.27905@ka4ybr.com>
Organization: Mark Horton Associates
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 11:46:14 GMT
References: <2294072129984@microserve.com> <30q71r$4h@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU> 
<30r2m4$30p@sundog.tiac.net>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Followup-To: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Lines: 52
Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.os.coherent:14468 comp.os.linux.misc:22586

Bill Heiser (bi...@bhhome.ci.net) wrote:
: dr...@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) writes:

: >	If you have a product which you want to sell with
: >	a low cost unix-like system, your investors, distributors,
: >	and other business people may be a lot happier with
: >	the Coherent model than the Linux model.

: Yes.  I run LINUX on my home machine and on a machine at work that I basically
: use as my "workstation".  However I wouldn't dream of suggesting that LINUX
: be used in a product to be delivered to a Customer.  Not really because there
: is anything "wrong" with LINUX .. but how would we sell it?  "oh, the OS
: kernel we ship you is maintained by a college student and the OS tools are
: maintained by volunteers all over the world"?    While this is GREAT for
: people who want to use LINUX, it doesn't make for a "deliverable" product.

		mount -r -t raving.human /dev/keyboard /soapbox

If you will pardon me :)  ,
  
		"bullshit"  

We provide support for clients running businesses (small businesses, admitedly -
bookstores, bike shops, business associations), most of whom wish to run DOS-based
applications in a networked environment.  The combination of Linux with shareware
DOS NFS support is a much more cost-effective solution than other networking 
products.  The beauty of this approach is that we can use Linux on Intel machines
and SunOS-4.1.3u1 on SPARCs depending on the load (SPARC-1s are excellent machines
for networks that don't require the horsepower of say a DX2-66 and they are MUCH
cheaper to purchase used!)  The server part of this setup is completely transparent
to the user who, after all, doesn't give a damn about the hardware, software, or
vendor support but merely wants something that WORKS).  Since the client is usually
not involved in any of the vendor support issues, I personally would rather consult
the FAQs, HOWTOs, SOURCE-CODE!!!!!, and lastly, cry for help on the net rather than
sitting on "hold" for hours to talk with some delta-minus clerical person at the
vendor's help desk.  Or have to pay big bucks for software patches to broken vendor-
supplied software (Solaris 2.3 upgrade CD - and it still has holes! grrrr...)  Of
course, this approach removes the consultant's excuse of "It's a vendor software
problem; not my fault."  
 
And let's not forget the origins of BSD upon which so many *nixen are based. :)

Just my $.02 as a consultant in the business.  (  Yes, even SCO :( and AIX :-/~  )
- Mark

				umount /soapbox
--
"Linux!     Guerrilla UNIX Development     Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus."
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Horton       ka4ybr             m...@ka4ybr.atl.ga.us
P.O. Box 747 Decatur GA US 30031-0747         m...@ka4ybr.com
+1.404.371.0291                     33 45 31 N / 084 16 59 W

Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!
ihnp4.ucsd.edu!mvb.saic.com!eskimo!fyl
From: f...@eskimo.com (Phil Hughes)
Subject: Re: Coherent & Linux (Was : A Truly Unbiased Opinion)
Message-ID: <CtH4E4.B8o@eskimo.com>
Followup-To: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Sender: ne...@eskimo.com (News User Id)
Nntp-Posting-Host: eskimo.com
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <2294072129984@microserve.com> <30q71r$4h@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU> 
<30r2m4$30p@sundog.tiac.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 02:03:39 GMT
Lines: 31
Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.os.coherent:14479 comp.os.linux.misc:22610

Bill Heiser (bi...@bhhome.ci.net) wrote:
: dr...@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) writes:

: >	If you have a product which you want to sell with
: >	a low cost unix-like system, your investors, distributors,
: >	and other business people may be a lot happier with
: >	the Coherent model than the Linux model.

: Yes.  I run LINUX on my home machine and on a machine at work that I basically
: use as my "workstation".  However I wouldn't dream of suggesting that LINUX
: be used in a product to be delivered to a Customer.  Not really because there
: is anything "wrong" with LINUX .. but how would we sell it?  "oh, the OS
: kernel we ship you is maintained by a college student and the OS tools are
: maintained by volunteers all over the world"?    While this is GREAT for
: people who want to use LINUX, it doesn't make for a "deliverable" product.

