From: Digestifier To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu Date: Wed, 5 Oct 94 18:16:10 EDT Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #884 Linux-Misc Digest #884, Volume #2 Wed, 5 Oct 94 18:16:10 EDT Contents: Re: Curious: Why is Linux DOOM so much slower than DOS doom (Harm Hanemaaijer) XF86Config for IBM ThinkPad? (Karl Buck) Re: ISDN for LINUX (Tobias Erichsen) Re: Nailed down to 386bsd or linux, now which one? (Mark Tinguely) direct access to window's bitmap (Piet Ruyssinck) PPP or SLIP (Michael Tesar) Re: Is Linux faster than Os/2? Please help. (Bottom of a Plant) Re: Curious: Why is Linux DOOM so much slower than DOS doom (Casey Barton) Re: In Defense of SW Technologies !! (S. Keeling) Re: Word (Text) processors for Linux? (Joseph W. Vigneau) Re: Word (Text) processors for Linux? (Terence S. Murphy) XFree86(tm)-3.1 truecolor and older apps (Michael Will) Re: Linux on a 386 (Alex Ramos) Re: Linux mentioned in PC Week (Mats 'MaDsen' Wikholm) Re: New Linux Distribution (Josef Dalcolmo) Linux working! (Po-Han Lin) Re: Linux marches on (Mats 'MaDsen' Wikholm) Document on PCI Information - read me if you are thinking about PCI (Steven M. Henry) Re: POLS ON THE NET (Dan Newcombe) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: hhanemaa@cs.ruu.nl (Harm Hanemaaijer) Subject: Re: Curious: Why is Linux DOOM so much slower than DOS doom Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 15:26:08 GMT In cebarton@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Casey Barton) writes: >In article <36sodh$mej@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, >>In article <36rujd$l79@news.tuwien.ac.at>, >>>Sujat Jamil (sujat@shasta.ee.umn.edu) wrote: >>>: I'd really like to know why does Linux DOOM run significantly slower >>and enough memory that X+Doom is not a burden, and not much else running, >>the fact that you are using the accel functions of the card as opposed to >>using it as a dumb frame buffer in DOS will offset the X overhead... > > Linux DOOM doesn't really use the accelerated functions of any video >cards, does it? Note that running DOOM in an X session that uses accelerated >drivers will *not* accelerate DOOM itself. It's still working with a virtual >"dumb frame buffer", no? Right. If you run 'ps -u' after running Doom for a while, you'll see that the amount of time used by the X server (transferring the framebuffer to the screen, and X overhead) is relatively small on local bus cards. Linux X Doom is a non-x86 optimized version. Main memory performance is probably also a factor due to the larger/more fragmented memory footprint; it is pathetic on most motherboards. ------------------------------ From: kxb@ksu.ksu.edu (Karl Buck) Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help Subject: XF86Config for IBM ThinkPad? Date: 4 Oct 1994 22:25:10 -0500 I have a model 340 with a greyscale monitor (64 colors). I assume I will have to run the 16 color server. I'd appreciate it if some- one out there would share their config file. Thanks. --Karl -- Karl Buck USGMRL 913.537.3666 (H) http://www.ksu.ksu.edu:/~kxb 913.776.2745 (W) PGP public key available via finger. ------------------------------ From: Tobias Erichsen <100265.2717@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: ISDN for LINUX Date: 5 Oct 1994 08:46:20 GMT Hi Paul! Why don't you just take a passive card like from Teles, Berlin or from Creatix (which is an Teles-OEM-Product). It's a software- configurable card (interrupt & adress-space), it uses the Siemens/AMD ISAC and HSCX chips and is VERY cheap. Without VAT it should be around $120. There is a broad range of those cards installed in Germany and other parts of Europe. If your drivers would support NI-1 and EDSS-1 I guess you could get an even bigger market-share... if you have questions, just send me a mail... Tobias Erichsen ------------------------------ Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.misc From: tinguely@plains.NoDak.edu (Mark Tinguely) Subject: Re: Nailed down to 386bsd or linux, now which one? Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 14:50:57 GMT In article jeffpk@netcom.com (Jeff Kesselman) writes: >I think he's referring to the >fact that Linux is being developed openly by a large group, while FreeBSD >is controlled and dvevloped by one fairly closed group. (I don't know if >thsi is true, BTW., I've just heard thsi claim before.) Technologies are quickly shared between all the OSes. So Linux, and *BSD are actually have the whole group contributing the features found in the OS. So what are the major things to look for when choosing an OS (IMHO)? 1) the basic "flavor" of Unix you like. Besides being Posix compliant, I think everyone can agree that Linux is a System V based OS and *BSD is BSD based OS. there is a slight philosophy difference. 