I think you are behind schedule here.  This is a line from a few months
ago.  There is support for Linux from "real people".  That is one of the
reasons we have a Consultants Directory in Linux Journal. And vendirs such
as Yggdrasil offer support -- for a price.  This means you have a choice:
tell the customer the OS is free but you will support it for a price or
that the OS is $20 + $500/year.  It's not that support isn't available --
just that it is packaged differently.

Many of our advertisers are CD vendors.  As competition increases the big
issue will be support.  I expect that a year from now there will be the
"hacker CDs' and the "supported operating system" distributions with quite
different price tags.  This will give the consumer a choice.
--
Phil Hughes, Publisher, Linux Journal (206) 524-8338
usually ph...@fylz.com, sometimes f...@eskimo.com

Path: nntp.gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!
lll-winken.llnl.gov!unixhub!headwall.Stanford.EDU!lm
From: l...@stanford.edu (Larry McVoy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Coherent & Linux (Was : A Truly Unbiased Opinion)
Date: 26 Jul 1994 18:07:59 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <313jdv$i33@Times.Stanford.EDU>
References: <30q71r$4h@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sunburn.stanford.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.os.coherent:14519 comp.os.linux.misc:22761

Drew Eckhardt (dr...@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu) wrote:
: 	Coherent has one feature that I'd like to see under Linux,
: 	that I don't expect to see any time soon : System V STREAMS.

I used to work for Sun.  I was a systems architect, designing systems that 
were heavily dependent on networking performance, particularly latency.
STREAMS is a performance pig for networking.  People will implement it
like so:

	[ stream head ]
	[ TCP ]  [ UDP ]
	     [ IP ]
	[ drvr ] [ drvr ]

Each one of those boxes is a canput() and a putnext().  For certain
applications, you really want to be able to send control messages in
0 time, or close to it.  Like 10 microseconds would be nice (a memory
reference is usally ~1 microsecond, cache miss).  At one time, Sun's
Solaris networking code took ~700 microseconds to get a packet out 
the door.  I wanted 10 round trip.  The ATM types are promising roughly
10 round trip.  If they succeed, then TCP/IP looks stupid and TCP/IP
through STREAMS looks amazingly stupid.

Please do not encourage the use of STREAMS for networking, it is a horrible
idea.
--
--
Larry McVoy		l...@cs.stanford.edu               (415) 821-5758

Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!news.gcr.com!
news.widomaker.com!escape!shendrix
From: shen...@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix)
Subject: Re: Coherent & Linux (Was : A Truly Unbiased Opinion)
Message-ID: <1994Jul24.184342.5801@escape.widomaker.com>
Organization: HNN UNIX Network
Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 18:43:42 GMT
References: <2294072129984@microserve.com> <30q71r$4h@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU> 
<30r2m4$30p@sundog.tiac.net>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Followup-To: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Lines: 28
Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.os.coherent:14524 comp.os.linux.misc:22772

Bill Heiser (bi...@bhhome.ci.net) wrote:

: Yes.  I run LINUX on my home machine and on a machine at work that I basically
: use as my "workstation".  However I wouldn't dream of suggesting that LINUX
: be used in a product to be delivered to a Customer.  Not really because there
: is anything "wrong" with LINUX .. but how would we sell it?  "oh, the OS
: kernel we ship you is maintained by a college student and the OS tools are
: maintained by volunteers all over the world"?    While this is GREAT for
: people who want to use LINUX, it doesn't make for a "deliverable" product.

Considering that it's being done all over the world I'd say that
argument doesn't hold water.  Especially when you give the customer a
test drive and they get to compare Linux to another slower and less
stable UNIX.  Or maybe the customer needs a source license but doesn't
have big bucks to spend or maybe you need to stuff this OS into 50 boxes
doing simulation and control functions and even at only $100 per UNIX
this is $5000 when you could have it for free.

Most customers don't care about the OS since you are selling them an
application anyway.

: -- 
: Bill Heiser:    bi...@bhhome.ci.net
-- 
csh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
shen...@escape.widomaker.com (UUCP)     | Amd486/40 Linux system
shen...@pcs.cnu.edu (Internet)          | Christopher Newport University

Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!
europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!news2.near.net!das-news.harvard.edu!
spdcc!merk!rmkhome!rmk
From: r...@rmkhome.com (Rick Kelly)
Subject: Re: Coherent & Linux (Was : A Truly Unbiased Opinion)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Followup-To: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
References: <30q71r$4h@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU> <313jdv$i33@Times.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <9407282032.40@rmkhome.com>
Reply-To: r...@rmkhome.com (Rick Kelly)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 01:32:44 GMT
Lines: 35
Xref: bga.com comp.os.coherent:4046 comp.os.linux.misc:17231

Larry McVoy (l...@stanford.edu) wrote:
: Drew Eckhardt (dr...@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu) wrote:
: : 	Coherent has one feature that I'd like to see under Linux,
: : 	that I don't expect to see any time soon : System V STREAMS.