2) what form of support (releases, question answering, porting, testing, attitude), etc. If you are happy with your support then that OS is where you belong. 3) there is a slight culture difference between all of the groups. IMO, Linux is more DOS friendly, *BSD are more DOS-phobic. NetBSD is multi-platform, FreeBSD more conservative for stability sake. Right now each are very stable, growing, have many overly-dedicated workers. It is difficult to answer "which OS is better?", because the answer would be, "for me, MINE is better". --mark. ------------------------------ From: pruyss@nessy.rug.ac.be (Piet Ruyssinck) Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x,comp.os.linux.help Subject: direct access to window's bitmap Date: 5 Oct 1994 14:48:18 GMT Hello, I'm looking for information on how to directly access an X window's bitmap memory. I think it's possible (at least on a linux machine) because DOOM for linux apparently does it. Thanks in advance, Piet -- | Piet RUYSSINCK Piet.Ruyssinck@rug.ac.be | | Department of Data Analysis +32 9 264 4733 | | University of Ghent (RUG) | | Krijgslaan 281, building S9 (ARC), B-9000 Ghent, Belgium | ------------------------------ From: h8850513@d10.wu-wien.ac.at (Michael Tesar) Subject: PPP or SLIP Date: 5 Oct 1994 13:52:13 GMT Hello! I would like to connect my two computers with a null-modem-cable and use slip or ppp to exchange data. Is there anybody who has done the same and could send me his config files, and so on. Thx in advance --Michael ============================================= Michael Tesar h8850513@ds1.wu-wien.ac.at h8850513@idefix.wu-wien.ac.at Quote: Linux forever ============================================= ------------------------------ From: root@uss.lonestar.org (Bottom of a Plant) Subject: Re: Is Linux faster than Os/2? Please help. Date: 2 Oct 1994 19:21:50 -0500 Bill C. Riemers (bcr@k9.via.term.none) wrote: : Last I checked "fvwm" uses the least amount of memory. But software : changes... Has anyone done recent tests to findout: Why are so many people using fvwm? Is there some distribution of linux where this is the default? I've been using twm for several years and I don't believe there's a faster, more portable window manager available for X11... Considering it's SUPPOSED to be the default. If you think the menus are boring, consider adding gradient colors for the items of a menu. It's much easier to deal with a .twmrc file than an .mwmrc file or many of the other window managers. This applies to me only. Your mileage may vary. -- nathan ------------------------------ From: cebarton@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Casey Barton) Subject: Re: Curious: Why is Linux DOOM so much slower than DOS doom Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 06:24:58 GMT In article <36sodh$mej@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, >In article <36rujd$l79@news.tuwien.ac.at>, >>Sujat Jamil (sujat@shasta.ee.umn.edu) wrote: >>: I'd really like to know why does Linux DOOM run significantly slower >and enough memory that X+Doom is not a burden, and not much else running, >the fact that you are using the accel functions of the card as opposed to >using it as a dumb frame buffer in DOS will offset the X overhead... Linux DOOM doesn't really use the accelerated functions of any video cards, does it? Note that running DOOM in an X session that uses accelerated drivers will *not* accelerate DOOM itself. It's still working with a virtual "dumb frame buffer", no? -- | Casey Barton (a guy) cebarton@napier.uwaterloo.ca (519)746-9832 | | http://calum.uwaterloo.ca/u/cebarton | ------------------------------ From: keelings@wl.aecl.ca (S. Keeling) Subject: Re: In Defense of SW Technologies !! Date: 2 Oct 1994 23:14:23 -0500 In article <36ih5o$n4@news.cais.com>, Tim Bass (Network Systems Engineer) wrote: > >Everyone, > >There are only a few people who can be more demanding than me >and to be honest, I'm a real pain sometimes about support and >love to complain. I am not affiliated with Marvin Wu and SWT The way I read it, SW is making a *lot* of people satisfied with their service, products and support. I estimate it as 20 pro to 1 con. I'd say they must be doing an overall decent job. -- keelings@wu1.wl.aecl.ca s. keeling, aecl - whiteshell labs ------------------------------ From: joev@garden.WPI.EDU (Joseph W. Vigneau) Crossposted-To: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: Word (Text) processors for Linux? Date: 5 Oct 1994 20:46:30 GMT In article <36ugha$2p5@sashimi.wwa.com>, Terence S. Murphy wrote: >In article <36u4r9$bcp@kubds1.kub.nl>, J.J. Paijmans wrote: > >Does editing with emacs offer additional features for the LaTeX user that >aren't present in vi? I'm curious about what they are, since I really love >vi/LaTeX, and don't have problems with it; of course, I haven't done anything >very complicated vith LaTeX. (This is a question, not a flame :) You can get LaTeX modes for emacs to make life a little easier... It remaps keys so you can close \begin blocks automatically, another one lets you run LaTeX on the curent buffer, and stuff like that... If you're willing to sacrifice some speed and memory, emacs is the way to go... -- joev@wpi.edu, joev@hotblack.gweep.net WPI Computer Science Linux! Click Here! ------------------------------ From: blackbob@wwa.com (Terence S. Murphy) Crossposted-To: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: Word (Text) processors for Linux? Date: 5 Oct 1994 10:25:30 -0500 In article <36u4r9$bcp@kubds1.kub.nl>, J.J. Paijmans wrote: >Mind that emacs IS the other thing you are looking for. >The combination of LaTeX and emacs can't be beaten. Does editing with emacs offer additional features for the LaTeX user that aren't present in vi? I'm curious about what they are, since I really love vi/LaTeX, and don't have problems with it; of course, I haven't done anything very complicated vith LaTeX. (This is a question, not a flame :) -- Terry Murphy | UIUC Frosh/CS Major | "The whole world has been made again" - Marillion | There ought to be an alt.fan.linus-torvalds! | "The S.A.T is not geared for the lower class so why waste time even trying to pass?"-Gang Starr "I never found a companion that was so companionable as solitude"-H.D.Thoreau ------------------------------ From: zxmgv07@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Will) Subject: XFree86(tm)-3.1 truecolor and older apps Date: 3 Oct 94 21:04:39 GMT Now that I configured the new XFree86 right, I still have problems with some nice apps like linuxxdoom, xv's visual schnautzer and mpeg_play to cope with the new situation... is ast least xv going to be fixed? It is so much more cool to have the visual schnautzer without a private colormap as it was in the old 8bit XFree86, if only the colors would be correct in the new 16bit version :-) Cheers, Michael Will ------------------------------ From: ramos@engr.latech.edu (Alex Ramos) Subject: Re: Linux on a 386 Date: 30 Sep 1994 15:38:51 GMT Jeff Kesselman (jeffpk@netcom.com), quoted out of context, wrote: > In article <36cs30$sb6@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>, > Jim Sun wrote: > >jeffpk@netcom.com (Jeff Kesselman) wrote: > > > >>Note however that NOT all 486's are equal. The IBM > >>blue-lightening 486 for instance, is really a 386 with improved caching. > >>it does NOt have the improved micrcode and runs somewhere btw a 386 and 486 > >>in performance.... > > > >The first sentence is correct; the remainder are misinformation at best. > >IBM's SLC and DLC processors are indeed merely improved 386s; What about Cyrix's DLC? Is it also just an improved 386? -- Alex Ramos (ramos@engr.latech.edu) * http://info.latech.edu/~ramos/ Louisiana Tech University, BSEE/Sr * These opinions are probably mine ------------------------------ From: mwikholm@at8.abo.fi (Mats 'MaDsen' Wikholm) Subject: Re: Linux mentioned in PC Week Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 21:05:36 GMT In article <1994Oct5.042034.3804@ka4ybr.com> mah@ka4ybr.com (Mark A. Horton KA4YBR) writes: > (My dog's still saving up for a special keyboard :) ... ) Yeah, well, my cat is still more into drinking milk than hacking away with me, but occasinally she reeboots the machine :) > hitherto fragmented market. And wasn't Lotus 123 stolen ..errr.. > "borrowed as in look-and-feel" from Visicalc? I can't remember > exactly... old-timer's disease, you know... :) I guess they borrowed the same way as from Stack Electronics. And when that went sour they bought into Stac. Although I have to say that MS is not one of those that buys out the competition, they just buy out the companies before they become the competition. Also if someone announces a new promising product MS comes out with the same thing a month later and bangs the big drum so that the other one goes bankrupt... >: I personally think that there's place in the computing world both for >: various Unices and MS-Windows-type OS's. They are generally used by >: different audiences, with only a little overlap. > Actually, I agree with you here... I've given up trying to > convert the world to Linux. If they're happy with DOS and > Windows (and the wonderful stability they have ), leave them > be. Use something like samba and connect to a Linux server > for file sharing and such, but leave them happy and in the > same state of mastery/confusion as they've come to love. Yes, there's room for more than Linux, the taste differs fortunately. There probably is no use to try to get everyone to switch over to Linux, that will come in time, because people that you try to force inte switching will never like it. We just have to keep on telling them how good Linux (and ^z) is so that everyone gets jealous of us. :) -- . . . . mwikholm@at8.abo.fi / frantzgatan 3 E 25 . . . @358.