: I used to work for Sun.  I was a systems architect, designing systems that 
: were heavily dependent on networking performance, particularly latency.
: STREAMS is a performance pig for networking.  People will implement it
: like so:

: 	[ stream head ]
: 	[ TCP ]  [ UDP ]
: 	     [ IP ]
: 	[ drvr ] [ drvr ]

: Each one of those boxes is a canput() and a putnext().  For certain
: applications, you really want to be able to send control messages in
: 0 time, or close to it.  Like 10 microseconds would be nice (a memory
: reference is usally ~1 microsecond, cache miss).  At one time, Sun's
: Solaris networking code took ~700 microseconds to get a packet out 
: the door.  I wanted 10 round trip.  The ATM types are promising roughly
: 10 round trip.  If they succeed, then TCP/IP looks stupid and TCP/IP
: through STREAMS looks amazingly stupid.

: Please do not encourage the use of STREAMS for networking, it is a horrible
: idea.


Unfortunately, Lachman TCP/IP, which many vendors are using now, is based
on STREAMS.


-- 

Rick Kelly  r...@rmkhome.com  r...@bedford.progress.com

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!
agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!lm
From: l...@stanford.edu (Larry McVoy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Coherent & Linux (Was : A Truly Unbiased Opinion)
Date: 29 Jul 1994 20:58:08 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <31bqh0$g95@Times.Stanford.EDU>
References: <9407282032.40@rmkhome.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sunburn.stanford.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Xref: bga.com comp.os.coherent:4061 comp.os.linux.misc:17305

Rick Kelly (r...@rmkhome.com) wrote:
: Larry McVoy (l...@stanford.edu) wrote:
: : Drew Eckhardt (dr...@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu) wrote:
: : : 	Coherent has one feature that I'd like to see under Linux,
: : : 	that I don't expect to see any time soon : System V STREAMS.
: 
: : I used to work for Sun.  I was a systems architect, designing systems that 
: : were heavily dependent on networking performance, particularly latency.
: : STREAMS is a performance pig for networking.  People will implement it
: : like so:
: 
: : 	[ stream head ]
: : 	[ TCP ]  [ UDP ]
: : 	     [ IP ]
: : 	[ drvr ] [ drvr ]
: 
: : Each one of those boxes is a canput() and a putnext().  For certain
: : applications, you really want to be able to send control messages in
: : 0 time, or close to it.  Like 10 microseconds would be nice (a memory
: : reference is usally ~1 microsecond, cache miss).  At one time, Sun's
: : Solaris networking code took ~700 microseconds to get a packet out 
: : the door.  I wanted 10 round trip.  The ATM types are promising roughly
: : 10 round trip.  If they succeed, then TCP/IP looks stupid and TCP/IP
: : through STREAMS looks amazingly stupid.
: 
: : Please do not encourage the use of STREAMS for networking, it is a horrible
: : idea.
: 
: 
: Unfortunately, Lachman TCP/IP, which many vendors are using now, is based
: on STREAMS.

I know that, I used to work for Lachman, I did the port to SCO of that
stack.  It sucks as a stack and there is no advantage to the user in
having a STREAMS stack.  Linux is by hackers for hackers and as such I
would like to see not get sucked into ideas that sound good but turn
out to be a bummer.  STREAMS is one such idea, Sun-like threads (LWPs)
are another such idea.  Yech, blech, faa.  Keep 'em away from me.
--
--
Larry McVoy l...@cs.stanford.edu soon to be l...@sgi.com         (415) 821-5758

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!yeshua.marcam.com!MathWorks.Com!
europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!
news.dfn.de!rrz.uni-koeln.de!RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE!teralon!easix!umunk.GUN.de!udo
From: u...@umunk.GUN.de (Udo Munk)
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Distribution: world
Subject: Re: Coherent & Linux (Was : A Truly Unbiased Opinion)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <2294072129984@microserve.com> <30q71r$4h@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU> 
<30r2m4$30p@sundog.tiac.net> <1994Jul24.184342.5801@escape.widomaker.com>
Message-ID: <94072826254@umunk.GUN.de>
Organization: private system
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 94 12:17:45 +0200
Lines: 28
Xref: bga.com comp.os.coherent:4076 comp.os.linux.misc:17345

Shannon Hendrix (shen...@escape.widomaker.com) wrote:
[...]
: Considering that it's being done all over the world I'd say that
: argument doesn't hold water.  Especially when you give the customer a
: test drive and they get to compare Linux to another slower and less
: stable UNIX.  Or maybe the customer needs a source license but doesn't

But Coherent isn't slower or less stable if you run it on exactely the
same hardware and compare it to Linux.

: have big bucks to spend or maybe you need to stuff this OS into 50 boxes

A customer who needs a source license can buy it.

: doing simulation and control functions and even at only $100 per UNIX
: this is $5000 when you could have it for free.

When someone needs 100 licenses he doesn't pay the price 100 * price of
a single copy, usually one gets a discount when one buys a huge ammount
of any software license.

: Most customers don't care about the OS since you are selling them an
: application anyway.

Right, but the customers want an OS which is supported by the company
which installs this system. You cannot tell them, well, if there are
problems with the OS ask on the Internet, it's supported there by a lot
of people in their spare time.
--
Udo Munk  u...@mwc.com or u...@umunk.GUN.de, CIS: 100021,2515

Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!swrinde!pipex!sunic!
trane.uninett.no!nac.no!eunet.no!nuug!EU.net!uunet!news.widomaker.com!
escape!shendrix
From: shen...@escape.widomaker.com (Shannon Hendrix)
Subject: Re: Coherent & Linux (Was : A Truly Unbiased Opinion)
Message-ID: <1994Jul31.221412.364@escape.widomaker.com>
Organization: HNN UNIX Network
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 1994 22:14:12 GMT
References: <2294072129984@microserve.com> <30q71r$4h@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU> 
<30r2m4$30p@sundog.tiac.net> <1994Jul24.184342.5801@escape.widomaker.com> 
<94072826254@umunk.GUN.de>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Followup-To: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Lines: 53
Xref: bga.com comp.os.coherent:4106 comp.os.linux.misc:17480

Udo Munk (u...@umunk.GUN.de) wrote:
: Shannon Hendrix (shen...@escape.widomaker.com) wrote:
: [...]

: But Coherent isn't slower or less stable if you run it on exactely the
: same hardware and compare it to Linux.

It most certainly is.  Coherent is still buggy, slow, and lacks the
features many UNIX users depend on.  

I bought Coherent over two years ago.  It didn't work well at all.  It
was buggy, filesystems were slow, it had no networking, it had no
virtual memory.  Now, two years later, it STILL is buggy, filesystems
are slow (and 14-character filenames suck), it has no networking, and
no virtual memory.

: A customer who needs a source license can buy it.

How much?  Could I then redistribute that source to other companies I
sell my products to?  Without additional licenses?  Does your source
have all the features the binary version is missing?  No?  Then it's
a moot point anyway.

: When someone needs 100 licenses he doesn't pay the price 100 * price of
: a single copy, usually one gets a discount when one buys a huge ammount
: of any software license.

I know, it was just an example.

: Right, but the customers want an OS which is supported by the company
: which installs this system. You cannot tell them, well, if there are
: problems with the OS ask on the Internet, it's supported there by a lot
: of people in their spare time.

Why not?  It would help MWC cover up all the holes if they did that more
often.  As a matter of fact, I think MWC should release it's source to
the net and let people work on it.  Then maybe it won't be another two
years before Coherent gets the features other OS's have already.

I tried for a long time to use it and it never worked.  Linux worked
better when I first started than Coherent does now.  I used Coherent for
months and could never trust it to work right.  When I asked for help I
either got no response or "we are working on it".  Fine, but "we" have
been working on it for well over 2 years now and it's still broken.
That's a bit long to wait for bugfixes and features you need.