(9)21.377.363 / 20380 åbo finland . . Linux, the way to get rid of boot viruses . my homepage ------------------------------ From: josefd@albert.ssl.berkeley.edu (Josef Dalcolmo) Subject: Re: New Linux Distribution Date: 5 Oct 1994 18:32:30 GMT In article <36c1rr$h01@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, Charles Blair wrote: > I suspect a lot of novice users never use sed and awk, and that many >more use vi. I doubt vi appeals to a windows user. Sed and awk may be replaced by a more general and better readable scripting language: python. - Josef ------------------------------ From: plin@girtab.usc.edu (Po-Han Lin) Subject: Linux working! Date: 3 Oct 1994 07:50:14 -0700 I actually have linux running off of my secondary 810Meg harddrive!!!! Wow! Its fast too! But I only have version 1.0.9 now. Is there someone who can answer this question? I have a Diamond Stealth VLB. Does the XFree386 allow me to use Xwindows? Is that file all I need (the 2.1.1) Is this the latest version? Someone mentioned 3.1 (but is this a typo) I partitioned 350 megs for Linux and 16 meg for the swap file. But when I do a df, its not there. what command do i use to see it? I get warnings about physical and logical cylinders not matching when I run fdisk, etc. (I made the CMOS type 47, with >1024 cylinders) Should I change it back to 1024? But if i do, Linux doesn't recognize I have more than 1024 because linux takes its info off of the CMOS right? So is it ok the way I did it? with those occassional warnings about some software might not work with it? Can someone tell me, what is the correct procedure for patching a kernel? I cant recall, but you are supposed to give an option when updating, or making the files. and you are supposed to do things in certain directories. anyways if you dont give the options, it misses out something. What was it? can someone tell me? Additional email response requested if you post a reply. thanks! -- Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û ²°°°°°°°°°°°±±±±±±±±±±±²²²²²²²²²²²ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ²²²²²²²²²²²±±±±±±±±±±±°°°°°°°°°°°² ±°°°°°°°°°°°±±±±±±±±±±±²²²²²²²²²²²ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ²²²²²²²²²²²±±±±±±±±±±±°°°°°°°°°°°± °±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±°±²Û²±° ------------------------------ From: mwikholm@at8.abo.fi (Mats 'MaDsen' Wikholm) Subject: Re: Linux marches on Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 21:19:35 GMT In article <36t9m6$rqa@nntp.Stanford.EDU> rna@leland.stanford.edu writes: >My dad's department (a physical science department at a large Ivy League >university) is about to buy 10 Pentiums running Linux. ;-) My brother just sold 25 Pentiums to an Technical Engineering school in Vasa (Finland) and they are all going to be running Linux! -- . . . . mwikholm@at8.abo.fi / frantzgatan 3 E 25 . . . @358.(9)21.377.363 / 20380 åbo finland . . Linux, the way to get rid of boot viruses . my homepage ------------------------------ From: smhenry@vt.edu (Steven M. Henry) Subject: Document on PCI Information - read me if you are thinking about PCI Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 17:18:57 PCI or not to PCI? ================== Well about two weeks ago I asked for some information on PCI motherboards and the amount of information was overwhelming. But I promised I would put the information together in a document and post it to the comp.os.linux.misc conference. I will also have a copy of this available by ftp://succeed.ee.vt.edu/pub/pci/pci.txt. If you have any corrections to this information feel free to email me at smhenry@vt.edu. Please let me know if this is helpful at all or if there is other information you would like included. Its time to upgrade... ====================== Well you may be in the position I was and decide to upgrade your computer. And of course you want to maintain your Linux compatibility as well as improve your Linux performance, so what should I do? Well at first I was going to upgrade to a 486DX2/66 or 486DX2/80, and I was trying to decide to whether or not to go the VLB or PCI route. From information I have read, PCI is nice and will make the transition to a Pentium motherboard easier since you do not have to upgrade your video and hard disk controller. However as far as performance is concerned, you will not see that drastic of an improvement over VLB (it is debatable if VLB is slightly faster than PCI on a 486 system). So if you plan on upgrading your motherboard at a later date with a Pentium motherboard, it would probably be prudent