Maybe one of these days it'll do the job.  But it's been two years and
I couldn't wait that long.
-- 
csh
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
shen...@escape.widomaker.com (UUCP)     | Amd486/40 Linux system
shen...@pcs.cnu.edu (Internet)          | Christopher Newport University

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!sundog.tiac.net!usenet.elf.com!
news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!
emory!cherry.atlanta.com!nntp.mindspring.com!usenet
From: rsan...@mindspring.com (Robert Sanders)
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Coherent & Linux (Was : A Truly Unbiased Opinion)
Followup-To: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: 01 Aug 1994 15:36:27 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc.
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <RSANDERS.94Aug1113627@hrothgar.mindspring.com>
References: <2294072129984@microserve.com> <30q71r$4h@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU>
	<30r2m4$30p@sundog.tiac.net>
	<1994Jul24.184342.5801@escape.widomaker.com> <94072826254@umunk.GUN.de>
	<1994Jul31.221412.364@escape.widomaker.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hrothgar.mindspring.com
In-reply-to: shendrix@escape.widomaker.com's message of Sun, 31 Jul 1994 22:14:12 GMT
Xref: bga.com comp.os.coherent:4111 comp.os.linux.misc:17513


> I bought Coherent over two years ago.  It didn't work well at all.  It
> was buggy, filesystems were slow, it had no networking, it had no
> virtual memory.  Now, two years later, it STILL is buggy, filesystems
> are slow (and 14-character filenames suck), it has no networking, and
> no virtual memory.

> : Right, but the customers want an OS which is supported by the company
> : which installs this system. You cannot tell them, well, if there are
> : problems with the OS ask on the Internet, it's supported there by a lot
> : of people in their spare time.

Hidden in this dialogue is a point that I'm rather surprised most
Coherent apologists miss.  If this ragtag band of spare-time hackers
on the Internet is such a poor support and development group, how have
they managed to create an OS in two years that beats Coherent in terms
of:

	* features
	  + full TCP/IP networking with SLIP,PPP,ethernet,and AX.25
	  + virtual memory and...
	  + demand paging from executables
	  + shared libraries for *much* smaller executables
	  + modern FFS-like filesystems with write clustering, long
	    filenames, etc.  Also supports more SYSV S51K filesystems
	    than Coherent does!
	  + sophisticated memory management syscalls like mmap()
	    (read-only for the moment) mprotect(), etc.
	  + both iBCS2 *and* ELF/SVR4 support (although I admit
	    Coherent has the edge in iBCS2 compatibility right now)
	  + fast and accurate FPU emulator
	  + DOS emulator
	* speed
	  + faster filesystems (smarter allocation, block
	    pre-allocation, write clustering).
	  + faster executable loading due to demand paging
	  + faster X with a real kernel sockets implementation
	* stability ('nuff said)
	  + someone recently reported a 69 day uptime; he had rebooted
	    to upgrade his kernel.  I used to see 2 week uptimes
	    (reboot for upgrades, NO CRASHES) before I took a job that
	    required me to work in Windows some.
	* device support
	  + more SCSI adapters, including EISA and PCI
	  + support for QIC-02 and QIC-40/80 floppy tapes that *works*
	  + more CD-ROM drivers
	  + more ethernet card drivers
	  + more serial port drivers (multi-port cards)
	  + 2.88MB floppy support, as well as other odd sizes
	  + sound card support for SoundBlaster, PAS 16, GUS,
	    Microsoft SS, Adlib, MPU-401, etc.
	  + support for more video cards due to availability of
	    most recent XFree86 pre-ported (when will MWC release
	    their patches to XFree86?)
	* user base
	  I could be wrong here, but I know a lot more people running
	  Linux that I know running Coherent.  Of course, my
	  affiliation with Linux makes this somewhat inevitable.

So, where exactly has the Linux team been so unsuccessful that they
are the chief liability of Linux?  If you acknowledge the quality of
Linux (offer not valid for rmk), then you must acknowledge the quality
of the anarchic mob that created it.

Contrary to certain FUD-like allegations seen 'round here, Linux
developers aren't selfish or unresponsive to support requests.  I
really don't believe that Drew Eckhardt personally uses every SCSI
adaptor he wrote a driver for.  I don't believe that Hannu Savolainen
has umpteen sound cards in his machine at once.  I don't believe that
Stephen Tweedie personally saw the filesystem race condition that they
spent many, many long hours a few months ago tracking and killing.  I
don't believe that Linus uses half the features he made part of the
kernel (or possible in user space with changes to the kernel), but he
recognized the needs of others.

Whether you're suspicious of philanthropy or not, there's obviously
something more than simple selfish need going in here.  I don't care
*what* it is, as long as it keeps working as spectacularly well as it
has.

  -- Robert

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!yeshua.marcam.com!MathWorks.Com!
news.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!toads.pgh.pa.us!newsfeed.pitt.edu!uunet!
boulder!csnews!kinglear.cs.colorado.edu!drew
From: dr...@kinglear.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt)
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Coherent & Linux (Was : A Truly Unbiased Opinion)
Date: 1 Aug 1994 20:57:46 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 145
Message-ID: <31jnka$8b8@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU>
References: <2294072129984@microserve.com> <94072826254@umunk.GUN.de> 
<1994Jul31.221412.364@escape.widomaker.com> 
<RSANDERS.94Aug1113627@hrothgar.mindspring.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kinglear.cs.colorado.edu
Xref: bga.com comp.os.coherent:4113 comp.os.linux.misc:17531

In article <RSANDERS.9...@hrothgar.mindspring.com>,
Robert Sanders <rsan...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>> I bought Coherent over two years ago.  It didn't work well at all.  It
>> was buggy, filesystems were slow, it had no networking, it had no
>> virtual memory.  Now, two years later, it STILL is buggy, filesystems
>> are slow (and 14-character filenames suck), it has no networking, and
>> no virtual memory.
>
>> : Right, but the customers want an OS which is supported by the company
>> : which installs this system. You cannot tell them, well, if there are
>> : problems with the OS ask on the Internet, it's supported there by a lot
>> : of people in their spare time.
>
>Hidden in this dialogue is a point that I'm rather surprised most
>Coherent apologists miss.  If this ragtag band of spare-time hackers
>on the Internet is such a poor support and development group, how have
>they managed to create an OS in two years that beats Coherent in terms
>of:

In any company I've worked for, development goals have been set by 
management, marketing, and customers willing to pay engineering costs.  In
every case, the goals have been to fix some specific bug or add 
some new feature, with no attention paid to improving the code that 
allready works although perhaps extremely sub-optimally.

The situation is radically different under Linux, where many of the 
developers implement what they see as interesting.  This has 
lead to enhancements like clustered read/writes, a fully unified
buffer cache, experimental client side NFS caching, namei 
caching, and a other enhancements which lead to exceptional performance.
It gives the developers an oportunity to exercise our programming
creativity, something that really isn't possible at our day jobs.

IMHO, that makes the Linux development group exceptional in comparison
to various commercial entities, think tanks excepted.

Of course, if some one were to offer us day jobs with some reasonable 
percentage of our time devoted to what we saw as interesting, I suspect
that a lot of us would take them up on the offer and get less done 
under Linux, unless that was the platform of their choice.

>	* stability ('nuff said)
>	  + someone recently reported a 69 day uptime; he had rebooted
>	    to upgrade his kernel.  I used to see 2 week uptimes
>	    (reboot for upgrades, NO CRASHES) before I took a job that
>	    required me to work in Windows some.

The record is some where arround 120 days, after which a 
careless backhoe operator took out a power transformer.  I suspect
that longer uptimes are possible, but eventually the temptation to
upgrade for new features becomes too great.


>	* user base
>	  I could be wrong here, but I know a lot more people running
>	  Linux that I know running Coherent.  Of course, my
>	  affiliation with Linux makes this somewhat inevitable.

Some one in the second day of tutorials at the Heidelberg conference
brought up the question of how many people used Linux.  The most
reasonable answer we could come up with was 2xx,xxx to 4xx,xxx
using both Linux and Xfree86 based on a survey by the Xfree86 team.

>Contrary to certain FUD-like allegations seen 'round here, Linux
>developers aren't selfish or unresponsive to support requests.  I
>really don't believe that Drew Eckhardt personally uses every SCSI
>adaptor he wrote a driver for.  I don't believe that Hannu Savolainen
>has umpteen sound cards in his machine at once.  I don't believe that
>Stephen Tweedie personally saw the filesystem race condition that they
>spent many, many long hours a few months ago tracking and killing.  I
>don't believe that Linus uses half the features he made part of the
>kernel (or possible in user space with changes to the kernel), but he
>recognized the needs of others.