to go with PCI. But if you are trying to save a buck and plan on replacing your motherboard, graphics card, and controller card, then VLB is the way to go. What exactly is PCI? ============================ PCI is a bus standard. It was developed to increase the performance between the processor and periphals (graphics cards, controller cards, network cards). PCI is a better standard than VLB and will most likely outlive VLB. PCI devices are generally easier to develop than their VLB counterparts. Currently the PCI bus is 32 bit and the speed of the bus is tied to the speed of the processor. There are extensions for the PCI bus to go 64 bit but there are no widely available 64 bit cards (the 64 bit graphics cards are misleading, they only have a 32 bit bus). Generally with a Pentium-60, the bus will operate at 30 MHz, and with a Pentium-66 the bus operates at 33MHz (I do not know what the bus operates at for a Pentium-90). It is my understanding that the current PCI spec does not support any speeds over 33 MHz. Devices on a PCI bus look different than devices on a VLB/ISA motherboard. PCI uses level-triggered slot-specific interrupts, whereas VLB uses edge triggered ISA bus interrupts. For exact PCI specifications contact: PCI Special Interest Group M/S JF2-51 5200 N.E. Elam Young Parkway Hillsboro, Oregon 97124-6497 (503)696-6111 Non-members of the PCI SIG may request a PCI Local Bus Specification for $25 + shipping costs by calling: 1-800-433-5177 Well I want a PCI motherboard. Which one should I get? ====================================================== Well there are many PCI motherboards available, the performance and features vary. The most recommended PCI motherboard was the ASUS PCI motherboards (they use the SIS chipset). It is supported by Linux and offers a good price and good features/performance. One thing to be aware of is that the ASUS 486 PCI boards do not support the AMD 486DX/40 or the AMD486DX2/80. I have been told to avoid the ASUS SP3 (without the G, the ASUS SP3G is the one you will generally find advertised on the 'net) also to avoid revisions older than rev 1.7. If you would like to contact ASUS directly, you can call them at 408-956-9077. Some general info about the ASUS SP3G: The motherboard comes with 2 serial (both 16550 UARTs) and 1 parallel ports. It also has an onboard NCR 53c810 SCSI controller (this is supported by Linux with a kernal patch). It has only 4 slots for 72-pin SIMMs, but a SIMM can be 4, 8, 16, or 32 megs (for a max of 128 megs). So get the densest ones you can afford. Some other brands of 486 PCI motherboards that were recommended for Linux were A.I.R. 486 VP and Gateway 2000 486 PCI systems. Recommendations for Pentium PCI motherboards were ASUS, Intel, Gateway 2000 Pentium PCI Systems, and Dell Pentium PCI Systems. I would recommend buying through a dealer that will take back the motherboard if you are not entirely satisfied with it. From the posts I received performance can vary greatly. This can be a function of BIOS settings, however, some PCI motherboards do not perform as well as they should. And you should definitely avoid any PCI motherboard that uses the OPTI chip set, its PCI bus is VERY slow. Who is the author of this document? =================================== I am Steve Henry. I am a senior in Electrical Engineering at Virginia Tech and I have been using Linux since 1992. I am definitely not an expert on PCI, but I hope the information presented in this document can help others who are considering upgrades. I have a lot of information on PCI graphics cards as well if the general public is interested on a document on that as well. Feel free to email with comments/suggestions/corrections/additions at smhenry@vt.edu. Thanks, Steve ============================================================================ smhenry@vt.edu KE4IMK Virginia Tech Steven M. Henry Go Hokies! BSEE May '95 ============================================================================ ------------------------------ From: newcombe@aa.csc.peachnet.edu (Dan Newcombe) Subject: Re: POLS ON THE NET Date: Wed, 5 Oct 1994 16:45:35 UNDEFINED In article <9410041441.0KMVX00@support.com> steven.rosenberg@support.com writes: >Message # 20170 has been read Good...I was beginning to get worried about it :) -- Dan Newcombe newcombe@aa.csc.peachnet.edu -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "And the man in the mirror has sad eyes." -Marillion ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is: Internet: Linux-Misc-Request@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via: Internet: Linux-Misc@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites: nic.funet.fi pub/OS/Linux tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux End of Linux-Misc Digest ******************************