I'm on salary maintaining a BASIC compiler which runs on 
a variety of Unix and non unix platforms, which means I'm
generally expected to show up at my office and be productive
40 hours a week.  In the summer, I like to take my bike up 
to tripple digit speeds on flat, straight roads, and make
slower but even more exciting runs through canyon roads posted 
with signs warning of curves for the next twenty miles.  In
the winter, I climb conviently located 13,000 foot peaks in
search of untracked bottomless powder.  In other words, I 
use a fair amount of time for activities other than Linux
development, and doubt that other developers are any different.

Ie, I don't have a lot of time, since I still work at my 
day job and have some semblance of a life.  I spend some of 
what's left playing with interesting things under Linux.  Some
time goes to various Linux consulting projects, which are both
interesting and let me pick up spare change and/or new toys.
Finally, I'd like to see other people using Linux since 

1.  I like it, and figure other people will as well.

2.  More people using Linux makes it easier to justify to 
    clients that Linux is a viable operating system.

3.  More people using Linux makes it more likely I'll
    be able to quit my day job and take something more 
    interesting and Linux related.

so I'll make an effort to help people with their problems.

I put up with a lot of crap from users at my day job, but 
I'm paid to and that makes it OK.  Conversly, with Linux,
I'm not paid to, and if users have bugs or other problems
and won't make the effort to read the available documentation
and follow a reasonable bug reporting procedure, I'll refile
their mail to /dev/null and deal with some other problem
instead.

If some one were to pay me to support Linux users without
moving to the Bay area or otherwise leaving Boulder until
after it's become unbearably yuppified, I'd be more than
willing to deal with the less helpful variety of users,
but so far they haven't and I don't.

I suspect that other developers act similarly.  In other words,
if you make a reasonable effort to resolve the problem yourself,
and aren't unreasonable when dealing with the Linux developers,
you'll probably get support that rivals that you get with 
many comercial entities.  Conversly, if you expect some one
to hold your hand and make anything better with no input 
on your part, you'll be brushed of or ignored at best 
(Case in point  : witness the number of replies FAQ questions
elicit in the Linux newsgroup, versus the response users with
more obscure, uncovered problems get)


>Whether you're suspicious of philanthropy or not, there's obviously
>something more than simple selfish need going in here.  I don't care
>*what* it is, as long as it keeps working as spectacularly well as it
>has.

If you won't except philanthropy as an answer, consider that 
serious Linux developers don't pay for our own computer toys,
fly halfway arround the world to lecture, and pick up 
interesting consulting projects on the side :-)

-- 
Drew Eckhardt dr...@Colorado.EDU
1970 Landcruiser FJ40 w/350 Chevy power
1982 Yamaha XV920J Virago

Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!usc!math.ohio-state.edu!
scipio.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!rwsys!rw
From: r...@rwsys.wimsey.bc.ca (RW)
Subject: Re: Coherent & Linux (Was : A Truly Unbiased Opinion)
Distribution: world 
Message-ID: <1994Aug1.233231.1737@rwsys.wimsey.bc.ca>
Organization: RW development
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 1994 23:32:31 GMT
References: <2294072129984@microserve.com> 
<30q71r$4h@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU> 
<RSANDERS.94Aug1113627@hrothgar.mindspring.com>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Lines: 20
Xref: bga.com comp.os.coherent:4127 comp.os.linux.misc:17570

Robert Sanders (rsan...@mindspring.com) wrote:

: on the Internet is such a poor support and development group, how have
: they managed to create an OS in two years that beats Coherent in terms
: of:

: 	* features
[many great features snipped]

How??? By spending their time doing it. Why?? Because there
is a shortage of paying jobs that allow them to do what
they love to do.... But why is that??? 
 

--Randy

--------- r...@rwsys.wimsey.bc.ca ---------------------
Coherent Support  -   Programming  -  Administration
(604) 581-0518                   Surrey , BC  Canada
-----------------------------------------------------

Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!
panix!MathWorks.Com!news.duke.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!emory!
cherry.atlanta.com!nntp.mindspring.com!usenet
From: rsan...@mindspring.com (Robert Sanders)
Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Coherent & Linux (Was : A Truly Unbiased Opinion)
Date: 02 Aug 1994 14:08:59 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc.
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <RSANDERS.94Aug2100859@hrothgar.mindspring.com>
References: <2294072129984@microserve.com> <30q71r$4h@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU>
	<RSANDERS.94Aug1113627@hrothgar.mindspring.com>
	<1994Aug1.233231.1737@rwsys.wimsey.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hrothgar.mindspring.com
In-reply-to: rw@rwsys.wimsey.bc.ca's message of Mon, 1 Aug 1994 23:32:31 GMT
Xref: bga.com comp.os.coherent:4133 comp.os.linux.misc:17602

On Mon, 1 Aug 1994 23:32:31 GMT, r...@rwsys.wimsey.bc.ca (RW) said:

> How??? By spending their time doing it. Why?? Because there is a
> shortage of paying jobs that allow them to do what they love to
> do.... But why is that???

I disagree with your implication.  Linux programmers are not putting
themselves out of jobs.  Do you think that if Linux and *BSD were not
freely available that there would be a huge demand for Unix system
developers?  I doubt it.  In this case, people who needed a PC Unix
would just buy BSDI (or possible Coherent, if they didn't need all the
features I listed) and be done with it.

Many of the Linux developers aren't just working on it because it's
free.  I can afford BSDI with a source license.  What I like about
Linux is that I can freely exchange code with anyone.  I can post code
to a newsgroup for all to see, and I can read the kernel patches to
see what changed and try to decipher the implications.  It's a great
learning experience for me.  It's also quite fun.  I don't want to get
a job at Sun, BSDI, Novell, HP, or IBM just so that I can play around
with a Unix kernel.

Many people are attracted to Linux exactly because it's so open and
alive.  It's evolving at a visible rate, almost always for the better.
I know I feel great about a free investment whose return is constantly
increasing.

  -- Robert

P.S. If MWC wanted to offer a superior product with documentation and
     support, they would produce a quality Linux distribution with
     whatever docs they felt appropriate.

Newsgroups: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!swrinde!gatech!
news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!news.duke.edu!MathWorks.Com!mvb.saic.com!
eskimo!fyl
From: f...@eskimo.com (Phil Hughes)
Subject: Re: Coherent & Linux (Was : A Truly Unbiased Opinion)
Message-ID: <CtxprK.1to@eskimo.com>
Followup-To: comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux.misc
Sender: ne...@eskimo.com (News User Id)
Nntp-Posting-Host: eskimo.com
Organization: Linux Journal (206) 527-3385
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <2294072129984@microserve.com> 
<30q71r$4h@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU> 
<RSANDERS.94Aug2100859@hrothgar.mindspring.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 1994 01:06:56 GMT
Lines: 45
Xref: bga.com comp.os.coherent:4147 comp.os.linux.misc:17643

Robert Sanders (rsan...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: On Mon, 1 Aug 1994 23:32:31 GMT, r...@rwsys.wimsey.bc.ca (RW) said:

: > How??? By spending their time doing it. Why?? Because there is a
: > shortage of paying jobs that allow them to do what they love to
: > do.... But why is that???

: I disagree with your implication.  Linux programmers are not putting
: themselves out of jobs.  Do you think that if Linux and *BSD were not
: freely available that there would be a huge demand for Unix system
: developers?  I doubt it.  In this case, people who needed a PC Unix
: would just buy BSDI (or possible Coherent, if they didn't need all the
: features I listed) and be done with it.

...: Many people are attracted to Linux exactly because it's so open and
: alive.  It's evolving at a visible rate, almost always for the better.
: I know I feel great about a free investment whose return is constantly
: increasing.


Over 20 years ago, when I was working for Computer Sciences Corporation on
development of CSTS, a commercial timesharing system that looks much like
Unix in many ways, I suggested we let a bunch of UCLA students play to
help find bugs.  Management said no because they felt the students would
be long-term threats.

Today I look at Linux development and realize I was right.  Linux is so
good because it is developed in the open.  It is like having a test staff
of 100,000.  And those writing code do it because they want to, not
because they get paid.  Thus, writing the best code is the easy and secure
way out.

We have moved from commercial Unix versions to Linux because it does the
job.  Being less expensive is nice but the big issue is having something
that works.  The cooperative development of Linux has made that possible.
It you look at the history of Unix, this new effort with Linux is much
like what was happening with Unix (inside Bell Labs) over 20 years 
ago.  (I was talking to Dennis Ritchie at Uniforum and he was the one that
actually mentioned the parallel.)  Today we have Linux over the Internet
instead of Unix within a single company.  It may not be the right answer
for you but it certainly is exciting.
:   -- Robert
--
Phil Hughes, Publisher, Linux Journal (206) 524-8338
usually ph...@fylz.com, sometimes f...@eskimo.com

			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or
research.

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/